[livius]

The usual nauseating stuff.

The noble native peoples were busy trying to kill each other off, so probably the European intervention - at least in the Spanish lands - saved a lot of them and even their culture.

It’s true that Indians in the English lands fared less well, since while the Spanish evangelized them and set up mission villages (self governing, as long as they abided by European Christian practices), the English drove them out of the territories unless they could be used in fighting European wars.

But either way, the problem is that he who has the most technology and the strongest culture (which usually go together) wins, and Indian culture was already in decline. The Indian populations of Mexico hated the Aztecs who had conquered them, and up north, the Iriquois were always fighting with everybody.

So let’s forget the image of the Indian idyll and be realistic about the whole thing.

[wideawake]

I forget who said it, but the gist was: "We spotted them the horse and the rifle [both previously unknown in North America] and they outnumbered us for the first two hundred years, and they still lost. Deal with it."

[boxlunch]

It’s true that Indians in the English lands fared less well, since while the Spanish evangelized them and set up mission villages (self governing, as long as they abided by European Christian practices), the English drove them out of the territories unless they could be used in fighting European wars.

---

That is NOT true. The Indians were very well treated by many of the colonists, although it is true the British in some cases did not treat them well, and later on it was a mixed bag depending on the character of those making and keeping the treaties. But to imply the Catholic countries treated the native populations well and the English didn’t is just not true. There was good and bad in both areas.