Civilization and savagery cannot co exist. One has to lose to the other.
The coming of the white man was a net benefit to the white man and the indian living in North America.
P.S. Everyone born here is a native American. No one group has the right to arrogate such a title.
The idea that Native americans have some special rights is ludicrous.
They were nomads. Conquering territory wa the rule both for the world
and the indians at the time.
We get it: white people are inherently evil and earth would still be the Garden of Eden if they weren’t around.
When I was in school (50s & early 60s) the PC term for indians as
Aboriginal Americans. Americans like me were called Native Americans,
because we were born here and our families had been here for
In this day, how far back do you have to trace your ancestry to be able
to use ther term Native. My family is traceable back 406 years.
It just took one hundred and eleven years for the ignorant freedom loving Indians to lose America to the Europeans.
It has actually taken less than that for the ignorant freedom loving whites to lose it to the socialists.
The only consolation in the whole thing is that there has to be a purpose behind it that is ordained by God.
I think of it this way.
Why was the nomadic nature worshiping
Amerindian given so much credit for living at one with nature and being
enlightened - while the nomadic nature worshiping Mongol is given so
little credit for living at one with nature and being enlightened?
I read a biography of Lewis and Clark awhile back (?Undaunted Courage?).
In it there was a basic culture clash between white guys who thought
that manhood meant growing up to be prosperous, and well-respected for
leadership in the community, and native guys who thought that manhood
meant being a warrior. The whole idea of having peace with other tribes,
including the white one, seemed ludicrous to young tribesmen, because
it would basically mean that they would never have a chance to be real
men. Peace was for wusses. If those were the underlying assumptions of
the two groups of men, I can see why peace and understanding didn’t
‘well, for classification, what term would you use to define a person who identifies with a pre-columbus ethnicity?’
On the flip side:
" I keep seeing the words “nomad” here and only the Plains Indians could
be identified with that word. I do not know what the percentage of
Indians could legally be called nomads but I believe it to be a small
number on the total population. Tribes like mine, the Yuroks, of the
Klamath River in N. Calif, as well as all their surrounding tribes, were
settled along the river in redwood plank houses and hardly ever moseyed
outside their tribal area. ( Yuroks are thee biggest tribe in Calif.
Too many people on this board don’t know or understand basic American
history. Their ingnorance tends to show up in comments such as the nomad
Post a Comment