Biggest holocaust in all humanity being hidden from history

Well first of all you are still ignoring my point at different tribes. I do not think that there was a large scale biological warfare attept at every single Native person, but i do think there was attacks on individual tribes. most of the small pox and other viruses where spread through trade and many people died even before they had any contact with Europeans. and besides you are getting your dates mixed up again the vaccination program was in 1801 and was set up by the US government the one attack I mentioned was in 1763 by the English.


In the research I did a few years ago the warfare between tribes was much different then European warfare, in some battles between certain tribes there was no deaths. I am not going to deny that there could have been some genocidal warfare because I will not make the assumption that I know everything which happened between all the different tribes. Even with all the warfare not every single tribe was at war with each other. So if tribe A trys to kill off tribe B that does not make it right for the English to kill tribe C who had nothing to do with any of the conflict. Many of the tribes even helped the Europeans on genocidal attepts of other tribes. I am not saying that this never happened before the Europeans came I am saying that it happened during colonization.

 

here is an example of a deliberate plan of extermination


The payment for Indian scalps, including the scalps of Indian children, was written in the laws of Massachusetts. "The Acts and Resolves of the Province of Massachusetts Bay," Vol. I, states the rate for Indian scalps began at 50 pounds. The price for the scalp of Indian children under 10 was 10 pounds of silver.

The scalp law read:

"That there shall be paid out of the publick treasury of this province unto any party or parties that shall voluntarily go forth at their own charge, by commission as aforesaid, in the discovery and pursuit of the said Indian enemy and rebels, for every man or woman of the said enemy that shall be by them slain, the sum of fifty pounds; and for every child of the said enemy under the age of ten years that shall be by them slain, the sum of ten pounds . . .."

 

Man's inhumanity to man in general is an activity I find appalling. I am a caucasian, but just because my skin is white does not mean that I behave in the same manner as other caucasians. And I do not assume that just because someone's skin is black, that that individual will conduct him/herself in the same manner as every other human whose skin is black in color.

From what I have learned over the years about how the Native American people were treated by the first Europeans who came here; it certainly appears as though they really got screwed by them, and basically the Indians have never been treated fairly or with any sense of ethics by others. It is written that the white man actually scalped the Indian first, not the other way around. But even our history books in the American public educational system schools taught us as children that the Indian scalped the white man first. Our country 's current judicial system is riddled with corruption - hell,even if you're white, your matter will not be handled in a just, ethical and fair manner. The judicial system has been reduced to a system that does not utilize the "right-versus-wrong" edict; and in a criminal matter, they don't really care if they snared the right guilty party who's responsible for commiting the crime - the Powers That Be just want a conviction in their pursuit of greed for money and power - and what should be the most important imperative - that being, capturing the real guilty party and seeing that retribution is done - is no longer the imperative. The impetus for resolving a case is getting that conviction; not getting the man who is really guilty of commiting that crime. So, the misconduct of the system not only serves to convict and imprison innocent people - it also serves to allow the real criminal to continue roaming around on the street, looking for more people to victimize. So, what's going on here is that the system that was put in place to maintain law and order is actually perpetuating and encouraging the continuance of criminal activity. And, this is all done under the guise of 'justice'. From my observation in my area, I'd say a majoriy of the 'Powers That Be' are caucasian, so these particular caucasians really haven't changed much in the deceitful, selfish way in which they choose to cause others harm. Except now, some white men are not just doing the Indian, they're doing their fellow man of any ethnicity; including their own racial group. So much for the "Progress of Man".

Like I said earlier, I am a caucasian, but it would never occur to me in a million years to go and take someone's land from them just because I wanted it, and it would be particularly prohibitive if I had to take someone's life just to do so. For me, it all boils down to how I was raised. My parents taught me that the only acceptable way of behaving in this world was by following these basic rules:

First and Foremost: "Don't take anything that's not yours - if it belongs to someone else, you don't touch it." "But, if you see something that belongs to someone else, and you see that they're not using it, and you have need for it .... then, ask them if you can have it. They will usually say yes." (To this day, I abide by this law that my father laid down ... and you know, he was right? I'd say 99% of the time when I've needed to ask for something, they said, "yes"!)

Second Rule: "You can catch more bees with honey than with vinegar. So, be nice to other people; and spread kindness. Be especially kind to old people, and if you see that they need help, do so."

Rule #3: When you're doing a job , do it right. Even if you're just scrubbing a floor, do it right. And it is just as important to do a job right whether you're doing it for yourself or whether you're getting paid to do it for someone else."

Number 4: Do not be greedy - greed will kill you.

Number 5: Never betray your own kind, and do not shit in your own back yard. And, do not favor or dislike another just because of the color of their skin. To do so is called being "prejudiced", and it is not acceptable.

Number 6: Be honorable and loyal. Do the right thing for the right reason.
Be accountable for your own actions if you make a mistake. It's okay to make a mistake if you look for the learning. Because if you make one mistake, you have the opportunity to learn one new thing. If you make two mistakes, you can choose to learn two new things; and so on.

And last, but by no means least, Rule #7: Tell the truth. Do not lie. Do not ever compromise your own morals or values to make a buck or to get ahead. And do not compromise another human to do so either. It is necessary to be the kind of human who can be trusted, no matter what. If your word is not good, you have nothing.

These rules were ingrained into me during my formative years, so I abide by them today. I think it is important that we all realize that in all ethnic groups, there are the good ones and there are the bad ones. Prejudice is a very ugly thing, and it does serious damage. I'd love to encourage everyone to wipe the slate of the past clean and start anew from right now; and consider each new person we encounter as an individual as opposed to thinking of them as "one of the white people" or "one of the black people" or "one of the Native American people" or "one of the Mexican people": and so on and so on and so on. But I would be living in a dream world to believe that we, as a society, could pull that off; because I dare say we couldn't. I understand that I think this way because of the way I was raised and also because I have been fortunate enough to not have been victimized by another group of people; nor have I lost any of those that are dear to me just because they were white or pink or purple. I've had things stolen from me, but it wasn't my homeland, and it wasn't my life; so it's easy for me to be grateful and hopeful. I cannot fathom why and how some people can abuse other people so hatefully and cause them such harm - it is the furthest thing from my mind, and the way the Indians have been treated is appalling; just like the people in Hitler's concentration camps were treated is equally appalling. I just don't understand how things like that can continually happen, because I find it incomprehensible how any kind of motivation could possibly be worth it.

Sincere Regards, Michaela

________________________________________________

"They will never make a perfect heart until they make one that
can't be broken."...... The Wizard, "The Wizard of Oz"
________________________________________________

 

Genocide was not committed by the Europeans in N America, but wars between Native groups WERE genocidal? That is what Pepik is attempting to assert.

I am unaware of any history of any native nation in America wiping out another, enslaving them, making them a subservient caste, etc. Their warfare was quite a different thing. Being defeated by the Iroquois meant you got assimilated into their widespread social system which would probably in the end benefit you economically.

Being defeated by the "whites" meant you lost your land, most of your people, had your religion criminalized, and your descendants got to live as 4th-class citizens with virtually no rights.

There is a BIG difference between Euroimperialism (or Arab imperialism, or Chinese, or whichever) and what went on in America. The only example (endlessly repeated) of Native imperialism which is raised is that of the Aztecs. They were an anomaly. And they were headed for a fall with or without Cortés, since all their neighbors hated them.

Native Americans are humans and capable of all the crap all other humans are capable of. No "Noble Savage" myth here. But you simply cannot deny that they were victimized by genocide. No reasonable arguments against calling it genocide have been raised here. Some are still alive so therefore there was no genocide? Many Jews are still alive, so Hitler wasn't capable of genocide?

Get over it. Modern American nations were all founded on genocide and slavery. Rather than pointlessly deny this, work to make the future better than the past.

 

www.pbs.org/weta/the west/peoples/s-z/sherman.htm

 

Peasant

Agree. Occams lower danube stock was slaughtered by the turks, By the
10's of thousands. Does he whine about it? Does he hunt down turks and make them pay..lol..how stupid. It was centuries ago.

All WE need to do .. is learn from our mistakes.

Occam

 

"I am unaware of any history of any native nation in America wiping out another, enslaving them, making them a subservient caste, etc." - palaeopeasant

The Navajo tribes did capture and sell into slavery Hopi women and children. The Hopi word for the Navajo is "tesavu" which means head-pounder, meaning the favoured way the Navajo killed Hopi peoples. Navajo raiders stole Hopi crops, raped their women, stole their livestock and murdered their children. All of this against a peaceful tribe. This is only one example, there are probably many other horrible occurences between tribes but as there are few written histories, all there is to go on is myths and legends.

 

Michaela

Well said

Occam

 

well we know he aint no navajoe. they only speak when there moms or wives are murderin em or vice versa.if they live in the city there shit outta werk. nortenos talk big but sortenos look out.southsiders sorta. like if tommy wasnt a fat ****.so much fer culture kid. always sortenos puto.thats like boneheads arguin bout hitler bein a werkin class hero. sure kid find me sum families that dun well by his shiot.fags love the nazi uniform why do you?pretend yer locked up hmm?"they got boots i got boots. but they wanna suck the bhalls of sum weakhearted bitch as cuntsd. oh gee that hurts. scots mexicans yup thats it. give u sum werk n you be glad to get it. scots make shit food tho.chelsdea punks bah nevermind.you can always tell folks by whose got werk.

 

>>>The Navajo tribes did capture and sell into slavery Hopi
>>>women and children.

Yes. Slavery existed. But it was of captives and so forth, I know of no instance of any entire group being rounded up and enslaved because of a defeat in battle. This is what the Europeans (among others in the "Old World) did.

Homo sapiens is a nasty bastard. It must be genetic. However, whatever Native American asshole might have committed whatever crime does not bear on this issue of what was done politically, socially, culturally, economically to Native America by the conquering invaders.

The sad thing is that it continues. In the 1980's the Guatemalan govt with assistance from the USA (& Israeli) govts tortured and killed some 200,000 people, overwhelming Mayans, while the world sat silent. To think that this can not be put within the context of the centuries of genocide against Native Americans is naive. The racism and oppression of Mayans in Guatemala is overtly based on their Native identity. The war of terror against them was part of a pattern of smashing any rising of Native power...and in this case economic power, not military.

The genocide in the USA is now usually termed "cultural genocide". People forced off their little remaining land get a govt subsidy to rent a trailer in some town and soon are assimilated into the USA poor. This mainstreaming is considered to be positive social movement, by the powers that be. Separate, independent and DIFFERENT Native ways cannot be tolerated by the corporate Borg... Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated. A recent example of this behavior by the USA govt would be the well-known case of Big Mountain, an attempt to dislodge traditional sheep-farming populations and move them to Arizona towns.

I don't think it is extreme even to use the word "genocide" for this, since it is a part of a larger history and pattern of extermination, and simply represents "genocide lite"...whatever people of the original indigenous blood remain, must be culturally whitewashed (no pun intended). I would not use the word "genocide" for every form of cultural assimilation, but in this case it applies, since it follows so soon after the forcible cultural re-programming of the boarding schools, and that so soon after the more blatant genocide of the gun.

 

Thats just sad...
what makes a person to HATE a whole group of people to the point where they want to them ALL...
For my people, we were seen as nothing...
the army did test on them..now most those people are sick and dying because of it...
even sterilized the women...to control the population...
many groups of people came to my home land...
from all over the world...
all of them were kicked out from where they came from...
somehow they made to my little island...
did my people kill them because we didnt want them there...
no...
and we all know how small Puerto Rico is...
we learned to live together as outcast....
is it so hard to work together...
and not kill people just because you didnt like them for some reason...

 

Yes, there are many examples, unfortunately.

One not often mentioned is that which was visited on Europe. Europe in later centuries is the origin of a global imperialist system which ravaged most countries, but the people of Europe were in fact the first victims of that wave of madness. For Europeans it began mostly with the Romans.

Everything later done to the peoples of the "3rd world" was first done in Europe. Enough centuries have passed that it is forgotten that the identity of brutal conquerors has been imposed on the people of Tuscany, Guyenne and Cornwall, and their own identity suppressed. Language and culture have also been lost, much also by means of brutal suppression. This continued in blatant form into the post-Medieval period with the Inquisition and witchburnings.

Other waves of genocidal madness emerged from Arabia and Mongolia. The Mongols threw plague-infested bodies over city walls to infect the inhabitants and enable an easy conquest. The Muslim conquest of northern India is claimed by many to entail history's largest genocide. Other arguments are made for the same area, but at the time of the Aryan conquest around 1500 bce.

One cannot call every ethnicity-specific injustice a "genocide". "-cide" means "kill". Pesticide, herbicide. "Geno-" = "type", as in the biological category "genus". Killing based on ethnicity. "Race". Religion. Type. Even a murder committed for racist motive is genocidal, even if a fullblown genocide is not in place institutionally. The murder of Amy Biehls in Capetown was genocidal, but there is no genocide occurring of white Americans by South Africans. The mass graves in Bosnia were the result of genocide, because it was institutionalized and possessing the power to be implemented.

As there are global movements against various categories of injustice, there needs to be an increased consciousness of genocide, and a commitment by the military powers of the world (USA, France, etc.) to step in quickly and effectively to halt genocide when it first manifests. Remember the years we waited until Clinton finally acted to stop the madness in Bosnia, and then only after the Croats had achieved a major victory over Serbian forces.

Never again! This applies not only the Nazi Holocaust but to all of them!

 

You are ignoring the fact that there were many slaughters by natives of whites, beginning with Roanoke, Virginia, a white settlement which was exterminated (1585-1588).


The French and Indian war was generally a good time for the Mohawks, who enjoyed celebrating small skirmishes by burning their captives alive.

The French allied with the Wyandot, because they were the most advanced trading nation at the time. The Iroquois tended to be allies of the English, who took advantage of their hatred of the Wyandot and their new French allies. The introduction of European weapons increased the severity of wars, and, by about 1650, the Iroquois had almost completely destroyed the Wyandot tribes. The Jesuit mission of Sainte-Marie among the Hurons, near modern Midland, Ontario, was one focus of Iroquois attacks, and many of the Jesuit missionaries were killed (see Canadian Martyrs); the mission was eventually dismantled by the settlers so as to prevent capture in 1648. ("Wyandot", in www.wikipedia.org)




​

Another example is Forty Fort, Pennsylvania, wiped out in 1778 by Iroquois in the Wyoming Valley Massacre.

The Wyoming Valley battle and massacre was an encounter during the American Revolutionary War between American Patriots and Loyalists accompanied by Iroquois raiders that took place in Wyoming Valley, Pennsylvania, on July 3, 1778. More than three hundred Patriots were killed in a battle followed by a massacre, in which the Iroquois raiders hunted and killed fleeing Patriots before torturing to death the thirty to forty who had surrendered. On November 11, 1778, Loyalist Captain Walter Butler (the son of John Butler) led two companies of Butler's Rangers along with about 320 Iroquois led by Cornplanter, including 30 Mohawks led by Brant, on an assault at Cherry Valley in New York. While the fort was surrounded, Indians began to massacre civilians in the village, killing and scalping about 33 people, including women and children. In vain, Brant tried to stop the rampage. The town was plundered and destroyed.(www.wikipedia.org)
​

This led to a punitive war (Sullivan expedition of 1779) by the Americans against the Iroquois in New York, which was temporarily successful. About forty Iroquois villages were destroyed, by order of George Washington.
The practice of scalping, introduced by the British, was adopted by the Iroquois with relish, and used against whites when the British allied with natives during the War of 1812. War by natives of various tribes upon white settlers in the Ohio valley was a continuous fact of life up through the earlier nineteenth century.

So yes, there were many small wars, all throughout the colonies, of white against red. In fact the natives could be said to be in the right more often than not, since they objected to having their lands seized by foreigners. By the earlier nineteenth century, after two hundred years of up front, personal dirty little wars between natives and settlers, whites pretty well had their minds made up.

None of this excuses the broken treaties and slaughters of natives in the western U.S. throughout the nineteenth century.

As for 120,000,000 dead, I never heard a figure of more than 2,000,000 for the living population of natives in North America. So, you're off by at least a couple of zeros there, friend.

 

The violence you mention is all involved with Europeans. Anthropological analysis of Native remains has indicated that the level of violence BETWEEN Natives increased greatly upon contact with the whites. We know that the English and French both engaged in much encouragement of the Native allies to commit acts of violence against their enemies. An atrocious example of this you did not mention was the Iroquois slaughter of Huron at the instigation of the French.

The point about Native societies is that they were not behaving as imperialists when the Europeans arrived. In most cases they were shocked when the behavior of Europeans was displayed. The crimes committed under the Spanish, French, Portuguese, British, USA and other flags are of incomparable magnitude.

This habit by defenders of Western "expansion" of picking up on ANY sin committed by a Native that we can find as an excuse for whatever the whites did...it doesn't wash. That is like saying that since some French were murderers, rapists and collaborators, we cannot fault the Nazis for invading and brutalizing them. Doesn't work for France, doesn't work for Native America.

 

'Huron' (French for 'peasant') was a name given the Wyandot by the French.

Before the French arrived, the Wyandot had already been in conflict with the Iroquois to the south. Once the European powers became involved, this conflict intensified significantly. The French allied with the Wyandot, because they were the most advanced trading nation at the time. The Iroquois tended to be allies of the English, who took advantage of their hatred of the Wyandot and their new French allies. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huron_Indians)
​

I don't suppose that when you say 'any SIN committed by a native' you are including a little thing like organized warfare by hundreds of Indians. You don't wipe out a fort like Forty Fort with its high palisades by sending in a hunting party of five or six guys. In fact, the Iroquois under leaders like Brant must have been unusually organized and dedicated to create a force of hundreds of men, given that almost all North American Indians are hunters and gatherers, not given to working together in large groups the way whites do.

You might enjoy the movie 'Black Robe', available on video, detailing the life of a seventeenth century Jesuit among the Wyandots. The Wyandot/Mohawk conflict takes up roughly the second half of the film.

As for American generals Washington and Sullivan, their campaign to destroy Iroquois was deliberately genocidal.

The Sullivan Expedition, also known as the Sullivan-Clinton Expedition, was a campaign led by Major General John Sullivan and General James Clinton against Loyalists ("Tories") and the four nations of the Iroquois who had sided with the British in the American Revolutionary War. The expedition occurred during the summer of 1779 and only had one major battle, at Newtown along the Chemung River in western New York, in which the Tories and Iroquois were decisively defeated. Sullivan's army then carried out a scorched earth campaign, methodically destroying at least forty Iroquois villages throughout what is now upstate New York, in retaliation for Iroquois and Tory attacks against American settlements earlier in the war. The devastation created great hardships for the Iroquois that winter, and many starved or froze to death. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sullivan_Expedition)

​

Washington and Sullivan weren't in the mood to be politically correct. As leaders of threatened white settlers, they were in a life and death struggle, and they knew it. They meant to eliminate those who were out to scalp them, shoot them and burn them alive. They knew they were facing a foe who took no prisoners except as toys for torture and execution.

The situation was arguably different after the civil war, when white Americans were much more numerous, well armed and technically advanced than they were a century earlier. Quite possibly (though I don't have the facts here) the plains Indians were more vulnerable than the Iroquois because they didn't have large numbers and they didn't have forest cover for concealment, to the same extent.

I happen to be white. I see it as equally tragic when native kills white and when white kills native.

 

The difference between white killing natives and natives killing whites is simple: the whites had no care of age, gender, anything. The natives were more aiming towards white soldiers. By the way, 1997 had natives still being displaced from I believe the Colorado River area, to mine minerals. I just wrote a paper on it this very subject, and my main source was American Indian Holocaust and Survival: A Population History since 1492 by Russell Thorton.
Very helpful book, with census figures of the population decline. Surprisingly for the topic, it is not heavily biased. Kyle

 

What does it matter who had higher numbers? He's trying to say that a huge genocide took place and it is being erased by the very nation that committed it. Noone is innocent in history, but what happened to the Native Americans wasn't fair.

 

U cant said one was worse then another, at least the African slave trade is taught in schools and through many days celebrated at a month on the reflection og African history, this was suffocated under a pile of lies.