The genocide that time forgot - The Native Americans

[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/showthread.php?s=&postid=877711#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, Guaranà 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.