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 28th, 2016, 10:34 AM   #21

Jake10's Avatar
Guardian Knight
 
Joined: Oct 2010
From: Canada
Posts: 11,600
Blog Entries: 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by Copperknickers View Post
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.



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.”
No doubt, there was discrimination on the part of ALL European rulers, but if we look at a few aspects of the resulting populations, we see that Natives from the north ended up on reservations or dead, while Natives in countries previously ruled by Spain ended up in society.

You're right about mestizos being considered second class citizens, while Indigenous people were even lower down, but many Spanish fathers acknowledged them, and, while I agree that they did not treat their mothers well, some treated the children like their own. In the US, few mixed race children were ever acknowledged and they were usually slaves just like their mothers.
Jake10 is offline  
Remove Ads
Old October 28th, 2016, 11:10 AM   #22
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2009
From: San Diego
Posts: 3,303

Population densities were defined by native access to agriculture, horticulture, or the carrying capacity of the land for nomadic hunter/gatherers.

The Pacific Northwest, being environmentally productive thanks to the sea and nearby forested lands supported a significant population.
The agricultural communities of the ohio valley also supported fairly dense populations.

However- nomadic hunter/gatherer lifestyles simply do not support that many people per square mile of land- Nomadic hunters can burn thru available game too fast.

This is why large fauna disappeared from the americas in order of the animals' speed and accessibility. Larger, slower game went extinct first, followed by other fauna in descending order of size.

Bison dominated in the central plains only because pre-horse native cultures could not survive on the plains. But once Natives had the horse, those horse culture tribes moved into the deep plains and began decimating Buffalo numbers. This resulted in a late population explosion among the native plains tribes that only accelerated as their greater numbers resulted in more frequent and efficient hunts of buffalo. Even without the help of white settlers in killing off the buffalo- the native tribes would have essentially eradicated the herds within one hundred years.

In more marginal ecosystems, like the southwest, even agriculture could not significantly increase the carrying capacity of the poorly watered, poor quality soils, so population densities remains low.



Oh- and everyone credits smallpox with wiping out the indians... but that is really not likely the primary culprit. Measles Is. Smallpox was still deadly to europeans, where as measles was mostly survivable...but just as lethal to native americans of that area. But measles- which LOOKs very much like smallpox in terms of skin condition, was ten times more transmissible than was smallpox- which explains how it could have swept so rapidly and thoroughly thru native populations.


But- to be fair- a whopping lot of native Americans were killed by other Native Americans over territorial encroachment due to displacement by europeans... and a very large number of nomadic bands died of starvation due to overpopulation and the improved hunting efficiency afforded by the horse.

Additionally... especially in central and south america, the vast majority of native peoples SURVIVED and just melted into the local spanish colonial population. Spanish conquest did not seek so much to DISPLACE the native population, as it did to RULE them.

That their CULTURES were suppressed does not mean the peoples actually died.

No doubt that european conquest was the proximate cause of a great majority of the die-off.
But the actual scope of the die off is both exaggerated, and fails to account for the significant population explosion caused by the advent of the horse. ( which was from european conquest)
The sioux tribes went from a few thousand people, to a quarter of a million due to the horse.
sculptingman is online now  
Old October 28th, 2016, 12:59 PM   #23

Rajeev's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Oct 2015
From: India
Posts: 441

Quote:
Originally Posted by betgo View Post
Were there few to start with or was it British policy to kill them off?

On first contact with a previously uncontacted tribe, about 50% of the population dies due to diseases against which they have not developed immunity.

Second is military superiority of the white people which gave them victory in war for land and gave death to native tribes.
Rajeev is offline  
Old October 28th, 2016, 01:27 PM   #24
Scholar
 
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 638

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jake10 View Post
No doubt, there was discrimination on the part of ALL European rulers, but if we look at a few aspects of the resulting populations, we see that Natives from the north ended up on reservations or dead, while Natives in countries previously ruled by Spain ended up in society.

You're right about mestizos being considered second class citizens, while Indigenous people were even lower down, but many Spanish fathers acknowledged them, and, while I agree that they did not treat their mothers well, some treated the children like their own. In the US, few mixed race children were ever acknowledged and they were usually slaves just like their mothers.
I don't think that's entirely fair. Firstly, look at native peoples in places like Mexico today. Those who have not moved to the cities live in impoverished rural communities that are not much better than reservations in the USA. Recently, the indigenous peoples have enjoyed support and recognition from the government, but this has not really translated into an improvement in their economic conditions: indeed the Mayans fought an insurgency against the Mexican government in protest against human rights abuses in the 1990s (Google the Zapatista Army of National Liberation). I don't see American natives fighting actual wars against the US recently.

And of course, it's not much use treating natives on an equal pegging with Europeans, if the country as a whole is still a third world economy wracked with drug wars and corruption. A large part of this is because of the way the Spanish treated the natives, extracting resources from the natives and mestizos instead of creating an inclusive society. Of course, the USA would probably not be in a much better state if they hadn't had such huge immigration and such low numbers of natives, as we can see from the black community there, who were treated in the same way as the populace in Latin American countries and thus have many of the same problems, including comparable murder rates.
Copperknickers is offline  
Old October 28th, 2016, 01:57 PM   #25

civfanatic's Avatar
Quasi-Civilized Primate
 
Joined: Oct 2012
From: Des Moines, Iowa
Posts: 3,159
Blog Entries: 13

Quote:
Originally Posted by Copperknickers View Post
I don't think that's entirely fair. Firstly, look at native peoples in places like Mexico today. Those who have not moved to the cities live in impoverished rural communities that are not much better than reservations in the USA. Recently, the indigenous peoples have enjoyed support and recognition from the government, but this has not really translated into an improvement in their economic conditions: indeed the Mayans fought an insurgency against the Mexican government in protest against human rights abuses in the 1990s (Google the Zapatista Army of National Liberation). I don't see American natives fighting actual wars against the US recently.

And of course, it's not much use treating natives on an equal pegging with Europeans, if the country as a whole is still a third world economy wracked with drug wars and corruption. A large part of this is because of the way the Spanish treated the natives, extracting resources from the natives and mestizos instead of creating an inclusive society. Of course, the USA would probably not be in a much better state if they hadn't had such huge immigration and such low numbers of natives, as we can see from the black community there, who were treated in the same way as the populace in Latin American countries and thus have many of the same problems, including comparable murder rates.
In the U.S., natives make up not even 1% of the population. In contrast, countries like Mexico, Guatemala, Peru, and Bolivia have very large indigenous populations, because these regions also had organized civilizations and an extensive agricultural society (hence larger populations) in pre-Columbian times, while North American groups tended to be more nomadic and semi-nomadic with smaller population sizes and densities.

If natives made up 30-40% of U.S. population, there would definitely be armed conflict.
civfanatic is offline  
Old October 28th, 2016, 03:26 PM   #26
Scholar
 
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 638

Quote:
Originally Posted by civfanatic View Post
In the U.S., natives make up not even 1% of the population. In contrast, countries like Mexico, Guatemala, Peru, and Bolivia have very large indigenous populations, because these regions also had organized civilizations and an extensive agricultural society (hence larger populations) in pre-Columbian times, while North American groups tended to be more nomadic and semi-nomadic with smaller population sizes and densities.

If natives made up 30-40% of U.S. population, there would definitely be armed conflict.
I don't think so. Firstly, indigenous people make up only 20% of Mexico's population, and that's self-reporting indigenous people. Only around 7% of Mexicans are able to speak an indigenous American language. Secondly, the natives in Latin America were equivalent to the African slaves in the USA. African Americans make up up to 40% of the population in areas of the American South. But there is no organised paramilitary threat in these areas.
Copperknickers is offline  
Old October 28th, 2016, 03:40 PM   #27

Belgarion's Avatar
Cynical Optimist
 
Joined: Jul 2011
From: Australia
Posts: 5,738

Yet another thread about the evils of British colonisation. The OP and his fellow travellers can find plenty of discussion elsewhere on the forum yet every so often feel the need to resurrect the issue.
Belgarion is offline  
Old October 28th, 2016, 03:48 PM   #28

Jake10's Avatar
Guardian Knight
 
Joined: Oct 2010
From: Canada
Posts: 11,600
Blog Entries: 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by Copperknickers View Post
I don't think that's entirely fair. Firstly, look at native peoples in places like Mexico today. Those who have not moved to the cities live in impoverished rural communities that are not much better than reservations in the USA. Recently, the indigenous peoples have enjoyed support and recognition from the government, but this has not really translated into an improvement in their economic conditions: indeed the Mayans fought an insurgency against the Mexican government in protest against human rights abuses in the 1990s (Google the Zapatista Army of National Liberation). I don't see American natives fighting actual wars against the US recently.

And of course, it's not much use treating natives on an equal pegging with Europeans, if the country as a whole is still a third world economy wracked with drug wars and corruption. A large part of this is because of the way the Spanish treated the natives, extracting resources from the natives and mestizos instead of creating an inclusive society. Of course, the USA would probably not be in a much better state if they hadn't had such huge immigration and such low numbers of natives, as we can see from the black community there, who were treated in the same way as the populace in Latin American countries and thus have many of the same problems, including comparable murder rates.
Well, if we're going to look at how these countries treated Native Americans, we should consider that Spain granted Spanish citizenship to all the natives of their colonies:
Quote:
The Constitution gave Spanish citizenship to natives of the territories that had belonged to the Spanish monarchy in both hemispheres.[10] The Constitution of 1812 included Indigenous peoples of the Americas to Spanish citizenship, but the acquisition of citizenship for any
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanis...ve_citizenship

I don't think Britain ever even considered doing something like that.

Having said that, I agree that many Indigenous people in Mexico live in poverty, but so do many non-Indigenous people. Yes, the country is third world, but there is no debate about the prosperity of Mexico and the US here.
Jake10 is offline  
Old October 28th, 2016, 05:39 PM   #29

robto's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2014
From: Lisbon, Portugal
Posts: 5,115

In Brazil, the Caribbean, Venezuela and Argentina there's also very few natives, specially when you compared to other countries in the Americas. It simply stems from the fact that the Natives of those lands were very few in numbers and could be rapidly killed off by diseases or disappear as an identity by integration and miscigenation with the European settlers and African slaves.

By the way, isn't the Native population in New Zealand one-third of the total population of the country? They don't look like "few"...
robto is offline  
Old October 28th, 2016, 05:39 PM   #30

WhatAnArtist's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Mar 2016
From: Australia
Posts: 340

Yeah, white people were terrible and the natives were harmless innocents. We got it.
WhatAnArtist 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.