Interesting thing about the indigenous they weren't peaceful

[resident_evil]

The Indians found in the new world in North America were not in fact 'noble savages' of a peaceful nature as often eulogized. In fact they killed each other at a high rate long before Europeans landed. So when the white guilt is laddled on by the noodly leftists claiming that Europeans wrecked the Americas they are full of nonsense. One tribe killed, butchered and tortured another tribe and simply because the Europeans doing the same conquered the land is sour grapes by the losers and those who'd use the fact to brow beat the American people.


Thanksgiving guilt trip: How warlike were Native Americans before Europeans showed up?
...
As I've pointed out previously, prominent scientists now deride depictions of pre-state people as peaceful. "Contra leftist anthropologists who celebrate the noble savage," the Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker wrote in 2007, "quantitative body counts—such as the proportion of prehistoric skeletons with ax marks and embedded arrowheads or the proportion of men in a contemporary foraging tribe who die at the hands of other men—suggest that pre-state societies were far more violent than our own." According to Pinker, the 17th-century philosopher Thomas Hobbes "got it right" when he called pre-state life a "war of all against all."
...
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/thanksgiving-guilt-trip-how-warlike-were-native-americans-before-europeans-showed-up/


CULTURAL ASPECTS OF WARFARE: THE IROQUOIS INSTITUTION OF THE MOURNING WAR CANDICE CAMPBELL This paper was written for Dr. Shirley’s Senior Seminar course

http://www.lagrange.edu/resources/pdf/citations08/culturalaspectsofwarfare.pdf

Native American Warfare in the West: Conflict Among the Southwestern Indians

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-2536600187.html


Pre-Columbian Mexico
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Columbian_Mexico

 

[resident_evil]

North American Indigenous Warfare and Ritual Violence
Edited by Richard J. Chacon; Rubén G. Mendoza
294 pp. / 6.00 in x 9.00 in / 2007
Cloth (978-0-8165-2532-4) [s]
Paper (978-0-8165-3038-0) [s]
Paper ($26.95)Cloth ($55.00)

Related Interest
- Native American Studies
- Archaeology

Despite evidence of warfare and violent conflict in pre-Columbian North America, scholars argue that the scale and scope of Native American violence is exagerated. They contend that scholarly
misrepresentation has denigrated indigenous peoples when in fact they lived together in peace and harmony. In rebutting that contention, this groundbreaking book presents clear evidence—from multiple academic disciplines—that indigenous populations engaged in warfare and ritual violence long before European contact. In ten well-documented and thoroughly researched chapters, fourteen leading scholars dispassionately describe sources and consequences of Amerindian warfare and violence, including ritual violence. Originally presented at an American Anthropological Association symposium, their findings construct a convincing case that bloodshed and killing have been woven into the fabric of indigenous life in North America for many centuries.

The editors argue that a failure to acknowledge the roles of warfare and violence in the lives of indigenous North Americans is itself a vestige of colonial repression—depriving native warriors of their history of armed resistance. These essays document specific acts of Native American violence across the North American continent. Including contributions from anthropologists, archaeologists, historians, and ethnographers, they argue not only that violence existed but also that it was an important and frequently celebrated component of Amerindian life.

http://www.uapress.arizona.edu/Books/bid1872.htm

 

[resident_evil]

Pre-Columbian Indian village slaughter
Here's one of Keeley's striking examples from pre-Columbian North America:

In some regions of the American Southwest, the violent destruction of prehistoric settlements is well documented and during some periods was even common. ...

For example, the large pueblo at Sand Canyon in Colorado, although protected by a defensive wall, was almost entirely burned; artifacts in the rooms had been deliberately smashed; and bodies of some victims were left lying on the floors. After this catastrophe in the late thirteenth century, the pueblo was never reoccupied.

Another, from the upper Midwest:

Contrary to Brian Ferguson's claim that such [inter-tribal] slaughters were a consequence of contact with modern European or other civilizations, archaeology yields evidence of prehistoric massacres more severe than any recounted in ethnography. For example, at Crow Creek in South Dakota, archaeologists found a mass grave containing the remains of more than 500 men, women, and children who had been slaughtered, scalped, and mutilated during an attack on their village a century and a half before Columbus's arrival (ca. A.D. 1325).

The attack seems to have occurred just when the village's fortifications were being rebuilt. All the houses were burned, and most of the inhabitants were murdered. This death toll represented more than 60 percent of the village's population, estimated from the number of houses to have been about 800. The survivors appear to have been primarily young women, as their skeletons are underrepresented among the bones; if so, they were probably taken away as captives. Certainly, the site was deserted for some time after the attack because the bodies evidently remained exposed to scavenging animals for a few weeks before burial. In other words, this whole village was annihilated in a single attack and never reoccupied.


http://www.troynovant.com/Franson/Keeley/War-Before-Civilization.html

 

[resident_evil]

WE don't need to hold blacks or natives in a special place anymore. They're abusing their myth and time is up. Now Muslims are trying the same crap.

 

[BobbyT]

WE don't need to hold blacks or natives in a special place anymore. They're abusing their myth and time is up. Now Muslims are trying the same crap.

Do you believe in some myth that says native americans or black people are not the same type of human being as the rest of us? What makes them 'special' is what Europeans did to them here.

 

[resident_evil]

What makes them 'special' is what Europeans did to them here.

No, it doesn't. They did to each other what the Europeans did to them. They just happen to be the losers left standing.

 

[Max R.]

Do you believe in some myth that says native americans or black people are not the same type of human being as the rest of us? What makes them 'special' is what Europeans did to them here.

You're two points are in conflict with each other.

Agreed all are human beings, therefore no group is more special than the other. Mankind has always been special in that, above all other Earth creatures, they are the most efficient at killing off their own kind.

What was different between the Euros arriving in the Americas and the Mongols or Moors arriving in Europe or what African tribes/nations have been doing to each other for all of recorded history?

 

[resident_evil]

You're two points are in conflict with each other.

Agreed all are human beings, therefore no group is more special than the other. Mankind has always been special in that, above all other Earth creatures, they are the most efficient at killing off their own kind.

What was different between the Euros arriving in the Americas and the Mongols or Moors arriving in Europe or what African tribes/nations have been doing to each other for all of recorded history?

When illegal aliens from space come and wipe out the U.S. I'd be hard pressed to believe they're going to set aside a reserve for us or make any other special considerations, that is if anybody is even left alive. ha ha

 

[Max R.]

When illegal aliens from space come and wipe out the U.S. I'd be hard pressed to believe they're going to set aside a reserve for us or make any other special considerations, that is if anybody is even left alive. ha ha

A lot of "space alien apocalypse" movies are merely reflections of our own fears and weaknesses.

 

[resident_evil]

A lot of "space alien apocalypse" movies are merely reflections of our own fears and weaknesses.

It's 50/50.

 

[Max R.]

It's 50/50.

Based on what evidence? Half the space alien contacts involved genocide??

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

North American Indigenous Warfare and Ritual Violence
Edited by Richard J. Chacon; Rubén G. Mendoza
294 pp. / 6.00 in x 9.00 in / 2007
Cloth (978-0-8165-2532-4) [s]
Paper (978-0-8165-3038-0) [s]
Paper ($26.95)Cloth ($55.00)

Related Interest
- Native American Studies
- Archaeology

Despite evidence of warfare and violent conflict in pre-Columbian North America, scholars argue that the scale and scope of Native American violence is exagerated. They contend that scholarly
misrepresentation has denigrated indigenous peoples when in fact they lived together in peace and harmony. In rebutting that contention, this groundbreaking book presents clear evidence—from multiple academic disciplines—that indigenous populations engaged in warfare and ritual violence long before European contact. In ten well-documented and thoroughly researched chapters, fourteen leading scholars dispassionately describe sources and consequences of Amerindian warfare and violence, including ritual violence. Originally presented at an American Anthropological Association symposium, their findings construct a convincing case that bloodshed and killing have been woven into the fabric of indigenous life in North America for many centuries.

The editors argue that a failure to acknowledge the roles of warfare and violence in the lives of indigenous North Americans is itself a vestige of colonial repression—depriving native warriors of their history of armed resistance. These essays document specific acts of Native American violence across the North American continent. Including contributions from anthropologists, archaeologists, historians, and ethnographers, they argue not only that violence existed but also that it was an important and frequently celebrated component of Amerindian life.

http://www.uapress.arizona.edu/Books/bid1872.htm

They Were Living on Borrowed Time and Didn't Pay Interest on It

The reason for perpetual tribal genocide was that the Low IQs of the Indians made it impossible for them to get much out of the land. So, when a tribe's population increased, it could only support the larger number by killing off or driving away a neighboring tribe and stealing its land. Prehistorically, they came here as criminal fugitives driven out of Asia.

Under the Indians, Iowa could only support 20,000. It would have remained at that population today if Whites had never come to America. But under settlement by people with the mental capacity to be more productive, Iowa supports 3 million people now.

"Use it or lose it" is the natural law of justifiable seizure of the land. The Indians hogged land that was desperately needed by a more productive and evolved race. The whole world benefited by our agriculture, minerals, oil, and invention. All that would have been lost if the Indians hadn't been evicted.

Racism is realism. Don't let the Establishment intimidate you from using your common sense. This nation won't last if it continues to be made ashamed of its history with unfit minorities.

 

[Max R.]

....The reason for perpetual tribal genocide was that the Low IQs of the Indians made it impossible for them to get much out of the land. ...

Good Lord. Are you really that fucked up or are you deliberately being provocative? You should know as well as as I that human IQ is very much the same across all cultures and skin tones. The technological advantage of the Euros over Native Americans was as great as when [Unwelcome language removed] Mussolini invaded Ethiopia with tanks and machine guns fighting men on horseback with Mosin-Nagants.

 

[Arkady]

The Indians found in the new world in North America were not in fact 'noble savages' of a peaceful nature as often eulogized. In fact they killed each other at a high rate long before Europeans landed. So when the white guilt is laddled on by the noodly leftists claiming that Europeans wrecked the Americas they are full of nonsense. One tribe killed, butchered and tortured another tribe and simply because the Europeans doing the same conquered the land is sour grapes by the losers and those who'd use the fact to brow beat the American people.


Thanksgiving guilt trip: How warlike were Native Americans before Europeans showed up?
...
As I've pointed out previously, prominent scientists now deride depictions of pre-state people as peaceful. "Contra leftist anthropologists who celebrate the noble savage," the Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker wrote in 2007, "quantitative body counts—such as the proportion of prehistoric skeletons with ax marks and embedded arrowheads or the proportion of men in a contemporary foraging tribe who die at the hands of other men—suggest that pre-state societies were far more violent than our own." According to Pinker, the 17th-century philosopher Thomas Hobbes "got it right" when he called pre-state life a "war of all against all."
...
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/thanksgiving-guilt-trip-how-warlike-were-native-americans-before-europeans-showed-up/


CULTURAL ASPECTS OF WARFARE: THE IROQUOIS INSTITUTION OF THE MOURNING WAR CANDICE CAMPBELL This paper was written for Dr. Shirley’s Senior Seminar course

http://www.lagrange.edu/resources/pdf/citations08/culturalaspectsofwarfare.pdf

Native American Warfare in the West: Conflict Among the Southwestern Indians

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-2536600187.html


Pre-Columbian Mexico
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Columbian_Mexico

The idea of inhumanly pacifistic people living in perfect harmony with nature may have had a vogue with a certain set of mythologizers, but I don't think it's ever been embraced by mainstream historians of the pre-Columbian people. Pre-columbian tribes warred, etc., just like any people. The point, though, is that whether the pre-Columbian people were peaceful or not doesn't alter what happened to them once the Europeans arrived. It would be a bit like if someone criticized the Nazis for the Holocaust and someone else responded by pointing out that the Jews had been guilty of atrocities of their own further back in the past. You could make that case in an historically accurate way, but it obviously wouldn't excuse what the Nazis did.

 

[Arkady]

Good Lord. Are you really that fucked up or are you deliberately being provocative? You should know as well as as I that human IQ is very much the same across all cultures and skin tones. The technological advantage of the Euros over Native Americans was as great as when [Unwelcome language removed] Mussolini invaded Ethiopia with tanks and machine guns fighting men on horseback with Mosin-Nagants.

By the way, if you haven't read "Guns, Germs, and Steel," I highly recommend it.

 

[Max R.]

The idea of inhumanly pacifistic people living in perfect harmony with nature may have had a vogue with a certain set of mythologizers, but I don't think it's ever been embraced by mainstream historians of the pre-Columbian people. Pre-columbian tribes warred, etc., just like any people. The point, though, is that whether the pre-Columbian people were peaceful or not doesn't alter what happened to them once the Europeans arrived. It would be a bit like if someone criticized the Nazis for the Holocaust and someone else responded by pointing out that the Jews had been guilty of atrocities of their own further back in the past. You could make that case in an historically accurate way, but it obviously wouldn't excuse what the Nazis did.

Blah...blah...blah....whites are evil and only whites are evil...blah...blah...blah.

The capacity of the far Left to distort the truth, cherry pick history and bend context toward their own ends no longer surprises me.

 

[Arkady]

They Were Living on Borrowed Time and Didn't Pay Interest on It

The reason for perpetual tribal genocide was that the Low IQs of the Indians made it impossible for them to get much out of the land. So, when a tribe's population increased, it could only support the larger number by killing off or driving away a neighboring tribe and stealing its land. Prehistorically, they came here as criminal fugitives driven out of Asia.

Under the Indians, Iowa could only support 20,000. It would have remained at that population today if Whites had never come to America. But under settlement by people with the mental capacity to be more productive, Iowa supports 3 million people now.

"Use it or lose it" is the natural law of justifiable seizure of the land. The Indians hogged land that was desperately needed by a more productive and evolved race. The whole world benefited by our agriculture, minerals, oil, and invention. All that would have been lost if the Indians hadn't been evicted.

Racism is realism. Don't let the Establishment intimidate you from using your common sense. This nation won't last if it continues to be made ashamed of its history with unfit minorities.

Imagine your historical equivalent writing about Northern Europeans, back around 100 BCE. You could rightly point out that there was much warfare among the Celtic people of that part of Europe. And you could rightly say that this was partly because their limited technology reduced the amount of production they could get out of their land. But would it have been accurate for you to assert that this indicated a lower intellectual capacity for Northern Europeans relative to Italians, Persians, Egyptians, North Africans, and the others who had more productive land and more developed civilization at the time? Or was it largely just an accident of history showing up in a particular snapshot of time?

If you'd speculated the state of the iron age Celts was the result of inherently inferior minds, much of the next 1000 years of history would have taken you quite by surprise, as the descendants of those people who'd been running around half naked killing each other in petty tribal wars in 100 BCE went on to have the most dominant culture and most advanced science in the world.

 

[Arkady]

Blah...blah...blah....whites are evil and only whites are evil...blah...blah...blah.

You seem to have replied to the wrong post. I said nothing of the sort.

 

[Max R.]

By the way, if you haven't read "Guns, Germs, and Steel," I highly recommend it.

You've often declared me to be stupid, uneducated and, by implication, no better than a servant. The fact you assume I haven't read it is not surprising.

 

[RickWA]

Based on what evidence? Half the space alien contacts involved genocide??

Genocide is their second choice. Everyone knows ET's go-to is the anal probe.