Top Ten Outrages of the Past Half Millenium

[JohnT]

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/MURDER.HTM

Interesting chart re: pre-20th century mass-democide.

His analysis of what happened in Poland can be found here: http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP7.HTM

And a chart explaining his figures can be found at: http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.TAB7.1.GIF

[Ned]

Originally posted by Azazel
Colonialism by itself, wasn't bad, by creating new towns, cities, and developing the lands. It was the other practices that were destructive and awful.

Absolutely.

People who condemn colonialism as an inherent evil also condemn Israel as inherently evil to be consistent.

As the United States is the product of colonialism, it is wonder anyone could condemn colonialism out of hand except if one somehow believed the United States is inherently evil.

[JohnT]

except if one somehow believed the United States is inherently evil.

Well, you just opened the door to a lot of hand-waving.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III
OK, let me set straight a few things:
1. Your argumentation is rather foul and personally offending.

As was your insinuation of my bias against the Spaniards. Read my whole list and you'll see I ranked the American treatment of Indians, and British Imperialism right up there with Spanish Imperialism.

2. I never denied the atrocities of the Spanish conquistadors, I just defended the fact that Spanish colonial rule was not as cruel towards Indians as it is often painted. Pizarro was the greatest and most primitive ******* in the history of all American colonization, Cortes had no consciousness and we could extend the list. They had mainly two things in their mind: Gold and honor/titles. But they are not representative for the Spanish colonial rule which is supposed to have been so much more atrocious than English colonial history. The Conquistadors existed in a limited period and particular campaigns.
3. I never said there was no maltreatment in Spanish America or few deaths due to it. Wherever authority failed (and it often failed for different reasons), Indian rights were, as I pointed out, trampled upon and in the first time the conquista was a very anarchistic enterprise. The main point of going into this arguments are those biased interpretations, where completely exaggerated numbers are presented and said to be true for Spanish colonial history generally. Like your "60 million Indians dying at the hands of Spanish tormentors" is completely out of range and a fantasy number. That's the famous black legend. 60 million is probably the overall number of Indians who lived and died (by forced or natural death thelike) in Spanish America between 1550 and 1650 (OK, that's also a fantasy number, but you get the point).
Indian population declined ~80% (in the Caribbean 99%) until around 1600, then it recovered. Most of the deaths were from diseases. The first smallpox waves, often spreading much faster than the Spanish themselves, killed half of the population. Then came flu and others. In the densly populated areas of Mexico and Peru, those illnesses struck much harder than in the plains or tropical forrest. You simply can't attribute that to Spanish maltreatment. If "only" 5% actually died of maltreatment, it still leaves a huge number of Indians put to death, but you can't make Spanish responsible for the whole massive deaths.

The numbers come from a study that made gross estimates of the total population of the Americas in 1500 and in 1600. They estimated a population of 70 million in 1500 and 10 million in 1600, indicating a population loss of 60 million. Of course these figures span a whole century, a space in human time of about five generations, so the actual number of deaths would have been higher or the census would have at least partially replaced the losses. The researchers made no effort to determine the causes of the population loss. It should be pointed out though that no where else in human history has infectious disease resulted in the loss of such a hugh portion of a population over such a large geographical area. Elsewhere losses from epidemics have tended to have a maximum of one- third to one-half of the population. Losses in smaller populations in restricted areas can be higher. You could probably find instances of Indians confined to a reservation or a mission suffering over 50% loss, but that shouldn't happen throughout the area of an entire province. Smallpox and Flu were indeed spread among tribes of what is now Georgia and the Carolinas by explorers in the 16th century, the populations seem to have experienced up to 40% losses, but recovered within a century. It makes me suspect that disease alone was not the sole cause of the massive population loss in the Americas from 1500 to 1600. What if atrocities accounted for 33%? That would still be 20 million.

Potosi and Huancavelica etc. definitely were the worst atrocities in Spanish America. If you read my above post closely I speak about tens of thousands deaths, possibly even hundreds of thousands.
Your idea that the Spanish deliberately had Indians dehydrate when working is crap though (view cynically at it: Spanish knew that their Indian slaves were "non-renewable" resources and thus tried to keep them) and stems directly from Las Casas, about as reliable a source as his rival Sepulveda.

In the early days the Spanish focused on discovering gold. Labor was often used as a punishment to make the Indians talk. Also remember that the first Spanish settlers were soldiers, and at this time in history that meant basically mercenaries. None of them were trained in the rules of war at military academies, but many of them belonged to families that had hired out their arms for generations.

the Such an occurance might have happened once and then, at some point, but Las Casas painted it as the rule. He had good reasons to do so, because he was the advocate of the Indians and had to argue like this to enforce their protection by law, but it's exaggerating of course and propaganda publishers in Holland, England and France were delighted that they had material to denounce the brutal Spanyards.
5. Your whole phrasing like "showing their Spanish manhood" reveals your bias towards Spanish. I guess, British or American soldiers never "showed their manhood"? Soldier attitude?

DId I say that? During this era rape and pillage was considered part of a soldier's pay. Even a late as 1810 such a reputable English aristocrat as the Duke of Wellington would give his soldiers "their leave" upon the town od Badajoz after capturing it. And yet the English were allied with the very people living in the town!

Colonial atrocities? Definitely, but neither exclusively Spanish nor of that time. I don't know the magazine "Nature", but if there's the claim that this study counts for the whole nation of Colombia, it's simple crap. Take a look at the history of the conquest of Colombian territory and you'll find that it extended over a long time, so this alleged killing of all men and boys happened all the time from 1500 to 1650, right? The "mestizaje" or mixture between whites and Indians was generally a "one-way-road" with Spanish males and Indian women, mostly from non-marital relations (wives back in Spain), but hardly a large-scale rape as you suggest.
6. About slavery. I did in no occasion deny the existance of slavery in Spanish America. Look at my first paragraph of the last post and you'll find that I said that Spanish needed Indians as slaves or cheap labor. Most former Spanish colonies abolished slavery at the point of independance (contrary to the US).

Ah Ha, so you admit that slavery was still in existence in those colonies in the early 19th century. Many former colonies also did not.

Spanish slavery in the colonies was black slavery, like in the US. At least, in Spanish society the degree of manumitted slaves was quite high and they were rarely used on large plantations (exception in the Caribbean, but even there not really) but rather as artisans and craftmen, other than in the US.

So there really wasn't anyone around to free in Cuba, Peurto Rico, and Hispanola in 1880? I wonder why they bothered to outlaw it?

You say that in Mexico mainly Indian slaves were used. How then, that Mexico had the highest import of black slaves in all Spanish America?

Probably it was the high death rate, necessitating the replacement of slaves via importation of fresh blood. Santa Anna claimed that he was an Indian. [/QUOTE] Enslavement of Indians was - de iure - strictly forbidden since 1542, yet inefficient government, corruption and isolation led to -de facto- slavery situations. That changes nothing about the legal status and the legal idea of almost complete autonomy for Indian communities.
7. With "Expansionist" I meant "in the frontier regions", where the Spanish didn't like to go, and when they did, only to counter French and English advances.[/QUOTE] Settlement of Texas and California did not really begin in earnest until the very end of the 18th century, and was still ongoing in the early 19th century.

8. About Narvaez/Powhatan/Martin's Hundred etc.: Sorry, I didn't know about Martin's Hundred, but as it was later than the early days of Jamestown, it's even more ridiculous to blame native response to rumors that should date back so much time ago (more than 100 years!), when so much had happened in the English colonies shortly before and at much shorter distance.
9. The name "Inca" was not the very point of my critics and you carefully avoided to take on the real point of critique (the lack of evidence for "Incan" extinction and an Indian resettlement), for good reason I'd think.
10. Your comparison of Spanish attitude (or mine) towards the Indians to that of US-Americans to slaves or even the ideology of the KKK is illegitimate. I was not talking about letters that say "I like Indian XYZ", but overall statements. The lack of hate towards Indians generally in private (and in official) documents does have a weight. Except for isolated examples you'll hardly find a Spanyard who killed or enslaved Indians because of hating them, but rather out of not caring at all and greed. This is even true for the Pizarro-expedition.

Yet your arguements are virtually identical to those used by apologists for slavery in the south here in the US. In the years prior to the Civil War southerners often protested their care and devotion to their slaves. I believe that there is a mountain of hypocrisy in a man saying that he loves someone, yet he holds that person in bondage for profit. Tell me this: what happened to the Indian slaves who refused to obey orders or ran away? Were they treated lovingly? What if they disobeyed or ran away repeatedly? It is incredible that in this day and age an educated person would actually fall for the argument that slave owners, of any nationality, "loved" their slaves.

So the conclusion of your post: can be countered by
a)I did neither deny the existance of slavery nor the brutality of Conquistadors

But you clearly made light of slavery in the Spanish colonies by claiming they were "loved" by their masters. I, in my turn, pointed out that this sort of ruse is often used for southern apologists here in the US.

b)there simply were no 60 millions dying at the hands of Spanish tormentors, not even closely.

How close would be close enough?

Something to think about (for me too): It's funny that I'm always finding myself defending the Spanish when someone draws out the Black legend while defending the Indian struggle for justice when talking to someone who still thinks that the colonization and acculturation of the Indians was a civilizatory achievement.

Evidently you haven't argued this with me before. Are you confusing me with someone else?

[Ned]

JohnT, those articles on "Democide" of the Germans, Jews and Ukrainians by the Poles, Czechs and Russians is interesting. But the truth is that the murders were not done by Russians, Poles, Czechs, etc., but by Communists, who appear to be among the greatest mass murderers in history, if not the greatest.

(I somewhat doubt Dr. Strangelove's statement that the Spanish killed 60 million Indians. There were hardly that many to kill after the die-off from disease.)

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Ned
JohnT, those articles on "Democide" of the Germans, Jews and Ukrainians by the Poles, Czechs and Russians is interesting. But the truth is that the murders were not done by Russians, Poles, Czechs, etc., but by Communists, who appear to be among the greatest mass murderers in history, if not the greatest.

(I somewhat doubt Dr. Strangelove's statement that the Spanish kill 60 million Indians. There were hardly that many to kill after the die-off from disease.)

Hmmmm...Well, yes i did in fact say "the snuffing out of 60 million" didn't I? Sorry, but I was getting rushed off to dinner by the wife at that moment. What I mean is that I don't think that all of the 60 million population loss was due to disease, because as I said above populations usually recover quickly from losses due to epidemics, and there is no precident for such a large proportional loss of population over such a large area. Therefore I believe that a some portion of that loss was due to factors other than disease.

[Sikander]

I have a mountain of doubt about those population figures, and hence any derived genocide to explain them. Off by almost an order of magnitude IMO.

[Ancyrean]

Originally posted by Heresson


You made an effort of balancing the picture, which is right, but You overdone it, puting the responsibility and cost on both sides equally.
Lets start by saying that what happened to Armenians in 1915 wasn't the first massacre of them; there were several earlier, on big, yet not that big scale, since 1870's I think. Russians didn't come to bring Armenia freedom, they were persecuting Armenian church. But if Armenians preferred their rule over Turkish, that's not anyuthing You can blame on Armenians. Surely some pro-Turkish actions by some part of Armenian population might have been taken. But claiming they intended ethnical clearings on these grounds, is silly.
How would have they done that, as a whole? You need a cooperation, a coordination, some administration in order to do that. I don't claim that any actions directed against Turkish co-habitants of these grounds weren't taken. But they weren't organised action, and the scale could not ge great. The graves? First of all, they might be Armenian graves. Secondly, they may be graves of Turks who died while trying to exterminate Armenians. And perhaps the most probable - Turks died fighting against Russian army. I've read a passage of Turkish book, which was pretty interesting. It accused Armenians, (claiming they were a 1mln minority) of killing over 1mln Turks during the war. That'd mean that every Armenian child or women, and man of course, would have to kill a Turk. Additionally, the book couldn't admit that Armenians were a majority in the region, because it would lead to admitting Armenian claim, and yet could not deny minimal number of them. that's why the book wrote they were "5%minority in the eastern vilayets". They were, but not there, but in entire sultanate, in borders before ww1. Nevermind. the point is that Turks can not write objectively about it, somehow, without misleading informations or simple lies. If they were innocent, they wouldn't.
Unlike what You wrote, Armenians elsewhere, except for Cople, which was hm a too visible place, were massacred as well. All eastern Anatolia, historical Armenia, parts of Syria belonging to Turkey today, Cilicia-
everything is clearily Turkish now, and nothing's left after
Armenians there. The only place Armenians still live are parts of it that weren't captured by Turks.
Look at the result; we may argue on the number of killed Armenians and Turks, but somehow these are Turks and Kurds that got all the lands they wanted, and these are Armenians that were banned. It was not a fightbetween two equal sides, as it may seem from your post. It was a fight of Turkish state and part of its citizens against other part of its citizens.

I don't think Turkish gouverment's goal at the time was destroying Armenians as a whole. They just wanted to keep what they owned, and Armenians were a threat to it. That's why relocation of them was done. But Turks had no interest in keeping them alive. And the way it was done shows that. Nope, security and food/water provision was not good. I doubt Turkey was able to do it good even if it wanted, but that's her fault.

Mind adding that other Christian ethnic groups were not treated better. "By the way" of dealing with Armenians,
at least 0,2mln Christian Syrians were killed. And them, as well as Cilician Armenians, You can't accuse of ethnical clearings.

When it comes to the name of the entire thing, it is just one of the greatest ethnical clearings, a religious pagrom, and precoursor of holocaust. It's no matter how do we call it, the important thing is to know what was it.

Hi Hereson Your post is actually a good reference point to catalogue the differences of opinion between Turks and Armenians with regard to the events of 1915. This is a long post but I guess I should spend some more time writing this on top of what I already previously wrote, at least try to make the case more clear.

First of all the psychological aspect of the Armenian struggle is of utmost importance to get a clear picture. The strife between our peoples did not start in any meaningful way until the later part of 19th century, with the acceleration of the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire. With the liberation of many Balkan countries in their historical homelands brought renewed hope to the Armenian nationalists, who were at the time a minority among Armenians. But the nationalists faced a problem. Whereas, for example, Bulgarians or Albanians could take comfort in their populations being in the majority in the lands they have just wrested out of Ottoman control, the Eastern Anatolian region had long ceased to have an Armenian majority after nearly a millennium of cohabitation with the Turks (more on this below).

You are right that the troubles between Turks and Armenians started before 1915, in the late 19th century. But I would like to draw attention here to the fact that Armenians had a special place in the empire before that time when nationalism took hold. Comparable to and even more than the Greeks after the Greek independence, Armenians were highly trusted by the empire and there were Ottoman Armenians that served as ambassadors and many other high posts within the empire right up to the late 19th century. There was no racism or hatred from Turks towards Armenians, or vice versa. This was another obstacle for the Armenian nationalists, but later with their agitation and escalation of violence, the trust broke down and the spiral of violence triggered.

What I imply here is that even the acts of violence that the Armenians suffered from in the late 19th century were triggered by extreme nationalist Armenians, by their acts of agitation (One may prefer to see it as the opening shots of a war of independence, but it does not deduce from my argument of action-reaction) as opposed to the idea that it suddenly dawned on the Ottoman government out of the blue to “exterminate” Armenians because they hated them. This is opposed to for example what you have in the Holocaust, when the Jews were persecuted without any provocation but on the outrageous grounds that they are under-humans polluting this world. That’s a crucial starting point for an overall evaluation of the issue.

This brings us to the population issue. Because depending on the numbers you have, you might argue that the Ottomans feared the loss of eastern Anatolia like Rumelia to Bulgarians, and if the Armenians were a majority there maybe the government might as well have just panicked and decided the only course of action was to “exterminate” the Armenians. On the contrary, if they were not in majority, then it would give leverage to the argument that Armenian nationalists would be very much inclined to create that majority, for after al this would be a rectification of a historical aberration of Turks being in the majority in a part of the world considered to be part of historic Armenia.

So what do we have in terms of numbers? First of all I would agree, as opposed to what you had read in that Turkish book, that certainly Armenians were more than %5 percent in Eastern Anatolia. All numbers referred by Armenian authors refer to or are based on the records of the Armenian Patriarchate of Istanbul. The first time it put forward a number for Armenians is during the Congress of Berlin of 1879 between the great powers of Europe, convened to decide about the fate of the Ottoman Empire. It was a grand opportunity for nationalist causes to be voiced and the Armenian Patriarchate initially submitted to the congress the total number of Armenians in the Empire as 3 million. When it was realized that this number wildly contradicted with numbers given by the same patriarchate to different embassies in Turkey, it resubmitted the number as to be 1.780.000.

International scholars of the time give a number between 1.2 and 1.5 million for all Armenians.

As for the “6 provinces” demanded by nationalists and where majority of the disturbances took place, Patriarchate numbers for Armenians failed to be coherent again: In 1880 it claimed there were 1 million Armenians as opposed to 1.2 million Muslims. In 1881 it “revised” this number to 1.3 million Armenians and 0.9 million Muslims (and thereby conferring Armenians the status of majority).

In all these figures, the Patriarchate counted all Christians in the region (including Nestorians and others of Gregorian faith) as Armenians, whereas in giving the number of Muslims it only referred to Turks.

On the other hand Ottoman numbers derive from the census of 1893. The census bureau was headed first by a Jew, then by an Armenian between the years 1897-1903, and then by an American. Accordingly, the overall number of Armenians was 1.000.000 as of 1893. The birth and death records were kept ever after by the bureau, and the total number of Armenians in the Empire stands at 1.300.000 as of 1914.

Of the 6 provinces, the number of Armenians was 553.000 as opposed to 2.133.000 Muslims in 1893. Muslims included Turks and the Kurds.

One must bear in mind that Armenian scholars concur that quite large numbers of Armenians emigrated from the Empire in 1890s, so even we assume the Patriarchate was not exaggerating its numbers (despite its constant flight between numbers and the need to impress the Great Powers at the Congress) and that the Ottoman census was accurate (supported by the fact that it was overseen by a bureau headed by anybody but the Turks, and the fact that it was vital to calculate accurately the poll tax levied from different nationalities), by 1915, Armenians were unlikely to be in a position of majority in Eastern Anatolia.

You also touch upon the difference between state violence (that is, Ottoman regular troops inflicting atrocities on Armenians) and the violence by irregulars (that is, bands undertaking independent act of wanton and random violence without coordination). The Armenian nationalists were highly organized not only in Istanbul, but also in Eastern Anatolia, being in contact with Tsarist Russia, securing large quantities of arms over years. These were sometimes intercepted by Ottoman officials, but with the outbreak of WWI, that virtually ceased to be the case. The net result was that Armenian “bands” were certainly not bandits, were led by people with highly political motives and trained abroad, mainly in Russia. Their acts of violence were following a political mandate (creating/increasing the Armenian demographic and political dominance in the region) and were very conscious. That is why at one point, the Ottoman high command realised the that the acts of these bands were a mortal threat to the war in the Eastern front: The level, sophistication and coordination of attacks against Muslim villages (including Kurds, who later acted particularly bitterly against the relocees on their way to Syria) required much more than the meager police forces in the region, plus the “bands” also very successfully were attacking regular army supplies to the front, much more efficiently and on a massive scale than an irregular bandit happenstance would cause. Hence the decision, in desperation to relocate all Armenians.

The mass graves. Well, those mass graves were uncovered upon the recollection of survivors, who told the tale. In the mass graves were so many Muslim artifacts as opposed to no Christian ones. The point is, without trying to describe a picture of those graves, in Eastern Anatolia there’s a very vivid folk memory of Armenian acts from those days. They are probably comparable to the stories Armenians have of Turks.

The cases of violence against Armenians elsewhere in the Empire were sporadic in nature and with no state sanction. Deplorable as they were, they were by no means massive or endemic. The extreme nationalist Armenians were so blinded by their ideals, that after the WWI the French formed Armenian regiments for use in Cilicia (allocated to France after the War. That period is also in the Turkish folk memory (like the sufferings of Armenians are in Armenian folk memory).

I agree with you on that the food/security on the way to Syria was not enough, and dismally so. It is a shame that this was the case, but it is equally outrageous to say that this was intentional. Turks throughout the empire starved because of the war, and the burdens of relocation was too much to handle for the state. Shouldn’t they figure this out before undertaking the relocation? They surely should have, but that’s why I spent hours typing the post here, to make the case that it was such a pressing urgency in a conflict of life and death, there was practically no choice left to the state.

Let me summarise this long post. Firstly, the events of 1915 were tragic, regardless of what. Secondly, it wasn’t a clear cut case of genocide as was the case in the Holocaust. There was no previous hatred towards Armenians as part of Turkish folk or state worldview. When the troubles started, it wasn’t simply a case of an all powerful state acting without provocation against some of its defenceless citizens. The Armenian nationalist movement (the Hunchaks and Tashnaks, who in this way or another still are a political power today in Armenia) was highly organized politically, it directed the Armenian bands were acting on a political agenda in a time of opportune weakness of the Empire. Armenians killed Turks, Turks killed Armenians. In large numbers. Folk memory of both peoples testify to that. The Ottoman state acted in desperation, tried to relocate the Armenians, and untold thousands died on the road due to lack of provisions and security. As such, tragic as it was, it was in no way a genocidal precursor of Holocaust or any religious pogrom.

In 1915, the suffering was immense, but was not in the monopoly of any one side.

[Wernazuma III]

The numbers come from a study that made gross estimates of the total population of the Americas in 1500 and in 1600. They estimated a population of 70 million in 1500 and 10 million in 1600, indicating a population loss of 60 million. Of course these figures span a whole century, a space in human time of about five generations, so the actual number of deaths would have been higher or the census would have at least partially replaced the losses. The researchers made no effort to determine the causes of the population loss. It should be pointed out though that no where else in human history has infectious disease resulted in the loss of such a hugh portion of a population over such a large geographical area. Elsewhere losses from epidemics have tended to have a maximum of one- third to one-half of the population. Losses in smaller populations in restricted areas can be higher. You could probably find instances of Indians confined to a reservation or a mission suffering over 50% loss, but that shouldn't happen throughout the area of an entire province. Smallpox and Flu were indeed spread among tribes of what is now Georgia and the Carolinas by explorers in the 16th century, the populations seem to have experienced up to 40% losses, but recovered within a century. It makes me suspect that disease alone was not the sole cause of the massive population loss in the Americas from 1500 to 1600. What if atrocities accounted for 33%? That would still be 20 million.

Historical demography is a mined terrain and you'll find in 10 studies ten results differing 1000% or more from each other, so we should be careful with numbers. Numbers for the Caribbean are ranging from 300000 to 3 million.
The argument you made shows it well: The diminishing by 80% within 100 years does not say anything about the causes of deaths.
Yes, a single epidemic wouldn't very often lead to losses of 80% (although there are examples), but several epidemics striking in short periods in the most densly populated areas (Mexico was probably home of almost half of all American natives) and they may lead to generation "holes" and very low rates of reproduction, of course this low rate was heavily aggravated in some areas by the bloody wars which tend to select out young males. When disease and war strike so hard at the same moment, reproduction is reduced to almost nothing. And consider another thing: Due to the lack of Indian males and the illegitimate "colonial" relations between Spanish men and Indian women the mestizo population boomed, many Indians lost their roots and mixed up soon, which leaves far fewer pure Indian population, without having to take into account deaths, less so violent death. So, while in North America, there were not only fewer waves of diseases (not one or two every decade), but they could recover being among themselves instead of the blending process which took place in colonial everyday life.
And you'll see also among several North American tribes losses of almost 100%, not only in the case of the famous Mohicans. Unhealthy conditions, identity loss, social and cultural wreckage, alcoholism etc. can lead to extremely low reproduction rates due to severe distress and disorder and there are studies about cases recorded in Brazil IIRC, where women in such situations refuse sex at all or at least often killed their newborn instead of having them raised in that world and men getting sterile due to distress.
Sure there were deaths beside disease too, violent and natural ones, but not closely in the proportions you seem to suggest. 5 million put to death (fantasy number) is still immense, and if you take a look on my list, you'll see Amerindian genocide (including the Spanish) up there. I simply refuse to accept the Spanish=villain stereotyped tradition which is alive at latest since the propaganda prints of Theodore de Bry.

So there really wasn't anyone around to free in Cuba, Peurto Rico, and Hispanola in 1880? I wonder why they bothered to outlaw it?

I never said that. But still, some 80% of black population was already free by that point, many for generations. While manumission in the US south was ephimeral, it was not rare in Spanish colonial society to free the slaves at the death of their master.

Probably it was the high death rate, necessitating the replacement of slaves via importation of fresh blood. Santa Anna claimed that he was an Indian.

No, it was generally easier to have legal black slaves than to illegally hold Indians and hope that your neighbor accuses you at court, because he had a concurring enterprise and wanted you out of the way. There were inspections and in late 16th century not a small number of trials against people who didn't pay their Indian workers or had measures to prevent them from going away. People then often decided not to take the risk. Also, black slaves were most often trained craftsmen, most even with certificate (another difference from US slavery), so they were worth more than the Indians who were mostly untrained workers.
As you said, Santa Ana CLAIMED to be Indian, but it was pure fiction. It was Mexican national ideology to hijack the Indian past and sell it as the own. To style a leaders image as Indian it revoked images of the "heroic resistance" of leaders like Cuahtemoc against the suppression by foreign invadors. A populistic move, nothing else.

Settlement of Texas and California did not really begin in earnest until the very end of the 18th century, and was still ongoing in the early 19th century.

Yes, but northern Mexico and New Mexico were frontier areas before that time. New Mexico was ocupied due to the fear of a French move on Mexico from the north.

Yet your arguements are virtually identical to those used by apologists for slavery in the south here in the US. In the years prior to the Civil War southerners often protested their care and devotion to their slaves. I believe that there is a mountain of hypocrisy in a man saying that he loves someone, yet he holds that person in bondage for profit. Tell me this: what happened to the Indian slaves who refused to obey orders or ran away? Were they treated lovingly? What if they disobeyed or ran away repeatedly? It is incredible that in this day and age an educated person would actually fall for the argument that slave owners, of any nationality, "loved" their slaves.

You seem to misunderstand the nature of most encomiendas (after the anarchic and thus brutal first stage that is). It generally was limited to tribute giving by Indian communities and temporary labor force. The labor force was being abused especially in Potosi because many didn't survive the "temporary" (some 4 years) work, but no one had the right to take Indians as slaves forever.
Again, after 1550 there were no legal Indian slaves. Where they were taken it was a crime under Spanish law and there's a good number of trials against encomenderos for having enslaved Indians. Of course, it was a matter of bribing, corruption and nepotism who was accused and who not, but still.
Most Indians did not live under slavery-like conditions in the colonial period. At the bottom end of society and exploited? Yes, but not chained or in bondage. Also, the encomienda got less over the colonial time, especially in the central areas and the grip of authority and prevention of abuse got better. Exploit hasn't ended to these days of course.
I rather used the statements of the letter to illustrate that Spanish actions against Indians were not motivated by racial hate but by greed. But you seem to never have supposed this, so it was unnecessary anyways.

Evidently you haven't argued this with me before. Are you confusing me with someone else?

I didn't mean you personally, it was an overall statement.

To get to the first point again: I didn't talk about apologizing conquistadors or maltreatment, yet painting Spanish only as villains seems to be a hobby for some people. In the first stage, before the crown and administration got a hold, everyone took what he got. This can be seen nicely in the Caribbean and during the conquista campaigns. The clash and massive dying of Indians due to maltreatment and slavery generally ended, when the situation became more manageable, safe for Potosi, where crucial economic interests of the crown made them turn their back on justice. The Spanish rule "south of Rio Grande" in many aspects was much more advanced and with more considerations about the European-Indian contact and its problems than English rule. They simply had to, because colonial societies were largely mestizo societies and had large numbers of Indians, while wherever the English, and later the US-Americans advanced, the Indians were pushed back or resettled. One has to admit that there were not few forces within the Spanish-American society and also the crown who struggled for justice, though economic interests often stood in the way and betrayed the efforts. Reading your posts -and those of several others I came around- one gets the impression that the Spanish colonial rule was 3 centuries of vile Spanish, sending their dogs on chained Indian working slaves. No sir, it was not. Indian protection laws in some areas could be enforced better, in some less, but the Spanish rule DID care.

[Thorgal]

Labor was often used as a punishment to make the Indians talk..

I like this.
I am sure spanish conquerors was less patient.

This discussion is a bit unequal. I wonder if you know that Wernazuma is a historian specialiced precisely in the Spanish Empire in America. OTH your arguments are all a bunch of boring TV topicals and misinformation.

In fact it is sufficient to look at the actual population porcentages of pure indians and mestizos in hispanic countries and compare it to the ones in Brazil or USA.

[Dr Strangelove]

Here's a link to as article discussing the legal loopholes used by slaveowners in Mexico: http://www.mexconnect.com/mex_/trave...slslavery.html Evidently if a landowner could claim that his workers were continuing in their pagan ways he could legally continue to own them. I'm sure that if this could be done in Mexico, it could be done in the other colonies.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Thorgal

In fact it is sufficient to look at the actual population porcentages of pure indians and mestizos in hispanic countries and compare it to the ones in Brazil or USA.

I'm not certain what you're driving at here, but the total population of Native Americans in the portion of North America which became the USA was not more than 2 million when the English arrived. Furthermore there really isn't an official accounting of the number of Americans with mixed native American heritage. Surveys of Southerners show fully one-third of the population claiming at least a smattering of Native American blood. Supporting such claims is often very difficult. In one of the counties north opf here there is a group of people who are petitioning to ressurect a historical reservation for the Monican tribe. There are about one hundred people who can document their lineage. The ones I know personally have blonde hair. I'm afraid that in the US in those instances in which Indians intermarried with whites or blacks their bloodline has been diluted to a point where it's almost untraceable.

[Evil Knevil]

Originally posted by Ancyrean

What I imply here is that even the acts of violence that the Armenians suffered from in the late 19th century were triggered by extreme nationalist Armenians, by their acts of agitation (One may prefer to see it as the opening shots of a war of independence, but it does not deduce from my argument of action-reaction) as opposed to the idea that it suddenly dawned on the Ottoman government out of the blue to “exterminate” Armenians because they hated them. This is opposed to for example what you have in the Holocaust, when the Jews were persecuted without any provocation but on the outrageous grounds that they are under-humans polluting this world. That’s a crucial starting point for an overall evaluation of the issue.

But don't you realise, the Jews declared war on Germany! Talk about provocation!

http://www4.stormfront.org/whitehistory/hwr64iv.htm

There was plenty of provocation, in at least Jewish people resisted their increased isolation. They also fought back, by killing officials.

Neither were the concentration camps attempts to force mass killing, no they were more like badly organised prison camps. After all, several documents about prisoner transfer have been found hinting to their civil crimes.... Surely during a war to end all wars, the Germans were justified in locking up these criminals, especially since they had declared war on Germany themselves!


Am I the only one who sees the parallels?

This isn't to say that the Armenians were blameless; a proto-holocaust. However the Armenian denial is surprisingly precient.....

[Thorgal]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove

I'm not certain what you're driving at here, but the total population of Native Americans in the portion of North America which became the USA was not more than 2 million when the English arrived

i found most sources saying 5-15 millions in USA + Canada. Most of them living in USA. Only Cherokee tribe had 500,000 to near one million of indians. In 1900 there were only 250,000 indians in all NA.
It is no clear how many indians there were in today´s USA territory before europeans arrived but 2 millions is a TOO low estimation.

Furthermore there really isn't an official accounting of the number of Americans with mixed native American heritage. Surveys of Southerners show fully one-third of the population claiming at least a smattering of Native American blood. Supporting such claims is often very difficult. In one of the counties north opf here there is a group of people who are petitioning to ressurect a historical reservation for the Monican tribe. There are about one hundred people who can document their lineage. The ones I know personally have blonde hair. I'm afraid that in the US in those instances in which Indians intermarried with whites or blacks their bloodline has been diluted to a point where it's almost untraceable.

Peru (total population 29 millions):
Amerindian 46%,
mestizo 42%,
white 10%
Other 2%

Mexico ( total population 105 millions):
mestizo 63%,
Amerindian 31%,
white 5%,
other 1%

And even most of thus whites have surely a lot of indian blood.
It is a bit difficult to believe that spaniards exterminated Aztec and Incas like you said.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
During this era rape and pillage was considered part of a soldier's pay. Even a late as 1810 such a reputable English aristocrat as the Duke of Wellington would give his soldiers "their leave" upon the town od Badajoz after capturing it. And yet the English were allied with the very people living in the town!

Not quite the way I see it- and it was as late as 1812.

'Inside the town all hell was let loose as the victorious British troops embarked on the now infamous orgy of debauchery and destruction, fuelled not only by the fury of the assault but also by the large amounts of liquor found inside the town. They had endured a miserable last 21 days in the trenches and had suffered terribly getting inside the town. Once there, however, their anger found vent and they dissolved into a dangerous mob of drunken disorderly soldiers.

In all, the capture of Badajoz cost Wellington some 5,000 men of which 3,000 had become casualties during the assault including five generals, Picton, Kempt, Bowes, Harvey and Colville who were wounded. The 4th and Light Divisions suffered 1,000 casualties, all of whom were struck down in a small area just one hundred yards long in front of the breaches. It was little wonder, therefore, that Wellington was moved to say afterwards, "The capture of Badajoz affords as strong an instance of the gallantry of our troops as has ever been displayed. But I anxiously hope that I shall never again be the instrument of putting them to such a test as that to which they were put last night." '

http://www.ifbt.co.uk/badajoz1.htm

and:

'The day after the taking of Badajoz 10,000 British soldiers, maddened with drink, rampaged for 29 hours. Old men were shot, children bayoneted, women raped and churches looted. Most of the 5,000 of the town's 21,000 population who had not fled were killed or wounded.

Attempts by Wellington's officers to halt the rampage, often fuelled by liberated drink, failed. A gallows was erected to hang the miscreants but a number of officers who tried to intervene were shot.

An officer present at the siege, Robert Blakeney, wrote: "Every house presented a scene of plunder, debauchery and bloodshed committed with wanton cruelty . . . the infuriated soldiery resembled rather a pack of hell-hounds vomited up from the infernal regions for the extirpation of humanity." '

http://hnn.us/comments/24537.html

and:

'The garrison at Badajoz was strongly defended by French troops supported by German and loyal Spanish.'

http://www.idealspain.com/Pages/Places/badajoz.htm

I suspect there were not many bilingual troops fluent in Spanish in the British Army of the time, and I also suspect that having climbed a siege ladder wet with the blood and brains of fellow troops, one might not be overly well-disposed to the defenders of a town one is besieging. Badajoz could have been surrendered, with honours, and loss of life minimized: clearly the French commander believed he could successfully defend it, having already made provision to do so by requiring any of the town's inhabitants who chose to stay to ensure they had provisions for themselves.