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

[gipper]

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

Except for the Holocaust, Holomodor, and a few others.

 

[mikegriffith1]

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

LOL! Your comment shows that you are the one who can't deal with facts. Again, every one of the links you provided is a superficial, party-line puff piece that cherry picks a few accounts and ignores all the accounts that contradict the massacre narrative.

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

Yeah, you make this kind of comment to excuse your failure to deal with contrary evidence. What do you have to say about Father Craft's account? What about the two journalists who were at the scene and who likewise said the Indians fired first? What about the Indian accounts that admit that the Indians fired first, that some of the warriors were mingled with women and children when they were firing at the soldiers, and that some of the women were armed and fired at the soldiers? Crickets. Nada.

And when are you going to support your claim that women were raped at Wounded Knee? I've asked you this several times now, and you just keep snipping and ignoring it.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

You are the one who has had trouble with contrary evidence to your major points.

It's part of the process, evaluating all the evidence, not just that which you like and disregard the rest.

You were advised about this at uni, yet here you are still being corrected.

You have testimony that the any incidents of warriors firing first were very limited in number. Did that require the troopers to shoot women and children, Mike?

Bear River's story has always bothered me. This was a heads up battle, in which one side was badly beaten and then the survivors massacred.

You will not be allowed to ignore Bear River, Mike. Not ever.

 

[Mushroom]

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.

Yes, and?

Did you learn nothing from Saipan? Where civilians early in the battle took up arms themselves against the invaders? Then later when all was lost threw themselves off of cliffs?

Now imagine that magnified throughout all of Japan.

 

[Mushroom]

The Japanese certainly didn’t think they were defeated.

They sure as hell did not!

One thing I encourage anybody to read at the Sato-Togo Telegrams. Those are an amazing peek into the thinking of the highest levels of Japanese leadership in that era. It was between Ambassador Naotake Sato and Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo. And in short, Sato was the individual sent by the Japanese Government to attempt to gain the support of the Soviet Union in arranging an armistice with the Allied Powers.

And it is absolutely clear that the Japanese did not think they were defeated. And these are amazing source documents as we actually have three different versions, and they are all the same. One is the originals from the Japanese Imperial Archives. A second is from the Soviet Union who intercepted them. Then a third is the decoded versions captured via MAGIC. And other than the usual differences found in translations, all three of them are essentially the same.

Historical Documents - Office of the Historian

history.state.gov 3.0 shell

history.state.gov

It becomes quite clear that Japan was never intending to surrender. In fact, the Ambassador was severely rebuked by the Foreign Minister for even using the word "surrender", and ordered him to never again use that word. And there are several quite salty exchanges where Sato essentially dressed down his superior, telling him essentially to "wake up and smell the coffee", and that the war was lost. And the Foreign Minister responding the war was not lost and they would still emerge victorious.

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/29.pdf

Here is a more basic breakdown of their content.

"Pretty Little Phrases": Japanese Diplomacy in 1945 | The National WWII Museum | New Orleans

Misguided Japanese diplomacy in 1945 helped to ensure that the war would not have a peaceful end.

www.nationalww2museum.org

But the thing is, those telegrams were one of the reasons why the decision was made to use the bombs. The Japanese Government refused to recognize that they were defeated, and even after the first bomb was dropped they were expecting the Soviets to help them reach an armistice. And the funniest thing is, the Big Six believed that, while Ambassador Sato knew it was a fool's errand, and that the Soviets would never assist them. Most notably as in their earliest cables Togo suggests they offer to exchange several islands with the Allies to achieve an armistice.

And Sato pointed out that those proposed islands to be exchanged had already fallen to the Allies, so were no longer in the power of Japan to give over in the first place.

I can not urge strongly enough that anybody that wants to really understand what was going through the minds of the Japanese Leadership, they have to read the Sato-Togo Telegrams. Because they quite clearly show that they in no way thought they were defeated.

https://media-cdn.dvidshub.net/pubs/pdf_63832.pdf

 

[gipper]

Yes, and?

Did you learn nothing from Saipan? Where civilians early in the battle took up arms themselves against the invaders? Then later when all was lost threw themselves off of cliffs?

Now imagine that magnified throughout all of Japan.

Except that there was never any good reason to invade and occupy Japan. Imperialists like you always ignore this fact.

 

[Kruska]

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.

You are just guessing

Fact was that the Japanese military&political leadership was unwilling to face trials as war-criminals - thus protecting their Heavenly Emperor (one of the main culprits as well) who would have absolved them of their heinous deeds on the basis of a "conditional" surrender.

Those Japanese military, political and racist leaders - would have sacrificed millions of Japanese (no matter how starved and militarily ill equipped) to get away with it.

This "last" Japanese surrender term (we only want our beloved emperor to remain untouched) had only been relayed via some (Swiss?) diplomat and via Stalin - as such Truman was right not to consider them to be serious, but simply trying to buy time to continue their bargaining towards a conditional surrender.

Furthermore Stalin was already poised towards Manchuria and a delayed US attack or month of additional starving out the Japanese might have even encouraged Stalin to go for Japan himself.

 

[Orangecat]

History is full of examples of better organized and technologically superior forces defeating primitives who attacked them as they attempted to colonize new frontiers. The US government is one of very few that allowed the defeated opponent to maintain their culture within the conquered territories. Regardless, this is buried so deep in the past as to be irrelevant. Native Americans are free to integrate into US society at any time.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

The Wounded Knee Massacre, which occurred on December 29, 1890, involved the 7th Cavalry Regiment of the United States Army and resulted in the deaths of approximately 250-300 Lakota Sioux, including women and children. The event is widely regarded as a tragic and brutal incident in American history1
The actions of the 7th Cavalry at Wounded Knee have been the subject of intense historical debate and analysis. Here are some key points to consider:

1. Context of the Conflict: The massacre occurred during a period of heightened tension between the U.S. government and the Lakota Sioux, who were resisting efforts to relocate them to reservations. The Ghost Dance movement, which the U.S. government viewed with suspicion, further escalated tensions1.
2. Events Leading to the Massacre: The 7th Cavalry was dispatched to disarm the Lakota Sioux. On December 29, 1890, a confrontation ensued when a deaf Lakota warrior refused to surrender his rifle, leading to a chaotic and violent exchange1.
3. Casualties and Aftermath: The massacre resulted in the deaths of approximately 250-300 Lakota Sioux, including women and children. The U.S. government initially attempted to exonerate the 7th Cavalry, claiming that the Lakota initiated the attack1. However, subsequent historical analysis has criticized the actions of the 7th Cavalry, highlighting the disproportionate use of force and the high number of civilian casualties.
4. Historical Interpretations: Historians have debated whether the actions of the 7th Cavalry constituted a massacre or a battle. Some argue that the soldiers acted in self-defense, while others contend that the response was excessive and unjustified1.
5. Legacy and Memory: The Wounded Knee Massacre is remembered as a tragic and brutal incident in American history. It has become a symbol of the broader injustices faced by Native American communities during the westward expansion of the United States.

The analysis of the 7th Cavalry's actions at Wounded Knee continues to evolve as historians uncover new evidence and perspectives. It remains a complex and sensitive topic that requires careful consideration of the historical context and the human impact of the events.

 

[mikegriffith1]

This is not hyperbole: I think honoring18th- and 19th-century American Indians, especially the Sioux and the Apaches and the Comanches, is in the ballpark with honoring Stalinist Russia, Nazi Germany, Maoist China, ISIS, Hamas, and Genghis Khan.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

This is not hyperbole: I think honoring18th- and 19th-century American Indians, especially the Sioux and the Apaches and the Comanches, is in the ballpark with honoring Stalinist Russia, Nazi Germany, Maoist China, ISIS, Hamas, and Genghis Khan.

Andrew Jackson, Nelson Miles, George A. Custer, John Chivington, and so on.

 

[Mushroom]

This is not hyperbole: I think honoring18th- and 19th-century American Indians, especially the Sioux and the Apaches and the Comanches, is in the ballpark with honoring Stalinist Russia, Nazi Germany, Maoist China, ISIS, Hamas, and Genghis Khan.

The majority of tribes lived peacefully with their American neighbors. Only a relative handful had conflicts between the two.

We have been at war twice with the UK and Canada. By your reasoning we should never honor them either.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Mushroom, no, we did not live peacefully if we could profit by raiding the white man or our Indian neighbors.

Mike may be a history renegade of no repute among his peers, but he is not wrong 100% of his peers.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Andrew Jackson, Nelson Miles, George A. Custer, John Chivington, and so on.

You'd better throw in George Washington, John Adams, and Ulysses S. Grant, lest your woke credentials come under suspicion by your fellow anti-American radicals.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

You'd better throw in George Washington, John Adams, and Ulysses S. Grant, lest your woke credentials come under suspicion by your fellow anti-American radicals.

Yes, I grant you Washington and Grant. John Adams startles me. Illucidate, please.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Yes, I grant you Washington and Grant.

So let me get this straight, just so we're clear: Are you actually saying that George Washington was as bad as Genghis Khan, Stalin, Hitler, and Mao?

You made this comment in reply to my statement that honoring the Sioux, the Apaches, and the Comanches is in the ballpark with honoring Genghis Khan, Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, and Maoist China.

Did you misspeak? Did a mentally deranged person borrow your computer and reply in your name?

John Adams startles me. Illucidate, please.

Just shaking my head. You claim to be a woke, America-bashing, white-hating apologist for the American Indians, and you are "startled" that I would include John Adams???

Let me "illucidate" (normally spelled elucidate): John Adams was president during the War of 1812. With Adams' full approval, during and immediately after that war, the U.S. Army carried out severe reprisals against the Indians and took large chunks of land from the tribes that sided with the British. The Army did this in response to numerous Indian outrages against Americans during the war. In some cases, Indians massacred entire settlements in support of the British. Thus, Adams had no qualms about severe reprisals against them.

Plus, Adams, though he voiced opposition to slavery, opposed the abolitionists and insisted that slavery should only be abolished gradually and with compensation. He even said, "there are many other Evils in our Country which . . . threaten to bring Punishment on our Land more immediately than the oppression of the blacks."

Adams had several friends who were slaveholders. He attended parties hosted by many prominent southern slaveholding families, including the Taylors and Calhouns—parties where slaves served the guests.

Although traditional history says that Adams held no slaves, we now know that he did. In fact, as president, Adams had slaves in the White House (LINK).

And, of course, if you are a genuine anti-American radical, you now repudiate Abraham Lincoln as well.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Mike keeps ascribing things to me I have never said or applied. I said some of our leaders were ruthless to the indigenous peoples here. Any comments about comparisons to Genghis Khan is stupid.

Writing honest history is not anti-American radicalism. Revising American history to whitewash the violent acts of racialism that stains in our collective past involves the following behavior by such as Mike.

These terms can help to describe the various ways in which historical narratives are altered to downplay or ignore the violent and unjust acts of racialism that have occurred.

Here are some descriptive words, according to an AI answer to a request, that can characterize attempts to whitewash or downplay the violent acts of racialism in our collective history:

1. Revisionist: Altering historical facts to present a more favorable narrative.
2. Sanitized: Removing or omitting unpleasant or controversial details to make events seem more acceptable.
3. Euphemistic: Using mild or vague terms to describe harsh realities.
4. Distorted: Twisting facts to fit a specific agenda or perspective.
5. Obscured: Hiding or minimizing important aspects of historical events.
6. Mythologized: Creating and promoting myths or exaggerated stories that downplay negative aspects.
7. Romanticized: Presenting a more appealing and less accurate version of history.
8. Erased: Completely removing certain events or details from historical accounts.

 

[gipper]

It’s evident to anyone who has researched the period, atrocities were committed by both sides. However it should be stated who invade whom? Who was the oppressor and reneged on numerous treaties? Who was forced off their land and placed in reservations?

This in no way justifies the horrendous killing, enslaving, and torture committed by the natives.

The leaders of the US government and military didn’t hide their genocidal intentions. Many statements made clearly expose them.

We are seeing the exact same thing occurring today in Palestinian.

 

[Mushroom]

John Adams was president during the War of 1812.

Uh, no. That was James Madison.

John Adams left office a decade before then.

And you seem to be mixing and matching a great deal here. The link is not about John Adams, but his son John Quincy Adams.

And that entire reference is complete garbage, as there is not one mention of the President owning slaves. Simply that people around him owned them.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Uh, no. That was James Madison.

John Adams left office a decade before then.

And you seem to be mixing and matching a great deal here. The link is not about John Adams, but his son John Quincy Adams.

And that entire reference is complete garbage, as there is not one mention of the President owning slaves. Simply that people around him owned them.

Be very careful with he posts. And always check his sources.