Of course not. There most certainly was a deliberate policy of running off the native population.
Well, the population never really reconstituted and epidemics did continue to ravage the native population, but not to the same degree that it did in the 16th and 17th centuries.
But most of the destruction to the native population had already been done. The US effort was more like a mopping up job against the survivors.
Well, remember that the precolumbian population of Mexico was 2-3 times more numerous than the population in what is now the US and Canada. And it was more concentrated in large urban centers than in the rest of North America.
The Spanish found it more profitable to use the native population of Mexico as slaves/peasants. Since they were already in a similar arrangement under the Aztecs (not saying the Aztecs were a feudal society in the European sense, but that they had a social hierarchy with lots of settled agricultural land, a system of tribute, land ownership, etc. and it was easier for the Spanish to step in at the top.) it made sense for the Spanish to just step in and use the available social structure for their own needs.
My guess is you also had a fair amount of interbreeding because of this - similar to what happened with white landowners and black slaves (in the sense of sexual relations - not chattel slavery). Also, a lot of the inital conquistadors, soldiers and administrators didn’t bring families with them to settle, so they sometimes took native women as wives - although usually not the aristocratic Spaniards.
Contrast this with the situation in the English colonies and you get a picture of what happened. There wasn’t that same social structure in the US and the nature of the early settlers was different, so different policies arose. While the Spanish certainly weren’t kind to the native populations of Mexico, they also didn’t have the running off of the native population that occurred north of them.
Well…I know nothing about this issue, but still… Are you basing this statement on some knowledge about the percentage of the german population who was opposed to Hitler’s policy and about the percentage of the american population who was opposed to policies re. Amerindians or do you state that just because you like it better that way?
Plenty of germans have been arrested, executed, deported, etc…What makes you think they weren’t opposed to the nazi policies regarding the Jews?
Also lets not forget the first victims of Nazism were Germans, and the first Jews to be targeted were German Jews. And that about 300,000 German Jews were driven out and about 170,000 killed. Many of those probably had no idea they were anything but Germans, let alone Jews, until they were singled out.
That’s what I believe too. The holocaust is only perceived as unique because it’s recent and involved western people on both sides, IMO. Had a similar event happened 300 years ago, or recently but in some some african or asian country, there wouldn’t be much discussion about its “uniqueness (?)”. But i would likely be flammed or pinned to a wall for stating such a thing publically here (I mean in france, not on the SD)
Eh, you’d be correct. I’m assuming they’re nice? What in Connecticut isn’t?
My experience with the few reservations I’ve visted in different parts of the country have been identical: squalid mobile homes with ancient parted out cars all over the yard…Ok, so things *haven’t *really changed since before the Euros came except that the homes are a tad less mobile now.
What Neurotik and Dseid said to a large extent. Run-off certainly, eradication occasionally ( most often I’d say in the context of early settlement, when there was still a policy of using Indian slaves in certain colonies - for example the Wampanoag were quite deliberately decimated in the aftermath of King Phillip’s War ).
Well, the one thing to remember is that the ‘Indian Wars’ were virtually continuous from the founding of the first colonies to the late 19th century. From the the first clash with the Powhatan in 1607 to the termination of the Plains Wars at the massacre at Wounded Knee in 1890 ( really that fight had ended some years earlier, but that was the symbolic finale ). There is a pretty decent survey of the earlier Indian Wars called Warpaths: Invasions of North America by Ian K. Steele ( 1994, Oxford University Press ) that covers the period 1513 ( but particularly post-1565 ) - 1765. Well worth picking up.
But yes, disease continued to be an issue. As an example the Comanche were probably the single most numerous of the plains tribes, but they were hit by repeatedsmallpox epidemics 1839, 1848-1851, and 1862. The 1848-1851 ( actually a cluster of outbreaks ) alone appears to have dropped the Comanche population from ~20,000 to ~12,000.
I’m not sure what you mean exactly. Mentionning these seem to support my point, since nobody is arguing that they were specific or unique.
On the other hand, I’m not sure why you would list these massacres as a response to my post if you didn’t, in some way, disagree with me.
Or perhaps you just intended to illustrate what I said. I honestly don’t know…
I named Davy Crockett, a famous political leader who is on record to stop indian lands from being taken from them, and to make sure the indians were always treated right and with dignity. As I recall, Davy was not the only one in congress who opposed Andrew Jackson moving the cherokee off their lands.
Furthermore, it never was the policiy of our government to exterminate anyone. Our government wanted treaties, and in the end, moving them to reservations. Congress never approved exterminating any tribe.
All thru the 1800’s, congress was continually trying to make treaties with the indians, and to stop the killing, on both sides. The intent of nearly every president and every congress was to make peace with the indians.
Although some white people killed indians, even military people, it was not the policy(official or unofficial) of the US government to commit genocide - unlike germany.
Lastly, the indians killed a lot of white people during the 1700’s and 1800’s, unlike the jews who did not kill germans, did not make raids on german towns and homes, did not scalp german citizens, etc. It is somewhat more understandable to see why some whites killed, or tried to kill, the indians who killed and scalped someones family.
Well, there’s the “slight” matter of who invaded whose lands. It’s not like the Indians sent a letter to 15th Century Europe saying: “Y’all come on over. And bring 300 million of your closest relatives. We’ve got lots of land to share with you.”
Indian tribes were constantly taking land away from each other, it was their way, and it was nothing new for a stronger tribe(whites) to take over land.
The commanche and apache once “owned” little land.
The Souix were originally from Canada, before they took land away from the indians in Minnesota, then they took land away from indians in the Dakaotas, then took land away from indians in colorado, montana, wyoming, etc.
There was really no such thing as "ownership " of land, and certainly not any ownership of parcels of land by individuals.
The indians pretty much let whoever was stronger take whatever land they wanted, didnt really matter if the stronger tribe was red or white.
If the Souix took lands in the Dakotas by force(stealing), they really had little moral ground to complain when someone stronger than the Souix took it from them.
W-w-w-wha–? (rubs eyes, wipes monitor, double-checks post, responds:)
“Little moral ground to complain” about land invasion by competing groups of capitalistic pirates hell-bent on conquering new territory for themselves (not just Sioux land) and subsequent WAVES of immigrants – who also possessed vastly superior weaponry (guns), new, superior modes of transportation (horses, ocean-going vessels) to conquer, AND used religious subjugation, eradication/supression of native cultures and – on top of everything else – introduced decimating pandemic disease and alcohol?
That’s one HELL of an interesting moral compass you’ve got there, Susie. Tell me: when two little kids have a fistfight over a toy, do they have cause to complain when a new kid walks up with a slingshot, stomps them both into the ground with steel-toed boots, waves the toy in the air and says, “Mine! … and all my brothers’ and sisters’, too!”
Indians that traded for guns, typically took land away from their neighbors who didnt have guns yet. The Commanche and Cheyenne were able to take land away from their neighboring tribes because of their use of the horse. Nothing new about losing land to superior forces when whites came. Taking land away from neighboring tribes, if anything, was the indian way, that the whites adopted.
Taking land away from a tribe that previously stole that land from another tribe is stealing from a thief. If you think any thief is on high moral grounds by complaining when the goods he stole end up stolen from him, then that is your position.
It’s a doctrine called “Law of Conquest”. It’s now an obsolete theory of law, but it existed as recently as the 19th century. It says that if one nation conquers another, the conquered land then falls under the jurisdiction of the conqueror. As Chief Justice Marshall puts it in Johnson v. Mcintosh:
Like I said, it’s not generally considered valid anymore, and aggressive war is generally seen as legally illegitimate.
:rolleyes:
It’s true. Why, those whites had never before encountered a war of conquest before. Back in Europe, everyone sat on their own land and didn’t bother their neighbors at any time, except to sometimes ask for a cup of sugar or something.
First of all let me say that Cortes and Pizarro are the first spanish conquerors, not the best examples of the spanish conquest (or humanity) but not long after them came the Crown.
There is a peculiar difference between spanish and english, race was a bigger issue for the latter. And at the end that is one reason (an important one)why the spanish mixed with the locals and why the english did not.
Religion plays an important role too. The spanish conquest was earlier than the english, it was started in the middle ages by the most medieval people, and leadered by the most medieval kings.
By the Tordesilla Treaty the Pope granted the Catholic Kings america but with an important condition: they were not only conquering for Spain but, more importantly, also for God. They had the duty of converting “the savages”.
I am as cynic as the next guy, but Fernando an Isabel weren’t, they were true believers (and If you ar not convinced read about the inquisition). Therefore they weren’t interested in genocide but in conversion, in winning new souls.
That is why the Crown is always the protector of the indians: as earlier as 1542 laws were enacted that defended the rights of Spain new subjects (“New Laws”, which were subsequently modified").
Because the english conquest belongs to a different age, the salutary restraints of religion are not seen (this is, unlike the previous paragraph, my opinion).
Despite what I said I don’t believe the english conquerors intended to wipe out the indians, the natives were never integrated into society and they simply faded away.-
I will let other more aknowledgeable posters answer about the good will of the american government and its peaceful policies re. the amerindians.
But what you wrote essentially falls down to “the nazis were worst than the americans”. Which doesn’t answer my point. You stated that they were much more americans opposed to the anti-ameridian policies than german people opposed to nazism. And you still didn’t provide any argument backing this statement. I’m still waiting.
As for your “german leaders” opposed to nazism, perhaps you vaguely remember that Hitler’s regime was a dictatorship? What do you think happened to german leaders who opposed Hitler?
Nothing happened. Nothing happened because there were no german leaders opposed to the jewish extermination. There were a few citizens, and a few church leaders in germany who didnt like it, but no high government officials disagreed with Hitler. Germany didnt have any Davy Crocketts nor Daniel Boones.