Native Americans

[BalkanTourist]

Greetings,
I've been curious to know what the reason is that in the U.S. the native population is almost non existant, while in Mexico, Central and South America and even in Canada to some extend the natives were able to preserve themselves and remain a significant factor.
Is it because:
A. Culture - difference in cultures/religion between the Spannish and the Anglo-Saxon conquerors.
B. Geography - U.S is for the most part flat and the natives there were hunter/gatherers, thus moving constantly, leaving no significant legacy, not having much of civilization.
-The natives southwards lived in permanent settlements engaging in agriculture with their own civilization. Their lifestyle was dictated by the landscape.
-The remoteness of some populations - in the jungles or in the far north.

What do you think? Any good links on the subject on the internet?

[Stig]

dunno really, the Spanish too went to war against the "Indians" (I'll call them like that, makes things quicker)
Maybe it has to do with the fact that the Spanish were at war with them in 1600 already, while in Northern America the "wars" started in 1800 and on.

Geography is important, if I live somewhere in a jungle I'm hard to find, and I'm even harder to kill. Besides, the Spanish also used the Indians as labourers, while in the North this wasn't done.

I think there are loads of different reasons, all equaly important

[Redleg]

Greetings,
I've been curious to know what the reason is that in the U.S. the native population is almost non existant, while in Mexico, Central and South America and even in Canada to some extend the natives were able to preserve themselves and remain a significant factor.
Is it because:
A. Culture - difference in cultures/religion between the Spannish and the Anglo-Saxon conquerors.
B. Geography - U.S is for the most part flat and the natives there were hunter/gatherers, thus moving constantly, leaving no significant legacy, not having much of civilization.
-The natives southwards lived in permanent settlements engaging in agriculture with their own civilization. Their lifestyle was dictated by the landscape.
-The remoteness of some populations - in the jungles or in the far north.

What do you think? Any good links on the subject on the internet?

Some good information on statastics on Native Americans can be found here

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/facts_for_features/001492.html

To answer your questions directly

A. THe Spanish conquerored Mexico and South America to exploit the land and the people. The Anglo-Saxons reverted to the typical exploit the land, if the inhabitants get in the way - just remove or destroy them.

B. You might be on the right track.

This site provides links to multiple sites for information.

http://www.intertribal.net/NAT/NATribes.htm

[Del Arroyo]

The biggest single factor is probably the sheer density of the population concentrated around the valley of Mexico and the Yucatan peninsula. Pre-conquest Tenochtitlan was bigger (as well as cleaner and better organized) than any European city then existing.

The Spanish also conquered modern-day Cuba and most of the other Carribean islands, where the Indians were very quickly exterminated, leaving no trace whatsoever.

[Marshal Murat]

In Mexico and South America, the population density allowed a more defined culture and created a distinct "Olmec" "Incan" "Aztec" "Mayan" etc.
In North America, those kinda tribes existed either on the East Coast or West Coast. The southern West Coast Native Americans were enslaved by the Spanish, and their culture diminished. On the East Coast, the settlements stretched from Atlantic to the Mississippi River, with mound cities, towns, etc. The Cherokee, Iroquis, Alogonquin, and whatever other tribes existed, and were pushed away or eliminated. The plain tribes weren't established, so they were forced into reservations, and given a "culture."

[Redleg]

The plain tribes weren't established, so they were forced into reservations, and given a "culture."

That is not completely true - many of the plains tribes had well established cultures. That they were nomadic does not mean that they were not established as a people. Some even forced the United States to recongize that fact in battle.

In one of these plains tribes - won a minor war against the United States under the leadership of Chief Red Cloud. Maintaining for a time the establish culture and geographic area that was controled by them. That the United States then violated that treaty is also well known.

[Marshal Murat]

Ironically, the Native Americans violated more treaties than Americans did.

[Randarkmaan]

Well, I don't think they really wanted to respect the treaties of people who generally treated thems as inferiors.

[Redleg]

Ironically, the Native Americans violated more treaties than Americans did.

Your going to have to provide the data to validate such a claim. Then one will have to look at the scope of the violation of the treaty. Was it the stay on the Reservation type (many native americans did indeed forgo this aspect of the treaty because of the nomadic nature of many of the Plains Tribes. If your attempting to paint individual violations as important as Tribal violations (read National for the United States.) There should be no comparision made such as that.

If you are attempting to point out individual violation - both sides committed those violations.

Then just for giggles what treaty did Cheif Joseph violate that caused the United States Cavalry to chase him and his followers of the Nez Perce across Idaho, Wyoming and Montana. Or was it the United States that violated that treaty? Give you a clue it was about theft of lands ceded in a terrority once again.

I have studied several different Native American Tribes with sources from both the Native American Tribe and the United States, and none would seemly validate that claim, especially when one looks at individual tribes.

Native Americans were not organized into large nations - they were primarily nomadic tribes that control specific terrority, in the plains and into the west. Along the coastal regions the native americans were more organized and stationary. The different Tribal nations often fought with each other as well.

[Marshal Murat]

Minnesota Sioux Uprising August 1862-Murder of 700 white settlers by Santee Sioux.
Sioux wars to get Sioux into their reservations.
3rd Seminole War
Nez Perce were being fought to get them into an Idaho reservation.

Those were the ones that came to mind, Greg Michno had a great encylopedia of Indian Wars, and that is where that statistic came from. Look it up and see.

[Redleg]

Minnesota Sioux Uprising August 1862-Murder of 700 white settlers by Santee Sioux.

What was the circumstances around the Uprisings? Was it because the United States Government failed to fullfill one of its obligations under the treaty.


In 1851, the U.S. and Dakota leaders negotiated the Treaty of Traverse des Sioux and Treaty of Mendota, ceding vast amounts of land in Minnesota Territory. In exchange for money and goods, the Dakota agreed to live on a twenty mile (32 km) wide reservation centered on a 150 mile (240 km) stretch of the upper Minnesota River. The deal immediately began to turn sour as the United States Senate deleted Article 3 of each treaty during the ratification process. Much of the promised compensation never arrived, lost or effectively stolen due to corruption in the Bureau of Indian Affairs and wrongful conduct by traders.

As Minnesota became a state in 1858, representatives of several Dakota bands led by Chief Taoyateduta (commonly known as Chief Little Crow) traveled to Washington, D.C., to make further negotiations. Again, events did not transpire in the Indians' favor. The northern half of the reservation along the Minnesota River was lost, and rights to the quarry at Pipestone, Minnesota, were also ceded. This was a major blow to the standing of Little Crow in the Dakota community.

In the meantime, the ceded land was quickly being divided up into townships and individual plots for settlement. The forest, prairie, and other wild lands used in the traditional Dakota yearly cycle of farming, hunting, fishing, and gathering wild rice was unalterably interrupted as timber was stripped to make way for new farms plowed by white settlers. In addition, wild game like bison, elk, whitetail deer, and bear had been hunted so intensively that populations were tiny compared to the populations before Euro-American settlement. The Dakota people of southern and western Minnesota relied on the sale of valuable furs to American traders to earn cash needed to buy necessities.

Payments guaranteed by the treaties were not made, due to Federal preoccupation with the American Civil War. Most land in the river valley was not arable, and hunting could no longer support the Dakota community. Losing land to new white settlers, non-payment, past broken treaties, plus food shortages and famine following crop failure led to great discontent among the Dakota people. Tension increased through the summer of 1862.

On August 4, representatives of the northern Sisseton and Wahpeton bands met at the Upper Sioux Agency in the northwestern part of the reservation. They successfully negotiated to obtain food. However, when the southern Mdewakanton and Wahpekute Dakota turned to the Lower Sioux Agency for supplies on August 15, they were rejected. Indian Agent (and Minnesota State Senator) Thomas Galbraith managed the area and would not distribute food without payment. At a meeting arranged between the Indians, the government, and local traders, the Dakota asked lead trader Andrew Myrick to support their cause. His response was blunt. "So far as I'm concerned, if they are hungry, let them eat grass or their own dung."

The dehumanizing comment first brought a hush over the group, but they soon began yelling at him. Soon after, with the Civil War keeping the U.S. occupied, some Dakota warriors saw an opportunity. The delayed money for the tribes arrived in St. Paul to the east on August 16, arriving at Fort Ridgely the next day. However, it came too late to prevent violence from erupting.



The claim that the Souix broke the treaty first is not accurate.



Sioux wars to get Sioux into their reservations.

This is not an accurate assessment of all the Sioux Wars.



3rd Seminole War

Don't know much about the Seminole.



Nez Perce were being fought to get them into an Idaho reservation.


Not entirely correct. A little more to it then just that. The Nez Perce were living on there Reservation when a new treaty was created that took more of their land from them. A treaty that the Nez Perce claim was never accepted by them. In fact the US Governmental sources I have read state "a new treaty was created" it does not talk about deal or negotated at all.



Those were the ones that came to mind, Greg Michno had a great encylopedia of Indian Wars, and that is where that statistic came from. Look it up and see.


If he is attempting to place the breaking of the 1851 Sioux treaty on the Sioux there is no need for me to read his book. If he is claiming that the Sioux wars to force the Sioux onto the Reservations was breaking the treaties he is incorrect. Especialy given that some of the tribal clans never signed the treaty. Remember the Sioux have several clans within the tribal grouping that were the Sioux.

[The_Doctor]

A bit off topic:

Has anybody seen a series called "Into the West"?
If so, how historically accurate is it?

[Marshal Murat]

Those suggestions are just my personal offers.
I don't know exactly what the author suggests in the encyclopedia.

[Redleg]

Those suggestions are just my personal offers.
I don't know exactly what the author suggests in the encyclopedia.

Then I must suggest some other books for you. A good one about the Plains Indians is The Long Death: The Last Days of the Plains Indians a rather decent attempt at capturing the history from a more neutral to Native American viewpoint.

The Native American's did indeed violate some treaties - however to claim as fact Ironically, the Native Americans violated more treaties than Americans did. Fall flat when one reviews History. Primarily for the reason that you have to count the United States Government as a single enity, but you can not count all the numerous tribes as a single entity, the numerous tribal nations were not unified under one controling tribe or government, so each violation of a treaty only counts to that tribal nation.

Then I am afraid that in many treaties the United States promised to provide foodstuffs to the Tribal Nation on the Reservation - something that as you can see from the 1962 Souix Upraising the Federal government often failed to adequately insure. Some of it due to the corruption of the Indian Agency, some of it due simply to a bigger promise then the Government at the time could honor. So if the Native Americans violated the treaty to feed their people - was it their initial violation or was it because the United States did not fulfil its obligation under that treaty? In other words which violation came first?

[Marshal Murat]

Thank you, I'll give it a look.

[Samurai Waki]

The Sioux under the Leadership of Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull were able to corner the US Army into Leasing a Reservation at the location they desired the most. They realized that they could not win against the US, but if it was war they wanted, they would make them bleed... The US didn't want to bleed.

[Crazed Rabbit]

In the begining exploration stages of the New World, the Spanish did not seek to simply kill off the natives as the English did if they got in the way, but to convert and rule them.

I recall reading that the south east US may have had great cities of Indians, similar to Mexico, but that these where destroyed by disease after a Spanish expedition through the area in th 1500s with diseased pigs.

Disease, war and reservations certainly didn't help.

Crazed Rabbit

[Watchman]

One could say the difference was the Iberians wanted both the land and the people (to work the land, natch), and the horrible decimation the new diseases they brought along inflicted on the natives probably didn't entirely suit their plans however useful they might have been for the actual process of conquest. The Spaniards and Portugese were, ultimately, only rather small groups replacing the previous ruling elite, and didn't quite have the population base back home to fill their corner of the New World with colonists anyway.
Plus the organized agricultural civilizations of Central and Southern America were probably relatively easy to "convert" to Iberian purposes. Cultivating fields is cultivating fields regardless of who exactly the overlords who tax most of the produce off you are, after all.

When the North Americans began to seriously expand at the expense of the natives there things were quite different. They really just wanted the land, and had very little use for its inhabitants. The cultural background of the natives would not have been very conductive to "conversion" either - take fairly warlike pastoralists heavily dependent on the bison like the Plains tribes, and think how well their lifestyle fit in with the plans the Americans had for those selfsame plains... You'd think being forced to a more settled, restricted way of life against their will also rankled the nomads something severe.

[Kagemusha]

The situation in East coast US and Eastern Canada was pretty intresting for a long time. My firm belief is that for long time The large Alqonguin tribes in the North and more southern Iroquous federation could have both wiped out their European allyes settlements by this i mean the French in the North and English in the South. This option was open for a long time since the Indians actually had larger cities then Europeans and their way of warfare suited lot better the forested areas then the European style. But then when we look at their fate they had it better then the Other Indian populations. The large Eastern tribes were much more assimilated into the populations of the Colonist rather then expelled from their lands or annihilated.
Im not sure i remember right, but doesnt the Iroquous still have pretty large reservation in the South Eastern Canada for being the solid allies of the English? If i remember right the Iroquos confederation broke in two parts in the American War of Independancy. Those who fought on the British side moved into Canada from their original lands of Pennsylvania and uppstate New York,but if i remember correctly the tribes that supported the US,were betrayed afterwards and moved into Oklahoma eventually.