Counter-Currents
2,856 words
For decades now, African American leaders have been calling for a formal United States apology for the American role in the slave trade, with some even demanding reparations. Indian tribes proclaim their tax-exempt status as something they are owed for a legacy of persecution by the United States. Mexican Americans in the southwest United States seek to incorporate this region, including California, into Mexico, or even to set up an independent nation, Aztlan, that will recreate the glories of the Aztec empire, destroyed centuries ago by the imperialistic Spaniards.
That we live in an age of grievance and victimhood is not news. But did these peoples — these Mexican-Americans, these Native Americans, these African-Americans — really lose more than they gained in their confrontation with the West? Were they robbed of nobility, and coarsened? Or did White subjugation force them to shed savagery and barbarousness, and bring them, however unwillingly, into civilized humanity?
Today our children are being taught that the people who lived in the pre-Columbian Western Hemisphere were not “merciless Indian savages” (as Jefferson calls them in the Declaration of Independence), many of whom delighted in torture and cannibalism, but rather spiritually enlightened “native Americans” whose wise and peaceful nobility was rudely destroyed by invading European barbarians; that the Aztecs were not practitioners of human sacrifice and cannibalism on a scale so vast that the mind of the 20th-century American can hardly comprehend it, but rather defenders of an advanced civilization that was destroyed by brutal Spanish conquistadores; and that Africans were not uncultured slave traders and cannibals, but unappreciated builders of great empires.
But just how did these peoples live before they came into contact with Europeans? Although historical myth is ever more rapidly replacing factual history, not only in popular culture but also in our schools and universities, we may still find accurate historical accounts buried in larger libraries or in used book stores.
Aztec Civilization
In his famous work, The Conquest of New Spain, Bernal Diaz del Castillo describes the march on Mexico with his captain, Hernan Cortés, in 1519. The Spanish forces set out from the Gulf of Mexico, and one of the first towns they visited was Cempoala, situated near the coast, where Cortés told the chiefs that “they would have to abandon their idols which they mistakenly believed in and worshiped, and sacrifice no more souls to them.” As Diaz relates:
Every day they sacrificed before our eyes three, four, or five Indians, whose hearts were offered to those idols, and whose blood was plastered on the walls. The feet, arms, and legs of their victims were cut off and eaten, just as we eat beef from the butcher’s in our country. I even believe that they sold it in the tianguez or markets.
Of their stay in Tenochtitlan, the present-day Mexico City and the heart of the Aztec empire, Diaz writes that Emperor Montezuma’s servants prepared for their master
more than thirty dishes cooked in their native style. . . . I have heard that they used to cook him the flesh of young boys. But as he had such a variety of dishes, made of so many different ingredients, we could not tell whether a dish was of human flesh or anything else. . . . I know for certain, however, that after our Captain spoke against the sacrifice of human beings and the eating of their flesh, Montezuma ordered that it should no longer be served to him.
In renouncing cannibalism, was Montezuma cooperating in the destruction of his Aztec “cultural roots,” or was he aiding a victory of civilized custom over barbaric?
A few pages later, Diaz provides a detailed description of
the manner of their [that is, the Aztecs’] sacrifices. They strike open the wretched Indian’s chest with flint knives and hastily tear out the palpitating heart which, with the blood, they present to the idols in whose name they have performed the sacrifice. Then they cut off the arms, thighs, and head, eating the arms and thighs at their ceremonial banquets. The head they hang up on a beam, and the body of the sacrificed man is not eaten but given to the beasts of prey.
Diaz also describes the great market of Tenochtitlan, and its
dealers in gold, silver, and precious stones, feather, cloaks, and embroidered goods, and male and female slaves who are also sold there. They bring as many slaves to be sold in that market as the Portuguese bring Negroes from Guinea. Some are brought there attached to long poles by means of collars round their necks to prevent them from escaping, but others are left loose.
Following the ceremony in which humans are sacrificed to their gods, high-ranking Aztecs eat the flesh of the victims. A Spanish witness commented:
This figure demonstrates the abominable thing that the Indians did on the day they sacrificed to their idols. After [the sacrifice] they placed many large earthen cooking jars of that human meat in front of their idol they called Mictlantecutli, which means lord of the place of the dead, as it is mentioned in other parts [of this book]. And they gave and distributed it to the notables and overseers, and to those who served in the temple of the demon, whom they called tlamacazqui [priests]. And these [persons] distributed among their friends and families that [flesh] and these [persons] which they had given [to the god as a human victim]. They say it tasted like pork meat tastes now. And for this reason pork is very desirable among them.
Plainly it was the Spanish who stamped out human sacrifice and cannibalism among the people of pre-Cortesian Mexico. As for slavery, it is as obvious that the Europeans did not introduce it to the New World as it is that they eradicated it, albeit not immediately. Moreover, the moral impulse to end slavery came from the West, specifically out of England. Had the Aztecs, Indians, and Africans been left to their own devices, slavery might well have endured in North and South America, as it does in parts of present-day Africa.
North American Natives
In his epic work France and England in North America, the great American historian Francis Parkman describes the early 17th-century recreational and culinary habits of the Iroquois Indians (also known as the Five Nations, from whom, some will have it, the United States derived elements of its Constitution). He tells that the Iroquois, along with other tribes of northeastern United States and Canada, “were undergoing that process of extermination, absorption, or expatriation, which, as there is reason to believe, had for many generations formed the gloomy and meaningless history of the greater part of this continent.” Parkman describes an attack by the Iroquois on an Algonquin hunting party, late in the autumn of 1641, and the Iroquois’ treatment of their prisoners and victims:
They bound the prisoners hand and foot, rekindled the fire, slung the kettles, cut the bodies of the slain to pieces, and boiled and devoured them before the eyes of the wretched survivors. “In a word,” says the narrator [that is, the Algonquin woman who escaped to tell the tale], “they ate men with as much appetite and more pleasure than hunters eat a boar or a stag . . .”
The conquerors feasted in the lodge till nearly daybreak . . . then began their march homeward with their prisoners. Among these were three women, of whom the narrator was one, who had each a child of a few weeks or months old. At the first halt, their captors took the infants from them, tied them to wooden spits, placed them to die slowly before a fire, and feasted on them before the eyes of the agonized mothers, whose shrieks, supplications, and frantic efforts to break the cords that bound them were met with mockery and laughter . . .
The Iroquois arrived at their village with their prisoners, whose torture was
designed to cause all possible suffering without touching life. It consisted in blows with sticks and cudgels, gashing their limbs with knives, cutting off their fingers with clam-shells, scorching them with firebrands, and other indescribable torments. The women were stripped naked, and forced to dance to the singing of the male prisoners, amid the applause and laughter of the crowd . . .
On the following morning, they were placed on a large scaffold, in sight of the whole population. It was a gala-day. Young and old were gathered from far and near. Some mounted the scaffold, and scorched them with torches and firebrands; while the children, standing beneath the bark platform, applied fire to the feet of the prisoners between the crevices. . . . The stoicism of one of the warriors enraged his captors beyond measure . . . they fell upon him with redoubled fury, till their knives and firebrands left in him no semblance of humanity. He was defiant to the last, and when death came to his relief, they tore out his heart and devoured it; then hacked him in pieces, and made their feast of triumph on his mangled limbs.
All the men and all the old women of the party were put to death in a similar manner, though but few displayed the same amazing fortitude. The younger women, of whom there were about thirty, after passing their ordeal of torture, were permitted to live; and, disfigured as they were, were distributed among the several villages, as concubines or slaves to the Iroquois warriors. Of this number were the narrator and her companion, who . . . escaped at night into the forest . . .
Of the above account, Parkman writes: “Revolting as it is, it is necessary to recount it. Suffice it to say, that it is sustained by the whole body of contemporary evidence in regard to the practices of the Iroquois and some of the neighboring tribes.”
The “large scaffold” on which the prisoners were placed, is elsewhere in his narrative referred to by Parkman as the Indians’ “torture-scaffolds of bark,” the Indian equivalent of the European theatrical stage, while the tortures performed by the Indians on their neighbors — and on the odd missionary who happened to fall their way — were the noble savages’ equivalent of the European stage play.
If the descendants of the New England tribes now devote their time to selling tax-free cigarettes, running roulette wheels, or dealing out black jack hands, rather than to the capture, torture, and consumption of their neighboring tribesmen, should we not give thanks to those brave Jesuits who sacrificed all to redeem these “native Americans”?
Native Africans
What kind of life did the African live in his native land, before he was brought to America and introduced to Western civilization? That slavery was widely practiced in Africa before the coming of the white man is beyond dispute. But what sort of indigenous civilization did the African enjoy?
In A Slaver’s Log Book, which chronicles the author’s experiences in Africa during the 1820s and 1830s, Captain Theophilus Conneau (or Canot) describes a tribal victory celebration in a town he visited after an attack by a neighboring tribe:
On invading the town, some of the warriors had found in the Chief’s house several jars of rum, and now the bottle went round with astonishing rapidity. The ferocious and savage dance was then suggested. The war bells and horns had sounded the arrival of the female warriors, who on the storming of a town generally make their entry in time to participate in the division of the human flesh; and as the dead and wounded were ready for the knife, in they came like furies and in the obscene perfect state of nakedness, performed the victorious dance which for its cruelties and barbarities has no parallel.
Some twenty-five in number made their appearance with their faces and naked bodies besmeared with chalk and red paint. Each one bore a trophy of their cannibal nature. The matron or leader . . . bore an infant babe newly torn from its mother’s womb and which she tossed high in the air, receiving it on the point of her knife. Other Medeas followed, all bearing some mutilated member of the human frame.
Rum, powder, and blood, a mixture drunk with avidity by these Bacchantes, had rendered them drunk, and the brutal dance had intoxicated them to madness. Each was armed also with some tormenting instrument, and not content with the butchering outside of the town of the fugitive women, they now surrounded the pile of the wounded prisoners, long kept in suspense for the coup de grâce. A ring was formed by the two-legged tigresses, and accompanied by hideous yells and encouraging cry of the men, the round dance began. The velocity of the whirling soon broke the hideous circle, when each one fell on his victims and the massacre began. Men and women fell to dispatching the groaning wounded with the most disgusting cruelties.
I have seen the tiger pounce on the inoffensive gazelle and in its natural propensity of love of blood, strangle its victim, satiate its thirst, and often abandon the dead animal. But not so with these female cannibals. The living and dying had to endure a tormenting and barbarous mutilation, the women showing more cannibal nature in the dissection of the dead than the stronger sex. The coup de grâce was given by the men, but in one instance the victim survived a few minutes when one of those female furies tormented the agony of the dying man by prostrating herself on his body and there acting the beast of double backs.
The matron, commander of these anthrophagies, with her fifty years and corpulous body, led the cruelties on by her example. The unborn babe had been put aside for a bonne bouche, and now adorned with a string of men’s genital parts, she was collecting into a gourd the brains of the decapitated bodies. While the disgusting operating went on, the men carved the solid flesh from the limbs of the dead, throwing the entrails aside.
About noon the butchering was at an end, and a general barbecuing took place. The smell of human flesh, so disgusting to civilized man, was to them the pleasing odor so peculiarly agreeable to a gastronomer …
The barbecuing over, an anthrophagous repast took place, when the superabundant preserved flesh was packed up in plantain leaves to be sent into the Interior for the warriors’ friends. I am silent on the further cruelties that were practiced this day on the unfortunate infirm and wounded that the different scouting parties brought in during the day, supposing the reader to be sick enough at heart at the above representation.
Vanishing History
This is the history that has been handed down to us by men who either were present when the recorded events took place — that is, Diaz and Conneau — or who had access to period documents — that is, Parkman. But this factual history has suffered greatly at the hands of politically correct myth-mongers. The books themselves are disappearing from the shelves: Conneau’s book has been out of print for nearly a generation; perhaps Diaz’s and Parkman’s will follow in the next 20 years. In its place, the most absurd historical fantasies are substituted. As the seemingly inexorable forces of political correctness grind on, we may be left with as much knowledge of our true history as Orwell’s Winston Smith had of his.
Were it not for their subjugation by Europeans, Mexicans would perhaps have continued to practice the Aztec traditions of slavery, human sacrifice, and cannibalism; many American Indians would probably still be living their sad and perilous life of nomadism, subsistence farming, and warfare; and Africans would likely be expiring in even greater numbers on the fields of mayhem and slaughter (as the world has noted to its horror in Rwanda, Liberia and Congo), when not being bought and sold as slaves (as still is done in Sudan and Mauritania).
In his 1965 work, The Course of Empire: The Arabs and their Successors, the sagacious Glubb Pasha wrote in defense of Western colonialism:
Foreign military conquest has not only enabled backward people to acquire the skills and the culture of the conquerors, but it has often administered a salutary shock to the lethargic mentality of the inhabitants, among whom the desire to rise to equality with the foreigners has roused a new spirit of energy. . . . Britain has permeated Asia and Africa with her ideas of government, of law and of ordered civilization. The men of races who less than a hundred years ago were naked are now lawyers, doctors and statesmen on the stage of the world.
But if the present trend of denigrating the West’s mission civilisatrice continues, the achievements of that great civilizing venture might well be squandered and lost forever. If we permit inhumane customs and mores to reassert themselves, the ultimate dissolution of the West itself is not an impossibility. In his famous poem “White Man’s Burden,” Rudyard Kipling eloquently spelled out the fate of a culture that loses faith in itself and its mission:
And when your goal is nearest
The end for others sought,
Watch Sloth and heathen Folly
Turn all your hope to naught.
Journal of Historical Review 17, no. 3 (May–June 1998), 7–11.
Online source: http://library.flawlesslogic.com/lifestyles.htm
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
34 comments
Thanks for this article. Perhaps some of you know that I have written an online book about the incredible barbarity of pre-Columbian Amerindians (see e.g., here), which includes photographs of the remains of children sacrificed by the Aztecs, and my tough debunking of those politically-correct scholars who idealize those savages.
Reclaiming real history is paramount for white survival. Remember: he who controls the past controls the future.
Alas, the fact that Bernal Díaz’s book is still in print in Spanish doesn’t erase that today’s deracinated Spaniards don’t feel proud of the soldier’s deeds anymore. (Similarly, in Mexico the remaining Iberian whites just don’t care: they are like the Eloi marching to be cannibalized by the slightly mestisized Indian drug-warlords.)
Perhaps the Sassenach R.F. Delderfield had it right when he wrote his novel, God is an Englishman.
Wow, Kevin Beary. Has he died (I hope not), or has he gotten stuck in the inner sanctum.
I think Beary is now an expatriate.
To be fair, a lot of the history of the New World was determined by natural forces that neither the Europeans or natives had control over or even understood at the time. For example, most of the Indians being wiped out by European diseases they had no resistance to. Similarly, many of the Europeans from Virginia on South were killed off by malaria. Black slaves tolerated malaria much more than white indentured servants and thus became the laborers of choice in the warmer climates.
What lifestyle do the blacks have in mind for European Americans?
http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/race/the_church_repentance_and_raci.html
It seems rather clear that white churches will stay white and black churches will stay black until there is a recommitment to the task of adhering to God’s will for reconciliation. It will call for some sacrifices and they generally need to be made by whites who benefit the most from the privilege of the system and who need to express their willingness to take the first steps to show that they understand the new agreement and its call to reconciliation.
Forget civilized behavior. This information does not describe recognizably human behavior. The worst modern American urban hell hole is a virtual paradise compared to the Negro’s natural state of existence. There can be little doubt that Negroes would not have made it out of the stone age without help from Whites.
I curse the White men who brought these savages into our lands. They would have done better bringing over gorillas and training them to perform the required duties.
Better yet, they should have picked their own cotton.
Correct, Greg!
” This information does not describe recognizably human behavior.”
Unfortch, H. neanderthalensis, and probably our own Cro-Magnon, practiced cannibalism, though without the ritual fanfare.
Of course the author left out, if he was aware, that the ecological explanation for ritualized cannibalism is population control — the Mesoamericans had overhunted their game long before they began building pyramids for ritual sacrifice. With the growth of corn surplus (i.e. wealth) came the state and organized religion.
It doesn’t mean they were uniquely inhuman or something. Uniquely savage about it, certainly.
Half-agree with John that it is counter-productive. Little sense in dredging up unpleasant facts to hold before the crowd as proof of our saintliness or of their ‘inhumanity’. Plus there is an implication that modern Mesoamericans are their descendants, so we’d better watch out, or they might actually eat us.
Also, author seems to have little understanding of the ecological effects of European interference with North American Indian societies. They weren’t riding horses and taking so many scalps before they got their hands on stray Arabians and muskets, in short. The big lesson here, I think, is that the haut européen attitude toward bizarre primitive solutions to environmental and population pressures (cannibalism, slavery, tribal warfare) completely misses one fact: that these grim activities were nowhere near as unsustainable as being brought into the European technological franchise has proven to be.
Your comment is historically inaccurate. Nordics left the stone age, AFTER, Negroes, not before. The Negroes were using Iron some 500-700 years before Nordics since Africa skipped the Bronze age altogether. In fact, Nordics never really got a hold on the metal until the Roman explorations began in the 1st century A.D. So, if we calculate that as the dawn of the Nordic Iron Age; the Negroes were using Iron nearly 800-1000 years before Nordics.
Perhaps Nordics did not adopt Iron or Steel before nogroes…but the NORDIC BRONZE AGE was perhaps the BRIGHTEST of ALL of Europe! Lasting from about 2200 to 1000 BC, it produced innumerable masterpieces of Bronze and Gold weapons and Wares of every kind. You can still admire today these amazing works of Art at the Danish NATIONAL MUSEUM in Copenhagen!… Even the previous Scandinavian Mesolithic and Neolithic periods (7000 to 2200 BC)were remarkably bright, advanced periods of Ancient Europe! In all, Scandinavia truly lived an amazing Golden Age, from beginning of the Mesolithic to the end of the Bronze Age: At least 6000 years(7000 to 1000 BC) of Peace, Prosperity and Developpment. The later “Viking period” was quite regressive and plagued with suicidal fratricidal wars, and looks like a Dark Age in comparison with the earlier periods!…
Excellent essay. I think that without a doubt Africans benefited by their contact with Whites, and still do, of course. In fact they would be nothing without us, despite their sad protests to the contrary. It is a bit more ambiguous regarding native Americans. They had civilizations far more advanced than anything Africa could dream of at the time of Columbus. By European standards, which are unapologetically mine as well, the Aztecs practiced abhorent barbarism. But theirs was still an advanced (by non-European standards) civilization is many other ways (mathematics, agricultural methods, intricate cosmology, etc.). Light years beyond anything Africa could even conceive of. But as right-thinking, moral individuals which I am sure you all are it is impossible to justify all the behavior of the conquistadors. White people are inherently fair, just, lawful, moral men and much of what transpired in the New World is simply inexcusable. To defend it is an exercise in futility. To acknowledge and move on is priceless. RAther than defend Pizarro et al. we should be advocating on behalf of the many Church leaders who sought an ethical, structured, compassionate New World empire.
I have to second MOB’s reaction: “Wow, Kevin Beary?!”
I loved his satire, “The Savaged States of America: A Futuristic Fantasy (1998). It is pitch-perfect in describing our glittering multicultural paradise. If it were still available, Amazon would have to pair it with Mike Judge’s classic film “Idiocracy.”
Amerindian barbarities are STILL happening. See this disturbing video: two children are buried alive in the Amazon.
(If you want scholarly references on these practices, see this chapter of my book.)
Forty years ago, when I was in Grade VI, our history textbook related in rather quite a bit more detail than you would think suitable for little kids, exactly what the Iroquois did to Father Brebeuf and a couple of other missionaries. Look it up for yourselves if you are interested; I don’t have the heart to repeat it – but I have never forgotten.
Oh for the good old days!
It is worth pointing out that in universities the most popular, sometimes the only, book read about New Spain is by Bartolomé de las Casas. Filled with false and easily refuted figures and statistics, with a seething hatred of the Spanish, this book has been accepted as gospel by academics. Or rather it is presented as gospel to your children.
Who was de las Casas? A Jew masquerading as a Catholic Spaniard. Our current problems are not new, just amplified.
I realize this is going to go against the grain of how most people are likely to take this essay at Counter-Currents, but I find this essay counter-productive. If the North American New Right is to in any way resemble its European counterpart, then it must stand for the rights of ALL peoples to their unique culture and identity – not engage in neo-colonial nonsense. The reason why the West is having the problems it is today is BECAUSE it saw itself as being on a mission to “civilize the world” – not in spite of it. The hordes of immigrants invading our countries today are, at least in part, the result of the legacies of the short-sighted colonial empires of the past. I don’t apologize for anything my ancestors did, but at the same time the answer isn’t to make the same mistakes they did and see the West as spreading its civilization universally. I don’t see how that could in any way be defended as a “New Right” position. It may be the case that pre-Columbian America was a place of savagery, but so was pre-Christian northern Europe, if one goes back only a few centuries prior to the era of colonialism. I assume the author of this essay probably thinks that the coming of Christianity “civilized” the pagan Europeans as well, since the two ideas usually go hand-in-hand.
Thanks for this Mr. Morgan. Where I live the Native Indians are a pretty broken people. I am not talking about white guilt here, but inter tribal fighting gets them every time. They are still basically hunter-gatherers only now they hunt for bottles and cans. Even though pow wows are not part of the culture of those around here, it has become a way to connect and it is quite moving. However, lawyers get them too I am afraid over treaty claims. We had the British North American Act which said that land was to be paid for, but mostly the land was conned from the Indians and it was the Catholic priests who rescued them. The whites here have learned to let them be and we try to politely tell newcomers to not complain about all the Indians in the park. We then know where they are. When we need the park, we take it. This is quite different from a more urban environment, I know, but it seems to work for us. Alliances between some ecological groups and the natives are working to keep areas wild. I want to keep big industry out too.
I’m glad you liked it, rhondda. I certainly don’t think we should feel any guilt – after all, no one who is alive today had anything to do with the conquest of the continent. Still, my hope is that once a more traditional way of life is restored here, it will be easier for them to get back to a more authentic mode of life than the scavenging you described.
” Where I live the Native Indians are a pretty broken people.”
They are broken not because of inter-tribal disputes, but because of mass dispossession by Europeans.
It isn’t ‘white guilt’ to acknowledge that Anglos took over their habitat and edged them onto the margins, where they have completely degenerated.
Just as it isn’t “racism” to acknowledge that the same is happening to us with Latinos.
As this process unfolds, looking at the remnant Indian populations will be more and more like looking at a mirror.
Mr. Morgan,
While I often agree with you, I cannot on this point. The conquest of the Americas is the brown people’s holocaust. It functions in their pop mythology to subvert Whiteness in the same way that the holocaust does for Jews. It is a tool built with lies and half- truths to keep Whites on the moral defensive. It must be challenged.
Jacques, I never said that I thought that Whites should continue to be guilt-tripped by the legacy of colonization. Quite the reverse. At the same time, I think it is a mistake to defend a way of looking at the world, as this essay does, that is both deeply flawed and anachronistic. To say that Western civilization shouldn’t view itself as “civilizing the world” is very different from saying that we should therefore hang our heads in shame over our history.
Mr. Morgan,
Of course, I don’t think you were suggesting that we feel guilty. But I would suggest that the old Western notion of “civilizing the world” be put in context. To not defend our ancestors when they can be defended is to concede defeat. In this case the Spanish can be defended. I do not suggest any glorification of immoral or destructive past deeds nor do I believe that the attempt to Christianize the world is in any way a pattern that could or should be used to determine the future of our race. But I think it unwise to allow our enemies to manipulate our history in order to weaken us.
In my experience one way to steer conversations about this topic away from the conventional narrative is to ask “what would you have done if you were there?” (This is especially helpful after bringing up Aztec child sacrifice.)
I mention this example only because we all know what we would have done had we seen such things. Cortes, having seen such things and done something about it, should not be thrown to the wolves.
By remaining silent, by allowing the conventional narrative, we give our enemies more power. If you were to ask any American child what he knows about White people the first thing he would mention would be slavery and mean ol’ Columbus. This creates a very easy template in which to add the holocaust and on and on until our favorite character the “self-hating white” is created.
I see no harm in rehabilitating the Spanish. I do see harm in not. In fact, I see the harm in this every single day.
‘To say that Western civilization shouldn’t view itself as “civilizing the world”…’
Without the civilization of the Western White man this world would be a grand bubbly and steaming swamp of fecal matter.
Thanks to Project Gutenburg these horrible books are more readily available than ever. In case you want to read Canot/Conneau for yourself,
Captain Canot
I have to agree with John, this will get us nowhere. Harping on about the supposed glories of the civilizing mission will only make us look ridiculous as it went hand in hand with a universalist christian ethos that has been so detrimental to our people. There is no denying the extreme level of cruelty that was commonplace in the practices and behaviors of both pre and post-Colombian Amerindian peoples, but on the same token the atrocities committed by European colonizers is a reality as well. Any reading of the primary sources, whether they be French, English, Dutch, or Spanish can all attest to this. I must also add that no serious scholar of the Iroquois denies their propensity for aggressive warfare and practice of torture and cannibalism. However, comparing the Iroquois practice of torture to being a form of entertainment is absurd. It was not a frivolous practice, but integral to their practice and understanding of warfare. Which they were superb at. There was a reason why they held most of New York until the end of the Revolutionary war. Parkman, a 19th century secondary source, is simply rehashing the Jesuit Relations and adding in some falsehoods about the Iroquois treatment of female captives, who were never made slaves or concubines, (there were neither in Iroquoian society) but, instead, adopted into Iroquoian families. Selectively interpreting the past will get us nowhere. This, however, does not mean we must imbibe the politically correct narrative either. My great great grandfather fought and killed Indian’s out west after his service in the Civil War. Though I am proud of his actions, this does not mean I will demonize the Cheyenne, Sioux, or Comanche.
The point of the article is not White atrocities but how Whites civilized non-Whites and how this essay counters current academic brainwashing.
Wow, this is the most eye-opening piece I have ever seen on pre-Columbian savagery. Though a commenters above makes the good point that we ethnonationalists aren’t trying to justify White supremacy, I think the propagation of these truths about the incredible barbarities the American Indians and African Blacks committed on a regular basis for millennia is needed to make them shut up about their idyllic past, and humble them into considering our own grievances alongside theirs.
Every people has a savage past, we all simply lie about it. Is that not what history is as Napoleon put it; “What is history but a fable agreed upon?”
Whenever you find something in the historic texts that is heroic and cheery, it’s more often than not an event that did take place with the most critical parts omitted from the story.
Those “fables” are the spiritual sustenance of a people. All the men of history are dead. All that remains are the ideas, the myths. It ultimately makes no difference how many people died in any given battle. All that matters is how that battle is remembered. Does it empower or does it destroy?
“Though a commenters above makes the good point that we ethnonationalists aren’t trying to justify White supremacy,..”
Everything humanity enjoys and the world as we know it, has been brought forth and invented by the White man. Even something as trivial as the potato peeler.
If extolling the accomplishments, indispensable and vital contributions to humanity and virtues of the White man makes us “supremacists”, so be it.
What’s the problem?
@ Uh
I said they were broken because they were conned out of their land. Who do you think does that? They do fight among themselves all the time and the opportunists take advantage of that. When one chief looses his position he reverses his platform to get back in. I am not their crusader. I did not take their land. It was the government who did not enforce the existing laws that is to blame and they still don’t do it.
Slavery has not ended.
It became technological, some might say subtle, concealed as it is by our willing complicity.
Shackled people, whipped and beaten may seem to be the common idea of a slave, but what of an indebted person laboring all day to pay interest to a bank. Is not working 9 to 5, a form of slavery, where the slave is convinced he or she is free.
Slavery never ended.
I just became less obvious.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment