contestation not subjugation? So the natives never attacked european settlements or fought wars? Have you literally learned nothing about the history of your own nation? To say there was no contest is an outright LIE. The only history being covered up is by people like you who want to pretend the natives were peaceful tent-hippies who smoked peace pipe and sang kumbayah, rather than a collection of independent tribes(many of which were warrior tribes with a VERY aggressive foreign policy) who fought and lost to foreign colonizers
1 up, 4y,
Yeah ok. I never said once native Americans were all peaceful. But you can keep putting words in another person’s mouth all you want if it makes you feel like the bigger person. I’m saying they were slaughtered in the name of settlement and expansion. Don’t know about you but if someone tried to force me off of my land with false promises and a gun you better believe I’d fight back.
I think you’re confusing a contest with a skirmish. Which the Indians did indeed have and it led to eventual genocide.
I know all too well about the collection of tribes. More than you think. Especially the canabalistic types that did attack innocent Europeans. Don’t misunderstand. I also saw how Andrew Jackson used that as a lame justification of the Indian removal act involving Tribes that had little to no involvement outside of defending themselves.
Of course you'd fight back. You'd also fight back if you had moved away from Europe to escape persecution or poverty and YOUR HOME was attacked by a native tribe who was just defending THEIR HOME. What Jackson did is indeed pretty despicable, especially considering the Cherokee had been staunch US allies in multiple wars and had already willingly assimilated. But to view it from the lens of the indians being the defenders and the Americans being the attackers is an incredibly simplistic view that completely disregards the fact that it was a centuries long conflict where both sides conducted themselves as both defenders and attackers. Do you think the wooden palisades around the early colony towns were there for show? They were literally fighting for their survival at first. Manifest Destiny wasn't a real concept until very late into colonization, after dozens of conflicts had already been fought between colonists and natives
1 up, 4y
I know it’s more broad than that. History books are quite divided on who started the conflict. Perhaps we may never really know.
No, I'm saying if a superior civilization conquers an inferior civilization, woe to the conquered. That's the way it works.
And anyone who whines about conquered Indians probably doesn't realize that she's wishing she'd never been born, because without such conquest there would never have been a United States, certainly not in its present form or in its present borders, nor populated by its present descendants of immigrants and CONQUERORS.
The only thing I have an issue with is the way the U.S. government was less than scrupulous in observing the terms of various treaties they entered into with various tribes. We should either have conquered them outright, or followed through more diligently on treaty commitments. Other than that, the White Man won. The Red Man LOST. It's over. THE END. Conquest =/= "genocide". As for "missing the point", you have done likewise, since I see you're still here and haven't been un-born. And with that, enough with the threadjacking.
sure... never mind the facts
- That 'Native Americans' are not Homogeneous
- The Pilgrims and Manifest Destiny were over 100 years apart
- That Exponentially more Natives fell to Natural Disease in the wake First Contact (Through no Fault of the settlers) than in the 4 Centuries and change Since... some estimates put it at 90% Fatality between the arrival of the Santa Maria and the Mayflower
Different Tribes had different relationships with the settlers, and Native Peoples took BOTH sides of the assorted 'skirmishes' up to and during the American Revolution
- It's no accident Our democracy owes as much or more to the Iroquois Confederacy as the Greeks
and the 'general Policy' of "we will Kill you now because you don't have guns" (ie Manifest Destiny) came much later
So are you suggesting the pilgrims should have allowed the indians to slaughter them to a man rather than fight back? It doesn't matter who killed more of who- both sides were aggressors. To not fight back is to simply lie down and accept death. That one side fought back more successfully due to numbers/technology has absolutely nothing to do with the moral situation.
I never said they were primitive or uncivilized, I simply said they are now US citizens and can leave their reservations whenever they like. Or do you deny that we've built something on the land we took? They lost their land, we built our civilization upon it, and they are welcome to join it if they want. They are not FORCED to stay on their reservations, and that is simply a fact. I made no comment as to whether what we built was superior to what they had before. I simply pointed out the situation they are currently in, which could be the same situation as every other american citizen, if that is what they wanted. There is no law limiting them to squalor, they are NOT second-class citizens.
I'm not personally a fan of forcible conversion either, but it ties into what I said about once we had settled lands, we were left with tribes of (sometimes)hostile indians on those lands, and the people of the time tried to figure out what to do. In their opinion, bringing the indians to christ was the easiest way to assimilate them and try to integrate them into american culture. was it right? no. was it done out of malice? no.
I'd suggest you take your own advice, because it's clear that you know very little about what happened to the natives in North America. In lands that had not been settled yet, the only converting going on was NOT by force, it was done by missionaries in essentially the same way it happens today. After the US had settled lands, there were natives still living on that land. The government and people at the time looked for a way to either move them away or assimilate them. Yeah there were shitty practices, for sure. But expansion wasn't done with the INTENT of destroying/converting the natives, unlike in South and Central America. It wasn't even done by military invasion, most of the time. Common US citizens who wanted a plot of land for themselves to build a new life, would move West to the frontier, and work to create it. Conflict obviously followed because that land was already inhabited, and then the US army would come in to protect.. US citizens, what a thought. The local natives rarely stood a chance against the army, and the army clearly considered them to be barbarians considering the way the army treated them, but for the majority of US history there was NOT some mass campaign to annihilate them. If that had been the goal, there wouldn't be any left. They were in the wrong place, at the wrong time, facing the wrong people. Does that make it moral what happened to them? No. But if you consider that the same as conquistadors landing armies on a new continent with the express INTENT of enslaving, conquering, and looting as much gold and treasure as possible to bring home to Spain, then you have very little room to judge morality to begin with.
Try not cutting my sentence in half and try that again with the missionaries bit. I said in lands not yet settled by the US. The boarding schools happened in lands after settlement had happened.
The gauls were on their own land when the Romans conquered them. Christians lived in Egypt, Palestine, Syria, and virtually all of the mediterranean coast of africa before they were conquered by Mohammed and those that followed him. How about the english before french, german, and norse warlords ran rampant across their lands and set up several kingdoms?
What would you have us do? get on boats and planes and all go back to whatever continent? Who gets to stay? Just 100% native americans? It is OVER. It is DONE. It is IRREVERSIBLE. Those natives still living here are full US citizens with every right any other US citizen has, and MORE. I've been to several reservations, and I'll admit they aren't the nicest places. But those people have the option to leave. There's no guard at the border of their reservation preventing them from being a part of everything we've built. They are a part of us now.
The Spaniards launched full scale invasions with the Express intent of converting or killing the natives and to pillage - the Spanish expeditions were about wealth and power. Westward expansion in the US was driven by settlers looking to build new lives for themselves, usually by farming. The army came along to "keep the savages at bay". My point is that American and Canadian settlers were fighting the Indians to defend their new homes, just as the Indians themselves were fighting to defend their homes. The situation was not even remotely similar to what Spain did in SA or CA