The genocide that time forgot - The Native Americans

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by monkspider
MTG, when I said they were ad-hoc I meant that they seemed to be evidences pieced together to support an already presupposed conclusion, rather than evidence that cumulatively led these people to support the conclusion that they do.

Actually, I've never seen anyone attempt to systematically try to do a time-snapshot census value for the entire hemisphere. That would be ad hoc.

What I have read is specific studies and papers on different regions, and different tribal groups, that focused on a specific time period, population and range estimates, and discussion of the impacts and limitations of those groups.

Start adding it up, and you get some general numbers, taking wild assumptions that just because you didn't specifically study the Pawnee, that there weren't 30 million of them to take up the slack to get to the numbers you want.

I do confress that Anthropology is not my area of study, but if all scholars in the fields of social sciences tend to support one conclusion, then it seems to be fair to believe that they have some friends in anthropology somewhere.

I'm more concerned with archaeology, but physical anthro is useful too. "Fair to believe" is a long way from peer reviewed evidence.

Even the Buereau of Indian affairs official numbers are much higher than what you suggest.

BIA is a political agency primarily concerned with administration of treaties and purported tribal custodial issues. It is not a science agency like NOAA or USGS. They do not support primary research that I've ever seen.

If these numberswere in fact, based on solid reasoning, and not empty conjecture into the nature of people hundreds of years ago, one could fairly assume that it would make it's rounds in the field of Social Sciences as well, no?

Social "sciences" often have less interest in physical evidence than they do in their own ideology and sophistry. Look at how many strongly "humanities" and social sciences driven curricula or institutions also have a high level of physical sciences.

Harvard, Yale and Columbia are not academically or ideologically of the same mindset as Stanford, MIT, or University of Montana.

"Empty conjecture" reveals your complete ignorance or willful disinterest in physical evidence or surveys. Go out on a real archaeoligical dig if you have a chance. Get your hands dirty. See what you can learn from examining piles of bones and sifting through dried feces powder with a microscope. What people eat, drink, poop, and how far they have to go to do all that is totally irrelevant in the face of opinion from social scientists, right?

And the footprints and foundations of structures is also irrelevant - after all, the Iroquois might have lived in 30 story high-rises to support their population levels in those small towns, right?

Say what you will about appeals to authority, but it would seem these estimates you suggest have virtually no authority at all.

Actual excavations of settlements, and population and game surveys have no authority, while unsubstantiated and widely varying statements by social studies types are full of meaning, right?

As is, your numbers remind me of young-earth creationists who piece together whatever spurious evidence they have to make it seem that the Earth is actually only 4,000 years old.

I was going to say that about your numbers - just in this thread, we've had 80 million, 50 million, 5 to 15 million. Damn, great precision there. Want to pick just one?

[notyoueither]

Well if you count Tuscany, and the South, then Rome's population would get pretty impressive no matter when you counted it.

But, I thought we were talking a radius of 20 miles or so.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by notyoueither
And I doubt they could have transported enough to feed 1,000,000, let alone grown it.

Actually, the huge economic drain from doing just that was one of the biggest reasons for the Aztecs' subjects to happily join Cortez. The magnitude of tributes and the labor draft for transport was crippling. Outside Tenochtitlan, in several regional cities where the Spanish didn't manage to destroy everything, there were pretty detailed bureaucratic records of tribute payments, taxes, labor requisitions, etc. The organization of records and the extent of Aztec bureacracy was pretty impressive.

[notyoueither]

So the million people is supported by evidence?

I find it difficult to believe that MezoAmerica could ever have supported 1,000,000 people within a small area at any time and under any duress.

Big city? Yes. Rome or whatever city the Chinese used as a capitol? No.

You and anyone else who want to prove it will have to prove it. It flies in the face of reason.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Not just the city of Tenochtitlan, (which is size limited, as it was built in the middle of marsh land and needed causeways for access, as a form of siege defence), but the surrounding plains, as the core provinces of the empire.

I have a couple of sources I'd have to plow through upstairs and look for, one a book on the culture and history of the late Aztec empire, the other was a report on excavations at a provincial capital of an Aztec tributary state in the late pre-Columbian period, in which specific records are cited for that regions tribute. That also contains a little bit of detail on the tribute / labor draft system, and has cites to other studies. Trouble is, it's about 5-6 years old, so I'm going to have to plow through a lot of stuff to find it. (We have a library / work room that has years worth of collected crap in it. That room itself will be an interesting archaeoligical site in years to come. )

[Sikander]

I have to agree with MtG here, there is precious little evidence to support the higher claims of population. Take a look at England in the late middle ages for instance, which had a population of only 4 million people and a huge technological advantage on the most advanced of the American peoples. Now consider how few of the American peoples were at the technological level of the Maya, Inca, Aztecs. Less than 10% of the land area was occupied by these high end users. The rest were hunter gatherers, hunter gardeners and very early agriculturalists. Hunter gatherers need huge amounts of space to support themselves, something like 10 square miles per person, more in the huge wastelands of the American west and the Canadian north. All that we have available are of course estimates, but I'd bet that the numbers are a lot closer to MtG's than some of the others posted here. I did notice that the first three people to post numbers here did so for different geographical regions. MtG's 1 million is only for the continental U.S., ie the lower 48 states. It doesn't include Canada or Central or South America.

As for Monkspider's claim that only a few thousand Indians are left, that's a bunch of crap. He and I are both 1/8 or more Cherokee, and that is not uncommon amongst Americans. What is dead are Amerind cultures by the bucketful. This is not uncommon in the history of the world, and though some of this was coercive (especially toward the end with the "Indian Schools on reservations), much of it was completely voluntary. I imagine that many Indians were happy to rid themselves of the making of the flint knife ceremony in exchange for an iron or steel blade. So by disease, by force and by choice the Indians succommed or adapted to European Culture and technology. They were not murdered in millions in the U.S. though, we have a pretty good idea what happened to them here. The whites of previous centuries were not afraid to tell the truth about what they had done, even when it was a massacre. If it was a multimillion scale genocide, who did it and where is the evidence?

[Kepler]

It's also quite unfair (one might almost say "racist") to lump all the white Europeans together when talking about how Amerindians were treated. There is a wide spectrum both by time period and by national origin, ranging in generalities from the Spanish who were extremely brutal and genocidal all the way to the French who were humane and preferred alliances and genuine trading relations to exploitation, wherever possible.

BTW, the old chestnut about the Iroquois Confederation being a signficant source for the American political model has been exposed again and again as pure myth. The closest anyone comes to anything are some words by Franklin and others saying they respect the dignity of some of the indigenous population, but that's like saying that because Hitler admired Wellington the Brits were a significant source for Naziism.

My main point is that the honest facts of the genocide of Amerindians are truly horrendous, and exaggerating or overgeneralizing is absolutely unnecessary.

[SlowwHand]

Do some reading on The Trail Of Tears.


Amerindians. Still a stupid label, no matter their plight. About like Amergays.

[Sandman]

On this subject, does anyone have any solid information on the alleged gifting of smallpox victims' blankets to Native Americans?

I hear it brought up a lot, but is it anything more than an isolated anecdote?

[SlowwHand]

Europeans brought lots of disease to the States that the natives here weren't used to.
I don't think it was intentional.
Many of them, the immigrants were immune to themselves.

[Wernazuma III]

I can do nothing but state it again: One reason for the almost incredible pop. density were the Chinampas. Chinampas are "floating gardens" built on water surface. Historian-botanists have calculated that 40-70ha chinampa-country could feed 1000 families!!!! Considering that Lake Texcoco around Tenochtitlan was full of chinampas and most families had its own chinampa (thus being more or less independant from real rural supply) , the high figures are not illusory.

[Gibsie]

Our diseases just killed them before we got a chance to do the job with weapons.

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Kepler
is a wide spectrum both by time period and by national origin, ranging in generalities from the Spanish who were extremely brutal and genocidal all the way to the French who were humane and preferred alliances and genuine trading relations to exploitation, wherever possible.

And I still think it's the English and Americans who were the most genocidal, not the Spanish. The Spanish were not "genocidal all the way" - this is bull****.

a) Mexico, Peru, Bolivia, Guatemala, Ecuador, Honduras are all Mestizo countries, the Andean states even still have a very large portion of Indian inhabitants. After the demographic clash in the 16th century, the indigenous populations recovered in all Spanish areas. And that clash was surely also caused by the bad treatment by the Spanish, but disease did its dirty job much more efficiently.
No former Spanish colony outside of the Carribean is as neatly ethnically cleansed like the USA or Canada.
In Spanish territory there was never a common understanding of having to sweep the primitive away in order to fulfill the manifest destiny of the chosen nation, like calvinist frenchmen or english puritans... In the particularist Protestant doctrins the exclusion of a whole people from salvation was no problem while the unitarian Catholicism didn't allow such a thinking.

b)Although the socio-economic exploitation of the Indians was persisting for a long time, the Spanish crown tried to integrate the indian populace as normal subjects "not less than those of Seville" as long as they became Christians of course.

[MrFun]

From "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond (page 45)

". . . If the Americas was to hold a population density of under one person per square mile (a high value for modern hunter-gatherers today), then the whole area of the Americas would have held about 10 million hunter-gatherers."
END OF QUOTE

It is not far-fetched to say that the vast hemispheric region of the Americas, with the Carribbean islands could support around 10 million people.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III
No former Spanish colony outside of the Carribean is as neatly ethnically cleansed like the USA or Canada.
In Spanish territory there was never a common understanding of having to sweep the primitive away in order to fulfill the manifest destiny of the chosen nation, like calvinist frenchmen or english puritans... In the particularist Protestant doctrins the exclusion of a whole people from salvation was no problem while the unitarian Catholicism didn't allow such a thinking.

It is interesting that the Spanish actively converted their natives while it appears the English (and Portugese did not). Now recall, at the time, the Spanish were conducting the Spanish Inquisition aimed at Catholic purity. In contrast, America was founded by those fleeing religious persecution. Freedom of religion and "toleration" was the name of the game in America. It would have been unthinable for one of America's many Christian sects to attempt to convert, other than by example, the native population to their particular brand of Christianity.

I think this difference was a major contributing factor to the different fate of the natives between Spanish America and English America.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Gibsie
Our diseases just killed them before we got a chance to do the job with weapons.

Actually, the diseases enabled Europeans to do that in the first place. In the mid 17th century Indian wars, many more, if not most, of the white towns and settlements would have been overrun if the natives hadn't already had their numbers drastically reduced by disease. It would have been far more difficult for English and Dutch colonial ventures (without the lure of easy gold and silver like the Spaniards) to establish themselves in the face of continued native resistance.

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Ned
It is interesting that the Spanish actively converted their natives while it appears the English (and Portugese did not).

Sorry, I can't follow you.

Now recall, at the time, the Spanish were conducting the Spanish Inquisition aimed at Catholic purity.

But the Indians were explicitely excluded from the Spanish Inquisition in 1571. And catholic purity still allows more deviation within the system than puritan purity...

In contrast, America was founded by those fleeing religious persecution. Freedom of religion and "toleration" was the name of the game in America.

Only in a narrow sense. For Puritans the same thing counted as for the Spanish: Civilization and Christianity was viewed as one thing and from this analogy they justified any action against the Indians, the primitive, who were to be put away. But while the Spanish - with often very questionable methods - tried to convert the Indians, the English simply displaced them.

It would have been unthinable for one of America's many Christian sects to attempt to convert, other than by example, the native population to their particular brand of Christianity.

But not because they thought that mission is to be treated with caution. They rather believed that this "primitive stock" is not ABLE to take up the revelation, an issue which the Catholic church had settled already by 1540...

[des-esseintes]

You forget that history is written by the winners.

Has the USA ever lost any major wars?

[Boris Godunov]

How do you define major?

Vietnam was certainly a loss.

[Lincoln]

All in all the treatment of Indians was a disgrace and an absolute contradiction to the principles upon which this nation was founded. Another thing however that is being lost in the passage of time is the savagery of some tribes toward each other and the white settlers and also the kindness of both Indian and settlers toward each other in many situations. Many whites lived among the tribes and labored in the dirt to teach them some basic skills that would raise their standard of living, and the kindness of Indians in accepting their "white brothers" is well documented. For their efforts at being good hosts they were slaughtered by their guests.

[Ramo]

10 million total in the Americas is the number I've most often read (in reputable sources) to be accurate.

Does anyone know the estimates for the pre-Columbian population of the Caribean?

[Boris Godunov]

Well, I read once that the Pre-Columbian population of Haiti alone could have been as high as several million. Is the 10 million post-Columbian? They estimate as much as 95% of the Amerind population was killed by the small pox epidemic before permanent settlements were made by Europeans.

[Ramo]

No, Pre-Columbian.

Las Casas' estimates on the population of Haiti (where the estimates of millions generally come from) have been thought to be greatly exaggerated. I wouldn't put much stock on them.

IIRC, 95% is an upper bound. I think it was more along the lines of 90%...

[Wernazuma III]

90% is definitely closer, but that's not generally the number of those who died in the "first wave" of epidemics, but rather the decrease of overall population. The mexican native population dropped down to "less than a million" by the end of the 16th century, if I remember correctly. That would be a decrease of 75-95%, depending on what total population one accepts.
The less densely populated areas of America were mostly spared from small-pox for a long time.

[KrazyHorse]

MtG: references

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...711#post877711

Now please provide some showing that 30% of the world's land surface (including some very hospitable bits of it) only contained a grand total of 5 million people in 1492.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by MrFun
From "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond (page 45)

". . . If the Americas was to hold a population density of under one person per square mile (a high value for modern hunter-gatherers today), then the whole area of the Americas would have held about 10 million hunter-gatherers."
END OF QUOTE

It is not far-fetched to say that the vast hemispheric region of the Americas, with the Carribbean islands could support around 10 million people.

No Ramo -- we're not suppose to agree on anything!!

[XarXo]

Actually, in South America only three great groups have some possibilities to survive an became "global", all Inca-related: Quechuans, Aymaras and Guaranis. The power of the first two in Ecuador, Perú and Bolivia is great, Guaraní has the home country in Paraguay.

These states are very poor, but rich in mineral resources, so, just a small native revolution and we have again the Tawantisuyu.

[monkspider]

Hey, thanks for digging that up Froggie. I simply lacked the access to anthropological materials to prove Mike wrong.

[Kepler]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III

And I still think it's the English and Americans who were the most genocidal, not the Spanish. The Spanish were not "genocidal all the way" - this is bull****.

Well, #1 you parsed my sentence completely wrong. I was saying there is a spectrum from A "all the way to" B.

Get it now?

#2, it has been the general opinion of historians that the Spanish were by far the most brutal. The forced conversion of natives to Catholicism made them slaves, after which the Spanish sent them to the mines to work until they died. Very nasty folk.

But the main point, entirely missed naturally, is that it's as dumb to overgeneralize about the whites as about anybody else. The whole "whites are devils" argument just exemplifies the fact that the only person more ignorant than the guy who has read no books is the guy who has read just one book.

[Dr Strangelove]

John Smith did a fairly extensive survey of the Indian settlement of Virginia. He estimated about 4000 living in eastern Virginia. The mountain areas were the residence of the Monotocks and some other small tribes, which numbered less than 1000 total. Virginia may not have been the most densely populated part of North America, but it was probably average. If you extrapolate that population density to the area of the US east of the Mississippi then you'd probably have a population of less than 200,000. You should take into consideration that there were some areas that were under inhabitied because they were contested by neighboring tribes.