That's just details. The Inca could have wiped out Pizarro's party and they still, over time, would have been subjugated because they lacked the military technology and might of the Spanish empire. This story is repeated, all over the world, all throughout history.
The Mulsim Caliphates of the Middle East and north Africa spread from the Arabian peninsula all the way to Spain by the 8th century. They conquered by military force and imposed an Islamic caliphate on that part of the world. By the 15th century, the Caliphs had become complacent, and the man who would become the King of Spain drove them off the Iberian peninsula. The empire of Mali in west Africa was one of the largest, most prosperous empires of the African continent. It eventually broke apart and was gobbled up by competing kingdoms. Going back to the issue of imperialism, it had some benefits, but it had tremendous costs in human terms. And I agree in generally that ultimately, much of the legacy of imperialism and colonialism is of brutality and subjugation. But, as Chesty pointed out, that's all ancient history. We can recognize the failures of the past, but we can't change them. When it comes down to it, the basic question I take away is how and when the U.S. should use its military power. First, we should use it as little as possible and only as a last resort. Second, we should use it only in defense of our own nation, in defense of other free nations, or in defense of people living under oppression. The devil is in the details, though, and no one really agrees what "last resort" means. Clearly some people thought invading Iraq was a last resort that we arrived at rather than a choice we made, and many others disagreed with that assessment. More people thought invading Afghanistan was a last resort, but even then some folks disagreed. Also, what is defense? Is a pre-emptive strike defense when the target of the strike wants to acquire WMD and has a stated goal of destroying you? That's arguable either way, though I would argue only a fool lets his enemy determine his fate. On 5/4/06, Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote: > > okay, that's a little bit of revisionist history there. Pizarro had a > handful of men (maybe a couple hundred) The Inca had an army of over > 30,000. If the Inca had wanted to, they could have wiped out > Pizarro. They > fought according to their rules and not the spaniards which included that > when your king was ransomed, you paid and got your king back. They paid, > the spaniards still executed the king. Who were the more civilised > people? > -- --------------- Robert Munn www.funkymojo.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:206209 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
