4
   

Does "defeat" here mean "(the troops') victory over Indians"

 
 
Reply Tue 11 Feb, 2014 03:45 am

Context:

  
      In 1779, George Washington instructed Major General John Sullivan to attack Iroquois people. Washington stated, "lay waste all the settlements around...that the country may not be merely overrun, but destroyed". In the course of the  carnage and annihilation of Indian people, Washington also instructed his  general not "listen to any overture of peace before the total ruin of their     settlements is effected". (Stannard, David E. AMERICAN HOLOCAUST. New York:
    Oxford University Press, 1992. pp. 118-121.)
        
        In 1783, Washington‘s anti-Indian sentiments were apparent in his  comparisons of Indians with wolves: "Both being beast of prey, tho‘ they differ   in shape", he said. George Washington‘s policies of extermination were realized    in his troops behaviors following a defeat. Troops would skin the bodies of  Iroquois "from the hips downward to make boot tops or leggings". Indians who
    survived the attacks later re-named the nation‘s first president as "Town
    Destroyer". Approximately 28 of 30 Seneca towns had been destroyed within a five
    year period. (Ibid)
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 4 • Views: 731 • Replies: 9
No top replies

 
View best answer, chosen by oristarA
Setanta
  Selected Answer
 
  2  
Reply Tue 11 Feb, 2014 04:34 am
Yes it does . . . and that drivel was not written by a native-speaker of English, or it was written by an extremely, poorly educated native-speaker. The English in your context sucks.
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Feb, 2014 07:19 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

Yes it does . . . and that drivel was not written by a native-speaker of English, or it was written by an extremely, poorly educated native-speaker. The English in your context sucks.


Thanks.
Any analysis for Washington's instruction "lay waste all the settlements around...that the country may not be merely overrun, but destroyed"?
It sounds cruel and very usual today.
Romeo Fabulini
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Feb, 2014 08:51 am
If George Washington hadn't kicked redskin butt the yanks would still be a white minority forced by their red masters to live in wigwams and talk Apache..Smile
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Tue 11 Feb, 2014 10:44 am
@oristarA,
From 1608 onward, the Iroquois Confederation had been the inveterate enemies of the French. I won't go into the causes here, it's not germane. But that made them the allies of the British on the basis of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." During the French and Indian War (1753-1760--the dates are often given as 1754--1763, but the fighting was effectively over by 1760), the Iroquois Confederation was a staunch ally of the British, although their performance was lacklusert--but they were fighting the old enemy, the French. They were lead by William Johnson, the British agent for Indian Affairs. Johnson died before the revolution, but he had already secured the loyalty of the Iroquois in his own lifetime (and made himself quite wealthy in the process) He was, by custom of the Iroquois, a member of the nations because he had married a Mohawk woman. When the revolution broke out, the Iroquois honored their old alliance, and largely because of the deep respect they held for Johnson (they really did not understand how much land they had lost to him when they signed treaties which they honored because of the Johnson legacy). For many, many years while Johnson was the Indian Affairs agent, whites and Indians had lived peacefully, and a great many white settlers had moved into the Mohawk Valley.

When the revolution broke out, those white settlers were now in jeopardy, and there were many atrocities committed by Indian allies of the British, not all of them Iroquois--but the Iroquois nations were blamed. Early in the war, the British had concocted a plan to drive a wedge between the New England states and the mid-Atlantic states. It was a sound plan, but it was not executed as it ought to have been. British command was divided, and many of the general officers were inept. One column was to march sought under Burgoyne, Clinton was to have marched north from New York, and Lt. Colonel Barry St. Leger was to march east along the Mohawk Valley. Clinton not only did not march north, he set off on a hare-brained expedition to take Philadelphia, where the Second Continental Congress sat, and so end the war in one blow. It was a silly idea, and although it produced much bloodshed, it not only failed, it doomed Burgoyne's expedition.

St. Leger did march east to the Mohawk River, and his first move was to take Fort Stanwix. He didn't have the troops, however, to take it by assault, so he laid siege to it. General Herkimer, leading a force of somewhat fewer than a thousand white militia and Oneida Indians (the Oneida were one of the Iroquois-speaking tribes, but they had remained loyal to their white neighbors, who were largely pro-revolution). At the Battle of Oriskany (clickity-click!), Herkimer encountered a force lead by John Johnson, William Johnson's son, and consisting of Indians loyal to Britain. It was a small, but very bloody affair. White militiamen captured in the battle were tortured, mutilated and murdered by the Indians. In fact, the Indians were so caught up in torture and scalping, that the Americans were able to counterattack. They lost, but they managed to get away. The commander, General Herkimer, was fatally wounded, so the small force lacked leadership, and retreated.

All of that took place in August, 1777. Benedict Arnold was leading a relief force to lift the siege of Ft. Stanwix, and rather cleverly started a rumor that he was coming with a large force. St. Leger became dismayed, sending a report that Arnold was coming with 3000 Continentals (i.e., regular troops--it was total hogwash). The Indian allies were disenchanted with siege warfare, and the lack of plunder, and they began to desert. St. Leger soon abandoned the siege and retreated to Lake Ontario. Arnold marched back to the Hudson River, and in September, with Arnold playing an important role, Burgoyne's army was defeated, surrendered a few days later. It was arguably the most important event in the revolution--a few months later, in 1778, France recognized the United States, and began giving substantial material aid.

For the white settlers in upstate New York, the nightmare was not over. Bands of Indians, many of them not members of the Iroquois Confederation, were plundering farmstead and attacking remote settlements. Washington, who had spent years fighting the Indians in the French and Indian War, decided that something must be done. People can argue all day along about who did what to whom and when--the public perception was that the Iroquois were traitors and heathen devils, and must be exterminated. The survivors of General Sullivan's campaign fled to Canada, where the Mohawk, as they are called (sometimes they are called the Six Nations) reside to this day.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Wed 12 Feb, 2014 08:44 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta: Yes it does . . . and that drivel was not written by a native-speaker of English, or it was written by an extremely, poorly educated native-speaker. The English in your ... .

-----------

Did you feel sorry for Setanta, Ori? Is that why you gave this accomplished liar the red star?

Was the material you presented not written by David Stannard? Compare his credentials to Set's "credentials". If you don't know by now what a laughable joke Setanta is when it comes to scholarship, you have today learned a valuable lesson.

---------------

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Stannard

After returning to college in 1968, Stannard graduated magna cum laude from San Francisco State University in 1971. He then went to Yale and obtained an M.A. degree in history (1972), a Master of Philosophy in American Studies (1973), and a Ph.D. in American Studies in 1975. He has taught at Yale University, Stanford University, the University of Colorado, and the University of Hawaii. He has lectured throughout the United States, in Europe, and in Asia.

He is currently a writer and professor in the Department of American Studies at the University of Hawaii, where he was awarded the Regents' Medal for Excellence in teaching, he has contributed dozens of articles to scholarly journals in a variety of fields.

American Holocaust
Stannard's research revolves around his assertion that the indigenous peoples of America (including Hawaii)[1] were the victims of a "Euro-American genocidal war."[2] While conceding that the majority of the indigenous peoples fell victim to the ravages of European disease, he estimates that almost 100 million died in what he calls the American Holocaust.[3] In response to Stannard's figures, political scientist Rudolph Rummel has estimated that over the centuries of European colonization about 2 million to 15 million American indigenous people were the victims of what he calls democide, which excludes military battles and unintentional deaths in Rummel's definition. The vast majority of the victims of democide were in Latin America. "Even if these figures are remotely true," writes Rummel, "then this still make this subjugation of the Americas one of the bloodier, centuries long, democides in world history."[4] According to Guenter Lewy, Stannard's perspective has been joined by scholars Kirkpatrick Sale, Ben Kiernan, Lenore A. Stiffarm, Phil Lane, Jr., and Ward Churchill.[2]

oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Feb, 2014 07:46 am
@JTT,
JTT wrote:

Setanta: Yes it does . . . and that drivel was not written by a native-speaker of English, or it was written by an extremely, poorly educated native-speaker. The English in your ... .

-----------

Did you feel sorry for Setanta, Ori? Is that why you gave this accomplished liar the red star?

Was the material you presented not written by David Stannard? Compare his credentials to Set's "credentials". If you don't know by now what a laughable joke Setanta is when it comes to scholarship, you have today learned a valuable lesson.

---------------

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Stannard

After returning to college in 1968, Stannard graduated magna cum laude from San Francisco State University in 1971. He then went to Yale and obtained an M.A. degree in history (1972), a Master of Philosophy in American Studies (1973), and a Ph.D. in American Studies in 1975. He has taught at Yale University, Stanford University, the University of Colorado, and the University of Hawaii. He has lectured throughout the United States, in Europe, and in Asia.

He is currently a writer and professor in the Department of American Studies at the University of Hawaii, where he was awarded the Regents' Medal for Excellence in teaching, he has contributed dozens of articles to scholarly journals in a variety of fields.

American Holocaust
Stannard's research revolves around his assertion that the indigenous peoples of America (including Hawaii)[1] were the victims of a "Euro-American genocidal war."[2] While conceding that the majority of the indigenous peoples fell victim to the ravages of European disease, he estimates that almost 100 million died in what he calls the American Holocaust.[3] In response to Stannard's figures, political scientist Rudolph Rummel has estimated that over the centuries of European colonization about 2 million to 15 million American indigenous people were the victims of what he calls democide, which excludes military battles and unintentional deaths in Rummel's definition. The vast majority of the victims of democide were in Latin America. "Even if these figures are remotely true," writes Rummel, "then this still make this subjugation of the Americas one of the bloodier, centuries long, democides in world history."[4] According to Guenter Lewy, Stannard's perspective has been joined by scholars Kirkpatrick Sale, Ben Kiernan, Lenore A. Stiffarm, Phil Lane, Jr., and Ward Churchill.[2]





A good catch.
But have some statistical sense, JTT.
One case of misjudgement alone makes no liar.
Setanta has statistically been skillful in English.
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Feb, 2014 07:53 am
@Setanta,
That is informative.
I wonder where to find historical recordings about American Indians killed Americans or American settlers indiscriminatingly: old and young (adults and children), men and women alike. In my memory, because the Indians slaughtered any Americans, innocent and guilty, they encountered, Americans took revenge to wipe almost all of them out.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Thu 13 Feb, 2014 09:07 am
@oristarA,
If it was one case, Ori, I wouldn't have said what I did.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Feb, 2014 05:44 pm
@oristarA,
See also,

http://able2know.org/topic/234893-1
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

deal - Question by WBYeats
Let pupils abandon spelling rules, says academic - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Please, I need help. - Question by imsak
Is this sentence grammatically correct? - Question by Sydney-Strock
"come from" - Question by mcook
concentrated - Question by WBYeats
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Does "defeat" here mean "(the troops') victory over Indians"
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/02/2024 at 12:25:54