Why didn't Native Americans rebel and create a native country...

No, I'm gonna continue insulting you for shitting up Veeky Forums with questions that could be solved by looking at a goddamn map.

Bolivia is getting more "indigenist" by the day.

lmao first indigenous president in its history

pontiac tried. cherokee tried. usa fucked them over though

>▶
something happened to them

Native Americans are killed 90% by the disease foreign people brought, so they cannot do shit

>get struck by disease
>get your land taken away
>get deported and shot for centuries
>get thrown onto reservations
>get arrested for trying to protest
>"lol just rebel bro"

>Every country in the Americas is ruled by whites
What about Bolivia and Greenland?

generations of karma for the victims of their infernal altars

They recovered by the 1800s.

Cherokee tried and copiedwhites. Even held slaves. Unfortunately Andrew Jackson did not give a shit.

indios were basically cucked out of existence by the invaders and supplanted

it's one of the greatest tragedies throughout history imo

>tragedy

What the fuck do you think the Zapatistas and FARC are? Like 90% of them are Natives and the governments they're rebelling against are dominated Europeans.

By the time of 1800s americans already was removing them, and they still can't do shit because of the technological superiority of Europeans

>wanting the world to end

Like 95% of everyone fucking died from an apocalyptic plague decades before the vast majority of natives would ever see or even hear about white people. This led to a complete collapse of society, massive loss in traditions and knowledge, and many cities and places simply being overrun by vegetation.

You're not effectively organizing shit after that. And when you do manage, you're so outclassed that you can't realistically do much.

Also

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_Alcatraz

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wounded_Knee_incident

There literally aren't enough of them to do so. Indios in Mexico tried to revolt and mostly got crushed. The Guatemalan civil war was basically Indios vs. Mestizos, Castizos and Criollos. Every time the native try to start shit, they get whomped on and end up in a worse position than they were in before. Add on the fact money whitens in LatAm, you'll find that few indios identify as such nor are they usually considered as such. Besides, as it stands now, most LatAm states are "native American" in that the majority of their populations are mestizo rather than castizo even though they're predominantly ruled over by criollos and castizos. People can meme about it all they like but the casta system is still alive and well.

The Maya did and for a time have an independent country but it was annexed by mexico in the caste war.

Little known fact that really changes how history can be perceived. They were barely any left when we landed.

what a tragedy that this great culture is now extinct.

It's also not true.

Well,
>died from an apocalyptic plague decades before the vast majority of natives would ever see or even hear about white people
this is true-ish. 95% is almost certainly a significant exaggeration but disease killed off a huge chunk of the natives in what would become Latin America before the Spanish (well, Iberian) conquest was really underway, which of course aided their conquest.

>They were barely any left when we landed.
This isn't true (I'm not sure who you mean by "we" but it sounds like you're an American). There's very scanty evidence for this and plenty of evidence against. The plagues were largely confined to Latin America before the English set up their colonies in what would become the United States. It's simply not true that the settlers at Jamestown and Plymouth and so on landed on a depopulated post-apocalyptic continent.

>The plagues were largely confined to Latin America before the English set up their colonies in what would become the United States. It's simply not true that the settlers at Jamestown and Plymouth and so on landed on a depopulated post-apocalyptic continent
Not him, but do you have a source for that? From what I've read, common historiography states otherwise.

I don't mind citing sources, but I'm curious where you've read that. That's not really the mainstream academic position. I mean, I've encountered it before, of course - I remember being linked to a shitty article on Cracked.com that made that claim, and it bothered the hell out of me because the article got millions of hits and they were acting like it was accepted wisdom when it way, way wasn't. I've also seen people claim that on kinda fringey political websites (which I don't have a problem with in general, I'm not saying they're trash because they're leftist, but obviously they're not exactly neutral sources).

Generally whenever I see somebody pushing the "North America was a post-apocalyptic wasteland!" narrative, it's either some nobody with a blog, or it turns out that they're politically motivated and have a clear axe to grind - the same people who give ridiculous population estimates for the Precolumbian Americas like 100 million.

Generally the accepted position is that most of the European diseases started hitting the natives in what would become the United States in the early 17th century. There *may* have been a few relatively small outbreaks before then, obviously the settlers at Port Royal and Jamestown were not the first Europeans to land in the Americas north of Florida, there were a handful of explorers and traders there before them, but there weren't massive regional die-offs.

I don't mind citing sources but it'll take me a while; it's harder to produce sources for something that *didn't* happen. The truth is there really just was never that much evidence for it to begin with and not that much has been written on it because it's a fringe position.

H-he's not wrong though, it's still a white man's world.
What countries are you thinking of? Haiti?

This. Settlers would either occupy their land as they go west which gives the army a reason to go in or settlers act aggressive which would then force the armies hand to deal with both sides.

This isn't mentioning aggression from natives entities but a ton of the peaceful/mostly peaceful groups got fucked hard by settler expansions and the federal gov fucking them in the ass despite treaties or deals.

usually terra nullius/no one was on hat/they have no sense of land ownership land is a meme sentiment common in settler nations.

Did you mean to reply to another post?

>greenland
>country
Mfw: disappointed.jpg

did you just forget about disease?

What? Greenland is a country. Don't be snarky unless you know what you're talking about.

Maybe what you're getting at is that it's not a SOVEREIGN STATE. But that's not what he said.

Also, it's going on 3 AM here and I gotta sleep, but I will check this thread tomorrow and write another post linking some sources and going over the evidence if the thread's still active/you're still interested tomorrow. It's just too late right now, but I hope you stick around.

> disunited
> disorganized
> no written language
> no manufacturing capability
> literally a stone age society

That said, some like Geronimo managed to wage a guerrilla war for decades.

The Spanish did a really good job of intergrating natives into their rule, and the British were really good at marginalizing them.

they were too busy dying of plague and being 2000 years behind the rest of mankind

They did, multiple times. They also failed multiple times. That's what happens when you side with the Brits and the Confederacy and lose two wars.

just more instances of the brit using savages as their foil

Why would anyone ally with the brits is beyond me, they ever break treaties when it suits them and will backstab you for pennies.

In my opinion it all stems from culture shock. When a culture that's significantly more advanced comes into contact with a culture that's a couple hundred years behind them technologically speaking there's going to be nothing but growing pains. When their technology and goods are so highly coveted but so poorly understood that they sell entire tracts of land for glass beads it sparks an awful lot of interracial tension.

Look at what happened in Japan. Foreigners had been showing up to trade for centuries. Japanese Emperors had relations with both the English and the Portuguese (specifically the Jesuits) for a long time. Trade was heavily regulated in most cases and foreigners were not always allowed to go where they pleased.

Then all of a sudden the floodgates broke open. Americans, British, French, Portuguese, and all manner of other motherfuckers started showing up. Perfidious tradesmen fucked over the general population with unfair prices, people got killed, villages got shelled with cannonballs, and a civil war broke out between the Emperor and Shogun. Sides were taken, foreign mercenaries were deployed, and the samurai were promptly rekt by hordes of peasants with muskets trained by American Civil War veterans.

Culture shock is always a clusterfuck and modernization is not an easy prospect for indigenous people, especially when those people are basically still animist hunter gatherers living out of long houses.

you fucking believe the last samurai is depicting real events

Are you implying that the Boshin War did not occur?

Not him but the Boshin War pretty much WAS a proxy war between Britain, France, and the United States. There's a reason that a very large portion of the Japanese intelligentsia had the motto "Revere the Emperor, Expel the Barbarians" in the lead-up to the Boshin War. It's literally why Kagoshima happened.

You are the unique one who spams your fat al-andalus face. Get the fuck out of here.

>they still can't do shit because of the... superiority of Europeans
>superiority of Europeans

Pretty much what this racist user said, Europeans are superior.

Half of them don't even know who is or isn't Indian anymore, just pure """"blood quantum"""" autism and muh cultural colonialism

Incas were superior to europeans actually.

In what way? They were trunced be less than 200 Spaniards.

It was a religion of peace

You're the racist dickwad, you can state a group had more advanced tech without attributing it to racial superiority.

That was smallpox.

>literally a stone age society
>no written language

They did, it's called Oklahoma where tribes have a NatSoc government which is funded by a Stupidity Tax (gambling). The government supports this as well

>Why didn't Native Americans rebel and create a native country?
Because you need women to create a country and all native women were screwing the Spaniards.Native Americans literally got cucked

>>get struck by disease
>>get your land taken away
>>get deported and shot for centuries
The Spaniards allowed the natives to keep their land,their titles and their laws as long as they converted to catholicism.What is nominally called "indian republics".

...

Pizarro was literally banging the daughter of the incan emperor after 3 seconds of staring at each other.Peru was conquered by right of dick

What did any of that matter if there was also encomienda
the natives were deprived of their humanity

>Spanish army conquered all the indians.
Well it's not like there were many left after the disease took most of them out

>it's still a white man's world.
You mean in the cuckold continent of America

>What did any of that matter if there was also encomienda
Encomienda was literally inherited from the colonial period.The Spaniards just joined the native nobility.

Stop larping you subhuman. I know you are the author of the first post.

>See a Spaniard
>lust
> jump onto his dick
>See another Spaniard
>lustt
>jump onto his dick
Peru was unironically conquered by right of dick

greenland is an semi-autonomous region, not a country, dipshit

>they ever break treaties when it suits them and will backstab you for pennies
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_London_(1839)#Scrap_of_paper

>>tragedy
indeed

compared to europe it certainly was

still better than what euros were doing at the time

* raped

You're thinking of Europe my friend. :^)

>100 years of chaos and upheaval before returning to passive understanding of differences
vs.
>constant war of subjugation against all others in order to enslave them and sacrifice them by ripping out their still beating heart, unending, eternal flow of blood as a main core tenent

really makes me think...

It's a semi-autonomous country within the Kingdom of Denmark (the sovereign state) and it is generally referred to as such, similar to how Scotland and Wales are component countries within the United Kingdom (the sovereign state). Conversely, Macau is an example of an autonomous region that ISN'T considered a country in its own right. "Country" does not mean "sovereign state," although in casual speech it's sometimes used that way.

Seriously, know what you're talking about before you correct people.

Why is girl happy in OP's pic? Thinking of European cock.

Yes, no wars ever existed in Europe before those 100 years, it was a passive paradise.

This is a discussion of culture. All cultures have occasional wars over resources or power.

Wars of religion are what's relevant, when discussing culture.

The Reformation turmoil was a brief spike of violence in Europe compared to a religion that by its core tenant demands a continuous and unending flow of sacrificial blood.

If you can't grasp this fact, then you are a biased faggot.

>Arguing with the WE WUZER
He has 3 pastas and 4 pics. Outsode of that he knows jackshit about what he is talking about

>All cultures have occasional wars over resources or power.
>Wars of religion are what's relevant, when discussing culture.
Then why you guys keep regarding Aztec wars of conquest as religious wars?
In the 200 years they introduced "mass sacrifices" to Mesoamerica they killed 3 times less people than euros in a 100 years if we consider Aztec's highest estimate and Europe's lowest estimate. 9 times less if we consider Europe's highest.

>He has 3 pastas and 4 pics.Outsode of that he knows jackshit about what he is talking about
why you always go for the ad hominem? why can't you guys simply prove the pastas wrong?

i know how fucking annoying they are, just like you posting the same comments every goddamn thread

Except I'm not him him.
Are you implying that the Aztecs or since you people conflate the whole thing let's say Mesoamerica in general only fought wars of religion? You do realize religion was so ingrained in their society, literally the act of sweeping, shitting and eating were all tied to religious beliefs. Wars certainly had a religious conotation but it's not the only reason they were fought. Also I think you are thinking of the flower wars of the Aztecs. The subjugation Aztecs did over their neighbors was largely for control of resources. As they got bigger and more powerful they turned it into a crusade to emphasize their central role in the world.

>guys simply prove the pastas wrong?
The pastas are cherrypicked from a book that you haven't read and will never read for that matter. Taking quotes out of context is not an argument by any means

Aztec wars were just to horde slaves and to sacrifice people. That is why they were so autistic about making prisioners

Kill yourself moor mongrel.

No they weren't.

>Scholars say that Aztec warriors fought specifically to capture other warriors to offer them to the gods and that this gave them prestige. But this interpretation has come down to us largely from Spanish friars and the Aztecs they educated. In real life, no civilization has ever endorsed killing on such a massive scale, and repeatedly, only to please gods. The gods, however, always provide a nice handy excuse for killing that is motivated by other things.

>Far more likely is that warriors sought to capture other warriors not to have them killed for their hearts but to put them in a position in which the captor, by right of capturing his opponent, could take away some of his opponent’s tribute rights (resources, money, power). This makes a lot more sense, and puts the Aztecs well within the range of all civilizations.

>Historic revisionism
From which nativist historian is this?

>Kill yourself moor mongrel.
But it is literally what happened.Inca women just jumped dick when the Spaniards arrive.Even their princesses
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quispe_Sisa

I am a native american and its humorous to see europe on a decadent downward spiral from its own hubris. it's a taste of their own medicine

That was an offering for allie diplomacy. The same as the aztecs.

>cuckposter
Iberian monkey.

>its humorous to see europe on a decadent downward spiral from its own hubris.
Not really what happened. More like liberalism, communism and American hegemony over Europe naturally did a number.
>it's a taste of their own medicine
That doesn't even make sense considering your previous sentence implied Europe was not like this.

>That was an offering for allie diplomacy
That is why she ended up marrying a poor squire at the end of the day?
Kek

>what is rape?

She was a traitor after all. Look at your women jumping at mojamé's dick.

Faggot.