Trade & the American Indians

[Brad De Long]

>Brad De Long wrote:
>
>> Still a relatively high rate of death among those engaged in combat (or
>> taken from captured villages), no?
>
>Probably not. These were low intensity battles. In some instances, in other
>tribes, simply counting _coup_ (sp?) was adequate in declaring victory. In
>some
>cases, fighting occurred in the course of yearly hunting expeditions.
>Since the
>Huron and Iroquois inhabited roughly the same area, they'd cross paths--the
>fighting was close to skirmish than "battle." There are probably some more
>familiar with the military history between the tribes and the other Iroquois
>nations.

Hmmm. I'm generalizing from the !Kung. Let me make an expedition to Doe
basement...
>
>> Consider the difference between the European colonization of the
>> Americas--where relatively small groups settled and then began to expand
>> into the interior--and European colonialism in Asia or Africa in the same
>> period--where the typical pattern of activity was to huddle on the coast in
>> your fort, trade, and leave...
>
>What accounts for this difference? Larger tribes? More unity at the time? Or
>perhaps the scarcity of actual "colonization" by outcast Europeans was low in
>Africa?

Better technology by Eurasians, better organization by Africans, and--as
several people have noted--the complete and utter devastation wreaked on
Amerindian populations by the diseases brought to the Americas by Columbus
and company...

Brad DeLong