Thursday, December 28, 2017

~ Some Things To Do. | A Vague But Specific List Of 50(-Ish) Activities To Do. ~

#1: Read.
#2: Write.
#3: Watch a TV show / a movie.
#4: Go for a walk.
#5: Play Sudoku.
#6: Play some video games.
#7: Play some otome games.
#8: Take a shower / a bath.
#9: Exercise.
#10: Do some gardening.
#11: Practice ballet.
#12: Practice K-pop dancing.
#13: Chew some chewing gum / some bubblegum.
#14: Drink some diet soda.
#15: Do a face mask.
#16: Shave some parts of your body / your whole body.
#17: Cook some food. (I seriously read this as "Choke some food" a little bit of a while ago from where I wrote it down in my notebook.)
#18: Bake some food. (And I seriously just wrote this as "Bake some good". Ugh.)
#19: Do some video production.
#20: Do some photography.
#21: Do some voice acting.
#22: Play an instrument / instruments.
#23: Do some artwork(s).
#24: Dance.
#25: Do a detox / a cleanse.
#26: Meditate.
#27: Make a list / some lists.
#28: Do some weblogging.
#29: Listen to some music.
#30: Brush / Comb your hair. (Gahhhhh, auto-correct changed "Comb" to "Combat". Hahahahaha.)
#31: Put on some lotion.
#32: Put on some lip balm.
#33: Colour some pictures.
#34: Read the Bible.
#35: Study / Research about Greek mythology.
#36: Sing a song / some songs.
#37: Play with a pet / some pets. (WILD ANIMALS THAT BITE YOU WHEN YOU PET THEM DON'T COUNT!!!)
#38: Make a floral bouquet.
#39: Self-Massage(s).
#40: Do some stretches / some calisthenics.
#41: Do some scrapbooking / some collaging.
#42: Parkour.
#43: Laser Tag.
#44: LARPing and / or Cos-Play-ing.
#45: Hiking.
#46: Build up a tolerance to doing certain forms of cardio (besides biking / swimming), like jogging / running / sprinting. (You might not like it, and / or it might be a complicated thing for you, but even starting out with five minutes of doing some low-intensity jogging daily can be a starting point.)
#47: Cold Shower Therapy. (You can start out with five minutes to ten minutes of taking a cold shower daily for one week to one month.)
#48: AdLibs.
#49: Acting (stage / film) and / or Modeling (print / digital).
#50: Have / Practice gratitude.

Sunday, November 5, 2017

Debunking So-Called "Beauty Standards" & Debunking So-Called "Gender Roles".

Debunking so-called "beauty standards": This might seem to be a little bit harsh at first, but, hopefully, you'll see where I'm coming from if you stick around to read all of this. I am kind of apprehensive about the kinds of comments that I might get, but if people say bad things, then that's their own responsibility. I may feel one way or another way about something, but your thoughts about me will most likely have little to no effect on my own personal reality. It's not your job to change my beliefs, and it's not my job to change your beliefs. People may seem harsh at times, and that might make them appear frigid, aloof, and cold, but that may not always be the reality of the situation. That doesn't mean that that person cannot also have compassion. We cannot be weak-minded in this world of pain and love. Sensitivity is not weakness. Weakness comes in the absence of truth and failing to recognize the truth. Weakness comes in lies and believing the lies. Know thyself, trust thyself, and love thyself. Now proceed with an open mind. I'm not asking you to believe what I say if you simply cannot. I am asking you to think about it. Don't be stubborn and stuck in your own beliefs only. The world cannot always be a safe space against opinions. And opinions may not always be permanent. You've chosen to look the way that you've looked over the years (unless someone actually threatened you and / or forced you to look a certain way). Society does not have that ability. Society cannot physically hold you down and make you look and / or act a certain way. Society is not threatening you into "submission". You may be influenced, but - in the end - it's still your own choice. Take some responsibility ... and be who you want to be. (#BarbieGirl.) As someone that has struggled with a lot of personal things, I know that I have to take responsibility for what I know that I am responsible for. I've made my own choices that I've had to suffer the consequences for, and I've worked to overcome them. If someone were threatening me and / or physically holding me down, then that would be different. If someone is putting you down or trying to make you feel ugly, that doesn't mean that you HAVE to go and change everything about yourself. You are not responsible for other people's actions, but you are responsible for your own actions. Some people think that people can't make you feel a certain way, but I think that that's kind of also boy-scout. Things like that are subjective. Yes, you do have the power to let go of what someone has done to you, but sometimes you can't stop how you feel when someone hurts you. But that doesn't mean that you have to let it rule you. You may not be able to control your feelings in the moment, but over time you can work to manage them. People like Freelee the Banana Girl believe that it is just that easy, that it's your fault if you feel a certain way, but it's not that simple. But - with all of that said - FEELINGS ARE NOT ALWAYS FACTS. You may feel that something is happening with a certain kind of agenda that isn't even there. You may be reading between lines that were not intended to exist. You may be finding bad where it was not meant to be. FEELINGS MAY NOT BE CONTROLLABLE, BUT FEELINGS CAN BE MANAGEABLE. I'm talking about when someone is genuinely doing something on purpose to HURT you. For THAT reason, yes, it is good to try to build up a thicker skin (so to say). That doesn't mean that sensitivity is a bad thing, but if you're getting to the point where you're always getting hurt by people, sometimes it can be beneficial for YOU to pick and choose your battles and let things go. DON'T DO THIS FOR OTHER PEOPLE. THIS ISN'T TO ALLOW THEM TO CONTINUE HURTING YOU OR TO PARDON THEM. IF YOU DO THIS, THEN DO THIS FOR YOUR OWN WELL-BEING AND BECAUSE YOU WANT TO BE HAPPIER AND NOT RULED BY PAIN. YOUR WELL-BEING IS IMPORTANT ... NO MATTER WHAT ANYONE ELSE SAYS. People are going to hurt you. You may not always be able to control your own emotions, but you can work on toughening them up. I know what it's like to be sensitive, and I know that it's not easy. It's nothing to be ashamed of, but if your sensitivity is just allowing you to get hurt all of the time, it's OKAY to "turn it off" a little bit. Not to self-medicate, not to go numb, not to betray your true self, but - instead - to choose to believe that OTHER PEOPLE'S THOUGHTS ABOUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO AFFECT AND / OR REFLECT YOUR REALITY. Eleanor Roosevelt once said that other people cannot make you feel inferior without your consent. I kind of think that there are blurred lines when it comes to the truth of that statement. You have to GET TO A POINT where you have the ability to choose. Not everyone can control their feelings completely, but they can work at it. It may not be as easy as: "Oh, I'm just not going to feel hurt anymore." BUT you can work at getting to a certain point where certain things DON'T bother you anymore. It's not so much an instant choice ... as it is a work in progress.

We didn't invent our gender-based differences. The two genders would exist whether or not we even gave them names.

Debunking so-called "gender roles": Much like my view(s) about so-called "beauty standards", I think that people should also stop blaming things on "gender roles". They aren't even mandatory, so it's not like getting upset is so damn necessary. People aren't even forcing you into a so-called "gender role" (unless they somehow are trying to do so? But that would most likely be a specific case). Much like "beauty standards", "gender roles" are / were just guidelines for how people have lived. That doesn't mean that only women have ever cooked food and / or have cleaned. Cooking food and cleaning are kind of just such natural things, honestly. But, in a lot of families, the women did a lot of the cooking and a lot of the cleaning. Are you going to "shame" them for that? That's how people used to live, and that's how some people still live. (So it's not necessarily even about "gender roles".) Who cares? If they want to trade chores with someone else, whatever. Who cares? In a lot of families, the men do / did the so-called "gross" stuff, like taking out the trash, dealing with the yard work, and fixing the plumbing (as needed). But so what? Why not? Because they should be "breaking gender roles" instead of doing whatever works for them? What for? Why not just leave them alone? "If it isn't broken, then don't fix it." If they want to do some other things, then fine. Stop blaming everything on so-called "gender roles". Some people actually choose to do certain things for themselves that might coincide with your pre-judgements about certain things that they shouldn't be doing, because of the so-called "patriarchy". They were just guidelines in the past. You don't need to stop identifying as your own gender just to "break" them. (They're not even laws, so "breaking" them is kind of such a subjective thing for the people that actually believe that they're oppressed by them.) The majority of people most likely don't think that you have to do certain things "no matter what". But there is proof that more women go into care jobs instead of men, and there is proof that more men go into scientific jobs instead of women. How is that even about sexism? More women are interested in makeup instead of men. More men are interested in sports instead of women. So what? That doesn't mean: "No men allowed!" "No women allowed!" So ... in conclusion ... maybe just stop complaining about "gender roles". Move on. Do whatever you want to do (within reason, of course). Those things are so abstract. Who cares? "Oh, Amy, you cook for your Boyfriend sometimes! You're buying into gender roles!" Whatever. Forever. Men and women do so many different things these days. Your argument is invalid. Maybe just stop acting like you're oppressed by "beauty standards" and / or by "gender roles". They're just abstract ideas that can't even physically hold you down.

TL;DR: Stop complaining about "beauty standards" and / or about "gender roles". They're aren't "treasonous laws that need to be broken". They are just abstract ideas that can't even physically hold you down, let alone "oppress" you of their own accord(s). #FreeWill.

To Love, To Lose, And To Reunite (Until We Meet Again).

Work Text:

Haides: "Listen to me carefully, Dearest One. You have brought all of your sunlight and all of your springtime with you down into my Underworld, and, when you leave, when you return to the Overworld, that will all be taken back with you - away from me - once again. It pains me to have you away from me for so long. I am completely and devotedly in love with you. Oh, Persephonê."

Persephonê: "Oh, Haides. I am completely and devotedly in love with you, too. Let us [continue to] hold our love for each other in our hearts always, so that we will never feel much too alone ever again. My sunlight and my springtime shall not necessarily leave you when I am required to return to the surface. Let them rest in your heart and in your mind, my Darling."

Tell Me What You Want (What You Really, Really Want).

Work Text:

Pietro walks in on you as you're showing Wanda some of the music from the Spice Girls, and he sees you, dancing and shaking your hips to the chorus of "Wannabe" (a la Natalie from "Charlie's Angels 2" during the "Hammer Time" scene), and, when you stop, Wanda mentions that you should probably turn around.
You question her, spin around, see him (he was checking you out whilst smirking and biting his lip to be honest), open your mouth in amused shock, cover it with your hands, and rush back over to Wanda ... with her mentally teasing you about how she knows that you like him and giggling teasingly in your mind.
She also knew that he liked you, too.
She could hear your guys' thoughts, for Greek mythology's sake! (Hehehe.)
She verbally tells you to tell him ... or she will. It was more of a "semi-threat" just to motivate you. Hopefully, you guys noticed that, or she could just explain that later on. Right? (Not that she was actually planning to announce the surprise for / to you guys! Surprise, surprise! You both like each other!)
"Tell him how you feel ... how you really, really feel." You can hear her joking around in your mind, and you semi-playfully glare at her even though it was kind of amusing.
He gets confused. "Tell me what?" He asks.
She's about to tell him, but you stop her, and you try to set a time to tell him later on.
"Maybe we could talk about it later on?"
He grins and says: "It's a date!"
And then he rushes away, and you're just left there, looking as red as a beet (but maybe not literally).
Later on, during the so-called "date", you both end up confessing your feelings for each other to each other.
[Somewhere else, probably in the Avengers tower.]
"Finally!" Wanda exclaims with a huge grin on her face, holding both of her clenched fists in front of her in excitement.

Wednesday, November 1, 2017

The Mad Killing Poem.

The Summary:

A poem in the point of view of the Joker (Jack Napier / Nolanverse / Jerome Valeska ... whatever).

"Mad Love" & "The Killing Joke" & Poetry = "The Mad Killing Poem".

The Notes:

I'm not necessarily trying to endorse crime and / or illegal activity by the way of this poem (not that it necessarily talks about that kind of stuff in a super blatant sense ... maybe more like "kind of implied"). This poem is based on fictional characters from a fictional world.

(See the end of the work for more notes.)

The Work['s] Text:

"Oh, Pudding Pie.
Why does she cry?
Doesn't she know?
That it was only a joke?

My silly little girl,
her mind is off on some whirl.

I'm the crazy one?
I'm the psycho?
Say that you're mine.
Oh, how delightful.

'Off with their heads'.
Soon we'll *all* be dead.

Put on your mask,
put on your cowl.
I'll take the Bat,
you'll take the Owl.

It's not for the money,
it's for our legacy.

Let's paint our lips
with almost every shade of red.
Let's not forget
about all of the enchanting things that we've said.

Sometimes when we're sane,
we still try to pray.
But the prayers of the insane
might sometimes be more desperate, anyway(s).

Terrible chaos
against those that deserved it.
Now I briefly wonder:
'Was it all truly worth it?'

but my mind is drawn back to another plot.
We're already locked up,
but we just can't seem to stop.

Some kind of a soliloquy?
We'll do, or we'll rot.
A few words for our memory:
'Ha. Ha. Ha.'"

The Notes:

"Let's paint our lips with almost every shade of red" could even be a little bit ambiguous. Hmmm. What are they painting their lips red with? Blood? Lipstick? Hehehe. Again, this is not necessarily an endorsement of any kind(s) of evilness!

Thursday, October 26, 2017

The Boy & The Girl. | Chapter One: On the Move.


In which the main character / the reader travels to England by herself and stays in the Heelshire estate. Unbeknownst to her, though, she is being watched.
Whether she is read as "the main character" or as "the reader" can be kind of ambiguous and / or can probably be left to preference, I guess, because there are some character-specific details - that might not necessarily match up with everyone that reads this story - that I wrote into the story, which I'm not really / usually inclined to do for "reader-insert" works, so ... either way, I guess.
(I started to write this piece of work on 10 November 2016.)
Please don't leave any comments.


Okay, so, usually for reader-insert works, I'll put something like "[your name]", but I didn't originally write this with that (I wrote this first part on 10 November 2016). I actually wrote it like this: "_____". And I also wrote some specific things, like: she's from the USA, and she's in her early twenties, which ... I am kind of not really inclined to do so when it comes to reader-inserts, because - obviously - not every one is a twenty-something year old that is / was from the USA. So ... if you want to read it as an ambiguous character / as yourself, then ... I mean ... anyway(s)! Like, it doesn't have to just be seen as a "reader-insert" work, I guess. 

This story takes places a little bit of a while after Greta Evans left the Heelshire estate, in turn ... leaving Brahms Heelshire to die, which he does not.
Brahms survives to then repair the porcelain doll, but his wound(s) has / have healed badly.
He might have had a small concussion from being hit over the head with a blunt object by Malcolm, which he even suspected as much, and - even though the slight bump on his head had long since healed - his abdominal wound and his heart had not ... or, at the least, not properly.
A few months later, a young girl by the name of _____ would come into his life.
She was running away.
Maybe not in the cliché sense. She wasn't running away from the "hustle and bustle" of life in the United States of America, she wasn't travelling to get inspiration for a book, and she wasn't running away from some kind of an evil ex-Boyfriend.
_____ was running away because of her mental health, which was definitely complicated to say the least.
Social interaction and self-disclosure could "sometimes" be complicated for her, and she tended to fixate a lot. She also dealt with some other things as well.
_____ was in her early twenties, and she had never been outside of the United States of America.
She had never necessarily been overly fond of England, but - somehow - that was where she ended up going. It was as if she had been called there ... supernaturally ... or something.
She had remembered hearing - or, actually, reading - something (like an article) about an abandoned house, but it (the article) had been small (and kind of vague) and not very popular or very influential.
The old couple that had lived there had gone missing and were presumed to be dead.
And that was where she consciously / unconsciously decided to go.
She opted to travel by the way of a boat instead of an airplane, and then she proceeded to travel by the way of a train when she got there.
[Fast forward to the girl, having already arrived in England.]
When _____ arrived in England, she decided to stop at a restaurant to eat. Whilst she was there, she overheard some people (at the small bar area of the restaurant) talking about the very house that she had previously read about.
They confirmed her beliefs and what she had heard - or, rather, had read - about the house, being empty. It had been owned by a wealthy family called the Heelshires.
It was still unclear if the building would ever be re-sold, or if it might end up eventually being foreclosed. This confirmed her idea to stay there ... to "hide out" there (if you will) ... even more.
It was abandoned (which it had been for months), its future in real estate was unclear (for now), and nobody had really seemed to be too eager to set foot on and / or near the property.
She was wondering why the family had abandoned the house and why they had gone missing when her silent questions were answered.
The Heelshires were (apparently) found dead.
_____'s mind was officially made up. She decided to officially carry on with her semi-plan. No more doubts. It seemed like a fitting opportunity.
She paid the bill, got up, and started to leave.
She thought that she heard something about a child, a son, but she had already left the restaurant before she could hear anything else.
Did the Heelshires have a son?
She almost started to vaguely question it when her attention was drawn elsewhere, and she became distracted.
[Fast forward to the girl's arrival at the Heelshire estate.]
When _____ arrived at the Heelshire estate, she tried to be very careful not to attract attention to herself.
She had walked for a little ways, had taken a taxi for a part of the way, and then had walked for the rest of the way.
She slightly opened the big gates and stepped onto the property. She had made it a point to open and to close the gates slowly and quietly.
When she got to the house, she stopped in front of it and gazed across its expansive size and its sophisticated appearance.
She made her way up to the door, almost thinking that she had seen a curtain move (with her peripheral vision / out of the corners of her eyes), but she brushed it off as - probably - nothing.
When she reached for the doorknob and attempted to turn it, she discovered that the door was unlocked. Well, that certainly did make things easier.
She hadn't exactly been sure if the door (or, at the least, one of the doors ... or one of the windows) would be unlocked, or if she would have to find another way to get it ... another way of entry.
Thankfully, she didn't need to take any drastic measures to get inside for the house. She wasn't really trying to do anything that would be really illegal, after all.
But no one even lived there anymore ... right? And the door was already unlocked ... right? And the house hadn't officially been re-claimed by anyone in the family or by any governmental institutions ... right?
_____ stepped inside of the house and was greeted by an expansive view of what was inside (and, of course, she closed the door behind her).
The inside of the house was certainly "matched up" to (or "lived up" to) the outside of the house appearance-wise (size-wise).
The interior had also been decorated just as lavishly as the exterior had appeared to seem (and maybe even seemed to hint at).
She could see a staircase and some large rooms off to each side from where she stood in the entranceway.
She ignored her thoughts of exploring the first floor of the house first, immediately deciding to follow her impulse of going up the stairs and of exploring whatever was up there (on the second floor). It was like she was being drawn to some invisible force.
Little did she know that she was being (and had been) watched. Even before she had stepped inside of the house, she was being watched.
When _____ got to the top of the staircase, she immediately saw a paint of the Heelshire family on the wall. It was almost kind of eerie, but - nonetheless - still pretty posh. Most "regular" families would probably not necessarily have such heirlooms.
Her eyes were immediately drawn to the little boy (before the middle-aged couple) in the painting.


Before anyone tries to so-called "correct" my use of the term "a little ways", it's kind of like a colloquialism that basically combines the term "a little bit of a while" with the term "a little bit of the way".
Also, just as a disclaimer ... I'm not necessarily trying to endorse any "illegal" activities. Apparently, in England, a previous owner of a house losing the right to kick an "adverse possesor" (basically like a squatter) out of that specific house after about / around 12 years (so ... apparently, that doesn't really seem to be very much of a crime). Plus, the house in the story was / is: abandoned, un-claimed, and unlocked. The main character is not necessarily trying to commit any "criminal" offenses.
"She had remembered hearing - or, actually, reading - something (like an article) about an abandoned house, but it (the article) had been small (and kind of vague) and not very popular or very influential." = This part could be emphasizing the fact that maybe she doesn't exactly remember where she had seen it, so perhaps she tries to recall it, and then - indeed - it had been an article about the house that she had read.
I use parentheses in my writing(s) sometimes ... whether they are either articles or stories. I can be kind of descriptive sometimes, so I think that clarifying things in parentheses can kind of add to that. If I had only said "it" in the above sentence, then it could be mistaken as talking about the house when what was really being talked about was the article.
Different people have different writing styles and / or different opinions sometimes.
Maybe some authors avoid using certain forms of punctuation in their own stories that I don't necessarily avoid.

Sunday, October 22, 2017

Amor Fati / αγαπούν Τύχη / Love of Fate.

Persephone (to Hades): "I know that you really do truly love me.
And I understand your reasoning for why you made the decisions that you made for us to be together.
Even if you had asked to court me, to marry me ... even if you had tried to do so ... I do not know for sure if I would have been able to accept your proposal to me. Even if we had gotten to know each other more first, even if we had fallen in love with each other first, and even if I had wanted to accept your proposal to me, surely, my Mother would have most likely been against it. She would have most likely even have gone as far as to forbid it ... to keep us apart.
She surely would have tried to influence me against it ... against you. Even now, she doesn't want for us to be together. Even now, she doesn't want for me to live in the Underworld with you. So why would she have given her consent to us then?
Of course, I was afraid of being here at first. I was afraid, and I've spent so much time with my Mother and not so much time around very many men, so it was so different. And the Underworld is so different, although it might not be as bad as some people might think that it would be. I was afraid and conflicted and sheltered ... even if I did still know about your reasoning then. Even if you did keep on telling it to me.
My Mother was such a big part of my life, and she influenced such a big part of my life. She tried to shelter me for so long ... to keep me mainly close to her ... to warn me against the things that she didn't want for me. My Mother claimed my own status of maidenhood for me. I was to be an eternally maiden Spring goddess. She had her own plans for my own life. This wouldn't have been a part of her plans for me, so, no, I do not think that she would have given in otherwise.
If you had simply asked, other than for Zeus's blessing, you would have surely had to face rejection in one way or another. So, yes, I understand it.
And I don't think that that burden of rejection would have been something that you would have wanted to bear. Not when you loved me so much. Not when you were so lonely for so long.
You were desperate, Hades.
Most people wouldn't willingly choose to spend very much time here ... sadly, even your own family ... our own family.
Even if others might consider your decisions to be extreme. Even if they don't understand, you must know that I do understand.
If you had not brought me here, had not married me and made me your Queen, had not given me the pomegranate to eat, then we might not have been together like this. We might have been kept apart from each other.
And I'm so glad that you did, Hades.
I'm so glad that you did make those decisions.
The Fates have willed it to be.
You have shown me so much love and so much care and so much kindness. I know that you are fair and just and good ... no matter what some other people might think that they know about you.
I have felt pain over the things that I have had. You have felt pain over the things that you have not had.
You've been alone in the Underworld for so long, Hades.
Can you really be damned for wanting love? Can you really be damned for your loneliness?
What other choices did you have?
You wanted to love and to be loved.
And I do.
I love you, Hades.
I love you so much.
I know that I really do truly love you."

Monday, October 16, 2017

The Early Native Americans And The Early European Settlers.

I believe that there are good people and bad people in every group of people. And it's sad to look back on our American history and to see a lot of discord between different groups of people that might have both blamed and / or that might have hated each other.

The early Native Americans and the early European Settlers were comprised of many different groups of people, of course. Ones that warred amongst their own peoples, no less. Not all of the tribes of Native Americans got along with each other, and not all of the European settlers got along with each other, either.

In the new world, the British, the French, and the European settlers all fought against each other at one time or at another time. The Native American Indians (they were called "Indians" because of the fact that some of the early "discoverers" had mistakenly thought that they had travelled to the east [although ... a certain post online claims that that is wrong since India apparently went by a different name at the time]) even had wars that went on between the differing tribes, such as: the Mohicans versus the Huron, the Iroquois versus the Algonquins, et cetera.

The Native Americans and the Europeans had cultural differences, different morals, different values, et cetera. They believed in different things about land and religion (or, rather, faith).

The Native Americans considered themselves to be "caretakers" of the land, whereas the Europeans felt that owning their own properties was very important.

"And to anyone with a drop of Irish blood in them, why, the land that they live on is like their Mother. It's the only thing that lasts, that worth working for, for fighting for." - Mr. Gerald O'Hara ("Gone With The Wind" [1940]).

It's not that either side didn't try to make peace with each other, because a lot of them did try to do so. But not everyone would honour the peace-making at the time.

There's nothing really wrong with wanting to try to live in a different place, as long as we can all just try to show common courtesy to our fellow living beings. That doesn't necessarily mean that we all have to agree on all subjects ever.

The British seem to have painted an optimistic picture for the European travellers of how they would be able to get along with the indigenous people of the new world that would welcome them and that there could be peace between them, but the Spanish seem to have painted a pessimistic picture for them of how the natives were blood-thirsty and flesh-eating.

Some people on both sides seemed to mistrust each other, and - for others - greed, pride, and / or a sense of supremacy seemed to overtake them. But it would not be fair to say that everyone on both sides hated each other.

There were sweeping generalizations aimed at both sides.

The Native Americans were seen as so-called "savages" that lived in "primitive ways" and that could be "brutal" at times.

The European settlers were seen as "greedy", "liars", "thieves", "tricksters", and "disloyal".

It's sad that that was the way many different people of such different - but beautiful - cultures had to end up feeling about each other.

Warring with each other. Killing each other. Many lives were lost; men, women, and children.

One would attack another, provoking another attack back. So many lives were lost because of the misunderstandings and because of the vengeful hearts of so many people.

The Spaniards took the Native Americans as slaves for many years, and the Mexican Government paid for people to kill and to scalp Native Americans since they were afraid of not being able to protect their own people from "Indian attacks".

"The Scalp Industry":
"Although the origins of the practice of scalping may be lost in the nebulous hinterlands of the past, the industry of scalp hunting has a specific and documented history. Although some of the particulars may be shrouded in rumors, the scalp bounty laws instituted a peculiar economic venture between the Mexican government and, primarily, American citizens. Between 1835 and the 1880s, the Mexican authorities paid private armies to hunt Native Americans, paying per kill and using scalps as receipts. The practice began when the Mexican government could no longer provide adequate protection to its citizens from the marauding Apaches and Comanches. The natives rode down from the U.S. killing peons, kidnapping women, and stealing livestock and then would escape back over the border. Because the Mexican military was unable to effectively ward off the threat over such a large expanse and because the Mexican farmers either could not afford or were forbidden to possess arms, the government had to look to alternative methods of suppressing native violence." - Http://XRoads.Virginia.edu/~hyper/hns/scalpin/oldfolks.html.
TL;DR: The Mexican government paid people to kill and to scalp Native Americans, because they felt like they couldn't adequately protect their own citizens from some "Indian attacks". Although ... who is to say that some innocent individuals didn't get caught up in it and didn't lose their lives and their scalps?! Objectively, that was a part of history that many different people participated in (regardless of their race / regardless of their country), but one might wonder about the innocent people that might have been dragged into it.

When the Europeans came to America, they encountered the disease Syphilis, and the indigenous people encountered diseases like smallpox.

Of course, not all of the Europeans travelled to the new world simply to escape British tyranny, but there were also matters of mercantilism and militarism.

The British leaders (?) in America at the time tried to make treaties with the Native Americans, but the treaties were not always honoured, which led to more problems. 

Eventually, the Native Americans were pushed off of the land that was supposed to be their own (remember those treaties? Agreements were made that basically meant that certain areas would belong to the European settlers and that certain areas would belong to the Native Americans) ... even though, at first, it was supposed to seem like "negotiations" to exchange lands.

"The Indian Removal Act was signed by President Andrew Jackson on May 28,1830. The law authorized the president to negotiate with southern Indian tribes for their removal to federal territory west of the Mississippi River in exchange for their lands." - Wikipedia.

Approximately 40,000 Cherokees died on what is called the "Trail of Tears".

"The first meetings between settlers and Native Americans would follow the same course in almost every European settlement along the East Coast. The two groups would meet as friends. They would begin by trading for food and other goods.

In time, however, something would happen to cause a crisis. Perhaps a settler would demand that an Indian stay off the settler's land. Perhaps someone was killed. Fear would replace friendship.

One side or the other would react to what they believed was an attack. A good example of this was the conflict known as King Philip's War.

Metacom, also known as Metacomet, was a leader of the Wampanoag tribe. He was the son of Chief Massasoit. Without the help of Massasoit and his tribe, the first European settlers in the northernmost colonies might not have survived their first winter. The Wampanoag Indians provided them with food. They taught the settlers how to plant corn and other crops. The two groups were very friendly for several years. Massasoit and his court attended the first harvest feast, which became known as Thanksgiving.

As the years passed, however, fear and mistrust replaced friendliness. Metacom 's brother died of a European disease. Metacom, who was known to the English as King Philip, blamed the colonists. He also saw how the increasing numbers of settlers were changing the land. He believed they were destroying it.

One small crisis after another finally led to the killing of a Christian Indian who lived with the settlers. The settlers retaliated by killing three Indians. King Phillip’s War quickly followed. It began in sixteen seventy-five and continued for almost two years. Men, women and children on both sides were killed. Historians say as many as three thousand Native Americans died in the violence. More than six hundred settlers are believed to have been killed." - "American History: A New World Clash of Cultures" by Steve Ember.

Jens Böttiger, I have a degree in history

Original Question: I mean , Europeans could have asked for land through mutual understanding and cooperation, explaining why they fled from their countries. Both the groups could have taken time to learn about each other's culture and could have helped to educate/support each other, couldn't they?

They actually did. All the time.

Your concept of the situation is completely wrong.

There is no “both groups”. There was no European group, and there was no Native American group. That’s how you think about it today, because they do a piss-poor job of teaching history.

There were dozens of independent colonies and separate European governments fighting or negotiating with hundreds of native nations. They had nothing to do with each other. AT ALL. They fought and murdered each other all the time. They were all in competition.

Those colonies and those native nations fought among themselves more than anyone else. They would often make treaties or alliances with the colonists or the natives to help them with their own rivalries.

European immigration along with European food production and medicine allowed Europeans to out-breed native populations at an insane rate, which quickly made them obscenely dominant on the continent, at which point the newly minted US government mostly lost interest in cooperating with them, and simply ignored their own treaties and obligations, and just took control.

They then crushed native cultures, not by war or direct violence, so much as state organized ethnic cleansing through child abduction and brain washing.

Worst of all, it is still going on in some US states TODAY: Native Foster Care: Lost Children, Shattered Families

No, definitely not.

I will talk about a subject that no other answers have focused on: Native Americans (including North+South America) were easily just as violent as Europeans were. Tribes fought each other- a lot.

One culture I remember explicitly from school are the Aztecs. I remember them because of their gruesome, vile, and I will argue barbaric ways of treating tribes that did not pay tribute to them. The Aztecs were extremely big on human sacrifice. Like- really big. At their peak, estimates put them at 100,000–200,000human sacrifices a year! Holy cow! Furthermore, these were not “humane” executions as executions are today. Here is an excerpt from http://Mexicolore.com :


Sorry for the all caps, I got the information directly from http://www.mexicolore.co.uk/azte... (I fear posting images for they will be too graphic for Quora)
An interesting fact that resonated with me is that the torches in the religious temples were lit by burning the hearts they ripped out of the victims. (No wonder they needed so many sacrifices; I'm no expert, but I don't think human hearts burn for that long)
While the North American tribes were not as keen on human sacrifice as the Aztecs, warfare was not at all uncommon. The names of the tribes that we use today (Apache, Iroquois, etc.) are actually the names that enemy tribes would give their opposition. They mean “enemy”, “not us”, and other words along those lines.
Another fact I found interesting was that Europeans actually killed less Natives than Natives did each other. (Excluding disease), Europeans account for a minute number of warefare fatalities of Native Americans.
So no, it was not at all a Utopia in Native America.

Animated Sonic