Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > American History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

American History American History Forum - United States, Canada, Mexico, Central and South America


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 13th, 2012, 06:48 PM   #151

Sam-Nary's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: At present SD, USA
Posts: 2,423

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hresvelgr View Post
If you want to be strict about, then I will take issue with the half-truths. You said most tribes were just hunters. It's possible that most were simply hunter-gatherers, but the full truth is that most people in general in the US were not. It's possible there were lots of small bands unique enough to be called tribes that made a life roaming for animals and wild crops, along with the people of the Pacific Northwest who lived among such a bounty that farming was unnecessary. But the biggest tribes were such urban peoples as the Mississippians, whose varying tribes and sites covered much of the midwest, pretty much all of the southeast (stretching even into the supposed virgin Kentucky), and even into the northeast, where there were also peoples with large settlements that required much farmland. The Southwest also had many sedentary societies with farms, these peoples being quite famous, the Anasazi, Hopi, Zuni, etc. Therefore the assertion that most Indian tribes were merely hunters is, if one were to be generous, a falsehood of omission. And going to your point about Kentucky, it's telling that you should bring that state up specifically when it was an exception. True, there were no permanent settlements of tribes there in the 18th Century, over 300 years after contact and the spread of terrible diseases. And yet it was still used by many people. And in any case it was a lonely example of an unpopulated state even for the time period. Tennessee wasn't unpopulated, having bustling towns during de Soto's time. Same story with Arkansas. Nor was Ohio unpopulated, nor Illinois, nor Indiana, nor West Virginia. And you're certainly not going to tell me the coastal states were just virgin woodlands never seen by humans before, are you?
Weren't tribes like the Iroqouis, Cherokee, and many of the other "big" tribes of the east non-nomadic hunter/farmers? They farmed AND hunted?
Sam-Nary is online now  
Remove Ads
Old November 13th, 2012, 06:54 PM   #152

Hresvelgr's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: New Hampshire
Posts: 1,015
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam-Nary View Post
Weren't tribes like the Iroqouis, Cherokee, and many of the other "big" tribes of the east non-nomadic hunter/farmers? They farmed AND hunted?
Yes, nothing preventing them from doing both. Contrary to the typical practice in Europe, farming was women's work. They didn't believe in having their women shut inside doing nothing but weaving and giving birth. Consequently women were responsible for most of the food production and therefore they held great power in the tribes. The typical job of men was hunting and fighting, and hunting requires more than just a splotch of woods out in the backyard, although back then the forests would probably have had more wildlife than they do now. Buffalo and elk used to live as far east as New York after all.
Hresvelgr is offline  
Old November 13th, 2012, 09:44 PM   #153

Rongo's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Ohio
Posts: 5,685

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hresvelgr View Post
If you want to be strict about, then I will take issue with the half-truths. You said most tribes were just hunters.
...
Therefore the assertion that most Indian tribes were merely hunters is, if one were to be generous, a falsehood of omission....
OK, I'm going to do this just ONE MORE TIME. And if you twist my words and accuse me of lying again, I'll be reporting it to the moderators:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Rongo View Post
This may be true if you're talking from Mexico southwards, but in the present-day United States and Canada, most (but not all) Indian tribes were hunters. Heck, virtually the entire present-day state of Kentucky was unoccupied, unfarmed hunting grounds. That's an area the size of Bulgaria...
I never said they were JUST HUNTERS or MERELY HUNTERS. I said they were HUNTERS. And you know that. The fact that you have to create a strawman in order to come up with an argument speaks volumes for the fact that you have NO argument against the point I really made. But DO NOT again accuse me of "half-truths" or "falsehoods of omission" for the falsehoods of YOUR strawman.
Rongo is offline  
Old November 13th, 2012, 10:55 PM   #154

Pacific_Victory's Avatar
SEMISOMNVS
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: MARE PACIFICVM
Posts: 4,682

Now this has become an interesting discussion.

Well a poster a while back (I forget who) suggested that we actually create a "list of the accused" so to speak, of people that could actually be seriously considered perpetrators of genocide or not. That is an excellent idea.

Otherwise we could just continue to pick one of two races and then blame the other one in its entirety for the couple of hundred years of history in question. A method which I gather was the original intention of this thread, judging by the OP.
Pacific_Victory is offline  
Old November 14th, 2012, 02:27 AM   #155

Rongo's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Ohio
Posts: 5,685

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hresvelgr View Post
And you're certainly not going to tell me the coastal states were just virgin woodlands never seen by humans before, are you?
Where do you think the Europeans landed? Do you really think that a couple hundred European men, women and children landing in a boat could blast their way on shore in a populated center with their muskets and their blunderbusses?

In the US and Canada, Europeans landed on unoccupied land and established colonies there, like Jamestown and Plymouth.

Last edited by Rongo; November 14th, 2012 at 02:54 AM. Reason: added links
Rongo is offline  
Old November 14th, 2012, 06:03 AM   #156

Baltis's Avatar
Goat Whisperer
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Texas
Posts: 2,674
Blog Entries: 30

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pacific_Victory View Post
Otherwise we could just continue to pick one of two races and then blame the other one in its entirety for the couple of hundred years of history in question. A method which I gather was the original intention of this thread, judging by the OP.
that sounds like fun, let's try that for a change.
Baltis is offline  
Old November 14th, 2012, 06:08 AM   #157

Hresvelgr's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: New Hampshire
Posts: 1,015
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rongo View Post
OK, I'm going to do this just ONE MORE TIME. And if you twist my words and accuse me of lying again, I'll be reporting it to the moderators:




I never said they were JUST HUNTERS or MERELY HUNTERS. I said they were HUNTERS. And you know that. The fact that you have to create a strawman in order to come up with an argument speaks volumes for the fact that you have NO argument against the point I really made. But DO NOT again accuse me of "half-truths" or "falsehoods of omission" for the falsehoods of YOUR strawman.
You're going to report me for basing a statement on something you were clearly insinuating if not outright saying? If your statement was really just saying that they happened to be hunters when it suited them, then enlighten me as to exactly how much relevance that has to anything. European people hunted. What does that have to do with anything? Nothing, which is what the intention you claim your statement had means.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rongo View Post
Where do you think the Europeans landed? Do you really think that a couple hundred European men, women and children landing in a boat could blast their way on shore in a populated center with their muskets and their blunderbusses?

In the US and Canada, Europeans landed on unoccupied land and established colonies there, like Jamestown and Plymouth.
Of course they can't successfully do so. Didn't stop them from trying. Look at Jamestown. Once they realized they sucked at the whole farming thing they went around raiding local villages for food. They got themselves slaughtered in response, but these paltry few English settlers did apparently think they could just blast their way on shore to get what they wanted. And they kept trying until more of them came. And Plymouth? That place was already inhabited before smallpox and slavers killed just about everyone but Squanto. And Squanto wasn't the only New England Indian to have been snatched up by English slavers without warning. The first English explorers and settlers in America were hardly the uniformly benevolent and peaceful farmers you seem to be trying to paint them as.
Hresvelgr is offline  
Old November 14th, 2012, 06:12 AM   #158
Citizen
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: Chesapeake, VA
Posts: 2

Wouldn't really call it a war, more like a massacre.
kred925 is offline  
Old November 14th, 2012, 07:38 AM   #159

Rongo's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Ohio
Posts: 5,685

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hresvelgr View Post
You're going to report me for basing a statement on something you were clearly insinuating if not outright saying? If your statement was really just saying that they happened to be hunters when it suited them, then enlighten me as to exactly how much relevance that has to anything. European people hunted. What does that have to do with anything? Nothing, which is what the intention you claim your statement had means.
The point that you are obviously deliberately avoiding is that the Indians reserved enormous swaths of lands for hunting grounds. This is part of the reason why the population in the combined US and Canada (at the highest estimates) was about the same as the population of France in the year 1500. I've already pointed out the situation in Kentucky, which you brushed aside before building your strawman and calling it a liar. But if Kentucky was inhabited at the same population density as Europe it could have housed and fed over A MILLION people. Instead, virtually NOBODY lived there. It was the hunting grounds for a few thousand Indians, at most.

Now, I know it doesn't bother you in the least that men, women, and children were suffering frequent famines back in Europe while all this land sat here grossly under-utilized, but it did bother them. Some of them were bothered enough that they were willing to pick up their families, leave behind all their possessions, brave the difficult journey across the Atlantic, and start over from scratch in a new land. But hey, no white people need apply, right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hresvelgr View Post
Of course they can't successfully do so. Didn't stop them from trying. Look at Jamestown. Once they realized they sucked at the whole farming thing they went around raiding local villages for food. They got themselves slaughtered in response, but these paltry few English settlers did apparently think they could just blast their way on shore to get what they wanted. And they kept trying until more of them came. And Plymouth? That place was already inhabited before smallpox and slavers killed just about everyone but Squanto. And Squanto wasn't the only New England Indian to have been snatched up by English slavers without warning. The first English explorers and settlers in America were hardly the uniformly benevolent and peaceful farmers you seem to be trying to paint them as.
Yes, I know. Those stupid, evil Europeans could do nothing right except kill people. They finished their Thanksgiving pumpkin pie and went on a bloodthirsty killing spree against the people who fed them. And the peaceful, benevolent Indians, they were just innocent lambs to the slaughter. Never in the history of the world has such unmitigated evil triumphed over such purity and virtue.
Rongo is offline  
Old November 14th, 2012, 07:42 AM   #160
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rongo View Post
Now, I know it doesn't bother you in the least that men, women, and children were suffering frequent famines back in Europe while all this land sat here grossly under-utilized, but it did bother them.
Wow, wow, wow !!!!!

Guess you would entirely agree with all the currently undernourished people of the third world nations determining on their own how the ostensibly superfluous food of the US should be used, right ???

Click the image to open in full size.

Not any comfortable fallacious double standards here, huh?
sylla1 is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > American History

Tags
americans, angels, native


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Legacy of Native Americans Rasta American History 65 July 19th, 2013 10:30 AM
Metal and Native americans? sturm American History 46 August 17th, 2012 11:18 PM
Native Americans and the civil war Theguy8882 American History 0 August 4th, 2012 11:23 AM
Native Americans in the Civil War Salah American History 6 June 1st, 2012 05:16 PM
northeast native americans oshron American History 3 March 7th, 2010 06:40 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.