The genocide that time forgot - The Native Americans

[chequita guevara]

By the time the English are settling the Eastern sea board, disease has already swept the NA continent several times. The Pilgrams, for example, found a settlement that had been wiped out by disease, and were more or less able to take it over. Had disease not wiped out the Indians, settlement would have been extremely difficult.

Most estimates I have seen of Amerind populations for the territories now comprising the US at the start of the 19th Century have been 3 million. By the end of the century, there were only a quarter million left. The 1990 census numbers of Amerinds put them at 1.4 million, so they're recovering. This, also, does not include the large numbers of Amerians that claim Amerind decent (how many are actually true is another matter).

If there were 50 million Amerinds in the territory now comprising the USA, they've left massive scars on the land. It requires technology to make the land support that many people, and when the US hit 50 million, you could see it. I might buy 10 million, probably closer to 5 million.

[KrazyHorse]

My 50 million figures are for all of the Americas.

[KrazyHorse]

50 million in current US would be ridiculous.

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Kepler
#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.

While the Indians were exploited it's a historical lie that they were slaves - although their low social status made them frequently victims of abuse. It was difficult to protect them from arbitrary treatment, but the crown tried to do so by passing a good number of protection acts. Not out of pure philanthropy but because they wanted to keep the Indians as loyal subjects and didn't like people who were acting too indeopendantly over there, ignoring the royal rule. The enslaving of Indians had been forbidden as early as 1502. The reasons were the insight that too many died in slavery, so they were replaced by blacks. But slavery and the treatment of slaves was not better nor worse than in anglosaxon countries. The mines of Potosí about which you are talking are a tragical example of the injustice commited against the Indians but it's not representative for the whole spanish attitude towards the Indians.
And as we speak about not overgeneralizing: The most admirable defenders of Indian rights and even Indian libertyto chose whether to become Christians or not, the first persons who were really interested in Indian culture, were catholic priests and monks.

The "general opinion" of historians themselves is not always, although often, the right one. Anyway, obviously the deeds of the Spanish seem a bit more medieval, but that's also because they were earlier than the English.

All that doesn't mean that the Spanish were nice, after all it was the society of the Reconquista who carried out the Conquista and how Jews and Moors were treated back in Spain wasn't nice either...

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.

Entirely missed? By me? In how far?
Of course oversimplification is stupid

[Ramo]

The enslaving of Indians had been forbidden as early as 1502.

The encomienda system (where colonists were basically granted fiefs of Amerindian villages) that replaced it in 1502 wasn't substantially different. It still was ultimately an atrocious system of forced labor...

[Wernazuma III]

Well, as I've said, the factual situation did not improve much because of some laws. Las Casas has shown very well, how bad the treatment continued to be ~1540.Yet, not few persons in among the clergymen and in the colonial administration tried to control the situation.

Or, to put it in other words: The destruction of the Indians by the Spanish was more the effect of anarchy and never aimed at the ethnic destruction of the Indians or to sweep the land free of them in order to have more space for the Spanish christians. Personal profit of the Encomendero was the driving force behind it.
The Protestants, and especially the US-Americans cleansed the favorable areas from the "Indian scum", so they could settle there themselves...

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III
Well, as I've said, the factual situation did not improve much because of some laws. Las Casas has shown very well, how bad the treatment continued to be ~1540.Yet, not few persons in among the clergymen and in the colonial administration tried to control the situation.

Or, to put it in other words: The destruction of the Indians by the Spanish was more the effect of anarchy and never aimed at the ethnic destruction of the Indians or to sweep the land free of them in order to have more space for the Spanish christians. Personal profit of the Encomendero was the driving force behind it.
The Protestants, and especially the US-Americans cleansed the favorable areas from the "Indian scum", so they could settle there themselves...

You are the one who is mistaken in your absolution for Spanish behavior and your genocidal assumptions about English and American settlers. One huge difference is that the English and Americans settled in a region where the agricultural tech level overall was low, while the Spanish occupied a wide range of areas, including almost all of the areas where agricultural tech levels were high, as was population density.

The Spanish tried to enslave native populations, with some limited successes and spectacular failures. The Indians of the Caribean were virtually wiped out in an attempt to enslave the survivors of the epidemics. Indians in Peru etc. were subjected to a brutal slavery program which killed over 100,000 in very short order. The lesson learned was that the native populations of the Americas generally made poor slaves, to the extent that they were uneconomical due to their high mortality rate. It was actually cheaper to buy and haul slaves from Africa than it was to use the dwindling population of native Americans to work Spanish mines and plantations.

So while most of the destuction of Indians in Spanish America was probably not completely intentional, a not inconsiderable proportion of it was intentional or carried forward with a blatant and reckless disregard for the safety of the native population.

In the English portion of the Americas there were no large populations to work with in this manner, whether the settlers there would have been so inclined or not. (And given the willingness on the part of plantation owners to use slaves until the 19th century, I don't see any reason why they would not have been inclined to use Indians for the purpose if they were available.) The Indians in the English zone of North America were instead dislocated over a number of generations, sometimes purposefully and forcefully and sometimes accidentally. It's actually really easy to dislocate hunter-gatherers.

For instance simply adding a higher density population to an area who can survive on high yield farming will drive game sufficient to support hunter-gatherers away. Trade with the Indians had an enormous impact on them. Tribes fought tooth and nail for control of the access to white traders. High prices for furs changed economic habits of many tribes permanently, and also reduced the ability of Indian land to support population by increasing the value of that land for for exploitive fur trapping / trading, which led to more competition and more warfare / stress amongst the native population.

Long before the large scale Indian vs white war the economic realities of the English zone had changed the behavior and means of survival amongst the native population irreversibly. Success often depended on access to white technology for metal, weapons and trade goods, and these were bought with low yield per area activities. Thus the Indians along the coast who had access to white traders were able to push further inland in the search for furs, and displace the tribes who lived there with their superior weapons and wealth. A wave of displacement sent Eastern tribes into the midwest, and midwestern tribes into the plains.

Once the great dislocation and depopulation of the East had occurred (and I have never seen a shred of evidence which claims that the series of events described above was in any way planned by whites), it was a very simple matter to push the few remaining Indians out of the East, through local pressure or direct aggression ala Jackson.

So the vast majority of the 'work' in clearing natives from the East was done unconsciously by white traders and their native clients. Once this was done it was an easy thing even for a poor and very sparsely populated United States to push the few remaining Indians out.

All of this change brought more waves of dislocation. Just as the Chinese attack on Mongolia caused a wave of dislocation that eventually shattered the Roman empire, the events set into motion in the East had a carryover effect that went far beyond the local scene. The plains Indians were recent arrivals from the woodlands for the most part, having been pushed out very recently. They were the last great hurdle for manifest destiny, and they were destroyed in a much more systematic manner in many cases than those before them, though again much of the effort was often local, and for that matter illegal. After them, the parched lands of the West held very few people, and these were of almost no consequence to the burgeoning population of whites, while on the West Coast Spanish and Russian influence had already had a large impact on both the size and the nature of the native populations.

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Sikander
You are the one who is mistaken in your absolution for Spanish behavior and your genocidal assumptions about English and American settlers. One huge difference is that the English and Americans settled in a region where the agricultural tech level overall was low, while the Spanish occupied a wide range of areas, including almost all of the areas where agricultural tech levels were high, as was population density.

You completely misunderstand me if you assume that I'm trying to apologize the Spanish behavior, nor am I saying that all American settlers had nothing other in mind than killing Indians. If you read my post, I fully acknowledged the exploit by private encomenderos and I even acknowledge the lack of pressure by the crown to control the situation oversea. I also said that nothing was out of philanthropy. If it had been more suitable economically for the crown to back up the conquistadors, no indian-friendly law would have been passed. Yet I insist that the destruction in Latin America was almost exclusively because of economic interests and no so much on ethnic grounds. While there was already a feeling of superiority of race it was not as developed as in the English area and nowhere the Indians were put away, so the "superior race" could dwell there. There might be the exception of late 19th century Chile and Argentina with the Araucan Indians in the south. They closely followed the bahavior of the USA in this matter.

The Indians of the Caribean were virtually wiped out in an attempt to enslave the survivors of the epidemics. Indians in Peru etc. were subjected to a brutal slavery program which killed over 100,000 in very short order. The lesson learned was that the native populations of the Americas generally made poor slaves, to the extent that they were uneconomical due to their high mortality rate. It was actually cheaper to buy and haul slaves from Africa than it was to use the dwindling population of native Americans to work Spanish mines and plantations. So while most of the destuction of Indians in Spanish America was probably not completely intentional, a not inconsiderable proportion of it was intentional or carried forward with a blatant and reckless disregard for the safety of the native population.

Just as you say it yourself: Economic reasoning carried out by unscrupulous as*holes. I'm not defending it, but it's different from genocide. You won't find "They breed like rats"-arguments like from General Custer and no massacers of women and children only in order to wipe out a tribe... To the dead people it doesn't matter, probably many would have prefered a quick death by a Winchester to working in Spanish quasi-slavery. Yet it was not as genocidal, I can't help it.

[Dr Strangelove]

Huh? Do you realise that there are still areas in Central and South America where those who label themselves as "Indian" are still oppressed by their respective governments and the population that has been assimilated into the larger "Hispanic" culture? The countries where this is still happening include Mexico, Nicaragua, Honduras, Venezuala, Colombia, Brazil, Peru and Ecuador.

In the US Indians were also given the option of assimilating into white culture and huge numbers o them ultimately did. In my area there is a group of people who claim to be descendants of the Monotoc tribe and are trying to get its status as a recognized tribe revived. Most of them can verify their claim to be descended from Monotocs, but the problem is that so many of them are natural blonds as well! I've seen sources claiming that up to one quarter of all southerners claim to have some Indian in their ancestry.

The trail of tears episode is often cited as an example of Indians who attempted to assimilate but were persecuted instead. What actually triggered the resettlement of the Cherokee was the adoption of a resolution by their goverment mandating the death penalty for tribe members who sold their land to non-tribe members. After the execution of about a dozen members who defied this law, one of whom was a personal friend of President Jackson, the US government retaliated. Despite reports of nearly one- third dying during the march the 1840 census counted 200,000 living in reservations west of the Mississippi, and 40,000 still living east of the Mississippi. There were other reports of 10,000 or more having moved further west and joining other tribes. The 1830 census counted 300,000 Cherokee.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III
You won't find "They breed like rats"-arguments like from General Custer and no massacers of women and children only in order to wipe out a tribe... To the dead people it doesn't matter, probably many would have prefered a quick death by a Winchester to working in Spanish quasi-slavery. Yet it was not as genocidal, I can't help it.

The massacre at Sand Creek, the massacre at the Wachita River (by Custer), the massacre at Wounded Knee, etc. There were many, many wholesale massacres, as well as massacres of women and children. Even as early as King Phillip's War, there was a deliberate effort to exterminate Amerinds in the Anglo-US zone. It was a British commander who passed out smallpox victim's blankets to Amerinds (and not the Americans as has been so widely reported). What our ancestors did was genocide and it was deliberate.

[Wernazuma III]

Chegitz, you got me wrong. I was talking about Latin America IN CONTRAST to Custer et al.
I absolutely agree with you. The whole sentence should have been "You won't find "They breed like rats"-arguments like from General Custer and no massacers of women and children only in order to wipe out a tribe in Spanish colonial areas".
You obviously didn't read my complete posts (which is OK )

[Wernazuma III]

Dr.Strangelove: I'm not talking about today. I know about the struggles of Indians in Mexico, Ecuador, Brazil and other places and don't claim that things in Latin America are better now when it comes to Indian policy. The Human rights situation is generally bad over there. I just don't think it's correct to load the blaming all on the Spanish oppressors who were so cruel, while the situation was better in the anglosaxon areas - it was not and carried more elements of a real genocide than the spanish actions against the Indians - it's different today. In many areas of Brazil, the common slogan today is still "genocide".

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


The massacre at Sand Creek, the massacre at the Wachita River (by Custer), the massacre at Wounded Knee, etc. There were many, many wholesale massacres, as well as massacres of women and children. Even as early as King Phillip's War, there was a deliberate effort to exterminate Amerinds in the Anglo-US zone. It was a British commander who passed out smallpox victim's blankets to Amerinds (and not the Americans as has been so widely reported). What our ancestors did was genocide and it was deliberate.

They learned the trick from the Spanish. Coronado was supposed to have tried this trick on a couple of occasions during his expedition into the area that is now the Southeastern US.

Even before King Phillip's war there was the massacre of Martin's Hundred. The successor to chief Powhatan attacked english settlements throughout Virginia, stopping only at the gates of Jamestown when his men got a good whiff of grapeshot from the fort's cannons. The next year the english sent out a doctor to negotiate with the Powhatan confederacy. The good doctor somehow managed to poison their dinner. Within hours 500 Indian men were dead, breaking the backbone of the tribe's "army". The colonists, backed up by troops reinforcing them from England, made short work of the survivors.