Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire What Did The Confederate States And The Indians Had In Common

What would be your point here, and which countries would you use as examples of each?

Jorge,

The caste system in New Spain was diabolical. The regulations were established by royal decree.and they were extremely strict. One faced anything from excommunication to possibly death for simply dressing above their station. Assimilation was pretty brutal in those days.

I would post a link describing it, but I gotta go haul some bulls to auction this morn for a friend. Y’all have fun.

It was to a point, but clearly in all LA countries save for Argentina, Chile, Costa Rica and Cuba, the indian populations were pretty much eradicated and oddly enough the aformentioned countries achieved the highest levels of socio-economic development as compared to those that created the "mestizos"... Bell Curve...

KW,

I have heard it said you were a major bullshipper....

So you're saying the best route to prosperity was to avoid "eradicating" the natives and keep the populatuon separate from the colonizers?

They both fought the USA and lost.

In the end might makes right, always has. The land is only yours as long as you have the power to hold it. The south then the indians both found out they didnt have the power to hold theirs. The physical land was taken from the indians. The south lost its power of self determination and way of life. It also lost actal land and business to carpetbaggers and reconstruction.

No sir. The route to prosperity is exactly what happened here and all the countries mentioned.

Hawaiians got it right

🤣🤣🤣👍👍

Something about two brothers..........

and a bowl of soup

The Confederates hated the Indians and the Indians hated them back.

The Indians were treated better by the USA then they treated each other.

The Confederates deserved everything that happened to them because they chose the fight a war of rebellion.

Shouldn’t we get reparations? I’m cool if the government wants to let me get paid in new/used firearms from the local armory.

Interesting theory. Do you think that's a more important factor than either wealth of natural resources or form of government?

People overlook too the friggin' enormous amount of exchange that went on any time the Frontier stabilized for any amount of time.

First off the obvious fact of Euro colonists adopting as their staples American Indian food crops.

And the other obvious of Indians adopting firearms, to the extent that you can build a strong case that the distinctively American longrifle was actually developed for the Indian trade, based upon Indian preferences. And the small axe, so useful in so many situations, became stereotypically part of Indian culture. In that light Dan'l Boone and all the other longhunters were adopting a sort of culturally hybrid manner of living and dress first developed by, and copied from, the Indians.

Beyond that split rail fences, glass windows, metal door hinges, shingled roofs, sawn timbers appear at least by the 1750's in Eastern Indian villages. By the Rev War the same Mohawks who went to war mostly naked and garishly painted were living in sawn timber farmhouses and hauling farm produce in horse drawn wagons. When Arthur St. Claire got whupped to the tun of 600 American lives lost on the Wabash (1793??) the Miami Chief Little Turtle who led the Indians lived in a two story house with glass windows, even had a friggin harpsichord in the parlor, and his town, Kekionga, had plank sidewalks and two general stores.

The Oniedas and Palatine Germans pledged total unity as early as the F&I War, forming mixed Ranging Companies. Down in the Southeast intermarriage with Whites was frequent among the Five Civilized Tribes and by the 1790's Creek Chiefs lived on plantations, kept slaves and were breeding and racing fine horses. During the Creek War William Weatherford, by DNA 7/8th White, was leading the "Indians" and the land the infamous "Fort Mim's Massacre" that led to Jackson's intervention too place on the land of the half-Creek mixed blood Frederick (??) Mims. There being about as much Native DNA inside and outside those walls.

I suppose the Cherokee were the mixed heritage poster child, everyone knows about their Legislature and alphabet, fewer know that two of their Chiefs, Crazy James and his son Rich Joe Vann, were two of the wealthiest men in the US in their day, thanks primarily to their shipping concerns.

Here in Texas, the Comanches had largely switched over to a cattle-based herding and ranching economy by the late 1860's, trading 30,000 head of cattle to the US Army in New Mexico in 1873, right before the Red River War broke out.

But still, easier just to go with the Pop version of History I guess...... White man bad, Indians simple, but good......

Birdy,
You are right of course about the southwest tribes adopting whitey's capitalist ways, and in some cases beating them at their own game. However, there were still plenty of Indian raids going on in the 1860's clear up until the 1880's. Especially in the territory north and west of Austin up in San Saba, Llano, Blanco and that area. The Indians may have recognized they were whipped but it didn't stop them from a quick sucker punch when they saw the opportunity.

the fusion of cultures. what a concept.

first the point of the spear.

then later, fusion.

when technology moves across the face of the urth, it's in fits and starts.

an individual life doesn't mean much when an ideology is on the line.

Well, a pastoralist lifestyle doesn't necessarily imply pacifism, look at the Mongols for example. When Kit Carson went up against the Kiowa at the First Battle of Adobe Walls (1864?), the Kiowa camps were all keeping company with large herds of cattle.

I'm not sure aI understand your question, but all I can tell you is in countries where the Europeans mixed with the locals, they didn't fare as well by ANY valid measure of effectiveness , unless you consider poverty, schitholes as ok.