The History of White Conquest of Native Lands is not Simple
I've just read a review of a new book about the conflicts between white Europeans and Native Americans during the white European invasion of this country. The author argues that while the narrative of the Battle of Wounded Knee with its ultimate crushing of and cruelty to native people did happen, it does not accurately reflect the entire history of native defense of their lands.
While we all know native people ultimately were pushed off of land they had lived on for generations and roped off in reservations, this did not happen for generations. What did happen was a lengthy successful defense of lands by native people and defeat and discouragement of white settlers. Several times white settlements were established only to be defeated and abandoned. The famous Jamestown was but one example.
The book explains that for a long period of time, white colonies tried to invade and conquer native areas but were unsuccessful. Native people had cultural advantages. They moved entire communities to other locations when weather or strategy made it advantageous. Europeans never considered this a civilized or logical option.
Native warriors were more skilled at various aspects of warfare. They understood the white supply chains and cut them off. They knew how to lure white military leaders into terrain that favored the natives. During the early years of conquest native warriors did not have a clear chain of command. This confused white armies who looked in vain for a leader to capture.
Native armies had been fighting with each other for a long time before the Europeans arrived and this worked to their advantage. It also, of course, was a disadvantage when tribes used their resources fighting each other.
As the number of settlers increased white people simply overwhelmed natives and took over the U.S. The author's point was that natives was many battles were won by natives and the imagery of only white victories and hapless natives was not the correct narrative of the period.
You start with a false claim that the entire area now known as the USA was once 'native lands'. You'll have to read up on how most of the so-called native Americans viewed land. It certainly wasn't as a possession. On the other hand, the Europeans who settled in the new country had a distinct view of land as something to be possessed. Both the natives and the Europeans were working off of their cultural beliefs.
ReplyDeleteIt is certainly fair to discuss, agree and disagree on how the land was treated. The Europeans brought over advanced farming methods. The natives had their gifts in how they used land.
A big deal has been made out of the diseases that the natives suffered from the Europeans. Yes, it was a big deal but was it knowingly intentional? Nothing in history, or in known medicine suggests that disease was intentionally spread to kill natives. There simply was no way to know in advance what would happen. I am not a historian but I believe many settlers died long before they even saw the New World from a boat. Surviving the boat journey was a feat.
Some people like to paint a grim portrait of European domination and savagery towards simple, peaceful natives. No one portrait paints the entire picture. Natives killed each other long before Europeans arrived. And many Europeans were peaceful and kind, just like the many natives who were peaceful and kind.
Matt--The book I discussed largely agrees with your post. Natives did not think of land as a possession. As I pointed out, native fought among themselves as well as they fought Europeans. The point of the book is that Indian people were successful in organizing and expanding their populations and were successful in warfare for a long time.
ReplyDelete