Boards.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more x
View Poll Results: When did you learn the extent of Irish involvement with anti-native forces in America
In school 4 5.41%
College / Adulthood 21 28.38%
This is news to me so 49 66.22%
Voters: 74. You may not vote on this poll

Post Reply  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
24-08-2020, 21:41   #16
Yellow_Fern
Registered User
 
Yellow_Fern's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Posts: 1,084
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peregrinus View Post
How is dispossesing people of their land, so forcing them to move off it and allow it to be settled by a different people, not ethnic cleansing? Genuine question.
That is not the point I am making. Before Columbus arrived there was millions in the New World but it was still occupied at far lower densities than Europe. in areas without farming there was a huge difference. Than came along the plague of epidemics, these wiped out 90% of the native population. This alone empied the land in a transformative fashion. So in many areas the land was so empty that no ethnic cleaning was needed.
Yellow_Fern is offline  
Advertisement
24-08-2020, 21:44   #17
odyssey06
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 8,712
Post famine Irish or Scots Irish like Andrew Jackson?
odyssey06 is online now  
25-08-2020, 02:01   #18
Peregrinus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 19,810
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yellow_Fern View Post
That is not the point I am making. Before Columbus arrived there was millions in the New World but it was still occupied at far lower densities than Europe. in areas without farming there was a huge difference. Than came along the plague of epidemics, these wiped out 90% of the native population. This alone empied the land in a transformative fashion. So in many areas the land was so empty that no ethnic cleaning was needed.
No. I think you are conflating two very different periods of history.

The plague of epidemics followed first contact/exploration; it was rapid and severe. But "rapid" is the key word here; from about a century after first contact the population was recovering again - i.e. from the early 1600s. And the repopulation of the land with new, changed societies - e.g. the plains Indian culture - was extensive. As well as acquiring smallpox from Europeans, Native Americans acquired domesticated horses, and this completely changed their way of life, enabling different, and very successful, patterns of land use, settlement and migration.

It was another two hundred years or more before European settlers on the Eastern seaboard began their aggressive westward expansion and settlement program. They were not settling in depopulated lands, but in repopulated lands, of which the well-established indigenous people had to be disposessed.
Peregrinus is offline  
(4) thanks from:
25-08-2020, 02:49   #19
speckle
Registered User
 
speckle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 1,202
As a teenager.reading I think a book called o harts pedigrees which led me to further reading is were I realised first, but didn't know at the time about 'more than anyone else'
speckle is offline  
25-08-2020, 03:06   #20
Padre_Pio
Registered User
 
Padre_Pio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 1,415
Quote:
Originally Posted by timmyntc View Post
Why should it be "our" history?

If an Irish person emigrates and does some heinous crimes somewhere else in the world - why should we, the people who stayed in Ireland have any kind of responsibility or even association with same? Most of these people don't even have any modern day descendents who are Irish.
Would you apply the same logic to someone like Tom Crean?

Left Ireland young and joined the British navy. Returned sporadically but not permanently to Ireland for about 30 years.

Without the British he would not be known. Should they have more claim to him than us?
If not, should the same not happen of Irish who commit atrocities?
Padre_Pio is online now  
Advertisement
25-08-2020, 04:18   #21
odyssey06
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 8,712
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peregrinus View Post
No. I think you are conflating two very different periods of history.

The plague of epidemics followed first contact/exploration; it was rapid and severe. But "rapid" is the key word here; from about a century after first contact the population was recovering again - i.e. from the early 1600s. And the repopulation of the land with new, changed societies - e.g. the plains Indian culture - was extensive. As well as acquiring smallpox from Europeans, Native Americans acquired domesticated horses, and this completely changed their way of life, enabling different, and very successful, patterns of land use, settlement and migration.

It was another two hundred years or more before European settlers on the Eastern seaboard began their aggressive westward expansion and settlement program. They were not settling in depopulated lands, but in repopulated lands, of which the well-established indigenous people had to be disposessed.

Indian populations had recovered from 90 percent losses to smallpox etc ... you have figures for that?

Also what was the carrying capacity of the land for the plains indian lifstyle.
Did they possess the lands in terms of settlements or use them as hunting etc lands periodically.
odyssey06 is online now  
25-08-2020, 04:44   #22
tylercheribini
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,860
Donald Harman Akenson has written a lot about the Irish's brutality towards indigenous populations around the world, worth checking out.
tylercheribini is offline  
25-08-2020, 04:49   #23
Peregrinus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 19,810
Quote:
Originally Posted by odyssey06 View Post
Indian populations had recovered from 90 percent losses to smallpox etc ... you have figures for that?
Lookit, we don't have figures for the 90% losses. These are estimates. Since we don't know what the population numbers were before the plagues, it's impossible to say whether they later recovered or exceeded that leve.

But it's irrelevant whether population numbers had recovered to the numbers before European contact; all that matters is that they had recovered to the point where the indigenous people were occupying and exploiting the land. Which we know they were, not least the US had to engage in a variety of treaties with them and wars with them in order to clear the land for settlement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by odyssey06 View Post
Also what was the carrying capacity of the land for the plains indian lifstyle.
Did they possess the lands in terms of settlements or use them as hunting etc lands periodically.
What of it? Neither of these questions are relevant. It doesn't matter whether the indigenous people farmed the land, formed urban communities or exploited it as hunter-gatherers (and in fact they did all fo these things in different places); all that matters is that they occupied their land and one way or another they had to be driven off it to accommodate white settlement. You might argue that the white settlers populated the land more densely and farmed it more intensively and you might (or might not) be right, but so what? This is a very different claim from the one you are advancing above and, even if it is true, it hardly amounts to a justification or vindication.

I think the only relevance these points might have is that, if the indigenous people were few in number and population density was low, that would make them weaker, and so make it easier for the more numerous white settlers to dispossess them; it makes it easier to deny or disregard their rights. But that is hardly a point you would wish to make, I think.

Last edited by Peregrinus; 25-08-2020 at 06:35.
Peregrinus is offline  
25-08-2020, 08:29   #24
odyssey06
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 8,712
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peregrinus View Post
Lookit, we don't have figures for the 90% losses. These are estimates. Since we don't know what the population numbers were before the plagues, it's impossible to say whether they later recovered or exceeded that leve.
Yet you said they recovered. It was your claim.
And switch into attack mode when asked for figures to support your claim.
And then query any other figures bandied about.
The 90% figure seems to be a widely accepted estimate for losses after contact through disease.

And it's not your claim but figures do seem relevant to the idea that "More Irish people killed more Indians than anyone else."
What Irish people.
What Indians.
What centuries... decades and territories\states did these deaths occur.
What else killed Indians.

I'm not saying the person quoted is lying, or should shut up, they are making an important point but just that it represents a specific time in a centuries long process.

Last edited by odyssey06; 25-08-2020 at 08:41.
odyssey06 is online now  
Advertisement
25-08-2020, 08:46   #25
Peregrinus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 19,810
Quote:
Originally Posted by odyssey06 View Post
Yet you said they recovered. It was your claim.
I never said that they had recovered to the previous level - just that they had recovered enough to repopulate the land.

Recovery to the previous level is irrelevant. After all, the population of Ireland has yet to recover to its pre-Famine level. You would hardly argue that this means that the land of Ireland is abandoned, unpopulated and available to settlers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by odyssey06 View Post
And switch into attack mode when asked for figures to support your claim.
Don’t be dramatic. I haven’t attacked anybody.

Quote:
Originally Posted by odyssey06 View Post
And then query any other figures bandied about.
The 90% figure seems to be a widely accepted estimate for losses after contact through disease.
It’s a widely quoted estimate. I’m not arguing with it (though I would point out that it’s the upper end of a range of estimates that have been produced) . I’m just pointing out that neither before the plagues nor before the (much later) white settlements was there anything like a census, so we don’t know (a) what the population was before the plagues, (b) what it was just after the plagues or (c) what it was when the settlement push came a bit over 200 years later. And my point is that we don’t need to know. Even if the (c) figure was substantially lower than the (a) figure, this does not imply that Indian territories were unpopulated and awaiting settlement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by odyssey06 View Post
And it's not your claim but figures do seem relevant to the idea that "More Irish people killed more Indians than anyone else."
What Irish people.
What Indians.
What centuries... decades and territories\states did these deaths occur.
What else killed Indians.
I’m not particularly interested in defending the “more Irish” claim. For what it’s worth, I think it’s a very dodgy claim. I was more responding to your claim that “no ethnic cleansing was needed” to facilitate the settlement of Indian territories by white settlers. It certainly was.
Peregrinus is offline  
Thanks from:
25-08-2020, 08:54   #26
odyssey06
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 8,712
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peregrinus View Post
I’m not particularly interested in defending the “more Irish” claim. For what it’s worth, I think it’s a very dodgy claim. I was more responding to your claim that “no ethnic cleansing was needed” to facilitate the settlement of Indian territories by white settlers. It certainly was.
Re: the "more Irish" claim, fair enough

Re: the ethnic cleansing claim, if you are going to put it in double quotes it implies I used that sentence in a post. I did not.
I think some ethnic cleansing did occur, but I don't think the centuries long process can be properly categorised in that manner.
Sheer weight\density of numbers on one side v the other was always going to cause a large amount of displacement.

Last edited by odyssey06; 25-08-2020 at 09:02.
odyssey06 is online now  
25-08-2020, 08:58   #27
BillyBird
Registered User
 
BillyBird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by An Ri rua View Post
You'll find the same with any foreign forces the Irish joined.
And here with the famine. How many Irish landlords and Irish agents of English Landlords were responsible for the evictions and starvation that occurred during the famine.
BillyBird is offline  
25-08-2020, 09:23   #28
Peregrinus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 19,810
Quote:
Originally Posted by odyssey06 View Post
Re: the "more Irish" claim, fair enough

Re: the ethnic cleansing claim, if you are going to put it in double quotes it implies I used that sentence in a post. I did not.
I think some ethnic cleansing did occur, but I don't think the centuries long process can be properly categorised in that manner.
Sheer weight\density of numbers on one side v the other was always going to cause a large amount of displacement.
What you actually said was this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yellow_Fern View Post
That is not the point I am making. Before Columbus arrived there was millions in the New World but it was still occupied at far lower densities than Europe. in areas without farming there was a huge difference. Than came along the plague of epidemics, these wiped out 90% of the native population. This alone empied the land in a transformative fashion. So in many areas the land was so empty that no ethnic cleaning was needed.
This suggest that, because of infectious diseases, previously populated land was effectively cleared, and so was available for settling without needing to be "ethnically cleansed".

I dont' think this is correct at all. Any land that was still unpopulated in the nineteenth century was unpopulated because it was unproductive; it couldn't sustain viable settlement (and as a result hadn't previously been settled by native Americans, and experienced little white settlement). I'm not aware of any area in what is now the US that was settled by indigenous people, cleared by plagues following European contact, and was still empty more than two centuries later when it was (in effect) colonised by the US. But the reverse is true; there are signficant areas that had been sparsely settled before European contact but were much more densely settled by the mid-nineteenth century as a result of the development of the Plains Indian horse cultures (and in fact these are the areas that offered the stiffest resistance to white settlement).
Peregrinus is offline  
25-08-2020, 09:47   #29
odyssey06
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 8,712
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peregrinus View Post
What you actually said was this:
This suggest that, because of infectious diseases, previously populated land was effectively cleared, and so was available for settling without needing to be "ethnically cleansed".
I dont' think this is correct at all. Any land that was still unpopulated in the nineteenth century was unpopulated because it was unproductive; it couldn't sustain viable settlement (and as a result hadn't previously been settled by native Americans, and experienced little white settlement). I'm not aware of any area in what is now the US that was settled by indigenous people, cleared by plagues following European contact, and was still empty more than two centuries later when it was (in effect) colonised by the US. But the reverse is true; there are signficant areas that had been sparsely settled before European contact but were much more densely settled by the mid-nineteenth century as a result of the development of the Plains Indian horse cultures (and in fact these are the areas that offered the stiffest resistance to white settlement).
Do you realise you have just quoted two different posters?

And I'm not talking exclusively about the 19th century.
odyssey06 is online now  
25-08-2020, 09:53   #30
growleaves
Registered User
 
growleaves's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Posts: 1,890
Lots of potentially dubious claims thrown around and I'm not seeing any sources. I'm withholding belief for the time being and encouraging others to do the same. The whole Revisionist juggernaut is designed to demoralise and stump people. "Did you know Irish people are the worst in the world?" Proof please
growleaves is online now  
Thanks from:
Post Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Remove Text Formatting
Bold
Italic
Underline

Insert Image
Wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text
 
Decrease Size
Increase Size
Please sign up or log in to join the discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Share Tweet