English at fault for attacks w/ Native Americans?

Question

The First english colonists were treated, for the most part, like friends by most Native American tribes they met. As time passed, the colonists ignored Native Americans while infringing on their lands. As a result, some Native Americans attacked colonial settlements spawning counter attacks and uprisings against friendly tribes. Are the colonists at fault for failing to better understand their situation and dealing with it more peacefully? If so, why??

Answer 1

~It is not a question of fault. The Europeans needed room for their ever growing populations and they needed resources to fuel their factories and industries. The western hemisphere was an ideal solution. Once here, the European settlers wanted more land. They took it. Nothing happened in the Americas that hadn't happened elsewhere throughout history.

Don't kid yourself about the 'friendly' and 'helpful' natives. As many were not as were.

And look no further than the Algonquins and Iroquois to see that the Europeans did nothing to the natives that the natives had not been doing amongst themselves for centuries. The Europeans were just more thorough and efficient at it.

Before lamenting the plight of the natives, check into why the Tuscarora ended up in the Iroquois Confederation. Could it be because the Cherokee kicked them out of North Carolina? Did the Cherokee need that land because of the Seminole expansion to their south? Why did the Gataka move into Arizona. Surely the Kaw were willing to give them more room in Kansas when the Lakota sent them packing from Montana. At least they might have been willing if they hadn't been so busy fighting off the Pawnee. Of course, the Lakota (and the other tribes commonly and mistakenly called "Sioux") were only on the plains because they had been displaced from their ancestral Mississippi basin homelands by yet others.

The natives lacked the technology, the numbers and the unity to withstand the European expansion. They lost. There is no difference in what happened in the Western Hemisphere than has happened elsewhere across the globe. The Celts, the Gauls, the Angles and the Saxons all ended up on Britain because they were removed by stronger Teutonic tribes from France, Germany and the Low Countries. The Rus moved to the Volga when their Teutonic cousins in Scandinavia booted them out. The Etruscans, Lombards and Villanovans combined and formed the largest single Teutonic Empire, Rome, that Europe has seen and the Romans were in their turn beaten back by yet other Teutons. Similar events were occurring in Asia at the same time and had happened in the Middle East and Mediterranean Basin eons earlier. African tribes did the same.

Man is an imperialistic, savage animal. When a stronger, larger group meets a smaller, weaker one, the result is predictable and inevitable. It isn't a question of right or wrong, guilt or innocence. It is simply a fact of life. As long as we have nation-states and ethnic, religious and racial bigotry, that history will continue. Witness the Sunni/Shiite/Kurd conflict in the Middle East. Witness the Christians and almost anyone, including each other (the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Reformation or, today, the bigot neocons of the Moral Majority and its offspring).

The colonists knew well their situation and they dealt with it as anyone else at the time would have done. No, there was no peaceful solution. The natives understood their situation, too. That's why there were wars. That doesn't make it right, but, again, right and moral are simply issues that did not apply.

Answer 2

The early contacts between the English and the native tribes were quite a mixed bag. There were great differences between the way the Pilgrims, the Puritans, the Quakers and the Anglicans treated Native Americans. The Pilgrims and the Quakers were quite friendly and treated Native Americans with respect, the Anglicans treated them like idiot customers who should be bilked at every turn, and the Puritans treated them like diseased devil-worshippers. There was plenty of friendly intercourse between the 5 'civilized' tribes and the Catholic colonies in the south (which later became the home of the KKK which is anti-catholic as well as racist, go figure). The Iroquois Confederacy also held its own for a long time and might've survived the Revolutionary War intact if they'd sided with we rebels.

There are particular cases where the bag is not at all mixed. The displacement of the 5 Tribes (most famously the Cherokee) by the US Army was unconscionable and entirely unjust as well as illegal. President Jackson defied the Supreme Court and the Congress and did it on his own initiative through his powers as Commander-in-Chief. There are several other times and places where the former colonists were entirely at fault.

Many of the hostilities were simply the result of culture clash. Many of the different Nations were opposed to the very concept of peace, because they had an outlook on war not unlike the Vikings. Part of the problem was (like the Vikings) the chiefs and kings didn't really have all that much control over them, so while the English thought they were making deals with a whole Nation, in fact they were dealing with a particular village or group of villages, and their treaties weren't binding on anybody else. The USA made the same mistake many times. However the reverse is also true. While the US government (or the British government before) might claim to speak for all their people, obviously they didn't. Ordinary folks just wandered into Native American territory and did as they pleased, and sometimes they paid for it with their lives. Most of the settlements in the Americas were not planned or built by any government, and few had any government permission.

It is a mistake to blame the English (or the Spanish, Dutch etc) for all the problems that occurred, because doing so relegates the Native Americans to child status. Were they (and are they) grown-ups or not? Were they capable of understanding foreign cultures or not? Why is it incumbent upon Europeans to understand Native American culture but not the reverse? The idea that Native Americans were a lot of permanent children incapable of making adult decisions is condescending and racist, yet you'll hear it made constantly by those who pretend to be anti-racist.

On balance I blame Europeans more than Native Americans largely because Europeans tended to be more deceitful. But it was never a one-sided game. It took centuries because the balance changed over and over. It wasn't until the latter half of the 19th century that the momentum was entirely on the side of the newcomers.

Answer 3

Happily, since none of my relatives where in North America when these monstrosities took place, I can say this without guilt and without prejudice:

The colonists were no more at fault than any fool who fails to be ahead of his time may be said to be. They failed to see Native Americans as people despite the obvious evidence all around them. Then again, the English were friendly until they saw they had the technological advantage - who knows how things would have gone down if the situation were reversed. Actually, at the risk of sounding like a know-it-all, I can hazard a guess. Those of us who made it this far in the natural selection game (that's every living soul, by the by), have ancestors who slaughtered and stole land. What makes the North American situation so unpalatable is that it happened so recently and in a time when people had many of the same trappings of our own civilization, including our language. Neanderthal man was similarly exterminated, perhaps even totally annihilated. We have the extraordinary advantage, the luxury of guilt. We are comfortable enough in this day in age, in this part of the world, that we don't have to fight and kill and plunder foreign lands.

The colonists are at fault for being the true savages in this situation, but we are much more at fault for buying goods made in a slave market, for eating more than our fair share of resources.

Guilt, I think, tends to be retrospective.

Answer 4

not once in history has the invasion of the british or english been friendly. Sure they landed here and under false pretenses pretending to be friendly.
Look at Africa, India, Australia, South America. All places that seen war with our friendly english/british. But lets not forget about the spanish, they too cut through locals as if they werent there.
One: they did not care if there was a civilization in place already.
two: nothing would stop them from reaching their ultimate goal....power.
three: locals in these places were considered "SAVAGE," meaning they did not follow laws, or had any kind of religion, so it was up to them to "save" these ignorant people.
They gave themselves lame excusses to kill innocent people, and used thier religion to back it up. Much like our now a days terriosim. They were fenatics with the power of the crown behind them.

Answer 5

its not a europeans land and america should never forget what happened,nor europeans,unfortunately the arrogance continues to this day

Answer 6

~Hey Oscar. Since you answered this so accurately and thoroughly, no need for me to answer.

Answer 7

It was all our fault.. We stole from them and killed them. We tried to convert them and killed some more.