Victoria's Secret Show Angers Native Americans

[vailpass]

Originally Posted by listopencil

My dad took me up there as a teen. It's an incredible experience. Especially if you've been spoon fed "history" like I was as a child. Here is this city created in a cliff. As complex as a European castle. Built by "savages."

Savages? I don't think anyone has said or thought that since the days of the Wild Wild West have they?

[ThaVirus]

Originally Posted by listopencil

Follow the links. I'm fond of Mesa Verde myself.

I did and it seemed factual but I noticed it was a humor site so I had to ask.

I found the bit about the Vikings interesting. I had heard they had sailed to Nova Scotia as early as 1200 AD but never heard of any encounters with the natives, and definitely not as early as 960 AD.

There just so much information, and with that misinformation, out there. I wish I could know it all!

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by ThaVirus

I did and it seemed factual but I noticed it was a humor site so I had to ask.

I found the bit about the Vikings interesting. I had heard they had sailed to Nova Scotia as early as 1200 AD but never heard of any encounters with the natives, and definitely not as early as 960 AD.

There just so much information, and with that misinformation, out there. I wish I could know it all!

Leif Ericson.

[ThaVirus]

I wonder how things would have turned out had the Native Americans had resistances to Old World diseases.

The whole ordeal would have taken a lot longer, that's for sure. Assuming the tribes were able to band together for a common cause, we might have seen an infusion of white settlers into Native societies as opposed to what happened..

[MagicHef]

Originally Posted by ThaVirus

Is that Cracked.com site factual?

You can check their references yourself, they cite basically every non-opinion thing they claim. One of their references is a resolution passed by congress recognizing the influence of the Iroquois Confederacy on the US Constitution.

[listopencil]

Man. I just vividly remembered an argument I had with one of my elementary school teachers. We had to memorize the state bird, flower, animal, etc. She told us it was illegal to pick Bluebonnets and I thought that was silly. That didn't go over well.

[Rain Man]

Ah, nice answers. Thanks.

So essentially the Native Americans died because they had healthy country lifestyles in fresh air and they didn't score with Asian and African chicks.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

Ah, nice answers. Thanks.

So essentially the Native Americans died because they had healthy country lifestyles in fresh air and they didn't score with Asian and African chicks.

Imagine what this country would be like had there been an unbroken line of Native American population into the modern world.

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by listopencil

Imagine what this country would be like had there been an unbroken line of Native American population into the modern world.

I'm envisioning more of a Palestine/Israel situation.

One thing that the ancient civilizations were good at was wiping out the indigenous people when they took over a place. It made continued resistance a non-issue. It apparently happened more accidentally in the New World, but it still happened, and the Europeans ended up with an easier conquest as a result.

The Romans appear to be a big exception to that rule, though, which says that you can take over a place and not have to kill everyone who was there before. But I think the Romans brought a lot of benefits with them and gave full citizenship to the conquered people, so maybe that quelled resistance as much as killing would've.

It makes one wonder if we offered American citizenship to Iraq and let them be the 52nd state (after Puerto Rico, apparently), would that place settle down? I'm only half joking on this.

[Frosty]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

I'm envisioning more of a Palestine/Israel situation.

One thing that the ancient civilizations were good at was wiping out the indigenous people when they took over a place.

Actually, it was more likely that the conquerors relocated the natives and moved their own people into the newly taken area. The native people were integrated into other areas of the empire, sometimes as slaves, sometimes as citizens.

Wholesale slaughter is a waste of resources and enslaving an entire population takes too much manpower to oversee. That's why the Romans did it the way that they did.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

I'm envisioning more of a Palestine/Israel situation.

One thing that the ancient civilizations were good at was wiping out the indigenous people when they took over a place. It made continued resistance a non-issue. It apparently happened more accidentally in the New World, but it still happened, and the Europeans ended up with an easier conquest as a result.

The Romans appear to be a big exception to that rule, though, which says that you can take over a place and not have to kill everyone who was there before. But I think the Romans brought a lot of benefits with them and gave full citizenship to the conquered people, so maybe that quelled resistance as much as killing would've.

It makes one wonder if we offered American citizenship to Iraq and let them be the 52nd state (after Puerto Rico, apparently), would that place settle down? I'm only half joking on this.

You are assuming that a European victory is assured. That's not necessarily true. They would hold a technological advantage at first. But it's not like the natives had no ranged weps. Then would come problems with that long supply line and keeping weapons out of the native's hands.

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by listopencil

You are assuming that a European victory is assured. That's not necessarily true. They would hold a technological advantage at first. But it's not like the natives had no ranged weps. Then would come problems with that long supply line and keeping weapons out of the native's hands.

It seems to me, though, that the Native Americans were too decentralized. Defeating 90 million Native Americans would be very tough, but I don't think that's the war. I think the war is defeating one tribe and then moving on to the next one. It seems like the eastern tribes would work together, but I don't think the western tribes did much of that at all, and they certainly wouldn't send troops east.

It seems like the Native Americans' best chances would be that the eastern tribes would ally and stop the Europeans at the beaches. If they got past the eastern tribes, I think they'd roll west to the sea like Sherman.

[listopencil]

Another fun idea for a Red Dawn remake. Alternate history prequel. The native population isn't wiped out. North and South America have to fight off Northern and Southern Europe.

[listopencil]

Fast forward a few hundred years at the end of the movie with the United Tribes of the People worrying about China.

[listopencil]

Make it a series.

Episode one: The birth of the United Tribes of the People in the North and the Empire of the Three Kingdoms to the South. Freedom seeking Europeans flock to the continents to set up industrial enterprises taking advantage of the natural resources available. They become rich business tycoons and help to shape native society.

Episode two: Civil war rocks the Tribes and the Kingdoms develop into a republic. Both countries come out of it potentially stronger than they were before, and eventually take their place as a geopolitical force.

Episode three: World War One breaks and the natives sell arms to both sides, some citizens go to Europe to fight. Horrible sanctions levied by the winning side lead to economic collapse by the losers, prompting another war. The natives actively involve themselves this time and truly establish themselves as a world power.