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

[JoeB131]

I’m thinking you are some kind of establishment bot. You often post criticism of the establishment and recognize the injustice committed by our government now and historically. Then like here, you post establishment narratives.

WAF

The US did good in WWII. We also did a lot of good after the war, as the millions of people who didn't starve can attest.

I'll criticize American when it deserves to be criticized, and praise it when it deserves to be praised.

 

[JoeB131]

especially not WW one

I disagree.

Germany was acting like an international outlaw in WWI. After repeatedly promising not to murder people on the high seas, they engaged in unrestricted submarine warfare on the premise that they could defeat the UK and France before the US could fully mobilize.

They took a calculated gamble and they lost. (And by they, I mean Ludendorf and Hindenberg, many of the civilian leaders in Germany KNEW this was a terrible idea.)

 

[Zebra]

especially not WW one

I still think so

 

[JoeB131]

I still think so

you are entitled to your opinion.

But at the time, the world was horrified and shocked by submarine warfare. Germany insisted on continuing it against international outcry.

 

[gipper]

The US did good in WWII. We also did a lot of good after the war, as the millions of people who didn't starve can attest.

I'll criticize American when it deserves to be criticized, and praise it when it deserves to be praised.

Yeah we gave half of Europe to the most ruthless murderous dictator. So we took out one dictator to make another more powerful. Good job.

We mass murdered hundreds of thousands of civilians in Germany and Japan, and destroyed Europe. Good job.

The result was the US became an empire. Leading to non-stop wars, coups, imperialism, sanctions, debt, death & destruction, etc.

Here is a good column to help you relieve yourself of the establishment statist narrative brainwashing you incurred in grade school and refuse to overcome.
The Myth of Post-World War 2 Allied Success

 

[JoeB131]

Yeah we gave half of Europe to the most ruthless murderous dictator. So we took out one dictator to make another more powerful. Good job.

We didn't give it to him, he took it at the cost of great blood. (NOt that the six countries he took comprised "half" of Europe, and five of them were Axis collaborators, so I can't work up a lot of sympathy)

We mass murdered hundreds of thousands of civilians in Germany and Japan, and destroyed Europe. Good job.

And the Axis was killing MILLIONS in Russia and China. So putting a stop to that WAS a good job.

The result was the US became an empire. Leading to non-stop wars, coups, imperialism, sanctions, debt, death & destruction, etc.

We were an empire before that. Just ask the Filipinos.

Here is a good column to help you relieve yourself of the establishment statist narrative brainwashing you incurred in grade school and refuse to overcome.

This guy thinks the GI Bill and Health Care programs were terrible?

 

[gipper]

We didn't give it to him, he took it at the cost of great blood. (NOt that the six countries he took comprised "half" of Europe, and five of them were Axis collaborators, so I can't work up a lot of sympathy)


And the Axis was killing MILLIONS in Russia and China. So putting a stop to that WAS a good job.



We were an empire before that. Just ask the Filipinos.


This guy thinks the GI Bill and Health Care programs were terrible?

What you’ll never understand is WWII never should have happened. Had it been limited to USSR and Germany, it would have been a win-win for the world.

You’ll never understand that Churchill and FDR WANTED WAR. Churchill loved war and hated Germany. So, he went to war because his Zionist donors told him to. FDR wanted war because his New Deal policies were a total failure and he needed to save his political career.

It was a scam, like most wars.

The UK lost its empire and the US gained empire, but lost so much more domestically. No longer was non-interventionists policies advocated, as the Founders demanded. Debt and death exploded. Great job?

You ignorantly point to the GI Bill, one tiny point made by the author in a large column. As he made clear and you fail to comprehend, his point was government intervention into college education lead to higher costs we have today.

Where is the Joe who often posts opposing war and condemning government corruption?

 

[JoeB131]

What you’ll never understand is WWII never should have happened. Had it been limited to USSR and Germany, it would have been a win-win for the world.

WW2 was going on for two years before Germany and the USSR Started fighting. This is covered in basic history class. Japan was invading China since 1937.

 

[gipper]

WW2 was going on for two years before Germany and the USSR Started fighting. This is covered in basic history class. Japan was invading China since 1937.

Lol. Deflection and dishonesty is all you’ve got.

 

[JoeB131]

Lol. Deflection and dishonesty is all you’ve got.

Your argument is that we should have left WWII as a fight between the USSR and Nazi Germany, forgetting that Germany had attacked or invaded a dozen other countries before it even started with the USSR. (And forgetting about the Pacific Theater altogether.)

seems you don't really understand the topic.

 

[The Irish Ram]

How one of my ancestors met his end:

The Story of Colonel William Crawford

• The Expedition: In May 1782, Crawford led about 500 Pennsylvania militiamen on an expedition into the Ohio Country to destroy Native American towns along the Sandusky River and end their raids on American settlements.
• The Capture: The Indigenous groups and their British allies learned of the expedition and gathered a force to oppose the Americans. After an indecisive battle near modern-day Upper Sandusky, Ohio, the American forces were surrounded and retreated in disarray. Colonel Crawford became separated from the main body of his men and was captured by a group of Delawares (Lenape) on June 7, 1782.
• The Torture and Death:Crawford's capture and subsequent torture were carried out in retaliation for the Gnadenhütten massacre, which occurred earlier in March 1782, where American militiamen brutally murdered 96 peaceful, unarmed Christian Delawares, mostly women and children.
  • Crawford was taken to a Delaware town on Tymochtee Creek (near present-day Crawford, Ohio), where he was stripped naked, beaten, and had his face painted black, the traditional sign for execution.
  • He was tied to a post and tortured for at least two hours, with his ears cut off and burning pieces of wood poked at his body.
  • Crawford begged Simon Girty, a Loyalist interpreter and former acquaintance, to shoot him and end his suffering, but Girty either would not or dared not interfere.
  • After hours of torment, Crawford fell unconscious, was scalped, and hot coals were poured over his head. He eventually died, and his body was burned at the stake.
  
  Crawford went back to find his nephew when he was captured. He was tied to a stake and had to walk in a circle around the stake on ground that was covered with hot coals. When ever he fell, they would shoot him with buck shot to get him up and walking. His body was completely black from the shot. He walked until he had no feet left.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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:

A People's History of the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Columbus to independence​

[edit]
Chapter 1, "Columbus, the Indians, and Human Progress" covers early Native American civilization in North America and the Bahamas, the enslavement committed by the crew of Christopher Columbus (whom Zinn accused of genocide), and incidents of violent colonization by early settlers. Instead of restating the same history that has been presented for centuries, Zinn states that he prefers to tell history from the perspective of the Arawaks, which many people are not familiar with. He describes the purpose of Columbus' expedition and his brutality towards the natives after his arrival. Not only does he use firsthand account of witnesses to Columbus' presence in the islands, he also provides statistics of native casualties to present this different side of history. Topics include the Arawaks, Bartolomé de las Casas, the Aztecs, Hernán Cortés, Pizarro, Powhatan, the Pequot, the Narragansett, Metacom, King Philip's War, and the Iroquois.

 

[gipper]

Your argument is that we should have left WWII as a fight between the USSR and Nazi Germany, forgetting that Germany had attacked or invaded a dozen other countries before it even started with the USSR. (And forgetting about the Pacific Theater altogether.)

seems you don't really understand the topic.

No. Your argument is the US did great things during and after WWII. Nothing could be more ignorant.

Had France and GB not declared war on Germany after it invaded Poland, after months of trying to get the Danzig peacefully returned to Germany, the world war might have been avoided.

Learn history before posting and find the real Joe.

 

[JoeB131]

Had France and GB not declared war on Germany after it invaded Poland, after months of trying to get the Danzig peacefully returned to Germany, the world war might have been avoided.

Learn history before posting and find the real Joe.

Um, I think you are a little confused.

The British and French backed Poland's refusal to territory. (Danzig itself wasn't an issue, it was an independent state).

Agreeing to more territorial concessions was probably foolish after Hitler broke every agreement he made at Munich.

 

[gipper]

Um, I think you are a little confused.

The British and French backed Poland's refusal to territory. (Danzig itself wasn't an issue, it was an independent state).

Agreeing to more territorial concessions was probably foolish after Hitler broke every agreement he made at Munich.

Yeah it would be foolish to avoid a war that claimed the lives of millions and destroyed vast areas of the world. Only a statist dumb ass says such things.

Hitler tried repeatedly to get Poland to return lands historically German. Poland refused to even negotiate because FDR and Churchill said don’t negotiate. They wanted war.

Then they happily gave Poland to the world’s worst dictator. You think that’s great.

Anyone who’s really researched Hitler knows he never wanted war with France and the UK. His designs were always on the USSR. We should have left those two to fight it out and avoided the disaster that was WWII and the decades of Cold War, and the harm resulting to Americans.

 

[JoeB131]

Yeah it would be foolish to avoid a war that claimed the lives of millions and destroyed vast areas of the world. Only a statist dumb ass says such things.

Hitler tried repeatedly to get Poland to return lands historically German. Poland refused to even negotiate because FDR and Churchill said don’t negotiate. They wanted war.

The lands Hitler wanted had almost no Germans living on them. The areas with few Poles were actually the areas the Russians took as their part of the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact. Germans made up 2.3% of Poland's population.

With the Sudetenland Hitler almost had a valid claim. There were three million Ethnic Germans living there.

The main reason why the Allies (not including the US, we weren't really involved) told Poland to stand fast was because Hitler had already betrayed them when he completely dismembered Czechoslovakia.

Then they happily gave Poland to the world’s worst dictator. You think that’s great.

Anyone who’s really researched Hitler knows he never wanted war with France and the UK. His designs were always on the USSR. We should have left those two to fight it out and avoided the disaster that was WWII and the decades of Cold War, and the harm resulting to Americans.

Actually, if you read Mein Kampf, Hitler always wanted a reckoning with France. (In fact, Von Ribbentrop and other diplomats spent a lot of time downplaying Mein Kampf. Come on, the man spent four years fighting the French and was grievously injured by them.

Now, one could argue that Hitler was perfectly fine with the British Empire controlling Africa and the Middle East while he controlled Europe, Japan controlled Asia, and the US controlled the Americas. (In fact, Pat Buchanan made this very theory in "A Republic, not an Empire". But this all involved trusting Hitler.

who you know, was... Literally Hitler.

 

[gipper]

The lands Hitler wanted had almost no Germans living on them. The areas with few Poles were actually the areas the Russians took as their part of the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact. Germans made up 2.3% of Poland's population.

View attachment 1185099

With the Sudetenland Hitler almost had a valid claim. There were three million Ethnic Germans living there.

The main reason why the Allies (not including the US, we weren't really involved) told Poland to stand fast was because Hitler had already betrayed them when he completely dismembered Czechoslovakia.



Actually, if you read Mein Kampf, Hitler always wanted a reckoning with France. (In fact, Von Ribbentrop and other diplomats spent a lot of time downplaying Mein Kampf. Come on, the man spent four years fighting the French and was grievously injured by them.

Now, one could argue that Hitler was perfectly fine with the British Empire controlling Africa and the Middle East while he controlled Europe, Japan controlled Asia, and the US controlled the Americas. (In fact, Pat Buchanan made this very theory in "A Republic, not an Empire". But this all involved trusting Hitler.

who you know, was... Literally Hitler.

One thing most people who study history learn very quickly, is the establishment narrative is almost always wrong. So, learn history fully before posting is my advice to you.

As I stated above, Hitler had no designs on Western Europe. He admired the British Empire and told them so. He tried numerous times to achieve peace with Britain to no avail, thanks the deceit by Churchill and FDR.

However let’s not get bogged down here. We need to stick with debating your main point. That WWII was a good war with resulting good consequences for the US. Nothing could be more ignorant.

Murray Rothbard and World War II Origins​

…
The last step in the alleged master-plan was the invasion of Poland, but once again Hitler had moderate goals until the Polish government forced his hand: “[Polish Foreign Minister Josef]Beck, though initially allied with Germany, elected to stand alone, a Great Power, triumphantly defiant of both Germany and Russia, taking a resolutely ‘tough,’ firm line against anybody and everybody. And as a direct result, Poland was destroyed. Hitler’s “demands” on the Poles were almost non-existent; as Taylor points out, the Weimar Republic would have scorned the terms as a sell-out of vital German interests. Hitler at most wanted a ‘corridor through the Corridor’ and the return of heavily-German (and pro-German) Danzig; in return for which he would guarantee the rest. Poland resolutely refused to yield ‘one inch of Polish soil,”’ and refused even to negotiate with the Germans, and this down to the last minute. And yet, even with the Anglo-French guarantee, Beck clearly knew that Britain and France could not actually save Poland from attack. He relied to the end on those great shibboleths of all ‘hard-liners’ everywhere: X is ‘bluffing’; X will back down if met by toughness, resolution, and the resolve not to give an inch. As Taylor shows, Hitler had originally not the slightest intention to invade or conquer Poland; instead, Danzig and other minor rectifications would be gotten out of the way, and then Poland would be a comfortable ally, perhaps for an eventual invasion of Soviet Russia. But Beck’s irrational toughness blocked the path.”


British historian A.J. P. Taylor in 1961, The Origins of the Second World War. In a memo written for the Volker Fund, he said: “The central theme of Taylor is simply this: Germany and Hitler were not uniquely guilty of launching World War II (indeed they were scarcely guilty at all); Hitler was not bent on world conquest, for which he had armed Germany to the teeth and constructed a ‘timetable.’ Hitler, in brief, (in foreign affairs) was not a uniquely evil monster or daimon, who would continue to gobble up countries diabolically until stopped by superior force. Hitler was a rational German statesman, pursuing — with considerable intuitive insight — a traditional, post-Versailles German policy (to which we might add intimations of desires to expand eastward in an attack on Bolshevism). But basically, Hitler has no ‘master plan’; he was a German intent, like all Germans, on revising the intolerable and stupid Versailles-diktat, and on doing so by peaceful means, and in collaboration with the British and French. One thing is sure: Hitler had no designs, no plans, not even vague intimations, to expand westward against Britain and France (let alone the United States). Hitler admired the British Empire and wished to collaborate with it. Not only did Hitler do this with insight, he did it with patience, as Taylor excellently shows; the legend (that perhaps all of us have accepted in one degree or another), is that Hitler annoyingly created one European crisis after another, in the late 1930s, proceeding hungrily onward from one victory to another; actually, the crises naturally arose, were developed from external conditions (largely from the breakup of the inherently unstable conditions imposed by the Versailles-diktat), and by others, and which Hitler patiently awaited the outcome to use to his and Germany’s advantage.”

Of course, Rothbard didn’t doubt that Hitler was monstrously evil. But he thought it was a mistake to infer that an evil person or regime must have an aggressive foreign policy.
Murray Rothbard and World War II Origins - LewRockwell

 

[Bitterhook]

Folks that dream about what should have happened and never handle up with the dirty little imperfect world we live in, always win in the war that should have never happened. Must be nice, and we'll do what we can to make sure you still have a spot where you can sit and think about how wonderful that would be.

 

[Bitterhook]

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.

What did your great grandmother tell you about Rich Joe Vaughn, the leader of the Cherokee Nation that took 200 slaves, right back up the Trail of Tears? What did she tell, about how the Cherokee Nation established Black Codes, expelled all Freedmen, and how their major form of income at the time came from tracking down and capturing escaped slaves? What did she tell you about how Vaughn used slave labor to construct ports along the Mississippi River down to the top of Louisiana where the Choctaw took over? What did your great grandmother tell you about the Cherokee Nation Slave Revolt of 1842?

 

[JoeB131]

One thing most people who study history learn very quickly, is the establishment narrative is almost always wrong. So, learn history fully before posting is my advice to you.

I've got a degree in history, thanks. If you showed up at a university spewing the kind of crankery you are engaging in, they'd show you the door.

As I stated above, Hitler had no designs on Western Europe.

You mean other than Ascle-Lorraine? I'm pretty sure he wanted that back.

However let’s not get bogged down here. We need to stick with debating your main point. That WWII was a good war with resulting good consequences for the US. Nothing could be more ignorant.

No, the war wasn't good, but America did well by participating in it because they put a stop to German and Japanese GENOCIDE.

The last step in the alleged master-plan was the invasion of Poland, but once again Hitler had moderate goals until the Polish government forced his hand:

Gee, I hope you don't have a job at the rape crisis center, telling those women they had it coming.