Comments on: Giving smallpox to the Native Americans

By: naverhtrad

naverhtrad — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 18:22:31 +0000

Neo: ‘It is far beyond the scope of this post to review the history of European and Native American contacts and relations, but any idea that the latter were some sort of ideal people, free from violence and conflict prior to encountering the settlers, is absolutely false. Native Americans had their share of inter-tribal conflicts, and in fact some of the early wars between the settlers and the Indians exploited these already-existing rivalries.’

I’m in the middle of reading David Stuart’s ‘Anasazi America’ (David Stuart being an archaeology/anthropology professor of some importance at UNM), which covers the history of the Ancestral Puebloans from prehistory through the Chacoan civilisation down into modern times. (I’m at the part about the rise and fall of the Chacoan civilisation.) It’s a book you might find interesting – it’s all about the social dynamics of the Puebloan people throughout history as they created (as oxymoronically as it may sound) an empire ‘on the edge’, in one of the more inhospitable corners of the world, and what modern America can learn from the archaeology and the data this archaeology has produced.

Well, the data do indeed indicate that here was at least one civilisation that managed to survive – indeed, surviving multiple disasters including the fall of the centre of their civilisation in Chaco Canyon – without the need for a formal military and (for a time) without the need for fortification and defense against invasion (though they almost certainly were within easy reach of the far-more-militaristic Aztecs). And though they were raided often by the Navajos and the Utes (hence the later need for fortifications), there is a telling lack of evidence of any kind of formal warfare in the Chacoan or post-Chacoan period up until the revolt of 1688 (against the Spanish).

They had their hang-ups – a rigid, ritualistic system of societal organisation and a need for constant, sustained economic growth proved the downfall of Chaco Canyon – but I still think it an extreme over-generalisation on your part to lump all Native Americans into a single category, as much as it is an extreme over-generalisation to accuse students of Native American history (many of whom happen to be liberal) of tending to romanticise Native American societies or make black-legend vilifications of the Europeans (whose overall impact on Native civilisations was undeniably detrimental), in spite of the data.

By: Native Ameri-Indians « Sake White

Native Ameri-Indians « Sake White — Sun, 08 Jul 2007 20:31:58 +0000

[...] Native Ameri-Indians Filed under: Culture, History — ymarsakar @ 7:42 am Here’s something courtesy of a commenter [Roy Lofquist] at Neo-Neocon’s blog. [...]

By: james wilson

james wilson — Sun, 08 Jul 2007 15:05:29 +0000

BRD left a reply to my understanding that there may have been as few as 900,000 Indians in the future U.S.–Attention Alfie: leaving “us” without means to kill 400 million– linking to a sound article suggesting a population of 2-4 million. That may well be so, yet for our purposes it is a distinction without a difference. As other posters have pointed out, those (white) people with the need to display guilt for things they haven’t done will not be be limited by less grandiose numbers. To have 90% killed by desease or bullet is not enough if it is only a milliion or two. Several hundred million is more satisfying.
It is fortunate for us that the most foolish have no restraints and no judgement, or they would be more effective dissemblers. Overwhelming guilt not in proportion to terrible wrongdoing is but a sin of spiritual pride and self-importance.

By: Talkinkamel

Talkinkamel — Sun, 08 Jul 2007 03:54:25 +0000

The real Elvis is ashamed of this fake Elvooo!

By: harry

harry — Sat, 07 Jul 2007 21:57:02 +0000

Oh, your so right elvis, because Saddam Hussien wasnt all bad and after all, democracy is something that has to be shoved down people’s throats. Isnt that right?

By: elvis

elvis — Sat, 07 Jul 2007 18:43:30 +0000

“The settlers believed it was their business to take over, and were ruthless about doing so.”

an idea that has arguably persisted in US political culture

By: Mitch

Mitch — Sat, 07 Jul 2007 17:48:35 +0000

Following Alphie's logic, the next time I catch a cold from my wife, I'm going to call the police and file assault charges against her. The arguments he uses approach moral idiocy. Here's another discussion of the issue.

By: harry

harry — Sat, 07 Jul 2007 07:21:26 +0000

You know, if the Native Americans only had washing machines, they could have dramatically shifted the balance of power and re-written history, long before historical revisionism was hip and cool.

Isnt that right Alfie?

You bet it is.

By: Sally

Sally — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 22:35:22 +0000

Ymar: I think you’re not answering the question.

Haven’t read the book, Tom, and I’m jumping in here, but if the question was “So what would the book offer that is new?” over Ymar’s post(s), I’d venture to suggest a basis in historical research as opposed to historical fiction (not to mention readable prose). Or would that just be argumentative?

By: Matthew

Matthew — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 21:53:17 +0000

As a student of history who has sat in and taught more American History courses than I care to recall, I have noticed a view increasingly shared by students and professors alike: a willful tendency to view history as melodrama. Folks just have to have their good guys and their bad guys. The nuances of history and a holistic, objective picture of it are, sadly, lost on most.