So I'm working on a history project...

>>928892
Define negative

According to the standards of modern western sensibilities, old fashioned western sensibilities, or cherokee sensibilities?

>>928892
>facts that portray Cherokee Indians in a negative light
Then they're not facts

File: Based hat.jpg (104KB, 1020x610px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 1020x610px

>>928928
In all cases they seem to be based af with thier fashion sense desu

>>928928
Preferably modern because I want to avoid coming across as racist or unsympathetic

>>928939
>modern
You've already fucked up. You'd have to compare their actions with those in the same time period, otherwise literally everyone is a sick fuck at some level.

>>928943
The time period I'm looking at is 1750-1900; however, I'm looking at it from a modern standpoint. My issue is that most things that happened to the Cherokee were outside their control.

>>928939
Eh, sure thing

Everyone on earth was a savage by modern standards at that point

I can't think of anything in particular aside from waging war like everyone else

The plains indians and northwestern indians were much more cruel

Why do you need to do this?

>>928892
If your debate partner is dumb enough that they are portraying the Cherokee as "simple pastoral peoples, living in peace and harmony with each other as well as in balance with mother nature" then almost any historical account you research will rebut their notions. The fact of early colonial life was on-again-off-again treaties and trade, interspersed with violence and raids.
IIRC, the Cherokee were among the more violent tribes, and would often fight with other tribes over hunting land / territory / etc.(No facts to support this - it could just be western movies that put forth that story)

>>928892
You should tell us what the debate prompt is, or which claim specifically you want to rebut...
But also, not your personal army / researchers.

>>928939

>I don't want to come across as unsympathetic, so I'll take the moral perspective of a culture that descended directly from the victors and use it to judge the culture that lost

>>928998

What if the debate partner is an actual thinking person, and not a strawman?

File: 1457998232699.jpg (258KB, 1098x1098px) Image search: [Google]

258KB, 1098x1098px

>>929006
This desu.

>who were the good guys and who were the bad guys

One of the dumbest ways you can approach history.

>>929004
My society is Austria-Hungary. My partner's is the Cherokee Nation. We are having a general argument about which society was stronger during the time period of 1750-1900.

>>929162
What the fuck kind of argument is that?

>>928892
The Cherokee were notorious slaveholders and slave raiders.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1842_Slave_Revolt_in_the_Cherokee_Nation
>But, in the aftermath of this escape, the Cherokee Nation passed stricter slave codes, expelled freedmen from the territory, and established a 'rescue' (slave-catching) company to try to prevent additional losses.

Scalping, slave trade, rape, iconoclasm, salting lands, just think of a bad thing to do to the colonists and then find an example of it
It's terrible in science but fine in history

>>929990
>>930020
much appreciated

>>928892
Any French/Huron/Blackfeet sources
They hated their guts and called them savage barbarian cannibalistic dick sucking lackeys of the English.

>>928892
Natives did nothing wrong. They fought the invader like every people should. I just wish europeans where as interested in presserving their people from foreign invadors.

>>930787
Yeah, the Illinois and Algonquins were bro-tier though.

Fuck the Iroquois.

>>928998
The Cherokee were the tribe that was most willing to work with the US government in validating their rights.

By US laws they were a protected sub nation and when whites decided they wanted their land the Cherokee tried to fight it legally in the Supreme Court.

They won their case but fucking Andrew Jackson literally wiped his ass with the idea of checks and balances and decided to ignore the Supreme Court and force them off into the Western territory anyways.

Fuck this whitewashing that the USA was dealing with savages. The only savage here was that tyrant Jackson.

>>928952
1. I know that some Southern Indian tribes enslaved each other for sale to the British, but I don't remember if the Cherokee ever participated, though. Also, I think that it was much more common in pre-1750 colonial America.

2. Your 'issue' sounds more like a defense argument. The Cherokee adopted Western culture and industry probably more than any other American tribe on the continent, and willingly. They developed their own writing system, changed gender roles when it came to farming, educated and Christianized themselves, formed businesses and capital like ferries, blacksmith shops, and other industries, and some were even slave-owning, plantation farmers. It was the racism and gold-hungry white settlers and crazy (still awesome, though), racist president who ignored a Supreme Court ruling that ended up forcing a lot of them along the Trail of Tears to Oklahoma. This is an example of them getting screwed over due to factors out of their control, but does them paint them in a negative light?

3. This whole debate you're having sounds stupid. Your argument is stupid. Everything I gather from this thing you're having is stupid.

Don't be stupid. Please re-evaluate why exactly you're doing what you're doing, or give us more information so we can understand/help you more.