PDA

View Full Version : Genocide of Native Americans? Myth or Actual?



Blademaster
28 Apr 08,, 00:11
I got into an argument with a potential business associate during an informal meeting. We got into the history of Spanish history through the topic of Christopher Columbus and from there it spilled over into the topic of the treatment and history of Native Americans at the hands of English and modern day Americans.

He said that English countries are the only countries that have managed to wipe out indigenous populations. He says look at the number of Native Americans before the English settlers came to North America and afterwards today. He says that less than 1% of America's population can actually trace their descent to Native American ancestry while south of America, over 20% of each nation can genuinely claim to be Indian or Native American tribe. He says this is proof that Americans actually committed genocide and is whitewashing it. He says that Spanish colonialism was far better than English colonialism when it comes to treatment of the natives. Natives had more rights and better treatment under the Spanish rule than those under the English or English speaking rule. Furthermore, when the Spanish left in the mid 1800s, the former colonies had competent social services administration and civil service administration but it soon fell apart due to corruption and greed, which were not the fault of the Spanish people. He feels that the Spanish has been unfairly demoagogued by the English speaking countries for its colonial past and its treatment of the natives.

He showed me to a website where the natives actually thrive in Spanish speaking countries whereas in English speaking countries, the natives are nearly wiped out or is in serious decline.

I tried explaining to him that it wasn't systematic genocide but through a series of unfortunate incidences such as the spread of disease from Europe where the natives had no immunity to it. He rejected by saying that the Spanish also brought disease but today, you see 20% of the population claiming to be natives.

I would like to hear your thoughts and opinions on this subject.

FOG3
28 Apr 08,, 04:32
Well using demographic statistics between a colonial approach, and a outpost approach after the outpost creators left seems rather disingenuous. If foreigners stick around they naturally become part of the population. If their population growth exceeds the natives, the natives progressively become a smaller portion of the pie. Murder and mayhem need not be involved.

Admittedly I don't pay that much attention to South America, but what I do know indicates seriously corrupt governments and poor living standards. If I'm not mistaken the US natives are above the line where their living standards are roughly equivalent to ancient kings.

That's to say:
-Ability to laze around enough for obesity to be a bigger concern then starvation.
-On demand entertainment of pretty much whatever fits their fancy.
-A wide variety of food goods being available on demand including the elusive spices. Map out where a the various spices are originally from, the trade routes, and otherwise and try to tell me spices are not a big deal.

And they don't have to actually manage a country or large estate to have access to all these benefits.

Anesthesia didn't come in until mid 19th century thereby making serious surgery really practical and relevant antibiotics weren't developed until the mid 20th century. Vaccines existed earlier but were very much a hit or miss proposition in development. The biggest historical factor to historical disease issues is having clean water (and knowing how to use it), I expect they have water treatment plants or service from them by now.

So I'd say even the less then productive ones are doing rather well. Poor management of their resources beyond that point are at least technically not our fault.

If the US had been bent on genocide those Injuns wouldn't have had repeaters to fill Old Custer full of holes with while he was stuck with previous generation tech, now would they?

bolo121
28 Apr 08,, 06:01
If anything the settlers didnt go far enough. They left these tribes diminished but intact dreaming of past glory and future vengeance. If you're going to kill a lot of people and take their land, do it right. No survival of the old culture and ethnic groupings. Complete and total integration into the new culture with little or no trace of the old identity, ethnicity or language.

dark-alias
28 Apr 08,, 06:21
exactly, it was failure to let go of tradition, culture, pride, we made it seem like over and over again that they would have their own land to flourish as they please. Present day shows us a different outcome. There were brutalities on both sides and the winner is clear. Its a sad fact but it happened and has happened elsewhere. No need to worry though i know of quite a few casinos and gas stations that make a killing not having to pay taxes. Assimilation is key if your are going to survive among a new dominate majority. They failed as a whole to assimilate and therefore ceased to thrive.

Parihaka
28 Apr 08,, 07:28
As someone has already alluded to, the Spanish came to loot, the English/Americans came to own.
So with the Spanish there was certainly a lot of killing, but the 'natives' maintained a degree of control over one critical factor: Land.
In America on the other hand, land was the primary area of contention and the American natives lost big time. No land, no resources, no possibility of regrowing a population the way their southern neighbours could.

bolo121
28 Apr 08,, 07:41
Pari,
However it seems that they now have an opportunity to redress the situation.
Casinos and other businesses are churning out tax exempt cash. At the same time the population of rural areas in the heartland states continues to shrink.
They could conceivably obtain large tracts of land for their respective Native American nations.

Shek
28 Apr 08,, 12:40
What about rates of immigration? The following links don't compare, but do give a sense of the fact that the US is a melting pot of current immigrants as well as native born offspring of past immigrants.

I suspect that South American countries haven't assimilated as many immigrants.

Immigration to the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_States)
Historical Census Statistics on the Foreign-Born Population of the United States: 1850 to 1990 (http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0029/twps0029.html)

bolo121
28 Apr 08,, 14:00
Yes an interesting consideration. Amazing really the various peoples who came to America.
Those people would have been hungry to make a new start in the proverbial land of milk and honey and their tolerance for the natives getting uppity would not have been much.
Therefore the pressure on native nations and their lands would have been that much harder.

Oscar
28 Apr 08,, 16:27
The South Amerindians resisted and survived because their societies (Incas, Aztecs) were more advanced , in all domains, than the Amerindians of the North I presume.

Triple C
28 Apr 08,, 17:38
I think I am more inclined to support Parihaka here, not because he is the moderator, but because I honestly think that what the Europeans did in North America had far more bearing in what happened to the natives than whatever the natives ever had done.

The Aztecs and the Incans, inspite of their more complex societies, adopted less well to new technologies than the northern Indians. They collapsed at the the conquistadors' first blow, whereas the northern American Indians resisted for centuries. The Incans and the Aztecs did not adopt to horses, iron or firearms. The Plains Indians did. Granted that the Meoamericans didn't last long enough, but that is sort of my point.

IMHO a higher level of sophistication isn't neccessarily conductive to survival. Ever read Dune? 'Barbaric' peoples can be suprisingly resilent to invaders of all sorts where cultured peoples would fell victim. The Tuareg, Zulus, Bedouin and Afghanis certainly lasted longer then wealthier and more advanced societies....

gunnut
28 Apr 08,, 19:38
I tried explaining to him that it wasn't systematic genocide but through a series of unfortunate incidences such as the spread of disease from Europe where the natives had no immunity to it. He rejected by saying that the Spanish also brought disease but today, you see 20% of the population claiming to be natives.

I would like to hear your thoughts and opinions on this subject.

You can always tell him that "claiming" is a rather subjective term.

Obama "claims" to be black but we know he's half African and half white American. He shares nothing with black Americans who are descendants of slaves.

And how well are these 20% who claim to be natives doing in these countries? Original inhabitants of this continent are given and allowed the same opportunities to success in this nation as any other ethnic group. How about those in South America?

Triple C
28 Apr 08,, 22:53
Cough. To get back to the orginal thread:



1. He said that English countries are the only countries that have managed to wipe out indigenous populations. He says look at the number of Native Americans before the English settlers came to North America and afterwards today. 2. He says that less than 1% of America's population can actually trace their descent to Native American ancestry while south of America, over 20% of each nation can genuinely claim to be Indian or Native American tribe. 3. He says this is proof that Americans actually committed genocide and is whitewashing it. 4. He says that Spanish colonialism was far better than English colonialism when it comes to treatment of the natives. Natives had more rights and better treatment under the Spanish rule than those under the English or English speaking rule.


Those are the biggest bones I can pick with your summary of his arguements.

1. Is untrue. The Imperial Russians exterminated the Tartars in Siberia. The death toll is pretty extensive and the Tartars, whilst not killed to man, came pretty close to it during the period of east-ward expansion. Certainly Russian history experts had compared it to America's own west-ward expansion in its dynamics, effects on the indiginous peoples and rationalizations.

2. Where did he get that number? A college classmate of mine claims that most white Americans that were not entirely new immigrants had native American blood. Neither had been collaborated by anything other than rumor. The percentage he claimed seems quite odd. There had been considerable intermarriage after all.

3. There had been no consistent campaign to exterminate the Indian Americans. The European colonists simply did not have the intellectual equipment to concieve something like that. The Americans did believe the Indians to be of an inferior "race" of sorts but insofar as most were concerned, the Indians were to be Christianized and assimulated, and their lands to be administered by more capable and productive hands. Identity back then was less a matter of ancestry than religion and customs. Manifest destiny, Indian administration, missionary schools and all that.

4. The Spanish empire was unfairly maligned by Anglo sources because it was Catholic and the historical enmity between the English and the Spainards. However I would not characterize the Spanish conquest in its first couple of centuries as anything remotely benign.

After all, the Indians dug out thousands of tons of silver from the mines and filled the treasure ships, under slave labor conditions, with little to no regard for their safety or well being. The Spanish conquest of the Americas occurred at the period roughly sandwiched between the reconquista, the pan European Wars of Religion, and the Inquisition. A terrible time to be a pagan ruled by Christian overlords. The plain truth was that the Spainards infected most with deadly diseases, killed the resistance, and then forcibly converted the surivors, put them to the mines to squeaze every last ounce of bullion out of the land. They throughly wiped out the Aztecth and Inca civlizations which were among the most prosperous and populous in the world. No accurate census was available, but by the conquistador's own admission, the devastation was horrific and the surviving population a fraction of what it used to be.

No hard numbers are available, but considering the astronomical devastations and the loot that the Spanairds wrought, achieved at a much shorter time frame, would make the Spanish conquest one of the most lethal events in human history along with the Mongols and the Nazis.

Never the less, those are wild-assed guesses by academics. Meothodology was uncertain, and most do not differentiate death to cause. Simply no way to classify who died ot what, but there is a pretty good list.



Coe, Snow and Benson, Atlas of Ancient America (1986)
Total pre-Columbian population: 40M
Mexico: Original population of 11M to 25M ("lower figure commands more support") fell to 1.25M (1625)
Peru: Pop. fell from 9M (1533) to >500,000 (early 17th C)
Brazil: Original population of 2.5M to 5.0M ("recent commentators favoring the higher") fell to 1M
Massimo Livi-Bacci, Concise History of World Population History 2d (1996)
Mexico: Population fell from 6.3M (1548) to 1.9M (1580) to 1M (1605)
Peru: Pop. fell from 1.3M (1572) to 600,000 (1620)
Canada: from 300,000 (ca. 1600) to < 100,000 (ca. 1800)
USA: from 5M (1500) to 60,000 (ca. 1800) [sic. Probably means 600,000 because he cites Thornton]
R.J. Rummel estimates that 13,778,000 American Indians died of democide in the 16th through 19th Centuries:
Total dead among native Americans in colonial era: 49.5M out of pre-contact population of 55M
Democides in this: 5M
Democides among Indians, post-colonial era: 8,763,000
Democides in US: 15,000
Skidmore & Smith, Modern Latin America (1997)
Mexico: Population fell from 25M (1519) to 16.8M (1523) to 1.9M (1580) to 1M (1605)
Peru: from 1.3M (1570, forty years after Conquest) to <600,000 (1620)
Stannard, American Holocaust (1992): 100,000,000 deaths across the hemisphere across time
16th Century death toll: between 60M and 80M
Panama, 1514-1530: 2M Indians killed
Mexico
Central: Population fell from 25.0M (1519) to 1.3M (1595)
SE: fell from 1,700,000 to 240,000
North: fell from 2,500,000 to 320,000
Peru, 16th C.: between 8.5M and 13.5M people destroyed.
Fredric Wertham, A Sign For Cain : An Exploration of Human Violence (1966): South American death toll of 15,000,000.


I am getting too tired. This is certainly going to be an interesting thread. I will hit the hay and see what tommorow brings.

zraver
29 Apr 08,, 03:53
I got into an argument with a potential business associate during an informal meeting. We got into the history of Spanish history through the topic of Christopher Columbus and from there it spilled over into the topic of the treatment and history of Native Americans at the hands of English and modern day Americans.

He said that English countries are the only countries that have managed to wipe out indigenous populations. He says look at the number of Native Americans before the English settlers came to North America and afterwards today. He says that less than 1% of America's population can actually trace their descent to Native American ancestry while south of America, over 20% of each nation can genuinely claim to be Indian or Native American tribe. He says this is proof that Americans actually committed genocide and is whitewashing it. He says that Spanish colonialism was far better than English colonialism when it comes to treatment of the natives. Natives had more rights and better treatment under the Spanish rule than those under the English or English speaking rule. Furthermore, when the Spanish left in the mid 1800s, the former colonies had competent social services administration and civil service administration but it soon fell apart due to corruption and greed, which were not the fault of the Spanish people. He feels that the Spanish has been unfairly demoagogued by the English speaking countries for its colonial past and its treatment of the natives.

He showed me to a website where the natives actually thrive in Spanish speaking countries whereas in English speaking countries, the natives are nearly wiped out or is in serious decline.

I tried explaining to him that it wasn't systematic genocide but through a series of unfortunate incidences such as the spread of disease from Europe where the natives had no immunity to it. He rejected by saying that the Spanish also brought disease but today, you see 20% of the population claiming to be natives.

I would like to hear your thoughts and opinions on this subject.

1- higher population densities in some areas means more survivor populations. Only the eastern seaboard and Central America had large populations, both still have large remnant populations. The other big area of population density the Mississippi river valley was all but wiped out by disease before any European but the Spanish got there.


2- Different colonial approaches. The Spanish/Portugese saw the new world and its population as a hard resource to exploit via mining and plantations. The French saw the natives and wilderness as a source of trade revenue. The English saw America as a way to bleed off excess population. The amount of immigration into North America vs all of Central and South America is quite profound.

3- The Spanish wiped out the carib populations.There are not even remnant populations of the Tainos.

4- it is estimated that as many as 100 million people lived in the new World before Columbus arrived. 70% of that population would be dead within 100 years. the Dominican priest Bartoleme de Las Casas recorded that on the island of Hispaniola the population went from an estimated 3 million to 200. He reported similar depopulations on Cuba, Puerto Rico and Jamaica.

Columbus 1st voyage 1492 Jamestown 1607- The genocide of a population 100 million strong was already all but wiped out before the 1st English colony was started. In fact Spanish disease and predation probably killed well over 100,000,000 when you think of the children born after the 1492 estimate.

Blademaster
29 Apr 08,, 21:18
Well, the business associate I spoke to said that there are more Indians living in South America and thriving better than those in USA or Canada and there are more Indians than in the past living in South America. Whereas if you look at the Native Americans in North America, there are less Native Americans than in the past.

How do you counter that?

Blademaster
29 Apr 08,, 21:19
You can always tell him that "claiming" is a rather subjective term.

Obama "claims" to be black but we know he's half African and half white American. He shares nothing with black Americans who are descendants of slaves.

And how well are these 20% who claim to be natives doing in these countries? Original inhabitants of this continent are given and allowed the same opportunities to success in this nation as any other ethnic group. How about those in South America?

My associate says they are given the same opportunities but did not suffer the level of trauma the Natives did in USA or Canada. He says the 20% claiming to be natives are considered to be pure blood natives.

Blademaster
29 Apr 08,, 21:25
2. Where did he get that number? A college classmate of mine claims that most white Americans that were not entirely new immigrants had native American blood. Neither had been collaborated by anything other than rumor. The percentage he claimed seems quite odd. There had been considerable intermarriage after all.


He claims that this many white Americans claiming to have native American blood are not true about their origins because if you can claim a significant trace of blood, you can qualify for compensation or tax breaks under US laws, hence the high reporting of traces of native american blood.



3. There had been no consistent campaign to exterminate the Indian Americans. The European colonists simply did not have the intellectual equipment to concieve something like that. The Americans did believe the Indians to be of an inferior "race" of sorts but insofar as most were concerned, the Indians were to be Christianized and assimulated, and their lands to be administered by more capable and productive hands. Identity back then was less a matter of ancestry than religion and customs. Manifest destiny, Indian administration, missionary schools and all that.


He says that in South America, there were institutions and missionaries and laws that were designed to protect the natives whereas in USA and Canada, there were no laws designed to protect them.




4. The Spanish empire was unfairly maligned by Anglo sources because it was Catholic and the historical enmity between the English and the Spainards. However I would not characterize the Spanish conquest in its first couple of centuries as anything remotely benign.

After all, the Indians dug out thousands of tons of silver from the mines and filled the treasure ships, under slave labor conditions, with little to no regard for their safety or well being. The Spanish conquest of the Americas occurred at the period roughly sandwiched between the reconquista, the pan European Wars of Religion, and the Inquisition. A terrible time to be a pagan ruled by Christian overlords. The plain truth was that the Spainards infected most with deadly diseases, killed the resistance, and then forcibly converted the surivors, put them to the mines to squeaze every last ounce of bullion out of the land. They throughly wiped out the Aztecth and Inca civlizations which were among the most prosperous and populous in the world. No accurate census was available, but by the conquistador's own admission, the devastation was horrific and the surviving population a fraction of what it used to be.


Actually the local tribes were so thankful that the Spaniards came and killed the Aztecs and Incas who by even the local Indian standards, were very brutal and cruel. Witness the massive human sacrifices pits.

My friend says it is true that the Spaniards looted the country for gold but at least there were no slave labour although the conditions could be described as slave labour conditions. There were institutions and reforms designed to uplift the natives's working conditions and assimiliation into the government and social life.

Ironduke
30 Apr 08,, 00:25
I think genocide is too strong a word to describe the displacement of and wars with the Native Americans. Perhaps democide would be a more appropriate term. I just don't think the historical events rise to the level of genocide, which is the deliberate extermination of an ethnic or racial group.

Oscar
30 Apr 08,, 00:34
My associate says they are given the same opportunities but did not suffer the level of trauma the Natives did in USA or Canada. He says the 20% claiming to be natives are considered to be pure blood natives.

Well your associate was a bit far from the truth because only 1/4 Indians in Mexico survived the first years of the Spanish colonisation. It was a real trauma for them but they were more numerous I guess and the Spaniards needed them to exploit the land. Maybe that's what saved them.

Albany Rifles
30 Apr 08,, 16:00
Internal Revenue Bulletin - April 10, 2006 - Rev. Rul. 2006-20 (http://www.irs.gov/irb/2006-15_IRB/ar09.html)


Tax exempt status not true

2 words

Bovine Waste

gunnut
30 Apr 08,, 18:04
I think genocide is too strong a word to describe the displacement of and wars with the Native Americans. Perhaps democide would be a more appropriate term. I just don't think the historical events rise to the level of genocide, which is the deliberate extermination of an ethnic or racial group.

It was definitely not genocide. It was a "total war" against the natives and in the process they were driven to near extinction. Had our war against the Japanese lasted that long then we could have driven them to near extinction too, with firebombing, land invasion, mass starvation, and poison gas all coming in to factor.

Genocide means there was intent and planning to exterminate a certain group of people. I just don't see it in the war against the natives.

zraver
01 May 08,, 02:13
Well, the business associate I spoke to said that there are more Indians living in South America and thriving better than those in USA or Canada and there are more Indians than in the past living in South America. Whereas if you look at the Native Americans in North America, there are less Native Americans than in the past.

How do you counter that?

If South and Central America have 80 million souls and 60 million die but North America has 10 million and 9 million die then North America killed off 81% of its population as comapred to 75% for South America- those evil Americans! Just don't physically count the bodies and see the Spanish/Portugese 7-1 lead.


He says that in South America, there were institutions and missionaries and laws that were designed to protect the natives whereas in USA and Canada, there were no laws designed to protect them.

Those laws came about as the result of a Domincan Batholomew De La Casa who convinced King Charles V to pass the Law of the Indies in 1542. However the die off was mostly done by this point. We know Spain was already importing slaves to Mexico by 1550 becuase of the slave graves at Campeche. This implies a labor shortage.

Native
07 Jul 08,, 18:00
Well not practiced genocide, but there were certainly suspicious cases. Trail of Tears as an example.

Riding into Indian camps and slaughtering women and children without regard? Genocide? Or just racist hatred?

To receive any benefits as a Native American, you must have a registration number and I believe the lowest percent is 12%.

For African American, 1 drop of blood makes you black.

Semper Fi
07 Jul 08,, 18:09
As someone has already alluded to, the Spanish came to loot, the English/Americans came to own.
So with the Spanish there was certainly a lot of killing, but the 'natives' maintained a degree of control over one critical factor: Land.
In America on the other hand, land was the primary area of contention and the American natives lost big time. No land, no resources, no possibility of regrowing a population the way their southern neighbours could.

Not true at ALL. The Conquistadors did not just come to the Americas to "loot". Ever hear of "New Spain"?

I wouldn't say the treatment of the Natives was genocidal, but it was mass murder. Though MANY Natives died of disease, and not by fighting. I would disagree that Southern Natives put more of a fight then the Northern Natives. In the South... The Spanish language, and Catholic religion was adopted pretty quickly by the Natives.

gunnut
07 Jul 08,, 19:27
Well not practiced genocide, but there were certainly suspicious cases. Trail of Tears as an example.

Riding into Indian camps and slaughtering women and children without regard? Genocide? Or just racist hatred?

I don't believe it's either. It was "total war" and has been practiced throughout history. Many peoples have been exterminated or nearly exterminated by this practice. We only talk about the original inhabitants here because it's recent and we have good records.



To receive any benefits as a Native American, you must have a registration number and I believe the lowest percent is 12%.

For African American, 1 drop of blood makes you black.

Isn't that racist? Can they sue under the "equal protection" clause or something?

How about white Africans? Can they migrate here and be "African American?"

I just never liked these blatantly racist policies.

sappersgt
07 Jul 08,, 20:53
How about white Africans? Can they migrate here and be "African American?"


I asked my wife the same thing. She just gave me a dirty look.:tongue:

gunnut
07 Jul 08,, 22:10
I asked my wife the same thing. She just gave me a dirty look.:tongue:

I find it racist that white Africans are not allowed to claim "African American" on the census form.:mad:

Can Egyptians and Libyans claim "African American" on the census form?

Had the government stuck with the term "black Americans" then we wouldn't have this issue.

zraver
09 Jul 08,, 01:12
Well not practiced genocide, but there were certainly suspicious cases. Trail of Tears as an example.

Riding into Indian camps and slaughtering women and children without regard? Genocide? Or just racist hatred?

To receive any benefits as a Native American, you must have a registration number and I believe the lowest percent is 12%.

For African American, 1 drop of blood makes you black.

The closest the US ever came to practiced genocide is the Buffalo slaughter to force the plains tribes onto the reservation.

RustyBattleship
09 Jul 08,, 06:54
I am going to put my 2 cents worth in here and make a lot of enemies.

Genocide is wiping out a race. Whether it be by sword, bullet or "relocation" it's the same thing. I emphasize "relocations" to "reservations" as I have been through a number of Indian Reservations. Only Army camps (Fort Irwin in particular) are more desolate.

The Kickapoo Indians of central Wisconsin helped raise my grandmother and her three sisters by teaching them how to ride Indian ponies bareback, fish, track game and shoot a rifle. My grandmother was a terrific rifle shot with her Remington .22 pump and if she could see it she could hit it. (I still have that rifle).

The Kickapoo are NOT the comical drawfs of Al Capp's "Lil' Abner" comic strip. They are a branch of the Algonquin and at one time were so skilled at warfare that they joked they would only retreat if outnumbered more than 6 to 1.

They hated the French and pounded the hell out of them (notice there are a lot of French named towns in Wisconsin such as Prairie Du Chein). They hated the English and pounded the hell out of them. Prior to the revolution they pounded the hell out of all colonists, but then decided they hated the English more than the Americans and joined our side.

When they realized that "If you can't beat them, join them" they set up roadside stands to sell their baskets, do tin smithing, gun repair, sell their own brand of .22 rifle and, yes, sell Kickapoo Snake Oil. You can't say they didn't have a sense of humor as well.

When my grandmother and one of her sisters moved to St. Paul, they looked her up and pitched their tepees on the front lawn -- two blocks from the State Capitol Building on Capitol Drive. They were convinced that the back lot had more room.

After my Grandmother married (and my Grandfather gave her that rifle as a wedding present) they moved to Milwaukee. My Grandfather built a small house on the back of a 150 foot deep lot on West Mt. Vernon Avenue in Milwaukee. The Kickapoo found them, came to visit and pitched their tepees for a week or so.

When I was about 10 years old, I found some straight pine poles in our wood pile and built my own tepee frame out of them. My Grandparents rushed out with blankets and helped me cover it. Later, they told me I had pitched my tepee in the exact same spot as the Kickapoo pitched their camp.

BUT, the Government (in its infinite wisdom) decided to move the Kickapoo out. Some had already migrated to Oklahoma but many were "deported" to Mexico.

To me, that's genocide.

The tribal headquarters of the Kickapoo is still in Oklahoma. What is ironic to me is one of their chiefs went to Long Beach City College at the same time I did after he got out of the Navy. I have an autographed copy by him of a book on the history of the Kickapoo.

Because of the family association with the Kickapoo, the values they taught my grandmother - who tried to pass them down to me - I want to claim KICKAPOO as part of my heritage along with German, French, Irish, Welsh, English, Czechoslovakian and Russian Don Cossack (that I know of).

So, has genocide been committed with the Native Americans? It sure as hell has. If it wasn't by musket ball then it was by Congressional vote to get them out of sight and out of mind (Mexico).

Triple C
09 Jul 08,, 09:16
My God, I thought the thread was dead and came too late in making a response.


He says that in South America, there were institutions and missionaries and laws that were designed to protect the natives whereas in USA and Canada, there were no laws designed to protect them.

I am not qualified to discuss the specific legislations, but to a large extend those laws would be meaningless considering how little the influence the Spanish monarch had over his New World colonies. Cortez was essentially a rouge agent that started a war on his own initiaitve, at the same time staging an armed insurgency against the colonial governor installed by the Kingdom of Spain. He emmerged the victor and was awarded with the priviledges of governing the newly conquered empires after the fact.

The local tribes were thankful for the Spanish assisstance at the time. However, the dead of the Aztec Empire far outnumbered what Indians the Spaniards 'saved'. Aztec human sacrefice was never so overwhelming as to exterminate their gods' source of substenance. They culled those they considered sufficient for their rituals and did not wage the Clauswitzian battles of annihilation that the Spanish practiced; what military actions the Aztects had more remesembled hunting than fighting. The Spaniards on the other hand, was responsible for epidemics and carnage at a vast scale.

The Missionaries established in Spanish America did indeed try to protect the Indians. However they also left behind a massive trail of condamning evidence against what many monks (justly) saw as cruel and inhumane administration of the colonies.

Not very sure what are the genetic distribution of Indians in America. I am sure specialists somewhere in some college or another already have the hard numbers at hand.

clitifad
15 Jul 08,, 11:38
Excuse me!! the Spanish conquistedores raped and pillaged the ancient South American civilisations stole their gold - that's all they were interested in any way and, then through some screwed horrible monster of subjugation these nations lived in abject poverty and exploitation for many centuries, they spoke only Spanish generally or Portuguese as their masters dictated, the only reason they could not be controlled completely by the Spanish was because Spain did not have mastery of the seas, or the infrastructure to maintain a dominance in these regions due to her defeats by such forces as the Royal Navy. British colonialism (Empire) although not being chastised here was generally seen as the system that created the most development in many parts of the empire, through structure, common law, trading and fair play generally, it didn't work out all the time with a happy ending agreed, but generally had a positive effect on a growing world, I was taught this at school.

bolo121
15 Jul 08,, 14:39
British colonialism (Empire) although not being chastised here was generally seen as the system that created the most development in many parts of the empire, through structure, common law, trading and fair play generally, it didn't work out all the time with a happy ending agreed, but generally had a positive effect on a growing world, I was taught this at school.

The British Empire had a very beneficial effect....for the British.
For us it was a sad humiliation that a proud and ancient civilisation could
be brought low by a few white men from a small island off the coast of Europe.

dave lukins
15 Jul 08,, 17:39
The British Empire had a very beneficial effect....for the British.
For us it was a sad humiliation that a proud and ancient civilisation could
be brought low by a few white men from a small island off the coast of Europe.

Bolo.. you have removed us from Europe..Revenge is sweet:))

bolo121
15 Jul 08,, 17:59
[/B]

Bolo.. you have removed us from Europe..Revenge is sweet:))

Well You know this reminds me of a line i once heard on TV,

French Guy: "You and I sir, have a european way of looking at things)
English guy(in posh accent): "Im not european, I'm British" :)) :))

ozjohn39
15 Jul 08,, 22:31
Native,


"To receive any benefits as a Native American, you must have a registration number and I believe the lowest percent is 12%."



In 2004, we were on a tour bus from Flagstaff to the Grand Canyon. The tour bus driver was a Hopi Indian, and he kindly answered some questions from this curious Australian.

I asked just what % of pure VERIFIABLE native aAmerican blood was required to be officially classified as such.

His answer was 25%, and under that a person cannot claim to be native American, or claim any benefits, and can only live on a reservation, if they are in a permanent relationship with one over 25%.

Over here, a person can simply claim to be aboriginal, no matter how low the %, if any, and the government will never challenge it.

ALL government forms, in particular the Social Security ones, have a box at the top saying "Are you Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander".

A tick means automatic acceptance for the claim.

The number of 'Aboriginals' here has gone from 200,000 about 30 years ago to nearly 500,000 today.


John.

Castellano
11 Aug 08,, 06:31
Blademaster´s potential business associate is correct. Spanish colonization was way more civilized than either that of the English or the French, who were far, far more brutal.

And by the way, Aztecs and Incas were as brutal as it gets. Not the less influential Aymara culture though.

Here is the name of a very important historical figure that sums up the point

Bartolomé de las Casas

I don´t know of any historical figure of comparable importance in the case of the English or French during the XVI or XVII centuries. Actually, I don´t know of anybody with that influence in the XVIII century, in either the English or French empires.

Spanish empire collapsed in early XIX century so the talk about corrupt societies etc...after that date is irrelevant.


Then one should not dismiss the following factor. Spanish colonizers generally went to America to make fortune with the idea of returning someday back to Spain. In Spanish it was said literally ¨go to make the Americas¨. To ¨loot¨, if you will.

This implied that they didn´t take spanish women with them, and quickly :cool: began to mix with local people, giving birth to the mestizo populations that are the majority in all countries except Argentina, Uruguay and Chile, where local indian populations were butchered.

English went with their families, to ¨own¨.

This impled not mixing with locals and commiting something pretty similar to genocide along the way.

So if one wants to be provocative, it could be argued that an odd combination of Catholic Traditions and Sex made the Spanish colonization more benign.

Beat That!

Triple C
11 Aug 08,, 09:17
Castellano,



Aztecs and Incas were as brutal as it gets. Not the less influential Aymara culture though.


I do not dispute that. But the baleful effect of the Spanish invasion, particularly the flu and the use of slave labor in the silver mines could hardly be disputed. The Spaniards came to the Americas with missionary zeal, but I do not believe that the Tlaxcaltecans fought the Aztecs in order to be ruled by a new master. The Aztecs had a horrid religion, but their demands of sacreficial victims is evidently a sustainable loss that could be bourne and made good. Could the same be said about the early period of Spanish rule?



This implied that they didn´t take spanish women with them, and quickly began to mix with local people, giving birth to the mestizo populations that are the majority in all countries except Argentina, Uruguay and Chile, where local indian populations were butchered.


I feel that the mixing of heritages would not have occurred had the Indian women have a say in the matter.



Bartolomé de las Casas

I don´t know of any historical figure of comparable importance in the case of the English or French during the XVI or XVII centuries. Actually, I don´t know of anybody with that influence in the XVIII century, in either the English or French empires.


That might be so, but he was also ultimately responsible for the unfavorable picture of Spanish colonial rule painted by latter historians. It was his critique of the Spanish empire in America that condemned Spain. It is also note worthy that most of his struggles for a more equitable treatment of the native American peoples failed.

I would object the use of the term genocide in native American history, unless we are going by Lempkin's definition (admittedly used by international law) which, frankly, I feel to be too broad for its good.

Castellano
11 Aug 08,, 10:41
But the baleful effect of the Spanish invasion, particularly the flu and the use of slave labor in the silver mines could hardly be disputed.

It cannot be disputed. The colonization of Central and South America had terrible consequences for the indigenous people. As I´m sure you would agree, we should distinguish between the voluntary and involuntary consequences though.




The Aztecs had a horrid religion, but their demands of sacreficial victims is evidently a sustainable loss that could be bourne and made good. Could the same be said about the early period of Spanish rule?

The Aztecs were an empire that opressed other peoples, and quite brutally too. That´s why Cortés got so much help from them in his campaign against the Aztecs .






I feel that the mixing of heritages would not have occurred had the Indian women have a say in the matter.

Not many people had a say in their marriage in XVI century Europe either. So imagine in the colonies. But remember that there was some kind of love story between La Malinche and Cortés, even though she was initially given as a slave. I suppose all kind of situations occured, the overwhelming majority, forced relations and rape.

I don´t know enough about the history of that period to state it bluntly, but I feel Spanish colonizers humanized more the conquered peoples in comparison to the English or French. That´s my point.




That might be so, but he [B de las Casas] was also ultimately responsible for the unfavorable picture of Spanish colonial rule painted by latter historians. It was his critique of the Spanish empire in America that condemned Spain. It is also note worthy that most of his struggles for a more equitable treatment of the native American peoples failed.

All absolutely true. But the fact that he tried to make the case, with his pledges and denouciations, is I think what is historically meaningful. An advocate for the conquered people was unprecedented at the time.



I would object the use of the term genocide in native American history, unless we are going by Lempkin's definition (admittedly used by international law) which, frankly, I feel to be too broad for its good.

I agree. Genocide implies a planned and systematic effort which is lacking in this context.

glyn
11 Aug 08,, 11:15
I'm sure you will try to convince us that Torquemada was a jovial and kindly fellow, sadly misjudged by history.

Triple C
11 Aug 08,, 11:54
I more or less see Spanish colonialism as a mad rampage for glory and booty that fizzled out with the collapse of the Spanish Empire, and the American wars with the Indians a sustained struggle of a growing population to gain resources at the expanse of its neighbors. I don't know how it could be argued that one side was moral superior to another. The Americans made a systematic effort to Christianize and educate the native Americans too, with a significant missionary movement(s?) during the nineteenth century. Plenty saw the role of Americans as bearers of the light of civlization (no suprises there) and believed that American presence among the Indians was at long term beneficial to the latter. There had also been in America consistent if politically impotent internal dissent about the way Indians were treated. Chief Seatle's status as a celebrity and the Supreme Court's opposition to Jackson's resettlement policies for example.

Castellano
11 Aug 08,, 12:06
¨I'm sure you will try to convince us that Torquemada was a jovial and kindly fellow, sadly misjudged by history.¨

Glyn


I have no idea why you say that.

I am surprised though that there is even a debate about the respective behaviour of colonizers in the Americas. The British and French colonizers basically wiped out of existence the indians in the North.

I´m not sure, but I think most of the indians that did survive in the north are actually from territories controlled by the Spanish, Arizona, Colorado and California. Related to Pueblo Indians.

If people in the anglosphere have somewhat the idea that Spanish colonization was just the same or even worse, well, it tells you that they´ve been brainwashed to think so. It occurs to me that for Protestants it must be a hard one to swallow to think that Catholics behaved better. Dunno what´s the reason. But the facts are indisputable.

I´m not a fanboy and I´m not campaigning, just talking about History.

glyn
11 Aug 08,, 13:50
.
[QUOTE=Castellano;529551]¨I'm sure you will try to convince us that Torquemada was a jovial and kindly fellow, sadly misjudged by history.¨

Glyn


I have no idea why you say that.

Torquemada was a disgusting religious monster who thought it better to 'Christen' native children and then have them killed as he thought that preferable to letting them become pagans. Do you think that makes him 'a man of God'?

I am surprised though that there is even a debate about the respective behaviour of colonizers in the Americas. The British and French colonizers basically wiped out of existence the indians in the North.

You have proof of that? Perhaps you will share it with us.

I´m not sure, but I think most of the indians that did survive in the north are actually from territories controlled by the Spanish, Arizona, Colorado and California. Related to Pueblo Indians.

If people in the anglosphere have somewhat the idea that Spanish colonization was just the same or even worse, well, it tells you that they´ve been brainwashed to think so. It occurs to me that for Protestants it must be a hard one to swallow to think that Catholics behaved better. Dunno what´s the reason.

I am not brainwashed. I am an atheist who thinks for himself. I do hot hold Christians in any particular esteem. Whether they are Catholic or Protestant makes no difference to me, but apparently it exercises you. Can that be brainwashing showing through?


But the facts are indisputable.

Nonsense. You are trying to build a biased mountain out of an imaginary molehill.

I´m not a fanboy and I´m not campaigning, just talking about History.

So you say.

Castellano
11 Aug 08,, 16:28
glyn, Torquemada was a monster awright, but that has nothing to do with the issue.

You have proof of that? [the near extermination of native Indians in British colonies in America] Perhaps you will share it with us.
glyn

No I don´t want to, like I wouldn´t want to prove the presence of the Moon.

Nevertheless, when I read your sentence I thought of something with some interest.
I have traveled thousands of kilometers of the US East coast and don´t remember ever seeing a native Indian
I have also traveled thousands of kilometers of South America´s West coast, and I must have seen millions of them.

One more thing, it doesn´t really matter wether you are actually religious or even if you are Catholic, for Christian Protestant culture in your case, permeates every aspect of the culture you are raised. Don´t ask me to prove it either. My guess as to why so many people in the anglosphere apparently think that Spanish colonization of the Americas was just as bad as the British is also not important. But that the idea is there seems to be a fact of which I had no idea until I read this thread.
It sure makes an interesting subject for a cultural critic study that will be telling about the anglosphere culture.
As an anthropologist, my initial working assumption would be something like ¨hypocresy works in mysterious ways¨, and where does the hypocresy come from?

Triple C
11 Aug 08,, 18:14
Reply to Castellano

I am more familiar with events in Europe then the New World during this period. However, surely you know that many conquisitors saw themselves as the harbingers of God's wrath on the heathen Indians, as indicated by the primary documents available to us? The Spanish re-telling of the Aztec apolcalypic myth that a vengeful divinity would bring doom to their civilization with an army of white men rising from the seas, I suspect, is not so much an effort to propagate the gullibility and naiivetee of the Indians to Charles V, as some scholars would suggest, but the expression a genuine Spanish belief that their coming to the Americas was, in fact, a judgement on the pagan idolators and Satan-worshipers rendered by God.

The Spaniards who had seen the human sacrefices at the temples of the Aztecs would have been revolted, shocked, and in all probability, to feel an intense hatred of the Aztecs--this was the medieval European reared from childhood to abhor the heterodox, to believe in the existence of the devil, to see the world as locked in a manachian struggle between good and evil until the Second Coming of the Lord, and there they are, at the end of the world for all they know, in a land of strange flora and fauna, populated by real polytheists who spoke no tongue that they could understand and had no relations whatsoever to the world as they knew it--I think in this context, it is highly unlikely that the first Spaniards regarded the indians as anyting but "half-devil and half-child," to borow Kippling.

I do not consider imperial Spain an evil empire carrying out the machinations of the Anti-Christ of Rome. But I do not see the Spanish administration of the Americas as anything remotely benign. It was not impossible for some individuals to transcend the weltenshuung of their times, but the existence of a handful of the said individuals does not represent the civlization in question as a whole.

Reply to Glyn

Torquemenada, by all accounts, was a banal, tedious beaucrat. Calling him a monster would probably be an unintended compliment for a rather unremarkable man. Far less people were executed in Spain for heresy during the Age of Counter-Reformation than 19th century English historians would like us believe. That is not to say that what they did is morally acceptable but there is a certain degree of hostility towards the old Spain that it did not deserve. Protestant Germany also hunted for witches, with methods far more brutal then the Spanish inquisition, and ironically in some cases, German Catholics and Protestants in a city would make common cause to burn witches, whereas the Spainish inquisition established by formal edict that witchcrat is simple doctrinal error (heresy) and that witches do not by their erroneous belief gain actual ability to cause harm or perform super-natural feats. Which is just my way of saying that the Spaniards were acting under morality as they know it and that their conduct was in most cases representative of European values held at the time.

Kansas Bear
11 Aug 08,, 18:51
.....and where does the hypocresy come from?

Smallpox?

"The smallpox death rate among native Floridians averaged 50 percent, judging from contemporary as well as later evidence. Florida's pre-Columbian population had been cut from 925,000 to 860,000 by the initial attacks of influenza, malaria, and syphilis. After the first smallpox attack, only about 430,000 survived." --Spanish Pathways in Florida, 1492-1992

"European colonists on the Atlantic Coast during the 17th century left written records of the principal contagious disease epidemics that decimated nearby Native Americans. In 1613-1617, bubonic plague halved Florida's missionized native population. By 1619, the epidemic had spread northward to New England. So many Massachusetts died that the Pilgrims, who arrived in 1620, persuaded themselves that God had destroyed the natives to open their territory to European colonists." --Encyclopedia of North American Indians

Castellano
11 Aug 08,, 19:45
Kansas Bear, I´m not sure I get the point in your otherwise interesting comment. The same diseases that decimated the native Indians in Mass. surely decimated the Indians in South America. At the end of it all, a lot more Indians remained alive in Spanish controlled territories, and not only because they were more to start with.

The fact remains that Mestizos and Indians in the Spanish Empire could actually file judicial complaints that were taken all the way to the crown in the Metropolis as early as the XVI century. (I believe I read in the excellent ¨The mainstream of civilization¨ by Stanley Chodorow, that Philip the II himself, unable to delegate even in the smallest matters, would provide judgement on things like that, even if it took years for the procedure to be resolved, due to the paperwork going back and forth. Take what I just said with extreme caution, I could be spreading a rumour... damn I don´t have Chodorow´s book with me!)

What is true is that some institutional framework, that provided some legal protection to the native Indians was in place in the Spanish Empire. Nothing of the sort could be said of the British or French Empires.

Ray
11 Aug 08,, 19:59
Genocides happen.

It is done by foreigners.

History is replete with such incidents.

The Cultural Revolution is a rarity where it was done on their own people!

Blademaster
11 Aug 08,, 21:08
Ray, don't forget the pogroms and the forced collectivization by the Russians and the gulags.

xerxes
11 Aug 08,, 21:55
The British Empire had a very beneficial effect....for the British.
For us it was a sad humiliation that a proud and ancient civilisation could
be brought low by a few white men from a small island off the coast of Europe.

Edward Gibbon had a short neat paragraph in his book in regards to Hindustan, and the British rule.

I will try to find it.

Kansas Bear
12 Aug 08,, 00:56
Ray, don't forget the pogroms and the forced collectivization by the Russians and the gulags.

And the Ukrainian Genocide 1932-1933

Shamus
12 Aug 08,, 04:10
Nevertheless, when I read your sentence I thought of something with some interest.
I have traveled thousands of kilometers of the US East coast and don´t remember ever seeing a native Indian
I have also traveled thousands of kilometers of South America´s West coast, and I must have seen millions of them.I find it interesting with you being an anthropologist that you missed these opportunities on the East Coast of Canada and the U.S.

Canada

eBay Guides - Touring Canada's East Coast Pow Wow's (http://reviews.ebay.com/Touring-Canada-apos-s-East-Coast-Pow-Wow-apos-s_W0QQugidZ10000000000892449QQ_trksidZp3286.c0.m17 )

U.S.

Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians in North Carolina (http://www.cherokee-nc.com/)

These are but a few of the opportunities you missed while you were traveling the "Thousands" of kilometers of the eastern coast of North America.

Will you find them in large numbers sitting around a fire smoking a peace pipe on the edge of the Interstate?I don't think so:rolleyes:.In this case I believe you didn't see the forest for the trees.There is a still a large Native American population in the Eastern portion of Canada and the U.S. If you didn't see any Native Americans in your travels here you obviously weren't looking very hard.However I guarantee they would have seen you coming miles away.

I find your position regarding the Spanish treatment of Native populations as being more "humane" than either the English or French as being rather subjective in its outlook and conclusions.

The French fur traders made the most valid attempt to integrate themselves as smoothly as possible with the native populations they encountered,living with them and as they lived for the most part in the early colonial period.They took native women as wives(not concubines)and for the most part lived as equals within the tribal structure.

I have no axes to grind for Catholic,Protestant,Spanish,English or French interests.One of my great grandmothers was a full-blooded Cherokee from North Carolina.I believe she would have found it very amusing that you didn't see any "Indians" in your travels;).

Shamus
12 Aug 08,, 04:17
I´m not sure, but I think most of the indians that did survive in the north are actually from territories controlled by the Spanish, Arizona, Colorado and California. Related to Pueblo Indians.
I'm sure that the numerous tribes that are still in existence east of the Continental Divide and were never under Spanish rule would find this statement laughable.

Blue
12 Aug 08,, 05:01
I have a friend who is almost as much native American as I am, and that ain't much. I however, have many cousins, aunts, and uncles who are quite fully native. No one of them I know has a chip on thier shoulder or feels like there was attempted genocide by the white man. when the topic has come up, they choose not to live in the past. Most of them take no indian benefits and don't like the casinos. They work for what they have and still retain the traditional pride of thier forefathers.

My whitebread friend, however, rants like a crusader about the injustice perpetrated by our evil forefathers. I don't get it. Maybe it happened, maybe it didn't. I think it depends which side you where on. One trying do defend thier homeland, the other trying to defend against that. For those Natives that are feeling bad about it now, sign up at your local casino supported tribal office and rub some money on your angst, that'll make it feel better.

Point is, get over it. Its in the past, they are all dead, just like civil war soldiers, slaves, and all the slave owners. Keep in mind the lessons of the past, but quit trying to make amends to the people that never lived in a tepee and get pissed when there's nothing good on any of the 500 channels, in thier air-conditioned, 3 bedroom, ranch-style.

Triple C
12 Aug 08,, 10:01
What is true is that some institutional framework, that provided some legal protection to the native Indians was in place in the Spanish Empire. Nothing of the sort could be said of the British or French Empires.


That merely proves that the Spainards conquerored the Indians more throughly. Technically the Indians in USA live in indepedent protectorates. US Supreme Court ruled against Jackson's restlement of the Indians, and I'd bet that is not the first time US Courts heard cases made by Indian Americans. Clearly this would have been impossible for the English and French settlers in North America because there existed a state of war between the European settlers and native kingdoms.

Shamus
12 Aug 08,, 12:48
That merely proves that the Spainards conquerored the Indians more throughly. Technically the Indians in USA live in indepedent protectorates. US Supreme Court ruled against Jackson's restlement of the Indians, and I'd bet that is not the first time US Courts heard cases made by Indian Americans. Clearly this would have been impossible for the English and French settlers in North America because there existed a state of war between the European settlers and native kingdoms.While it is true that the Cherokee actually won the two cases filed with the U.S. Supreme Court,Jackson chose to ignore those rulings and moved the tribe off their lands by force.To paraphrase Jackson,"Let the Supreme Court enforce their rulings!". This action on his part led to the infamous "Trail of Tears". He had no love for Native Americans in general and the Cherokee Nation in particular.

Albany Rifles
12 Aug 08,, 16:55
I have traveled thousands of kilometers of the US East coast and don´t remember ever seeing a native Indian

Then I guess you never heard of Foxwoods or Mohegan Sun?

Cayuga Nation of New York?
Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians of Maine
Catawba Indian Nation (aka Catawba Tribe of South Carolina)?
Chickahominy of Virginia?
Delaware Tribe of Indians?
Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa & Chippewa Indians of Michigan?
Mohegan Indian Tribe of Connecticut?
Narragansett Indian Tribe of Rhode Island?
Oneida Nation of New York?
Onondaga Nation of New York?
Passamaquoddy Tribe of Maine?
St. Regis Band of Mohawk Indians of New York?
Seneca Nation of New York?
Tonawanda Band of Seneca Indians of New York?
Tuscarora Nation of New York?

ghost88
12 Aug 08,, 21:34
I am surprised though that there is even a debate about the respective behaviour of colonizers in the Americas. The British and French colonizers basically wiped out of existence the indians in the North.

I´m not sure, but I think most of the indians that did survive in the north are actually from territories controlled by the Spanish, Arizona, Colorado and California. Related to Pueblo Indians.

If people in the anglosphere have somewhat the idea that Spanish colonization was just the same or even worse, well, it tells you that they´ve been brainwashed to think so. It occurs to me that for Protestants it must be a hard one to swallow to think that Catholics behaved better. Dunno what´s the reason. But the facts are indisputable.


The Cree of Western Cananda and the Lakota,Crow, Nez Perce(sp) and Coastal tribes of Washington and Oregon states might argue with You about being extinct. As the Utes,and Blackfeet or any of the 500 + "Tribes" recognized by the US Government the Pueblo beeing just one of them. Also the Pima Indians of Arizona must not have been around to send Ira Hayes to raise the Flag at Iwo Jima, or the Navajos to supply the "Codetalkers" to the US Marines. The parents of Lori Ann Piestewa who was the First woman killed in the present Iraq war would be surprised to know that you do not consider the Hopi to exsist.
The two major "Tribes" of Arizona the Navajo and Apache were at war with Spain and latter Mexico for the whole of the time they "owned" Arizona. Further the only Pueblo group in Arizona the Hopi kicked the Catholic Church out during the Great Pueblo Revolt of the early 1700s and have not let them set up a church since. As there is at least 250,000 Navajos it is hard to see where there has been a "Genocide" of this paticular group.
Your "facts" are easily disputable as the are a fantasy with no basis in reality.

Castellano
12 Aug 08,, 22:17
I had the idea that the whole point of talking about history was to exchange POV, knowledge, and for sure having a lot of debate.

I don´t see the point of playing gotcha though

Whatever...WAB is the first forum I ever participate, so it might be me

I think this is one of the best statements in the whole thread so far


The French fur traders made the most valid attempt to integrate themselves as smoothly as possible with the native populations they encountered,living with them and as they lived for the most part in the early colonial period.They took native women as wives(not concubines)and for the most part lived as equals within the tribal structure.

From my encyclopedical ignorance of this period, I think the above statement is correct. Of all the europeans that came to America in the say, first 2 centuries, it was problably those french fur traders that related to amerindians on a more equal basis. More so than the catholic monks trying to save souls, for the way they proseltized indicates that they thought the natives had some but not much of a soul, at least until they converted, and they had different attitudes towards them depending of the order they belonged to.

The rest of europeans coming to America in that period problably didn´t think the Amerindians had a soul at all. In other words, or in our present day terms, they didn´t think they were humans.

But neither the French nor the British empires regarded the natives as legal entities of any kind as far as I know. And that is what is historically significant in this discussion.





I find it interesting with you being an anthropologist that you missed these opportunities on the East Coast of Canada and the U.S.

I spent a year in Cherry Hill, NJ, when I was 15 to 16 years old. I was in every state from New York all the way to Florida, although I only really visited NJ, and then a bit of Pennsylvania, New York, Maryland and Florida.

Anyway, although I have a Sociology bachelors degree and then went on to specialize in Anthropology (is the way it worked in Spain), a semester or so before I finished, it was clear to me that the only professional activity available was to doctorate and try to teach. So I droped out, I could easily finish I think in less than a year. See, you can basically only learn Anthropology and then teach it in Spain, kinda of a tautology.

So after studying the Humanity I started to work with Software and Machines, which is good money, but frankly, I´m feeling quite empty professionally and in short, sucks.

I went to a military school as a kid (for 10 years), at the time it didn´t occur to me to join the military, now I´m having second thoughts, I´m still in time to do it...enough, I´m getting seriously off topic.

I would like to comment more on other comments, but hey, this is the first time I´m in Madrid and its great nightlife for months, so please excuse me for a while....

Castellano
12 Aug 08,, 22:23
Your "facts" are easily disputable as the are a fantasy with no basis in reality.

And the comments keep on coming...

Good so!

Don´t worry, I´ll get back to you.

For the moment I bet you a million dollars that there is more Amerindians in Bolivia than in the entire US put together. I haven´t looked at the statistics, but something tells me I´m right.

Castellano
13 Aug 08,, 12:22
ghost88, you did well in not taking my bet, I have now looked at the stats and my hunch was correct, and confirms the impression I had while traveling every corner of Bolivia, where in cities like La Paz-El Alto, Santa Cruz or Sucre the majority of population is pure Amerindian, let alone in the villages around the country.


Census 2000 showed that the United States population was 281.4 million on April 1, 2000. Of the total, 4.1 million, or 1.5 percent, reported American
Indian and Alaska Native. This number included 2.5 million people, or 0.9 percent, who reported only American Indian and Alaska Native in addition to 1.6 million people, or 0.6 percent, who reported American Indian and Alaska Native as well as one or more other races.


The 2001 UN sponsored study "Gama étnica y lingüística de la población boliviana" by Ramiro Molina y Xavier Albó, shows that out of the 8,3 million inhabitants of Bolivia 62 percent, or 5.1 million are pure American Indian.

It´s a bit irritating having to descend into these kind of details, anybody with a bit of common sense and able to get the big picture wouldn´t contend the basic assertions I´ve been making.

But you know, proving even the most self evident truths requires quite a lot of effort, I thought I had an herculean task before me, and did gather a few books to prove my points, and then thought, silly me, wikipedia is right there, and don´t even have to bother translating.....

Castellano
13 Aug 08,, 12:44
Leaving aside the debate on wether there was a Genocide of Amerindians in North America, and I have already said that I don´t think the massacres of Amerindians qualify as genocide, on the question of the comparison between British and Spanish colonizations, I better copy-paste from wikipedia than speak out of my mind.

From the article ¨Black Legend¨

The Black Legend (Spanish: La Leyenda Negra) is a term coined by Julián Juderías in his 1914 book La leyenda negra y la verdad histórica (The Black Legend and Historical Truth), to describe the depiction of Spain and Spaniards as "cruel", "intolerant" and "fanatical" in anti-Spanish literature, starting in the sixteenth century. The Black Legend propaganda is said to be influenced by national and religious rivalries as seen in works by early Protestant historians and Anglo-Saxon writers, describing the period of Spanish imperialism in a negative way

......


The European colonization of the Americas disrupted the civilization of indigenous peoples of the Americas and used African slaves for their plantations in the New world. The Spanish conquered vast areas of North, Central and South America, and like other European powers, were involved in the Atlantic slave trade. However, certain differences in the objectives and motivations of the Spanish Crown in America, as opposed to other European monarchies, are often omitted in historical texts. Such omissions are said to be part of the Black Legend which demonized Spanish colonial activity in the New World.

One of Spain's primary endeavours of colonial expansion was to bring Christianity to native peoples. Kings such as Philip II dedicated large resources to sending missionaries and building churches in America and the Philippines. The Black Legend is said to ignore this fact, as well as to depict the conversion of native peoples under Spanish rule in a brutal and violent manner. Such exaggerations are contrasted by Spanish policies such as Queen Isabella I's Last Will that solemnly ordered that American natives be treated with respect and dignity. Although such directives were sometimes ignored, the recognition of native rights put Spain at the historical vanguard of modern natural and international law. The legitimacy of imperialism was also questioned in the works of Spanish scholars themselves, such as the School of Salamanca and the accounts of Dominican friar Bartolomé de las Casas.

Another difference is that Spain and Portugal, in a policy similar to the French in Canada approved and even encouraged interracial marriages in their colonies in order to support demographic growth, whereas British and Dutch authorities banned such marriages and considered them immoral. Such racist policies continued centuries later in former British and Dutch colonies like the United States, where racial segregation and anti-miscegenation laws existed until the 1960's, and in South Africa where Apartheid lasted until the 1990's. These differences are usually ignored in historical texts that criticize Spanish policies in America. Such omissions are also considered part of the Black Legend.

Parihaka
13 Aug 08,, 13:01
The Aztec empire under Spanish rule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_conquest_of_the_Aztec_Empire)


It seems that Cortés' intention was to maintain the basic structure of the Aztec empire under his leadership, and at first it seemed the Aztec empire could survive. The upper Aztec classes, at first, were considered as noblemen (to this day, the title of Duke of Moctezuma is held by a Spanish noble family). The upper classes learned Spanish, and several learned to write in European characters. Some of their surviving writings are crucial in our knowledge of the Aztecs. Also, the first missionaries tried to learn Nahuatl and some, like Bernardino de Sahagún, decided to learn as much as they could of the Aztec culture.

But soon all that changed. To pay off the Spanish army that captured Mexico the soldiers and officers were granted large areas of land and the natives who lived on them as a type of feudalism. Although officially they could not become slaves, the system, known as encomienda, became a system of oppression and exploitation of natives, although its originators may not have set out with such intent.

In short order, the upper echelons of patrons and priests in the society lived off the work of the lower classes. Due to some horrifying instances of abuse against the indigenous peoples, Bishop Bartolomé de las Casas suggested importing black slaves to replace them. Bartolomé later repented when he saw the even worse treatment given to the black slaves. The other discovery that perpetuated this system was extensive silver mines discovered at Potosi, in Peru and other places that were worked for hundreds of years by forced native labor and contributed most of the wealth that flowed to Spain. Spain spent enormous amounts of this wealth hiring mercenaries to fight the Protestant Reformation.

The conquistadors brought with them the Catholic faith and many priests, to which the population was converted rapidly, or at least, nominally so. Because of their success in administrating the territories of reconquered Al-Andalus in Spain, the Catholic Church operated almost as an arm of the Spanish government.

It soon became apparent that most of the natives had adopted "the god of the heavens", as they called it, as just another one of their many gods. While it was an important god, because it was the god of the conquerors, they did not see why they had to abandon their old beliefs. As a result, a second wave of missionaries began a process attempting to completely erase the old beliefs, and thus wiped out many aspects of Mesoamerican culture. Hundreds of thousands of Aztec codices were destroyed, Aztec priests and teachers were persecuted, and the temples and statues of the old gods were destroyed.

The Aztec education system was abolished and replaced by a very limited church education. Even some foods associated with Mesoamerican religious practice, such as amaranto, were forbidden.

Eventually, the Indians were not only forbidden to learn of their cultures, but also were forbidden to learn to read and write in Spanish. In some areas, some of the natives were declared minors, and forbidden to learn to read and write, so they would always need a Spanish man in charge of them to be responsible of their indoctrination.

Unlike the English-speaking colonists of North America, the majority of the Spanish colonists were single men who married or made concubines of the natives, and were even encouraged to do so by Queen Isabella during the earliest days of colonization. As a result of these unions, as well as concubinage and secret mistresses, a vast class of people known as "Mestizos" and mulattos came into being.

Parihaka
13 Aug 08,, 13:04
Spanish conquest of the Inca Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_conquest_of_the_Inca_Empire#Rebellion_and_ reconquest)

The situation went quickly downhill. As things began to fall apart, many parts of the Inca Empire revolted, some of them joining with the Spanish against their own rulers. Many kingdoms and tribes had been conquered or persuaded to join the Inca empire. They thought that by joining the Spaniards, they could gain their own freedom. But these native people never foresaw the massive waves of Spaniard immigrants coming to their land and the tragedy that they would bring upon their people.

After Atahualpa's execution, Pizarro installed Atahualpa's brother, Tupac Huallpa, as a puppet Inca ruler, but he soon died unexpectedly, leaving Manco Inca Yupanqui in power. He began his rule as an ally of the Spanish and was respected in the southern regions of the empire, but there was still much unrest in the north near Quito where Atahualpa’s generals were amassing troops. Atahulapa's death meant that there was no hostage left to deter these northern armies from attacking the invaders. Led by Atahualpa’s generals Rumiñahui, Zope-Zupahua and Quisquis, the native armies inflicted considerable damage on the Spanish. In the end, however, the Spanish succeeded in re-capturing Quito, effectively ending any organized rebellion in the north of the empire.

Manco Inca initially had good relations with Francisco Pizarro and several other Spanish conquistadors. However, in 1535 he was left in Cusco under the control of Pizarro’s brothers, Juan and Gonzalo, who so mistreated Manco Inca that he ultimately rebelled. Under the pretense of performing religious ceremonies in the nearby Yucay valley, Manco was able to escape Cusco.
Spaniards executing Tupac Amaru, the last Inca of Vilcabamba, in 1572
Spaniards executing Tupac Amaru, the last Inca of Vilcabamba, in 1572

Diego de Almagro, originally one of Francisco Pizarro's party, returned from his exploration of Chile, disappointed in not finding any wealth similar to that of Peru. King Charles I of Spain (Holy Roman Emperor Charles V) had awarded the city of Cuzco to Pizarro, but Almagro attempted to claim the city nonetheless. Manco Inca hoped to use the disagreement between Almagro and Pizarro to his advantage and attempted the recapture of Cuzco during the spring of 1537. The siege of Cuzco was waged until the following spring, and during that time Manco's armies managed to wipe three relief columns sent from Lima, but was ultimately unsuccessful in its goal of routing the Spaniards from the city. The Inca leadership did not have the full support of all its subject peoples and furthermore, the degrading state of Inca morale coupled with the superior Spanish siege weapons soon made Manco Inca realize his hope of recapturing Cuszo was failing. Manco Inca eventually withdrew to Vilcabamba after only 10 months of fighting, and therefore, the Spanish reinforcements from the Indies arriving under the command of Diego de Almagro eventually took the city once again without conflict.

After the Spanish regained control of Cuzco, Manco Inca and his armies retreated to the fortress at Ollantaytambo where he, for a time, successfully launched attacks against Pizarro based at Cuzco and even managed to defeat the Spanish in an open battle. However, when it became clear that defeat was imminent, they retreated further to the mountainous region of Vilcabamba, where the Manco Inca continued to hold some power for several more decades. His son, Túpac Amaru, was the last Inca. After deadly confrontantions, he was murdered by the Spanish in 1572.

The Spaniards destroyed almost every Inca building in Cuzco,[citation needed] built a Spanish city over the old foundations, and proceeded to colonize and exploit the former empire.

In total, the conquest took about forty years to complete. Many Inca attempts to regain the empire had occurred, but none had been successful. Thus the Spanish conquest was achieved through relentless force, legendary courage and remarkable cunning, aided by factors like smallpox and a great communication and cultural divide. The Spaniards destroyed most of the Incan culture and introduced the Spanish culture to the native population.

Castellano
13 Aug 08,, 13:11
This is from the wikipedia article Laws of Burgos, that were promulgated BEFORE any other colonial powers ever set a foot in the Americas.

The document known as the Leyes de Burgos (Laws of Burgos) was promulgated on December 27, 1512 in Burgos, Spain. They were the first codified set of laws governing the behavior of Spanish settlers in America, particularly with regards to native Indians. It enumerated a number of laws for the government of the indigenous peoples of the recently discovered New World. They forbade the maltreatment of natives, and endorsed their conversion to Catholicism. The cause of its creation was the legal problem that had arisen from the conquest and colonization of the Indies, where the common law of Spain was not applied. The laws were never truly enforced, and little change came in New Spain because of these laws.

The scope of the laws was originally restricted to the island of Hispaniola, but was later extended to Puerto Rico and Jamaica. These laws authorized and legalized the colonial practice of creating encomiendas, where Indians were grouped together to work under colonial masters, limiting the size of these establishments to a minimum of 40 and a maximum of 150 people. However, they also established a minutely regulated regime of work, pay, provisioning, living quarters, hygiene, and care for the Indians in a reasonably protective and humanitarian spirit. Women more than four months pregnant were exempted from work.

The document finally prohibited the use of any form of punishment by the encomenderos, reserving it for officials established in each town for the implementation of the laws. It also ordered that the Indians be catechized, outlawed bigamy, and required that the huts and cabins of the Indians be built together with those of the Spanish. It respected, in some ways, the traditional authorities, granting chiefs exemptions from ordinary jobs and granting them various Indians as servants.

Too poor fulfillment of the laws in many cases lead to inummerable protests and claims. In fact, the laws were so often poorly applied that they were seen as simply a legalization of the previous poor situation. This would create momentum for reform, carried out through the Leyes Nuevas (New Laws) in 1542.

Castellano
13 Aug 08,, 14:01
Now, the debate and polemic that took place in Spain during this period, and that led to the promulgation of The Laws of Burgos and finally The New Laws in 1542, is hugely important historically, for it can be seen as the genesis of nothing less than both International Law and the Declaration of Human Rights.

It was the School of Salamanca, lead by the eminent philosopher Francisco de Vitoria (one of Spain´s few really important philosophers) that defendend the point of view of a common humanity shared by all.

From the wikipedia article ¨School of Salamanca¨


The School of Salamanca is the renaissance of thought in diverse intellectual areas by Spanish theologians, rooted in the intellectual and pedagogical work of Francisco de Vitoria. From the beginning of the 16th century the traditional Roman Catholic conception of man and of his relation to God and to the world had been assaulted by the rise of humanism, by the Protestant Reformation and by the new geographical discoveries and their consequences. These new problems were addressed by the School of Salamanca


......


The juridical doctrine of the School of Salamanca represented the end of medieval concepts of law, with a revindication of liberty not habitual in Europe of that time. The natural rights of man came to be, in one form or another, the center of attention, including rights as a corporeal being (right to life, economic rights such as the right to own property) and spiritual rights (the right to freedom of thought and to human dignity).

Natural law and human rights

The School of Salamanca reformulated the concept of natural law: law originating in nature itself, with all that exists in the natural order sharing in this law. Their conclusion was, given that all humans share the same nature, they also share the same rights to life and liberty. Such views constituted a novelty in European thought and went counter to those then predominant in Spain and Europe that people indigenous to the Americas had no such rights.


......


The law of peoples and international law

Francisco de Vitoria was perhaps the first to develop a theory of ius gentium (the rights of peoples), and thus is an important figure in the transition to modernity. He extrapolated his ideas of legitimate sovereign power to society at the international level, concluding that this scope as well ought to be ruled by just forms respectable of the rights of all. The common good of the world is of a category superior to the good of each state. This meant that relations between states ought to pass from being justified by force to being justified by law and justice. Francisco de Vitoria essentially invented international law.



From the wikipedia article Francisco de Vitoria


Francisco de Vitoria (Francisci de Victoria; c. 1492 – 12 August 1546) was a Spanish Renaissance Roman Catholic philosopher and theologian, founder of the tradition in philosophy known as the School of Salamanca, noted especially for his contributions to the theory of just war and international law. He is considered the "father of international law".

......

A noted scholar, he was publicly consulted by Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor and King of Spain. An important part of his influence was the justification of the imposition of Spanish imperial power over the indigenous inhabitants of America, although he was not as thoroughgoing in these justifications as the emperor might have liked. His works are known only from his lecture notes, he himself having published nothing in his lifetime, nevertheless his influence, such as on the Dutch legal philosopher, Hugo Grotius, was significant; Relectiones XII Theologicae in duo libros distinctae was published posthumously (Antwerp, 1604)

Albany Rifles
13 Aug 08,, 14:05
There is no doubt that there were plans to treat the natives well but those were not followed in practice.

I do have a question about your stat on the population of La Paz. Do your numbers reflect mixed race or pure ethnicity?

Castellano
13 Aug 08,, 14:45
There is no doubt that there were plans to treat the natives well but those were not followed in practice.

The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen weren´t exactly followed to the letter in la Vendée, the reign of terror by Robespierre, the Thermidor, let alone by Napoleon. But no one can doubt the transcendence of the French revolution.

And the laws protecting natives were followed to a certain extent.

Castellano
13 Aug 08,, 14:50
I do have a question about your stat on the population of La Paz. Do your numbers reflect mixed race or pure ethnicity?

I guess you mean Bolivia, the numbers I have given are pure Amerindians, not counting mestizos or europeans.

In El Alto, adjacent to La Paz (making them de facto the same city), the pure Amerindians from what I saw must amount to 99 percent of the population.

Triple C
13 Aug 08,, 15:30
Castellano,

No doubt you are well versed in the subject and this is certainly interesting to me. I would like to know what do you think about the influence of external conditions on the treatment of the natives. The Spanards in America after the first waves of violence was very well established and not facing hostile Indian nations that existed as military threats and for all intents and purposes seperate sovereignties. The Native Americans the English met and fought were well-equipped and proficient soldiers. There is a foundemental mismatch in this comparison, since we are comparing the attitudes of a relatively well-secured empire towards pacified natives and another one that were fighting the natives on more equal terms.

Albany Rifles
13 Aug 08,, 15:50
I guess you mean Bolivia, the numbers I have given are pure Amerindians, not counting mestizos or europeans.

In El Alto, adjacent to La Paz (making them de facto the same city), the pure Amerindians from what I saw must amount to 99 percent of the population.


Okay, so I would ask when was the conquest normalized...i.e., when did events settle down for the native population to start to regenerate? 1600? I honestly don't know which is why I am asking.

In the US the official end to what we refer to as the Indian Wars was in 1894. We uprooted many tribes and sent them westward to what is referred to Indian Territory. No arguments against any of that. So I would say the native populations have only had a century to recover. Would it make more sense to compare Bolivia in 1700 to North America today? I am just trying to get a fair comparison.

I guess what may have annoyed a few WABers is some of your statements seem to be a little off...i.e., the comment about no Native Americans on the East Coast of the US observed when you were 15-16 years old. Well, how much were you looking? As my list showed there are tribes within 100 miles fo where you were in New Jersey.

We tend to react a little harshly to absolutisms.

Also as trained historian I tend to ensure when I interpret the past I make sure that I look at historicism...a theory that all cultural phenomena are historically determined and that historians must study each period without imposing any personal or absolute value system.

Each of the societies discussed were in open competition for expansion and creation of empires. Native population suffered grievously world wide from European expansion...there is no doubt of that.

Castellano
13 Aug 08,, 16:10
Triple C,

vast territories outside the dominion of the Aztec or Inca Empires were conquered too. The Spanish faced hostile opposition throught the XVI century and even beyond. On the other hand, legislation such as the Laws of Burgos was passed before they even met Aztecs or Incas.

I think this suggests that the nature of the opposition was almost a non-factor, irrelevant for the character of the conquest.

GraniteForge
13 Aug 08,, 17:22
You are missing a crucial piece of the picture.

The majority of N. American tribes in contact with European colonists were early allies of those (Dutch and French) in conflict with the English-speaking settlers. They lost influence when the Dutch pulled out, and they lost strength and resources (and some territory) when the French were defeated.

Later, during the American Revolution, almost all of the tribes allied themelves with England. When England surrendered, the tribes were left to fight on alone, and, as was to be expected, they were slaughtered.

The primary reason for the sharp decline of N. American tribes is that over the course of several decades of war, they consistently allied themselves with the losing side.

Albany Rifles
13 Aug 08,, 18:11
Great point which I absolutley overlooked (that's what happens when you are primarily 19th & 20th Century historian!!!).

Kind of no matter who declared war on whom...the Native populations suffered from almost 300 years of continuous warfare against the Anglo settlers.

GraniteForge
13 Aug 08,, 20:06
Great point which I absolutley overlooked (that's what happens when you are primarily 19th & 20th Century historian!!!).

Kind of no matter who declared war on whom...the Native populations suffered from almost 300 years of continuous warfare against the Anglo settlers.

Maybe the "Native populations" generally were at war for 300 years, but no individual tribes were for anything approaching that; no tribe could have lasted anywhere near that long. I would guess that few approached even 30 years of continuous war.

At least in the East, the tribes practiced warfare against the English settlers that today we would call genocide. The French (against the English) and later the English (against the Americans), both used terror against remote villages as a way to try and induce weakness in their enemies. These attacks were most often carried out largely by the tribal proxies rather than by regular soldiers.

During the first period, French vs English, the French-led irregulars typically took healthy adults as prisoners for ransom or to be sold outright, and murdered everyone else: the elderly, the sick, babies, young children, late-term pregnant women. Then they burned the fields and buildings and killed the livestock, retreating to French territory when colonial reinforcements arrived. The tribes ultimately wanted to drive the English settlers from the continent, and did their level best to make it happen. They believed that the French would protect them from reprisals.

During the later period, English vs Americans, the tribes remembered how the English had defeated the French and concluded that the English would win, so they threw in against the Americans, often using the same terror tactics they had used in the previous war. After the English had been driven from the continent, the armed and experienced Americans looked around and saw those same tribes who had held much of the population in terror during decades of conflict (some towns were attacked and even burned down several times), and decided to educate them as to exactly what real terror looked like. So ended tribal rule over the Northeastern US.

Albany Rifles
13 Aug 08,, 20:10
As a native of New England, I am aware of much of what you write...just overlooked it.

Great analysis.

Shamus
13 Aug 08,, 23:19
We tend to react a little harshly to absolutisms.Just a tad:biggrin:


Great analysis.I would have to agree with AR,Granite...nicely presented as well:).

GraniteForge
14 Aug 08,, 03:06
As a native of New England, I am aware of much of what you write...just overlooked it.

Great analysis.



I would have to agree with AR,Granite...nicely presented as well:).

Thank you, gentlemen, for the kind words.

Albany Rifles
14 Aug 08,, 13:24
Just don't let it go to your head!!!:biggrin:

Cactus
14 Aug 08,, 15:53
During the later period, English vs Americans, the tribes remembered how the English had defeated the French and concluded that the English would win, so they threw in against the Americans, often using the same terror tactics they had used in the previous war. After the English had been driven from the continent, the armed and experienced Americans looked around and saw those same tribes who had held much of the population in terror during decades of conflict (some towns were attacked and even burned down several times), and decided to educate them as to exactly what real terror looked like. So ended tribal rule over the Northeastern US.

The 1767 British proclamation ending settler migration beyond the Appalachia was the single biggest draw for the Native Americans. Conversely it also repulsed the (Scotch-Irish) settlers so much that they threw in their lot with the (largely English and Anglo-Irish) Virginian planters (whom they previously hated) and the NE merchants (whom they couldn't care less) in 1776.

GraniteForge, it was a thought-provoking piece.

Triple C
14 Aug 08,, 17:30
Castellano,

Two questions.

The laws passed by the Monarchy of Spain said a lot about the solid character of the early Hapsbergs. However, the fact that much of the atrocities occurred after those edicts were promugated said a lot about the limited effect of those legislations had on the conquisidors. As I have said before, had Cortze failed to kill the expedition of Pánfilo de Narváez, he would have had been hanged for treason.

At what strength were the uprisings in Spanish controlled Americas? I do not know any major resistance that threatened the Spaniards. They were a stone age people in the south after all. NW Indians Americans had access to quite a bit of modern weapons and were surprisingly well adapted to their use. Many attributed the good performance of American riflemen during the Revolutionary War to lessons learned from fighting the Indians. I don't think the Messo-Americans had comparable success.

Castellano
14 Aug 08,, 18:19
Sorry, I have very limited to no connectivity at the moment..I´m hacking into my neighbour´s wifi, talk to you in a few days

Knaur Amarsh
14 Aug 08,, 19:16
I´m hacking into my neighbour´s wifi, talk to you in a few days

Gimenez would be proud :))

Castellano
15 Aug 08,, 07:26
Giménez? Do you mean Curro Giménez?

Hey, the Home of a Man is his Palace. I didn´t invite that broadcasting signal to enter my place. If it does enter, I can do whatever I want with it.
And is not like I do any harm….
Still I prefer not to do it except if really necessary. On the other hand my ISP is hopeless, I bet it will take them days to fix this, and the temptation to do some browsing is so strong.

OK just a bit…

Castellano
15 Aug 08,, 07:40
The laws passed by the Monarchy of Spain said a lot about the solid character of the early Hapsbergs. However, the fact that much of the atrocities occurred after those edicts were promugated said a lot about the limited effect of those legislations had on the conquisidors. As I have said before, had Cortze failed to kill the expedition of Pánfilo de Narváez, he would have had been hanged for treason.


As I have expressed a few times in the thread, I think it is the existence of the legislation what is historically decisive in this discussion.

I think you are making too much out of the Pánfilo de Narváez episode.

The whole Conquest enterprise was inevitably given quite a lot of latitude, and the Conquistadores left to their own initiative on many occasions. This was as a wild frontier as there has ever been. In that context far, far away from the metropolis, adventurers competed between them to seize the glory.

Cortés was a traitor only from the point of view of the Governor of Cuba, understandably unpleased by the fact that he had burned 11 of his ships to force his men to go ahead with the conquest of the Aztecs. But perhaps he was even more unpleased when he realized Cortés could succeed.
True, the Governor had only authorized him to explore, not to conquest. But actually, I have been looking at the sequence of events, and Cortés had the precaution of covering legally his acts, and had a very decent case to counter possible accusations of sedition. Once he sensed the Aztec empire was for the taking, (and that he could be the one to take the glory), he pretended to cede the authority to the soldiers, who as mandated by the applicable juridical doctrine of Thomas Aquino, were forthwith only answerable to the authority of the King. With this formality he effectively shook off the authority of the Governor.

Hernán Cortés was an educated man.

It was only then that he burned the ships. Charles the V certainly saw it that way when he learned about the whole episode, and named him Governor of New Spain (México).

The absolutely amazing adventure of Lope de Aguirre in the search of El Dorado illustrates very well the complexities involved in the conquest. I hope to share the account if I find time; it is really worth to be known and deserves to be explained the right way.





At what strength were the uprisings in Spanish controlled Americas? I do not know any major resistance that threatened the Spaniards. They were a stone age people in the south after all. NW Indians Americans had access to quite a bit of modern weapons and were surprisingly well adapted to their use. Many attributed the good performance of American riflemen during the Revolutionary War to lessons learned from fighting the Indians. I don't think the Messo-Americans had comparable success.

I know there were uprisings, I don´t know how many or their strength. But these people conquered immense swathes of land, and not precisely by diplomacy, but by the sword. Contrary to your impression, I´m not well versed in the period at all. But they were stone age people South and North. It seems to me that if anything, the later date of British conquest played into the technological advantage of the British.

Bottom line is I don´t think the military factors are the key here. Is about the whole ¨ideology¨ that impregnated the conquest enterprise, and how this reflected on the relations with the native populations, as shown in the rapid growth of mestizo populations in the case of the Spanish Empire. This is what facilitated the ¨integration¨, not exactly winning the hearts and minds and as unfair as you want, but certainly diffused the hostility.

Well understood we are talking about very complex matters, and it´s absurd to pretend to dispatch them with a few sentences. Tons could be added. But talking in general,

Yes, I think Spanish colonization was definitely less brutal than that of the British.

No, I don´t think the British colonization amounts to genocide.

I also want to respond to others, but Triple C comment gave me a good lead to some of the questions I wanted to address.

zraver
15 Aug 08,, 10:19
Yes, I think Spanish colonization was definitely less brutal than that of the British.

Based on what exaclty? The Spanish enslaved their captive populations either forcing them to work on ecomiendas or in mines for gold and silver shipped to Europe and this forced brutal condtions on them. They were also denied thier religion and culture with forced conversion to Catholism. The Spanish also introduced disease that had killed off most of the Souther, Central, Carrib, and Mississippi populations before the English even landed. The situation was so bad that the fertile region ran out of workers and Spain and Portugaul started importing Africans as early as 1501. Tens of millions died before the English even set foot in the Americas.


No, I don´t think the British colonization amounts to genocide.

It wasn't but later US, Canadain and Mexican policies meet the criteria.

Knaur Amarsh
15 Aug 08,, 10:35
Hey, the Home of a Man is his Palace. I didn´t invite that broadcasting signal to enter my place. If it does enter, I can do whatever I want with it.


Of course, that makes sense:biggrin:

Kansas Bear
20 Aug 08,, 07:09
Based on what exaclty? The Spanish enslaved their captive populations either forcing them to work on ecomiendas or in mines for gold and silver shipped to Europe and this forced brutal condtions on them. The Spanish also introduced disease that had killed off most of the Souther, Central, Carrib, and Mississippi populations before the English even landed. The situation was so bad that the fertile region ran out of workers and Spain and Portugaul started importing Africans as early as 1501. Tens of millions died before the English even set foot in the Americas.


A fact that I posted earlier with my reference to smallpox and bubonic plague!

Triple C
20 Aug 08,, 09:36
Castellano,

The laws played a minor role in the initial conquest and administration of the Americas. Cortez demonstrates that the lawful authority and central control from Spain was circumvented. The legislations would not be irrevelant--but from my perspective its shutting up the barn after the horses are gone. Reminds me of how France's 1st Republic 'liberated' the Haiti slaves after they chased out the French sugar farm owners.

The Indian Americans in the North was assuredly not in the stone age by the time sizable colonies of Englishmen appeared on the East Coast. By French and Indian / 7 Years War the Indian Americans in the north were easily among the world's best finest infantry and extremely adept at fighting an European army. Matching phase to phase, I don't see how Spain could claim that its conquest or administration of the Indians were more humane.

In Spain's defense, they had a pretty good reason to push for a ruthless exploitation of bullion in America. They needed it because they were so many damned wars.

Castellano
21 Aug 08,, 02:07
I think Spanish colonization was definitely less brutal than that of the British.


Based on what exaclty?

This is from an interview in a Spanish paper with John H Elliot, author of “Empires of the Atlantic World: Britain and Spain in America 1492-1830” (translated by me)


“There were cruelties in both sides, but, it is true, that the Spanish Crown tried to protect its Indians. It even gave them possibilities inside its political space. Despite all the exploitations that they suffered and the great disaster triggered by epidemics, it was in the XIX century, with the disappearance of the Spanish Crown and the protection it exerted on them, when the Criollos had a free hand to exploit these people….In British America there was a destruction of the Indians during the wars, starting in the XVII century, and the marginalization they suffered.”


“… Cortés valued these peoples and wanted to integrate them in Hispanic society. He was optimist and brought the first friars to convert them into Christian faith and provide them with Spanish and European customs. There was a vision to assimilate them….”


“…[the English] didn’t want to cohabit with the Indians. The British colonial trajectory is based on the segregation of Indians and their expulsion to the margins.”


That’s it in a nutshell.



I don’t want to rest my case on the raw figures of surviving Amerindians, for I realize it is prone to demagoguery, although it seems to me that they indicate that anybody suggesting that the British were just as bad for the native peoples or they were even better, has a lot of explaining ahead of him.

So it was the Americans you think, in their wars in the post-colonial period that were responsible for most of the killings, and the British were marginal?

Genuine question.

Castellano
21 Aug 08,, 02:10
It wasn't [Genocide of Amerindians] but later US, Canadain and Mexican policies meet the criteria.

If those meet your criteria, put Argentina in the list.

Castellano
21 Aug 08,, 02:14
A fact that I posted earlier with my reference to smallpox and bubonic plague!

Yes, but that fact says nothing about the qualities of neither the Spanish nor the British colonizations. Which is the issue here.

Castellano
21 Aug 08,, 02:22
The Spanish enslaved their captive populations either forcing them to work on ecomiendas or in mines for gold and silver shipped to Europe and this forced brutal condtions on them.

Nominally, there was no slavery; they were assimilated into a feudal system as existed in the Spain on the period. Their conditions were not much different, if at all, from serfs in the Metropolis. They were made subjects of the Crown through baptism, you can say without much exaggeration, just like everybody else.

Castellano
21 Aug 08,, 03:05
Okay, so I would ask when was the conquest normalized...i.e., when did events settle down for the native population to start to regenerate? 1600? I honestly don't know which is why I am asking.

There were some areas, I know parts of modern day Argentina took longer than 1600, but I'm not familiar with this aspect and can't answer, I would have to look it up and don't have the materials. Sorry.


In the US the official end to what we refer to as the Indian Wars was in 1894. We uprooted many tribes and sent them westward to what is referred to Indian Territory. No arguments against any of that. So I would say the native populations have only had a century to recover. Would it make more sense to compare Bolivia in 1700 to North America today? I am just trying to get a fair comparison.

You know, I don't think the raw comparison of respective populations is all that significant by itself. I couldn't answer your question either.



Also as trained historian I tend to ensure when I interpret the past I make sure that I look at historicism...a theory that all cultural phenomena are historically determined and that historians must study each period without imposing any personal or absolute value system.

As a student I guess I had my own version of Historicism, some sort of a Cultural Materialist approach.

Now thinkers like Plato have a lot more importance in my approach to History for example.

Castellano
21 Aug 08,, 03:22
The primary reason for the sharp decline of N. American tribes is that over the course of several decades of war, they consistently allied themselves with the losing side.

I did miss this aspect of the question simply because I wasn't aware of it. Still I doubt that is the primary reason. Epidemics come first, then comes the unwillingness or impotence to integrate the Amerindians into the colonial societies in North America. Wouldn't they have been cornered in the end whomever was victorious in North America? I don't really know, I just guess.

But lets no go in circles.

I don't cite it to suggest at all that Elliott would side with my position, but as a reminder:

John H Elliott's "Empires of the Atlantic World: Britain and Spain in America 1492-1830" has to be the definitive comparative study.

I haven't read it (yet). I can tell you that his "Imperial Spain 1469-1716" is considered the cornerstone of any historiography on the subject of the Spanish Empire.

Albany Rifles
21 Aug 08,, 14:02
As a student I guess I had my own version of Historicism, some sort of a Cultural Materialist approach.

Now thinkers like Plato have a lot more importance in my approach to History for example.


Too many years ago in the mists of time for me!!! Haven't studied the Greeks in over 30 years!

As for your question about did Americans more than the Brits cause more of the grief...there is no doubt that Native populations suffered terribly at the hands of 18th and 19th Century Americans. The westward expansion cost them dearly...particulalry when Iron Age societies met the Industrial Revolution. The North American tribes were highly organized units who were very war like before any of Europeans got here...I believe someone has already said they were some of the best light infantry in the world...and inarguably the Plains Indians were the best light cavalry in the world in mid-19th Century. But they did not stand a chance against, of all things, the plow. The domestication of their lands and the forcible removal from said lands to the Indian Territory killed more than any battlefield.