American Indians Colonize the Old world in 1250 BC

[Gradine]

If hunter-gatherer societies consistently lose their land to agricultural societies (and they do), then I have to concede that the hunter-gatherers are the ones with the practical problem.

Everything else you have to say about the questionable accuracy of the scenario is, of course, true.

Never mind that, by the time European settlers arrived in North America, many aboriginal tribes had long developed farms and agriculture.

I mean, I get that the whole "Thanksgiving" story gets overly simplified, but one of the key points isn't that the Native Americans didn't show up with a whole bunch of food and had a big meal, but that they actually taught the colonists what crops to grow and how to grow them.

So the idea that all (or even most) Native Americans were nomadic hunter-gatherers who didn't really employ the land so white settlers essentially moved in to empty space and asserted squator's rights would be yet another example of poor research, were it not for the fact that calling it "poor research" would be acknowledging any sort of research occurred at all, of which I am still extremely skeptical.

 

[Gradine]

But that was my only assertion! Otherwise, I asked questions. (No fair answering the easy ones and leaving Thomas with the hard ones.)

Mongols in 1200s present a divergent case, in which nomad does not equal hunter-gatherer, nor hapless victim. Beduin case also divergent, since nomads and village-dwellers both speak Arabic; I don't know the nuances of that relationship, neither as practiced in pre-industrial centuries nor as it stands today. I gather that the relationship between the Congo forest people (aka pygmies) and the village peoples (such as Bantu) has changed since Turnbull wrote "The Forest People", shifting from co-existence towards genocide, as industrialization accelerates deforestation (among other factors).

Oh the Mongols... always the exception...

 

[Thomas Bowman]

Except that this neglects the capacity of both the Native American's and the Settler's to reason. I think that both sides will fairly quickly understand the inherent conflict of usage. Also, that within both societies there will be segments which look either to antagonism or to conciliation.

Thx!
TomB

Yes, that happened, there were farmers and settlers who tried to understand the Indian's point of view and tried to negotiate a compromise, but there were many others who did not, and it only takes a few to start a conflict, and there were many thousands of these farmers and Indians, some of them were hot heads, and once the conflict got started, others were forced to choose sides. Its kind of hard for the other farmers to side with the Indians when those Indians tend to shoot them on site, the same is true of the Indians siding with the farmers, if a farmer just sees a "red indian" and has been attacked by them in the past, the easiest thing for him to do is shoot Indians on site. its like mixing two chemicals together and getting a reaction.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

My point is that its not obvious to a family of farmers that an apparently unoccupied piece of land is actually some nomadic tribe's hunting ground, and they make their decision assuming the land is unoccupied as there are no signs posted telling them other wise, and once they put the work into the land, clearing it and building a farm house, they are reluctant to leave. Wouldn't you be?

Under most circumstances, agriculturalists and hunter-gatherers are generally familiar with each others' territories and habits before the conflict starts. It is very rare for farmers to move into new land honestly ignorant that hunter-gatherers hunt and gather there. As I said, it might actually have been the case with the Norse, as they came over in very small numbers with very little information. But by the time white settlers started driving wagon trains into the American interior, they were, I am reasonably confident, aware that Indians existed. The "practical problem" was not that the Indians were unable to post informational signs, but rather that they were unable to post armed guards.

 

[Gradine]

Under most circumstances, agriculturalists and hunter-gatherers are generally familiar with each others' territories and habits before the conflict starts. It is very rare for farmers to move into new land honestly ignorant that hunter-gatherers hunt and gather there. As I said, it might actually have been the case with the Norse, as they came over in very small numbers with very little information. But by the time white settlers started driving wagon trains into the American interior, they were, I am reasonably confident, aware that Indians existed. The "practical problem" was not that the Indians were unable to post informational signs, but rather that they were unable to post armed guards.

And this holds even if the "understandable miscommunication" fantasy that Mr. Bowman has continued to peddle actually represented reality in North America, which again it did not, as many aboriginal North American tribes had long since developed agricultural practices including farming. To the extent that there was any misunderstanding at all it came to differing cultural norms regarding land use and ownership. But even this is more complicated than it is often presented, as "Native American" represents a multitude of different cultures representing vast gulfs in cultural norms (keep in mind that the United States alone is roughly 97% the land-mass of Europe, to say nothing of Canada, Mexico, and Central and Southern America). And also the fact that parts of England still have available commons to this day, so the English colonists cannot exactly claim ignorance to the notion of communal land rights.

 

[Riley37]

My point is...

I understand the dynamics you describe, in that scenario. *If* I accepted your scenario as a typical example, then I'd be closer to agreeing with your larger judgements.

You ask "Wouldn't you be?" for whether I identify with the farmer, and not for whether I identify with the nomad. You show a relatable moment among the farmers, zooming in on a shrug interaction between husband and wife. You don't zoom in on the nomads the same way, such as a nomad child asking her mother "Who are these people on our winter lands? Is it safe to play with their children?"

Do you think of the farmers as speaking your native language? perhaps they're even your very distant relatives?

Anyways.

My main question remains unanswered. Here is my main question. If you can't answer it, then I might as well go chat with birthers and Flat Earth podcasters.

Do you get that story, that scenario, from popular culture, such as Lone Ranger episodes, or from evidence-based historical accounts, or somewhere else?

 

[Thomas Bowman]

Under most circumstances, agriculturalists and hunter-gatherers are generally familiar with each others' territories and habits before the conflict starts. It is very rare for farmers to move into new land honestly ignorant that hunter-gatherers hunt and gather there. As I said, it might actually have been the case with the Norse, as they came over in very small numbers with very little information. But by the time white settlers started driving wagon trains into the American interior, they were, I am reasonably confident, aware that Indians existed. The "practical problem" was not that the Indians were unable to post informational signs, but rather that they were unable to post armed guards.

Alright, so American settlers went west so they could wipe out Indians because they liked killing people so much, and they were all evil! Is that what you are trying to say?

 

[Thomas Bowman]

I understand the dynamics you describe, in that scenario. *If* I accepted your scenario as a typical example, then I'd be closer to agreeing with your larger judgements.

You ask "Wouldn't you be?" for whether I identify with the farmer, and not for whether I identify with the nomad. You show a relatable moment among the farmers, zooming in on a shrug interaction between husband and wife. You don't zoom in on the nomads the same way, such as a nomad child asking her mother "Who are these people on our winter lands? Is it safe to play with their children?"

Do you think of the farmers as speaking your native language? perhaps they're even your very distant relatives?

Anyways.

My main question remains unanswered. Here is my main question. If you can't answer it, then I might as well go chat with birthers and Flat Earth podcasters.

Do you get that story, that scenario, from popular culture, such as Lone Ranger episodes, or from evidence-based historical accounts, or somewhere else?

So what do you say the settler's motivation was then, to make human sacrifices to the Devil? Did they just like to fill Indians full of holes. So what exactly turned them into evil monsters that wanted to kill kill kill?

 

[Thomas Bowman]

And this holds even if the "understandable miscommunication" fantasy that Mr. Bowman has continued to peddle actually represented reality in North America, which again it did not, as many aboriginal North American tribes had long since developed agricultural practices including farming. To the extent that there was any misunderstanding at all it came to differing cultural norms regarding land use and ownership. But even this is more complicated than it is often presented, as "Native American" represents a multitude of different cultures representing vast gulfs in cultural norms (keep in mind that the United States alone is roughly 97% the land-mass of Europe, to say nothing of Canada, Mexico, and Central and Southern America). And also the fact that parts of England still have available commons to this day, so the English colonists cannot exactly claim ignorance to the notion of communal land rights.

Hunting grounds look like unoccupied wilderness, while a farm looks like a farm. How are the settlers supposed to know which are hunting grounds and which are not? If there are no Indians there, there is no one to tell them what is what. And English commons aren't the same thing as hunting grounds.

 

[pemerton]

Double post deleted.