Most of us know of Pontiac’s rebellion but some don’t so I will try my best with the knowledge I have to try to educate yinz about it. So here I go: In 1763 the Proclamation of 1763 was made by King George the III reaffirming the promises that had been made at the Treaty of Easton by formally prohibiting white settlement beyond the crest of the Appalachian Mountains. Those who still lived there were instructed to remove themselves from the area. But the colonists didn’t like the idea of not being able to go beyond the crest of the Appalachian Mountains so they disobeyed and went forth west and the Natives rebelled. Pontiac was the one who had convinced a good amount of tribes to join him in an attack against the English invaders who were trying to take the land from the Natives and call it their own.
General Amherst (or as I like to call him General Asshole) was one who hated the Natives to the point of suspending the practice of distributing gifts to Native allies, including the customary provision of ammunition, which to me seemed to be one of the many reasons for the Natives to rebel. He thought if the Natives were not continually “bribed” (as he would put it) with handouts then they could not indulge their proclivity for idleness. He thought it wise to keep them scarce of ammunition. Finally , having observed the vastly destructive influence of alcohol on Native communities he also forbade all further trade in rum and other liquors. He believed it would increase the Natives hunting abilities and also reduce the violence that plagued their villages and improve their character in general. He also approved a measure that Fort Pitt’s commandant, captain Simeon Ecuyer had done given the local chiefs a diplomatic present that included blankets and handkerchiefs that had recently been used by smallpox patients in the fort’s hospital. There is no evidence that Amherst’s genocidal intentions and Ecuyers abominable act actually worked among the Shawnee and Delawares who besieged fort Pit for smallpox was already endemic in both groups at the time. The intent however is more important than the result. What made matters even worse in the view of the western Natives was that the British had failed to establish trading posts in the interior and then withdraw their troops from the region, as they had promised. Rather the British continued to maintain garrisons there. To the Natives these policies and the broken promises they bespoke were nothing short of betrayals, and a fundamental threat to their ability to carry on with the way of life they knew. The rebelling, successful attacks the Native had done surprised the British commanders. The British commanders could only conclude that renegade French officers and missionaries were behind the rebellion. Nothing of that sort was true. It was a true pan-Native movement, the first successful one in North American history. Sir William Johnson and his representatives built on the Proclamation of 1763 by offering to reinstitute the giving of gifts and trade of rum and ammunition which had settled the conflict.
My rant: Throughout history there is a pattern of the British or rather the (no offense) English of trying to dominate lands and a people. (Pontiac’s rebellion being an example) But they did the same thing to the Scottish trying to take their land and rule their people. Practically destroying these beautiful cultures for selfish reasons and that is want pisses me off. Even today in America people are still rude and ignorant towards the Natives trying to take away their children to raise them in a white Christian home. These peoples (Natives and the Scottish) have a very beautiful culture! why try to destroy something so beautiful? It brings tears to my eyes to know what has happened to these people over history. Don’t be afraid to let me know what you think and share your knowledge and thoughts about it if you’d like:)
You are talking about Imperialism, and the English weren't the only ones practicing it, although they were likely the most successful by standard measures. Don't forget that New France ran from Quebec City to the Gulf of Mexico. Look at South American and African history to see the Spanish, Portuguese, German, and Dutch empires meddling with technologically less advanced peoples. Such behaviors aren't limited to the west, for if you look at the Orient you'll see plenty of Imperialism as well. The various Chinese dynasties, and particularly the Japanese Empire.
Even today I see Imperialism in action, although it is usually more economic than geographic. There just seems to be some hard wiring in humans that makes such behavior unavoidable.
Well, assuming you are American and like to buy tube socks at Walmart, then you are not paying attention to the role you are playing in imperialism yourself. Do you ever ask yourself why you deserve a standard of living so far about that of those who make most of your clothes?
Well, you could join a movement to that end by ceasing your dependence on the multi-national corporations that represent modern imperialism.
I once spent some time on the Navajo Reservation, in Northeastern Arizona, more specifically, Tuba City, and our government stuck those people on the most desolate, infertile piece of land they could find.
The Mormons, with their stories of how the Hebrews came to the Americas and started the lineage of Native Americans, makes these simple people easy prey.
I stayed with two college friends, a married couple who were teaching on the reservation, and they told me of two, apparently adorable little girls, sisters, who would hug both of them at school, but with their parents, should they meet after school, say in a local store, the same little girls would ignore my friends, lest their parents see how they felt. Sad.
Ironic really - the parents haven't taught their children prejudism, they've taught them duplicity.
I'm not so sure their parents taught them that, so much as the girls learned how best (for them) to deal with the dissonance of living with one foot in each of two worlds.
At least their generation has the exposure to two worlds. That's got to be an improvement.
According to my teacher-friends, the Navajo are strongly prejudiced against Blacks. At one point in time, the US Army had put together an entire company of African American soldiers, that became known as "The Buffalo Soldiers." so named, by the Indians they fought, as their hair reminded the Native Americans of the curly hair on a bison's mane.
When the decision was made to place the Navajo on a reservation, it was this company that was ordered to take them there, and since legends in the tribe are passed by word of mouth, the blame for the "Res" has descended on Blacks in general.
The Osage Indians of Oklahoma were quite fortunate - the government stuck them on a reservation in N.E. Oklahoma, where shortly afterward, oil was discovered on Osage land.
So-called Indian Reservations in America are actually considered "foreign soil," sovereign nations unto themselves, which is why so many Reservations can sport casinos in states where otherwise, gambling is not permitted.
Every reserve is different. Some have good revenues from mineral/oil rights, or casinos, or just plain ranching. Others are like third world countries with the weekly visits from the government doctor being just like foreign aid.
One way or the other, there is no way to return to the 'old ways' and nor would anyone want to do so. The pre-European life of North American aboriginals was not the egalitarian utopia so many people seem to want to imagine. Infant mortality was very high, food was often scarce, and if you lived inland you likely spent the winter huddled in some make-shift shelter hungry, shivering and wondering if you would see another spring.
Today, many reserve counsels are just as corrupt as white government. We've got a famous case up here of a reserve of 600 people getting 6 million dollars aid each year for 10 years without building a single new home or fixing their water infrastructure. In the end the federal government had to send in contractors to sort out the water and erect emergency shelters because the state of housing was so bad.
It was found that the chief paid herself and her non-native boyfriend each six figure salaries, periodically taking lengthy trips to Europe that they called 'diplomatic missions'.
Why wouldn't they?
You say you would change the past, yet face very similar circumstances today and, being in the position to make change, you show zero interest. What makes you think you would have been any more interested had you been born 300 years ago rather than now?