Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (119513)	6/11/2005 10:05:36 PM
From: haqihana	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793877

Mq, Keep your britches on. I asked a question, looking for the answer from one that lived there, which you have provided. You have to admit that the English had a habit of taking over a country, and either killing, or enslaving, the local population. I will say though, that the Zulu, with their impis, and "horns of the bull" took a huge toll of English life. The bane of the American Indians, is that they had always fought as individual warriors, and had no concept of attacks by cohesive formed units, which allowed the cavalry to slaughter many of them. Even the defeat of Custer at the Little Bighorn was not really a victory for the Lakota, Cheyenne, and Arapaho, that participated. They were lucky enough to encounter a conceited, stupid, leader that didn't get the cooperation, or support, of the officers under him. Those three tribes paid a bloody fine for that.