The Moral Case Against Indians

By Grugyn Silverbristle

 

There was certainly one predictable political outcome to their playing with semantics. By coining the term “Native American” -- with the capital “N” -- the idea had been implanted that no one else can ever be called a “native American” ... that no one else can ever call this land his “native soil” ... and that for all other residents this land belongs only to him who owns it, having paid his monthly mortgage to the bankers and his annual land taxes to the government. Our “America” has been taken from us and turned into “Land for Rent”. The Indians will get to keep their squalid little “reservations” (though notice how the “Tobacco Settlement” grabs their cigarette profits in lieu of taxation), while we are dispossessed from our homeland -- and heritage -- which become the property of others ... and from which they, too, will be dispossessed until Mammon owns everything.

Within this context of a third-party manipulator (Capitalism-Marxism) playing native Americans off against the Indians in order to rob us all of our heritage, it begins to make sense. I can well understand how the Indians fell for the gambit. After all, there is a deeply embedded racial hatred against whites, which has been carefully-cultivated in everything from school books to TV, and all of it prejudicial to our heritage. The popular myth is that all whites are “thieves” and “immigrants” who came here from Europe ... that this land was a bountiful cornucopia for the Indians, until we came and stole everything from them, destroyed all nature, worked our black slaves to death and then gone on to ruin the whole world. This popular ingrained (“politically-correct”) sentiment rests entirely upon a false reading of history.

To begin with, there are only about 4 million Indians in North America today -- more than at any time in prior history -- and this includes a very high percentage of half-breeds of dubious authenticity. And yet, despite such unprecedented numbers, if everybody else were to leave this continent and give it all back to them, the Indians could barely achieve a population density of 1 person per square mile, or roughly 2,560 acres to be cultivated by a family of four. That is too much land for them ever to hold onto -- even if half of it were wasteland: within twenty years the pressure from Mexico alone would sweep them all into the sea. And yet such a profound truth as this flies in the face of deeply-ingrained racial prejudice against white native Americans. We are the bad guys, and the cause of everyone else's suffering throughout the world. It's easier to hate and get drunk than it is to think.

At no time prior to the twentieth century had there ever been more than two million Indians living in North America! That would have been a population density of about one person for every 2 square miles. At the time of the English Colonization the Indian population was less than an eighth of that -- less than one person to 16 square miles, more than 64 square miles to be “occupied” by a family of four! Now it is true that in Central America the Aztecs, Mayans, and others achieved high population densities for a brief while; but in every case these “early civilizations” were short-lived because they farmed-out the soil. The Indians had never learned crop rotation, and without this technique, permanent cities could not be sustained. Neither had the the Indians developed a mechanical wheel for bulk transport. They had never developed the technology of urbanization. The reason why the Indians had never been very numerous in North America is that the continent had never been capable of supporting a larger population until the arrival of Europeans. This continent had always been a wilderness!

The idea that the Indians had been wise, environmentally-conscious “caretakers” of the earth is a misrepresentation, a false reading of the past, a myth cleverly nurtured by the media and supported by academe, in order to convey a “New Age” moral argument. Its presumption is that the Indians were “civilized” because they were savages (a restatement of Voltaire and Rousseau's argument that Nature is superior to Religion)! This is not a clear-cut articulation, but rather a “feeling” about the past, colored by Marxist “social criticism”, indicting us because our forebears are suddenly presumed to have been brutally “unjust” toward the Indians, the poor and the environment. We are even accused of genocide -- a patently absurd notion -- and yet people are believing it because we have been spoon-fed a faked historical argument that is supposed to make us feel “guilty” about the past. By claiming that we “stole” this land from the Indians, and then abused it, they argue that this land can never be called “ours” -- that somehow our claim to the land in “America” is invalid -- making it permissible for anyone else to migrate here and claim the land as their own. No nation can tolerate this and expect to survive.

This argument -- that we native Americans have “stolen” our land from the Indians -- has been advanced on purely cultural grounds. Late 19th century American popular culture had glorified the “gunfighter” and “Indian-fighter” stereotypes, creating an image of the “Wild West” that was “insensitive” to the Indians. As the turn of the century dime novel became the Hollywood “Western”, this cultural bias was amplified to the extreme cartoon stereotype of the Indian as a pot-bellied goof with a feather in his head and a jug on his arm (notwithstanding the similarity of this to the “Hillbilly” stereotype). Painfully succumbing to political pressure, Hollywood (and New York) compensated in the 1970s by creating a whole new genre of “authentic” Westerns (and dime novels) where the Indian is portrayed as the noble, valiant, and eternally-wise shaman-healer, while the white man is reduced to a filthy drunken sot who is driven by violence, greed and cruelty. The argument is purely cultural and entirely fictional, but it set us up for a new cultural bias, under which we are living today.

But we digress. Returning to our argument, the reason why this land had remained pristine was because the Indians had never farmed it beyond poking holes in it with sticks. They were nomads who had not even learned the arts of animal husbandry. To the Indians, animals were here to be hunted, not bred; to be eaten, not fed. It had been the Indians themselves who nearly extincted the beaver and bison (the depredations of “Buffalo Bill” and the Union Army in the 1870s notwithstanding), selling their pelts to Jewish furriers for tin-pots and guns. This had gone on for centuries. One of the reasons why the Indians had been so willing to “sell” vast tracts of wilderness to colonial land speculators is that the wildlife had already been nearly extincted by Indian fur-trappers.

As regards agriculture, whenever the Indians had tried their hand at farming, they ended up with an ecological disaster on their hands because they had never learned the skills of crop-rotation and preserving the fertility of the soil. Seemingly prescient of those other primitives who are today burning down the rain forests to create marginal farmland that goes barren in three years, the Indians knew only that they must keep migrating, lest they deplete the forests and the soil. There are fields in Europe that have been farmed continuously for over three millennia, and are still fertile as ever. There was nothing at all like that in the Americas until Europeans came here.

It is man who makes the earth fertile. Nature in her primeval state is harsh and unyielding, and the Earth gives her bounty begrudgingly. Any survivalist knows this, whether he steals acorns from the squirrels or honey from bees: it is better to plant potatoes and beans than to live off the land as a scavenger. It is man who makes the earth bear fruit, so that she can support bountiful life. Because of farming, there are more deer in upstate New York today than there were a thousand years ago. When our ancestors came here, this continent was so barren it could barely support a million Indians, much less feed half the world as it does today. If the Indians have lain here for 400,000 years with “Mother Nature”, then she truly must be their sister or mother; because it was the White Man who impregnated her. If the Indians can lay claim on the earth as her “children”, then the White Man may be considered her “spouse” -- as in husbandry.

The Pre-Columbuan “civilizations” in the Americas had all collapsed within a few generations because they had farmed-out the land, destroying its fertility. They were failed civilizations because they were failures: the Europeans found these people brutal savages: wicked, bloodthirsty and vile as any, who delighted in acts of abomination. They would make public festivals of human torture and mutilation ... inventing the most horrifying methods of vivisection that drew out their victims' agony for days -- and usually ended with the little children of the village finishing-off their hapless mutilated corpses ... because the Indians believed that it was good for their children to be taught how to kill without mercy, and they wanted these little children to grow up to become fierce, bloodthirsty and cruel.

Neither did the Indians suffer any “unfair” advantage in military technology, short of sailing vessels. No sooner had the whites established a foothold in the Carolinas in the 17th century, for example, than the Cherokee were arming themselves with the most modern rifles. This held true for virtually all the tribes, who also, at various times, were armed at our expense to help as allies in several colonial wars. They were a formidable fighting force, and they often took man-for-man in battle. Our ancestors paid for this land in blood. Those who accuse us of “stealing this country from the Indians” are committing slander, beyond ordinary insult, and deserve to be deported with contempt.

The land belongs to him who occupies it, tends to it, and holds it, as a wife belongs to her husband. That is the foundation of ALL civilization and, in this respect, the Indians had never managed to cut the cloth. They “lost” this land because they could not populate it: they barely tended it, vaguely occupied it, and couldn't hold it. If we lose this land -- which is ours as a wife belongs to her husband -- then it will be for much the same reason. Countrymen, take heed!

As regards those who charge us with genocide, accusing the white races of intentionally infecting the poor Indians with smallpox and plague, this too is a lie and a slander. The simple fact of the matter is, that the Amerindians themselves contained a biological time-bomb within their own genes, combined with pathetically poor “medicine-magic”. It is absurd to imagine that the Indians could have lived forever in their own isolated and protected little biosphere. Sooner or later they would have been exposed to the fevers and flu. The microbes could have come from a shipwrecked sailor, a dolphin or a migrating goose. Just as the Black Plague had wiped out more than a third of the European population in the 14th century -- and nobody cries today over the Asian, African and Muslim invasions that followed in its wake -- it was inevitable that, someday, the plagues would break out among the Amerindians. No one could have prevented it. Because the plagues were inevitable, the agents who transmitted them are irrelevant. There is no axe to grind and the Indians may as well accept the fact that it was their own genetic deficiency and medical malpractice at fault. They can only blame nature, their gods and themselves.

In the sixteenth century, virtually all people (both Indians and Spaniards) believed that plague was caused by bad air, vapours and evil spirits, or it was a punishment from God. Microbes weren't discovered until the 19th century, when Louis Pasteur tried to convince surgeons to wash their hands before cutting people open. The idea of an intentional genocide committed against the Indians, using biological agents on a massive and organized scale, is patently absurd.

By the time our people arrived, the plague had already done its work, and the surviving Indians had developed substantial immunity. It is well-recorded that, during the 18th century and as far back as Pocahontas, a number of Indians were able to survive quite healthily in England. The Indians continued to die from disease in America because of their own perverted “medicine-magic” -- plunging sick people into ice-cold rivers and the like. The idea that the Indian shaman was some kind of a wonderful mystic healer is another Hollywood hoax.

It is important to understand that, not only had the depopulation of the North American Indians occurred before the arrival of the settlers from Northwestern Europe who built America, but that the North American Indians had never been that populous. North America at the time was a barren wilderness, and it had never supported a large population of either people or animals. The “vast grazing herds” and “forests teeming with wildlife” are a myth. There may have been a few large herds of buffalo -- but so rare and few that the Indians themselves were lucky to encounter them once or twice a year! Neither is any forest that is regularly hunted rich in game. That's why Indian hunting parties would be often gone for weeks! There never was a vast population of North American Indians to begin with, because the land had always been a primeval wilderness.

If, at the time of Columbus, there had been (at most) one million Indians east of the Mississippi (a very high estimate), by the early 1700s there were barely 200,000 -- and this we know. At the time of the American Revolution, there were only about 35,000 Indian warriors in all of the lands between the Mississippi and the Atlantic, and yet 95% of this land was unsettled by whites! How can you call this “genocide”? If whites had wanted to wipe out the Indians, it would have been easy for us, except for the vastness of empty land to be traversed! The Indian Wars of the 17th and 18th centuries were hardly more than skirmishes, with rarely more than 200 combatants on either side. The issues at stake were horse and cattle theft, trespass of hunting and trapping grounds, private vendettas and the like ... but genocide was hardly an issue. The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 -- which created the territories of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan and Wisconsin -- contained special provisions that whites were to stay away from the Indians and keep off Indian lands. This is hardly compatible with a plan of genocide. In 1806, when my ancestors settled in the Indiana territory to clear the land for farms that would make it bountiful and productive, the Indians had already left, and the land was uninhabited. That is why there is no record in my family history of anyone having killed an Indian, even though my people were the first whites to settle there.

Neither is it true that there were no protections granted the Indians. The treaties of Paris (1783) and Ghent (1814) contained special provisions on behalf of the Indian Nations. They were granted recognition (moreso than “white Nationalists” today). If the Indians can claim “rights” based on early treaties, how can they also claim that the treaties were unfair? You can't cut the cake both ways, other than to pick a bone of contention. Why bother, and what more to gain? Anyone who visits an Indian casino understands how amply they are being recompensed.

Now it is true that there were a handful of individuals, from Benjamin Franklin to Hayman Levy and Samson Simpson, who had plans to build an empire in America, and who may have been quite happy to see the Indians disappear (though not really necessary, since there were hardly enough to be found). But here I admonish the reader that my own people have been as much victims of this conspiracy as the Indians.

I reflect on the story of how the “Indians” (Mohawk? Algonquian? Who remembers who it was?) sold Manhattan to the Dutch for $24 worth of glass. It was not a clean deal because the Indians knew that they would lose Manhattan in the end, and therefore the transaction had been made under duress. They simply were not strong enough to successfully defend it, and they accepted a fee for not contesting the matter at the time. Presently, it is the Indians who are getting reimbursed more prodigally through government sanction of tribal monopolies over gambling, tobacco and gasoline (perhaps they hadn't been so foolish), while it is we who are about to lose everything.

As I reviewed the home pages of various Indian Nations, I am impressed with their apparent cultural vitality and prospects for economic growth. They are reaping the best of both worlds, and all avenues of advancement are now open to them. The sufferings of the past are past, and I can hardly imagine any other peoples in North America -- not even the Jews -- who can face the future with greater confidence, security and optimism. The only cloud I can see in their sky is a nagging presentiment that it is all too good to be true, that a worm is lurking somewhere in their bed. Maybe it came in with all the plastic tomahawks (made in Taiwan) that they sell to tourists in their tribal hotel/casino gift shops.

Excerpted from the overly-long 'Who are the native americans' by 'Grugyn Silverbristle' http://www.servtech.com/~grugyn/tlc-63.htm

 

 

YOUR DONATION = OUR SURVIVAL!

Please contribute today - buy our books - and spread the word to all your friends!

* * * Back to the Home Page of John "Birdman" Bryant, the World's Most Controversial Author * * *