Attrocities Committed By Native Americans?

What are atrocities committed by Native Americans? It's hard to find any information on this as I think SJWs want to deny and suppress this information!

Attached: Vanderlyn_McCrea.jpg (596x725, 117K)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ratcliffe_(governor)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crow_Creek_massacre
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_massacre_of_1622
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Wyoming
ohio.edu/orgs/glass/vol/1/14.htm
youtube.com/watch?v=K84c7NlZzno
books.google.com/books/about/Indian_slavery_in_the_Pacific_Northwest.html?id=I8lsAAAAMAAJ
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Nothing wrong with this pic. Punishing thots is a sign of true sophistication.

Generally any brutal raid on a village from the early Colonial days might be considered an atrocity The way they killed this guy

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ratcliffe_(governor)

may also be considered a war crime.

>In December 1609, Ratcliffe and 14 fellow colonists were invited to a gathering with the tribe of Powhatan Indians. The Powhatans promised the starving colonists would be given corn, but it was a trap. The colonists were ambushed. Ratcliffe suffered a particularly gruesome fate: he was tied to a stake in front of a fire. Women removed the skin from his entire body with mussel shells and tossed the pieces into the flame as he watched. They skinned his face last and finally burned him at stake

Following the battle of River Raisin, the bongs permitted their native buddies to slaughter and mutilate many dozens of wounded American soldiers lying on the battlefield, this after the bongs had threatened the fort Detroit commander that he'd turn loose the natives on the civilians if he didn't surrender the city. The Boers weren't the bongs' first white genocide rodeo, obviously.

>What are atrocities committed by Native Americans?

Don't kill all the whites when they had his chance.

SJW's are trying to censor history and its disgusting.

>It's hard to find any information on this
no it's not

>muh SJW conspiration
bait

Go back to /r/history you fucking loser

looked up one i knew about and apparently today is the anniversary

Attached: dakota uprising.jpg (722x848, 164K)

don't call me a r*dditor ever again faggot

nevermind im retarded

Often, they would slaughter settlers indiscriminately. Depends on the tribe, though. Saying “natives did this” or “natives” were treated this way is stupid

culteral marxist universities have done their best to censor the web of any attrocities done by minorities. They would scalp Europeans in great numbers before we introduced civilization to them.

Dey wuz oppressed by the (((red man))) amirite

The Crow Creek massacre
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crow_Creek_massacre

Granted this was native on native but same same thing. And I think there was another with Sioux and Pawnees.

Attached: crowcreek.png (1920x1080, 1.06M)

This.
You might as well look for genocides commited by Eurasians, and use that as proof as why all Eurasians deserved to be genocided from Turko-Mongols to the Swiss

>atrocities
This is just Thot patrol.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_massacre_of_1622

>invade somebody's house
>get shot
M-m-muh human rights!

this

Killing wh*tey is a sign of true sophistication.

Some bold shit to say when the natives didn't believe in 'owning' land

>this level of Anglo perfidy
Might as well complain about the undeserved poor treatment those unfortunate Nazis received while on Soviet soil.

This.

Attached: 23164899_1477512492330756_9201640043502895104_ (1).jpg (800x800, 143K)

>killing of invading genocidal expansionists
>crime

Nice grammar

didn't believe in 'owning' land
I guess that would make all the alleged warfare untrue then since there wouldn't be much reason to fight for.

>the natives didn't believe in 'owning' land
You're talking about millions of people, thousands of languages, spread over 2 continents that make up 28% of earth's land surface. How dense do you have to be to make a post like this? Why do you even post on a history board? Not only was there a concept of land ownership among the more developed civilizations of the Americas (Incas are a good example) you can't speak for indigenous people who were displaced and went extinct without any of their history or beliefs being recorded. Fuck off with your apologetic bullshit

This.
>defend territory
>somehow not owning land
Is this nigga serious?

>kill other indians and take their lands
>still killing others for land when the colonists show up
>colonists pick sides and you start to lose
>w-wtf i hate killing now!
>except when I can slit a little girl's throat in self defense hehe

>Women removed the skin from his entire body with mussel shells and tossed the pieces into the flame as he watched. They skinned his face last and finally burned him at stake
>Unironically believing this happened

great, can I start shooting immigrants now?

>hitler killed six gorillion jews
>unironically believing this happened

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Wyoming

What history books don't tell you is that Sullivan's March was retaliation for the brutality at Wyoming.

Attached: ChappelWyomingMassacre.jpg (590x437, 44K)

>implying monolithic behavior and no evidence of the circumstance
Brainlet.
>killing invaders
>crime

You can do all you want after you GO BACK to europe.

America belongs to Amerindians the same as europe belongs to europeans.

How is this hard to get?

>mplying monolithic behavio
Don't think anyone did this
>killing invaders
That's what the white man did, he killed the other invaders, who had taken it from the weaker tribes no longer living.
>brainlet puling to defend people who often slaughtered children

>You can do all you want after you GO BACK to europe.
Good idea. Let's abolish the universities and cities and other reminders of the white mans reign, as well as the national government, and restore the pristine conditions of pre ebil whitey times. We wouldn't want you to go around accepting handouts from ebil foreigners.

How ignorant are you about the capacity for human cruelty that you find this hard to believe?

Colonists were degenerate communists trying to promote the spread of wealth which was resisted by pious Mormon Indians converted by Jesus himself on his spaceship.

>topic: native americans
>[local circumstances]
>native americans react like "x"
This is implying monolithic behavior. So you are wrong.
>killed invaders
The claim , as each one of them implies a hierarchical classification and definition of invader. As english are invaders against all native americans. Local native american invasions are considered invasion when there is no larger scale invasion (english), in this context.
So you are double wrong.
>brainlet
Amerindians have more civilization potential than europeans.
Time to get extinct'd, subhuman.
As Amerindians have more civilization potential than europeans, replacing all subhumans with superior beings called Amerindians is for the greater good.

>Amerindians have more civilization potential than europeans.

Ah, you must be the Inca shitposter. Thanks for letting me know to ignore everything you've said.

Oh, i know how cruel humans can be; i just find the source quite unreliable and hardly unbiased.

this b8 isn't even amusing

No matter the ammount of buzzwords/wordplay/lies/fallacies/scapegoating Amerindian higher development rate is a historical fact that cannot be erased.

Deal with it.

Attached: Manco_Inca.jpg (300x400, 38K)

If you cannot analyze logic process and ignore the context of the greentext, you can admit it already.

I suppose you should believe whatever allows you to sleep at night.

>>brainlet puling to defend people who often slaughtered children

Attached: wenceslaus_hollar_e28093_supposed_irish_atrocities_during_the_rebellion_of_1641.jpg (1016x900, 224K)

"Insomnia" suffered by any person is irrelevant to Amerindian higher development rate as a historical fact.

Deal with it.

Attached: lord of sipan.jpg (1024x576, 62K)

>foreign group of people did something
lol wow I'm so ashamed

With the Indians at least there was an element of imminent conflict over scarcity of resources but with these it was merely over a difference in creedal profession of doctrinal belief.

Northeastern North American tribes practiced torture and cannibalism in certain instances

ohio.edu/orgs/glass/vol/1/14.htm

>invade foreign land
>people fight back
>wtf why are you fighting us fucking atrocities DAMN SJEWS

"but call him a redditor and watch how he recoils.."

Foreign? They're their actual relatives. Surely there's little reason to doubt they carried their autism over to colonies.

>immigration is evil and back
>but us based European immigrants are a-ok!
Fuck I hate /pol/fags

Hypocrites like you are what killed my white guilt and turned me into the unapologetic /pol/fag I am today.

Why is your hypocrisy somehow acceptable when you're just the inverse of the /pol/fag you hate?

as a neutral observer...
>call someone reddit for no reason
>haha I knew it, he protests!
The state of this site. Everything is defined in relation to another site.

There is no hypocrisy on Amerindian superiority.

All kinds of comparisons lead to America belonging to Amerindians the same as europeans having europe.

Try again, subhuman.

if they had so much potential then how come theyre fucking dead?

>samefagging this hard
Wew, lad.

Might as well say the American colonials were the people of Shakespeare

There is no "if".

Amerindians have demonstrated a higher development rate than europeans:
>europeans
>from aurignacian proto-gravettian to solutrean:10000 years (30000BC-20000BC)
>from aurignacian-antelian to start of crop development: 9000 years(30000BC-21000BC)
>from start of crop development to neolithic revolution: 10500 years (21000BC-10500BC)
>from neolithic revolution to earliest use of copper: 5500 years (10500BC-5000BC)
>from neolithic revolution to earliest use of tin bronze: 6700 years (10500BC-3800BC)

>Amerindians:
>from aurignacian proto-gravettian to clovis: 5500 years (16000BC-10500BC)
>from aurignacian proto-gravettian to the start of crop development: 5000 years (16000BC-11000BC)
>from start of crop development to neolithic revolution: 7000 years (11000BC-4000BC)
>from neolithic revolution to copper: 3000 years (4000BC-1000BC)
>from neolithic revolution to earliest use of tin bronze: 4700 years (4000BC-700 AD)


-"2003a. Tiwanaku Period (Middle Horizon) bronze metallurgy in the lake Titicaca basin: A preliminary assessment. En Tiwanaku and its hinterland, T 2. A. Kolata, (Ed.), pp. 404-434. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D. C."
-"1997. El bronce arsenical y el Horizonte Medio. En Arqueología, antropología e historia en los Andes: Homenaje a María Rostworowski, R. Varón y J. Flores E. (Eds.), pp. 153-186. Instituto de Estudios Peruanos, Lima."
-"researchgate.net/publication/317346941_Ancient_metalworking_in_South_America_A_3000-year-old_copper_mask_from_the_Argentinian_Andes";
-"Historia de América Andina: Las sociedades aborígenes"
-"link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02859340";
-"journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0141923";
-"whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/1873/";
-"es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoamericano";
-"en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluefish_Caves";
Therefore Amerindians have more civilization potential than europeans.

How is this hard to get?

you clearly dont get the Geobbels reference

>civility
Literally no different than what is said of those who flee from war and persecution and bring it to countries with
preexistent social strife.

Attached: DO10.1963.11##S.jpg (1291x600, 324K)

Attached: 591674545_orig.jpg (598x480, 149K)

Attached: hoffman-30-years-war-.jpg (1024x821, 364K)

thats right colonists were puritans: the protestants of anglicanism. good riddance

Do you stop and talk to the homeless schizo ranting at the bus stop?
Why would you acknowledge the Inca shitposter?

I kek'd

No matter the ammount of buzzwords/wordplay/lies/fallacies/scapegoating Amerindian higher development rate is a historical fact that cannot be erased.

Try again.

Attached: Manco_Inca.jpg (300x400, 55K)

Catholics can also be blamed for equivalent feats.

Attached: Breaking_Wheel.jpg (995x551, 138K)

Lamanites got what was coming to them.
The righteous among them were saved, the unrighteous were returned to the soil for their crimes against the seed of Nephi and of Sam and of Zoram - did I miss any?
Anyway, the point stands.

How can a mixed race be eternal?

Why is it that nuworld failed staters only started latching onto the Indians after their states failed?
Culture of 1/32nd Cherokee, but with millions of fullblood Cherokees kicking around. Good thing they can't read or else there might be an identity dispute.
Just kidding, they're too broken to argue with you.

I think incaposter is retarded, but so are you if you are going

>HERP DERP IF THEY WERE ADVANCED WHY WERE THEY BEHIND/DEAD

The Old World had a head start of tens of thousands of years: Modern humans arrived in the Middle East 60k years ago, China 50k, and Eurrope 40k. They didn't get to the Americas till around 15k. Again, I think Incaposter is just as delusional as /pol/tards, but the Mesoamericans and Andeans really were advancing faster then old World cultures:

Humans arrived in both regions around 15k years ago, and it only took them 11-12k years to develop actual civiliizations, vs 54k in the Old World. If you use the founding of civilization as you starting point, then the Mesoamericans are where they should be: They were around Ancient Greece/early iron age tier in most ways when the Spanish showed up, which matches right up with them having had civilization for 3000 years (since around 1400 BC) For the Andeans, they only developed civilizations aroundd 0ad, maybe a bit earlier, yet the Inca were also around late bronze age/early iron age level, having done it tin only 1500 years.

I'm not gonna go full retard like incaposter and claim that that makes amerindians objectively superior or anything, of course, however

Attached: human_migration migration.png (1100x571, 158K)

>How can a mixed race be eternal?

There's to kind of people in us, both their legacy lives on and will continue to live on as we continue BEAN wh*Tey

Attached: Happy Taco Merchant.jpg (932x960, 146K)

The point I was making was that the lineal descendants of the people who destroyed those civilisations now LARP as their inheritors, because the real inheritors are so degraded, rural and irrelevant that they lack the power to challenge this ludicrous autism.
It would be understandable if all the Indians were dead, but they aren't. I can see two reasons for this, one is mickey mouse and the other is daffy duck, both are ridiculous and embarrassing so I won't burden you with my detached guesswork.

>two

At least four. Does milk in shit make milky shit, shitty milk or something entirely new? Best ask your dad.

>What are proofs

its not hard at all what are you talking about?

Attached: moctezuma.jpg (1024x768, 67K)

Take a seat and let Uncle Jared tell you a story...

youtube.com/watch?v=K84c7NlZzno

Attached: Battle of Tippecanoe.jpg (1152x796, 353K)

>gets Red Wedding'd while literally trying to break bread with the Indians and prevent his people from starving to death
>gets painted as a warmongering greedy implied homosexual with a Jew nose in the movie 400 years later

Man, fuck Disney. First they ruined Claude Frollo now this.

Attached: buggery.jpg (852x480, 34K)

Holy shit you got your knowledge about Native Americans from a Disney song... that's pathetic and sad.

>makes his sick and dying men build him a house in the woods because he wants it

truly a generous man

>At that point, Ratcliffe had lost the faith of the colonists, who accused him of hoarding rations. The colonists were also enraged that as they were sick and dying, Ratcliffe ordered they build a capitol in the woods. The colonists dubbed the project "Ratcliffe's Palace."

Also it wasn't like they randomly attacked out of nowhere, nor was it a case of "by golly, the English settlers were just trying to make peace when they were attacked by the Indians!" By the time of his death, the English (both under Ratcliffe's tenure and before) had tried to build 3 defensive forts on Powhatan land--farming land, mind you--by force. For the first fort, the English originally offered to buy the land from the Powhatans and they said no, so instead the English raided the land and built the fort anyway. The same happened with the other 2 forts, which were destroyed. They also tried to extort corn from the Powhatan tribe through threats of violence. They were starving, so it's understandable, but it's not particularly shocking that they would be retaliated against.

So here's this:

books.google.com/books/about/Indian_slavery_in_the_Pacific_Northwest.html?id=I8lsAAAAMAAJ

>What are atrocities committed by Native Americans?

Uhhhhhmmnnn... Sure, I think I could name a couple:

-Natives were vocal advocates and enthusiasts of slavery, so far that even when they weren't colonized the West Coast Native countries residing in British Columbia through Washington and California regularly enslaved one another for menial and domestic labor. There were three 'big gifts' a native could give to another native: a copper tablet, a slave, or a totem pole (though, a totem pole could go both ways as in some communities it was seen as a gaudy and excessive gift you couldn't return or regift). Natives also in general participated in the keeping of Black slaves.

-Natives regularly killed and participated in ethic genocides against one another and continued to do so long into colonial periods- though at that point they extended their genocidal activities to include white colonists whenever it was convenient. Natives were PARTICULARLY brutal to one another in a vacuum and often times these were "kill on sight" and "exterminate completely" situations.

-While Natives may not have originally invented it, they did popularize the act of Scalping, Id Est: the act of skinning the layer off of a humans scalp. Natives decorated their saddles with the scalps of soldiers and settlers alike, they did not make any distinction nor did they discriminate between women and children, indeed: Natives considered it a sign of bravery to be able to scalp women and children as it was a sign that you were a warrior capable of fighting past the defenses of men.
However, for what it is worth: EVERYONE scalped EVERYONE during these times. It was an incredibly widespread and horrible practice.

The point is still the same. Amerindians have demonstrated a higher development rate than europeans. Therefore America belonging to Amerindians the same as europe belongs to europeans is an intuitive consequence.

Attached: Manco_Inca.jpg (300x400, 55K)

What do you mean, "start"?

Attached: texas.png (499x194, 25K)

The implication here is that going from point A, (hunter gatherer) to point B (early civilization), necessitates eventual arrival to points C, D, E etc. But that's clearly not true. Europeans dominated the world as a result of fairly recent natural selection and population pressures, and honestly also a fair amount of luck and random chance. There's no reason to believe that if left alone Amerindians would have invented airplanes and computers by now. In fact, there's evidence that several of their civilizations collapsed and the descendants of their inhabitants would revert back to more primitive lifestyles afterward.

Wrong. The implication here mentions the technological manifestation of Amerindian societies over time.

Let "x" be the set of manifestations european hunter gatherers show over time. Amerindians show "x" with a higher rate of change over time.

Let "y" be the circumstances provoked by european inhabitants to change from hunter gatherer lifestyle to a semi-sedentary and later agrarian lifestyle over time. Amerindians show "y" with a higher rate of change over time.

Let "z" be the set of manifestations european hunter gatherers show over time. Amerindians show "z" with a higher rate of change over time.

>collapse
Early agrarian societal collapse was commom in both continents (migrations, demographic collapse, deforestation, disease, etc). Yet, let me check the historical facts. As Amerindian neolithic revolution happened since 4000BC in southAmerica and 1000BC in northAmerica, it would be easy to compare the development both continents made in 4000 years after their neolithic revolutions.

z: set of manifestations european agrarian societies show over time

>It just went over his head

Attached: 1520051712153.jpg (1224x1445, 247K)

It's impossible to find an unbiased account of indian atrocities because of tards like the guy who wrote this trying to make people afraid of the redskins.

>dude how don't you know about one of the most popular quotes of history, by a germ subhuman squad member :D
?

I read somewhere that they wiped out a large proportion of the population of a colony in Connecticut or somewhere.

>set of manifestations european hunter gatherers show over time
>circumstances provoked by european inhabitants to change from hunter gatherer lifestyle
>set of manifestations european hunter gatherers show over time

nonsense, you're literally so retarded your delusions aren't even internally coherent anymore

If you're going to talk about the archaic ancestors of Europeans who lived 30,000 years ago you have to talk about the archaic ancestors of Amerinds who lived at the same time. That should correct your math, but it actually leaves you with a larger problem.

Attached: incatardreasoning.png (1186x446, 31K)

Damn, no wonder based Europeans killed them all haha

Me too

Attached: 1521616722631s.jpg (95x125, 2K)

>Ratcliffe authorizes forcibly raided Powhatan settlements and building English forts on their land
>Ratcliffe threatens Powhatan tribe with violence if they don't hand over corn

Can't imagine why they would retaliate against him...

>Comanches 400 miles into Mexico, take thousands of Mexican slaves
what, sauce? This is relevant to my interests.
>Ojibwe
wew

what happened to all the birch bark scrolls anons?>They didn't get to the Americas till around 15k.
>the Inca were also around late bronze age/early iron age level
incorrect

Attached: Mikmaq_sample_(ave_Maria).jpg (736x481, 63K)