Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Genocide of Native Americans? Myth or Actual?

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by Triple C View Post

    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.

    Comment


    • #17
      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.
      "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
        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.

        Comment


        • #19
          Internal Revenue Bulletin - April 10, 2006 - Rev. Rul. 2006-20


          Tax exempt status not true

          2 words

          Bovine Waste
          “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
          Mark Twain

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
            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.
            "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
              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.

              Comment


              • #22
                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.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
                  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.
                  Last edited by Semper Fi; 07 Jul 08,, 18:16.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Native View Post
                    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.

                    Originally posted by Native View Post
                    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.
                    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by gunnut View Post
                      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.
                      Reddite igitur quae sunt Caesaris Caesari et quae sunt Dei Deo
                      (Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's and unto God the things which are God's)

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by sappersgt View Post
                        I asked my wife the same thing. She just gave me a dirty look.
                        I find it racist that white Africans are not allowed to claim "African American" on the census form.

                        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.
                        "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Native View Post
                          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.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            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).
                            Able to leap tall tales in a single groan.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              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.
                              Last edited by Triple C; 09 Jul 08,, 09:28.
                              All those who are merciful with the cruel will come to be cruel to the merciful.
                              -Talmud Kohelet Rabbah, 7:16.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Colonialism - Spanish/ English.

                                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.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X