3 ms·

I think you may have a rather stereotypical view of the natives. Not all natives were Sioux. A lot of the natives (probably the majority) were farmers themselve

by hristov 17y ago

I think you may have a rather stereotypical view of the natives. Not all natives were Sioux. A lot of the natives (probably the majority) were farmers themselves. And a most of them were rather friendly towards the early colonists and eager to trade with them and intermingle. If the Europeans simply taught the natives their higher efficiency farming methods, there would not be a conflict for land either, because America has enough land to support much larger populations than were present at the time. Of course some natives were hunter gatherers and they would have to change their lifestyles, so I am sure there would be some battles, but if the hunter gatherers had an option to assimilate, they would not fight to the death either, they would eventually see that there is no way out after losing a couple of battles. So there may be some war but there would not be genocide. As it happened, they only fought to the death because they knew there wasn't another option.

jgoodleaf 17y ago
I agree. If you look at the history of contact in northeast N.A., you'll find that the Europeans were relatively few at first. The natives in the area were notably not fond of each other and regularly used Europeans to acquire the means to slaughter their enemies. Before the arrival of the Europeans, relations between the Huron and the Iroquois consisted of constant, low-level warfare (which could be brutal, and involved post facto ritual torture). So in the early-mid 17th century, the French traders were generally allied to the Huron, while the Iroquois were allies of the Dutch, then English. Both sides sought trade monopolies with the Europeans, but the Iroquois, the Mohawk in particular, acquired heavy armaments first. They then used those armaments to slaughter, and in fact, pretty much eliminate the Huron. (I'm glossing over a lot of detail. See Francis Jennings' many books on this period.) Now the Iroquois weren't tricked into doing it. They did it because they didn't like the Huron and wanted what they had. The Dutch and English supplied guns and "monetary" incentives, but the Iroquois were morally responsible. I think that pattern is most obvious in the example I'm trying to describe, but it was hardly unique. There's a tendency to romanticize the Natives (coughAvatarcough) but they could be as filled with hatred and lust as any of the Europeans. Not all of them, of course, but neither were the Europeans all alike.
bokonist 17y ago
Many natives were farmers, but those farmers were also hunters and gatherers. Hunting provided essential proteins. Europeans evolved to get a lot of proteins from cows milk, but natives are lactose intolerant and so would not have been able to drink milk (http://www.amazon.com/000-Year-Explosion-Civilization-Accelerated/dp/0465002218 http://www.amazon.com/000-Year-Explosion-Civilization-Accele... ). Europeans also evolved to deal with farm animal borne diseases, having natives try and use European farming techniques (with animals) may have been a death sentence. And even if the natives could have adopted farming, very few people will give up their old way of life and ancestral lands voluntarily, without putting up a fight. The low density hunter-gatherer-farmer life the natives lived was in many ways more attractive than the dense settlement agriculturalist way of life.

by hristov 17y ago

jgoodleaf 17y ago

I agree. If you look at the history of contact in northeast N.A., you'll find that the Europeans were relatively few at first. The natives in the area were notably not fond of each other and regularly used Europeans to acquire the means to slaughter their enemies. Before the arrival of the Europeans, relations between the Huron and the Iroquois consisted of constant, low-level warfare (which could be brutal, and involved post facto ritual torture). So in the early-mid 17th century, the French traders were generally allied to the Huron, while the Iroquois were allies of the Dutch, then English. Both sides sought trade monopolies with the Europeans, but the Iroquois, the Mohawk in particular, acquired heavy armaments first. They then used those armaments to slaughter, and in fact, pretty much eliminate the Huron. (I'm glossing over a lot of detail. See Francis Jennings' many books on this period.) Now the Iroquois weren't tricked into doing it. They did it because they didn't like the Huron and wanted what they had. The Dutch and English supplied guns and "monetary" incentives, but the Iroquois were morally responsible. I think that pattern is most obvious in the example I'm trying to describe, but it was hardly unique. There's a tendency to romanticize the Natives (coughAvatarcough) but they could be as filled with hatred and lust as any of the Europeans. Not all of them, of course, but neither were the Europeans all alike.

bokonist 17y ago

Many natives were farmers, but those farmers were also hunters and gatherers. Hunting provided essential proteins. Europeans evolved to get a lot of proteins from cows milk, but natives are lactose intolerant and so would not have been able to drink milk (http://www.amazon.com/000-Year-Explosion-Civilization-Accelerated/dp/0465002218 http://www.amazon.com/000-Year-Explosion-Civilization-Accele... ). Europeans also evolved to deal with farm animal borne diseases, having natives try and use European farming techniques (with animals) may have been a death sentence. And even if the natives could have adopted farming, very few people will give up their old way of life and ancestral lands voluntarily, without putting up a fight. The low density hunter-gatherer-farmer life the natives lived was in many ways more attractive than the dense settlement agriculturalist way of life.