What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

How responsible is France for the Vietnam War?

OP
Otis Mayfield

Otis Mayfield

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2021
Messages
979
Reaction score
932
Points
873
"Making things up".

*shakes head sadly*



North Atlantic Treaty Organization charter, dated 4 April 1949. From their own website.

Is this what you do? Start to scream somebody is wrong, then screaming they did not provide a reference to something that should be obvious?

France was a strong opponent to the Warsaw Pact, as one of the goals of that organization was one that France strongly opposed. A reunification of Germany under the control of the Soviet Union (and they even resisted the reunification after East Germany collapsed). As far as my source, mostly it is from being alive during that era, and being in the military. When most people did not even know what NATO is.

Of course, most people today still have no idea what NATO is, or much of anything else. More interested in what the Kardashians are doing and nonsense like that.

If that is how you are going to discuss this, there is really no reason for me or anybody else to continue.

Oh, and maybe you are not aware of this. But France did leave NATO. In 1966, because it refused to add its nuclear weapons into the pool of other NATO members, and refused to allow it's forces to serve under commanders from other nations. But guess what? They did not join the Warsaw Pact, they still remained closely allied with NATO, and still participated in occasional exercises until it rejoined again as a full member in 2009.

Amazing, you scream at me about my degree. Yet apparently you do not even know that France actually did leave NATO, and was out of it for over 4 decades. And never came even close to even thinking about joining the Warsaw Pact.

Maybe you should return to history class.

M63-Dummy-box.jpg


So you post some link to NATO and that relates to France in Vietnam how?
 

Mushroom

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2012
Messages
1,555
Reaction score
500
Points
198
Location
Near Baghdad By The Bay, California
So you post some link to NATO and that relates to France in Vietnam how?

You were disputing France being involved in NATO, and the silly idea that they would have left and joined the Soviets.

Then you doubled down on that, and demanded a reference. Then swing it right back to Vietnam.

Sheesh, like trying to have a discussion with Sonic on Meth.

lnkj0qsav8l51.png
 
OP
Otis Mayfield

Otis Mayfield

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2021
Messages
979
Reaction score
932
Points
873
You were disputing France being involved in NATO, and the silly idea that they would have left and joined the Soviets.

Then you doubled down on that, and demanded a reference. Then swing it right back to Vietnam.

Sheesh, like trying to have a discussion with Sonic on Meth.

lnkj0qsav8l51.png


And about the colonization thing.

America was a colony just like Vietnam was a colony.

Just ask Washington, Hamilton, and Jefferson if they liked being a colony.
 

EvilEyeFleegle

Platinum Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2017
Messages
10,200
Reaction score
4,266
Points
415
And about the colonization thing.

America was a colony just like Vietnam was a colony.

Just ask Washington, Hamilton, and Jefferson if they liked being a colony.
Your analogy is a bit off. America was a colony just like Vietnam only if you perceive it correctly, from the native American POV.
France/Vietnam..white folks going to a country and subjugating the native--non white-- populace to their own benefit.
Britain/North America...white folks going to a country and subjugating the native--non-white--- populace to their own benefit.

A quick read of history will show you that had Britain given their colonists representation in Parliament and a fair tax structure..we would never have rebelled.
The same dynamic simply did not apply in Vietnam.

The real difference between Vietnam and North America is that their revolution succeeded--and the natives here failed to dislodge the interlopers.

Had Tecumseh won at Tippecanoe--perhaps that would have been our Dien Bien Phu? Perhaps not..one can stretch an analogy only so far, after all.
 

Mushroom

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2012
Messages
1,555
Reaction score
500
Points
198
Location
Near Baghdad By The Bay, California
America was a colony just like Vietnam was a colony.

Just ask Washington, Hamilton, and Jefferson if they liked being a colony.

Actually, they did not mind at all, and were trying for years to remain as such.

What they objected to was the fact that England was violating their own laws, and they were denied their "Rights as Englishmen".

What, do you really not know what the origin of the Revolutionary War was, and believe it was about this yearning for "freedom"?
 

Mushroom

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2012
Messages
1,555
Reaction score
500
Points
198
Location
Near Baghdad By The Bay, California
Britain/North America...white folks going to a country and subjugating the native--non-white--- populace to their own benefit.

Very little subjugating going on from the English and their settlers. You are confusing them with the Spanish.

Wow, look. All over New England and the rest of the original 13 colonies, reservations that are still on the original land they occupied hundreds of years ago.
 

EvilEyeFleegle

Platinum Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2017
Messages
10,200
Reaction score
4,266
Points
415
Very little subjugating going on from the English and their settlers. You are confusing them with the Spanish.

Wow, look. All over New England and the rest of the original 13 colonies, reservations that are still on the original land they occupied hundreds of years ago.
Wow///How nice for the survivors. Of course, The Cherokee and Creek might disagree with you....Oklahoma is fair distance from Georgia.
No matter...putting people on reservations after defeating them militarily is a textbook example of subjugation, never-mind the forced teaching of a foreign language~

Point remains..our native people lost---Vietnam's natives won.
 

Mushroom

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2012
Messages
1,555
Reaction score
500
Points
198
Location
Near Baghdad By The Bay, California
Wow///How nice for the survivors. Of course, The Cherokee and Creek might disagree with you....Oklahoma is fair distance from Georgia.

*laughs*

Yes, the Cherokee indeed picked the wrong side in a war (2 wars to be exact). They sided with the British in the Revolutionary War, as they were earlier allies of the British during the French-Indian War. And all during the Revolution, they attacked settlers and settlements at the behest of the British. But the later removals were done by Jefferson and Jackson, largely in reprisal to their actions during the Revolutionary War. First to Arkansas under Jefferson, then Oklahoma under Jackson. Especially as they once again sided with the British in the War of 1812.

Of course, they were also one of the few tribes in the region that was hostile to the US.

Of course, then you have the Muskogee (Creek), which also involved the Cherokee, and was a right mess. Many wanted nothing to do with the War of 1812, some sided with the British, others sided with the Americans. And what resulted was the Red Stick War (and the "Creek Civil War), and was an ugly affair with differing groups attacking others. Americans and Cherokee being quite often the victims of those attacks.

You seem to be under the common misconception that those tribes were simply minding their own business, and were suddenly told to up and move. Each of those was after attacks by the Indians on others. More hostile and warlike tribes were moved, more peaceful tribes remained.

Of course, the Muscogee and Cherokee were some of the dozens of tribes that were commonly hostile to outsiders. Which is actually common among the tribes that had once belonged to the shattered Mississippian Culture. When it imploded in the 1400s, all of the tribes that were associated with it became rather isolationist, aggressive, and hostile to those not part of the tribe. One of the most interesting things I find among the various tribes around the US is that the most hostile ones were generally once parts of that Mississippian Culture or were on the edges of it. But the farther you move from that pre-Columbian culture, the less hostile the tribes became.

You are throwing out tribal names, and completely ignoring the history of those tribes. Being Potawatomie myself, I take such into consideration whenever discussing Indian history. You have to know and understand the backstory to know what and why something happened.
 
OP
Otis Mayfield

Otis Mayfield

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2021
Messages
979
Reaction score
932
Points
873
Your analogy is a bit off. America was a colony just like Vietnam only if you perceive it correctly, from the native American POV.
France/Vietnam..white folks going to a country and subjugating the native--non white-- populace to their own benefit.
Britain/North America...white folks going to a country and subjugating the native--non-white--- populace to their own benefit.

A quick read of history will show you that had Britain given their colonists representation in Parliament and a fair tax structure..we would never have rebelled.
The same dynamic simply did not apply in Vietnam.

The real difference between Vietnam and North America is that their revolution succeeded--and the natives here failed to dislodge the interlopers.

Had Tecumseh won at Tippecanoe--perhaps that would have been our Dien Bien Phu? Perhaps not..one can stretch an analogy only so far, after all.


How do you know if France gave Vietnam "representation in parliament and a fair tax structure", that the Vietnamese would've never rebelled?
 

Mushroom

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2012
Messages
1,555
Reaction score
500
Points
198
Location
Near Baghdad By The Bay, California
How do you know if France gave Vietnam "representation in parliament and a fair tax structure", that the Vietnamese would've never rebelled?

Not likely, as the actions of the Vichy French turning the region over to the Japanese for a brutal occupation lost them the goodwill of even a lot of the former French supporters. And during that occupation, the Japanese systematically exploited the people with harsh demands for food and supplies, using the French administrators as their mouthpieces. So by 1945, a lot of the support that the French once had among the populace was gone.

Prior to 1940, there had actually been a strong Constitutional movement, seeking to see Indochina recognized as its own nation, but still retain ties with France. Not unlike Canada and Australia with the UK. But even those that supported that were soured by what they saw as France turning their back on them and giving them to Japan. So when the resistance to the occupation grew, many joined the growing Viet Minh movement and became nationalized.
 

EvilEyeFleegle

Platinum Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2017
Messages
10,200
Reaction score
4,266
Points
415
*laughs*

Yes, the Cherokee indeed picked the wrong side in a war (2 wars to be exact). They sided with the British in the Revolutionary War, as they were earlier allies of the British during the French-Indian War. And all during the Revolution, they attacked settlers and settlements at the behest of the British. But the later removals were done by Jefferson and Jackson, largely in reprisal to their actions during the Revolutionary War. First to Arkansas under Jefferson, then Oklahoma under Jackson. Especially as they once again sided with the British in the War of 1812.

Of course, they were also one of the few tribes in the region that was hostile to the US.

Of course, then you have the Muskogee (Creek), which also involved the Cherokee, and was a right mess. Many wanted nothing to do with the War of 1812, some sided with the British, others sided with the Americans. And what resulted was the Red Stick War (and the "Creek Civil War), and was an ugly affair with differing groups attacking others. Americans and Cherokee being quite often the victims of those attacks.

You seem to be under the common misconception that those tribes were simply minding their own business, and were suddenly told to up and move. Each of those was after attacks by the Indians on others. More hostile and warlike tribes were moved, more peaceful tribes remained.

Of course, the Muscogee and Cherokee were some of the dozens of tribes that were commonly hostile to outsiders. Which is actually common among the tribes that had once belonged to the shattered Mississippian Culture. When it imploded in the 1400s, all of the tribes that were associated with it became rather isolationist, aggressive, and hostile to those not part of the tribe. One of the most interesting things I find among the various tribes around the US is that the most hostile ones were generally once parts of that Mississippian Culture or were on the edges of it. But the farther you move from that pre-Columbian culture, the less hostile the tribes became.

You are throwing out tribal names, and completely ignoring the history of those tribes. Being Potawatomie myself, I take such into consideration whenever discussing Indian history. You have to know and understand the backstory to know what and why something happened.
Nice precis--and known to me. It's true that the Tribes of America had a history before we got here. My point was and is that we subjugated the natives in the country..basically all of them. You seem to think otherwise?

Your point of pre-Columbian violence is interesting. The tribes of the interior Sioux, Comanche, Cheyenne--after the horse---turned quite violent, especially in the Civil War era.
The Coastal tribes in California were decimated...while the Salmon natives of the Pacific Northwest managed a bit better..and without war.

As Potawatomie, there is nothing I can tell you about relocation that you don't already know--which brings me to a question--Do you really think my use of the term 'subjugation' was incorrect?
 
Last edited:
OP
Otis Mayfield

Otis Mayfield

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2021
Messages
979
Reaction score
932
Points
873
Nice precis--and known to me. It's true that the Tribes of America had a history before we got here. My point was and is that we subjugated the natives in the country..basically all of them. You seem to think otherwise?

Your point of pre-Columbian violence is interesting. The tribes of the interior Sioux, Comanche, Cheyenne--after the horse---turned quite violent, especially in the Civil War era.
The Coastal tribes in California were decimated...while the Salmon natives of the Pacific Northwest managed a bit better..and without war.

As Potawatomie, there is nothing I can tell you about relocation that you don't already know--which brings me to a question--Do you really think my use of the term 'subjugation' was incorrect?


A lot of the inter-tribal violence came about because as white people took over the East coast, they shoved all the tribes inland and tribes who were squished together fought over land.

They had always fought over territory, but the big squish brought on by white expansion was like nothing ever seen before.
 

DudleySmith

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2020
Messages
3,858
Reaction score
2,329
Points
918
Now the commies are lying about the 'native Americans' and their self-inflicted problems. lol it never ends. The fact is many of these smaller tribes around today would have been genocided out of existence by the bigger tribes if it weren't for the U.S. Army. Just ask the Osage. And, this empire building was going on long before white people ever set foot here. The Sioux, for one, and of course the Iriquois were fond of genocide and slavery, to name just two out many. Just because they eventually lost doesn't make them innocent and blameless.

Huron history:



Based on linguistic evidence, it appears that the Iroquian-speaking people Jacques Cartier encountered in 1535 on the St. Lawrence River at Hochelaga (Montreal) were Huron. Sometime after Cartier's last visit in 1541, Hochelaga was abandoned probably due to wars with the Iroquois and Algonquins. Two groups of these so-called Laurentian Iroquois from the St. Lawrence, the Arendahronon and Tahonaenrat, moved west and by 1570 had combined with an older alliance of the Attignawantan and Attigneenongnahac to form the Huron Confederacy. Other Iroquian tribes in the region organized themselves in a similar manner, the most notable example being the Iroquois League in upstate New York. The Huron occupied the area of central Ontario at the south end of Georgian Bay. To the west, in the hills near the southeast end of Lake Huron, were the Tionontati, and southwest between Detroit and Niagara Falls were the Neutrals, another large confederacy so called because they remained neutral in the wars between the Huron and Iroquois.

A relatively small group, the Wenro, lived west of the Iroquois in southwest New York (Jamestown) and protected itself through alliances with the Neutrals to the north, and the Erie whose territory extended inland from the southern shore of Lake Erie near Erie, Pennsylvania westward across northern Ohio. South of the Iroquois along the Susquehanna River in Pennsylvania were the Susquehannock, a traditional Iroquois enemy. To the east, the Mohawk and Oneida of the Iroquois League faced Algonquins: the Mahican of the Hudson Valley; and the Adirondack, an unidentified Algonquin group who may have been Western Abenaki or the Pequot-Mohegan before they moved to eastern Connecticut. Along the St. Lawrence the Montagnais and Algonkin after 1541 had moved into the territory vacated by the Laurentian Iroquois and were fighting with the Iroquois.

While the Iroquois generally fought with their neighbors, the Huron had good relations with many of theirs through a pattern of trade which extended north through the Ottawa and Nipissing to the Ojibwe at Sault Ste. Marie. The rivalry and warfare which existed between the Huron and Iroquois before the arrival of the French was balanced by extensive trade. However, warfare was pervasive enough that it had caused the rival confederations to group their large, fortified villages into compact areas for mutual support. No borders existed in the European sense, with most of the lands in between the relatively compact areas of occupation either being shared or disputed, depending on the circumstances. Lured by the fur trade, the French returned to the St. Lawrence in 1603 and established their first permanent settlement at Tadoussac. The quality of fur obtained from the local Montagnais and the Algonkin through the Ottawa River Valley encouraged the French to push farther west. Samuel de Champlain founded Quebec in 1608 and the following year, through Algonkin traders, he had his first meeting with the Arendaronon of the Huron Confederacy.


Unfortunately for the French and their hopes for the fur trade, the St. Lawrence west of Quebec was a war zone and had been this way for at least 50 years before their arrival. It was a disputed area claimed by the Iroquois, Huron, Algonkin, and Montagnais.

The French alliance with the Huron and Algonkin forced the Mohawk to abandon the St. Lawrence Valley in 1610. This setback proved only temporary, since the Mohawk were soon able to trade with the Dutch on the Hudson River. Understanding the advantage in weapons the French trade gave their enemies, the Mohawk jealously guarded their trade with the Dutch. After wars with the Susquehannock (1615) and the Mahican (1624-28), they emerged as the dominant Dutch trade partner. Unfortunately, the Iroquois homeland did not not have many beaver, and in attempting to supply the Dutch, the Iroquois quickly used up what little they had. Dutch attempts to bypass them and gain access to the St. Lawrence trade through the Mahican had only intensified the dilemma and had led to the Mohawk war with the Mahican in 1624. However, their victory over the Mahican had merely eliminated a rival and did not provide them with access to more fur. The Huron homeland had a lot of beaver in the beginning, but it also became exhausted from trade with the French. However, the Huron easily overcame this through trade with tribes to the north and west. Surrounded by enemies, the Iroquois had no such opportunity, and threatened with the loss of their trade position with the Dutch, they desperately needed the Huron to supply them with fur, or at least allow them to hunt outside their homeland. The Huron would not allow either of these things. Their fur went directly to the French, and the Huron were powerful enough to keep Iroquois hunters confined to their own lands.

At this point, the French decision to ally with the Huron appeared to have been correct. History might well have taken a different course except for a war which began in Europe during 1627 between Britain and France. After a British blockade of the St. Lawrence, Quebec surrendered to a fleet commanded by Sir David Kirke in 1629. The Treaty of St. Germaine-en-Laye did not return Quebec to France until 1632. During those three long years, the Iroquois, because of their uninterrupted trade with the Dutch, gained an arms advantage over the Huron and Algonkin. Beginning in 1629, a new round of warfare for fur and territory began which evolved into the Beaver Wars (1630-1700). After the British left, Champlain had to begin anew. Attempting to regain the advantage for his native allies, he began to supply them with firearms and limited supplies of ammunition for "hunting." Dutch and British traders responded with similar weapons for the Iroquois beginning an arms-race. Meanwhile, the Huron took revenge on the man responsible for their problem. Étienne Brulé had betrayed Champlain by guiding the British to Quebec in 1629. Afterwards he found refuge among the Huron until he was killed (and eaten) following an argument in 1632.


'Poor hapless Natives' were practicing realpolitik and fully embraced trade and conquest long before we showed up. The mass slavery in South and Central America was a result of even more conquests and slavery, creating large slave empires. They also loved firearms and whisky, and happily slaughtered each other over the fur trade, i.e. greed.

Stop believing the stupid hippie shit from the 1960's already. It's just ridiculous, worse than Hollywood rubbish. And, they were cannibals.
 
Last edited:

whitehall

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
51,305
Reaction score
14,631
Points
2,190
Location
Western Va.
The CIA apparently convinced LBJ that a country that could hold out against foreign enemies for hundreds of years could be defeated by short engagements and chemical weapons and a defensive posture. Where the hell was congress when this ludicrous strategy was floated?
 

DudleySmith

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2020
Messages
3,858
Reaction score
2,329
Points
918
The CIA apparently convinced LBJ that a country that could hold out against foreign enemies for hundreds of years could be defeated by short engagements and chemical weapons and a defensive posture. Where the hell was congress when this ludicrous strategy was floated?

Who 'held out'? Not the Chinese, not the Vietnamese; the Japanese handed both of them their asses, and in a very short time. In fact Japanese soldiers trained a lot of the Viet Minh guerillas not the Reds. They were anti-white racists, after all, they just used 'Communism' as a cover con, as do most Asians claiming to be 'freedum fighters'..


Japanese soldiers with the Viet Minh


This subject began to fascinate me when I read that the Japanese genius and war criminal Colonel Tsuji Masanobu spent his last years in Vietnam, helping defeat the Americans. Finally someone did serious research into the subject: As a French scholar, using French qarchives, Christopher Goscha concentrated on the years 1945-1950, and there is of course no proof that any of the individuals he mentions were still serving with the North Vietnamese or Viet Cong during the "American War." What follows is condensed, with Prof. Goscha's permission, from his article "Belated Asian Allies," which appeared in A Companion to the Vietnam War, edited by Young & Buzzanco and published by Blackwell in 2002.

Belated Asian Allies

Goscha estimates that perhaps 5,000 Japanese stayed behind in Vietnam in the fall of 1945. (The translator renders their status as "deserters," but I don't think that's honest. How can you desert from an army that has surrendered?) Famously able to subordinate the means to the end, the Communists naturally put them to use in their war against the French. As Goscha points out, the Viet Minh had very little experience in warfare or government, as opposed to guerilla resistance of the sort they had used against the occupying Japanese. They would have been glad of the expertise available in the left-behind Japanese population, both military and civilian.


... and more at the link. Also see:


.... It was in this confused fighting that the OSS commander in Saigon, Lt. Col. Peter Dewey, was killed by the Viet Minh. He was probably mistaken for a French officer. The day after Dewey was killed, an OSS officer refused to intervene when Viet Minh troops arrested a French officer and executed him. The American declared he was neutral. Mountbatten protested to the Americans, but it appeared that they “were on the other side in this war.”

The Americans were anti-colonialism, and were hostile to both British and French attempts at reinstating their colonial assets, and this policy continued when it became clear the Communists own imperialistic campaigns were escalating after the end of WW II, by both the Red Chinese and the Soviet Union around the globe. The American and SEATO effort was against the Soviets, the primary ally of Ho in their quest for warm water ports near global trade shipping lanes.

In any case, it was the Vietnamese who escalated theri violent racist attacks on westerners in the early 19th Century that prompted the French to invade and colonize the place.

by Warfare History Network

In the late 18th century, the French established Catholic missions in Indochina, and until the 1820s they enjoyed local protection, but after that persecution began and increased steadily, particularly under Emperor Tu-Duc, who reigned from 1847 to 1883 and wanted to stamp out Christianity. Emperor Napoleon III of France did not intend to let that happen, and in 1858 he began sending French forces into the Saigon delta. In 1862, Tu-Duc was forced to sign a treaty granting religious toleration and conceding some of his territory, including Saigon. From this nucleus the French expanded into the rest of Indochina.



It's never a good idea to needlessly provoke your betters; only racist bigots and morons think that will work, and Viet Nam is just another example of that.


.....


How to Restore the Colonial Order?


With the end of World War II in the Pacific, the intention of the Allies was to return to the colonial position as it existed before the Japanese invasion. The British objective for Indochina was to drive out the Japanese and return it to the Free French led by General Charles de Gaulle, but the American attitude was quite different.


At the time, America was hostile to colonial restoration in general and to the restoration of French colonial rule over Indochina in particular. President Franklin D. Roosevelt made it clear he had no sympathy for the French and their empire. “France,” he said, “has had Indochina and its 30 million people for nearly a hundred years and the people are worse off than they were at the beginning.”


Roosevelt proposed that French rule should be replaced by a trusteeship that would prepare the way for independence. But American non-involvement in colonial restoration did not last for long, particularly when it became apparent that insurgencies in Indochina, Malaya, and the Philippines, were using Chinese communist methods of revolutionary warfare. By late 1946, in American eyes, a spread of communism was more dangerous than Western involvement in the Far East.


And of course the America were right as rain. The idea that the Reds were some sort of proto-american freedom fighters is laughable on its face.
 
Last edited:

Mushroom

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2012
Messages
1,555
Reaction score
500
Points
198
Location
Near Baghdad By The Bay, California
It's true that the Tribes of America had a history before we got here. My point was and is that we subjugated the natives in the country..basically all of them. You seem to think otherwise?

I know it was not true. Until last year, I lived on the edge of a Reservation (2 of them actually). Of tribes that are still on their traditional lands.

Most tribes were largely ignored. So long as they caused no problems, nobody cared. And a lot of tribes had very good relations with the Europeans that arrived. Sources of trade, especially getting goods they could not make themselves, in exchange for things they largely did not need (like furs and skins). This is especially true in the North-West region, where a very profitable arrangement was made between them and the Europeans of various nations (English, French, and Russian).

As I have said before, you are confusing all of the relations with that of the Spanish. After hundreds of years of occupation, they came over with a very different attitude, and did indeed enslave a great many tribes. Of course, many also practiced human sacrifice, which was a particular "hot button" with them.

Of my own "people", it is about mixed. Most of the Potawatomie tribe are still on their ancestral homeland, in the Great Lakes region in general. But there were a few bands that were antagonistic and went to war with the Americans. Those after the wars were indeed shipped off to Oklahoma.

Like nost I find, you are trying to use the Indians as a "whipping post", and looking at things from a very biased point of view. And trying to fit everything into it, if it applies or not.

And do not confuse all Europeans and their behavior with the Spanish. That is a guaranteed fail. The English and French came over for mercantile reasons. And killing and enslaving your potential customers and sources of raw materials is simply stupid. And is not accurate to the reality.
 

Mushroom

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2012
Messages
1,555
Reaction score
500
Points
198
Location
Near Baghdad By The Bay, California
Your point of pre-Columbian violence is interesting. The tribes of the interior Sioux, Comanche, Cheyenne--after the horse---turned quite violent, especially in the Civil War era.
The Coastal tribes in California were decimated...while the Salmon natives of the Pacific Northwest managed a bit better..and without war.

As Potawatomie, there is nothing I can tell you about relocation that you don't already know--which brings me to a question--Do you really think my use of the term 'subjugation' was incorrect?

Most of the tribes that survived the Mississippian Culture were hostile and aggressive to all outsiders. But as you move away from that region, the natives were much more friendly and open to contact and trade with outsiders.

The Lakota, Comanche, and Cheyenne were always hostile, towards each other and any that came into their range. Not believed to have been directly part of the Mississippian Culture, they did seem to suffer when that broke up, as each of them were pushed farther and farther west by other bands fleeing the disintegration. The Lakota were not names Sioux (Rattlesnake) for no reason, and before horses the Comanche were well known for raiding other tribes for slaves.

And all tribes were decimated, but not by "Europeans". Most were killed by disease. It is not the same thing, not even close. That would be like blaming the Chinese for the Black Death. Or the Italian and Arabian traders that brought the infested rats to Europe.

But yes, it is very incorrect, and very offensive. Especially in the light that most tribes had good relations with the Europeans. And most of those that did not amazingly also had bad relations with the other tribes around them. The cause of most conflict was not the Europeans, it was simply the predisposition of the tribes they ran into. Peaceful tribes had good relations. The tribes that tended to be hostile to anybody had bad relations.

And it was the same in every continent that Europeans explored. From Asia and Africa to the Pacific Islands and all the rest. Peaceful and wanting to trade, they got along great. Hostile and attack others, then they end up getting the same in return.
 

EvilEyeFleegle

Platinum Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2017
Messages
10,200
Reaction score
4,266
Points
415
Most of the tribes that survived the Mississippian Culture were hostile and aggressive to all outsiders. But as you move away from that region, the natives were much more friendly and open to contact and trade with outsiders.

The Lakota, Comanche, and Cheyenne were always hostile, towards each other and any that came into their range. Not believed to have been directly part of the Mississippian Culture, they did seem to suffer when that broke up, as each of them were pushed farther and farther west by other bands fleeing the disintegration. The Lakota were not names Sioux (Rattlesnake) for no reason, and before horses the Comanche were well known for raiding other tribes for slaves.

And all tribes were decimated, but not by "Europeans". Most were killed by disease. It is not the same thing, not even close. That would be like blaming the Chinese for the Black Death. Or the Italian and Arabian traders that brought the infested rats to Europe.

But yes, it is very incorrect, and very offensive. Especially in the light that most tribes had good relations with the Europeans. And most of those that did not amazingly also had bad relations with the other tribes around them. The cause of most conflict was not the Europeans, it was simply the predisposition of the tribes they ran into. Peaceful tribes had good relations. The tribes that tended to be hostile to anybody had bad relations.

And it was the same in every continent that Europeans explored. From Asia and Africa to the Pacific Islands and all the rest. Peaceful and wanting to trade, they got along great. Hostile and attack others, then they end up getting the same in return.
Simply put, I disagree...as does most of the literature. Subjugated they were...and are...those on reservations.

But thanx for the convo...and the judgement. It appears to me that you are an apologist for the White cultures of the day. Fair enough. I guess someone has to be.

The natives on this continent lost..big time.
That some have come to terms with that is all to the good..but does not change the facts.
 
OP
Otis Mayfield

Otis Mayfield

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2021
Messages
979
Reaction score
932
Points
873
Simply put, I disagree...as does most of the literature. Subjugated they were...and are...those on reservations.

But thanx for the convo...and the judgement. It appears to me that you are an apologist for the White cultures of the day. Fair enough. I guess someone has to be.

The natives on this continent lost..big time.
That some have come to terms with that is all to the good..but does not change the facts.

Losing is tough.
 

Mushroom

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2012
Messages
1,555
Reaction score
500
Points
198
Location
Near Baghdad By The Bay, California
Simply put, I disagree...as does most of the literature. Subjugated they were...and are...those on reservations.

But thanx for the convo...and the judgement. It appears to me that you are an apologist for the White cultures of the day. Fair enough. I guess someone has to be.

ROFL!

An Indian, who is also an "apologist". Do you go around telling other minorities they are wrong also about their own heritage? Are you this condescending to everybody, or simply those that do not eat up your bull and tell you that you are wrong?

Simple fact, there was no "subjugation". But tell me, have you ever actually met an Indian? Lived on or near a reservation? Or is all of this "knowledge" based from reading crap propaganda? Try talking to some Mohicans, or Maidu, or Shoshone, or one of a great many other tribes as I have. Most living quite comfortably on their own land, as they have for hundreds of years.

Try looking at how many attacks the Indians themselves did. Like the 1854 Ward Massacre, where Shoshone attacked a group on the Oregon Trail passing through on their way to Oregon. Slaughtering 18 of the 20 members, the only survivors were 2 young boys that hid under the bodies of others killed. Things settled down for a bit after that, but they again became hostile and in 1859 once again started to massacre settlers passing through. In 1859, killing 5 and kidnapping 8 women and children near Fort Hall. And in 1860 killing or capturing over 30 near Salmon Falls. And in 1861, 15 more in 2 attacks along the Montana border. In 1963 the Bear River Massacre followed, where the Army attacked a force of over 400 Shoshone preparing to attack en-masse the settlement at Franklin. Where they killed almost 300.

And after that, the fighting with the Shoshone largely ended. Their two main reservations are still on their tribal land, but they learned the folly of attacking settlers who were mostly passing through. Of course, the Shoshone were never very "warlike" in the first place. And all told, the numbers of dead on both sides were pretty equal. But it was mostly settlers on one side, and warriors on the other.

YOu only keep showing over and over that you know nothing about what you are talking about, and insisting over and over that we were "subjugated", when it is nothing like that. What, you think we should have continued, slaughtering travelers passing through, until the Army had enough and massed and attacked again?

And are you even aware that in most tribal languages, there are words used for the various jobs they held? In Shoshone, the word for "Warrior" is "Hoakkanten". There is however another term, "Hoawappih". That is somebody who acts defensively, to protect the tribe and not conduct war on others. So the former is closer to "Soldier", while the latter is closer to "Police". But to outsiders, they were all just seen as "Warriors".

And as most tribal groups were 1,000 or less, if all of the Hoakkanten (or tribal equivalent) were gathered in a single location, it is a guarantee that they were up to no good. So think about that when you read in the history about some "massacre", where the Army attacked hundreds of "Warriors". They were not just out picking flowers and communing with nature. They only banded together in forces that large if they were about to attack somebody.

How about this. Let me put out a doll, and you can tell us all where the "White man" touched you.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$132.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top