The Politically Incorrect Truth About American Indians

[annabenedetti]

All the inhabitants of Jericho, including the children, are referred to in Joshua 5 as "the accursed things!"

A site he uses (iirc), gotreligion, has this to say:

Probably the most difficult part of these commands from God is that God ordered the death of children and infants as well. Why would God order the death of innocent children? (1) Children are not innocent (Psalm 51:5; 58:3). (2) These children would have likely grown up as adherents to the evil religions and practices of their parents. (3) These children would naturally have grown up resentful of the Israelites and later sought to avenge the “unjust” treatment of their parents.


​

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Apparently when the opposition commits mass murder they're "evil," "barbaric" and "sadistic," but when the "home team" are guilty of the same acts they're portrayed as actually doing some of their victims a favour, because they "were killed knowing that they would spend eternity with God (it's that 'age of accountability' thing from the Bible)."

If you're referring to the Israelites and the killing of the barbaric Canaanites as the "home team" and attempting to make some comparison with the American Indian, unlike the American Indian, I'm not aware of the Jews disemboweling infant children in front of their mother, all the while mockingly laughing at the mother and her anguish.

 

[annabenedetti]

Thank you for pointing out what was already addressed in the OP: That there were atrocities committed by whites/non Indians as well.

It appears that the US Government frowned upon the actions of Chivington:

Regarding the author of the book in your OP, and Chivington, and apparently invented quotes, this adds some interesting context:

I later emailed Byron Strom and asked if he had seen the program and showed him some of the questionable quotes. His answer was pretty shocking. He said that the “quotes” came from a book by Bruce Cutler called “The Massacre at Sand Creek: Narrative Voices (American Indian Literature and Critical Studies Series).” Referred to as a novel in its review by Publishers Weekly, this book is also dubbed a “poetic version of the tragedy.” In other words, it is fact-based but it is fiction.

Interestingly, Byron said he first saw the misquotes in the work of Gregory Michno, the Rush Limbaugh of Colorado history, whose views on the Sand Creek massacre run contrary to those of most historians and experts on Sand Creek. In Michno’s universe, peace chiefs such as Black Kettle were actually trying to make trouble and the white men who negotiated with the tribes and later advocated for them – men such as Ned Wynkoop, Sam Tappan, and Silas Soule – were actually the real villains of this horrific event. In his book, “Battle of Sand Creek: The Military Perspective,” Michno is a Chivington apologist and works hard to make Wynkoop, Soule and the others look like incompetents and immoral characters.

In “Battle of Sand Creek: The Military Perspective,” Michno uses several quotes from Cutler as real Soule quotes. For example, on page 267, he quotes from a supposed letter that Soule wrote on April 15, 1865 to his mother after his wedding, which took place April 1, 1865. In fact, the last letter Soule wrote to his mother was in January of 1865, in which he told her about the women and children who had been scalped at Sand Creek. This supposed letter that Michno quotes can be traced directly back to Cutler’s novel (which can be found online on google books).

A shorter and shockingly acerbic version of Michno’s views can be found online on historynet.com in his article “Sand Creek Massacre: The Real Villains,” Published Online: June 12, 2006. (http://www.historynet.com/sand-creek-massacre-the-real-villains.htm). In this article, Michno again uses the Cutler quotes as real quotes from real Silas Soule letters . . . .

The Tears in the Sand documentary, despite misquoting Soule’s letters, did not change the essence of who Soule was. However, in the case of Michno, his article and his book are full of un-footnoted and poorly-researched accusations against Soule and others who decried what happened at Sand Creek. ​

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Up next: the sexual "appetites" of the American Indian. After all, a thread about the American Indian wouldn't be complete without talk of the "two spirit identity".

 

[jgarden]

Regarding the author of the book in your OP, and Chivington, and apparently invented quotes, this adds some interesting context:

[FONT=&]I later emailed Byron Strom and asked if he had seen the program and showed him some of the questionable quotes. His answer was pretty shocking. He said that the “quotes” came from a book by Bruce Cutler called “The Massacre at Sand Creek: Narrative Voices (American Indian Literature and Critical Studies Series).” Referred to as a novel in its review by Publishers Weekly, this book is also dubbed a “poetic version of the tragedy.” In other words, it is fact-based but it is fiction.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Interestingly, Byron said he first saw the misquotes in the work of Gregory Michno, the Rush Limbaugh of Colorado history, whose views on the Sand Creek massacre run contrary to those of most historians and experts on Sand Creek. In Michno’s universe, peace chiefs such as Black Kettle were actually trying to make trouble and the white men who negotiated with the tribes and later advocated for them – men such as Ned Wynkoop, Sam Tappan, and Silas Soule – were actually the real villains of this horrific event. In his book, “Battle of Sand Creek: The Military Perspective,” Michno is a Chivington apologist and works hard to make Wynkoop, Soule and the others look like incompetents and immoral characters.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]In “Battle of Sand Creek: The Military Perspective,” Michno uses several quotes from Cutler as real Soule quotes. For example, on page 267, he quotes from a supposed letter that Soule wrote on April 15, 1865 to his mother after his wedding, which took place April 1, 1865. In fact, the last letter Soule wrote to his mother was in January of 1865, in which he told her about the women and children who had been scalped at Sand Creek. This supposed letter that Michno quotes can be traced directly back to Cutler’s novel (which can be found online on google books).
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]A shorter and shockingly acerbic version of Michno’s views can be found online on historynet.com in his article “Sand Creek Massacre: The Real Villains,” Published Online: June 12, 2006. (http://www.historynet.com/sand-creek-massacre-the-real-villains.htm). In this article, Michno again uses the Cutler quotes as real quotes from real Silas Soule letters . . . .

The Tears in the Sand documentary, despite misquoting Soule’s letters, did not change the essence of who Soule was. However, in the case of Michno, his article and his book are full of un-footnoted and poorly-researched accusations against Soule and others who decried what happened at Sand Creek. [/FONT]​

"ACultureWarrior" keeps moving the moral goalposts to justify the persecution of those "nasty" Aboriginals who aren't conducting themselves in accordance with his rules - rules that shift with each successive post!

The fact that these accounts were often written by those who harboured no sympathy for the plight of the North American Indian and no interest in verifying the more salacious events only provides ammunition for a zealot like "aCultureWarrior" to promote his own agenda!

I'm surprised that "aCultureWarrior" hasn't concocted a narrative that all those "evil" Indians must be "gay" - he's used every other accusation in his arsenal to demonize them!

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Regarding the author of the book in your OP, and Chivington, and apparently invented quotes, this adds some interesting context:

Ahhh, political correctness makes yet another appearance in the thread.

In essence the American Indian really wasn't barbaric, and just sat around petting baby buffalo and stringing beads all day.

Sorry, but there is plenty of evidence showing otherwise; my post on page 1 talking about historian Francis Parkman is one example.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

It appears that more evidence is needed:

The Mythological Native American
Book Review by Peter J. La Grasse

George Feldman's book is a serious historical study of the history of numerous tribes of American Indians throughout the United States from 100 BC to Custer's defeat at Little Big Horn in 1876 and Apache Geronimo's surrender in 1886. This book does not attempt to be an exhaustive history of all these tribes or nations, as to their specific land occupancy at one time or another, or necessarily their migration, or specific military actions, but instead snapshots of specific incidents. These snapshots are developed in detail to show the practices of genocide, human sacrifice, decapitation and corpse mutilation and cannibalism as practiced by Indian against Indian, American against Indian and visa versa, and finally the U.S. Army against the Indian.
Feldman's documentation of unspeakable atrocities, often presented verbatim from contemporary sources, diminishes to zero any doubt as to the truth of his assertions. The Native American Warrior, 1500-1890, by Chris Mc Nab (St. Martins Press, N.Y. 2010) further analyzes battle tactics of the American Indian. While Mc Nab concedes that the Indian was brutal in battle, and killed all including women and children, he cautions that some contemporary reports were distorted to fuel animosity against the Indians. Feldman fully develops his case and evaluates sources to avoid sensational distortions. He establishes the fact that brutal warfare was a well-engrained cultural trait from the earliest times in America:
"Long before the white European knew a North American continent existed, Indians of the Northern Plains were massacring entire villages,... at least five hundred men, women and children were killed—and not just killed, but mutilated. Hands and feet were cut off, each body's head was scalped, the remains were left scattered around the village, which was burned... Other excavations...also indicate that warfare in the plains was a way of life in the pre-history era of Middle America." (p. xv)

https://prfamerica.org/bookreviews/BookReviewMythologicalNativeAmerican.html

 

[jgarden]

A site he uses (iirc), gotreligion, has this to say:

[FONT=&]Probably the most difficult part of these commands from God is that God ordered the death of children and infants as well. Why would God order the death of innocent children? (1) Children are not innocent ([/FONT]Psalm 51:5[FONT=&]; [/FONT]58:3[FONT=&]). (2) These children would have likely grown up as adherents to the evil religions and practices of their parents. (3) These children would naturally have grown up resentful of the Israelites and later sought to avenge the “unjust” treatment of their parents.


[/FONT]​

During the War of 1812 when the Americans were storming Queenston Heights on the Canadian side of Niagara Gorge, the British military leaders were dismayed to find that their Iroquois allies didn't share their European code of honor when they continued killing US troops - despite their attempts to surrender!

The Iroquois response was consistent with their counterparts throughout the world who viewed conflict as a fight to the death - with no quarter expected or given!

In the martial code of the Japanese warrior, death is preferable to the shame associated with being taken prisoner which goes a long way in explaining the kamikazes, ritual suicide, the bonsai charges and their lack of respect for those who allowed themselves to be taken prisoner!

Societies living a subsistent existence where life was precarious at best, the margin of error that separated life from death was a narrow one, leaving little room for allowing one's enemies and their families a second chance to exact revenge!

Ideas concerning mercy, chivalry and respect for non-combatants are luxuries that were beyond the understanding of most primitive societies!

 

[aCultureWarrior]

… British military leaders were dismayed to find that their Iroquois allies didn't share their European code of honor when they continued killing US troops - despite their attempts to surrender!

The Iroquois response was consistent with their counterparts throughout the world who viewed conflict as a fight to the death - with no quarter expected or given!

But then it's really not a "fight" when your opponent lays down his weapons and kneels at your feet for mercy is it?

In any event, thanks for making the case even stronger showing that many American Indian tribes were nothing but barbarians, in this case murdering unarmed soldiers who surrendered.

Murder seemed to be a huge part of many of the American Indian tribes 'culture'. As we'd seen in earlier posts, many tribes committed atrocities against other Indians long before the European settlers even set foot on American soil.

In the article entitled:

The Real-Life Tontos: How Comanche Indians Butchered Babies, Roasted Enemies Alive and Would Ride 1,000 Miles to Wipe Out One Family

the author shows the barbarianism of the Comanches in their treatment of captive white settlers:

But the Comanche tribe’s furious response knew no bounds. When the Texans suggested they swap the Comanche prisoners for their captives, the Indians tortured every one of those captives to death instead.
‘One by one, the children and young women were pegged out naked beside the camp fire,’ according to a contemporary account. ‘They were skinned, sliced, and horribly mutilated, and finally burned alive by vengeful women determined to wring the last shriek and convulsion from their agonised bodies. Matilda Lockhart’s six-year-old sister was among these unfortunates who died screaming under the high plains moon.’

https://www.amren.com/news/2013/08/...would-ride-1000-miles-to-wipe-out-one-family/

 

[aCultureWarrior]

On a positive note: Like all individuals are able to do, many American Indians have left their pagan ways behind them and found freedom in Christ:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8EiqWc3efc

 

[annabenedetti]

Murder seemed to be a huge part of many of the American Indian tribes 'culture'.

Murder is a huge part of colonialist culture. Of 'manifest destiny' culture. Of religious culture.

You made a thread to tell us how "barbarian" the Native Americans were because... why? What's your point? Because you want to whitewash the fact that "our 19th century ancestors were heartless, brutal imperialists?"

 

[The Berean]

There is a fascinating documentary called Reel Injin. The director is a Native American who travels the country talking to Native Americans about their experiences growing up and how the portrayal of Native Americans on film affected their lives. They tell stories from a Native American perspective, a rarity in the film industry even today. There is a scene where the narrator shows a scene of a film from 1972 that he saw as a kid to a group of young Native Americans that shows the graphic slaughter of Native people by the US Army. This is the first time something like this was ever shown in a major film.

Warning: The violence is graphic.

 

[ok doser]

Little Big Man - one of my favorites! :first:

 

[ok doser]

Murder is a huge part of ....

.... human nature

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Murder is a huge part of colonialist culture. Of 'manifest destiny' culture. Of religious culture.

The Catholic Popes were responsible for committing some pretty horrendous atrocities throughout history, which goes against biblical teachings. Those atrocities are in the modern day history books, the barbaric practices of the pagan American Indian are not. Hence the purpose of this thread.

You made a thread to tell us how "barbarian" the Native Americans were because... why? What's your point? Because you want to whitewash the fact that "our 19th century ancestors were heartless, brutal imperialists?"

The truth needs to be known about pagan people and their barbaric practices. As seen in various posts in this somewhat short thread, people are told that the American Indian were the original conservationists, when in reality they raped the land of animals and other resources (farmlands). People are told that the European settlers committed atrocities against American Indians (which there are documented cases showing that) without being told the story behind those atrocities (i.e. retaliation for European settlers and their families being brutally murdered).

That being said: The biggest atrocity that the American government has committed against the American Indian is to put him on a reservation (and thus not encourage him to assimilate into American society) and then pay him for being Indian.

Hence poverty runs rampant amongst the tribes (even though they have multi million dollar casinos which make the Chiefs very rich) and the American Indian is enslaved to the bureaucratic US Government and it's Bureau of Indian Affairs.


5 Ways The Government Keeps Native Americans In Poverty

https://www.forbes.com/sites/realsp...eps-native-americans-in-poverty/#6efaea752c27

 

[drbrumley]

Quite the imperialist ACW has become….facinating

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quite the imperialist ACW has become….facinating

What is the official Libertarian stance on the huge bureaucracy known as the Bureau of Indian Affairs?

I would think that would go against Libertarian doctrine.

Let's see what Libertarian writer Chris Edwards has to say about it:

Indian Lands, Indian Subsidies, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs
https://www.downsizinggovernment.org/interior/indian-lands-indian-subsidies

Oh my, does that make us allies Doc?

 

[ok doser]

Quite the imperialist ACW has become….facinating

Isn't that cute, brum - he wants to be your buddy

:barf:

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Isn't that cute, brum - he wants to be your buddy

:barf:

If you read the article that I linked from a Libertarian author, Christianity wasn't mentioned at all (they never do mention it in a positive light) and the author even gave accolades to the American Indian and their casinos (where Big Chief Slot Machine 'scalps' little ole ladies of their dead husbands pension check).

Needless to say, while there are some agreements between Christians and Libertarians, in this case the bureaucracy of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, if you look closer we really don't agree on anything.

 

[Gary K]

The American Indian raped the land and destroyed the wildlife? This is the most ludicrous assertion I've ever seen.

The herds of buffalo were so large when the white man arrived that it sometimes took days for a herd to pass a single point. Buffalo herd size, not combined herd numbers, was estimated to be in the millions. That's right. A single herd could number into the millions of buffalo. Game such as deer, elk, turkey, antelope, mountain sheep, etc... were found in great numbers. When a tribe had their village in a place long enough for game begin to get scarce in that locale the Indians picked up and moved. That allowed the animals in the area where they had just lived to reproduce and build the numbers once again. The Indian was not stupid enough to kill off all the game in any area. He knew his life would depend on the game being there at a later date so he could live there once again as each tribe had a limited area in which they could roam due to their enemies also holding areas of land.

The streams and rivers were loaded with fish. They were caught with bare hooks without having to snag them. The beaver populations were enormous as the Indians left them almost completely alone thus the water distribution systems were in very good shape and the rest of the animals had many watering holes.

One other very interesting point about the American Indian. Many tribes didn't even have a word for lying as it was unknown in their world. Could the Indian be cruel? Oh yes. Without a doubt. Most tribes lived for war with their neighbors. Being a warrior was a status symbol. In a lot of tribes a young man couldn't even get married until he had counted coup on an enemy. And he paid a dowry for his wife/wives with the horses he stole from the other tribes near him. And, one of the things Indian tribes did was own slaves. They would raid a neighboring tribe, steal some of their women and make them the camp slaves. Some weren't treated badly and later became adopted members of the tribe. Other captives were worked to death or beaten to death. Their lives were living hells.

The Indian, with a few exceptions, were much cleaner than the white man too.

That didn't make the Indians perfect by any means as torture was a way life for them. When an Indian from another tribe, or a white man, was captured it was common practice to put them to death by torture. And their methods of torture were pretty vicious. They included tying down their victim so that his head would be far enough from the ground to build a small fire under. They would then bake the head of their victim until his brain boiled and his eyes basically melted. They would repeatedly rape white women and girls using gang rape techniques. They would rape them to death. Scalping was far from the worst thing to happen to a captive. Both men and women prisoners would be mutilated. The men would have their genitals cut off and stuck in their mouths. Women would have their breasts sliced off. Another one of the things done was to take pine slivers made from very pitchy wood and stick it under the fingernails of their victims and then light them on fire. All these things were done to men, women, and children. One thing the Indian did to white children was to take them by their heels and beat their heads against a wall or a rock until they were unrecognizable. Just like the Nazis did to Jewish children.

The Indian was not the gentle person the socialists love to portray them as. Yes, they were cheated out of their lands and every treaty they ever signed was broken by the white man. But neither side was guiltless. Just think about coming home to find your family butchered as I have described above and think about what your view of an Indian would be then. As to innocent Indians being punished for the bloodletting of other Indians, that happened on both sides. To an Indian a white man was a white man so killing one white man for the outrage committed by another white man was logical and right. Same thing went for the killing of one Indian for the outrage committed by another Indian. Both sides were guilty. People on both sides had plenty of reason to hate.