The reason you don't hear so much about Inter Tribal atrocities is because it is both more lucrative and fashionable to beat on the White man.
for later
I’ve always been interested in the term “genocide” and often wonder why the word isn’t preceeded by the word “attempted”, as genocide alone would seem to mean that there are none left.
In the 1850s, the American government tried to move the Indian tribes in the Upper Midwest to land west of the Mississippi, and white settlers protested, so strenuously, in fact, that the Washington politicians backed down.
At that time, the Indians provided settlers, through trade, with necessary food items, especially during the long winter months. These tribes learned about free enterprise from the French voyagers over a 300 year period. When settlers arrived, they found an Indian community ready and willing to trade resources for gold, silver and white man inventions.
Additionally, the treaties in the 1830s paid indians allotments for the land they deeded to Washington. These annual payments included silver and gold coin, needed for commerce in the early settler outposts. This reason alone was a primary motivation for settlers to resist Indian displacement.
Today, these Indian descendants are some of our best entrepreneurs in this area, active in small business and the resource industry. It’s unfortunate that the socialists in Lansing today are trying to destroy their capitalist spirit.
There’s much about Indian relations not taught in schools.
I’d like to see a chapter on how socialists destroy Indian people.
Never mind that the tribal "owners" were both genetically and centuries separated from the remains in question. For more enlightenment on that mindset, Google "Kennewick Man".
In any event, he showed me remains from the archives carbon dated from the 1400's (before any known white man had ever set foot in North Dakota). They showed the presence of TB, a disease supposedly brought by the white man. The guy was a scientist and not in the least bit political, but it was his opinion that the agitation over remains was strictly a political issue raised to halt scientific study of these and other studies which might cast doubt on the popular shibboleths of this era.
Note:
How Lincoln’s Army ‘Liberated’ The Indians...
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo40.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo40.html
Colonel Bouquet did pass infected blankets to the Hurons besieging Fort Pitt. Of course, if you're besieged by people who intend to torture you to death, as Chief Pontiac's Indians had done to the garrisons of Fort Sandusky and Fort Presque Isle, and tried to do to the garrison at Fort Le Bouef on their way down to Fort Pitt, one might be tempted to use any available means to prevent that from happening.
This wasn't the first instance of Indians taking home infected blankets, but it is probably the most notorious. In 1755, the Indians that slaughtered the survivors at Fort William Henry also pillaged the sick and wounded in the infirmary and dug up and scalped the corpses of the dead, some of whom died of smallpox.
It's kind of hard to feel too much "ethnic guilt" for that.
So, is the story of whites giving “gifts” of smallpox infected blankets to eradicate them a myth?
The idea of white 'genocide' was something cooked up by those who hate America.
Where are the artefacts?
Where are the skeletal remains of the supposedly tens of thousands of “Native Americans” done in by the diseases of the “White Man?”
I’m skeptical; but I’m not a denier. So far, physical evidence for the the “Old World Germ” theory is scant, IMHO.
Columbus practiced some but the brits rarely did. And the indians committed terrible acts on the Europeans. It was a nasty business as you’d expect when one people essentially invades the land held by another. Most though were killed by disease.
In New England, especially, much of the violence between Europeans and Indians was simply the nearly endless war between England and France, fought by other means. The French and their Abenaki allies terrorized English frontier settlements in order to check their territorial advances to the west and the north. The English and their Indian allies retaliated, of course (e.g., by razing Norridgewock in 1724 and killing Father Sebastien Rasle), and thus began the cycle of violence.
Chief Take-Your-Money is waiting for the white devils and their wampum at the nearest Indian casino. Leave your smallpox blankets at home.
Another secret that no one ever wants to talk about is the fact that Indians bought slaves and fought for the South in the civil war.
I ran across this in a family history account of the Indian Territories(now Oklahoma). My Great(8)Grandfather was a US Marshall. He had arrested some of the Indians for theft, and they sent their slaves to kill him.
Another secret that no one ever wants to talk about is the fact that Indians bought slaves and fought for the South in the civil war.
I ran across this in a family history account of the Indian Territories(now Oklahoma). My Great(8)Grandfather was a US Marshall. He had arrested some of the Indians for theft, and they sent their slaves to kill him.
Cool stuff to a ten year old but the truth of the story is that John Underhill was a mercenary with a small army who hired out to Dutch and English communities who wanted to get rid of the Indians in their area.
The suggested battle was a high-tech, pre-dawn raid on a small tribe of pretty much defenseless fishermen Indians. It was a massacre, not a fight and it entirely eliminated the Massapequas as a tribe.
Of note...both Gerry Seinfeld and Carlo Gambino (THE Godfather) lived on that peninsula in the sixties.
I have a liberal friend that claims we deserve what the Mexicans are doing to us because it’s no different than what the Pilgrims did to the Indians. More liberal guilt.
[shake head and roll eyes at this convoluted “logic”]
White Genocide is the biggest lie going....
Indians routinely slaughtered women and children and were merciless toward the white man.
At there highest point pre european North America only had between 7 and 10 Million total natives living on the entire continent.
While yes, not every interaction that europeans and later americans levied against the indians was fair or just, this notion that they were perfect creatures in tune with nature and never did anything evil is just nonsensical.
This myth that they only killed buffalo they needed and used every part is another nonsensical lie. Louis and Clark describe coming across a pile of rotting carcasses that stunk the air for miles around, caused by indians driving and entire herd over a cliff while hunting, and leaving most of it to rot in the sun.
They were savages, some were more civilized than others, but they were by and large savages none the less. They had no qualms hatcheting a child to death in cold blood and scalping the corpse.. taking a girl as a “wife” etc etc etc.
Thank God the europeans came and ended the savagery. I know not politically correct, but its not the lies that the PC crowd wish to continue to perpetuate.
I feel no white guilt over the fate of the indians, just as I feel no white guilt over the fate of many blacks in america today either, though the second group certainly has more claims of historical unjust treatment than a conquered bunch of savages.
I've a "test" for you Michael. Slaughter every human in a village and see if you don't get the term "genocide" attributed you - whether you think the word's application is correct or not. Then again, should it have been your relatives who lived in that annihilated village, the word's definition might not so readily escape you.
SW, it appears Medved is stuck on the hierarchal value of the word's definitive terminology and totally lost its applicability.