575
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 May 2026
575 points (99.5% liked)
History Memes
2533 readers
620 users here now
A place to share history memes!
Rules:
-
No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, assorted bigotry, etc.
-
No fascism (including tankies/red fash), atrocity denial or apologia, etc.
-
Tag NSFW pics as NSFW.
-
Follow all Piefed.social rules.
-
History referenced must be 20+ years old.
Banner courtesy of @setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world
OTHER COMMS IN THE HISTORYVERSE:
- !historyruins@piefed.social
- !historyart@piefed.social
- !historyartifacts@piefed.social
- !historyphotos@piefed.social
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I don't think tech levels even matter in the discussion about whether the native american genocide was justified.
Though on the technological question, I'm curious how the conflict with europe would have gone if they didn't have to deal with the slew of epidemics that resulted from first contact and killed off the majority of people there before the europeans even started looking at the mainland instead of just colonizing the Caribbean islands.
The Inca were figuring out tactics to use against the Spanish and were able to halt their advance several times, but didn't have the numbers to really push back, plus were just on the tail end of civil war that could have been caused in part by the sickness destabilizing things before the spainish even realized there was an empire there (that wasn't just their wild goose chase for a city of gold).
Not sure if the Aztecs would have turned out differently, though it probably would have been a longer war and perhaps would have gone hot before they made it to their capital and took their leader hostage. But they did awe him to the point that he thought appeasement would be a better strategy, not realizing they had no intention of leaving.
I'm honestly convinced that the Americas would have eventually repelled the European invaders if the introduced (and intentionally spread) diseases weren't so devastating. Guns and metal armor are pretty good in warfare and all, but the size of the army required to subjugate millions of people across varied terrain where the invaders are wildly unfamiliar with the land and how to live in it while the defenders have been present for thousands of years, are very familiar with the land, have established warfare traditions, quickly adapt to introduced technologies, and have allied with historic enemies to repel invaders? Does not tend to go well for the invaders.
That wouldn't surprise me, though there's both supporting and opposing historic examples for that.
Like the colonization of Africa. While some areas like Ethiopia held out longer than others, Europe took most of Africa without disease. India was also subjugated, as well as Malaysia. I'm not really sure what the story was for Australia, though suspect it might have been more like the Americas.
Or there's China and Japan where Europe had the upper hand in dealings but weren't able to essentially make China or Japan colonies under their control.
There were definitely long term colonies in a lot of places, but most of those places are no longer under settler control. The damage to be repaired is huge, and there's still economic control from a distance going on, but it's miles different from what happened in the Americas, especially North America, I'd say.