|
I think the breakdown has been pointed out, it is the attempt to define something from a different time with words and boundaries that are hundreds of years after the fact.
Did "Indians" commit terrorism? Yes. A raiding party on the frontier killing civilians would be easily equated as terrorism as its intent was to instill fear and reach a goal that could not easily be obtained for them.
Does it make them terrorists? Again, depends what eyes you look through, and I'm not saying that in an "us or them" sense. People fought differently 100-200-300 years ago. The British wore bright red coats, filed ranks in wide open fields, and due to their drums and pagentry could probably have been heard for miles coming down the road. I don't blame the Indians, or anybody else fighting them, using what were "non-conventional" (read not retarded) tactics; it doesn't make them a terrorist because the Indians or American patriots didn't paint a bullseye on themselves and stand in plain view to get shot at. Possibly the most idiotic means to equating terrorism to that time.
In short they were not terrorists, they were fighting a war the only way they knew in a different time and world. At the same time, I think it is a little far fetched to label them freedom fighters, seems like a way to thumb your nose at those "evil" WASP settlers. Venni Vetti Vicci right? I came, I conquered, I felt bad.
__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.
|