Diploid said:

Native American tribes did go to war against eachother but they were tribal skirmishes. No tribe of natives went through the country slaughtering all the tribes

The wars were brutal and are considered one of the bloodiest series of conflicts in the history of North America. As the Iroquois succeeded in the war and enlarged their territory, they realigned the tribal geography of North America, and destroyed several large tribal confederacies—including the Huron, Neutral, Erie, and Susquehannock—and pushed some eastern tribes west of the Mississippi River, or southward into the Carolinas. The Iroquois also controlled the Ohio Valley lands as hunting ground, from about 1670 onward, as far as can be determined from contemporary French (Jesuit) accounts. The Ohio Country and the Lower Peninsula of Michigan were virtually emptied of Native people as refugees fled westward to escape Iroquois warriors.


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

---

Poid said:

Not..really; the only difference is the US was able to do more because they had more resources and advanced technology. Had the "Natives" been in the same position, they probably would've behaved similarly.

---

Diploid said:

Native American tribes did go to war against eachother but they were tribal skirmishes. No tribe of natives went through the country slaughtering all the tribes

The wars were brutal and are considered one of the bloodiest series of conflicts in the history of North America. As the Iroquois succeeded in the war and enlarged their territory, they realigned the tribal geography of North America, and destroyed several large tribal confederacies—including the Huron, Neutral, Erie, and Susquehannock—and pushed some eastern tribes west of the Mississippi River, or southward into the Carolinas. The Iroquois also controlled the Ohio Valley lands as hunting ground, from about 1670 onward, as far as can be determined from contemporary French (Jesuit) accounts. The Ohio Country and the Lower Peninsula of Michigan were virtually emptied of Native people as refugees fled westward to escape Iroquois warriors.

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

---

Nothing like a bit of editorializing to make one's case.  I consider such writing high on drama and low on facts.

One of the bloodiest series of conflicts? 

Try the War of Northern Aggression.  Over 7,000 men fell in 20 minutes at Cold Harbor.

Quote:

Its also important to consider the size at which things occurred. Native American tribes did go to war against eachother but they were tribal skirmishes.

---

Mr. Mushrooms said:

For some, not all.  If you're white with white thinking it's common to see others as we/they are.  To a man with a hammer everything looks like a nail.

---

Indeed, not "too long ago" it was the Ancient Egyptians, Akadians, Babylonians, Phoenicians, and Hittites that looked down upon what most people would consider a white person, and much longer for a time too. These things/attitudes seem to repeat themselves quite commonly. Albeit many scholars speculate that the way white people were looked down during these times had more to do with ethnocentrism than racism, of course one would imagine that race would still factor in. As many would agree it wasn't until the Greek/Macedonian "enlightenment" until white people were inspired (at least to challenge others on a global stage) which spilled off into Rome and then elsewhere, towards western europe. And then as we all know it wasn't until the 14th century that white's went from a level playing field to a more dominant one. Many sociopolitical and economic analysts feel that dominance is coming to an end these days, which suggests we are living in a very interesting period; with the rise of China, Brazil, India, etc and far less dependence being encouraged by a number of competitive countries these days, including Russia (ironically but not surprisingly considering how culturally different they are from traditional europeans, not to mention ethnically too) as well as 2nd tier nations (for a lack of better words - Ie: Iran, Venezuela, Argentina, Malaysia, United Arab Emirates, etc).

Furthermore the countries with the largest concentration of white people (USA, Europe, Australia, Canada) with the exception of Russia have been and are experiencing a significant increase in non-white population either by competitive birth rates or immigration (legally or illegally). The US Census alone says much for the year 2042. This rapid shift in population means either opression and conflict within these territories (which is unlikely at this time, could change of course) or positions of influence and power will need to switch to non-white people's in order to satisfy popular opinion otherwise conflict will occur and it's not exactly like these territories can afford that when other global powers are stable as far as race and ethnic relations are concerned and can inflict great economic and geopolitical damage while these places are preoccupied with interal ethnic/racial conflict.

Human nature is very synchronous across the board in many respects. Good discussion here

Mr. Mushrooms said:

Very articulate and well written.  You must be a Native American.

---

You are just all about the racism in this thread arnt you?  Bigot. 

Mr. Mushrooms said:

You must be a Native American.

---

Negative

DieCommie said:

Mr. Mushrooms said:

Very articulate and well written.  You must be a Native American.

---

You are just all about the racism in this thread arnt you?  Bigot. 

---

OrgoneConclusion said:

Quote:

Its also important to consider the size at which things occurred. Native American tribes did go to war against eachother but they were tribal skirmishes.

---

Inefficient killing is good and efficient killing is bad?

Or

Killing 100 is good and killing 1000 is bad?


Please clarify.

---

It's pictoresque. I mean, come on man, have some common sense.

HOLOCAUST GENOCIDE

or

INDIAN TRIBAL WAR

Mr. Mushrooms said:

DieCommie said:

Mr. Mushrooms said:

Very articulate and well written.  You must be a Native American.

---

You are just all about the racism in this thread arnt you?  Bigot. 

---

And name calling is strictly forbidden by the rules.  My sense of humor is dry.  Apparently yours isn't.

---

lines said:

Poid said:

Not..really; the only difference is the US was able to do more because they had more resources and advanced technology. Had the "Natives" been in the same position, they probably would've behaved similarly.

---

The natives would not have done the same to eachother...

---

You're sure of this?

lines said:

...this isn't only about technology.

---

I know, it's about human nature--are you saying Native Americans aren't human?

lines said:

This is about how they viewed the natives.

---

How do you think the "Natives" viewed the Whites, and other ribal tribes?

lines said:

The Americans demonized the native Americans, the spread lies about native Americans.. they made people think native Americans were evil people.

---

And I'm sure the Natives made ribal tribes out to be peaceful, loving individuals, huh?

lines said:

They believed the only good indian was a dead indian... they thought all natives were evil.

---

So what did they think about the rival tribespeople?

lines said:

They treated the native americans as though they were some sort of disease that needed to be eradicated.

---

So how did the natives treat POWs? They didn't literally eat their hears, did they?

lines said:

This is about demonizing an entire people and treating them mercilessly. Native Americans never treated eachother like that.

---

Bullshit.

Diploid said:

Alright both of you.

Please cut the racist humor. Some don't find it funny.

And please stop the name calling, it's expressly against the rules.

---

Thanks.  However, I hardly see my post as a violation of any kind.  The Shrooooomery's known for its racism in many forums and what I said did not make fun of whites or Natives.

And, on a personal note, I am probably one of the most fair minded people on race anyone would ever meet.  Race itself is an important issue with me from my childhood when my Southern, white, cracker mother wouldn't let me play with "the coloreds."  That was pretty hypocritical for a Cherokee.  As a former member of the NAACP I also recognize that blacks, or any ethic group, carries with it enough common characteristics that stereotyping has a basis in fact.

I may be many things but a racist or bigot I am not.

And john? 

VisionaryFlicker said:

OrgoneConclusion said:

Quote:

Its also important to consider the size at which things occurred. Native American tribes did go to war against eachother but they were tribal skirmishes.

---

Inefficient killing is good and efficient killing is bad?

Or

Killing 100 is good and killing 1000 is bad?


Please clarify.

---

It's pictoresque. I mean, come on man, have some common sense.

HOLOCAUST GENOCIDE

or

INDIAN TRIBAL WAR

---

Icelander said:

Maybe the stupidest post I've seen here this month.

Thuglife is right.

One of those few times I wish I hadn't opted out of the ratings.

---