aTmAg said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

It's hilarious how you filibuster on the irrelevant to hide the fact that you are conveniently ignoring the meat of the argument. I'm going to focus on one point to force you to address it:

The English weren't the Spanish. There is no justification to attack the English because decades prior the Spanish treated you poorly.

---

Guys (only guys) wearing armor, carrying weapons and flags, who land, claim your territory, act belligerently and violently towards your people, and demand both assistance and submission… Big difference. I'll say this, though, the Spanish invested less in actually seizing and militarizing Powhatan land. If anything, the English behaved far, far worse. You keep ignoring that.

---

The English were attacked first WITHIN DAYS OF LANDING. Of course, the English would "act belligernetly and violently" towards them after that.

And the freaking indians walked around with weapons too. The idea that the English deserved it because they were wearing armor, carrying weapons, and flags is idiotic.

---

Holy cow, you are obtuse. The English looked and behaved exactly as the Spanish before them. Even worse in many respects given that they landed in force and immediately established a military base on Powhatan land. Of course they weren't welcomed with open arms! Of course the Powhatans weren't particularly interested in making military invaders feel at home on their lands! How is this even an argument you're making?

aTmAg said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

If he wants to talk torture, we could talk a lot about Cromwell in Ireland.

---

Yet the settlers were shocked by the torture that the indians inflicted on each other and on settlers. That goes to show something.

---

Not really. Violent, gory stories were extremely popular reading in early modern and modern Europe. The tone taken towards accounts of what Cromwell did, or the Swedish army during the 30 Years War, are the same, though with a side aim of justifying any atrocities towards the natives. English authors didn't tend to linger on how they butchered native women and children, or burned them alive.

Now we have violent, gory games that predict a violent, gory future based on humanities violent, gory past.

aTmAg said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

It's hilarious how you filibuster on the irrelevant to hide the fact that you are conveniently ignoring the meat of the argument. I'm going to focus on one point to force you to address it:

The English weren't the Spanish. There is no justification to attack the English because decades prior the Spanish treated you poorly.

---

Guys (only guys) wearing armor, carrying weapons and flags, who land, claim your territory, act belligerently and violently towards your people, and demand both assistance and submission… Big difference. I'll say this, though, the Spanish invested less in actually seizing and militarizing Powhatan land. If anything, the English behaved far, far worse. You keep ignoring that.

---

The English were attacked first WITHIN DAYS OF LANDING. Of course, the English would "act belligernetly and violently" towards them after that.

And the freaking indians walked around with weapons too. The idea that the English deserved it because they were wearing armor, carrying weapons, and flags is idiotic.

---

Holy cow, you are obtuse. The English looked and behaved exactly as the Spanish before them. Even worse in many respects given that they landed in force and immediately established a military base on Powhatan land. Of course they weren't welcomed with open arms! Of course the Powhatans weren't particularly interested in making military invaders feel at home on their lands! How is this even an argument you're making?

---

You don't get to attack somebody based on how they look. Not if you don't want to risk getting your ass kicked in response. They tried to impose their "might to make right" ideology on the settlers and found out the hard way they were wrong. Thankfully we don't have to deal with these new world terrorists today. We should be thankful that the settlers died to protect future generations.

---

Terrorists? Defending your home from invaders is terrorism?

aTmAg said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

If he wants to talk torture, we could talk a lot about Cromwell in Ireland.

---

Yet the settlers were shocked by the torture that the indians inflicted on each other and on settlers. That goes to show something.

---

Not really. Violent, gory stories were extremely popular reading in early modern and modern Europe. The tone taken towards accounts of what Cromwell did, or the Swedish army during the 30 Years War, are the same, though with a side aim of justifying any atrocities towards the natives. English authors didn't tend to linger on how they butchered native women and children, or burned them alive.

---

Yeah, really. Just read the accounts of the settlers.

The torture in Europe was so unordinary, that they went out of their way to record it for posterity. In the new world, the natives made it so ordinary that it became routine. Entire families were wiped out in deliberate terrorism campaigns and of course you defend them. Usually nobody knew how they died. We only know a tiny percentage because some escaped or survived a few days to tell the story. And yet it their stories were always extremely horrible.

One could only imagine how much torture went on over thousands of years in the new world. If only the indians weren't so ass-backward that they wrote stuff down. They almost certainly put Europe to shame. As the tiny bit we do know is pretty much all really bad. I guess they are glad today since they can pretend to be victims and modern morons fall for it.

---

I've read far more accounts than you apparently have. If you had, you'd know what the English did at places like Fort Mystic and during the Great Swamp Fight. You'd know about the Paxton Boys and Gnadenhutten. You'd know about any number of massacres perpetrated by the British and US militaries. Torture and murder were common from Europeans. It was extremely common towards other Europeans. And it was breathlessly reported. The torture wasn't the extreme thing. They did that all the time. It was torturing English or American citizens that was considered extreme. Torture was fine if you were doing the torturing.

Now, now. I remember aTmAg being very harsh towards George Zimmerman for judging Trayvon Martin based on how he looked.

BQ78 said:

---

Quote:

---

You don't get to attack somebody based on how they look.

---

The irony in this statement is thick.

---

How so? You guys spent half this thread talking about how Europeans tortured each other. Yet they basically looked like each other. The notion that Europeans killed indians merely based on how they look is flat out false (rather than to protect their families). They were attacked and they responded.

aTmAg said:

---

BQ78 said:

---

Quote:

---

You don't get to attack somebody based on how they look.

---

The irony in this statement is thick.

---

How so? You guys spent half this thread talking about how Europeans tortured each other. Yet they basically looked like each other. The notion that Europeans killed indians merely based on how they look is flat out false (rather than to protect their families). They were attacked and they responded.

---

And again, reading the sources with a critical eye might help you. They absolutely escalated the violence based on their beliefs about Indians as a "race" (given that term and understanding evolves through the 17th to 19th centuries). Peter Silver's "Our Savage Neighbors" would be a good start for you. As would Jill Lepore's "The Name of War," and John Grenier's "The First Way of War." These are easily accessible pieces of scholarship that delve into the primary sources and analyze them based on the societies that produced the sources.

English colonists did not see Indians as equals and couched it in racialized language. They used things like scalp bounties, where they paid for the scalps of Indians, including women and children, to dehumanize the Natives. They used religion, terms similar to the antisemitism common of the era, to place all Indians as outside their society. Even praying Indians were suspect since they weren't English (look up what happened on Deer Island in Boston Harbor). It was absolutely not a case of just responding to violence. It was deliberate dehumanization.

And you still can't admit the English were invaders.

aTmAg said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

It's hilarious how you filibuster on the irrelevant to hide the fact that you are conveniently ignoring the meat of the argument. I'm going to focus on one point to force you to address it:

The English weren't the Spanish. There is no justification to attack the English because decades prior the Spanish treated you poorly.

---

Guys (only guys) wearing armor, carrying weapons and flags, who land, claim your territory, act belligerently and violently towards your people, and demand both assistance and submission… Big difference. I'll say this, though, the Spanish invested less in actually seizing and militarizing Powhatan land. If anything, the English behaved far, far worse. You keep ignoring that.

---

The English were attacked first WITHIN DAYS OF LANDING. Of course, the English would "act belligernetly and violently" towards them after that.

And the freaking indians walked around with weapons too. The idea that the English deserved it because they were wearing armor, carrying weapons, and flags is idiotic.

---

Holy cow, you are obtuse. The English looked and behaved exactly as the Spanish before them. Even worse in many respects given that they landed in force and immediately established a military base on Powhatan land. Of course they weren't welcomed with open arms! Of course the Powhatans weren't particularly interested in making military invaders feel at home on their lands! How is this even an argument you're making?

---

You don't get to attack somebody based on how they look. Not if you don't want to risk getting your ass kicked in response. They tried to impose their "might to make right" ideology on the settlers and found out the hard way they were wrong. Thankfully we don't have to deal with these new world terrorists today. We should be thankful that the settlers died to protect future generations.

---

Terrorists? Defending your home from invaders is terrorism?

---

Inflicting violence on people to achieve a political aim is the freaking definition of terrorism.

Just this morning I heard about a case where Comanches went to a family's house (who didn't even own firearms) demanded to eat their dinner. Then when the family ran, the Comanches chased them down. They caught the mother, gang raped her, then "scalped" her from BELOW the ears basically pealing the skin off her entire head. She lived for 4 days to tell the story. That is every bit as bad as ISIS and the Mexican cartels.

And again, if they are going to randomly declare land that they never farm, improve, build upon, etc. as "their home", then the settlers have every right to do so too. And when the indians kill settlers for "invading their home", then so can settlers.

The indians set the rules, and got their asses kicked at it. We are all better for it today.

---

Ah, so the English colonists, by your definition, were all terrorists. Would you like to know what happened at Gnadenhutten? How does that measure up to ISIS and the Mexican cartels?

Is it okay if I come to your land, find a piece you haven't farmed, and declare it mine because you haven't planted anything? Is that how this works?

aTmAg said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

If he wants to talk torture, we could talk a lot about Cromwell in Ireland.

---

Yet the settlers were shocked by the torture that the indians inflicted on each other and on settlers. That goes to show something.

---

Not really. Violent, gory stories were extremely popular reading in early modern and modern Europe. The tone taken towards accounts of what Cromwell did, or the Swedish army during the 30 Years War, are the same, though with a side aim of justifying any atrocities towards the natives. English authors didn't tend to linger on how they butchered native women and children, or burned them alive.

---

Yeah, really. Just read the accounts of the settlers.

The torture in Europe was so unordinary, that they went out of their way to record it for posterity. In the new world, the natives made it so ordinary that it became routine. Entire families were wiped out in deliberate terrorism campaigns and of course you defend them. Usually nobody knew how they died. We only know a tiny percentage because some escaped or survived a few days to tell the story. And yet it their stories were always extremely horrible.

One could only imagine how much torture went on over thousands of years in the new world. If only the indians weren't so ass-backward that they wrote stuff down. They almost certainly put Europe to shame. As the tiny bit we do know is pretty much all really bad. I guess they are glad today since they can pretend to be victims and modern morons fall for it.

---

I've read far more accounts than you apparently have. If you had, you'd know what the English did at places like Fort Mystic and during the Great Swamp Fight. You'd know about the Paxton Boys and Gnadenhutten. You'd know about any number of massacres perpetrated by the British and US militaries. Torture and murder were common from Europeans. It was extremely common towards other Europeans. And it was breathlessly reported. The torture wasn't the extreme thing. They did that all the time. It was torturing English or American citizens that was considered extreme. Torture was fine if you were doing the torturing.

---

By that time we were basically in a full fledged war. That's like complaining that we nuked Japan after they started the whole thing. Maybe if they didn't start it, we wouldn't have finished it.

---

No "we" weren't. The Pequot War was a native conflict that the English allied into. Fort Mystic was a deliberate choice. There was no requirement to do that. The Paxton Boys and the Gnadenhutten massacre involved friendly, allied Indians. The Paxton Boys we're trying to start a war. You really need to read your history.

Quote:

---

And again, if they are going to randomly declare land that they never farm, improve, build upon, etc. as "their home", then the settlers have every right to do so too. And when the indians kill settlers for "invading their home", then so can settlers.

---

Huh? Please explain how that aligns with property rights?

aTmAg said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

If he wants to talk torture, we could talk a lot about Cromwell in Ireland.

---

Yet the settlers were shocked by the torture that the indians inflicted on each other and on settlers. That goes to show something.

---

Not really. Violent, gory stories were extremely popular reading in early modern and modern Europe. The tone taken towards accounts of what Cromwell did, or the Swedish army during the 30 Years War, are the same, though with a side aim of justifying any atrocities towards the natives. English authors didn't tend to linger on how they butchered native women and children, or burned them alive.

---

Yeah, really. Just read the accounts of the settlers.

The torture in Europe was so unordinary, that they went out of their way to record it for posterity. In the new world, the natives made it so ordinary that it became routine. Entire families were wiped out in deliberate terrorism campaigns and of course you defend them. Usually nobody knew how they died. We only know a tiny percentage because some escaped or survived a few days to tell the story. And yet it their stories were always extremely horrible.

One could only imagine how much torture went on over thousands of years in the new world. If only the indians weren't so ass-backward that they wrote stuff down. They almost certainly put Europe to shame. As the tiny bit we do know is pretty much all really bad. I guess they are glad today since they can pretend to be victims and modern morons fall for it.

---

I've read far more accounts than you apparently have. If you had, you'd know what the English did at places like Fort Mystic and during the Great Swamp Fight. You'd know about the Paxton Boys and Gnadenhutten. You'd know about any number of massacres perpetrated by the British and US militaries. Torture and murder were common from Europeans. It was extremely common towards other Europeans. And it was breathlessly reported. The torture wasn't the extreme thing. They did that all the time. It was torturing English or American citizens that was considered extreme. Torture was fine if you were doing the torturing.

---

By that time we were basically in a full fledged war. That's like complaining that we nuked Japan after they started the whole thing. Maybe if they didn't start it, we wouldn't have finished it.

---

No "we" weren't. The Pequot War was a native conflict that the English allied into. Fort Mystic was a deliberate choice. There was no requirement to do that. The Paxton Boys and the Gnadenhutten massacre involved friendly, allied Indians. The Paxton Boys we're trying to start a war. You really need to read your history.

---

Good lord.. Pequot war did not start at Fort Mystic. The fighting started prior to that. Again, that's like bashing the US for Hiroshima pretending that nothing happened prior.

---

Hiroshima was an extreme option used after an especially brutal total war. The Pequot War was not a total war. It was a normal native conflict until Fort Mystic. This would be like nuking Baghdad and killing every civilian because of a conventional battle in the middle of the desert.

aTmAg said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

BQ78 said:

---

Quote:

---

You don't get to attack somebody based on how they look.

---

The irony in this statement is thick.

---

How so? You guys spent half this thread talking about how Europeans tortured each other. Yet they basically looked like each other. The notion that Europeans killed indians merely based on how they look is flat out false (rather than to protect their families). They were attacked and they responded.

---

And again, reading the sources with a critical eye might help you. They absolutely escalated the violence based on their beliefs about Indians as a "race" (given that term and understanding evolves through the 17th to 19th centuries). Peter Silver's "Our Savage Neighbors" would be a good start for you. As would Jill Lepore's "The Name of War," and John Grenier's "The First Way of War." These are easily accessible pieces of scholarship that delve into the primary sources and analyze them based on the societies that produced the sources.

English colonists did not see Indians as equals and couched it in racialized language. They used things like scalp bounties, where they paid for the scalps of Indians, including women and children, to dehumanize the Natives. They used religion, terms similar to the antisemitism common of the era, to place all Indians as outside their society. Even praying Indians were suspect since they weren't English (look up what happened on Deer Island in Boston Harbor). It was absolutely not a case of just responding to violence. It was deliberate dehumanization.

And you still can't admit the English were invaders.

---

Please. It's akin to American soldiers in the pacific theater hating the Japanese. It was NOT because the Japanese looked different it was because of their actions. It was that legitimate hatred spawned derogatory terms, cartoons, and whatnot. The exact same thing was true regarding Germans even though they were white.

And it make sense to look down on people who did the things the indians did. I look down on Mexican cartels. Not because their skin is darker than mine, but because of what they do. Not everything is about race. I know it's hard for libs like yourself to grasp that.



And regarding your bogus "invaders" point: Let's say there was ONE person in all of North America. And then the English landed and set up a camp on the coast. In your view, would that one person be justified to declare those English "invaders" and kill them?

---

Uh, the Japanese were absolutely subject to racism before WWII and during it compared to the Germans.

And yet again… read the history. It was quite clearly about race. I know you don't want to admit it, but it was about race (as understood during the era) before the English started a single colony.

And yes, the English were invaders. The land belonged to the Powhatans. Your hypothetical is idiotic. We know the history. There were thousands of Powhatans with a well defined territory. What right gave the English to claim it? Why shouldn't they have been attacked for invading?

aTmAg said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Quote:

---

And again, if they are going to randomly declare land that they never farm, improve, build upon, etc. as "their home", then the settlers have every right to do so too. And when the indians kill settlers for "invading their home", then so can settlers.

---

Huh? Please explain how that aligns with property rights?

---

Like I've said before... Property is the spoils of labor. I can't just point at the moon and call it mine. And if I try to kill others to defend "my" moon, then I will justifiably get capture/killed in return. So in my view, the indians owned the land that their settlements were on and the settlers owned the land that their settlements were on. The land in between was common land.


However, these guys are claiming that all one needs to do to obtain property is to merely declare it as theirs. So using their own argument, then why can't the settlers do the same thing? Why is it fine for the Indians to kill other tribes to take their land, but suddenly bad for settlers to do so?

---

So if I kill someone and take their home, that's okay? Is it wrong that the English attacked Indian villages and killed women and children?

Oh, and Indian hunting grounds were managed. Those big old growth forests? Managed by the Indians to ensure a supply of animals to hunt. So is that theirs by your definition?

Sapper Redux said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

If he wants to talk torture, we could talk a lot about Cromwell in Ireland.

---

Yet the settlers were shocked by the torture that the indians inflicted on each other and on settlers. That goes to show something.

---

Not really. Violent, gory stories were extremely popular reading in early modern and modern Europe. The tone taken towards accounts of what Cromwell did, or the Swedish army during the 30 Years War, are the same, though with a side aim of justifying any atrocities towards the natives. English authors didn't tend to linger on how they butchered native women and children, or burned them alive.

---

Yeah, really. Just read the accounts of the settlers.

The torture in Europe was so unordinary, that they went out of their way to record it for posterity. In the new world, the natives made it so ordinary that it became routine. Entire families were wiped out in deliberate terrorism campaigns and of course you defend them. Usually nobody knew how they died. We only know a tiny percentage because some escaped or survived a few days to tell the story. And yet it their stories were always extremely horrible.

One could only imagine how much torture went on over thousands of years in the new world. If only the indians weren't so ass-backward that they wrote stuff down. They almost certainly put Europe to shame. As the tiny bit we do know is pretty much all really bad. I guess they are glad today since they can pretend to be victims and modern morons fall for it.

---

I've read far more accounts than you apparently have. If you had, you'd know what the English did at places like Fort Mystic and during the Great Swamp Fight. You'd know about the Paxton Boys and Gnadenhutten. You'd know about any number of massacres perpetrated by the British and US militaries. Torture and murder were common from Europeans. It was extremely common towards other Europeans. And it was breathlessly reported. The torture wasn't the extreme thing. They did that all the time. It was torturing English or American citizens that was considered extreme. Torture was fine if you were doing the torturing.

---

By that time we were basically in a full fledged war. That's like complaining that we nuked Japan after they started the whole thing. Maybe if they didn't start it, we wouldn't have finished it.

---

No "we" weren't. The Pequot War was a native conflict that the English allied into. Fort Mystic was a deliberate choice. There was no requirement to do that. The Paxton Boys and the Gnadenhutten massacre involved friendly, allied Indians. The Paxton Boys we're trying to start a war. You really need to read your history.

---

Good lord.. Pequot war did not start at Fort Mystic. The fighting started prior to that. Again, that's like bashing the US for Hiroshima pretending that nothing happened prior.

---

Hiroshima was an extreme option used after an especially brutal total war. The Pequot War was not a total war. It was a normal native conflict until Fort Mystic. This would be like nuking Baghdad and killing every civilian because of a conventional battle in the middle of the desert.

---

No... it's really not like that at all. The Pequots attacked Wethersfield and killed the first women and children of the war. Fort Mystic was in response to that. It was an escalation to end the war. (Which it pretty much did). There is no reason in the world for the English to taptoe and risk more of their people getting killed just to satisfy indian defenders 400 years later.

Sapper Redux said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

BQ78 said:

---

Quote:

---

You don't get to attack somebody based on how they look.

---

The irony in this statement is thick.

---

How so? You guys spent half this thread talking about how Europeans tortured each other. Yet they basically looked like each other. The notion that Europeans killed indians merely based on how they look is flat out false (rather than to protect their families). They were attacked and they responded.

---

And again, reading the sources with a critical eye might help you. They absolutely escalated the violence based on their beliefs about Indians as a "race" (given that term and understanding evolves through the 17th to 19th centuries). Peter Silver's "Our Savage Neighbors" would be a good start for you. As would Jill Lepore's "The Name of War," and John Grenier's "The First Way of War." These are easily accessible pieces of scholarship that delve into the primary sources and analyze them based on the societies that produced the sources.

English colonists did not see Indians as equals and couched it in racialized language. They used things like scalp bounties, where they paid for the scalps of Indians, including women and children, to dehumanize the Natives. They used religion, terms similar to the antisemitism common of the era, to place all Indians as outside their society. Even praying Indians were suspect since they weren't English (look up what happened on Deer Island in Boston Harbor). It was absolutely not a case of just responding to violence. It was deliberate dehumanization.

And you still can't admit the English were invaders.

---

Please. It's akin to American soldiers in the pacific theater hating the Japanese. It was NOT because the Japanese looked different it was because of their actions. It was that legitimate hatred spawned derogatory terms, cartoons, and whatnot. The exact same thing was true regarding Germans even though they were white.

And it make sense to look down on people who did the things the indians did. I look down on Mexican cartels. Not because their skin is darker than mine, but because of what they do. Not everything is about race. I know it's hard for libs like yourself to grasp that.



And regarding your bogus "invaders" point: Let's say there was ONE person in all of North America. And then the English landed and set up a camp on the coast. In your view, would that one person be justified to declare those English "invaders" and kill them?

---

Uh, the Japanese were absolutely subject to racism before WWII and during it compared to the Germans.

And yet again… read the history. It was quite clearly about race. I know you don't want to admit it, but it was about race (as understood during the era) before the English started a single colony.

And yes, the English were invaders. The land belonged to the Powhatans. Your hypothetical is idiotic. We know the history. There were thousands of Powhatans with a well defined territory. What right gave the English to claim it? Why shouldn't they have been attacked for invading?

---

Everything is about race for you libs. It blinds you in every aspect of your life.

aTmAg said:

---

I notice you are avoiding my question. Here it is again for your convenience:

Let's say there was ONE person in all of North America. And then the English landed and set up a camp on the coast. In your view, would that one person be justified to declare those English "invaders" and kill them?

---

It's always apparent when you've lost the debate. You've retreated to a bizarre hypothetical while we have an actual historical moment that we are debating.

aTmAg said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

If he wants to talk torture, we could talk a lot about Cromwell in Ireland.

---

Yet the settlers were shocked by the torture that the indians inflicted on each other and on settlers. That goes to show something.

---

Not really. Violent, gory stories were extremely popular reading in early modern and modern Europe. The tone taken towards accounts of what Cromwell did, or the Swedish army during the 30 Years War, are the same, though with a side aim of justifying any atrocities towards the natives. English authors didn't tend to linger on how they butchered native women and children, or burned them alive.

---

Yeah, really. Just read the accounts of the settlers.

The torture in Europe was so unordinary, that they went out of their way to record it for posterity. In the new world, the natives made it so ordinary that it became routine. Entire families were wiped out in deliberate terrorism campaigns and of course you defend them. Usually nobody knew how they died. We only know a tiny percentage because some escaped or survived a few days to tell the story. And yet it their stories were always extremely horrible.

One could only imagine how much torture went on over thousands of years in the new world. If only the indians weren't so ass-backward that they wrote stuff down. They almost certainly put Europe to shame. As the tiny bit we do know is pretty much all really bad. I guess they are glad today since they can pretend to be victims and modern morons fall for it.

---

I've read far more accounts than you apparently have. If you had, you'd know what the English did at places like Fort Mystic and during the Great Swamp Fight. You'd know about the Paxton Boys and Gnadenhutten. You'd know about any number of massacres perpetrated by the British and US militaries. Torture and murder were common from Europeans. It was extremely common towards other Europeans. And it was breathlessly reported. The torture wasn't the extreme thing. They did that all the time. It was torturing English or American citizens that was considered extreme. Torture was fine if you were doing the torturing.

---

By that time we were basically in a full fledged war. That's like complaining that we nuked Japan after they started the whole thing. Maybe if they didn't start it, we wouldn't have finished it.

---

No "we" weren't. The Pequot War was a native conflict that the English allied into. Fort Mystic was a deliberate choice. There was no requirement to do that. The Paxton Boys and the Gnadenhutten massacre involved friendly, allied Indians. The Paxton Boys we're trying to start a war. You really need to read your history.

---

Good lord.. Pequot war did not start at Fort Mystic. The fighting started prior to that. Again, that's like bashing the US for Hiroshima pretending that nothing happened prior.

---

Hiroshima was an extreme option used after an especially brutal total war. The Pequot War was not a total war. It was a normal native conflict until Fort Mystic. This would be like nuking Baghdad and killing every civilian because of a conventional battle in the middle of the desert.

---

No... it's really not like that at all. The Pequots attacked Wethersfield and killed the first women and children of the war. Fort Mystic was in response to that. It was an escalation to end the war. (Which it pretty much did). There is no reason in the world for the English to taptoe and risk more of their people getting killed just to satisfy indian defenders 400 years later.

---

It's amazing how upset you get about the Comanches while excusing every single English atrocity. Also, the proximate cause of the war was the Dutch murder of a Pequot sachem. Wethersfield was a battle after the English had already attacked the Pequot and no children were killed. 6 men and 2 women were killed. Niantic villages on Block Island were the first to be attacked.

aTmAg said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

BQ78 said:

---

Quote:

---

You don't get to attack somebody based on how they look.

---

The irony in this statement is thick.

---

How so? You guys spent half this thread talking about how Europeans tortured each other. Yet they basically looked like each other. The notion that Europeans killed indians merely based on how they look is flat out false (rather than to protect their families). They were attacked and they responded.

---

And again, reading the sources with a critical eye might help you. They absolutely escalated the violence based on their beliefs about Indians as a "race" (given that term and understanding evolves through the 17th to 19th centuries). Peter Silver's "Our Savage Neighbors" would be a good start for you. As would Jill Lepore's "The Name of War," and John Grenier's "The First Way of War." These are easily accessible pieces of scholarship that delve into the primary sources and analyze them based on the societies that produced the sources.

English colonists did not see Indians as equals and couched it in racialized language. They used things like scalp bounties, where they paid for the scalps of Indians, including women and children, to dehumanize the Natives. They used religion, terms similar to the antisemitism common of the era, to place all Indians as outside their society. Even praying Indians were suspect since they weren't English (look up what happened on Deer Island in Boston Harbor). It was absolutely not a case of just responding to violence. It was deliberate dehumanization.

And you still can't admit the English were invaders.

---

Please. It's akin to American soldiers in the pacific theater hating the Japanese. It was NOT because the Japanese looked different it was because of their actions. It was that legitimate hatred spawned derogatory terms, cartoons, and whatnot. The exact same thing was true regarding Germans even though they were white.

And it make sense to look down on people who did the things the indians did. I look down on Mexican cartels. Not because their skin is darker than mine, but because of what they do. Not everything is about race. I know it's hard for libs like yourself to grasp that.



And regarding your bogus "invaders" point: Let's say there was ONE person in all of North America. And then the English landed and set up a camp on the coast. In your view, would that one person be justified to declare those English "invaders" and kill them?

---

Uh, the Japanese were absolutely subject to racism before WWII and during it compared to the Germans.

And yet again… read the history. It was quite clearly about race. I know you don't want to admit it, but it was about race (as understood during the era) before the English started a single colony.

And yes, the English were invaders. The land belonged to the Powhatans. Your hypothetical is idiotic. We know the history. There were thousands of Powhatans with a well defined territory. What right gave the English to claim it? Why shouldn't they have been attacked for invading?

---

Everything is about race for you libs. It blinds you in every aspect of your life.

---

Can't argue the point. Retreat to a political position.

Sapper Redux said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

BQ78 said:

---

Quote:

---

You don't get to attack somebody based on how they look.

---

The irony in this statement is thick.

---

How so? You guys spent half this thread talking about how Europeans tortured each other. Yet they basically looked like each other. The notion that Europeans killed indians merely based on how they look is flat out false (rather than to protect their families). They were attacked and they responded.

---

And again, reading the sources with a critical eye might help you. They absolutely escalated the violence based on their beliefs about Indians as a "race" (given that term and understanding evolves through the 17th to 19th centuries). Peter Silver's "Our Savage Neighbors" would be a good start for you. As would Jill Lepore's "The Name of War," and John Grenier's "The First Way of War." These are easily accessible pieces of scholarship that delve into the primary sources and analyze them based on the societies that produced the sources.

English colonists did not see Indians as equals and couched it in racialized language. They used things like scalp bounties, where they paid for the scalps of Indians, including women and children, to dehumanize the Natives. They used religion, terms similar to the antisemitism common of the era, to place all Indians as outside their society. Even praying Indians were suspect since they weren't English (look up what happened on Deer Island in Boston Harbor). It was absolutely not a case of just responding to violence. It was deliberate dehumanization.

And you still can't admit the English were invaders.

---

Please. It's akin to American soldiers in the pacific theater hating the Japanese. It was NOT because the Japanese looked different it was because of their actions. It was that legitimate hatred spawned derogatory terms, cartoons, and whatnot. The exact same thing was true regarding Germans even though they were white.

And it make sense to look down on people who did the things the indians did. I look down on Mexican cartels. Not because their skin is darker than mine, but because of what they do. Not everything is about race. I know it's hard for libs like yourself to grasp that.



And regarding your bogus "invaders" point: Let's say there was ONE person in all of North America. And then the English landed and set up a camp on the coast. In your view, would that one person be justified to declare those English "invaders" and kill them?

---

Uh, the Japanese were absolutely subject to racism before WWII and during it compared to the Germans.

And yet again… read the history. It was quite clearly about race. I know you don't want to admit it, but it was about race (as understood during the era) before the English started a single colony.

And yes, the English were invaders. The land belonged to the Powhatans. Your hypothetical is idiotic. We know the history. There were thousands of Powhatans with a well defined territory. What right gave the English to claim it? Why shouldn't they have been attacked for invading?

---

What right had the English to survive?
The Spanish, Portuguese, and French were all Catholic and were intent on conquering the New World.
What right do the million plus illegal immigrants that have crossed our southern border have to settle?
The fact is, there is a lot of desperation involved in what humans do - might relate to evolution.

Sapper Redux said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

I notice you are avoiding my question. Here it is again for your convenience:

Let's say there was ONE person in all of North America. And then the English landed and set up a camp on the coast. In your view, would that one person be justified to declare those English "invaders" and kill them?

---

It's always apparent when you've lost the debate. You've retreated to a bizarre hypothetical while we have an actual historical moment that we are debating.

---

It's always apparent when you lost a debate, you avoid it. I'm trying to hold your hand so you can realize how are wrong. Since you know where this is headed, you avoid it like the plague.

So I take it you are never going to answer this question?

aTmAg said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

I notice you are avoiding my question. Here it is again for your convenience:

Let's say there was ONE person in all of North America. And then the English landed and set up a camp on the coast. In your view, would that one person be justified to declare those English "invaders" and kill them?

---

It's always apparent when you've lost the debate. You've retreated to a bizarre hypothetical while we have an actual historical moment that we are debating.

---

It's always apparent when you lost a debate, you avoid it. I'm trying to hold your hand so you can realize how are wrong. Since you know where this is headed, you avoid it like the plague.

So I take it you are never going to answer this question?

---

You've ignored every point made that you can't argue away. You haven't answered a single one of my questions. And yet you demand I answer you? We have an actual historical example. Not your hypothetical. But you can't actually argue against the historical example, so you come up with the most absurd hypothetical you can think of.

Demasiado said:

---

So the OP listened to 1 book on 19th century comanches and started a thread titled "why were Indians so savage?" This might be the worst history thought I've ever read on this board. Just 19th century comanches? Every indigenous human here for the past 15000 years? My brain hurts just trying to unravel it all

---

No.. This not the only source I've read on the topic. It was this book that made me wonder why indians evolved so drastically different than Europeans. Europe and Asia figured a lot of this crap long before.

And not just on savagery. Why were they 2000 years behind technologically, for example?

Other differences make sense. The reason indians were more susceptible to disease than the Europeans is that Europeans endured a lot of plagues for thousands of years already. And those plagues occurred because many lived in large cities, with sanitation issues, and with large domesticated animals.

I find it strange that they didn't figure out that if we stop torturing our enemies then they will stop torturing us. Seems to be a 101 level concept.

aTmAg said:

---

Demasiado said:

---

So the OP listened to 1 book on 19th century comanches and started a thread titled "why were Indians so savage?" This might be the worst history thought I've ever read on this board. Just 19th century comanches? Every indigenous human here for the past 15000 years? My brain hurts just trying to unravel it all

---

No.. This not the only source I've read on the topic. It was this book that made me wonder why indians evolved so drastically different than Europeans. Europe and Asia figured a lot of this crap long before.

And not just on savagery. Why were they 2000 years behind technologically, for example?

Other differences make sense. The reason indians were more susceptible to disease than the Europeans is that Europeans endured a lot of plagues for thousands of years already. And those plagues occurred because many lived in large cities, with sanitation issues, and with large domesticated animals.

I find it strange that they didn't figure out that if we stop torturing our enemies then they will stop torturing us. Seems to be a 101 level concept.

---

There's a lot smarter history guys on here than me so i may be wrong, but I believe north American horses died out around 12000 bc. Not having that mode of transportation until Europeans arrived 13000 years later will set back a civilization. Think of how many things Asia and Europe used horses for...