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 am going to argue no, what the Europeans did to the Native Americans does not constitute Genocide. The definition of genocide is the systematic killing of all the people from a national, ethnic, or religious, or an attempt to do so. According to the “Guns, Germs, and Steel” episode we watched during class, it is estimated up to 95% percent of the Native Americans died because of Old World diseases (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgYZ6gfqslQ#t=2964). I highly doubt that the Europeans knew what they were doing when they infected the Native Americans with small pox. They didn’t “systematically” bring the disease over to wipe out the Native populations. It was simply terrible luck. The Native Americans had no immunity built up to the germs that the Europeans had been exposed to for generations. Because such a large part of the population was basically killed accidentally, I don’t think that this could be considered Genocide. That’s not to say that the Europeans killed many Natives for religious reasons, but the majority died from disease.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jose in that it should not be considered genocide. The fact that specifically such a high percentage of natives died because of disease and not anything else does not particularly satisfy the dictionary definition of being “deliberate.” The Europeans did not deliberately spread disease and if anything were most likely unaware of the biological impact of their arrival. If more natives had died from deliberate specific actions of Europeans deigned to kill them I would be more willing to accept the drastic drop of population as genocide. In a more vernacular sense of the word genocide, I think the drop of native population is easily attributed to the Spanish and can be categorized as a genocide. This simple cursory view of the issue though does not take into account the Europeans intentions and why the Natives populations actually dropped so as i stated earlier I do believe that it does not constitutive a genocide.
DeleteI agree that, although so many Native Americans died, it cannot be considered genocide. The Europeans first came over to spread Christianity, not kill the Incas. I agree with Joe and Eric about the accidental spread of old world diseases like small pox that the Europeans brought over. As Jared Diamond said, the Incas simply were not immune to the diseases because they did not have domesticated animals such as cows and horses before the Europeans came. Rather than genocide, I think the encounter can just be categorized as a trial to convert that turned into a war. The “Guns, Germs, and Steel” episode also stated that, “any encounter with the Indians is a clash of culture.” This clash of culture ultimately led to a war that the Europeans won for a couple of reasons: they were making steel while the Indians made bronze, they used horses to their advantage, and they launched a surprise attack on the Indians. The spread of disease, which was what ended up killing most of the Native Americans, was unintentional.
DeleteI disagree with Joe, Eric and Kayce. I argue that the death of the Native Americans was a genocide that the Europeans committed. The definition of genocide is the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group. Even though the diseases killed many Native Americans, the Europeans massacred lots of Natives as well. The Europeans went around enslaving and killing Natives. This act falls into the deliberate extermination of a racial group category. As for the systematic part, the Europeans either forced the Natives into hard labor which led to their deaths or burned them to death. Also, one of the synonyms for genocide is mass murder. You say "potato," I say "patato." You say "genocide," I say "mass murder." In essence, the enormous amount of Native deaths caused by the Europeans is considered genocide because the Europeans mass murdered all of them using their superior military technology.
DeleteI do not think that the depopulation of Native Americans should be considered genocide. The Europeans came to the Americas looking for gold and silver. The intention was never to murder a large number of natives, rather the Europeans simply aspired to acquire more wealth and thus more world power. Guns, Germs, and Steel shows Pizarro and his men traveling through the Andes, unsure who they would encounter. When they saw the large Incan army, the video notes that the Spanish spent the night in great fear. This shows that the Spanish were not expecting, nor hoping, they would encounter so many native people in the new world. When they did, they didn't have much of a choice but to fight, because if they hadn't, they all would have been slaughtered by the Incan forces. The video explains that the Incas tried to lure the Spanish into their city and kill them. The Spanish never meant to create violence, but the situation unfortunately required such violent resistance. As Joe noted, the video states that 95% of natives died due to disease, an unfortunate event that the Spanish never could have predicted. This certainly does not constitute anything "systematic" in my opinion. Unfortunately, the circumstances that the Spanish encountered in the new world created a hostile atmosphere that wound up requiring intense violence. However, I do not believe that the Spanish came to the new world with the malicious intent to systematically murder such a large number of natives.
DeleteI agree with Adam, Eric, Kayce and Joe in the fact that the deaths of the Native Indians should not be considered genocide. When the Spanish came to the New World, they were inspired by the three G’s: God, Glory and Gold. This means that they wanted to be good Christians, become famous, and of course rich. Therefore, when the Spanish encountered the Native Indians they believed it was their mission to convert these people to Christianity. Nevertheless, if the Indians refused, the Spanish sometimes used force, like Pizarro and his men had against the Incas after Pizarro’s priest confronted Atahualpa. Additionally, the Spanish killed an estimate of 10% of the New World, while the diseases that they brought accounted to about 90% (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/995/why-did-so-many-native-americans-die-of-european-diseases-but-not-vice-versa). As stated in the statistics, more Indians died from the disease, or small pox, than weapons. Why were the diseases so fatal? The Indians did not have the same historic connection with foreign animals like the Old World had for thousands of years (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgYZ6gfqslQ). This resulted in the Indians having no vaccine for the deadly diseases, killing off the Indians with incredible speed. Even though the Europeans may have brought death to the Native Indians, only a handful were actually killed by gun and sword. That is why the depopulation of the Native Indians cannot be viewed as a genocide.
DeleteI believe that the drastic drop in Native American populations does constitute genocide. I have to disagree with Eric and Adam in that the murders were not deliberate. I don’t deny that epidemic disease was the cause for a majority of deaths, or even that Europeans did not come to the Americas wanting to kill thousands of people. However, superior gun and sword technology, as well as never-before-seen horses, made Europeans murdering machines. In the video, Pizzaro’s men met Atahualpa’s army and ruthlessly murdered every single man with unnecessary brute force, just to assert dominance. If such a small force of Spanish conquistadors could take out a whole army, they could easily conquer whole American empires by using force and advanced technologies to instill fear.
DeleteAlong with Nick and Jenn, I think that the drastic drop in Native population consists of genocide. Many people brought up the point that most of the natives died not from the Europeans, but from disease. However, I believe these deaths caused by those diseases that the Europeans brought should count as deaths caused by the Europeans. The Jewish people that died of disease and other factors in concentration camps are still counted as victims of the Holocaust genocide, and so should the Natives in this situation. The Europeans could have helped the Natives by providing vaccinations, but they did not. Instead, they went ahead and slaughtered the rest of the Natives that were not afflicted by disease, creating even more deaths. These deaths caused by the European’s lack of action, along with their deliberate killings of non-converters shown in the video, make the drastic drop in Native population genocide.
DeleteI believe that determining if the drastic drop in Native American populations constitutes Genocide mostly depends on your interpretation of the word genocide. If you believe the spread of European diseases like small pox qualifies as intentional murder then it definitely counts as genocide, especially because almost 95% of the Native American deaths were caused by disease. Also the Europeans success could potentially be contributed to their superior weaponry, literary heritage, and their “cute horsies” (Mallon 176). If you believe the spread of disease was simply a mistake then it definitely does not count as genocide because such a small percentage of the decline of the Natives was caused by things other than disease.
DeletePersonally, I think it does qualify as genocide because regardless if the spread of disease was intentional, it still wiped out an entire population. “No medieval force, no matter how bloodthirsty, could have achieved such enormous levels of genocide Instead, Europeans were aided by a deadly secret weapon they weren't even aware they were carrying: Smallpox.” (http://www.pbs.org/gunsgermssteel/variables/smallpox.html).
In my opinion, I don't think that the drastic drop in the Native Americans population constitutes genocide. As Kayce mentioned, the primary intentions of the Europeans was to spread Christianity. I also agree with Eric, that the spread of disease wasn't on purpose, nor was it expected. Europeans lived relatively close to many domesticated animals, which eventually led them to taking in and even eating all of the germs that these animals let out. Therefore, when the Europeans arrived, they were already carrying the germs but didn't realize since they were immune to it. Although the result of this action led to the death of many Native Americans, I don't think it should be consider genocide unless it was done on purpose.
DeleteI do not believe that the drop in Native American populations does constitute genocide. Genocide is defined as the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group. I do not believe that the Europeans had the intent of killing the Native Americans, they just wanted to conquer them and exact control over the region. Many of the deaths resulted from the spread of diseases like smallpox which was entirely uncontrollable and unintentional. The Europeans actually wanted the natives to survive so that they could utilize their labor to bring them wealth. Although many Native Americans died, the decline in population does not constitute genocide because it was not intentional.
DeleteI'm going to be that guy that takes both sides. Well, mostly, I am siding with Nick and saying that it WAS a genocide. However, not all aspects of the deaths of the Native Americans can be considered genocide. Many of the recorded Native American deaths were due to their enslavement or brutal murder by the Europeans. This is a large-scale act of violence with the intention to kill many people. So that right there is definitely genocide. This is especially poignant because many argue the Europeans had no intention of spreading Christianity and therefore have no need to leave the Natives alive (aside from slave labor). However, the number of those deaths is extremely minute compared to the deaths that were NOT genocide. These deaths are the ones caused by disease. This could not have been foreseen and therefore I think THIS part of the expansion is not genocide. In summary, although the Europeans only forcefully and systematically murdered only 10% of the Native Americans that died, it is still enough to say that they sought to disrupt the demography of the region for racial or economic reasons. Therefore, the European expansion WAS genocide, just not to as great a level as it may seem.
DeleteAnother quick note: whats to say the Europeans would not have murdered the other 90% anyway? Maybe they viewed it as lucky that illness did the dirty work for them.
DeleteI have to agree with Greg’s position. There is no “correct” position because while the Europeans came with the intention to spread Christianity and gather resources for their motherland, they spread diseases that wiped out the Natives. The diseases were probably unintentional, since the Europeans probably didn’t have an understanding of how foreign diseases destroy a group of people who have never been exposed to it. However, it’s illogical to deny that the Europeans did not kill large amounts of Natives. As Nick and Greg pointed out, most of the deaths were from the Europeans’ brutal treatment of the Natives. I feel like in history, everyone tries to play the Natives as the victims. But as we saw in the video, the Incan king (whose name I shall not try to spell because I will more than likely butcher it…) tried luring in some Europeans into a trap as a show of force. He lost that battle because he decided to parley with the Europeans without armed men and he was overconfident.
DeleteI think it's difficult to determine whether or not it was a genocide because that term implies that the action was wrong. I can completely understand many people's view points that the Europeans were actually trying to spread Christianity, utilize labor, and gain wealth.
DeleteThe intention wasn't to kill off the Natives. But in reality, the intention isn't really what matters. They DID kill off the Natives. Maybe not intentionally, but they did. That's why I don't think the action was a "genocide," but it was definitely a large scale loss.
It also depends on your standpoint - if you are part Native American and your great great grandfather was killed by the European spread of smallpox, you will probably consider it to be a genocide. If you don't have any relationship to the event, like me, you'll probably agree that it was terrible and unfortunate, but no, it wasn't genocide.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI side with everyone who is stating that this is not a genocide. An event can not be considered a genocide simply because a lot of people from a certain group were killed. To be a genocide, the mass murder must be intentional and that was not the case for this incident. It would have been pointless for the Europeans to kill so many natives because they made up the majority of their labor force. Also, the true intentions of the Europeans were to gain wealth and spread Christianity. Their expansion wasn't peaceful and a lot of people were killed but that happens almost every time a group tries to expand in other places. Also, as we learned in the documentary, more than 90% of the natives' deaths were due to an illness that Europeans had developed immunity to. In conclusion this was not a genocide because the intentions were to kill, they were to expand power and culture.
ReplyDeleteI think the depopulation of the Native Americans was not a genocide, and I think Corinne brought up a good point about the Europeans having no reason in killing the Natives. In Diarion de Abordo by Christopher Columbus, Columbus does express how he feels superior towards the Natives and how he looks down on them. However, as we discussed in class, he only showed interest in using them as work force and converting them to Christianity. No where in the article he showed intention to murder the Americans. I think the word "accidental" would be a bit inappropriate since the Europeans were aware of the effect of the labor on the Americans, but I think because everything was not done specifically in order to kill the Americans, it should not be called genocide.
DeleteI agree with Corinne and Yuna that the decrease in the Native American population was not a genocide. As many people have already stated, the Europeans intended to expand and gain wealth. The deaths of most of the natives were unfortunate because they dies from a disease that plagued the society, but the Europeans were immune. As Corinne said, the expansion was not peaceful, but aggression and persistence is necessary when one group of people tries to expand and dominate over another.
DeleteI agree with Corrine that it was not genocide because the death of most of the Native American population was not intentional. Genocide is defined as the systematic extermination of a group of people due to their race, religion, or political beliefs. There was nothing systematic about how the Spanish wiped out the Natives with disease; it was all merely a (convenient) accident for the Spanish. I agree with what has been said about the Spanish being anything but peaceful. However, making the Natives sick was not a purposeful act of violence.
DeleteI agree with what seems to be the majority of people here that the depopulation of the natives was not a genocide. I believe this because despite the fact that the Europeans killed many of the natives, most of their killing was for military purposes and not the true definition of genocide which is a extermination of a people based on race, etc. I also believe that it was not a genocode because most of the deaths of the natives were caused by disease, which was not necessarily spread on purpose. Therefore, I would not consider the deaths of the natives in the Americas a genocide.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI have conflicting views on this question. On one hand, as Corinne said, I do believe that a genocide must be intentional and that the Europeans did not directly kill the Native Americans. On the other hand, the Europeans were quite abusive and impassive about the deaths of the Native Americans. Even though farm animals were the cause for disease, according to the film we watched in class, the Europeans came to the New World and began to spread multiple diseases, one being small pox. I do consider the uprising of an epidemic to be genocide because the Europeans could have helped the Native Americans, yet they did not. Additionally, as Yuna said, the killing of a Native American general for gold is very close to Genocide. Although genocide is a mass murdering of a large number of people, the fact that Europeans would kill one of the most important Native American generals shows that the idea of genocide is present. If a high ranking general could be killed, so could the mass population of all the Native Americans. And even though Europeans wanted to instill the ideals of Christianity, which rejected murder, into the Native Americans, I think that the deliberate killing of high ranking officials accounts for genocide.
ReplyDeleteIt is really dishonest to say that the spread of disease constitutes genocide, at least when considering the Spanish conquest. Spaniards did indeed kill thousands and thousands more through their germs, but they never really made biological weapons their primary tool. Smallpox, a Eurasian illness, was not the traditional sword of the conquistador. Where the conquistador went wrong was it's conversion and torture methods. The thousands killed under the name of god is much more of a case for genocide than germ spreading because it was an active choice. What's that phrase we use, acculturation? Some of that must apply here. Apparently, modernization and change of culture comes at a deadly cost.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that the intent or goal of the conquistadors and other Spanish colonists was genocide. As previously stated, most of the Native population of the Incas was killed off by diseases from old world domestic animals and livestock. It may have made the task of conquering the Incas easier, but it was unintentional. Once the Spanish had Atahuallpa imprisoned, and the fear of the first attack had set in, the Inca were not destined to put up much of a fight. Although it was not forcefully pushed, the orders for the Conquistadors was to first try to convert the Natives. So by this fact, they were not looking for a war when traveling through South America. They were exploring for God, glory and country.
ReplyDeleteDrew i agree with you wholeheartedly. The conquistadors set out for three things gold, to spread christianity and to receive tremendous wealth. With wealth comes greed and with greed caused the conquistadors to act out of custom. Like many have said, the europeans did not come to these unsettled lands to give the indigenous populations small pox, the flu, or whatever other diseases permeated the region. They came to spread the word of god to the natives inhabiting whichever region they so chose. However every group of conquistadors was different in regards to the severity to which they converted. Some were rather lax on the issue where others were uptight and held the natives to gunpoint or in some cases tied them all to stakes and burned them. Like Joe stated genocide is the systematic killing of all the people from a national, ethnic, or religious standpoint. The conquistadors intentions were not to kill off mass numbers of native people. They simply went to capture gold and convert people to christianity. It isn't there fault that the natives were unwilling to compromise and thus because of that causes a multitude of people to claim that what the conquistadors did was genocide.
DeleteI agree with Drew here. The Spanish and other settlers had no knowledge of what pathogens they carried with them. It was these pathogens that killed around 90% of the native american population. Therefore they couldn't have committed genocide, which is defined as the systematic and widespread extermination or attempted extermination of an entire national, racial, religious, or ethnic group (google it). Additionally, like Drew mentioned, the Spanish came with a partial goal of converting natives to Christianity. As seen in the Guns Germs and Steel episode, the people were not killed if they converted. This, however, begs the question, "what if the natives refused to convert?" This is where the controversy begins. The non-converters were first tortured, aligning in style with the Spanish inquisition in mainland Europe, and then if they still withheld from Christianity, they were then killed. I believe that this, although murder, is not genocide, because the vast majority of natives converted eventually. The Spanish did not enter the Americas with a goal of killing the natives, they were looking to spread their religion and culture along with their conquests.
ReplyDelete