[throw51319]

Dude the history of humans is brutal. The only way societies consolidated and culture formed is through the battles and conquers of the past. We're now at a point where we have the prescience to not repeat the past. But just respect that that is how you yourself are alive on this planet. Your ancestors killed and conquered the resources of others, and that's how they propagated to get to you. It's foolish to believe otherwise.

[ianleeclark]

> It's foolish to believe otherwise.

Where do they believe otherwise? They're merely mentioning that the city was populated prior to the genocide. You're defending atrocities against a specter of your own imagination.

[throw51319]

In their 2nd comment below you can see that they are trying to call out the colonization, etc. And also I'm not "defending against my imagination"... there's so many commenters that think history is so reprehensible and modern day people should be directly guilty for things that happened 500 years ago.

[ianleeclark]

> In their 2nd comment below you can see that they are trying to call out the colonization

Why do you feel the need to defend against the horrors of colonialism?

[throw51319]

I'm not. I feel the need to show being realistic about the past instead of having an emotional response. "Omg people conquered other people, that is bad!" Very infantile view of a complex world/history, where every single group in every single nook and cranny of every continent has done this in the past.

[JoeAltmaier]

Hm. Whom has America conquered? Puerto Rico I guess. Any others?

[eesmith]

Putting aside questions of what it means to "buy" the Louisiana Territory and then use military force against the indigenous peoples, one obvious one is the Spanish-American War, where we got Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippine Islands.

We then had to fight the Philippine Republic for control of the country, in the Philippine-American war.

[ianleeclark]

> I feel the need to show being realistic about the past instead of having an emotional response.

What's wrong with an emotional response to an atrocity? Is it irrational to cry over the Holocaust because, hey, the Tsars didn't some pretty bad pogroms, too? No, emotional responses are perfectly fine and are a normal mode of thinking. Your fetishization of reason is dangerous and echoes the same rhetoric that enabled these atrocities: oh, they're not people, they're savages because X, so cut off their hands if they don't bring enough silver. The correct response here is to denounce colonialism, not to say, "oh, hey, it's not that bad because other people have done bad things."

[dang]

Please don't do flamewars here.

[throw51319]

Haha you're putting words in my mouth. Of course I have an emotional response to events of the past, usually negative like most people. I'm just separating that from the historical and factual response, and understanding the difference between the two.

The point is that it wasn't just Europeans that have done bad things in the past. It was every type of person. And now we can collectively move past with the lessons.