Comments by "King Ace" (@kingace6186) on "What If Columbus Never Discovered the Americas" video.

You maybe speak with a sense of bias. Because the infographics show conveyed that the Natives would still wage wars between themselves. But overall, if left to progress undisturbed (like Europe was), the Americas would be prosperous. There would still be wars, but there would be no ethnic genocides, no racial segregation, no colonization, no plagues, and no concept of "racism" (classism yes, but no racism).
21
That is an opinion held only because you see this history as being the only history available.
20
@numbskull9369 Your statement comes from a lack of understanding of the First Nations. Also, it is very colonial of you to just assume that a different path of human evolution is inherently inferior.
11
@numbskull9369 Also where did you get all of these numbers and "statistics" from? And where are you getting your supporting details from? Because without a credible source, all of this is just bias-driven opinion stating. Which is fine I guess. Your comment is "extremely optimistic".
7
@skela098 You should read about the Battle of Dagoli, Battle of Adwa, Battle of Lexington & Concord, Battle of Dien Bein Phu, Battle of Wabash, and more. These battles were all parts of wars where the outmatched and technologically inferior forces prevailed. These battles were a part of the wars: The 1st & 2nd Italian Colonization attempts of Ethiopia; the Africans were victorious. The American Revolutionary war; the colonists were victorious. The Vietnam War (both); the northern Vietnamese were victorious. The Northern Indian War; the Northwestern Indian Confederacy was victorious.
6
@jamesschultz30 This stems from a fundamental misunderstanding what "Racism" is and why/how it was intended to be used. Before the age of European Colonization, globally, there was slavery, ethnic discrimination, sexism, classism and colorism. But never racism. This is because, during the age of European Colonization, colonizers needed a form of subjection that works w/ dividing and conquering. This was important for them because they were trying to conquer & colonize every continent other than Europe. So they invented racism to make their colonial "dreams" more attainable. So they oppressed the "Indians" w racism. And, for the first time, they used slavery enslaved people based on which continent they came from. All of this is distinctly European.
5
@jamesschultz30 Ethnic discrimination is not racism. Racial discrimination is racism (oversimplified). And the concept of race is a distinctly European invention. They wanted to export this idea that "White" people (aka Europeans) were better than everyone else -- especially "Black" people (aka Africans).
4
The Aztecs respected and protected mother nature out of fear.
4
You are failing to differentiate between conquering and colonizing. Colonization and race-based slavery are distinctly European practices.
3
@-p2349 You're acting like the Natives weren't armed and didn't fight back. They waged in fierce guerrilla war to liberate and protect themselves and their heritage. If it weren't for the Old World plagues, the colonizers and their patron nations would have found that success was too costly to proceed -- gains would have been limited. We saw this when the US, the most powerful nuclear-armed superpower (~hyperpower), was bogged down and ultimately defeated in Vietnam, Afghanistan, (proxy) against Iran, e.t.c. All woefully ill-matched and ill-prepared -- only difference -- no invasive invisible plagues.
3
A lot of this comment is not necessarily accurate. But I will focus on the disease part. It wasn't that the Natives weren't immune to European diseases -- that is not how human immunology worked. It is that Europeans had plagues (different from diseases), which come from dense and unclean population centers w/ domesticated animals, while the New World did not.
3
@seanmcquilkin7753 No. The Natives were human beings like the rest of the world. So, yes, some tribes/nations would fight wars, practice slavery, & conquer. Now the difference between the Natives (and the rest of the world) from Europeans was colonization and racism. Similar to Alexander the Great, when the Aztecs or Mayans conquered people, they would let them keep their own identities. Something European Colonization never did. And when it comes to racism, how could Natives be racist when they are (by European definition) all on race? It is like saying, Black people are racist toward other Black people. Instead, there was ethnic discrimination, mostly by the more powerful nations/empires. Additionally, the only non-Euro empire that practiced colonization and racism was Imperial Japan. But that was because they modeled their imperialism after Europeans, and not the Chinese. In conclusion, racism is a distinctly European practice for colonization purposes.
3
@lukelyall5879 Thank you. I hate how little most people think of the indigenous peoples of the Americas. Most of the First Nations were modern by 1500s standards and some were even powerful states that rivaled early-modern England and France.
3
@lukelyall5879 Also their comment was highly defeatist and pessimistic. War should only be fought when necessary. Anyone who doesn't understand that can't know peace.
3
@jamesschultz30 I have no idea what your talking about anymore. Are you deflecting when you remembered Black people still have to deal with racism? Or are you just offended (mad much?) because you said something idiotic and was hit w a rebuttal?
3
@michaelmarciano7064 The Aztecs were not racist. The Aztecs were cruel in warfare. In case you forgot how to use a dictionary, those words are not the same.
3
Man thought The Bahamas was the Indian Subcontinent. He probably thought Cuba must have been China.
2
@lilmonkmonk808 Reverse Uno
2
@ctakitimu Not really. As any physicist will tell you, "What Ifs" and parallel/alt realities are important to study. Importantly, they show what is possible in this reality -- whether it is Quantum mechanics or historical differences. It's not a prophecy but a glimpse into a road not taken. And yes, most of the time, it is written in fiction to be fun and engaging. You're supposed to enjoy it and learn key messages from it.
2
@jamesschultz30 Also, White Americans and Canadians. Cheers, fam.
2
@thalmoragent9344 Precisely, there was and still is a different, less-destructive way. Thank you for your rationality and display of ethics.
2
Also, in this "New World", the Aztecs and Mayans might be fierce but the Incan Empire would be the true superpower of the Americas.
2
Daniel E. Actually, no. It was a part of First Nations theology and religious, animistic cultures/traditions.
2
Perhaps. Interesting observation. It would be interesting how the islands of Hawai would have played a role in that alternate history. Still tho, the Natives being the ones to "discover" Iberia would be a sweeter fruit to taste. Poetic Justice, if you please.
2
@Lord_Elron Hi. 1) I'm pretty sure @Karsten Voigt was talking about the Indigenous people. Instead of sailing in the Atlantic to Europe, they would have sailed out into the Pacific. 2) Actually, yes, Europeans wanted a shortcut to India & China. BUT. Most educated Europeans already knew the size and shape of the Earth. Meaning they understood that sailing around southern Africa would still be faster. But Columbus didn't care, for whatever reason, and rediscovered the New World. IDK if he was uneducated or super hopeful, but he just called it India and patted himself on the back.
2
True. But it shows that human history did NOT have to play out the way it did.
2
This WOULD be the greatest 'WHAT IF?' alternate reality in human history. I wonder when and how the Indigenous First Nations' people would start modernizing. What would be their alternative method of industrialization from the European brand of capitalism? Would European nations still turn out as powerful/important without the wealth of the New World? Would there be a scramble for Africa much sooner than later? Would the sun still not be able to set on the (peak) British Empire? Would Hawaii and Japan become rival Pacific superpowers? What would the nationalistic 20th century, and its World Wars, end up looking like?
1
@WildeHoppsANDW No because it was never about "race". It was about ethnicity and controlling the population. These and slavery have always existed since the dawn of warfare. BUT, the social construct of race is a distinctly European tool for colonization. I appreciate your logical and evidence based response.
1
Not true. Get off his nuts. And humanity would still progress to 2022 and beyond -- with far less destruction.
1
That actually is a misconception. The First Nations would have handled the European colonizers, even with their horses, guns, and armor. But the Europeans had a secret weapon... plagues. But likewise, even if the Europeans stayed in Europe and the "Americans" crossed the ocean, Europeans would still have plagues to unintentionally weaponize.
1
@numbskull9369 I know this. Everything you have said is either redundant or extremely misinformative.
1
@jamesschultz30 Oh I get it now. You are one of those privileged, rightists that are still oppressing the First Nations people of equality and human rights. Try viewing history and current events from a more conscious and unbiased perspective. It would do wonders for your ignorance.
1
@reboundrides8132 Did you know the "survival of the fittest" is a pseudo-scientific theory used by 19th & 20th-century white supremacists to argue for racial dominance and even racial perfection? It's a racist phrasing of Darwin's 'theory of evolution'. Charles Darwin's, the discoverer of evolution, original terminology was actually "natural selection" -- which is ethical and actually scientific.
1
@reboundrides8132 You can chose to be ignorant, if you want. Just don't say you weren't informed.
1
@49trades4 Simple: Race is an overgeneralization of numerous ethnicities grouped together by certain biological traits such as skin color and hair texture. Before overgeneralization like this became relevant (ie: for easier colonization) people just referred to "other people" by their ethnicity or their relationship to said people. With this in mind, your response was smoke.
1