Should Native Americans apologize to white settlers?

Jan. 21, 2019

Maybe I missed it.
But I’m still waiting for an apology from Native Americans for the murder innocent settlers, the rape of their women and the abduction of their children.

It’s only fair.

We hear a lot of revisionists tell us how bad Columbus was, as they tear down his statue.

Many of the same people who celebrate Sherman and Sheridan for how well they butchered the south during the American Civil War, suddenly find the same behavior appalling when inflicted on Native Americans.

These liberal revisionists hardly mention the innocent settlers murdered, scalped, raped or abducted except to justify such atrocities by claiming white men did these things first.

Many of these accusing liberal fingers point to Columbus as the guilty party, the guy who started it all, the one should get lynched his misdeeds.

It’s for this reason the fighting Irish of Notre Dame turned into whimpering wimps and removed references to Columbus – even covering over a mural that depicted him on their campus.

Perhaps this was done out of guilt for the role we Irish played in protecting innocent settlers from murder, rape, scaping a few centuries after Columbus.

For the most part we are seeing white liberals feeling guilt for actions designed to protect innocent people from harm in what became an escalating series of atrocities committed by both sides.

Radical African Americans groups appear to be seeking any way possible to cast blame on whites no matter what century.

Some of what liberal and black groups say may even be accurate in a narrow interpretation of history.

A significant amount of what liberals believe is myth (or deliberate lies) built on the back on some atrocities while ignoring others.

The left tends to do this with everything from slavery and the civil war to urban crime, making heroes out of morally challenged characters by using misinformation as fact.

This is not to exonerate Columbus, who clearly ignored the humanity of the natives he encountered on his arrival, but to point out how selective liberals are when it comes to history, picking which facts to consider relevant and which facts - inconvenient to their preconceived notions -- to ignore.

Columbus was clearly a man of his time, someone whose interests were financial – just as the blacks who sold blacks to northern slave traders to be sold in the South centuries later – were.

But Columbus was no mass-murderer.

Native Americans perished due largely to their lack of resistance to diseases carried from Europe to the Americas (much as the Marians in Well’s War of the Worlds). Well over 65 percent of Native Americans perished due to disease.

Not only did this decimate whole tribes but brought down what some consider very viable Native American cultures, many of which were forced back into a survival mode and to some degree violence against themselves and against the white Europeans with whom they were forced to compete for rare resources.

Liberals like to say white settles stole land from Native Americans. This may have been true later in history – especially when it came to lands containing gold. But it was not true early on.

Native Americans did not understand property ownership and assumed whites were crazy thinking they could own land or sky.

This is where the term Indian giver derived.

Since native Americans did not believe anyone could own land or sky, simply took it back   needless to say this led to numerous conflicts. 

Columbus did not inspire this clash of culture. He was caught in the middle of it -- something liberal revisionists refuse to understand so caught up in their own inflated sense of self-righteousness.  They judge him and that time based on their own skewed world view in which Indians are victims of white aggression -- something only partially true.

Whites for a good part fled European oppression and unfortunate carried some oppression with them. 

Survival bread a kind of viciousness that is not acceptable in a civilized society. But liberals who live in the protected little cocoons here in modern times far from any need for survival instincts -- do not understand that because they don't have to survive in the same way.

As in all cultural clashes both whites and Indians fought for necessities and the fact that bloodshed leads to more bloodshed, these conflicts escalated it to a kind of hatred on both sides.

While liberal groups try to paint white Europeans as racists, the truth is that Indians hated whites such as much as whites hated Indians, and both sides had justification for this hatred. Atrocities on both sides lead to more atrocities until both sides he hated each other so much that slaughter was inevitable.  

And since Europeans brought advanced technology that Native American lacked, the handwriting was on the wall long before whites moved west.

Unfortunately, Europe racked with wars brought those conflicts to these shores and Indians had to pick sides.

This was particularly true in the misnamed “French and Indian War.”

Tribes with the British and the French, in a war that largely decided western expansion.

While Native Americans might have won temporary reprieve had the French been victorious, you must remember the French in Haiti were responsible for the worst atrocities of the slave trade. Some historians believe that Native Americans became targets because they resisted becoming slaves – The French could not tear apart families and tribes in America as they did with the blacks in Haiti.

The war was over land management. The French wanted open land for fur and other trade. The British wanted settlements.

the British victory eventually allowed settlers to expand into the Ohio valley marking the start of western expansion, and an increase in conflict and savagery, as Native Americans – squeezed out of traditional territories began a campaign of murder, rape and abductions against settlers.

People like Daniel Boone – who like Columbus – has become an enemy of contemporary liberals – helped protect settlers.

But the war and continued new settlements in the east inevitably drove Indian tribes farther west. Many of the tribes we associate with the west originated along the east coast. 

Expansion west exasperated the violence not just between whites and Indians but Indians with Indians who displaced other tribes.

Indian on Indian violence was nothing new. Tribes wage war on each other long before Columbus. But pressure by increasing white populations made the situation worse as tribes and whites engaged in an ever-escalating competition for a shrinking territory. Despite the wealth of the West there was little resources enough for all of these groups -- whites, Indians and even the Mexicans -- who were being pushed around in and out of California.

Liberals like to recreate history of the unpopular war with Mexico that eventually led to Texas becoming a state, turning the tyranny of people like Santa Ana into some heroic ethnic effort against whites – while turning people like Sam Houston and Davey Crockett into exploiters, rather than people dedicated to protecting settlers and settlements. This also figures into the north-south conflict and the eventual American Civil War.

The north’s victory led to an even more serious move of settlers west, freed slaves, former southern seeking to escape the tyranny of reconstruction, but most of all, northern families seeking to take advantage of earlier expansion such as the Louisiana Purchase and the equally controversial explorations of Lewis and Clark.

These spelled the doom of Indian way of life – although in truth these were the concluding chapters in a doomed spelled out from the end of the French and Indian Wars.

Settlers saw Indians for the most part as savages, partly because of the increasing atrocities. Unfortunately, America today has returned to the misconception of the noble savage and American Indians have been made to look like victims of genocide. This misses the point entirely. Hated of Indians was based less on overt prejudice than terror.

In retribution for evil gold diggers and an over aggressive military, Indians struck back at settlers, who demanded protection.

The gold rush was indeed a horrible exploitation of Indian, Mexicans and Chinese but the war against the Indians after the civil war was not over gold but to protect settlers who had begun moving west.

Sheridan saw the conflict with the Indians in the same light as the war with the south and so applied the same tactics.

Northern soldiers raped and pillaged the south as part of a campaign to break the southern spirit and bring to conclusion the war between the states.

Sheridan saw no reason not to apply the same tactics in the west and even order the destruction of buffalo in hopes to starve the Indians into submission.

The irony in all this is that liberals brainwashed on misinformation about slavery in the South will forever make these bastards – Sherman, Grant and Sheridan -- into heroes for brutalizing the Confederacy and then equally brainwashed by misinformation about American Indian painted these three scoundrels as the vanguard of white genocide against Indians.

Liberals are perfectly willing to forgive American Indians for murder, scalping, rape and kidnapping and yet are unwilling to forgive Columbus who did much less.

Columbus has become a scapegoat partly out of his ignorance and arrogance that liberals find Unforgivable well still tolerating mass Slaughter by American Indians who they revere.

Liberals also ignore the fact that it was not Abe Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, JFK, LBJ or Obama that gave the most land back to Native Americans – but President Richard Nixon. And you can see just how much respect these liberals have for Nixon.

As I pointed out earlier, I'm still waiting for an apology as one of the descendants of settlers who were murdered, raped, scalped or kidnapped.

But I won't hold my breath cuz I know it will never come.