Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Genocide of Native Americans? Myth or Actual?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Genocide of Native Americans? Myth or Actual?

    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.

  • #2
    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?
    Last edited by FOG3; 28 Apr 08,, 04:43.

    Comment


    • #3
      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.
      For Gallifrey! For Victory! For the end of time itself!!

      Comment


      • #4
        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.

        Comment


        • #5
          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.
          In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

          Leibniz

          Comment


          • #6
            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.
            For Gallifrey! For Victory! For the end of time itself!!

            Comment


            • #7
              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
              Historical Census Statistics on the Foreign-Born Population of the United States: 1850 to 1990
              "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

              Comment


              • #8
                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.
                For Gallifrey! For Victory! For the end of time itself!!

                Comment


                • #9
                  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.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    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....
                    Last edited by Triple C; 28 Apr 08,, 17:40.
                    All those who are merciful with the cruel will come to be cruel to the merciful.
                    -Talmud Kohelet Rabbah, 7:16.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
                      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?
                      "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        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.
                        Last edited by Triple C; 28 Apr 08,, 23:34.
                        All those who are merciful with the cruel will come to be cruel to the merciful.
                        -Talmud Kohelet Rabbah, 7:16.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
                          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.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            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?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by gunnut View Post
                              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.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X