# Why Didn't Indian Tribes Repel The Colonists?



## PoliticalChic (Aug 28, 2014)

*Indians....erroneously known as 'Native Americans'....a subject that lends itself to the cause of the America-haters.*

Here, we strip away both the romanticized notions, and the slanders: real history.



First the 'age of exploration,' then colonization. But when colonization began in America, it did so in dribs and drabs.... in small scattered or sporadic amounts.
Certainly not in huge numbers that would account for the* mythical* "Indian genocide."

Why didn't the Indian tribes extant simply toss 'em back into the sea?



1. Colonization began in 1607, with English settlers along the James River. Data shows some 2,400 English in Virginia, and about 1,400 in New England by 1630. 
But t*here were over 400,000 Native Americans east of the Appalachians* by the time the first settlers arrived!

Romanticized versions of Indian life paint them to be friendly, civilized, probably suggesting some sort of "Beer Summit" with the newcomers.....none of which is true.
"Can't we all just get along?" Maybe.


2. Woudn't the Indians, at first glance, want to curtail the newcomers?
Maybe so....but there were several reasons why they couldn't/wouldn't.
First, even small *settlements tended to be fortified,* and able to rely on sea power and firearms.

Indians quickly saw the value of muskets, and were able to trade for same, using them for hunting and against rival tribes.
How about simply using 'em against the 'white interlopers' ?(Al Sharpton).


a. Far from the static view that politicians have of human endeavors, in actuality, people behave dynamically. In this case, getting *guns made the Indians more dependent on Europeans,* for ammunition, powder, and repair of the weapons.

b. And, like garage door openers, once they had guns, they couldn't imagine living without them. So much for sending the Europeans away!

And, the law of unintended consequences went further: guns caused a loss of the skills needed in using bows/arrows!
Walter McDougall, " Freedom Just Around the Corner: A New American History: 1585-1828"

c. To show the extent of the desire for guns, in 1641, the Iroquois sued for peace in order to regain access to the guns the French were selling them!                                                                                     "Firearms in Colonial America: The Impact on History and Technology 1492-1792,' M. L. Brown,
 p.151-158




3. Geography is another reason that the colonists were not sent packing: they settled along the coasts and rivers, so would f*ight tenaciously rather than be pushed into the water! *The Indians, if they were losing, could simply retreat inland, and fade into the forests.



4. As far as losing to the Indians, the *settlers has an inexhaustible supply of reinforcements *from their national 'tribe,' while the Indians could rarely rely on support due to long tribal feuds.





5. Perhaps most important, *the greatest of enemies that the Indians had to face*...they couldn't actually 'face.' And the settlers didn't recognize their greatest ally: Disease.
 Influenza, chicken pox, small pox,...and the plague that decimated the Europeans back home.

a. Over 90% of the Algonquin, Wampanoag, Massachusetts, and Pawtucket tribes were wiped out *even before the Pilgrims arrived!*

b. 50-75% of the Hurons, Iroquois, and Mohawks died in the 1630s and 1640s.

c. And almost 90% of the Powhatan, Susquehannock and other Chesapeake tribes in the 1670s.
McDougall, Op. Cit.


----------



## Moonglow (Aug 28, 2014)

Isn't South and Central America  part of the Americas, and were they not colonized?
And did they not have native inhabitants when they were colonized??

Why are they left out, and the romanticized European and US white benevolence to the natives?


----------



## pismoe (Aug 28, 2014)

interesting opening post .  I figured guns and a lack of awareness of any threat from  the whites were the reasons for the whites being able to establish themselves in this North America that became the USA  .


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 28, 2014)

Moonglow said:


> Isn't South and Central America  part of the Americas, and were they not colonized?
> And did they not have native inhabitants when they were colonized??
> 
> Why are they left out, and the romanticized European and US white benevolence to the natives?






And therein we find the source of so very many of your problems.....
...the neglect of careful reading.

"Isn't South and Central America  part of the Americas, and were they not colonized?"

Where did you find the term "the Americas" in the OP?


Answer: the same place you reside mentally- nowhere.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 28, 2014)

pismoe said:


> interesting opening post .  I figured guns and a lack of awareness of any threat from  the whites were the reasons for the whites being able to establish themselves in this North America that became the USA  .





Very astute of you to recognize that this is only the opening post.

More coming.

This, too....
"...a lack of awareness of any threat from  the whites..."


----------



## pismoe (Aug 28, 2014)

I think its just human nature for some people P. CHIC .    I saw the same thinking from my sisters and their friends when they'd just poo poo my concern about illegal immigration into the USA .


----------



## martybegan (Aug 28, 2014)

Moonglow said:


> Isn't South and Central America  part of the Americas, and were they not colonized?
> And did they not have native inhabitants when they were colonized??
> 
> Why are they left out, and the romanticized European and US white benevolence to the natives?



because the Spanish colonization of central and south america was far more close to a military campaign than anything seen up north during the same time period. The major southern and central indiginous civilizations were far more organized and advanced than their northern counterparts. Some of them evolved past hunter/gatherer and rudimentary farming societies. The Spanish responded with rapid conquest, as opposed to the slower colonization process done up north. they also went for subjugation, as opposed to the combination of trade and friction seen up north.


----------



## Moonglow (Aug 28, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > Isn't South and Central America  part of the Americas, and were they not colonized?
> ...



TY, but I wanted the apologist of the OP to state that...Plus in the north you had religious settlements which were not hell bent on divide and conquer...


----------



## martybegan (Aug 28, 2014)

Moonglow said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...



You also have to agree with part of the OP's position, that the tribes up north were more bent on fighting each other than the new arrivals. They had been fighting for centuries against each other, and the threat of the new "tribes" arriving did not register on them until too late.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 28, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Ding ding.  It's like illegal immigrants no one notices a few hundred thousand or so that come here and stay illegally... next thing ya know there's a shortage of something like jobs or food and you look around to see 40million illegals, then everyone's like... we're under attack, circle the wagons.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 28, 2014)

pismoe said:


> I think its just human nature for some people P. CHIC .    I saw the same thinking from my sisters and their friends when they'd just poo poo my concern about illegal immigration into the USA .





I just might have to worry you even further.....the numbers of 'white interlopers' increased precipitously!


6. The milieu didn't kill the Indians, alone!


The settlers found mostly swampy land by the water, breeding grounds for mosquitoes.....thus many died from malaria.


There was no DDT....at least they didn't have to watch family die due to environmentalists banning DDT...




a. There was also saline poisoning, and various tidewater maladies, due to the swamps and marshes.


b. And both settlers and Indians had low birth rates. The Indians suffered a high death rate for children, while the settlers simply had fewer children due to a lack of females.





7. Virginians took notice, and began moving out of the more swampy areas, thus increasing the number who survived.

And, during the 1630s and 40s, an average of 8,500 new colonists arrived per year.


a. Health was not a problem for the New England Puritans....and the birth rate showed it!


b. *By 1690, English colonists actually outnumbered all of the Indians combined!*

Thomas Purvis, "Colonial America to 1763," p. 34-36.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 28, 2014)

Moonglow said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...





Wait....you want me to apologize for educating you????

You dunce.  You must have a brain the size of a Lithium battery.

No wonder you've been accumulating  free buffet coupons and frequent flier miles for trips to the last seat in the dumb row.


Now it's time for you to apologize for misstating the OP, conflating 'America' with 'the Americas.'


*The OP and the rest of my posts are specific to one area. America.*


----------



## whitehall (Aug 28, 2014)

The touchy-feely sub-standard education we endure in the US tends to lead us to judge the 18th and 19th century by modern standards. There was no central authority in the Indian nation. Each tribe would make up it's own standards of conduct and they could change instantly. American Indians had been raiding and killing each other since the beginning of time and they were well versed in the art of ambush murder as opposed to all out battle. Isolated Colonists were often murdered but Indians would not risk attack on an organized force.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 28, 2014)

8. Best not to forget the purposes of the colonists, and *enslavement or murder was not one. *


Most of us have learned in grade school of the* spiritual *goals, either to escape oppression of their religion, or to establish their own brand of same.

*But for most, the goals were material*, a chance to be rich or at least better off in the New World.

*They came, largely, for land, wood, and water.*




a. A combination of the spiritual and the material resulted in James Oglethope's bringing paupers to his new colony of Georgia in the early 18th century.



9.In any case, it was courage and faith that invested the American colonies.
30,000 Puritans flooded into New England after 1630, and over 120,000* indentured servants *sailed to the Chesapeake area.
*"The Oxford History of the British Empire: Volume I: The Origins of Empire: British Overseas Enterprise to the Close of the 17th Century,"...by Nicholas Canny, p. 176-177

*
Know what 'indentured servants' means?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 28, 2014)

*indentured servant definition*. A person under contract to work for another person for a definite period of time, usually without pay but in exchange for free passage to a new country. During the seventeenth century most of the white laborers in Maryland and Virginia came from England as*indentured servants*.
*Indentured servant|Define Indentured servantat Dictionary...*



10. The first *Africans brought in captivity to colonial Virginia in 1619 became indentured servants, like the white indentured servants* who were common at that time.  Both were released as free people after a set number of years.           Maldwyn Allen Jones, “American Immigration,” p. 13, 32.


a. How and when this changed to perpetual slavery for blacks is unclear, but by the 1640’s, Africans brought to Virginia no longer had indenture contracts.
Yet as late as 1651, some Negroes whose* period of indenture* expired were still being assigned land for themselves, as were the white indentured servants.  
Franklin, “From Slavery to Freedom,” p. 71-72.


b. 1647 Nathaniel Bacon born.
Led _Bacon’s Rebellion_ which united poor blacks and poor whites in Virginia to kill all Indians. Ruling class feared that such union might threaten them; hastened* transition to racial slavery.*


c. The first explicit law passed in America that recognized slavery as a perpetual condition, extending to future offspring, appeared in* 1661 in Virginia*.                         Franklin, Ibid.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 28, 2014)

11. While slavery has exited in virtually every part of the world, politically and morally accepted without question, in America it was embroiled in controversy from the beginning. Some colonies passed laws to prevent it, but these laws were nullified by the British government.  
Brawley, “A Social History of the American Negro,” p. 15.



a. Having been created as a free society, the concepts required to support slavery required ideological justifications that other slave societies had not found necessary. The most essential justification was the assertion that the enslaved were so different that the principles and ideals of the country didn’t apply to them.

Imagine the contortions that had to go into the idea that the slaves lacked the feelings that would cause them suffering from degradation, hard work, or the destruction of family ties.



b. In Virginia, Washington, Jefferson, Patrick Henry and James Madison all publicly advocated the abolition of slavery. Phillips, “American Negro Slavery,” p. 122-124.


----------



## Rikurzhen (Aug 28, 2014)

Imagine if liberal philosophy had infected people back in the old days.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 29, 2014)

12. As stated earlier, most came to America for land, water, ...*and wood.*

 The companies who sent settlers did so under contracts that required wood be sent back. The profit from this commerce would pay for the cost of transporting the settlers.



 During the colonization period, England was becoming master of the seas, and the building and repair of ships used most of the trees in Britain.
This led to one of the* sparks leading to the Revolutionary War, "the Pine Tree Riot."*


a. "... to be used as *masts for merchant and naval ships.*White pine trees were considered to be the best type of tree to use for these single-stick masts. To maintain Britain's naval and trading advantage, laws were passed in North America to protect white pine trees until they were fully grown for British ship building.


b. In 1722, theNew Hampshire General Courtpassed a law making it* illegal to cut down "any white pine tree *of the growth of 12 inches of diameter" or face a fine ...." 
Pine Tree Riot - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



c. *" The Pine Tree Riot*, the raid on Fort William and Mary in Newcastle, the threats to the Tax Stamp Master in Portsmouth, and many other acts of rebellion grew from the *anger that the citizens of New Hampshire felt over these laws*. They all helped to bring New Hampshire into the RevolutionaryWar against Great Britain." 
nhfr


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Aug 29, 2014)

Schilling for some Stormfront-like anti-Native site now?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 29, 2014)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Schilling for some Stormfront-like anti-Native site now?





Couldn't help but notice that you weren't articulate enough to provide any specifics that you found inaccurate.

Seems to be an ongoing problem with you....

Is it lack of ability, or lack of intellect?

You can be honest.....both?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 29, 2014)

There is no doubt that the numbers Indians prior to the advent of Europeans, after 1600 or so, was far greater than the period just after.
The explanation, given earlier, was* microbes against which the indigenous populations had no defense.*

Today?
Numbers surpass those of the original.



13. During the 4 centuries following European entry into North America, Indian population fell. By the beginning of the 20th Century, officials found only 250,000 Indians in the territory of the US, ....  Scholars estimate pre-Columbian North  American population range from 1.2 million (1928 tribe-by-tribe assessment)  up to 20 million by activists.


Collectively these data suggest that population numbered about 1,894,350 at about A.D. 1500.* Epidemics and other factors reduced this number* to only 530,000 by 1900. 
Modern data suggest that by 1985 population size has *increased to over 2.5 million*.
North American Indian population size A.D. 1500 to 1985 - Ubelaker - 2005 - American Journal of Physical Anthropology - Wiley Online Library



a. The reported population of Native Americans by the most recent Census has *soared more than 1000% since 1900*, over 3 times that of the US as a whole. 
A reasonable explanation is that intermarriage and assimilation reveal that a portion of the reported disappearance of native Americans may be that many still exist but in a  different description..



b. "...According to 2008 US Census projections, those who are *Native American and Alaska Natives alone number 3.08 million *of the total US population of 304 million, or 1.01 percent of the nation's entire population. Those who are Native American alone or in combination with other races measure as *4.86 million *individuals,..."
Modern social statistics of Native Americans - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## Urbanguerrilla (Aug 29, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> *Indians....erroneously known as 'Native Americans'....a subject that lends itself to the cause of the America-haters.*
> 
> Here, we strip away both the romanticized notions, and the slanders: real history.
> 
> ...



Another major problem with the Indians were the divisions inherent between the tribes.

They would have initially seen the Europeans small, isolated and far from home.

Immediate Indian concerns were how to defeat the tribe next door, the newcomers brought that ancient possibility closer due to their new technology, this one presumes is what preoccupied Indian thoughts. A distant future where the Europeans might have the numbers to seriously take their territory was probably like our concerns over global warming, kinda like, m'eh.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Aug 29, 2014)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Schilling for some Stormfront-like anti-Native site now?



Actually, we're discussing the matter-of-fact history of the colonial-expansionist period of American history with regard to the impact on the lives of the indigenous peoples of America, and you're welcome to join us. Or you can go on thinking the fantasy history of "evil colonialism" to your heart's desire, believing nothing worth knowing.

Years ago as a junior at university, I wrote a paper on the problem of labor during the early colonial period in the Americas. The primary reason so many of the earliest settlements failed was not due to disease, but due to the shortage of labor.  In truth, disease was more at a symptom of the ultimate problem.  More laborers were needed to more quickly refine the raw resources needed to establish the disease-foiling infrastructure of fortified bases of reliably consistent supply from which to draw sustenance and expand. This involved the need to establish a system of mutual support quickly via the transaction of the various, indispensable resources of tamed land.

While at first the Spanish essentially enslaved the indigenous peoples of South America, which was efficient enough, but troublesome, they eventually resorted to the use of enslaved African labor beginning in the West Indies on the Caribbean island of Cuba. The British turned to indentured servitude, beginning in Virginia, as did the French elsewhere. This solved the problem, and the colonies began to flourish in earnest. Like the Spanish, the English and the French eventually took up the practice of using enslaved African labor beginning in their West Indies holdings as well, and the practice spread to America, which brings us back to the region of interest in this OP.

Now if you really want to exercise your knee-jerk reactionism and lose some of those unwanted pounds, let me give you something to really rave about. The indigenous peoples of North America were stuck in the Stone Age. Most of them were rank savages, a brutal and murderous lot. Now I'm fairly certain, given your "Stormfront" wisecracking, though you may correct me if I'm wrong, that reality doesn't compute in your politically correct world of the peaceful Noble Savage, loving the land and preserving it, as life remains brutal and short.  But there it is.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 29, 2014)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > Schilling for some Stormfront-like anti-Native site now?
> ...






Certainly agree with your post.

But as for the dope to whom you addressed the post, he was actually sulking over previous spankings I've administered, and sought a way to attack me peripherally.

As you can see, he couldn't find any weakness in the posts.....


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 29, 2014)

Who, exactly, were these noble people that so many seem to wish had expelled the 'white interlopers,' the vicious European murderers' that are the ones who 'stole' this nation, America, from its rightful owners???


Put the romaticized version to rest, or leave it for the children. 
The reality is far different.





14. Potentates of Pop-Culture *suggest the dignity and gentleness of native societies* in pre-Columbian North America, regularly find phrases such as “noble civilizations,’ and “lived in peace,” etc. “Harvard archaeologist [Steven] LeBlanc and his co-author [in Constant Battles: The Myth of the Peaceful, Noble Savage ]  *dismantle the notion of the noble savage,*...

.... most people envision prehistoric people as peace-seeking nature lovers. LeBlanc insists repeatedly that it is *not only foolish, but also dangerous,* to believe in an Edenic past when the evidence reveals overpopulation and violence wherever we look.” (Publisher’s Weekly)




15. Craig Childs wrote in the NYTimes “A Past That Makes Us Squirm,”  “children killed the same way, human sacrifices to an ancient water deity, their bodies buried under pre-Columbian ball courts or at the foot of pillars in important rooms,” *“archaeological record of the Americas read like a war-crimes indictment, *with charred skeletons stacked like cordwood and innumerable human remains missing heads, legs and arms. In the American Southwest, which is my area of research, *human tissue has been found cooked *to the insides of kitchen jars and stained into a ceramic serving ladle. A grinding stone was found full of *crushed human finger bones*. A sample of human feces came up containing the remains of a *cannibal’s* meal.” 
Childs also refers to the accuracy of “ Mel Gibson’s movie ‘Apocalypto.’  

“ How do we rectify the age-old *perception of noble and peaceful native America with the reality* that at times violence was coordinated on a scale never before witnessed by humanity?

The answer is simple. We don’t.”


----------



## Urbanguerrilla (Aug 29, 2014)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Actually, we're discussing the matter-of-fact history of the colonial-expansionist period of American history with regard to the impact on the lives of the indigenous peoples of America, and you're welcome to join us. Or you can go on thinking the fantasy history of "evil colonialism" to your heart's desire, believing nothing worth knowing.
> 
> Years ago as a junior at university, I wrote a paper on the problem of labor during the early colonial period in the Americas. The primary reason so many of the earliest settlements failed was not due to disease, but due to the shortage of labor.  In truth, disease was more at a symptom of the ultimate problem.  More laborers were needed to more quickly refine the raw resources needed to establish the disease-foiling infrastructure of fortified bases of reliably consistent supply from which to draw sustenance and expand. This involved the need to establish a system of mutual support quickly via the transaction of the various, indispensable resources of tamed land.
> 
> ...



They may have been 'stuck' in the stone age, but this shouldnt have been used as an excuse to take their land and massacre them.  

The Europeans were also a brutal and murderous lot and estimates of 20 million for the numbers they were responsible for genociding attest to that.


----------



## Urbanguerrilla (Aug 29, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> Who, exactly, were these noble people that so many seem to wish had expelled the 'white interlopers,' the vicious European murderers' that are the ones who 'stole' this nation, America, from its rightful owners???
> 
> Put the romaticized version to rest, or leave it for the children.
> The reality is far different.
> ...



Human sacrifice in Central/South America cant be used as a stick to beat North American natives with in all fairness. Of course the 'noble savage' notion was always greatly flawed, that doesnt whiten the black pages of European colonisation of an already inhabited landscape. 

Also one may add to the graphic picture of Indo-American cultures propensity for littering the region with child-sacrifices that back in the old countries, that landscape was littered with the corpses of unwanted children in equal measure.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 29, 2014)

Urbanguerrilla said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, we're discussing the matter-of-fact history of the colonial-expansionist period of American history with regard to the impact on the lives of the indigenous peoples of America, and you're welcome to join us. Or you can go on thinking the fantasy history of "evil colonialism" to your heart's desire, believing nothing worth knowing.
> ...







Hard to believe that you were able to jam as much nonsense into such a short post.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 29, 2014)

Urbanguerrilla said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Who, exactly, were these noble people that so many seem to wish had expelled the 'white interlopers,' the vicious European murderers' that are the ones who 'stole' this nation, America, from its rightful owners???
> ...




"...an already inhabited landscape...."


Seems you are unfamiliar with the peripatetic nature of Indian habitation.

No Indian tribe owned any land. They passed through and this, in fact, was the reason for much of the warfare.


"One popular history of Manhattan notes that the Canarsie Indians "dwelt on Long Island, merely trading on Manhattan, and their trickery [in selling what they didn't possess to the Dutch] made it necessary for the white man to buy part of the island over again from the tribes living near Washington Heights. Still more crafty were the Raritans of [Staten Island], for the records show that Staten Island was sold by these Indians no less than six times."
The Straight Dope How much would the 24 paid for Manhattan be worth in today s money


----------



## Urbanguerrilla (Aug 29, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> "...an already inhabited landscape...."
> Seems you are unfamiliar with the peripatetic nature of Indian habitation.
> No Indian tribe owned any land. They passed through and this, in fact, was the reason for much of the warfare.
> 
> ...



It was inhabited after their fashion, the fact that this didnt (or doesnt) suit the interlopers is neither here nor there. 

Is the fact that they fought a sufficient reason in your mind for the dispossession? 

The Europeans fought up till recently and were fairly barbaric and 'savage' for most of that time. 

Today we are more 'civilised' and only massacre people in the Middle East, who as we know, deserve massacre far more than we do


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 29, 2014)

Urbanguerrilla said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > "...an already inhabited landscape...."
> ...


You must be young and haven't grown up yet. I remember my days as wide eyed believer in the Noble Indian too.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 29, 2014)

Urbanguerrilla said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > "...an already inhabited landscape...."
> ...




1. "It was inhabited after their fashion,..."

What you mean is that it wasn't owned in any way that required it to be respected as theirs.


2. "...the interlopers..."

The Indians were interlopers.
Perhaps you've heard of the Bering Straits.

Obviously you haven't heard of Kennewick Man.


3. I believe that earlier you referred to 'genocide.'
There was no Indian genocide.


Three strikes. You're out.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 29, 2014)

Our pal, the yellow M&M, seems to have accepted a lot of the propaganda.

I see a crying need for remediation.

Whatever their motivation, the Left uses every cudgel it can to slander and debase the origins of this nation.



On the subject of Indians, or so-called "Native Americans," dispelling the following myths should give ratiocination to* those ready to believe the worst* of Americans.



16. First, there is the often repeated story of Lord Jeffrey Amherst ordering the distribution of smallpox-infected blankets to the Indians, as an example of ‘germ warfare’ used by Europeans.  The story is not documented, except as a ‘possibility.’  See the study of Professor d’Errico:

  a.  Historian Francis Parkman, in his book _The Conspiracy of Pontiac and the Indian War after the Conquest of Canada_ [Boston: Little, Brown, 1886] *refers to a postscript in an earlier letter from Amherst *to Bouquet wondering whether smallpox could not be spread among the Indians:

“Could it not be contrived to send the _Small Pox _among those disaffected tribes of Indians? We must on this occasion use every stratagem in our power to reduce them”. [Vol. II, p. 39 (6th edition)]

*"I have not found this letter,* but there is a letter from Bouquet to Amherst, dated 23 June 1763, three weeks before the discussion of blankets to the Indians, stating that Captain Ecuyer at Fort Pitt (to which Bouquet would be heading with reinforcements) has reported smallpox in the Fort. This indicates at least that the writers knew the plan could be carried out.  *It is curious that the specific plans to spread smallpox were relegated to postscripts."*


So....there is as much proof of that claim as there is of J. Edgar Hoover dressing in women's gowns.




17. Pop culture unfailingly paints the army as brutal killers, as in the famous South Dakota Wounded Knee ‘massacre,’ December 29, 1890. *Robert Marshall Utley* (born in 1929) is an author and historian who has written sixteen books on the history of the American West, including _The Last Days of the Sioux Nation_. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT (1963) in which he concludes that *the army court of inquiry was correct in clearing the soldiers, and that “the Indians fired at least 50 shots before the troops returned fire.”*

It was Ferguson, Missouri before Ferguson, Missouri.


----------



## Dot Com (Aug 29, 2014)

Stop using such large swaths of other people's copyrighted mat'l tinfoil grl  You could get the board in trouble by doing that.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 29, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> Stop using such large swaths of other people's copyrighted mat'l tinfoil grl





I can't recall when you provided either an intelligent or an accurate post.

Perhaps you have a better memory......when was the last time?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 29, 2014)

18. It would be remiss not to point out an element leading to the downfall of the Indians, as it is a mirror image of one of the major societal problems facing America today: The attractiveness of entitlements, 'goodies, and material wealth.

Of course, it had been done before....
"31 Jacob said, “Sell me your birthright now.”32 Esau said, “I am about to die; of what use is a birthright to me?”33 Jacob said, “Swear to me now.” So he swore to him and sold his birthright to Jacob.34 Then Jacob gave Esau bread and lentil stew, and he ate and drank and rose and went his way. Thus Esau despised his birthright."
Genesis, chapter 25


Indians tended to embrace small groups of whites, not merely as non-threatening, but because  they paid for land and furs with muskets, iron tools, various beads, bangles and curiosities, and liquor.

And they provided military aid to those Indians who became allies.
"Cambridge History of the Native Peoples of the Americas," by Bruce G. Trigger and Wilcomb E. Washburn, p. 399-460





19.  A regular meme in the talking points of* those who hate America is that nasty white folks came and slaughtered the Native Americans.*

This is not based on ignorance alone, it is based on planned malevolence.

Colonists did not come here with the aim of killing or enslaving the inhabitants. They did want part of the continent, but were ready to work for and/or pay for same.


 It was the confluence o*f natural events that played the major role in the outcome.* The recipe included microbes, technology, organization and agriculture that displaced indigenous people.


*"There is no 'what if' scenario that would have produced a different result once Europeans arrived."*
McDougall, Op.Cit., p. 40





There is an underlying truth, one which puts a stake through the heart of a political philosophy ascendant today, Liberalism, and, simply stated.......


*..... all cultures are not equal.*


----------



## Rikurzhen (Aug 29, 2014)

Urbanguerrilla said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, we're discussing the matter-of-fact history of the colonial-expansionist period of American history with regard to the impact on the lives of the indigenous peoples of America, and you're welcome to join us. Or you can go on thinking the fantasy history of "evil colonialism" to your heart's desire, believing nothing worth knowing.
> ...



Do you live in Africa?  Homo sapiens took the lands of Neanderthals, Denisovans, homo erectus. Should that be condemned?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Aug 29, 2014)

Urbanguerrilla said:


> They may have been 'stuck' in the stone age, but this shouldnt have been used as an excuse to take their land and massacre them.
> 
> The Europeans were also a brutal and murderous lot and estimates of 20 million for the numbers they were responsible for genociding attest to that.



I'm gettin' a weepy, snot-stained hanky feelin' here.

Where did I say human beings should be slaughtered because they were stuck in the Stone Age, and in what sense was the land theirs in the face of an unstoppable, technologically superior civilization that tamed the land and put it to good use? 

The Apaches of the southwest and the Comanches of the Plains were especially barbaric. Rape, infanticide, dismemberment, vicious and gruesome forms of torture and humiliation: these were standard practices perpetrated on white settlers and other Indians alike. These brutes as a matter of routine mercilessly clubbed babies, young children and women to death, more as a game than warfare, or would skin them and burn them alive.

In fact, if set upon by these savages, it was better to be a man as death came quickly in the fight, or if captured alive, the torture the latter endured was relatively short-lived and ended in death within hours. For it was the warriors who attended to the torture of the men . . . not the squaws.

Female captives endured days, weeks or even months of torture and servitude. The captives of these tribes didn't live long.

The females were gang raped, of course, regardless of age as the babies, male and female, and the female toddlers were usually killed outright. But the older girls above the age of six or seven were fair game. Boys were lucky if old enough to be useful but not too old to be a threat that couldn't be assimilated. Hence, they were raised as Apaches or Comanches, future warriors. Wait a minute. On second thought, the younger and older boys were the lucky ones.

After the men brutally raped them, the women were turned over to the squaws to be worked and beaten. Also, the squaws took pleasure in slicing off pieces of their captives' appendages—lips, noses, ears, fingers. Then they would cauterize the wounds with burning sticks. After all, there were chores to be done and it wouldn't do for them to die too soon. Eventually, of course, these captives were useless as slaves and then the real fun began: routinely, if circumstances permitted, these virtually unrecognizable wretches were stripped, staked down, skinned and burned alive. The lucky ones had their throats cut, when they weren't clubbed, beaten or stoned to death.

Don't expect me to get all weepy over the likes of the Apaches and the Comanches especially. They were the very worst, but none of the other warrior tribes of America were much better.

Now, if we're talking about the people of the Cherokee Nation, for example, and what the United States government stupidly did to them, a civilized people who embraced assimilation and the laudable conventions and ambitions of the European settlers. . . .


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Aug 29, 2014)

BTW, in the above I wrote about how the Spanish essentially enslaved the indigenous peoples of South American.  For those who may not know.  The Americas at that time were thought of as North and South America. Not long after the early colonial period, a distinction was made between Central America and South America.


----------



## Solutrean_Hypothesis (Aug 29, 2014)

They hadn't even realized the use for the WHEEL, for Heaven's sake. Yes, they invented it. As in, someone found a child's toy that had a wheel on it in Central America once. But, the 'Natives' in America still used *travois*, basically dragging their squalling children behind them in the dirt. Of course, CRT and Whiteness Studies will soon wipe the slate clean so that Social Justice can be complete and all of us to finally be made complete and equal, not just in the law and the eyes of God but in every which way.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 31, 2014)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> BTW, in the above I wrote about how the Spanish essentially enslaved the indigenous peoples of South American.  For those who may not know.  The Americas at that time were thought of as North and South America. Not long after the early colonial period, a distinction was made between Central America and South America.







"....the Spanish essentially enslaved the indigenous peoples of South American.'

Actually, the Spanish and the Portuguese found that the indigenous people would not or could not do the job.
The escaped, or died. 

At the turn of the century, Virginia tobacco was but a novelty, yet smokers were willing to pay its weight in silver. High duties and high prices for Virginia tobacco set the scene: control of the supply.  Europeans began to set up plantations, and by about 1610, colonization was no longer speculative, but affordable and profitable. As beaver pelts funded French exploration in the north, tobacco gave the English impetus to transplant themselves to Virginia and dispossess Natives.

 But tobacco farmers found that the supply of labor was sorely lacking. Indians would not do the work, the solution was to find those who had to work- slaves. 

Starting in the 1630’s, the Dutch West Indian Company bought slaves in Africa, sold them to plantation owners in the Caribbean and Brazil. The new system of trade that emerged was tobacco and sugar from the Americas, slaves from Africa worked plantations in the Americas and silver mines in South America, and this paid for goods from Europe and the Americas to Asia. So, it was on the trinity of silver, tobacco, and slaves that the colonization of the Americas rested.

For a fuller and much more interesting telling of tobacco’s influence on history, “Vermeer’s Hat,” by Timothy Brook.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 31, 2014)

In an earlier post, it was pointed out that the difficult labor shortage in the colonies was supplemented by indentured servants.

Today, in fact, in an anniversary of sorts, showing that the first African were, in fact, in that capacity rather than considered to be slaves.



August 31,  1619 
The first 20 blacks are purchased as indentured servants by Jamestown colonists “_from a dutch man of warre”-from John Rolfe’s diary. _The first people of African heritage were brought to Virginia by the Dutch.  

A Dutch ship which either traded for the slaves or stole them from the Spanish entered Chesapeake Bay and sold 20 slaves in August of 1619.  

Virginia's  first white settlers did not automatically assume that the Africans were to be slaves always.  They treated them as indentured servants, which would grant them personal freedom after 4 to 7 years.

See Toni Morrison s Beloved African American Slavery and slave narratives
and Courtland Milloy - Legacy of Slavery Echoes Beyond Jamestown Founding


Slavery was not the result of racism....but rather racism was the result of attempts to rationalize slavery.


----------



## Samson (Aug 31, 2014)

This is a thread looking for a purpose.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Aug 31, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > BTW, in the above I wrote about how the Spanish essentially enslaved the indigenous peoples of South American.  For those who may not know.  The Americas at that time were thought of as North and South America. Not long after the early colonial period, a distinction was made between Central America and South America.
> ...



Indeed.  The Spanish (and the Portuguese too, of course) used the labor of the indigenous people for infrastructural purposes.  It was an imposed barter-labor system.  It worked after a fashion for that purpose.  It was efficient enough, initially, but just barely and proved to be troublesome beyond that.  That's all I was getting at in the above.  Colonization became a booming enterprise as a result of tobacco and sugar, especially, but also silver, and the slave trade beginning in the West Indies and South America.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Aug 31, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> In an earlier post, it was pointed out that the difficult labor shortage in the colonies was supplemented by indentured servants.
> 
> Today, in fact, in an anniversary of sorts, showing that the first African were, in fact, in that capacity rather than considered to be slaves.
> 
> ...



Yep.  And what many don't know is that a significant number of plantations were owned by blacks, former indentured servants, who later used African slave labor too.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 31, 2014)

Samson said:


> This is a thread looking for a purpose.





As are you.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 31, 2014)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > M.D. Rawlings said:
> ...




Cocao was a BIG hit!


----------



## Samson (Aug 31, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > This is a thread looking for a purpose.
> ...



Well, You have the capacity to generate your own thoughts.


Who would have guessed?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 31, 2014)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > In an earlier post, it was pointed out that the difficult labor shortage in the colonies was supplemented by indentured servants.
> ...




The same was true of Indians who farmed.


----------



## NoNukes (Aug 31, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> *Indians....erroneously known as 'Native Americans'....a subject that lends itself to the cause of the America-haters.*
> 
> Here, we strip away both the romanticized notions, and the slanders: real history.
> 
> ...



Indians were pretty much peaceful and did not want to fight the Whites. It is as simple as that, if you have read any Indian history.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 31, 2014)

Samson said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...







Neither of your posts were the result of deep thought.

When I construct a thread, it is generally for the purpose of leading to an unassailable conclusion.
And, generally, that conclusion runs counter to the Liberal propaganda of our time.

If the many facts in the thread were overwhelming to you, I suggest you consider the last line in post #36, and apply it to the other posts.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 31, 2014)

NoNukes said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > *Indians....erroneously known as 'Native Americans'....a subject that lends itself to the cause of the America-haters.*
> ...







The only thing 'simple' here is you.

Several posts in the thread clearly prove that, as usual, you have no qualms about posting absolutely false material.


----------



## Samson (Aug 31, 2014)

NoNukes said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > *Indians....erroneously known as 'Native Americans'....a subject that lends itself to the cause of the America-haters.*
> ...



Indeed, The Native concept of "War" was nothing like the European concept.

Natives had nothing like European military units. If they had a fight between themselves, each side would pick a few dozen guys, and they'd beat the shit out of each other until one side quit and ran away. Casualties were infrequently mortal, and there was little or no damage to civilian populations.

Europeans killed EVERYONE; combatants, women, children.


----------



## Samson (Aug 31, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...




No usually you simply cut and paste stuff into an OP, with very little thought.

Its embarrassing.


----------



## NoNukes (Aug 31, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Your cheap shot proves me right.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 31, 2014)

Samson said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...





Well....now you're intent on proving that you know nothing of the subject?

You could simply have stated such and I would have applauded.



August 30, 1813 The Fort Mims Massacre. ( Baldwin County, Alabama) Fort Mims was a simple stockade in which about 550  white *civilians *and mixed-blood Creeks and 120 militiamen and about 300 slaves took refuge from a thousand Red Stick Creeks commanded by Red Eagle (William Weatherford, who had chosen his mother’s family over his father’s) and another part-Indian named Paddy Welsh, *systematically butchered the White inhabitants: White children had their brains splattered against the fort’s stockade, pregnant women were sliced open and their fetuses ripped from their wombs, and over 250 scalps taken.* The blacks were spared to become slaves to the attackers. Andrew Jackson led Tennessee soldiers and responded in a similar manner. Jackson, under the authority of President Madison, imposed a treaty that ceded 23 million acres to the United States.

March 22, 1622 1st *Indian massacre of whites by Powhattan; *Jamestown, Va. 347 slain.

3/22/1622 - Jamestown massacre: Algonquian Indians* kill 347 English settlers* around Jamestown, Virginia, a third of the colony's population.




Please take notes so you won't embarrass yourself like that again.

And, don't hesitate to let me know if you need further remediation.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 31, 2014)

Samson said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...







So, moron, you imagine the quotes, links, documentations, that I provide are selected at random?


Really?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 31, 2014)

NoNukes said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > NoNukes said:
> ...





No....it proves you "simple."


----------



## Samson (Aug 31, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> August 30, 1813 The Fort Mims Massacre. ( Baldwin County, Alabama) Fort Mims was a simple stockade in which about 550  white *civilians *and mixed-blood Creeks and 120 militiamen and about 300 slaves took refuge from a thousand Red Stick Creeks commanded by Red Eagle (William Weatherford, who had chosen his mother’s family over his father’s) and another part-Indian named Paddy Welsh, *systematically butchered the White inhabitants: *
> 
> Please take notes so you won't embarrass yourself like that again.
> 
> And, don't hesitate to let me know if you need further remediation.



More cut and paste without any thought.



Bravo for helping make my point:

William Weatherford was not a Native American.

Keep trying.


----------



## G.T. (Aug 31, 2014)

Why didnt indian tribes repel




Down cliffs?




A= the colonials smoked all the hemp ropes and then made that shit illegal.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 31, 2014)

Samson said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > August 30, 1813 The Fort Mims Massacre. ( Baldwin County, Alabama) Fort Mims was a simple stockade in which about 550  white *civilians *and mixed-blood Creeks and 120 militiamen and about 300 slaves took refuge from a thousand Red Stick Creeks commanded by Red Eagle (William Weatherford, who had chosen his mother’s family over his father’s) and another part-Indian named Paddy Welsh, *systematically butchered the White inhabitants: *
> ...







Your point is atop your head.

Glad to see that you retreated from posting how peaceful the Indians were.


----------



## Samson (Aug 31, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> So, moron, you imagine the quotes, links, documentations, that I provide are selected at random?
> 
> 
> Really?



Yes they appear to be cut and paste in a random fashion and designed to support some poorly considered hypothesis.

Any other stupid questions?


----------



## G.T. (Aug 31, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > NoNukes said:
> ...


In an effort to poke Samson in the eye, she refutes her own o.p.

Brilliance in a brown paper bag. Blown and popped, bye hot air.


----------



## Samson (Aug 31, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Without a cut-n-paste reply, I don't expect much from you, but how about at least confessing that you completely tripped over the fact that you thought a guy named William Weatherford was a Native American?



You'd appear slightly less pitiful.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Aug 31, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Yep.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 31, 2014)

Samson said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...





You can run,, but you can't hide.


Thank me for correcting your abysmally stupid post, 'Indians were peaceful.'


----------



## Bush92 (Aug 31, 2014)

Narragansett used Dutch firepower to eliminate the Pequot. Tribes fought with each other and felt Europeans could help them defeat enemies.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 31, 2014)

What????

Are you suggesting that the noble savages were less than 'peaceful'??

I better get in touch with Samson immediately!!!!


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 31, 2014)

NoNukes said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > *Indians....erroneously known as 'Native Americans'....a subject that lends itself to the cause of the America-haters.*
> ...


Where did you learn that piece of fluff? Most Indians were aggressive with their neighbors and had attrition wars of Generations lengths.


----------



## NoNukes (Aug 31, 2014)

RetiredGySgt said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



They were not interested in fighting the European settlers, unless they were pushed. The Indians basically wanted to be left alone. One source would be Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee. I learned a lot about our history at tribal ceremonies.And I have never words of hatred and racism spoken at these ceremonies.


----------



## gipper (Sep 1, 2014)

Those who dispute the true savage nature of the Native American and their demise not by slaughter but disease during the early years of European immigration, are proof of the leftist anti-American indoctrination in our schools, media, Hollywood, and by politicians and other shysters.....These people can be counted on to be easily duped by the power elite, over and over again.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 1, 2014)

gipper said:


> Those who dispute the true savage nature of the Native American and their demise not by slaughter but disease during the early years of European immigration, are proof of the leftist anti-American indoctrination in our schools, media, Hollywood, and by politicians and other shysters.....These people can be counted on to be easily duped by the power elite, over and over again.


You know there were multiple indian tribes, right?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 1, 2014)

Thomas Goodrich A Fate Worse than Death Counter-Currents Publishing



"


NoNukes said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > NoNukes said:
> ...




What utter


NoNukes said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > NoNukes said:
> ...


 




What utter Liberal 'can't we all just get along' nonsense.
Liberalism  is the proclivity to appease evil and ignore the sad facts of life.  It is a form of wishful thinking.


"Several months earlier, in September, 1874, Catherine German and her family had been moving up the Smoky Hill River in western Kansas with everything they owned in the back of a covered wagon. The Germans, originally from Georgia, were bound for Colorado and a fresh start. Just moments after breaking camp that morning, the family was surprised by Indians. Within minutes the wagon was in flames, the mother, father, and two children were dead and scalped, and four daughters — Catherine, aged 17, Sophia, 12, and little Julia and Addie, aged 7 and 5 respectively — were carried off into captivity.

Catherine’s story is not a pretty one to relate.

There are no Harlequin Romance endings here; no_Dances With Wolves_ Hollywood nonsense; no silly sentimentality. Catherine was raped repeatedly during her captivity, as was her sister, Sophia; both were traded back and forth from one brave to the next; both were transformed into tribal prostitutes, their worth measured in horses. Each time the frail young women were forced to fetch wood or water for their respective lodges, each trembled in fear for each could expect to be raped as many as six times per trip."
Thomas Goodrich A Fate Worse than Death Counter-Currents Publishing


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Sep 1, 2014)

Samson said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Yeah.  The warrior tribes of America were savages, especially the Apaches and Camanches.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 1, 2014)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > NoNukes said:
> ...




And yet, so very many of our Liberal and or ignorant posters, are convinced that the 'hate the European/white interlopers' propaganda is the truth.




The thrust of this thread dealt with Eastern tribes in proximity to English settlements....


1.Attacks by French-allied Indians hit Pennsylvania in October 1755. Sixty to one hundred arrived beyond the settlements, and divided into smaller groups, which went into different valleys to reconnoiter. Each spy ”lay[ing] about a House some days & nights, watching like a wolf” to see ”the situation of the Houses, the number of people at Each House, the places the People most frequent, & to observe at each House where there is most men, or women.”  The individual farmsteads they chose a targets were at last attacked in parallel by still smaller groups, each only big enough to kill or capture the number of people it was likely to meet.
Col. James Burd, “Pennsylvania Archives,” 199-104                                                                    
2. The brunt of these attacks fell on people who were outside doing field work. The attacks were manufactured to instill paralyzing fear- and they did.    


3. In 1756,William Fleming gave an unrivaled account of life in one of these little attack groups. Delawares stormed the house of Fleming’s neighbor, a farmer named Hicks, and took one of the Hicks boys as prisoner. The Indians then went on to instill fear by *having Fleming witness the Hicks boys’ murder: they bludgeoned the boy to the ground with a tomahawk, split open his head- pausing at this point, in “Sport…to imitate his expiring Agonies” – and scalped him, and continued “all over besmared with [Hicks’s] blood.”                                                                                     *
a. Fleming wrote of watching while a youth from a neighboring family was taken by Indians while inside were “numerous Family of able young Men” and despite his “scream[ing] in a most piteous Manner for help,” his brothers made no attempt to help  .A narrative of the sufferings and surprizing deliverances of William and Elizabeth Fleming electron... National Library of Australia




4. Northampton County, Pennsylvania, 1778. Four men, two with wives and eight children, were attacked by Indians. [T]his occaion’d our men to flee as fast as they could,…before they were out of sight of the wagon they *saw the Indians attacking the women & Children with their Tomahawks.” *The net day, the three men came back to the scene for the corpses, which include the stabbed and scalped bodies of Smith’s wife, and *of “a Little girl kill’d & sclped, [and] a boy the same*.” 
Pa. Arch. 1:6:591                                                                                                                                                  



5. The essential fact about Indian-European warfare in the middle colonies was that *the Europeans almost always did very badly*. Though the American Revolution brought about a glorified, misleading view of frontier fighters and riflemen, during the eighteenth century country *people practically never managed to mount even faintly convincing defenses against Indian attacks*….The only thing that worked was leaving. "*Our Savage Neighbors: How Indian War Transformed Early America," by Peter Silver, *p.53



Clearly, the posters who wrote such nonsense stating how peaceful the Indians were, or how they really didn't want to fight the Europeans, are fully brainwashed.

Government schools are the culprits.


----------



## longknife (Sep 1, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> *Indians....erroneously known as 'Native Americans'....a subject that lends itself to the cause of the America-haters.*



I do enjoy your posts. But, could you please make them shorter and give us links to check out more?

Europeans came with far great firepower. Natives were no match for gunpowder and steel. Those who did fight against Europeans were either wiped out or their numbers were decimated.

It's hard to pierce steel armor with stone-tipped arrows.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 1, 2014)

I appreciate your kind words, longknife....

The panel just before yours has four sources/links and includes a quote from a fascinating book.

The OP...well, for some reason, I am not able to click back to it, but the way I construct posts, I am certain it has links/sources as well.

Shorter....that's problematic.

I post what interests me, and try to make same comprehensive.
Most often, I shorten the OP by breaking it into 5 or 10 panels which I post over one or two day.

Shorter is a problem for me, as I don't find that many of the subjects that you and I have an interest in lend themselves to bumper-sticker format.


----------



## NoNukes (Sep 1, 2014)

Your readin


PoliticalChic said:


> Thomas Goodrich A Fate Worse than Death Counter-Currents Publishing
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Your reading skills are poor.


----------



## NoNukes (Sep 1, 2014)

gipper said:


> Those who dispute the true savage nature of the Native American and their demise not by slaughter but disease during the early years of European immigration, are proof of the leftist anti-American indoctrination in our schools, media, Hollywood, and by politicians and other shysters.....These people can be counted on to be easily duped by the power elite, over and over again.



Read some Indian history and forget the conservative revisionist crap, which is just White guilt.


----------



## NoNukes (Sep 1, 2014)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > NoNukes said:
> ...



How many tribes were warrior tribes?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 1, 2014)

NoNukes said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Those who dispute the true savage nature of the Native American and their demise not by slaughter but disease during the early years of European immigration, are proof of the leftist anti-American indoctrination in our schools, media, Hollywood, and by politicians and other shysters.....These people can be counted on to be easily duped by the power elite, over and over again.
> ...




I post facts, you, simply dare not consider same.....

It is as though changing your mind to accommodate the facts would be an affront to Liberalism. Your motto: 'Onward rather than correctness or rectitude.' Rather like a rhinoceros, fitting your cerebral capacities.


----------



## gipper (Sep 1, 2014)

NoNukes said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Those who dispute the true savage nature of the Native American and their demise not by slaughter but disease during the early years of European immigration, are proof of the leftist anti-American indoctrination in our schools, media, Hollywood, and by politicians and other shysters.....These people can be counted on to be easily duped by the power elite, over and over again.
> ...



I suspect I know more about Native American history than do you. 

With few exemptions, the tribes that inhabited North America were constantly at war with each other, committed atrocities even today's fanatical Islamist would find revolting...like skinning victims alive, cannibalism, and outrageous forms of torture and cruelty.  These acts were committed as if it were a celebration...the women and children even took part...finding great joy in it.  The more the victim screamed for mercy, the more pleased were the torturers.

In addition, they lived very primitively.  Not much removed from the caveman.  Not having discovered the wheel, is proof enough.  However some tribes and individual Natives had admirable traits.

If you had knowledge of American history, you would know this.  But do not take it too hard.  You have been indoctrinated...but hopefully you can over come it by educating yourself.

A good book to start your education is David Hackett Fischer's recent book 'Champlain's Dream.'  I found it very interesting. Champlain documented some of the atrocities he witnessed.

Oh almost forgot...Samuel de Champlain was the father of New France (Canada...just so you know...) He spent a great deal of time with the Natives and documented much of it.  Maybe you have heard of Lake Champlain in up state New York....it was named after him, as he took part is a battle there.


----------



## Samson (Sep 1, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> And yet, so very many of our Liberal and or ignorant posters, are convinced that the 'hate the European/white interlopers' propaganda is the truth.
> 
> The thrust of this thread dealt with Eastern tribes in proximity to English settlements....
> 
> ...



More cut-n-paste mindless partisan drivel.

Hey Guess What? _*THE FRENCH WERE NOT NATIVE AMERICANS.*_

Please try to at least read your own absurd postings before embarrassing yourself any further with pathetic attempts to masquerade as anyone with more intellectual capacity than the average 11 year old.


----------



## Samson (Sep 1, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



You still don't seem to even know *what a Native American IS.*
William Weatherford was NOT a Native American, neither was "part-Indian," Paddy Welch.
At some point, the readership of this thread needs to ask: How incredulous does the OP need to demonstrate they are before unsubscribing?

I'm convinced.

**UNSUBSCRIBE**


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 1, 2014)

Samson said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...





I notice that you no longer claim that the Indians were "peaceful."

Care to thank me for teaching you not to embarrass yourself further?


----------



## Decus (Sep 1, 2014)

Samson said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > And yet, so very many of our Liberal and or ignorant posters, are convinced that the 'hate the European/white interlopers' propaganda is the truth.
> ...



_"Attacks by French-*allied* Indians hit Pennsylvania in October 1755_."

The Iroquois were allies of the French and fought on their behalf during that period. They were one of a number of indian tribes to do so, which does not diminish their standing as native Americans.

.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 1, 2014)

Decus said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...





Even when the the motivations are explained to them, i.e., the slander of the settlers as a way of attacking the origins of this nation, those convinced by the Left will hold on to their misguided beliefs, which is the Disney version of 'Native Americans.'


Learning ends when ideology takes over.


----------



## NoNukes (Sep 2, 2014)

gipper said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...



Some tribes were like this, most wanted a peaceful existence. It is like the difference between how aggressive and warlike America is compared to the Swiss. Most countries strive to live a peacefully, like the Swiss, but it is not always possible.

A lot of what I know of Indian history has been passed down through the generations by the ancestors. I would trust this more than books written by Whites.


----------



## NoNukes (Sep 2, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...



Many of the facts that you post are nothing more than opinions. Learn the difference before you start with the stupid insults.


----------



## Politico (Sep 2, 2014)

Simple answer. They lost because the colonists had more guns and a bigger army.


----------



## gipper (Sep 2, 2014)

NoNukes said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > NoNukes said:
> ...



You can try to prove me wrong, but I know you will not.

You have failed to read the words of the many white men who witnessed Native American atrocities first hand and documented it for you.


----------



## gipper (Sep 2, 2014)

NoNukes said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > NoNukes said:
> ...



Passed down history....too funny....word of mouth history...too funny.

You think they are going to tell you about the atrocities their ancestors committed?  Try to think again.

Failure to accept the truth, is a sign of ignorance.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 2, 2014)

Politico said:


> Simple answer. They lost because the colonists had more guns and a bigger army.




Wrong.

Read the earlier posts in the thread and you won't have to resort to 'simple.'


----------



## NYcarbineer (Sep 2, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> *Indians....erroneously known as 'Native Americans'....a subject that lends itself to the cause of the America-haters.*
> 
> Here, we strip away both the romanticized notions, and the slanders: real history.
> 
> ...



What myths are you trying to debunk?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 2, 2014)

NoNukes said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > NoNukes said:
> ...







"Many of the facts that you post are nothing more than opinions..."

Did you actually write that????

What....as satire???


In post #70 you attributed your what passes for knowledge to 'Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee"!!!!

One reviewer wrote: "What is depressing about this book is that thirty seven years after its publication most* Americans are still so ill informed about the 19th century history of the West that they continue to give it rave reviews. *
Mr. Brown was a gifted story teller but *he was no historian* (he was actually the librarian at the College of Agriculture at the University of Illinois in Champaign-Urbana) and *his account of the deeply moving and troubled tale of the clash of civilizations* that was played out in the West (and it was truly a clash of civilizations: Irish-American vs. Anglo-American vs. Hispanic-American vs. Mormon-American vs. Union-American vs. ex-Confederate-American vs. New England American vs. Midwestern American vs. Brule Sioux vs. Northern Cheyenne vs. Southern Cheyenne vs. Blackfoot vs. Hopi vs. Navajo - and the list goes on) is, in my opinion, *only slightly better than a caricature."*


Your only hope is the following:

1. Carefully read ever single word I post.
2. Take notes on same.
3.Then, laminate those notes and keep them in you wallet.
4. Memorize this mantra, and repeat it constantly: "PoliticalChic...I worship the ground she walks on!"

...at least fifty times a day.


And.....never doubt me again!


----------



## NYcarbineer (Sep 2, 2014)

The Indians were decimated or exterminated or displaced because European immigrants wanted their land.  That's hardly a myth.


----------



## Politico (Sep 3, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> Wrong.
> 
> Read the earlier posts in the thread and you won't have to resort to 'simple.'



It is that simple. Revisionist crap aside there were certainly contributing factors and events. But in the end it all came down to armed conflicts. And they were outgunned to the tune of millions. The exact number will never be known


----------



## NoNukes (Sep 4, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


----------



## NoNukes (Sep 4, 2014)

NoNukes said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > NoNukes said:
> ...



Are you really this thick? Thank you for proving my point, no facts in this cut and paste. You do know that reviews are opinions, do you not?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Sep 4, 2014)

gipper said:


> Those who dispute the true savage nature of the Native American and their demise not by slaughter but disease during the early years of European immigration, are proof of the leftist anti-American indoctrination in our schools, media, Hollywood, and by politicians and other shysters.....These people can be counted on to be easily duped by the power elite, over and over again.



You don't realize that the diseases were merely a side effect of the European invasion which had as its sole purpose to take the land FROM the Indian tribes and make it their own -

by any means necessary, as history demonstrated?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Sep 4, 2014)

This obsession of some with debunking of the Noble Savage myth is really nothing more than an overall campaign to advance the myth of the Noble European.


----------



## gipper (Sep 4, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Those who dispute the true savage nature of the Native American and their demise not by slaughter but disease during the early years of European immigration, are proof of the leftist anti-American indoctrination in our schools, media, Hollywood, and by politicians and other shysters.....These people can be counted on to be easily duped by the power elite, over and over again.
> ...



The Euros and later the Americans had no idea how disease was transmitted.  So, you point is completely ignorant.  

Many settlers settled land that was completely unoccupied, because the Indians had all died from disease...NOT from Euros and Americans murdering them.

Yes atrocities were committed by Euros and Americans.  I agree with this, but not nearly at the level you and many foolish anti American leftest believe...or were brainwashed to believe.  However, you are too slanted to recognize that the Indians committed atrocities on Euros and Americans.  The Indians were pure and nice and innocent...right?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 4, 2014)

NoNukes said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...







How long will you attempt to hide behind the oh-so-sophomoric "Thank you for proving my point,..."?


What I have proven is not only the contention of the OP, the facts about the so-called 'Native Americans,' but how truly abject your ignorance is.

That seems an indelible liability of Liberals.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Sep 4, 2014)

gipper said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...



How many times does this have to be pointed out?  The Indians lived in the Americas.  That was their home.  They were driven off their lands, mostly by force, so the foreign invaders could have that land for themselves.  They were decimated in the process.  What kind of people they were is largely irrelevant.


----------



## longly (Sep 4, 2014)

When the Europeans first arrived on our shores they were not much more technologically advance then the Indians. True they had steel, ships and guns, but the guns were pathetic weapons. The matchlock, the gun the used, required that a match (wick) be kept burning in order to fire it; for that reason, it could not be in even damp weather. It was very slow to reload. The un-granulated power it used had to be very carefully loaded into the barrel or it would smolder instead of firing. And it was heavy and not particularly accurate. The only advantages it had was that it had a fair range, good knock down power and it was ly easy to learn to use. The flintlock was a vast improvement.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Sep 4, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > NoNukes said:
> ...



Who do you claim is lying about the history of the American Indian?  Am I wrong to assume that it's common knowledge that diseases decimated the tribes?  Am I wrong to assume that it's common knowledge that Indians took up many items of European civilization, such as tools, weapons, etc.,

not to mention the horse, for chrissakes?

You seem to constructing a pointless strawman.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Sep 4, 2014)

Google a list of Indian wars if you need some history on the topic.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Sep 4, 2014)

gipper said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...



Was that going on in America during the Inquisition?  During the time of the burning of witches in Europe?  During the Republic of Rome's affection for crucifixion?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Sep 4, 2014)

An anecdote, since the author of this thread thinks that anecdotes are sufficient evidence.

This one is local history, from my end of NY.

The Sullivan/Clinton campaign during the Revolutionary War was an action carried out by the Continental Army to destroy the homelands of the Iroquois Confederacy, or at least a good part of it....

"By September 1, *Sullivan's force had reached Seneca Lake and proceeded to destroy all the principal villages in the area. Many of the troops were shocked upon entering these villages. 

They found not the crude bark huts or longhouses of "Savages," but instead orderly rows of houses built of hewn timbers and frame houses with windows.

 Well-cultivated vegetable fields extended out from the villages, along with extensive apple, peach, and cherry orchards. Many of these Indian villages rivaled or surpassed the towns that the soldiers had come from."
*
Read the whole story, unvarnished, here:

The Clinton-Sullivan Campaign of 1779 - Fort Stanwix National Monument U.S. National Park Service


----------



## NoNukes (Sep 4, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > NoNukes said:
> ...



It hurt, did it not? At least you did not cut and paste your reply, but as usual, it was opinion, not fact.


----------



## Moonglow (Sep 4, 2014)




----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 29, 2014)

Moonglow said:


>







No, actually they didn't give up their guns.

That's why the hears found that they had fired over 50 shots before the Army returned fire.


----------

