tecumseh, pontiac, crazy horse and many other first nation leaders. they fought for their people. not for fame, money, etc., but for what was right.

oops, this was suppose to be in the historicl figures thread. pushed the wrong button. dohh!

Don't forget Chief Little Turtle of the Miami --a great warrior and Hoosier.

http://littleturtle.net/

Originally posted by rendova
Don't forget Chief Little Turtle of the Miami --a great warrior and Hoosier.

http://littleturtle.net/

And way ahead of his time in getting a website set up!

Actually most indians fought for both fame and horses, the equivalent of money. Were this not so, counting coup and the taking of scalps would not have been so important a part of warfare.

taking scalps was the white mans inititantion. It was done so you could collect a bounty for contributing to the genocide.

Most indians fought because they were fed up with the whitemans lies and bullshit. They gladly gave up large portions of their land so that others may live there as well. But the invaders just kept breaking their promises and pushing the indians further and further west onto unhospitable land.

Frogger - You'd do well to do some actual reading instead of repeteing your childhood fantasies.

There were a few indians that were mercenaries and fought other tribes for the whiteman but they were a vast minority.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
taking scalps was the white mans inititantion. It was done so you could collect a bounty for contributing to the genocide.

Most indians fought because they were fed up with the whitemans lies and bullshit. They gladly gave up large portions of their land so that others may live there as well. But the invaders just kept breaking their promises and pushing the indians further and further west onto unhospitable land.

Frogger - You'd do well to do some actual reading instead of repeteing your childhood fantasies.

There were a few indians that were mercenaries and fought other tribes for the whiteman but they were a vast minority.

agreed, 500.

frogger, i was talking about individuals who were not fighting for fame or fortune. those who were fighting for fame and fortune showed easily. they gave up the fight quickly. and may have been the downfall of first nations. of course there are many factors involved. may not have understood the gravity of the situation, having to stop fighting and go feed their families, divide and conquer techniques, etc..

That would have been a good post, 500 pound gorilla, had it not been so wrong.

While whites did sometimes pay indians for scalps the taking of scalps superceded the coming of whites to the continent. You are simply repeating a common fallacy that many who don't bother to actually read history books fall prey to.

Tribes were fighting tribes long before the first Europeans came to the New World. How do you think Powhattan became so powerful? He defeated other tribes and incorporated them into his confederacy. Why do you think the Iriquois Confederacy existed? The original Five Tribes, later the Six Tribes, when the Tuscarora joined the Confederacy were a mutual military aid society. The Confederation existed mainly to fight tribes such as the Huron, Potawatomie, Miami, and others in the surrounding territory. Why do you think the Creek Confederacy existed? The same reason as the Iriquois.

The Crow, Arapaho, Cheyene, Nez Perce, etc., were mutually antagonistic and fought ongoing wars long before the first whites crossed the Mississippi River.

If you want to go further south you will find that the Toltec, Maya, and Aztecs all believed in war and were in an almost constant state of war not only with neighboring peoples but even among themselves. Read about the fall of Tikal, or the Flower Wars of the Mixteca.

Please don't lecture me on history and suggest that I read it, especially when you show yourself to be so woefully ignorant of the topic.

Wow that all you can muster up to refute me? A simple "no your wrong and I'm right" Sorry I don't debate on faith. Gimmie some evidence or STFU.

Citing infighting does nothing to promote your claim.

It took you four days to come up with that Nancy little response. I don't believe you, nyah, nyah, nyah.

Don't blame me for your ignorance of Native Amnerican history. The eastern confederations and their reason for being are well known by anyone who has read even a little on Native American history. The wars of the Plains Indians are also well known as are those of the tribes in the Sourthwest and those in Mexico.

It is obvious from your last post that you are almost entirely ignorant of Native American history and are relying instead on only those instances in which certain leaders fought against the Americans and/or Europeans. While doing so you even manage to discount or ignore all those 'Indians' who fought on the side of the same Americans and/or Europeans.

Originally posted by Frogger
It took you four days to come up with that Nancy little response. I don't believe you, nyah, nyah, nyah.

Don't blame me for your ignorance of Native Amnerican history. The eastern confederations and their reason for being are well known by anyone who has read even a little on Native American history. The wars of the Plains Indians are also well known as are those of the tribes in the Sourthwest and those in Mexico.

It is obvious from your last post that you are almost entirely ignorant of Native American history and are relying instead on only those instances in which certain leaders fought against the Americans and/or Europeans. While doing so you even manage to discount or ignore all those 'Indians' who fought on the side of the same Americans and/or Europeans.

and what about BEFORE euro floating over here? almost all battles were based on bravado, men being men thing. it had not much to do with completely trying to annihilate your opponent. back then people had more to do than just fight. they had to survive. and they didn't believe in completely destroying their opponents. who would they fight then? how would their men "prove" themselves?

the aztecs? sure they sacrificed people. sure they hunted down people for religious murder. what society hasn't that has "advanced" to "civilized" stages?

your learning of first nations is completely based on euro assumptions of what they "thought" they saw. ever ask an ndn anything?

Great post, Ivan. You almost totally agreed with me. Only thing is, you don't yet realize it.

You are saying the same thing I said, they fought among themselves long before the Europeans came to the New World. They fought mainly for glory.

That is what I said and that is what you just agreed was the case.

Thanks for the support even if it was unwitting.

Originally posted by Frogger
Great post, Ivan. You almost totally agreed with me. Only thing is, you don't yet realize it.

You are saying the same thing I said, they fought among themselves long before the Europeans came to the New World. They fought mainly for glory.

That is what I said and that is what you just agreed was the case.

Thanks for the support even if it was unwitting.


in my original post it was about AFTER euro intervention and fighting for what they believed with no glory invovled. completely selfless. then the whole thing de-evolved into tit for tat of who is more evil. who is better.

but anyway.................

Originally posted by ivan
in my original post it was about AFTER euro intervention and fighting for what they believed with no glory invovled. completely selfless. then the whole thing de-evolved into tit for tat of who is more evil. who is better. i see your original post. it has nothing in it in reference to time lines and then you explain yourself and THEN you go back to after euro invasion.
sometimes i hate the internet.

but anyway.................

It can't be denied that there were Native American leaders who fought what they considered the good fight against encroaching European/Americans. That is not what was said. Your initial post mentioned just a few of them, omitting such famous people as Chief Joseph, American Horse, Afraid of His Horses, Osceola, and even the Scot/Creek, Alexander McGillivray.

My contention is that long before the white man came to the New World, Native Americans were fighting amongst themselves, not against a foreign invader but simply for the love of fighting. I gave the examples of counting coup and taking scalps. 500 chimed in with the historically inaccurate statement that scalp taking was an innovation of the Europeans and was unknown until their arrival.

He ended his post with the snide suggestion that I learn history. Now, I consider myself fairly well versed in history. I had among other majors, one in history and have a personal history collection of well over 3,000 volumes of what can be considered hard history books. I am also a member of the Xi Xi chapter of Phi Alpha Theta, the national honor society of historians and students of history.

I do not know all history and can be mistaken about topics. I understand that and accept correction. What I do not accept is some fool like 500poundguerilla who has his facts mixed up lecturing me and telling me to learn history before posting.

I was wrong about the scalping thing however a credible link would have shut me up right quick. Scalping for the purpose of bounty and genocide however was a european invention.

That also doesn't take away from that fact that the Indians were more than gracious to the invading whitemen. They did not fight the whites for fame or money. They fought because they had no choice.

500lbguerilla

It was not the fact that you were wrong about the scalping. It was the nasty way you suggested I didn't know what I was talking about and needed to read up about the topic. I will overlook people being wrong. I will not overlook people being wrong and then insulting me because of their own ignorance.

:D
Sorry. I've been working on that. It knid of comes in waves (the indigantion).

I feel a big hug comming :banana: :drinktoth: :flybyt: :slap:

We are family, my fellow posters and me. We are family...