Author Topic: So who won the war? (Read 2200 times)

lazs2 · « **Reply #75 on:** July 07, 2005, 02:45:29 PM »

the british started slavery in the U.S. that is what we were talking about. I will agree with skyprancer tho that the brits did give up their colonies in a fairly civilized manner compared to some other empires.

We taught the indians total warfare? they never slaughtered every single person from another tribe before we got here? never tortured and commited genocide on other tribes? Maybe it is not I who needs to read more about indian history.

What do you think happened? bunch of red hippies all sweetness and light till we showed em the dark side?

plains indians... where the resources were more sparce than back east, regularly looted and slaughtered everyone in a rival tribe that they found... torture was considered great sport by these "hippies of the plains" You should read about some of the great ways they had of entertaining themselves.

lazs

Sandman · « **Reply #76 on:** July 07, 2005, 03:15:15 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2

We taught the indians total warfare? they never slaughtered every single person from another tribe before we got here? never tortured and commited genocide on other tribes? Maybe it is not I who needs to read more about indian history.

I'm currently studying American military history. According to this book, we brought the concept of total war to the indians.

Of course, if there's a pre-1700 native american history that I can refer to, I might buy into the plains indian thing.

MiloMorai · « **Reply #77 on:** July 07, 2005, 03:44:38 PM »

Guess laz never heard of touching the enemy with a stick (don't know how to spell the word). Humiliate the enemy, not kill him.

Sandman · « **Reply #78 on:** July 07, 2005, 03:57:03 PM »

Counting coup.

Skydancer · « **Reply #79 on:** July 07, 2005, 06:43:52 PM »

Urm the reason many of those tribes lived on the plains is because the white colonists had pushed them farther west and already appropriated many of their old tribal lands in the east. They were driven onto the plains because european settlers thought the area barren and unusable for agriculture or anything. Thats why they were living where resources were scarce.

Lazs I will concede though that in many cases Indians perpetrated hideous acts of cruelty also. But its that old chicken and egg thing. Cruelty breeds cruelty unless you can make the leap to rise above it. ( one of the very hardest of things to do I guess )

Jackal1 · « **Reply #80 on:** July 08, 2005, 01:23:09 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Skydancer
Urm the reason many of those tribes lived on the plains is because the white colonists had pushed them farther west and already appropriated many of their old tribal lands in the east. They were driven onto the plains because european settlers thought the area barren and unusable for agriculture or anything. Thats why they were living where resources were scarce.

The resources on the plains were far from scarce, but what has that got to do with the subject of who won WWII?
I`m still a might confused here. Is the question that`s being asked "Who won the war?" or "Who gained the most from the war being won?"

Skydancer · « **Reply #81 on:** July 08, 2005, 01:49:11 AM »

yeah you are right things off on a bit of a tangent here.

Curval · « **Reply #82 on:** July 08, 2005, 05:42:52 AM »

lazs, your revisionist history is really quite silly.

Britain "banned" slaves long before America and in fact were actively destroying the whole trade with their navy at a time when demand for slaves was the greatest in one country....America.

Krusher · « **Reply #83 on:** July 08, 2005, 07:27:14 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Curval
lazs, your revisionist history is really quite silly.

Britain "banned" slaves long before America and in fact were actively destroying the whole trade with their navy at a time when demand for slaves was the greatest in one country....America.

America had about 1/2 million slaves total. Brazil had 3 million and the rest of the world held about 15 million.

lazs2 · « **Reply #84 on:** July 08, 2005, 08:41:05 AM »

well.. we are off subject here but.. Are you saying that british ships did not supply America with slaves?

milo...Counting coup... yep.. and whites played games too, all kinda non leathal war games.. it didn't stop us or the indians from slaughtering our own people or each other. You don't seriously believe that indians never killed each other or tortured each other before we got there?

None of you guys believe that the plains were deserted of indians before we chased em all there do you?

As for who won WWII? in the long run I would have to say that the entire world did...

lazs

Sandman · « **Reply #85 on:** July 08, 2005, 08:58:03 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2

None of you guys believe that the plains were deserted of indians before we chased em all there do you?

No. But AFAIK, the pre-1700 history of plains indians is a bit thin.

lazs2 · « **Reply #86 on:** July 08, 2005, 09:12:58 AM »

but there is ample evidence that there were tribe that lived there for many years before we came and that tribes were slaughtered by other tribes. Their verbal history tells of tribal warfare...

lazs

Sandman · « **Reply #87 on:** July 08, 2005, 09:17:40 AM »

Sure, their verbal history speaks of tribal warfare. Does it also speak of tribal slaughter?

lazs2 · « **Reply #88 on:** July 08, 2005, 09:35:15 AM »

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0700610294/qid=1120832602/sr=1-8/ref=sr_1_8/102-2032441-9246530?v=glance&s=books

the plains indians were allready using up valuable resources on the plains and straining survival before the whites got there (not counting the spanish).

Do we let the indians roam freely forever and control all the resources of the plains so that the farming and grazing culture of the whites is not allowed on the plains? If the settlers hold the desirable water and grazing areas then the indians can't use them... even amoung whites... water rights caused "conflict" on the plaines.

If you want to blame anyone then blame the spanish who gave the plains indians the horse. the horse increased their mobility and strained resources and caused territorial conflict... there is ample evidence of tribes slaughtering each other.

What I find silly is that everyone is willing to say that the indians were great warriors and the best light cavalry but.... then say that they were peacful hippies of the plaines.... How did they learn to fight? Why were they all armed?

lazs

Sandman · « **Reply #89 on:** July 08, 2005, 09:44:34 AM »

Interesting book. I'll have to find a copy. Still, this book seems to focus on the 19th century, well after the white expansion in the east.

I'm curious about their methods of war in the 17th and 18th centuries.