The genocide that time forgot - The Native Americans

[monkspider]

A Native American gravestone in my hometown that I once came across read something to the effect of "Here Lies an Indian Woman, whose family and tribe gave of themselves that this great nation might prosper".
Of course, it's not quite accurate to say that they gave of themselves and their land for that purpose. Most estimates I have read estimate there was about 80 million native Americans in Latin America when Columbus "discovered' the Americas, and about 15 million or so north of the Rio Grande if my memory serves. By now, there are only a few thousand left, living on the worst land in the entire nation in poverty unrivaled by even the worst parts of the biggest cities. What has occured has been a genocide perhaps unparalleled in the entirety of human history.

Yet, despite this, Native Americans have gotten little sympathy. The tragedy of their genocide is largely overlooked in the school history books. And most Americans see them as an "obstacle" that had to be swept aside (albeit unfortunatly) so our great Nation could acheive it's manifest destiny and bring freedom and Liberty from coast to coast.

This pure bollocks, imagine going to Auschwitz or Dachau and reading a plaque that said "Here lies a Jew, whose family and people gave of themselves so that this nation may grow and prosper". I imagine that a vastly different reaction then the acquiesencee have for the most part to the Native American's genocide.

My great grandma was a full-blooded Cherokee, so I can't help but feel a bit of personal attachment to this whole tragedy. I guess the purpose of my rant is this: why has the genocide of these people gone largely swept under the carpet? Are the peoples of countries like Spain and America afraid of what they might have to fess up to?

[MrFun]

Monkspider, I agree with you somewhat, but I hate to break this to ya -- you're not breaking any new ground -- at least not with most Apolytoners here, who have an interest in history, one way or another.

The interaction of Amerindians is more complicated than the oversimplification of portraying Amerindians as purely hapless victims and demonizing European-descent settlers. That is one-dimensional, cardboard portrayal of entire groups of people.

The interactions between Amerindians and European-descent settlers have been complex, with complex relations that involved decisions that leaders of both groups of people made (with each group containing hundreds of different cultural/ethnic groups).

Amerindians suffered tremendously in the history of the Americas, be it North America, Central America, South America, or the Carribbean islands. But they were not hapless victims who had made no decisions in how they would try to adapt.

One good book you might want to read, is "500 Nations" by Alvin M. Josephy Jr. A book that I own, but a good book in any case when one wants to learn more about the history of Amerindians.

[monkspider]

Oh, I agree completely that things were considerably more complex than that. A fact that few may be aware of is that there were actually significant numbers of people who ran away and join the native tribes back in days of English colonization.

I agree that the info itself I shared isn't anything revolutionary, but my question is why is this particular attrocity still mostly overlooked.

BTW, I will definitely have to check that out book out, I actually looked it over a little bit at my old bookstore job, it looks quite fascinating.

[Capt Dizle]

What this brings to my mind is the great what if. What if aliens really showed up, bringing disease and technology and swept us away like we did the Indian.

Are tears any less bitter for being shed unnoticed?

[monkspider]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Are tears any less bitter for being shed unnoticed?

Hey, that's pretty poetic JT. I never knew you had it in ya.

[Wernazuma III]

I think it's mostly overlooked, especially in America, because the USA wouldn't exist without it. The USA are considered the best what could have happened to the world, thus the genocide is a pitty but in the end it's all OK, because we now got the USA.
Focussing too much on the genocide would make the USA appear to stand on illegal and immoral fundaments which no American patriot could accept.

Please, this is no Anti-American flaming/trolling, every people makes similar biased presentation of its history in the central parts.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by monkspider
Oh, I agree completely that things were considerably more complex than that. A fact that few may be aware of is that there were actually significant numbers of people who ran away and join the native tribes back in days of English colonization.

I agree that the info itself I shared isn't anything revolutionary, but my question is why is this particular attrocity still mostly overlooked.

BTW, I will definitely have to check that out book out, I actually looked it over a little bit at my old bookstore job, it looks quite fascinating.

Oh, I found it interesting too, when I first read about a number of white settlers who fled to various Amerindian chiefdoms.

Or how about how the Iroquois' form of strength through unity influenced Benjamin Franklin's ideas on uniting the colonies of Great Britain in North America?

Or how about the chiefdom (kicking self for not remembering name) in what is now Florida, who thought the Spaniards that arrived on the peninsula were inferior to them in the early 1500's?

There were many things that I never learned about Amerindians until I read material independently, outside of school.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by monkspider
Most estimates I have read estimate there was about 80 million native Americans in Latin America when Columbus "discovered' the Americas, and about 15 million or so north of the Rio Grande if my memory serves.

You're off by a zero and change. Anthropological evidence (mostly related to food gathering, trash, and land use studies, plus settlements) indicates a probable peak native population in the continental US of around 1 million.

There were several million in Latin America, but 80 million is off by an order of magnitude at least. With agricultural and hunting techniques of the time, you couldn't support near 80 million under the best of conditions.

Genocidal wars were not uncommon before whitey - most of Latin American native populations were either militaristic empires, or their subjects/enemies/victims, depending on the other guy's luck. Both the Aztec and the Inca were hated enough that the Spanish had no trouble finding allies who didn't realize they were just trading one devil for another, more efficient one.

The Huron-Iroquois fight (which overlapped into the French and Indian wars) were particularly vicious, and there were brutal, would be genocidal if they had the chance, rivalries in the southeast, southwest and great plains.

The biggest killer by far of natives was disease, not warfare. Unfortunately, the disease brought over by Europeans were more lethal, and tended to be air and mosquito transmissible, making epidemics a huge problem for native tribes.

[monkspider]

Yep, yep, a lot of great stuff outside the spectrum of mainstream, acceptable thought.
One of the things that I love most being a history major is learning what my official textbooks didn't want to me to know.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

Genocidal wars were not uncommon before whitey -

No disagreement there with ya.

[monkspider]

I can't help but think that one million is a ridiculously low figure Micheal.
Here is a quote from a book that I own"By conservative estimates, the population of the United states prior to European contact was greater than 12 million. Four centuries later, the count was reduced by 95% to 237 thousand"

And that says nothing about the far-denser populated Aztec and Inca Empires. I think Tenochtitlan alone probably had a million people.

Even though disease was a bigger killer than Europeans, you still face a genocide unparalleled in history.

[MrFun]

Monkspider -- that is where I do disagree with MTG.

I accept the estimation of 10 million Amerindians altogether.

The low 1 million estimate is way too low to include the densely populated cities of some of the more advanced Amerindian civilizations, as you already stated.

[monkspider]

Here are quotes from Ronald Wright's "Stolen Continents"

It is impossible to say exactly how many people were living in what is now the United States and Canada in 1492. But it's clear that the old guess of around 1 million is absurdly low-a guess cherished for so long because it reinforced the myth of the empty land and hid the enormity of Native America's depopulation. Good modern estimates range between 7 and 18 million

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


You're off by a zero and change. Anthropological evidence (mostly related to food gathering, trash, and land use studies, plus settlements) indicates a probable peak native population in the continental US of around 1 million.

There were several million in Latin America, but 80 million is off by an order of magnitude at least. With agricultural and hunting techniques of the time, you couldn't support near 80 million under the best of conditions.

Genocidal wars were not uncommon before whitey - most of Latin American native populations were either militaristic empires, or their subjects/enemies/victims, depending on the other guy's luck. Both the Aztec and the Inca were hated enough that the Spanish had no trouble finding allies who didn't realize they were just trading one devil for another, more efficient one.

The Huron-Iroquois fight (which overlapped into the French and Indian wars) were particularly vicious, and there were brutal, would be genocidal if they had the chance, rivalries in the southeast, southwest and great plains.

The biggest killer by far of natives was disease, not warfare. Unfortunately, the disease brought over by Europeans were more lethal, and tended to be air and mosquito transmissible, making epidemics a huge problem for native tribes.

Refer to my discussion with Chris about the same subject. The only serious estimates of native pop of NA as in 7 figures come from before the turn of the century. Most modern estimates hover around 50 million...

[Gatekeeper]

It seems like tribes across the world were wiped out as certain tribes morphed into evolving nation-states and then proceeded to dominate/assimilate/destroy their neighboring tribes. I doubt that Europe was the only "spawning" point for this type of evolvement in human society, though.

Gatekeeper

[Ned]

Just a question, but what do you consider the bulk of the population of Mexico (including the millions in the US), Central America and much of South America to be if not Native Americans?

[monkspider]

They can be accurately described as Native Americans, in modern times though, at least in the USA, the term "Native American" usually only applies to natives of tribes that used to exist in the USA.
The people you mention could be fairly described as "Native Americans" though, yes.

[KrazyHorse]

?

I think he's trying to say that most people in Latin America today are descended in part from Native Americans. Which, if you want to count one drop equalling an entirety, would make most people in Latin America Native Americans.

Want to do a genetic survey, Ned? Native American blood is extremely diluted in almost all Latin Americans. In countries like Uruguay, the percentage is approximately zero...

[Shi Huangdi]

Since when has this genocide been forgotten? This was a huge topic throughout my entire education what happened to native Americans.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Frogger


Refer to my discussion with Chris about the same subject. The only serious estimates of native pop of NA as in 7 figures come from before the turn of the century. Most modern estimates hover around 50 million...

Modern estimates by sociologists and ethnologists. I've yet to see any peer reviewed studies out of archaeologists or physical anthropologists which support numbers that absurdly high.

The majority of studies based on physical evidence, show that it is clearly impossible to have numbers anywhere near 50 million (a little under a fifth the population of the present US, based on hunter-gatherer and limited primitive agricultural use )

In North America, you can pretty much kiss irrigation goodbye, and the combination of climate, water distribution, game density, evidence of agricultural practices, etc., doesn't come near 50 million. Simple fact is that 50 million people **** a lot, leave a lot of trash around, and among the nomadic and semi-nomadic native populations, they generally tended to move when either the nearby food supply got too low, or the stench got too high.

Camp and village site archaelogical finds are quite common, and give evidence of population densities both in terms of settlement size and duration, and the amount of land necessary to support that population in a hunter-gatherer or primitive agricultural system.

The more permanent settled tribes in the east had fair size settlements, but the largest long-term settlements I've seen serious reference to are in the 30,000 population range, and that based on a mostly seasonal population around ceremonially significant times - permanent population of those settlements were estimated at perhaps 10,000. The simple fact is that the amount of waste produced and food required in a settlement of even 10,000 people with no modern transport, agriculture or sewage is just staggering - people move on and move out to get food and so they don't drown in their own ****. Drinkable water supplies are also a huge problem in large primitive settlements.

There are several other factors - replacement of populations is one. The Anasazi died out, and there is some limited evidence that some few of them may have survived to give rise to the Tohono O'Odham, who became semi-nomadic. In southern California, the natives 500-600 years ago disappeared or were wiped out, and were replaced by Western Shoshonean groups, who were primitive desert hunter-gatherers.

In the period 1865 to 1876, (Red Cloud's War to the Little Bighorn), large gatherings of 1000 lodges or more broke up quickly because they simply overran the grazing ability of the land, and they couldn't support their horse population. Prior to domesticating the horse, the plains natives had to disperse even more, because their reduced rate of movement had them hunting smaller game - it was the horse that brought in the buffalo era.

In Utah, Dead Horse Point is well known as a hunting area (where horses were food, not vehicles for getting other food). Again, game populations (water and forage dependent) limit predator populations - kill all the food, and you starve yourself.

Even sophisticated Iroquis settlements had populations from several hundred to a few thousand. Game isn't stupid enough to stick around a surplus of predators, and primitive ag, fishing and gathering in Iriquois country is also highly seasonal and has max limits to the populations that could be supported in a given area.

You had high infant mortality, low lifespans, frequent raids and warfare, droughts, harsh winters, etc.

Most of the modern crop of high-population estimates get their numbers by making several fundamentally unsound assumptions, and by ignoring archaeological evidence (human **** and trash dumps are the mother lode of modern archaeology ).

Among the innacurate assumptions:

Assuming that the maximum possible population based on structural size of sites such as Canyon De Chelly, Tenochtitlan, Tikal, etc. was the permanent population.

Ignoring the effect of population displacement, i.e. lumping population of earlier groups with that of later groups.

Assuming that multiple nomadic settlements of short duration actually existed concurrently as longer term settlements.

Ignoring the effects and limitations on commerce - Tenochtitlan is a perfect example - a city which could not support itself, and only existed in it's peak population for a very short time at the height of Aztec power, because it survived only on increasing tax and tribute levies throughout the empire. Tenochtitlan was essentially a city putting itself out of business (much like Mexico city does now for most of it's population) by needing more resources than the regional economy could support - encouraging abandonment or population shifts in other settlements, reducing available food and commerce elsewhere in the empire, and encouraging migration to the capital.

In the Aztec case, that final population of close to a million (which is correct) didn't come because everything was hunky dorry and people were fat and happy and ****ing themselves into a population boom. It occured because the more Tenochtitlan bloated, the more it sucked out of the region in terms of taxes on goods and crops, and people followed the money.

If you assume that all areas of the empire were at their peak population simultaneously, then you're going to get a jacked up population, but that patten has never occured anywhere else, and there's no evidence that that Aztecs were any different.

BTW, I'm not relying on 19th century info - I'm relying on mid to late 1990's vintage archaeology, agriculture and anthropology work reported in the American Institute of Archaeology, and other sources.

I'd love to see any estimate of 50 million that went into real detail about how that number was derived and what physical evidence supposedly supports that value.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Frogger
?

I think he's trying to say that most people in Latin America today are descended in part from Native Americans. Which, if you want to count one drop equalling an entirety, would make most people in Latin America Native Americans.

Want to do a genetic survey, Ned? Native American blood is extremely diluted in almost all Latin Americans. In countries like Uruguay, the percentage is approximately zero...

There weren't a hell of a lot of them in Uruguay to begin with. Not like there's much of a population in the whole country now - less than four million total population in the whole country.

Here in México, the vast majority of the population has significant native descent, and there are a large number of pure or mostly pure blooded natives, albeit not always in the same tribal groups. A large portion of the population in rural southern Mexico speaks Spanish as a second language - Mayan and Nahuatl dialects are common in the south, and about 30% of the population is entirely or mostly of indigenous background, about 60% mixed indigenous and European.

[monkspider]

MTG, respectfully, most of your explanations against a large indian population seem to be rather ad-hoc, and are going the opinions against virtually the entirety of experts on Native American studies, even according to Carl Shaw of the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, estimates of the pre-Columbus population of what later became the United States range from 5 million to 15 million.
If such a small number of native americans actually did exist, it's completely unheard of in all of academia.

[MichaeltheGreat]

"Native American studies" is a field in the social sciences.

I'm interested in physical evidence, ie archaeology, physical anthropology. i.e. people who get their hands dirty in the field and systematically produce and analyze real data.

In other words, scientists, not academics.

Like I said, if they can show physical evidence, or some details to support large area populations, bring it on.

Tell you what. If you think food supply, water supply, and waste accumulation issues are "ad hoc" when it comes to population density, why don't you get a hundred of your friends together, go out in the woods and set up camp. No modern niceties, go out and gather water, food, and pee and crap and ditch your bones, rotten meat, etc. right outside camp. See how much land area you take up, and how quickly you move.

There is a huge body of archaeological work that his been done concerning indigenous populations. I'm not being facetious about garbage piles and ****, either - that's the goldmine. For example, in Mesoamerican archaeology, nobody's currently especially interested in, or expecting to find, huge ceremonial sites like at Tikal or Tulum. But in the garbage and waste disposal areas of smaller provincial towns and small rural settlements, pottery shards, intact seeds in human feces, broken needles and tools, all give an indication of the extent of commerce between different areas within the Aztec and Mayan empires, and there are pretty sophisticated economic and commerce models of how the empires function, especially from the perspective of ordinary citizens and subjects, and areas outside the capital.

So again, if there's hard data to support five million, or five hundred million, I'm interested in seeing it. I don't give a rat's ass about an unsupported claim. Appeals to authority are meaningless. Where's the physical evidence or systematic, peer reviewed statistical methods to support these population estimates?

[notyoueither]

monkspider, your numbers defy reason.

Rome at her height had 1,000,000 people. That was with all the grain of Egypt to feed her.

Where did a city in the middle of Mezo-America get the food to feed 1,000,000 people?

[Wernazuma III]

I've come across a study that convincingly estimated the population density in Mayan classical era at 170-200/km², even with shifting cultivation. Such numbers could be exceeded by chinampa-agriculture by far. Estimating some 15-20 million inhabitants in Mexico alone doesn't seem to high to me.

[Wernazuma III]

1000000 is definitely too high for Tenochtitlan and Teotihuacan or any other city in Mesoamerica. 250-300000 for Tenochtitlan were the most convincing estimates I've read - but with the surroundings and "suburbs" it was much more. The Chinampas were incredibly fertile and could feed people even with high population density.

[monkspider]

MTG, when I said they were ad-hoc I meant that they seemed to be evidences pieced together to support an already presupposed conclusion, rather than evidence that cumulatively led these people to support the conclusion that they do.
I do confress that Anthropology is not my area of study, but if all scholars in the fields of social sciences tend to support one conclusion, then it seems to be fair to believe that they have some friends in anthropology somewhere. Even the Buereau of Indian affairs official numbers are much higher than what you suggest.
If these numberswere in fact, based on solid reasoning, and not empty conjecture into the nature of people hundreds of years ago, one could fairly assume that it would make it's rounds in the field of Social Sciences as well, no? Say what you will about appeals to authority, but it would seem these estimates you suggest have virtually no authority at all.
As is, your numbers remind me of young-earth creationists who piece together whatever spurious evidence they have to make it seem that the Earth is actually only 4,000 years old.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by notyoueither
monkspider, your numbers defy reason.

Rome at her height had 1,000,000 people. That was with all the grain of Egypt to feed her.

Where did a city in the middle of Mezo-America get the food to feed 1,000,000 people?

The "suburbs" were all the current Mexican states immediately surrounding the current DF - in other words, the core part of the Aztec empire. The outer provinces and tributaries had to make tribute payments every quarter of a set amount of different commodities - grains at harvest time, pottery or whatever local trade commodities were produced at other times. This sucking of support for the core empire limited the sustainable growth level in the other areas.

[notyoueither]

And I doubt they could have transported enough to feed 1,000,000, let alone grown it.

[monkspider]

NYE: Tenochtitlan proper probably only had about 300,00 residents, but taking into account the suburbs (as Wernazuma mentioned) it would end up being pretty close to a million. In fact, at the time of Cortez's arrival, it was one of the largest cities in the world.