Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So what is your ultimate argument? That native American culture was not perfectly idyllic so that lessens the negative impact of other cultures coming in and taking over? It's okay to wipe out an imperfect culture...therefore to annihilate ANY culture since perfection doesn't exist? Replace an imperfect native culture with another imperfect culture, just to plunder their resources?
You're missing the point. Regardless of how the native Americans lived, the European colonists essentially were a hostile invading force. Is that ever a good thing?
The narrative is cemented in place: native Americans lived wonderfully until the western powers settled America, took their land, and did terrible things to the natives.
Where, in this longstanding narrative, do inconvenient facts fit?? Such as the native tribes "stealing" each other's territory on a regular basis? Or the tribes who killed elderly members once they became a burden? Or the slaughtering of other tribes' babies and children as retaliatory "justice" during times of conflict? (I can go on). Were these things good?
I am not saying we should idealize the colonizers either. Perhaps a more balanced view??
You confuse history and communal myth. The "noble savage" idea grabbed hold during the industrial revolution and increasing disconnect between people and agriculture. Historians have always known the more accurate accounts. The myths of a culture are more related to its psyche than fact.
I'll give another example. The current Smithsonian Magazine had an extensive article on the Liberty Bell, and a claim as to how it became a popular symbol. One would think that Smithsonian is a publication that would get facts straight and its articles be free of bias. It is not.
The article completely skipped the early history of the bell and myth building around it, and claimed a later use of it was the cause of popularization, rather than an earlier use by abolitionists at the time of Lincoln's death. In point of fact, there is zero evidence the bell "proclaimed liberty throughout the land" at the signing of the Declaration of Independence. It was a crappy bell sold by a British company that happened to be extant and in the building during the signing. Almost everything else is myth and idolatry of a fetish object. As long as the strong U.S. culture exists, eradicating the lies in public perception of it would be impossible.
Myths engage in promoting cherished beliefs and values. Any "fact" they have is the fact of the mindset of those believing.
You're missing the point. Regardless of how the native Americans lived, the European colonists essentially were a hostile invading force. Is that ever a good thing?
In the case of New France, natives welcomed the colonists as a good thing. The natives looked forward to the annual returns of the French. And in many ways, the French colonies WERE positive for the natives.
In the case of New France, natives welcomed the colonists as a good thing. The natives looked forward to the annual returns of the French. And in many ways, the French colonies WERE positive for the natives.
Spanish.......not so much.
Sure, every encounter wasn't violent or crazy. But a takeover was still afoot.
Stories have come to light over the past few years that it wasn't just diseases that popped up and killed the Native Americans. There was a strategy in place in which some Whites in power practiced to eliminate the Natives. The Natives were given infected blankets and that along with NO medical care while being dislocated from their homes (being exposed to the elements, fatigue, etc) and relocated by having to WALK hundreds, if not thousands of miles, to some far outpost of barren land that no White person had decided they wanted for themselves yet.
This happened later in the 19th Century. Well before this, very early contact with whites introduced sickness to Indians. The Pilgrims settled near where an Indian Village used to be. It had been wiped out before they arrived, most likely by introduced illness.
After the Spanish marched through what is now the Southern US, illness wiped out large Indian populations.
But even without introduced illness, Indians were driven from their lands in successive waves, as whites marched across the continent.
The Spaniards and British generally thought that the Natives were not civilized because they were not yet exposed to Christianity which they themselves misinterpreted and abused.
The construct of their religions sought liberty through conformity to religion which they used to promote their colonies.
Of course some of the tribes could be considered barbaric but when you look at the barbaric acts Spain and Britain have done to the world over the course of history versus how the Natives lived before colonialism entered the picture there is no comparison. The Natives were harmless.
I am grateful to be an American but not proud of her history of exploitation. The patterns are clear.
With any type of 'progress' there will always be exploitation. Native Americans were some of the most conservative people in history. Progress obviously did not agree with them.
There are a lot of myths on both sides of the story that have become widely believed. That America wasn't a utopia pre-contact is obvious. The natives had wars, they had diseases they couldn't effectively treat, periods of famine, etc. The same as Europeans and others throughout the world. The settlement of the continent certainly culminated in a genocide of the native peoples. Sometimes intentional and sometimes unintentional (i.e., introduced diseases). But it doesn't mean every European settler belongs in the same category as Andrew Jackson. Roger Williams and William Penn were far better in their treatment and dealings with the natives than, for example, Virginia or Massachusetts. The French in general were better towards the natives but in some part that is due to their lesser numbers. The French settlements never were quite as successful as the British settlements in terms of population.
The narrative is cemented in place: native Americans lived wonderfully until the western powers settled America, took their land, and did terrible things to the natives.
Where, in this longstanding narrative, do inconvenient facts fit?? Such as the native tribes "stealing" each other's territory on a regular basis? Or the tribes who killed elderly members once they became a burden? Or the slaughtering of other tribes' babies and children as retaliatory "justice" during times of conflict? (I can go on). Were these things good?
I am not saying we should idealize the colonizers either. Perhaps a more balanced view??
wow, white guilt much ? i thought it was common knowledge that there were warring tribal groups. except that the bolded is news to me; did you make that up to make europeans seem more civilized ?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
