Colonist-Indian relations

Well, perhaps. I have a awful feeling that this question is copied straight from your assignment... (Making us to do work?)

Bibliography

Sleeper-Smith, Susan. Indian Women and French Men: Rethinking Cultural Encounter in the Western Great Lakes. University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst: 2001.
Ed. Krech, Shepard. The Subartic Fur Trade: Native Social and Economic Adaptations. Ray, Arthur J. �Periodic Shortages, Native Welfare, and the Hudson�s Bay Company 1670-1930.� University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver: 1984.

White, Richard. The middle ground: Indians, empires and republics in the Great Lakes region, 1650-1815. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 1991.

Bishop, Charles A. The Northern Ojibwa And The Fur Trade: An Historical And Ecological Study. Holt, Rinehat and Winston of Canada, Limited, Toronto: 1974.

Ed. Salisbury, Richard F; Tooker, Elisabeth. Affluence and Cultural Survival: 1981 Proceedings of The American Ethnological Society. Grument, Robert S. �Managing the Fur Trade: The Coast Tsimishian to 1862.� American Ethnological Society, USA: 1984.

Carlos, Ann: Lewis, Frank D. Trade, Consumption, and the Native Economy: Lessons from York Factory, Hudson Bay. Journal of Economic History 61 (December 2001).

For me the pattern is clear. The first British settlers, and particularly the men of the fur trade, didn't have much problem with the interaction with Native americans. Interracial marriage was common as well.

But then, after the British left, perhaps, a flood of Europeans arrived in mass to the United States, and they needed more space, and they become codicious with the lands of the Natives that lived beyond the mountains. Then the attitude changed and the genocide started in large scale.

Edited by pinguin - 06-Mar-2007 at 20:39

Originally posted by Mrhistoryguy23 i dont get it... :/

Originally posted by pinguin To save the poor and starving masses from Europe, a large scale crime against Natives was commited in the U.S., and that was the model for  Nazi germany. If someone does not believe it, just read Hitler.

Your point is interesting but:
1) Imigration to the US from England and moreover from the rest of Europe was at such low level that it couldn't take off any notable weight from the Malthusian presure in the old continent. Bigger problem by the 16th-early 17th century, period of low migration, Britain was importing enormous quantities of food. By the lat 17th-18th century, period of migration's high tide, Britain was exporting large amonts of food. Your model is interresting but only works for the period post-1840.
2) If you look at who moved to the American colonies, you'd be surprised to realize that they are quite well off. They're not rich, but well off. You indeed needed a lot of money to cross the Atlantic, start a plantation and feed yourself for one year before your land can yield the fruit of your labour. Actually, even in the 19th century, only the lower middle class was moving to the US because it was expensive. Even nowadays, those migrating from South America to the US or from Africa or Asia to Europe are not the poorest among the poors. A "ticket" to be smuggled from Africa to Europe can cost up to $10,000, i.e. 10,000 working days pay for about 20% of mankind. Of course, it is not the whole story, some voyages are paid by future employers. But on average, when you poor, you die, migration is an investment.

I'm no specialist about the early modern America so my point are only personal opinions I couldn't back by any evidence. That being said, I doubt the very existence of an American identity and I am pretty convinced that if there was  any the India side contribution to it was close to zero.

As the case of the creoles (first and second generation of conquistadores) proves, being in the colonies tended to give the colons an identity of their own. But this is more due to the distance than to any interaction with other cultures. The issue is even more complex in New England as the colons migrated with their own very strong group culture (the quakers being the most famous exemple but there was plenty). More over, the colonies' territory was divided and more or less each colony had a different statut.

My view of an identity is anti-structural, i.e. even though identities can last millenia (the Jews in Europe for instance), they tend to appear and disappear suddenly. They tend to be centred around one interest common to all (fight against taxation for the case of the English colonies) or believed to be so (after all Manchester didn't have any representent in Parliament, they didn't ask for their independence).

So, in my opinion, colons saw themselves as differrent from the English from England, but I'm not sure they though of each other as Americans. It is not by chance that in the first version of the constitution each state was independent!

Concerning the natives' influence on the American identity (once more I'm guessing) I think it was pretty limited to a small part of the population mainly males who shared experiences with Indians (wars, traping, trade). For most of the settlers and the fist urbanites, natives were simply a nuisance and if there was any reference to them I'd guess it was merely rhetorical.

The whole native-friendly culture rised slowly from ca 1870 to 1970 before becoming prevalent nowadays and you have hardly a son of Irish immigrants in NYC who doesn't say: "yes I have some native blood somewhere".

One of the most important composent of identity is the language. If the indians had been instrumental in the creation of the identity (and not some ex-post reference) American English would be full of Indian words. Is it? The story is quite close to what happen to the Celts in England. English is 50% Germanic 50% Latin and has only three celt words in it. It pretty much support the view that the Celtic part of the English culture is a recreation, nothing else.

One of the most important reason for that is the character transitory of their culture, no massive stone buildings easily visible... Another reason is that there was hardly any unity in the native culture. The US and Canada (much more so than Mexico) is a European invention, colons didn't invade one country and made it their, they shaped the territory as if it was some raw material. Even the states have little or nothing to do with the tribes they took the name of.

Ultimately, a people cannot live in guilt. Well the German more or less can but they are the exception that confirms the rule. Americans discover the horror upon which their nation was based. As it was impossible to simply forget about it (as the Japanese did), to pretend you didn't know (as the European do for colonisation) or to simply pretend nothing happened (see the Turks and the Armenian genocide (it is just an example I don't wish to dwell about)), the American "decided" to swallow their victim and to integrate them into their identity.

When I'm saying decided I'm not refering to any consipiracy and I'm not saying that the average American woke up one morning saying: "gosh why don't I integrated the native into my identity?". I'm just saying it did happen because it was the less painful path for the American society to face its past. It is actually a very common feature of the national visions of history, it avoids nations to feel divided between the good ones and the bad ones.

You got a nice point their penguin..., I think the White Amercians were just selfish at the time and wanted to take over period..., but i guess that was normal in that period of time...

The idea that the immigration of Spaniards to the Americas was only of males is not quite true. It is true only for the 10 years period of the conquist. It is also true there was a sex imbalance for a long time. But European women always came as immigrants as well, in large numbers. Large masses of immigrants of both sexs came to Latin America both before and after independence, up to 1960. Afterwards immigration drop almost to zero.

Edited by pinguin - 07-Mar-2007 at 17:07

I am talking of White people. Blond blue eyed Americans of "germanic" aspect that doesn't have any single Native American feature but that the genetic test show they have Native Ancestors. With modern genetics, it is becoming increasingly clear that that many people with Native ancestors simply forgot about them.

That's what I am talking about.

I am not talking about Hispanics, Brazilians and even Quebecois that admit openly they have Native Ancestry, but of the White Americans and theirs "Cherokee princess". Well, it is false Cherokees had royalty, but ancestry do exist.

Well, my sources are genetic studies, particularly one made by Shiver.