Native Americans and Terrorism

[judasmachine]

terrorism is a tactic, not a person, as far as i'm concerned. in the day of the super state, terrorism, assassination, sabotage, and vandalism are the only tools left to the little guy. we're taught to consider these as dirty tactics, and in a way they are. remember what the brits called us for not lining up in neat little rows with bright red coats on.... (or rather what they called you guys, as my white part came long after that fight)

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: 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?

You don't accept it because you don't understand it.

I knew you would think about it like that, but you are simply forgetting the fact that we aren't taking over Iraq. We aren't turning Iraq into a state.

However, this is exactly what was happening with the Native Americans. Get it now?

 

[MadRat]

E-

You are just as wrong. Most of the Indian Wars were pre-state, something officially labelled "territories" in the day.

KV has every right to draw parrallelisms when indeed they are just as innacurate and illogical as your own argument.

 

[Tom]

Maybe terrorism and terrorist are oversimplifications of reality, because reality is that in almost any conflict there are bad things that happen from both sides, but the critical point is can one see a basis for the outcome that makes sense to the person applying the label ?

In the case of the Native Americans vs European expansion, for the most part I think both sides were in the right, on balance, both sides commited atrocities, and eventually one side got the upper hand. But not entirely, because in many of the ways the United States is different from Europe, it's because of the adaptation of native American culture by Europeans into what is the American culture.

Likewise in Palestine/Israel relations, both sides have some valid points, and some invalid points, the largest invalid one being a kind of anti-semitism coupled with general religious intolerance on both sides. History has shown time and again that killing each other over religion is a fruitless exercise, compared to killing each other over more valid principals like liberty, or democracy.

 

[Duckzilla]

Anyone can fit someone else's definition of a terrorist, and while we can argue one way or another, at some point it becomes purely academic. I believe this thread started out on that note.

 

[Kerouactivist]

"Cortez The Killer"

He came dancing across the water
With his galleons and guns
Looking for the new world
In that palace in the sun.

On the shore lay Montezuma
With his coca leaves and pearls
In his halls he often wondered
With the secrets of the worlds.

And his subjects
gathered 'round him
Like the leaves around a tree
In their clothes of many colors
For the angry gods to see.

And the women all were beautiful
And the men stood
straight and strong
They offered life in sacrifice
So that others could go on.

Hate was just a legend
And war was never known
The people worked together
And they lifted many stones.

They carried them
to the flatlands
And they died along the way
But they built up
with their bare hands
What we still can't do today.

And I know she's living there
And she loves me to this day
I still can't remember when
Or how I lost my way.

He came dancing across the water
Cortez, Cortez
What a killer.

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: MadRat
E-

You are just as wrong. Most of the Indian Wars were pre-state, something officially labelled "territories" in the day.

KV has every right to draw parrallelisms when indeed they are just as innacurate and illogical as your own argument.

Wtf? Where did I say anything about the indian wars being afterwards, etc... are you fvcking dense?

Tell me how my argument is illogical then? Please tell me how you believe the Native Americans that existed at that time should be considered terroists.

 

[johnnobts]

Maybe terrorism and terrorist are oversimplifications of reality.

not always. In the case of suicide bombers who target non-combatants, even women and children, we need to call a spade a spade. they are terrorists.

 

[imported_Condor]

I think that the difference is that our Native Americans fought face to face and with courage. Also, they didn't attack Europe, Europe attacked them. Remember that it was Europeans who attacked the Indians on this continent. Many present day Americans are, in fact, an amalgam of Native Americans and the Europeans who attacked and ravaged this continent.

 

[MadRat]

Originally posted by: Excelsior
Wtf? Where did I say anything about the indian wars being afterwards, etc... are you fvcking dense?

Tell me how my argument is illogical then? Please tell me how you believe the Native Americans that existed at that time should be considered terroists.

Originally posted by: Excelsior
I knew you would think about it like that, but you are simply forgetting the fact that we aren't taking over Iraq. We aren't turning Iraq into a state.

I never said they should be terrorists. You're going further off topic. My point was simple, your point was wrong and you had no reason to criticize KD. You made the point to say that the difference between the Iraq situation and the one with American Indians was different BECAUSE the aforementioned did not include turning Iraq into a state. The situation with American Indians had little to do with turning territories into states, it was all about development of the territory. America is in Iraq developing the territory. The parrallel is much closer than what you suggested.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: 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.

the british were in control. under the rules of war in the past of course they were. its the same rules the conquered would have used themselves if they had won. the turks had much of the land rights and sold much of it to the jewish immigrants. and a lot of the palestinians were also immigrants esp when the british shut off jewish immigration in favor of arab. so who was there first is sort of questionable. then again if you go back to the start i guess you can say the jews were there first right?


as for the american indians well they succeeded the first time with the viking settlers.

 

[johnnobts]

then again if you go back to the start i guess you can say the jews were there first right?


lol, no, that would be the cananites, and the jebusites, and the hittites, and the amalikaties, and the perizites, and all the other "ites" who were there before the jews. as a 1/10000000000th jebusite, i'm claiming the land of canaan, the jews better give it back to me!

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: MadRat

Originally posted by: Excelsior
Wtf? Where did I say anything about the indian wars being afterwards, etc... are you fvcking dense?

Tell me how my argument is illogical then? Please tell me how you believe the Native Americans that existed at that time should be considered terroists.

Originally posted by: Excelsior
I knew you would think about it like that, but you are simply forgetting the fact that we aren't taking over Iraq. We aren't turning Iraq into a state.

I never said they should be terrorists. You're going further off topic. My point was simple, your point was wrong and you had no reason to criticize KD. You made the point to say that the difference between the Iraq situation and the one with American Indians was different BECAUSE the aforementioned did not include turning Iraq into a state. The situation with American Indians had little to do with turning territories into states, it was all about development of the territory. America is in Iraq developing the territory. The parrallel is much closer than what you suggested.

Good job making sh!t up. I said that about Iraq half-jokingly. Again, where did i say anything about the situation with the American Indians having to do with turning the territories into states. YOU MADE THAT UP. You assumed it, I never said it. Excellent.

You are preaching to the choir, big guy. Here, I will point you to what I actually said, see if you can read and understand it:

"The settlers were bent on taking over the native americans land. "

Is that not true? Last time I checked, it is.

So which point was wrong?

I think now I know why I don't come into P&N much...jesus.

 

[cwgannon]

On a similar note...

According to some of those crazy right-wing "scientists", Europeans may actually have settled America, as we know it, far earlier than the Native Americans, whch effectively serves to eliminate all remorse any of us may still today feel for the genocide of our country's forefathers. (And no, this isn't anything about the Vikings in Newfoundland or anything of that nature.)

If anybody's interested in reading more on this interesting new "theory" (which, much like intelligent design, offers no evidence), pick up this month's issue of Harper's or google "Kennewick Man".

 

[judasmachine]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: 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.

the british were in control. under the rules of war in the past of course they were. its the same rules the conquered would have used themselves if they had won. the turks had much of the land rights and sold much of it to the jewish immigrants. and a lot of the palestinians were also immigrants esp when the british shut off jewish immigration in favor of arab. so who was there first is sort of questionable. then again if you go back to the start i guess you can say the jews were there first right?


as for the american indians well they succeeded the first time with the viking settlers.

yeah you have a point but then the jews had to conquer it too, after wandering in the desert right? or does the bible (the only surviving text and written by jews.) say that is the same land they were in before being taken to egypt? IIRC, they were nomadic before egypt. it does seem rather hard to tell who was where a few thousand years ago, and whether those thousands of years are recorded correctly.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: johnnobts
Maybe terrorism and terrorist are oversimplifications of reality.

not always. In the case of suicide bombers who target non-combatants, even women and children, we need to call a spade a spade. they are terrorists.

I think I prefer to call them murderers. Calling them terrorists implies there is actually a rational basis for their actions, I think they are acting out of hate and a worship of death.

 

[eilute]

I don't think that the term terrrorism existed in the 1700's.

 

[MadRat]

Originally posted by: ExcelsiorGood job making sh!t up. I said that about Iraq half-jokingly. Again, where did i say anything about the situation with the American Indians having to do with turning the territories into states. YOU MADE THAT UP. You assumed it, I never said it. Excellent.

Originally posted by: Excelsior
I knew you would think about it like that, but you are simply forgetting the fact that we aren't taking over Iraq. We aren't turning Iraq into a state.

Perhaps you don't come into P&N much because you don't like counter-criticism back at you.

The point you made - "We aren't turning Iraq into a state." - did mention you believed the difference between them was the fact today the US is NOT turning Iraq into a state. So what can be implied by that is a reference "as opposed to turning Indian territoy into states." Its plain and simple the inference you implied with your comment.

 

[Strk]

Just because we're the only one with America in our name, doesn't mean we're the only spot where you can find Native Americans.