You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
4

[–] glassuser 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

You're not thinking about native americans the right way.

They weren't one large somewhat-unified bloc like Europeans were. They were more like Europeans of a few hundred years earlier - fairly isolated nations made of confederations of separate states within them. Not only were there spats and little coordination between the "states", but the larger nations rarely communicated much outside of war demands. They wouldn't even have known there was a different coast a couple thousand miles away, let alone that other white men were landing there.

They also did not see white man as a single force with a single goal (even though they weren't, that's effectively how it came out). They would have usually seen them as another neighboring tribe/state/nation with better tools and weapons.

So it's not like there was some continental fellowship of native americans who got together and decided to keep fighting each other instead of the white man. And that might be something to think about how you could apply to politics today too...

0
3

[–] wuzizname 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Exactly right... they were hundreds of tribes, some friendly to one another some hostile to one another. Some more advanced than others, others still practised cannibalism. They had no math, no architecture, no roads, no buildings, no agriculture.. and no horses until the Euros gave them horses. They were stone aged hunter gatherers living in large family tribes, like the abbos and the africans.

0
1

[–] Diogenes_The_Cynic [S] 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

I like this take, but its still frustrating reading their history.

0
0

[–] glassuser ago  (edited ago)

It is very frustrating. But hindsight is 20/20.