[Khornet]

After the thread about the Adobe Walls fight, I got out my old copy of Mari Sandoz' 'The Buffalo Hunters'. A great book, without whitewashing, but no preaching either. Got me to thinking, though...could it have ever worked out? Could our civilzation have come to terms with theirs somehow, or was the outcome inevitable?

The Americans of those days weren't saints (still aren't) but the Indians weren't either. But did it HAVE to happen?

[Khornet]

maybe this is better in Legal&Political. But I wanted a discussion, not a peeing contest.

[Mike Irwin]

Possibly.

Hard to say, though.

The British experience in India is an indication that the situation could have gone somewhat better, but it was the British, French, and Spanish (by far the WORST) who set up the scenario in the Western Hemisphere for treatment of the native populations.

I think part of the reason why the British experience in India was so much different is partially because the population density was so much higher there than in North America.

[gun-fucious]

Part of the reason the Indians "lost" was that they had no resistance to European disease.

Many of the locals were dead from plagues long before the whiteman made it in country

[ojibweindian]

I think the Indians and the settlers, as a whole, were ideological opposites.

[ahenry]

Ain’t no doubt about it, America dealt the Indians wrong a lot of the time. Also ain’t no doubt about it, lots of the Indians weren’t big on peace...with anybody. I tend to think that some tribes couldn’t have been dealt with much differently. Tribes like the Cherokee could have been handled much differently and far better. I don’t think you can really give a pat answer to this question because you do have such vastly differing types of peoples. Some tribes could have co-existed indefinitely, assuming we abided by any agreements, which probably wouldn’t have happened long term. Other tribes would have always fought until subdued by a vast superior force, which is what we did.

[Hkmp5sd]

To survive, the Indians would have ended up having to adopt the ways of the Europeans and abandon their traditional lifestyle. That is essentially what has happened to the Indians that are still around today, although not very successfully as they tend to live in poverty.

By trying to keep their customs while living on a reservation, yet having to also use the English language and attend English based schools, obey US laws, deal with Jobs/Money/taxes and everything else we consider normal, they have ended up with the worst of both worlds.

If you look at the black race in America today (excluding the Jesse Jackson types), they did what the Indians didn't do. They were brought over as slaves and were completely removed from their tribal customs. Once they gained freedom, they integrated into the American society, adapting to the same lifestyle and customs of the European decendents living here.

[NewShooter78]

I think it could have been a lot better for the natives of this country. Modernity has castrated Indian culture in this country. Plus you have to remember, that with most of the more violent acts perpetrated by some tribes, they viewed the incoming Europeans as invaders, or tresspassers. These tribes were protecting what had been their land for generations. The idea of manifest destiny pretty much sealed the fate of the American Indian.

[TallPine]

Can't help but feel like we are losing the same battles that they lost over a hundred years ago ....

[Sodbuster]

Too much gold from the Black Hills to California to keep the Plains and Mountain tribes safe. It was bad medicine for them. Considering the whiskey, disease, and broken treaties, I don't know how they could have fared differently. And they knew it.

[nualle]

ahenry, I think you hit the nail on the head right here:
Some tribes could have co-existed indefinitely, assuming we abided by any agreements, which probably wouldn’t have happened long term.
The only way the Natives would have had things any better is if the colonists had handled themselves differently, which would have required different colonists, a different approach to colonizing (what it's for and how it's done), et cetera ad absurdum.

[Mark Benningfield]

Hello All.

No way it could have been different. You have the pre-Industrial Age meeting the Stone Age head-on. Flint arrow and spear heads against steel rifles and plows. Add in the disease factors, and it's a foregone conclusion. I think the Native Americans got even a little, though. They handed us tobacco. :(

[Art Eatman]

A major problem was the cultural difference in attitude toward land: The European view was (is) "I--and only I--own it! You stay off!" This doesn't work when you're dealing with nomadic peoples like the AmerInd.

Look at European interactions with the various other societies they found in the explorations of the 1500s and onward: In every case there was an assumption of inherent superiority. This is implicit in Kipling's writing of the "White Man's Burden".

Art

[Atticus]

I can't add much to what's been said - but keep in mind that the new American immigrants and Eastern tribes interacted FAIRLY well for the better part of 300 years. There was an inter-marriage of peoples and cultures. If you're interested in some good reading on the subject, with viewpoints from both sides, read some books by Allan W. Eckert.

http://www.allaneck.com/publications.html

There are many similarities to the current Israeli/Palestinian, i.e. a lot of the major conflicts were caused by the treacherous actions of a few...on both sides.

[Sean Smith]

The Cherokee could possibly have become a sort of legalized state-within-a-state, maybe, and gradually absorbed-but-not-absorbed in to a sort of U.S. version of Quebec in Canada. But in a choice between allowing tribal nomads to roam around huge areas of land, or kill them and make infinite profits, the locals get shot, especially before 1900.

"Despicable but Inevitable" probably sums everything up.

[Joe Gunns]

That is a sad, sad story, limned with ignorance and misunderstanding, salted with avarice and dishonor, accelerated by white population growth and the industrial revolution. People of good will on both sides were like chunks of river-ice in the spring, swept along by the current. With the prevailing cultural attitudes on both sides, unlikely it could have gone differently. Would country be weaker, the same or stronger today if treaties had been honored by both sides? I vote weaker. Would we be a better people if all agreements had been honored. I vote probably, but we ain't doin' too badly anyway.

Despite the wrongs that some Americans and our government have sometimes done against other peoples and sometimes our own fellow citizens, what has made this country great is the striving by many of us to make things better for ourselves, our neighbors and those we see in need. The fine phrases in the Declaration and the Preamble of the Consitution are goals. Americans are constantly trying to live up to them. Being fallable human beings, we will never fully acheive them, but we are a better people and a stronger country for trying.

An intellectually honest liberal (no oxymoron intended) colleage was once waxing about the "crimes" and foibles of America's past and lamenting our recent moves to be "Boss of the World." I asked, "Who would be better?" There were a couple of "ums" and "ahs" and "Well...s" . And the debate was over.

[WYO]

I think the outcome was inevitable, only the timing could have varied. I think that some justice may still be coming for the Native Americans, with the litigation over the trust funds that have been mishandled for over 125 years. I don't think that the Black Hills issue has ever been resolved, either. The American taxpayers could be in for a big surprise.

BTW, Mari Sandoz' Crazy Horse is my all time favorite book.

[jmbg29]

What Mark Benningfield said.

People with cannons vs. people that didn't even have the wheel.
:rolleyes:

[abaddon]

Quote:

"people with cannons vs. people who didn't even have the wheel."

I don't the thread was started with power in mind. Obviously Europeans had more power. The question was about the whole "vs." part. Did it have to be us vs. them? I don't think so. Obviously it would have been very hard for people in society to put aside their prejudices and ignorance and co-exist but that doesn't make it impossible. To say its impossible would be to say that humans are not free to make their own choices.

Jeff

[jmbg29]

Obviously it would have been very hard for people in society to put aside their prejudices and ignorance and co-exist but that doesn't make it impossible.Fantasy isn't impossible, just so very nearly so as to make it nonsensical for us pragmatic types.

Industrial Age people, living (long term) side by side with Stone Age nomads isn't going to happen now, or a billion years from now; nor was it going to happen then. It has nothing to do with predjudice, nor with ignorance.

One group (BTW it will always be the one with better weapons and tactics) will assimilate or annihilate the other. The occasional battle may be won, but the outcome of the "war" is chisled in the granite of reality.

Stone Age folk still exist today in tiny little groups in a few of the more dense rain forests, but their days are numbered. By the time the Human population begins to approach 10+ billion, the areas that they depend upon will (as they know them) be gone. Game over.

Maybe someday, if humans evolve into "ethereal" beings of some sort, wholly different societies could share the ether together without any conflict.

Methinks that until then, us corporeal humans will continue to scrap over patches of ground to tame and conquer.

Will feelings get hurt? Yep. Will whole peoples be oppressed if not obliterated? You betcha. But at the end of the day, the manifestos of those three revered philosophers Woulda, Coulda, and Shoulda, won't mean squat. History will just roll on by without them.

Just ask an Inuit hunting seals with his .223 and his "snow go" if you don't believe me.

[Khornet]

only on THR!

Yes, I think it was inevitable but tragic. Having triumphed, our culture does tend to romanticize the vanquished though. There have been human remains with caucasian features found lately which carbon date to before the Indians. So they probably wiped out the Cro-Magnons, who wiped out the Neanderthals....back to Adam & Eve.

There ain't nobody on this earth who can claim unadulterated victimhood. I wish more appreciated that.

I love Sandoz' description of what the Indian fighters confronted:
The finest mounted warriors the world had ever seen.

[Sodbuster]

Mari Sandoz' Crazy Horse is my all time favorite book
That's where my sig line comes from.

[T.Stahl]

Well, I think would have been far better for the Indians if they had been left alone. :(

[Bravo8]

Well, had they been left alone, I wouldn't exist......being of partial Indian ancestry and all. Guess that would be good for some.......I wouldn't like it much, though.

[Hkmp5sd]

There is enough blame for both sides on the issue of the American Indian. What always irritates me is whenever the Europeans use how the indians were treated as an example of how the United States has a long history of human rights violations.

Anyone ever ask the Incas or Aztecs about their opinion on the history of human rights violations by European nations?

[Chris Rhines]

Not the greatest analogy, given the history of the Incan and Aztec treatment of their own people.

Yes, the Amerinds were seriously mistreated by the Euro settlers. There is no excuse for some of what they did.

However, repeating the same travesties over and over again isn't going to make it any better.

- Chris

[ojibweindian]

I truly do abhor what happened to my nation, the Ojibwe. The more I read of the history of my ancestors, the greater my feeling of pride to belong to such a wonderful, intelligent, fierce, and advanced people.

I believe their way of life, their culture, conflicted with the European settlers and therefore think there would be no way for both Indian and European cultures to peacefully co-exist. Personally, if I were alive back then, I would have fought to the death the "invasion" of the Europeans.

[Joe Demko]

It was inevitable. The way of life for the AmerInds, particularly the plains tribes, required vast amounts of land to support comparatively few people. The Euros had societies based on agriculture and land ownership. Tow such different societies cannot coexist. The "winner" is inevitably the agriculture-based society, as their way of life lets them stay in one spot long enough to develop higher technology and accumulate goods.

[CW-op]

As a descendant in part from American Indians, let me say that Hitler's holocaust was not the first.
As a lover of the writings of Mari Sandoz, I would suggest all to read her story titled "Old Jules". It is a very powerful story of her father and family, and her life as a child in NW Nebraska. Judging from her hard life, I find it amazing that not one shred of rancorous feeling is shown. Any who have read or will read this story, are invited to share the trip with me.
Another very well written narrative of hers is titled "Cheyenne Autumn" and would be well worth anyone's time.

[abaddon]

I think that if we were to say it was literally inevitable we would be denying the moral choice of the people involved. If they could not have done otherwise, then they cannot be held morally responsible. That is not to say, however, that the possibility of it being different was not very small - just that the possibility was there.

bravo 8, where does your sig line come from? It's cool!

Jeff

[Sodbuster]

"Old Jules"
Again, a book close to my heart. The reason I adopted my user name was the appreciation I have of the settlers of the Old West. What a rugged people, so self-reliant. One of my heroes is Crazy Horse, but I wouldn't trivialize his name by assuming it as a screen name. He wore but one feather, other warriors wore many. He might or might not paint a single stripe on his face, other warriors faces were almost completely covered. He wouldn't do the war dances. He wouldn't celebrate or count coup the way other warriors would. He simply fought, and did it better than most anyone. A soldier's bullet could never kill him; only a bayonet in the back while he was unarmed at Ft. Robinson, Nebraska. Hoka-hey, this is a good time to die, was how he always led warriors into battle. Hope I walk this earth long enough to see his statue in the Black Hills, where he was born, although he deserves more than that. He was the epitome of absolute courage.

[gun-fucious]

a wrinkle i sometimes think about

"what if the Santa Maria was over flown by an American Indian piloted Wright flyer?"

What level of technology would of repulsed the european invasion?

The indians did not have horses and horses helped the evolution of the wheel...

Would a sustainable horse population in America,
10,000 years ago do the trick?

[BigG]

Romantic poppycock, imho. The finest mounted soldiers the world had ever seen.

I wonder if Ms. Sandoz ever heard of the Huns, or the Mongols, or maybe even Alexander?

IIRC, the Indian had no concept of property ownership like the Euros have. "How can one own the land" is one question I believe they had.

[JohnBT]

www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/03/mann.htm

I highly recommend this thought provoking article originally published in the Atlantic Monthly.

It addresses issues such as the scholarly arguments over the Native population in 1492. Was it 1.8 million or 18 million. How much of the land was actually 'developed' or farmed - read the article. Whether you agree with any of it or not it contains some interesting points of view.

John

edited to add a tidbit on how many died of disease:

"But Dobyns was already working on a second, related question: If all those people died, how many had been living there to begin with? Before Columbus, Dobyns calculated, the Western Hemisphere held ninety to 112 million people. Another way of saying this is that in 1491 more people lived in the Americas than in Europe."

[swingset]

Ugh. This kind of topic always gets people's romantic (and book-fed) idealism about Indian culture racing. I'm 1/4 cherokee, and retain strong ties to active tribal members. I'm not foreign to their lifestyles, but I also don't cloud myself about the past and why things happened the way they did.

As Confucious said, there are two truths. On one hand, the industrialized, often land-greedy whites did encroach unfairly on tribal lands, did manipulate and subjigate the American Indian population, but what kind of culture did they clash with????

Did Indians live a pure, clean, spiritual life free of the wants, desires and power struggles of the white man? Hardly. They made war on each other, made slaves of one another, and suffered the same cultural problems and struggles as ALL people have done. They were at constant odds with each other, even the most stable of nations were clashing eternally over "turf".

Had the whites ran into a collective, powerful and structured Indian culture in the US, even in the west, things would have been very different (think India and the English). Instead, they ran into a hodgepodge of different tribes, each with their own special brand of laws, lifestyles and ideas about how to deal with white encroachment. That made for a recipe of disaster for a small nation or tribe. The whites had superiority by single-minded purpose of mind...where as the Indian populations seemed scattered and inferior for lack of unity.

[Hkmp5sd]

Well said, swingset.:)

[Bravo8]

Abaddon-

My sig is a quote from The Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams.

[Sergeant Bob]

Don't forget to bring your towel!

[Hkmp5sd]

And pocket fluff!