Native Americans and Terrorism

[KidViciou$]

So i was watching 500 Nations on the Discovery Times channel, and thought ot myself, how come the Native Americans aren't deemed terrorists? Personally i think the spirit of their resistance was noble, and sad, but not everytime was it executed in a noble way

So how come people don't look back on the native americans and call them terrorists? i mean tehy did want to instill fear in the settlers, and they did raids on civillian camps


(I personally don't think that they were terrorists and think of them as being the victims of genocide. Their countries were invaded and snatched from beneath them, and the United States followed no code of war or conduct, and delivered nothing but false promises and treaties)

 

[johnnobts]

I personally don't think that they were terrorists and think of them as being the victims of genocide.

i think you're right for the most part, though there was also some good will sprinkled here and there b/c settlers and the tribes... but this is not a fair comparison to make with what's happening today, with the islam-o-fascists. this is not genocide...

 

[KidViciou$]

well if the plight of the native americans were going on today, would they be considered terrorists? how about if a radical group of native americans want to return to their roots and want their own land to live off of. i'm not talking about casinos here, i'm talking about plots of land they lived on before the united states took it over. if they were able to show that they rightfully owned the land, shoudl they get it back now?

if you say no, and they tried to acquire it legally, what could they do to get it back?

 

[judasmachine]

Pine Ridge circa 1977. We are still considered terrorists. Leonard Peltier

 

[piasabird]

Contrary to popular belief many indian tribes were often attacking other tribes to destroy their enemies. It is not like all the native americans were a bunch of peace loving people unable to defend themsleves. Yes we took their land and moved them to hell-hole reservations and often massacred them. When the white man came to their land, the white man changed what was considered the way of life and started fencing in land and claiming it and the native americans did not choose to live that way. White men also severely affected some habitats so the Indians could not continue in their way of life. Instead of adapting some of them chose to fight and die. I dont see it as so black and white. Their were some people who tried to get native americans to change their ways of life to try to get along with white men, but many of them did not have much success.

It was not a good thing for people on either side. White men seemed to have won in the end but some tribes with guts are claiming back small patches of ground and trying to enfoce treaties. It is very difficult for honest people to see every aspect of this issue. Often native americans were hunted down and moved because they chose to fight or went on the warpath. Too bad they did not have lawyers.

 

[judasmachine]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Contrary to popular belief many indian tribes were often attacking other tribes to destroy their enemies. It is not like all the native americans were a bunch of peace loving people unable to defend themsleves. Yes we took their land and moved them to hell-hole reservations and often massacred them. When the white man came to their land, the white man changed what was considered the way of life and started fencing in land and claiming it and the native americans did not choose to live that way. White men also severely affected some habitats so the Indians could not continue in their way of life. Instead of adapting some of them chose to fight and die. I dont see it as so black and white. Their were some people who tried to get native americans to change their ways of life to try to get along with white men, but many of them did not have much success.

It was not a good thing for people on either side. White men seemed to have won in the end but some tribes with guts are claiming back small patches of ground and trying to enfoce treaties. It is very difficult for honest people to see every aspect of this issue. Often native americans were hunted down and moved because they chose to fight or went on the warpath. Too bad they did not have lawyers.

You need to pick up a book that wasn't written entirely by white folks. Our wars were not those of genocide or attrition. They were wars of subsistance. Too many people, and too few hunting grounds. And sometimes over not enough people, and breeding rights. We obeyed the laws of nature, and didn't wage wars of attrition on the planet or each other.

The rest of your summary is pretty much correct. There were many who wished to flee, even though there were no more places left in which to flee, and many who wished to fight. the ultimate conservationists you might say, by that I mean they applied natures laws even unto themselves.

 

[johnnobts]

they wouldn't be considered terrorists if they were defending themselves from genocide?no. if they were fighting to protect their land? no. but a settlement has been reached today, its been accepted today, its a thing of the past. they recognize the us govt and we recognize the sovreignty of their tribes.

comparing this to whats happening in iraq, that is terrorism? Why? B/c you have for the most part foreigners pouring in from other nations to fight and to kill both the U.S. and Iraqi forces. They wear no military clothing, they follow no military code of conduct...

 

[KidViciou$]

i don't think the native americans feel a settlement has been reached, i think they feel that there is nothing they can do

so hypothetically, if a group of people are being eradicated, would suicide bomber tactics be acceptable?

 

[johnnobts]

so hypothetically, if a group of people are being eradicated, would suicide bomber tactics be acceptable?

acceptable to use yourself to kill the enemy by way of suicide? not the best way to go about it, and also depends on who you are targetting. there's no excuse for bombing civilians, as is clearly the norm for these extremists (hence the name terrorists, not something like rebels). also, i want to point out, this is not genocide.

 

[judasmachine]

now it's just legal tactics. that rarely pan out i might add.

Interesting Article on the State of Pine Ridge. (as seen by the youth)

 

[KidViciou$]

i understand that there is no genocide going on today, except in darfur, but i'm talking hypothetically here

you say that suicide is not an effective way, but don't you think the buddhist monk who self-immolated made a powerful statement?


and say people were settling on the land of the genocided people, would bombing the settlers be acceptable?

 

[johnnobts]

i'm saying killing yourself to kill others, logically, takes you out of the fight for good. this is why patton (i think) said, "Don't die for your country, make the other guy die for his." most people find suicide to be tragic and irrational. i don't take groups who encourage suicide (especially suicide bombing) seriously. it reveals that group to be unreasonable, and less likely to trust.

 

[johnnobts]

and say people were settling on the land of the genocided people, would bombing the settlers be acceptable?

bombing the settlers acceptable? never! you won't earn any sympathy with that action from other nations, and especially if the govt. of said people (the settlers) is making a concerted effort to make peace.

 

[KidViciou$]

so instead of suicide bombing they did a kamikaze mission, i sthat still the same? and as far as attacking settlers, tehy want peace in the sense that they want a piece of that land! and the piece they want is all of it

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: KidViciou$
So i was watching 500 Nations on the Discovery Times channel, and thought ot myself, how come the Native Americans aren't deemed terrorists? Personally i think the spirit of their resistance was noble, and sad, but not everytime was it executed in a noble way

So how come people don't look back on the native americans and call them terrorists? i mean tehy did want to instill fear in the settlers, and they did raids on civillian camps


(I personally don't think that they were terrorists and think of them as being the victims of genocide. Their countries were invaded and snatched from beneath them, and the United States followed no code of war or conduct, and delivered nothing but false promises and treaties)

The whole Arab/Israeli conflict has some parallels, and we can see clearly that some people (Arabs) are considered terrorists.

 

[KidViciou$]

yea, but i don't accept palestenians committing suicide bombings in israel, nor do i accept israelis stoning palestinians or demolishing palestenian homes

 

[Excelsior]

No...the situation with the native americans is different than any other going on today. They were not, are not, and will never be considered terroist.

 

[KidViciou$]

but that's what i'm asking, why is there a distinction? aside from the noble aspect of the native americans plight, the tactics are a little similar, attacking pioneers traveling through their land, raiding settlers villages and homes etc...

 

[Czar]

the settlers were more likely conducting terrorism, and the indians were responding to terrorism

funny that

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: KidViciou$
but that's what i'm asking, why is there a distinction? aside from the noble aspect of the native americans plight, the tactics are a little similar, attacking pioneers traveling through their land, raiding settlers villages and homes etc...

Uh...there is a distinction because the Native Americans were there first? The settlers were bent on taking over the native americans land. They were challenging the natives land. This is FAR different from what most people consider terroism today such as radicals attacking other people on land that isn't theirs.

 

[KidViciou$]

well i guess i was looking at it as the native americans fighting off the invaders

 

[f95toli]

Originally posted by: Excelsior


Uh...there is a distinction because the Native Americans were there first? The settlers were bent on taking over the native americans land. They were challenging the natives land. This is FAR different from what most people consider terroism today such as radicals attacking other people on land that isn't theirs.

So what about Israel?
I would say the same arguments could be used.

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: f95toli

Originally posted by: Excelsior


Uh...there is a distinction because the Native Americans were there first? The settlers were bent on taking over the native americans land. They were challenging the natives land. This is FAR different from what most people consider terroism today such as radicals attacking other people on land that isn't theirs.

So what about Israel?
I would say the same arguments could be used.

Yes KidVicous, that is what I was saying, basically. The NAs were fighting off an invading force. They weren't terroist.

And f95toli - I never said anything about Israel..but of course you know that. I think I see what you are trying to get at...but it still is a bit different.

The difference being that the Israelis have already taken the land over, just as the US has long ago taken over all the land, minus some reservations. For the NAs to be terroist, they would have to acting out now, today, on innocent civilians. I don't see that happening.

However, the Palestinians are, even after the land has been taken over, acting out by attacking/killing/harming innocent people.

See?

 

[KidViciou$]

i dunno excelsior, i don't accept that definition of terrorist

from the terrorist and insurgents in iraq viewpoint, couldn't we be seen as an invading force, and they are like the native americans?

 

[judasmachine]

Originally posted by: f95toli

Originally posted by: Excelsior


Uh...there is a distinction because the Native Americans were there first? The settlers were bent on taking over the native americans land. They were challenging the natives land. This is FAR different from what most people consider terroism today such as radicals attacking other people on land that isn't theirs.

So what about Israel?
I would say the same arguments could be used.

I've said that repeatedly and usually get some crap about how it was Britain's land. Like the British had any real right to that land.