"In North America from 1622 to 1890, colonial wars or not?" Topic

Hello everyone,

The Indian Wars are the set of wars opposing European settlers and then the governments of the United States and Canada to the "Indian" peoples, from 1622 to 1890.

Were they colonial wars or not?

Yours aye

Paskal

Is this a trick question? Yes, mostly, by the usual wargame understanding of "opposing forces of different cultures, at different tech levels, and sometimes with different concepts of winning a battle." I'm sure we could all name exceptions.

Yes. The Europeans were intent on colonising what for them was a 'new world'.

Pay dirt Guy with Dice, this is some muddy trolling activity.
Much more suited for AM radio than a hobby forum.

Yes, they would be a form of colonial wars. One difference would be the Americans were not trying to make colonies, but a larger nation.

Yes, by and large.
You do get the odd bit of contemporary warfare type analysis. The cavalry board determined that US cavalry should carry the Springfield carbine because it outranged the most common weapon used by the potential foes (Indian tribes apparently liked Winchesters).

One thing they had in common was that things could go very, very, very wrong very quickly as they did at the Little Big Horn, Isandlwana (for the British), and El Herri (French). In all three cases, the loser was able to continue the war until they won.

Grelber

I'm in agreement that this is a troll. Colonial or not, it was devastating to the indigenous people. It's a miracle any of them survived and a terrible legacy for the immigrant population to carry.
Let's move back to our hobby interests, ok? It doesn't serve any interest to dig into this matter within our community.

"the Americans were not trying to make colonies, but a larger nation." so it is not a colonial war because it was successful. On the other hand, the Europeans failed in Africa and Asia for example, because the colonized peoples were able to regain their "independence" in one way or another, what the Native Americans could never have done.

I'm not sure where that quotation comes from, but fail to see the distinction.

The distinction between what and what ?

The Spanish and Mexicans are prominent in the southwest. The Spanish and French fielded rival forces with local Allie's in Florida. The French had a decades long war against the Chickasaw and their Allie's in the Mississippi area. Covered in my booklet Mississippi in Flames: the Franco-Chickasaw Wars of the 1700s.

Between 1622 and 1776, certain conflicts fell under the classification of Colonial Wars, aimed at territorial expansion. Yet, others were defensive measures against encroachment by Native American tribes. Conversely, some Native American-initiated conflicts were responses to Colonial (and British) territorial claims.

Post-1776, especially after the Louisiana Purchase and the Mexican-American War, the United States asserted sovereignty over Native American-inhabited lands. Does this assertion constitute colonial warfare? Could it be likened to the Philippine Insurrection?

Similarly, did the British conflicts over Scottish and Welsh sovereignty qualify as colonial wars? I'd group the post-1776 clashes with various tribes into this category. Unlike venturing into distant lands and usurping indigenous territories, these were disputes over domestic sovereignty.

Can you leave out all the Spanish conquests in south and Central America? The English in Australia? Does any group overrun and conquered by another nation qualify? Romans vs Celts? Romans and Carthage? How about Troy? Go back through history. As in North America, many of the conquered survived, but only as part of the new nation or captives, never to appear again as independent. What of the conquests perpetuated by the Aztec, Mayan, Inca? The destruction of the Erie Nation by the Iroquois Confederation?
"colonialism" is a world wide and historical thing, not just North American . There are some many examples all over the world. So are not we all guilty?

"Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone"
" Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."

When people list great victories of natives over the powers, why is "the battle of the Wabash" always ignored?

I was under the impression we were speaking mainly of North America.

Some other countries were brought up in the thread.

But my point is, there is no difference in what took place in North America and what has taken place throughout all of history and in all cultures. When a technologically superior, militarily superior or both, dominants and either subjugates or exterminates a culture that is weaker, thus taking their land. I don't call that colonialism, it's just war.

Unlike venturing into distant lands and usurping indigenous territories, these were disputes over domestic sovereignty.

@TimePortal

"the Americans were not trying to make colonies, but a larger nation.".

So it is not a colonial war because it was successful?

On the other hand, the Europeans failed in Africa and Asia for example, because the colonized peoples were able to regain their "independence" in one way or another, what the Native Americans could never have done.

So these are colonial wars which ended well…

@Old Contemptible

We speak of colonial wars when a more industrialized or more powerful people attacks another to take everything from them. This is what happened to the American Indians.

@35thOVI

So, aren't we all guilty ?

The subject is "The Indian Wars are the set of wars opposing European settlers and then the governments of the United States and Canada to the "Indian" peoples, from 1622 to 1890.".

We are talking about the U.S.A. not other nations.

You write "there is no difference between what happened in North America and what has happened throughout history and in all cultures.

When someone who is technologically superior, militarily superior, or both, dominates and subjugates or exterminates a weaker culture, thereby taking their land, I don't call it colonialism, that's just war.".

This is precisely colonialism!