We have had it drilled into us now for more than forty years. I remember
as a small boy when the Indians in movies were depicted as cruel,
whooping, primitive savages, while the heroic cowboys or cavalry
(calvary!) always kept one bullet – for themselves – in case of capture.
You know, these savages would torture him horribly before his ritual
slaughter.
We can look back now at this simplistic, ‘offensive’, ignorant and
narrow-minded characterisation. We know this from an endless series of
moves, and from the full range of ‘White Studies’ (ugh!) programmes,
which show the Indian as being brave, peace-loving and chivalrous.
.
In fact, our unsophisticated 1960s view was far more accurate than that portrayed in
Soldier Blue, Dances With Wolves
or any of the other myriads of panegyrics to the poor Indian. For the
Indian was indeed violent, cruel, savage, merciless and at constant war
with his own kind, ever before the white man came to spoil everything.
Warfare was ubiquitous; every major culture area of native North America
has produced archaeological, ethnohistorical, osteological, or
ethnographic evidence of endless armed conflict and ritual violence.
A few examples:
In the Eastern Woodland cultures, warfare often served as a means of
coping with grief and depopulation – itself driven by interminable
warfare. Such conflict, commonly known as a “
mourning war,”
usually began at the behest of women who had lost a son or husband and
desired the group's male warriors to capture individuals from other
groups who could replace those they had lost.
The captive could be lucky. He could be spared and become the mourner’s new husband.
Or he could be unlucky.
“If the women of the tribe so demanded, captives would be ritually
tortured, sometimes to death if the captive was deemed unfit for
adoption into the tribe.”
Thomas E. Emerson’s study of Mississippian warfare for the period AD
900--1400 concerns the archaeological recovery of disturbing evidence
from mass interments of war captives and/or sacrificial victims.
According to the author, recent findings reveal that precontact-era
hostilities resulted in the massacre and mutilation of hundreds of men,
women, and children. He refers to “
intensive and bellicose patterns of internecine warfare involving massive casualties.”
The Indians also demonstrated considerable vision and improvisation in
developing methods of torture. Apart from the normal slow death by
turning on the spit, specialities included smearing the victim with
honey and then tying him (or her) to an ant’s nest. The agonising death
throes could last for days before the partially eaten victim expired.
Various studies suggest that such practices were also widespread all
over pre-Columbine America, including the Caribbean. Here the Carib
Indians exterminated – and consumed – their Arawak enemies, before in
turn succumbing to white man’s diseases, the poor dears.
New research coming to light (published in
Discovery, September 20, 2010) shows that much of the violence was genocidal. “
The
entire assemblage comprises 14,882 human skeletal fragments, as well as
the mutilated remains of dogs and other animals killed at the massacre
site—Sacred Ridge, southwest of Durango, Colo. The unearthed bones and
artefacts indicate that when the violence took place, men, women and
children were tortured, disembowelled, killed and often hacked to bits.
In some cases, heads, hands and feet appear to have been removed as
trophies for the killers. The attackers then removed belongings out of
the structures and set the roofs on fire.”
Must have been whites who did this, surely? Er, no. This took place about 800 AD.
Native New Zealanders
“There is not a bay, not a cove, in New Zealand which has not
witnessed horrible dramas, and woe to the white man who falls into the
New Zealanders' hands.”
.
When Felix Maynard and Alexandre Dumas wrote this (in
The Whalers)
they didn’t have the All Blacks Rugby team in mind. Although the
similarities are striking, this, being written about 200 years ago, was
referring to the native New Zealanders, the Maoris. And he was right to
be apprehensive. Here’s a sample of what he could have expected:
.
“In the meantime, a fellow that had proved a traitor wished to come
and see his wife and children. They seized him and served him in like
manner. Oh, what a scene for a man of Christian feeling, to behold dead
bodies strewed about the settlement in every direction, and hung up at
every native's door, their entrails taken out and thrown aside and the
women preparing ovens to cook them!”
“On our side, there were eight men killed, three children, and two
women, during the siege. They got sixteen bodies, besides a great number
that were half roasted, and dug several up out of the graves, half
decayed, which they also ate. Another instance of their depravity was to
make a musket ramrod red hot, enter it in the lower part of the
victim's belly and let it run upwards, and then make a slight incision
in a vein to let his blood run gradually, for them to drink.”
“I must here conclude, being very scanty of paper; for which reason,
columns of the disgraceful conduct of these cannibals remain unpenned.”
Another Sheriden, Daniel Henry this time, wrote “
Calm light airs
from the north all day on the 23rd November hindered us from putting out
to sea as intended. In the afternoon, some of the officers went on
shore to amuse themselves among the natives, where they saw the head and
bowels of a youth, who had been lately killed, lying on the beach, and
the heart stuck on a forked stick which was fixed on the head of one of
the largest canoes. One of the gentlemen bought the head and brought it
on board, where a piece of the flesh was broiled and eaten by one of the
natives, before all the officers and most of the men.”
.
“One of the cannibals thereupon bit and gnawed the human arm which
Banks had picked up, drawing it through his mouth and showing by signs
that the flesh to him was a dainty bit. Tupia carried on the
conversation: ‘Where are the heads?’ he asked. ‘Do you eat them too?’
‘Of the heads,’ answered an old man, ‘we eat only the brains.’ Later he
brought on board Endeavour four of the heads of the seven victims."
.
Edward Tregear, in
The Maori Race (1904) tells us
“an
English missionary has reported that Pomare, a chief of the Bay of
Islands, ate six entire heads. Chiefs' heads are usually dried and
perfectly preserved by an ingenious process. Before the feast of
victory, each warrior drinks the blood of the enemy he has killed with
his own hand. After battle comes the terrible and revolting episode of
the cannibal feast. Prisoners taken in the fight were slain in cold
blood, except those reserved for slavery – a mark of still greater
contempt than being killed for food. Sometimes after the battle a few of
the defeated were thrust alive into large food-baskets and thus
degraded for ever. As a general rule, however, they were slain for the
oven. ”
.
Damn white man – coming and ruining this delightful culinary experience
and shoving his so-called civilization down their throats (if you’ll
pardon that particular analogy).
And a final delight from Garry Hogg,
Cannibalism and Human Sacrifice, pp. 197-199
“The warriors, entirely naked, their long black hair, although
matted with human gore, yet flowing partially in the wind; in the left
hand a human head and in the right hand a bayoneted musket held by the
middle of the barrel. Thus, with a song, the terrible expression of
which can only be imagined by being heard, did they dance round their
wretched victims, every now and then approaching them with gestures,
threatening death under its most horrible forms of lingering torture.
.
The captives, with the
exception of one old man and a boy who were sentenced to death, were
apportioned amongst the conquering warriors as slaves. The tables were
laid. About a hundred baskets of potatoes, a large supply of green
vegetables, and equal quantities of whale-blubber and human flesh,
constituted the awful menu. The old man, from whose neck suspended the
head of his son, while the body formed part of the cannibal feast, was
brought forth and subjected to torture from the women before the last
scene of all.”
In short, the native New Zealanders (and Pacific Islanders generally)
were violent bloodthirsty cannibals. Interaction between tribes almost
invariably resulted in internecine warfare leading to death on the
battlefield, or, if it was your unlucky day, captivity. In the latter
case your destiny was to be on the lunch menu for the following day,
having first been subjected to the most appalling torture. Another
characteristic of these people was the extent to which women and
children partook of the torture and general prisoner abuse. This of
course was also characteristic of their fellow noble savages on the
American continent.
Australia.
In a nutshell, the pre-European Australian aborigines made their
contemporary natives in America and New Zealand look like Swedish Social
Democrats. I've posted
here about what Kevin Rudd called their
‘ancient and proud culture’. Ah yes. If you have the, ahem, stomach, read it. I truly believe that these people were (are?) not fully human.
Africa:
Where to begin, where to end?
Does anybody seriously believe in African ‘civilisation’? Well, the
answer to that of course is, yes they do. None more so than
guilt-crippled white masochists. To them I dedicate the following tiny
snippets.
.
In west African there were slave wars, where the coastal African tribes
were armed and encouraged to raid inland and bring their captives to
trading ports for sale and shipment. These cannot I suppose, if one is
being pedantic, be strictly representative of er, ‘African
civilisation’, being as they were, instigated by the white man. But the
natives didn’t need much encouragement.
.
The result was a never-ending series of tribal wars and the devastation
of immense areas. While some 8,000,000 Africans were sold into the
Americas (only about 400,000 into what's now the USA) during the period
of slave trade, it has been estimated that at least 40,000,000 more were
killed in the wars and raids or died on the voyage. No mercy was shown
in any of these encounters, and even the hardened white slavers were
shaken by the brutality and savagery displayed by the Africans against
one another. (Nothing’s changed in the meantime, then!).
..
Most of African history of course is unknown, as their ‘civilisation’
never got around to inventing reading or writing. Until of course whitey
came with his evil ways. We can though get a good sense of the southern
and eastern parts of the continent. Due mainly, of course, to the early
arrival of whites to this part of the Dark Continent.
.
What they saw did not bring Switzerland to mind.
.
Now, are all you liberals and race-traitors in the back paying attention?
Let’s go!
As every schoolboy knows, Shaka Zulu created a highly centralized, well
organized nation-state, with a large and powerful standing army. Then he
did what we thought only the evil whites did. He used this army to
expand his control! Can you imagine a noble savage doing such a thing?
And he didn’t mess about, creating a waterfall effect of violent tribal
displacement and extermination. Refugee groups escaping Chaka invaded
the lands of present-day Botswana creating chaos as they tramped
westward. The Basotho were pushed into the mountains where they were
harassed by cannibals. Setting villages on fire, the Ndebele swept ahead
of the Zulu Impi to settle in present day Zimbabwe. Along the way they
encountered King Thulare's Pedi empire, which was destroyed and its
people wiped out. They then attacked the Mokololo to the northwest.
Meanwhile the Xhosa expanded into Khoi-khoi lands, forcing many into the
arid Kalahari Desert. The Tlokoa marched from Natal leaving a path of
destruction all the way to Botswana. They attacked the Fokeng forcing
them west. The Fokeng in turn marched north to the Zambezi River and
beyond, where they raided destitute refugees.
.
Fokeng confusing, isn’t it?
All of this was in fact part of a broader series of ghastly massacres in
which powerful armies annihilated their weaker neighbours, confiscated
their possessions and moved on, knowing full well that if they loitered
they too would be attacked by wave upon wave of people advancing from
the east. The whole sub-continent was hurled into a maelstrom of
destruction, until eventually an estimated
twenty-eight distinct clans disappeared, leaving not a trace of their former existence.
.
Oh dear! Who could have imagined?
Anyway, this invariable lead to food supply problems which the victors
solved by the simple expedient of consuming their captives. When they
ran out of captives to kill and eat, the bodies of the already dead were
disinterred and began to appear on the menu. But there are only so many
bodies you can dig up, and it wasn’t long before starvation drove them
to devouring their wives and children. Having once acquired the taste
for human flesh, the cannibals formed themselves into hunting bands and
set out daily to replenish their menus.
.
But the end was nigh, as the voertrekkers were heading their way, all
set to spoil this pastoral idyll. They have a lot to answer for, them
boers.
Conclusions?
Ok, all of this is innocent fun, but there’s a serious side too, one that brings us back to
The Tyranny Of Guilt.
You might justifiable conclude from what I've written that the noble
savages were in fact for the most part grunting dehumanised beasts.
Their societies were not comprised of happy hippies harvesting
free-range animals who dropped dead naturally, and encounters between
tribes were not pipe-smoking love-ins. They killed as many animals as
they could, and they killed (and usually ate) as many enemies as they
could. Unfortunately —for them— whitey had superior firepower. That’s
all.
.
Can you have any doubt, based on what you’ve just read, as to what any
of those native leaders would have done, had they only had the white
man’s power? As General Phil Sheridan (from Cavan, of all places) said
to Red Cloud: “
If you had our power and we yours, you’d slaughter every one of us, to the last man, woman and child”.
Hobbes in
Leviathan, held that the natural state of mankind is a
"war of all against all" in which men's lives are
"solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short".
Well, that certainly sums up the Noble Savages we discussed. But what
about whitey? Is he alone immune to these natural impulses? Surely not.
But what whitey has done is to create and develop, over many centuries,
an uncanny assemblage of science, philosophy and ethics, supported by
complex legislation and an array of supporting governance institutions.
These have not been perfect of course, but they have dramatically
mitigated the risk of
"war of all against all." In whitey’s
world, peoples’ lives are assuredly not poor, nasty, brutish, or short.
Some non-Western countries are of course successful, and more will be.
But they'll make it by adopting Western inventions, medicine, industry,
agriculture, communications.
.They understand this
perfectly, unlike our lofty academic assholes, lauding the illiteracy
and misery of others as they savour their latest Reisling. These
academics will tell you that third-worlders want to come here because
the capitalist system has corrupted them, and eroded their
"Authenticity". Yeah, right. See, if only we had left them in their pure
state, they would revel in hookworm and illiteracy.
Gimme a break. For three centuries just about everything that makes life
tolerable has come from the West. I know it, you know it, the whole
world knows it. And so do the academic assholes. They just don't like
it.
We have everything to be proud of - our race indeed represents the March Of The Titans. Don’t let them take that from us.
