No Genocide of American Indians in US

[Brimshack]

Newsflash Bro, this is no such thing as pure objectivity, impossible. The best of us shoot for it. However, U of Ok, U of New Mexico, well yes, those that pick up such volumes should be wary of an approach quite sympathetic to Indians. No guarantee, but surely an eye out for it.

I don't recall suggesting that pure objectivity was possible, but that's not the point. The point is that you just asserted bias on the part of two books simply because they were published by presses in states containing a high population of Indians. You complain that I am playing the race card and yet you argue an explicitly racist position like this one. It's pathetic.

Sure, it went on, never said all Indians did it. The race card is always the last refuge, and you are transparent. I brought information that this conflict was not all devious, not all one sided, attempted to place the events in historical context rather than screaming backwards from the podium of modern civil rights. And you take us all over the place...

You didn't say all Indians did it, but you did hold all Indians responsible for it and offer it as an excuse for depredations against Indians. The remainder of this paragraph is another straw man.

Okay, have it your way, was hoping you can hook me up with a case for the rarity or myth of cannibalism. I brought testimony from a reputable, though admittedly more conservative prof and my own knowledge base. On the latter we are on even ground as such is the vast majority of what anyone posts on message boards. As to Lewy, well, that for the moment is at least as good listing titles of books from universities in heavily Indian populated areas. And these sources at least related to one red herring, supposed lack of detail in a short article.

Your request for an article denying the myth remains an ad ignoranitium argument, and your comaplaint that I gave you books instead of online sources for the other issue is childish. The quantity of detail has never been an issue as far as I am conceredn. I have pointed out Specific distortions about specific issues has. You boil this down to an argument over how much detail the article ought to have, and that is little other than an attempt to evade the issue.

BTW: like the way you completely dropped the argument over the definition of genocide. Nice of you to concede a point when your caught flat footed like that.

 

[Kalevalatar]

Not at all, the word was first coined in 1943 by a Jewish scholar, the allusion has been clear, and loose definitions suit agendas, yours is pretty clear. And speaking of Hitler, be glad some stepped up to kick his butt. Not eveyone can be neutral, though the Fins aided the madman. How many "thousands" died as a result? Be glad you are able to share your opinions here and are not instead doing the goose step. Welcome to reality...

You keep grasping the straws. Why don't you try to come up with strong enough an argument of your own to refute my arguments instead of resorting to desperate personal attacks?

Back to the topic...

Here be a few more primary sources to subtantiate my argument that scalping was "common occurance" and indeed great sport for the euro-american intruders [all emphasis mine]:

Newspaper article, San Fransisco, 1861:

Captain Wright returned to Yreka, which place the papers state he entered in triumph, his men bearing on their rifles the scalps of the Indians, and was received with a general welcome by the citizens of the town.

General E. A. Hitchcock
Comdg. Pacific Division

Newspaper article, Marysville, 1861:

A Bounty Offered for Indian Scalps — That sounds barbarous [sic!], but it is true in Shasta county, as will be seen by the following extract from the Shasta Herald of May 9th:

...A meeting of citizens was held a day or two ago at Haslerigg's store, and measures taken to raise a fund to be disbursed in payment of Indian scalps for which a bounty was offered...

In 1950 we saw the scalps of Diggers hanging to tentpoles in the Shasta and Trinity country. The Oregon men who first settled that part of the State thought it a sport to kill a Digger [Indians] on sight, as they would a coyote.

Newspaper article, Marysville, 1962:

....Seventeen of the Indians were killed and scalped by the volunteers... None were killed on the side of the Whites. They are detremined to drive off or exterminate the Indians, it is said.

Indeed, President Lamar, in his Inaugural Address, December 19, 1838, advocates the same: "I recommended either the total extermination or complete removal of all Indians from the Republic of Texas." And he already had a plan ready for the proposed genocide:

Col. H. Mcleod’s October 25, 1838 letter to Lamar:

"…General Rusk proposes to concentrate the effective force of the Ea(stern) Section of the Country, upon the Indi(an) territory, and exterminate the race--"

Of course, these were not just any common men but, just like, say, Andrew Jackson or Theodore Roosevelt, these men were in position to carry out their plans and make the extermination of the "other race" the official policy of the country. And by all accounts, the public attitude supported them.

 

[Oye11]

error

 

[Oye11]

error

 

[Brimshack]

Enjoy your new red Herring. I especially love your constantly evolving definition of genocide, all the while lecturing others on loose definitions. Quite ballsy, actually. Most would feel some obligation to consistency.

Suspect/Confirm, hardly relevant to the matter at had. You cast suspicion on a work simply because it was published in a state with a high native population. Yet you apply no such suspicion to the conclusionary statements of a white man. Your position remains overtly racist, no matter how you may choose to wheedle out of it. In any event, it won't matter if you do come back with another set of games. I am done with you.

 

[Oye11]

Enjoy your new red Herring.

Very original.... As recently stated, my role is devil`s advocate, you shake the finger, I turn it back on you. Wonderful tool to stimulate academic discussion. "Hey, what? The Indians actually tortured people, sometimes ate them, rolled through communities of non-combatants and burned fires?? Cut the throats of children Wow! I never heard that before!" Proper history sets context and tells the whole story.

I especially love your constantly evolving definition of genocide, all the while lecturing others on loose definitions.

LOL Your nose has grown so long now it will soon be knocking on my door in Florida... I have needed intent to kill off, not subjugation or expulsion.

 

[Oye11]

You keep grasping the straws. Why don't you try to come up with strong enough an argument of your own to refute my arguments instead of resorting to desperate personal attacks?

Back to the topic... .

Please...LOL You mock the Declaration of Independence, put modern America in the same boat with Melosevic, and cry about "strawman" when you get return fire. Ugliest genocide of all, Nazi planes flying off your air strips. Bias and hypocrisy is alway open game. Get used to it..

Here be a few more primary sources to subtantiate my argument that scalping was "common occurance" and indeed great sport for the euro-american intruders [all emphasis mine].

Quotes don`t pull up, but I saw them. Do you call all unwanted migrants to new lands "intruders"? Was plenty of "intruding" going on among the Indians, hunting lands, etc. Plus they were migrants themselves. I suppose after the first wave came the rest were "intruders" if some came to not want them around. Aztecs and Incas, no doubt, "intruders." Why do you avoid this question? Do you expect your loaded speech to go without comment? Actually, in many cases during the early periods, especially in Louisiana and Mississippi areas, the white presence was welcome, considerable interaction. They loved our commodities...

How does 3 news articles all written within a year, two towns, both in the north Pacific, support a "widespread" practice? And 19th C. newspapers are of the most unreliable sources, given to drama and even fiction. Adventures of Buffalo Bill? If you brought this as source to a professor he would laugh you out of his office... I don`t deny that settlers at times scalped, eye for an eye would tell you that without any source. Question is this, upon arrival, how acclimated if at all were they to this as well as cannibalism and human sacrifice? What gave birth to the "savage" stereotype? That was our discussion... Wasn`t the Declaration of Independence... And the right or wrong of their "ethnocentrism" is beside the point...

Indeed, President Lamar, in his Inaugural Address, December 19, 1838, advocates the same: "I recommended either the total extermination or complete removal of all Indians from the Republic of Texas." And he already had a plan ready for the proposed genocide:

Check the root for "exterminate," doesn`t necessarily mean to kill off. However here it is set against an either/ or. The other quote won`t pull up here but I read it. You have something interesting going here with the Republic of Texas. Do link me to your net source or cite the publication so I can look at it further.

Of course, these were not just any common men but, just like, say, Andrew Jackson or Theodore Roosevelt, these men were in position to carry out their plans and make the extermination of the "other race" the official policy of the country. And by all accounts, the public attitude supported them

The leap here is invalid unless you can provide good evidence of U.S. Govt sanction of and implimentation of a policy aimed at wiping out the Indians. T.R.s sentiments are not enough, especially considering the govt policies aimed at preservation. Trail of Tears, we already discussed...

Oh yes, I forgot... Where on earth have you gotten the idea that Indians never practiced prostitution? Stands to reason that a sqaw might have occasionally taken a roll with a brave for some material gain... I suspect such is about universal...

 

[Kalevalatar]

Please...LOL You mock the Declaration of Independence, put modern America in the same boat with Melosevic, and cry about "strawman" when you get return fire. Ugliest genocide of all, Nazi planes flying off your air strips. Bias and hypocrisy is alway open game. Get used to it.

Ah, let me count, one, two, three more straw men; I quote the Declaration of Independence: you call it mocking. I mention Serbia as a nation: you evoke Milosevic. And do I need to point out that "Nazi planes flying off an air strip" does nothing to strenghten your argument that there was no genocide nor an intent of genocide of American Indians.

If you want to debate the Continuation War, by all means, go ahead and start its own thread and I am quite likely to show up. This is simply the wrong thread.

I repeat. Arguing against a position you *think* I have but which only exists in your head may leave you with the impression that you have duly refuted my points when in fact you have not even touched them yet. The "debate" is all in your head, if you like.

Do you call all unwanted migrants to new lands "intruders"?

I sure do not call them "settlers" if the land was already settled before their arrival. Would "late late-arrivals" do?

How does 3 news articles all written within a year, two towns, both in the north Pacific, support a "widespread" practice?

Those three quotes are what we call a workhorse, doing a double duty. They gives us the context and mentality in which the genocide of the (Upper) Californian nations (as debated earlier in this thread) took place, plus they answer your question "when, where, primary sources" with a specific example of when and where, with primary sources. Meanwhile, you have yet to provide context for those elusive "is said to have been" and "is seen quite frequently." I asked you to be a bit more specific to give an idea when, where, how, who etc. I'm still waiting.

The difference between euro-american and native american scalping is that some native nations practiced it, some practiced it only a period of time, possibly due to European powers' bounty endorsement, while others never practiced it. The euro-americans, however, who ascribed no ritual/spiritual value to the perverse act of scalping, practiced it all over the board and at all times. In the 19th century South West, for instance, the "perverse" act of scalping was considered just another source of income, like buffalo hunting or fishing. In the cynical tradition of the euro-american capitalism, the scalp-hunters moral dilemma was not whether to kill another human being for the scalp, but whether to cheat and try to pass the 9-year-old's scalp off as a 15-year-old's to collect more money. Killing kids, after all, must have been easier than going after adults. Then again, the pay was poorer.

And 19th C. newspapers are of the most unreliable sources, given to drama and even fiction.

Then you must be aware that any 1Xth C. "primary literature," those first person accounts, observations, "scientific" studies, etc. about the native neighbours are equally unreliable, equally prone to drama, exaggeration, and downright fiction? There is a whole tradition of "captivity narratives" that goes back to the early Puritans, who established the convention of telling these stories in biblical terms and emphasising the great "ordeals" and moral superiority of the euro-americans over the "red devils." Hyperbole of the black and white in its finest.

Adventures of Buffalo Bill? If you brought this as source to a professor he would laugh you out of his office...

Then you are shooting yourself in the leg by categorically rejecting excellent source material. Buffalo Bill was a celebrity of his time. The point is not whether Mr. Bill's "adventures" are factually true or the product of his imagination and intention. The point is "Buffalo Bill" gave the audience what the audience wanted to see and hear; a bit like Dan Brown. The fact that scalping is mentioned and presented as something like "business as usual" tells us that this is what the audiences wanted to hear and was ready to pay for to hear it. It is not included for its shock value. Which all goes back to the mentality of the 19th C.

No source is bad source per se. After all, one of the cornerstones of history research & writing is anylysis and criticism of sources, agreed? One considers the context of the source and treats it accordingly. And it seems to me -- and Brimshack has pointed it out several times -- that you have committed the biggest no-no of a historian: you have abandoned this essential criticism of sources and have indiscriminationally adopted the attitude of your source material, especially re: the notion of "savage". It is one thing that the uneducated, ignorant euro-american late-arrivals exposed their own narrow, biased, racist world view in their usage of the word "savage." But it is quite another thing that someone in year 2006 tries to justify the usage of the word "savage" with their words and calls it "research."

I don`t deny that settlers at times scalped, eye for an eye would tell you that without any source. Question is this, upon arrival, how acclimated if at all were they to this as well as cannibalism and human sacrifice?

The "bread and wine thesis," as you called it in your earlier version, is very real for some of us. Your personal opinion or theological position on the subject does not change the fact that it is real for millions of Christians like myself who believe in it. Therefore, yes, ritualistic cannibalism is still practiced throughout Europe as well as throughout the Americas. As to the human sacrifices, what went on in Salem at the time went on in Europe, too. Unless, of course, one believes all those people killed *were* actually wicked witches with witch powers...

As to the scalping, true, Europe was well past that type of practice at the time when the USAians still practiced it.

And the right or wrong of their "ethnocentrism" is beside the point...

Trying to build yet another straw man to argue against?

Check the root for "exterminate," doesn`t necessarily mean to kill off.

Ah, semantics. Does not necessarily mean to kill off but can also mean precisely to kill off.

Do link me to your net source or cite the publication so I can look at it further.

Sure. I try to do that this coming weekend.

Edited to add a couple of starting points:

A "must" must be The Papers of Mirabeau Buonaparte Lamar (the source of my previous Col. H. Mcleod's quote: "...Let us drive these wild Indians off, and establish a line of block houses, and we have done all we can now--If the U States will not remove their own Indians, to wit, Cherokees, Shawnees, Delawares, Kickapoos , Choctaws, Alabamas, & Coshattes, to say nothing of these Caddoes who they have literally ordered & driven into our territory--I say if the U.S. is faithless enough to refuse to remove them We must await a more auspicious moment than the present, to exterminate them...." Col. H. Mcleod’s letter to Lamar, December 1, 1838)

You might also want to take a look at The Life of Sam Houston, esp. Ch. Eleventh, which deals with what Houston regards as Lamar's "ruinous" administration and Lamar's plans of the "Extermination of the Indians" -- from Houston's contemporary POV. Esp. interesting are Houston's mentioning of Lamar's attack on the Cherokees, whose union with the Reb. of Texas was arguably one thorn in the flesh of the USA.

A page with a sample of original documents that might be of interest:
Expulsion of the Cherokees

The leap here is invalid unless you can provide good evidence of U.S. Govt sanction of and implimentation of a policy aimed at wiping out the Indians. T.R.s sentiments are not enough, especially considering the govt policies aimed at preservation. Trail of Tears, we already discussed...

The problem -- from my POV -- is that you seem to treat the "Indians" as one big "Indian nation" when they were anything but. The way I see it, it's about many genocides, if you like, in various places at various times, the genocide of the Cherokee nation being one example.

Oh yes, I forgot... Where on earth have you gotten the idea that Indians never practiced prostitution?

From the fact that money did not change hands before the euro-americans introduced the practice and from the fact that generally speaking, other cultures do not share our Judeo-Christian notions of sex and sexuality...?

 

[Oye11]

Ah, let me count, one, two, three more straw men; I quote the Declaration of Independence: you call it mocking. ...

It was, you sneered, based on one passage, at the fact that the document is acclaimed. Yet it contains the very principles that have you typing what you will here, and it reflects a nation that played a pivotal role in saving Europe from tyranny.

I mention Serbia as a nation: you evoke Milosevic.

Please.. You make a contrast on the subject of nationalism, the two negative examples Am and Serbia. Who is the big Serbian nationalist of recent times? Strange being mentioned with in the same breath seeing that we sent troops over there...

And do I need to point out that "Nazi planes flying off an air strip" does nothing to strenghten your argument that there was no genocide nor an intent of genocide of American Indians.

I guess that is a good thing because that isn`t my argument. Go back and check, I`ve already stated that I felt there was genocidal intent in California. Nice strawman by the way...

If you want to debate the Continuation War, by all means, go ahead and start its own thread and I am quite likely to show up. This is simply the wrong thread. ...

May make an interesting topic but I won`t abide by your boundary. Anything you say is open game for comment. Don`t like that? Then watch what you say...

I sure do not call them "settlers" if the land was already settled before their arrival. Would "late late-arrivals" do? ...

Fair enough, and seeing that most of the Indians came after the first wave lets just say majority rules and call them all the same, "late arrivals." Will you join me?

Those three quotes are what we call a workhorse, doing a double duty. ...

Isolated in time and region, 19th C. newspapers famous for embellishment and drama spins. Does little to confirm any national obsession with scalping among settlers.

I asked you to be a bit more specific to give an idea when, where, how, who etc. I'm still waiting. ...

Most of it is here, claims, frameworks similar to my training. He has a good rep, short article, conservative leaning.

http://hnn.us/articles/7302.html

Rest relates to my knowledge base, grad school history, need to get my 100s of books out of storage, just moved. And perhaps run down a prof who is now surely retired, hopefully still alive, for the exact Tecumseh quote. If you want to hold off on giving me sources for your points until I deliver more then say the word, fair is fair...

The euro-americans, however, who ascribed no ritual/spiritual value to the perverse act of scalping, practiced it all over the board and at all times. ...

Wow, very sweeping, sounds like every nook and cranny...

In the 19th century South West, for instance, the "perverse" act of scalping was considered just another source of income, like buffalo hunting or fishing. ...

You make it sound as if it was a very common and widespread side job, like selling on e bay...

In the cynical tradition of the euro-american capitalism, the scalp-hunters moral dilemma was not whether to kill another human being for the scalp, but whether to cheat and try to pass the 9-year-old's scalp off as a 15-year-old's to collect more money. Killing kids, after all, must have been easier than going after adults. Then again, the pay was poorer. ...

Mighty preachy and political. Were the Indians more moral about ripping off the tops of heads because they were socialists? Are you on to the "noble savage" here? I did mention that they were out killing children as well... What are the viable alternatives to capitalism? Can the greed in the heart of man be purged? What on earth happened among the Incas and Aztecs??? You seem rather content staying north...

Then you must be aware that any 1Xth C. "primary literature," those first person accounts, observations, "scientific" studies, etc. about the native neighbours are equally unreliable, equally prone to drama, exaggeration, and downright fiction?

You got a point, a lot of drama and bias from both sides, Must be careful, this area of history is a tough nut to crack....

Then you are shooting yourself in the leg by categorically rejecting excellent source material.

You are categorically shooting yourself in the head by using a dime adventure novel to try and prove historical facts, as to what happened, where, when, and how often.

Buffalo Bill was a celebrity of his time. The point is not whether Mr. Bill's "adventures" are factually true or the product of his imagination and intention. The point is "Buffalo Bill" gave the audience what the audience wanted to see and hear; a bit like Dan Brown. The fact that scalping is mentioned and presented as something like "business as usual" tells us that this is what the audiences wanted to hear and was ready to pay for to hear it. It is not included for its shock value. Which all goes back to the mentality of the 19th C.

Way too subjective, bad history. And the public wants to read and hear a lot of things gruesome or exciting, whatever, is the way it is now, same then. May or may not have anything to do with something widespread in society. Attempting to take myth and transport it to claims of historical realities is highly irresponsible. Your source for that purpose is useless...

It is one thing that the uneducated, ignorant euro-american late-arrivals exposed their own narrow, biased, racist world view in their usage of the word "savage." But it is quite another thing that someone in year 2006 tries to justify the usage of the word "savage" with their words and calls it "research."

This seems to be the crux of your argument, what brought you in the thread I think, yet neither I nor Lewy who I referenced ever "justify" such a stereotype. He and I speak from the perspective of the settler, what they thought and why given their world. The morality of it or what I think wasn`t a consideration. Have corrected you at least one other time on this, yet the strawman persists and makes me suspect you have chosen the Native American situation as a platform to preach your ideals, and given other statements, perhaps anti-Americanism. I have a little more time for such but not much, will be on a plane to Costa Rica Sunday, and may just ignore this thesis if it reappears...

The "bread and wine thesis," as you called it in your earlier version, is very real for some of us. Your personal opinion or theological position on the subject does not change the fact that it is real for millions of Christians like myself who believe in it.

I think that faith may become rather shaky if one took a second to taste the bread and wine. Would love to see an anonymous survey of Catholics, "do you really think it is real?" Perhaps with some fear of a mortal sin would forbid them from voicing it. Most go through the motions, ritual, no real connection... Plus the dominant settler culture of N. Am was English and Protestant...

Therefore, yes, ritualistic cannibalism is still practiced throughout Europe as well as throughout the Americas.

That`s a mighty forced parallel if we assume the position of the Euro. Hard to imagine that often crossing the mind of the settler repulsed by the notion of Indians eating trophy body parts of war victims.

As to the human sacrifices, what went on in Salem at the time went on in Europe, too. Unless, of course, one believes all those people killed *were* actually wicked witches with witch powers...

Is called capital punishment, hanging, burning at the stake... These are not daily offerings of virgins on an altar to the gods in order to solicit favor or propitiation. Certainly no connection to the experience of the European. They think "savage." I`m looking at them, what I think in 2006 is beside the point...

The problem -- from my POV -- is that you seem to treat the "Indians" as one big "Indian nation" when they were anything but. The way I see it, it's about many genocides, if you like, in various places at various times, the genocide of the Cherokee nation being one example.

I`m quite aware of the diversity. But I believe we can get bogged down in the details and finger pointing and lose the big picture. In this case my larger focus rests on migration, culture, interaction, conflict, outcomes and all in the context of world history. And you seem to have a limited grasp of the first and all important step of historical interpretation, putting yourself in the world of the people you study. You seem to start with concepts like "racism" and "genocide" then look for it with special attention to one side. "How terrible these people are, huh?" And anyone who won`t join you is "justifying" it. However, if you met and lectured the settlers they would give you the most dumbfounded look. Different world, mores, customs, prevailing opinions in science, etc, were brainwashed into a different system of thought. In 200 years many may sneeringly look back at our present system... Solid historians who perform the discipline for the love of it alone place themselves in the time and judge their subjects by their world, not ours. They want to know what went on and why, moralizing really isn`t the goal at all, nor is using the past as a launching pad for sentiment or modern activism. And as you know I disagree with your characterization of "The Trail of Tears," and suspect many of these little "genocides" you are finding were pretty common accompaniments of the warfare of the age.

From the fact that money did not change hands before the euro-americans introduced the practice and from the fact that generally speaking, other cultures do not share our Judeo-Christian notions of sex and sexuality...?

What is the difference between a coin and a deerskin? If the squaw needs the latter she doesn`t have to bother going to buy it...

 

[Kalevalatar]

Isolated in time and region, 19th C. newspapers famous for embellishment and drama spins. Does little to confirm any national obsession with scalping among settlers.

"National obsession with scalping" -- your words, not mine. You are setting yourself up against yet another straw man.

Most of it is here, claims, frameworks similar to my training. He has a good rep, short article, conservative leaning.

http://hnn.us/articles/7302.html

I'm familiar with Mr. Lewy and this particular essee of his (why, it's been already debated in this thread), so why this link? I'm sorry, but a link to an essay by somebody else, no matter how estimable a historian, will not pass for a source for specifics of when, where, how, who. You do realize Mr. Lewy's piece is just one paper among an array of papers on the subject and still very much open for debate? You are supposed to debate for yourself, not take cover behind Mr. Lewy's broad shoulders. And although it would be convinient indeed if I just took your word for it -- your alleged "knowledge base" or "recollections" of what was said here and there or the # books you tell me you have in a box -- that's not how it works, is it?

You make it sound as if it was a very common and widespread side job, like selling on e bay...

And you would prefer it were just a couple of "incidents"? That would be more comfortable a thought for you?

Were the Indians more moral about ripping off the tops of heads because they were socialists?

No. Like I said, today we as 20th C. people already recognize, unlike most of those folks back in the 18th or 19th C., that there is no moral high ground: it is just one savage calling another savage a "savage;" or one human being calling another human being a "savage."

You seem rather content staying north...

And might that have something to do with the fact that the topic of this thread is "No genocide of American Indians in US"? You do realize that Aztecs do not really figure in that context? Although Canada would certainly be an intersting point of comparison, considering that Canada and the USA share the same continent and the same "origins", if you like, and yet Canada's history and "Indian policy" differ considerably from that of the United States of America's.

You are categorically shooting yourself in the head by using a dime adventure novel to try and prove historical facts, as to what happened, where, when, and how often.

A dime adventure novel? You really don't have a clue, do you? Mr. Cody's THE LIFE OF HON. WILLIAM F. CODY KNOWN AS BUFFALO BILL THE FAMOUS HUNTER, SCOUT AND GUIDE: AN AUTOBIOGRAPHY (The Life and Adventures of "Buffalo Bill" (1917) by Colonel William F. Cody) is an autobiography. And autobiographies are perfectly legitimate primary sources right there beside other personal narratives such as diaries and letters. And Mr. Cody's happen to feature on the list of key documents of American history, right beside his friend and contemporary Theodore Roosevelt's autobiography; Library of Congress lists it under "History: United States (regional) and the Americans,""Frontier and pioneer life--West (U.S.)." CALL NUMBER F594 .C672 DIGITAL ID mtfgc 19551.

If I am "shooting myself in the head" by using Mr. Cody's said autobiography, then I am in good company indeed, because so do Patricia Nelson Limerick, Henry Nash Smith, Richard Slotkin, and Richard White, to name a few.

Way too subjective, bad history.

Your subjective opinion, not the general opinion. SEE ABOVE.

This seems to be the crux of your argument, what brought you in the thread I think, yet neither I nor Lewy who I referenced ever "justify" such a stereotype. He and I speak from the perspective of the settler, what they thought and why given their world.

You're taking cover behind Mr. Lewy's broad shoulders again. I'm not debating with Mr. Lewy and against his arguments; I'm debating with you and against your arguments. Please don't assume to speak for him ("he and I speak from the perspective of the settler"). Mr. Lewy knows the concepts of criticism of sources and critical objectivity and distance and it shows. I cannot say the same about you, based on your posts here.

"Savage" is not the gist of the story. "Savage" was and still is just a tool. The big story is about the land and its resources. "It's a very rich country; and we want it."

Would love to see an anonymous survey of Catholics, "do you really think it is real?"

Yeah, me too, but you do not have it, do you?

Most go through the motions, ritual, no real connection...

Really? And not just "some" but "most"? And you know this how? There are, what, a billion or so Catholics in the world and you purport to *know* that most of them go through the motions with no real connection? Interesting indeed.

Plus the dominant settler culture of N. Am was English and Protestant...

So? You not only read the minds of the world's Catholics but also of the world's Protestants?

Is called capital punishment, hanging, burning at the stake...

And the punishment was for what crime again?

You seem to start with concepts like "racism" and "genocide" then look for it with special attention to one side. "How terrible these people are, huh?" And anyone who won`t join you is "justifying" it. However, if you met and lectured the settlers they would give you the most dumbfounded look.

I'm not worried about "the settler's" racistic world views; they were products of their own time and long gone. I'm more worried about my apologetic contemporaries who indiscriminatingly subscribe to and keep alive that same racist world view. That is inexcusable.

And you seem to have a limited grasp of the first and all important step of historical interpretation, putting yourself in the world of the people you study.

I repeat. "Putting yourself in the world of the people you study" does not mean indiscrimatingly adopting their world view. It means that no solid historian today will adopt the word "squaw" and use it outside direct period quotes.

What is the difference between a coin and a deerskin? If the squaw needs the latter she doesn`t have to bother going to buy it...

Do you have anything to substantiate this? Or is this again one of your own notions, or perhaps one of your favourite "settler's" notion?

 

[Oye11]

"National obsession with scalping" -- your words, not mine. You are setting yourself up against yet another straw man.



I'm familiar with Mr. Lewy and this particular essee of his (why, it's been already debated in this thread), so why this link? I'm sorry, but a link to an essay by somebody else, no matter how estimable a historian, will not pass for a source for specifics of when, where, how, who. You do realize Mr. Lewy's piece is just one paper among an array of papers on the subject and still very much open for debate? You are supposed to debate for yourself, not take cover behind Mr. Lewy's broad shoulders. And although it would be convinient indeed if I just took your word for it -- your alleged "knowledge base" or "recollections" of what was said here and there or the # books you tell me you have in a box -- that's not how it works, is it?



And you would prefer it were just a couple of "incidents"? That would be more comfortable a thought for you?



No. Like I said, today we as 20th C. people already recognize, unlike most of those folks back in the 18th or 19th C., that there is no moral high ground: it is just one savage calling another savage a "savage;" or one human being calling another human being a "savage."



And might that have something to do with the fact that the topic of this thread is "No genocide of American Indians in US"? You do realize that Aztecs do not really figure in that context? Although Canada would certainly be an intersting point of comparison, considering that Canada and the USA share the same continent and the same "origins", if you like, and yet Canada's history and "Indian policy" differ considerably from that of the United States of America's.



A dime adventure novel? You really don't have a clue, do you? Mr. Cody's THE LIFE OF HON. WILLIAM F. CODY KNOWN AS BUFFALO BILL THE FAMOUS HUNTER, SCOUT AND GUIDE: AN AUTOBIOGRAPHY (The Life and Adventures of "Buffalo Bill" (1917) by Colonel William F. Cody) is an autobiography. And autobiographies are perfectly legitimate primary sources right there beside other personal narratives such as diaries and letters. And Mr. Cody's happen to feature on the list of key documents of American history, right beside his friend and contemporary Theodore Roosevelt's autobiography; Library of Congress lists it under "History: United States (regional) and the Americans,""Frontier and pioneer life--West (U.S.)." CALL NUMBER F594 .C672 DIGITAL ID mtfgc 19551.

If I am "shooting myself in the head" by using Mr. Cody's said autobiography, then I am in good company indeed, because so do Patricia Nelson Limerick, Henry Nash Smith, Richard Slotkin, and Richard White, to name a few.



Your subjective opinion, not the general opinion. SEE ABOVE.



You're taking cover behind Mr. Lewy's broad shoulders again. I'm not debating with Mr. Lewy and against his arguments; I'm debating with you and against your arguments. Please don't assume to speak for him ("he and I speak from the perspective of the settler"). Mr. Lewy knows the concepts of criticism of sources and critical objectivity and distance and it shows. I cannot say the same about you, based on your posts here.

"Savage" is not the gist of the story. "Savage" was and still is just a tool. The big story is about the land and its resources. "It's a very rich country; and we want it."



Yeah, me too, but you do not have it, do you?



Really? And not just "some" but "most"? And you know this how? There are, what, a billion or so Catholics in the world and you purport to *know* that most of them go through the motions with no real connection? Interesting indeed.



So? You not only read the minds of the world's Catholics but also of the world's Protestants?




And the punishment was for what crime again?



I'm not worried about "the settler's" racistic world views; they were products of their own time and long gone. I'm more worried about my apologetic contemporaries who indiscriminatingly subscribe to and keep alive that same racist world view. That is inexcusable.



I repeat. "Putting yourself in the world of the people you study" does not mean indiscrimatingly adopting their world view. It means that no solid historian today will adopt the word "squaw" and use it outside direct period quotes.



Do you have anything to substantiate this? Or is this again one of your own notions, or perhaps one of your favourite "settler's" notion?

You get to do the work this a.m.... Have to get ready for my trip. I will say hello to the Metizo hunnies for you... Will be back the 15th. In the meantime, dig up that Republic of Texas stuff for me....

 

[Kalevalatar]

You get to do the work this a.m.... Have to get ready for my trip. I will say hello to the Metizo hunnies for you... Will be back the 15th. In the meantime, dig up that Republic of Texas stuff for me....

Start with Lamar's papers and then you probably have a pretty good idea of the facts you need to run against other sources. Once you get there, I'm happy to help you with that the best I can, just don't expect me to do all the leg word for you.

Have a safe trip.

 

[Oye11]

Start with Lamar's papers and then you probably have a pretty good idea of the facts you need to run against other sources. Once you get there, I'm happy to help you with that the best I can, just don't expect me to do all the leg word for you.

Have a safe trip.

Thank you very much, and may the Lord richly bless you until I return.

 

[Dale]

On the subject of American Indians and farming, straying into the southern hemisphere:

World Book on Corn:

"Corn was first used for food 10,000 years ago by Indians living in what is now Mexico. For hundreds of years, the Indians gathered corn from wild plants. About 5,000 BC, they had learned how to grow corn themselves."

I don't believe that agriculture in the Eastern Hemisphere developed any sooner or faster than this.

World Book under Indians:
"The Indians grew many foods that the newcomers had never heard of, such as avocados, corn, peanuts, peppers, pineapples, potatoes, squash, and tomatoes. They also introduced the whites to tobacco."

Four corn: "The Indians of central Mexico and western South America grew flour corn perhaps more than 5,000 years ago."

"The oldest known fossil corncobs are about 7,000 years old."

World Book on Squash:
"Squashes are highly nutritious."
"Indians introduced them [squashes]to the first European explorers who reached the New World."

 

[Dale]

This secondary says there was...

"Among those—Indian or European—taken back to the village, some would be adopted to replace slain warriors, the rest subjected to a ritual of torture designed to humiliate them and exact atonement for the tribe's losses. Afterward the Indians often consumed the body or parts of it in a ceremonial meal, and proudly displayed scalps and fingers as trophies of victory."

http://hnn.us/articles/7302.html

I also recall these matters affirmed in secondaries read in college and were not disputed by even the liberal profs.The Aztecs by the way sacrificed virgins to the gods as a matter of routine. Am unaware of any claims that this had stopped prior to Columbus.

Oye,
I welcome your input but I am getting confused. In response to a comment questioning cannibalism among American Indians, you say the Aztecs sacrificed virgins. Not only was I speaking of North America, human sacrifice to appease gods is not the same thing as cannibalism.

 

[Dale]

Kalevalatar in post #119:
"I disagree. None of those three practices you mentioned were foreign to the euro-american cultures. Many euro-american sexual and arguably "savage" practices, such as prostitution and rape, on the other hand, were alien to North American native population."

Much of what you say makes perfect sense but you go too far here. Rape is not an institution of American society. I don't know where you would go to find a place where rape does not happen occasionally, but it is not an institution. Likewise, I assume you know that in the US, prostitution is only legal in some counties in Nevada.

 

[Dale]

Kalevalatar in post #128:
"As to the human sacrifices, what went on in Salem at the time went on in Europe, too. Unless, of course, one believes all those people killed *were* actually wicked witches with witch powers... "

Execution of a prisoner condemned by a court is not human sacrifice, whatever you may think of the court's errors. The community did not believe they were appeasing God by killing witches, they thought they were protecting themselves from witches' spells.

 

[BelindaP]

The only place I know of for sure where rape was unknown until the Europeans arrived is the aborigines of Australia. They don't even have a word for it in their language.

 

[HiredGoon]

Oye,
I welcome your input but I am getting confused. In response to a comment questioning cannibalism among American Indians, you say the Aztecs sacrificed virgins. Not only was I speaking of North America, human sacrifice to appease gods is not the same thing as cannibalism.

Having studied the history of the American and Canadian frontier during the 17th and 18th centuries, I've come across numerous primary documents from this period that mention ritualistic cannibalism as a common practice of several Eastern Woodland Indian groups. The one that immediately comes to mind is from Jean de Brebeuf's "Of the Polity of the Hurons and of Their Government" (1636) from the Jesuit Relations:

"Then, if they succeed in capturing some of their enemies, they treat them with all the cruelty they can devise. Five or six days will sometimes pass in satiating their rage, burning the prisoners over a slow fire, and, not satisfied with seeing their skins entirely roasted, they cut open the legs, the thighs, the arms, and the most fleshy parts of the body and thrust into the wounds glowing brands or red-hot hatchets. Sometimes in the midst of these torments they compel them to sing--those who have the strength do so hurling forth a thousand imprecations against those who torment them.

On the day of their death they must repeat the performance, if they have strength, and sometimes the kettle in which they are to be boiled will be on the fire, while these poor wretches are still singing as loudly as they can. This inhumanity is altogether intolerable; indeed, many people are unwilling to attend these fatal banquets. After having at last brained the victim, if he was a brave man, they tear out his heart, roast it on the coals, and distribute pieces of it to the young men, as they think that this makes them courageous. Some make an incision in their own neck and cause some of his blood to run into it. They say that mingling the blood in this way has the power to ensure that they can never be surprised by the enemy, as they will always be aware of their approach, however secret it may be.

They put him in the kettle piece by piece, and although at other feasts the head--whether of a bear, a dog, a deer, or a large fish--is revered for the captain, in this case the head is given to the lowest person in the company. Indeed, some people are horrified to taste this part, or any portion of the body, whereas others eat it with pleasure. I have seen Indians in our cabin speak with gusto of the flesh of an Iroquois and praise its quality in the same terms as they would praise the flesh of a deer or moose. This is certainly very cruel, but we hope, with the assistance of heaven, that the knowledge of the true God will entirely banish from this country such barbarity."

Alexander Henry's captivity narrative is another source that mentions ritualistc cannibalism being practiced in the Great Lakes region during Pontiac's Rebellion, 1763-4. Cannibalism is also reported to have been practiced by Native warriors after Braddock's defeat at the Monongahela in 1755. There are several others I've read of in the past, that I don't have access to at this time.

 

[Dale]

HiredGoon in post #139:

I notice that we are not talking about simple food cannibalism here. How did Brebeuf observe this without being eaten or killed himself?