In remembrance of the Native American Genocide

@albusan: I did not denounce anyone's right to celebrating a family holiday. Do not attribute claims to me I never made. Everyone likes a good celebration, but it's pretense can easily be challenged with the truth. The truth may not necessarily bring celebration, but that's not the point of it.

Nice guys finish last.

Native Americans weren't nice. They retaliated.

You're just denouncing the point of the celebration by bringing uglyness that has nothing to do with families coming together to give thanks. That is all you're doing and whatever point you have is to depress people over crimes to humanity that happened in a different century. What is your point to show you know some history anybody with teh internet could find out?

Nope. You need to stop claiming ''you're just doing ____'' and ''that's all you're doing'' because you're making up claims. People can have a Holiday but the pretense behind it and emphasis on relations between settlers and Native Americans is superficial. While the settlers thanked God, they subsequently said in the name of God that they had the right to take away the land of the Native Americans, slaughtered them and threw them into the slave trade; there are also many (full-blooded) Native Americans living today who do voice similar views, are they to be unheard of? Your ''happened in a different century'' comment is meaningless because Thanksgiving story happened in a different century too.

Again you make no point your "but the pretense behind it and emphasis on relations between settlers and Native Americans is superficial" is a ridiculous claim. It's not the point of Thanksgiving in anyones family. No one is celebrating because of the pilgims, no one talks about it as an important part of why we have Thanksgiving. You have a false pretense that anyone thinks about the pilgrims thanksgiving with the Native Americans as apart of the day of Thanks. Again your an outsider making false claims with zero experience on foreign customs.

No, your blog is not accurate. The first Thanksgiving took place in 1621. Manifest Destiny became a popular philosophy nearly two hundred years later. It was popularized in large part by Andrew Jackson, the first member of the Democrat Party. Now if you want to correct history, you could do a great post on how the Democrat Party was founded on a man who paved the way and did a good part himself on betraying and slaughtering the Native American population, but of course it would be dumb to try to act as if the actions of Jackson two hundred years ago has much impact on the current Democrat Party just as it is less than intelligent for you to act as if the actions of the Pilgrims on Thanksgiving have anything to with the policies of Manifest Destiny which happened two hundred years after Pilgrim times.

You claim the Pilgrims intentionally spread smallpox. Prove it.

Your slave owner simile is completely off because the slave owner is currently doing something horrible by owning a slave. The Pilgrims did everything right in their interactions with Native Americans on Thanksgiving. I have no doubt that some dirt bag Pilgrims murdered some Native Americans at some point, and I'm sure there were some douchebag Native Americans who murdered whities as well, but Thanksgiving was a day of celebration and a day to be remembered fondly, and the Pilgrims were not responsible for the genocide you attribute to them.

Acting as if the European settlers were always just in their actions towards the Native Americans is sugarcoating history, but saying Thanksgiving had anything to do with Native American genocide is crap coating history by lying and twisting a great thing to make it appear evil.

And now lets take some time to think of the millions of Africans and Indians that died because of the Europeans.

@batwatch:

No, your blog is not accurate. The first Thanksgiving took place in 1621. Manifest Destiny became a popular philosophy nearly two hundred years later. It was popularized in large part by Andrew Jackson, the first member of the Democrat Party. Now if you want to correct history, you could do a great post on how the Democrat Party was founded on a man who paved the way and did a good part himself on betraying and slaughtering the Native American population, but of course it would be dumb to try to act as if the actions of Jackson two hundred years ago has much impact on the current Democrat Party just as it is less than intelligent for you to act as if the actions of the Pilgrims on Thanksgiving have anything to with the policies of Manifest Destiny which happened two hundred years after Pilgrim times.

You claim the Pilgrims intentionally spread smallpox. Prove it.

Your slave owner simile is completely off because the slave owner is currently doing something horrible by owning a slave. The Pilgrims did everything right in their interactions with Native Americans on Thanksgiving. I have no doubt that some dirt bag Pilgrims murdered some Native Americans at some point, and I'm sure there were some douchebag Native Americans who murdered whities as well, but Thanksgiving was a day of celebration and a day to be remembered fondly, and the Pilgrims were not responsible for the genocide you attribute to them.

Acting as if the European settlers were always just in their actions towards the Native Americans is sugarcoating history, but saying Thanksgiving had anything to do with Native American genocide is crap coating history by lying and twisting a great thing to make it appear evil.

My blog is accurate. You are making the mistake of me directly associating the 17th Century settlers with the Native Americans, however this was clearly not my intention. My argument was to illustrate the relations between the settlers and Native Americans over time. Stop associating false arguments to me which I never made.

You have acknowledged that the settlers thanked God. I am informing you that Manifest Destiny was also cited after Thanksgiving. The concept of God was also twisted by the settlers to justify slaughter and colonization. The problem with your Democrat analogy is that Democrats now; are of the 21st Century. Times have changed and an African American leads them, which would be unthinkable in a previous era. The relevance of the settlers using Manifest Destiny that is Manifest Destiny was used after Thanksgiving. That is the point. Society did not progress; had Manifest Destiny been initially cited in the 17th Century and then Thanksgiving occurred in the 19th, you could argue that society did progress with the message of Thanksgiving, but it didn't. That's the point. The Europeans were not thankful and instead greedily took the land of the Natives. This is why my example is relevant:

It's akin to a slave owner saying to his slave '''Hey, remember that time where I gave you that first day off?'' and neglecting to mention the subsequent years of torture, suffering and oppression.

Will the slave celebrate that first day or instead grieve over the subsequent years of suffering? No wonder some Native Americans attribute the term 'Thanksgrieving'.

I have already cited factual evidence from the British General. But here is more:

Bioterrorist Threats: Potential Agents and Theoretical Preparedness

Dr. John Bartlett filled in for Peter Jahrling of USAMRIID for a segment devoted to one of the likely potential bioterrorist agents, smallpox.[2] The use of this agent to intentionally cause human disease dates back to 1754 during the French and Indian War, when infected blankets were given to Native Americans as a “token of good fortune.”

American Indian Prophecies. Kurt Kaltreider, PH.D. pp. 66-67

In 1779, George Washington sent orders to General John Sullivan concerning the need to attack and destroy the Iroquois Nations.

“The immediate objects are total destruction of their settlements, and capture of as many prisoners of every age and sex possible -”

Washington was also an advocate of germ warfare, first introduced by Sir Jeffery Amherst after whom the town of Amherst, Massachusetts, and Amherst College are named. The idea of germ warfare with smallpox was suggested to Colonel Henry Bouquet, after which Colonel Bouquet wrote back:

“I will try to inoculate the [Indians] with some blankets that may fall into their hands, and take care not to get the disease myself. As it is pity to expose good men against then, I wish we could make use of the Spanish method, to hunt them with English dogs, supported by rangers and some light horse, who would, I think, effectually extirpate or remove the vermin.”

About 60 years later, Andrew Jackson took Colonel Bouquet’s advice in his war against the Seminoles.

First Nation History. Daniel M. Paul

The following is an excellent example of their racist mentality in action. In July 1763, General Jeffery Amherst, the Commander-in-Chief of British forces in North America, sent a memo to Colonel Henry Bouquet, a Huguenot in the service of England, asking:

“Could it not be contrived to send the Smallpox among the disaffected Tribes of Indians?”

Bouquet replied: “I will try to inoculate the Indians with some blankets that may fall into their hands, and take care not to get the disease myself.”

My slave example is 100% accurate and relevant. Ignoring the subsequent years of Thanksgiving is ignorant because Thanksgiving, does indeed glorify one specific time point.

@noone301994: Distasteful.

Thats true. Americans are in fact much worse than the Hitler. In fact, 2x worse.

@frozen said:

This stuff happens, the weaker civilizations get taken over by the stronger civilizations. Why no mention of how many times Rome took over nearby villages and peoples? It is just how things happen.

It does happen, we saw it in the Holocaust, Nazi state vs the people, so let's remember the evil genocide which took place.

@frozen: why? Why should we take this specific "land grab" over others? Do you remember every genocide of this scale in history? Do you remember every war, every massacre? It doesn't serve a purpose in my opinion, it isn't going to change history, nor is it going to stop human nature in the future. If this land was "unclaimed" by a superpower and you had to rid it of the natives to provide a home for your family in a overcrowded European area, or a potato famine etc... Would you not do it? The Indians were not going to hand over the land peacefully, and rightfully so. But I can understand our motives for taking the land over.

Repose en paix...

@frozen:

Maybe I have mistaken your intent. Are you saying the Native American genocide had anything to do with Thanksgiving or not? History clearly shows Thanksgiving was a great thing between Pilgrims and Native Americans, but every time someone point this out to you, you say, "Europeans killed Native Americans!" That's true, but the Pilgrims did not slaughter the Native Americans.

Regarding you exaggerating the genocide figure by ten times by including those who died from Smallpox, there was some intentional spreading of the disease such as the example found in the sources you mentioned, but all of those examples happened a hundred years after the Pilgrims and were during war which makes it a bit different.

An actual study of American history shows that most of the diseases Native Americans contracted was unintentionally spread through trade rather than through attack. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_disease_and_epidemics

In fact, there is only one recorded case of intentionally spreading smallpox, Bouquet.

I don't even know what your point is in saying Thanksgiving is relevant to the discussion of Native American genocide because manifest destiny happened later therefore society wasn't progressing. That's so convoluted, it's not worth taking apart. The truth is what is good is good regardless of what follows and what is bad is bad regardless of what follows. The Pilgrims did right by the Native Americans on Thanksgiving and in general, and trying to say that the holiday should be tarnished because Manifest Destiny happened two hundred years later is as silly as saying MLK Day is forever tarnished because of Ferguson and society's regression on racial tensions.

Because we deserve to pay respect to the people which the settlers slaughtered. It is often taught that America was built on freedom and liberty but this is simply not true. If we do not remember History then we are bound to repeat it. I don't know how many times that has been repeated but it's true.

America is the world's leading superpower (though slipping) thus it's History will undoubtedly have more scholars documenting it, however it is only one aspect of world history. I have extensive knowledge on other world-History, e.g. India's Independence, would you like me to make a thread on that? Or Disraeli's support for British Imperialism?

I can 'understand' the settlers motives but I do not sympathize with them in any regard (at-least in regards to the Natives, which we're discussing).Do you also sympathize with slavery? The Europeans took the Africans and made them as sub-human slaves. Their justification was that the white man was superior.

If we will cherry-pick Thanksgiving, let us not remember the subsequent years? Not complain. Not ask for a ''white guilt'' thread, but simply pay respects. As we pay respect for 9/11 victims. As we pay respect for slaves. As we pay respects for WWII death. Etc.

@frozen: A lot of the atrocities against Native Americans were before the country was formed. Why do you make this an American issue?

You certainly did. I am saying that the Native American genocide is one perspective which is linked to Thanksgiving. Thanksgiving on a general sense, does glorify and champion the relations between settlers and Natives. Were the settlers that killed the Natives the exact same people who had a Thanksgiving dinner with the Natives? No. But that would be a silly comparison, and certainly not one that I made. People, and Native Americans themselves (hence the term ''Thanksgrieving'') bring up the slaughter because it relates to the relations of the two races (I use the term 'races' as this is a time of great racial tension).

I did not exaggerate the figure. It is well documented that not only did settlers actively slaughter Native Americans during the 19th Century and take their land with 'Manifest Destiny' as their justification and eventually forced onto reservations; as well as encouragement of spreading of disease.

In regards to the biological warfare, it has actually been documented that the death spread through disease was praised in literature. With various references associating it with 'God's will'.

Your comment on my progression does not make sense. I specifically said:

The relevance of the settlers using Manifest Destiny that is Manifest Destiny was used after Thanksgiving. That is the point. Society did not progress; had Manifest Destiny been initially cited in the 17th Century and then Thanksgiving occurred in the 19th, you could argue that society did progress with the message of Thanksgiving, but it didn't. That's the point. The Europeans were not thankful and instead greedily took the land of the Natives. This is why my example is relevant:

This example was cited to illustrate that Native American-Settler relations got worse.

Your Ferguson example is utter garbage. You are comparing a series of riots occurring in a part of America to a slaughter and genocide so bad that millions were slaughtered, forced onto reservations and even sold as slaves. It is very ignorant to even string such a garbage example.

Before American settlement, the Native Americans were actually relatively fine. If you are referring to else-where atrocities across the world, I acknowledge them.

@frozen: No what I mean is when America was considered an actual country. The Plymouth colony, were not American, Spain, France and the English did a lot of the damage before USA was formed as a country. Some historians say the Native Americans had gone through a period of decline before the settlers actually came and they were weak already. Have you ever watched the movie Apocalypto?

@frozen: slavery is not the same as taking land. I do not sympathize with slavery in any regard. But I do sympathize with the Europeans that came over to this land as well as the native Americans. The native Americans lost their land due to the Europeans taking it, however, it is how humanity works. Bigger "powers" take over smaller ones, this is evident in almost every aspect of our lives, from nations to even businesses. While I would sympathize with a smaller business being overcome by a bigger one in terms of competition, it is overall for the better.

Basically what I am saying is what happened to the Indians allowed this great nation to be established, and while the means were gruesome, it is no different than many other country's origins. Most countries were started by a larger power expanding, and this is exactly what happened in this case.

Let me try this a different way. Is Thanksgiving a good thing? If not, why not?

Responding to your last post, let's just get the easy one out of the way. You are lying about your genocide numbers. 90% of the Native American deaths were due to disease the settlers could not help but spread. There was one case any only one case of settlers intentionally spreading smallpox blankets, but that was a hundred years after the foreign plagues unintentionally spread had wiped out huge amounts of Native Americans, so unless you are calling death by unintentionally spread disease genocide, you are willfully misleading people. I gave you an entire Wikipedia page backing this up. Your OP is 90% inaccurate.

Saying that Thanksgiving is linked to Native American genocide because they both deal with race relations is true. Indian casinos also link to Native American genocide in that they both deal with race relations. Why didn't you bring up the Indian Casinos? Should people take a moment of somber reflection before spending money in an Indian casino or is is really obnoxious to tarnish one with the other?

Thanksgiving was a good thing worthy of being celebrated wholeheartedly. You can always find something bad to link to something good if that is your goal. The question is, why have you made it your goal to bring down the festive nature of Thanksgiving?

The point of my example was not to compare the evil of Ferguson to the evil of Native American genocide but to compare the stupidity of associating Ferguson with MLK Day simply because Ferguson followed MLK Day and dealt with race relations to the stupidity of associating the Native American genocide with Thanksgiving just because the genocide followed Thanksgiving and dealt with race relations.

Thanksgiving was unabashedly good. I think it is shameful to try and make it into a bad thing.

If you sympathize with colonization which involves slaughter and ''Christianization'' then shame on you. The European settlers cited that it was God's will for the white man to conquer and take the land of the Native Americans because they were the superior race. Do you know what the settlers also did to the Natives? Like Africans, they sold them into slavery. From an economic standpoint and what-not, you could even make the argument that slavery advanced the structure of society, but from a moral standpoint, it is unethical and immoral.

Slavery also allowed for America to progress in some regards, but the fact is that it's so immoral and unethical. It's easy for us, in a society of consumerism to agree with what would happen because our empathy does not really (for most of the party) extend back that far.

@frozen: I thought African Kingdoms traded their own slaves to the West Europeans, not that they were captured

@batwatch: Trying it a different way is better because that Ferguson/Native American analogy left a bad taste in my mouth.

Try again. Read my posts --- I acknowledge that disease was a factor to why Native Americans died. As my posts progress, I acknowledge this and elaborate upon this. However, you are woefully cherry-picking what you want to read. You rather blatantly (and intentionally) ignored my statements of the fact that the disease killing the Natives was praised by pro-Manifest Destiny sentiment, and it was (legitimately) cited as evidence for ''God's will'' in literature at the time.

Saying that Thanksgiving is linked to Native American genocide because they both deal with race relations is true.

We're getting somewhere.

Indian casinos also link to Native American genocide in that they both deal with race relations. Why didn't you bring up the Indian Casinos? Should people take a moment of somber reflection before spending money in an Indian casino or is is really obnoxious to tarnish one with the other?

False. The 21st Century America, in terms of race-relations is very little in severity to what occurred in 19th Century America (though racism still exists). This above analogy has no credibility. It's akin to to the ''race guilt'' card which I vehemently denounced.

I have NOT brought it my goal to ''bring down'' Thanksgiving. Asking and asserting both a false question to my argument is not a valid argument. I specifically said that I encourage people to celebrate and have a good, family holiday. But to also pay respect to the Native American slaughter. I have noticed it is a tendency with you to ignore the 'Thanksgrieving' term which many full-blooded Native Americans (yes, they still exist) have attributed to it.

The problem with your argument is that it avoids the truth. I'm not making bad of anything, I'm simply pointing out what's true. But do you want the actual Native American perspective of Thanksgrieving? Because they have every right to voice their perspective on what happened to their people; hence many attribute the 'National Day of Mourning' to Thanksgiving.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Day_of_Mourning_%28United_States_protest%29

The United American Indians of New England (UAINE) organized their protest to bring publicity to the continued misrepresentation of Native American and colonial experience. They believed that people needed to be educated about what happened when the Pilgrims arrived in North America.

A century ago heavy immigration brought millions of southern and eastern Europeans to the United States. Educators and civic groups thought it necessary to assimilate the new citizens. The new arrivals were taught to view the Pilgrims as models for their own families. The tale of the "First Thanksgiving" was an essential element of this curriculum. The story of the Native Americans and Pilgrims sharing a meal of turkey became part of United States tradition. The story tells of the mutually beneficial relationship between these groups.

UAINE, by contrast, says that the Pilgrims did not find a new and empty land. Every inch of land they claimed was Indian land. They also say that the Pilgrims immigrated as part of a commercial venture and that they introduced sexism, racism, anti-homosexual bigotry, jails, and the class system.^[1]

Governor John Winthrop proclaimed the first official "Day of Thanksgiving" in 1637 to celebrate the return of men from the Pequot War in Mystic, Connecticut, in which colonists allied with Mohegan and Narragansett tribes to defeat the Pequot. More than 700 Pequot women, children, and men died in the war, which their descendants call a massacre. In 1863, during the American Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln authorized that the fourth Thursday of November be set aside to give thanks and praise for the nation's blessings. Thanksgiving became part of American culture.

UAINE believes that the Native American and colonial experience continue to be misrepresented. It asks why the "First Thanksgiving" was not celebrated or related back to the first colony at Jamestown. According to UAINE, the circumstances at Jamestown were too terrible to be used as a national myth. The settlers turned to cannibalism to survive. The UAINE used the National Day of Mourning to educate people about the history of the Wampanoag people. UAINE representatives say the only true element of the Thanksgiving story is that the pilgrims would not have survived their first years in New England without the aid of the Wampanoag.^[2]

Neither UAINE nor the National Day of Mourning are sponsored by Wampanoag tribal leadership, although the tribe does not discourage members from participating. In his November 2014 message to the tribe, Mashpee Wampanoag Chief Qaqeemasq wrote, "Historically, Thanksgiving represents our first encounter with the eventual erosion of our sovereignty and there is nothing wrong with mourning that loss. In fact, as long as we don’t wallow in regret and resentment, it’s healthy to mourn. It is a necessary part of the healing process."^[3]

Both. Extremely unfortunate that it was the former too.

which one happened more often? capture or trade?

@frozen: Pretty sure the Africans figured they were going to get their people captured anyway.

It's only better for those that can benefit from it.

I believe it was trade which occurred more frequently. Though as time progressed, more slaves in America were born into slavery through slave parents. European traders captured some Africans in raids along the coast though this was less than trading.

I guess that's something you'll never hear in the media

@modernww2fare: Well I was taught that when growing up. Mostly though, the need for trading with other tribes decreased.

@frozen: No wonder. They don't teach us that in the U.S. and I only found that out by researching it

@modernww2fare: Think it was equal.

I want sources then

@modernww2fare: No source saying it's majority trade.

@frozen: kudos to you on creating this thread. Thanksgiving and Columbus Day are built on lies. Those who cry about it being played out or saying its a day to be thankful because it feels god to them have their eyes wide shut.

I heard that the Irish were the "n*ggers"(Hell on Wheels) of the British Empire, especially in the early colonial days of America. Is this true?

Sometimes they don't finish at all.

@frozen: why is it shame on me to support colonization? It is because of that, such a great country is created (obviously my opinion). It is sad that native Americans were slaughtered for thier refusal to give up the land, but I accept that is the norm when a big nation expands.

@modernww2fare: yeah, they were also part of the slave trade, enslaved by the English in early colonization.

India went toe to toe with the Brits, and only a couple of traitors broke the stalemate, which led to the Indian enslavement. Spain ain't got nothin' on India.

@xlr87t3: Before 1588 Spain was as strong as the British empire.

So genocide is okay as long as the country is expanded?

Let me just end this before it gets any worse.

@jnr6lil: it isn't okay, but it is understandable. It is how all countries expand.

No, I wanna remember the genocide of the poor spirits that are chased away every Halloween.

@modernww2fare: I should bring up, if you're interested that King Kofi Karikari who threatened British West African colony of the Gold Coast (Ghana) in 1873 because he was angry with the British for ending slavery; he was pro-slavery (he was also black African) because slave trade kept him wealthy, the end of slavery in Britain 40 years prior was one of the motivating factors which led him to attempt to seize land. Britain went to war with him and defeated him within a year.

He was a black African king who condemned the white British for ending slavery.