If American Indians were as "violent" as Muslims (from the beginning) would they be in better position today ?

Question

The Jews were never called "terrorists"....... did that help them in the HOLOCAUST ?


/

Answer 1

i think some of the indians were just as violent .. and it just made things worse for them in the end ... and not all muslims are violent either ..

Answer 2

The premise of your question is wrong. Most of the Amerindian nations in North American had classic "warrior" cultures in which all adult males (minus cripples & homosexuals) were expected to be warriors. Even at the height of jihad-mania, few Muslim societies today are this violent. In the past when there were still large populations of herdsmen living in traditional, autonomous tribes, you could have found Muslims with similar social & psychological structures. Today, I don't think so, except perhaps among some of the more backward Pushtun clans....

Studies by serious historians have established pretty conclusively that the tribes that fought the European colonists generally did better than the ones who submitted passively. Although they were all beaten in the end, the tribes that fought back were generally able to negotiate better treaty settlements than the ones who didn't. The Hopi Nation is just about the only exception to that rule. The respondants above who've said otherwise have clearly received a distorted version of history probably from the brainbleeped, ex-hippies who infest university faculties nowadays.

Your other premise regarding the Jews is equally invalid. Jews were accused of terrorism among other things by the Reich government and it's allies. The destruction of the "Reichstag", the German parliamentary building, was blamed on Communists and was used by the Nazis as a pretext to declare martial law. This is relevant because several generations ago, communist parties were widely perceived to be a front for Jewish control of society. In a society as saturated with anti-Semitic propaganda as Germany in the 30s, to blame a major act of terrorism on communists was effectively to accuse the Jews of doing it.

I hope this clears up your confusion; if not, the links below may be helpful....

Nimadan

Answer 3

The Jews issue for the Holocaust, no, they weren't terrorists, they were used as scape goats however by an evil regime that got just what it deserved.
For the American Indian, we lied to them, cheated them, and generally treated them as animals that were best slaughtered. A program that we followed for many years. Perhaps we should do the same for the Fascist Muslims of today. We should use the tenets of their religion against them and stay the course thus set until they are all either dead, or no longer wish to fight. Based on their unthinking zeal for power, position, and blood, wipe out seems to be the only answer that they have chosen to pursue. It is us, or them, and I believe that it should be them. Only a f**l would believe that they can be reasoned with. That is the same idea that Prime Minister Chamberlain had of dealing with Nazi Germany. Check the history books to see how much peace that got Europe when the Nazi's decided it was time to build their third Reich. Things have not changed, it's just a new group that the world needs to stand up to, and crush, for the best interests of us all.

Answer 4

I will have to go with no..

American Indians (AI's from now on to save typing) were many many diverse tribes warring amoungst themselves when Europeans arrived.. The AI's didn't have the firepower or the cohesive group required to fight from the beginning.. Europeans took advantage of these factors in order to steal land and slaughter AI's..

If the AI's had been a cohesive single group when Europeans landed there is the possibility they could have overcome the lack of firepower however that was not the case..

The AI's also fought by a code of war amongst themselves... Women and children were not targets for death they were taken prisoner and assimilated into the victors tribe.. At the end of any given battle/war the casualties while large in number did little to stop the next generation of births as the women were still alive many actually expecting as they would often try to get pregnant before the men went off to fight.

When Europeans came they engaged in wholesale slaughter men, women and children alike entire generations of tribes were slaughtered making the continuation of the tribe impossible.. Europeans moved across the land driving the AI's ahead of them (some tribes fled) or slaughtering those who stayed to fight..

Unfortunately the AI's were not prepared to fight outside their codes of war.. They really didn't have a chance against the juggernaut that was the Europeans..

What helped the Jews during the Holocaust was other nations finally stepping up and battling the Germans... Hitler and the 3rd Reich were well on the way to systematically conquoring Europe and exterminating the Jews (as well as other groups deemed undesirable)..

If Hitler had listened to Rommel and defended the French coast as Rommel layed out the Allies probably would have lost that battle and the war would have raged on much longer..

Luckily Hitler was a meglomaniac who saw Rommel as a threat to his position and didn't follow Rommels plans.. As a general and fighting man Rommel was a genius he could visualize the battlefield no matter the size and keep track of the action on that feild.. If Hitler had been less insane and paranoid about his position of power being taken he could have won..

Answer 5

The handguns and rifles that the settlers carried were such an overwhelming technical advantage that the Native Americans never stood a chance -- regardless how fiercely they may have wanted to defend their lands and their way of life.

And of course they did not have the same understanding of ownership of land that the settlers had. They just didn't get the idea that someone could claim a piece of earth and then force others not go on it.

But I suppose the biggest thing that the settlers had in their favor was that they were absolutely the worst kind of bloodthirsty killer the world has ever created. To be this kind of killer you need to believe that the people you are killing are NOT people. The Nazis did this when they killed Jews and the Settlers did this when they killed the Savages. Brutal Killers always have to dehumanize the group that they want killed. This is how the pioneers did this.

The moral of the story here is to be aware when one group of people starts using dehumanizing language against another group... like naming an entire group of people terrorists... it's easy to kill terrorists but much harder to kill human beings.

Answer 6

The Jews were called robbers, arsonists, and other vulgarities to "justify" the extermination of them....

And no, the Indians would not be better off today if they had been more violent. If they risked open-war, the whites who were trying to defend the Indians would have lost their defense. Bartolomew las Casas, a Christian missionary, specifically showed how the Indians could co-exist with the whites and converted a hostile Indian chief to prove it. Had the Indians just fought, fought, fought, the whites would have showed no hesitance.

Answer 7

There used to be more nationalities within what is now the United States of America than there are now in Europe and the Middle East combined.

Most "First Nations" (indians) were not violent people.
The most violent nations assimilated the easiest because their culture was most similar to the American Government. (like the Iraquoi, who now build skysrapers in New York).

Any normal resistance to the white man resulted in Genocide, so violence was not very successful against a higher technology with a limitless draft pool comming from Europe.

You perhaps mean that the Indians should not have helped the Pilgrams, but should have exterminated every white face they saw.
Well, I am not comfortable with violence, but you may have a point.

But why do you say Muslims are violent?

Europeans and Americans have in the last 100 years killed millions of Muslims, including destroying the only large country in the world that was peacefully multi-cultural, the Ottoman Empire.
We replaced that civilization with a clutter of little states ruled by the terrorists who had helped us destroy the Ottoman Empire.
It should not supprise us that the leadership we chose due to their violence is still violent today.
Muslims are naturally less violent than Europeans, and much less violent than Americans.

Americans have killed over a million muslims in Iraq alone.
Palastinians have killed and evicted far fewer Jews than the number of Palastinians killed and evicted by the Jews.
Even today, there are millions of refugees who are living in concentration camps for generations, not allowed to return to their homes in what is now Israel. Only a small percentage of these refugees have attacked Israel.

If Russian Jews came to the USA and ran most of the Americans down to Mexico, a much larger percentage would fight agaist the Russians.

So the Muslims are much more peaceful than Americans. Americans have killed more people than the Muslims in the last 100 years.

And the Ottoman Empire respected Jews and Christians as believers.

Israel is in a bad situation and feels persecuted. What Jew has not lost family members to Hitler or Stalin? But their reaction has been very similar to the policies of Hitler. They have been as a country more violent than the rulers of the middle east before American and British interfereance in 1914-1918.

If the Muslims in Israel were a little more clever, they would believe in the slogan of the hippies, "make love not war".
In 50 years the muslims would outnumber and outvote the Jews :)
This would be more efective than the current activities.

This sex policy did not work for the indians, as President Andrew Jackson and others used gennocide to destroy over a hundred nationalities by killing the women and children, and by giving infected blankets to the indian babies.

By this "American" standard,
Hitler was an amature,
and both the Muslims and Jews are Pacifists!

As a child, I heard people say "the only good indian is a dead indian.

The little song
1 little, 2 little 3 little indians etc
10 little 9 little ....1 little indian boy
is about the indians breeding to increase their number, with the only solution to kill them off and leave only a few males and mo breeding females.
I heard my child's school singing it just last year.

So to answer your question, if the indians had resisted more, we whites would have killed not 98% of them but 100% of them.

And any muslim group that does not kiss Bush's *** will be destroyed.

(Everyone knows that Bush made plans for starting nuclear war with 7 different nations: Libia, Syria, Iraq, Iran, N.Koria, China, and Russia) Putin frowned, N. Korea build a bomb, so is Iran, China bribed some politicians, Lybia kissed our ***, and Iraq is in real hell under the USA puppet government.

Lybia was the most clever, kiss our *** and hide from sight. They are the most clever muslims.

But we should understand the feeling of desire for freedom.When I was a child, we said "better dead than red".
So we need to understand that the muslims are not violent, they have just been pushed beyond their limits for the last 90 years.

And as for your previous question,
Jesus said that no one has ascended to heaven except himself, meaning to go by one's own power. The Prophets were taken there by god.

Answer 8

They first nations peoples would probably all be dead if they were as violent as muslims. They were outgunned, and the colonists were a lot less patient than we are now.

The Jews didn't strap bombs to children and fly planes into buildings, that may have helped them avoid being called terrorists.

Answer 9

Not all Muslims are violent. There are extremist in every religion. If you knew your history you would also know that many or most of the whites that fought and conquered the Indians were also very violent. What is your point? The terrorism caused by the Nazis did them no good in the end.

Answer 10

Some tribes were - the nez Pierce, the Hurons, the Iriquois - and some were worse than them. what was thwe reaction to their violence? To hunt them down, kill them and drive the survivors away.

It would have been worse on the american indian if they'd been more violent. they may not even exist anymore if they had.

Answer 11

they were.The american indian was a great fighter, but was not accustomed to wars and long term campaigns.. They couldn't see the big picture that wave after wave of soldiers and civilians were coming to stay.
The only reason the Muslims are causing so much trouble is they have oil money and can buy technology. If they were left alone w/o money they would still be herding goats.. They buy outside technology, but they don't invent it..
If their society was so great they themselves would solve the terrorist problem..