Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ThoughtCondom t1_iz0bc74 wrote

Reply to comment by Aoeletta in How did Native American tribes indigenous to Yellowstone National Park (e.g., Shoshone, Blackfeet, Crow, etc.) perceive the land (e.g., thoughts on geothermal activity) and what was their relationship like with white/European trappers and explorers entering the region in the early 1800s? by electricdresses

Every colonizes everybody. I agree it is sad but these tribes would also war and wipeout each other. In Mexico The Olmecs were wiped out by the Toltecs, and the Aztecs wiped out the Toltecs and burned their libraries and every aspect of their culture to the ground.

Colonization is an inescapable part of all human history. It’s not just something that the white man did to the brown man, here in America

27

uberwachin t1_iz0uirq wrote

On the other side there's the spanish conquest being a viceroyalty that actually translated and made manuscript of the common tongues, myths and costumes of the indigenous people and gave them status of servers of the crown. Don't buy the black legend.

8

RailRuler t1_iz0whm8 wrote

The spanish destroyed way more than they preserved.

4

uberwachin t1_iz0zmaf wrote

The Spanish preserved way more than any other conquest. That's why 80 to 90 percent of the population in the Americas are indigenous descendants. What's the percentage in the places that used to be french or British colonies?

5

TheBlueSully t1_iz18oc5 wrote

Citation for the 80-90% of the americas?

7

uberwachin t1_iz1f91o wrote

there you go:

https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/ethnic-groups/

Mexico

Mestizo (Amerindian-Spanish) 62%, predominantly Amerindian 21%, Amerindian 7%, other 10% (mostly European) (2012 est.)

Peru

Mestizo (mixed Amerindian and White) 60.2%, Amerindian 25.8%, White 5.9%, African descent 3.6%, other (includes Chinese and Japanese descent) 1.2%, unspecified 3.3% (2017 est.)

Bolivia

Mestizo (mixed White and Amerindian ancestry) 68%, Indigenous 20%, White 5%, Cholo/Chola 2%, African descent 1%, other 1%, unspecified 3%; 44% of respondents indicated feeling part of some indigenous group, predominantly Quechua or Aymara (2009 est.)

Colombia

Mestizo and White 87.6%, Afro-Colombian (includes Mulatto, Raizal, and Palenquero) 6.8%, Amerindian 4.3%, unspecified 1.4% (2018 est.)

Honduras

Mestizo (mixed Amerindian and European) 90%, Amerindian 7%, African descent 2%, White 1%

Paraguay

Mestizo (mixed Spanish and Amerindian ancestry) 95%, other 5%

3

[deleted] t1_iz0mnzy wrote

[removed]

−4

Nightmare_Tonic t1_iz0mwgo wrote

Former historian here. The reason why the focus in our field is primarily on European-style, White colonization of Indigenous peoples is because of its concerted effort, across almost all instances, to not only subjugate the Indians but to destroy their languages / spiritual traditions / cultures. There was slavery among black Africans and colonization among Natives, but they truly were of a different breed and scale. One of the reasons why European-style colonialism is so horrifying is because of its legal systematization, which reminds us of an even more recent event - the Holocaust, as a product of political and legal coordination.

Addendum: NOT trying to imply that slavery and invasion among non-white people groups were not horribly brutal and disturbing. It was.

−4

ThoughtCondom t1_iz136pr wrote

There is just an incredible amount of bias in what you just said

9

Nightmare_Tonic t1_iz1fx2a wrote

I'm not sure you understand what the word bias means, because nothing in my statement is even remotely controversial among historians. Like, none of it.

4

ThoughtCondom t1_iz1roq6 wrote

>The reason why the focus in our field is primarily on European-style, White colonization of Indigenous peoples is because of its concerted effort, across almost all instances, to not only subjugate the Indians but to destroy their languages / spiritual traditions / culture

The Aztecs and countless others have literally done the same thing, but you called it "European style White colonization" which leads to believe that although you are a historian on paper, you were indoctrinated by the leftist homogeneity that exists on campuses today.

7

TheBearasaad t1_iz0uylb wrote

“Nonwhite people did it too” is not the strong controversial argument that people seem to think it is when they make it. Everyone recognizes that it isn’t just white folks who did nasty shit to other people. But that doesn’t change that the topic in question here in this thread is how much history and culture for the indigenous tribes of that region was lost as a result of white colonists.

The topic doesn’t need to shift. You can let it be without pretending that you’re educating people on something which they already know.

−5

dubamamorange t1_iz19l45 wrote

take a browse in this comment section, a fair number of people use colonizer as an ubiquitous term for people of european decent. not to mention politicians, government employees, university staff and professors, ngo and non profit employees etc etc

10

TheBearasaad t1_iz1dd3h wrote

It’s still just changing the topic from the actual direct conversation being had, to make a point for a bad faith argument.

−4