Why were the natives exterminated in some regions, ut not in others?

Why were the natives exterminated in some regions, but not in others?

Especially if we compare

- South Africa

- New England

- Southern Mexico

- New Zeeland

- Tasmania

All were colonies for a long time and all attracted european settlers.
But the fate of the natives was very different, ranging from extermination, via assimilation to survival.
 
Last edited:
New England and Tasmania I don't think were ever as densely populated as say Mesoamerica or as you call it southern Mexico. Nor were the local population as organized.
 
Also, the Spanish where harsher than the others, killing off many native's in conquests, and killing many others that didn't convert.
 
Also, the Spanish where harsher than the others, killing off many native's in conquests, and killing many others that didn't convert.

And even then a significant portion of the population in most Latin American countries remain indigenous or of indigneous descent. Not so much so in the USA or Canada.
 
Rule of thumb is that if the climate was suitable for white settlement en masse and/or the natives weak enough they'd be exterminated (e.g. New England, Tasmania, Hispaniola, Cape). Where the climate was suitable but the natives were too powerful to simply be rolled over an uneasy balance of some sort would be developed (e.g. South Africa beyond the Cape where the blacks were slowly subjugated or New Zealand where the Maori were strong enough to maintain some level of autonomy). Where the climate was unsuitable but the natives could be subjugated you essentially get a white settler class parachuted in to take over the societal role of the former native nobility (much of Latin America)
 
Rule of thumb is that if the climate was suitable for white settlement en masse and/or the natives weak enough they'd be exterminated (e.g. New England, Tasmania, Hispaniola, Cape). Where the climate was suitable but the natives were too powerful to simply be rolled over an uneasy balance of some sort would be developed (e.g. South Africa beyond the Cape where the blacks were slowly subjugated or New Zealand where the Maori were strong enough to maintain some level of autonomy). Where the climate was unsuitable but the natives could be subjugated you essentially get a white settler class parachuted in to take over the societal role of the former native nobility (much of Latin America)
Which also goes some way to explaining why Argentina+Chile who have a more suitable climate compared to the countries closer to the tropics also had larger white settler bases. That said, was there anyone who was better at exterminating the natives than Americans? It seems like there are more First Nations populations in Canada (as a percentage).
 
Why were the natives exterminated in some regions, but not in others?

Especially if we compare

- South Africa

- New England

- Southern Mexico

- New Zeeland

- Tasmania

All were colonies for a long time and all attracted european settlers.
But the fate of the natives was very different, ranging from extermination, via assimilation to survival.

A combination of reasons. One is that the Americas and Australia were separated from the Old World and thus did not have immunity from old world diseases. Another is that some places had state societies, and thus had much, much denser populations before Europeans turned, so thus weren't so badly outnumbered by the settlers. A third reason is that some places were settled much later than others. A final reason is that Europeans settled more in some places than others.
 
Which also goes some way to explaining why Argentina+Chile who have a more suitable climate compared to the countries closer to the tropics also had larger white settler bases. That said, was there anyone who was better at exterminating the natives than Americans? It seems like there are more First Nations populations in Canada (as a percentage).

Having said that, the influx of immigrants to Canada was much smaller than that into the US. I suspect this was more a function of both government policy and more space.
 

Admiral Matt

Gone Fishin'
Which also goes some way to explaining why Argentina+Chile who have a more suitable climate compared to the countries closer to the tropics also had larger white settler bases. That said, was there anyone who was better at exterminating the natives than Americans? It seems like there are more First Nations populations in Canada (as a percentage).

Exterminating is the wrong word, thank you. They mostly weren't exterminated. In fact that word probably applies much more to areas of Africa and Spanish America than North America or Canada.

They lacked the population base to achieve communal immunity to European plagues, started with a small and extremely diffuse population, and were in the stone age. The Americans didn't have to exterminate anyone - most of the population replacement was achieved just by having large families and occasionally sneezing on the neighbors. Atrocities did occur, but they were a negligible part of the problem. Given the technology of the time, the Europeans could have been actively trying to prevent the disappearance of the natives - it wouldn't matter. If they kept breeding, migrating, and falling ill they'd still have overrun them and absorbed the left-overs.
 
It has a lot to do with climate and societal level. Mesoamerica, the Andes, and the "Intermediate Zone" between them hosted the densest populations in the New World with urban, complex chiefdom and state-level societies supported by early-domesticated, easily-grown, nutritious, indigenous crops. These huge populations were much harder to displace by European colonists, in contrast to the temperate parts of North America, which were less densely populated by small chiefdoms, subsistence-farming villages, semi-permanent horticultural communities, and hunter-gatherer bands. Though agriculture arose early here as well, the crops were less efficient and the Mesoamerican influences spread much slower.

Today, Mesoamerica and the Andes host the largest populations of unassimilated indigenous people in the New World. In Central America, Colombia, and Venezuela, where large, complex chiefdom-level societies were the norm, much of the population is made up of mestizos, zambos, and tri-racial people with a high percentage of indigenous heritage. In the Greater Antilles of the Caribbean, where the densely-populated, chiefdom-level societies of the Taino were long thought to be exterminated, modern DNA testing is showing a significant, surviving element of indigenous ancestry among the modern population. Even along the North American East Coast, where high-yielding Mesoamerican agriculture arrived relatively late, Old World settlers arrived en masse, and most of the indigenous population was displaced, we see an interesting contrast between those tribes which originated in the Mississippian chiefdom-dominated South and the tribes which came from the lighter-populated Northeastern Woodlands. The Cherokee make up the largest modern tribe in the United States with up to 700,000 claimant members, while the largest Northeastern group is the Iroquois with only 10% of that number.

Among the less densely-populated regions of the Pre-Columbian Americas, those societies which settled in places that were less accommodating to Old World agriculture and development had much greater survival success. Examples include the Inuit in the Arctic, the Athabaskans and Pueblos of the Southwestern United States, the Guarani of Paraguay, the Mapuche of Patagonia, and the mestizos of Aruba. In North America east of the Mississippi River, a common survival tactic was, as Iron Maiden identified, to "run to the hills," as mountain-dwelling groups like the Eastern Cherokee and the Ramapo did. The Lumbee, Seminoles, Mikasuki, and Houma found success in thick wetlands, while other groups survived in the plains and prairies that couldn't be cultivated.

It was also common that the regions most beneficial to European agriculture, like California and southwestern Australia, wouldn't be develop much in the way of indigenous agriculture. California, which has a climate suitable to many high-yielding Mediterranean crops, had enough wild resources to support dense populations without agriculture. The Cape of Good Hope didn't really support the tropical Bantu crops of the nearest indigenous agriculturalists, leading it to be avoided by all but hunter-gatherers until European arrival. Similarly, the Maori who settled the South Island of New Zealand had to give up many of their tropic-suitable crops and adapt a less permanent, less densely-populated lifestyle.
 
New Zealand's natives were never exterminated because they fought back much harder than the British imagined they would. The British never once won a decisive victory over the Maori during the colonial wars, and the only way to truly defeat them was through diplomacy (i.e. lying). So they did that instead.

I could elaborate more, but that's it in a nutshell.
 

Admiral Matt

Gone Fishin'
New Zealand's natives were never exterminated because they fought back much harder than the British imagined they would. The British never once won a decisive victory over the Maori during the colonial wars, and the only way to truly defeat them was through diplomacy (i.e. lying). So they did that instead.

I could elaborate more, but that's it in a nutshell.

Quite, they happened to be culturally predisposed for success in resisting colonial efforts. Although it did help that European settlement was so slow to begin with and (to a lesser extent) that the British did not actively work to fight the locals on behalf of their settlers in anywhere near the proactive way they did in early American history. And I believe the settlement started so late and at such a distance that diseases were less of a factor.
 
NZ, despite Maori resistence did pretty quickly become a Settler state dominated by a supermajority of British settlers (took less than 30 years), which goes to show that a series of good enough victories and demographic swamping wins the day. Plus, the Maori were not a unified peoples, so the various tribal groupings or alliances did not always present a united front and so the Settler/Imperial forces were often supported by allied Maori tribes.

IIRC the last Imperial troops left by 1870 and the Settler government (which gained self rule in the 1850s) took over the process of consolidation, which over the next 30 years or so alienated the majority of lands not seized during the Land Wars.

What really screwed the Maori was that their pre Contact agricultural package did not support in depth settlement of the South Island, so when the settlers turned up, they were able to quickly dominate the island and use it as an economic base. So in the midst of the Land Wars, the South Island was in the midst of being intensively settled and plugged into the world economy of the time, which allowed the Settler government to deal with Maoridom at their leisure.
 
It's also because different cultures are into different kinds of evil. The British were into ethnic cleansing. The Spanish were into megaslavery so exploitative is also megakilled. Though, also, both seemed happy to cut down on the populations of any whom might be competition.

The US also did alot of lying. Jefferson came up with an Evil Genius Plan for that. His excuse was that it was better than massacring.
 
Last edited:
It's also because different cultures are into different kinds of evil. The British were into ethnic cleansing. The Spanish were into megaslavery so exploitative is also megakilled. Though, also, both seemed happy to cut down on the populations of any whom might be competition.

The US also did alot of lying. Jefferson came up with an Evil Plan for that. His excuse was that it was better than massacring.

I don't think this explanation really washes at all. For a start, there was a big difference in the survival of natives between Tasmania and New Zealand, which were both British. Or between Peru and Argentina, which were both Spanish. Generally the behaviour of the colonial power simply depended on what sort of territory they got, and the relevant economic interests associated with it. Had the Spanish got the St Lawrence Valley, they would have been better towards the natives due to needing them for the fur trade, while if the Dutch had got the Congo they would have been brutal subjugation of the natives also.
 
Having said that, the influx of immigrants to Canada was much smaller than that into the US. I suspect this was more a function of both government policy and more space.

Canada had more government on the frontiers to protect the settlers from the 'savages'. America had much less (in early days, basically none). It turns out that when the settlers were unprotected, they were much more likely to wipe out the local Indians.

Also, Canada's formative experience with the Americas' native inhabitants was fur-trading, whereas in many ways America's was King Phillip's War.
 
Top