Ce que personne ne vous dit sur les Indiens d'Amérique

Chaque fois que j’entends parler des tragédies subies par les Indiens d’Amérique du Nord, je soulève les questions suivantes :

Les calamités incluent-elles également le vol des terres des Apaches ? Le génocide, réel ou présumé, des Amérindiens concerne-t-il aussi l'extermination de la tribu Huron ?

Le problème, bien sûr, est que les terres des Apaches ont été volées par les Comanches.

Tandis que les Hurons furent anéantis et rayés de la carte par les Iroquois.

Mais à part cela, il est sûrement incontestable – pour citer Alberto Crespi et Dario Campione (Nel Grande mito del western l'America si è fatta storia dans Il Corriere de Ticino – d'affirmer que tous les « Amérindiens » sont, et étaient, des artisans de paix spirituels en harmonie avec la nature, un peu comme les moines bouddhistes du Tibet. (Et cela dit, procédons avec la fermeture du robinet du sarcasme…) 

NB : Cet article est une version raccourcie de What Nobody Tells You About Indians and the Natives of North America

Au fait, que signifient les noms des tribus indiennes ? Ils signifient tous la même chose (quoique dans leurs langues respectives) : le « peuple ». Et quels étaient les noms de la plupart des tribus (encore une fois, dans leurs langues) pour désigner leurs voisins ? Encore une fois, la même chose : « l’ennemi ».

Cela apporte une réponse à la question commune : n'est-il pas triste que les Indiens n'aient jamais réussi à s'unir contre leurs oppresseurs blancs ? La réponse est que la citation attribuée à Philip Sheridan – « Le seul bon Indien est un Indien mort » – décrirait mieux la description que les tribus se font les unes des autres (Le seul bon Sioux est un Sioux mort, etc…). Vous pouvez dire ce que vous voulez à propos de Wounded Knee, de Sand Creek ou des réserves, les indigènes étaient mieux (ou, si vous préférez, moins mal) traités par les Blancs que par leurs ennemis indiens.

Les Indiens ont-ils vraiment tué tous leurs ennemis ? Non, ce n'est pas tout à fait exact.

Qui ne connaît pas les larmes qui ont coulé lorsqu'Andrew Jackson a expulsé des dizaines de milliers d'Indiens de la rive est du Mississippi ? Au cours d'une randonnée de 2 000 km, « des milliers de personnes… sont mortes de froid, de malnutrition et de maladie » et les sols étaient jonchés de corps de « peaux rouges » et de « nègres ». Attendez une minute,  qu'avez-vous dit ? "Les PEAUX NoirEs" ? Que voulez-vous dire?! Ah, vous ne saviez pas ? Les Cherokees pratiquaient l'esclavage.

Oui, je sais : l'esclavage n'est une activité honteuse que lorsqu'il est pratiqué par les Blancs et (à l'époque moderne) par les capitalistes, et jamais par les « Rouges » ou les Noirs (y compris sur le continent africain) ni d'ailleurs par les communistes (également Rouges, d'une manière différente) en Chine ou en Union soviétique, avec leurs goulags.

Ce sont des faits historiques que les Européens ne connaissent pas, car la vérité est que s'il existe des mythes et des mensonges sur la conquête de l'Occident, ils concernent la réécriture historique et la diabolisation par les férus du mélodrame de gauche (américaines et étrangères, en anglais drama queens) : si elles ne peuvent pas décrire les Indiens comme des victimes inoffensives, angéliques et innocentes, il devient beaucoup plus difficile de dépeindre les Américains (blancs) comme des êtres monstrueux et leurs politiques (passées comme présentes) comme d'une nature criminelle au-delà de tout iota de rédemption.
Every time I hear about the the tragedies suffered by the Indians of North America, I bring up the following questions: 

Do the calamities also include the theft of the lands of the Apaches? Does the genocide, real or alleged, of the Native Americans also concern the extermination of the Huron tribe?

The problem, of course, is that the lands of the Apaches were stolen by the Comanches.

While the Hurons were wiped out by the Iroquois. 

But apart from that, it is surely indisputable—to quote Alberto Crespi and Dario Campione (Nel Grande mito del western l'America si è fatta storia in Il Corriere de Ticino)—to posit that all "Native Americans" are, and were, spiritual peacemakers in harmony with nature, something akin to Tibet's Buddhist monks. (And with that said, let's turn off the sarcasm faucet…)

• Excerpt from What Nobody Tells You About Indians and the Natives of North America 

What do the names of the Indian tribes mean, anyway? They all mean the same thing (albeit in their respective languages)—the "people." And what was most tribes' names (again, in their languages) for their neighbors? Again, the same thing: The "enemy."   

This provides a response to the common question, isn't it sad that the Indians never managed to unite against their white oppressors. The answer is that the quote attributed to Philip Sheridan—"The only good Indian is a dead Indian"—would better describe the tribes' description of one another (The only good Sioux is a dead Sioux, etc…). You can say what you want about Wounded Knee or Sand Creek or reservations, the natives were in the final analysis better (or, if you prefer, less badly) treated by whites than by their Indian foes. 

Did the Indians really kill all of their enemies? No, that is not entirely correct.

Who doesn't know the trail of tears, when Andrew Jackson expelled tens of thousands of Indians from East side of the Mississippi? During one 2000-km trek, "thousands … died from exposure, malnutrition, and disease" and the grounds were littered with the bodies of "red-skins" and "Negroes." Wait a minute, what did you say? "Blacks"? What do you mean?! Oh, you didn't know? The Cherokees practiced slavery. 

Yes, I know: slavery is only a shameful activity when practiced by Whites and (in the modern era) by capitalists, and never by "Reds" or Blacks (including on the African continent) or for that matter, communists (also Reds, in a different way) in China or the Soviet Union, with their gulags. 

Those are historical facts Europeans don't know about, because the truth is that if there are any myths and lies about the Conquest of the West, they concern the insincere historical re-writing and demonization by leftist drama queens (American as well as foreign): if they can't depict the Indians as harmless, angelic and innocent victims, it becomes much harder to depict (white) Americans as monstrous beings and their policies (past as well as present) as of a criminal nature beyond any iota of redemption.

Ciò che nessuno ti dice sugli indiani d'America

Ogni volta che sento parlare delle tragedie subite dai nativi americani del Nord America, mi pongo le seguenti domande:

Tra queste calamità rientra anche il furto delle terre degli Apache? Il genocidio, reale o presunto, dei nativi americani riguarda anche lo sterminio della tribù degli Uroni?

Il problema, naturalmente, è che le terre degli Apache furono rubate dai Comanche.

Mentre gli Uroni furono sterminati dagli Irochesi.

Ma a parte questo, è certamente indiscutibile–per citare Alberto Crespi e Dario Campione (Nel Grande mito del western l'America si è fatta storia)–affermare che tutti i "nativi americani" sono, e sono stati, pacificatori spirituali in armonia con la natura, qualcosa di simile ai monaci buddisti del Tibet. (E detto questo, mettiamo da parte il sarcasmo…)

Qual è il significato dei nomi delle tribù indiane, in definitiva? Tutti questi termini significano la stessa cosa (seppur nelle rispettive lingue): "il popolo". E qual era il nome che la maggior parte delle tribù usava (sempre nelle loro lingue) per i propri vicini? Di nuovo, la stessa cosa: "il nemico".

Questo fornisce una risposta alla domanda frequente: non è triste che gli indiani non siano mai riusciti a unirsi contro i loro oppressori bianchi? La risposta è che la citazione attribuita a Philip Sheridan–"L'unico indiano buono è un indiano morto"–descriverebbe meglio il modo in cui le tribù si descrivevano a vicenda (L'unico Sioux buono è un Sioux morto, ecc.). Si può dire quello che si vuole su Wounded Knee o le riserve, ma in fin dei conti i nativi furono trattati meglio (o, se preferite, meno male) dai bianchi che dai loro nemici indiani.

Gli indiani uccisero davvero tutti i loro nemici? No, non è del tutto corretto.

Chi non conosce il Sentiero delle Lacrime, quando Andrew Jackson espulse decine di migliaia di indiani dalla sponda orientale del Mississippi? Durante una marcia di 2000 km, "migliaia di persone morirono per le intemperie, la malnutrizione e le malattie" e il territorio era disseminato di cadaveri di "Redskins" e di "Negroes". Aspetta un attimo, cosa hai detto? "Negri"? Oh, non lo sapevi? I Cherokee praticavano la schiavitù.

Sì, lo so: la schiavitù è un'attività vergognosa solo quando praticata dai bianchi e (nell'era moderna) dai capitalisti, e mai dagli "indiani rossi" o dai neri (anche nel continente africano) o, per esempio, dai comunisti (anch'essi "rossi", in un certo senso) in Cina o nell'Unione Sovietica, con i loro gulag.

Questi sono fatti storici che gli europei ignorano, perché la verità è che se esistono miti e menzogne ​​sulla Conquista dell'Ovest, questi riguardano la riscrittura storica "estremamente insincera" da parte di appassionati di melodramma (americani e stranieri): se non riescono a dipingere gli indiani come vittime innocenti, angeliche e innocue, diventa molto più difficile dipingere gli americani (bianchi) come esseri mostruosi e le loro politiche (passate e presenti) come criminali e irredimibili.
Every time I hear about the the tragedies suffered by the Indians of North America, I bring up the following questions: 

Do the calamities also include the theft of the lands of the Apaches? Does the genocide, real or alleged, of the Native Americans also concern the extermination of the Huron tribe?

The problem, of course, is that the lands of the Apaches were stolen by the Comanches.

While the Hurons were wiped out by the Iroquois. 

But apart from that, it is surely indisputable—to quote Alberto Crespi and Dario Campione (Nel Grande mito del western l'America si è fatta storia in Il Corriere de Ticino)—to posit that all "Native Americans" are, and were, spiritual peacemakers in harmony with nature, something akin to Tibet's Buddhist monks. (And with that said, let's turn off the sarcasm faucet…)

• Excerpt from What Nobody Tells You About Indians and the Natives of North America 

What do the names of the Indian tribes mean, anyway? They all mean the same thing (albeit in their respective languages)—the "people." And what was most tribes' names (again, in their languages) for their neighbors? Again, the same thing: The "enemy."   

This provides a response to the common question, isn't it sad that the Indians never managed to unite against their white oppressors. The answer is that the quote attributed to Philip Sheridan—"The only good Indian is a dead Indian"—would better describe the tribes' description of one another (The only good Sioux is a dead Sioux, etc…). You can say what you want about Wounded Knee or Sand Creek or reservations, the natives were in the final analysis better (or, if you prefer, less badly) treated by whites than by their Indian foes. 

Did the Indians really kill all of their enemies? No, that is not entirely correct.

Who doesn't know the trail of tears, when Andrew Jackson expelled tens of thousands of Indians from East side of the Mississippi? During one 2000-km trek, "thousands … died from exposure, malnutrition, and disease" and the grounds were littered with the bodies of "red-skins" and "Negroes." Wait a minute, what did you say? "Blacks"? What do you mean?! Oh, you didn't know? The Cherokees practiced slavery. 

Yes, I know: slavery is only a shameful activity when practiced by Whites and (in the modern era) by capitalists, and never by "Reds" or Blacks (including on the African continent) or for that matter, communists (also Reds, in a different way) in China or the Soviet Union, with their gulags. 

Those are historical facts Europeans don't know about, because the truth is that if there are any myths and lies about the Conquest of the West, they concern the insincere historical re-writing and demonization by leftist drama queens (American as well as foreign): if they can't depict the Indians as harmless, angelic and innocent victims, it becomes much harder to depict (white) Americans as monstrous beings and their policies (past as well as present) as of a criminal nature beyond any iota of redemption.