Indians: Had Enough of the Mythology?

[PoliticalChic]

Mad_Cabbie
Dedicated to my pal, Mad Cabbie, who posted the following:

"I'm sorry, this aspect I do not agree with. [that the Indian's was a destructive culture.]

"Indians" brought AIDS here? How?

I seem to recall setters bring smallpox and other devastating illnesses with them to this country.

How about slavery? rampant crime?

Before the settlers, the rivers were full of fishes and air was clean.


Sorry, in my life experiences, the simpler cultures always seemed to share the more "civilized" attitudes.

It was often common bushmen, that "did the right thing" whenever given the chance."
Thus spake the Crazy Cabister!




And it was an excellent exposition of the insanity known as Liberalism!

It infuses the primitives who happened to inhabit, in a nomadic sort of way, North America, with a sanctified nature that they did not have, and a reputation that they did not deserve.
And attacks the folks who conquered the continent, and made it what it is!




Difficult though it may be...I accept the challenge; I will correct those misapprehensions!

1. "Indians" brought AIDS here? How?"
There is no way to fathom this inanity.....as far as I know, no one has claimed that 'Indians bought AIDS here.'

But this seems to be related, in a most tortuous way, as some sort of counter-charge, to the often quoted libel that the early settlers visited 'genocide' upon 'Native Americans.'

Never happened.


a. Genocide means deliberate and systematic. As described by the UN Convention, Article II, it involves “ a series of brutal acts committed with intent to destroy, …a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group as such.”

No such thing happened.

What did happen was the result of the Indian's lack of immunity to diseases that Europeans lived with for centuries. The spread was entirely inadvertent, but certainly tragic.


b. " However, the arrival of the white man precipitated what was probably the worst
demographic disaster in history. It was not warfare but disease which played the major part.The Indians had no resistance to tuberculosis, pneumonia, cholera, typhus, smallpox and other European ailments, with the result that their population declined by about 90 per cent between 1492 and 1650, disappearing altogether in some areas."
"Wild in Woods: The Myth of the Noble Eco-Savage,' by Robert Whelan, p.29-30





2. Let's review:
a. So....there is no claim that the Indians 'brought AIDS here,'
b.....but there is, also, no truth to any claim of genocide by the Europeans.

And, if you believe otherwise, you must believe that:
".... the Black Death ....[which] killed 30–60% of Europe's total population.[7]In total, the plague reduced the world populationfrom an estimated 450 million down to 350–375 million in the 14th century..."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Death.


..was genocide by planned and carried out by Africans, as the origin of the Bubonic Plague, visited upon innocent Europeans. .was in North Africa.


So much for the first charge: stay tuned- in the next chapter: How the Native Americans got even!

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

Thanks for the "mad" props, gal!

As a Commie, Muslim, Marxist who is bent on destroying America, I must say that your posts give me the perfect opportunity to attack conservatism HEAD ON!

I and my constituents, will not rest until animals pull their human pets around on leashes and toilet paper is replaced with good old dry leaves (hey, I can dream....).

I do not necessarily hold to the notion that native Americans were guiltless saints who could do no wrong, but genocide? Absolutely; to the point where there no longer are full-blooded natives left.

Did the US re-nig on just about any treaty that they ever agreed to? Of course they did.

Does that mean we should give it back? Hell no. We did what we did, but don't expect me to buy into the "poor hapless settlers" or "those godless heathen Injun's."

 

[Pogo]

[
a. Genocide means deliberate and systematic. As described by the UN Convention, Article II, it involves “ a series of brutal acts committed with intent to destroy, …a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group as such.”

No such thing happened.

What did happen was the result of the Indian's lack of immunity to diseases that Europeans lived with for centuries. The spread was entirely inadvertent, but certainly tragic.

Apparently PC has never heard of Jeffrey Amherst.

If only there were some kind of, I dunno "internet" or "history book" where one could research this shit and not look like an idiot...

 

[Roadrunner]

Thanks for the "mad" props, gal!

As a Commie, Muslim, Marxist who is bent on destroying America, I must say that your posts give me the perfect opportunity to attack conservatism HEAD ON!

I and my constituents, will not rest until animals pull their human pets around on leashes and toilet paper is replaced with good old dry leaves (hey, I can dream....).

I do not necessarily hold to the notion that native Americans were guiltless saints who could do no wrong, but genocide? Absolutely; to the point where there no longer are full-blooded natives left.

Did the US re-nig on just about any treaty that they ever agreed to? Of course they did.

Does that mean we should give it back? Hell no. We did what we did, but don't expect me to buy into the "poor hapless settlers" or "those godless heathen Injun's."

They routinely tortured and even ate their enemies.

Most on East Coast were dead from disease the ill-fated Desoto expedition left behind before the English even got here.

Shit happens.

It was called the "Columbian Exchange"; plants, animals and diseases went both ways.

We got corn, they got smallpox.

We gave them pigs, we got syphilis.

Just happened that way.

That said, had the Spanish not found them sacrificing enemies and piling up skulls by the tens of thousands, it might have gone down differently.

If the Earlier Arrivals had had any solidarity, they might have presented a united front against whites.

Being more concerned with getting help against their enemies, they prostituted themselves to the Spanish to get "that tribe over the ridge".

It's all over and done with anyway; I always wonder about "Lo, the poor Indian" threads.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Thanks for the "mad" props, gal!

As a Commie, Muslim, Marxist who is bent on destroying America, I must say that your posts give me the perfect opportunity to attack conservatism HEAD ON!

I and my constituents, will not rest until animals pull their human pets around on leashes and toilet paper is replaced with good old dry leaves (hey, I can dream....).

I do not necessarily hold to the notion that native Americans were guiltless saints who could do no wrong, but genocide? Absolutely; to the point where there no longer are full-blooded natives left.

Did the US re-nig on just about any treaty that they ever agreed to? Of course they did.

Does that mean we should give it back? Hell no. We did what we did, but don't expect me to buy into the "poor hapless settlers" or "those godless heathen Injun's."

1. "I do not necessarily hold to the notion that native Americans were guiltless saints who could do no wrong, but genocide? Absolutely; to the point where there no longer are full-blooded natives left."


As a Commie, Muslim, Marxist who is bent on destroying America, most of you lack the ability to use words with precision...as I do....or, as in this case, you use words to alter the reality.


There is a definition of genocide, and this is not it: "...genocide? Absolutely; to the point where there no longer are full-blooded natives left."

The only question is, is it a lie of omission, or one of commission.

'Fess up: do you know that you are lying?



2."I do not necessarily hold to the notion that native Americans were guiltless saints..."
a. They were not 'Native"....merely a little earlier than the European settlers.
Ever hear of the Bering Straits?

b. Now you have retreated from your earlier descriptions of said Indians....but I have no intention of altering my thesis....and, today and tomorrow, I will provide the education you are so sorely lacking.



Keep that meter running, Cabbie!

More to come!

 

[Roadrunner]

Thanks for the "mad" props, gal!

As a Commie, Muslim, Marxist who is bent on destroying America, I must say that your posts give me the perfect opportunity to attack conservatism HEAD ON!

I and my constituents, will not rest until animals pull their human pets around on leashes and toilet paper is replaced with good old dry leaves (hey, I can dream....).

I do not necessarily hold to the notion that native Americans were guiltless saints who could do no wrong, but genocide? Absolutely; to the point where there no longer are full-blooded natives left.

Did the US re-nig on just about any treaty that they ever agreed to? Of course they did.

Does that mean we should give it back? Hell no. We did what we did, but don't expect me to buy into the "poor hapless settlers" or "those godless heathen Injun's."

1. "I do not necessarily hold to the notion that native Americans were guiltless saints who could do no wrong, but genocide? Absolutely; to the point where there no longer are full-blooded natives left."


As a Commie, Muslim, Marxist who is bent on destroying America, most of you lack the ability to use words with precision...as I do....or, as in this case, you use words to alter the reality.


There is a definition of genocide, and this is not it: "...genocide? Absolutely; to the point where there no longer are full-blooded natives left."

The only question is, is it a lie of omission, or one of commission.

'Fess up: do you know that you are lying?



2."I do not necessarily hold to the notion that native Americans were guiltless saints..."
a. They were not 'Native"....merely a little earlier than the European settlers.
Ever hear of the Bering Straits?

b. Now you have retreated from your earlier descriptions of said Indians....but I have no intention of altering my thesis....and, today and tomorrow, I will provide the education you are so sorely lacking.



Keep that meter running, Cabbie!

More to come!

DNA tests on yet to be found bones will prove Europeans came to Florida and Africans came to South America before the genocidal Asiatic hordes crossed the Bering Strait.

Bones are hard to find, because the people got eaten.

 

[PoliticalChic]

[
a. Genocide means deliberate and systematic. As described by the UN Convention, Article II, it involves “ a series of brutal acts committed with intent to destroy, …a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group as such.”

No such thing happened.

What did happen was the result of the Indian's lack of immunity to diseases that Europeans lived with for centuries. The spread was entirely inadvertent, but certainly tragic.

Apparently PC has never heard of Jeffrey Amherst.

Apparently you are not educated to the the Amherst myth.

As a conservative is never so tall as when she stoops to educate a Liberal...I will do just that....take notes:


There is the often repeated story of Lord Jeffrey Amherst ordering the distribution of smallpox-infected blankets to the Indians, as an example of ‘germ warfare’ used by Europeans.The story is not documented, except as a ‘possibility.’
See the study of Professor d’Errico:

Historian Francis Parkman, in his book "The Conspiracy of Pontiac and the Indian War after the Conquest of Canada," [Boston: Little, Brown, 1886] refers to a post script in an earlier letter from Amherst to Bouquet wondering whether smallpox could not be spread among the Indians:

“Could it not be contrived to send theSmall Pox among those disaffected tribes of Indians? We must on this occasion use every stratagem in our power to reduce them”. [Vol. II, p. 39 (6th edition)]


I have not found this letter,but there is a letter from Bouquet to Amherst, dated 23 June 1763, three weeks before the discussion of blankets to the Indians, stating that Captain Ecuyer at Fort Pitt (to which Bouquet would be heading with reinforcements) has reported smallpox in the Fort. This indicates at least that the writers knew the plan could be carried out.

It is curious that the specific plans to spread smallpox were relegated to postscripts.

"Some people have doubted these stories; other people, believing the stories, nevertheless assert that the infected blankets were not intentionally distributed to the Indians, or that Lord Jeff himself is not to blame for the germ warfare tactic."
Amherst and Smallpox



Did you get that?

"...I have not found this letter,..."

It does not exist....it is a made-up tale found useful by Liberals to paint a dark picture of Americans.


Liberals do so all the time.
There was Emory University Professor
Michael Bellesiles’ "Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun
Culture (Knopf, 2000)" in which he attacked the 2nd amendment, claiming that colonials had no guns.

It was a fraud....he was fired....made it up.....just as the Amherst tale is made up.



Wait....did you write: "If only there were some kind of, I dunno "internet" or "history book" where one could research this shit and not look like an idiot..."

Priceless.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

I'm no liar, hate to disappoint you.

Yes, it was genocide, just not by your definition.

They did it too? Oy, this will take a while....

 

[Pogo]

A Jeffrey Amherst Denier

I suppose it was only a matter of time. Ministry of Truth and all that.
Want to try again with Columbus and the Arawaks? That's documented too...

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

PC, we were just swell to the Indians.

We never did anything to them -- they killed themselves off.

 

[Camp]

history.org/Foundation/journal/Spring04/warfare.cfm

Here is what these guys have to say about the topic of germ warfare during the period being discussed.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'm no liar, hate to disappoint you.

I'm no liar, hate to disappoint you.

They did it too? Oy, this will take a while....

1. "I'm no liar, hate to disappoint you."
Of course I'm not disappointed: I hate liars.
Sadly the choice was 'liar' or 'stupid.'
Uh, oh!

2. "I'm no liar, hate to disappoint you."
Wrong.
I

I'm no liar, hate to disappoint you.

Yes, it was genocide, just not by your definition.

They did it too? Oy, this will take a while....

1. "I'm no liar, hate to disappoint you."
Of course I'm not disappointed: I hate liars.
Sadly the choice was 'liar' or 'stupid.'
Uh, oh!


2." Yes, it was genocide, just not by your definition."
Wrong.
a. It wasn't 'genocide.'
b. As I stated...it is not MY definition....it is the internationally accepted definition.


3." They did it too? Oy, this will take a while."

So....you are ready to claim that the Black Plague was "genocide"?
"Deaths due to Bubonic Plague: 75 million to 200 million in the 14th century alone."
The Death Toll Comparison Breakdown Wait But Why

That would pretty much identify you as a dope, wouldn't it.


There is no doubt that exploration and habitation by Europeans resulted in huge number of Indian deaths, caused by diseases to which they had no resistance.


But it is a lie...a politically determined fabrication....to claim that it was planned or even anticipated in any way.



Of course, if one is insistent upon excoriating the explorers and the settlers for infecting natives, remember the gift that the Native Americans accorded the Europeans, and the world in general: Treponema pallidum.




3. "The exact origin of syphilis is disputed.[4]Syphilis was indisputably present in the Americas before European contact. The dispute is over whether or not syphilis was also present elsewhere in the world at that time. One of the two primary hypotheses proposes that syphilis was carried from the Americas to Europe by the returning crewmen from Christopher Columbus's voyage to the Americas. The other hypothesis says that syphilis existed in Europe previously, but went unrecognized until shortly after Columbus' return. These are referred to as the Columbian and pre-Columbian hypotheses, respectively.[15]


The Columbian hypothesis is best supported by the available evidence.[35][36]


The first written records of an outbreak of syphilis in Europe occurred in 1494 or 1495 in Naples, Italy, during a French invasion (Italian War of 1494–98).[13][15]Due to its being spread by returning French troops, it was initially known as the "French disease."[citation needed]In 1530, the name "syphilis" was first used by the Italian physician and poetGirolamo Fracastoroas the title of hisLatinpoem in dactylic hexameter describing the ravages of the disease in Italy.[37]It was also known historically as the "Great Pox".[38][39]"
Syphilis - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



a. "Skeletal evidence that reputedly showed signs of syphilis in Europe and other parts of the Old World before Christopher Columbus made his voyage in 1492 does not hold up when subjected to standardized analyses for diagnosis and dating, according to an appraisal in the current Yearbook of Physical Anthropology. This is the first time that all 54 previously published cases have been evaluated systematically, and bolsters the case that syphilis came from the New World."
History of syphilis - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


b. " Syphilis reached epidemic proportions in 1495 amongst French soldiers waging war in Naples. Within two years the disease was known the world over. The disease struck humankind as something completely new, and incredibly devastating." 4.1 Famous Diseases in History


c. "Untreated, it has a mortality of 8% to 58%, with a greater death rate in males.[4]The symptoms of syphilis have become less severe over the 19th and 20th centuries, in part due to widespread availability of effective treatment and partly due to decreasingvirulenceof the spirochaete.[9]With early treatment, few complications result.[8]Syphilis increases the risk of HIV transmission by two to five times, and coinfection is common (30–60% in a number of urban centers).[4][5]"
Syphilis - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



So....by Liberal logic, those dastardly Indians planned and carried out this "genocide" of infecting the world with syphilis.


That's your belief?

Speak up!

 

[PoliticalChic]

A Jeffrey Amherst Denier

I suppose it was only a matter of time. Ministry of Truth and all that.
Want to try again with Columbus and the Arawaks? That's documented too...

Denier????

I just provided prof of two things: my statement, and....that you are a fool.

The only thing "documented" is that you've been proven to be a dope.

I loved smashing that custard pie in your kisser!

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC, we were just swell to the Indians.

We never did anything to them -- they killed themselves off.

Don't rush me!

Like the mills of the gods, I grind slowly, but exceedingly fine.

And I always give 100%....except when I'm donating blood.

I'm gonna take the Liberal wall of propaganda apart.....brick by brick.

 

[PoliticalChic]

history.org/Foundation/journal/Spring04/warfare.cfm

Here is what these guys have to say about the topic of germ warfare during the period being discussed.

By now you should have realized that I'm never wrong.

Gill's work is based on the lies of Francis Parkman.

" At that moment, the "new Indian history" that has revolutionized early American scholarship was just coming into its own, and its most vociferous advocate, Francis Jennings, dealt Parkman a death blow in a critical essay published in 1985. Two years earlier, the Library of America had unearthed Parkman's writings from the seventeen volumes of the nineteenth-century Frontenac edition and re-embalmed them in a new two-volume set, weighing in at over three thousand pages. Jennings countered the canonical authority of the Library of America imprimatur with an assault on Parkman's much vaunted historical accuracy—"his 'facts' cannot be relied on and are sometimes fabricated"—and on the assumptions, biases, and outright prejudices that "poisoned" his approach to the past."
Common-place How and Why to Read Francis Parkman

 

[Camp]

history.org/Foundation/journal/Spring04/warfare.cfm

Here is what these guys have to say about the topic of germ warfare during the period being discussed.

By now you should have realized that I'm never wrong.

Gill's work is based on the lies of Francis Parkman.

" At that moment, the "new Indian history" that has revolutionized early American scholarship was just coming into its own, and its most vociferous advocate, Francis Jennings, dealt Parkman a death blow in a critical essay published in 1985. Two years earlier, the Library of America had unearthed Parkman's writings from the seventeen volumes of the nineteenth-century Frontenac edition and re-embalmed them in a new two-volume set, weighing in at over three thousand pages. Jennings countered the canonical authority of the Library of America imprimatur with an assault on Parkman's much vaunted historical accuracy—"his 'facts' cannot be relied on and are sometimes fabricated"—and on the assumptions, biases, and outright prejudices that "poisoned" his approach to the past."
Common-place How and Why to Read Francis Parkman

Actually, your nutty theses are almost always exposed as nutty within the first few pages of the thread. Usually for the same reason this one is being shown to be nutty. You are taking both Gill's and Jennings's writings out of context and cherry picking quotes to fit your agenda, while ignoring the fuller content and conclusions of the authors. Gill is giving an overall view of germ warfare during the colonial period that allows the reader to make their own conclusions about Parkman's assessment of the Fort Pitt incident. Jennings challenged Parkman's conclusions 30 years ago in an essay, but Parkman's conclusions are still generally used and accepted today by historians.

 

[PoliticalChic]

history.org/Foundation/journal/Spring04/warfare.cfm

Here is what these guys have to say about the topic of germ warfare during the period being discussed.

By now you should have realized that I'm never wrong.

Gill's work is based on the lies of Francis Parkman.

" At that moment, the "new Indian history" that has revolutionized early American scholarship was just coming into its own, and its most vociferous advocate, Francis Jennings, dealt Parkman a death blow in a critical essay published in 1985. Two years earlier, the Library of America had unearthed Parkman's writings from the seventeen volumes of the nineteenth-century Frontenac edition and re-embalmed them in a new two-volume set, weighing in at over three thousand pages. Jennings countered the canonical authority of the Library of America imprimatur with an assault on Parkman's much vaunted historical accuracy—"his 'facts' cannot be relied on and are sometimes fabricated"—and on the assumptions, biases, and outright prejudices that "poisoned" his approach to the past."
Common-place How and Why to Read Francis Parkman

Actually, your nutty theses are almost always exposed as nutty within the first few pages of the thread. Usually for the same reason this one is being shown to be nutty. You are taking both Gill's and Jennings's writings out of context and cherry picking quotes to fit your agenda, while ignoring the fuller content and conclusions of the authors. Gill is giving an overall view of germ warfare during the colonial period that allows the reader to make their own conclusions about Parkman's assessment of the Fort Pitt incident. Jennings challenged Parkman's conclusions 30 years ago in an essay, but Parkman's conclusions are still generally used and accepted today by historians.

How simple is it to prove you to be a moron?

This simple: Parkman himself says he couldn't find the supposed letter that proves the slander.....but goes on to make the fabricated argument.

So...what sort of moron accepts and advances the lie????

Raise your paw.

 

[PoliticalChic]

OK....enough chit-chat: back to job one- dismantling the nonsense that Cabbie believes about the imaginary 'Noble Savages.'


4. Now, the peripatetic one, who started this brawl, carried on about Europeans introducing slavery: "How about slavery?"


Another sign of both a lack of education, and a child-like willingness to infer a nobility, i.e., "the Noble Savage," that did not exist.


a. " Black slavery in America usually evokes images of the antebellum South, but few realize that members of the Five Civilized Tribes--the Cherokees, Choctaws, Chickasaws, Creeks, and Seminoles--in Indian Territory, today's Oklahoma, also had slaves. Like their counterparts in the South, Indian slaveholders feared slave revolts. Those fears came true in 1842 when slaves in the Cherokee Nation made a daring dash for freedom.

By 1860, the Cherokees had 4,600 slaves; the Choctaws, 2,344; the Creeks, 1,532; the Chickasaws, 975; and the Seminoles, 500. Some Indian slave owners were as harsh and cruel as any white slave master. Indians were often hired to catch runaway slaves; in fact, slave-catching was a lucrative way of life for some Indians, especially the Chickasaws." SLAVE REVOLT OF 1842





5. But....but...the Indians were so 'noble'.... did they begin slavery because they learned it from those mean-spirited whites???

Hardly.

a. "Some Native American tribes held war captives as slaves prior to and during European colonization, some Native Americans were captured and sold by others into slavery to Europeans, .... Many Native American tribes practiced some form of slavery before the European introduction of African slavery into North America; but none exploited slave labor on a large scale.[2]

Native American groups often enslaved war captives whom they primarily used for small-scale labor.[2]Some, however, were used in ritual sacrifice.[2]While little is known, there is little evidence that the slaveholders considered the slaves as racially inferior; they came from other Native American tribes and were casualties of war.[2]" Slavery among Native Americans in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



b. August 30, 1813 The Fort Mims Massacre. ( Baldwin County, Alabama) Fort Mims was a simple stockade in which about 550 white civilians and mixed-blood Creeks and 120 militiamen and about 300 slaves took refuge from a thousand Red Stick Creeks commanded by Red Eagle (William Weatherford, who had chosen his mother’s family over his father’s) and another part-Indian named Paddy Welsh, systematically butchered the White inhabitants: White children had their brains splattered against the fort’s stockade, pregnant women were sliced open and their fetuses ripped from their wombs, and over 250 scalps taken. The blacks were spared to become slaves to the attackers.
Fort Mims-Brutal Massacre During the Creek War




" The blacks were spared to become...." What????


So....slavery was not brought to the Indians by the whites.

One more charge eradicated.


Bearing up, Cabbie???

 

[PoliticalChic]

6. At the heart of the beliefs of our gullible colleagues is the image of Indians in the mold of Hiawatha, of Longfellow's epic poem....the noble, fearless hunter, who made bonds with all the animals of the forest, and maintained nature as he found it.....

This version, from the less than astute Cabette: "Before the settlers, the rivers were full of fishes and air was clean."

The myth of the Noble Savage, i.e., one who understood nature and lived in harmony with Mother Earth.


Puhhhleeeeezzzzzzze!


a. Let's start with the fastest way to destroy natural surroundings... forest fires: how many times have we heard that such a destructive attitude towards the environment is the product of Western man’s alienation from nature?

American Indians were forest-burners par excellence:it was not the forests which impressed the early settlers but the absence of them.

Thomas Morton, a Puritan, wrote in 1637:

"...the Savages are accustomed to set fire of the Country in all places where they come, and to burne it twize a year, vixe at the Spring, and the fall of the leafe. The reason that mooves them to doe so, is because it would other wise be a coppice wood, and the people would not be able in any wise to passe through the Country out of a beaten path."
Morton, T., "New English Canaan: or, New Canaan, 1637," rpt. pp.52-4, quoted in Chase, " Playing God in Yellowstone: The Destruction of America's First National Park," p. 94.


b. They hated the forests...they burned them down so they could see the animals they hunted. " Once the forests have been burnt, however, and the land transformed to grasslands and savannah, these desirable species become available. The species which the Indians most wanted to hunt, like bison, moose, elk and deer, are found most easily in areas of recently burnt forest, which is why they burnt the forests over and over again."
Chase, Op. Cit.

OK....so....Hiawatha exists only in your fevered imagination.




I have given some thought to why we often see the refusal by the Left to accept reality.... and I think we need to consider the origins of left-wing theology to understand same. Georges Sorel, " His notion of the power of myth in people's lives inspired Marxists and Fascists, it is, together with his defense of violence, the contribution for which he is most often remembered."
Georges Sorel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Considered a father of syndicalism, early socialism, fascism and progressivism, his contribution was the idea of the believable, motivational lie, or myth.
The "Noble Savage" concept is true if it validates the idea that the Founders, and early colonists were terrible people, and only ceases to be true when it no longer serves that limitless purpose.

 

[Ravi]

Difference being that Native Americans didn't enslave people based on race.