After reading American Colonies: The Settling of North America, I was struck by the incredible similarities in British modus operandi in North America and India the 17th and 18th centuries. These two imperial domains seem very different, but recall that Lord Cornwallis plays a prominent role in both Colonial and Indian history. This was a world-wide empire, the French and Indian War in North America was just a piece of the broader Seven Years' War, which also played out in India.
But aside from the broad-brush banalities of empire, it is notable the extent to which the early colonies used indigenous proxies and trade networks, and how aggressively native polities attempted to manipulate various European powers in a game of dueling trade networks and geopolitical machinations. Native confederacies initially assumed that the small colonial settlements would simply be adjuncts to their own system. The Indian conquest was the work of native soldiers fighting against local polities, led by European and mixed-race officers, and armed by the military-industrial production system of the British Empire. In many cases the situation in North America was very similar, in particular the role that the Iroquois Confederacy took upon itself as "enforcers" for the colonial regimes against other tribes in return for plentiful guns with which to fight the French and make war against tribes deep in the North American interior (who of course were technologically at disadvantage). Each of the colonial regimes had their own sensibility, and the settlers of New England are a familiar and expected story. Rather, the similarities to the Indian case are clearest in the Southern colonies, where demographically inferior whites used the indigenous populations against each other, as well as to control their slave populations. Native groups who were subordinated often took upon a role as shock troops against the unconquered peoples beyond the frontier. It is fundamentally an old story of imperial conquest and co-option, divide and rule.
And yet the North American story is fundamentally different than that of India. Like Australia the colonies of North America were quickly dominated by settlers of European, generally British, extraction. The political machinations during the period when the native peoples in North America were at rough parity with the white settlers, a situation which lasted for decades, and well into the 18th century, is not emphasized to a great deal because of their total conquest and preponderant assimilation. In contrast, the details of Indian history as it relates to us now resonates because of the reality of the Republic of India, whose elite is a synthetic byproduct of the British Imperial experience and the indigenous substrate.
The difference is one of biology.While groups which assimilated themselves to the British Imperial system in India, such as Sikhs, Gurkhas or Anglicized upper classes, might have prospered in a relative sense, the native North Americans integrated into the British system died. The more assimilated the native peoples became, the more they interacted with whites, the more they settled in dense conglomerates, the greater the likelihood of the inevitable outbreak of smallpox rendering them extinct. Rather, the native peoples who persisted the longest in any appreciable numbers were the "wild" ones who were being rolled back on the frontier.
History's deterministic wheels were set in motion by the fact that the native peoples of the New World had no immune response to the evils of Eurasian infection. The outcome was foregone when the first outsider landed on New World shores. Instead of wealth or advancement, integration of native peoples into word-wide trade networks heralded their extinction. But, it is important to observe that despite the difference in ultimate outcomes, in the proximate scale the dynamic between North American natives and the British was a replica of what was occurring all over the world. When we note that a set of outcomes differs, we need not presume that each is sui generis, unconnected by general principles. And since the "divide and conquer" phase lasted into the 1700s, we need to apply general principles to understand the particular temporal dynamics which affected the first two centuries of British empire in the New World, just as it gave way to the American republic.
East Indians?
Consider what happened (Biologically)
when the first wave of EurAsian people arrived in America via Beringea...massive kill-offs of megafauna (resulting in survival of faster reproducing mid-fauna)
when the second wave of EurAsian people arrived in America via the Atlantic...massive kill-offs of mid-fauna (humans are mid-fauna)
As in America, so as in Australia, Madagascar, numerous other isolated areas.
India was not genetically isolated, but was continuously surrounded by (trade-linked) buffer populations, like China, almost no widespread disease epidemics occurred in either upon contact with "divide & conquer invaders".
Of course, there is no ultimate outcome in a static sense; but instead a changing dynamic equilibrium. If 'Hispanics' from South America are recognized as being genetically mainly American Indian, then it could be argued that there has been a progressive recolonization of North America by Native Americans.
If 'Hispanics' from South America are recognized as being genetically mainly American Indian, then it could be argued that there has been a progressive recolonization of North America by Native Americans.
they're not. so the argument would be wrong. think about this: nearly half of the people in latin america live in brazil and argentina.
When the Pilgrims arrived in Cape Cod and southeast MA, they found a depopulated but highly cultivated landscape, and they were greeted by Samoset, one of the few surviving Indians, who spoke English.
"Divide and conquer" is very old but I suspect it's pretty inaccurate. Peoples are naturally divided, so a better phrasing would be "Refrain from uniting them, and conquer".
I think your general argument is valid. That the British and other colonial powers probably used the same strategy in different place, though the outcome might have been different. The reason might be because the imperialists could see the bigger picture which the local rulers could not.
But to add a bit more fineness to the model, I would say that, though I do not know much of Amerindian history, in India there was a big overarching empire in the form of Mughal. It is possible that this empire recognized the threat that the British posed sooner than most people expect, but it just might have become so weak and powerless to do nothing.
Also, for the natives, British might be just another foreigner coming to invade and stay on in the land like Mughals.
But to add a bit more fineness to the model, I would say that, though I do not know much of Amerindian history, in India there was a big overarching empire in the form of Mughal. It is possible that this empire recognized the threat that the British posed sooner than most people expect, but it just might have become so weak and powerless to do nothing
the mughals collapsed due to overreach, and subsequent dismembered by marathas, afghans and sometimes iranians. the british stepped into the chaos and defeated the native powers who filled in the vacuum in turn (e.g., mysore, marathas, sikhs, etc.).
Also, for the natives, British might be just another foreigner coming to invade and stay on in the land like Mughals.
sure. remember these empires used proxies. a considerable area of british imperial india was administered by native princely states (some of whom rose to power in the post-mughal collapse by hitching their fortunes to the east india company).
the mughals collapsed due to overreach, and subsequent dismembered by marathas, afghans and sometimes iranians. the british stepped into the chaos and defeated the native powers who filled in the vacuum in turn (e.g., mysore, marathas, sikhs, etc.).
Yeah, overarch did lead to mughal collapse as it brought them into contact with more energetic rivals..but using proxies was an idea that even the mughal practiced...like bringing the rajputs into close alliance thru matrimony etc. Mughals perhaps were unlucky in getting a few not so good rulers at the time when the british influence was waxing. The british did have presence in mughal court, as traders, when mughal were strong. So I guess it was more of the British using the Marathas as part of their divide and rule policy.
Maybe we are splitting hairs but there might be some reason for it here.
Also, I wont say that I am too well-versed in that part of history. So would appreciate some good and accessible references whenever you get the time.
Thanks a lot!
1) yes, they used proxies. the "mughals" were not a people, but basically a dynasty (timurids), so their retinue was always polyglot as well.
2) a non-trivial semantic point: it was the east india company, not the british gov. as such, which conquered india. a for-profit company operates somewhat differently from a gov....
I don't recall hearing of widespread plagues killing of the Australian natives. Anyone?
1) agreed though I would suspect that they were atleast for sometimes similar to the brits in terms of only allowing the timurids to succeed the throne etc but gradually they mixed with the local crowd to a fair degree
2) yeah thats a non-trivial point. It does make the dynamics of empire building quite different since the company would not be interested in empire for the sake of power but for having a monopoly on trade.
On a lighter note, maybe the trend is still continuing to this day :)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7740408.stm
they're not. so the argument would be wrong. think about this: nearly half of the people in latin america live in brazil and argentina.
How is it wrong? At least with respect to the United States, the major source countries for immigration are pretty heavily Amerind. Think of Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, Peru, etc. Brazil and Argentina are respectively predominantly West African and European, though with non-trivial amounts of American Indian admixture, but they are not major sources of the phenomenon to which bgc refers. The importance of biology to this process can be amplified, too, in that it is the descendants of Amerinds inhabiting and adapted to climate, disease regimes, and terrain inhospitable to Europeans who are reversing the demographic outcome of European colonization in north America.
Back to lurking, probably...
Back to lurking, probably...
yeah, because you don't know what you're talking about. brazil isn't predominantly west african. how do you know that mexico & el salvador are predominantly amerind anyhow? you have genetic samples from all across the country? and you do know that the after mexicans the second and third largest latino components are cubans and puerto ricans?
see here.
p.s. if you think most brazil is *predominantly* west african, you don't know any geography and don't make use of wikipedia when you should. please keep lurking. i have no patience for people who have opinions when they can't be bothered to familiarize themselves with bits of geography which require IQs of 75 to memorize.
About Mexicans being mostly Native American: The mitochondrial DNA landscape of modern Mexico. A. Achilli1,2, U. A. Perego2,3, J. E. Gomez-Palmieri3, R. M. Cerda-Flores4, K. H. Ritchie3, A. Pollock3, N. Angerhofer3, A. Escobar-Mesa5, A. Torroni2, N. M. Myres3, S. R. Woodward3, Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation, SLC, Utah (USA) 1) Dip. di Biologia Cellulare e Ambientale, Universita' di Perugia, Perugia, Italy; 2) Dip. di Genetica e Microbiologia, Università di Pavia, Pavia, Italy; 3) Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA; 4) Genetics Division, Northeast Biomedical Research Center, Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social, Monterrey, Nuevo Leon, Mexico; 5) Secretaria de Salud, Veracruz, Mexico.
With more than 180 ethnic and linguistics groups, Mexico is a rich source for anthropological and population studies. This country witnessed the rise and fall of major civilizations, including the well-known Maya and Aztec civilizations, but as a result of heavy European colonization and influx, the population landscape has dramatically changed over the past five centuries. Today less than 30% of modern Mexicans identify themselves as being fully or partly Amerindians and the remaining population seems to have very little in common with their pre-Columbian ancestors. However, this is not the case when the maternal genetic component is evaluated in detail. Analysis of the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) control region sequences, including HVS-I, HVS-II and HVS-III, from more than 2,000 subjects revealed an overwhelming Native American legacy in the modern Mexican population, with ~90% of mtDNAs belonging to the four major pan-American haplogroups A2, B2, C1 and D1. This finding supports a European contribution to the Mexican gene pool primarily by male settlers and confirms the effectiveness of employing the uniparentally-transmitted mtDNA as a tool to reconstruct a country's history.
omar, most mexicans admit that they are mestizo. they acknowledge their ancestry. the problem is that most americans are stupid and use the logic of hypodescent so that mestizo = amerindian. that's not true. the extent of european ancestry of mestizos differs from locale to locale (e.g., chilean 'mestizos' are actually usually castizos, usually 3/4 european). uniparental lineages have utility to smoke out specific dynamics of gene flow, but i have linked to several papers on latin american admixture. the migrants to the USA are not predominantly amerindian, though they *might* be (i'm not happy with the N's because european and amerindian ancestry don't have a uniform distribution across these countries, between and within).
in any case, people interested should use google scholar. i'm low on battery in an airport so i can't follow this up with pointers to the papers i've linked up, but some due diligence is something that i smile upon.
p.s., people should also read my post, Genetics, the myth-buster? The case of Argentina. this is not a topic i haven't thought about, and i don't appreciate simplistic arguments based on nothing but personal impression (unless you're someone like greg cochran who doesn't speak up if they don't know anything about a topic).
Re: East India Company
By the time Clive conquered Bengal, the Company in India was a creature of the UK government (slightly different for the Company in South East Asia).
John Keay's "The East India Company" is a good popular history of the Company back when it actually was a profit making enterprise, and how all that ended.
Conversely, English settlement of India was severely limited by tropical diseases, whereas New England was very healthy for Englishmen.