America did not have the beasts of burden beyond the limited to a specific region llamas and the dog that would have allowed domestication on the scale seen in Europe. In areas where there was potential to domesticate, Indians proved that they were very capable, like when the horse was introduced by Europeans. Within a generation, if one did not know better it would seeme Plain's Indians were horse riders and breeders 'par excellance' since the dawn of time.
Were Indians brutal in the wars mentioned? Yes, but so were the Europeans - those examples should not be used to measure who was right or wrong in terms of historical analysis.
Modern textbooks whitewash the Indians by saying they lived in harmony with nature and each other and treated it with respect
>>2banana's characterizations were not in accordance with scholarship on the subject - especially regarding on how native people's died out and on the domestication of animals.
Most Indians died because they had no contact with the diseases Europeans brought over. But that doesn't mean that the natives got along peacefully with each other and lived in a utopia the way my grade school teachers made it out.
You are right that there were no beasts of burden comparable to oxen or draft horses in the Americas, though dogs and travoises were used to great effect by natives all over the Americas. The Plains Indians really did adapt well to horses and were better horseman than just about any cavalry in the world at the time--possibly the best since the Mongols actually from what I understand. They just didn't get along with each other all that well, so you had Plains Indians raiding other tribes.
The history of the Americas is replete with Europeans capitalizing on this type of intra-tribal hostility to divide and conquer. Central Mexico, Peru, New England and the Plains.
What type of large, four-legged animal with medium-sized ears is it that is standing next to a man as depicted on the Chitzen-Itza stone carving commonly called "The Chitzen-Itza Horse"?
Most PC archeologists reject the conclusion it is actually a horse, but even llamas were not generally as far north as Yucatan. Maybe a Saint Bernard?
Also, the Mayan Rain God Chac, depicted with a large curling nose, most resembles an elephant, but again, PC archeologists reject that conclusion as well. These two PC rejections survive despite the fact that pre-columbian bones of horses and elephants have been discovered on the North American continent at various locations.
Could it be that American "Man" has domesticated/associated with animals the PC traditionalists don't want to acknowledge?