Replies

it goes back so far in time that who drew first blood gets lost in the mist, but one thing that you don't hear about in today's PC "evil White Man" genocide b/s is how indian warfare allowed for attacking of undefended settlements, capture, torture and killing of innocent non-combatants - the women and children.

This may have been ok for the injuns - but when they came up against a Western Civilization people to whom such "acts" are the most vile atrocities, their number was up.

"it goes back so far in time that who drew first blood gets lost in the mist, but one thing that you don't hear about in today's PC "evil White Man" genocide b/s is how indian warfare allowed for attacking of undefended settlements, capture, torture and killing of innocent non-combatants - the women and children.

This may have been ok for the injuns - but when they came up against a Western Civilization people to whom such "acts" are the most vile atrocities, their number was up."

Actually its more a case of common behavior across the world and throughout history. Anywhere people lived it was where they had previously run off/killed the ones who were there before.

The indians faced people who were simply better at it and had more advanced technologies and organization. Read what the English did in Ireland just before they started the colonies at Jamestown, etc... Some of the same soldiers had just been in Ireland. The indians had their own wars and conquests, but were no match for the Europeans once they got organized and interested.

The Aztecs fell more because they were so hated by the other peoples nearby who took very little persuasion to help Cortes.

Pizarro conquered the Incas who were left vulnerable because of their own very bloody civil war.

Oh yeah, forgot about that. IT fits in well with the environment. You don't just destroy a rival tribe's warriors, you destroy the tribe.

Way before Euros even develop the first city state, genocide was already being practiced.