ADVERTISEMENT

Comrade Harris takes time out of her busy Border Czar schedule to hate on Euro-American history

among the indigenous peoples of the Americas, only 13% did not engage in wars with their neighbors at least once per year.

So despite 87% participating in war annually, your assertion is that the majority were peaceful, and just defending themselves?
Any research to back that up?



132 according to the test I took in 3rd grade, 133 according to the test I took at FSU.
How you doin?


Justified? No.
European settlers exercised the same 'right of conquest' against the natives that the Lakota and Cheyenne exercised against the Crow, etc.
Ok, so 87% being involved in some time of dispute every year proves what? That they had a skirmish at some point most likely with one of the aggressive tribes? What are you proving - my 20, 80 rule looks like.

Here is google AI LOL -

"While not universally true, most Native American groups were generally not aggressive unless provoked or attacked first, often defending their land and way of life when faced with encroaching European colonization, which often involved violent land seizures and broken treaties; therefore, they primarily acted defensively when confronted with aggression."

They acted the same with colonizers as they did with other Indian tribes. The majority were innately wanting to avoid confrontation, however they would not run away from it. If another tribe was either threatening, or trying to take their land or resources, they would defend their territory.

Here is some articles to support my claims:


The American Indian Wars, also known as the American Frontier Wars, and the Indian Wars,[note 2] was a conflict initially fought by European colonial empires, United States of America, and briefly the Confederate States of America and Republic of Texas against various American Indian tribes in North America. These conflicts occurred from the time of the earliest colonial settlements in the 17th century until the end of the 19th century. The various wars resulted from a wide variety of factors, the most common being the desire of settlers and governments for Indian tribes' lands. The European powers and their colonies enlisted allied Indian tribes to help them conduct warfare against each other's colonial settlements. After the American Revolution, many conflicts were local to specific states or regions and frequently involved disputes over land use; some entailed cycles of violent reprisal.

Life in the Northeast culture area was already fraught with conflict—the Iroquoian groups tended to be rather aggressive and warlike, and bands and villages outside of their allied confederacies were never safe from their raids—and it grew more complicated when European colonizers arrived. Colonial wars repeatedly forced the region’s Indigenous people to take sides, pitting the Iroquois groups against their Algonquian neighbors. Meanwhile, as white settlement pressed westward, it eventually displaced both sets of Indigenous people from their lands. (Aggressive Iroquoian tribes)

The Southeast culture area, north of the Gulf of Mexico and south of the Northeast, was a humid, fertile agricultural region. Many of its natives were expert farmers—they grew staple crops like maize, beans, squash, tobacco and sunflower—who organized their lives around small ceremonial and market villages known as hamlets. Perhaps the most familiar of the Southeastern Indigenous peoples are the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek and Seminole, sometimes called the Five Civilized Tribes, some of whom spoke a variant of the Muskogean language. (Civilized tribes - agricultural - non fighting tribes).

The Plains culture area comprises the vast prairie region between the Mississippi River and the Rocky Mountains, from present-day Canada to the Gulf of Mexico. Before the arrival of European traders and explorers, its inhabitants—speakers of Siouan, Algonquian, Caddoan, Uto-Aztecan and Athabaskan languages—were relatively settled hunters and farmers. After European contact, and especially after Spanish colonists brought horses to the region in the 18th century, the peoples of the Great Plains became much more nomadic. (relatively tame tribes, hunters and farmers)

Sedentary farmers such as the Hopi, the Zuni, the Yaqui and the Yuma grew crops like corn, beans and squash. Many lived in permanent settlements, known as pueblos, built of stone and adobe. These pueblos featured great multistory dwellings that resembled apartment houses. At their centers, many of these villages also had large ceremonial pit houses, or kivas. (Non aggressive)

Other Southwestern peoples, such as the Navajo and the Apache, were more nomadic. They survived by hunting, gathering and raiding their more established neighbors for their crops. Because these groups were always on the move, their homes were much less permanent than the pueblos. For instance, the Navajo fashioned their iconic eastward-facing round houses, known as hogans, out of materials like mud and bark. (Aggressive tribes).

The Iroquois and Cherokee were your more aggressive tribes. Navajo and Apache wouldn't be labeled as aggressive but were opportunistic and would be willing to instigate trouble. The remaining tribes for the most part would not instigate trouble in a regular situation unless threatened.

I can really start digging back into some of my Native American research back in the day - but you have to realize times were much more violent across all cultures, Native American culture was more primitive than the settlers, and conflict was created as tribes or settlers tried to take other tribes lands or resources that they had relied on for centuries for survival.
 
They acted the same with colonizers as they did with other Indian tribes. The majority were innately wanting to avoid confrontation, however they would not run away from it. If another tribe was either threatening, or trying to take their land or resources, they would defend their territory.

So call the European settlers another 'tribe' and we're all good?
 
Now that I showed my work - answer the question - Seminole - did the indian tribes deserve to be wiped out? 5th time asking the question.
 
So call the European settlers another 'tribe' and we're all good?

What the hell are you talking about? You asked me for supporting references, I gave you supporting articles, and also breakdown of aggressive and non aggressive tribes, what the hell more do you want. Just keep ignoring my main question - did the Indians deserve to be wiped out?
 
What the hell are you talking about? You asked me for supporting references, I gave you supporting articles, and also breakdown of aggressive and non aggressive tribes, what the hell more do you want.
Call the Europeans an 'aggressive tribe' then.

My point is that what 'we' Europeans did to them was no different than what they themselves did, and furthermore what humans have been doing across the globe since history has been recorded.
It wasn't different, or special, except the technology mismatch the Europeans developed vis-a-vis the rest of the globe at that time afforded them a heretofore unseen scale of conquest. But the principles were the same.
 
Call the Europeans an 'aggressive tribe' then.

My point is that what 'we' Europeans did to them was no different than what they themselves did, and furthermore what humans have been doing across the globe since history has been recorded.
It wasn't different, or special, except the technology mismatch the Europeans developed vis-a-vis the rest of the globe at that time afforded them a heretofore unseen scale of conquest. But the principles were the same.
Ok so yes I agree with you if you want to call Europeans a tribe. They tried to steal all the usable land and resources. So basically your opinion is the more advance civilization won. It still proves a point, just because they could didn't make it right, or any less violent. This was effectively a cleansing killing off the majority of the Indian population and pushing them into the least desired pieces of land in America. That Harris discusses this or our history on slavery is something we should acknowledge and not run away from. Just because some do not like that part of history, does not mean it didn't happen. You finally admitted the atrocities, just that Europeans had a technological advantage with the gun.
 
Last edited:
☝🏻this is your response after I’ve just agreed with you. Doctor, heal thyself.
It was sarcasm.
Sarcastic Fran Healy GIF by Travis
 
So was I, bless your heart.

Sarcasm aside, I must respectfully decline to feel any white guilt, or any other form of guilt, over something that happened 500 years ago, and left us all better off anyway.
Glad you don't feel any guilt or acknowledge in crimes or misdeed of the past. You agree with Seminole as long as it doesn't affect you, the better stronger smarter opponent will prevail. The issue is, sooner or later there is always a smarter, better stronger opponent. Sooner or later the US will no longer be in a power position. It is the curse of all big civilizations. They rise and ultimately fall.
 
So was I, bless your heart.

Sarcasm aside, I must respectfully decline to feel any white guilt, or any other form of guilt, over something that happened 500 years ago, and left us all better off anyway.
Just curious, who are you the new alt of? Just created an account in September with 41 posts. 1st post 5 days ago and acted like you had posted here before.
 
Just curious, who are you the new alt of? Just created an account in September with 41 posts. 1st post 5 days ago and acted like you had posted here before.
(sigh). Again. Post count is for the board, not the rivals network.

soonerinlOUisiana

Heisman Winner ·
From fvck off, leftists
Joined May 29, 2004
Last seen 2 minutes ago ·Viewing thread Kamala on the way out?
Messages19,489Reaction score24,901Points113

My most frequented political board:

 
(sigh). Again. Post count is for the board, not the rivals network.

soonerinlOUisiana

Heisman Winner ·
From fvck off, leftists
Joined May 29, 2004
Last seen 2 minutes ago ·Viewing thread Kamala on the way out?
Messages19,489Reaction score24,901Points113

My most frequented political board:

Well then maybe we need to put up some barbwire buoys around this website. LOL. Don't need any sooners invading this board.

Its sarcasm, sarcasm . . . welcome to the most dysfunctional board on rivals.
 
  • Like
Reactions: preshlock
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT