Native american tribes genocide TIL

 TIL Native american tribes genocide
([ I read about it (book learning) - not performance to do (practical learning) ])

    a few people know about the Jewish Holocaust - the genocide of European Jews during the 2nd world war, between 1941 and 1945, started by the leaders of the German government;

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial
 
    fewer people know about the Armenian genocide during the 1st world war (at the time this was known as the Great war, only later it was renamed to the 1st world war), in 1915, started by the leaders of the Turkish government;  

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

    yet, even fewer people know about the extend of the 500 years Native american tribes genocide in North American continents by the European settlers and the early developement of Canada, the United States, and Central America, before and after the American Civil war; ...

    ([ there is no wikipedia page on Native americans tribes genocide denial ])
    https://library.wisn.org/2016/02/12/the-genocide-of-native-americans-denial-shadow-and-recovery/

    In term of time span, (Native American tribes genocide) is comparable to the (Transatlantic slave trade), where "for over 400 years, more than 15 million men, women and children were the victims of the tragic transatlantic slave trade" -  one of the noted form of global trade, or, globalization - "the triangular Transatlantic Slave Trade (Africa, the Americas and Europe)".    
    The (Native American tribes genocide) is still an ongoing thing.  

In my opinion, when you have groups of people, when they are organized, when that organizations evolved and developed into a governmental system or a big corporation, of some forms (types, like the Dutch East India Company, a modern day corporation, or, international corporations), when you add concentration of power and wealth, when you put that into the hands of a few people, when you enable that with a high-caliber law firm or a type of lawyer (or a thing of the same form and similar structure using different name and label), when you combine that with a political economy like Capitalism and Mercantilism, when you unleashed that into the world where you encountered other societies that is less developed (like Hawaii, as an example), then you can have the systematic Genocide of indigenous peoples.  Humans ability and capability to organize into an entity, like ants, termites and bees colonies, is truly unique in the animal kingdom.  The organization, size, the scale, the destructiveness - totally ruthless  (psychopathy and sociopathy).  Humans killing (and other forms of ... slow extermination ...) other humans for resources, or for other reasons (to reduce the risk of competition for the future?).  

Basically, some one has a thing (like land, gold, uranium, oil, gas, silver, whatever, banana) that you want.  You go get it.  

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide
   ____________________________________
   ▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀

resources:

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/archives/education/networks/global-networks/aspnet/flagship-projects/transatlantic-slave-trade/

https://www.un.org/en/observances/decade-people-african-descent/slave-trade

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

https://www.nationalgeographic.org/article/united-states-governments-relationship-native-americans/

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/massacre-washita-us-armys-total-war-native-americans-176844

https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/native-americans-us-military-relations

https://allthatsinteresting.com/native-american-genocide

https://www.pbs.org/buffalowar/buffalo.html

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

https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-united-states-and-the-refugee-crisis-1938-41

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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_colonization_of_the_Americas#Demographic_impact_of_colonization

https://newfoundknowledge.wordpress.com/2014/07/15/how-the-church-suppressed-science/

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.webnewsys.com/2019/12/the-iroquois-confederacy-how.html

https://www.nps.gov/fost/learn/historyculture/the-six-nations-confederacy-during-the-american-revolution.htm

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

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

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

https://listverse.com/2016/07/19/10-horrific-native-american-massacres/

 

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/American_Indian_genocides

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

([ not related to Native americans killings ])
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_the_United_States
   ____________________________________
   ▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀

The transatlantic slave trade is often regarded as the first system of globalization.  According to French historian Jean-Michel Deveau the slave trade and consequently slavery, which lasted from the 16th to the 19th century, constitute one of "the greatest tragedies in the history of humanity in terms of scale and duration".

The transatlantic slave trade is unique within the universal history of slavery for three main reasons:  
  • its duration - approximately four centuries (400 years)
  • those vicitimized: black African men, women and children
  • the intellectual legitimization (and rationalisation)

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/themes/slave-route/transatlantic-slave-trade/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade
http://abolition.e2bn.org/slavery_45.html
   ____________________________________
   ▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀

Native Americans, U.S. Military Relations with

     ••••   •••   ••••

Secretary of War Henry Knox, however, recognized that a military solution to the problem on the frontier would cost far too much blood and treasure. Several tribes, especially the Cherokees and Creeks in the South and the Shawnees, Kickapoos, Miamis, and others north of the Ohio River, held substantial military power. Knox's misgivings proved well founded in 1790 and again in 1791, when two military expeditions into the country north of the Ohio met with disaster at the hands of an Indian confederacy under the Miami war leader Little Turtle.

Knox and George Washington therefore designed an Indian policy to carry forward expansion in a more orderly fashion. This policy provided for an impartial dispensation of justice, a method of purchasing (rather than simply taking) Indian lands, the regulation of commerce with a view to ending the liquor trade, the punishment of those who infringed on tribal rights, and the promotion of “civilization,” or the propagation of economic techniques that would enable tribes to survive on greatly diminished landholdings. These ideas were incorporated into the Trade and Intercourse Acts between 1790 and 1834, and the army was authorized to police the frontier and implement the new policy. The War Department retained administrative control over Indian affairs until 1849, when the Indian Office was transferred to the new Department of the Interior.

From the 1790s on, the army functioned in the dichotomous role of trained fighting force and diplomatic representative. As Americans extended their frontiers, the army erected forts on the boundaries of Indian lands. These fortifications could be sallying points for punitive expeditions against the tribes, but were also trading posts, meeting places for treaty negotiations, depots for issuing rations, and temporary jails for rounded‐up whites who violated Indian territorial rights. Indians often came to the forts to complain of maltreatment or encroaching white settlers. A few treaties required army surgeons to provide health care for the tribes. A number of officers served as Indian agents and often used the forts as their administrative headquarters.

In the 1830s, the army acquired the onerous task of removal. The Indian Removal Act (1830) decreed that the eastern tribes were to be relocated west of the Mississippi. The army was assigned to round up tribal members, place them in stockades, and transport them to the Indian Territory (Oklahoma), which Congress created in 1834. Removal was neither war nor an effort to protect human rights, and officers not infrequently questioned the ultimate goals of their missions. Cherokee removal particularly galled the officer corps. Major W. G. Davis, who assessed the Cherokee improvements on their lands, protested to the secretary of war that the Cherokee removal treaty was fraudulent and that the removal itself stained the army's reputation. Both Brig. Gen. R. G. Dunlap and the overall federal commander Gen. John Ellis Wool looked upon the whites waiting to move onto Cherokee property with disdain and asked to be relieved of their commands.

Until the Civil War, the army was primarily a small frontier force that mapped new regions, built roads, and implemented Indian policies. Except during major wars, such as the War of 1812, the second of the Seminole Wars, and the Mexican War, regular army strength never exceeded 10,000 soldiers and officers. The Civil War's phenomenal increase of regular and volunteer regiments helped to militarize public attitudes and produced a series of ruthless and sanguinary wars against the western Indians. The long Apache Wars, the bloody Santee Sioux War in Minnesota, and the massacres of the Navajos at Canyon de Chelly, the Cheyennes at Sand Creek, and the Aravaipa Apaches at Camp Grant can all be traced directly to the actions of volunteer militia, overzealous and inexperienced junior officers, and armed citizens' groups.

After the Civil War, the army was reduced in size and once more became basically a frontier force. Between 1867 and 1876, army manpower fell from 57,000 to about 25,000, where it remained until the outbreak of the Spanish‐American War. It was not, however, the same kind of army as it had been prior to the great conflict of 1861 to 1865. The warfare between the tribes of the Far West and the whites was a nightmare of violence, and the army seemed a potential agency to control the situation; there was even a movement to transfer the Indian Office back to the War Department. It was thought that regular army officers were better educated, had no local political axes to grind, and could look upon Indian affairs from a purely professional standpoint.

Christian missionary influences prevented the transfer of the Indian Office, but William Tecumseh Sherman, Philip H. Sheridan, Nelson A. Miles, George Crook, and other veterans of Civil War service made efficient and merciless war on the tribes, regardless of the army's subordination to civilian Indian agencies. The army destroyed tribal horse herds, burned homes and food caches, chased Indians who had left their reservations, quelled internal disturbances, and generally made total war on recalcitrant native people until the 1890s. The outbreaks of warfare were unceasing, and the ruthlessness of these campaigns left a legacy of animosity toward the army that has lasted among some native people to this day.

Although the army made relentless war on Native Americans, the tribes did not break easily. On several occasions they foiled and defeated army units by better tactics and greater mobility. Badly needing personnel knowledgeable of Indian tactics and of western terrain, in 1866 the army formed the Indian Scouting Service. Thereafter, Native American men were recruited and paid regular army wages to track down and fight their traditional tribal enemies or, most notably in the Apache outbreaks, their own people. The Indian Scouting Service was disbanded in 1943, after achieving a record of bravery in action unequaled in American military history.

By the time the Scouting Service had been formed, many whites had already formed the opinion that Indians were naturally adept at making war and would make excellent soldiers. In 1890, Secretary of War Redfield Proctor authorized raising several all‐Indian infantry and cavalry units in order to capitalize on the presumed Indian proclivity for war and to legitimize Indians as American citizens. For a variety of reasons, these units were disbanded after seven years; but the active recruitment of Native Americans for military service has continued. Native Americans have served in every American war of the twentieth century in numbers greatly exceeding their proportional population. This, too, is a legacy of the long, stormy relationship between Indians and the U.S. military.


source:
https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/native-americans-us-military-relations
   ____________________________________
   ▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀
    
The Ugly History Of The Native American Genocide That You Didn’t Learn In School
By All That's Interesting

Published November 21, 2016
Updated December 4, 2020

Over the course of 500 bloody years, the Native American genocide carried out by both European settlers and the U.S. government left millions dead.

     ••••   •••   ••••

This late 19th-century political cartoon depicts a white federal agent squeezing profits out of a reservation while the Native Americans who live there starve.

As historian Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz said, “genocide was the inherent overall policy of the United States from its founding.”

And if we consider the United Nations’ definition of genocide authoritative, Dunbar-Ortiz’s assertion is right on the mark. The U.N. defines genocide as:

    “Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”

Among other things, the colonists and the U.S. government perpetrated warfare, mass killings, destruction of cultural practices, and separation of children from parents. Clearly, many of the actions taken against the Native Americans by the United States settlers and government were genocidal.

Not only did the United States commit genocide against Native Americans, but they did it over a period of hundreds of years. Ward Churchill, a professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado calls it a “vast genocide… the most sustained on record.”

In fact, Adolf Hitler, whose genocide of 6 million European Jews shocked the world, took inspiration from the way the United States had systematically eliminated much of their Indigenous population.

https://allthatsinteresting.com/hitler-native-american-extermination

     ••••   •••   ••••

Nevertheless, the majority of Native American deaths stemmed from disease and malnutrition attendant on the spread of the European settlers, not warfare or direct assaults.

Disease, the biggest culprit, wiped out an estimated 90 percent of the population.

16th century illustration of Nahua Native Americans suffering from smallpox. Some 90 percent of Native Americans were killed by diseases from Europe.

Native Americans had never before been exposed to the Old World pathogens spread by the settlers and their domesticated cows, pigs, sheep, goats, and horses. As a result, millions died from measles, influenza, whooping cough, diphtheria, typhus, bubonic plague, cholera, and scarlet fever.

However, the spread of disease was not always unintentional on the part of the colonists. Several proven instances confirm that in the colonial era European settlers purposefully exterminated Indigenous people with pathogens.

([ the first recorded used of germ warfare? Nope, not the first recorded used ])

     ••••   •••   ••••

British colonists received payment for each Penobscot Native they killed – 50 pounds for adult male scalps, 25 for adult female scalps, and 20 for scalps of boys and girls under the age of 12. Sadly, there’s no telling how many Native Americans were killed as a result of this policy.

     ••••   •••   ••••

As the 18th century turned into the 19th, the government programs of conquest and extermination grew more organized and more official. Chief among these initiatives was the Indian Removal Act of 1830, which called for the removal of the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, and Seminole Tribes from their territories in the Southeast.

Between 1830 and 1850, the government forced nearly 100,000 Native Americans off of their homelands. The dangerous journey to “Indian Territory” in present-day Oklahoma is referred to as the “Trail of Tears,” where thousands died of cold, hunger, and disease.

     ••••   •••   ••••

Time and again, when white Americans wanted native land, they simply took it. The 1848 California gold rush, for example, brought 300,000 people to Northern California from the East Coast, South America, Europe, China, and elsewhere.

Historians believe that California was once the most diversely populated area for Native Americans in U.S. territory; however, the gold rush had massive negative implications for Native American lives and livelihoods. Toxic chemicals and gravel ruined traditional native hunting and agricultural practices, resulting in starvation for many.

Additionally, miners often saw Native Americans as obstacles in their path that must be removed. Ed Allen, interpretive lead for Marshall Gold Discovery State Historic Park, reported that there were times when miners would kill up to 50 or more Natives in one day. Before the gold rush, about 150,000 Native Americans lived in California. 20 years later, only 30,000 remained.

     ••••   •••   ••••

In 1851, the United States Congress passed the Indian Appropriations Act which established the reservation system and set aside funds to move tribes onto designated lands to live as farmers. The act was not a measure of compromise, however, but rather an effort to keep Native Americans under control.

Native people weren’t even allowed to leave these early reservations without permission. As tribes accustomed to hunting and gathering were forced into an unfamiliar agrarian lifestyle, famine and starvation were commonplace.

Additionally, the reservations were small and crowded, with close-quarters allowing infectious diseases to run rampant causing countless Native American deaths.

     ••••   •••   ••••

However, the essential U.S. injustice against Native Americans — the taking and exploiting of their lands — has continued, simply in new forms.

As the Cold War nuclear arms race raged on between 1944 and 1986, the U.S. ravaged Navajo lands in the Southwest and extracted 30 million tons of uranium ore (a key ingredient in nuclear reactions). What’s more, the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission hired Native Americans to work the mines, but disregarded the significant health risks that accompany exposure to radioactive materials.

For decades, data showed that mining led to severe health outcomes for Navajo workers and their families. Still, the government took no action. Finally, in 1990, Congress passed the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act to make reparations. However, hundreds of abandoned mines still pose environmental and health risks to this day.

Native Americans Live In The Shadow Of Genocide Today
Dakota Access Pipeline Protest

ROBYN BECK/AFP/Getty ImagesMembers of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and their supporters opposed to the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) confront bulldozers working on the new oil pipeline in an effort to make them stop, September 3, 2016, near Cannon Ball, North Dakota.

     ••••   •••   ••••

After learning about the history of Native American genocide and how many Native Americans were killed, see these stunning portraits of Native Americans in the early 20th century. Then, discover the Osage murders, a greed-fueled conspiracy against Native Americans that led to the FBI’s first case.


source:
        https://allthatsinteresting.com/native-american-genocide
   ____________________________________
   ▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀

 Gerald Horne, author and professor of history and African American studies at the University of Houston.
 "The Counter-Revolution of 1776: Slave Resistance and the Origins of the United States of America"
 "Race to Revolution: The U.S. and Cuba During Slavery and Jim Crow."

http://www.democracynow.org/2014/6/27/counter_revolution_of_1776_was_us
http://www.democracynow.org/2014/6/27/counter_revolution_of_1776_was_us

GERALD HORNE: We should understand that July 4th, 1776, in many ways, represents a counterrevolution. That is to say that what helped to prompt July 4th, 1776, was the perception amongst European settlers on the North American mainland that London was moving rapidly towards abolition. This perception was prompted by Somerset’s case, a case decided in London in June 1772 which seemed to suggest that abolition, which not only was going to be ratified in London itself, was going to cross the Atlantic and basically sweep through the mainland, thereby jeopardizing numerous fortunes, not only based upon slavery, but the slave trade. That’s the short answer.

The longer answer would involve going back to another revolution—that is to say, the so-called Glorious Revolution in England in 1688, which, among other things, involved a step back from the monarch—for the monarch, the king, and a step forward for the rising merchant class. This led to a deregulation of the African slave trade. That is to say, the Royal African Company theretofore had been in control of the slave trade, but with the rising power of the merchant class, this slave trade was deregulated, leading to what I call free trade in Africans. That is to say, merchants then descended upon the African continent manacling and handcuffing every African in sight, with the energy of demented and crazed bees, dragging them across the Atlantic, particularly to the Caribbean and to the North American mainland. This was prompted by the fact that the profits for the slave trade were tremendous, sometimes up to 1,600 or 1,700 percent. And as you know, there are those even today who will sell their firstborn for such a profit. This, on the one hand, helped to boost the productive forces both in the Caribbean and on the mainland, but it led to numerous slave revolts, not least in the Caribbean, but also on the mainland, which helped to give the mainlanders second thoughts about London’s tentative steps towards abolition.

GERALD HORNE: It’s well known that up until the middle part of the 18th century, London felt that the Caribbean colonies—Jamaica, Barbados, Antigua, in particular—were in some ways more valuable than the mainland colonies. The problem was that in the Caribbean colonies the Africans outnumbered the European settlers, sometimes at a rate of 20 to one, which facilitated slave revolts. There were major slave revolts in Antigua, for example, in 1709 and 1736. The Maroons—that is to say, the Africans who had escaped London’s jurisdiction in Jamaica—had challenged the crown quite sternly. This led, as your question suggests, to many European settlers in the Caribbean making the great trek to the mainland, being chased out of the Caribbean by enraged Africans. For example, I did research for this book in Newport, Rhode Island, and the main library there, to this very day, is named after Abraham Redwood, who fled Antigua after the 1736 slave revolt because many of his, quote, "Africans," unquote, were involved in the slave revolt. And he fled in fear and established the main library in Newport, to this very day, and helped to basically establish that city on the Atlantic coast. So, there is a close connection between what was transpiring in the Caribbean and what was taking place on the mainland. And historians need to recognize that even though these colonies were not necessarily a unitary project, there were close and intimate connections between and amongst them.

GERALD HORNE: Well, it is fair to say that the United States did provide a sanctuary for Europeans. Indeed, I think part of the, quote, "genius," unquote, of the U.S. project, if there was such a genius, was the fact that the founders in the United States basically called a formal truce, a formal ceasefire, with regard to the religious warfare that had been bedeviling Europe for many decades and centuries—that is to say, Protestant London, so-called, versus Catholic Madrid and Catholic France. What the settlers on the North American mainland did was call a formal truce with regard to religious conflict, but then they opened a new front with regard to race—that is to say, Europeans versus non-Europeans.

This, at once, broadened the base for the settler project. That is to say, they could draw upon those defined as white who had roots from the Atlantic to the Ural Mountains, and indeed even to the Arab world, if you look at people like Ralph Nader and Marlo Thomas, for example, whose roots are in Lebanon but are considered to be, quote, "white," unquote. This obviously expanded the population base for the settler project. And because many rights were then accorded to these newly minted whites, it obviously helped to ensure that many of them would be beholden to the country that then emerged, the United States of America, whereas those of us who were not defined as white got the short end of the stick, if you like.

GERALD HORNE: You are correct. The fact of the matter is, is that Spain had been arming Africans since the 1500s. And indeed, because Spain was arming Africans and then unleashing them on mainland colonies, particularly South Carolina, this put competitive pressure on London to act in a similar fashion. The problem there was, is that the mainland settlers had embarked on a project and a model of development that was inconsistent with arming Africans. Indeed, their project was involved in enslaving and manacling every African in sight. This deepens the schism between the colonies and the metropolis—that is to say, London—thereby helping to foment a revolt against British rule in 1776.

It’s well known that more Africans fought alongside of the Redcoats—fought alongside the Redcoats than fought with the settlers. And this is understandable, because if you think about it for more than a nanosecond, it makes little sense for slaves to fight alongside slave masters so that slave masters could then deepen the persecution of the enslaved and, indeed, as happened after 1776, bring more Africans to the mainland, bring more Africans to Cuba, bring more Africans to Brazil, for their profit.

GERALD HORNE: Well, with all due respect to President Obama, I think that he represents, in those remarks you just cited, the consensus view. That is to say that, on the one hand, there is little doubt that 1776 represented a step forward with regard to the triumph over monarchy. The problem with 1776 was that it went on to establish what I refer to as the first apartheid state. That is to say, the rights that Mr. Obama refers to were accorded to only those who were defined as white. To that degree, I argue in the book that 1776, in many ways, was analogous to Unilateral Declaration of Independence in the country then known as Southern Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe, in November 1965. UDI, Unilateral Declaration of Independence, was in many ways an attempt to forestall decolonization. 1776, in many ways, was an attempt to forestall the abolition of slavery. That attempt succeeded until the experiment crashed and burned in 1861 with the U.S. Civil War, the bloodiest conflict, to this point, the United States has ever been involved in.

GERALD HORNE: Well, there’s a certain consistency between the two books. Keep in mind that in 1762 Britain temporarily seized Cuba from Spain. And one of the regulations that Britain imposed outraged the settlers, as I argue in both books. What happened was that Britain sought to regulate the slave trade, and the settlers on the North American mainland wanted deregulation of the slave trade, thereby bringing in more Africans. What happens is that that was one of the points of contention that lead to a detonation and a revolt against British rule in 1776.

I go on in the Cuba book to talk about how one of the many reasons why you have so many black people in Cuba was because of the manic energy of U.S. slave traders and slave dealers, particularly going into the Congo River Basin and dragging Africans across the Atlantic. Likewise, I had argued in a previous book on the African slave trade to Brazil that one of the many reasons why you have so many black people in Brazil, more than any place outside of Nigeria, is, once again, because of the manic energy of U.S. slave traders and slave dealers, who go into Angola, in particular, and drag Africans across the Atlantic to Brazil.

It seems to me that it’s very difficult to reconcile the creation myth of this great leap forward for humanity when, after 1776 and the foundation of the United States of America, the United States ousts Britain from control of the African slave trade. Britain then becomes the cop on the beat trying to detain and deter U.S. slave traders and slave dealers. It seems to me that if this was a step forward for humanity, it was certainly not a step forward for Africans, who, the last time I looked, comprise a significant percentage of humanity.

GERALD HORNE: Well, Juan, as you well know, New York City was a citadel of the African slave trade, even after the formal abolition of the U.S. role in the African slave trade in 1808. Rhode Island was also a center for the African slave trade. Ditto for Massachusetts. Part of the unity between North and South was that it was in the North that the financing for the African slave trade took place, and it was in the South where you had the Africans deposited. That helps to undermine, to a degree, the very easy notion that the North was abolitionist and the South was pro-slavery.

GERALD HORNE: Well, what most surprised me with regard to both of these projects was the restiveness, the rebelliousness of the Africans involved. It’s well known that the Africans in the Caribbean were very much involved in various extermination plots, liquidation plots, seeking to abolish, through force of arms and violence, the institution of slavery. Unfortunately, I think that historians on the North American mainland have tended to downplay the restiveness of Africans, and I think it’s done a disservice to the descendants of the population of mainland enslaved Africans. That is to say that because the restiveness of Africans in the United States has been downplayed, it leads many African Americans today to either, A, think that their ancestors were chumps—that is to say, that they fought alongside slave owners to bring more freedom to slave owners and more persecution to themselves—or, B, that they were ciphers—that is to say, they stood on the sidelines as their fate was being determined. I think that both of these books seek to disprove those very unfortunate notions.

GERALD HORNE: What I say to the people in the United States is that you have proved that you can be very critical of what you deem to be revolutionary processes. You have a number of scholars and intellectuals who make a good living by critiquing the Cuban Revolution of 1959, by critiquing the Russian Revolution of 1917, by critiquing the French Revolution of the 18th century, but yet we get the impression that what happened in 1776 was all upside, which is rather far-fetched, given what I’ve just laid out before you in terms of how the enslaved African population had their plight worsened by 1776, not to mention the subsequent liquidation of independent Native American polities as a result of 1776. I think that we need a more balanced presentation of the foundation of the United States of America, and I think that there’s no sooner place to begin than next week with July 4th, 2014.
   ____________________________________
   ▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀

The boxing film that was banned around the world
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmiBASu41-A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmiBASu41-A
vox
Feb 22, 2021
9:32
([ this is not a presage - a sign or warning that something, typically something bad, will happen; an omen or portent.])
   ____________________________________

Kerner commission

President Lyndon B. Johnson in Executive Order 11365 to investigate the causes of the long, hot summer of 1967
The report was released in 1968, after seven months of investigation.
The 426-page report was a bestseller.

Backlash was immediate. Polls showed that 53 percent of white Americans condemned the claim that racism had caused the riots, while 58 percent of black Americans agreed with the findings. Even before the report, white support for civil rights was waning. In 1964, most Northern whites had backed Johnson’s civil rights initiatives, but just two years later, polls showed that most Northern whites believed Johnson was pushing too aggressively.

White response to the Kerner Commission helped to lay the foundation for the law-and-order campaign that elected Richard Nixon to the presidency later that year. Instead of considering the full weight of white prejudice, Americans endorsed rhetoric that called for arming police officers like soldiers and cracking down on crime in inner cities.

([ I would claim that this report lay the foundation for higher rate of imprisonment for African Americans, strongly associated with poverty and zip code ])

Kerner commission report explained
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUkEqJlNy_Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUkEqJlNy_Q
5:52
APUSH simplified
Apr 1, 2020
MLK was heckled, "we don't need your dream, we need [living wage] jobs!"

1968 commission reveals why racism in America hasn't gone away
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enhdUKTfQYI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enhdUKTfQYI
8:28
CNN
May 30, 2021

resources:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/1968-kerner-commission-got-it-right-nobody-listened-180968318/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerner_Commission
youtube search
   ____________________________________
   ▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀

Honest Government Ad | Visit Hawai'i!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfAiB2ZoRhM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfAiB2ZoRhM
2:10
thejuicemedia
Mar 22, 2017


On January 17, 1893, Queen Liliʻuokalani was overthrown and replaced by a provisional government composed of members of the Committee of Safety. The United States Minister to the Kingdom of Hawaii (John L. Stevens) conspired with U.S. citizens to overthrow the monarchy.[88] After the overthrow, Lawyer Sanford B. Dole, a citizen of Hawaii, became President of the Republic when the Provisional Government of Hawaiʻi ended on July 4, 1894. Controversy ensued in the following years as the Queen tried to regain her throne. The administration of President Grover Cleveland commissioned the Blount Report, which concluded that the removal of Liliʻuokalani had been illegal. The U.S. government first demanded that Queen Liliʻuokalani be reinstated, but the Provisional Government refused.

Congress conducted an independent investigation, and on February 26, 1894, submitted the Morgan Report, which found all parties, including Minister Stevens—with the exception of the Queen—"not guilty" and not responsible for the coup.[89] Partisans on both sides of the debate questioned the accuracy and impartiality of both the Blount and Morgan reports over the events of 1893.[87][90][91][92]

In 1993, the US Congress passed a joint Apology Resolution regarding the overthrow; it was signed by President Bill Clinton. The resolution apologized and said that the overthrow was illegal in the following phrase: "The Congress—on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the illegal overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi on January 17, 1893, acknowledges the historical significance of this event which resulted in the suppression of the inherent sovereignty of the Native Hawaiian people."[88] The Apology Resolution also "acknowledges that the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi occurred with the active participation of agents and citizens of the United States and further acknowledges that the Native Hawaiian people never directly relinquished to the United States their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people over their national lands, either through the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi or through a plebiscite or referendum".[92][88]

Annexation—Territory of Hawaiʻi (1898–1959)

Main articles: Organic act § List of organic acts, and Territory of Hawaii

In 1899 Uncle Sam balances his new possessions, which are depicted as savage children. The figures are Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Cuba, Philippines and "Ladrones" (the Mariana Islands).

After William McKinley won the 1896 U.S. presidential election, advocates pressed to annex the Republic of Hawaiʻi. The previous president, Grover Cleveland, was a friend of Queen Liliʻuokalani. McKinley was open to persuasion by U.S. expansionists and by annexationists from Hawaiʻi. He met with three non-native annexationists: Lorrin A. Thurston, Francis March Hatch and William Ansel Kinney. After negotiations in June 1897, Secretary of State John Sherman agreed to a treaty of annexation with these representatives of the Republic of Hawaiʻi.[93] The U.S. Senate never ratified the treaty. Despite the opposition of most native Hawaiians,[94] the Newlands Resolution was used to annex the Republic to the U.S.; it became the Territory of Hawaiʻi. The Newlands Resolution was passed by the House on June 15, 1898, by 209 votes in favor to 91 against, and by the Senate on July 6, 1898, by a vote of 42 to 21.[95][96][97]

In 1900, Hawaiʻi was granted self-governance and retained ʻIolani Palace as the territorial capitol building. Despite several attempts to become a state, Hawaii remained a territory for 60 years. Plantation owners and capitalists, who maintained control through financial institutions such as the Big Five, found territorial status convenient because they remained able to import cheap, foreign labor. Such immigration and labor practices were prohibited in many states.[98]


source:
       https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii#Overthrow_of_1893—Republic_of_Hawaiʻi_(1894–1898)
   ____________________________________
   ▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀

Children of her people
By Anne Cameron

     For a story to be told, it must be told properly, and to tell a story properly, it must be told with respect. A story properly told will contain an old story, a new story, a message, and an example from the past for those who will come in the future.
     This does not mean a properly told story will contain what the European dominant ideology would refer to as a moral!
     The history of this continent has not been told properly, and what has been told improperly has been told without respect, and without truth. The history of this continent, improperly and untruthfully told, has become a lie, and on that lie a society has been based which yearns for something most of us have never known in our lifetimes.
     We like to convince ourselves our society is peaceful, built of principles of liberty and justice and kindhearted liberal concern for our neighbours. We like to convince ourselves and our children we are a peace-loving people who have never oppressed or invaded any other nation--and yet how else did we get here if not by invading, oppressing, and exterminating our indigenous cousins?
     "Oh," we say, "why bring up all those mistakes of the past? What's done is done and can't be undone, so let us move forward and put behind us all the sorrow." Easy to say when it isn't your sorrow. Easy to say when it wasn't your great grandmother who became the last of what had once been a numerous, healthy, and happy family! A society which does not remember and learn from the mistakes of the past is a society which takes no responsibility and thus will repeat those mistakes of the past.
     History, as it has been taught to us, is the lie the conquerors force down the throats of the children of the disposessed. So if lies must be told, let them at least be told with love, let them at least contain some magic. After all, what is a story but a magic lie?

copyright © 1987 Anne Cameron
   ____________________________________
   ▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀
 

Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope, 1966                                     [ ]

passage from the Age of Expansion to the Age of Conflict
the most complex,
most interesting,
and most critical of all the periods in the
life cycle of a civilzation.
four chief characteristics:
(a) a period of declining rate of expansion;
(b) a period of growing tensions and class conflicts;
(c) a period of growing irrationality,
                        pessimism,
                        superstitions,
               and other worldliness
All these phenomena appear in the core area of a
civilization before they appear in more peripheral
portions of the society.


What would be of such significance would be the
reorganization of the structure of the civilization
so that the process of normal growth would be
resumed.
Indeed, the class struggles and imperialist wars
of the Age of Conflict will probably serve to
increase the speed of the civilization's decline
because they dissipate capital and divert wealth
and energies from productive to nonproductive
activities.

Mesopotamia's core was conquered by semiperipheral
Babylonia about 1700 B.C., while the whole of
Mesopotamian civilization was conquered by more
peripheral Assyria about 725 B.C.(replaced by fully
peripheral Persia about 525 B.C.)

In Classical Civilization the core area was
conquered by semi peripheral Macedonia about 336 B.C.,
while the whole civilization was conquered by
peripheral Rome about 146 B.C.

Mayan Civilization (1000 B.C. - A.D. 1550) the core
area was apparently in Yucatan and Guatemala, but the
Universal Empire of the Aztecs centered in the
peripheral highlands of central Mexico

In Andean Civilization (1500 B.C. - A.D. 1600) the
core areas were on the lower slopes and valleys of
the central and northern Andes, but the Universal
Empire of the Incas centered in the highest Andes,
a peripheral area.

The Canaanite Civilization (2200 B.C. - 146 B.C.)
had its core area in the Levant, but its Universal
Empire, the Punic Empire, centered at Carthage in
the western Mediterranean.

Far East, three civilizations.
Sinic Civilization, rose in the valley of the Yellow
River after 2000 B.C., culminated in the Chin and Han
empires after 200 B.C., and was largely destroyed by
Ural-Altaic invaders after A.D. 400.

Classical Civilization emerged from Cretan Civilization
Western Civilization emerged from Classical Civilization

From Sinic Civilization, emerged two other civilizations:
   (a) Chinese Civilization, which began about A.D. 400,
culminated in the Manchu Empire after 1644, and was
disrupted by European invaders in the period 1790-1930, and
   (b) Japanese Civilization, which began about the
time of Chirst, culminated in the Tokugawa Empire after
1600, and may have been completely disrupted by
invaders from Western Civilization in the century
following 1853.

Indic Civilization, which began about 3500 B.C., was
destroyed by Aryan invaders about 1700 B.C. Hindu
Civilization, which emerged from Indic Civilization
about 1700 B.C., culminated in the Mogul Empire and
was destroyed by invaders from Western Civilization
in the period 1500-1900.

Near East
Islamic Civilization, which began about A.D.500,
culminated in the Ottoman Empire in the period
1300-1600 and has been in the process of being
destroyed by invaders from Western Civilization
since about 1750.

Carroll Quigley
Tragedy and Hope

Of these 12 dead or dying cultures, 6 have been
destroyed by Europeans bearing the culture of Western
Civilization.
When we consider the untold numbers of other societies,
simpler than civilizations, which Western Civilization
has destroyed or is now destroying, societies such
as the Hottentots, the Iroquois, the Tasmanians, the
Navahos, the Caribs, and countless others, the full
frightening power of Western Civilization becomes
obvious.

the ability of Western Civilization to destroy other
cultures rests on the fact that it has been expanding
for a long time.
Western Civilization has passed through 3 periods of
expansion, has entered into an Age of Conflict three times,
each time has had its core area conquered almost
completely by a single political unit, but has failed
to go on to the Age of the Universal Empire
because from the confusion of the Age of Conflict
there emerged each time a new organization of society
capable of expanding by its own organizational powers,
with the result that
the four phenomena characteristic of the Age of Conflict
(decreasing rate of expansion, class conflicts, imperialist wars, irrationality)
were gradually replaced once again by the four kinds
of expansion typical of an Age of Expansion
(demographic, geographic, production, knowledge)

   (Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: a history of the world in our time, first published in 1966, second printing 1974, )
   ____________________________________
   ▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀

"How to hide an empire": Daniel Immerwahr
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvlUGYvLg0s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvlUGYvLg0s
30:32
Democracy now!
Mar 5, 2019
   ____________________________________

Andrew Bacevich, "The Age of Illusions"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUd4jOszwd8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUd4jOszwd8
56:36
politics and prose
Jan 27, 2020
   ____________________________________
   ▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀

“I suggested I might take a rock, a piece of the place to bring home and keep on my desk, but Byrt warned me that to do so would be a transgression of the Māori understanding of the land’s communal sacredness.” —— Mark O'Connell, Thu 15 Feb 2018 01.01 EST, Why Silicon Valley billionaires are prepping for the apocalypse in New Zealand, https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/feb/15/why-silicon-valley-billionaires-are-prepping-for-the-apocalypse-in-new-zealand  <----------------------------------------------------------------------------><---|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--->

  -12   -10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1  0  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8   9     11