5 ms·

"Columbus bad" isn't really a "thesis", it's a fact. But yeah, it's against the evidence to think native american societies could have posed any meaningful def

by ss108 4y ago

"Columbus bad" isn't really a "thesis", it's a fact. But yeah, it's against the evidence to think native american societies could have posed any meaningful defense or offense against old world countries. Have you read 1491 and 1493. I have, and they are a couple of the most eye-opening books I have read.

PicassoCTs 4y ago
They most likely would have become insular like china and stagnated similarly. Best scenario would be something like a south vs north dual empire constellation, locked into a cold war that eggs them ever onward. But we will never know, because they did not produce a culture that could compete. Even with time to prepare, alot of these cultures abandoned advanced tech (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_of_Japan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_of_Japan) and supressed the "foreign" as the local elites felt there oligarchies threatened by those strange foreigners. I guess the usual attempts were made to encooperate the threat, by offering small kingdoms, slaves and positions within the ruling religion. It did not really work out, as disease crumbled the civilizations to dust. The other "prepared" culture (north american indians who met the vikings) did not take any lesson from that encounter either, because the tales of strange boats with christian raiders were not kept in writing and information was not exchanged with neighbors, with which they were locked in ritualistic inter-tribal warfare. Which is the main problem. The lack of information storage and exchange, due to a missing central culture. Africa had the longest time to acclimate to western intrusion, and did so by selling its own people as goods. The few things they did take over were weapons (used for slave trading and inter tribal warfare), the only candidates for organized resistance was the islamic world (who had writtings, a specialized labour system (industrial precursors) and centralized structures), but they were & are locked in by thee own cultural problems. Only exception were the persians, which were and are the france/us of the region. The chinese almost colonized africa, but then gave it up as a foolish endeavor, due to internal problems (starvation caused unrest) which was mostly due to there industrial revolution never reaching critical mass, which was mostly due to centralized culture/geography preventing technological competition aka harmony). There is good fiction on the topic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Years_of_Rice_and_Salt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Years_of_Rice_and_Salt, but you need basically a geographical reactor europes eternal boiling empire pot, with a progress state saving device attached (netherlands and england, some italian states were the scientists fled towards and from), to reach the critical mass. The ingredients were omnipresent, but the permanence of the societal reaction was hard to get critical.
- BXLE_1-1-BitIs1 4y ago
  Amerindians were highly vulnerable to European diseases while Europeans were similarly vulnerable to African diseases. Certain parts of Africa were known as "White Man's Grave". Displacement by settlers in Africa was limited to areas with suitable climate. In the other areas, the natives were pretty left on their own as long as no exploitable resources were present.
paisawalla 4y ago
> "Columbus bad" isn't really a "thesis", it's a fact. Bad compared to who? Whatever faults you'd lay at his feet were not only de rigueur for both Europeans and Muslims of his time, but exceeded in many dimensions of savagery by the indigenous cultures he encountered. At any rate, disease and lack of immunity was far and away the agent of the demise of the natives, not Columbus or those who followed him over the centuries. > Have you read 1491 and 1493. I have, and they are a couple of the most eye-opening books I have read. Have you read Rousseau? The man never met a native American, and what accounts he read of their lives were certainly exaggerations, if not fabrications. In his own life, he was notoriously irresponsible. He fathered and abandoned for the orphanage -- a death sentence in those days -- five children. He was habitually leeching off friends and nobles who were susceptible to his charms, until he exhausted their patience and good will, including by e.g. seducing their wives at times. In short, he was a scoundrel, and he saw in the the story of the natives something which he desperately wanted for himself, but which wasn't there: the possibility of a life free from societal constraint, obligations to be decent, to use one's life productively, to be responsible for others, to live morally. The man confabulated for the natives a lifestyle free of the bonds under which he chafed in France -- and we have been laboring under his romantic "noble savage" delusion ever since. I mention all this to say, anyone who would read about the lives of natives would do well to read a little Rousseau, then read a little about the man, and mentally subtract his influence which is virtually omnipresent in all subsequent popular thought about natives. TLDR; nobody wants to consider that the colonel may have been the good guy in Avatar, and Sully a delusional loner.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > Whatever faults you’d lay at his feet were not only de rigueur for both Europeans and Muslims of his time, No, they weren’t, which is why he was known as a notoriously cruel administrator by contemporary Europeans, which was a substantial factor in his being removed as governor, arrested, and returned to Spain in chains.
  - hattmall 4y ago
    This is also generally a fabrication. Columbus was a fanatic. This is how he was viewed and the claims of his cruelty were unsubstantiated allegations made by his enemies and the crown to avoid paying him the 10% that he was contractually owed. This was the reason for his removal as governor. Columbus returned in chains at his own insistence that if he were to be recalled to defend himself then he was a prisoner and it should be known that he was treated as such and afforded no special privilege. Columbus the Four Voyages by Laurence Bergreen details this and many many more extremely interesting details about Columbus.
jcranmer 4y ago
> But yeah, it's against the evidence to think native american societies could have posed any meaningful defense or offense against old world countries. But they did pose a meaningful defense. The Mayans weren't fully conquered until the early 1800s, the Mapuche the late 1800s--effectively, it took Spain (and later Chile/Argentina) over 300 years to conquer the Native Americans. Quite frankly, the main reason they succeeded was not that the indigenous peoples were inferior, but that the Europeans could afford to wage a low-grade war for centuries, and stomach the surprisingly frequent setbacks, whereas the indigenous peoples couldn't.
- leereeves 4y ago
  > The Mayans weren't fully conquered until the early 1800s I don't know anything about Mayan history, but Wikipedia says the Spanish conquered the Maya by 1697. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_civilization#Contact_period_and_Spanish_conquest_(1511%E2%80%931697_AD) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_civilization#Contact_peri...
- sbaiddn 4y ago
  Ya, but the Mapuche (as fierce warriors as they were) were unconquered largely because no one cared about Patagonia enough to live there. Kinda hard to conquer an area larger than France with a few thousand men.

by ss108 4y ago

PicassoCTs 4y ago

They most likely would have become insular like china and stagnated similarly. Best scenario would be something like a south vs north dual empire constellation, locked into a cold war that eggs them ever onward. But we will never know, because they did not produce a culture that could compete. Even with time to prepare, alot of these cultures abandoned advanced tech (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_of_Japan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_of_Japan) and supressed the "foreign" as the local elites felt there oligarchies threatened by those strange foreigners. I guess the usual attempts were made to encooperate the threat, by offering small kingdoms, slaves and positions within the ruling religion. It did not really work out, as disease crumbled the civilizations to dust. The other "prepared" culture (north american indians who met the vikings) did not take any lesson from that encounter either, because the tales of strange boats with christian raiders were not kept in writing and information was not exchanged with neighbors, with which they were locked in ritualistic inter-tribal warfare. Which is the main problem. The lack of information storage and exchange, due to a missing central culture. Africa had the longest time to acclimate to western intrusion, and did so by selling its own people as goods. The few things they did take over were weapons (used for slave trading and inter tribal warfare), the only candidates for organized resistance was the islamic world (who had writtings, a specialized labour system (industrial precursors) and centralized structures), but they were & are locked in by thee own cultural problems. Only exception were the persians, which were and are the france/us of the region. The chinese almost colonized africa, but then gave it up as a foolish endeavor, due to internal problems (starvation caused unrest) which was mostly due to there industrial revolution never reaching critical mass, which was mostly due to centralized culture/geography preventing technological competition aka harmony). There is good fiction on the topic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Years_of_Rice_and_Salt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Years_of_Rice_and_Salt, but you need basically a geographical reactor europes eternal boiling empire pot, with a progress state saving device attached (netherlands and england, some italian states were the scientists fled towards and from), to reach the critical mass. The ingredients were omnipresent, but the permanence of the societal reaction was hard to get critical.

BXLE_1-1-BitIs1 4y ago
Amerindians were highly vulnerable to European diseases while Europeans were similarly vulnerable to African diseases. Certain parts of Africa were known as "White Man's Grave". Displacement by settlers in Africa was limited to areas with suitable climate. In the other areas, the natives were pretty left on their own as long as no exploitable resources were present.

paisawalla 4y ago

> "Columbus bad" isn't really a "thesis", it's a fact. Bad compared to who? Whatever faults you'd lay at his feet were not only de rigueur for both Europeans and Muslims of his time, but exceeded in many dimensions of savagery by the indigenous cultures he encountered. At any rate, disease and lack of immunity was far and away the agent of the demise of the natives, not Columbus or those who followed him over the centuries. > Have you read 1491 and 1493. I have, and they are a couple of the most eye-opening books I have read. Have you read Rousseau? The man never met a native American, and what accounts he read of their lives were certainly exaggerations, if not fabrications. In his own life, he was notoriously irresponsible. He fathered and abandoned for the orphanage -- a death sentence in those days -- five children. He was habitually leeching off friends and nobles who were susceptible to his charms, until he exhausted their patience and good will, including by e.g. seducing their wives at times. In short, he was a scoundrel, and he saw in the the story of the natives something which he desperately wanted for himself, but which wasn't there: the possibility of a life free from societal constraint, obligations to be decent, to use one's life productively, to be responsible for others, to live morally. The man confabulated for the natives a lifestyle free of the bonds under which he chafed in France -- and we have been laboring under his romantic "noble savage" delusion ever since. I mention all this to say, anyone who would read about the lives of natives would do well to read a little Rousseau, then read a little about the man, and mentally subtract his influence which is virtually omnipresent in all subsequent popular thought about natives. TLDR; nobody wants to consider that the colonel may have been the good guy in Avatar, and Sully a delusional loner.

dragonwriter 4y ago
> Whatever faults you’d lay at his feet were not only de rigueur for both Europeans and Muslims of his time, No, they weren’t, which is why he was known as a notoriously cruel administrator by contemporary Europeans, which was a substantial factor in his being removed as governor, arrested, and returned to Spain in chains.
- hattmall 4y ago
  This is also generally a fabrication. Columbus was a fanatic. This is how he was viewed and the claims of his cruelty were unsubstantiated allegations made by his enemies and the crown to avoid paying him the 10% that he was contractually owed. This was the reason for his removal as governor. Columbus returned in chains at his own insistence that if he were to be recalled to defend himself then he was a prisoner and it should be known that he was treated as such and afforded no special privilege. Columbus the Four Voyages by Laurence Bergreen details this and many many more extremely interesting details about Columbus.

jcranmer 4y ago

> But yeah, it's against the evidence to think native american societies could have posed any meaningful defense or offense against old world countries. But they did pose a meaningful defense. The Mayans weren't fully conquered until the early 1800s, the Mapuche the late 1800s--effectively, it took Spain (and later Chile/Argentina) over 300 years to conquer the Native Americans. Quite frankly, the main reason they succeeded was not that the indigenous peoples were inferior, but that the Europeans could afford to wage a low-grade war for centuries, and stomach the surprisingly frequent setbacks, whereas the indigenous peoples couldn't.

leereeves 4y ago
> The Mayans weren't fully conquered until the early 1800s I don't know anything about Mayan history, but Wikipedia says the Spanish conquered the Maya by 1697. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_civilization#Contact_period_and_Spanish_conquest_(1511%E2%80%931697_AD) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_civilization#Contact_peri...
sbaiddn 4y ago
Ya, but the Mapuche (as fierce warriors as they were) were unconquered largely because no one cared about Patagonia enough to live there. Kinda hard to conquer an area larger than France with a few thousand men.