The white Indians are the Metis Indians (Michif), Countryborn, Bungi, mesticos, Chicanos, mestizos, pardos (like Puerto Ricans), Atlantic Half-Breeds, triracial isolates, Russo-Tlingit: there are also white Inuit-Aleut, these being the Sa'ami-Yup'ik and the NunataKavut, and of course Black Indians. All of these groups are marginalized in society, although they comprise most inhabitants of Mesoamerica, the Andes, Brazil, and the Prairie Provinces, and I would think the bulk of northern Quebec (which is culturally distinct and is the heartland of the independence movement).
It was the whites who oppressed the Natives, although the white Indians were often foot soldiers in the Iberian Conquest: the Michif and Countryborn also hated each other. Most "whites" in the greater South (and I would think the South Midlands and to a lesser extent the North Star Republic, both originally settled by Southerners), are triracial, and thus it was triracial isolates who were the greatest Indian-killers: given the northern third of the greater Appalachian mountains usually shared the same settlement patten as the South, the inhabitants of the areas would be tri-racial isolates.
As I said, neither side were aggressors, but this gives equal moral argument to the Natives and greater Southerners. There were Indian massacres of greater Southerners by Natives, but also of Natives by greater Southerners. Eventually the greater Southerners won, but BOTH SIDES were motivated by fear.
1990s revisionist history was written as a response to the Americocentric narrative which existed since Washington Irving: an aggregate analysis of all historical interpretations is the best bet.
I recall reading that in the 1970s there was an effort to increase estimated casualties of Amerindians many times in order to use this as a weapon of guilt against White America.... sorting out the propaganda from the truth of history is a difficult thing.
The basic argument of the book is technically correct, but there are many flaws: firstly, whilst it was believed until the 1990s that Northern America only possessed over 200,000 inhabitants, it is now believed that the Americas as a whole contained 200 million inhabitants (however, this is dwarfed by the over 1 billion inhabitants elsewhere in the world, the plurality living in Greater China and Greater India). This is because of the excellent farming techniques used in the Greater Amazon (like that of the Xingu people), by the Mound Builders (which included the Mississippians and surprisingly the Taino), the Mesoamericans, and the Andeans, all of which are superior to the Fourth World techniques used by their descendants.
Their descendants were forced to adopt the techniques when disease wiped out 90% of the population, followed by 90% of the survivors being conquered in wars: however, the conquests were between whites AND Natives on one side and whites and Natives on the OTHER SIDE. The only times when it was only whites versus Natives was when poaching settlers WITHOUT GOVERNMENT PERMISSION fought rogue braves WITHOUT GOVERNMENT PERMISSION, which occurred with the Nheengatu (ethnic Brazilians, descended from Tupi who mixed with African Creoles) conquest of the Greater Amazon on behalf of the Iberians, and with the settlement of northern New England, Old Virginia, Carolina/the Carolinas, and Georgia.
Due to the whites taking the good land, the survivors were forced to live off the poor land the book described: the Natives would have previously made the land fertile with channels and hunted off the land they couldn't develop (any surplus meat which was not preserved or traded would have been used to fertilize the hunting ground), but the encomiendas would have focused on having the slaves farm to death to produce maximum gains, and thus ironically the slaves wouldn't have been able to maintain the channels, which would have been turned into ordinary farmland.
This is what happened to the champas of Tenochtitlan: the remaining one is used for good farmland to this day, and the revival of terra preta in the Greater Amazon and the channels in the Andes has created superior farmland. The Mound Builders in 1450 had a population of 40 million, after which they declined from 1450-1550, partially due to Hernando del Soto bringing disease in 1521 (since Hernando del Soto claimed that he was told that horses were first spotted that year but BEFORE his expedition, this implies that the pirates who raided the Spanish since 1520 or before traded with the Natives and brought disease, which is backed up by the Basques developing a trade language with the Natives in 1450-1550, and the fact that since this number is based on average human lifespans, the Basques could have been there longer).
This implies that the decline from 1450 onwards was caused by Basques (and given Newfoundland was first settled by the Irish in 1498, possibly the Irish), spreading disease, which is backed up by the discovery of an iron axe in the ruins of a Huron village in 2010 (before it was destroyed to make way for a cottage country suburb). Also, Native societies tended to be fission-fusion, as many families spent the year trapping in the wilderness, and others were traders who travelled from community to community: Native villages tended to be spread out.
Huron villages are supposed to have had 3000-4000 inhabitants (since the average extended family comprised 12 people and multiple related families lived under the same roof), but taking into account all of the information I have stated in my comment, the fact that the villages should have had a greater carrying capacity (a la school auditoriums), and the Native knowledge of medicine allowed them to have safe childbirths (combined with the fact that they would appear to have European sleekness and like Asians possess the Mongolian spot on the perineum), and trading routes from the Arctic to Mexico and from there to the Andes existed, this indicates the number can be multiplied by nine. This means the "villages" ranged from 27,000 to 36,000, thus being small cities.
The 3000-4000 estimate is believed to be the size of the average village in the colonial period as well, and since the Three Sisters complex was never abandoned and Native villages are described as bustling, this means that the Iroquoian "villages" remained small cities until after 1786, when the whites broke their promises to their Native allies and sent them to the Great Lakes region (although I was surprised to find Washington fought for their rights).
It is true the whites did not commit genocide in the sense of murder, but they did commit DEMOCIDE, in the manner of the Mongol Wars, the Taiping Rebellion, the failure to introduce industrial agriculture to Natives from 1870-1885, the Japanese plundering of food supplies in the Second World War, and the Great Bengal Famine of the Second World War: the whites also committed mass genocide of Natives in the form of slavery, and did indeed commit a few wars of extermination in the American West.
As a note, whilst smallpox blankets were spread among the Great Lakes peoples in the Seven Years' War, this was a democide rather than a genocide, as the intent was not specifically to kill, since the perpetrators knew some would survive: also the TWO perpetrators and their subordinates did NOT act from orders by superiors.
The Supreme Court DID say Natives had title, but in the defense of Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, and Ulysses S. Grant, they engaged in Indian Removal to avoid conflict (obviously merely sending them to reservations only postponed conflict: Indian Removal was supposed to prevent this, but it failed in it's purpose until Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses S. Grant). The Natives did not move slightly further away when whites settled, but when the whites won wars which were not started by Native leadership, but by rogue braves: I read up on the Indian Wars in 2016, and whenever braves killed whites, the whites would be outraged and the Natives would support the braves (whilst the chiefs did not).
Thus, neither side committed aggression, it was all simple mistakes on both sides. The mention of Natives not merely being victims refers to a pro-Native book in which Natives and whites SOMETIMES lived in harmony and prosperity, saying that good relations between Natives and whites were a good thing.
most of history is an opinion and often written to support narratives that benefit those in power.... there also were lots of White Indians that were genocided by the Brown Indians... the natives were very diverse.....
The book Not Stolen is a great read with good historical insights and context. Nice article! Enjoy your Thanksgiving.
The white Indians are the Metis Indians (Michif), Countryborn, Bungi, mesticos, Chicanos, mestizos, pardos (like Puerto Ricans), Atlantic Half-Breeds, triracial isolates, Russo-Tlingit: there are also white Inuit-Aleut, these being the Sa'ami-Yup'ik and the NunataKavut, and of course Black Indians. All of these groups are marginalized in society, although they comprise most inhabitants of Mesoamerica, the Andes, Brazil, and the Prairie Provinces, and I would think the bulk of northern Quebec (which is culturally distinct and is the heartland of the independence movement).
It was the whites who oppressed the Natives, although the white Indians were often foot soldiers in the Iberian Conquest: the Michif and Countryborn also hated each other. Most "whites" in the greater South (and I would think the South Midlands and to a lesser extent the North Star Republic, both originally settled by Southerners), are triracial, and thus it was triracial isolates who were the greatest Indian-killers: given the northern third of the greater Appalachian mountains usually shared the same settlement patten as the South, the inhabitants of the areas would be tri-racial isolates.
As I said, neither side were aggressors, but this gives equal moral argument to the Natives and greater Southerners. There were Indian massacres of greater Southerners by Natives, but also of Natives by greater Southerners. Eventually the greater Southerners won, but BOTH SIDES were motivated by fear.
1990s revisionist history was written as a response to the Americocentric narrative which existed since Washington Irving: an aggregate analysis of all historical interpretations is the best bet.
I recall reading that in the 1970s there was an effort to increase estimated casualties of Amerindians many times in order to use this as a weapon of guilt against White America.... sorting out the propaganda from the truth of history is a difficult thing.
The basic argument of the book is technically correct, but there are many flaws: firstly, whilst it was believed until the 1990s that Northern America only possessed over 200,000 inhabitants, it is now believed that the Americas as a whole contained 200 million inhabitants (however, this is dwarfed by the over 1 billion inhabitants elsewhere in the world, the plurality living in Greater China and Greater India). This is because of the excellent farming techniques used in the Greater Amazon (like that of the Xingu people), by the Mound Builders (which included the Mississippians and surprisingly the Taino), the Mesoamericans, and the Andeans, all of which are superior to the Fourth World techniques used by their descendants.
Their descendants were forced to adopt the techniques when disease wiped out 90% of the population, followed by 90% of the survivors being conquered in wars: however, the conquests were between whites AND Natives on one side and whites and Natives on the OTHER SIDE. The only times when it was only whites versus Natives was when poaching settlers WITHOUT GOVERNMENT PERMISSION fought rogue braves WITHOUT GOVERNMENT PERMISSION, which occurred with the Nheengatu (ethnic Brazilians, descended from Tupi who mixed with African Creoles) conquest of the Greater Amazon on behalf of the Iberians, and with the settlement of northern New England, Old Virginia, Carolina/the Carolinas, and Georgia.
Due to the whites taking the good land, the survivors were forced to live off the poor land the book described: the Natives would have previously made the land fertile with channels and hunted off the land they couldn't develop (any surplus meat which was not preserved or traded would have been used to fertilize the hunting ground), but the encomiendas would have focused on having the slaves farm to death to produce maximum gains, and thus ironically the slaves wouldn't have been able to maintain the channels, which would have been turned into ordinary farmland.
This is what happened to the champas of Tenochtitlan: the remaining one is used for good farmland to this day, and the revival of terra preta in the Greater Amazon and the channels in the Andes has created superior farmland. The Mound Builders in 1450 had a population of 40 million, after which they declined from 1450-1550, partially due to Hernando del Soto bringing disease in 1521 (since Hernando del Soto claimed that he was told that horses were first spotted that year but BEFORE his expedition, this implies that the pirates who raided the Spanish since 1520 or before traded with the Natives and brought disease, which is backed up by the Basques developing a trade language with the Natives in 1450-1550, and the fact that since this number is based on average human lifespans, the Basques could have been there longer).
This implies that the decline from 1450 onwards was caused by Basques (and given Newfoundland was first settled by the Irish in 1498, possibly the Irish), spreading disease, which is backed up by the discovery of an iron axe in the ruins of a Huron village in 2010 (before it was destroyed to make way for a cottage country suburb). Also, Native societies tended to be fission-fusion, as many families spent the year trapping in the wilderness, and others were traders who travelled from community to community: Native villages tended to be spread out.
Huron villages are supposed to have had 3000-4000 inhabitants (since the average extended family comprised 12 people and multiple related families lived under the same roof), but taking into account all of the information I have stated in my comment, the fact that the villages should have had a greater carrying capacity (a la school auditoriums), and the Native knowledge of medicine allowed them to have safe childbirths (combined with the fact that they would appear to have European sleekness and like Asians possess the Mongolian spot on the perineum), and trading routes from the Arctic to Mexico and from there to the Andes existed, this indicates the number can be multiplied by nine. This means the "villages" ranged from 27,000 to 36,000, thus being small cities.
The 3000-4000 estimate is believed to be the size of the average village in the colonial period as well, and since the Three Sisters complex was never abandoned and Native villages are described as bustling, this means that the Iroquoian "villages" remained small cities until after 1786, when the whites broke their promises to their Native allies and sent them to the Great Lakes region (although I was surprised to find Washington fought for their rights).
It is true the whites did not commit genocide in the sense of murder, but they did commit DEMOCIDE, in the manner of the Mongol Wars, the Taiping Rebellion, the failure to introduce industrial agriculture to Natives from 1870-1885, the Japanese plundering of food supplies in the Second World War, and the Great Bengal Famine of the Second World War: the whites also committed mass genocide of Natives in the form of slavery, and did indeed commit a few wars of extermination in the American West.
As a note, whilst smallpox blankets were spread among the Great Lakes peoples in the Seven Years' War, this was a democide rather than a genocide, as the intent was not specifically to kill, since the perpetrators knew some would survive: also the TWO perpetrators and their subordinates did NOT act from orders by superiors.
The Supreme Court DID say Natives had title, but in the defense of Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, and Ulysses S. Grant, they engaged in Indian Removal to avoid conflict (obviously merely sending them to reservations only postponed conflict: Indian Removal was supposed to prevent this, but it failed in it's purpose until Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses S. Grant). The Natives did not move slightly further away when whites settled, but when the whites won wars which were not started by Native leadership, but by rogue braves: I read up on the Indian Wars in 2016, and whenever braves killed whites, the whites would be outraged and the Natives would support the braves (whilst the chiefs did not).
Thus, neither side committed aggression, it was all simple mistakes on both sides. The mention of Natives not merely being victims refers to a pro-Native book in which Natives and whites SOMETIMES lived in harmony and prosperity, saying that good relations between Natives and whites were a good thing.
most of history is an opinion and often written to support narratives that benefit those in power.... there also were lots of White Indians that were genocided by the Brown Indians... the natives were very diverse.....