Do you think deaths of "Natives" during white settlement of America was a crime or not? I say no...?

Question

...because the settlement of America by Europeans and eventually others was necessary and fair. The "Natives" attacked and killed many settlers who had committed no aggression. To prevent further murders, early settlers began to battle the hostile "Natives". And the "Natives" murdered in revenge. And so on it went.

Peace could only be achieved by destroying the hostile elements completely.

All those deaths could have been prevented if the "Natives" had been more unselfish, friendly, and reasonable, rather than killing newcomers just because they didn't like them.

I regard those who fought the hostile "Natives" as true heroes.

Answer 1

I think that what happened to the native Americans was criminal but I do not think that the Settlement of the Americas was a crime.

The Native Americans were here first, and being isolated from other cultures and civilizations the development of the level of there culture was slow, and they really never made it much beyond the hunter gatherer stage. A few such as the Aztec, Mayan, and Inca civilizations progressed beyond that but there progress could be compared to that of the Egyptians, or Sumerians. As such they were subject to fail to the next advanced civilization that they came in contact with.

When looking at the history of Europe and of it peoples, one will find many such cultures that were hunters and gathers, that simply could not get out of the way of others more advanced cultures, and ceased to exist.

Evolution. and Progress can be a really tough on those that can not simulate, adapt or overcome.

Answer 2

Do not make the common error of judging former times by today's standards. In those days war was an everyday occurence- the Spaniards had just finished recovering their country from Arab invaders. Muslims were invading Christian lands in Asia and southern Europe. Wars of religion were raging. The fact that a new territory had been discovered meant more than anything that it had to be made secure- before somebody else (eg the Arabs) grabbed it for themselves (as they did with most of Africa).

Same goes for the "natives". In most cases they were stone age level tribal groups, with no sense of nationhood or centralised government- meaning that the ruler (if any) had not only no army but also had to beware of internal rebellion. Example- Cortez. 150 men- no matter how heavilly armed- would have never been able to defeat a centralised state.
The difference in levels also governed North America- a hunter society could not tolerate settler/farmers simply because the farmers made hunter-gatherer lifestyle impossible (no more hunting grounds) while at the same time they had no knowledge and no wish (also no money) to imitate settler lifestyles. Hence the agression.
Getting involved in wars was also unwise. Both during British-french wars, british-US wars and the US-Confederate and US-Mexico wars- whoever won got rid of the enemy's "native" allies.

Answer 3

Crime is a relative term. Interracial marriage used to be a crime and now isn't. Slavery is a crime now, but didn't use to be.

Also, you are wrong in your assumption that most of native deaths were battle-related. The evidence that we have today points to the diseases carried by settlers and their pigs as the leading cause of death during colonization of the Americas... Europe fared somewhat better fighting against syphilis that crossed the Atlantic in the opposite direction...

Finally, applying value judgements to history is simply counterproductive. History is about facts; moral judgements only add preconcieved notions that encourage researchers to exaggerate importance of some facts and diminish that of other facts... The facts, when it comes to "settlement" of the Americas, are clear; the "settlement" was in fact an un-settlement. Population numbers have substantially decreased during the first century of colonization. Estimates vary, but 60-90% decline seems to be the range. Population decline was more severe in some regions than in others. In parts of Mexico, for example, population returned to the 1490 levels only by 1950...

I would highly recommend "1491" by Charles Mann for introduction into the subject and the controversy surrounding it:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/1400032059?camp=14573&creative=327641&linkCode=as1&creativeASIN=1400032059&adid=1YPQ0XD4ZDMB0ER45MCS&tag=nikolaichuvakhsc

Answer 4

What would you do if you were going about your normal daily life, and ships started landing on the coast, full of strange looking people, with strange customs and languages, carrying strange diseases that started wiping out your population? And, how would you feel if these people came to you, and offered you treaties, which you signed, in languages you could not read, and then came to you later and said the words were different - and you had no way to prove it? And what would you do when these same people flat out violated your agreements? What would you do if they wanted to trade with you, and then cheated you over and over?

Would you defend yourself, your culture, your home?

There were Native Americans and colonists that were honorable people, as well both groups had their "savage" element (YES, sometimes the colonists behaved VERY savagely!). Both sides broke treaties, both sides murdered the other. Both sides tried to defend what they felt was right.

Think about it.

Answer 5

you have to realize that the "Natives," as you call them, were not necessarily barbarians. they had their own, civilized culture, and they were in fact just defending their home territory. if someone suddenly came running into your house who looked strange and spoke a foreign language, you would probably be scared and might try to kill them too. the Europeans failed to realize that they were guests in the country of America; they came to conquer while the Native Americans were just trying to defend their homes and families. The Native Americans did in fact try to negotiate, and they even helped to prevent all the early European Americans from starvation, because they had come unprepared and didn't know their country. i believe that you have been misinformed in many ways.

Answer 6

You are so utterly weird.
Your ancestors came into a country and fought
the original inhabitants.
”Peace could only be achieved by destroying the hostile elements completely.”
This is so crazy, it could only be topped by any of Bush’s comments.

Answer 7

they didn't kill the newcomers just because they didn't like them - the newcomers killed them and took their land and made them into slaves. The natives were just retaliating. how would you like someone to kick you out of your house/land or make you a slave? plus the idea of "owning" land was foreign to them - they believed that the earth belonged to no one and that they just lived on it. so I really don't agree with your opinion at all.