Genocide of Native Americans? Myth or Actual?

[Castellano]

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]

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]

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]

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.