Skip to comments.No, It Wasn't French vs. Indians
Posted on 01/01/2005 6:44:12 AM PST by Pharmboy
click here to read article
Your history books were written by white men. Indians did not write their side of the story down. There is a bias by the authors of your books. Books can be made to say anything.
I'm (more or less) on your side on this one. French and Indian atrocities have been remembered and nursed in America.
English/American atrocities against the other two groups have been forgotten.
The same thing is true of Indians, of course. They tend to remember the atrocities committed against them, not those they committed.
I believe it's called human nature.
Okay, so he was prejudiced. At least he was honest.
So, the Indians would have no bias?
Besides, which Indians? The ones who sided with the French or the ones who sided with the English?
Or the ones who wanted to stay out of it?
So, which ones are you referring to?
Or do you eman the fictional Indian who never went to war or ever did anything wrong and ate clean, pure water and was at one with nature?
I can't speak for any of the other American Indians around here, but my people remember both those we committed, and those against us...
Good God, I hope not!!!
Never said we didn't have a bias.It is human nature. Just pointing out the fact that the books of which you are so fond of is slanted toward the English point of view.
Take your pick of any group.Whichever one you pick, the end results are the same. The history books are written by the white man.
Of the books I have read, I dont remember any cases of canibalism by Amrican Indians.
Gross stuff, sure, but I dont remember any canabilism.
Concerning bio-warfare, how many times?
Jeffrey Amherst is a singular incident, while the attacks on New England farmhouses were in the hundreds.
I am curious, what has animated you to revisit this thread three months later?
Why has this been revived three months later?
True. The Amherst incident was an attempt at Genocide, whereas the attacks on New England Farmmhouses, with were usually happening at the same time as attacks on indian villages, were part of warfare...
That being said, there were good and bad on both sides. The indians certainly were far from perfect, and committed our share of attrocities - I know that and you know that - however, some people seem to think that it was only indians that committed attrocities - and you and I both know that is patently false.
How ya been, by the way? Havn't seen you around much. Things good? :)
I was just reading up on what this site is all about. It is all new to me. Say, what is the definition of trolls on this site. Thank you.
s Any other application is misplaced in a marketplace of ideas.
Umm, no, they were attempts at GENOCIDE, they were trying to wipe out ALL the white men and women, and it started DECADES before the French and Indian Wars of the 1700's, in fact, the first attempt to wipe out the White settlers happened 2 years after Plymouth Rock, when the Pilgrims discovered a plot of the 4 surrounding tribes planning to wipe them out just because they were white.
Jeffrey Amherst did that Smallpox blanket thing to only one tribe, he didn't do it more than once, and he didn't do it to multiple tribes in multiple states, while the Indians of New England tried to kill the settlers in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island.
My personal belief, is that because of the murders and ambushes of the 1600's and early 1700's by the New England and Virginia Indians, all Indians who were seen after that were immediately considered the enemy.
One scary thought I can imagine, is a friendly Indian, calmly walking down the street in the town he was raised near, dressed as an Indian, coming in to town to trade furs or whatever with the townfolk he grew up next to, is suddenly seen by a European immigrant, his FIRST Indian sighting, and because of the $.10 novels he read on the boat ride, thinks ALL Indians are evil, and then shoots that friendly Indian.
In fact, I would be willing to bet that those incidents certainly colored all treaties with every tribe afterwards, there was no consideration of the individual tribes or 'Nation' of Indians as they thought of themselves.
Somebody pinged me, I didnt even go back and read what I previously posted, I was wondering why I was pinged myself! :)
Well, he had an interesting life.
Several excellent books and "historical novels" about the history of relations between the North American Indians and new settlers from Europe and elsewhere.
BTW, some Indians did write down what were their thoughts and remembrances. Several knew and spoke English and French very well.
As to the beginning of the French and Indian War, events began with the work done by the French, on an expedition down the Ohio River valley, during which they planted several large lead tablets, on which were inscribed, declarations of the realm of his Most Christian King.
The British Crown objected to that intrusion [in its view] and to the additional expeditions by the French, intended to establish a system of forts and trading posts in defense of the claims.
George Washington was given the assignment of passing the word to the French.
He really did lead a most interesting and important life. And, one of the most fascinating things about him is that his second love (after Martha) was his farm.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.