3 ms·

I was surprised to find out that there are still many indigenous groups with populations in the millions. My California public education made it seem like they

I was surprised to find out that there are still many indigenous groups with populations in the millions. My California public education made it seem like they were all pretty much wiped out save for those who survived to the various reservation systems. My favorite group is the Mapuche who managed to hold out against the Spaniards until they were conquered by Chile and Argentina in the late 19th century. They managed to thwart the conquistadors for centuries! It wasn’t until the modern era where military logistics got good enough to unseat them and overcome the advantages they had.

gausswho 1y ago
The Mapuche even expanded their territorial control, in large part to their acquisition and mastery of Spanish horses.
- pjbk 1y ago
  They also mainly continued to be loyal to the Spanish crown after Argentina and Chile went through their independence, and carried out the final pacification of the Mapuche territories in the 19th century. By then only a very small part of the population had not mingled with Europeans.
WalterBright 1y ago
The Commanche also held out until after the Civil War.
- beerandt 1y ago
  Was always weird to me how "the French and Indian War" had Indian involvement almost over emphasized to pretend like it wasn't the extension of a European war... While all the other American conflicts with tons of Indian involvement (both sides, esp civil war) had it downplayed. One of my first realizations of slant put on history.
  - tdeck 1y ago
    It's more properly a campaign of the Seven Years War, which was almost a world war of its time.
    - beerandt 1y ago
      >like it wasn't the extension of a European war...
      - pqtyw 1y ago
        The French and Indian war began 2 years before the war in Europe. So in a way it was the other way around (of course there were much more important factors than what was effectively an ongoing proxy war in faraway colonies)
      - tdeck 1y ago
        My comment wasn't intended as a "correction", just adding that historians seem to refer to this war by a different name these days. At least in the textbooks I learned from, it was discussed in the context of the Seven Years War.
jcranmer 1y ago
Even in the US, the Indian Wars weren't finished until the 1890s. In fact, most of the big wars against the Native Americans took place after the American Civil War. One of the big faults I have with US history in the education system is that it tends to front-load the depiction of Native Americans in the Precolonial portion of history, with an echo in the Trail of Tears and forced migration in the 1830s, and largely edits them out of the history of the settling of the west, despite this process requiring a very violent dispossession of the existing inhabitants.
- t1E9mE7JTRjf 1y ago
  > most of the big wars against the Native Americans As I learned it, most of the conflicts were between not against. Native Americans, became a term as a general catch all but those peoples saw themselves as quite diverse, and as such is something of a misnomer.
  - sethammons 1y ago
    Look up the american bison. The US government's official policy was to eliminate bison to eliminate Indians/First Peoples. Mountains of skulls. In under a decade, the bison population was pushed down from 30-60M to approximately 500 individuals. Did tribes fight and war and capture slaves? Yes. They did that for forever. Then colonization and disease and westward expansion. Look up the Trail of Tears, the genocide and/or ethnic cleansing. Your education may align with propaganda. Even today, first people nations are actively having their history taken. Pete Hegseth, sec of def/war, has pushed to close the door on the massacre of wounded knee, enshrining the medals earned for slaughtering woman and children. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/27/us/hegseth-wounded-knee.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/27/us/hegseth-wounded-knee.h.... Look up how the US government stole native kids and sent them catholic schools to have the Indian taught out of them. A system that was purpose built to stop their way of life. Or forced, non-consented sterilization of native woman that was happening in the 60s and 70s. If you somehow didn't know the US government's history of conflict and abuse of Native Americans, you should question your formal education. And you should do some light research.
tdeck 1y ago
This is also a difference in outcomes between traditional colonialism (where indigenous people were viewed as a source of labor) and settler colonialism (where indigenous people are viewed simply as "in the way"). That's not to say that traditional colonialism is in any way acceptable, however.
pqtyw 1y ago
Relatively (adjusted by area and duration) not that many people from Spain moved to the Americas between 1500 and ~1800, especially compared to the British colonies in North America. So they couldn't murder/expel (unlike the British/American colonists) most of the native population (especially considering that North America was much less densely inhabited to begin with) if they wanted someone to work in the mines and plantation (again relatively not that many slaves were imported to the mainland colonies as well). France was similar (except they struggled even more with getting enough people to move to the colonies).

gausswho 1y ago

The Mapuche even expanded their territorial control, in large part to their acquisition and mastery of Spanish horses.

pjbk 1y ago
They also mainly continued to be loyal to the Spanish crown after Argentina and Chile went through their independence, and carried out the final pacification of the Mapuche territories in the 19th century. By then only a very small part of the population had not mingled with Europeans.

WalterBright 1y ago

The Commanche also held out until after the Civil War.

beerandt 1y ago
Was always weird to me how "the French and Indian War" had Indian involvement almost over emphasized to pretend like it wasn't the extension of a European war... While all the other American conflicts with tons of Indian involvement (both sides, esp civil war) had it downplayed. One of my first realizations of slant put on history.
- tdeck 1y ago
  It's more properly a campaign of the Seven Years War, which was almost a world war of its time.
  - beerandt 1y ago
    >like it wasn't the extension of a European war...
    - pqtyw 1y ago
      The French and Indian war began 2 years before the war in Europe. So in a way it was the other way around (of course there were much more important factors than what was effectively an ongoing proxy war in faraway colonies)
    - tdeck 1y ago
      My comment wasn't intended as a "correction", just adding that historians seem to refer to this war by a different name these days. At least in the textbooks I learned from, it was discussed in the context of the Seven Years War.

jcranmer 1y ago

Even in the US, the Indian Wars weren't finished until the 1890s. In fact, most of the big wars against the Native Americans took place after the American Civil War. One of the big faults I have with US history in the education system is that it tends to front-load the depiction of Native Americans in the Precolonial portion of history, with an echo in the Trail of Tears and forced migration in the 1830s, and largely edits them out of the history of the settling of the west, despite this process requiring a very violent dispossession of the existing inhabitants.

t1E9mE7JTRjf 1y ago
> most of the big wars against the Native Americans As I learned it, most of the conflicts were between not against. Native Americans, became a term as a general catch all but those peoples saw themselves as quite diverse, and as such is something of a misnomer.
- sethammons 1y ago
  Look up the american bison. The US government's official policy was to eliminate bison to eliminate Indians/First Peoples. Mountains of skulls. In under a decade, the bison population was pushed down from 30-60M to approximately 500 individuals. Did tribes fight and war and capture slaves? Yes. They did that for forever. Then colonization and disease and westward expansion. Look up the Trail of Tears, the genocide and/or ethnic cleansing. Your education may align with propaganda. Even today, first people nations are actively having their history taken. Pete Hegseth, sec of def/war, has pushed to close the door on the massacre of wounded knee, enshrining the medals earned for slaughtering woman and children. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/27/us/hegseth-wounded-knee.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/27/us/hegseth-wounded-knee.h.... Look up how the US government stole native kids and sent them catholic schools to have the Indian taught out of them. A system that was purpose built to stop their way of life. Or forced, non-consented sterilization of native woman that was happening in the 60s and 70s. If you somehow didn't know the US government's history of conflict and abuse of Native Americans, you should question your formal education. And you should do some light research.

tdeck 1y ago

This is also a difference in outcomes between traditional colonialism (where indigenous people were viewed as a source of labor) and settler colonialism (where indigenous people are viewed simply as "in the way"). That's not to say that traditional colonialism is in any way acceptable, however.

pqtyw 1y ago

Relatively (adjusted by area and duration) not that many people from Spain moved to the Americas between 1500 and ~1800, especially compared to the British colonies in North America. So they couldn't murder/expel (unlike the British/American colonists) most of the native population (especially considering that North America was much less densely inhabited to begin with) if they wanted someone to work in the mines and plantation (again relatively not that many slaves were imported to the mainland colonies as well). France was similar (except they struggled even more with getting enough people to move to the colonies).