jwoodmd said:

---

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.

---

I find it strange we haven't figured out if we give up all our military weapons then our enemies will as well. Seems to be a 101 level concept.

---

If this isn't sarcasm, then it may be the most naiive thing I have read on TexAgs ever. You really think that Hitler would have dropped his weapons if everybody else did? Of course not. We'd all be speaking German right now.

MaroonStain said:

---

Teacher_Ag said:

---

If you're digging through history looking for good guys or bad guys at the societal level, you're doing it wrong. The indigenous nations fought to claim and extend land, resources, and power. The Europeans came to claim and extend land, resources, and power. The difference is that the former were behind several thousand years in most forms of technology (and exposure to most of the world's cooties). Swap the tech imbalance and Seminoles colonize France, brutally.

---

Great post. Succinct and direct input about humans and survival. It's what Amerinds did on a daily basis that the Europeans (who wrote their history) stopped doing a couple of centuries before invading Amerinds' homelands.

When resources are scarce, humans regress to their most primal level: survival and need to gather additional resources.

---

I have no doubt that if in 1800, both sides suddenly swapped technology, then the indians would have brutally wiped out every white settler on the continent. And they would have tortured and raped to their hearts content. It would be like ISIS's wet dream.

But, I am not convinced of that if we swap 50,000 years of technological history instead. If Indians figured out gun powder, the wheel, printing press, etc. and then sailed boats to Europe, then perhaps the reverse would have happened (ignoring disease for this part of the discussion). That over those thousands of years, the indians would have also developed more sophisticated governments and that the North and South American settlers (or whatever they would have been called) would have been shocked at the barbarity of the Europeans. They would have gotten tired of the European guerilla attacks on their civilians and would have waged war until the Europeans were subdued. Maybe they would have evolved to be more light skinned as well as they would spend much more time indoors and being so tanned wouldn't be a evolutionary advantage anymore.

aTmAg said:

---

jwoodmd said:

---

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.

---

I find it strange we haven't figured out if we give up all our military weapons then our enemies will as well. Seems to be a 101 level concept.

---

If this isn't sarcasm, then it may be the most naiive thing I have read on TexAgs ever. You really think that Hitler would have dropped his weapons if everybody else did? Of course not. We'd all be speaking German right now.

---

Got to agree - he was either being sarcastic or has lead a very protected life.
Somehow I doubt that if the Ukes threw down their weapons that the Russians would follow suit.
It is possible to have "Rules of War" between some countries, but only some.

BTW, currently in the audio book it's all about Sul Ross. He was the one that found Cynthia Ann Parker. Small world.

jwoodmd said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

jwoodmd said:

---

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.

---

I find it strange we haven't figured out if we give up all our military weapons then our enemies will as well. Seems to be a 101 level concept.

---

If this isn't sarcasm, then it may be the most naiive thing I have read on TexAgs ever. You really think that Hitler would have dropped his weapons if everybody else did? Of course not. We'd all be speaking German right now.

---

Of course it is sarcasm. As for the most naive posts on Texags ever, you've won that prize on this thread.

---

So what point were you making then? You think that somehow giving up guaranteed and mutual torture is the same as giving up all military weapons? I guess the US military was stupid by not killing every last Iraqi in the first gulf war. Having them all drop their weapons and give up was stupid. We should have followed the genius of the indians and torture-killed them all to ensure that the rest always fight to the death. What were we thinking?

And you call me naive?

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

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.

---

Didn't the berry-picking Comanches evolve into the legendary warriors they became for over 2 centuries by mastering the horses the Spanish made available for them and then coming down out of the Rockies and displacing whatever tribes happened to be in their path? Comancheria was quite vast and harsh, but I don't think it was totally uninhabited.

---

Yes. And during the the Spanish time in Texas, they watched the Apache gradually disappear, not knowing that the Comanche were kicking their asses.

What I find interesting is that the Comanche transitioned from nobodies to the most powerful tribe in a short period of time. Yet when the Texas Rangers started kicking their asses, they noticed that the Comanche did not adjust their tactics at all. They failed in the same way over and over.

That means to me, they must have had a Peter the Great type of leader that transformed them from the old ways into what they became or something. It's weird that they would totally change their culture prior, but refuse to do so when their survival was at stake.

aTmAg said:

---

What I find interesting is that the Comanche transitioned from nobodies to the most powerful tribe in a short period of time. Yet when the Texas Rangers started kicking their asses, they noticed that the Comanche did not adjust their tactics at all. They failed in the same way over and over.

That means to me, they must have had a Peter the Great type of leader that transformed them from the old ways into what they became or something. It's weird that they would totally change their culture prior, but refuse to do so when their survival was at stake.

---

As I have said from the very beginning...culture! Obviously they changed their "culture" from one on foot to perhaps the greatest horse culture that ever lived. No doubt that "change" led to their prowess on the South Plains. It was a shift in culture and even war tactics like you talk about. However, some inner beliefs about warfare did not change. Comanches, and other Plains tribes, had a distinct cultural belief that influenced their tactics/strategy. Once a battle commenced, organization typically flew out the window, and it was every warrior for himself in an effort to gain individual honors! That's just how they were raised and that culture was ingrained so deep that they weren't going to give that up under any circumstances. There was a general strategy for an ambush, etc. but that all quickly disappeared once the fighting commenced. Comanches always had the advantage in an ambush, especially when their opponents were armed with muzzleloaders....that changed with the Texans using the Colt Patterson and later weapons. However, even if they would have adopted similar tactics to anglos in a pitched battle....their demise because of overwhelming numbers and technology was predictable. In short....they weren't going to change from their traditional war culture, but the end result would have been the same!
Back to your original topic....their torture was also a cultural thing, ingrained deeply from generation to generation. That's just what they did. It was wrong, and definitely led to much ire on the part of the Texans who witnessed the effects. And of course, the Texans retaliation of attacking Comanche camps and killing women and children indiscriminately was probably in response to it, and maybe that's not on the same level as Comanche torture.... that doesn't make it right. As I said earlier, I personally do not blame the Comanches or any tribe for fighting to the death to hang onto their lands and way of life. (Their torture tactics though....are indefensible!)

Bighunter43 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

What I find interesting is that the Comanche transitioned from nobodies to the most powerful tribe in a short period of time. Yet when the Texas Rangers started kicking their asses, they noticed that the Comanche did not adjust their tactics at all. They failed in the same way over and over.

That means to me, they must have had a Peter the Great type of leader that transformed them from the old ways into what they became or something. It's weird that they would totally change their culture prior, but refuse to do so when their survival was at stake.

---

As I have said from the very beginning...culture! Obviously they changed their "culture" from one on foot to perhaps the greatest horse culture that ever lived. No doubt that "change" led to their prowess on the South Plains. It was a shift in culture and even war tactics like you talk about. However, some inner beliefs about warfare did not change. Comanches, and other Plains tribes, had a distinct cultural belief that influenced their tactics/strategy. Once a battle commenced, organization typically flew out the window, and it was every warrior for himself in an effort to gain individual honors! That's just how they were raised and that culture was ingrained so deep that they weren't going to give that up under any circumstances. There was a general strategy for an ambush, etc. but that all quickly disappeared once the fighting commenced. Comanches always had the advantage in an ambush, especially when their opponents were armed with muzzleloaders....that changed with the Texans using the Colt Patterson and later weapons. However, even if they would have adopted similar tactics to anglos in a pitched battle....their demise because of overwhelming numbers and technology was predictable. In short....they weren't going to change from their traditional war culture, but the end result would have been the same!
Back to your original topic....their torture was also a cultural thing, ingrained deeply from generation to generation. That's just what they did. It was wrong, and definitely led to much ire on the part of the Texans who witnessed the effects. And of course, the Texans retaliation of attacking Comanche camps and killing women and children indiscriminately was probably in response to it, and maybe that's not on the same level as Comanche torture.... that doesn't make it right. As I said earlier, I personally do not blame the Comanches or any tribe for fighting to the death to hang onto their lands and way of life. (Their torture tactics though....are indefensible!)

---

Two really interesting posts! They were the kings of the plains because they were the phalanx of the equine revolution on the plains, but they failed to sustain that mindset as their relative advantage receded with the arrival of Mr. Colt's revolver and a bunch of ballsy Texans on horseback who mimicked the Comanches horse tactics but could deliver repeated shots from the saddle (or from the side of the saddle) and keep fighting.

I know this is probably understood, but the Comanches were not monolithic. I think they were really more like a confederation of tribes who worked together but had distinct leadership structures, etc. I think it's also worth remembering that the Comanches, while frequently kicking the crap out of their fellow indigenous tribesmen in the Apaches and the Kiowas, also didn't hesitate to band together with them at times if it fit their purposes. They were uber-Machiavellian in that sense.

Bighunter43 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

What I find interesting is that the Comanche transitioned from nobodies to the most powerful tribe in a short period of time. Yet when the Texas Rangers started kicking their asses, they noticed that the Comanche did not adjust their tactics at all. They failed in the same way over and over.

That means to me, they must have had a Peter the Great type of leader that transformed them from the old ways into what they became or something. It's weird that they would totally change their culture prior, but refuse to do so when their survival was at stake.

---

As I have said from the very beginning...culture! Obviously they changed their "culture" from one on foot to perhaps the greatest horse culture that ever lived. No doubt that "change" led to their prowess on the South Plains. It was a shift in culture and even war tactics like you talk about. However, some inner beliefs about warfare did not change. Comanches, and other Plains tribes, had a distinct cultural belief that influenced their tactics/strategy. Once a battle commenced, organization typically flew out the window, and it was every warrior for himself in an effort to gain individual honors! That's just how they were raised and that culture was ingrained so deep that they weren't going to give that up under any circumstances. There was a general strategy for an ambush, etc. but that all quickly disappeared once the fighting commenced. Comanches always had the advantage in an ambush, especially when their opponents were armed with muzzleloaders....that changed with the Texans using the Colt Patterson and later weapons. However, even if they would have adopted similar tactics to anglos in a pitched battle....their demise because of overwhelming numbers and technology was predictable. In short....they weren't going to change from their traditional war culture, but the end result would have been the same!
Back to your original topic....their torture was also a cultural thing, ingrained deeply from generation to generation. That's just what they did. It was wrong, and definitely led to much ire on the part of the Texans who witnessed the effects. And of course, the Texans retaliation of attacking Comanche camps and killing women and children indiscriminately was probably in response to it, and maybe that's not on the same level as Comanche torture.... that doesn't make it right. As I said earlier, I personally do not blame the Comanches or any tribe for fighting to the death to hang onto their lands and way of life. (Their torture tactics though....are indefensible!)

---

This may sound odd... while I do blame Comanches for targeting civilians, I don't blame them for rarely taking prisoners when they did strike. They used strike and run tactics. Slowing themselves down by bringing back a bunch of captives would have been a death sentence. Similarly, I do not blame the Texas Rangers for the same. They couldn't bring back 20 prisoners from the middle of nowhere either. I DO blame Santa Anna for the Alamo and Goliad because they absolutely did have the ability to keep prisoners.

However, there is no excuse for torturing the hell out of innocent people.

War has its own horrible logic.

Another thing to keep in mind about Native Americans...when the Spanish showed up at the turn of the 16th century, the Aztecs, Inca, Cahokia mounds builders and so on were at roughly the social and technological level of the ancient Egyptians, except they didn't have bronze working, and they were severely hobbled by the dearth of livestock suitable for domestication. Llamas are useful in the mountains, but they can't pull a wagon or a plow, the load they can carry is fairly light, and you can only use them for cavalry if the riders are toddlers.

The Europeans show up, and not only bring guns, germs, and steel, but also large livestock animals - horses, cows, pigs, sheep, and goats - which have a massive effect on the ecosystem, at the same time as European germs (largely transferred to humans from those same livestock species) are burning through the Native population. (The book Ecological Imperialism has an excellent look at the effect of European plants and animals on the New World and Australia).

As has been noted, before the Spanish brought horses to the New World, the Comanche were hunter gatherers, and pretty much the bottom of the heap as well. I kind of wonder if all that time getting kicked around by their neighbors might have helped make them the terrors they became once they got horses.

The one thing Mexico got out of the treaty that ended the Mexican-American War was that the U.S. was supposed to put an end to the cross-border depredations by the Comanches (and others, but mostly the Comanches.) The U.S. really didn't effectively end them until the mid-1870s. The depredations are well chronicled in The War of A Thousand Deserts.

Quote:

---

As has been noted, before the Spanish brought horses to the New World, the Comanche were hunter gatherers, and pretty much the bottom of the heap as well. I kind of wonder if all that time getting kicked around by their neighbors might have helped make them the terrors they became once they got horses.

---

Interesting point. A sort of social PTSD ...

The Comanche were pretty tough dudes.

Fighting against them took some pretty tough dudes as well.

WildcatAg said:

---

The Comanche were pretty tough dudes.

Fighting against them took some pretty tough dudes as well.

---

Very cool video!

Love them or hate them, you have to respect them. They were some ferocious warriors and tough as he!!.

One of the foremost experts on the Comanches was a historian up at Hardin Simmons University named Rupert M. Richardson. His most famous work was entitled "The Comanche Barrier to the South Plains Settlement". His thesis was that the Comanches were so fierce that they essentially blocked all settlement on the southern Great Plains for about 40 or 50 years. Richardson died some time ago, probably in the 70s.

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

WildcatAg said:

---

The Comanche were pretty tough dudes.

Fighting against them took some pretty tough dudes as well.

---

Very cool video!

Love them or hate them, you have to respect them. They were some ferocious warriors and tough as he!!.

---

So, mounted archers: Mongols versus Comanches. Who you got?

Smeghead4761 said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

WildcatAg said:

---

The Comanche were pretty tough dudes.

Fighting against them took some pretty tough dudes as well.

---

Very cool video!

Love them or hate them, you have to respect them. They were some ferocious warriors and tough as he!!.

---

So, mounted archers: Mongols versus Comanches. Who you got?

---

In a single battle, I have to go with the home team, Comanches. If we're talking taking over and ruling a nation, Mongols.

You?

Rabid Cougar said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

This may sound odd... while I do blame Comanches for targeting civilians, I don't blame them for rarely taking prisoners when they did strike. They used strike and run tactics. Slowing themselves down by bringing back a bunch of captives would have been a death sentence. Similarly, I do not blame the Texas Rangers for the same. They couldn't bring back 20 prisoners from the middle of nowhere either. I DO blame Santa Anna for the Alamo and Goliad because they absolutely did have the ability to keep prisoners.

However, there is no excuse for torturing the hell out of innocent people.

---

It was what generally happened to insurrectionist for years in Europe too. The English killed every last Scotsman that they could catch after Culloden. That or sent them to America essentially as slaves.
Santa Anna learned that from the Spanish.

---

I haven't looked into this at all, but I wonder if slavery originally came about because it was preferable to killing everybody. Often in ancient times, a city would be given a choice between capitulating or fighting it out. And if they chose to fight, they faced every last man, woman, and child dying if they lost. This was because a defeated city would often build an army and counter attack the attackers later if they were allowed to live. So if you attack a city, the only sure way to avoid it biting you in the ass later is by killing everybody.

But I assume somebody figured out, that it's harder to fight against somebody whos is fighting to the death. So the only remaining choice is offer surrender and to take them as slaves. Maybe they don't fight as hard if they know they and their families won't be slaughtered no matter what. That being somebody's servant is better than being dead (especially when being free was still a damn hard life).

I know many will say "live free or die!!!". Often people who said that in the past were only talking about themselves. Not their families. The founding fathers knew that if we lost the war, at worst they would be hung. The British wouldn't kill their families too.

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Smeghead4761 said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

WildcatAg said:

---

The Comanche were pretty tough dudes.

Fighting against them took some pretty tough dudes as well.

---

Very cool video!

Love them or hate them, you have to respect them. They were some ferocious warriors and tough as he!!.

---

So, mounted archers: Mongols versus Comanches. Who you got?

---

In a single battle, I have to go with the home team, Comanches. If we're talking taking over and ruling a nation, Mongols.

You?

---

I'm no expert, but Mongols figured out siege warfare too. So they could do the horse thing AND take out fortified towns. Not that it would matter a whole lot fighting the Comanches, since they didn't have any of that.

Sapper Redux said:

---

BoerneGator said:

---

Quote:

---

War against the Native Americans began in complete barbarity and only escalated.

---

Cannot help but marvel at such unequivocal declarations as this, and whence it came...

---

I'm slightly familiar with the history of Spanish and English settlement in the Americas.

---

I'm satisfied you are. Nevertheless, my amazement prevails…

However, I'll admit I only just now realized your qualifier "War", and as such, and as a Marine, somewhat trained in the art of war (albeit 5 decades past), I should hope that all Americans so engaged, would endeavor to win at all costs. That said, I've no reason to believe Americans routinely initiated the use of such tactics without sufficient provocation, and then only to help prevail. Prove me wrong.

Gnadenhutten. Paxton Boys. Multiple wars in colonial and early republic US were as a result of breaching treaties and encroaching on US land. The initiation of these wars frequently involved atrocities by the Anglo-American forces. As soon as war was declared throughout the 18th century, scalp bounties were enacted and paid to colonists who presented any scalp, no matter how it was acquired, for payment.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Gnadenhutten. Paxton Boys. Multiple wars in colonial and early republic US were as a result of breaching treaties and encroaching on US land. The initiation of these wars frequently involved atrocities by the Anglo-American forces. As soon as war was declared throughout the 18th century, scalp bounties were enacted and paid to colonists who presented any scalp, no matter how it was acquired, for payment.

---

I refuse to believe that the Indians were not also guilty of committing atrocities. It defies everything we know of human nature to believe that they were not. They may not have committed atrocities on the scale of those committed by the Europeans, but scale does not equate to either guilt or innocence. The "noble savage" myth is like cockroaches. It does not matter how often it is debunked, it will not die.

And your defense of the Indians seems to be not that the Indians were innocent, but that the Europeans started it first. That defense did not work in the 1st grade and it does not work here. An atrocity is an atrocity. Further, how are we to truly know, from a vantage point 500-700 years later, who really started what? Too much history has been lost, especially the "little history" of the minor squabbles that escalated into widespread conflict and horror.

Finally, an error you seem to fall into is believing that if you admit that the Indians did commit atrocities, that in some way excuses those committed by the Europeans. It does not. Again, an atrocity is an atrocity. Further, the Europeans should be held to a higher standard since they claimed to be more "civilized". They can be judged by their own standards.

Did I ever say the Indians did not commit atrocities? I'm aware that they did. The OP was trying to claim that Indians were uniquely "savage," especially compared to Europeans. They were not. In any number of respects Europeans were far worse. There's a reason far, far more Europeans voluntarily joined Indian societies during the colonial era than the opposite. That does not mean natives were blameless or that they did not have exceedingly violent practices before the arrival of Europeans.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Gnadenhutten. Paxton Boys. Multiple wars in colonial and early republic US were as a result of breaching treaties and encroaching on US land. The initiation of these wars frequently involved atrocities by the Anglo-American forces. As soon as war was declared throughout the 18th century, scalp bounties were enacted and paid to colonists who presented any scalp, no matter how it was acquired, for payment.

---

I challenged your unequivocal statement and asked you to prove me wrong. You did (can) not, but proceeded to cite treaty violations. Arguable, to say the least, but hardly proof of barbarism. Scalping, while regrettable, was doubtful widespread, nor likely initiated by "the white man". I suspect you are some "professor" type who's read too much of one perspective and adopted it as Gospel. Not buying what your "selling"! It's mythology, and not very good at that.

Thanks, appreciate your reply.

One of your comments caught my attention, i.e.:

Quote:

---

There's a reason far, far more Europeans voluntarily joined Indian societies during the colonial era than the opposite.

---

I'm not disagreeing with your statement, but rather am intrigued by it.

Has anyone actually quantified that data and is it even possible to do so? I know that many, many Europeans did join Indian cultures. And the stories of male children who were captured by the Indians not wanting to return to European society are legion. However, there are also many overlooked accounts of Indians moving in the opposite direction. Some, on a large scale like the Cherokees, and others on an individual basis.

I suspect that we really won't ever know for sure. Europeans that stayed with the Indians were perhaps more noteworthy to other Europeans and so those occurrences may have been recorded more frequently than the converse? One of the problems of history is that what we know is largely an accident of history - our ancestors were not as obsessed with recording everything like we are today.

Also, we remember those Indians who were fiercely resistant to the end. However, even in the tribes that are remembered for their resistance (e.g., the Comanches and the San Carlos Apaches), the majority were not only were passive, but many actively cooperated with the whites. Even further, many Indians volunteered to send their children to the Indian schools.

Again, I'm not disagreeing with you, but my instincts are that the issue may be more nuanced than your statement, by itself, may indicate.