Submitted by Exlurker in AskRaddle

How did the indigenous people lose so bad at the beginning, sure the agricultural people had more and better weapons but didn't the tribal people know the land more deeply and intimately? We're they not unbound by limited literate ideas we still to this very day endlessly fruitlessly cling to? Shouldn't they have been running rings around the brainwashed conventional settlers?

5

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

zoom_zip wrote

why was this downvoted? it is literally the correct answer. colonial settlers brought a myriad of diseases that were non-native to the continent. diseases that the settlers had developed greater immunity to over generations of exposure. many of them were dormant when carried. influenza, yellow fever, smallpox, plague etc. ran rampant through the native population who had never experienced it before. imagine never having experienced these diseases in your genetic history and then bam, you get all of them at once. the settlers also brought non-native animal species that spread zoonotic diseases like tuberculosis.

the settler’s greatest weapon was a sweeping epidemic of diseases that hit the continent all at once.

8

ziq wrote

why was this downvoted?

Can't wait for the anarcho-settler revolution when an army of pasty professional students march into indigenous lands clenching Kindles with copies of the bread book, declare the lands their democratic communal property and call the inhabitants tree fascists when they resist the bulldozers.

5

zoom_zip wrote

that’s not to say exposure to these diseases wouldn’t have happened eventually, but it could have happened slower, over a longer period of time, and not at a time when you are being invaded by slave-trading land-grabbers

4

dsfsf4ewtb wrote

It did not hit the continent all at once. Disease spread in colonized areas. Disease spread west, slowly, with colonization (at least in north america)

2

fool wrote

At least on certain occasions, where I am, the settlers built joint communities of mutual benefit, with the indigenous populations getting quite beneficial trade agreements... After 50 years or so once the settlers were established in the area, the empire declared the treaties null and caught the indigenous population by surprise.

6

unvaccinatedcomedian wrote

Read Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond

5

Dumai wrote

do not do this its terrible

7

unvaccinatedcomedian wrote

what's so terrible about it? its nothing special but it answers OP question. and the primary answer it gives is germs like others in this thread have said. just more in depth than a forum comment is ever going to be.
genuinely interested in criticisms of it tho

7

moonlune wrote

I'm centrist I'll read half of it 🧠🤓

4

fool wrote

Seems a bit much, I'll read someone else's interpretation of select segments.

Actually, I'll listen to a talking head discussing the outrageous views that were contained in the reinterpreted summary of the book.

3

Exlurker OP wrote

It really breaks my heart to think that their aren't any secret 6D tactics and we can see all the indigenous people's options just by reading a bunch of dusty history books.

5

lettuceLeafer wrote (edited )

This question only confuses me because u view indigenous people from a settler frame of mind. In the Americas there where hundreds if not thousands of differing groups often times with massive infighting in the groups.

Attempts to organize together were made but extremely ineffective. Most indigenous groups were individually far less powerful than colonizing force. And the powerful forces such as the Aztecs where in decline/ lost most of their population from disease before the Spanish even came to kill them.

But the question is fundamentally framed wrong, there are hundreds if not thousands of many different groups of people vs a few colonizing forces. So your question should be framed as why were many different armies of maybe only 1k people able to single handedly defeat the British or the French or the Spanish. Which is really a silly question when views not otherizing many different indigenous groups as a cohesive whole.

It's like wondering why in ww2 the white people didn't just work together to conquer the world. The framing of the question is so fundamentally wrong that u are unable to see the question to due the quedtion relying on ridiculous and illogical notions of racial grouping. Not calling u racist or anything but this colonialist mindset takes a lot of work to shake from ur brain. I have said this before on raddle with people agreeing with me yet this hegemonic view of indigenous people is still ever prevent in anti colonial thought. Which is annoying and a bit depressing.

5

Exlurker OP wrote (edited )

Not disagreeing but this post really comes from people talking about how 'we' can 'win' if we just come up with 'radically fundamentally different' ideas of how to resist but most of the time don't have any ideas themselves.

2

lettuceLeafer wrote

U might enjoy reading about the Nez Perce people. They are prob the best and most effective example of resisting colonizer attacks.

3

inthedustofthisplanet wrote (edited )

The period in Mesoamerica directly preceding the Colonial Period was the Postclassic Period of Mesoamerican history. While this period can be viewed as a renaissance in culture and technology... it is also been known to include much conflict and war.

Postclassic period:

The final period of pre-Columbian Meso-American history is referred to as the Postclassic. Its beginning is usually placed at 900, and it terminates with the arrival of the Spanish conquistador Hernán Cortés in 1519 or with his conquest of the Aztec in 1521. The 900 date is based on two considerations: first, the 10th century was the period of the catastrophic collapse of the lowland Maya civilization and the cessation of the custom of erecting monuments dated by the Long Count; second, 900 was also the approximate date of the founding of the city of Tula in central Mexico and the rise of a people called the Toltec, who, according to the historical annals, built the first great empire in Meso-America. At one time it was thought that the date marked the collapse of all of the regional Classic civilizations of the area as the result of massive population dislocation. But it now appears that some Classic civilizations declined as early as 750, whereas others persisted until as late as 1200. The period is usually divided into two phases: Early Postclassic (900–1200) and Late Postclassic (1200–1519), the former equivalent with the period of the Toltec, the latter with that of the Aztec. The Postclassic civilizations of Meso-America came to an abrupt end with the coming of the Spanish in the early 16th century. For an account of the Spanish conquest, see Latin America, history of: The colonial period.

The Postclassic Period as a whole has also been distinguished from the Classic on the basis of assumed major changes in Meso-American political, economic, and social institutions. It has been asserted, for example, that the Classic period was one of relatively peaceful contact between polities, of the absence of large imperialistic states and empires (and of the militaristic élan and organization that accompanies such states). The Classic has been further characterized by the absence of true cities, by theocratic rather than secular government, and by an overall superiority of arts and crafts, with the exception of metallurgy, which appears for the first time in the Postclassic Period. In contrast, the Postclassic was characterized as a period of intense warfare and highly organized military organization, of empires and cities, of secular government, and of overall artistic decline.

Subsequent research, however, has cast considerable doubt on these conclusions. Many of the contrasts were drawn from events in the lowland Maya area and applied to the entire culture area; others were concluded essentially by a comparison of the Classic Maya of the lowland tropical forest of northern Guatemala and the Yucatán Peninsula with the Postclassic Aztec living in central Mexico in a dry mountain basin 7,000 feet above sea level. The differences, in part, are the product of separate culture evolution, conditioned by ecological factors. Cities and large states comparable to those built by the Toltec and Aztec were present in Early Classic times at Teotihuacán in central Mexico and probably at Monte Albán in Oaxaca. Militarism was at least significant enough to be a major artistic theme throughout the Classic period, even among the lowland Maya. One could also question the criterion of artistic decline, since a number of Postclassic crafts were highly developed, such as Aztec sculpture, Mixtec ceramics and metallurgy, and Zapotec architecture.

Essentially, the period directly before the Colonial Period was a time of immense and fast acting change. This period saw a splintering of the great powers in the region and an explosion of cultural experimentation. Combine climatic changes from the Midevil Warm Period and the beginning of the Little Ice Age and it's easy to see why such advanced cultures were able to be toppled.

The Aztecs probably had the best chances at stopping their advances, but they were also fighting other groups due to border issues from expansion. The timing of the colonists arrival was not ideal and had Europeans came over the ocean 100 years prior things may have been much different.

5

AnarchoDoom wrote (edited )

Beyond the disease factor, there was also the issue that natives didn't have the same notion of land property, if any at all. This "ideological gap" made it possible for settlers to continuously invade, and push back native tribes either by force or by ruse. Native people likely didn't see the settlers increasing presence as colonial invasion, as the notion of land property was alien to them. They just couldn't get what that meant when some Euro monarch decided to take an whole region, or the Founding Fathers to decide to go beyond the Mississippi Valley (for taking over the Wild West).

Settlers back then -just like they are still today- were seeing occupation/use of land as a matter of appropriating it. Hence, land property is by design intertwined with colonialism.

4

inthedustofthisplanet wrote (edited )

notion of land property

The idea that the people of the Americas had no concept of property is a very colonialist view and not at all correct.

https://tarlton.law.utexas.edu/aztec-and-maya-law/aztec-property-law

The Aztecs had a complex and hierarchical land ownership system, and drew sophisticated boundary maps that were used to mark different types of land and settle disputes. The Emperor owned personal and royal property which was used as he saw fit. He additionally exercised dominion over newly conquered lands, and could give this land to nobles, warriors, and calpulli. Owners of conquered lands were not necessarily displaced and were usually allowed to continue living on and working their lands. However, they had to share the profits of the land with their new Aztec owners.

Nobles could own land on a restricted and unrestricted basis. Nobles obtained land by purchasing it from other nobles or as a gift from the emperor for service to the Aztec empire. Purchased land could be sold or willed. Land grants from the emperor sometimes had conditions that required them to be returned to the emperor upon the death of the owner. Warriors had similar rights to purchase land or receive it from the emperor. Institutions such as the army, temples, and certain public offices (judgeships) could also own land which was received from the Emperor. These entities owned the rights to the profits from the land and used them to support the office holder. However, the individual office holder did not own the land.

Commoners could not own land on an individual basis. However, they had access to land through their calpulli. Although the calpulli were run by nobles, members of the calpulli were permitted to elect a neighborhood leader (calpullec) to manage the distribution of communally-owned calpulli land. This land was given to individual families, and generally stayed with the family unless it went uncultivated for two years or the family moved away. If this occurred, the unused land would then be redistributed to other families. The barrios also had separate undistributed communal lands that families were expected to cultivate. The proceeds of this land were used to pay the barrio’s taxes to the nobles and the emperor. Although the calpulli was responsible for dividing and reassigning the land, individual plots of land were often inherited by subsequent generations of the same family.

4

AnarchoDoom wrote (edited )

You're taking just one instance here... of a highly-hierarchic empire, of which territory's represented actually a tiny fraction of the whole mesoamerican world regardless of their advancement. I'd like to see instead evidence of land property in the more primitive sedentary societies of mesoamerica. As for the nomadic tribes, it's fairly established they didn't possess any notion of property beyond perhaps personal possessions of daily use.

There's also something to be said about some anthropologists and historians casting their own ideological bias in their readings of history...

0

inthedustofthisplanet wrote (edited )

You're taking just one instance here

If you can make blanket statements why can't anyone else? Because, I'm pretty sure that is what happened -- just because something is or isn't 'hierarchical' doesn't allow you to pick and choose examples that fit your narrative.

3

AnarchoDoom wrote

Your fixation on the Aztecs -who aren't representative in any way the whole of mesoamerican native world- is the only blanket statement, here, as you are taking example for generalizing to the entirety of the precolombian native societies.

−1

inthedustofthisplanet wrote (edited )

But I suppose it's nothing like your blanket statement, because it's your statement. That sounds pretty, uh..

magical.

fixation

What fixation? I have one post countering your blanket statement. You claimed there was no notion of property ownership in the Americas, prior to European colonization. This is not true.

there was also the issue that natives didn't have the same notion of land property, if any at all.

4

AnarchoDoom wrote (edited )

A blanket statement is a generalization based on a specific instance. You took the Aztecs (only) as a generalization for saying how the precolombian natives purportedly had a notion of land property, where they (for the most part) had NOT. It's still a bad argument against my statement.

Land property is not a fact of "human nature", but the byproduct of specific hierarchic and sedentary systems. The Aztecs were a special type of social organization in mesoamerica for how they evolved into an empire ruled by a priest class, not unlike the ancient Egyptians. They stand out in comparison with most other native societies of mesoamerica.

The natives of what is now US and Canada got a whole history of being pushed back, to inhospitable regions by Euro settlers that just kept taking lands for themselves. That is basically the reason why the Inuk people have been living far up north in the polar circle, even tho they used to be living in more temperate regions.

−1

inthedustofthisplanet wrote (edited )

there was also the issue that natives didn't have the same notion of land property, if any at all.

Aztecs were a special type of social organization in mesoamerica for how they evolved into an empire ruled by a priest class, not unlike the ancient Egyptians. They stand out in comparison with most other native societies of mesoamerica.

if any at all.

3

AnarchoDoom wrote (edited )

The crux of the matter here is that socio-political organization ain't some sort of ethnic or genetic thing, just like the land property issue. It's some arrangements that people have supported, and are historically redundant.

US southwest native cultures were very much alike early neolithic societies of Mesopotamia and Africa, while it ranged from nomadic tribes -some that were monarchies- and sedentary "republic" like the Haudenosaunee. You had neutral regions where neither group asserted predominance, while some other regions were somewhat more territorialized. Yet even in the latter case, there was no trace of any sort of contractual property on land, or even national borders.

So the population of the precolombian American continent was pretty diverse culturally and politically, and were at different levels of "development". Aztecs had just taken a more imperial tangent, that is directly related to appropriation. How can you have an empire without it?

Fite me on that... But with relevant content, plz.

−1

dsfsf4ewtb wrote

it depends on what area you're talking about. Taking the far north as an example, the Hudon Bay Company was critical in establishing the dependence of native people in the sub arctic on the European fur market. It's not as simple as saying disease and guns. In the far north, native people were simply overwhelmed by the amount of European settlers. Many native people also became fervent Christians, because they thought the European god was protecting them from disease. You say native people were "unbounded by limited literate ideas." This obscures the truth. Native people in the far north are intimately tied to the land, economically and spiritually. Inuit and Cree have their own cultures, spirituality, etc. In all honesty, you seem to be repeating the famous Noble Savage myth, in it's own cringy anarchist incarnation

3