"the only good blank is a dead blank" Topic

link

So this is a MadLib, right? Hmmmm….blank…blank… Okay got it! I'll go with "ham sandwich" in the blank. Oh wait. I have to click on a link? Sorry, polite pass. But I'll stick to my answer of blank="ham sandwich". What do I win?

Every time I hear about the tragedy (the tragedies) suffered by the Indians of North America (whether at Thanksgiving or at any other time), I bring up some variant of the following questions:

Do the calamities also include the theft of the lands of the Apaches? Does the genocide, real or alleged, of the Native Americans also concern the extermination of the Huron tribe (Huronia)?

The problem, of course, is that the lands of the Apaches were stolen by the Comanches.

While the Hurons were wiped out by the Iroquois.

+1 Doc. Not to mention the various indigenous tribes driven from their lands by the incursion of stronger more warlike tribes.

FWIW – My wife and I lived in Medfield MA for a number of years – a comfortable suburb about 25 miles SW of Boston, sitting atop some high ground overlooking the headwaters of the Charles River – lovely area. The entire town was massacred and burnt to the ground in King Philip's War.

Lest anyone mistake my comments as any sort of denial of the dislocation and suffering of the American indian nations suffered at the hands of the new and expanding United States, let me point out a little known outrage perpetrated upon the (Ute?) inhabitants of their Indian reservation in Oklahoma when OIL was discovered on the reservation land in the early 1920s – an absolute national disgrace IMO.

It's important, I think, to maintain a distinction between history and propaganda. History is FAR more complicated.
Genuine purely "White Hats" are few and far between on either side.

B

Yes, there is a tragic INEVITABILITY to the Indians' fate, and not a fable of saints and sinners.

Rat, NO.. snake. Yeah, I'll go with dead snakes.

The articles' answer is Sioux:

In that perspective, this provides a response to the question, isn't it sad that the Indians (such as famous chiefs like Sitting Bull or Crazy Horse or Geronimo) never managed to unite against their white oppressors. The answer is that the quote that is often attributed to Philip Sheridan — "The only good Indian is a dead Indian" (what the general actually said was somewhat different) — would better describe the tribes' description of one another (The only good Sioux is a dead Sioux, etc…) When a group of warriors happened upon a group of enemies (not excluding women out berry-picking), they would kill them all (see also the Little Bighorn) and scalp them all (unless, in some cases, there happened to be young children who could be integrated into the tribe).

The argument, if anyone cares to read the linked piece, is that Indians treated one another abysmally, and that a common front against the whites was impossible, while "divide and conquer" by the whites was very easy. Just like the Romans and the barbarians.

And as usual many on the board are uninterested in actually discussing matters of substance. Pardon me for disturbing your post-TG digestion.

The stifle function works great.

As does the 'ignore' function…

Sioux – or Lakota or Hunkpapa or Oglala or (well,
y'all get the idea).

Same with Apache – or Mescalero or (well again you get
the idea).

I was thinking "censor" but censors do have a very limited function. How about "mosquito?"

The sad truth is that when a technologically superior culture
encounters a less technological culture the end result is the collapse of the 'inferior' culture within a one or two generations. This happens even when the 'winning' culture tries not to.
I am not discounting the excesses of any society; this is just the facts.

Okay, if you would like a little post-holiday discussion… I looked over the article in question and did not find it all that impressive. At bottom it seemed to me yet another example of the all too common "tu quoque" fallacy -- "yes, we treated indigenous Americans horribly, but…" Otherwise, the author's argument is trivial -- of course Indians were incapable of uniting, just as of course they were technologically outmatched. Nothing about that makes what followed inevitable however, and nor does it somehow exculpate Americans. The author also does not appear well versed in the history of the period: I mean he cites as a source a 1977 Time-Life picture book for heaven's sake. And he badly misrepresents the whole Sheridan quote thing: I'm tolerably sure that he has no idea what Sheridan "really said," but the alleged quote ("the only good Indians I ever saw were dead") is certainly pretty close to its conventional representation. It's probably more relevant that there is very little evidence that Sheridan ever said anything of the sort.

mildbill, yes, and even more than technology the relative population density of agriculture versus hunting.

The most destructive and merciless interlopers were invading old world viruses, some of which wreaked genocidal havoc long before any substantial interface between colonist and tribes affected – viz small pox amongst the plain tribes in the 1780s.

The full story is told of an encounter round the time, I believe, of the Medicine Lodge treaty negotiations in 1867.

A tribal elder introduced to Sheridan approached him and, stroking his arm, intoned 'Good indian. Good indian" To which Sheridan is reputed to have retorted "The only good Indian I ever saw was dead."

As I recall, the incident is described in Robert Utley's "Regulars in Uniform."

I can't help noting that his complacent, self-satisfied whine, the author of the 'blog'- please note- conveniently overlooks the generations of hypocrisy and cruelty towards innocent and defenceless liberals.

complacent and self satisfied, OR whine. Have to pick one.

And the point about Old World viruses is exactly right.

A lot of unreflected dumb stuff concerning his assumed attitutes of Europeans. I stopped reading at that point. It was a good read till there, but his own prejudices got the better of him claiming that others have them.

"Have to pick one."

Not necessarily. The blogger might be a multi-talented propagandist.

Puster +1

I recently read "Terror to the Wicked". It concerns a jury trial in 1638, supposedly the first English jury trial in what would become the United States. A group of escaped indentured servants killed a member of a local tribe, (the Nipmuc tribe I believe). As the settlers were doing the investigation into the murder and tracking down the killers there was interaction with a member of one of the other local tribes. A much stronger tribe than the Nipmuc. He made the comment that he didn't understand why they were going through so much trouble because, "He was only a Nipmuc."

It's a good read and gives some nuance to early settler-Indian relations.

link

Turkey and Football

I think Sherman's remark could also be translated as, "The only good enemy is a dead enemy" as he probably felt the same way regarding the Confederate enemy in the Civil War. Many native tribe warriors probably felt the same way about White people.

Tribalism's inhumanity to man has no racial, national, religious, or economic boundary. Unfortunately, some groups (like political parties) use it as a wedge issue to control and divide others to achieve power over both or start wars.

Once you can convince someone they are a victim and cannot control their own destiny it makes it easier to control them and use them to accomplish your goals. It's a type of psychological bondage because the victim can only look to their handler for survival and the handler has only false materialistic promises. In the end, they'll over-promise and under-deliver leaving most of their victims in a worse situation than before – the rich get richer and the poor get poorer as the result.

The Victimhood Olympics

Truth is, we currently live in a culture where many political and cultural groups and individuals emphasize their victimhood identity and compete in the "Victimhood Olympics." Charles Sykes, author of A Nation of Victims: The Decay of the American character, noted that this stems in part from the entitlement of groups and individuals for happiness and fulfillment. Building on Sykes' work, Gabay and her colleagues note: "When these feelings of entitlement are combined with a high individual-level tendency for interpersonal victimhood, social change struggles are more likely to take an aggressive, disparaging, and condescending form."

link

Wolfhag