America's Great Indian Leaders

America's Great Indian Leaders

1994, History  -   102 Comments
Ratings: 8.63/10 from 129 users.

The great herds that covered the prairies are no more. Along with their guns and disease the Europeans brought hearts formed on conquest and fortunes built on ownership of the Earth. They could not understand the Indian who lived upon the world, taking life from it as the birds of the forest. After the whites drew their lines on paper, and so made their new country, the Indian lands were trampled under the feet of immigrants more plentiful than the Buffalo.

The mighty nations of the East were rubbed out leaving only their names on the white man's maps. By the white man's year of 1861 there were 31 million Europeans on Indian soil. Their Pony Express raced from St. Louis to Sacramento in the passing of only ten days and the talking wires were strung across their land.

The time had come to face the vanishing of the Indian world. Many went quietly to the reservations, yet some chose to fight even in the face of so many foes with such ferocious weapons. And so the last great leaders rose to take their people to safety or to strike back.

Crazy Horse was a quiet man but very brave and courageous. He lived in a time when war was necessary to protect the very existence of his people and his family. Chief Joseph was the diplomat of the "Nez Perce" nation, a great heart who always spoke for peace. He tried to lead his people to another place where they could live in their way. But at the end his heart and spirit were broken. Geronimo was a great medicine man whose magic allowed him to hide from the armies of two nations. When his people were pursued they would run deep into the canyons and turn themselves into a rock, a tree, or a cactus.

Quanah Parker realized they were in a time of change. He knew that warfare no longer worked for his people so he made the transition to being a statesman and he chose to walk the path between two worlds. This is the story of these last great leaders and their peoples at the end of their time of freedom.

More great documentaries

102 Comments / User Reviews

  1. Since the day they set foot on this land, the settlers screwed the native americans over and over and over again, just like the spanish and portuguese conquistadors did in south america to the Aztecs, Mayans and Incas and they all did it for one thing...greed and power (all types) . It started out as a discovery of the "New World" but in reality it was church/king/queen sanctionned torture, rape, pillage and murder and annihilation of people and civilizations who were far more advanced in architecture, civil and agricultural engineering and general science than one might think. Then later on when the english and french settlers arrived in North America, they and their descendants did the exact same thing to the native's as simple as that. The veil of shame is always hidden by the flags of conquerors with tales of adventures and glorious achievements, it's just that they usually don't let everyone in on how they got there and everything else that happened along the way...they usually give you the light version.

  2. Loosing it here.
    I am reminded of a program where they took two trips across the same land and the history had two stories. One white and one native.
    The whites talked about the wars and wipeing torture,in slaving and killing. That in many cases how bad went to worse.
    Then they took the native tour. It started with " first you have to remember it was a different time with different belief's. Then a long talk on how the Natives beliefs lead to what the whites saw as torture.
    Old Chris did not come here to take over. He was looking to get to China by water. And he was one rotten to EVERYONE. He was sent back in chains. He never got passed to islands in 4 trips.
    No he nor the men did not have guns. The first gun used was 1505 and that in Spain. And you might want to look up how long it took to make just one gun. And how much it cost. And how many wars were going on. And how long they stayed at war.
    And let's talk about illnesses. Look again a d you find 90% of the world's population was wiped out at that time by there was no cure for. And if you look again you will find that two illnesses are still killing millions today. Both from Natives here.
    Now it was Spain and Portugal that came to South America,Central America and Mexico. While the Dutch and French went into Hudson Bay and the lakes. English showed up in 1600 s. The first disappeared.To this day no one has a answer to that.
    1607 Jamestown. They did not get greeted by helpful friendly Natives. One ship was attacked right off bat. Smith was taken and held and taken tribe to tribe to be killed at end but was let go. And you might look up the Starving Winter. This being the Natives killing anyone trying to get water(as theirs was poison) or hunt for food.
    Now according to the native stories there were many tribes with each having their own Chief to make a nation which was one Chief.
    Now comes a problem that happens from then forward. Big Chief makes deal and goes to the others and there is always someone who says no. And in this case the stories go that the head Chief let's them attack the English. And when the English ask what is going on. Chief just says he can't get them to listen the English will have to take care of the problem. Nice guy.
    It works it self for years. That Chief dies and his brother ( who hates the English) takes over with a plan. They pretend to be friends while they get together to be able to wipe out all at once inside and outside. So like Pearl Harbor the Natives come into Jamestown one day to trade and attack killing 348 men,women and children. Natives believing they were Christians saved who they could and waited for the next ship to come.
    Accounts show that there were 8,000 that came but they never could keep 1,000 alive at the same time till after 1622.
    Now we got the Pilgrims in 1620 who already know what the Natives did to Jamestown. They have left to late. And find themselves lost and starving. 102 passengers and not all are Pilgrims. The Pilgrim's came with their wife s and kids and pg. The rest were company men.
    So they land in wrong spot but go looking for food because they are dieing.T hey come across a village were everyone is been dead so long they are all bones and mostly lay were they had fallen. They found some food and were attacked and ran back to the ships.
    They spent sometime looking for a place to bring the people to land. They found place which turn out to be the land of the tribe of which only one native was left. He came forward and told them they would be safe there.
    They started building as it was winter and they needed place for woman and children. But most were dieing already.
    To not let the Natives know how many there were left the dead and dieing would be set by trees and buildings with guns. The woman covered the children to keep them warm. Most the woman froze to death. By the end of the first winter only 47 were alive. Most were children.
    The ship had stayed to house them till they built something. It was heading back but had lost some of its crew to cold and hunger as well.
    The Pilgrims gave the ship what they could to go back with for them and the company but it wasn't much.
    The one English speaking native had his own reason for helping. See again there are these many tribes with many Chiefs. But they got a few who have band together who demanded payment for their protection. Of course most that protection was from them. You did not give up what they wanted. They just come in and kill and burn and took what they wanted and who they wanted.
    The English speaking one decided that interpretation would allow him to start a fight and get even.
    At the same time the English company unhappy with what was sent back divided that the problem was the Pilgrims were more worried about their families. So they sent a ship with just men. The Pilgrims found them bad and asked them to leave. They did only after they stole food and set up elsewhere where they began trading with Natives for food right down to their clothes were they were left to die.
    The Pilgrims set up to walk into the bad tribes. But the English speaking one told them they were being set up. They killed the ones who were going to kill them.(the chiefs)
    The other tribes said they would have to put those Chiefs heads on poles to stop the rest of the tribe from fighting.
    Of course with children learning the language s. Well they let the adults know on both sides that he was not telling either side what the other was saying.
    Now what you don't hear much about. For 30 years after there were no problems between them.
    The hit the fan in the King Philip War(King Philip being a native). Seems the Natives once again felt they could pretend to be friends and kill all the whites on the coast. All they had to do was seek around getting all the tribes to fight and none to tell the whites.
    The Natives attacked and the war went on 2 years. Damn near wiped out both sides. Took 10 years for both sides to recover.
    Now there is one tribe in Southwest who has no problem bragging about the things they did to other tribes, Spanish or Mexicans as well as the whites.
    Now when they wanted rid of the Apache. They went south and told the Missionaries how they wanted to be taught. And they wanted them to come up and build on this piece of land so they could learn.
    So they come up and start building. The Apache tell them stop and get out. But the keep building. The Apache kill them. The Mexicans come up and go after the Apache killing all they find cutting the numbers down over half before they leave.
    The land this tribe told the Missionaries they could have wasn't their but Apache land. This tribe knew what would happen.
    This tribe had been setting tribes against one another for years with lie's. They let them fight each other and then go in when they stopped and wipe out what was left. And their cruelty and killing was so bad most were afraid of them to began with.
    If you check you will find the Natives had been killing, in slaving, demanding those they kept to give up their language and beliefs and taking on theirs. Stealing their food and goods and leaving them to starve and taken over. Hundreds of tribes were gone in both America s.
    Aztec's took over others to have their daily cut out hearts of men while alive religion. Tribes left alive were to proved for the main group or die . Take a look at the area they ruled.
    The fact is Chris landed in South to something like 30 million(they were on decline at that time). And out guns to start within 30 years had South, Central America and Mexico shortly after they had gone up both coasts as well as the Mississippi claiming all while at war with France and England.
    While you are at it take a look at treaties. In every case Some Chiefs would sign and take it back to the other Chiefs and a group would refuse and walk away and go on fighting. And of course the whites would take theirs back to Congress and sometimes they would vote a treaty down.
    Then go read the Cherokee. Chiefs signed to sell the land. Land and 5 million dollars and they got to take their slaves.
    The first that left had easy trips. But those finding out what they others had done felt they would be able to fix the mess and stay. It was late when they left and they lost many.
    When they got to OKLA by Cherokee law they went about killing all the male's and the male heirs,even unto the new births of those who signed. That killing was going on even into the civil war as some hide.
    The Main Chief moved by Washington DC for the rest of his life.
    By the way part of that sale was the USA was only to help support for first year till they got going. We are still giving support.
    The Natives reported casino profits in all the 2000s started at one billion and has done nothing but go up every year.
    2015 reported over 35 billion. The USA GAVE another 20 billion. That did not count welfare or food stamps or medical. This for 5.5 million people by native count.
    There are tribes that all are millionaires.
    And one tribe has refused to take and give it's people the over billion sitting paid them.
    There is a lot going on and the stories of each tribe are not the same.

  3. We had to take there land so we could have woodstock in the 60s. Indian music just couldn't cut it with us hippies. They had to make room for Led Zeppelin and the Stones. But now we've giving them cool places to live and booze and even casinos. We have been pretty darn good to them. Not to saved them so they can all be our servants in heaven. Praise de Lawd.

  4. Not being very knowledgeable about the relations between the different tribes in North America, there is still a question that has struck me: Why did the Sioux claim that the Black Hills belonged to them, when they took it by driving out the Crow, since they, themselves were driven out of Wisconsin by the Chippewas, as the Chippewas had guns bought from the white trappers? Then the Black Hills would not really have belonged to the Sioux, but to the Crow - or is it something I am missing - in which case the Sioux would not have a strong case about the whites being next in line to annex it? Just the next occupier, or is my information incorrect?

  5. the strong win the war and wright the history books . its when they work out that they are not going to leave is when the fighting begins .

  6. the strong win the war and wright the history books .

  7. Only the strongest survive

  8. The point is, so called Christians bougth slaves from whoever, you are right that Caucasians only been there for a short time, they have done more cruel and inhuman things no one else has done in their short span.

    USA and & Canada have screwed the Indian and under Christianity have tried to educate their young ones by making laws that took their kids for education christian style, anyone that can take their young to see how Blacks are lynch is a true Christian, give me an amen.

  9. History is the everlasting witness, pointing its finger towards the true terrorist: the white Christian man.From the americas, Australia, Africa, Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Iraq, Afghanistan to the enslaved Black man.History is forever damning him,while he finds the audacity to point his finger to others.

    1. Truth!!!

    2. The enslaved black man? Africans were the ones to sell their own people. The white Christian was not the first to enslave them. They enslaved their own people long before whites showed up. Not only black people, either. The Moors invaded Europe. They SLAUGHTERED the "white Christian man".
      White people have only been in the picture a short while compared to Africans and Asians, including the Romans, since they had been conquered by what is now the Middle East. Know your history.

  10. It is so sad to hear about the fruitless struggle's the American Indians endured against the whites. My heart ached watching this documentary. I am an Indigenous Australian and my ancestors were treated just as cruelly by the British and other colonisers of this country. Many of my people died and suffered under their hands and to this day they still fight and suffer. I cannot understand the ignorance and lack of compassion for the Indigneous people of America not only by the government but ordinary citizens as well. I feel we will never have our traditional lands and rights back again as Indigenous peoples and that is a tragedy for mankind. The only consolation I see in this story is that the proud men who took a stand are still remembered clearly and will never be forgotten. Rest in peace dear chiefs for your lives were not in vain....the struggle continues and because of you the job is a little easier and familiar. I do not know anyone from your tribes and families but I felt a sense of pride in you, as human beings, because you proudly fought for what you believed in and stayed true to all that you represented.

    1. Very nicely said.

  11. I'm half Lakota (of the Sioux tribe) and still hate what Europeans have done to the Am. Indians. I found that much more of an atrocity than slavery, because it is still going on.

  12. The American Indian was destroyed.
    American Indian Reservations are chock full of alcoholics and rapist.
    A lot of them women are physically beautiful and the men handsome.
    But it does them no good.
    They are a conquered people and behave as such.

    1. My gf is Native American. And I have been on the 'Res' of Montana Great Falls. The reason NA are pretty much gone, is because their spiritual ways and thus culture were literally genetically dealt with by The Catholics based in Canada. There is a doc on this somewhere.

      GET THIS.

      Look up the Iroquois. The 'Founding Fathers' Benjamen Franklin, Thomas Jeff etc went to them and asked, "How do you as a people of a variety of tribes seem to avoid wars?"

      They based the Constitution on the BASIC (and I say basic because the Constitution left out a lot of what they were taught) of what the Iroquois Told them.

      There is a DEEP hatred of 'the white man'. A DEEP hatred that is so deep, that the Hop-pies are literally waiting for 'the white man' to destroy themselves so they can reclaim their lands.

      They see whites as Helpless, Greedy literally LOST in spirit in relation to the Earth.

      Now, I can understand this. If you consider Fukushima, The FED the Gold rush. The Fraking... it is SO obvious even to 'the white man' that we all know we are killing the planet... we disrespect the earth as much as each other over things that the Indians did without.

      They did without MONEY without WRITING and had basic laws of common sense.

      Another things that The Indians seem to understand is 'The right of passage' in becoming a member of the tribe. Becoming a Man or Woman requires a Vision quest, with the Medicine mad making sure to over see it.

      Now, all Original Peoples have a time when their Children become Adults in some kind of ceremony.

      What white people lack... is not technology, but the proper mind set to use ever powerful tech properly and responsibly.

      People think Indians are savages, and in some ways they have become that... but not because of their own doing. Fortunately, even tho most Reservations are decrepit and in serious trouble with drugs and disorder... there are still some thriving tribes... and I think that one day the Indian will blend in like Black people and Gays are... I fear if they are not blended in, and consider what Indian Elders are trying to tell the White Man that we WILL destroy this planet into a Hell of living death out of childish ignorance to the most obvious and basic of all things. Things SO OBVIOUS that we white people have forgotten them, that we are frail biological beings, tied to a fragile earth... and I think that is the biggest lesson the Vision Quest teaches you... it confronts you with your frailty and thus realize the Earth if not properly considered as frail too, will assume to destroy it and the Garden.

      Indians are NOT simple people... they were the code encryption in World War 2, they do not just KNOW that you are frail and the earth and you are one... they actually FEEL it. And there is a huge difference, in knowing something and feeling it.

      That is all I have to say about it. It is a sad story that like Hitler and the Nazi lesson we must not forget... in fact we need to remember The Indians and rediscover their basic proposals in how to live.

    2. wonder where they learned that debauchery from?

  13. "The great herds that covered the prairies are no more. Along with their guns and disease the Europeans brought hearts formed on conquest and fortunes built on ownership of the Earth. They could not understand the Indian who lived upon the world, taking life from it as the birds of the forest. After the whites drew their lines on paper, and so made their new country, the Indian lands were trampled under the feet of immigrants more plentiful than the Buffalo." - hate-mongering. This sets up a dichotomy of white vs. native, or unnatural vs. natural, or guilty vs. innocent.
    As long as this kind of language is used we will never be free of hatred and racism. Is the agenda here really to document these great leaders, or is the documenting of these leaders just an advocating of white guilt?
    I could be wrong and this could be a totally innocent documentary, but the language used in just the first paragraph of the description is so abhorrent that I cannot bring myself to watch it.

    1. to be kind and make sure you are comfortable in your skin, history must be rewritten, shame must be hidden from eyes that refuse to see or ears that refuse to hear the blatant truth. If life was so accomodating, fools like yourself would not cross my path as i attemt to live my life, but is not.

    2. No, it's go nothing to do with being comfortable, it's about using language in a non-biased way. You can make the same point with more neutral language and it would be much more effective. It's the difference between educating and brain-washing.
      Btw, what do you gain by calling someone a fool?

    3. the language is factually correct though, its not lying

    4. I'm not disputing that. Let me be clear: I am NOT making an issue about the facts that are being stated here. I am not denying that these things happened, nor am I making light of them. My comment was aimed solely at the loaded language being used. As a documentary, the main purpose of this film is to educate. As an education film, there is a responsibility to present the facts as facts. Emotionally loaded language colours facts with opinion. Opinion can undermine fact very easily - all it takes is one loaded word to set somebody off on a hate crusade, armed with what they think is knowledge, but which is actually somebody else's opinion.
      It's important in an educational film to keep the tone as scholarly and unbiased as possible so that the facts are presented as such. If this was a Hollywood movie or a story then emotionally loaded language would be not only appropriate but expected.
      Again, I am not taking issue with WHAT is being said. I do not want to be 'comfortable in my skin' at the expense of history. This is not my point. My point is regarding the type of language that should be used for an educational film. I know a lot of people will want to attack what I have said because this documentary covers a sensitive issue, but please, please read this carefully: I am not disputing the veracity of what this film says - I know the whites destroyed the natives' culture - I am criticising the author of this work for using unscholarly language in an educational film. He/she could have made exactly the same points, paragraph for paragraph, using neutral language and it would have been more effective.

    5. rngfarrell, I agree with you. The language is loaded in a very biased way. But I would also say some of the facts are not correct. For example, Cynthia Ann Parker was not returned to her parents after her captivity. She and her daughter Prairie Flower were returned to her Uncle. Her father, Silas, had been killed in the original attach where young Cynthia was captured. This is the account of several eye witnesses. This is published in "Rachel Plummer’s Narrative, p. 95.
      One of the best researched books on this a Texas A & M University study entitled "Frontier Blood." You are so right, educational films should be as unbiased as possible. Thanks for your comments.

    6. You mean she was taken against her will. She wanted to be with her native family.

    7. I'm pretty sure this documentary wasn't meant to be a scholarly piece of work, its edutainment.

    8. Oh, it's edutainment - that great American tradition. Of course! So they have carte blanche to say whatever they please, regardless of how many people watch this and take it 100% seriously (USA Katie).
      This may not be a scholarly piece of work but it is meant to educate and so should follow some basic standards - unbiased language is one of them.
      Just look over the comments to this doc and see what happens when nobody can be sure what is the truth, and what is merely propaganda. In most cases people have been persuaded that they are hearing the truth because of the language that has been used, not because of the facts.
      One thing I can say for certain, by using loaded language this film, and any other film that does not take its responsibility to the facts seriously, becomes a piece of propaganda. Calling something edutainment does not automatically free it from its educational obligations.

    9. The film never claimed to be from a neutral or scholarly point of view it is obviously told from the native point of view, which i have no problem with since most documentaries are told from a western(non-neutral) point of view. Most of the stuff people are arguing about on here has nothing to do with the film. For instance discussion about natives being good and peaceful and whites being bad isnt in the film. The language is contextually appropriate for a film being told by natives from their point of view. "The great herds that covered the prairies are no more"(true, they were killed by Euro-Americans for fun and to destroy Native resistance and their way of life which was heavily dependent of Buffalo). "Along with their guns and disease the Europeans brought hearts formed on conquest and fortunes built on ownership of the Earth" -This is also true from the native point of view since guns and diseases such as small pox that killed most native peoples were brought by Europeans and purposely used to kill natives. "They could not understand the Indian who lived upon the world, taking life from it as the birds of the forest. After the whites drew their lines on paper, and so made their new country, the Indian lands were trampled under the feet of immigrants more plentiful than the Buffalo." Pretty much sums up what happened to the natives. Whites didn't try to understand the native way of life instead forced them to assimilate or die and as america is a country that did historically embrace immigration, and use those immigrants to "tame the west", and Americans did bring a whole different way of life and set of values as well as conquest so I see nothing inappropriate about the language. Expecting the movie to be something it never claimed to be is ridiculous to me. And as the facts it claims are true I don't see how its educationally harmful. it's not like the film is blaming modern Americans for the actions of people hundreds of years ago.

    10. I would disagree. The film is loaded with insinuation of how the whites thought. I do not see any balance in this documentary at all. It is certainly not an example of critical thinking. It is definitely not "non-neutral." An approach like this is wrong whether it's from a Western point of view, and Indian point of view, or, a British point of view.

    11. Yes! Thank you.

    12. when did the movie say that all white men were evil? it doesn't it just says that they were different and thought about the world differently and that this lead to conflict which the natives lost. The movie is a brief history of a few native leaders told from their point of view, it is not a commentary about the entire history of interaction between the native peoples and Europeans and certainly never pretend to be.

    13. I understand what you are saying, to a point, and I did consider a lot of what you say myself, but I still hold that there are certain standards that should be upheld by any film that claims to be a documentary - which this one does. If I had noticed this same problem on a different film, a theist documentary for example, you would probably agree with me. It seems as if you are on a crusade to defend the natives against the evil white man of today, but, as stated above, I have never attacked them or their history. I take issue with the language used. If someone made a documentary called 'rngfarrell' and used that language to make me seem great I would still take issue with it, even if it turned out to be 'factually' correct.
      How about this: Hitler merely wanted to cleanse his country. Is that factually incorrect? No - that is what he wanted to do. The language is misleading though and an uneducated reader might go away thinking that the Jewish people were a stain upon Germany, since according to that statement they needed to be cleansed. They might even go away thinking that Hitler was misunderstood, or worse, that he was right. All it takes is one impressionable person. Just because you may have the mental tools to see beyond propaganda, it does not mean that others do. The target audience for this kind of documentary is the everyday person, who does not possess any higher education, who does not possess the critical thinking skills to separate the black and white facts from the colourful language.
      Although you do not see the harm that loaded language can cause that does not mean that it does not exist. I honestly do understand your sentiments when you say that this is written from a native perspective, however, as Terry Bell says, 'an approach like this is wrong whether it's from a Western point of view, an Indian point of view, or, a British point of view.'
      In the end though I suppose we will have to agree to disagree.

    14. How am I "on a crusade to defend the natives against the evil white man of today" When did I or the movie say any white man was "evil"? Much less that all natives were peaceful and "good"? I simply pointed out the documentary obviously isn't meant to be neutral as it is clearly being told from the native point of view therefore can not be neutral. The movie is not advocating race war or saying that all whites are evil, or that modern white people are somehow to blame for things that happened hundreds of years ago, so I'm having trouble seeing what language your finding so offensive. I will re watch the movie now to refresh my memory.

    15. Very well said, rngfarrell. It's this kind of subtle language that causes so much of the world's wars. All Muslims hate Americans. All Americans hate Muslims. All blacks can't be trusted in department stores; all whites are rich. All French are arrogant and all Brits are (I don't know what...I think many on this forum are from the UK so you can fill in this blank). Personally I love England and have always been treated wonderfully there. Does that mean all English are pleasant and hospitable? Probably not.
      Language can be manipulated. Hitler's And there is nothing so deceitful as the TRUTH, cleverly told. Hitler's Mein Kampf is filled with scriptures about love an peace.

    16. are you seriously comparing this movie with Mein Kampf?

    17. HI Darth. No. But I am saying that when anon calls the decline of the American Indian a purposeful American plan of Ethnic Genocide, it's about as stupid as saying the American colonies separated from England (according to anon, the great protector of the Indians) so the could commit genocide against the natives. In fact anon makes a good example of when you can't win an argument, you resort to Ad Hominem.

    18. The colonists did not split from England to commit genocide, but it was an assumption. According to the European dominant ideology, the land was there for the taking. BTW the signing of the declaration of independence was actually and act of treason, making it invalid. The indian nations should claim their land back

    19. Jan, you bring up some very interesting points. You are certainly right that the American founding fathers committed an act of High Treason and had the war gone the other way all of the founding fathers would have been hanged. It seems like every revolution, be it the French Revolution, or the English Revolution would be considered acts of treason.
      I'm not sure, however that you can equate "land for the taking" with genocide and I would appreciate hearing your opinion on that. Most imperial governments considered conquered land to be there for the takiing but it seems like that is a very different thing than, say Rwanda or Serbia.
      Also I wonder since you consider the American Government invalid, how would you turn the country back over to the native populations. Remember, with the exception of the Oklahoma territories, the indigenous peoples did not have actual boundaries and were constantly at war with each other over the land they occupied. An example would be Texas. Much of what is now Texas was claimed by the Comanches, Apaches, Caddo, and the Tonkowas. They regularly fought, killed and torchered each other, and enslaved each other. So if this land were to be returned to the native population, which tribe would it go to. Now I realize that Texas was not one of the 13 colonies but since it became a state by act of what you would consider and invalid congress in 1845, then, should it be given back to the native populations and if so, which one?

    20. I'd say the language in this movie is just as neutral as any documentary I've seen about war. I dont remember the movie ever saying anything like all whites are bad and all natives were good. They don't call anyone evil or cast blame they simply tell events from the native point of view. how would you have preferred they said "The great herds that covered the prairies are no more. Along with their guns and disease the Europeans brought hearts formed on conquest and fortunes built on ownership of the Earth. They could not understand the Indian who lived upon the world, taking life from it as the birds of the forest. After the whites drew their lines on paper, and so made their new country, the Indian lands were trampled under the feet of immigrants more plentiful than the Buffalo." while still being told from a native perspective?

    21. I like your post. However, I would replace the word opinion, with emotion

    22. I see nothing wrong with the language used. It is only describing one of the biggest genocides in human history. You should be ashamed to be white American. This is all in living memory. Collectively you are responsible. My parents suffered in Auschwitz and I will use biased language against the nazis. You are obviously a fascist in liberal clothing.

    23. I'm not white American. And I'm not carrying on this argument - you've taken what I said completely out of context. Over and out.

    24. Thank you for sharing, rngfarrell. You've taken unnecessary attacks by people who don't know how to have civil discourse. Frankly, it's that kind of unnecessary attacking that that has cause so many of history's. You made very good comments and I for one appreciate your contribution. Sometimes when a person lacks intelligence, the attempt to substitute ad hominem for brains. It never works.

    25. Thank you, Terry. It is reassuring that there are like-minded people out there. I think it is important that hatred does not become a factor in intellectual discussion, even when the facts described are hateful. In fact, that is the reason I think it is important - I do not wish to justify those feelings by adding those of my own to the collective. At some point we have to rise above that way of thinking, and although that does not mean that we have to support, like or even tolerate the historical actions discussed here, it also does not mean that we must treat them with the same emotions that caused the actions in the first place.
      Thanks for your rational voice and support. I have also took note that you are one of those rare people who actually do their own research - that attitude is much appreciated! Now if only more people would follow suit...

    26. Jan, I'm really trying to figure out where you are coming from on this. I'm not ashamed to be white, nor am I ashamed to be Native. I'm proud of both. How can I be responsible for what my ancestors did? I'm not sure what ethnicity you are but I am pretty sure that you have had ancestors do some pretty disgusting things as well.
      As far as using biased language against the Nazis, let me assure you there is no reason to. There disgusting acts speak for themselves. FACTS and BIAS are two different things.
      Am I responsible for what my white ancestors did to the natives? If so, should I also be responsible for what my Tonkowa ancestors did to the Comanches? They brutally tortured them and often then ate their remains as an act of triumph.
      I refuse to live my life in shame for what somebody else did; even if they are in my family linage. I have enough of my own issues to be ashamed of ... which does not include anything such as the magnitude of torture, rape, genocide, etc.

    27. Jews always have to bring up the holocaust. 70 years ago someone treated the jews horribly. They've been treating the rest of the world the same way ever since

  14. It is overly simplistic to think all Indians were good and all whites were bad. The reality is that there was enough bad to go around on both sides. Slaves? check out how the native tribes ravaged each other and enslaved each other. I agree, the whites weren't much better, if any. But what if the natives had won. Are you saying we'd all be better off now?
    Personally one of my heroes is Quanah Parker. He was the real peace maker. We need more people like him today.

    1. "But what if the natives had won. Are you saying we'd all be better off now? " So lets understand your analogy. Lets say I went to your house threw you out emptied your bank account stole your car and all your money and food and buried you in your back yard with no consequences. Would I be better off now? Hell yea! But does that not still make ME WRONG!

    2. So let's see if I understand what you're saying:
      I'm living in the stone age, capturing, killing, raping, torchering, enslaving, stealing,
      And you move into the neighborhood and do the same to me, So which one of us would be wrong....Both of us would be wrong, right? So why would you come along later and portray me as a nice, peace-loving flower child, at one with nature and all the nature's creatures.
      The wrong is not in what I did or you did ... That's settled ... we both would be wrong.
      The wrong is in revising history to make it look like there was only on wrong party ... the whites.
      Both were wrong.

    3. Ok I get it its ok for me to do it because they did it first. Thanks for clearing that up.

    4. No you don't get it ... but then it's pretty obvious that you're not able to get it.

    5. Ok you hate the Indians.
      Just ask yourself what did the Indians ever do to you?

    6. Hate Indians. That's absolutely ridiculous. When people can't win an argument they resort to name-calling and inane allegations. Hate Indians? I am one. Go study Quanah Parker. He could teach you a lot about what it means to be a real man, a real Indian, a real human being.

    7. When people can't win an argument they LIE. Your an Indian? Then why would you say bad things about your own people. And recommend books that show Indians as bad and refer to Indians as them people?

    8. ahahahahahhahahahaha your ridiculous, If he is native then he is the prefect person to be saying what he is saying which is like all peoples Natives had there bad guys(who killed , raped, and enslaved others) too. no one culture is entirely good, and pretending they were is ignorant.

    9. Ogger151. First I apologize for allowing this conversation to degrade to a point of name-calling. Some of that is my fault. This is a very important issue and that's why I'm passionate about it. I know it must be an important issue to you as well. I encourage you to read the books I've mentioned in my post to a_n_o_n. Empire of the Summer Moon is perhaps the most interesting. Yes, it begins by talking about the savagery of the Comanches. Then it begins talking about the betrayals and savagery of the whites. It concludes by showing us how Quanah Parker (who was half white, half Indian) helped to bring about peace between the two groups. He was an incredible person able to navigate both worlds. We need more people like him today.
      I like our discussions because this is such an important issues, but to continue in the tone of our most recent discussions just repeats the injustices of the past. I do hope that both Indians and whites (I'm both) can work to heal the horrific atrocities on both sides. Let's work to make the New Year better for all people.

    10. I will check it out. I apologize too I get carried away sometimes

    11. when did the movie make that claim?

    12. The movie made the claim at 41:42. And you are exactly right, she did not want to go back to the white man's world. In fact, on several occasions she tried to escape back to the Comanches but was unsuccessful.
      But she was not returned to her parents. As a child, she was forced to watch the brutal murder and of her father and her uncle and grandfather torchered to death. Later, she fell in love with the Comanche life, married a Chief, Peta Nocona, and bore him three children, probably three. The two we know for sure about are Prairie Flower, Quanah, and Peanut.Her grandmother and aunt were gang-raped. Her uncle and grandfather were roasted alive and her uncle had his penis cut off and shoved down his throat. This was reported first hand by her cousin who later escaped and some of the other people who escaped. Signed affidavits were made by survivors supporting this. They are also detailed int the Rachel Parker Plummer Narratives.
      The point is, there are some factual errors in the documentary and the language is very biased. There was savagery on both sides.

    13. I was referring to when you said "It is overly simplistic to think all Indians were good and all whites were bad.", i don't remember the film making that claim.

    14. Your laughable complaints about *bias* is amazingly ignorant but not surprising. How about all those cowboy movies your people made? or the novels or the theater? Your people have spewn so much bulls*it about us that you start whining when the story is told from our point of view. Maybe you should b*tch at your biases before you start imagining about ours.

    15. Duane, your paranormal ESP has failed you. You have no idea what my ethnic background is. And all this stuff about "your people" and "my people" ... it's that kind of talk that makes the problems worse for all us. If you tell me what tribe you are from, I will tell you what tribe I am from. What do you say?

  15. Does anybody who ever writes in this forums ever read any real history, or do you get it just from the comic books? How about some documentation for your ideas about killing off 90% of the native and enslaving the rest? Some documentation other than National Enquirer. How about some primary sources. Does anybody care to mention that most of the Eastern tribes were cannibalistic. And talk about slaves, they all enslaved each other. Yes, many things the white men did to them were wrong.... but what they were doing to each other wasn't all that great either.

    1. Yes we do. And I'm personally starting to wonder what's with all the (re)demonizing of native americans (and natives in general) that's been going around lately , portraying them as savages who were wronged, but savages nonetheless (who kind of deserved it, being savages and all, right?). Could it have something to do with certain energy companies being hindered and thwarted in their attempts to steal land from and by certain tribal peoples? Kind of makes me want to know where all these kinds of posts are coming from.

    2. You got a point. I wondering the same thing.

    3. 'Most of the Eastern tribes were cannibalistic" maybe they were hungry because someone killed all the buffalo just saying. Did they eat eachother or just the English?

    4. Oh, that's right. Now I remember. "Oh give me a home where the buffalo roam" was written about Vermont.

    5. or maybe because disease decimated a large portion of the civilizations, and since large communities depend on intense agriculture if you loose a significant portion of your workforce this would lead to a significant loss of food production causing famine and when people are starving they turn to extremes like cannibalism. I dont believe Cannibalism was ever a major part of the diet of eastern tribes.

    6. Other than what is now called "the five civilized tribes," most all of the tribes were hunter/gatherers. It was not until the late 19th century and the early 20th century that many of the tribes began to farm.

      When cannibalism was practiced, it was to celebrate victories in battle over the other tribes.

    7. Exactly it was ritual cannibalism, it was never their main food source. Farming was very prevalent in Pre-Historic(before European contact) Eastern America look into the Mississippian cultures, and Hopewell cultures, and other mound building cultures of the eastcoast. You must remember that by the time the English showed up in the Americas disease introduced by the Spanish had traveled along trade routes decimating the major cultural centers such as cities/villages that were dependent on agriculture but farming was nothing new to the east coast.

    8. You are so right about that, Darth. Thanks for bringing that up. Quite a few of the tribes were making advancements from Hunter/Gatherer societies into the Agrarian society. It's an important distinction and I'm glad you reminded us of that. We tend to fall prey to stereotyping all native tribes as if they were all alike. Not so.

    9. Well since some Native Americans were cannibals seems like a good excuse to enslave, murder or ethnically cleanse them all.

      We need to remember by law of discovery, Native Americans had no more rights than Jews or Roma under the Nazis.

    10.'re going to call other people out for not referring to sources, and then you're just going to throw out something like "most of the eastern tribes were cannibalistic" without anything to back it up?

      perhaps pay a bit more attention to your own advice!

    11. Ok, let's play like little boys with bps...

      Cannibalism, Headhunting and
      Human Sacrifice in North America, George Franklin

      James WHITE, ed., Handbook of Indians of Canada ,
      Published as an Appendix to the Tenth Report of the Geographic Board of Canada
      , Ottawa , 1913, 632p., pp. 77-78.


      Published: September 07, 2000

      Empire of the Summer Moon, SC
      Gwynne P.7, p. 43, p 198, p 211,

      Ok, I've shown you mine, now it's your turn to show me yours

    12. lol, really? Dude how can you get all bent out of shape, you had a go at someone for not presenting sources and then did exactly the same thing yourself, it's not my fault you're a hypocrite. Don't throw all your teddies out the pram about it.
      What's the context of this 'Cannibalism'? because from what i can find it only appears to have been recorded as happening in times of desperation...which to be honest doesn't really count. If that is the qualifying factor then the Crusaders were cannibals too (except there's actual contemporary sources for the cannibalism of the crusaders by historians like William of Tyre).

      Generally when you want to go to war with a group of people, the first order of business is to declare that they are all baby raping cannibals and start spreading propaganda.

    13. Thanks (Dude?)
      You just keep proving my point. I do hope you'll find some time to be "bothered." You'd do yourself and all of us a big favor.

    14. oh, btw... what about your sources? I showed you mine ... now how about showing me yours.

      also, about the Pram ... I'm assuming you're from the UK, or at least one of the countries formerly belonging to the British Empire. Do you feel the same way about the way England treated India?

    15. lol, my sources are your previous comments.
      Cor somebody really doesn't like having his hypocrisies pointed out to him...I can imagine the tears of frustration pouring down your face as you frantically type.

    16. presumably i'm not allowed to look at it in it's historical context?
      I think our conquest of India was just that. a conquest. It was the way the world worked back then. I feel that in the modern day Indians from the commonwealth have rights as British citizens, and i'm very pro immigration. After all, the suffering of their ancestors added to the comfort of mine, now the shoes on the other foot i fully support Indians who wish to travel to my country in search of a better life for themselves.
      (I can do that because unlike the Americans, we didn't Ethnicity cleanse everyone who got in our way.)

    17. In the Boer war, the British imprisoned 27,927 Boer (of whom 22,074 were children under 16) and 14,154 black Africans had died of starvation, disease and exposure in the concentration camps making it one of the first organized European genocides on the continent (Andre Wessels , 2010, A Century of Postgraduate Anglo Boer Studies, p. 32,Sun press).
      You might also want to study some of the British colonialism history in:
      Jallianwala Bagh massacre (India)
      The Indian Rebellion of 1857
      Hola massacre (Kenya)
      Nigeria and Somalia
      Batang Massacre,
      South Africa


      Anon, we can concentrate on our differences and grow further apart. Or concentrate on our similarities and grow closer together. I've spent a lot of time in England, Scotland, and Wales. It's a wonderful place. You Brits have a lot to be proud of; but just like us Americans, we both have some stains in our history.

      Yours truly,
      a former subject of British colonialism.

    18. We can have this back and forth all night. for all of our massacres we never went so far as to nuke two densely populated cities, and whenever we did storm into a third world nation to take over at least we were honest with ourselves and everyone else about what we were doing.

      Although to counter that the whole middle east situation is pretty much entirely our fault...I suppose that kinda evens things out doesn't it?

      i guess what i'm trying to say now is that all of human history has been one long learning curve, and it's sickeningly brutal because we just did not know any better, and cold hard necessity always won out over intentions however good or bad they might be...And now that we have the benefit of hindsight, it's good that we talk like this about everywhere we went wrong the first time if only we can get our leaders to do the same.

    19. Well said, anon. Here's to a better new year with hopes that our leaders everywhere will learn to do the same thing ... talk with frankness and objectivity.

    20. Sources? or are they anonymous? Like your name.

    21. Sources?

    22. well, the main source i'm using at the moment the Greenland Sagas (another primary source)make no mention whatsoever about cannibalism.
      The Greenlanders had plenty of contact with pre-european native Americans and not once do they ever mention cannibalism.

      It's not until you get to about the time when people are coming over to conquer America that claims of it suddenly start showing up. Call it a hunch but i'm calling Propaganda.

      presumably you want my sources for all of that as well, and then the barcode for the dictionary i'm using too eh?

      Are you one of those pathetic types that's going to keep screaming "SO?URCES" at me because i dared to hold you to your own standard?

    23. Here you go first search found 2. "More generally, historians estimate that in much of the Americas, upwards of 90% of the indigenous population died in a massive demographic collapse after the Spanish Conquest. The collapse was largely the result of disease, and most of the population drop took place within decades of Spanish invasion. This process of depopulation was more dramatic in some regions than others, but after the first decades it transformed into a slow process of population decline punctuated by epidemics. Population loss was also more extreme in particular kinds of environments and climates. Diseases such as smallpox and measles flourished in warm, low altitude, tropical climates. They were relatively less destructive in dry, highland areas such as the Andes and Central Mexico, where a larger portion of indigenous populations survived." - Warren, Adam. "Colonialism and Epidemic Disease." The American Mosaic: The American Indian Experience. ABC-CLIO, 2014. Web. 3 Jan. 2014.

      "Isolated from the Eastern Hemisphere, North American Indians lacked immunity to pathogens common in Europe, Africa, and the Far East and thus experienced smallpox epidemics that devastated their populations. It is estimated that more than 90% of precontact Indian populations in Mexico perished between 1519 and 1619, while Indians living in the more northern portions of North America suffered a similar fate throughout the 17th century. The number of Indian deaths from smallpox parallels those from the Holocaust during World War II." - "North American Smallpox Epidemic." The American Mosaic: The American Indian Experience. ABC-CLIO, 2014. Web. 3 Jan. 2014.

      But i would say that the 90% being thrown around is in the upper end of estimates.

    24. Thanks Darth. And you are right about that. My point was, it was not a planned genocide, or ethnic cleansing as a_n_o_n suggests. It was not just the Americans and a_n_o_n is wrong when he indicates that the British did everything they could to protect the native population and that as soon as the British left, the American took advantage of the time to begin their ethic cleansing. Thanks for providing a good source.

    25. The British did purposely give natives blankets infected by small pox knowing how devastating it was to native populations.The British treated the natives no better than the USA, they just weren't here as long because of the revolution..

    26. Darth, I really enjoy your thoughtful posts. You make me think, and I like that. I live in Oklahoma and it's starting to get late for this old man. I may not post again tonight, but thanks. I look forward to perhaps posting again tomorrow.

  16. I haven't watched this part of the series, but I remember it from high school.

    A lthough in my personal opinion, it is in these lessons that we must learn, in order to progress from our background/old ways.

    o n many levels we have leaders or heads we uphold. Political, religious, even social ones on Youtube. Whom neglect or even punk the lessons and examples (such as in this series) of violence, in history. Simply for the sake of dogma.

    C urrently our leadership figures are some of the best we have. But still many continue to conduct themselves in methods proven to be antiquated.

    Stable, sustainable progress takes time. It is important not to just too far ahead of what is viable. But as well accept what is constructive and useful to our community as a whole.

    But most importantly to take the best of what everyone has to offer, in collaboration and activation of the greater good.

    Society is evolving
    +1 TDF

  17. the history isn't very accurate at all.
    the "Europeans" (i.e the british and the french and the dutch) were more than happy trading with the native tribes.
    The whole reason that the thirteen colonies rebelled against England was because the colonists wanted to go after the rest of the native land, and the British wouldn't let them take it because it would mess up all their trade agreements.

    don't try fobbing off the Yankee cleansing of America on the Europeans...we tried to stop them!

    1. Talk about revisionist history. The "Yankees" were European in language, culture, religion, technology, and world view(everything but geography). Early puritans thought natives were a bunch of witchcraft practicing Satan worshipers, the spanish killed off 90% of the natives they came into contact with, also the natives of the south were enslaved before the importation of Africans. the french were like the only ones to not kill them, but they didnt help them much either.

    2. nothing revisionist about it...rose tinted perhaps but certainly not revisionist...the 13 colonies were the ones that ethnicly cleansed North America, and they did it after declaring independence from England.

      I can't say anything about the Spanish. their barbarity in the south of the continent was what convinced us and the French to take a more restrained attitude to the North.

      we snatched a bit of land, the colonists however went on the murderous rampage that saw the deaths of most of the aboriginal race.

      The Native Americans were the one race on earth that we Brits didn't try overthrowing and/or exterminating...we must get a little bit of credit for that surely?

    3. The 13 colonies were British! The success of England’s colonies depended on the exploitation of Native Americans who were forced off their lands. Religion was often used to justify the poor treatment of the natives. Both England’s economic system and religion led to Native American oppression. The British never asked the Natives if they could create the colonies they just did it. Plus the British were just as barbaric as the Spanish cant forget about the stuff that happened to the peoples of Australia, parts of Africa, India, China during that whole British Empire phase.

    4. yeah they were British...right up to the point that they declared independence...That's kinda what declaring independence does!
      Before the colonies declared independence the British were more than happy trading with the native tribes on the land they already had...The colonies seperated from the empire because they wanted the whole continent for themselves. The genocide of the Natives was an American act not a British one...If we didn't do it the French would have taken it instead...You can look at a Goya etching to see how that probably would have ended.

      I'm sorry but we were nothing like the Spanish in the American theater.
      Yeah we did pretty heinous stuff around the world, but that's what the world was like back then. We were trying a different tact in America (which is what we're talking about now)

    5. Are you seriously suggesting there were no conflicts with natives before the revolution?

    6. No of course not, i'm just saying that we didn't want to destroy them.

    7. Ignoring a lot of stuff like the Anglo-Powhatan Wars (1610–14, 1622–32, 1644–46)or how during the Pontiac rebellion in 1763 Sir Jeffrey Amherst(the Commander-in-Chief of the British forces in North America) purposely used smallpox infected blankets for biological warfare against natives he knew had no natural defenses against smallpox. The Spanish didnt purposely kill off most natives and generally left the existing infrastructures intact simply replacing native nobles with Spaniards. Plus the Spanish mixed with the existing native populations didn't systematically eliminate them from the territories they claimed.

    8. oh my God...I'm not saying we went over there wearing angel wings spreading joy and peace, but for once in our history we drew down a border and decided that was enough for us...For the British empire that was a pretty progressive decision to make!
      We allowed them to carry on existing...which was one more mercy than the Americans were willing to grant them

    9. The Americans simply continued the treatment that was established under the British, we(Americans) let plenty of natives tribes continue to exists as sovereign nations to this very day, how many sovereign nations did the British leave in their colonies?. they simply did to the rest of the natives what the British did to the ones who originally lived were the colonies were founded. the founding fathers of the USA were all British citizens. Americans still have more in common with the British than any other civilization on earth. We are the product of Britannia our culture(including values and morals) is English! But i will agree they did let the natives off better than the peoples in the rest of their conquests but you must also admit the British colonization of America was before their other conquests of China, India, and Africa had occurred, so really the British became just as barbarous as America did, once again highlighting the uniformity between the two peoples.

    10. yeah entirely true, if i did argue with that it would be purely semantic.

    11. You do know that Native Americans still exist as sovereign nations right?

    12. on their reservations that were so 'generously' alotted to them, yes I have heard.