When teaching the history of the Americas what begins the topic of Native Americans?

[GodlyBob]

But they didn't form big advanced nation states, which means it was just a temporary thing until manifest destiny kicked in.

Down in Mexico we have one of only three places in the entire world that developed writing independently and huge cities made of stone.

[Theodarzna]

I take it they were the most advanced Amerindians? Apparently not enough, since i'm not typing in Iroquoian.

From Orderic Vitalis and the time of the Normans till now. I often wonder just how old that line of thinking goes "Well they were rustic savages.... so... yeah know, who cares."

[PC2]

Down in Mexico we have one of only three places in the entire world that developed writing independently and huge cities made of stone.

That's great maybe I'll check it out one day.

[GodlyBob]

From Orderic Vitalis and the time of the Normans till now. I often wonder just how old that line of thinking goes "Well they were rustic savages.... so... yeah know, who cares."

It's a very human thing to create solidarity within your group by pitting it against another. White and black, protestant and catholic, English and French, it all comes down to Us and Them at the end of the day. In a way, he's participating in a tradition as ancient as humanity itself.

[PC2]

"Drive them from our shore!
They're not like you and me
Which means they must be evil!
We must sound the drums of war!"

Exactly, unless they assimilate into the melting pot and learn the language.

[Oktoberfest]

Before they ever even saw whitey, Indian tribes fought and killed each other like the Bloods vs the Crips. The notion they were peaceful hippies living in communes is idiotic and fits a false Politically Correct narrative. Most tribes were all for war.

Man read up on the shit Indians used to do to their victims. They had no issue raping and killing women or killing babies and kids either.


http://townhall.com/columnists/micha...cans/page/full

Reject the Lie of White "Genocide" Against Native Americans

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-2536600187.html

[Simulacrum]

From Orderic Vitalis and the time of the Normans till now. I often wonder just how old that line of thinking goes "Well they were rustic savages.... so... yeah know, who cares."

Pretty sure you could point at a random part of africa and probably dig out ruins of a more sophisticated, ancient, forgotten civilization than the Iroquois. This was not an impressive civilization. It would've been considered backwards 4000-5000 years ago in eurasia. Heck, we probably wouldn't have heard of them since they'd simply have been destroyed by their neighbours.

[GodlyBob]

Before they ever even saw whitey, Indian tribes fought and killed each other like the Bloods vs the Crips. The notion they were peaceful hippies living in communes is idiotic and fits a false Politically Correct narrative. Most tribes were all for war.

Man read up on the shit Indians used to do to their victims. They had no issue raping and killing women or killing babies and kids either.


http://townhall.com/columnists/micha...cans/page/full

Reject the Lie of White "Genocide" Against Native Americans

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-2536600187.html

I don't think anybody here was saying that native tribes didn't fight and often kill each other. That doesn't exactly mean that the genocide didn't happen >.>

It's kind of like saying the Jews killed Jesus so they had the holocaust coming.

[Simulacrum]

It's kind of like saying the Jews killed Jesus so they had the holocaust coming.

That's a terrible analogy.

[frogger237]

I think most of my history books started with american history and mentioning the conflicts and help from the Native Americans, then in later chapters we learned about the history of Native Americans crossing the land bridge and spreading out, then getting into the more major tribes/civilizations of North and South America.

[GodlyBob]

That's a terrible analogy.

Yeah, it's ridiculous that he thought that since native people killed each other the genocide didn't happen. I completely agree =D

[Macaquerie]

I grew up in California, and starting from kindergarten we spent a lot of time studying Native American culture, traditions, and folklore but as far as history goes it all sorts of gets cut off once the depressing shit starts happening. Definitely interesting to be exposed to but even at that age you get the sense that there's a lot of stuff being whitewashed away.

[Theodarzna]

Pretty sure you could point at a random part of africa and probably dig out ruins of a more sophisticated, ancient, forgotten civilization than the Iroquois. This was not an impressive civilization. It would've been considered backwards 4000-5000 years ago in eurasia. Heck, we probably wouldn't have heard of them since they'd simply have been destroyed by their neighbours.

I am not sure what relative "advancement" has to do with anything.

[Oktoberfest]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaver_Wars



http://www.nebraskastudies.org/0500/...0503_0106.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ies-alive.html

How Comanche Indians butchered babies, roasted enemies alive and would ride 1,000 miles to wipe out one family

T R Fehrenbach quotes a Spanish account that has Comanche torturing Tonkawa Indian captives by burning their hands and feet until the nerves in them were destroyed, then amputating these extremities and starting the fire treatment again on the fresh wounds. Scalped alive, the Tonkawas had their tongues torn out to stop the screaming.

[Kalis]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaver_Wars

Read link name. Clicked link. Disappointed.

[Simulacrum]

Yeah, it's ridiculous that he thought that since native people killed each other the genocide didn't happen. I completely agree =D

Oh, I see. You're only pretending to be retarded.

I am not sure what relative "advancement" has to do with anything.

I was more piling on the guy who claimed that the iroquois confederacy were a big advanced nation state.

[PC2]

Yeah, it's ridiculous that he thought that since native people killed each other the genocide didn't happen. I completely agree =D

The point is conquest was the norm back then, all sides were relative mongrels by today's standards.

Genocide happened to white regions as well, but in the history books we just say the place was "sacked" instead of turning it into oppression drama.

[GodlyBob]

Oh, I see. You're only pretending to be retarded.

Don't feel too bad, it's hard for a lot of people to understand the nuances of cultural relations outside of "us good 'dem bad." Someday you'll understand that life isn't binary, but it's just how some people were raised.

On point, not all wrongs are equal and there is never any such thing as a moral high ground. Trying to be on the right side of history should never stop one from being able to objectively analyze it.

- - - Updated - - -

The point is conquest was the norm back then, all sides were relative mongrels by today's standards.

Genocide happened to white regions as well, but in the history books we just say the place was "sacked" instead of turning it into oppression drama.

You do have a bit of a point that it's really only genocide if you were really good at it. Early Americans were better organized during their march westward so they had the ability to carry out a genocide. The individual tribes or confederations that they ran up against couldn't completely cleanse the Americans from the land no matter how hard they might've tried which is what makes the difference between a genocide and a raid or a war and a shootout.

[Oktoberfest]

When Boyd and Parker were captured in the Genesee
Valley in the Sullivan campaign of 1779, Brant, the famous half-breed
chief, assured them that they would not be injured, yet left them in the
hands of Little Beard, another chief, to do with as he would, and the
prolonged tortures to which he and his savage companions subjected
them were horrible. After they had been stripped and tied to trees, and
tomahawks were thrown so as to just graze their heads, Parker was un-
intenlionally hit so that his head was severed from his body, but Boyd was
made to suffer lingering miseries. His ears were cut off, his mouth
enlarged with knives and his severed nose thrust into it, pieces of flesh
were cut from his shoulders and other parts of his body, an incision was
made in his abdomen and an intestine fastened to the tree, when he was
scourged to make him move around it, and finally as he neared death, was
decapitated, and his head raised on a pole.

http://native-american-indian-wars.b...-captives.html

[Kalis]

When Boyd and Parker were captured in the Genesee
Valley in the Sullivan campaign of 1779, Brant, the famous half-breed
chief, assured them that they would not be injured, yet left them in the
hands of Little Beard, another chief, to do with as he would, and the
prolonged tortures to which he and his savage companions subjected
them were horrible. After they had been stripped and tied to trees, and
tomahawks were thrown so as to just graze their heads, Parker was un-
intenlionally hit so that his head was severed from his body, but Boyd was
made to suffer lingering miseries. His ears were cut off, his mouth
enlarged with knives and his severed nose thrust into it, pieces of flesh
were cut from his shoulders and other parts of his body, an incision was
made in his abdomen and an intestine fastened to the tree, when he was
scourged to make him move around it, and finally as he neared death, was
decapitated, and his head raised on a pole.

http://native-american-indian-wars.b...-captives.html

Out of curiosity, why are you posting random shit that American Indians did?