Why Didn't Indian Tribes Repel The Colonists?

[PoliticalChic]

BTW, in the above I wrote about how the Spanish essentially enslaved the indigenous peoples of South American. For those who may not know. The Americas at that time were thought of as North and South America. Not long after the early colonial period, a distinction was made between Central America and South America.

"....the Spanish essentially enslaved the indigenous peoples of South American.'

Actually, the Spanish and the Portuguese found that the indigenous people would not or could not do the job.
The escaped, or died.

At the turn of the century, Virginia tobacco was but a novelty, yet smokers were willing to pay its weight in silver. High duties and high prices for Virginia tobacco set the scene: control of the supply. Europeans began to set up plantations, and by about 1610, colonization was no longer speculative, but affordable and profitable. As beaver pelts funded French exploration in the north, tobacco gave the English impetus to transplant themselves to Virginia and dispossess Natives.

But tobacco farmers found that the supply of labor was sorely lacking. Indians would not do the work, the solution was to find those who had to work- slaves.

Starting in the 1630’s, the Dutch West Indian Company bought slaves in Africa, sold them to plantation owners in the Caribbean and Brazil. The new system of trade that emerged was tobacco and sugar from the Americas, slaves from Africa worked plantations in the Americas and silver mines in South America, and this paid for goods from Europe and the Americas to Asia. So, it was on the trinity of silver, tobacco, and slaves that the colonization of the Americas rested.

For a fuller and much more interesting telling of tobacco’s influence on history, “Vermeer’s Hat,” by Timothy Brook.

 

[PoliticalChic]

In an earlier post, it was pointed out that the difficult labor shortage in the colonies was supplemented by indentured servants.

Today, in fact, in an anniversary of sorts, showing that the first African were, in fact, in that capacity rather than considered to be slaves.



August 31, 1619
The first 20 blacks are purchased as indentured servants by Jamestown colonists “from a dutch man of warre”-from John Rolfe’s diary. The first people of African heritage were brought to Virginia by the Dutch.

A Dutch ship which either traded for the slaves or stole them from the Spanish entered Chesapeake Bay and sold 20 slaves in August of 1619.

Virginia's first white settlers did not automatically assume that the Africans were to be slaves always. They treated them as indentured servants, which would grant them personal freedom after 4 to 7 years.

See Toni Morrison s Beloved African American Slavery and slave narratives
and Courtland Milloy - Legacy of Slavery Echoes Beyond Jamestown Founding


Slavery was not the result of racism....but rather racism was the result of attempts to rationalize slavery.

 

[Samson]

This is a thread looking for a purpose.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

BTW, in the above I wrote about how the Spanish essentially enslaved the indigenous peoples of South American. For those who may not know. The Americas at that time were thought of as North and South America. Not long after the early colonial period, a distinction was made between Central America and South America.

"....the Spanish essentially enslaved the indigenous peoples of South American.'

Actually, the Spanish and the Portuguese found that the indigenous people would not or could not do the job.
The escaped, or died.

At the turn of the century, Virginia tobacco was but a novelty, yet smokers were willing to pay its weight in silver. High duties and high prices for Virginia tobacco set the scene: control of the supply. Europeans began to set up plantations, and by about 1610, colonization was no longer speculative, but affordable and profitable. As beaver pelts funded French exploration in the north, tobacco gave the English impetus to transplant themselves to Virginia and dispossess Natives.

But tobacco farmers found that the supply of labor was sorely lacking. Indians would not do the work, the solution was to find those who had to work- slaves.

Starting in the 1630’s, the Dutch West Indian Company bought slaves in Africa, sold them to plantation owners in the Caribbean and Brazil. The new system of trade that emerged was tobacco and sugar from the Americas, slaves from Africa worked plantations in the Americas and silver mines in South America, and this paid for goods from Europe and the Americas to Asia. So, it was on the trinity of silver, tobacco, and slaves that the colonization of the Americas rested.

For a fuller and much more interesting telling of tobacco’s influence on history, “Vermeer’s Hat,” by Timothy Brook.

Indeed. The Spanish (and the Portuguese too, of course) used the labor of the indigenous people for infrastructural purposes. It was an imposed barter-labor system. It worked after a fashion for that purpose. It was efficient enough, initially, but just barely and proved to be troublesome beyond that. That's all I was getting at in the above. Colonization became a booming enterprise as a result of tobacco and sugar, especially, but also silver, and the slave trade beginning in the West Indies and South America.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

In an earlier post, it was pointed out that the difficult labor shortage in the colonies was supplemented by indentured servants.

Today, in fact, in an anniversary of sorts, showing that the first African were, in fact, in that capacity rather than considered to be slaves.



August 31, 1619
The first 20 blacks are purchased as indentured servants by Jamestown colonists “from a dutch man of warre”-from John Rolfe’s diary. The first people of African heritage were brought to Virginia by the Dutch.

A Dutch ship which either traded for the slaves or stole them from the Spanish entered Chesapeake Bay and sold 20 slaves in August of 1619.

Virginia's first white settlers did not automatically assume that the Africans were to be slaves always. They treated them as indentured servants, which would grant them personal freedom after 4 to 7 years.

See Toni Morrison s Beloved African American Slavery and slave narratives
and Courtland Milloy - Legacy of Slavery Echoes Beyond Jamestown Founding


Slavery was not the result of racism....but rather racism was the result of attempts to rationalize slavery.

Yep. And what many don't know is that a significant number of plantations were owned by blacks, former indentured servants, who later used African slave labor too.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This is a thread looking for a purpose.

As are you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

BTW, in the above I wrote about how the Spanish essentially enslaved the indigenous peoples of South American. For those who may not know. The Americas at that time were thought of as North and South America. Not long after the early colonial period, a distinction was made between Central America and South America.

"....the Spanish essentially enslaved the indigenous peoples of South American.'

Actually, the Spanish and the Portuguese found that the indigenous people would not or could not do the job.
The escaped, or died.

At the turn of the century, Virginia tobacco was but a novelty, yet smokers were willing to pay its weight in silver. High duties and high prices for Virginia tobacco set the scene: control of the supply. Europeans began to set up plantations, and by about 1610, colonization was no longer speculative, but affordable and profitable. As beaver pelts funded French exploration in the north, tobacco gave the English impetus to transplant themselves to Virginia and dispossess Natives.

But tobacco farmers found that the supply of labor was sorely lacking. Indians would not do the work, the solution was to find those who had to work- slaves.

Starting in the 1630’s, the Dutch West Indian Company bought slaves in Africa, sold them to plantation owners in the Caribbean and Brazil. The new system of trade that emerged was tobacco and sugar from the Americas, slaves from Africa worked plantations in the Americas and silver mines in South America, and this paid for goods from Europe and the Americas to Asia. So, it was on the trinity of silver, tobacco, and slaves that the colonization of the Americas rested.

For a fuller and much more interesting telling of tobacco’s influence on history, “Vermeer’s Hat,” by Timothy Brook.

Indeed. The Spanish (and the Portuguese too, of course) used the labor of the indigenous people for infrastructural purposes. It was an imposed barter-labor system. It worked after a fashion for that purpose. It was efficient enough, initially, but just barely and proved to be troublesome beyond that. That's all I was getting at in the above. Colonization became a booming enterprise as a result of tobacco and sugar, especially, but also silver, and the slave trade beginning in the West Indies and South America.

Cocao was a BIG hit!

 

[Samson]

This is a thread looking for a purpose.

As are you.

Well, You have the capacity to generate your own thoughts.


Who would have guessed?

 

[PoliticalChic]

In an earlier post, it was pointed out that the difficult labor shortage in the colonies was supplemented by indentured servants.

Today, in fact, in an anniversary of sorts, showing that the first African were, in fact, in that capacity rather than considered to be slaves.



August 31, 1619
The first 20 blacks are purchased as indentured servants by Jamestown colonists “from a dutch man of warre”-from John Rolfe’s diary. The first people of African heritage were brought to Virginia by the Dutch.

A Dutch ship which either traded for the slaves or stole them from the Spanish entered Chesapeake Bay and sold 20 slaves in August of 1619.

Virginia's first white settlers did not automatically assume that the Africans were to be slaves always. They treated them as indentured servants, which would grant them personal freedom after 4 to 7 years.

See Toni Morrison s Beloved African American Slavery and slave narratives
and Courtland Milloy - Legacy of Slavery Echoes Beyond Jamestown Founding


Slavery was not the result of racism....but rather racism was the result of attempts to rationalize slavery.

Yep. And what many don't know is that a significant number of plantations were owned by blacks, former indentured servants, who later also used African slave labor too.

The same was true of Indians who farmed.

 

[NoNukes]

Indians....erroneously known as 'Native Americans'....a subject that lends itself to the cause of the America-haters.

Here, we strip away both the romanticized notions, and the slanders: real history.



First the 'age of exploration,' then colonization. But when colonization began in America, it did so in dribs and drabs.... in small scattered or sporadic amounts.
Certainly not in huge numbers that would account for the mythical "Indian genocide."

Why didn't the Indian tribes extant simply toss 'em back into the sea?



1. Colonization began in 1607, with English settlers along the James River. Data shows some 2,400 English in Virginia, and about 1,400 in New England by 1630.
But there were over 400,000 Native Americans east of the Appalachians by the time the first settlers arrived!

Romanticized versions of Indian life paint them to be friendly, civilized, probably suggesting some sort of "Beer Summit" with the newcomers.....none of which is true.
"Can't we all just get along?" Maybe.


2. Woudn't the Indians, at first glance, want to curtail the newcomers?
Maybe so....but there were several reasons why they couldn't/wouldn't.
First, even small settlements tended to be fortified, and able to rely on sea power and firearms.

Indians quickly saw the value of muskets, and were able to trade for same, using them for hunting and against rival tribes.
How about simply using 'em against the 'white interlopers' ?(Al Sharpton).


a. Far from the static view that politicians have of human endeavors, in actuality, people behave dynamically. In this case, getting guns made the Indians more dependent on Europeans, for ammunition, powder, and repair of the weapons.

b. And, like garage door openers, once they had guns, they couldn't imagine living without them. So much for sending the Europeans away!

And, the law of unintended consequences went further: guns caused a loss of the skills needed in using bows/arrows!
Walter McDougall, " Freedom Just Around the Corner: A New American History: 1585-1828"

c. To show the extent of the desire for guns, in 1641, the Iroquois sued for peace in order to regain access to the guns the French were selling them! "Firearms in Colonial America: The Impact on History and Technology 1492-1792,' M. L. Brown,
p.151-158




3. Geography is another reason that the colonists were not sent packing: they settled along the coasts and rivers, so would fight tenaciously rather than be pushed into the water! The Indians, if they were losing, could simply retreat inland, and fade into the forests.



4. As far as losing to the Indians, the settlers has an inexhaustible supply of reinforcements from their national 'tribe,' while the Indians could rarely rely on support due to long tribal feuds.





5. Perhaps most important, the greatest of enemies that the Indians had to face...they couldn't actually 'face.' And the settlers didn't recognize their greatest ally: Disease.
Influenza, chicken pox, small pox,...and the plague that decimated the Europeans back home.

a. Over 90% of the Algonquin, Wampanoag, Massachusetts, and Pawtucket tribes were wiped out even before the Pilgrims arrived!

b. 50-75% of the Hurons, Iroquois, and Mohawks died in the 1630s and 1640s.

c. And almost 90% of the Powhatan, Susquehannock and other Chesapeake tribes in the 1670s.
McDougall, Op. Cit.

Indians were pretty much peaceful and did not want to fight the Whites. It is as simple as that, if you have read any Indian history.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This is a thread looking for a purpose.

As are you.

Well, You have the capacity to generate your own thoughts.


Who would have guessed?

Neither of your posts were the result of deep thought.

When I construct a thread, it is generally for the purpose of leading to an unassailable conclusion.
And, generally, that conclusion runs counter to the Liberal propaganda of our time.

If the many facts in the thread were overwhelming to you, I suggest you consider the last line in post #36, and apply it to the other posts.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Indians....erroneously known as 'Native Americans'....a subject that lends itself to the cause of the America-haters.

Here, we strip away both the romanticized notions, and the slanders: real history.



First the 'age of exploration,' then colonization. But when colonization began in America, it did so in dribs and drabs.... in small scattered or sporadic amounts.
Certainly not in huge numbers that would account for the mythical "Indian genocide."

Why didn't the Indian tribes extant simply toss 'em back into the sea?



1. Colonization began in 1607, with English settlers along the James River. Data shows some 2,400 English in Virginia, and about 1,400 in New England by 1630.
But there were over 400,000 Native Americans east of the Appalachians by the time the first settlers arrived!

Romanticized versions of Indian life paint them to be friendly, civilized, probably suggesting some sort of "Beer Summit" with the newcomers.....none of which is true.
"Can't we all just get along?" Maybe.


2. Woudn't the Indians, at first glance, want to curtail the newcomers?
Maybe so....but there were several reasons why they couldn't/wouldn't.
First, even small settlements tended to be fortified, and able to rely on sea power and firearms.

Indians quickly saw the value of muskets, and were able to trade for same, using them for hunting and against rival tribes.
How about simply using 'em against the 'white interlopers' ?(Al Sharpton).


a. Far from the static view that politicians have of human endeavors, in actuality, people behave dynamically. In this case, getting guns made the Indians more dependent on Europeans, for ammunition, powder, and repair of the weapons.

b. And, like garage door openers, once they had guns, they couldn't imagine living without them. So much for sending the Europeans away!

And, the law of unintended consequences went further: guns caused a loss of the skills needed in using bows/arrows!
Walter McDougall, " Freedom Just Around the Corner: A New American History: 1585-1828"

c. To show the extent of the desire for guns, in 1641, the Iroquois sued for peace in order to regain access to the guns the French were selling them! "Firearms in Colonial America: The Impact on History and Technology 1492-1792,' M. L. Brown,
p.151-158




3. Geography is another reason that the colonists were not sent packing: they settled along the coasts and rivers, so would fight tenaciously rather than be pushed into the water! The Indians, if they were losing, could simply retreat inland, and fade into the forests.



4. As far as losing to the Indians, the settlers has an inexhaustible supply of reinforcements from their national 'tribe,' while the Indians could rarely rely on support due to long tribal feuds.





5. Perhaps most important, the greatest of enemies that the Indians had to face...they couldn't actually 'face.' And the settlers didn't recognize their greatest ally: Disease.
Influenza, chicken pox, small pox,...and the plague that decimated the Europeans back home.

a. Over 90% of the Algonquin, Wampanoag, Massachusetts, and Pawtucket tribes were wiped out even before the Pilgrims arrived!

b. 50-75% of the Hurons, Iroquois, and Mohawks died in the 1630s and 1640s.

c. And almost 90% of the Powhatan, Susquehannock and other Chesapeake tribes in the 1670s.
McDougall, Op. Cit.

Indians were pretty much peaceful and did not want to fight the Whites. It is as simple as that, if you have read any Indian history.

The only thing 'simple' here is you.

Several posts in the thread clearly prove that, as usual, you have no qualms about posting absolutely false material.

 

[Samson]

Indians....erroneously known as 'Native Americans'....a subject that lends itself to the cause of the America-haters.

Here, we strip away both the romanticized notions, and the slanders: real history.



First the 'age of exploration,' then colonization. But when colonization began in America, it did so in dribs and drabs.... in small scattered or sporadic amounts.
Certainly not in huge numbers that would account for the mythical "Indian genocide."

Why didn't the Indian tribes extant simply toss 'em back into the sea?



1. Colonization began in 1607, with English settlers along the James River. Data shows some 2,400 English in Virginia, and about 1,400 in New England by 1630.
But there were over 400,000 Native Americans east of the Appalachians by the time the first settlers arrived!

Romanticized versions of Indian life paint them to be friendly, civilized, probably suggesting some sort of "Beer Summit" with the newcomers.....none of which is true.
"Can't we all just get along?" Maybe.


2. Woudn't the Indians, at first glance, want to curtail the newcomers?
Maybe so....but there were several reasons why they couldn't/wouldn't.
First, even small settlements tended to be fortified, and able to rely on sea power and firearms.

Indians quickly saw the value of muskets, and were able to trade for same, using them for hunting and against rival tribes.
How about simply using 'em against the 'white interlopers' ?(Al Sharpton).


a. Far from the static view that politicians have of human endeavors, in actuality, people behave dynamically. In this case, getting guns made the Indians more dependent on Europeans, for ammunition, powder, and repair of the weapons.

b. And, like garage door openers, once they had guns, they couldn't imagine living without them. So much for sending the Europeans away!

And, the law of unintended consequences went further: guns caused a loss of the skills needed in using bows/arrows!
Walter McDougall, " Freedom Just Around the Corner: A New American History: 1585-1828"

c. To show the extent of the desire for guns, in 1641, the Iroquois sued for peace in order to regain access to the guns the French were selling them! "Firearms in Colonial America: The Impact on History and Technology 1492-1792,' M. L. Brown,
p.151-158




3. Geography is another reason that the colonists were not sent packing: they settled along the coasts and rivers, so would fight tenaciously rather than be pushed into the water! The Indians, if they were losing, could simply retreat inland, and fade into the forests.



4. As far as losing to the Indians, the settlers has an inexhaustible supply of reinforcements from their national 'tribe,' while the Indians could rarely rely on support due to long tribal feuds.





5. Perhaps most important, the greatest of enemies that the Indians had to face...they couldn't actually 'face.' And the settlers didn't recognize their greatest ally: Disease.
Influenza, chicken pox, small pox,...and the plague that decimated the Europeans back home.

a. Over 90% of the Algonquin, Wampanoag, Massachusetts, and Pawtucket tribes were wiped out even before the Pilgrims arrived!

b. 50-75% of the Hurons, Iroquois, and Mohawks died in the 1630s and 1640s.

c. And almost 90% of the Powhatan, Susquehannock and other Chesapeake tribes in the 1670s.
McDougall, Op. Cit.

Indians were pretty much peaceful and did not want to fight the Whites. It is as simple as that, if you have read any Indian history.

Indeed, The Native concept of "War" was nothing like the European concept.

Natives had nothing like European military units. If they had a fight between themselves, each side would pick a few dozen guys, and they'd beat the shit out of each other until one side quit and ran away. Casualties were infrequently mortal, and there was little or no damage to civilian populations.

Europeans killed EVERYONE; combatants, women, children.

 

[Samson]

This is a thread looking for a purpose.

As are you.

Well, You have the capacity to generate your own thoughts.


Who would have guessed?

Neither of your posts were the result of deep thought.

When I construct a thread, it is generally for the purpose of leading to an unassailable conclusion.
And, generally, that conclusion runs counter to the Liberal propaganda of our time.

If the many facts in the thread were overwhelming to you, I suggest you consider the last line in post #36, and apply it to the other posts.

No usually you simply cut and paste stuff into an OP, with very little thought.

Its embarrassing.

 

[NoNukes]

Indians....erroneously known as 'Native Americans'....a subject that lends itself to the cause of the America-haters.

Here, we strip away both the romanticized notions, and the slanders: real history.



First the 'age of exploration,' then colonization. But when colonization began in America, it did so in dribs and drabs.... in small scattered or sporadic amounts.
Certainly not in huge numbers that would account for the mythical "Indian genocide."

Why didn't the Indian tribes extant simply toss 'em back into the sea?



1. Colonization began in 1607, with English settlers along the James River. Data shows some 2,400 English in Virginia, and about 1,400 in New England by 1630.
But there were over 400,000 Native Americans east of the Appalachians by the time the first settlers arrived!

Romanticized versions of Indian life paint them to be friendly, civilized, probably suggesting some sort of "Beer Summit" with the newcomers.....none of which is true.
"Can't we all just get along?" Maybe.


2. Woudn't the Indians, at first glance, want to curtail the newcomers?
Maybe so....but there were several reasons why they couldn't/wouldn't.
First, even small settlements tended to be fortified, and able to rely on sea power and firearms.

Indians quickly saw the value of muskets, and were able to trade for same, using them for hunting and against rival tribes.
How about simply using 'em against the 'white interlopers' ?(Al Sharpton).


a. Far from the static view that politicians have of human endeavors, in actuality, people behave dynamically. In this case, getting guns made the Indians more dependent on Europeans, for ammunition, powder, and repair of the weapons.

b. And, like garage door openers, once they had guns, they couldn't imagine living without them. So much for sending the Europeans away!

And, the law of unintended consequences went further: guns caused a loss of the skills needed in using bows/arrows!
Walter McDougall, " Freedom Just Around the Corner: A New American History: 1585-1828"

c. To show the extent of the desire for guns, in 1641, the Iroquois sued for peace in order to regain access to the guns the French were selling them! "Firearms in Colonial America: The Impact on History and Technology 1492-1792,' M. L. Brown,
p.151-158




3. Geography is another reason that the colonists were not sent packing: they settled along the coasts and rivers, so would fight tenaciously rather than be pushed into the water! The Indians, if they were losing, could simply retreat inland, and fade into the forests.



4. As far as losing to the Indians, the settlers has an inexhaustible supply of reinforcements from their national 'tribe,' while the Indians could rarely rely on support due to long tribal feuds.





5. Perhaps most important, the greatest of enemies that the Indians had to face...they couldn't actually 'face.' And the settlers didn't recognize their greatest ally: Disease.
Influenza, chicken pox, small pox,...and the plague that decimated the Europeans back home.

a. Over 90% of the Algonquin, Wampanoag, Massachusetts, and Pawtucket tribes were wiped out even before the Pilgrims arrived!

b. 50-75% of the Hurons, Iroquois, and Mohawks died in the 1630s and 1640s.

c. And almost 90% of the Powhatan, Susquehannock and other Chesapeake tribes in the 1670s.
McDougall, Op. Cit.

Indians were pretty much peaceful and did not want to fight the Whites. It is as simple as that, if you have read any Indian history.

The only thing 'simple' here is you.

Several posts in the thread clearly prove that, as usual, you have no qualms about posting absolutely false material.

Your cheap shot proves me right.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Indians....erroneously known as 'Native Americans'....a subject that lends itself to the cause of the America-haters.

Here, we strip away both the romanticized notions, and the slanders: real history.



First the 'age of exploration,' then colonization. But when colonization began in America, it did so in dribs and drabs.... in small scattered or sporadic amounts.
Certainly not in huge numbers that would account for the mythical "Indian genocide."

Why didn't the Indian tribes extant simply toss 'em back into the sea?



1. Colonization began in 1607, with English settlers along the James River. Data shows some 2,400 English in Virginia, and about 1,400 in New England by 1630.
But there were over 400,000 Native Americans east of the Appalachians by the time the first settlers arrived!

Romanticized versions of Indian life paint them to be friendly, civilized, probably suggesting some sort of "Beer Summit" with the newcomers.....none of which is true.
"Can't we all just get along?" Maybe.


2. Woudn't the Indians, at first glance, want to curtail the newcomers?
Maybe so....but there were several reasons why they couldn't/wouldn't.
First, even small settlements tended to be fortified, and able to rely on sea power and firearms.

Indians quickly saw the value of muskets, and were able to trade for same, using them for hunting and against rival tribes.
How about simply using 'em against the 'white interlopers' ?(Al Sharpton).


a. Far from the static view that politicians have of human endeavors, in actuality, people behave dynamically. In this case, getting guns made the Indians more dependent on Europeans, for ammunition, powder, and repair of the weapons.

b. And, like garage door openers, once they had guns, they couldn't imagine living without them. So much for sending the Europeans away!

And, the law of unintended consequences went further: guns caused a loss of the skills needed in using bows/arrows!
Walter McDougall, " Freedom Just Around the Corner: A New American History: 1585-1828"

c. To show the extent of the desire for guns, in 1641, the Iroquois sued for peace in order to regain access to the guns the French were selling them! "Firearms in Colonial America: The Impact on History and Technology 1492-1792,' M. L. Brown,
p.151-158




3. Geography is another reason that the colonists were not sent packing: they settled along the coasts and rivers, so would fight tenaciously rather than be pushed into the water! The Indians, if they were losing, could simply retreat inland, and fade into the forests.



4. As far as losing to the Indians, the settlers has an inexhaustible supply of reinforcements from their national 'tribe,' while the Indians could rarely rely on support due to long tribal feuds.





5. Perhaps most important, the greatest of enemies that the Indians had to face...they couldn't actually 'face.' And the settlers didn't recognize their greatest ally: Disease.
Influenza, chicken pox, small pox,...and the plague that decimated the Europeans back home.

a. Over 90% of the Algonquin, Wampanoag, Massachusetts, and Pawtucket tribes were wiped out even before the Pilgrims arrived!

b. 50-75% of the Hurons, Iroquois, and Mohawks died in the 1630s and 1640s.

c. And almost 90% of the Powhatan, Susquehannock and other Chesapeake tribes in the 1670s.
McDougall, Op. Cit.

Indians were pretty much peaceful and did not want to fight the Whites. It is as simple as that, if you have read any Indian history.

Indeed, The Native concept of "War" was nothing like the European concept.

Natives had nothing like European military units. If they had a fight between themselves, each side would pick a few dozen guys, and they'd beat the shit out of each other until one side quit and ran away. Casualties were infrequently mortal, and there was little or no damage to civilian populations.

Europeans killed EVERYONE; combatants, women, children.

Well....now you're intent on proving that you know nothing of the subject?

You could simply have stated such and I would have applauded.



August 30, 1813 The Fort Mims Massacre. ( Baldwin County, Alabama) Fort Mims was a simple stockade in which about 550 white civilians and mixed-blood Creeks and 120 militiamen and about 300 slaves took refuge from a thousand Red Stick Creeks commanded by Red Eagle (William Weatherford, who had chosen his mother’s family over his father’s) and another part-Indian named Paddy Welsh, systematically butchered the White inhabitants: White children had their brains splattered against the fort’s stockade, pregnant women were sliced open and their fetuses ripped from their wombs, and over 250 scalps taken. The blacks were spared to become slaves to the attackers. Andrew Jackson led Tennessee soldiers and responded in a similar manner. Jackson, under the authority of President Madison, imposed a treaty that ceded 23 million acres to the United States.

March 22, 1622 1st Indian massacre of whites by Powhattan; Jamestown, Va. 347 slain.

3/22/1622 - Jamestown massacre: Algonquian Indians kill 347 English settlers around Jamestown, Virginia, a third of the colony's population.




Please take notes so you won't embarrass yourself like that again.

And, don't hesitate to let me know if you need further remediation.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This is a thread looking for a purpose.

As are you.

Well, You have the capacity to generate your own thoughts.


Who would have guessed?

Neither of your posts were the result of deep thought.

When I construct a thread, it is generally for the purpose of leading to an unassailable conclusion.
And, generally, that conclusion runs counter to the Liberal propaganda of our time.

If the many facts in the thread were overwhelming to you, I suggest you consider the last line in post #36, and apply it to the other posts.

No usually you simply cut and paste stuff into an OP, with very little thought.

Its embarrassing.

So, moron, you imagine the quotes, links, documentations, that I provide are selected at random?


Really?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Indians....erroneously known as 'Native Americans'....a subject that lends itself to the cause of the America-haters.

Here, we strip away both the romanticized notions, and the slanders: real history.



First the 'age of exploration,' then colonization. But when colonization began in America, it did so in dribs and drabs.... in small scattered or sporadic amounts.
Certainly not in huge numbers that would account for the mythical "Indian genocide."

Why didn't the Indian tribes extant simply toss 'em back into the sea?



1. Colonization began in 1607, with English settlers along the James River. Data shows some 2,400 English in Virginia, and about 1,400 in New England by 1630.
But there were over 400,000 Native Americans east of the Appalachians by the time the first settlers arrived!

Romanticized versions of Indian life paint them to be friendly, civilized, probably suggesting some sort of "Beer Summit" with the newcomers.....none of which is true.
"Can't we all just get along?" Maybe.


2. Woudn't the Indians, at first glance, want to curtail the newcomers?
Maybe so....but there were several reasons why they couldn't/wouldn't.
First, even small settlements tended to be fortified, and able to rely on sea power and firearms.

Indians quickly saw the value of muskets, and were able to trade for same, using them for hunting and against rival tribes.
How about simply using 'em against the 'white interlopers' ?(Al Sharpton).


a. Far from the static view that politicians have of human endeavors, in actuality, people behave dynamically. In this case, getting guns made the Indians more dependent on Europeans, for ammunition, powder, and repair of the weapons.

b. And, like garage door openers, once they had guns, they couldn't imagine living without them. So much for sending the Europeans away!

And, the law of unintended consequences went further: guns caused a loss of the skills needed in using bows/arrows!
Walter McDougall, " Freedom Just Around the Corner: A New American History: 1585-1828"

c. To show the extent of the desire for guns, in 1641, the Iroquois sued for peace in order to regain access to the guns the French were selling them! "Firearms in Colonial America: The Impact on History and Technology 1492-1792,' M. L. Brown,
p.151-158




3. Geography is another reason that the colonists were not sent packing: they settled along the coasts and rivers, so would fight tenaciously rather than be pushed into the water! The Indians, if they were losing, could simply retreat inland, and fade into the forests.



4. As far as losing to the Indians, the settlers has an inexhaustible supply of reinforcements from their national 'tribe,' while the Indians could rarely rely on support due to long tribal feuds.





5. Perhaps most important, the greatest of enemies that the Indians had to face...they couldn't actually 'face.' And the settlers didn't recognize their greatest ally: Disease.
Influenza, chicken pox, small pox,...and the plague that decimated the Europeans back home.

a. Over 90% of the Algonquin, Wampanoag, Massachusetts, and Pawtucket tribes were wiped out even before the Pilgrims arrived!

b. 50-75% of the Hurons, Iroquois, and Mohawks died in the 1630s and 1640s.

c. And almost 90% of the Powhatan, Susquehannock and other Chesapeake tribes in the 1670s.
McDougall, Op. Cit.

Indians were pretty much peaceful and did not want to fight the Whites. It is as simple as that, if you have read any Indian history.

The only thing 'simple' here is you.

Several posts in the thread clearly prove that, as usual, you have no qualms about posting absolutely false material.

Your cheap shot proves me right.

No....it proves you "simple."

 

[Samson]

August 30, 1813 The Fort Mims Massacre. ( Baldwin County, Alabama) Fort Mims was a simple stockade in which about 550 white civilians and mixed-blood Creeks and 120 militiamen and about 300 slaves took refuge from a thousand Red Stick Creeks commanded by Red Eagle (William Weatherford, who had chosen his mother’s family over his father’s) and another part-Indian named Paddy Welsh, systematically butchered the White inhabitants:

Please take notes so you won't embarrass yourself like that again.

And, don't hesitate to let me know if you need further remediation.

More cut and paste without any thought.



Bravo for helping make my point:

William Weatherford was not a Native American.

Keep trying.

 

[G.T.]

Why didnt indian tribes repel




Down cliffs?




A= the colonials smoked all the hemp ropes and then made that shit illegal.