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’m not going to try to come up with a yes or no answer but rather analyze the implications of the question. Whether or not we choose to call the population decline a genocide, the fact that it happened is undeniable. Europeans came to the Americas in search of economic and political power, so they enslaved some native populations and killed many with weapons and disease.
ReplyDeleteWe can answer whether we want to call it a genocide or not but that will be decided by abstract interpretation of the definition of “genocide,” which has no impact on the real, physical events that transpired. Language is a human invention and is inaccurate, but it has to be for our convenience. Otherwise we’d have millions of words for one concept with slight differences. This is why Zen Buddhists don’t like using language; it conceals the entire truth.
Linguistic haranguing aside, here’s what we know: the Europeans wanted power, so they took it from other civilizations. By the time the Europeans came over to the Americas, this had been happening with empires for a long time. They didn’t intend to cause a genocide but just gain power. The American conquests are the same except disease caused more people to die. I don’t see this as any worse than any other empire taking over a civilization like before. In fact, it could be perceived as better because some priests wanted to help the natives and not all of the natives were ruthlessly slaughtered. When the Mongolians took over Persia, that was worse, wasn’t it?
My point is, it happened because that’s how life was back then. I don’t personally think “genocide” is a proper term when referring to empires but is more useful in the civilized world today where countries can’t kill each other without significant repercussions. But if we choose to label the American conquests a genocide, then that’s also fine and doesn't change what happened.
I agree with Dan in the fact that it happened. I think that is a statement of the utmost accuracy. Although Dan is also correct in saying that labels aren't historically important, I would classify this as not a genocide, because I'm a little less philosophical when I consider questions on blogs.
DeleteThe Europeans did not kill the native Americans with the express intent of killing the native Americans. They just wanted power and riches and really whatever. If a few native Americans died, eh, they could find some more somewhere anyway. But they never came over to specifically kill them. Abuse the hell out of them, maybe. But this was no genocide.
Also, in response to Dan's analysis that the actions taken by the Europeans were "undeniable," I find fault. Crazy people always find ways to deny things that definitely happened.
Actually it is undeniable because it clearly happened from statistics. One cannot deny it with an actual argument. Unless you are taking the definition to mean that one could possibly deny it regardless of whether they are accurate or not. But then anything would be deniable. But I guess that is the definition of deniable. Well, Merriam-Webster says it means "capable of being denied" while dictionary.com says "liable to be denied."
DeleteHmmm... If we trace the etymology of "deny" we get to a literal translation from Latin that says "to formally say 'no.’ " So I guess anyone is capable of doing that per se, but does capability imply correctness? I suppose I can concede to “deniable but only at the expense of ostracism from society on account of being a loony.”
But yeah I do like your idea that they just wanted power and weren't really concerned specifically with whether they would kill natives. You say they never came specifically to kill them, but I’d expand on that by saying they didn’t come specifically not to kill the natives either. When it comes to gaining political power, it seems they would generally remain indifferent to whether they should kill until it became a necessity. At that point, killing did become an intention.
Please don’t tell my Zen master about this post.
I think that it was not a genocide because mass population decrease was not the intent. Even if the Spanish's main goal was not to convert the Natives to Christianity, it wasn't to kill them all either. Variables, specifically small pox, were a huge factor that the Spanish didn't know they caused, though it killed an estimated 90% of Natives according to a Guns, Germs and Steel article. The Spanish didn't spread the virus knowing that it was going to wipe out huge populations of Native Americans. Since genocide is defined as a deliberate killing of a specific group of people, this decrease in population simply cannot be defined as such. The major cause of death was not weapons but rather a virus. In addition, the Spanish didn't want to kill all of the Native Americans. They were the labor force for the Spanish. Killing them would be counterintuitive. Whether human language is inaccurate of not, the present day human definition of genocide does not fit the Native American decrease in population.
ReplyDeleteJulia I agree with you completely. By definition this does not constitute genocide because it was in no way deliberate. While it is true that the Spanish did attack and take the lives of many natives, the number of deaths caused by disease brought over outweighs deaths caused by Spanish sword. The number of deaths by disease was so great because the Spanish were practically immune to it. In Guns, Germs, and Steel, it gives evidence that earlier in history Europeans were extremely prone to disease due to their frequent contact with domesticated farm animals like pigs and cattle. Over time, the individuals that were immune to these diseases survived and reproduced, creating generations of Europeans that are also immune. So as the Spanish went to Central and South America, the diseases the brought over were incredibly more deadly than any Spanish weapon. The natives were extremely vulnerable due to their lack of domesticated animals. As a result, the majority of deaths in the population decline of the Natives was due to disease. Because of this, the drastic drop cannot be classified as a genocide
DeleteI agree with Julia and Brendan that the drastic drop in Native Americans cannot be considered a genocide due to the definition of the word- a deliberate killing. The Europeans came to America with the intention of finding gold and silver and becoming wealthier, not to create brutality amongst the Native Americans. Killing the Native American's was in no way intentional, but rather caused by disease. On an article read online, it discusses that the government had no intention on mass killing of the Native Americans; rather, official leaders attempted to stop necessary fighting and ruthless behavior. It is found that infectious disease accounted for nearly 95% of the Native American's deaths, leaving a small number of deaths due to brutality. These diseases were brought from the Europeans, who had built immunities over the year because of their contact with domesticated animals. However, the Native Americans had never been in contact with these Old World diseases, having no genetic resistance to Smallpox, measles, and influenza. Although this drastic drop in Native Americans is tragic, it can in no way be considered an intentional genocide.
DeleteI also agree that it was not a genocide because most of the killing was done by pathogens. Also, when the Spanish did intend on killing them in fighting, they only managed to kill such large numbers because, as the video pointed out, the geography of Eurasia allowed for better military and metallurgy advancements. Since the Spanish were so advanced they easily defeated the Natives. Without significant casualties on their side, when they did outright fight there wasn't enough reason to stop.
DeleteI agree with what everyone is saying. I personally believe that the term genocide should be used to describe events before the time the word was coined (in the 20th century). Besides, the decline of the natives was mostly the fault of disease, not fighting. The Spanish unintentionally spread smallpox and had no idea they had it. In addition, the main goal of the Spanish was to convert and colonize, not kill. In fact, before the Spanish initiated the attack, they sent a catholic priest to convince the Inca emperor to convert and prevent bloodshed. Despite the greedy desire that the Spaniards possessed, the wanted to capture wealth and not slaughter the populace.
DeleteJustin Pan
I also believe that this does not constitute genocide. The definition of the word, as Sarah points out, requires deliberate action to kill and this was simply not the case with the drastic drop in the native populations. Small pox was the major cause of death among the natives. “Guns, Germs, and Steel” pointed out that the small pox particles became airborne and subsequently inhaled by the natives causing the illness to spread through the region and decimate populations. So the natives were dying because their air had been contaminated by the virus and as Brendan points out the Spaniards had resistance due to their interaction with domesticated animals. Since the major way the disease spread was through the air, the population decrease could not have been deliberate and therefore not a genocide.
DeleteI also agree that the decrease in the Naive American population is not a genocide, because the intial Spanish intention was to convert natives to Christianity. The actual culprit was small pox, which drastically decreased the native population due to their lack of resistance. "Guns, Germs, and Steel" mentions that due to generations of living in close proximity to domesticated animals, Europeans became resistant to deadly diseases like small pox. Unlike the Europeans, the natives had never encountered domesticated animals and therefor were very prone to contacting illnesses that the Europeans were resilient to. The Spaniards unintentionally brought a deadly disease to the Americas and devastated an entire group of people. The native population decreased because of how easily small pox could be contracted and because they were not immune like the Europeans were, due to the dearth of generations with domesticated animals.
DeleteI agree with everyone else who commented on this post that the decrease in the Native American population was not a genocide. Aside from the obvious point that everyone is bringing up about the main cause being small pox, you have to look at the intent of the Spanish. The Spanish first came to this land to explore new lands and find things that could make them rich. The second reason they came was to spread Christianity. There was never the intention of coming in and just destroying massive populations. Even though the enforcement of Christianity lead to the death of Natives that did not want convert, it was not the main reason for the huge decrease in population.This main reason was, as everyone else mentioned, disease. Also, even though it was not necessarily correct, the Spanish felt that the spread of Christianity was a good enough cause to kill these Natives. So technically they did not kill them for no reason. Finally, many of the Natives that died, did so while fighting with the Spanish. Neither side knew that the Spanish had far superior weapons and would kill as many Natives as they did. Therefore, the decrease in population of the Natives was not completely intentional and not a genocide.
DeleteI agree that it wasn't a genocide because like everyone said before, it was not their initial goal to wipe out whole populations of people. Once they got to the New World and realized that these people were threats they had to protect themselves by using the more advanced technology they had. Europeans had no say in the diseases they spread, and the fact that they had genetic resistance to the diseases that wiped out a lot of the Natives, they simply wanted to make more money.
DeleteYes, I believe that the significant drop in the Native American population constitutes as genocide. The European explorers who traveled to Latin America during the Early Modern time period invaded the natives’ land and then exploited them for labor, the obtainment of goods, and money. The conquistadores from Spain originally consisted of Cortez, who violently conquered the Aztec empire and executed Motecuzuma II. In class, we even studied the differences between the picture that was depicted by the Aztecs under Spanish supervision and the one that was drawn by Mexican muralists many years later. The drawing without Spanish influence alone shows us the incredible violence of the Spanish settlers toward the natives since the other picture showed a much more peaceful account. Clearly, the Spanish wanted to hide their despicable actions. Later on, the Encomienda and Hacienda systems exploited the Native Americans for cheap labor. As a result, many of the natives died. However, this did not keep the Europeans from stopping in their endeavors, since they continued on in their explorations northward. The Europeans used the native populations to their advantage, which, in turn, ended up killing many of them. So, the European exploration and settlement in Latin America should be considered genocide.
ReplyDeleteJenna, I disagree that the drastic Native American population drop was genocide. Genocide is defined as a deliberate slaughter of a group, which did not happen in the Americas. Although the Spaniards brutally killed many Americans, they had not traveled to the Americas to kill. The majority of Spanish settlers aimed to become enormously wealthy and to spread Christianity. In order to accomplish either task, Spaniards relied on the natives to supply the workforce, making killing them unreasonable. Of course, some conflicts between the Spanish and natives probably could have been avoided or less bloody, but these conflicts only came up because they impeded the Spaniards’ goals. I do not feel that the Spaniards’ actions are legitimized yet these actions fail to show a motive to murder the entire native population. Therefore if there had not been multiple epidemics occurring at the same time, I do not think there would have been such a dramatic decrease in the native population.
DeleteI disagree with Jenna. I believe that the drastic drop in the Native American population does not constitute as genocide. The reason why I believe this is because genocide is the deliberate killing of a specific group. The Europeans did kill a lot of Native Americans but not all of the killing was deliberate. They came to America in order to find gold and silver not to deliberately kill the natives. Yes, they did have to kill some natives in order to obtain those resources but that happens every time a country tries to expand. The only difference between Europeans trying to expand in Europe rather than in the Americas is that the natives did not have the same technology causing them to have disadvantage. Also, the majority of Native deaths happened because of disease. When the Europeans came over they brought diseases with them that the Natives were not immune too. These diseases lead to a multitude of Native deaths. Europeans didn’t intentionally bring the diseases to the Americas; therefore it cannot be considered genocide. Ultimately, the Europeans did kill a lot of Native Americans but that was not their goal when they came to the Americas.
DeleteI agree with Ariel and Jackie. The drastic drop in Native American populations does not constitute genocide. Genocide is defined by dictionary.com as "the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group". Others have brought up this definition and I believe that it really helps to prove that the drop in Native American populations cannot be constituted as a genocide. I mainly think this way because the majority of this killing was not deliberate or systematic. The majority of the killing was due to small pox. "Guns, Germs, and Steel" (http://www.pbs.org/gunsgermssteel/variables/smallpox.html) estimates that 90% of the Native American populations died because of small pox. This proves that the majority of the killing was not because of the foreign armies and violence, but because of the unintended small pox epidemic. This is the only evidence needed in order to determine if this population drop constitutes a genocide. Since the main reason for the drop was not deliberate or systematic, it does not fulfill the definition of genocide. Therefore, the answer to this question is: No, the drastic drop in Native American populations does not constitute genocide.
DeleteI agree with Zach, Ariel, and Jackie. The decrease in Native American populations cannot be considered genocide because the decline in population was caused by an unintentional spread of disease. The small pox virus killed 95% of the Native American population. Genocides are intentional and they are systematically planned. The Europeans came to spread their values and Christianity. Although they did kill many natives, they were simply trying to spread Christianity in what they thought was an efficient way. They used violence because they did not know that the natives could not always understand what the Spaniards were trying to tell them. The Spaniards were brutal by nature but they did not solely want to kill Native Americans. The majority of these natives were killed by disease even though some were killed by the Spaniards. Hence it is not appropriate to call the European inquisition of the Americas a genocide.
DeleteI agree that the decrease in population of the Native Americans cannot be considered genocide. Genocide is the deliberate killing of a large group of people, and the Europeans did not deliberately travel to the Americas to kill the natives. Like stated above, they migrated to spread Christianity and find wealth, which the had to kill some in order to obtain. Resistance to convert caused the Spaniards to kill and they also brought over disease unintentionally. Like Aditya said, Genocides are intentional, and the spreading of disease to kill the natives was not. Diseases brought over from Europe were the main reasons that caused mass death. It would make no sense for them to bring the diseases over on purpose. Wouldn't they want strong and healthy native people for their labor systems? Therefore, I do not believe that the population decline in the Americas can be considered genocide.
DeleteI disagree with Alycia. Although the Europeans didn't travel to the Americas in order to kill the Native Americans, Once the Europeans got there they decided they wanted the land and labor to themselves. In order to get this the would kill any of the Native Americans that got in their way. It all wasn't completely random they would would raid villages and kill rulers, which still counts as systematic killing in my eyes. Disease also should count as part of the genocide because during the Holocaust people that died of starvation in the ghettos were considered victims of the holocaust so why not the same for the Native Americans. Also, just because much more people were killed by small pox doesn't mean that the Native Americans killed by the Europeans don't count. Massive Murder is genocide even if other were killed by disease at the time.
DeleteI believe that the mass decline in population of Native Americans can be considered as a genocide. Not pertaining to the definition of the word 'genocide', but to just numbers and statistics, this large decrease in population can be regarded as one.
ReplyDeleteTo compare the deaths of the Native Americans 500 years ago to a very recent event in history, the Rwanda Genocide of 1994, in the period of 3 months, nearly 2% of Rwanda's population was killed. As for the Native Americans, 7000 of 80,000 Incas were slaughtered within an hour, nearly 9% of their whole population. (Rate: 1 Spanish killing 1 Incan every 1 min 30 secs)
Also, the similarities of these two genocides are similar in the ways in which the groups of people were murdered. Guns and sharp objects such as knives, swords, and machetes were used to cut down (people), slaughter and kill.
The intent of even one in many within a small group dictates the way an event is viewed; in this case, it wasn't just one Spanish that killed with deliberation, but it was every single Spanish soldier.
Even though many Native Americans did die of diseases that the Spanish were not aware of, the mass decline of a population due to deliberate killing overwrites the non-genocidal killing of disease without deliberation.
Will, I have to disagree with your analysis. The key term in the definition of genocide are the words "deliberate and systematic". While I agree that a large number of people died, that face alone does not constitute genocide. Disease killed off as much as 95% of the Native Americans who died. This is not an example of the Spanish deliberately killing them. Moreover, the Spanish relied on the Native Americans for labor. Though their manipulation and quest for wealth does not categorize them as kind helpful people who just wanted to spread Christianity, the Spanish certainly did not deliberately kill so many people. Your analysis is based purely upon the numbers of people who died, and not the intent of the people who supposedly killed the. By ignoring their intent, you ignore the crucial terms in the definition of genocide.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI side with Athul. The intentions of the Spaniards were to spread Christianity, they did not go there to kill. I don't think the soul fact that the uneven balance in power among the Spanish and Natives makes it a genocide.
DeleteThe Rwanda Genocide had different intentions that classify it as one. It is faulty reasoning to compare the population of Rwanda to Native Americans when they do not line up. 800,000 men, women, and children were slaughtered in the Rwanda genocide while 7,000 of Native Americas were slaughtered. Thus the Native Americans may have had a smaller population to begin with, making it appear as if way more of them were killed in comparison to the Rwanda genocide; 2% of Rwandas population was still way more than 9% of the Native Americans population.
Another thing I found interesting was the Inca told his men to not bring any weapons before they faced the Spanish. This was their fault and they could have put up somewhat of a challenge if they wanted to.
Lastly, the Spanish never killed the Inca God. If they wanted it o be a genocide and deliberate killing, they would have slaughtered him with ease. A quote from the documentary was: "Christians only kill in the heat of the battle." Thus, they didn't go there to kill.
http://www.unitedhumanrights.org/genocide/genocide_in_rwanda.htm
I disagree Rachel. Just because they didn't bring weapons to this battle, doesn't mean that it is any less of a killing. They were practically all killed in a short matter of time. And there was no one else to contribute to this besides the Spaniards. Saying that because they didn't fight back makes it fair that this is not a genocide does not make any sense at all. I think their excuse that "Christians only kill in the heat of a battle" is an awful excuse. If they hadn't killed them, they would have made the Incas their slaves. Nothing good could have come from the Spaniards invading their land. The intent was definitely to take control. The leader of their military had a distinct plan to capture the leader of the tribe and force the soldiers to crawl beneath his feet. Maybe they were not there to kill, but that is what happened. Therefore, I think this is indeed a genocide.
DeleteThe dictionary definition of "genocide" that Athul used definitively proves that the massive population decline of Native Americans was not a genocide because it was not "deliberate." At this time period, the Germ Theory remained an extremely underdeveloped idea. The main explanation for disease was the "Miasma Theory," which hypothesized that disease was caused by being around bad air. The Spaniards did not comprehend the contagious properties of disease, thus they could not have "deliberately" infected the natives. Just as we do not convict people of murder if they do not deliberately kill, we cannot accuse the Spanish of genocide. Manslaughter is still pretty bad though, so shame on you, Spanish people!
DeleteDrew, first of all, I didn't say just because they didn't fight back that makes it not a genocide; I said that's their own dumb fault. You can't argue that just because there was a large a amount of death it was a genocide because there's a large amount of death in World Wars and other wars. The Spaniards did not deliberately kill, they went there to spread their ways and like YOU said, take control. I understand they did this by killing is mass amount but they was the way the wanted to and believed they had to. Next, my quote "Christians only kill in the heat of a battle" was from the video we watched proving my point that they only killed because they were forced to when the Inca disagreed with their bible so they thought it was necessary to kill a lot of them so they would agree with the religion. Lastly, something good that could have come from the Spaniards invading Native lands would be, in the eyes of Spaniards, the spreading of Christianity.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Deletethat was the way they wanted to****** i hate myself
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the majority of the people; I think that the killing of natives should be considered a genocide. Many people are focusing too much on numbers and other statistics when the definition of genocide (which was already mentioned a few times) focuses on the intent rather than numbers. Several people are trying to argue that because 90% of the people died from disease means that the Spanish didn't intend to murder the natives, which I would agree with. However, people are failing to mention the other 10% of people who were killed intentionally without disease. Let's say that 9 million people were killed from disease, so these people are saying that the other 1 million killed through war are negligent and don't show any intent to kill a large population? Ok, maybe 1 million is not as large as 9 million, but it is still an enormous amount of people to be killed. Also, the Spanish intended to become as rich as possible from their endeavors in Latin America, so they were very willing to kill whoever got in the way of the gold. In this case the natives were blocking/preventing the Spanish's success, so the Spanish did what they had to do to clear a path. I believe that this is enough of a reason to give the Spanish a motive for carrying out a genocide.
ReplyDeleteBut the hypothetical 10% you're talking about weren't necessarily killed in a systematic genocide, but rather in battles. Sure, many could have been civilians, but this isn't any different from other wars and raids other empires have carried out. I don't think just the fact that Europeans directly killed natives intrinsically constitutes a genocide. Otherwise, every war ever would have to be a genocide.
DeleteYou're definitely right that the remaining 10% are important and need not be ignored, but actually - never mind - they aren't important at all. If best-case-scenario the Europeans came with no intention of killing at all, the same 90% would have invariably died from disease. If the actions of the Europeans have no bearing on all of those deaths, they cannot be blamed. I'd call the remaining 10% a war or invasion or something. They weren't really systematically murdering but more so marauding pell-mell.
In light of the quibbling over definitions, I am going to clarify what constitutes genocide, at least in my mind. To do this, I will look at three genocides in world history: the Armenian genocide, the Jewish genocide or Holocaust, and the Rwandan genocide. In each example, the victims of genocide were targeted because of a tag: Armenian, Jewish, and Tutsi, respectively. Thus, I do not believe the drop in Native American populations constitutes genocide.
DeleteWhy were the Native Americans killed? There are a variety of reasons. One of the reasons includes religious persecution. The Spaniards, under Cortes, attempted to convert the Aztecs to Christianity. However, the language barriers made this conversion difficult, to say the least. Thus, the Aztecs that did not physically display their acceptance to Christianity were either killed or enslaved. Thus, Native Americans were not killed because of their religious practices; rather, they were killed because of their refusal to conform to another religion. This opportunity was not, at least to my knowledge, offered in the other three examples of genocide. Also, Cortes’ clash with the omnipotent Aztecs was a battle for control. The main difference between this type of battle and genocide is that in genocide, the motivating factor seems to be pure malice. This is not to say there is no malice in war, but in genocide, specifically the Holocaust, the Jewish population was completely unarmed and innocent; Hitler operated on mass hysteria and rabid anti-Semitism. These sentiments are not shared in the decimation of Native Americans; this was war, not genocide.
The drastic decrease in native population can be viewed in many ways. If a man accidentally kills another, he is held responsible in some way by the court of law. Although maybe the intention wasn't to wipeout whole populations, I think the definition of genocide must be reevaluated to hold accountable the Europeans for the massive amounts of deaths they caused to native populations. The fact that smallpox was a big cause of this death is certainly a valid point, and quite honestly I don't know how to evaluate it in relation to genocide. What I feel, however, is that even though they didn't mean to cause death by any way, the Europeans caused the death of thousands of native peoples, and must be held accountable for it in some way. Whether this culpability is applied as "genocide" or not is to be determined as the definition of the word fluctuates.
ReplyDeleteI think today looking back it is easy to say that their actions were wrong and reprehensible, but they were living in a time when conquering other nations was more acceptable. Even Las Casas who didn't like the subjugation of native Americans specifically had no compunction using African slaves. Today wars and other injustices are publicized and denounced, so it's natural for us to look back on past actions with reproachful eyes, but in reality it would have been foolish to expect Europeans not to expand their influence to the Americas when given the opportunity.
DeleteFurthermore, because of geographical factors completely out of control of the inhabitants of Afro-Eurasia, the natives would have suffered from disease even if Europeans arrived with the best of intentions. Chinese people or a herd of pigs could have just as easily produced similar disasters.
Agreed! It's safe to say that they were "expanding their horizons and new findings." Regardless of what had happened, and needless to say it was an act of expansion, the Europeans didn't only kill but they innovated. They burnt it down to ash and built bigger and better things. As Dan mentioned, anything (disease) was bound to find a way to them sooner or later; the Europeans were simply a medium of that. And in agreement to Nick, it's all the matter of how one interprets "genocide": An act of exapnsion? Or the act of willingly killing hundreds of thousands of people?
Delete