Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Genocide of Native Americans? Myth or Actual?

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

  • #61
    The Aztec empire under Spanish rule

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

    Leibniz

    Comment


    • #62

      Spanish conquest of the Inca Empire

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

      Leibniz

      Comment


      • #63
        Laws of Burgos

        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.
        L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux

        Comment


        • #64
          The School of Salamanca and Francisco de Vitoria

          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)
          L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux

          Comment


          • #65
            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?
            “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
            Mark Twain

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
              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.
              L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
                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.
                L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux

                Comment


                • #68
                  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.
                  Last edited by Triple C; 13 Aug 08,, 15:33.
                  All those who are merciful with the cruel will come to be cruel to the merciful.
                  -Talmud Kohelet Rabbah, 7:16.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Castellano View Post
                    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.
                    “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                    Mark Twain

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      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.
                      L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        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.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          GraniteForge

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

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
                            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.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              As a native of New England, I am aware of much of what you write...just overlooked it.

                              Great analysis.
                              “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                              Mark Twain

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
                                We tend to react a little harshly to absolutisms.
                                Just a tad

                                Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
                                Great analysis.
                                I would have to agree with AR,Granite...nicely presented as well:).
                                "Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories." Thomas Jefferson

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X