Not All Colonization Models Thrived From Holocaust: French Difference

It’s not true that as soon as Europeans arrived in the Americas, so did massacres. It did happen in connection with the conquest of the Caribbean (but Caribs eliminated the contingent Colomb left behind, first).

It is not true, but it is taken for a fundamental truth… In truth, it’s a fundamental lie.

Equating colonization and deliberate devastation is a pathetic lie to justify the Anglo-Saxon massacring colonization model… which indeed used that equation. This is of great importance, as the Anglo-Saxon devastation model is still in power today… through arcane logico-emotional mental and institutional structures, and a carefully rehashed partial vision of history. 

One of these mental structure is precisely the lie that colonization entails devastation. So we may as well have devastation (as colonization is unavoidable).

The French arrived much earlier than the Anglo-Saxons: 1534 Cartier, and Verrazano, and others, arrived much earlier,commandeered by the French government of Francois I, who discovered Nouvelle Angouleme, aka New York… they reported that the Natives told them that trading was OK, but not colonizing.  Thus the French had a trading, civilizing model which eschewed massacres. When Champlain showed up exactly at the same spot as the Pilgrims of the Mayflower, he reported that there were too many Natives already installed to enable settlement of the French.

Fifteenth Century French had Extensive Talks about colonization with the Natives. Mutual respect came out. Too much of it, it turned out.

The English colony was founded in a military-capitalist venture founded by the “West Country men”. Those plutocrats had made a fortune by over-exploiting Ireland. The governor there had alleys lined with Irish skulls.

But America was certainly much more interesting than Ireland.

Slavery had been made unlawful in 655 CE by Queen Bathilde of the Franks (truly an empress). In 1066 CE, the Franks outlawed slavery in England. Yet, the Anglo-Saxons colonists reintroduced slavery in 1619 CE. Shortly after, after the holocaust of the Pequot war, New England cities paid for Indian scalps.   

Another venue was simply to enslave American Natives and send them far away, for example in the Caribbean.

The Anglo-Saxon colonies made a fortune by growing tobacco, thanks to armies of slaves (at some point, more than 90% of some states were just slaves). 

Tobacco was an important factor in the survival of the English colony. However, probably not as much as the expedient of killing the Natives to free up land for more intensive European style farming.

The violence and brutality of the Anglo-Saxon colonizing model made it highly successful. This moral abyss showed itself to be a mountainous triumph. That is an opinion much adverse to the Politically Correct view of history. By the way this shows why Political Correctness is so useful to the established order. Political Correctness enables to claim that wishful thinking is actually not just real, but what happened. 

Devastation enabled the Anglo-Saxons investors to beat the French and the Spanish.

By being much friendlier to the Natives, and breeding with them, the French and Spanish created human bonds less propitious to the instauration of massacres.

Meanwhile, in the Anglo-Saxon invasion model, the more the top, wealthy investors devastated, the more this fascist model looked correct and was held in awe by the colons. Hence the feeling nowadays that the wealthiest US citizens, the billionaires, are the pillars upon which abundance and progress of the commonwealth rest.

The massacres and holocausts were justified by the Bible…which is a text which justifies colonizing the promised land after killing all the Natives: that’s how “God” orders it to be… If one obeys Him well….

All this mentality forms a coherent mental body. It may well be most appropriate to conquer the Solar System.

The bottom line is that morality is what works. The French were too kind to the Natives in America, and, ultimately that was good neither for them, nor the Natives.

Patrice Ayme

What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: