Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Arts & HumanitiesHistory · 1 decade ago

Were American Indian's Terrorist in the advent of the United States?

During the first colonies in America, when the settlers started to expand their colonies westward, did the natives or Indians, have the right to fight back and defend their land? Or were they just terrorist?

Where else do you see illegal colonies and invasions now?

South Africa?

Palestine?

Belfast, Ireland?

India?

6 Answers

Relevance
  • Best Answer

    i'd just like to add to Brainstorm's answer...the government STILL calls us terrorists. not figuratively but in actuality.

    plus, we are still considered the enemy even today.

    "During the first Gulf War, Brigadier General Richard Neal, briefing reporters in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, stated that the U.S. military wanted to be certain of speedy victory once they committed land forces to "Indian Country." The following day, in a narrowly publicized statement of protest, the National Congress of American Indians pointed out that 15,000 Native Americans were serving as combat troops in the Gulf. Since General Neal's comment, however, the term "Indian Country" has become military slang that is often used by troops and leaders on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    This linguistic use of the term "Indian Country" speaks volumes about the intellectual ignorance and dishonesty of many in the United States' self image of the soul of America. It reveals an often willful ignorance of the perception of the rest of the world. It bespeaks of arrogance, hubris, and self imposed paternalism, exceptionalism and imperialism.

    On Monday, March 24, 2003 Christian Broadcasting Network's news program CBN reporter Paul Strand, traveling with the Army's Third Infantry Division in Iraq, stated in a dialog with Pat Robertson:

    "Everywhere we've gone we have seen artillery ahead of us and then artillery behind and we're getting reports that there's fighting in all of the cities that we've already been through. So I guess if this were the Old West I'd say there are Injuns ahead of us, Injuns behind us, and Injuns on both sides too, so we really don't want to give the enemy any hints about where we are."

    As an American Indian I can state unequivocally that this telling catch phrase that projects the warzones of the "wars on terror" as "Indian Country" is as deeply offensive as it is counter-productive to the stated mission in Iraq. My immediate thoughts- the first time that I heard the reference to the war torn streets of Baghdad as "Indian Country"- was that after 515 years of conquest- in the minds of Imperial America- the First Nations of the "Americas" are still regarded as enemies, hostiles, obstacles to progress... as terrorists. "Indians" then, in the American mindscape are yet sub-humans with no intrinsic value and no redeeming qualities and no contribution and/or partnership in contemporary society save as cartoonish sports mascots and fodder for the myth making propaganda of manifest destiny and fantasies of the "master race" as portrayed in Hollywood western movies and literature."

  • 1 decade ago

    Well the 'settler's were the terrorists because they just showed up and ****** over who was in the states before they were,did the settlers have a right to do that? No. There were tribes who were savages and evil-to other tribes and the settlers-which you could say THEY were terrorists-but a good amount of the settlers did the same thing so. Settlers=Terrorists.

  • 1 decade ago

    I don't think they were terrorist. They had a right to defend their land. At first they traded with the settlers, it wasn't until the settlers started moving further into their land and attacking their villages did the indians fight back.

  • 1 decade ago

    Illegal? Do you honestly advocate kicking those of non-Celtic ancestry out of Western and Southern Europe? How about the Muslims in South East Europe. What about the peoples the Celts kicked out?

    Even if you go to the Natives of America. What about the lands the Souix, the Navajo, the Apache took from the previous owners. Assuming any still live who were there should we trace it all the way back. No nationality is without it's history of such things or far far worse. Much of the land Turkey occupies was taken by far more bloody means. China is a nation of conquered nations to create an empire that is now known as China.

    When you ask about South Africa, given the Democratic rule there do you mean kicking out those who are not Zulu descended? What about the peoples the Zulu took that land from?

    I'm not seeing the logic. It reminds me of the reconquistador movement. There is a strong movement that wants the return of lands purchased or that revolted from Mexico back to Mexico ignoring the fact that barely a generation or two earlier that land was taken from Native tribes like the Navajo and Apache. So really there is no real claim for Mexico, it was just a very short term middle man.

    In terms of Palistine, that's a British invention. It's not like Ireland where there is a distinct people and culture that has resided there for thousands of years. Palistine existed what 20 years? Isreal has controlled the land far longer than Palistine existed.

    As for terrorists. Hamas blows up buses full of civillians using people such as the retarded kid caught with a suicide vest trying to enter Isreal. They blackmail or threaten "martyrs" some of whom have defected rather than comit suicide. These same people danced in the streets after 9-11.

    Just like the IRA cost the cause of Irish independence decades because of it's terrorist tactics Hamas wipes away all sympathy with their tactics. What kicked this latest round off was firing rockets at random people in Isreal. How is that fighting back? Fighting back is killing soldiers and politicians. Killing women and children is attempted genocide. If the roles were reversed, if Hamas had the military power to do so they would execute every man woman and child in Isreal and do so with a grin on their face.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    Terrorism has nothing to do with the validity of a claim to something. In the trail of 9/11, the word has become widely abused.

    What is terrorism?

    Terrorism is a political tactic. Terrorism is the deliberate use of violence and threats to achieve a political purpose.

    As you can see, this says absolutely nothing about when someone is -entitled- to use such a tactic.

  • 1 decade ago

    The present US government would call them terrorists

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.