11:47 China has spend the last 15 years, positioning itself as the non-ideological patron of resource-rich nations. It does not care: internal politics of Venezuela, democracy nor human rights. It cares about one thing: access to oil at stable prices through predicable trade relationship. US cares about all those things when it's convenient.

12:22 US demands democratic reform and then it retreats when it becomes too expensive.

12:34 Venezuela understands that a deal with China is a permanent deal meanwhile US deal depends on shifting American priorities.;

2026.02.03/home.uchicago .edu/csunstei/moreisless.html : "these experiments, success is entirely possible. Some initiatives will actually make for effective and enduring improvements. But most of the participants--even the most educated and the most professional ones--produce calamities. They do so because they do not see the complex, system-wide effects of particular interventions. Thus they may recognize the importance of increasing the number of cattle, but once they do that, they create a serious risk of overgrazing, and they fail to anticipate that problem."..."rare participant who can see a number of steps down the road, who can understand the multiple effects of one- shot interventions into the system.", "problems produced by selective interventions into complex systems have received a great deal of attention in recent years, in economics, in law, and in international relations. James Scott, a political scientist and an anthropologist, has now provided one of the most ambitious treatments of these problems, and probably the most unusual. Scott is an irrepressible analogizer, and his range is extremely wide. He connects such things as the ingenious "work-to-rule" strikes in Paris, where workers, determined to strike without striking, decided to follow, to the exasperating letter, all the written rules about work-related behavior, with the consequence that nothing could be done; the nineteenth-century movement for "scientific forestry," which tended to destroy forests; the hilariously failed effort to make Esperanto the world's official language; Lenin's misunderstandings of how a revolution really happens; Tanzania's catastrophic attempt to move its mobile population into stable villages; and clueless, utopian architectural schemes, designed to produce standardized and orderly cities, and culminating in the planned city of Brasilia. These and many other examples are linked by the failure of planners to understand the role of local, practical knowledge," (connected to fundamentalism) " and by the unpredictability of nature and society" (related to Infinitism) ", which results from spontaneity, private adaptation, and efforts at informal coordination by those who are subjected to plans. In a way, Scott's book is a paean to human liberty, a very complicated paean.", "government, with its "thin simplifications" of complicated systems, fails to understand how human beings organize (and disorganize) themselves, its plans are doomed from the start. Scott calls some governments practitioners of "high modernism," a recipe for many natural and social disasters", "High-modernist ideology is selfconfident about scientific and technical progress and "the mastery of nature (including human nature), above all, the rational design of social order commensurate with the scientific understanding of natural laws."", "Scientific forestry did make everything simpler to manage; and in the short term the simplification of the forest to a single commodity was a success, in the sense that it increased the revenue yield of extracted timber. After the planting of a second rotation of conifers, however, things fell apart. "An exceptionally complex process involving soil building, nutrient uptake, and symbiotic relations among fungi, insects, mammals and flora--which were, and still are, not entirely understood--was apparently disrupted, with serious consequences."";

2026.05.09/ 2025-05-24: Whispers of a Dark Future: The Last Liberal Democracy: Syria is last classical radical liberal revolution cooperating with Trump and tolerating Israel taking their land. First Rosseauian Arab socialist Jacobinism as temporary state to self-governing republicans through educated elite by Libya, Syria, Iraq and so on maybe. Syria success replacing Assad with Guzo. Guzo downplays his past Jihadism. Guzo as centrist liberal maybe-center-left technocrat SDF-leader stands anti-Rousseauian. It isn't about the general will but about bureaucracy, about going to the bank and taking out a loan. Not freedom, not economic democracy, but owning a small business. (Speaker sounds biased against that and hateful.),

13:50 Rojiva in North and South Syria should be understood as a radical liberal project instead of a libertarian socialist anarchist project.

Supposed source of anarchist inspiration was Murray Bookchin. He left anarchist movement. He believed in non-hierarchical alternative to capitalism, invoke anarcho-communist arguments, wrote anarchism as a mass movement in a complimentary way, but he wasn't really an anarchist because he didn't believe in foundational political philosophical anarchist principle, which is that free association is superior to domination. (Free association seems to dominate domination, so it uses domination to demonstrate that domination is inferior, which seems contradictory to me.) He should replace relationship of domination with relationship of free association (meanwhile the social meta-relationships should be dominated by free association above domination itself).

For Bookchin, that was far too individualist (Well, he was an anarcho-collectivist, so still part of anarchism in some sense.),

Bookchin thought that in a genuinely egalitarian society, there had to be of political and social mechanisms to detain the context of individuals to the interests of the larger society. Liberals call that the social contract. (Depends. Locke's social contract ranges from obligations to God to the philosophical God's obligations to obligations to act in a way where the society and individual benefits the most as Game Theory. Bookchin's part could be understood to me that this individual has to ignore his own will and submit to the collective to become equal/egalitarian.) Anarchists reject social contract because it can only be reinforced by hierarchical, centralized authority. (Ok, he doesn't believe what other anarchists believed about a political abstract, yet Bookchin was pro-egalitarian left and against the concept of a state/anarchist.) Anarchists pointing this out too. Bookchin and his supporters breaking off from the anarchist movement and reconstruct to communalism. He mistakenly thought after WW1 that anarchism was a sort of alternative based on the struggle of the citizen for freedom and equality rather than the struggle of the working class against capitalism when the entire anarchist tradition is focused to working class VS capitalism. Bookchin, he says, is a "radical liberal".

Political-note:a

D&D polcompball-note:v

2026.06.14/web.archive .org/web/20250815202223/polcompballanarchy.miraheze .org/wiki/D%26D_Alignment : 2026.06.14/web.archive .org/web/20250718190049/polcompballanarchy.miraheze .org/wiki/Your_D&D_Alignment_Listings_Here : (Apparently, Neutral Evil Theodore Kaczynski as Neoluddist like 18th-centuryism and 17th-centuryism makes those centuries especially year 1750 look evil. Innovativism is true neutral. Both came from TomJazzy's list)

TomJazzy's list: "Lawful Neutral Thumb Plato Aristotle George Washington Immanuel Kant True Neutral John Locke Innovativism Chaotic Neutral Friedrich Nietzsche", "Neutral Good Rene Desecrates Thomas Paine Henry George George Orwell Maury Bookchin Tomjazzy Innovativism", "True Neutral Classical Liberalism", "Lawful Good Natural Law Theory Deontology Distributism Neutral Good Virtue Ethics The Enlightenment Radicalism Social Democracy Progressivism Civil Libertarianism Centrist Marxism" (Mixed elements are in different alignments. Lawful Neutral Immanuel Kant creating the Lawful Good Deontology or at least prominently developing it.),

AltHistTFLover's list: "Wiseful Neutral Empiricism Rationalism", "Neutral Good Progressive Conservatism Skepticism" (Radical skepticism/anti-realism is good to them.),

"Lawful Wise Philosophical Realism",

"Naïve Neutral Apoliticism",

"Neutral Evil Austrian School" (Later creation from enlightenment and classical liberalism.),

Blue Nephalemism-List: "Neutral Evil Ultranationalism [Expand] Social Darwinism [Expand] Misanthropy [Expand] Posadism [Expand] Climate Skepticism"

D&D polcompball-note:a

Philosophy-note:v

2026.05.17/philosophynow .org/issues/58/The_Death_of_Postmodernism_And_Beyond : "postmodernism is alive, thriving and kicking: it says it will introduce “the general topics of ‘postmodernism’ and ‘postmodernity’ by examining their relationship to the contemporary writing of fiction”. This might suggest that postmodernism is contemporary, but the comparison actually shows that it is dead and buried.

Postmodern philosophy emphasises the elusiveness of meaning and knowledge. This is often expressed in postmodern art as a concern with representation and an ironic self-awareness. And the argument that postmodernism is over has already been made philosophically. There are people who have essentially asserted that for a while we believed in postmodern ideas, but not any more, and from now on we’re going to believe in critical realism.",

"Bret Easton Ellis’ Lunar Park – but then modernist novels, now long forgotten, were still being written into the 1950s and 60s. The only place where the postmodern is extant is in children’s cartoons like Shrek and The Incredibles, as a sop to parents obliged to sit through them with their toddlers. This is the level to which postmodernism has sunk; a source of marginal gags in pop culture aimed at the under-eights.

", "somewhere in the late 1990s or early 2000s, the emergence of new technologies re-structured, violently and forever, the nature of the author, the reader and the text, and the relationships between them.",

Pseudo-modernism=interactive, computer-looking post-modernism as post-post-modernism where the possible through CGI looks impossible.,

"pseudo-modern cultural phenomenon par excellence is the internet",

"sense (or illusion) of the individual controlling, managing, running, making up his/her involvement with the cultural product. Internet pages",

"Cinema in the pseudo-modern age looks more and more like a computer game."..."once special effects were supposed to make the impossible appear credible, CGI frequently [inadvertently] works to make the possible look artificial, as in much of Lord of the Rings or Gladiator.",

"television in the pseudo-modern age favours not only reality TV (yet another unapt term), but also shopping channels, and quizzes in which the viewer calls to guess the answer to riddles in the hope of winning money. It also favours phenomena like Ceefax and Teletext.",

"‘author’ as traditionally understood is either relegated to the status of the one who sets the parameters within which others operate, or becomes simply irrelevant, unknown, sidelined; and the ‘text’ is characterised both by its hyper-ephemerality and by its instability.",

"pseudo-modern text lasts an exceptionally brief time. Unlike, say, Fawlty Towers, reality TV programmes cannot be repeated in their original form, since the phone-ins cannot be reproduced, and without the possibility of phoning-in they become a different and far less attractive entity. Ceefax text dies after a few hours. If scholars give the date they referenced an internet page, it is because the pages disappear or get radically re-cast so quickly. Text messages and emails are extremely difficult to keep in their original form; printing out emails does convert them into something more stable, like a letter, but only by destroying their essential, electronic state. Radio phone-ins, computer games – their shelf-life is short, they are very soon obsolete. A culture based on these things can have no memory – certainly not the burdensome sense of a preceding cultural inheritance which informed modernism and postmodernism. Non-reproducible and evanescent, pseudo-modernism is thus also amnesiac: these are cultural actions in the present moment with no sense of either past or future.

The cultural products of pseudo-modernism are also exceptionally banal, as I’ve hinted. The content of pseudo-modern films tends to be solely the acts which beget and which end life. This puerile primitivism of the script stands in stark contrast to the sophistication of contemporary cinema’s technical effects. Much text messaging and emailing is vapid in comparison with what people of all educational levels used to put into letters. A triteness, a shallowness dominates all. The pseudo-modern era, at least so far, is a cultural desert. Although we may grow so used to the new terms that we can adapt them for meaningful artistic expression (and then the pejorative label I have given pseudo-modernism may no longer be appropriate), for now we are confronted by a storm of human activity producing almost nothing of any lasting or even reproducible cultural value – anything which human beings might look at again and appreciate in fifty or two hundred years time.

The roots of pseudo-modernism can be traced back through the years dominated by postmodernism. Dance music and industrial pornography, for instance, products of the late 70s and 80s, tend to the ephemeral, to the vacuous on the level of signification, and to the unauthored (dance much more so than pop or rock). They also foreground the activity of their ‘reception’: dance music is to be danced to, porn is not to be read or watched but used, in a way which generates the pseudo-modern illusion of participation. In music, the pseudo-modern supersedingof the artist-dominated album as monolithic text by the downloading and mix-and-matching of individual tracks on to an iPod, selected by the listener, was certainly prefigured by the music fan’s creation of compilation tapes a generation ago. But a shift has occurred, in that what was a marginal pastime of the fan has become the dominant and definitive way of consuming music, rendering the idea of the album as a coherent work of art, a body of integrated meaning, obsolete.

To a degree, pseudo-modernism is no more than a technologically motivated shift to the cultural centre of something which has always existed (similarly, metafiction has always existed, but was never so fetishised as it was by postmodernism). Television has always used audience participation, just as theatre and other performing arts did before it; but as an option, not as a necessity: pseudo-modern TV programmes have participation built into them. There have long been very ‘active’ cultural forms, too, from carnival to pantomime. But none of these implied a written or otherwise material text, and so they dwelt in the margins of a culture which fetishised such texts – whereas the pseudo-modern text, with all its peculiarities, stands as the central, dominant, paradigmatic form of cultural product today, although culture, in its margins, still knows other kinds. Nor should these other kinds be stigmatised as ‘passive’ against pseudo-modernity’s ‘activity’. Reading, listening, watching always had their kinds of activity; but there is a physicality to the actions of the pseudo-modern text-maker, and a necessity to his or her actions as regards the composition of the text, as well as a domination which has changed the cultural balance of power (note how cinema and TV, yesterday’s giants, have bowed before it). It forms the twenty-first century’s social-historical-cultural hegemony. Moreover, the activity of pseudo-modernism has its own specificity: it is electronic, and textual, but ephemeral.",

"In postmodernism, one read, watched, listened, as before. In pseudo-modernism one phones, clicks, presses, surfs, chooses, moves, downloads.",

"postmodernism called ‘reality’ into question, pseudo-modernism defines the real implicitly as myself, now, ‘interacting’ with its texts. Thus, pseudo-modernism suggests that whatever it does or makes is what is reality, and a pseudo-modern text may flourish the apparently real in an uncomplicated form: the docu-soap with its hand-held cameras (which, by displaying individuals aware of being regarded, give the viewer the illusion of participation); The Office and The Blair Witch Project, interactive pornography and reality TV; the essayistic cinema of Michael Moore or Morgan Spurlock.

Along with this new view of reality, it is clear that the dominant intellectual framework has changed. While postmodernism’s cultural products have been consigned to the same historicised status as modernism and romanticism, its intellectual tendencies (feminism, postcolonialism etc) find themselves isolated in the new philosophical environment. The academy, perhaps especially in Britain, is today so swamped by the assumptions and practices of market economics that it is deeply implausible for academics to tell their students they inhabit a postmodern world where a multiplicity of ideologies, world-views and voices can be heard. Their every step hounded by market economics, academics cannot preach multiplicity when their lives are dominated by what amounts in practice to consumer fanaticism. The world has narrowed intellectually, not broadened, in the last ten years. Where Lyotard saw the eclipse of Grand Narratives, pseudo-modernism sees the ideology of globalised market economics raised to the level of the sole and over-powering regulator of all social activity – monopolistic, all-engulfing, all-explaining, all-structuring, as every academic must disagreeably recognise. Pseudo-modernism is of course consumerist and conformist, a matter of moving around the world as it is given or sold.

Secondly, whereas postmodernism favoured the ironic, the knowing and the playful, with their allusions to knowledge, history and ambivalence, pseudo-modernism’s typical intellectual states are ignorance, fanaticism and anxiety: Bush, Blair, Bin Laden, Le Pen and their like on one side, and the more numerous but less powerful masses on the other. Pseudo-modernism belongs to a world pervaded by the encounter between a religiously fanatical segment of the United States, a largely secular but definitionally hyper-religious Israel, and a fanatical sub-section of Muslims scattered across the planet: pseudo-modernism was not born on 11 September 2001, but postmodernism was interred in its rubble. In this context pseudo-modernism lashes fantastically sophisticated technology to the pursuit of medieval barbarism – as in the uploading of videos of beheadings onto the internet, or the use of mobile phones to film torture in prisons. Beyond this, the destiny of everyone else is to suffer the anxiety of getting hit in the cross-fire. But this fatalistic anxiety extends far beyond geopolitics, into every aspect of contemporary life; from a general fear of social breakdown and identity loss, to a deep unease about diet and health; from anguish about the destructiveness of climate change, to the effects of a new personal ineptitude and helplessness, which yield TV programmes about how to clean your house, bring up your children or remain solvent. This technologised cluelessness is utterly contemporary: the pseudo-modernist communicates constantly with the other side of the planet, yet needs to be told to eat vegetables to be healthy, a fact self-evident in the Bronze Age. He or she can direct the course of national television programmes, but does not know how to make him or herself something to eat – a characteristic fusion of the childish and the advanced, the powerful and the helpless. For varying reasons, these are people incapable of the “disbelief of Grand Narratives” which Lyotard argued typified postmodernists.

This pseudo-modern world, so frightening and seemingly uncontrollable, inevitably feeds a desire to return to the infantile playing with toys which also characterises the pseudo-modern cultural world. Here, the typical emotional state, radically superseding the hyper-consciousness of irony, is the trance – the state of being swallowed up by your activity. In place of the neurosis of modernism and the narcissism of postmodernism, pseudo-modernism takes the world away, by creating a new weightless nowhere of silent autism. You click, you punch the keys, you are ‘involved’, engulfed, deciding. You are the text, there is no-one else, no ‘author’; there is nowhere else, no other time or place. You are free: you are the text: the text is superseded.

© Dr Alan Kirby 2006

Alan Kirby holds a PhD in English Literature from the University of Exeter. He currently lives in Oxford." (It relates to Charles Murray's concern of modern cultural products after Renaissance to 1750, that products nowadays are short-lived.);

Philosophy-note:a

Personal philosophy-note:v

2026.06.08/poetry .com/poem/264806/who-am-i,-really? : Reinterpretation: "things I pretended to love so someone would stay." (Reason why he says he likes me but doesn't show it and seemingly being off-character to him.)..."Only I remain awake, " (Common sense empiricism.) "digging through the earth of myself" (Pragmatism.) "with bloodied hands" (More scientific common sense empiricism because of the roughness of their hands to the point that it becomes bloody.) ", searching for a truth " (A truth could be the truth of the existence of the truth.) "that may never have existed." (It's uncertain whether metaphysical reality exists.) " Perhaps there is no hidden self waiting beneath the masks. " (Nihilism.) " Perhaps I am the masks." (Hume's secondary qualities/perception of things without the thing in itself without the first qualities, which contradicts Kant's notion of a transcendent cause for our sense-perception.);

2026.06.12/DTV: Toy Story 5 movie-Trailer: The toys are older, but only a bit wiser. (Like US wages being minimally higher but rent price rises more. Like IQ, creativity and population stagnates. Like Homo sapiens Sapiens in 18th century with Britain being Independent the most and late-18th-century France acting like an fast-changing swing voter, AIs in 21st century/2050 are going to become more innovative than the human geniuses at 1750. According to Charles Murray through my memory, and interpretation math is the earliest and least resource-expensive innovation to make. YT-comment said that AIs make innovations at math.)

Personal philosophy-note:a

Media-Note:v

2026.04.25: YouTube: econimate: The Political consequences of losses of local newspapers: Between 1995-2010, Craigslist-mostly-free-ads-placements causes decline and lost of Ad revenue at roughly 13%. Lack of local newspapers makes voters less discriminate to differentiate between different local candidates, making voters focusing more on national characteristics such as party labels.;

2025: Indian YT-Video: Video recorders in 1980s marks beginning for personalization of media.

Media-Note:a

YouTube-note:v

2026.05.06/youtube .com/watch?v=Y-W-w8yNiKU : " @andrew3203 4 months ago Just remember this is a Youtube video and there is false or assumed information presented as fact. Speed of light is not 300 million meters per second. Lightspeed is a bit slower and also we cannot really measure it, only the return light from a mirror. Physics assume that light would travel at the same speed to and from the mirror, but we don't know. 21 likes 4 replies"

YouTube-note:a

Jews-note:v

2026.04.24/howiehayman .com/thoughts-japan-connection-between-the-jews-and-the-ten-lost-tribes-of-israel-and-japanese-religion-and-culture.htm

Jews-note:a

1800s Dutch East-note: 2026.01.10/researchgate .net/profile/Christiaan-George-Frederik-De-Jong/publication/283322157_A_Footnote_to_the_Colonial_History_of_the_Dutch_East_Indies_The_Little_East_in_the_first_half_of_the_nineteenth_century/links/5633584708ae242468db9750/A-Footnote-to-the-Colonial-History-of-the-Dutch-East-Indies-The-Little-East-in-the-first-half-of-the-nineteenth-century.pdf?origin=publication_detail&_tp=eyJjb250ZXh0Ijp7ImZpcnN0UGFnZSI6InB1YmxpY2F0aW9uIiwicGFnZSI6InB1YmxpY2F0aW9uRG93bmxvYWQiLCJwcmV2aW91c1BhZ2UiOiJwdWJsaWNhdGlvbiJ9fQ : p.18: "Although the colonial administration had after 1800 openly distanced itself from the atrocities and coercion of the past, and impressed upon the population that it first and foremost aspired to secure its happiness and well-being, the inhabitants remained suspicious.",

p.19: "In many places the wish for the Dutch to return was totally lacking, particularly in places where the lack of (Dutch) order and security offered a chance of significant earnings.",

p.56: The integration of the Little East into the Dutch East Indies after 1800 went according to plan. A struggle between London and The Hague did not occur. This was not because the treaties of 1814 and 1824 defused a tense situation. These treaties did nothing other than direct the aspirations of both powers in Southeast Asia into proper channels.

There were fights. But this struggle was more of an intellectual, economic and propagandist kind of a physical or military nature and was not between two sovereign nations, but between the Dutch colonial authorities and free British and other traders, merchants and pioneers, of whom Assey, Earl and Roberts were spokespersons. These representatives of early-modern commercial capitalism felt uncomfortable with the semi-mercantilist and protectionist world of the British East India Company and the Dutch Trading Company. In their eyes national trade privileges and monopolies belonged to the past. They lost the battle. They were no match for the economic ancien régime in The Hague and Batavia... In the middle of the 19th century, the days of foreign protection had passed away and any attempts comes with rude resistance. (Like USA in John Mearsheimer.'s analysis.);

2026.01.10/V-Dem: 1806 has lowest Alternatives source information index in World. Indonesia: 0.08.;

Colonialism-note:v

2026.03.20/reddit .com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1alr6mw/did_european_colonists_forcefully_kill_off_the/ : "difficult to establish any clear intent of the first decades of Spanish occupation of South America.";

2026.03.20/reddit .com/r/AskHistorians/comments/ibrrzc/what_would_a_high_ranking_andean_noble_have_known/ : "Protestantism had an insignificant presence in the Andes well into the 1980s. Ethnographies of religion in Quechua communities regularly contain stories of the "weird uncle" who traveled to the city in 1988, got caught up in Pentecostalism, and has tried (sometimes successfully) to establish a branch of the church in his district. The earliest mention of a Protestant mission to Peru is from 1822; that this is immediately after the South American independence movements is no coincidence.

Yet Latin American Catholicism emerged alongside the Inquisition, so Protestantism was never properly absent.";

2026.03.20/en.wikipedia .org/wiki/Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples : "Without this genocidal intent, a group or individual may commit "crimes against humanity" or "ethnic cleansing," but not genocide.[17]", "effects of diseases such as smallpox, measles and cholera during the first century of colonialism contributed greatly to the death toll, while violence, displacement, and warfare against the Indians by colonizers contributed to the death toll in subsequent centuries.", "pre-Columbian population figures are difficult to estimate due to the fragmentary nature of the evidence. Estimates range from 8 to 112 million.[94] Russel Thornton has pointed out that there were disastrous epidemics and population losses during the first half of the sixteenth century "resulting from incidental contact, or even without direct contact, as disease spread from one American Indian tribe to another."[95] Thornton has also challenged higher indigenous population estimates, which are based on the Malthusian assumption that "populations tend to increase to, and beyond, the limits of the food available to them at any particular level of technology".[96]", "drastic population decline is an example of genocide is controversial, because scholars have argued about whether the process as a whole or whether specific periods and local processes qualify as genocide under the legal definition of it. Raphael Lemkin, the originator of the term "genocide", considered the colonial replacement of Native Americans by English and later British colonists to be one of the historical examples of genocide.[20]", "disruptions caused by the expedition increased the vulnerability of Native people to diseases including syphilis and dysentery, already present in the Americas, and malaria, a disease recently introduced from the eastern hemisphere."", "initial conquest of the Americas completed, the Spanish implemented the encomienda system in 1503. In theory, the encomienda placed groups of indigenous peoples under Spanish oversight to foster cultural assimilation and conversion to Catholicism, but in practice it led to the legally sanctioned forced labor and resource extraction under brutal conditions with a high death rate." (So not assimilation nor conversion.), "Though the Spaniards did not set out to exterminate the indigenous peoples, believing their numbers to be inexhaustible, their actions led to the annihilation of entire tribes such as the Arawak.", "encomienda was a genocidal system which "had driven many millions of native peoples in Central and South America to early and agonizing deaths."", "extreme brutality and exterminatory nature of the mode of warfare practiced by the Iroquois", "The Kalinago genocide was the massacre of some 2,000 Island Caribs in St. Kitts by English and French settlers in 1626. The Carib chief Tegremond became uneasy with the increasing number of English and French settlers occupying St. Kitts. This led to confrontations, which led him to plot the settlers' elimination with the aid of other Island Caribs. However, his scheme was betrayed by an Indian woman called Barbe, to Thomas Warner and Pierre Belain d'Esnambuc. Taking action, the English and French settlers invited the Caribs to a party where they became intoxicated. When the Caribs returned to their village, 120 were killed in their sleep, including Chief Tegremond.", "demographic change in Algeria can be divided into three phases: an almost constant decline during the conquest period, up until its heaviest drop from an estimated 2.7 million in 1861 to 2.1 million in 1871, and finally moving into a gradual increase[204] to a level of three million inhabitants by 1890. The causes range from a series of famines, diseases, and emigration[205] to the violent methods used by the French army during their Pacification of Algeria, which historians[which?] argue constitute acts of genocide.", "Leopold II of Belgium, the population loss in the Congo Free State is estimated at sixty percent, up to 15 million people having been killed.[207] The Congo Free State was hit especially hard by sleeping sickness and smallpox epidemics.[208] The characterisation of the loss of life as "genocidal" is, however, a matter of debate among historians.", "conquest of the Canary Islands by the Crown of Castille took place between 1402 and 1496. Initially carried out by members of the Castilian nobility in exchange for a covenant of allegiance to the crown, the process was later carried out by the Spanish crown itself during the reign of the Catholic Monarchs. Various scholars have used the term "genocide" to describe the conquest of the Canary Islands.[209][210][211][212][213] Mohamed Adhikhari argues that the Canary Islands were the scene of "Europe's first overseas settler colonial genocide", and that the mass killing and enslavement of natives, along with forced deportation, sexual violence and confiscation of land and children constituted an attempt to "destroy in whole" the Guanche people.[211] The tactics used in the Canary Islands in the 15th century served as a model for the Iberian colonization of the Americas.[211][209]", "statement[c] released at the time by Governor Gustav Adolf von Götzen did not exculpate him from the charge of genocide, but was proof that the German administration knew that their scorched earth methods would result in famine.", "Pacification of Libya,[222] also known as the Libyan Genocide[223][224][225][226] or Second Italo-Senussi War" Italy and Germany apologized and saw it as genocide., "After the establishment of the Dutch Cape Colony in 1652, the Dutch settlers and their Afrikaner descendants engaged in a series of conflicts against the indigenous San people. Over the centuries, thousands of San were massacred, while others were forced to work for the settlers. By the 1870s, the last San residing in the Cape region were hunted to extinction. The last government license to hunt San was reportedly issued in South West Africa (present-day Namibia) in 1936.";

2026.03.20/en.wikipedia .org/wiki/Atrocities_in_the_Congo_Free_State#Historiography_and_the_term_%22genocide%22 : "some scholars to relate the atrocities to later genocides, though understanding of the losses under the colonial administration's rule as the result of harsh economic exploitation rather than a policy of deliberate extermination has led others to dispute the comparison;[121] there is an open debate as to whether the atrocities constitute genocide.", "generally agreed by historians that extermination was never the policy of the Free State. According to David Van Reybrouck, "It would be absurd ... to speak of an act of 'genocide' or a 'holocaust'; genocide implies the conscious, planned annihilation of a specific population, and that was never the intention here, or the result ... But it was definitely a hecatomb, a slaughter on a staggering scale that was not intentional, but could have been recognised much earlier as the collateral damage of a perfidious, rapacious policy of exploitation".[128] Historian Barbara Emerson stated, "Leopold did not start genocide. He was greedy for money and chose not to interest himself when things got out of control."[62]";

2026.03.24/en.wikipedia .org/wiki/Colonialism_and_genocide : "Colonialism's emphasis on imperialism, land dispossession, resource extraction, and cultural destruction frequently resulted in genocidal practices aimed at attacking Indigenous peoples and existing populations as a means to attain colonial goals.[1][need quotation to verify][2] According to historian Patrick Wolfe, "[t]he question of genocide is never far from discussions of settler colonialism."[3] Historians have commented that although colonialism does not necessarily directly involve genocide, research suggests that the two share a connection.[4]";

2026.03.24/en.wikipedia .org/wiki/Settler_colonialism : "Settler colonialism is a process by which settlers exercise colonial rule over a land and its indigenous peoples, transforming the land and replacing or assimilating its population with or into the society of the settlers.[1][2][3][4][5] Assimilation has sometimes been conceptualized in biological terms such as the "breeding of a minority population into a majority," but in other cases, such as in some parts of Latin America, biological mixing of populations was less problematic.[6]", "Settler colonialism is a form of exogenous (of external origin, coming from the outside) domination typically organized or supported by an imperial authority, which maintains a connection or control to the territory through the settler's colonialism.[7] Settler colonialism contrasts with exploitation colonialism, where the imperial power conquers territory to exploit the natural resources and gain a source of cheap or free labor.", "Settler colonial studies have often focused on English-speaking settler colonies in Australia and North America, which are close to the complete, prototypical form of settler colonialism.[9] However, settler colonialism is not restricted to any specific culture; it has been practised by non-Europeans, and among European cultures, as in the case of Ireland.[2][10]", "Wolfe and his "intellectual successor" Lorenzo Veracini, settler colonialism is "structural, eliminatory, and land based, which—they argued—distinguish it from franchise colonialism, which is based on the exploitation of the native population instead."[9]", "According to certain genocide scholars, including Raphael Lemkin—the individual who coined the term genocide—colonization is intimately connected with genocide.[18] Some scholars further describe the process as inherently genocidal, considering settler colonialism to entail the elimination of existing peoples and cultures,[19] and not only their displacement (see genocide, "the intentional destruction of a people in whole or in part").[citation needed] Depending on the definition, for Wolfe settler colonial eliminationism may be enacted by a variety of means, including mass killing of the previous inhabitants, removal of the previous inhabitants and/or cultural assimilation.[20] However, the opposite argument has been made by Veracini, who argues that all genocide is settler colonial in nature but not all settler colonialism is genocidal.[21] Sai Englert also argues against the Wolfe model, proposing that settler colonies have used both elimination and exploitation in their relations with indigenous peoples, and often transitioned from one to the other: "By assuming that exploitation, by definition, lays outside the realm of its field of study, SCS has privileged the analysis of the Anglo-settler world—primarily North America and Oceania." For him, the specificity of settler colonialism from other forms of colonialism is its social relations of class struggle within settler societies over the distribution of "colonial loot".[9] Settler colonialism is distinct from replacement migration due to integration of immigrants into an existing society and not replacement with a parallel society.[22][23]", "settler states include the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Argentina, Uruguay, Israel, and Taiwan, and formerly South Africa, Liberia, and Rhodesia.[25][26][27]", "New Caledonia,[28] Western New Guinea,[29] the Andaman Islands, Argentina,[30] Uruguay, Australia, British Kenya, the Canary Islands,[31] Northern Cyprus,[32] Fiji, French Algeria,[33] Generalplan Ost, Hawaii,[34] Ireland,[10] Israel/Palestine, Italian Libya and East Africa,[35][36] Kashmir,[37][38][39] Hokkaido, Korea and Manchukuo,[40][41] Jazira and Kirkuk,[42] Latin America, Liberia, New Zealand, northern Afghanistan,[43][44][45][46] the United States, Canada, Posen and West Prussia and German South West Africa,[47] Rhodesia, Sápmi,[48][11][page needed][49][50] South Africa, South Vietnam,[51][52][53] and Taiwan.[9][54]", Liberia: "some scholars as a unique example of settler colonialism and the only known instance of Black settler colonialism", "Near the end of their rule the Qing dynasty attempted to colonize Xinjiang, Tibet, and other parts of the imperial frontier. To accomplish this goal, they began resettling Han Chinese on the frontier.[94] This policy of settler colonialism was renewed by the People's Republic of China, led by Chinese Communist Party", "Russia as a settler colonial state, particularly in its expansion into Siberia and the Russian Far East, during which it displaced and resettled Indigenous peoples, while practicing settler colonialism.[122][123][124] The annexation of Siberia and the Far East to Russia was resisted by the Indigenous peoples, while the Cossacks often committed atrocities against them.[125] This colonization continued during the Soviet Union in the 20th century.[126][page needed] The Soviet policy also included the deportation of native populations, as in the case of the Crimean Tatars.", "1974 Turkish invasion of Cyprus, Turkey facilitated the mass resettlement of civilians from mainland Turkey into the northern part of the island, supplementing the Turkish Cypriot population.";

2026.03.27/thehistoryjunkie .com/five-reasons-the-native-americans-were-defeated-by-europe-and-the-americans/ : "Disease", "disease and, specifically, what smallpox did to them. When the Europeans arrived in the New World, they had endured generations of disease. The Black Plague had wiped out one-third of the population of Europe, and they were used to dealing with outbreaks of smallpox. Those who survived or were exposed to the disease developed antibodies and natural immunity to the disease but were still carriers. The natives did not have the immune system to combat that. Hernan Cortes is credited with the conquest of the Aztecs. However, that was not an easy task for him. In his first attempt, he was almost killed, and his men were forced to flee the capital of the Aztecs. Despite his superior weapons, he was outmanned by the stronger military power. However, what happened next is what caused the fall of the Aztecs. The disease spread rampantly and killed 5 million Aztecs. This not only affected the Aztecs but all native populations within Mexico. This weakened the powerful empire and allowed Cortes to strike again, and this time, he would not flee for his life but instead take theirs.", "story of the Aztecs is the same story seen throughout the New World. When Native Americans came in contact with Europeans, there would eventually be an outbreak that would spread among them. Some tribes lost 80% of their population and were forced to merge with another tribe just to sustain themselves.", "population loses 30% - 80% of their people to disease", "During the Revolutionary War, many tribes on the coast had been crushed by disease and were severely weakened, had merged with another tribe, or no longer existed.", "Inferior Technology", "Europe and Asia had developed strong navies that could sail long distances and handle terrible storms on the oceans.", "There was not a single tribe that had a formidable navy. Even after they acquired horses and became excellent horsemen, they did not have strong cavalries, and the list can go on.

The natives would eventually be well armed due to trade with the French and English. Despite being well-armed and having more weapons and ammunition than the colonists, they never were successful at maintaining their land.",

"Native Americans were excellent guerilla fighters. They were able to perform lightning attacks that could devastate the strongest enemy and then fade into the landscape, but that did not capture towns.", "However, they were poor fighters during a siege, and siege warfare was used to defeat them.", "During the time of the Revolutionary War, they were still excellent guerilla fighters, but the colonists had learned", "This would be especially true during the Conquest of the Aztecs.

When Cortes set up the siege, the natives did not know how to break it. This warfare was viewed as cowardly to them, but to Cortes, it was effective.", "siege spread disease and starved them. It was an excellent tactic employed against them since they had superior numbers but inferior technology.", "They Were Not Unified", "evil white men pushed the Indians off of their land. That is certainly the case after the War of 1812. However, that is not true during the colonial period.", "treaty that Chief Massasoit made with the Pilgrims helped strengthen the Wampanoag tribe against other Northeast Indian Tribes. This alliance helped shift the balance of power in favor of the Wampanoags. This treaty lasted until King Philip's War, when the colonists' population grew to the point it became an issue for many tribes, including the Wampanoag Confederation. The tribe went to war against the colonists. However, the colonists were not alone. They had Native American allies who fought alongside them. Metacomet retreated into New York to escape the colonists in Massachusetts Bay, only to be attacked by the Mohawk tribe and driven back into New England. During the French and Indian War, the French seemed to have the support of most of the Native Americans. However, the powerful Iroquois Confederacy fought on the side of the British with the intention of expanding their borders. The Wyandot tribe was split in that half of its people supported the French, and half supported the British. During the American Revolution, the once-powerful Iroquois Confederacy split, with two tribes supporting the Americans and the others in support of the British. Joseph Brant tried to unite the tribes in order to try and create a nation, but he was unable to do so. Brant's idea spread to Tecumseh, who began to try and unite the tribes to create a buffer nation between the expanding Americans and the British. However, old feuds proved to be too much for the idealistic leader. Multiple tribes joined the Americans, including the Seneca and Cherokee tribes.", "happened during Colonial America one quickly learns that American Indians acted in their own self-interest. They would often leverage this new power for their own advantage and would strike against their ancient foe.", "tribal nature of the natives did not allow them to unify, and because they did not unify, they were limited in what they could achieve. When English-speaking colonists arrived and continued to arrive, they managed to ally with each other, which allowed them to create a robust economy.", "They were Conquered by a Superior Enemy", Conclusion: "many times that the American Indians were treated unfairly, and there were times when they picked a fight that could not be won.", "other tribes that had fought for the Americans during the American Revolution that were also mistreated even after helping the Americans win the war.", "They chose to be absorbed and were given reservations of land.

To this day, Native Americans identify by tribe and not by one nation. Tribalism does not survive against a unified enemy.";

2026.03.26/theedgeofepidemiology.substack .com/p/why-europeans-didnt-get-hit-by-disease : "lack of crowd-based diseases. This is mostly due to a few main factors: first, the lack of carrying domesticated animals. The Old World had domesticated large herd animals at least 10,000 years ago, with zoonotic diseases from the likes of cattle, pigs, sheep, goats, horses, and camels being widespread by 5,000 years ago. Camelpox gave us the likes of smallpox, rinderpest from cattle gave us measles, and influenza came from various birds or pig species to name a couple of sources. Compare that to the domesticated species in the Americas with llamas, alpacas, turkeys, and ducks (anywhere from 5,000 to 7,000 years ago) being the most prominent and apparently not transmitting many diseases to the Americans. The Americas also had much more dispersed patterns of settlement much longer, meaning far fewer diseases were floating around. One major infectious disease does seem to have made its way over from the Americas to Europe, and that is syphilis. At least 80,000 people per year from 1980 to 2007 died of syphilis with modern death rates at 74,000 deaths per year, the vast majority of which are in children, and about half of which are in Africa.", "Most of the population clusters within the Americas would have likely seen similar, highly infectious diseases burn out. Trade connectivity was also different in the Americas, with fewer dense urban centers being connected by regular maritime trade than Eurasia had which allowed more diseases to spread in the latter. All that to say, the Americas were a much friendlier disease environment for European explorers and colonial efforts than the likes of Africa and Asia.", "Those in the “Gold Coast” (modern day Gulf of Guinea in West Africa) faced death rates up to 67% in a single year earning it the nickname “White Man’s Grave” with rates of 30% being relatively common. In the 1800s quinine became the way Europeans would combat the newly encountered parasites, reducing mortality from malaria by between 50-75% and was what enabled the further colonial expansion that was previously blocked by high-malaria density areas. Yellow fever was another African mosquito-borne disease, this time transmitted by the Aedes aegypti mosquito, which killed Europeans at similar catastrophically high rates in West Africa and the Caribbean (where it had been introduced via the slave trade).", "Indigenous groups already knew to avoid these areas but colonial economic activities like rubber harvesting meant groups who had avoided the areas for centuries or more were forced into the fly-infested areas leading to epidemic waves of sleeping sickness.", "The difference with this disease was a lack of selectivity between the death rates of native Africans and Europeans. However, because of the power structure forced upon the native groups with Europeans avoiding the deeper bush and rivers where the disease was endemic, the African laborers had higher rates of contact and thus sleeping sickness became known as an “African disease.”",

"European expansion into Africa and Asia meant confronting disease environments with incredible lethality. Annual mortality rates were roughly 30-45 times higher in places like West Africa compared to home. Colonial ambitions had driven them into disease zones that their ancestors had either avoided, or slowly adapted to through genetics, childhood exposures, and avoidance of the habitats associated with certain vectors. The Europeans, who largely lacked these adaptations and knowledge-based habits, died as a result. Quinine prophylaxis, sanitation reforms, and vector control efforts gradually reduced European mortality rates which enabled the colonial projects that had been previously blocked by diseases, but until then, tropical Africa and Asia remained a far more dangerous place for Europeans than the Americas.", "JMcG Feb 23 Liked by Devin Teichrow Isn’t syphilis considered to be a new world disease that was brought back to Europe? Syphilis was fatal until the advent of antibiotics. Not only fatal, but increasingly horrible as the disease progressed.";

2026.03.26/nobelprize .org/uploads/2024/12/johnson-lecture.pdf : p.9: "If 1,000 young adult male Europeans migrated in early

1800s, there were three zones of death for them...

• Extremely high

• West Africa: ~500 would die in the first year

• High

• West Indies: 85-130 per annum would die

• India: 40-70 per annum would die

• Low

• Northern US/Canada: 15 per annum would die

In Britain/France: 15-20 would die",

p.10: "Disease environments influenced European colonial strategies Three settler mortality groups in the data: Extreme, High, and Low

Extreme (7+ times Europe):

In West Africa, Europeans generated huge profits with the slave trade and tried to minimize time on land

High (2-4 times Europe):

In India and the West Indies, Europeans tried to make as much money as possible before soon returning to England

Low (similar to Europe):

Attracted European settlers to the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand",

p.11: "Colonial strategies resulted in two paths for institutions

Across all European colonies, the Indigenous experience was brutal" Low: Settler colonies > Inclusive Institution > High current income per capita, High: Non-settler colonies > Extractive institutions > Low current income per capita,

p.12: "effect of institutions was so dramatic that initially rich places became poor... and low-income places became rich",

p.13: "Industrial Revolution starts (~1770)",

p.27: "The cotton gin facilitated the spread of slave plantations";

2026.03.26/reddit .com/r/history/comments/9u62wb/how_come_european_colonial_settlers_were_able_to/ : "TyroneLeinster • 7y ago Many people have cited disease, which may be the biggest factor. But another is that the new world was the focal point of colonial agriculture. Plantations needed people to run them and there was no existing infrastructure or local expertise in the kind of system they were implementing. African land was more about logistics than production and presumably a much less appealing spot to settle for the most part. Asia was heavily populated and a dynamic economy already existed that didn’t require as much European resettlement." 3 upvotes,

"Ivan_Botsky_Trollov • 7y ago Americas : the Europeans carried diseases that wiped up to 80-90% of the Native population in just a century. Australia : It doesnt seem to have been densely populated to start with, so the Aborigines were overwhelmed by wave after wave of settlers from UK and europe. Africa: The climate is more hostile to Europeans, and they arrived as colonizers quite late in history (19th century) so the intention of colonizing was just a mild attempt. India : Are you sure you can replace about a billion or so native inhabitants?" 3 upvotes, "Mackana • 7y ago In the case of the Americas, disease dealt the first major blow to indigenous populations. After that, a constant supply of new immigrants (colonists) and systematic resesettling / extermination of the indigenous populations. In the case of Africa and Asia the disease part was not as big a factor because unlike the Americas, Africa and Asia are not separated from Europe by an ocean. Throughout history there's always been plenty of interaction and trade between these regions. In fact, the black death originated in China and travelled west to Europe following the silk road. And the disease part was somewhat opposite in Africa as malaria is naturally occuring there and not in Europe, so many european colonists died from that and it was a major reason why colonization of Africa happened so much later. The colonists had virtually no immunity to malaria whereas the indigenous populations, though they weren't immune, had some defense against it. Because of this the already well established kingdoms and empires of Africa and Asia never suffered the same kind of societal collapse as the American ones, so the colonists didn't really get the upper hand until the introduction of the Maxim Gun." 4 upvotes,

tenninjas242 • 8y ago : ..."As far as Africa goes, diseases were actually on the side of the natives rather than the colonizers. Sub-Saharan Africa has multiple endemic diseases which Europeans had minimal resistance to. Huge numbers of Europeans attempting to colonize or do business in Africa died from dengue, malaria, yellow fever and other diseases until the invention of quinine (which helped control malaria symptoms). It also didn't help that horses do not do well in Sub-Saharan Africa. Just like for their European importers and riders, there are a number of parasites and diseases which are very deadly to horses. There's a reason you don't see any large scale use of horses in Sub-Saharan cultures. This meant that it was very difficult for Europeans to penetrate into the African interior farther than the edges of navigable rivers. It wasn't until the introduction of railroads - right around the same time as the invention of quinine - that allowed Europeans to expand their zones of control beyond a few miles from the water's edge. Asia, of course, as part of the Old World was not particularly susceptible to European diseases because they had the exact same ones. Asia resisted direct colonization for a much longer time as well because there were many large, well-developed and centralized states which resisted incursions into their territory. The Chinese Empire, Japan, Siam (Thailand), the Mughal Empire, the Ottoman Empire, and Persia, just to name a few. These were states with large geographical reach, economic power, and the ability to raise armies every bit as large and technologically advanced as the Europeans who were coming their way - for a while, at least. It wasn't until the mid- to late-1700s that European military technology began to seriously eclipse that of the Asian nations. Before this time, a European expedition of a few ships (even if they did have dozens of cannons apiece) and a few hundred or thousand soliders were all that could reasonably be deployed to the Indian Ocean or the Pacific, and only at great cost; just about any major Asian state would easily outnumber any invader. Eventually, European technology did begin to eclipse Asian technology - although the reasons for this are also very complicated and controversial. And not just better guns or cannons or ships, but better *economic* technology. The ability of comparatively small states such as the Netherlands and Great Britain to expand their tax receipts, use national debt, and expand their economic bases through what are now considered common capitalist means, gave them a huge advantage over Asian nations which were still using basically medieval economic systems. For more information on this, I can recommend the book "Why Did Europe Conquer The World?" by Phillip T. Hoffman. It is a book that concentrates on economic theory to explain both the culture of European militarism and how Europeans were able to utilize that culture to take over basically the entire planet." 4 upvotes;

< 2026.03.28/reddit .com/r/history/comments/9u62wb/comment/e93ivzq/ : "Power2thap33ps • 8y ago It also didn't help that horses do not do well in Sub-Saharan Africa. Source? Calvary was an important part of conquest and empire building in Wagadou, Mali, Songhai, Kanem, Sudan, Benin, Ehiopia. So I would have to call bullshit on that claim. Horses are all over Nigeria and that's the most populous African country by far and always has had the highest population and density of people in Africa bar the Nile. Just like for their European importers and riders, there are a number of parasites and diseases which are very deadly to horses There's a reason you don't see any large scale use of horses in Sub-Saharan cultures. Again, not sure where you get this notion from? I've read the epics of Sundata Keita and Askia Mohammed, plenty of horses in the armys." 1 upvote,

tenninjas242 • 8y ago : "Sorry, I might have been being a bit too general. I didn't mean to imply there were no horses at all in Africa. I'm thinking mainly of the tse tse fly, which carries a parasite which is deadly to horses and other cattle. These weren't everywhere in Africa, obviously, and the cultures you mention did indeed use cavalry. But horses, especially European breeds, were definitely more difficult to keep healthy in certain areas of Western and Central Africa. Just like the European humans." 2 upvotes,

u/Power2thap33ps • 8y ago : The places I named contain the majority of the African population as well as the some of the largest empires and kingdoms in history period. The average European was not riding horses or involved in any kind of horse culture to my knowledge. European hunter/gatherer were not riding horses to my knowledge. No different than in Africa. Horses were a sign of wealth and a part of the military culture. Rock art in Libya and Niger show people riding ponies with chariots as early as 5000 BC-7000 BC. 1 upvote,

tenninjas242 • 7y ago : "Sure, but I thought we were talking about the period of European colonization? I am definitely less educated than I would like on sub-Saharan African history, so I will take your word on that." 1 upvote,

Power2thap33ps • 7y ago European colonization So the late 1800's? Yes horses and horse culture existed during the late 1800's. If it existed in the 1200's I think it would exist in the 1800's. sub-Saharan African history Also, "sub-saharan" Africa is a European colonial imaginary term used to justify killing millions. It makes no sense when you open a map, study African history, and use logic. There is no "sub-saharan history" only African history. Show me at any point in time in Africa where a person from Mali couldn't walk a few feet to the border of what is modern day Tunisia. 1 upvote,

tenninjas242 • 7y ago : "Obviously there isn't a real impassable border between the various regions of Africa. I never said that. Traders have been crossing the Sahara since hell, I dunno, probably before recorded history."..."I've already admitted that it was probably incorrect based on the information you've already provided."

| respond to MeSmeshFruit : tenninjas242 • 8y ago : "Not meaning to imply that Europeans were any more warlike than any other human cultures. If there's one thing humans have traditionally just loved to do it's organize themselves into big groups to murder a bunch of other dudes. Europeans just got particularly good at it. Whether you think that's a good or bad thing is a judgement call.";

< 2026.03.28/reddit .com/r/history/comments/9u62wb/comment/e9431pz/?force-legacy-sct=1 :

MeSmeshFruit • 7y ago Colonization started way before Napoleonic wars. 1 upvote,

u/Sean951 avatar Sean951 • 7y ago In the Americas and small outposts. It took off in the later 1700s and 1800s, especially in Asia." 1 upvote;

< 2026.03.28/reddit .com/r/history/comments/9u62wb/comment/e94e4ht/?force-legacy-sct=1 :

Power2thap33ps • 7y ago:

"Sub Sahara was used by Europeans to separate the areas they encountered black people from the rest of the world as if the 22nd parallel is a magical barrier. Africans never referred to a "sub-sahara" Africa, which is a euphemism for black Africa, even that is a misnomer since African = black. Blacks have always existed in north Africa (still do to this day) and are the oldest population in north Africa. Arabs and the so called olive skinned semitic people (for getting that there are black semetics and that the word semetic was also used by Europeans for the same reason) are not native to north Africa. Oldest mummies in Libya = negros according anthropologists, oldest rock art shows blacks, and we have the history books in Timbuktu written by blacks about the history of the region.";

2026.03.28/reddit .com/r/history/comments/9u62wb/comment/e9463m3/?force-legacy-sct=1 : Power2thap33ps • 7y ago : "That's the problem. Chiekh Anta Diops and Chancellor Williams's work on africa are unrivaled till this day. They are the authority of African culture and history. Sub-sahara is not something we Africans like. It's quite insulting. 2 u/tenninjas242 avatar tenninjas242 • 7y ago I apologize for using a racist term. Not my intention whatsoever. And I should say thank you for educating me.";

2026.03.28/reddit .com/r/AgeofExploration/comments/1r6l0nx/when_the_europeans_reached_the_americas_in_the/?chainedPosts=t3_9u62wb : "Ekasio99 • 1mo ago That's why there are almost no ethnic groups in South America compared to other continents, which makes us culturally more homogeneous and united. Upvote 0,

Question got 1 upvote., Ekasio99 • 1mo ago I mean that most South American citizens share a common identity due to the homogeneity of their ethnicities. For example, in Argentina, most citizens don't identify with a particular ethnicity; they simply identify as "Argentinians." Meanwhile, in Nigeria, there are more than 250 ethnic groups, leading to constant conflicts with the ruling ethnic group, as it's impossible for everyone to be satisfied with the government.";

2026.03.28/youtube .com/watch?v=sgMa9WMzRP8 : "@mickeyg7219 9 years ago ***** Epidemiological-wise, there is no way a disease could sweep across the entire continent like that, especially when tribes seldom even came into contact with one another, especially further out in the west. When European arrived, they settled on a relatively small area in the Northeast. The only way for disease to wipe out natives like that is if the continent was densely populated, and every settlement have consistent contact with each other. And to address your question, sources varied, and when there's one, it usually give an estimate for the entire continent, not just the U.S. Estimate varied, but what's for sure is that Latin America (specifically Central American-Mexico region) contained the majority of the native population. bxscience .edu/ourpages/auto/2009/4/5/34767803/Pre-Columbian%20population.pdf The low estimate for pre-Columbian native population north of modern-day Mexico is 90,000, and high estimate to slightly above 12 million. Mind you that this figure included both Canada and United States. And based on the archeological evidence, there is no way natives in Canada and the U.S. could exceeds more than 15 million because they don't have extensive agriculture like Mesoamerican civilizations do." 7 likes < @transcendentape counter-claim which he counters since beginning got 1 like.,

@mickeyg7219 9 years ago ***** You mistaken my point here, I'm addressing about the estimated population for the Native Americans, not about epidemiology about diseases. I didn't even mentioned about disease when I cited that source. And by the way, Wikipedia is my first source I went to, but it didn't give me a detailed estimates. Also, I know that pre-Columbian America does have trading activities, but it was more of a Mesoamerican civilizations stuff. For North American natives, trading does exist, but giving the sparse population and low-density settlement of the natives west of Mississippi River, trading is very infrequent, some tribes may not trade at all. And I'm not disputing the fact that 90% of the natives was wiped out by disease. But the more densely populated area east of Mississippi and major Mesoamerican cities alone comprised large portion of native death. The natives in more sparsely populated area is mostly killed off by westward expansion. All I'm saying is that at least one of my point still stand. 1 like,

@dlwatib 9 years ago One could just as easily ask what the demographics of Europe would be like now if the plagues had totally wiped out the population of Europe and they had to start repopulating from scratch. Southwestern Europe would probably be Arabic, northern Europe would probably be Hunnic and eastern Europe would probably be Turkish. 3 likes,

@jeromemalenfant6622 8 years ago +transcendentape "England dominated the subcontinent of India without supplanting the population. Italy, France, Netherlands, England, and perhaps more colonized areas of Africa without supplanting the population. France, England, and Spain colonized SE Asia and the Pacific Islands without supplanting the native population." True, but the difference in climate between those European countries and India, Africa, etc probably discouraged large-scale immigration. On the other hand North America has a climate similar to Europe, making it more attractive to poor landless Europeans. 1 like,

@roldanbelenos1549 8 years ago "Especially when tribes seldom even came into contact with one another." This is just not factually true. It has long been established by historians, ethnologists, and archaeologists that Native American tribal groups regularly and actively traded with each other, sometimes over great distances. Many of the tribes were nomadic or semi-nomadic, and travel by boats along rivers, lakes, bays, and the ocean was an every-day occurrence. And while most every group had their own language, Native Americans had developed a common lingua franca because of their interactions with each other. 6 likes,

" @NefariousKoel 8 years ago The US would be similar to what it is today. The natives, in the modern US, weren't all killed in a widespread "genocide". That's modern revisionist nonsense. Most of the natives genetically mingled with those of European descent a long time ago. Because there were so many Europeans who continued to emigrate to America, the gene pool just continued to be filled with white European traits, over the long run, continuing an abundance of such. The natives joined more modern American society in droves. They weren't killed off wholesale by it. The small amount of pure natives left are the ones who who didn't want to do so, remaining separate by their own choice. That's not to say everything was always peachy, in the earlier history between the two cultures, but to say that the native decline was due to genocide is a falsehood you've been told too often, or wish to be true, which is a testament to sensationalism more than anything. You can see results of this in special opportunities those with partial native blood are offered in the US. How do you think the requisite of being "At least 1/4 native american", to qualify for special grants & such came about? The natives didn't just begin turning white-euro on their own. There are quite a few old Euro-American families who have a little native blood in their genes. Because they don't add up to a quarter, or more, they're just considered "white" by most people. Convenient for revisionists crying, "genocide" for the history of the US. But, in fact, the populations largely intermingled. The natives weren't kept in concentration camps for hundreds of years, in the US, despite some trying to push that kind of narrative. Like George Carlin said, ".. and there was a LOT of fucking"." 2 likes,

@20stands 7 years ago @Wardell43 you have to realize native burial is rarely a burial in the earth. Many times we would have sky burials, we don't keep the bones of our ancestors. We believe we are thrived from the land we walk on, we give our bodies back to the land so it can thrive from our bodies as well. As far as leftover bones; if you look in most Tribal Historic preservation offices there are literally thousands of sacred sites dotted all over this land that have bodies of our ancestors that were whiped out by European diseases. You realize that your diseases came to our land long before most tribes even seen a white person. Most of our people and complete tribes were whiped out years before the settlers came. Americas story would have been completely different if you didn't bring all your diseases. 1 like,

@Wardell43 7 years ago Exactly, we should have 90 million sets of bones laying around on the pyres If this calamity were true. It would be too overwhelming for any tribe to handle. So instead of the pyre, the bulk of the 90 million would be in piles, unattended. The claim is based on the number of deaths in Europe with no evidence to back up the claim that the Natives died off in such numbers. You can go to France and see the results of the dead.,

@thxcbo 3 years ago @DieFlabbergast bro the native Americans destroyed 1/4 of the us military with 10% of their population 😂 @thxcbo 3 years ago @DieFlabbergast also the incas fell because they were having a civil war and the Aztecs are a joke they were gonna fall soon or later @muhammedjaseemshajeef6781 1 month ago ​@transcendentapeok so how in the world did apartheid South Africa exist as an example? @YallCantHandleTheeTruth 1 month ago : "Most of those diseases originated in Africa,! And Asia! 😂 They weren't wiped out with European disease but African and Asian diseases!" (through Europeans, Polynesians, animal burials, or else maybe),

@CiabanItReal 9 years ago One thing to consider about how diseases traveled, is while we often think of Europeans coming to the America's in reality, there isn't much difference between the continent of Europe, Asia, and Africa, before the Suez Canal was built, you could conceivably walk or ride from the tip of south Africa, to the tip of Siberia. And the bubonic plague, for instance, started in a lake in China and came to Europe through the silk road. 28 likes;

2026.03.28/youtube .com/shorts/r_DmlCxo3JQ : 1763 was smallpox used intentionally as a weapon.;

2026.03.28/youtube .com/shorts/3R_fGuJlgiA : Oklahoma made the native's constitution their own. The native Americans almost got their US state, according to this video., Comments: @razakhan23465 2 years ago : "The Palestinians also tried, the blacks of South Africa tried, the Irish tried with England, the Indians tried with he British, the Algerians tried with France, etc. Colonizers only apply the law when it's in their favor" 134 likes,

@PaladinGrant-sl5yp 2 years ago : "Well...in this case, it was well within the rights of Congress to just say no. It's set up to make new states hard because the founders wanted to discourage expansion." 5 likes 1 comment @user-tm8jt2py3d 2 years ago : "There's a revisionist history where American Indians were passive victims, just trying to do whatever they were asked and live in peace. The entire continent was in a state of ritual warfare for thousands of years before any Europeans made houses there. Tribes continued to fight with each other and ally with other powers for hundreds of years before the point in the video. 15 generations or more passed from the first Europeans until then, with history being extremely varied across the land. The powers on the victorious side were not going to prop up the people who they had been at war with for all that time." 24 likes 3 replies,

@creech444 2 years ago The Cherokee in Georgia actually did have their own Country. The U.S. gave them N. GA, and parts of NC, TN. However when they discovered gold in N. GA sparking the U.S.'s first gold rush Georgia siezed all the land, and the U.S. Gov. said "Hey, you can't take the Cherokee Nation and just say it's yours. Georgia pretty much said "yeah, that's exactly what we're doing" and the U.S. Gov. really didn't have the muscle to enforce it. Thats one of the main causes of the Trail of Tears. 511 likes 14 replies, <

@n8zog584 2 years ago (edited) ​​@jamesonh2962 the fed wasnt all that strong pre-civil war. Most of the federal military forces were made up of state forces. There were times when state militaries literally fought each other and the federal government could do nothing to stop it. Generally speaking when something needed to get done, the federal government would call states to action and state millitaries would join federal government forces. In modern day, the opposite is true. The federal government is way stronger than individual states. So when you say its "more or less true" you leave out a lot of important details, mainly that the federal government couldnt have done anything if it wanted too. The Missouri state Natives extermination act and Mormon extermination order were found to be unlawful by federal courts, but there was nothing the federal government could ultimately do to enforce its will upon the state of missouri. 23 likes 1 reply, @jamesonh2962 2 years ago (edited) @n8zog584 not super familiar with how dependent the feds were on state militia forces in this era but all I was saying is they were complicit in this lol. Wasn’t realistically much of a disconnect between the interests of the people running the states and that of the people running the fed at that time so it’s kind of a moot point 6 likes;

2026.03.28/youtube .com/watch?v=-8jT6qpR96k&pp=ygUhRXVyb3BlYW5zIGRpZG4ndCBraWxsIHRoZSBuYXRpdmVz : Natives from central to south engineered corn, had superior technology compared to Europeans like better, quieter, softer boots and kanus, which are better than European ships. Natives weren't like the wild stereotype and part of ecosystem, which Europeans ignored because of language issues and racism (maybe).,

Comments: @mrpumperknuckles1631 3 years ago: Mayans society was dying out before Europeans ever came to the land 6 likes,

@mrpumperknuckles1631 3 years ago @robaustin4193 they fought each other the Aztecs were hated by all neighboring tribes because of how big and territorial and brutal they acted. Aztecs were known for completely decimating neighboring tribes and than sacrificing the warriors to their proclaimed gods. By cutting out the hearts of their enemies and drinking their blood. This was a real thing. Native American tribes weren’t peaceful with each other they fought each other all the time 9 likes,

@MrZyphose 3 years ago: "Skirmishes and territorial despites were their downfall. I think they had the right idea. The problem is that with people there is always a desire to be right and to be understood. To find cultures that could be made to follow a more warring and forceful culture as ugly as this can seem is just a transformative step."... 4 likes,

@brittanyhayes1043 3 years ago @4QBUD Africans were nit the only slaves in history my dude. Yes, the Gauls were slaves and they were also placed in Gladiator games. 3 likes,

@hannajung7512 3 years ago ​@mrpumperknuckles1631 there were indigenus people in Western Europe, commonly known as the Celts, but actually many different tribes, that were culturally related but not the same. The Roman Empire conquered them, and the time of migration did the rest. 1 like,

@brandonClub99 2 months ago ​@mrpumperknuckles1631 Spainiards came after the indigenous people of Hispania aka the Celtic Tribes were replaced by Migrating Germanic Peoples like the Vandals,

@penand_paper6661 8 years ago (edited) : "0:00 Guess what, guys! I'm going to make a commentary on this video to end every single freaking misconception within the video and/or the comments. I am very sad that I have to make this for you. (edit: Yes, the OP used way too much hyperbole)"..." , 4:01 And an ongoing theory at the time that the Americas were inferior in every way to Eurasia. Yes, this was a real theory back in the day. ;

3:11 Remember, the Americas are swarming with islands and rivers. Boats like this were perfect. The same with Viking ships and Venetian gondolas. Standard Eurasian ships, however, were meant for long trips at sea, so they needed to be sturdy and slow so as to survive.?

3:24 I can confirm this. I have seen my province of British Columbia set aflame this year. You see, the aboriginals would purge the forest of litter with fire, allowing them to hunt and gather wood, while the trees would reseed on the now fertile forest floor. However, because this stopped, more and more litter piled up, while fewer and fewer trees could grow. Couple that with hot summers, and now, if you even light a spark, the land goes up in flames. Well done, guys. You care so much about stopping fires that now they are inevitable.;

2026.03.29/web.archive .org/web/20260320064638/nas .org/academic-questions/35/1/the-case-for-colonialism-a-response-to-my-critics : "I define “colonialism” as referring to “British, French, German, Belgian, Dutch, and Portuguese colonies from the early 19th to mid-20th centuries.” This temporal separation of European expansion from the earlier fifteenth to early nineteenth century phase follows Abernethy who, along with others, argued that only in this second phase—which he dates to the 1824 Anglo-Burmese war—was formal “political control” the dominant mode of European empire while the industrial revolution made the modes and scope of empire qualitatively different from those in the first phase.9 Klein is thus careless in claiming that my naming of Libya, Haiti, and Guatemala as countries that can be used as counterfactual examples to places that experienced modern colonialism was among my “errors.”10 Guatemala became independent in 1821 while Haiti revolted against French rule and was granted independence in 1825. Libya remained independent throughout the second phase of European colonialism until 1912, when Italy briefly laid claim to this fragment of the Ottoman Empire. I am therefore justified in citing these three, along with China, Ethiopia, Liberia, Saudi Arabia, and Thailand as countries that “did not have a significant colonial history,” as I defined it.

Thus, while I believe that there is an equally compelling case for Anglo-settlement colonies in North America and the Antipodes, and for Spanish and Portuguese colonialism in the New World, those are separate historical issues and not my concern in this paper. I am also justified in excluding from my analysis the private estates in the Congo of the Belgian king Leopold II which he held from 1885 to 1908, until the area became a colony of Belgium. While general readers of my article, and undergraduate students, can be excused for this criticism, it is a puzzling mistake for credentialled scholars.",

"This was the same conclusion reached by an investigating magistrate at the time who wrote: “The state of Congo is no colonized state, barely a state at all but a financial enterprise.”15 The Belgian Congo was never under Leopold’s rule and the fifty-two years of this colony from 1908 to 1960 were the only period of good governance that this benighted region has ever known. This is not a technicality. Quite the opposite. King Leopold’s private estates in the Congo were precisely the counterfactual to colonial rule and the best argument for colonialism. His inability to control his native rubber agents, who continued their pre-colonial business of slave-trading and coercive rubber harvesting, showed the problems that would arise if European freelancers allied with native warlords and slave-traders and established regimes with no outside scrutiny. The proposition that there was some feasible good governance model available to this region from indigenous sources is unsupported. The Batambatamba Afro-Arab slave traders of the area? The African warlord Msiri whose compound decorated with human remains was the inspiration, along with a similar compound of the king of Benin, for Conrad’s Heart of Darkness (transposed onto a white trader to elicit the predictable outrage from white readers)? The feared Arab slavers Tippo Tip or al-Zubayr? Belgian colonization of the Congo in 1908 put an end to “independence” for the Congo and thank goodness for that.", "many or most episodes of Western colonialism were a net benefit, as the literature review by Juan and Pierskalla shows. Such works have found evidence for significant social, economic, and political gains under colonialism: expanded education,"..."the generation of historical and cultural knowledge, and national identity formation"...,

"Actually, we do not. If colonial subjection caused poor performance, then today’s Ethiopia would be the economic miracle of Africa. Instead, the only semi-successful African economy ever was South Africa until its system of white minority rule was hastily “decolonized” in the early 1990s and the country went into a tailspin.",

"Although anti-colonial narratives have less traction in Asia because of the success of its former colonies, recent work that affirms the positive contributions of colonialism in Asia as well includes a recent study by Dell and Olken about Dutch sugar production in Java which concludes:

The establishment of a sugar processing infrastructure in colonial Java persistently increased industrialization, education, and household consumption in areas near government sugar factories, even after the factories themselves had disappeared. Similarly, villages forced to grow sugar cane for the Cultivation System have more schooling and manufacturing today . . . the positive impacts on economic activity plausibly dominated [any negative effects] in the long-run.29",

"India, which, depending on how you measure it, accounted for about 75 percent of British colonialism. Nor does it work for Botswana or Guyana, two of the four cases he chooses in the book to illustrate the uncertainties of his argument. Finally, the statistical model really just shows that African countries were six times more likely to be ruled indirectly than others,33 and that such rule was associated with worse outcomes. Lange’s work tells us nothing about colonialism. It does tell us about the challenges of development in Africa.",

"The use of mandatory (“forced”) labor in many colonies was intended as a replacement for taxation and was of course historically common in places where taxation was impractical. It may rub our modern sensitivities the wrong way, but this was the most fair and liberal means of providing for public services and infrastructure. Secondly, the “labour question” is whether under colonialism wages were generally rising and conditions of employment were generally improving. The work on wages in British Africa and India, and on employment law and unions shows the answer is “yes,” most notably in the careful econometric work done on West Africa.40", "If there is a “corporate view” of the book, it is surely that of the editors who make clear in their introduction that Africans “used the new opportunities created by colonial conquest and colonial rule to pursue their own agendas even as they served their employers.” 45 That certainly does not contravene my claim about the legitimacy of colonial rule.",

2026.03.29/youtube.com/watch?v=xH95TGgdKjg : " @stansmithatCIA 2 years ago Da nzsho! (Greetings in Apache) I am a white dude who speaks Apache and have studied lots of history. ​The Commanche just about wiped out the entire Jiccarilla Apachees, WAY before the whites came. The Crow nation never lost any land. They were allowed to keep it because they worked with the US government. Many tribes wiped out tribes they didn't like. In my area, the Sauks were just about wiped out by other tribes. Some tribes practiced cannibalism. It wasn't the white man's fault for everything! I just wish people studied a little more history." 2 likes,

@stansmithatCIA 2 years ago (edited) @anobviousaltaccount3665 Dude, when a tribe wants to completely destroy another tribe because they think they don't have the right to exist, it's the same thing!!! Many tribes did this. Read some history books from independent sources and you might learn something! 2 likes <

@anobviousaltaccount3665 2 years ago (edited) @stansmithatCIA"Jiccarilla Apachees" no they didn't. They still exist to this day. Even their language still exists. "The Crow never lost any land" wrong again, they lost a large portion of their land to the US on the 7th of May 1868, after being pressured by the US government to make place for settlements. Yes, them collaborating means they lost less than others, but they still lost. I'm starting to doubt you've actually studied anything. "Many tribes wiped out tribes they didn't like", you keep saying that but never provided a concrete example, the Sauk weren't wiped out by the natives, and they still exist today. "Some tribes practiced cannibalism" perhaps, although I haven't seen any evidence that makes it seem widespread. And what then? You do understand that practicing cannibalism doesn't turn you into a manhunter right? Cannibalism is almost exclusively practiced on deceased family members and such. "It wasn't the white man's fault for everything! I just wish people studied a little more history.", no, not everything. Most things though. And I did study history, unlike you apparently.;

2026.03.29/youtube .com/shorts/REaK6KgZfRI : @khyronkravshera7774 2 years ago (edited) I'm Comanche and my people were Lions not Sheep. We shook the world with our roar and conquered all that lay before us. Until the day came when crippled by disease, surrounded by enemies and overwhelmed by technology we were finally defeated. I will not dishonour my ancestors and deny their greatness by playing the victim for sympathy. ~6000 likes 575 replies;

2026.03.29/indigenousmexico .org/articles/smallpox-comes-to-the-americas-1507-1524 : "According to Donald R. Hopkins, in Princes and Peasants (1983), “the native populations of North and South America were blissfully unaware of smallpox’s existence when Christopher Columbus re-established contact between the Old and New Worlds in 1492. Smallpox made its first appearance in the New World only fifteen years later.”[1] The native people of the Americas were especially vulnerable to smallpox because they’d never been exposed to the virus and thus possessed no natural immunity.",

"believed that smallpox may have existed as early as 1500 B.C. and visited such places as China, Egypt and India. Most historians believe that smallpox was probably introduced into Europe during the 11th Century’s Crusades. For several hundred years, all of Europe was experiencing periodic and devastating smallpox epidemics. But, over time, smallpox became endemic to most “Old World” populations.[3] According to Dictionary.com, endemic in relation to a disease means “persisting in a population or region, generally having settled to a relatively constant rate of occurrence.” According to Jonathan B. Tucker, “Somewhat paradoxically, the longer a society lived with smallpox, the less severe its demographic impact became. In densely populated urban areas, the disease smoldered continuously at a low level and the intervals between major outbreaks were fairly short. As a result, nearly everyone who survived into adulthood was immune and the victims were mainly small children.”[4]",

"Given the length of the trans-Atlantic voyage, a Spanish sailor aboard a ship who contracted smallpox before his embarkation would probably die before he arrived at his destination on the western end of the Atlantic. In addition, the strong sunlight experienced on the tropical sea voyage was not conducive to the survival of the smallpox virus. For this reason, it took fifteen years after Columbus’ first voyage before smallpox gained a foothold in the Americas.[6] As one historian has noted, smallpox "is a deadly malady, but it lasts only a short time in each patient."[7] There is also no non-human carrier of smallpox; it must be transmitted from person to person. Spread easily through the air, roughly twelve days pass between acquiring the germ and developing the initial symptoms, which are “deceptively benign.”",

"In 1493, Columbus brought 1,300 men to colonize Hispaniola [today, the Dominican Republic and Haiti] with the intention of establishing a permanent settlement. However, the native people and hurricanes impeded their early progress. Eventually, the settlements were successful, and Hispaniola, Cuba, Puerto Rico and other Caribbean islands were settled by the Spaniards. To operate their newly developed mines and plantations, the conquerors employed the native people, subjecting them to very brutal working conditions. According to the author Jonathan B. Tucker, “The resulting high death rates depleted the indigenous labor pool, leading the Spanish to import slaves from West Africa as replacements. Since many African slaves came from regions where smallpox was endemic, the slave trade introduced the disease to the Americas.”[10]",

"By 1503, the Spaniard were importing large numbers of enslaved Africans to work in the farms and mines of their new settlements. Then, in 1507, the first smallpox epidemic struck, wiping out whole tribes on Hispaniola.[12] The epidemic eventually subsided, but the native labor pool had shrunk considerably. Thus, the Spaniards brought more and more enslaved people in to replace the native workers, and each ship carried the risk of another epidemic",

"According to several sources, including D’Ardois (1961) and Smith (1974), it was an enslaved African slave in Narvaez’s entourage, Francisco de Baguia, who first introduced smallpox to the American mainland.[17] From May to September I520, smallpox spread slowly inland , reaching Tenochtitlan in September or October.[18]",

"The Spaniards Seek Refuge in Tlaxcala (July 1520) “While the Spaniards rested and recuperated” in Tlaxcala, wrote Richard Lee Marks, “it occurred to Cortés and his men to wonder why the great armies from Tenochtitlán were not pursuing them.” The Aztecs had not attacked or laid siege to Tlaxcala, giving the Spaniards and Tlaxcalans precious time to heal and recover from their catastrophic defeat on “La Noche Triste.” Later, Cortés would learn that an epidemic of smallpox was devastating Tenochtitlán.[19] Years later, Francisco de Aguilar, once a follower of Cortes and later a Dominican friar, recalled the terrible retreat of the Noche Triste. “When the Christians were exhausted from war,” he wrote, “God saw fit to send the Indians smallpox, and there was a great pestilence in the city.”[20]",

"“In many places it happened that everyone in a house died, and as it was impossible to bury the great number of dead, they pulled down the houses over them in order to check the stench that rose from the dead bodies," Fray Toribio Motolinía wrote. In Tenochtitlán, the dead were cast into the water, "and there was a great, foul odor; the smell issued forth from the dead."[23]" (Those "90 million" bodies went under undiscovered water. Motolinía confirms those deaths in History of the Indians of New Spain, which he completed in 1541. Complicated DNA-calculations shows evidence for those dead nodes too.),

"The Final Battle (1521) The length of the epidemic provided Cortés and his troops a desperately needed respite to reorganize and prepare a counterattack. Had there been no epidemic, the Aztecs, their war-making potential unimpaired and their warriors fired up with a feeling of victory, could have pursued the Spaniards and defeated them.";

2026.03.29/youtube .com/shorts/l7R_wyCZlGM : Natives had more advanced weapon technology than the Englishmen because of no government regulation. Natives could learn it from everywhere meanwhile colonial farmers were forbidden to carry those and only nobles and elites hold that. Comment: @brandonha 2 years ago What isnt touched on in this clip, but im sure is part of the greater discussion is that for the natives the cost was comparatively less, as it was a tool for feeding their family/tribe, defence and allowed for more efficient trapping and hunting for trade purposes. A farmer doesn’t see that benefit and as such a musket or rifle is a luxury. A native man who trades pelts for a rifle is more likely to purchase that rifle because it helps them make money, a farmer doesn’t really have that same motivation as a rifle doesn’t help then grow turnips better. 13k likes 242 replies,

< @verager2493 2 years ago It's also a huge incentive for training. You need to hit the first time with that rifle, and you'll learn fast and well to feed your family. Even if that European has the rifle as a luxury, how many rounds has he put through that, and how many with real stress and pressure to perform? 697 likes 1 reply,

@rasheed7934 2 years ago (edited) ​@TheRealBatCaveThe people with the industry and larger numbers of course. 160 likes 5 replies,

@asapaul7671 2 years ago (edited) @TheRealBatCavewell, in terms of king Philips war, especially in the northern theatre, the natives did. 106 likes 30 replies,

Smallpox-blankets and determination to settler-colonialism made Europeans successful to colonize Americas.,

@punishedf 2 years ago in general, a civilized society requires less weapons. 7 1 @brandonha 2 years ago (edited) @punishedf a society with weapons solely in the possession of the state is less civilized. Unless you consider organized violence to be civil… 30 @wojciechgrodnicki6302 2 years ago And they were practiced. 1 like,

@brandonha 2 years ago (edited) @jacobhargiss9909 this comment would be funny if you knew anything about the time period, instead its just kinda sad and reactionary. This was within70 years of first colonies being established. There were no “Americans” and this fanciful idea of yours is based in nothing, except that you wanted to disagree with the contextual experts in the clip because they hurt your feelings of exceptionalism. They are literally talking about the settlers that had been there awhile, which was why they asked europe to send over people who could train them. They had none to speak of domestically. 24 likes 7 replies,

@minimayhem1996 2 years ago (edited) ​@TheRealBatCaveThe ones that decided to create an infrastructure that lasted hundreds of years 6 likes 1 reply,

@Doodle1266 2 years ago (edited) I think what you are getting at is a difference in lifestyle. Indians are mainly hunter gathering. You don't successfully shoot that deer you don't eat. The farmer relies on last year's crop in storage or hogs in a pen. He uses a gun to defend from an animal that wanders into his territory looking to eat his crops or steal his livestock or poultry. He may not have to do that every day so the opportunity to fire that gun is less. 6 likes 8 replies,

@brandonha 2 years ago (edited) @Doodle1266 this is prince philips war. The tribes in that region predominantly were agricultural based… Just take the l. Dont pretend youve never heard of thanksgiving? Thats the region this is in reference to. Most grade school kids would know this. 14 likes 5 replies,

@Sam-eu9go 2 years ago It was legally required for settling with the Virginia company for every household to have a firearm. They also had mercenaries from Europe with formal training and familiarity with firearms in the Virginia company. 35 likes @blackflagsnroses6013 2 years ago (edited) @TheRealBatCavewhat’s your point? Are you getting your jollies off of settler-colonialism? Is the fact that at one point indigenous tribes were better at arms than colonialist farmers disturbing to you? The natives had more uses for firearms than just war, and they constantly hunted game with them. This made them better equipped with that weaponry than farmers, majority of which couldn’t afford muskets much less find much use for them. Who was better off? At the time the native tribes were. And considering the revisiting of history we have a pretty strong condemnation of the side that ended up “winning” due to being better at organized violence and utter tyranny. The foundation of the American Republic was meant to be a revolution of progress toward more liberal society and a rejection of the systems and institutions that had previously existed. Unfortunately thanks to greed and corrupting power, as well as ignorance progress takes generations of strife and struggle against reaction 105 likes,

@jonathannelson103 2 years ago (edited) ​@HartleysFilmsmy lord, the way people speak with such authority while being completely wrong. They're talking about the Pequot war which was the first war between natives and settlers, from 1636 to 1638. Rifles, although having been invented 100 years prior were almost exclusive to german nobility. It wasn't until the early 18th century when german gunsmiths came to America that rifles became available. As for your "skulking" argument. It doesn't hold water because we know that the colonists fought in the same way. 11 likes (Apparently correct comment),

@brandonha 2 years ago (edited) @gearsofbaird3529 didn’t fire a bullet either. Just stop bullets were invented in the 1830s before that it was ball and shot. And as has been discussed already weren’t useful to the average farmer of the time 8 likes,

@brandonha 2 years ago (edited) @gearsofbaird3529 literally not a bullet. Definitions are important. The word you want is “projectile” 8 likes,

@MisoElEven 2 years ago (edited) ​@TheMilitantMazdakiteThats nice but being accurate with a bow is much harder. Use of bow for war is even harder because it requires almost lifetime long preparation... and its not like proper bows are that much cheaper either xD also the enemy can wear armor to counter the bow while its not really that effective against a musket (it is technically but its not worth the weight in that case especially in close ranges). You can also arm several times more men with muskets and with a short training program theyre going to be "good enough" and then the fire rate wont really matter. 4 7 @Redster3 2 years ago Yeah I remember learning that when fur and commodity traders first interacted with the Natives, they sneered and mocked at them believing they were getting horribly ripped-off with their trades & exchanges, but ironically the Natives were doing the same to them, ridiculing the traders for being ignorant or at least for being exceptionally naive. In the end neither was true nor false, but it is still unfortunate those interactions did not cancel-out future, depressing events & atrocities… 7 @commissarvarken7445 2 years ago (edited) @TheRealBatCavewell yeah once soldiers actually showed up in significant numbers the odds were evened and the natives had to resort to gorilla style warfare, they were trained to use firearms but not in an organized military format like the British or French 1 @ClaimClam 2 years ago its called a MAGAZINE not a clip @darigaaz66 2 years ago (edited) @brandonha You’re thinking of cartridges. Musket balls are a type of bullet, which in a cartridge is just the projectile. Hell the stones thrown from slings are considered bullets as well. You should focus less on trying to stunt won people and more on actually knowing the terms. 4 @brandonha 2 years ago (edited) @darigaaz66 no, those aren’t bullets, theyre “missiles”. The first usage of bullet is literally documented. 4 @ravinraven6913 2 years ago also since the cost of a gun is less than a horse, back then. In 1862 the price of a pistol was $10-$20 while a horse of good equine riding would cost between $120-$185. so when they traded horses, they got multiple guns. And this is pre revolution times so its harder to gague but based on this one journal note 2 @tonedeaftachankagaming457 2 years ago (edited) @brandonha In any case, you are certainly wrong that an unrifled firearm wouldn't be useful to a farmer. They weren't especially accurate, but being able to reliably put a .60 caliber hole in anything at 40 yds is pretty damn useful—and you can still hit targets at 80 and even 100 yds with a little luck. 1 @Jamie-r1c 2 years ago Plus hunting every day and fighting every day makes you naturally sharper 1 @brandonha 2 years ago (edited) @tonedeaftachankagaming457 provided a farmer has a regular need to take large game, sure. That premise however is disproven by the data of who owned guns at the time, the vast majority not oening them. Youre playing dnd and equipping your character with all the things you want. Reality was that farmers of the time dealt with the small pests the same way they did 12 generations prior. 5 likes,

@liamliam5341 2 years ago ​@brandonha "the history experts? One of them said indigenous firearms were more advanced than European firearms. Indigenous people were not makeing firearms they were purchasing European firearms."... 5 likes (contradicts the bald white man in this YouTube-short.),

@jenniferpearce1052 2 years ago Note that there is a difference between Europeans and American colonists of European descent. Colonists acquired firearms that their parents and grandparents in Europe wouldn't have been allowed to have. 1 like,

@scottashe984 2 years ago (edited) ​@brandonha"Literally"-the most overused word in the last 3 years. Doesn't add anything to a statement and yet manages to tell very much. 2 likes,

@HistoryOnTheLoose 2 years ago (edited) Anyone using the term "musket" loses credibility from the get. A musket is a smoothbored military arm. This was not what civilians owned. Yes, they used smoothbores mostly, but not muskets. Once rifling became common the idea of large diameter projectiles, especially in the east, is also dead. Smaller projectiles move faster with less lead and powder. As to farmers not being accustomed to shooting,... there were no vegetarian farmers. The muscle and strength required of a life on the frontier required a balanced diet. Farmers and their families ate plenty of meat. City folks in modern times think chickens and cows were abundant enough, and easy to raise, to butcher at will. The fact is a laying hen is more valuable than her meat. A milk cow as well. Both take time to raise. Farmers HUNTED with their firearms, and were quite accomplished shots. One need only reference the effect of these "inexperieced" farmers and their devastating effects on the British flight from Lexington/Concord. It was a turkey shoot. Talk about what you know 1 like,

@johnsmoak8237 2 years ago Sure a rifle helps me grow turnips I was raised on a small family farm and we keep guns You never know when a coyote will come for your chickens Is it likely that farmers then wouldn't have seen a gun as just as useful as someone from the 1940s living alone on a farm like my gpa..or his before him.. Came up on sharecropping so...ain't like they were privileged either But you're right that rifles are more likely to return on the invest if purchased by a fur trader than a farmer. I think that's undeniable. 1 reply,

@brandonha 2 years ago (edited) @johnsmoak8237 this is the 1670s. Were talking about first generation or second generations colonists living essentially communally. Id suggest reading further up. Rifles werent invented yet, they were 200 years away from being practically accessible. A farmer st this time would defend his crops the same way a farmer in Mesopotamia would have. A rock and a sling. A muzzle loading long arm would be overkill and beyond the reach of most farmers. @4waylarry 2 years ago That is not a native america that's just a regular white guy,

@peterlynchchannel 2 years ago Great point. In Europe there were the "hunter" class of troops (Jager, Chasseur, Cazador), raised from men in the more "wilderness" areas of Europe who used firearms frequently and entered the military already familiar with maintenance, shooting and marksmenship. @no_one_from_nowhere 2 years ago Not totally true. My grandfather was a farmer and he could pick off ground hogs at 150 yards without a scope. If you’re growing turnips, you’re absolutely going to benefit from owning a rifle 1 like 2 replies,

@delondro6108 2 years ago nominally, the fur trade was more about trapping since using firearms on the furs would lead to damage furs which led to less profits for the said furs.,

@cellshop3244 2 years ago You forget that a British soldier had better techniques at using a musket like pre rolled cartridges would save time and effort however native militia would often do it by using a powder horn and a ball,English soldiers could also fire 3 to 4 rounds a minute while native militia would be more subdued in there response time due to being trained in hunting rather than combat situations ,

@johnjacobs1718 2 years ago Like he said guns had no place in their lives it was for nobility,

@litewerx4409 2 years ago @TheRealBatCave wasnt simply the rifles. Maybe the biowarfare, backstabbing & trickery, killing off the food supply, etc.,

@BCc249 2 years ago (edited) @Counting_coups yea u are correct. But to refine ur point. It was seen to the royalty that were in europe and were ruling over the settlers it was seen as a luxury because by that time most of the predators in Europe were extint or endangered. Especially the British royalty were there were essentially no more predators. In England and most of the British isles I general they mostly only had to deal things limke rabbits and mice which were more easily taken care of by traps. So the settlers of the America's didn't see them as a luxury but the extremely disconnected rulers of the settlers that were all the way across the ocean thought it was and made the settlers have to have things like permits and what nots to have them. While in college I studied this subject somewhat and it turns out most settlers had guns but it was illigal for them to do so. Therefore they had to keep them hidden, were only able to practice with them when the soldiers who kept an eye in them for the royals were not around, and not to.mention it was illigal for most of them to purchase ammunition for the guns on topnof everything so thwy didn't practice as much because it was very hard for them to get ammo and or had to sacrifice other things to make more. 13 replies,

@BCc249 2 years ago @jamesczerniak7808 yes it was illigal for everyone under the boot of the crown to own guns. Been that way for a long time. I'm very busy but in my spare time I'll fond the sources I used to write my paper about this stuff. 7 @BCc249 2 years ago @jamesczerniak7808 I wasn't told this by my professor btw. I researched this myself and wrote a lengthy paper on it. Im a 2a person so I wrote about this stuff alot @BCc249 2 years ago @jamesczerniak7808 It was mostly ignored though. Fir a while settlers were not considered commoners so they couldn't own guns. The higher upside in the colonies were allowed to own limited guns amd ammo but regular ppl weren't. Although because of the situations they were in alot of colonies ignored these rules of law @Counting_coups 2 years ago @BCc249 again, no, it was NOT illegal for colonist to own guns. I've researched myself and there is nothing that supports your comment 6 @BCc249 2 years ago @jamesczerniak7808 there were alot more contracting laws in the past due to not being able to communicate as well across long distances. @BCc249 2 years ago @jamesczerniak7808 I looked up some stuff. It was actually a regulatory kind of law that pertained to more populated areas. Aka cities u had to leave ur weapons at the gate but outside of cities u were fine. Although we would considered these cities small walled settlements or small towns today. Ur just being to blanketed with ur facts.

@BCc249 2 years ago @jamesczerniak7808 and obviously gov officials and soldiers were still allowed to have thier fire arms. This was implemented in the early 1700s. Idk why but probably because thwy wanted to control uprisings more efficiently,

@thetalkingstick9214 2 years ago (edited) @TheRealBatCave Yes…it’s literally called the “King Philip’s War” and it there were multiple battles and they signed a treaty that stipulations were, as was described by 3rd party summarized: Where the tribes wouldn’t raid or attack, but respect English property rights but the settlers had to annually pay in food for each family that lived on the tribe’s land, aka dominion, couldn’t sell rum and couldn’t fish and net downriver of tribal settlements. But it just so happens all copies were lost or unrecoverable so have to go off that 3rd party person (who was a settler from New Hampshire) and they didn’t clarify so we can’t say if they formally surrendered or both sides came to a mutual agreement, at the same time, they basically signed a treaty then waited a couple weeks then didn’t hold up their side of the agreement. And kept ambushing natives until they captured and killed the native chiefs, despite the agreements. But going off the accounts, the Natives were kicking their ass most of the time up until the treaty. Which sounds like they won the actual war, but the losers fake surrendered and ambushed then killed the enemy’s leaders in a later date post agreement.,

@thetalkingstick9214 2 years ago (edited) @TheRealBatCave The guy’s was clergyman historian named Jeremy Belknap thanks for asking. So where’s your source? For all the “they lost we won” stuff you’ve been saying, you must have a source to back that up right?,

@thetalkingstick9214 2 years ago (edited) @TheRealBatCave How could they have won a war if they’re no direct source(s) of it from the “victors?” If anyone would have it, it’s them but they don’t have any, so how do you know they won? The closest source is from a New Hampshire secretary and minister Jermey Belknap I mentioned before as he documented the conflict in his work History of New Hampshire. Which says the Natives were winning , and in fact raided or burned down over half the major settlements in New England at the time, signed a treaty that recognized Native lands as theirs but recognized English people right to buy property from them, but instead of money, the settlers paid to live on the native’s lands with food, did that for a couple of months, then ambushed and killed the leaders of native tribes post treaty. Doesn’t sound like the settlers won the war, but survived through the lens of time. It’s like saying the Athenians won the Peloponnesian War against the Spartans because Athens is now the capital and had all the old ancient literature and art while all the Spartans are remembered for is dying in the Battle of Thermopylae and metal ab-engraved breastplates. Ignoring that the Spartans actually beat them at the time.,

@sendojusta 2 years ago (edited) ​@verager2493 so true. Also imagine learning trapping/hunting and all that from members of your family from a young age too it would be like having trainers every day 4 @Dutchbrother07 2 years ago Theoretically true but farmers of that period did a lot of their own hunting ,

@SonsOfLorgar 2 years ago (edited) ​@gearsofbaird3529 making a rifled gun barrel in the 17th century was comparable in crafting requirements to building a professional orchestra grade acoustic violin today using only hand tools...,

@MinervaAlvarez-dx3jc 2 years ago But this on the false premise that Europeans didn't trap and hunt. That's some of the first things some were doing in the colonies and frontier. But just like every European didn't fur trap, not all tribes people did.,

@kbo8029 2 years ago (edited) ​@brandonhayou have deemed one random person in a clip as an expert and now assert you know a lot about early colonial American history... Those people supposedly asking for "people to come train us" were request for permanent military garrison. In the "First Indian War" aka King Phillips War several large tribes burned and attacked towns all over New England. A force of about 1000 colonial militia were called up to fight against 3-4x as many of these 'better armed natives' and obliterated 3 tribes to the man, survivors enslaved and sent to the Caribbean. The remaining tribes/bands were so greatly reduced they were disbanded. No continental military forces assisted. However that would change afterwards. So how does a militia that's allegedly less well equipped and significantly outnumbered by a force supposedly better trained? Who also had a 6 month surprise advantage on attack and then defending fortified tribes? They don't. Because everything in the video comes with a MASSIVE "well, sort of." I believe they were simply showing that indigenous tribes were sophisticated as well with a clickbait clip speaking in precise, general terms,

@kbo8029 2 years ago (edited) @cuauhtemocthethird they either traded, captured or were given them. By the time the colonies started to really grow it became more they were supplied with them. Certain tribes were used as auxiliary and proxy forces by France and England. Natives lacked the necessary components and machinery to manufacture full firearms themselves. In most cases the colonies as well. The clip is VERY misleading though. It was probably true on an individual level but the "requests for people who knew how" to shoot is an interesting way to say they asked for permanent military garrison to deal with the increased number of conflicts without damaging the economies of the colony. The wars all ended with decisive militia victories. But it still requires more regular manpower than is practical to supply through local militia and indigenous allies alone.,

@killerrosebud

2 years ago

James May would disagree with you on that last bit,

@sqike001ton

2 years ago

Not true on the frontier the musket was super important to a rural farmers for defense because fighting your fellow man native or European was all too common and wild animals would attack you or more importantly your livestock 0 likes 0 replies (last reply-comment to the first comment),

| @chadsmith8966 2 years ago Another aspect was firearms among Native Americans was also fueled by the fur trade. Fur merchants weren’t buying furs with gold or silver but with muskets, steel tools and weapons and other goods. A tribe recently acquiring a few crates of muskets would not have stored them in an armory but hand those suckers to everyone among their community. The only hurdle being their supply of gunpowder. 2.1k 14 @craigore2011 2 years ago This especially worked where the natives were employed in cooperative agreement to serve as hunters for commercial fur enterprises like Hudson's Bay Company who went so far as marrying their employees to natives, leaving the providers of those arms comfortably assured they wouldn't be turned on them. 100 @grantflippin7808 2 years ago Gunpowder is mostly charcoal, and sea bird manure was mass mined by every major power at the time. And because of the need for powder in the fur business, the value of furs and gunpowder floated together. 52 5 @sundancetitan5675 2 years ago Even then gunpowder isn’t hard to make as the portuguese taught the recipe to the Japanese in the 1600s and they were just traders 39 1 @cseijifja 2 years ago (edited) @grantflippin7808 gunpodwer had been made in a merica as soon as the spanish landed, a key part of the colaboration in the conquest of inca/aztecs was that the spanish got provided from lead to bronze to iron and GP from their allies, who quite easily catched on how to make most european weapons. 18 3 @grantflippin7808 2 years ago (edited) @cseijifja yes @nicholashodges201 2 years ago (edited) ​@sundancetitan5675except Native Americans didn't have good access to suffer, nor did they really have the set up to produce & store powder. Which is a really dangerous pastime when

you're producing the quantities needed to keep a village supplied. You CAN use just charcoal & saltpeter, but you basically just get really nasty smoke powder. It really needs the surfer to work right 23 @nicholashodges201 2 years ago (edited) ​@cseijifja No, they mixed the powers they brought separately. When they started running low it took them about 4 months to locate a source of sulfur they could actually USE and another three weeks to get enough out of a fuming active caldera to restock their supply of powder. Making it is easy. Finding native sulfur that's not bonded to another element or next to an active lava flow is an entirely different story 5 1 @cseijifja 2 years ago (edited) @nicholashodges201 my man, 5 months is nothing when we are speaking of endeavours of this magnitude, to boot, most of this, on campaing, was done with the aid and guidance of , in the case of mexico, the tlaxcaltecs and others. No allies, not even podwer for anything.

@wolfie1979 2 years ago : The short answer, because of the French. The French adapted better to the natives by respecting the land and mainly trapping furs. They then would trade or offer a cut to the natives for the use of the land. This is why they were allowed to expand as far as they did. The English on the other hand did the opposite. They agree to share the land but then they would set up farms and deny access to the lands that were communal. This is why many natives sided with the French during the seven years war. The French also traded muskets for the more difficult to find pelts and furs. 1.9k likes 79 replies;

2026.03.29/academic.oup .com/book/51666/chapter-abstract/419693647?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false : Published: 19 October 2023 : "Scholars readily assume that early America guns laws focused purely on military readiness and community defense. However, analysis of seventeenth- and eighteenth-century enactments reveals that European colonists in North America created conflicting, contradictory laws for multiple reasons affecting gun ownership, control, and use. Economic advantages competed with personal protection, for human foes (pirates, Native Americans enemies, Spanish or French imperial rivals) were not their sole targets; Southern colonists also hunted deer for profit and wolves for bounties. Native allies (voluntarily) and African slaves (involuntarily) might also do so on their behalf, frequently without White participation or supervision. Armed slaves were even briefly inducted into South Carolina’s militia as imperial defenders, and armed Native Americans proved skillful in producing skins for export, a major source of trade income"..."White legislatures applied gun control laws to specific groups, influenced by racism and assumptions about what constituted civilization (hunting versus farming). Driven by profit, reckless colonists evaded disarming laws and continued to provide weapons to slaves or Natives, dangerously increasing White community vulnerability.";

2026.03.29/guns .com/news/2017/07/01/guns-of-the-greatest-revolution-ever : "the 1570s these edicts organized all able-bodied men into what we would recognize today as town militias. This law was brought to America from England and the Massachusetts Bay Colonial Militia was founded on December 13, 1636. Explicitly, every man was to have access to a musket or fowling piece (what we would think of today as a shotgun) and a supply of ball and powder. The militia law ordered all men to appear with, “a Gun, fit for service, a Cartouch Box, and a Sword, Cutlass, or Hanger, and at least Twelve Charges of Powder and Ball, or Swan Shot, and Six Spare Flints” when called upon by authorities.", "While most units used their personal weapons, a few arms were issued to the towns by the colonies. These muskets were held by the town and issued to men who did not have a firearm whenever the militia “mustered” on the town green. The most common weapon for many of these men was the New England style fowler, which used a British made lock, mounted on a locally made barrel and stock.", "Each colony was obligated to hold drills regularly (after Sunday church service!) and, starting in 1702, one-third of each town’s unit formed a group of ‘snow-shoe men.’ These units were meant to muster and march out to the frontier to defend the colony from attacks from Native Americans. They also engaged in the frequent small wars with neighboring French colonies in what is now Canada.";

2026.03.29/projects.cah.ucf .edu/economyofgoods/index.php/2018/10/11/decisive-destruction-firearms-in-north-america-1492-1776/ : "Firearms played a pivotal role in the maintenance and defense of the North American colonies. After a slow start, guns became more common in colonial households and would come to play a crucial role in the American Revolutionary War.[1] Guns were first introduced to America by the Spanish in the initial conquest of the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. Superiority in firepower allowed these colonists and conquerors to dominate trade in coastal areas, intimidating Native Americans, whose stone weapons were no match for the awesome firepower of the Spanish arquebuses. However, firearms in general were quite scarce at this point, with most soldiers relying on steel swords or crossbows.[2] When invading Tenochtitlan in 1520, Spanish conquistador Hernan Cortés brought with him 12 gunmen to fight against the Aztecs. During the conquest of the Incas in 1533, Francisco Pizarro brought only three.[3] Their technological superiority would eventually allow the Spanish to dominate and to decimate Aztec, Mayan, and Incan populations. Native American tribes, when hunting for food, originally relied on bows and arrows or spears. However, as trade with Europeans increased over time, firearms became more common among coastal tribes, which eventually came to present a threat to the security of European colonists and rival tribes who had limited access to coastal trade networks.[4] Native Americans in northern colonies would typically offer wampum, a craft composed of shell beads, in exchange for firearms and other goods. In southern colonies, they would offer items such as deer skins and other animal pelts.[5] After 1607, when the British colony at Jamestown was first established, firearms played a pivotal role in Indian-English conflicts. Like the Spanish, the English used their superior firepower to intimidate and make an example of the Algonquians of Virginia, hoping to command the trade, respect, and fear of neighboring tribes. In turn, the Native Americans in the area learned the value of firearms as a resource and often accepted Jamestown deserters who brought such munitions with them.[6] This trade musket could be an example of the firearms that Native Americans traded animal pelts and wampum for in colonial America. From the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Acc. No. 1981-5. The first serious battle between Native Americans and English settlers was the Pequot War of 1636, which took place in modern-day Connecticut. In this conflict, the Pequot tribe fought against the English, who were aided by the Narragansett and Mohegan tribes, historical rivals of the Pequot people. A combination of arson and gunfire was utilized to massacre the Pequots.[7] The process of manufacturing firearms required specialization in a variety of skills, such as woodworking and blacksmithing. However, there were no gunsmiths in the colonies during the contact period. Firearms were mostly imported, crafted by European gunsmiths and delivered to the American colonies on ships across the Atlantic.[8]", "October and December of 1760, and again in November of 1761, James Halley Junior purchased various amounts of powder and “shott” from the Colchester store in Virginia, making him a likely candidate of gun ownership (folio 48D). Upon inspection of the Glassford and Henderson Colchester store ledger from 1760-61, it is apparent that firearms were a component to life in the Virginia colony in the eighteenth century and ammunition required occasional restocking. Among the many purchases, powder and “shott” are somewhat common, usually measured in pounds and purchased together. Powder was purchased 92 times in 1760-1761, while shot was bought 93 times.[9]", "In 1738, the Virginia House of Burgesses passed “An Act, for the better preservation of the breed of Deer; and preventing unlawful Hunting”, which stipulated that bucks could only be hunted from the beginning of August to the beginning of December, and that does and fawns could only be hunted from the beginning of November to the end of December.[12] Though colonists were likely hunting animals other than deer, this law shows that hunting practices were moderated and those who disobeyed were punished. A powder horn made around 1758-1760 in the colonies, used to store gunpowder. From the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Acc. No. 2011-5. In all cases, actual purchases of firearms in 1760-1761 were virtually absent from the ledgers, suggesting that guns were purchased elsewhere or were already part of a household by that point. However, the frequency of ammunition purchases show the relative importance of firearms in colonial America as hunting tools, a far cry from the purpose of the first firearms brought to the New World.";

2026.03.29/jstor .org/stable/744246 : King James I stated the official position of the English governing elite on gun ownership succinctly. When it was suggested that more if England's subjects should enjoy the right to hunt and own firearms, James responded that "it is not fit that clowns should have these sports"1

Discussion of early American gun laws begins with consideration of the English legal heritage...British brought an acceptance of the universal ownership of firearms with them in the Americas.2...

2 Some scholars see "universal gun ownership", others see "near universal" levels of gun ownership.;

2026.03.29/cambridge .org/core/journals/law-and-history-review/article/abs/gun-laws-in-early-america-the-regulation-of-firearms-ownership-16071794/9CE096F99BAB0B2817D8723B4182EED3 : "That cultural norm gave form to the meaning of the Second Amendment, which institutionalized an individual right to bear arms for purposes of personal and communal defense and as a security against a tyrannical government. This history matters greatly to these scholars in establishing an original intent in the Second Amendment to protect an individual's right to own guns.";

2026.04.11/britannica .com/topic/Western-colonialism/European-expansion-since-1763 : "global expansion of western Europe between the 1760s and the 1870s differed in several important ways from the expansionism and colonialism of previous centuries. Along with the rise of the Industrial Revolution, which economic historians generally trace to the 1760s, and the continuing spread of industrialization in the empire-building countries came a shift in the strategy of trade with the colonial world. Instead of being primarily buyers of colonial products (and frequently under strain to offer sufficient salable goods to balance the exchange), as in the past, the industrializing nations increasingly became sellers in search of markets for the growing volume of their machine-produced goods. Furthermore, over the years there occurred a decided shift in the composition of demand for goods produced in the colonial areas. Spices, sugar, and slaves became relatively less important with the advance of industrialization, concomitant with a rising demand for raw materials for industry (e.g., cotton, wool, vegetable oils, jute, dyestuffs) and food for the swelling industrial areas (wheat, tea, coffee, cocoa, meat, butter). This shift in trading patterns entailed in the long run changes in colonial policy and practice as well as in the nature of colonial acquisitions. The urgency to create markets and the incessant pressure for new materials and food were eventually reflected in colonial practices, which sought to adapt the colonial areas to the new priorities of the industrializing nations. Such adaptation involved major disruptions of existing social systems over wide areas of the globe. Before the impact of the Industrial Revolution, European activities in the rest of the world were largely confined to: (1) occupying areas that supplied precious metals, enslaved persons, and tropical products then in large demand; (2) establishing white-settler colonies along the coast of North America; and (3) setting up trading posts and forts and applying superior military strength to achieve the transfer to European merchants of as much existing world trade as was feasible. However disruptive these changes may have been to the societies of Africa, South America, and the isolated plantation and white-settler colonies, the social systems over most of the Earth outside Europe nevertheless remained much the same as they had been for centuries (in some places for millennia). These societies, with their largely self-sufficient small communities based on subsistence agriculture and home industry, provided poor markets for the mass-produced goods flowing from the factories of the technologically advancing countries; nor were the existing social systems flexible enough to introduce and rapidly expand the commercial agriculture (and, later, mineral extraction) required to supply the food and raw material needs of the empire builders. The adaptation of the nonindustrialized parts of the world to become more profitable adjuncts of the industrializing nations embraced, among other things: (1) overhaul of existing land and property arrangements, including the introduction of private property in land where it did not previously exist, as well as the expropriation of land for use by white settlers or for plantation agriculture; (2) creation of a labor supply for commercial agriculture and mining by means of direct forced labor and indirect measures aimed at generating a body of wage-seeking laborers; (3) spread of the use of money and exchange of commodities by imposing money payments for taxes and land rent and by inducing a decline of home industry; and (4) where the precolonial society already had a developed industry, curtailment of production and exports by Indigenous producers. The classic illustration of this last policy is found in India. For centuries India had been an exporter of cotton goods, to such an extent that Great Britain for a long period imposed stiff tariff duties to protect its domestic manufacturers from Indian competition. Yet, by the middle of the 19th century, India was receiving one-fourth of all British exports of cotton piece goods and had lost its own export markets. Clearly, such significant transformations could not get very far in the absence of appropriate political changes, such as the development of a sufficiently cooperative local elite, effective administrative techniques, and peace-keeping instruments that would assure social stability and environments conducive to the radical social changes imposed by a foreign power. Consistent with these purposes was the installation of new, or amendments of old, legal systems that would facilitate the operation of a money, business, and private land economy. Tying it all together was the imposition of the culture and language of the dominant power. The changing nature of the relations between centers of empire and their colonies, under the impact of the unfolding Industrial Revolution, was also reflected in new trends in colonial acquisitions. While in preceding centuries colonies, trading posts, and settlements were in the main, except for South America, located along the coastline or on smaller islands, the expansions of the late 18th century and especially of the 19th century were distinguished by the spread of the colonizing powers, or of their emigrants, into the interior of continents. Such continental extensions, in general, took one of two forms, or some combination of the two: (1) the removal of the Indigenous peoples by killing them off or forcing them into specially reserved areas, thus providing room for settlers from western Europe who then developed the agriculture and industry of these lands under the social system imported from the mother countries, or (2) the conquest of the Indigenous peoples and the transformation of their existing societies to suit the changing needs of the more powerful militarily and technically advanced nations. At the heart of Western expansionism was the growing disparity in technologies between those of the leading European nations and those of the rest of the world. Differences between the level of technology in Europe and some of the regions on other continents were not especially great in the early part of the 18th century. In fact, some of the crucial technical knowledge used in Europe at that time came originally from Asia. During the 18th century, however, and at an accelerating pace in the 19th and 20th centuries, the gap between the technologically advanced countries and technologically backward regions kept on increasing despite the diffusion of modern technology by the colonial powers. The most important aspect of this disparity was the technical superiority of Western armaments, for this superiority enabled the West to impose its will on the much larger colonial populations. Advances in communication and transportation, notably railroads, also became important tools for consolidating foreign rule over extensive territories. And along with the enormous technical superiority and the colonizing experience itself came important psychological instruments of minority rule by foreigners: racism and arrogance on the part of the colonizers and a resulting spirit of inferiority among the colonized. Naturally, the above description and summary telescope events that transpired over many decades and the incidence of the changes varied from territory to territory and from time to time, influenced by the special conditions in each area, by what took place in the process of conquest, by the circumstances at the time when economic exploitation of the possessions became desirable and feasible, and by the varying political considerations of the several occupying powers. Moreover, it should be emphasized that expansion policies and practices, while far from haphazard, were rarely the result of long-range and integrated planning. The drive for expansion was persistent, as were the pressures to get the greatest advantage possible out of the resulting opportunities. But the expansions arose in the midst of intense rivalry among major powers that were concerned with the distribution of power on the continent of Europe itself as well as with ownership of overseas territories. Thus, the issues of national power, national wealth, and military strength shifted more and more to the world stage as commerce and territorial acquisitions spread over larger segments of the globe. In fact, colonies were themselves often levers of military power—sources of military supplies and of military manpower and bases for navies and merchant marines. What appears, then, in tracing the concrete course of empire is an intertwining of the struggle for hegemony between competing national powers, the maneuvering for preponderance of military strength, and the search for greatest advantage practically obtainable from the world’s resources. European colonial activity (1763–c. 1875) Stages of history rarely, if ever, come in neat packages: the roots of new historical periods begin to form in earlier eras, while many aspects of an older phase linger on and help shape the new. Nonetheless, there was a convergence of developments in the early 1760s, which, despite many qualifications, delineates a new stage in European expansionism and especially in that of the most successful empire builder, Great Britain. It is not only the Industrial Revolution in Great Britain that can be traced to this period but also the consequences of England’s decisive victory over France in the Seven Years’ War and the beginnings of what turned out to be the second British Empire. As a result of the Treaty of Paris, France lost nearly all of its colonial empire, while Britain became, except for Spain, the largest colonial power in the world. The second British Empire The removal of threat from the strongest competing foreign power set the stage for Britain’s conquest of India and for operations against the Native Americans to extend British settlement in Canada and westerly areas of the North American continent. In addition, the new commanding position on the seas provided an opportunity for Great Britain to probe for additional markets in Asia and Africa and to try to break the Spanish trade monopoly in South America. During this period, the scope of British world interests broadened dramatically to cover the South Pacific, the Far East, the South Atlantic, and the coast of Africa. The initial aim of this outburst of maritime activity was not so much the acquisition of extensive fresh territory as the attainment of a far-flung network of trading posts and maritime bases. The latter, it was hoped, would serve the interdependent aims of widening foreign commerce and controlling ocean shipping routes. But in the long run many of these initial bases turned out to be steppingstones to future territorial conquests. Because the indigenous populations did not always take kindly to foreign incursions into their homelands, even when the foreigners limited themselves to small enclaves, penetration of interiors was often necessary to secure base areas against attack. Loss of the American colonies The path of conquest and territorial growth was far from orderly. It was frequently diverted by the renewal or intensification of rivalry between, notably, England, France, Spain, and the Low Countries in colonial areas and on the European continent. The most severe blow to Great Britain’s 18th-century dreams of empire, however, came from the revolt of the 13 American colonies. These contiguous colonies were at the heart of the old, or what is often referred to as the first, British Empire, which consisted primarily of Ireland, the North American colonies, and the plantation colonies of the West Indies. Ironically, the elimination of this core of the first British Empire was to a large extent influenced by the upsurge of empire building after the Seven Years’ War. Great Britain harvested from its victory in that war a new expanse of territory about equal to its prewar possessions on the North American continent: French Canada, the Floridas, and the territory between the Alleghenies and the Mississippi River. The assimilation of the French Canadians, control of the Indigenous peoples, and settlement of the trans-Allegheny region, and the opening of new trade channels created a host of problems for the British government. Not the least of these were the burdensome costs to carry out this program on top of a huge national debt accumulated during the war. To cope with these problems, new imperial policies were adopted by the mother country: raising (for the first time) revenue from the colonies; tightening mercantile restrictions, imposing firm measures against smuggling (an important source of income for colonial merchants), and putting obstacles in the way of New England’s substantial trade with the West Indies. The strains generated by these policies created or intensified the hardships of large sections of the colonial population and, in addition, disrupted the relative harmony of interests that had been built up between the mother country and important elite groups in the colonies. Two additional factors, not unrelated to the enlargement of the British Empire, fed the onset and success of the American War of Independence (1775–83): first, a lessening need for military support from the mother country once the menacing French were removed from the continent and, second, support for the American Revolutionary forces from the French and Spanish, who had much to fear from the enhanced sea power and expansionism of the British. The shock of defeat in North America was not the only problem confronting British society. Ireland—in effect, a colonial dependency—also experienced a revolutionary upsurge, giving added significance to attacks by leading British free traders against existing colonial policies and even at times against colonialism itself. But such criticism had little effect except as it may have hastened colonial administrative reforms to counteract real and potential independence movements in dependencies such as Canada and Ireland.", "Policy changes The half century of global expansion is only one aspect of the transition to the second British Empire. The operations of the new empire in the longer run also reflected decisive changes in British society. The replacement of mercantile by industrial enterprise as the main source of national wealth entailed changes to make national and colonial policy more consistent with the new hierarchy of interests. The restrictive trade practices and monopolistic privileges that sustained the commercial explosion of the 16th and most of the 17th centuries—built around the slave trade, colonial plantations, and monopolistic trading companies—did not provide the most effective environment for a nation on its way to becoming the workshop of the world. The desired restructuring of policies occurred over decades of intense political conflict: the issues were not always clearly delineated, interest groups frequently overlapped, and the balance of power between competing vested interests shifted from time to time. The issues were clearly drawn in some cases, as for example over the continuation of the British East India Company’s trade monopoly. The company’s export of Indian silk, muslins, and other cotton goods was seen by all who were involved in any way in the production of British textiles to be an obstacle to the development of markets for competing British manufactures. Political opposition to this monopoly was strong at the end of the 18th century, but the giant step on the road to free trade was not taken until the early decades of the 19th century (termination of the Indian trade monopoly, 1813; of the Chinese trade monopoly, 1833). In contrast, the issues surrounding the strategic slave trade were much more complicated.",

"The West Indies plantations relied on a steady flow of slaves from Africa. British merchants and ships profited not only from supplying these slaves but also from the slave trade with other colonies in the Western Hemisphere. The British were the leading slave traders, controlling at least half of the transatlantic slave trade by the end of the 18th century. But the influential planter and slave-trade interests had come under vigorous and unrelenting attack by religious and humanitarian leaders and organizations, who propelled the issue of abolition to the forefront of British politics around the turn of the 19th century. Historians are still unravelling the threads of conflicting arguments about the priority of causes in the final abolition of the slave trade and, later, of slavery itself, because economic as well as political issues were at play: glutted sugar markets (to which low-cost producers in competing colonies contributed) stimulated thoughts about controlling future output by limiting the supply of fresh slaves; the compensation paid to plantation owners by the British government at the time of the abolition of slavery rescued many planters from bankruptcy during a sugar crisis, with a substantial part of the compensation money being used to pay off planters’ debts to London bankers. Moreover, the battle between proslavery and antislavery forces was fought in an environment in which free-trade interests were challenging established mercantilist practices and the West Indies sugar economy was in a secular decline. The British were not the first to abolish the slave trade. Denmark had ended it earlier, and the U.S. Constitution, written in 1787, had already provided for its termination in 1808. But the British Act of 1807 formally forbidding the slave trade was followed up by diplomatic and naval pressure to suppress the trade. By the 1820s Holland, Sweden, and France had also passed anti-slave-trade laws. Such laws and attempts to enforce them by no means stopped the trade, so long as there was buoyant demand for this commodity and good profit from dealing in it. Some decline in the demand for slaves did follow the final emancipation in 1833 of slaves in British possessions. On the other hand, the demand for slaves elsewhere in the Americas took on new life—e.g., to work the virgin soils of Cuba and Brazil and to pick the rapidly expanding U.S. cotton crops to feed the voracious appetite of the British textile industry. Accordingly, the number of slaves shipped across the Atlantic accelerated at the same time Britain and other maritime powers outlawed this form of commerce. Involvement in Africa Although Britain’s energetic activity to suppress the slave trade was far from effective, its diplomatic and military operations for this end led it to much greater involvement in African affairs. Additional colonies were acquired (Sierra Leone, 1808; Gambia, 1816; Gold Coast, 1821) to serve as bases for suppressing the slave trade and for stimulating substitute commerce. British naval squadrons touring the coast of Africa, stopping and inspecting suspected slavers of other nations, and forcing African tribal chiefs to sign antislavery treaties did not halt the expansion of the slave trade, but they did help Britain attain a commanding position along the west coast of Africa, which in turn contributed to the expansion of both its commercial and colonial empire. The growth of informal empire The transformation of the old colonial and mercantilist commercial system was completed when, in addition to the abolition of slavery and the slave trade, the Corn Laws and the Navigation Acts were repealed in the late 1840s. The repeal of the Navigation Acts acknowledged the new reality: the primacy of Britain’s navy and merchant shipping. The repeal of the Corn Laws (which had protected agricultural interests) signalled the maturation of the Industrial Revolution. In the light of Britain’s manufacturing supremacy, exclusivity and monopolistic trade restraints were less important than, and often detrimental to, the need for ever-expanding world markets and sources of inexpensive raw materials and food. With the new trade strategy, under the impetus of freer trade and technical progress, came a broadening of the concept of empire. It was found that the commercial and financial advantages of formal empire could often be derived by informal means. The development of a worldwide trade network, the growth of overseas banking, the export of capital to less advanced regions, the leading position of London’s money markets—all under the shield of a powerful and mobile navy—led to Great Britain’s economic preeminence and influence in many parts of the world, even in the absence of political control. Anticolonial sentiment The growing importance of informal empire went hand in hand with increased expressions of dissatisfaction with the formal colonial empire. The critical approach to empire came from leading statesmen, government officials in charge of colonial policy, the free traders, and the philosophic Radicals (the latter, a broad spectrum of opinion makers often labelled the Little Englanders, whose voices of dissent were most prominent in the years between 1840 and 1870). Taking the long view, however, some historians question just how much of this current of political thought was really concerned with the transformation of the British Empire into a Little England. Those who seriously considered colonial separation were for the most part thinking of the more recent white-settler colonies, such as Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, and definitely not of independence for India nor, for that matter, for Ireland. Differences of opinion among the various political factions naturally existed over the best use of limited government finance, colonial administrative tactics, how much foreign territory could in practice be controlled, and such issues as the costs of friction with the United States over Canada. Yet, while there were important differences of opinion on the choice between formal and informal empire, no important conflict arose over the desirability of continued expansion of Britain’s world influence and foreign commercial activity. Indeed, during the most active period of what has been presumed to be anticolonialism, both the formal and informal empires grew substantially: new colonies were added, the territory of existing colonies was enlarged, and military campaigns were conducted to widen Britain’s trading and investment area, as in the Opium Wars of the mid-19th century. Decline of colonial rivalry An outstanding development in colonial and empire affairs during the period between the Napoleonic Wars and the 1870s was an evident lessening in conflict between European powers. Not that conflict disappeared entirely, but the period as a whole was one of relative calm compared with either the almost continuous wars for colonial possessions in the 18th century or the revival of intense rivalries during the latter part of the 19th and early 20th centuries. Instead of wars among colonial powers during this period, there were wars against colonized peoples and their societies, incident either to initial conquest or to the extension of territorial possessions farther into the interior. Examples are Great Britain in India, Burma, South Africa (Kaffir Wars), New Zealand (Maori Wars); France in Algeria and Indochina; the Low Countries in Indonesia; Russia in Central Asia; and the United States against the North American Indians. Contributing to the abatement of intercolonial rivalries was the undisputable supremacy of the British Navy during these years. The increased use of steamships in the 19th century helped reinforce this supremacy: Great Britain’s ample domestic coal supply and its numerous bases around the globe (already owned or newly obtained for this purpose) combined to make available needed coaling stations. Over several decades of the 19th century and until new developments toward the end of the century opened up a new age of naval rivalry, no country was in a position to challenge Britain’s dominance of the seas. This may have temporarily weakened Britain’s acquisitive drive: the motive of preclusive occupation of foreign territory still occurred, but it was not as pressing as at other times.", "On the whole, despite the relative tranquillity and the rise of anticolonial sentiment in Britain, the era was marked by a notable wave of European expansionism. Thus, in 1800 Europe and its possessions, including former colonies, claimed title to about 55 percent of the Earth’s land surface: Europe, North and South America, most of India, the Russian part of Asia, parts of the East Indies, and small sections along the coast of Africa. But much of this was merely claimed; effective control existed over a little less than 35 percent, most of which consisted of Europe itself. By 1878—that is, before the next major wave of European acquisitions began—an additional 6,500,000 square miles (16,800,000 square kilometres) were claimed; during this period, control was consolidated over the new claims and over all the territory claimed in 1800. Hence, from 1800 to 1878, actual European rule (including former colonies in North and South America) increased from 35 to 67 percent of the Earth’s land surface.",

"Decline of the Spanish and Portuguese empires During the early 19th century, however, there was a conspicuous exception to the trend of colonial growth, and that was the decline of the Portuguese and Spanish empires in the Western Hemisphere. The occasion for the decolonization was provided by the Napoleonic Wars. The French occupation of the Iberian Peninsula in 1807, combined with the ensuing years of intense warfare until 1814 on that peninsula between the British and French and their respective allies, effectively isolated the colonies from their mother countries. During this isolation the long-smouldering discontents in the colonies erupted in influential nationalist movements, revolutions of independence, and civil wars. The stricken mother countries could hardly interfere with events on the South American continent, nor did they have the resources, even after the Peninsular War was over, to bring enough soldiers and armaments across the Atlantic to suppress the independence forces. Great Britain could have intervened on behalf of Spain and Portugal, but it declined. British commerce with South America had blossomed during the Napoleonic Wars. New vistas of potentially profitable opportunities opened up in those years, in contrast with preceding decades when British penetration of Spanish colonial markets consisted largely of smuggling to get past Spain’s mercantile restrictions. The British therefore now favoured independence for these colonies and had little interest in helping to reimpose colonial rule, with its accompanying limitations on British trade and investment. Support for colonial independence by the British came in several ways: merchants and financiers provided loans and supplies needed by insurrectionary governments; the Royal Navy protected the shipment of those supplies and the returning specie; and the British government made it clear to other nations that it considered South American countries independent. The British forthright position on independence, as well as the availability of the Royal Navy to support this policy, gave substance to the U.S. Monroe Doctrine (1823), which the United States had insufficient strength at that time to really enforce. After some 15 years of uprisings and wars, Spain by 1825 no longer had any colonies in South America itself, retaining only the islands of Cuba and Puerto Rico. During the same period Brazil achieved its independence from Portugal. The advantages to the British economy made possible by the consequent opening up of the Latin-American ports were eagerly pursued, facilitated by commercial treaties signed with these young nations. The reluctance of France to recognize their new status delayed French penetration of their markets and gave an advantage to the British. In one liberated area after another, brokers and commercial agents arrived from England to ferret out business opportunities. Soon the continent was flooded with British goods, often competing with much weaker native industries. Actually, Latin America provided the largest single export market for British cotton textiles in the first half of the 19th century. Despite the absence of formal empire, the British were able to attain economic preeminence in South America. Spanish and Portuguese colonialism had left a heritage of disunity and conflict within regions of new nations and between nations, along with conditions that led to unstable alliances of ruling elite groups. While this combination of weaknesses militated against successful self-development, it was fertile ground for energetic foreign entrepreneurs, especially those who had technically advanced manufacturing capacities, capital resources, international money markets, insurance and shipping facilities, plus supportive foreign policies. The early orgy of speculative loans and investments soon ended. But before long, British economic penetration entered into more lasting and self-perpetuating activities, such as promoting Latin-American exports, providing railroad equipment, constructing public works, and supplying banking networks. Thus, while the collapse of the Spanish and Portuguese empires led to the decline of colonialism in the Western Hemisphere, it also paved the way for a significant expansion of Britain’s informal empire of trade, investment, and finance during the 19th century. The emigration of European peoples European influence around the globe increased with each new wave of emigration from Europe. Tides of settlers brought with them the Old World culture and, often, useful agricultural and industrial skills. An estimated 55,000,000 Europeans left their native lands in the 100 years after 1820, the product chiefly of two forces: (1) the push to emigrate as a result of difficulties arising from economic dislocations at home and (2) the pull of land, jobs, and recruitment activities of passenger shipping lines and agents of labour-hungry entrepreneurs in the New World. Other factors were also clearly at work, such as the search for religious freedom, escape from tyrannical governments, avoidance of military conscription, and the desire for greater upward social and economic mobility. Such motives had existed throughout the centuries, however, and they are insufficient to explain the massive population movements that characterized the 19th century. Unemployment induced by rapid technological changes in agriculture and industry was an important incentive for English emigration in the mid-1800s. The surge of German emigration at roughly the same time is largely attributable to an agricultural revolution in Germany, which nearly ruined many farmers on small holdings in southwestern Germany. Under English rule, the Irish were prevented from industrial development and were directed to an economy based on export of cereals grown on small holdings. A potato blight, followed by famine and eviction of farm tenants by landlords, gave large numbers of Irish no alternative other than emigration or starvation. These three nationalities—English, German, and Irish—composed the largest group of migrants in the 1850s. In later years Italians and Slavs contributed substantially to the population spillover. The emigrants spread throughout the world, but the bulk of the population transfer went to the Americas, Siberia, and Australasia. The population outflow, greatly facilitated by European supremacy outside Europe, helped ease the social pressures and probably abated the dangers of social upheaval in Europe itself. Advance of the U.S. frontier The outward movement of European peoples in any substantial numbers naturally was tied in with conquest and, to a greater or lesser degree, with the displacement of indigenous populations. In the United States, where by far the largest number of European emigrants went, acquisition of space for development by white immigrants entailed activity on two fronts: competition with rival European nations and disposition of the Indians. During a large part of the 19th century, the United States remained alert to the danger of encirclement by Europeans, but in addition the search for more fertile land, pursuit of the fur trade, and desire for ports to serve commerce in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans nourished the drive to penetrate the American continent. The most pressing points of tension with European nations were eliminated during the first half of the century: purchase of the Louisiana Territory from France in 1803 gave the United States control over the heartland of the continent; settlement of the War of 1812 ended British claims south of the 49th parallel up to the Rocky Mountains; Spain’s cession of the Floridas in 1819 rounded out the Atlantic coastal frontier; and Russia’s (1824) and Great Britain’s (1846) relinquishment of claims to the Oregon territory gave the United States its window on the Pacific. The expansion of the United States, however, was not confined to liquidating rival claims of overseas empires; it also involved taking territory from neighbouring Mexico. Settlers from the United States wrested Texas from Mexico (1836), and war against Mexico (1846–48) led to the U.S. annexation of the southwestern region between New Mexico and Utah to the Pacific Ocean. Diplomatic and military victories over the European nations and Mexico were but one precondition for the transcontinental expansion of the United States. In addition, the Indian tribes sooner or later had to be rooted out to clear the new territory. At times, treaties were arranged with Indian tribes, by which vast areas were opened up for white settlement. But even where peaceful agreements had been reached, the persistent pressure of the search for land and commerce created recurrent wars with Indian tribes that were seeking to retain their homes and their land. Room for the new settlers was obtained by forced removal of natives to as yet non-white-settled land—a process that was repeated as white settlers occupied ever more territory. Massacres during wars, susceptibility to infectious European diseases, and hardships endured during forced migrations all contributed to the decline in the Indian population and the weakening of its resistance. Nevertheless, Indian wars occupied the U.S. Army’s attention during most of the 19th century, ending with the eventual isolation of the surviving Indians on reservations set aside by the U.S. government. The new imperialism (c. 1875–1914) Reemergence of colonial rivalries Although there are sharp differences of opinion over the reasons for, and the significance of, the “new imperialism,” there is little dispute that at least two developments in the late 19th and in the beginning of the 20th century signify a new departure: (1) notable speedup in colonial acquisitions; (2) an increase in the number of colonial powers. New acquisitions The annexations during this new phase of imperial growth differed significantly from the expansionism earlier in the 19th century. While the latter was substantial in magnitude, it was primarily devoted to the consolidation of claimed territory (by penetration of continental interiors and more effective rule over indigenous populations) and only secondarily to new acquisitions. On the other hand, the new imperialism was characterized by a burst of activity in carving up as yet independent areas: taking over almost all Africa, a good part of Asia, and many Pacific islands. This new vigour in the pursuit of colonies is reflected in the fact that the rate of new territorial acquisitions of the new imperialism was almost three times that of the earlier period. Thus, the increase in new territories claimed in the first 75 years of the 19th century averaged about 83,000 square miles (215,000 square kilometres) a year. As against this, the colonial powers added an average of about 240,000 square miles (620,000 square kilometres) a year between the late 1870s and World War I (1914–18). By the beginning of that war, the new territory claimed was for the most part fully conquered, and the main military resistance of the indigenous populations had been suppressed. Hence, in 1914, as a consequence of this new expansion and conquest on top of that of preceding centuries, the colonial powers, their colonies, and their former colonies extended over approximately 85 percent of the Earth’s surface. Economic and political control by leading powers reached almost the entire globe, for, in addition to colonial rule, other means of domination were exercised in the form of spheres of influence, special commercial treaties, and the subordination that lenders often impose on debtor nations. New colonial powers This intensification of the drive for colonies reflected much more than a new wave of overseas activities by traditional colonial powers, including Russia. The new imperialism was distinguished particularly by the emergence of additional nations seeking slices of the colonial pie: Germany, the United States, Belgium, Italy, and, for the first time, an Asian power, Japan. Indeed, this very multiplication of colonial powers, occurring in a relatively short period, accelerated the tempo of colonial growth. Unoccupied space that could potentially be colonized was limited. Therefore, the more nations there were seeking additional colonies at about the same time, the greater was the premium on speed. Thus, the rivalry among the colonizing nations reached new heights, which in turn strengthened the motivation for preclusive occupation of territory and for attempts to control territory useful for the military defense of existing empires against rivals. The impact of the new upsurge of rivalry is well illustrated in the case of Great Britain. Relying on its economic preeminence in manufacturing, trade, and international finance as well as on its undisputed mastery of the seas during most of the 19th century, Great Britain could afford to relax in the search for new colonies, while concentrating on consolidation of the empire in hand and on building up an informal empire. But the challenge of new empire builders, backed up by increasing naval power, put a new priority on Britain’s desire to extend its colonial empire. On the other hand, the more that potential colonial space shrank, the greater became the urge of lesser powers to remedy disparities in size of empires by redivision of the colonial world. The struggle over contested space and for redivision of empire generated an increase in wars among the colonial powers and an intensification of diplomatic manoeuvring. Rise of new industrialized nations Parallel with the emergence of new powers seeking a place in the colonial sun and the increasing rivalry among existing colonial powers was the rise of industrialized nations able and willing to challenge Great Britain’s lead in industry, finance, and world trade. In the mid-19th century Britain’s economy outdistanced by far its potential rivals. But, by the last quarter of that century, Britain was confronted by restless competitors seeking a greater share of world trade and finance; the Industrial Revolution had gained a strong foothold in these nations, which were spurred on to increasing industrialization with the spread of railroad lines and the maturation of integrated national markets. Moreover, the major technological innovations of the late 19th and early 20th centuries improved the competitive potential of the newer industrial nations. Great Britain’s advantage as the progenitor of the first Industrial Revolution diminished substantially as the newer products and sources of energy of what has been called a second Industrial Revolution began to dominate industrial activity. The late starters, having digested the first Industrial Revolution, now had a more equal footing with Great Britain: they were all starting out more or less from the same base to exploit the second Industrial Revolution. This new industrialism, notably featuring mass-produced steel, electric power and oil as sources of energy, industrial chemistry, and the internal-combustion engine, spread over western Europe, the United States, and eventually Japan. A world economy To operate efficiently, the new industries required heavy capital investment in large-scale units. Accordingly, they encouraged the development of capital markets and banking institutions that were large and flexible enough to finance the new enterprises. The larger capital markets and industrial enterprises, in turn, helped push forward the geographic scale of operations of the industrialized nations: more capital could now be mobilized for foreign loans and investment, and the bigger businesses had the resources for the worldwide search for and development of the raw materials essential to the success and security of their investments. Not only did the new industrialism generate a voracious appetite for raw materials, but food for the swelling urban populations was now also sought in the far corners of the world. Advances in ship construction (steamships using steel hulls, twin screws, and compound engines) made feasible the inexpensive movement of bulk raw materials and food over long ocean distances. Under the pressures and opportunities of the later decades of the 19th century, more and more of the world was drawn upon as primary producers for the industrialized nations. Self-contained economic regions dissolved into a world economy, involving an international division of labour whereby the leading industrial nations made and sold manufactured products and the rest of the world supplied them with raw materials and food. New militarism The complex of social, political, and economic changes that accompanied the new industrialism and the vastly expanded and integrated world commerce also provided a setting for intensified commercial rivalry, the rebuilding of high tariff walls, and a revival of militarism. Of special importance militarily was the race in naval construction, which was propelled by the successful introduction and steady improvement of radically new warships that were steam driven, armour-plated, and equipped with weapons able to penetrate the new armour. Before the development of these new technologies, Britain’s naval superiority was overwhelming and unchallengeable. But because Britain was now obliged in effect to build a completely new navy, other nations with adequate industrial capacities and the will to devote their resources to this purpose could challenge Britain’s supremacy at sea. The new militarism and the intensification of colonial rivalry signalled the end of the relatively peaceful conditions of the mid-19th century. The conflict over the partition of Africa, the South African War (the Boer War), the Sino-Japanese War, the Spanish-American War, and the Russo-Japanese War were among the indications that the new imperialism had opened a new era that was anything but peaceful. The new imperialism also represented an intensification of tendencies that had originated in earlier periods. Thus, for example, the decision by the United States to go to war with Spain cannot be isolated from the long-standing interest of the United States in the Caribbean and the Pacific. The defeat of Spain and the suppression of the independence revolutions in Cuba and the Philippines gave substance to the Monroe Doctrine: the United States now became the dominant power in the Caribbean, and the door was opened for acquisition of greater influence in Latin America. Possession of the Philippines was consistent with the historic interest of the United States in the commerce of the Pacific, as it had already manifested by its long interest in Hawaii (annexed in 1898) and by an expedition by Commodore Matthew Perry to Japan (1853). Historiographical debate The new imperialism marked the end of vacillation over the choice of imperialist military and political policies; similar decisions to push imperialist programs to the forefront were made by the leading industrial nations over a relatively short period. This historical conjuncture requires explanation and still remains the subject of debate among historians and social scientists. The pivot of the controversy is the degree to which the new imperialism was the product of primarily economic forces and in particular whether it was a necessary attribute of the capitalist system. Serious analysts on both sides of the argument recognize that there is a multitude of factors involved: the main protagonists of economic imperialism recognize that political, military, and ideological influences were also at work; similarly, many who dispute the economic imperialism thesis acknowledge that economic interests played a significant role. The problem, however, is one of assigning priority to causes.",

Quest for a general theory of imperialism

"matters of controversy with respect to specific cases and to the problem of fitting them into a general theory of imperialism.", "close relationship between power and wealth, because in the real world adequate economic resources are needed for a nation to hold on to its power, let alone to increase it. Conversely, increasing a nation’s wealth often requires power. As is characteristic of historical phenomena, imperialist expansion is conditioned by a nation’s previous history and the particular situation preceding each expansionist move. Moreover, it is carried forth in the midst of a complex of political, military, economic, and psychological impulses. It would seem, therefore, that the attempt to arrive at a theory that explains each and every imperialist action—ranging from a semifeudal Russia to a relatively undeveloped Italy to an industrially powerful Germany—is a vain pursuit. But this does not eliminate the more important challenge of constructing a theory that will provide a meaningful interpretation of the almost simultaneous eruption of the new imperialism in a whole group of leading powers.",

"Japan itself, the danger of foreign military intervention, a crisis in its traditional feudal society, the rise of commerce, and a disaffected peasantry led to an intense internal power struggle and finally to a revolutionary change in the country’s society and a thoroughgoing modernization program, one that brought Japan the economic and military strength to resist foreign nations." (Sounds like Britain in year 1750 against foreign deterrence and rioting people, except that Henry Pelham wanted peace too and instead feudal, it's aristocratic society being in danger and etca.),

"The British Empire Britain tended toward a decentralized and empirical type of colonial administration, in which some degree of partial decolonization could prepare the way for eventual self-rule. Realizing that direct rule over ancient civilized lands could not last indefinitely, Britain worked for a continued British presence in areas where the empire conferred self-government."

Colonialism-note:a

Accidents-note:v

2026.05.12/en.wikipedia .org/wiki/Afternoon : "A study of motor accidents in Sweden between 1987 and 1991 found that the time around 5:00 pm had by far the most accidents: around 1,600 at 5:00 pm, compared to around 1,000 each at 4:00 pm and 6:00 pm. This trend may have been influenced by the afternoon rush hour, but the morning rush hour showed a much smaller increase.[16] In Finland, accidents in the agriculture industry are most common in the afternoon, specifically Monday afternoons in September.[17]"

Accidents-note:a

Balkans-note:v

2026.06.13/YT: @historyfor_normies: Albania's Peak Power: The 1941 Puppet Expansion: Comments; Summary: @Taukingur: 10 months: The confirmed Albania Vilayet proposal if 1912 was larger

@Haksrax: 10 months: @Taukingur Implemented by who? Albanians we're like:"So we want his and this without any effort and the people around us should respect what we said." (It seems with the Kosovo-case that Albanians have the habit of demanding things with small effort and regardless of international law meanwhile their existence being backed up by foreign great powers like Austria-Hungary and Italy/USA and EU supporting Kosovo against UN, swing countries and G20.) Albania, like other Balkan countries, ignore their mistake-lessons. The anti-ottoman Albanian nationalists revolted before the United Balkanian front emerged, yet they got killed by Ottoman purge. So only loyalists Albanian leaders and Turk-Albanians who were neutral or supported the cause survived. That make Albania pawns and dependent on outside protection from great powers against their hostile neighbors, which are hostile thanks to Ottomans manipulating Albania. Balkans at 1910s got great power assurance and access to weaponry market, but not support. Ottoman Empire got weakened by Italy. Albania exist at end of WW1 because of Italy and Austria-Hungary. Balkans is like little South America. Illyrians was a hunter-gather melting pot with Albanians, but not all illyrians were Albanians. It's like saying native Americans are white Americans. Albanians nowadays are racially diverse too. Albanians have too much indo-european and western Asian genes to be Illyrians. Albanian cities are named by Greek mythology. Till the fourth crusade, there was no mention of Albanians.

Albania is "only nation in the world" kinds surrounded by its own national people geographically.

Balkans-note:a

Poland-note:v

2026.06.16/YT: Poland lost most wars in numbers in Europe at around 2010s. Poland provocateur Germany and soviet Union in 1920s-1930s.

2025: ZDFinfo-Documentary. Germans were scared of a mighty polish invasion. The German administration knew how weak Poland was.

Poland-note:a

Greece-note:v

2026.02.08/lacan .com/zizlovevigilantes.html : "Athens were in 1800 a provincial peasant village of 10.000 inhabitants, they were not even the first capital of independent Greece. It was under the pressure of Western powers (mostly Germany and England) that the capital was moved to Athens where a series of neoclassic government buildings were constructed by Western architects; it was also the Westerners, fascinated by the Antiquity, who installed in Greeks the sense of continuity with Ancient Greece. Modern Greece thus literally arose as the materialization of the Other’s fantasy, and, since the right of fantasy is the fundamental right, should one not draw from it the extremely non-PC conclusion that not only should Germany and England return to Greece the ancient monuments they plundered and which are now displayed in the Pergamon Museum and the British Museum – Greeks should even voluntarily offer to Germany and Greece whatever old monuments they still possess, since these monuments only have value for the Western ideological fantasy."

Greece-note:a

America-note:v

2026.02.08/lacan .com/zizlovevigilantes.html : "obscene underside of the US popular culture - the initiatic rituals of torture and humiliation one has to undergo in order to be accepted into a closed community"

America-note:a

Migrant-note: DuckDuckGo: Subdirectories of directweb .com by 2015-web.archived-version of berkeley guide edu by DuckDuckGo: 2026.06.05/icpsr.umich .edu/web/NACJD/studies/36579/versions/V1/datadocumentation# Migrant crime.

Migrant-note:a

Religion-note:v

2026.04.06/reddit .com/r/agnostic/comments/leafdn/deleted_by_user/ : "Unitarian Universalists, while not explicitly Christians, are the least bad in my opinion. If they don’t count , then I’d say the Quakers" 15 upvotes,

"Unitarians are weirdly unchristian." 3 Upvotes Raven_Of_Solace • 5y ago "I tend to get along best with UCC and Unitarian Universalists, though calling the latter "Christian" is a little disingenuous." 3 Upvotes,

Nathann4288 • 5y ago Non-denominational. Upvote 8 Downvote omniwombatius • 5y ago That's sometimes code for fundamental evangelical. Upvote 17 Downvote Reasonable-Marzipan4 • 5y ago I disagree. Many NDs are splinter churches formed from disgruntled pastors of Baptist, Assembly of God, Pentecostal, etc. Oftentimes, the doctrine is mish-mashed and a whole big mess. It is another word for evangelical.,

meandmosasaurus • 5y ago United and Quakers I would say are the best. Anglican depending on where you are and which church it is. Upvote 2 Downvote RJSA2000 • 5y ago Anglican. Upvote 2 Downvote [deleted] • 5y ago Managed to grow up Presbyterian without too much trauma. Plus I got to watch my youth minister do verbal gymnastics trying to explain Calvinistic predestination. Upvote 2 Downvote Mitch858 • 5y ago Lutheran, Presbyterianism, Methodism Upvote 2 Downvote omniwombatius • 5y ago Lutheran here. The Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, ELCA, is the most tolerant and liberal. Two other main sub-groups are the Missouri Synod and the Wisconsin Synod. The Missouri Synod denies even other Lutherans communion unless they are also Missouri Synod, and the Wisconsin Synod is worse. Upvote 3 Downvote,

[deleted] • 2y ago (2026.04.06/en.wikipedia .org/wiki/Anglicanism is Episcopalianism.) I would agree Episcopalianism is the most rational of the "traditional" denominations. it's basically diet Catholicism that doesn't hit you over the head with the Hell thing and is not outwardly hostile towards gay people. But there are definitely nontraditional alternatives that blow it out of the water on the rationality front. Upvote 1 Downvote, anabaptist tradition. It’s the same branch of Christianity as the Mennonites, except embracing technology and being pretty chill...basically the opposite of American Evangelicals., PhilosophicalZombie: "Methodists tend to be rather pragmatic which I regard well compared to evangelical strains of chrisianity."..."Unfortunately Methodists are also boring as can be." < stainedclassking2 • 5y ago:

I know almost nothing about Methodism besides the fact that they use grape juice instead of wine for communion but they do seem to be the ultimate “middle of the road” American church.,

PhilosphicalZombie • 5y ago So here is the general run-down on Methodists. Very little hellfire and damnation. Likewise very little emotion or animation. Some of the ideological underpinnings are actually a bit radical and put them a bit at odds in terms of philosophical concerns with other classical mainline protestant sects however when this ideology is actually translated into action you end up with middle of the road, boring, and not very emotive services. Perhaps sometimes the services are a bit cerebral in lieu of the tack many other churches take. The good thing is they are not overly active in blaming or shaming as a result. As far as the Male/Female dynamic there is not a restriction on gender as to who can be a pastor or really serve in any roll in the church. There is no work to put women into a place or make them subservient to men. They are traditionally anti-gambling and anti-alcohol (hence the grape juice). They follow an Arminian doctrine instead of a Calvanistic one. It does have an evangelical (looking to gain new members - not the type of church) /missionary tradition however it is applied much like their church services in a rather cerebral, uneventful manner which is not fixated on blame. Much of the evangelism is in the past and was originally focused on individuals behind bars and newly freed slaves. They also do not supply model laws or codes to governments looking to codify christianity into national laws like certain evangelical groups from the US have done in some African nations. Look that one up if you have time. It has had some tragic results for individuals on the LGBTQ+ spectrum. There is a bit of a soul searching going on there currently on what to do with LGBTQ+ members as pastors but that will almost always be the case with christianity and nearly all christian sects are debating items like this at this time. The whole situation has never been a large focus point in their theology however. There has not been a focus on rooting out the "gays" like there has been with some other sects. Was raised in this church but moved on as I began to think about if I actually had the tools to determine if divinity was an actual thing that really exists or not. I'm a seeker and not a finder. In my quests I have read several holy texts (including the Christian Bible, Book of Morman, Tao Te Ching, parts of the Bhagavad Gita, parts of the Upanishads, and parts of the Koran). Been through the Church of Latter Day Saints classes. Sat amongst crowds speaking in tongues as they orgasm in religious ecstasy. Attended a few Baha'i meetings. Grew up around several Hindu adherents who were quite willing to explain their take on their beliefs. Tried my damnedest to take up meditation (failure). Asked my co-workers who follow faith's I'm less familiar with way too many questions (always respectfully) and tried to answer theirs when there is something I can help with based on my background. Currently I am reading "Drawing Down the Moon", by Margo Adler. But basically with all the cacophony of my research and experiences all I can really say is the Methodists tend to be calm, with cerebral if stodgy services that are boring, and generally not too bad of lot as people go. Also as church basement suppers go they make great macaroni and pasta salads. Upvote 2 Downvote 24nicebeans • 5y ago Sorry I’m just a lurker, but the Methodist church down the road from where I live has a sign about loving gay people so they seem pretty chill to me. I grew up in a Presbyterian household and they (the presbyterians) still seem pretty chill even though I don’t believe. They’re okay with gays, the pastor has regular meetings with religious leaders nearby (of many different religions) and I only heard positive stuff from them Upvote 1 Downvote [deleted] • 5y ago Grew up in Methodist. It was a positive experience overall and one that I feel was beneficial despite my move away from organized religion. That said, in more recent years I have been very put off by their leadership and non-acceptance of employing gay people. Apparently the church is pretty split on that in general (word of the Bible vs. Being progressive and accepting). Upvote 1 Downvote u/PhilosphicalZombie avatar PhilosphicalZombie • 5y ago Yeah that appears to be their main internal question at this time. I really think it is only occurring as a result of pressures from external forces such as prosperity gospel (remember organized christianity is very much beholden to market principles) and that some members will also be members of a political party which isn't kind to gay individuals. Upvote 1 Downvote SoulExecution • 5y ago • Edited 5y ago Progressive Christians are really chill. They completely shut down any kind of anti-LGBT crap and are genuinely decent people who just happen to be Christian. Google the... I think it’s called the Clackamas Church of God or something and click on pictures, you’ll see some of the signs they put up. Pro-refugees, pro-LGBT, pro-BLM, Christians who actually practice what they preach. I’ll happily sit down and talk religion, faith, spirituality, etc with someone with those beliefs, because while we may not agree on things, our sense of morality will be very similar and we can probably give one another new things to consider in our respective searches. Edit: it’s called Clackamas United Church of Christ,

alanwmMD • 5y ago In general I agree. If you have to a christian join the Church of England, they don't take it too seriously! 1 upvote;

2026.04.13/youtube .com/watch?v=ZVkcTejdAOc :

@Talancir

1 year ago

The irony, I find, is that the Christian church has consistently applied moral relativism ever since they began interpreting the Law of God as inapplicable in various forms (ceremonial laws invalid, etc).

Therefore, the Christian who properly rejects moral relativism should be a pronomian.

1

3

@qwerte6948

7 months ago

Well Jesus himself broke ceremonial laws and critiqued them. Ceremonial laws also were not fully given by God for all people, but rather just for Isrealites at a specific time.

2

@Talancir

7 months ago (edited)

@qwerte6948 He didn't actually break ceremonial laws. If you're referring to the washing of hands, this is one of the Traditions of the Elders which is Oral Law, not found in the Torah. As well, there is no Ceremonial partition of the Law, except what is eisegeted into the text.

If you are a member of the New Covenant, which was sworn only to the Houses of Judah and Israel, then you are a citizen of Israel just as Paul could consider himself a Roman and legally able to appeal to the Princeps of Rome. Thus, God's Law is for you as well, since it is written within you and on your heart and sealed with the Spirit whom He gave you for the purpose of following them.

@GeorgeWashingtonClanker

6 months ago

​@qwerte6948Those were traditions of men which he heavily criticized...",

"@luke.4317

6 months ago

luckly im italian and i know the morality of god. lets lookup how the stato del vaticano (papal state) collaborated with the italian mafia for a loong time (using the IOR) and the far right terrorists in the years of led. or easly by searching up Emanuela Orlandi. lol

militancy-note:v

2025.12.15/https://vic3.paradoxwikis.com/Ideology : "Sikh Militancy The Sikh have a militarized movement that will support having a strong national army." ; 2025.12.15/ : "Militancy in Shadow Empire refers to the level of support and willingness of the population in a zone to form militia forces. A higher militancy score leads to more militia being generated, which can be useful for defense and other operations, but it tends to decrease as regular military forces are built.

forum.quartertothree.com"

Militancy-note:a

Victoria 2 function-note:v

2025.04.10/forum.paradoxplaza .com/forum/threads/religious-rebels-are-really-annoying.366635/#post-8691506 : rebel_types in the common folder, search for religious_rebels, and put defection = none instead of religion, and remove the defection_delay line. This will stop them from defecting entirely., "you go to rebel_types in the common folder, search for religious_rebels, and put defection = none instead of religion, and remove the defection_delay line. This will stop them from defecting entirely."

Victoria 2 function-note:a

2ch .hk/gsg/arch/2022-02-02/res/1163757.html : ruling_party_support affects election success. Reddit-link (reddit .com/r/victoria2/comments/17cfw08/what_exactly_is_ruling_party_support/) says party loyalty.

steamcommunity .com/app/42960/discussions/0/3055114073645155154/ : Party_loyalty_focus makes pops more likely to vote.

Victoria 2 noculture-note:v

2025.04.11/raw.githubusercontent .com/sirlinc/Golden-Age-Mod-Victoria-2/refs/heads/main/events/Noculture.txt : mean_time_to_happen = { months = 0.00001 } #immediately;

Victoria 2 noculture-note:a

Eu iv sacred kingdom-note:v

2025.06.19/steamcommunity .com/app/236850/discussions/0/3201496916523527025/ : 2022-01-12: "Any tribal pagan country can switch to that reform as long as they don't have enlightenment. But they will lose it if they don't fulfill these conditions anymore(custom nations can keep it with enlightenment)."

Eu iv sacred kingdom-note:a

Eu iv technology-abuse:v

2025.06.15/eu4.paradoxwikis .com/Institution_events : Circulation of Hostile Publications : "When printing was a novelty it first attracted those who would create codices as great works of art or philanthropists who wanted to spread the knowledge of the classics in a more accessible format. Soon, however, others joined their ranks, less scrupulous men who would make a living slandering others. Ever since printing started to mature as a business, presses all over Europe have been available for demagogues to spin their webs of lies. Piles of pamphlets lie ready to be distributed to anyone who will believe them as we speak."; 2025.06.19/eu4.paradoxwikis .com/Religious_events : "Our Humanist Tolerance has lead some of our people to become Shintoists. Confucius says 'If a man is without benevolences, then of what use are the rights? If a man is without benevolences, then of what use is music?'"

Eu iv technology-abuse:a

Eu iv revolution-note:v

2025.06.15/eu4.paradoxwikis .com/Ages#Age_of_Revolutions : "questioning of rights, authority and the world itself during the Enlightenment has led to the rejection of the Ancient Regime. As Absolutism gives way to Revolution kingdoms may have to make place for Republics.", "Anti-Revolutionary Zeal Liberty desire from subjects development −33% Liberty desire from subject development", "Possible age disasters include: French Revolution, Revolution, Aspiration for Liberty."; < 2025.06.15/eu4.paradoxwikis .com/French_Revolution : "French people have risen to overthrow the monarchs that once ruled their country.", "counterpart of the Revolution.png revolution disaster of all other countries."; 2025.06.15/eu4.paradoxwikis .com/Revolution_(disaster) : "Decades of feudal oppression, economic difficulties, and religious intolerance have taken their toll on our nation and the population's desire for liberty is posing a serious threat to our Monarchy."; eu4.paradoxwikis .com/Aspiration_for_Liberty : "population's strive for liberty and the desire for enactment of enlightened ideals have spurred a revolution that seems all but unavoidable.", "Aspiration for Liberty[1] is a general disaster that can occur in countries without a parliament in the ‘Age of Revolutions’.", "has at least 5 cities. does not use doom mechanics.", "Emperor is not active: has less than 30 cities. the Revolution target.png revolution target exists. One of the following is true: has its capital in Europe. a neighboring country is revolutionary a neighboring country has a parliament"; 2025.06.15/eu4.paradoxwikis .com/Subject_nation : "Below 50 a subject state is loyal: it pays taxes/tariffs to its overlord and takes an active part in all wars.

Above 50 liberty desire, a subject becomes disloyal, refusing to pay taxes while being unhelpful in wars by only defending its own territory. Disloyal subjects readily accept support for their independence from foreign nations and make alliances with each other, and may declare an independence war if they have sufficient strength. In rare cases, a disloyal subject may still have a Friendly attitude toward its overlord; this means it will not accept requests to support its independence or alliances from fellow subjects, but does not otherwise alter its behavior. At 100 liberty desire, a state is rebellious, and will, at least in theory, declare its independence at the slightest opportunity."; 2025.06.15/eu4.paradoxwikis .com/Cultural_events : "Like a mighty torch, bringing the light of reason into even the darkest corners of the old and new worlds, the Enlightenment is sweeping across the world. Supporting this movement will doubtlessly lead to advances in science and philosophy, but the movement's notions about human freedom and the unalienable rights of man may cause a bit of a rebellious fervor in our country.", "No, it's not worth the risk Lose 10 prestige"; 2024.06.15/productionwiki-eu4.paradoxwikis .com/Common_government_reforms : (Is revolutionary: "Liberté is the school of thought within the Revolution that claims that any individual should have the divine right to do whatever he or she wishes that does not do harm to or restrict the liberty of others.", "Those who believe in the ideals of Egalité believe that the law, whether it be a rule or a right, applies equally to all people, regardless of faith, social class, culture, and gender. Equally, all citizens should have access to all positions in our government based only on their competence.", "Not everyone acknowledges the ideals of Fraternité as an ideal of the Revolution, but view it as a reactionary element within our own state who wish to return to the old government. Fraternité is a sense of brotherhood and those who follow its principles believe that the state should follow an authoritarian route where there is a proper place for all citizens assigned by the state.")

Eu iv revolution-note:a

Eu iv enlightenment-note:v

2025.06.15/eu4.paradoxwikis .com/Institutions : "The last century has seen Rationalism and Empiricism gaining an ever-increasing popularity among the great minds of the age. In letters, publications and coffee houses, kings, scientists, philosophers and littérateurs are discussing the merits of tolerance, the scientific method and the spreading of the ideals of the Enlightenment to all of humanity. From universities or courts of enlightened monarchs, expeditions are being sent to measure, catalogue, weigh and map the world so that we can better understand the laws that govern the things around us. Others discuss the laws that govern society and try to reach an understanding of the Rights of Man.

Great projects such as the colossal undertaking of creating a complete encyclopedia of all knowledge or a complete index of all plants, animals and fungi in the world are being pursued for the greater good of humanity. The Light of Reason has been lit and many will not rest until it has been brought to all corners of the earth.", "Has at least 30 development"; 2025.06.15/eu4.paradoxwikis .com/Flavour_and_Events_Expanded/FEE_Enlightenment_Events : Enlightened Absolutism: "While many enlightenment thinkers are critical of monarchies, and many monarchs are suspicious of enlightened ideals, there are those who realise the enlightened path is the way of the future. Ideas developed by modern philosophers can aid our bureaucracy and lend even greater legitimacy to our absolute rule. On the other hand, some of them speak of terrifying things like self-determination and pluralistic governments.", "Age of Enlightenment Fades": "As with every age, one must fade to give way for a new. While we may not know what awaits our nation, the past centuries have taught us and the rest of Europe about the very nature of knowledge. Whatever the future brings, we know that we will be better prepared to face the unknown than we have ever been before.", Year is 1760 or later, "Remove country modifier "The Enlightenment"", "Enlightenment Ends in Revolution": "Year is 1725 or later Has country modifier “The Enlightenment” has_first_revolution_started = yes"; 2025.06.15/eu4.paradoxwikis .com/Institution_events : "These travelers seem more interested in our plants, animals and even subjects than they are in our actual [Root.Monarch.GetTitle], our traders or our riches. Our informers tell us these people consider themselves the carriers of an 'Enlightenment'", "Apostles of the Enlightenment": "They state that their mission in our lands is to document, measure and categorize our plants, wildlife and society. They wish to learn everything they can about our country and then take this knowledge elsewhere so that others may compare what they find to other parts of the world. It is quite clear that these are men of learning and that we could probably put some of that knowledge to good use. If we allow them to travel our lands as freely as they wish, however, we risk dangerous intelligence falling into the hands of what may well be foreign spies...", "Healthy Criticism?": "Public houses, coffee houses and other places where the public can convene and discuss have traditionally often also been hotbeds of criticism and discontent towards our rulers. This has changed lately, however, as the political discussion has become more widespread among a more engaged general population. While much of the discussion is not strictly aimed at lambasting the [Root.Owner.GetAdjective] government, it seems it still often reflects very poorly on us.", "** Religion is in Christian or Muslim group"..."Owns a province:

Has our religion"..."Any neighbouring province: Has not embraced Enlightenment"; 2025.06.16/eu4.paradoxwikis .com/Brandenburg-Prussian_events : "After the end of the reign of Louis XIV in France and the following wars of the Spanish succession, the age of enlightenment slowly began to spread all over Europe by the words of writers and philosophers of the time such as Locke, Rousseau, Diderot, Hume, Leibniz and Montesquieu. The New Ideals included religious freedom, education, freedom of speech and political opinion. The monumental work that captured the essence of the enlightenment was Diderot's Encyclopedie, taking 25 years for its completion and in the end totaling a collection of no less then 35 volumes of 1000 pages each describing everything", "Kant was the foremost thinker of the Enlightenment and one of the greatest philosophers of all time. In him were subsumed new trends that had begun with the Rationalism (stressing reason) of Rene Descartes and the Empiricism (stressing experience) of Francis Bacon. He thus inaugurated a new era in the development of philosophical thought."; 2025.06.17/steamcommunity .com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1381305516 : Start: 1705 with Enlightenment-institution spawned. " • Enlightened ruler: ruler has at least 4/4/4 skill level, or has "free thinker" / "erudite" personality trait.

* Early imperialism: have provinces in at least five continents.

* Scientific revolution: have 25 innovativeness or more.

Early industrialization: at least 40% of total income from production.", " • Rise of trade companies: -33% trade investment cost

* Repopulation policies: -15 % state maintenance cost. +10 colonial growth.

Trade liberalization: +15% trade efficiency. -20% domestic trade power. -5% desire liberty for subjects", "Enlightenment age begins 10 years after Enlightenment institution appears(roughly 1710)"; 2025.06.25/raw.githubusercontent .com/Victorum-Universalis-VU/VU-v1.37-Table-of-Ranks/main/common/ages/00_default.txt : "age_of_revolutions = { start = 1710 can_start = { is_institution_enabled = enlightenment"

Eu iv enlightenment-note:a

Eu iv rights of man-note:v

Before 2025.06.30: Declaration of rights of man has fire-symbol on wiki like revolt.

Eu iv rights of man-note:a

Eu iv questioning the world-note:v

2025.06.26/duck .ai : "o4-mini

In EU IV the mechanic behind the “Enlightenment” institution (and its spin-off “Age of Revolutions” bonus) isn’t meant to model your brain’s low-level, reflexive pattern-matching. Rather, it’s attempting to capture the historical/philosophical sense of “questioning the world” that drove 17th–18th-century Europe—namely:

• A conscious, self-aware skepticism of received authorities (church, monarchy, scholastic Aristotelianism)
• The deliberate application of reason, debate and experiment to overturn traditional dogma
• The spread of literacy, print culture and salons as forums for public critique

In short, EU IV uses the epistemic definition of questioning—active, reflective inquiry and critique of existing beliefs—not the neuro-computational or subconscious pattern-matching senses."

Eu iv questioning the world-note:a

Eu iv renaissance-note:v

2025.06.15/eu4.paradoxwikis .com/Cultural_events : Endorse Renaissance Philosophy

You, with no limit and no bound, may choose for yourself the limits and bounds of your nature. We have placed you at the world's center so that you may survey everything else in the world.
--Mirandola, Piccolo -- 'Oration on The Dignity of Man';

Eu iv renaissance-note:a

Eu iv institution enabled-note:v

2025.06.25/steamcommunity .com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2847424270 : "is_institution_enabled = new_world_i (this means *if the institution has globally spawned yet requirement for the event/thing to happen*, the "new_world_i" means the "colonisation" institution."; 2025.06.25/raw.githubusercontent .com/vawser/EU4-Documentation/master/triggers.txt : # ----- Technology : "is_institution_enabled = <institution>

has_institution = <institution>

current_institution_growth = <float>

num_of_owned_and_controlled_institutions = <int> / <scope>

has_unembraced_institution = <institution>"; 2025.06.26/steamcommunity .com/app/236850/discussions/0/144513248273470904 : "has to be enabled, a.k.a. it has already spawned"; 2025.06.26/forum.paradoxplaza .com/forum/threads/europa-universalis-iv-1-18-4-hotfix-released-checksum-f968.978080 : "Added 'has_institution = <name>' trigger to check if country has embraced an institution or not.

- Added 'is_institution_enabled = <name>' trigger to check if it has been discovered at all."

Eu iv institution enabled-note:a

Eu iv modding-note:v

2025.06.26/old.reddit .com/r/eu4/comments/116yq73/institution_spawning : 10p 2y: "no evidence for spawn chance being affected by dev or province ID, it appears to be a uniform distribution for each eligible province (at least for the renaissance, but I doubt that additional weighting factors would be included for other institutions)."

Eu iv modding-note:a