Invasion Insanity!

This is one's nation on leftist insanity.

good point, the Indians should have wiped out those Europeans as soon as they stepped off the boat. They were violent invaders and look what they did to the people already here. excellent point

Well, yes, they should have from a tactical standpoint. Strategically, however, it would have ended up the same. It was a matter of industrial and technological superiority and cultural adhesiveness. The Europeans had both and the scattered native American tribes -- and even their nations -- simply did not.

Sometimes one wonders if leftists ever even studied history.

Actually Europeans wouldn't have gotten a foothold here without their assistance. Initial colonization attempts routinely failed, the English starved while looking at rivers teaming with fish, water being somewhat toxic back home. They learned, eventually, and 70% of agricultural species we consume today came from Native Americans.

Colonial powers battled each other, in fact, if it wasn't for such a distraction in the Caribbean taking soldiers away (as well as poor planning), the Brits may not have lost the American Revolution. The colonists, as we all know, used warfare tactics learned from Native Americans. If it wasn't for that, they would lost against that superior military.

The Europeans had guns but more importantly disease. Technological capability is great but that tends to not do as well when you have to wait 5 months for resupply.

Yes, they would eventually have gotten a foothold. It was just a matter of time and population pressures and the need to expand markets and OWN land and get more resources. Europe was dramatically expanding and aggressively reaching our to grab pieces of whatever was available. It was inevitable with or without aid from the natives. That aid helped . . . but it was not vital.

Like the Vikings did? Roanoke? Thanksgiving anyone, a tad mythologized or not?

Slaughter every settlement, and eventually the supply ships will get the hint. What they needed the most from here initially was lumber. Wood ain't worth dying for, they'll just go elsewhere. A Mercantile Economy needs actual markets. Importing people to build settlements is expensive, and not that popular with the potential settler base, hence penal colonists and slaves. Raw materials extraction is one thing, expanding markets by creating them from scratch can prove a tad too costly.

Sigh! Europe was going to grow from mercantilism to capitalism as a matter of course as it grew in population and then in industrial, technological bases and also in economic structures and sophistications of the same therein.

Is there something about the concept of ''it was just a matter of time' that is some major sticking point?

An entire continent was discovered by Europeans. There was a resulting explosions of exploration and conquest from various areas in Europe and England to the tip of North America to the counter tip of South America; and it would not matter in the long run if the native populations welcomed them with open arms or immediately fought back tooth and nail. Massive opposition would have slowed things down by perhaps a century at most, but eventually it was going to happen.

The only real difference was that the names and make-up of the eventual nations that came into existence, would probably have been different.

Try explaining that to the Sentinelese.

Europe was barely out of the Medievel Era, and progress was the result of colonialism, not the cause. It's no accident that the rich countries were the handful of colonial powers, while most of Europe starved when the cabbage patch yields were low that year. Much as once grand empires dwindled once the goods from abroad ran out. Anyone remember Portugal before the EU? THE once great Portugal? How's the sun not setting on the British Empire lately? Well, at least they still got the Pitcairns!

The boom in population north of the Pyranees didn't coincide with the introduction of the potato accidently, and that was hardly overnight, deadly nightshade being a scary thing.

There was no "continent" discovered by the Europeans. pffffft, Cristobal Colon got lost, the indigenuous found him. And fed him. Bad mistake.

So the ''it was just a matter of time' assertion is the sticking point? The concept that after a certain degree of industrial base, population pressures, economic sophistications, and so forth is reached aggressive expansion FOR COMPETITION and military advantages was inevitable, just doesn't fly? Interesting. I guess there's no point in continuing this then.

Indulg me. Explain.

Did the magic ether of Euro amazingness run out of the genie bottle or something?

It's 2023, fer cryin out loud, everyone has more capabilities at their fingertips than Queen Isabella ever could. So what's the excuse for the whole of Europe slipping into Third World status with only America to prevent it from making Somalia look like the flippin Habspurg Empire in comparison?

Ask your grandparents how life in pre-WWII Europe was.

Again. The population BOOMED. AFTER the introduction of the potato. From the Andes.

Before that, they starved. Why do you think no civilizations began or bloomed in northern latitudes? You can't build a town on cabbage, let alone a civilization.

Likewise with industry, large populations, economies, militaries.... With nothing going in on one end, you don't have growth coming out the other. Basic math. No materials, nothing you can make from them.

Just look at them now. In a cpl of decades, the motto of the UK - um, Brita- no, England will be "At least we're still bigger than the Isle of Wight."

Your point depends on Europe NOT continuing to expand and develop in regards to technology, the industrial base, economic systems and so forth for hundreds and hundreds of years to follow because of a potato. So bye!

No, Europe did not expand, a literal handful - or fingers on one single hand's worth, if you prefer, did. They didn't become rich because of their sheer awesomeness then expanded outwards to open a chain of Club Meds.

But anyways, I'll play. Kindly explain the great swooshing down the toilet sound that is the continued contraction of Europe today - the US too, for that matter.

Holy Sh*t! All nations ebb and flow in world standing as time goes by. Nothing is unlimited linear growth without end. Ah well . . . having read some history is not the same as comprehending history . . . and so it goes.

of course the indians weren't one unified group, they were many different tribes, just like euroeans weren't one unified group either

Pssst . . . Europeans were not one unified group, but it did not matter because the individual nations that were in the aggressive and competitive forefront against one another had technological, industrial, and economic bases that were stupefyingly enormous compared to scattered hunters and gatherers.

You are absolutely correct on this!

Wrong on just about everything else, but this you got right.

Now apply that same, and I am quoting you, "EXCELLENT POINT" to Israel's stance against Hamas.

Here the part where you say that you were being facetious and you meant Zionists were the invaders 80 years ago.

And then I say, the UNITED nations is responsible for the placement of the Jewish State.

Everything after that is the result of several wars and terrorist attacks over the years.

He should return our socialist funding to him and get the Hell out of MY America.

The last thing that should be yapping about anything in OUR America is this attention seeking parasite.

hahaha, I goofed, I changed the template for my other post but hit submit without changing the font to match.