Why Didn't Indian Tribes Repel The Colonists?

[PoliticalChic]

Indians....erroneously known as 'Native Americans'....a subject that lends itself to the cause of the America-haters.

Here, we strip away both the romanticized notions, and the slanders: real history.



First the 'age of exploration,' then colonization. But when colonization began in America, it did so in dribs and drabs.... in small scattered or sporadic amounts.
Certainly not in huge numbers that would account for the mythical "Indian genocide."

Why didn't the Indian tribes extant simply toss 'em back into the sea?



1. Colonization began in 1607, with English settlers along the James River. Data shows some 2,400 English in Virginia, and about 1,400 in New England by 1630.
But there were over 400,000 Native Americans east of the Appalachians by the time the first settlers arrived!

Romanticized versions of Indian life paint them to be friendly, civilized, probably suggesting some sort of "Beer Summit" with the newcomers.....none of which is true.
"Can't we all just get along?" Maybe.


2. Woudn't the Indians, at first glance, want to curtail the newcomers?
Maybe so....but there were several reasons why they couldn't/wouldn't.
First, even small settlements tended to be fortified, and able to rely on sea power and firearms.

Indians quickly saw the value of muskets, and were able to trade for same, using them for hunting and against rival tribes.
How about simply using 'em against the 'white interlopers' ?(Al Sharpton).


a. Far from the static view that politicians have of human endeavors, in actuality, people behave dynamically. In this case, getting guns made the Indians more dependent on Europeans, for ammunition, powder, and repair of the weapons.

b. And, like garage door openers, once they had guns, they couldn't imagine living without them. So much for sending the Europeans away!

And, the law of unintended consequences went further: guns caused a loss of the skills needed in using bows/arrows!
Walter McDougall, " Freedom Just Around the Corner: A New American History: 1585-1828"

c. To show the extent of the desire for guns, in 1641, the Iroquois sued for peace in order to regain access to the guns the French were selling them! "Firearms in Colonial America: The Impact on History and Technology 1492-1792,' M. L. Brown,
p.151-158




3. Geography is another reason that the colonists were not sent packing: they settled along the coasts and rivers, so would fight tenaciously rather than be pushed into the water! The Indians, if they were losing, could simply retreat inland, and fade into the forests.



4. As far as losing to the Indians, the settlers has an inexhaustible supply of reinforcements from their national 'tribe,' while the Indians could rarely rely on support due to long tribal feuds.





5. Perhaps most important, the greatest of enemies that the Indians had to face...they couldn't actually 'face.' And the settlers didn't recognize their greatest ally: Disease.
Influenza, chicken pox, small pox,...and the plague that decimated the Europeans back home.

a. Over 90% of the Algonquin, Wampanoag, Massachusetts, and Pawtucket tribes were wiped out even before the Pilgrims arrived!

b. 50-75% of the Hurons, Iroquois, and Mohawks died in the 1630s and 1640s.

c. And almost 90% of the Powhatan, Susquehannock and other Chesapeake tribes in the 1670s.
McDougall, Op. Cit.

 

[Moonglow]

Isn't South and Central America part of the Americas, and were they not colonized?
And did they not have native inhabitants when they were colonized??

Why are they left out, and the romanticized European and US white benevolence to the natives?

 

[pismoe]

interesting opening post . I figured guns and a lack of awareness of any threat from the whites were the reasons for the whites being able to establish themselves in this North America that became the USA .

 

[PoliticalChic]

Isn't South and Central America part of the Americas, and were they not colonized?
And did they not have native inhabitants when they were colonized??

Why are they left out, and the romanticized European and US white benevolence to the natives?

And therein we find the source of so very many of your problems.....
...the neglect of careful reading.

"Isn't South and Central America part of the Americas, and were they not colonized?"

Where did you find the term "the Americas" in the OP?


Answer: the same place you reside mentally- nowhere.

 

[PoliticalChic]

interesting opening post . I figured guns and a lack of awareness of any threat from the whites were the reasons for the whites being able to establish themselves in this North America that became the USA .

Very astute of you to recognize that this is only the opening post.

More coming.

This, too....
"...a lack of awareness of any threat from the whites..."

 

[pismoe]

I think its just human nature for some people P. CHIC . I saw the same thinking from my sisters and their friends when they'd just poo poo my concern about illegal immigration into the USA .

 

[martybegan]

Isn't South and Central America part of the Americas, and were they not colonized?
And did they not have native inhabitants when they were colonized??

Why are they left out, and the romanticized European and US white benevolence to the natives?

because the Spanish colonization of central and south america was far more close to a military campaign than anything seen up north during the same time period. The major southern and central indiginous civilizations were far more organized and advanced than their northern counterparts. Some of them evolved past hunter/gatherer and rudimentary farming societies. The Spanish responded with rapid conquest, as opposed to the slower colonization process done up north. they also went for subjugation, as opposed to the combination of trade and friction seen up north.

 

[Moonglow]

Isn't South and Central America part of the Americas, and were they not colonized?
And did they not have native inhabitants when they were colonized??

Why are they left out, and the romanticized European and US white benevolence to the natives?

because the Spanish colonization of central and south america was far more close to a military campaign than anything seen up north during the same time period. The major southern and central indiginous civilizations were far more organized and advanced than their northern counterparts. Some of them evolved past hunter/gatherer and rudimentary farming societies. The Spanish responded with rapid conquest, as opposed to the slower colonization process done up north. they also went for subjugation, as opposed to the combination of trade and friction seen up north.

TY, but I wanted the apologist of the OP to state that...Plus in the north you had religious settlements which were not hell bent on divide and conquer...

 

[martybegan]

Isn't South and Central America part of the Americas, and were they not colonized?
And did they not have native inhabitants when they were colonized??

Why are they left out, and the romanticized European and US white benevolence to the natives?

because the Spanish colonization of central and south america was far more close to a military campaign than anything seen up north during the same time period. The major southern and central indiginous civilizations were far more organized and advanced than their northern counterparts. Some of them evolved past hunter/gatherer and rudimentary farming societies. The Spanish responded with rapid conquest, as opposed to the slower colonization process done up north. they also went for subjugation, as opposed to the combination of trade and friction seen up north.

TY, but I wanted the apologist of the OP to state that...Plus in the north you had religious settlements which were not hell bent on divide and conquer...

You also have to agree with part of the OP's position, that the tribes up north were more bent on fighting each other than the new arrivals. They had been fighting for centuries against each other, and the threat of the new "tribes" arriving did not register on them until too late.

 

[RKMBrown]

Isn't South and Central America part of the Americas, and were they not colonized?
And did they not have native inhabitants when they were colonized??

Why are they left out, and the romanticized European and US white benevolence to the natives?

because the Spanish colonization of central and south america was far more close to a military campaign than anything seen up north during the same time period. The major southern and central indiginous civilizations were far more organized and advanced than their northern counterparts. Some of them evolved past hunter/gatherer and rudimentary farming societies. The Spanish responded with rapid conquest, as opposed to the slower colonization process done up north. they also went for subjugation, as opposed to the combination of trade and friction seen up north.

TY, but I wanted the apologist of the OP to state that...Plus in the north you had religious settlements which were not hell bent on divide and conquer...

You also have to agree with part of the OP's position, that the tribes up north were more bent on fighting each other than the new arrivals. They had been fighting for centuries against each other, and the threat of the new "tribes" arriving did not register on them until too late.

Ding ding. It's like illegal immigrants no one notices a few hundred thousand or so that come here and stay illegally... next thing ya know there's a shortage of something like jobs or food and you look around to see 40million illegals, then everyone's like... we're under attack, circle the wagons.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I think its just human nature for some people P. CHIC . I saw the same thinking from my sisters and their friends when they'd just poo poo my concern about illegal immigration into the USA .

I just might have to worry you even further.....the numbers of 'white interlopers' increased precipitously!


6. The milieu didn't kill the Indians, alone!


The settlers found mostly swampy land by the water, breeding grounds for mosquitoes.....thus many died from malaria.


There was no DDT....at least they didn't have to watch family die due to environmentalists banning DDT...




a. There was also saline poisoning, and various tidewater maladies, due to the swamps and marshes.


b. And both settlers and Indians had low birth rates. The Indians suffered a high death rate for children, while the settlers simply had fewer children due to a lack of females.





7. Virginians took notice, and began moving out of the more swampy areas, thus increasing the number who survived.

And, during the 1630s and 40s, an average of 8,500 new colonists arrived per year.


a. Health was not a problem for the New England Puritans....and the birth rate showed it!


b. By 1690, English colonists actually outnumbered all of the Indians combined!

Thomas Purvis, "Colonial America to 1763," p. 34-36.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Isn't South and Central America part of the Americas, and were they not colonized?
And did they not have native inhabitants when they were colonized??

Why are they left out, and the romanticized European and US white benevolence to the natives?

because the Spanish colonization of central and south america was far more close to a military campaign than anything seen up north during the same time period. The major southern and central indiginous civilizations were far more organized and advanced than their northern counterparts. Some of them evolved past hunter/gatherer and rudimentary farming societies. The Spanish responded with rapid conquest, as opposed to the slower colonization process done up north. they also went for subjugation, as opposed to the combination of trade and friction seen up north.

TY, but I wanted the apologist of the OP to state that...Plus in the north you had religious settlements which were not hell bent on divide and conquer...

Wait....you want me to apologize for educating you????

You dunce. You must have a brain the size of a Lithium battery.

No wonder you've been accumulating free buffet coupons and frequent flier miles for trips to the last seat in the dumb row.


Now it's time for you to apologize for misstating the OP, conflating 'America' with 'the Americas.'


The OP and the rest of my posts are specific to one area. America.

 

[whitehall]

The touchy-feely sub-standard education we endure in the US tends to lead us to judge the 18th and 19th century by modern standards. There was no central authority in the Indian nation. Each tribe would make up it's own standards of conduct and they could change instantly. American Indians had been raiding and killing each other since the beginning of time and they were well versed in the art of ambush murder as opposed to all out battle. Isolated Colonists were often murdered but Indians would not risk attack on an organized force.

 

[PoliticalChic]

8. Best not to forget the purposes of the colonists, and enslavement or murder was not one.


Most of us have learned in grade school of the spiritual goals, either to escape oppression of their religion, or to establish their own brand of same.

But for most, the goals were material, a chance to be rich or at least better off in the New World.

They came, largely, for land, wood, and water.




a. A combination of the spiritual and the material resulted in James Oglethope's bringing paupers to his new colony of Georgia in the early 18th century.



9.In any case, it was courage and faith that invested the American colonies.
30,000 Puritans flooded into New England after 1630, and over 120,000 indentured servants sailed to the Chesapeake area.
"The Oxford History of the British Empire: Volume I: The Origins of Empire: British Overseas Enterprise to the Close of the 17th Century,"...by Nicholas Canny, p. 176-177


Know what 'indentured servants' means?

 

[PoliticalChic]

indentured servant definition. A person under contract to work for another person for a definite period of time, usually without pay but in exchange for free passage to a new country. During the seventeenth century most of the white laborers in Maryland and Virginia came from England asindentured servants.
Indentured servant|Define Indentured servantat Dictionary...



10. The first Africans brought in captivity to colonial Virginia in 1619 became indentured servants, like the white indentured servants who were common at that time. Both were released as free people after a set number of years. Maldwyn Allen Jones, “American Immigration,” p. 13, 32.


a. How and when this changed to perpetual slavery for blacks is unclear, but by the 1640’s, Africans brought to Virginia no longer had indenture contracts.
Yet as late as 1651, some Negroes whose period of indenture expired were still being assigned land for themselves, as were the white indentured servants.
Franklin, “From Slavery to Freedom,” p. 71-72.


b. 1647 Nathaniel Bacon born.
Led Bacon’s Rebellion which united poor blacks and poor whites in Virginia to kill all Indians. Ruling class feared that such union might threaten them; hastened transition to racial slavery.


c. The first explicit law passed in America that recognized slavery as a perpetual condition, extending to future offspring, appeared in 1661 in Virginia. Franklin, Ibid.

 

[PoliticalChic]

11. While slavery has exited in virtually every part of the world, politically and morally accepted without question, in America it was embroiled in controversy from the beginning. Some colonies passed laws to prevent it, but these laws were nullified by the British government.
Brawley, “A Social History of the American Negro,” p. 15.



a. Having been created as a free society, the concepts required to support slavery required ideological justifications that other slave societies had not found necessary. The most essential justification was the assertion that the enslaved were so different that the principles and ideals of the country didn’t apply to them.

Imagine the contortions that had to go into the idea that the slaves lacked the feelings that would cause them suffering from degradation, hard work, or the destruction of family ties.



b. In Virginia, Washington, Jefferson, Patrick Henry and James Madison all publicly advocated the abolition of slavery. Phillips, “American Negro Slavery,” p. 122-124.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Imagine if liberal philosophy had infected people back in the old days.

 

[PoliticalChic]

12. As stated earlier, most came to America for land, water, ...and wood.

The companies who sent settlers did so under contracts that required wood be sent back. The profit from this commerce would pay for the cost of transporting the settlers.



During the colonization period, England was becoming master of the seas, and the building and repair of ships used most of the trees in Britain.
This led to one of the sparks leading to the Revolutionary War, "the Pine Tree Riot."


a. "... to be used as masts for merchant and naval ships.White pine trees were considered to be the best type of tree to use for these single-stick masts. To maintain Britain's naval and trading advantage, laws were passed in North America to protect white pine trees until they were fully grown for British ship building.


b. In 1722, theNew Hampshire General Courtpassed a law making it illegal to cut down "any white pine tree of the growth of 12 inches of diameter" or face a fine ...."
Pine Tree Riot - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



c. " The Pine Tree Riot, the raid on Fort William and Mary in Newcastle, the threats to the Tax Stamp Master in Portsmouth, and many other acts of rebellion grew from the anger that the citizens of New Hampshire felt over these laws. They all helped to bring New Hampshire into the RevolutionaryWar against Great Britain."
nhfr

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Schilling for some Stormfront-like anti-Native site now?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Schilling for some Stormfront-like anti-Native site now?

Couldn't help but notice that you weren't articulate enough to provide any specifics that you found inaccurate.

Seems to be an ongoing problem with you....

Is it lack of ability, or lack of intellect?

You can be honest.....both?