“At a certain stage a further development took place. Wars, which originally were wars of extermination, gradually became-at least in part-wars of conquest; the vanquished, instead of being put to death, were made slaves and compelled to labour for their conquerors. When this happened there came to be two sorts of people within a community, namely the original members who alone were free, and were the repositories of the tribal spirit, and the subjects who obeyed from fear, not from instinctive loyalty” (Russell 5).
An example of what Russell is arguing here is the Triangular Trade in which Africans were stolen from their homes and families and were brought to the American continent to work as slaves. Although the Triangular trade was not a war of extermination, I believe that it was a war of conquest. A major war of conquest which really exemplifies Russell’s argument was during the “making of America” Columbus and his European men enslaved the Natives, turned the Natives against each other and forced them to Christianity in his efforts of finding gold. With the Triangular trade, there were two sorts of people within a community. The Americans who supposedly are namely the original members and the Africans who are the subjects who obeyed from fear, not from instinctive loyalty. The difference with Columbus and the Native Americans is that the Natives were sadly both the original members and subject who obeyed from fear.
~Damilola Babarinde~
I completely agree with your response. Many wars first begin with the peoples’ desire to find gold, new goods, and expand their power. But somewhere along the way, the “conquerers” became greedy and decided to own the natives too through force and coercion. They then become the “originals” of the land, while the actual natives are either killed off or forced in slavery.
Ariana Lee
I most definitely agree with your perspective on Russell’s argument. I believe that most conflicts (wars) among nations and groups of people are due to quests fulfilling selfish desires. These include but are not limited to monetary wealth, acquisition of land, better reputation, bettering one’s country. Instead of obtaining all through the Native Americans peacefully, the conquerors interjected fear to the hosts of the country. Doing this, put the Native Americans under their rule as either a slave, or worse, punished to face death. It seems this also goes along with the argument of human’s nature to always have competition in one’s life.
^ Alisha Alex
This was an interesting quote and I agree with your stance on it. The examples you gave on conquest wars exemplified the authors point on the types of war. As shown in history, conquering wars have taken over as the main conflict. This leaves the defeated side with an extreme loss with loss of property, casualties, etc.