3 ms·

> The first governor of California literally stated: Yes, "between the races", not "against the Indians." Because in his eyes, at least some natives were as in

> The first governor of California literally stated: Yes, "between the races", not "against the Indians." Because in his eyes, at least some natives were as intent on driving them out as he was them. > when tribes got inconvenient settlers moved to extermination To be clear, "inconvenient" usually involved native conducting raids, massacres, rape, and enslavement. Of course, had the settlers not been settling their land, this would not have happened. But I don't think anyone today would see this as an acceptable response to migration. (And it wasn't, solely, the same sorts of low-level clashes were quite normal even before Europeans, who injected themselves into it.) As a more extreme example, there's great books written about the Comanche empire. Indeed, if people had really seen things this way at the time, there wouldn't have been large numbers of natives assimilating into settler culture, nor would natives have allied with settlers against other natives continually even through the 1800s, when nobody could have argued that how the Americans would behave was unknown. "The settlers broke treaties" is true, but it's also true that natives broke treaties or made treaties that they had no authority to make in the first place, resulting in all sorts of disasters. The story of colonialist expansion in the US is not good vs evil.

ajmurmann 3y ago
Was it just migration or taking/stealing land that? If immigrants (or anyone else) today started building a town on some farmer's land violence would occur one way or another. Maybe the land was purchased from the native Americans and I just don't know it?
masklinn 3y ago
> Yes, "between the races", not "against the Indians." Because in his eyes, at least some natives were as intent on driving them out as he was them. An assertion borne by absolutely nothing at best, and made as the US had just conquered the state and were looking to "pacify" it and fill it with settlers, made by the then holder of ultimate power in the state. Making up "some natives" is clearly equivalent, go off queen. > To be clear, "inconvenient" usually involved native conducting raids, massacres, rape, and enslavement. Something the settlers also did routinely and extensively, but hey without an army it apparently doesn't matter. > But I don't think anyone today would see this as an acceptable response to migration. People seem to be reacting pretty favourably to Ukraine's response to the current russian "migration". > The story of colonialist expansion in the US is not good vs evil. You certainly seem very intent on justifying it through claims that the natives were not innocent so it was OK.
- Amezarak 3y ago
  Nowhere did I say or suggest it was OK. I don't find looking at the past through a moralistic lens helps me understand it. > People seem to be reacting pretty favourably to Ukraine's response to the current russian "migration". The colonization of America much more closely resembled mass migration and then subsequent cultural conflicts than it did Russia's invasion of Ukraine. It didn't really resemble the latter at all. > An assertion borne by absolutely nothing at best, and made as the US had just conquered the state and were looking to "pacify" it and fill it with settlers, made by the then holder of ultimate power in the state. If you mean "conquering" California, you mean taking it from Mexico after the Mexican-American wars, California had already been subject to colonization efforts for almost a hundred years, but even so, I don't think speaking of the US federal government or the state government as "the holder of ultimate power" makes sense. Most people for a long time lived effectively free from any state control. I mentioned the Comanche - it might be interesting to note that Comanche peaked in power just a decade prior to his term as governor, and they were in every meaningful sense militarily superior to the Americans, Mexicans, and surrounding native groups. They did not have a presence in California, but they're a good counterexample to the idea that natives just couldn't resist settlers - they rapidly acquired guns, horses, and often frankly superior skill in using them, which was frequently exercised. There's no doubt that settler encroachment and fundamentally incompatible ideas of civilization resulted in the pushing out and near-extinction of independent native communities, but it was by no means a sure, given thing. If native groups had united against the settlers and decided to get rid of them, they would have been wiped out.

ajmurmann 3y ago

Was it just migration or taking/stealing land that? If immigrants (or anyone else) today started building a town on some farmer's land violence would occur one way or another. Maybe the land was purchased from the native Americans and I just don't know it?

masklinn 3y ago

> Yes, "between the races", not "against the Indians." Because in his eyes, at least some natives were as intent on driving them out as he was them. An assertion borne by absolutely nothing at best, and made as the US had just conquered the state and were looking to "pacify" it and fill it with settlers, made by the then holder of ultimate power in the state. Making up "some natives" is clearly equivalent, go off queen. > To be clear, "inconvenient" usually involved native conducting raids, massacres, rape, and enslavement. Something the settlers also did routinely and extensively, but hey without an army it apparently doesn't matter. > But I don't think anyone today would see this as an acceptable response to migration. People seem to be reacting pretty favourably to Ukraine's response to the current russian "migration". > The story of colonialist expansion in the US is not good vs evil. You certainly seem very intent on justifying it through claims that the natives were not innocent so it was OK.

Amezarak 3y ago
Nowhere did I say or suggest it was OK. I don't find looking at the past through a moralistic lens helps me understand it. > People seem to be reacting pretty favourably to Ukraine's response to the current russian "migration". The colonization of America much more closely resembled mass migration and then subsequent cultural conflicts than it did Russia's invasion of Ukraine. It didn't really resemble the latter at all. > An assertion borne by absolutely nothing at best, and made as the US had just conquered the state and were looking to "pacify" it and fill it with settlers, made by the then holder of ultimate power in the state. If you mean "conquering" California, you mean taking it from Mexico after the Mexican-American wars, California had already been subject to colonization efforts for almost a hundred years, but even so, I don't think speaking of the US federal government or the state government as "the holder of ultimate power" makes sense. Most people for a long time lived effectively free from any state control. I mentioned the Comanche - it might be interesting to note that Comanche peaked in power just a decade prior to his term as governor, and they were in every meaningful sense militarily superior to the Americans, Mexicans, and surrounding native groups. They did not have a presence in California, but they're a good counterexample to the idea that natives just couldn't resist settlers - they rapidly acquired guns, horses, and often frankly superior skill in using them, which was frequently exercised. There's no doubt that settler encroachment and fundamentally incompatible ideas of civilization resulted in the pushing out and near-extinction of independent native communities, but it was by no means a sure, given thing. If native groups had united against the settlers and decided to get rid of them, they would have been wiped out.