Thanks for the post. We have swung from "the wicked redskins" to "the noble Native American who could do no wrong". The real story lies between the two. Another point that gets little airing in our PC society is that the tribes that were present when the white man first came were not, themsleves, the original inhabitants. As far as I've read, none of them were fluted point people. As my farmer husband likes to say, "Nobody was trying to grow corn in New Mexico by CHOICE!" (Meaning, you'd have to be crazy or been driven out of better land, agriculturally)
Funny how we sanitize history as we look back on "the good old days" on one hand and pride ourselves on moving beyond the prejudices and difficulties of the past on the other.....
Thank you Dean! You said it very well. I'm about 3/8ths indian, counting from the "begining" of US history. I despise the idea that the Indians were all peace-loving basket-weavers that blood-thirsty rapist white men descinded on with smallbox laden blankets when rape didn't work. Those sterotypes are the same as Jews and the Blood Lible in my opinion.
I fully comprehend that the Trail of Tears was a "war crime" by today's standard, and a disqusting abuse of a tribe of people that sought to be "civillized" by white standards. I also know that the original Eastern scalping was taught to the Indians by the British attempting to destroy the Dutch and French footholds on the "New World". But, I temper these acts with the crimes commited against white women and children in the west during the "Indian Wars". Kidnapping, scalping, gutting and murder were par for the course, but I don't blame every tribe, or even every member of a tribe for the crimes and brutalities of some.
The vast majority of the crap taught to little children, and adults in college and via the media is just that, CRAP. There were bad things done on both sides, but to take these actions of a few and tar the entire history of a nation (many of who's citizens are "half-breeds" or "mutts", and damn proud of it) is a gross injustice of our history, and our present, as well as our future if no one challenges this bullmalarky passing as "fact".
There were great leaders on both sides. Neither has a monopoly on honorable behaviour, as neither has a monopoly on blood-thirsty war-mongering, and outright disqusting abuse of human beings.
I hope your threads on this might make a few people question just what the left has been teachingbrainwashing generations of Americans with for the last 3+ decades. After questioning, I hope they read up on just what was happening, when, and to whom. They're probably in for one almighty shock.
As ever, history is a litle more complicated than is made out to be.
Slaughters on both sides happened and its something I know a little about. The Seebers of Mohawk Valley are my clan: Though 'good guy' Dutch, we were "Indian killers" [a profession back then, meaning skilled at fighting Indians, not operators of concentration camps] we were slaughtered in turn [at one point, the extended family was wiped out, leaving around 10 survivors] and we have had intermarried ancestors, too. My Grandfather was 1/2 Mohawk, for example.
In the north &southeast that was the way the area was settled- through war. Its naive to believe that the native population didn't fight back. Ultimately, the settlers were better armed &organized and so won, which is the way of war. The most pitiable aspect is not the wars themselves but the treaties- which it must be said were very unbalanced.
But one mustn't forget that Native social mores were quite different from ours: Within the Iroquois, for example, internal religious and inheritance mores contributed to their political and cultural demise- a failure to adapt, IOW.
The only beef I have with your post, Dean, is that it implies the land was empty. In some areas it was indeed, through disease, as you say- but the population of the New World was higher than is generally supposed.
Last, to the individual who took you to task: Every land has blood in its soil, except Iceland. Move, if it makes you feel better.
Ehhhhh- I looked bak on that. When I wrote: "Indian killers" [a profession back then it was a bad choice of words.
Nobody made a living at it, so "profession" is wrong- Reputation is a better word for it. Other than that, my ancestors were typically military men which is where they acquired that rep.
There's a new history book out, The Island at the Center of the World, which deals with Dutch Manhattan, and is based on newly translated documents of the era. The bit I found most striking was the terms of the original "sale" of the island, which turned out to be more of a lease with hospitality parties as part of the payment. (You showed up with thirty of your friends and demanded food and lodging.)
The local types were pretty saavy dealers, actually. And they got along pretty well under some of the trading company leaders... but, of course, someone had to come along and put his foot in it...
Urthshu: Read what I said carefully. The area the settlers at Plymouth Rock settled in was practically empty. Which it was. There's really no disputing that by any reputable historian I'm aware of that.
Of course, those settlers had descendants, and their descendants moved into gradually more and more areas. But now you're talking about future generations, and not the settlers of Plymouth Rock.
I remember Steve Roper _very_ well. I was trying to place Big Chief Wahoo. Looks like he was before my time. I grew up on Steve Roper and Mike Nomad, truck driver for "Proof" magazine, of which Steve Roper was the editor. Together or by turns, the two heroes ran into a lot of criminals, usually by accident, and exposed their evil schemes. Take a look at Mike Nomad. What a MAN! I wish I looked like him.
I fully comprehend that the Trail of Tears was a "war crime" by today's standard, and a disqusting abuse of a tribe of people that sought to be "civillized" by white standards. I also know that the original Eastern scalping was taught to the Indians by the British attempting to destroy the Dutch and French footholds on the "New World". But, I temper these acts with the crimes commited against white women and children in the west during the "Indian Wars". Kidnapping, scalping, gutting and murder were par for the course, but I don't blame every tribe, or even every member of a tribe for the crimes and brutalities of some.
The vast majority of the crap taught to little children, and adults in college and via the media is just that, CRAP. There were bad things done on both sides, but to take these actions of a few and tar the entire history of a nation (many of who's citizens are "half-breeds" or "mutts", and damn proud of it) is a gross injustice of our history, and our present, as well as our future if no one challenges this bullmalarky passing as "fact".
There were great leaders on both sides. Neither has a monopoly on honorable behaviour, as neither has a monopoly on blood-thirsty war-mongering, and outright disqusting abuse of human beings.
I hope your threads on this might make a few people question just what the left has been
teachingbrainwashing generations of Americans with for the last 3+ decades. After questioning, I hope they read up on just what was happening, when, and to whom. They're probably in for one almighty shock.Slaughters on both sides happened and its something I know a little about. The Seebers of Mohawk Valley are my clan: Though 'good guy' Dutch, we were "Indian killers" [a profession back then, meaning skilled at fighting Indians, not operators of concentration camps] we were slaughtered in turn [at one point, the extended family was wiped out, leaving around 10 survivors] and we have had intermarried ancestors, too. My Grandfather was 1/2 Mohawk, for example.
In the north &southeast that was the way the area was settled- through war. Its naive to believe that the native population didn't fight back. Ultimately, the settlers were better armed &organized and so won, which is the way of war. The most pitiable aspect is not the wars themselves but the treaties- which it must be said were very unbalanced.
But one mustn't forget that Native social mores were quite different from ours: Within the Iroquois, for example, internal religious and inheritance mores contributed to their political and cultural demise- a failure to adapt, IOW.
The only beef I have with your post, Dean, is that it implies the land was empty. In some areas it was indeed, through disease, as you say- but the population of the New World was higher than is generally supposed.
Last, to the individual who took you to task: Every land has blood in its soil, except Iceland. Move, if it makes you feel better.
Nobody made a living at it, so "profession" is wrong- Reputation is a better word for it. Other than that, my ancestors were typically military men which is where they acquired that rep.
The local types were pretty saavy dealers, actually. And they got along pretty well under some of the trading company leaders... but, of course, someone had to come along and put his foot in it...
Of course, those settlers had descendants, and their descendants moved into gradually more and more areas. But now you're talking about future generations, and not the settlers of Plymouth Rock.
I may be the only person that remembers.