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

[Picaro]

Anytime Mushroom and Picaro quote a historian with favor, we all know he/she is a shit historian.

You're mentally ill, so that is actually a compliment and testament to our accuracy.

Thank you.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

I don't know about that. As far as Mushroom is concerned, the historical information he's posted is spot-on. So far, I haven't found anything he's posted that which I significantly disagree.

I had to look up Ward Churchill and Howard Zinn—I didn’t know who they were. But after little checking, I’m convinced that if there’s a historical hell, they’ve earned themselves a front-row seat. Honestly, I’ve never been one to follow authors; I care more about the facts and the narrative than the name on the cover. Still, I do recognize a few standouts like James Burke, Jean M. Auel, and Philip Kerr, who wrote the brilliant Bernie Gunther series. When it comes to blending history with storytelling, Kerr is in a league of his own.

Yeah, I do know about. Read those two with care.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

You're mentally ill, so that is actually a compliment and testament to our accuracy.

Thank you.

Says the mentally ill intellectual idjit.

 

[Mushroom]

I don't know about that. As far as Mushroom is concerned, the historical information he's posted is spot-on. So far, I haven't found anything he's posted that which I significantly disagree.

Here is the funny thing about what I post.

I actually do not really "take a side" 99% of the time. Notice, it is damned rare for me to ever really "give an opinion", I simply state facts and can (and normally do) back them up with valid non-biased references.

Something that in general pisses off the fanatics on both sides. I really do not care what side of an issue somebody is on, post a bunch of crap and I will call them out on it. Be they on the right or on the left. That is quite often why in the same discussion one person will scream I am a "Marxist Lefty", and another will call me some "MAGA Hat wearer".

To a fanatic of either side, if you do not agree with them that automatically makes you their exact opposite and an enemy. And being primarily neutral and calling out their coprolite tends to confuse the hell out of extremists on both sides. And to be honest, I really can not tell the difference between the fanatics on either side. Both will lie, evade, make crap up, or simply attack anybody that refuses to drink their snake oil.

As far as this topic goes, I do tend to take it a bit more seriously than others. That's because I actually am of American Indian heritage. And I absolutely detest when people put down or lie about it. I am of Potawatomie descent, and damned proud of it. But I am also aware that the reason my ancestors were relocated to Oklahoma was ultimately part of the fallout with siding with Tecumseh in Tecumseh's War (Battle of Tippecanoe and the War of 1812).

Not all bands and tribes of the Potawatomie sided with Tecumseh, but those that did were ultimately forced to move to Oklahoma. Those that did not fight in those wars are still on their ancestral lands to this day. That is why you have a Potawatomie reservation in Oklahoma, and many others scattered around Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, and Canada. Those that fought were ultimately forced to move. Those that did not fight, remained.

I have lived on or on the edges of a great many reservations for many years (which is funny because the majority can spot my descent but not identify it - many over the decades have asked me what tribe because I do not look like the local 'skins). And a great many are still on their lands to this day. But the history of "Massacres" goes both ways. In most cases, some band of warriors from a tribe would attack settlers or immigrants, and in response the Americans would attack in return. Just as they would attack any small band passing through or on the edges of their territory that did not have enough defenders to protect them.

The first major massacre of emigrants by Indians occurred along the Snake River in 1854 when nineteen overlanders were slaughtered by Shoshone Indians in what came to be known as the Ward Massacre. Six years later, the Snake River country would witness another attack, the Utter-Van Ornum Massacre.

Snake River Massacre Account by One of the Survivors

www.oregonhistoryproject.org

There is a damned good reason when Indian groups moved, they did so enmasse with scouts and plenty of defenders. From the point of view of the Shoshone for example, the foolish settlers they massacred near Fort Hall and the Utter Party deserved it. I always shake my head (along with many Shoshone I know) who cry crocodile tears about the Bear River Massacre in 1863, and ignore almost a dozen massacres of whites in the years prior.

And to be honest, I do not even care if people agree with me or not. What I ask them to do is to fact check me. That is a big difference also. I do not just go "Trust me, Bro", I invite and encourage people to challenge me. To take the time and look things up for yourself, and not just accept what anybody tells them (even me). I encourage fact checking, because I honestly believe that is the best way to discover the facts. I also encourage people to look at things from both sides, not "one side or the other".

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Bear Massacre is a great example of conflicting interests in trying to use other groups to accomplish desired goals. The United States Army, the Shoshone Indian Nation, and the Mormons, all we're hoping the other two would use each other up.

 

[longly]

A slightly different take on the same subject: The idea that America is stolen land taken from the Aboriginal people of this continent is simply false. A basic principle of human existence is that no one has the right to expect to be treated anybetter than they treat others.

The so-called white man did not steal this land—he gained custody of it in the same way the American Indians did: by right of conquest. He won it in war, just as the Indians had taken it from other tribes who lived here before them.

To say otherwise is simple hypocrisy—and lying.

Over the last hundred years or so, in the pursuit of a more peaceful world with less war, we've been working to change the concept that territory can be legitimately won through war. We're trying to eliminate the idea of the "right of conquest" and instead make national borders sacred and inviolable.

However, it seems that the greatest obstacles to this shift are many of the developing countries. Most of them appear unwilling to abandon the concept of conquest, as they don't seem to strongly oppose Russia's aggression in Ukraine. This suggests they still accept, at least implicitly, the idea that territorial expansion through force may be legitimate.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

And here is the fallacy created by a single person's opinion: "A basic principle of human existence is that no one has the right to expect to be treated anybetter than they treat others."

 

[Hellbilly]

The so-called white man did not steal this land—he gained custody of it in the same way the American Indians did: by right of conquest. He won it in war, just as the Indians had taken it from other tribes who lived here before them.

Since Indigenous people have lived on this land for 20,000 years, who exactly did we steal it from?

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

I don't think anyone was here when our ancestors came here.

The old neo-Caucasian inhabitants died out maybe 50000 to 80000 years before us.

But, yes, we warred against each other since we were here.

That does not excuse the colonists or Americans here, or the Russians in the East during the 18th and 19th centuries.

 

[Mushroom]

The so-called white man did not steal this land—he gained custody of it in the same way the American Indians did: by right of conquest. He won it in war, just as the Indians had taken it from other tribes who lived here before them.

The fact is, most of it was vacant and unoccupied. And many times they outright bought it.

Hell, the entire population of Idaho in around 1800 has been estimated to have been around 30,000. And other than a handful of French and Russian trappers and traders, those were all American Indians. That is 30,000 people for over 83,000 square miles.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

The fact is, most of it was vacant and unoccupied. And many times they outright bought it.

Hell, the entire population of Idaho in around 1800 has been estimated to have been around 30,000. And other than a handful of French and Russian trappers and traders, those were all American Indians. That is 30,000 people for over 83,000 square miles.

So what? They were there before you.

 

[Meathead]

That does not excuse the colonists or Americans here, or the Russians in the East during the 18th and 19th centuries.

No excuse is needed. People, like all other animals, spread, settle and take over where and when they can. It is the very nature of all living things.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Yes, meat, I agree with that. But to dismiss the agony of human existence is inhuman.

 

[Mushroom]

So what? They were there before you.

laughs

They were here before me? Really?

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

laughs

They were here before me? Really?

White Eyes want more Injun land.

 

[Mushroom]

White Eyes want more Injun land.

How many times do I have to state I am Potawatomie?

So who exactly was here before I was?

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

How many times do I have to state I am Potawatomie?

So who exactly was here before I was?

Potawatomie were wusses. Even big wusses like Ponca could beat them up.

 

[longly]

No excuse is needed. People, like all other animals, spread, settle and take over where and when they can. It is the very nature of all living things.

He is right—in the beginning, we were no better than the animals that attempted to prey on our livestock. The change was very slow. During the early Middle Ages, defeated armies were either massacred or enslaved. It wasn't until the Renaissance and the Age of Exploration that conditions among Europeans changed significantly. Slavery had nearly disappeared, and even serfdom was fading, virtually nonexistent in France and England.

But it has only been in the past hundred years that real progress has been made. We have tried to eliminate the concept of the right of conquest and make borders sacred, in order to discourage any gain from war. However, the nations that are most uncooperative are often those in the developing world—the very ones that complain the loudest about European colonialism yet seem to have no objection to Russian colonialism, how hypocritical is that?

The worst part is, we are trying to build a better world—and we are doing it alone.

 

[longly]

So what? They were there before you.

You do know that's a racist assumption, don't you? You're implying that all the Indigenous peoples of this land were the same simply because they belonged to the same race. But they didn’t see it that way. Tribes fought, defeated, massacred, and displaced other tribes—and took their lands long before Europeans arrived. These intertribal conflicts even continued after European contact.

So, if you're suggesting that such actions were acceptable because these groups shared a racial identity, yet declaring it unacceptable for Europeans to do the same, that's a racially biased distinction. It ignores the complex and diverse identities among Native tribes and assumes a simplistic racial unity that wasn’t reflected in how they interacted with one another—or how they viewed themselves.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

You do know that's a racist assumption, don't you? You're implying that all the Indigenous peoples of this land were the same simply because they belonged to the same race. But they didn’t see it that way. Tribes fought, defeated, massacred, and displaced other tribes—and took their lands long before Europeans arrived. These intertribal conflicts even continued after European contact.

So, if you're suggesting that such actions were acceptable because these groups shared a racial identity, yet declaring it unacceptable for Europeans to do the same, that's a racially biased distinction. It ignores the complex and diverse identities among Native tribes and assumes a simplistic racial unity that wasn’t reflected in how they interacted with one another—or how they viewed themselves.

Only to people like you who don't understand mankind.

We are violent animals. The third world today imitates the West in the Americas and Russia above the Himalayas.