I love a good western movie where there's fighting between the Indians and the white men and in most of the movies I have seen, the Indians lose in the end. That's pretty much the way it was throughout most of American History with the Indians losing, eventually.

The first documented atrocity I have found so far was committed in 1585 by the men who would eventually found a settlement in the New World called Roanoke. They blamed missing livestock on the local tribe and marched over and took miscellaneous goods from them then burned their chief to death at the stake.

I don't count Columbus, though he did commit atrocities upon the Indians, because Columbus never made it to the United States.

Several problems come to mind when you offer up, the American Indians, The Brits, Columbus and good westerns.

1)Think of Columbus, Cortez, etc. as an extension of the Reconquista.

The final expulsion of the Moors from Spain and the Jews too.

2)Portuguese, Dutch, Spanish, French, Brits were all Europeans somewhat respectful of each others' "stuff", or at war.

The Dutch even ran the coast of Brazil for a while.

But, no China man, Muslim, Black, Hindu, Islander, Japanese, Inuit or American Indian was ever regarded by Western Europeans as, their equal. Thus treaties that need not be honored, are okay.

Now,

3 Ref.: Hollywoodism

On top of the general disregard for even the most white like Indian tribes, the civilized nations, comes the Hollywood producers all born within five hundred miles of each other, Russian-Polish Jews. Plundered for generations by the Czar's horse cavalry - the Cossacks, ala "Fiddler on the Roof" aka pogrom. It was not a big leap for them to see the American Indian as the Cossack of the west, attacking a group of good peaceful folk.

I would venture a guess that Marlon Brando's refusal to accept his Academy Award over the history of the American Indian did over time prove to be a leading event.

Moi

Hey-ya, hey-ya, woo-woo <repeat all nite>

One of my forefathers was scalped by the Indians as he was working on a

dock for his boat. His son (also my line) was kidnapped and held prisoner

for a couple of years. I am not a big fan of the Indians.

Truth: both sides were savage to one another. Whites massacred and tortured reds. Reds massacred and tortured whites. Sometimes one hit first, sometimes the other. Indians are, after all, people, so they're no better or worse than anyone else.

A lesson taught by all history is that under the right circumstances most people will do anything. There's a large body of psychological research about this. Most people derive their sense of right and wrong from their society. Whatever's sanctioned by their community, especially its leaders, is acceptable to most people. Much as we'd like to think otherwise, most people don't have an independent moral compass. They go with those around them. If your group deems it praiseworthy to torture and murder some other group, then you'll probably go along. Sad but true.

Indian cultures were far from uniform. They ranged from peaceful farmers and fishermen to cruel warriors. Long before any white men appeared, Indians fought wars over territory, butchering, raping, and torturing their enemies. Losing tribes were driven from their land. White men had the advantage of modern weapons. That's why they eventually won. It had nothing to do with character. White ferocity was easily matched by red ferocity.

It's easy to understand the old movies in which Indians were the bad guys and losers - the victors were telling the tale, and they wanted to think well of themselves. It's equally easy to understand the new dispensation, in which Indians are noble victims, dignified and upright, at one with Nature, etc. - the political left wishes to undermine the self-regarding myths of the white majority, the better to make way for rule by that same left. If whites are beasts, then they need someone to ride herd on them and stop them from doing wrong. The left is happy to volunteer itself to rule, but a confident people can't be ruled. Part of conquest is destroying the myths that sustain the spirit of a free people.

Another trait of the human psyche is rewriting history to suit a personal agenda. Rape was uncommon amongst the pre-Columbian American Indians as well as war. This vilifying depiction as "savages" should have become passe long ago and it is barbaric (animalistic?) to propagate this fallacy.

Conscientious (imported) wrote: Thu Oct 21, 2010 5:27 am Another trait of the human psyche is rewriting history to suit a personal agenda. Rape was uncommon amongst the pre-Columbian American Indians as well as war. This vilifying depiction as "savages" should have become passe long ago and it is barbaric (animalistic?) to propagate this fallacy.

I totally agree with you. One of the ways to totally annihilate a people is to tell lies about them.

I don't know about rape among pre-Columbians. Do you? What's your source? Rape is part of war everywhere. Why would pre-Columbians be the sole exception? Anyway, that's a minor quibble. The point is that neither whites nor reds enjoy a moral high ground. Only Conscientious does that.

I understand that among "liberals," all people are praiseworthy with the exception of WASP Americans, who are devils. That's why we need "liberals" - to tame the savage WASPs. As A-1 helpfully remarks, "

A-1 (imported) wrote: Thu Oct 21, 2010 9:11 am One of the ways to totally annihilate a people is to tell lies about them.

"

Yep, we must be careful of those Native Americans who shot whites with bow and arrow only to have the Whites return with musket and ball, later a good repeating rifle. Lets see the Whites forced Native Americans to go to English only schools, forgetting there rights to language, custom, religion, forcing them to move to a reservation where they about starved to death while the White man killed the buffalo. This practice continues to this day.

Yes it was a tit for tat all right,

It just shows how much you don't know or don't want to know. Its much easier to rewrite history to suit yourself is it not?

River

Why must you start attacking each other instead of sticking with facts and history? This is exactly why I don't post in certain sections of this board. It'sa shame that the moderators are some of the worst offenders!

If you feel the need to win some ideological argument, do it with logic and facts and forgo the character attacks. That also means thinly veiled general statements that are CLEARLY aimed at one person.

Couple things.

Maybe not so much inter tribal rape as stealing children or women.

Y'think? < prob. not >

AND Hi Stacey! Glad you ventured here.

You look like you might have some, Viking ancestry. Maybe even if they were called Normans or something else to your family.

Wouldn't you want to get personal on them as murdered your folk some thousand years ago?

Please, share YOUR views from the

Great State of Huey Long. <a known hero of mine>

Moi