QuickHitCurepon
Diamond Member
When I was in 12th grade in Ethnic Studies, my teacher wrote a comment on my report titled, "The Incas, Mayas, Aztecs and Europe: A Comparison," 10-18-77:
He wrote, "You were to exclude Greece and Rome in your comparison and confine it to the Northern Europeans. I am sure had you done that you might have drawn different conclusions. On the whole, your paper represents quite an effort. It is well developed, researched and well written."
Here is the conclusion of my paper: "The decline of the Indian Empires was the result of Europe's continuing thirst for more land. The two Spanish leaders, Cortes and Francisco Pizarro, used similar tactics to conquer the Aztecs and the Incas respectively. Both Indian empires first regarded these newcomers as supernatural gods because of their unfamiliarity. This led to an over abundance of trust by the Indians whom the Spanish easily subdued because of the late opposition and vacillation of the Indians. However, the Mayas were not militarily taken over, but they had a gradual decline. Constant failure of their crops led to the debilitation of their cities."
I hope members can come up with questions about this topic.
Is it possible that good fertile land can be designated and given to each separate race or tribe of Indians that is still organized?
Gradually, these races will never completely die off. With current circumstances, the acts of Pizarro and the Spanish and everyone who helped to and settled the lands of the Old West, the Pacific coast region of South America and Central America would finally and conclusively be guilty of genocide. It is not genocide until one of these races completely dies off. They can always come back. It only would take a small group of people from each race or tribe.
He wrote, "You were to exclude Greece and Rome in your comparison and confine it to the Northern Europeans. I am sure had you done that you might have drawn different conclusions. On the whole, your paper represents quite an effort. It is well developed, researched and well written."
Here is the conclusion of my paper: "The decline of the Indian Empires was the result of Europe's continuing thirst for more land. The two Spanish leaders, Cortes and Francisco Pizarro, used similar tactics to conquer the Aztecs and the Incas respectively. Both Indian empires first regarded these newcomers as supernatural gods because of their unfamiliarity. This led to an over abundance of trust by the Indians whom the Spanish easily subdued because of the late opposition and vacillation of the Indians. However, the Mayas were not militarily taken over, but they had a gradual decline. Constant failure of their crops led to the debilitation of their cities."
I hope members can come up with questions about this topic.
Is it possible that good fertile land can be designated and given to each separate race or tribe of Indians that is still organized?
Gradually, these races will never completely die off. With current circumstances, the acts of Pizarro and the Spanish and everyone who helped to and settled the lands of the Old West, the Pacific coast region of South America and Central America would finally and conclusively be guilty of genocide. It is not genocide until one of these races completely dies off. They can always come back. It only would take a small group of people from each race or tribe.
