[sixpakistan]

Pretty interesting discussion so far. I think I'll take a look at "1491."

[Variable]

Originally Posted by jinnzaman

No, I agree that the situation of Amerindians in Central and South America is terrible, but relative to the Americas, they have fared much better.

Based on the fact that there are more of them? And that evidence of their past existence is more obvious than farther north?

You're imposing the views of the Southwest Indians onto all of the North American indians. Several tribes were sedentary and there were powerful federations that formed all over the place.

Sure there were several groups in the Southwest (actually generally in the South) that had stratified societies, permanent architecture etc... I wasn't referring to them because the record of their existence is there - it hasn't been totally obliterated like you mentioned.

I'm not denying the existence of trade routes - but the notion that hemispheric epidemics spread throughout the Americas and annihilated advanced cultures prior to European contact isn't plausible.

I don't know why not.

Again, I'm not denying depopulation, but it doesn't account for the total extermination of some of the tribes. Their is documentation of how brutal the Spanish were on first contact with tribes in Hispaniola. The Amerindians adopted suicide in mass droves to escape the Spanish - men drank poison, women aborted their babies, etc.




No, I'm just pointing out that it wasn't like Europeans set foot on Americas and diseases spread in every direction and wiped out the Native Americans and all the Europeans did was just take up the "empty" land.

Evidence of ethnic cleansing:
- forced migrations of large numbers of people
- enslavement
- forced conversion
- burning of villages and killing men, women, and children

It was the icing on the cake of the population loss.

Well, by and large I agree with every point you made there. Are you arguing that those factors accounted for far more of the population decline than disease?

[jinnzaman]

Originally Posted by Variable

Based on the fact that there are more of them? And that evidence of their past existence is more obvious than farther north?

Yes. While the Spanish were brutal and obsessed with slaves - they intermarried frequently among Native Americans. Canada, Central, and South America have a far greater percentage of pure blood NAs and people of mixed blood then the US.

I'm not saying that they are "better" off per se, but as an ethnic group, they didn't face as much ethnic cleansing.

Sure there were several groups in the Southwest (actually generally in the South) that had stratified societies, permanent architecture etc... I wasn't referring to them because the record of their existence is there - it hasn't been totally obliterated like you mentioned.

Right, but any advanced dense population center requires (1) food, (2) fuel, (3) fiber, and (4) building materials just to be sustainable and then there is (5) social stratification into a general agricultural group to produce food, a landless labor force that usually engages in manufacturing of foods and possibly a merchant class [which has existed in every human society from Africa, Europe, Middle East, India, China, Southeast Asia, etc).

Its paradoxical to assert that the Native American's lived in advanced societies but there is no evidence because they were wiped out with disease, their building structures weren't durable, or they were nomadic. Dense population centers can't be established on a nomadic lifestyle alone

Either North America had advanced societies or they didn't. If they had advanced societies, their should be far more evidence of it. Disease doesn't account for the destruction of the obvious indicators of advanced societies described above. There has to be more to the explanation than just that.

Well, by and large I agree with every point you made there. Are you arguing that those factors accounted for far more of the population decline than disease?

No, I'm not. I'm just pointing out that ethnic cleansing existed and that lead to the actual extermination of the Amerindians in most parts of the country in most parts of the US.

[Variable]

Originally Posted by jinnzaman

Yes. While the Spanish were brutal and obsessed with slaves - they intermarried frequently among Native Americans. Canada, Central, and South America have a far greater percentage of pure blood NAs and people of mixed blood then the US.

I'm not saying that they are "better" off per se, but as an ethnic group, they didn't face as much ethnic cleansing.

I'm not sure if intermarriages factored into it that much. I don't think you can say either that those under the Spanish faced any less 'ethnic cleansing'. Would you include in the definition of ethnic cleansing the destruction of people's identity in order to make their lifestyle more palatable to the colonizer?

Even in terms of the stats of villages burned/individuals killed etc - I would suspect (I don't have access to the numbers) that the Spanish in absolute terms did a whole lot worse, even though more of the natives survive today. The civilizations were many orders more immense than anything to the north.

Right, but any advanced dense population center requires (1) food, (2) fuel, (3) fiber, and (4) building materials just to be sustainable and then there is (5) social stratification into a general agricultural group to produce food, a landless labor force that usually engages in manufacturing of foods and possibly a merchant class [which has existed in every human society from Africa, Europe, Middle East, India, China, Southeast Asia, etc).

Its paradoxical to assert that the Native American's lived in advanced societies but there is no evidence because they were wiped out with disease, their building structures weren't durable, or they were nomadic. Dense population centers can't be established on a nomadic lifestyle alone

Either North America had advanced societies or they didn't. If they had advanced societies, their should be far more evidence of it. Disease doesn't account for the destruction of the obvious indicators of advanced societies described above. There has to be more to the explanation than just that.

North America had both 'advanced' societies and not so 'advanced' societies. Even excluding Mexico, there was quite a variety of groups that fit into different categories (varying modes of production/stratification etc), in N America. Those with monumental, durable architecture left behind evidence of that.

I don't think anyone is making the argument that solely disease caused a massive depopulation which left the whole continent uninhabited.

No, I'm not. I'm just pointing out that ethnic cleansing existed and that lead to the actual extermination of the Amerindians in most parts of the country in most parts of the US.

I definitely agree that ethnic cleansing took place on the N American continent. But some how I still feel like I disagree with you... and I can't figure out why right now because I'm late for a BBQ.

[jinnzaman]

Originally Posted by Variable

I'm not sure if intermarriages factored into it that much. I don't think you can say either that those under the Spanish faced any less 'ethnic cleansing'. Would you include in the definition of ethnic cleansing the destruction of people's identity in order to make their lifestyle more palatable to the colonizer?

Even in terms of the stats of villages burned/individuals killed etc - I would suspect (I don't have access to the numbers) that the Spanish in absolute terms did a whole lot worse, even though more of the natives survive today. The civilizations were many orders more immense than anything to the north.

I may not be aware of this, but which Spanish and Portuguese states forced the migration of Amerindians from their homeland? Did they pass laws prohibiting intermarriage between the races?

The destruction of people's identity alone would probably not compromise ethnic cleansing, but if they remove the persons along with it, then I would say yes it is ethnic cleansing.

In terms of the violence the Spanish inflicted on the Amerindians, it was clearly far more brutal. However, just like when the Mongolians destroyed Baghdad, while they were brutal, didn't necessarily ethnically cleanse people. The Spanish in the Caribbean, perhaps, but the Spaniards in Central and South America, I'm not so sure.

North America had both 'advanced' societies and not so 'advanced' societies. Even excluding Mexico, there was quite a variety of groups that fit into different categories (varying modes of production/stratification etc), in N America. Those with monumental, durable architecture left behind evidence of that.

No, I agree, but I don't think it was on the level of the scale that the author of 1491 is asserting.

I don't think anyone is making the argument that solely disease caused a massive depopulation which left the whole continent uninhabited.

Right, but people also haven't made the argument that the treatment of Amerindians was ethnic cleansing either. There's hardly any literature on this issue, but there's tons of literature on the spread of diseases.

I definitely agree that ethnic cleansing took place on the N American continent. But some how I still feel like I disagree with you... and I can't figure out why right now because I'm late for a BBQ.

Word. Well, compare Canada and Mexico with the US and their treatment of Amerindian populations, or the British for that matter.

[zakk]

Fair N Lovely makes a facewash?

[HijabiPrincezz]

Originally Posted by zakk

Fair N Lovely makes a facewash?

they've also been making bar soap lately. i saw some at the desi supermarket the other day haha. and overall body lotions. i guess they finally realized the trauma they were putting people through when people wondered why their face didnt match their hands and feet.

[Variable]

Originally Posted by jinnzaman

I may not be aware of this, but which Spanish and Portuguese states forced the migration of Amerindians from their homeland? Did they pass laws prohibiting intermarriage between the races?

Well back then the Spanish 'state' was Spain, and it operated through continental centers in Mexico, Lima and Antigua. I can't give you exact place names and events that took place in which the Spanish evicted people from their lands or slaughtered them wholesale. But it happened, over and over I'd say and I'm certain a little digging would turn up cases. It wasn't always similar to what happened later up in the US - they were two different beasts presented with vastly different situations.

What's more, after the Spanish colonies freed themselves from Spain - the power structure stayed largely the same. To this day you'll see a European looking Guatemalan or Nicaraguan, and you'll know instantly that they're wealthy, tied to the elite etc. And it hasn't been coincidence that the far more recent examples of ethnic cleansing in places like Central America, or the revolts in Chiapas are drawn along those lines.

In terms of the violence the Spanish inflicted on the Amerindians, it was clearly far more brutal. However, just like when the Mongolians destroyed Baghdad, while they were brutal, didn't necessarily ethnically cleanse people. The Spanish in the Caribbean, perhaps, but the Spaniards in Central and South America, I'm not so sure.

The Carib natives didn't have the necessary population base to absorb the shock of the epidemics, and they had nowhere to go to. The Spanish did encounter a population like that when they arrived on the mainland. The US never really came across similar population centers and to guess at how they would've dealt with them as opposed to the Spanish example would be pure speculation.

Right, but people also haven't made the argument that the treatment of Amerindians was ethnic cleansing either. There's hardly any literature on this issue, but there's tons of literature on the spread of diseases.

If you're using the specific language of 'ethinic cleansing', I think you answered that yourself back a while ago - the term itself is somewhat novel. Also, the term 'ethnic cleansing' for most automatically conjurs images of the holocaust or Rwanda - a dedicated attempt to slaughter entire peoples wholesale. The atrocities committed against the Native Americans wasn't characterized in the same way. It was bad, maybe even worse if that's possible.... but it's not the same. Maybe these are a few reasons why you're not finding literature framing the events in terms of ethnic cleansing.



Back to disease for a second, I just dug up the relevant page in Guns Germs and Steel (p211) - Diamond mentions how Hernando DeSoto took a stroll through the Mississipi and noticed the remnants of once densely populated centers that had been abandoned. They had had died of disease introduced to coastal peoples by the Spanish on previous voyages; the germs had preceded the conquistadores by two years.

He goes on to say that when he was a boy, he was conveniently taught that there was only about a million natives living in North America, though modern evidence has show that there were probably 20 times that. By 1692, it's estimated that that population was reduced by 95%.

compare Canada and Mexico with the US and their treatment of Amerindian populations, or the British for that matter.

Canada, Mexico and the US treat and/or have all treated their native populations horribly.

[jinnzaman]

Originally Posted by Variable

Well back then the Spanish 'state' was Spain, and it operated through continental centers in Mexico, Lima and Antigua. I can't give you exact place names and events that took place in which the Spanish evicted people from their lands or slaughtered them wholesale. But it happened, over and over I'd say and I'm certain a little digging would turn up cases. It wasn't always similar to what happened later up in the US - they were two different beasts presented with vastly different situations.

Oh, I have no doubt that the Spanish and Portuguese engaged in ethnic cleansing. The Spanish had forcibly evicted Jews and Muslims around the same time that they had discovered the New World. The Portuguese did the same thing and went so far as to slaughter a colony of Jews in India when they established power there.

However, the treatment of the Native Americans by the Spanish and Portuguese was more analogous to the Belgians in Congo where they enslaved, exploited, and murdered the population for financial benefit - which is what the British did in various parts of India.

In America, the obsession was with land and not necessarily precious metals and there were a lot of efforts to force off the native population from their lands and it was much more systematic.

One of the causes of the American Revolution was the fact that the British had prohibited Western expansionism by the colonies. This upset a lot of the land speculating companies and a good portion of the elites that were involved with them, such as George Washington who worked for the Ohio company and was one of the biggest land owners in America, began to agitate for independence.

The obsession with land and expansionism in America was really unmatched anywhere else in the Americas. The Spanish, French, and Portuguese definitely wanted to add territory to their empires, but in terms of actual use of the land, the British settlers wanted it for their own.

What's more, after the Spanish colonies freed themselves from Spain - the power structure stayed largely the same. To this day you'll see a European looking Guatemalan or Nicaraguan, and you'll know instantly that they're wealthy, tied to the elite etc. And it hasn't been coincidence that the far more recent examples of ethnic cleansing in places like Central America, or the revolts in Chiapas are drawn along those lines.

The same could be said of many parts of the world where the elite class is Europeanized or Westernized. I'm still curious about specific examples of ethnic cleansing such as forced relocation from Central and South America.

In terms of Chiapas, the people themselves are largely descendant from their ancestors several hundred years ago. They weren't forced to relocate and their language and culture were relatively preserved. They were undoubtedly exploited financially, but so were many poor whites in other European colonies. Thats not ethnic cleansing, I think.

The Carib natives didn't have the necessary population base to absorb the shock of the epidemics, and they had nowhere to go to. The Spanish did encounter a population like that when they arrived on the mainland. The US never really came across similar population centers and to guess at how they would've dealt with them as opposed to the Spanish example would be pure speculation.

Word.

If you're using the specific language of 'ethinic cleansing', I think you answered that yourself back a while ago - the term itself is somewhat novel. Also, the term 'ethnic cleansing' for most automatically conjurs images of the holocaust or Rwanda - a dedicated attempt to slaughter entire peoples wholesale. The atrocities committed against the Native Americans wasn't characterized in the same way. It was bad, maybe even worse if that's possible.... but it's not the same. Maybe these are a few reasons why you're not finding literature framing the events in terms of ethnic cleansing.

Well, there is literature on the term 'genocide' but thats because genocide as a legal term has been around for fifty years. Usually, in most journals, you'll find positions for and against it. Their's absolutely no literature in most of the journals I've searched regarding ethnic cleansing of Native Americans at all. Thats highly unusual for journals. You usually find all sorts of information and aberrant positions on a variety of topics.

Back to disease for a second, I just dug up the relevant page in Guns Germs and Steel (p211) - Diamond mentions how Hernando DeSoto took a stroll through the Mississipi and noticed the remnants of once densely populated centers that had been abandoned. They had had died of disease introduced to coastal peoples by the Spanish on previous voyages; the germs had preceded the conquistadores by two years.

Yeah, I came across the same reference by other authors, but there are instances of plenty of Indian tribes that interacted with Europeans and didn't develop diseases until much later. One journal I've got has theorized it had to do more with climate change that increased the likelihood of disease vectors being spread by non-human sources, such as fleas. Another journal mentioned how smallpox was spread to the Plains Indians through their horses. But again, there were plenty of Indian tribes that didn't suffer from those diseases until decades of having interacted with people who had it.

He goes on to say that when he was a boy, he was conveniently taught that there was only about a million natives living in North America, though modern evidence has show that there were probably 20 times that. By 1692, it's estimated that that population was reduced by 95%.

A lot of this is speculation and I'm not entirely sure what the consensus is because it seems to be all over the place.

Canada, Mexico and the US treat and/or have all treated their native populations horribly.

My understanding of the French interactions with the Native Americans was far more organic than the American settlers. If you've got sources, I'd love to check them out. I'm open to alternative views.

[Aryan_]

Text » A Guide to Ethnic and Religious Strife Through All Human History

[Wolfn]

Originally Posted by jinnzaman

This thread is dedicated to gathering good sources on the history of ethnic cleansing in America specifically concerning Native Americans,

REDSKIN, A HATE WORD DEFINED page 1

TO THE NON-NATIVE:

Long ago when our people first met. You gave us a name to express your hatred. That name was "REDSKINS". You viewed the "REDSKIN" as a big dumb animal. You slaughtered our children as you would slaughter the wolf. You skinned the bodies of our families and made leggings and tobacco pouches. You turned in the REDSKIN of the Native American for bounty. Yes, you took away our religion, and you said, "What animal understands a higher power?" You confined us to areas because the modern man keeps animals in a game reserve. It was your game, your sport and your joy.

When we hear and read the name REDSKIN, we remember the past. This is the modern day, the dawn of the 21st century, but as Human Beings we see you have no respect for us in the present. We are not allowed to move freely or to be free from your words of hate.
We are treated like you treat the animals,
"Stay out of sight and keep quiet REDSKIN, and you can have your life".

A REDSKIN IS AN ANIMAL

"About ten o'clock in the morning, some white men came. They killed my grandfather and my mother and father. I saw them do it. I was a big girl at that time. Then they killed my baby sister and cut her heart out and threw it in the brush where I ran and hid...I didn't know what to do. I was so scared that I guess I just hid there a long time with my little sister's heart in my hands."

-A "redskin" (Native American) woman of the California area relates her childhood experience, 18th century. (The Native Americans, Turner Publishing, 1992)

"... every redskin must be killed from off the face of the plains before we can be free from their molestations. They are of no earthly good and the sooner they are swept from the land the better for civilization... I do not think they can be turned and made good law abiding citizens any more than coyotes can be used for shepherd dogs"-1866,

-Major John Vance Lauderdale, surgeon US Army. Attending physician at Wounded Knee Massacre; Green, Jerry, After Wounded Knee, (Michigan State University Press, 1996)

He claimed there was no difference in "Indians" from wolves, helping to justify overwhelming hatred of Native People whom he labeled redskin savages:
"BOTH BEING BEASTS OF PREY, THO' THEY DIFFER IN SHAPE."

-George Washington, President of the United States of America (Stannard)

Meanwhile, ass-holes like Rush Limbaugh says that what happened to the Native Indians was justified and no genocide happened. He's basically a Holocaust denier.

[Variable]

Originally Posted by jinnzaman

Oh, I have no doubt that the Spanish and Portuguese engaged in ethnic cleansing. The Spanish had forcibly evicted Jews and Muslims around the same time that they had discovered the New World. The Portuguese did the same thing and went so far as to slaughter a colony of Jews in India when they established power there.

However, the treatment of the Native Americans by the Spanish and Portuguese was more analogous to the Belgians in Congo where they enslaved, exploited, and murdered the population for financial benefit - which is what the British did in various parts of India.

In America, the obsession was with land and not necessarily precious metals and there were a lot of efforts to force off the native population from their lands and it was much more systematic.

One of the causes of the American Revolution was the fact that the British had prohibited Western expansionism by the colonies. This upset a lot of the land speculating companies and a good portion of the elites that were involved with them, such as George Washington who worked for the Ohio company and was one of the biggest land owners in America, began to agitate for independence.

The obsession with land and expansionism in America was really unmatched anywhere else in the Americas. The Spanish, French, and Portuguese definitely wanted to add territory to their empires, but in terms of actual use of the land, the British settlers wanted it for their own.

Sure. I mean, I have to agree that the various colonial powers had very different takes on their colonies. The other European powers were looking for land to exploit where certain British elements were looking for a place to live. But I don't think when it comes to the misery that the native populations were put through, that this really matters all that much.

The same could be said of many parts of the world where the elite class is Europeanized or Westernized. I'm still curious about specific examples of ethnic cleansing such as forced relocation from Central and South America.

Not relocated from Central or South America, but within them. As for specific examples, I haven't gone looking for any... but recent ones have occured as recently as the 80's. Not by European powers so to speak, though definitely along the lines of their legacy. It was often carried out by people of largely Mayan decent, but they perceived themselves as more closely associated wit