# Penobscots Don't Want Ancestors' Scalping To Be Whitewashed



## Tom Horn (Feb 10, 2021)

> PORTLAND, Maine (AP) — Most Americans know about atrocities endured by Native Americans after the arrival of European settlers: wars, disease, stolen land. But they aren’t always taught the extent of the indiscriminate killings.
> 
> Members of the Penobscot Nation in Maine have produced an educational film addressing how European settlers scalped — killed — Indigenous people during the British colonial era, spurred for decades by cash bounties and with the government’s blessing.
> 
> ...


----------



## RJ2019 (Aug 27, 2019)

Nobody is bothering to mention that the natives inflicted these atrocities upon one another, though. . . .
Some of their warfare was bloodchilling.


----------



## boatswain2PA (Feb 13, 2020)

War is hell. But sometimes better than the alternative.


----------



## Tom Horn (Feb 10, 2021)

RJ2019 said:


> Nobody is bothering to mention that the natives inflicted these atrocities upon one another, though. . . .
> Some of their warfare was bloodchilling.


Perhaps, but the native populations were not decimated by the tens upon tens of thousands by murderous invaders from Europe with advanced weaponry bent upon genocide because they wanted to steal their land.


----------



## boatswain2PA (Feb 13, 2020)

Tom Horn said:


> Perhaps, but the native populations were not decimated by the tens upon tens of thousands by murderous invaders from Europe with advanced weaponry bent upon genocide because they wanted to steal their land.


The vast majority of First People were killed (decimated by the tens (likely hundreds) of thousands) by diseases inadvertently brought by Europeans. I don't believe there was any stopping this, and with the knowledge of infectious disease at the time, we should hold the early European settlers innocent of this as this was not their intent.

To equal this out, the First People introduced syphilis to the Europeans, which somehow then mostly affected the African slaves (and their descendents.)


----------



## altair (Jul 23, 2011)

I do think Thanksgiving tends to portray 'Indians and early settlers were friends' but most people know better. I guess if the Penobscot felt a film necessary, it's a free country. I'm not gonna watch.


----------



## boatswain2PA (Feb 13, 2020)

The first Thanksgiving time frame was a period of friendship between the Pilgrims and the local Indian tribe (Wampamoag?). The pilgrims were not the first Europeans in America, and the Indians knew they had superior firepower/technology, so wanted to be friends to help fight their inland enemies (the Iriquois I believe).

Of course there was friction/fighting between colonists/expansionist and the natives, but the vast, vast majority of Indian deaths, and really the death of their various cultures, came incidentally from disease.


----------



## doc- (Jun 26, 2015)

Tom Horn said:


> Perhaps, but the native populations were not decimated by the tens upon tens of thousands by murderous invaders from Europe with advanced weaponry bent upon genocide because they wanted to steal their land.


But the Native Americans would have done the same to the whites if they could have...How do the Natives think their tribes got the land in the first place?

There's even some scant fossil evidence that humans, "pre-Clovis," possibly Caucasians, occupied present day Atlantic seaboard areas 50,000 y/a, and were eventually displaced by the Asian migrants from the west after the retreat of the glaciers 12,000 y/a. New Evidence Puts Man In North America 50,000 Years Ago

Be careful. It's a jungle out there.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Yup. No different than the slavery issue. The narrative is that evil white men enslaved black men and dragged them to this country but never mentions it was fellow blacks who rounded them up in their home country and sold them to the whites.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

RJ2019 said:


> Nobody is bothering to mention that the natives inflicted these atrocities upon one another, though. . . .
> Some of their warfare was bloodchilling.


Especially by the Comanche.

_They were infamous for their inventive tortures, and women were usually in charge of the torture process. 
The Comanche roasted captive American and Mexican soldiers *to death over open fires*. Others were castrated and scalped while alive. The most agonising Comanche tortures included burying captives up to the chin and cutting off their eyelids so their eyes were seared by the burning sun before they starved to death... staking out male captives spread-eagled and naked over a red-ant bed. Sometimes this was done after excising the victim’s private parts, putting them in his mouth and then sewing his lips together. _









The truth Johnny Depp wants to hide about the real-life Tontos: How Comanche Indians butchered babies, roasted enemies alive and would ride 1,000 miles to wipe out one family


Comanche Indians were responsible for some of the bloodiest scenes in the Wild West but you would never know that from Johnny Depp's new Lone Ranger film.




www.dailymail.co.uk


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

It's basic human nature. I have lived here all my life. Don't like those people over there. These people are moving in. They have the means to wipe me out. Maybe if I make friends with them, they will wipe out the people that I don't like that I have been living with my whole life. Gosh, if they are willing to wipe out those people over there, at my suggestion, I can trust them to never turn on me, because we are friends, and they helped wipe out those people over there, who were bad. Great, well I'm in an excellent position now to return the favor by choosing sides in a global war against an enemy with advanced technology, an endless supply of manpower, and superior funding. There is absolutely no reason, given the soundness of this strategy, that my offspring will end up mostly extinct and selling things to tourists.

This has played out about the same way, every single time.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

doc- said:


> But the Native Americans would have done the same to the whites if they could have...How do the Natives think their tribes got the land in the first place?
> 
> There's even some scant fossil evidence that humans, "pre-Clovis," possibly Caucasians, occupied present day Atlantic seaboard areas 50,000 y/a, and were eventually displaced by the Asian migrants from the west after the retreat of the glaciers 12,000 y/a. New Evidence Puts Man In North America 50,000 Years Ago
> 
> Be careful. It's a jungle out there.


They found Caucasian mummies in Tennessee, Florida and Texas. They have found French origin flint tools European style made dating 20,000 years. This flint only comes from the France area of the world. They have found Egyptian mummies 3000BC old and checked the stomach contents and found coffee and chocolate in them. Coffee and chocolate are soley American continent in origin. How did that Pharoah get chocolate and coffee? 

But no, there was never anyone here. That's what they tell us anyway. 

At the very least, it is entirely conceivable that a fishing culture was out fishing when they should have been. Then got caught up in a storm and lost their way. They could have wound up anywhere on this globe. There was a guy who rowed from America to England in a bathtub in the '80's. I think the sea going fishing boats they had 20,000 years ago would fare better than a bathtub would.


----------



## doc- (Jun 26, 2015)

kinderfeld said:


> Especially by the Comanche.
> 
> _They were infamous for their inventive tortures, and women were usually in charge of the torture process.
> The Comanche roasted captive American and Mexican soldiers *to death over open fires*. Others were castrated and scalped while alive. The most agonising Comanche tortures included burying captives up to the chin and cutting off their eyelids so their eyes were seared by the burning sun before they starved to death... staking out male captives spread-eagled and naked over a red-ant bed. Sometimes this was done after excising the victim’s private parts, putting them in his mouth and then sewing his lips together. _


Reminds me of some of the biker chics I know.



mreynolds said:


> How did that Pharoah get chocolate and coffee?


Black market?


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

doc- said:


> But the Native Americans would have done the same to the whites if they could have...How do the Natives think their tribes got the land in the first place?
> 
> There's even some scant fossil evidence that humans, "pre-Clovis," possibly Caucasians, occupied present day Atlantic seaboard areas 50,000 y/a, and were eventually displaced by the Asian migrants from the west after the retreat of the glaciers 12,000 y/a. New Evidence Puts Man In North America 50,000 Years Ago
> 
> Be careful. It's a jungle out there.


Exactly so.
NA’s are just human and did the same things they accuse European colonials of. Some even worse.
It just happens to be in fashion now to demonize the victors while ignoring the evils of the conquered.
In the denunciations of Columbus, I never hear anyone talking about the cannibalism and human sacrifice that the Carib people practiced.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

People are pretty much the same where ever you go. Settlers killed Indians with black powder guns, and Indians killed settlers with stone axes. They were both dead, the amount of blood and gore is all window dressing. Today we bomb cities, and call the deaths of women and children collateral damage.

If you have the stomach for it, scalping is as good a way as any to keep score. I know a American Indian Vietnam Vet, who has a shoe lace with eleven ears on it.


----------



## wdcutrsdaughter (Dec 9, 2012)

Does anyone know why there is so much emphasis put on the past?


----------



## altair (Jul 23, 2011)

^ Supposedly it's so we learn from it to not repeat it, but doesn't usually work.


----------



## wdcutrsdaughter (Dec 9, 2012)

....so in this case the lesson is don't scalp people?


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

wdcutrsdaughter said:


> Does anyone know why there is so much emphasis put on the past?


so people lucky enough to be born in this time and this country have something they can moan about?


----------



## Pony (Jan 6, 2003)

wdcutrsdaughter said:


> ....so in this case the lesson is don't scalp people?


Only if you don't want your cultured cancelled in the future?


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Lisa in WA said:


> so people lucky enough to be born in this time and this country have something they can moan about?


Or shift the blame to someone else to hide what they are doing.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

mreynolds said:


> Or shift the blame to someone else to hide what they are doing.


Or what they're planning to do.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

mreynolds said:


> They found Caucasian mummies in Tennessee, Florida and Texas. They have found French origin flint tools European style made dating 20,000 years. This flint only comes from the France area of the world. They have found Egyptian mummies 3000BC old and checked the stomach contents and found coffee and chocolate in them. Coffee and chocolate are soley American continent in origin. How did that Pharoah get chocolate and coffee?
> 
> But no, there was never anyone here. That's what they tell us anyway.
> 
> At the very least, it is entirely conceivable that a fishing culture was out fishing when they should have been. Then got caught up in a storm and lost their way. They could have wound up anywhere on this globe. There was a guy who rowed from America to England in a bathtub in the '80's. I think the sea going fishing boats they had 20,000 years ago would fare better than a bathtub would.


Hate to be a nitpicker, although in some of these cultures one who picks nits would be a valued member, but coffee is African and didn't make it to South America until the 1700's.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

Nitpicking can be fun.

There's also some question as to the origin of syphilis nowadays.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

Mish said:


> Nitpicking can be fun.
> 
> There's also some question as to the origin of syphilis nowadays.


I'd always heard about the lonely conquistador/ llama theory but is there something new? Conquistador testifies that the llama was a liar.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

barnbilder said:


> Hate to be a nitpicker, although in some of these cultures one who picks nits would be a valued member, but coffee is African and didn't make it to South America until the 1700's.


Didn't explain the chocolate though.

I like nitpickers btw. Keeps me honest.


----------



## gilberte (Sep 25, 2004)

歡迎朋友，我可以請你吃火雞嗎？


----------



## Tom Horn (Feb 10, 2021)

gilberte said:


> 歡迎朋友，我可以請你吃火雞嗎？


謝謝你，實際上，我不在乎火雞。但你可以帶一隻狗或一隻貓


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

The Spanish found stone Chinese boat anchors off the coast from California to Peru. The Chinese have declined to comment.


----------



## B&L Chicken Ranch and Spa (Jan 4, 2019)

Tom Horn said:


> Perhaps, but the native populations were not decimated by the tens upon tens of thousands by murderous invaders from Europe with advanced weaponry bent upon genocide because they wanted to steal their land.


 So move


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

wdcutrsdaughter said:


> Does anyone know why there is so much emphasis put on the past?





Lisa in WA said:


> so people lucky enough to be born in this time and this country have something they can moan about?





mreynolds said:


> Or shift the blame to someone else to hide what they are doing.





barnbilder said:


> Or what they're planning to do.


Some people just suck at life and want someone else to blame it on. Losers like that can, in great numbers, become a powerful tool to an influential few with an agenda.


----------



## Tom Horn (Feb 10, 2021)

B&L Chicken Ranch and Spa said:


> So move



It's not about either moving or burying one's head in the sand. It's about facing up to the fact that this country was established through lies, deceit and murder of the native inhabitants, with the sponsorship and blessing of the US government.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

kinderfeld said:


> Some people just suck at life and want someone else to blame it on. Losers like that can, in great numbers, become a powerful tool to an influential few with an agenda.


Yup.
The “noble savage” myth dies hard.
They were just people. No more noble or ignoble than any other.


----------



## B&L Chicken Ranch and Spa (Jan 4, 2019)

Tom Horn said:


> It's not about either moving or burying one's head in the sand. It's about facing up to the fact that this country was established through lies, deceit and murder of the native inhabitants, with the sponsorship and blessing of the US government.



How does wallowing in the past help US to advance into the future?

Our culture, society, government had done things not considerable now, but they were not alone.

We are getting better and moving forward, or we were.

It astounds me knowing that many people going on about this absolutely trust the government WRT covid and the jab.

"It just makes no sense" - the Chewbaka defense...


----------



## flewism (Apr 2, 2007)

Every country in the world is built on conquered land, the United States is no different. Mass extermination has always been part of conquering that land. 
"Penobscots Don't Want Ancestors' Scalping To Be Whitewashed", is a good thing, lets not forget what humans are capable of in their beliefs of what is right.


----------



## Tom Horn (Feb 10, 2021)

B&L Chicken Ranch and Spa said:


> How does wallowing in the past help US to advance into the future?
> 
> Our culture, society, government had done things not considerable now, but they were not alone.
> 
> We are getting better and moving forward, or we were.


Yes, our government has done horrible things in the name of manifest destiny.

And we are not at all getting better, as a nation we are being flushed down the crapper by traitorous, money-grubbing politicians

It's not wallowing in the past; it is ongoing and happening as we speak.

Mt. Rushmore is on stolen land.



> The Sioux tribal members who agreed to settle on reservations resisted pressure to adopt farming and came to resent the lousy U.S. Government food rations. Many did not participate in assimilation programs and left the reservations to hunt buffalo on lands west of the Black Hills, as they had done for generations. The treaty allowed for that, but the specter of "wild" Indians living off-reservation deeply unsettled U.S. policy makers and army officers.
> 
> And then came the gold. In June 1874 General George Custer led an expedition to search for gold in the Black Hills. By 1875, some 800 miners and fortune-seekers had flooded into the Hills to pan for gold on land that had been reserved by the treaty exclusively for the Indians.
> 
> ...


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Everything is on “stolen” land.
Why should Indians be any different than the rest of us?


----------



## Tom Horn (Feb 10, 2021)

flewism said:


> Every country in the world is built on conquered land, the United States is no different. Mass extermination has always been part of conquering that land.
> "Penobscots Don't Want Ancestors' Scalping To Be Whitewashed", is a good thing, lets not forget what humans are capable of in their beliefs of what is right.


With your mental focus we should have stayed out of both WW1 and WW2 in Europe, as the Germans did nothing aggressive towards the US. 

Both Hitler and Nazism and Stalin and Communism should be celebrated as they were both employers of efficient means of conquering and assimilating land.

And in the future the USA should keep its hypocritical nose out of any attempts to mitigate any foreign human rights disparity and all military actions where the US has not first been attacked.

Unless of course, it is to bomb the crap out of third world countries in order to gain oil and natural resources.


----------



## Tom Horn (Feb 10, 2021)

Lisa in WA said:


> Everything is on “stolen” land.
> Why should Indians be any different than the rest of us?


Because to steal anything from anyone is unlawful.

I'll bet that if someone armed to the teeth rode up and killed your children and tried to drive you off of your property you would sing quite a different tune.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Tom Horn said:


> Because to steal anything from anyone is unlawful.
> 
> I'll bet that if someone armed to the teeth rode up and killed your children and tried to drive you off of your property you would sing quite a different tune.


The statute of limitations has long since passed On the Indians claims, as it has on my ancestors in Ireland who lost their land and crops to the British. Stop living in the past.


----------



## B&L Chicken Ranch and Spa (Jan 4, 2019)

Tom Horn said:


> Yes, our government has done horrible things in the name of manifest destiny.
> 
> And we are not at all getting better, as a nation we are being flushed down the crapper by traitorous, money-grubbing politicians
> 
> ...


So you should move to some non-stolen land (moon, mars?).

You are clueless and should read some history. 
The world was a pretty nasty place 100 years ago and there wee no innocents.

Apaches raided Navajo's for food and women as did the Comanche.
The Native American model was analogus to sheep and wolves.
I do not see any reparations going on there.

Oh, and yes, loosing does suck. It is always better to win.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Living in the past, and learning from the past are two very different things

Someone let me know how I can redo past happenings. I could put that to good use, but know, only I can manage this miraculous system. Too many cooks spoil the stew.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

B&L Chicken Ranch and Spa said:


> So you should move to some non-stolen land (moon, mars?).
> 
> You are clueless and should read some history.
> The world was a pretty nasty place 100 years ago and there wee no innocents.
> ...


And the Navajo raided the Hopi’s who joined up with Kit Carson as scouts to get back at the Navajo.


----------



## Tom Horn (Feb 10, 2021)

Lisa in WA said:


> *The statute of limitations has long since passed On the Indians claims,* as it has on my ancestors in Ireland who lost their land and crops to the British. Stop living in the past.


I disagree:



> The Sioux tribal members who agreed to settle on reservations resisted pressure to adopt farming and came to resent the lousy U.S. Government food rations. Many did not participate in assimilation programs and left the reservations to hunt buffalo on lands west of the Black Hills, as they had done for generations. The treaty allowed for that, but the specter of "wild" Indians living off-reservation deeply unsettled U.S. policy makers and army officers.
> 
> And then came the gold. In June 1874 General George Custer led an expedition to search for gold in the Black Hills. By 1875, some 800 miners and fortune-seekers had flooded into the Hills to pan for gold on land that had been reserved by the treaty exclusively for the Indians.
> 
> ...


----------



## Tom Horn (Feb 10, 2021)

B&L Chicken Ranch and Spa said:


> So you should move to some non-stolen land (moon, mars?).
> 
> You are clueless and should read some history.
> The world was a pretty nasty place 100 years ago and there wee no innocents.
> ...


So, you justify the US government's breaking of just about 100% of all treaties made with Native Americans?

You justify the slaughter of innocents at Sand Creek in Colorado and Wounded Knee in South Dakota?

I am not clueless, it's just that my head is not up my behind like those who use your justification for the US government sanctioned forced removal and genocide of the Native Americans.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Tom Horn said:


> I disagree:


Their recompense is sitting in the bank accruing interest. They won’t ever get the land back.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

It would seem that Darwin favored the culture that turned their attention to shipbuilding, domesticating animals to be used as beasts of burden, metallurgy, global trade, and the mastery of architecture to house clerics and scholars. You can be mad at Darwin all you want, but it doesn't make him wrong.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

barnbilder said:


> It would seem that Darwin favored the culture that turned their attention to shipbuilding, domesticating animals to be used as beasts of burden, metallurgy, global trade, and the mastery of architecture to house clerics and scholars. You can be mad at Darwin all you want, but it doesn't make him wrong.


Darwin only identified it.
”To the victors go the spoils” may seem unfair, but it’s true.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Does make you wonder why native Americans never developed metals. It was here in abundance.

Or a written language. They had no written word


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

HDRider said:


> Does make you wonder why native Americans never developed metals. It was here in abundance.
> 
> Or a written language. They had no written word


the Cherokee had a written language. Sequoyah is famous for it.
But otherwise they were mostly people stuck in the Stone Age.


----------



## Tom Horn (Feb 10, 2021)

Lisa in WA said:


> Their recompense is sitting in the bank accruing interest. They won’t ever get the land back.


Being an eternal optimist.

That remains to be seen.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Lisa in WA said:


> the Cherokee had a written language. Sequoyah is famous for it.
> But otherwise they were mostly people stuck in the Stone Age.


That came way late in the game


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

As it turns out, if the natives had only had an intelligence agency, they could have been aware of world events, and they might have been able to prepare themselves for invasion. If Columbus sank, and nobody in Europe ever heard from him again, it would have bought more time. But it's hard to build an effective Navy when you are only interested in spawning children in your mud hut while eating food that was stolen from your neighbors. There were tribes, on multiple continents, that killed each other to secure trade rights with the Europeans that would later erase them. At the very least, they could have come together to identify the larger threat, pledged troops and made alliances, posted lookouts, made some signal fires, and amassed troops to annihilate the invaders. But nooo. Me want shiny beads. A fatal flaw in human nature, exploited many times by those who cared to study it.

Remember, the English had survived multiple occupations, the Danes, the Normans, Rome. Those pesky English knew a thing or two about how to pull off a conquest, because they had been victims of it since the dawn of time and came away with new wisdom and technology every time. By the time of the Little Bighorn, they had it figured out, but it was too late. If they had just panned out all the gold, sacred burial grounds or not, rounded up a big herd of buffalo, and united all the tribes, they might have pulled it off. A couple of secret double agents laying hands on some henry rifles and a few gatling guns, buy a general here, maybe a senator there, they could have made the American West look like Afghanistan up until present. But they didn't, so here we are.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Lisa in WA said:


> they were mostly people stuck in the Stone Age


Right, but I wonder why when others discovered metal and the written language 1,000s of years before Christ

Those two things alone condemned them to being conquered


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

Tribalism was one of the things that helped destroy them. The same way that it keeps some people in parts of the world today living in countries that are war torn third world crap holes.

The enemy of your enemy isn't always your friend, and a united front against a larger and stronger enemy goes a long way.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

Architecture has a lot to do with societal advancements. You get a big building built, with plenty of room to scribble on the walls, and keep paper dry for generations, you can amass some knowledge. You get a bored monk playing with fruit flies, a guy staring at stars, a few drawing maps, and yes sure, at some point they get burnt as heretics, but some of their work survives each time. The conspiracy theories about the Illuminati are true in part, you follow those masons through history, and you see their fingerprints on everything, but it is because they made buildings that lasted generations, and their guild spawned institutions. A map in your head is good, but there is no way to back it up, you can't spit in someones ear and give them the map, it needs to be written down, and tested, and amended, through generations.Institutions and guilds are what gets you somewhere. You can't die and have all your knowledge lost. You have to have apprentices, in the absence of the written word, to preserve knowledge. Metallurgy is nice, but it's good if a blacksmith can look at work coming from other parts of the world, maybe have some collaboration of smiths, on the same level but trained in different styles. And then pass on that amended body of work to apprentices. You can't get that kind of advancement in a mobile village with skin tents that you have to drag around by hand. 

There were some pretty impressive works of architecture by the Aztecs, the Mayans, and the Incas. But from what we know of history, it's hard to get a civilization to thrive in a swamp or a jungle. There are abandoned temples all over the equatorial world. But in any cultural center, there will be visitors, and they will bring diseases. If these are water born diseases, and you are getting your water from the same swamp you drain into, it doesn't matter how big your castle is, enough of you are going to die that there will be a break in the cultural chain. Your castle gets covered in vines, and the scrolls rot and get eaten by vermin. It would seem that the weather a little farther North is better suited for continual occupation by a society. Had we seen a aztec scale architectural development up around Boston, they might have had a shot. But alas, it is much easier to build an empire closer to the equator, where it is easier living, but it's usually not a lasting empire. At best, abandoned and reclaimed many times, even if the architecture was permanent. You can do ok near the equator if it's arid, but you need irrigation, or trade. 

The Bison were the Natives undoing. They dominated the landscape, and thrived. They offered a way of life, but not a sustainable one. They could not be tamed, they could not haul rocks, they could not plow, or be milked. They had no decent animals to domesticate for these purposes. The mongols were immensely more successful, after first contact with the outside world, because they could make cheese, and ride a horse from place to place. Drag heavy thing with animal good, drag whole camp to heavy animal by hand, bad.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

Dairy animals were right beside draft animals as requisites for successful societies. Mounted soldiers played a keen role, too. You might not think that milk is that important, and it's not, but cheese is. Cheese is a tremendous stored energy source, with fat and protein. You can make grass into cheese, everywhere you go, if you have dairy animals. Slaughter animals make grass into meat, once, and if you don't eat it all right then, it spoils. You can take a cow, eating grass, and her caretakers can preserve her milk to feed themselves and spare a little for a soldier, a scholar, a merchant, a tinker, or a smith. Preserving protein rich energy sources that deliver in small quantities throughout the year can be a nice addition to slaughter animals. In a world with no refrigeration, and in areas where drying meat is not possible during some parts of the year.

The dairy cow's son was the oxen. Slow, but capable of heavy work. Turn grass into rock moved up hill. Very important. Go milk a cape buffalo, or put a yoke on a bison, and see how far you get towards having enough free time to create societal advancements and technological achievements. Then it will be easy to see why some cultures, in some countries, got a pretty raw deal. It was nothing against them, as people, they just drew a bad hand.


----------



## ET1 SS (Oct 22, 2005)

I live on land that was previously Penobscot tribal land. I have many friends who are enrolled Penobscot tribe members. 

Most Penobscots are okay people. But some of them carry a huge chip on their shoulders. The echo-chamber they experience on the reservation is severe. Most Penobscots refuse to go near the reservation because of it.

Penobscots are generally pretty pale skin toned, if you ask any of them it is because they are descended from the Norse [Very light skinned people] who settled here in the sixth century.

There are some Penobscots who are Social Justice Warriors. they work hard to convince liberals to feel guilty and to give them money.

Dawn Neptune Adams is actually one of my friends. Even in the film she admits that Europeans did not invent scalping, we got it from the Native Peoples [mid-1400s in the Mid-West tribes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crow_Creek_massacre ]


----------



## boatswain2PA (Feb 13, 2020)

barnbilder said:


> Architecture has a lot to do with societal advancements. You get a big building built, with plenty of room to scribble on the walls, and keep paper dry for generations, you can amass some knowledge. You get a bored monk playing with fruit flies, a guy staring at stars, a few drawing maps, and yes sure, at some point they get burnt as heretics, but some of their work survives each time. The conspiracy theories about the Illuminati are true in part, you follow those masons through history, and you see their fingerprints on everything, but it is because they made buildings that lasted generations, and their guild spawned institutions. A map in your head is good, but there is no way to back it up, you can't spit in someones ear and give them the map, it needs to be written down, and tested, and amended, through generations.Institutions and guilds are what gets you somewhere. You can't die and have all your knowledge lost. You have to have apprentices, in the absence of the written word, to preserve knowledge. Metallurgy is nice, but it's good if a blacksmith can look at work coming from other parts of the world, maybe have some collaboration of smiths, on the same level but trained in different styles. And then pass on that amended body of work to apprentices. You can't get that kind of advancement in a mobile village with skin tents that you have to drag around by hand.
> 
> There were some pretty impressive works of architecture by the Aztecs, the Mayans, and the Incas. But from what we know of history, it's hard to get a civilization to thrive in a swamp or a jungle. There are abandoned temples all over the equatorial world. But in any cultural center, there will be visitors, and they will bring diseases. If these are water born diseases, and you are getting your water from the same swamp you drain into, it doesn't matter how big your castle is, enough of you are going to die that there will be a break in the cultural chain. Your castle gets covered in vines, and the scrolls rot and get eaten by vermin. It would seem that the weather a little farther North is better suited for continual occupation by a society. Had we seen a aztec scale architectural development up around Boston, they might have had a shot. But alas, it is much easier to build an empire closer to the equator, where it is easier living, but it's usually not a lasting empire. At best, abandoned and reclaimed many times, even if the architecture was permanent. You can do ok near the equator if it's arid, but you need irrigation, or trade.
> 
> The Bison were the Natives undoing. They dominated the landscape, and thrived. They offered a way of life, but not a sustainable one. They could not be tamed, they could not haul rocks, they could not plow, or be milked. They had no decent animals to domesticate for these purposes. The mongols were immensely more successful, after first contact with the outside world, because they could make cheese, and ride a horse from place to place. Drag heavy thing with animal good, drag whole camp to heavy animal by hand, bad.


Just another reason I enjoy coming to HT. So much here to unpack, much of it I have never thought of before.

Thank you for your time writing this.


----------



## boatswain2PA (Feb 13, 2020)

Tom Horn said:


> Because to steal anything from anyone is unlawful.
> 
> I'll bet that if someone armed to the teeth rode up and killed your children and tried to drive you off of your property you would sing quite a different tune.


Laws for States are different than for people. A State can imprison you, execute you, tax (steal) your stuff, and can impose violence legally through warfare (and not just self defense).

Abd such warfare can be used to take other States stuff.. Look what China and Russia are doing.


Lisa in WA said:


> the Cherokee had a written language. Sequoyah is famous for it.
> But otherwise they were mostly people stuck in the Stone Age.


I could be wrong, but I think the written Cherokee language came during the early 1800s when the Cherojee turned their verbal language into a written language influenced by settlers. I think we just found a cave in the American SE with some of the earliest Cherojee writing. I'll try to find a link.



Mish said:


> Tribalism was one of the things that helped destroy them. The same way that it keeps some people in parts of the world today living in countries that are war torn third world crap holes.


Interesting way to think about it.

Back when we used to learn a Eurocentric/western history we learned about great leaders who united a diverse range of people. Aethelstan united England (against the Vikings), Charlemagne united Europe against the Moors, etc.

Tecumseh tried, but was too late, and died early. 

Perhaps it is the lack of such a leader that holds these 3rd world tribes back from progress.


----------



## Tom Horn (Feb 10, 2021)

boatswain2PA said:


> Laws for States are different than for people. A State can imprison you, execute you, tax (steal) your stuff, and can impose violence legally through warfare (and not just self defense).
> 
> Abd such warfare can be used to take other States stuff.. Look what China and Russia are doing.


Well of course.

Communist states are notoriously brutal and unfair because communism only servs to drain everything that it touches of, land, wealth, resources, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and then throws the empty husk away like a spent cartridge casing out of a rifle used in the execution of a dissenter.

Here in the good ol' USA congress makes laws (of which they are conveniently exempt) that are punitively imposed upon the little people. Laws designed to circumvent the constitution thereby constituting legal theft.

My reference was to a higher authority.













boatswain2PA said:


> Interesting way to think about it.
> 
> Back when we used to learn a Eurocentric/western history we learned about great leaders who united a diverse range of people. Aethelstan united England (against the Vikings), Charlemagne united Europe against the Moors, etc.
> 
> ...


The Sioux had Crazy Horse, but he too died young.

Hoka Hey!











The Apache had Geronimo.










The Comanche had Quanna Parker.











The Nez Perce had Chief Joseph.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

Tom Horn said:


> Well of course.
> 
> Communist states are notoriously brutal and unfair because communism only servs to drain everything that it touches of, land, wealth, resources, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and then throws the empty husk away like a spent cartridge casing out of a rifle used in the execution of a dissenter.
> 
> ...


How about some examples of great Native American leaders that weren't influenced by European leadership ideals. Parker's Mom was white. No, because the greatest leaders up until the point of contact seemed only to get to the tired old "living god on Earth" "bring me all your gold and virgins" level of nation building. It looks impressive, if it's the Aztecs or North Korea, but it usually doesn't stand up well in a free market of thoughts and ideas. 

There were an awful lot of natives that were OK with government beef and the security of the rez. This is one of the biggest reasons for their fall. If they would have fought until the last man or fall back and join allies to the west, things would have been different. You have to have a unified sense off nationality and possibly religion to get that kind of mentality in your commoners, or else it's much too easy for them to take the easy path of government beef and free land where we won't be bothered. You can only be as great as your basic soldier unit. Maybe if we when this war I will be a big plantation owner some day, maybe if I go to the soldier fort I won't starve in the cold, maybe if I go to the rez, I will be a great chief there. 

In the discussion of the written word, we must not forget the Aztecs. They had writing. It consisted of bulky ideographs, much like the warnings we see on lawnmower mufflers or the signs that hang on bathrooms. Except for the most obvious, they generally don't generate widespread use and acceptance. For this reason, if something happens to the small group of people who knew how to read the letters of a language specific system of writing, it is lost until some scholar deciphers it centuries later. It is extremely advantageous to give people the ability to quickly jot down thoughts and data. Imagine if the natives had a widely taught writing system. The information a wounded, briefly surviving person could scrawl on a tree could have profound effects. "it was the French" , "don't trust them", "they headed west 100 men" , "don't take the blankets, they made us sick". Think about it. It would be as profound a military advantage as if we pitted two groups together today, one with cellphones, and one that had to holler.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

This jumped out at me for some reason


barnbilder said:


> You have to have a unified sense of nationality and possibly religion to get that kind of mentality in your commoners, or else it's much too easy for them to take the easy path


Seems like there is a greater message in there. It to speaks to me. Don't know why it resonated like it did.


----------



## B&L Chicken Ranch and Spa (Jan 4, 2019)

Two good books on the Americas around the time of discovery:

1491, the Americas before Columbus arrived
1493, the Americas after Columbus arrived


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

B&L Chicken Ranch and Spa said:


> Two good books on the Americas around the time of discovery:
> 
> 1491, the Americas before Columbus arrived
> 1493, the Americas after Columbus arrived


I ordered them.

Here is one for you
*The red man in the new world drama: A politico-legal study with a pageantry of American Indian history*


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

The Incas, the Mayans, and the Aztecs stand out as civilizations. They built lasting architectural structures. They had writing, even if it was only available to elites. The Incas had llamas, alpacas, and guinea pigs, in addition to the standard dogs, and muscovy ducks that were the livestock choices of Mesoamerica. The Aztec structures were built to show how great the king/deity was, there was an addition built with every coronation. Any surrounding exploited indigenous people that didn't pledge labor to the new addition, were rounded up and sacrificed and thrown down the steps to be butchered and eaten. This was supplemental protein, for a culture that had corn but no real livestock to feed it to. No wonder it was so easy for the Spaniards to enlist the help of exploited indigenous people to overthrow the mighty Aztecs.

The Plains Indians were stone age nomads until Spanish horses arrived. They would have killed out the buffalo, after getting horses, if they had the time. Their numbers would have built up, they would have had wars over resources, somewhere along the way, resources would have dwindled. Eventually horses would have been the dominant livestock, buffalo would be seen as competition, and they would have been all but wiped out, just like their European cousins the wisent. Without the horse, they would have stayed stone age nomads.

The Eastern Woodland, and the Pacific Northwest Indians might have done alright. They would have needed until about now to get to where Europe was in the 1400's. They still didn't have livestock, but they had trees, and an ocean. Eventually a maritime fishing society would have turned into a maritime trading society. Doubtful that they would have been able to stand up to Hitler or The Japanese Imperial Army in an alternate reality without Spanish, French and English colonial periods.


----------



## flewism (Apr 2, 2007)

Tom Horn said:


> With your mental focus we should have stayed out of both WW1 and WW2 in Europe, as the Germans did nothing aggressive towards the US.
> 
> Both Hitler and Nazism and Stalin and Communism should be celebrated as they were both employers of efficient means of conquering and assimilating land.
> 
> ...


"The U.S *entered* *WW1* for several *reasons*. The U.S *entered* for two main *reasons*: one was that the Germans had declared unlimited German submarine warfare and the Zimmermann note. The German had totally disregarded the international laws protecting neutral nation's ships by sinking neutral ships".

In both of these wars Germany was the entity attempting to conquer additional lands. IN WW1 the USA was selling products to England, France and Germany was sinking USA ships and thereby killing US citizens. Same thing during WW2 but also Hitler was dumb enough to declare was on the USA shortly after the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor.

Now the USA did gain territory in the pacific after WW2 consisting of Marshall Islands, along with several other island groups located in Micronesia, that passed formally to the United States under United Nations auspices in 1947. Again a land grab as the conqueror of Japan, but we certainly did not absorb Japan as a US territory.


----------



## Vjk (Apr 28, 2020)

I hear the Picts want to reclaim their lands from the Celts.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

Tom Horn said:


> Mt. Rushmore is on stolen land


Yep, and they stole it from someone else when they arrived way before the white man.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

Tom Horn said:


> Unless of course, it is to bomb the crap out of third world countries in order to gain oil and natural resources.


And where pray tell, did we do this? We never took a drop of oil from Iraq, that we didn't pay for.


----------



## Tom Horn (Feb 10, 2021)

flewism said:


> "The U.S *entered* *WW1* for several *reasons*. The U.S *entered* for two main *reasons*: one was that the Germans had declared unlimited German submarine warfare and the Zimmermann note. The German had totally disregarded the international laws protecting neutral nation's ships by sinking neutral ships".
> 
> In both of these wars Germany was the entity attempting to conquer additional lands. IN WW1 the USA was selling products to England, France and Germany was sinking USA ships and thereby killing US citizens. Same thing during WW2 but also Hitler was dumb enough to declare was on the USA shortly after the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor.
> 
> Now the USA did gain territory in the pacific after WW2 consisting of Marshall Islands, along with several other island groups located in Micronesia, that passed formally to the United States under United Nations auspices in 1947. Again a land grab as the conqueror of Japan, but we certainly did not absorb Japan as a US territory.


The "treaty" of Versailles was directly responsible for the rise of Hitler and WW2

The US violated international law by supplying the allies while pretending to be neutral.

Bad Germans!



> *Why did The U.S enter the war? (7 reasons)*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Everyone conveniently forgets how many countries were swallowed up, post WW2 by Russia forming the USSR and dropping the Iron Curtain.

Again, Bad Germans!



> The immediate post-war period in Europe was dominated by the Soviet Union annexing, or converting into Soviet Socialist Republics,[10][11][12] all the countries invaded and annexed by the Red Army driving the Germans out of central and eastern Europe. New satellite states were set up by the Soviets in Poland, Bulgaria, Hungary,[13][_page needed_] Czechoslovakia,[14] Romania,[15][16] Albania,[17] and East Germany; the last of these was created from the Soviet zone of occupation in Germany.[18] Yugoslavia emerged as an independent Communist state allied but not aligned with the Soviet Union, owing to the independent nature of the military victory of the Partisans of Josip Broz Tito during World War II in Yugoslavia. The Allies established the Far Eastern Commission and Allied Council for Japan to administer their occupation of that country while the establishment Allied Control Council, administered occupied Germany. In accordance with the Potsdam Conference agreements, the Soviet Union occupied and subsequently annexed the strategic island of Sakhalin.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aftermath_of_World_War_II


The allies made slave laborers of German POWs, post WW2. 

Even the self-righteous Brits and the USA.

Once again, Bad Germans!



> *Soviet Union[edit]*
> Main article: Forced labor of Germans in the Soviet Union
> *The largest group of forced laborers in the Soviet Union consisted of several million German prisoners of war. Most German POW survivors of the forced labor camps in the Soviet Union were released in 1953.[3]**[4]*
> 
> ...


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Tom Horn said:


> With your mental focus we should have stayed out of both WW1 and WW2 in Europe, as the Germans did nothing aggressive towards the US.
> 
> Both Hitler and Nazism and Stalin and Communism should be celebrated as they were both employers of efficient means of conquering and assimilating land.
> 
> ...





“Unless of course, it is to bomb the crap out of third world countries in order to gain oil and natural resources”

Where did I miss this happening ?


----------



## Tom Horn (Feb 10, 2021)

muleskinner2 said:


> Yep, and they stole it from someone else when they arrived way before the white man.



It is quite easy to be dismissive when referencing a history that is unwritten and only speculative in nature.

Especially if such a history supports a desired point of view.


----------



## Tom Horn (Feb 10, 2021)

muleskinner2 said:


> And where pray tell, did we do this? We never took a drop of oil from Iraq, that we didn't pay for.





> Yes, the Iraq War was a war for oil, and it was a war with winners: Big Oil.
> 
> It has been 10 years since Operation Iraqi Freedom’s bombs first landed in Baghdad. And while most of the U.S.-led coalition forces have long since gone, Western oil companies are only getting started.
> 
> ...


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Tom Horn said:


> So, you justify the US government's breaking of just about 100% of all treaties made with Native Americans?
> 
> You justify the slaughter of innocents at Sand Creek in Colorado and Wounded Knee in South Dakota?
> 
> I am not clueless, it's just that my head is not up my behind like those who use your justification for the US government sanctioned forced removal and genocide of the Native Americans.


It’s not justified. It’s ancient history. Learn it, remember it, keep it in mind to lesson the chances of future problems. Move on in life.


----------



## Tom Horn (Feb 10, 2021)

Redlands Okie said:


> It’s not justified. It’s ancient history. Learn it, remember it, keep it in mind to lesson the chances of future problems. Move on in life.


It is not ancient history to Native Americans.



> BY LEVI RICKERT AUGUST 22, 2021
> 
> Most American students are never taught about the Sand Creek Massacre that happened in November 1864 during the Civil War. The battle was not fought in the North, nor the South, but rather in Colorado, 170 miles southeast of Denver.
> 
> ...





> At dawn on Nov. 29, 1864, Colorado soldiers attacked peaceful Indians camped on the banks of Sand Creek in what is now southeastern Colorado, slaughtering an estimated 163 — mainly women, children and the elderly — and desecrating their bodies.
> 
> *The backlash was so severe, the U.S. government not only acknowledged wrongdoing but promised reparations of land and cash to survivors and relatives of victims.*
> 
> ...





> *Medal of Honor controversy*
> 
> For this 1890 conflict, the army awarded twenty Medals of Honor, its highest commendation.[9] In the governmental Nebraska State Historical Society's summer 1994 quarterly journal, Jerry Green construes that pre-1916 Medals of Honor were awarded more liberally; however, "the number of medals does seem disproportionate when compared to those awarded for other battles." Quantifying, he compares the three awarded for the Battle of Bear Paw Mountain's five-day siege, to the twenty awarded for this short and one-sided action.[9]
> 
> ...


----------



## Tom Horn (Feb 10, 2021)

barnbilder said:


> The Bison were the Natives undoing. They dominated the landscape, and thrived. They offered a way of life, but not a sustainable one. They could not be tamed, they could not haul rocks, they could not plow, or be milked. They had no decent animals to domesticate for these purposes. The mongols were immensely more successful, after first contact with the outside world, because they could make cheese, and ride a horse from place to place. Drag heavy thing with animal good, drag whole camp to heavy animal by hand, bad.


Not much is truly known of the North American natives prior to the advent of white Europeans as they were the ones who had a written language and preserved their historical record.

Most of the Eastern Woodlands Indians relied on agriculture, cultivating the “three sisters”—corn, beans, and squash, in addition to hunting and fishing. The Iroquois (a confederation of, Cayuga, Cherokee, Huron, Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Seneca, and Tuscarora,) were semisedentary agriculturists who palisaded their villages in time of need. Each village typically comprised several hundred persons. Iroquois people dwelt in large longhouses made of saplings and sheathed with elm bark, each housing many families. 

*Illinois*, a confederation of small Algonquian-speaking North American Indian tribes originally spread over what are now southern Wisconsin and northern Illinois and parts of Missouri and Iowa. The best-known of the Illinois tribes were the Cahokia, Kaskaskia, Michigamea, Peoria, and Tamaroa.

Iroquois | History, Culture, & Facts

So, in the lusher eastern part of north America the natives were more "semisedentary agriculturists," rather than hunter-gatherer nomads as was common in the more arid western plains region.

The horse, ( Sunka Wakan (Lakota: šuŋkawakaŋ,* "dog [of] power/mystery/wonder")* is the name given to the horse by the Lakota upon its discovery and adoption.) was readily adopted and used by the western plains Indians and became a key part of their culture, for transportation, draft, war, status, even food.


> “The Spanish quickly realized that the last thing they wanted was for Indians to have horses, because that would put them on equal footing,” says Viola, but that’s exactly what happened following the Pueblo Uprising of 1680. After enduring a century of harsh Spanish rule, the otherwise peaceful Pueblo Indians violently drove the Spanish from Santa Fe and captured their prized horses, which they then traded with neighboring tribes.
> 
> Horses quickly moved across trade routes to the Navajo, Ute and Apache, then to the Kiowa and Comanche of the southern Plains, and the Shoshone of the Mountain West. By 1700, horses had reached the Nez Perce and Blackfoot of the far Northwest, and traveled eastward to the Lakota, Crow and Cheyenne of the northern Plains. As horses arrived from the west, the first guns were being traded from the east. By the time of the French and Indian War in the 1760s, the armed and mounted Indian warrior was a formidable presence on the Great Plains.
> *.
> ...


 




barnbilder said:


> Dairy animals were right beside draft animals as requisites for successful societies. Mounted soldiers played a keen role, too. You might not think that milk is that important, and it's not, but cheese is. Cheese is a tremendous stored energy source, with fat and protein. You can make grass into cheese, everywhere you go, if you have dairy animals. Slaughter animals make grass into meat, once, and if you don't eat it all right then, it spoils. You can take a cow, eating grass, and her caretakers can preserve her milk to feed themselves and spare a little for a soldier, a scholar, a merchant, a tinker, or a smith. Preserving protein rich energy sources that deliver in small quantities throughout the year can be a nice addition to slaughter animals. In a world with no refrigeration, and in areas where drying meat is not possible during some parts of the year.
> 
> The dairy cow's son was the oxen. Slow, but capable of heavy work. Turn grass into rock moved up hill. Very important. Go milk a cape buffalo, or put a yoke on a bison, and see how far you get towards having enough free time to create societal advancements and technological achievements. Then it will be easy to see why some cultures, in some countries, got a pretty raw deal. It was nothing against them, as people, they just drew a bad hand.


Cattle were unsuited to a nomadic lifestyle. The plains Indian would hunt buffalo, elk, deer and jerk the surplus meat, make Pemmican, (Indian cheese) they also supplemented their diet with berries and other edible forage.

For centuries the native American had nothing to cause them to advance their form of civilization. They had no giants to stand upon the shoulders of, as the Europeans did to advance their civilization. They readily adapted to the horse when it was introduced and gladly learned to use steel knives, rifles and other such advancements when they too were introduced.

They just could not overcome the sheer weight of numbers of the plague of, defecate in their own bed, don't miss the water until the well runs dry, entitled, European locusts, that swarmed over the land, bent upon exploiting every available resource and leaving death, destruction and pollution in their wake.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

What a noble and whimsical notion of Native Americans. Yeah, we would have known more about them if they would have invented steel like everybody else, and sawed down something a little bigger than a sapling to build their structures. Maybe some brick and mortar, too. What we do know is through archeology. They girdled trees in the East, and burned the underbrush, to grow the famous three sisters. Every time they got to the point of nearing societal advancements, which are necessary for technological advancements, they ran out of food. Corn and Beans and Squash are great, but you need protein. If you set up a base camp where you can tend crops, it doesn't take long to deplete game resources in the surrounding areas. At the time of discovery, there were vast hunting grounds reserved for long forays to obtain meat, which in turn led to wars with competing tribes, which led to population control. No doubt they had maintained a sort of natural equilibrium, but it was one brought about by bloodshed, starvation, and human exploitation.

Beyond the fossil record, which told us a lot, we have the study of language. This allows us to see the patterns of migration that happened before recorded history. This is augmented by snippets of oral history. We know that the Navajo were closely related to the Northern Athabaskans in Canada and Alaska. Some of them left, no doubt due to overpopulation and depletion of resources, and they headed south, assimilating other customs and practices as they displaced or conquered those cultures. They were following the footsteps of the Aztec, who had done much the same centuries before. We can see a pattern of wandering civilizations, outgrowing resources, and traveling to find more. There were abundant resources at the time of discovery, but many of those were hard to utilize with stone age technology. The idea of warlike tribal nomads being stewards of the resources is fantasy, if is simply a lack of rifles and chainsaws that saved those resources. In many cases we know, from studies of language and archeology, each culture encountered at the time of discovery was relatively young, following a pattern of depleting resources available to stone age procurement methods, and starving or moving. Sometimes getting taken over by a competitor. 

We have countless pieces of archeological evidence of war, famine, and abandonment. Imagine the picturesque image of an encampment taking advantage of spawning salmon. It's a good setup, protein procurement, storing systems, never ending supply. But it does end. Your extended family gets large enough, you dip too many salmon, and eventually there aren't as many coming up your creek. Some of you have to leave and find a new creek, or you starve, and somebody takes over your creek. After eight years or so, the salmon come back, it repeats itself. Any migrating herd is going to work the same way. You need a big war every once in a while to keep those systems working. They didn't get hungry and order some bison meat on amazon from sellers in the plains, they had to hunker down and starve, or go fight, in times of temporary resource depletion. They didn't have granaries to fall back on, you couldn't get corn, beans and squash shipped from out east, you had to starve or fight with your neighbors. 

Livestock aren't suitable for a nomadic lifestyle? Don't tell all of the societies that were nomadic herdsmen. In many cases, a nomadic lifestyle is not practical or necessary if you have livestock. Unless you are a displaced people trying to live in a marginal human habitat.


----------



## Tom Horn (Feb 10, 2021)

barnbilder said:


> No doubt they had maintained a sort of natural equilibrium, but it was one brought about by bloodshed, starvation, and human exploitation.


It is quite obvious that attempting to counter any of your postulations will only cause you to present even more, liberally sewn with disparage against Native Americans

I have both a brother and a son in law much like you, they too will die before they yield the upper hand in a discussion, no matter how ludicrous their position may appear.

The native people across the country did have an equilibrium that worked for them. 

By the white man's standards, and it appears by yours as well, they were backward, bloodthirsty savages, that deserved to be exterminated.

Thankfully the white, enlightened, civilized, Christian, Europeans showed up to decimate them with diseases, deceive them with false promises and broken treaties and butcher them and mutilate their corpses, like Chivington and his men did at Sand Creek, and show the white European to be the truly the most cunning and vile animalistic, scorched earth, beast in north America.


----------



## B&L Chicken Ranch and Spa (Jan 4, 2019)

HDRider said:


> I ordered them.


I hope you enjoy them.

Not what you learned in school most likely, surprising, but not a surprise.
I just hope the ccp does not read them, they will be claiming the US belongs to them


----------



## B&L Chicken Ranch and Spa (Jan 4, 2019)

Tom Horn said:


> It is quite obvious that attempting to counter any of your postulations will only cause you to present even more, liberally sewn with disparage against Native Americans
> 
> I have both a brother and a son in law much like you, they too will die before they yield the upper hand in a discussion, no matter how ludicrous their position may appear.
> 
> ...



*Why the self loathing*? You have the power to make amends with whomever you choose. 

Here is a book for you

*Jordan Peterson: 12 Rules for Life, an antidote to chaos*.

I have only finished the first two chapters, but it speaks much to our self loathing as a society/culture, and how we need to move on from this to become whole again.

Destroying OUR COUNTRY and becoming slaves to the chinese will not change the past, will not be good for the future or the ecology of the world.


----------



## Tom Horn (Feb 10, 2021)

B&L Chicken Ranch and Spa said:


> *Why the self loathing*? You have the power to make amends with whomever you choose.
> 
> Here is a book for you
> 
> ...


No self-loathing on my part, I merely have a low tolerance for those who attempt to justify what white Europeans did to the native Americans.

The natives did not invade Europe and spread disease, burn, loot, rape, pillage and murder like some derivative of a Berserker Viking. but that is exactly what the white European did in north America.

The white, enlightened, civilized, Christian, Europeans showed up and decimated the native Americans with diseases, deceive them with false promises and broken treaties and butchered them and mutilate their corpses, like Chivington and his men did at Sand Creek. It was US government policy from Washington, (Iroquois,) to Harrison, (Wounded Knee,) to Roosevelt, to commit geocide against the Native American. They did show themselves to be the truly the most cunning and vile animalistic, scorched earth, beast in north America.


















I have no desire to destroy this country, however, I do contend that it is so far gone with traitorous politicians and a spinless, self-centered populace that we are ripe for the picking.




























My book of choice is Man's Search For Meaning by Viktor Frankl.

It is available as a free download.

https://edisciplinas.usp.br/pluginfile.php/3403095/mod_resource/content/1/56ViktorFrankl_Mans%20Search.pdf


----------



## B&L Chicken Ranch and Spa (Jan 4, 2019)

Tom Horn
No self-loathing on my part, I merely have a low tolerance for those who attempt to justify what white Europeans did to the natives

You are just having fun with us, good bye.


----------



## Tom Horn (Feb 10, 2021)

B&L Chicken Ranch and Spa said:


> Tom Horn
> No self-loathing on my part, I merely have a low tolerance for those who attempt to justify what white Europeans did to the natives
> 
> You are just having fun with us, good bye.



Just explaining my POV. No fun intended.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

I can recall a guy (no names) that delightfully quoted the president that killed the most Indigenous people in his entire life than any other president. The quote was in fact about killing said people. 

Someone mentioned calmly the quote was about that and got flamed for saying anything about it. 

Everything comes full circle though.


----------



## Tom Horn (Feb 10, 2021)

Tom Horn said:


> It is quite obvious that attempting to counter any of your postulations will only cause you to present even more, liberally sewn with disparage against Native Americans
> 
> I have both a brother and a son in law much like you, they too will die before they yield the upper hand in a discussion, no matter how ludicrous their position may appear.
> 
> ...


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Tom Horn said:


> I have both a brother and a son in law much like you, they too will die before they yield the upper hand in a discussion, no matter how ludicrous their position may appear.


Sounds like it runs in the family.


----------



## Tom Horn (Feb 10, 2021)

Lisa in WA said:


> Sounds like it runs in the family.


Is your avatar a selfie?


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Tom Horn said:


> Is your avatar a selfie?


Yes, it is. 😊

Curious why you chose the username and picture of Tom Horn.
He was involved in several campaigns against the Indians IIRC.


----------



## Tom Horn (Feb 10, 2021)

Lisa in WA said:


> Yes, it is. 😊
> 
> Curious why you chose the username and picture of Tom Horn.
> He was involved in several campaigns against the Indians IIRC.


To my understanding Horn was a scout and interpreter for the Army and was present at the surrender of Geronimo. I don't believe he was filled with animosity toward the Native Americans.

My interest in Tom Horn stems from the distinct probability that he was set up in the murder of Willie Nickell by the cattlemen's association that hired him to end rustling in the area.

Having been stabbed in the back myself several times, I could relate to the story of Tom Horn, an old west man not fitting into the new west.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Tom Horn said:


> To my understanding Horn was a scout and interpreter for the Army and was present at the surrender of Geronimo. I don't believe he was filled with animosity toward the Native Americans.
> 
> My interest in Tom Horn stems from the distinct probability that he was set up in the murder of Willie Nickell by the cattlemen's association that hired him to end rustling in the area.
> 
> Having been stabbed in the back myself several times, I could relate to the story of Tom Horn, an old west man not fitting into the new west.


Fair Enough.


----------



## Big_Al (Dec 21, 2011)

wdcutrsdaughter said:


> Does anyone know why there is so much emphasis put on the past?


Why? To make white people feel guilty about what other white people did in the past.
We must all be forced to suffer “white guilt”.
Leftists are not shy about it , they readily admit it. I’m simply stating a truth.
For the record, Penebscots encompassed several tribes, one of which I share a tiny bit of ancestry with - Passamaquoddy.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

The fact is, European settlers could have invited Native Americans in, fed them, let them have sport of their wives and daughters, and sent them away with all their provisions, and the results would have been much the same. We brought smallpox, bubonic plague, chickenpox, cholera, the cold, the flu, diphtheria, measles, malaria, scarlet fever, typhoid, typhus, and pertussis. That alone killed off maybe 90 percent. Through centuries of livestock domestication and crowded living, we had relatively excellent immune systems. From centuries of war, oppression, invasion and conquest, we also had a fair bit of genetic diversity. That can help in the face of global disease threats. 

. The vast herds of bison encountered by explorers and settlers were probably a result of a massive population increase, brought about by their main predator dying off in mass. The natives, before the adoption of the horse, often employed methods of harvest that were less than sustainable, techniques that drove many species of mega fauna extinct. We could have saved them from extinction, by showing up when we did. Even if we had declared west of the Mississippi the land of the Natives, the population explosion in bison, caused by introduction of human disease could have set the stage for diseases introduced by cattle to devastate the bison herds. A few bad range management decisions,( like burning off vast swaths of prairie that migrating animals depended on for food in order to channel them to cliffs that they could be stampeded over), could have done all of the work that the white buffalo hunters did. 

The only possible solution for sparing the Native Americans, would have been for Europeans to stay away. That did not happen, and would never have happened. Even if it had, as soon as some resourceful native figured out how to smelt iron ore to build proper saw blades, we would have seen a ship with buffalo hides for sails nearing the coast of the Old World. You can bemoan our humanity all you want, but we will all still be human. There are a handful of aboriginal tribes still in existence. The North Sentinels have the best shot at keeping their culture intact. Stick visitors with enough arrows and they will leave you alone.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

B&L Chicken Ranch and Spa said:


> Two good books on the Americas around the time of discovery:
> 
> 1491, the Americas before Columbus arrived
> 1493, the Americas after Columbus arrived


I got 1493, still waiting on 1491.

I am about 100 pages into 1493. Excellent book. I have learned a lot of new things.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

One comment attributed to many of the eastern Woodlands tribes about why they kept yielding land to the white men was all about the numbers. "If you kill one, two more come up behind him". The sheer numbers of Europeans who were willing to cheat, steal or kill to have large swaths of land in north America totally overwhelmed the disjointed tribes. If the Indians retaliated, even larger numbers of white men came looking for the culprits with only revenge in their hearts. The whites didn't care that they were invaders. They cared only about having that land for themselves.


----------



## B&L Chicken Ranch and Spa (Jan 4, 2019)

HDRider said:


> I got 1493, still waiting on 1491.
> 
> I am about 100 pages into 1493. Excellent book. I have learned a lot of new things.


Have you gotten to the part about the earthworms? I found that fascinating.

In 1491 they talk about trade with the east and the terracotta landfills in South America. 
There was a lot going on here that generally speaking, people do not know about.

Pigs and the Mississippi valley is an important insight.

Enjoy! ( I just might re-read these after i finish Jordan Peterson's book and the book by Bret Weinstein and his wife Heather, "A Hunter-Gatherer’s Guide to the 21st Century ")


----------



## B&L Chicken Ranch and Spa (Jan 4, 2019)

Big_Al said:


> Why? To make white people feel guilty about what other white people did in the past.
> We must all be forced to suffer “white guilt”.
> Leftists are not shy about it , they readily admit it. I’m simply stating a truth.
> For the record, Penebscots encompassed several tribes, one of which I share a tiny bit of ancestry with - Passamaquoddy.



No guilt here.

World is/was a tough neighborhood to grow up in, that is TO GROW UP IN.

None of us would have made it 200 years ago. None of us would make it in a third world country 50 years ago, 10 years ago, probaby not even now.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

B&L Chicken Ranch and Spa said:


> Have you gotten to the part about the earthworms? I found that fascinating.
> 
> In 1491 they talk about trade with the east and the terracotta landfills in South America.
> There was a lot going on here that generally speaking, people do not know about.
> ...


And honeybees. I can't wait to read 1491. I am 225 pages into 93 now. 

I have learned more about world history in this single book than every other world history book I have read combined.

Reading that book makes me say that Columbus's discovery of America is the single most significant event in the last 1,000 years.

Anyone that thinks The United Sates screwed over black people or Native Americans should read this book to compare that screwing to all the other screwing gone on since 1492.


----------



## B&L Chicken Ranch and Spa (Jan 4, 2019)

HDRider said:


> And honeybees. I can't wait to read 1491. I am 225 pages into 93 now.
> 
> I have learned more about world history in this single book than every other world history book I have read combined.
> 
> ...



Actually, 1491 is equally revealing.

It was not all malicious you know.

Nice people do bad things, bad things happen to nice people, and that nice guy over there probably has a dark secret.

The US is still the place to be, and it can be so much better.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Not fair to "whitewash" history. But it is really hard to fairly explained without adding a bias. Yes, British killed many Natives. Some were warriors, some were women and children. But what the British did to the Natives wasn't any different from what the Natives have been doing to each other, right from their first arrival to North America a couple thousand years ago.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

Danaus29 said:


> The whites didn't care that they were invaders. They cared only about having that land for themselves.


Just like the natives did when they migrated into the area. That is how it's done, always has been and continues today.


----------



## Tom Horn (Feb 10, 2021)

haypoint said:


> Not fair to "whitewash" history. But it is really hard to fairly explained without adding a bias. Yes, British killed many Natives. Some were warriors, some were women and children. But what the British did to the Natives wasn't any different from what the Natives have been doing to each other, right from their first arrival to North America a couple thousand years ago.


I agree that the Native peoples warred with each other, however, to my understanding it was not with a genocidal intent.

They warred and stole from one another as more of a way procuring the tools, personnel and other necessities of survival, as well as a means of training up the young and initiating them into manhood. Kind of a red man's bar mitzvah.

That's not to say that it was devoid of brutality and vindictiveness, however, war was more an accepted part of a very already harsh existence and served to keep the natives both tough and resilient against the day-to-day struggles of just existing in a hostile and unforgiving environment as well as bonding them together against a common threat.

The North American Natives were a scattered collection of stone-age, hunter-gathering societies for the most part. Their schools were of the hard-knocks variety and ignorance kept many intellectually low functioning due to superstitions, etc.

It wasn't perfect; however, it worked and had worked for many, many years before the coming of the white European.

Enter the white European. 

The Roman Empire started in 27 BC. They had written language, roads, concrete, aqueducts to carry water, huge cities, a highly developed political system, the Roman legions and they killed one another for sport in the coliseums.

Their presence was felt in Europe from the second century AD.

Gunpowder was invented around 140 AD.

The white European landed here having come from a land with established forms of government, civilizations with huge modern cities, standing armies with modern guns and weaponry, and a highly developed sense of right and wrong morality based upon being heavily influenced by various Christian churches for nearly two centuries.

The white European came to exploit a new land as if it were devoid of any human inhabitants.

The set out on a campaign of genocide against the native peoples which lasted until at least 1890.

They claimed to be the civilized yet were worse beasts than any native ever came close to being.

So, trying to compare Native Americans to white Europeans is comparing apples to oranges.

The native appeared to be a savage due to being a hunter-gatherer, isolated from developing along with Europeans and had a lifestyle that was harsh, because just living was harsh.

The white European was bloodthirsty, sociopathic, sadistic and psychopathic, not because they didn't have a choice, but because they loved being that way.








[/QUOTE]


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Hunting territory and to some degree farming areas were fought for and defended. 
Quite often women and children were captured and kept. Some call it slavery. Helped with the labor issues and the gene pool.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

In regards to the threads tittle. Whose scalping are some people worried about being whitewashed ? The scalping the Penobscot did to others or received from others ?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Tom Horn said:


> I agree that the Native peoples warred with each other, however, to my understanding it was not with a genocidal intent.
> 
> They warred and stole from one another as more of a way procuring the tools, personnel and other necessities of survival, as well as a means of training up the young and initiating them into manhood. Kind of a red man's bar mitzvah.
> 
> ...


[/QUOTE]
Sault Ste Marie was an established European outpost long before Detroit, because of the Iroquois were engaged in genocide of all the Natives along both sides of Lake Huron. When they reached Lake Superior, just a bit west of Sault Ste. Marie, local Natives paddled in during the middle of the night, killing every one of them. They placed their heads in a row along the shore and the sine went quite a long way. The battle site is now Iroquois Point. There's a lighthouse there now.
Most Europeans were farmers or fishermen, not warriors. Attacks on settlers turned them into Armies. The Natives were warriors, doing what warriors do. Our attempts to set them up with farms was seriously misguided.
Comparing rape, arson, murder and kidnapping to a coming of age Jewish tradition is sickeningly ignorant. 
Most natives were afforded choices to abandon their stone age culture, assimilate, give up their rape, arson, murder and kidnapping, become farmers and fishermen. But if they preferred, they could continue their culture on land reserved for them. In thew past 150 years many billions have been gifted to Natives, both on and off Reservations. Free education, no income taxes, no property taxes, free houses, free medical. The tribes nearest me, have all the commercial fishing licenses, harvesting Great Lakes fish that are the result of State and Federal hatcheries, funded by White sport fishermen. The Tribal school gets a $300,000 annual grant from Department of Interior, while the Tribal Casino grosses $800,000 a day. 90% of the Native population are under 25% Native but complete the US Census as one race, Native American.
200 years ago, life was tough, for everyone. Prior to White man, life expectancy for a Native was about 32 years, mostly to starvation, with murder a close second. They were bad, we were bad. I just don't see the point in rubbing noses of one group to gain sympathy for another group that hold no connection it that long ago time.


----------



## Tom Horn (Feb 10, 2021)

haypoint said:


> Sault Ste Marie was an established European outpost long before Detroit, because of the Iroquois were engaged in genocide of all the Natives along both sides of Lake Huron. When they reached Lake Superior, just a bit west of Sault Ste. Marie, local Natives paddled in during the middle of the night, killing every one of them. They placed their heads in a row along the shore and the sine went quite a long way. The battle site is now Iroquois Point. There's a lighthouse there now.


You will find this railroad bridge just east of Sault Ste Marie Ontario, just off Highway 17E on the North side.

I have personally stood right under it.











The battle of Iroquois point was a great victory where the Chippewa repelled an Iroquois sneak attack.

It was not a gratuitous purposeless, wanton slaughter as was suggested.



> One account of the battle comes from Charles Kawbawgam (circa 1815-1902). Homer Kidder (1874-1950) recorded his version of events when collecting Ojibwe oral histories from 1893 to 1895. Kawbawgam told Kidder that a large Haudenosaunee raiding party came up from the lower Great Lakes and initiated a war dance. Ojibwe, secretly camped at Pointe aux Pins, sent out two scouts who, slipping into spirit forms of a beaver and an otter, went ashore between Whiskey Point and Point Iroquois. Transforming back into humans, the scouts stealthily approached the Haudenosaunee camp, spied on their enemies engaged in celebration, then slipped away, returning to their own people.
> 
> Based on information from the two scouts, the Ojibwe determined that the Haudenosaunee war dance would last for four days, and that their best hope of vanquishing this feared enemy was to assault them as they slept at the end of the ceremonies. One woman in the Haudenosaunee camp had dreams about an Ojibwe plot but was ignored when she admonished leaders among her people to be prepared for a sneak attack.
> 
> ...





haypoint said:


> Most Europeans were farmers or fishermen, not warriors. Attacks on settlers turned them into Armies.


The white European was far removed from surviving as a hunter-gatherer and had taken on a lifestyle that to the hard living natives made them appear as feminine.

the Europeans were shocked by the lack of societal refinement displayed by the natives and the natives were repulsed by what they considered to be girly men.

Totally different cultures, totally different value systems.

Please provide referenced, cited proof of these wanton, unprovoked attacks on perfectly peaceful settlers.

Thank you in advance.




haypoint said:


> The Natives were warriors, doing what warriors do.


Being a warrior was but one aspect of being a male Native American. To label them so one dimensionally is obtuse.



haypoint said:


> Our attempts to set them up with farms was seriously misguided.


There were no attempts to set Native Americans up with farms. There were only the outright lies and deception employed to steal their land, resources and force them into servitude.

When that failed.

They slaughtered them.



haypoint said:


> Comparing rape, arson, murder and kidnapping to a coming of age Jewish tradition is sickeningly ignorant.


This is not, rape, arson, murder nor kidnapping.



> The education of a Sioux boy began before he was even born. While he grew in his mother’s womb, she would choose a model of manhood from among the heroes of the tribe whom she hoped her son would one day emulate. She would then wander the woods alone and rehearse the valiant deeds of this exemplar to herself and her unborn child. These inspiring words, along with the peace and silence of the natural backdrop, were thought to exercise a strengthening influence on the baby-to-be.
> .
> .
> During a Sioux boy’s younger years, he was largely raised by his mother. In Ohiyesa’s case, his wise grandmother Stands Sacred filled that role. As soon as he started crawling around, she began pointing out the names and features of different animals and plants in his environment, developing him into a true “prince of the wilderness.”
> ...





haypoint said:


> Most natives were afforded choices to abandon their stone age culture, assimilate, give up their rape, arson, murder and kidnapping, become farmers and fishermen. But if they preferred, they could continue their culture on land reserved for them. In thew past 150 years many billions have been gifted to Natives, both on and off Reservations. Free education, no income taxes, no property taxes, free houses, free medical. The tribes nearest me, have all the commercial fishing licenses, harvesting Great Lakes fish that are the result of State and Federal hatcheries, funded by White sport fishermen. The Tribal school gets a $300,000 annual grant from Department of Interior, while the Tribal Casino grosses $800,000 a day. 90% of the Native population are under 25% Native but complete the US Census as one race, Native American.
> 200 years ago, life was tough, for everyone. Prior to White man, life expectancy for a Native was about 32 years, mostly to starvation, with murder a close second. They were bad, we were bad. I just don't see the point in rubbing noses of one group to gain sympathy for another group that hold no connection it that long ago time.


A forced "choice" is not a choice. It is coercion.

Your glib tossing about of the terms, rape, arson, murder and kidnapping directed at Native Americans is indicative of a tremendous hatred towards them.

I would suggest that you attempt to make peace with that rage.

Or you might end up suffering the consequences of a ruptured cerebral aneurysm.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Tom, I think you believe you know more than you do. For 30 years, I lived within 10 miles of that Indian Land, Railroad bridge. That's the Garden River. Not so far east of there in the Manitiloian Islands. The British gave the island to the Natives with the expectation that they would farm. Attempts to teach them British gardening failed. So, British tried to shove them off, but the Natives managed to hold onto a part of it and it remains native property. 
There's a restored fort at Mackinac City, Fort Michlamackinac. Natives challenged the soldiers to a game of ball. But once let inside, they attacked the unsuspecting soldiers.
I can;t recall the book's title. It tells about a tribe that was putting in a garden north of Petoskey. AS teenage female went to the creek to wash up, but was found murdered. Upon inspection the prints in the mud was the shoe of another tribe. Four braves tracked then to Grand Haven, discovered they were headed to Chicago. So, one went back north to tell the tribe. They canoed the length of Lake Michigan, met up with the three braves. During the night, they attacked the sleeping natives that had murdered the teen, plus killed the rest of their tribe. 
As they were returning home, they saw a young boy and a girl playing near the water. So, as was the tradition, kidnapped both. When they arrived back to their tribe, they gave the girl to the family that had lost their daughter to the murderous natives. They gave the boy to a family that had a son die the winter earlier. 
The boy learneds their language as well as his own language.When Jesiut Father Marquette met with them, the boy learned French. The boy helped teach the tribe the verses that Father Marquette wanted them to learn. So, the boy ended up traveling with the Priest. Due to his language skills, the tribe made him their Chief. He played an important part in treaties. The treaties were always lopsided, because the Natives had nothing to bargain with.


----------



## Tom Horn (Feb 10, 2021)

haypoint said:


> Tom, I think you believe you know more than you do. For 30 years, I lived within 10 miles of that Indian Land, Railroad bridge. That's the Garden River. Not so far east of there in the Manitiloian Islands. The British gave the island to the Natives with the expectation that they would farm. Attempts to teach them British gardening failed. So, British tried to shove them off, but the Natives managed to hold onto a part of it and it remains native property.
> There's a restored fort at Mackinac City, Fort Michlamackinac. Natives challenged the soldiers to a game of ball. But once let inside, they attacked the unsuspecting soldiers.
> I can;t recall the book's title. It tells about a tribe that was putting in a garden north of Petoskey. AS teenage female went to the creek to wash up, but was found murdered. Upon inspection the prints in the mud was the shoe of another tribe. Four braves tracked then to Grand Haven, discovered they were headed to Chicago. So, one went back north to tell the tribe. They canoed the length of Lake Michigan, met up with the three braves. During the night, they attacked the sleeping natives that had murdered the teen, plus killed the rest of their tribe.
> As they were returning home, they saw a young boy and a girl playing near the water. So, as was the tradition, kidnapped both. When they arrived back to their tribe, they gave the girl to the family that had lost their daughter to the murderous natives. They gave the boy to a family that had a son die the winter earlier.
> The boy learneds their language as well as his own language.When Jesiut Father Marquette met with them, the boy learned French. The boy helped teach the tribe the verses that Father Marquette wanted them to learn. So, the boy ended up traveling with the Priest. Due to his language skills, the tribe made him their Chief. He played an important part in treaties. The treaties were always lopsided, because the Natives had nothing to bargain with.


Thanks everso for your condescending opening head pat. 

I was torn between a desire to either genuflect or kiss your ring.

I should have known that you have vastly superior, (Superior, Lake Superior, oh my, a cosmic similarity perhaps?) grasp of the area than my impetuous self. I concede that your Sault Ste Marie Pee Pee is indeed *superior*, * Tee Hee *, there's that word again, to my own.

Oh, great Walking Eagle... Your stories of the days of the grandfathers were so spell binding!

I felt that we were sitting together by the council fire while your hand grasped the talking stick, and you shared your vast oral histories with me.


----------



## Vjk (Apr 28, 2020)

haypoint said:


> Not fair to "whitewash" history. But it is really hard to fairly explained without adding a bias. Yes, British killed many Natives. Some were warriors, some were women and children. But what the British did to the Natives wasn't any different from what the Natives have been doing to each other, right from their first arrival to North America a couple thousand years ago.


I don't know that the British ate any Indians though........


----------

