I think this story is pretty objective, massacres by BOTH sides are listed.
I'd never heard that in 1622 the Jamestown (Virginia) colony was recduced from 80 to 6 plantations and those last few saved only by warning from a Christian Indian.

Opecancanough Leads Massacres on the Jamestown Settlement in 1622 and 1644 (ep. 3) - YouTube

Yes, the Indian wars that lasted 200 years began with an Indian attempt to wipe out Jamestown that ended up killing 1/4 of the white population.

Just a wish, but this bit of history could make a modern movie (as would the Battle on the Medina) that I would pay to see.

aalan94 said:

---

Yes, the Indian wars that lasted 200 years began with an Indian attempt to wipe out Jamestown that ended up killing 1/4 of the white population.

---

They began before that. That attack was not some random event with no precedence.

aalan94 said:

---

Quote:

---

They began before that. That attack was not some random event with no precedence.

---

Incorrect. Yes, there were murders or events on both sides, and while it was likely inevitable that it could come from either side, the fact is the very first large scale attack designed to wipe out the other side was perpetuated by the natives.

---

Really? What was the 1610 attack on the Paspaheghs, in that case? That the English were incapable of wiping out the Powhatan Confederacy in 1610 or 1622 doesn't mean they were somehow less aggressive.

Sapper Redux said:

---

aalan94 said:

---

Quote:

---

They began before that. That attack was not some random event with no precedence.

---

Incorrect. Yes, there were murders or events on both sides, and while it was likely inevitable that it could come from either side, the fact is the very first large scale attack designed to wipe out the other side was perpetuated by the natives.

---

Really? What was the 1610 attack on the Paspaheghs, in that case? That the English were incapable of wiping out the Powhatan Confederacy in 1610 or 1622 doesn't mean they were somehow less aggressive.

---

We were not there in 1610 or 1622. Both peoples were fighting for their lives. The truth is that "aggressive" behavior is as old as mankind itself. In general, someone wins and someone will lose.. It is not fair, but it is the way of human history.

Rongagin71 said:

---

This is what I mean by Sapper constantly coming into posts with Leftist commentary...it's true, but one sided.
We know there was precedent, in this case the precedent was many peaceful years before the surprise attack was launched...listen to the "Unworthy History" if you don't know what I'm talking about.

---

There weren't "many peaceful years." There was significant strain and near endemic low-level violence for years. The death of Pocahontas came along with a new outbreak of European disease in the Powhatan lands. The Powhatan refused to sell more land to the English and were in a diminished state due to disease, making them unable to provide goods as stipulated by treaties. The English established new colonies along the James with no agreement from the Powhatan and made plans to forcibly school Powhatan children in English ways.

The written response of the English to the massacre makes their own thoughts clear. They saw it as a net benefit and an opportunity to finally exterminate the Powhatans.

Are you complaining that the English were realists?
But the fact remains that peace was possible because it was done for 20 yrs.
There has never been "perfect peace" because in those days there was this thing called food that everyone was willing to fight over including the Indians before the Europeans came and the Europeans amongst themselves back in Europe. Food=Land.
Now I predict you will complain that the English set up ways to profit from their plantations, but you know very well that it hadn't been the Engish it would have been the Spanish, French, Dutch, Russians, etc
The British Empire was successful despite being greatly outnumbered and a lot of their success had to do with finding and exploiting opportunities for riches all over the world.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Rongagin71 said:

---

This is what I mean by Sapper constantly coming into posts with Leftist commentary...it's true, but one sided.
We know there was precedent, in this case the precedent was many peaceful years before the surprise attack was launched...listen to the "Unworthy History" if you don't know what I'm talking about.

---

There weren't "many peaceful years." There was significant strain and near endemic low-level violence for years. The death of Pocahontas came along with a new outbreak of European disease in the Powhatan lands. The Powhatan refused to sell more land to the English and were in a diminished state due to disease, making them unable to provide goods as stipulated by treaties. The English established new colonies along the James with no agreement from the Powhatan and made plans to forcibly school Powhatan children in English ways.

The written response of the English to the massacre makes their own thoughts clear. They saw it as a net benefit and an opportunity to finally exterminate the Powhatans.

---

I thought Pocahontas died in England?

Upvote for an interesting comment, thanks.