Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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.
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.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.
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.
It appears to me that you are an apologist for the White cultures of the day.
Native chiefs broke treaties all the time, every time they found them inconvenient to plundering and murdering.
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.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?
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.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.
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~
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?
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 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.
LBJ and McNamara lied
The Truth About Tonkin
What really happened in the Gulf of Tonkin on the night of 4 August 1964? Documents released over the past several years have cleared up the picture.www.usni.org
50 Years Ago Congress Gave the President a Blank Check for War
The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and the hubris behind it were the linchpins of Johnson’s Shakespearean Vietnam tragedy – and ours as well.historynewsnetwork.org
They wanted to save Liberalism.
And W lied about Iraq.
..the NAs stole land/warred/displaced/decimated/TORTURED/etc long before the whites cameUh 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
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.
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 ClassMmmm, 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.
In regards to land claims I like to illustrate things by a clip from an episode of the western tv series "The High Chaparral".
