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

[mikegriffith1]

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.

Oh, look: It's Mr. "Hitler Wasn't the Problem" and "the Jews sabotaged Germany after WWI and deserved to be hated by the Nazis," JoeB131, here to grace us with more of his schizophrenic propaganda. When this guy isn't peddling Nazi myths about the Jews and repeating neo-Nazi/Hamas/Iranian lies about Israel, he's peddling left-wing myths about America and whitewashing Communist mass murderers Mao and Stalin.

I recommend historian John Flynn-Paul's 2023 book Not Stolen: The Truth About European Colonialism in the New World. Here's the introduction to the book on Amazon:

A renowned historian debunks current distortion and myths about European colonialism in the New World and restores much needed balance to our understanding of the past.

Was America really “stolen” from the Indians? Was Columbus a racist? Were Indians really peace-loving, communistic environmentalists? Did Europeans commit “genocide” in the New World? It seems that almost everyone—from CNN to the New York Times to angry students pulling down statues of our founders—believes that America’s history is a shameful tale of racism, exploitation, and cruelty.

In Not Stolen, renowned historian Jeff Fynn-Paul systematically dismantles this relentlessly negative view of U.S. history, arguing that it is based on shoddy methods, misinformation, and outright lies about the past. America was not “stolen” from the Indians but fairly purchased piece by piece in a thriving land market. Nor did European settlers cheat, steal, murder, rape or purposely infect them with smallpox to the extent that most people believe. No genocide occurred—either literal or cultural—and the decline of Native populations over time is not due to violence but to assimilation and natural demographic processes.

Fynn Paul not only debunks these toxic myths, but provides a balanced portrait of this complex historical process over 500 years. The real history of Native and European relations will surprise you. Not only is this not a tale of shameful sins and crimes against humanity—it is more inspiring than you ever dared to imagine.

 

[JoeB131]

Mike Never saw a genocide against a non-white people he didn't love.

I recommend historian John Flynn-Paul's 2023 book Not Stolen: The Truth About European Colonialism in the New World. Here's the introduction to the book on Amazon:

A renowned historian debunks current distortion and myths about European colonialism in the New World and restores much needed balance to our understanding of the past.

What Balance. Before Columbus, Native Americans held this land. Now they are restricted to Reservations (the inspiration for Hitler's concentration camps) where they are reduced the lowest underclass in American society. And only a racist like you would think this is a good thing.

Was America really “stolen” from the Indians? Was Columbus a racist? Were Indians really peace-loving, communistic environmentalists? Did Europeans commit “genocide” in the New World? It seems that almost everyone—from CNN to the New York Times to angry students pulling down statues of our founders—believes that America’s history is a shameful tale of racism, exploitation, and cruelty.

Yes, America's history is a shameful tale of genocide and slavery. We need to own up to that.

In Not Stolen, renowned historian Jeff Fynn-Paul systematically dismantles this relentlessly negative view of U.S. history, arguing that it is based on shoddy methods, misinformation, and outright lies about the past. America was not “stolen” from the Indians but fairly purchased piece by piece in a thriving land market. Nor did European settlers cheat, steal, murder, rape or purposely infect them with smallpox to the extent that most people believe. No genocide occurred—either literal or cultural—and the decline of Native populations over time is not due to violence but to assimilation and natural demographic processes.

Fairly Purchased? Then why did they have to send the Army out to hunt them down? Or the Trail of Tears against my Cherokee ancestors?

Fynn Paul not only debunks these toxic myths, but provides a balanced portrait of this complex historical process over 500 years. The real history of Native and European relations will surprise you. Not only is this not a tale of shameful sins and crimes against humanity—it is more inspiring than you ever dared to imagine.

The Real tale ends with the Indians nearly completely wiped out and living in Government Concentration Camps, while the White people own everything. (Don't worry, the Rich are slowly fixing that problem for us.)

 

[AZrailwhale]

Mike Never saw a genocide against a non-white people he didn't love.



What Balance. Before Columbus, Native Americans held this land. Now they are restricted to Reservations (the inspiration for Hitler's concentration camps) where they are reduced the lowest underclass in American society. And only a racist like you would think this is a good thing.



Yes, America's history is a shameful tale of genocide and slavery. We need to own up to that.



Fairly Purchased? Then why did they have to send the Army out to hunt them down? Or the Trail of Tears against my Cherokee ancestors?




The Real tale ends with the Indians nearly completely wiped out and living in Government Concentration Camps, while the White people own everything. (Don't worry, the Rich are slowly fixing that problem for us.)

As usual you have no idea what you are talking about. Native Americans AREN'T restricted to the reservations. From StudyCountry.com:
"

Do the majority of Native Americans live on reservation?​

You are here: Countries / Geographic Wiki / Do the majority of Native Americans live on reservation?

As of 2022, there are 324 federally recognized American Indian reservations in the U.S. The 2020 Census reveals that 87 percent of those who identify as AI/AN alone or in combination population live outside of tribal statistical areas, 13 percent live on reservations or other trust lands.
Takedown requestView complete answer on minorityhealth.hhs.gov

What percentage of Native Americans live on a reservation?​

As of 2022, only 13 percent live on reservations. Are there any Native Americans in America today that are not part of any reservation or tribe?
Takedown requestView complete answer on quora.com

Where do the majority of Native Americans live?​

Most Native Americans live in the western and southwestern United States, with the largest populations in states such as Oklahoma, California, Arizona, and New Mexico."
it took me about fifteen seconds to research your lie.

 

[Foxfyre]

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:

There was obvious fault on both sides when honest history is engaged. Certainly there was racism and injustice done by Europeans to Native American populations. And vice versa.

Certainly before the 'white man' arrived on the North American continent, the Native Americans had their own cultures, governments, policies of diplomacy etc. Some may have employed diplomacy to settle disputes more than others and cooperation between peoples existed, but for the most part, the 'Indians' were not more 'peaceful' than the Europeans who came as settlers.

The Most Violent Era In America Was Before Europeans Arrived

There's a mythology about the native Americans, that they were all peaceful and in harmony with nature - it's easy to create narratives when there is no written record.

www.science20.com

 

[JoeB131]

As of 2022, there are 324 federally recognized American Indian reservations in the U.S. The 2020 Census reveals that 87 percent of those who identify as AI/AN alone or in combination population live outside of tribal statistical areas, 13 percent live on reservations or other trust lands.

Oh, that makes it okay, then?

There was obvious fault on both sides when honest history is engaged. Certainly there was racism and injustice done by Europeans to Native American populations. And vice versa.

Defending yourself from a genocidal invader is an injustice, really?

Certainly before the 'white man' arrived on the North American continent, the Native Americans had their own cultures, governments, policies of diplomacy etc. Some may have employed diplomacy to settle disputes more than others and cooperation between peoples existed, but for the most part, the 'Indians' were not more 'peaceful' than the Europeans who came as settlers.

The key word here is that they didn't ask for Settlers.

The Europeans were invaders, and genocidal ones at that.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The Native Amerocans were clearly far TOO peaceful for their own good.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Oh, that makes it okay, then?

View attachment 1189319



Defending yourself from a genocidal invader is an injustice, really?

View attachment 1189322


The key word here is that they didn't ask for Settlers.

The Europeans were invaders, and genocidal ones at that.

It does make it okay. The only Indians living on the reservations WANT to be there.

 

[JoeB131]

It does make it okay. The only Indians living on the reservations WANT to be there.

That and a lot of them have nowhere else to go.

When did they start letting them leave the reservations? That was relatively recent.

 

[Bitterhook]

That and a lot of them have nowhere else to go.

When did they start letting them leave the reservations? That was relatively recent.

The Dawes Act of 1887

 

[AZrailwhale]

That and a lot of them have nowhere else to go.

When did they start letting them leave the reservations? That was relatively recent.

1956. But Indians can and often do go anywhere. They are not discriminated against. Prior to the Casinos, the Indians that stayed on the reservations were like abused spouses, they stayed because it was the devil they knew, and they feared the devil they didn't know. Now there is a certain cachet to be part of a casino owning tribe and the casinos provide really well-paying jobs as well as the dividends that accrue to all tribal members. Tribes now RESTRICT membership; with a great Comanche grandmother I used to be considered an Indian, now, legally, I am not by the tribes.

 

[AZrailwhale]

The Dawes Act of 1887

No, that was what restricted them to the reservations. My great-grandmother had married a white before that, and she was never confined to a res. Essentially only full-blooded Indians were restricted to the reservations and that was pretty much a fiction since a large portion of Indians could easily pass as White or Latino.

 

[Bitterhook]

No, that was what restricted them to the reservations. My great-grandmother had married a white before that, and she was never confined to a res. Essentially only full-blooded Indians were restricted to the reservations and that was pretty much a fiction since a large portion of Indians could easily pass as White or Latino.

It allowed Native Americans to leave the Reservations and become citizens like everyone else who didn't live on the Reservation. If Native Americans chose to be separate, they were treated separately and could live under their own rules to some degree on the Reservations, but otherwise they could choose to become citizens and be treated as citizens.

One of my great grandmothers many times removed was Seminole and lived with her white European 'husband' in a teepee outside of Jamestown many ages ago. You were still correct when you stated that those who stayed did so because that is what they desired.

But then again, if you look it up, most accounts will talk about stolen tribal lands, and it is also impossible to steal something that no one owns. So, either the Native Americans owned the land and lost it by being defeated, as did the British with the colonies, or they didn't own the land, and it wasn't theirs to be stolen.

If it comes down to a 'who was where first' then that is defeated by either Creationism or Darwinism, because we all came from either Adam and Eve, or crawled out of the premortal ooze (whichever you may prefer), and to pretend either makes someone the first would be setting an ambiguous point in time as to ownership.

It is quite possible to ignore the basics if one would rather prefer to promote ethnicity as some significant determining factor. It is also known that the Native Americans fought each other over land disputes, so the fact they lost to the Europeans wouldn't make a difference, unless one wanted to pretend ethnicity means something it doesn't.

In no circumstance does it excuse the horrid conditions any of the players were more than willing to bring down on their adversaries, but humans can kind of be like that at times to the best of my knowledge.

 

[Hafar1014]

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.

There was no genocide they were displaced and moved out west.

 

[kc48]

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:

"Crimes against whites." So lessee, some group declares that they're going to take my land all the way to the west coast, and I should just take it in the ass.

 

[AZrailwhale]

"Crimes against whites." So lessee, some group declares that they're going to take my land all the way to the west coast, and I should just take it in the ass.

None of the various Indian tribes thought that way. The plains tribes were nomadic, the only land important to them were the places they overwintered. The more advanced tribes like the Pueblos only claimed the land they farmed on. Anything more than a few days ride or walk away wasn’t claimed by anyone. The tribes had no idea about borders or oceans.

 

[kc48]

None of the various Indian tribes thought that way. The plains tribes were nomadic, the only land important to them were the places they overwintered. The more advanced tribes like the Pueblos only claimed the land they farmed on. Anything more than a few days ride or walk away wasn’t claimed by anyone. The tribes had no idea about borders or oceans.

Right, they were all 4 years old.

 

[Mushroom]

yes, trail of tears ...

Here is something that most people do not want you to know.

There were several "Trail of Tears", the most well known is the Cherokee and the Potawatomie.

However, ever notice that not all groups were sent to Oklahoma? There are still Cherokee Reservations in the Carolinas, and there are still Potawatomie Reservations all around the Great Lakes.

The answer to this is actually quite simple, and it mostly all points back to the War of 1812. The British paid off some groups to attack the Americans, but many tribes simply refused to take any part and remained neutral. And at the end of the war, the tribes that attacked the Americans were sent packing, the others that did not attack the Americans remained in place.

That is why when I am describing my heritage, I state I am Potawatomie from Oklahoma. My forefathers were some of those that fought against the Americans, and were sent to Oklahoma. While more distant cousins did not fight the Americans, and were allowed to remain where they were. Still living there to this day.

It always annoys me when people bring this up, because I bet that 95% that do have no idea that the ones sent on those travels had a year or so before been attacking settlers. While other tribes simply did not, and remained where they are.

 

[Mushroom]

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.

A lot of the issues that arose were cultural.

The tribes did not really have a concept of "ownership" like Europeans had. The very idea of "owning" something like land was insane, and completely foreign to their concept of reality. It was as crazy as somebody today saying that they owned a star or asteroid.

And there are also historical reasons. Most of the tribes in the Mississippi area were exceptionally hostile, because they had once been part of the Mississippian Culture. Some of the best known of that group are the Lakota and Seminole, but most from just south of the Great Lakes to New Orleans and towards the Great Plains were hostile to all outsiders.

The tribes in New England were never more than remote trading partners, 2 or 3 steps removed from that culture so never developed the antagonism that they did when that culture imploded. In much the same way that those once you got past the Rocky Mountains were not very antagonistic when the Europeans arrived.

And you can even see this in the Lewis and Clark expedition and Sacagawea. She was Shoshone, but held captive by the Hadatsa in the Dakotas when she joined Lewis and Clark. And other than the Lakota and a few others they had very few troubles with the Indians when they traveled to the Pacific and back in the early 1800s.

But by the middle to late 1800s, the Lakota were no longer in Nebraska. They were in the Dakotas and pushing into Shoshone territory in Wyoming and Idaho. Which in response caused the Shoshone to become more aggressive in return. Which is why a fairly peaceful tribe that Lewis and Clark reported on at the start of the century staged two bloody attacks on settlers that were simply passing through their territory.

Inside the modern US, very few tribes were actually hostile to Europeans. Those that were normally had a reason. Heightened aggression by other tribes encroaching on their territory was one, another was actively being paid by outsiders to conduct attacks.

And this is nothing unique to North America. Rome had similar experiences with the "Barbarians". Many were quite peaceful, even though they had themselves been forced off of their lands and only wanted a place to call home. And so long as they settled outside of Roman territory, they did not care.

But the old issues that had caused many of the tribes to fight each other when they were still in Asia often caused those fights to continue once they were in Europe. Of course, none at the time knew that all those tribes being thrown at Rome were actually displaced by the Huns. Who had originated even father to the east, and were most likely originally pushed west by the Mongols.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Right, they were all 4 years old.

Before the days of cars and steam trains, 99% of people never moved more than five miles from the place of their birth. So no Indian tribes would have any idea of the continent's geography more than a hundred miles or so of their location. The only tribes that knew anything about oceans were the ones on the coasts. The world was a very large place in those days.

 

[JoeB131]

None of the various Indian tribes thought that way. The plains tribes were nomadic, the only land important to them were the places they overwintered. The more advanced tribes like the Pueblos only claimed the land they farmed on. Anything more than a few days ride or walk away wasn’t claimed by anyone. The tribes had no idea about borders or oceans.

So that makes genocide okay, then?