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

[Vastator]

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Mike is confusing agricultural vs hunting uses for the Ohio lands.

The Americans and the indigenous people had different valuations based on their food production.

 

[BackAgain]

Yeah. It’s like that tribe of Neanderthals losing a pitched battle against Homo Sapiens.

It may have been a long time ago, but it is worthy of lengthy diatribes and numerous threads.

 

[Mushroom]

But in Ohio it was the Indians who drew the first major blood, and this prompted George Washington to send two punitive expeditions. Again, this narrative that whites were always the aggressors or the deal breakers is fiction.

That is the case in almost every conflict between Whites and Indians.

A great many of the Indians did battle significantly different than Whites did. To them, it was almost ceremonial and not necessarily to the death. Kinda like two elk or rams butting heads during rutting season. One proves it is dominant, and the other withdraws. And a great many Indian conflicts were the same way.

A great many of their conflicts were with little to no actual killing. Hence, the use of "counting coup". Strike the enemy and ride off without being hit yourself, that proved you were the better warrior so there was no need to actually kill each other.

Then along come these white men with their superior weapons and a way of fighting that is completely different. How dare they!

And it did indeed to both ways. A lot of people like going on about the Bear Creek Massacre, but never mention the Ward Massacre four years earlier. Or even what is known as the "Last Massacre", where a band of outlaw Shoshone from the Fort Hall Reservation had been rustling cattle. And when four ranchers entered a canyon to try and find some missing cattle they were ambushed and killed.

Such actions had been part of Indian culture for tens of thousands of years. Others are on or near your land, you drive them off or kill them. And you expect the same treatment of your people if they get too close to the land of another tribe. That is why tribes rarely traveled without large numbers at their back. You did not see a group of 10 or so Indians, they moved in packs of 100 or more for self-protection from other tribes.

Once again, stupid white men. Traveling in small groups of a dozen or so, who is going to protect them if they get attacked?

 

[Mushroom]

Yeah. It’s like that tribe of Neanderthals losing a pitched battle against Homo Sapiens.

Actually, most evidence there is that they were not killed in battles.

They simply blended into HS populations and eventually died out genetically. But there is significant Neanderthal DNA in modern Europeans. It would be like throwing a couple of coyotes into a park of dogs. After a few generations, their offspring would for all appearances be just dogs.

But between the two, HS would have a significant advantage over Neanderthal. Neanderthal used hand weapons like thrusting spears, while HS had this other kind of spear that could be thrown.

 

[BackAgain]

Actually, most evidence there is that they were not killed in battles.

They simply blended into HS populations and eventually died out genetically. But there is significant Neanderthal DNA in modern Europeans. It would be like throwing a couple of coyotes into a park of dogs. After a few generations, their offspring would for all appearances be just dogs.

But between the two, HS would have a significant advantage over Neanderthal. Neanderthal used hand weapons like thrusting spears, while HS had this other kind of spear that could be thrown.

Actually, my post wasn’t literal.

 

[Blackrook]

The problem is there is nothing we can do about it now.

 

[longly]

What you call genocide is what the American Indians did to each other. When the Indians fought another tribe, they killed as many as they could for as long as they could. The only ones who survived were those who managed to escape. Those who didn't escape but lived wished to the gods they worshipped they had been killed because their suffering was just beginning.

In many ways, the Europeans allegedly fought the indigenous population of the Americas much more humanely than they, the Amerindians, fought anyone else. As far as I know, there were no cases of torture involving men, women, or children. While there were instances of mutilation and scalping, no one was burned alive, no one had their feet cut off, and babies were not cooked alive in front of their mothers.

All of these atrocities were aspects of indigenous tribes across North America, above Mexico. I regret having to point out such gruesome facts, but they are historical realities, and it is always best to know the truth. The worst atrocities committed by Americans were carried out by militia forces, as the regular army tended to be much more disciplined

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

What you call genocide is what the American Indians did to each other. When the Emir Indians fought another tribe, they killed as many as they could for as long as they could. The only ones who survived were those who managed to escape. Those who didn't escape turned to the gods they worshipped because their suffering was just beginning.

In many ways, the Europeans allegedly fought the indigenous population of the Americas much more humanely than they, the Amerindians. fought anyone else. As far as I know, there were no cases of torture involving men, women, or children. While there were instances of mutilation and scalping, no one was burned alive, no one had their feet cut off, and babies were not cooked alive in front of their mothers.

All of these atrocities were aspects of indigenous tribes across North America, above Mexico. I regret having to point out such gruesome facts, but they are historical realities, and it is always best to know the truth. The worst atrocities committed by Americans were carried out by militia forces, as the regular army tended to be much more disciplined

That does not excuse EuroAmerican killing of indigenous peoples, longly. What a goofy argument.

 

[longly]

That does not excuse EuroAmerican killing of indigenous peoples, longly. What a goofy argument.

 

[longly]

I am not trying to excuse anything, just pointing out the way it was. If the U.S. government had wanted to exterminate the Plains Indians, it could have easily done so. After the destruction of the buffalo herds, the Indians were doomed. The only thing that kept them alive was reservations. If they had remained free, they would have starved, slowly being killed off until extinct.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

I am not trying to excuse anything, just pointing out the way it was. If the U.S. government had wanted to exterminate the Plains Indians, it could have easily done so. After the destruction of the buffalo herds, the Indians were doomed. The only thing that kept them alive was reservations. If they had remained free, they would have starved, slowly being killed off until extinct.

All of that is true, but does not excuse the killing except in defense.

 

[longly]

All of that is true, but does not excuse the killing except in defense.

I believe that what most people overlook about the American Indians is that just a few generations ago, they were a neolithic people who wandered the plains of North America in search of buffalo. They lived a very basic subsistence life with minimal technology and knowledge. Yet today, their descendants are doctors, lawyers, research scientists, and professionals in nearly every field. They have demonstrated that a people's history does not define what they can become; rather, they themselves define their own potential. And that is true for all people.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

I believe that what most people overlook about the American Indians is that just three or four generations ago, they were a neolithic people who wandered the plains of North America in search of buffalo. They lived a very basic subsistence life with minimal technology and knowledge. Yet today, their descendants are doctors, lawyers, research scientists, and professionals in nearly every field. They have demonstrated that a people's history does not define what they can become; rather, they themselves define their own potential. And that is true for all people.

My people have done well, yes. But are still on the road to success.

I am talking about events like Washita and Sand Creek. Bear River and Little Big Horn were the events of war.

 

[Hector12]

I am not trying to excuse anything, just pointing out the way it was. If the U.S. government had wanted to exterminate the Plains Indians, it could have easily done so. After the destruction of the buffalo herds, the Indians were doomed. The only thing that kept them alive was reservations. If they had remained free, they would have starved, slowly being killed off until extinct.

We white folks killed the buffalos to starve the Indians. That was wrong.

 

[longly]

We white folks killed the buffalos to starve the Indians. That was wrong.

No, that was war. If you think that was the first time that tactic was used in warfare, you need to refresh your knowledge of military history. The strategy dates back at least as far as Alexander the Great. He conquered Afghanistan using the same basic technique. Interestingly enough, no one else has ever fully conquered Afghanistan. Perhaps war is wrong, but I don't think the ability to change that situation and live in a world of perpetual peace is within the capability of human beings. After all, it only takes one to start a war—unless one is willing to be a slave and submit.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

No, that was war. If you think that was the first time that tactic was used in warfare, you need to refresh your knowledge of military history. The strategy dates back at least as far as Alexander the Great. He conquered Afghanistan using the same basic technique. Interestingly enough, no one else has ever fully conquered Afghanistan. Perhaps war is wrong, but I don't think the ability to change that situation and live in a world of perpetual peace is within the capability of human beings. After all, it only takes one to start a war—unless one is willing to be a slave and submit.

That it was recognized as effective tactic of war does not make it moral, bub.

 

[Rigby5]

It sucks to be conquered. Just like all the other peoples throughout history that were conquered. America has treated Native Americans better than most conquering nations.

Totally disagree.
Sure there have been lots of invaders, but they generally are just out for some booty and they leave.
What the British colonists in the USA did was totally different.
We did not just do an imperialist colony like France and Spain did in Canada and Mexico.
Instead we tried to commit total genocide, and managed to use things like Smallpox and starvation by wiping out the buffalo, to kill over 90% of the Native Americans.
Invaders normally do not do that.
Like the Romans never wiped out local populations.
Neither did the Spanish, Mongols, Moghuls, Tatars, Turks, or anyone really.

 

[Rigby5]

LOL....the indians lost to a superior enemy,simple as that.
They'd have done the same if they were capable.
Indian history is full of wars,torture,slavery and every other manner of savagery you can think of.
No they weren't the noble indians the left tries to paint them as,they were savages plain and simple.

Wrong.
Native Americans did some war, but more as a sport, and they did not do torture or slavery.
To be really savage at war, you need agricultural surpluses, privatize land, currency, and a mercenary class.
The Native Americans did none of these in any significant way.

 

[Rigby5]

No, that was war. If you think that was the first time that tactic was used in warfare, you need to refresh your knowledge of military history. The strategy dates back at least as far as Alexander the Great. He conquered Afghanistan using the same basic technique. Interestingly enough, no one else has ever fully conquered Afghanistan. Perhaps war is wrong, but I don't think the ability to change that situation and live in a world of perpetual peace is within the capability of human beings. After all, it only takes one to start a war—unless one is willing to be a slave and submit.

That is not what I have read.
Alexander the Great never used a starvation tactic by wiping out an important food source.
It would take too long.
Alexander the Great did not live long enough for slow tactics like that.
When Alexander the Great invaded Afghanistan, it was because at that time it was Persian.
And he simply defeated the Persian army.

Starvation is a foolish tactic because it eliminates your workforce and their wealth.