The myth of the Pilgrim massacre of the Wampanoag Tribe has been perpetuated for more than 100 years, such as in this woodcut illustration, despite there being absolutely no evidence to support it.
It has been proposed that there was a group of indigenous tribes here possibly even before these ancient ancestors of the North American Indians. Many scholars, such as John Haywood (known as the “Father of Tennessee History”) and Joseph Henry (the first Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution) are known to believe and have believed (in the cases of those passed) that an ancient race of indigenous pygmies (for lack of a better description) inhabited areas of North America. There have been several mummies and numerous graves located regarding these “pygmies,” such as those in Alaska, Montana, Wyoming, and Tennessee.
When the mummies and skeletal remains were examined, it was determined these “pygmies” were no taller than 36 inches from head to foot. Some of them closer to 24 inches tall. Their skull brain capacity was equal to that of a child 7-9 years of age (leading some to believe these were the remains of children), but their teeth were not only fully developed permanent teeth, but they showed the severe wear that is common among mature adults.
When the mummies and skeletal remains were examined, it was determined these “pygmies” were no taller than 36 inches from head to foot. Some of them closer to 24 inches tall. Their skull brain capacity was equal to that of a child 7-9 years of age (leading some to believe these were the remains of children), but their teeth were not only fully developed permanent teeth, but they showed the severe wear that is common among mature adults.
The Nimerigar mummy, found in 1932 in the Pedro Mountains of Wyoming. Anthropologists and other scientists examining the mummy determined he had been a fully formed adult approximately 65 years of age.
Another interesting fact regarding these North America “Pygmies” is their appearance in the traditional history of many different North American Indian tribes. The tribes of British Columbia have within their history a recognition of very small people called the “Et-nane,” and the Cherokee history which mentions the existence of the “Little People” in eastern North America; while the history of the Shoshone and other tribes makes mention of the Nimerigar, a race of violent little people who were known to be cannibalistic, living in the Pedro Mountains of what is now Wyoming. Other North American Indian tribes that recognize these “Little People” are the Ҫatōl’ltq, the Tlatlasikwala, the Tsimshian, the Tlingit, the Umatilla, the Nez Perce, the Blackfoot, the Gros Ventre, the Arapaho, various bands of the Sioux, the Omaha, the Otoe, the Cheyenne, the Zuni and the Crow (see The Little People of the Pryor Mountains who were known as ferocious little people https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_People_of_the_Pryor_Mountains).
I bring up these “Little People” because none of them exist anymore. The reason they don’t is because they were victims of genocide (leading to their extinction) at the hands of those “indigenous” people who came after them. Genocide did not stop there. Many North American Indian tribes engaged in genocidal wars against other North American Indian tribes, both before and after the so-called “White Man” arrived in North America. Not only would they raid the villages of enemy tribes, killing many man, women, and children (especially babies as they swung them by their ankles, bashing their heads into trees and rocks – a quick death to be sure, but brutal and barbaric nonetheless). Many of these North American Indian tribes not only practiced the murderous aspect of genocide against opposing tribes, but they also captured survivors of their raids and enslaved them, often treating them as no more than simply dogs, and abusing them horribly. Many of these same tribes did the exact same thing to every settler or group of settlers they might come across.
I bring up these “Little People” because none of them exist anymore. The reason they don’t is because they were victims of genocide (leading to their extinction) at the hands of those “indigenous” people who came after them. Genocide did not stop there. Many North American Indian tribes engaged in genocidal wars against other North American Indian tribes, both before and after the so-called “White Man” arrived in North America. Not only would they raid the villages of enemy tribes, killing many man, women, and children (especially babies as they swung them by their ankles, bashing their heads into trees and rocks – a quick death to be sure, but brutal and barbaric nonetheless). Many of these North American Indian tribes not only practiced the murderous aspect of genocide against opposing tribes, but they also captured survivors of their raids and enslaved them, often treating them as no more than simply dogs, and abusing them horribly. Many of these same tribes did the exact same thing to every settler or group of settlers they might come across.
As savage as these “indigenous” people were, not all North American Indians were like this. Do we use a broad brush and paint all North American Indians as barbaric savages practicing genocide, enslavement, and racism (yes, they did that too)? No, we don’t, because it would be wrong to accuse the innocent of the crimes of the guilty. In the same way it is wrong to accuse innocent “White” people of the crimes of those who are guilty of it – such as Mrs. Reid does in her appalling misrepresentation of the Pilgrims and the first Thanksgiving.
I could stop here, and it would make the point of Mrs. Reid’s intentional ignorance of history (intentional because she could have easily done a couple hours of research and learned the truth, but she chose not to), and her public demonstration of her ignorance on national television. She should be embarrassed as any right thinking person would be, but somehow I think she not only won’t be embarrassed, but she will double down on ridiculous statements and by launching a diatribe of ad hominems against her critics.
However, since we started out talking about Mrs. Reid’s false accusation of genocide, I think it only accurate to talk about one of the longest lasting genocides in the recorded history of man, with the largest body count of all groups, and equaled by perhaps only the Jewish people. Not only have the Jews been fighting against their eradication since the birth of their people, one cannot help but also remember the Nazi Holocaust and the Soviet Holocaust (which included Jews as well as others), and the countries of Iran, Syria, and indeed most of the Middle and Near East are trying and have been trying for millennia, to eradicate the Jewish People.
Before I go on, I think it is important to establish what is meant by the word genocide, what exactly is the definition of the word? Without going into a long mostly boring lecture on the etymology of the word, it is defined by the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, commonly known as the “Genocide Convention,” as:
I could stop here, and it would make the point of Mrs. Reid’s intentional ignorance of history (intentional because she could have easily done a couple hours of research and learned the truth, but she chose not to), and her public demonstration of her ignorance on national television. She should be embarrassed as any right thinking person would be, but somehow I think she not only won’t be embarrassed, but she will double down on ridiculous statements and by launching a diatribe of ad hominems against her critics.
However, since we started out talking about Mrs. Reid’s false accusation of genocide, I think it only accurate to talk about one of the longest lasting genocides in the recorded history of man, with the largest body count of all groups, and equaled by perhaps only the Jewish people. Not only have the Jews been fighting against their eradication since the birth of their people, one cannot help but also remember the Nazi Holocaust and the Soviet Holocaust (which included Jews as well as others), and the countries of Iran, Syria, and indeed most of the Middle and Near East are trying and have been trying for millennia, to eradicate the Jewish People.
Before I go on, I think it is important to establish what is meant by the word genocide, what exactly is the definition of the word? Without going into a long mostly boring lecture on the etymology of the word, it is defined by the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, commonly known as the “Genocide Convention,” as:
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
• Killing members of the group;
• Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
• Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
• Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
• Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml
Therefore, in order for something to be genocide it must first meet two conditions. First it must be against one of the following groups, 1. A national group, 2. an ethnical group, 3. a racial group, and 4. a religious group. Examples would be trying to destroy, in whole or in part, groups such as the Ukrainians, the North American Indians, “Black” people, or Muslims.
The second condition that must be met in order to legitimately be called a genocide is that the act or actions must be done with the intent to destroy one of these protected groups, and involves the five given examples above: Killing members of the group; and/or Causing serious bodily or mental harm to them; and/or deliberately inflicting condition of life calculated to cause the groups destruction; and/or imposing measure intended to prevent births within the group; and/or forcibly transferring children out of the group to another group.
[Part One can be found here, and Part Three here]
The second condition that must be met in order to legitimately be called a genocide is that the act or actions must be done with the intent to destroy one of these protected groups, and involves the five given examples above: Killing members of the group; and/or Causing serious bodily or mental harm to them; and/or deliberately inflicting condition of life calculated to cause the groups destruction; and/or imposing measure intended to prevent births within the group; and/or forcibly transferring children out of the group to another group.
[Part One can be found here, and Part Three here]
RSS Feed
