September 20, 2009 at 8:16 pm #16455
Yes, they were more into agriculture than some of the others who were more hunters and gatherers. The Iroquois had it together as Five Nations (then later, 6).September 20, 2009 at 8:33 pm #16456WallyParticipant
But remember their union woirked rather like Poland, of old, all tribes had to agree or it wasn't a done deal and then everyone for themselves.September 20, 2009 at 11:20 pm #16457
Was probably a tad worse than that, Wally. If you didn't agree you died slowly from torture if you were a man, and if a woman or child, you might just be enslaved if lucky.September 21, 2009 at 2:43 am #16458scout1067Participant
I think it is very interesting that they incorporated captured children into their tribe and assimilated them in order to make up their losses in battle. But it was not the Iroquois who were the main combatants in King Philip's War. The spark that set the war off was rumors that several Indian tribes were preparing to attempt to wipe out the colonists presence in an effort to stave of further colonization. There was also plenty of brutality to go around on both sides, it was seen as a war of survival. It didn't help that the English were still living on the ragged edge of survival and had a justifiable fear of the Indians. The natives were not all sweetness and light as the current narrative would have us believe.September 21, 2009 at 9:08 am #16459
Not sure, but I don't think the Iroquois were involved at all in King Philip's War other than very indirectly. We're just going on a diversion here. 😀October 3, 2009 at 12:25 pm #16460
scout, I concede. This wasn't a war so as much as it was an insurgency or insurrection. And IF it can be called war, it would be more a civil war among the various Indian tribes of southern New England-those who were voluntarily subject to colonialist laws and those who refused. About these modern historians who like to think the Indians blameless and one who even compares the Puritans to the Nazis and uses the word genocide, I just read three journals that completely anihilate that theory.October 4, 2009 at 5:36 pm #16461scout1067Participant
Are you starting to believe me about the post-modernists and their hold on the academy? ;D The more you get into it the more frustrated you will become if you are hoping to get the truth out of contemporary history books.In most wars there is plenty of blame to go around on all sides. Nobody is innocent and everybody is seeking an advantage, otherwise war would not be considered a legitimate option in the first place. You only go to war if you think you can win. The Indians thought they could win; the colonists proved them wrong.October 4, 2009 at 6:10 pm #16462
We only disagree about the word “war”. ;D I don't think I ever disagreed with you about the post-modern Leftist hold on academics. Even Carey said something about that when I mentioned my opinion of Brown.April 16, 2010 at 12:02 am #16463April 16, 2010 at 1:06 am #16464
She said she was initially concerned about the game, but has since discussed it with the creator and believes it can be a proper educational tool if it adequately incorporates the viewpoint of tribal members.
Yeah, maybe she should tell about all the wars between the tribes before and during KPW.June 5, 2012 at 8:47 am #1646519XX!Participant
Hey, I'm not trying to argue or win an argument, most historians have labelled it a war, so a war it is.July 6, 2020 at 4:32 pm #58751PhidippidesKeymaster
Ski, were you ever able to travel to sites of any skirmishes involved in King Philip’s War?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.