General Custer Little Bighorn
--in Samuel Eliot Morrison, Henry Steele Commager, William E. Leuchtenburg, A Concise History of the American Republic, Second Edition, Oxford University Press, last edition 2008, page 397
In the "both stories are being told" new gospel, the Whites are bloodthirsty bastards against noble, Gods-like Indians.
Yet radicals are saying that fighting Indians was a brutal act of its own because it was wrong in principle. The people who were advocating for letting the pionneers been murdered (such as Wynkoop and the infamous "Indian Ring") were much more moral persons, one said.
The exclusive GUIDE to learn the Indian gospel created by the counter culture:
The quick rebuttal to these charges goes like this:
1) The "surrender" page provides few references to what it's talking about and no evidence for its claims.
2) The gross generalizations apply only to some Indians, not all of them.
3) We don't need to "stick to Judeo-Christian values" since Judeo-Christians have long tolerated mutilations, wife beatings, kidnappings, and gang rapes. Not to mention religious persecution, slavery, torture, drawing and quartering people, burning people at the stake, etc., etc.
4) The Indians were defending their lands against invasion. About the only valid thing this posting says is that "fighting Indians was a brutal act of its own because it was wrong in principle." Yes, invading someone else's territory is wrong in principle. Duh, you stupid immoral twit.
For an analysis of a similar website, perhaps run by the same people, see Site Blames Indian "Mutilations" for Custer's Campaigns. For more on the subject, see Those Evil Europeans.
Below: A pro-Custer defender bawls like a baby because critics have overturned centuries of racist anti-Indian propaganda. In his ignorant view, "Indians" are people like Ward Churchill and Russell Means who hate America and burn its flag. They're basically members of Al Qaeda or the Taliban in disguise.