• Blackmist@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    And there should be an even bigger block under it called “Native land and resources that they didn’t have gunpowder to defend”.

    • Skkorm@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It was a the death of 90% of the population to small pox within one generation that allowed colonization. The Europeans were dirty and diseased, untrained peasants. Their firearms at that time were inaccurate single shot rifles, that took minutes to reload. Analysis of indigenous bow techniques showed the common capability to accurately shoot multiple arrows in rapid succession.

      And it goes beyond war: Indigenous people didn’t farm as Europeans did, we instead cultivated forests with eidble plant species that complimented each other to kept the soil healthy. The forests across the Americas were thousands of years into a cycle of land management that kept grown food naturally abundant and plentiful, without having to clear the land. Indigenous peoples were expert and managing the population of the animals of their areas as well. We understood which members of an animal population should be hunted, and which should be kept for the health of the species. We then knew how to fully utilize every part of the animals hunted. The core of most indigenous cultures rotated around ethical and efficient management of the land’s resources. What did the Europeans do? Accidentally gave an entire continent a super virus, then stripped the forests clear to plant shitty crops not made for this climate, and hunted countless animal species to extinction. Europeans were not technologically advanced at all. They were just diseased. That’s it.

      Rest assured that without smallpox, the Americas would not have been colonized. Population density and technological differences would have made it too dangerous and expensive an undertaking.

      • orrk@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        ooof, lots of pent-up frustration here.

        Europeans were not any more “dirty” or “clean” than any other group, also Native Americans adopted the use of fire arms from the Europeans and would generally trade foodstuffs for firearms, in the end you are only repeating the Noble Savage

      • HenryWong327@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The main advantage of early guns wasn’t that they were more powerful, it’s that they were easy to use. You can train someone to fire a gun in a day, while it takes months of training just to get an archer strong enough to draw a bow.

        Also the whole “the Europeans were dirty diseased peasants” thing isn’t accurate, and I have to say that IMO the right response to racist depictions of indigenous people as unwashed savages isn’t to just turn around and say “actually the stereotypes are correct it’s just that it’s about the Europeans this time”.

        And Indigenous people had more advanced technoglogy than many give them credit for but "The Europeans were technologically behind indigenous people in nearly every way. " is just blatantly wrong.

        I do think you’re right though that without smallpox and other diseases the Europeans wouldn’t have colonised the Americas, though there were several other major factors in it.

        P.S. I’m not a historian, grain of salt, etc.

    • Cleverdawny
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The native tribes mostly did have gunpowder by that point, they were very motivated to trade for rifles and ammunition and the US government sold them rifles and ammunition through the Indian Agency.