Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Publius6961
The peaceful part, ditto.

In all my research on the Eastern Woodland tribes, I have yet to run across a 'peaceful' one. If your tribe was 'peaceful', it didn't exist past the next spring. That was the hard truth. No modern liberal (or member of the Shinnecock tribe as it is currently constituted) would want to live how they did back then.
53 posted on 06/16/2005 11:21:08 AM PDT by Antoninus (Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini, Hosanna in excelsis!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies ]


To: Antoninus

"The peaceful part, ditto.

In all my research on the Eastern Woodland tribes, I have yet to run across a 'peaceful' one. If your tribe was 'peaceful', it didn't exist past the next spring. That was the hard truth. No modern liberal (or member of the Shinnecock tribe as it is currently constituted) would want to live how they did back then."

Yes, but this is as true of the tribes of Europe and elsewhere.

Warfare is a part of life.

There was not a lot of total warfare, and the lack of concentrated power in centralized government meant that many "wars" were really just gangs of young men lead by some charismatic guy going out and fighting other gangs of young men.

Within the big national zones there was not a tremendous amount warfare in the "total war" sense. There was the equivalent of crime and border skirmishes. Think feudal Europe without fortresses and you are not all that terribly far off.


57 posted on 06/16/2005 11:30:31 AM PDT by Vicomte13 (Tibikak ishkwata?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson