why didnt native americans FIGHT back?

[mehyaM24]

http://nativeamericanhistory.about.com/od/nativeconceptsandperspectives/a/How-The-Injustices-Of-The-Past-Are-The-Injustices-Of-Today-In-Indian-Country.htm
or fight harder to defend their land? europeans went into north and south america and just completely obliterated the natives. the after effects? a few protests, some private land, but seriously, why didn't they collectively put their minds together and start a revolution?

i think natives got it worse than so-called blacks, TBH

[cuad]

dumbass

[Real Men Wear Green]

One side had guns. The other side did not. The end.

[cuad]

One side had guns. The other side did not. The end.
no. you're a dumbass too. they had guns, but they were shit. what they had on their side was disease.

[RidonKs]

why don't you fight back when a navy seal breaks into your home and shoves a revolver down your throat?

that's not some radical analogy to the native american genocide that gave birth to the united states, canada, and many other carribean and south american countries today. in fact its pretty apt.

[Real Men Wear Green]

no. you're a dumbass too. they had guns, but they were shit. what they had on their side was disease.
It's kind of sad that people so badly want to insult each other for no reason. While I'm sure that your ass is much smarter than mine when Europeans first encountered Indians the Indians didn't have guns. Sure, they got Europeans hand-me-downs over time but they were always far behind (as I will give you credit for knowing, this makes you a wonderful human being) in miolitary technology. The "fight" was never fair in that regard. Foreign diseases didn't help but guns were the most important factor. Which is what I meant, but I forgot that there are people on the internet that require an essay detailing every little point they want to make. My bad.

[RidonKs]

no. you're a dumbass too. they had guns, but they were shit. what they had on their side was disease.
this helped quicken the destruction of native american empires but they were doomed from the get go regardless of the germs that killed them off so much more quickly. we're talking about 500 years ago.... in fact the supposed 500th anniversary of the european conquest of the americas was about 13 years ago if i'm not mistaken. bottom line being what they managed to do in a few hundred years with the help of their livestock's germs they would have done anyway by now. and the natives were not capable of defending themselves adequately.

[cuad]

Foreign diseases didn't help but guns were the most important factor.
no

[Akrazotile]

Bro.

Disease, dispersion and death are pretty meaningless when you compare it to the fact that there are actually guys throwing a ball around and chasing after it AS WE SPEAK who are known by the appellation 'Redskins.'


It's time we get our priorities straight.

[JohnnySic]

Their numbers were absolutely decimated by diseases.

Still, they fought. If the native Americans weren't there, North America would have been "conquered" at least 100 years quicker than it was.

[NumberSix]

this helped quicken the destruction of native american empires but they were doomed from the get go regardless of the germs that killed them off so much more quickly. we're talking about 500 years ago.... in fact the supposed 500th anniversary of the european conquest of the americas was about 13 years ago if i'm not mistaken. bottom line being what they managed to do in a few hundred years with the help of their livestock's germs they would have done anyway by now. and the natives were not capable of defending themselves adequately.
Empires?

[JohnnySic]

Compare to Africa. Europeans colonized Africa but never "conquered" it because Africans were not susceptible to European diseases, and so their numbers held up.

[RidonKs]

Empires?
yes empires, the mayans, the incas, etc etc etc

[NumberSix]

yes empires, the mayans, the incas, etc etc etc
Unless you mean the Americas as a whole when you say "Native American" I don't know what empires you're talking about.



Edit: I see you edited.

[Baller1986]

http://mwachironavigator.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/wwf-tatanka.jpg

[RidonKs]

Unless you mean the Americas as a whole when you say "Native American" I don't know what empires you're talking about.



Edit: I see you edited.
see man not to like rub anything in or anything but as an american, this is YOUR geographical history. and culture may be mysterious but one thing is for sure... what happened hundreds or even thousands of years ago can still have an effect on today. this in particular does and the evidence is actually the absence, to paraphrase good ol donald rumsfeld, of any mainstream understanding of what came before the american empire (i again use the word empire deliberately). i mean people have a better understanding of native american culture and history now than they did in say the 50s. but to make a seemingly appropriate analogy, the 'white guilt' over the negro slave trade is about a thousand times more of a cultural entity than any remorse over the native american slaughtering which should be called genocide though i guess it happened to long ago to qualify for that word. maybe it happened long enough ago that it doesn't matter... maybe that's what you believe. i don't believe that but it gets trickier. which is why going waaaaay back in time is less valuable and less effective for understanding than going back into recent history that allow for the study of a much wider array of sources, and also offer contemporary context since the ripple effects of say the 1980s are much easier to explore than the far subtler intangible manifestations of our ancient lineage and origins.

[cuad]

Compare to Africa. Europeans colonized Africa but never "conquered" it because Africans were not susceptible to European diseases, and so their numbers held up.
Not only that, but the Euros couldn't handle the malaria.

[NumberSix]

see man not to like rub anything in or anything but as an american, this is YOUR geographical history. and culture may be mysterious but one thing is for sure... what happened hundreds or even thousands of years ago can still have an effect on today. this in particular does and the evidence is actually the absence, to paraphrase good ol donald rumsfeld, of any mainstream understanding of what came before the american empire (i again use the word empire deliberately). i mean people have a better understanding of native american culture and history now than they did in say the 50s. but to make a seemingly appropriate analogy, the 'white guilt' over the negro slave trade is about a thousand times more of a cultural entity than any remorse over the native american slaughtering which should be called genocide though i guess it happened to long ago to qualify for that word. maybe it happened long enough ago that it doesn't matter... maybe that's what you believe. i don't believe that but it gets trickier. which is why going waaaaay back in time is less valuable and less effective for understanding than going back into recent history that allow for the study of a much wider array of sources, and also offer contemporary context since the ripple effects of say the 1980s are much easier to explore than the far subtler intangible manifestations of our ancient lineage and origins.
Who says I'm an American? :confusedshrug:

[DeuceWallaces]

First, they did fight back both along side and against Euros/White Americans including some big victories in 19th Century. You're an idiot if you didn't know that.

Second, they were unified in a few cases in the NA and nearly all of the major SA native empires.

Third, they were annihilated by our diseases.

[cuad]

this helped quicken the destruction of native american empires but they were doomed from the get go regardless of the germs that killed them off so much more quickly. we're talking about 500 years ago.... in fact the supposed 500th anniversary of the european conquest of the americas was about 13 years ago if i'm not mistaken. bottom line being what they managed to do in a few hundred years with the help of their livestock's germs they would have done anyway by now. and the natives were not capable of defending themselves adequately.
Just not likely at all. A European army (handicapped by the months travel time from Europe) could never have handled a full sized American army. NEVER.

[NumberSix]

Just not likely at all. A European army (handicapped by the months travel time from Europe) could never have handled a full sized American army. NEVER.
American army of what?

[cuad]

American army of what?
Definitely not Americans.

[kNIOKAS]

Um from what I heard it was like 10 or 5% of natives left when whites came in to colonise them. The diseases absolutely wiped out their population in an extremely brief time. It was said that colonists could travel around easily, because the roads were prepared, but no natives left to use them. Then after some times forests grew back, and it was supposedly the cause of the little ice age (?).

What I heard was rad like that.

edit: apparently, one of possible explanations there
http://www.juancole.com/2011/10/did-columbus-cause-europes-little-ice-age.html


Richard Nevle, a geochemist at Stanford, argues that the European advent in the New World, which killed 90% of the 80 million native Americans, caused the Little Ice Age.

The native peoples of the New World burned a lot of wood. When they largely didn’t exist anymore, because they suffered high mortality from a host of European diseases to which they had no immunity, they stopped putting carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Instead, forests grew rapidly since they weren’t being chopped down anymore, and land wasn’t being cleared for agriculture. Forests take in carbon dioxide and exhale oxygen, plus they fix some carbon dioxide in the soil. They are what is called a “carbon sink,” though not a really efficient one, since much of the carbon they take out of the atmosphere eventually finds its way back there. I suspect the dramatic fall-off in the burning of fossil fuels was the much more important cause here.

[RidonKs]

Who says I'm an American? :confusedshrug:
ah my mistaken assumption. apologies if you aren't. f*ck you if you're just pulling my leg.

[gigantes]

besides the many reasons listed above, native americans were commonly in warring / aloof relationships with other tribes or networks of tribes.

europeans exploited this fact over and over again. as in, why bother dividing and conquering when you don't need to divide in the first place? turn your enemies against each other and manipulate the hell out of them.


anyway, it was damned if you resisted and damned if you tried to make peace. the only real option left was to survive as best you could, even if it meant losing your land and much of your way of life and culture.

[MavsSuperFan]

native americans did fight back.

Google Geronimo

[QUOTE]Geronimo (Mescalero-Chiricahua: Goyaał

[MavsSuperFan]

custer's last stand and dade's massacre were 2 of the more renowned native american victories over the United states of america.

But overall america killed and raped them with impunity


On December 23, 1835, two U.S. companies of 110 troops (including soldiers from the 2nd Artillery, 3rd Artillery and 4th Infantry Regiments) under Major Francis Langhorne Dade departed from Fort Brooke (present-day Tampa), heading up the King Highway (military road) on a resupply and reinforce mission to Fort King (present-day Ocala). The Native Americans in Florida had grown increasingly furious at attempts by the U.S. army to forcefully relocate them to a reservation out west and Dade knew his men might be attacked by the Seminole Indians who were shadowing his regiment, but believed that if an attack were to occur, it would occur during one of the river crossings or in the thicker woods to the south. Having passed these, he felt safe and recalled his flanking scouts in order that the command could move faster.

Although the terrain he was now in, pines and palmettos, could not have concealed anyone who was standing or walking, it could and did conceal crouched or prone warriors waiting in ambush. The Seminoles did not refrain from attacking in the other places because they thought they could achieve better surprise later, but because they were waiting for Osceola to join them. They finally gave up waiting and attacked without him.

Several Seminoles with their warriors assembled secretly at points along the march. Scouts reportedly watched the troops in their sky-blue uniforms at every foot of the route and sent reports back to the Indian chiefs. The troops marched for five quiet days until December 28, when they were just south of the present-day city of Bushnell, Florida. They were passing through a high hammock with oaks, pines, cabbage palms, and saw palmetto when a shot rang out. Many sources state that the first storm of bullets brought down Major Dade and half his men.[1] As it would turn out, in the late afternoon of that day, 180 Seminoles lay in wait approximately 25 miles (40 km) south of Fort King. The Seminoles had terrain and the element of surprise in their favor. Major Dade, who was on horseback, was killed in the Seminoles' very first shot fired personally by Chief Micanopy, which by pre-arranged plan began the attack. Following Dade's death, command passed to Captain George W. Gardiner. Many of the soldiers, in two single file lines, were also quickly killed. Only a few managed to get their flintlock muskets from underneath their heavy winter coats.
...

Only three U.S. soldiers were reported to have survived the attack. Private Edward Decourcey, who had been covered by dead bodies, and Ransome Clarke who appeared "dead enough" with five wounds and bleeding cuts on his head. The next day, a Seminole pursued them on horseback and Decourcey was killed after they had split to avoid joint capture. Clarke made it back to Fort Brooke, collapsing within a mile of the Fort and being helped all the way back by a friendly Indian woman. Clarke provided the only narrative from the Army's side of what had occurred. A third soldier, Private Joseph Sprague, also returned to Fort Brooke and continued serving in the Army. He was illiterate, and did not leave a report of the battle.
...
After the battle, many large plantations were burned and settlers killed. By the end of 1836, all but one house in what is now Dade and Broward counties had been burned by the Indians. The Indians were emboldened by their successes against Dade's command, the stalemate at the subsequent Battle of Ouithlacoochie and the killing by Osceola of hated Indian agent Wiley Thompson, which is what had delayed Osceola. While about half of Dade's men consisted of new American immigrants, the rest of the killed soldiers were from many other states.


Although eventually America won the 2nd Seminole war, and massacred them.

[masonanddixon]

Check out the French and Indian war

[MavsSuperFan]

this quote basically sums up american indian wars

"The government is in the wrong, and this is the chief cause of the persevering opposition of the Indians, who have nobly defended their country against our attempt to enforce a fraudulent treaty. The natives used every means to avoid a war, but were forced into it by the tyranny of our government." -Major Ethan Allen Hitchcock (would eventually become a Major general (2 star))

[NumberSix]

this quote basically sums up american indian wars

"The government is in the wrong, and this is the chief cause of the persevering opposition of the Indians, who have nobly defended their country against our attempt to enforce a fraudulent treaty. The natives used every means to avoid a war, but were forced into it by the tyranny of our government." -Major Ethan Allen Hitchcock (would eventually become a Major general (2 star))
You really don't need to go into detail.

Some people wanted to start a new country in a place where there was already people.

[gigantes]

there was even armed resistance of sorts as recently as 1973-- the wounded knee incident, site of the wounded knee massacre in 1890.

[gigantes]

You really don't need to go into detail.

Some people wanted to start a new country in a place where there was already people.
that sounds like an excellent reason to go in to detail.

because the one thing we learn from history is that...

[MavsSuperFan]

You really don't need to go into detail.

Some people wanted to start a new country in a place where there was already people.
True enough, but it doesnt convey how immoral of an action the creation of the USA was.

[MavsSuperFan]

that sounds like an excellent reason to go in to detail.

because the one thing we learn from history is that...
you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs
-Proverb most applicable to America's founding
Also
Concentration camps are an effective way to steal land from a population.

[masonanddixon]

True enough, but it doesnt convey how immoral of an action the creation of the USA was.

No more immoral than the creation of Australia and South America (e.g. the rest of the New World).

[MavsSuperFan]

No more immoral than the creation of Australia and South America (e.g. the rest of the New World).
agreed, though in many parts of south america you can tell that native genetics still are prominent. Eg peru

[gigantes]

you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs
-Proverb most applicable to America's founding
Also
Concentration camps are an effective way to steal land from a population.
actually the one i had in mind was:

"the one thing we learn from history is that we do not learn from history."



No more immoral than the creation of Australia and South America (e.g. the rest of the New World).
the topic is about native americans so i thought south america was already at discussion.

in terms of morality and history, australia is pretty apples and oranges to the topic at hand AFAIK. i thought it was already quite sparsely populated when the brits started using it as a series of penal colonies and whatnot.

[masonanddixon]

actually the one i had in mind was:

"the one thing we learn from history is that we do not learn from history."



the topic is about native americans so i thought south america was already at discussion.

in terms of morality and history, australia is pretty apples and oranges to the topic at hand AFAIK. i thought it was already quite sparsely populated when the brits started using it as a series of penal colonies and whatnot.

They wiped out every inhabitant in Tasmania. Managed to whitewash all the Melanesians and PNGers.

Population estimates put the Aboriginal population at about 500,000 prior to arrival of the English.

[masonanddixon]

agreed, though in many parts of south america you can tell that native genetics still are prominent. Eg peru

Pizarro's conquest of the Incans is more messed up than anything the whites did in North America.

Though apparently the major tribes of Mexico and Central America were hated by the other locals (specifically the Aztecs) whereas there appeared to have been more harmony amongst the Native Americans.

[Nanners]

Some people wanted to start a new country in a place where there was already people.


Concentration camps are an effective way to steal land from a population.

Well I am sure glad that humanity has put this type of behavior behind us. Thankfully there is nothing resembling what europeans did to north american natives currently happening anywhere in the modern world.....

I am sure the admins would agree with me.

[masonanddixon]

Well I am sure glad that humanity has put this type of behavior behind us, thankfully there nothing resembling what europeans did to north american natives currently happening anywhere in the modern world.....

I am sure the admins would agree with me.

And it's only going to get worse!

[gigantes]

They wiped out every inhabitant in Tasmania. Managed to whitewash all the Melanesians and PNGers.

Population estimates put the Aboriginal population at about 500,000 prior to arrival of the English.
thanks, i'll have to do some reading on that.


Pizarro's conquest of the Incans is more messed up than anything the whites did in North America. ...
the big difference to me is that wiping out a people by straight-up warfare or trojan horse trickery is one thing, but doing it piecemeal over the course of years by bullshit moral superiority, betrayal, broken promises, etc is a very different kettle of fish.

the aztecs and incans were taken down by trojan horse and flat-out warfare. what the brits and yankees did to north americans is far worse IMO.

they basically said "take us at our word and we can live in peace. oops, we lied... we're gonna use force and manipulation to get what we want and move you out. okay, NOW get used to your new life and land, take us at our word and we can live in peace." repeat, over and over.

northern native americans simply weren't organised along lines to resist such a process. like a friendly bully who moves in to your house and takes it over little by little.

[MavsSuperFan]

Well I am sure glad that humanity has put this type of behavior behind us. Thankfully there is nothing resembling what europeans did to north american natives currently happening anywhere in the modern world.....

I am sure the admins would agree with me.
Your right, america completely crushed native resistance. Jews do not have that capability.

They are dependent on American support. Thus are constrained

But the largest difference to me between whites stealing america and the israeli situation is that white people had no claim to this land.

[NumberSix]

Your right, america completely crushed native resistance. Jews do not have that capability.

They are dependent on American support. Thus are constrained

But the largest difference to me between whites stealing america and the israeli situation is that white people had no claim to this land.
Why don't whites have a claim? The oldest skeleton ever found in North America was a person of European origin. Europeans were obviously already here at some point thousands of years ago.

[Akrazotile]

I always wondered why natives in the area that would become US/Canada got wiped out by disease in far greater proportions than the ones from Mexico on down.

Why is that anyway??

[gigantes]

Why don't whites have a claim? The oldest skeleton ever found in North America was a person of European origin. Europeans were obviously already here at some point thousands of years ago.
like the viking settlements around 1000AD, they made it here but apparently did not hang on.


for another thing, the native americans of recent history were able to live with the land relatively indefinitely. no internet and playstation, but no clusterf-ck of current and impending problems such as we moderns have created.

[MavsSuperFan]

I always wondered why natives in the area that would become US/Canada got wiped out by disease in far greater proportions than the ones from Mexico on down.

Why is that anyway??
IIRC most people in south america are mixed, with euro and native DNA. Natives crossed into the new world from asia via the Bering strait when they were connected by ice.

Pure indigenous populations (with no euro or african DNA) are rare.

Also read an argument about how life on reservations strongly hindered native american population growth.

Whites in america didnt reproduce as much with indigenous peoples.

[bagelred]

why didnt native americans FIGHT back?

Because the Redskins were not great on Offense...or Defense for that matter.


What were we talking about?

[MavsSuperFan]

Why don't whites have a claim? The oldest skeleton ever found in North America was a person of European origin. Europeans were obviously already here at some point thousands of years ago.
pretty sure that is not true. the earliest people were the indigenous peoples who crossed from the Bering strait

[NumberSix]

pretty sure that is not true. the earliest people were the indigenous peoples who crossed from the Bering strait
Well, it shouldn't be too difficult to just goggle it, shouldn't it? I can't imagine anything is stopping you.

[Akrazotile]

http://mwachironavigator.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/wwf-tatanka.jpg


TEEEYEEYEEYEEYAOAOAWW!!!!

[Nick Young]

they did their best and failed.

[outbreak]

Isn't there a whole bunch of accounts of settlers finding empty villages and land already prepared for crops? I thought the current evidence showed something crazy like 80% of the native americans had passed away just before they landed due to disease.

[TheMan]

Unless you mean the Americas as a whole when you say "Native American" I don't know what empires you're talking about.



Edit: I see you edited.
They absolutely had empires you doofus. :hammerhead:

Just because you can't differentiate between Aztecs, Comanches, Cherokees, Mapuches, Guaranis, Zapotecs, Toltecs, Sioux etc doesn't mean they're all the same peoples :banghead:

[Nick Young]

Isn't there a whole bunch of accounts of settlers finding empty villages and land already prepared for crops? I thought the current evidence showed something crazy like 80% of the native americans had passed away just before they landed due to disease.
lol where did you read that?

[TheMan]

I always wondered why natives in the area that would become US/Canada got wiped out by disease in far greater proportions than the ones from Mexico on down.

Why is that anyway??
That's not true.

Native peoples numbers in Mexico decreased by desease to as low as 10% of their original size (90% were wiped out).

In Mexico's case, as well as most Latin America, the reason Native American people's population were able to recuperate in numbers was because the Catholic Spaniards christianized and mated with native peoples and basically left native populations alone in their original territory (they didn't systematically round them up and forced them into concentration camps called "reservations"). The English didn't mixed with Natives, they just killed them off. In those regards, the Spaniards weren't even close to the homicidal maniacs the Anglo Saxons were.

[TheMan]

Well, it shouldn't be too difficult to just goggle it, shouldn't it? I can't imagine anything is stopping you.
The Eurocentrists fantasy that they were here in America first is just as silly as the Afrocentrists claiming the Toltecs were black :oldlol:

[NumberSix]

The Eurocentrists fantasy that they were here in America first is just as silly as the Afrocentrists claiming the Toltecs were black :oldlol:
Who is "they"?

[Nick Young]

Real answer-the native Americans had no guns to defend themselves from invaders. That is the main reason our founding fathers granted us the right to bare arms-so we can't get native americaned.

[Nick Young]

like the viking settlements around 1000AD, they made it here but apparently did not hang on.


for another thing, the native americans of recent history were able to live with the land relatively indefinitely. no internet and playstation, but no clusterf-ck of current and impending problems such as we moderns have created.
The native Americans also practiced cannibalism and human sacrifice, god bless em.

[Nick Young]

That's not true.

Native peoples numbers in Mexico decreased by desease to as low as 10% of their original size (90% were wiped out).

In Mexico's case, as well as most Latin America, the reason Native American people's population were able to recuperate in numbers was because the Catholic Spaniards christianized and mated with native peoples and basically left native populations alone in their original territory (they didn't systematically round them up and forced them into concentration camps called "reservations"). The English didn't mixed with Natives, they just killed them off. In those regards, the Spaniards weren't even close to the homicidal maniacs the Anglo Saxons were.
Your knowledge of history is lacking. Have you never heard of missions? The Catholic Spanish did EXACTLY what you describe. They systematically rounded up natives and forced them to live and work as slaves on conversion compounds called Missions.


This is standard knowledge growing up in California.

http://heartofslo.felixngdesign.com/environment/images/mission.jpg

[gigantes]

The native Americans also practiced cannibalism and human sacrifice, god bless em.
some did.

in any case, cultures all over the world invariably do things which other cultures find abhorrent. problem...?


not to mention, cannibalism is very eco-friendly! instead of just defeating your enemy and leaving him for scavengers and microbes, you efficiently use his remains to be that much more sustainable to the environment. :cheers:

see? these people had it all figured out up until we knuckleheads came along and ruined everything.

[TheMan]

Your knowledge of history is lacking. Have you never heard of missions? The Catholic Spanish did EXACTLY what you describe. They systematically rounded up natives and forced them to live and work as slaves on conversion compounds called Missions.


This is standard knowledge growing up in California.

http://heartofslo.felixngdesign.com/environment/images/mission.jpg
I didn't claim that the Spaniards were little angels either but compared to the Anglo Saxons, they weren't as bad.

Explain a much bigger Native population in the rest of the Americas :confusedshrug:

[Draz]

One side had advance alien technology

[NumberSix]

I didn't claim that the Spaniards were little angels either but compared to the Anglo Saxons, they weren't as bad.

Explain a much bigger Native population in the rest of the Americas :confusedshrug:
What was so bad about the English?

News flash, there was no "genocide" of the natives. India is still full of Indians. Hong Kong is still full of Chinese. Nigeria is still full of Nigerians. Egypt is still full of Egyptians. The English aren't these crazed genocidal maniacs that you make them out to be.

[Dresta]

They did fight back. And some of them were so savage and brutal that they make IS look mild.