The Russian Conquest of Siberia

[Gathomas88]

Finding myself somewhat bored at work the other day, I decided to mess around on Wikipedia and see if I could find anything interesting. I eventually settled on the history of Sino-Russian relations in Siberia, which lead me to the subject of Russian Colonialism in Asia.

It made for a rather enlightening read to say the least. :lol:

At first glance, the Russian conquest of Siberia might seem to run basically parallel with Western European Colonialism in the Americas. In many regards, however, it was very unique, and not in a positive way either.

For one thing, the Russians' tactics were incredibly nasty even by colonial standards.

[Vassili Poyarkov] built a winter fort near the mouth of the Umelkan river. To extract supplies from the natives, he employed excessive brutality, thereby provoking their hostility and making supplies harder to get. His men survived on a diet of pine bark, stolen food, stray forest animals and native captives whom they cannibalized.

On August 1 [Yerofey Khabarov] reached the mouth of the Zeya. Here 136 of his men mutinied leaving only 212 loyal... From the Zeya he sent a report to the Yakutsk Voevode matter-of-factly describing the burning of villages, slaughter of natives and the torture of prisoners.

Wiki - Russian Conquest of Siberia

The Daurs initially deserted their villages since they heard about the cruelty of the Russians the first time Khabarov came.[9] The second time he came, the Daurs decided to do battle against the Russians instead but were slaughtered by Russian guns. ...Russians who came to be known as "red-beards". The Russian Cossacks were named luocha (羅剎), after demons found in Buddhist mythology, by the Amur natives because of their cruelty towards them

In the 1640s the Yakuts were subjected to slaughters during the Russian advance into their land near the Lena river, and on Kamchatka in the 1690s the Koryak, Kamchadals, and Chukchi were also subjected to slaughters by the Russians. When the Russians did not obtain the demanded amount of yasak from the natives, the governor of Yakutsk, Piotr Golovin, who was a Cossack, used meat hooks to hang the native men. In the Lena basin, 70% of the Yakut population died within 40 years, and rape and enslavement were used against native women and children in order to force the natives to pay the Yasak.

In contrast with the Spaniards, who pretty clearly came to the Americas with a mind to govern and rule (even if they weren't competent at it), and the English, French, or Dutch, who flatly didn't give a damn about the natives one way or the other for any purpose other than trade and conversion, the Russians basically rolled into Asia like a horde of bloodthirsty Vikings with all guns blazing. Their only real interest was plunder, followed by resettlement with their own people. God alone could help anyone who got in their way. Their cruelty was so infamous that natives named them "demons," and they could cause the populations of entire regions to flee just by reputation alone!

It seems that the only reason they ever stopped is because Russian raiding parties eventually ran afoul of the Chinese border, and simply didn't have the manpower or supply lines necessary to challenge their military establishment.

You can't really argue that this was something which took place without the Russian government's knowledge either, as one can with many of the abuses which took place under the Spanish Empire. As already noted, these explorers were sending back some rather graphic reports, and the Tsars actually seem to have explicitly ordered some of the worst of it.

A genocide of the Chukchis and Koraks was ordered by Empress Elizabeth in 1742 to totally expel them from their native lands and erase their culture through war. The command was that the natives be "totally extirpated" with Pavlutskiy leading again in this war from 1744-47 in which he led to the Cossacks "with the help of Almighty God and to the good fortune of Her Imperial Highness", to slaughter the Chukchi men and enslave their women and children as booty.

Isn't it odd then, that in contrast with popular perceptions of Western European Colonialism, all of this remains so completely obscure? Where Westerners revel in the crimes of the past, Russians basically seem to have buried most of theirs.

That's fairly ironic, given how much worse many of their crimes actually happen to be.

 

[Riveroaks]

View attachment 67190081

Finding myself somewhat bored at work the other day, I decided to mess around on Wikipedia and see if I could find anything interesting. I eventually settled on the history of Sino-Russian relations in Siberia, which lead me to the subject of Russian Colonialism in Asia.

It made for a rather enlightening read to say the least. :lol:

At first glance, the Russian conquest of Siberia might seem to run basically parallel with Western European Colonialism in the Americas. In many regards, however, it was very unique, and not in a positive way either.

For one thing, the Russians' tactics were incredibly nasty even by colonial standards.

​

​

Wiki - Russian Conquest of Siberia

​

​

In contrast with the Spaniards, who pretty clearly came to the Americas with a mind to govern and rule (even if they weren't competent at it), and the English, French, or Dutch, who flatly didn't give a damn about the natives one way or the other for any purpose other than trade and conversion, the Russians basically rolled into Asia like a horde of bloodthirsty Vikings with all guns blazing. Their only real interest was plunder, followed by resettlement with their own people. God alone could help anyone who got in their way. Their cruelty was so infamous that natives named them "demons," and they could cause the populations of entire regions to flee just by reputation alone!

It seems that the only reason they ever stopped is because Russian raiding parties eventually ran afoul of the Chinese border, and simply didn't have the manpower or supply lines necessary to challenge their military establishment.

You can't really argue that this was something that took place without the Russian government's knowledge either, as one can with many of the abuses which took place under the Spanish Empire. As already noted, these explorers were sending back some rather graphic reports, and the Tsars actually seem to have explicitly ordered some of the worst of it.

​

Isn't it odd then, that in contrast with popular perceptions of Western European Colonialism, all of this remains so completely obscure? Where Westerners revel in the crimes of the past, Russians basically seem to have buried most of theirs.

That's fairly ironic, given how much worse many of their crimes actually happen to be.

What do you think about the U.S. Cavalry's tactics and methods against the Native American Indians in the conquest of the American Midwest and West?

Land hunger is addicting.

 

[Gathomas88]

What do you think about the U.S. Cavalry's tactics and methods against the Native American Indians in the conquest of the American Midwest and West?

Land hunger is addicting.

I think the U.S. Cavalry never took natives captive with the intention of eating them. :lol:

I also think we never had a general policy of torturing and slaughtering entire villages for refusing to pay us tribute.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that other forms of Colonialism were "kind," or anything. The Russians were just on such a completely different level with regards to the whole thing that its frankly kind of mind boggling.

 

[dimensionallava]

That's fairly ironic, given how much worse many of their crimes actually happen to be.

your talking about a place that had virtually no people living there, during this time there was about 500,000 people living there, compared that to just one of the native american tribes that were wiped out, the incans which had over 12 million people living in less than 1/10th the space

 

[Van Basten]

Just the reading to finish off my night!

your talking about a place that had virtually no people living there, during this time there was about 500,000 people living there, compared that to just one of the native american tribes that were wiped out, the incans which had over 12 million people living in less than 1/10th the space

Thread seems to be more about tactics than actual body-count and impact, but okay.

 

[Gathomas88]

your talking about a place that had virtually no people living there, during this time there was about 500,000 people living there, compared that to just one of the native american tribes that were wiped out, the incans which had over 12 million people living in less than 1/10th the space

Thread seems to be more about tactics than actual body-count and impact, but okay.

First off, to be fair, accurate population measures for either region are rather difficult to estimate so many centuries after the fact.

Secondly, the end result is basically the same. A good 90% or more of the indigenous peoples in Siberia were all but wiped out. Even today, I think singular American tribes can count more members than there are native Siberians in all of Asia.

Third, in the Americas, disease was the biggest killer. Whole tribes and civilizations were wiped out as a result of smallpox without ever seeing a European explorer. The Russians were a lot more "hands on" in this regard. They were basically engaged in active genocide throughout the region.

As I said in the OP, I just think its funny how little most people know about this subject. Most of it even took me by surprise.

 

[Chagos]

Where history is an interesting subject, the minute one starts comparing that of others (nations) with one's own, one defeats oneself.

Timelines and conditions rarely match, encountered circumstances neither, and least of all geographical issues.

To just name one aspect, Russia was darn near destroyed by the hordes which came out of Asia and lived under the Mongol and Tatar yoke for such a period that it remains a trauma to this day to most Russians.

Not until Ivan IV (the terrible) took the Tatar (and by then Muslim) capital of Kasan, was the hitherto ever-lasting threat of the Asian dominance removed, at the same time allowing annexation of the whole mid-Volga area and opening the path to Siberia.

For historic reasons sketched, Russians were not prone to be particular kindly disposed towards Asians.

Comparing their advance into Siberia with W. European advances into the Americas is a pretty useless attempt by whoever makes it, governing parameters being entirely different in virtually every aspect.

And when, by bad planning, you get into a situation where you starve, you'll likely eat your own friends in the end, so it was a stroke of good luck to come across others that one didn't feel particularly friendly about.

I'd incidentally call neither the Spanish nor the English particularly considerate either. The former slave-worked whole nations to death, once the initial slaughter was over and the latter simply had to wait for gaining enough strength, eventually achieved by the colonists, to embark on their own path of extermination of natives.

Whether any of it was official policy or not is pretty irrelevant, the results count.

Alone France pursued a different policy, seeing how it had not intention of engaging in such strength as to be sufficiently powerful to undertake major land grabs. Of the three named (the Dutch being of negligible importance in the Americas), they were the only ones actually pursuing trade and conversion. The Spaniards didn't have much interest initially in either, twas the Church that embarked on saving souls and trade was unimportant, seeing how everything was taken for free anyway.

On Russians "burying their crimes" you might want to research the Golden Horde and how those were of necessity perceived by the Kievan Rus and kingdoms of Nowgorod, before Russia became a nation and as such a Tsardom.

 

[Riveroaks]

Colonialism saw it's last gasp with the French in Viet Nam. Not that it had anything in common with the Russians in Siberia or the U.S. Cavalry in the West or the Spanish in Meso and South America. But colonialism went on for centuries, from the 1400's through 1953.

The methods of colonialism, whether subjugation or extermination, were at times harsh and extreme and at other times simply mercantilist.

We first read about cannibalism in armies with the ancient Persians in Egypt. The Persians had outrun their supply lines and were stuck in the desert with no food. So they drew lots to see who would be killed and eaten by the others. If the Russians had no food then I can understand the cannibalism.

If SHTF in the USA ever, there will then be plenty of cannibalism. There was cannibalism in Germany during WW2 and in Russia during WW1.

 

[DDD]

The people in Europe that admire such Russian tactics are Serbs. One needs not look too far in history to see how these primitive brutal tactics were used for centuries, and against native Europeans rather than Asians alone too (i.e., See Balkan wars from 19th century to 21st in 1999 in Dardania for instance).

 

[shrubnose]

First off, to be fair, accurate population measures for either region are rather difficult to estimate so many centuries after the fact.

Secondly, the end result is basically the same. A good 90% or more of the indigenous peoples in Siberia were all but wiped out. Even today, I think singular American tribes can count more members than there are native Siberians in all of Asia.

Third, in the Americas, disease was the biggest killer. Whole tribes and civilizations were wiped out as a result of smallpox without ever seeing a European explorer. The Russians were a lot more "hands on" in this regard. They were basically engaged in active genocide throughout the region.

As I said in the OP,

I just think its funny

how little most people know about this subject. Most of it even took me by surprise.

You might be laughing, but I'm not.

 

[tecoyah]

Yup..people did many terrible and nasty things throughout history. What interests me is what is taking place currently and truth be told we are still doing much the same thing, albeit with better weapons and much more efficiently. Now instead of eating people after we kill them we just sneak in and take what we want (Russia), or blow up enough stuff to make them give up (USA).

 

[Gathomas88]

Where history is an interesting subject, the minute one starts comparing that of others (nations) with one's own, one defeats oneself.

Timelines and conditions rarely match, encountered circumstances neither, and least of all geographical issues.

To just name one aspect, Russia was darn near destroyed by the hordes which came out of Asia and lived under the Mongol and Tatar yoke for such a period that it remains a trauma to this day to most Russians.

Not until Ivan IV (the terrible) took the Tatar (and by then Muslim) capital of Kasan, was the hitherto ever-lasting threat of the Asian dominance removed, at the same time allowing annexation of the whole mid-Volga area and opening the path to Siberia.

For historic reasons sketched, Russians were not prone to be particular kindly disposed towards Asians.

Comparing their advance into Siberia with W. European advances into the Americas is a pretty useless attempt by whoever makes it, governing parameters being entirely different in virtually every aspect.

And when, by bad planning, you get into a situation where you starve, you'll likely eat your own friends in the end, so it was a stroke of good luck to come across others that one didn't feel particularly friendly about.

I'd incidentally call neither the Spanish nor the English particularly considerate either. The former slave-worked whole nations to death, once the initial slaughter was over and the latter simply had to wait for gaining enough strength, eventually achieved by the colonists, to embark on their own path of extermination of natives.

Whether any of it was official policy or not is pretty irrelevant, the results count.

Alone France pursued a different policy, seeing how it had not intention of engaging in such strength as to be sufficiently powerful to undertake major land grabs. Of the three named (the Dutch being of negligible importance in the Americas), they were the only ones actually pursuing trade and conversion. The Spaniards didn't have much interest initially in either, twas the Church that embarked on saving souls and trade was unimportant, seeing how everything was taken for free anyway.

On Russians "burying their crimes" you might want to research the Golden Horde and how those were of necessity perceived by the Kievan Rus and kingdoms of Nowgorod, before Russia became a nation and as such a Tsardom.

True. There is something of an aspect of "karma" involved where Russia's conduct here is concerned. However, I'd hardly say that's an excuse.

At the end of day, I'd ultimately say that the difference boils down more to the Russians simply being a significantly less "civilized" people than their Western European contemporaries during the period under discussion here than anything else. That's not to say that the Spanish, English, French, Dutch, or Portuguese cannot not claim more than their own share of atrocities as well, of course. However, they at least tended to be tempered with some degree of conscience and restraint - regardless of whether it was their own, or that imposed upon them by the Church or some other, "enlightened," element. The Russians don't really appear to have had anything like that holding them back.

Even contemporary Europeans, for example, were horrified when they discovered what Columbus had been up to in the Caribbean, and the Spanish Crown had the man dragged back to Europe in chains. Likewise, the Church's concern for the moral questions raised by the Spanish Empire's treatment of native peoples in the Americas actually form some of the earliest discussions of the concept of "human rights."

Again, there just doesn't really appear to be any parallel to that in the Russian colonial experience. Their actions were barbaric to an extent that even the Dynastic Chinese (notorious for civil wars with death tolls in the millions, or tens of millions) were appalled. They practiced slavery like the Spanish and other colonial powers, but slaughtered and tortured with abandon like latter day Vikings as well. What's more, these actions appear to have had the more or less complete backing of the Tsar, and they continued for centuries.

Under the Soviets, and the new, post-Soviet nationalist regime, the general trend has been to simply bury these crimes, rather than address them.

 

[PoS]

Third, in the Americas, disease was the biggest killer. Whole tribes and civilizations were wiped out as a result of smallpox without ever seeing a European explorer. The Russians were a lot more "hands on" in this regard. They were basically engaged in active genocide throughout the region.

As I said in the OP, I just think its funny how little most people know about this subject. Most of it even took me by surprise.

I have this personal theory in which the Black Death was the one that enabled Europeans to conquer the New World and eventually the whole world- the survivors of the bubonic plague in Europe had built up robust immune systems to the point where they eventually just made tentative steps to explore North and South America and they were able to wipe out most of the Indian population long before they even set up colonies- we just waltzed right on it after that since there was plenty of uninhabited land once whole tribes were wiped out.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

True. There is something of an aspect of "karma" involved where Russia's conduct here is concerned. However, I'd hardly say that's an excuse.

At the end of day, I'd ultimately say that the difference boils down more to the Russians simply being a significantly less "civilized" people than their Western European contemporaries during the period under discussion here than anything else. That's not to say that the Spanish, English, French, Dutch, or Portuguese cannot not claim more than their own share of atrocities as well, of course. However, they at least tended to be tempered with some degree of conscience and restraint - regardless of whether it was their own, or that imposed upon them by the Church or some other, "enlightened," element. The Russians don't really appear to have had anything like that holding them back.

Even contemporary Europeans, for example, were horrified when they discovered what Columbus had been up to in the Caribbean, and the Spanish Crown had the man dragged back to Europe in chains. Likewise, the Church's concern for the moral questions raised by the Spanish Empire's treatment of native peoples in the Americas actually form some of the earliest discussions of the concept of "human rights."

Again, there doesn't really appear to be any parallel to that in the Russian colonial experience. Their actions were barbaric to an extent that even the Dynastic Chinese (notorious for civil wars with death tolls in the millions, or tens of millions) were appalled. They practiced slavery like the Spanish and other colonial powers, but slaughtered and tortured with abandon like latter day Vikings as well. What's more, these actions appear to have had the more or less complete backing of the Tsar, and they continued for centuries.

Under the Soviets, and the new, post-Soviet nationalist regime, the general trend has been to simply bury these crimes, rather than address them.

Gotta remember man that the Golden Horde, Kazan, Crimean Khanate, etc. routinely raided the Rus borders for slaves.
Even though many of the Siberian natives acted and did nothing like that, they were likely considered part and parcel of the horde nations.
From a Russian's perspective that is.

Of course that doesn't excuse their horrible acts of genocide.

 

[Sherman123]

View attachment 67190081

Finding myself somewhat bored at work the other day, I decided to mess around on Wikipedia and see if I could find anything interesting. I eventually settled on the history of Sino-Russian relations in Siberia, which lead me to the subject of Russian Colonialism in Asia.

It made for a rather enlightening read to say the least. :lol:

At first glance, the Russian conquest of Siberia might seem to run basically parallel with Western European Colonialism in the Americas. In many regards, however, it was very unique, and not in a positive way either.

For one thing, the Russians' tactics were incredibly nasty even by colonial standards.

​

​

Wiki - Russian Conquest of Siberia

​

​

In contrast with the Spaniards, who pretty clearly came to the Americas with a mind to govern and rule (even if they weren't competent at it), and the English, French, or Dutch, who flatly didn't give a damn about the natives one way or the other for any purpose other than trade and conversion, the Russians basically rolled into Asia like a horde of bloodthirsty Vikings with all guns blazing. Their only real interest was plunder, followed by resettlement with their own people. God alone could help anyone who got in their way. Their cruelty was so infamous that natives named them "demons," and they could cause the populations of entire regions to flee just by reputation alone!

It seems that the only reason they ever stopped is because Russian raiding parties eventually ran afoul of the Chinese border, and simply didn't have the manpower or supply lines necessary to challenge their military establishment.

You can't really argue that this was something which took place without the Russian government's knowledge either, as one can with many of the abuses which took place under the Spanish Empire. As already noted, these explorers were sending back some rather graphic reports, and the Tsars actually seem to have explicitly ordered some of the worst of it.

​

Isn't it odd then, that in contrast with popular perceptions of Western European Colonialism, all of this remains so completely obscure? Where Westerners revel in the crimes of the past, Russians basically seem to have buried most of theirs.

That's fairly ironic, given how much worse many of their crimes actually happen to be.

I think the reason it isn't as well known, or much covered, is fairly obvious: it took place in the Siberian wastes, not the New World. The conquest of the Americas is simultaneously more gripping because of the scale, breadth, and tremendous impact it had on world affairs and because of the countries that took the place of the natives, namely the United States. To expand upon the latter point simply put the United States is of tremendous importance and the founding of the nation is inextricably linked to the wars with the natives. By comparison this is the product of mere Imperial expansion of a state which was already coherent and firmly established. Similarly we don't spend much time in history discussing the 19th Century French conquest of Algeria and the expansion into the Moroccan interior.

 

[dimensionallava]

First off, to be fair, accurate population measures for either region are rather difficult to estimate so many centuries after the fact.

that is not relevant on this scale. Considering your own wiki source says there was no more than 300,000 people living there and your comparing it to western European colonialism, which spans 6 continents and caused billions of deaths

Secondly, the end result is basically the same. A good 90% or more of the indigenous peoples in Siberia were all but wiped out. Even today, I think singular American tribes can count more members than there are native Siberians in all of Asia.

your comparing a few hundred thousand to a hundred million your also not even counting the rest of western europes colonialism which happened in africa asia and australia which number billions of deaths. There were entire tribes wiped out, and what i think makes it the most sick violent part of world history is that these people did not share a border, they were not a threat to the europeans in anyway, and every empire in world history killed people brutally and violently otherwise they wouldn't have a flag but they all shared a border with the people they killed. If england had killed the french or the germans the way they killed the rest of the world it wouldn't be that bad, only western europe for some reason traveled the globe killing the weakest people they could find simply to steal

Third, in the Americas, disease was the biggest killer. Whole tribes and civilizations were wiped out as a result of smallpox without ever seeing a European explorer. The Russians were a lot more "hands on" in this regard. They were basically engaged in active genocide throughout the region.

Well disease played a role in the russia-siberian wars as well, disease occurred in every war, more people died of diarrhea in the civil war than anything else. but disease was also commonly lied about as a way to make the massacres seem more humane, to the population "back home". The effect disease had on native americans was routinely lied about, this is typically known as "whitewashing history", for example most europeans claimed there were less than 10 million natives living in the americas while modern archeologists say there were at minimum 100 million. Also syphilis existed in the Americas a long time before europeans showed up

As I said in the OP, I just think its funny how little most people know about this subject. Most of it even took me by surprise.

considering 90% of americans couldn't find siberia on a map, its not all that surprising, I'm sure people in russia know alot about it

 

[Gathomas88]

I think the reason it isn't as well known, or much covered, is fairly obvious: it took place in the Siberian wastes, not the New World. The conquest of the Americas is simultaneously more gripping because of the scale, breadth, and tremendous impact it had on world affairs and because of the countries that took the place of the natives, namely the United States. To expand upon the latter point simply put the United States is of tremendous importance and the founding of the nation is inextricably linked to the wars with the natives.

It also provides for a rather convenient means by which people of certain ideological bents can attack the United States', and Western Culture in general's, legitimacy.

Speaking factually, Russia's existence as a "great power" is also rather intrinsically tied to it's colonial actions in Siberia. The Soviets, however, obviously didn't want to focus much on this history (though they actually continued or intensified many of the Tsarist regime's anti-native policies) because it would work counter to the "USSR against Imperialist oppression" narrative they were trying to sell the developing world at the time. The more nationalist regime which has developed in the wake of the USSR's fall isn't too keen on playing up these events either, as it works against the Russian identity they're working to build up.

Case in point...

that is not relevant on this scale. Considering your own wiki source says there was no more than 300,000 people living there and your comparing it to western European colonialism, which spans 6 continents and caused billions of deaths

your comparing a few hundred thousand to a hundred million your also not even counting the rest of western europes colonialism which happened in africa asia and australia which number billions of deaths. There were entire tribes wiped out, and what i think makes it the most sick violent part of world history is that these people did not share a border, they were not a threat to the europeans in anyway, and every empire in world history killed people brutally and violently otherwise they wouldn't have a flag but they all shared a border with the people they killed.

Now, this is simply silly. First off, Colonialism didn't kill "billions" of people, for the simple fact that there weren't "billions" of people in the world to kill for the vast majority of the Colonial era.

The largest death toll which can be attributed to Western European Colonialism comes from the Americas (which, incidentally, are generally estimated to have only had a population of roughly 50 million or so, not 100 million). Again, that was primarily - 80% to 90% or more - attributable to disease, not deliberate slaughter.

Even then, quite frankly, its only really comparable to the Mongol Conquests or one of Dynastic China's nastier civil wars in terms of overall body count (events which are generally estimated to have killed somewhere around 40 million or so people each on average), all of which were exponentially more violent and gruesome than anything which took place in the Americas. The Spanish, English, and French, say what you will about them, never built pyramids of severed heads 10 stories tall after taking enemy cities. Lol

Secondly, none of this is any reason to flat out ignore what happened in Russia. If we're going to insist that modern populations torture themselves over historical events like these, there's no reason at all why some peoples should get a pass while others should not.

Well disease played a role in the russia-siberian wars as well, disease occurred in every war, more people died of diarrhea in the civil war than anything else. but disease was also commonly lied about as a way to make the massacres seem more humane, to the population "back home". The effect disease had on native americans was routinely lied about, this is typically known as "whitewashing history"

Disease played a far smaller role in Siberia than it did in the Americas, for the simple reason that Siberian peoples had greater resistance to European diseases than the completely isolated peoples of the the Pre-Columbian Americas. Russian suppression of indigenous peoples tended to be a lot more deliberately "hands on" for that exact reason.

No, no one's "lying" about the role of disease in the Americas either. The Europeans simply wouldn't have had the man power to kill 50 million people by hand. A modern organized military would struggle with such a task, for God's sakes, let alone a few scattered bands of largely mercenary explorers here and there.

I'm sure people in russia know alot about it

Actually... No. Not, really, from what I've read. The Russians tend to downplay these events, largely for political reasons.

They are only rarely mentioned even in museums.

 

[dimensionallava]

Now, this is simply silly. First off, Colonialism didn't kill "billions" of people, for the simple fact that there weren't "billions" of people in the world to kill for the vast majority of the Colonial era.

the british killed over 1 billion indians alone
INDIAN HOLOCAUST under British Raj : 1.8 BILLION Excess Deaths IGNORED by Anglo Media | BeyondHeadlines

The largest death toll which can be attributed to Western European Colonialism comes from the Americas (which, incidentally, are generally estimated to have only had a population of roughly 50 million or so, not 100 million). Again, that was primarily - 80% to 90% or more - attributable to disease, not deliberate slaughter.

Even then, quite frankly, its only really comparable to the Mongol Conquests or one of Dynastic China's nastier civil wars in terms of overall body count (events which are generally estimated to have killed somewhere around 40 million or so people each on average), all of which were exponentially more violent and gruesome than anything which took place in the Americas. The Spanish, English, and French, say what you will about them, never built pyramids of severed heads 10 stories tall after taking enemy cities. Lol

Your saying that smallpox and other diseaes weren't intentionally used as a form of genocide and early biological warfare, which was a tactic used by alot of european colonialists, even without those deaths being counted, and even at the lowest estimate in existence, your talking about 5 million deaths vs a couple hundred thousand

Secondly, none of this is any reason to flat out ignore what happened in Russia. If we're going to insist that modern populations torture themselves over historical events like these, there's no reason at all why some peoples should get a pass while others should not.

who says it should get a pass? it definitely shouldn't be used to rewrite history and say the native american genocide wasnt a "big deal". or too say genocide is "natural"

Disease played a far smaller role in Siberia than it did in the Americas, for the simple reason that Siberian peoples had greater resistance to European diseases than the completely isolated peoples of the the Pre-Columbian Americas. Russian suppression of indigenous peoples tended to be a lot more deliberately "hands on" for that exact reason.

they didn't just bring smallpox they brought measles, scarlet fever, typhoid, typhus, influenza, pertussis (whooping cough), tuberculosis, cholera, diphtheria, chickenpox and sexually transmitted diseases.

why were western europeans so filthy? did they not bathe?

No, no one's "lying" about the role of disease in the Americas either. The Europeans simply wouldn't have had the man power to kill 50 million people by hand. A modern organized military would struggle with such a task, for God's sakes, let alone a few scattered bands of largely mercenary explorers here and there.

Ive heard this argument before, but it basically ignores the fact that tribes were enslaved and used to fight against other indian tribes

Actually... No. Not, really, from what I've read. The Russians tend to downplay these events, largely for political reasons.They are only rarely mentioned even in museums.

how is this political? russia might not exist today if it wasn't for this conquest, the mongols ruled over moscow for 200 years before this

 

[Gathomas88]

INDIAN HOLOCAUST under British Raj : 1.8 BILLION Excess Deaths IGNORED by Anglo Media | BeyondHeadlines

India's total population never exceeded 400 million people for the entire duration of British rule.

INDIA - Historical demographical data of the whole country

How on Earth is a population of 150 - 400 million people supposed to produce 2 billion deaths? Hell! The British could have literally killed a 1000 people a day for 200 years straight, and it'd only equal out to 73 million total deaths.

1,000 x 365 = 365,000

365,000 x 200 = 73,000,000​

Even if they killed 10,000 people a day (either number would be absurd), that'd still only be 730,000,000!

Frankly, for most of that period, the British were only vaguely defined "overlords" anyway. Native governments dealt with the business of day-to-day governance. They share a certain degree of blame for any famine which may have occurred as such.

YOur saying that smallpox and other diseaes weren't intentionally used as a form of genocide

There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that Spanish or other early European settlers made deliberate use of biological warfare. That didn't become a factor until several centuries after the vast majority of the American population had already died off. Even then, such incidents were isolated, and their impact was only minimal.

The fact of the matter is that contact with Eurasian and African peoples bombed the Americas with a host of diseases to which native peoples had no resistance (Smallpox, Typhus, Bubonic Plague, Influenza, Cholera, Malaria, Measles, Tuberculosis, Yellow Fever, and Pertussis, and etca). This caused them to die in droves, with Europeans being helpless to stop it.

The ironic thing is that, due to how these diseases tend to spread along trade routes, the vast majority of the victims most likely died without ever even seeing a European or African person.

it definetly shouldn't be used to rewrite history and say the native american genocide isnt a "big deal"

I never said that.

However, I do think it highlights a certain context here. Namely, that Western Europeans weren't quite the bloodthirsty barbarians some like to paint them as. There were people far worse.

why were western europeans so filthy? did they not bathe?

Bathing had nothing to do with it. It was an issue...

A) Because trade in Eurasia made it possible for diseases to travel back for forth between different regions. Europe and East Asia had basically spent millenia playing "infectious disease" ping-pong with one another (the Mongol invasions spread the Black Death to Europe, for example), and those without resistance to such diseases had died, and therefore been weeded out of the gene pool, ages before Europeans ever made contact with the Americas.

And..

B) Because the Native Americans didn't commonly domesticate animals. Diseases often jump between domestic animals and their human keepers (that's how we wind up with things like 'Avian' and 'Swine' flu, for example). Again, the people who couldn't handle those diseases had already died in Europe long before any one on the continent ever went exploring. The Native Americans had no such immunity, because they'd never needed to develop it.

it basically ignores the fact that tribes were enslaved and used to fight against other indian tribes

You're referring to the Encomienda system, which was basically an attempt by the Spanish to introduce European style Feudalism to the Americas in response to native governments beginning to break down. It did experience a wide range of abuses. However, none of them really amounted to "genocide." At worst, it unintentionally exacerbated the already terrible situation with regard to disease, as gathering people together made it easier for illness to spread. It also, equally unintentionally, gave dickhead landlords the power to abuse their new subjects.

After the Church brought these facts to everyone's attention, however, the Spanish King and then Holy Roman Emperor Charles V personally made moves in the mid 1520s to prevent these abuses. While bad things still happened every now and then, it was successful in curbing the worst of the abuse.

As far as Native warfare goes, that can't necessarily be blamed on Europeans. Native people had been going to war with one another for centuries. All the arrival of the Europeans did was provide them with more advanced technology to do so with. Frankly, that's as much their fault as our's.

how is this political

I already explained this.

 

[dimensionallava]

India's total population never exceeded 400 million people for the entire duration of British rule.

INDIA - Historical demographical data of the whole country

How on Earth is a population of 150 - 400 million people supposed to produce 2 billion deaths? Hell! The British could have literally killed a 1000 people a day for 200 years straight, and it'd only equal out to 73 million total deaths.

1,000 x 365 = 365,000

365,000 x 200 = 73,000,000​

Even if they killed 10,000 people a day (either number would be absurd), that'd still only be 730,000,000!

Frankly, for most of that period, the British were only vaguely defined "overlords" anyway. Native governments dealt with the business of day-to-day governance. They share a certain degree of blame for any famine which may have occurred as such.

since they faced over 200 years of war, slavery, and genocide they did kill that many people, one example was the bengali genocide, which killed over 6 million in one year

There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that Spanish or other early European settlers made deliberate use of biological warfare. That didn't become a factor until several centuries after the vast majority of the American population had already died off. Even then, such incidents were isolated, and their impact was only minimal.

there's no evidence of this claim either, thats the problem with genocide there ends up being only one side of the story, unlike your serbian conquest which wasn't a genocide, by any definition of the word

The fact of the matter is that contact with Eurasian and African peoples bombed the Americas with a host of diseases to which native peoples had no resistance (Smallpox, Typhus, Bubonic Plague, Influenza, Cholera, Malaria, Measles, Tuberculosis, Yellow Fever, and Pertussis, and etca). This caused them to die in droves, with Europeans being helpless to stop it.

The ironic thing is that, due to how these diseases tend to spread along trade routes, the vast majority of the victims most likely died without ever even seeing a European or African person.

there's no evidence of this, I have to assume at this point your denying the genocide of native americans, correct?

I never said that.

However, I do think it highlights a certain context here. Namely, that Western Europeans weren't quite the bloodthirsty barbarians some like to paint them as. There were people far worse.

nope sorry you can't enslave half of planet earth then claim your not bloodthirsty barbarians, thats called having your cake and eating it too

Bathing had nothing to do with it.

no they actually didn't bathe, the church said "bathing was the devil", they also believed people got sick from lack of prayer, and that medicine was also the devil

Why Bathing Was Uncommon in Medieval Europe

You're referring to the Encomienda system, which was basically an attempt by the Spanish to introduce European style Feudalism to the Americas in response to native governments beginning to break down. It did experience a wide range of abuses. However, none of them really amounted to "genocide." At worst, it unintentionally exacerbated the already terrible situation with regard to disease, as gathering people together made it easier for illness to spread. It also, equally unintentionally, gave dickhead landlords the power to abuse their new subjects.

After the Church brought these facts to everyone's attention, however, the Spanish King and then Holy Roman Emperor Charles V personally made moves in the mid 1520s to prevent these abuses. While bad things still happened every now and then, it was successful in curbing the worst of the abuse.

As far as Native warfare goes, that can't necessarily be blamed on Europeans. Native people had been going to war with one another for centuries. All the arrival of the Europeans did was provide them with more advanced technology to do so with. Frankly, that's as much their fault as our's.



I already explained this.

I know you would like to believe all white people did was sneeze and all the indians died but thats not how it happened, not a bad story to tell your 3 year old though:2razz:

 

[Gathomas88]

since they faced over 200 years of war, slavery, and genocide they did kill that many people,

"British were in control of the region" does not automatically equal "200 years of war, slavery, and genocide."

For that matter, what do you think they were doing before the British arrived? Holding hands and singing kumbaya? :roll:

one example was the bengali genocide, which killed over 6 million in one year

Was primarily caused by the Japanese occupation of Burma during WW2 (from whence Bengal imported most of its food), a series of natural disasters, and crappy weather. Indians themselves also made the crisis worse, because many of the provinces bordering Bengal flat out refused to send any of their own food to ease the suffering, fearing that they might risk famine themselves.

It's death toll is also only estimated at 1.5 to 4 million, not 6. In any eventuality, even at 6 million, there would need to be 300 such famines to reach the "1.8 billion" figure you tried to claim before.

The argument you're putting forward here is simply nonsense any way you want to look at it.

there's no evidence of this claim either

No, there is no evidence to support what you're claiming. Basically all scholarly evidence available supports the idea that disease was the primary factor at play in the mass population decline experienced by Native Americans in the 16th Century.

unlike your serbian conquest which wasn't a genocide, by any definition of the word

Who in the Hell said anything about Serbia?

there's no evidence of this

nope sorry you can't enslave half of planet earth then claim your not bloodthirsty barbarians, thats called having your cake and eating it too

Good thing no one "enslaved half the world" then. :roll:

Melodramatic much?

no they actually didn't bathe, the church said "bathing was the devil", they also believed people got sick from lack of prayer, and that medicine was also the devil

This is largely a myth. Communal bathing, similar to what existed in ancient Rome, was actually popular throughout Europe well into the 13th Century. Rising wood prices due to deforestation simply made it more expensive as time went by. Later, after the Black Death, regular bathing was believed to be unhealthy and make the body more susceptible to disease (frankly, in the case of communal bathing, that might not be entirely incorrect). It fell out of fashion as such.

I know you would like to believe all white people did was sneeze and all the indians died but thats not how it happened, not a bad story to tell your 3 year old though

Ya know... On behalf of white people everywhere, I'm flattered. Really, I mean it. I'm in absolute awe of the fact that you apparently believe my people to be such peerless warriors as to be able to reduce a population of 50 million persons or more down to just a few million in less than a century by the merit of strength and skill at arms alone.

I hate to break it to you, however... We're just not that good. :lol:

No one is.

Oooooookkkkaaaay...

This picture of 20th Century Europeans killing other 20th Century Europeans is supposed to prove... What, exactly?