Making sense of the invasion of the Americas

[rousseau]

Didn't the Natives fight back from time to time and lose? Is there any place on the planet which isn't inhabited by the victors of some war or another as opposed to the people who were there before that war? There's probably a few, but not all that many.

This is actually the direction I was looking in, less of an economic perspective and more of a cosmic perspective. Is there any lesson or moral to be learned other than 'it's a dog-eat-dog world'?

The interesting aspect about the invasion to me is that it happened when the world as a whole was in a different era. The social norms that allowed it to happen back then have now (mostly) evolved to become more humane. So if you look at it from an economic perspective you can't really draw a parallel between the Europeans of the 16th century and the Europeans of the 21st century, the two groups aren't contiguous so you can't penalize one based on the wrong-doings of the other.

Maybe another moral or lesson is that a lot of really weird, fucked up stuff happened in the past, but that's not exactly who the human race is any more.

 

[skepticalbip]

Didn't the Natives fight back from time to time and lose? Is there any place on the planet which isn't inhabited by the victors of some war or another as opposed to the people who were there before that war? There's probably a few, but not all that many.

This is actually the direction I was looking in, less of an economic perspective and more of a cosmic perspective. Is there any lesson or moral to be learned other than 'it's a dog-eat-dog world'?

The interesting aspect about the invasion to me is that it happened when the world as a whole was in a different era. The social norms that allowed it to happen back then have now (mostly) evolved to become more humane. So if you look at it from an economic perspective you can't really draw a parallel between the Europeans of the 16th century and the Europeans of the 21st century, the two groups aren't contiguous so you can't penalize one based on the wrong-doings of the other.

Maybe another moral or lesson is that a lot of really weird, fucked up stuff happened in the past, but that's not exactly who the human race is any more.

It is still happening. The takeover of the Americas didn't happen all at once. It was taken a little here, a little there, a lot at another area over a few hundred years. WWII was an attempted mass takeover but Germany and Japan lost so they didn't get to keep what they had taken. China overran Tibet and now has a Chinese majority living there. For the past sixty years or so, Vietnam has been eradicating the mountain tribes so to have unquestioned control of their tribal areas. etc.

 

[rousseau]

This is actually the direction I was looking in, less of an economic perspective and more of a cosmic perspective. Is there any lesson or moral to be learned other than 'it's a dog-eat-dog world'?

The interesting aspect about the invasion to me is that it happened when the world as a whole was in a different era. The social norms that allowed it to happen back then have now (mostly) evolved to become more humane. So if you look at it from an economic perspective you can't really draw a parallel between the Europeans of the 16th century and the Europeans of the 21st century, the two groups aren't contiguous so you can't penalize one based on the wrong-doings of the other.

Maybe another moral or lesson is that a lot of really weird, fucked up stuff happened in the past, but that's not exactly who the human race is any more.

It is still happening. The takeover of the Americas didn't happen all at once. It was taken a little here, a little there, a lot at another area over a few hundred years. WWII was an attempted mass takeover but Germany and Japan lost so they didn't get to keep what they had taken. China overran Tibet and now has a Chinese majority living there. For the past sixty years or so, Vietnam has been eradicating the mountain tribes so to have unquestioned control of their tribal areas. etc.

Yea, I don't doubt it, and I'm sure if I looked hard enough I could find countless examples. That's partially why I qualified that sentence with 'not exactly'.

There are still many backward nations in the world, but much of the modern era is marked by peace between the world's great powers, which wasn't the case during the late medieval and early-modern period. Politically, much of the world seems to have stabilized ever so slightly.

 

[dystopian]

It is still happening. The takeover of the Americas didn't happen all at once. It was taken a little here, a little there, a lot at another area over a few hundred years. WWII was an attempted mass takeover but Germany and Japan lost so they didn't get to keep what they had taken. China overran Tibet and now has a Chinese majority living there. For the past sixty years or so, Vietnam has been eradicating the mountain tribes so to have unquestioned control of their tribal areas. etc.

Yea, I don't doubt it, and I'm sure if I looked hard enough I could find countless examples. That's partially why I qualified that sentence with 'not exactly'.

There are still many backward nations in the world, but much of the modern era is marked by peace between the world's great powers, which wasn't the case during the late medieval and early-modern period. Politically, much of the world seems to have stabilized ever so slightly.

It depends on what you define as the modern era. The early modern period, lasting from around 1500 to 1800 was certainly not very peaceful. Lots of wars between the various great powers. It isn't really until after 1815 that a period of relative peace begins, lasting until the early 20th century. Arguably, this peace was achieved only because the various powers were focusing on tightening their holds on their respective colonial empires and were more fearful of wars that might upset those efforts and have unforeseen consequences. The post WW2 period of relative peace was achieved only because of the threat of nuclear annihilation and the globalized economy; but given events of the last few years, it appears these factors may no longer be sufficient to guarantee the peace. Certainly, the brief period of history in which it seemed borders could no longer dramatically change because of conquest has been broken.

 

[4321lynx]

Yea, I don't doubt it, and I'm sure if I looked hard enough I could find countless examples. That's partially why I qualified that sentence with 'not exactly'.

There are still many backward nations in the world, but much of the modern era is marked by peace between the world's great powers, which wasn't the case during the late medieval and early-modern period. Politically, much of the world seems to have stabilized ever so slightly.

It depends on what you define as the modern era. The early modern period, lasting from around 1500 to 1800 was certainly not very peaceful. Lots of wars between the various great powers. It isn't really until after 1815 that a period of relative peace begins, lasting until the early 20th century. Arguably, this peace was achieved only because the various powers were focusing on tightening their holds on their respective colonial empires and were more fearful of wars that might upset those efforts and have unforeseen consequences. The post WW2 period of relative peace was achieved only because of the threat of nuclear annihilation and the globalized economy; but given events of the last few years, it appears these factors may no longer be sufficient to guarantee the peace. Certainly, the brief period of history in which it seemed borders could no longer dramatically change because of conquest has been broken.

The peace was very "relative". Ask the Danes, the Austrians, and the French about their wars with Prussia, the Russians about theirs with the Ottoman Empire, the Spanish about their Imperial (losing) wars in S America when their various colons, not including their aboriginals, gained their independence, and the Spanish war with the "peaceful " USA, the revolutions in Europe in 1830 and 1848. The USA almost exterminated their aboriginalsThe imperialists agreed as to how to subdivide the rest of the world or more or less agreed and called it the Pax Britannica, a very limited view of the world.
Humans have not changed their nature at all in the past 12,000 years, merely changedr their understanding of the world and the chances of success of their aggression.*** Africa was saved from the fate of N & S America only by the malarial carrying mosquito, and by various other diseases, and China & SE Asia in the 20th Century by their own efforts and rivalries between the Imperialists.
Peace indeed.

*** Edit And the last grand miscalculations were by Hitler and then Stalin and his successors.
Now we are simply witnessing a battle of "independence/democracy/democratic imperialism vs Muslim independence/islamic radicalism". But you can call that view simplistic and dress it up and spin it any way you like.

 

[dystopian]

The peace was very "relative". Ask the Danes, the Austrians, and the French about their wars with Prussia, the Russians about theirs with the Ottoman Empire, the Spanish about their Imperial (losing) wars in S America when their various colons, not including their aboriginals, gained their independence, and the Spanish war with the "peaceful " USA, the revolutions in Europe in 1830 and 1848. The USA almost exterminated their aboriginalsThe imperialists agreed as to how to subdivide the rest of the world or more or less agreed and called it the Pax Britannica, a very limited view of the world.
Humans have not changed their nature at all in the past 12,000 years, merely changedr their understanding of the world and the chances of success of their aggression.*** Africa was saved from the fate of N & S America only by the malarial carrying mosquito, and by various other diseases, and China & SE Asia in the 20th Century by their own efforts and rivalries between the Imperialists.
Peace indeed.

*** Edit And the last grand miscalculations were by Hitler and then Stalin and his successors.
Now we are simply witnessing a battle of "independence/democracy/democratic imperialism vs Muslim independence/islamic radicalism". But you can call that view simplistic and dress it up and spin it any way you like.

I'm quite befuddled by the tone of your reply to me. You do realize we're saying pretty much the same thing, right?

 

[4321lynx]

The peace was very "relative". Ask the Danes, the Austrians, and the French about their wars with Prussia, the Russians about theirs with the Ottoman Empire, the Spanish about their Imperial (losing) wars in S America when their various colons, not including their aboriginals, gained their independence, and the Spanish war with the "peaceful " USA, the revolutions in Europe in 1830 and 1848. The USA almost exterminated their aboriginalsThe imperialists agreed as to how to subdivide the rest of the world or more or less agreed and called it the Pax Britannica, a very limited view of the world.
Humans have not changed their nature at all in the past 12,000 years, merely changedr their understanding of the world and the chances of success of their aggression.*** Africa was saved from the fate of N & S America only by the malarial carrying mosquito, and by various other diseases, and China & SE Asia in the 20th Century by their own efforts and rivalries between the Imperialists.
Peace indeed.

*** Edit And the last grand miscalculations were by Hitler and then Stalin and his successors.
Now we are simply witnessing a battle of "independence/democracy/democratic imperialism vs Muslim independence/islamic radicalism". But you can call that view simplistic and dress it up and spin it any way you like.

I'm quite befuddled by the tone of your reply to me. You do realize we're saying pretty much the same thing, right?

Yes but you seemed to put the emphasis on the peace, wheras my contention was that there was no peace, only many wars not affecting the Imperialists, not much anyway, and accompanied by genocide planned or incidental in N America and "libertad"/genocide/assimilation in S & Central America. The latter is still proceeding.

BTW Imperialists Overseas 19 Century version :Britain, France, The Netherlands, Spain (failing & disinergrating) Italy, Germany, Japan (all late to it), local Imperialists Russia, Austria, Ottoman Empire (failing and disintegrating). The USA fits in both categories, local (Manifest Destiny), and Overseas, (Hawaii, Phillipines and S Pacific, the Carribean and Cent America)

 

[dystopian]

Yes but you seemed to put the emphasis on the peace, wheras my contention was that there was no peace, only many wars not affecting the Imperialists, not much anyway, and accompanied by genocide planned or incidental in N America and "libertad"/genocide/assimilation in S & Central America. The latter is still proceeding.

BTW Imperialists Overseas 19 Century version :Britain, France, The Netherlands, Spain (failing & disinergrating) Italy, Germany, Japan (all late to it), local Imperialists Russia, Austria, Ottoman Empire (failing and disintegrating). The USA fits in both categories, local (Manifest Destiny), and Overseas, (Hawaii, Phillipines and S Pacific, the Carribean and Cent America)

The point remains that most of the wars that did take place were 'relatively' minor, as compared to the grand wars that came before and after. Local conflicts, as opposed to world-spanning struggles. That isn't meant to trivialize such conflicts, it's simply to put them into perspective. Wars like the Spanish-American war (approx. 16.000 dead) can not even remotely compare to something like the Napoleonic wars (114.000 dead in just the battle of Leipzig alone), or the thirty years' war (estimated death toll of between 3 and 11 million). Wars between the imperial powers were fought on a completely different scale. The absence of such wars is nothing to so easily dismiss.

 

[4321lynx]

Yes but you seemed to put the emphasis on the peace, wheras my contention was that there was no peace, only many wars not affecting the Imperialists, not much anyway, and accompanied by genocide planned or incidental in N America and "libertad"/genocide/assimilation in S & Central America. The latter is still proceeding.

BTW Imperialists Overseas 19 Century version :Britain, France, The Netherlands, Spain (failing & disinergrating) Italy, Germany, Japan (all late to it), local Imperialists Russia, Austria, Ottoman Empire (failing and disintegrating). The USA fits in both categories, local (Manifest Destiny), and Overseas, (Hawaii, Phillipines and S Pacific, the Carribean and Cent America)

The point remains that most of the wars that did take place were 'relatively' minor, as compared to the grand wars that came before and after. Local conflicts, as opposed to world-spanning struggles. That isn't meant to trivialize such conflicts, it's simply to put them into perspective. Wars like the Spanish-American war (approx. 16.000 dead) can not even remotely compare to something like the Napoleonic wars (114.000 dead in just the battle of Leipzig alone), or the thirty years' war (estimated death toll of between 3 and 11 million). Wars between the imperial powers were fought on a completely different scale. The absence of such wars is nothing to so easily dismiss.

I agree.
But the popular histories of Europe and the world, written as usual by the victors, dismiss the occurence of other wars in stressing the horrors and importance of the "world wars" and the guilt of those who lost them. The invasion of the Americas was inevitable given human nature. It involved genocide on a huge scale. Same goes for Australia & New Zealand. Apologies cost only "loss of face", and the best type of apology would be unquestioned acceptance of the wronged or losing race/nation/tribe, without the acceptance of their backward and sometimes savage traditions; or traditions that appear so in our victorious, seemingly progressive. and often just as savage eyes.
Payment of reparations, tempting as it may be, especially to the people receiving them, should be a minor considerations, given the time that has elapsed in most cases.

 

[dystopian]

I agree.
But the popular histories of Europe and the world, written as usual by the victors, dismiss the occurence of other wars in stressing the horrors and importance of the "world wars" and the guilt of those who lost them. The invasion of the Americas was inevitable given human nature. It involved genocide on a huge scale.

But it didn't, actually. The initial 'invasion' was more like taking up residence in an abandoned town. By the time European colonization began in earnest, most of the native american population had already died from plagues. Indeed, without the convenient arrival of this plague, which wiped out as much as 90% of the population, it is not only *not* inevitable that America would be conquered, but indeed very unlikely. We would almost certainly have seen western holdings in the new world be far smaller in scope, more akin to what we've seen in Asia; where European efforts to conquer and dominate were nowhere near as succesful. The plague essentially meant that colonizing/conquering the Americas was easymode.

There was certainly conflict between the early colonies and those native americans who remained... but this was hardly a one-way street, and there doesn't appear to have been any genocide taking place during these conflicts even if cruelties and massacres were inflicted by both sides. It isn't until the manifest destiny of the US as an independent nation that you start seeing numbers and events that could be classed as genocide. At least in the North-America, I'm less familiar with events in the south.

It is a fact that great cruelties have been inflicted by the west on native americans (and vice versa, I might add, though that does not excuse the west's actions) However, neither history nor justice is served by hyperbole and misrepresentation of the facts. We should not describe the great numbers who died through a plague no European was aware they were carrying as being the victims of genocide.

 

[4321lynx]

I agree.
But the popular histories of Europe and the world, written as usual by the victors, dismiss the occurence of other wars in stressing the horrors and importance of the "world wars" and the guilt of those who lost them. The invasion of the Americas was inevitable given human nature. It involved genocide on a huge scale.

But it didn't, actually. The initial 'invasion' was more like taking up residence in an abandoned town. By the time European colonization began in earnest, most of the native american population had already died from plagues. Indeed, without the convenient arrival of this plague, which wiped out as much as 90% of the population, it is not only *not* inevitable that America would be conquered, but indeed very unlikely. We would almost certainly have seen western holdings in the new world be far smaller in scope, more akin to what we've seen in Asia; where European efforts to conquer and dominate were nowhere near as succesful. The plague essentially meant that colonizing/conquering the Americas was easymode.

There was certainly conflict between the early colonies and those native americans who remained... but this was hardly a one-way street, and there doesn't appear to have been any genocide taking place during these conflicts even if cruelties and massacres were inflicted by both sides. It isn't until the manifest destiny of the US as an independent nation that you start seeing numbers and events that could be classed as genocide. At least in the North-America, I'm less familiar with events in the south.

It is a fact that great cruelties have been inflicted by the west on native americans (and vice versa, I might add, though that does not excuse the west's actions) However, neither history nor justice is served by hyperbole and misrepresentation of the facts. We should not describe the great numbers who died through a plague no European was aware they were carrying as being the victims of genocide.

Yes. We don't know if tales of sales of whisky and smallpox infected blankets even in the 19th century in are true, but the deaths from measles, influenza etc etc etc go in my book under the heading of incidental genocide, unintended as that was.
And the annihilation of the various Caribs, whether by work in the mines or by disease was one of the causes of the "necessity" for the slave trade.
The Spanish Crown at times issued laws forbidding maltreatment of the "Indians" and making them Spanish subjects, and issuing instructions to protect them: laws that were almost 1oo% ignored by the Colons and the Catholic Church in the Americas.

And the Indians probably gave us syphillis, and their Mezcla inheritors gave us Montezuma's Revenge and the invasion by immigration of the USA. (And I Absolutely refuse to argue the Syphillis Debate)

 

[rousseau]

Yea, I don't doubt it, and I'm sure if I looked hard enough I could find countless examples. That's partially why I qualified that sentence with 'not exactly'.

There are still many backward nations in the world, but much of the modern era is marked by peace between the world's great powers, which wasn't the case during the late medieval and early-modern period. Politically, much of the world seems to have stabilized ever so slightly.

It depends on what you define as the modern era. The early modern period, lasting from around 1500 to 1800 was certainly not very peaceful. Lots of wars between the various great powers. It isn't really until after 1815 that a period of relative peace begins, lasting until the early 20th century. Arguably, this peace was achieved only because the various powers were focusing on tightening their holds on their respective colonial empires and were more fearful of wars that might upset those efforts and have unforeseen consequences. The post WW2 period of relative peace was achieved only because of the threat of nuclear annihilation and the globalized economy; but given events of the last few years, it appears these factors may no longer be sufficient to guarantee the peace. Certainly, the brief period of history in which it seemed borders could no longer dramatically change because of conquest has been broken.

Why do you say that period is over?

 

[dystopian]

Yes. We don't know if tales of sales of whisky and smallpox infected blankets even in the 19th century in are true, but the deaths from measles, influenza etc etc etc go in my book under the heading of incidental genocide, unintended as that was.

There's no such thing as incidental genocide. Genocide is the deliberate and systematic extermination of a group of people. It's certainly not something you can hold anyone accountable for.

- - - Updated - - -

Certainly, the brief period of history in which it seemed borders could no longer dramatically change because of conquest has been broken.

Why do you say that period is over?

Crimea and Georgia ring a bell?

 

[Eldarion Lathria]

Europeans also died by the thousands from smallpox, influenza, measles and other epidemic diseases. And if the colonists had come from Africa or Asia, they would have brought the same diseases.

Eldarion Lathria

 

[bilby]

Yellow fever and malaria almost stopped the invasion of Central America and the region that became the Confederate States. One major contributor to black slavery in that area - rather than the use of the indentured servitude model that was popular further north - was that most Europeans who went there simply died. This made recruiting workers both difficult, and, when possible, largely futile.

Slaves from West Africa were largely immune to malaria, and were not in a position to refuse to go due to fear of yellow fever.

The impact of endemic and pandemic disease on human history has been huge, and many of the consequences remain with us today.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Yellow fever and malaria almost stopped the invasion of Central America and the region that became the Confederate States. One major contributor to black slavery in that area - rather than the use of the indentured servitude model that was popular further north - was that most Europeans who went there simply died. This made recruiting workers both difficult, and, when possible, largely futile.

Slaves from West Africa were largely immune to malaria, and were not in a position to refuse to go due to fear of yellow fever.

The impact of endemic and pandemic disease on human history has been huge, and many of the consequences remain with us today.

Another oddity in that history is that corn and potatoes from the Americas mitigated famine and thereby helped enable slavery.

 

[4321lynx]

Yellow fever and malaria almost stopped the invasion of Central America and the region that became the Confederate States. One major contributor to black slavery in that area - rather than the use of the indentured servitude model that was popular further north - was that most Europeans who went there simply died. This made recruiting workers both difficult, and, when possible, largely futile.

Slaves from West Africa were largely immune to malaria, and were not in a position to refuse to go due to fear of yellow fever.


The impact of endemic and pandemic disease on human history has been huge, and many of the consequences remain with us today.

Yellow fecer was brought over from Africa by the slaves. --- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_fever#History

EDIT

And so most probably was the severe form of malaria caused by Plasmodium falciparum wnich seems to have developed from a malaria-like organism in Chimps and Gorillas. The other, milder and unrelated forms seem to have developed from bird parasites

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasmodium_falciparum#Spatial_distribution

The closest relative of P. falciparum is Plasmodium reichenowi, a parasite of chimpanzees. P. falciparum and P. reichenowi are not closely related to the other Plasmodium species that parasitize humans, or indeed mammals in general. These two species arguably originated from a parasite of birds.[19] More recent analyses do not support this, however, instead suggesting that the ability to parasitize mammals evolved only once within the genus Plasmodium.[20]

New evidence based on analysis of more than 1,100 mitochondrial, apicoplastic, and nuclear DNA sequences has suggested that P. falciparum may in fact have speciated from a lineage present in gorillas.[21][22][23]

According to this theory, P. falciparum and P. reichenowi may both represent host switches from an ancestral line that infected primarily gorillas; P. falciparum went on to infect primarily humans, while P. reichenowi specialized in chimpanzees. The ongoing debate over the evolutionary origin of P. falciparum will likely be the focus of continuing genetic study.[24]

A third species that appears to related to these two has been discovered: P. gaboni. This putative species is (as of 2009) known only from two DNA sequences and awaits a full species description before it can be regarded as valid.

Molecular clock analyses suggest P. falciparum is as old as the human line; the two species diverged at the same time as humans and chimpanzees.[25] However, low levels of polymorphism within the P. falciparum genome suggest a much more recent origin.[26] It may be that this discrepancy exists because P. falciparum is old, but its population recently underwent a great expansion.[27] Some evidence still indicates that P. reichenowi was the ancestor of P. falciparum.[28] The timing of this event is unclear at present, but it may have occurred about 10,000 years ago.

 

[Eldarion Lathria]

Crimea and Georgia ring a bell?

When you refer to Crimea, do you refer to Stalin's genocide on the Crimea Tatars, Stalin's 'giving' Crimea to Ukraine, Russia taking Crimea, or the Crimean Tatars genocide against the Goths and Greeks?

Eldarion Lathria

 

[Bacillus anthracis]

I agree.
But the popular histories of Europe and the world, written as usual by the victors, dismiss the occurence of other wars in stressing the horrors and importance of the "world wars" and the guilt of those who lost them. The invasion of the Americas was inevitable given human nature. It involved genocide on a huge scale.

But it didn't, actually. The initial 'invasion' was more like taking up residence in an abandoned town. By the time European colonization began in earnest, most of the native american population had already died from plagues. Indeed, without the convenient arrival of this plague, which wiped out as much as 90% of the population, it is not only *not* inevitable that America would be conquered, but indeed very unlikely. We would almost certainly have seen western holdings in the new world be far smaller in scope, more akin to what we've seen in Asia; where European efforts to conquer and dominate were nowhere near as succesful. The plague essentially meant that colonizing/conquering the Americas was easymode.

There was certainly conflict between the early colonies and those native americans who remained... but this was hardly a one-way street, and there doesn't appear to have been any genocide taking place during these conflicts even if cruelties and massacres were inflicted by both sides. It isn't until the manifest destiny of the US as an independent nation that you start seeing numbers and events that could be classed as genocide. At least in the North-America, I'm less familiar with events in the south.

It is a fact that great cruelties have been inflicted by the west on native americans (and vice versa, I might add, though that does not excuse the west's actions) However, neither history nor justice is served by hyperbole and misrepresentation of the facts. We should not describe the great numbers who died through a plague no European was aware they were carrying as being the victims of genocide.

Okay dude, here's why you're getting responses with tones you don't like.

Europe not only brought mass death to the people of the Americas through disease, they also did a pretty good job of it through warfare and slavery. That wasn't by accident. When Columbus didn't find the gold he promised to Spain he had to rewrite his narrative into something resembling a real estate and farming bonanza filled with passive and peaceful savages who needed to be taught Christianity. And when the natives turned out to not be strong enough workers to endure the conditions in places like sugarcane fields, they decided to go to Africa and start bringing millions of African slaves to the Americas through The Triangle that went from Europe to Africa to the Americas and then back to Europe. The U.S. had slavery because Europeans brought slaves here hundreds of years before the U.S. existed.

The atrocities committed by Europeans in Central and South America dwarf what happened in North America. These atrocities were done with planning and purpose through warfare, capture of natives for slaves and and theft of land.

I think reparations at this point are silly. It's too late and the U.S. government provides lots of benefits to Native Americans. But the idea that Europe showed up in the America's, regretfully sneezed, and then moved in a like a giant hippie co-op is simply wrong. Hell, Christopher Columbus started taking slaves the minute he got here.

It's good that Europe has a Big Daddy in the form of the U.S. to keep it from fomenting further world wars and genocides. But let's not pretend that what happened in the Americas was a casual oopsy.