Some holocausts can be denied. Others cannot.

Thanks very much, mjh! And certainly no problem with taking a couple days. But it certainly accords with my limited knowledge, by osmosis. I’ll read further starting from your suggestions.

My question was prompted by a few things:
1) I have, over the years, heard of not only these alliances and intermarriages, and wondered — wait a minute, aren’t they supposed to be raping and pillaging like all “good” Europeans?
2) The “mixed” history of the Canadian French being both colonizers and colonized (by the English, after abandonment by the French crown in 1759) seems to deserve a more nuanced explanation, but is barely mentioned in American history classes. This contrasts, for example, with what I’ve read about 19th century American knowledge via Longfellow’s Evangeline.

So I’m left wondering “Why aren’t we told this?” about the “other Latin America”…

“There is another class of coloured people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs — partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs.”

It’s not just coloured people either; the whole “white guilt” trip is perverse, patronizing, and counter-productive. It’s the “White Man’s Burden” updated for the digital age.What used to be “Oh! These poor benighted creatures will never rise from the muck without our civilizing ministrations” is now “Oh! These poor people will never be free until we have immolated ourselves on the fires of History.” It’s sick thinking.

Slavery is an human universal, and the slavery that is being prepared for us if where we should place our focus.

Sorry for the somewhat delayed response. I had to search for the sources I wanted to mention — although I am a historian, it has been a long time since I taught on this early colonial period. Gary Nash’s book “Red, White and Black” covers (among other things) relations among the Native peoples and diferent groups of Europeans. If I recall correctly, he shows pretty clearly that the French did have, overall, better relations with the Native Americans, but this was largely due to two factors: 1) the way the French “settled” — they didn’t, for the most part, send over tens of thousands of people to set up large towns (as happened with the English) it was more explorers and fur traders and 2) the French wanted Native allies in their struggles with the British (and Dutch and other Europeans) and were more effective in finding ways to forge those alliances. Another book that you might find useful is Francis Jennings’
“The invasion of America” which also covers this topic. The interpretation is a bit dated now, but when it was published (in 1975 I think) it was groundbreaking. Hope this is helpful!

Renowned “Indian Fighter” Colonel John Milton Chivington, a former Methodist pastor who gained infamy for leading a 700-man force of Colorado Territory militia during the massacre at Sand Creek in November 1864, passionately declaimed “Damn any man who sympathizes with Indians! … I have come to kill Indians, and believe it is right and honorable to use any means under God’s heaven to kill Indians. … Kill and scalp all, big and little; nits [referring to infants] make lice!“

It’s not the strong or even the capable praying on the weak and the incompetents. It’s the psychopathic rapacious, greedy fools praying on decent people. Given the choice, some might even refuse to pray on others. I know. This is something the psychopathic mind can’t comprehend.

Did you mean OTO? Can you expand?

What do I think?