American Indian Movement

[RememberCuba94]

Not right off. I read a lot of books that contained only bits and pieces of history over the years. I can't point directly to a specific book these days on just the history of the American Indians.

They say those who write history books are the winners of the wars, don't you know?

Aw man.

Yes, I do.

[RememberCuba94]

Remember this guy?



He was involved with AIM.

I'm starting to get suspicious here. First, the artist with anti-capitalist and anti-American bias. Now, a guy involved with the Weather Underground.

[RememberCuba94]

To the Communist, the lie is just another weapon;

http://www.salon.com/col/horo/1999/01/nc_11horo2.html

A fraud who won a Nobel Prize pretending to be a modern-day Mayan writer...

Wow. Amazing at what lengths people can go to.

[RememberCuba94]

They say those who write history books are the winners of the wars, don't you know?

Do you think if, given the same chance, the Indians would have wiped us out? That's the impression I get from early and western American history.

[zenbudda]

eh, i think any civilization that is brought to the brink of anihilation would do whatever neccessary to survive.

[RememberCuba94]

eh, i think any civilization that is brought to the brink of anihilation would do whatever neccessary to survive.

Yeah, but from the beginning, they were as hostile to us as we were to them. Even when the powers in both sides were sort of balanced.

[American Patriot]

I don't think the powers were balanced, per se. The tribes in the Americas were still using bows and arrows - and the Europeans were using muskets. So, somewhat more "power" on the side of Europeans.

I think at first it was a matter of "not wanting to fight" and it was escalated by various incidents on both sides through out the years. Eventually it because a matter of "stop killing white people" and the government stopped it.

In that case it was really more of a "let's stop the terrorists" fights.

[RememberCuba94]

I don't think the powers were balanced, per se. The tribes in the Americas were still using bows and arrows - and the Europeans were using muskets. So, somewhat more "power" on the side of Europeans.

I think at first it was a matter of "not wanting to fight" and it was escalated by various incidents on both sides through out the years. Eventually it because a matter of "stop killing white people" and the government stopped it.

In that case it was really more of a "let's stop the terrorists" fights.

Definition of "power" I used is a bit different in this case. I mean when the whites were few in number and the Indians were in the majority AKA the very beginning.

[American Patriot]

Definition of "power" I used is a bit different in this case. I mean when the whites were few in number and the Indians were in the majority AKA the very beginning.

Power is in the eye of the beholder.

When the whites be holdin' the guns, the redmen saw only power in the hands of the whites. Regardless of the numbers.

That's the point though - put it in terms of today.

A group of three guys walks into a bank. They are armed with guns. The 10-20 employees of the bank are unarmed, but they've got numbers (and money) on their side.

Who wins?

You're walking down the street and run into a gang of three or four intent on robbing you. You're alone, you don't know karate, jujitsu or any other oriental words for that matter, and they got the drop on you. They don't have guns. Just numbers.

Who wins?

You've got a group of fifty white settlers in a wagon train traveling across western Kansas, armed with repeating rifles, lever action .40 caliber Winchesters, plenty of bullets, but only 35 of them are armed. The others are women and children. Suddenly they are attacked by 350 wild assed Iroquois intent on harm?

Who wins?

[RememberCuba94]

Power is in the eye of the beholder.

When the whites be holdin' the guns, the redmen saw only power in the hands of the whites. Regardless of the numbers.

That's the point though - put it in terms of today.

A group of three guys walks into a bank. They are armed with guns. The 10-20 employees of the bank are unarmed, but they've got numbers (and money) on their side.

Who wins?

You're walking down the street and run into a gang of three or four intent on robbing you. You're alone, you don't know karate, jujitsu or any other oriental words for that matter, and they got the drop on you. They don't have guns. Just numbers.

Who wins?

You've got a group of fifty white settlers in a wagon train traveling across western Kansas, armed with repeating rifles, lever action .40 caliber Winchesters, plenty of bullets, but only 35 of them are armed. The others are women and children. Suddenly they are attacked by 350 wild assed Iroquois intent on harm?

Who wins?

That is very true. Guns have it.

I still think the Indians would do the same thing to us if they had the chance.

[American Patriot]

This has always been the case in this world, with wave after wave of invaders dispossessing 'natives' of 'their' land-when the native had done the same thing generations before.

There are Cherokee legends (i'm a part myself) of the Indians dispossessing a Race of 'wretches' years before the Whites came....

Mooneyes!

[RememberCuba94]

Mooneyes!

Mooneyes?

[Phil Fiord]

One thing to remember with ANY documents on a subject that involves sides, the victor tends to write the history books, so one has to carefully select what is read.

A similar thing would be online with where one chooses to get information. The Onion would not be a wise choice for facts, for example, though it can be entertaining.

[American Patriot]

Moon eyed people... the wretched ones.

It's an ancient old story I heard as a child, but I don't remember much more than that.

My great-grandmother had a "Mooneye" doll that I played with as a little boy. I was probably three, but I remember it.

The doll was made from clay and cloth and had huge black eyes (probably made of glass or stone). She called the little doll "A Mooneye" and told me they were the people who used to own the land and her people ran them off.

I know there was more to the story but I just don't remember any more than that. But I SURE remembered "Moon eyed people" and "The Wretched Ones".

[RememberCuba94]

Moon eyed people... the wretched ones.

It's an ancient old story I heard as a child, but I don't remember much more than that.

My great-grandmother had a "Mooneye" doll that I played with as a little boy. I was probably three, but I remember it.

The doll was made from clay and cloth and had huge black eyes (probably made of glass or stone). She called the little doll "A Mooneye" and told me they were the people who used to own the land and her people ran them off.

I know there was more to the story but I just don't remember any more than that. But I SURE remembered "Moon eyed people" and "The Wretched Ones".

This just makes my suspicion stronger. That is really cool though.

[Phil Fiord]

I picture Moon Eye dolls like an Emo Bear image I have seen somewhere. I know that's not really what it is though. Some asian dolls use similar structure, but not so much in the way of clay.