The American Genocide of the Indians—Historical Facts and Real Evidence

[EvilCat Breath]

The Blacks preferred living with the Natives because the Natives had no use for slaves and did not abuse them.

Slaves slept outside with the dogs, winter and summer. When hunting was poor, slaves were a ready source of meat.

 

[San Souci]

History is filled with atrocity, war, bloodshed. Note that no one recounts the torture and atrocities the native tribes did to one another and to the white settlers.

The Aztecs used Human Sacrifice.

 

[San Souci]

The Eastern Tribes were as civilized as the Europeans. They had farming and held slaves even before the Europeans arrived.

No. They were not. They had no metal usage. Stone Age Men.

 

[Mushroom]

The Eastern Tribes were as civilized as the Europeans. They had farming and held slaves even before the Europeans arrived.

That can even be seen in their political structures.

One of the hardest forms of government to sustain is a confederation. The Greeks tried it, and it never lasted and the individual states would always return to fighting each other unless there was an external threat. The US tried it, twice if you count the Confederated States of America. And both times it was an utter failure.

Yet a great many of the Indians like the most well known, the Iroquois. But there was also the Council of the Three Fires of the Anishinaabe, the Cherokee Nation, the Wabash, Wappinger, Matabesec, and more.

They were actually evolving a lot at the time Europeans discovered the continent. Which is fairly in keeping with what happened in Eurasia and Africa at the transition from the Neolithic to the Copper Ages. Trade networks and population densities were finally reaching the point where individual groups were no longer enough. The only difference is that in the rest of the world, that period is pre-history so little if anything remains.

The Indians were never "backwards", other than their very low population densities gave them no reason to progress any faster. They are now believed to have been the first in the world to work copper, but it never really went beyond that. Not that they were backwards, there was simply no need in a semi-nomadic people.

If one was to take Otzi and drop him 4,000 years into the future, he would have been completely lost in Europe. But in North America, he likely would have largely fit in. With similar technologies, social and political structures, even religions very close to what he was familiar with.

 

[Mushroom]

No. They were not. They had no metal usage. Stone Age Men.

Actually, that is very wrong.

The Old Copper Complex was using copper at least 9,000 years ago. The oldest known copper tools and weapons are actually from North America.

They also had some rather impressive skills with gold.

In addition, several groups at the time the Europeans arrived were making bronze. However, it had yet not moved from being made for ornamentation to being used for tools.

Of course, in the Americas they were at a huge disadvantage when it came to metals because both continents have the largest deposits of native copper in the world. So they never had to develop smelting in order to extract the ore like the cultures in the rest of the planet did. Once they learned to smelt copper from ore, it was only a matter of time before alloys and then iron smelting started. With no need to smelt the metals they had, they never had a reason to develop those technologies.

 

[San Souci]

Actually, that is very wrong.

The Old Copper Complex was using copper at least 9,000 years ago. The oldest known copper tools and weapons are actually from North America.

They also had some rather impressive skills with gold.

In addition, several groups at the time the Europeans arrived were making bronze. However, it had yet not moved from being made for ornamentation to being used for tools.

Of course, in the Americas they were at a huge disadvantage when it came to metals because both continents have the largest deposits of native copper in the world. So they never had to develop smelting in order to extract the ore like the cultures in the rest of the planet did. Once they learned to smelt copper from ore, it was only a matter of time before alloys and then iron smelting started. With no need to smelt the metals they had, they never had a reason to develop those technologies.

As it is ,the People with the better technology won.

 

[Mushroom]

The Aztecs used Human Sacrifice.

Human sacrifice on an Industrial scale, as well ritual cannibalism.

And there is anecdotal evidence that they practiced cannibalism on a larger scale. But it has long been debated exactly how widespread the practice was as the Spanish destroyed any record of the practice they could find. One thing that many tend to miss is that the main reason the Spanish were so harsh on some groups (Aztecs, Incans, surviving Mayans) as opposed to others is that those of that region almost all practiced regular human sacrifice in addition to at least ritual cannibalism. Practices that they found absolutely irredeemable.

But a lot of tribes in the rest of North America practiced human sacrifice as well. Some as late as the 19th century, like the Pawnee. And we now know that the Mississippian Culture practiced it as well. But in those cultures it was much more limited than what was seen in Mesoamerica. With for the Pawnee Morning Star Ritual only involving a single captive. Unlike the Aztecs who would sacrifice hundreds of people in a single day.

For most of North America, human sacrifice was not practiced very often. But in Mexico, they have found sites with over 600 bodies from a single ceremony. A far cry from the rest of the Continent, where I think the largest number is around 30. Most have under 5 bodies involved in the sacrifice.

 

[AZrailwhale]

No. They were not. They had no metal usage. Stone Age Men.

Technology has nothing to do with social civilation.

 

[Mushroom]

As it is ,the People with the better technology won.

You will not see me say otherwise.

However, they were not Paleolithic or Neolithic either. When comparing them to cultures of Eurasia and Africa, they were Chalcolithic, or "Copper Age", with some areas just entering the Bronze Age.

And interestingly enough, they entered the Copper Age before Eurasia and Africa. They simply remained there longer and never had the population densities to develop things any farther. The use of copper tools in North America existed at least 9,000 years ago, around 2,000 years before it developed in Eurasia. And they had an extensive trade network as Great Lakes copper has been found throughout most of North America.

Plus, for the Spanish they arrived at the best time for themselves. The Mississippian Culture had already imploded before they arrived, and the Aztec Empire was on the verge of collapse.

But it is not only technology, as the Americas had other reasons to develop much more slowly. Such as the complete lack of any animals that could be used as beasts of burden on most of two continents. The closest thing they had was foul, dogs, and in some areas llamas. Nothing to hook a cart to, so no reason to develop a wagon or horsemanship. Nothing to pull a plow, so no reason to develop agriculture like the rest of the world. If you look back at Eurasia, probably the most important part of the agricultural revolution was less learning how to farm than harnessing other animals to efficiently farm.

Being able to harness plows to oxen is what made farming so common that populations exploded in relatively short amounts of time. And the Americas had absolutely no animals that could do that. If things had been reversed and Eurasia and Africa had no such animals and the Americas did, then more than likely it would have been the advanced Americans reaching a more primitive Eurasia.

 

[Mushroom]

Technology has nothing to do with social civilation.

Only incidentally.

Technologies like agriculture allow one to grow the population faster. And more people gives them a broader base for specialization. Instead of each hunter having to make their own arrows, now there is enough surplus for an individual to perfect being a fletcher and be supported by the rest of the group.

And a larger civilization must develop even more things to sustain itself. Things like councils to organize the people. Writing, to maintain records. And at some point more advanced things like sanitation. Or else the larger cities will repeatedly fall to disease.

But technological advancements are normally tied to population density. Low density cultures rarely advance very far simply because they have no need to. But high density cultures do tend to advance technologically, once again because they have to.

That is why for most of human history, the most technologically advanced cultures were from China. A super high population density, so they were forced to advance their technology faster than the rest of the planet. They were writing on paper when most of the world was still carving words into clay, stones, or writing on bark.

 

[Rigby5]

The Eastern Tribes were as civilized as the Europeans. They had farming and held slaves even before the Europeans arrived.

While agriculture is the only real use for slaves, and the eastern tribes did pick up on agriculture quickly, the main eastern agricultural tribes were forced to relocate to Oklahoma by Jackson. And they had to give up on their slaves in the process.

 

[Rigby5]

You will not see me say otherwise.

However, they were not Paleolithic or Neolithic either. When comparing them to cultures of Eurasia and Africa, they were Chalcolithic, or "Copper Age", with some areas just entering the Bronze Age.

And interestingly enough, they entered the Copper Age before Eurasia and Africa. They simply remained there longer and never had the population densities to develop things any farther. The use of copper tools in North America existed at least 9,000 years ago, around 2,000 years before it developed in Eurasia. And they had an extensive trade network as Great Lakes copper has been found throughout most of North America.

Plus, for the Spanish they arrived at the best time for themselves. The Mississippian Culture had already imploded before they arrived, and the Aztec Empire was on the verge of collapse.

But it is not only technology, as the Americas had other reasons to develop much more slowly. Such as the complete lack of any animals that could be used as beasts of burden on most of two continents. The closest thing they had was foul, dogs, and in some areas llamas. Nothing to hook a cart to, so no reason to develop a wagon or horsemanship. Nothing to pull a plow, so no reason to develop agriculture like the rest of the world. If you look back at Eurasia, probably the most important part of the agricultural revolution was less learning how to farm than harnessing other animals to efficiently farm.

Being able to harness plows to oxen is what made farming so common that populations exploded in relatively short amounts of time. And the Americas had absolutely no animals that could do that. If things had been reversed and Eurasia and Africa had no such animals and the Americas did, then more than likely it would have been the advanced Americans reaching a more primitive Eurasia.

Better tech and winning, does not mean a better society.
Watch the movie, "The Gods Must be Crazy".
We work twice as long and twice as hard as primitives, and we are a lot less happy.

 

[Rigby5]

Only incidentally.

Technologies like agriculture allow one to grow the population faster. And more people gives them a broader base for specialization. Instead of each hunter having to make their own arrows, now there is enough surplus for an individual to perfect being a fletcher and be supported by the rest of the group.

And a larger civilization must develop even more things to sustain itself. Things like councils to organize the people. Writing, to maintain records. And at some point more advanced things like sanitation. Or else the larger cities will repeatedly fall to disease.

But technological advancements are normally tied to population density. Low density cultures rarely advance very far simply because they have no need to. But high density cultures do tend to advance technologically, once again because they have to.

That is why for most of human history, the most technologically advanced cultures were from China. A super high population density, so they were forced to advance their technology faster than the rest of the planet. They were writing on paper when most of the world was still carving words into clay, stones, or writing on bark.

Growing the population is highly counter-productive.
It makes a few wealthier for a while, but relies on nonrenewable resources that is terminal eventually.

 

[Rigby5]

And when hunting was bad in the dead of winter.

No, humans are way too toxic to eat.
We are predators, and no one eats any predators for the same reason.

 

[Rigby5]

Slaves slept outside with the dogs, winter and summer. When hunting was poor, slaves were a ready source of meat.

Natives did not really have slaves, and re-integrated any who were temporarily slaves, after a time.
No one eats humans except in a ritual fashion, because like all predators, we are too toxic.

 

[Rigby5]

Human sacrifice on an Industrial scale, as well ritual cannibalism.

And there is anecdotal evidence that they practiced cannibalism on a larger scale. But it has long been debated exactly how widespread the practice was as the Spanish destroyed any record of the practice they could find. One thing that many tend to miss is that the main reason the Spanish were so harsh on some groups (Aztecs, Incans, surviving Mayans) as opposed to others is that those of that region almost all practiced regular human sacrifice in addition to at least ritual cannibalism. Practices that they found absolutely irredeemable.

But a lot of tribes in the rest of North America practiced human sacrifice as well. Some as late as the 19th century, like the Pawnee. And we now know that the Mississippian Culture practiced it as well. But in those cultures it was much more limited than what was seen in Mesoamerica. With for the Pawnee Morning Star Ritual only involving a single captive. Unlike the Aztecs who would sacrifice hundreds of people in a single day.

For most of North America, human sacrifice was not practiced very often. But in Mexico, they have found sites with over 600 bodies from a single ceremony. A far cry from the rest of the Continent, where I think the largest number is around 30. Most have under 5 bodies involved in the sacrifice.

The Spanish lied.
The reality is the Aztecs were vegan and never did any cannibalism at all.
With all the American natives, the only thing we call "human sacrifice" was actually just from the fact they had no prisions.
What else are you going to do with war captives.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

The Aztecs were vegans.
There is no way they would be cannibals.

Yet they were.

Expedition Magazine | Food for the Gods

<p>Forget grubs, sheep’s eyes, and moss; the ultimate in exotic culinary experience must surely be the eating of human flesh. […]</p>

www.penn.museum

 

[San Souci]

You will not see me say otherwise.

However, they were not Paleolithic or Neolithic either. When comparing them to cultures of Eurasia and Africa, they were Chalcolithic, or "Copper Age", with some areas just entering the Bronze Age.

And interestingly enough, they entered the Copper Age before Eurasia and Africa. They simply remained there longer and never had the population densities to develop things any farther. The use of copper tools in North America existed at least 9,000 years ago, around 2,000 years before it developed in Eurasia. And they had an extensive trade network as Great Lakes copper has been found throughout most of North America.

Plus, for the Spanish they arrived at the best time for themselves. The Mississippian Culture had already imploded before they arrived, and the Aztec Empire was on the verge of collapse.

But it is not only technology, as the Americas had other reasons to develop much more slowly. Such as the complete lack of any animals that could be used as beasts of burden on most of two continents. The closest thing they had was foul, dogs, and in some areas llamas. Nothing to hook a cart to, so no reason to develop a wagon or horsemanship. Nothing to pull a plow, so no reason to develop agriculture like the rest of the world. If you look back at Eurasia, probably the most important part of the agricultural revolution was less learning how to farm than harnessing other animals to efficiently farm.

Being able to harness plows to oxen is what made farming so common that populations exploded in relatively short amounts of time. And the Americas had absolutely no animals that could do that. If things had been reversed and Eurasia and Africa had no such animals and the Americas did, then more than likely it would have been the advanced Americans reaching a more primitive Eurasia.

The Native Americans -as they are called ,actually crossed the land bridge between Asia and Alaska during the last Ice Age. They slaughtered the Mammoth ,Camel ,Horse ,and other large beasts for food. Why did they not domesticate the Buffalo?

 

[AZrailwhale]

No, humans are way too toxic to eat.
We are predators, and no one eats any predators for the same reason.

Where do you get these idiotic ideas? Humans are omnivores and predators get eaten often by other predators and scavengers.

 

[Mushroom]

The Native Americans -as they are called ,actually crossed the land bridge between Asia and Alaska during the last Ice Age. They slaughtered the Mammoth ,Camel ,Horse ,and other large beasts for food. Why did they not domesticate the Buffalo?

Actually, there is no proof they "slaughtered" all those animals other than any other groups had. Remember, almost all the megafauna globally died globally, not just in North America.

And no, the buffalo was not really able to be domesticated. They are simply too large and too poorly tempered for domestication. And a great deal of that is actually genetic.

We now know that there is actually a genetic aspect of domestication. And all of the animals we have domesticated (dogs, goats, cattle, pigs, etc) have genetic differences between them and other wild animals we have never been able to domesticate (American Bison, deer zebras, lions, etc). Even the cattle we now eat are a hybrid with cattle that did have that mutation (water buffalo) with one that did not (auroch). That is what injected the required genes into their bloodline that let prehistoric humans finally domesticate them.

There was no such animal at all in the Americas to breed the bison with to allow that to happen.

That is what you seem to be missing. In every single instance of human domestication, we started with a mutant that had a mutation that allowed it to de domesticated. We then propagated that mutation by breeding it with other closely related species. None of the "barnyard animals" we know of today is actually "natural". They are the result of using a mutation to our own advantage. And without that mutation, nothing can be domesticated.

And eating for food is nowhere near the same as domestication. But notice, there is a reason why nobody ever domesticated the Bison, either in Europe, Asia, or North America. The same reason the zebra has never been domesticated. Genetically, they simply lack the genes to be domesticated unless they can be crossed with anther animal that actually has the appropriate genetic mutation that allows for domestication. The closest is some that have been crossbred, like the "Beefalo".

While that looks like an American Bison, it is not. It is a cross between farm cattle and the buffalo. And those indeed are domesticated, because of the genes they got from their cattle ancestors. Genes completely lacking in the Buffalo side.

Might as well ask why the Indians never domesticated the Bobcat, the Big Horn Sheep, or the Antelope.

There have been many experiments in recent decades in domestication. One of the most well known out of the Soviet Union that started over 7 decades ago. And it has indeed shown that the members of the group that were domesticated all had mutations that allowed that to happen. But as it was a canine, the genes involved were already present but simply not always active.

Animals like bison and zebras do not even hate those genes as a recessive, so could not be domesticated short of interbreeding with another that does.