Making sense of the invasion of the Americas

[rousseau]

For many thousands of years North and South America were inhabited solely by Native Americans. As we all know Europeans showed up eventually and decimated Native populations, committing countless atrocious acts. After completely devastating the native way of life and culture, those who make up that ethnic group are now mostly an oppressed minority here, and people of European descent have more or less taken over.

And now many people make arguments about reparations and the like, and I wonder what people of this forum think about that concept. Do the ancestors of Europeans who wronged natives owe the ancestors of those natives? Does the fact that Europeans 'won the war' against natives mean anything other than that they're now the group which is economically dominant? What, if anything, should be done to rectify what happened in the past? Can we even make a direct link between this time period and eras gone by?

What do you think?

 

[bilby]

I touched on this in another thread:

...

Who can be reliably said to own anything, unless some arbitrary ruling is made? And who has the undisputed authority to make such a ruling?

In English Law, the 1275 Statute of Westminster set the beginning of time (for legal purposes) as the start of the reign of King Richard I - July 6th, 1189. If your ancient ancestors were robbed on July 7th 1189, and you can prove it, then the property is yours; If they were robbed on July 5th, however, then the property lawfully belongs to the thieves.

This is all well and good if the land in question is in England; but who owns land in the USA that was stolen from the Clovis people by the ancestors of the Blackfeet, who had it taken from them by the Comanches, who had it taken from them by the Choctaw, who had it allocated without their permission by the US Government to a man who sold it to another man who willed it to his son, who sold it to someone else, whose heirs sold it to Ted Turner?

It seems to me that if the descendants of the Clovis people no longer exist, or can no longer be identified, then nobody owns that parcel of land, absent arbitrary ruling by the US Government, acting under their authority as 'most heavily armed, don't fuck with us'.

I don't have an answer, except to say that any answer is bound to be unfair to a lot of people. There is no fair solution; nor is there any universal moral principle that we can all agree should form the basis of a settlement for disputes. If the land belongs to the descendants of the earliest owner whose claim can be proven, and who has living heirs, then that's just an incentive for genocide. Not much more than two hundred years ago, the land around Sydney cove was the property of the Cadigal clan of the Eora people. Today it is the most valuable real estate in Australia, and amongst the most valuable in the world. The present owners are unlikely to give it all back. Their predecessors did the best job they could of eradicating the Cadigals, in no small part as an attempt to forestall any such claim.

Given how incredibly recent (from a European POV) the theft of the Americas (and even more so, Australasia) was, it is hard to argue that indigenous claims should be extinguished; but that said, given the paucity of records (and in some cases the lack of modern concepts of land ownership, or of fixed boundaries to the land 'owned' by a tribe), it is hard to establish what claims are legitimate. It is fairly difficult for a person to prove his claim to Navajo heritage; and it is orders of magnitude more difficult for that person to demonstrate that he is the rightful heir to a particular parcel of land in Arizona; Just establishing which, if any, of the mid-nineteenth century treaties apply at all, and (if any are valid), to whom they apply, is a nightmare.

Perhaps it is time for a new 'Statute of Westminster' style law, setting a date before the birth of any living person, but since the creation of reasonably accurate surveys and ownership records for the land, as the cut off date for all future claims - perhaps combined with a one-off lump sum compensation to the surviving descendants of indigenous peoples from the government, in recognition that while specific ownership cannot be determined, it is clear that a major theft of real estate took place in the past, of which indigenous peoples were the victims.

 

[none]

Spain did most of it,right?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Didn't the Natives fight back from time to time and lose? Is there any place on the planet which isn't inhabited by the victors of some war or another as opposed to the people who were there before that war? There's probably a few, but not all that many.

 

[thentian]

Is there any place on the planet which isn't inhabited by the victors of some war or another as opposed to the people who were there before that war? There's probably a few, but not all that many.

The only such place I can think of is Iceland. They actually have comprehensive records of the first people claiming this or that particular piece of land.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landnámabók

 

[braces_for_impact]

I don't know about reparations, simply because of the logistics of the problem and I wonder how effective that would be in reality. I do think that we should work hard to make sure that minorities do have the same opportunities as others though, and that would go a long way towards making things right.

 

[dystopian]

The majority of native americans were not killed directly by Europeans; but rather indirectly by the diseases the Europeans brought with them, which happened well before major colonization efforts. I don't think one can assign blame for that, given the Europeans had no way of knowing the risks (the whole, 'let's give them smallpox infected blankets thing happened much later). Of course, that doesn't absolve us completely, even though disease killed most of the natives Europeans killed a great many too. However, nobody alive today was involved on either side and it's hard to argue that someone should be punished by being forced to pay 'reparations' for something their ancestors did. So long as native groups are not still actively persecuted and every effort is made to ensure they have equal chances in life/society, I don't see that anything more needs to be done. That is up to the US to accomplish.

What's done is done. Sure, it doesn't feel just to allow landgrabs and the like to go unanswered, no matter how long ago it happened... but too much time has passed. If we were to accept that European colonization was recent enough to justify large-scale return of land... then the same would apply to Europe itself and everywhere else. It would be a complete and utter nightmare to redraw all the borders in the world so as to return all the land unfairly stole. To say nothing of the demographic issues involved.

That said, I think if there's a large enough movement for independence among the native americans, there'd be a decent case for allowing it. Of course, that would only work if one could convince them to work together and create a single viable nationstate, instead of all the different fragmented reservations trying to become their own country. It seems as if some of the larger ones could conceivably function as a viable nationstate, but that's eyeballing maps I'm not sure I'm reading right. Otherwise it might require the US ceding some land to them. Given the sheer size of the country, I don't think that's really too much to ask for; but that's assuming the land being ceded doesn't already have people living on it that might not want to suddenly live in another country.

 

[Horatio Parker]

It's kind of a problem for a country supposedly founded on respect for individual rights and liberty.

The reality is that only members of the club, white male landowners, were accorded those rights. Now that everyone is included, the doings of the fathers represents a problem, particularly as their descendants are still around.

Not surprising one side wants to forget all about it.

 

[skepticalbip]

That said, I think if there's a large enough movement for independence among the native americans, there'd be a decent case for allowing it. Of course, that would only work if one could convince them to work together and create a single viable nationstate, instead of all the different fragmented reservations trying to become their own country. It seems as if some of the larger ones could conceivably function as a viable nationstate, but that's eyeballing maps I'm not sure I'm reading right. Otherwise it might require the US ceding some land to them. Given the sheer size of the country, I don't think that's really too much to ask for; but that's assuming the land being ceded doesn't already have people living on it that might not want to suddenly live in another country.

Since you aren't from the US, it is understandable that you are unaware that this was pretty much done over a hundred years ago. A bit of a difference is that the various tribes are not "one people". There is as much, if not more, difference between the various tribes as there are the different nations in Europe (with as much historic conflict) so one nation-state wouldn't be acceptable. What was done was reservations for each recognized tribe. These reservations are essentially nation-states with their own laws, police, and government councils, but still a part of the US. There are many reservations but just the Navajo reservation itself is 71,000 square Kilometers (almost twice the area of the Netherlands). Aside from their own internal nation, the residents are free to leave and live as any US citizen as most do (since they are US citizens) or remain on the reservation. Each recognized tribe is granted yearly payments by the federal government, to be used as the tribal councils decide, along with welfare payments along with medical care and education, assistance etc.

 

[credoconsolans]

I wonder what people of this forum think about that concept. Do the ancestors of Europeans who wronged natives owe the ancestors of those natives?

No.

Their ancestors lost against the Europeans because they couldn't get their collective acts together or set aside stupid tribal differences or stop making enemies among their neighbors long enough to fight them off.

Look at the Great Plains tribes. They were nothing but dog-eating hunter gatherers until the horse arrived with the Spaniards. Then what did they do? Created horse riding warrior cultures that preyed on one another, forever raiding and counting coup on their enemies and stealing their horses so they could strut and show off. And like rival football teams made "traditional enemies" - that didn't go back farther than the horse's introduction - so they were not apt to form alliances when an enemy showed up.

Everyone knows the sad story of the Aztecs and how their nasty habit of human sacrifice did not make them friends among their neighbors.

It was a war of conquest and they lost big time. Almost as easy as shooting fish in a barrel.

 

[dystopian]

Since you aren't from the US, it is understandable that you are unaware that this was pretty much done over a hundred years ago.

How so? The indian reservations are not independent nationstates, no matter how autonomous they are.

A bit of a difference is that the various tribes are not "one people".

According to wikipedia there's only about a million people living in the combined total of the reservations though. Not a very big population if you want to create more than 1-3 viable independent nationstates. Seems like if they wanted to be viable as a fully independent entity they would have to get over it and consolidate. It's not like there aren't historic parallels to be found.

There is as much, if not more, difference between the various tribes as there are the different nations in Europe

If not more? Really? You lost me. I realize it's a bit of a derail and that of course there's going to be considerable differences between the different native American groups, but I think you might (like Americans routinely do) be seriously underestimating the sheer number of different cultures living in even most european *countries* and the differences between them, much less the continent as whole. I'd be willing to believe native American cultural differences were once equal to that of Europe; but the vast loss of life (as much as 90%) following European contact leads me to suspect this simply can't still be the case today. Whole cultures must have disappeared.

(with as much historic conflict) so one nation-state wouldn't be acceptable.

I don't see why it would be unacceptable. There are certainly countries to be found in the world today that have formed out of multiple very different groups/cultures that have been in conflict with one another for long periods of their history. Clearly it's possible to overcome such issues, and that's assuming if these historic conflicts are even still relevant today instead of just being part of history?

What was done was reservations for each recognized tribe. These reservations are essentially nation-states with their own laws, police, and government councils, but still a part of the US.

So, not independent countries; just autonomous regions. What if they want to be truly independent, and no longer be part of the country that took their land in the first place? Not saying this is a serious desire on anyone's part; but what if it was?

 

[Eldarion Lathria]

Are the Japanese going to pay reparations to the Ryukuans and Ainu? Are the Turks going to pay reparations to the Greeks? Are the WaNgoni peoples of southern Africa going to pay reparations to the Khoikhoi and !Kung? Are the Aryan Indians going to pay reparations to the Dravidians? Are the Crimean Tatars going to pay reparations to the Goths and Greeks? (Oops they can't, they killed them all.) Are the north African Arabs going to pay reparations to the Berbers. Are the Amerinds going to pay reparations to the Solutrean and Windover peoples? Before you talk about reparations for the Amerinds, let these peoples pay up first.

Eldarion Lathria

 

[Turambar]

I wonder what people of this forum think about that concept. Do the ancestors of Europeans who wronged natives owe the ancestors of those natives?

No.

Their ancestors lost against the Europeans because they couldn't get their collective acts together or set aside stupid tribal differences or stop making enemies among their neighbors long enough to fight them off.

Look at the Great Plains tribes. They were nothing but dog-eating hunter gatherers until the horse arrived with the Spaniards. Then what did they do? Created horse riding warrior cultures that preyed on one another, forever raiding and counting coup on their enemies and stealing their horses so they could strut and show off. And like rival football teams made "traditional enemies" - that didn't go back farther than the horse's introduction - so they were not apt to form alliances when an enemy showed up.

Everyone knows the sad story of the Aztecs and how their nasty habit of human sacrifice did not make them friends among their neighbors.

It was a war of conquest and they lost big time. Almost as easy as shooting fish in a barrel.

You are mostly right. I think that even if several tribes had gotten together and fought the Europeans they would have still lost. The technological advantages were simply too many and remember also that the immune systems of the Europeans were already hardened against numerous pathogens that the native Americans had never encounter.

Particularly in the former Spanish colonies in the Americas, another problem was the timing: The conquistadors were not renaissance men, they were actually medieval men used to eternal war against the Arabs. Columbus came to America at exactly the same time as the last Arabs were being expelled out of Spain. The warriors and knights that were left unemployed once there were no more infidels to fight against suddenly found another reason to exist across the ocean. They came with a fanatical rage against anything non-christian. Of course, the brutal native religions full of human sacrifices made the encounter between the two cultures even more incompatible.

Reparations? Too late for that, most Latin Americans are of mixed ethnicity.

 

[skepticalbip]

How so? The indian reservations are not independent nationstates, no matter how autonomous they are.

A bit of a difference is that the various tribes are not "one people".

According to wikipedia there's only about a million people living in the combined total of the reservations though. Not a very big population if you want to create more than 1-3 viable independent nationstates. Seems like if they wanted to be viable as a fully independent entity they would have to get over it and consolidate. It's not like there aren't historic parallels to be found.

There is as much, if not more, difference between the various tribes as there are the different nations in Europe

If not more? Really? You lost me. I realize it's a bit of a derail and that of course there's going to be considerable differences between the different native American groups, but I think you might (like Americans routinely do) be seriously underestimating the sheer number of different cultures living in even most european *countries* and the differences between them, much less the continent as whole. I'd be willing to believe native American cultural differences were once equal to that of Europe; but the vast loss of life (as much as 90%) following European contact leads me to suspect this simply can't still be the case today. Whole cultures must have disappeared.

(with as much historic conflict) so one nation-state wouldn't be acceptable.

I don't see why it would be unacceptable. There are certainly countries to be found in the world today that have formed out of multiple very different groups/cultures that have been in conflict with one another for long periods of their history. Clearly it's possible to overcome such issues, and that's assuming if these historic conflicts are even still relevant today instead of just being part of history?

What was done was reservations for each recognized tribe. These reservations are essentially nation-states with their own laws, police, and government councils, but still a part of the US.

So, not independent countries; just autonomous regions. What if they want to be truly independent, and no longer be part of the country that took their land in the first place? Not saying this is a serious desire on anyone's part; but what if it was?

Cute. So you want to force your opinion of what "ought to be" on the native American tribes pretty much like the early European settlers wanted to do.

The overwhelming majority of Native Americans do not live on reservations. They are American citizens and study, live, work in everyday US society as equals. In fact, I could call myself a native American if I wanted to go through the paperwork hassle of proving my grandfather's heritage and presenting a petition to the government Bureau of Indian Affairs. It would entitle me to a lot of benefits.

I have spent a lot of time on reservations and have never encountered anyone who wanted independence from the US. Why do you think there is such a movement? Most that I have met don't want independence but want more dependence as in increased yearly payments to the tribal council by the US government and more governmental support and development effort.

And you, like most Europeans, are severely underestimating the vast diversity and differences between the various tribes across the Americas.

You really shouldn't expound on subjects in which you apparently have absolutely no knowledge.

 

[Bronzeage]

Didn't the Natives fight back from time to time and lose? Is there any place on the planet which isn't inhabited by the victors of some war or another as opposed to the people who were there before that war? There's probably a few, but not all that many.

The majority of Native American deaths due to other than natural causes were from European diseases. People tend to think of Small Pox and other debilitating diseases, but there were cold viruses which could devastate a population that had never been exposed before.

The friendliest and most peaceful European could kill thousands with a sneeze.

 

[freshie23]

No, I don't believe the ancestors of the wrongdoers owe the ancestors of the wronged for what was done to them. Because they're all dead now. People can only be accountable for their own actions given what they now know at the time.

I do NOT mean we should have an attitude like "eff the natives who cares", as we pretend that the white man were nothing short of pleasant after they showed up and violence isn't a normal human trait. Humans have done a remarkable job proving the degree of cruelty they're capable of. I mean, really went above & beyond!

The problem with "reparations" is how it usually takes complex social issues that effect people's emotions differently, and tries to find a quick, concrete solution for it (aka give it money). This means we're not letting problems run their course, letting time sort them out. Europeans took from natives things that money can't buy, but promote more economic equality to make them feel like it never happened, right?

 

[4321lynx]

No.

Their ancestors lost against the Europeans because they couldn't get their collective acts together or set aside stupid tribal differences or stop making enemies among their neighbors long enough to fight them off.

Look at the Great Plains tribes. They were nothing but dog-eating hunter gatherers until the horse arrived with the Spaniards. Then what did they do? Created horse riding warrior cultures that preyed on one another, forever raiding and counting coup on their enemies and stealing their horses so they could strut and show off. And like rival football teams made "traditional enemies" - that didn't go back farther than the horse's introduction - so they were not apt to form alliances when an enemy showed up.

Everyone knows the sad story of the Aztecs and how their nasty habit of human sacrifice did not make them friends among their neighbors.

It was a war of conquest and they lost big time. Almost as easy as shooting fish in a barrel.

You are mostly right. I think that even if several tribes had gotten together and fought the Europeans they would have still lost. The technological advantages were simply too many and remember also that the immune systems of the Europeans were already hardened against numerous pathogens that the native Americans had never encounter.

Particularly in the former Spanish colonies in the Americas, another problem was the timing: The conquistadors were not renaissance men, they were actually medieval men used to eternal war against the Arabs. Columbus came to America at exactly the same time as the last Arabs were being expelled out of Spain. The warriors and knights that were left unemployed once there were no more infidels to fight against suddenly found another reason to exist across the ocean. They came with a fanatical rage against anything non-christian. Of course, the brutal native religions full of human sacrifices made the encounter between the two cultures even more incompatible.

Reparations? Too late for that, most Latin Americans are of mixed ethnicity.

I think most here mean "Inheritors" when they say "Ancestors" should pay reparations. The ancestors of both sides are long dead and turned to dust.
And indeed it's too late. The whole question is ridiculous. Are we going to demand that Istambul be given back to the Greeks? After all the Turks conquered it (ie Constantinople) only 70 years or so prior to the Spanish conquest of Mexico. Are we going to agitate that England and France be given back to the Welsh and the Bretons, the "inheritors" of the tribes conquered by the Romans? And so ad infinitum ? The discussion is ridiculous. Reparations are being paid, and apologies given, in Canada, for the very recent scandalous, uncivilised, mis-treatment and abuse of the "First Nations'" (Indians and Esquimos to the European/American posters here) people in Canada, and especially their children; mistreatment which continued right into the 1980s. And this is as it should be. But don't carry this to the ridiculous lengths implied by some posts here.

 

[Togo]

Are we going to agitate that England and France be given back to the Welsh and the Bretons, the "inheritors" of the tribes conquered by the Romans?

They are not. The Tribes conquered by the Romans were many and various. Here's a taster of some of the more famous:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/british_prehistory/iron_01.shtml

Note that these tribes were not just subdivisions of a single racially similar group, but noticeably different from each other. The 'Welsh' are a mix of those tribes listed as being in Wales, religious travellers from Ireland and England going to North Wales, industrial travellers and traders going to south Wales, The Cornish, The Manx, and occasional invaders from Ireland.

Later additions included the Normans, the Saxons, the Angels, the Jutes, the Scots, the Danish, the Norse, the Irish, the Dubliners, and of course the Romans.

 

[dystopian]

Cute. So you want to force your opinion of what "ought to be" on the native American tribes pretty much like the early European settlers wanted to do.

Not at all. Simply questioning whether any other scenario could lead to a viable independent state.

I have spent a lot of time on reservations and have never encountered anyone who wanted independence from the US. Why do you think there is such a movement?

I explicitly used the term "IF" there was such a movement, indicating that I do not explicitly think there is but that there either could be/or that I'm arguing a hypothetical scenario in which it were the case.

And you, like most Europeans, are severely underestimating the vast diversity and differences between the various tribes across the Americas.

You really shouldn't expound on subjects in which you apparently have absolutely no knowledge.

We were talking about the US specifically. If we're going to bring in not only the rest of North America but all of South America then of course there's going to even more ample diversity. Although even then it's highly improbable the current diversity will exceed that of Europe. According to best estimated I've seen, there's only 40 million native americans living today in the new world. Many, probably even most, of the original native american cultures have become entirely extinct. Compare that to 731 million Europeans alive today, whose diverse regional cultures and languages have continued to diversify uninterrupted.

I took issue with your suggestion that the native americans are more diverse than Europe... not with the obvious notion that 'native american' is a term that encompasses a wide range of different cultures.

Perhaps you should not take up words against people's statements when you can't parse them properly enough to understand such distinctions?

 

[arkirk]

No, I don't believe the ancestors of the wrongdoers owe the ancestors of the wronged for what was done to them. Because they're all dead now. People can only be accountable for their own actions given what they now know at the time.

I do NOT mean we should have an attitude like "eff the natives who cares", as we pretend that the white man were nothing short of pleasant after they showed up and violence isn't a normal human trait. Humans have done a remarkable job proving the degree of cruelty they're capable of. I mean, really went above & beyond!

The problem with "reparations" is how it usually takes complex social issues that effect people's emotions differently, and tries to find a quick, concrete solution for it (aka give it money). This means we're not letting problems run their course, letting time sort them out. Europeans took from natives things that money can't buy, but promote more economic equality to make them feel like it never happened, right?

It is more a matter of repair-ations to our own system of governance that could increase the promise of continued peaceful human coexistence. We cannot repair the past. We must begin to repair the present operating systems of our society to assure there will continue to be a society or we will just again be forced to declare we have done more damage and there is no way to repair that either. We owe it to each other as human beings to attempt to mitigate our effects on the planet and each other. I am not talking about some sort of payoff, but rather changing the working relationships between people more from strictly an authoritarian model to one of mutual cooperation...from a strictly adversarial relationship between most peoples to one that eases harships and makes all people a little nearer to whole.