The Indians didn't initiate that war. The French and British did by their colonizing presence.
Indians fought on both sides of that war, often against one another.
To be clear though, there is no war without the British and the French meddling with Indian affairs.
What? The whole reason the nations split they way they did is because they had a long history of war with one another. That's a pretty ignorant assertion.
There can be no split without colonization. It's amazing that you work so hard to be so ignorant.
What? Pre-European Natives fought one another. Warfare predates colonization.
There can be no SPLIT without colonization.
We're talking about a specific scenario, but if you want to move the goalposts, let's do that.
In each and every conflict, there is one party pushing their values or priorities at the cost of others, even in tribal conflicts. The aggressor is the colonizer (oppressor) and the other person is the aggrieved party (oppressed). In each of those conflicts, the oppressor is responsible for every atrocity that is committed because in their absence, there is NO CONFLICT.
That's such a simplification of human interaction that I'm not sure there's a single conflict I'm human history that fully fits that definition.
There's not a single conflict in human history that doesn't fit that description.
The Indians didn't initiate that war. The French and British did by their colonizing presence.
Indians fought on both sides of that war, often against one another.
To be clear though, there is no war without the British and the French meddling with Indian affairs.
What? The whole reason the nations split they way they did is because they had a long history of war with one another. That's a pretty ignorant assertion.
There can be no split without colonization. It's amazing that you work so hard to be so ignorant.
What? Pre-European Natives fought one another. Warfare predates colonization.
We're talking about a specific scenario, but if you want to move the goalposts, let's do that.
In each and every conflict, there is one party pushing their values or priorities at the cost of others, even in tribal conflicts. The aggressor is the colonizer (oppressor) and the other person is the aggrieved party (oppressed). In each of those conflicts, the oppressor is responsible for every atrocity that is committed because in their absence, there is NO CONFLICT.
That's such a simplification of human interaction that I'm not sure there's a single conflict I'm human history that fully fits that definition.
There's not a single conflict in human history that doesn't fit that description.