# Think Tank > History >  Stefan Molyneux's Native American Genocide - A Response

## juleswin

This post is dedicated to   @oyarde and his ancestors who have endured a lot over the centuries. This is one of those videos that you run into that you just have to share with you best m8s. You will cry a little, laugh a little and WTH a lot after viewing this debunking of a Molyneux fact based, well researched videos.

This is a story about how the settlers royally fu*ked the native Americans with a dick 10x the size of Micheal Obama's alleged dick. This is one example of how biased Molyneux can be when trying to cater to his new audience of alt right retards.

Enjoy 

  @jmdrake
   @Danke
   @dannno

----------


## dannno

Here is the original video, always good to have the original source when the video posted in the OP is highly suspect.

----------


## oyarde

I have never watched any molyneaux  , even his name is un American.

----------


## juleswin

> Here is the original video, always good to have the original source when the video posted in the OP is highly suspect.


Thanks for the link, I will add it to the OP.

Also, I have been trying to poke holes in his argument and I have a few weak ones like the word genocide which actually did not exist when the alleged genocide occurred. Plus using the UN definition of genocide put me off a bit. So please use this definition of genocide when viewing the video.

Genocide - the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation. 

So yea, I am in my fan boy mode so any help with critiquing the video would be very helpful. Thanks y'all

----------


## dannno

Molyneux admits there were atrocities on both sides, neither side was perfect. In fact, I have ancestors whose entire family, including several young children were slaughtered by Native Americans totally unprovoked. 

One argument that Molyneux makes is that first of all, there are far more Native American genetics in the US today than there was when settlers came here. So to argue their genetics were wiped out doesn't make any sense. For actual numbers, check out the video, I haven't seen it in over a year. As far as pure genetics, you will want to go to the video for the actual numbers, but google says there are over 5 million native Americans today, and estimates say there were about 7 million or so before the settlers came, although there is no exact numbers and all we have are estimates. 

There was in fact a huge die off of Native Americans when the settlers came over, but Molyneux points out that this was not entirely the fault of the settlers, it was incidental. The stories about infecting blankets with disease only has two sources - one of them has been discredited, and the other is extremely vague - it doesn't say anything about how big the operation was or even whether it was carried out. Molyneux also makes the point that the viruses probably would not have survived very long in the blankets and that it would not have been effective had they done so. 

What seems more likely, from the historical data, was that there were diseases that the Native Americans got and these diseases were spread not by some white man's conspiracy, but that over a few decades they traversed the continent before the settlers made their way across the continent. As settlers began making their way across the continent, the natives had already largely been ravaged by disease.

----------


## Origanalist

> I have never watched any molyneaux  , even his name is un American.


I wonder if he eats a lot of frog legs.

----------


## oyarde

> Molyneux admits there were atrocities on both sides, neither side was perfect. In fact, I have ancestors whose entire family, including several young children were slaughtered by Native Americans totally unprovoked. 
> 
> One argument that Molyneux makes is that first of all, there are far more Native American genetics in the US today than there was when settlers came here. So to argue their genetics were wiped out doesn't make any sense. For actual numbers, check out the video, I haven't seen it in over a year. As far as pure genetics, you will want to go to the video for the actual numbers, but google says there are over 5 million native Americans today, and estimates say there were about 7 million or so before the settlers came, although there is no exact numbers and all we have are estimates. 
> 
> There was in fact a huge die off of Native Americans when the settlers came over, but Molyneux points out that this was not entirely the fault of the settlers, it was incidental. The stories about infecting blankets with disease only has two sources - one of them has been discredited, and the other is extremely vague - it doesn't say anything about how big the operation was or even whether it was carried out. Molyneux also makes the point that the viruses probably would not have survived very long in the blankets and that it would not have been effective had they done so. 
> 
> What seems more likely, from the historical data, was that there were diseases that the Native Americans got and these diseases were spread not by some white man's conspiracy, but that over a few decades they traversed the continent before the settlers made their way across the continent. As settlers began making their way across the continent, the natives had already largely been ravaged by disease.


It is true , the heathens spread disease like wild fire but it was not intentional . After living in the filth and squalor of europe they had built immunities that others could not have .

----------


## oyarde

If you think about it , white europeans probably had better immunities than anyone in the world at the time . They still had not learned to defecate downstream. Those still living were pretty tough sons of bitches .

----------


## juleswin

> Molyneux admits there were atrocities on both sides, neither side was perfect. In fact, I have ancestors whose entire family, including several young children were slaughtered by Native Americans totally unprovoked. 
> 
> One argument that Molyneux makes is that first of all, there are far more Native American genetics in the US today than there was when settlers came here. So to argue their genetics were wiped out doesn't make any sense. For actual numbers, check out the video, I haven't seen it in over a year. As far as pure genetics, you will want to go to the video for the actual numbers, but google says there are over 5 million native Americans today, and estimates say there were about 7 million or so before the settlers came, although there is no exact numbers and all we have are estimates. 
> 
> There was in fact a huge die off of Native Americans when the settlers came over, but Molyneux points out that this was not entirely the fault of the settlers, it was incidental. The stories about infecting blankets with disease only has two sources - one of them has been discredited, and the other is extremely vague - it doesn't say anything about how big the operation was or even whether it was carried out. Molyneux also makes the point that the viruses probably would not have survived very long in the blankets and that it would not have been effective had they done so. 
> 
> What seems more likely, from the data, was that there were diseases that the Native Americans got and these diseases were spread not by some white man's conspiracy, but that over a few decades they traversed the continent before the settlers made their way across the continent. As settlers began making their way across the continent, the natives had already largely been ravaged by disease.


I would wait till you actually watch the video, all the claims you just made in this post were addressed by the author, so please give it a listen before making a lengthy response. Its about the same length (36 mins as the Stefan video), you can do it.

----------


## Swordsmyth

The Natives did as bad or worse to one another before Europeans arrived, some of them also attacked Europeans without just cause, no race is any more or less guilty when it comes to war and slaughter, some of the native tribes were far more savage and bloodthirsty than the Europeans but not than the Europeans' barbarian ancestors, there were tribes that were more peaceful than many of the Europeans.

The entire subject is no more worth caring about than an attempt to make either the Romans or the Germans the "bad guy" or the "good guy" from our historical perspective or any other peoples from any other place and time, individuals and specific incidents can be judged but even then trying to apply a modern world view without understanding and compensating for the beliefs and cultures of the time is wrong, right and wrong may be constant but the handicapped understanding of them by those involved is not.

----------


## oyarde

> I wonder if he eats a lot of frog legs.


Maybe his mom wanted a girl.

----------


## juleswin

> The Natives did as bad or worse to one another before Europeans arrived, some of them also attacked Europeans without just cause, no race is any more or less guilty when it comes to war an slaughter, some of the native tribes were far more savage and bloodthirsty than the Europeans but not than the Europeans' barbarian ancestors, there were tribes that were more peaceful than many of the Europeans.
> 
> The entire subject is no more worth caring about than an attempt to make either the Romans or the Germans the "bad guy" or the "good guy" from our historical perspective or any other peoples from any other place and time, individuals and specific incidents can be judged but even then trying to apply a modern world view without understanding and compensating for the beliefs and cultures of the time is wrong, right and wrong may be constant but the handicapped understanding of them by those involved is not.


Yup, we've all heard that one before, the false equivalence nonsense some people use to whitewash historical crimes. The Israelis say the Palestinians teenagers threw stones at their bulldozers so that justified the use of white phosphorus on their homes. I didn't buy it when the Israelis made the excuse and I am not buying it from u. One side was clearly in the wrong and I think you know which side I am talking about.

----------


## juleswin

> If you think about it , white europeans probably had better immunities than anyone in the world at the time . They still had not learned to defecate downstream. Those still living were pretty tough sons of bitches .


I know this has been a long running joke with you HB and Danke since I got to this forums but serious question for a change, are you really native American? Not talking about Elizabeth Warren type Native but are you Full or even half blooded native? 

Just curious

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Yup, we've all heard that one before, the false equivalence nonsense some people use to whitewash historical crimes. The Israelis say the Palestinians teenagers threw stones at their bulldozers so that justified the use of white phosphorus on their homes. I didn't buy it when the Israelis made the excuse and I am not buying it from u. One side was clearly in the wrong and I think you know which side I am talking about.


Sorry but the Natives did equivalent things to eachother and to the whites, your comparison to throwing rocks is ridiculous.

----------


## dannno

> Yup, we've all heard that one before, the false equivalence nonsense some people use to whitewash historical crimes. The Israelis say the Palestinians teenagers threw stones at their bulldozers so that justified the use of white phosphorus on their homes. I didn't buy it when the Israelis made the excuse and I am not buying it from u. One side was clearly in the wrong and I think you know which side I am talking about.


I had no idea you were 450 years old...

----------


## Swordsmyth

> I know this has been a long running joke with you HB and Danke since I got to this forums but serious question for a change, are you really native American? Not talking about Elizabeth Warren type Native but are you Full or even half blooded native? 
> 
> Just curious


Are you really Nigerian? or are you lying to us?

----------


## juleswin

> I had no idea you were 450 years old...


I don't get it, what happened 450 yrs ago?

----------


## oyarde

> I know this has been a long running joke with you HB and Danke since I got to this forums but serious question for a change, are you really native American? Not talking about Elizabeth Warren type Native but are you Full or even half blooded native? 
> 
> Just curious


My Mother yes , all of my wifes Grandparents yes . We own our land , bought it .We have no reservations here  in the state and we will never seek federal recognition or benefits and have no blood quantum requirements . I heard Danke or the Texan have naked pictures of Warren. If Danno had them he would share .

----------


## juleswin

> My Mother yes , all of my wifes Grandparents yes . We own our land , bought it .We have no reservations here  in the state and we will never seek federal recognition or benefits and have no blood quantum requirements . I heard Danke or the Texan have naked pictures of Warren. If Danno had them he would share .


That is fascinating, I have never talked to a native American before today. And the second line "all of my wife's grandparents yes" is that your way of saying your wife is full blood? 

The last line is a joke right? I hope so cos I don't wanna see Warren naked. That would just worsen my depression. But yea, pass the video on to your folks, I would love to hear their opinion of the presentation. And you too, try and watch it, I would love to hear what you have to say about it post watch

----------


## oyarde

> That is fascinating, I have never talked to a native American before today. And the second line "all of my wife's grandparents yes" is that your way of saying your wife is full blood? 
> 
> The last line is a joke right? I hope so cos I don't wanna see Warren naked. That would just worsen my depression. But yea, pass the video on to your folks, I would love to hear their opinion of the presentation. And you too, try and watch it, I would love to hear what you have to say about it post watch


Well Warren ought to be better than everyone talking about the obamas nuts  .

----------


## oyarde

Mrs O is a Kentuckian so she barely speaks english and is  more wampus cat than human .

----------


## juleswin

> Mrs O is a Kentuckian so she barely speaks english and is  more wampus cat than human .


Just when I thought u were getting serious, you hit me with this

----------


## oyarde

> Just when I thought u were getting serious, you hit me with this


That was serious.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Mrs O is a Kentuckian so she barely speaks english and is  more wampus cat than human .


Well it's a daggum shame Kentuckians let their English slide so.Their forebears produced some of Murica's best literature.

----------


## Origanalist

> That is fascinating, I have never talked to a native American before today. And the second line "all of my wife's grandparents yes" is that your way of saying your wife is full blood? 
> 
> The last line is a joke right? I hope so cos I don't wanna see Warren naked. That would just worsen my depression. But yea, pass the video on to your folks, I would love to hear their opinion of the presentation. And you too, try and watch it, I would love to hear what you have to say about it post watch


They really aren't hard to find. For a nominal fee I can arrange for you to meet one in person.

----------


## oyarde

> They really aren't hard to find. For a nominal fee I can arrange for you to meet one in person.


In North East Nebraska there are three reservations , Santee Sioux , Omaha and Winnebago  and probably others .

----------


## oyarde

Jules could drive around  Santee , little town on the Res of 400 or so  , 90 percent Indian . Those reservation Indians are pretty tame , they probably will not scalp him or anything. President Lincoln scared them when he hung all the warriors in the 1860's.

----------


## dannno

$#@!.. the fake irish accent guy? I've never heard him make one valid argument against steph, I've watched tons of his videos. He always strawmans his arguments and makes stuff up.

----------


## dannno

First 5 minutes are a strawman, I explained why in the first sentence in my post describing Stef's vid.

----------


## dannno

Then he uses the UN's legal definition of genocide, which technically could mean if you kill even one person of a race because they are that race then you are committing genocide.. 

Stef seems to be using a definition of genocide on the other end of the spectrum that the entire group must be killed, or they are attempting to kill the entire group, for genocide to occur, where genocide is allegedly the act of attempting to kill that group in part or in whole. I guess that brings up an interesting debate about the word genocide. If you are a black gang and you go and kill some members of a Mexican gang, are they committing genocide against Mexicans? That sort of takes away from what most people think of when they think of genocide. 

 Semantics of the word genocide aside, the facts he presents in the video regarding the numbers of Native Americans make a strong case that the intentions of the settlers were different than what is portrayed by some modern historians. 

He doesn't provide any additional evidence that the blankets spread the disease (oyarde seems to agree on this point) - but he makes it sound like the evidence is actually quite strong when it is very weak - I'm not convinced it occurred ONCE let-alone a widespread tactic. See Stef's vid on this, because it's not in the response.

So there could be some debate on the semantical definition of genocide and whether it might apply here, but this guy doesn't really disprove anything Stef says so far and I'm almost half way thru.. time to go walk my dog.

----------


## oyarde

Looks like to get on the 1 , 5,10 or 20 dollar bill you need to release the Army on the people and kill some  for unjust tax collection ( Washington , whiskey rebellion ) , genocide some Indians ( Lincoln , Jackson )  or be the central banking guy ( Hamilton ) . If I was running it  I would replace them all with Indians , be a helluva lot cooler .

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Looks like to get on the 1 , 5,10 or 20 dollar bill you need to release the Army on the people and kill some  for unjust tax collection ( Washington , whiskey rebellion ) , genocide some Indians ( Lincoln , Jackson )  or be the central banking guy ( Hamilton ) . If I was running it  I would replace them all with Indians , be a helluva lot cooler .


You used to have the nickle, then they took that away.

----------


## oyarde

> You used to have the nickle, then they took that away.


Yes that nickel is the most American of all coins . Anyone in the world can look at the front or back and know where it is from. I have put together a few sets of those in my life . Started another this year .

----------


## oyarde

The Indian Head nickel , known as the Buffalo nickel was made 1913 to 1938 ( the most american coin of all denominations  below 2 1/2 dollars certainly ), prior to that the Liberty nickel design was 1883 - 1912 and prior to that the Shield nickel design 1866 - 1883 . Prior to that ( starting 1794 ) the five cent coin was a small silver pc. called a Half Dime. The last year it was produced was 1873. Took muh Indian away and put a slaver on it . Disgraceful as usual .

----------


## dannno

Haven't seen this yet just came out today

----------


## juleswin

> Then he uses the UN's legal definition of genocide, which technically could mean if you kill even one person of a race because they are that race then you are committing genocide.. 
> 
> Stef seems to be using a definition of genocide on the other end of the spectrum that the entire group must be killed, or they are attempting to kill the entire group, for genocide to occur, where genocide is allegedly the act of attempting to kill that group in part or in whole. I guess that brings up an interesting debate about the word genocide. If you are a black gang and you go and kill some members of a Mexican gang, are they committing genocide against Mexicans? That sort of takes away from what most people think of when they think of genocide. 
> 
>  Semantics of the word genocide aside, the facts he presents in the video regarding the numbers of Native Americans make a strong case that the intentions of the settlers were different than what is portrayed by some modern historians. 
> 
> He doesn't provide any additional evidence that the blankets spread the disease (oyarde seems to agree on this point) - but he makes it sound like the evidence is actually quite strong when it is very weak - I'm not convinced it occurred ONCE let-alone a widespread tactic. See Stef's vid on this, because it's not in the response.
> 
> So there could be some debate on the semantical definition of genocide and whether it might apply here, but this guy doesn't really disprove anything Stef says so far and I'm almost half way thru.. time to go walk my dog.


Again, it seems like you did not watch the video. First of all, just because the Europeans did not wipe out all Indian Tribes ever existed doesn't mean what happened wasn't genocide. He specifically addressed this issue in his video. With your definition, then the Rwandan, Armenian, jewish holocaust were not genocides which is silly.

I can't pull out the part of the video where he provided the evidence for the blankets and oyarde just gave his opinion which isn't worth much in this arena. Heck, we all have opinions, that doesn't mean anything. 

Please watch the video, you are not debunking anything.

----------


## dannno

> Again, it seems like you did not watch the video. First of all, just because the Europeans did not wipe out all Indian Tribes ever existed doesn't mean what happened wasn't genocide. He specifically addressed this issue in his video. With your definition, then the Rwandan, Armenian, jewish holocaust were not genocides which is silly.
> 
> I can't pull out the part of the video where he provided the evidence for the blankets and oyarde just gave his opinion which isn't worth much in this arena. Heck, we all have opinions, that doesn't mean anything. 
> 
> Please watch the video, you are not debunking anything.


No, the video doesn't debunk anything, all it did was put into questions what the definition of genocide is.. but what you don't seem to understand is even if Molyneux's definition of genocide is wrong that doesn't debunk Molyneux's video.. that isn't his primary argument. His primary argument is that our perception of what happened to the Native Americans is wrong, which is true, he proves that and your video doesn't debunk that at all. Maybe if you had the attention span to watch a Molyneux video you could actually watch the original video and understand what his argument is, but you don't seem to understand at all, and the video you posted is bull$#@! deepstate created nonsense so that creates even further misunderstanding in your head.

And if you can't put forth the basic evidence for your blanket theory then I really don't know what to say.

----------


## juleswin

> Then he uses the UN's legal definition of genocide, which technically could mean if you kill even one person of a race because they are that race then you are committing genocide.. 
> 
> Stef seems to be using a definition of genocide on the other end of the spectrum that the entire group must be killed, or they are attempting to kill the entire group, for genocide to occur, where genocide is allegedly the act of attempting to kill that group in part or in whole. I guess that brings up an interesting debate about the word genocide. If you are a black gang and you go and kill some members of a Mexican gang, are they committing genocide against Mexicans? That sort of takes away from what most people think of when they think of genocide. 
> 
>  Semantics of the word genocide aside, the facts he presents in the video regarding the numbers of Native Americans make a strong case that the intentions of the settlers were different than what is portrayed by some modern historians. 
> 
> He doesn't provide any additional evidence that the blankets spread the disease (oyarde seems to agree on this point) - but he makes it sound like the evidence is actually quite strong when it is very weak - I'm not convinced it occurred ONCE let-alone a widespread tactic. See Stef's vid on this, because it's not in the response.
> 
> So there could be some debate on the semantical definition of genocide and whether it might apply here, but this guy doesn't really disprove anything Stef says so far and I'm almost half way thru.. time to go walk my dog.


Oh look at that. Stefan Moleyneux pretending to be white and talking about white genocide with Vox day and here you can clearly see that he has no objections with the UN definition of genocide. 




Btw, this is post Trump Stefan, this is him after he has discovered white genocide type topics aka the woke Stefan.

----------


## juleswin

Again, how can it be called christian genocide when all the Christians are not dead? 

REcap on what Stefan considers genocide when it pertains to the Native Americans

----------


## Firestarter

The genocide of the Native Americans continues to this day, at least in Canada, while at the same time Canada imports huge amounts of migrants to reach 100 million people by the end of the century.

Paedophilia, rape, forced abortions and premedidated murder in the Catholic Residential schools in Canada, killing an estimated 50,000 Native Americans: http://canadiangenocide.nativeweb.org/genocide.pdf

----------


## brushfire

The American genocide was a cooperative effort between the British and the Canadians - they cleverly blamed it on America.

...they all hate us for our freedom.

----------


## dannno

> The American genocide was a cooperative effort between the British and the Canadians - they cleverly blamed it on America.
> 
> ...they all hate us for our freedom.



What about the European genocide in America by the "Native Americans"?

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-...517714/?no-ist

----------


## Identity

Thank you for directing me over here. I can't even watch Molyneux speak- it's so cringe-worthy. Unfortunately, Native Americans had the unlucky circumstance of being a [largely] paleolithic people with new farming neighbors. One can't overstate the significance of this. I remember reading about how the early Jamestown settlements allowed sheep, cattle, and other European farm animals to roam freely causing devastation to neighboring tribes bordering the settlement. Their response was a hostile one- they attacked. But it was honestly justified- their way of life depended on hunting & gathering and they had a culture next door that had an abundance of animals grazing, destroying the plants like a damn lawnmower. I'm sure this same thing happened when Neolithic people entered Africa, rest of Middle East, Europe, Asia, etc.. but it's just a sad circumstance. This isn't even to get into the actual wars & displacements of natives...

Also, this is kind of a pet peeve of mine since I'm a history buff but I hate people that just dismiss cultures as "primitive." *Every. Single. Culture. Was. Primitive. Once.*We don't advance in some comical linear line- it's more like a mountain ridge. A society that relied largely upon hunting/gathering had more free time and probably a happier existence than a distant slave-based Empire. Not to sound like an Anarcho-primitivist "kill the farmers" type person but there's some truth to it all. Australian aboriginees were happy living a hunter-gatherer existence, didn't mean we had to have settlers displace them because they weren't "up to par" with their technological status. It's the equivalent of if China built up a massive fleet of ships and invaded Medieval Europe and displace millions of people cuz _"lulz u ain't $#@! compared to us_" you'd think we'd feel some moral qualms about it and protest the action? Also it begs the question- what's this magical level of tech does one need in order not to be genocided? If N. American natives were farmers then would it have been wrong to displace them? So stupid...

----------


## Identity

> This post is dedicated to   @oyarde and his ancestors who have endured a lot over the centuries. This is one of those videos that you run into that you just have to share with you best m8s. You will cry a little, laugh a little and WTH a lot after viewing this debunking of a Molyneux fact based, well researched videos.
> 
> This is a story about how the settlers royally fu*ked the native Americans with a dick 10x the size of Micheal Obama's alleged dick. This is one example of how biased Molyneux can be when trying to cater to his new audience of alt right retards.
> 
> Enjoy 
> 
>   @jmdrake
>    @Danke
>    @dannno



Molyneux has made some other bone-headed statements in the past which made him an all-star on Reddit's "BadHistory" subreddit. I might have to submit this video as a new one. Not related to this thread but you'd probably get a kick out of it:

Molyneux's take on Ancient Rome: https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/...ind_of_stefan/
Molyneux thinks Statism [and feminism] killed Rome: https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/...eird_trick_to/
Molyneux, The German Empire apologist: https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/...yneux_madness/

----------


## oyarde

> Again, it seems like you did not watch the video. First of all, just because the Europeans did not wipe out all Indian Tribes ever existed doesn't mean what happened wasn't genocide. He specifically addressed this issue in his video. With your definition, then the Rwandan, Armenian, jewish holocaust were not genocides which is silly.
> 
> I can't pull out the part of the video where he provided the evidence for the blankets and oyarde just gave his opinion which isn't worth much in this arena. Heck, we all have opinions, that doesn't mean anything. 
> 
> Please watch the video, you are not debunking anything.


My opinion is greater than others . I am an expert on the americas . As Great Sachem , Sagamore of The Wabash and War Chief it is also still my plan to take back my ancestral lands .

----------


## Identity

> What about the European genocide in America by the "Native Americans"?
> 
> http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-...517714/?no-ist


I'm kinda a kook when it comes to conspiracies and ancient civilizations and my personal theory is that Africa, Europe, and the Americas were more connected than previously thought. Recently there was a peer-reviewed paper published in some journal making the case that Neanderthals may have inhabited America prior to **** Sapien arrival. Some interesting evidence for it too: distinct Neanderthal carvings in Mammoth tusk and bones. With the "Ice Age Columbus" Solutrean thing-- I tend to believe in it. But it doesn't change the fact that Solutreans were the ancestors of *Amerindians*, not Europeans- so Natives would be the heirs still.

----------


## Danke

> My opinion is greater than others . I am an expert on the americas . As Great Sachem , Sagamore of The Wabash and War Chief it is also still my plan to take back my ancestral lands .



Lol.

----------


## oyarde

> Lol.


I was counting on you to join me .

----------


## Identity

> Looks like to get on the 1 , 5,10 or 20 dollar bill you need to release the Army on the people and kill some  for unjust tax collection ( Washington , whiskey rebellion ) , genocide some Indians ( Lincoln , Jackson )  or be the central banking guy ( Hamilton ) . If I was running it  I would replace them all with Indians , be a helluva lot cooler .


I don't see how...

----------


## Overwroughtwashingmachine

*Yes there was a Native American genocide, look no further than California to see where it happened:*

The extermination of California Indians was advocated, incentivized  and endorsed by many of California statehood's political leaders.  California governor Peter Burnett even openly predicted a "war of  extermination:" 



That a  war of extermination will continue to be waged between the two races  until the Indian race becomes extinct, must be expected. While we cannot  anticipate the result with but painful regret, the inevitable destiny  of the race is beyond the power and wisdom of man to avert.


 From California governor Peter Hardeman Burnett's Second Annual Message to the Legislature, January 7, 1851:

----------


## Overwroughtwashingmachine

[q][r][s]

  Burnett also participated in genocide himself:

When Peter H. Burnett found out the survivors of the Battery Point   Massacre were located, they formed a thirty-three man company.   California Jack and his men said that they were “well armed and resolved   upon the extermination of all Indians”. The men trapped the Indians by   encircling around the Indians. Just when the sun came of on the  Eastern  horizon, they opened fire at Yontocket. The Indians immediately  came  running out of their huts, armed with their bow and arrows,  fighting for  their lives. Their primitive weapons were no match for the  modern  weapons of the white men. All around the white men, the Indians   attempted to escape, but there was no chance of surviving. The Indian   men’s scream was intermingled with the screams of the women and   children, which caused even more confusion to the Indians. Hundreds of   people were killed in the attack, but the white men were not done yet.   An eyewitness said “The white people got all around them… Every time   someone go out, never come back in… they set fire to the house, the   Indians’ house. You could see them just cutting heads off. They stick   them things into them; pretty soon they pick them up and throw them   right into the fire. Some of ‘em tried to get away, run down the slough.   Soon as they get down there, if they don’t get ‘em right away, they  get  ‘em from the other side when they come up. Shoot ‘em right there,   waiting for them.” After the attack, the white men built a huge fire and   threw almost everything the Indians had into it. They threw in the   Indian’s sacred ceremonial dresses into it and they even threw babies,   some of which were still alive, in the fire too. Finally, Burnett’s men   burned Yontocket to the ground and only a few Indians were scarcely  left  alive. The men reported no intentional kills of women and  children. So  many victims were incinerated, submerged, or have floated  away that the  attackers could not obtain a complete body count. White  sources  estimated to only 150 lives lost that morning. This may have  been an  understatement and Tolowa sources insist that 600 people were  massacred  at Yontocket. Even if the white people were right, this is  still ranked  as one of the most lethal massacres in U.S. history. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yontoket_massacre

Some state legislators such as Supreme Court Judge Serranus C.  Hastings  organized public gatherings where settlers would air their  grievances  about Indians which was used to incite hatred toward them.[t] California statehood also incentivized the abduction of Indians as slaves[u]   through the "Act for the Government and Protection of Indians." The  law  also outlawed Indians' ability to testify against the Whites who  had  killed or abducted their families.[v]       


Historian Benjamin Madley claims that California statehood paid $1.7[w]   to $5.7 million to private militia who hunted and killed Indians and   California governors directed state troops to kill over 3,000 California   Indians between 1850 and 1861.[x][y]Furthermore,   California stood in opposition of ratifying the eighteen treaties   signed between tribal leaders and federal agents in 1851.[z]


Historian  Benjamin Madley accuses the U.S. Federal government of  actively  participating in the genocide in California and claims it took  lead of  its implementation after 1863; with the US army killing 1,680 to  3,741  California Indians, as well as the US senate paying $1.3 million  to  private militias in California who hunted and killed Indians. Madley   attributes this to the American Civil War   centralizing the wars against California tribes into more deliberate   organized military operations. In addition Madley states that federal   reservations used deliberate starvation to wipe out Indians reducing   caloric distribution to them from 480-910 to 160-390 between 1860 and   1862 and Indians were also banned from eating meat. California natives   would also die in forced deportations into reservations with 300   perishing upon arrival from having to march through the snow and the mud   in one such march.[x]

Notable private militias participated in the genocide most infamously Walter S. Jarboe's Eel River Rangers.[p] Settlers would also often raid Indian villages in order to abduct their children for indentured labor, as Benjamin Madley estimates at least 3,000 to 4,000 Indian children were transferred from their parents in this way.[x]  Some sources claim that the purpose of kidnapping many Indian girls was   to use them as sex slaves, and due to this 1/4 of the Yuki tribe's   female population contracted venereal disease.[o]

According to the government of California, some 4,500 Native Americans suffered violent deaths between 1849 and 1870.[m] Professor Ed Castillo,   of Sonoma State University, provides a higher estimate: "The handiwork   of these well armed death squads combined with the widespread random   killing of Indians by individual miners resulted in the death of 100,000   Indians in the first two years of the gold rush."[n]

In contrast to this Historian Benjamin Madley recorded the numbers of   killings of California Indians between 1846 and 1873 and estimated that   during this period at least 9,492 to 16,094 California Indians were   killed by non-Indians, mostly occurring in more than 370 massacres   (defined as the "intentional killing of five or more disarmed combatants   or largely unarmed noncombatants, including women, children, and   prisoners, whether in the context of a battle or otherwise").[y][x]

The Yahi tribe of the Yana people was totally exterminated during the California Genocide except for one man named Ishi,[k] who some contest wasn't even a pure Yahi.[l]

Numerous books have been written on the subject of the California Indian genocide such as _Genocide and Vendetta: The Round Valley Wars in Northern California_ by Lynwood Carranco and Estle Beard, _Murder State: California's Native American Genocide, 1846-1873_ by Brendan C. Lindsay, and _An American Genocide: The United States and the California Indian Catastrophe, 1846-1873_ by Benjamin Madley among others. That last book by Madley caused California governor Jerry Brown to recognize the genocide.[w] Even Guenter Lewy   famous for the phrase: "In the end, the sad fate of America's Indians   represents not a crime but a tragedy, involving an irreconcilable   collision of cultures and values" concedes that what happened in   California may constitute genocide: "some of the massacres in   California, where both the perpetrators and their supporters openly   acknowledged a desire to destroy the Indians as an ethnic entity, might   indeed be regarded under the terms of the convention as exhibiting   genocidal intent."[j] 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

j- Lewis, Guenter. "Were American Indians the Victims of Genocide?". _History News Network_.
k-Day, Mark R. "Ishi's Life: A California Genocide Primer". _Indian Country Today_.
l-Kell, Gretchen. "Ishi apparently wasn't the last Yahi, according to new evidence from UC Berkeley research archaeologist"
m-"Minorities During the Gold Rush". California Secretary of State. Archived from the original on February 1, 2014. Retrieved March 23, 2009.
n- Edward D. Castillo, California Indian History; SHORT OVERVIEW OF CALIFORNIA INDIAN HISTORY from nahc.ca.gov accessed July 8, 2018.
 o- Remembering The Bloody Rush Of The California Genocide
 Posted by The Raven Report on December 1, 2017
https://theravenreport.com/2017/12/01/remembering-the-bloody-rush-of-the-california-genocide/
p-Baumgardner, Frank H. "Killing for Land in Early California: Indian blood at Round Valley: Founding the Nome Cult Indian Farm". . New York: Algora Pub. ISBN 9780875863641.

q-"The Governor's Message (Transmitted January 7, 1851)," Sacramento Transcript, 10 January 1851, 2.
r-On January 6, 1851 at his State of the  State address to the  California Senate, 1st Governor Peter Burnett used  the following words:  "That a war of extermination will continue to be  waged between the  races until the Indian race becomes extinct must be  expected. While we  cannot anticipate this result but with painful  regret, the inevitable  destiny of the race is beyond the power or wisdom  of man to avert."
s- Lindsay, Brenden C (2012). "Murder State:  California's Native  American Genocide, 1846–1873." University of  Nebraska Press, Lincoln  and London. p.231
t-Baumgardner 2006, p. 71
u-Magliari, M (August 2004). "FREE SOIL, UNFREE LABOR". _Pacific Historical Review_. University of California Press.
v- Johnston-Dodds, Kimberly (September 2002).  Early California Laws and  Policies Related to California Indians.  California Research Bureau.  pp. 5–13. ISBN 1-58703-163-9.
w- http://newsroom.ucla.edu/stories/revealing-the-history-of-genocide-against-californias-native-americans 
     Revealing the history of genocide against California’s Native Americans  
 Jessica Wolf | August 15, 2017 
x- Benjamin Madley (August 31, 2016). "Killing of Native Americans in California". C-SPAN. Retrieved August 23, 2018.
y- Madley, Benjamin, An American Genocide, The  United States and the  California Catastrophe, 1846–1873, Yale  University Press, 2016, 692  pages, ISBN 978-0-300-18136-4, p.11, p.351
z- Norton, Jack (1979). _Genocide in northwestern California: when our worlds cried._ San Francisco: Indian Historian Press. ISBN 0-913436-26-7. pp. 70–73

This lecture gives a good overview of the genocide:




0ther examples of genocide:
-------

* The United States set up concentration camps for Cherokee and other Native Americans in the 1830s.[A]   In 1864, the U.S. government forced 8,000 Navajos to walk more than  300  miles at gunpoint from their ancestral homelands in northeastern   Arizona and northwestern New Mexico to an internment camp in Bosque   Redondo, a desolate tract on the Pecos River in eastern New Mexico. From   1863 to 1868, the U.S. Military persecuted and imprisoned 9,500 Navajo   and 500 Mescalero Apache. Living under armed guards, more than 3,500   Navajo and Mescalero Apache men, women, and children died from   starvation and disease.[B]

* When  smallpox swept the northern plains of the U.S. in 1837, the U.S.   Secretary of War Lewis Cass ordered that no Mandan (along with the   Arikara, the Cree, and the Blackfeet) be given smallpox vaccinations,   which were provided to other tribes in other areas.[c]   While the responsibility for the 1836-40 smallpox epidemic remains in   question, scholars have asserted that the Great Plains epidemic was   "started among the tribes of the upper Missouri River by failure to   quarantine steam boats on the river",[d] and Captain Pratt of the St. Peter "was guilty of contributing to the deaths of thousands of innocent people."  


*Sterilization of Native American women was a procedure that began to   surface in the late 1960s and early 1970s in the United States.[e]   Native American women were subject to involuntary surgical   sterilization caused by a policy by the federally funded Indian Health   Service (IHS).[f]   The U.S. General Accounting Office showed that the Indian Health   Service sterilized 3,406 American Indian women between 1973 and 1976.   The study showed that 36 women under age 21 were forcibly sterilized   regardless of a court-ordered moratorium on sterilizations of women   younger than 21.[g] One out of four Native American women were involuntarily sterilized through tubal ligation or hysterectomy.[h]   The procedure was often done under the pretense of a check up or   abortion, most of the victims were not aware they had been sterilized,   even after the procedure. The forced sterilizations had an appreciable   effect on the fertility rates of Native American women. In the 1970s,   the average birth rate of Native American women was 3.79, in 1980 it   fell to 1.8.[i]  The belief of racial inferiority and stereotypes of the Native   American population were factors that made the Native American women   targets of sterilization. The media represented the Native American   Woman by employing terms such as 'Squaw' defined as a "dirty,   subservient, abused, alcoholic and ugly woman who loves to torture white   men." Racial stereotypes propagated the belief that Native American   women were unfit to raise or to have children in comparison to white   women.[j] In the 1970s, Native American women believed that sterilization was mandatory and were coerced into giving consent.[k]   Not agreeing to the sterilization procedure would result in the   withdrawal of welfare benefits. Consent forms presented to them failed   to indicate that the decision would not affect their benefits.[l]   Studies by the Health Research Group in 1973 and Doctor Bernard   Rosenfeld's interviews in 1974 and 1975 show that this action was driven   by social and economic factors.[m] 

Most physicians performing this procedure viewed sterilization as  the  best alternative for these women. They claimed it would improve  their  financial situation and their family's quality of life.[n]   The physicians were paid more for performing hysterectomies and tubal   ligations than for prescribing other forms of birth control.[m]   The influx of surgical procedures was seen as a training for  physicians  and as a practice for resident physicians. In 1971 Dr. James  Ryan  responded to the question of why favoring hysterectomies over  tubal  ligations that "it's more of a challenge...and it's good  experience for  the junior resident".[o] With fewer people applying for Medicaid and welfare, the federal government could decrease spending on welfare programs.[m] 

In the 1970s the negative stereotypes of Native American women  and  beliefs of racial superiority contributed to the belief amongst   physicians that these women would not be able to limit the number of   children or use birth control effectively, thus imposing the   sterilization policy.[m] 

The U.N. defines genocide as: Any of the following acts committed with  intent to destroy, in whole or  in part, a national, ethnical, racial or  religious group, as such:  killing members of the group; causing  serious bodily or mental harm to  members of the group; deliberately  inflicting on the group conditions of  life, calculated to bring about  its physical destruction in whole or in  part; imposing measures  intended to prevent births within the group;  [and] forcibly  transferring children of the group to another group.  (Article 2 CPPCG) 
By this definition U.S. sterilization policies were genocide under acts 3 and 4. 

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


A-James L. Dickerson (2010). Inside America's  Concentration  Camps: Two Centuries of Internment and Torture. p. 29.  Chicago Review  Press
B-M. Annette Jaimes (1992). The State of Native America: Genocide, Colonization, and Resistance. p. 34. South End Press
c-Kotar, S.L.; Gessler, J.E. (2013). Smallpox: A History. McFarland. p. 111. ISBN 9780786493272.    Washburn, Kevin K. (February 2006). "American Indians, Crime, and the   Law". Michigan Law Review. 104: 709, 735.  Valencia-Weber, Gloria   (January 2003). "The Supreme Court's Indian Law Decisions: Deviations   from Constitutional Principles and the Crafting of Judicial Smallpox   Blankets". University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law. 5:   405, 408–09. 
 d-  The Effect of Smallpox on the Destiny of  the Amerindian; Esther  Wagner Stearn, Allen Edwin Stearn; University of  Minnesota; 1945; Pgs.  13-20, 73-94, 97
e- Volscho, Thomas. "Sterilization Racism and  Pan-Ethnic Disparities of  the Past Decade: The Continued Encroachment on  Reproductive Rights".  Wicazo Sa Review. 25 (1): 17–31.  doi:10.1353/wic.0.0053.
f- "Forced Sterilization of Native Americans". Encylopedia JRank.  http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/articles/pages/6242/Forced-Sterilization-of-Native-Americans.html
g- "Native Voices". NLM.  https://www.nlm.nih.gov/nativevoices/timeline/543.html     "Investigation of Allegations Concerning Indian Health Service"   (PDF). Government Accountability Office. November 4, 1976. Retrieved May   29, 2015.   https://www.gao.gov/assets/120/117355.pdf
h- Ralstin-Lewis, D. Marie (2005). "The  Continuing Struggle against  Genocide: Indigenous Women's Reproductive  Rights". Wicazo Sa Review. 20  (2): 71.
i- Lawrence, Jane (2000). "The Sterilization of Native American Women". American Indian   Quarterly. 24 (3): 402.
j- Volscho, Thomas (2010). "Sterilization  Racism and Pan-Ethnic  Disparities of the Past Decade: The Continued  Encroachment on  Reproductive Rights". Wicazo Sa Review. 25 (1).
k- Kelly, Mary E. (1979). "Sterilization Abuse: A Proposed Regulatory Scheme". De Paul Law Review. 28 (3): 733.
l-  Lawrence, Jane (2000). "The Indian Health  Service and the  Sterilization of Native American Women". American Indian  Quarterly. 24  (3): 409.
m- Lawrence, Jane (2000). "The Indian Health  Service and the  Sterilization of Native American Women". American Indian  Quarterly. 24  (3).
n- [Carpio, Myla (2004). "The Lost Generation: American Indian and Sterilization Abuse". Social Justice. 31 (4): 50.]
o- Peal, Tiesha. "The Continuing Sterilization of the Undesirables in America". Rutgers Race and the Law Review. 6 (1): 234.




“
That a  war of extermination will continue to be waged between the two races  until the Indian race becomes extinct, must be expected. While we cannot  anticipate the result with but painful regret, the inevitable destiny  of the race is beyond the power and wisdom of man to avert.
”

— —From California governor Peter Hardeman Burnett's Second Annual Message to the Legislature, January 7, 1851:


[/QUOTE]

----------


## r3volution 3.0

Vulgar pseudo-intellectuals such as Molyneux address this topic only to get page views for their nationalist pablum.

The history of the pre-Columbian Indians is uninteresting, in my opinion, and in Molyneux's.

----------


## Krugminator2

> *Yes there was a Native American genocide, look no further than California to see where it happened:*
> 
> The extermination of California Indians was advocated, incentivized  and endorsed by many of California statehood's political leaders.  California governor Peter Burnett even openly predicted a "war of  extermination:" 
> 
> 
> 
> That a  war of extermination will continue to be waged between the two races  until the Indian race becomes extinct, must be expected. While we cannot  anticipate the result with but painful regret, the inevitable destiny  of the race is beyond the power and wisdom of man to avert.
> 
> 
>  From California governor Peter Hardeman Burnett's Second Annual Message to the Legislature, January 7, 1851:


It sounds like you are unfamiliar with the legal term justifiable genocide.

----------


## idiom

Good vid on how the Haudenosaunee confederacy had minority protections built into their governing structure, using a very simple extended family metaphor.

----------

