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?

DudleySmith

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2020
Messages
3,818
Reaction score
2,287
Points
918
A lot of the modern rubbish was peddled by fraudster Ward Churchill, a fake 'indian' who bullshitted his way into a professorship at U of Colorado Boulder, a left wing nut factory. It's easy to look up his nonsense and how many so-called 'academics' bought into his lies and made up rubbish.
 

Mushroom

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2012
Messages
1,509
Reaction score
488
Points
198
Location
Near Baghdad By The Bay, California
A lot of the modern rubbish was peddled by fraudster Ward Churchill, a fake 'indian' who bullshitted his way into a professorship at U of Colorado Boulder, a left wing nut factory. It's easy to look up his nonsense and how many so-called 'academics' bought into his lies and made up rubbish.

Almost everything he ever claimed was a complete lie. His being trained as a paratrooper and volunteering for recon patrols in Vietnam (and that he used that training to instruct the Weather Underground in how to make explosives). In reality, he was a projectionist, and nobody in the WU ever heard of him.

His claims over and over he was of Indian descent, and that the very fact that Indians marry and have kids with whites and other races was a form of systemic genocide. But no Indian ancestors were ever found in his history, and even most of the tribes who once supported him cast him out. I love the fact that after he was fired when the lies all came to the surface, he won a lawsuit, with damages of $1.

And on appeal even had that dollar taken away.

And yes, a lot of the claims of "Genocide" originate with him. And so many of his claims are outright bogus, yet people repeat them over and over. And do not care that the claims all came from a liar who has been discredited and shunned by the academic community. Like the "Genocide", claiming that 90% of Indians were killed once Europeans arrived. Factually that is true, but it was by disease not by anything done to them. And of course he did not help things much by basically saying all those killed on 9/11 were "Little Eichmanns", and deserved to die as they did.

It is also funny that since all the fraud and plagiarism claims against him came out, he has stopped writing. And at one time used to sell art of Indians he used to copy from old photographs and other artists. And sold them as "Indian Art", until the 1990 Indian Arts and Crafts Act prohibited anybody that is not affiliated with a tribe from advertising their works as such. And needless to say, he was an outspoken and vocal critic against that act. Strange, how somebody who claims to be an "Activist" did not care about things that actually protected the livelihood of Indians, and was only upset that it took money out of his own pocket.
 

EvilEyeFleegle

Platinum Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2017
Messages
10,172
Reaction score
4,251
Points
415
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.
Uh Huh~ Try not to drown in all your assumptions. I don't give a shit about 'heritage'. This is the history forum...and thus, I was discussing history.
I've lived on the Colville, Kootenai and Coeur d'Alene reservations--not that living on a reservation or knowing native Americans has any bearing whatsoever on history.
I think...that it was their land...settlers were trespassers, and got what they got. Historically, our history is an unbroken litany of busted treaties and high-handed efforts to 'deal' with the perceived 'Indian' problem'. And we did, in fact, deal with it. By subjugating the natives..sorry you have issues with the word--or think that the seminal work in the field is propaganda.
I guess to you, 'up to no good' translates to pushing back against the whites who were not invited, and should not have been there, at least not from the native perspective.
Your point that many tribes are still living on their native lands is particularly amusing. A tiny sliver of what they once had, because it is situated somewhere in the same region, does not really signify at all.
Your thinly disguised attempts to turn this into some 'anti-white' BS is noted..and laughed at.
If you are 100% native, which I doubt, I would never ask where the White man touched you...because it is so evident that the very question would be offensive.
 

Mushroom

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2012
Messages
1,509
Reaction score
488
Points
198
Location
Near Baghdad By The Bay, California
Your thinly disguised attempts to turn this into some 'anti-white' BS is noted..and laughed at.
If you are 100% native, which I doubt, I would never ask where the White man touched you...because it is so evident that the very question would be offensive.

Yes, I have noticed that fools are often offended by sarcasm. But I am not the one that tried to turn this into some kind of "anti-white" rant, you did that all by yourself.

It appears to me that you are an apologist for the White cultures of the day.

And laughing at your claims it is based on "Seminal Work". Right, Ward Churchill. That is not seminal, it is uric. Right body opening, wrong fluid. Then you go right off the deep end, saying that unless I am 100% Indian, my opinions do not matter. WTF, are you starting up a new Nuremberg Law, where the amount of ancestry will be used to determine if what I say has any merit or not?

You scream I am turning it into some kind of racist rant, yet almost everything you say screams of it, if you are even aware or not. I discuss actual historical events, you pout and scream about feelings and your beliefs. And you were near tribes in the Panhandle. Maybe they have sticks up their arse, it is not like that among those in the Pocatello area like the Fort Hall reservation. Or the Maidu of Central California. Of course, maybe it also has to do with who many of the original settlers were.

No, you are the one going entirely on a racist rant here, and I love how you then try and flip it against me, even though you are the one that brings it up over and over again. And then saying that unless I am "100% Indian" my opinions do not matter. And yes, this is about "history". And I actually discussed quite a bit of history here. Giving things like specific tribes and dates. You, you go off on half-truths and outright lies with nothing to prove anything.

Also, I even laugh as I corrected you a few times but said nothing. The correct term is "Lakota". Quite a few of that tribe find the word "Sioux" offensive, as that is not their own name for themselves. That is a name given to them by others. It means "Rattlesnake", you know that, right? Hence, I always refer to them as Lakota. You are so oblivious that you did not even seem to notice.

So yes, I am rejecting your claims it is some kind of "anti-white" nonsense, by flipping back on you your very own quote. Which tried to make it an anti-white rant. You see, that is the problem when you try to debate with hate and emotions. You lose what you had said in the past, and have no real aim in what you say. Meanwhile, I was discussing actual events and not some rewashed propaganda that you can not even quote.

And what next, should we move up into your area? And how the very existence of the "Aryan Nations" compound near Hayden Lake proves that Idahoans are all backwards racists?
 

Mushroom

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2012
Messages
1,509
Reaction score
488
Points
198
Location
Near Baghdad By The Bay, California
Native chiefs broke treaties all the time, every time they found them inconvenient to plundering and murdering.

Hence, my discussion of the raids and massacres of the Shoshone in the area where Pocatello now is. They did over a dozen of them before the Army finally stepped in and attacked them in return. And gave an early example of why you "Don't bring a bow and arrow to a gun fight". Of course, the Americans and Indians had completely different ways of fighting.

Indian warfare (like that in most of the Pacific Islands) was as much ritual as actual combat. Where at most you might get 100 or so on each side of a "battle". And like in medieval Europe in lore, they would line up. Each side singing the praises of their tribes and their heritage, and their claims on why they are on the right side of the battle. Then often individually start to ride out to "fight".

But here is the thing, rarely to the death. Like jousting, it was largely symbolic. Hence, the "Coup Stick" and "Counting Coup" enter the lexicon. The best warriors would often used blunted lances and axes, instead simply using them to beat their opponent into submission. Many of the best warriors would brag on how they defeated "scores of warriors", and killed none.

But those dirty Americans, they just did not fight fair! No coup sticks, they fought with firearms to kill. And not individually, they would slaughter the entire war band, how unfair! A tribe kills 18 of 20 settlers, and could not understand that in response, the Army would ride in and slaughter half their village. They did not understand for a long time that they were then faced with a very different form of warfare than they were familiar with. But notice, once the tribes started to get the message, the "Indian Wars" ended.

Or we can start with why the Army was originally in on the outskirts of Lakota land in the Dakota Territory in the first place. It was not to "keep the Indians in", it was to keep the whites out of Indian land. Yes, the 7th Cavalry was actually posted outside the reservation, and was aggressive in capturing and returning any settlers that went into Lakota land. Even arresting many and throwing them in jail. And early on, the tribe worked with them in this, going to the Army and telling them where they found campsites of whites and would even lead the Army to them for removal.

But by the mid-1970's, some of the tribe saw that as not enough, and instead of getting the Army to remove them, started to attack the settlers. Which by 1876 we should all know what happened. Quite a few reprisals, and more than a few slaughters by both sides. With almost all for some reason forgetting that the original purpose of the Army there was not to "Protect the Settlers". It was actually to protect the Indians, and to remove and arrest any settlers caught in their land and evict them from Indian Land.

It only turned to war when some of the tribe (not all) decided that killing the settlers would be more effective than having the Army remove them. I can only imagine that EEF then also supports the work of vigilantes. And that instead of arresting people who break the law and taking them to jail, killing them in the street is an acceptable response.

The fact is, most tribes did not care when the "Whites" moved in. Until into the 20th century, the areas were sparely populated, and there was plenty of land for all. And most set up very beneficial relationships with those that had more recently arrived. Heck, look at the term "rendezvous", which is still heard all over the region. There were dozens of them, in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, California, even up to Alaska. Where are pre-set times each year, the fur trappers, fur buyers, and Indian tribes would agree to meet and do their exchanges at selected locations.

There were dozens of them, normally hosted by the natives and inviting the "Whites" to come in and trade with them. And the tradition still lives on, both on the Reservations and in the local areas. This shows how welcome in most areas the Whites were. Tribes who were traditional enemies of each other would even agree to stop fighting so members could go to and leave these rendezvous in peace. Of course, warring tribes were kept at opposite sides of the rendezvous, but the idea of a peaceful ceasefire for trade that benefitted all was more important to all of them then their ancient squabbles.

Notice, I once again talk about actual historical events. Not ranting about generic claims with no basis in fact. The Rocky Mountain Rendezvous was one of the most well known. It traveled each year, normally in Wyoming, but also occasionally in Utah and even Idaho once. Where even the Lakota would be welcome into the land of the Shoshone, Blackfoot, or Crow as it was an event of trade, not war. And interestingly enough, the tribe at those in the Rocky Mountain region were most often barred was the Blackfoot. Which is why eventually they were "uninvited" from attending. And the rendezvous were held well away from their lands. They were given smaller ones, where only the fur traders went in and not members of other tribes.

fur-trade-painting.jpg
 

EvilEyeFleegle

Platinum Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2017
Messages
10,172
Reaction score
4,251
Points
415
Yes, I have noticed that fools are often offended by sarcasm. But I am not the one that tried to turn this into some kind of "anti-white" rant, you did that all by yourself.



And laughing at your claims it is based on "Seminal Work". Right, Ward Churchill. That is not seminal, it is uric. Right body opening, wrong fluid. Then you go right off the deep end, saying that unless I am 100% Indian, my opinions do not matter. WTF, are you starting up a new Nuremberg Law, where the amount of ancestry will be used to determine if what I say has any merit or not?

You scream I am turning it into some kind of racist rant, yet almost everything you say screams of it, if you are even aware or not. I discuss actual historical events, you pout and scream about feelings and your beliefs. And you were near tribes in the Panhandle. Maybe they have sticks up their arse, it is not like that among those in the Pocatello area like the Fort Hall reservation. Or the Maidu of Central California. Of course, maybe it also has to do with who many of the original settlers were.

No, you are the one going entirely on a racist rant here, and I love how you then try and flip it against me, even though you are the one that brings it up over and over again. And then saying that unless I am "100% Indian" my opinions do not matter. And yes, this is about "history". And I actually discussed quite a bit of history here. Giving things like specific tribes and dates. You, you go off on half-truths and outright lies with nothing to prove anything.

Also, I even laugh as I corrected you a few times but said nothing. The correct term is "Lakota". Quite a few of that tribe find the word "Sioux" offensive, as that is not their own name for themselves. That is a name given to them by others. It means "Rattlesnake", you know that, right? Hence, I always refer to them as Lakota. You are so oblivious that you did not even seem to notice.

So yes, I am rejecting your claims it is some kind of "anti-white" nonsense, by flipping back on you your very own quote. Which tried to make it an anti-white rant. You see, that is the problem when you try to debate with hate and emotions. You lose what you had said in the past, and have no real aim in what you say. Meanwhile, I was discussing actual events and not some rewashed propaganda that you can not even quote.

And what next, should we move up into your area? And how the very existence of the "Aryan Nations" compound near Hayden Lake proves that Idahoans are all backwards racists?
Who the fuck brought up Ward Churchill?? Not I, the guy is a discredited loon. I used the term seminal to refer to almost all the literature out there that says you're fulla shit.

BTW, I live in Twin Falls Idaho..and have a number of friends who are Bannock--they would spit in your face..just sayin'.

You sure dragged a lot of shit up...and assumed much indeed..in your dislike of the word, 'subjugate'. Nonetheless, it still remains the correct one.

Your attempt to make this about your sense of 'white victimhood' is noted..and laughed at. After rereading my posts..only a fool would see what I said as racist or part of some anti-white rant. If anything, I'm happy to be on the winning side. Oh..and yeah....1/32nd of some tribe does not give you some special position to pontificate from.

Lakota, Oglalla, Mandan or whatever...bring that shit you're spouting to the rez..that the whites were just seeking trade and only offered violence to those who 'misbehaved' and were violent first--please have someone taking the video...it would be good for a laugh or two.

Oh...and yeah..a lot of Northern Idahoans are backwards racists. However that compound was lost in a lawsuit...the buildings were burned down in a fire dept training exercise.
2001, I think? Thus it doesn't exist--might want to update your Idaho CliffNotes?

I don't bother quoting when what we are talking about is elementary..and very well covered indeed.
You have an agenda..and it is as an apologist for the White settlers--to me, that's odd..since i don't think history needs revision, in this case.

Perhaps you'd do better if you viewed as what it was, the inevitable result when agrarian and hunter/gatherer tribes run head on into an industrialized society that had been engaging in intermittent full scale warfare for literally 1,000 years+.

Whatever....you make a good attempt to portray a history buff..but your agenda gives ya away---history is more than just cherry-picking from Googled material.
Anyone can find a quote to bolster their position----not all can reason though..and still be factually correct~

You jump at the correct terms for a collection of tribes....and yet, you cavil at the obvious use of 'subjugation'. Feel free to believe what you like..but to call it history?

I think not. I do think you're well named though...because some sure has kept you the dark and fed you shit.
 
Last edited:

EvilEyeFleegle

Platinum Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2017
Messages
10,172
Reaction score
4,251
Points
415
Hence, my discussion of the raids and massacres of the Shoshone in the area where Pocatello now is. They did over a dozen of them before the Army finally stepped in and attacked them in return. And gave an early example of why you "Don't bring a bow and arrow to a gun fight". Of course, the Americans and Indians had completely different ways of fighting.

Indian warfare (like that in most of the Pacific Islands) was as much ritual as actual combat. Where at most you might get 100 or so on each side of a "battle". And like in medieval Europe in lore, they would line up. Each side singing the praises of their tribes and their heritage, and their claims on why they are on the right side of the battle. Then often individually start to ride out to "fight".

But here is the thing, rarely to the death. Like jousting, it was largely symbolic. Hence, the "Coup Stick" and "Counting Coup" enter the lexicon. The best warriors would often used blunted lances and axes, instead simply using them to beat their opponent into submission. Many of the best warriors would brag on how they defeated "scores of warriors", and killed none.

But those dirty Americans, they just did not fight fair! No coup sticks, they fought with firearms to kill. And not individually, they would slaughter the entire war band, how unfair! A tribe kills 18 of 20 settlers, and could not understand that in response, the Army would ride in and slaughter half their village. They did not understand for a long time that they were then faced with a very different form of warfare than they were familiar with. But notice, once the tribes started to get the message, the "Indian Wars" ended.

Or we can start with why the Army was originally in on the outskirts of Lakota land in the Dakota Territory in the first place. It was not to "keep the Indians in", it was to keep the whites out of Indian land. Yes, the 7th Cavalry was actually posted outside the reservation, and was aggressive in capturing and returning any settlers that went into Lakota land. Even arresting many and throwing them in jail. And early on, the tribe worked with them in this, going to the Army and telling them where they found campsites of whites and would even lead the Army to them for removal.

But by the mid-1970's, some of the tribe saw that as not enough, and instead of getting the Army to remove them, started to attack the settlers. Which by 1876 we should all know what happened. Quite a few reprisals, and more than a few slaughters by both sides. With almost all for some reason forgetting that the original purpose of the Army there was not to "Protect the Settlers". It was actually to protect the Indians, and to remove and arrest any settlers caught in their land and evict them from Indian Land.

It only turned to war when some of the tribe (not all) decided that killing the settlers would be more effective than having the Army remove them. I can only imagine that EEF then also supports the work of vigilantes. And that instead of arresting people who break the law and taking them to jail, killing them in the street is an acceptable response.

The fact is, most tribes did not care when the "Whites" moved in. Until into the 20th century, the areas were sparely populated, and there was plenty of land for all. And most set up very beneficial relationships with those that had more recently arrived. Heck, look at the term "rendezvous", which is still heard all over the region. There were dozens of them, in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, California, even up to Alaska. Where are pre-set times each year, the fur trappers, fur buyers, and Indian tribes would agree to meet and do their exchanges at selected locations.

There were dozens of them, normally hosted by the natives and inviting the "Whites" to come in and trade with them. And the tradition still lives on, both on the Reservations and in the local areas. This shows how welcome in most areas the Whites were. Tribes who were traditional enemies of each other would even agree to stop fighting so members could go to and leave these rendezvous in peace. Of course, warring tribes were kept at opposite sides of the rendezvous, but the idea of a peaceful ceasefire for trade that benefitted all was more important to all of them then their ancient squabbles.

Notice, I once again talk about actual historical events. Not ranting about generic claims with no basis in fact. The Rocky Mountain Rendezvous was one of the most well known. It traveled each year, normally in Wyoming, but also occasionally in Utah and even Idaho once. Where even the Lakota would be welcome into the land of the Shoshone, Blackfoot, or Crow as it was an event of trade, not war. And interestingly enough, the tribe at those in the Rocky Mountain region were most often barred was the Blackfoot. Which is why eventually they were "uninvited" from attending. And the rendezvous were held well away from their lands. They were given smaller ones, where only the fur traders went in and not members of other tribes.

fur-trade-painting.jpg
Nope..pretty much complete Bullshit. You have some facts right..but your extrapolations as to the motives of the army, and the people in general..are cloud-cuckoo crazy.

BTW..the elementary facts you are trotting out are known by most, including myself---but where you take them in your lil polemic....is just simply wrong.
I especially like how you point out that the US army was stationed to keep people out..errr..right until they found gold in the Black Hills eh?

But those dirty Americans, they just did not fight fair! No coup sticks, they fought with firearms to kill. And not individually, they would slaughter the entire war band, how unfair! A tribe kills 18 of 20 settlers, and could not understand that in response, the Army would ride in and slaughter half their village. They did not understand for a long time that they were then faced with a very different form of warfare than they were familiar with. But notice, once the tribes started to get the message, the "Indian Wars" ended.


Hence the term Subjugate~
 
Last edited:
OP
Otis Mayfield

Otis Mayfield

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2021
Messages
882
Reaction score
847
Points
873
Nope..pretty much complete Bullshit. You have some facts right..but your extrapolations as to the motives of the army, and the people in general..are cloud-cuckoo crazy.

BTW..the elementary facts you are trotting out are known by most, including myself---but where you take them in your lil polemic....is just simply wrong.
I especially like how you point out that the US army was stationed to keep people out..errr..right until they found gold in the Black Hills eh?

But those dirty Americans, they just did not fight fair! No coup sticks, they fought with firearms to kill. And not individually, they would slaughter the entire war band, how unfair! A tribe kills 18 of 20 settlers, and could not understand that in response, the Army would ride in and slaughter half their village. They did not understand for a long time that they were then faced with a very different form of warfare than they were familiar with. But notice, once the tribes started to get the message, the "Indian Wars" ended.


Hence the term Subjugate~

Custer is on record as capturing all the women, old people and children while the braves where away.

The braves would then surrender.

Bloodless.

The Indians wouldn't have done the same for us.
 

DudleySmith

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2020
Messages
3,818
Reaction score
2,287
Points
918
The fact is the 'natives could have driven whites into the sea at any time for over 250 years, yet they didn't, they loved the trade and the new weapons and incorporated them into their geo-political strategies against each other from the beginning. They also had no problems selling them land, and then coming back and extorting them to pay for it several times over, as Pontiac did, selling the same land to three different European states and then coming back to demand payments over and over again. His 'rebellion' was nothing more than an extortion racket that got shut down. Not much different than many others.
 

Mushroom

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2012
Messages
1,509
Reaction score
488
Points
198
Location
Near Baghdad By The Bay, California
Oh...and yeah..a lot of Northern Idahoans are backwards racists. However that compound was lost in a lawsuit...the buildings were burned down in a fire dept training exercise.
2001, I think?

You know they were not from Idaho, right?

Like Robert Matthews, found of "The Order", Richard Butler was from California. Hayden Lake was not unlike the town of Antelope, Oregon. Where a bunch of outsiders moved in then tried to remake the area in their own image. I am aware of none of the members of Aryan Nations actually being from the area. They however did flock there from all over once it opened. California, New Jersey, Michigan, I have never actually heard of any members from Idaho.

You really need to start doing some kind of research, and learning to validate your claims. It tends to work a lot better than just flying off the seat of your pants. Oh, and by the way, I expected you do jump at that. Too bad for you, I knew it would be a "hot button" for you, and you would do exactly that without even knowing apparently that those people were not "Idahoans".

Most of them, they came from California. Part of the wave of California that started to move there in the 1970's.

Funny, but once again you simply give no evidence, you only spout off your own beliefs and opinions with absolutely nothing to back them up with.
 

Mushroom

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2012
Messages
1,509
Reaction score
488
Points
198
Location
Near Baghdad By The Bay, California
I especially like how you point out that the US army was stationed to keep people out..errr..right until they found gold in the Black Hills eh?

The Army was there to keep them out. And they had been killing any in or around their lands for decades.

I guess you have never heard of Massacre Canyon, in Nebraska. Where a band of over 1,000 Lakota descended on a Pawnee hunting camp, with around 200 hunters, the rest women and children. And slaughtered around half of them before ransacking the camp and leaving.

That was in 1873, the Lakota even from their reservation had never stopped attacking others. Even after gold had been discovered in the region. They were so concerned with keeping out the miners, that they traveled over 200 miles to the East to attack another tribe. Funny, but as I said whenever people talk about "massacres", they never seem to ever mention those done by the tribes themselves.
 

Mushroom

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2012
Messages
1,509
Reaction score
488
Points
198
Location
Near Baghdad By The Bay, California
The fact is the 'natives could have driven whites into the sea at any time for over 250 years, yet they didn't, they loved the trade and the new weapons and incorporated them into their geo-political strategies against each other from the beginning.

Most had no problem at all with those that moved to the area. As I have shown over and over, that was primarily by tribes that were hostile to all not of their tribes, even other neighboring tribes. The Lakota did not get the name "Sioux" (Rattlesnake) for nothing. None of the other tribes around them trusted them, because it was not unusual for them to make an agreement, then turn right around and break it.

In fact, they are known as the "Sioux Wars", because there were far more than one. The first in 1854 when 29 soldiers were killed when they tried to question a chief about one of his warriors killing a cow from somebody traveling on the Oregon Trail. The soldiers asked for the warrior to be turned over for trial, and as it was late they would return the next day to continue negotiations. But as they were trying to return to their encampment the warriors started to flank them, and the fight was on. In the end, 29 soldiers dead and 2 Indians.

The next day riding on the fort and looting the trading post. When the Army returned to the site after the tribe left, the bodies had all been mutilated. The Army of course responded, catching half of them at Ash Hollow where the Army killed 86.

Then the Dakota War of 1862. Which started when they killed 4 settlers in Minnesota, then went on to try and kill or drive all of the settlers out of Missouri. and continued for over 2 years with multiple attacks and massacres by the Lakota not only on settlers, but on the Cheyenne and Arapaho (Sand Creek Massacre, over 300 dead mostly women and children). Notice, this is all after the 1851 Treaty of Fort Laramie, where they had promised to not attack the settlers, Army, or other tribes anymore.

The 1865 Powder River War, after multiple raids against settlers and migrants on the Bozeman and Oregon Trails (which the Lakota had promised to allow safe passage). After that, the Army started to set up forts along the Bozeman Trail to protect the migrants, and in 1866 Red Cloud's War started. This started when the Lakota left their lands and then moved into Crow territory. And their constantly attacking the forts set up to protect the migrants (which were not set up on Lakota land).

This is the kind of detail that most tend to ignore about the "Indian Wars". Especially when talking about the Lakota and Apache, which were known to be very hostile to anybody, not only settlers but other tribes. And would only honor for as long as they wanted to.

But you simply can not take the behavior of the Lakota as typical of the tribes in the country. Most were nothing like the Lakota. In fact, the Black Hills was not even Lakota land. It had belonged to the Cheyenne, Crow, Kiowa and Arapaho until the late 1700's, when the Lakota moved in and kicked out the other tribes. And when the "whites" arrived in the 1800s, they were already starting to move farther west into Montana (Blackfoot and Chippewa land). The Lakota were actually part of the Mississippian Culture (15th century), and moved first North to around Lake Superior in the 16th century. But after losing many battles against the Anishinaabe, they were pushed West. Where they then ran into more tribes that they fought and pushed off of their lands.

Not unlike the way the Mongols started the waves of barbarians that eventually ran into Rome. Goths, Visigoths, Vandals, Franks, Saxons, and eventually the Huns. None of them wanted to be pushed west against Rome. But each was pushed off by other tribes and had nowhere else to go.

But by the time they had started the fights against the US Army, they had already been doing almost nothing but fighting for over 400 years. Attacking any tribe they came across, starting in the region of Mississippi-Tennessee, up to Lake Superior, then across to the Dakotas. And if it was still in pre-Columbian times, they likely would have continued all the way to the Pacific. They never seemed to have any interest in settling anywhere. They simply moved, fought with any locals they could, then moved again. First north until they hit the more powerful Anishinaabe, then turning west.

I even found an old friend from school on Facebook a few years ago that is Shoshone. Of course after 30 years we got to talking about our kids, and his daughter had recently married a Mexican-American. When I asked him what he thought of that, he laughed and said "At least she did not marry a Lakota". He said that in jest, but it still shows how their reputation among other tribes has not entirely gone away.
 

Dayton3

Gold Member
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
1,171
Reaction score
435
Points
198
LBJ and McNamara lied


They wanted to save Liberalism.

And W lied about Iraq.

LBJ did not lie about the FIRST Gulf of Tonkin attack. The North Vietnamese themselves admitted that the Aug. 2, 1964 battle between a U.S. destroyer and their torpedo boats took place.

And Bush never lied about Iraq.
 

harmonica

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
42,606
Reaction score
18,616
Points
2,300
Uh Huh~ Try not to drown in all your assumptions. I don't give a shit about 'heritage'. This is the history forum...and thus, I was discussing history.
I've lived on the Colville, Kootenai and Coeur d'Alene reservations--not that living on a reservation or knowing native Americans has any bearing whatsoever on history.
I think...that it was their land...settlers were trespassers, and got what they got. Historically, our history is an unbroken litany of busted treaties and high-handed efforts to 'deal' with the perceived 'Indian' problem'. And we did, in fact, deal with it. By subjugating the natives..sorry you have issues with the word--or think that the seminal work in the field is propaganda.
I guess to you, 'up to no good' translates to pushing back against the whites who were not invited, and should not have been there, at least not from the native perspective.
Your point that many tribes are still living on their native lands is particularly amusing. A tiny sliver of what they once had, because it is situated somewhere in the same region, does not really signify at all.
Your thinly disguised attempts to turn this into some 'anti-white' BS is noted..and laughed at.
If you are 100% native, which I doubt, I would never ask where the White man touched you...because it is so evident that the very question would be offensive.
..the NAs stole land/warred/displaced/decimated/TORTURED/etc long before the whites came
 

Mushroom

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2012
Messages
1,509
Reaction score
488
Points
198
Location
Near Baghdad By The Bay, California
..the NAs stole land/warred/displaced/decimated/TORTURED/etc long before the whites came

Hell, human sacrifice and even cannibalism was not uncommon. Which is why the Spanish went absolutely medieval against the Aztecs and other tribes they met. And it was not only them, the Pawnee were still performing the Morning Star Ritual in secret into the late 1800s. Most of the Plains tribes had some form of human sacrifice, but it was more ritualistic and singular than the wholesale slaughter the Aztecs did.

And it is even a constant event in most Neolithic cultures. Ritualistic human sacrifice was seen all through Europe and Asia in Neolithic sites. They are still finding their victims in bogs in Germany and surrounding countries. And the American Indians were no different. One of the most well known was the "Morning Star Ritual", the last recorded one in the 1880's in secret. Where the tribe would determine it is the right time, and raid a neighboring village. Only ending the raid once they captured a girl of around 13 and left to return home.

Where she would be treated as an honored guest. For 5 days, until the time of the sacrifice. Then a ritual followed, including her being stripped and tied to a scaffold, burned repeatedly, then bashed in the head with a hammer and shot full of arrows. The priest smearing her blood on himself, and her blood then put onto meat that all the warriors would consume. Then the corpse raped and placed in the field to help ensure the spring was fruitful.

This was not unique at all, but it did go on longer than most other similar ceremonies.

A lot of paleontologists actually look at the Indians as likely a snapshot of what European Neolithic cultures were like. We only find the scattered remains on occasion of individuals who were obviously ritualistically sacrificed. But here, they were still doing it and it was likely in almost the same way it was done in Europe. At one time, it was thought those killed in Denmark-Germany were criminals. Who had done something wrong and been executed and their bodies dumped in the bog. But today, they are recognized as human sacrifices, because of the care and positioning done and how they were killed. Always strangled, sometimes also having their throats cut and often with a hard blow to the back of the head (not known if that was before or after death). And the noose left around their neck, then the body positioned a specific way inside the bog.

If similar to the Morning Star Ritual, it was probably a Spring ceremony, and recreating their own creation myth. But it has been completely lost to time, as they left behind no records of their beliefs, or even who they were. But it always makes me laugh when people believe the Disneyfied version of Indians, as peaceful nature worshipers. Many were very pastoral and peaceful. But some were brutal and would kill anybody they could. And most tribes had at least some form of human sacrifice.
 

Dayton3

Gold Member
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
1,171
Reaction score
435
Points
198
Hell, human sacrifice and even cannibalism was not uncommon. Which is why the Spanish went absolutely medieval against the Aztecs and other tribes they met. And it was not only them, the Pawnee were still performing the Morning Star Ritual in secret into the late 1800s. Most of the Plains tribes had some form of human sacrifice, but it was more ritualistic and singular than the wholesale slaughter the Aztecs did.

And it is even a constant event in most Neolithic cultures. Ritualistic human sacrifice was seen all through Europe and Asia in Neolithic sites. They are still finding their victims in bogs in Germany and surrounding countries. And the American Indians were no different. One of the most well known was the "Morning Star Ritual", the last recorded one in the 1880's in secret. Where the tribe would determine it is the right time, and raid a neighboring village. Only ending the raid once they captured a girl of around 13 and left to return home.

Where she would be treated as an honored guest. For 5 days, until the time of the sacrifice. Then a ritual followed, including her being stripped and tied to a scaffold, burned repeatedly, then bashed in the head with a hammer and shot full of arrows. The priest smearing her blood on himself, and her blood then put onto meat that all the warriors would consume. Then the corpse raped and placed in the field to help ensure the spring was fruitful.

This was not unique at all, but it did go on longer than most other similar ceremonies.

A lot of paleontologists actually look at the Indians as likely a snapshot of what European Neolithic cultures were like. We only find the scattered remains on occasion of individuals who were obviously ritualistically sacrificed. But here, they were still doing it and it was likely in almost the same way it was done in Europe. At one time, it was thought those killed in Denmark-Germany were criminals. Who had done something wrong and been executed and their bodies dumped in the bog. But today, they are recognized as human sacrifices, because of the care and positioning done and how they were killed. Always strangled, sometimes also having their throats cut and often with a hard blow to the back of the head (not known if that was before or after death). And the noose left around their neck, then the body positioned a specific way inside the bog.

If similar to the Morning Star Ritual, it was probably a Spring ceremony, and recreating their own creation myth. But it has been completely lost to time, as they left behind no records of their beliefs, or even who they were. But it always makes me laugh when people believe the Disneyfied version of Indians, as peaceful nature worshipers. Many were very pastoral and peaceful. But some were brutal and would kill anybody they could. And most tribes had at least some form of human sacrifice.

In regards to land claims I like to illustrate things by a clip from an episode of the western tv series "The High Chaparral".

In this episode a group of soldiers are staying at the High Chaparral ranch. The commander of the soldiers is not exactly a nice guy and Buck Cannon asks one of the lower ranking soldiers how he feels working with the abrasive commander.

The officer says it doesn't bother him any more than staying at the ranch with a "bunch of thieves" (referring to the Cannon family).

Buck Cannon then angrily replies "My brother bought this ranch!"

Officer: "Who did he buy it from?"

Buck "The Spanish".

Officer "Did the Spanish buy it from the Apache?"

When Buck Cannon doesn't reply the officer directs the same question at Wind the Indian ranch hand.

Wind: "I never saw a bill of sale. But then the Apache didn't buy it from the Navaho either".
 
Joined
Sep 15, 2016
Messages
8,328
Reaction score
762
Points
155
Location
All in your mind
Mmmm, it was a Viet Cong offensive, and it was their last shot. The NVA came in when it was clear the VC lost , and lost badly. The left wing press made it a 'victory', true enough, even though it was a major setback for the Reds.
The Purpose of the Vietnam War Was to Kill Off or Take the Fight Out of the Bravest of Those Born in the White Working Class

What the Viet Commies did was the same way that George Washington got our independence. Losing and losing but keeping coming back. The British were sure it was over when they took New York City in 1776. Washington kept dashing their hopes just by showing up again and again, with a few solid victories like Trenton interspersed to really cripple and finally paralyze Britain's will to fight.

Gore Vidal, a nasty knee-jerk America-hater, takes your view. Ironically, he was a celebrity opponent of the Vietnam War but was blind to the parallels. Our dumb Pentagon and warrior-hating, warrior-fearing ruling class were easy pickings for the persistent Communists.
 

Mushroom

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2012
Messages
1,509
Reaction score
488
Points
198
Location
Near Baghdad By The Bay, California
In regards to land claims I like to illustrate things by a clip from an episode of the western tv series "The High Chaparral".

Actually, a rather unusual show for the time. Where the "main couple" were of mixed race, the wife being Mexican. And Wind was played by Rudy Ramos, who is Comanche. It is rare even today to see Indians actually playing Indians on the screen, big or small.

DEPP-900-600.jpg
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$70.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top