Why couldn't the native americans beat the European invaders

Muh firewater > fellow redskins

Disease
Besides, if one tribe is killed off/enslaved, and the settlers move on westward, chances are, most of the tribes that are so far west they still haven't battled Settlers haven't yet realized the power in guns

So basically, lack of communication
There's probably some other reasons too, but those are the ones i can think of at the top of my head

>>2288632
Because why fight the foreigners when you can collaborate with and have them kill those other guys who are killing you, unlike the paleskins?

>>2288632
They couldnt handle the european egocentrism.
They used withcraft on them and other means that only worked if you were part of their tribal consiousness.

>>2288632
90% of redskins were dead from disease before they even new what a European was. They didn't outnumber them for long.

>>2288632
Because God laid out manifest destiny for the white man by punishing natives that attacked whites through killing off 90% of them with smallpox and the common cold.

The Natives adopted guns exceptionally quickly. So quickly that a rifle is considered a "traditional weapon" for hunting in Alaska.

Remember as well that "the Natives" aren't some unified political force. There were literally hundreds of ethnic groups spread across the two Americas, some with political sophistication comparable to European states, some who were living in caves and banging sticks together, and most somewhere in the middle. They didn't view the arrival of various European factions as some kind of apocalyptic event, they were just seen as new political actors, in the same way they would have viewed other tribes. A particular tribe might have allied with the English against an old rival, and then helped the English fight the French, or some such.

The Europeans didn't united broadly on racial grounds, neither did the Native Americans.

People who spout shit like
>Why couldn't native americans beat the European invaders
Have such a frustratingly childish view of history. It's the same kind of idiocy that leads to sayings like "Africans sold their own people to Europeans".

Most of the time they had thousands of native allies.

This is a good book on the topic;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Myths_of_the_Spanish_Conquest
>Restall claims that such technological advantages as handguns, cannons, steel armor, horses and dogs weren't of great consequence in the actual fighting since they were all in short supply, and that the Aztecs were not daunted by this new technology for long. He also refutes the notion that the Indians' lack of alphabetic writing constituted a major drawback. Nor were the Indians childlike, naive or cowardly in comparison with the Spanish such as many early Spanish sources have painted them. Restall argues that the factors behind the success of the conquistadors were mostly the devastating effect of European diseases for which the Indians had no resistance, the disunity between indigenous groups some of which allied with the Spaniards early, the technological advantage of the steel sword, native battle practices that were not upheld by the Spaniards — such as killing non-combatants and civilians, and most importantly the fact that the Indians were fighting on their own ground with their families and fields to care for, which made them quicker to compromise.

>>2289171
>Africans sold their own people to Europeans
Isn't this more of an pithy remark against those who attempt to place the entire culpability of the slave trade on 'whites'?

>>2289171
>>2289336
It's actually partially true. Africans didn't just raid different 'tribes' for slaves to sell. Sometimes they did, that was probably the most important way of obtaining slaves, but there were other methods. Some societies, if unable to provide slaves from other societies, would sell their own members. Often this involved making people criminals on arbitrary grounds so they could be enslaved and sold, in more extreme cases a kind of anarchy broke out in which people enslaved and sold their neighbours and families, or sold themselves in order to escape the chaos. The demand for slaves was so strong that slaves became a kind of currency, and if you weren't selling people you were fairly likely to be enslaved yourself.

Basically the slave trade fucked up society on a very deep level, to the extent that the societies most affected by it still have a strong culture of mistrust.

>>2288632
Uh the Europeans just kept coming wave after Call of Duty Nazi Zombies wave

>>2288632
Smallpox killed literally 90% of them.

File: aztec spainish battle accounts.png (75KB, 935x553px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 935x553px

They did in mesoamerica.

The Tlaxcallans had the Spainish boned when they first got past Vera cruz, it's just at the last second one of their leaders said "Hey why don't we use these guys as shock troops to BTFO the aztecs for us" and the rest is history

Then, again, when Montezuma II was finally killed, the aztecs chased the spainish out of Tenochtitlan with their tails between their legs. Then the spainish just rested in Tlaxcala territory for 10 months while famine and smallpox ravaged the aztecs, before returning with a massive tlaxcalan and tontac army and cleaning house. .

If it wasn't for the tlaxcalans sparing them stuff may have turned out very, very differently.

>>2288632
Time and time again colonialism succeeded because the people being colonised recognised it as a way to gain an advantage over their regional competitors, it happened in America, India, Africa, so on and so forth. And keep in mind that pre-Euro America wasn't a homogeneous entity, Injuns in California didn't have to deal with European communities for another 300 years after their Eastern counterparts had been annihilated. Divide and conquer is an extremely effective tactic for a reason, and the British were masters