Only when Commissioner Gordon turns on the Bat Signal. “I don’t know who he is behind that mask of his, but I know when we need him, and we need him now!”
Re the Anasazi: It’s like anything else, it depends on who you listen to, but I thought that this article did a good job of summarizing.
I agree that the archetype of “Native Americans living in perfect harmony with nature” is incorrect. As are all archetypes. I agree with Jared Diamond’s assertion that the extensive extinctions of the megafauna ( large animals ) was due to the immigration of humans to the New World. I submit that it is impossible to peacefully coexist with Nature. Nature is not peaceful, check out the Discovery Channel. My problem with that quote is that James Loewen sounds preachy. I assure you that is not the tone of the book.
I see your point about the term “settlers”. I was missing the distinction. I do; however, believe that “invaders” is proper. It is pejorative, but we are talking about a case of ethnic cleansing.
The issue of the term “frontier” is not about political correctness, but simple correctness. The Whites of the time did see it as wilderness. We now know that that view was incorrect. I’m not sure what could be used instead. “Zone of contact” is a bit unwieldy. I think that words like “settlers” and “frontier” can be used without being influenced by the mistaken connotations attached, as long as you consciously think about the meaning of the words.
I think that you are wise to be “suspicious of anyone who claims to have the one “true” interpretation of history” I would be as well. Wait, hell no I wouldn’t! I would be amused. And maybe a little insulted by their assumption about my gullibility.
I have reread all of my posts on this thread. I would not characterize my use of the word “lies” as careless. Other than the title of Dr. Loewen’s book and the hypothetical disputation of it, my only use of the word was in the phrase “lies should not be countered by other lies” and to call the idea that “Natives were inferior” untrue. I believe that in the latter 2 cases you agreed with me. Perhaps you were refering to someone else’s use of the word? I also note that no quotes from Dr. Loewen’s book contain this word. You seem to be interested in this issue, I recommend that you buy the book and decide for yourself.
Peace
Gaudere:
I missed your post until just now. The clarification was needed.
Ducky:
LOL! I think that I fathom your posts now.
I wish to point out that that period was a much less civilized time. And the Amerinds themselves were perfectly capable of killing, torturing and enslaving members of other tribes–simply because they WERE members of other tribes, and thus inferiour to “our people”. We simply did it faster as we had better weapons. Both white & natives had their share of ruthless bastards.
OK, if you promise to read The Scotch-Irish… 
(Incidentally, that book does contain some discussion of the subjugation of Ireland. No mention of women and children being attacked there, though. 
)
(Of course, I wouldn’t put anything past Cromwell…)
One final point. (I know, I know. I just can’t let it go.)
You make reference to the idea of “ethnic cleansing.” It seems to me that this was a policy being pursued by both sides in this conflict. When Tecumseh urges his followers to “open the wombs” of white women to destroy their unborn children, well, if that’s not “ethnic cleansing,” what is it?
Admittedly, the Indians failed in their attempt to carry out this policy…
spoke:“we have the maxim gun, and they have not” It was not for lack of trying, we just had better weapons.
Although I’ve not read the book you cited, 2, I did read James Loewen’s Lies Across America, and as someone who lives and works history every day, I’d suggest you take this guy with a grain of salt. There is a lot to what he says but his agenda is writ large and every damn word in this book was flavored with personal opinion. Something which [imo] should not be included extensively in historic/scholarly works.
egkelly - the theories on the Anasazi’s disappearance have been covered pretty well here, but the other part of your post about how their ruins are avoided – well, most Anasazi sites are in Navajo territory and the Navajo culture has massive taboos about the dead. Places where people died are not visited or reused, the names of the dead are not mentioned lest you bring back a ghost [the Navajo do not have Caspers, all ghosts are evil]. Hence the locals do not visit places of the dead.
My vote - the American Indian was his own worst enemy. Intertribal warfare killed more than any of the hostilities above noted, wiping entire tribes out of existance. However, if I have to chose a single killer of Euro descent, I’ll vote Chivington.
Hi Yankee Blue,
This book is my current favorite. I have not read Lies Across America. I believe that Dr. Loewen has an agenda, as I stated earlier in this thread. Do you think that he has a hidden agenda?