It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Outrageous slander to make indians look "victimized"

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 8 2003 @ 11:56 AM
Surely all of us have heard before how the Indians were given "blankets full of small pox".

I used to hear this from peoples who would say that America is not all that great, that the British and such were not in keeping with decency themselves, so how can we judge Saddam or Iraq or these Terrorists?

And I'd say, well, that's bad, but we can't change the past.

Well now I've just learned about the context of this giving of small pox. And those whom use this as a Defense for indians are misinformed!

I change my vote, they deserved every last small pox germ they had coming to them.

The most doccumented case of this happening was during Pontiac's revolt in the Great Lakes area. Where he had taken 9 of the 11 british forts, and had slaughtered as many as he could there. Along with reaking havoc among the general population.

The diseased blankets was the last resort that the last remainging forts could use to keep themselves from being slaughtered.

While I don't always agree fully with anything, and this is one of them, I do agree that this method was no shameful task in light of all the tomahawking and scalping being done freely by the indians, as the forts were all fallen and the last 2 besieged.

I keep telling people those Indians had comming to them most everything they got, but all that people do is call me racist and point to the "what about the giving of small pox to unimmune indians?" crap....

...The indians, a proud and interesting people, were too different from civilization as the Euroeans knew it, which lead to many hostilities on both sides.

This Pontiac is an example of unnecissary brutality on the Indians part without coersion (as many claim that scalping was only done when a european was there to buy it) ... no, the Indians were every bit as brutal as they were wise, and nature loving. In the west here there was by far more violence on the Indian's part.

Indians are not without blood on their hands either...without history being what it is, America may never have been created. And so we owe nothing to the Indians, as so many still believe.

no signature

posted on Jan, 8 2003 @ 01:35 PM
Um, since they defended their lands, they deserved small pox? They fight to keep the lands they grew up on, and they the bad guys? So if Mexico attacked us, we should let them in, not defend ourselves for if we do we wrong? What the hell? The Indians were fighting for the lands we stole from them.

And the Indians weren't uncivilized. Heck, Cherokee made their own constitution and government before Jackson forced them to Oklahoma. They had a constitution, like US, and a government, like US, so how they more uncivilized than the US? Because they weren't christian? We know how civilized they were. Because they weren't white? Same thing. Because they were different/had a different way of life? Well, why they uncivilized"?

And Pontiac a exapmle of brutality? How about the whites moving on their lands, setting their homes on fire and killing the ones who flee? How about the whites act peaceful, have a peace treaty, then slaughter them.(Black Kettle is a good example, old peaceful Indians slaughtered even though they were peaceful) Wow, how dare Pontiac defend his lands! What a monster, defending his lands from the people invading them! He should have been shot when he was born, who knows how many invaders would have lived.

FM, reason they attacked the whites was because the whites had done the same to them. The whites did, and were going to do far worse to them. So Indians fought back. Can't blame them for fighting for their land stolen from them by whites.

posted on Jan, 8 2003 @ 02:06 PM
I tend to agree, yes, the Pontiac's actions were brutal, but it was only in response to the invasion of there territory by the white american's.

I like the Mexico comparison, if one country invades another, the country defends itself

posted on Jan, 8 2003 @ 02:20 PM
They were invading our lands. Because we were not Christian, we were supposed to just HAND them over?

We were wrong for trying to kill them when they invaded and killed our women and children? Really? Is justice only for the pale-skinned?

And might I also point out that we learned scalping from the kindly Europeans? You see, there was a bounty on my grandmother's people; the more you killed, the more would be paid to you. Since it was inconvenient to drag in whole bodies, they took the scalps (this was also done with nuiscance -- "vermin" animals) and brought them in for payment.

Some of the Western cavalry units would scalp the genital hair and labia of the women victims and wear these "trophies" on their saddle horns.

We American Indians did lots of nasty stuff to each other, but I should point out that White Brother taught us lots and lots of inventive things.

posted on Jan, 8 2003 @ 03:06 PM
dude what would you do if we came and tried to take over your house? eat all your food? screw your sisters, daughters, mother, etc? use your brothers, sons, nephews, etc. as slaves? you know damn well u'd fight us. your wrong man they didnt deserve it, we just kidna came over here and decided this was our land even though we'd never been here before.

posted on Jan, 8 2003 @ 04:21 PM
Also, with Indians and the 20$ bill. Jackson forces the Indians off their land, and makes it on money for it? How would Jews feel if Hitler was on the 20$? Or if the Grand Wizard of the White Knights of Christianity was on it to the blacks?

And FM, the Indians got what they deserved? So since they defended their lands, they deserved to have biological warfare used on them? And we do owe them something. They could have killed the europeans when they came over on the Mayflower. Could have waited for the white man to come over and kill them the second they landed. Besides, they only fought back, didn't start the violence.

posted on Jan, 8 2003 @ 05:36 PM
to bad he didn't get the other fort's too. FM I think you need to learn some more on this subject before you talk about it. I think you should have thought alot harder before you posted this.

posted on Jan, 8 2003 @ 05:41 PM
Um James, you know little about history it seems. Pontiac wasn't "Defending" anything. The British, unlike their future replacers, the USA, did not simply take land left and right, they had New England and that was about all they cared for. Even then there were PLENTY of Indians with their own land in New England. All the Land Grabbing was done by the US and Spain further south...

...My point is Indians are NOT the victims that every political correction officer wants you to think.

The truth is far from the story of "Indians: 'Here have our beloved crops you poor and welcomed pilgrims.'

Pilgrim: 'Gladly you heathenous beast, DIE!' *Chops head off of indian*"

It's more a tale of back and forth brutality with acts of atrocities unwarrented on both sides.

In the case of Pontiac and the small pox, he and his tribe got what he had comming to him. Hell he even killed an ate his friend's (an english officer whom he was friends with, sent to him to parley) heart, because a relative of an ally cheif, was killed in battle....brutal savage people they were plenty of times.

But people like you James don't seem to want to accept that fact.

no signature

posted on Jan, 8 2003 @ 08:38 PM
Ate his heart? They weren't Donners, they were Indians.

Also, Who started the invasion? England. Who held forts on Indian territory, England.

Ok, I'll go to Canada, make a fort, but since I didn't ask anyone for it, it's mine. Nope can't touch me Canuck government, I came, I built, I own. No, step away, you do anything to me you wrong. Step away, oh, you didn't, here, have this sandwich. Oh, the pus? Don't worry, it isn't anthrax.

I was right, wasn't I? I came, stole Canadian lands, and when they came to take it back, I gave them anthrax. I right, they wrong! Mwahahahahahaha!!!!!! All hail King James!!!!!! King of Moronic Yomen!!!! Bow down to me, for I am far greater than President Ultra Phoenix!(Not! I am no where near the greatness of Mr. President)

posted on Jan, 8 2003 @ 08:50 PM
You are being moronic, they were right in that the Indians were being cruel and unrelenting in their attack AGAINST the BRITISH whom were always their moderate friends!

The Indians were treating the british (whom had never seen such barbary) as they treated their own enemies of their own kind, no quarter, no survivors, only death.

no signature

posted on Jan, 8 2003 @ 11:38 PM
Hmmm, who's right? You, or everyone else? Let's see, you, one person, everyone else, more that one person. I wonder, could it be the others?

posted on Jan, 9 2003 @ 08:19 AM
Free Mason

As my Taino blood rolls to a slow boil, I am extremely offended and mystified at your utter stupidity for putting this post up, as if guerilla warfare in the face of invading armies, the most powerful on the planet at that time, that was hell bent on genocide and annexing our lands is something that was 'what they deserved'.
Was this post put up for no other reason than for those who have native blood to be identified in their responding outrage? If so, you've suceeded.

posted on Jan, 9 2003 @ 09:59 AM
The Indians were wronged by every european that set foot here. I have spent a good part of my life reading/studing about Indians.As soon as there were enough europeans the Indians lost their lands,freedoms,food,families etc.

I do believe that if an Arab lets say,set up a tent in your back yard,you would be a little pissed.And the n when you tell him to leave,he kills your family,you are going to want a little revenge.

If you look back through history at every Indian attack,almost all of them the Indians were provoked in some fashion.

[Edited on 01/6/03 by nyeff]

posted on Jan, 9 2003 @ 08:36 PM
No matter how much research you do or conclusions you reach from history that STILL could be false, you cannot understand or comprehend Native Americans until you are one.

Live in Pine Ridge South Dakota for one month.
Then live in the most rundown party of any city you can find anywhere in the country. *Feel* which is worst.

posted on Jan, 10 2003 @ 12:16 AM
Neyff, your claims hold no merit, would you rather than we just kill every Jew, every Christian every Muslim? If you claim that the Indians were wronged because of Conquest then you are exhibiting false reasoning.

The Indians did not uphold dignity in some cases of their "retaliation" which is what resulted in brutal counter measures.

The stories of Indians slaughtering settlers in lands that the settlers deemed as their own as well, are nothing short of the truth.

While Europeans declared their agression and then settled it man to man in an open feild of battle. Indians hid behind trees and killed civilians.

They got the same in return.

no signature

posted on Jan, 10 2003 @ 12:18 AM

Originally posted by James the Lesser
Hmmm, who's right? You, or everyone else? Let's see, you, one person, everyone else, more that one person.

"What is popular is not always right, and what is right is not always popular." - Martin Luther King Jr. point goes exactly with that famous quote.

Indians should not be given a sympathy card for treatment they earned.

no signature

posted on Jan, 10 2003 @ 12:46 AM
Do you know the truth of every battle that has every taken place in all of history between Native Americans and and what they BELIEVED was an enemy?

Odds are against you.
Don't set a ' label' or whatever you want to call it, on all Native Americans. (Trying not to use the word stereotype.)

Your not racist. You just think that by one incident, Native American's got what they deserve.
How do you determine what anybody deserves?

Do your homework man. You make yourself look foolish.
They were here first. Archaeaology and history has proven that.


posted on Jan, 10 2003 @ 01:02 AM
"Getting what they deserve" is too harsh a word.

More accurately, is "They don't deserve sympathy". No one deserves such treatment ever...either side.

But the Indians are not without blame, do your homework and you shall see they had been every bit as brutal as the europeans.

That is why I say they should not be sympathized for as they are in Public School textbooks.

And in case you haven't heard, archaeology is beginning to find signs that the native americans were not first here, but were second, to the white man...most reliable evidence so far (aside from possible actual caucasian remains here in N. A.) is the fact that whites were settled in Japan before any "asian skinned" peoples were. And Japan is thought to be one of the very feeder places of this continent.

Meaning that Asians would have followed whites into Japan, and consequently across the baring strait into north america.

The question of if Indians were here first or not, is not truly answered.

no signature

posted on Jan, 10 2003 @ 01:19 AM
Sure...why not.
I have yet to see a public school textbook that does that.
Please direct to one that you are speaking of and I'll believe you.

I see public school books as an archaic way of defining a childs belief of history and why it is history.

Just out of curiosity, why would you have even brought this topic up with such groundless and past incidents whic have nothing to do what is really going on in the Native American fight today.


posted on Jan, 10 2003 @ 01:36 AM
I saw it all the time in my High School's text book, and it made me sick. I have no problems with sharing ALL history, but they omitted the rest of history to make room for packing in stuff about minorities, in particular indians.

They omitted the entire back ground of the founding fathers, and said that they came up with the Constitution based soley (implied soley really, they didnt' say they were the reason, just gave them as the only reason) on the Iroqois confederation and their governmental system.

Really that couldn't be further from the truth, George Washington (The man who ordered the systematic destruction of that tribe, and thought them little less than filth because of their repeated attacks on civilians *encouraged by the british*) would never have allowed such a thing.

Rome is a better example.

Other instances are the nearly over 100 pages of what would be called the "indian wars" where it just drags on with cavalry slaughter after calvalry slaughter and broken treaties, but then leaves a good 15 pages for the Civil War.

WW2 encompassed about 10 pages in total, a few words about Rommel, Patton had his name mentioned, and the Indians and their "code talkers" had a good 4 pages, which was 4/14ths of the whole affront on WW2.

Korea had like-wise only a panel on another page, and the moon landings, had 1 page.

My biff is with all the miniorities and this "Guilty Trump Card" where they've replaced all of history unfairly, and ask for sympathy.

Well in this case I'm showing constantly the best I can, that the Indians deserve no sympathy, they more than deserve our respect now, but I've said before, we can't just up and give their land back. It seems this world is unfriendly to their beliefs, and not just in tollerance, it tollerates them quite well, but in science.

Science is the murderer of Paganism, look at Greece.

So you only need to pick up a today's text book, to see that it is more favorable of minorities than the "WHOLE" history, I say whole history, because it doesn't belong to the whites anymore than the minorities, history is all history and it is shoddily taught in schools, and pressed for time, they meet a minimum requirement of political correctness, and fail to teach wisdom...which is what history is.

I don't think anyone deserves sympathy, the past is what makes us who we are, if we get stuck being sorry for our past, we have no identity today, and no future tomorrow.

Policorrectness killer

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in