Native Americans North America

[waterbed]

I have always learned in school that whites killed millions of native americans in the past.But what I don't understand is why their are nearly no native's in north america but in south america were also the white were(mostly south europeans)you have hundreds of millions natives and Mestizo mestiza who are mixed white with native and this is the most commen ethnicity/ancestry in south america.My guestion :did the europeans differnt in south america and killed them not much in the south or is this native storie a big lie and have their never lived MUCH natives in north america?????????

 

[Don Wassall]

The big difference is that the English settlers brought their wives with them and did not breed with Indian women. The Spanish did not bring women with them and freely mixed with the aboriginies, which is why so many hispanics are a mixture of European and Indian blood.


As far as killing goes, there were many fatalities on both sides. The Indians were ruthless, cold-blooded killers who perpetrated many barbaric attacks on whites.


This whole argument that the Europeans somehow "stole" America from the Indians is nonsense, because there was no "country" to steal just a bunch of Indian tribes, who often warred against each other, scattered over a huge land area. There was no civilization to speak of either -- the Indians didn't have the wheel, didn't even know how to ride horses until White men showed them how to do it.


North and South America were going to be settled and made into countries sooner or later. That Whites did it and did it very well is something to be proud of, not some dark chapter in our history as a race.

 

[sport historian]

I recall once seeing Mr. Hardball, Chris Mathews, pontificating on this topic. Mathews said something like, "You've got to like Mexico. You've really got to root for Mexico. The Spanish did it right. They married with the natives. They really did it right, unlike in North America."

 

[j41181]

The big difference is that the English settlers brought their wives with them and did not breed with Indian women.  The Spanish did not bring women with them and freely mixed with the aboriginies, which is why so many hispanics are a mixture of European and Indian blood.


As far as killing goes, there were many fatalities on both sides.  The Indians were ruthless, cold-blooded killers who perpetrated many barbaric attacks on whites. 


This whole argument that the Europeans somehow "stole" America from the Indians is nonsense, because there was no "country" to steal just a bunch of Indian tribes, who often warred against each other, scattered over a huge land area.  There was no civilization to speak of either -- the Indians didn't have the wheel, didn't even know how to ride horses until White men showed them how to do it. 


North and South America were going to be settled and made into countries sooner or later.  That Whites did it and did it very well is something to be proud of, not some dark chapter in our history as a race.

Whites have nothing to be guilty about when it comes to history. Australia, New Zealand, the Americas and Africa would have FOREVER been untamed had they not been COLONIZED by the white SUPREMOS. To say whites have taken away land and slaughtered helpless natives is pure nonsense. This is just another political correct agenda to further denigrate whites from their rightful place in the world. The Diamonds of South Africa would have NEVER been discovered had not been for the whites, the negros never know of such things. If they did, they would be the BLOOD DIAMONDS of South Africa. I say PRIDE, MIGHT and BLESSING to every white person on Earth!

Edited by: j41181

 

[ToughJ.Riggins]

Virtually all of the Native fatalities, with the Caucasians arriving, came from disease; not whites killing them in war. I believe it is liberal propaganda when they give examples of Euros purposely bringing them supplies and food in order to pass on Small Pox and Influenza.

The population of Natives in places like Mexico was greater than in the U.S and also had recovered better from disease in the 1700s.

The Spanish intermarried with the Indigenous "much" more than the English. The Spanish banned them from being slaves early on and made it policy to teach them Christianity. Interestingly there was a tribe in South America, I forget which that had a Jesus like Messiah as their theology. Their religion taught of a Monotheistic God who came down to earth to save their souls and teach them love or something of the sort. If someone could tell me which tribe this was I would appreciate it because I forget.

The Native Americans much less densely populated the American Continent than Euros did in Europe. There was less cultural diffusion than in the Afro-Eurasian continent. One reason for this was that most of the most populous influential tribes in Central and South America were separated on a North to South basis (that is more how this continent is designed) with different climates meaning different cultures (less reason for diffusion of technology). Also they didn't have any animals on this continent to domesticate. Work animals definitely help with advancing Civilization and building advanced structures.

They were certainly less advanced than whites technology and Science wise, but had advanced knowledge of natural medicine and tribes like the Mayans mastered astrology. The Mayans did this enough to have an advanced calender and great pyramid structures (one which was aligned and had the shadow of a serpent come down it on the Spring Equinox; scary).

Some tribes were more advanced then others, but for the most part the tribes lived as "one with nature". Certain groups like the Northwest Fisherman of America from the Oregon area, had long life expectancies with their healthy diet, skill of providing themselves with plentiful sustenance, and lack of war in that region.

But Europe was certainly far more advanced than the Natives Scientifically and Technologically speaking by the time of Columbus reaching America.

In the era of the Greeks and than the early Roman era: "great" civilizations had only spread to Southern Europe diffusing out from the Middle East. Northern Europe from what I have read only made great advances in the A.D era starting mostly with the Gothic structures/ Medieval era. All of Europe really took off in the Renaissance with Science breaking away from the Church's Earth Centered Universe known as the Ptolemaic geocentric system.

Great European Scientific minds would soon come from this era like Galileo, Leonardo Da Vinci (both an artist and Scientist) and Issac Newton (2nd on Hart's 100 list of Historically Influential People).

Native American history is my favorite history other than Euro history and I have always been fond of their culture as a Naturalist.

 

[waterbed]

Brothers,Thanks for all the info.I didn't knew much about it.Only the one sighded anti white view.next time my friends talk about natives or so I will use it.it would be great if more whites and not only here did have some knowledge about natives and slavery,and other things then spreading anti white sh*t would be more difficult.

 

[Jimmy Chitwood]

Tough touched on some good points, especially his mention of disease and population. i would like to adda little bit moreconcerning the native population in North America.


the population density in North America was incredibly low, especially when compared to that of Central and South America. with their hunting/gathering lifestyle, it took tens of square miles to support a singleAmerican Indian in what is now the USA (and this is a point i'll touch on again, later). furthermore, until Indians in the far south saw the Spanish riding horses and stole some for themselves, there were absolutely ZERO Indians living between the Appalachian Mountains in the east, the Rocky Mountains in the west, the Rio Grande river in the south, and north to the Great Lakes.


why? without horses, the distance between reliable water sources was simply too great for humans to travel on foot. all that area (the Great Plains, and so forth) was only inhabitedAFTER tribes such as the Sioux, Kiowa, Cheyenne, and Shawnee got access to, and learned the value of, the horse. that means no one lived there until after white men came to the New World.


another point of interest is the difference in the efficiency of the two lifestyles. Indians required tremendously large areas of land to support a small population. this also required a lot of travel and placed a heavy emphasis on unreliable food sources. conversely, a white farmer could grow enough food on a relative handful of acres to support a large family. this didn't require travel and was considerably more reliable. furthermore, this large abundance of food created by a single source allowed specialization of skills in the white population (and consequently more advanced technology) that was non-existent in the native population.


waterbed, i hope this helps.

 

[ToughJ.Riggins]

Those are all good points JC. I was taught in a college class I took also that although food shortages were more likely to happen, hunters and gatherers worked far less hours per week than farmers.

According to this Professor, he said "why would you want to change lifestyle if you were only working maybe 20 hours a week to find food and build minor structures." Plus without the domestication of animals they had little disease. The Euros brought more disease by accident, but they didn't do this by any stretch to hurt the Natives, that is an easy to see though lie.

Of course when the population grows and there are food shortages there IS need to change. And I'm not denying that most of the greatest minds the world has ever known came out of more populous European Civilizations as far as inventors, mathematicians etc.

 

[P-NutLane]

God made the white man to take the Gospel, and civilization to the rest of this dark world. In a few short genarations, if whites had not shown up, America would have been overun with war loving tribes. The Comanchees, Apaches,and the Kiowa killed, raped, plunderd, and stole white, and mexican children for slaves, all through the southwest.Ive spent hours upon hours reading about these tribs. I was at one time very interested in the "war trbes". People who say whites stole American soil are idiots. Whites saved a whole chunk of Gods green earth when they overtook the Indians. Made it safe for Cristians to dwell on it. It should be a "hate crime" to say any different.

 

[jaxvid]

Those are all good points JC. I was taught in a college class I took also that although food shortages were more likely to happen, hunters and gatherers worked far less hours per week than farmers.

According to this Professor, he said "why would you want to change lifestyle if you were only working maybe 20 hours a week to find food and build minor structures."

I don't believe for a minute they only worked for 20 hours per week. Sounds like some PC college BS about the life of the beloved indigenous peoples.

Primative life is rough and difficult. If they had so much spare time what did they do in it? They sure didn't think up anything useful like the "wheel". If they in fact only worked 20 hours a week they they are even more stupid then history has shown them to be.

BTW if they only worked 20 hours a week then the white man has returned them to their roots, because with welfare life on the modern reservation and all of the casino's they are back to 20 working hours per week.

Staying in a primative state is a BAD thing. It means watching your children die and your women suffer because you haven't delveloped technology to handle the tragedies in life like disease, exposure to weather, and unexpected disasters.

 

[Fightingtowin]

ToughJ, who would you say were the most advanced Native Americans in terms of government and technology? I'm not talking about the Incas, Aztecs and Mayans, but what group in America?

And also, what percentage do you think were hunters and gatherers vs. farmers. Were there any major cities, with at least 30,000 people?

 

[Jimmy Chitwood]

i'm not Tough, obviously, but i know the answers to your questions Fightingtowin, if you don't mind me sharing.


technology: the North American Indians all share roughly the same technology, with only minor variance between tribes. it depends on what you'd call the most advanced, but i would go with the natives up in Alaska who managed to come up with water-proofing techniques and various other ingenious methods to survive in sub-Arctic winters. however, the obsidian blades that many Indians used for knives, arrowheads, and so forth, were incredibly impressive from a technological standpoint. in fact, some cutting edge (no pun intended) medical research is being done with them because apparently obsidian, when crafted properly, can have a cutting edge that is sharper than the finest surgical steel. if reports can be trusted, that is.


farming vs. hunting/gathering: some farming of corn was done in scattered areas throughout North America, but it was only a supplemental food supply to the best of my knowledge. i know of no Indian tribe that didn't get the majority of its foodstuffs from hunting, fishing, or gathering.


population: the most likely large "cities" (actually just large villages) that might qualify as such would likely be amongst the Iroquois League in the Northeast, near the Great Lakes, Canada, New England area. they were very populous and had a different set of social customs than most American Indian tribes.


Tough, if youhave more comprehensive knowledge, please don't hesitate to share it.

 

[ToughJ.Riggins]

Since you wanted to know my take: Yeah JC, if I recall the Iroquois were a rare Matrilineal Indian culture; they had very different customs.

The Pueblo Indians found ways to irrigate in the desert. They diverted streams and had farming villages (neolithic style) often on edges of Canyons. They had periods though of serious famine and often moved their villages per generation.

The Northwest Fisherman (a general term for many tribes) probably had the best quality of life. They normally had a plentiful food supply of fish and spent most of their time playing sports/games, dancing, socializing etc.

 

[DWFan]

I remember reading a little about the Cahokians, a mid-west tribe around present-day St. Louis and upwards. They pretty much broke the mold of hunt/gather in North America and generated a corn-based economy.

 

[Fightingtowin]

Thanks for the good responses. Anyone have any theories why they didn't develop major cities like in Mexico and S. America. Even Medieval black Africa had at least a dozen cities with between 30,000 to 100,000 people. Seems odd that an entire area had so few urban centers.

 

[waterbed]

Tough touched on some good points, especially his mention of disease and population. i would like to add a little bit more concerning the native population in North America.


the population density in North America was incredibly low, especially when compared to that of Central and South America. with their hunting/gathering lifestyle, it took tens of square miles to support a single American Indian in what is now the USA (and this is a point i'll touch on again, later). furthermore, until Indians in the far south saw the Spanish riding horses and stole some for themselves, there were absolutely ZERO Indians living between the Appalachian Mountains in the east, the Rocky Mountains in the west, the Rio Grande river in the south, and north to the Great Lakes.


why? without horses, the distance between reliable water sources was simply too great for humans to travel on foot. all that area (the Great Plains, and so forth) was only inhabited AFTER tribes such as the Sioux, Kiowa, Cheyenne, and Shawnee got access to, and learned the value of, the horse. that means no one lived there until after white men came to the New World.


another point of interest is the difference in the efficiency of the two lifestyles. Indians required tremendously large areas of land to support a small population. this also required a lot of travel and placed a heavy emphasis on unreliable food sources. conversely, a white farmer could grow enough food on a relative handful of acres to support a large family. this didn't require travel and was considerably more reliable. furthermore, this large abundance of food created by a single source allowed specialization of skills in the white population (and consequently more advanced technology) that was non-existent in the native population.


waterbed, i hope this helps.

oh yeah it helps.very good post.I did feel like a professor after reading your post and some other guys good replys

Very good knowledge on this site.Without this site I would probably tought Mike Tyson was still in the ring