Hey Holla Forums are there any good movies about the colonization of the Americas?

They knew that if you coughed on a bunch of blankets and gave them to another person, that person would get sick

They didn't have to engage in biological warfare to decimate the Injuns, you historically illiterate anti-white faggot, the diseases were perfectly capable of spreading without a conscious human hand to aid them. Not to mention, I know at least one of the "examples" of smallpox blankets came from Ward "Known Plagiarist and Fake Indian" Churchill, a lying sack of shit. The most I've ever heard of is two examples of blankets being used, and this was well in the late 18th century, when the Injuns had already been royally fucked by disease.

I never said anything about biological warfare. Only that they had enough common sense to know what would happen if they, say, coughed over a bunch of blankets

But, nice to see you get so buttblasted

Miasma theory is about "bad air" from rotting organic matter, that wouldn't necessarily entail "bad air" sticking to surfaces (unlike germs) for several days when taken far away from the site of someone having coughed on it. They would say that the rotting food/body whatever, if taken a great distance, would still be emitting bad air, but if you cough on something miasma theory doesn't suggest "oh, now it's going to be emitting bad air for a while!"

...

You're assuming that most people in the 17th century would be that familiar or in depth with then-current scientific theory

lol, ok

would have basd*

fuck me, based…

>>>Holla Forums
>>>Holla Forums
>>>/politics/

nah

I am glad those red niggers died. They were sitting on my land and eating my animals.

nice memes, bro

nice try moshe

To be fair i thought my initial post was so blatant bait and obvious shitposting i didn't expect anyone to take it. I'll try better next time and add a pepe and smileyface ;)

it was ok

Threadly reminder that Andrew Jackson did nothing wrong.

...

Neither did Hitler but, you can't fault either for trying. A shame that those who followed prostituted the people to money changers.

It always bothers me how the South African isn't a boer or a white English South African with the proper flag in that picture. And where's New Zealand and the colonial american fucktoy?

>>>/reddit/
>>>/tumblr/
>>>/autism/

funny thing about that pic is that all the brown girls would be middle aged men gangraping the loli redcoat… and none of the others would be in the picture.

ah well.

Did you honestly believe people wouldn't start a political argument? On Holla Forums?

"Vast majority" is a fairly accurate term, but I just want to say that pre-columbian population numbers are a shaky extrapolation, as are their losses from disease. They range from 8 to 154 million, with many (but not a majority) accepting 54 million. This means that percentage death from disease varies from 25-95%, with many accepting 90%. It varies in places, of course, from the Caribs and Arawaks who disappeared completely in the first few decades after contact to North American Plains tribes who had a lower population density and therefore lower transmission rates. Further complicating the debate is that people generally associate a large population with advanced civilization and a low population with barbarity, so people who have a positive/negative bias of natives/Europeans let that color their view. Alexis de Tocqueville's estimation was only 500,000.

And yes, native tribes had a right to object to being conquered, as it is based on the natural right of liberty with which all individuals are born with. Just the same, Europeans have a right to object to Islamic conquest despite engaging in wars of conquest against each other for thousands of years.

This is far too general of a statement. This policy differed between Spanish, British, and French colonists, and even then it can be subdivided by each nation's different colonies. Spanish colonists generally engaged in intermarriage; they were already familiar with race-based hybrid castes from the Reconquista's partial conversion and assimilation of Arab, Berber, and Jewish populations (I say "partial" because of the Alhambra Decree). In addition, initial Spanish conquest of Mexico utilized the incumbent Aztec tribute system and kept much of native society in place, at least initially. In contrast, British colonies had a relatively low rate of intermarriage, especially in New England where full families came over together. After 1776, the US continued this policy of separation, resulting in violence and the eventual creation of Indian reservations. The French case is interesting: because France simply couldn't match the British in sheer numbers of colonists, they relied more heavily on native alliances and thus intermarriage, creating the Métis people. This hybridization lacked the rigid caste system of the Spanish. Also, Cardinal Richelieu declared in 1627 that any native converts to Catholicism were officially French.

On-topic time:
Jesuit missionary in South America
Jesuit missionary in Canada
Custer's Last Stand, I liked it but I think you're looking for non-westerns
Conquistadors looking for El Dorado
Fun swashbuckling adventure where the main character joins up with Hernan Cortez
Spanish conquest of Incan Empire, it's not so good but cheesy 1960s historical epics are my guilty pleasure
Viking expedition to Vinland, a "so bad it's good" thing

Here's a list:
lehigh.edu/~ejg1/SEA/EAL-FilmIntro.html

It's almost completely unrelated, but I loved Mutiny on the Bounty, and it also involves Europeans interacting with exotic cultures, this time on the island of Tahiti. The voyage of the HMS Bounty eventually led to the creation of the Anglo-Tahitian society on Pitcairn Island.

I'm trying to desintize my fellow anons through ironic shitposting like

Sadly it doesn't work very well and everybody takes even the most blatant bait serious :((

Has ironic shitposting ever accomplished anything like that in the past? It seemed like a bad plan from the start.

this excuse has never worked

That picture turns me on so much.

YFW THERE WILL NEVER BE A PERFECT MOVIE DEPICTING THE LIFE, TIMES, AND GLORIOUS PRESIDENCY OF ANDREW JACKSON

I am referring to engaging in war within one's one lifetime. If you as an individual were opposed to a war and didn't take part in it, and you had your own little farm in the Americas, even if your direct family participated in war you are not prohibited from objecting to conquest for consistency's sake. Your
doesn't apply, because consistency/accountability for one's actions doesn't extend to your children.

You're missing the point about the requirement for moral consistency. It's not "one brown person committed a crime, therefore no brown people have rights." It's dependent on degree and individuals. The issue is, it was pretty much universal that Indian individuals engaged/materially/morally supported wars of conquest, and also it's impossible to know which individuals have a property right claim to what acres of lands because the fucking Injuns didn't have an advanced system of property rights that might allow us to actually say "x ancestor's direct descendant from 1745 is person y who is entitled to z acre," the only compensation you can give Indians is an arbitrary one, in the same way that you could only give an arbitrary compensation to the descendant of some peaceful tribe in Europe that was displaced in central Europe in 1000 AD. The rational course is that the historical violations of property rights are innumerable and we shouldn't try to tally them up and compensate people in the present for their likely ancestors' suffering.