Watch the video: to fight politically correctness in the study of American history

Short documentary ^ | drzz

[drzz]

A nation which is able to confront an enemy is a nation which knows where she comes from.

Learn the US history without politically correctness and revisionism. You have been told that the US cavalry constantly massacred innocent Native Americans in their villages, because of a "genocidal" expansion.

It is a lie. The war on the Great Plaines was complex, and most of the time, the story behind the "politically correct myth" is much more illuminating.

Watch this video. Learn your history, see where you come from. And fight politically correctness at home.

[motzman]

Engrish?

[drzz]

Swiss, actually. We could speak French, but I am not sure you do.

[drzz]

by the way, do you know your own history ?

[HaveHadEnough]

Yes, it was complex. However, fundamentally, they had the land and we wanted it. We pushed and pushed, and unlike when Iraq invaded Kuwait, no one was there to stop us (which was good for us).

[drzz]

No one is denying the Native American right to fight for their lands. But it’s only the overall story.

The precise story of each event isn’t constantly in the favors of the Indians. The example on the video is illuminating: “peaceful Indians”, as we call them today, killed hundreds of settlers, massacred white hostages and were eventually defeated. Should the USA being prosecuted for having defeated the Native Americans in that occasion ?

NO.

[PGalt]

Interesting history. Thanks drzz.

[drzz]

Have you watched the movie “Little Big Man”?

The same story is depicted with an evil US cavalry attacking peace-loving Indians.

Then the USA are saying sorry to people that didn’t deserve it. Self-destruction.

“A free nation is always attacked from within. And history is always the first target.”

[HaveHadEnough]

I don't think people are denying that Native Americans had the right to fight for their land. I think some people question whether we had the right to start a fight to take it.

Is it true that, when two groups want the same land, the group with the greater fire power has the right to to acquire it? Was there a moral component to our fight to take that land? Or is it simply part of life that might makes right and there's not much more we can say about it.

[ClearCase_guy]

It's true that we wanted the land, but our conflict with the indians was more complex than that.

1688 -- King Philip's War. The percentage of the American population killed was greater in this war than in all our other wars. We thought we had good relations with the indians. Then they started massacring villages.

1753 -- The British fought the French. The indians helped the French, but they lost.

1776 -- Americans fought the British. The indians helped the British, but they lost.

1812 -- Americans fought the British. The indians helped the British, but they lost.

By the time we started pushing across the Great Plains, we had a solid history with indians attacking us and helping our enemies. We wanted the land. We knew they were not our friends. We did what all people, in all places, at all times, have always done: we expanded where we could.

[ansel12]

Incredible film.

The Pioneers and the Indian fighting army were outside of the attentions of their media and the Northeastern elites of their time, and they still are.

[drzz]

All what I say is that history cannot be studied with overall vision - like looking on the history of the West without taking a story and then an other.

This documentary http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKeTsG2JpQA is just telling us: look at the FACTS ? Should the Americans say apologies to every Cheyenne because of Washita ? No way.

[AuntB]

1776 -- Americans fought the British. The indians helped the British, but they lost. 1812 -- Americans fought the British. The indians helped the British, but they lost.

History is never as simple as it appears. For Instance, many indians did fight and help the colonists in 1776.

In the Creek War of 1814, 800 Cherokee volunteers led under Major Ridge fought the Creek along side Andrew Jackson. Some say a Cherokee brave saved Jackson' life. He thanked them by demanding land concession after the war was over from the Creek and the Cherokee.

[drzz]

Thank you very much !

In fact, I made it yesterday.

[drzz]

I agree. But is that the overall opinion of the US people ?

I see so many people who cannot look at the facts, but who want to drop a tear for every Native American people without any compassion for the settlers, for what really happened !

[xhrist]

" We did what all people, in all places, at all times, have always done: we expanded where we could."

complex or not, we fought and took the land previously inhabited for millennia by the native americans. The fact that they didnt conceive of 'owning' land made it that much easier for the Europeans.. its just a fact of our history. Certainly nothing to be 'proud' of imho

[Live free or die]

I have to agree with you. There is such a thing as right of conquest.

By the way, we may want to check on this but I keep hearing that American Indians serve in the US military in higher percentages of population than any other ethnic group whites included.

The wars are over. They are a part of us and we of them.

[HaveHadEnough]

We did what all people, in all places, at all times, have always done: we expanded where we could.

Indeed. It would seem, then, that the only limit to expansion is the physical power to do it. Iraq tried in Kuwait and came up against a force they could not beat; we tried on this continent and succeeded as there was no force that could stop us. These issues do not concern morality; they concern chemistry and physics.

[ClearCase_guy]

Your point is well taken. But it leads me to an additional point: Indian tribes had frequent wars with other indian tribes. If one tribe supported the Americans, another tribe would tend to support the British.

This speaks against the notion of "peaceful indians". They weren't. And note also that one of the great indian leaders, Tecumseh, is considered a great indian leader because he actually managed to unite a number of tribes, managed to get them to stop fighting each other, and got them all lined up to support the British against the Americans.

I recognize that it wasn't simple, and that in many cases there were (some) indians on either side. But by and large the native population was trying to stop Americans at every step along our way. Guess they paid the price for that.