• merc@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    I would bet that the people of the time saw themselves as very civilized for not simply wiping the native population out.

    Like, when the Mongols sacked Baghdad just 250 years before the European ships started arriving in the Americas: “Most of the residents were massacred during and after the siege, with civilian casualty figures ranging in the hundreds of thousands.” The end of the Mongol period was when Timur / Timurlane resulting in the deaths of 20 million people. That’s just a century before the Europeans started conquering the new world.

    Maybe the Europeans of the 1500s to 1800s thought of themselves as kind and enlightened in that they made treaties with the natives instead of just massacring them. Maybe they thought of themselves as exceptionally kind because they actually assigned land to the natives, instead of simply taking all the land for themselves.

    Instead of thinking of the European colonial forces as an especially brutal and rapacious group, maybe it’s better to think of that entire time period as brutal.

    Also, as an aside, the natives are always portrayed as being peaceful, gentle people who are victims of the awful Europeans. But, we know that they were fighting amongst themselves before the Europeans arrived. The Europeans found native villages surrounded by palisades. There were already native groups who had been driven off their land by other native groups. They were massacred, but that was more a function of diseases and technology, rather than a difference in character.

    • itsralC@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      In the Spanish empire IIRC they were all given citicenship, so yes it could have been handled better, even in that era. In fact, the latino ethnicity is the result of the mix between the natives and the colonizers, which happened because they were integrated.