There is alot more than that:
The American Indian, or "Native American" were a stone age people when discovered by the Europeans. They had not domesticated animals, they had no written language and they had not even invented the wheel.
However, their lack of technology did not prevent them warring among themselves, practicing genocide (Iroquois, Mahegan), slavery (Choctaws, Chickasaws) and cannibalism (Navajo, Anasazi).
Who made the Mound Builders extinct, since they vanished long before any white man set foot in the Americas (officially)? Who wiped out the Anazasi, the Fremont, and on and on and on?
Answer: Other Indians wiped those tribes out.
It also did not stop most native Americans tribes to side with the losing side during the most wars in North America.
1675 - 1676 -- King Philip's War -- a larger percentage of the American population was lost in this war than in any other American war. The indians burned down whole villages and slaughter the inhabitants, but they lost the war.
1750's -- French-Indian War -- Indians sided with the French against the British. They committed atrocities and they lost the war.
1770's -1780's -- American Revolution -- Indians sided with the Britsh. They lost the war.
1812 -- The Indians again sided with the British. And again they lost.
2b,
I read the first couple chapters of a recent book about the Deerfield raid. They go into some detail about the trade relations and feuds between the tribes in the northeast.
White traders and settlers didn't show those tribes how to conduct political intrigue, wage war, or have business acumen. They already had those attributes, and were used to the settlers' advantage.
What wiped out the mound builders and other tribes was probably small pox or measles or other communicable diseases which spread like wild fire with first contact with Europeans elsewhere but wiped them all out before Europeans prosaically arrived in those regions.
I agree with the basic thrust of your post, but just have a few questions.
By Anazasi, do you mean the Chaco Great House builders, people on the Colorado Plateau after Chaco living in Mesa Verde and that region, or later Rio Grande pueblos just before Coronado? It's a bit of a pulp journalism term (from the Navajo no less) that kind of glosses over the differences between these time periods. Maybe I'm being too academic considering my background. People like to say the Anazasi disappeared, but really they probably just moved, changed their settlement patterns (no more great houses), and became more insular. Probably as a result of internecine warfare coupled with local environmental degradation and climate fluctuations.
King Philip's War was brutal, as was the earlier Pequot War that preceded it. In both cases, different Indian tribes sided with either the Indians or the Colonists. I've worked on sites for both these early clashes between colonists and Indians. Some very interesting uses of european trade goods and modification to suit the Indians sense of what was important.
The French and Indian War was against mostly the French and their Huron allies. For the most part the Iroquis tribes were on the side of the Brits/Colonists, mostly because they were fighting their old enemies (the Huron). I don't know as much about this or later conflicts though, so I can't really say which side committed more atrocities. I would guess they are about equal.
>>cannibalism (Navajo, Anasazi).
I've seen and studied some of these remains. Some pretty grisly stuff though they all pre-date the Navajo from what I understand.
Blah blah blah. Bunch of savages only good for killin', right? Funny how these "stone age cultures" were able to create democratic governments (Iroquois Confederation), permanent villages, farming techniques, and all the other trappings of "civilized" society, all while being ignorant barbaric savages, eh? Maybe those were just hobbies. Ya know, things to do when they get tired of killing everything that moves.
However, their lack of technology did not prevent them warring among themselves, practicing genocide (Iroquois, Mahegan), slavery (Choctaws, Chickasaws) and cannibalism (Navajo, Anasazi).
And yet, the technological advances in european societies didn't stop them from warring among themselevs(brits and french and dutch and germans and spanish and...), practicing genocide (I'm sure you can think of several examples. If not, try picking up a book sometime), slavery (british, spanish etc...)... But hey, those indians did it all without church approval, and for that they must die.
Who made the Mound Builders extinct, since they vanished long before any white man set foot in the Americas (officially)? Who wiped out the Anazasi, the Fremont, and on and on and on?
Actually, do you have evidence that the Anisazi or the Mound Builders are actually extinct? Could it possibly be that they MOVED? I mean, the Iroquois are believed to have originated in teh american southwest, and ended up in upstate New York. Different climates lead to major culture changes, and stuff. It could be something as simple as that. We just don't know, but it's a lot easier to just believe something, so as to believe the worst in other cultures that differ from our own.
Answer: Other Indians wiped those tribes out.
Actually, we don't know that. There are none around that we know of to tell us what their fate was, and who, if anyone, was responsible for it. But hey, why not just toss baseless accusations out there. More fun that way.
1675 - 1676 -- King Philip's War -- a larger percentage of the American population was lost in this war than in any other American war. The indians burned down whole villages and slaughter the inhabitants, but they lost the war.
A large percentage of american indian lives were lost during King Phillip's War, when colonists burned down entire indian villages and slaughtered the inhabitants, and/or sold them into slavery in Spain and in the Carribean. But hey, let's just bitch about it when the indians do it, and totally ignore wholesale slaughter on the part of the oh-so-civilized whites, right?
1750's -- French-Indian War -- Indians sided with the French against the British. They committed atrocities and they lost the war.
Maybe it's just me, but from this alone, you appear to be an ignorant uneducated individual who has never actually looked at any historical text. You seem to lump all indians into one group, and ignore the fact that not all indians were on the same side. For example, some indians were allied with the french - however, many indian nations were allies of the british during the various French and Indian wars. But hey, why let a little thing like facts get in the way, right?
1770's -1780's -- American Revolution -- Indians sided with the Britsh. They lost the war.
Well, SOME indians sided with the british. Other indians sided with the rebellious colonists. In fact, this split often occurred within indian nations - the Iroquois are a perfect example. Some members of the confederacy sided with the brits, and some with the colonists. But again, why let a little thing like facts get in the way...
1812 -- The Indians again sided with the British. And again they lost.
SOME indians sided with the british during that war, and for very good reasons, might I add. However, not all indians participated, or even took sides, during the war of 1812. Some did, some didn't. But again, why let little things like facts get in the way of a good indian-bashing, right?
Pick up a book someday, open it, and actually READ. You might, one day, learn something. You might actually LIKE it.