posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 01:12 PM
A lot of white folks, European and American alike, have funny views of Indians, mostly generated by Hollywood in the 1950's and 60's. Spaniards were
the WORST European offenders against Indians in America, decimating and enslaving all they came in contact with. Englishmen were just arrogant towards
us, resulting in epic misunderstandings, and endemic warfare. The French were probably the least offensive toward Indians, but still got the
colonization job done, eh? They at least had more patience towards assimilation. The Shawnee were the first people I know of to refer to Frenchmen as
"Frogs" ("toti" in Shawnee, as applied to Frenchmen).
That's right, I said "Indians", not "native Americans". All that PC BS really gets on my nerves. There aren't any "hyphenated" Americans,
you're either one or the other. Choose. Any American born here is "native" to America. I'm not the only Indian that thinks that, either, before I
get zapped for it. Ask Graham Greene.
A curious thing that most Americans, white AND black, don't know is that the English enslaved huge numbers of the eastern tribes, and sent them as
slaves to the caribbean. The venture turned out not to be very profitable, as most of the North American Indians were entirely unsuited to a life of
slavery, and preferred death. Nobody wanted to pay perfectly good money for a slave that was gonna die and deprive him of his investment, so the
My people never really had a homeland here, we wandered all over the map, settling on the borders of one tribe or another whenever they had trouble
with their neighbors and invited us in as "buffers" between the two factions. Nowadays, we'd have been called "peacekeepers", or "cannon
fodder". Take your pick. We ran into the English early on in Virginia, and yeah, there was trouble. We were used as buffers by the Lenni-Lenape in
PA, between them and the English, and yeah, there was trouble. When the English took the eastern seaboard, most of the tribes retreated inland
further, and took a stand when we hit Ohio and the Great Lakes.
There was BIG trouble then.
Most eventually headed west, to Missouri and Mexican Texas, but not all. There are still remnants in the east, particularly Ohio. Similarly to the
Lumbees in North Carolina, the band left in Ohio aren't "really" Indians, because the Federal government doesn't say so. State recognition as a
tribe, but not Federal, so we aren't "real" Indians.
Doesn't bother me that much, as I've never recognized the right of outsiders to define me. Stalemate, I guess.
Bearing on the American conquest of the Indians, I'm reminded of a Shawnee veteran of the US Army, who fought in Vietnam. A peculiar individual,
looking to ingratiate himself with the Shawnee, said to the veteran "After the whites treated your people the way they did, you STILL went and fought
for them? Why?" The Shawnee looked at him like he was a bug under glass for a minute, then said "I didn't fight for 'them', I fought for 'us'.
You're forgetting whose land you're standing on!" That sums it up for me.
In the matter of Liberia, that country was founded in 1821, by freed American slaves. Nope, it never DID have the colonial problem that most of the
rest of Africa had with European colonial powers. That tells me something too, concerning the European bloodlust for Americans. Might overrun the rest
of Africa, but they never got it done with the tiny American remnant in Liberia.
Yeah, Europeans pointing fingers at Americans and telling us how horrible we are in the way we treat the world conveniently ignores a LOT of factual
European history. Ask an African black, an American Indian, Australian Aborigines, Tasmanian Aborigines (oh, wait, I don't think any of the
Tasmanians survived it - don't waste time looking for one to ask), Southeast Asians, Middle Easterners, etc.
For grins and giggles, ask a Pakistani sometime where all those "stans" came from. While you're talking to him, ask him about Bangaladesh and India
It could be educational for your average European.