Frankly, Spoke, I take your sources with more than a pinch of salt, maybe more like a truckload of salt, because this description of the Ft. Mims massacre seems to be taken straight from the old testament of the bible. While I’m not xtian, I’m familiar enough with your scripture to recognize when certain passages are passed on as historical accounts describing events in other parts of the world. I’m also familiar enough with the traditions of the Eastern Indian nations to know when someone is trying to subplant their normal form of warfare with passages from your bible. This ripping of fetuses from wombs was just too much of a biblical touch for any of your sources to have credibility. I’m sure the Shawnee did all this fetus ripping right after they worshiped the devil and danced naked inside a pentagram no doubt. LMAO. BTW, your term “unborn children” is a dead give-away regarding your sources and agenda. Please refrain from proselytizing your born-again xtian views here and don’t confuse your religious beliefs with historical fact.
Ah yes, the peaceful native Americans, living in blissful harmony with nature until corrupted by the invading Europeans. Two hundred years ago most Native American chieftans would have been mortally insulted by such a characterization, to judge by their surviving remarks. They were warriors and very proud of it, scorning most peaceful tasks as “women’s work”. They went to war frequently, and with methods that shocked the battle hardened Europeans. If they had been able to resist fighting each other and united against the newcomers they might have made a better try at shoving them back into the sea, but old habits died hard.
If some consider the description of atrocious conduct by Native Americans mere propaganda, consider the quaint habit of scalping. Some schoolchildren remember only the shocked commentary about this or that Colonial official who offered a bouty for each Native American scalp turned in to them…they may even been left with the impression that scalping was a English invention. Far from it. Few northen Native American lodges were without their banners of hair, trophies as grisly as shrunken heads. And the proud shining pyramids of the indigenous Southren cultures, what could anyone say about the torrents of blood that gushed down their gutters, the macabre and malodorus piles of stored carrion at their base? Ever wonder how Cortez and his small band of adventurers with matchlock muskets not only survived attacks by the milling Aztec multitudes but actually managed to conquer? With a lot of help from natives who had been victimized themselves by Aztecs, that’s how. If the Priest of your conqueror kept popping into your village to sieze those most full of youth and promise so their hearts could be cut out and their bodies flung down Pyramid staircases like so much trash, even Cortez would look good to you.
And leads to a point I have attempted to make before; much commentary here is so dependent on agenda-driven sources with selectively spun facts that the individuals of the times would not recognize in themselves the people or circumstances described in the postings advocating revisionist world views. To give just one example, consider the biological warfare thing. Europeans considered themselves the victims of a biological plague from the new world…not tobacco, but syphillis. Present day researchers argue that syphillis was present in European populations prior to their recorded contact with New World peoples, but is is likely that a new and more virulent strain made its way back across the sea. The literature of the period makes clear an epidemic of veneral disease ripped through a Europe that had grown careless and complacent in its sexual habits. So while the Native Americans left few records to document their losses to smallpox the Europeans wrote reams on how they had been poxed.
First of all, let me point out to you that I consider the term “noble savage” an oxymoron. This is a label invented by white people and none of us describe ourselves as such. We’re neither collectively noble nor are we savages.
If you check into the history of scalping, you will discover that it was introduced in America by the Spanish, they’re from Europe I believe. It was propogated by the US government which paid a bounty for every Indian scalp.
I might also point out to you that if the white people didn’t like our customs here, they were free to go back to Europe and stay there. We neither forced them to come to this part of the world nor did we detain them here against their own wishes.
As for this propaganda you’re trying to pass off as history, sorry, it won’t wash.
As I said before, if the indigenous population was as brutal as you try to make us, how come your ancestors didn’t take the first opportunity to go back to Europe? Moreover, it was the whites who tried to annihilate us and not the other way around. It was the whites who committed genocide against us and not the other way around. So your arguments don’t hold up. Better luck next time.
-Spare us the martyr routine, PumaClaw.
yeah puma. who do you think you is, mother teresa 
-Holocaust was a two-way street.
as it turned out, in reality, not in some ethereal realm you superimposed onto that, it was only a one-way avenue here.
-As I pointed out earlier (and you really should read the whole thread), the first recorded attempt at genocide in what became the US occurred in 1622, when the Powhatan Indians attempted to eradicate the English settlers at Jamestown. Cite.
first of all, that ignores earlier genocidal inclinations and follow-throughs by europeans against native people (yes, even in the united states), but more importantly, you do not understand the word you are using here, said word being ‘genocide,’ nor, because of that, its applicability. the english SETTLERS (take note, ‘settlers,’ not innocent bystanders), being that as they were, were, passively as it may have been at times, engaging in acts of combat against the indigenous tidewater populations of virginia by definition of being invaders (calling them settlers is just a nice way of sprucing up their image) alone. therefor, that precludes the attempt to drive them off as being genocide in its nature.
-Slaughter and atrocities on both sides proceeded from that starting point
starting point? umm… you’re leaving out a good bit of history there, including over 100 years in u.s. proper alone.
-and continued right on through the 19th Century. It just turned out that the Europeans were better at slaughter than the Indians.
better, if you count the myriad acts of subterfuge, many being the marks of incivility themselves, even in times of war, as being something worthy of the respect due a description of something said to have been ‘better.’
-It wasn’t for lack of trying, though. Nor do the methods employed by the Indians lend themselves to any claim to the moral high ground.
since i probably cannot break you of your apparent habit of generalizing, stereotypical contentions, and polarizing, for what it’s worth, native people were only as brutal really as they felt they needed to be. native people were being hunted, and marked for extirpation. native people were losing lands and family, and believed if they did not fight back ferociously, they might lose it all. were native people not right right in that assumption?.. their cultures, their lives, their lands… all of it was being attacked, so excuse the ‘excuse’ for brutality, spoke. i’d like to see you be backed into a corner and not respond accordingly. it’s easy to try and be a moralist when you have not been placed in a position to know any better
-The Indian propensity for making war not only against men but against women and children was shocking enough to the sensibilities of English settlers that it merited a mention in the Declaration of Independence.
right… shocking to the same english settlers who set bounties on indians’ scalps, even those of children? lofl, what are you talkin’ about? hehe. god…
-HE has excited domestic Insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the Inhabitants of our Frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known Rule of Warfare, is an undistinguished Destruction, of all Ages, Sexes and Conditions.
a lot of the ‘destruction’ they spoke of against women and children was native peoples’ habits of adopting as captives, of course men, as well as and especially women and children. funny how most of those didn’t even want to go back to white ‘civilization’ after living with the ‘savages’ for a period of time.
-In the early part of the 19th century, the Shawnee Indian Tecumseh dreamed of slaughter on a much larger scale, hoping to unite all tribes to eradicate white settlers west of the Appalachians. He encouraged his acolytes to butcher the settlers, specifically urging them, for example, to cut the unborn children from the bellies of pregnant women.
you’re talented to have managed to p*ss someone off and give them the chuckles at the same time…
even someone with cursory knowledge of tecumseh can counter that trash of a point you were trying to attribute to him. tecumseh’s positions on such were actually well-documented. tecumseh, though he had good reason to burn about every captive he and his men caught, tought against even torturing them. it would only come back on his people, he believed. no captive in tecumseh’s presence was ever treated poorly, let alone butchered. tecumseh upbraided so many about mistreating captives that it was common knowledge, even to people of other nations under his guidance, not to do it for fear of what he might do. once, at fort meigs, where in his absence many of the prisoners were being killed, upon arriving he immediately shouted down everyone acting against the prisoners, and it was reported he struck down, even perhaps killing two other badly needed warriors because they had engaged in the slaughter. to him, it was better to lose them than to have warriors who could not be as honorable as he wanted his people to be. they had defiled his and their own names, and he did not believe in it nor want any under his command to involve themselves in that kind of thing.
tecumseh did the opposite of advising anyone to butcher settlers or captives alike. such things he considered unnecessary and impediments to progress for his vision of winning back his peoples’ homelands. every time settlers were attacked, it gave the u.s. and territorial militias reasons to incite further campaigns against the indians to break up the tribes. tecumseh knew that and that was the last thing he needed was to bring negative attention to them. the thing with ripping out fetuses… maybe you’ll want to check out the cavalry in the sand creek massacre on that one. i really don’t know how you people come up with this stuff. stop spewing vitriolic fairy tales around. you will get called on them.
-As I pointed out in this thread the Ft. Mims massacre was the WTC bombing of its day, and it sent a similar shock through the American public.
oh please… it’s comparable in that the u.s. of that time and this thought they could do whatever they pleased without retribution, and no one could ever do any serious harm to them. that’s about it, as well as that people then and now were generally ignorant of how u.s. policies were affecting other peoples.
-While we’re at it, please spare me the hackneyed image of Indians living in harmony with nature until the arrival of the evil Europeans. Where are the giant ground sloth, the giant armadillo, the American mammoth (among others)? They were hunted to extinction by the Indians before the white man ever set foot in this hemisphere.
where is your proof of that? sorry, but conjecture doesn’t make itself fact when it becomes convenient.
and please spare us the banal attempts at trying to make some semblance of a point with that imagining others are saying or even believe such an extreme position as that all natives were living in peace and harmony with mother earth and whatnot. i think what you’ll find is actually being stated isn’t so extreme, but not as dim a reality as you seem to want to paint it.
-I say all of this not to demonize Native Americans of times past, but to humanize them.
yet you demonize native people under the auspices of ‘humanizing’ indians all the same. you just pulled some garbage out of who knows where about tecumseh, effectively demonizing one of the most venerable men of his time, who was respected by even his enemies, even honored a great deal by some of them. you clearly have not done your research and it shows.
who do you think you are trying to humanize native people to a native person anyway? in that world, it’s you who needs schooling a bit.
It’s really difficult to take anyone serious who thinks he needs to teach an Indian all about humanizing his own people or assumes that an Indian has some highflown images of himself and his own people which are way above superman and friends, aaye? It takes a whopper of arrogance to think one has to introduce real Indians to an Indian, that’s for sure.
The fact remains that indigenous people have the right and justification to run off or kill any invader, and the white people here were the invaders. That they were run out of their own country constituted no obligation on our part to let them move in – move in and take over, move in and move us out, move in and put us into concentration camps, move in and try to annihilate us.
I believe it was Gore Vidal who claimed that more people had been killed in the name of Jesus Christ than any other cause. Now it seems unlikely that this genocidal activity beats out Stalin, but does anybody have an estimate of the nunmber of people killed in the name of Christ? How about in the name of the other big religions?
Hmmmmmmmmm, I dunno now, they might well beat out Stalin. Think about all the folks killed during the Spanish Inquisition, the European witchhunts, the Huguenots, all the Indian people killed in the Americas, many of the people killed in Africa, the Crusades, the xtian-islamic wars, Hitler was a good catholic boy too and didn’t like Jews and other sinners (atheists, homosexuals, abortion doctors, et al.) very much, and then there were the wars between catholics and protestants…
Islam with its allowance for spreading its faith by the sword may well be the bloodiest of the old world religions, but I do not recall any reference to Muslim warriors scalping their enemies. Nor do I recall ever reading of their Spanish oppenents engaging in such practices during the protracted and bloody struggles in the Iberian peninsula. Yet we are told the Spanish introduced that barbaric custom into the Americas. Could it be the Spanish merely bought scalping from North America, where according to most accounts it was nearly universal among native tribes, to a receptive auidence in the South? What reliable records exist to show when native North Americans began their enthusiastic infatuation with scalping?
Such cultural transfers have happened before. If you wandered down a street in 1930’s Germany and did not respond with a stiff arm salute to a group of passing Hitler youth you might well find yourself surrounded by a ring of hostile faces and asked “Do you not know the German greeting”? Shaken, you might not think to point out it was not a German greeting after all. Italian fascists had revived a favorite salute of the Roman legions as part of their larger program of reviving the glories of the Caesars, and the salute followed fascism into Germany. Therefore in their efforts “to uncover their racial heritage beneath centuries of filth” the Nazis had inadvertently aped the salute of the deadliest enemies of their teutonic ancestors.
Authur M. Schlensinger, Jr., observed “Ideology is the curse of public affairs because it converts politics into a branch of theology and sacrifices human beings on the altar of dogma”. Part of any ideology is a reinterpretation of history to support its dogma, and the more fanciful the dogma the less objective and the more…let us say “inventive”…this reinterpetation tends to be. Consider the constant harping of officials in the former Soviet Union on the intervention of the Western powers in their internal affairs during the final months of World War I. The Soviets by their abrogation of treaties with Russia’s former Allies and abject surrender to Germany’s demands for a unilateral peace treaty freed a tidal wave of Eastern front German divisons that nearly overwhelmed the Allies in the West. Yet the Soviets pretended to be unable to understand how their gambits might have provoked an Allied intervention.
The century that has just come to its close was the bloodiest humanity has ever known. Secular ideologies drove the slaughter, but did not in the last analysis justify a final Armageddon. Yet those who believe God has told them to do so might have no hesistation in “pressing the button”. The blood toll of religious frenzy may easily reach its greatest peak in this new century. Native Americans may well find themselves equally impacted by a demand of “convert or die”.
-Islam with its allowance for spreading its faith by the sword may well be the bloodiest of the old world religions, but I do not recall any reference to Muslim warriors scalping their enemies. Nor do I recall ever reading of their Spanish oppenents engaging in such practices during the protracted and bloody struggles in the Iberian peninsula. Yet we are told the Spanish introduced that barbaric custom into the Americas.
in all likelihood, it was either the spaniards or earlier english settlers. in many parts of europe, it was common to either scalp or behead a felled enemy, for anything from purposes regarding counting the number dead to bringing home a ‘trophy.’ this practice was brought early on into what is now the united states and promulgated throughout the continents, mainly for bounty, either private or governmental, as well as for the aforementioned ‘souvenirs’ and tallies used to count the dead (ears and noses were also popular for the latter purpose).
-Could it be the Spanish merely bought scalping from North America, where according to most accounts it was nearly universal among native tribes, to a receptive auidence in the South? What reliable records exist to show when native North Americans began their enthusiastic infatuation with scalping?
here’s what i don’t get… if there exists records to show that scalping was nearly universal among native tribes, as you say (there are actually accounts to the contrary, ones telling of it being introduced by the various colonial powers to tribes who’d never practiced it before), then there must also be ‘reliable records’ revolving around what you refer to as native peoples’ ‘enthusiastic infatuation’ with scalping, because one would precede and play off the other to confirm or deny. so in the existence of one, so too does the converse become clarified.
so please explain your reasoning there.
there may have been some tribes, or more correctly, tribes in which there were few members who’d scalped on occasion before the practice became pervasive after european introduction, but i know of no people to whom scalping was part of traditional warfare. people only believe as much because of how indigenous people have been portrayed, where myth has become fact any counter or question to would be considered absurd.
-Ah yes, the peaceful native Americans, living in blissful harmony with nature until corrupted by the invading Europeans.
oh god… why do you folks always whip this trite shite out of nowhere?
-Two hundred years ago most Native American chieftans would have been mortally insulted by such a characterization, to judge by their surviving remarks.
really?.. by whose surviving remarks? i want to hear them, and better yet, i want to see how you’ve translated them for your purposes here.
-They were warriors and very proud of it, scorning most peaceful tasks as “women’s work”.
actually, chiefs were generally peaceable people. fierce warriors, but only fierce in heated situations, and not all the time as you seem to think. most chiefs had to be congenial, calm, fair, compassionate and the like for they had also to deal with the affairs of their people on a daily basis. that you ascribe a ‘warrior’ status to them as some kind of consistant attribute makes me think your opinion of them them as human beings is not as well intentioned as you’d like to make it seem. you are not humanizing them, rather, you are taking one aspect of their lives and packaging their very being as indicative of such in its entirety… those who did scorn “women’s work” did so not because the tasks were peaceful, but because traditional roles were fairly rigid sometimes, and either sex would resent not being able to fulfill what they thought their gender should entail, much like most in our society today would, and do.
-They went to war frequently
not until the europeans invaded.
-and with methods that shocked the battle hardened Europeans.
right. i’m sure you believe that too, but excuse the rest of us for not. i think for that last sentence, the reciprocal holds truer.
-If some consider the description of atrocious conduct by Native Americans mere propaganda, consider the quaint habit of scalping. Some schoolchildren remember only the shocked commentary about this or that Colonial official who offered a bouty for each Native American scalp turned in to them…they may even been left with the impression that scalping was a English invention. Far from it. Few northen Native American lodges were without their banners of hair, trophies as grisly as shrunken heads.
i discussed this in the last post… seems you have a little problem with cause and effect. sure there were scalp ‘trophies.’ but none cited upon first contact or shortly thereafter, nor references to such practices among the nations. seems to me, that would support the european introduction and promulgation theorem given how pervasive it became only later on.
-And the proud shining pyramids of the indigenous Southren cultures, what could anyone say about the torrents of blood that gushed down their gutters, the macabre and malodorus piles of stored carrion at their base? Ever wonder how Cortez and his small band of adventurers with matchlock muskets not only survived attacks by the milling Aztec multitudes but actually managed to conquer? With a lot of help from natives who had been victimized themselves by Aztecs, that’s how.
actually they didn’t require much assistance to seize tenochtitlan. the disease(s?) they left did much of the work on their own… funny, the supposedly brutal aztec didn’t even wipe out the spaniards when they had the chance, even after their lust for gold savagery wound up slaughtering many of their hosts who’d treated them as guests. they merely ran the remaining ones off after they’d believed they wouldn’t be coming back. this they did because unlike the spaniards, they didn’t believe in wars of extermination, as was the case with most other indigenous peoples throughout the hemisphere.
reports of aztec sacrifice are also heavily exaggerated, and perhaps even false. it’s another one of those ideas we’ve had drilled into our heads so much that’s its become unquestionable truth, but it’s funny how there has never been a valid report of even seeing such sacrificial ceremonies, as it were. the first so-called report i believe it was was proven to be a lie. i think it was bernal diaz del castillo who first wrote of it. only problem was, from the given site of his having supposedly seen this, outside of the lake at their campsite, he’d have needed binoculars. and, i don’t think k-mart carried those then.
learn to scrutinize history better before you go spouting off about it. history in this part of the world is rife with myth generally believed to be anything but.
-And leads to a point I have attempted to make before; much commentary here is so dependent on agenda-driven sources with selectively spun facts that the individuals of the times would not recognize in themselves the people or circumstances described in the postings advocating revisionist world views.
uhm… too easy.
-To give just one example, consider the biological warfare thing. Europeans considered themselves the victims of a biological plague from the new world…not tobacco, but syphillis. Present day researchers argue that syphillis was present in European populations prior to their recorded contact with New World peoples, but is is likely that a new and more virulent strain made its way back across the sea.
actually it’s been proven syphilis was in europe before contact here and likely of european origin. i don’t care what you think is ‘likely.’ there’s no science to support your assertions, so do not try and manipulate the dialogue by, as the other guy was doing, treating personal conjecture as if it were worth anymore than that in a sound discussion.
-The literature of the period makes clear an epidemic of veneral disease ripped through a Europe that had grown careless and complacent in its sexual habits. So while the Native Americans left few records to document their losses to smallpox the Europeans wrote reams on how they had been poxed.
by themselves. you have somehow tried to lead us to a conclusion that was never justly accredited. your non-sequitured, underhanded attempt here to place blame where it cannot personally be shouldered is not appreciated. if i wanted to engage in debate where specious rhetoric was the weapon of choice, i’d go find a cult somewhere and pick a fight. let’s raise the level of discussion around here some, okay?
WWW:
I’m not aware of all Indian nations scalping anybody period, however, the fact remains that the practice was introduced by the Spaniards and was turned into a form of income by the US government. You really need to read up on history before you make a fool of yourself on this board. It was not the Indian nations who paid a bounty for Indian scalps, including the scalps of children; this is something the US government instituted. I’m tellin’ ya, WWW, Hollywood does not exactly hand out PhDs in history, yanno; and neither do dime novels. I would also be cautious about the posting of factoids you find on David Duke’s E.U.R.O website as scientifically proven facts here.
Let me enlighten you about a few things here: Whatever you have to say about WWI, keep in mind that the USSR was an ally in WWII as well. As for the 3rd Reich, you seem to overlook that concentration camps and death camps were waiting for those who publicly ignored Hitler’s directives. Of course, you have now the chance to live through all this first hand, so you won’t have to speculate further on how the Germans really perceived that dark era in their history. You might want to engage in a web search on Skulls and Bones to discover what you’re faced with at this time.
Spain, mostly during the Spanish Inquisition but also prior to this era, had some of the most gruesome torture chambers ever known to man, so for them to scalp people as well seems almost like a reprieve by comparison. You seem to forget that the Conquistadors came to the Americas during the Spanish Inquisition, so you don’t really expect these people to have been some sort of facsimile of Francis of Assissi, do ya now? You really need to keep facts within the context of the era they occurred in or supposedly occurred in.
While you seem to think that spreading religion with fire and sword is reserved for the Islam, let me enlighten you that it is also part of Christianity. In fact, didn’t your Jesus himself state that he has not come to bring peace but to turn people against each other? Didn’t he advocate for people to turn plow shears into swords? You might want to try reading the bible you claim to believe in.
The fact still remains that even in armed conflicts, the Indian nations were quite content to fire off a few arrows and send the adversary on the run. Weapons of mass destruction, such as the Gatlin Gun, smallpox infested blankets, shrapnel, all the way to nuclear bombs and depleted uranium ammunition were invented by whites. This speaks volumes for itself and can’t be overlooked. It is really irrelevant how you tango and waltz around this issue by trying to blame the Indian people for this, that, and the other, the facts speak for themselves.
Not only were white invaders here the only savages in evidence, unfortunately, their offspring are no improvement judging from the US’s propensity to get involved in every war there is, starting most of them in some form or other. Looking at the arsenal the US has at its disposal, it’s absolutely ludicrous to even discuss bows and arrows or even a few human sacrifices. Even if the Spanish claims regarding human sacrifices were anywhere near the truth (although they are highly exaggerated from the start), the Aztecs would have to get quite busy if they wanted to catch up with Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not to mention the human lives that are annually sacrificed to honor the great deity called Automobile.
You see, WWW, the problem with your argument against the Indian people is that it flies into the face of the demonstrated white mentality. I can stand beside the nearest artery of heavy traffic and watch white people demonstrating their traditional disrespect for the life of others as they deliberately try to run each other off the road, as they engage in the most dangerous maneuvers spawned by their egotistical desire to get somewhere a few minutes sooner. Just like all that matters to them are their own whims and desires now as evidenced by the tens of thousands of annual traffic fatalities and constant threats of nuclear bombs against anyone who opposes US greed, in the past, everybody who got into their way had to die. Nothing has changed, and the white mentality that reigned back then can still be observed today whenever you take the time to watch these people in action or listen to them talk.
Your claims that whites were the victims of Indian aggression rather than Indian self-defense are in complete opposition of the white mentality which has never changed. Just like the white invaders back then simply slaughtered off any Indians who happened to be in a location the whites wanted to occupy, today the offspring of the same people will bomb thousands of indigenous people who happen to be in an area the US wants to build a pipeline across or where large oil deposits happen to be located. Blaming the defensive indigenous population for hostility against greedy and kill-crazy invaders is an old white American tradition and can be clearly seen when looking at Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Nicaragua, etc. etc. etc. It is a matter of mentality which proves your factoids wrong no matter how strongly you believe that mere repetition of a blatant lie somehow makes it true.
It appears I am challenged to cite my sources by those who seldom…if ever…cite theirs. Nor does it appear that I would find their source material authoriative, or free from ideological taint.
I spent considerable time on my World Court remarks and the board did not respond when I attempted to submit them, so I doubt I will go to that degree of detail again. I will take it as given that any source I cite would be rejected with contempt and that I and any who question the assertion that the United States is the greatest unpunished genocidal power will always be considered as fools by some who post here.
I do not cite examples of barbaric behavior by native peoples to justify the horrendous excesses of some who claimed Western European heritage. I do attempt to poke holes in some of the more sweeping assertions advanced by some…but you want detail, right? You might even enjoy an example of what I consider specious historical authority.
OK, let us consider for a moment a recent television series on cable’s Discovery channel that puported to show how hard science was changing history. In one episode sweeping assertions were made about the progress of battle in Custer’s last stand based largely on the discovery of shell casings and other artifacts unearthed with the aid of metal detectors after a recent fire cleared the undergrowth. It all appeared very scientific, with finds plotted on computers and cross referenced to each other. The only problem I had was the conclusions were presented in far too definite a form to have been drawn from physical evidence gleaned from a battlefield picked over by every one from official survey crews to souvenior hunters for considerably more than a hundred years. It may have been possible to trace some small units from point to point but to generalize entire troop movements thereby in what was an extremely fluid situation seemed unjustified…the old error of the blind men and the Elephant. But I would be willing to bet qualifications and reservations will soon be forgotten and we will soon be confidently informed of what “science” had to tell us about that battle. (One inconvenient detail for some posting here; fallen US troopers were cut into pieces by the victorious Native Americans, a process documented by Sioux paintings; must have been something else they learned from the nasty Spanish).
And then there was the absolutely hilarious attempt to prove Davy Crockett didn’t die at the Alamo in the fashion presented in Hollywood movies, a proposition supported by a Mexican Officer’s account that even its defenders admit a) was not written by the officer in question, and b) if true, expands on a existing account in the officer’s own handwriting in which he did not comment on the extraordinary event in question. Scientific investigation of the papers being pointless, we were treated to a field trip to verify a crossroads north of a minor town which no longer existed, and whose location had been verified with satellite photography. The rediscovery of these previously mapped areas in Mexico was supposed to somehow help prove the unattributed document, but it seemed rather thin to me. If held to such standards of proof some who claim the holocaust did not happen might make a plausible case. No mention was made of the slaughter of the Texas rebels at Goliad or Santa Ana’s ultimatium, which together might make surrender seem pointless. And if Crockett did surrender and then was killed, it seems likely the Texans of the time would have attempted to capitalize on that by elevating his martyrdom at the hands of the inhuman Mexicans; yet the female who was spared by Santa Ana’s army mentioned only seeing Crockett’s body as she left the Alamo. Yet the hour long television program did echo a theme often expressed on this board…a attempt to discredit and defame icons of the United States of America.
NASA abandoned its attempt to prove it landed men on the moon, convinced its revisionist critics would remain unconvinced by any proof it offered; I shall not even attempt to cite you sources many have seemingly already dismissed as worthless.
You are welcome to consider me a fool; merely remember that if I am a fool and the greatest #!!%*## in the world, I can still speak the truth.
WWW:
I don’t know which other board you’re talking about and I couldn’t care less anyway. If you scroll up on this board, you will discover that I posted numerous URLs so don’t accuse me of not citing any sources just because you were too lazy to read them. The monitor of this board even chastised me for posting all these links but by now he probably sees that there was method to my madness. When you claim nobody posts any sources, you are clearly lying.
As to Custer, the guy was a war criminal by all accounts.
http://www.rootsweb.com/~vashenan/cem/davygetz.html
http://www.dickshovel.com/was.html
The Sioux knew he was coming, they let him ride into a trap, and Custer got what he had coming to him. Like so many others, he considered slaughtering Indians a way up the political ladder. Causes one to wonder about the voting public, aaye?
I visited the Alamo and was informed that the guys there died of influenza. Personally, I couldn’t care less what they died from. Who cares?
Did men walk on the moon? Maybe, then again maybe not, and frankly, I don’t give a damn one way or the other.
None of this changes the fact that the US has committed genocide and is one of the world’s most aggressive, most murderous, and greediest nations. It also doesn’t change the fact that this country is currently in the grips of people who should not be allowed in any government.
So, what exactly is your point, WWW? Or do you even have a point?
Scalping a European invention? That is hilarious. Especially given the mountains of archaelogical evidence of pre-Columbian scalping among Native American tribes. Check it out.
From that site:
Of course, you two seem unconcerned with actual evidence. No doubt you will tell us that the dozens of reports of pre-Columbian scalping in the archaeological record are really just the product of some vast Caucasian conspiracy of misinformation.
PumaClaw wrote:
He don’t know me very well, do he?
Oh yes, and here is the requested information on the extinction of large mammals caused by overhunting (by Paleo-Indians) in the Americas.
From that site:
Now that can’t be right. I thought Europeans invented environmental devastation…
Actually, no, He didn’t. He did say,
in Matthew 10:34-36, "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn
" `a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law–
a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’
. . . the last part being a quotation of Micah7:6. I have never met anyone who believes that the verse(s) in question condone violence against anyone, but I’m sure such people do exist.
Advice you might do well to follow, since your “quote” does not exist. At least, I can’t find it. I’ve been wrong before, though.
Actually, no, again. As Cecil says in reply to “Was Hitler an honest-to-God Christian?”: The short answer is a definite “maybe” or, more precisely, “probably neither.” The looooong answer is somewhat more complicated. (I suggest you read the entire article; it’s fascinating.)
Even if the “good Catholic boy” assertion were correct, it is irrelevant to this discussion, unless you are claiming that Hitler’s actions somehow were a Christian crusade of some sort, and that would be absolutely ludicrous.
Abortion doctors? Didn’t like Jews because they were sinners? Eh?
RR
PumaClaw wrote:
Here are some factoids of note, when considering who was committing “genocide” against whom:
When the Red Sticks attacked Ft. Mims in 1813, they killed some 400 settlers, including the women and children taking shelter there, as documented in the sites I linked earlier.
When Andrew Jackson swooped into Alabama in his retaliative campaign, he wiped out the Red Sticks in the battle of Horseshoe Bend. Did he similarly slaughter women and children in that battle? No. Instead, he took some 350 women and children prisoner. And he himself adopted an orphaned Creek child after the battle, and raised that child as his own son.
Again, I do not mean to demonize the Indians of yore. They responded violently to incursions into their territory, and perhaps understandably so. But they were not saintly martyrs, and they were as capable of atrocities as anyone else.
Like I said before, they were (and are) just homo sapiens sapiens, like the rest of us. No better. No worse.
Spoke:
Please activate the online dictionary and enlighten yourself about the exact meaning of the word “genocide.” You really don’t seem to have a clue what that words actually means. Killing a group of people is not genocide unless the intent is to annihilate an entire race of people. Taking people into custody sure as heck doesn’t qualify as genocide since there’s not even homicide involved here. You really need to learn English.
As for Tecumseh and his band, fercryinoutloud, the Shawnee were part of the Trail of Tears and he refused to be relocated. What did you expect them to do? Worship whites as some kind of deities? What Tecumseh did is normally known as self-defense. Are you familiar with that concept?
first of all, spoke, it needs saying, you don’t seem to possess much integrity. you did not even bother mentioning certain points you’d made prior after they were thrown back in your face, tecumseh being the main one here. you simply ignored them, picking and choosing as was convenient, and went on to points you apparently thought you’d do better in, never having bothered to acklowedge the others.
you are also apparently wont to create fact of speculation, as i’ll get into, and you show no willingness to grasp comprehension of the words you use well enough for you to even be using them. i’ll get into that as well…
so now…
-Here are some factoids of note, when considering who was committing “genocide” against whom:
When the Red Sticks attacked Ft. Mims in 1813, they killed some 400 settlers, including the women and children taking shelter there, as documented in the sites I linked earlier.
you still do not understand the applicability of the term genocide, and instead of reiterating what i’d stated prior, i would like for you to explain why you believe that incident falls within the definition of the word genocide. can you please do that for me?
-When Andrew Jackson swooped into Alabama in his retaliative campaign, he wiped out the Red Sticks in the battle of Horseshoe Bend. Did he similarly slaughter women and children in that battle? No. Instead, he took some 350 women and children prisoner. And he himself adopted an orphaned Creek child after the battle, and raised that child as his own son.
actually, yes, they did slaughter innocents, not just at horseshoe bend, but elsewhere among the upper creek towns and villages. there were only 150 left after the battle at horseshoe bend. so, please don’t lie.
there were around 800 creek victims at horsehsoe bend; men, women, and children as well. not only were they killed, but also mutilated afterward, which jackson himself oversaw. a book “the knights of the horsehsoe” documents accounts of the slaughter, such as jackson’s men shooting unarmed, noncombatant indians as they tried to swim for safety. they were just doing as instructed, by their commander(s), and their government(s), who wanted to see the “exterminating of the hostiles.”
in one documented instance at a red stick town on tullussahatchee river on 5/3/13, the soldiers, after slaughtering indians who were trying to surrender, then mutilated them and later fried potatoes in the fat of the dead red stick muskogees. so, not only were they genocidal, but they were also cannibals.