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

[Mushroom]

The Native Americans -as they are called

Oh, and being Potawatomie it is no concern of yours if I choose to call myself and others "Indian". Having actually lived on reservations, I can't think of ever meeting another Indian that did not refer to themselves and others as anything other than "Indian", unless they were addressing their own tribe. Such as a friend of mine who called herself "Indian" or "Maidu". In all the years I knew and worked with her, I never once heard her refer to herself as a "Native American".

To me, a "Native American" is anybody that was born in the United States. No matter where in the world their ancestors came from.

 

[IM2]

As it is ,the People with the better technology won.

But whites didn't have better technology. They had WMDs.

 

[IM2]

But whites didn't have better technology. They had WMDs.

You know the history of your people better than I do and if you do know it as well as I am reading it here, you are aware of the numerous broken promises that had more to do with things than the whitey had superior technology story. Whites had such superior technology that they were eating the dead corpses of other ship members when they landed in Jamestown.

 

[Mushroom]

But whites didn't have better technology.

Actually, they had a lot more than simply "technology".

The Indians were still operating in a style very common with how the rest of the world was during the Chalcolithic. There were no "standing armies", no "warrior class" at all. Battles were not really concerned with things like strategy and tactics, simply try to put more forces on the ground and both sides would charge each other until one side gave.

However, over the millennia in Eurasia things had evolved greatly. Because they had the surpluses and population densities to support warrior classes and specialization. Plus they had much more advanced political structures, so knew how to play one group against another in a much more capable way than even the most advanced Indian groups could do. The way the Spanish conquered Mexico could almost have been written by Niccolo Machiavelli (who was alive at that time). Because the Spanish conquerors knew of the mechanizations of the various Italian Republics against each other. Something no group in America knew of.

In reality, Cortez did not win in Mexico because of technology. But he was a very astute politician and knew how to use politics to get what he wanted. By getting other groups on your side and having them work for you.

 

[IM2]

Actually, they had a lot more than simply "technology".

The Indians were still operating in a style very common with how the rest of the world was during the Chalcolithic. There were no "standing armies", no "warrior class" at all. Battles were not really concerned with things like strategy and tactics, simply try to put more forces on the ground and both sides would charge each other until one side gave.

However, over the millennia in Eurasia things had evolved greatly. Because they had the surpluses and population densities to support warrior classes and specialization. Plus they had much more advanced political structures, so knew how to play one group against another in a much more capable way than even the most advanced Indian groups could do. The way the Spanish conquered Mexico could almost have been written by Niccolo Machiavelli (who was alive at that time). Because the Spanish conquerors knew of the mechanizations of the various Italian Republics against each other. Something no group in America knew of.

In reality, Cortez did not win in Mexico because of technology. But he was a very astute politician and knew how to use politics to get what he wanted. By getting other groups on your side and having them work for you.

I have been told by members of the nations that some helped the colonists defeat the British due to the teaching of guerilla warfare. But I'm not going to argue with you.. You know the history of your people better than I do. I just don't buy the Europeans had better technology stuff. That's the stuff they try saying about Africa and that most definitely is not true.

 

[Soupnazi630]

The Spanish lied.
The reality is the Aztecs were vegan and never did any cannibalism at all.
With all the American natives, the only thing we call "human sacrifice" was actually just from the fact they had no prisions.
What else are you going to do with war captives.

Wrong.

The Spanish were accurate observers and the astecs were not vegan.

Their human sacrifice was religious and not expediency. It was inhuman genocide

 

[Soupnazi630]

Natives did not really have slaves, and re-integrated any who were temporarily slaves, after a time.
No one eats humans except in a ritual fashion, because like all predators, we are too toxic.

Yes they had slaves.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Better tech and winning, does not mean a better society.
Watch the movie, "The Gods Must be Crazy".
We work twice as long and twice as hard as primitives, and we are a lot less happy.

Yes it does make for a better society.

That movier is ignorant garbage.

You are wrong the primitives work much longer and harder and are less happy

 

[Mushroom]

I just don't buy the Europeans had better technology stuff.

The more advanced technology helped, but just as important was that they were simply more skilled.

The Indians never fielded large armies, and had little to no "professional soldiers". Almost all fighting between the tribes was with a few dozen at most, more akin to skirmishing than what the Europeans had been doing for well over a thousand years.

Especially when one considers the Spanish. Remember, the Christian Reconquest of Spain finally ended in 1492, the same year Columbus set sail. The Conquistadors were the veterans of fighting that had been going on for well over a century. The father of both Pizzaro and Cortez were military officers, and they were also grandsons of military officers. And in less than four decades many more would start to arrive that had fought in the various European Wars of Religion.

So they were not fighting just a bunch of farmers and hunters like most of them had been doing against each other, they were fighting many who had actually served in European style armies. That is a "technology" all its own, and one even the Americans had to learn as they had never experienced it also. That is why the Continental Army sent out a call for any military professionals they could get from Europe. Their ambush and skirmish tactics helped, but that was nowhere near enough to win the war.

"Technology" is not just things that can be manufactured and held in your hands. It is also ideas, from military logistics and tactics, to political infrastructure and organization. An "Indian Army" might at most number a couple of hundred individuals, only a few dozen normally "warriors". Meanwhile, in Europe they had been operating as armies numbering in the thousands for well over 1,500 years.

It is the same reason that the Romans with only around 20,000 soldiers were able to conquer Britannia in a resounding defeat where they were outnumbered by over 10 to 1. There the actual equipment was actually pretty close, but the Romans had an advantage in tactics and politics that the Britons could not hope to match. Especially their close order drill, with things like the testudo formation. Which allowed them to close in even under missile fire until they were face to face. And constantly rotating out their front line soldiers, as opposed to the Britons, who normally would remain in the front lines until exhausted or killed.

That is also "technology".

 

[Ringo]

The word is Atrocity.
an extremely wicked or cruel act, typically one involving physical violence or injury.

"The only good Indian is a dead Indian. "(с)
Is this atrocity or genocide?
Or
Baum (who wrote "Wizard of OZ") did not shy away from political journalism. In an editorial in the "Aberdeen Saturday Pioneer" in 1891, he approved of the massacre of the Indians at Wounded Knee, writing:

"Pioneer" has already stated that our security requires the complete destruction of the Indians. Having oppressed them for centuries, we should, in order to protect our civilization, once again oppress them and finally wipe out these wild and untamed creatures from the face of the earth. This is the guarantee of the future security of our settlers and soldiers who have found themselves under incompetent command. Otherwise, in the future we will have problems with the Redskins, no less than in previous years."

How do these views differ from Hitler's? Only that Hitler extended them to some whites.
Otherwise, just plain Nazism.

 

[DudleySmith]

"The only good Indian is a dead Indian. "(с)
Is this atrocity or genocide?
Or
Baum (who wrote "Wizard of OZ") did not shy away from political journalism. In an editorial in the "Aberdeen Saturday Pioneer" in 1891, he approved of the massacre of the Indians at Wounded Knee, writing:

"Pioneer" has already stated that our security requires the complete destruction of the Indians. Having oppressed them for centuries, we should, in order to protect our civilization, once again oppress them and finally wipe out these wild and untamed creatures from the face of the earth. This is the guarantee of the future security of our settlers and soldiers who have found themselves under incompetent command. Otherwise, in the future we will have problems with the Redskins, no less than in previous years."

How do these views differ from Hitler's? Only that Hitler extended them to some whites.
Otherwise, just plain Nazism.

^^^Fake propaganda. Hitler actually admired the savages, same reasons he admired Muslims.

 

[San Souci]

But whites didn't have better technology. They had WMDs.

Muskets were WMD's? Actually ,a Bow and Arrow was easier to load than a Musket. And far more accurate.

 

[San Souci]

Actually, there is no proof they "slaughtered" all those animals other than any other groups had. Remember, almost all the megafauna globally died globally, not just in North America.

And no, the buffalo was not really able to be domesticated. They are simply too large and too poorly tempered for domestication. And a great deal of that is actually genetic.

We now know that there is actually a genetic aspect of domestication. And all of the animals we have domesticated (dogs, goats, cattle, pigs, etc) have genetic differences between them and other wild animals we have never been able to domesticate (American Bison, deer zebras, lions, etc). Even the cattle we now eat are a hybrid with cattle that did have that mutation (water buffalo) with one that did not (auroch). That is what injected the required genes into their bloodline that let prehistoric humans finally domesticate them.

There was no such animal at all in the Americas to breed the bison with to allow that to happen.

That is what you seem to be missing. In every single instance of human domestication, we started with a mutant that had a mutation that allowed it to de domesticated. We then propagated that mutation by breeding it with other closely related species. None of the "barnyard animals" we know of today is actually "natural". They are the result of using a mutation to our own advantage. And without that mutation, nothing can be domesticated.

And eating for food is nowhere near the same as domestication. But notice, there is a reason why nobody ever domesticated the Bison, either in Europe, Asia, or North America. The same reason the zebra has never been domesticated. Genetically, they simply lack the genes to be domesticated unless they can be crossed with anther animal that actually has the appropriate genetic mutation that allows for domestication. The closest is some that have been crossbred, like the "Beefalo".

While that looks like an American Bison, it is not. It is a cross between farm cattle and the buffalo. And those indeed are domesticated, because of the genes they got from their cattle ancestors. Genes completely lacking in the Buffalo side.

Might as well ask why the Indians never domesticated the Bobcat, the Big Horn Sheep, or the Antelope.

There have been many experiments in recent decades in domestication. One of the most well known out of the Soviet Union that started over 7 decades ago. And it has indeed shown that the members of the group that were domesticated all had mutations that allowed that to happen. But as it was a canine, the genes involved were already present but simply not always active.

Animals like bison and zebras do not even hate those genes as a recessive, so could not be domesticated short of interbreeding with another that does.

Are you referring to the Fox?

 

[Ringo]

Hitler actually admired the savages, same reasons he admired Muslims.

You're talking nonsense.

 

[Mushroom]

Are you referring to the Fox?

If you mean the Soviet-Russian Silver Fox Domestication Experiment, yes.

An experiment that started in 1952, to see how easy it would be to domesticate animals in a controlled setting from wild animals.

And they were able to obtain "domestic" foxes within a couple of generations. However, each and every one of them was also mutated. And developed what would be seen as "dog" qualities. Barking, spotted coats, tails curling, and other obvious physical traits. The "domesticated" foxes were closer to dogs than foxes, and the fact it happened so quickly shows that the gene involved must have been a recessive already inside the fox genome, simply returned to dominance through selective breeding.

And this is even more interesting to me, as these were foxes and unlike wolves absolutely no past breeding with domesticated dogs. Which shows that even in species never really associated with domestication, those genes are likely present in all canines. And likely inherited from an even earlier common ancestor, as it is impossible for it to have been reintroduced more recently into the fox genome.

 

[San Souci]

If you mean the Soviet-Russian Silver Fox Domestication Experiment, yes.

An experiment that started in 1952, to see how easy it would be to domesticate animals in a controlled setting from wild animals.

And they were able to obtain "domestic" foxes within a couple of generations. However, each and every one of them was also mutated. And developed what would be seen as "dog" qualities. Barking, spotted coats, tails curling, and other obvious physical traits. The "domesticated" foxes were closer to dogs than foxes, and the fact it happened so quickly shows that the gene involved must have been a recessive already inside the fox genome, simply returned to dominance through selective breeding.

And this is even more interesting to me, as these were foxes and unlike wolves absolutely no past breeding with domesticated dogs. Which shows that even in species never really associated with domestication, those genes are likely present in all canines. And likely inherited from an even earlier common ancestor, as it is impossible for it to have been reintroduced more recently into the fox genome.

Do they still LOOK like a Fox?

 

[San Souci]

^^^Fake propaganda. Hitler actually admired the savages, same reasons he admired Muslims.

True. And much of Mein Kamph was lifted from The Koran.

 

[Hellbilly]

Fake propaganda

 

[Mushroom]

Do they still LOOK like a Fox?

Not really.

Here is a wild silver fox:

And here is one of the domesticated ones:

Now tell me, is that a fox, or a dog?

 

[Blackrook]

American Indians live on welfare and have no motivation to work. That's a kind of genocide liberals don't want to talk about.