4 ms·

You do realize that multiple native groups obtained their land through war and what at times could be called extermination? The Comanche are but one example. T

You do realize that multiple native groups obtained their land through war and what at times could be called extermination? The Comanche are but one example. There are very few groups in history that ended up where they were peacefully. That's unfortunate, but depicting the European settlers as land-hungry thieving murderers should take into account that's what everyone did. Here's an account of the Fort Parker massacre, which wasn't uncommon on the frontier: Benjamin Parker was killed, and before the fort's gates could be closed, the raiders rushed inside. Silas Parker, who was outside with his brother, was killed before he was able to get back inside the gate. Samuel Frost and his son Robert were killed inside the gate, as they attempted to flee. John Parker's genitals were cut off and he was then scalped. His wife came out of the woods when she saw his torture and was captured.[5] Lucy Parker and her youngest two children were initially captured but were rescued by Luther Plummer as he ran up to the fort from the fields. Her two oldest children, however, along with Luther's wife (Rachel) and son, and Elizabeth Kellogg were successfully kidnapped. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Parker_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Parker_massacre Did those settlers deserve that? You can argue it, but this is a complex topic. Maybe some of those militias existed for good reasons, like if they didn't, people would get murdered by raiding parties, as they have in every locale in history.

lazyasciiart 8y ago
I think I got whiplash from that topic change you did there.
- aaron-lebo 8y ago
  You mind explaining?
  - lazyasciiart 8y ago
    You: militias were originally to fight off Hessian and British soldiers of oppression Other poster: no, they were started well before that You: Have you HEARD how savage those Indians were though??!?!
    - aaron-lebo 8y ago
      The other poster said that militas were made to "kill Indians". I'm saying that it is very likely were designed to defend against them. Do we deny that many of these societies were militaristic tribes? Do we deny history? Besides the fact that the colonial militias had military use because Britain wasn't the only imperial power in the region. Washington, for example, led a Virginia militia against the French way before the Revolutionary War. Is that really that off topic?
      - lazyasciiart 8y ago
        Tell me more about the Hessian soldiers you were talking about.
zapita 8y ago
Is there a point that you're trying to make? As a reminder you're responding to a message about the historical connection between gun ownership, home ownership and racism in the USA. I don't see anything in your message that's relevant to that, except maybe to confirm that colonial militias were created to "kill indians", and that the settlers were squatting on indigenous land.
- aaron-lebo 8y ago
  What I'm trying to say is you have a very one-sided view of history. You've already decided that the purpose of militias was to "kill Indians". You didn't back that up at all. Militias had offensive/defensive use against other colonial powers, but they also could have (but didn't always have) purely defensive use against native raids, which were not uncommon (nor were they the other way around). You've also decided that that all land was "indigenous" when nobody has ever owned land, it's always been what group takes it. The natives often took the land from each other. You've decided that's different from European settlers doing it purely based on race. You're making a racial distinction without admitting this is just what people do. The plains weren't Apache land in 1500, why was it their land 200 years later after they'd kicked out other natives? Why was Mexico City Aztec land when they killed off the groups which originally owned it? Much land was loosely populated anyway, both groups could have coexisted but they did not. Killing "squatters" is just justifying the same militarism you despise. Do you see what I'm trying to say? I don't deny atrocities against the natives, those are well-documented, but if you're you're going to talk about history, talk about how it was, not about how a 21st century view of race/society sees it. It's dishonest to those people and who they were.
  - zapita 8y ago
    > What I'm trying to say is you have a very one-sided view of history. What do you mean by "one-sided"? What are the "sides" involved here? > You've already decided that the purpose of militias was to "kill Indians". You didn't back that up at all. Why would I have to back it up? It's a very basic fact which nobody is disputing, not even you. You feel that the killing of natives by militias was justified at least in part in self-defense, you have inferred from my choice of words that I disagree with you, and you're unhappy about that. But you haven't proposed an alternative explanation to whom the militias were meant to kill (if not native americans, who? Other settlers? Bears?) or why (if not because the settlers were squatting on indigenous land, then why? Family feud? Religion? The color of their hats?) If you do have an alternative explanation for the existence of militias, now would be a good time to make your case.

lazyasciiart 8y ago

I think I got whiplash from that topic change you did there.

aaron-lebo 8y ago
You mind explaining?
- lazyasciiart 8y ago
  You: militias were originally to fight off Hessian and British soldiers of oppression Other poster: no, they were started well before that You: Have you HEARD how savage those Indians were though??!?!
  - aaron-lebo 8y ago
    The other poster said that militas were made to "kill Indians". I'm saying that it is very likely were designed to defend against them. Do we deny that many of these societies were militaristic tribes? Do we deny history? Besides the fact that the colonial militias had military use because Britain wasn't the only imperial power in the region. Washington, for example, led a Virginia militia against the French way before the Revolutionary War. Is that really that off topic?
    - lazyasciiart 8y ago
      Tell me more about the Hessian soldiers you were talking about.

zapita 8y ago

Is there a point that you're trying to make? As a reminder you're responding to a message about the historical connection between gun ownership, home ownership and racism in the USA. I don't see anything in your message that's relevant to that, except maybe to confirm that colonial militias were created to "kill indians", and that the settlers were squatting on indigenous land.

aaron-lebo 8y ago
What I'm trying to say is you have a very one-sided view of history. You've already decided that the purpose of militias was to "kill Indians". You didn't back that up at all. Militias had offensive/defensive use against other colonial powers, but they also could have (but didn't always have) purely defensive use against native raids, which were not uncommon (nor were they the other way around). You've also decided that that all land was "indigenous" when nobody has ever owned land, it's always been what group takes it. The natives often took the land from each other. You've decided that's different from European settlers doing it purely based on race. You're making a racial distinction without admitting this is just what people do. The plains weren't Apache land in 1500, why was it their land 200 years later after they'd kicked out other natives? Why was Mexico City Aztec land when they killed off the groups which originally owned it? Much land was loosely populated anyway, both groups could have coexisted but they did not. Killing "squatters" is just justifying the same militarism you despise. Do you see what I'm trying to say? I don't deny atrocities against the natives, those are well-documented, but if you're you're going to talk about history, talk about how it was, not about how a 21st century view of race/society sees it. It's dishonest to those people and who they were.
- zapita 8y ago
  > What I'm trying to say is you have a very one-sided view of history. What do you mean by "one-sided"? What are the "sides" involved here? > You've already decided that the purpose of militias was to "kill Indians". You didn't back that up at all. Why would I have to back it up? It's a very basic fact which nobody is disputing, not even you. You feel that the killing of natives by militias was justified at least in part in self-defense, you have inferred from my choice of words that I disagree with you, and you're unhappy about that. But you haven't proposed an alternative explanation to whom the militias were meant to kill (if not native americans, who? Other settlers? Bears?) or why (if not because the settlers were squatting on indigenous land, then why? Family feud? Religion? The color of their hats?) If you do have an alternative explanation for the existence of militias, now would be a good time to make your case.