How would the Native Americans have fared had the Chinese colonized the Americas?

[joebuck20]

Say Zheng He or some other Chinese explorer had made it to the Americas before Columbus and staked a claim, would the natives have fared any better than they did under European domination?
How did the natives fare in other lands that the Chinese conqured closer to home?

[Malthus]

Say Zheng He or some other Chinese explorer had made it to the Americas before Columbus and staked a claim, would the natives have fared any better than they did under European domination?
How did the natives fare in other lands that the Chinese conqured closer to home?

Not too well. The Han are famous for displacing and absorbing indigenous non-Han peoples within what is now China. There still exist minority groups within what is now China, but in relatively small numbers: they are something like 9% of the population.

The main damage to aboriginal Americans came from imported old world diseases like smallpox. This would be no different if the Chinese rather than Europeans invaded.

OTOH the Chinese had no interest in spreading their native religion(s); no missionaries, no crusading fervour.

[smiling bandit]

OTOH the Chinese had no interest in spreading their native religion(s); no missionaries, no crusading fervour.

The missionaries were usually the friends to AmerIndians, a distinction which gets lost when people tend to lump all colonial activities together. Misionaries commonly fought for native rights and strongly against the semi-aristocrats and settlers. The dispute was unusualy sharp among the Spanish - they did indeed come for gold and glory and God. Unfortunately, those who came for gold and glory were not those who came for God, or their religious faith was swept away rather easily. I won't go into the nasty history of Protestant preachers in north America either, as it's not a very pleasant tale. I wouldn't exactly say it was racism, but more a general apathy about anything or anybody outside the "tribe", whether than was an AmerIndian tribe or a European nation.

[Polycarp]

The missionaries were usually the friends to AmerIndians, a distinction which gets lost when people tend to lump all colonial activities together. Misionaries commonly fought for native rights and strongly against the semi-aristocrats and settlers. The dispute was unusualy sharp among the Spanish - they did indeed come for gold and glory and God. Unfortunately, those who came for gold and glory were not those who came for God, or their religious faith was swept away rather easily. I won't go into the nasty history of Protestant preachers in north America either, as it's not a very pleasant tale. I wouldn't exactly say it was racism, but more a general apathy about anything or anybody outside the "tribe", whether than was an AmerIndian tribe or a European nation.

While there's a lot of truth in what Smiling Bandit says here, one should also note the tendency of some missionaries to equate the cultural norms of the society they came from with God's will. It's very easy to find examples of missionary dickitude -- or of missionary kindness and compassion -- depending on what you're setting out to prove.

With regard to the OP, though, one wonders how well the Han would have done in establishing a colonial empire. Remember that when the Beothuk came up against the Vikings, it was the Vikings who suddenly remembered an important appointment elsewhere and left. There's a complex set of factors behind the success of the Spanish, Portuiguese, French, and English some centuries later, including internecine politics among the NAI nations, technical superiority, disease, etc. To what extent this might have benefitted the Han is highly debatable.

[YogSosoth]

Say Zheng He or some other Chinese explorer had made it to the Americas before Columbus and staked a claim, would the natives have fared any better than they did under European domination?
How did the natives fare in other lands that the Chinese conqured closer to home?

If Zheng He conquered the Americas he would have turned all the indians gay and made them dance around in frilly laces! ;)

[ /Dynasty Warriors]

[first time caller]

How much more organized were the Indian tribes on the West Coast? Were there organizations along the line of the Powhatan Confederacy?

[Sitnam]

OTOH the Chinese had no interest in spreading their native religion(s); no missionaries, no crusading fervour.
Nor all that much interest in expanding trade routes, they already had all the raw materials and luxury goods they needed, Britain had to get them hooked on Opium so they had something to trade.

[Bryan Ekers]

I assume a Han Chinese willing to settle in the Americas would do so because he was unsatisfied in some way with life in China, so it's not purely Chinese culture that is a concern, but what actions might be taken by somebody operating in (at least partial) rejection of it.

Then again, if their motivation was to go to the Americas, get rich by exploiting resources and then get back to the home country ASAP, I expect whatever the Chinese touched to be as fucked up as any Spanish colony ever could be.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

How much more organized were the Indian tribes on the West Coast? Were there organizations along the line of the Powhatan Confederacy?

No not at all. The Amerindians of California were some of the most primitive of that group.

[XT]

I can't think of a scenario where the Chinese (especially the regular peasants) would have WANTED to settle in and colonize the Americas. The nobles didn't seem interested in that kind of thing, and the peasants didn't have the means or the same set of imperatives that later generations of dissatisfied Europeans did.

As for disease...assuming the Chinese DID come to the Americas they would have brought the same diseases with them. Things like the Black Death originally came from China, IIRC.

The only benefit to the NAI's would have been that I doubt the Chinese would have been as bent on serious colonization, or attempted to establish such indepth colonies. Other than that it would have still been the same kinds of shocks and still probably lead to similar reductions in population until the survivors developed immunity.

-XT

[Jerseyman]

If the Chinese settled America it would be because they were ordered to! It is still possible (since nobody really knows where they came from) that the Japanese started as a central Asian awkward squad ethnically cleansed from China. After all, where do you have to be to see Japan as the Land of the Rising Sun?

The Chinese might have done quite well. In Zheng He's time the Imperial Court was Manchu and it is his bad luck that by the time he got home, the native civil service had persuaded a new young emperor that if barbarians were not civilised enough to bring him tribute of their own accord they weren't worth knowing about. They would probably not have bothered to urbanise but they might have established trading posts and established farms, perhaps deported undesirables, since China has relatively little cultivated land so they'd eat anything. They were good at assimilation. Zheng He himself was a Muslim POW - Uighur?

They were good at diplomatic language too. So they would probably have seen the natives as like some of their tribal peoples, classed trade as tribute, and left them alone as long as they didn't cause trouble. If they did they would have massacred them. The Manchu were still Mongol horsemen and they had cannon. On the whole though I think they would have got on well because the Chinese were much what the Indians might have become had they discovered metal-working and unified themselves. There might be a vast developmental gap but Chinese technology was something easy enough to figure out by looking. Daoists would have probably loved them as the perfection of the Simple Life.

[Malthus]

If the Chinese settled America it would be because they were ordered to! It is still possible (since nobody really knows where they came from) that the Japanese started as a central Asian awkward squad ethnically cleansed from China. After all, where do you have to be to see Japan as the Land of the Rising Sun?

The Chinese might have done quite well. In Zheng He's time the Imperial Court was Manchu and it is his bad luck that by the time he got home, the native civil service had persuaded a new young emperor that if barbarians were not civilised enough to bring him tribute of their own accord they weren't worth knowing about. They would probably not have bothered to urbanise but they might have established trading posts and established farms, perhaps deported undesirables, since China has relatively little cultivated land so they'd eat anything. They were good at assimilation. Zheng He himself was a Muslim POW - Uighur?

They were good at diplomatic language too. So they would probably have seen the natives as like some of their tribal peoples, classed trade as tribute, and left them alone as long as they didn't cause trouble. If they did they would have massacred them. The Manchu were still Mongol horsemen and they had cannon. On the whole though I think they would have got on well because the Chinese were much what the Indians might have become had they discovered metal-working and unified themselves. There might be a vast developmental gap but Chinese technology was something easy enough to figure out by looking. Daoists would have probably loved them as the perfection of the Simple Life.

Nitpick - Zheng He was living during the Ming dynasty, so definitely pre-Manchu.

[Jerseyman]

Fair enough. Not native Chinese though - Mongol of some sort. That is why his emperor was still looking outwards but the Mandarins had got to the next one.

[Tamerlane]

Zheng He himself was a Muslim POW - Uighur?


Hui, a corruption of the word Uighur, but actually somewhat distinct from them ( today, quite distinct - the term now essentially refers to ethnic Han Muslims ). Back then it was a grab-bag category of sorts and he came from the then still Mongol-controlled Yunnan in the south. His actual ethnic background in his patriline appears to have been Khwarezmian - so probably Turco-Persian, probably/possibly mixed with whatever else down the generations ( his family's general Mongol caste of Semu was an even wider grab-bag of cultures and ethnicities ).

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

Consider South America.

Many of the empires there were into large-scale human sacrifice.

If China offered an alternative, many smaller, subject tribes would flock to their side.

[pinguin]

South America was not in large-scale human sacrifices. Where did you get that idea.
Incas sacrified at most ten people a year. You are confussing them with the Aztecs.

Besides, Chinese also practised human sacrifices of theirs own, if you didn't know,

[Regallag_The_Axe]

I just noticed that the Incan Empire was starting up just as Zheng He's voyages were ending. It's possible that the Incans might never have risen to such power, had the Chinese been in the picture.

[code_grey]

they would have been less inhibited by "thou shall not kill and steal without big necessity" Christian-inspired principles (e.g. here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zunghar_Khanate#Fall is a nice little 18th century genocide and land grab that you will not hear mourned by bleeding heart Chinese liberals, if any such exist) but less capable of rapid expansion due to technical limitations and, possibly, bureaucratic inertia. At least bureaucracy would have been an issue if Beijing were to try ruling from afar like Madrid did, as opposed to the local merchants and warlords striking out on their own. Come to think of it, a major goal for the hypothetical Chinese viceroy might well have been keeping his subjects from spreading out too far out of his control where they, God forbid, could end up starting their own states and ignoring the rule of the Son of Heaven. So the policy might end up being deliberately anti-expansionist instead of the manifest destiny sort.

[TriPolar]

Were the Europeans substantially ahead of China in gun technology in the 1400's? If so, I would think Indians would have a better chance of defending their land.

How about the diseases carried by the Chinese? Did they have contagious diseases that could have had the devastating effect of smallpox?

[BrainGlutton]

Fair enough. Not native Chinese though - Mongol of some sort. That is why his emperor was still looking outwards but the Mandarins had got to the next one.

No, the Ming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ming_Dynasty) dynasty was pure Han-Chinese. (Zheng He was of Persian and Mongol descent.)

[Little Nemo]

Hard to say. The Chinese never had any overseas empire so there's no historical parallel.

The Chinese did colonize regions adjacent to their ancestral homelands and when they did they essentially overwhelmed the local culture and just made the colonized area into a part of a bigger China. But it seems unlikely they could have had that kind of effect across an ocean barrier.

[Der Trihs]

they would have been less inhibited by "thou shall not kill and steal without big necessity" Christian-inspired principles:rolleyes: No, they wouldn't have been "less inhibited" because the European colonists weren't inhibited at all about slaughtering the Native Americans. Quite often in the name of Christianity. Especially since one of those "big necessity Christian-inspired principles" that justify killing people was someone not being a Christian.

[Tamerlane]

Were the Europeans substantially ahead of China in gun technology in the 1400's?

Not really, no.

How about the diseases carried by the Chinese? Did they have contagious diseases that could have had the devastating effect of smallpox?

Yes, it was called smallpox ;).

[Malthus]

Were the Europeans substantially ahead of China in gun technology in the 1400's? If so, I would think Indians would have a better chance of defending their land.

How about the diseases carried by the Chinese? Did they have contagious diseases that could have had the devastating effect of smallpox?

Basically:

1. In the 1400s, Chinese guns were on a par with Europe's.

2. China suffered from much the same diseases as Europeans.

Edit: D'oh. Ninja'd by Tamerlane.

[GlennRayinTroy]

The debate so far seems to have focused on the possibility of Chinese colonization of those areas claimed by Spain. How about the Pacific Northwest and Alaska? Would China consider the Bering Strait only a slight waterway between the mainland of China and other territories that might be considered "adjacent to their ancestral homelands"?

[Captain Amazing]

:rolleyes: No, they wouldn't have been "less inhibited" because the European colonists weren't inhibited at all about slaughtering the Native Americans. Quite often in the name of Christianity. Especially since one of those "big necessity Christian-inspired principles" that justify killing people was someone not being a Christian.

That's not really true. Relationships between Native Americans and colonists were complicated and not always violent. In the English colonies, at least, you'd usually get a treaty between the Native tribes in the region and the colonists. When violence happened, it was usually due to miscommunication and retaliation over incidents, and the results could be tragic, but it usually wasn't just spontaneous "lets kill some Natives". And, while I'm willing to believe it happened, off the top of my head, I can't think of any major Native-colonial conflict that was started merely because the natives weren't Christian or some colonial desire to kill non-Christians.

[even sven]

I think the Chinese economy will play a major role in what happened. Colonialism didn't really kick off until the industrial revolution came into full swing, and people suddenly needed markets and raw materials on a massive scale. Without an industrialized capitalist system, there may not have been as much motivation to maintain overseas colonies.

[China Guy]

The Chinese colonized outside of core China multiple times. As for how the American Indians would have fared just ask the Manchurians, Mongolians or Tibetans. For those of you playing at home, this translates into the American Indians would probably have disappeared as a seperate identity or shoved onto reservations.

[Captain Amazing]

Or more so, the Yue, who've retained even less of their cultural identity than the Manchu, Mongolians, and Tibetans, in large part, because China controlled them for longer. We don't even know what language the Yue people spoke anymore.

[China Guy]

IIRC, The Yue controlled more of modern China than the Han originally. So did the Zhuang for that matter. And the Nanzhao Kingdom rivaled Tang China.

Aren't the Yue likely to be the modern Fujian and/or Cantonese?

[BrainGlutton]

And, while I'm willing to believe it happened, off the top of my head, I can't think of any major Native-colonial conflict that was started merely because the natives weren't Christian or some colonial desire to kill non-Christians.

Cortez and his band conquered the Aztec Empire for gain, of course, but the non-Christian religion of the Aztecs must have been an additional motivator. Mind you, that is rather an extreme example even for the New World.

[Captain Amazing]

Aren't the Yue likely to be the modern Fujian and/or Cantonese?

At least party. The Fuijianese and Cantonese are probably a mixture of Han colonists and native Baiyue peoples.

[BrainGlutton]

IIRC, The Yue controlled more of modern China than the Han originally. So did the Zhuang for that matter. And the Nanzhao Kingdom rivaled Tang China.

Aren't the Yue likely to be the modern Fujian and/or Cantonese?

:dubious: OK, now you're just making up words.

[BrainGlutton]

Were the Europeans substantially ahead of China in gun technology in the 1400's? If so, I would think Indians would have a better chance of defending their land.

The Chinese still would have had steel swords, and steel-headed polearms, and archers, including horse archers, with better bows than the Indians', and body armor. And superior numbers. They would have cut to pieces any Indian force that had not both acquired and learned to use the Chinese weapons -- if it engaged them openly.

Of course, whenever the Chinese tried to conquer the northern steppes, it never worked out -- they usually found the Mongols/Turks/Tartars/Hsiung-Nu/etc. had no cities to attack, and would kind of melt into the landscape and harass the imperial army with here-and-gone cavalry charges.

[Sailboat]

Were the Europeans substantially ahead of China in gun technology in the 1400's? If so, I would think Indians would have a better chance of defending their land.

The Chinese still would have had steel swords, and steel-headed polearms, and archers, including horse archers, with better bows than the Indians', and body armor. And superior numbers. They would have cut to pieces any Indian force that had not both acquired and learned to use the Chinese weapons -- if it engaged them openly.

Right. As Guns, Germs, and Steel observes, at the Battle of Cajamarca, the Spanish had only 14 matchlock guns and faced 80,000 warriors whose morale was high (they had just been victorious in civil war). It was the Spanish steel armor and swords that made the difference -- 6,000-7,000 Incans were killed, and you can bet that wasn't the work of 14 muzzle-loading matchlocks.

The complete technological package of horses, armor, steel weapons, and logistics would have been more than enough to assure dominance, but the Asians (like the Europeans) also had a philosophy of decisive battle and a written historical memory of past events by which to judge current events. Jared Diamond pointed out that at Cajamarca, the Incan emperor Atahualpa was suspicious of the Spanish and knew (from spies) they were not gods, but he was young (in his thirties) and had only the knowledge of treachery and political machination he had been able to acquire personally or from the advice of courtiers; he was ill-prepared for the encounter. The Spanish, by contrast, had had access to a vast written history of malfeasance and dirty tricks and knew exactly what they were doing.

Any Eurasian power would have been an overmatch for North American natives.

However, I'll advance the argument that a Chinese discovery of America would have had no more permanent effect than an Italian/Spanish one did, or the French colonization of North America, for that matter. Just arriving is only part of the story. The continent would have gone to whichever power made the most serious effort to settle on a large scale. Neither the Vikings nor the Spanish nor the French made this effort.

The native Americans were unfortunately certain to suffer disabling epidemics from any contact, but it was the settlement that made their defeat and marginalization inevitable.

[MarcusF]

I think the Chinese economy will play a major role in what happened. Colonialism didn't really kick off until the industrial revolution came into full swing, and people suddenly needed markets and raw materials on a massive scale. Without an industrialized capitalist system, there may not have been as much motivation to maintain overseas colonies.Your joking?! Spanish and Portugese colonies in south and central America from the middle of the 16th century; industrial revolution the second half of the 18th century at the earliest.

Two hundred years of colonialism and empire had nothing to do with the industrial revolution.

[Blake]

However, I'll advance the argument that a Chinese discovery of America would have had no more permanent effect than an Italian/Spanish one did, or the French colonization of North America, for that matter. Just arriving is only part of the story. The continent would have gone to whichever power made the most serious effort to settle on a large scale. Neither the Vikings nor the Spanish nor the French made this effort.

But the Spanish did not colonise in large part because they only had access the tropical Americas, and a lot of their experience with the temperate parts was disappointing swamp, desert and grassland. The Spanish culture, genetics and agriculture simply weren't equipped to deal with the tropics and subtropics. Spanish peasants in particular seem to have been reluctant to settle in the new world because of the unfamiliarity of the climate and the necessity of using native agriculture.

In contrast a good chunk of of China is tropical, and much of the rest of the arable land is subtropical. The Chinese had been living in the tropics for millennia and had long perfected tropical agriculture. In fact through the use of tropical crops such as rice and animals such as buffalo and indicus cattle the Chinese would almost certainly have enhanced local food production.

So it is entirely possible that Chinese would have colonised the tropical Americas just as readily as they colonised tropical China, and with the same effect on the indigenous population.

[even sven]

Your joking?! Spanish and Portugese colonies in south and central America from the middle of the 16th century; industrial revolution the second half of the 18th century at the earliest.

Two hundred years of colonialism and empire had nothing to do with the industrial revolution.

It's my impression that early colonialism had more in common with old-fashioned plunder (viking raids and the like) than the drive to create governments overseas. Colonization during the Age of Discovery mostly created limited trade outposts and religious missions. The goal was to create coastal outposts- often heavily armed- that could act as centers of trade and plunder through forays into the continent. But it wasn't really about governing the local populations, and the cultural effects of this period on local populations was limited.

In the early 1700s, the nature of colonization begane to change as the financial instruments of modern capitalism emerged. It was modern finance and the creation of corporations and stocks that made colonialism as a system of directly governing foreign populations overseas possible.

As for the industrial revolution, the two systems really evolved together. The "golden age" of colonialism was one of industrialized empire. Both systems complement each other's "sweet spot."

China's economic system will have played a major role in the purpose and scope of their colonization.

[Captain Amazing]

However, I'll advance the argument that a Chinese discovery of America would have had no more permanent effect than an Italian/Spanish one did. . .

I don't really understand that. You've got something like 450 million Spanish speakers in America. Pretty much all of Central and South America and the Caribbean use law codes based on the Spanish one. Those countries are almost entirely Catholic, the religion of Spain. They've adopted Spanish traditions and culture. Spain didn't lose their last colonies in America until 1898, when they gave Cuba independence and gave Puerto Rico to the US That's something like 400 years of Spanish rule. So, how did the Spanish discovery of America have no permanent effect?

[MarcusF]

It's my impression that early colonialism had more in common with old-fashioned plunder (viking raids and the like) than the drive to create governments overseas. Colonization during the Age of Discovery mostly created limited trade outposts and religious missions. The goal was to create coastal outposts- often heavily armed- that could act as centers of trade and plunder through forays into the continent. But it wasn't really about governing the local populations, and the cultural effects of this period on local populations was limited. This is just wrong - look up the history of the Caribbean and South America - or for that matter north America. The local populations were exploited, governed, and profoundly changed. There were major differences in colonisation in north and south America in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries but in neither case was it confined to "coastal outposts".

In the early 1700s, the nature of colonization begane to change as the financial instruments of modern capitalism emerged. It was modern finance and the creation of corporations and stocks that made colonialism as a system of directly governing foreign populations overseas possible.As noted colonisation started earlier than this.

As for the industrial revolution, the two systems really evolved together. The "golden age" of colonialism was one of industrialized empire. Both systems complement each other's "sweet spot." You are confusing colonisation with nineteenth century "Imperialism". They are not necessarily synonymous.

China's economic system will have played a major role in the purpose and scope of their colonization.This is self evidently true but does not take the argument as to how the native population would have fared much forward.

[smiling bandit]

In the early 1700s, the nature of colonization begane to change as the financial instruments of modern capitalism emerged. It was modern finance and the creation of corporations and stocks that made colonialism as a system of directly governing foreign populations overseas possible.

Well before the 1700's, at last in the Spanish and Portuguese territories. Really, what held them back was only the problem of scale. Spain colonized a significant chunk of the earth's landmass in that period. Unlike most of England's colonialism, they spread out across it.


Eventually, Englishment got themselves into gear and took over most of North America. But they didn't in India, East Asia, or Africa.

[BrainGlutton]

The complete technological package of horses, armor, steel weapons, and logistics would have been more than enough to assure dominance, but the Asians (like the Europeans) also had a philosophy of decisive battle and a written historical memory of past events by which to judge current events. Jared Diamond pointed out that at Cajamarca, the Incan emperor Atahualpa was suspicious of the Spanish and knew (from spies) they were not gods, but he was young (in his thirties) and had only the knowledge of treachery and political machination he had been able to acquire personally or from the advice of courtiers; he was ill-prepared for the encounter. The Spanish, by contrast, had had access to a vast written history of malfeasance and dirty tricks and knew exactly what they were doing.

I don't think you need to have read Machiavelli or Sun Tzu, to think of something as obvious as "lure the enemy's god-king to a parley and capture him." An Inca general -- well, certainly an Aztec general -- might have thought of it, and pulled it off.

[code_grey]

:rolleyes: No, they wouldn't have been "less inhibited" because the European colonists weren't inhibited at all about slaughtering the Native Americans. Quite often in the name of Christianity. Especially since one of those "big necessity Christian-inspired principles" that justify killing people was someone not being a Christian.

if white Christians killed many Amerindians it doesn't mean that Chinese non-Christians would not have killed many more and much faster. Also with a lot less hand wringing and without Der Trihs type of people bitching about it forever after. Like I pointed out, there were plenty of savagery, even to the point of genocide in Chinese history - and they don't bitch about it. It's par the course from the standpoint of the culture.

[pinguin]

If Zheng He conquered the Americas he would have turned all the indians gay and made them dance around in frilly laces! ;)


I doubt it. Zeng He was a castrati...

[pinguin]

Not too well. The Han are famous for displacing and absorbing indigenous non-Han peoples within what is now China. There still exist minority groups within what is now China, but in relatively small numbers: they are something like 9% of the population.


I am afraid there is a small mystake here. The Han were very bad sailors, and Zeng He wasn't from the Han dynasty but from the early Ming dynasty: more than a thousand years later.


The main damage to aboriginal Americans came from imported old world diseases like smallpox. This would be no different if the Chinese rather than Europeans invaded.


I think the myth of the native extinction by diseases has been an excellent excuse to hide the largest genocide in history.


OTOH the Chinese had no interest in spreading their native religion(s); no missionaries, no crusading fervour.

Chinese had not interest in spreading its empire. They wanted to spread theirs routes of commerce.
I could bet Native Americans would have had it better under a friendly Chinese relation, that would help them to improve theirs technology and give the big jump, rather than by the violent and inhuman European invasion of the Americas.

To bad history can be changed.

[Sakuma Drops]

I think the myth of the native extinction by diseases has been an excellent excuse to hide the largest genocide in history.I don't think too many historians use the extermination-by-disease theory as an "excuse" for Europeans considering that in at least one case Europeans at minimum considered using diseased blankets to kill natives. (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1088/did-whites-ever-give-native-americans-blankets-infected-with-smallpox)

Aside from that, in some cases there were undoubtedly unintended mass native deaths from unfamiliar diseases in the New World. On colonial Hispaniola, for example, IIRC the first Spanish settlers there were more interested in exploiting the native population for slave labor than killing them outright (not that enslaving them was any better). However, the Spaniards ended up having to import slave labor from Africa when the natives began to die en masse from smallpox.

[pinguin]

In the Caribbean, natives were assimilated. The fact is so many native women assimilated to the settler's society that this destroyed the tribal peoples. Today, 1/3 of the Cuban mtDNA is still Indigenous. Black slaves were imported to the Caribbean not because Indians were extinct, but because the crown forbade the slavery of Indigenous peoples, as suggested by Las Casas.

When I think in cruelty I actually think in Spaniards, but above all in Portugueses. However, when I think in Genocide, what comes to my mind are the British settlers of North America.

[Sakuma Drops]

In the Caribbean, natives were assimilated. The fact is so many native women assimilated to the settler's society that this destroyed the tribal peoples. Today, 1/3 of the Cuban mtDNA is still Indigenous. Black slaves were imported to the Caribbean not because Indians were extinct, but because the crown forbade the slavery of Indigenous peoples, as suggested by Las Casas.While intermarriage was a big factor, there's not really any doubt that diseases also contributed majorly to the decline of the native populations. The indigenous population of Hispaniola, for example, was reduced from roughly 300,000 to just 1,000 over a period of less than fifty years (http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/preparedness/bt_public_history_smallpox.shtm), most of these deaths being due to smallpox. Smallpox outbreaks were common among the native populations in colonial New England as well. It is possible that even Pocahontas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pocahontas#Death) may have died of smallpox (although she had been assimilated into English society before then).

Again, the disease issues don't absolve the European settlers of responsibility for the cruel treatment or persecution of the natives, but they were clearly a factor in the decline of the indigenous populations along with various other atrocities.

[Tamerlane]

I am afraid there is a small mystake here. The Han were very bad sailors, and Zeng He wasn't from the Han dynasty but from the early Ming dynasty: more than a thousand years later.

I don't believe Malthus was referring to the Han dynasty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_Dynasty), but rather to the modern Han ethnic group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_Chinese), itself the result of many generations of amalgamation and assimilation.

[pinguin]

While intermarriage was a big factor, there's not really any doubt that diseases also contributed majorly to the decline of the native populations. The indigenous population of Hispaniola, for example, was reduced from roughly 300,000 to just 1,000 over a period of less than fifty years, most of these deaths being due to smallpox.


While there is no doubt infectious diseases affected Native populations, claiming a reduction from 300 to 1 by infections alone is simply ridiculous, and show how ignorant are many researchers. For instance, the native population of the whole Caribbean was around 100.000 at contact. As usual, the numbers of the original populations have been skyrocketed by modern "experts" that want to show a big decline, so increase the initial figures. Something it is not know is how many escaped to Mexico or Venezuela when Europeans arrived, which make sense given the Caribbean natives crossed the Atlantic as a routine. What it is known, though, it is that many Indigenous caribbeans went to Mexico with the Spaniards during the conquest of those territories.

In second place, 50 years afterwars, the natives declined, but how many were natives at that time? 50 years is three generations! That means, most of the population would be mixed already, and not counted as Indigenous. Indigenous people, in early "census" were only the people that weren't Christians!



Smallpox outbreaks were common among the native populations in colonial New England as well. It is possible that even Pocahontas may have died of smallpox (although she had been assimilated into English society before then).


Yes, Pocahontas died of infectious diseases, but only after going to England! He lived enough to get marry and had a child, which shows that infectious disease weren't as fast and radical as the popular mythology tells.


Again, the disease issues don't absolve the European settlers of responsibility for the cruel treatment or persecution of the natives, but they were clearly a factor in the decline of the indigenous populations along with various other atrocities.

Of course it doesn't. Most indigenous people that disapeared were exterminated by Europeans, not by germs.

[Tamerlane]

For instance, the native population of the whole Caribbean was around 100.000 at contact. As usual, the numbers of the original populations have been skyrocketed by modern "experts" that want to show a big decline, so increase the initial figures. Most indigenous people that disapeared were exterminated by Europeans, not by germs.

You have a cite for that figure? As far as I've read that represents the very lowest estimate for the island of Hispaniola itself, exclusive of the rest of the pre-Colombian Caribbean.

You're certainly correct that pre-Colombian population figures have become a somewhat politicized topics and I'd absolutely agree that the very highest figures appear to be untenable fantasies ( i.e. a population of 8,000,000 on Hispaniola ). Nonetheless scholarly consensus, even on the conservative side, seems to be that disease was definitely the biggest cause of demographic decline in the Americas and probably by a very substantial margin. There are simply too many eyewitness accounts to dismiss them blithely. Las Casas may have been functionally innumerate, the great bulk of pre-modern observers were and their numbers untrustworthy. But the general sense of catastrophic decline due to disease in particular was pervasive and probably indicates a broader truth. We have even much more modern records of the devastation of smallpox on the Plains Indians in the early 19th century and though dealing with much smaller populations the observed damage to small, agricultural, village-bound tribes like the Mandan accords well with the accounts from the 16th century.

[pinguin]

My sources come from a Spanish Almanac printed in Miami for the 1992 celebration. I can find it for you if you want.

If the native population was so fragile, like some New Age scientists believe. How could you explain then that in places like Mexico, the Central American and the Andes the Amerindian population predominates, either in pure or mixed form?

With respect to catastrophic declines, as I said before, people never remember intermarriage, migration and population movements in the 50 years since contact.

As I said before, the best indicator that population was assimilated rather than just got extincted is in genetics.

[BrainGlutton]

If the native population was so fragile, like some New Age scientists believe. How could you explain then that in places like Mexico, the Central American and the Andes the Amerindian population predominates, either in pure or mixed form?

Because the pre-Columbian population of what is now Latin America was much greater than that north of the Rio Grande, and because, even decimated by war and disease, they vastly outnumbered the Spanish settlers. (Except in the Caribbean and Florida, where the native populations were driven practically extinct. We have Indians in Florida, the Seminoles, but they did not arrive here until the 18th Century.)

But, depopulation there was. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_American_indigenous_peoples)

Given the fragmentary nature of the evidence, even semi-accurate pre-Columbian population figures are impossible to obtain. Estimates are made by extrapolations from small bits of data. In 1976, geographer William Denevan used the existing estimates to derive a "consensus count" of about 54 million people. Nonetheless, more recent estimates still range widely.[2]

Using an estimate of approximately 30 million people in 1492 (including 15 million in the Aztec Empire and 6 million in the Inca Empire), the lowest estimates give a death toll due from disease of an astonishing 80% by the end of the 17th century (8 million people in 1650).[3] Latin America would only recover its 15th century population early in the 20th century; it numbered 17 million in 1800, 30 million in 1850, 61 million in 1900, 105 million in 1930, 218 million in 1960, 361 million in 1980, and 563 million in 2005.[3] In the last three decades of the 16th century, the population of present-day Mexico dropped to about one million people.[3] The Maya population is today estimated at 6 million, which is about the same as at the end of the 15th century, according to some estimates.[3] In what is now Brazil, the indigenous population declined from a pre-Columbian high of an estimated 4 million to some 300,000.

While it is difficult to determine exactly how many Natives lived in North America before Columbus,[4] estimates range from a low of 2.1 million (Ubelaker 1976) to 7 million people to (Russell Thornton) to a high of 18 million (Dobyns 1983).[5]

The Aboriginal population of Canada during the late 15th century is estimated to have been between 200,000[6] and two million,[7] with a figure of 500,000 currently accepted by Canada's Royal Commission on Aboriginal Health.[8] Repeated outbreaks of European infectious diseases such as influenza, measles and smallpox (to which they had no natural immunity), combined with dispossession from European/Canadian settlements and repressive policies, resulted in a forty to eighty percent aboriginal population decrease post-contact.[6] For example, during the late 1630s, smallpox killed over half of the Wyandot (Huron), who controlled most of the early North American fur trade in what became Canada, were reduced to fewer than 10,000 people.

[pinguin]

15 millions for the Aztec Empire and 6 millions for the Inca is an ridiculous exageration. Come on, the whole Mexico had less that 30 million people at the beginnings of the 20th century!

With that dishonest schollarship it is easy to prove wathever the "scientist" wishes.

If one wants to have an idea about the density of the Amerindian population at contact, it is easy to read the book about the topic by Cabeza de Vaca. Surprisingly, North America was almost empty.

[Blake]

15 millions for the Aztec Empire and 6 millions for the Inca is an ridiculous exageration. Come on, the whole Mexico had less that 30 million people at the beginnings of the 20th century!

This seems like a total non sequitur.

You accept Mexico was easily able to support 30 million in 1900 when it was rife with infectious diseases.
The Aztec empire covered over 25% of that area, and much of what is excluded is semi-arid rangeland of low productive value.
Yet you find it impossible to believe that this large area of highly productive land with few infectious diseases was utterly unable to support half the population.

Are you suggesting that soil fertility declined dramatically in the intervening years or what?

With that dishonest schollarship it is easy to prove wathever the "scientist" wishes.

Dishonest is a strong claim to make. Please provide evidence of this dishonesty.

If one wants to have an idea about the density of the Amerindian population at contact, it is easy to read the book about the topic by Cabeza de Vaca.

No, it isn't easy because we don;t have the name of the book or the publisher. With the information given it is impossible.

Surprisingly, North America was almost empty.

No, it wasn't.

[pinguin]

This seems like a total non sequitur.

You accept Mexico was easily able to support 30 million in 1900 when it was rife with infectious diseases.
The Aztec empire covered over 25% of that area, and much of what is excluded is semi-arid rangeland of low productive value.
Yet you find it impossible to believe that this large area of highly productive land with few infectious diseases was utterly unable to support half the population.


That's just guessing. The Guessing game.

People forget that in ancient times the world has a density a lot smaller than today. And also forget that infectious diseases existed in the Americas BEFORE the Europeans arrived.

Some people also forgot Europeans and African weren't immune to the same diseases. And they also forgot intermarriage in Latin America was widespread, something impossible to had happened if diseases were so deadly.

You are just deffending an intellectual fashion. There is no science here, giving the fact there wasn't a census at contact. All we have is guessing, and the figures for guessing are increasing at a rate of 10% per decade. If the guessing game continue, at 2030 we would be speaking that the Americas had 20 billion people at contact. :D

[Blake]

That's just guessing.

No, it isn't guessing. BrainGlutonhas already provided the references which will give you the scientific methodology upon which those figures were based.

The only guessing being done here is by you. You still haven't explained what methodology allowed you to conclude that it was impossible for Mexico to suport that number of people.

People forget that in ancient times the world has a density a lot smaller than today.

Are you saying that a population of 15 million for humid Mexico is not much lower than today? :eek:

And if you concede that 15 million is a much lower population density, then that is support for the figure. No?

You seem to be trying to support non sequiturs with more non-sequiturs.


And also forget that infectious diseases existed in the Americas BEFORE the Europeans arrived.

Nobody has forgotten that.

Some people also forgot Europeans and African weren't immune to the same diseases.

The same as each other, or the same as the Natives? Because if you are claiming the latter you are plain wrong.


And they also forgot intermarriage in Latin America was widespread, something impossible to had happened if diseases were so deadly.

Rubbish. Brainglutton already explained this too you. Do you need me to repost it for you?

You are just deffending an intellectual fashion.

Well I;m convinced. :rolleyes:

There is no science here, giving the fact there wasn't a census at contact.All we have is guessing, and the figures for guessing are increasing at a rate of 10% per decade.

No, that isn't true.

BrainGlutonhas already provided the references which will give you the scientific methodology upon which those figures were based.

The only non-scientific figures being thrown around are by you. You still haven't explained what methodology allowed you to conclude that it was impossible for Mexico to support that number of people.

[MaxTheVool]

One comment... and I may just be refusing to buy into the hypothetical.... the Pacific ocean is WAY WAY WAY bigger than the Atlantic... so the logistics of colonizing and keeping control of the colony would be vastly more difficult, even if the ship-building and navigation technologies were on par.

[drastic_quench]

It's interesting to think about what would've happened when European and Chinese trailblazers met each other in the Midwest, perhaps at the Mississippi River, in the early 1600s.

That said, if the Chinese landed on the west coast and brought their diseases with them, those diseases would have eventually spread across the continent via trade routes as happened historically. If the Chinese didn't go further inland than the west coast, or even the Rockies, those diseases would have had the time to decimate Indian populations but also for those populations to rebound somewhat and strengthened with immunities. Depending on the timing of European arrival, they could be at their weakest or thoroughly rebounded. The plains Indians in particular would've had the most amount of time to rebound before being confronted with a human enemy - Chinese or European.

[Malthus]

I am afraid there is a small mystake here. The Han were very bad sailors, and Zeng He wasn't from the Han dynasty but from the early Ming dynasty: more than a thousand years later.

"Han" as in "Han Chinese" the ethnic group. The "Han dynasty" was much earlier than our period.

Zeng He himself was some sort of ethnic central asian muslim, but that is beside the point.

I think the myth of the native extinction by diseases has been an excellent excuse to hide the largest genocide in history.

Any support for the notion that the impact of disease on the native population was a "myth"?

Chinese had not interest in spreading its empire. They wanted to spread theirs routes of commerce.
I could bet Native Americans would have had it better under a friendly Chinese relation, that would help them to improve theirs technology and give the big jump, rather than by the violent and inhuman European invasion of the Americas.

To bad history can be changed.

I disagree that the Chinese had no interest in spreading their empire. They certainly did spread - at one point, Tang soldiers battled Arabs at the Talas river in what is now Kazakhstan, pretty far west of what we think of as "China" proper (the Chinese lost); the Chinese rampaged south until they were blocked by serious Vietnamese resistence, absorbing in a colonial manner the ethnic groupings in ther path ... what stopped the Chinese was not a lack of interest in expansion, but the threat posed by the steppe nomads, particularly under the Ming (who had just kicked out the Mongol dynasty and were destined to be once again taken over by the Manchu).

In short, the notion that the Chinese would have been significantly friendlier and less disruptive to natives than europeans is I think misplaced. It is true that the Chinese did not establish overseas colonies, but that was expressly because they had more pressing concerns closer to home, and no really compelling reasons for such colonies (the Zeng He expeditions were given up because they *cost* money, better spend on anti-nomad defenses - the Euro colonies *made* money, at least initially).

Moreover, not all european relations with natives were bad from the native POV. Certainly if you were a carib the Spanish were a disaster - but not necessarlily if you were a native in the French sphere. Contact with euros for some meant access to guns in exchange for furs.