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

[irosie91]

No, they didn't. You are employing the common tactic of a thief who, in order to divert suspicion from himself, shouts “stop thief!”

a really tentative and DESPERATE connection-----but thanks for TRYING SO HARD

 

[westwall]

But they didn't do it.

Buuuuut the difference is with you clods there would be NO native Americans.

 

[Mushroom]

The killing of bison in the US and Canada from 1880 to 1890 led to the death of thousands of Native Americans from starvation.

No, it did not. Holy hell, the 1880s and 1890s?

OK, to start with the American Bison did not range over the entire nation, primarily the Great Plains. So even what impact there was was limited to that area. Most Indians in the nation before the arrival of Europeans would have never even seen or heard of a Buffalo.

Now the range was once larger, but never very large in numbers outside of the Great Plains. The primary diet for most tribes tended more towards fish, as well as other animals like deer and rodents.

That is a lovely fantasy that many tell themselves, but it is completely false. And one knows this immediately if one simply examines the timeline. I mean come on now, 1880s to 1890? Almost all of those that used to hunt American Bison were already on reservations. And were using more traditional agriculture to sustain themselves, like raising their own animals.

And no, it was not done to kill the Indians either. There was actually a huge fashion trend in Europe for buffalo hide coats and buffalo hide blankets. In fact, that fashion trend actually started in Germany in the early 1700s, and by the late 1800s became a craze.

Oh, and the term ""Buff Coat"? Yep, is shortened from "Buffalo Coat". The craze started in the 1700s, and is why the Wisent (European Bison) was hunted to extinction in the wild in Europe. And when there were no longer any Bison in Europe, somebody realized there were still a lot of them in the Americas. So they craze was able to continue for another century.

 

[Mushroom]

The vast majority of the population loss was caused by disease.

The major population centers of the indians were in MEXICO, thousands of miles to the south.


Not every war, was a war crime, though the indians had no cultural connections to what we consider the Laws of War.

Well, yes and no. And a lot of that also depends on when Europeans arrived.

If they had arrived in say 1392, things would have been very different. It is only in the last few decades that many are finally starting to recognize how large and dense the Mississippian Culture was in Pre-Columbian America. But many now believe it would have rivaled the Aztecs in population.

And "Laws of War" is very much a modern European concept. For a great many American Cultures, human sacrifice and even ritual cannibalism was simply how things were. The Aztecs are simply the most well known when it comes to that, but most Indian cultures had at least some connection to the practice.

But it is a simple fact, most of the Indians that died never even saw or heard of a "White Man". Something like 80% died of disease. Blaming that on "Whites" is about as idiotic as trying to blame the Black Death plagues on the Chinese or Mongols. The disease originated in China after all, and it was the Mongols who brought it to Europe. But you don't see people running around screaming at them for the death of over 1/4 of the global population and 1/4 of the European population.

 

[AZrailwhale]

US Army officer Richard Dodge:
“Kill every buffalo you can kill. The death of every buffalo means the disappearance of the Indians.”
The killing of bison in the US and Canada from 1880 to 1890 led to the death of thousands of Native Americans from starvation.

Now tell us about the Holodomor.

Except the US government FED the Indians when they went to the reservations.

 

[irosie91]

Except the US government FED the Indians when they went to the reservations.

gee----even I do not buy into the ---"kill the buffalo, kill the indian" theory----
It seems to me that the land BACK then had it all----for hunting, gathering,
farming etc etc. that no people needed to depend on buffalo burgers

 

[Mushroom]

Except the US government FED the Indians when they went to the reservations.

And this was as the OP claimed, the 1880s and 1890s. All of the hostile tribes were on reservations by that time.

This only shows how piss-poor the actual knowledge of history is among many people. I see this, and it is like confusing incidents during Elizabethan England with incidents in the time of Georgian era. And I am not even "English", but can clearly understand the differences in those two eras.

 

[Soupnazi630]

No, they didn't. You are employing the common tactic of a thief who, in order to divert suspicion from himself, shouts “stop thief!”

Yes they did

The communist murder of their own people was worse than Hitlers mass murder of jews

 

[irosie91]

And this was as the OP claimed, the 1880s and 1890s. All of the hostile tribes were on reservations by that time.

This only shows how piss-poor the actual knowledge of history is among many people. I see this, and it is like confusing incidents during Elizabethan England with incidents in the time of Georgian era. And I am not even "English", but can clearly understand the differences in those two eras.

my actual knowledge is piss-poor. by the 1880s were there Indian tribes dependent on
BUFFALO for food and/or furs or skins ?

 

[westwall]

my actual knowledge is piss-poor. by the 1880s were there Indian tribes dependent on
BUFFALO for food and/or furs or skins ?

It depends on the tribe. Plains Indians, yes, other tribes, no.

 

[Correll]

Disease did kill many.

Disease killed MOST. By a large margin, is my understanding.

The libs in this thread are tryign to conflate deaths from disease in with deaths from intentional genocide.

Dishonest and vile.

However, don’t discount the obvious efforts to eradicate Native Americans implemented by the US government and white settlers.

If the vast majority of the decline in population was from disease then it kind of does discount any "efforts" to eradicate native americans.

Laws of war…lol. You think the US government and white settlers followed laws of war. Lol. How utterly ignorant and naive.

That's a weird thing to say. I said nothing of the US government or white settlers following the laws of war.

What do you think teh point of laws of war ARE?

 

[Correll]

Well, yes and no. And a lot of that also depends on when Europeans arrived.

If they had arrived in say 1392, things would have been very different. It is only in the last few decades that many are finally starting to recognize how large and dense the Mississippian Culture was in Pre-Columbian America. But many now believe it would have rivaled the Aztecs in population.

Earlier in the thread some people have been very... sloppy with discussing population numbers and throwing around numbers ranging from AMERICANS territories, to north america, or even "the americans", which are of course, massively different numbers.

And "Laws of War" is very much a modern European concept. For a great many American Cultures, human sacrifice and even ritual cannibalism was simply how things were. The Aztecs are simply the most well known when it comes to that, but most Indian cultures had at least some connection to the practice.

Agreed. So the concept was completely alien to the indians and so the wars that occurred where NOT wages according to the European concept of JUST WAR, or legal war, or... anything european centered.

That was of course, my point.

But it is a simple fact, most of the Indians that died never even saw or heard of a "White Man". Something like 80% died of disease. Blaming that on "Whites" is about as idiotic as trying to blame the Black Death plagues on the Chinese or Mongols. The disease originated in China after all, and it was the Mongols who brought it to Europe. But you don't see people running around screaming at them for the death of over 1/4 of the global population and 1/4 of the European population.

I believe at least one of the big diseases also caused a good deal of sterility in surviving males, to reduce populations even more.


But yes, like I said, VAST MAJORITY of the loss was from disease. Lumping that in with losses from military actions and trying to use that false number to paint a picture of EVUL WHITE MEN, rampaging over the innocent, noble savages of the indians,


is deeply dishonest.

 

[Ringo]

to paint a picture of EVUL WHITE MEN, rampaging over the innocent, noble savages of the indians,
is deeply dishonest.

Can you tell me how many treaties the American government signed with indian tribes that it broke? No need to look up the exact number, because it's 100%, meaning all of them.
Maybe you also find it deeply dishonest?

 

[Mushroom]

But yes, like I said, VAST MAJORITY of the loss was from disease. Lumping that in with losses from military actions and trying to use that false number to paint a picture of EVUL WHITE MEN, rampaging over the innocent, noble savages of the indians,

Which is absolute nonsense.

What most people believe about the tribes is absolute garbage. Some kind of Disney fantasy with about as much connection to reality as Pirates of the Caribbean does to actual pirates in the Caribbean.

I always shake my head at how most fail to understand the reality. Like how often they try to call then "Paleolithic" and "Stone Age", when in reality they were Chalcolithic, or "Copper Age". In fact, they were the first culture to enter the Copper Age, thousands of years before Eurasia or Africa.



Copper use in the Americas reaches back to at least 8500 BCE. With many cultures in South America were doing smelting as early as 1500 BCE. And by 500 CE, the Tiwanaku were making alloys.

Most people really need to get out of their head that the Indians were "Stone Age" peoples. They were clearly Chalcolithic. And the large amounts of metalwork found in both North and South America show they were clearly knowledgeable with metalworking.

In reality, they were closer to Otzi, the "Ice Man" found on the Austrian-Italian border in 1991. He was murdered in around 3275 BCE, and probably would have fit right in with Pre-Columbian Indians. Among his tools were fur and leather clothing, stone scrapers, drill and a bone awl. As well as stone arrow heads, a stone knife, and a copper axe.

They in reality were far closer to the medieval Vikings than the fantasy most like to believe. Most practiced slavery, and conflict was common.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Which is absolute nonsense.

What most people believe about the tribes is absolute garbage. Some kind of Disney fantasy with about as much connection to reality as Pirates of the Caribbean does to actual pirates in the Caribbean.

I always shake my head at how most fail to understand the reality. Like how often they try to call then "Paleolithic" and "Stone Age", when in reality they were Chalcolithic, or "Copper Age". In fact, they were the first culture to enter the Copper Age, thousands of years before Eurasia or Africa.



Copper use in the Americas reaches back to at least 8500 BCE. With many cultures in South America were doing smelting as early as 1500 BCE. And by 500 CE, the Tiwanaku were making alloys.

Most people really need to get out of their head that the Indians were "Stone Age" peoples. They were clearly Chalcolithic. And the large amounts of metalwork found in both North and South America show they were clearly knowledgeable with metalworking.

In reality, they were closer to Otzi, the "Ice Man" found on the Austrian-Italian border in 1991. He was murdered in around 3275 BCE, and probably would have fit right in with Pre-Columbian Indians. Among his tools were fur and leather clothing, stone scrapers, drill and a bone awl. As well as stone arrow heads, a stone knife, and a copper axe.

They in reality were far closer to the medieval Vikings than the fantasy most like to believe. Most practiced slavery, and conflict was common.

Common? I’d say universal and constant.

 

[Correll]

Can you tell me how many treaties the American government signed with indian tribes that it broke? No need to look up the exact number, because it's 100%, meaning all of them.
Maybe you also find it deeply dishonest?

Yes, of course. Very much so.

Would you care to share with me, how that is relevant to my post, that you "replied" to?

 

[Correll]

Which is absolute nonsense.

What most people believe about the tribes is absolute garbage. Some kind of Disney fantasy with about as much connection to reality as Pirates of the Caribbean does to actual pirates in the Caribbean.

I always shake my head at how most fail to understand the reality. Like how often they try to call then "Paleolithic" and "Stone Age", when in reality they were Chalcolithic, or "Copper Age". In fact, they were the first culture to enter the Copper Age, thousands of years before Eurasia or Africa.
.....

Stone or copper, not really relevant to my point that the vast majority of the population decline was from disease.