Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > General History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

General History General History Forum - General history questions and discussions


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old October 27th, 2016, 03:57 PM   #11

Jake10's Avatar
Guardian Knight
 
Joined: Oct 2010
From: Canada
Posts: 11,596
Blog Entries: 4

I would add another factor, which is the willingness on the part of the Spanish and French to take on native wives, while the British were more reluctant to do so. Such unions resulted in populations like the Metis from the French and the Mestizos from the Spanish who related more to the natives.
Jake10 is offline  
Remove Ads
Old October 27th, 2016, 06:49 PM   #12

mark87's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2014
From: Santiago de Chile
Posts: 1,915
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jake10 View Post
I would add another factor, which is the willingness on the part of the Spanish and French to take on native wives, while the British were more reluctant to do so. Such unions resulted in populations like the Metis from the French and the Mestizos from the Spanish who related more to the natives.
The mixing of the Spanish was not done out of some form of diplomacy but because they didn't have their wives around, and in fact the second the conquistadors wives arrived in mexico they put a stop promptly to taking native wives, unless the men were single, then they did usually marry native women as European women were mostly in 'short stock' as potential partners. In North america the men came with their families more often than not, and when none of 'their' women were around, such as the case of mountain men they gladly took up native wives and concubines, well into the mid 19th century.
mark87 is offline  
Old October 27th, 2016, 07:30 PM   #13
Scholar
 
Joined: Oct 2016
From: Australia
Posts: 644

In Australia ' pre-colonization ? est ; 315,000 - 750,000, max 1.25 million. After , min. during 1920s 50, 000 to 90, 000.

In my valley alone , 3 massacres ; head of the valley 'black waterfall', drove them off cliffs with stock whips on horseback, middle of valley - poison flour. at the coast , poison beer.

Many had their land ruined by sheep grazing. Many due to 'culture in decline' and due to the vast differentiation between the two cultures, that was very severe .

It was said that Strelow (1.) had vast numbers of tjuringa (2.) that had just been handed over to him .

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Strehlow

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tjurunga#Ownership
specul8 is offline  
Old October 27th, 2016, 07:34 PM   #14
Suspended until October 11th, 2018
 
Joined: Jan 2015
From: meo
Posts: 1,309

Quote:
Originally Posted by betgo View Post
Were there few to start with or was it British policy to kill them off?
US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand killed the natives.
A Vietnamese is offline  
Old October 28th, 2016, 12:29 AM   #15

johnincornwall's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2010
From: Cornwall
Posts: 6,045

Can't believe folk give threads like this serious replies.
johnincornwall is offline  
Old October 28th, 2016, 01:59 AM   #16

notgivenaway's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2015
From: UK
Posts: 4,959

Quote:
Originally Posted by betgo View Post
Were there few to start with or was it British policy to kill them off?
British? no. Though Britain hasn't ruled the US since 1783......the americans themselves did a lot more to eradicate natives.

In Australia and NZ, it's more complex, though to be fair the British did do a lot to exterminate Aboriginies. In New Zealand, there was a lot more tolerance.

You neglect what the French did pre-Plains of Abraham/Louisana Purchase, and the Spanish too.
notgivenaway is offline  
Old October 28th, 2016, 05:03 AM   #17

mark87's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2014
From: Santiago de Chile
Posts: 1,915
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnincornwall View Post
Can't believe folk give threads like this serious replies.
Mostly because of comments and ideas like the poster above you have...to dispel blatant myth and black legend (which seems to affect many European powers and american nations currently regarding their treatment of natives).
mark87 is offline  
Old October 28th, 2016, 06:31 AM   #18
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2014
From: Spain
Posts: 5,358

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jake10 View Post
I would add another factor, which is the willingness on the part of the Spanish and French to take on native wives, while the British were more reluctant to do so. Such unions resulted in populations like the Metis from the French and the Mestizos from the Spanish who related more to the natives.
+1. Great post. Spaniards-Portuguese and French married indian women... a British or a Dutch hardly. They were racist.. Maybe because Spaniards and French were Catholics and the others one Protestants or maybe by other reasons.. but you are right... Spanish (Portuguese) and French were non-racist. they integrated, they mixed. British and Dutch never...they disdained what they named inferior races. that the reasons because you can find Mestizos and Metis but rarely in British or Dutch lands... not even I think they have a word for Mestizos (or Metis).. Maybe Mongrel?
Thanks to the racism, Britain and Netherland built homogeneous and prosperous white communities in Transvaal-Orange-Canada-Australia-Massachussetts-etc etc whilst Spain-France-Portugal built diverse and heterogeneous communities (Black-Mulattoes-Mestizos-Garifunas-etc etc)

I know Spanish-French-Portuguese-British-Dutch slaughtered Indians... but whilst the Catholic countries mixed with them.. and racism is not a problem... in protestant countries, the racism is a issue...(South Afrika- USA...). Whilst Spain, France and Portugal were Catholic and they believed everybody is Godīs son...British and Dutch based on Protestantism.. and the Workship.. for them as for Martin Luther or Calvinus...each man have what he worths...anglo-dutch thought that. They believed they were the Godīs People... whilst the indians or the negroes were "inferior races" (
naturally inferior" (David Hume, XVII Century)... Never a Spanish, a Portuguese or a French would have written something as that...
Whilst in Spain (Barcelona, 1493), Ferdinand-Elisabeth and the Catholic Church states Indians have souls and they are men...the British (and Dutch) stated they havenīt soul (as Sir Thomas Herbert stated about negroes in 1634: Africans come from apes and are part of a separate and inferior race) So, it is possible to see the racism in India, in South Africa, in South Carolina, in Hong Kong... but rarely in Quebec, in Guatemala or in Brazil...
Different concepts about human relations...I think the main differencce between those Imperial Powers were in religious factor:
Catholic (Spain-France-Portugal) and Protestant (Britain-Netherland). But maybe I am wrong.. if somebody can proved it.
martin76 is offline  
Old October 28th, 2016, 06:39 AM   #19
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2013
From: San Antonio, Tx
Posts: 8,203

Quote:
Originally Posted by A Vietnamese View Post
US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand killed the natives.
Tell that to the 5.5 million native Americans.
royal744 is offline  
Old October 28th, 2016, 07:07 AM   #20
Scholar
 
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 638

Quote:
Originally Posted by martin76 View Post
+1. Great post. Spaniards-Portuguese and French married indian women... a British or a Dutch hardly. They were racist.. Maybe because Spaniards and French were Catholics and the others one Protestants or maybe by other reasons.. but you are right... Spanish (Portuguese) and French were non-racist. they integrated, they mixed. British and Dutch never...they disdained what they named inferior races.
That is absolute nonsense. Latin America was subject to the casta system, where Amerindians were to all intents and purposes enslaved under the encomienda system, and mestizos were considered second class citizens. To this day, the elites of most Latin American countries are little different to white Europeans in appearance because they never intermarried with mestizos.

In the USA, slaves from Africa were brought in because there weren't enough natives to enslave. In Latin America, they simply enslaved their large native populations. And then the elites interbred with the slaves in both areas, albeit usually the white migrant workers rather than the actual slave owners. The USA has a reasonably large population of mixed black/white people, most of whom are simply treated as 'black' because of the hangover from the one-drop rule: in Africa someone who is half-African half-European is often treated as white by local people, but in the USA, people say that Barack Obama, born to and raised by a white single mother, is black.

America has few mestizos because there were so few natives and also such a large amount of immigration from Europe continuing throughout the 20th century, whereas in Latin America there was little migration from Europe after the start of the 20th century. In fact, the Amerindian population as a proportion of the total in the USA has actually doubled since the late 1800s. That is how few natives there were back then: even if every native had married a white person it would still have produced a tiny amount of mestizos.

Quote:
Whilst Spain, France and Portugal were Catholic and they believed everybody is Godīs son...British and Dutch based on Protestantism.. and the Workship.. for them as for Martin Luther or Calvinus...each man have what he worths...anglo-dutch thought that. They believed they were the Godīs People... whilst the indians or the negroes were "inferior races"
naturally inferior" (David Hume, XVII Century)... Never a Spanish, a Portuguese or a French would have written something as that...
That is an absolute travesty. The Catholic view on native Americans was that they were under the influence of the Devil and had to be enslaved and forced to convert to Christianity in order to save their souls, and the Spanish often flat-out rejected the wishes of the Pope that they be treated as human beings and protected from robbery and killing.

King Ferdinand of Spain, in a message to the Aztecs who refused to convert to Christianity -

“with the help of God we shall use force against you, declaring war upon you from all sides and with all possible means, and we shall bind you to the yoke of the Church and Their Highnesses; we shall enslave your persons, wives, and sons, sell you or dispose of you as the King sees fit; we shall seize your possessions and harm you as much as we can as disobedient and resisting vassals.”

Tomas Ortiz, Spanish official in Dominica -

“It may therefore affirm that God has never created a race more full of vice and composed without the least mixture of kindness or culture.”
Copperknickers is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > General History

Tags
australia, canada, natives, zealand



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Why didn't New Zealand and Fiji join Australia? WeisSaul Asian History 42 February 27th, 2017 07:30 AM
Historic sites in Australia and New Zealand weezer17 Asian History 0 April 29th, 2015 06:34 PM
Canada vs Australia Toltec Speculative History 33 November 13th, 2009 09:15 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.