[| I, CWAS |]

I. One of the greatest myths, often amongst foreigners, is that the natives were peaceful.

II. There was no single native nation, I would think this would be rather simple to understand, but there are some that think "native american" describes a nation or a single people. They are tribalists and nationalists.

III. The Iroquois GLP thesis has not been proven as a historical fact, but their is enough evidence to support the thesis, but of course politics is in the way, and muliticulturalism makes it difficult to accept that historical perception is a lie

Was America before Columbus just a “continent of patsies”?

[QatzelOk]

One of the greatest myths, often amongst foreigners, is that the natives were peaceful.

I've never heard this myth before. Could the existence of this myth be a myth itself?

[Boondock Saint]

I've heard the myth CWAS.

Typically the native tribes of North America are painted in a nostaligic and romantic manner. They are considered noble, at one with the earth and just typically superior in regards to culture to the invading European.

It's laughable really. The native tribes of North America were simply inferior socially and technologically to teh invading European ...

[Chaotica]

There may have been some tribes that weren't very warlike. In any case, if they were just as aggressive as the invading Europeans, that still doesn't justify the invasions. Invasions suck.

[Truthseeker]

I don't know why you guys are using the word "aggressive", the colonization was an obvious systematic effort to gain control of the continent and justified violent resistence by almost any standard.

[Attila The Nun]

What about aggression between Indian tribes? That certainly happened.

[Chaotica]

I don't know why you guys are using the word "aggressive", the colonization was an obvious systematic effort to gain control of the continent and justified violent resistence by almost any standard.

Not by pacifist standards.

Even though I don't like violance, I am no pacifist, but some people think the native Americans were. I too think their violant resistance was justified, but they lacked the firepower to 'win' such a conflict.

Tell me, why weren't the native American tribes noble? The European nobles are called noble, that makes almost all people noble!

[Truthseeker]

Not by pacifist standards.

No violence is that's why I said ALMOST any standard.

they lacked the firepower to 'win' such a conflict.

Yet the west lacked the means to win in a short time, they had to systematically settle and clear the area over centuries since if they tried to systematically eliminate the north american tribes those they would have had to push far into the interior wherein they would have great difficulty operating.

[Demosthenes]

Yeah, except the US Army didn't win by beating them straight up in armed, declared conflict.

Instead it either slaughtered the food sourse of one tribe (in the west) or told them if they integrated they could live in society as "white' men...of course after Native success they then banished them to Oklahoma...(IN the East)...

Whether or not they were noble, savage or somewhere in between the conquest of North America was brutal, unforgiving, and fairly genocidal in it's ends.

As for the original assertion in the thread title I agree. Essentially people fail to realize the natives here were no differnet than Europe or Asia. If they had landed in Europe for instance it would be easy to fathom them allying with say: Britian to vanquish France, etc...

[Truthseeker]

Yeah, except the US Army didn't win by beating them straight up in armed, declared conflict.

Actually they did on numerous occasions. There were distinct military campaigns for specific objectives over the years, some ended in victory, a few others in defeat.