Well, the americans and indians sure werent going to live together peacefully so somebody had to go. I'm just glad it was the engines and not my ancestors. take a look at the way I celebrate the 4th on my channel......I gotcha M-80 Bitch!!!
Anyway, this video is about the US, and "every body does it" is a bad joke, typical of the Divinely Inspired Protestant genocidal maniacs,. who never allow themselves to know what they are doing or to be to blame.
And don't even bother trying to say either Hiroshima or Nagazaki were military targets.
That was an invention.
And the bombs were dropped not to force surrender (the Japanese were already asking to surrender) but to intimidate the Soviets with a new super secret weapon.
The British were also the first you use poison gas on civilians--specifically targeting them as civilians, and also the first to firebomb specifically civilian targets.
So the Americans were the first and only to use nuclear weapons on civilian targets, though they also firebomed cities in Japan.
At Pearl Harbor the Japanese targeted only military.
In Europe the American militaary behaved differently--I wonder why.
But they regressed again to racism and massacres in Vietnam.
With the Japanese it was a mixed bag--it was the Americans that used the tactic of targeting civilians with bombing, though the Japanese targeted civilians in China on a mass scale.
Another little known fact, well documented but without much play American history books. A high number of the troops sent by the US to the Philippines were veterans of the Indian Wars, where they learned their peculiar brutality. Being racists they easily made the Filipinos into Injuns and proceeded to commit more genocide, on the Moros, for example.
Hitler actually was imitating the British--only he had different candidates for final solutions.
Interestingly enough, the Japanese Imperial Army in the 1900's was patterning, consciously, their systematic brutality on the Americans in the Philippines--as a model of successful island conquest.
That also is well documented.
Not that the Japanese were not already brutal in war (Korea) but the American killing machine was different in the training it used on troops to dehumanize the enemy.
The US always say they are against imperialism, yet their occupation of the Philippines was the most imperial thing in the past two centuries. they defeated france who used to own the philippines, then put their soldiers into the Philippines, and massacred all tens of thousands of filipinos, and claimed the Philippines as a US territory.
The really hialrious US racists are the ones descended from the Southrons who settled Texas at the invitation of Santa Ana, and converted to Catholicism and married Spanish wives to get land.
Now most of them are both racist and despise the Mexicans, even the Tex Mex that fought on the Texas side.
No wonder carpetbaggers like Paul and Bush make hay in them thar parts.
There are still today visible many consequneces of the English and American colonization and expansion, espeecially socially and economically, and not to the good.
I have already mentioned those--you just ignored them
Not "white man's genocide"--White English Protestant's genocide for the most part in what became the United States, and as a deliberate and systematic policy.
The Australians under British Rule made a stab at something very similar, for many of the same reasons, including even a parallel with the period after the war and killing stopped, and the genocidal intent continued in a different manner.
Yankhadenough--you are using words ambiguously and do not see the purpose of various distinctions.
Irlandais--even that is ambiguous--Picts and Scots, other Celts, "Roman" monks, Norman, Spaniards from the Armada, including Jews, "English"....etc. etc. etc.
Your ethnic make-up as "Irish" means nothing in regard to the issue, except insofar as you obviously think it pertinent, and that is telling in itself.
English White Protestants in what became the US, with some exceptions, were peculiarly racist and genocidal.
Why--a mix of cultural, religious, and economic factors.
The British were also close to genocidal with the Boers--though they did not finally go through with Kitchener's recommendation, though the mass murder, including women and children in concentration camps, was horrendous, mostly by starvation.
Actually, if I wished to talk about Spanish and Indians I could add many aspects that you don't know, which are as important in the context of the psychology of mass murder as is the genocide of the US Protestants.
But I will keep them to myself because they do not pertain to the point.
Oxford University Press, 1992 thirdworldtraveler. com/History/Pestilence_AH. html
"p69
Wherever the marauding, diseased, and heavily armed Spanish forces went out on patrol, accompanied by ferocious armored dogs that had been trained to kill and disembowel, they preyed on the local communities- already plague-enfeebled-forcing them to supply food and women and slaves, and whatever else the soldiers might desire.
...At virtually every previous landing on this trip Columbus's troops had gone ashore and killed indiscriminately, as though for sport, whatever animals and birds and natives they encountered, "looting and destroying all they found," as the Admiral's son Fernando blithely put it. ..
By the way the Dutch had yet another model--ally, as with the Mohawks. And he Mormons yet another.
But you are too pig-headed to talk to any more.
Go do some fucking work and real research rather than talking from your supposed white and Cherokee "blood--like your genetic make-up really "feels" history, which is also a racist idea.
mopsius Everyone knows these things about "white man" , my question to you is , why do you whitewash the Spaniards contribution to sharp decline of Native population?
Course when the Cherokee got oil revenue in Oklahoma that made being Cherokee real popular too, HAHAHA.
The Cherokee Nation is one of the worst cases because it shows the real motive forces--they did exactly what the supposedly "civilizing" white demanded--language, writing, towns, newspaper, etc.
The Spanish conquered the Incas, but they did not commit genocide on them. They are still there.
Killing or trying to enslave thousands upon thousands is not the same as genocide.
Genocide is the attempt to exterminate.
What I said about "peasant" is pertinent as well.
There is a different culture operant, though Peru is much different from Mexico, partly because it was New World "Mexicans" that led the conquest, HAHAHA.
mopsius Noone is denying genocide by "white man', especially me, I have Cherokee heritage, remember? You are dodging THE question again... WHY are you whitewashing the Spaniard conquistadors?
Yankhadenough--You are using tu quoque. The Spanish conquistadores in Mexico were not genocidal--just the reverse. That does not mean they were kind--it means they were not trying to exterminate the native population. In fact, they wanted them as peasants.
mopsius The massive population decline of Native population (over 70% due to DEATH) in the first hundred years of Spaniards after Columbus IS attributed to three factors
1) warfare
2) labor abuse ( So they wanted zombies for peasants? )
Like most US white Protestants, whatever your Cherokee lineage, you just don't want to face the fact that American policy toward Injuns was peculiarly genocidal and racist in thrust.
The French also were not genocidal--probably 90 percent of New World French have Indian blood--a lot, because intermarrying was the colonial policy.
Not facing your own prejudices is your problem, not mine.
Yankhadenough, you have your head up your ass. You may be intelligent enough to get over it some day with some real work, rather than feeding your emotional prejudices..
You can't study history advantageously and uncover facts when your aim is moral blamelessness for some group--or at least that they are not worse than some other group.
That's all bullshit and that is one of the reasons the US is on the verge of collapse--a complete refusal to face unpleasant facts.
Most Americans never face facts and never learn.
The typical Mohawk would laugh his ass off at you--they never conceal how savage they were as a tribe.
mopsius I never denied the genocide by the white man against the Natives... it is YOU whitewashing the Spaniard conquistadors... do you always manipulate discussions like that? Very childish
mopsius ok, I get it now, so pre-planned conquering , warfare and labor abuse of any indigenous population in any part of the world for GOLD is not genocidal, by your definition.
"...While precise definition varies among genocide scholars, a legal definition is found in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). Article 2 of this convention defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; ...
...causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."[1]..."
In fact, Yankhadenough, there are hundreds of past models of "colonziation" reaching back thousands of years, all different, and which you know nothing about, nor do most of the ideological historians of the New World, including not only Americans but British and Spanish and French.
mopsius You know nothing about me except that which I tell you (and I will keep my personal info close to the vest now, i assure you) . Your bragadocious and whitewashed history is motivated by SOMETHING , not quite sure what quite frankly, nor do I care anymore. All I know is if I was killed by a Spaniard, Englishman or the French back then, I really wouldn't much care who thought who was the better of the three during the commission of my demise.
Quite literally, most Americans don't know how to wipe their ass figuratively speaking--it is a cultural wasteland and the mass media keeps them that way.
Which is exactly what the fucking fundamentalist morons, also cultural morons but with bullshit Born Again superstition and emotionalism, literally capitalize on.
The only real question is how dumb the American people can continue to be before they wake up to just who is fucking them over--namely their own leaders, including the politicians, the financiers and capitalists, the military elite, and the fucking religious leaders whose job is to keep them dumb and docile.
Davis this series of course will do one very good thing, give the history of America back to the Native Americans. This will also open a glorious can of worms! There may come a time when one individual will be able , via DNA testing, prove that he/she is a descendant of the "extinct" Tequesta tribe in Florida, and when that day happens, what will become of Downtown Miami real estate? Be prepared for Se Habla Tequestan signs.
Great project, Davis ! Needless to say, everything has be viewed not just from contemporary viewpoints of history, in hindsight, as it were, but also from the perspective of those living in those times. And the many voices left OUT of this history, including the fact, the founding fathers were themselves, by the time the Constitution was written, members of a privileged + educated class. Some of the founding fathers clearly had the interests of the lower classes in mind, but others did not.
So when someone like Petronius' Trimalchio, a freedman who loved his master, assembles his own slaves and calls them his "family", there is a cultural aspect to the usage.
More than property.
But then there were the latifundia plantation slaves too. Better off or worse off than share-croppers?
the ancient western world. The new world and capitalist agriculture made it a made of economics and market as well. In the US a strong racial aspect was added.
Look at the Aztecs-they wanted prisoners but not as slaves--rather as sacrifices.
My point is this: You're over simplifying three hundred years of European colonization for which the English were only involved for half of that time. To boil it down to only English/American genocide is ludicrous.
The Indians died off because they were sent to work in gold and silver mines.
I don't think the English are superior at all. I just don't think they're especially worse than any other expansionist empire at the time. All parties had their own interests and human suffering was often the consequence of those pursuits.
I'm positive there is not an established 'fact' of which group is more racist than any other group. Humans are humans are humans.
Look, the Dutch hunted Tasmanians for sport, and committed grautious genocide.
Worse than the British? Perhaps not thjat one case.
But the British have more humanitarian offenses on their hands than perhaps any other nation--for centuries, and most of it was racially generated. Irish, Boers, Injuns, Indians, on and on.
The hilarious part is how racially mixed these very Englishmen were.
The kids with the biggest rooms with the most stuff make the biggest messes.
The British did a lot of things very very wrong, but not due to some sort of inherent evil quality. They killed 30 million Asian Indians, but they ditched slavery before the Spanish did. They oppressed the Boers, but didn't oppress the Africans nearly as much as the Boers did once they had their own independent South Africa.
There's a lot of Shit in the crapper of the world and a lot of it is British, but not all.
Indentured servitude is worse than slavery? Which indentured servants? Where? When? Which slaves? Which country? In some cases, maybe, but in most cases, I would say no.
The reason is simple--as the term neared its end there was no economic incentive to keep the indentured servant alive--or to feed him much or treat him if he got sick.
Well, it was illegal. There were laws about how servants were to be treated and how harshly they could be punished. If a servant was abused they had the right to sue.
Look, the whole purpose of bringing over indentured servants was to populate the colony. The government of the respective colonies didn't want their populace to be wiped out before they gained land that they would work and pay taxes on.
What you describe certainly happened, but it wasn't the rule.
Labor and population were both aims. Otherwise, why give away free land at the end of the indenture?
As far as "pshaw... laws", as I have seen court records of the time period, there are quite a few people suing for abuses. Indentures are paying off the debt of their passage. Their not enslaved for life. Nor were slaves in the 17th century the same kind of slaves you see in the antebellum south, nor were cultural attitudes towards them the same.
I agree with you completely on that point. Mainland Britain liked getting wealth from their colonies and didn't much care for their well being or protection.
You're jumping around quite a bit. I dunno. Life before the mast versus a life of working on a tobacco/cotton/rice/sugar plantation? I suppose being a domestic servant would certainly be preferable. The punishments were certainly comparable.
Flash:"WASILLA, Alaska Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin abruptly announced Friday she is resigning from office at the end of the month, a shocking move that rattled the Republican party but left open the possibility she would seek a run for the White House in 2012."
AP
HAHAHAHAHA. Fucking Born Again Right Wing Thieving Blackmailer Extortionist.
Every Capitalist is an individual--they had no fucking mothers--no sir. They came into the world fully formed and indepedent. They gave birth to themselves!
Anyone here old enough to remember forty years ago--who then would have imagined the US fighting wars all over the world with mercenaries and military contractors.
I'll tell you who imagined it--Nixon and his Capitalist pigs.
That's why they got rid of the conscription, dumbasses.
While the English and other European powers certainly had wars with the Native Americans, active genocide didn't really start happening until after the United States was established. Saying the land was acquired through genocide is a laughable simplification that assumes the Native Americans were sitting on their hands being victims while the white man swept through. Opechancanough of the Powhatan wiped out a fourth of the population of Jamestown. Natives were no different than the invaders.
Who really suffered, however, were the Americans, who would have been a different, better people with a mix that tribes like the Cherokee could offer.
As I said earlier, the English didn't get Syphilis from shaking hands... and the Spanish were quite proficient at reproducing with the native populations.
When the colony of Maryland was founded (taking land away from Virginia) a Virginian fur trader that didn't want to lose his land spread the rumor that the coming Maryland colonists were actually Spanish, prompting the Natives to flee. The Spanish and Portuguese were much more brutal slavers. Check the lifespan of slaves in Spanish colonies versus English. Hell, blacks could own land in English colonies.
mopsius lol, intermarriage implies that the Native population would grow and flourish, when in fact it declined by 70% or more only a hundred years after Columbus' arrival. There is a reason that history calls the Spaniards "conquistadors" , and not a Spanish dating service.
You are wrong, Yankhadenough--about Mexico anyway.
And if you study the matter closely, you will find you are also wrong about Latin America in most areas, where Indian and mestizo populations are still overwhelming in numbers.
The genocide was in North America for the most part.
That does not mean some tribes were not wiped out in Latin America.
mopsius I am a mixture of white and Cherokee, which was a union by marriage, not rape, before you jump to incorrect conclusions again. Instead of the ad hominem attacks, provide sources to refute my source. Your opinion does not count as a source.
Well, the americans and indians sure werent going to live together peacefully so somebody had to go. I'm just glad it was the engines and not my ancestors. take a look at the way I celebrate the 4th on my channel......I gotcha M-80 Bitch!!!
jtarman70 11 months ago
hahahahahahahhaahhaha!
wdhsk4 2 years ago
That oughta get hairy.lol. :-}}}}}}}
WolfArden44 2 years ago
Anyway, this video is about the US, and "every body does it" is a bad joke, typical of the Divinely Inspired Protestant genocidal maniacs,. who never allow themselves to know what they are doing or to be to blame.
mopsius 2 years ago
In Iraq and Afghanistan the US is regressing again to Vietnam.
And losing too.
They just never learn.
mopsius 2 years ago
And don't even bother trying to say either Hiroshima or Nagazaki were military targets.
That was an invention.
And the bombs were dropped not to force surrender (the Japanese were already asking to surrender) but to intimidate the Soviets with a new super secret weapon.
mopsius 2 years ago
The British were also the first you use poison gas on civilians--specifically targeting them as civilians, and also the first to firebomb specifically civilian targets.
So the Americans were the first and only to use nuclear weapons on civilian targets, though they also firebomed cities in Japan.
At Pearl Harbor the Japanese targeted only military.
mopsius 2 years ago
So you can talk all you want--this stuff and the difference between countries is well documented.
mopsius 2 years ago
Attacking civilians on a mass scale was another British innovation, which the Americans copied.
mopsius 2 years ago
In Europe the American militaary behaved differently--I wonder why.
But they regressed again to racism and massacres in Vietnam.
With the Japanese it was a mixed bag--it was the Americans that used the tactic of targeting civilians with bombing, though the Japanese targeted civilians in China on a mass scale.
mopsius 2 years ago
Another little known fact, well documented but without much play American history books. A high number of the troops sent by the US to the Philippines were veterans of the Indian Wars, where they learned their peculiar brutality. Being racists they easily made the Filipinos into Injuns and proceeded to commit more genocide, on the Moros, for example.
It was systematic policy.
mopsius 2 years ago
Hitler actually was imitating the British--only he had different candidates for final solutions.
Interestingly enough, the Japanese Imperial Army in the 1900's was patterning, consciously, their systematic brutality on the Americans in the Philippines--as a model of successful island conquest.
That also is well documented.
Not that the Japanese were not already brutal in war (Korea) but the American killing machine was different in the training it used on troops to dehumanize the enemy.
mopsius 2 years ago
The US always say they are against imperialism, yet their occupation of the Philippines was the most imperial thing in the past two centuries. they defeated france who used to own the philippines, then put their soldiers into the Philippines, and massacred all tens of thousands of filipinos, and claimed the Philippines as a US territory.
UnionoftheBrits 2 years ago 2
Mais oui, c'est vrai. D'accord...
mopsius 2 years ago
Now the Choctaw--that's an interesting case, also proving the rule.
mopsius 2 years ago
The really hialrious US racists are the ones descended from the Southrons who settled Texas at the invitation of Santa Ana, and converted to Catholicism and married Spanish wives to get land.
Now most of them are both racist and despise the Mexicans, even the Tex Mex that fought on the Texas side.
No wonder carpetbaggers like Paul and Bush make hay in them thar parts.
mopsius 2 years ago
There are still today visible many consequneces of the English and American colonization and expansion, espeecially socially and economically, and not to the good.
I have already mentioned those--you just ignored them
There is no further point in discussing.
mopsius 2 years ago
The English have been genocidal all over the planet--including the Boers, the Irish, and the Hindus.
They also openly espoused genocide in the past, by different means, including mass starvation.
This is well documented even though it seldom gets into American history books, for obvious reasons.
mopsius 2 years ago
mopsius No duh Sherlock, the English have been genocidal, also the Spaniards... you are the one in denial, not I
Yankhadenough 2 years ago 2
You are thicker than an oak door.
Not worth further discussion. Makes you feel good to say that?
That is part of your problem--you want to "feel" good.
But all you have to do is stroll through Mexico to see the difference.
Even with the Maya--they are not fighting about racial differences nor even cultural ones mainly.
They are fighting over land and economics.
mopsius 2 years ago
mopsius I am not in denial about Spaniard genocide . And I am not whitewashing "white man" genocide.
Yankhadenough 2 years ago
Not "white man's genocide"--White English Protestant's genocide for the most part in what became the United States, and as a deliberate and systematic policy.
The Australians under British Rule made a stab at something very similar, for many of the same reasons, including even a parallel with the period after the war and killing stopped, and the genocidal intent continued in a different manner.
mopsius 2 years ago
You just wish to deny the peculiar English Protestant pattern.
Why?
That don't take many guesses.
Because you are emotionally invested in it, which is foolish, and very bad history.
The French were pretty vicious but they were not genocidal either.
mopsius 2 years ago
mopsius I am NOT the one in denial about English pattern ! I am an Irish-American with Cherokee heritage too. Why would I deny such a truth?
YOU are the one in complete denial that Spaniards did not commit genocide!
Yankhadenough 2 years ago 3
Yankhadenough--you are using words ambiguously and do not see the purpose of various distinctions.
Irlandais--even that is ambiguous--Picts and Scots, other Celts, "Roman" monks, Norman, Spaniards from the Armada, including Jews, "English"....etc. etc. etc.
Your ethnic make-up as "Irish" means nothing in regard to the issue, except insofar as you obviously think it pertinent, and that is telling in itself.
mopsius 2 years ago
mopsius Spaniard conquistadors committed genocide against Natives in the Americas... nuff said.
Yankhadenough 2 years ago
I have already noted: you refuse to distinguish between policies.
You have a tu quoque to make, or some legal argument, it seems,. as opposed to a pattern of facts to excavate.
A pity for someone who seems to have a mind, but suit yourself.
It will all come out in the wash.
mopsius 2 years ago
mopsius I have quoted book and excerpt to you regarding Spaniard genocide . You denied that it was genocide !
Yankhadenough 2 years ago
English White Protestants in what became the US, with some exceptions, were peculiarly racist and genocidal.
Why--a mix of cultural, religious, and economic factors.
The British were also close to genocidal with the Boers--though they did not finally go through with Kitchener's recommendation, though the mass murder, including women and children in concentration camps, was horrendous, mostly by starvation.
mopsius 2 years ago
I have already stated the differences in colonization policy.
There were exceptions, especially early, and in New England, but basically the White Protestant policy was "the only good Injun is a dead Injun".
This had nothing to do with how the Injuns acted toward the whites--that's exactly what the Cherokee case proves.
You want to deny that--but you deny a host of additional facts as in regard to racism, religion, and economics, etc., in doing so.
You also do not follow the parallels.
mopsius 2 years ago
Actually, if I wished to talk about Spanish and Indians I could add many aspects that you don't know, which are as important in the context of the psychology of mass murder as is the genocide of the US Protestants.
But I will keep them to myself because they do not pertain to the point.
mopsius 2 years ago
mopsius You've completely avoided and / or missed the point: Spaniard conquistadors committed genocide against the Natives of the Americas
Yankhadenough 2 years ago
The distinction I make is important. You don't see why it is pertinent.
That is your bias, or perhaps because you are trying to make a case for a legal position.
I suspect very strongly the former.
If not, you tell me the difference between the way the Spaniards, French, and Dutch operated and how the English Protestants operated.
mopsius 2 years ago
There is no question in my mind, for example, that the Mohawk survived largely because for many long years they were Dutch allies.
Did they war against other tribes together?
Damn right they did.
So did the French.
Did the French commit genocide on the Huron? The Huron were wiped out, it is true.
But the answer is still no.
All you are interested in is a tu quoque, which has NO HISTORICAL VALUE WHATEVER, capiche?
The results were different but I suspect you would deny even that.
mopsius 2 years ago
"The only good Indian is a dead Indian"--that is, obviously, genocidal.
mopsius 2 years ago
Pestilence & Genocide
excerpted from book
American Holocaust
by David Stannard
Oxford University Press, 1992 thirdworldtraveler. com/History/Pestilence_AH. html
"p69
Wherever the marauding, diseased, and heavily armed Spanish forces went out on patrol, accompanied by ferocious armored dogs that had been trained to kill and disembowel, they preyed on the local communities- already plague-enfeebled-forcing them to supply food and women and slaves, and whatever else the soldiers might desire.
Yankhadenough 2 years ago
...At virtually every previous landing on this trip Columbus's troops had gone ashore and killed indiscriminately, as though for sport, whatever animals and birds and natives they encountered, "looting and destroying all they found," as the Admiral's son Fernando blithely put it. ..
Yankhadenough 2 years ago
You are not telling me anything I have not already read.
It affects nothing of what I said. I stated everything I said carefully, including that some tribes were wiped out.
There are at least ten reasons to make the distinction I make, but it is beyond your grasp.
The only use for the past is learning for the future.
You can't learn when you are trying to make talking points or arguing from a position you are already sure is right.
By the way, Caribs probably invented barbecue.
mopsius 2 years ago
The UN definition is neither here nor there. As you say it is a lawyer's definition.
mopsius 2 years ago
Shooting squirrels with moral windage, HAHAHA.
Try it--you will starve.
mopsius 2 years ago
The Dutch were, however, genocidal in Tasmania.
mopsius 2 years ago
By the way the Dutch had yet another model--ally, as with the Mohawks. And he Mormons yet another.
But you are too pig-headed to talk to any more.
Go do some fucking work and real research rather than talking from your supposed white and Cherokee "blood--like your genetic make-up really "feels" history, which is also a racist idea.
mopsius 2 years ago
mopsius You are a child.
Yankhadenough 2 years ago
Spanish policy: convert and enslave or "enserf".
American policy--exterminate and steal.
French policy--intermarry and populate.
mopsius 2 years ago
Genocide by US whites as policy and practice is well documented in the contemporary sources, out of their own mouths, in their own documents.
There are always exceptions, and there were exceptions, but not many.
It is legendary among the Injuns still left how the so-called "liberals" in Minnesota, for example, treat the local Injuns like shit.
mopsius 2 years ago
Even when the US whites observed treaties they were still trying to exterminate--as with the Navajo.
Exterminate their language and culture--make them into little docile Christians.
That was the BIA's job.
mopsius 2 years ago
mopsius Everyone knows these things about "white man" , my question to you is , why do you whitewash the Spaniards contribution to sharp decline of Native population?
Yankhadenough 2 years ago
You may eventually persuade me you are a lawyer, trying to make a case.
At that point you can debate yourself.
mopsius 2 years ago
mopsius Why is "white man" evil more evil than Spaniard evil? Next thing I know you'll resort to calling me "anti-Spaniard" as an argument .
Yankhadenough 2 years ago
Course when the Cherokee got oil revenue in Oklahoma that made being Cherokee real popular too, HAHAHA.
The Cherokee Nation is one of the worst cases because it shows the real motive forces--they did exactly what the supposedly "civilizing" white demanded--language, writing, towns, newspaper, etc.
Then BLAM--you must leave. Completely racist.
Then the fucks do the same thing in Oklahoma.
Notice the pattern,HAHAHAHA.
mopsius 2 years ago
mopsius Trail of Tears... yes my lineage trailed off to OK, then back to NC
Yankhadenough 2 years ago
Yes, some of the Cherokees snuck back--not many, but some.
mopsius 2 years ago
The ones who returned successfully in small numbers had kin.
mopsius 2 years ago
mopsius Now tell me something I don't know
Yankhadenough 2 years ago
If you want to study what happened in Mexico, the key is to under "peasant", whiichis not easy for most Americans to do.
The USbasically has no peasants, except here and there in small, restricted areas, and there are historical reasons for that.
Most Americans think "peasant" is below them.
The British capitalists "depeasanted" Britain in the 1800's, which explains what a shitcan culture they have--including the shit food.
mopsius 2 years ago
mopsius I am not focusing on Mexico. I want to know what the Spaniards did to the Incas.
Yankhadenough 2 years ago
The Spanish conquered the Incas, but they did not commit genocide on them. They are still there.
Killing or trying to enslave thousands upon thousands is not the same as genocide.
Genocide is the attempt to exterminate.
What I said about "peasant" is pertinent as well.
There is a different culture operant, though Peru is much different from Mexico, partly because it was New World "Mexicans" that led the conquest, HAHAHA.
mopsius 2 years ago
mopsius ok, so by your definition, then "white man" did not commit genocide on North American Natives, because they are still there.
Yankhadenough 2 years ago
Yankhadenough--you see you are being stupid.
You sound intelligent enough to penetrate the flaw in what you just said.
Many tribes were exterminated, and the attempt to exterminate governed much policy, which was genocidal in both practice and theory.
You may not want to face that about American whites.
Your problem, not mine.
Kitchener recommended genocide of the Boers, by the way.
mopsius 2 years ago
mopsius Noone is denying genocide by "white man', especially me, I have Cherokee heritage, remember? You are dodging THE question again... WHY are you whitewashing the Spaniard conquistadors?
Yankhadenough 2 years ago
Yankhadenough--You are using tu quoque. The Spanish conquistadores in Mexico were not genocidal--just the reverse. That does not mean they were kind--it means they were not trying to exterminate the native population. In fact, they wanted them as peasants.
You are just being stupid.
mopsius 2 years ago
mopsius The massive population decline of Native population (over 70% due to DEATH) in the first hundred years of Spaniards after Columbus IS attributed to three factors
1) warfare
2) labor abuse ( So they wanted zombies for peasants? )
3) disease
Yankhadenough 2 years ago
Like most US white Protestants, whatever your Cherokee lineage, you just don't want to face the fact that American policy toward Injuns was peculiarly genocidal and racist in thrust.
The French also were not genocidal--probably 90 percent of New World French have Indian blood--a lot, because intermarrying was the colonial policy.
Not facing your own prejudices is your problem, not mine.
mopsius 2 years ago
mopsius Since when is warfare and labor abuse not genocidal acts?
Yankhadenough 2 years ago
Yankhadenough--you are using a mythical American model of "colonization", and then applying it everywhere.
You are deeply, emotionally involved in your biases.
mopsius 2 years ago
mopsius Again, the only one wearing rose-colored glasses while carrying a bucket of white paint in one hand and a paintbrush in the other, is YOU
Yankhadenough 2 years ago
Yankhadenough, you have your head up your ass. You may be intelligent enough to get over it some day with some real work, rather than feeding your emotional prejudices..
But maybe not.
mopsius 2 years ago
You can't study history advantageously and uncover facts when your aim is moral blamelessness for some group--or at least that they are not worse than some other group.
That's all bullshit and that is one of the reasons the US is on the verge of collapse--a complete refusal to face unpleasant facts.
Most Americans never face facts and never learn.
The typical Mohawk would laugh his ass off at you--they never conceal how savage they were as a tribe.
mopsius 2 years ago
mopsius I never denied the genocide by the white man against the Natives... it is YOU whitewashing the Spaniard conquistadors... do you always manipulate discussions like that? Very childish
Yankhadenough 2 years ago
How is denying that the Spanish were genocidal whitewashing?
You are being so fucking stupid it is not worth talking to you any more.
The whole country is going down the tubes becuase of the same shit--lies, lies, lies, and refusals to face the clearest fact.
All of this stuff is known from documents in intimate detail.
The Sapnish were not genocidal, nor were the Frenach, mor were the Dutch.
The Americans were.
Simple.
mopsius 2 years ago
Go study some serious discipline with a fucking method.
I'll talk to you again in five years.
You just want to have a moral position on shit you know nothing about.
You cna;t do history or anything else like that.
mopsius 2 years ago
mopsius ok, I get it now, so pre-planned conquering , warfare and labor abuse of any indigenous population in any part of the world for GOLD is not genocidal, by your definition.
Yankhadenough 2 years ago
Very precisely, that is correct.
That is not genocidal.
Genocidal seeks to exterminate whole peoples and cultures, not enslave them.
Got it now?
The US is not the only country that has had genocidal policies, reaching back to ancient history.
But that would take a volume. The Old Testament, by the way, is genocidal-in regard to the Canaanites, for example.
mopsius 2 years ago
mopsius You are incorrect.
h t t p ://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Genocide
"...While precise definition varies among genocide scholars, a legal definition is found in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). Article 2 of this convention defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; ...
Yankhadenough 2 years ago
...causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."[1]..."
Yankhadenough 2 years ago
I am making no moral judgments or comparative moral judgments.
Facts are facts.
US policy toward Indians, with some exceptions here and there for short times, was peculiarly racial and genocidal.
You don't want to face that.
That hinges on the precise use of words.
Otherwise you might as well just whistle.
mopsius 2 years ago
In fact, Yankhadenough, there are hundreds of past models of "colonziation" reaching back thousands of years, all different, and which you know nothing about, nor do most of the ideological historians of the New World, including not only Americans but British and Spanish and French.
mopsius 2 years ago
mopsius You know nothing about me except that which I tell you (and I will keep my personal info close to the vest now, i assure you) . Your bragadocious and whitewashed history is motivated by SOMETHING , not quite sure what quite frankly, nor do I care anymore. All I know is if I was killed by a Spaniard, Englishman or the French back then, I really wouldn't much care who thought who was the better of the three during the commission of my demise.
Yankhadenough 2 years ago
Yankhadenough--are you young by any chance?
What the fuck does any of that have to do with historical facts?
Nothing.
Is this what passes for historical research in your neck of the woods--moral and ethical and emotional arguments?'
mopsius 2 years ago
mopsius It is YOU who claims that Spaniards actions ain't so bad as white man's ! You are the KING of emotional arguments... a child king.
Yankhadenough 2 years ago
Gary B. Nash, Red, Black, and White.
Not bad if you don't know it.
mopsius 2 years ago
Quite literally, most Americans don't know how to wipe their ass figuratively speaking--it is a cultural wasteland and the mass media keeps them that way.
Which is exactly what the fucking fundamentalist morons, also cultural morons but with bullshit Born Again superstition and emotionalism, literally capitalize on.
The US has been going backwards for fifty years.
mopsius 2 years ago
Capitalism and Calvinism are other causes--making any true art or culture beyond technology and dollars signs impossible.
But technology is moveable, as the Japanese show.
And predatory financial capitalism carries the seeds of its own destruction in Imperialism, just as happened with the British Empire.
mopsius 2 years ago
The only real question is how dumb the American people can continue to be before they wake up to just who is fucking them over--namely their own leaders, including the politicians, the financiers and capitalists, the military elite, and the fucking religious leaders whose job is to keep them dumb and docile.
mopsius 2 years ago
Mexican culture is a genuine European-Indian synthesis--across the board.
The US is as culturally and racially fragmented and uncultured as the day the Republic was founded.
And an ingrained racism and ethnocentrism is a major part of the cause.
mopsius 2 years ago
Davis this series of course will do one very good thing, give the history of America back to the Native Americans. This will also open a glorious can of worms! There may come a time when one individual will be able , via DNA testing, prove that he/she is a descendant of the "extinct" Tequesta tribe in Florida, and when that day happens, what will become of Downtown Miami real estate? Be prepared for Se Habla Tequestan signs.
Yankhadenough 2 years ago
One of Lincoln's early cases was to steal a tract of land on the Chicago lake front from the Indians that owned it by treaty.
mopsius 2 years ago
Great project, Davis ! Needless to say, everything has be viewed not just from contemporary viewpoints of history, in hindsight, as it were, but also from the perspective of those living in those times. And the many voices left OUT of this history, including the fact, the founding fathers were themselves, by the time the Constitution was written, members of a privileged + educated class. Some of the founding fathers clearly had the interests of the lower classes in mind, but others did not.
55ella2007k 2 years ago
Where did you learn all that was left out of the history books?
mstax 2 years ago
Why do you hate America so?
Jackinape 2 years ago
No thanks. I'll stick with the actual historical experts.
Becoming more and more like Glenn Beck every video.
mjr256 2 years ago
I was thinking the same thing.
AngryPirateProd 2 years ago
So when someone like Petronius' Trimalchio, a freedman who loved his master, assembles his own slaves and calls them his "family", there is a cultural aspect to the usage.
More than property.
But then there were the latifundia plantation slaves too. Better off or worse off than share-croppers?
Slaves as independent businessmen too.
mopsius 2 years ago
Cultural considerations also govern.
The Roman paterfamilias held his own children formally as slaves.
Upon reaching adulthood the son had to be manumitted legally, for example.
Okay--what does that mean?
Family as slaves or slaves as family?
mopsius 2 years ago
Racism, Capitalism, Empire--dangerous mix.
mopsius 2 years ago
For the most part hunters and nomads cannot be enslaved--historical fact--maybe not every case but most.
mopsius 2 years ago
Slavery was traditionally a function of war in
the ancient western world. The new world and capitalist agriculture made it a made of economics and market as well. In the US a strong racial aspect was added.
Look at the Aztecs-they wanted prisoners but not as slaves--rather as sacrifices.
Why.
Very complex question.
mopsius 2 years ago
you can go to hell you ass... fuck you
ChandrAllen 2 years ago
The Dutch were loyal allies with the Mohawk but in other ares of the world they committed genocide too.
mopsius 2 years ago
The Spanish and Portuguese enslave--the English commit genocide.
Mexico is the only genuine New World/Old World cultural synthesis.
There may be others gradually awakening.
mopsius 2 years ago
My point is this: You're over simplifying three hundred years of European colonization for which the English were only involved for half of that time. To boil it down to only English/American genocide is ludicrous.
AngryPirateProd 2 years ago
The Spanish tried to enslave the Injuns in South America but they just died off--like trying to enslave a Lakota or Apache. Can't be done.
I am not oversimplifying. Read my comments carefully.
Rather you are trying to save the feeling of "English" superiority in some way.
There is no doubt the English were more racist--against all non-English and non-white.
That is a fact.
There were exceptions--for Christian Indians as at Natick.
I have no biases on the subject at all--just facts.
mopsius 2 years ago
The Indians died off because they were sent to work in gold and silver mines.
I don't think the English are superior at all. I just don't think they're especially worse than any other expansionist empire at the time. All parties had their own interests and human suffering was often the consequence of those pursuits.
I'm positive there is not an established 'fact' of which group is more racist than any other group. Humans are humans are humans.
AngryPirateProd 2 years ago
Yeah the racism is overt.
By the Way the Roman Law of slavery was more humane than that governing slavery in ANY modern state--slaves had recognized human rights.
mopsius 2 years ago
Look, the Dutch hunted Tasmanians for sport, and committed grautious genocide.
Worse than the British? Perhaps not thjat one case.
But the British have more humanitarian offenses on their hands than perhaps any other nation--for centuries, and most of it was racially generated. Irish, Boers, Injuns, Indians, on and on.
The hilarious part is how racially mixed these very Englishmen were.
mopsius 2 years ago
The kids with the biggest rooms with the most stuff make the biggest messes.
The British did a lot of things very very wrong, but not due to some sort of inherent evil quality. They killed 30 million Asian Indians, but they ditched slavery before the Spanish did. They oppressed the Boers, but didn't oppress the Africans nearly as much as the Boers did once they had their own independent South Africa.
There's a lot of Shit in the crapper of the world and a lot of it is British, but not all.
AngryPirateProd 2 years ago
I agree--far from all. But the hypocrisy always tries to make it much smaller than it was.
Incidentally, it is now generally agreed that indentured servitude was much worse during its term than slavery.
mopsius 2 years ago
Indentured servitude is worse than slavery? Which indentured servants? Where? When? Which slaves? Which country? In some cases, maybe, but in most cases, I would say no.
AngryPirateProd 2 years ago
West Indies, colonial America.
The reason is simple--as the term neared its end there was no economic incentive to keep the indentured servant alive--or to feed him much or treat him if he got sick.
Expired property--disposable.
mopsius 2 years ago
Well, it was illegal. There were laws about how servants were to be treated and how harshly they could be punished. If a servant was abused they had the right to sue.
AngryPirateProd 2 years ago
In the West Indies the plantations owners tried indentured servants. They died in droves. Then they went to African slaves.
The slavers conclusion was whites could not survive in the area.
An additional explanation was how they abused the indentured servants, but not the slaves as badly.
mopsius 2 years ago
Indentured servants were slaves for a term.
Servitude is servitude, as still in the Constitution.
There were contracts but many ways around them.
Laws--yeah right.
mopsius 2 years ago
Plus the shipowners got paid whether the servant arrived alive or not. They could give a fuck less.
The slavers lost money when slaves died on the crossing.
mopsius 2 years ago
Look, the whole purpose of bringing over indentured servants was to populate the colony. The government of the respective colonies didn't want their populace to be wiped out before they gained land that they would work and pay taxes on.
What you describe certainly happened, but it wasn't the rule.
AngryPirateProd 2 years ago
No, there you are wrong, AngryPirateProd. Populating the colonies was not the purpose.
Slavery for a term was the purpose.
Population was a consequence.
mopsius 2 years ago
Labor and population were both aims. Otherwise, why give away free land at the end of the indenture?
As far as "pshaw... laws", as I have seen court records of the time period, there are quite a few people suing for abuses. Indentures are paying off the debt of their passage. Their not enslaved for life. Nor were slaves in the 17th century the same kind of slaves you see in the antebellum south, nor were cultural attitudes towards them the same.
AngryPirateProd 2 years ago
Yes, they could always pay off the debt if they had the money--it was a contract.
The colonials wanted the population--the Brits could have given a flying fuck less.
mopsius 2 years ago
I agree with you completely on that point. Mainland Britain liked getting wealth from their colonies and didn't much care for their well being or protection.
AngryPirateProd 2 years ago
We don't disagree on much. Gotta go. Good conversation--unusual for youtube.
mopsius 2 years ago
Yeah, I was surprised. Amazing what can be discussed when people are civil. I certainly enjoyed it.
AngryPirateProd 2 years ago
Cheap labor, not popualtion was the purpose.
You are "feeling" English moral superiority again.
The British elite had very little humanity, even for their own.
mopsius 2 years ago
Being impressed on British ship was in many ways worse than being enslaved.
mopsius 2 years ago
You're jumping around quite a bit. I dunno. Life before the mast versus a life of working on a tobacco/cotton/rice/sugar plantation? I suppose being a domestic servant would certainly be preferable. The punishments were certainly comparable.
AngryPirateProd 2 years ago
It is all of a piece--the Industrial Revolution in Britain later shows much humanity these capitalists had.
Next to none.
They stole the peasants commons by law exactly to drive them to work for less than subsistence in th e factories.
The Brits did the same thing in Tanzania with a hut tax--forced labor for money to pay a tax.
These were cold calculating economic measures with no humanity whatsoever.
mopsius 2 years ago
This will give you a new slant if you did not already know it--at Athens the police forces were Scythian slaves.
They wouldn't trust citizens with the job, hehe.
At Rome many physicians were slaves or freedmen.
mopsius 2 years ago
If your slave got sick and you did not treat him and he recovered he was free.
Slaves had a right to personal property.
mopsius 2 years ago
Jefferson a rapist? He clearly loved Hemmings. Did he use force? Doubt it. She was his wife's half sister. Does slave status make it rape?
My historical background is much too wide and deep for an easy answer.
There's is a thousand page tome on the Roman Law of Slavery, for example--that I can cite in detail
You would be surprised.
mopsius 2 years ago
This is looking good. Let the truth be known.
TheAussie00 2 years ago
Flash:"WASILLA, Alaska Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin abruptly announced Friday she is resigning from office at the end of the month, a shocking move that rattled the Republican party but left open the possibility she would seek a run for the White House in 2012."
AP
HAHAHAHAHA. Fucking Born Again Right Wing Thieving Blackmailer Extortionist.
mopsius 2 years ago
dude im sorry i called you scary
ItsRachelBennet 2 years ago
In the predatory capitalist warfare state that is now the US, war and taxes are the capitalists' "economy".
mopsius 2 years ago
Capitalism is dysgenic.
mopsius 2 years ago
War is profitable to the Capitalist, especially the warfare capitalist--and destructive of the whole rest of society and the species.
mopsius 2 years ago
The idea that capitalist has some fucking ideological monopoly on markets is also a fucking moronic assumption.
mopsius 2 years ago
And Lenin was right on the nose about Monopoly, Finance Capitalism, and Imperialism.
mopsius 2 years ago
Markets do some things well, other things badly, and many necessary things not at all.
The brains comes in figuring out which is which is which.
As a great Frenchman said-- one Bastiat in every socialist cell.
mopsius 2 years ago
"Enlightened self-interest"?
Sorry there is no way to get there from where you are.
mopsius 2 years ago
Why wouldn't the finance capitalist manipulate the currency?
mopsius 2 years ago
Why wouldn;t the Capitalist buy the buyable state?
If material wealth is the only motive of individuals--why not?
mopsius 2 years ago
Liberty,. Equality, Fraternity was the motto.
Not Liberty, me, me, and fuck the rest of you.
mopsius 2 years ago
Be nice little meek dumbasses while the one percent steals you blind and then tells you it's your fault.
HAHAHAHAHA.
mopsius 2 years ago
After a while these fuckers start believing their own lies.
mopsius 2 years ago
Society is collective or it is nothing.
To the Capitalists it is nothing.
Fucking self-rigthteous, vicious Chrsitian Social Darwinists!
They are all individualists until they get together to buy your country and steal your commonwealth.
mopsius 2 years ago
dude you kind of scare me
ItsRachelBennet 2 years ago
Every Capitalist is an individual--they had no fucking mothers--no sir. They came into the world fully formed and indepedent. They gave birth to themselves!
mopsius 2 years ago
Here's the great part, toliverfive--you will design your own hell.
mopsius 2 years ago
Privatization--yeah right--privatizing your tax money and giving it to incompetent financiers and banks.
mopsius 2 years ago
Anyone here old enough to remember forty years ago--who then would have imagined the US fighting wars all over the world with mercenaries and military contractors.
I'll tell you who imagined it--Nixon and his Capitalist pigs.
That's why they got rid of the conscription, dumbasses.
mopsius 2 years ago
Capitalism kills.
mopsius 2 years ago
The Right Wing and the Mainstreeam media have made mentioning Lenin seem like mentioning the most vulgar pornogrpaphy.
They know his writings are dangerous because they are true.
He had an exact bead on the US now as an imperialist predatory state run by banks and financial capitalist monopolies.
Read him carefully and what he says about Fin Cap.
You will see the US there writ large.
mopsius 2 years ago
Having come out from under the thumb of the Redcoats, the Americans became the Red Coats.
mopsius 2 years ago
Actually that is Capitalism under all the camouflage--war, genocide, imperialism, thievery, and waste on an unimaginable scale.
mopsius 2 years ago
The number of treaties the US has broken in a couple of centuries is mind-boggling.
mopsius 2 years ago
US wars, embargos, and economic policies have easily kill, directly and indirectly, 100,000, 000 people--maybe more.
mopsius 2 years ago
While the English and other European powers certainly had wars with the Native Americans, active genocide didn't really start happening until after the United States was established. Saying the land was acquired through genocide is a laughable simplification that assumes the Native Americans were sitting on their hands being victims while the white man swept through. Opechancanough of the Powhatan wiped out a fourth of the population of Jamestown. Natives were no different than the invaders.
AngryPirateProd 2 years ago
AngryPirateProd--you are right about some parts of the 13 colonies. But much was stolen too.
On the other hand, New England was devoid of Injuns because the English had nicely enough started a small pox epidemic a few years before Plymouth,
Systematic genocide did start with the US.
The Cherokee Nation, on the other hand, were transported--which is almost as bad.
mopsius 2 years ago
Who really suffered, however, were the Americans, who would have been a different, better people with a mix that tribes like the Cherokee could offer.
mopsius 2 years ago
As I said earlier, the English didn't get Syphilis from shaking hands... and the Spanish were quite proficient at reproducing with the native populations.
AngryPirateProd 2 years ago
The English were much more racist than the Spanish, Portuguese or French.
mopsius 2 years ago
When the colony of Maryland was founded (taking land away from Virginia) a Virginian fur trader that didn't want to lose his land spread the rumor that the coming Maryland colonists were actually Spanish, prompting the Natives to flee. The Spanish and Portuguese were much more brutal slavers. Check the lifespan of slaves in Spanish colonies versus English. Hell, blacks could own land in English colonies.
AngryPirateProd 2 years ago
Not true--the Southern whites were much more brutal when they were brutal, and the laws were different.
It's a mixed bag.
The Poruguese and Spanish and French considered slaves human--very few of the Southern whites did (Jefferson was an exception).
mopsius 2 years ago
You're joking, right? The Spanish enslaved Indians and blacks and worked them to death in five years.
AngryPirateProd 2 years ago
And just a reminder, the English sent colonists, not conquistadors.
But you can continue to make up your own past if you prefer.
AngryPirateProd 2 years ago
No, AngryPirate--you are not ignorant but you are propagandized.
Actually conquistadors are easier on the native population--think about it.
As with the French--they intermarry.
So you praise for "colonists" is typical English Tendenz.
Big fucking favor.
mopsius 2 years ago
Read Shaw's Man of Destiny--the passage of Napoleon on English "morality".
The British invented concentration camps--as bad as Hitlers--for the Boers.
Kitchener recommended genocide.
mopsius 2 years ago
mopsius lol, why do you think Aztecs and Mayans and Incans are practically extinct? Because of "benevolent" Spaniard conquistadors?
Yankhadenough 2 years ago
The Aztec and Maya are not extinct--they are part of a Spanish--Indian synthesis.
The Conquistadors were not benevolent, but they were not genocidal maniacs like the white racist Protestant American imperialists.
They intermarried, dumbass.
mopsius 2 years ago
mopsius lol, intermarriage implies that the Native population would grow and flourish, when in fact it declined by 70% or more only a hundred years after Columbus' arrival. There is a reason that history calls the Spaniards "conquistadors" , and not a Spanish dating service.
Yankhadenough 2 years ago
mopsius source:
w w w. dhr. history. vt. edu/modules/us/mod01_pop/context.html
Yankhadenough 2 years ago
You are wrong, Yankhadenough--about Mexico anyway.
And if you study the matter closely, you will find you are also wrong about Latin America in most areas, where Indian and mestizo populations are still overwhelming in numbers.
The genocide was in North America for the most part.
That does not mean some tribes were not wiped out in Latin America.
mopsius 2 years ago
mopsius I am a mixture of white and Cherokee, which was a union by marriage, not rape, before you jump to incorrect conclusions again. Instead of the ad hominem attacks, provide sources to refute my source. Your opinion does not count as a source.
Yankhadenough 2 years ago
Yes, I know all about the small Cherokee-white synthesis.
The Cherokee were really fucked as a tribe, but some of them went back.
However, most whites who claim Cherokee blood are blowing smoke out their ass.
mopsius 2 years ago
Your "source" is shit.
mopsius 2 years ago
mopsius And you're full of it.
Yankhadenough 2 years ago
You are a historical illiterate, Yankhadenough, responding to words like "conqeror" rather than facts and events.
Study the Lombards in Italy or the Normans in Ireland for an analogy with Mexico.
No--then stop bothering me with your pseudo-history.
mopsius 2 years ago
Some hill folk in Kentucky, for example are clearly a white-Cherokee synthesis--but the true numbers are very small, and they were mostly wiped out.
How many Melungeons are left--very small numbers if any.
There are many whites who claim Cheorkee blood on pure hearsay--when the ancestor might have been one eighth Cherokee.
As for Oklahoma--that is a different milieu completely.
I am talking about them thar hills, and it would surprise you how I know them so intimately.
mopsius 2 years ago