Dec. 21, 1866 -- American Indians defeat US Army

[blake 3:17]

Native History: Indians Defeat Army to Protect Bozeman Trail

Jack McNeel
12/21/13
This Date in Native History: On December 21, 1866, the U.S. Army suffered its third largest defeat during the Indian Wars. Only the battle with George Armstrong Custer at Little Bighorn and the 1791 battle between Chief Little Turtle, Miami Tribe, and General St. Clair—where 600 Army men died—were larger. All 81 cavalrymen and infantrymen died in an intense fight that lasted just 40 minutes.

The history leading up to this fight started three years earlier, in the spring of 1863. The Bozeman Trail was constructed, leading north from Fort Laramie on the old Oregon Trail into the gold fields of Montana. This brought the trail and its hoard of immigrants right through what had once been the homeland of the Crow, later the Shoshone, and then the Teton Sioux. This is the Powder River country of what is now Wyoming. It was open land but good land as game was abundant and fruits and berries grew along the waterways.

Some chiefs were determined to close the Bozeman Trail. Indian attacks became more common and travel was risky. Then U.S. soldiers were brought in to guard the trail. Perhaps what really ended negotiations was the plan to build Fort Kearny with orders to guard the Bozeman Trail.

Two Sioux Indian leaders, highly regarded and remembered today, vowed to fight any white man using the Bozeman Trail—Red Cloud and Crazy Horse. The first raid on the fort occurred on July 16 resulting in two deaths. Attacks on wagon trains happened frequently, but work continued on the fort. Two more of the military died on December 6 and gave the Sioux the belief they could overpower any assignment from the fort.


Read more at http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/12/21/native-history-indians-defeat-army-protect-bozeman-trail-152741

[Bala Perdida]

If an epidemic didn't wipe out over 95% of the indigenous population, you bet your ass this wouldn't be called America!

[Sinister Intents]

I wish there were significantly more US Army defeats :( Thanks for posting this!

[Alexios]

I wish there were significantly more US Army defeats :( Thanks for posting this!

So you would have wanted more American working class men to get slaughtered by imperialism? Wouldn't a better position be to say you wish there was no US imperialism in the first place?


If an epidemic didn't wipe out over 95% of the indigenous population, you bet your ass this wouldn't be called America!


Epidemic wasn't a major reason for the colonization. And let's be honest, it's really silly to think that the Americas would never have been colonized at some point or another, with the colonists taking identical or similar means.

[BIXX]

So you would have wanted more American working class men to get slaughtered by imperialism? Wouldn't a better position be to say you wish there was no US imperialism in the first place?

Of course, but I still think it'd be kinda nice to have not slaughtered almost an entire population.


Epidemic wasn't a major reason for the colonization. And let's be honest, it's really silly to think that the Americas would never have been colonized at some point or another, with the colonists taking identical or similar means.


Without the disease it would have been far harder, though. Like whoever it was said above, disease wiped out around 95% (I believe the number accepted by most academics is 96%), so you can't deny that It made colonization easier.

[La Guaneña]

So you would have wanted more American working class men to get slaughtered by imperialism? Wouldn't a better position be to say you wish there was no US imperialism in the first place?


It would be great to live in a beautiful world where US imperialism did not take such concrete and violent forms. But since we do, yes, dead marines sounds good to me.

[Geiseric]

So you would have wanted more American working class men to get slaughtered by imperialism? Wouldn't a better position be to say you wish there was no US imperialism in the first place?



Epidemic wasn't a major reason for the colonization. And let's be honest, it's really silly to think that the Americas would never have been colonized at some point or another, with the colonists taking identical or similar means.

They shouldn't of joined the military then. If they were real men they wouldn't be bullying people.

[Per Levy]

They shouldn't of joined the military then. If they were real men they wouldn't be bullying people.

how do you define "real men"? and you know that there are also women in the modern military right? are these women no "real women" in you opinion?

[Bala Perdida]

how do you define "real men"? and you know that there are also women in the modern military right? are these women no "real women" in you opinion?
Basically being in the military doesn't give them an excuse to be murderous assholes. The same applies for women in this situation.

[blake 3:17]

From an interview with the authors of a new book on Red Cloud:


RENEE MONTAGNE, HOST:

Not long after the Civil War, America waged another war, one that's almost been lost to history. It was 1866. Settlers were pouring westward in wagon trains to farm or mine for gold, pushing onto the land of the American Indians. That's when the great Sioux warrior Red Cloud decided: no more. His territory had already shrunk. At one point, it had spanned what is now Wyoming, Montana, the Dakotas and the sacred Black Hills, known to the Sioux as Paha Sapa, the heart of everything that is. In a stunning turn, the Sioux leader would battle and ultimately defeat the U.S. Army - two years of fighting - until the government appealed for peace on Red Cloud's terms.

The story of this remarkable man is told in a new biography. When authors Bob Drury and Tom Clavin joined us, Bob Drury began the tale at the dawn of what would become known as Red Cloud's War.

BOB DRURY: General William Tecumseh Sherman, who was in charge of the army of the West, he issued an order. He said kill Red Cloud. Kill every Indian male over the age of 12. And, of course, Red Cloud knew about this, and he just said, OK, enough. He not only was able to unite the fractious and bickering Sioux bands and clans and tribes, but it was extraordinary that he got the Arapaho to become part of his union. He got the Cheyenne. He got some Shoshoni. Red Cloud had enough foresight to know if I'm going to fight the United States, I need every American Indian on my team, so to speak.

MONTAGNE: And the backdrop for this was something that Red Cloud had proclaimed. And go ahead, if you would, and read that quote.

DRURY: (Reading) The Great Spirit raised both the white man and the Indian. I think he raised the Indian first. He raised me in this land, and it belongs to me. The white man was raised over the great waters, and his land is over there. Since they crossed the sea, I have given them room. There are now white people all about me. I have but a small spot of land left. The Great Spirit told me to keep it.

MONTAGNE: One of the most important and dramatic battles in Red Cloud's War came just before Christmas, in 1866. The Bluecoats, as the U.S. soldiers were known, they were veterans, many of them, of some of the fiercest battles of the Civil War. But it turned they were out of their element with the Sioux.

DRURY: It was a guerrilla war. And the irony, I suppose, is we had become a nation by fighting a guerrilla war against the British, and we forgot what a guerrilla war was. And the American Indians, they knew the land. So they could fight from Butte to Coulee, from ravine to stream. The American generals were just stunned. They didn't know how to deal with this. And, for the first time, Red Cloud was able to coordinate attacks at the same time hundreds of miles apart. So, here's Red Cloud. He's drawn out the largest force, to this point, that has ever gone against an American army: 81 men and officers. And he's got 2,000, a multi-tribal army, coming behind them and he wipes them out, to a man - 81 men. It doesn't sound like a lot to us now, but back then, in 1866, it just rocked the Department of War, and it rocked the White House.

http://www.npr.org/2013/11/18/245913186/new-book-tells-untold-story-of-red-cloud-an-american-legend

[Sinister Intents]

So you would have wanted more American working class men to get slaughtered by imperialism? Wouldn't a better position be to say you wish there was no US imperialism in the first place?

No, I would not have been alright with the slaughter of more working class men and women. indeed that would be a far better position, but as EchoShock said.


Of course, but I still think it'd be kinda nice to have not slaughtered almost an entire population.

[Rafiq]

Where does it end? Were factory workers pawns of imperialism for partaking in sustaining an industrial complex that supports imperialism?

[La Guaneña]

I didn't claim that the dead marines were at fault for it. I was saying that in many situations, dead marines are a necessity for defeating imperialism. Boo-hoo, it's sad that a bunch of kids go to war to die, but those people in Asia or Africa kinda got tired after waiting for the imperialist beast to have a stomach ache.

[Marshal of the People]

So you would have wanted more American working class men to get slaughtered by imperialism? Wouldn't a better position be to say you wish there was no US imperialism in the first place?



Epidemic wasn't a major reason for the colonization. And let's be honest, it's really silly to think that the Americas would never have been colonized at some point or another, with the colonists taking identical or similar means.

So a couple thousand dead Americans are worth more than 100 million dead Native Americans? (I sense bourgeoisie racism!)

[Alexios]

So a a couple thousand dead Americans are worth more than 100 million dead Native Americans? (I sense bourgeoisie racism!)

:rolleyes: Get a life. I'm just saying that as communists we should recognize that the oppressed classes lose out either way, and that calling for more US army defeats is a liberal moralist position and not a communist one.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

:rolleyes: Get a life. I'm just saying that as communists we should recognize that the oppressed classes lose out either way, and that calling for more US army defeats is a liberal moralist position and not a communist one.

It's amazing that one can jump to the defense of settler-colonialism, and have the gall to call opposing it "liberal moralism"! It's not only liberal moralism, but white supremacist imperialist garbage to bust out the handwringing "but they're killing (white) workers!" Who gives a shit? Let's take a serious class line on this - are we with the American bourgeoisie and their project, or are we against it?
Anyway, even if we were to be obnoxious liberal moralists who are more concerned with "the (white) workers!"-as-such than taking a class position, is it really fair to call the American army working class at the point we're talking about? Because I'm pretty sure if we take a real look at what's up, what we see isn't workers, but a nascent petit-bourgeois who are engaged in a brutal campaign of primitive accumulation. Like, seriously, we're talking settlers who are out murdering to secure their piece of the pie over the dead bodies of the indigenous population.
Do you moralize like this about the IDF too?

[A Psychological Symphony]

:rolleyes: Get a life. I'm just saying that as communists we should recognize that the oppressed classes lose out either way, and that calling for more US army defeats is a liberal moralist position and not a communist one.

"Get a life" cool insult man.

OBVIOUSLY nobody on this board wants working class men or women to die. The reality however is that there are wars, and one side must lose. By saying that he/she wants more imperialist defeats doesn't need to come to your warped idea that he/she wants working class people to be killed. Rather the imperialists be beaten back than invade indigenous lands and slaughter millions.

[Rafiq]

The victory of the native Americans has absolutely nothing to do with proletarian dictatorship or communism. I do not mind dead marines, the Bolsheviks did well to fight the armies of many foreign imperialist powers, but the question isn't one of the value of human life, because I could care less. It is a question of what is worth supporting in the first place.

[La Guaneña]

The victory of the native Americans has absolutely nothing to do with proletarian dictatorship or communism. I do not mind dead marines, the Bolsheviks did well to fight the armies of many foreign imperialist powers, but the question isn't one of the value of human life, because I could care less. It is a question of what is worth supporting in the first place.

So you're basically saying that you only support an armed struggle that leads directly to the Dictatorship of the Proletariat?

So no support for the palestinian people today, or for the latin american guerrillas in the 60s and 70s fighting Op. Condor? Brilliant.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Without the disease it would have been far harder, though. Like whoever it was said above, disease wiped out around 95% (I believe the number accepted by most academics is 96%), so you can't deny that It made colonization easier.

Wasn't disease and plague just a part of the overall war strategy of the colonialists? Small pox blankets and the like? Biological warfare?

http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/amherst/34_40_305_fn.jpeg

http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/amherst/34_41_114_fn.jpeg

"Could it not be contrived to send the Small Pox among those disaffected tribes of Indians? We must on this occasion use every stratagem in our power to reduce them."-General Amherst.

full link (http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/amherst/lord_jeff.html)


^Correspondences from General Amherst seems to suggest as such. As to the OP; pretty interesting.

[Rafiq]

So you're basically saying that you only support an armed struggle that leads directly to the Dictatorship of the Proletariat?

So no support for the palestinian people today, or for the latin american guerrillas in the 60s and 70s fighting Op. Condor? Brilliant.

I am a Communist, I only support that which brings us closer to global domination.

[La Guaneña]

I am a Communist, I only support that which brings us closer to global domination.


So vague, but soooooo big "c" Communist. DNZism strives strong among the US working class.

Don't you think it is important to historically support struggles such as these in the sake of memory and self-affirmation for these Native peoples? Don't you think that keeping their past of struggle and dignity is important today?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

So a a couple thousand dead Americans are worth more than 100 million dead Native Americans? (I sense bourgeoisie racism!)

That's just silly and historically ignorant. Those American soldiers did not personally kill 100 million Native Americans - disease did. Yes, the US exacerbated that disease by herding Native Americans into overcrowded camps, depriving them of their traditional food sources and native climates, but by the time the US cavalry was marching through the praries, the damage had been done.


The victory of the native Americans has absolutely nothing to do with proletarian dictatorship or communism. I do not mind dead marines, the Bolsheviks did well to fight the armies of many foreign imperialist powers, but the question isn't one of the value of human life, because I could care less. It is a question of what is worth supporting in the first place.

I disagree with this. First, the massive opening of land for exploitation by white settlers helped to grow American Capital and stave off class struggle by essentially transferring land and resources from Native Americans to White settlers. "Manifest destiny" was what created the material conditions to make the American economy the powerhouse it is today. Secondly, there's a history in places like Latin America of solidarity between indigenous communities with pre-feudal property relations and the working class. I don't think the struggle against colonialism can be so easily cut off from working class struggle as you think, in part because it is the same Capital which drives both problems.

IMO it is also myopic to overlook the struggles of colonized peoples against their oppressors just because one does not take up 'petty moral concerns' like the value of human life, or because they are not yet wage slaves to private Capital. As much as anything else, this is a historical memory which is raw to many workers of indigenous descent as it is that historical period which forced them into the terrible conditions in which they live today, and because those human lives which you personally don't value are their ancestors. Understanding that history seems like a useful way of not only reaching out to Native American communities but of building broader solidarity between them and the rest of the working class, and understanding their problems from their point of view.

[Ritzy Cat]

Can we call the nuclear bomb being dropped on Hiroshima & Nagasaki American defeats? They basically chickened out, too scared to invade the Empire of Japan?? Instead they cheated, I guess cheating means you automatically lose.

Japan: 2
USA: 0

[La Guaneña]

Can we call the nuclear bomb being dropped on Hiroshima & Nagasaki American defeats? They basically chickened out, too scared to invade the Empire of Japan?? Instead they cheated, I guess cheating means you automatically lose.

Japan: 2
USA: 0

Well, I couldn't bring myself to seeing those as defeats to the USA. Maybe a defeat on ethical grounds, but not a military or a strategical one...

[Skyhilist]

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were mainly to scare the shit out of the USSR. How fucked up is that? Hundreds of thousands dead to make a political point.


Anyways, the best thing would have been if there had never been any imperialism. The second best thing (from a consequentialism viewpoint) would be dead imperialists.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Can we call the nuclear bomb being dropped on Hiroshima & Nagasaki American defeats? They basically chickened out, too scared to invade the Empire of Japan?? Instead they cheated, I guess cheating means you automatically lose.

Japan: 2
USA: 0

They didn't "chicken out" or "cheat", they made a simple cost-benefit analysis and determined that nuking Japan had lower costs and more benefits.

Also if Japan had the bomb they would have done the exact same thing. They even had a nuclear weapon program of their own and one Japanese plan was to use WMDs on the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaimingjie_germ_weapon_attack
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_nuclear_weapon_program#Ni-Go_Project


Hiroshima and Nagasaki were mainly to scare the shit out of the USSR. How fucked up is that? Hundreds of thousands dead to make a political point.


You're right to a point that it was done to "scare the shit" out of the USSR, but putting it in those moralistic terms overlooks the fact that states don't operate in those terms. States are institutions of power, and the leaders of those states tend to be concerned with preserving those institutions, not living up to some kind of idealistic moral code (though they may think of themselves as doing both).

Also, American firebombings actually did much more damage to Japanese cities and killed many more people than the nukes ever did by a lot. What made the nuclear weapons so scary was that it was easy for a single bomber to do that kind of damage, not a whole fleet of bombers.



Anyways, the best thing would have been if there had never been any imperialism. The second best thing (from a consequentialism viewpoint) would be dead imperialists.Who are "Imperialists"? Are we talking about people like Winston Churchill, or the soldiers that they commanded?

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Calling disease the only factor in the Native American genocides is historical revisionism. Hundreds of thousands of Hispaniola natives were slain at the hands of Columbus' gold tax alone.

[Rafiq]

So vague, but soooooo big "c" Communist. DNZism strives strong among the US working class.

Don't you think it is important to historically support struggles such as these in the sake of memory and self-affirmation for these Native peoples? Don't you think that keeping their past of struggle and dignity is important today?

Your romantic affinity with those "native peoples", those 'noble savages', as you would see it, has absolutely no political relevance today. Not only that, it has no place in our historic tradition as communists as fallen hero's of our cause in the same way the defenders of the commune, the defeated of the Spartacus uprising, the workers of Chile and so on were.

What lesson does their "struggle and dignity" teach us? Why is it different from any other 'noble savage' scenario? I absolutely condemn the genocide of the Americans (I detest this "native" nonsense, it's so orientalist), but the best scenerio would have been assimilation (not forced, but encouraged etc.) Into capitalist society. You think there is some mystical power in culture worth preserving, there is not, it is all in accord with their much less advanced mode of production. Of course the settlers would have nothing of that, though.

[Rafiq]

How repulsive is this orientalist thinking, the same kind we get from movies like avatar, it is absolutely reactionary and it is absolutely only in the minds of guilty western romantics.

[Skyhilist]

@Sinister in the last part I was referring back to the European colonists of America. So maybe "colonism" would be a better word to use than "imperialism" but you get the idea.

[Alexios]

What lesson does their "struggle and dignity" teach us? Why is it different from any other 'noble savage' scenario? I absolutely condemn the genocide of the Americans (I detest this "native" nonsense, it's so orientalist), but the best scenerio would have been assimilation (not forced, but encouraged etc.) Into capitalist society. You think there is some mystical power in culture worth preserving, there is not, it is all in accord with their much less advanced mode of production. Of course the settlers would have nothing of that, though.

So you're condemning orientalism while talking about a "much less advanced mode of production." Do you not see the hypocrisy here? I can't think of many things more Eurocentric than saying that the economies of England and Spain were any less twisted than those used by indigenous Americans (whose methods of societal organization differed so much that it's impossible to even talk about one 'mode of production').

[Marshal of the People]

:rolleyes: Get a life. I'm just saying that as communists we should recognize that the oppressed classes lose out either way, and that calling for more US army defeats is a liberal moralist position and not a communist one.

You just flamed me! So we can't stop a genocide because we could kill the people committing it? How convenient!

[Rafiq]

So you're condemning orientalism while talking about a "much less advanced mode of production." Do you not see the hypocrisy here? I can't think of many things more Eurocentric than saying that the economies of England and Spain were any less twisted than those used by indigenous Americans (whose methods of societal organization differed so much that it's impossible to even talk about one 'mode of production').

You're talking nonsense if you say that the mode(s) of production prevalent in Europe, that is, the capitalist mode of production or a transitional stage into it are on an equal level with those of hte native americans. If only you knew how foolish you sound, do you dare assume that the advancement of a mode of production is merely a moral question? I certainly hope you do not call yourself a Marxist. If you are incapable of recognizing that the English and Spanish mode(s) of production were more advanced than the native americans, you are not approaching this honestly. I wonder why it wasn't the Native Americans, who according to you were equally advanced as the colonial powers, but were simply culturally different (What cack! That is orientalism, my friend!) that were able to discover the other side of the Earth, but no, apparently their inability to produce viable transportation methods is simply attributed to the realm of culture. And culture, to you, is not something that reacts and exists in accords to the basis of life, the mode of production, but just something they pulled out of their ass. What does "twisted" mean? Again, your position with regard to the topic is based on what you deem is "right" or "wrong", but your moral basis is not even remotely Communist.

And oh, I'm sure in a place like Asia as well, "societal differences" were incredibly different, but that does not mean the mode of production was. I am sure thousands of years ago there were vast societal differences in hunter gatherer societies, it does not mean we catagorize them differently with that regard. I, unapologetically stand by the Marxist concept of asiatic mode(s) of production, it is not by any means "orientalist" or "Eurocentric" (Another word I detest, sorry but "Europe" has come closer than any other region on Earth, intellectually, to understanding the world around us, even the concept of "eurocentricism" resides upon "eurocentric" presumptions).

[blake 3:17]

If only you knew how foolish you sound, do you dare assume that the advancement of a mode of production is merely a moral question? I certainly hope you do not call yourself a Marxist. If you are incapable of recognizing that the English and Spanish mode(s) of production were more advanced than the native americans, you are not approaching this honestly. I wonder why it wasn't the Native Americans, who according to you were equally advanced as the colonial powers, but were simply culturally different (What cack! That is orientalism, my friend!) that were able to discover the other side of the Earth, but no, apparently their inability to produce viable transportation methods is simply attributed to the realm of culture.

I have been asked on this board why I no longer consider myself a Marxist.

It's for the reasons above.

What does 'advanced' mean?

[Flying Purple People Eater]

How were they more advanced, objectively?

In what ways were they more advanced than the 'Native Americans' (in a sense this is like questioning whether or not Egypt was more advanced than the 'Eurasians' considering the ridiculous sense of ambiguity and nonspecific grouping going on)?

In terms of the agricultural sector, some societies in South America and Mesoamerica were the most technologically advanced on earth on the eve of colonialism. Geometrically determined irrigation constructions miles long contributed to massive food gains and the subsequent growth of enormous populations.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Calling disease the only factor in the Native American genocides is historical revisionism. Hundreds of thousands of Hispaniola natives were slain at the hands of Columbus' gold tax alone.

Are you responding to me? I didn't call it the only factor, but someone else was saying the US Marines were the only factor in killing 100 million indigenous people. I wasn't saying disease was the only thing that killed natives, just that the US army was not directly responsible for a majority of indigenous deaths (it should be noted that US government policies, generally speaking, exacerbated it)


You're talking nonsense if you say that the mode(s) of production prevalent in Europe, that is, the capitalist mode of production or a transitional stage into it are on an equal level with those of hte native americans. If only you knew how foolish you sound, do you dare assume that the advancement of a mode of production is merely a moral question? I certainly hope you do not call yourself a Marxist. If you are incapable of recognizing that the English and Spanish mode(s) of production were more advanced than the native americans, you are not approaching this honestly. I wonder why it wasn't the Native Americans, who according to you were equally advanced as the colonial powers, but were simply culturally different (What cack! That is orientalism, my friend!) that were able to discover the other side of the Earth, but no, apparently their inability to produce viable transportation methods is simply attributed to the realm of culture. And culture, to you, is not something that reacts and exists in accords to the basis of life, the mode of production, but just something they pulled out of their ass. What does "twisted" mean? Again, your position with regard to the topic is based on what you deem is "right" or "wrong", but your moral basis is not even remotely Communist.


It's actually accurate to say that the agricultural methods of the Aztecs, Mayans and Incans produced a massive surplus and that the living standards were generally better. The Spanish Conquistadors who entered Tenochtitlan made note of how clean and well fed most of the denizens were, compared to the filth and poverty of Spain. The development of maize was probably one of the most important plant or animal domestications in history.

There is also the well-documented fact that Mayan and Amazonian forms of exploitation of the jungle are substantially more sustainable than European methods and produce fairly high yields by using slash and burn methods. Incan terraces and irrigation systems, as well as their road system, were noted by the Spanish and were critical for supporting a massive population. The Aztec agricultural method of Chinampas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinampa) was able to produce multiple harvests per year and was able to support a massive population in the Valley of Mexico. Those weren't agricultural methods developed in Europe, they were developed in Mexico and Peru.

Just because the Aztecs, Incans and Mayans lacked vessels which could cross the Atlantic or ironworking, doesn't make them objectively less advanced. There's no linear technological development - you can develop excellent agricultural methods without developing iron.



And oh, I'm sure in a place like Asia as well, "societal differences" were incredibly different, but that does not mean the mode of production was. I am sure thousands of years ago there were vast societal differences in hunter gatherer societies, it does not mean we catagorize them differently with that regard. I, unapologetically stand by the Marxist concept of asiatic mode(s) of production, it is not by any means "orientalist" or "Eurocentric" (Another word I detest, sorry but "Europe" has come closer than any other region on Earth, intellectually, to understanding the world around us, even the concept of "eurocentricism" resides upon "eurocentric" presumptions). The "Asiatic" mode of production is different from "primitive communism" and the kind of early agricultural communism which existed in certain indigenous societies.

The problem with the "Asiatic" mode of production (and what makes it an orientalist concept) is that it divides Asia from Europe and makes despotism essentially Asian, and Asia historically Despotic. It overlooks the existence of despotism outside of Asia, and feudalism in Japan and India and the development of mercantile societies in places like the Indian Ocean.


Your romantic affinity with those "native peoples", those 'noble savages', as you would see it, has absolutely no political relevance today. Not only that, it has no place in our historic tradition as communists as fallen hero's of our cause in the same way the defenders of the commune, the defeated of the Spartacus uprising, the workers of Chile and so on were. Maybe it has no political relevance to you but I know more than a few Latin American, Chicano and Native American activists for whom these figures remain important. Forced assimilation into Spain, Britain and America, the heightening of economic exploitation, the relegation to second class status due to their ethnicity and culture, and the forced change of their social and productive relations, were all incredibly harmful to these communities - not only in cultural terms, which I know you could care less about, but in terms of the material living conditions of indigenous peoples. So while I can see that Red Cloud and Crazy Horse may not be relevant to an Arab American living in Michigan, those men will continue to be heroes to those stuck on a reservation and deprived of access to the bountiful land on which they used to live.

That's not naive and romantic "noble savage" mythology, and to say it necessarily must be shows a misunderstanding of the history of colonialism and colonized peoples.

Edit - I think it's fair to appreciate it when a group of people resist an enemy which outguns them and has superior military and industrial technology without being caught up in some kind of "noble savage" mythology. The point is that determined bands of Sioux warriors used superior strategies to outwit and outmaneuver a larger and richer foe. That's the reason so many people respect Red Cloud. As much as anything else, it's a blow against White supremacism, American chauvinism and the general ideology that White or Western people are necessarily superior to their non-white, non-western opponents. That ideology is the basis of colonialism, and any blow against it should be seen positively, even if we don't embrace the way of life of those fighting against the colonizers.


What lesson does their "struggle and dignity" teach us? Why is it different from any other 'noble savage' scenario? I absolutely condemn the genocide of the Americans (I detest this "native" nonsense, it's so orientalist), but the best scenerio would have been assimilation (not forced, but encouraged etc.) Into capitalist society. You think there is some mystical power in culture worth preserving, there is not, it is all in accord with their much less advanced mode of production. Of course the settlers would have nothing of that, though. How would they be "encouraged" to enter Capitalist society? Their means of production were sufficient to support their population, the problem was that the US destroyed the buffalo herds and drastically reduced the size of their hunting grounds. This inevitably caused war and conflict. Simply put, they didn't want to become industrial proles, and they didn't want to become agrarian smallholders residing in the worst land in the US. The US government did want that.

I think the ideal would have been that they were brought into a Socialist society that would have helped them learn new methods of production without alienating them from the land which they were accustomed to, and without forcing them to adopt forms of life which they did not want to adopt.

It seems like a reductionistic and vulgar form of economism to reduce all culture to economics alone. If their culture is dependent on their "less advanced" mode of production, and if capitalism is fundamentally "European", why do many Native Americans work to preserve aspects of their culture up through our Capitalist society? Do you really think that there is nothing for us to adopt from their culture, and that they need to assimilate into European society? I'm all for the benefits of modern industrial society and modern technology, and I don't believe in multicultural atomism where distinct societies need to preserve their cultural norms in some kind of purified state. At the same time, it seems like there are better ways of bringing, say, a hunting society like the Sioux in the 1800s into modern industrial society than forcing them to abandon their culture and way of life wholesale.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Rafiq, you realize that what you're spouting is the absolute worst parts of enlightenment liberalism, right? Like, some Platypus Affiliated Society garbage for sure. I'm not saying that just as a slur (though I certainly hope my negative view of such white supremacist garbage is apparent), but mean that you're literally echoing their leading light, Cutrone:

Now I am going to say something for internal consumption only (this is perhaps a "closeted" position): At this point, the only hope that the Palestinians have is in and through Israel, precisely as a "settler colonial state," not independent of, let alone opposed to it. Just as the only hope for Native Americans has been through integration into the U.S.
Of course the degree to which the U.S. was racist it failed as bourgeois society -- as is true of Israel today. Now, precisely the problem is that Israel doesn't "want" the Palestinians. So the Palestinians are indeed quite vulnerable. But the rational kernel of such racism is that "they are not like us," i.e., the recognition and rejection of non-bourgeois forms of life. We must defend this rational kernel of bourgeois subjectivity obscure to itself, rather than the Ben Lewis et al.'s perspective of assuming everyone is always already bourgeois, anthropologically. They're not.
Bourgeois society is a fragile achievement [ . . . a]nd it is the only possible basis for progress in freedom.
I hope you find your theoretical common ground with bourgeois Zionism as disturbing as I do.

[Invader Zim]

How were they more advanced, objectively?

In what ways were they more advanced than the 'Native Americans' (in a sense this is like questioning whether or not Egypt was more advanced than the 'Eurasians' considering the ridiculous sense of ambiguity and nonspecific grouping going on)?

In terms of the agricultural sector, some societies in South America and Mesoamerica were the most technologically advanced on earth on the eve of colonialism. Geometrically determined irrigation constructions miles long contributed to massive food gains and the subsequent growth of enormous populations.

This is certainly true, and as blake asked how does one define 'advanced', the term is too broad, too inclusive, and therefore too imprecise in this context. However, certainly in terms of military technology and doctrine, and proto-industrial technology, the colonial settlers had an undeniable advantage which allowed them to wage war highly effectively. As other have noted they also had a massive advantage that pathogens preceded their own incursions.


The Aztec agricultural method of Chinampas was able to produce multiple harvests per year and was able to support a massive population in the Valley of Mexico. Those weren't agricultural methods developed in Europe, they were developed in Mexico and Peru.

While the population of South and Central America in the 15th Century was indeed impressive, some 40-50 million, you seem to be forgetting that the population of Medieval Europe was anywhere between 75-150 million. It is almost as if you seem to think that European agricultural practises involved little more than ragged surfs toiling away in the mud with their bare hands as depicted in Monty Python's The Holy Grail. I would suggest that, in order to sustain a population of 75-150 million, the various cultures across the continent must have known what they were doing when it came to agriculture.

[Sea]

how do you define "real men"? and you know that there are also women in the modern military right? are these women no "real women" in you opinion?The people in the imperialist military are not real people to me. :glare:

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

While the population of South and Central America in the 15th Century was indeed impressive, some 40-50 million, you seem to be forgetting that the population of Medieval Europe was anywhere between 75-150 million. It is almost as if you seem to think that European agricultural practises involved little more than ragged surfs toiling away in the mud with their bare hands as depicted in Monty Python's The Holy Grail. I would suggest that, in order to sustain a population of 75-150 million, the various cultures across the continent must have known what they were doing when it came to agriculture.

My point isn't to argue that European technology was so much worse when it came to agriculture. It's just to argue that the Native Americans had significant achievements, particularly in high yield agriculture in otherwise unusual environments (like lakes, jungles and mountains), and these achievements often get overlooked because they used stone weapons. Of course Europe had developed important technologies too (they also had other advantages like oxen to pull plows, which the "New World" didn't have). Specific technologies like the Chinampas were uniquely efficient, contingent of course on the presence of a lake, as the Aztecs were able to harvest the same field over five times a year. The Incan terraces were likewise uniquely able to make some of the harshest environments arable. Remarkably, many Incan terraces are still in use today.

This points to something critical about technological advancement - it's often hard to say the technology of one civilization is "objectively" better than another, because the technologies developed by that civilization are uniquely fitted to surviving in a particular environment. It made sense for Europeans to develop long-range seagoing vessels because its nearness to Africa and the Arab world made trade particularly lucrative. Since they didn't have so many high mountains outside of the Alps and Pyrenees there was less need to develop terrace agriculture.

Their architecture was a notable example of this too - in Cuzco during an earthquake, many of the old Spanish buildings were damaged and the Incan buildings (or more, what was left of them) stood. That's not to say that their architecture was "better", just that the Incans had created unique technologies to adapt to their environment that the Europeans didn't. Of course, Europeans had the arch and could build domes, which was a great achievement that the Incans didn't have, but they also couldn't replicate the Incan mortar-free style of architecture with its rounded buildings and interlocking stones. This style was particularly useful in their high-earthquake environment.

It should also be noted that Mexico/Central America is a fairly limited area geographically and much of it is desert, rugged mountain or jungle, and the Andean cultures sustained a very high population at a very high altitude. Europe consists of temperate woodlands and plains.

[reb]

The people in the imperialist military are not real people to me. :glare:

The only real people to you are those in the revolutionary vanguard party apparently, everyone else is just a sap to take orders.

[Invader Zim]

Europe consists of temperate woodlands and plains.

It also consists of marshland, moorland, desert, forests, mountains, etc. One of the reasons that Europe's population increased from around 20 million in the 9th century to many times that by the 12th century was because the people began taming the landscape, clearing forests and draining marshes in order to create a landscape that would sustain agriculture.

But I take your point and agree - but I think this notion of agricultural top trumps doesn't really cut it. The fact that, where it ultimately counted, the populations of South and Central America were not able to compete militarily with the European invaders.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

It also consists of marshland, moorland, desert, forests, mountains, etc. One of the reasons that Europe's population increased from around 20 million in the 9th century to many times that by the 12th century was because the people began taming the landscape, clearing forests and draining marshes in order to create a landscape that would sustain agriculture.


Good point



But I take your point and agree - but I think this notion of agricultural top trumps doesn't really cut it. The fact that, where it ultimately counted, the populations of South and Central America were not able to compete militarily with the European invaders.

Well, considering disease managed to devastate the Aztecs and Incans alike before they were defeated, while their military technology was less effective that can't be blamed wholly for their defeat. A decent portion of Tenochtitlan's population died in between Cortez's initial occupation and final capture (including the 2nd in line for the speaker/leader of the Aztec leadership council) and it may have even driven the Incan civil war, as trade routes probably took diseases down to Peru well before any Spaniards arrived.

That, and of course the Spanish themselves made heavy use of native troops with native technology in both cases. In that case, it was the ineffective political models of exploitation which were also at fault as much as technology.

Also, the Incans and Mayans alike managed to inflict a number of defeats on the Spanish despite the diseases ravaging their communities and despite their inferior technology. One other tribe - the Mapuche - resisted well into the 1800s.

[Slavic]

The people in the imperialist military are not real people to me. :glare:

I guess I am not real since I am in a National Guard unit as well as the other leftist on here that are former military.

So I am guessing that you are going to write me and all other working class enlisted men, off as being what? Not real people? Class traitors?

Not everyone in the military is a reactionary dimwit like you most likely assume, and unsurprisingly some of us, like myself, joined the military because we are in debt and need a paycheck.

[Sea]

I guess I am not real since I am in a National Guard unit as well as the other leftist on here that are former military.

So I am guessing that you are going to write me and all other working class enlisted men, off as being what? Not real people? Class traitors?

Not everyone in the military is a reactionary dimwit like you most likely assume, and unsurprisingly some of us, like myself, joined the military because we are in debt and need a paycheck.You're speaking in absolutes, as if it were "all of us" versus "all of them". Those of "them" who join voluntarily for patriotic reasons have made it their lives to shoot at or assist harming other workers. It is those who I have no problem speaking in dehumanized terms about. Even all of them are not lost either as some may become class-conscious later on. Some like you are the victims of a vile coercion and draftees the victims of a slavery. Those who preform this vile service voluntarily and with full awareness of what it entails are the "reactionary dimwits" as you put it.

That's my own view. On the other hand, some of those in the imperialist military can't take a joke.

[Full Metal Bolshevik]

Probably a bit offtopic, but I don't want to open another topic for this.

What was the Native Americans mode of production?

[blake 3:17]

Probably a bit offtopic, but I don't want to open another topic for this.

What was the Native Americans mode of production?

North of 45 pretty much hunter gatherer. That's a gross simplification.