> What I'm trying to say is you have a very one-sided view of history. What do you mean by "one-sided"? What are the "sides" involved here? > You've already d

> What I'm trying to say is you have a very one-sided view of history. What do you mean by "one-sided"? What are the "sides" involved here? > You've already decided that the purpose of militias was to "kill Indians". You didn't back that up at all. Why would I have to back it up? It's a very basic fact which nobody is disputing, not even you. You feel that the killing of natives by militias was justified at least in part in self-defense, you have inferred from my choice of words that I disagree with you, and you're unhappy about that. But you haven't proposed an alternative explanation to whom the militias were meant to kill (if not native americans, who? Other settlers? Bears?) or why (if not because the settlers were squatting on indigenous land, then why? Family feud? Religion? The color of their hats?) If you do have an alternative explanation for the existence of militias, now would be a good time to make your case.