Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Treaty That Forced the Cherokee People from Their Homelands Goes on View

smithsonianmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 80 posts

Re: The Treaty That Forced the Cherokee People from Their Homelands Goes on View

#21

Post by toasterlovin »

jacobolus wrote: post #16
toasterlovin wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you know why disease seemed to almost eradicate indigenous populations in North America vs leave a large portion the indigenous population intact in central and South America? Asking because there is an obvious, massive difference in degree of indigenous genetic representation in, for example, the US vs. Mexico.

Disease was pretty indiscriminate and wiped out the vast majority of the population throughout the Americas. Before European arrival there were a massive number of people living throughout Central America, the Amazon rainforest, etc. Populations didn’t recover until several centuries later (and in some places, still haven’t). The big difference between the USA and regions further south is that in the USA white settle…

> The big difference between the USA and regions further south is that in the USA white settlers just mass-slaughtered most of those who remained post-disease so they could steal their land, whereas further south they were instead pressed into forced labor in service of a relatively small group of white colonial overseers.

This seems to be at odds with the fact that the US colonies (some of them, at least) imported African slaves. In theory, if they needed slave labor, why not make slaves out of the indigenous? Which leads me to believe that there's another distinction at play. I like umanwizard's explanation that the North America was settled by families whereas Central and South America were settled by single men. This would seem to jive with the genetic evidence from Central and South America that there is a high degree of admixture between Europeans and indigenous people, but that it is heavily skewed toward European males mating with indigenous females.

EDIT: Though now that I think about it, perhaps disease resistance in African slaves was an important factor in why they were preferred over indigenous.

Re: The Treaty That Forced the Cherokee People from Their Homelands Goes on View

#23

Post by terryschiavo22 »

steve19 wrote: post #2

It was not until 1924 that all Native Americans became US citizens. Prior to that they first had to give up tribal affiliation to gain US citizenship.

Which is totally reasonable. You can't follow two sets of laws at once.

Re: The Treaty That Forced the Cherokee People from Their Homelands Goes on View

#24

Post by tsimionescu »

terryschiavo22 wrote: post #23
steve19 wrote: post #2

It was not until 1924 that all Native Americans became US citizens. Prior to that they first had to give up tribal affiliation to gain US citizenship.

Which is totally reasonable. You can't follow two sets of laws at once.

It is completely unreasonable - people are allowed to have dual citizenships, sometimes even by birth. And of course you can follow two sets of laws at once - for example, fundamentalist Christians strive to follow biblical laws and local laws all the time. There may be occasional contradictions, but it's hardly a common problem.

Re: The Treaty That Forced the Cherokee People from Their Homelands Goes on View

#25

Post by fiblye »

terryschiavo22 wrote: post #23
steve19 wrote: post #2

It was not until 1924 that all Native Americans became US citizens. Prior to that they first had to give up tribal affiliation to gain US citizenship.

Which is totally reasonable. You can't follow two sets of laws at once.

Sure doesn’t seem like it’s constitutionally sound. If they’re born in the country, they’re citizens. Personal affiliation isn’t specified in the constitution or its amendments.

Re: The Treaty That Forced the Cherokee People from Their Homelands Goes on View

#26

Post by nafey »

toasterlovin wrote: post #9
protomyth wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would require the Columbian Exchange of diseases to have been a non-event. That massive population loss opened up the continent. Also, American Indian tribes are not a monolith so the contrast would be interesting. Given the migration of some tribes, I would expect a lot more tribal wars.

Do you know why disease seemed to almost eradicate indigenous populations in North America vs leave a large portion the indigenous population intact in central and South America? Asking because there is an obvious, massive difference in degree of indigenous genetic representation in, for example, the US vs. Mexico.

There seems to be a dogmatic insistence on the potency of the the widespread epidemic that happened after the first contact. The assertion seems to be: 1. There was a drastic fall in the population density of the natives

2. There is a critical density of population below which the indegenous people's claim on land in relinquished

3. A density of population below this was seen in North America before mass immigration of Europeans.

4. If it were not so the Settlers would have been culpable of genocide of the Natives

5. We know that 4 can't be true hence 3

Re: The Treaty That Forced the Cherokee People from Their Homelands Goes on View

#27

Post by 0815test »

toasterlovin wrote: post #8
RickJWagner wrote: post #3

I wonder what things would be like if the European settlers hadn't displaced the indigenous Americans. (If the American Indian way of life evolved and was still predominant today.) It's an interesting mental exercise.

A good model would probably be one of the central or South American countries. Mexico would probably be a good model for the northern states and Brazil would probably be a good model for the southern states (due to the large degree of African ancestry in its population). In Mexico there was a high degree of mixture between Europeans and indigenous and current day Mexico has a socio-economic gradient that roughy follo…

> Mexico has a socio-economic gradient that roughy follows degree of European ancestry. That is, more European ancestry = higher class. Brazil has a similar gradient, just with the added admixture of African slaves.

The interesting part is that the gradient is self-sustaining and even self-exacerbating over time because it's based on perceived ancestry, and perceived "European ancestry" becomes a very real signal of privileged status. It's kinda ironic; it shows us that 'structural racism' and 'white privilege' can be very real social mechanisms, and what they actually look like on the ground, in a society where they've been around for many centuries! If you didn't know any better, you'd predict that SR and WP are concepts created by scholars in Latin-American Studies, to explain these societies (much like, say, the Clientelism concept was). The reality is somewhat different!

Re: The Treaty That Forced the Cherokee People from Their Homelands Goes on View

#28

Post by SllX »

terryschiavo22 wrote: post #23
steve19 wrote: post #2

It was not until 1924 that all Native Americans became US citizens. Prior to that they first had to give up tribal affiliation to gain US citizenship.

Which is totally reasonable. You can't follow two sets of laws at once.

If you live in the United States you’re under two to three sets of laws at a time, minimum.

Federal law, State law, and whatever local laws apply to you. Tribal law slots fairly neatly in place of State law, the way reservations work now.

Re: The Treaty That Forced the Cherokee People from Their Homelands Goes on View

#29

Post by DuskStar »

toasterlovin wrote: post #21
jacobolus wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disease was pretty indiscriminate and wiped out the vast majority of the population throughout the Americas. Before European arrival there were a massive number of people living throughout Central America, the Amazon rainforest, etc. Populations didn’t recover until several centuries later (and in some places, still haven’t). The big difference between the USA and regions further south is that in the USA white settle…

> The big difference between the USA and regions further south is that in the USA white settlers just mass-slaughtered most of those who remained post-disease so they could steal their land, whereas further south they were instead pressed into forced labor in service of a relatively small group of white colonial overseers. This seems to be at odds with the fact that the US colonies (some of them, at least) imported A…

> In theory, if they needed slave labor, why not make slaves out of the indigenous?

It's a lot harder for an imported slave to run off than a local one. Local slave knows the land, knows where to run to, has a decent expectation that if they run there things will be better... An imported slave who runs doesn't really have that.

And where systems could be put in place to keep slaves from running, like the islands of the Caribbean? Well, those natives were worked to death, and then African slaves were imported to replace them. (And then more replacements came, because they were serious about that "working to death" thing)

Re: The Treaty That Forced the Cherokee People from Their Homelands Goes on View

#30

Post by DuskStar »

fiblye wrote: post #25
terryschiavo22 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is totally reasonable. You can't follow two sets of laws at once.

Sure doesn’t seem like it’s constitutionally sound. If they’re born in the country, they’re citizens. Personal affiliation isn’t specified in the constitution or its amendments.

If reservations weren't US land - and if you're making treaties with the owners then it's at least sort of "not US land" - then they weren't born in the country.
Post reply on HN