This is an interesting topic that I'd like to introduce to those who have never heard of it. If it interests, there is plenty more on the internet that can be easily found:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/1...s-Confederacy-

http://www.senate.gov/reference/comm...titution.shtml

lol... they were also the some of the most savage of the Indians. It was standard for them to chew off the fingers of the Jesuits and other early settlers they captured. They would have their childen torture them for days by tieing up prisoners and poking them with sticks. Some other worse stuff too... these were not isolated incidents.

An Iroquois tradition: after the Iroquois killed a large game animal, the men in the tribe were required to sit around and eat their portion until it was gone. Sometimes this meant sitting in the same spot for days, and throwing up multiple times from eating too much. Those who did not finish their portion were burned at the stake. That is how they treated their own; imagine how they treated their enemies.

They early American settlers lived in terror of the Iroquois. There is a popular myth that the Indians were peaceful people only disturbed by the white man. The different tribes had been fighting each other in brutal battles before the Europeans arrived. Since most of the tribes have no written history these battles have not been recorded.

I'm guessing that rj commonly makes asinine biased comments

How is any of that asinine? It's 100% fact of the Iroquois history and most of those details are from the Parkman books, which are considered some of the best on Indian and Iroquois history. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it untrue.

Try reading some books on it. http://www.loa.org/volume.jsp?RequestID=110

"France and England in North America is the greatest history ever written by an American, even counting Henry Adams. A thousand years from now, if there are still Americans, Parkman will be their Homer."
—The Washington Post

I find the article to be both ironic and interesting if truly we did model our government closely to the Iroquois government of old.
Rampage's comment was beside the point, he was attempting to make Native Americans appear unworthy of praise, and trying to minimize the importance of your OP simply because they were just ooh so barbaric! Typical of us Americans to show little respect to the people who inhabited this land before us. Your response however was not much better.

I realize my response wasn't better, it just irked me that RJ obviously has a bias and doesn't really address the point besides trying to talk bad on natives. It's also kinda funny he tries to make it sound like it was all native aggression on europeans, and implying that our congress got fooled (or perhaps this is all some kind of pc-bs).

I get that no society on earth is utopian and perfect. I'm sure natives had many bad situations like anyone else does.

Just saying, it's a very popular belief that the Indians were nature loving peaceful people. I was personally shocked when I began reading Indian history many of the things that actually took place.

The Indians loved the French, hated the Spanish, and were somewhat indifferent to the English. It's a very complex history, and not just one where England came in and starting raping and pillaging.

I think historical context is also useful in understanding why this assertion may be accurate. Given the tendencies of the Spanish toward the native peoples of the Southern regions of the American Continents, especially the Aztecs and Incas (the ones with significant historical record that I am aware of), it's not hard to imagine why the Spanish experienced a different relationship than other settlers.

also, "NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISTION!"

I love that you argue that the Indians weren't just one all-good people, then argue that they were all these particularly evil things, all under the motive of basically trying to make the white man look good. When no one is even making the argument that the natives were perfectly good.

Iroquois Influence is way overstated. There were democratic traditions on many continents. Those in European history and modern European practice that were well known in the 18th century certainly had more influence than the Iroquois. Then the revisionist historians came along to try and sell the pro-Iroquois story.

You find revisionist history about American Indians in lots of places. For example, neither Cortés nor Pizarro could have won their victories over the Aztec and Inca had it not been for the fact that these cultures were oppressive cultures enslaving their neighboring nations (and annexing them). The Spanish won because there were plenty of American Indians who were willing allies against what they knew to be oppressive regimes. It was not European versus American, it was European and Americans allies against other Americans who were earlier conquerors of their neighbors.

But you don't learn this in school, the truth is replaced by a pro-American Indian fantasy history. I ask, what is wrong with teaching honest history, where all sides have their foibles and failings?

Wow, I didn't get this history in public elementary and junior high, and catholic high school. At all.

Please expand upon your reply. As it is I can't tell if this is just a sarcastic reply or what.

I have learned a lot reading about Spanish and English colonial history in the Americas. It is truly fascinating stuff.

For example the Pequot War is yet another example of American and European allies against an American Indian nation -- these are never simple straight forward histories.

Not sarcastic. I'm saying that I didn't get told the natives were anything but savages after eating Thanksgiving with the pilgrims.

I had a similar experience growing up with one exception. My grandmother happened to be Cherokee. I had the advantage of the aside whisper whenever these discussions took place, which instilled a healthy sense of skepticism about what I was being told.

The Aztecs and Incas were both repressive regimes, the Spanish were way better at it... plus they had the added advantage of being mistaken for gods (veracocha (sp?)). There is a common misconception that Pizarro et al were only looking for gold and riches, when in fact, they recognized the hierarchy and opportunity to become 'kings' in their own right. Life didn't end well for many in those days, Native or European. This book, by Kim Macquarrie was pretty decent on the subject (for all I know) and I enjoyed it.

Not sure if there is an analog in the Northern Continent. From all I've seen they were less centralized, but I could be wrong. If anybody knows of a more current, less biased accounting of native tribes I'd read it. For my history I only know Sequoia and John Ross, who were and are held in pretty high esteem.

Yea, many of the other Indian tribes hated the Aztecs because they were the strongest of the tribes. Cortez was a genius in terms of playing their rivalries against each other. Montezuma was also nearly incompentent, and thought that by sending Cortez more gold and gifts that it would make him go away.

The entire story is a miracle of history though. Less than 1,000 Spanish soldiers under Cortez were able to conquer an entire empire. The most lopsided battles in history took place here. It was often 200 Spanish with swords and armour vs 50,000+ Aztecs with stones and spears.

source? link?

The Francis Parkman books are a pretty comprehensive history from initial landings by the Spanish around 1520, all the way up to the Oregon trail. Very well written.

I got interested in early American history by reading William Prescott's books about the Conquest of Mexico and Peru. Afterwards I was left wondering what happened after that, since the story was so remarkable.

The nice thing about studying American history is you can start in 1520 and work up to the present. For European history it is much more intricate.

http://www.amazon.com/History-Conque...1276179&sr=8-8

The Spanish also had the advantage of being able to recruit many of the local tribes and cultures who had recently been conquered by the Aztecs, so the Conquistadors did not exactly pull it off alone. The Aztecs made a lot of enemies in Mexico. Unfortunately for the natives who joined the Spanish, smallpox and other diseases did not discriminate by side, and decimated Spanish allies and enemies alike. Once the Aztecs were out of the way, the Spanish were able to mop up the remaining resistance from their former allies.