How the predatory American empire was created

103
How the predatory American empire was created
The Monroe Doctrine promises: Uncle Sam, under the slogan “America for Americans,” will protect neighbors in the Western Hemisphere from European colonialists


Enslavement and extermination of the Indians


Within 75 years after the first English colony of Virginia appeared in 1607, 12 more colonies arose: New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia. By the 1770s, the population of the 13 British colonies along the Atlantic coast east of the Appalachians was 2,5 million.



From the very beginning, the future United States was created on the bones of the local indigenous population - Indians, as well as imported slaves. The lands of America were taken over by deceit, bribery and force. The indigenous population was subjected to genocide - with the help of infectious diseases from which the Indians, having no immunity, died out. “Fire water”, so the moonshine still became more effective weaponsthan a gun, since it killed entire generations and led to their degeneration and degradation.

Pitting tribes against each other. And obvious force, when there were many colonists, and they were able to forcefully dictate their terms to the natives, driving them out to barren, desert lands (reservations), dooming them to slow and painful extinction and killing those who had the courage to resist. It was then that the terrible proverb was born: “a good Indian is a dead Indian.”

Gangs of migrants, deported and fugitive criminals, seekers of profit, gold, adventurers and religious fanatics-radicals rushed to America, who were ready to deceive and kill, seize foreign lands, mercilessly destroying, expelling and enslaving the natives, who were not considered people at all.

What’s interesting is that at the first stage, Dutch and English religious fanatics (“Pilgrim Fathers”), fugitive and deported criminals, and adventurers arrived in America in a very deplorable state - their ships needed major repairs, they were hungry, sick, did not know local conditions and they were barely able to get a foothold on the new continent.

Local warlike and numerous Indian tribes could easily kill and throw the first wave of colonists into the sea. But the Indians (remember Pocahontas) did the opposite - they supported strangers, helped build houses, taught them how to get food and supported the settlers in every possible way. As a result, the colonists were allowed to gain a foothold, settle in, and wait for help.

Soon the aliens moved on to the systematic genocide of their Indian benefactors. The natives were persecuted cynically, with fanaticism and sadism, like rabid animals. It was white headhunters who taught Indian warriors how to collect scalps when the British and French fought for dominance on the continent. At first, for example, in New England, the legislature set the price for an Indian scalp at 50 pounds. Regardless - men's, women's or children's. Still - 50 pounds. Brought the scalp of a woman and her children - and you have initial capital, you are a wealthy person.

That is, the most brutal murders were encouraged from above, by law. Entire brigades of “headhunters” arose. The massacres were massive. Bring a bag of ears to the local authorities and get money (later the price for a scalp dropped to 3–5 dollars).

Indian hunting was a completely normal business. It must be remembered that it was mainly Protestants who arrived in North America. For them, the Indians were not people in our understanding. The Indians were considered semi-intelligent animals, so generally accepted moral standards did not apply to them. Future Americans exterminated hundreds of thousands, millions of Native Americans (real Americans).

Often the Indians were killed and driven deep into the continent, into barren wastelands, legally, on the basis of those “treaties” under which the natives “sold” their lands, completely not understanding their meaning. These “treaties” allowed not only private settlers to destroy and drive Indians from their lands, but also a professional army to legally exterminate them.

Only the large number of Indian tribes allowed them to avoid complete destruction. A small proportion of Aboriginal people (about one percent) survived on reserves. Downtrodden, drunken aborigines, descendants of once free and powerful warrior tribes and farmers were driven into exotic reservations to entertain local residents and tourists.


The Mayflower ship that transported the Pilgrims to the New World. American artist William Formby Halsall

Slave Empire


Also, black and white slaves came to America - indentured “servants”, essentially slaves - disenfranchised Irish, Scots, Germans, Slavs, Scandinavians, etc. This is an unpopular, but documented fact. They began to be imported even before the final solution to the “Indian question”, since labor was needed.

The parasitic predators themselves did not want to work. The supply of blacks was just getting better. Raids on the Indians could not solve this problem, since the freedom-loving Indians preferred death to slavery; in captivity they quickly fell ill and died. That's why they came up with the idea of ​​importing white slaves. They were recruited in Europe by hook or by crook and transported overseas, selling them to English and Dutch parasitic masters.

Many white slaves died on the road, but those who survived brought enormous profits to the slave traders (one of the articles of the so-called “primitive accumulation of capital”). At the same time, the owners tried to multiply the slaves. If the blacks were imported mainly by men, since women simply could not withstand the terrible road, in which up to half or more of the slaves initially loaded onto merchant ships died. There were many women among the white slaves. Therefore, the masters engaged in "crossbreeding" to increase the population of slaves.

So In America, a terrible hierarchy of predators, parasites and victims initially developed. At the top are white gentlemen, Anglo-Saxon landowners, planters, shipowners, moneylenders-bankers, large speculators and the lawyers serving them. They control the military force - unprincipled bandit fighters, ready to do anything for gold, who exterminate the Indians and keep the main disenfranchised mass of white and black slaves under control. Plus a layer of semi-free farmers, hunters who are small predators, parasitizing on the lands of the Indians. However, they are kept under control with the help of laws, lawyers, and driven into bondage by larger predators.

On the basis of slave labor - white and black, the masters of America began to create industry. Moreover, if in the North they mainly used the slave labor of poor white people, then in the South they mainly imported black slaves, who were used in more primitive agriculture.

Thus, initially the American economy and most of the usury-banking “houses” and companies stand on the blood and bones of black and white slaves. Millions of people were exterminated, sold into slavery and perished in inhumane conditions so that America would gain the foundation for its future prosperity.

It's not customary to talk about this, but The slave trade and the brutal extermination of Indian peoples became the basis of a “free” America. Without the merciless exploitation of slaves, the clans of American parasitic predators would not be able to exist and grow rich. In general, the essence of Western civilization is slavery, the parasitism of a select few on slaves, even if the chains have now become invisible.


US Cavalry Pursuing Indians, 1899 color lithograph. Artist Charles Schreyvogel

The beginning of US expansion


Legally, the States arose when the English and American elites (clans of parasitic predators) quarreled over money. American clans wanted the metropolis to moderate its appetites. But London did not want to take into account the interests of the colonies.

When the colonies began to make demands, England began an economic war, threatening military force. The thirteen English colonies quickly united in the face of a common threat. England tried to restore order in the colonies by force.

In 1773, the American Revolution began. In the spring of 1775, the Revolutionary War began. In July 1776, Congress voted to declare American independence and adopted the Declaration of Independence, which formed the basis of the constitution of the new federal state. On September 9, 1776, the Continental Congress approved a new name for America - “United States of America.”

It is understood that the American colonies, without a strong industry, a professional army and fleet, were doomed to failure. England did not crush such opponents. However, here the higher levels of the Western project entered the Great Game - the Freemasons, the owners of the Protestant churches and the Vatican. The separatists were led by Freemason D. Washington. It’s not for nothing that the United States is simply imbued with the Masonic spirit and symbolism. America, according to their plan, was to become the new center of the West, the “New Rome”. Therefore, the American colonies were supported by France and Spain.

Russia also made a strategic mistake when it took a favorable position towards the United States. And in 1780, Russia headed the so-called. The League of Neutrals was an association of states that opposed Britain's intention to oppose trade between its opponents and countries not involved in the conflict. That is, in essence, an anti-British bloc led by Russia was created. In fact, Russia helped the birth of the United States. England had to let go of its overseas colonies and yield to pressure from the then international community.

As a result, a new predator appeared on the planet, a parasitic, slave-owning state that exists at the expense of other people's resources. The formation of the American empire began, which quite quickly, historically, surpassed its mother country - Britain.

The first 13 states immediately began to plunder and occupy neighboring lands. First, the lands of the Indian tribes came under attack. From 1792 to 1803 Americans drove out or drove out almost all the Indians on their lands in the future states of Ohio, Tennessee and Kentucky.


Boston Tea Party. Nathaniel Curry

Conflict with France


At the same time, American traders, taking advantage of the struggle of the great powers in Europe at the end of the XNUMXth - XNUMXth centuries, the struggle of England and France for dominance in Europe and the world, began regional and even global expansion. The Americans quickly seize the trade of France with its West Indian colonies and the trade of England and France with other countries. American ships from New York, then from Boston and other ports, appear in China and Kronstadt. Trade ties between the United States and Russia across the Pacific Ocean are established.

During this period, relations between the United States and France deteriorated sharply. Paris was dissatisfied with the rapprochement between the United States and England, not counting the expansion of American merchants. Therefore, French ships began to seize American merchant ships under the pretext of “military smuggling.” In fact, military operations at sea began between the United States and France. Congress ordered American warships and merchant ships to attack French shipping in the western Atlantic and Caribbean Sea. The United States actively built warships, created a naval department and a “provisional” army in addition to the regular one. In the war at sea in 1798–1801. More than 50 warships and about 1 armed merchant ships (“private” privateers) participated.

However, this conflict did not develop into a full-fledged war. France was tied to Britain, and all its strength and resources were spent fighting against it. Then Russia also entered the fight against revolutionary France; France had no time for the colonial empire. Therefore, the Americans could easily expand trade in Europe and the East and pinch the French.


Growth of US territory 1800–1810

Mining Louisiana and Florida


The war in Europe allowed the Americans to calmly prepare for the capture of Spanish Louisiana and both Floridas, East and West. In 1800, the Treaty of San Ildefonso gave Spain control of Louisiana to France. Napoleon prepared a fleet and army to land in Louisiana in 1802–1803 to suppress the rebellion in Saint-Domingue. But in 1803, the war with Britain resumed, and Paris had no time for its overseas colonies.

In 1803, the States forced France, which was in a difficult situation, at war with almost all of Europe, to sell the huge Louisiana for a pittance (for $15 million). Almost for nothing, the Americans got a huge land and its riches, on which the lands of 15 US states are now located. The Americans received the Mississippi River, a major transportation artery that had previously been a frontier river.

In 1810, Americans infiltrated western Florida, which belonged to Spain, and captured it. In 1812, the Americans tried to bite off the territory of England - they encroached on huge Canada. But the regular English army crushes the American gangs, and they flee. Canada remained within the sphere of influence of the British Empire.

In 1819, the Americans captured eastern Florida. On the peninsula, the Americans commit genocide against the Seminole Indian people. The genocide of Indians in the occupied territory continues systematically and at full speed, without diverting attention from the seizure of new lands.


Ceremony for the transfer of Louisiana from France to the United States. Louisiana State Museum, New Orleans

The struggle of the great European powers for America


During this period, the young American state was still wary of the European powers, which had their own interests in North and South America.

After the overthrow of Napoleon's power, a revolution broke out in Spain, and the Spanish colonies in South America also rebelled. The revolt was led by the local Latin American elite (the same Spaniards who had just taken root in America), since the metropolitan authorities prohibited the colonies from trading with other countries, which allowed Spanish traders to inflate prices for their goods. That is, the rebellion was based on an economic reason - control over trade and cash flows.

Britain, which wanted to occupy the Latin American market and sought freedom of trade in the Spanish colonies (the “world workshop” had an economic advantage over other powers), supported the national liberation movement in South America. The British also had their eyes on Russian possessions in America (Alaska, California). Russia had a weak military-economic position in North America, and Britain wanted to compensate for the losses of the North American colonies (USA).

The British provoked tribes of local natives into conflict with the Russians and the tribes subordinate to them, and armed the natives. Russian diplomat Nikolai Rezanov, who visited Alaska on an inspection trip in 1805, noted that the Indians “have English guns, but we have Okhotsk guns, which are never used anywhere because they are unusable.”

France sought to re-establish a colonial presence in the New World and openly discussed transforming the colonies into small puppet kingdoms, each ruled by a relative of the Bourbons.

There was a question about the border between the United States and Russia. The Russians already had large holdings in North America and were conducting exploration further south and deep into the Pacific coast. At the same time, St. Petersburg wanted to take advantage of the differences between the United States and England. Support the weaker side - the States - to limit Britain's appetites. Alexander Pavlovich wanted to fix the status quo on the American continent. Russia had no interests in Latin America. The independence of the former Spanish colonies did not threaten Russia.

The Americans and British had their own plans for this resource-rich region, and were wary of Russia. England and the United States reacted with hostility to the Russian decree of 1821, which recalled sovereignty over the Pacific Northwest and established shipping rules.

England approached President Monroe with a proposal to negotiate a multilateral agreement to keep France and other European competitors away from South America. US Secretary of State John Quincy Adams advised the president not to enter into too close cooperation with London. He argued that following this pattern would make the United States a junior partner in matters directly affecting its interests, “a boat to follow the British warship.”

It is worth noting that Adams was an expert on the Russian question. He served as US Ambassador to Russia from 1809 to 1814, and established good relations with Finance Minister Dmitry Guryev, Chancellor Rumyantsev, and even Tsar Alexander I.


American politician and statesman, diplomat, 6th President of the United States (1825–1829). The eldest son of the second US President John Adams, the main author of the Monroe Doctrine, John Quincy Adams. Artist D. S. Copley

Adams advised Monroe to tell Congress that the United States should make a unilateral declaration of primacy in the affairs of the Western Hemisphere, promising, on the one hand, to oppose all future attempts by Europeans to recolonize North or South America, and on the other, to maintain neutrality in European affairs.

Monroe did just that, setting out these principles first in a message sent to British Secretary of State George Canning and then to Congress.

“We have not interfered and will not interfere with the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power,”

– noted in the message. Thus was born the US foreign policy strategy, later called the Monroe Doctrine.

Interestingly, former US Presidents Jefferson and Madison strongly objected to the Monroe Doctrine. They were afraid to oppose Great Britain. USA after its recent defeat in the Anglo-American War of 1812–1815. were humiliated and drained of blood. In this war, the British even captured and burned the American capital, Washington. President James Madison, his entire administration and his wife had to flee. After 8 years, the US was still too weak and did not have a strong army and navy to enter into conflict with the great European powers.


Clyde De Land's painting "The Birth of the Monroe Doctrine"

The Monroe Doctrine


On December 2, 1823, US President James Monroe made a speech against the interference of European powers in the affairs of the countries of the Western Hemisphere. This became the first declaration of principles that later formed the basis of the so-called Monroe Doctrine.

Monroe essentially divided the world into two spheres of influence. He stated that the United States would consider any aggressive actions of European powers towards the states of the Western Hemisphere a threat to its security. At the same time, America, for its part, pledged not to interfere in the internal affairs of European states.

International reaction was mixed. England calmly accepted the change in US foreign policy, content to remain neutral on the high seas. Spain and France also accepted their loss of dominance in the Western Hemisphere.

There were other opinions. Austrian diplomat Prince Clemens von Metternich accused the United States of "pressure and insubordination." But the Austrian Empire did not care about America; its interests were concentrated in Europe, primarily in Germany, Italy and the Balkans.

Russia de facto supported the United States to weaken the British Empire. Already at the beginning of the next 1824, the Russian-American Convention “on friendly relations, trade, navigation and fishing” was signed in St. Petersburg. The Russian side even softened the provisions of the 1821 decree. Russia refused to advance south of latitude 54° 40' north in the direction of Oregon.

In 1841, the Ross fortress was sold to the American entrepreneur John Sutter for 42 thousand silver rubles. Russia has lost its foothold in California.

The response in Latin America was also not uniform. Many leaders of the various local independence uprisings appreciated US support. While others believed that the States did not have the opportunity and did not have the right to extend their power to the entire Western Hemisphere. Chilean politician Diego Portales presciently wrote that “for the Americans of the North, the only Americans are themselves.”

As the United States gained ground, late XNUMXth-century statesmen such as Theodore Roosevelt turned the "United States Guarantor of Freedom in the Western Hemisphere" doctrine on its head, using it to justify countless interventions in Latin America, Hawaii, and elsewhere. regions, ushering in the era of “America as world hegemon.”

In this way, The Americans brazenly declared that only they had rights to all the lands of the Western Hemisphere. Moreover, this cynical doctrine, which showed the right of might, was disguised by “humane and democratic” ideas of protecting America from “external interference.” The United States has freed its hands and shown the whole world that it is above laws and morals, that the United States is taking upon itself the role of ruler of the entire Western Hemisphere.


James Monroe (1758–1831) – American politician and statesman, fifth President of the United States (1817–1825); lawyer, diplomat, one of the founding fathers of the United States. Artist Samuel Morse

The appetites of the American beast are growing


Already in 1824, the Americans landed troops in Cuba. The appetites of the American beast are growing. This beast is greedy and merciless.

The great Russian genius Alexander Pushkin notes:

“For some time now, the North American States have been drawing attention to themselves in Europe... They saw with amazement democracy in its disgusting cynicism, in its cruel prejudices, in its intolerant tyranny.”

In 1845, the Americans capture Texas, part of Mexico, which had recently achieved independence from Spain. The capture of Texas was presented as a "voluntary annexation." In 1846, the United States provoked a war with Mexico and took away almost half of its territory - New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, California, etc.

Subsequently, America continued its expansion, sometimes by force, sometimes by cunning, “by agreement”, occupying new lands: Hawaii, Guam, Puerto Rico, the Philippines, Cuba, etc.

In 1867, the Americans deceive the Russians and buy Alaska. Russian America is destroyed.

Expansion continues in the future.

Following the First World War, the United States became one of the leading great powers and a global creditor. As a result of the Second World War, they became a superpower, displacing the hegemon of the Western project - Britain.

With the outbreak of the Cold War (which essentially became the third world war), Washington, under the slogans of the Monroe Doctrine, initiated a series of interventions in Latin American countries such as Guatemala, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Chile and Grenada ("Flash of Fury" How the US crushed socialism in Grenada). According to various sources, in the 80th century, American intelligence services were involved in more than XNUMX coups in Latin America alone.
Starting with Korea and Vietnam, the United States has been interfering most actively in the affairs of states and the Eastern Hemisphere. A network of US military bases is being created across the planet. After the collapse of the USSR in 1991, the United States became the only superpower, a position that continues to this day.


US Iraq campaign. 1991
103 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +1
    2 December 2023 04: 28
    .. a declaration of principles that later formed the basis of the so-called Monroe Doctrine.

    Monroe essentially divided the world into two spheres of influence. He stated that the United States would consider any aggressive actions of European powers towards the states of the Western Hemisphere a threat to its security. Simultaneously America from my side pledged not to interfere in the internal affairs of European states.

    At this point, Monroe's statement almost sounds like a joke! It is already difficult to find people on the globe who are not yet familiar with the intervention of the US leadership in countries on all known continents...
    1. +3
      2 December 2023 07: 36
      In the cartoon, is this an American defending Mexico? Well, well..
  2. -2
    2 December 2023 05: 47
    Any state is an organized gang of bandits and there is no other way, it was the same with chimpanzees, reaped from the fact that Napoleon was forced to sell Louisiana, yeah, who forced whom.
    1. 0
      2 December 2023 06: 12
      And Russia too?
      She was such a bandit that she saved or created more than a dozen states. Vilely leaving behind factories, schools, hospitals, cities and roads.

      And a minus from me, yes. For such “generalizations” about “any countries”. If it had been “live”, I would have given such an applicant a slap in the face at the very least.
      1. +10
        2 December 2023 08: 14
        Yes, Russia, too, and the main ones who robbed their own peasants, or according to your opinion, is that what?
      2. +7
        2 December 2023 12: 42
        In St. Petersburg, in the Kokkolevo area (Pulkovo Heights), an eco-trail was recently opened. There were stands along it, including information on the history of the places there. On one of them I read that the inhabitants of the Finnish settlements there after the conquest (or as they now always prefer to say - liberation) by Russia were resettled in their entirety (to where - there is no information), and in their place serfs from the central regions of Russia were settled. Somehow this does not really resemble the stories about the formation of the Russian state from school history textbooks, especially those edited by Medinsky and company.
        1. +1
          4 December 2023 11: 43
          Quote: UAZ 452
          were resettled in full (there is no information where), and serfs from the central regions of Russia were settled in their place. Somehow this does not really resemble the stories about the formation of the Russian state from school history textbooks, especially those edited by Medinsky and company.

          Well, yes, the Swedes were also knocked out of Nyenshans. And they offended me near Poltava.
          That’s why I see the Finns are now a dying nation, just like the Indians are now in the USA.
          But it’s okay that Finnish statehood arose precisely at the time of joining the Republic of Ingushetia. Before this, when the Finnish lands were under the Swedes, these same Swedes spread rot on the Finns no worse than the Anglo-Saxons of the Indians. Maybe this is why there is a monument to Russian Emperor Alexander II on the main square in the capital of Finland?
          1. -3
            4 December 2023 17: 36
            But it’s okay that Finnish statehood arose precisely at the time of joining the Republic of Ingushetia.


            We can just as well say that Indian statehood arose precisely during its entry into the British Empire.
            And before the British, there was feudal fragmentation there, rajas and maharajas fought with each other.

            Maybe this is why there is a monument to Russian Emperor Alexander II on the main square in the capital of Finland?


            In India, there is a memorial to British Queen Victoria in Calcutta. Does this mean Indians love Queen Victoria?
            1. +2
              4 December 2023 20: 38
              Quote from: dump22
              We can just as well say that Indian statehood arose precisely during its entry into the British Empire.
              And before the British, there was feudal fragmentation there, rajas and maharajas fought with each other.

              No you can not. The Indian state arose long before the arrival, and indeed even the appearance, of Small Britain. But Finland, as a state, came into existence only thanks to the Republic of Ingushetia and its subsequent collapse. Under the Swedish protectorate there were no rajahs in the Finnish lands. There were separate tribes running around there. And their capital, Helsingfors, was founded by the Swedes, and it was rebuilt in stone by the Russians.

              The similarity of architectural and compositional solutions in the development of Helsingfors and St. Petersburg is due to the fact that foreign architects coming to Russia were guided by the best examples of classicism and Russian Empire style, which were fashionable at the beginning of the XNUMXth century, already implemented in St. Petersburg. The progress of the work was personally supervised by Emperor Alexander I and his brother Nicholas.
        2. +1
          7 December 2023 21: 17
          And you answer, how well did the Finns live with the Swedes? How did Peter buy tribaltika? It was necessary to distribute the royal debts, this is one, and not to steal the victory from Russia in the First World War, this is two. After all, these mistakes are now paid for in blood.
        3. 0
          April 8 2024 17: 14
          were resettled in full (where - no information)

          To the Tver province, not very far.
  3. +9
    2 December 2023 06: 41
    Mark Twain: "We are thieves, robbers and murderers, and we are proud of that"
  4. +7
    2 December 2023 06: 42
    Gangster psychology, thieves' concepts... How it began - today it does not matter how long it can and will continue - is another question.
    I’m just curious whether those sitting in the Kremlin know this or are they going to continue to convince us that we need to negotiate with our American “partners” and that we can reach an agreement.
    Humanity is doomed in the presence of such a cancerous tumor.
    Everything is clear there: some are born to be kings, others are born to be slaves.
    Capitalism is a welfare society for the few. This pyramid was depicted long ago:
    1. +5
      2 December 2023 07: 20
      Quote: ROSS 42
      I’m just curious whether those sitting in the Kremlin know this or are they going to continue to convince us that we need to negotiate with our American “partners” and that we can reach an agreement.

      They, as before, are going to continue to convince us of both versions at the same time.
    2. The comment was deleted.
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. The comment was deleted.
          1. The comment was deleted.
            1. The comment was deleted.
            2. The comment was deleted.
        3. The comment was deleted.
          1. The comment was deleted.
    3. 0
      2 December 2023 12: 04
      Quote: ROSS 42
      Bandit psychology, thieves' concepts...

      Of the civilized countries, only the United States for the last 200 years has been and remains a slave-owning empire.
    4. +7
      2 December 2023 12: 46
      I’m just curious whether those sitting in the Kremlin know this or are they going to continue to convince us that we need to negotiate with our American “partners” and that we can reach an agreement.

      So why are they not satisfied with such a pyramid? They are not located at its base. They just want to rise even higher than they are now, but the pyramid, it’s just a pyramid, narrows towards the top, which means there isn’t enough room for everyone. This is the essence of all conflicts.
  5. +3
    2 December 2023 07: 00
    Who would doubt that today's people are descendants of pirates, thieves, prostitutes and slaves.
  6. +12
    2 December 2023 07: 06
    (Heavy sigh) Samsonov in his repertoire...
    1. +2
      2 December 2023 08: 51
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Samsonov in his repertoire...

      America, sir. And? Author. bully
      1. +5
        2 December 2023 08: 55
        We are white and fluffy, but? They don’t really like us either. That’s why? We are so good! laughing
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. -1
          2 December 2023 12: 08
          Quote: ArchiPhil
          We are white and fluffy, but? They don’t really like us either.


          No matter how we are considered, we have never been slave owners, unlike the USA and Britain.
          1. +4
            2 December 2023 12: 48
            Quote: tihonmarine

            No matter how we are considered, we have never been slave owners

            Not entirely true. Slavery existed in Rus' in ancient times, another question is that it was later eliminated. And the Russian people did not consider other peoples to be second-class creatures, as the Anglo-Saxons did
            1. -1
              2 December 2023 13: 04
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              .. Slavery in Rus' existed in ancient times, another question is that it was later eliminated

              This is a very interesting point. Slaves in the form of captives taken in full (from this root even now there is such a country as Poionia, Poland). But would there ever have been a culture of slavery in the culture of Rus'??? - This is something new, we haven’t noticed anything like this before.
              1. +5
                2 December 2023 14: 41
                Quote: venaya
                But would there ever have been a culture of slavery in the culture of Rus'???

                Read at least “Russian Truth” - a set of laws of those years.
                1. 0
                  4 December 2023 15: 23
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Quote: venaya
                  But would there ever have been a culture of slavery in the culture of Rus'???

                  Read at least “Russian Truth” - a set of laws of those years.

                  While I was not able to “read”, I began to carefully study all the “Russian Truth” available today, but I was unable to find at least any articles mentioning “slave relations.” Tell me, in which article of Russkaya Pravda did you find a mention of slavery in Rus'?
                  Here are the texts of "Russian Truth":

                  1. If the husband kills the husband, then take revenge on brother for brother, or on father, or on son, or on cousin, or on brother’s son; if none of them will take revenge for him, then assign 80 hryvnia for the murdered man, if he is a prince’s husband or a prince’s thiun; if he is a Rusyn, or a Gridin, or a merchant, or a boyar tyun, or a swordsman, or an outcast, or from Slovenia, then assign 40 hryvnia for him.
                  ..._______________________________________________________________________________________________
                  121. If a slave robs someone, then the master must ransom him or give him away with the person with whom he stole, but his wife and children do not have to answer; but if they stole and hid with him, then give them all up or the master will ransom them again; if freemen stole and hid with him, then they pay the prince a court fine
                  Refer to at least one single paragraph of "Russian Truth" ...
                  1. 0
                    4 December 2023 15: 50
                    Quote: venaya
                    Refer to at least one single paragraph of "Russian Truth"

                    Why one?
                    16. If someone wants to take away a servant, identifying him as his own, then at the vault lead him to the one from whom this last gentleman bought, and he will be taken to the next one until they reach the third; then let him say to the third: “Give me your servant, and collect your money in front of a witness.”

                    This article reveals the procedure for the arch. The owner of the stolen servant (or thing) had to indicate from whom he acquired it, who, in turn, indicated the previous owner. The arch ended there; he had to return the stolen goods and look for his money with the help of witnesses. The article as a whole points to the possibility of buying and selling living people.
                    What happens if a free man hits a free man?
                    3 If someone hits someone with a stick, or a pole, or a fist, or a bowl, or a horn, or a butt, then pay 12 hryvnia

                    What if the slave hits?
                    17. If a slave hits a free man and runs away to the master’s house, and the master does not hand him over, then the slave should be taken by the master, and let the master pay 12 hryvnia for him, and after that, where that hit man meets him, let him kill him

                    That is, where a free person pays a fine of 12 hryvnia, his master will pay for a slave, but at the same time, the victim, upon meeting, can kill the offending slave and be in his right.
                    This is according to The Brief Truth. According to "spatially"
                    46. ​​If the thieves turn out to be slaves, then the court is princely. If the thieves turn out to be slaves, or princely, or boyars, or belonging to monks, then the prince will not punish them with a fine, because they are not free, but let <their master> pay double to the plaintiff for the damage.

                    At the same time, there was a difference between “a slave for a while” and a “slave forever”
                    56. If the purchase runs. If the purchase runs away from the master, then it becomes a complete “slave”; if he leaves in search of money, but leaves openly, or runs to the prince or to the judges because of insults to his master, then for this he will not be turned into a slave, but give him <princely> justice

                    Slave incompetent in court
                    85. All these lawsuits are tried in the presence of free witnesses; if the witness is a slave, then the slave should not appear at the trial; but if the plaintiff wants to use him as a witness, then let him say this: “I am bringing you in based on the testimony of this [servant], but I am bringing you in, not the slave.”

                    you brought the rest yourself
              2. +5
                3 December 2023 01: 03
                Slavery exists not in culture, but in legislation. In Russia, slavery progressed from the end of the 17th century, after the abolition of St. George’s Day, sharply intensifying under Peter (before that it was rather peculium, and during the life of one generation it reached the most vile Polish level), then it increased quantitatively throughout the Empire (donation of state-owned lands and peasants to favorites ) and decreased somewhere from the beginning of the 19th century (watershed - the ban on the sale of peasants without land and, later, strict implementation of it). The often mentioned prohibition of killing serfs is not a reason not to consider serfdom as slavery. The laws of American states (at least most of them) also prohibited the killing of slaves. Moreover, even “unnecessarily cruel” treatment was prohibited. In such cases, the slave was to be taken from the owner and sold “for a fair and not excessive price” to an owner known for “fair and virtuous treatment.” Needless to say that both in America and in Russia, these humane laws were implemented from case to case? As for factory slavery (in which serfs were usually, although not always, allowed to have vegetable gardens, but even theoretically they could not fully feed the owners), this was slavery in its purest form.
              3. +2
                4 December 2023 10: 21
                Polonia is the French name for Poland, and the self-name Polska. The land of the Slavic tribe Polyan. And the root of the word comes from field.
                1. -1
                  4 December 2023 15: 08
                  Quote from Biff
                  Polonia is the French name for Poland, and the self-name Polska. The land of the Slavic tribe Polyan. And the root of the word comes from field.

                  All this is quite common, but still a myth - the territory of present-day Poland is written that the Teutonic Order, or more precisely, the Order of the Knights of the Black Cross of the Virgin Mary, captured the territory of Galician Rus'. But in those days, by definition, no French language existed yet; the “French” language is still called “Cook Latin,” even though it was initially spoken by the Angles who captured the British Isles. It was only at the end of the 1601th century that people began to study French compulsorily in the territory of Galia, or as they now say France. Naturally, the members of the Teutonic Order could only know the original Latin language, and in it they called the territory they captured almost in Russian “Polonia”, that is, the captured part of the territory of Galician Rus'. The term “Slavs” itself was born only in 1595, the Polish language also appeared recently, because before they spoke their native Russian language, common to us, and the appearance of the term “Polska”, and even in Latin letters, could not have appeared before the appearance of the Polish language and even with Latin writing. Let me remind you that in the neighboring “Grand Duchy of Lithuania” all documentation was carried out exclusively in Russian and in Russian writing, and the “Lithuanian language” with Latin writing appeared only in XNUMX and not earlier. So what you write here is an outright modern myth and nothing more.
                  1. 0
                    4 December 2023 20: 43
                    Quote: venaya
                    Naturally, the members of the Teutonic Order could only know the original Latin language, and in it they called the territory they captured almost in Russian “Polonia”, that is, the captured part of the territory of Galician Rus'.

                    (wrinkling) You should stop this Fomenkovsky nonsense. If, in your opinion, the Teutons spoke Latin, why did they suddenly start using Russian words? This is the first. Second, and most importantly, why did you even think that during the Teutonic years there was a word “full” in the Russian language?
                    Talk about such analogies with any professional historian - you will learn a lot from him, which will undoubtedly enrich your vocabulary of obscene words. Building any theories on the modern sound of words in the Russian language (like the most odious nonsense - the pair “Etruscans - Russians”) represents the height of historical illiteracy.
                    1. 0
                      5 December 2023 02: 39
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      If, in your opinion, the Teutons spoke Latin, why did they suddenly start using Russian words? This is the first. Second, and most importantly, why did you even think that during the Teutonic years there was a word “full” in the Russian language?
                      Talk about such analogies with any professional historian - you will learn a lot of new things from him, which will undoubtedly enrich your dictionary of obscene words. Building any theories on the modern sound of words in the Russian language (like the most odious nonsense - the pair “Etruscans - Russians”) represents the height of historical illiteracy.

                      I have long noticed that all people are tendentious, and this applies entirely to you. I prefer to discuss linguistic issues with professional linguists rather than paid inventors of other specialties. What words and when did they exist in the Russian language? Really serious data is provided by very narrow specialists in this profile, in particular, a linguist who studies the languages ​​and dialects of the indigenous peoples of South America was surprised even to discover that their words coincide with the words of even today’s Russian language, and today’s genetic research suggests that even though our peoples have diverged tens of thousands of years ago, but until now the roots of many words have remained, even over such a time, either the same or consonant: for example, “coca” = “bush.” I suspect that these questions of linguistics do not affect you and are not at all of interest to you by definition. It’s easier to just listen and read another “authority” and not a specialist. Here’s a question for you: in your opinion, when was the Latin language guaranteed to appear? Experts say that it was recorded in the 13th century; there is clear evidence of this in the form of coins recognized as not counterfeit from the period of the Roman (Roman) Empire. ...
                      1. -1
                        5 December 2023 08: 37
                        Quote: venaya
                        I have long noticed that all people are tendentious, and this applies entirely to you. I prefer to discuss linguistic issues with professional linguists rather than paid inventors of other specialties.

                        Yes please, who will stop you.
                        Quote: venaya
                        I suspect that these questions of linguistics do not affect you and, by definition, are not at all of interest to you. It’s easier to just listen and read another “authority” and not a specialist.

                        Certainly. Here is another unfortunate professional linguist building another version of history. People, sorry, it's bullshit. Then sometimes a historian gets his hands on it and smashes this theory into dust in no time. But for the most part they don’t get around to it, because the level of “historical-linguistic” sophistication is below low, and to enter into polemics with such people is not to respect yourself.
                        Therefore, yes, it was much easier for me to watch the destruction of several popular theories in order to understand that those who create them do not understand either history or linguistics at all.
                    2. 0
                      5 December 2023 05: 27
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      Talk about analogies like these. with any professional historian - you will learn a lot of new things from him, which will undoubtedly enrich your dictionary of obscene words. Building some theories on the modern sound of words in the Russian language (like the most odious nonsense - a couple "Etruscans - Russians"

                      2) Continuation: Regarding certain “Etruscans” - I myself have written many times on this site that this term itself, of Latin origin, is completely young and quite crooked. After all, they never called themselves that, they used the terms either “Sloveni” or “Raseni”, even my nickname. in the Finnish dialect and means the concept of “Veneti”, but as far as I understand, I am also a Slovenian, albeit an Ilmenian one. And yes, their neighbors in Venice still also consider themselves Venetians and prefer to communicate with each other in the Venetian language and not in the state language Italian, because before, before the Crimean War, they, like many peoples, had German as their official language!
                      To be continued (3) ....
              4. 0
                April 8 2024 17: 54
                Serf peasants were slaves, but at first they were free, and then the king distributed them like cattle to the boyars, and the nobles who did not want to be a slave fled to the south and became Cossacks, which is why the Cossacks refuse to accept themselves as Russians, since the majority of Russians were slaves under serfdom, and the Cossacks were always free and despised slaves...
          2. +6
            2 December 2023 12: 52
            And how was serfdom fundamentally different from slavery? I learned history from Soviet textbooks, and serfdom there was presented precisely as slavery. Maybe now, after the editing of Medinsky and company, it has turned into bonds, national traditions and in general - #thisisother... But forgive me, this is from the evil one.
            1. -5
              2 December 2023 13: 18
              Quote: UAZ 452
              And how was serfdom fundamentally different from slavery? I learned history from Soviet textbooks, and serfdom there was presented precisely as slavery.

              The differences between serfdom and slavery are quite significant: a “slave” is a commodity in its pure form, and a “serf” is very, very conditional. In Rus', even serfdom was not noticed either in Siberia or even in the north and Scandinavia, since the weather did not contribute to the economic feasibility of serfs. Although nowadays hired workers can also be called serfs, their rights are also limited in some way, and even students who received their education at the expense of some companies, etc. A “slave” has practically no rights at all, and the serfs had many rights, in particular, the serfs killed Dostoevsky’s father, but only one of them served time in hard labor and that’s it! But every education has shortcomings, it is advisable to supplement it independently and thoughtfully.
    2. +2
      2 December 2023 09: 25
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      (Heavy sigh)

      About sighed...also. Uhhhh! hi
    3. +1
      4 December 2023 17: 41
      Stability is a sign of mastery.
      And then, people usually like repetition.
      Any new and original thoughts frighten the average person and cause, at best, bewilderment, and in most cases, irritation.
  7. +5
    2 December 2023 07: 12
    The article seems to be trying to prove that America is to blame for all the troubles. I remember a conversation with one worker in the mid-80s. He complained about the harsh conditions at the factory. I tried to convince him that his life was not so bad compared to blacks in the USA. To which he replied that we are no different from them.
    1. +8
      2 December 2023 07: 30
      This worker was probably the first one at the plant to say “we have to get out”?
      He would have looked at the crowd of workers after a shift somewhere in Hamburg. They can barely crawl.
      1. -1
        2 December 2023 07: 38
        Worker - welder. He didn’t disdain work. Now deceased. He said that a welder has the worst job: “You cook and cook, but you’re always hungry.”
        1. +22
          2 December 2023 08: 56
          you walk around hungry"

          hungry welder in gray 80's???
          Sounds like a joke or nonsense. good good good
          1. +7
            2 December 2023 09: 12
            The food, of course, in the factory canteens was affordable and tasty. Probably the welders were so busy with their work that they didn’t have time to eat.
          2. +8
            2 December 2023 09: 52
            hungry welder in gray 80's???
            Sounds like a joke or nonsense. good good good

            Edward, play on words! The welder is WELDING. That's how they tease the bosses.
            1. +2
              2 December 2023 15: 40
              Edward, play on words! The welder is WELDING. That's how they tease the bosses.
              hi good
        2. +1
          2 December 2023 10: 59
          Quote: Glock-17
          "You cook, you cook, and you always hungry are you walking"

          "He who doesn't work, eats" (c)
    2. +7
      2 December 2023 08: 58
      Quote: Glock-17
      The article seems to be trying to prove that America is to blame for all the troubles.

      This? Samsonov. Tightly!
      1. +10
        2 December 2023 09: 27
        Before Samsonov’s articles one should write “Carthage must be destroyed.” The reader is ready. smile
        1. -6
          2 December 2023 10: 46
          Quote: Andrey Moskvin
          Carthage must be destroyed

          Do you have a different opinion on this matter? Maybe you are an ethnic Carthaginian or something?
          1. The comment was deleted.
      2. 0
        2 December 2023 12: 13
        Quote: ArchiPhil
        This? Samsonov. Tightly!

        But one cannot but agree with this article by Samsonov; America has never been a respectable country and has nothing to be proud of.
  8. +1
    2 December 2023 07: 18
    The Anglo-Saxon Jews made America and they are at war with our country. The Fed consists of slightly less than entirely Russian money, and yet the richest native of Russia in the United States, the Russophobe-six-arrogant-Saxons-Breen, has only $100 billion, which is a pittance compared to what was stolen from the Russians. By recruiting the Russian elite, the Americans are carrying out their robbery and it is within the power of Russian society to correct this.
  9. FED
    +1
    2 December 2023 07: 23
    A story for several detailed articles. It's a pity the author decided to limit himself to one. Apparently that's why the beginning is great, but the end is crumpled.
  10. FED
    -1
    2 December 2023 07: 23
    A story for several detailed articles. It's a pity the author decided to limit himself to one. Apparently that's why the beginning is great, but the end is crumpled.
  11. +2
    2 December 2023 08: 05
    So, after all, Hitler was just a puppy, compared to a female dog, from whose behavior and experience in destroying Indian tribes, he organized the Holocaust of the Jews. By no strange coincidence, neither the Indians nor the Jews had their own states, who could stand up for them and for them... But an even more strange coincidence is that the European-Jewish lobby helped create the USA, and “create” Hitler’s Jewish lobby in the USA has already joined this lobby. Hence the not at all strange pattern that throughout the war Hitler had a portrait of Ford, one of the founders of eugenics, who pathologically hated Jews, hanging in his office...
    Of course, Hitler's concentration camps are from the experience of camps for the Boers in South Africa and for Indians in the Wild West. By the way, the United States never ratified the UN convention on genocide. How can you ratify it if the entire path of the United States is “lit” by pillars of aspects of genocide, which the United States carried out on indigenous peoples. This includes mass extermination of people, biological wars, imprisonment, the introduction of values ​​alien to the indigenous population, sterilization of local women, etc.
    And since then, having virtually destroyed all the Indians in North America, the United States in this way solved this “issue” finally, the Nazis didn’t really “bother” with the name of the extermination of the Jews in coming up with something new. That’s what they called it - the Final Solution of the Jewish Question.
    I say that the puppy was a breed of that particular female dog...
  12. +9
    2 December 2023 09: 05
    Already in 1824, the Americans landed troops in Cuba.
    Tell us more about the Spanish-American War of 1824. Cuba at that time was a colony of Spain. Yes, in 1895-97 there were over 60 expeditions of American volunteers to support the uprising in Cuba. And in 1824, the Spanish authorities localized all attempts at uprising, the leaders fled in USA.
    1. +7
      2 December 2023 09: 30
      Quote: parusnik
      Tell us more about the Spanish-American War of 1824

      Alexey! Well, is it worth it, right? The author staunchly stands for *brace*. America is always to blame! In all matters! Is it worth disappointing him? hi
      1. +6
        2 December 2023 11: 37
        hi Phil, when Russia expanded its influence on the Eurasian continent, which, however, was natural and this is good, and the influence of the United States on the American continent is bad, although it is natural. The United States picked up the fallen banner of colonial conquests in America from the weakened hands of Great Britain, France, Spain and Russia. While the European powers were fighting among themselves, the United States ate baked chestnuts baked in the fire of the wars of the European powers. smile
        1. 0
          2 December 2023 11: 59
          Quote: parusnik
          .. The USA picked up the fallen banner of colonial conquests in America from the weakened hands of Great Britain and France,Spain And Russia.

          I would like to clarify that the North American United States (states) of the USA cunningly defeated the South American United States of the South American Union, headed by the famous Bolivar, in whose honor a state called Bolivia later arose on the ruins of the South American Union. An interesting topic, completely hushed up until now. I remember that when I became interested in these distant events here at our university student, I greatly surprised him, because on our continent practically no one knows anything about these events and he told me that I was the first person who spoke to him about these events and he was I’m sure that no one here knows anything about this at all. It’s amazing how historians are able to hush up the most important events of a huge, densely populated continent.
          1. +8
            2 December 2023 12: 17
            The North American United States (states) of the USA cunningly defeated the South American United States of the USA led by the famous Bolivar
            Are you sure that US troops took part in this war? If yes, name the commander of this group of US troops during this war. And where were the significant victories of the US Army over the South American Army troops?
            1. -3
              2 December 2023 12: 44
              Quote: parusnik
              .. where significant victories were won by the US Army over the troops of the South American Army

              I clearly wrote the word “cunning”! And in 1917 (both February and October) and in 1991 and even in 1993, there were no traces of any US troops on Russian territory, but their financial influence and the power of the armed forces in all cases was decisive. I still don’t have any data about the participation of the US troops themselves on the territory of the South USSR, but judging by the publications of the 1917th century, this topic was still present in our country, and after 1917 it disappeared somewhere. So far, I only know that the organization of permanent revolutions within the South American Academy of Sciences was financed only by New York Wall Street banks - a lot was actually written about this at that time and, to my surprise, this is still familiar in the countries of today's South America. So not everything is done directly with the help of the armed forces themselves, more often such processes occur in a more cunning way: for example, our “February” of XNUMX was organized by the British, but they were forced to do so by the United States, who did not want to see the Russian Empire among the winners in I th world war. The British then followed the lead of the United States since they threatened not to send their troops to Europe as long as the Russian Empire existed. That's why I used the term "cunning", I hope I explained it more clearly now.
              1. +3
                2 December 2023 13: 52
                I still don’t have any data either
                And it cannot be, because such a war literally did not happen at all. There events developed according to a completely different scenario. During the war of the South American colonies for their independence, the United States was not yet up to this. I read your entire comment, and I don’t even want to argue or explain anything. No use. You are not the only one here. hi
                1. -1
                  2 December 2023 14: 29
                  Quote: parusnik
                  There was no such war at all. There events developed according to a completely different scenario. During the war of the South American colonies for their independence, the United States was not yet up to this.

                  "The USA was not yet up to it" - absolutely right, I just wrote that this issue was dealt with by Wall Street bankers and not by any government bodies, like, for example, in 1917, also bankers from Wall Street. And the fight for independence was then led by Bolivar and him managed to create the SASH, which was economically very unprofitable for the banking structures of the USA. I understand that this delicate topic is simply not particularly interesting to you, so I will not impose it, but I don’t understand and where did I write that the USA’s own troops took a direct part in the fate of the South American Academy of Sciences? I still don’t understand this...
                  1. 0
                    5 December 2023 14: 43
                    Bolivar seems to have created Gran Colombia. Moreover, a significant part of the South American Spanish-speaking states and the giant Portuguese-speaking Brazil were not included in it and did not intend to enter. For the same Argentines, Bolivar has never been their national hero, although they treat him with respect. He is a hero for Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador. I don't know how they treat him in Panama, which was part of Colombia until the beginning of the 20th century. As for Bolivia, although it was named after Bolivar and his memory is respected in the republic, it was never part of Gran Colombia.
  13. +8
    2 December 2023 09: 46
    It was then that the terrible proverb was born: “a good Indian is a dead Indian.”

    Either the author writes something he doesn’t know, or, even worse, he deliberately distorts. Anyone reading the above quote gives the impression that this attitude towards Indians has been around almost since the arrival of the white man, and certainly long before the Revolutionary War. But in fact, the phrase “The only good Indian is a dead Indian” was said after the Civil War by General Sheridan in 1869, after several bloody wars against the unions of Indian tribes, and it was then that it gained popularity.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Sheridan
    1. +4
      2 December 2023 09: 58
      Quote: Nagan
      Or the author writes something he doesn’t know,

      He? Just....writes. laughing
      1. +6
        2 December 2023 11: 40
        He? Just....writes.
        No... he's just distorting. laughing All the toothlessness of Russia’s foreign policy over the past 30 years has been transferred to the United States. smile
    2. -4
      2 December 2023 10: 17
      Quote: Nagan
      .. in fact, the phrase “The only good Indian is a dead Indian” was said after the Civil War by General Sheridan in 1869, after several bloody wars against the unions of Indian tribes, and it was then that it gained popularity.

      What difference does it make when exactly this phrase is said? Its meaning was realized literally from the first minutes of the conquest of a new continent and literally until today: let’s remember the smallpox blankets and even to this day the laissez-faire regarding the purchase of cigarettes and a complete turning a blind eye to the almost complete drug addiction inside Indian reservations. Yes, at least the very existence of such reservations today speaks of the permanent ethnic cleansing of the indigenous population of North America right up to the present day. After such facts, even look at the North. America is disgusting...
      1. +5
        2 December 2023 10: 33
        Quote: venaya
        cigarettes

        It is very important! The cigarettes were GOOD!
        1. -2
          2 December 2023 11: 27
          Quote: ArchiPhil
          The cigarettes were GOOD!

          - And the smallpox blankets were very warm!
        2. -4
          2 December 2023 11: 28
          Quote: ArchiPhil
          The cigarettes were GOOD!

          - And the smallpox blankets were very warm!
      2. +4
        2 December 2023 15: 23
        remember the smallpox blankets

        There were only two of them, these blankets. No one died from them. The Indians who besieged the British Fort Pitt in 1763 (at that time, among the Indians, under the general leadership of the leader of the Ottawa tribe, part of the Council of Three Fires, Pontiac, pogroms of the colonies of white colonists from the British Empire and their military forts became widespread), in which A smallpox epidemic was raging, in order to capture it and kill its inhabitants, they sent negotiators to the smallpox-infected fort, and they demanded blankets as gifts. None of those participating in the negotiations died from smallpox (although the likelihood of their infection from visiting a fort in which there was a smallpox epidemic was incomparably higher than from blankets; smallpox is transmitted primarily by airborne droplets).
        This is the only case of the transfer of blankets used by smallpox patients.
        This story has nothing to do with the United States, which at that time had not yet been created.
        The name of the Ottawa tribe is immortalized in the USA in the names of several cities, as well as the capital of Canada (it received its name from the Ottawa River, and that, in turn, from the tribe). A number of cities in the United States also received the name of the leader Pontiac. Until recently, his name was also used as the name of a popular car brand in the United States.
        1. +1
          2 December 2023 19: 17
          Quote from solar
          popular car brand in the USA

          GM probably killed the Pontiac brand precisely because these cars sold like hot cakes. No.negative But seriously, Pontiac's last successes were in the 1980s, and already in the 1990s they went downhill. Simply because they were never able to find a place for themselves in the market, the lion’s share of which was eaten up by foreign manufacturers. They tried themselves as a “sports” brand, as a youth brand, and as a budget brand, but it didn’t work. So, as a result of the 2008 crisis, GM simply shot him so as not to suffer.
  14. +11
    2 December 2023 11: 23
    I read to the scalps and laughed for a long time. The author’s horizons are narrow, like the eyes of a Chinese, he doesn’t have the strength to read the brain feces of yet another propagandist
  15. +4
    2 December 2023 13: 22
    Quote: venaya
    Quote: ArchiPhil
    The cigarettes were GOOD!

    - And the smallpox blankets were very warm!

    I don’t remember which of the propagandists and exposers of the true face of capitalism launched “smallpox blankets” to the masses, but let’s turn on our brains and think: blankets infected with smallpox are dangerous, they are dangerous from the moment they are infected with smallpox, but at that moment they are in the warehouses of trading posts, therefore, you need to take safety measures for your employees. Have biological control measures been taken? Are there any mentions of such measures? No, they don’t exist, and you won’t look for them, because the thought about “smallpox blankets” was put into your head, how terrible and vile it is, but you didn’t bother to think about this thought.
    1. -5
      2 December 2023 13: 51
      Quote: Letterhead
      Have biological control measures been taken? Are there any mentions of such measures? No, they don’t exist, and you won’t look for them, because the thought about “smallpox blankets” was put into your head, how terrible and vile it is, but you didn’t bother to think about this thought.

      Oh oh oh. And literally today you don’t know in what ways “Covid” spreads, even in Donbas there are cases of poisoning among our military personnel with certain types of chemical weapons - after all, the United States to this day has not yet destroyed its huge stockpiles of chemical weapons and it seems that they are not going to do this . And the fact that the Yankees shot and destroyed the main source of food for the native Indians, wild bison, from trains on newly built railways... Isn’t this also something you don’t know at all? What kind of truncated education is being practiced today? Biological weapons were practiced not only on the American continent; they were also widely used during the capture of fortresses when the bodies of infected animals were thrown over the fortress walls. Are you not familiar with this either? But the measures for their own safety were known to all of them and for a very long time it could not have been otherwise because the people who competently used biological weapons were well aware of their danger and their own precautions. It seems that you read some article and did not bother to look at it critically enough.
    2. +4
      2 December 2023 15: 32
      blankets infected with smallpox are dangerous, they are dangerous from the moment they are infected with smallpox, but at this moment they are in the warehouses of trading posts, therefore you need to take safety measures for your employees.

      Everything is much simpler. The Indians laid siege to a British fort (the United States did not yet exist), in which a smallpox epidemic was raging; by the way, it was throughout the entire area) in order to kill its inhabitants. When they failed, they sent representatives to the smallpox-infested fort and demanded that the British leave the fort and give themselves gifts, including blankets. The British did not leave, but among the gifts they gave two blankets, which were used by the sick in the fort hospital (it is possible that there were no others, Fort Pitt was small). None of those who received gifts died from smallpox.
      This is the only case of the British passing blankets possibly contaminated with smallpox to the Indians.
  16. +1
    2 December 2023 18: 12
    I read the article. Attentively. I read the comments. By the way, be careful too. And looked at the pros and cons. My humble opinion: the author is right. Yes, some points are controversial. But in general - please remember, dear commentators, who knows, of course (from normal, Soviet history textbooks), which state, besides Britain, France and the USA, was engaged in expansion in the 20th century? Which one started wars? THE USSR? No. Maybe Egypt? Or - Australia?..
    They may object to me: the USSR started a war with Finland. The USSR sent troops to Afghanistan. Yes it was. But the goals and objectives were different. Ensuring the country's security. Ours. Not the seizure of territories, not the desire for genocide and colonization, but simply ensuring security. And, for a second, compare with the number of conflicts that the Yankees unleashed. If we also take into account the fact that in 1939 the Germans started World War II with the support of American financiers, then the conclusion is obvious. The article is correct.
    1. +1
      2 December 2023 19: 17
      Yes and no.
      I in no way justify American imperialism in the 20th century and the outbreak of wars. But the concept of “security” is a rather vague term that can be interpreted too freely. Every country strives for personal security. I am against dividing everything into black and white.
      I don’t even want to talk about the beginning of World War II: investing in someone else’s economy is a common practice and is often done by private individuals.
      And in general, the blame lies entirely with Germany, otherwise the blame can also be laid on the USSR, they say, he sold resources and did not attack them in Poland
      1. -3
        2 December 2023 23: 05
        Quote: Russian_Ninja
        I in no way justify American imperialism in the 20th century and the outbreak of wars. But the concept of “security” is a rather vague term that can be interpreted too freely. Every country strives for personal security. I am against dividing everything into black and white.
        I don’t even want to talk about the beginning of World War II: investing in someone else’s economy is a common practice and is often done by private individuals.
        Yes in general, the blame lies entirely with Germany, otherwise the blame can also be laid on the USSR, they say he sold resources and did not attack them in Poland

        Actually, the blame lies with the director of the Bank of England, who, due to the acute shortage of money in the empire, closed its borders to goods from other countries except from the metropolis itself. This caused the bankruptcy of the United States as a country, hence the collapse of the New York Stock Exchange, where for the first time in many centuries even Boruch appeared, as W. Churchill wrote about, mass bankruptcies and famine arose even in rural areas. And it all ended not only with colossal infusions into Hitler’s party and subsequently with the financing of his rise to power. So Hitler here is not at all the source of all troubles, but more of a hired worker for interested parties and nothing more. The rise of the economy of Hitler's Germany was mainly due to American injections as well as the construction of factories and supplies to strata. materials, for example, aviation gasoline until 1944.
    2. -1
      3 December 2023 18: 39
      Which state, besides Britain, France and the USA, was engaged in expansion in the 20th century? Which one started wars? THE USSR? No. Maybe Egypt? Or - Australia?..

      were you joking like that? The USSR did nothing but start wars, and the Finnish and Korean and Vietnamese, 3 of the five Arab-Israeli wars, Angola, Afghanistan, and there are too many to list, Egypt managed to fight on its own initiative with all its neighbors
      1. 0
        4 December 2023 02: 21
        The USSR did nothing but start wars, the Finnish and Korean and Vietnamese,

        About Korean and Vietnamese, Arab-Israeli and Angolan, I hope you were joking? Or maybe you are ready to provide official documents?..
        Maybe it was the USSR that put pressure on the United States to send troops into Vietnam, or forced them to commit genocide by flooding the country’s territory with napalm?..
      2. +1
        4 December 2023 02: 21
        The USSR did nothing but start wars, the Finnish and Korean and Vietnamese,

        About Korean and Vietnamese, Arab-Israeli and Angolan, I hope you were joking? Or maybe you are ready to provide official documents?..
        Maybe it was the USSR that put pressure on the United States to send troops into Vietnam, or forced them to commit genocide by flooding the country’s territory with napalm?..
        1. +2
          4 December 2023 13: 20
          Of course, the USSR, acting in the concept of world revolution, through its proxies, fed and armed, put a lot of pressure on South Vietnam, and the United States, in turn, decided to protect its charges, and not by proxy, as the USSR often did, but personally, and there are countless documents for all this
          1. 0
            4 December 2023 18: 51
            and there are countless documents for all this

            AND? I didn't seem to be asking about the quantity.
    3. +1
      4 December 2023 17: 58
      Which state, besides Britain, France and the USA, was engaged in expansion in the 20th century? THE USSR? No.


      In fact, in the 20th century, it was the USSR that most strongly expanded its territory at the expense of neighboring countries.
      You can, of course, come up with a bunch of logical explanations why this happened, but this stubborn fact.

      But France and Britain spent the entire 20th century, on the contrary, only constantly reducing the territory under their control. The United States expanded its territory, but only slightly - due to the annexation of Hawaii.

      True, at the end of the 20th century the USSR completely stopped its expansion.
      1. 0
        4 December 2023 18: 53
        If you mean the annexation of western Ukraine, then I do not consider this to be too serious an expansion of territory.
        1. +1
          4 December 2023 19: 17
          I immediately remember off the top of my head the expansion of the USSR - the entire Baltic region, Tuva, a piece of Finland, a piece of Poland, a piece of Romania, half of Sakhalin. Maybe I missed something?

          Can be compared in area to Hawaii...
          1. 0
            5 December 2023 03: 01
            1. Actually, there was agreement with the Baltic states. Of course, not with 100% agreement of the population, but with more than half.
            2. Finland was offered an option that excluded war. With the exchange of territories. Yes, the war happened. And as a result, the USSR acquired new territories. But if you consider that ALL of Finland was part of the Russian Empire... Why would this be the seizure of foreign territories, and not the return of our own, and in a very small volume?
            3. Why didn’t you remember the Kuril Islands? The Japanese believe that we own them illegally.
            1. 0
              6 December 2023 02: 22
              That’s what I wrote to you - everything can be explained and justified, and even quite easily.

              So the United States can justify the annexation of Hawaii with “reasonable arguments” - reasonable and logical, but in their opinion.
              And for example, some Americans probably believe that the people of Hawaii themselves asked to annex it, much like the Balts asked us.
              Therefore, I did not consider various justifications for expansion at all, but assessed expansion simply by the size of the annexed territories.

              considering that ALL of Finland was part of the Russian Empire...


              Why should this be taken into account?
              What is the connection between the Republic of Ingushetia and the USSR?
              The communists completely abandoned any continuity with the empire. They terminated all imperial treaties and first of all officially recognized the complete independence of Finland (decree of December 18, 1917).
              1. +1
                6 December 2023 02: 33
                Why should this be taken into account?
                If only because this is not a seizure of territory, but its return. By and large, the full return of Finland would mean, by analogy with modern times, the Northeast Military District. We are now returning territories that have long belonged to us. And in the case of Finland it would be exactly the same.
                The communists completely abandoned any continuity with the empire.
                Yes. But this doesn’t change the essence. Power, ideology - everything changes. But states continue to exist. A state is a territory and the population living on this territory. And who is in power, what policy he pursues is not important.
                1. 0
                  6 December 2023 11: 03
                  If only because this is not a seizure of territory, but its return. By and large, the full return of Finland would mean, by analogy with modern times, the Northeast Military District. We are now returning territories that have long belonged to us. And in the case of Finland it would be exactly the same.


                  Clear.
                  But we recognize the same right for Sweden - to regain Finland?
                  The Empire didn’t include Finland from the beginning of time, attack Sweden and take it away in 1809?

                  Have you thought, what will happen if all states want to regain what they once lost?
                  This will come a continuous redivision of borders, and everyone will choose as the right moment in history when his possessions were greatest.

                  Power, ideology - everything changes. But states continue to exist. A state is a territory and the population living on this territory.


                  States disappear and new ones arise. This happened throughout the 20th century.
                  There was an Austro-Hungarian Empire at the beginning of the century and where is it?
                  Was there a British Empire and where is it?
                  There was an Ottoman Empire that occupied as much as half of the Mediterranean, and where is it now?
                  And in ancient times there were a bunch of other states.
                  Roman Empire, Mongol Empire, Persian Empire...
                  1. +1
                    6 December 2023 16: 36
                    Have you thought, what will happen if all states want to regain what they once lost?
                    If you haven't noticed, this is already happening. Hamas attacked Israel for a reason.
                    I have no desire to argue, and I have little time. That's why - hi
                  2. 0
                    6 December 2023 23: 06
                    Quote from: dump22
                    Do we recognize the same right for Sweden - to regain Finland?

                    Why bother with Finland alone? Over in St. Petersburg, the “Summer Garden” (next to the Winter Garden) was also founded by Swedes long before Peter. Shall we also recognize their right to all of St. Petersburg? But where did you get information about the existence of a certain “Finland” before Peter? It seems that on these lands, for many centuries before, certain Veneti lived from the name of this huge tribe, and the territory that appeared in the 1917th century, nicknamed Finland, only the Germans came up with statehood based on their interests in 1. Your interests also seem to coincide with the interests of those other Germans. But today’s Finns are no longer those ancient and essentially Russian-speaking Veneti (R1a1), but for the most part consist of representatives of the White Sea Karelian tribe (N1cXNUMX) and their new language today is from the same place.
                    Quote from: dump22
                    And in ancient times there were a bunch of other states.
                    Roman Empire, Mongol Empire..
                    The Roman (Roman) Empire today is essentially the “EU” and not a state at all, but there are huge doubts about the existence of the “Mongol Empire” since the “Mongols” were invented only in 1920 from the local “Khalkha” tribe. Yes, about the “Tatar-Mongol yoke” - this is a term of the XNUMXth century and “yoke” is also a term from the Latin language and this indicates its Polish-Lithuanian Catholic origin, because all the monasteries in Rus' were built only during the times of this very Latino -lingual "yoke".
                    1. 0
                      7 December 2023 00: 23
                      Where did you get the information about the existence of a certain “Finland” before Peter?


                      From history. laughing
                      Ivan III unsuccessfully tried to recapture the Vyborg fortress from the Swedes in 3.
                      And the border between Sweden and Novgorod (that is, the eastern border of Finland) was determined in 1323 in the “Orekhovsky Peace” by Yuri Danilovich.

                      essentially Russian-speaking Veneti (R1a1)


                      Do you believe that language somehow depends on genetics? laughing

                      There are huge doubts about the existence of the “Mongol Empire” since “Mongols” were invented only in 1920


                      Well, okay, let's assume there were no Mongols.
                      But the reality of the existence of Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire is at least not questioned? laughing
                      1. 0
                        7 December 2023 04: 24
                        Quote from: dump22
                        Ivan III unsuccessfully tried to recapture the Vyborg fortress from the Swedes in 3.
                        And the border between Sweden and Novgorod (that is, the eastern border of Finland) was defined in 1323

                        You would determine the time of formation of the so-called “Sweden” and also the languages ​​they used. I gave the document to linguist experts, “A Lamentable Speech for the Swede Charles XI” - there wasn’t a single non-Russian word in it, you can read about it. Consequently, Karl 12 also knew Russian, which was once even their state language. And here you defined the border of Sweden by “Finland” (formerly “Ven-land” - the land of the Venets), that is, the current Swedes and the earlier Swedes, after all, can also be called Venets only simply Scandinavian. And in today’s Finnish language they call Russia “Venäjä” - that is, the country of the Venets, and they also call the Russian language. In fact, the term “Sweden" (Sverige" in modern English) can be assumed that this is also a modern distortion of the concept of “land of the Scandinavian Venets.” The modern “Baltic Sea” (the Swedes call it “East Lake”) had the Russian-language name Venetian Sea / gulf (and the Varangian Sea) and along the entire circumference of this reservoir lived the Veneti, often Varangians. The modern name comes from the Latin “balt” - which can be translated as obuch or something close to it, which says that the Veneti lived along the entire perimeter of this reservoir. In one of the Arabic sources There was even the concept of “Russian Sea.” Look at my “nickname” - “venaya” - taken from Finnish only in the Latin layout.
                        “the reality of the existence of Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire” - there are real documents there, but the capital “Vienna” the Veneti lived there as in Venice and “Hungary”, and the “Ottoman Empire” = “Ottoman Empire” check, it’s possible that -or you will understand.
                      2. +1
                        7 December 2023 12: 59
                        Thank you, very interesting information.
  17. Alf
    +1
    2 December 2023 19: 51
    This became the first declaration of principles that later formed the basis of the so-called Monroe Doctrine.

    The formula “This is our cow and we milk it” has received a start in life.
  18. +4
    2 December 2023 21: 55
    IMHO, idealism, populism and manipulation of facts.
    Ordinary PR - they are evil in the flesh.
    And we are white and fluffy.

    But in reality, imperialism must expand. What we see now
  19. +1
    3 December 2023 18: 44
    You know, this is not an article in the history section, this is a fierce nonsense... a flight of fancy, it’s not that the author lies all the time, he fantasizes about seemingly historical facts, but no, he’s really delusional
    1. 0
      6 February 2024 23: 09
      Moreover, the facts are “on the face”.... White people give weapons to the “Krivoy Rog” tribe so that they can fight with the “Brown Bear” tribe... The aborigines beat each other up, and the white people occupy territories.

      This is how it was created and is being created
  20. 0
    4 December 2023 08: 17
    All states, being in force, act the same way - the USA, England, France or Russia.

    The division of the world between Spain and Portugal is an attempt to divide spheres of influence. The Congress of Vienna in 1815, even the creation of the UN, are all about the same thing, when some countries decide for themselves and for others what rules to play by. It is clear that those who set the rules will not offend themselves.
  21. Mwg
    0
    4 December 2023 17: 15
    You can write a lot and in detail (and there are already mountains of waste paper): who said what, who stood where during this, who raised an eyebrow and what the British Queen drank tea with when it rained in Washington in winter, but all this is just waste paper. You need to know the main thing: the United States was created by the financial elite for themselves as a global conductor of the will of the shadow government. By the end of the 19th century, gentlemen financiers decided that the created state sufficiently met their needs and they all left Albion and the Swiss Alps en masse, moving to the United States. All. A curtain.
    And before that, the main conductor of the will of the magnates was Britain, before it Holland, before it Spain. Before Spain, Byzantium, and then you need to understand the wilds of the invented “history” ))))))))))))))))))))
  22. The comment was deleted.
  23. 0
    4 March 2024 23: 12
    But they would have told all this to Carlson. I wonder how impressed he would be? And it is weak for our leadership, in response to statements that Russia is Mordor, to declare that Americans are descendants of pirates, thieves, prostitutes and slaves.