"Not So Peaceful": Good Video on Truth About the American Indians

mikegriffith1

Mike Griffith
Joined
Oct 23, 2012
Messages
7,393
Reaction score
4,480
Points
1,085
Location
Virginia
From time to time, we see threads that paint the American Indians as peaceful, blameless, innocent victims of broken promises, brutality, persecution, and even genocide at the hands of whites in the 18th and 19th centuries. As I've argued before, the truth of the matter is much more complicated than this simplistic liberal narrative. Far more Indians were killed by other Indians than were ever killed by whites, and there were plenty of times when the Indians were the ones who violated treaties with whites.

The other day I came across an informative, balanced video by Ken LaCorte titled Not So Peaceful: What They Don't Teach You About Native Americans. I've added a link to this video to my Custer's Last Stand website. LaCorte doesn't whitewash white crimes against Indians, but he provides much-needed balance by discussing the crimes of the Indians against fellow Indians and against whites. Here's the link to the video:

 
Last edited:
I always ask LIBs how did the Indians mark thier land and who did they buy it from !

They were in a constant state of war until the EURO's showed up...giving them a comon enemy.
 
Mike has never seen a genocide against a non-white people he wasn't all for.

Come on, guy, this was systematic genocide. It doesn't matter that SOME Amerindian Nations had savage practices. The peaceful tribes were slaughtered with as much glee as the warlike ones. Trail of Tears, anyone. My Cherokee Great-Grandmother would like to have a word.
 
Um, Scalping wasn't something that Native Americans did until White people paid them for scalps.
They were scalping before the white man showed up. But it did increase when they were paid. But hey do not worry about learning.
 

Indian Slavery and Indentured Servitude​

For many years before Latter-day Saint pioneers arrived in the Salt Lake Valley in 1847, American Indians in the region had trafficked women and children captured from rival groups. White American and European traders also acquired and sold American Indian captives as slaves or indentured servants, building a slave trade in the West.1 Within weeks of entering the valley, the Saints encountered Indian tribes who had captured children from other bands. Some Saints bought Indian children from these slave traders, in some instances after seeing the traders kill or torture those the Latter-day Saints did not purchase.2 Pioneer families adopted and attempted to integrate these children into Latter-day Saint communities, despite cultural differences and racial prejudice. Some exploited and mistreated these Indian children.

In March 1852 the legislature in Utah Territory passed “An Act for the Relief of Indian Slaves and Prisoners,” a law that regulated the acquisition and care of Indian children. The children could be indentured as household servants for up to 20 years, but those who acquired servants were required to process an indenture agreement with county officials, clothe the children “in a comfortable and becoming manner,” and provide them with education.3 Brigham Young considered the law a positive disruption to the Indian slave trade; instead of purchasing captives into slavery, Young believed Latter-day Saints would be “purchasing them into freedom.”4

Over 400 Indian children from Ute, Paiute, Goshute, Shoshone, and Navajo communities were taken into Latter-day Saint homes as indentured servants or adoptees between the passing of the 1852 law and the early 1880s.5 About 60 percent were purchased through trading with raiders. Some had been orphaned by violent conflicts between Indians and Latter-day Saints or other Euro-Americans. Nearly 20 percent were sold or given to Latter-day Saint families by parents or relatives, who did so largely out of economic necessity and in hopes for the children’s best interests. As indentured children grew to adulthood, many struggled to recall their families of origin, while others returned to Indian communities as adolescents or in early adulthood. Others remained in white communities, although they often felt marginalized. Yet others became missionaries and Church leaders as adults.6

Near the end of the American Civil War, the United States Congress passed the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which outlawed slavery and involuntary servitude. In the western United States, the practice of indenture persisted, but new federal laws reduced the number of new indentures. As the government enforced these laws and increasingly confined Indian nations to reservations, Utah’s indenture system diminished and by the late 1870s had largely ended.7

This is from the Mormons so take it with a grain of Salt Lake City. ;)

That said, there was a reason other than the obvious why the Mormons dressed as NAs for their Mountain meadows Massacre.

The area NAs were violent assholes.
 
Yeah, but when you try to pretend what happened to the Native Americans was anything OTHER than genocide, you kind of lose credibility.
And when you pretend that a lot of the Indian tribes would gladly have done the same to the whites and even those of other tribes you lose credibility
 
And when you pretend that a lot of the Indian tribes would gladly have done the same to the whites and even those of other tribes you lose credibility

Well, it's not genocide when you are fighting an invader, it's self-defense.

The fact is, the Native Americans might well have saved themselves by genociding the first bunch of white people who showed up. Instead, they helped them survive the winters. This is what we supposedly celebrate every year with Thanksgiving.

We leave out the part where a few years later, we stole their land and wiped them out, and just kept moving west.
 
From time to time, we see threads that paint the American Indians as peaceful, blameless, innocent victims of broken promises, brutality, persecution, and even genocide at the hands of whites in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Hey, Mikey, can we stop using the term "Indian", to start with? India is on the other side of the world, and Native Americans are not from "India".

Then again, I suspect that you probably still use words like "colored", "Negro" and "Oriental" to describe those who aren't white.

As I've argued before, the truth of the matter is much more complicated than this simplistic liberal narrative. Far more Indians were killed by other Indians than were ever killed by whites, and there were plenty of times when the Indians were the ones who violated treaties with whites.

Well, Mikey, we know you are always willing to excuse genocide of non-whites, like the Rape of Nanjing, but, no, what we did was systematic genocide.

Check this picture out.

1763035183310.webp


THis is a pile of Bison skulls. The US Government ordered the destruction of the American Bison to deprive the Plains Nations of their primary food source, hoping to even starve them out, or force them on to Reservations (which were the template for Hitler's concentration camps.)

(This is the part where Mikey starts whining with out-of-context comments I made about Weimar Politics, but never mind. He likes to pretend Weimar didn't happen and the Nazis just appeared one day.)

1763035627460.webp


And this guy was in charge of the whole Army. Yet there are statues of him all over the country.
 
Mike has never seen a genocide against a non-white people he wasn't all for.

Come on, guy, this was systematic genocide. It doesn't matter that SOME Amerindian Nations had savage practices. The peaceful tribes were slaughtered with as much glee as the warlike ones. Trail of Tears, anyone. My Cherokee Great-Grandmother would like to have a word.
The same people seem to live in a World of total denial about anything their Country did that was bad, what they get out of it i have no idea other than a sense of racist superiority.
 
The same people seem to live in a World of total denial about anything their Country did that was bad, what they get out of it i have no idea other than a sense of racist superiority.

There was an old story that the Plantation ladies could tell you who fathered the mullatos on all the neighboring plantations, but never their own.

America is very fast to scream about Hitler, or Stalin, or Mao being awful people who killed a lot of people, but they get oddly silent when they talk about how we nearly exterminated dozens of First Nations

Let's start with the obvious: the celebration of Columbus Day (something we need to end). America didn't exist until the first Europeans showed up. These people were all savages, and Europeans were proper and "civilized".

"Oh, those Aztecs are sacrificing people! We'd never do anything like that!"
"Um what about all those Heretics and Jews the Inquisition is burning?"
 
Mike has never seen a genocide against a non-white people he wasn't all for.

Come on, guy, this was systematic genocide. It doesn't matter that SOME Amerindian Nations had savage practices. The peaceful tribes were slaughtered with as much glee as the warlike ones. Trail of Tears, anyone. My Cherokee Great-Grandmother would like to have a word.
yes, trail of tears ...
 
From time to time, we see threads that paint the American Indians as peaceful, blameless, innocent victims

To be honest, yes, the Indians sported much violence in their social behavior, but remember too that the Indians were basically a neolithic stone age people.

The European settlers were about 10,000 years ahead of them on the social and technological spectrum.

So, it is a little disingenuous for anyone to directly compare Indian violence towards invaders and settler violence.
 
15th post
Well, it's not genocide when you are fighting an invader, it's self-defense.

The fact is, the Native Americans might well have saved themselves by genociding the first bunch of white people who showed up. Instead, they helped them survive the winters. This is what we supposedly celebrate every year with Thanksgiving.

We leave out the part where a few years later, we stole their land and wiped them out, and just kept moving west.
No they wouldn't have saved anything. The Europeans knew about the Americas and would have kept coming. The Amerindians took the least bad option. Things would have been far worse if the Spanish had colonized North America beyond Florida.
 
No they wouldn't have saved anything. The Europeans knew about the Americas and would have kept coming. The Amerindians took the least bad option. Things would have been far worse if the Spanish had colonized North America beyond Florida.

Would it have? Seems there are more people of color who survived in Latin America than Anglo-America.
 
Well, it's not genocide when you are fighting an invader, it's self-defense.

The fact is, the Native Americans might well have saved themselves by genociding the first bunch of white people who showed up. Instead, they helped them survive the winters. This is what we supposedly celebrate every year with Thanksgiving.

We leave out the part where a few years later, we stole their land and wiped them out, and just kept moving west.
So you refuse to believe that if they had possessed gunpowder and guns there probably would have been only one tribe when the first settlers had arrived. They may have wiped out every settler that set foot on this land.
 
So you refuse to believe that if they had possessed gunpowder and guns there probably would have been only one tribe when the first settlers had arrived. They may have wiped out every settler that set foot on this land.

I'd say that's fairly unlikely, given that Europeans had gunpowder and weapons for years and there were still multiple Nations to this very day.

The point was, initially, they welcomed the settlers. They could have let them all starve, but they instead often fed them at Plymouth and Jamestown.
 
Back
Top Bottom