Using evidence from your notes/textbook, Primary Source Readings, and Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs and Steel," and any other outside knowledge, defend your position on the following question:
Does the drastic drop in Native American populations constitute Genocide?
You must post at least once by Tuesday night and interact with your classmates.
Link to Guns, Germs, and Steel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgYZ6gfqslQ
Use evidence!
25 points.
I argue that no, the drop in Native American populations was not generally genocide. There were instants when it most likely was genocide (eg that guy that killed all the mayans for misunderstanding christianity) but the demographic change as a whole was not all genocide. A genocide is defined as the deliberate killing of a large group of people, esp. those of a particular ethnic group or nation. About 1/3 of the population in some of these societies died from diseases such as smallpox. The Spaniards probably did not intentionally give the natives smallpox, it was just an effect of the Columbian exchange. Not only that, but originally many of the settlements in the new world used Native Americans as laborers. The encomienda system relied on the use of the natives for mining and farm work. It is illogical to purposefully kill off people that are of one race, when you are already using that race for labor. Importing african slaves may have been cheap but using the indigenous peoples was cheaper. So purposefully killing people because of their ethnic background in this instance makes no sense. Also, but if the native american races were so hated that the Spaniards felt it necessary to commit genocide against them, there would not be as many Mestizos as there were. Why breed with a race you're trying to destroy? It just makes no sense. I am not saying that what the Spanish and other europeans did was right, because it obviously was not, but I do not think that the drop in populations can be wholly considered genocide if you look at the definition and think about it logically.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Jen that the drastic drop in the Native American population was not genocide. There were many factors that led to the decline in the Native American population. The Spaniards didn’t want to kill the Native Americans in the first place. They wanted to convert the Native Americans to Christianity, because they thought that they could come to a peaceful agreement with the Natives by doing so. In the film, as Jen mentioned, it was only through a language barrier and some misunderstandings that caused the Spaniards to kill off the Native Americans. When the Spaniards first came into the new world, they brought along all sorts of diseases along with them. These diseases originated from animals raised in Europe. Although the Spaniards were infected with these diseases, they did not die from them as they gain immunity because they spent most of their lives with these diseases. The Native Americans never had livestock like the ones in Europe, so they never had much contact with animals. As a result, they didn’t have any immunity to any of the new diseases that the Spaniards brought with them. As the population of the Native Americans drastically dropped, the Spaniards had to bring slaves from Africa to provide the labor that the needed for the new world. However, the African slaves were infected by small pox and they helped to contribute the population decline for the Native Americans as they also didn’t have any immunity towards small pox.
DeleteI agree with Destinee and Jen. The Spanish did not come to the Americas with deliberate intentions to kill off all of the Natives, and they did not decide after they arrived in the Americas to kill off all of the Natives. The Spanish came to America looking to start a new colony that they could profit from, but the Natives did not want to work for the Spanish or convert to their religion so they rebelled. The Spanish were then forced to suppress them. Genocide is deliberate and planned mass murder. The Spanish did not plan to kill the Natives when suppressing them, nor did they plan to infect the population with small pox. The Spanish also didn’t know that so many natives would die by enforcing the encomiendas and the mita system. If these labor systems are considered the cause of a Spanish genocide then we would also have to consider every other labor system similar to these a genocide as well, including slavery. Labor systems are meant to benefit the economy and usually people have to pay a price to keep the people working the labor systems alive and well. As Jen said, why would someone deliberately kill hundreds of people if they had to pay for them and they benefit anyway?
DeleteI agree with Jen, the reduction of the Native American populous was not genocide. They attacked them, not because of their race, but rather because they had land that was valued by the Spanish. What the Spanish did was no different than attacking any other country; it just so happens that the country they attacked was so isolated, and the gene pool so homogeneous, that the entire country happened to be comprised of said race. It had nothing to do with the systematic destruction of a race, but rather the conquest of newly discovered land and resources. The Spanish saw the peoples as weak and nonmilitant, but this does not mean that they killed the Native Americans because they saw the race itself as inferior, but rather saw these traits as an opportunity to take advantage and control these people. Furthermore, much of the death came from diseases that the Spanish had developed an immunity towards and were transmitted unwittingly by the Spanish. The Spanish did not commit genocide by killing the Native Americans, but did so because they wanted the land and resources that they had.
DeleteI disagree with all the posts here. I believe that what happened to the Native Americans was in fact genocide. The main point I would like to bring up is how Jen, Destinee, and Liam are all saying that the diseases did most of the killing, so how is that genocide if it is from a lack of immunity? It is genocide because the Native Americans did not have to deal with such widespread disease before the Europeans came over and wreaked dirty havoc. For instance, the Jews who died of disease and starvation in the ghettos are counted among the victims of the Holocaust, and it would be ridiculous to not call that a genocide either. Indians who died of introduced diseases were as much the victims of this genocidal war as were those burned, stabbed or shot to death. Regardless of whether it be from massacres, disease, labor etc., the population went from the millions down to around 250,000, and that is why it should be considered genocide.
DeleteAccording to the exact definition, genocide is the deliberate destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group. Thus, I believe the drastic drop in Native American populations should not be considered genocide, as the Europeans did not migrate over to the Americas to deliberately kill the natives. The Spanish came over to spread Christianity, and seek gold and other success. They brought along disease and animals that were unintentionally responsible for many deaths of the natives. The resistance to convert to Christianity was their reason for killing so many of the natives; “Christians only kill in the heat of the battle”, as mentioned in the “Guns, Germs, and Steel” video. The Spaniards were outnumbered as well, which put them in a defensive position. They were defending their own beliefs, as well as their origins in Europe. Overall, the Europeans did not purposefully cause the death of the natives in a way of mass destruction; meaning the decrease in native population cannot be considered genocide.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Julia that it was not a genocide purely because it does not fit the definition of a genocide. Most of the natives who died perished from diseased which were not brought over deliberately. The Spanish had no knowledge of germs and immunity so that alone shows how the mass deaths of the natives was not a genocide but the unfortunate combination of livestock being brought over and the Natives not having immunity. The Spaniards used many of the natives as laborers so there would be no point in killing them off, because it would have been far more economical to use them for labor. They instead had to bring africans to the Americas when it would have been far easier and cheaper for them to use the locals. The Natives they killed in battle was for the purpose of Christianity. They did not deliberately kill them, because if the natives would have understood the language better, they could have more easily submitted to Christianity and avoided all these battles. Also, these battle were fought to technically "defend" Christianity and they were on the defensive. While the Spanish committed many atrocities and killed many natives, due to the definition this can not be considered a genocide.
DeleteI disagree with Julia and Spencer. While a lot of the Native Americans died from diseases brought over from the Europeans, which does not qualify as a genocide since the Europeans did not deliberately do this; the Spaniards did deliberately kill Native Americans for not converting to Christianity. I don’t understand how you can argue that that was not genocide because it was in defense of Christianity. It was not a defensive move; they were killing the Native Americans, not the other way around. Plus, even if it was in so-called “defense” of Christianity, the Spaniards did not accidentally kill them, they did it on purpose, so it is still a genocide due to the deliberation of it. Its being a “defensive” action does not make not deliberate. Genocide is defined as “the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation” and since the Spaniards killed many Native Americans simply because they did not convert to Christianity, which often was due to a misunderstanding between the two languages, that in my mind makes it a genocide.
DeleteThe Spaniards killed a large group of Native Americans based on religion, and arguably language, making their actions a genocide.
I disagree and think the mass killings by the Europeans can be considered a genocide. The argument that the disease eliminated 1/3 of the native population can be taken out of the equation when looking purely at the murders of the Christians. Even with the rapid decline due to disease, the Europeans were still heavily outnumbered. Also, even though the Spaniards didn’t come with the intent to kill a mass number of the natives, they still did. When the natives refused to convert to Christianity, they immediately engaged in battle. The natives barely had a chance to even understand the Europeans and their desires to gain converts due to such differences in culture and language. With the arising of the Mestizo population, this too is irrelevant to the topic of genocide. Just because some of the Europeans bonded with the natives, there was still a large enough population that continued the mistreatment. Looking at the definition of genocide being the systematic extermination of a race, they committed this both through the murders and labor. The forced labor can be taken into account under genocide because it lead to the death of many natives.
ReplyDeleteJen, I disagree with you. I don’t believe the Spanish intended to wipe out 1/3 of the population of the natives. This was not a genocide, the Spanish were just simply greedy and wanted gold and more land to control. They unintentionally brought diseases, like smallpox, and while these diseases had a major impact on the natives it was not the Spanish’s intention to infect all these people. The Spanish wanted the natives to be healthy so that they could use them as laborers. It is true, as Jen said, that the Spanish did engage in battle, but the only reason the natives went into battle was to defend their religion. Also, natives only lost so many lives because the Spanish had the upper hand. The Spanish had much better weapons than any natives, especially the swords we saw in the film on Friday. Without this difference, the loss of natives would not have been so great. The Spanish treated the natives horribly, but the population decrease wasn’t a genocide.
DeleteI agree with Kate. Genocide is defined as the "the deliberate killing of people who belong to a particular racial, political, or cultural group" by Merriam-Webster's dictionary. The United Nations agrees with this definition, as genocide must include the intent and the action of killing a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group of people. While the Spanish did bring a massive drop of the Native American population, the drop in population was by no means intentional. As we learned with the coercive labor systems presentation, the Spanish's intent was to increase their wealth by mining for gold and silver. Therefore, it would be illogical for them to intentionally kill the natives. Although the conditions were horrible and inhuman, they were not to intentionally kill the people, at least physically. The goal was to crush the spirits and hopes of the people so that they will work for the Spanish. Even though it would'be been illogical to kill the Native American population, say the Spanish did commit genocide. As a much more powerful nation, they would've easily been able to exterminate the Incas and other Native American nations. As stated in the video, the Spanish were masters of riding the horse into battle. The combination of their military skill and the sheer terror of a charging horse would've easily enabled the Spanish to kill the Incan population, like they did to the port city. However, they chose not to do so. Therefore, their actions prove that the Spanish did not have the intent to kill the entire Native American population, so by definition, the massive drop was not genocide.
DeleteI agree with jen and disagree with matt and kate. The diseases that the natives died from should not even be a part of this conversation. That part was obviously unintentional and could not have been prevented. Also, the years of war to take over the natives shouldn’t be an argument against genocide. What should be looked at is the time that the Spanish controlled the natives. Disease and conquest aside, I believe that it still constitutes genocide. The Spanish did kill the natives in an attempt to convert them to Christianity. We learned that in class. And you cant consider that a war because for the most part, the natives didn’t fight that religious conversion. The Spanish only targeted natives. That is one race and for the most part one religion. It seems like it fits within the definition of genocide to me. In response to matt specifically, genocide doesn’t mean eradication. You can have genocide while still keeping a race alive. So I don’t think the profitability of keeping natives alive is an effective argument.
DeleteMatt, I disagree with you. The debate over whether the Spanish "targeted" Native Americans, I think, is not as important to the reasons WHY the Spanish targeted Native Americans. If the targeting was strictly based off of ethnicity then, I believe, the mass killing constitutes genocide. But if the targeting was based off of a need or desire for Native American resources then I do not believe it constitutes genocide. The question that I think we need to ask ourselves is: If the Native Americans gave the Europeans every resource they were looking for, would the Native America population still have dropped (disease aside)?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think that the huge drop in the Native American population should not be considered to be genocide. As most people have stated, the definition of genocide is when people purposely kill other people who belong to a certain cultural, political, or religious group. The Spaniards had some many resources available to them that wiping out the Native Americans completely was possible for them. There was the discovery of steel, the invention of rapiers, and European horses that enabled the Spaniards to be better fighters. If they had so much power, then why didn't they just simply kill off all of the Native Americans rather than some? It would have made it easier for them to take over the land by killing all of them, rather than killing some of the Native Americans, because then there wouldn't be any opposition. In addition, the film showed that the Spaniards tried to convert the Natives into Christianity, which would then make it easier for them to capture the land. However, that plan failed through language barriers and misunderstandings, which then caused the Spaniards to kill most of the Native Americans.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Destinee that the incredible drop in the Native American population should not be considered genocide. In order for that term to apply, the attackers must intentionally be trying to wipe out the population. In this case, most of the decline can be attributed to the introduction of diseases, namely smallpox, into the Native American environment, where they had not been able to build up any kind of tolerance. The other large execution of Native American numbers was when conquistadors, like Pizzaro, would come to convert the Native Americans and make them work for them. With their superior technology of swords and horses, it was easy for them to kill more than they had intended. They had gone into battle intimidated by the large numbers the Incans presented, expecting more retaliation than they were given. With the heat of the battle around them, it would have been easy to get carried away and easily kill more people than they had initially intended. The Spanish expected them to have technology similar to theirs, and often, they had gone into battle with a mindset that was not focused on just killing as many as it took to make their point and come away with them converting to Christianity and having them on their workforce. Which leads to the final point that with the Native Americans on their workforce and contributing to their religion, it would make no sense to start killing them en masse. It would damage the economy and hurt their attempt to find all the silver they could get their hands on. In the end, the mass killings of Native Americans can be attributed to disease and an over-calculation of the technology they possessed.
DeleteI disagree with Destinee's argument. If "the definition of genocide is when people purposely kill other people who belong to a certain cultural, political, or religious group," then killing a group of people for failing to convert to Christianity would fit into that category. The fact that the Spanish TRIED to convert the Native Americans first doesn't mitigate that when that failed, the Spaniards killed most of the Native Americans.
DeleteI do not believe that the massive decline of Native American populations can be considered a genocide. Although the Europeans did come over and intentionally kill many Native Americans, that wasn’t the main reason behind the population decline. Diseases brought over from Europe were the main reasons that caused mass death. I do not think that the Europeans and other settlers purposely brought over these diseases. It wouldn’t make sense for the conquerors to bring over an illness if they had the intentions of conquering these people and using them for labor. They would want as many healthy natives to use for labor systems. Therefore the population decline is not considered a genocide. The Europeans did not travel across the world to simply kill everyone they encountered.
ReplyDeleteAlso when you compare this situation to other known genocides it is clear that the population decline was not a genocide. Places such as Rwanda and Darfur are examples of genocide where people clearly killed people in mass due to ethnics or religious beliefs. In Darfur the government armed people to perform an ethnic cleansing of non-Arab peoples. Many people ventured over to the Americas not to kill people of other faiths, but to try and convert them. The original intent of many conquerors was not to kill thousands of people like a true genocide.
ReplyDeleteJames I completely agree with you, the Europeans did not targeted the Native Americans like the Nazis targeted the Jews, or as Pol Pot targeted Cambodians. The Native Americans just happened to be what stood between imperialistic Europeans and their coveted resources. The decline of the Native Americans came solely from the fact that they stood in the way of the contagious, violent, and more technologically advanced Europeans. The Native Americans justly, but inadvisably fought for their independence, and faced the consequences.
DeleteI agree with Destinee. I consider the mass population drop of the Native Americans not a genocide. The Spanish came with the intentions to spread Christianity, not mass genocide. Most natives died from the disease that the Spanish's animals brought with them to the New World. The natives did not have the immune systems that the Europeans have been building to animal diseases for the past couple centuries; Therefore, the diseases easily killed many natives. However, the encounter between the Spanish and Incas was a big misunderstanding due to the language barrier. Both sides planned to fight each other because the Incas believed that the Spanish invaded their land and the Spanish believed that the Incas would outnumber them and kill them. The Spanish won the battle because of their guns and steel swords. The guns scared the natives more than killed them, which gave the Spanish time to run at them and kill the natives with their swords. The Incas had no such weaponry because they were never exposed to such fine and durable material as steel. These factors, disease, guns, and steel, gave the spanish the edge to conquer and unintentionally kill many Native Americans.
ReplyDeleteI think by some definitions of the word, the drop in the population of Native Americans was genocide. The Latin meaning is “the killing or murdering of an entire tribe or people.” It does not specify whether the murder was intentional or not. By this definition, what the Spaniards did to the Native Americans was genocide. Although they weren’t necessarily there to kill them, it was because of them that so many Native Americans died. Genocide can also refer to the destruction of the culture of a group of people. The Spaniards forced assimilation on the Native Americans and that destroyed a lot of their culture. The biggest cause of death among the Native Americans was the diseases brought over by the Native Americans. This was not intentional but did result in widespread population decreases. Even though the Spaniards may not have wanted to kill so many Native Americans, they did and that can be considered genocide.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Emily, the intentions do not matter here. Even though the Spaniards did not come with the goal to murder, they still did. Although mainly through disease, an estimated amount of 8 million people were still killed. Their intention was to spread Christianity. The way they did that was through acts of brutality. They caused all these deaths. It does not matter if they originally wanted to or not, because it is what happened. They implemented the encomienda system where the working conditions were horrible and led to high death rates. Through this Spaniards forced the adoption of the Christian religion. Taking all this into account, I think the Spaniards should be seen as people who forced religious conversion, used slavery, and, through disease, committed genocide.
DeleteForgot to define. The encomienda system was a legal system was a regulation of the Native Americans. Basically, a certain number of Native Americans were under control and supervised by a certain person. It was basically slavery with a different name. It was granted by the Spanish crown. It prevented them from leaving their control for other groups/tribes.
DeleteI believe the intention of early Spanish explorers coming to America was not to commit genocide on the native peoples of South America. When Pizzaro came over in 1532 with 168 Spanish soldiers he did not intend to or expect to kill 80,000 Incans. Like most explorers Pizzaro, was searching for resources, both natural and human, and silver and gold to bring back to Spain. However by approaching the Incans in an aggressive way, fighting did break out and was responsible for many deaths. The Spanish soldiers advanced weapons technologies were too much for the Incans. The fighting alone did not cause tens of thousands of deaths though, there was a hidden force wiping out many lives. The Spanish brought disease with them. Animals not native to the Americas were wreaking havoc on Incan immune systems and the Spanish were not being affected as they had grown immune to their animals diseases. Disease became responsible for many more deaths then fighting of any kind. The population decrease was massive, killing between 10 and 20 million indigenous people according to newworldencyclopedia.com. Despite such a large number of deaths, many relationships between conquistadors and natives did not turn deadly. Most of the death that did occur was a result of Spanish allies in the Americas and disease that the explorers brought over so I do not believe the population decrease in the Americas can be considered genocide.
ReplyDeleteGenocide is defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary as "the deliberate killing of people who belong to a particular racial, political, or cultural group." The key word in this definition is deliberate. While obviously the slaughter after Ataxalpa (the Incan leader) disrespected the Bible was intentional, it is important to keep in mind that Ataxalpa had planned on trapping the Europeans so it is not entirely unjustified. Most native deaths were due to smallpox. Diamond's video reveals that smallpox was caused by the livestock, which the Europeans had built up an immunity to since they had been exposed all their lives but the natives had no such immunity since they were not around these livestock their whole lives. The Guns, Germs, and Steel page on PBS.org says, "Europeans were aided by a deadly secret weapon they weren't even aware they were carrying: Smallpox." Therefore, the massive drop in native population due to smallpox cannot be constituted as genocide, because it was not entirely intentional. The Europeans were not aware that they were carrying smallpox. It is estimated that the Europeans killed 95% of the natives, 90% of this due to smallpox. The Europeans did not know they were carrying smallpox so these deaths were not deliberate, therefore the massive decline in native population cannot be deemed genocide.
ReplyDeleteDavid I agree with you that the entire drop in Native American population was not a genocide. You have great facts that prove most of the killings were not intentional. The fact that they killed so many of them by disease makes it hard to count it as a genocide. On the other hand, I think there are parts of the killing that should be considered genocide material. That scene we watched in class where they just kill all those native Americans in combat was certainly genocide. I know they were partly defending themselves, but i think they could have gotten there point across and come across safely by kill A LOT less people. Also, some of the events that followed like the Europeans enslaving them and making them work and live in the conditions they did would be considered genocide, especially if those conditions led to the spread of disease. The other intentional way of killing they had like burning the Native Americans would be part of a genocide.
DeleteAustin and David, I respectfully disagree with your opinions. I think the wiping out of the natives of the Americas was genocide. The invaders intentionally attacked the Incan emperor and used no real forms of diplomacy. By sending a scouting party and trying to use intimidation to scare off the emperor shouldn't be counted as diplomacy. Ataxalpa disrespected the religious figure carrying the bible, but just because he didn't convert and agree with Catholicism doesn't make it right for the Spanish to launch an attack. I think that the Europeans could've helped fight the spread of smallpox more and bring prior knowledge about the disease to help save as many natives as possible. The Spanish intentionally attacked the Incans and did nothing when their disease wiped out mass amounts of natives.
DeleteI think David is right that the key word of this debate is deliberate. While the Spanish did deliberately massacre some groups of Native Americans, and did deliberately disrespect the indigenous faith, and did deliberately enslave the population, the introduction of smallpox was an accident. Considering germ theory had not been invented and Europeans, for the most part, didn't really know how to deal with disease, I have to disagree with James for blaming the Spanish for not helping to cure the Natives. I think we can pardon the conquistadors from the moral crimes they didn't mean to commit, considering how much they did do deliberately.
DeleteI agree with James that the Spaniards committed genocide. Even though they did not deliberately bring germs to infect the natives with smallpox, they still slaughtered the natives for religious reasons. In the video the Spanish slaughtered the Incas because they disrespected their religion. They claimed that they only killed "in the heat of the battle" but they would have killed the entire civilization if the Incas continued to disrespect Christianity. However, I think it's unfair to bring up smallpox as a factor contributing to genocide. The Spaniards obviously didn't know that they would expose this disease to the natives, but there other actions definitely constituted as genocide.
DeleteI believe that the drop in Native American populations does constitute genocide. Genocide, by definition, is the deliberate killing of large amounts of people. As seen in “Guns, Germs and Steel,” the Spanish had no problem killing a large amount of Incans right off the bat. Although, yes, they might have seen scared, the natives were unarmed. The Spanish began massacring them after they ‘rejected’ Christianity, not because the native threatened their lives. In “A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies,” de la Casas says that “Spaniards still do nothing save tear the natives to shreds, murder them and inflict upon them untold misery, suffering and distress, tormenting, harrying and persecuting them mercilessly.” The author goes on to talk about how the natives were treated with less kindness that animals, and how the Spaniards fed the natives “a diet of robbery, murder, violence and all other manner of trials and tribulations.” It’s clear that the newcomers didn’t do any good for the natives and only worked against them. They also didn’t think very long about killing a large amount of people if they thought that they had a good reason. Many Mayans were killed when they were discovered worshipping the devil, even though the tragedy could have been easily avoided. Furthermore, native populations were subjected to slavery and forced labor. Although on the surface this doesn’t look like genocide, many of the men sent to work were sent to work until they died. The mita system, in particular, was designed so that once a person started working, they were there until death. The Spaniards were sending people to work until they died. Although the Spaniard’s main concern was gold, they were conscious of the fact that these men were being sent to their death, so I think that that’s deliberate enough. As for disease, I think it’s inappropriate to bring that up. Although it is estimate to have killed 95% of the natives, the Spanish didn’t mean to bring it over, and there’s no way of knowing what they would have done if they have that many more natives to put to work. There is a possibility that the natives would have just been killed during slavery as well.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Lauren that the major drop in Native American population does count as genocide and I agree with only some of the fact Jen Storm mentioned earlier. The deaths that were caused by smallpox and other European illnesses cannot be continued as genocide like Jen stated earlier because the Spaniards weren’t purposely spreading the illness. However, they were still killing a mass population of people of a specific group. Many of the Native Americans who worked as slaves were forcefully converted to Christianity. The Europeans knew that the Native Americans would die as slaves and were just using the man labor to benefit themselves. Also, the mix race children were brought up earlier as proof against genocides but I believe that fact has no place in this argument. Those children were born because the Europeans were bored while they worked that Native Americans to death. Not because they wanted to grow the population again. Holodomor is considered genocide even though most of the drop of population is from taking away a majority of Ukraine’s food source. While the countries involved didn’t directly kill the Ukrainians they are still held accountable because they mistreated and abused a large group just like the Spaniards did to the Native Americans.
DeleteI find most of the arguments made to be agreeable; all are arguments of definition that are well supported. While a majority of the native deaths can be perceived as accidental, such as those from disease, the rest are undoubtedly due to genocide. There is no way Cortes and Pizarro accidentally wiped out the two largest, New World empires. As a result of the combination of genocidal and non-genocidal killings of the native population associated with the arrival of the Europeans, I propose that the deaths of the natives were purely a result of natural selection, an extension of Darwin's theory of evolution. Only the fittest survive, and those that succumbed to disease or were simply not part of a society fit to thrive in a rapidly modernizing world were eliminated. To support this claim, I would like to exemplify the survivors of the European incursion. Natives that survived the guns, germs, and steel integrated themselves into their conquered societies, even influencing the developments of the societies. They had children with their conquerors, created a unique, new-found culture with their conquerors, and ultimately flourished beside their conquerors. Natives with the best genes to perpetuate and diversify the human gene pool survived, while their less-so-fortunate colleagues were purposefully slaughtered and accidentally eliminated, succumbing to disease. Therefore, the drastic drop of the natives can be considered genocidal to a degree, although I believe the main reason for the drop was the national selection associated with new, human interaction.
ReplyDelete