It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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.
At a community level, warfare played a multifaceted role, and was waged for different reasons. Some conflicts were waged for economic and political goals, such as gaining access to resources or territory, exacting tribute from another nation or controlling trade routes. Revenge was a consistent motivating factor across North America, a factor that could lead to recurrent cycles of violence, often low intensity, which could last generations. Among the Iroquoian nations in the northeast, ‘mourning wars’ were practiced. Such conflicts involved raiding with the intent to capture prisoners, who were then adopted by bereaved families to replace family members who had died prematurely due to illness or war.
Archaeological evidence confirms the prominent role of warfare in indigenous societies well before the arrival of permanent European settlers. As early as the year 1000, for example, Huron, Neutral, Petun and Iroquois villages were increasingly fortified by a timber palisade that could be nearly 10 metres in height, sometimes villages built a second or even third ring to protect them against attacks by enemy nations. Craig Keener has described how these structures became larger and more elaborate through to the 1500s, with logs as large as 24 inches in diameter being used to construct the multi-layered defences, an enormous investment in communal labour that the villagers would not have made had it not been deemed necessary. Sieges and assaults on such fortified villages therefore must have occurred before Europeans arrived, and were certainly evident in the 17th and 18th Centuries
originally posted by: Dark Ghost
a reply to: solemind4
Ironic that today the vast majority of countries with majority white populations are among the most civilized throughout the world.
This "blame whitey for all our problems" sounds like something the Nation of Islam or Black Panthers would preach.
originally posted by: LDragonFire
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.
originally posted by: LDragonFire
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..
...
In the old days, marriages were usually arranged by the parents in both Sioux and Cherokee society, and the formal request for a bride was made by presenting gifts (the bride price - usually food, blankets, and fine clothing, and later horses) to the bride's parents, who made the decision to accept or reject the marriage proposal for the girl
Sioux Courtship and Wedding Customs
In Sioux culture it was usually the fathers who negotiated the marriage, looking for like minded political alliances, or a social tie that would strengthen the stature of the bride's family in the community, or an acomplished hunter or warrior who would be an asset in providing for and protecting the whole extended family.
While Sioux fathers took the lead and had the final say in such matters, mothers did the steering, and heavily influenced the stance taken by the fathers. Often the father would consider the wishes of a favored daughter, but this wasn't always the case.
If gifts were accepted and the father approved, the girl would have no say in the matter, even if she was opposed to the marriage.
.
...
originally posted by: LDragonFire
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.
originally posted by: LDragonFire
You guys think they deserved to have there homelands taken from them? Did they commit genocide? Ethnic cleansing?
Buffalo jump
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
A buffalo jump is a cliff formation which North American Indians historically used in order to hunt and kill plains bison in mass quantities.
Method of the hunt[edit]
Hunters herded the bison and drove them over the cliff, breaking their legs and rendering them immobile. Tribe members waiting below closed in with spears and bows to finish the kills. The Blackfoot Indians called the buffalo jumps "pishkun", which loosely translates as "deep blood kettle". This type of hunting was a communal event which occurred as early as 12,000 years ago and lasted until at least 1500 CE, around the time of the introduction of horses. The broader term game jumps includes buffalo jumps and cliffs used for similarly hunting other herding animals, such as reindeer. The Indians believed that if any buffalo escaped these killings then the rest of the buffalos would learn to avoid humans, which would make hunting even harder.
...
originally posted by: ItCameFromOuterSpace
a reply to: solemind4
You must be studying from the new curriculum. The one that excludes the part about native americans committing genocide on other tribes.. owning slaves.. cannibalism.
You bring up a lot of good points, but the majority of that is overly romanticized malarky.
originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: LDragonFire
No representation in UN? What part of THIS did you not see?
www.unep.org...
Keith M. Harper is the U.S. representative to the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva. He is the first Native American to ever receive the rank of a U.S. ambassador.[1][2] Before that he was a lawyer known for working on behalf of Native Americans. He is a member of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma
You have yet to produce a link leading to any report of a site that contains human remains showing signs of warfare. You have someone's interpretation of what they (Europeans) saw and the way they interpreted it or what they heard from native sources. Translation is sometimes a tricky thing, eh?
Despite evidence of warfare and violent conflict in pre-Columbian North America, scholars argue that the scale and scope of Native American violence is exagerated. They contend that scholarly misrepresentation has denigrated indigenous peoples when in fact they lived together in peace and harmony. In rebutting that contention, this groundbreaking book presents clear evidence—from multiple academic disciplines—that indigenous populations engaged in warfare and ritual violence long before European contact. In ten well-documented and thoroughly researched chapters, fourteen leading scholars dispassionately describe sources and consequences of Amerindian warfare and violence, including ritual violence. Originally presented at an American Anthropological Association symposium, their findings construct a convincing case that bloodshed and killing have been woven into the fabric of indigenous life in North America for many centuries.
The editors argue that a failure to acknowledge the roles of warfare and violence in the lives of indigenous North Americans is itself a vestige of colonial repression—depriving native warriors of their history of armed resistance. These essays document specific acts of Native American violence across the North American continent. Including contributions from anthropologists, archaeologists, historians, and ethnographers, they argue not only that violence existed but also that it was an important and frequently celebrated component of Amerindian life.
1. Traditional Native Warfare in Western Alaska
Ernest S. Burch Jr.
2. Barbarism and Ardour of War from the Tenderest Years": Cree-Inuit Warfare in the Hudson Bay Region
Charles A. Bishop and Victor P. Lytwyn
3. Aboriginal Warfare on the Northwest Coast: Did the Potlatch Replace Warfare?
Joan A. Lovisek
4. Ethnohistoric Descriptions of Chumash Warfare
John R. Johnson
5. Documenting Conflict in the Prehistoric Pueblo Southwest
Polly Schaafsma
6. Cahokia and the Evidence for Late Pre-Columbian War in the North American Midcontinent
Thomas E. Emerson
7. Iroquois-Huron Warfare
Dean R. Snow
P. Whitney Lackenbauer, Ph.D., is assistant professor and chair of history at St. Jerome’s University, Waterloo, Ontario. His recent books include, Arctic Front: Defending Canada’s Far North (2008), Battle Grounds: The Canadian Military and Aboriginal Lands (2007), and two co-edited volumes on Aboriginal peoples and military participation.
John Moses is an objects conservator and researcher with the Canadian Museum of Civilization in Gatineau, Quebec. His particular interests are the accommodation of Aboriginal perspectives in mainstream museum practice, and the provision of collections care training to non-specialists. He is a registered member of the Delaware band at the Six Nations of the Grand River at Brantford, Ontario.
R. Scott Sheffield, Ph.D., is an instructor in the Department of History at the University of the Fraser Valley. His major publications include, The Redman’s on the Warpath: The Image of the Indian and the Second World War (2004), A Search for Equity: The Final Report of the National Round Table on First Nations Veterans’ Issues (2001), and a recent edited volume on Aboriginal peoples and military participation in international perspective.
Maxime Gohier holds a Master’s degree in history from l’Université du Québec à Montréal. He is the author of the book, Onontio le médiateur: La gestion des conflits amérindiens en Nouvelle-France (1603-1717), which focuses on the Native American policies of France in North America. He is currently doing doctoral research into the history of the native peoples of Quebec under the British regime.
formal battles occurred that were often
highly ritualised and conducted in ways that limited
the casualties. For instance, fur trader David Thompson
recorded the following description by the Peigen elder,
Saukamappee, of a battle with the Shoshone in the Eagle
Hills region of Saskatchewan when he was a youth, long
before the arrival of European guns and horses.
After some singing and dancing, they sat down
on the ground, and placed their large shields
before them, which covered them. We did the
same, but our shields were not so many, and
some of our shields had to shelter two men.
Theirs were all placed touching each other;
their bows were not so long as ours, but of better
wood, and the back was covered with the sinews
of the bisons which made them very elastic, and
their arrows went a long way and whizzed about
us as balls do from guns … on both sides, several
were wounded, but none lay on the ground; and
the night put an end to the battle without a scalp
being taken on either side, and in those days
such was the result unless one side was more
numerous than the other.s
If you live in moose country, it takes a strong wall to keep them out