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.
NY double crossed them, though. For years NY had Indian casinos that the tribes could keep the profits from. Niagara Falls, Turning Stone maybe others. Then they passed a law so other places could have casinos, too. They're are on the warpath now because, obviously, no gambler is going to go all the way to Utica when he can be in Schenectady in 15 minutes.
They could also sell tax-free gasoline and cigarettes in their convenience stores.
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??
So let me get this straight. You are the only person who knows of the things you about above.
I hate to tell you, but I knew all of that, too.
So in other words "the narrative" is not the narrative.
...Regardless of how the native Americans lived, the European colonists essentially were a hostile invading force. Is that ever a good thing?
I agree with you.
But there is a whole cadre of White Americans who believe exactly that. That "Western" culture is the dominant force for good in the world, even though that means the ends justifying the means. We see it in religion "Onward Christian soldiers, marching as to war...", we saw it in "the sun never sets on the British Empire" type of thinking. And, on this forum we have recently seen it repeatedly in posts that emphasize how wonderfully kind and generous England was in making India what it is today (as if maybe the Indians themselves had nothing to do with it).
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??
It depends on who you ask. While many if not most white Christian conservatives would agree with you, native Americans might have a different view. Every society has it's dark side, but losing their land, culture, language and between 80 to 90 percent of their population as a direct result of invasive non-native Americans, results in facts that are far worst than an inconvenience.
I look forward to the next thread about why blacks should have been so thankful for being taken from their native lands and brought into the 'new', civilized world of their Christian masters...
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.
Correct. The germy-blanket story was later and probably an isolated incident or two. People didn't yet know germs even existed.
You guys read Guns, Germs, and Steel, right? The domestication of lifestock by the Europeans millenia earlier had given them an immunity to many diseases not enjoyed by others in places with limited draft and herd animals. Just brief initial contact with Europeans was enough to start the spread of smallpox and other viruses throughout the indigenous population in the Americas. 1491 points out that it spread so fast from central America down into South America that by the time Pisarro got to the Incas, their numbers were already reduced by smallpox.
Correct. The germy-blanket story was later and probably an isolated incident or two. People didn't yet know germs even existed.
You guys read Guns, Germs, and Steel, right? The domestication of lifestock by the Europeans millenia earlier had given them an immunity to many diseases not enjoyed by others in places with limited draft and herd animals. Just brief initial contact with Europeans was enough to start the spread of smallpox and other viruses throughout the indigenous population in the Americas. 1491 points out that it spread so fast from central America down into South America that by the time Pisarro got to the Incas, their numbers were already reduced by smallpox.
Another 1491 reader; enough to merit reputation.
All kidding aside, the "germy-blanket story" was probably apocryphal. In 1971 or 1972 I read Bury my Heart at Wounded Knee, an anti-white book written by a Native American about their destruction if there ever was one. It didn't mention that story. Also if it were true the presenter of the blanket was putting him or herself in danger. Not much indication of suicide bombing in those days.
One of the reasons that the Europeans were able to make headway in the Americas and Australia/New Zealand but not elsewhere was that the single-land mass continent of Europe, Asia and Africa plus its satellite islands such as Britain and Ireland had disease immunity. The relatively dense Asian and African populations were successful in at least partially repulsing European encroachment, limiting the whites to a few fringe cities. Even in India the British writ didn't run far beyond Delhi, Calcutta, Bombay (Mumbai), Karachi, Lahore and a few similarly sized cities.
Correct. The germy-blanket story was later and probably an isolated incident or two. People didn't yet know germs even existed.
You guys read Guns, Germs, and Steel, right? The domestication of lifestock by the Europeans millenia earlier had given them an immunity to many diseases not enjoyed by others in places with limited draft and herd animals. Just brief initial contact with Europeans was enough to start the spread of smallpox and other viruses throughout the indigenous population in the Americas. 1491 points out that it spread so fast from central America down into South America that by the time Pisarro got to the Incas, their numbers were already reduced by smallpox.
It was a 2 way street. A posting to the West Indies was regarded as a death sentence in the English army. They had no immunity to Yellow Fever and few lasted more than 6 months when they were posted there.
It was a 2 way street. A posting to the West Indies was regarded as a death sentence in the English army. They had no immunity to Yellow Fever and few lasted more than 6 months when they were posted there.
Yellow fever was brought to the New World by Europeans when they imported slaves from Africa. Malaria was indigenous to Europe and Africa but not the Americas so the natives had no resistance to it as well. About the only disease that might have gone the other way is syphilis but that one takes too long to kill.
Yellow fever was brought to the New World by Europeans when they imported slaves from Africa. Malaria was indigenous to Europe and Africa but not the Americas so the natives had no resistance to it as well. About the only disease that might have gone the other way is syphilis but that one takes too long to kill.
I didn't know that. Thanks! Were the Africans immune? I guess the Indians, if any were left, were not.
I didn't know that. Thanks! Were the Africans immune? I guess the Indians, if any were left, were not.
I don't know about Yellow Fever but there are two types of malaria and Europeans were mostly immune to one but not the other. Africans have greater resistance to both but not all were immune. American Indians had no immunity to either.
When the Conquistadores first floated down the Amazon they saw villages on both sides of the river for long stretches. When they returned a few decades later the river side were mostly empty. There's a chapter about this in 1491 I believe.
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.
