Did native americans die overwhemely from diseases brought by the First european immigrants or were the native americans population dwindled down to insignificance because of the genocides perpetrated on the native american by the europeans?
But didn't genocides against the indians occur when the americans wanted to add new terroritory to the US?diseases spread far wider and faster then contact with the euro's them selfs
some estimate 90% fatal to native populations
by the times of later herding of natives to less productive areas
most were dead allready
sure some starved after the buffalo were killed off but that was a far fewer number
then the much earlier first contact diseases killed
really not a true genocide as the euro's had no idea or intent of spreading disease
except in a few cases like the small pox blankets
But didn't genocides against the indians occur when the americans wanted to add new terroritory to the US?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PequotThe smallpox epidemic of 1616-19, which killed roughly 90% of the Native inhabitants of the eastern coast of present-day New England, . . .
I won't argue that they were not committing genocide, but I will argue that the times were more tolerable to this type of behavior. Their concepts of acceptable international relations were totally different from ours today.
You can not make any judgments using hind-sight as our morality is almost completely different today.
By todays standards the explorers were committing genocide. By that days standards the explorers were conquering for their homeland.
Well, I for one didn't live back then, so thank you very much for not including me in a tribalistic manner into that group.You can not make any judgments using hind-sight as our morality is almost completely different today.
Well, what about relative to the murdered individuals' standards, then?By todays standards the explorers were committing genocide. By that days standards the explorers were conquering for their homeland.
Pattonias, it wasn't just Spanish explorers that committed genocide against native americans. Google a bit on Andrew Jackson and then fast forward to the actions of the Army post Civil War. Believe me, Custer got off easy.
They were committing genocide, but the times were different. Genocide was the standard practice throughout Ancient History and toward the end of the Dark Ages. I think when discussing the topic you have to be careful not to try to compare the warfare practices of the time to those of today in what was considered right and wrong at the time..
So you don't think those who were murdered at that time had "views" upon the desirability or undesirability of their own impending deaths?
Or is it only the killers' mentality and cultural mileu of that time that should be used as the standard by which the..killer is judged?
Not entirely true, since the Plains Indians were pretty impressive cavalry units themselves, and he knew that. Custer and his ilk had very often attacked encampments with women, children and elderly. This time, he was up against a force that was overwhelmingly healthy armed males. His Arikira scouts understood the magnitude of the forces assembling at Greasy Grass, and tried to warn him. He gave at least some of the scouts leave to stay behind, and those that did so lived to see another day. Custer had two carriage-mounted .45-70 cal Gatling guns with caissons full of ammunition. He elected to leave them at Fort Lincoln because the teamsters and the gunnery crews would have "slowed him down". Custer was brash and he made serious tactical errors, as he had in the CW. Had he heeded his scouts' warnings and waited until supporting troops could take up reinforcing positions AND brought the machine-guns, the Indians would not have stood much of a chance. Riding into a valley armed with single-shot Springfields, when many of his foes had Winchester repeating rifles was not a matter of arrogance, but of ignorance.Custer's arrogance is what led to his downfall. He didn't believe that an army of Native Americans could ever defeat a US cavalry unit. He led his men to slaughter.
Rarely.Perhaps you should take a nap...
Has anyone who has ever been killed wanted to be killed?
Hmm..developing modes of resistance, perhaps?How does that affect the outcome?
By understanding, for example, that moral outrage can well be a motive for historical behaviour, without which the events mentioned would not be comprehensible.How does that help us to understand the motives throughout history?
It's not taught in US schools with any relevant detail - just a broad-brush picture. Custer wasn't much of a general in the Civil War, though the press loved him for his flamboyance. At the end of the war, he tried to retain his general's rank, although there had been thousands of generals in the war with brevet promotions. There was no room for him at that rank in the regular army, so eventually (and reluctantly), he took a Colonel's commission and moved west to kill Indians.Thank you, I had never heard the story with these details.
By understanding, for example, that moral outrage can well be a motive for historical behavior, without which the events mentioned would not be comprehensible.
AND, not the least, recognizing those instances where moral outrage may have most likely occurred, even though we do not possess any written material to that effect.
Utilizing empathy in a rational, cautious manner may help us build models of micro-history that have greater explanatory value than attempts to do so without the use of empathy.
Just for starters, that is..
Certainly important.I think I agree with you, if I am understanding you correctly. If you over-empathize you could end up with a historical "Stockholm syndrome." You don't want to try to actually justify the atrocities of the past.
Empathy would really only help you identify some of the reasons why these atrocities happened. Why people capable of committing them were allowed to do so.
It would have thrived, unless an external threat arrived to crumple it.It would be interesting to speculate on what would have come of the empire had it been permitted to exist for another five hundred years. If I recall correctly, the Aztecs were just recovering from a devastating plague when the first Spanish arrived.
It seems that many historian portray the Conquistadors as evil because of the indiscriminate destruction of the Aztec and Incas histories and accomplishments. They forget that human sacrifice was a daily event and probably horrified the Spanish. The Spanish were not Saints in there own right but human sacrifice was probably not taken to well. They probably felt that they had to obliterate the practice and the religion that spawned it. They were not concerned with the historical significance of what they destroyed.