I don't really know what to title this. . .People don't think maybe. . .

[ShrowdedPoet]

I was amazed as I did my Arkansas History work.  I'm taking an online course and as part of class participation the teacher posts three discussion questions every lesson and we answer them.  This chapter is about the Indian Removal.  The question was "Explain the reasons why Native Americans were removed from Arkansas.  In your opinion, could Americans and Native Americans live side-by-side based on your understanding of both cultures?"  Now I'm used to the people in my class only half-assed answering the questions, using no real intelect, and generally copying the answer of the person who sounds like they know the most.  But I was shocked as I read one persons answer to the second half of the disscussion question, "No, I don’t think that Native American can live side by side with the Americans because the Native Americans usually carry diseases.  They usually live in hunter/farmer subsistence societies.  They eat insects for food, and they used spears, warclubs, bows, and arrows for weapons.  Also, we elect president and they elect chiefs."   :o  I'm left saying WTF????!!!!!!  I go on to say, "I would like to ask you Llee, where on earth did you get this information?  What facts are you basing this opinion off of?  I mean really?  WHAT?  You don’t think that Americans could live side by side with Native Americans because the Native Americans carried diseases?  If I remember correctly disease was brought to the Native Americans by outsiders and it killed thousands!  They were not animals, they were human beings!  They weren’t diseased anymore than the Americans.  Also, what is wrong with their hunter/farmer societies?  I live in South east Arkansas and our society here is based on farmers and has a huge amount of hunting.  There was nothing wrong with the way Native Americans lived.  What do you mean they eat insects as food?  They hunted animals and grew crops!  They had nutritional needs the same as the Americans.  Even if they did eat insects, what’s wrong with that?  Also, what’s wrong with their weapons?  They were primitive but they were effective.  But really by the time the Americans came they had more advanced weapons.  What does it matter that we elected a president?  Yes, they have a chief and they didn’t elect him either.  Think about this!  They were here first, they saved our butts more than once. . .where do we get off kicking them out?  Stealing their land?  Murdering their people?  If they fought us, if they killed us. . .we deserved it!  Needless to say, I completely disagree with everything in the above quoted paragraph."  Really, was this person just NOT thinking? 

[RubySlippers]

This is not funny these are supposed to be the leaders of our society and can't do simple research.

[ShrowdedPoet]

This is not funny these are supposed to be the leaders of our society and can't do simple research.

Hmm?  I didn't say it was funny. . .this was just some dumbass in my Arkansas history class. . .I don't think they'll be leading society anywhere any time soon.

[RubySlippers]

Ok we will say these are the people that VOTE for the leaders of our nation and you wonder why idiots get into office more often than not at least for the last few decades.

[ShrowdedPoet]

Ok we will say these are the people that VOTE for the leaders of our nation and you wonder why idiots get into office more often than not at least for the last few decades.

I don't wonder, I already knew why. 

[Sherona]

Native Americans did eat insects as delicacies, quite a few still do! I ate a "Indian hopper" before it was actually good if you got your mind off the fact it was a grasshopper, but I am not at all sure exactly why this would make it difficult to live side by side with.

The Native Americans did have a different political system that consisted more on who showed and proved that they wre ready to lead the tribe the most rather then a democracy. That probably would have lead to contention. Yes the White Man should have been able to live side by side with the native Americans, we do it quite well here in Oklahoma where there is still "Indian Land" and tribal lands, and tribes living here. I haven't had a single arrow shot at my house at all.

The problem was, that when the "White Man" came to teh America's they were not expecting to find huge civilizations of natives. And because in many societies those with the bigger guns tend to win, that was teh same back then. Not excusing the atrocities visited on the european settlers but just saying the mind frame alone would have made it next to impossible for peaceful co-exsistance.

[ShrowdedPoet]

Native Americans did eat insects as delicacies, quite a few still do! I ate a "Indian hopper" before it was actually good if you got your mind off the fact it was a grasshopper, but I am not at all sure exactly why this would make it difficult to live side by side with.

The Native Americans did have a different political system that consisted more on who showed and proved that they wre ready to lead the tribe the most rather then a democracy. That probably would have lead to contention. Yes the White Man should have been able to live side by side with the native Americans, we do it quite well here in Oklahoma where there is still "Indian Land" and tribal lands, and tribes living here. I haven't had a single arrow shot at my house at all.

The problem was, that when the "White Man" came to teh America's they were not expecting to find huge civilizations of natives. And because in many societies those with the bigger guns tend to win, that was teh same back then. Not excusing the atrocities visited on the european settlers but just saying the mind frame alone would have made it next to impossible for peaceful co-exsistance.

I didn't say they didn't eat bugs.  I said that that wasn't all they eat and even if it was what would be wrong with it. 

I didn't say their systems weren't different, I corrected their statement and asked what was wrong with that. 

The thing is this was pretty soon after the French-Indian war, the Americans did know that they would find huge settlements and civilizations because the Spanish and French had been there and they'd already explored there.  They came in looking for land and riches.  They were greedy and prejudiced.  They didn't want to live side by side with the Native Americans. 

[RubySlippers]

Lets see we wanted the land, the Native Americans to the mindset of the European Powers weren't using the land properly, we wanted it and we took it- seems fair enough. For how long before then did the European Powers fight over land rights and wealth say what you want our ancestors would good at it.

Look at this objectively we also stole the American Colonies from Britain, Texas stole Texas from Mexico and the California Territory was stolen by the United States from Mexico we tended to screw anyone over to get what we wanted. Regardless of who that group was including black slaves and indentured white people bonded to the colonies a very much form of white slavery. In the end we won and they had to adapt to us and some tribes did and others fought.

If you look at other Native American groups like the Aztecs I feel their destruction was likely a good thing and well deserved, although that was in South America.

[Sherona]

I dont think the destruction of any civilization is a good thing.


That being said, I forgot Poet that this was Arkansas and not just the North American continent in general *Grins* Sorry about that. But yes, I was just in my long winded way, agreeing wtih you :)

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Your classmate definitely has an interesting view of culture.  Little ethnocentric I would say.  They are correct in saying that the newly arriving people and Native Americans couldn't live together.  The reasoning is really far from the mark though.

[ShrowdedPoet]

Lets see we wanted the land, the Native Americans to the mindset of the European Powers weren't using the land properly, we wanted it and we took it- seems fair enough. For how long before then did the European Powers fight over land rights and wealth say what you want our ancestors would good at it.

Look at this objectively we also stole the American Colonies from Britain, Texas stole Texas from Mexico and the California Territory was stolen by the United States from Mexico we tended to screw anyone over to get what we wanted. Regardless of who that group was including black slaves and indentured white people bonded to the colonies a very much form of white slavery. In the end we won and they had to adapt to us and some tribes did and others fought.

If you look at other Native American groups like the Aztecs I feel their destruction was likely a good thing and well deserved, although that was in South America.

Yes, we stole, cheated, murdered. . .anything to get what we wanted.  That's not a good thing.  But even the most assimilated Native American tribe was still just NOT good enough because there was one thing they could never change, the color of their skin.

I dont think the destruction of any civilization is a good thing.


That being said, I forgot Poet that this was Arkansas and not just the North American continent in general *Grins* Sorry about that. But yes, I was just in my long winded way, agreeing wtih you :)

*grins*  It's alright, I figured that was the case.  And I agree with Sherona, the destruction of a civilization is never a good thing.  Those people had the same right to live as you or I do. 

Your classmate definitely has an interesting view of culture.  Little ethnocentric I would say.  They are correct in saying that the newly arriving people and Native Americans couldn't live together.  The reasoning is really far from the mark though.

I agree that they were VERY ethnocentric.  But I do believe that it was possible to Coexist with the Native Americans.  We just didn't want to.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

The unfortunate truth of the situation is that the Native Americans were destined to lose this land.  Destined in the sense that once Europeans took an interest here, nothing could be done to stop that expansion.  Native Americans lacked the military strength to resist and also lacked the cultural advances of nationalism to unify their population.  I know many people point to the wonders of their tribal life, technology and community but in a global sense they were behind the curve.  There was no way they could have realized the threat these new people posed and no way they could prepare for the what would come.

Lying and cheating may have been the sins used to gain the land, but they are the common tools of politics.  Taking advantage of others and using their weaknesses to an advantage are the marks of good leaders.  The Native Americans had no way of enforcing their side of a contract and no legal recourse upon such a violation.  This is why there was no possibilty for co-existance.  There cannot be a peaceful exchange when one party is that disadvantaged against another.  Their only choice is to assimilate or be destroyed by the stronger party (yes I know I sound like the Borg).  Alexander did the same to tribes he came across, Ganghas Khan(sp?) did the same, Rome did so as well and so did England with its other populations.  Countries grow until they reach a greater force or they begin to fall under their own weight. 

So I don't really see how there could have been any peaceful coexistance with Native Americans.  As cold hearted as it sounds, they were just not equipped to handle the European invasion.

[ShrowdedPoet]

The unfortunate truth of the situation is that the Native Americans were destined to lose this land.  Destined in the sense that once Europeans took an interest here, nothing could be done to stop that expansion.  Native Americans lacked the military strength to resist and also lacked the cultural advances of nationalism to unify their population.  I know many people point to the wonders of their tribal life, technology and community but in a global sense they were behind the curve.  There was no way they could have realized the threat these new people posed and no way they could prepare for the what would come.

Lying and cheating may have been the sins used to gain the land, but they are the common tools of politics.  Taking advantage of others and using their weaknesses to an advantage are the marks of good leaders.  The Native Americans had no way of enforcing their side of a contract and no legal recourse upon such a violation.  This is why there was no possibilty for co-existance.  There cannot be a peaceful exchange when one party is that disadvantaged against another.  Their only choice is to assimilate or be destroyed by the stronger party (yes I know I sound like the Borg).  Alexander did the same to tribes he came across, Ganghas Khan(sp?) did the same, Rome did so as well and so did England with its other populations.  Countries grow until they reach a greater force or they begin to fall under their own weight. 

So I don't really see how there could have been any peaceful coexistance with Native Americans.  As cold hearted as it sounds, they were just not equipped to handle the European invasion.

There could have been had the Europeans been willing to play fair.  I know, I know, in reality people are cold hearted bastards only looking out for themselves. . .  Whatever!  The Native Americans were people and they were willing to give aid to some of the Europeans when treated kindly.  So maybe deep down somewhere the Europeans are to blame for the mass murder and other evils done to the Native Americans!  Just because the Spanish did it doens't make it right.  Just because Sally or Bob are jumping off bridges doesn't mean I have to go jump off a bridge as well.  The excuse that it's the norm is not a good excuse.  It was wrong. 

[Methos]

Well you also stole Oregon, Washington state and the Alaskan panhandle from Canada - jerks.

[ShrowdedPoet]

Well you also stole Oregon, Washington state and the Alaskan panhandle from Canada - jerks.

It's alright I've never been to these states, don't care to go to them and probably never will!  For all I care Canada can have them back!

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Not really going to argue the morality of what happened.  I doubt few would say that it was ethical what occured, but I was merely pointing out an inability to coexist. 

[Storiwyr]

Taking advantage of others and using their weaknesses to an advantage are the marks of good leaders.

I strongly disagree. Those are marks of a good expansionist. Expansion does not always equal leadership. Leaders do not have to exploit people to be good leaders. Can a good leader have those traits? Yes. But so can some really horrible people who are terrible leaders.

Well you also stole Oregon, Washington state and the Alaskan panhandle from Canada - jerks.

It's alright I've never been to these states, don't care to go to them and probably never will!  For all I care Canada can have them back!

Believe me. Canada CAN have us back. We don't mind. :P

[Zakharra]

Believe me. Canada CAN have us back. We don't mind. :P

I do NOT want to live on the new US Western border, thank you very much.. >:(

[RubySlippers]

There could have been had the Europeans been willing to play fair.  I know, I know, in reality people are cold hearted bastards only looking out for themselves. . .  Whatever!  The Native Americans were people and they were willing to give aid to some of the Europeans when treated kindly.  So maybe deep down somewhere the Europeans are to blame for the mass murder and other evils done to the Native Americans!  Just because the Spanish did it doens't make it right.  Just because Sally or Bob are jumping off bridges doesn't mean I have to go jump off a bridge as well.  The excuse that it's the norm is not a good excuse.  It was wrong. 

Play fair? Did you ever study European history it was founded and built on war and created the greatest Empires for many centuries. It even hurled back the real threat by the Muslims of the great expansion and they were a far more civilized people in many respects and far more accepting of the differences of faith, Saladin proved that point. I assume its the one great strength of Anglo Culture for all our faults we tend to be greedy, egotistical and ambitious and from Alexander the Great to I'll argue to Germany in the Mazi regime is proof of that. What other people had more great Empires?

Is that right? It was survival of the fittest and the stronger and more aggressive won that is the way of history. That even used to carry to business and commerce where our lust for power led us into non-warfare until the US government became a bunch of wimps and banned monopolies and regulating our commerce too much.

[ShrowdedPoet]

Play fair? Did you ever study European history it was founded and built on war and created the greatest Empires for many centuries. It even hurled back the real threat by the Muslims of the great expansion and they were a far more civilized people in many respects and far more accepting of the differences of faith, Saladin proved that point. I assume its the one great strength of Anglo Culture for all our faults we tend to be greedy, egotistical and ambitious and from Alexander the Great to I'll argue to Germany in the Mazi regime is proof of that. What other people had more great Empires?

Is that right? It was survival of the fittest and the stronger and more aggressive won that is the way of history. That even used to carry to business and commerce where our lust for power led us into non-warfare until the US government became a bunch of wimps and banned monopolies and regulating our commerce too much.

Yes, I have studied Eruopean history and I have come to the conclusion that humans are evil.  They are like a plague or disease and the only was to help my human problem is to try to be a good human and not be such an evil bastard.  Herds of buffalo do not attack other herds of buffalo just because they want to expand.  It is not survival of the fittest. . .it's just plain wrong. 

[Paradox]

If it wasn't for "evil humans" and our advances in civilizations, you wouldn't be online right now. You probably wouldn't enjoy any of the modern luxuries you currently do. If many of those wars had not been fought, America as we know it would not exist at all. We are an amalgamation of myriad cultures-- Roman, Greek, numerous European ones-- we took the best of their ideas and distilled them down to their purest form, then incorporated them into our culture. Just go to Washington DC for proof. Both the architecture and the legal documentation that founded this country is steeped in ideas from cultures and eras that were extremely bloody, yet those societies rose above the bloodshed to accomplish something greater for mankind. Those Empires had to be strong to deflect the advances of countless outsiders bombarding their borders. Had things gone differently, we could be living in a Caliphate, or a Dictatorship, or who knows what else.

[RubySlippers]

Humans are not evil we are just part of nature just like the wolf and the shark, its just our motivations and place as the dominant species makes our effects on the world different.

I should note many animals such as lions will kill each other over territory and food when on pride shows weakeness. I saw this on a PBS program so it happens.

Would you blame a bear for killing a deer, same principles we wanted the land and took it with not sufficent opposition to be a problem. When another nation or empire can mount a defense such as the USSR during the Cold War basic suvival will kick in. We couldn't fight them openly or they us or well we would likely nuke each other silly so we has a cold and tempered dislike that fought through third party nations. But the Native Americans were no match for the invasion of the Europeans and fell, they could have assimilated and adapted to the newcomers culture.

And lets be blunt we enter space and meet aliens that are technologcally inferior on choice land and resources we need I can see the same thing happening again.

[Mathim]

I think the question was stupid to ask in the first place. If we could have lived side by side we would have.

[ShrowdedPoet]

Human advances could have been made by working together as well.  I can understand attacking someone if you are in danger but not just because you are greedy and want what they have.  We teach our children to share their toys and yet as adults we can't seem to mirror this sharing that we teach our children.  We can't share without fighting and it seems we can't fight without killing!  How many more great accomplishments could we have possibly made had we not killed the person who might have accomplished them?  

I do not see anything wrong with killing to protect yourself or to eat but I do see something wrong with killing over greed.  You say that humans are dominant and you reference lions killing over territory.  So you say that since we do exactly what the animals do just on a larger scale we are the dominant species?  I do not think we are the dominant species, I think we're full of ourselves and that only helps to fuel our greed.  

The Cherokee people assimilated the best they could, they were just like the white man in every way except for their skin color.  They couldn't change it so they were forced from their land.  Assimilation obviously wasn't the answer.  If everybody assimilated there wouldn't be much of a culture.  

[ShrowdedPoet]

I think the question was stupid to ask in the first place. If we could have lived side by side we would have.

That's utter bull.  I can live side by side with my older sister.  I CAN do it.  But we don't get along and she completely irritates the hell out of me so I choose not to.  Just because someone chooses not to live side by side does not mean that it is impossible to do so.  Do not call something stupid unless you're able to defend your allegations of stupidity.

[mdazfrench]

<hesitantly places her toe in the boiling water> :)

Interesting points, all.

My answer to the original question would be a definite no, and I think my answer is just a bit different so bear with me a moment.  I think the Europeans and Native Americans could NOT coexist because of the blood guilt the European people would have to have embraced.  So far as the Native Americans being a 'dirty' people, this simply wasn't true.  They practiced better hygiene than an unfortunate number of people I know here in the States :)

No, the problem is they had no defense against the diseases that the Europeans brought along with them.  Viruses that had endured centuries of differing evolution and were incredibly deadly to the nearly defenseless Native American population.  The greatest murderers of Native Americans was never the settlers, or the Calvary.  It was simple flu bugs.

Now, follow my train of logic here.  The settlers now were faced with a conundrum.  Either accept that your mere presence as uninvited guests on another people's lands has resulted in the deaths of millions of their people or instead take the unfortunately 'human' route and demonize the victim.  'It's not our fault.  These people have no concept of proper living.  They're savages!  Barely better than animals, and usually filthier!  No wonder they die in droves!'

This was not done (in most cases, I believe) with foul intent but was simple human nature in justifying their actions by perceiving faults in others.  We enslaved black people only after we had talked ourselves into the idea that they were subhuman, without souls (a concept actually taught to black tribes in the early days of expansion into Africa) and we drove the Native Americans before us with the same platitudes ringing in our ears.

In summary - Native Americans and the mainly European settles couldn't live together because WE couldn't own up to it.  WE couldn't acknowledge them as equals after those first, completely unintentional atrocities, because we couldn't face ourselves in the mirror again.

Feel free to disagree with me (even violently if you want :) )

[Ganam]

I assume that your classmate was trolling for a reaction from the teacher and class. He/she probably assumed that they were supposed to give a touchy-feely type response and decided to go over-the-top the other way. While a lot of people are ignorant of history, does anybody use the "people that eat bugs are icky" argument after the 3rd grade in any serious way?

[Sherona]

I know my discussion questions for my classes are often hard to come up with something that not everyone has already stated, so the classmate might have been simply trying to come up with a different sort of answer even if they didn't believe it themselves.

[brazenvamp]

Coming from "across the pond", I did study the conflict between the settlers and Natives, but only across the whole country not individual states so specifics lose me.  However, one of the reasons I can see as to why they never would have co-exsisted happily is down to the reason many of the europeans left in the first place.

They wanted somewhere to practice their religion without prejudice, control or intterruption.  Coming upon a native race who did not fit into their new lifestyle made it difficult to be happy with them being there.  They could not agree on how to interact with them so chose to assimilate them, creating schools to teach the children english and catholosism and banning native tongues.  

They were cruel to a fault and indiscriminate in these actions.  Just like every other empire before them.

The romans publicly punished people, and even changed their own calender to fit in with the British and western European celts, just to make their lives easier.

The settling europeans tried to do the same thing but with a far lesser degree of success.

But in essence it is true that we are often intolerant by nature and it is the survival of the fittest after all.  But still understanding this does not make it right or mean that anyone agrees, its just true.  We are what we have made ourselves.  We fight for dominance, and this is true of many animals, they all have their own heirachy and society where its kill or be killed.  We have just refined the art and added intent.

[Inkidu]

Hmm?  I didn't say it was funny. . .this was just some dumbass in my Arkansas history class. . .I don't think they'll be leading society anywhere any time soon.

The last thing Arkansas produced as a leader was... *coughBillClintoncough* nevermind.

[ShrowdedPoet]

The last thing Arkansas produced as a leader was... *coughBillClintoncough* nevermind.

That was stupid. 

[Inkidu]

But it was true.

Anyway the reason America or Europe didn't get along with the Native Americans is because it was the world idea at the time European superiority and all that. It just didn't matter. They were "Savages" and we were advanced. That's all. That and greed.

[ShrowdedPoet]

But it was true.

Anyway the reason America or Europe didn't get along with the Native Americans is because it was the world idea at the time European superiority and all that. It just didn't matter. They were "Savages" and we were advanced. That's all. That and greed.

Don't use truth to try and make what you said any less of a playground act of immaturity! 

I know it's the Europeans at fault and I've been saying that.

[Inkidu]

Don't use truth to try and make what you said any less of a playground act of immaturity! 

I know it's the Europeans at fault and I've been saying that.

Well that's not true it's America's fault too. Don't forget that.

[Rhapsody]

Europeans and America is not at fault for the skirmishes and wars that went on.  SOME Europeans and SOME Americans and SOME Indians HUNDREDS OF YEARS AGO are responsible for starting/fighting in a war that the "white man" happened to win.  That is all.

[ShrowdedPoet]

Well that's not true it's America's fault too. Don't forget that.

At that time Ink the Americans were European. . .

Europeans and America is not at fault for the skirmishes and wars that went on.  SOME Europeans and SOME Americans and SOME Indians HUNDREDS OF YEARS AGO are responsible for starting/fighting in a war that the "white man" happened to win.  That is all.

The indians didn't start the fights.  They were invaded by Europeans who took advantage of them, stole their land, killed their people, and destroyed whole tribes of people.  The indians fought back sometimes. . .but they had good reason. 

[Rhapsody]

The indians didn't start the fights.  They were invaded by Europeans who took advantage of them, stole their land, killed their people, and destroyed whole tribes of people.  The indians fought back sometimes. . .but they had good reason.

I hate this line of thinking, to be quite honest, because when people say things like this, it usually means they want me to shoulder the inherent guilt of what some far-distant ancestor of mine might or might not have done two or three centuries ago. 

The Indians weren't all as peaceful and nature-loving as people want to believe they were.  Some tribes were quite violent and started just as many wars amongst themselves long before the Europeans ever arrived.  My husband is part Mescalero Apache, both my sons as well. They were noted for being experts in guerrilla warfare long before the reservation period ever began, long before they were grouped in with the Apache.  You don't get that way by hugging trees and being good neighbours, you know.

Wars happen. People win, other people lose.  The circumstances are never good, wars are rarely started for solid reasons.  But to say it was all one one side or the other is just plain ignorance.  Both sides are culpable for the various atrocities committed during the conflicts.  Both sides are responsible for both the good and bad parts of fighting with each other.  Both sides had victims, and both sides had perpetrators.

[Kurzyk]

On a side note I wonder if the Europeans would have been as successful in conquering the native tribes in America if it hadn't been for disease. From what I understand before the major battles began most of the tribes were wiped out from disease picked up from Europeans in trading. This would easily pave the way.

They would probaby ultimately be successful but it might be a different story or outcome.

[ShrowdedPoet]

I hate this line of thinking, to be quite honest, because when people say things like this, it usually means they want me to shoulder the inherent guilt of what some far-distant ancestor of mine might or might not have done two or three centuries ago. 

The Indians weren't all as peaceful and nature-loving as people want to believe they were.  Some tribes were quite violent and started just as many wars amongst themselves long before the Europeans ever arrived.  My husband is part Mescalero Apache, both my sons as well. They were noted for being experts in guerrilla warfare long before the reservation period ever began, long before they were grouped in with the Apache.  You don't get that way by hugging trees and being good neighbours, you know.

Wars happen. People win, other people lose.  The circumstances are never good, wars are rarely started for solid reasons.  But to say it was all one one side or the other is just plain ignorance.  Both sides are culpable for the various atrocities committed during the conflicts.  Both sides are responsible for both the good and bad parts of fighting with each other.  Both sides had victims, and both sides had perpetrators.

First, I'm not burdoning you with guilt.  That pissed me off.  Just because I'm white I should feel guilty and pay for what white people did to black people.  So I wasn't saying that you just took it that way.

Second, I know they weren't all peaceful and that there were many wars started by and between indians.  I am speaking of a specific time period, a specific place, and a specific group of indians.  I know my history and I know it fairly well.  In this specific case the question is if they could have lived together side by side and the answer I've given is yes if the Europeans had let them but the Europeans didn't so they are at fault for the indians and them not living side by side in peace.  There is a context to my words.  There is a certain page in history that I am on and a certain time line that I am discussing.  People seem to not read what's above and don't get context which makes them out of context and me in context which leads to confusion.

On a side note I wonder if the Europeans would have been as successful in conquering the native tribes in America if it hadn't been for disease. From what I understand before the major battles began most of the tribes were wiped out from disease picked up from Europeans in trading. This would easily pave the way.

They would probaby ultimately be successful but it might be a different story or outcome.

Very good point.  They may not have been if disease hadn't worn the indians so thin.