Opinion Colonial America Is a Myth

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Link (Archive)

Colonial America Is a Myth​

There is an old, deeply rooted story about America that goes something like this: Columbus stumbles upon a strange continent and brings back stories of untold riches. The European empires rush over, eager to stake out as much of this astonishing New World as possible. Even as they clash, they ignite an era of colonial expansion that lasts roughly four centuries, from the conquest of Hispaniola in 1492 to the Wounded Knee Massacre in 1890. Between those two moments, European empires and the nascent American empire amass souls, slaves, and territory, dispossessing and destroying hundreds of Indigenous societies. The Indians fight back but cannot stop the onslaught. Resourceful and defiant though they might be, they are no match for the newcomers and their raw ambition, superior technology, and lethal microbes that penetrate Native bodies with shocking ease. Indians are doomed; Europeans are destined to take over the continent; history moved irreversibly toward Indigenous destruction.

But there is another story we can tell, challenging the notion that colonial expansion was inevitable, and that colonialism defined the continent, as well as the experiences of those living on it.

Rather than a “colonial America,” we should speak of an Indigenous America that was only slowly and unevenly becoming colonial. By 1776, various European colonial powers together claimed nearly all of the continent for themselves, but Indigenous peoples and powers controlled it. The maps in modern textbooks that paint much of early North America with neat, color-coded blocks confuse outlandish imperial claims for actual holdings.

From the beginning of colonialism in North America to the Lakotas’ final military triumphs, a multitude of Native nations fought fiercely to keep their territories intact and their cultures untainted, frustrating the imperial pretensions of France, Spain, Britain, the Netherlands, and eventually the United States. When American history is detached from mainstream historical narratives that privilege European ambitions for power, European perspectives, and European sources, the record shows instead—time and time again, and across centuries—that Indians blocked and demolished colonial projects, relying on sophisticated political systems of kinship that allowed for flexible diplomacy and war-making, continuously reshaping borders on the continent and thwarting colonial ambitions.

Both Red Cloud’s War and the Battle of Little Bighorn—in which the Lakota Indians and their Cheyenne and Arapaho allies defeated the U.S.—have entered the history books as flukes, blamed on poor leadership and on a canny enemy familiar with the terrain. Seen from the Native American perspective, however, Red Cloud’s War and Custer’s Last Stand appear not as historical anomalies, but as the logical culmination of a long history of Indigenous power in North America. They were more expected than extraordinary.

There are many examples of similar inversions that occurred with other notable battles: the Pequot and Raritan massacres of 1637 and 1644, respectively, seemed to mark the sweeping collapse of Indigenous power in the Northeast. In truth, the massacres exposed a deep-rooted European anxiety over enduring Indigenous power: the attacks were so vicious because the colonists feared the Indians who refused to submit to their rule. The wars with the far more numerous and larger Native nations stretched the colonists near their breaking point. At midcentury, colonial settlements in North America consisted of some two dozen seaside towns and a handful of forts of little consequence on the coastal plains; curbed by Indigenous power, the English colonists had spread up and down along the Atlantic coast, latching onto its sheltering estuaries and managing only fleeting inroads into the continent’s interior. The Appalachians and the lands west of them remained largely unknown to white people.

The violent clashes between Native Americans and colonists during the late 1670s, which came to be known as Metacom’s War, or King Philip’s War to the English, were a shocking calamity to the colonists, even in apparent victory. New England had lost six hundred soldiers, roughly ten percent of its strength, and at least a thousand colonists had died. The colony suffered the loss of a staggering £150,000 in property at a time when £100 was a very comfortable yearly salary. More than a thousand colonial homes had been burned, and some two dozen towns had been either destroyed or severely damaged. The English would not reoccupy their prewar borders until 1700.

At the end of the seventeenth century, nearly simultaneous Indigenous rebellions against European imperial ambitions in all regions of North America almost thwarted English, French, and Spanish colonists. Although suffering defeats, Native Americans had rolled colonialism back in different corners of the continent, forcing colonists to retreat, recalibrate their ambitions, and reconsider their ingrained ideas about Native peoples. What made the Indigenous resistance so effective throughout the 18th and well into the 19th century were their systems of kinship and diplomacy which allowed them to recruit soldiers from several nations and forge strategic alliances that played colonial powers off of one another.

When the Indian wars finally came to an end in 1877, the United States was both imperious and exhausted. Since its founding in 1776, there had been more than sixteen hundred official military engagements with Native Americans. Moreover, while fighting Indians, the U.S. had descended into a draining and demoralizing Civil War that had claimed as many as 750,000 American lives. When peace finally came, the U.S. committed to completing not one but two reconstructions, of the American South and of the Indigenous West. Compared to the reconstruction of the American South, which involved conciliatory elements, the Indigenous reconstruction was, on the whole, harsh and vindictive, featuring more “civilization programs,” boarding schools designed to “kill the Indian to save the man,” and land policies that labeled Indigenous territories “surplus land.”

The four-hundred-year struggle to keep the continent Indigenous had stretched colonists from the European powers, and then the U.S., 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, such as the Six Nations of the Iroquois Confederacy, who 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.

Smaller nations relied on more nuanced and delicate tactics. Rather than confronting colonial powers directly in battle, they evaded them by making themselves small and inconspicuous, using the striking environmental variety of North America. The Catawbas, Shoshones, Utes, Nez Perces, Blackfoot, Seminoles, and others found refuge in deserts, mountains, and swamps, evading the settler empires that struggled with difficult and strange terrain, while the Shawnees, “the greatest travellers in America,” countered colonial displacement with a highly organized Indigenous diaspora. In the lower Mississippi Valley, the petites nations made themselves into forceful regional powers through strategic mobility, calculated violence, and expedient alliances, keeping just ahead of the imperial gaze of the surrounding colonial empires.

Indigenous power in North America reached its apogee in the mid- to late nineteenth century, which, at first glance, appears counterintuitive. This was the period when the country emerged onto the world stage with its “monstrous contiguous economic territories,” inspiring awe and fear in Germany and fueling an impression as the “greatest menace” in Italy. Subduing independent Native nations and erasing their sovereignty seemed to the imperial U.S. a straightforward problem of plying its overwhelming military might and technological advances, including railroads. But the Indigenous nations, too, reinvented themselves, in part as a response to the rising American empire. The powerful Comanches reduced much of the Mexican Republic to an extractive hinterland, enabling them to reign over an oversized section of the hemisphere. The Lakotas, relying on their equestrian mobility, their broad alliance network, and their generations-long experience of blocking colonial ambitions, emerged as the leading guardians of the Indigenous continent. Over a period of seven decades, they foiled U.S. expansion again and again, protecting in the process scores of smaller and more vulnerable nations. Looking east from the North American West, the history of North America emerges as a single story of resolute resistance that kept much of the continent Indigenous for generations.

Set against the deep history of the Indigenous continent, American history looks fundamentally different. So does the American present. Today, sovereign Indigenous America persists in the dynamism of modern Native communities, in the endurance of traditional ways of life, and in the continuation and evolution of the primary Indian response to colonialism: resistance.
 
"Natives" just mad that we took what they'd rightfully stolen from each other.

Sorry red man, you fought hard and for that I respect you, but didn't even have the fucking wheel.
 
Seen from the Native American perspective, however, Red Cloud’s War and Custer’s Last Stand appear not as historical anomalies, but as the logical culmination of a long history of Indigenous power in North America. They were more expected than extraordinary.
Then why do the invaders own this country with a few tiny scraps carved out for the "Indigenous power" due to literally nothing but pity for how powerless they are?
 
Someone needs to sit down and think about what America is.

Is it a landform, a country, or a people-group?

This article conflates the three in a way that makes no sense.
 
The author starts off saying the Indians weren't doomed, but spends the entire article talking about how the Indians were so hopelessly outmatched that it took their utmost effort to even slow down colonial expansion, and even that only really happened when Europeans/Americans were distracted by other shit like the civil war.
 
It's divide and conquor.

Also, did my teacher lie to me?


Native American populations descend from three key migrations

A: https://archive.ph/bFOtm

Edit: I think I went off topic w/this or not?
 
Cry more, the Native Americans had some brave warriors no doubt but they lost in the end. I see no reason to feel sad because someones ancestors lost some wars. Not going to be lectured on the history of my country by a Finn who probably only got into studying this part of anthropology because they were a novelty to him.
1001.png
1002.png
 
I respect the natives like I respect the confederates. They lost but their cause and purpose still had grit and was noble. If the confederates had won, they would have gotten more land as was the agreement with the confederacy.
 
Cry more, the Native Americans had some brave warriors no doubt but they lost in the end. I see no reason to feel sad because someones ancestors lost some wars. Not going to be lectured on the history of my country by a Finn who probably only got into studying this part of anthropology because they were a novelty to him.
View attachment 3728369
View attachment 3728370
Euros that get obsessed with american indians are soooo freakin weird.
 
The Iroquois and Cherokee rapidly adopted European technology and learning and they were a force to be reckoned with for a long time (among others).

I think with more time or access to more resources the native tribes could have held their own.
 
Cry more, the Native Americans had some brave warriors no doubt but they lost in the end. I see no reason to feel sad because someones ancestors lost some wars. Not going to be lectured on the history of my country by a Finn who probably only got into studying this part of anthropology because they were a novelty to him.
View attachment 3728369
View attachment 3728370
Why is it always non-natives who had nothing to do with American history writing articles like this?
 
The Iroquois and Cherokee rapidly adopted European technology and learning and they were a force to be reckoned with for a long time (among others).

I think with more time or access to more resources the native tribes could have held their own.
The fundamental problem they had was, amusingly, lack of horses native to the Americas. The development of the continents was held back roughly two millennia due to lack of anything to fit into the niche horses fill for everyone else. Africa is similar. Then the Spanish had some of their horses escape and the Commanche got their hands on them and become the finest light horsemen in the world. Which they used to raid everyone around them.

One distinction between the Plains indians and the rest of them was that rape wasn't a big thing with the non-Plains indians, who tended to be willing to ransom women they captured, only torturing the men to death. The Plains Indians, and especially the Commanche, would gang rape the women and then sometime they took them back to be slaves, sometimes tortured them to death. No such thing as a Noble Savage.
 
Lol, America didn't exist until Europeans arrived and eventually invented it. A few stone age savages puttering around the place murdering each other, does not a nation make.
 
I think with more time or access to more resources the native tribes could have held their own.
I think with better organization and better guns the Natives could have hammered out some kind of agreement with the whites to retain some land.

That being said, being hunter-gatherers is not a compatible lifestyle next door to settled people.

They would have had to assimilate to some extent, as modern Natives have.
 
Back
Top Bottom