>the Dutch
Northeast Indians primarily just took captives. It was the red men on the Plains who scalped
And even if that were true, fricking based. Frick the eternal anglo who perpetually hides away on his stupid little island
Hang on a second. This his IQfy so let's talk history.
1. No real proof of native ownership has been proven; since most of them got it by taking over from other tribes. I can go back 12,000 years in my area to the people who first settled here. So no, a cluster of families don't automatically get to call dibs on an entire continent.
2. The myth that all land was stolen was created in the 1970's, as part of the merging of the western-Buddhist and native-secret-knowledge crowd. Fact is, in many if not most cases, the native tribes (at least those claiming ownership) agreed to sell for a price, and then accepted payment.
3. They are also not entirely innocent themselves. Following their accepting payment for the land which now makes up southeast Michigan; the natives "changed their minds" a few years later, going from farm to farm killing every man woman and child.
4. Before during and after, they also repeatedly took sides and later betrayed alliances with the French, British, and Americans.
We can move on to your population estimates if you want.
No people is as morally unscrupulous and morally pretentious as Anglo-Saxons. No people other people is as insistent on the fact that they dindunuffin and entire continents just happened to get depopulated whenever they showed up. Anglo-Saxons actually used to boast about this though back when it was 'moral':
>The Anglo-Saxon is the only extirpating race on earth. Up to the commencement of the now inevitable destruction of the Red Indians of Central North America, of the Maories, and of the Australians by the English colonists, no numerous race had ever been blotted out by an invader. The Danes and Saxons amalgamated with the Britons, the Normans with the English, the Tartars with the Chinese, the Goths and Burgundians with the Gauls: the Spaniards not only never annihilated a people, but have themselves been all but completely expelled by the Indians, in Mexico and South America. The Portuguese in Ceylon, the Dutch in Java, the French in Canada and Algeria, have conquered but not killed off the native peoples. Hitherto it has been nature‘s rule, that the race that peopled a country in the earliest historic days should people it to the end of time. The American problem is this: does the law, in a modified shape, hold good, in spite of the destruction of the native population? Is it true that the Black folks, now that they are free, are commencing slowly to die out? that the New Englanders are dying fast, and their places being supplied by immigrants? Can the English in America, in the long run, survive the common fate of all migrating races? Is it true that, if the American settlers continue to exist, it will be at the price of being no longer English, but Red Indian? It is certain that the English families long in the land have the features of the extirpated race; on the other hand, in the Black folks there is at present no trace of any change, save in their becoming dark brown instead of black.
Charles Wentworth Dilke, Greater Britain (London, 1869).
But I thought a group of people moving into an area and simply having more children than the native population wasn't genocide? That's what I'm told today regarding the myth of white genocide.
In my reading of American history, the group I identified with the most are the original colonists. I think I finally understand why. As the child of immigrants, I myself am a colonizer of this country. I too am a colonist, and when I read the history of William Penn or the Pilgrims, I was reading about my fathers, people infinitely closer to me than to their biological descendants.
Once I looked through current American cultural dynamics in this way everything made sense. We immigrants/nonwhites/POC are colonists and the white population are the Native Americans. Their spergouts, mass shootings, etc. are the exact same as native uprisings in the 1800s. The end will be the same too. I suppose after a while my descendants will face the same fate. Everyone colonizes America, and everyone is colonized.
Yes, I am. Who is the colonist: you who has rested on the laurels of men and women greater than you who have long since passed, or me, the one establishing a foothold in this land? You are the Aztec, I am Cortes.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>establishing a foothold
There is a big difference between coming to a savage land and taming it vs moving to the city and going on welfare.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I said your ancestors were great. Their descendants, not so much.
Yes, but actually no since the communists were worse.
No I don't need to provide evidence or statistics, I can just say it and say you're a communist and say a public option for healthcare is communism and that by trying to set one up you support the mass genocide of millions.
In terms of numbers of lives lost communists were absolutely the most destructive force in human history, with the only competitors being Christianity and Islam.
>nnnooooooo!! not my le heckin based scalpingerino injuns!!!
Should have happened sooner
To be fair... the dutch are taught the natives to scalp people because they put a price on the head of englishmen.
>the Dutch
Northeast Indians primarily just took captives. It was the red men on the Plains who scalped
And even if that were true, fricking based. Frick the eternal anglo who perpetually hides away on his stupid little island
Silence swamp anglo. Go flood yourself to escape the wrath of your continental betters.
But it was cool and that's what matters, plus we have such great places as Harlan, Iowa.
And Schuyler, Nebraska. Because of it.
>around 400,000 people die of the sniffles
>"genocide"
Depends. are going by total killed? Highest proportion killed? or most killed for a specific reason?
Countless millions dead
Entire cultures destroyed
Empowered white supremcism to the present day
Inconceivably based, that's awesome
Show us the millions of dead bodies that were killed specifically from genocide.
Hang on a second. This his IQfy so let's talk history.
1. No real proof of native ownership has been proven; since most of them got it by taking over from other tribes. I can go back 12,000 years in my area to the people who first settled here. So no, a cluster of families don't automatically get to call dibs on an entire continent.
2. The myth that all land was stolen was created in the 1970's, as part of the merging of the western-Buddhist and native-secret-knowledge crowd. Fact is, in many if not most cases, the native tribes (at least those claiming ownership) agreed to sell for a price, and then accepted payment.
3. They are also not entirely innocent themselves. Following their accepting payment for the land which now makes up southeast Michigan; the natives "changed their minds" a few years later, going from farm to farm killing every man woman and child.
4. Before during and after, they also repeatedly took sides and later betrayed alliances with the French, British, and Americans.
We can move on to your population estimates if you want.
>trail of tears
>Christianization
Step up your revisionism, bro.
No people is as morally unscrupulous and morally pretentious as Anglo-Saxons. No people other people is as insistent on the fact that they dindunuffin and entire continents just happened to get depopulated whenever they showed up. Anglo-Saxons actually used to boast about this though back when it was 'moral':
>The Anglo-Saxon is the only extirpating race on earth. Up to the commencement of the now inevitable destruction of the Red Indians of Central North America, of the Maories, and of the Australians by the English colonists, no numerous race had ever been blotted out by an invader. The Danes and Saxons amalgamated with the Britons, the Normans with the English, the Tartars with the Chinese, the Goths and Burgundians with the Gauls: the Spaniards not only never annihilated a people, but have themselves been all but completely expelled by the Indians, in Mexico and South America. The Portuguese in Ceylon, the Dutch in Java, the French in Canada and Algeria, have conquered but not killed off the native peoples. Hitherto it has been nature‘s rule, that the race that peopled a country in the earliest historic days should people it to the end of time. The American problem is this: does the law, in a modified shape, hold good, in spite of the destruction of the native population? Is it true that the Black folks, now that they are free, are commencing slowly to die out? that the New Englanders are dying fast, and their places being supplied by immigrants? Can the English in America, in the long run, survive the common fate of all migrating races? Is it true that, if the American settlers continue to exist, it will be at the price of being no longer English, but Red Indian? It is certain that the English families long in the land have the features of the extirpated race; on the other hand, in the Black folks there is at present no trace of any change, save in their becoming dark brown instead of black.
Charles Wentworth Dilke, Greater Britain (London, 1869).
Done lying?
RIP Trevor Moore
>It was so bad they killed several time more injuns then what physically existed.
The brap barns existed lel
The bar kokhba revolt: Tonto boogaloo
>Countless millions dead
That happened before manifest destiny
Wrong. That would be the Holocaust. Cope and seethe Injun.
Reported
But I thought a group of people moving into an area and simply having more children than the native population wasn't genocide? That's what I'm told today regarding the myth of white genocide.
You say white genocide like it's a bad thing.
In my reading of American history, the group I identified with the most are the original colonists. I think I finally understand why. As the child of immigrants, I myself am a colonizer of this country. I too am a colonist, and when I read the history of William Penn or the Pilgrims, I was reading about my fathers, people infinitely closer to me than to their biological descendants.
Once I looked through current American cultural dynamics in this way everything made sense. We immigrants/nonwhites/POC are colonists and the white population are the Native Americans. Their spergouts, mass shootings, etc. are the exact same as native uprisings in the 1800s. The end will be the same too. I suppose after a while my descendants will face the same fate. Everyone colonizes America, and everyone is colonized.
>WE WUZ PURITANS N SHIT
can't make this shit up
Yes, I am. Who is the colonist: you who has rested on the laurels of men and women greater than you who have long since passed, or me, the one establishing a foothold in this land? You are the Aztec, I am Cortes.
>establishing a foothold
There is a big difference between coming to a savage land and taming it vs moving to the city and going on welfare.
I said your ancestors were great. Their descendants, not so much.
>The worst in history
OP you're moronic
Report it. Honestly this board needs to have basic standards again.
yes
It could have been worse but ultimately not complaining because magic computer box
.t injun
Never happen and they deserved it
They should've went south and conquered Central and South America as well.
Yes, but actually no since the communists were worse.
No I don't need to provide evidence or statistics, I can just say it and say you're a communist and say a public option for healthcare is communism and that by trying to set one up you support the mass genocide of millions.
In terms of numbers of lives lost communists were absolutely the most destructive force in human history, with the only competitors being Christianity and Islam.
I think that guy is just talking about how people on Fox News or whatever say that anybody to the left of Edmund Burke wants millions of people to die
You mean the best.
What we did to some tribes like the Comanchee was unironically a self-defense genocide.