3 ms·

There is quite a difference between conquering (and thereby assimilating) versus killing almost all natives and then populating the place with your own settlers

There is quite a difference between conquering (and thereby assimilating) versus killing almost all natives and then populating the place with your own settlers..

macspoofing 4y ago
>versus killing almost all natives and then populating the place with your own settlers.. The native population was not killed but rather decimated by disease. Pre-colonial population of North America was on the order of 60 million - there was zero chance European powers being able to hold that size of population over a period of time. Contrast that to Africa, which today has a minimal population of European descendants ... because that native population had immunity.
- jameshart 4y ago
  That’s a funny definition of ‘not killed’ you’re using.
  - kspacewalk2 4y ago
    They died, but they were indeed not killed. You may say something flowery like "the diseases killed them", or "the arrival of the Brits killed them", but the British empire or its subjects did not kill the vast, vast majority of Native North Americans who died as a consequence of their arrival.
    - meatyloafy 4y ago
      They were killed by what the settlers brought with them. No, it was not deliberate (#), but nevertheless, their arrival is what killed most of the natives. (#) Obviously the settlers would have preferred to keep the natives alive since then they would not have needed to ship vast quantities of Africans across the ocean to enslave, but could have just done that with the locals.
      - macspoofing 4y ago
        >They were killed by what the settlers brought with them. No, it was not deliberate (#), but nevertheless, their arrival is what killed most of the natives. That's all I meant to clarify. You'd be surprised how many people today actually think that the native population was wiped out through deliberate and intentional action. Your wording made it seem you believed that as well, but that seemed to not be the case. >Obviously the settlers would have preferred to keep the natives alive since then they would not have needed to ship vast quantities That's a caricature.
        8note 4y ago
        It was intentional though. The bison didn't disappear because of western disease, they were hunted out to break up the natives ability to resist, so they could be killed and corralled, and the land be granted to settlers. Canada intentionally withheld food it owed to natives as part of treaty agreements, with the understanding that if a bunch of people starved to death, Canada wouldn't need to send as much food. Similarly, disease was spread intentionally through small pox blankets, with the intention listed
        ldh0011 4y ago
        It may not be the case that deliberate and intentional actions alone could have wiped out the natives but it seems pretty clear that there were a lot of deliberate and intentional actions both to kill them and take their land (Trail of Tears, Spanish conquests in South America). Those actions just wouldn't have been as successful without the diseases.
    - klibertp 4y ago
      Well, news outlets are perfectly comfortable with saying that this or that COVID policy "killed" millions and will kill even more... If only the British instituted lockdowns, quarantine, and mass testing for diseases, the Native Americans could have lived! (Not saying this is the right perspective, but I understand why people would argue for it, especially when using ahistorical lens of today's diseases handling)
- stjohnswarts 4y ago
  However the natives where still wiped out by European diseases nonetheless, a direct result of Europeans coming here, I'm sure the Europeans of the time were grateful for that even if it wasn't a result of direct action on their part, they would have been fine with it happening.

There is quite a difference between conquering (and thereby assimilating) versus killing almost all natives and then populating the place with your own settlers..

macspoofing 4y ago

>versus killing almost all natives and then populating the place with your own settlers.. The native population was not killed but rather decimated by disease. Pre-colonial population of North America was on the order of 60 million - there was zero chance European powers being able to hold that size of population over a period of time. Contrast that to Africa, which today has a minimal population of European descendants ... because that native population had immunity.

jameshart 4y ago
That’s a funny definition of ‘not killed’ you’re using.
- kspacewalk2 4y ago
  They died, but they were indeed not killed. You may say something flowery like "the diseases killed them", or "the arrival of the Brits killed them", but the British empire or its subjects did not kill the vast, vast majority of Native North Americans who died as a consequence of their arrival.
  - meatyloafy 4y ago
    They were killed by what the settlers brought with them. No, it was not deliberate (#), but nevertheless, their arrival is what killed most of the natives. (#) Obviously the settlers would have preferred to keep the natives alive since then they would not have needed to ship vast quantities of Africans across the ocean to enslave, but could have just done that with the locals.
    - macspoofing 4y ago
      >They were killed by what the settlers brought with them. No, it was not deliberate (#), but nevertheless, their arrival is what killed most of the natives. That's all I meant to clarify. You'd be surprised how many people today actually think that the native population was wiped out through deliberate and intentional action. Your wording made it seem you believed that as well, but that seemed to not be the case. >Obviously the settlers would have preferred to keep the natives alive since then they would not have needed to ship vast quantities That's a caricature.
      - 8note 4y ago
        It was intentional though. The bison didn't disappear because of western disease, they were hunted out to break up the natives ability to resist, so they could be killed and corralled, and the land be granted to settlers. Canada intentionally withheld food it owed to natives as part of treaty agreements, with the understanding that if a bunch of people starved to death, Canada wouldn't need to send as much food. Similarly, disease was spread intentionally through small pox blankets, with the intention listed
      - ldh0011 4y ago
        It may not be the case that deliberate and intentional actions alone could have wiped out the natives but it seems pretty clear that there were a lot of deliberate and intentional actions both to kill them and take their land (Trail of Tears, Spanish conquests in South America). Those actions just wouldn't have been as successful without the diseases.
  - klibertp 4y ago
    Well, news outlets are perfectly comfortable with saying that this or that COVID policy "killed" millions and will kill even more... If only the British instituted lockdowns, quarantine, and mass testing for diseases, the Native Americans could have lived! (Not saying this is the right perspective, but I understand why people would argue for it, especially when using ahistorical lens of today's diseases handling)
stjohnswarts 4y ago
However the natives where still wiped out by European diseases nonetheless, a direct result of Europeans coming here, I'm sure the Europeans of the time were grateful for that even if it wasn't a result of direct action on their part, they would have been fine with it happening.