The Apache of the Southwest of the States and northern Mexico...

[cactusjumper]

The Apaches' reputation benefitted from their timing in history. Quick and widespread media bolstered their prowess beyond that of earlier, mostly forgotten warriors who preceded them.

Of course they avoided disadvantageous situations - they were smart. Without ever knowing of Sun Tzu's The Art of War, the Apaches nonetheless personified many of the book's precepts, including, "He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot will be victorious."

Steve,

Much of that "media" bolstering, misidentified the Apache as the perp's of......everything. Their "timing in history" was also their downfall. Had they been able to read, and understand "The Art of War", we would have likely had a different outcome.

The army was sure they had Apache trapped in Skull Cave. In their minds, all Indians were Apache.

Take care,

Joe

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Minelab PRO-FIND 35 Waterproof Pinpointer Metal Detector for Experts with Tone ID & Adjustable Sensitivity - Grab it through Amazon!

[Oroblanco]

Cactusjumper wrote

The Apache were definitely an interesting people. Among the other Indian tribes, I would guess they were not as dominating as some think. Just because they avoided capture while being hunted by the Army, does not say that much for their ability to fight. History records many battles that they lost. On the other hand, they were expert at bushwhacking small parties of unprepared travelers. For the most part, they avoided conflicts where they did not have a decided advantage in warriors.
The truth is, they were forced out of many desirable areas by stronger tribes. Probably a tendency that started in Asia and ended in Arizona, when they finally gave up the fight.
It's just history folks.

and

IPUK wrote

The Chiricahua Apache gave the US Army a decent enough fight for over a decade whilst under the leadership of Cochise.
It simply wasn't about "avoiding capture" which defined their fighting abilities; looking at what the army officers who fought them said about the likes of Victorio, Juh, Geronimo, Nane et al., they admired their ferociousness, tenacity and bravery. It wasn't made or dreamt-up at all.

For a people that could never muster more than a couple of hundred warriors for war, compared to such tribes as the Comanche, Sioux or even the Navajoes who could due to their superior numbers, they gave a pretty solid account of themselves and weren't afraid to bring battle to their enemies when forced to do so.

Larger tribes settled for whitey's rule under much less pressure yet the Chiricahua fought to the bitter end and even their womenfolk and children resisted with perserverance.
The Southwest and northern Mexico bares testimony to the Apache people who have left an indelible mark on such a vast area, over such a long period of time and yet were so few in number. They were the true masters of the deserts, mountains and terrain of that part of the world.

Interesting posts, have to agree with much, and respectfully disagree in PART.

There is strong evidence that the famous Apaches of the southwest, were really driven from the southern plains (Texas, NM) by none other than the equally famous Comanches during the 1600s, in large part due to the slave trade, as well as the other profits of a raiding, mounted culture that the Comanches had become earlier than most of the other plains tribes. The foot-bound Apaches were relatively easy targets for the mounted Comanches for over a century, driving many Apaches to the less hospitable desert southwest. Some Apaches of the plains also adopted the horse culture and proceeded to become every bit the terror that the Comanches were, and were able to 'hold their own' but a large part of their people had already moved SW. A good book that well explains the mass movement of Apaches from the plains to the desert is The Other Slavery, the uncovered story of Indian Enslavement in America by Andres Resendez.

Before someone now proceeds to blame the Spanish for buying slaves and other booty from the Comanches and thus fueling the horrific trade, I would point out that when this business started, a large party of Comanches came into New Mexico with a number of captives, mostly Apaches, to sell. When the horrified Spanish refused to buy these slaves, the Comanches proceeded to cut off the heads of their captives in front of the Spanish, which of course resulted in the Spanish agreeing to buy the slaves. Voila, a slave trade is born!

As to the fighting abilities of the Apaches, as none of us were alive when these events were happening, we are limited to viewing it through the written accounts of those that had to face them. These accounts and reports are of course biased, there is bravado, bragging, attempts to belittle the enemy, and alternatively painting the Apaches as invincible enemies, the devil incarnate. Based on the outcomes of numerous and mostly small battles, the Apaches won and lost many fights. But yet were these real victories, and real defeats? A survivor of an Apache raid that seemed to drive off the warriors, might view the outcome as a defeat of the Apaches, yet the Apaches might have already accomplished their goals and simply retreated by choice rather than suffer un-necessary casualties. By the time of the American-Apache wars, the Apache numbers had fallen precipitously, but a century earlier their numbers were quite on a par with other major tribes such as the Navajos. We have from Spanish sources several estimates of Apache numbers which may of course be far off the mark, but are logical when one takes into consideration the continual attrition loss of never-ending warfare. Most witness accounts of encounters with Apaches (battles) credited them with being very brave, able to appear to be more numerous than reality, and to engage and disengage from battle at will. Being inferior in numbers, with a very low rate of replacements for losses in battles, this strategy is both logical and best available to them.

Today the Apaches like most of the major tribes that fought against the American 'conquest' have been glorified, romanticized and greatly distorted by books and especially by Hollywood. They are painted as the noble red men, defending family and home which is partly true, and ignoring or minimising their actual record as rather vicious enemies, brutal almost beyond belief, capable of being deceitful, treacherous, capturing and enslaving enemies, committing butchery and savagery beyond most other tribes. We have eyewitness records of 'white' women that had their infant children literally torn from their arms and immediately beating the brains out of the child in front of the mothers. This is not to say that the Americans, Mexicans and Spanish did not also practice savagery and butchery against the Apaches (and any other tribe that might appear to be Apaches like the Yavapais) but unfortunately most people today have a very unrealistic idea of the Indians and that period of history. Even when not at war (which was almost never) life for the Apaches, and all other tribes for that matter, was precarious and difficult. Starvation was always lurking just around the corner, suffering through winters and the very real possibility of sudden assault by enemies made for a life that most today would find unbearable. One of the rather surprising facts of life for "wild" tribes were suicides, quite common among many tribes and especially by women, whose lot in this culture was far from admirable. It is a testament to the courage and fortitude of all Indian tribes that they were able to endure and survive, especially when you remember that some tribes were literally exterminated. Many people in the American southwest and northern Mexico wanted the Apaches to be exterminated as well.

Sorry for getting carried away there, but for anyone that may think the Apaches were not so great as fighters, I would suggest to read the accounts of the participants of the battle of Apache Pass (1862), which was a two-day standup fight, and is hardly the only such example, another would be their mass assault on Tucson, 1776 if memory serves, allied with the Navajos for that one. Many underestimated the Apaches and learned the hard way.

Last point in this very long winded post but there are good reasons why the Apaches surrendered, as with all the other Amerindian tribes. Their lives were not SO wonderful, and the deal they obtained from the US government providing them with a steady and reliable source of food, was a powerful incentive, coupled with an end to the never ending warfare in which they were usually the hunted. Let us not romanticize them, nor minimize their place in history.

Please do continue;

　
　

 

[Interested Party in UK]

IPUK,

What do you consider "the bitter end"?

Good luck,

Joe Ribaudo

CJ,


Interesting question.

My definition of "the bitter end", would, perhaps, be what the Chiricahuas fighting defined it to be; fighting until the 'enemy' was gone or one was eliminated. There wasn't a Geneva Convention in place at the time, and I very much doubt any party would have adhered to it even if it had been. The enmity was very harsh in all quarters and turbulent times called for unjust decisions and practices.

IPUK

 

[Interested Party in UK]

Cactusjumper wrote

and

IPUK wrote

Interesting posts, have to agree with much, and respectfully disagree in PART.

There is strong evidence that the famous Apaches of the southwest, were really driven from the southern plains (Texas, NM) by none other than the equally famous Comanches during the 1600s, in large part due to the slave trade, as well as the other profits of a raiding, mounted culture that the Comanches had become earlier than most of the other plains tribes. The foot-bound Apaches were relatively easy targets for the mounted Comanches for over a century, driving many Apaches to the less hospitable desert southwest. Some Apaches of the plains also adopted the horse culture and proceeded to become every bit the terror that the Comanches were, and were able to 'hold their own' but a large part of their people had already moved SW. A good book that well explains the mass movement of Apaches from the plains to the desert is The Other Slavery, the uncovered story of Indian Enslavement in America by Andres Resendez.

Before someone now proceeds to blame the Spanish for buying slaves and other booty from the Comanches and thus fueling the horrific trade, I would point out that when this business started, a large party of Comanches came into New Mexico with a number of captives, mostly Apaches, to sell. When the horrified Spanish refused to buy these slaves, the Comanches proceeded to cut off the heads of their captives in front of the Spanish, which of course resulted in the Spanish agreeing to buy the slaves. Voila, a slave trade is born!

As to the fighting abilities of the Apaches, as none of us were alive when these events were happening, we are limited to viewing it through the written accounts of those that had to face them. These accounts and reports are of course biased, there is bravado, bragging, attempts to belittle the enemy, and alternatively painting the Apaches as invincible enemies, the devil incarnate. Based on the outcomes of numerous and mostly small battles, the Apaches won and lost many fights. But yet were these real victories, and real defeats? A survivor of an Apache raid that seemed to drive off the warriors, might view the outcome as a defeat of the Apaches, yet the Apaches might have already accomplished their goals and simply retreated by choice rather than suffer un-necessary casualties. By the time of the American-Apache wars, the Apache numbers had fallen precipitously, but a century earlier their numbers were quite on a par with other major tribes such as the Navajos. We have from Spanish sources several estimates of Apache numbers which may of course be far off the mark, but are logical when one takes into consideration the continual attrition loss of never-ending warfare. Most witness accounts of encounters with Apaches (battles) credited them with being very brave, able to appear to be more numerous than reality, and to engage and disengage from battle at will. Being inferior in numbers, with a very low rate of replacements for losses in battles, this strategy is both logical and best available to them.

Today the Apaches like most of the major tribes that fought against the American 'conquest' have been glorified, romanticized and greatly distorted by books and especially by Hollywood. They are painted as the noble red men, defending family and home which is partly true, and ignoring or minimising their actual record as rather vicious enemies, brutal almost beyond belief, capable of being deceitful, treacherous, capturing and enslaving enemies, committing butchery and savagery beyond most other tribes. We have eyewitness records of 'white' women that had their infant children literally torn from their arms and immediately beating the brains out of the child in front of the mothers. This is not to say that the Americans, Mexicans and Spanish did not also practice savagery and butchery against the Apaches (and any other tribe that might appear to be Apaches like the Yavapais) but unfortunately most people today have a very unrealistic idea of the Indians and that period of history. Even when not at war (which was almost never) life for the Apaches, and all other tribes for that matter, was precarious and difficult. Starvation was always lurking just around the corner, suffering through winters and the very real possibility of sudden assault by enemies made for a life that most today would find unbearable. One of the rather surprising facts of life for "wild" tribes were suicides, quite common among many tribes and especially by women, whose lot in this culture was far from admirable. It is a testament to the courage and fortitude of all Indian tribes that they were able to endure and survive, especially when you remember that some tribes were literally exterminated. Many people in the American southwest and northern Mexico wanted the Apaches to be exterminated as well.

Sorry for getting carried away there, but for anyone that may think the Apaches were not so great as fighters, I would suggest to read the accounts of the participants of the battle of Apache Pass (1862), which was a two-day standup fight, and is hardly the only such example, another would be their mass assault on Tucson, 1776 if memory serves, allied with the Navajos for that one. Many underestimated the Apaches and learned the hard way.

Last point in this very long winded post but there are good reasons why the Apaches surrendered, as with all the other Amerindian tribes. Their lives were not SO wonderful, and the deal they obtained from the US government providing them with a steady and reliable source of food, was a powerful incentive, coupled with an end to the never ending warfare in which they were usually the hunted. Let us not romanticize them, nor minimize their place in history.

Please do continue;

　
　

Some excellent and extremely valid points there, Oroblanco.

I would also like to add that the 'civilised' Spanish were taking slaves the moment they set foot on present-day Mexico and, indeed, brought slaves from the Old world to the New. They did not need any 'lessons' from the Comanche on this front. The difference being that the Comanche tribe was stilling living in a Stone Age existence whereas the enlightened Spanish were supposed to be 'civilised'.

It would be an extremely naive fellow who obtained his/her views of the Apache from Hollywood fodder - at times the Apache have been shown as 'savages' and then as 'hard-done-by natives' but this is all a mere trend of revisionism. There is huge amounts of records, information, books, details, reports and journals from people who did view and take part in what was happening at the time, for one to arrive at some sort of balanced view. It could be said that by being without constraint and limit in their mode of warfare and attack/defence was a mechanism for the Apache to try and 'protect' their reputation and fear-factor amongst other tribes, Mexicans and Americans. Not right or fair but maybe an indicator of the environment they operated in?

Also, the Reservation system was the reason many went on the warpath at times. Even some of the army officers in charge of patrolling and keeping the peace bitterly complained against the way the Injuns were fleeced, cheated and denied what was due to them by crooked contractors, civilian authorities and corrupt politicians. Most settled for the hopeless life of a reservation in part due to at least being 'safe' and not constantly on the warpath, but I very much doubt they enjoyed being there.

To those that still disagree, in the annals of history and time, have a few thousand people ever made such an impact over such a large area and stirred such controversy and polemic views??


IPUK

 

[sdcfia]

Also, the Reservation system was the reason many went on the warpath at times. Even some of the army officers in charge of patrolling and keeping the peace bitterly complained against the way the Injuns were fleeced, cheated and denied what was due to them by crooked contractors, civilian authorities and corrupt politicians. Most settled for the hopeless life of a reservation in part due to at least being 'safe' and not constantly on the warpath, but I very much doubt they enjoyed being there.

To those that still disagree, in the annals of history and time, have a few thousand people ever made such an impact over such a large area and stirred such controversy and polemic views??

IPUK

If you think your highlighted passage above is a relic of the past, think again. I've seen first-hand how the natives have been mistreated by the system created to isolate them and "remedy the Indian problem." Even as we speak, the pattern continues, apparently unabated in ND.

 

[cactusjumper]

Some excellent and extremely valid points there, Oroblanco.

I would also like to add that the 'civilised' Spanish were taking slaves the moment they set foot on present-day Mexico and, indeed, brought slaves from the Old world to the New. They did not need any 'lessons' from the Comanche on this front. The difference being that the Comanche tribe was stilling living in a Stone Age existence whereas the enlightened Spanish were supposed to be 'civilised'.

It would be an extremely naive fellow who obtained his/her views of the Apache from Hollywood fodder - at times the Apache have been shown as 'savages' and then as 'hard-done-by natives' but this is all a mere trend of revisionism. There is huge amounts of records, information, books, details, reports and journals from people who did view and take part in what was happening at the time, for one to arrive at some sort of balanced view. It could be said that by being without constraint and limit in their mode of warfare and attack/defence was a mechanism for the Apache to try and 'protect' their reputation and fear-factor amongst other tribes, Mexicans and Americans. Not right or fair but maybe an indicator of the environment they operated in?

Also, the Reservation system was the reason many went on the warpath at times. Even some of the army officers in charge of patrolling and keeping the peace bitterly complained against the way the Injuns were fleeced, cheated and denied what was due to them by crooked contractors, civilian authorities and corrupt politicians. Most settled for the hopeless life of a reservation in part due to at least being 'safe' and not constantly on the warpath, but I very much doubt they enjoyed being there.

To those that still disagree, in the annals of history and time, have a few thousand people ever made such an impact over such a large area and stirred such controversy and polemic views??


IPUK

IPUK,

It's true that no one treated the Apache as equals, and that did cause a lot of unrest and a great deal of paranoia amongst them. They, like all Indians relegated to reservations were usually cheated by those who were supposed to help them. Reservation life prohibited them from making and getting drunk on tiswan, and abusing their women. That was often the catalyst for them jumping the reservation.

The real reason for their demise, was the loss of warriors lives and more importantly, the loss of women. No babies, no replacing the warriors lost. Over time, loss of population was the main enemy. For a good explanation of this problem, you might want to read, "A Fateful Day in 1698...." by Deni J. Seymour. The facts in the book are well documented.

Three books that give insightful, yet different views of Apache life are: "Don't Let the Sun Step Over You....." by Eva Tulene Watt, with the assistance of Keith H. Basso, "Apache Mothers and Daughters" by Ruth McDonald Boyer and Narcissus Duffy Gayton and "Women of the Apache Nation" by H. Henrietta Stockel. All are well written and provide a different perspective on Apache Life, from a variety of Apache women's experiences.

Good luck,

Joe Ribaudo

 

[Oroblanco]

IPUK I would suggest to read that book posted earlier, concerning the slave trade in the American southwest. True the Spaniards did introduce slavery into the Americas, yet slavery was a thriving business among many Amerindian tribes including the Aztecs, Incas, Apaches, Sioux, Iroquois, in fact all over both American continents before any European set foot here. Also, the Comanches literally blackmailing the Spanish into buying slaves (mostly Apaches) is a documented fact. The governors of New Mexico were under strict orders not to allow slavery, and got cornered into doing it anyway rather than have their powerful Comanche neighbors simply beheading their captives at their trading fairs. Not every evil was introduced into the Americas by the "whiteys".

Please do continue;

 

[azdave35]

IPUK I would suggest to read that book posted earlier, concerning the slave trade in the American southwest. True the Spaniards did introduce slavery into the Americas, yet slavery was a thriving business among many Amerindian tribes including the Aztecs, Incas, Apaches, Sioux, Iroquois, in fact all over both American continents before any European set foot here. Also, the Comanches literally blackmailing the Spanish into buying slaves (mostly Apaches) is a documented fact. The governors of New Mexico were under strict orders not to allow slavery, and got cornered into doing it anyway rather than have their powerful Comanche neighbors simply beheading their captives at their trading fairs. Not every evil was introduced into the Americas by the "whiteys".

Please do continue;

all whitey ever tried to do is civilize the savages....apparently he failed miserably

 

[Crowfriend]

This is my trophy foto from yesterday. A breached cache at an Apache site in the Peloncillos.

 

[Interested Party in UK]

IPUK,

It's true that no one treated the Apache as equals, and that did cause a lot of unrest and a great deal of paranoia amongst them. They, like all Indians relegated to reservations were usually cheated by those who were supposed to help them. Reservation life prohibited them from making and getting drunk on tiswan, and abusing their women. That was often the catalyst for them jumping the reservation.

The real reason for their demise, was the loss of warriors lives and more importantly, the loss of women. No babies, no replacing the warriors lost. Over time, loss of population was the main enemy. For a good explanation of this problem, you might want to read, "A Fateful Day in 1698...." by Deni J. Seymour. The facts in the book are well documented.

Three books that give insightful, yet different views of Apache life are: "Don't Let the Sun Step Over You....." by Eva Tulene Watt, with the assistance of Keith H. Basso, "Apache Mothers and Daughters" by Ruth McDonald Boyer and Narcissus Duffy Gayton and "Women of the Apache Nation" by H. Henrietta Stockel. All are well written and provide a different perspective on Apache Life, from a variety of Apache women's experiences.

Good luck,

Joe Ribaudo

Thank you CJ, for the recommended reading; I have never really read or looked into the Apache lifestyle from a woman's point of view or experience(s).

Abusing their womenfolk and drinking tiswin went on surreptitiously and I don't believe it was a major factor for the Chiricahua breaking-out. I believe it was more to do with a perceived danger of past transgressions and the fear of punishment. For some younger warriors, it was the opportunity to earn reputations, raid and accumulate possessions. There was also the very real hankering of trying to 'delay' the present and recreate the old way of life. Some warriors had never been on the reservation even by the 1880 and had always lived 'free'.

With regards to your point about the ever decreasing number of warriors, the indomitable Cochise stated as much to General Howard in their peace conference, that he'd killed ten Americans for each and every warrior of his that was killed, but whilst the opposition had numerous people to take the place of those gone, he had a finite amount of warriors. He still brought the war to the Americans but knew that for his Apache to survive as a people, he needed to make peace.

IPUK

 

[Interested Party in UK]

IPUK I would suggest to read that book posted earlier, concerning the slave trade in the American southwest. True the Spaniards did introduce slavery into the Americas, yet slavery was a thriving business among many Amerindian tribes including the Aztecs, Incas, Apaches, Sioux, Iroquois, in fact all over both American continents before any European set foot here. Also, the Comanches literally blackmailing the Spanish into buying slaves (mostly Apaches) is a documented fact. The governors of New Mexico were under strict orders not to allow slavery, and got cornered into doing it anyway rather than have their powerful Comanche neighbors simply beheading their captives at their trading fairs. Not every evil was introduced into the Americas by the "whiteys".

Please do continue;

Oroblanco,

As you correctly pointed out, slavery did exist in the Americas and it was brutal - there is no denying that.

What I would question is this: was anybody better at creating a system of 'efficiency' and maximising 'output' than the Europeans in search of wealth?
Some might have been earnest in converting the 'heathens' to their particular god, but the vast majority wanted power and fortune. Even though civilisations such as the Inca and Aztecs may have been extraordinarily advanced and successful in some aspects of their culture, in other ways they were still living in a Stone-Age existence so without the advancements to the relevant time-periods, they would have been classed as "backwards" in many ways. So, to say that "because they were already at 'it'", in my opinion, doesn't really negate that Europe had an impact on the New World which was less than salubrious in many ways.

Slavery may have 'ended' in the US after the Civil War there, but colour system was/is a big factor.


IPUK

 

[cactusjumper]

Oroblanco,

As you correctly pointed out, slavery did exist in the Americas and it was brutal - there is no denying that.

What I would question is this: was anybody better at creating a system of 'efficiency' and maximising 'output' than the Europeans in search of wealth?
Some might have been earnest in converting the 'heathens' to their particular god, but the vast majority wanted power and fortune. Even though civilisations such as the Inca and Aztecs may have been extraordinarily advanced and successful in some aspects of their culture, in other ways they were still living in a Stone-Age existence so without the advancements to the relevant time-periods, they would have been classed as "backwards" in many ways. So, to say that "because they were already at 'it'", in my opinion, doesn't really negate that Europe had an impact on the New World which was less than salubrious in many ways.

Slavery may have 'ended' in the US after the Civil War there, but colour system was/is a big factor.


IPUK

IPUK,

You can't beat Mother Nature's survival of the fittest to weed out and strengthen the earth's population. It's what keeps us all from having to huddle around a giant campfire to keep from freezing. You simply turn up the thermostat. If the Native American's way of life was superior to what we have today, it would have come out on top. With all of its warts, most people would rather be living today than in the 17-1800s, or any earlier period.

Along the way, we have made some grave mistakes, but the only ones who make no mistakes are people who make no decisions. As for the color system and slavery, I would say the last eight years should have ended the color question. The color of someone's skin may still be a problem for some (few), and that will never change but, overall, it's a minor factor.

Take care,

Joe Ribaudo

 

[Interested Party in UK]

IPUK,

You can't beat Mother Nature's survival of the fittest to weed out and strengthen the earth's population. It's what keeps us all from having to huddle around a giant campfire to keep from freezing. You simply turn up the thermostat. If the Native American's way of life was superior to what we have today, it would have come out on top. With all of its warts, most people would rather be living today than in the 17-1800s, or any earlier period.

Along the way, we have made some grave mistakes, but the only ones who make no mistakes are people who make no decisions. As for the color system and slavery, I would say the last eight years should have ended the color question. The color of someone's skin may still be a problem for some (few), and that will never change but, overall, it's a minor factor.

Take care,

Joe Ribaudo

CJ,

I concur with your view of "survival of the fittest" being the indicator of the advancement with way of life prevails.

Most definitely, the vast majority of people would live in the present with its creature comforts than have to toil in the drudgery and hardships of times gone by.

With regards to the colour question, from my experiences and travels, I would say colour/race/religion still fuels ignorance, bigotry, suspicion and hate. I can assure you I am no wishy-washy liberal, but would like to believe I am an individual that respects fairness and respect.

By the way, I do not agree with how some in the States 'hijacked' the outgoing president as being of a particular background when it was his maternal grandparents who helped bring him up and instil the values he has. I also did/do not agree with how certain folk did not like him for one reason and that reason only.


IPUK

 

[Old]

UK,

I personally think our setting President is a very likeable guy. Misguided in some of his ideas but likable. He didn't get where he is by being a despicable personality. He's intelligent, witty, deep thinking and charming when he wants to be.....all to a fault.

However; he carries around a chip on his shoulders as big as Texas. Most times he can't see reality past that large chip. That chip overshadows what could have been a time of greater healing in our nation. That chip came from the same grand parents that raised an anarchist, rebellious, communistic daughter. And; sent their young grandson to set at the feet of one of America's most destructive mentors.

I see his quest to know his deceased father on a deeper level as quite a sad time in his life. One that left him conflicted within his own soul and haunts his thoughts still.

He's a sum of his many parts. Some good; some not so good.

 

[azdave35]

CJ,

I concur with your view of "survival of the fittest" being the indicator of the advancement with way of life prevails.

Most definitely, the vast majority of people would live in the present with its creature comforts than have to toil in the drudgery and hardships of times gone by.

With regards to the colour question, from my experiences and travels, I would say colour/race/religion still fuels ignorance, bigotry, suspicion and hate. I can assure you I am no wishy-washy liberal, but would like to believe I am an individual that respects fairness and respect.

By the way, I do not agree with how some in the States 'hijacked' the outgoing president as being of a particular background when it was his maternal grandparents who helped bring him up and instil the values he has. I also did/do not agree with how certain folk did not like him for one reason and that reason only.


IPUK

obviously you have never been over here...the only racism going on here is what the media crams down our throats...all of the individual races got along very good until the current president did everything in his power to turn us all against each other...it has worked so far but soon will turn back around when he is gone

 

[EarnieP]

obviously you have never been over here...the only racism going on here is what the media crams down our throats...all of the individual races got along very good until the current president did everything in his power to turn us all against each other...it has worked so far but soon will turn back around when he is gone

Dave, I'm usually a fan of your input but that comment is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read on TN.

 

[cactusjumper]

Dave, I'm usually a fan of your input but that comment is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read on TN.

Earnie,

Dave is dead on in many peoples opinions. You have, obviously, missed some really ridiculous posts.

Good luck,

Joe Ribaudo

 

[EarnieP]

Earnie,

Dave is dead on in many peoples opinions. You have, obviously, missed some really ridiculous posts.

Good luck,

Ribaudo

People's "opinions" never determine the truthfulness of any idea.

You are right, there have been more than a few other doozies posted.
But I like to think that Dave knows better, some others perhaps not.

 

[Oroblanco]

Oroblanco,

As you correctly pointed out, slavery did exist in the Americas and it was brutal - there is no denying that.

What I would question is this: was anybody better at creating a system of 'efficiency' and maximising 'output' than the Europeans in search of wealth?
Some might have been earnest in converting the 'heathens' to their particular god, but the vast majority wanted power and fortune. Even though civilisations such as the Inca and Aztecs may have been extraordinarily advanced and successful in some aspects of their culture, in other ways they were still living in a Stone-Age existence so without the advancements to the relevant time-periods, they would have been classed as "backwards" in many ways. So, to say that "because they were already at 'it'", in my opinion, doesn't really negate that Europe had an impact on the New World which was less than salubrious in many ways.

Slavery may have 'ended' in the US after the Civil War there, but colour system was/is a big factor.


IPUK

Not to take issue with any of the posts, just something to consider.

A good case could be made that the Amerindians actually WON the war of conquest. That may sound strange to you, however consider this:

A majority of Americans claim some Amerindian ancestry, which if you think about it, and remember that the Amerindians were heavily outnumbered except for the very beginning of European colonization, says something.

America adopted a model of government that is more related to the Iroquois system than to anything European. Hence we have no parliament, no house of Lords etc.

Many places (geographic) have Amerindian names, from Wyoming to Massachusetts, which means that the original people's geographic names survived this "conquest".

Many of the tribes retained at least a portion of their former lands, in the reservation systems. Love them or hate them, the reservations are a real evidence that the tribal peoples were able to hold on to at least SOME of their lands, despite being so heavily outnumbered by the "whiteys" whom were bent on seizing all of the lands.

Most tribal peoples have superior rights in the US, as they are in the rather odd position of having citizenship as US citizens, and as citizens of their tribal nations. In a real sense, they are a separate class of citizens that in many cases are still being paid simply for being members of their tribe, due to the treaty requirements. None of the 'whiteys' are able to obtain payments from the federal government completely aside from any kind of welfare or food stamps system, simply because of their ancestry.

Further, within these reservations, the tribal peoples have their own legal systems, police and courts etc. This too indicates a very tangible type of victory.

Even in our military, our forces now fight more like the way the Amerindians did, than the ancient European way; we do not see masses of men lined up to fire at the enemy for example, it is more like a series of ambushes and mobile warfare. This is just a few examples of the way the Europeans became Amerindian, right down to the very foods we eat today. (The so-called Columbian exchange)

For a comparison simply look south of the border, where the rule was to totally assimilate the tribal peoples. Their language, culture, religions etc were to be utterly erased, and forced to become Spanish speaking Mexicans. An example is in the once numerous and powerful Opata tribe, today hardly any can be identified as Opata, much less speak the language. The Spanish system might have some benefits when compared to the American system, in that eventually the tribal peoples became on a par with other citizens, but it literally destroyed their tribal culture, in some cases completely.

All of which is debatable as to whether it was good or bad - and today we should be grown up enough to realize that we are all in the same boat and live in the same land, we ought not be fighting amongst ourselves. Yet a close look at the reality of most Amerindian tribes as they existed before and shortly after contact with the Europeans, we can see some pretty horrific practices like the mass human sacrifice of the Aztecs, the never ending tribal warfare continent-wide, (not every tribe always at war with every other tribe of course) the slavery, and even cannibalism among some tribes. The Susquehannocks of PA/MD for example were enthusiastic cannibals. Would you consider that life to have been beneficial, superior to the European culture that replaced and in a very real way, melded with the tribal peoples?

This article is focused on the Comanches, but would also fit to a large degree the Apaches of the southwest:
The Real-Life Tontos: How Comanche Indians Butchered Babies, Roasted Enemies Alive and Would Ride 1,000 Miles to Wipe Out One Family - American Renaissance

 

[cactusjumper]

Not to take issue with any of the posts, just something to consider.

A good case could be made that the Amerindians actually WON the war of conquest. That may sound strange to you, however consider this:

A majority of Americans claim some Amerindian ancestry, which if you think about it, and remember that the Amerindians were heavily outnumbered except for the very beginning of European colonization, says something.

America adopted a model of government that is more related to the Iroquois system than to anything European. Hence we have no parliament, no house of Lords etc.

Many places (geographic) have Amerindian names, from Wyoming to Massachusetts, which means that the original people's geographic names survived this "conquest".

Many of the tribes retained at least a portion of their former lands, in the reservation systems. Love them or hate them, the reservations are a real evidence that the tribal peoples were able to hold on to at least SOME of their lands, despite being so heavily outnumbered by the "whiteys" whom were bent on seizing all of the lands.

Most tribal peoples have superior rights in the US, as they are in the rather odd position of having citizenship as US citizens, and as citizens of their tribal nations. In a real sense, they are a separate class of citizens that in many cases are still being paid simply for being members of their tribe, due to the treaty requirements. None of the 'whiteys' are able to obtain payments from the federal government completely aside from any kind of welfare or food stamps system, simply because of their ancestry.

Further, within these reservations, the tribal peoples have their own legal systems, police and courts etc. This too indicates a very tangible type of victory.

Even in our military, our forces now fight more like the way the Amerindians did, than the ancient European way; we do not see masses of men lined up to fire at the enemy for example, it is more like a series of ambushes and mobile warfare. This is just a few examples of the way the Europeans became Amerindian, right down to the very foods we eat today. (The so-called Columbian exchange)

For a comparison simply look south of the border, where the rule was to totally assimilate the tribal peoples. Their language, culture, religions etc were to be utterly erased, and forced to become Spanish speaking Mexicans. An example is in the once numerous and powerful Opata tribe, today hardly any can be identified as Opata, much less speak the language. The Spanish system might have some benefits when compared to the American system, in that eventually the tribal peoples became on a par with other citizens, but it literally destroyed their tribal culture, in some cases completely.

All of which is debatable as to whether it was good or bad - and today we should be grown up enough to realize that we are all in the same boat and live in the same land, we ought not be fighting amongst ourselves. Yet a close look at the reality of most Amerindian tribes as they existed before and shortly after contact with the Europeans, we can see some pretty horrific practices like the mass human sacrifice of the Aztecs, the never ending tribal warfare continent-wide, (not every tribe always at war with every other tribe of course) the slavery, and even cannibalism among some tribes. The Susquehannocks of PA/MD for example were enthusiastic cannibals. Would you consider that life to have been beneficial, superior to the European culture that replaced and in a very real way, melded with the tribal peoples?

This article is focused on the Comanches, but would also fit to a large degree the Apaches of the southwest:
The Real-Life Tontos: How Comanche Indians Butchered Babies, Roasted Enemies Alive and Would Ride 1,000 Miles to Wipe Out One Family - American Renaissance

Roy,

Hope all is well with you and Beth.

Very good post, except for the portion I highlighted. I believe it is still being taught that to take a defensive position, even a machine gun emplacement, you mass your troops and all stand and fire on full automatic, while advancing straight into the enemies fire. That's what they taught us during the Viet Nam War. It's not a lesson I bought into.

Anyone out there have another opinion to the Superior Firepower theory?

Take care,

Joe