Info about Native Americans

[Chris Haynes]

Somewhat related....They had the author of "1491" on the Diane Rehm show this morning. The brunt of the book (apparently, I havn't read it yet) is that the population of the Americas was much larger than previously thought, that many of the civilizations were considerably more advanced than is commonly represented in textbooks, and that as many as 9 out of 10 of these peoples may have been killed by European-borne diseases.....

One book that I have read that addresses that is Plagues and Peoples:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0385121229/103-6373895-1211035?v=glance&n=283155&n=507846&s=books&v=glance ... I remember something about 95% of the native American population was wiped out between 1500 and 1800 (or was it 1700?).

Some of this is addressed in Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel.

I do not have a reference for this, but I lived in Caracas, Venezuela in the 5th and 6th grades. In my school (an American school, http://www.eca.com.ve/ ) we had a teacher come in everyday to teach Venezuelan history and social studies (usually in the form of some great story telling). Some of the history included what the Conquistadores did to the native population (some of it is described in Diamond's book). The Spanish did exactly what the name "conquistador" implied... conquered. Not only with guns but with large dogs (the teacher described how they were trained to attack human throats). The Spanish also used the native population for slave labor... but since they managed to wipe out most of the Carib population, they had to import slaves from Africa.

I have recently read some books on the "Buffalo Soldiers". These were black soldiers in segregated units created after the American Civil War... they were sent to the Western Frontier. Some of their duties were to chase down and hunt Indians. I read more than one book on the subject, but I cannot remember any that were any good (they were mostly dreadful historical tomes... great stories that need to be written by someone who can WRITE!!!). Interest in that was from visiting the Army Museum near where my parents live: http://huachuca-www.army.mil/HISTORY/huachuca.htm

Locally to me now, the European diseases had pretty much dessimated the population prior to any long lasting contact. I read that the English ships (Vancouver) that came to Puget Sound noted smallpox scars on the Indians. More recently entire tribes would be forced to move when profitable mines were found... lots of stuff here:
http://content.lib.washington.edu/aipnw/index.html (there is enough stuff in there to keep you busy for a L..O..N..G time)

 

[Corpse Cruncher]

This I believe is a long standing argument; who are the Native Americans. My view is America has had many natives, however the Indians, just as the Aborigines were more suited to the land.

It is wrong to claim the Indians as being victims, they too had much blood on their hands by their own massacres.

 

[casebro]

I think that the Europeans stole America fair and square, by the rules of Civilisation that are still intact today. That is, he who has the most efficient society wins. It worked in 'Europe vs Amerinds', it worked during WWII in US vs AXIS, it's worked for 50 years in Jews vs Palestinians, it's working today in The Global Economy. The definition of success hasn't even changed - while on the surface, it used to be adding acreage, the actual victory was always the gain in efficiency of the society. Why, even the Amerinds had a population explosion, of 15 to 1 in the last 100 years, didn't they? Overall population of the US has only gone up about 5 times?

Quitchyerbitchin and go open another casino, win this battle against the capitalists using their own rules.

 

[varwoche]

I think that the Europeans stole America fair and square, by the rules of Civilisation that are still intact today. That is, he who has the most efficient society wins. It worked in 'Europe vs Amerinds', it worked during WWII in US vs AXIS, it's worked for 50 years in Jews vs Palestinians, it's working today in The Global Economy. The definition of success hasn't even changed - while on the surface, it used to be adding acreage, the actual victory was always the gain in efficiency of the society. Why, even the Amerinds had a population explosion, of 15 to 1 in the last 100 years, didn't they? Overall population of the US has only gone up about 5 times?

Quitchyerbitchin and go open another casino, win this battle against the capitalists using their own rules.

If your neighbor is wealthier than you, and/or thinks he is more civilized, and is clever enough to get away with it, does your ethic system make it OK for him to kill you?

 

[casebro]

If your neighbor is wealthier than you, and/or thinks he is more civilized, and is clever enough to get away with it, does your ethic system make it OK for him to kill you?

Well, on a national scale, and according to history, yes.

War has been going on between nations since we were tribes. My 'tribe' has won some, lost some. If the world is gonna take pity on the Amerinds, shouldn't we also cry over the rest of the 'tribes' who lost their countries? The Anasazi, The Celts, the Huns, Neanderthals? Even the Roman Empire "lost" eventually, should we make reparations to the Italians? Apologise to the Muslims for kicking them out of Spain? Has the US ever paid Britain for the land we 'stole' from them?

 

[casebro]

the Indians,(snip)were more suited to the land.

The Amerinds raped the land as well as they could, with their low level of technology. Driving so many Buffalo over a cliff that all they could use were the tongues. Living in a city of 20,000, with no sewer system, then calling the valley cursed after the cholera epidemic killed them off. Killing 200 birds to make a shaman's rattle out of woodpecker beaks.

As I said in an interim post, we beat them because we were more efficient. We had more efficient houses, more efficient agriculture, more efficient medicine, more efficient weapons.....That is called progress. Maybe without Small Pox, their economy would have remained strong enough to retain some respect, and they would have had a western empire today, (Indiana ?) or melted into our society completely???

Maybe a more appropriate discussion would be to compare current Amerind to African native's lifestyles? Or how the Japanese treated 'loser' GI's in WWII? Or how the ancient Hebrews handled the vanquished?

And as a side query, Shouldn't there be some Amerind legends about Small Pox plagues? Anything about how "The People" had faces like teenagers and died like flies? Or only legends about the evil whiteman massacreing them? Research bias, anyone?

 

[varwoche]

Well, on a national scale, and according to history, yes.

If the history of mankind is our guide for how mankind should behave going forward, that is a sorry state of affairs. IMO of course.

The Anasazi, The Celts, the Huns, Neanderthals?

I welcome you to visit the Indian reservation up the road from where I live, or most any reservation for that matter, to get a taste of third world, USA, present tense.

 

[casebro]

If the history of mankind is our guide for how mankind should behave going forward, that is a sorry state of affairs. IMO of course. I welcome you to visit the Indian reservation up the road from where I live, or most any reservation for that matter, to get a taste of third world, USA, present tense.

So, come visit the Indian Reservations in my county, See the all-you-can-eat buffets hosted by their casinos. Bring cash for the factory outlet stores.

Some Indians are rich, some poor. Sorta like us white guys. I'm a poor white guy, but I don't blame the indians for my problems. I don't know of any currently enforced laws keeping them folks on the reservations- in fact, don't more "NativeAmericans" live off the reservations? In Los Angeles, as a frinstance? Can you say "welfare mentality"?

 

[varwoche]

Some Indians are rich, some poor. Sorta like us white guys.

Are you arguing that wealth is statistically in balance between Indians and white people? If yes, I'd like to see this supported.

I'm a poor white guy, but I don't blame the indians for my problems.

Non sequitur. (And so what.)

Seeing as you are a racial equal opportunist: Using your logic, it sounds like you belong to the class of losers that advanced societies should do away with.

 

[casebro]

Are you arguing that wealth is statistically in balance between Indians and white people? If yes, I'd like to see this supported. Non sequitur. (And so what.).

No, I'm arguing that, in all races, some individual succeed, some don't. Some groups succeed, some don't.

Seeing as you are a racial equal opportunist: Using your logic, it sounds like you belong to the class of losers that advanced societies should do away with.

Gee, I don't remember saying anybody should be done away with. Only that some societies are more efficient than some others. And I said that without the small pox epidemic, the Amerinds might have maintained their society long enough to learn some of the efficiencies of the Europeans. And thereby would be more successful today.

You do the math:
After 10,000 years of nomads, North America had 12,000,000 indians.
500 years after colonisation, North America is supporting 600,000,000 people.

 

[Roboramma]

You do the math:
After 10,000 years of nomads, North America had 12,000,000 indians.
500 years after colonisation, North America is supporting 600,000,000 people.

Why do you think that is, exactly? What I mean is, what is it about european culture that you think has given this apparent massive difference?

 

[Roboramma]

Well, on a national scale, and according to history, yes.

You're trying to reason an ought from an is. "Because more successful societies have taken advantage of less successful societies in the past, this is a good thing, or at least justifiable, after all, look at history, it happens all the time."
There is a difference between saying that things happen a certain way, even that they inevitably happen that way, and saying that they should happen that way. Or that it's ethical to support their happening that way.

War has been going on between nations since we were tribes. My 'tribe' has won some, lost some. If the world is gonna take pity on the Amerinds, shouldn't we also cry over the rest of the 'tribes' who lost their countries? The Anasazi, The Celts, the Huns, Neanderthals? Even the Roman Empire "lost" eventually, should we make reparations to the Italians? Apologise to the Muslims for kicking them out of Spain? Has the US ever paid Britain for the land we 'stole' from them?

Has anyone argued in this thread for making reparations to anyone? There is a difference between admitting that something happened and that it was wrong, and suggesting a particular course of action.

Your argument seems to be that there was nothing wrong with european treatment of native americans because this is what people do all the time. I'm not arguing that people don't generally take advantage of each other, just that this was something that happened on a massive scale, and that we should at the least remember.

I might also point out that the state of affairs for native americans today is at least partially caused by historical factors. There is still a question of whether we have an obligation to try to mend that.

 

[Roboramma]

This I believe is a long standing argument; who are the Native Americans. My view is America has had many natives, however the Indians, just as the Aborigines were more suited to the land.

It is wrong to claim the Indians as being victims, they too had much blood on their hands by their own massacres.

By this logic if Mexicans were to invade the USA and kill off 95% of it's inhabitants this would be entirely justified by the fact that european colonists had done the same thing to the previous inhabitants?
The sins of the father do not fall on the son as well.

However, when the sins of the father benefit the son, he might have an obligation to at least share those benefits with the decendants of the person that his father stole them from. But this is a difficult issue.

 

[varwoche]

No, I'm arguing that, in all races, some individual succeed, some don't. Some groups succeed, some don't.

Clearly. That's different than your prior statements though, which staked out ethical legitimacy.

 

[casebro]

Why do you think that is, exactly? What I mean is, what is it about european culture that you think has given this apparent massive difference?

See above post, #26

 

[casebro]

By this logic if Mexicans were to invade the USA and kill off 95% of it's inhabitants (snip much) .

White men didn't kill off 95% of the Amerinds, disease did. At the time, even the most advanced scientists didn't know what caused diseases. Don't blame germ warfare on the Euros, they had a vested interest in keeping indians alive- slave labor.

 

[casebro]

(snip)


Has anyone argued in this thread for making reparations to anyone?

(snip)

I might also point out that the state of affairs for native americans today is at least partially caused by historical factors. There is still a question of whether we have an obligation to try to mend that.

YOU are talking reparations now?

I'm saying, if you want to make good our forefather's past deeds, where are you going to stop? Should the Spaniards pay back the Aztecs? Should the Aztecs also pay back the Mayans? Should the Shoshone pay back the Anasazi? The Italians pay for taking over Britain by the Romans?

 

[casebro]

I just did a little math...

Experts claim that there were 12,000,000 natives here in 1492.
Other experts say that diseases killed 95% of them. That leaves 600,000 survivors of the plagues.
After the "Indian wars", census figures claim 300,000 survivors in 1900.

That means that the white man, in a continental conquest, only killed 300,000 people. That's a lot, but is pale in comparison to Nazis (6m jews), Stalin (20m of his own people), WWii Japan in China....Red China's own internal genocides???

Any figures on how many white settlers were killed by the Amerinds?

600,000 people in all of North America...sounds more like we moved into an abandoned property than a "Conquest", don't it?

 

[hodgy]

I think some reasonable (when qualified) posts by casebro - there is a distinct tendency to judge our forebears by current liberal standards, This is stupid - if all you judgers were there at the time you would not be weilding your 20th century attitudes.

Further, we (Eurpoean descent) are only guilty by good luck - historical accident determined our ascendancy. Be assured that an advanced Sioux empire navigating the Atlantic would not have implemented the world's first racial awareness classes in British schools in 1700.

There's a hard world out there and we are here because our ancestors were able to meet its demands more successfully than those who were not our ancestors.

 

[kimiko]

Experts claim that there were 12,000,000 natives here in 1492.
Other experts say that diseases killed 95% of them. That leaves 600,000 survivors of the plagues.
After the "Indian wars", census figures claim 300,000 survivors in 1900.

That means that the white man, in a continental conquest, only killed 300,000 people. That's a lot, but is pale in comparison to Nazis (6m jews), Stalin (20m of his own people), WWii Japan in China....Red China's own internal genocides???

Any figures on how many white settlers were killed by the Amerinds?

600,000 people in all of North America...sounds more like we moved into an abandoned property than a "Conquest", don't it?

Would it be ok if someone invades the US and only kills half the population?