Did Europeans Deliberately Destroy Native Cultures in Their Colonies?

[jbg]

I was going to add this as a reply on the "Happy Canada Day" thread and decided that thread has not only drifted, but drunkenly veered in many different directions. There's nothing wrong with the post or poster I'm resopnding to now but I didn't want to further bog down what should be a celebratory thread.

A few words about the distinction between U.S., Canada, Australia, and New Zealand on one hand and most of the African and Asian colonies on the other. The people on the merged land masses of Africa, Asia and Europe all had some immunity to smallpox, bubonic plague and other diseases so the arrival of Europeans did not have a drastic impact on native population numbers. The European militaries butchered only so many people.

In the Americas and Australia the story was drastically different. When Ponce de Leon hit the Florida beaches in the 1500's he didn't travel far. His pigs did. By the time the Aztecs were faced by the Spaniards at Tenotichlan there numbers were decimated. One book I read by Charles Mann, 1491 and other scientists upon whom his work was based estimates that between 90 and 98% of the natives fell to smallpox and other diseases without a shot being fired. Thus, subject to intra-European wars in the Americas, their conquest by Europeans was easy and thorough. Link to earlier thread about this book here, and excerpts from 1491 below:

1491

Before it became the New World, the Western Hemisphere was vastly more populous and sophisticated than has been thought—an altogether more salubrious place to live at the time than, say, Europe. New evidence of both the extent of the population and its agricultural advancement leads to a remarkable conjecture: the Amazon rain forest may be largely a human artifact

BY CHARLES C. MANN

.....

A few years ago it occurred to me that my ancestor and everyone else in the colony had voluntarily enlisted in a venture that brought them to New England without food or shelter six weeks before winter. Half the 102 people on the Mayflower made it through to spring, which to me was amazing. How, I wondered, did they survive?

In his history of Plymouth Colony, Bradford provided the answer: by robbing Indian houses and graves. The Mayflower first hove to at Cape Cod. An armed company staggered out. Eventually it found a recently deserted Indian settlement. The newcomers—hungry, cold, sick—dug up graves and ransacked houses, looking for underground stashes of corn. "And sure it was God's good providence that we found this corn," Bradford wrote, "for else we know not how we should have done." (He felt uneasy about the thievery, though.) When the colonists came to Plymouth, a month later, they set up shop in another deserted Indian village. All through the coastal forest the Indians had "died on heapes, as they lay in their houses," the English trader Thomas Morton noted. "And the bones and skulls upon the severall places of their habitations made such a spectacle" that to Morton the Massachusetts woods seemed to be "a new found Golgotha"—the hill of executions in Roman Jerusalem.

*snip*

Smallpox was only the first epidemic. Typhus (probably) in 1546, influenza and smallpox together in 1558, smallpox again in 1589, diphtheria in 1614, measles in 1618—all ravaged the remains of Incan culture. Dobyns was the first social scientist to piece together this awful picture, and he naturally rushed his findings into print. Hardly anyone paid attention. 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.

Largely as a result of this decimation by disease, the U.S., Canada, Australia, and New Zealand were able to make good use of their British heritage. To a lesser extent for whatever reason so did India. I suspect the tribal underpinnings were too strong elsewhere for a better result.

[cybercoma]

Something else for consideration is climate. New Zealand and Australia are in the Southern climate zone matching the UK, Canada and US. African countries and India are in a different zone. This is important because the transfer of crops was tremendously important to the movement of people and their accompanying cultural, technological and intellectual packages. The Spanish would have never been as prolific in Central and South America if they couldn't get grapes for wine, olives for oil and wheat for bread to take off. It wasn't until the Conquistadors hit the Andean highlands and really established their most important staples that people back home would be enticed to actually colonize the new world. So, differing climate plays a small role in their goal to expand empire.

Now your specific question is whether or not they deliberately destroyed "native cultures". There doesn't really seem to be any question that this was deliberate, by way of their churches and the attitude of converting the savages to a "civilized" way of life. There was no regard given to the native systems of family, community, and politics. Instead, they were viewed as backwards or primitive, in need of conversion. Moreover, establishing farmlands and bringing alien crops and animals with them, Europeans destroyed much of the domestic flora and fauna. Dandelions and kentucky bluegrass, for example, were more than likely accidentally carried over in dirty seeds from Columbus. It's hard to imagine any outdoor space without these things. That's just the tiniest example of the greater effect of European settlement, which was to entirely change the landscape of North America and therefore the way of life for Native peoples--what happened in New Zealand was even more disastrous, as they had unique ferns and other plant and animal life that were lost forever after Cook landed there.

A lot of this could be considered unintentional consequences of their settlement. How could they know hundreds of years ago what would happen when hitch-hiking seeds came across the oceans with them? How could they know about the effect of their alien diseases on foreign populations? However, once they got here and established their Churches, tried converting the Native populations, and otherwise treated them as savages, rather than trying to understand their lifestyles and what kind of communities they had established already, I think it's fair to say that the destruction of aboriginal cultures was indeed intentional. Moving forward still, you can see that we established residential schools in Canada, which was undoubtedly a way of destroying their culture. The entire intention was to teach the Natives how to live a European lifestyle. So, I would say that during initial contact, the scope of the spread of diseases and the destruction of native flora and fauna where the colonizers went was probably unintentional. However, it greatly contributed to the ease with which they could later intentionally destroy the local cultures. With Native people's backs up against a wall, finding it increasingly more difficult, if not impossible to live as they used to, needed to find a way to preserve themselves. We can see this in letters from Native leaders in Canada conceding to send their children to Residential Schools and the agreements made by tribes in New Zealand; they seemed to have no other choice and hoped that working with the Europeans they could keep their cultures from being destroyed. Obviously, we know today they were wrong.

[Shwa]

Now your specific question is whether or not they deliberately destroyed "native cultures". There doesn't really seem to be any question that this was deliberate, by way of their churches and the attitude of converting the savages to a "civilized" way of life.

This is an interesting thought against the research from John Ralston Saul in 'The Metis Nation' that show most of the attitudes we experience towards aboriginal people today were developed in the mid-19th century. Prior to that, public perspectives and dealings with First Nations were much different.

There was no regard given to the native systems of family, community, and politics. Instead, they were viewed as backwards or primitive, in need of conversion.

I'm not so sure. There was definitely clashes of cultural values, but I think there was a genuine interest to understand one another and some of these understandings can be found in the language of the various treaties. I don't doubt that the religious element of European culture saw opportunity, but plenty of aboriginal religious and spiritual systems remain in practice today.

Moreover, establishing farmlands and bringing alien crops and animals with them, Europeans destroyed much of the domestic flora and fauna. Dandelions and kentucky bluegrass, for example, were more than likely accidentally carried over in dirty seeds from Columbus. It's hard to imagine any outdoor space without these things.

No, it is probably the other way around. Plants and foodstuffs from the Americas were taken elsewhere, corn, beans, squashes, potatoes, tomatoes. Etc. Most of the flora and fauna in North America is native to the continent. If you think about the everyday food you eat, chances are that there is some food in there that originated in the Americas.

That's just the tiniest example of the greater effect of European settlement, which was to entirely change the landscape of North America and therefore the way of life for Native peoples--what happened in New Zealand was even more disastrous, as they had unique ferns and other plant and animal life that were lost forever after Cook landed there.

There has been more modification of the landscape in modern times, the past 150 years or so, than at any other time. But by and large, the aboriginal people had modified the landscapes with their agriculture long before the Europeans had arrives.

A lot of this could be considered unintentional consequences of their settlement. How could they know hundreds of years ago what would happen when hitch-hiking seeds came across the oceans with them? How could they know about the effect of their alien diseases on foreign populations? However, once they got here and established their Churches, tried converting the Native populations, and otherwise treated them as savages, rather than trying to understand their lifestyles and what kind of communities they had established already, I think it's fair to say that the destruction of aboriginal cultures was indeed intentional.

This is the complexity, for sure. But how much of your understanding of their lifestyles is based on a eurocentric view or views formulated of a result of it? There has been much acculturation from both perspectives over the past centuries and I believe some of that continues today.

Moving forward still, you can see that we established residential schools in Canada, which was undoubtedly a way of destroying their culture. The entire intention was to teach the Natives how to live a European lifestyle. So, I would say that during initial contact, the scope of the spread of diseases and the destruction of native flora and fauna where the colonizers went was probably unintentional. However, it greatly contributed to the ease with which they could later intentionally destroy the local cultures. With Native people's backs up against a wall, finding it increasingly more difficult, if not impossible to live as they used to, needed to find a way to preserve themselves. We can see this in letters from Native leaders in Canada conceding to send their children to Residential Schools and the agreements made by tribes in New Zealand; they seemed to have no other choice and hoped that working with the Europeans they could keep their cultures from being destroyed. Obviously, we know today they were wrong.

To a degree, yes. But you have to be careful not to paint all aboriginal people & cultures the same, which is the biggest 'wrong' of them all. Experiences varied greatly from one to another as they do today.

[Oleg Bach]

Church and state were one back then. Of course they destroyed what they considered pagan. Just look at what they did with their own brothers and sisters - burn and torture untill they saw God - little use by that time seeing you were dead. All Empires that believe they are devine murder those that they assume have no God. Our Residential School embarrassment was by design made to purge the devil out of natives - mean while the Europeans were behaving like devils while doing it. Native Cultures are just as holy as we believe ourselves to be. The problem has never been in the belief in God but in the belief that you were God or acting on his behalf. Just like radical Muslims who murder and torment...they are the actual infidels seeing they believe that God is weak and needs assistance.

[Oleg Bach]

We looked at their darker skin - at the cedance of the speech and assumed they were stupid and to be conquered or managed . Natives are a bold and tough lot - They are one with the land and with God - introduce the easy route - by the whites - whiskey and religion - then they fall.

[bloodyminded]

To some degree, leaving aside "destroying their culture(s)," there were moments of wanton and violent destruction of the human beings physical selves; this was not a continual policy, but it happened a lot...and it was part of policy, by definition.

I imagine that when John Quincy Adams wrote of "that hapless race of Native Americans, which we are exterminating with such merciless and perfidious cruelty," he wasn't indulging in politically correct anti-Americanism.

(Of course, like Eisenhower, Chretien, Clinton, and many others, he saves his accurate and honest assessment for when it can do no practical good. That's normal enough.)

Edited July 5, 2011 by bloodyminded

[jbg]

To some degree, leaving aside "destroying their culture(s)," there were moments of wanton and violent destruction of the human beings physical selves; this was not a continual policy, but it happened a lot...and it was part of policy, by definition.

My point is not that the whites weren't wanton and cruel. My point is that most of the deaths occurred from epidemics, not massacres.

[bloodyminded]

My point is not that the whites weren't wanton and cruel. My point is that most of the deaths occurred from epidemics, not massacres.

Yes, I agree. The idea that the majority of deaths were accidental is true.

[Molly]

Yes, I agree. The idea that the majority of deaths were accidental is true.

But possibly only the majority because those deaths happened first.

[bloodyminded]

But possibly only the majority because those deaths happened first.

Possibly. There was no genuine aversion to violence, that's for sure.

[Shwa]

But possibly only the majority because those deaths happened first.

But possibly the violence occurred because the accidental deaths happened first.

[Shwa]

To some degree, leaving aside "destroying their culture(s)," there were moments of wanton and violent destruction of the human beings physical selves; this was not a continual policy, but it happened a lot...and it was part of policy, by definition.

I imagine that when John Quincy Adams wrote of "that hapless race of Native Americans, which we are exterminating with such merciless and perfidious cruelty," he wasn't indulging in politically correct anti-Americanism.

(Of course, like Eisenhower, Chretien, Clinton, and many others, he saves his accurate and honest assessment for when it can do no practical good. That's normal enough.)

And this is interesting on a couple of points: Adams wasn't too far removed from the ethics of the path of co-existence that the British chose to take in Canada in the 18th and early 19th centuries; there was a break with this fundamental philosophy and it was a rather swift break.

Secondly, the extermination policy wasn't all too successful since there are plenty of Native Americans alive nowadays. Which begs the question as to how successful it really was compared to the cost. Not very IMO.

We can guess that as the colonies expanded west they were preceeded by epidemics or waves of sickness that ravaged the Native American populations and weakened their ability to resist the expansion when it arrived in their territory. "Indian Wars" were generally short lived affairs and might have consisted of a series of raids and the odd massacre on both sides and even then the casualties are poorly documented in a lot of cases.

[bloodyminded]

Secondly, the extermination policy wasn't all too successful since there are plenty of Native Americans alive nowadays. Which begs the question as to how successful it really was compared to the cost. Not very IMO.

Yes, insofar as it was part of policy, (which might be overstating it to some degree, at least when we use words like Adams' did) it was probably constantly wavering and ambivalent. Perhaps the same sorts of people who now claim "we could defeat Iran" or Vietnam, or the Taliban, or what have you, if only we didn't tie the military's hands, and let them use harsher measures....well, I imagine some poeple were of the same opinion in 1815.

The Radical Left must have been making them soft on policy. I understand that's our primary problem.

Edited July 6, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Shwa]

Yes, insofar as it was part of policy, (which might be overstating it to some degree, at least when we use words like Adams' did) it was probably constantly wavering and ambivalent. Perhaps the same sorts of people who now claim "we could defeat Iran" or Vietnam, or the Taliban, or what have you, if only we didn't tie the military's hands, and let them use harsher measures....well, I imagine some poeple were of the same opinion in 1815.

The Radical Left must have been making them soft on policy. I understand that's our primary problem.

It was the damned Quakers and their peace and love schtick.

[bloodyminded]

It was the damned Quakers and their peace and love schtick.

That's it! I forgot about the Quakers.

[Oleg Bach]

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions" The destruction of native cultures might not be fully done with bad intent but bad results negates any possible existance of benevolence. We fail to realize and fail to stop the destruction of native culture in Afganistan. The rape of young boys creates a dysfunctional male that will never marry well or be head of a family. The same can be said for female victims - they will raise crazy children because they themselves are made insane.

YET Canadian troops in Afghanistan were told to "turn a blind eye" to this creepy genocide of the native culture_ Perhaps our leaders knew exactly what they were doing?

[eyeball]

Some Jesuits gave smallpox infected blankets to native people in the hope that a little suffering would make the natives more amenable to Jesus.

It's almost enough to make an atheist wish there really was something to ideas like judgement day or eternal damnation but the Jesus' and Hitler's of the world all end up in the same place, a worm's belly.

Maybe someday way in the future, in the post TS-age (TS = technological singularity) someone will build a worm-hole time-transport of some type and come back and rescue everyone.

A reconciliation of past misdeeds would sure be interesting. WTF were you thinking would probably be the most common question.

[Oleg Bach]

Some Jesuits gave smallpox infected blankets to native people in the hope that a little suffering would make the natives more amenable to Jesus.

It's almost enough to make an atheist wish there really was something to ideas like judgement day or eternal damnation but the Jesus' and Hitler's of the world all end up in the same place, a worm's belly.

Maybe someday way in the future, in the post TS-age (TS = technological singularity) someone will build a worm-hole time-transport of some type and come back and rescue everyone.

A reconciliation of past misdeeds would sure be interesting. WTF were you thinking would probably be the most common question.

The idea of the Christ figure "asending and desending" has a translation. I believe it means to travel back and forth in time or between to parallel existances - as for the rescue attemps of some "saints" _ you might have enough fuel to get to the negative zone but not enough time (fuel) to return. The worms belly as you put it is the easy way out...and those that want to be consumed shall be.

[cybercoma]

I didn't know we were talking about destroying the Natives themselves, I thought this thread was about cultural genocide.

[bloodyminded]

I didn't know we were talking about destroying the Natives themselves, I thought this thread was about cultural genocide.

Yeah, I think it was me who threw it off track. My bad.

[cybercoma]

I don't think you did. I think that might have been what jbg actually meant.

[Oleg Bach]

I didn't know we were talking about destroying the Natives themselves, I thought this thread was about cultural genocide.

If a culture has a relgion - and you with full force kill it's god and attempt to replace their god with one of your own making..you have killed the culture and created a struggling, bubbling and stumbling society. It takes a thousand years to build up a culture ...and the replacement of culture through the displacement of culture also takes a thousand years. Look at our poor native population - Once proud and dignified noble people- sit on park benches awash in alcohol found in a mouth wash bottle...ALL hope removed when their god is displace and our god graft does not take as expected.

[jbg]

I don't think you did. I think that might have been what jbg actually meant.

It was about both. My premise was that the death of 95% of the natives by disease did a number on their culture.

[eyeball]

If a culture has a relgion - and you with full force kill it's god and attempt to replace their god with one of your own making..you have killed the culture and created a struggling, bubbling and stumbling society.

Amongst the transmission and exchange of new germs and invasive species around the world are new memes or ideas including new ways of looking at the world. Like germs and species the exchange of these are two way and in a lot of ways dominant expanding cultures are just as vulnerable to new ideas as any dominated culture, perhaps even more so given how the old empires have fallen one after another like dominoes.

Lots of revolutions in other new-world countries have coalesced around the aspirations of a core of intermarried and mixed indigenous people and settlers and these revolutions in turn have helped rock the old home continent.

[Oleg Bach]

Do what you will but bring no harm to the children. It seems that the best way to destroy a culture is to go for the weakest and most vulnerable family members - the children. This is done here - and it is done there. The greatest threat today regarding the destruction of culture comes from those that think on an international level. Idealogs that believe they can change the world if only they can program the kids before the parents do. Family - traditional family is the prime target of these people.