This is so much BS. The original pilgrims had a peacdful relationship with the indians of the plymouth area. They set up a mutual society of trade and buying. The pilgrims paid for land etc. The relationship lasted in harmony for 50 years. The Indians in SF didn't deal with the pilgrims, they dealt with the spanish and then later Americans coming in for the gold rush, and entirely different situation.
"This is so much BS"
Don't forget these are San Francisco Indians.
Yeah, and the guy acts as if his Wailikie Tribe were personally harmed by pilgrims.
Not only that. The native Americans were slaughtered, raped, and nearly wiped out by the Spanish, long before the pilgrims landed. They should be grateful North America was conquered by the English speaking people, or they would be a bunch of scraggly wetbacks trekking through a hot, dry border instead of fat lazy bums living off their casinos.
I guess they forgot their ancestor Indians sold off a bunch of their native land for beads and other barter.
Mine did too, but I am over it after two centuries.
On the other hand, one of the reasons the Pilgrims had such a long period of peace with the Indians was the arrival of various Eur/Asian/African (Old World) diseases that wiped them out ~ mostly in 1646/47/48.
I'd suggest that by 1676 (and the Pequot, et al, uprising) there'd been enough gene flow from the arriving European population to the existing Indian population to have created a new type of warrior ~ one with inherited partial immunity to the Old World diseases.
Exactly. And even if the local Indians had slaughtered the Pilgrims, and even if they had done the same to Jamestown, the European conquest would still have happened. American Indians didn't have the unity or military might to permanently prevent what happened.
Don't let the facts get in the way of a perfectly good whine.