Debunking Native American Fairy Tales

[Waterglass]

Matt is pretty good. He goes through academic statistics and historic accounts, with a focus on exposing the actual narrative. Many of these modern tales emerged from scholastic activism in the 1960's....sounding a lot like today's liberal playbook.

Matt cites the book, "War Before Civilization", he details the neverending wars and resulting homicide rates 80x modern stats, and other niceties like torture, mutilation, scalping and lots of cannibalism, not to mention infanticide and massacre of women and elders.

[Video: https://youtu.be/mxapaXrHr1Y]

Just a funny FYI, in the Deny Ignorance "spirit"

He should do a documentary of the Confederacy before the Civil War. We were taught as Yankees these people were "Gone with the Wind" types aka as nice, gentile, classy and polite and respectful to the extreme. 

I have been in the deep South since 2014. I once asked a Jehovah's Witness Elder who knocked on my door as to why a majority of Southerns treat each other with disrespect and basically shit on each other. He said its always been like that!

The truth be told

[Solvedit]

What happened in Mexico didn't happen in Pennsylvania, however.   And your AI says "possible" but never comes up with any sources to suggest this does happen.  This, again, is the whole issue with your ideas.

Epidemics spread.

Staving off the possibility of pirate kingdoms when 90% of the natives were gone is a valid reason Europe had to step in and take charge of the Americas.

There would not have been a modern native American coalition in charge of the Americas. There would have been colonies, or there would have been pirates or the Ottoman Empire.

"Possible" covers a lot of things such as "it's possible they trained parrots to fly into upper windows and steal jewelry." 

 

If you read up on pirates, you will note that they didn't have smiths on board ships.  Master cannoneers did repair weapons, but they didn't craft them.  Making a gun is actually very difficult because you need a good forge and some specialized tools.   Pirates didn't lug around forges and hammers and so forth.  You'd get weaponsmiths in towns and cities where they could build a forge building and actively trade for the materials they needed and where they could easily buy a lot of charcoal.

You're right, I forgot, there was no way to get charcoal in the new world. Europeans introduced trees.

Interactions with natives depended on the area.  If the natives had been decimated by disease, the LAST thing they want is strangers who don't speak the language or know the culture. 

Don't believe it?  Swap around the situation and think how YOU would react --

90% of the people gone = no longer in charge.

Do you deny that pirates probably practiced human trafficking?

Do you think that nowhere was there ever a blacksmith who committed murder or something and had to throw in his lot with pirates to avoid hanging? Or got captured on the high seas?

Besides, after colonization picked up, authorized or unauthorized settlers could have turned to piracy occasionally when it suited them. It probably happened in maritime communities in the old world too. I doubt all pirates were full-time.

In Europe, yes.  To Europeans, yes. 

To Native Americans, no.  They had no use for what you're calling a "high value slave."  And that assumes that both the opium and slaves managed to survive the voyage.

Do you know if the natives themselves developed all of the technology or governance that they had? You recklessly assume they did but you don't know.

It would be a poor economic decision for the Ottomans... Even if both sides paid the same for the goods, you get six trips in the Mediterranean versus one across the Atlantic.  That means that a ship in the European waters can make six trades versus one single trade.

And there's the source of your confusion. The market was flooded in Europe and the exchange rate for their gold was well-known. You only have to be able to charge 7X what you got in the flooded markets of the old world in order for your math not to work. The natives Columbus first encountered were apparently able to still pick up gold from stream beds yet you remain blithely oblivious to the notion that the exchange rate for gold was not necessarily the same as in the old world.

And piracy in the Americas wasn't that profitable for them, either.  The Mediterranean is small and full of ships.  Easy prey.  The Atlantic is huge and it's not that easy to find another ship.

So now there were no pirates in the Caribbean? Just a reminder, I am not scrambling timelines. I am hypothesizing a long window of opportunity for several different groups.

Before that, what if a pirate reasoned the voyage took 6 times as long but he could make 7 times the gold because to the natives, it was worth the time it took to pick it up out of streams, like the ones Columbus encountered?

Besides that, what if a fugitive crew broke some pirate law and had to flee, and their old ship only had a trip or two left in it?

Or what if foreign captives felt slighted and marginalized? Or the piracy was so good at some points that there were too many pirates for the victims?

And you're scrambling up timelines again.

No, you are insisting on specifics in order to pretend to remain oblivious to the fact that there was a centuries-long window of opportunity by various groups.

Perhaps the lack of much evidence of a pirate kingdom is only because of the combined efforts of the navies of Europe?

[Solvedit]

The US was never in danger of becoming a "pirate kingdom."  The number of actual pirates was quite small, and their resources were quite limited.  Guns run out of ammunition.  

If the place had filled up with desperate jobless people and fugitives, especially after major epidemics had thinned the natives out by 90%, they potentially could have turned to piracy to keep themselves supplied. 

I had heard somewhere that "Hy-Brazil" was a myth told to malcontents in order to encourage them to sail or row off across the horizon.  Perhaps a few of them made it.  Perhaps other countries practiced similar policies.    

Had the Americas become an untaxable wasteland, the navies of Europe could have been forced, at tremendous cost, to patrol the oceans off a continent filling with unauthorized people in order to keep it out of the hands of the Ottomans, the Mughals, or the Ming because they may have wanted to hurt Europe had they obtained the economic strength of the new world.  

There may have been few pirates in the mold of Bellamy, Teach, Kidd, etc. but there were other pirate groups not in the Caribbean who may have heard sailor talk in some bar about the new world and its susceptibility to epidemics.  There may have been various maritime businesses whose less competent members were close to bankruptcy who occasionally committed piracy, then had to flee when found out.  

If pirates never had any blacksmiths, how did they manage to found and run several cities?

[Byrd]

Epidemics spread.

Staving off the possibility of pirate kingdoms when 90% of the natives were gone is a valid reason Europe had to step in and take charge of the Americas.

"Pirate kingdoms in America" weren't ever a consideration for Europeans.  Europeans wanted land and gold and food (and occasionally places to send criminals... like Australia.)
 

Do you deny that pirates probably practiced human trafficking?
 

To some small degree, yes -- but slave ships were also the source of crewmembers.  Around 30% of the pirates were African born.  Pirates also captured people and held them for ransom (which was more profitable than slave trade -- remember Julius Caesar and the pirates?).  

Slavery, however, wasn't something they did frequently in the Atlantic.  The Barbary slave trade involved capturing Europeans and selling them in the Ottoman Barbary slave markets.  For the rest of the Atlantic, they would capture the ships when they were close to a port (sailing out or about to land) rather than trying to transport humans for sale.  Attacks on slave ships were more likely to be about capturing the large ship than they were about transporting humans.

Some of the enslaved who became pirates actively fought against slavery (Black Bart was one.)  

 

Do you think that nowhere was there ever a blacksmith who committed murder or something and had to throw in his lot with pirates to avoid hanging? Or got captured on the high seas?

Possibly one or two... but not more.  No forges or smithing on ships and no records of ships crews needing blacksmiths.
 

Do you know if the natives themselves developed all of the technology or governance that they had? You recklessly assume they did but you don't know.

Yes, we do know.  There's all sorts of written records -- occasionally from the natives themselves.

 

And there's the source of your confusion. The market was flooded in Europe and the exchange rate for their gold was well-known. You only have to be able to charge 7X what you got in the flooded markets of the old world in order for your math not to work. The natives Columbus first encountered were apparently able to still pick up gold from stream beds yet you remain blithely oblivious to the notion that the exchange rate for gold was not necessarily the same as in the old world.

Columbus came back with only a few ounces of gold -- not even enough to cover the cost of his voyage.

And "exchange rate" for coinage actually varied around the world.  A good example is the California gold rush where a single egg or a pound of beef would cost a day's wages, a single potato cost a week's wages, etc.  Things that sold in Germany for a few ounces of silver might cost an ounce of gold once you got it to Turkey (and vice-versa.)   
 

Besides that, what if a fugitive crew broke some pirate law and had to flee, and their old ship only had a trip or two left in it?

Or what if foreign captives felt slighted and marginalized? Or the piracy was so good at some points that there were too many pirates for the victims?

You should read up more on pirates.  They captured ships for their own fleet, and sometimes if they had taken a really good ship, they'd just exchange ships.  The defeated crew got the pirate ship (and not much else) while the pirates took the food, anything valuable, and got a brand new ship in the bargain.

Also, mutinies on the seas were pretty common.  Some crews did turn pirate, some didn't.   Piracy was so risky that most didn't live beyond age 40 (constant fighting including shipboard quarrels, diseases, accidents, weather, etc.)  If you didn't turn pirate but continued as a seaman, your chances of living were much higher -- and in some cases the government would take care of you to some degree when you retired.  
 

Perhaps the lack of much evidence of a pirate kingdom is only because of the combined efforts of the navies of Europe?

It's because of lack of pirate kingdoms.  

Pirate towns were not really founded by pirates -- they'd rather be at sea.  In at least one case, a town became a pirate base because the pirates kept out the French and Spanish (who were fighting over the town.) 

Here's an interesting page on seven different pirate "strongholds." https://www.metanoiatravelguide.com/7-mo...e_vignette

[Solvedit]

You should read up more on pirates.   

There's your whole point, and it's wrong.  You talk like they couldn't have changed their plan if outside forces like navies had kept them in check. 

You talk like every crewman had the right to tell his captain that he'd rather stay at sea and capture gold if he preferred and there must have been enough easy prey all the time.  And they must never have captured or corrupted a blacksmith, not from Port Royal, not from the ships they took, not from Barbary or West Africa.  Does that make sense? 

You talk like none of the non-sailor outcasts or dispossessed people of the old world could potentially have come here and learned to partially subsist on piracy and human trafficking the way the Ottomans would capture or purchase children to use as administrators.  They could take administrators but not blacksmiths?  Does that make sense?   

Natives took captives.  Had they learned much sailing and blacksmithing, they themselves might have become a new Barbary Coast.  They could have learned piracy and human trafficking and perhaps aligned with the Ottomans.  Please consider rewatching the video in the OP while bearing in mind that they could have learned about sailing and piracy.  Perhaps the alliances were already being put in place with pirate or Ottoman cadres.  

How can you think a continent emptied by disease would just be left sitting there?  Do you think there was no risk that it would become a crime problem, perhaps even an existential threat?

The Ottomans knew about variolation before Europe, so they knew to preserve matter from smallpox victims, which means they or someone else could have deliberately transported it to infect the natives.  They probably knew how to use other diseases as well.

Columbus came back with only a few ounces of gold -- not even enough to cover the cost of his voyage.

But that gold had been sitting around ignored.

And "exchange rate" for coinage actually varied around the world.  A good example is the California gold rush where a single egg or a pound of beef would cost a day's wages, a single potato cost a week's wages, etc.  Things that sold in Germany for a few ounces of silver might cost an ounce of gold once you got it to Turkey (and vice-versa.)   

How do you think the exchange rate varied in a place where the gold was sitting around ignored?

[Solvedit]

Pirates also captured people and held them for ransom (which was more profitable than slave trade -- remember Julius Caesar and the pirates?).  

The Barbary slave trade involved capturing Europeans and selling them in the Ottoman Barbary slave markets.   

Possibly one or two... but not more.  No forges or smithing on ships and no records of ships crews needing blacksmiths.

First of all, pirates could potentially have trafficked blacksmiths and other necessary personnel to themselves or to people from the old world who had emigrated without permission.

Second, the educated captives like the ransom captives or Caesar could have brought a high price especially before the natives had discovered what gold was worth in the rest of the world. Perhaps the Barbary states imposed some sort of tax on slave sales by their pirates.

Yes, we do know.  There's all sorts of written records -- occasionally from the natives themselves.

If you had used such captives to obtain your degree, hypothetically speaking of course, would you write down that you didn't deserve what you had?

Pirate towns were not really founded by pirates -- they'd rather be at sea.

No one who came to the new world could become a pirate or cooperate with pirates?  Perhaps along with the natives?  The video in the OP reinforces that the new world could have become a crime problem.  

Did every deck hand have a say in what they'd like to do? Could they not have been ordered to forage game?

Can it be there was always enough prey for pirates?  Can it be there were sometimes too many hands for the work?  Did no pirate ever become disgruntled?

[Solvedit]

Pirates also captured people and held them for ransom (which was more profitable than slave trade -- remember Julius Caesar and the pirates?).  

The Barbary slave trade involved capturing Europeans and selling them in the Ottoman Barbary slave markets.  

From the Wikipedia page on Slavery in the Ottoman Empire:

A large percentage of officials in the Ottoman government were bought as slaves, raised free, and integral to the success of the Ottoman Empire from the 14th to 19th centuries. Many enslaved officials themselves owned numerous slaves, although the Sultan himself owned by far the most. By raising and specially training slaves as officials in palace schools such as Enderun, where they were taught to serve the Sultan and other educational subjects, the Ottomans created administrators with intricate knowledge of government and fanatic loyalty.

There is a little circumstantial evidence that the Barbary pirates knew about America a little before Columbus and that there had been some trafficking of this sort of slave such as Chief Selocta Chinnabbe's first name being the Slavic word for nobility, or szlachta, although the possible contact could certainly have occurred much later through different hands, or the similarity of the name could be a coincidence.

Regardless, the potential existed that the natives would start buying or taking this sort of slave. Perhaps they would have allied with the Ottoman Empire. Europe's capable people would become even more of a hunted commodity and perhaps the combined economic strength of the Ottoman Empire and the New World would have greatly strengthened the Ottoman invasion of Europe. Perhaps the sale of slaves had already begun to facilitate the invasion when Columbus sailed. Perhaps he was inspired by rumors filtering in from sailors who had rubbed elbows with Barbary States sailors but thought they may have reached Asia.

What if the natives had become Ottoman-aligned and hungry for slaves, led by some Julius Caesar type, and had weapons designed by some Eli Whitney type? 

What if the money the Ottoman Empire made from slave sales caused the Siege of Vienna to go the other way and Europe had fallen to the Ottomans?