SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (774119)3/10/2014 6:29:33 PM
From: one_less  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1573240
 
The literature on the history of California Indians from the early eighteen hundreds to nineteen hundred is well documented and there isn't much to dispute. It was a pretty one sided campaign.

>>"Really? The Indian villages were just "minding their own business" and had no intention of waging total war against the white man intruding upon their lands?"

The terms "War of extermination" are repeated over and over again in the literature of the time period. From news papers to the mouths of public officials.

With what I know, using 20/20 hindsight, and if I were an Indian, I imagine I would have willingly gone to my death avenging wrongs against my people. But that is not what is described in the history books for Indians of that period. What is described is wanton brutality, rape, abuse and starvation in a once abundant land. For the most part Indians were taking it because they were out gunned, out numbered, out of options, frustrated and confused.

There is some history of military conflict with the Indians after some local uprising but a remarkable number of the campaigns are described as either uneventful (resulting in treaties) or bloody massacres of entire villages. Seriously take a look for yourself.

en.wikipedia.org

What I have shown you is just a smattering of the accounts. Check it out for yourself. It isn't a left winger perspective, it is overwhelming documentation of what actually happened that should be removing any doubt that the treatment of American Indians was a genocidal action.

=================================================================

Ten, what I am somewhat skeptical about is the exaggeration the first explorers/settlers used to describe the innocence and kind nature of Indians. They were looking for sponsorship for further escapades and needed a good story. The Europeans were technically advanced and I am convince that was the single significan factor that came between the cultures. On the one hand the Europeans were probably treated to the fatted calf, so to speak, but partly because the Indians saw some trade goods coming from the Europeans they figured were invaluable based on their own experiences. They were probably friendly and welcomed the Europeans, after all a boat load of Europeans didn't amount to that many, what would be the harm? In any event the first couple of hundred years was relatively friendly.

People are people, so I doubt that as a group the Indians were any better or worse than Europeans ... at least until the appetite for more realestate became a necessity for early Americans. Then everything was taken from any Indians who were not willing to assimilate into European life style, and after that even those who were willing were force out of their homes, their businesses confiscated and their property seized, as in the Trail of Tears episode. There would be many Indian extermination or removal campaigns to follow.

The description given by early explorers was of a land of plenty when it came to wild life and of Indians who engaged in productive farming. By the time we get to the California gold rush, Indians are being deliberately starved to death as a strategy to exterminate them. The removal of the buffalo was no willy nilly incidental side effect of westward expansion. General Sherman who perfected the idea of destroying supply lines was the architect of the buffalo decimation.

Indians throughout the west who did not go to reservations were without resources needed for mere sustainance, resources that had once been abundant, of course they were desparate.

Was it genocidal?? There is absolutely no doubt that is was. Even you seem to be coming around, though you still wont use the politically incorrect but accurate term ...

.>>>...having to resort to this sort of "ethnic cleansing."



To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (774119)3/10/2014 6:35:05 PM
From: one_less  Respond to of 1573240
 
Keep in mind it wasn't one indian group. There were approximately 60 nations with 500 tribulates in California before the 1800's

California Indian Wars, Battles, skirmishes and events
en.wikipedia.org



To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (774119)3/10/2014 6:55:53 PM
From: one_less  Respond to of 1573240
 
The following year, the Tolowas were attacked again with hundreds of Indians murdered, all for the "crime" of taking a horse!
>>>>Once again, an extraordinary claim that obviously excludes context and paints one side of the conflict as evil and the other side as purely innocent.

There is always more to any story, and depending on perspective the ability to obtain new information from reliable resources, I am certain the description of California Indians in the 1850s would be one of a desperate and scary group.... but hey consider the circumstances.

Did you know Jews were conquered by Romans, sold into slavery, then dispersed to many different parts of the world around 70 AD, shortly after Judaea became a protectorate of Rome? I think the term is diaspora. I bet you did know that. Did you also know, the war between the Jews and the Romans was caused by a Roman Guard farting in front of some Jews going into Soloman's temple?