How were the Native Indians when Columbus arrived?[Angels?, Savages?,etc]

Myself ^ | 12-3-01 | electron1

[Constitution Day]

"I wonder if William Wallace thought the lovely Brits were Savages..."
Probably so. See below.

"you know...nice tortures such as deboweling."
I assume you mean disemboweling.
IIRC, Wallace was dragged through the streets, hung from the gallows, then cut down while still breathing.
After this, he was drawn. This is different than simple disembowelment... his intestines were ripped out slowly, then burned.
Next he was quartered... all his limbs and head were cut off.
His head was placed on a pole on London Bridge, while his limbs were sent to various points around Scotland.
Yes, this sounds pretty savage to me.

"Why don't some of you spend as much time naming European cultures who fought over land and employed torture."
The question posed by the poster of this thread was about the Native Indians.
Post a thread about the various atrocities of other ethnic groups and I am sure lively discussion will ensue.

"There are many savages in the world...I don't think color of skin or culture made much of a distinction."
What part of my post implied that I thought savagery was exclusive to the Indians?
The words I posted were those of a contemporary observer, John Lawson.
He actually experienced the things described. We didn't.
FWIW, he was pretty friendly to the natives when compared with some contemporaries.

Yes, my ancestors are responsible for horrible things, too... on both sides.
My mom is part Cherokee but I don't know how much.
My dad's family has been here since Jamestown, ca.1623.

I am not so shallow as to think that anything regarding this issue is black or white... more like shades of gray.
No one is blameless in this.
American, British, American Indian, French, Japanese, German...
All cultures have things they are ashamed of, or at least should be.

I believe this definitely includes America's treatment of the native Indians.
However, they were not all the gentle natives that historical revisionists would have us believe.
Anyone who says otherwise is being totally disingenuous.

There are plenty of other people on this thread that you should take greater issue with than me.
Take a look.

FRegards.
CD

[MARTIAL MONK]

If you want to understand Native culture at the time of Columbus a good place to start is to look at Afghanistan. The same influences which shaped society then are at work in the tribal culture of Afghanistan now. I am struck at the similarities. Change some details and clothing styles and you are looking back 500 years into American history.

[farmer18th]

I have a question. I was discussing Native Indians with a friend of mine, and she seems to believe that Indians were nature loving angels and our ancestors totally ruined their harmonious relationship with nature. Is this true?

Yes.

Native Americans were gentle, generous innocents when the Europeans first arrived. They only ate nuts that naturally fell from the husk, never coaxing them roughly out of the plant before they were ready. Before spearing a fish, they would ask the great fish-spirit for permission to eat one of their brothers--and they would always sacrifice a virgin to the river god, so that the fish got an even deal. They were so consumed with a desire for fairness they would burn down the dwelling of any family whose hut got too large--thus preserving the self-esteem of everyone in the village. Fearful of anyone getting too comfortable, they would sometimes slit the pectoral muscles of young braves, jam a stick through the muscle cavity, tie hemp rope to the stick ends, and hang the now uncomfortable one from a tree.

The land belonged to everyone. They considered it silly to own the land. But if someone invaded their hunting grounds, the intruder would be slowly tortured and then killed. (This is an example of their innate fairness.)

They were so religious that the smallest coincidence of nature could send them into a fearful, superstitious panic. This native piety sometimes meant that another virgin would need to sacrificed.

Your friend is exactly right. Just agree with her and walk away slowly, not turning your back.

[Fred25]

My belief is that the government(s) of the Mayans gradually “fell”, or fell gradually, from a high peak of maybe a thousand years ago. I don’t think there was a sudden one-generation stoppage of the Mayan culture. There were probably many attempts at revivals over the years, but I think the culture and government(s) just gradually degenerated, and later the Aztecs finally emerged as the highest of the “Mayan revivalist” culture. However, the Aztecs didn’t just suddenly show up in one generation. I think they probably developed their culture for a couple of hundred years. (Just my opinion.)

Cortez had several men with him who later wrote books about their journey to Mexico City, and all agree that before their arrival at Veracruz, they stopped off a while along the coast of Yucatan, where the Mayans were thriving as farmers. In fact, Cortez and his men said there were a few earlier Spanish “explorers” living among the Mayans in Yucatan. However, at that time, the big Mayan “cities” were no longer as important as they had been in the past. They were like rundown and stuff. Sort of like Detroit. By then, most of the Mayan “culture” had become very rural as it had been in the past.

What is most interesting in my area of New Mexico is that there is some evidence of Mayan explorers visiting New Mexico about 1,000 to 1,200 years ago. I’ve read that New Mexico turquoise has been found at Chichen Itza, and Macaw feathers have been found at Chaco Canyon in New Mexico. Chaco thrived for about 200 years, then a big drought came and many of the early New Mexico Indians moved over along the Rio Grande, about 1,000 to 900 years ago.

I was able to visit Yucatan about three times in my life, and I still remember much of my 1964 trip as if it were just a few weeks ago. I love the place. It is more “tropical” than Northern Mexico. The local Hispanics, Spanish, and Mayan tend to not think of themselves as “Mexicans”. They are “Yucatecans”.

[Fred25]

I won’t dispute your numbers. Surely quite a lot did hide out, plus some of them, like today, intermarried with Pueblo and Apaches. It’s possible that the ones that were “captured” were living more like Apaches, like raiders, while the ones they left alone were living more like the Pueblo farmers. As best as I can tell, the Army never bothered the Pueblos since they apparently never raided anyone.

I keep reading that Navajos and Apaches speak a similar language, meaning that in the past their tribes were the same or came from the same place, from up in Canada. While the Pueblos apparently descended from the local Anasasi, who descended from the more ancient local Indians who were here for thousands of years.

I NEVER mention the name Kit Carson out here. In fact, I can’t even mention “Columbus”.

There are still remote trading posts on the large Navajo reservation that use a barter system, the older Navajos don’t speak any English, and they trade rugs that they make and other stuff like mutton for regular food goods. You probably know this, but I’m saying it for the others.

[xm177e2]

Some were very nice and nature-loving. In the San Francisco Bay Area, they were very peaceful and tolerant. The Iriquois in the Northeast were NOT peaceful, they were vicious warriors. Some of the Indians in the Southwest were cannibals. Some Indians were extremely brutal, murdering pregnant women, torturing warriors from other villages, etc.

Chief Powhattan in NY was running a large government (by Indian standards). Pocahontas may have purposely staged the intervention when she "saved" John Smith, in a shrewd move to get him to ally with them.

It would be stereotyping to pretend all indians were naive, peace loving people, although most had nature-centered religions, so it would not be wrong to call them "in tune with nature."

[Darheel]

Ask a Lib what 'SCALPING' means.

[Fiddlstix]

One thing often overlooked in our history is that many indians merged into the white culture and gave up their 'groove with nature' for what they considered a better life style. In most parts of the country, if you really start asking all your friends if they have any indian blood, you will find more than you expected.

Very True!
I only copied this last part of your post.
You are very accurate.
My own father-in-law.. A WWII Hero... had American Indian Ancestors....
He was of a different day and time....
He would only talk about it to his relatives or closest friends.

[jackbill]

The Aztecs and Mayans made Europeans look like savages

Yeah, they had already perfected human sacrifice even before the Europeans met them.

[jackbill]

the loss of buffalo has contributed to the increase in forested land.

So now that the DemocRATs want to give subsidies to bison ranchers, I guess we'll se the destruction of the forests. Maybe we should warn Earth First. And PETA.

[liberallarry]

Captian John Smith, like Caesar, is best left to speak for himself.
Let me know if you agree.

[Young Werther]

You begin by realizing that the "New World" tribes all existed in different time periods.

The Aztecs practiced religions and customs that might be associated with a period of 3000 to 2000 BC. There accomplishments included pyramid uilding, cannabilsm, war and slavery.

The tribes of the east coast of the US were more social/communal. They hunted and gathered food and build villages. Their arts and craft were more developed. They might be more in line with the time period ater the fall of the Roman Empire say 500 to 1000 BC.

The Eskimos were very tool adept since their very survival depended on making tools to hunt and forage for their very existence. They were a very isoated culture and and developed arts, dance and story telling to pass on their history. Hard to date them since they were little changed by time.

The Plains Indians were more mobile, (once they obtained horses from the Cortez expeditions. They built villages, foraged, and fought each other with a gusto. They might also be categorized in the time period of 200 BC to 500 AD.

There are some excellent Native American History courses given at most junior colleges. It wouldn't hurt to pursue this interest in the libraries and on the Internet.

[KillTime]

I'm not a student in the matter, but I collect rare books and one of the subjects I collect are books on indian captivity. Yes, many tribes were "in-tune" to nature; they had to be since they lived in and off of nature. But their cruelity to their enemies was very substantual and horrific. Then again, it was no different than the barbaric european torture inflicted upon various religions throught the middle ages, the orient peoples and african tribes torture of enemies throught time, etc. The blood lust and mans cruelty to man for what ever reason is part of the history of all races all over the world. But then again, so is kindness. =)

[PJ-Comix]

In most parts of the country, if you really start asking all your friends if they have any indian blood, you will find more than you expected.

Most people from Tennessee have some Indian blood in them. Usually Cherokee. Elvis was part Cherokee.

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

I grew up just south of Cahokia in the Belleville area, but I haven't studied it as closely as you have. I did read all of the literature at the site and was under the assumption that the Cahokia did build the mounds, but that was in the 80's and I was a teenager, so my memory or more recent archeology may be to blame for my poor understanding. I do know that the Cahokia had traded with Northwest Indians and Mississippi Delta Indians, so they were fairly advanced, unless those artifacts belonged to the mound builders. At any rate, Columbus arrived at the end of a Golden era in both North and South America as far as great cultures of the New World are concerned.

[blam]

"When the white man came and introduced certain deseases into the environment - two groups of people were quickly wiped out. The very young and the very old. This proved devastating as now not many existed to tell the stories."

You are absolutely correct. When the white settlers began moving west and encountered the various mounds and such, the surviving Indians had no idea who made them although they were (the mounds, etc) less than 100 years old. All the old story tellers had died off and the communications link had been broken and all the acquired knowledge was lost.

[blam]

"Most people from Tennessee have some Indian blood in them. Usually Cherokee. Elvis was part Cherokee."

I recently read that the Appalician(sp) Mountains contained the largest monolythic group of people remaining in the US. The Irish and Scots who settled there are largely, still there and have not intermingled with other races/nationalities as has most of the rest of the US. (I didn't explain that well but, you get the jest.)

[nicollo]

As a descendent of Hannah Dustin, well, let's just say in our line revenge was had.

She and her baby were kidnapped by indians in 1697. She and a fellow captor escaped with revenge -- in the form of some 10 indian scalps.

[Vince Ferrer]

bump to your #26 dandelion

The people I am most familiar with are the Anasazi. They were a mostly peaceful agricultural people that also traded with many others tribes. While they were good at agriculture, especially growing corn, they never applied that knowledge to forests. Consequently, they did a lot of damage to the forests of the southwest, which have still not recovered, 700 years later. Some info here

As for being environmentalists at one with nature, in the way that a liberal means it now, I think would be completely illogical and absurd to them. Nature was something to be fought and defeated, or it would kill you. A philosophy where nature is a benevolent provider is for people who have lived indoors their whole lives.

There is also a tendancy for liberals to assign nature worship to them, as in some sort of gaia worship. They were religious, but there is no evidence I know of that they worshiped nature, in any way that a liberal would have wanted them to. They believed in an afterlife for people, and believed that they could communicate with the spirit world. They had sacred places, such as certain rock formations, but they did not worship the rocks themselves, or any other natural object. They also built sacred spaces with their own hands, something completely out of place if they worshiped "nature."