Why do americans celebrate genocide on thanxsgiving?

[Traitorfish]

I'm not sure it was that simple. The Spanish generally tried to integrate decentralised peoples by means of the mission system, which they poured no small amount of resources into in Spain and Northern Mexico, so that sort of violence was generally regarded as a measure of last resort (however spurious the premises underlying that judgement may in fact have been). In contrast, most English settlers only ever regarded Indians as a nuisance, and it was their first rather than last instinct to drive the out at gunpoint. If the Spanish end up with a bloodier record, it's as much because their empire was far larger and their military capacities much greater (in the relevant period) as because their rule was inherently more violent than that of the English or French.

 

[Cutlass]

That I think also has a lot to do with what the settlers in any given place were trying to accomplish at that place, rather than anything that the governments back home had in mind. The Spanish crown ultimately didn't have a great deal to say about what went on in the Americas. Or, that is, they said a number of things, but enforcing what they said was an entirely different matter. So the Crown may have wanted to make all the Indians Catholic peasants, but that only really happened where it made sense to the colonists to make them Catholic peasants.

And if most of the South American Indians did in fact become more or less Catholic peasants, there was some 300-400 years of a lot of other things being done to them before that outcome was brought about.

 

[Gucumatz]

It lacks nuance because "blood of Spain" doesn't mean anything outside of weirdo race-guilt theories.

Ok... ??? Is that your point?

Not sure what it has to do with race, that's how it works for pretty much any conqueror. Doesn't change that its still all part of the legacy of Spain. Genocide isn't race guilt, it happened whether people are happy to admit or not. Depending on where you are it can perhaps take more them vs us tones - but its a commonly accepted way of thinking.

Europeans are to blame for the result of the Americas [Scots, Spanish, English, Russians, Dutch, etc.] for the destruction and rape of the Americas.

My ancestors ended up having their capital at Iximche cleared out by the Spanish. Generations afterwards, the families in power still could trace their roots to the conquerors and plunderers of the New World. People of European stock are viewed in a different light - their legacies filtering through countless admins in the New World over the centuries.

Its a general statement. Certainly I am not holding people to the crimes of their ancestors. But the blood can't be diluted from their bloodlines and people tend to remember
==========

And Masada I'll try and look for a report on it for you. I don't really read too many papers, but I have seen their work in stuff like "Questioning Collapse" [A book criticizing the concept of ecocide across the globe, particularly in various native regions from anthropologists/archies/scientists/etc.]

That book I remember reading their data on regards to the late 1700s/early 1800s obsidian hydration dating [And I know that is fairly recent data, from the last 5-10 years]. Population numbers decreased prior to the Peruvian slave raiding ships and they made that much a certainty. Sorry I can't help more Masada - I don't tend to read as many papers and stuff I guess some here though so I can't really direct you to one

 

[Gucumatz]

I found this via a google search from Hunt and Lippo to demonstrate what I mean about the Obsidian Hydration data for Easter Island coinciding with the Spanish [And continuing with the Peruvians and Chileans]:

 

[Tee Kay]

Not sure what it has to do with race, that's how it works for pretty much any conqueror. Doesn't change that its still all part of the legacy of Spain.

I don't get your insistence on the characterisation of South American slavers of the 1800s as "Spaniards". It is true that Peruvians and Chileans of the 19th century were from a very stratified and racist society with the whites at the top. But they don't see themselves as Spaniards. Largely they were born in the Americas, raised in a culture that was initially transplanted from Europe but has since developed autonomously in the Americas for 300 years, and whose ancestors (though they may deny it) probably did include Indigenous Americans.

By characterising all Europeans or people of European descent as one group, ignoring nuances and autonomous development of various European nations, you risk the same of what European histories have long inflicted on American Indians; viewing a varied group of people with different aims and histories through distorted stereotypes.

 

[Gucumatz]

Of course they didn't always see themselves as Spaniards, "Enlightened as they were". Tell that to the native pops though, they were in the same vein. There is a difference between a Peruvian of Spanish blood and native blood. These days thankfully societies are becoming more equal across the Americas - but ask anyone who lived in these Latin American countries if these truly "autonomous" people were that different from the Spaniards, particularly those of native descent will tell you otherwise.

But as to the point of this, I am just saying that the legacy of Spain certainly never disappeared from its territories.

And I am not sure where you are getting that I am ignoring the nuances of various Europeans here. I have really only talked about the Spanish in this thread, but if you want I could talk about the injustices the Russians, Dutch, British, etc. inflicted on the Americas. Obviously depending on the location, pop density, terrain, etc. Europeans were able to remove native populations at different rates.
===

Let me put up a similar comparison, Canada still has an English legacy. If you ask natives about Canada, you would get similar responses that Canada is a legacy of English (and French) rule in the region, regardless of what modern Canadians have to say

 

[Bowsling]

Canada is a bad example. The central document of the country was the British North America Act until the 1980s. You can't really draw a definite line as to where Canada =/= British colony like you can in Latin American Bolivarian countries.

 

[Gucumatz]

And...? The whole point is that natives often haven't and still don't certainly don't draw a definite line between the Europeans and their successor states.

You could make the same legacy comparisons elsewhere: Brazil and Portugal, the Caribbean and Dutch/Spanish/English successor states, etc.

 

[Bowsling]

I mainly agree with your point. I'm just nitpicking and saying that the definite line between Europeans and successor state in Canada is almost non-existent.

 

[Gucumatz]

Ok - I don't prefer to get tangled up in definitional/nitpicking debates so I'll just concede that

 

[Bowsling]

I just saw "Canada" and figured I'd debate it.

Still, though - would you say that the United States' treatment of native Americans is essentially the same as Britain's? It's a very similar preposition to the Peru debate, albeit on a larger scale.

 

[Dachs]

Ok - I don't prefer to get tangled up in definitional/nitpicking debates so I'll just concede that

Isn't that indicative of poor definitions?

 

[Masada]

I found this via a google search from Hunt and Lippo to demonstrate what I mean about the Obsidian Hydration data for Easter Island coinciding with the Spanish [And continuing with the Peruvians and Chileans]:

I want a citation, not a graph devoid of context.

 

[History_Buff]

Yeah, I have no idea what that graph is even trying to say.

 

[Gucumatz]

I want a citation, not a graph devoid of context.

Here is the paper its from via another Google Search [The Obsidian Hydration demonstrates a significant population loss before the CHileans/Peruvians got there. The Dutch Explorers had no effect on the population as seen by the Obsidian Hydration. Aproximately 40-50 years after the Dutch Explorers the Spanish arrived and that's where we see the first real population declines on Easter Island]:

http://academia.edu/390429/Ecologic...he_myth_of_ecocide_on_Rapa_Nui_Easter_Island_

"Figure 3. Habitations dated by obsidian hydration. Arrow indicates a dramatic decline in dated habitations in the historic (postcontact) period."

Descriptor of the graph I provided you ^

 

[Gucumatz]

I just saw "Canada" and figured I'd debate it.

Still, though - would you say that the United States' treatment of native Americans is essentially the same as Britain's? It's a very similar preposition to the Peru debate, albeit on a larger scale.

Its different in every case of course and every subsequent colony of course had its own variations of relations with natives. In a sense I would argue that the US continued somewhat in the same vein and legacy as the British too, with their treaties and temporary alliances that could be changed at a moment's notice for their own benefit.

Say the Tuscarora War for example. The Southern Tuscarora attempted to create an alliance against the incoming settlers into their heartlands

In response the colonists promoted alliances of other native tribes to fight against the Tuscarora and their allies. The Yamasee were the key allies of South Carolina and NC in the war and were promised many things for fighting against the Tuscarora. As soon as the war was finished the colonists backstabbed their former allies, effectively dividing and conquering despite the assurances they had provided the Yamasee.

Now that's an example of early British/American treatment in regards to Native Americans. Compare it with say the Cherokee Removal, a people who had countless ties and even treaties with the American people were removed when their land gained value in American eyes. The "honor" of a treaty or alliance only held so much value in American/British relations with Native Americans. Where profitable, natives were removed. Where lands were less profitable or less desirable for American/British settlers relations tended to be more amicable

 

[Evie]

I'm not sure we can really call it a continuity from British to American treatment of natives. The British were no angels, far from, but things got way worse way fast on American watch.

 

[Tee Kay]

Pfft. British, American, English, whatever, they're all the same legacy. Not that I know what it means but legacy, amirite

 

[Evie]

Haha.

Yes. Doubtless that's why so many Natives didn't care about which side won the American revolution.

They didn't care, right?

 

[History_Buff]

Don't know about the Revolution, but they certainly cared by 1812. The natives were firmly on the British side, which didn't end well for them since the Brits didn't much care about the war, and was perfectly happy to throw them under the bus while ending it.