Why did the Native Americans not colonise Europe?

[Vinayaka]

Why did the Native Americans not colonise Europe?

We all know it was the other way round but why??????

I don't remember the details but there was an American indigenous group who protested the invasion and attempted genocide by putting a flag in Italy, and declaring, 'This is ours now!'

 

[Augustus]

When, in your estimation, did the competition between those indigenous to the Americas and those from Europe begin? When, in your estimation, did the competition end, or at least could no longer be considered a competition? I'm trying to get a handle on what constitutes "many centuries" in you view here.

Late 15th to some time in the late 19th C probably.

Interesting. Does often constitute over half the instances in which Native American Empire/Culture competed with European Empire/Culture? I apologize in advance for my ignorance, but where in the Americas today do we see the success and dominance of Indigenous American Empire/Culture over European Empire/Culture?

Nowhere today, but would have seen it in many places in the past on the frontiers.

If you are interested in a view that focuses on Native American agency, Indigenous Continent by Pekka Hämäläinen

Indigenous Continent

Is that not standard procedure of Empire to use local populations in the securing and expansion of Empire, one used for millennia?

Yes it is. Empires are generally dependent on the support of local populations.

I find it hard to characterise this as them being unable to compete though. More that Empires are able to capitalise on existing societal divisions to rule over a numerically superior population who could, in theory, pretty easily defeat them.

What is history but to look back?

So 300 years is many centuries in your view? I would not characterize it as such.

It is only after the competition ends that we make our final judgement. Still, throughout what we are characterizing as a competition between Indigenous American Empire/Culture and European Empire/Culture, when I look back over the 300 years, I see only a steady progression and expansion of European Empire/Culture at the expense of the Indigenous Americans

In the broadest sense that is correct, but the problem is when you zoom out and look at things in the lowest resolution it largely obscures what actually happened.

It kind of paints the Native Americans as passive victims in the face of a superior foe which is a staple of the traditional 'triumphalist' accounts and the more left-wing narratives that counter these.

There was no real competition between "Europeans" and "Native Americans" as neither group really existed in any meaningful sense. Once we do away with those artificial categories, we have to look at the history differently.

Diverse groups of Europeans and Native Americans competed, cooperated and allied with, fought, aided and exploited diverse groups of Europeans and Native Americans over massive areas for many centuries.

As "Europeans" were expanding, so were various Native tribes (Lakota, Comanche, etc.) who exploited both other tribes and European settlers.

Disease and weight of numbers finally won the day, but for several centuries, Native tribes were certainly competing.

 

[MikeF]

In the broadest sense that is correct, but the problem is when you zoom out and look at things in the lowest resolution it largely obscures what actually happened.

It kind of paints the Native Americans as passive victims in the face of a superior foe which is a staple of the traditional 'triumphalist' accounts and the more left-wing narratives that counter these.

I don't think it paints indigenous Americans as passive. The thesis is that those who hailed from the European continent had technological advantages over the indigenous American population. I think it is safe to characterize those advantages as constituting a superiority in terms of technology.

There was no real competition between "Europeans" and "Native Americans" as neither group really existed in any meaningful sense. Once we do away with those artificial categories, we have to look at the history differently.

I disagree. We can look at any data set in a variety of ways and create categories that fit the patterns we observe. It is not inappropriate to observe the general technological equivalence of the varied indigenous groups and contrast that with the technological equivalence of the varied European groups involved.

Diverse groups of Europeans and Native Americans competed, cooperated and allied with, fought, aided and exploited diverse groups of Europeans and Native Americans over massive areas for many centuries.

Yes. I would say for some few centuries, not many, however.

As "Europeans" were expanding, so were various Native tribes (Lakota, Comanche, etc.) who exploited both other tribes and European settlers.

But the indigenous tribes never expanded into, or could meaningfully retake "European" held territory, right? The relationship within existing indigenous peoples would be a separate matter from the thesis at hand.

Disease and weight of numbers finally won the day, but for several centuries, Native tribes were certainly competing.

Resisting, certainly. Competing, sure, but at a distinct and measurable disadvantage. It is unclear to me why you feel it important to obscure this asymmetry.

 

[Augustus]

don't think it paints indigenous Americans as passive. The thesis is that those who hailed from the European continent had technological advantages over the indigenous American population. I think it is safe to characterize those advantages as constituting a superiority in terms of technology.

Herman Cortez wasn’t able to defeat the Aztecs because he had a few hundred men with steel and rudimentary firearms though.

disagree. We can look at any data set in a variety of ways and create categories that fit the patterns we observe. It is not inappropriate to observe the general technological equivalence of the varied indigenous groups and contrast that with the technological equivalence of the varied European groups involved.

Europeans had a theoretical technical advantage ≠ the primary reason for numerous diverse events and processes should be assumed as technology advantage.

Native Americans traded for European weapons, were supplied them by Europeans to fight other Europeans etc.

Some Europeans considered the NA to be the best light cavalry in the world.

Numbers and disease were probably the main factors, there was an endless supply of settlers and a finite supply of native Americans

Yes. I would say for some few centuries, not many, however.

I’d say 400+ years is a fairly significant period when considering specific human societies.

But the indigenous tribes never expanded into, or could meaningfully retake "European" held territory, right? The relationship within existing indigenous peoples would be a separate matter from the thesis at hand.

Happened in places like (what is now) Texas.

They didn’t necessarily want to “retake” territory, just dominate and exploit the settlers for horses, weapons and manufactured goods.

They were certainly the dominant power.

Resisting, certainly. Competing, sure, but at a distinct and measurable disadvantage. It is unclear to me why you feel it important to obscure this asymmetry.

I just don’t think it is very accurate. We should move beyond simplistic narratives that lump very diverse peoples and situations spread over massive areas and long timescales into anachronistic groupings that obscure more than they enlighten.

“The four-hundred-year struggle to keep the continent Indigenous had stretched colonists from the European powers, and then the United States, to the breaking point again and again. The enormous range of Native nations and the sheer depth and multiplicity of their resistance had frustrated the colonists, if it did not kill them. Some nations relied on naked force and numbers to corral and punish colonial powers, while others sought alliances with them. Some forged ties to other Native nations and reinvented themselves as confederacies. The most powerful nations and confederacies—the Six Nations of the Iroquois Confederacy, the Indian Confederacy, the Wyandots, Lakotas, Comanches, Muscogees, Cherokees, and Seminoles—defeated the colonists in battle repeatedly and controlled the diplomatic proceedings that followed. They possessed the authority, savvy, and will to dictate terms to the Spanish, French, British, and U.S. empires. The Iroquois were the dominant imperial power in the heart of North America for generations, and in the early nineteenth century the Comanches and Lakotas built empires of their own, in part to survive colonialism. Instead of fighting these Indigenous powers, the colonists placated them. They desperately wanted to be allies and not enemies. They sided with power.”


Indigenous Continent
Pekka Hämäläinen

 

[MikeF]

Herman Cortez wasn’t able to defeat the Aztecs because he had a few hundred men with steel and rudimentary firearms though.

And a ship and horses. No, it would be the Aztec religion that provided the initial and fundamental vulnerability.

Europeans had a theoretical technical advantage ≠ the primary reason for numerous diverse events and processes should be assumed as technology advantage.

Theoretical technological advantage?

We do not have to assign technical asymmetry as the primary reason for how events unfolded to simply recognize and acknowledge the asymmetry, whatever part it played.

Native Americans traded for European weapons, were supplied them by Europeans to fight other Europeans etc.

Some Europeans considered the NA to be the best light cavalry in the world.

Numbers and disease were probably the main factors, there was an endless supply of settlers and a finite supply of native Americans

Ok ......... and the thesis still stands.

They didn’t necessarily want to “retake” territory, just dominate and exploit the settlers for horses, weapons and manufactured goods.

They were certainly the dominant power.

I just don’t think it is very accurate. We should move beyond simplistic narratives that lump very diverse peoples and situations spread over massive areas and long timescales into anachronistic groupings that obscure more than they enlighten.

“The four-hundred-year struggle to keep the continent Indigenous had stretched colonists from the European powers, and then the United States, to the breaking point again and again. The enormous range of Native nations and the sheer depth and multiplicity of their resistance had frustrated the colonists, if it did not kill them. Some nations relied on naked force and numbers to corral and punish colonial powers, while others sought alliances with them. Some forged ties to other Native nations and reinvented themselves as confederacies. The most powerful nations and confederacies—the Six Nations of the Iroquois Confederacy, the Indian Confederacy, the Wyandots, Lakotas, Comanches, Muscogees, Cherokees, and Seminoles—defeated the colonists in battle repeatedly and controlled the diplomatic proceedings that followed. They possessed the authority, savvy, and will to dictate terms to the Spanish, French, British, and U.S. empires. The Iroquois were the dominant imperial power in the heart of North America for generations, and in the early nineteenth century the Comanches and Lakotas built empires of their own, in part to survive colonialism. Instead of fighting these Indigenous powers, the colonists placated them. They desperately wanted to be allies and not enemies. They sided with power.”


Indigenous Continent
Pekka Hämäläinen

History played out as it did for a myriad of reasons, and who's arguing against that? You are trying to argue, it seems to me, that the Europeans did not have a technical advantage over the indigenous Americans, and whatever small advantage might be claimed had little or nothing to do with how things turned out.

I still contend that there was a dramatic asymmetry that allowed Europeans to gain a foothold with small numbers and with minimal home support, establish and defend settlements that provided safe access points for even more settlers (not full fledge empire-building armies) to spread out and expand. There was no Napoleonic campaign to conquer the Americas as it wasn't required or desired. If, though, we were to imagine a scenario in which all the European powers formed a strong, unified alliance and set their combined sights on systematically pushing indigenous peoples off the American continents, how do we imagine the indigenous populations would fair given the technological and war fighting asymmetry between indigenous Americans and Europeans?

ETA: And by the way, this reality does not speak to value, or worth of either group. It is simply an expression of the state of affairs throughout this period.

 

[Augustus]

And a ship and horses. No, it would be the Aztec religion that provided the initial and fundamental vulnerability.

What about their religion do you think meant they were vulnerable?

I’d place their vulnerability more on the fact that there were large numbers of hostile groups willing to ally with the Spanish.

History played out as it did for a myriad of reasons, and who's arguing against that? You are trying to argue, it seems to me, that the Europeans did not have a technical advantage over the indigenous Americans, and whatever small advantage might be claimed had little or nothing to do with how things turned out.

No, I was questioning your statement that the NA couldn’t compete with the Europeans once they arrived.

My view is that they competed very well for several centuries, although were gradually worn down by attrition, disease, weight of numbers, etc.

 

[MikeF]

What about their religion do you think meant they were vulnerable?

I’d place their vulnerability more on the fact that there were large numbers of hostile groups willing to ally with the Spanish.

I seem to recall there being some question as to the divinity of the Spanish that gave them access and then control over the Aztec ruler. This from my grade school, secondary school recollections.

My view is that they competed very well for several centuries, although were gradually worn down by attrition, disease, weight of numbers, etc.

Well, I guess it depends on one's criteria for "competing very well".

ETA: What would competing "adequately" have looked like, as a means of understanding your criteria? What would competing "poorly" look like?

 

[Stevicus]

I seem to recall there being some question as to the divinity of the Spanish that gave them access and then control over the Aztec ruler. This from my grade school, secondary school recollections.

I remember hearing about this: Inter caetera - Wikipedia

The Pope declared that the Spanish and Portuguese were the rulers of the New World.

Well, I guess it depends on one's criteria for "competing very well".

ETA: What would competing "adequately" have looked like, as a means of understanding your criteria? What would competing "poorly" look like?

I'm not even sure that "competing" is the correct word to use. Obviously, the Aztecs and the Incas lost against the Spanish. The nations in what would become the United States were rather small and disorganized compared to the Aztecs. Early colonists confined to the East Coast probably would never have even seen, let alone compete with, the Native Americans of the Great Plains or the Western U.S. It wasn't really until after the American Revolution that the "competition" most people speak of really began. Part of the reason the Revolution occurred in the first place was because the colonists wanted to compete with the Native Americans, but they believed the British were tying their hands and holding them back by imposing the Proclamation Line of 1763.

From that point, there was a slow, incremental expansion which steadily continued up until the mid-19th century, when the borders of the modern U.S. were firmly established. The industrial revolution was also a major game changer, as Europeans started developing technologies improving transportation, communication, and warmongering to the point where there really was no real competition anymore. Regardless of what may have happened in battle, their ways of living were pretty much over. They could no longer move around, and hunting buffalo was no longer an option. Industry had arrived - railroads, telegraphs, new cities cropping up, new types of rifles and cannons, etc.

 

[wellwisher]

Why did the Native Americans not colonise Europe?

We all know it was the other way round but why??????

PreColonial America was a natural paradise, with endless natural resources and beauty. Europe, on the other hand, had been exploited, conquered, depleted and was crowed and over developed. Poor people wanted to leave Europe, while rich people needed new places to exploit due to depletion. The indigenous, on the other hand, were happy in paradise. The Europeans were restless and the Indigenous content, so migration could only go one way.

If you were a tribe near a herd of buffalo, in upstate New York; Buffalo Bill, it took very little effort for anyone, at any pay grade, to have food for a year. The rest of the time, you could enjoy the land and develop your natural culture. Or you could go to the smoke fill cities of Europe with sewer water to drink, or stay in western NY, and drink fresh water from Niagara Falls. It was a no brainer. The desperate people of Europe left Europe and went hog wild in paradise, retaining the old European ways, making paradise more like home; depletion and destruction and move on.

 

[Bthoth]

Why did the Native Americans not colonise Europe?

They dressed funny over there and Europeans don't bath enough.

We all know it was the other way round but why??????

The locals here did not want to become like the savages over there.

 

[Colt]

Why did the Native Americans not colonise Europe?

We all know it was the other way round but why??????

Because they lost the battle with their Chinese relatives and backed their way out across the Bering Land Bridge into unoccupied North America. Theocracies and failed economic systems drove Europeans to search for a "new world".

 

[Augustus]

I seem to recall there being some question as to the divinity of the Spanish that gave them access and then control over the Aztec ruler. This from my grade school, secondary school recollections.

The idea they were seen as gods has long been rejected by scholars.

Nowadays people even question the degree to which they were even in charge of the situation as opposed to the Spanish thinking they are exploiting their local allies and their local allies thinking they are using the Spanish as a weapon against their common enemy, the Aztecs.

Well, I guess it depends on one's criteria for "competing very well".

ETA: What would competing "adequately" have looked like, as a means of understanding your criteria? What would competing "poorly" look like?

Competing would be adapting to the environment to build successful societies, this quote from earlier in the thread gives a decent summary:

“The four-hundred-year struggle to keep the continent Indigenous had stretched colonists from the European powers, and then the United States, to the breaking point again and again. The enormous range of Native nations and the sheer depth and multiplicity of their resistance had frustrated the colonists, if it did not kill them. Some nations relied on naked force and numbers to corral and punish colonial powers, while others sought alliances with them. Some forged ties to other Native nations and reinvented themselves as confederacies. The most powerful nations and confederacies—the Six Nations of the Iroquois Confederacy, the Indian Confederacy, the Wyandots, Lakotas, Comanches, Muscogees, Cherokees, and Seminoles—defeated the colonists in battle repeatedly and controlled the diplomatic proceedings that followed. They possessed the authority, savvy, and will to dictate terms to the Spanish, French, British, and U.S. empires. The Iroquois were the dominant imperial power in the heart of North America for generations, and in the early nineteenth century the Comanches and Lakotas built empires of their own, in part to survive colonialism. Instead of fighting these Indigenous powers, the colonists placated them. They desperately wanted to be allies and not enemies. They sided with power.”


Indigenous Continent
Pekka Hämäläinen

 

[MikeF]

The idea they were seen as gods has long been rejected by scholars.

Trust me, I'm no Aztec scholar. Although somewhat curious, I am not willing to put in the effort to see why historians attitudes have changed in this regard. My assumption would be that the previous notion that the Europeans were mistaken for gods was sourced from the conquistadors themselves.

Nowadays people even question the degree to which they were even in charge of the situation as opposed to the Spanish thinking they are exploiting their local allies and their local allies thinking they are using the Spanish as a weapon against their common enemy, the Aztecs.

Wow. This seems to be getting into the territory of historical negationism. Did not the Spanish expressly send expeditions from Cuba to mainland Mexico for the purpose of exploration *AND* securing it for colonization by the Spanish? It seems clear to me that the main driving force for these events was in achieving goals of the Spanish, for the Spanish, and those goals were achieved.

Competing would be adapting to the environment to build successful societies, ...

Well, prior to European contact I would say that this describes the state of affairs of the indigenous populations. However, once the Europeans entered the scene, we see a methodical and consistent erosion of territory held and controlled by indigenous Americans. In essence, they were no longer successfully competing.

"The Iroquois were the dominant imperial power in the heart of North America for generations, and in the early nineteenth century the Comanches and Lakotas built empires of their own, in part to survive colonialism.”

Indigenous Continent
Pekka Hämäläinen

In regards to the paragraph you quoted, this line in particular stood out to me. The first question I would have is what criteria is used to determine "the heart of North America"? From who's perspective? North American continent extends from the Arctic to present day Panama. The Iroquois were found in the Northeast. Why should that be considered "the heart of North America" during the time of European colonization?

I would also be curious as to what criteria are used in the application of terms like 'imperial' and 'empire'. Are these terms exaggerations when applied to the Iroquois? Wikipedia describes the Iroquois as 5 or 6 nations formed into a league or confederacy.

Do you see the author as providing a clinical assessment of the history of this period, or does the author have an agenda?

 

[Augustus]

Trust me, I'm no Aztec scholar. Although somewhat curious, I am not willing to put in the effort to see why historians attitudes have changed in this regard. My assumption would be that the previous notion that the Europeans were mistaken for gods was sourced from the conquistadors themselves.

It was from basically Cortez’s publicist who had never been to Mexico.

Cortez himself didn’t mention it in his writings.

We also now have Aztec sources that also don’t mention it.

Wow. This seems to be getting into the territory of historical negationism. Did not the Spanish expressly send expeditions from Cuba to mainland Mexico for the purpose of exploration *AND* securing it for colonization by the Spanish? It seems clear to me that the main driving force for these events was in achieving goals of the Spanish, for the Spanish, and those goals were achieved.

Cortez and his party could have been wiped out after fleeing Tenochtitlan , that they were not had nothing to do with their strength.

Well, prior to European contact I would say that this describes the state of affairs of the indigenous populations. However, once the Europeans entered the scene, we see a methodical and consistent erosion of territory held and controlled by indigenous Americans. In essence, they were no longer successfully competing.

400 years is a pretty long time for any civilisation.

Think about the world in 1600 compared to today and everything that has happened in between.

Think of all the changes within Europe that have happened, we wouldn’t simply dismiss these as unimportant.

Well, prior to European contact I would say that this describes the state of affairs of the indigenous populations. However, once the Europeans entered the scene, we see a methodical and consistent erosion of territory held and controlled by indigenous Americans. In essence, they were no longer successfully competing.

Once we stop lumping them into the artificial category of NA, we see certain tribes rapidly expanding their powers and engaging in conquest and territorial acquisition. .

In regards to the paragraph you quoted, this line in particular stood out to me. My first question I would have is what criteria is used to determine "the heart of North America"? From whose perspective? North American continent extends from the Arctic to present day Panama. The Iroquois were found in the Northeast. Why should that be considered "the heart of North America" during the time of European colonization?

I would also be curious as to what criteria are used in the application of terms like 'imperial' and 'empire'. Are these terms exaggerations when applied to the Iroquois? Wikipedia describes the Iroquois as 5 or 6 nations formed into a league or confederacy.

Do you see the author as providing a clinical assessment of the history of this period, or does the author have an agenda?

As a Finnish professor at Oxford I’d say he has less reason to have an agenda that the pop culture American version.

I’ve read several of his books, and find them excellent, and they are well regarded among scholars.

This review (critically) covers some of the questions you raise https://archive.md/za909

 

[Stevicus]

As a Finnish professor at Oxford I’d say he has less reason to have an agenda that the pop culture American version.

I’ve read several of his books, and find them excellent, and they are well regarded among scholars.

This review (critically) covers some of the questions you raise https://archive.md/za909

I'm not sure who has any agenda here, but @MikeF asked a relevant question about the use of the phrase "heart of North America." There was no "heart of North America" (and if there was, it's certainly not in upstate NY), so what could he be talking about? Also, in the paragraph you quoted, he referred to the "U.S. empire." What "U.S. empire"? Some people tend to use the term "empire" figuratively and somewhat cynically, but mainly informally. It seems out of place in an academic text where accuracy and objectivity would be essential.

 

[Augustus]

I'm not sure who has any agenda here, but @MikeF asked a relevant question about the use of the phrase "heart of North America." There was no "heart of North America" (and if there was, it's certainly not in upstate NY), so what could he be talking about? Also, in the paragraph you quoted, he referred to the "U.S. empire." What "U.S. empire"? Some people tend to use the term "empire" figuratively and somewhat cynically, but mainly informally. It seems out of place in an academic text where accuracy and objectivity would be essential.

It’s basically semantic quibbling.

Heart just means “not on the remote fringes”.

Empire is a political unit established by conquest where different groups are brought under the control of a dominant power.

America is commonly considered an empire in scholarly literature, and it would certainly not be objective to consider various NA tribes to be imperial powers then deny that America was.

The more debatable status is that of the NA tribal empires.

 

[Stevicus]

It’s basically semantic quibbling.

Heart just means “not on the remote fringes”.

Empire is a political unit established by conquest where different groups are brought under the control of a dominant power.

America is commonly considered an empire in scholarly literature, and it would certainly not be objective to consider various NA tribes to be imperial powers then deny that America was.

The more debatable status is that of the NA tribal empires.

I suppose it would depend on when we're talking about. The U.S. wasn't really that much of an "empire" in the early days, but it would build up over time. But I won't quibble over it too much. I just find it rather odd in that context.

The U.S. expansionism went in stages, starting with Mad Anthony Wayne's forays into the Northwest Territory almost immediately after the U.S. gained independence. It would be the start of a long-term period which involved many wars in the overall push westward. Much of it would be recounted with much regret a century later, such as expressed in the book "A Century of Dishonor."

 

[MikeF]

It was from basically Cortez’s publicist who had never been to Mexico.

Publicist seems such a modern term. Did they have those back then?

Cortez himself didn’t mention it in his writings.

We also now have Aztec sources that also don’t mention it.

I can easily let the notion go. Whatever initial astonishment that might have been experienced by the coastal peoples upon first contact, I'm sure it quite wore off in fairly short order through their interactions with the Spanish.

Cortez and his party could have been wiped out after fleeing Tenochtitlan , that they were not had nothing to do with their strength.

Certainly they could have been wiped out. However, the thesis is not that 500 Spaniards constituted an invincible force. Had they been wiped out, are we to imagine that the Aztec Empire would have averted its inevitable doom? No, of course not.

400 years is a pretty long time for any civilisation.

Great. Opinion noted. Not sure how that relates or counters my thesis.

Think about the world in 1600 compared to today and everything that has happened in between.

Think of all the changes within Europe that have happened, we wouldn’t simply dismiss these as unimportant.

Once we stop lumping them into the artificial category of NA, we see certain tribes rapidly expanding their powers and engaging in conquest and territorial acquisition. .

I fail to see how recognizing an asymmetry in technology between the peoples of two different continents somehow equates to dismissing the disadvantaged peoples as unimportant, or that recognizing the asymmetry means advocating that the disadvantaged peoples history should be suppressed or ignored. It doesn't.

As a Finnish professor at Oxford I’d say he has less reason to have an agenda that the pop culture American version.

Really? Should we suspend our reasoned skepticism and critical analysis because he is a Finnish professor at Oxford? Is it because he is Finnish, a professor, or a professor at Oxford that we should give him a pass? Perhaps it is the virtue of all three.

This comment does not seem in keeping with your recent comments in another thread:

No historian can ever be neutral and we should always be aware of that.

Striving for objectivity is very different to being objective though.

Therefore we accept it is never neutral and always, to some degree, reflects the ideology, biases, attitudes or preferences of the reviewer.

 

[Augustus]

Publicist seems such a modern term. Did they have those back then?

"basically his publicist...", it was his secretary

Certainly they could have been wiped out. However, the thesis is not that 500 Spaniards constituted an invincible force. Had they been wiped out, are we to imagine that the Aztec Empire would have averted its inevitable doom? No, of course not.

The point I made related to the interactions between Cortez, his Native allies and the Aztecs and how they saw the situation as it was actually happening, not based on hindsight.

In an alternate history, it's unlikely the Aztec Empire would have survived, but not impossible (at least for several more centuries) if they had established trading relations with another European power.

I fail to see how recognizing an asymmetry in technology between the peoples of two different continents somehow equates to dismissing the disadvantaged peoples as unimportant, or that recognizing the asymmetry means advocating that the disadvantaged peoples history should be suppressed or ignored. It doesn't.

Again, not the point I made.

I said dismissing the changes as unimportant, not the people as unimportant.

If you look at a video like this you will see borders changing as different groups gain and lose power (obviously this video isn't directly relevant, it is just to illustrate my point)

If you did this for America, you would see various European and various Native American groups gaining and losing territory over a long period of time as they take territory from each other. It would not simply be European groups expanding and Native groups in decline.

My point is that when you have NA tribes being the dominant powers over vast areas for centuries, including some which nominally are claimed by Europeans, it is not really accurate to paint it as a situation where they were unable to compete, despite any technological disadvantages (although overall tech disadvantage, didn’t necessarily relate to tech disadvantage in specific situations).

My view is that you would have a much better understanding of the process if you looked at it as a long process where different European and NA groups cooperated and competed for centuries made major gains and suffered significant losses, rather than simply considering it a one sided process of relentless dominance by Europeans.

Really? Should we suspend our reasoned skepticism and critical analysis because he is a Finnish professor at Oxford? Is it because he is Finnish, a professor, or a professor at Oxford that we should give him a pass? Perhaps it is the virtue of all three.

You can do better than that. Read again and see if you really think I said anything remotely like this.

You should understand the difference between a comparative and an absolute statement. “Less reason to have an agenda than” clearly doesn’t mean anything close to what you say.

And that’s before we consider that you also cut off the 2nd part of my reply to your question, including my own opinion on his work, a note that his work is quite well received in his field and a link to what I explicitly note is a (partially) critical review.

I’m not really sure how you could possibly interpret that as a statement you should “accept anything he says uncritically”.

This comment does not seem in keeping with your recent comments in another thread:

Why do you think that?

No one is neutral on any issue, that doesn’t mean they should be considered to have “an agenda” though as that is generally considered pejorative and is different to mere bias and preference.

In some sense, everyone always has an agenda in anything they consciously do, but this does not reflect the standard usage of the term.

For example, Would you consider yourself to have “an agenda” in every post you make here? If I put your incorrect reflection of my views down to “your agenda” rather than you making an honest mistake would you see that as a fair and good faith discussion point?

I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t.

 

[MikeF]

The point I made related to the interactions between Cortez, his Native allies and the Aztecs and how they saw the situation as it was actually happening, not based on hindsight.

In an alternate history, it's unlikely the Aztec Empire would have survived, but not impossible (at least for several more centuries) if they had established trading relations with another European power.

Ha. Finally a grudging concession! Of course, you then have to add the comment that they could have lasted for several more centuries if they had made an alliance *with another European power*, which would no longer be an evaluatory scenario between indigenous technology/culture and European technology/culture, would it.

As a reminder, this conversation started with your response quoting the last line of my post, which I have assumed is the thesis under debate:

Once long distance ocean travel was possible, the [indigenous] Americas were no longer isolated and were far behind technologically and could not compete with the Europeans.

If you did this for America, you would see various European and various Native American groups gaining and losing territory over a long period of time as they take territory from each other. It would not simply be European groups expanding and Native groups in decline.

My point is that when you have NA tribes being the dominant powers over vast areas for centuries, including some which nominally are claimed by Europeans, it is not really accurate to paint it as a situation where they were unable to compete, despite any technological disadvantages (although overall tech disadvantage, didn’t necessarily relate to tech disadvantage in specific situations).

My view is that you would have a much better understanding of the process if you looked at it as a long process where different European and NA groups cooperated and competed for centuries made major gains and suffered significant losses, rather than simply considering it a one sided process of relentless dominance by Europeans.

Let’s look at an analogy. Let’s say there is some infectious disease process that our bodies can’t defend against or eliminate and is always fatal. Let’s say the course of the disease takes 7 to 10 years before death occurs, with a continual degradation in bodily function and quality of life. Would we say our bodies are able to compete with the disease simply because it does not kill us quickly?

The fact that Plains Nations were wholly untroubled by Jamestown Settlement should not be portrayed as their competing effectively with Europeans. The “infection” had simply yet to spread that far.

I think we can appreciate all the varied interactions between all involved groups from both sides of the Atlantic *and* acknowledge the relentless expansion and territorial control by the Europeans.

You can do better than that. Read again and see if you really think I said anything remotely like this.

You should understand the difference between a comparative and an absolute statement. “Less reason to have an agenda than” clearly doesn’t mean anything close to what you say.

And that’s before we consider that you also cut off the 2nd part of my reply to your question, including my own opinion on his work, a note that his work is quite well received in his field and a link to what I explicitly note is a (partially) critical review.

I’m not really sure how you could possibly interpret that as a statement you should “accept anything he says uncritically”.

From my perspective, I pointed out language in the paragraph you quoted that stood out to me and gave me pause. In referencing it I ask what might have been the author's agenda, which you seem to take as overtly pejorative. That’s fine. How about we replace ‘agenda’ with ‘purpose’?

Still, I raised a concern about word choice or use and your immediate response was to provide the author’s credentials in lieu of addressing those concerns. How else am I to interpret such a response if credentials alone are considered sufficient to address and counter my concerns? Perhaps I should have simply interpreted it as a deflection technique to avoid addressing my concerns directly, which would leave us asking why, of course.