Another response to Genocide by Any Other Name...:

>> This land was available, even in concept, because of the Great Die Off. <<

Yes, sort of, except this statement obscures the facts. Let's put it more clearly:

Europeans "discover" America => Europeans decide to colonize America => Europeans inflict disease, slavery, and death on Native Americans => Great Die-Off happens => land is "available."

Your statement obscures the fact that the European conquest began almost immediately. In contrast, the so-called Great Die-Off took at least three centuries to complete. Encounters often followed a pattern: Europeans met Indians, Indians died, Europeans moved onto "empty" land.

Moreover, even with the die-off, the remaining Indians owned the land. The English recognized their property rights, which is why they initially signed treaties and paid for the land rather than simply taking it. When the English began ignoring treaties and cheating the Indians out of their land, it was a tacit acknowledgment that the land wasn't freely available.

>> Africa was not treated like the Americas and it was much closer. <<

Africa wasn't treated like the Americas in what way? The Europeans moved to colonize it as soon as they had the technology to do so—in the 19th century. That they didn't do so earlier was mostly an artifact of geography. Africa has few natural ports, few navigable rivers, a hostile climate, and many unpalatable diseases.

>> It was the apparent lack of people that drew people. <<

That's arguable at best. With the emphasis on the word "apparent." Once the Europeans knew America was inhabited and not "apparently" empty, did they back off? No, they proceeded in force.

Why? Because their worldview impelled them to conquest.

Happy Columbus Day.

Join our Native/pop culture blog and comment   Sign up to receive our FREE newsletter via e-mail   See the latest Native American stereotypes in the media   Political and social developments ripped from the headlines

. . .