The myth of Indian genocide

It’s that time again, Thanksgiving is upon us and as usual so are the self-loathing left with their accusations of Indian Genocide and stolen land. If anything they are predictable. So I compiled a few notes that draws heavily upon “The 10 Big Lies About America” by Michael Medved, to dispel these myths:

*The first Thanksgiving resulted in 50 years of peace with the neighboring Indian villages.

*Neither the colonial governments nor, later, the U.S. government ever endorsed or practiced a policy of Indian extermination.

*Disease overwhelmingly killed more Indians than war. Infectious diseases brought about between 75 and 95 percent of Indian deaths after European settlement began. Throughout the Americas, diseases introduced with Europeans spread from tribe to tribe far in advance of the Europeans themselves, killing an estimated 95 percent of the pre-Columbian Native American population. The main killers were Old World germs to which Indians had never been exposed, and against which they therefore had neither immune nor genetic resistance. Smallpox, measles, influenza, and typhus rank top among the killers.

*The notion of Small Pox blankets stems from an isolated incident involving British officials,  not Americans, and remains inconclusive. Pontiac's Rebellion (1763) in which Chief Pontiac said “It is important for us, my brothers, that we exterminate from our lands this nation which seeks only to destroy us.” resulted in the natives wiping out eight forts and murdering hundreds of troops and settlers, including women and children. Victims were variously tortured, scalped, cannibalized, dismembered, and burned at the stake. As a result of desperation British Commander Field Marshal Lord Jeffery Amherst and Colonel Henry Bouquet briefly discussed the idea of infecting the Indians with Small Pox blankets. However there are no evidence indicating that Amherst actually went through with the idea. At no point did the British commander issue orders or make a policy declaration regarding extermination of the Indians. Both whites and Indians suffered from Small Pox, which the Indians could have received the diseases from a number of sources. Ultimately it was It was Colonel Bouquet, not the smallpox virus, who finally rescued Fort Pitt.

*In addition to the massive numbers killed by disease, Native American tribes lost untold millions to assimilation and intermarriage.

*Atrocities were committed on both sides. Lord Jeffery cited the monstrous cruelty he had observed from his adversaries (scalping alive for souvenirs, branding, cutting out and occasionally devouring hearts, torture through slow skinning, piercing bodies with as many as a hundred arrows)

*Societies among the Indians and all other aboriginal peoples conducted devastating wars against one another that at times became struggles for domination, conquest, replacement, or even extermination. The hundreds of native tribes that occupied North America warred against one another for thousands of years, dispelling the myth of the "Noble Savage".

*The more developed New World cultures of the Maya, Aztec, and Inca not only turned their slaves into brutalized and mutilated beasts of burden but also used their conquered enemies to feed a limitless lust for human sacrifice.

*The U.S. experience with our indigenous populations strongly resembles any and every encounter between peoples at vastly different stages of development.

*Once a stone aged culture came in contact with a more powerful and advanced civilization there became only two inevitable outcomes, fight and lose or assimilate, either way their old life was finished.

*In the words of Mark Twain, ”There isn’t a foot of land in the world which doesn’t represent the ousting and re-ousting of a long line of successive “owners” who each in turn, as “patriots” with proud swelling hearts defended it against the next gang of “robbers” who came to steal it and did— and became swelling-hearted patriots in their turn. . . . Patriotism is a word which always commemorates a robbery.”

The problems with equaility

Equality is one of those buzzwords that we often hear nowadays. Equality comes to us in many forms such as gender equality, marriage equality, and economic equality. It is the driving force behind LGBT rights, feminism, social justice, and so on. The concept of economic and social equality didn’t used to be an American virtue, so where did it come from? The many forms of equality have its roots in Marxism and was imported to America in the form of cultural Marxism. Cultural Marxism is a very subtle method of influencing the culture towards Marxist ways of thinking. Marxism essentially tries to enforce equality in situations where equality does not exist. It is a worldview that radically changes ones thinking. It sees problems and inequalities in society and seeks to solve them. In doing so it stirs up feelings of anger and resentment. It creates such intense feelings of injustice that people feel they have to act. But it only succeeds in causing more inequality and ultimately tyranny.

When it comes to economics, income inequality is solved through wealth distribution. It robs from the rich while giving to the poor. Well, it worked for Robin Hood. Unfortunately equality is an ideology that ignores human nature. The incentive for the Haves to work hard is taken away since hard work doesn't bring any greater success or reward. And there are no incentives for the Have Nots to work hard since they are guaranteed the same slice of the pie either way.

Equality only succeeds in stifling ambition and killing motivation. No one can aspire to greatness because that would be unfair to someone else. It breeds mediocrity and makes everyone equally poor, except for the ruling elite of course. This form of economic equality was tried in Communist countries with disastrous results. All it accomplished was misery, death, and destruction. There was really no such thing as true equality. Even in the Communist countries, there were always those at the top who had more than everyone else. All it did was make the gap wider between the haves and have nots. Unfortunately, what we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history. In order to have a free society, economic disparity must be embraced otherwise why work at all?

Equality is most damaging when it comes to morality. There can be no absolutes with moral equality, because the truth becomes relative. That means elevating the bad with the good. From their perspective, saying something is morally wrong is elevating someone’s morality over someone else’s morality, and that would not be fair. So evil must, by necessity, be equal to good and good must be equal to evil. The values of American Judeo-Christian culture must be seen as equal to that of totalitarian Islam, and the value of heterosexual marriage must be equal to that of homosexual marriage. This concept of equality must then be enforced through coercion which ultimately leads to the loss of freedoms. Forced equality is not equality at all, neither can it replace virtue. It benefits some while being detrimental to others. You can have freedom or you can have equality, but you can't have both.

Life isn’t fair. There will always be people who are stronger, faster, smarter, taller, or better looking than someone else. Equality ignores these innate differences and in doing so, prevents people from utilizing their full potential. Feminism, for example, tries to make women equal to men in every respect. However it ignores the physiological and psychological differences between men and women. As a result, men may naturally be better at doing some things, while women may naturally be better at doing other things. There is no unity when it comes to equality. It creates a Balkanization effect where everyone is broken down into race, sex, gender, and then pitted against each another.

In conclusion, equality is based upon an ideology that is not about equality at all, but about control.  It forces everyone to think the same, behave the same, and expect the same. In the words of Igor Shafarevich, “They proclaim the greatest possible equality, the destruction of hierarchy in society and at the same time a strict regimentation of all of life, which would be impossible without absolute control and an all-powerful bureaucracy which would engender an incomparably greater inequality.”  Justice on the other hand creates true fairness where equality does not. The difference between justice and equality is best summed up by the following picture: