Debunking Native American Fairy Tales

[Bush Master]

Matt is pretty good. He goes through academic statistics and historic accounts, with a focus on exposing the actual narrative. Many of these modern tales emerged from scholastic activism in the 1960's....sounding a lot like today's liberal playbook.

Matt cites the book, "War Before Civilization", he details the neverending wars and resulting homicide rates 80x modern stats, and other niceties like torture, mutilation, scalping and lots of cannibalism, not to mention infanticide and massacre of women and elders.




Just a funny FYI, in the Deny Ignorance "spirit"

[ANNEE]

There is quite a bit of opposition to Matt Walsh’s history presentations. 

I will definitely need to research other viewpoints. 


Matt Walsh is a prominent American conservative political commentator, author, and podcast host for The Daily Wire who is widely associated with Christian nationalist viewpoints and right-wing populist rhetoric. He is known for his vocal, traditionalist Christian stances on social issues, including intense criticism of LGBTQ+ rights, transgender ideology, and secular culture.

[IdeomotorPrisoner]

Oh, stop subtly trolling liberals with Matt Walsh. 

Should we just start posting fight songs and get it out of the way?

And im sure they weren't manipulated or unfairly coerced at all to leave their ancestral horn of plenty. A place they learned to exist for generations.

"Oklahoma, you say? The state's that name is "red people"!? And we get our own plot of flat dirt in the middle east jesus, nowhere near water, trees, or fish? Sign me up!"

I'm sure the process was similar to getting tribal chieftans to direct their own people to boats for the shiny boom stick and gold trinkets they received. 

While there probably is a lot of "evil manifest destiny" PC inflection in what is taught about The Indian Removal Act, that was still totally fucked up and cut from the same racial superior cloth as slavery to do that. 

But people are absolutely entitled to believe and share with the world whatever they want.

[Solvedit]

The natives of the Americas may have been violent and treated one another terribly and that is a shame, but I think Matt Walsh's analysis misses the bigger issue.  What if, instead of the USA and other orderly nations, the Americas had become an untaxable wasteland of escaped criminals and then fallen to the Ottomans or the Ming?  The Ottomans did not stop taking European slaves until their dissolution in the 20th century. 

Old world diseases had laid the natives low and the land could have started filling up with pirates and escaped galley slaves.  They could have started corrupting the natives to buy European slaves and started an empire much like the Ottoman empire which was said to use slaves to administer it. 

Some sources claim Columbus' African pilot seemed to have an idea of where he was going.

It is possible the Barbary Pirates or some other group had discovered the new world before Europe and had started to traffic slaves to them. 

There is the Loxahatchee river in Florida, which sounds like a corruption for the informal Arabic words for "the furthest pilgrimage," or al-aqsa hajj.

Chief Selocta Chinnabee's first name is identical to the Slavic word for nobility, szlachta. 

The US appointed a Choctaw to a brigadier generalship in the War of 1812.  His name was Pushumatawaha Mushulatubee.  His last name sounds like Lithuanian for "I am beating a Lithuanian," or "mušu lietuvį."

Perhaps speakers of the languages of other European lands at war with the Ottomans could find words in their language.

Suppose the Ottoman conquest of Europe had been partially funded by new world gold from people who were unaware of the rate of exchange they could get in the Old World?  What if new world gold helped equip the conquerors of Constantinople?  I recall mention that some tribes believed they should leave gold where they found it and forget all about it, perhaps because word would get around and people would come and take it, and even enslave the finders to gather it.

[Solvedit]

And im sure they weren't manipulated or unfairly coerced at all to leave their ancestral horn of plenty. A place they learned to exist for generations.

When old world diseases wiped out a large percentage of the natives, who was going to stop the land from filling up with pirates and escaped galley slaves and so forth?  By some estimates, the Americas lost around 90% of their population.

[Creaky]

You could say the same about Australian natives but it’s not politically correct.
Same set up globally for everyone they can fool

[andy06shake]

Walsh talks a big game about "debunking" stuff.

But a lot of it just feels like cherry-picked points he dressed up as facts.

He takes complicated topics and boils them down into something that sounds obvious.

The problem being he leaves out loads of context.

The man bends evidence to fit his angle.

And people choose to believe what he's punting, because he does so with a modicum of confidence.

I would stick him in the same to similar bucket as the likes of Christopher Langan...

Now, on the topic of the topic, historians already accept that the indigenous societies in the Americas weren't perfectly peaceful.

So his arguments would seem to falsely equate tribal conflict with European colonisation.

Which, to be rather frank, completely ignores the scale and power imbalance that was the colour of the day back then.

[quintessentone]

Matt is pretty good. He goes through academic statistics and historic accounts, with a focus on exposing the actual narrative. Many of these modern tales emerged from scholastic activism in the 1960's....sounding a lot like today's liberal playbook.

Matt cites the book, "War Before Civilization", he details the neverending wars and resulting homicide rates 80x modern stats, and other niceties like torture, mutilation, scalping and lots of cannibalism, not to mention infanticide and massacre of women and elders.

[Video: https://youtu.be/mxapaXrHr1Y]

Just a funny FYI, in the Deny Ignorance "spirit"

Matt fails to compare indigenous and other world civilizations conflicts over time. Matt is pushing an agenda and fails to honestly look at all warmongering cultures and other factors.

"Native American warfare before European contact was often highly structured, ritualistic, and limited in scale, focusing on capturing prisoners or rebalancing power rather than total annihilation, whereas modern and historical European warfare frequently involved large-scale campaigns of extermination, territorial conquest, and systematic genocide.  While some Indigenous societies engaged in conflict, many developed sophisticated diplomatic systems like the Haudenosaunee Confederacy to maintain peace, and tribes such as the Hopi maintained pacifist traditions, contradicting the myth that they were inherently more violent than Europeans. 

In contrast, European colonizers often justified violence through narratives of "civilizing" "savages," leading to intentional policies of dispossession and extermination that reduced the Indigenous population from an estimated 10 million to less than 1 million.  Historical records indicate that disease, forced removal, and deliberate massacres were primary drivers of Native American depopulation, with scholars arguing that the "noble savage" myth is as false as the "savage savage" stereotype. 
Key differences include:

• Objectives: Indigenous conflicts often aimed at revenge, resource competition, or population replacement, while European wars frequently sought complete domination and land acquisition. 
  
• Scale and Method: Native warfare involved smaller raids and negotiated settlements, whereas European and modern state warfare utilized industrial-scale violence and total war strategies.
  
• Cultural Context: Many Indigenous groups had complex governance and trade networks that prioritized stability, while European expansion often relied on military force and racial superiority ideologies. 
  

The historical record shows that both sides committed violence, but the nature, scale, and intent of that violence differed significantly, with European actions leading to systematic cultural erasure and demographic collapse of Indigenous populations." (LLM)

[Bush Master]

Oh, stop subtly trolling liberals with Matt Walsh. 

Should we just start posting fight songs and get it out of the way?

And im sure they weren't manipulated or unfairly coerced at all to leave their ancestral horn of plenty. A place they learned to exist for generations.

"Oklahoma, you say? The state's that name is "red people"!? And we get our own plot of flat dirt in the middle east jesus, nowhere near water, trees, or fish? Sign me up!"

I'm sure the process was similar to getting tribal chieftans to direct their own people to boats for the shiny boom stick and gold trinkets they received. 

While there probably is a lot of "evil manifest destiny" PC inflection in what is taught about The Indian Removal Act, that was still totally fucked up and cut from the same racial superior cloth as slavery to do that. 

But people are absolutely entitled to believe and share with the world whatever they want.

In detail, the chiefs were fully funded to safely transport te tribes, but the contracts went to admins, like the brother, who stole the loot. Sounds a lot like the modern liberal playbook. Notwithstanding the "trolling" is comparative analysis of THEIR OWN ACTIONS.

Are we not supposed to do that because of feelz?

[Bush Master]

Walsh talks a big game about "debunking" stuff.

But a lot of it just feels like cherry-picked points he dressed up as facts.

He takes complicated topics and boils them down into something that sounds obvious.

The problem being he leaves out loads of context.

The man bends evidence to fit his angle.

And people choose to believe what he's punting, because he does so with a modicum of confidence.

I would stick him in the same to similar bucket as the likes of Christopher Langan...

Now, on the topic of the topic, historians already accept that the indigenous societies in the Americas weren't perfectly peaceful.

So his arguments would seem to falsely equate tribal conflict with European colonisation.

Which, to be rather frank, completely ignores the scale and power imbalance that was the colour of the day back then.

Where in Europe was widespread cannibalism practiced?