This is, by far, my favorite of all your posts. It's a stroke of maddening genius. And you know what?? When I first saw the picture of Lincoln's statue, I wondered to myself, "Why is there a statue of an American president somewhere in the UK?" You no doubt wonder how I knew its location, and I'll tell you: the architecture surrounding the statue looks quintessentially British!
I think you're right that Americans (I) don't know about American history. I have deeply studied Eurasian history back to a couple thousand years, but I had deep mistrust that American history would deviate much from myth. In fact, even the Eurasian history I read is mostly non-American authors.
Some things are really feeble generalizations. "Some Blacks were slave owners". Wow, what's the significance of that? That the native tribes were against each other, I think I knew, which caused them to make "unfruitful" alliances. What could they do in any case? More soldiers would be coming from the old world.
Pilgrims were persecuted. Surely persecution was all over the old continent. Later of course the message was FREE LAND, which brought the adventurers in droves. Why not; It worked for them.
I have taken your cue and found a free download of "American Nations". I hope that I will be happily surprised.
I think you'll benefit from reading the book. No, it doesn't moralize, one way or the other. It examines the various cultures that make up America.
I get the points you are making, but it's not as if you have no bias. The Pilgrims came to the New World to escape persecution, not to run Indians off their land. And they didn't. There are huge disparities in how the Spanish, French and English interreacted with Indians. I have no desire to claim that whites didn't do terrible things. But not ALL whites, and not all in the same way. People demonstrate their ignorance when they speak of 'The Europeans' as if they were one monolithic group. They weren't, and they aren't.
I think it is clear that both the French and Spanish married the natives, (maybe after killing, and enslaving hoards of them?)
Show me where any English married any natives. The numbers are unclear, but I sense that about 30 million natives were reduced to 2 million. I know that, or I know about that, if it is not quite accurate. It is not what I am even interested in discovering or expanding. I'll be interested to read more. thanks again.
You are reiterating what I said; the various cultures behaved in very different ways.
Here's just a few observations, not intended to be proof of anything.:
Pocahontas married John Rolfe, so yes, the English married Indians. Certainly, it was not typical, but it happened. And Pocahontas, far from being reviled, was a celebrity when she visited London.
As you said, we don't know the Indian population. I've heard that the population was as low as eight million for all of what is now the USA, before white people came. It is also believed that Indians suffered from a plague BEFORE whites got here, and lost population as a result. But there is no question that Indians lost land as well as population to white 'settlers'.
I think the French were the most laissez-faire about Indians. They didn't push them off their land, nor did they attempt to conquer them. They traded with Indians and intermarried.
The Spanish were the most aggressive. Long before England and France had much of a presence in the Americas, Spain was conquering large swaths of Cental and South America, as well as what is now the Southwest and Florida. Keep in mind that 'Hispanics' are primarily descendants of the Spanish conquerors, not the Indians. To this day, native Indians are largely treated very poorly in Mexico.
This is, by far, my favorite of all your posts. It's a stroke of maddening genius. And you know what?? When I first saw the picture of Lincoln's statue, I wondered to myself, "Why is there a statue of an American president somewhere in the UK?" You no doubt wonder how I knew its location, and I'll tell you: the architecture surrounding the statue looks quintessentially British!
You would know!
I think you're right that Americans (I) don't know about American history. I have deeply studied Eurasian history back to a couple thousand years, but I had deep mistrust that American history would deviate much from myth. In fact, even the Eurasian history I read is mostly non-American authors.
Some things are really feeble generalizations. "Some Blacks were slave owners". Wow, what's the significance of that? That the native tribes were against each other, I think I knew, which caused them to make "unfruitful" alliances. What could they do in any case? More soldiers would be coming from the old world.
Pilgrims were persecuted. Surely persecution was all over the old continent. Later of course the message was FREE LAND, which brought the adventurers in droves. Why not; It worked for them.
I have taken your cue and found a free download of "American Nations". I hope that I will be happily surprised.
https://www.academia.edu/44212270/American_Nations
Thanks
.
I think you'll benefit from reading the book. No, it doesn't moralize, one way or the other. It examines the various cultures that make up America.
I get the points you are making, but it's not as if you have no bias. The Pilgrims came to the New World to escape persecution, not to run Indians off their land. And they didn't. There are huge disparities in how the Spanish, French and English interreacted with Indians. I have no desire to claim that whites didn't do terrible things. But not ALL whites, and not all in the same way. People demonstrate their ignorance when they speak of 'The Europeans' as if they were one monolithic group. They weren't, and they aren't.
I think it is clear that both the French and Spanish married the natives, (maybe after killing, and enslaving hoards of them?)
Show me where any English married any natives. The numbers are unclear, but I sense that about 30 million natives were reduced to 2 million. I know that, or I know about that, if it is not quite accurate. It is not what I am even interested in discovering or expanding. I'll be interested to read more. thanks again.
You are reiterating what I said; the various cultures behaved in very different ways.
Here's just a few observations, not intended to be proof of anything.:
Pocahontas married John Rolfe, so yes, the English married Indians. Certainly, it was not typical, but it happened. And Pocahontas, far from being reviled, was a celebrity when she visited London.
As you said, we don't know the Indian population. I've heard that the population was as low as eight million for all of what is now the USA, before white people came. It is also believed that Indians suffered from a plague BEFORE whites got here, and lost population as a result. But there is no question that Indians lost land as well as population to white 'settlers'.
I think the French were the most laissez-faire about Indians. They didn't push them off their land, nor did they attempt to conquer them. They traded with Indians and intermarried.
The Spanish were the most aggressive. Long before England and France had much of a presence in the Americas, Spain was conquering large swaths of Cental and South America, as well as what is now the Southwest and Florida. Keep in mind that 'Hispanics' are primarily descendants of the Spanish conquerors, not the Indians. To this day, native Indians are largely treated very poorly in Mexico.
Europeans came to the new world for free stuff, to get rich. Persecution? Lol!