5 ms·

It was probably because of the phrase used by Thomas Jefferson, "merciless Indian savages" which on one hand sounds hateful. But it was also an accurate descrip

It was probably because of the phrase used by Thomas Jefferson, "merciless Indian savages" which on one hand sounds hateful. But it was also an accurate description of the way Indians fought. We must study history and we have to accept it in context. We cannot change it. We cannot revise it. And we cannot apply a new context to it. But if we study it and accept it in context, we can learn from it.

eesmith 8y ago
"it was also an accurate description of the way Indians fought" Except that it wasn't. Or, if you want to use that language, the Allies were merciless savages who firebombed cities full of German civilians - "undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions" - and the US forces were merciless savages who carpet bombed Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. Remember, by 1776 there had been 150 years of interaction between those "merciless Indian savages" and the English colonists (to say nothing of the French and Spanish colonists who had a different experience). We know it's wrong to make the blanket statement that the Native Americans were merciless - because they did show mercy. English colonists learned combat skills from their Native American allies, rather than the military formations of European combat. (Eg, Benjamin Church in the early 1700s). How did did the English have local allies if the Native Americans were merciless? Finally, and I'll quote from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalping#Intertribal_warfare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalping#Intertribal_warfare : > More recently, historian Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz contends that, in reality, Ulster Scots settlers, who were experienced in scalping as foot soldiers in the British occupation of Northern Ireland, introduced the practice of scalping to the Americas.[15] She points out that the practice of scalping is one example of how acts of brutality were and are attributed to inaccurate degrees to Indigenous peoples, while the usually greater violence of dominant settler-colonial groups is suppressed through various means. The imagined greater brutality of groups settler-colonial nations were and are exterminating, ethnically cleansing, dispossessing and looting was thus used as one rationale for these settler-colonial undertakings. So, how do you know that "merciless Indian savages" is an accurate description, and not a piece of propaganda to justify continued warfare and colonial expansion? Because what I've read of history, it's much more the latter.
- crististm 8y ago
  The problem wasn't that the facts you describe were accurate or not. They did not censor the text for its truth or accuracy. They raised the abstraction a bit and categorized it as "hate speech". And then they censored it for this reason that has nothing to do with historical truth or the level yourself analyzed the text.
  - eesmith 8y ago
    My problem was with frogpelt's statement - the quote I started with. I wasn't addressing what FB did at all.

eesmith 8y ago

"it was also an accurate description of the way Indians fought" Except that it wasn't. Or, if you want to use that language, the Allies were merciless savages who firebombed cities full of German civilians - "undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions" - and the US forces were merciless savages who carpet bombed Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. Remember, by 1776 there had been 150 years of interaction between those "merciless Indian savages" and the English colonists (to say nothing of the French and Spanish colonists who had a different experience). We know it's wrong to make the blanket statement that the Native Americans were merciless - because they did show mercy. English colonists learned combat skills from their Native American allies, rather than the military formations of European combat. (Eg, Benjamin Church in the early 1700s). How did did the English have local allies if the Native Americans were merciless? Finally, and I'll quote from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalping#Intertribal_warfare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalping#Intertribal_warfare : > More recently, historian Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz contends that, in reality, Ulster Scots settlers, who were experienced in scalping as foot soldiers in the British occupation of Northern Ireland, introduced the practice of scalping to the Americas.[15] She points out that the practice of scalping is one example of how acts of brutality were and are attributed to inaccurate degrees to Indigenous peoples, while the usually greater violence of dominant settler-colonial groups is suppressed through various means. The imagined greater brutality of groups settler-colonial nations were and are exterminating, ethnically cleansing, dispossessing and looting was thus used as one rationale for these settler-colonial undertakings. So, how do you know that "merciless Indian savages" is an accurate description, and not a piece of propaganda to justify continued warfare and colonial expansion? Because what I've read of history, it's much more the latter.

crististm 8y ago
The problem wasn't that the facts you describe were accurate or not. They did not censor the text for its truth or accuracy. They raised the abstraction a bit and categorized it as "hate speech". And then they censored it for this reason that has nothing to do with historical truth or the level yourself analyzed the text.
- eesmith 8y ago
  My problem was with frogpelt's statement - the quote I started with. I wasn't addressing what FB did at all.