Could it have gone better with the Indians?

Status
Not open for further replies.
K

Khornet

Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2002
Messages
1,861
Location
NH
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?
 
Ooops

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

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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. :(
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Great discussion

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.
 
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?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
It Could Have Easily Gone Like This...
2 3
Replies
53
Views
3K
tex_n_cal
T
D
  • Locked
Gun Control: Have We Gone Too Far?
Replies
10
Views
779
4v50 Gary
4v50 Gary
2
  • Locked
OJ interviews Professor Bellesiles
Replies
4
Views
402
Jim March
J
O
  • Locked
Online Debate with an Anti
Replies
23
Views
985
Handgun Midas
H
S
  • Locked
Could this be our future?
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
rbernie
rbernie
Back
Top