The genocide that time forgot - The Native Americans

[monkspider]

A Native American gravestone in my hometown that I once came across read something to the effect of "Here Lies an Indian Woman, whose family and tribe gave of themselves that this great nation might prosper".
Of course, it's not quite accurate to say that they gave of themselves and their land for that purpose. Most estimates I have read estimate there was about 80 million native Americans in Latin America when Columbus "discovered' the Americas, and about 15 million or so north of the Rio Grande if my memory serves. By now, there are only a few thousand left, living on the worst land in the entire nation in poverty unrivaled by even the worst parts of the biggest cities. What has occured has been a genocide perhaps unparalleled in the entirety of human history.

Yet, despite this, Native Americans have gotten little sympathy. The tragedy of their genocide is largely overlooked in the school history books. And most Americans see them as an "obstacle" that had to be swept aside (albeit unfortunatly) so our great Nation could acheive it's manifest destiny and bring freedom and Liberty from coast to coast.

This pure bollocks, imagine going to Auschwitz or Dachau and reading a plaque that said "Here lies a Jew, whose family and people gave of themselves so that this nation may grow and prosper". I imagine that a vastly different reaction then the acquiesencee have for the most part to the Native American's genocide.

My great grandma was a full-blooded Cherokee, so I can't help but feel a bit of personal attachment to this whole tragedy. I guess the purpose of my rant is this: why has the genocide of these people gone largely swept under the carpet? Are the peoples of countries like Spain and America afraid of what they might have to fess up to?

[MrFun]

Monkspider, I agree with you somewhat, but I hate to break this to ya -- you're not breaking any new ground -- at least not with most Apolytoners here, who have an interest in history, one way or another.

The interaction of Amerindians is more complicated than the oversimplification of portraying Amerindians as purely hapless victims and demonizing European-descent settlers. That is one-dimensional, cardboard portrayal of entire groups of people.

The interactions between Amerindians and European-descent settlers have been complex, with complex relations that involved decisions that leaders of both groups of people made (with each group containing hundreds of different cultural/ethnic groups).

Amerindians suffered tremendously in the history of the Americas, be it North America, Central America, South America, or the Carribbean islands. But they were not hapless victims who had made no decisions in how they would try to adapt.

One good book you might want to read, is "500 Nations" by Alvin M. Josephy Jr. A book that I own, but a good book in any case when one wants to learn more about the history of Amerindians.

[monkspider]

Oh, I agree completely that things were considerably more complex than that. A fact that few may be aware of is that there were actually significant numbers of people who ran away and join the native tribes back in days of English colonization.

I agree that the info itself I shared isn't anything revolutionary, but my question is why is this particular attrocity still mostly overlooked.

BTW, I will definitely have to check that out book out, I actually looked it over a little bit at my old bookstore job, it looks quite fascinating.

[Capt Dizle]

What this brings to my mind is the great what if. What if aliens really showed up, bringing disease and technology and swept us away like we did the Indian.

Are tears any less bitter for being shed unnoticed?

[monkspider]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Are tears any less bitter for being shed unnoticed?

Hey, that's pretty poetic JT. I never knew you had it in ya.

[Wernazuma III]

I think it's mostly overlooked, especially in America, because the USA wouldn't exist without it. The USA are considered the best what could have happened to the world, thus the genocide is a pitty but in the end it's all OK, because we now got the USA.
Focussing too much on the genocide would make the USA appear to stand on illegal and immoral fundaments which no American patriot could accept.

Please, this is no Anti-American flaming/trolling, every people makes similar biased presentation of its history in the central parts.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by monkspider
Oh, I agree completely that things were considerably more complex than that. A fact that few may be aware of is that there were actually significant numbers of people who ran away and join the native tribes back in days of English colonization.

I agree that the info itself I shared isn't anything revolutionary, but my question is why is this particular attrocity still mostly overlooked.

BTW, I will definitely have to check that out book out, I actually looked it over a little bit at my old bookstore job, it looks quite fascinating.

Oh, I found it interesting too, when I first read about a number of white settlers who fled to various Amerindian chiefdoms.

Or how about how the Iroquois' form of strength through unity influenced Benjamin Franklin's ideas on uniting the colonies of Great Britain in North America?

Or how about the chiefdom (kicking self for not remembering name) in what is now Florida, who thought the Spaniards that arrived on the peninsula were inferior to them in the early 1500's?

There were many things that I never learned about Amerindians until I read material independently, outside of school.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Re: The genocide that time forgot - The Native Americans

Originally posted by monkspider
Most estimates I have read estimate there was about 80 million native Americans in Latin America when Columbus "discovered' the Americas, and about 15 million or so north of the Rio Grande if my memory serves.

You're off by a zero and change. Anthropological evidence (mostly related to food gathering, trash, and land use studies, plus settlements) indicates a probable peak native population in the continental US of around 1 million.

There were several million in Latin America, but 80 million is off by an order of magnitude at least. With agricultural and hunting techniques of the time, you couldn't support near 80 million under the best of conditions.

Genocidal wars were not uncommon before whitey - most of Latin American native populations were either militaristic empires, or their subjects/enemies/victims, depending on the other guy's luck. Both the Aztec and the Inca were hated enough that the Spanish had no trouble finding allies who didn't realize they were just trading one devil for another, more efficient one.

The Huron-Iroquois fight (which overlapped into the French and Indian wars) were particularly vicious, and there were brutal, would be genocidal if they had the chance, rivalries in the southeast, southwest and great plains.

The biggest killer by far of natives was disease, not warfare. Unfortunately, the disease brought over by Europeans were more lethal, and tended to be air and mosquito transmissible, making epidemics a huge problem for native tribes.

[monkspider]

Yep, yep, a lot of great stuff outside the spectrum of mainstream, acceptable thought.
One of the things that I love most being a history major is learning what my official textbooks didn't want to me to know.

[MrFun]

Re: Re: The genocide that time forgot - The Native Americans

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

Genocidal wars were not uncommon before whitey -

No disagreement there with ya.

[monkspider]

I can't help but think that one million is a ridiculously low figure Micheal.
Here is a quote from a book that I own"By conservative estimates, the population of the United states prior to European contact was greater than 12 million. Four centuries later, the count was reduced by 95% to 237 thousand"

And that says nothing about the far-denser populated Aztec and Inca Empires. I think Tenochtitlan alone probably had a million people.

Even though disease was a bigger killer than Europeans, you still face a genocide unparalleled in history.

[MrFun]

Monkspider -- that is where I do disagree with MTG.

I accept the estimation of 10 million Amerindians altogether.

The low 1 million estimate is way too low to include the densely populated cities of some of the more advanced Amerindian civilizations, as you already stated.

[monkspider]

Here are quotes from Ronald Wright's "Stolen Continents"

It is impossible to say exactly how many people were living in what is now the United States and Canada in 1492. But it's clear that the old guess of around 1 million is absurdly low-a guess cherished for so long because it reinforced the myth of the empty land and hid the enormity of Native America's depopulation. Good modern estimates range between 7 and 18 million

[KrazyHorse]

Re: Re: The genocide that time forgot - The Native Americans

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


You're off by a zero and change. Anthropological evidence (mostly related to food gathering, trash, and land use studies, plus settlements) indicates a probable peak native population in the continental US of around 1 million.

There were several million in Latin America, but 80 million is off by an order of magnitude at least. With agricultural and hunting techniques of the time, you couldn't support near 80 million under the best of conditions.

Genocidal wars were not uncommon before whitey - most of Latin American native populations were either militaristic empires, or their subjects/enemies/victims, depending on the other guy's luck. Both the Aztec and the Inca were hated enough that the Spanish had no trouble finding allies who didn't realize they were just trading one devil for another, more efficient one.

The Huron-Iroquois fight (which overlapped into the French and Indian wars) were particularly vicious, and there were brutal, would be genocidal if they had the chance, rivalries in the southeast, southwest and great plains.

The biggest killer by far of natives was disease, not warfare. Unfortunately, the disease brought over by Europeans were more lethal, and tended to be air and mosquito transmissible, making epidemics a huge problem for native tribes.

Refer to my discussion with Chris about the same subject. The only serious estimates of native pop of NA as in 7 figures come from before the turn of the century. Most modern estimates hover around 50 million...

[Gatekeeper]

It seems like tribes across the world were wiped out as certain tribes morphed into evolving nation-states and then proceeded to dominate/assimilate/destroy their neighboring tribes. I doubt that Europe was the only "spawning" point for this type of evolvement in human society, though.

Gatekeeper