August 25, 2009

Racist pro-Custer website

Here's a website that portrays Custer as a noble hero:

General Custer Little Bighorn"Custer has been denounced as a glory-hunter who led his men into a massacre, but recent scholarship has placed the blame of the disaster on his subordinate commanders."

--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
And Indians as evil villains:

Preemptive surrenderIt is said that if the pioneers hadn't racial bigotry (and feeling of racial superiority), they wouldn't have seen the Indians the same way (being scalped can be an exchange of cultures!).

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 Indians were infants, sometime violent and incontrollable, but with a magical innocence. They could cut bodies into pieces, rape women, kidnap and murder children, they still are good-looking playboys whose pictures are available everywhere.

  • Make strong conclusions: “If you do not know the rules, how can you condemn them? How can you stick to judeo-christian values when we deal with faaaaaar more complex tribal rules which tolerated mutilations, wife beating, kidnappings or gang rapes?”
  • Comment:  Needless to say, all the mistakes and typos are in the originals.

    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.


    Stephen said...

    "The gross generalizations apply only to some Indians, not all of them."

    And yet it's okay to post crap like 'one guy proves Americans are ignorant'?

    "The Indians were defending their lands against invasion."

    Which doesn't justify atrocities like jamestown, do you see the hypocrisy in bashing the US for war casualties and then justifying Indian atrocities?

    "Yes, invading someone else's territory is wrong in principle."


    dmarks said...

    If Custer was such a nice guy, he would have stayed home in Monroe, and not trespassed on other's land with nothing but ill intent.