The American Genocide of the Indians—Historical Facts and Real Evidence

[Ringo]

Here's an uncomfortable fact for you: Far, far more Indians were killed by their fellow Indians than were ever killed by American settlers and the U.S. Government.

Even the famous children's writer, author of "Wizard of OZ" had such views about Indians:

"...Baum did not shy away from political journalism. In an editorial in the Aberdeen Saturday Pioneer in 1891, he approved of the massacre of the Indians at Wounded Knee, writing:

"Pioneer" has already stated that our security requires the complete destruction of the Indians. Having oppressed them for centuries, we should, in order to protect our civilization, once again oppress them and finally wipe out these wild and untamed creatures from the face of the earth.
This is the guarantee of the future security of our settlers and soldiers who have found themselves under incompetent command. Otherwise, in the future we will have problems with the redskins, no less than in previous years..."

Lf baum is amazing in the wizard of the lake. Lyman frank baum biography Where does the estuary frank baum live

What could we expect from other, less "civilized" pale-faced savages?

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

You have no clue what you're talking about. All you ever do is repeat the standard liberal talking points on every issue. Do you know who Father Francis Craft was? In the parlance of the day, he was an "Indian lover," an ardent friend of the Indians and a staunch defender of Indian rights. He was at Wounded Knee. He was one of the interpreters. Here's what he said about what happened at Wounded Knee in a letter published in newspapers across the country:

I authorize you to contradict for me in my name, through the press, the reports in circulation that blame the army for the sad tragedy at Wounded Knee creek. Those reports do grave injustice to our soldiers, and are instigated by those averse to an honorable settlement to the present trouble, and hostile to the decree of every true friend of the Indian. . . . The troops acted with greatest kindness and prudence. In the Wounded Knee fight the Indians fired first. The troops fired only when compelled to. I was between both, saw all, and know from an absolute knowledge of the whole affair whereof I say. The Indians state the case just as I do. I have every proof at hand, and when able will forward full statement and documentary evidence. (LINK)

Two other independent, non-military eyewitnesses at Wounded Knee confirmed that the Indians fired first. Even some of the Indian accounts admitted that the Indians fired first.

I'm guessing you have not bothered to read any of my articles on Wounded Knee. You might start with this one:

Getting Some Basic Facts Straight About Wounded Knee

Are you saying soldiers at Bear River and Wounded Knee did not rape women and kill babies? Are you denying that?

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Sure Cochise. "Here's an uncomfortable fact for you: Far, far more Indians were killed by their fellow Indians than were ever killed by American settlers and the U.S. Government."

Prove it.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Are you saying soldiers at Bear River and Wounded Knee did not rape women and kill babies? Are you denying that?

Your fanatical mindset and bias are something to behold. Now, I've read just about every book ever written on Wounded Knee. Not one of them has claimed that any Indian women were raped at Wounded Knee. Even the radical liberal Heather Cox Richardson does not make this claim. Can you cite me a single source that says soldiers raped Indian women during the Wounded Knee incident? Let's see it.

As for babies being killed at Wounded Knee, you still have not read any of my articles on the battle, have you? No, of course not. You're just as unread and uninformed about Wounded Knee as you are about the Vietnam War.

Why don't you read my article "Unwanted Facts About Wounded Knee" and then come back and explain the facts I document?

Sure Cochise. "Here's an uncomfortable fact for you: Far, far more Indians were killed by their fellow Indians than were ever killed by American settlers and the U.S. Government." Prove it.

Do you want me to prove the Earth is round, too? I know you have no interest in reading anything that you know will challenge your dogma, but if you ever do dare yourself to do some credible research on this issue, I recommend you read the following books to get some idea of just how many Indians were killed by other Indians and how many thousands of settlers were massacred by Indians:

The Earth Is Weeping: The Epic Story of the Indian Wars for the American West, by Peter Cozzens.

Scalp Dance: Indian Warfare on the High Plains, by Thomas Goodrich.

The Wild Frontier: Atrocities During the American-Indian War, by William M. Osborn.

A Fate Worse than Death, by Greg Michno (who also wrote one of the best books on the Custer fight: Lakota Noon: The Indian Narrative of Custer's Defeat).

Indian Depredations in Texas, by J. W. Wilbarger.

The Comanche Empire, by Pekka Hamalainen. Published by Yale University Press in 2009, this book is especially informative because the author uses Spanish and Mexican sources, in addition to American sources, to document the Comanches' brutality and aggression against other tribes. We did the American Southwest and northern Mexico a huge favor by freeing those regions from the grip of Comanche tyranny.

The books by Cozzens, Osborn, Wilbarger, Hamalainen, and Michno can be read online in Kindle format.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Your fanatical mindset and bias are something to behold. Now, I've read just about every book ever written on Wounded Knee. Not one of them has claimed that any Indian women were raped at Wounded Knee. Even the radical liberal Heather Cox Richardson does not make this claim. Can you cite me a single source that says soldiers raped Indian women during the Wounded Knee incident? Let's see it.

As for babies being killed at Wounded Knee, you still have not read any of my articles on the battle, have you? No, of course not. You're just as unread and uninformed about Wounded Knee as you are about the Vietnam War.

Why don't you read my article "Unwanted Facts About Wounded Knee" and then come back and explain the facts I document?


Do you want me to prove the Earth is round, too? I know you have no interest in reading anything that you know will challenge your dogma, but if you ever do dare yourself to do some credible research on this issue, I recommend you read the following books to get some idea of just how many Indians were killed by other Indians and how many thousands of settlers were massacred by Indians:

The Earth Is Weeping: The Epic Story of the Indian Wars for the American West, by Peter Cozzens.

Scalp Dance: Indian Warfare on the High Plains, by Thomas Goodrich.

The Wild Frontier: Atrocities During the American-Indian War, by William M. Osborn.

A Fate Worse than Death, by Greg Michno (who also wrote one of the best books on the Custer fight: Lakota Noon: The Indian Narrative of Custer's Defeat).

Indian Depredations in Texas, by J. W. Wilbarger.

The Comanche Empire, by Pekka Hamalainen. Published by Yale University Press in 2009, this book is especially informative because the author uses Spanish and Mexican sources, in addition to American sources, to document the Comanches' brutality and aggression against other tribes. We did the American Southwest and northern Mexico a huge favor by freeing those regions from the grip of Comanche tyranny.

The books by Cozzens, Osborn, Wilbarger, Hamalainen, and Michno can be read online in Kindle format.

Ok. You agree that the soldiers raped women and killed babies at Bear River.

Consult

1. www.pbs.org › kenburns › the-westLakota Accounts of the Massacre at Wounded Knee - PBS​

   
   The women as they were fleeing with their babes were killed together, shot right through, and the women who were very heavy with child were also killed.

2. archive.nytimes.com › iht-retrospective1891: A Heart-Rending Account of the Massacre at Wounded Knee​

   
   Feb 12, 2016 · According to them, many Indian men, women and children were mercilessly slaughtered in the so-called fight at Wounded Knee. A great fight has taken place with the Indians at Wounded Knee Creek,...

3. li.proquest.com › elhpdf › histcontextWOUNDED KNEE MASSACRE - ProQuest​

   
   women as they were fleeing with their babes on their backs were killed together, shot right through, and the women who were very heavy with child were also killed. All the Indians fled in these three directions, and after most all of them had been killed a cry was made that all those who were not killed or wounded should

4. www.history.com › wounded-kneeWounded Knee: Massacre, Memorial & Battle ‑ HISTORY​

   
   Nov 6, 2009 · Nearly half of the Sioux killed at the 1890 Wounded Knee massacre were women and children. On December 29, the U.S. Army’s 7th Cavalry surrounded a band of Ghost Dancers under Big Foot, a Lakota...
   • Author: Missy Sullivan

5. www.ancestry.com › wounded-knee-massacreMassacre at Wounded Knee - Ancestry​

   
   A march to Wounded Knee Creek, South Dakota, followed, where they awaited relocation. In the midst of confiscating the tribe's weapons, a fight broke out and the troops opened fire, setting off an attack that ultimately killed an estimated 300 unarmed men, women, and children on December 29.

6. www.history.com › news › wounded-knee-massacre-factsWhat Happened at the Wounded Knee Massacre? - HISTORY​

   
   May 13, 2022 · Members of the 7th Cavalry firing the opening shots at Wounded Knee, where some 300 Lakota Sioux, many of them women and children, were slaughtered within minutes. As the

 

[mikegriffith1]

Ok. You agree that the soldiers raped women and killed babies at Bear River.

I said nothing about Bear River.

Where is your evidence that any women were raped at Wounded Knee?

Consult

1. www.pbs.org › kenburns › the-westLakota Accounts of the Massacre at Wounded Knee - PBS​

   
   The women as they were fleeing with their babes were killed together, shot right through, and the women who were very heavy with child were also killed.

2. archive.nytimes.com › iht-retrospective1891: A Heart-Rending Account of the Massacre at Wounded Knee​

   
   Feb 12, 2016 · According to them, many Indian men, women and children were mercilessly slaughtered in the so-called fight at Wounded Knee. A great fight has taken place with the Indians at Wounded Knee Creek,...

3. li.proquest.com › elhpdf › histcontextWOUNDED KNEE MASSACRE - ProQuest​

   
   women as they were fleeing with their babes on their backs were killed together, shot right through, and the women who were very heavy with child were also killed. All the Indians fled in these three directions, and after most all of them had been killed a cry was made that all those who were not killed or wounded should

4. www.history.com › wounded-kneeWounded Knee: Massacre, Memorial & Battle ‑ HISTORY​

   
   Nov 6, 2009 · Nearly half of the Siouxkilled at the 1890 Wounded Knee massacre were women and children. On December 29, the U.S. Army’s 7th Cavalry surrounded a band of Ghost Dancers under Big Foot, a Lakota...
   • Author: Missy Sullivan

5. www.ancestry.com › wounded-knee-massacreMassacre at Wounded Knee - Ancestry​

   
   A march to Wounded Knee Creek, South Dakota, followed, where they awaited relocation. In the midst of confiscating the tribe's weapons, a fight broke out and the troops opened fire, setting off an attack that ultimately killed an estimated 300 unarmed men, women, and children on December 29.

6. www.history.com › news › wounded-knee-massacre-factsWhat Happened at the Wounded Knee Massacre? - HISTORY​

   
   May 13, 2022 · Members of the 7th Cavalry firing the opening shots at Wounded Knee, where some 300 Lakota Sioux, many of them women and children, were slaughtered within minutes. As the

You're kidding, right? Every one of these is a puff piece that uses a handful of cherry-picked accounts. This is the kind of superficial slanted and distorted spin that one can find ad nauseum online. Not one of your sources mentions Father Craft's account. Not one of them mentions the accounts of the two other independent, non-military witnesses who said that the Indians fired first and that some of the soldiers initially held their fire. Not one of them cites a single contrary account from any of the soldiers' depositions. Not one of them mentions any of the evidence documented in the Army's investigation of the incident.

And, again, where is your evidence that women were raped at Wounded Knee? Where? Name a single source that says this.

For the benefit of others, you can find the other side of the story on Wounded Knee here:

Wounded Knee: A Battle, Not a Massacre

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Mike, as shown by his "puff piece" comment cannot deal with facts, figures, and sorts.

That began at uni and has continued through his public life.

 

[whitehall]

What's the point? push for reparations for genocide? Indian casinos already got their revenge by scalping the white man every day tax free.

 

[whitehall]

Southerners who were victims of genocide by Yankee pillaging and arson during the Civil War are in the same boat as the Indians. How did they make out? They are still vilified in the history books and pop-culture,

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Yep, and the Southerners were guerillas in VA, TN, KY, TX, and MO against their Unionist numbers.

 

[whitehall]

Yep, and the Southerners were guerillas in VA, TN, KY, TX, and MO against their Unionist numbers.

Does being a guerilla justify genocide? American Soldiers ended up as guerillas in the Philippines in WW2















a

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Does being a guerilla justify genocide? American Soldiers ended up as guerillas in the Philippines in WW2

The Filipinos were the guerillas, and, yes, they were justified.

 

[whitehall]

The biggest example of genocide in the 20th century was the nuking of two Japanese cities that had no military value.

 

[AZrailwhale]

The biggest example of genocide in the 20th century was the nuking of two Japanese cities that had no military value.

Wrong Hiroshima was a major shipbuilding center that was busily cranking out hundreds of Kamikaze subs and boats a month as well as the primary IJN command center, Nagasaki was a Army command center and arsenal, both were vital military targets. Plus the nukes actually killed fewer people than the normal bombing raids that happened every night. The difference was the shock value, one aircraft and one bomb destroying one city with no chance for a successful defense.

 

[Mushroom]

Wrong Hiroshima was a major shipbuilding center that was busily cranking out hundreds of Kamikaze subs and boats a month as well as the primary IJN command center, Nagasaki was a Army command center and arsenal, both were vital military targets. Plus the nukes actually killed fewer people than the normal bombing raids that happened every night. The difference was the shock value, one aircraft and one bomb destroying one city with no chance for a successful defense.

Correction, that was Nagasaki that was a major shipbuilding city. Hiroshima was the headquarters of the Southern Army, and the main logistical and staging base for the defense of Japan.

In other words, you reversed the two.

But indeed, the death tolls at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nothing significant when compared to other major bombing attacks of the war. The bombings of Tokyo killed far more people. In fact, both Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined do not even equal the death toll of the firebombings of Tokyo.

 

[whitehall]

Wrong Hiroshima was a major shipbuilding center that was busily cranking out hundreds of Kamikaze subs and boats a month as well as the primary IJN command center, Nagasaki was a Army command center and arsenal, both were vital military targets. Plus the nukes actually killed fewer people than the normal bombing raids that happened every night. The difference was the shock value, one aircraft and one bomb destroying one city with no chance for a successful defense.

The Japanese navy was defeated. Japan had no defense against non stop daylight bombing raids. Incinerating Hiroshima with a nuclear weapon made no sense other than scaring the holdouts into unconditional surrender.

 

[AZrailwhale]

The Japanese navy was defeated. Japan had no defense against non stop daylight bombing raids. Incinerating Hiroshima with a nuclear weapon made no sense other than scaring the holdouts into unconditional surrender.

The Japanese certainly didn’t think they were defeated. They were preparing to drown the upcoming American invasion force in oceans of both Japanese and American blood. You don’t understand the mindset of the WWII Japanese who would invariably prefer to die honorably than surrender and live in shame. Even as late as the invasions of Saipan and Iwo Jima, almost no uninjured Japanese were captured alive. Even their civilians on Saipan preferred to commit suicide rather than be captured. Most of the POWs taken in the Pacific were Koreans forced into laboring or fighting for Japan.

 

[mikegriffith1]

If the Europeans had not settled America, the American Indians would still be murdering each other in genocidal wars and dying by the age of 40. There would be no Indian doctors, lawyers or engineers. They would still be wearing buckskin and using fire to cut down small trees. And living in river valleys instead of on the plains eeking out a living as primitive farmers. The Buffalo would not be a significant source of food since they'd be so difficult to hunt.

That's pretty close to the mark. Of all the cultures that don't deserve celebration, 18th-19th-century American Indian culture is near the top of the list. It is odd that liberals glorify 18th- and 19-century American Indians and ignore their aggression, brutality, barbarism, horrific wars, mistreatment of women, oppression, superstition, dictatorship, and denial of basic human rights.

Liberals typically ignore the fact, or just don't know, that a big reason that so many Americans in the mid- and late 1800s held a negative view of the Indians was that most Indians had sided with the British in the War of 1812 and had massacred numerous entire settlements during the war. Read Ronald Drez's book The War of 1812, Conflict and Deception, and Mark Zuehlke's book For Honour's Sake: The War of 1812 and the Brokering of an Uneasy Peace, for starters.

And, of course, five major Indian tribes--the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, and Seminole tribes--sided with the Confederacy during the Civil War, a fact that most Americans were acutely aware of. The Confederacy had an entire Indian regiment led by a full-blooded Indian general named Stand Watie. Thus, when the Civil War was over, most Americans were in no mood to tolerate Indian obstructionism and violence.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Thanks for that.

Now I know why that happened at uni.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Wrong Hiroshima was a major shipbuilding center that was busily cranking out hundreds of Kamikaze subs and boats a month as well as the primary IJN command center, Nagasaki was a Army command center and arsenal, both were vital military targets.

Sorry, but this is just wrong. Hiroshima was not a valid military target. Hiroshima's port was inoperable. It was only a local "command center." A small garrison unit was stationed in Hiroshima, on the outskirts of the city. The city's military-related factories were also on the outskirts of the city, but the bomb was aimed at and exploded above the city's residential and commercial center. We could have easily taken out the factories and the army garrison with conventional bombing, since Japan was virtually defenseless against air attacks by April 1945.

Nagasaki was even less of a valid military target. Using your logic, every large American city could be considered a "military target," since our large cities typically have a National Guard armory and a regional command center located in them. Here, too, if we were really worried about the few military-related factories in Nagasaki, we could have taken them out with conventional bombing.

In addition, we nuked Nagasaki before the Japanese government had sufficient time to formulate a response to Hiroshima. There were plenty of people in our government who knew enough about how the Japanese government worked to know there was no way the Japanese could process and officially respond to Hiroshima in just three days.

We had no need to worry about Japanese factories and "command centers." By April 1945, Japan was virtually defenseless against air attack. Our bombing raids rarely suffered losses by this time, and the few times we did suffer losses we lost only a few planes--usually we didn't lose any. That's why we didn't even bother sending a fighter escort with the bombers that nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We controlled all Japanese waters, and our ships shelled Japan's coastal areas at will, because Japan's navy had essentially ceased to exist. The Japanese people were on a near-starvation diet. Japan posed no threat to us whatsoever by the time we nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Plus the nukes actually killed fewer people than the normal bombing raids that happened every night. The difference was the shock value, one aircraft and one bomb destroying one city with no chance for a successful defense.

No, the nukes did not kill fewer people than the normal bombing raids, unless you add up all the bombing raids into a single death toll. Even the devastating Tokyo bombing raid did not exceed the death toll of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Normal bombing did not release deadly radiation into the air, ground, and water. Plus, normal bombing did not kill thousands of people months later because of radiation exposure. Normal bombing did not cause tens of thousands of birth defects for decades.

If Truman had simply given the Japanese a private assurance that the emperor would not be deposed in a surrender, the Japanese moderates, who were led by the emperor and his aides, would have been able to overcome the opposition of the militarists and would have arranged for a surrender.