I suspect not one American in 500 knows about the Massacre of 1622.

[Seymour Flops]

You have no idea then how barbaric Europe was at that time, and then during the colonial times in North America.

There was no one side better than the other. The colonists had no sense of "paternal tolerance" at all. You cannot present any evidence to that point.

What were some of the atrocities the settlers committed against the Tribal People prior to the massacre referenced in the OP?

 

[jacksonlamb]

What were some of the atrocities the settlers committed against the Tribal People prior to the massacre referenced in the OP?

Conflict	Years	Region	European Power	Indigenous Nations	Source
Battle of Mabila	1540	Southeast	Spain	Mississippian chiefdom
Tiguex War	1540–41	Southwest	Spain	Tiwa Pueblos
Mixtón War	1540–42	Northern Mexico frontier	Spain	Caxcanes & allies
Chichimeca War	1550–90	Northern Mexico frontier	Spain	Chichimeca Confederation
Early Navajo–Spanish conflicts	c. 1600	Southwest	Spain	Navajo
Early Beaver Wars	from 1609	Great Lakes	France	Iroquois, Huron, Algonquin
First Anglo‑Powhatan War	1610–14	Virginia	England	Powhatan Confederacy

 

[JoeB131]

The crusades and the Native American-European wars are probably the most misunderstood and propagandized in history. With the way most people teach and understand these, you'd think they were one-sided black-and-white genocides against brown people, but this is not the case. In both of these conflicts there was massacre and bloodshed on both sides, they were amoral grey areas. This wasn't a cartoon like the Marvel films, it was real life, and most conflicts are like this than they aren't.

Except none of those massacres would have happened if white people stayed in Europe where they belonged.

 

[pknopp]

What were some of the atrocities the settlers committed against the Tribal People prior to the massacre referenced in the OP?

According to a certain mod, that is off topic. Can only discuss native American atrocities.

 

[Anarchy666]

Except none of those massacres would have happened if white people stayed in Europe where they belonged.

Oh, so are you against immigration now?

 

[Quantrill]

A good read of those early days in America is 'Massacre On The Merrimack'.

A story of a white woman and her child taken captive. Her name is Hannah Duston. Her treatment by the Indians, and her response is a picture of the whole Indian/American relationship.

You don't treat me and mine that way, and get away with it.

Quantrill

 

[Seymour Flops]

According to a certain mod, that is off topic. Can only discuss native American atrocities.

When did which mod say we cannot compare atrocities by one group to another?

Are you sure that you just don't want to answer the question?

 

[pknopp]

When did which mod say we cannot compare atrocities by one group to another?

Are you sure that you just don't want to answer the question?

My post was deleted yesterday as off topic.

In July 1610, West sent Gates against the Kecoughtan. "Gates lured the Indians into the open by the means of music-and-dance by his drummer, and then slaughtered them. "

Indian massacre of 1622 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

A forgotten massacre.

Yeah, the natives weren't all cuddly, now were they. In fact, before European settlements, they were at war with one another all across the New World.

On this day, 406 years ago, the Powhatan Indians, who had been working peacefully with the Jamestown settlers, came among them as usual, but slaughtered every man, woman, and child they could. ​

​

Death toll: 347, a quarter of the English population.​

​

I suspect not one American in 500 knows about the Massacre of 1622.​

Interesting how you present this totally out of context:

Historical Context & Causes

• Territorial Encroachment: As the English tobacco economy grew, settlers increasingly seized prime agricultural lands, displacing the Powhatan people.
• Cultural Tensions: Colonists attempted to forcibly assimilate the Powhatan through education and conversion to Christianity, often treating them with "contempt" and abuse.
• Shift in Leadership: Following the death of Chief Powhatan (Wahunsenacawh) in 1618, his brother Opechancanough took power. He was less conciliatory and sought to halt English expansion through a decisive military strike.

People don't know about 1622 for the same reasons that they do not know about 1619. For the same reason that they don't know what a murderous sociopath Columbus -who never discovered America- really was . People are only taught the sugar coated , easy to digest version of history.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The indians brought it on themselves. Their extreme barbarism guaranteed that we would have to virtually wipe them out. There is a reason they were called "savages", and it isnt because they were peaceful victims of the evil white man. Native Americans were among the worst humans that Earth has ever produced. Even the women in the tribes would gleefully torture men, women and children.

Dont feed me any romanticized bullshit about the "noble savage". They werent noble, they were f***ing awful.

Ethnocentric, racist codswallop!

omeone who views Native Americans as "savages" is holding a deeply racist, prejudiced, or Eurocentric viewpoint, often stemming from historical stereotypes. This perspective is categorized as dehumanizing, frequently termed a bigot or a proponent of colonialist ideology, which was historically used to justify the seizure of Native lands.

Wikipedia +2
Key Aspects of this Viewpoint:

• Stereotyping: It relies on the "violent savage" archetype, which portrays Native men as inherently hostile and depraved.
• Dehumanization: The term was deliberately used to label indigenous peoples as uncivilized, allowing colonists to justify conquest and colonization.
• Historical Racism: This perspective is rooted in early colonial portrayals that ignored the complex cultures of indigenous peoples, reducing them to negative stereotypes.
  

Such beliefs are considered racist, as they perpetuate harmful stereotypes that have historically resulted in violence, discrimination, and the justification of genocide against Native Americans.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The indians brought it on themselves. Their extreme barbarism guaranteed that we would have to virtually wipe them out. There is a reason they were called "savages", and it isnt because they were peaceful victims of the evil white man. Native Americans were among the worst humans that Earth has ever produced. Even the women in the tribes would gleefully torture men, women and children.

Dont feed me any romanticized bullshit about the "noble savage". They werent noble, they were f***ing awful.

Howard Zinn’s analysis of Native American culture and history in A People's History of the United States emphasizes the destruction of thriving, egalitarian societies by European colonialism. He portrays indigenous peoples not merely as victims, but as early, moral counterpoints to European greed and as agents of resistance against subjugation.

Key Aspects of Zinn's Perspective:

• Critique of Columbus: Zinn reframes Christopher Columbus from a hero to a destroyer of indigenous populations, highlighting the genocide, enslavement, and brutality inflicted upon the Arawak people and others.
• Cultural Contrast: He highlights that indigenous cultures were often more egalitarian than European counterparts, with strong communal structures (e.g., Iroquois societies), shared land, and greater gender equality, particularly in matrilineal systems.
• Perspective of the Marginalized: Zinn focuses on "bottom-up" history, centering the narrative on the experiences and voices of Native Americans rather than just the actions of white colonialists and policymakers.
• Focus on Resistance: Zinn highlights the continuous, persistent resistance of Native Americans to white settlement and "Manifest Destiny," ranging from armed conflicts to diplomatic efforts to retain their lands and cultures.
• "Indian Removal" as Destruction: Zinn paints the westward expansion of the United States as a series of forced removals and broken treaties that caused severe political, economic, and spiritual destruction, aiming to expose this as a national crime rather than progress.

 

[Godboy]

Ethnocentric, racist codswallop!

omeone who views Native Americans as "savages" is holding a deeply racist, prejudiced, or Eurocentric viewpoint, often stemming from historical stereotypes. This perspective is categorized as dehumanizing, frequently termed a bigot or a proponent of colonialist ideology, which was historically used to justify the seizure of Native lands.
View attachment 1234796Wikipedia +2
Key Aspects of this Viewpoint:

• Stereotyping: It relies on the "violent savage" archetype, which portrays Native men as inherently hostile and depraved.
• Dehumanization: The term was deliberately used to label indigenous peoples as uncivilized, allowing colonists to justify conquest and colonization.
• Historical Racism: This perspective is rooted in early colonial portrayals that ignored the complex cultures of indigenous peoples, reducing them to negative stereotypes.

Such beliefs are considered racist, as they perpetuate harmful stereotypes that have historically resulted in violence, discrimination, and the justification of genocide against Native Americans.

If native Americans werent savages, then tell me which people in history were, and explain how they are more savage than indians. Let me guess, youre going to point to white men? Only white men are savages by your weird ass progressive definition?

 

[Godboy]

Howard Zinn’s analysis of Native American culture and history in A People's History of the United States emphasizes the destruction of thriving, egalitarian societies by European colonialism. He portrays indigenous peoples not merely as victims, but as early, moral counterpoints to European greed and as agents of resistance against subjugation.

Key Aspects of Zinn's Perspective:

• Critique of Columbus: Zinn reframes Christopher Columbus from a hero to a destroyer of indigenous populations, highlighting the genocide, enslavement, and brutality inflicted upon the Arawak people and others.
• Cultural Contrast: He highlights that indigenous cultures were often more egalitarian than European counterparts, with strong communal structures (e.g., Iroquois societies), shared land, and greater gender equality, particularly in matrilineal systems.
• Perspective of the Marginalized: Zinn focuses on "bottom-up" history, centering the narrative on the experiences and voices of Native Americans rather than just the actions of white colonialists and policymakers.
• Focus on Resistance: Zinn highlights the continuous, persistent resistance of Native Americans to white settlement and "Manifest Destiny," ranging from armed conflicts to diplomatic efforts to retain their lands and cultures.
• "Indian Removal" as Destruction: Zinn paints the westward expansion of the United States as a series of forced removals and broken treaties that caused severe political, economic, and spiritual destruction, aiming to expose this as a national crime rather than progress.

Apparently the indians fought every f***ing group they ever came in contact with.