Debunking Native American Fairy Tales

[Solvedit]

It makes great speculative history fiction material.  But it's fiction, not reality.  Native Americans did have slaves, but they were used for grunt work, and by European standards they were very poor.   After the arrival of Columbus, the Native Americans were the ones being enslaved rather than the ones who were buying slaves.

Consider viewing this video on DeSoto: 

De Soto Invades the Mound Builders (1540)

While catastrophes, wars, and epidemics do wreck societies, can it be the southeastern natives had been more organized before DeSoto because the Ottomans or their Barbary vassals had brought them administrative slaves?  They did say one of the chiefs was unusually tall, like some northern Europeans and royalty.  They need not have looked just like Europeans because they could be the offspring of a native and a Barbary captive.  Can it be one of the Spanish goals was to determine whether the Ottomans had been looking for alliances or manpower by getting the natives addicted to old world slaves?  

Can it be that if they found such slaves, either in charge or having to advise the ones in charge, the Spanish would have blocked any further trafficking from the Barbary states?

Just to be crystal clear, I am not referring to slaves who brought in the corn or tanned the leather but to slaves who provided administration such as they are said to have used in the Ottoman Empire.

Once again I want to remind about Chief Selocta Chinnabbee, whose first name is identical to the Slavic word for nobility, and the resemblance of Sequoyah to TV financier Kevin O'Leary, while conceding that their bloodlines could have joined the Muscogee and Cherokee long after Columbus or DeSoto. 

It is also not completely impossible that the natives themselves had discovered the Americas, perhaps even preserved verbal traditions of Leif Errickson or other contacts, and conducted slave raids themselves. 
From a Bing Copilot search:

Ocean-Going Craft of Eastern American Natives Before Columbus

Yes — Native peoples of Eastern North America had well-developed oceangoing and riverine craft long before Columbus arrived in 1492. These vessels were essential for travel, trade, fishing, and warfare, and were adapted to the region’s coastal, estuarine, and riverine environments.

Types of vessels

• Dugout canoes: Many Eastern Woodland peoples, including the Taino (Caribbean) and related coastal groups, used dugouts — boats hollowed from a single tree trunk — for both river and coastal travel 
  Lightweight cedar canoes: By the 1500s, Northeastern Native groups built canoes with cedar frames covered in birch or elm bark, making them strong yet maneuverable in shallow waters 
  
• Bark canoes: In some regions, bark-covered frames were used for open-sea travel, especially in areas with abundant birch trees.
  
• Kayaks and umiaks: In the Arctic and subarctic parts of Eastern America, the Inuit and other groups used kayaks (hollowed-out body floats) and umiaks (open boats from walrus skins stretched over driftwood) for whale hunting and coastal travel 
  Capacity and use
  
• Canoes could carry 40–60 people plus supplies, making them suitable for long-distance travel 
  They were used for fishing, hunting, trade, and intertribal travel, and some were decorated for ceremonial or war use 
  
• Coastal and riverine canoes were often painted and adorned with feathers or other symbols, reflecting cultural and spiritual significance 
  
• Evidence and continuity
  
• Columbus himself noted the navigational skills of Native peoples, indicating they were experienced in open-sea travel 
  The English word canoe comes from the Taino kenu, meaning “boat carved out of a tree,” showing the deep cultural roots of these vessels.
  
• Modern canoe designs have changed little from their original Native American forms, underscoring their effectiveness and adaptability 
  
• Conclusion
  
• Eastern American natives had functional, well-designed ocean- and river-going craft long before European contact. These vessels were not only practical but also culturally significant, enabling sustained interaction with the maritime environment and contributing to the rich maritime traditions of Native peoples.
  

[worldstarcountry]

this was the wrong thread

[Byrd]

Consider viewing this video on DeSoto: 

De Soto Invades the Mound Builders (1540)

While catastrophes, wars, and epidemics do wreck societies, can it be the southeastern natives had been more organized before DeSoto because the Ottomans or their Barbary vassals had brought them administrative slaves?  They did say one of the chiefs was unusually tall, like some northern Europeans and royalty.  They need not have looked just like Europeans because they could be the offspring of a native and a Barbary captive.  Can it be one of the Spanish goals was to determine whether the Ottomans had been looking for alliances or manpower by getting the natives addicted to old world slaves?  

It might make for some fun historical fiction, but it's implausible and is tiptoeing toward the "Indians were too stupid to do anything more than bang rocks together before Great White Heroes (Europeans) taught them everything" falsehood.  

Tall people are everywhere.  Some of the Native Americans were taller than many Europeans because that's how human genetics works.  People of importance got better food and living conditions, which meant that they grew taller than most of their people and were healthier.

Educated slaves weren't used for manual labor -- they were teachers and secretaries and personal assistants.  They didn't teach blacksmithing, toolmaking, building dugout canoes, gardening, or anything that would be useful to an agrarian society (think of tossing a Chinese-speaking college professor of philosophy into a bunch of Navajo sheep herders in the late 1800's.  Just how useful would that non-Navajo speaker who wasn't used to outdoor life be to pastoralists who handle and shear sheep and herd them to various pastures?  Even if he could teach blacksmithing (unlikely), his information would be useless because the herders didn't have access to a lot of metal ores and a lot of coal and forges and tools.  And he can't speak the language.

In Europe, many people were multi-lingual.  Most languages had some kind of common root language (Latin, for example.)

But trying to learn a language that has nothing in common with your own language (English speakers trying to learn Arabic is a good example.  Or Chinese.  Or Japanese) is very time consuming and not always very successful.

[Solvedit]

Also, if you read the article I linked on pirates, most of them wouldn't have known how to hunt... they came from fishing villages and towns.  The valuable people were ones who knew the oceans; not people of the land.  And these seafaring people usually didn't know how to farm or grow any sort of food.  They did know knots and rigging and nets and sails instead.

Most deck hands probably came from a poor background.  Many were probably acquainted with poaching and foraging.  How can you not know? 

Remember J.D. Vance's comment about Haitians eating cats?  It's probably a stock trope for the low end of society in some parts.  

In the 1500s-1700s, if there were people in the old world who supplemented meager gruel with snared rabbits or birds, they might potentially have viewed the Americas as the land of milk and honey especially if they heard the natives had been nearly wiped out by epidemics.  Whether or not they were even sailors, they could have found a way to come over.  Perhaps they rubbed elbows with some sailors who were part-time pirates and knew who to ask.  Perhaps town councils even secretly encouraged them or funded their passage.  

If such people got established in the Americas, they could have perhaps supported piracy with resources or manpower and gotten goods in exchange.  The new world could have become an untaxable crime problem.

The potential existed even if it hadn't been realized on a large scale at the time of official European colonization.

[Solvedit]

It might make for some fun historical fiction, but it's implausible and is tiptoeing toward the "Indians were too stupid to do anything more than bang rocks together before Great White Heroes (Europeans) taught them everything" falsehood.  

Wait, I thought you said they had no use for an educated slave.  So now they can learn from such a slave...but they still don't have any use for one?

Why does it color native Americans unusually incapable to suggest they may have found a use for an educated slave? 

The Ottomans depended on slaves to administrate their empire. 

Eli Whitney was invited down to Georgia on the promise of a job, then found there was no job, then got trapped, then the whole South knew about his invention before he could patent it.  So it looks like it's possible white people in effect took an educated slave.  

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.

The natives weren't merely banging rocks together when non-Spanish North America began to be settled in the 1600s. Their ability to organize and govern does seem to have declined however.

Yes, they might have learned political organization from castaways or slaves in previous generations.  How dey non see?  
 

Tall people are everywhere.  Some of the Native Americans were taller than many Europeans because that's how human genetics works.  People of importance got better food and living conditions, which meant that they grew taller than most of their people and were healthier.

There are various reasons for being tall, but the account seemed to be describing exceptional rather than healthy height, and it sure sounds like the king who was carried everywhere wasn't getting his exercise. The five natives who beat the five Spanish seem to have been healthy enough.

Educated slaves weren't used for manual labor -- they were teachers and secretaries and personal assistants.  They didn't teach blacksmithing, toolmaking, building dugout canoes, gardening, or anything that would be useful to an agrarian society (think of tossing a Chinese-speaking college professor of philosophy into a bunch of Navajo sheep herders in the late 1800's.  Just how useful would that non-Navajo speaker who wasn't used to outdoor life be to pastoralists who handle and shear sheep and herd them to various pastures?  Even if he could teach blacksmithing (unlikely), his information would be useless because the herders didn't have access to a lot of metal ores and a lot of coal and forges and tools.  And he can't speak the language.

Can it be some trafficked professor helped the natives forge the large nations DeSoto found?

Can it be there were the beginnings of an organized Ottoman effort to show them the benefits of an alliance? They may not have been too eager to make sure the natives had old world armament technology at that point.

However, I thought you said they could do more than bang rocks together, but then you say they couldn't learn to smelt ores and forge or cast metals?  There are no ores in the Americas?  If the Ottoman-aligned Barbary Pirates had trafficked them enslaved advisors, they probably could have learned.  

First, though, they needed political organization in order to allow for greater specialization of roles and trade for necessary resources such as ores.  The natives of the southeast seemingly had not progressed as far as the Mesoamerican and Incan civilizations in this regard.  

Whether or not the Ottomans were deliberately in the early stages of planning to turn them into allies, there was a risk the natives themselves would have become hungry for slaves to teach them how to keep up with the old world. 

In Europe, many people were multi-lingual.  Most languages had some kind of common root language (Latin, for example.)

But trying to learn a language that has nothing in common with your own language (English speakers trying to learn Arabic is a good example.  Or Chinese.  Or Japanese) is very time consuming and not always very successful.

You've never heard of cultural immersion? Learning a language fluently is said to happen quickly under those circumstances.

[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.  

Had people from the fringes of society fled to the Americas after the epidemics wiped out 90% of the natives, they would have needed piracy to obtain many of the things they needed.  They may already have been acquainted with part-time pirates even before they obtained passage from the pirates. 

The Americas could have potentially turned into an ungovernable, untaxable wasteland, and the natives probably would have lost them anyway.  

However, as for ammunition, nobles did not do the hard work of mining lead and sulfur or manufacturing saltpeter.  That means the knowledge was potentially not out of reach of someone who became a pirate or found his way to the Americas to forage after 90% of the natives died out. 
 

Pirates have a culture of murder and thievery.  When things got bad or there are disagreements, they will turn on each other (convenient targets) and kill and steal.  If there's a bunch of people living nearby, the first thing they will do when they encounter a pack of thieves and murderers is to get rid of that bunch.

Wait, I thought they were capable of self-governance:

Yes, in fact, every deck hand on a pirate ship did indeed have a say in what they would like to do.  Captains could be kicked out by a simple vote.   Crews would mutiny as well.

So are they capable of self governance or are they such inept thugs that they don't know how to make friends when tney need resources?
 

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.

Of  course they had the most use for such slaves especially if Barbary traffickers showed them how it works in Ottoman society.

[Byrd]

Had people from the fringes of society fled to the Americas after the epidemics wiped out 90% of the natives, they would have needed piracy to obtain many of the things they needed.  They may already have been acquainted with part-time pirates even before they obtained passage from the pirates. 

Yes, once the Europeans had a foothold over here and government began regulating trade, smugglers and pirates did sometimes bring in goods.  Smugglers were more common than pirates, because they brought very specific things.  Pirates brought what they could capture.
 

The Americas could have potentially turned into an ungovernable, untaxable wasteland, and the natives probably would have lost them anyway.  
 

Nobody knows this (and it's the myth of "little brown brother too stupid to do anything right".)  Native societies in the Americas were pretty much smashed by European conquest (and they were hampered by geography).  The Natives of Northeast America had such a good governing policy that Franklin and others borrowed some of it for the US Constitution (and met most of the definitions of a civilization.  Same with the Alaskan natives.)

The US would more likely have ended up divided into countries based on language.

 

However, as for ammunition, nobles did not do the hard work of mining lead and sulfur or manufacturing saltpeter.  That means the knowledge was potentially not out of reach of someone who became a pirate or found his way to the Americas to forage after 90% of the natives died out. 
 

After the destruction of many tribes, the pirates in North America (Jean Lafitte and so forth) were centered in New Orleans.  They didn't move to the interior, they didn't take over abandoned tribal sites.  They stayed where they knew they could find work and live safely.  Same with the other famous pirate towns.
 

Of  course they had the most use for such slaves especially if Barbary traffickers showed them how it works in Ottoman society.

You might like to read more about these slaves.  Most were bought as children and trained in specific languages and talents.  Native Americans would have as little use as you would for a human who only spoke and wrote in Arabic, who had never eaten any of the foods you ate (and ate a diet of things you'd never heard of), who didn't know how to use the things you use (no idea of a toilet, never saw plumbing, cooked in ovens and not stoves, knew nothing about tending your crops (couldn't tell food from weeds).

How would you go about dealing with someone who doesn't understand or speak your language (and might never be able to speak it beyond a few words) and who didn't know how to use your toilet, your sink, or even how to wear your clothing (never seen zippers or buttons or snaps)?  Would that person be worth $20,000 to you?

Or think of it in terms of employment (because slaves are bought to do things for their masters.)  How useful is it for a brickmaking factory to hire an African San tribesperson (they wear animal skins (and not a lot of them) for clothing, decorate their hair and bodies with mud, and live on the land)?  You could shove them into plantation slavery or sell them to a brothel (if anyone wants them) but no one would pay a premium salary to get something like that when there are workers who COULD easily do the job and who do understand the language that you could hire.

[Solvedit]

this was the wrong thread

The overall point in coloring the natives living idyllic lives in paradise before European conquest is to color the U.S. living on stolen land.  

The video in the OP reinforces the fact that they might well have been in the process of losing the land anyway, and it might have become an untaxable, ungovernable haven for crime.

[Solvedit]

Yes, once the Europeans had a foothold over here and government began regulating trade, smugglers and pirates did sometimes bring in goods.  Smugglers were more common than pirates, because they brought very specific things.  Pirates brought what they could capture.

Pirates can't be smugglers. I see.

Nobody knows this (and it's the myth of "little brown brother too stupid to do anything right".)  Native societies in the Americas were pretty much smashed by European conquest (and they were hampered by geography).  The Natives of Northeast America had such a good governing policy that Franklin and others borrowed some of it for the US Constitution (and met most of the definitions of a civilization.  Same with the Alaskan natives.)

The US would more likely have ended up divided into countries based on language.

So the Haudenonsee Confederation had excellent governance, yet later on you go on to say the natives had no use for European slaves. It's at least possible they learned some of their moves from slaves trafficked from Iceland or some self-governing town council in the old world.

After the destruction of many tribes, the pirates in North America (Jean Lafitte and so forth) were centered in New Orleans.  They didn't move to the interior, they didn't take over abandoned tribal sites.  They stayed where they knew they could find work and live safely.  Same with the other famous pirate towns.

What did the crews do when Jean Lafitte and so forth no longer had any use for them? Why do you think there was no potential that bands of unauthorized settlers could have turned to piracy or other crime if they had been allowed to get established when epidemics had wiped out 90% of the natives? Perhaps they could have even brought their own epidemics.

You might like to read more about these slaves.  Most were bought as children and trained in specific languages and talents.  Native Americans would have as little use as you would for a human who only spoke and wrote in Arabic, who had never eaten any of the foods you ate (and ate a diet of things you'd never heard of), who didn't know how to use the things you use (no idea of a toilet, never saw plumbing, cooked in ovens and not stoves, knew nothing about tending your crops (couldn't tell food from weeds).

How would you go about dealing with someone who doesn't understand or speak your language (and might never be able to speak it beyond a few words) and who didn't know how to use your toilet, your sink, or even how to wear your clothing (never seen zippers or buttons or snaps)?  Would that person be worth $20,000 to you?

Did the natives Columbus found know anything about the gold in their streams?

Cultural immersion would probably teach the language fairly quickly and slaves who didn't know how to fend for themselves in the new world would have been a feature, not a bug.

Or think of it in terms of employment (because slaves are bought to do things for their masters.)  How useful is it for a brickmaking factory to hire an African San tribesperson (they wear animal skins (and not a lot of them) for clothing, decorate their hair and bodies with mud, and live on the land)?  You could shove them into plantation slavery or sell them to a brothel (if anyone wants them) but no one would pay a premium salary to get something like that when there are workers who COULD easily do the job and who do understand the language that you could hire.

At first, it was not economical to bring such slaves, but later some tribes did start purchasing or capturing them or kidnapping and impressing escapees into labor.