When will the Sioux get their revenge for the US breaking the treaties of Fort Laramie?

When will the Sioux get their revenge for the US breaking the treaties of Fort Laramie?

Midnight bump

Indians were all savages who scalped, raped, and fought over petty issues constantly. The idea that any European was not only right but also justified by the actions and morals of the Indians is ludicrous. The Indians were not noble savages in tune with nature, they were just savages.

Tell you what, we'll send you a couple cases of whiskey and call it even.

Sounds like a strawman to me

Amerindians had a higher development rate compared to europeans. How is this hard to get?

Not the Sioux.

They can help us burn Washington DC to the ground in Round 2

And by send I mean sell, on credit.

>Southern USA
>Not a Third World Sewer Culture.

???

How do you reckon? Everyone started at exactly the same time, remember.

I desperately want the South to attempt civil war round 2 so that we can finish the job that Caesar started.

The Incas did. The rest of the Amerindians were savages.

Wrong. North-Amerindians had a great start and the massive extended floods destroyed and delayed north-American development for 1 millenia at least. As the neolithic phase started 1kyears after South-Amerindians and MesoAmerindians.
>30000 BC europeans already had early gravettian toolkit
>amerindians show protogravettian toolkit dated from 14000BC
There were no Amerindians in 30000BC and there were already europeans in 40000BC.

Amerindians had a higher development rate compared to europeans. Deal with it.

Then you believe that Amerindians appeared from nowhere? Both populations are ultimately descended from the same population.

If we take 30,000 BC as the date, then we can say that the ancestors of Amerindians developed slower up until then. Does this fact prove anything about which population is superior?

>higher development rate
>stayed at a bronze age level until the 16th century

What did he mean by this?

>does this fact about non-amerindians
Amerindians started existing in 25000BC forward.

And Amerindians have demonstrated a higher development rate compared to europeans.
>appeared from nowhere
Appeared from non-Amerindians which features were non-Amerindians, and their achievements aren't something Amerindians don't have any right to claim as theirs.

>reached the bronze age from gravettian toolkit in 15000 years meanwhile europeans spent 26000 years doing the same
I meant that Amerindians had a higher development rate compared to europeans. Get over it.

The Sioux were literal nomadic retards who didn't even have metalworking or permanent settlements until white people introduced them, they were just running around and raping and killing others. After contact with the Europeans they kept doing the exact same shit except with guns and on horseback, until they got put down like the animals they were.
Even today, while there are some extremely rich and prosperous Indian reservations (mostly in Arizona and Minnesota), the retarded Lakota Sioux reservations are worse than 3rd world countries, with murder rates higher than Detroit, infant mortality rates of African countries, sky-high unemployment, alcoholism, heroin use, obesity and diabetes. Everyone there is a fat fuck living on disability until he drops dead at 40 because his liver is petrified. Even niggers look like Hyperboreans compared to the Sioux.

Then Amerindians were reduced to no technology at all in 25000 BC?

See

Amerindian technology in 25000BC isn't recorded and we have no evidence from it. Yet it was obviously proto-gravettian the same as pre-30000BC europe. Some spear points are depicted of being mousterian like by some descriptions, and it's no wonder as they have more neanderthal blood than europeans.

Misquote? I was talking about the Sioux, not about all Amerindians. They had the development rate of exactly zero, they haven't progressed past the paleolithic.

Never because they're Native Americans and Native Americans rank with the all-time losers of history.

I thought we were talking about treaties established in the middle of 19th century?

Thank you for this; very enjoyable read. Do you have the source for this material?

>Implying the U.S will give all that prime farmland and nuclear silos to 50k injuns
as much as I wish the U.S would respect the treaties it won't ever happen.

>prime farmland
>South Cuckota
lol
The land isn't all that valuable now that all the gold has been mined, it's just that giving them independence would set a dangerous precedent. Otherwise there's no issue with it.

Realistically never, absent the US going a lot further left.

The quasi-autonomous status of reservations fucks Native American populations over a lot in terms of political representation; they get just enough sovereignty to be irrelevant in state politics, while simultaneously having the Feds bring the hammer down whenever they try to use that status to their advantage via things like tribes starting recreational marijuana programs to draw tourist dollars, selling off-roster handguns in California, etc.

lack the numbers and political power to meaningfully influence the federal government.

If reservations had their own house districts, it'd be a big help towards getting redress.

*destroys your entire race with less than 400 men*

>teehee c;

Exactly this. People are fucking retarded for seeing the reservation system as some kind of huge opportunity amerindians arent taking advantage of. Theyre sectioned off in irrelevant, worthless land and then give enough "sovereignty" to not have any significant representation in US politics.

Actually diseases destroyed the civilizations and doomed the populations for centuries.

When they stop drinking whisky. So never.

When we enter the Sixth World and Sioux shamans figure out how to thamaturgically weaponize their ghost dance rituals.

Civilization itself is a disease

>it's alright to be genocidal murderers because the people you killed didn't have the level of advancement you inherited from your ancestors

This. Why did the Sioux think rampaging through the American West raping, slaughtering, and genociding every Indian tribe was acceptable? And why the fuck did they think attacking the United States after the tribes they victimized ran to them for help was a smart idea?

Maybe when the niggers and spics come to slaughter us. If that never happens then never.

As soon as magic comes back into the world and the dragons take control of our banks and start running for president. So not soon enough.

savage is relative, you had european nations that were far more barbaric than the amerindians in warfare and in peacetime that lived during the same time period. the great lakes especially had practically no recorded human conflict in documented burials until ~800 AD.

Better question, who here will betray their race to get back at Drumph? Hint: meee

The mound builders you're showing off there practiced ritual human sacrifice, of men, women, and children.

Thats the Comanche user

Doesn't everyone?

>400 men + the combined forces of all the neighboring powers sick of the Aztec's shit

>redskins had a higher development rate than Europe
Nothing redskins did compares to the ERE.

Maybe once they put down the Jack Daniels.

Sure just as soon as they put down the Jack Daniels.

t. Jim Beam

That is because europeans were the first ones in north america. Solutrean Hypothesis. They came across by hugging the ice shelfs in the seas on canoes hunting seals and shit.

THe asians came over later on land bridges

Native Americans descend from both Solutreans and the Siberians, while Europeans descend from neither.

Solutreans happened after 22000BC. The hypothesis isn't plausible. The earliest proof of human presence is dated from 24000BC in alaska bluefish caves.

Central western asians spread to europe and siberia before being mongrelized probably before 25000 BC. That's the mostprobable explanation of such "haplogroups being shown in europe and America".

Human sacrifices is what makes civilisations great

>a literal empire of dirt
>great

t. Moishe Abramowitz

HERE
WE
GO
AGAIN

>Implying developmental rate is constant

Just give up

>eurangutans:
>from aurignacian proto-gravettian to solutrean:10000 years (30000BC-20000BC)
>from aurignacian-antelian to neolithic: 15000 years(30000BC-15000BC)
>from neolithic proto-agriculture societies to neolithic revolution: 6000 years (15000BC-9000BC)
>from neolithic revolution to copper and arsenical bronze: 4000 years (9000BC-5000BC)
>from neolithic revolution to bronze age and tin bronze: 5200 years (9000BC-3800BC)

>Amerindians:
>from aurignacian proto-gravettian to clovis: 4000 years (15000BC-11000BC)
>from aurignacian proto-gravettian to the start of crop development: 7000 years (15000BC-8000BC)
>from neolithic proto-agriculture societies to neolithic revolution: 5000 years (8000BC-3000BC)
>from neolithic revolution to copper and arsenical bronze independently: 2000 years (3000BC-1000BC)
>from neolithic revolution to bronze age and tin bronze: 4000 years (3000BC-1000 AD)
Not only Amerindians had a higher development rate in an holistic POV, but also with lithic transition and social change frames of reference.

Amerindians had a higher development rate compared to europeans. How is this hard to get?

t. John Chivington

Yea but their higher devolopment rate was mainly attributed to the Fino-Korean hyper war, so you can't give them all the credit