George Wallace said:
What an odd statement to make. What do you have to back up this statement? This isn't another "Blame the White Man" theory is it? If it is, did they learn this from the White Man, in this case the Dutch, or from somewhere else? Seems to me, recalling the films Zulu, Zulu Dawn, and other text, etc., depicting the history of Africa during the British Empires incursions, that African tribes were quite adept at massacring their foes.
Oh! Well, I suppose it could be I haven't kept up to date with "Revisionist History".
Not revisionist but:
By the end of the 18th century, only 150 years after the arrival of the Dutch at the Cape of Good Hope, thousands of Bushmen (San) had been shot and killed, and many more were forced to work for their colonial captors. The new British government vowed to stop the fighting. They hoped to “civilize” the Bushmen by encouraging them to adopt a more agricultural lifestyle but were unsuccessful. By the 1870s the last Bushmen of the Cape were hunted to extinction. Other Bushman groups were able to survive the European encroachment despite continued threats. The last license to hunt Bushmen was reportedly issued in Namibia by the South African government in 1936. (National Geographic) Additionally black colonists were just as guilty in the bushman hunt due primarily to a clash of cultures. The black colonists were herders, while the nomadic bushman did not have a concept of personal property. A cow is a food source to be used by who ever hunts it brought the bushman in to direct conflict with the herders who regard the cow as personal property. A very similar analogy to the settlement of the American west. In both the hunting of indigenous for sport and bounty and the clash of cultural values.
As for the slavery argument:
"The dominant pattern of enslavement was well described by Olaudah Equiano, who in his 18th-century autobiography described his capture as a young boy in southern Nigeria, and his subsequent sale and resale to a succession of
African masters, before finally being sold to Europeans."
Another perspective:
When it comes to any analysis of the problems facing Africa, Western society, and particularly people from the United States, encounter a logical disconnect that makes clear analysis impossible. That disconnect is the way life is regarded in the West (it’s precious, must be protected at all costs etc.), compared to the way life, and death, are regarded in Africa.
Among old Africa hands, we have a saying, usually accompanied by a shrug: "Africa wins again." This is usually said after an incident such as:
a) a beloved missionary is butchered by his congregation, for no apparent reason
b) a tribal chief prefers to let his tribe starve to death rather than accepting food from the Red Cross (would mean he wasn’t all-powerful, you see)
c) an entire nation starves to death, while its ruler accumulates wealth in foreign banks
d) a new government comes into power, promising democracy, free elections etc., provided that the freedom doesn’t extend to the other tribe
e) the other tribe comes to power in a bloody coup, then promptly sets about slaughtering the first tribe
f) etc, etc, etc, ad nauseam, ad infinitum.
Source: Kim du Toit on syntynyt ja elänyt Afrikassa. Hän emigroitui Johannesburgista Yhdysvaltoihin vuonna 1986. Essee on julkaistu alunperin
The BeothuK
The extinction of the Beothuk one could easily describe as being proverbially caught in the middle. With the settlement of the coastal areas by initially Portuguese fisherman the Boethuk were forced to move inland away from their traditional food sources.The Portuguese took to hunting the Beothuk as early as 1501 as documented in the travels of Gaspar Corte-Real. With the continued influx of European fishing fleets in the late middle to late 16th century again the genre of clash of cultures rears up with a quote from early English fisherman that the " Beothuk stole anything the Europeans didn't have nailed down, and the fishermen treated the Beothuk with contempt, distrust, and even hatred." Leading to the expedition of one John Guy in 1610 who when approached by hundreds of Beothuk ready to trade he fired his cannons at them. Some historians believe that this caused the Beothuk to forever mistrust the British.
If dealling with the Europeans was not bad enough the Beothuk also had to contend with their rivals to the south, the Micmacs. As the Micmac migration(1613) moved north they were brought into direct conflict with the Beothuk over the rich New Foundland fishing grounds. Armed with modern weapons from the French the Beothuk were once again driven inland away from sources of food. In conjunction was the increased permanent settlement of the shores by British colonists. Add in the various wars between the French and the British over the new territory there was little left of the traditional ways for the Beothuk. A census of 1827 failed to locate a single Beothuk coexisting in the wild. The last known living Beothuk was Nancey Shanawhdht who died in 1829. (Source, my grade eight and nine social studies teaching notes and the video series "Canada, A Peoples History)