For a transcript, and an audio clip, of a recent interview with Ray on Fox News, try the following link: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,110367,00.html

Nothing really new but, heck, it's Ray. Enjoy.

Thanks for posting this article. I especially enjoyed Ray's comments about politicians and war....

Nice, brief interview. Interestingly, Patrick Stewart (of Star Trek, Next Generation fame) did an interview where he says we should NOT be going to Mars and the Moon until we get things right down here on Earth. Quote:

"I would like to see us get this place right first before we have the arrogance to put significantly flawed civilations out onto other planets -- even though they may be utterly uninhabited." (Dallas Morning News, Feb 4, 2004)

While this is a short exerpt from the interview (and I don't know where the original interview was posted), if it reflects his position, we would not have explored America or any other previously "unexplored" area. Certainly, European governments and cultures had flaws prior to the colonization to the Americas. It's like people who say they want to wait until they can afford it to have children. While prudence is always wise, many would never have children if they took this literally!

Let's see, now...

...In the 'Fox Interview', Ray said there were only "...a few Indian tribes here in America..." when it was 'invaded'. Hmm! I read that 14,000,000 (that's millions) Indians were killed when the new settlers swept in....that does not exactly represent 'few'.
I don't think 'space' -man will be unlike those of old-man, which I felt was some of the stuff Ray was trying to get across in 'The Martian Chronicles'.
Tho great dreams exist in the spirit and heart of man, and great darkness is part of his nature, the conflict shall forever be...at least in this life...

Mr. Dark,

I think the Patrick Stewart interview was with the BBC. I found the link on The Corner at National Review Online. (Oops. My bias is showing.)

Nard,

I think 14,000,000 is rather high though certainly any amount is too many. I think Ray's point was that, relatively speaking, there were few tribes here. Fewer people than, say, the Old World. Of course, there's really no way of knowing, is there?

Pete

pterran:
I understand 14,000,000 is a conservative
figure...

"Although many persons have tried to estimate how many Indians inhabited the New World by 1492, there is no agreement on the figure. In the past some have believed that there were as many as 75 million, others a maximum of only 8 million. until recently, the most knowledgeable students estimated that there were sowewhere between 15 and 20 million Indians in the hemisphere when Columbus arrived, agreeing also that probably only some 850,000 lived within the present boundaries of the contiguous United States. . . Recent demographic studies in various areas, however, indicate that earlier data are inaccurate and suggest that population estimates be revised upward."

THE INDIAN HERITAGE OF AMERICA. Alvin M. Josephy, Jr. Alfred A Knopf, NY. 1974. p. 52-53.

Just a starting point. . .

Nard,

Point taken. Fourteen million could, indeed, be a conservative figure. But it still boggles the mind the this many could have been wiped out by the arrival of Europeans.

Mr. Dark,

I had a feeling you'd be able to set me straight. As you noted, the reference you quoted is a starting point; I'll make the obvious point your reference is 1974. I wonder what, if any, revisions to these estimates have been done.

And, my, we do tend to get off subject, don't we? That's what I like best about this site.

Update -

Apparantly I don't have enough to keep me occupied. A quick search turns up a book by David Henige published by The University of Oklahoma Press in 1998 called Numbers From Nowhere. Apparantly it addresses this very debate about how numbers have been assigned to the population of pre-Columbian Native Americans.

Back to our regularly scheduled programming. . .

[This message has been edited by pterran (edited 02-04-2004).]

I have several books on the American Indian published during that time period. I lived, in 1974 and 1975, on Sioux and Mandan Indian Reservations in North and South Dakota. So I had a pretty compelling interest in understanding the history/philosophy/culture/religion.

As a historical point, the number of American Indians killed, obviously, consists largely of guesswork. Two factors in the high numbers: (1) Disease, accidentally introduced by the Europeans, (2) The strategy of the American Govt/Military of pushing tribes off thier lands into the lands of other tribes and letting them kill each other off in territorial wars while "we" sat back and let them kill each other. Many, many Indian deaths of that period were by other Indians.

Thus, the power of Sitting Bull, who united about five tribes and then wiped out Custer. Too bad, for the Indians, he didn't appear sooner.

By the way, while in the Dakotas, I met Sitting Bull's granddaughter (or great-granddaughter), and got to know her pretty well. Her face was EXACTLY like pictures I've seen of Sitting Bull. She was an amazingly deep, powerful, spiritual person. Quite intimidating, actually; but very nice and gracious, at the same time. A really wonderful person.



[This message has been edited by Mr. Dark (edited 02-04-2004).]

Mr. Dark,

Thanks for the info. Fascinating, as always.

Pete

Regarding Native Americans, I didn't hear Ray's exact words, but he may have had the facts slightly garbled. Far more people CONSIDERED to be of Native American descent are around now than were here when Columbus landed, but other factors must be taken into account. Back then, all Native Americans were fullbloods, whereas now, you only have to be about 1/16 to be considered Native American. To be enrolled in a tribe takes a few more criteria.

Also keep in mind, we know a staggering amount of people died, but we may never be aware of the exact number. Numbers may have been exaggerated when it was a "good" thing (military people bragging to increase a body count) or underestimated when it was a "bad" thing (settlers ashamed of what they were doing/was being done in their name, but wanted the land anyway, so created coverups.) It was certainly a terrible tragedy for far too many people and shouldn't be made light of even if it were only a "few." I would view Ray's portrayals of native/settler relations in "The Martian Chronicles" as his own take on such regrettable events.

Also, Ray's own state of California has about the most shameful record regarding Native Americans in the entire country. Take a peek in a history book. It was open season on Indians there and whole tribes were wiped out. See the story of Ishi, last of his tribe. The Spaniards, who settled the place, weren't nice to Indians, but the white settlers were atrocious to them and weren't nice to Spaniards either.

This week's 'Chicago Sun-Times' newspaper, writing about voters and delegates etc., made mention that there are now 1.5 million Indians in the U.S. However, I fail to recall if it mentioned they were registered voters, or the Indian population at large...

Another thing... I am amazed that Indians don't come out asking for reparation from the U.S. for hostilities towards their people. I know. There was no United States then, etc. But if there have been any thing in the courts, I don't remember reading any such thing.

By the way, has Ray ever written anything about Indians? Waukegan is derived from an Indian name. Certainly Illinois is. And 'Chicago' is derived from an Indian word...for 'smelly onion'. And that's just around the local of Green Town.

The ONLY story of Ray's I remember that dealt with Native American characters, portrayed as such, is "Perhaps We Are Going Away." The Martians can be viewed as Indians, but probably a better case can be made for them as an Eastern culture, Chinese or Egyptians, dealing with Europeans. (Yeah, they're still trying to get all their good stuff back.)

(There is a direct ripoff of Ray's story, "The Dragon," entitled "The Strange Valley," which replaces the knights with Native Americans.)

The injustices against Indians were systematically carried out by the U. S. Government or whatever served in its place at the time (if you're talking about pre-Revolutionary War days.) They have been compensated to some extent for what were really Government sanctioned and promoted wrongs.

Slavery, on the other hand, was not. It was a private, for profit enterprise. Although many government leaders were in on it, profiting from it, and managing to pass laws favorable to it, it was NEVER a government promoted or sanctioned movement such as the robbery of the Indians. In fact, the general public, which pretty much agreed on ripping off the natives, were deeply divided on the issue of slavery. Therefore, any attempts at slavery reparations have failed. (The government freed 'em, remember.)

Thanks for that, Pete! I would have never found that. I like Fox News but I just don't visit their website too regularly.

I never caught on to the Indian comment. Mark Twain had some choice words for them but I think Bradbury was only dismissing them as a minor obstacle towards progress.

Patrick Stewarts comments are ridiculous. If I had his frame of mind I would not take a step in fear of mashing an ant. Might as well put up a white flag if that is your outlook. In things of the spirit traveling to other worlds will not help us fortunate ones currently but will give others far from now a chance at receiving one.

[This message has been edited by Ought Not (edited 02-04-2004).]

As a fellow Brit, I say lighten up on Patrick Stewart! What you must realise is that Britain once led the imperialist wave which saw country after country brought under it's control. Gradually, the Empire wained, and a combination of guilt and regret is what remains in the British psyche. When we think of marching boldly out to the stars, to many it seems like history repeating.

I happen to disagree with Stewart, but I sympathise with his point of view.