William Henry Harrison

>>3120619
He did kill a shitload of natives, but they were scalping people so who gives a shit.

File: polk-painting.jpg (2MB, 2828x3687px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2828x3687px

Nope.

>>3120619
I would say Zachery Taylor. Absolute madman who stoped the expansion of slavery despite being a slave owner, Grant saw him as a mentor, died from eating tons of cherries jubilee.

File: IMG_0759.png (38KB, 657x527px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 657x527px

>>3120684
zachyboy was a dumbdumb however

is a dumbdumb really /ourguy/? maybe /pol/'s but not us

>>3120628
This. It's easy for us to say that we were too hard on the natives now that they're gone. If we had weekly news reports of scalpings in Ohio, I don't think Americans would be so enlightened on the issue.

>>3120628
Who gives a shit anyways?

File: 1489462291829.jpg (155KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 1280x720px

I wonder how surviving natives feel about mostly being used to further an agenda.

>>3121088
>implying sensationalist news makes exterminating indians justified
fuck off. your implication is though the indians were some existential threat though they never numbered anywhere close to the number of white people there were at the time. the logic behind killing indians was always the same: taking their land for the use of white people. it's no fucking wonder they killed white settlers.

>>3120992
how is he dumb? he won the mexican american war

>>3122055
actually coming to think of it thats more winfield scott but taylor played an important role

>>3121294
Very good picture to demonstrate the issue. I think they just tune out and take it. Alcohol helps.

>>3121294

what is the historical source of the visual evidence presented here?

>>3122918
digitally enhanced stone rubbing, sumeria, c. 2500 bc

>>3122051
That wasn't what I was saying at all. I was saying that modern America would have reacted the same way so it is unfair for us to harshly judge them. Also if you honestly think everybody's reasoning for participating in the Indian wars was "let's steal land" you are too emotionally connected to the situation to look at it objectively.

>>3123646
>I was saying that modern America would have reacted the same way so it is unfair for us to harshly judge them.
literally how. there's no modern day equivalent to this situation

>lso if you honestly think everybody's reasoning for participating in the Indian wars was "let's steal land" you are too emotionally connected to the situation to look at it objectively.
lmao. to say that it was any other reason is to romanticize the frontier. I don't love or hate the indians but to construe wars against indians as anything other than a ploy to take their lands, disinherit them of the resources on their lands and forcibly acculturate them is naive to say the least. it's hard not to adopt a "moralistic" tone when defending the treatment of indians because what happened to them is incomprehensible today in a West devoid of the violence that was characteristic of frontier life in 19th century america.

>>3121294
why am i so inclined to fuck the living shit out of that gook street whore

>>3124567
>there's no modern day equivalent to this situation
Post 9/11 war furvor, it would be even worse because the threat was domestic.

>to say that it was any other reason is to romanticize the west
No, to say that the desire to "steal" native lands was the sole reason for the indian wars is hilariously reductive.

File: wetzel.jpg (78KB, 299x389px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 299x389px

>>3122051
Nah you fuck off, life is a struggle and the feathernecks lost.

Also, Lewis Wetzel did NOTHING wrong

>>3124629
>Post 9/11 war furvor, it would be even worse because the threat was domestic.
except that didn't happen. Muslims didn't get massacred and their homes and personal possessions looted. As I said, there's no equivalent today because there exists no frontier and state authority can enforce itself like it never could over the frontier back then.

>No, to say that the desire to "steal" native lands was the sole reason for the indian wars is hilariously reductive.
why? because it makes a group look like "le evil bad guys"? there's nothing wrong with recognizing that white settlers wanted land. they had every incentive to do so because staking land would allow them the chance to be the yeoman farmers so hallowed in american economic and social thinking. they wanted land for their families, and they had the arms to enforce their will. Now, I'm not sure what period you're attributing to the span of the Indian wars, but at least up to the Civil War white settlers moving west wanted land and had no problem pushing indians off of it. There's a reason the federal government wanted to regulate this process because the violence and squabbling was a challenge to its self-conceived role as the upholder of the law in all sovereign lands under American jurisdiction.

>>3124742
That's fine, so long as you acknowledge that it was a violent affair and not a just one for the Indians. so much for anglo-american traditions of "rule of law" and "due process" so enshrined in the constitution and judicial culture.

File: Frontiersman vs Native.jpg (932KB, 653x900px) Image search: [Google]

932KB, 653x900px

>>3124759
Agreed, that being said I actually respect the Natives a lot, tough bastards gave everyone a run for their money. It's strange really, although they're in a pretty sorry state now they have effectively been immortalized in American culture.

>>3124750
>the war on terror didn't happen
>why? because it makes a group look like "le evil bad guys"?
Yes, history is never that simple, and you are an absolute idiot if you think every situation is so black and white.

>>3121294
>them tits
>that belly
hnggggg

>>3124773
yeah it is impressive considering they never had the industries and such that could sustain an army. but like all natives in the americas, the late 19th century was when the war decisively tipped in favor of the westerners. argentines and chileans had their own indian wars where they basically mowed down the indians with telegraphs, railways and repeating rifles. before that though the mapuches were probably the most impressive resisters against western encroachment than any other tribe in the americas, having kept the spaniards at bay for over 3 centuries.

>>3124774
i was joking. i showed right after that there was nothing "evil" about the white settler's desire for indian lands, just social and economic calculation ratified with the use of force. By today's standards it's awful but even by the moral standards then it was also what can be called "greedy". The seizures weren't lawful by american judicial standards or "right" by the standards of christianity of the time (though, then, like today, people really don't live by christian strictures). Obviously, the morals existed but the settlers cared more about feeding their families and carving out independence from market forces.