Sapper Redux said:
Check out Creatures of Empire or Ecological Imperialism. It was not the method of farming that bothered Indians. They were farmers themselves. English colonists allowed their livestock to roam freely, destroying Indian agriculture and damaging their hunting grounds. The English refused to change their patterns and repeatedly violated the treaties they had with the neighboring tribes.
And didn't the Indians repeatedly violate the treaties that they had with whites? It's my understanding that the tribes often had no internal enforcement mechanisms, so although the tribe might enter into a treaty, the tribe had no way of enforcing that treaty against the tribal members. Further, the authority of the tribal members who signed the treaty would frequently be challenged by other tribal members and leaders.
A great example was the Comanches, who agreed to settle peacefully on their reservation in Oklahoma. But many tribal members, especially young men, said "BS" to that and engaged in raids deep into Texas, using the reservation as a refuge and base of operations.
Many if not most tribes really didn't have clearly defined territories, did they? For example, although no tribes apparently lived in Kentucky (for reasons I still don't understand), many claimed it and tried to exterminate the English who settled there.
Many tribes claimed vast territories that they could never begin utilizing or even to hold against their tribal enemies who also claimed that land. A modern analogy would be the modern national claims to the Arctic, the Antarctic or the Moon. Although many nations claim them, does their claim really have any basis?
And finally, many warlike tribes such as the Apaches and Comanches would exterminate anyone, white or Indian, wherever they found them.
The only examples you provide are of wrongs committed by the Europeans. Your examples are somewhat accurate albeit overstated. You refuse, however, to ever recount any wrongs committed by the Indians. That smacks of propaganda, not history.
