Native American Genocide
A lie I hear repeated too often by the ignoranti, is that Americans committed gennoacide against Native Americans... like they used smallpox laden blankets as an example of that: we intentionally exterminated them. Only if you know that facts, that wasn't us -- it was one letter from a Brit to a Brit about maybe doing it, long after 90% of the indigenous people had been wiped out.
|Native American Genocide||A lie I hear repeated too often by the ignoranti, is that Americans committed gennoacide against Native Americans... like they used smallpox laden blankets as an example of that: we intentionally exterminated them.||That was based on a letter from one Brit to another, 24 years before there was a Constitution or country of USA, it was during a war with the Indians, and most Indians had been wiped over by disease and wars over the prior 300 years (via the Spanish). America had little to do with most of the deaths.|
- (a) the only evidence, ever, was it suggested during French and Indian wars in 1763, by Jeffery Amhers -- but he was a Brit, not an American, it was 24 years before the Constitution, and there's no evidence it was actually used -- let alone that it had any effect.
- (b) by that time, most of the death by disease had happened over the prior 300 years (before America existed, and would have been more the fault of the Spanish and French), which was all non-intentional, so you can hardly hold Americans responsible for something we as a Nation never had a policy of doing.
- (c) the native Americans had no problems trying to exterminate and commit genocide on each other (so we have little reason to think they wouldn't have done the same back) -- and this was during a war, where the Indians had jumped in on the losing side (not exactly innocent). Biological war was not unheard of back then (it was before treaties forbidding it).
- (d) the general tone towards Indians during early settlement (and even later) was complex -- often seeing them as noble savages, and treating them far better than blacks/slaves. (Often trying to help educate and integrate them). But there was often many cases of attacks by one tribe getting mis-associated to another, and back-and-forth that seldom works out for the less advanced civilization.
The point is the stuff taught today by the far left hippie radicals that hijacked our History books in the 70's, is dramatically different (and no more accurate) than that taught for the prior 100+ years. So they're not fighting for some pure "truth" and against censorship -- they're fighting against having their revisionist history corrected, balanced, or in some worst cases -- have their techniques used back against them.
I spent my years in school often researching and writing my papers on the anti-history that the History books were trying to teach. (Much to the annoyance of many of my teachers). My grades were either A's (because I wrote well and my papers were well researched and supported beyond my years), or F's (because some teachers hated that I disagreed with the books and supported it better than any of their little mindless flocks did in regurgitating their frauds). And that was in the 70's, as near as I can tell, the leftist dogma has only gotten worse since then.