tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29769707.post7912308008549764079..comments2007-04-20T02:30:11.341-07:00Robhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01478763837213733775noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29769707.post-63898422634666596422007-04-20T02:30:00.000-07:002007-04-20T02:30:00.000-07:00Writerfella here --<BR/> The actual differences between the terms 'massacre' and 'battle' are these: 'massacre' involves people who are innocent of the attacker's intent; 'battle' means they at least are cognizant of the conflict that has come home to roost. The 'Indian Wars' were fought not over 'territorial imperative' but rather over who could own the land. Devastate the current occupiers of the land, and the land was yours. Natives occupied the land out of a balance between actual combat and ritualized combat, as is the case for animal species who exist in ecological competition for territory. EuroMan figured it all quite differently and so war was inevitable. Species do not compete to the destruction of those they displace, but EuroMan entered the equation from the standpoint that he would eliminate any and all who competed with him. That principle still is alive now and, every so often, it rises up in attack and those attacked are left to puzzle over just why it all occurred...<BR/>All Best<BR/>Russ Bates<BR/>'writerfella'russellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00111681906238053379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29769707.post-33618067926124284962007-04-19T21:55:00.000-07:002007-04-19T21:55:00.000-07:00An excellent, though profoundly sad, point. Puts me in mind of the old saw about the difference between a "massacre" and a "battle": a "massacre" is any conflict with Indians where at least one white person is killed, a "battle" is any engagement in which Indian elders, women and children are mowed down by the Army.The Local Crankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16673363936902590966noreply@blogger.com