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

Myself ^ | 12-3-01 | electron1

[electron1]

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?

This may very well be true, but since it fits perfectly into the liberal propaganda, I have my suspicions. Since liberals are known for supressing the truth to further their cause.

I have also seen posts on here where a person has briefly mentioned that the way we currently imagine the Indians of the time is not true to how they actually were.

Can anybody assist me in understanding the true character of the Indians at the time? I appreciate any input.

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

When Columbus arrived in the New World it was soon after a horrible pestilence that destroyed a large portion of the population in the New World. The Cahokia Indians, the most advanced tribe in North America, were dispersed and almost wiped out by it. The Indians that did survive had their culture pushed backwards into the "savages" that are stereotyped about, much like Europeans in the Dark Ages. Most tribes valued the warrior tradition and most relied upon nature for substinance. Many tribes had developed agrarian cultures, but it was fairly primative, and those agrarian tribes were the hardest hit by the pestilence. That left the nomadic tribes at the advantage and the nomadic lifestyle lends toward the warrior tradition more. So were the Indians more savage than the white man? No, more primative, less cultured, but no more savage. Were they less savage? No, many tribes were exceedingly brutal and horrific in dealing with their enemies, just like many Europeans. So both the blood thirsty savage image and the tree-hugging, pot-smoking, Gaia-worshipping, flower children image are just that, images.

[Constitution Day]

electron1:

This is NOT from Columbus's era, but from 1709.
IIRC, its one of the earliest accounts of the Indians of North Carolina.

Please excuse the length, but I thought some of you may be interested in this.

-CD

.

From A New Voyage to Carolina, by John Lawson:

"Their Cruelty to their Prisoners of War is what they are seemingly guilty of an Error in, (I mean as to a natural Failing) because they strive to invent the most inhumane Butcheries for them, that the Devils themselves could invent, or hammer out of Hell; they esteeming Death no Punishment, but rather an Advantage to him, that is exported out of this into another World.

Therefore, they inflict on them Torments, wherein they prolong Life in that miserable state as long as they can, and never miss Skulping of them, as they call it, which is, to cut off the Skin from the Temples, and taking the whole Head of Hair along with it, as if it was a Night-cap. Sometimes, they take the Top of the Skull along with it; all which they preserve, and carefully keep by them, for a Trophy of their Conquest over their Enemies. Others keep their Enemies Teeth, which are taken in War, whilst others split the Pitch-Pine into Splinters, and stick them into the Prisoners Body yet alive. Thus they light them, which burn like so many Torches; and in this manner, they make him dance round a great Fire, every one buffeting and deriding him, till he expires, when every one strives to get a Bone or some Relick of this unfortunate Captive."

.

An account of John Lawson's murder, two years later:

New Berne, North Carolina
John Fiske

Between the Tuscaroras and the numerous Sioux tribes by which they were partly surrounded there was incessant and murderous hostility. On the other hand, there was amity and alliance, at least for the moment, between the Tuscaroras and the Algonquin coast tribes whose lands the palefaces were invading. The first murders of white settlers occurred in Bertie Precinct at the hands of Meherrins, and seem to have been isolated cases. But a general conspiracy of Iroquois and Algonquin tribes was not long in forming, and the day before the new moon, September 22, 1711, was appointed for a wholesale massacre.

A few days before the appointed time the Baron de Graffenried started in his pinnace from New Berne to explore the Neuse River. His only companions were a negro servant and John Lawson, a Scotchman who for a dozen years had been surveyor-general of the colony. Lawson was the author of an extremely valuable and fascinating book on Carolina and its native races, a book which one cannot read without loving the writer and mourning his melancholy fate. No man in the colony was better known by the Indians, who had frequently observed and carefully noted the fact that his appearance in the woods with his surveying instruments was apt to be followed by some fresh encroachment upon their lands.

Lawson and Graffenried had advanced but little way into the Tuscarora wilderness when they were taken prisoners. The Indians were very curious to learn why they had come up the river; perhaps it might indicate that the people at New Berne had some suspicision of the intended massacre and had sent them forward as scouts. If any such dread beset the minds of the red men, it was probably soon allayed; for it is clear that, had there been any suspicion, Graffenried and Lawson would not thus have ventured out of all reach of support.

The barbarians were two or three days in making up their minds what to do. They then took poor Lawson, and thrust into his skin all over, from head to foot, sharp splinters of lightwood, almost dripping with its own turpentine, and set him afire. The negro was also put to death with fiendish torments, but Graffenried was kept a prisoner, perhaps in order to be burned on some festal occasion.

Before the news of this dreadful affair could reach New Berne, the blow had fallen, not only there, but also at Bath and on the Roanoke River. Some hundreds of settlers were massacred, at New Berne 130 within two hours from the signal. No circumstance of horror was wanting. Men were gashed and scorched, children torn in pieces, women impaled on stakes. The slaughter went on for three days.

Old Virginia and Her Neighbours by John Fiske, pages 350-353
Houghton, Mifflin and Company, Boston, 1902

[OK]

There are more mature forests today than when Columbus discovered America. That is partly because there were more forest fires in those days, but it is also because mature forests are not good hunting grounds. A mix of lands with old and new growth is better.

Indians generally had the utmost respect for nature since their lives depended on it, so they did not kill for sport as a general rule.

Some of the other posters have pointed out that there was a mix of good and bad as on any Continent. Some tribes and individuals were wise, while others were not. They were also no different from people in other parts of the world in that they were tribal and often had intertribal warfare. They were brutal and used torture freely as a general rule. This is no different from other parts of the world either. They did this because it instills fear in the others and thus promotes the safety of the tribe and reluctance to go to war, IMHO.

[Neanderthal]

"Appreciate the info...Do you know any objective books or websites I can read?"

You can start with Francis Parkman, the great American historian. He wrote the 7 volume "France and England in North America." The first two volumes have a lot on this stuff. They are "Pioneers of France in the New World," and "The Jesuits in North America."

Another good resource is Allan W. Eckert's book "The Frontiersmen," and his five volume "Winning of America" series.

[KayEyeDoubleDee]

Dude, they never even invented the wheel!

Who needs a wheel, when you can have a nice scalp?

[KayEyeDoubleDee]

There are more mature forests today than when Columbus discovered America. That is partly because there were more forest fires in those days, but it is also because mature forests are not good hunting grounds.

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

Don't get me wrong, I could not care less about this loss...

[Hootowl]

Actually, several New World Indian tribes invented the wheel but it never advanced beyond the stage of a toy for children. Lacking a sturdy draft animal like the ox or horse probably inhibited further development.

[LS]

Not all you say is correct here. The Aztecs, for example, had a SINGLE, WEEK-LONG sacrifice to dedicate a temple that killed 80,000---more people, per capita, per minute, than occurred in some of the Nazi death camps.

The "Mourning Wars" involved northern tribes that abducted children of other tribes to raise them as their own, and when pursued, they left a head on a stick every mile to taunt their pursuers.

Moreover, there are two new books out saying that essentially the Plains Indians destroyed much of the bison population long before "Buffalo Bill." As to the diseases, the numbers are shifting all the time: whereas only 20 years ago anthropologists were thinking there were 100 million Indians in North and Central America, now the UPPER-BOUND number is only 50 million, and some put it as low as 8 million. What all this means is that notions that European diseases killed 50 million Indians are baseless.

And just this week, there was even NEWER evidence that many diseases are being discovered in the pre-Columbian bones, meaning that the Indians already HAD these diseases.

[bagman]

I would cite the example of the relatively-civilized Aztecs who practised ritual human sacrifice (and attempts to compare human sacrifice to the burning of witches ignore important differences in the two practices). I note also that the Inca's were a militarily-expansive empire (n

The Indians also practiced slash-and-burn agriculture, hardly environmentally friendly.

[JeanLM]

I think the original people who lived here, when europeans arrived a few hundred years ago, were much like the neolithic peoples the world over, They were just more isolated and therefore did not have the recent improvements of the past 10,000 years. They did not possess some kind of idealized life plan. They survived like we all do. The diversity they had in abundance was no different than all the races of man across all of history. It is wrong to believe they were better because they were closer to nature or some earlier, since lost, simpler life style.

These ideas are created by the same people who want us to believe modern man is a blight on the earth. It isn't true.

I remember seeing a small statue carved by a Central American artist about 500 AD. It was a captive who was tied to a tree. He had crows pecking at his eyes which were wide open. The accompanying explanation in the museum was that he had been flayed alive, and his captors had paid particular attention to the removal of his eyelids so the the birds could do their thing. Shows a low regard for human pain and suffering, but maybe they were nature-loving birders.

[sanantonioalex]

I lived with and worked with native people for over ten years, and learned to speak an aboriginal language somewhat. It's a very different culture. Most tribes in the western hemisphere were hunters and warriors, both of which your liberal friend would dissaprove. As warriors, they lived by raiding one another and the young men killed for sport. Liberals want to rely on the myth of the "noble savage" to paint them as good and white people as bad. Bands of young warriors went out to prove their manhood, raiding the neighboring tribes, killing men, women, children if they could, and stealing horses, etc. Anything was fair game. Inside their own tribe, relationships were kind, loving, and sharing, often according to a strict set of kinship rules. People would go to heroic lengths to help one another. Left/liberals, or some form of left/liberalism, has been attaching itself to Indians since the middle of the 19th century, putting out propaganda to convince the public that they were indeed peaceful pastoralists, but few tribes were. Today, they have managed through government programs to infuse a victim mentality on most native people, who have also joined in the myth-making that they were all peaceful. Native American languages were, and are, rich, complex and expressive. The people were indeed close to nature, as are farmers and cowboys. However, they could be phenomenally cruel to animals. they have also killed wastefully. I have seen it myself. I have also seen the great generosity and kindness given to people inside --- and I repeat --- inside the tribe. I got kind of adopted and people went to no end of trouble for me. Another condsideration is witchcraft. Again, liberal propaganda has convinced us that shamans are in touch with spirit forces and help the people, etc. They are also bullies, frightening people to death with the threat of curses, and demand payment and/or tribute. So --- it's more complex than just being angels or devils. In Texas, settlers suffered from Comanche raids for years and the Federal government in the 1870's ignored these raids,while men women and children were butchered and tortured by raiding gangs of young men. The comanche were also the bravest fighters on earth. It's complicated. I can't really reccommend any books because most of them have a liberal/academic bias. The one exception is T.R. Fehrebach's The Comanche. It's very good. She can get it from Amazon. Just tell your friend to look into things more than just reading her local 'alternative' rag.

[Dqban22]

I commend you for being open to other aspects of the Hispanic conquest and colonization of America. One of the most ignored by historians but very revealing facts about the treatment of the Indians by the Spanish Crown, is that as soon as the vaccine against the smallpox was discovered in England by Dr. Edward Jenner at the end of the 18th century, Spain according to American historian Dr. Phillip W. Powell: "an enlightened Spanish government sponsored very early the use of vaccination against smallpox, because the disease was so dangerous to the Indian population." A massive program of vaccination was extended to the Indians in America and the natives of Philippines at the expense of the Spanish Crown.

In fact the official position of the Spanish Crown towards de Indians was to look for their protection and respect for their rights. In fact, When Columbus returned from his second voyage to Spain and offered to the Monarchs a group of Indians as slaves, Queen Isabella, showing great displeasure, ordered their freedom and their return to America admonishing Columbus saying: “Who gave you the authority to make slaves of my subjects?”

We are hearing now of the catastrophic consequences of a bacteriological warfare by using the smallpox virus, even with today’s modern medical advances. The main cause of death of the Indians at the arrival of the Europeans was the smallpox among other diseases for which the Indians did not have natural anti-bodies. On the other hand the Indians introduced syphilis to the Europeans, a disease common in America, but with no known record of its existence in Europe until after the discovery of America.

[bagman]

Oops sorry about that. As I was writing (not that I object to militarily-expansive empires).

Someone else posted how advanced the Azteces were compared to the contemporary Dark Age civilization in Europe. Well,first the Aztecs were not contemparies with Dark Age Europe. Second, Europe was still capable of architectural masterpieces throughout the First Millennium; the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople dates from the Sixth Century, for instance.

Look up the torture-murder of Col William Crawford in Ohio, by Shawnees (I think). Alan Eckert details the gruesome procedure in a couple of his books (although the accuracy of his history is not as good as it should be). Crawford's ordeal, though, is pretty well documented, and Eckert is a pretty accessible source.

[crystalk]

Ah, the noble Savage (nothing very noble about THESE savages)...living in a state of nature, red in tooth and claw...not much romantic, about the Third World, then or now...Nasty, brutish, and short...

[wimpycat]

They had no dometicated animals to do the labor for them.

Well, to be nitpicky, at least some tribes used dogs to drag their equipment around on a sled-type contraption. They had dogs and they used them for all types of different things (including food).

It is true that Meso-Americans indulged in human sacrifice but were not the Europeans also putting to death witches and heretics to appease their God during the same period as well?

Some groups of Indians did indeed have human sacrifice, but killing witches and heretics in Europe did not serve the same purpose. While the Europeans could be quite brutal (hanging, drawing and quartering come to mind), if not more so than the Indians in many respects, drawing some sort of moral equivalence by insinuating that God was pleased with the blood of witches and heretics, or needed their blood to survive or make the crops grow is not appropriate.

Most Native Americans also bathed more often than Europeans of the time.

That's an inaccurate generalization on the same level as calling all Indians dirty savages. The ancient Romans were into bathing, and the Europeans all through history indulged in hot baths more often than is generally known. Many villages had bath houses--the Nordic people had their saunas. I don't think your average Native American bathed any more often in winter than your average European.

Most societies in North America were egalatarian and practiced democracy. Chiefs rarely had dictatorial powers and women had great influence on who the leaders would be. Traditional Native Americans valued honesty and always telling the truth.

Again, that's also an inaccurate generalization. Societies in North America were just about as diverse as societies in Europe. They had ways of ruling that fit their culture and their environment. They were not egalitarian or democratic. They had counsels or groups of elders that arrived at most decisions by mutual consensus--which works for small groups of people, but not large populations--that's not the same as a majority vote. I'm sure Native American women had just as much influence on things as European women (which is more than what the feminist movement will allow). Native Americans valued honesty and telling the truth just as much as Europeans did, although they relied on someone's word more, since most of them couldn't write.

I think that Indians have been crapped on about as much as anyone could be and still survive. I personally think that it is probably the most shameful segment of American history. The Bureau of Indian Affairs is a joke. But romanticizing the Indians and demonizing the White Man is counterproductive to improving the lives of Indians today. Trying to make their cultures somehow more pure, and their characters so superior to that of Europeans is a lot of hooey. Native Americans were then, and are now, no better or worse than anybody else when it comes to human nature.

[warchild9]

The first settlers in North Carolina described the indigenous tribesman as "handsome, straight, and possessed of a keen sense of honor." Their teeth were also ground down to the gums because of the sand in their food, and their average life expectancy was undoubtedly around 30. Go figure. The Kid.

[KayEyeDoubleDee]

Suggest that your friend read The Culture Cult : Designer Tribalism & Other Essays. I don't recall if it talks specifically about Native American Indians specifically.

[techcor]

Hey, if it helps there have been several studies that have shown the Natives were begining to catch diseases in greater numbers prior to Columbus. They had begun larger tribes which spread the diseases more. Also, the europeans took some deadly STD's back with them.

[Arthalion]

Well, most of the threads here are pretty much spot on. You have your warrior tribes of the northeast, your peaceful west coast farmers, and a mix in between. The Natives were not one people, and had wildly diverging languages, histories, and religions, so it's really not possible to ascribe a "norm". There were tribes that were cold blooded and savage killers, and others that were fairly civilized.

That said, my wife is Osage and gets a pretty good laugh out of the whole "all Indians were peaceful" kick. Most of that particular view stems from a fusion of 1970's Indian revivalism and the New Age mysticism movement. 90% of it is pure BS, and was invented as a way to popularize their movement and to gain sympathy from the mainstream.

[TopQuark]

their harmonious relationship with nature This statement is apparently true. This is common to all Indian tribes. They believe that even stone has life.

Keep in mind, however, that neighter in the North nor what is now Latin America, the population density was still low, and nature refenerates on its own.

Today, love of nature among the tree-huggers seems to be emanating from the general, purportedly pacifist outlook at the world. In contrast, Indians have battled each other terribly, and not always for food. Some old animousities led to sports-like endevors into a neighbor's village with the purpose of taking hostages --- to be brought home for days-long torture (including women). At least one tribe (I forgot which) utilizes slaves.

Thus, the harmonious co-existense was apparently extended to nature, not to other tribes. One has to be fair, however: at the time, Europe was not much different. Except for cannibalism that was present among some Indians, the Europeans could match them in fratricidal wars, torture, kidnapping, and slavery. Those were savage times.