Winners do determine history, they did win after all, but they don’t have exclusive rights to writing history. I would argue most recorded history is not bs since the winners didn’t have to worry about political correctness. They didn’t need to hide the ugly things they did. Also, history is written by historians, not politicians.
They had some troops here. That is true, but iirc most were expelled during the battle of Lexington & Concord and the subsequent ousting out of Boston.
But that is the start of the War for Independence. Regardless, the main point that I think we agree on is that the British were not really an occupying force since the colonies were still Britain. To the Indians on the other hand they were all invaders.
1 Like
Meh - to some, and at some point in time they may have all seen it that way, but the Indians used settlers (especially early settlers, and most specifically the Plimouth settlers) in their own inter-tribal skirmishes and wars - especially since they had a low opinion of the white savages and the white savages had superior weapons. At first, it was more quid pro quo and the natives tolerated the “invaders”
2 Likes
I think you could make a compelling argument, but the declaration hadn’t been signed yet.
Agreed.
They didn’t have much of a choice.
A quick Google search will show that most historians, if not all, say the war started in 1775.
That’s fine. In my opinion the war for independence started on Long Island in August of 1776 after independence was declared.
Sure they did … they had knowledge of the land and agriculture. They could’ve easily ignored them and let them starve or forced them from their settlement like the natives on Cape Cod did…
As time progressed, sure “they didn’t have much of a choice” - but that’s not what happened - but they did enjoy having the upper hand for a good couple generations but chose to work with the pilgrims towards their own ends - they chose to help the settlers to gain the upper hand in their own wars with other tribes.
I guess what I’m saying is, at what point do you think they didn’t have a choice? Because from what I’ve read, they had plenty of choices and chose what they chose for the reasons they did.
I doubt it’s “utter,” but probably half(give or take a bit)*.
*The truth has probably been captured by “recorded history,” but not all of recorded history is taught or passed down to anyone.
If you saw a toddler about to crawl into traffic, what would you do? You have a choice but then again, do you? No, you just rescue the baby from getting killed without thinking about what your choices are.
I don’t think saying the Indians could have EASILY ignored them makes them look like civilized people. The thing is, given how Europeans behaved toward the native population I believe invader is an apt description from a neutral perspective. Does it matter if the Indians recognized that straight away? Does it matter if the colonists didn’t see themselves as invaders?
No offense, but I think we should go with the experts on this. If you taught history are you going to teach from your opinion or from accepted scholarly positions?
No offense taken and I’m not teaching history nor will I ever. I’m having a conversation about history.
In the Revolutions case, as I said, I think you could make a compelling argument that the defeat of British troops at Lexington was the start of the war and is the offical position of most historians. However, imo, the war didn’t officially start until at the very least a declaration was signed. The Continental Congress could have rejected Washington and what happened in Massachusetts, turned Washington over to the Crown as a traitor, and still made amends as royal subjects. Imo, once the declaration was signed there was no going back, but ultimately it was the defense of New York that was the beginning of the conflict.
Again, my opinion that I’m not teaching anyone.
*Note I’m referring to when the war for independence started not when armed rebellion started.
I don’t care. You said they didn’t have a choice. Not to mention what Indians thought was “civilized” differs from what Europeans thought “civilized” … The Indians thought the Europeans, for the most part, were ridiculous rubes. The ones that helped them, did so with conditions.
Which I said, at certain point, sure. But you’re also choosing to ignore the different circumstances among the different locations Europeans settled. If you want to specifically talk about the Spanish, I’m right there with you. They legit invaded. I have no qualms with that. if you want to talk about Jamestown or Plimouth, there’s more nuance there. I for sure wouldn’t call the Plimouth settlement and invasion in any sense - at least, like I said, for the first couple generations or so. Not to mention, from what I’ve read, at both Jamestown and Plimouth there were periods in which the native population and settlers seemed to live in relative harmony - hardly what one would call an invasion. So, depends on which group of Europeans you’re referencing.
It most certainly does. It also matters their motivations to either accepting the settlers or not accepting them. Plimouth was not the first cite, they landed around present day Provincetown on the tip of Cape Cod initially and were subsequently expelled by the natives there (Wompanoag tribe I believe). The Pilgrims then sailed into present day Plymouth bay where the local Indian population only tolerated them to serve their own means and seemingly because their tribal population was decimated due to disease. They didn’t have the numbers to fight the Narragansett tribe with whom they were at war. They saw accepting and helping the Pilgrims survive as being beneficial to further their own war with the Narragansett.
So yes, it matters. That doesn’t past muster for an invasion…
Yes. The Spanish knew damn well they were invading. They wanted to conquer - hence “conquistador” as opposed to settlers. I’m sure we can argue semantics over this ad nauseum, but I’m not interested. The history of these invasions (Spanish/Portuguese) or settlements (Jamestown/Plimouth) is pretty nuanced and varied with how the natives were treated and how the natives treated those Europeans with whom they encountered…If you want to roll it up into semantic arguments and ignore the historical nuanced motivations, I’m not interested.
EDIT:
To piggy back on this, what do you consider to be the characteristics of an invasion? Are you specifically referring to English settlements when referencing Europeans or do are you lumping in the Spanish/Portuguese as well? As I pointed out above, if we were to consider both groups as invaders, their tactics were extremely different to the point I do not consider them the same thing at all.
Genuinely curious why and at what point do you consider all European settlements to be invasions, if you do.
Undocumented immigrants.
2 Likes
ugh…
It had to be said. You know it.
2 Likes
ugh…you’re killin’ me man
1 Like
How were their tactics different? The end result was the same. Using your own reasoning, if it started out as Kumbaya but then turned into Run to the Hills then it sounds like it became an invasion and the Europeans were the invaders. Which means my point still stands and you agree with it. And what was that point? To the Indians they were all [colonists and/or British] invaders. If you want to say that at first they weren’t that acknowledges that they became that. Which brings up the question, why did they change?
It depends upon how far back you want to go. The Old Testament as history is crap. The Illiad as history is crap. With Herodotus on the other hand, we start to see a lot less crap.