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

[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.