-->
@Greyparrot
anything as unifying
I am pretty sure they agreed on not wanting to be exterminated by Europeans.
New York going down the wrong path.
Posts
Total:
101
-->
@Best.Korea
Did you know some tribes bribed Europeans to help them kill rival tribes?
They also formed arms treaties where they were supplied with superior firearms from the colonists while their rivals were embargoed.
-->
@Greyparrot
Big surprise there.
You think existence of few bad native Americans make Europeans right in killing 99% of them.
-->
@Best.Korea
I'm just saying Evil thrives when good Indians do nothing.
-->
@Greyparrot
Well, Europeans were killing each other too, but that would not make it legal for anyone to come and kill all Europeans.
-->
@Best.Korea
I am pretty sure they agreed on not wanting to be exterminated by Europeans.
The history of the native American peoples and how they interacted with each other and immigrants is far too complex to be wrapped up in politically motivated tropes like that.
They never united against european settlers because they never perceived an attempt at extermination (other than that one guy, every group has that one guy). That is because there was no attempt at extermination.
The interactions of the conquistadors with the full blown civilizations of middle and south america were completely different in motivations from the interactions of homestead settlers and semi-nomadic federated tribes in north america.
What they had in common was this: People with guns show up and had disproportionate military power, still they were very few. If the natives all united to kill them they would have been killed, but the natives wanted weapons and allies vs other native groups so the only real question was who was going escalate a squabble with the advanced immigrants and who would bend over backwards to enlist their help.
Cortez and his whole expedition would have died in sound defeat if there hadn't been a literal army of oppressed people under the aztec thumb just waiting for their chance. The wars of conquest he led were him and a few dozen Europeans at the head of hundreds of thousands of natives.
It wasn't a "mistake" to not kill the europeans instantly, if there had been a unified entity with which to make deals then there would have been one deal and peaceful integration would have been mutually beneficial.
There wasn't.
The reality was that all of the americas was a patchwork tempest of peace and war just like the rest of the planet. Europeans came from their patchwork of war and peace and were swept up in the currents of the new patchwork. They came out on top because their civilization was superior, but they never had plans to exterminate anyone or even keep secrets.
Why? Because europeans were also not united and there was no point trying to keep the secret of steel or gunpowder when other europeans wouldn't either. This is also true of the european interactions with India and the far east.
The incessant blathering about race and racial consciousness occurred later. The people who lived out these interactions cared about: Wealth, safety, religion, personal connections. Racism is an intellectual fad and has little to do with core human instincts. Pasting racial connotations onto interactions so universally human as "That guy stole my coat, I'm angry", "Shiny gold give it to me", "Your gods are strange", "You saved me from starvation, you're my friend now", or "You killed my father, prepare to die" is the fantasy.
-->
@Best.Korea
Evil thrives when good Indians do nothing.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
They never united against european settlers
Arrows and spears vs guns, wouldnt really go well for them.
And I dont see why you demonize native Americans, when Europeans at the time were doing much worse things everywhere.
Simply, nothing you say justifies Europeans in attacking and killing 100 million people.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
they never had plans to exterminate anyone
No, clearly they came to America to spread peace and accidentally killed 100 million people as a result.
-->
@Best.Korea
They never united against european settlersArrows and spears vs guns, wouldnt really go well for them.
I blame the education system, but you're imagining a fantasy world.
Only the very earliest interactions had that kind of enormous gap in technology and those interactions could still easily have been won due to numbers and logistics.
In fact several times small colonies did piss off a tribe too big to handle and got themselves killed by bows and arrows.
From 1650 on every tribe that was anywhere near Europeans had at least some guns and many had enough guns to arm every warrior.
And I dont see why you demonize native Americans
You didn't see me demonize native Americans.
when Europeans at the time were doing much worse things everywhere.
The hell they were.
Some of the worst atrocities in human history were committed by the olmec descendant civilizations and their horrid blood cults which demanded regular and massive human sacrifice.
In the north constant raiding for scalps and involuntary wives (sex/pregnancy slaves) was the norm. When the Salish people were first encountered it was a society based around slavery. There is a lake in Canada called "the great slave lake" because it was used to trade slaves.
Simply, nothing you say justifies Europeans in attacking and killing 100 million people.
I am saying they didn't. The sum total of all the intentional killings by Europeans whether you want to call it war or massacre doesn't come anywhere close to that number.
That is a fake number created by propagandist and they do it based on the child-like 'logic' of "Well if they weren't killed where did they go?"
Answer of an adult with more than two braincells: They died of old age or disease. If you're asking where their genes went they are still here. Mixed with european, middle eastern, african, east asian, and indian genes in millions and millions of people.
Most of the cultures were lost and the remaining have been relegated like so many others before them. That is all that was lost.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Exactly, the culture died but the people did not. they just got absorbed.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
You didn't see me demonize native Americans
In same comment:
The hell they were.Some of the worst atrocities in human history were committed by the olmec descendant civilizations and their horrid blood cults which demanded regular and massive human sacrifice.
In the north constant raiding for scalps and involuntary wives (sex/pregnancy slaves) was the norm. When the Salish people were first encountered it was a society based around slavery. There is a lake in Canada called "the great slave lake" because it was used to trade slaves.
And then:
They died of old age or disease.
Lol, yeah, population usually gets reduced by 99% by dying from old age or disease.
-->
@Best.Korea
You didn't see me demonize native AmericansIn same comment:The hell they were.Some of the worst atrocities in human history were committed by the olmec descendant civilizations and their horrid blood cults which demanded regular and massive human sacrifice.
If recounting accurate history is demonizing, then you're just going to have to deal with some demonizing.
Note that recounting of those atrocities was in response to you say europeans were worse. So you started the demonizing. Disagree? Answer this: What in post #66 was "demonizing" native Americans?
Lol, yeah, population usually gets reduced by 99% by dying from old age or disease.
100% actually. Nobody is alive from 1860. 100% death rate.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Note that recounting of those atrocities was in response to you say europeans were worse. So you started the demonizing.
I am not the one who tries to justify extermination of 99% of native America.
100% actually. Nobody is alive from 1860. 100% death rate.
Populations reproduce.
They dont reduce in number by 99% unless something exterminates them.
There were over 100 million native Americans before European invasion.
How many were there after?
Common, give us the answer.
I will just post this here:
"Simultaneously, wars and atrocities waged by Europeans against native Americans also resulted in hundreds of thousands to millions of deaths. The population of Indigenous Americans is estimated to have decreased from approximately 145 million to around 7-15 million between the late 15th and late 17th centuries, representing a decline of around 90-95%.[56]
Mistreatment and killing of Native Americans continued for centuries, in every area of the Americas, including the areas that would become Canada, the United States, Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Chile. In the United States, some scholars (examples listed below) state that the American Indian Wars and the doctrine of manifest destiny contributed to the genocide, with one major event cited being the Trail of Tears."
-->
@Best.Korea
Populations reproduce.
Not if they reproduce with different cultures. Assimilation is the death of a culture and the death of genetic purity.
I wouldn't be surprised that Native Indian DNA is actually, by volume, much more than 1800's...it's just spread out over 340 million people.
-->
@Best.Korea
Note that recounting of those atrocities was in response to you say europeans were worse. So you started the demonizing.I am not the one who tries to justify extermination of 99% of native America.
You are the one typing libelous falsehoods though. Again.
I would like to see you explicitly state that I have not tried to justify any extermination in this thread what so ever or we're going to have another problem.
100% actually. Nobody is alive from 1860. 100% death rate.Populations reproduce.
So they do, and so they did.
They dont reduce in number by 99% unless something exterminates them.
The population of the americas has not reduced by 99%. In fact it has increased significantly.
There were over 100 million native Americans before European invasion.
That's very high guess BTW.
How many were there after?
If you define "native american" as "a human being with ancestry inherited from the group of humans who lived in the americas in 1400" lots more than 100 million. A conservative estimate would be 500 million, it's probably closer to 750 million and rapidly growing.
If you mean specific genes (ancestry and genes are not the same thing) I expect the frequency has roughly doubled, so if you believe there were 100 million there are probably 200 million gene carriers for any given marker.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
That's very high guess BTW.
There's no possible way the Buffalo could exist if the Native Indians had a population of 100 million in the 1800's. (westward expansion started around 1803)
Nearly every plains Indian consumed many buffalo yearly. There was only around 75 million Buffalo alive.
The number is closer from 700,000 to at most 10 million Indians alive back then.
Fun Fact: Many Indian tribes when they got access to guns and horses began to hunt up to 10 times as many buffalo in order to trade for....more guns and horses....
-->
@Greyparrot
There's no possible way the Buffalo could exist if the Native Indians had a population of 100 million in the 1800's. Nearly every plains Indian consumed many buffalo yearly.The number is closer to 600,000 people alive back then.
This is another thing about talking about 'native americans' like a monolith. You're working of an image in your mind based on the culture you've been exposed to. American culture has a lot to say about nomadic plains tribes like the Lakota, Comanche, Cheyenne, etc.... etc...
Those populations were never the bulk of the populations of the Americas. In fact the plains were less utilized before horses arrived and the slaughter of the bison was something that was ongoing for five hundred years.
Native American civilization is not in the USA cultural zeitgeist, but there was civilization from Mississippi to the last terrace farm in the southern Andes. Some of the best crops ever cultivated were created and used by those civilizations and their populations were big (for the technology level and time).
They didn't eat buffalo, they ate corn and potatoes. Tons of corn and potatoes. Those crops were already everywhere they could be in the Americas long before Columbus (or even Norse) showed up.
It wasn't lack of food that kept the northern populations small and divided it was the fact that they kept killing each other. Humanity existed for hundreds of thousands of years apparently doing not much else but subsistence and you have to believe a part of that was the total lack of a moral code that allowed for the formation of large stable communities.
Anyway though, aside from a few rare examples of recorded census in Andean and Mesoamerican civilization it's guesswork saying how many people there were in any given place or as a whole.
-->
@Greyparrot
Not if they reproduce with different cultures
Or not if they get exterminated by Europeans.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Lakota were around 5-10% of all Indians at the time. The Pawnee and the Crow often got BTFO by the Lakota Sioux. Those tribes were also 5-10% of the total Indian population.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I would like to see you explicitly state that I have not tried to justify any extermination in this thread what so ever or we're going to have another problem.
Well, answer these questions:
1. Did extermination happen?
2. Was extermination justified?
Answering no to 1 or yes to 2 means you are either denying a historical fact either justifying extermination.
The rest of what you said is mostly nonsense.
-->
@Best.Korea
Did extermination happen?
When a brown person and a white person have a baby, 2 races are completely exterminated and a new one is created.
According to data from the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2019, the estimated population of American Indian and Alaska Native alone or in combination (AIAN alone-or-in-combination) living on reservations and other tribal lands was approximately 1.9 million people. That's a much higher population than the low estimates of Indian population in 1800. Most of those people have mixed DNA.
-->
@Greyparrot
If you define Indian as someone registered with the bureau of Indian affairs. Not if you defined one as someone with 1400 ancestry.Lakota were around 5-10% of all Indians at the time.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I was just saying, they were a small slice of the pie.
-->
@Best.Korea
I would like to see you explicitly state that I have not tried to justify any extermination in this thread what so ever or we're going to have another problem.Well, answer these questions:1. Did extermination happen?
No
2. Was extermination justified?
Of a general population? No.
Of human sacrificers, unrelenting slavers, scalpers, and rapists? Yes.
The rest of what you said is mostly nonsense.
You being unable to support your own claims does not give you license to pretend as if I don't believe what I believe and am a terrible person because of the non-existent belief you ascribe to me. This is very similar to your comments about the supposed rape of EJC. "X did not happen" is not the same as "X did happen and I'm fine with that."
It's fallacious, pathetic, and obscene.
-->
@IlDiavolo
It seems you're living in a parallel world, HB. Or maybe you are a public employee so you don't know what it's like to struggle to make ends meet.
that's alot of typing and yet you still didn't answer my question. What policies has biden done that made people's lives worse? The economy was in the tank under trump, Biden has improved the situation significantly. But he doesn't have a magic wand. It takes a long time to undo the damage of covid and especially the damage done by republicans.
I hear a lot of news about the US taking risky decisions.
what specifically? You are really good at throwing out vague nonsense, really bad at saying what you are talking about.
So you're saying Democrats are populists. That figures.
democratic policies are generally very popular. If that is what you mean by "populist" then sure. Republican polices by contrast are very unpopular.
I think the most sensible issue in Bide's administration right now is the migration crisis. Democrats will lose the election on that issue, if the economy doesn't get ruined before.
two points. 1) why would you think there is a migration crisis? The situation is pretty much the same as it was for years.
2) I hope that is a significant issue they run on. Because the democrats just passed a huge border bill and the republicans refused to even vote on it because they don't want to actually do anything about it. They just want to scare gullible people into voting for them. Anyone who actually pays attention to what the republicans do knows they have no interest in doing anything about the border.
-->
@HistoryBuff
that's alot of typing and yet you still didn't answer my question. What policies has biden done that made people's lives worse? The economy was in the tank under trump, Biden has improved the situation significantly. But he doesn't have a magic wand. It takes a long time to undo the damage of covid and especially the damage done by republicans.
I don’t know, HB. Let's ask the polls what people think about Biden's policies.
what specifically? You are really good at throwing out vague nonsense, really bad at saying what you are talking about.
I'm sorry, I totally forgot that americans don’t give a shit about what the world is discussing. While you are unaware of the economic decisions Biden is doing just so to save face until the next elections, the whole world is talking about how close the US is to the bankruptcy due to the irresponsability of old Joe.
I'm so sorry you have to hear that, but this is a fact. Some americans pundits have already warned about it but nobody is listening.
democratic policies are generally very popular. If that is what you mean by "populist" then sure. Republican polices by contrast are very unpopular.
You're not going to give me lessons of populism, I know pretty well what it is.
What surprises me is that americans are behaving exactly like those they have always looked down and criticized, those who are in their backyard. Maybe it's the consequence of letting too many mexicans trespass on the US.
Besides, popular decisions are not necessarily good. Populism is usually good when there is plenty of money, but money doesn’t last long. When the government runs out of money, there it comes the problems.
two points. 1) why would you think there is a migration crisis? The situation is pretty much the same as it was for years.2) I hope that is a significant issue they run on. Because the democrats just passed a huge border bill and the republicans refused to even vote on it because they don't want to actually do anything about it. They just want to scare gullible people into voting for them. Anyone who actually pays attention to what the republicans do knows they have no interest in doing anything about the border.
There are two main reasons for the migration crisis:
1. Porous borders. There is almost no resistance to the migration flow. Instead of kicking out migrants as soon as they set foot in the US, the authorities bus them to the big cities. What kind of message is it when the government rewards the crime, the illegality?
2. Sanctuary States. If you treat migrants better than your own folks, how the fuck do you expect these migrants don’t come? They will come anyway knowing that they will be very welcomed.
Both reasons can be avoided single handed by the government, but Biden suspiciously didn't do it.