History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedLooking for Pre-Colombian Southern Californian His

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
Author
pinguin View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar

Joined: 29-Sep-2006
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Points: 7508
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jun-2009 at 17:33

Well, Nazis didn't appear on thin air, they loved cowboy movies. Actually, they got inspired by seen Class-B Indian movies of the 30s, even before John Wayne cover the screen with so much Indian blood. If Americans could kill 30.000 Indians in each movie drama, Nazis though they could exterminate 20 million Russians in a boring east campain.

People shouldn't watch hollywood productions so much; they generate violent imitators

 
 
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar

Joined: 29-Sep-2006
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Points: 7508
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jun-2009 at 18:03
Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

...Both of you keep missing the point on North America, that part of the continent that nobody wanted because the Indians were not "civilized", as were the mesoamericans, Chibcha. and Peruvians. It was not a conquest.
 
Sorry, but that's the more naive comment I have read in years... Confused
Nomadic Indians didn't have the concept of "personal" property, but they have the idea of communitary ownership. They fought wars to define territories from intruders for thousand of years, before the Europeans arrived.
When the Europeans started to exterminate Buffalo, do you believe they though that was fine? Confused
 
Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

...
It was a process of accretion. More Europeans kept arriving, and the Indigenous population kept falling. It was a process of dislocation. The Great Plains were "conquered" by Swedish, Norwegian, and German immigrants who moved into empty lands and put up fences. The Buffalo, already seriously impacted by the railroads, were nearly exterminated. With that, the days of the Great Plains tribes were over. More than any military campaigns, that was what settled the future of the plains tribes. Their real problem was that their total population as a semi-nomadic people following the buffalo, could never match that of an emerging industrial and agricultural giant.
 
Well, that's true. In North America the Amerindians where flooded with large populations of Europeans. But outsiders have the right of doing that? Of course not.
 
Of course nomadic people couldn't match the firepower of modern rifles, but we are arguing if it is right to use the force to steal the land from theirs legitimate owners. That's all.
 
 
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 04-May-2007
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 479
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jun-2009 at 19:51
Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:


Pinguino and Carcharodon, If you keep dredging up polemics, we will simply see again the tired old arguments we've seen in so many other threads. drgonzaga make his point well. There was probably not a single people in the americas at the time of the Conquest, except perhaps in the Amazon and out on the Pampa, who had not taken their territory by conquest.
 
It´s irrelevant if there had been some conquest or not among the Amerind. That fact doesn´t give the invading Europeans any moral carte blanche for taking the country away from the Amerind, be it by military campaigns or slow replacement
 
It´s like saying that it was not wrong of Hitler to invade Belgium since Belgium (for a while King Leopold and later the Belgian state) had a colony in Kongo where gruesome acts occured.
 
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 15-May-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 609
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jun-2009 at 23:30
OK folks we are beginning to ramble into the ad absurdum. And as for you "Pinguino" did you adjust a bow tie when writing this little gem:
 
When the Europeans started to exterminate Buffalo, do you believe they though that was fine? Confused
 
Just too many movies under your belt for that one, P, or just simple unfamiliarity with the time and nature of Caddoan "settlement" onto the Great Plain after AD 1200 or the transformative nature of the Spanish horse after 1550. But as with Carcharodon the need to render moral judgments on the distant past says far too little on the mind sets of either the Europeans or the Amerind, and just too much on the current nervousness called political correctness. Might as well speak of those nasty Mongols and the poor Slavish peasants of the Steppes.
 
By the way, anyone care for some European shank, properly seasoned and broiled on a boucan.
 
The Captivity of Hans Staden of Hesse, in A.D. 1547-1555, Among the Wild Tribes of Eastern Brazil
 
This is but another variation of the old Protestant cannard on the vile catholic Spaniards and those benevolent and enlightened Calvinists, who understood the disestablished Amerind... that was before they fully "joined the game" and gave us a different summation: the howling, contorted, blade-wielding baby-killers ubiquitous in  Anglo-French colonialist propaganda.


Edited by drgonzaga - 11-Jun-2009 at 23:31
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar

Joined: 29-Sep-2006
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Points: 7508
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Jun-2009 at 02:53

Nobody deny there were some canibbals among Amerindians, and also some head hunter tribes. People was rude at that time, you know? In Germany protestants were burning 100.000 crazy old women... I mean witches... to preserve the world saint and pure.

But the real state of the Americas was stealed by Europeans, and that's the point.
 
That's why natives like Sioux or Mapuches don't call Europeans killers or murderers at all; they call them names all of which mean robbers.
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 15-May-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 609
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Jun-2009 at 04:56
You've missed the actual point, Pinguin. What purpose with all this finger pointing? It tells us nothing of the past and even less of contemporary Amerinds, who confront entirely different problems today. As for the name calling, Sioux is an Ojibwa word meaning "snake" or "enemy". The Tewa gave their rivals the name, Navajo, and that little word stands for "thieves" or "takers of the fields".  As all anthropologists know a common characteristic of Amerind groups is the "we the real people" address [that is only the immediate group holds humanity, all others are "enemies" or even more denigrative appellations]. The Navajo, who identified themselves as "real people" or the Dine coined the term Anasazi which really means "ancient enemies" for the ancestral Pueblos. So whatever you might think along these lines,  "dehumanizing" the opponent or rival has a very old tradition among all "people".
 
Imagine if someone on the Altiplano began an agitation against those Chilean robbers of the Atacama--if your conscience twitches about all of this land robbery let us hold forth on Tacna and Arica.Cool
 
In terms of historical epochs, one can hardly coflate events that transpired under different circumstances at different periods and under completely different exigencies. As I have indicated repeatedly else where, the grand despoilation of the Amerind from their ancestral lands is a distinct phenomenon of the 19th century and thereafter. Guess, there is a rather dark side to the cry for liberty and independence from sea-to-shining sea...


Edited by drgonzaga - 12-Jun-2009 at 15:25
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 04-May-2007
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 479
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Jun-2009 at 09:53
Maybe finger pointing has no real meaning but still one just have to admit the fact that Europeans invaded other peoples land. Then one can always discuss which European nation was worst in that endeavour or which methods were used, or what the speed or chronology of the process (or processes) where.
When adressing such topic it is rather irrelevant what the Amerinds called themselves or called each other. To adress those things in this particular context is just a smoke screen.
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 15-May-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 609
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Jun-2009 at 15:23
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Maybe finger pointing has no real meaning but still one just have to admit the fact that Europeans invaded other peoples land. Then one can always discuss which European nation was worst in that endeavour or which methods were used, or what the speed or chronology of the process (or processes) where.
When adressing such topic it is rather irrelevant what the Amerinds called themselves or called each other. To adress those things in this particular context is just a smoke screen.
 
Sniping will get you nowhere, Carcharodon, not even from Götaland to Gotland on a ferry. And before you go Oz on me, just accept the facts in both anthropology and history with regard to the geographical mobility of peoples prior to the issuance of pasports! Obviously, you entirely miss the significance of dehumanization in group conflict. The Amerind was no different than his European counterpart in this regard and, in all honesty, your efforts with the victimization angle actually demeans the Amerind. The truly irrelevant theme is all of this catawauling over "invasion" and other tired words that truly say nothing of a historical period. Conflict was an essential element in the daily life of the Amerind, just as it was in that of the European, and the truly pertinent issues are the methods of resolution to the underlying problems: integration or dismissal and isolation.  
 
 
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar

Joined: 29-Sep-2006
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Points: 7508
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Jun-2009 at 16:13
Words are important. People should use the right terms. For instance, we should call Francis Drake a pirate and an a slave trader (negrero in Spanish), rather that the cute, 007 style title: privateer...
 
In the same sense, the word "Invasion" is the most appropiated for what happened in the Americas. And "robbers of lands" is appropiated as well for all the people that arrived here to appropiate of these lands. In fact, Mapuches call us "huincas" (pronounced "wincas"), which mean exactly like that... and we know it is true. 
 
 
 


Edited by pinguin - 12-Jun-2009 at 16:15
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar

Joined: 29-Sep-2006
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Points: 7508
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Jun-2009 at 16:16
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

 
Imagine if someone on the Altiplano began an agitation against those Chilean robbers of the Atacama--if your conscience twitches about all of this land robbery let us hold forth on Tacna and Arica.Cool
 ..
 
That was a war among states. When the U.S. return the South West to Mexico we are going to return the northern provinces to Peru and Bolivia. Not earlier.
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 04-May-2007
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 479
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Jun-2009 at 18:24
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

 
Sniping will get you nowhere, Carcharodon, not even from Götaland to Gotland on a ferry. And before you go Oz on me, just accept the facts in both anthropology and history with regard to the geographical mobility of peoples prior to the issuance of pasports! Obviously, you entirely miss the significance of dehumanization in group conflict. The Amerind was no different than his European counterpart in this regard and, in all honesty, your efforts with the victimization angle actually demeans the Amerind. The truly irrelevant theme is all of this catawauling over "invasion" and other tired words that truly say nothing of a historical period. Conflict was an essential element in the daily life of the Amerind, just as it was in that of the European, and the truly pertinent issues are the methods of resolution to the underlying problems: integration or dismissal and isolation.   
 
To discuss Native Americans conflicts with each other is not especially relevant since the taking of their land was still an (or several) invasion. The European incursions will not be morally justified just because the native populations engaged in conflicts, like most other people on earth has done now and then.
 
It´s not about victimizing anyone, it´s just about calling things with their right names.
 
 
 


Edited by Carcharodon - 12-Jun-2009 at 18:30
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar

Joined: 29-Sep-2006
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Points: 7508
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Jun-2009 at 19:12
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

... 
To discuss Native Americans conflicts with each other is not especially relevant since the taking of their land was still an (or several) invasion. The European incursions will not be morally justified just because the native populations engaged in conflicts, like most other people on earth has done now and then.
 
It´s not about victimizing anyone, it´s just about calling things with their right names.
 
 
Exactly. It is extremely important to call the things with the right names. A crime is a crime, and an invasion a invasion. Just remember I am goint to quote you in another discusion.
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 15-May-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 609
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Jun-2009 at 19:16
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

 
Imagine if someone on the Altiplano began an agitation against those Chilean robbers of the Atacama--if your conscience twitches about all of this land robbery let us hold forth on Tacna and Arica.Cool
 ..
 
That was a war among states. When the U.S. return the South West to Mexico we are going to return the northern provinces to Peru and Bolivia. Not earlier.
 
Ah, seeking shelter under the beard of Uncle Sam are we now?Big smile I suppose a "war among states" makes everything all to the good-and-well, but I'd hate to apply that logic and follow it to a conclusion with regard to the Amerind! At least, the 16th century Spaniard had greater consistency as well as respect with regard to the intelligence of the Amerind from a juridical perspective. Perhaps a reading of the Requerimiento is in order.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar

Joined: 29-Sep-2006
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Points: 7508
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Jun-2009 at 19:20
Mapuches are my Amerindians, Bolivians are citizens of another republic. One that fooled around with us and found the Mapuche warrior tradition falling on theirs heads.
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 15-May-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 609
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Jun-2009 at 20:16
Carcharodon do you realize the ignorance of both Spanish and Amerindian history this statement reveals:
 
"To discuss Native Americans conflicts with each other is not especially relevant since the taking of their land was still an (or several) invasion. The European incursions will not be morally justified just because the native populations engaged in conflicts, like most other people on earth has done now and then.
 
It´s not about victimizing anyone, it´s just about calling things with their right names."
 
For the "conquest" of both the Aztec and the Inca, Amerind conflict was the essential factor bringing both Cortez and Pizarro success. Whether you like it or not, "invasion" is not only a tired term within historiography but one that obscures so much so as to be actually rendered meaningless. In effect, the suborning of its military connotation is a bit reprehensible absent the "war plans" of Fernando and Isabel. In terms of 16th century logistics and communications the conceptualization is absurd given the numerical imbalances. Far more logical and explanatory then this superficiality about marauders and land grabbers [and here the juridical and legal structure of the Spanish empire and its ubiquitous audiencias and residencias  ensure that you can not sustain the premise] is the thesis propounded back in the 1970s by William H. McNeill, Plagues and Peoples (Blackwell, 1976):

A casual remark in one of the accounts of Cortez's conquest - I no longer can tell where I saw it- suggested an answer to such questions, and my new hypothesis gathered plausibility and significance as I mulled it over and reflected on its implications afterward. For on the night when the Aztecs drove Cortez and his men out of Mexico City, killing many of them, an epidemic of smallpox was raging in the city. The man who had organized the assault on the Spaniards was among those who died on that noche trista, as the Spaniards later called it. The paralyzing effect of a lethal epidemic goes far to explain why the Aztecs did not pursue the defeated and demoralized Spaniards, giving them time and opportunity to rest and regroup, gather Indian allies and set siege to the city, and so achieve their eventual victory.

 
Indian towns and communal land titles throughout the breadth of Spanish America underscore the resiliency of the Amerind by the 17th century. Yes, there were Amerinds who abandoned their villages and towns to avoid its labor and tax obligations, preferring to work for Spanish land-owners or as urban wage workers once population numbers stabilized, but as one observer noted correctly:
 
...In the wake of this disruption, Indian culture also demonstrated considerable resiliency in the face of Spanish institutions and forms, adapting and modifying them to Indian ways. In New Spain, the Spanish municipal councils established in Indian towns were staffed by the Indian elite, and their operations reflected pre-conquest patterns within European forms. In Peru and Mexico, Indians learned to use the legal system and the law courts so that litigation became a way of life. At the local level, many aspects of Indian life remained, and Indians proved to be selective in their

adaptation of European foods, technology, and culture.

 
 
As an irony of history, Evo Morales of Bolivia is attempting to restore the juridical authority once held by the Aymaran community leaders of the Altiplano during the colonial epoch!

 

 
 
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 04-May-2007
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 479
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Jun-2009 at 20:36
What I meant was regardless if Native Americans had fought each others since eternity Europeans had no right to go there in the first place and start to interfere in their lives and cultures. That the Europeans after their arrival started to meddle in the internal affairs of the indigenous and started to play the game of divide and conquer is another matter.
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 04-May-2007
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 479
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Jun-2009 at 21:22
 
It seems that this discussion has strayed far away from the original topic of this thread.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar

Joined: 29-Sep-2006
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Points: 7508
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Jun-2009 at 21:27
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

What I meant was regardless if Native Americans had fought each others since eternity Europeans had no right to go there in the first place and start to interfere in their lives and cultures. That the Europeans after their arrival started to meddle in the internal affairs of the indigenous and started to play the game of divide and conquer is another matter.
 
Absolutely. They had no right. But "rights" have never stopped people.  All it can be done today is just to remember these events were an invasion, and not a wonderful "discovery".
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)
Back to Top
King John View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 01-Dec-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1368
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote King John Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Jun-2009 at 22:59
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

What I meant was regardless if Native Americans had fought each others since eternity Europeans had no right to go there in the first place and start to interfere in their lives and cultures. That the Europeans after their arrival started to meddle in the internal affairs of the indigenous and started to play the game of divide and conquer is another matter.
 
Absolutely. They had no right. But "rights" have never stopped people.  All it can be done today is just to remember these events were an invasion, and not a wonderful "discovery".
Calling the arrival of Europeans to the Americas an invasion or discovery is a matter of perspective.  Few Europeans knew of the Americas so from their perspective it is a discovery of a new land.  In short you can call it either a discovery or an invasion.
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 15-May-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 609
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Jun-2009 at 22:11
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

 
It seems that this discussion has strayed far away from the original topic of this thread.
 
An investigation of the thread using the methodology of History can only lead to this conclusion on the above utterance: Methinks the Carch doth protest too much!
 
Tongue
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.047 seconds.