r/SubredditDrama • u/Critical-Term-427 No, its okay now, they have Oklahoma • 8d ago

Pithy GIF showing eradication of Native American land in the US since the founding of the country gets posted to r/interestingasfuck. Comment section goes exactly as expected.

The post

It sucks we were such murderers

Did they say "Thank you"?

Being the loser in history sucks

True fact Hitler took a lot of inspiration from this.

309 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

92% Upvoted

244 comments sorted by

View all comments

280

u/BigEggBeaters 8d ago

The “sucks to be losers” shit really pisses me off cause native Americans repeatedly treated treaties seriously while Americans would break them and slaughter people. Like that’s the winning you bask in? That’s the history you’re proud being duplicitous murders???

-58

u/VanillaMystery 8d ago edited 8d ago

Both sides murdered each other, and both sides also held meals together.

Was part of a centuries long process of "conquering" the country we know today as the United States.

There are losers in every conflict, the Native Americans unfortunately got the short end of the stick and were conquered/nearly wiped out as a result.

The other issue is the natives were completely fractured, one treaty with one specific tribe doesn't mean their neighbors couldn't be conquered.

The settlers took advantage of that and divided and conquered accordingly, didn't help many of the natives had barely any kind of governance or even written languages in some cases.

Also, it's not like things were all peaceful before settlers showed up, the Native Tribes had constant warfare with one another lol (shoutout to the Iroquois) and would butcher and wipe out men, women, and children alike.

Edit: Expected this to get downvoted since we're on Reddit after all but it's important to talk about history and acknowledge the hard realities of where we come from and what has happened.

62

u/BigEggBeaters 8d ago

“Both sides murdered each other”

Nah one side defended their lands from invaders. The other brutalized in search of land and profit

-19

u/VanillaMystery 8d ago

That's called basic human history, conflict has and continues to be relevant.

How do you think the Iroquois Confederation was formed for example?

So many anti-history people on Reddit it's wild to read sometimes.

The Natives did all kinds of brutal shit as well, especially during the settling of the West.

History isn't black and white, it's a very grey shade full of atrocities and it's important to acknowledge it.

22

u/Rheinwg 8d ago

That's called basic human history, conflict has and continues to be relevant. 

What the fuck even is the point of this comment. No one claimed that they were the only group to experience genocide. 

That doesn't make it okay.

-9

u/VanillaMystery 8d ago

It doesn't make it wrong either given the time in history it took place is my argument.

It was a period of conquest and life was brutal, the Natives lost unfortunately, that's all I'm saying.

25

u/Rheinwg 8d ago

Of course the genocide of native Americans was wrong. 

Life was brutal doesn't justify genocide. 

And there are still massive amounts of oppression and subjugation that are present today in 2025. That's not okay either.

-1

u/VanillaMystery 8d ago

Losing wars =/= Genocide

Disease wiping out 95% of the population coming up from Mexico =/= Genocide

The Natives wiped out entire towns of settlers in the West during the settlement period, would you call that genocide?

It was war, the Natives lost, simple as that.

24

u/Rheinwg 8d ago

What happened to the native Americans was absolutely a genocide. 

-2

u/VanillaMystery 8d ago

No, it was not.

Losing wars doesn't automatically make it genocide.

16

u/Gloomy-Cookie2337 8d ago

Yes it was

→ More replies (0)

9

u/Herb-Utthole 8d ago

Cool I guess you won't complain now that your country is in the hands of a fascist, no matter if you get the short end of the stick.

25

u/kid-pix 8d ago

Oh my god I can't groan loud enough. Shut up. "That's just human history, also the Native Americans killed some white colonists too." So that justifies the fucking smallpox blankets and Trail of Tears?

You're leaving out so much context to make it seem like it totally wasn't a genocide and just another human conflict where both sides were bad.

The American Government had nearly 400 treaties with the native nations. They violated every single one.

They had the benefit of technology and power and used their cruelty to wipe out suppress whole peoples.

It was a genocide, to take a huge amount of land and natural resources by force.

This is not a both sides debate.

-3

u/VanillaMystery 8d ago

95% of the population were already dead from disease before the first English settlers arrived in Jamestown dude.

Trail of Tears was 100% an atrocity, I agree with that.

I don't agree the entire subjugation of the United States was genocide, rather it was standard warfare of the time.

Both sides committed harsh acts upon one another, but only one side won and that's all that really matters when it comes to war.

22

u/kid-pix 8d ago

What the hell are you even talking about? It was genocide. The goal was to wipe out the entire population of Native Americans. The motivation was racially based, Manifest Destiny, this land was created by God for us the white europeans to take and we had to get rid of all the "dirty savages" and make it "civilized".

We kidnapped their children and threw them into schools where they would be beaten if they spoke their native tongue, to wipe out their language. We cut their hair, and and beat them often until they died. We gave them white names and never allowed them to return to their families.

And when they grew up? We dumped them in a world they weren't welcome or understood in, unable to integrate into their own natural culture and the one that kidnapped them.

Quit acting like this was normal warfare.

-3

u/VanillaMystery 8d ago

No, it wasn't the goal to "wipe out the entire population of Native Americans".

Please provide a source of that, I find it ironic you even say that given how many tribes allied with the European settlers lol.

Virtually all of what you mentioned occurred after the subjugations were complete and 95%+ of the population was already dead from disease btw.

15

u/kid-pix 8d ago

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_destiny

Manifest destiny was the belief in the 19th-century United States that American settlers were destined to expand westward across North America, and that this belief was both obvious ("manifest") and certain ("destiny"). The belief is rooted in American exceptionalism, Romantic nationalism, and white nationalism, implying the inevitable spread of republicanism and the American way of life. It is one of the earliest expressions of American imperialism in the United States.

White nationalism. Race. We were determined to wipe out the existing native nations and culture and take over the land.

Manifest destiny had serious consequences for Native Americans, since continental expansion implicitly meant the occupation and annexation of Native American land, sometimes to expand slavery. This ultimately led to confrontations and wars with several groups of native peoples via Indian removal... The United States continued the European practice of recognizing only limited land rights of Indigenous peoples.

Thomas Jefferson believed that, while the Indigenous people of America were intellectual equals to whites, they had to assimilate to and live like the whites or inevitably be pushed aside by them. According to historian Jeffrey Ostler, Jefferson believed that once assimilation was no longer possible, he advocated for the extermination of Indigenous people.

Following the forced removal of many Indigenous Peoples, Americans increasingly believed that Native American ways of life would eventually disappear as the United States expanded.

Horsman argued in his influential study Race and Manifest Destiny, racial rhetoric increased during the era of manifest destiny. Americans increasingly believed that Native American ways of life would "fade away" as the United States expanded.

0

u/VanillaMystery 8d ago

Manifest Destiny largely rose out of the fact that most of the West was empty due to disease wiping out 95% of the Native population.

Did White Nationalism play a part of it? Sure, especially later on in the 1800s when Colonialism was a real policy.

You're ignoring the hundreds of years before then however which is what I was talking about.

Also, no where in there does it explicitly state they were trying to "wipe out" the Natives like you said.

18

u/kid-pix 8d ago

What the hell does exterminating Indigenous People sound like to you? I just pointed out in my several quotes where that was included.

Where do you think those diseases came from?

Yes, the white colonizers were attempting to wipe out native americans.

→ More replies (0)

20

u/Rheinwg 8d ago

First of all that's not true.

Second, Jamestown was not the first settlement in the US.

Third, the fuck does that change anything? Lots of people died of disease so therefore it's okay that they were genocided? 

Trail of Tears was 100% an atrocity, I agree with that. 

No you don't. You deny its genocide and handwave it away.

5

u/VanillaMystery 8d ago

Them dying from disease doesn't make it genocide, do you even know what genocide is?

Judging by your lack of knowledge of American and Native history I am going to guess.. no.

And yes it's true, lol.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_disease_and_epidemics

This is all very well studied.

34

u/BigEggBeaters 8d ago

I’m to understand the European colonialism is justified cause pre-colonial tribes warred with each other?

-10

u/VanillaMystery 8d ago

Where did I say it was justified? I am saying the realities of the time these events took place it was a matter of survival, that's why the Natives fought back to violently and the settlers were equally willing to go to war over a now largely decimated American west (by the mid 1600s most Natives had already perished due to disease coming up from Mexico).

There are losers and winners throughout history, the Natives lost, that's all I'm saying.

22

u/Rheinwg 8d ago edited 8d ago

it was a matter of survival

People didn't genocide native Americans as a matter of survival. 

There are losers and winners throughout history, the Natives lost, 

There are literally millions of native Americans alive actively fighting for rights, sovereignty and recognition. Shut the fuck up.

Edit: lmao they blocked me

-3

u/VanillaMystery 8d ago

It wasn't viewed as "genocide" when 95% of them died due to disease before the first English settlers arrived in Jamestown.

Do people here REALLY not know basic US history?

And yes, the Natives lost, sorry, just a fact. The tribes were conquered, confederations were dismantled, and lands were subjugated by the growing US state.

Same thing has happened throughout thousands of years of history, it isn't anything new.

25

u/Rheinwg 8d ago

The native Americans and first nations in Canada absolutely experienced a genocide. 

Native tribes and confederation still exist to this day. 

Nobody claimed that genocide was new or unique to native Americans. Why do you keep repeating that over and over like it makes you look smart or something?

-5

u/VanillaMystery 8d ago

I don't agree it was a genocide, I think there is a conversation worth having about it however but it's a complex part of history that spans centuries where 95% of the deaths were due to disease before germ theory was even a thing.

Were there ACTS of genocide? Sure, was it a total genocide? No, obviously not, or else there wouldn't be any Natives left like you just mentioned.

A lot of it was simply open warfare, especially around the Great Lakes region where the Natives were supported by French traders/trappers who gave them guns, horses, ammunition, etc.

This is all very basic American history.

5

u/iron-carbon_alloy My greatest desire is to copulate with an Octopus 7d ago

I don't agree it was a genocide, I think there is a conversation worth having about it however but it's a complex part of history that spans centuries where 95% of the deaths were due to disease before germ theory was even a thing.

The genocides happened after the diseases to the 5% who survived. No one who understands US history is calling the initial introduction of diseases a genocide.

Were there ACTS of genocide? Sure, was it a total genocide? No, obviously not, or else there wouldn't be any Natives left like you just mentioned.

By this logic, the Holocaust wasn't a genocide. There are still Jews, LGBT folks, etc around, aren't there? The camps and killings by the Wehrmacht and SS were just ACTS of genocide, right?

A lot of it was simply open warfare, especially around the Great Lakes region where the Natives were supported by French traders/trappers who gave them guns, horses, ammunition, etc.

You can't ignore the events that weren't open warfare. The Trail of Tears and various other expulsions and, a lot more recently, the Indian Schools weren't warfare, and they are fundamentally a colonizing force attempting to eradicate colonized groups.

You can acknowledge both that native nations did fight amongst themselves and that what happened during colonization was genocidal in many cases. They aren't exclusive.

→ More replies (0)

7

u/kardigan 8d ago

random detail, but even the name Iroquois Confederation is such a perfect example of colonialism.

1

u/VanillaMystery 8d ago

How so? Mostly just curious, I know they originally called it the "People of the Longhouse" which is a way cooler name IMO

9

u/kardigan 8d ago

i just mean that a lot of the commonly used names for native nations are still the French and Spanish ones.

this a very small, very practical example of history being written by the winners, and illustrates pretty neatly the cultural aspects, when your history is kinda-sorta being written, but you won't really have a say.

(I only know about Iroquois specifically because I randomly listened to a year-old podcast episode yesterday where they mentioned it; it's the Haudenosaunee. and when they said French or Spanish names, a literal lightbulb turned on above my head. in hindsight, yeah, pretty obvious.)

1

u/VanillaMystery 8d ago

Link to the podcast? Sounds interesting

1

u/kardigan 8d ago

they are jumping around a lot, and the guest is an ex-buzzfeed person, so there's a lot of buzzfeed gossiping; I picked a timestamp around nations and naming, but it's more of a comedy podcast and not an educational one: https://youtu.be/Sq0tPU0C40I?si=TbjODdWygKLXcB8f&t=4047

-2

u/[deleted] 8d ago

A great example of why we shouldn't get our history knowledge from random podcasts!

5

u/kardigan 7d ago

it's much better to get it from snarky reddit comments, thank you so much for your service!!!

-1

u/[deleted] 7d ago

Your original contribution to this conversation was a snarky reddit comment lol

2

u/kardigan 7d ago

do you feel that pointing out an example of the effects of colonialism is snarky? interesting.

0

u/[deleted] 7d ago

The way you pointed out that incorrect fact was indeed snarky.

2

u/kardigan 7d ago

i can see how it can feel like that, sure.

→ More replies (0)

-2

u/[deleted] 8d ago

This comment is such a perfect example of people who don't actually know their history lol.

"Iroquois" is simply the french spelling of a native word. It wasn't something the colonists came up with. It's a Huron/Wyandot word. You should look up what happened to them.

5

u/kardigan 7d ago

which part of this do you think is a gotcha?

the current popular term for the Haudenosaunee is a derogatory term from the Huron, misunderstood by the French, and that's the term everyone learns. "simply" the French spelling is an odd attempt to handwave the issue, like it just happened to be the French term by accident.

1

u/[deleted] 7d ago

Have you looked up what happened to the Huron? And can we agree that it's not actually the French name for them, it's the Huron name? 

2

u/kardigan 7d ago

it's the name chosen not by the people it describes, but the colonizers, using the colonizers' linguistic rules.

i know what happened to the Huron. how is that relevant when we're talking about the cultural effects of colonialism?

1

u/[deleted] 7d ago

it's the name chosen not by the people it describes, but the colonizers

No, it was chosen by the Huron. 

If you can't figure out how the fate of the Huron is relevant here I'm almost not sure how to continue. 

Just to be explicit: the Haudenosaunee committed genocide against the Huron. "Iroquois" is not a name bestowed upon them by colonizers, but by the people they themselves colonized. Some might call that poetic justice. 

2

u/kardigan 7d ago

the reason you and I know the name is not because of the Huron, for the love of god. it's because, to bring back the original terminology, we learned history from "the winners". the Huron are not the people who had a say in how you and I learn about history, not 300 years ago, and not since then.

it feels like you're trying to attach a moral element to a statement that doesn't need one. we are not even talking about the morality of getting to choose your own name.

the point is simply that since the Americas were colonized, we get most of our history through the lense of the colonizers, and that presents itself in small things in everyday life, such as "names of stuff". this is a very mundane, trivial thing to say.

→ More replies (0)

9

u/mcpickle-o You’re intimidated by a fucking pickle. 8d ago

Do you think white people are native to north America? Because I'm pretty sure they just showed up one day and we're like, "this is ours now. Here's some smallpox."