Were the Apache and the Cherokee at war with each other?
105405
Here are some search strings that might help you:\n\nhttp://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=cherokee+history&btnG=Search\nhttp://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=history+apache&btnG=Google+Search\nhttp://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=history+hopi&btnG=Google+Search\nhttp://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=apache+%22intertribal+warfare%22+&btnG=Search\n\nOne thing you should be aware of, is that the Apache and Cherokee wouldn't have had much interaction until after the forced relocation of tribes east of the Mississippi (ie, the Trail of Tears).  So in other words, they wouldn't have interacted much with each other until Europeans forced them to share territory in the late 18th and early 19th centuries.\n\nThe Hopi and Apache were more likely to have had intertribal warfare prior to the arrival of Europeans, because their territories were closer together.  In fact, you can pretty much guarantee it, since the name of their tribe comes from a Zuni word for "enemy" - and the Zuni and Hopi are related peoples.\n\nIf worse comes to worse, try contacting the tribal councils of these peoples or a professor of Native American history.  They should have more information at their disposal and be more able to help you.
236136
The song is called "Apache" by the Sugarhill Gang. It was released in 1980 on their first album.
1154057
Check the Cherokee Nation's official website...\n\nGood luck...\n\nBTW, my maternal grandmother was a full-blooded member of the Cherokee Nation who enjoyed teaching her neighbors and friends in Monrovia, CA(where she died in 1973) about tribal cultures and traditions unique to the Cherokees...
632613
~They ran into a superior technology and more numerous and united tribe than themselves who did to them pretty much what they had been doing to each other before the Europeans came to North America in force.  They were no different, and treated no differently, than any other defeated and conquered people in world history.  Is there some point you are trying to make?
235092
Horrible part of American history:\n\n The Trail of Tears refers to the forced relocation of the Cherokee Native American tribe to the Western United States in 1838, which resulted in the deaths of an estimated 4,000 Cherokee Indians. In the Cherokee language, the event is called Nunna daul Isunyi—"the Trail Where We Cried."\n\nThe Trail of Tears resulted from the enforcement of the Treaty of New Echota, an agreement signed under the provisions of the Indian Removal Act of 1830, which exchanged Native American land in the East for lands west of the Mississippi River, but was never accepted by the elected tribal leadership Chief John Ross, or majority of the Cherokee people. Nevertheless, the treaty was enforced by President Martin Van Buren, who sent federal troops to round up about 17,000 Cherokees in camps before being sent to the west. Most of the deaths occurred from disease in these camps. After the initial round up, the U.S. military played a limited role in the journey itself, with the Cherokee Nation taking over supervision of most of the emigration. The Treaty of New Echota was signed by a small faction of prominent Cherokees, Major Ridge, Elias Boudinot (Buck Watie), and Stan Watie, and their followers willingly left Georgia for Oklahoma Prior to the forced removal. The signing of the Treaty entailed accepting payment from the government for their land in Georgia and relocating to Oklahoma. This touched off what is known as the "Blood Feud" between the two factions in which Elias Boudinot (Buck Watie) and Major Ridge and his son were murdered in Oklahoma after the removal of John Ross and his factions of Cherokees to Oklahoma on the Trail of Tears. This split the Cherokee Nation into two factions, the Western Cherokee's led by Major Ridge and the Eastern faction who continued to recongize Chief John Ross as the Chief of the Cherokee Nation.\n\nThe Cherokees were not the only Native Americans forced to emigrate during this era, and so the phrase "Trail of Tears" is sometimes used to refer to similar events endured by other Indian peoples, especially among the "Five Civilized Tribes." In fact, the phrase "Trail of Tears" may have originated as a description of the removal of the Choctaw nation. See Indian Removal for more details.
643995
First of all, you have several different events mixed together here.  The United States did not take Texas from Mexico in a war (just or otherwise).  A number of settlers in Texas (primarily Americans who had immigrated to Mexico) staged a rebellion in 1836 to break away from Mexico and form their own independant country (The Republic of Texas).  Although the United States did provide some support for the rebels, it was not a war between the US and Mexico and no US troops were directly involved.  Texas was an independant country separate from the US for almost 10 years before it decided to join the US as a state in 1845.\n\nOn the other hand, much of New Mexico was taken from Mexico following the Mexican-American War of 1848 with the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hildago.  In this war, there is little doubt that the US was looking to start a fight as a pretext for getting land (the reason for the war - Mexican troops supposedly crossing the Rio Grande River - was dubious at best).  \n\nHowever, the lower one third of New Mexico did not become part of the US until it was purchased (along with southern Arizona) in 1856 at a cost of $10 million dollars.  It is true that Mexico was ruled by a dictator at the time, but then it was for most of the 19th century and $10 million was probably a pretty fair price for that time period considering how remote and undeveloped the area was.\n\nAs for if the Mexican-American War (and to a lesser degree the Gadsden Purchase) were just... that is largely a matter of opinion.  The answer is probably 'No' by most peoples standards since the US started the war under somewhat false pretenses.  However, it is worth noting that the Spanish/Mexicans themselves had originally taken the land away from the Native Americans in the first place under even less just pretenses.    \n\nIs one thief stealing from another unjust?  There are very few cultures on this planet (including many Native American tribes for that matter) who did not get their land by displacing or forcing away some other group that was there before.  That does not make it right (and has caused much of the hardship and suffering over the history of the world), but neither is it fair to single out just one group and ignore similar offenses by others.  \n\nLastly, it is worth noting that while New Mexico was heavily populated, most of the land taken following the Mexican-American War (including large parts of Colorado and Utah) had NO Mexican settlements at all, was rarely visited, and really did not belong to Mexico (or any other country) any more than saying the entire moon 'belongs' to the US because a few American astronauts briefly walked on one small part of it 30 years ago.
674605
no! they were fighting over Poison Ivy, remember? or maybe that was a cover-up...
1061763
Indian tribes are already considered to be sovereign by the US Government, and governed by treaty.\nIf American Indians tried to take back some of the land, it would be considered an act of war.  And because they also have US citizenship, it would be an act of treason as well.
634837
During the Civil War.
805831
Each Nation has their own system of beliefs.  You'd do better to research them individually by Nation name (Cherokee, Navajo, etc.) and then look for similarities between all of them.
609215
The Indians (Native Americans) either got killed off by diseases brought over by the Europeans, shot and killed, or gathered up and moved to OK or reservations. The Cherokees, Navajo, and others were forced off their native lands.\n\nThe Blacks had the freedom to move about and settle unlike the Native Americans. Plus, they didn't have historic and cultural land connections in the Americas that Native Americans have. This can be seen in their different oral histories and folklore.
391710
I suggest to you that you read 'Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee' by Dee Brown; and '500 Nations by Alvin Josephy, Jr.\n\nMost American Indians, if you were to try to discuss openly and fairly with you, would tell you they are quite aware of the tribal divisions among our ancestors.\n\nThese divisions were pivotal in the taking of American Indian lands, as the French, English and U.S. played various tribes against each other by promising them positions of power if their side won.\n\nI believe European history is rife with these kinds of dealings amongst warring factions of peoples too.\n\np.s. who's the author of the book you mention?  And, how could the white hurry up the eventual downfall of the American Indian?  Downfall to who else? The only people to conquer the American Indians WERE the white man.\n\np.p.s. of course tribes fought against each other for control of food supplies, etc. If the early American soil was "soaked in Indian blood", as you suggest, how would you descibe European soil as being?  Europeans killed many more millions of each other before they even thought about sailing over here.\n\np.p.p.s. My e-mail is Wlvrne1964@yahoo.com, if you want to seriously discuss this in a rational way.  I'll address all 3 of your questions.
141055
The Native American Tribe you are refering to is the Osage Indian Tribe.\n\n"the Ingalls family encounters a French-speaking Osage chief, Soldat du Chene. The Indian tribes who lived in the territory the Ingalls and other white settlers were occupying had decided to make war on the settlers. Soldat du Chene and his tribe came to plead with the other tribes not to kill the white people. He told the tribes that if they began to massacre the settlers, he and his strong Osage would fight them. This persuaded the other tribes to go away peacefully. Soldat du Chene thus saved the Ingalls family's lives."
1046763
Atahualpa had an army of 80,000 well-trained, seasoned troops.  Pizarro had an army of about 200 men.  \nCome on guy, use the force.
1161634
The native people were peaceful and friendly. Stealing horses was a game between tribes. Most did not war. Once the Europeans came they wanted it all and they had guns and whiskey. Between the diseases and whiskey and guns they conquered and killed.Sad. However the native Americans are getting theirs back. They are opening casinos on their reservations and taking all the white mans money.  Payback!!!
52326
The Native Americans ,although unique people,are PEOPLE.They have their differences too.And the Chiefs were often at odds with each other on this subject.Many tribes split because of it.Some peaceful leaders,like washakie of the Shoshones made peace with the whites,while those like Quanna Parker of the Comanches fought desperately to resist removal.The Seminoles under Osceola,and Billy Bowlegs led their people into the everglades to avoid removal.So you see,they all dealt with things differently.The Natives are not all one people,but MANY individuals,with many individual leaders,tribes,ect.
125637
At church. I'm Cherokee Indian. \nhttp://www.aibftexas.org/main/