The Crimes of Christopher Columbus

First Things and other sources ^ | November, 1995

[vote_quimby]

bump to read later.

[Antoninus]

It was just prior to the time it broke down the the Iroquoian policy of "You are with us or against us" came about - it was a power play designed to get the French Allies to join the Iroquois against the French, who the Iroquois disliked with a passion.

That's not correct. The Iroquois--the Mohawks or Agnierrhonons in particular--attempted to make a separate peace with the French on several occasions, to the exclusion of the Indian allies of the French. The point was to make the French into allies of the Mohawks (like they had done with the Dutch in the Hudson valley) and then take advantage of this situation to annihilate their ancient Indian enemies in the St. Lawrence Valley. The Iroquois did not hate the French--indeed they coveted the trade which the Hurons and Algonquins had developed with the French.

Interestingly, the French governor at the time, Charles de Montmagny, didn't go for this offer of peace from the Iroquois when it was presented to him in 1642. He would not abandon his Montagnais, Huron, and Algonquin allies who were in the process of accepting the Catholic faith.

See here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1233755/posts

The destruction of the Neutrals was the result of that policy... The bottom line is, the Neutrals brought it all on themselves - When the (French allies) Huron were being destroyed by their Iroquois bretheren, the supposed "Neutrals" allowed the surviving Hurons to move into their villages. Stupid mistake, and even more stupid was when the Iroquois basically said "Turn them over, or else" the Neutrals chose the "or else" part... They found out exactly what "or else" meant.

Actually, the Iroquois took many of the surviving refugee Hurons into their villages too. It was not a mistake for the Neutrals to do so. And this was not the cause of the wars between the Iroquois and the Neutrals in any case. The Seneca and the Neutrals had been at dagger's points several times prior to the wholescale Iroquois attacks that eventually destroyed the Neutrals in 1652-4.

If you map the history of wars around the homeland of the Iroquios confederacy in the early to mid 1600's, the pattern is unmistakable: The Iroquois eventually fought with EVERYBODY. When they acquired a steady supply of Dutch firearms (which were not available to any of their Native enemies except the Susquehannocks, they had an insurmountable upper hand--and they used it to incredible effect. The only one of their neighbors which wasn't either destroyed or subject to the Iroquois by 1660 was the Susquehannocks--and even they were eventually beaten into submission by the combined pressure of the Iroquis and the European colonists by 1680.

If you're interested in a chronology of the Iroquois wars to 1650, here's one I made last year:

Timeline of the Iroquois Wars (1533-1650)

Enjoy!

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

However, I'm also not denying that the Viking were brutal, either. ;0)

Don't worry. Someone will eventually. ; )

[Antoninus]

And it should be pointed out that enslavement was NOT something the Iroquois were known for. Instead, they practiced "mass adoptions" of captured enemies (which led to the other policy, the "Great Pursuit policy that would eliminate the threat of rebellion internally by those adopted) which meant that while other indian populations were dwindling, the Iroquois population was booming...

That's true. But the Iroquois were hardly unique in this. This practice was common to most of the eastern woodland tribes. Just as often, however, the adoptions were rejected and the unfortunate captive was sentenced to death by fire. But the Iroquois did have a form of enslavement, also. There was a common practice of chewing off the fingers of a captive which, it is thought, was done to make sure the individual in question could never again wield a weapon or draw a bow. Often, such disfigured individuals were put to death straight away, but on occasion, they were adopted by families who had lost loved ones to previous raids. Such individuals lived at the whim of their adoptive parents and could be killed with impunity for little or no reason. Sts. Rene Goupil and Isaac Jogues were in such a condition after they was captured by the Mohawks in 1641.

The practice of outright adoption of women and children without torture or disfigurement was much more common.

[Antoninus]

I'm not saying it's written in stone that there was influence, but to completely ignore the 5 nations as THE dominate power in North America during the early colonialization period, and even up into the French and Indian wars and beyond, would be ignore truth.

I would never do such a thing because I'm a student of the time. There is no denying that the Iroquois were a dominant political and military force throughout the 17th and 18th centuries.

Enough founders were aware of, and understood, the nature of the condeferacy to make it a valid question, though - how much influence was there? To just flat out say "None" is to be in denial that such savages could possibly be worth anything...

I would never say "none." What I would say is that the founders were considerably more influenced by the likes of Plato, Livy, Machiavelli, British history, etc. The Iroquois may have taught them by example that it's better to hang together than to hang separately. Beyond that, I wouldn't venture to go.

[television is just wrong]

Rewriting history, making heroes, explorers, and other famous individuals, out to be evildoers. I thought history was written by the winners, not the losers. We are indeed living in dangerous times. What is next, will history be revised to state that Adolf Hitler is actually a hero, and the Jewish people deserved what they got?

These revising historians need to take a flying leap outta here.

[Chad Fairbanks]

That's not correct. The Iroquois--the Mohawks or Agnierrhonons in particular--attempted to make a separate peace with the French on several occasions, to the exclusion of the Indian allies of the French. The point was to make the French into allies of the Mohawks (like they had done with the Dutch in the Hudson valley) and then take advantage of this situation to annihilate their ancient Indian enemies in the St. Lawrence Valley. The Iroquois did not hate the French--indeed they coveted the trade which the Hurons and Algonquins had developed with the French.

We never forgave the French for our first encounter with them, when they helped the Huron and it killed a few war chiefs. Sure, we wanted to trade with the french - why not? There was an advantage to it. Didn't mean we liked them. I think we spent far more time trying to keep the french neutral, while we set about forcing other tribes to deal through us... Yes, every single time we tried to negotiate with the French to avoid open war, we always excluded those tribes that were not part of our covenent chain - including french allies...

Yup. It would have been bad if the Dutch hadn't been there - we would have been at a distinct disadvantage were it not for the Dutch Firearms early on...

Actually, the Iroquois took many of the surviving refugee Hurons into their villages too.

Of course - part of our "Great Pursuit" policy. We would adopt all we captured into the various Iroquoian nations, and those who were NOT part of that were hunted down and destroyed - it kept the ones we adopted from revolting...

It was not a mistake for the Neutrals to do so.

Well, our policy said it was, so for what that's worth ;) Those Hurons not under our control were considered a threat, so they had to be dealt with. The Neutrals got in the way...

And this was not the cause of the wars between the Iroquois and the Neutrals in any case. The Seneca and the Neutrals had been at dagger's points several times prior to the wholescale Iroquois attacks that eventually destroyed the Neutrals in 1652-4.

I was referring to teh reason behind the wholesale attack, not the earlier stuff - Had the Neutrals just handed over who we wanted at the time, they might have bought themselves a few more years ;0)

From an online history I helped contribute to:

the Tahonaenrat (Huron) had continued to make war on the Iroquois from their refuge in the Neutrals' homeland. The Iroquois blamed the Neutrals for permitting this, and after diplomatic efforts failed to force the Neutrals to surrender the Tahontaenrat, the western Iroquois attacked the Neutrals in 1650. At first the Susquehannock attempted to help the Neutrals, but their assistance ended when the Mohawk, in a separate war, attacked the Susquehannock in the fall. For the most part, the war was over by the following year, and the Neutrals had ceased to exist. Many were captured by this time and later incorporated into the Iroquois, but several groups of the Neutrals were able to elude the Iroquois for some time after their defeat.

One small group is believed to have fled west across the Great Lakes and joined the Huron and Tionontati refugees living near Green Bay (Wisconsin). Another seems to have reached the Susquehannock (Pennsylvania) where a combined group of Neutrals and Susquehannock was reported to have defeated a large Seneca war party in 1652, and there were about 800 Neutrals living in at least two villages near Detroit during the winter of 1653. These Detroit villages may have continued until 1660. Other Neutrals were reported as living south of Lake Erie in 1656. However, both had disappeared by 1660, and their fate is unknown. By far the largest group (including many Huron) fled south into northern Ohio and found refuge with the Erie. The Erie accepted them but kept them in a status of complete submission which some have described as virtual slavery. Demands by the Iroquois that the Erie surrender these former enemies were refused, and the situation deteriorated into war by 1653. After three years the Erie were also destroyed and absorbed.

[Chad Fairbanks]

During the Beaver War periods, the mass adoption policy was in order to increase the number of warriors within the ranks - hard to do that when one is disfigured. ;0)

I don't think the disfigurement was all that common among those who chose adoption ("Join us, or die"? Hmmm... let me think... LOL) - and I think based on the alternative, most probably jumped at the chance to not only stay alive, but be on the winning side ;)

[Chad Fairbanks]

Fair enough :0)

[stainlessbanner]

bttt

[gedeon3]

'Thus, the first Christian prayer recited in the New World was an entreaty calling Mary the great advocate and Mother of God. '

This is bull sh*t. There was no such prayer as you put it, and God has no mother.

[Antoninus]

I'm not denying that my ancestors were brutal. However, I'm also not denying that the Viking were brutal, either. ;0)

Hey, my ancestors were not all saints either. I admire the Iroquois because they possessed a combination of political savvy, tactical brilliance in battle, and the wisdom to realize that strength comes from unity, not "diversity." They were also incredible and persuasive orators. The Jesuit fathers who understood their language constantly compared them to Cicero and laughed at the common European perception of the "ignorant savage."

Any people who can produce (soon to be) saints like Kateri Tekakwitha can't be all bad. ;-)

[Publius6961]

Great post! Thank you. Just ordered Rethinking Columbus. I just love reading the history revisionists. You can assume I will have more to say on the subject.

[Chad Fairbanks]

Well, maybe we ARE a tad bit arrogant. After all, we did declare war on Germany in WWI - 1917/18 or so I forget exactly when (and were not party to the peace treaty, so were all set and ready to go for WWII LOL)

But yes, we had some other good points, and the Lily of the Mohawks was certainly one of them...

(In case anyone is wondering, her name is pronounced "Gah-deh-lee Deh-gah-quee-tah")

[Chad Fairbanks]

Thanks for the link - I'll look at it in a little more depth when I have some time (I read pretty much anything and everything I come across regarding the Haudenosaunee, especially the Mohawk)

[Antoninus]

We never forgave the French for our first encounter with them, when they helped the Huron and it killed a few war chiefs.

"Never forgiving" was actually the reason wars never ended in the eastern woodlands. The wampum ceremony was supposed to allow forgiveness to take place and indeed, many hatchets were buried between the French and Iroquois. But it never stayed buried, unfortunately.

Yes, every single time we tried to negotiate with the French to avoid open war, we always excluded those tribes that were not part of our covenent chain - including french allies...

Not entirely true. The short-lived peace of 1645 was supposed to be a universal peace--at least the French thought so. In fact, as they later discovered, it was only a peace between the Mohawks and the French and their allies. The Oneida and Senecas continued to make war on the Hurons during this time--ironically with support from several Mohawks who went to help them because there was no fighting at the Eastern Door. The Iroquois tended to make peace in order to free up resources to wage war on other fronts.

Yup. It would have been bad if the Dutch hadn't been there - we would have been at a distinct disadvantage were it not for the Dutch Firearms early on...

Actually, it gave the Iroquois a distinct advantage. The French had a strict policy of not trading muskets to the Indians--even their allies. The only exception was for the occasional convert to Christianity. Thus, the Iroquois were able to field 50-100 skilled arquebusiers in the 1640s, while their enemies (again, except the Susquehannocks to the south) were still fighting with bows, knives, clubs, and steel axes. If not for this advantage, there's little indication that the political unity of the Iroquois would have been enough, in and of itself, to overcome the equally unified and populous Hurons, Neutrals, Eries, and Mahicans.

To prove this, the nation that caused the Iroquois the most difficulty and dread were the Susquehannocks who were similarly armed by the Dutch and Swedes. This was in spite of the fact that the Susquehannocks were considerably less numerous than the Iroquois and were consistently pressed on their southern and eastern borders by the English colonists.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

***Wrong word. The word should be "Greed".***

Wrong.
What changed the word "Dweller of the green forest"
to mean unmitigated brutality.

One preacher of the time thought the Indian tribes were the lost tribes of Israel. After geting to know them better he concluded they were the children of the devil because of their sadistic savagery.

[Coleus]

[Deo volente]

Happy Columbus Day!

http://206.138.137.5/dailytoon/images/Fami1011.jpg


(I don't know how to post this directly.)

[Pyro7480]

Is Jesus God? Is Jesus a man? Wasn't He born of woman?