Justification of Genocide?

I've been thinking about the comparison between British and Spanish settlements in the new world, particularly the British settlement of Roanoke Island and the Spanish settlement of Cuba. I wrote a paper on this around two years ago for university, and I've started to process the whole scenario even more lately. Please keep in mind that what follows is just myself trying to get inside the head of the Spanish hierarchy. This is purely from an practical expansionist perspective. So essentially it's not personal: It's business.

In settling the new world, the British took some measure to coexist peacefully with the Native Americans. On the other hand, the Spanish Empire had no intention of coexisting with the local population. When Sebastian de Ocampo returned from his eight month circumnavigation of Cuba and recommended Havana bay as a site for settlement, the conquest of the island was quickly planned and executed in just under one year. The treatment of the natives of Cuba was deplorable, but was justified to the Spanish nobles and public by the reports of the living practices of Carib peoples. The reports written by Dr Alvarez Chanca concerning the alleged cannibalistic lifestyle of the Caribs and the skirmishes with Cuban natives during the exploration led by Christopher Columbus (whose conduct during the exploration of Cuba was less than commendable by the way), were seemingly proof enough to justify the poor treatment of the prisoners of war. Nevertheless, once the island was conquered, the colony had the opportunity to flourish without the distractions of conflict with natives. This pattern of conquest, which was clearly used to get the native populations right out of the picture, can be seen in future expeditions by the Spanish while Cuba and in particular the colony of Havana became a major trading hub. By the time Britain had established it’s first successful colony in the Americas (Jamestown), Cuba had become the gateway to Latin America, and while many Spanish colonists left for more promising lands in Mexico and South America, Havana was still the most important trading port in the Americas at the time. Later Cuba would be contested for by several colonial and naval powers, but this was well after the actual founding of the colonies.

Here's the deal: By definition, colonization implies acquisition of land, and therefore can only cause conflict between locals and colonists. The reason the Spanish colony succeeded was because the Spanish recognized this obvious truth and decided to eliminate the problem of conflict with the natives before it even began. Granted it involved violence, but it was necessary for the acquisition of territory that was already occupied. One could even consider it preemptive aggression. Meanwhile the English continued to try to avoid violence and still acquire land that was already occupied with disastrous consequences. The English and Spanish continued their colonization patterns throughout history and had the same effects every time. The British were in a state of constant warfare with native populations while in Latin America, the Spanish generally were not. While there was civil war in certain parts of the Spanish Empire (as there was with every great colonial power), it was not with Native American populations.

Unlike the Spanish situation with Cuba, the English knew almost nothing about Roanoke Island or Virginia, nothing about the geography of the North American mainland, nothing about the local plants and effectively nothing about the local people. One example of the lack of information about the island is that the colonists initially thought sassafras to be a cure for syphilis. On a bit of a side note the use of sassafras as a cure for syphilis was endorsed by the colony’s governor Sir Walter Ralegh (Best known for his name being mentioned in the Beatles 'I'm So Tired' song off the White album) and was said to be effective for those whose private parts were ‘Covered in knobbles and moister of matter’ according to Thomas Harriot in his ‘A Briefe and True Report of the New Found Land of Virginia’, which was published around 1590. But I digress to disgusting trivia...my apologies. Where was I...oh sure...Harriot also writes about his experiences in the exploration of the island and also of part of the North American mainland, which took place after the initial founding of the colony (it is important to point out that they neglected to explore the area before the colonists even set sail). However they quickly learned about the local plants and began to cultivate the local tobacco, which was actually found to be of a better quality that that which the Spanish provided from Cuba at the time. So tobacco (and later cotton) became the means of survival for English colonists in North America for almost a century. This pattern of colonization would continue and are reflected in the founding of Rhode Island and Jamestown colonies, and the pattern of conflict and warfare with the natives is also continued.

The Spanish did very much the same thing. They explored South America, they cultivated tobacco, which was the source of their colonies survival for the next century, and they too exploited new and highly valuable resources native to the Americas. What we see in the end, though, is that nations follow the same patterns when attempting the same tasks. England almost always founded colonies the same way, and Spain almost always founded colonies the same way. And what anybody can tell from these examples is that the English method of colonization is not be particularly effective and often resulted in failure. All the great colonial powers achieved military power, economic power and political power and were adept in exploration and cultivation of native plants. The difference between all the great colonial powers and Spain is that Spain clearly recognised that the acquisition of land and resources that were already occupied could not occur peacefully. They invaded Cuba because they knew that conflict was inevitable. This is no doubt why the Spanish Empire grew to become the largest empire in the history of the world. The concept of the conquistador is what allowed the Spanish to exploit what they had conquered, which is something the English, being purely colonists, could not achieve. While they may have been violent, they did achieve what they set out to achieve. The Bible says ‘Can two men walk together except they be agreed?’ (Amos, 3:3, KJV) By that same token two cultures with opposing social structures and values cannot coexist. The Native American notion of group ownership and the Western notion of individual ownership cannot coexist. The Native American lifestyle of hunting and gathering cannot coexist with Western mass agricultural production cannot coexist. History teaches us this. In the end it is a battle for cultural survival and this doesn’t mean that the superior and most ethical culture will survive. It means that the most powerful culture will survive. That doesn’t make what the Spanish did right. It just makes what the Spanish did necessary.

Water Fluoridation and Effects of Sodium Fluoride in Mice

In 2001 a Jordanian study of the effects of water fluoridation in female mice was undertaken. Here is the summary taken from full report, which can be found here:

SUMMARY: Adult female mice were allowed ad libitum access to tap water containing 0, 100, 200 and 300 ppm sodium fluoride (NaF) for either 4 weeks or 12 weeks. The effect of NaF exposure on fertility was assessed in terms of the numbers of pregnant mice, implantations, viable fetuses, and resorptions. Exposure to NaF for 4 weeks did not have much effect on fertility, although there was a significant increase in the relative ovary weights and a decrease in the embryo weights in mice exposed to 300 ppm NaF. However, exposure to NaF for 12 weeks resulted in a significant reduction in the percentage of pregnancies at all concentrations used. Mice exposed to 200 and 300 ppm NaF showed a significant increase in relative ovary weights and a decrease in the number of viable fetuses. Furthermore, exposure to 300 ppm NaF for 12 weeks resulted in a significant decrease in number of implantations. These results indicate that long-term exposure of female mice to NaF causes adverse effects on the reproductive system and fertility.

Since it's use to keep prisoners docile and lethargic in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, there has been much opposition to water fluoridation. And now there is solid scientific evidence that it affects fertility among mice. Keep in mind that mice are mammals, and therefore share a high degree of homology with humans. As a matter of fact, almost all mouse genes have human homologs. There is a serious danger present, and hopefully people will see the risk of introducing sodium fluoride into our water supplies without proper long-term experimentation. If governments around the world don't start to take notice of this kind of research, then the result in the demography of western societies will be catastrophic.

Making sure the water purifier is functioning correctly,

Studmuffin.

Postmodernism as a Catalyst for Globalization

I've been reflecting on life lately and a few weeks ago I started thinking about the progression of society. In particular I've started to think about about the progression of globalization. There is a school of thought to which I subscribe which suggests that globalization is not simply a trend or fad but is, rather, an international system that influences the politics, environment, geopolitics and economics of almost every country in the world.

Globalization aims to develop a single marketplace to allow for the monopoly of large corporations, from Microsoft to McDonalds. This monopoly of the marketplace would result in the same product/s being sold all over the world all at once, and international spending would be standardized.

The success of globalization depends on a couple of factors, the most vital of these being worldwide cultural homogenization. Environmental issues aside, there is a legitimate risk that within a few generations globalization could wipe out the cultural diversity that took thousands and thousands of years of human development and experience to produce.

While cultural homogenization does take time to occur, several factors have accelerated it. The most important of these (in my opinion) was the development of postmodernist theory that was influenced by the economic breakdown and cultural disillusionment induced by the Second World War. Originally just a re-evaluation of western architecture, postmodernism grew to the point where it invaded all areas of philosophy, science, politics and history until it became what it is today: A complete denial of any objective reality. God either doesn’t exist or can never be known and people create their own reality and truth. In other words, quite literally, reality and truth is in the eye of the beholder. This philosophy spills over into the education system regarding the need to study history, since all history is based in private and individual interpretation of historical sources.

Think about it, if history means something different to everybody, then what’s the point of learning it? Shouldn't society be focused on the present? Shouldn't people be planning for the future instead of trying to deal with a totally subjective past? If one subscribes to postmodernism, as the majority of the next-gen academics do, then the answer is ‘yes’. As postmodernism grows in popularity and invades the education systems of the west, not only does knowledge of history diminish, so too does the desire to gain knowledge of history.

The easiest way to accelerate cultural homogenization in any society is to remove that societies cultural heritage by creating a vacuum between that society and it’s past. Whether it was intentional or not, by becoming philosophical and educational standard in western societies, postmodernism does just that. And when either postmodernism or some other such theory becomes prominent in other societies, the world will become that cultural mush that corporations and other institutions will pounce upon to cement the international system of globalization.

The only way to halt globalization is for countries to develop strong cultural filters so they can interact with other strong and vibrant cultures without being overwhelmed by them. One such filter is ensuring that the next generation has a thorough knowledge of their national and cultural history. If this cannot be achieved, then every country in the world will start to look like every other country: The same architecture, food, music, McCulture and ecological desolation.

Looking to a brighter future,

Studmuffin.