The American Genocide of the Indians—Historical Facts and Real Evidence

[HereWeGoAgain]

And as I have stated several times, without a beast of burden, what use was there for a wheel? On the uneven ground they lived in, a travois was actually more efficient than the wheel was. Hell, many European cultures also use the travois until fairly recent times. For the exact same reason, and they had beasts of burden.

But pre-Columbian, there was no such thin in the Americas as a horse drawn travois, they had no horses. They were pulled by people, or by dogs.

And there were multiple written languages. I already listed multiple written languages, do I need to list them again?



Of that I am very aware. In fact, they had no concept of owning anything you could not carry with you for the most part.

And they did have a somewhat concept of ownership of land, but it was not permanent. A tribe in order to avoid war, exchange brides, or other reasons would have an exchange of something with another for favorable rights to use an area of land. However, it was not permanent. So they understood something like "If we give you three baskets of obsidian, you let us remain at where these two rivers meet for the year". Or "We give you three daughters, and we get to stay in this valley for a year". But as you said, there was no concept of permanent ownership so they were always for a period of time.

So when the Europeans were offering what sounded to them like the same deal, they had no problem accepting it. And of course they often had no problem selling land that they did not even live on in the first place. Like most famously Peter Minuit, who bought the land from essentially poachers who were traveling through the area and did not actually live there.

Oh Bullshit.
I dont know what makes you think a wheel cant roll over uneven terrain.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

And as I have stated several times, without a beast of burden, what use was there for a wheel? On the uneven ground they lived in, a travois was actually more efficient than the wheel was. Hell, many European cultures also use the travois until fairly recent times. For the exact same reason, and they had beasts of burden.

But pre-Columbian, there was no such thin in the Americas as a horse drawn travois, they had no horses. They were pulled by people, or by dogs.

And there were multiple written languages. I already listed multiple written languages, do I need to list them again?



Of that I am very aware. In fact, they had no concept of owning anything you could not carry with you for the most part.

And they did have a somewhat concept of ownership of land, but it was not permanent. A tribe in order to avoid war, exchange brides, or other reasons would have an exchange of something with another for favorable rights to use an area of land. However, it was not permanent. So they understood something like "If we give you three baskets of obsidian, you let us remain at where these two rivers meet for the year". Or "We give you three daughters, and we get to stay in this valley for a year". But as you said, there was no concept of permanent ownership so they were always for a period of time.

So when the Europeans were offering what sounded to them like the same deal, they had no problem accepting it. And of course they often had no problem selling land that they did not even live on in the first place. Like most famously Peter Minuit, who bought the land from essentially poachers who were traveling through the area and did not actually live there.

The indians hunted out an area and moved on.
Even if that meant killing other tribes for their hunting grounds.

 

[Mushroom]

We're talking about American indians.

"Indians" is a proper name, and should be capitalized. You do not see me writing "french" or "europeans", kindly have the same respect in return.

And there you are being very closed off in your thinking.

Are you aware that none of Europe had a written language until they adopted either the Greek or Roman writing? The all of the British Isles had no written language until the Romans conquered them. Therefore, by your very definition the Celts were also stone age.

No, what you are doing is trying to is cherry pick things so that the only results will meet your definitions. Like saying only the region of a part of a continent, and not even an entire continent.

 

[Mushroom]

The indians hunted out an area and moved on.
Even if that meant killing other tribes for their hunting grounds.

As for the first, yeah, pretty much. Like any nomadic groups would do.

As for the second, not really. Tribal warfare almost never devolved to that level of carnage. Outsize of Mesoamerica and the implosion of the Mississippian Culture, that kind of carnage was pretty much unheard of in the Americas.

Are you even aware that among the tribes of North America, warfare was actually mostly not all that bloody? They had no real "standing armies", and most was more along the lines of ritual combat. Where the combatants rarely died, but one side would surrender and move on.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

"Indians" is a proper name, and should be capitalized. You do not see me writing "french" or "europeans", kindly have the same respect in return.

And there you are being very closed off in your thinking.

Are you aware that none of Europe had a written language until they adopted either the Greek or Roman writing? The all of the British Isles had no written language until the Romans conquered them. Therefore, by your very definition the Celts were also stone age.

No, what you are doing is trying to is cherry pick things so that the only results will meet your definitions. Like saying only the region of a part of a continent, and not even an entire continent.

No.
The Europeans were so far ahead of the indians that it's ludacris.
They were lucky to make a canoe while Europeans were circling the globe in huge sailing vessels.
The indians were still in the stone age when the White man discovered them.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

As for the first, yeah, pretty much. Like any nomadic groups would do.

As for the second, not really. Tribal warfare almost never devolved to that level of carnage. Outsize of Mesoamerica and the implosion of the Mississippian Culture, that kind of carnage was pretty much unheard of in the Americas.

Are you even aware that among the tribes of North America, warfare was actually mostly not all that bloody? They had no real "standing armies", and most was more along the lines of ritual combat. Where the combatants rarely died, but one side would surrender and move on.

You'd think being nomadic that the wheel would have made their life much easier.
There ya go with the noble indian bullshit again. The indians were constantly killing each other,torturing and enslaving their enemies was a standard practice.
In fact it was the women who did the vast majority of the torturing.

 

[Mac-7]

As for the first, yeah, pretty much. Like any nomadic groups would do.

As for the second, not really. Tribal warfare almost never devolved to that level of carnage. Outsize of Mesoamerica and the implosion of the Mississippian Culture, that kind of carnage was pretty much unheard of in the Americas.

Are you even aware that among the tribes of North America, warfare was actually mostly not all that bloody? They had no real "standing armies", and most was more along the lines of ritual combat. Where the combatants rarely died, but one side would surrender and move on.

Human nature does not change

If the Indians ever became more advanced they would be mostly just like the euros

 

[Mushroom]

Note the title of the thread, those weren't around when or where the US or the British Colonies were around.

Were there written languages in NORTH America?

Tell me, what continent were the Aztecs on?

 

[Mushroom]

You'd think being nomadic that the wheel would have made their life much easier. There ya go with the noble indian bullshit again. The indians were constantly killing each other,torturing and enslaving their enemies was a standard practice.

With no beasts of burden? With no roads?

And I am unquestionably against all that "Noble Indian" nonsense, as should be obvious. But with nomads traveling in small sizes that is actually common globally. One group forces another group to move. They do not slaughter them and wipe them out, they just push them out. Hell, why in the hell do you think so many groups of "Barbarians" were slamming into the Roman Empire?

Farther to the East, groups of nomads were slamming into other groups of nomads, forcing them to move. The Goths, the Visigoths, the Franks, they all originated elsewhere. Ultimately all pushed out by the Huns, who themselves were likely being pushed out by the Mongols. Like billiard balls on a table, one group pushes another. But none of those groups were particularly bloodthirsty, in fact the Franks and Goths were actually in the early phases of agriculture (as in settling in a single location instead of moving on after a generation or two when the land was used up) when they were pushed out of their original territory.

And killing each other? You mean, like street gangs in the US today? Yes, they killed each other, but in fairly small numbers, the killing not the goal but getting a group to move on.

And yes, enslavement. Another thing common in almost all cultures. However, they also had no concept of "slavery" as Europeans thought of it. Those enslaved actually were part of the tribe, and it was not a permanent position they were reduced to. And many anthropologists now believe that was typical of primitive peoples globally as a way to add genetic diversity to prevent inbreeding. As there was no real use for slaves in a nomadic culture otherwise. One common use of "slaves" were warriors of another tribe captured in battle being forced to serve the mother or widow of another warrior killed in battle. In essence, replacing one who had been killed.

As far as torture, that is indeed true and you will never hear me say otherwise. I have talked multiple times about how common human sacrifice was in the Americas. With the Pawnee even practicing their Morning Star ritual into the middle of the 1850s, and some claiming it happened more recently in secret. Do I think that was evil and brutal, hell yes. But it was also areligious and singular annual tradition and not the assembly line technique like the Mesoamerican tribes performed.

But do I think that kidnapping a 14 year old girl from another tribe, then gang raping her before killing her is brutal and torture? You will never hear me saying otherwise. And many other tribes also did similar things. Of course, so did the Celts, and a huge number of tribes around the world that were even more advanced than the Indians were.

This is why you keep failing. The things you keep bringing out were not unique at all to the Indians. Many were being practiced in Europe in the last 2,000 years.

 

[martybegan]

Tell me, what continent were the Aztecs on?

Continent, yes, geographical location, no.

Central America has always been treated as a different region.

 

[Vastator]

With no beasts of burden? With no roads?

Yeah. People still use push carts today. And wheel barrows, and many other man powered conveyances are extremely useful in building projects.

 

[Mushroom]

Human nature does not change

If the Indians ever became more advanced they would be mostly just like the euros

In that, you will not ever hear me say otherwise.

In fact, the Pre-Columbian tribes fascinate me, as it likely is the closest we will ever come to studying cultures of Eurasia 5 thousand years ago. In the era before written records, when most groups were still nomadic. In fact, I find it rather interesting that much of what happened during the Bronze Age Collapse was also similar to the conditions that the Europeans found in North America when they arrived.

Which was just after the collapse of the Mississippian Culture, and a diaspora that gave rise to most of the tribes we know of today. Most are likely not even aware that the tribes they know are mostly of modern "creation". Huge numbers like the Lakota, Seminole, and others are not the "original tribes". That the Mississippian Culture was a conglomeration of many tribes, and when it collapsed new tribes formed and spread out.

The Lakota were from the Louisiana, not the Dakotas where they are associated with today. The Seminole were likely from Mississippi-Alabama, not Florida as they are associated with today.

And through archaeology, we know this is not unlike a great many cultures that have risen and fallen in Eurasia thousands of years ago. Cultures rise, some create some fascinating things like Stonehenge or Gobekli Tepe, then vanish. However, only on North America are many of those cultures recent enough that they are "fresh" in archaeological terms, and some tribal legends and traditions exist that point back to those times only 5 to 6 centuries ago.

I very much believe that what the Indians were doing was not only common, it was typical to all cultures at that level of advancement. And even in cultures that many would think are more advanced. That is why I laugh when people keep calling them "stone age", when they were not. But failing to realize that even groups unquestionably Iron Age were still staking people face down into bogs and bashing their heads in with hammers until fairly recently in Europe.

And those early Nordic groups were also fighting all the damned time, and taking slaves. But they also were not going around decimating entire villages and killing everybody. In other words, they were behaving exactly as say the Algonquin tribes were behaving 1,500 years later.

 

[Mushroom]

Yeah. People still use push carts today. And wheel barrows, and many other man powered conveyances are extremely useful in building projects.

laughs

Ever tried to push one where there are no roads? Sorry, but I can only assume you are a city dweller, that has never had to actually travel where there are no roads. Even with beasts of burden and a barely recognizable trail, 150 years ago the settlers that moved west were lucky if they could make a dozen miles a day in their wagons.

Groups of Indians with their travois pulled by themselves and dogs could move two to three times that distance.

And tell me, when did the Europeans invent the wheelbarrow? Well, the earliest possible known record is actually from around 400 BCE. But it then vanished from the historical record, and was not known to have existed again until around 1200 CE.

And what "building projects" would a nomadic people have to need such a thing? Remember, these were nomadic peoples. They have a need for a cart or wheelbarrow about as much as the Laplanders have the need for one.

 

[Mushroom]

Continent, yes, geographical location, no.

Central America has always been treated as a different region.

And when is "Mexico" "Central America"?

Even Geographically, Mexico is not part of "Central America". That is the area south of there, in the Isthmus that connects North and South America.

You all just literally make up your own definitions, right?

 

[martybegan]

And when is "Mexico" "Central America"?

Even Geographically, Mexico is not part of "Central America". That is the area south of there, in the Isthmus that connects North and South America.

You all just literally make up your own definitions, right?

Is mexico part of central america - Bing

 

[jbrownson0831]

It sucks to be conquered. Just like all the other peoples throughout history that were conquered. America has treated Native Americans better than most conquering nations.

Who did Lakooktas people kill and drive off the land before they occupied it?

 

[Vastator]

laughs

Ever tried to push one where there are no roads? Sorry, but I can only assume you are a city dweller, that has never had to actually travel where there are no roads.

Well you assumed very, very incorrectly. Laughably so. The fact of the matter is; that if they had the vision, of just what the wheel could do for them, they would have developed roads to facilitate the use thereof.

 

[Vastator]

150 years ago the settlers that moved west were lucky if they could make a dozen miles a day in their wagons.

Groups of Indians with their travois pulled by themselves and dogs could move two to three times that distance.

And yet they moved exponentially more goods and materials despite the slower going. So much so that they made it from one coast to the other...

 

[Vastator]

And what "building projects" would a nomadic people have to need such a thing? Remember, these were nomadic peoples. They have a need for a cart or wheelbarrow about as much as the Laplanders have the need for one.

The mound builders could certainly have made use of them. Cahokia could have been built much faster, and much higher. Even could have been made with better materials if they had the ability to transport them more efficiently. And don't bother with the "nomadic" excuse. Gobekli Tepe wasn't hindered in its construction due to a nomadic lifestyle.
The long and the short of it is this. They didn't have the creative spark to see all the uses for a wheel, and as such didn't "invent" one. They got grossly outclassed by a far more advanced civilization, and the rest is history...

 

[Vastator]

Remember, these were nomadic peoples. They have a need for a cart or wheelbarrow about as much as the Laplanders have the need for one.

It seems your about as creative, and insightful as these poor wretches were. Because if I were a nomadic person; I could see near limitless uses for a wheel. Afterall mobility is key to being nomadic...