Cherokee Nation

[Grey Eminence]

I think we should stick to America because what happened in south america is so very different. The only reason to mention mexico or canada, is the threat of the Aztecs to come into america and take land away from american tribes, such as what the sioux from canada did - but now most people consider the sioux to be an "american " tribe even though they clearly were originally canadian.

How was what happened in South America different? If by that you mean that the native populations were never marginalised to the extent of the Argentina, Canada, Mexico, or the US then you are correct.

As for the Aztecs, they would have not invaded to the north. Why would they? They have to cross hundreds of miles of marginal to useless land in Texas and the southwest to get anywhere with any noteable agricultural capacity. And when they got there all of their crops would be useless, they would need local variants. More than that they would need the political and social capacity to send off an army at that distance to 'conquer' something.

The Aztecs had neither the desire nor the ability to attempt anything so ambitious.

is the threat of the Aztecs to come into america and take land away from american tribes.

This reminds me of a good quote, "Not one African slave was ever brought to the new world".

And that is right, becaue they did not even concieve of themselves as being 'Afrcian'. Africa did not exist.

And to say that the Azetcs would invad the US to take away land from American tribes is mindlessly dumb. America did not exist. Not one of those native tribes you speak of would know to what you refer. They were not American.

And so you say that the only area of relevance is anything that impacts, or takes place in the region that is now known as the United States of America. Since when did the Aztecs, Innuit, Assiniboine, et al. give a care about what you, as an American think?

 

[susanann]

How was what happened in South America different? If by that you mean that the native populations were never marginalised to the extent of the Argentina, Canada, Mexico, or the US then you are correct.

And so you say that the only area of relevance is anything that impacts, or takes place in the region that is now known as the United States of America.

The subject of this thread is America:

What do you think it would of been like without outsiders coming to America?

We are talking over here about American indian tribes, Custer, American indian reservations, electicity on American reservations, Andrew Jackson and the trail of tears, Wounded Knee, etc.

If you want to talk about how Brazil, chili, and Venezuela might be different if no outsiders came to south america, then that might also be interesting. Or, you might want to start a thread about how Ecuadorian indian reservations are different in Ecuador vs. United States that might also be interesting. Why dont you start a new topic about:

What do you think it would of been like without outsiders coming to South America?

 

[susanann]

As for the Aztecs, they would have not invaded to the north. Why would they?

Probably for the same reason that the Spaniards did - to enslave them and force them to mine for gold and silver. The Spanish made slaves of California indian, apaches, etc. and forced them to work in Spanish gold and silver mines.

The Aztec king wanted more gold, silver, jewels, etc. and he wanted more slaves.

why do you think the Aztecs already invaded and conquered the tribes that they did until they were stopped? Do you think it was coincidental that the Spanish just happen to arrive at the same time that the king of the Aztecs decided that he no longer wanted more power?

According to your line of thinking, Hitler might also have decided to stop bothering other peoples in June of 1944 --- again, was it a major coincidence that Hitler would have had a complete change of heart on the same day we landed on Normandy - even if we had never entered ww2?

At the time that the Spanish appeared, the Aztecs were expanding their empire - there is no reason for anyone to think that the Aztecs would all of a sudden become peaceful and loving kind neighbors if the Spanish did not stop them when they did.

 

[DailyBlessings]

The subject of this thread is America:

What do you think it would of been like without outsiders coming to America?

We are talking over here about American indian tribes, Custer, American indian reservations, electicity on American reservations, Andrew Jackson and the trail of tears, Wounded Knee, etc.

If you want to talk about how Brazil, chili, and Venezuela might be different if no outsiders came to south america, then that might also be interesting. Or, you might want to start a thread about how Ecuadorian indian reservations are different in Ecuador vs. United States that might also be interesting. Why dont you start a new topic about:

What do you think it would of been like without outsiders coming to South America?

You do realize that you are speaking to a Canadian? Who is an American, but not from the U.S.? For that matter, are we allowed to talk about the First Nations under your interpretation of the OP? It's not as though there was any sort of division along the present northern border in previous times.

 

[DailyBlessings]

Probably for the same reason that the Spaniards did - to enslave them and force them to mine for gold and silver. The Spanish made slaves of California indian, apaches, etc. and forced them to work in Spanish gold and silver mines.

The Aztec king wanted more gold, silver, jewels, etc. and he wanted more slaves.

why do you think the Aztecs already invaded and conquered the tribes that they did until they were stopped? Do you think it was coincidental that the Spanish just happen to arrive at the same time that the king of the Aztecs decided that he no longer wanted more power?

According to your line of thinking, Hitler might also have decided to stop bothering other peoples in June of 1944 --- again, was it a major coincidence that Hitler would have had a complete change of heart on the same day we landed on Normandy - even if we had never entered ww2?

At the time that the Spanish appeared, the Aztecs were expanding their empire - there is no reason for anyone to think that the Aztecs would all of a sudden become peaceful and loving kind neighbors if the Spanish did not stop them when they did.

You have a bizarre notion of Mexican history. Why do you continue to expound on it, while telling the rest of us to only discuss "Americans"?

 

[susanann]

You do realize that you are speaking to a Canadian? Who is an American, but not from the U.S.?

I go to canada all the time - every Canadian I talk to refers to people from the United states as "Americans".

They also call themselves: "Canadians".

 

[susanann]

You have a bizarre notion of Mexican history. Why do you continue to expound on it, while telling the rest of us to only discuss "Americans"?

..because if the Spanish never came here the Aztecs would have continued to expand their growing empire and eventually kill and enslave American indian tribes just as the Spanish did ---

--- despite your thinking that the Aztecs would have all of a sudden become a nonaggressive and peaceful loving people if they were not stopped.

It is too bad that Hitler, Hirohito, Ivan the Terrible, Stalin, Gengus Khan, Attilla, Ceasar, Alexander, Catherine, didnt have the same personal self control and love for their neighbors that you think Montezuma had? ... or do you also think they too would have become loving and peaceful if they were not stopped?



--------------------------------------------------------------
I cannot imagine that anyone might think this guy would be a friend to the American indian and would have become sweet and non aggresive without the Spanish interceding:

"Montezuma was the last emperor of the Aztecs in the 16th century -- right about the time that the good times were coming to an end. He was a deranged, despotic, cannabilistic, pedophiliac practitioner of human sacrifice with legendary diarrhea. "


"Montezuma was a conquering king, who frequently waged war against his neighbors in a pretty successful effort to expand his empire. He kept the gods on his side with a regular regimen of human sacrifice. While the Aztecs had a long history of ritualistic human sacrifice, the art had never known a patron like Montezuma. ""At the time, such sacrifices were performed with ritual daggers atop the Aztec pyramids. According to some accounts, Montezuma sacrificed tens of thousands of prisoners at a time, which is a good trick considering each one had to be individually killed."



"A 1590 account detailed the procedure: "The usual method of sacrifice was to open the victim's chest, pull out his heart while he was still alive, and then knock the man down, rolling him down the temple steps, which were awash with blood."



"Apparently the gods were appreciative of all this bloodshed, because Montezuma apparently had a pretty good run, annexing several nearby kingdoms and allegedly running a virtual police state with an iron fist."

 

[Grey Eminence]

The subject of this thread is America:

What do you think it would of been like without outsiders coming to America?

Which I interpreted in the broad sense of being the Americas aka 'the New World'.

You want a reasoning for this?

Consider this common statement "Columbus discovered America in 1492." We all learned it that way. The point is he did not discover America as in the US of A, and America was still yet to be named and the US to be 'discovered'. So I do not think it unreasonable to interpret America as the Americas or the new world during the initial discovery of North and South America.

Probably for the same reason that the Spaniards did - to enslave them and force them to mine for gold and silver. The Spanish made slaves of California indian, apaches, etc. and forced them to work in Spanish gold and silver mines.

The did so for very different reasons. The Spanish needed the money. They already had a massive polygot Empire in Europe and needed the money to keep it going. The Aztecs did not have that motivation governing them. When they levied people they conquered they care less about gold that physical goods, cloaks, weapons and so forth. They did not live in a monetary society.

Also a bizzare point to consider is that it was always general Spanish policy to not enslave the indigenous population. Yes there was violations of this and they had no problem insisting on levies for work but the idea was there. That is why they imported all of the slaves from west Africa. Also the Spanish were a heavy patina on the local populations. They came but never depopulated or displaced the locals in the way that it happened in the US. The Spanish took down the Aztecs because they had massive support from local groups that wanted them taken down. The Spanish did rule but more often than not it was with the active support part of the prexisting power structure. They could not have ruled otherwise.

why do you think the Aztecs already invaded and conquered the tribes that they did until they were stopped? Do you think it was coincidental that the Spanish just happen to arrive at the same time that the king of the Aztecs decided that he no longer wanted more power?

The Spanish had massive support from the tribes opposed to the Aztecs. Had this support not been there the Spanish would not have been able to take them down.

According to your line of thinking, Hitler might also have decided to stop bothering other peoples in June of 1944 --- again, was it a major coincidence that Hitler would have had a complete change of heart on the same day we landed on Normandy - even if we had never entered ww2?

How did I imply that? I stated that they had no vested interest to the north. And that geography and the political capacity would prevent them from making any sucessful concerted effort to move north. How does that equate to trying to stop in the middle of WWII?

At the time that the Spanish appeared, the Aztecs were expanding their empire - there is no reason for anyone to think that the Aztecs would all of a sudden become peaceful and loving kind neighbors if the Spanish did not stop them when they did.

I never stated or implied they would be peacful. Just that there were practical limits to their ability to expand. You then assumed that must mean they have to be peacful.

 

[susanann]

At the time that the Spanish appeared, the Aztecs were expanding their empire - there is no reason for anyone to think that the Aztecs would all of a sudden become peaceful and loving kind neighbors if the Spanish did not stop them when they

I stated that they had no vested interest to the north. And that geography and the political capacity would prevent them from making any sucessful concerted effort to move north.

I never stated or implied they would be peacful. Just that there were practical limits to their ability to expand. You then assumed that must mean they have to be peacful.

So exactly what are you saying?

Are you saying those ( Aztec) indians down in mexico (or the Sioux or commanche or Cheyenne) were all too stupid? That over the next 500 more years they never would be smart enough to be able to learn logistics and supply and communication.

Are you saying that the blackfeet, crow, whatever would never be capable of doing what germans, chinese, mongols, english, romans, etc were able to do and conquer large masses? Why not?

Montezuma was just as evil and cruel and power hungrey as the White kings.

FYI, Montequma DID want gold and treasures, as well as slaves, and people to sacrifice to his gods. He DID have a vested interest in conquering people.

The Sioux, cheyenne, and commanche all conquered and took over much land.

Tribal warfare, including slavery, commonly occured throughout the continent, long before the white man came here.

History shows us that the white mans expansion was not stopped by "practical limits", why would practical limits stop indians from expanding?

(I see a double standard and prejudice here)

 

[hoek]

Cherokee Hippie do you have our alphabet? I have looked for it quite often and can't find it. I migth actually go up to Oklahoma this Summer and prove to Cherokee Nation that i'm of indian heritage.

You don't have to go to Oklahoma to do it - you can get all the information you need through the Cherokee Nation's website (can't post links, but just search for it). All you have to do is find your ancestor on the rolls...it's not that difficult, although the waiting period can be quite extensive.

And as an aside...you DO realize that the term "Cherokee Prince" is a pejorative term, right? It's akin to Cherokee Princess.

As to the original question, America would be without humans had no outsiders come over - even the early Native Americans came over the Bering land bridge.