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

[Kruska]

American Aboriginals were constantly at war with each other.
American Indian tribes frequently engaged in intertribal warfare over territory, resources, and alliances, both before and after European contact. Major conflicts included the 17th-century Beaver Wars, where the Iroquois Confederacy fought neighboring tribes for control of the fur trade, and 19th-century alliances like Tecumseh’s Confederation against the U.S..
View attachment 1230761History.com +1
Key aspects of intertribal warfare and alliances include:

• The Beaver Wars (1609–1701): The Iroquois Confederacy attacked and conquered neighboring Algonquin-speaking tribes and the French to dominate the Great Lakes fur trade.
• Alliances with European Powers: Different tribes frequently took opposite sides in European conflicts, such as the French and Indian War and the American Revolution, effectively fighting each other through their respective allies.
• Conflicts Over Resources and Land: Disputes over hunting grounds, such as bison herds, led to ongoing conflict among Plains tribes, which sometimes continued during the 19th-century Plains Indian Wars.
• Internal Conflicts: Civil wars within nations occurred, such as the Creek War (1813–1814), where pro-American "Lower Creeks" fought with U.S. forces against the traditionalist "Upper Creeks" (Red Sticks).
• Tribal Shifts: Some tribes, such as the Pawnee and Crow, sometimes allied with the U.S. military during the Great Sioux War of 1876, often due to existing rivalries with the Sioux.
  View attachment 1230760History.com +5

I never stated that they weren't at war with each other - it's just like your Zionists and Arab/Muslims.
But the ones conducting genocide are solely the Zionists. Just as the Europeans and then as "Americans" in the Americas.

And those "fur" wars came up due to Europeans trading them for Whiskey, weapons and e.g. steel tools.

 

[Hafar1014]

I never stated that they weren't at war with each other - it's just like your Zionists and Arab/Muslims.
But the ones conducting genocide are solely the Zionists. Just as the Europeans and then as "Americans" in the Americas.

The Muslims have always tried to exterminate the Jews but they lose every time. They are so violent they even kill each other. Iran killed 30000 of its own citizens and attacked Arab nations. The regime is like a rabid dog biting everything. This time they are going down for good. America and Israel are the solution. So idiots like you fight back with useless accusations while we are kicking your ass. Works fior me.

 

[IM2]

American Aboriginals were constantly at war with each other.
American Indian tribes frequently engaged in intertribal warfare over territory, resources, and alliances, both before and after European contact. Major conflicts included the 17th-century Beaver Wars, where the Iroquois Confederacy fought neighboring tribes for control of the fur trade, and 19th-century alliances like Tecumseh’s Confederation against the U.S..
View attachment 1230761History.com +1
Key aspects of intertribal warfare and alliances include:

• The Beaver Wars (1609–1701): The Iroquois Confederacy attacked and conquered neighboring Algonquin-speaking tribes and the French to dominate the Great Lakes fur trade.
• Alliances with European Powers: Different tribes frequently took opposite sides in European conflicts, such as the French and Indian War and the American Revolution, effectively fighting each other through their respective allies.
• Conflicts Over Resources and Land: Disputes over hunting grounds, such as bison herds, led to ongoing conflict among Plains tribes, which sometimes continued during the 19th-century Plains Indian Wars.
• Internal Conflicts: Civil wars within nations occurred, such as the Creek War (1813–1814), where pro-American "Lower Creeks" fought with U.S. forces against the traditionalist "Upper Creeks" (Red Sticks).
• Tribal Shifts: Some tribes, such as the Pawnee and Crow, sometimes allied with the U.S. military during the Great Sioux War of 1876, often due to existing rivalries with the Sioux.
  View attachment 1230760History.com +5

White people in Europe were at war with each other, doing the same things. So you can drop that tired, disingenuous argument trying to excuse what whites did to the indigenous people of this land.

 

[Hafar1014]

White people in Europe were at war with each other, doing the same things. So you can drop that tired, disingenuous argument trying to excuse what whites did to the indigenous people of this land.

I was just correcting your mistake. I dont deny anything.

 

[Kruska]

The Muslims have always tried to exterminate the Jews

When???

They are so violent they even kill each other. Iran killed 30000 of its own citizens and attacked Arab nations.

Your are an idiot and a fanatic Zionist - propagating bull.

The regime is like a rabid dog biting everything. This time they are going down for good. America and Israel are the solution. So idiots like you fight back with useless accusations while we are kicking your ass. Works fior me.

No body kicks or ever kicked my ass - you Zionist genocidal moron

BTW: this threads topic is about RED-Indians, and not Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims being harassed and genocided by Zionists.

 

[IM2]

I was just correcting your mistake. I dont deny anything.

You haven't corrected anything. You denied what whites in Europe were doing to try making an excuse fomr what white did here.

 

[Unkotare]

White people in Europe were at war with each other, doing the same things. So you can drop that tired, disingenuous argument trying to excuse what whites did to the indigenous people of this land.

Have you decided you're Native American now? Let's see; you have been Black, Asian, Native American... are you a Skrull?

 

[Mashmont]

Your a Zionist or Nazi? because you make use of this well known and worn-out nonsense argument.

There isn't a single Red-Indian tribe that would have eradicated another Indian tribe nor their specific culture.
War's were not conducted on the premises of a permanent land-grab or gold possession - but simply due to feeding issues, in majority pertaining to tribes/nations that were not involved in crop-raising. (foremost Plains-Indians) Territorial wars were only in regards to crossing into others "known" feeding grounds for a respective timeline.

E.g. the Comanches, aka nomad tribes - crossing through thousands of miles of other Indians territories known hunting grounds.
And the Comanches did not wipe out those tribes - but either assimilated them or drove them out, forcing them to seek now hunting grounds - thus in return invading other's known hunting grounds.

Just as the Mongols, Huns or Magyars did in Europe - invading others territories, enslaving parts of the occupied population and then moving on. They didn't eradicate other ethnics or their cultures during their "tours" but simply plundering and eventually returning to their factual homelands.
A good example is the "Golden Horde" in today's geographic Russia. Or the Moguls in today's Pakistan and India. They came, and mostly stayed - thus assimilating (not constantly murdering and driving off the local population) - and in the centuries to follow their respective rulers were defeated by their own "intermixed population" E.g. the Muscovite or Ryasan rulers took over the "ruling" whilst further assimilating or simply mixing with the previous population.

The Muscovite's or Ryasan's did not drive out and exterminate the population - those Mongol descendants still live as Russian citizens in their lands and maintain their culture.

As for the Indians in the USA, as the OP alrady posted:

To sum up, successive U.S. administrations have not only wiped out a large number of American Indians, but also, through systematic policy design and bullying acts of cultural suppression, thrown them into an irreversible, difficult situation. The indigenous culture was fundamentally crushed, and the inter-generational inheritance of indigenous lives and spirits was under severe threats. The slaughter, forced relocation, cultural assimilation and unjust treatment the United States committed against American Indians have constituted de facto genocides. These acts fully match the definition of genocide in the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, and have continued for hundreds of years to this day. It is imperative that the U.S. government drop its hypocrisy and double standards on human rights issues, and take seriously the severe racial problems and atrocities in its own country.

They couldn’t eradicate other tribes because they didn’t have the means to do so. Spears and arrows are no match for firearms

 

[Hafar1014]

No I just corrected your mistake narr

You haven't corrected anything. You denied what whites in Europe were doing to try making an excuse fomr what white did here.

No minded and bigoted as usual. I never denied anything. According to Adlerian psychology youre a perfect example of a inferiority complex.

Alfred Adler, founder of Individual Psychology, defined the inferiority complex as an exaggerated, pathological feeling of inadequacy often rooted in childhood helplessness, physical defects, or parental neglect/pampering. Unlike normal inferiority feelings that motivate growth, this complex impedes functioning and drives individuals to unhealthy compensatory "striving for superiority".
North American Society for Adlerian Psychology +4
Key Aspects of Adler’s Theory

• Root Causes: Stemming from childhood experiences of humiliation, physical limitations, or birth order struggles (e.g., feeling neglected or overly pampered).
• Compensation:Individuals often overcompensate for feelings of weakness by striving for power, dominance, or perfection, creating a "superiority complex" as a cover-up
  .
  • Symptoms: Low self-esteem, constant comparison, hyper-sensitivity to criticism, and withdrawal or extreme competition.
  • Goal: The goal of therapy is to increase social interest and courage to address inferiority directly through productive means, rather than selfish power struggles.
    
    
    North American Society for Adlerian Psychology +6

Adlerian psychology emphasizes that the key to overcoming this complex lies in overcoming discouragement and fostering social connection, as misbehaving or inhibited adults are viewed as "discouraged" individuals.

Adler Graduate School

 

[Kruska]

They couldn’t eradicate other tribes because they didn’t have the means to do so. Spears and arrows are no match for firearms

Nonsense - it simply NEVER occurred to them to genocide their own kind.
They were content with at times waging wars, and having some torture-stake parties with their prisoners.

Unlike spear-wielding Shaka, who ordered a "great massacre" of the Qwabe people, leading to a thorough slaughter that forced many to flee and caused the tribe to cease existing as a distinct entity in Zululand. He did the same to the Langeni, Mbata, Ndwandwe and Thembu.

The Zulu splinter faction of the Ndebele did the same to the Shona and others. So did Ovambos to the Herero and Nama's before the Germans started to settle/colonize there.

 

[Mashmont]

Nonsense - it simply NEVER occurred to them to genocide their own kind.
They were content with at times waging wars, and having some torture-stake parties with their prisoners.

Unlike spear-wielding Shaka, who ordered a "great massacre" of the Qwabe people, leading to a thorough slaughter that forced many to flee and caused the tribe to cease existing as a distinct entity in Zululand. He did the same to the Langeni, Mbata, Ndwandwe and Thembu.

The Zulu splinter faction of the Ndebele did the same to the Shona and others. So did Ovambos to the Herero and Nama's before the Germans started to settle/colonize there.

Sorry, but the kind gentle Chief Wahoo Indian didn’t exist.

 

[Kruska]

Sorry, but the kind gentle Chief Wahoo Indian didn’t exist.

I never stated that - so?? (however didn't some dumb peaceful Indians feed those Pilgrims, instead of slaughtering them)?
Do those Wampanoag & Abenaki still own and rule their ancestral lands??

FACT: No Red-Indian tribe ever exterminated, genocided another Red-Indian tribe - over and out.

 

[westwall]

Indians warred with each other regularly over land. They were no different than the white man

Actually, they warred over women and slaves. Land ownership was not a Native American concept.

 

[Hafar1014]

Nonsense - it simply NEVER occurred to them to genocide their own kind.
They were content with at times waging wars, and having some torture-stake parties with their prisoners.

Unlike spear-wielding Shaka, who ordered a "great massacre" of the Qwabe people, leading to a thorough slaughter that forced many to flee and caused the tribe to cease existing as a distinct entity in Zululand. He did the same to the Langeni, Mbata, Ndwandwe and Thembu.

The Zulu splinter faction of the Ndebele did the same to the Shona and others. So did Ovambos to the Herero and Nama's before the Germans started to settle/colonize there.

They didnt have the ability

 

[Soupnazi630]

Your a Zionist or Nazi? because you make use of this well known and worn-out nonsense argument.

There isn't a single Red-Indian tribe that would have eradicated another Indian tribe nor their specific culture.
War's were not conducted on the premises of a permanent land-grab or gold possession - but simply due to feeding issues, in majority pertaining to tribes/nations that were not involved in crop-raising. (foremost Plains-Indians) Territorial wars were only in regards to crossing into others "known" feeding grounds for a respective timeline.

E.g. the Comanches, aka nomad tribes - crossing through thousands of miles of other Indians territories known hunting grounds.
And the Comanches did not wipe out those tribes - but either assimilated them or drove them out, forcing them to seek now hunting grounds - thus in return invading other's known hunting grounds.

Just as the Mongols, Huns or Magyars did in Europe - invading others territories, enslaving parts of the occupied population and then moving on. They didn't eradicate other ethnics or their cultures during their "tours" but simply plundering and eventually returning to their factual homelands.
A good example is the "Golden Horde" in today's geographic Russia. Or the Moguls in today's Pakistan and India. They came, and mostly stayed - thus assimilating (not constantly murdering and driving off the local population) - and in the centuries to follow their respective rulers were defeated by their own "intermixed population" E.g. the Muscovite or Ryasan rulers took over the "ruling" whilst further assimilating or simply mixing with the previous population.

The Muscovite's or Ryasan's did not drive out and exterminate the population - those Mongol descendants still live as Russian citizens in their lands and maintain their culture.

As for the Indians in the USA, as the OP alrady posted:

To sum up, successive U.S. administrations have not only wiped out a large number of American Indians, but also, through systematic policy design and bullying acts of cultural suppression, thrown them into an irreversible, difficult situation. The indigenous culture was fundamentally crushed, and the inter-generational inheritance of indigenous lives and spirits was under severe threats. The slaughter, forced relocation, cultural assimilation and unjust treatment the United States committed against American Indians have constituted de facto genocides. These acts fully match the definition of genocide in the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, and have continued for hundreds of years to this day. It is imperative that the U.S. government drop its hypocrisy and double standards on human rights issues, and take seriously the severe racial problems and atrocities in its own country.

Bullshit

There were many native tribes that indeed tried to wipe our other tribes but were prevented from doing so do to distances and technicological limitations.

Your sum is fiction.

The US comited no genocide under any definition, Indigenous cultures thrive to this day. There are more indiginous people today than there were in what we now call the US during pre columbian tribes.

You are the victim of revisionist spin disguised as history

 

[Mashmont]

I never stated that - so?? (however didn't some dumb peaceful Indians feed those Pilgrims, instead of slaughtering them)?
Do those Wampanoag & Abenaki still own and rule their ancestral lands??

FACT: No Red-Indian tribe ever exterminated, genocided another Red-Indian tribe - over and out.

Like I said, they didn't have the means or they would have. People are people. The red man is not innately better than the white man.

 

[Mushroom]

They couldn’t eradicate other tribes because they didn’t have the means to do so.

Most of them had no need or interest in doing that. So long as they stayed out of "their territory", most did not give a damn. After all, you needed somebody to trade with, steal wives from, and occasionally raid for slaves or sacrifices.

I think what I find most fascinating is that in studying these groups we get a glimpse at what Neolithic and Calcolithic Africa and Eurasia were like. Those eras are so far back in most of the world that they barely even exist as legends. We find occasional glimpses like Otzi, but no context into what any of it meant (like his tattoos).

But the population densities were so low that even the most advanced groups had no interest in "genocide". Even the ones that practiced wholesale human sacrifice did not even try, and eradicating other tribes for the Aztecs is about as logical as a shepherd eradicating all of their sheep.

 

[Mushroom]

There were many native tribes that indeed tried to wipe our other tribes but were prevented from doing so do to distances and technicological limitations.

And who exactly were these tribes, and who were they targeting?

Come on now, you said there were "many". So go ahead, name them. Even the multiple groups that the Sioux fought with over centuries never tried to wipe them out. So long as they left their lands, they simply no longer cared. And that is the culture that was closest to the Mongols in the Americas. Perpetually nomadic, starting in the 1400s in the Lower Mississippi, traveling up to the Great Lakes before turning West. They encountered every grouping of tribes along that route, and none of them tried to wipe them out. They simply wanted them gone because they were not good neighbors.

If you want to be believed, you have to do a hell of a lot better than simply making a blanket statement with nothing to back it up.

 

[Mushroom]

They didnt have the ability

Which all goes back to population density.

The tribes and clans were mostly loosely based on older family connections. Almost never more than a couple of dozen individuals unless they were meeting others for ceremonial or trade purposes. And with so few people over such a vast area of land, if you are the weaker group you simply move away to where adversaries can't attack you anymore.

Fairly easy when they had no beasts of burden other than dogs.

Even combat among most was more ceremonial than actual blood battles. Sure, many times they did fight to kill. But they were just as likely to fight simply for dominance and when one showed they were stronger the other would yield with no bloodshed.

And I bet that if somehow we could hop in a time machine and travel back 5,000 years into Eurasia, most of what was seen there was not unlike North America in the 1500s. Most groups being semi-nomadic with ranges from 100-200 square miles (Crow), others being semi-sedentary with ranges of a few dozen miles (Tillamook). And others being true "Nomads", with no actual home area and simply wandering wherever they felt like at the time (Sioux).

And in Europe, you might have seen some real changes from 7-10 kya, when Doggerland finally vanished under the North Sea. As well as in Africa at about the same time as the Sahara transitioned from fertile wetlands to what we know today.

 

[Kruska]

Like I said, they didn't have the means or they would have. People are people. The red man is not innately better than the white man.

They had the means - no doubt - see those African examples I had given to you.
Furthermore the Great-Lakes tribes and along the West-coast were far more numerous and in close proximity then those mostly nomadic Plains-Indians.

The Iroquois nation in 1650 is estimated at around 25,000 people and the Huron nation at around 45,000.
Around 50 years later the Iroquois were estimated at around 35,000 because they had simply absorbed to remnants of the Huron's
Even though they would have had the possibility to eradicate them.

I think the reason why they did not resort to take a genocidal approach was - they had enough food for most of the time, and maybe most importantly they were not into animal-crop-husbandry. Even their plantations were considered to be small by the European settlers.

Those Africans tribes were all into animal-husbandry and crop raising - so they needed huge areas of land - also due to scarce water supplies. Same would apply to the European and American settlers having a huge demand for land due to their cattle&crop raising - aside from gaining some goldmines.

In Central and South America the known higher civilization had also exterminated certain tribes. And they too were very much into crop raising. So it seems once this crop-land demand comes in, further necessitated by cattle raising - the "claim" for land comes in with the killing/getting rid of others.