Was there an Indian Holocaust in America?

[KMFJD]

Or this one: "The Hummingbird and the Hawk: Conquest and Sovereignty in the Valley of Mexico 1503-1541"
http://www.amazon.com/The-Hummingbir...dp/0061318981#

On my wishlist now thanks!

 

[Mai72]

More California:
[/INDENT]

The natives in California were nearly extinct.

They didn't even stand a chance.

 

[Naer]

if it didn't happen to the juice. It's not a holocaust

 

[Mai72]

if it didn't happen to the juice. It's not a holocaust

???

 

[NikolaeVarius]

???

Say it really fast.

 

[WelshBloke]

*sigh* It was a lame reference to the Jews but he hasn't got the guts to troll without using a terrible pun.

 

[Murloc]

1. they're not indians. That just creates confusion, I was thinking about curry already.
2. The spanish defeated the atzecs, but they were not alone. The atzecs had an empire and several enemies.

Tlaxcala allied with the Spanish and as a result it enjoyed privileges for centuries under the spanish emipre and the state of Tlaxcala still exists today with about the same borders.
It looks like they were the only ones who managed the colonists.

 

[Griffinhart]

Yes, it was genocide. Scalping didn't originate with the Indians - scalping originated as a bounty for killing Indians - you were paid by the number of scalps your brought back.

While there were scalp bounties, Scalping wasn't introduced to Native Americans by European settlers. There is strong archeological evidence showing that 90% of the victims of the Crow Creek Massacre were scalped. This particular even occurring in 1325 better than a Century and a half prior to Columbus.

There were all sorts of atrocities committed against Indians - wholesale extermination of Indian villages. (I suffered through a grad class on this topic. Professor was the Malcolm X of Native Americans) As I recall, in California, they would wipe out entire Indian villages and burned them to the ground - they threw babies into the fire to spare their ammunition.

While there were certainly atrocities committed, I don't want to paint a rosy picture, Your example follows an almost 250 years of off and on conflict with Native Americans. Including various tribes fighting along side other European enemies. There were also plenty of examples of Natives attacking and killing Women and Children in colonial settlements since the 17th century. None of this excuses or forgives terrible tragedies like the Trail of Tears and other events, but there seems to be this naïve idea that Native Americans were this idyllic, never warring people that were simply displaced violently. The story is far more complex.

 

[Capt Caveman]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/American_Indian_Holocaust

Pretty Interesting. It's something that's not really talked about too much. How many natives actually perished at the hands of the new settlers?



I've always wondered if the Indians mounted a united front against the invaders, how long would they have lasted? In the beginning they had the numbers but lacked the technology. I've always found it amazing that Cortez was able to kill off the Aztecs with only a handful of men. Yes, smallpox contributed to many deaths. It was still an amazing feat.

What a stupid post and title. A little history research would have answered your question.

 

[unokitty]

Yes, it was genocide. Scalping didn't originate with the Indians - scalping originated as a bounty for killing Indians - you were paid by the number of scalps your brought back...

Not a scalp. But in Vietnam, the bounty on a Sentry Dog's left ear was higher than the bounty his handler's ear. Then again, handlers didn't have their military id tattooed in their left ear either...

The VC were in such fear of the dogs that a bounty was placed on them and their handlers. The bounty was higher on the dog than the handler.

Uno
Sentry Dog Handler
US Army 69-71

 

[KMFJD]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/American_Indian_Holocaust

Pretty Interesting. It's something that's not really talked about too much. How many natives actually perished at the hands of the new settlers?



I've always wondered if the Indians mounted a united front against the invaders, how long would they have lasted? In the beginning they had the numbers but lacked the technology. I've always found it amazing that Cortez was able to kill off the Aztecs with only a handful of men. Yes, smallpox contributed to many deaths. It was still an amazing feat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Noche_Triste

Spanish suffered 80% casualties when trying to flee the Aztec capital, out of around 1000 spanish only 200 made it back to Cortez.

 

[ultimatebob]

I didn't know that we're of Spanish descent. Besides, the United States Government came to be out of revolution. We didn't start killing innocents until way later

Besides, there is no simple yes/no answer on this. Many people seem to forget that some Indian tribes started attacking American settlers without provocation. That's not a Holocaust, that's self defense.

 

[DainBramaged]

Yes, there were white-led attempts at extermination against the Indian/Native American populations. Yes, they committed massacres against white folks. However, almost each iteration can be directly linked to previous white atrocities or injustices.

It is one of the single most embarrassing periods of history for the United States. It personally embarrasses me.

Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee COMPLETELY changed my perspective.

 

[Mai72]

Yes, there were white-led attempts at extermination against the Indian/Native American populations. Yes, they committed massacres against white folks. However, almost each iteration can be directly linked to previous white atrocities or injustices.

It is one of the single most embarrassing periods of history for the United States. It personally embarrasses me.

Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee COMPLETELY changed my perspective.

I've read Dee Brown's book before. Did you ever see How the West Was Lost?

 

[DainBramaged]

I've read Dee Brown's book before. Did you ever see How the West Was Lost?

I've not. Should I have?

 

[Mai72]

It's an excellent documentary on the decline of the American Indian during the 1800s.

The thing is the documentary is only on VHS. You can probably watch it on Youtube. I haven't checked yet.

 

[DainBramaged]

It's an excellent documentary on the decline of the American Indian during the 1800s.

The thing is the documentary is only on VHS. You can probably watch it on Youtube. I haven't checked yet.

The university here does all sorts of stupid cool things like VHS conversion. I should look into this.

 

[gypsyman]

A people should know when they are conquered ...

Would you Quintus, would I?

 

[BurnItDwn]

There were many different tribes.
Some of these tribes were militaristic/warrior societies.
This was not one single "white man comes, defeats all natives" action.
This was a period of expansion over 100+ years.

There were many independent efforts against many of the tribes.

For example, everybody knows the story of the trail of tears.
The Cherokee were displaced in somewhat peaceful dealings, and then over time they kept being pushed back and pushed back and then told they needed to go way the fvck out west to some other crappy land. This was not extermination, though it would certainly be considered crimes against humanity by any court today.

Now, in the plains and out west, there were active attempts at large scale genocidal extermination. Lets discuss the Sioux. These people essentially had been involved in wars/battles with the Pawnee and other neighbors on and off for generations. They knew military tactics and strategy, their archers were faster and better shots than a musketeer. They were skilled in hand to hand combat. These were great warriors who were very good at waging war.

The white man's expansion into the Apache land eventually succeeded not due to better weapons, or better organization, or better strategy. The expansion of european americans succeeded due to killing the food supply of the Apache, slowly year after year taking inch by inch of land setting on it. The population density supported by agriculture was much higher than population density supported by a nomadic lifesytle, and, agriculture was more stable/dependable than nomadic lifesytle, so, the farmers year over year kept gaining strength as the nomads kept getting weaker and weaker. Huge giant ranges of bufflo dwindled and devastated down to almost nothing.

This was "total war" by way of famine. If ever any human conflict was called an extermination, the brave Apache were indeed a target for such activity.


In fantasy land, if somehow all the native american tribes unified and allied, and somehow they all came to the east coast to enforce borders against the european americans, then, they certainly would have won the war, even if they had waited until the numbers of eurpoeans reached similar numbers as the number of natives, the natives would have militarily one.

Agriculture is the reason the european americans were able to do what they did. They were better able to feed an army.

 

[KMFJD]

There were many different tribes.
Some of these tribes were militaristic/warrior societies.
This was not one single "white man comes, defeats all natives" action.
This was a period of expansion over 100+ years.

There were many independent efforts against many of the tribes.

For example, everybody knows the story of the trail of tears.
The Cherokee were displaced in somewhat peaceful dealings, and then over time they kept being pushed back and pushed back and then told they needed to go way the fvck out west to some other crappy land. This was not extermination, though it would certainly be considered crimes against humanity by any court today.

Now, in the plains and out west, there were active attempts at large scale genocidal extermination. Lets discuss the Sioux. These people essentially had been involved in wars/battles with the Pawnee and other neighbors on and off for generations. They knew military tactics and strategy, their archers were faster and better shots than a musketeer. They were skilled in hand to hand combat. These were great warriors who were very good at waging war.

The white man's expansion into the Apache land eventually succeeded not due to better weapons, or better organization, or better strategy. The expansion of european americans succeeded due to killing the food supply of the Apache, slowly year after year taking inch by inch of land setting on it. The population density supported by agriculture was much higher than population density supported by a nomadic lifesytle, and, agriculture was more stable/dependable than nomadic lifesytle, so, the farmers year over year kept gaining strength as the nomads kept getting weaker and weaker. Huge giant ranges of bufflo dwindled and devastated down to almost nothing.

This was "total war" by way of famine. If ever any human conflict was called an extermination, the brave Apache were indeed a target for such activity.


In fantasy land, if somehow all the native american tribes unified and allied, and somehow they all came to the east coast to enforce borders against the european americans, then, they certainly would have won the war, even if they had waited until the numbers of eurpoeans reached similar numbers as the number of natives, the natives would have militarily one.

Agriculture is the reason the european americans were able to do what they did. They were better able to feed an army.

The discovery of the new world also lead to a population explosion in the old world due to the new crops discovered (Corn/Potato/Tomato/Peanut etc).

 

[darkswordsman17]

I don't think they know just how many but they do know there were a lot more Native Americans. No, they are not some absolute peaceful peoples either (and they certainly were not all of the "we use all of the buffalo" as plenty of them hunted by running the herd off a cliff and then just taking what they could bring back with them), and plenty of nations and tribes have done awful things. They actually scared the vikings from trying to settle North America, although that's likely due largely to the fact that the vikings would not be able to bring a large enough force let alone supply that force (their whole reason for trying to move to North America was they needed more resources) for such a conflict. But large amounts of them died off due to disease before the Europeans really seriously started settling.

Yes, there were white-led attempts at extermination against the Indian/Native American populations. Yes, they committed massacres against white folks. However, almost each iteration can be directly linked to previous white atrocities or injustices.

It is one of the single most embarrassing periods of history for the United States. It personally embarrasses me.

Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee COMPLETELY changed my perspective.

This. Anyone who thinks the Europeans only went to what they did after the attacks is just plain lying to themselves. Considering the ridiculous amount of evidence of the Europeans doing similar all over the world for centuries I guess somehow doesn't register either. No, that's not saying that similar horrible actions weren't done by other countries/peoples, as history is chock full of awful things done basically everywhere and I can't think of any people that don't have "skeletons in their closet", but that's exactly why we need to actually learn the reality instead of trying to brush things off.

People need to be realistic about their history, no matter how awful it is. The growing sentiment (once again being lobbied largely from people of a certain political affiliation...) to whitewash history because it makes America look bad is absurd, cowardly, pathetic, and actions like that are exactly the type of thing that leads to fervent Nationalism that causes ridiculous amounts of problems. It's born out of ignorance as well, and just breeds ignorance which will weaken a country far more than any loss of pride from accepting our real history.

Besides, there is no simple yes/no answer on this. Many people seem to forget that some Indian tribes started attacking American settlers without provocation. That's not a Holocaust, that's self defense.

No, if you actually learn about this stuff, it's quite clear. Our government and military and settlers did some heinous things. Without provocation? Not sure if you're joking or not, there was a lot of provocation. You can try to say there wasn't direct causal provocation in instances, but you're just delusional if you don't think there was overwhelming provocation.

There were many different tribes.
Some of these tribes were militaristic/warrior societies.
This was not one single "white man comes, defeats all natives" action.
This was a period of expansion over 100+ years.

There were many independent efforts against many of the tribes.

For example, everybody knows the story of the trail of tears.
The Cherokee were displaced in somewhat peaceful dealings, and then over time they kept being pushed back and pushed back and then told they needed to go way the fvck out west to some other crappy land. This was not extermination, though it would certainly be considered crimes against humanity by any court today.

Now, in the plains and out west, there were active attempts at large scale genocidal extermination. Lets discuss the Sioux. These people essentially had been involved in wars/battles with the Pawnee and other neighbors on and off for generations. They knew military tactics and strategy, their archers were faster and better shots than a musketeer. They were skilled in hand to hand combat. These were great warriors who were very good at waging war.

The white man's expansion into the Apache land eventually succeeded not due to better weapons, or better organization, or better strategy. The expansion of european americans succeeded due to killing the food supply of the Apache, slowly year after year taking inch by inch of land setting on it. The population density supported by agriculture was much higher than population density supported by a nomadic lifesytle, and, agriculture was more stable/dependable than nomadic lifesytle, so, the farmers year over year kept gaining strength as the nomads kept getting weaker and weaker. Huge giant ranges of bufflo dwindled and devastated down to almost nothing.

This was "total war" by way of famine. If ever any human conflict was called an extermination, the brave Apache were indeed a target for such activity.


In fantasy land, if somehow all the native american tribes unified and allied, and somehow they all came to the east coast to enforce borders against the european americans, then, they certainly would have won the war, even if they had waited until the numbers of eurpoeans reached similar numbers as the number of natives, the natives would have militarily one.

Agriculture is the reason the european americans were able to do what they did. They were better able to feed an army.

I don't entirely agree. There's plenty of tribes that were great at war, but the technological advantage the Europeans possessed was insurmountable (agriculture was a technological advantage so I'm not talking about just guns or anything, the whole of it all is what I mean). Could they have fought them off if their populations had not been ravaged with disease? Yeah, probably for a while, but eventually things would change.

Otherwise I agree with your post. There's been plenty of examples of this as well, where they government didn't resort to outright war as they knew they didn't have to, they knew they could do things like Manifest Destiny to push expansion and that if they needed to they could resort to outright war to get what they wanted.

Yes, I realize that without these actions, I very well might not exist, very well wouldn't live here, very well would not have the privileged life that I do have. But that does not mean that I should refuse to accept what happened.

 

[Remobz]

Growing up nobody wanted to play the Native Americans and everyone wanted to be a cowboy. Watching TV programs we always wanted the "Indians" to die and be slaughtered.

I feel ashamed of myself but that was how things were back then. Now, I am happy when some damn blue coat gets killed or some cowboy gets an arrow in the arse

 

[BurnItDwn]

I don't entirely agree. There's plenty of tribes that were great at war, but the technological advantage the Europeans possessed was insurmountable (agriculture was a technological advantage so I'm not talking about just guns or anything, the whole of it all is what I mean). Could they have fought them off if their populations had not been ravaged with disease? Yeah, probably for a while, but eventually things would change.

Otherwise I agree with your post. There's been plenty of examples of this as well, where they government didn't resort to outright war as they knew they didn't have to, they knew they could do things like Manifest Destiny to push expansion and that if they needed to they could resort to outright war to get what they wanted.

Yes, I realize that without these actions, I very well might not exist, very well wouldn't live here, very well would not have the privileged life that I do have. But that does not mean that I should refuse to accept what happened.

Thank you for spelling it out.
Yes agricultural understanding and knowledge is really a technology advantage. I had misunderstood things before my post, treated "technology" to mean "guns". Very well said on your behalf!

 

[11thHour]

genocide

noun geno·cide \ˈje-nə-ˌsīd\

: the deliberate killing of people who belong to a particular racial, political, or cultural group

The definition of this word is not only outdated but obviously written by liberals. It should be redefined in less tree-hugging terms so that these deaths of millions of Indians, so many of which were intentional and indiscriminate, do not conflict with our current moral righteousness against such atrocities.

 

[KMFJD]

I don't entirely agree. There's plenty of tribes that were great at war, but the technological advantage the Europeans possessed was insurmountable (agriculture was a technological advantage so I'm not talking about just guns or anything, the whole of it all is what I mean). Could they have fought them off if their populations had not been ravaged with disease? Yeah, probably for a while, but eventually things would change.
.

Apart from livestock the Europeans did not have an agricultural advantage over the natives.