Were the American Indians "terrorists"
 

I got to thinking about this the other day - whenever terrorism is brought up someone will often try to say "Well, by such and such definition, Geroge Washington and the rest of the American revolutionaries were terrorist". This rapidly degenerates into a "how dare you suggest something so traitorous" and "my great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather fought and died in 1776 so you could call him a terrorist on the internet" type thread.

So, leaving that mess aside, and trying to determine if terrorism existed in American (And that can be Canada, Brazil, Mexico, etc, too in this case) history, were the American Indians terrorists at one point? They launched surprise attacks on civilians, killed and tortured them, were not part of a true "nation" or "army" - by a lot of definitions that people throw around, the American Indian would be a terrorist.

What think you?

How about editing the poll a bit.

Sometimes they were terrorists, other times they were freedom fighters and often they were just victims of being a stone age culture in a pre-industrial world bent on expansion.

I dont think I would call it terrorism. To me the word terrorist implies some fundamentalist religious convictions. I think the Indians were just doing what any person would do if their family, land, and religion/ heritage were bieng threatend by another foriegn peoples genocidal intent to take whats yours.I dont see how in any strectch of the imagination what went down could be misconstrued as terrorism. However if you want to refer to the inner tribal relationships and the war tactics between warring tribal parties, those could be considered acts of terrorism.

So what they did to each other was terrorism, but doing the same thing to say a white homestead wasn't?

I don't think I follow you there.

Sorry, I can see where may post maybe somewhat contradictory.

What I was trying to say was that In the case of the revolutionarys the Indians were just using self defence, or freedom fighting. But that they were not above terrorist actions, and often used them against other tribes in times of resource shortages such as when food was low, or they needed slave labor.

Nope.

Get off the fence!

:lol:

If the Indians today committed "terrorist" acts, would they still just be freedom fighters? Or would they be full fledged terrorists? Does the passage of time change anything?

How about being explicit?

There are many Indian tribes who were peaceful to the Westerners, and used tactics that reflected terrorist attacks to their other tribes.

There were tribes who only used ruthless tactics against warriors, while others purposefully went against civilian targets first.

First you have to define what tribe you're talking about, and then a timetable.

Otherwise it would be as if I ask you if all Muslims are terrorists. Which the answer is of course, no. Many of them, however, are. Therefore the question is bunk.

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?

Please, dont word your questions in order to force an answer. When you can say how this question is any different than someone asking if all muslims are terrorists than I'll answer.

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.

Freedom fighters.

Terrorists terrorize. Freedom fighters fight for freedom. If, as the poll suggests, these are mutually exclusive then I'd say they were freedom fighters.

The white men were the terrorists. We used (inadvertently) biological warfare, land take-overs, shady treaties, and guns to kill them when they were in the way.

Highthief, I'm surprised at you. You should know that fighters are always freedom fighters in the first person - "our fight." It is only in the third person "their fight" that they become terrorists.


(bonus points to anyone who can name where I bastardized that from ;) )

I would call them fighters/warriors, not terrorists. While undermanned and undersupplied, they still fought opposing armies face-to-face, and they employed sound, orthodox military tactics. They won many battles outright and decisively. I don't see where the concept of terrorism applies to american indians wholesale. They committed acts of violence against civilians on occasion, but as a fighting force, it wasn't their central modus operandi. They were primarily warriors who fought in a formal battlefield setting against other warriors, unlike todays terrorist whose primary MO is to target civilians principally and/or fight from the cover of a civilian-populated area.

geez.....anachronism is a good word.

well, let's see: there were these treaties that the u.s. would make and then there were these settlers who would ignore the treaties and just start taking land--and then there would be reactions against the settlers--at which point the government would feel compelled to--um--intervene---and so it went.
following this logic--which is not other than parallel to what you see in the west bank--native americans could in no way be understood as "terrorists" but they would no doubt be covered that way by such fine news outlets as fox.

The biological warfare wasn't always inadvertent. I read of at least one instance in which the Indians were intentionally given smallpox-infested blankets.

Besides for the treaties, the Indians did all of these. They especially took extra interest in slow and painful deaths.

Oh, and Indians would give infested blankets to other tribes... it just wasn't as effective against the whites because they had built up immunities.

Native Americans are from America.

Indians are from India.

Maybe we should start calling people from Peru Australians.

will... i dont know whether to take offense to that or not :P hehehe

i dont believe that they were terrorists. but freedom fighters. i dont see them usurping other lands, but their actions were to drive a foreign force away. i guess this may have justified some attacks on civilians, but this justification i think would be to assume that the civilians are legitimate military targets because theyr have usurped american indian land.

i guess the same justification is used when the palestinians target israeli civilians because they have 'usurped' their land.

so why is one a terrorist and one not a terrorist.

All this thread does is underscore the fact that the term Terrorist is a slippery term, frequently politicized.

Yep.

There was a show on NPR in Philly, talking about the #1 homicide rate in the nation... several people called in to talk about "urban terrorism." 230+ people have died via gun violence in the Philly ghetto since 2006 began, and if things continue, this will be the worst year for Philly gun violence in a long time (e.g. 400+ deaths by the end of the year).

Is "urban terrorism" a valid term? What do you guys think?

Huh?
I'm hoping that your basis for statement does not come from a John Wayne movie. Yes, American Indians did employ sound military tactics, but they were anything but orthodox. And they certainly did win many battles outright and decisively. Just ask Capt. William Fetterman or Lt Col. George A. Custer, just to name a few. But, their central "modus operandi" was certainly not to fight in a formal battlefield setting. They fought primarily in smaller loosly organized raiding parties. They employed guerrilla warfare. Hit and git. And, their primary targets were smaller homesteads and settlements. The idea of Indians attacking army forts is pure Hollywood.

As to whether or not they were terrorists...I suppose that depends upon what end of the tomahawk you're on. It's all about perspective.

Urban terrorism...

When are they going to learn... it's urban insurrection.

:lol:

The word terrorism is losing its meaning due to people using it in a manner different than say 10 years ago.

I don't think I can answer the question since Native Americans weren't one group, and I think the poll is sort of retarded.

Why not?
You are, of course, correct. Native Americans were not one group. You had many nations and numerous tribes within those nations. Any one of which may be at "war" with you, while any of a dozen others may be at "peace" with you, or in any degree in between. One group certainly didn't speak for another. Indeed, individual warriors were free to choose when, where, and with whom he would fight.

When you break it apart like that, it's not so hard to make some corelations with Arab "terrorists". So, the poll really isn't as retarded as what it may first seem. We just don't want to look at some things in ways different from what we are acustomed. It might force us to have to turn our heads.

No I'm quite sure it is as retarded as what it may seem at first. I don't think there is anyone reading this that thinks all Islamists are terrorists, or Arabs or what not, but as even some of the more forward thinking Arab scholars have come to see is that while not all Muslims are terrorists, most terrorists seem to be Muslim. There is no real comparison to be made here.

Sure there is. Or, if not...then why not? If, as you say most terrorists are Muslim...then why? And you're looking at things from a modern perspective. The question was were the American Indians "terrorists". All I'm saying is that if you apply todays standards to events, and situations from 140 years ago...then you may indeed see some similarities. And, if those similarities do exist, then if the US government were to take out the Islamic "Crazy Horse", then would the various factions begin to fall apart until we could end it all at a Middle Eastern "Wounded Knee"?

If we want old world comparisons to modern problems, then perhaps we should follow their example, by defeating them, disarming them, and forcing them to live on reservations as that put a stop to the Indian 'terrorism'.

I

Sharing corrolations does not mean equality in terms.

What does that mean? As I've already stated, because Muslims are almost always Islamic, being Islamic does not cause you to be a terrorist. Therefore, this poll is digging for an answer he already wants.

He made this poll knowing that we would not vote Indians (Native Americans, whatever) as terrorists. Because not all Indians were at war with us, nor did they blow up our buildings (burned the ones on the frontier, but didn't sneak into our cities on the coast). So since not all Indians were at war we can not lable all Indians as "terrorist" in the same way we can not lable Muslims as terrorists.

Almost all the countries in the world took the land from someone else. When at first the original inhabitants fight back I guess they are freedom fighters. After a while if they don't become assimilated into the land's new government and continue to fight back with attacks against the new civilians then I guess they are terrorists.

Unlike our fight against Native Americans, Israel is vastly outnumbered. Perhaps their superior military backed by the U.S. can carry the day though.

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.

the united states was founded on genocide, expanded via genocide and has perfected the fine art of denying that this is the case: in america, genocide has become an action only undertaken by countries that loose wars--if you win, anything goes and maybe a movie industry or two can even get started after the fact dedicated to the proposition that all men are not created equal, that genocide can be rationalized as a struggle of "good" vs "evil" or "civilization" vs. "barbarism"---that the american style of "ethnic cleansing" in the name of "manifest destiny" was a model for subsequent state-sponsored genocides is really not relevant--what is relevant is the whitewashed version of the past the only function of which is enabling folk now to feel good about themselves as they wave little flags about and utter empty platitudes about the moral "high ground" they occupy. it's great stuff, the history of genocide and the way in which that history has become so entangled with hollywood versions of the past that folk cannot even distinguish between the french and indian war/7 years war and the mechanized insanity of the post civil war period, during which many of the worse atrocities were committed. things like the attempt to systematically exterminate the bison population in order to starve out the plains groups. and of course wounded knee.

people probably believe that most conflicts involved lone heroic white cowpokes and nameless hoardes of injuns who would sweep down from a canyon wall just outside of los angeles primarily to die in great numbers.
clearly it had nothing to do with state treaties that were ignored by settlers over and over, kind of like the stuff you see happening in the west bank.

it almost follows that ustwo would argue that contemporary "terrorism" should be dealt with in the same way as the americans dealt with native americans in the end--do a wounded knee--surround some major arab cities and pulverize them with artillery and automatic weapons, making sure to kill women and children---and then round em up and send em to a reversation where they can rot for the next 100 years.
presumably a couple of generations of filmmakers can then create a mythological version of the story and the cycle can repeat.
all in all, that would be a very american final solution.

Ummm...yeah.
Roachboy, that's not what we're getting at here. I think (hope) we all know (Ustwo included) that we were not very nice to the indiginous population. You forgot to mention the smallpox infected trade blankets, by the way.
That's a whole 'nother thread...and I'm not sure you'd get a whole lot of argument. So...what's the point, eh?

The question was whether, or not, American Indians could be considered terrorists, based on modern standards. All things being equal...I'm not so sure that that's inaccurate. We may not like it, but the parallels are there.

i am not sure what people do and do not know--you cant tell much from this thread, really, can you? i cant...

my post was mostly prompted by ustwo's lovely wounded knee proposal and by other aspects of this thread that seemed to me to come from a historical vacuum. besides, it *is* relevant: if you position such interest as there is in the question posed in the op in the context of an american genocide, then the question begins to acquire a welcome element of obscenity, dont you think?

So Roachboy. Because we are the great-great-great grandsons of people who committed genocide, we are not allowed to stop people today from committing it? We are not allowed to stop those who would seek to commit it? I doubt you'd hear many Jews say we had no right to interfere with the Holocaust because of our history, even though it was one of the justifications of the Nazis.

I would have imagined you to be the type to not hold one responsible for the sins of his ancesters.