The Last Stand

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Blond_Knight

Well if you invade someones home you deserve a violent death. Though I wouldnt call that glorious.

Hmm. Let's see if I've got this straight: The US Cavalry, operating in the US State of Montana against hostile savages, deserved to die.

I guess that means that the Union forces, invading the Confederacy, deserved to die. The Allied armies, invading Germany in 1945, deserved to die. US forces, invading Afghanistan, deserved to die, etc.

One needs to keep perspective...

Union forces, invading the Confederacy, defeated the standing army.

Allied armies, invading Germany in 1945, defeated the standing army.

US forces, invading Afghanistan, defeated the standing army.

First, the poster I was responding to had no such perspective. It was a blanket statement: Invade -> deserve to die violently.

Nevertheless, just what is the material difference between a band of hostile savages and a "standing army" (other than less savagery, perhaps)?

European forces, coming to the American continent, engaged in active genocide for land.

You've got it backwards: Europeans, coming to the American continent, were subjected to genocide for land. The Indians were then righteously subject to genocide because they initiated it (and kept it up to the best of their ability to the finish).

But let's be clear here: He was saying that the 7th Cavalry deserved to die violently. You seem to be going beyond that - extending that to all Europeans in the Americas. Need we put you on suicide watch?

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
You've got it backwards: Europeans, coming to the American continent, were subjected to genocide for land. The Indians were then righteously subject to genocide because they initiated it (and kept it up to the best of their ability to the finish).

[8|]I think you've been watching too many John Wayne movies, or something...

[Lecivius]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Need we put you on suicide watch?

Well, one of us, anyways [;)][:D]

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

[8|]I think you've been watching too many John Wayne movies, or something...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_massacre_of_1622

Genocide was just how the Indians rolled. (One third of the Jamestown colony wiped out would equal more than 100 million killed today, by the way - to put it in perspective).

[Lecivius]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Genocide was just how the Indians rolled.

I seriously hope you are kidding. If not, I'll just walk away, I'm not on these boards to argue. I have read some of your posts, so I know your no crackpot. And I'm not flaming you. I am, however, a bit surprised.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Genocide was just how the Indians rolled. (One third of the Jamestown colony wiped out would equal more than 100 million killed today, by the way - to put it in perspective).

Oh wow, you found an Indian massacre from 1622, how weak is your google-fu? About 5 seconds on google turned up a rather more complete list, including massacres by both sides over hundreds of years:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_massacres

And your analogy ("One third of the Jamestown colony wiped out would equal more than 100 million killed today, by the way - to put it in perspective") might qualify as the weakest ever--I'm sure we could come up with even more "impressive" numbers on the Indian side if we look at small tribes that were subject to massacres--but I can't imagine that anyone would find the analogy accurate, appropriate, or helpful.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

I seriously hope you are kidding. If not, I'll just walk away, I'm not on these boards to argue. I have read some of your posts, so I know your no crackpot. And I'm not flaming you. I am, however, a bit surprised.

Nope. Men, women, and children were all legitimate intentional targets for the Indians. That included wars between tribes as well. That was how they rolled. They didn't call them savages for nothing.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Genocide was just how the Indians rolled. (One third of the Jamestown colony wiped out would equal more than 100 million killed today, by the way - to put it in perspective).

Oh wow, you found an Indian massacre from 1622, how weak is your google-fu? About 5 seconds on google turned up a rather more complete list, including massacres by both sides over hundreds of years:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_massacres

The 1622 instance is critical because (as I said earlier) the Indians initiated genocidal warfare. Once having done so, they were righteously subject to it. It's like if one side initiates chemical warfare: that may be a war crime. But the other side's response in-kind is not. Of course there were endless massacres in the Indian wars from that point on - the Indians had dictated the nature of the war.

And your analogy ("One third of the Jamestown colony wiped out would equal more than 100 million killed today, by the way - to put it in perspective") might qualify as the weakest ever--I'm sure we could come up with even more "impressive" numbers on the Indian side if we look at small tribes that were subject to massacres--but I can't imagine that anyone would find the analogy accurate, appropriate, or helpful.

It's not weak at all - IF you put yourself in the shoes of the colonists. One-third of the Jamestown colony was wiped out. Imagine how we would feel about an enemy that had just wiped out 1/3 of Americans.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
The 1622 instance is critical because (as I said earlier) the Indians initiated genocidal warfare.

How did you get that? If you look at the link I sent you, in 1610 there was a massacre of the Indians by the colonists near Jamestown colony--are you surprised that that created bad blood with the Indians? Or do you only count massacres which support your point of view?

Sorry, your analogy still makes no sense. Losing a third of a small village (not even a town) is not equivalent, any way or how, to losing a third of a nation of 300 million people. And what point are you trying to make with this analogy anyway? That the colonists were pissed? I think it is obvious that they would be, having all of them lost friends and family, without invoking silly analogies.

[Franciscus]

Hi

I have been reading this thread with some perplexity and hesitation to post. After all I am European and the original subject concerns the States. Although here in Europe we have our fair share of wars and atrocities...

As a portuguese physician and son of a retired Portuguese Air force pilot that fought in our african wars, let me just express my views:
- No one deserves a violent death, although we humans are very good at inflicting them on other humans
- there are no glorious or ignominious deaths. There is only death. What may matter is how we live and how we behave towards others. But the lives of most humans are just misery and suffering. And in the end we all die, which may be one of the very few things we all share. Some of us may be remembered for a few years by a handful of people and then we join all the other forgotten billions of dead.
How many people remember now the names of the fallen troopers and indians in the "Last Stand". Who remembers a name of one roman soldier killed at Cannae, or even one of the dozens of fallen roman senators ? Hannibal's name is still recognized by a few people. But who knows if he will still be remembered in 10.000 years ? We are just an irrelevant blip in the universe....

Again, these are just my thoughts reading this thread. Sorry for the probable irrelevance...

Regards

[Lecivius]

[8|]

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
The 1622 instance is critical because (as I said earlier) the Indians initiated genocidal warfare.

How did you get that? If you look at the link I sent you, in 1610 there was a massacre of the Indians by the colonists near Jamestown colony--are you surprised that that created bad blood with the Indians? Or do you only count massacres which support your point of view?

True. But, since the tribes in the area were in the thousands, that small skirmish could not be genocidal to them. That's in contrast to the 1622 attack. But if that's still an issue for you, then consider what happened to the earlier Roanoke colony that predates both.

Sorry, your analogy still makes no sense. Losing a third of a small village (not even a town) is not equivalent, any way or how, to losing a third of a nation of 300 million people. And what point are you trying to make with this analogy anyway? That the colonists were pissed? I think it is obvious that they would be, having all of them lost friends and family, without invoking silly analogies.

That was the entire colony at the time. Imagine the legacy those colonists transmitted to their children and grandchildren about the treachery of the indians. Just think how we reacted to Pearl Harbor and the war we launched on Japan because of it. That attack was like Pearl Harbor on steroids in comparison.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Franciscus

... there are no glorious or ignominious deaths. There is only death. ...

Of course there are. You may not care that there are - that's your privilege. But there are those of us that do. We cherish and honor our heroes.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
True. But, since the tribes in the area were in the thousands, that small skirmish could not be genocidal to them.

Well, that's an interesting definition of genocide. So if the colonists massacre 300 Indians, it is a victory over the savages, but if the Indians massacre 300 colonists, it is genocide because there are fewer colonists (ie, fewer invaders)...of course you're completely ignoring the fact that "the Indians" were hardly a homogeneous bunch, they were made up of many different smaller tribes, clans, etc. that could also be "genocided" rather easily.

As a though experiment, let's say that a group of 200 colonists had moved in, killed a million (out of a population of 50 million) natives. The remaining natives retaliated, killing 150 colonists. By your definition the natives, but not the colonists, would be guilty of genocide. Is that really your argument??

That was the entire colony at the time. Imagine the legacy those colonists transmitted to their children and grandchildren about the treachery of the indians.

I see...so only the Indians were guilty of treachery, and the Indians only exhibited treachery? I guess all those Thanksgiving stories I've been swallowing all these decades are a big hoax, right?

I won't bother to respond to this thread any more, I already have a pretty clear understanding of, and great distaste for, your views on this topic.

[Toby42]

Boy this thread has gotten off track and traveled downhill in a hurry?

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

Well, that's an interesting definition of genocide.

Genocide, as I understand it, is the extermination (or attempt at extermination) of an ethnic group. The 1610 event, in which it is stated that 16 to 65 indians were killed (out of thousands) could not be genocide. Whatever was in that village was not an ethnic group. The 1622 event, in which the nascent American nation lost 1/3rd of its population was, however.

So if the colonists massacre 300 Indians, it is a victory over the savages, but if the Indians massacre 300 colonists, it is genocide because there are fewer colonists (ie, fewer invaders)...of course you're completely ignoring the fact that "the Indians" were hardly a homogeneous bunch, they were made up of many different smaller tribes, clans, etc. that could also be "genocided" rather easily.

As a though experiment, let's say that a group of 200 colonists had moved in, killed a million (out of a population of 50 million) natives. The remaining natives retaliated, killing 150 colonists. By your definition the natives, but not the colonists, would be guilty of genocide. Is that really your argument??

No. That is an absurd mischaracterization of my argument.

I see...so only the Indians were guilty of treachery, and the Indians only exhibited treachery? I guess all those Thanksgiving stories I've been swallowing all these decades are a big hoax, right?

Where did I say that only the indians committed treachery? It is a fact that they did do so, though.

I won't bother to respond to this thread any more, I already have a pretty clear understanding of, and great distaste for, your views on this topic.

You have no such "clear understanding". You are willfully mischaracterizing my views in an absurd manner.

Let me finish by saying that I think I've made it clear that I have not "been watching too many John Wayne movies, or something...". In fact, nothing posted contradicts my claims that the indians practiced genocidal warfare and the American response to it was merely in-kind. In fact, that view was clearly bolstered by the link I provided.

[altipueri]

I thought Jamestown was an English settlement and the start of the first British Empire.

Everybody hates us Brits now, but we don't care anymore.

Major research I have conducted, well two minutes on Wiki whats it:

The Jamestown[1] settlement in the Colony of Virginia was the first permanent English settlement in the Americas. William Kelso writes that Jamestown "is where the British Empire began ... this was the first colony in the British Empire."[2] Jamestown was established by the Virginia Company of London as "James Fort" on May 4, 1607 (O.S., May 14, 1607 N.S.),[3] and was considered permanent after brief abandonment in 1610. It followed several earlier failed attempts, including the Lost Colony of Roanoke. Jamestown served as the capital of the colony for 83 years, from 1616 until 1699.

The settlement was located within the country of Tsenacommacah, which was ruled by the Powhatan Confederacy, and specifically in that of the Paspahegh tribe. The natives initially welcomed and provided crucial provisions and support for the colonists, who were not agriculturally inclined. Relations with the newcomers soured fairly early on, leading to the total annihilation of the Paspahegh in warfare within 3 years. Mortality at Jamestown itself was very high due to disease and starvation, with over 80% of the colonists perishing in 1609–1610 in what became known as the "Starving Time".[4]

The Virginia Company brought eight Polish[citation needed] and German colonists in 1608, in the Second Supply, some of whom built a small glass factory—although the Germans and a few others soon defected to the Powhatans with weapons and supplies from the settlement.[5][6][7][8] The Second Supply also brought the first two European women to the settlement.[5][6] In 1619, the first documented Africans came to Jamestown—about 50 men, women, and children—aboard a Portuguese slave ship that had been captured in the West Indies and brought to the Jamestown region. They most likely worked in the tobacco fields as indentured servants initially.[9] The modern conception of slavery in the future United States was formalized in 1640 (the John Punch hearing) and was fully entrenched in Virginia by 1660.[10]

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: altipueri

I thought Jamestown was an English settlement and the start of the first British Empire.

That's how it started out, but not how it finished up. [:D] How things start isn't as important as how they end up: New York (part of that British Empire - for a while) started out as New Amsterdam. And Canada (still part of it) started out as part of the French Empire.

The USA was conceived at Jamestown. (169 year gestation before birth). So, it, ultimately, was the nascent American nation in that settlement.

[Aurelian]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_definitions

I doubt Jamestown would qualify as genocide.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_massacre_of_1622

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_ ... 8_examples

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_definitions

I doubt Jamestown would qualify as genocide.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_massacre_of_1622

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_ ... 8_examples

If you count the English settlers an ethnic group it was. And, since that was the germ from which the American ethnic sprang, it has to be seen that way. As I've said repeatedly, if there was an attack on America that killed 1/3 of our population imagine our reaction. The attack targeted women and children, and was only prevented from much greater slaughter by a warning from within the indians.

Certainly the modern mantra that the Europeans arrived and immediately set about slaughtering the indians without cause is false. They arrived and were slaughtered. It was about equivalent to establishing a beachhead in Normandy. There had already been one colony that had vanished without a trace.