Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

lettuceLeafer wrote (edited )

This question only confuses me because u view indigenous people from a settler frame of mind. In the Americas there where hundreds if not thousands of differing groups often times with massive infighting in the groups.

Attempts to organize together were made but extremely ineffective. Most indigenous groups were individually far less powerful than colonizing force. And the powerful forces such as the Aztecs where in decline/ lost most of their population from disease before the Spanish even came to kill them.

But the question is fundamentally framed wrong, there are hundreds if not thousands of many different groups of people vs a few colonizing forces. So your question should be framed as why were many different armies of maybe only 1k people able to single handedly defeat the British or the French or the Spanish. Which is really a silly question when views not otherizing many different indigenous groups as a cohesive whole.

It's like wondering why in ww2 the white people didn't just work together to conquer the world. The framing of the question is so fundamentally wrong that u are unable to see the question to due the quedtion relying on ridiculous and illogical notions of racial grouping. Not calling u racist or anything but this colonialist mindset takes a lot of work to shake from ur brain. I have said this before on raddle with people agreeing with me yet this hegemonic view of indigenous people is still ever prevent in anti colonial thought. Which is annoying and a bit depressing.


Exlurker OP wrote (edited )

Not disagreeing but this post really comes from people talking about how 'we' can 'win' if we just come up with 'radically fundamentally different' ideas of how to resist but most of the time don't have any ideas themselves.


lettuceLeafer wrote

U might enjoy reading about the Nez Perce people. They are prob the best and most effective example of resisting colonizer attacks.