Why Didn't Indian Tribes Repel The Colonists?

[PoliticalChic]

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.

Your point is atop your head.

Glad to see that you retreated from posting how peaceful the Indians were.

 

[Samson]

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


Really?

Yes they appear to be cut and paste in a random fashion and designed to support some poorly considered hypothesis.

Any other stupid questions?

 

[G.T.]

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.

In an effort to poke Samson in the eye, she refutes her own o.p.

Brilliance in a brown paper bag. Blown and popped, bye hot air.

 

[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.

Your point is atop your head.

Glad to see that you retreated from posting how peaceful the Indians were.

Without a cut-n-paste reply, I don't expect much from you, but how about at least confessing that you completely tripped over the fact that you thought a guy named William Weatherford was a Native American?



You'd appear slightly less pitiful.

 

[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 also used African slave labor too.

The same was true of Indians who farmed.

Yep.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

Your point is atop your head.

Glad to see that you retreated from posting how peaceful the Indians were.

Without a cut-n-paste reply, I don't expect much from you, but how about at least confessing that you completely tripped over the fact that you thought a guy named William Weatherford was a Native American?



You'd appear slightly less pitiful.

You can run,, but you can't hide.


Thank me for correcting your abysmally stupid post, 'Indians were peaceful.'

 

[Bush92]

Narragansett used Dutch firepower to eliminate the Pequot. Tribes fought with each other and felt Europeans could help them defeat enemies.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What????

Are you suggesting that the noble savages were less than 'peaceful'??

I better get in touch with Samson immediately!!!!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

Where did you learn that piece of fluff? Most Indians were aggressive with their neighbors and had attrition wars of Generations lengths.

 

[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.

Where did you learn that piece of fluff? Most Indians were aggressive with their neighbors and had attrition wars of Generations lengths.

They were not interested in fighting the European settlers, unless they were pushed. The Indians basically wanted to be left alone. One source would be Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee. I learned a lot about our history at tribal ceremonies.And I have never words of hatred and racism spoken at these ceremonies.

 

[gipper]

Those who dispute the true savage nature of the Native American and their demise not by slaughter but disease during the early years of European immigration, are proof of the leftist anti-American indoctrination in our schools, media, Hollywood, and by politicians and other shysters.....These people can be counted on to be easily duped by the power elite, over and over again.

 

[RKMBrown]

Those who dispute the true savage nature of the Native American and their demise not by slaughter but disease during the early years of European immigration, are proof of the leftist anti-American indoctrination in our schools, media, Hollywood, and by politicians and other shysters.....These people can be counted on to be easily duped by the power elite, over and over again.

You know there were multiple indian tribes, right?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Thomas Goodrich A Fate Worse than Death Counter-Currents Publishing



"

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.

Where did you learn that piece of fluff? Most Indians were aggressive with their neighbors and had attrition wars of Generations lengths.

They were not interested in fighting the European settlers, unless they were pushed. The Indians basically wanted to be left alone. One source would be Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee. I learned a lot about our history at tribal ceremonies.And I have never words of hatred and racism spoken at these ceremonies.

What utter

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.

Where did you learn that piece of fluff? Most Indians were aggressive with their neighbors and had attrition wars of Generations lengths.

They were not interested in fighting the European settlers, unless they were pushed. The Indians basically wanted to be left alone. One source would be Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee. I learned a lot about our history at tribal ceremonies.And I have never words of hatred and racism spoken at these ceremonies.

What utter Liberal 'can't we all just get along' nonsense.
Liberalism is the proclivity to appease evil and ignore the sad facts of life. It is a form of wishful thinking.


"Several months earlier, in September, 1874, Catherine German and her family had been moving up the Smoky Hill River in western Kansas with everything they owned in the back of a covered wagon. The Germans, originally from Georgia, were bound for Colorado and a fresh start. Just moments after breaking camp that morning, the family was surprised by Indians. Within minutes the wagon was in flames, the mother, father, and two children were dead and scalped, and four daughters — Catherine, aged 17, Sophia, 12, and little Julia and Addie, aged 7 and 5 respectively — were carried off into captivity.

Catherine’s story is not a pretty one to relate.

There are no Harlequin Romance endings here; noDances With Wolves Hollywood nonsense; no silly sentimentality. Catherine was raped repeatedly during her captivity, as was her sister, Sophia; both were traded back and forth from one brave to the next; both were transformed into tribal prostitutes, their worth measured in horses. Each time the frail young women were forced to fetch wood or water for their respective lodges, each trembled in fear for each could expect to be raped as many as six times per trip."
Thomas Goodrich A Fate Worse than Death Counter-Currents Publishing

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

Yeah. The warrior tribes of America were savages, especially the Apaches and Camanches.

 

[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.

Yeah. The warrior tribes of America were savages, especially the Apaches and Camanches.

And yet, so very many of our Liberal and or ignorant posters, are convinced that the 'hate the European/white interlopers' propaganda is the truth.




The thrust of this thread dealt with Eastern tribes in proximity to English settlements....


1.Attacks by French-allied Indians hit Pennsylvania in October 1755. Sixty to one hundred arrived beyond the settlements, and divided into smaller groups, which went into different valleys to reconnoiter. Each spy ”lay[ing] about a House some days & nights, watching like a wolf” to see ”the situation of the Houses, the number of people at Each House, the places the People most frequent, & to observe at each House where there is most men, or women.” The individual farmsteads they chose a targets were at last attacked in parallel by still smaller groups, each only big enough to kill or capture the number of people it was likely to meet.
Col. James Burd, “Pennsylvania Archives,” 199-104
2. The brunt of these attacks fell on people who were outside doing field work. The attacks were manufactured to instill paralyzing fear- and they did.


3. In 1756,William Fleming gave an unrivaled account of life in one of these little attack groups. Delawares stormed the house of Fleming’s neighbor, a farmer named Hicks, and took one of the Hicks boys as prisoner. The Indians then went on to instill fear by having Fleming witness the Hicks boys’ murder: they bludgeoned the boy to the ground with a tomahawk, split open his head- pausing at this point, in “Sport…to imitate his expiring Agonies” – and scalped him, and continued “all over besmared with [Hicks’s] blood.”
a. Fleming wrote of watching while a youth from a neighboring family was taken by Indians while inside were “numerous Family of able young Men” and despite his “scream[ing] in a most piteous Manner for help,” his brothers made no attempt to help .A narrative of the sufferings and surprizing deliverances of William and Elizabeth Fleming electron... National Library of Australia




4. Northampton County, Pennsylvania, 1778. Four men, two with wives and eight children, were attacked by Indians. [T]his occaion’d our men to flee as fast as they could,…before they were out of sight of the wagon they saw the Indians attacking the women & Children with their Tomahawks.” The net day, the three men came back to the scene for the corpses, which include the stabbed and scalped bodies of Smith’s wife, and of “a Little girl kill’d & sclped, [and] a boy the same.”
Pa. Arch. 1:6:591



5. The essential fact about Indian-European warfare in the middle colonies was that the Europeans almost always did very badly. Though the American Revolution brought about a glorified, misleading view of frontier fighters and riflemen, during the eighteenth century country people practically never managed to mount even faintly convincing defenses against Indian attacks….The only thing that worked was leaving. "Our Savage Neighbors: How Indian War Transformed Early America," by Peter Silver, p.53



Clearly, the posters who wrote such nonsense stating how peaceful the Indians were, or how they really didn't want to fight the Europeans, are fully brainwashed.

Government schools are the culprits.

 

[longknife]

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

I do enjoy your posts. But, could you please make them shorter and give us links to check out more?

Europeans came with far great firepower. Natives were no match for gunpowder and steel. Those who did fight against Europeans were either wiped out or their numbers were decimated.

It's hard to pierce steel armor with stone-tipped arrows.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I appreciate your kind words, longknife....

The panel just before yours has four sources/links and includes a quote from a fascinating book.

The OP...well, for some reason, I am not able to click back to it, but the way I construct posts, I am certain it has links/sources as well.

Shorter....that's problematic.

I post what interests me, and try to make same comprehensive.
Most often, I shorten the OP by breaking it into 5 or 10 panels which I post over one or two day.

Shorter is a problem for me, as I don't find that many of the subjects that you and I have an interest in lend themselves to bumper-sticker format.

 

[NoNukes]

Your readin

Thomas Goodrich A Fate Worse than Death Counter-Currents Publishing



"

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.

Where did you learn that piece of fluff? Most Indians were aggressive with their neighbors and had attrition wars of Generations lengths.

They were not interested in fighting the European settlers, unless they were pushed. The Indians basically wanted to be left alone. One source would be Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee. I learned a lot about our history at tribal ceremonies.And I have never words of hatred and racism spoken at these ceremonies.

What utter

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.

Where did you learn that piece of fluff? Most Indians were aggressive with their neighbors and had attrition wars of Generations lengths.

They were not interested in fighting the European settlers, unless they were pushed. The Indians basically wanted to be left alone. One source would be Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee. I learned a lot about our history at tribal ceremonies.And I have never words of hatred and racism spoken at these ceremonies.

What utter Liberal 'can't we all just get along' nonsense.
Liberalism is the proclivity to appease evil and ignore the sad facts of life. It is a form of wishful thinking.


"Several months earlier, in September, 1874, Catherine German and her family had been moving up the Smoky Hill River in western Kansas with everything they owned in the back of a covered wagon. The Germans, originally from Georgia, were bound for Colorado and a fresh start. Just moments after breaking camp that morning, the family was surprised by Indians. Within minutes the wagon was in flames, the mother, father, and two children were dead and scalped, and four daughters — Catherine, aged 17, Sophia, 12, and little Julia and Addie, aged 7 and 5 respectively — were carried off into captivity.

Catherine’s story is not a pretty one to relate.

There are no Harlequin Romance endings here; noDances With Wolves Hollywood nonsense; no silly sentimentality. Catherine was raped repeatedly during her captivity, as was her sister, Sophia; both were traded back and forth from one brave to the next; both were transformed into tribal prostitutes, their worth measured in horses. Each time the frail young women were forced to fetch wood or water for their respective lodges, each trembled in fear for each could expect to be raped as many as six times per trip."
Thomas Goodrich A Fate Worse than Death Counter-Currents Publishing

Your reading skills are poor.

 

[NoNukes]

Those who dispute the true savage nature of the Native American and their demise not by slaughter but disease during the early years of European immigration, are proof of the leftist anti-American indoctrination in our schools, media, Hollywood, and by politicians and other shysters.....These people can be counted on to be easily duped by the power elite, over and over again.

Read some Indian history and forget the conservative revisionist crap, which is just White guilt.

 

[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.

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.

Yeah. The warrior tribes of America were savages, especially the Apaches and Camanches.

How many tribes were warrior tribes?