Yuchi1 Posted August 8, 2017 Posted August 8, 2017 2 hours ago, wiiawiwb said: Let's face it, Indian tribes were slaughtering each other long before Europeans ever set foot on this continent. The notion of Indians being a peaceful, caring group who lived in harmony with nature, and loved everyone, is absolutely wrong. During tribal wars, they raided villages, killed, took other Indians as slaves, or would kill everyone including women and children. They would behead, cut out tongues, cut off limbs, and more. Gentle and sweet folks. Read about the Crow Creek massacre. It will curl your hair. The Sand Creek Massacre in Colorado had the good citizens of Denver behaving in exactly the fashion you described. Also, I never stated the NA's were pacifists, quite the contrary and the initial post dealt with the European attitude toward them and how that continues today with the same mindset toward Sasquatch. The fact these beings have chosen the covert lifestyle with apparent deliberate disassociation with the white people is confounding to said and a catalyst for the angst as expressed by some on this forum. 1 hour ago, norseman said: And if they had horses and gunpowder? They would have shoved the Europeans right back into the Atlantic. I suspect that had they known after feeding them (Thanksgiving) and with how things progressed afterwards, they probably would have put up one helluva fight and may well have stemmed or even averted the invasion. One thing noticed over the years is the further west you go, the more virulent the racism toward NA's. Probably a result of the fact they (NA's) had rifles and horses (by then) and made for a much more difficult task of "civilizing" them. The ironic thing is by today's standards, Custer, Sheridan, Crook, Grant, et al would likely be brought to trial as war criminals. Certainly Lt. Grattan would have as his illegal actions (violation of the Treaty of Fort Laramie) in starting the Plains Wars cost the lives of countless persons.
wiiawiwb Posted August 8, 2017 Posted August 8, 2017 (edited) 5 hours ago, norseman said: 5 hours ago, norseman said: And if they had horses and gunpowder? They would have shoved the Europeans right back into the Atlantic. Indians, being of primitive mind and lifestyle, were ill equipped, had no modern weaponry of any type, and offered little resistance. As a result, they were the ones easily shoved around. If you live without a sword, you die without a sword. Edited August 8, 2017 by wiiawiwb
Yuchi1 Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 Just remember, a sword cuts both ways so when the day of the European ends, as T Roy's said, "Chere, it ain't going to be pretty ". Hope that shoe feels good, on that other foot. Has anyone figured out how those "primitive" Inca's, Aztecs, Mayans and Egyptians built all those structures that cannot be replicated with today's machinery? What at some of you guys are postulating is it's perfectly fine to attack and destroy those you view as "primitive". This is precisely the mindset held by those on either coast of the US toward the Kulaki inhabitants of the flyover states. Stop and consider, then revisit your ideas on civilized and superior. Remember this when the guy comes along and crushes you with superior technology or money. Yep, we've come a long way. 1
wiiawiwb Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 The American Indians are different than the Eqyptians. The latter was advanced and developed new and exciting techniques and technologies for their time. The American Indians lived like throwbacks to millenia long gone. Like it or not, they boxed themselves into a corner. The world around them developed and they did not.
LeafTalker Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 First Nations peoples did not live like "throwbacks" to anything. To live close to the land -- to be in such harmony with nature that you don't need all the technology that "civilized" peoples need just to get through the day -- is not being "boxed in". We, the industrialized nations, are the ones that are "boxed in". 3
Incorrigible1 Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 Yet they eagerly sought Western trade-goods, when offered. 1
hiflier Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 1 hour ago, wiiawiwb said: Like it or not, they boxed themselves into a corner REALLY cannot believe I'm reading this. 1
LeafTalker Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 wiiawiwb, I'm sorry I was so flat-footed in what I said... I'm not retracting what I said; just wish I hadn't used that tone.... I've admired how staunch a supporter you are of the idea (which is more than a idea, to me; it's firm knowledge) that the Sasquatch are as savvy as they are. I love how much you respect their mad, mad skills. So, much respect to YOU for that, and sorry for the schoolmarm response (the substance of which, as I say, I still stand by).
Yuchi1 Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 (edited) 4 hours ago, Incorrigible1 said: Yet they eagerly sought Western trade-goods, when offered. And, the Pilgrims eagerly ate their food because they were lousy farmers and therefore starving. The History Channel piece done on Jamestown alleges the Europeans (also, starving) attacked, killed and stole the NA's food stores. Had you any intelligence regarding NA's you would know that it was considered an insult to refuse a gift and also offer something in return. 5 hours ago, wiiawiwb said: The American Indians are different than the Eqyptians. The latter was advanced and developed new and exciting techniques and technologies for their time. The American Indians lived like throwbacks to millenia long gone. Like it or not, they boxed themselves into a corner. The world around them developed and they did not. Are you also including the Aztecs, Inca's, Mayans, and Pueblo dwellers (their construction is still standing) in that context? Were you aware the late Dr. Covey (WFU) concluded the Yuchi language was ~63% Egyptian and ~14% Phoenician? Edited August 9, 2017 by Yuchi1 grammar
Incorrigible1 Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 Your insult did nothing to refute my point.
Yuchi1 Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 You have to make a point first, then it could possibly be countered and/or insulted.
Incorrigible1 Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 NA didn't eagerly accept European trade goods? OK. And notice how I've not referred to your intelligence?
Yuchi1 Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 NA's bartered for trade goods just like they did with traders from the west far before Columbus showed up. Wasn't referring to "your" level of intelligence rather your level of knowledge, bad choice of words on my part.
Incorrigible1 Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 You've no idea of my intelligence, nor of my knowledge. Bite me very much.
TritonTr196 Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 Native stories are folklore are fun to read maybe when you're first starting in Bigfoot research. But folklore does nothing for current research. No one knows what they did even just a thousand years ago, any current named tribe for the last few hundred years doesn't have a history or record going back a thousand years. Just because they say they do, doesn't make it so......... Archeology has disproved many folklore stories, not only dealing with prehistoric North American peoples, but also what happened in the battles fought here during the early wars of this nation.
Recommended Posts