Did Europeans Deliberately Destroy Native Cultures in Their Colonies?

[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.

Good example was the Canadian feeble attempt at destroying the Afghan tribal culture...."so a little girl can go to school" - Those who push this agenda want to be in charge of what that little girl learns and they have an agenda that is NOT condusive to classic Afghan culture.

[cybercoma]

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.

Arguing that the transmission of germs and invasive species was a two-way street is like arguing that the Jews being killed during WWII was a two-way street, since their elders were responsible for sending many of them to die.

Europeans were not only responsible for bringing those invasive species to North America, but they were also responsible for moving things in the other direction as well. In any case, potatoes (white and sweet), peppers, cassava and tomatoes were the main American crops adopted elsewhere, while you can't even walk down the street without seeing kentucky bluegrass or dandelions. It's impossible to imagine American history without cows, horses and pigs. These were all brought by the Spanish, hence the words adopted from Spanish to describe many terms on the ranch: bronco, lasso, rodeo, lariat, mustang, even ranch itself. New Zealand it has been said was converted into a neo-europe before the indigenous populations finally succumb to the invaders and pilgrims began migrating there en masse. Some have argued that the introduction of bees, necessary for polinating the European wildflowers that were taking over, was the tipping point.

It was not a two way street. The indigenous populations did not change European culture and when they did kill some in clashes, it was not anywhere near the extent of the absolute devastation caused by conquistadors in South America. They not only killed off the Native populations and took all of their valuables, but they introduced plants and animals, as well as diseases, that entirely changed the Native populations' way of life and culture. The Spanish dropped off cows, horses and pigs allowing them to spread and return to the wild. Many times they preceded their European partners into new areas. Once the cattle hit the ungrazed pastures of mesoamerica their populations exploded. Same with horses, once they crossed the passes into the Andean highlands, even though they did not fair well closer to the equator.

Now the opening post poses the question of whether the indigenous destruction was deliberate. To answer that, I think we need to consider the purpose of the Europeans. Their purpose was to colonize this new world and reap the benefits of its resources. Were it not intentional, they would have accepted that there was a local population with its own way of life and perhaps sought to build a relationship with them, rather than settle on what was already inhabited land. The same can be said for everywhere Europeans settled from Canada to African to New Zealand. There was no working with the indigenous populations and living their way of life, except in many ways the voyageurs who very much needed the assistance of the First Nations.

Since the purpose of Europeans was indeed to populate their new colonies and we can see this by the introduction of their domestic crops to make settlement in the new worlds more attractive to pilgrims, I would conclude that the desruction of native cultures was indeed deliberate. Europeans mostly saw them as savages that were in the way of God's work through the monarchs of Europe. European manifest destiny is perhaps appropriate. The savages would convert, in other words have their culture destroyed intentionally, or be crushed beneath the wheels of European "progress" and be physically destroyed.

[Shwa]

Arguing that the transmission of germs and invasive species was a two-way street is like arguing that the Jews being killed during WWII was a two-way street, since their elders were responsible for sending many of them to die.

Was the transmission of germs and invasive species deliberate?

Europeans were not only responsible for bringing those invasive species to North America, but they were also responsible for moving things in the other direction as well.

Did the Europeans not trade with the indigenous populations?

In any case, potatoes (white and sweet), peppers, cassava and tomatoes were the main American crops adopted elsewhere, while you can't even walk down the street without seeing kentucky bluegrass or dandelions.

Europeans have their own problems with invasive species. I wonder how they got there... trade?

It's impossible to imagine American history without cows, horses and pigs.

It is equally impossible to imagine American history without maize corn or Massachusetts.

It was not a two way street. The indigenous populations did not change European culture and when they did kill some in clashes, it was not anywhere near the extent of the absolute devastation caused by conquistadors in South America.

Tobacco and tobacco-related cancer deaths. Payback is a bitch.

They not only killed off the Native populations and took all of their valuables, but they introduced plants and animals, as well as diseases, that entirely changed the Native populations' way of life and culture. The Spanish dropped off cows, horses and pigs allowing them to spread and return to the wild. Many times they preceded their European partners into new areas. Once the cattle hit the ungrazed pastures of mesoamerica their populations exploded. Same with horses, once they crossed the passes into the Andean highlands, even though they did not fair well closer to the equator.

The Spanish were harsh in many degrees, sure. However, have you ever noticed how Spain went down the hill as a world power after they "discovered" the New World? Any idea why? Karma is unforgiving.

Now the opening post poses the question of whether the indigenous destruction was deliberate. To answer that, I think we need to consider the purpose of the Europeans. Their purpose was to colonize this new world and reap the benefits of its resources. Were it not intentional, they would have accepted that there was a local population with its own way of life and perhaps sought to build a relationship with them, rather than settle on what was already inhabited land. The same can be said for everywhere Europeans settled from Canada to African to New Zealand. There was no working with the indigenous populations and living their way of life, except in many ways the voyageurs who very much needed the assistance of the First Nations.

This is a presentist view that ignores a vast body of history encompassing centuries of co-existence.

Since the purpose of Europeans was indeed to populate their new colonies and we can see this by the introduction of their domestic crops to make settlement in the new worlds more attractive to pilgrims, I would conclude that the desruction of native cultures was indeed deliberate.

They introduced their domestic crops because they didn't know about anything else. Until they found out about corn... and tobacco.

Europeans mostly saw them as savages that were in the way of God's work through the monarchs of Europe. European manifest destiny is perhaps appropriate. The savages would convert, in other words have their culture destroyed intentionally, or be crushed beneath the wheels of European "progress" and be physically destroyed.

And yet, at least in North America this intentional destruction did not happen. In fact, there is a rather vibrant Metis population in Canada. How do you explain this?

[Oleg Bach]

The reason for all the pushy nations that invaded Afghanistan - was to destroy the culture - tribalists do not bow down to empires - no matter how much fire power - You just do not reliquish your history and identity to invaders...That is why Afghanistan will revert back to what it is - and it is none of our buisness...If you want to fight terrorism - Go to the source - Pakistan - and the great financers of terror Saudi Arabia - but we won't cos the are FRIENDS of ours.......lol.

[cybercoma]

Shwa, if you think that Europeans lived harmonious with indigenous population and that the First Nations have a "rather vibrant community" today, you're simply ignoring reality.

You talk about corn as if it is anywhere near as important a crop as wheat, rice, or sorghum around the world. It's not. In fact, corn is probably one of the most difficult crops to grow. It wasn't until the land universities and the Green Revolution in the middle of the 20th century that it became popular. The major exports from the Americas that were adopted elsewhere were potatoes, beans, and manioc. Possibly with the exception of manioc in Africa, none of those were even remotely as important to populations throughout history as rice, wheat, and sugar cane, which was actually spread by Islam and originated in New Guinea. None of that, however, points to a harmonious relationship with native populations. The Spanish absolutely hated potatoes and only resorted to eating them when they were on the verge of starving to death. And while you say that Europe has a problem with invasive species and that may be true, I hardly think Europe has been as dominated by invasive foreign species as the Americas were with things like clover, dandelions, kentucky bluegrass, ragweed and daisies.

All of that to say that the indigenous populations ways of life were irrevocably changed, in fact destroyed, by contact with Europeans. Nomadic and semi-nomadic hunter-gatherers throughout all of human history have always been wiped out or overcome by groups employing settled agriculture. The indigenous people of the polynesian islands were overcome by those travelling out of China, except in New Guinea, where they had already began employing settled agriculture in the interior. Europeans tried converting native populations to their Gods and their way of life. While the voyageurs and others had relationships with the First Nations out of convenience, the Metis being the result in Canada, this was not a syncretic relationship that adopted the best from both cultures. Europeans wiped out the indigenous populations wherever they went either literally or culturally. Their way of life was never thrust upon Europeans that took over their lands.

Edited July 8, 2011 by cybercoma

[Shwa]

Shwa, if you think that Europeans lived harmonious with indigenous population and that the First Nations have a "rather vibrant community" today, you're simply ignoring reality.

Well first of all, I said the "Metis" have a rather vibrant community. Metis are not "First Nations" which I am presuming you didn't know. This presents a problem of sorts, one of defintion and extrapolating from those definitions. For a small example of what I mean, extrapolating backward, what do you think a vibrant Metis community means in context of your opinion that the Europeans DIDN'T live harmoniously with the indigenous population?

In other words, where did the Metis come from? That is a tiny example.

You talk about corn as if it is anywhere near as important a crop as wheat, rice, or sorghum around the world. It's not. In fact, corn is probably one of the most difficult crops to grow. It wasn't until the land universities and the Green Revolution in the middle of the 20th century that it became popular. The major exports from the Americas that were adopted elsewhere were potatoes, beans, and manioc. Possibly with the exception of manioc in Africa, none of those were even remotely as important to populations throughout history as rice, wheat, and sugar cane, which was actually spread by Islam and originated in New Guinea.

I talk of corn as one of the major contributors to the health and growth of the population in North America and not limiting myself to a small window of time:

Origin, History, and Uses of Corn (Zea mays)

As early as 1880, the United States grew over 62 million acres of corn. By 1900, this figure had reached approximately 95 million acres; by 1910, it was over 100 million acres. The highest acreage ever recorded in the United States was 111 million acres in 1917.

Maize - Wikiepedia

Maize is widely cultivated throughout the world, and a greater weight of maize is produced each year than any other grain. The United States produces 40% of the world's harvest; other top producing countries include China, Brazil, Mexico, Indonesia, India, France and Argentina. Worldwide production was 817 million tonnes in 2009—more than rice (678 million tonnes) or wheat (682 million tonnes).

None of that, however, points to a harmonious relationship with native populations.

Wait a second. Who introduced the idea of "harmonious relationship with native populations?"

The Spanish absolutely hated potatoes and only resorted to eating them when they were on the verge of starving to death. And while you say that Europe has a problem with invasive species and that may be true, I hardly think Europe has been as dominated by invasive foreign species as the Americas were with things like clover, dandelions, kentucky bluegrass, ragweed and daisies.

And your use of "invasive species" is trying to make what sort of point? I mean, you can eat dandelions, I love clover honey and walking on Kentuck Bluegrass is nice on the bare feet. These are all bad how? Are you saying that there were no grasses or weeds in North America prior to the arrival of the Europeans? Gawd, one would think that when we talk about invasive species the first thing to come to mind would be Norway rats. But clover? Come on now...

All of that to say that the indigenous populations ways of life were irrevocably changed, in fact destroyed, by contact with Europeans.

You are making an unsustainable generalization about a wide group of people especially when you admit that the vast portion of the irrevocable destruction was unintentional by way of disease. That being so, then the introduction of iron and steel tools might have had an effect that allowed for the survival of the rest of the members of a given group.

Nomadic and semi-nomadic hunter-gatherers throughout all of human history have always been wiped out or overcome by groups employing settled agriculture. The indigenous people of the polynesian islands were overcome by those travelling out of China, except in New Guinea, where they had already began employing settled agriculture in the interior.

Yes, I see what you mean and can recognize the phenomenon without romanticizing the past.

Europeans tried converting native populations to their Gods and their way of life.

Yep. And then natives tried to convert native populations to the European Gods and their way of life. In fact, they would translate the Bible into various indigenous languages.

But to simply state this whoe effort at conversion with context is empty. It is a nice factoid, but that is all.

While the voyageurs and others had relationships with the First Nations out of convenience, the Metis being the result in Canada, this was not a syncretic relationship that adopted the best from both cultures.

Are you sure about that?

Europeans wiped out the indigenous populations wherever they went either literally or culturally. Their way of life was never thrust upon Europeans that took over their lands.

You bet your bippy it was. Starting with the canoe and snowshoes and taking a cue from the indigenous dress.

And let's not forget corn and tobacco...

[Oleg Bach]

The highly educated and influential dogmites who like to experiment with hunanity are directly involved with Canadian policy regardiung the culture of Afghanistan - the sole purpose and drive of the mission is to alter their culture - or destroy it if they can - wish they would mind their own buisness.

[cybercoma]

We gave them residential schools and third world conditions on the Reserves and they gave us tobacco and corn. Doesn't seem like equal influence to me, but believe what you wish.

[eyeball]

Their way of life was never thrust upon Europeans that took over their lands.

That's about to change if the modern treaty settlements I'm seeing in my region are anything to go by. Now that their implications are sinking in I'm betting non-natives will soon be wanting to renegotiate the relationship their communities have with the Crown too.

[cybercoma]

You mean actually hold the Crown accountable for the treaties?

[Shwa]

We gave them residential schools and third world conditions on the Reserves and they gave us tobacco and corn. Doesn't seem like equal influence to me, but believe what you wish.

You are making sweeping generalizations about a diverse group of people cybercoma. Can you not see that this very attitude is at the heart of the problem in the first place - back then as it is now?

But... believe what you wish.

[Oleg Bach]

Rape - infectious disease - religious and secular brain washing with the help of a small bribe or two goes a long way in the internal displacement of a culture......People who convince themselves that they have the better system should mind their own buisness - I have more respect for a drunken native crying out to God in the wilderness than David Zazzooooki...who is idolized by those that have no respect or connection too nature and rant about something called an environment.

Look at the natives of the Amazon Basin - some of which will sign over land to a minning company all for a couple of bad synthetic pair of shorts - while Zazzoooooki and his film crew vacariously record the whole event - then go home to drink wine and eccept awards from nerds who can not even keep a house plant alive.

[jacee]

That's about to change if the modern treaty settlements I'm seeing in my region are anything to go by. Now that their implications are sinking in I'm betting non-natives will soon be wanting to renegotiate the relationship their communities have with the Crown too.

Can you say more about this eyeball? What is the nature of modern treaty settlements? Are they financial settlements?

I'm not naive enough to believe that conquest of North America had altruistic motives for natives or colonists. Clearly the motive was profit for the merchants, aided by their private militia and by missionaries. I am struck by the account of vacant villages that colonists found upon arrival, and the fact that there was a hundred year gap between exploration and colonization. Do we really know what happened in that time? Is it unreasonable to think nefarious deeds such as distribution of diseased blankets might have occurred? Even in recent years we hear of Canadian companies hiring private security to prevent locals from interfering with mining projects in South America, sometimes with deadly consequences.

Colonizing itself was not altruistic, but designed to rid Britain (and France?) of pesky peasants living off the land to make way for profit-making by the wealthy few. And we were taught to forget that past and start fresh in the new land.

The profit-makers still tell us to forget the past, 'get over it' as workers' contracts and pensions are stripped in the name of profits. Given that personal profit is their only motive, shouldn't we be asking ourselves what they want us to forget and why?

Would European merchants actually record it if they did engage in wholesale slaughter of natives by infected blankets or otherwise? Do we know what native history has to say about this?

[DogOnPorch]

Is it unreasonable to think nefarious deeds such as distribution of diseased blankets might have occurred?

Once again...while it was a clever and diabolical idea that's not how the pox works. Native Americans got variola the exact same way as the rest of humanity.

[jacee]

Once again...while it was a clever and diabolical idea that's not how the pox works. Native Americans got variola the exact same way as the rest of humanity.

We can choose to believe that, but the motives of the tellers deserve some inspection I think. Who stands to benefit most?

And what are the implications of today's treaties eyeball?

[DogOnPorch]

We can choose to believe that, but the motives of the tellers deserve some inspection I think. Who stands to benefit most?

And what are the implications of today's treaties eyeball?

Inspect what? Variola...that would be smallpox...needs humans to be viable and wouldn't last long enough out in the open (on blankets, etc) to be effective. What it does do is travel very efficiently from human to human who has enough time to move the variola virus from one place to the next. This isn't launching the plague dead over the city walls even if your agenda calls for it.

[jacee]

Inspect what? Variola...that would be smallpox...needs humans to be viable and wouldn't last long enough out in the open (on blankets, etc) to be effective. What it does do is travel very efficiently from human to human who has enough time to move the variola virus from one place to the next. This isn't launching the plague dead over the city walls even if your agenda calls for it.

Why would we choose to believe that over equally plausible theories that profit making deemed their presence annoying and dispensable?

[DogOnPorch]

Why would we choose to believe that over equally plausible theories that profit making deemed their presence annoying and dispensable?

Because science tells us that's how variola infection works as opposed to how you'd like it to work? I don't know...why would you doubt the way that particular virus works?

[jacee]

Because science tells us that's how variola infection works as opposed to how you'd like it to work? I don't know...why would you doubt the way that particular virus works?

I can't seem to find that information in this thread nor by googling. Can you share your link?

[Guest American Woman]

I can't seem to find that information in this thread nor by googling. Can you share your link?

According to the Mayo Clinic, the possibility of contacting smallpox from infected blankets is "slight."

How smallpox spreads

Smallpox usually requires fairly prolonged face-to-face contact to spread. It's most often transmitted in air droplets when an infected person coughs, sneezes or talks. In rare instances, airborne virus may spread further, possibly through the ventilation system in a building, infecting people in other rooms or on other floors. Smallpox can also spread through contact with contaminated clothing and bedding, although the risk of infection from these sources is slight.

Considering the risk of infection from blankets is "slight," I doubt if many native Americans contacted it in such a manner - especially considering the amount of time that elapsed between the contamination and the distribution.

[DogOnPorch]

Considering the risk of infection from blankets is "slight," I doubt if many native Americans contacted it in such a manner - especially considering the amount of time that elapsed between the contamination and the distribution.

Bingo.

[eyeball]

Can you say more about this eyeball? What is the nature of modern treaty settlements? Are they financial settlements?

There's certainly money involved and First Nation's settlements will probably be the biggest economic driver in my region for some time to come. I think the more profound changes in the long term will be in land use planning and development and how existing zoning can virtually change overnight. There are provisions that allow private properties to become treaty lands once they've been purchased by First Nations and these are no longer subject to the municipal or regional district rules or by-laws that previously governed them.

There have been various controversial land use applications in my regional district over the years by private property owners that were turned down for many reasons, most of them good sound one's including neighbour's concerns that the proposals would drastically alter the neighbourhood or because the land was inappropriate for the proposed method of sewage disposal or the development would impact sensitive ecosystems. Most controversial have been applications that would have resulted in stores and gas stations etc being developed in a strip like fashion on the approaches to and in line so to speak before existing business'.

A few of these properties have now been purchased by First Nations and the implications of the treaties - that a two-tiered land use planning now exists - are really starting to sink in. Local non-native governments appear to have no say whatsoever in proposals for treaty lands however native governments do have a say in any proposals made for non-treaty Crown lands. These are very powerful times for native people.

Resource corporations have certainly taken notice.

As for fishing rights...I can only dream...but like I said treaty settlements will be the biggest economic driver in my region probably since the days of logging. The biggest challenge for First Nations will be building the capacity and labour pool to fully realize the potential. I notice a few of my more embittered neighbours pulling up stakes and moving out but I don't know why. They can run but they can't hide from the fact that there's no going back.

The old colonial culture is being destroyed.

Edited July 10, 2011 by eyeball

[eyeball]

Considering the risk of infection from blankets is "slight," I doubt if many native Americans contacted it in such a manner - especially considering the amount of time that elapsed between the contamination and the distribution.

It was the thought that counted. I mean, what if this was a couple of envelopes with a bit of mysterious powder we were talking about here?

You'd be having kittens, chest-pains and diarrhea all at the same time and you know it.

[Oleg Bach]

Arrogant and cruel whites would infect those they thought sub-human with syphlis...poor black prisoners..then they would watch them rot as they took notes.

[Guest American Woman]

American Woman, on 09 July 2011 - 07:14 PM, said: Considering the risk of infection from blankets is "slight," I doubt if many native Americans contacted it in such a manner - especially considering the amount of time that elapsed between the contamination and the distribution.

It was the thought that counted. I mean, what if this was a couple of envelopes with a bit of mysterious powder we were talking about here?

You'd be having kittens, chest-pains and diarrhea all at the same time and you know it.

What??

When speaking of the number of Native Americans that died from smallpox, it's not the "intent" that counted, it's the reality, and as such, I was responding to Jaycee's request for information, and it was the facts regarding the virus that she was interested in, not the intent. If the post I was responding to was about the intent, then I would have responded in regards to the intent.

As it stands, what I said is true. Very few, if any, Native Americans contacted smallpox and died due to contaminated blankets due to the fragile nature of the virus under such circumstances.

Your response is off the wall.

Edited July 10, 2011 by American Woman