3 ms·

While you're correct about the native people often living as nomads and lacking clothing or permanent structures, it's worth clarifying the "genocide" claim whi

by floor2 4y ago

While you're correct about the native people often living as nomads and lacking clothing or permanent structures, it's worth clarifying the "genocide" claim which is a source of mass misunderstanding about American history. To be clear- many indigenous groups lived as distinct tribes for decades or centuries which then disappeared, but essentially none of them were due to direct contact with immigrants from Europe. Disease, drought, inter-tribal warfare wiped out the vast majority. The introduction of guns and horses to tribes that had lived in a state of intergenerational conflict led to much higher death rates when groups clashed. Even relatively minor diseases can lead to deaths when the entire tribe needs to keep moving daily to follow a herd of animals. The narrative of European immigrants wiping out the tribal groups is mostly a modern fiction, heavily signal-boosted by Chinese & Russian propaganda to undermine Western human rights demands by turning contemporary abuses into a "whataboutism" of an imagined past.

eesmith 4y ago
> Disease, drought, inter-tribal warfare wiped out the vast majority. To be clear, disease was by far the biggest factor. To be even more clear, diseases introduced via Europeans. Wikipedia's list includes "smallpox, bubonic plague, chickenpox, cholera, the common cold, diphtheria, influenza, malaria, measles, scarlet fever, sexually transmitted diseases (with the possible exception of syphilis), typhoid, typhus, tuberculosis (although a form of this infection existed in South America prior to contact),[4] and pertussis" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_disease_and_epidemics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_disease_and_ep... European colonization was significantly easier because something like 50-90% of the population was gone, 1) causing Europeans to think the land was 'virgin wilderness', with no strong indigenous land claim 2) making it easier for Europeans to conquer the local population, and 3) leaving improved lands that were easier to settle. > led to much higher death rates when groups clashed Do you have any numbers putting those rates into perspective? What I've found says it's a relatively small factor. > The narrative of European immigrants wiping out the tribal groups is mostly a modern fiction I have no idea of what are you talking about. The California genocide isn't a modern fiction. The forced relocations and ethnic cleansings of the "Five Civilized Tribes" isn't a modern fiction. The "Battle" at Wounded Knee was a US fiction about a massacre. I don't even see how this "whataboutism" is supposed to work. US government policy was directly based on white supremacy. It ended up with horrific consequences. We teach those as bad things. So that makes similar contemporary abuses good? Somehow? How?
- floor2 4y ago
  Your confusion is because you fully believe the myths you've been told. I recognize a message board comment isn't going to change your mind any more than if I tell a devoutly religious person "God isn't real" or an extreme Qanon anti-vaxer that "vaccines don't cause autism". But I'll say it anyway- almost everything the average American was taught in school about native Americans and early settlers is somewhere between completely false and deeply misleading. We teach history as if the natives were peaceful victims and the settlers were violent attackers, but the truth is often entirely the opposite, where refugees from European wars settled as peaceful farmers only to have a Comanche war party find and attack them years later. Unfortunately the Overton window is so far away from reality, that stating basic factual truths like this gets you attacked with the vigor of an atheistic heretic under a Sharia system. As for the "whataboutism" it's a simple attack against America to silence human rights activists as having essentially "no moral ground to stand upon". If an American says China shouldn't genocide the Uyghurs, they deflect the criticism by refocusing on the (imagined) treatment of various tribes by American policies in the 1800s.
  - eesmith 4y ago
    I don't know what you are talking about. To the point where it sound like you are part of the kooks who believe kids these days are being taught to hate their country. > you fully believe the myths you've been told Which myths are you referring to? > is somewhere between completely false and deeply misleading I'm totally on board with that. The history I learned in school appear to have whitewashed the history. > We teach history as if the natives were peaceful victims and the settlers were violent attackers This is completely untrue. I even pulled out my high school American history book, and it doesn't say that. And my high school teacher is still teaching American history. > where refugees from European wars settled as peaceful farmers only to have a Comanche war party find and attack them years later. Is this a specific incident you have in mind? The Comanche surrendered in 1875 so you're talking about settlements in 1870 or earlier, and in modern-day Texas or Oklahoma. I'm hard pressed to think of which European refugees you refer to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comanche_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comanche_history gives an example of that place and time: ] In May 1847, Texas allowed the German settlers near Fredericksburg and New Braunfels to make their own treaty with the Texas Comanches. In exchange for land, the Germans promised a trading post and gifts. Unfortunately, the Germans not only encroached beyond the agreed boundary, but were slow to pay, and in response the Comanches made raids. This is some time after the Council House Fight, "in which Republic of Texas officials attempted to capture and take prisoner 33 Comanche chiefs who had come to negotiate a peace treaty, killing them together with two dozen of their family and followers" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Raid_of_1840 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Raid_of_1840 Or, quoting https://archive.org/details/americanindianho00thor_0/page/48/mode/2up?q=texas https://archive.org/details/americanindianho00thor_0/page/48... : ] In Texas, “the facts of history arc plain: Most Texas Indians were exterminated or brought to the brink of oblivion by Spaniards, Mexicans, Texans, and Americans who often had no more regard for the life of an Indian than they had for that of a dog, sometimes less” (Newcomb, 1961: 334; see also chapters on individual Texas tribes in Ortiz, 1983) I'm curious - how much regard did this European refugee farmer have for the Comanche? And how did the refugee come to be settled in contested land? Who did he think would protect him, and why? I ask, because we can directly compare the roughly century of peace between the Comanche and New Mexico, after NM killed Cuerno Verde and made - and upheld - a peace agreement with the Comanche, to know that long-term peace was possible. ... by a non-expansionist power. > basic factual truths like There really weren't that many European war refugees settling the plains, so even given that it's a basic factual truth, I don't understand how one small example is at all meaningful over the entire history of English-speaking American expansionism. > they deflect the criticism by refocusing on the (imagined) treatment of various tribes by American policies in the 1800s Again, the California Genocide was not imagined. Or do you think it was? What imagined example are being given? Why make up examples when the real ones are so plentiful? I mean, Soviet propaganda used real examples of Black oppression in the US to counter American "Free World" propaganda. And it wasn't until the 1940s that it became illegal to hold someone as a slave - to counter possible Japanese propaganda. Quoting https://www.onlyonesolution.org/blog/blog/2016/01/31/Neo-Slavery/ https://www.onlyonesolution.org/blog/blog/2016/01/31/Neo-Sla... . ] The change came as a result of Roosevelt’s fear that racial inequalities would be used as anti-United States propaganda by the Japanese during World War II. After Pearl Harbor Roosevelt asked the cabinet what were the U.S soft spots, propaganda wise. The reply he received was that the Japanese may claim America is stating that it fights for freedom while oppressing its own citizens. This led him to finally order some enforcement actions against slavery by the federal government. Own up to our negative history, explain why it was wrong, and use that to prevent further genocides.
PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
I find this a little disingenous in that while it is true that: > Disease, drought, inter-tribal warfare wiped out the vast majority. it was really overwhelmingly disease, and it was disease introduced by colonists from Europe.

by floor2 4y ago

eesmith 4y ago

> Disease, drought, inter-tribal warfare wiped out the vast majority. To be clear, disease was by far the biggest factor. To be even more clear, diseases introduced via Europeans. Wikipedia's list includes "smallpox, bubonic plague, chickenpox, cholera, the common cold, diphtheria, influenza, malaria, measles, scarlet fever, sexually transmitted diseases (with the possible exception of syphilis), typhoid, typhus, tuberculosis (although a form of this infection existed in South America prior to contact),[4] and pertussis" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_disease_and_epidemics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_disease_and_ep... European colonization was significantly easier because something like 50-90% of the population was gone, 1) causing Europeans to think the land was 'virgin wilderness', with no strong indigenous land claim 2) making it easier for Europeans to conquer the local population, and 3) leaving improved lands that were easier to settle. > led to much higher death rates when groups clashed Do you have any numbers putting those rates into perspective? What I've found says it's a relatively small factor. > The narrative of European immigrants wiping out the tribal groups is mostly a modern fiction I have no idea of what are you talking about. The California genocide isn't a modern fiction. The forced relocations and ethnic cleansings of the "Five Civilized Tribes" isn't a modern fiction. The "Battle" at Wounded Knee was a US fiction about a massacre. I don't even see how this "whataboutism" is supposed to work. US government policy was directly based on white supremacy. It ended up with horrific consequences. We teach those as bad things. So that makes similar contemporary abuses good? Somehow? How?

floor2 4y ago
Your confusion is because you fully believe the myths you've been told. I recognize a message board comment isn't going to change your mind any more than if I tell a devoutly religious person "God isn't real" or an extreme Qanon anti-vaxer that "vaccines don't cause autism". But I'll say it anyway- almost everything the average American was taught in school about native Americans and early settlers is somewhere between completely false and deeply misleading. We teach history as if the natives were peaceful victims and the settlers were violent attackers, but the truth is often entirely the opposite, where refugees from European wars settled as peaceful farmers only to have a Comanche war party find and attack them years later. Unfortunately the Overton window is so far away from reality, that stating basic factual truths like this gets you attacked with the vigor of an atheistic heretic under a Sharia system. As for the "whataboutism" it's a simple attack against America to silence human rights activists as having essentially "no moral ground to stand upon". If an American says China shouldn't genocide the Uyghurs, they deflect the criticism by refocusing on the (imagined) treatment of various tribes by American policies in the 1800s.
- eesmith 4y ago
  I don't know what you are talking about. To the point where it sound like you are part of the kooks who believe kids these days are being taught to hate their country. > you fully believe the myths you've been told Which myths are you referring to? > is somewhere between completely false and deeply misleading I'm totally on board with that. The history I learned in school appear to have whitewashed the history. > We teach history as if the natives were peaceful victims and the settlers were violent attackers This is completely untrue. I even pulled out my high school American history book, and it doesn't say that. And my high school teacher is still teaching American history. > where refugees from European wars settled as peaceful farmers only to have a Comanche war party find and attack them years later. Is this a specific incident you have in mind? The Comanche surrendered in 1875 so you're talking about settlements in 1870 or earlier, and in modern-day Texas or Oklahoma. I'm hard pressed to think of which European refugees you refer to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comanche_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comanche_history gives an example of that place and time: ] In May 1847, Texas allowed the German settlers near Fredericksburg and New Braunfels to make their own treaty with the Texas Comanches. In exchange for land, the Germans promised a trading post and gifts. Unfortunately, the Germans not only encroached beyond the agreed boundary, but were slow to pay, and in response the Comanches made raids. This is some time after the Council House Fight, "in which Republic of Texas officials attempted to capture and take prisoner 33 Comanche chiefs who had come to negotiate a peace treaty, killing them together with two dozen of their family and followers" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Raid_of_1840 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Raid_of_1840 Or, quoting https://archive.org/details/americanindianho00thor_0/page/48/mode/2up?q=texas https://archive.org/details/americanindianho00thor_0/page/48... : ] In Texas, “the facts of history arc plain: Most Texas Indians were exterminated or brought to the brink of oblivion by Spaniards, Mexicans, Texans, and Americans who often had no more regard for the life of an Indian than they had for that of a dog, sometimes less” (Newcomb, 1961: 334; see also chapters on individual Texas tribes in Ortiz, 1983) I'm curious - how much regard did this European refugee farmer have for the Comanche? And how did the refugee come to be settled in contested land? Who did he think would protect him, and why? I ask, because we can directly compare the roughly century of peace between the Comanche and New Mexico, after NM killed Cuerno Verde and made - and upheld - a peace agreement with the Comanche, to know that long-term peace was possible. ... by a non-expansionist power. > basic factual truths like There really weren't that many European war refugees settling the plains, so even given that it's a basic factual truth, I don't understand how one small example is at all meaningful over the entire history of English-speaking American expansionism. > they deflect the criticism by refocusing on the (imagined) treatment of various tribes by American policies in the 1800s Again, the California Genocide was not imagined. Or do you think it was? What imagined example are being given? Why make up examples when the real ones are so plentiful? I mean, Soviet propaganda used real examples of Black oppression in the US to counter American "Free World" propaganda. And it wasn't until the 1940s that it became illegal to hold someone as a slave - to counter possible Japanese propaganda. Quoting https://www.onlyonesolution.org/blog/blog/2016/01/31/Neo-Slavery/ https://www.onlyonesolution.org/blog/blog/2016/01/31/Neo-Sla... . ] The change came as a result of Roosevelt’s fear that racial inequalities would be used as anti-United States propaganda by the Japanese during World War II. After Pearl Harbor Roosevelt asked the cabinet what were the U.S soft spots, propaganda wise. The reply he received was that the Japanese may claim America is stating that it fights for freedom while oppressing its own citizens. This led him to finally order some enforcement actions against slavery by the federal government. Own up to our negative history, explain why it was wrong, and use that to prevent further genocides.

PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago

I find this a little disingenous in that while it is true that: > Disease, drought, inter-tribal warfare wiped out the vast majority. it was really overwhelmingly disease, and it was disease introduced by colonists from Europe.