Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Genocide of Native Americans? Myth or Actual?

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by clitifad View Post
    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.
    For Gallifrey! For Victory! For the end of time itself!!

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by bolo121 View Post
      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:))

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by dave lukins View Post
        [/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" :)) :))
        For Gallifrey! For Victory! For the end of time itself!!

        Comment


        • #34
          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.

          Comment


          • #35
            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 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!
            L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux

            Comment


            • #36
              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.
              All those who are merciful with the cruel will come to be cruel to the merciful.
              -Talmud Kohelet Rabbah, 7:16.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Triple C View Post
                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.



                Originally posted by Triple C View Post
                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 .





                Originally posted by Triple C View Post
                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.



                Originally posted by Triple C View Post
                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.


                Originally posted by Triple C View Post
                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.
                L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux

                Comment


                • #38
                  I'm sure you will try to convince us that Torquemada was a jovial and kindly fellow, sadly misjudged by history.
                  Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    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.
                    All those who are merciful with the cruel will come to be cruel to the merciful.
                    -Talmud Kohelet Rabbah, 7:16.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      ¨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.
                      L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        .
                        [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.
                        Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          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?
                          Last edited by Castellano; 11 Aug 08,, 16:49.
                          L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            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.
                            All those who are merciful with the cruel will come to be cruel to the merciful.
                            -Talmud Kohelet Rabbah, 7:16.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Castellano View Post
                              .....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

                              Comment


                              • #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.
                                L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X