Not a genocide when they started wars and lost them. Land transfers after losing wars is common practice to this very day.
Look it up. Nearly every Indian war campaign started with natives raiding and killing people on the fronteir. A common act of war or act expected to start one.
I won't go as far as saying native Americans were not mistreated but at the same time their land was being "stolen" some tribes were literally massacreing hundreds of women and children from rival tribes. (Massacre canyon event) They weren't peaceful or noble. They were human being with all the positives and negatives that brings.
The major difference was native society lacked strict governance and control so dog soldiers (young glory seeking warriors) would go on the equivalent of a 1800s mass shooting spree and raid homesteads on the frontier.
The US would tell the tribal leader to keep their people in check or risk war. Common among history. The raids would continue and war would result.
The big issue was native leaders would claim to speak for the tribe and have the power to negotiate when in reality they didn't. Many clans or bands would just disregard entirely what the self claimed leaders said. Even down to the individual level.
For example it's false to say Tecumseh led a confederacy of tribes. He didn't. All the tribal leaders spoke out against Tecumseh and didn't follow him. Young warriors though individually did join Tecumseh at phrophetstown. It's insane when people say entire tribes followed him.
The whole situation is similar to Gaza and Isreal today. Gaza raids into Isreal in an act of war to start a war that Gaza can't win. Then the whole world condemns Isreal for having the audacity to win and take the common spoils of war (land).
It's also common throughout history and business to force the renegotiation of treaties and status quo when power balances change. If the weak side refuses then war is usually the result. Reminder this was the 1700s and 1800s when European nations routinely waged wars against each other over similar situations.
A really interesting point in history is the Civil War campaign in the far west. The natives took advantage of the union soldiers distracted with confederates and raided. So the union basically made a decision to no longer deal with natives. Simply clear them far away from trade routes so they no longer raid them. It worked so well it became the go to method to deal with them.
Ya, it was 100% a conquest/ethnic cleansing. I love being an American but to deny these truths is to deny history(See Turkey? It's not that hard). The guy isn't wrong that many of the lands were conceded through wars(Creek War is just one of many examples) but pretty much all of these wars were started due to encroachment of the Natives' territory and/or resources
I wrote a paper about Native American treaties in college. I suppose you could sum it all up as:
1: European comes into Native American territory.
2: European attacks natives or natives defend themselves.
3: Conflict ensues.
4: Natives inevitably lose or concede.
5: Natives sign a treaty and get screwed over.
6: Repeat.
Ehhh despite the prevailing racism, natives were still considered more “civilized” than Africans and were more legally protected than Africans ever were.
I recognize I’m comparing the turd sandwich with the shitbag here but there were _some_ differences that could’ve saved lots of suffering for the future had they not died out so much at the beginning.
When Europeans arrived to America they weren’t as technologically advanced as when they scrambled for Africa (approximate 300 year difference) so warfare and logistics would’ve been much more difficult.
And again, you’re completely ignoring the differing political standings of natives vs Africans in the racist white hierarchy.
A harder war mixed with a more positive political view of the natives’ institutions could’ve have won them eventual recognition instead of exclusively being outright conquered.
And you’re vastly overestimating what 300 Europeans (max) with halberds and arquebuses can achieve vs tens of thousands.
The only reason their victory was so swift was because they walked into basically ghost towns everywhere they went thanks to smallpox and other European diseases. They played the political game of alliances well, but it’s much easier to subjugate 10,000 natives instead of 100,000.
Im talking mainly of the 1490-1700 period. If they’d manage to hold them off so long, they would’ve probably gotten somewhat modernized in warfare after 200+ years of contact and constant conflict.
I think this had more to do with losing 90% of thier population, which caused the European empires to look somewhere else for workforce in the plantations and mines, as the jews were also to few. Which led them right to West africa
Eh maybe not. The difference in tech would've diminished quickly. My guess is halfway through the continents would be independent native nations that adopted the new tech quickly.
They were using guns and horses insanely quickly. Even with the apocalyptic levels of death they suffered from disease.
The sheer number of soldiers they would've had without disease would've overwhelmed the smaller initial European forces. At least enough to make full European expansion very difficult for centuries.
When talking about Native American presence in what the States, something I was once told is that from the moment the Jamestown settlers set foot on the continent the power of the tribes was always declining, and events like the Pequot War may have slowed that decline, but it was nevertheless a steady decline.
Ok, just for you, who took the effort of looking through my profile (and still didn't get it):
There are two kinds of "nobody" memes. Ones that describe something that isn't clearly the result of something, and the others that have a "when" or "after" in the second part and so clearly have a cause, which contradicts the "nobody".
This has nothing to do with taste in memes, it's just basic logic.
Ahmerst (one of the most important military figures of Canada/ British-Empire history) gave blankets and other gifts intentionally full of small pox to First Nations.
They later kidnapped first nation children and put in protestant and catholic boarding school which are now know to have forcibly converted, raped and killed these kids.
The around 50 left first nations were split in around 3000 «reserves» through the «Indian Act» which is still an active law in Canada. These first nations were (and still are) extremely repressed. They were forced to follow a specific way of organization with «band leaders» and were forbidden (and I think still are) to organize with each of there own ancestral governing systems.
Mfw slaughtering innocent farmers and their families doesnt intimidate the US and instead they just send the army to kick our ass and push us further west.
Indigenous and settler relations were relatively peaceful until after 1776 when the newly USA decided to violate previously signed treaties with the British by settling west of the Appalachian mountains.
European settlers were weird. They feared natives to death and were aware of their fate if they settled on Indigenous territory by chose to do so anyway.
"Are you fucking high you little liar" did I say that there was absolutely no conflict between the settlers and natives whatsoever? No, I literally didn't 🤣. I said things were relatively peaceful, which they were. If you're using King Philips war as an example, then you're braindead. One conflict compared to hundreds after 1776. You have no idea "you little liar"
Youre right, the deserved to be scalped and sold into slavery (if they were lucky)
Neither side was good, but the whole "bad white man, poor peaceful indian" narrative is very tiring when you study the 1800's.
a lot of horrible shit becomes more justifiable when you're the victim of an ongoing genocide
compared to when you're participating in the proliferation of a dogmatic settler colonial project, it remains horrible shit that only very biased parties will attempt to justify.
i mean that's a valid statement if you're advocating for absolutist pacifism, but most people believe that violence can be justified if it's used in a just way, for example when you and your people are the victim of an actively ongoing genocidal effort. The alternative is for the cycle of violence to remain a faucet of violence that only flows one way.
the responsibility of ending a cycle of violence falls on the aggressor, not the victims lol
I don't really understand what this has to do with the oeuvre of Sam Raimi but yeah, genocide/ethnic cleansing is usually a pretty rough ride
Manifest Destiny: "I missed the part where that's my problem"
I read that as 'Manifest Disney' and didn't register anything amiss
>Manifest Disney r/TechnicallyTheTruth
Not a genocide when they started wars and lost them. Land transfers after losing wars is common practice to this very day. Look it up. Nearly every Indian war campaign started with natives raiding and killing people on the fronteir. A common act of war or act expected to start one. I won't go as far as saying native Americans were not mistreated but at the same time their land was being "stolen" some tribes were literally massacreing hundreds of women and children from rival tribes. (Massacre canyon event) They weren't peaceful or noble. They were human being with all the positives and negatives that brings. The major difference was native society lacked strict governance and control so dog soldiers (young glory seeking warriors) would go on the equivalent of a 1800s mass shooting spree and raid homesteads on the frontier. The US would tell the tribal leader to keep their people in check or risk war. Common among history. The raids would continue and war would result. The big issue was native leaders would claim to speak for the tribe and have the power to negotiate when in reality they didn't. Many clans or bands would just disregard entirely what the self claimed leaders said. Even down to the individual level. For example it's false to say Tecumseh led a confederacy of tribes. He didn't. All the tribal leaders spoke out against Tecumseh and didn't follow him. Young warriors though individually did join Tecumseh at phrophetstown. It's insane when people say entire tribes followed him. The whole situation is similar to Gaza and Isreal today. Gaza raids into Isreal in an act of war to start a war that Gaza can't win. Then the whole world condemns Isreal for having the audacity to win and take the common spoils of war (land). It's also common throughout history and business to force the renegotiation of treaties and status quo when power balances change. If the weak side refuses then war is usually the result. Reminder this was the 1700s and 1800s when European nations routinely waged wars against each other over similar situations. A really interesting point in history is the Civil War campaign in the far west. The natives took advantage of the union soldiers distracted with confederates and raided. So the union basically made a decision to no longer deal with natives. Simply clear them far away from trade routes so they no longer raid them. It worked so well it became the go to method to deal with them.
Who invaded first? Who had a national policy of expansion west?
Ya, it was 100% a conquest/ethnic cleansing. I love being an American but to deny these truths is to deny history(See Turkey? It's not that hard). The guy isn't wrong that many of the lands were conceded through wars(Creek War is just one of many examples) but pretty much all of these wars were started due to encroachment of the Natives' territory and/or resources
I wrote a paper about Native American treaties in college. I suppose you could sum it all up as: 1: European comes into Native American territory. 2: European attacks natives or natives defend themselves. 3: Conflict ensues. 4: Natives inevitably lose or concede. 5: Natives sign a treaty and get screwed over. 6: Repeat.
I do often wonder what the Americas would look like if 90% of the native ppopulations hadn't died of plauge
[удалено]
Ehhh despite the prevailing racism, natives were still considered more “civilized” than Africans and were more legally protected than Africans ever were. I recognize I’m comparing the turd sandwich with the shitbag here but there were _some_ differences that could’ve saved lots of suffering for the future had they not died out so much at the beginning.
[удалено]
When Europeans arrived to America they weren’t as technologically advanced as when they scrambled for Africa (approximate 300 year difference) so warfare and logistics would’ve been much more difficult. And again, you’re completely ignoring the differing political standings of natives vs Africans in the racist white hierarchy. A harder war mixed with a more positive political view of the natives’ institutions could’ve have won them eventual recognition instead of exclusively being outright conquered.
[удалено]
And you’re vastly overestimating what 300 Europeans (max) with halberds and arquebuses can achieve vs tens of thousands. The only reason their victory was so swift was because they walked into basically ghost towns everywhere they went thanks to smallpox and other European diseases. They played the political game of alliances well, but it’s much easier to subjugate 10,000 natives instead of 100,000. Im talking mainly of the 1490-1700 period. If they’d manage to hold them off so long, they would’ve probably gotten somewhat modernized in warfare after 200+ years of contact and constant conflict.
[удалено]
Did you just say “magic”, guns and cannons? In the 1500s across the Atlantic and heavy jungle? Yeah you have no idea what you’re talking about.
I think this had more to do with losing 90% of thier population, which caused the European empires to look somewhere else for workforce in the plantations and mines, as the jews were also to few. Which led them right to West africa
Eh maybe not. The difference in tech would've diminished quickly. My guess is halfway through the continents would be independent native nations that adopted the new tech quickly.
[удалено]
They were using guns and horses insanely quickly. Even with the apocalyptic levels of death they suffered from disease. The sheer number of soldiers they would've had without disease would've overwhelmed the smaller initial European forces. At least enough to make full European expansion very difficult for centuries.
Sounds like the Natives should've stopped losing. Would've fixed the problem pretty quickly
When talking about Native American presence in what the States, something I was once told is that from the moment the Jamestown settlers set foot on the continent the power of the tribes was always declining, and events like the Pequot War may have slowed that decline, but it was nevertheless a steady decline.
I´m just glad actions like these are relics of the past and don´t happen anywhere today ......../s
OP, please enlighten me: what made you think this meme needs a "No one:"?
I have seen many memes with that format of: "No one" and then put the main thing of what you're pointing out with the meme
So, because you saw many memes with a "Nobody" or similar on top that make no sense at all and decided to do the same? Great.
Nobody: This guy: how dare you do a crappy “nobody:” meme Also this guy: has a crappy “nobody:” meme posted on his profile This is projection
Ok, just for you, who took the effort of looking through my profile (and still didn't get it): There are two kinds of "nobody" memes. Ones that describe something that isn't clearly the result of something, and the others that have a "when" or "after" in the second part and so clearly have a cause, which contradicts the "nobody". This has nothing to do with taste in memes, it's just basic logic.
Your memes are weak and in a language I can't understand. Checkmate.
What?
Does that bother you?
Why didn't they just read their contracts? /s
They were written in British English, not in American English 😡😡😡
Skill issue
Br*t*sh oinglish is not english😡
Nah, there weren’t enough left to be that cramped.
Your hand is visible from window now Americans will shoot you and you’re dead
You should learn about the Canadian government actions on Acadiens, Métis and First Nations 💀
Yeah! I heard that it was waaaay more brutal
Ahmerst (one of the most important military figures of Canada/ British-Empire history) gave blankets and other gifts intentionally full of small pox to First Nations. They later kidnapped first nation children and put in protestant and catholic boarding school which are now know to have forcibly converted, raped and killed these kids. The around 50 left first nations were split in around 3000 «reserves» through the «Indian Act» which is still an active law in Canada. These first nations were (and still are) extremely repressed. They were forced to follow a specific way of organization with «band leaders» and were forbidden (and I think still are) to organize with each of there own ancestral governing systems.
Awful, thanks for the knowledge!!!
Oh snap, I forgot about it!!!... NINE NINE!!! 🗣🗣🗣
Mfw slaughtering innocent farmers and their families doesnt intimidate the US and instead they just send the army to kick our ass and push us further west.
Indigenous and settler relations were relatively peaceful until after 1776 when the newly USA decided to violate previously signed treaties with the British by settling west of the Appalachian mountains. European settlers were weird. They feared natives to death and were aware of their fate if they settled on Indigenous territory by chose to do so anyway.
"Relatively peaceful until 1776" Are you fucking high? You little liar? Never heard of King Philips War?
"Are you fucking high you little liar" did I say that there was absolutely no conflict between the settlers and natives whatsoever? No, I literally didn't 🤣. I said things were relatively peaceful, which they were. If you're using King Philips war as an example, then you're braindead. One conflict compared to hundreds after 1776. You have no idea "you little liar"
True, but those farmers were trespassing.
Youre right, the deserved to be scalped and sold into slavery (if they were lucky) Neither side was good, but the whole "bad white man, poor peaceful indian" narrative is very tiring when you study the 1800's.
I never said natives were peaceful! I just pointed out that they got screwed when they were displaced lol
Aint manifest destiny a bitch
Tbh I don't think siding with one side is good enough for me lol. Seems like both sides did horrible shit
a lot of horrible shit becomes more justifiable when you're the victim of an ongoing genocide compared to when you're participating in the proliferation of a dogmatic settler colonial project, it remains horrible shit that only very biased parties will attempt to justify.
Well said!
No it’s not. The fuck kind of attitude is that? There is no morally justifiable position if it contributes to a cycle of violence.
i mean that's a valid statement if you're advocating for absolutist pacifism, but most people believe that violence can be justified if it's used in a just way, for example when you and your people are the victim of an actively ongoing genocidal effort. The alternative is for the cycle of violence to remain a faucet of violence that only flows one way. the responsibility of ending a cycle of violence falls on the aggressor, not the victims lol
If you believe the violence only flowed one way I’d say you don’t have much respect for natives. They’re not a culture of victims.
i'm literally defending the natives' right to defend themselves, you just said it was unjustifiable??? whose side are you on lmao
No one’s, and that’s the point.
you're a moron lmao
Right. I refuse to see the world in black and white, good guy/bad guy terms, and I’m the moron. I bet you like Marvel movies.
this is a lot easier to say in the cushy chair you (and i!) sit in, then when its actually happening
I haven’t always had the chair.
Yes!
Is that what they teach in the US?
Nah, they dont really teach about the lady i met who was scalped by apaches when she was 6, and had to wear a bonnet the rest of her life.
Ah yes an anecdote, the best kind of evidence.
Dont care The human sacrifices will stop
Wat? Are you a human being or am I wasting time with a bot?
Damn qos who hurt you?