Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
cintune
climber
Penn's Woods
|
|
|
Feb 12, 2008 - 08:53pm PT
|
Another aspect, too, is that native American cultures weren't shy when it came to bloodlust either. They didn't call them savages for nothing. But at least they were honest about it, unlike the Europeans who brought Christian hypocrisy into the mix. Reading Las Casas is pretty eye-opening. He describes these massacres on Hispanola where they're unleasing war-dogs and cutting women and chidren to ribbons, but it turns out what was really bugging him was that he didn't get enough chances to "save their souls" before they died. And his solution to the whole genocide problem was to import Africans to work the mines and sugar cane fields. So, applying our modern humanistic standards to just about anything that went down is ultimately a pretty frustrating exercise.
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
|
Feb 12, 2008 - 09:19pm PT
|
The proof is in the result.
Look at the condition of former English holdings versus Spanish ones.
Where would you choose to live?
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Feb 12, 2008 - 09:27pm PT
|
I'm with Clint. It was disease, but I'm not a big Jared Diamond fan.
But in his seminal work, 1491 New revelations of the Americas before Columbus, Charles C. Mann points out the vast devastation to indian tribes in the wake of De Soto's expedition noting a vector investigated by Anne Ramenofsky and Patricia Galloway who say," the source of contagion was very likely not De Soto's army but it's ambulatory meat locker; his three-hundred pigs. De Sotos company was too small to be an effective biological weapon. Sicknesses like measles and smallpox would have burned through his six-hundred men long before they reached the Mississippi. But that would not have been true for pigs.....
swine transmit anthrax, brucellosis, leptospirosis, trichinosis, and tuberculosis. Pigs breed exuberantly and can also pass disease to deer and turkeys, which can then infect people. Only a few of De Sotos pigs would have had to wander off to contaminate the forest."
|
|
andy@climbingmoab
Big Wall climber
Park City, UT
|
|
|
Feb 12, 2008 - 09:38pm PT
|
There are things I like and admire about both cultures. In general I like the culture and lifestyle better in Latin America, but the weather is too hot for me to want to live here full time.
The USA is what it is much more because of having the most favorable geography in the world for any large country than any other factor. I don't think Spanish vs English culture has very much to do with it - California has done ok for itself, and it is mostly a product of Spanish colonialism. Belize and Guyana are former English holdings, and aren't doing as well as say Costa Rica.
Native relations are an odd subject. The population density was much higher and most people lived in or close to large urban areas in Latin America, which was not the case in the US. The combination of more available women for conquistadors separated from their wives and those women being in settled urban areas in very close proximity to the new Spanish settlements is mostly what was responsible for Latin America becoming Mestizo instead of European. Native affairs have been settled differently in place to place - strong native culture in Guatemala versus almost total annihilation in neighboring El Salvador. Simple conclusions are generally wrong and even dangerous to draw.
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
|
Feb 12, 2008 - 10:13pm PT
|
California had a large English influence very early on and the Californios felt themselves a bitseperate from Mexico. There were plenty of Anglo Californios with large land grants and family relationships with the majority Hispanics. For instance the Californios beat the Mexicans at the battle of Cauenga Pass with the help of a cannon borowed from a retired American ship captain that he revived from lawn ornament status.
The LA locals put the mostly Hessian (German mercinaries) Mexican troops sent down from Frisco into a rout the only casualty being one mule.
World wide though it is indisputable that the French and Spanish in particular and the Dutch and Portugese to a lesser extent left their former holdings in far worse shape than the English.
VDH nukes Damond's premise convincingly in Carnage and Culture.
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Feb 12, 2008 - 10:26pm PT
|
I wouldn't say Victor Davis Hansen nukes it, but he definitely shows the other side of the coin.
Of course the disease thing is a two way street. Why do we always assume that europeans infected the indians but not the reverse?
Anybody know where syphilis originated?
|
|
klk
Trad climber
cali
|
|
|
Feb 12, 2008 - 10:43pm PT
|
Hey SS--
This is a great question, although one without a correct answer. If you are looking at a really, really big picture, then overall, Native populations fared better under the centuries of Spanish colonialism than under the centuries of British. But the reasons for that don't always have much to do with who was "crueler" than whom. And yes, I do do this for a living.
I don't know your Prof, and can't speak to her lecture, but one of the reasons that some folks have come to stress the nastiness of British colonialism is that the critique of Spanish colonialism was historically part of nasty anti-Catholic and anti-immigrant sentiment. The "Black Legend" that Clint mentions-- the claim that the Spanish were unnaturally bloodthirsty, cruel, and barbaric in their conquest of the Americas-- was originally created by Protestant historians in England and the Low Countries in the early years of the Reformation and was frankly war propaganda. In the 19th century US, Protestant historians looking to say nasty things about Catholics found la Lejendra Negra pretty attractive. But that probably says more about how much they hated Italians and the Irish than about comparative colonialism.
In the 20th century, we've seen a backlash, and so nowadays, when historians offer sweeping judgments in survey courses, they frequently describe French and Spanish colonialism as more benign than English, because the Spanish/French largely hoped to convert and integrate the Natives-- make them into subjects (more more especially peasants)--while the English mostly wanted to get the Natives the hell out of the way (once they had killed the Catholics or the insubordinate American colonists.
Your Prof.'s curtness may have had nothing to do with your question-- academia is a pretty vicious place-- so her curtness may have had a lot to do with other stressors and nothing at all to do with you, the class, or the question.
|
|
Robb
Social climber
Pick Up Truck Heaven
|
|
|
Feb 12, 2008 - 10:47pm PT
|
On the subject of slavery, I can't recall where I read it years ago, but I read that the Spanish had far more slaves (in the New World) than the English, (or later Americans), ever had. This was pertaining to African slaves.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..apologies to grammaticists everywhere.
|
|
SammyLee2
Trad climber
Memphis, TN
|
|
|
Feb 12, 2008 - 10:49pm PT
|
Humans. Of all sorts of histories and genetic backgrounds. The term "bloodier" is misleading and trends to a mistake.
Who let more blood of the "enemy", the natives? Good grief, who knows. Among the tens of thousands of gallons that spurt onto the ground, who is more responsible? Only some fictious divine being could tell.
As Curt said, disease did more killing of the original peoples of "America", whatever the hell that means.
I'd have to say the English, cause they won. Let's face it, near genocide was accomplished.
I am considering a novel, based on the premise that the first native to encounter the whites, who was a supreme leader, said to himself and to all natives, "These white people, kill them all on first sight, spare no man, woman, child or animal that they bring to our shore, upon the threat of death. This is my command." What if ALL natives took this as the rule of law. How much longer would have America stayed native? Maybe 50 years? 75 to 100 at most.
The outcome is assured. Those with money, power and greed, therefore, guns, germs and steel, would eventually win. Might be a funny outcome.
I love these discussions about the history of peoples. I lived through the segretation/integration of the South in the 60's. I swear to anything, that slavery was the seed of destruction of this nation. I will likely be dead for many years before this becomes obvious, but may these words remain.
|
|
mark miller
Social climber
Reno
|
|
|
Feb 13, 2008 - 12:03am PT
|
The diseases the proud europeans brought over to the New Continent wiped out more indigenous people than any Nefarious activities. We still have knott evolved that much in the last 35k years despite what some fools want you to believe..... It's hard to kill millions of people by force ( check with the Nazi's) but an influenza effortlessly will destroy millions.
|
|
Standing Strong
Trad climber
heart's all over the world tonight
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 13, 2008 - 03:14am PT
|
"This is a great question, although one without a correct answer"
thank you for your eloquent reply to my query. i wish my prof would be this way.
|
|
TradIsGood
Chalkless climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
|
Feb 13, 2008 - 07:40am PT
|
The Colombians.
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Feb 13, 2008 - 09:07am PT
|
As bad as things turned out for the indians of north America, it was worse for those of south America.
|
|
TradIsGood
Chalkless climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
|
Feb 13, 2008 - 09:09am PT
|
stich, South America, not Ohio.
|
|
Mimi
climber
|
|
Finally viewed Apocalypto. Enjoyed the happy ending. I don't agree that the arrival of the Spainish represented a 'savior' situation as mentioned previously. More of an enigma or the arrival of aliens.
|
|
Brian
climber
California
|
|
Joseph Ellis claims that at one point shortly after the revolution, our founding fathers (so, I guess we are mostly going with the English here) were working under the assumption that we would not expand the country west and that we would have genuine treaties and relations (unlike the backstabbing and lying that eventually occurred) with native tribes (already decimated by disease), just as we would with other nations in the world. The reasons this never came about are complex (Ellis' chapter on Henry Knox and Alexander McGillvray is a real page turner). Anyhow, worth a read alongside Diamond's work, referenced above.
http://www.amazon.com/American-Creation-Triumphs-Tragedies-Founding/dp/030726369X
Brian
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
Since I read this far, maybe I should contribute something, which is kinda OT but what the heck.
The "Mission" is an outstanding movie. See it on Netflix or something.
People who claim any old or ancient times had better moral bearings are mistaken. Humans have always been bloodthirsty, thieving and murderous. We're better than we've ever been but have tools that are deadlier than ever, so our damage remains as great or greater.
The spread of disease by both English and Spanish may have been unintentional, but the question we're not asking yet, but which may arise is:
The tons of nano-Depleted Uranium Particles spread over Iraq and other wars zones by us Americans...which may turn out to make those area poisonous for hundreds of years...what will be the ultimate effect and curse of that "unintended genocide?... a real genocide because it may affect the very genes)
If it turns out that the nano-particles created when DU munitions explode and lodge in people's lungs and systems, radiating at close range for the rest of their lives actually isn't causing a huge spike in children's cancer, it's not because we were right, just lucky.
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=37167
Peace
Karl
|
|
Studly
Trad climber
WA
|
|
Actually there are quite a few Native Americans still in the US, but not so much in California. One of the reasons why is that in about 1850 California issued a bounty on Indian scalps of $5.00 each. This lasted for about the next 25 years and resulted in almost the complete elimination of the Indians in California.
$5- was allot of money in those days and bullets were cheap. Many cowboys made really good livings off of killing. Didn't matter if they were men, women, child, or baby. You got the full amount for each. Many sad untold stories of slaughter that haunt the lands..
|
|
ExtraBlue
Ice climber
the ford VT
|
|
when the vikings showed up in Canada their first instinct was to find a native and stab them to see if they bled, before looking for gold...
Interesting note from the Nor East. When Champlain first showed up the natives (Alconquin??) were at war with the (Iroquis??) and their first thing was something along the lines of "bring your guns and come fight our enemies". When they did take captives their ideas of torture ended with Champlain requesting that he be allowed to just kill the prisoners 'cause he couldnt stomach what they were doing.
No is nice.
But I say Spanish were worse. They had a head start, and a larger landmass to f-up.
|
|
Brokedownclimber
Trad climber
Douglas, WY
|
|
The Spanish were a lot heavier handed with "the Church" as their guide, and imposed Catholocism along with slave labor to build mission churches.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!