Native Americans knew something that is blind to society.

a reply to: diggindirt

Yes, there were many, many wars after the invasion of the Americas by Europeans. Nobody that I know will dispute that. All your examples are in the post-contact period.

Not all of them were, if you read my sources you would have seen that when the Europeans came, the tribes and clans were already prepared for war by their warriors-hunstmen.

The only reason there is a poor record before Europeans is because everything was passed down in oral histories. The Europeans didn't come and outfit them with weapons, they already had them.

Boy you are thick..

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: anicetus

Oh ok retaliation justified....I see

More justified than the genocide.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: diggindirt

Interestingly somewhere around 200 ad the Spanish were conquered by the Moors from Africa. Oh what a tangled web we weave.

Perhaps I'm a bit thick today but how does that relate to native people of the Americas having contact with the Spanish a thousand years later? Are you saying that the Moors taught the Spanish how to be brutal, a lesson then passed on to the aboriginal Americans?

originally posted by: boncho

...
In any case, respect for the land, animals, and simply being content with what they had, at least that part is true.

Well, apart from the other facts you stated about ancient natives fighting against other tribes, there has also been this "Hollywood romanticized" notion that native americans did not know the meaning of the word property. But this notion, just like the notion that they were all peaceful, is false. Many native tribes used currency, from gold dust to something called "wampum".

Although there might not have been a word for property in native American languages, they fought for territories and to keep those territories which is what people do to defend their property. It was also a custom for a warrior who wanted to marry a native female to trade in animals, and pelts to the father of the bribe. The value of a warrior was not only measured by his actions in battle and skills as a hunter, but also based on his status on the tribe and his possessions.

Native Americans did possess items before the arrival of the white man, and had some understanding of what property is. Otherwise they would have never fought with other tribes over resources and tribal areas.

interesting! will read it! thank you for this new information! a reply to: solemind4

originally posted by: boncho
a reply to: diggindirt

Yes, there were many, many wars after the invasion of the Americas by Europeans. Nobody that I know will dispute that. All your examples are in the post-contact period.

Not all of them were, if you read my sources you would have seen that when the Europeans came, the tribes and clans were already prepared for war by their warriors-hunstmen.

The only reason there is a poor record before Europeans is because everything was passed down in oral histories. The Europeans didn't come and outfit them with weapons, they already had them.

Boy you are thick..

Of course they had weapons! There were lots of large wild animals out there trying to make a meal of them, especially the weaker members of the community. They needed weapons to defend themselves. Nobody ever said they didn't have weapons. Nobody is saying that they didn't know how to defend themselves.
The records of the people in pre-Columbian America are there in the bones of the residents and they speak plainly to those who are trained to read them. There is simply no evidence of wide-spread wars and conquests in the north American southeast and middle America until after the arrival of Europeans. (I'm limiting my declaration to that specific area because that is the area I've personally studied for over 30 years now. By now I think I would have found some evidence if it existed since there have been extensive excavations of villages and towns.)
Please understand, I'm not saying that it was all one big Rainbow gathering as some have portrayed the culture. What I am saying is that the barbaric behaviors were isolated incidents, usually in what we today would call "urban" areas. Further, the picture of savage behavior by native people was splashed on every newspaper from the earliest newspapers printed in an effort to justify the savage behaviors of the invaders. We, the invaders, haven't yet given up this practice. Just take a look at today's media. Sensational reporting sells stuff.
There is ample evidence that some sort of circumstances caused an upheaval in the settlement and cultural practices of the people living in middle of the North American continent in the years just prior to the arrival of the Europeans. It is not clear exactly what brought about the upheaval and abandonment of villages all along the Mississippi River and its tributaries. There is a lot of speculation---climate change being the current most popular. A series of earthquakes along the New Madrid fault is another. There is some evidence of a wave of drought in areas where the people depended on crops resulting in famine. Drought would also cause a drop in the numbers of animals available for food. When food is scarce warfare in some form is likely to follow. Take a look at what happened in Europe during the "Little Ice Age" when food became scarce due to climate conditions and the ravages of diseases that accompany famines.
In the Mississippian culture areas large population areas, "cities" if you will, were largely abandoned during this time period. The most common speculation is that people fled from the more heavily populated river valleys into the uplands, living in what are called hamlets, rather than the bigger cities. Because they left no written records, it is hard to know exactly how this shift occurred and why it occurred but as our technology progresses, perhaps we will find a few answers.
Calling me thick isn't really a viable argument. If you want to discuss this issue in a civil manner I'll be glad to continue but attacking me personally won't sway the weight of evidence against what you are proposing.
Saying that because they possessed weapons that can be used for war on other humans means that they did make war on other humans on a regular and systematic basis is simply speculation if you have no human remains showing the effects of that war to back you up. Your examples are all from the post-contact period, after 1500 AD. I have weapons in my home that can be used to make war but I've never used them in that manner----never----despite the fact that both occupants of the household are trained to use them.
Please understand, every society on earth has its share of nutcases, people who will harm others. I am not implying that the natives of the Americas never committed violence against each other. I'm just saying it was far less common than in Europe at the same time. When food supplies go away, people will do whatever is necessary to save themselves and their kin.

Mass graves in Ireland


Is it possible that despite race, creed and color. There are those of us who are good people and there are those of us who are not. Could it really just be that simple to come to terms with, or is their any reason to feel otherwise??

Any thought?

a reply to: anicetus

You take the cake on the pc police. Nice hatchet job. Indigenous is the official UN term right! But let's keep the focus on terminology shall we....like now its not even Climate Change anymore, it's climate DISRUPTION!

a reply to: Kashai
I honestly don't see what these articles have to do with pre-Columbian American societies and cultures. Please don't try to derail this thread with articles that have nothing to do with the thread. Make a new thread or contribute to existing threads that are similar to what you are posting.

a reply to: diggindirt

I am presenting the point that humans despite race, creed or color are the same in every regard.

The point is indigenous cultures understood something western society clearly does not.

I am a member of an indigenous culture and I understand that despite race, creed or color.

We are all the same.



Any thoughts?

a reply to: neo96

I didn't say they didn't make war, they are humans and we are all violent. They didn't conduct war like the rest of the world. The Europeans invaded the middle East and visa versa, both groups invaded Africa. Did Europe invade and conquer places in Asia? Have you heard of North America invading South America or the South invading the north??



Its the fruits they left behind that says they were good. they were much better stewards of the land than the other people.

Perhaps I'm a bit thick today but how does that relate to native people of the Americas having contact with the Spanish a thousand years later? Are you saying that the Moors taught the Spanish how to be brutal, a lesson then passed on to the aboriginal Americans?

First, there is the point that conquest is not peculiar to any particular group of humans over the thousands of years, and second, the conquest of the Moors sparked a Holy War between Islam and Christianity. So take the information as you will, the mixing of genetics is a tangled thing.
It should be evident that things are just not as clear cut as some would suggest.

Tell us in which Indian language these rules were written?

That's right, there were no written languages in the entire area north of Mexico. And the Incas, Aztecs, and Maya weren't so nicey-nice.

Also, there were no two story buildings.
Also no sewer systems.
Also no metal making.
Also no wheel.
Also no domesticated animals except the dog.

Primitives are always pushed aside, eliminated, or assimilated by any invading advanced peoples.

A few Amerindians undoubtedly developed personal beliefs akin to Stocism and Christianity, but there were plenty of the ISIS types, too. There were a few "Noble Savages", but they didn't put their thoughts down to pen and paper.

Do not think that any peoples exist in which there is an absence of Lust, Greed, Covetness, Pride, Laziness, Wrath, and Envy ---for there is not.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse


Well, apart from the other facts you stated about ancient natives fighting against other tribes, there has also been this "Hollywood romanticized" notion that native americans did not know the meaning of the word property. But this notion, just like the notion that they were all peaceful, is false. Many native tribes used currency, from gold dust to something called "wampum".

The land belonged to the people and nature, and no one owned any property its was not a known concept. They borrowed and paid respect to what they took, then they moved on. Home or property didn't fit in there culture.

Although there might not have been a word for property in native American languages, they fought for territories and to keep those territories which is what people do to defend their property. It was also a custom for a warrior who wanted to marry a native female to trade in animals, and pelts to the father of the bribe. The value of a warrior was not only measured by his actions in battle and skills as a hunter, but also based on his status on the tribe and his possessions.

These conflicts were more about driving off competition for the available resources. Also marriage rituals varied from tribe to tribe, claiming there was one set customs is as dumb as claiming they had 1 set of ten commandments..

Native Americans did possess items before the arrival of the white man, and had some understanding of what property is. Otherwise they would have never fought with other tribes over resources and tribal areas.

Much of these possessions were related to there kills, A stone knife chiseled and attached to antler from a deer they killed, all males probability spent there entire lives making bows and arrows, stone working and whittling was apart of there upbringing.

You guys think they deserved to have there homelands taken from them? Did they commit genocide? Ethnic cleansing?

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: boncho

...
In any case, respect for the land, animals, and simply being content with what they had, at least that part is true.

Well, apart from the other facts you stated about ancient natives fighting against other tribes, there has also been this "Hollywood romanticized" notion that native americans did not know the meaning of the word property. But this notion, just like the notion that they were all peaceful, is false. Many native tribes used currency, from gold dust to something called "wampum".

Although there might not have been a word for property in native American languages, they fought for territories and to keep those territories which is what people do to defend their property. It was also a custom for a warrior who wanted to marry a native female to trade in animals, and pelts to the father of the bribe. The value of a warrior was not only measured by his actions in battle and skills as a hunter, but also based on his status on the tribe and his possessions.

Native Americans did possess items before the arrival of the white man, and had some understanding of what property is. Otherwise they would have never fought with other tribes over resources and tribal areas.

Could you provide links to scientific studies proving your assertions as the reasons for violence in pre-Columbian society? Thanks.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

Perhaps I'm a bit thick today but how does that relate to native people of the Americas having contact with the Spanish a thousand years later? Are you saying that the Moors taught the Spanish how to be brutal, a lesson then passed on to the aboriginal Americans?

First, there is the point that conquest is not peculiar to any particular group of humans over the thousands of years, and second, the conquest of the Moors sparked a Holy War between Islam and Christianity. So take the information as you will, the mixing of genetics is a tangled thing.
It should be evident that things are just not as clear cut as some would suggest.

Could you post a link to at least one scientific study that shows that wars of conquest were conducted in the Americas prior to European contact? Despite all the analysis of the remains of humans excavated in the years since European contact, I've never seen a study that says the deaths were the result of a war of conquest. Just because it is written somewhere that every society makes war doesn't mean it is true. In order to deny ignorance we must look at the actual, scientific evidence. Wars leave ample actual, scientific evidence in their wake so if you can provide some of that I'll be happy to take a look at it.
I completely agree that "things are not as clear as some would suggest." My knowledge is based on 30 years of fairly intensive study of the pre-Columbian cultures/societies of the Mississippi River Valley, commonly called the Mound Builders or Sun Circle cultures. While some folks in my profession have maintained that the palisades built to surround villages or certain portions of villages are evidence that those villages were being attacked in warlike fashion from other societies, there is no actual evidence presented to support those claims. No mass graves with people who died of blunt trauma or other evidence of warfare. It is just as easy for me to say that those palisades were built to protect the inhabitants of the village from wild animals that would creep in for the food supplies stored there or to make a meal on the inhabitants since the palisades appeared in the archaeological record about the same time that the above-ground storage facilities for corn appeared.
Please keep in mind that these people had to face the daily threat of wild animals eating them or their unattended children. We as a society today have little grasp of the threat of being attacked by critters who want to kill and eat us as we go about our chores of tending our gardens or gathering nuts and berries. The inhabitants of most of the villages (where the majority of the population lived) of pre-Columbian America faced these very threats on a daily basis.
So, just one scientific study link will get my attention if you can provide it. Thanks.

originally posted by: boncho
a reply to: diggindirt

Yes, there were many, many wars after the invasion of the Americas by Europeans. Nobody that I know will dispute that. All your examples are in the post-contact period.

Not all of them were, if you read my sources you would have seen that when the Europeans came, the tribes and clans were already prepared for war by their warriors-hunstmen.

The only reason there is a poor record before Europeans is because everything was passed down in oral histories. The Europeans didn't come and outfit them with weapons, they already had them.

Boy you are thick..

A Warrior is a man/person that fights to protect there tribe/family. A Soldier fights and kills for money.

Much of European trade was centered around addictive substances, it made sure they always had return customers, tobacco, rum, whiskey, opium from the orient and so on.

The settlers in North America wouldn't make it through the first few winters if it wasn't for these terrible people, they easily could have killed every single man woman and child but they didn't, do you celebrate Thanksgiving, do you understand why?

Oh and even after living in the Americans for way over 10, 000's of years when Columbus stepped foot on the ground you could safely swim and drink from every river on the continent, that speaks volumes. At least they had the since to not $%^# in there own nest like us!!!!