Are you a Patriot?

a reply to: bullcat

It was the Norwegians who settled Iceland when King Harald finally cut his shaggy mane, it's very easy to find this out.

And they were rather keen on taking land from each other via feuding and setting fire to their rival's steads, while waiting outside to cut any man who escaped to ribbons.

Plus the nation was not really regarded as independent until the 20th century, and was more a tribal confederation during the first three or four centuries after it's initial Norse settlement.

a reply to: beezzer

Antarctica..........well, before they nuked Atlantis anyway - but those records were destroyed in Alexandria.

Innit

a reply to: Dimithae

Well your certainly opinionated...

originally posted by: MOMof3
I think if the native tribes had been cohesive with one central government and a military, things would have gone different. Look at how good tribal goverments have been working in the ME for thousand of years.

Why should they have had one central government and military?

There were at different time the various tribes did form types of governments. But the ME and NA have vastly different cultures, religions and philosophies. And the Native Americans have varying cultures, religions and philosophies from tribe to tribe.

The 5 Civilized Tribes
The Iroquois League
The Powhatan Confederacy

Those are three attempts, but you have to remember that while one group was allied with the British, another group was allied with the French. There was the whole French and Indian War, long before the Revolution.

So what purpose would there have been to have one centralized government among the Native Americans, if they were so diverse and spread out from Washington to Maine, from Florida to California and Michigan to Texas? And the east and west only came into contact through the Indian Removal Act.

It is not like they were settlers, they were already here, they have diverse languages, religion and culture. While it may have benefited them perhaps to be centralized, that is only looking at it from the American perspective. They would have suffered cultural shock and loss of philosophies.

I don't think tribalism of the ME can remotely compare to tribalism of NA.

a reply to: Dimithae

Further ,we really shouldn't make gross generalizations about people. You don't know me from adamn and yet I find myself more and more at the center of your frustrations. Now fine its nothing personal your just mad , your mad at service men because they have failed you. I guess your archetype of the hero has been shattered, and I'm sorry for that. Your increasingly cynical negative. You attack others who are passionate like your self , you and I have more incommon than you may know.

2007 was a dire year for us we lost 7 people in my company! I wonder do you think ? Do you think i was all kill kill kill? or do you think I was somber and confused. Asking why the # are we here! I can tell you it was the latter .

I experienced what can only be described as an existential crisis and everything I thought I knew changed over night. I haven't been the same since I love my country I've done all I can do. Do you know what I do now? I stand up for what I believe I wake up at 4 am go work out hop on a train go to work I keep a positive attitude in the face of the cynical I put on foot in front of the other, I triumph over adversity. This is my life now if I can make a person smile of I can let go of resentment and hatred I've had a good day.

Just know this is what I can do and what I do, do today. If and when the bullets start flying I'll be there for our people you better believe that.

a reply to: roncoallstar

You can be a patriot to your country and also recognize the sins of the past. No country is perfect, and it is silly to assume that one should be. In fact, I'd say that blind patriotism isn't real patriotism. If you can't or don't understand the country's flaws, how can you work to fix them to make it a better country?

I think I'd rather live here than anywhere else. But, I won't turn a cognitively dissonant eye towards what happens behind the curtains. We are as shady as anyone else. Power brings such traits.

a reply to: WarminIndy

"Why should they have had one central government and military?"
Because it could make the difference in being a conqueror or the conquerored. Good, honorable people don't get to make the rules of war and world domination.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: WarminIndy

"Why should they have had one central government and military?"
Because it could make the difference in being a conqueror or the conquerored. Good, honorable people don't get to make the rules of war and world domination.

Sorry, but NA tribes were at war with each other long before Europeans came. Who should be the head of that centralized government and military? The Shawnee? The Mohawk? The Sac Fox? The Nez Perce? The Winnebago? Or perhaps the Chickasaw, the Seminole, the Cree? You realize that those are all different tribes with different languages and customs.

That is why there could be no centralized government or military. But in order to centralize, you would have to convince all the tribes to come together, meaning that they would have to put down their own wars with each other, but how would you take on the task of traversing the country in order to convince those in Oregon to join with those in Vermont?

You would spend a lifetime reaching every tribe in order to carry out this diplomatic mission, and by that time it would be too late. Besides, there was no common enemy. Some chose the British, some chose the Spanish and some chose the French. It's not like today where we have one language and one military based on that one language and philosophy. But as good as it sounds, no, it would not have been feasible in my opinion.

Think about it, the Iroquois League didn't prevent France and England, the Powhatan Confederacy didn't stop England.

We could say that if they were centralized that it might have made a difference, but this land was just too vast and so diverse in NA tribes, that it could not be possible, in my opinion.

And if you think all NA tribes were good and honorable, then you don't know about all NA tribes.

a reply to: WarminIndy

What conquered the NA was diseases and whiskey that was brought on ships and allowed to dock. The NA should have united, and slaughtered there and delayed it for a while. But maybe enough time to have changed their fate.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: WarminIndy

What conquered the NA was diseases and whiskey that was brought on ships and allowed to dock. The NA should have united, and slaughtered there and delayed it for a while. But maybe enough time to have changed their fate.

Meh, they didn't have to drink the whiskey, they could have said no. But considering they are Asians, and Asians do not have the ability genetically to metabolize alcohol very well,they had no tolerance.

Diseases, yes, that did indeed destroy entire tribes. But then again, they were having wars with each other also.

In your opinion you think it would have been better to centralize, yes, it probably would have been, but at what cost? The loss of individual tribal identity and uniqueness?

It's a romantic idea you have, the "Noble Savage" banding together against a common enemy and pushing them out of their country....

I mentioned tribes and identities of tribes, you keep saying the NA. I have managed to appreciate them for their tribal identities and customs. Maybe we view them differently because to me they do have identities beyond just being NA?

a reply to: WarminIndy

You do know that something like 90% of the population of Natives was wiped out by disease in the 1600's right? If it wasn't for that cultural genocide taking place, the Europeans probably never would have conquered the continent. For example, the Vikings discovered the Americas 600 years prior to that and got kicked out by the Natives. I'm going to repeat that. The VIKINGS got kicked out of America.

a reply to: WarminIndy

Well, there you go. Some fall on their own sword, some fight til the death. Personally, I am a fighter.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: WarminIndy

You do know that something like 90% of the population of Natives was wiped out by disease in the 1600's right? If it wasn't for that cultural genocide taking place, the Europeans probably never would have conquered the continent. For example, the Vikings discovered the Americas 600 years prior to that and got kicked out by the Natives. I'm going to repeat that. The VIKINGS got kicked out of America.

Yes, I do know that.

But I do not think the western or Plains tribes had any awareness of Vikings. This is a very large place.

I know that history as we know it is not what really happened. I am descended from Melungeon, I know also that Captain Juan Pardo built Spanish forts as far north as Knoxville, but mainstream academia denied it for a long time, until they found the remains of a Spanish fort, near Knoxville.

And another ancestor, James Moore, fought the Spanish in the Yamasee War with the aid of the affiliated tribes in Florida and South Carolina.

I am descended from Melungeon, now let's hear people tell me that the Melungeon were nothing more that "mountain oreos".

I know history, but I also know enough about the modern tribes to say that not all tribes were aware of the British before Lewis and Clark, and by that time it was too late.

And the Vikings were kicked out of Canada, had they tangled with the Cherokee, Shawnee or perhaps the western tribes who knows what would have happened. The difference in the British and Viking, technology and lack of diplomatic tact.

Did you know the real reason Thomas Jefferson sent Lewis and Clark to explore? To find the "Welsh Indians". And at the same time, Jefferson was really trying to grasp who the Melungeon were, and they were mentioned first by John Sevier. The Melungeon said they were "portygee" which to the British meant Portuguese, and mainstream academia tries to deny the fact that Francis Drake's ship wrecked off the coast of North Carolina.

Mainstream academia can't even account for the many petroglyphs in old world languages, so what does mainstream academia do? Hide it. But they can't because too many people know about it.

I say the Pacific coast tribes had no awareness of the Eastern Woodland and the British and by the time they found out it was too late.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: WarminIndy

Well, there you go. Some fall on their own sword, some fight til the death. Personally, I am a fighter.

You can fight to the end, but if you are the chief of the tribe you have to be responsible for your people.

Did you know that in the Library of Congress is a map drawn by John Smith of the Powhatan Confederacy and in it he mentions the Susquehanna Tribe were giants?

That's right now sitting in our Library of Congress, but do mainstream academians recognize it?

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
We just exercised our Manifest Destiny much later.

I think a little bit of vomit came out

a reply to: WarminIndy

Of course the western tribes didn't know about the Vikings. They didn't make it far enough inland to see them before getting kicked off the continent. I'm really not sure what you are trying to get at with your post though, I already know that the Natives of America were very diverse. WAY more so than just labeling them "natives" and being done with it.

a reply to: crazyewok

DON'T yell at him THAT was the school curriculum at the time. I thought it was an invasion and the teacher took me out into the hall and said not to make a fuss about it but I was right.

a reply to: WarminIndy

I wonder what the Viking numbers were?

originally posted by: roncoallstar
Canadians didn't murder the Aboriginal people that were there. Are you seriously comparing the conflicts in Canada to the mass genocide of American Indians?

From the 1850s to the late 1890s Canada was waging full scale war against Indians from Maitoba west. What history book did you get your information from?

In answer to your original question... meh. To the victors go the spoils. If my ancestors hadn't taken the land, somebody else's would have. Hell, the Indian tribes themselves were in a pretty much constant state of warring with each other over land long before Europeans arrived here. Besides, once you leave the confines of central Africa, everyone is a usurper on someone else's land in one way or another. Before we start issuing reparations and apologies to Indians, Europeans owe the Germanic people a serious chunk of change because most of the continent's powerful bloodlines invaded northern Europe, killing the natives along the way, in the name of Ceasar.