How savage were the Indians, particularly the ones in California, that the US would just opt for exterminating them and hunting them like animals?
>>18006874If your enemies seem 2-dimensional, the likely explanation is that you're projecting.You're mad at academia, and the spoiled mutts in their cultural awareness electives, not actual historical native americans, who were on par with the stone-age pagan ancestors of every other race.
>>18006874From their point of view they were fighting against invaders, right? So maybe they didn't want to surrender and lost their lands I don't know.>But they killed innocent people too.All the countries and peoples have done that at some point in their history.
From what I understand it was about enforcing civilizationAmericans wanted to build cities in the newly-captured CaliforniaNatives were a massive roadblock to this effortAmericans then passed laws imprisoning natives on grounds such as public complaints of vagrancy and drunkenness, but these policies were often so broadly enforced against Natives that they were basically just a way to encourage white settlers to report any native they saw to the police to have them arrested and forced to assimilate in some way.
How savage were the Americans, particularly the ones in California, that they would just opt for exterminating natives and hunting them like animals?
>>18006888Didn't happen to Mexicans and the Black slaves, though. Indians were still living in wooden huts. Some of them didn't even wear clothes before the Europeans came. They're primitive savages and it'd take more than one generation to civilize them. So, it's kind of understandable that, from the perspective of the government, it was much easier to just exterminate them.>>18006893The genocides mostly happened during the California gold rush, but yeah, it's not a coincidence that California went through a golden era after this.>>18006903Savages can't commit genocides. They don't have the necessary tools and technology to carry out a mass killing.
>>18006908
>>18006908Being primitive and savage isn't all that bad if it means you persevere.It's unfortunate that, being more formidable, rooted, and numerous than the african slaves, they were forced into more conflicts with the Americans than other groups. The American sense of racial self-preservation being formed differently from the Spanish also played into this.At any rate, the natives knew more about real life then the basedjack meme guys and the wagie meme guys. So they deserve some more subtle consideration by the "redpill" community.Additionally, while the early Americans might have gotten rid of the Indians by necessity, they didn't say they were without good attributes.Some tribes were more brutal than others its true, and of course during war there was a lot for Americans to be bitter about, but until the 60s, it was fine to remember them honorably.Our "niche" project - quickly becoming normalized as our cultural pendulum swings back - redefining them as two dimensional animals is just recent backlash against academia.I also wouldn't take this bait about natives "burning up all their resources in an area and then leaving" - a common line you hear about aborigines as well, too seriously. It's just more hot wind flying in the face of popular culture.They weren't very advanced but they were nomads with small population density. Their civ, left alone, would have lasted just as long as ours and remained traditional longer. Our industrial revolutions were incomparably more destructive physically and spiritually.We are where we are and we don't need to apologize. But give the natives some slack.
