Hacker News Reader

Comment by EQVEYWDCHQ | Hacker News Reader

Why surprised? Before Europeans arrived, it's not like everybody lived happily ever after in a utopian pastoral lifestyle. They are people too and have fought, murdered, and slaughtered each other just as much as the Europeans did to themselves and to others. I frankly find it a little concerning that just as much emphasis isn't placed on the genocide of the non-existent tribes by those which remain.

View on HN

I have no idea if this is one of the reasons your comment is grey, but the “it’s not like natives didn’t have conflict” is just as much projection as “magical natives” portrayals are bullshit. If you don’t recognize that colonization contorted indigenous peoples into conflict based on colonial prerogatives, you’re not telling yourself or anyone else the whole story.

It’s a shame for both sides of the shameful misinterpreted history that people don’t, yes, acknowledge that native peoples had real wars and conflicts, and also that colonizers instigated and coordinated other conflicts that were either less likely or more brutal or both than they would’ve been otherwise.

Yes, that's absolutely true and the brutal treatment natives around the world experienced as a result of colonialism shouldn't be downplayed. I'm not acting as a colonial apologist. What irks me is that it seems the popular mindset does appear to be that one of "surprise" of conflict amongst tribes as the parent commenter suggested, unless I misinterpreted them.

Trying to read that comment charitably, I honestly can't ascribe a motive to the "surprise". I've often stated I was "surprised" to learn something that was particularly detailed/nuanced in an area I already generally had fairly deep knowledge, especially if it revealed a new history or layer of depth I could integrate into my base knowledge.

I'm not saying that's definitely how I interpret it, but it's definitely a reasonable possibility. And I guess I wish more people here would at least try to read others' comments more charitably. At worst, your assumptions are right but you gave an opportunity for the other person to be better understood and for your own frustration level to pause before rising.

> slaughtered each other just as much as the Europeans did to themselves and to others.

The Europeans killed 90 to 95% of indigenous people in the Americas, killing tens or hundreds of millions.

Yes, there was obviously war and conflict between indigenous communities. But it was not anywhere close to the scale the Europeans did to others.

The bulk of those indigenous deaths is due to the unwitting introduction of smallpox by the Europeans, which was then spread from one indigenous people to another at a time when Europeans still had little knowledge of the interior of the Americas. Yes, in the wake of this sudden demographic shock Europeans did institute horrible policies of violence and submission (beyond the already bloody initial conquests), but the "tens or hundreds of millions" figure should not be all ascribed to intentional warfare.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com