Is this how history books portray my people?

[r_55566320 2]

mod plz close this topic

[red_tank_the_best 300]

This si the USA, a free country where i can post topics about this on any forum, what country do you live in? This is fact.

You want the justice? I'm from Serbia, dude! 

/.../

As I know, creating topics about racism is forbidden.

Edited April 1, 2014 by red_tank_the_best

[byebyeoooooh 4]

Agreed, the whites sometimes did take the land away unfairly, but they mostly took it by treaties that the white people thought the indians would understand. Also them living in conditions like that is their fault. Most modern indians run cassinos now in our reservations. White popel did have moments, but the indians also had alot of moments where they would kill settlers for the fun of it. The white settlers never knew how the disease really effected the indians until later. The diseases were unintended.

I clicked positive vote your post by mistake. I wasn't going to down vote it either. I was going to click on the quote tab. Anyway. You say that "the whites 'sometimes' did take the land unfairly, but they mostly took it by treaties that white people thought the indians would understand." I don't know who has been educating you of these things, but that is false. The Native people of America did not know the legal terminology involved within the treaties, let alone the language. And those government officials who drafted such treaties knew that they did not understand. And rounding people together committing genocide upon them sterilization etc., and forcing them to live on barren lands (reservations), not allowing them to leave to hunt and feed themselves, is not their fault. And I've got news for you. The agenda you have been taught by stating that most modern indians run casinos has also been greatly over exaggerated by mostly television (is that where you get your information from?) The majority of tribes have no casino, and those that do can provide some employment, and they are owned by investors (still not enough to take care of every one). That would be like saying, "all white people have no excuse for being poor because the Pepsi Cola company is run by "whites". Lets get real. If you are "white" you are not to blame for what happened in the past. Like monkeyburn say's "The future begins with you, me and everyone". And what you say about the settlers not knowing how diseases infected "indians" is truth. But the government officials involved in distributing blankets to the reservation indians as a sign of good faith, knew exactly where those blankets came from. Hospitals in the northeast United States. Unwashed Hospital blankets infected with smallpox and other diseases. These and other acts where intentionally designed to exterminate...This thing of history books and television blaming the settlers instead of the government officials, is intended to create guilt and blame, so that "white people" feel they are under attack. That way they will not try to get together with native peoples, and make peace.

And then this is passed on from generation to generation. Peace... :)  

Edited April 1, 2014 by byebyeoooooh

[run-just-run 2]

Peace and Unity, to everybody in the Tanki community, and the world as well... :)  :wub:

[FaaiqBilal 221]

My point: The government of any region will portray others to create a false sense of patriotism whether it was true or false, it is in every community.

[SonofDeath 512]

Agreed, the whites sometimes did take the land away unfairly, but they mostly took it by treaties that the white people thought the indians would understand. Also them living in conditions like that is their fault. Most modern indians run cassinos now in our reservations. White popel did have moments, but the indians also had alot of moments where they would kill settlers for the fun of it. The white settlers never knew how the disease really effected the indians until later. The diseases were unintended.

1. Some times? More like every single piece of land was taken. The Natives once ruled all of North America. They were forced off their home lands and on to reserves. Only the explorers who discovered North America were fair to its people. The settlers were not.

 

2. Their fault? They were forced on those condition by our actions. As to the casinos thing, I suggest that the google the lifestyles of most aboriginals. It is not pretty

 

3. The indians did what they did, in order to protect their homeland. If that involved killing the INVADERS, so be it. 

 

4. It does not matter whether the diseases were intentional or not. They came to north america because of the settlers, and so therefor they are responsible for the consequences of their actions.

[hhgb 2,655]

I cant keep this in me anymore, i dont like how white people have been portayed in history books and tv shows, movies, and books. I am talking about the times when the settlers gained independence and started getting attacked byt natives, or slavery, discrimination.

White people are NOT evil okay. Do you people realise the bull our government is trying to feed you? When i learned about how the white settlers "Mass murdered the natives for no reason" <_<  -_- We read the history book wich provided us info about the Minnesota Civil war or "Dakota conflict of 1862" videos and stuff about it NEVER showed the white mans point of view and only the natives point of view. This makes it uncomfortable for me to watch/read.

First of all these books and videos never provided evidence on some things like this Native Narrator "A white woman took a child from a native mothers handsand kept on throwing it on the ground wacking it around. until soldiers took her away and gave the beaten baby back to the mother laughing".

WHAT - ? WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE OF THAT? Just more crap to spread hate and fear towards white people and our founding fathers huh?

Whos baby was it? When and where did it happen? Why - are white people there? They would never be by the natives after the hell they went throught the days before. Even if this is true, the white girl maybe was full of anger, maybe she felt angry because her familys farm may have been destoryed and her family members killed. Also i have more, they claim the white settlers were the only ones to "Cheat" in the fur trade. Yup thats 100% true, the natives never did the same thing (Sarcasm).Where is the evidence in this? The settlers did cheat (Some) But so did the natives (Some). Last they said the government "Lied" because they didnt get repayed after the treaties they SIGNED at treverse de sioux. The government owed them 3 million dollars to help them in the trade, but they didnt. The native narrators called the government stinking cheating liers.WELL THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR WAS GOING ON THEN, wars cost alot of money, and that is why the government couldnt repay them. This started the dakota conflict, it began with native warriors slaughtering hundreds on the plains of minnesota and ended with them utterly defeated with 500 white settlers killed and only 21 dakota ded.

 

Im not saying natives were vil they are not and the whites are not, but im sick of the natives always being the innocent one and mkaing us white people look bad.

 

I cant keep it in anymore. i just cant.No more of this, im sick of it. I hate it when my people are protrayed like this.

That was way back then, none cares about it now, look at Obama.

Edited April 1, 2014 by hhgb

[ShadowyNinja 208]

That was way back then, none cares about it now, look at Obama.

A LOT of people still care about it. I am not saying which side I am on, but look into any history book and each will have a different side. Also look at the letters sections of some newspapers and you will still see people arguing about it.

[r_55566320 2]

1. Some times? More like every single piece of land was taken. The Natives once ruled all of North America. They were forced off their home lands and on to reserves. Only the explorers who discovered North America were fair to its people. The settlers were not.

 

2. Their fault? They were forced on those condition by our actions. As to the casinos thing, I suggest that the google the lifestyles of most aboriginals. It is not pretty

 

3. The indians did what they did, in order to protect their homeland. If that involved killing the INVADERS, so be it. 

 

4. It does not matter whether the diseases were intentional or not. They came to north america because of the settlers, and so therefor they are responsible for the consequences of their actions.

1. fair point fair point

2. The Natives did it to defend when soldiers attacked villages, i doubt attacking New Ulm because the people living in the settlement wouldnt trade was an act of defense for the natives. Good thing they lost the battle of New Ulm and fort ridgley. The running cassinos thing was just to piss you off.

3. The settlers were innocent, the diseases were unintended and i feel bad for the natives, i only have problems with the warriors from the past.

[r_55566320 2]

That was way back then, none cares about it now, look at Obama.

Obama doesn't know how to lead.

[SonofDeath 512]

1. fair point fair point

2. The Natives did it to defend when soldiers attacked villages, i doubt attacking New Ulm because the people living in the settlement wouldnt trade was an act of defense for the natives. Good thing they lost the battle of New Ulm and fort ridgley. The running cassinos thing was just to piss you off.

3. The settlers were innocent, the diseases were unintended and i feel bad for the natives, i only have problems with the warriors from the past.

1. Ok

2. When I researched this:

In 1851, the Santee Sioux Indians of Minnesota had been forced to cede to the government their hunting ground of 24,000,000 acres (97,000 km2). In 1852, they were corralled into a reservation on the Minnesota River. In 1858, they were swindled of half that land. In August 1862, when the government failed to pay the $1.4 million compensation provided by treaty, and its agents and politicians stole most of the supplies that the treaty granted, the Indians rebelled. When Chief Little Crow complained that despite stacks of provisions in clear sight, supposedly theirs by treaty, his people had nothing to eat, the government agent responded, "So far as I'm concerned... let them eat grass or their own dung. Minnesota political leaders, led by Governor Alexander Ramsey, in league with commercial interests, advocated expelling all Indians from Minnesota. 

This is more than enough justification to attack. 

 

3. The deaths of innocent settlers was collateral damage.

Edited April 2, 2014 by SonofDeath

[r_55566320 2]

1. Ok

2. When I researched this:

In 1851, the Santee Sioux Indians of Minnesota had been forced to cede to the government their hunting ground of 24,000,000 acres (97,000 km2). In 1852, they were corralled into a reservation on the Minnesota River. In 1858, they were swindled of half that land. In August 1862, when the government failed to pay the $1.4 million compensation provided by treaty, and its agents and politicians stole most of the supplies that the treaty granted, the Indians rebelled. When Chief Little Crow complained that despite stacks of provisions in clear sight, supposedly theirs by treaty, his people had nothing to eat, the government agent responded, "So far as I'm concerned... let them eat grass or their own dung. Minnesota political leaders, led by Governor Alexander Ramsey, in league with commercial interests, advocated expelling all Indians from Minnesota. 

This is more than enough justification to attack. 

 

3. The deaths of innocent settlers was collateral damage.

 

No deaths of innocents can be justified, not at all. Hitler killed MILLIONS of jews because they didnt help in ww1, Ok thats justified now. It was ok for japan to bomb pearl harbor because the U.S was in the way of their empire Thats justified now.

 

2. The War begun in 1862, the U.S promised 3 million but that failed again because of the American civil war that costed alot of money. I dont like that guy who said "Let them eat grass or own dung".

 

3. The deaths innocent settlers were not deserved as they didnt do anything wrong but settle in search of a better life. Though there were trouble makers.

[r_55566320 2]

Im requesting a mod to delete this topic.

[SonofDeath 512]

No deaths of innocents can be justified, not at all. Hitler killed MILLIONS of jews because they didnt help in ww1, Ok thats justified now. It was ok for japan to bomb pearl harbor because the U.S was in the way of their empire Thats justified now.

 

2. The War begun in 1862, the U.S promised 3 million but that failed again because of the American civil war that costed alot of money. I dont like that guy who said "Let them eat grass or own dung".

 

3. The deaths innocent settlers were not deserved as they didnt do anything wrong but settle in search of a better life. Though there were trouble makers.

1. This is the way I see things. A death of an innocent can be justified if his/hers deaths saves the life of another innocent person.

 

2. It matters not. They must uphold their terms. Take away funding for the war, or better yet, instead of hacking at each other with swords, just write a treaty

 

3. Once again, I am not saying that their deaths were deserved, simply that it was an unintended loss life.

 

And don't you think that the people who wrote the books and videos know about this? They know that there were innocent settler deaths, but the society that suffered the most BY FAR are the natives.

[SonofDeath 512]

Im requesting a mod to delete this topic.

This topic is beyond you now, I wish it to stay open

[r_55566320 2]

This topic is beyond you now, I wish it to stay open.

Agh, nerd words <,< Hippies.

[r_55566320 2]

im bored.

Edited April 2, 2014 by r_55566320

[Aero.v2.0 1,456]

I dont want this anymore plz delete my topic

Closed by request :)