Was there an Indian Holocaust in America?

[WelshBloke]

I think he was implying that most people consider Genghis Kahn to be a brutal person, yet don't think of the conquering of America in the same light... so there's a lot of bias with how America came to be.

Ah, ok.

I've never really considered that anyone might think that the conquering and subjugation of the Americas could happen in a non brutal way.

 

[Mai72]

Think about this:

Gengis Kahn is estimated to have killed 10's of millions of people via his reign, in just a few decades.

How is that any different (better or worse) than what European settlers did when they reached the Americas?

Yea, I hear you. It's no better.

I guess a lot of bad stuff was going on during that period. It must have been awful to live thru all that carnage. That's if you even made it. 😱

 

[NikolaeVarius]

Ah, ok.

I've never really considered that anyone might think that the conquering and subjugation of the Americas could happen in a non brutal way.

Have you been to P&N recently?

Though at the same time, its important to remember that the Native Americans themselves were not faultless.

Lots of them fought for America against other indian tribes they didn't like. We tend to think of the Native Americans as a monolithic entity, even though there were many different tribes and some of them really hated each other.

 

[PingviN]

Dying from foreign diseases is hardly a holocaust, even if said diseases were brought overseas by foreigners. Unless you plan on calling it biological warfare, but that would be retarded.

 

[waggy]

You can't call it genocide when they die from European diseases brought over as a side effect of Europeans landing there.

sure and when you give them blankets used by people with those diseases it's easier to keep a clear conscience since it was "Gods work"

They knew what they were doing (eventually they figured it out).


was it genocide? yes.

 

[norseamd]

We tend to think of the Native Americans as a monolithic entity, even though there were many different tribes and some of them really hated each other.

One word.

Blackfoot.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Dying from foreign diseases is hardly a holocaust, even if said diseases were brought overseas by foreigners. Unless you plan on calling it biological warfare, but that would be retarded.

This. It really makes me laugh when people claim the Europeans were genocidal and cite smallpox as an example. The spread of smallpox in the New World wasn't a case of biological warfare as far as I know.

To the OP -- I think that if the Indians had all united into one nation, I am not sure the Europeans would've been able to get a foothold in the Americas until a few hundred years later. You cite Cortez who, IIRC, took over an Empire of millions of people with only 500 soldiers, but it wasn't because those 500 soldiers killed hundreds of thousands of people. It was more fear, superstition, and ignorance that caused the Aztecs to collapse in the face of the Spaniards.

 

[IronWing]

Genocides were committed in the Americas by the Europeans. Labeling the whole conquest a single genocide is not appropriate. For example, Spain's systematic depopulation of native villages in Peru for the purpose of feeding its mercury and silver mines IMHO qualifies as a genocide. The Spanish knew that the Indians were being sent to their deaths in the mines and they knew the result would ultimately be no more Indians.

On the other hand, early European explorers in New England triggered epidemics that spread so fast the explorers didn't even encounter most of the people they were killing. IMHO, this wasn't a genocide, but a tragedy.

 

[WelshBloke]

This. It really makes me laugh when people claim the Europeans were genocidal and cite smallpox as an example. The spread of smallpox in the New World wasn't a case of biological warfare as far as I know.

To the OP -- I think that if the Indians had all united into one nation, I am not sure the Europeans would've been able to get a foothold in the Americas until a few hundred years later. You cite Cortez who, IIRC, took over an Empire of millions of people with only 500 soldiers, but it wasn't because those 500 soldiers killed hundreds of thousands of people. It was more fear, superstition, and ignorance that caused the Aztecs to collapse in the face of the Spaniards.

Cortez way outclassed the Americans in arms and armour. Theres no way the natives could have held him off. They might have slowed him down slightly but the slaughter would have been frightful.

Cortés arrived at Tlaxcala, a small independent state within the empire's sphere of influence. The Tlaxcaltecas attacked his troops, but Spanish crossbows, broadswords, battle axes, horses, war dogs and firearms quickly won the battle. Cortés said that if the men of Tlaxcala would accept Christianity, become his allies and vassals to his lord, he would forgive their disrespect and overthrow their nemesis, Emperor Moctezuma. Cortés's "lord" was Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, to whom he made his case by letters, over the head of Velázquez, who, in turn, was trying to make a case over the head of Diego Colón, son of Christopher Columbus and thus Admiral of the Ocean Sea. Otherwise, Cortés threatened, he would kill everyone in their entire nation.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

It was more fear, superstition, and ignorance that caused the Aztecs to collapse in the face of the Spaniards.

What. No. That isn't what happened at all.

 

[brainhulk]

This. It really makes me laugh when people claim the Europeans were genocidal and cite smallpox as an example. The spread of smallpox in the New World wasn't a case of biological warfare as far as I know.

To the OP -- I think that if the Indians had all united into one nation, I am not sure the Europeans would've been able to get a foothold in the Americas until a few hundred years later. You cite Cortez who, IIRC, took over an Empire of millions of people with only 500 soldiers, but it wasn't because those 500 soldiers killed hundreds of thousands of people. It was more fear, superstition, and ignorance that caused the Aztecs to collapse in the face of the Spaniards.

Not one RG3 redskins reference.

Son, I am disdisappoint

 

[unokitty]

In the 1500/1600s, the Spanish conquered the Aztecs, the Incas, and other South Americans. What I find more interesting though is that they never conquered the Apache.
On the other hand, Manifest Destiny was an 19th century concept.

Historians have for the most part agreed that there are three basic themes to Manifest Destiny:
*The special virtues of the American people and their institutions;
*America's mission to redeem and remake the west in the image of agrarian America;
*An irresistible destiny to accomplish this essential duty.

Of course, Manifest Destiny was not embraced by the entire US. For example take Ulysses S. Grant.

Manifest Destiny was a graceful way to justify something unjustifiable. It has not escaped our attention that Ulysses S. Grant, one of the most prominent of American military men, and himself a participant in the war, wrote in his memoirs, "I do not think there ever was a more wicked war than that waged by the United States in Mexico. I thought so at the time, when I was a youngster, only I had not moral courage enough to resign."

Perhaps a more relevant question now would be does China see itself as having something analogous to 'Manifest Destiny.' If so, what are the implications of that?

Uno

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Cortez way outclassed the Americans in arms and armour. Theres no way the natives could have held him off. They might have slowed him down slightly but the slaughter would have been frightful.

He had 500 men and they had an army, IIRC, of over 100,000. Cortez didn't have modern machines guns and tanks -- he had musket-style weapons and 100,000 men in even a loosely coordinated effort could've overrun him with little difficulty.

 

[Markbnj]

An estimated 80% to 90% of this population died after the arrival of Europeans,[4] overwhelmingly from factors beyond most human control — e.g., smallpox epidemics

If the factors were "beyond most human control" (especially at a time when humans barely understood how diseases function) then it's stupid to use the word holocaust.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

He had 500 men and they had an army, IIRC, of over 100,000. Cortez didn't have modern machines guns and tanks -- he had musket-style weapons and 100,000 men in even a loosely coordinated effort could've overrun him with little difficulty.

He had 500 men and the support of like every single person in the country that weren't native Aztecs because they all hated the Aztecs, which amounted to over 100,000 native soldiers on the side of Spain.

Do you also think that 300 Spartans defeated the persians by themselves?

 

[IndyColtsFan]

What. No. That isn't what happened at all.

I misspoke. The Aztecs believed Cortez was a god or an envoy of Quetzalcatl, which allowed him to get the upper hand over Montezuma initially.

Regardless, there is no way 500 Spaniards could take down the Aztec Empire without the assistance of allied tribes and smallpox (which also affected their allies).

 

[IndyColtsFan]

He had 500 men and the support of like every single person in the country that weren't native Aztecs because they all hated the Aztecs, which amounted to over 100,000 native soldiers on the side of Spain.

I was responding to a person about the Spanish weapon and armor advantage. 500 Spaniards by themselves could not take down the Aztecs. Period. Of course there were other factors that led to the downfall (smallpox, allies, etc) but to say the Spanish won only because of their weapons and armor is not correct.

Do you also think that 300 Spartans defeated the persians by themselves?

You don't seriously want to debate Greek history with me son. I've noticed a lot of your posts and one consistent thing I've seen is that you're an arrogant jerk.

 

[brainhulk]

This is turning into ICF's self pwnage thread. He used "misspoke"

 

[Newell Steamer]

They were robbed - period.

I wonder how different the world would be (better/worse) if the natives repelled the settlers and the Americas remained in the hands/control of said natives.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

This is turning into ICF's self pwnage thread. He used "misspoke"

Nah, the Aztec's belief that Cortez was a god or demigod certainly contributed to their own ownage. 😀

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Not one RG3 redskins reference.

Son, I am disdisappoint

Lol

 

[NikolaeVarius]

Nah, the Aztec's belief that Cortez was a god or demigod certainly contributed to their own ownage. 😀

Yeah no. That point is EXTREMELY controversial, owing to the fact that the only account of the natives thinking that Cortez was a god come from Spanish writings, like 50 years after the fall of the Aztecs.

This sort of writing was extremely common among most empires during that time in order to reduce the natives into seemingly uneducated and unenlightened savages that should be glad to have Europeans come and conquer them and give them the gift of progress and religion.

While there is evidence that they may have been initially approached this issue cautiously, as the arrival of Cortez did coincide with several prophecies that indicated the arrival of the Gods, really, most likely they were probably just being polite.

It's the same as the idea that Captain Cook was killed as some sort of ritual sacrifice. Most evidence indicates that not, he was no ritually killed because they thought he was a vengeful god, it was because there was a violent fight over issues with the natives that was not related to their religion.

 

[Scarpozzi]

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Yeah no. That point is EXTREMELY controversial, owing to the fact that the only account of the natives thinking that Cortez was a god come from Spanish writings, like 50 years after the fall of the Aztecs.

This sort of writing was extremely common among most empires during that time in order to reduce the natives into seemingly uneducated and unenlightened savages that should be glad to have Europeans come and conquer them and give them the gift of progress and religion.

While there is evidence that they may have been initially approached this issue cautiously, as the arrival of Cortez did coincide with several prophecies that indicated the arrival of the Gods, really, most likely they were probably just being polite.

History is written by the winners and there is some truth to what you say, but I personally believe that it is likely there was a belief on the part of Montezuma that Cortez was sent from god.

 

[Jaskalas]

It was a clash of civilizations, which resulted in many deaths.
As opposed to a systemic purging of certain people within a civilization.

War and murder have many shades. That doesn't mean it was good... just different.