Quote:
Originally Posted by highthief
Please, don't be disingenuous.
The United States (and Canada and Peru and Bolivia and Brazil) all took over lands that "belonged" to someone else. After tens of millions of Indians were killed by war, disease and slavery many of the remaining fought back strongly. They were not part of an "army" in the sense we know it, and they adopted tactics that today we might describe as terrorist in that settlers and their familes were killed, scalped, tortured. Even today, South American indian tribes have adopted guerilla and terror tactics fighting against various governments and various corporations.
Were/are they terrorists for trying to resist the white man and get their land back using such means? If they weren't then (ie you believe they formed part of a legitimate resistance to the white man's occupation) would they be today if remaining Indians were to use such approaches against modern governments and non-native people?
|
I think the comparison to the Muslim terrorists is important, because just like all Muslims are not terrorists, nor were American Indians.
Some Muslims welcome the Western influences that the terrorists are supposedly fighting, just like some American Indians tried to assimulate with the white settlers.
Just like some Americans view all Muslims as terrorists, some viewed all Indians as savage killers, when we know that isn't true in either case.
This is a good question to bring up as a comparison, but in the way you have it, it is like asking if all Muslims are terrorists, which as we know isn't at all true.