Let's finally recognize the slavery, conquest, and genocide of Native Americans by Native Americans | Washington Examiner
By: cwtremo (Washington Examiner)
Interesting to say the least.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Pre-Columbian Native American culture on the American continents was one of war, massacres, genocide, and slavery. It doesn't make Native Americans unique in any way but rather, just like every other culture, society, and civilization that has existed in history.
However, these facts are typically excluded from today's public education system. Instead, a radical left-wing revision of history is taught that portrayed Native Americans living in peaceful and docile societies that fell victim to the greed and brutality of European invaders. It is and always has been a fictitious historical narrative.
ISRAEL ORDERS 'TOTAL SIEGE' OF GAZA IN AFTERMATH OF UNPRECEDENTED TERROR ATTACK BY HAMAS
History did not begin in 1492. The truth is Native American tribes were brutally killing each other in the Western Hemisphere for centuries before the first European settlers ever appeared. Left-wing scholars from the Howard Zinn school of thought have valiantly tried to hide these facts; nevertheless, they're true.
Native American tribes were empire builders no different than the ancient Romans, Greeks, and Germanic tribes of Europe. Indigenous people were no better than Genghis Khan and the Golden Horde of the Mongol Empire. The tribes lusted to conquer, enslave, and pillage for power, resources, and land, just as the Ashanti, Mali, Ghana, and Egyptian empires of Africa.
Consider the cruelty of the Aztecs. For decades, the Aztecs brutally attacked neighboring tribes and built a vast empire in what is now central Mexico. They raped women, enslaved children, and participated in human sacrifice and capital punishment. Additionally, studies have shown that the Aztecs punished homosexuality with death and routinely exploited and murdered women.
Noted scholar and anthropologist Lawrence Keeley detailed the culture of Native Americans in War Before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage . Keeley claimed that "the dogs of war were seldom on a leash" regarding Native American tribal interaction. Moreover, Keeley highlights evidence of genocidal acts by other Native Americans in pre-Columbian America. Keeley also highlighted the fact that indigenous warfare was "more deadly, more frequent, and more ruthless than modern war."
The Most Violent Era In America Was Before Europeans Arrived http://t.co/7g81Xg4kXN via @science2_0
— Steven Pinker (@sapinker) August 5, 2014
Harvard scholar Steven Pinker's research also revealed a violent and savage culture among Native Americans. Pinker found that indigenous societies were part of "the most violent era" and that their cultures were "far more violent than our own." Additionally, archaeologist Tim Kohler studied the Mesa Verde and Pueblo American Indians and discovered that nearly "90 percent of human remains from that period had trauma from blows to either their heads or parts of their arms."
Furthermore, the savagery of Native American culture was also confirmed by historian Bernard Bailyn. His research revealed that indigenous tribes were "always involved in warfare" and that they lived in a "not a terribly peaceful world."
Also, plenty of North American tribes had the blood of conquest and genocide on their hands. The Chippewa conquered the Sioux and exiled them from the woodlands of what is now Minnesota. Later, after regrouping, the Sioux pillaged and massacred the Omaha, Pawnee, and Kiowa. Other American tribes did similar empire-building. It was an ever-changing tapestry of bloody savagery that existed long before the white man came. Yet, as mentioned above, these facts are rarely taught in schools or discussed among experts and socio-cultural left-wing activists.
Native American tribes wanted to conquer until they were conquered. Let's use Indigenous Peoples Day to educate, not indoctrinate. It's time to teach everyone the history of Native Americans, not just the edited, revised, and agenda-driven version that left-wing political activists favor.
No Trump, no trolling, no insults
Tags
Who is online
162 visitors
I found this quite interesting as we only learned of massacres and such, once the white man moved west. I guess it is human nature.
Nothing has been more distorted in our schools and popular culture in the last 50 years than pre-columbian through early western American history. There's not even a pretense of trying to be accurate, it's been about caricaturizing them them as the perfect, powerless victim to celebrate and the European as the completely evil aggressor to demonize. It's an incredibly simplistic myth that many have swallowed hook, line and sinker.
The irony is that given the warrior/honor based nature of many tribe's cultures, many of them would likely be enraged at the caricature of the helpless victim their supposed allies have reduced them to in modern Americna culture.
White European settlers OFTEN went into territory where they knew Indians lived and claimed parts of that land for their own. A group of whites would go into Montana or whatever and claim land, and then be shocked that the Indians didnt want them there, and worse accuse the Indians of being savages because they wanted to protect their way of life. White people made incursion into Indian land, time after time after time, and then were horrified that the Indians fought back. Give us a break.
Welcome to the entirety of human history, JR, including Native Americans.
That, of course, doesn't justify anything anyone has done. What you describe was wrong, morally. But it's just as wrong to single out one group for doing it when in reality, all have done it. It's hypocrisy and has nothing to do with justice and everything to do with creating a weapon for political purposes.
White Europeans in America operated on the John Locke theory of property ownership, which is that you can own land by farming it, or "improving" it. If you put up a fence around a land area and grow vegetables on it, it is YOURS.
The Indians didnt give a damn about John Locke. So who was right or wrong? This turns immediately into "might makes right".
So why doesnt that apply today to people coming up from the south? Their "might" is in their numbers. If might made right because of the white numbers on the frontier, why doesnt the same sort of might (strength in numbers) make right on the southern border ?
Irrelevant. The specifics of why one group pushes out another doesn't really matter. The point is, when they can, they do. That is human nature and has been practiced since the beginning. Trying to tie it to some specific reason attempts to make a particular case special, when it isn't, especially to those pushed out. The only thing they know or care about is that they were pushed out. Just look at Ukraine to see it happening today, or what China is attempting to do. The reason doesn't really matter.
White Europeans considered themselves "civilized", and the non white people of the world to be "uncivilized" or "savages".
The clear implication of such thinking is that atrocities committed by white Europeans were justified. It also means white Europeans found little in these "uncivilized" cultures that they need respect. Hence in a course of just three hundred years this continent went from almost all indigenous to almost completely controlled by whites.
American Indians did not get in boats and go to Europe to try and subjugate the people there. But the Europeans got in boats and crossed the ocean to find gold and treasure, and collect slaves. Columbus did not come to "America" to establish schools or hospitals for the indigenous, he came to find gold and to plunder whatever he could.
But you can bet your bottom dollar that, had they had the same tech as Europe and the same pressure to expand, they would have. That's what your comparison leaves out. The reason A shot B rather than B shooting A is that B didn't have a gun.
Not quite the same.
Words taken from the "Conquerers" -
Your link doesn't work and what are you trying to say?
Basically, what do you want to see? From historians, including the participants of the incursions by Euros, Columbus killed 'bout 3 million Native Americans - just in the Indies. The Caribs, Tianos, Quechua, Arawak, Aymara, Guaraní, Mayan, Nahuatl, and others almost totally wiped out by Columbus and his followers - and that was just in the Indies.
The populations of the Indigenous peoples in the Western hemisphere were "approximately" 120 - 160 million prior to the arrival of the Euros in the 1500's. By 1950, there were only 252,000 Indigenous peoples left in the U.S - a small drop of 'bout 117,480,000 lives since the "introduction" of the Euro ways of genocide and whole sale massacres.
True, the Indigenous peoples fought, killed, etc., but on a much smaller scale than the Euros. The Indigenous folks were primarily Hunters/Gathers and went where the food supplies were. If that meant pushing others off the lands they were on, the other tribes/clans/nations did so but not on the grand scale of mass murder that the Euros introduced.
Pretty much, it's a case of what you read, what you research and who are you willing to believe from your studies. I, for one, like to follow the established anthro/archeo's - not the untested newbies.
Be glad to give you ample resources if you'd be interested.
I believe that is the point of the article. They weren't lilly white but what the "Euros" did was even worse.
This is disingenuous. The vast majority of those deaths were due to disease, not intent, which was no one's fault. It was inevitable.
Which is due primarily to not having the technology to do it on a larger scale. For example, look at what happened when the Comanche attained the horse. From what I have read on them, they were basically crapped on by the other nations until they attained the horse and then grew into a largely genocidal powerhouse.
Please don't take this as "Well, you guys did it too, so we can't be blamed, either." That isn't what I meant or intend. Only that we need to shed this idea of blaming others without seeing the guilt in ourselves. The idea should be to become better people, not fix a past that can't be changed.
Ummmmm I think this 'article' is a rather broad stroke of the brush in its view of the 'pre-Columbian' culture of Indigenous peoples, or just Indigenous peoples as a whole - yes, there were warring tribes ... but it was only a fraction of the nations that were.
This description is bullshit!
Just my opinion Jim.....
Peace... : )