If you could go back in time and be president, would you genocide the Indians again?

They were thrilled and that’s how a small group of Spaniards under Cortez could do so much. They had tens of thousands of native allies.

2 Likes

[quote=“8flat, post:275, topic:3726679, full:true”]

You totally did and even went further down the retard path and claimed they could have held a significant part of the land if banded together under Comanche leadership. ROFL

Ok. …?

But tell me All Knowing, how were they gonna do that when all the Buffalo died?

Every single point you have tried to make has been refuted in this very thread. Look I get it, you read Empire and went down the Dan Carlin rabbit hole for 3 days and now think yourself an expert on this subject.

Next up is Blood Meridian lol

you’re welcome

This

Also the Comanches had terrorized the other tribes for ages, uniting under them was so out of the question after generations of abuse and warfare.

1 Like

I read an interesting book about Custer and Crazy Horse. It mentioned that the plains Indians didn’t fight ‘wars’ so much as skirmishes. They didn’t have enough of a population to maintain what they had if they killed each other off, so they were more interested in counting coup and looking brave instead of eradicating each other.

Whites had the different mentality.

3 Likes

Summary: “Indians were ALL Primitive Savages…Indians are ALL Drunks”-----OG RACISTS

Caucasians invented distillation thousands of years ago and by now have a built in tolerance to alcohol. Wild indians never got around to inventing alcohol or anything else, so it affects them differently, inducing psychosis. It took me a good twenty years to smooth out to a normalizing effect, and i’m 75% norman english. Most full bloods never reach a point of normalcy in regard to drinking, back in the day they believed a person couldn’t be held accountable for anything they did drunk, no more than they could be held accountable for being picked up by a tornado and slammed into other people.

2 Likes

[quote=“Peruvian_Necktiez, post:282, topic:3726679, full:true”]

LOL you seem to struggle with hypothetical conversations. You know, thought experiments. Instead of offering up your point of view, you just go reeeee “you sound retarded”.

I guess you recommended a good book, so there’s a contribution to this convo haha. Good job?

Lol

You wouldn’t last a day as a white person if you’re this but hurt about this thread. They say worse things about white ppl at my job in mandatory training

3 Likes

it sure TRIGGERED you LOL

Saw them with Molly Hatchet back in the day in the old Charlotte Coliseum and I had to keep one eye on the stage and one eye across the coliseum because bottle rockets were going back and forth like the damn Vietnam war, LOL. Good show too.

1 Like

I saw a tribal band at a powow ib Oklahoma years ago. They called themselves Thunderhorse. I bought their cds.

1 Like

Ttt for Thunderhorse

1 Like

You actually have it sort of backward.

At first European contact the killing power of the bow vs the rifles the whites had was arguably pretty equal.

Colonial era guns had the advantage of being quite scary with the noise and smoke, but they were not amazing weapons.

Post civil war the americans had much more devastating rifles and sidearms, and the natives basically had the previous generation of not amazing guns and some bow

2 Likes

most indians who had firearms owned the hudson bay indian “trade” guns, which were low quality smooth bores. When they got firearms, they were mostly these trade muskets. At the little big horn, they had managed to get a few winchester repeaters from previous victims. The penalty for providing them the latest weapons was death, so there wasn’t a lot of purveyors, usually whisky traders, who, being paid up front, would leave the whisky and firearms and then run like hell. Since to be caught by a drunk wild indian was sure death

3 Likes

Indians didn’t have access to repeating rifles?