Is there a vibe of, "trust us, it'll never happen again"?

Kind of hypocritical for the Republicans to start thinking that way now?

The OP make a great point

Let me ask, do you support gun control?

episode of genocide with gun control. Words fail me. Actually, they don't, but I'd get TOSed if I told you what I really think.

Unfuckingbelievable. Read a goddamned history book to learn what Wounded Knee was all about.

How DARE you try to compare the two. You probably have passed around that dumbass meme that if the Polish Jews had been armed, then Hitler wouldn't have sent them to the ovens. I didn't think that anybody as insensitive and as ignorant of history as you would even be a DU member.

The Warsaw Jews were overcome by the Germans. The difference is the men on Bataan fought with determination; most of the people in the Warsaw ghetto just died. The men on Bataan made a difference in the war while the Warsaw ghetto is a foot note in history.

Last edited Tue Oct 11, 2016, 01:44 PM - Edit history (1)

greydee: The Warsaw Jews were overcome by the Germans. The difference is the men on Bataan fought with determination; most of the people in the Warsaw ghetto just died. The men on Bataan made a difference in the war while the Warsaw ghetto is a foot note in history.

False dichotomy, as well as a false implied equivalency, tho the defense at bataan had a larger impact on the war of course.
An expanding & fresh invading japanese army overcame an allied trained & equipped army at bataan in the phillipines, while the jewish ghetto was comprised of largely jewish civilians who were undernourished, demoralized, & vastly underarmed due the nuremburg law of 1935 {as well as the waffengesetz of 1938}.
To argue the jewish warsaw ghetto massacre was due to a lack of arms is simply a page out of the 2nd Amendment Mythology Bible.
Behold, Greydee, how the jewish actually lasted about 10 days longer than bataan:

The Battle of Bataan (7 Jan – 9 April 1942) was a battle that represented the most intense phase of Imperial Japan's invasion of the Philippines during World War II. General Douglas MacArthur, consolidated all of his Luzon-based units on the Bataan Peninsula..

warsaw ghetto, wwII: Jan 18, 1943, the Germans suddenly entered the Warsaw ghetto.. Within hours, some 600 Jews were shot and 5,000 others rounded up.. final battle started on the eve of Passover of April 19, 1943, when a Nazi force consisting of several thousand troops entered the ghetto... Significant resistance ended on April 28, and the Nazi operation officially ended in mid-May, symbolically culminating with the demolition of the Great Synagogue of Warsaw on May 16. entered the Warsaw ghetto intent upon a further deportation. Within hours, some 600 Jews were shot and 5,000 others rounded up..

The surrender at Bataan, with 140,000 soldiers surrendering in the Philippines altogether,[1] was the largest in American and Filipino military histories, and was the largest United States surrender since the American Civil War's Battle of Harper's Ferry.

The very arms the gun prohibitionists want to deny the citizens of the United States.

Sounds like jimmy the one wants a repeat of 1943 Warsaw here in this country.

Read here about 1200 Jews who survived the Holocaust because armed men and women resisted. Is that a "dumbass meme"?

https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007563

catbyte: You probably have passed around that dumbass meme that if the Polish Jews had been armed, then Hitler wouldn't have sent them to the ovens.

straw man: Read here about 1200 Jews who survived the Holocaust because armed men and women resisted. Is that a "dumbass meme"?

Well aware millions of european Jewish survived wwII; Lots more jewish survived the holocaust predominantly without guns, than with them. Your point is specious to the contention catbyte made.

At the time of liberation, the Bielski group had reached its peak of 1,230 people. More than 70 percent were women, elderly persons, and children, who otherwise would have perished under the German occupation.

european jewish before final solution.... 8,861,800
european jewish killed in final solution.. 5,933,900 - 67% killed
Ergo surviving jewish after final solution had begun, approx 3 million
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/killedtable.html

.. 1933, approximately 9.5 million Jews lived in Europe.. https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005161

Approx 3 to 3.5 million european jews survived the holocaust, I believe most of them in russia, or some lesser in france & italy (an early safe haven for jews till rome surrendered, a rare commendable attribute to el duce benito).

What's "specious" is your suggestion that somehow being unarmed enhanced one's likelihood of survival. The material you quoted (with your bolding) makes it clear that these women, elderly persons, and children would have likely perished if they hadn't been taken to the forest and supported by armed partisans.

You mentioned the partisans and their dedication to the protection of others. How can anyone believe that they would have better off unarmed? {devoid of sense and logic}

is to be absolutely discredited.

straw man: The material you quoted makes it clear that these women, elderly persons, and children would have likely perished if they hadn't been taken to the forest and supported by armed partisans.

You need read up on WWII history a lot more, you're not up to speed, and you overrate your sacred cows - firearms.
Do you really, seriously think that 400 armed jews in the middle of the nazi wehrmacht stretched from leningrad to moscow to dnieprepetrovsk could've resisted? It wasn't guns which saved those jews, it was the dense forests & swamps where panzers couldn't go, encompassing a fairly large area in western byelorussia which saved them, as well as the ability (+ other partisans) to blend in with the local populace, remaining & operating covertly, and yes integrating with much larger numbers of partisans making the nazis unable or unwanting to spend much needed crack troops to eradicate the partisan menace in the miserable pripyat swamps in byelorus.

Fall 1943, the partisan force {in nazi occupied terr} in BSSR totaled about 153,700, and by the end 1943 about 122,000, with about 30,800 put behind the frontline in the course of liberation of eastern parts of BSSR (end 1943). After the liberation of BSSR, about 180,000 partisans joined the Soviet Army in 1944... 1941—1944 period, the turnaround in the Soviet partisan force in Belarus was about 374,000, about 70,000 in urban underground, and about 400,000 in the reserve of the partisan force. Among Soviet partisans in Belarus were people of 45 different ethnic backgrounds and 4,000 foreigners (including 3,000 Poles, 400 Czechs Slovaks, 300 Yugo, etc.). Around 65% of Belarusian partisans were local people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byelorussian_resistance_during_World_War_II
https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA-EF-Defeat/USA-EF-Defeat-13.html

strawman:What's "specious" is your suggestion that somehow being unarmed enhanced one's likelihood of survival.

Not that I did in this case other than your usual twisting of what other people say, most all of ~1.5 million surviving russian jews indeed survived without being armed or fighting the nazis.-Bielski partisans would be west of this map:

"

plain of vercours massacre: 5 June 1944, the Free French govt in London called upon the Vercors people {french maquis partisans} to take up arms and tie down the German army prior to the Allied invasion of Normandy as part of a wider series of resistance uprisings .. the 4,000 maquisards to begin the uprising.
To overcome the resistance around Vercors {mtn plateau occupied by ~3,000 armed maquis}, Luft{waffe} landed two companies of Russian/Ukrainian {para}troops by 242 gliders. The bloody suppression of the Vercors insurrection further inflamed the Maquis in the region but also served as a warning that they were not well enough armed or organized to directly confront the Wehrmacht until the arrival of the Allies. The Maquis returned to the more traditional style of petite guerre (little war), engaging in harassment and ambush of Wehrmacht units rather than large-scale tactical operation .. Operation Bettina against Maquis du Vercors, it appears that the Germans deployed nearly 10.000 soldiers and police..played an important part in the torture and the slaughter of the Maquisards of Vercors and the inhabitants of Vassieux.

I've read both Peter Duffy's book The Bielski Brothers and Nechama Tec's Defiance: The Bielski Partisans. You give me the results of a Google search and then lecture me on what I "need read up on"? Priceless. Absolutely priceless.

"Could have" resisted? They did resist. They engaged in partisan raids on German forces as well as raiding for food to support the people they had rescued from the ghetto.


"Without a rifle you are nothing, worthless, you are waiting for death, any minute, any second."
-- Aron Bielski

"My father sent my mother a revolver as a gift, which for her was the symbol of what any young girl wants in a marriage, this was for her the means to stay alive, to kill herself or to die fighting."
-- Assaela Bielski

I guess they were mistaken, huh? Poor deluded fools, thinking they needed those guns. If only they had had the benefit of your superior wisdom.


Not only did you do it, but in your attempt at a denial you did it again! Classic!

"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."

dscntnt: "If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."

You cite that churchill quote as a sterling example to support the bielski partisans? Perhaps since churchill is justifying, to dscntnt, a preemptive attack on the russian & polish civilians which the bielski partisans attacked &/or killed &/or stole from?
In his tailing imperialist Churchill was moreso speaking of white englishmen* & anglo saxony, his own race, for winston churchill was, according to probably most knowledgeable historians, a racist, & to some an abominable racist.
*Note the lyric in rule brittania: Britannia, rule the waves! Britons never, never, never shall be slaves.

In 1937, {churchill}: "I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place."
Churchill certainly believed in racial hierarchies and eugenics, says John Charmley, author of Churchill: The End of Glory. In Churchill's view, white protestant Christians were at the top, above white Catholics, while Indians were higher than Africans, he adds. "Churchill saw himself and Britain as being the winners in a social Darwinian hierarchy."

wiki: “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion”. And also that Hindus were a foul race “protected by their mere pullulation [fast breeding] from the doom that is their due.” 1942 Leo Amery, Secr of State India.

"Churchill with no doubt at all was a fervent Zionist, a fervent believer in the right of the Jewish people to a state of their own" But he also "shared the low-level casual anti-Semitism of his class and kind",.. If we judged everyone of that era by the standards of 21st Century political correctness, they'd all be guilty." 1937 unpublished article - supposedly by Churchill - entitled "How the Jews Can Combat Persecution" was discovered in 2007. "It may be that, unwittingly, they are inviting persecution - that they have been partly responsible for the antagonism from which they suffer," it said. "There is the feeling that the Jew is an incorrigible alien, that his first loyalty will always be towards his own race." To his credit, churchill supported the balfour declaration (above), albeit waffling.

1943, India, then still a British possession, experienced a disastrous famine in the north-eastern region of Bengal - sparked by the Japanese occupation of Burma the year before. At least 3 million people are believed to have died - and Churchill's actions, or lack thereof, have been the subject of criticism... despite refusing to meet India's need for wheat, he continued to insist that it exported rice to fuel the war effort. "[The War Cabinet] ordered the build-up of a stockpile of wheat for feeding European civilians after they had been liberated. So 170,000 tons of Australian wheat bypassed starving India - destined not for consumption but for storage," .. Churchill even appeared to blame the Indians for the famine, claiming they "breed like rabbits". http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29701767

1931: "It is alarming and also nauseating to see Mr. Gandhi, a seditious Middle Temple lawyer, now posing as a fakir of a type well-known in the East, striding half-naked up the steps of the Vice-regal palace." John Charmley, historian "even to most Conservatives, let alone Liberals and Labour, Churchill's views on India between 1929 and 1939 were quite abhorrent."

1910, Churchill asked officials to consider sterilizing and preventing the marriage of people with mental illnesses and learning disabilities. "The multiplication of the feeble-minded is a very terrible danger to the race,"

Cracked me up earlier this campaign when trump lambasted robt byrd for past kkk involvement, then praised churchill & lambasted obama for sending a churchill bust (slt) back to england.

...'Churchill was a racist' into a bit over 700 words.
Well you always did have a gift for brevity.

For my question to you: Why do I care?

Some of the Founders were slave holders. Does that make everything they said and wrote useless, suspect and false?
Possibly you could address what I quoted rather "jimmying" some character assassination into the discussion.

We all know about godwinism. If hitler had a recipe for schnitzel would you have to attack that as well?

And what exactly does "In his tailing imperialist" mean?


Racist he is; wrong he isn't. The quote stands as does your inability to actually refute what I actually quoted.

dscntnt: Racist he {churchill} is; wrong he isn't. The quote stands as does your inability to actually refute what I actually quoted.

Au contraire I did refute your quote, you're just too smug to realize it.

Your chuchill quote's point is churchill's 'tailing': "You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."

Then I wrote, refuting you well enough: "In his tailing imperialist Churchill was moreso speaking of white englishmen* & anglo saxony, his own race, for winston churchill was, according to probably most knowledgeable historians, a racist, & to some an abominable racist.
*Note the lyric in rule brittania: Britannia, rule the waves! Britons never, never, never shall be slaves" .

Jewish website: They {Bielski partisans} had to be constantly on the alert, they made connections with the Russian partisans, to whom they appeared sufficiently “Communist” and to these men they did not reveal their adherence to Jewish traditions, which would have made Tuvia’s important relationship with the partisans suspect.
Most of all, they had to guard against internal dissension. The group was far from a “utopian community of enlightened democratic and egalitarian governance,” and were forced to extreme measures in order to eliminate dissension and ensure the survival of the group as a whole.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/BielskiBrothers.html
The Bielski partisans were later accused of war crimes on the neighboring population; particularly for involvement in the massacre of 128 people in the Polish village of Naliboki. They were also charged by Polish officials of numerous cases of armed robbery and looting...
The younger men in the unit took incredible risks on food missions to assure that everyone in the unit would have food. What point could there be in resistance if they left any Jew behind? .

Tailing/Tail: specialized language: a phrase that is placed at the end of a sentence and refers to something mentioned in the sentence ..... http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/tail

...that you refuted what I wrote but, for the sake of argument, let's say I accept that. Are you suggesting the converse, that it is better to live as slaves than to die?

I've read both Peter Duffy's book The Bielski Brothers and Nechama Tec's Defiance: The Bielski Partisans. You give me the results of a Google search and then lecture me on what I "need read up on"? Priceless. Absolutely priceless.

I've read Wm Shirer's Rise & Fall of the Third Reich - 3 or 4 times
Alan Bullocks' 'Hitler'. - & partially again - two inch thick 8 x 11
John Keegan's 'Second World War', plus several other wwII books.
'Hitler's Generals', by whomever
Bio's on mussolini, stalin, churchill, trotsky, lenin, to name a few.

straw man: "Could have" resisted? They did resist. They engaged in partisan raids on German forces as well as raiding for food to support the people they had rescued from the ghetto.

You took me out of context & try to narrow my remark, another testament to unethical you.

In context, what I wrote, the full paragraph. Note how straw man cited only the first sentence:
Do you really, seriously think that 400 armed jews in the middle of the nazi wehrmacht stretched from leningrad to moscow to dnieprepetrovsk could've resisted? It wasn't guns which saved those jews, it was the dense forests & swamps where panzers couldn't go, encompassing a fairly large area in western byelorussia which saved them, as well as the ability to blend in with the local populace, remaining & operating covertly, and yes integrating with much larger numbers of partisans

strawman 1:What's "specious" is your suggestion that somehow being unarmed enhanced one's likelihood of survival.
strawman2: Not only did you do it, but in your attempt at a denial you did it again! Classic!

No matter how you fabricate your lies, I did not say that those partisans should've been unarmed during wwII in the Pripyat swamps or the Naliboki Forest. I said their guns did not save them, it was largely conditions.

The four Bielski brothers managed to flee to the nearby forest after their parents {killed} ... The partisans lived in underground dugouts or bunkers.. the Bielski camp; at its peak, 1,236 people belonged, 70% women, children, elderly;..Some accounts note the inequality between well-off partisans and poor inhabitants of the camp ... About 150 engaged in armed operations
.. Nazi regime offered a reward for the capture of Tuvia Bielski, and in 1943, led major clearing operations against all partisan groups in the area. Some of these groups suffered major casualties, but the Bielski partisans fled safely to a more remote part of the forest,

strawman: They did resist. They engaged in partisan raids on German forces as well as raiding for food to support the people they had rescued from the ghetto.

Is this what you refer to? fighting against other non jewish poles in poland? or with stalin against secular polish forces? which to be sure did not care much for jewish people, but were caught between 2 enemy camps (so to speak), the russians & the nazis:

.. the Bielski group would raid nearby villages and forcibly seize food; on occasion, peasants who refused to share their food with the partisans were the subject of violence and even murder. This caused hostility towards the partisans from peasants in the villages, though some would willingly help the Jewish partisans.

The Bielski partisan leaders split the group into two units, one named Ordzhonikidze, led by Zus, and the other Kalinin, commanded by Tuvia. Fighting on the Soviet side, they took part in clashes between Polish and Soviet forces. Notably, they took part in a disarmament of a group of Polish partisans by the Soviets on 1 Dec 1943.[9] According to partisan documentation, the Bielski fighters from both units claimed to have killed a total of 381 enemy fighters, sometimes during joint actions with Soviet groups

Despite their previous collaboration with the Soviets, relations quickly worsened. The NKVD started interrogating the Bielski brothers about the rumours of loot they had reportedly collected during the war, and about their failure to "implement socialist ideals in the camp". Asael Bielski was conscripted into the Soviet Red Army and fell in the Battle of Königsberg in 1945.

Allegations of war crimes - Some of the members of the Bielski partisans (but not the Bielski brothers themselves) have been accused of war crimes on the neighbouring population, particularly for alleged involvement in the 1943 Naliboki massacre of 129 people, committed by Soviet partisans. Though some witnesses and some historians place members of the Bielskis' unit at the massacre, members and other historians dispute this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bielski_partisans

Good for you. What did they have to say about the Bielski partisans? That was the topic -- remember?


If their arms "did not save them," then what was the point of the arms? There was none, in your view. Why, then, should they have been armed? I can only conclude that you believe they should not.

You keep harping on the fact that more unarmed Jews survived than armed Jews. What exactly is your point, then?

Lies? Please. You have no standing for that judgement.


Unethical? Again, please. The "context" was nothing more than a justification for your rhetorical question, which was "Do you really, seriously think that 400 armed jews in the middle of the nazi wehrmacht stretched from leningrad to moscow to dnieprepetrovsk could've resisted?" Do I think they "could've resisted"? Yes, I do. I can prove it from the historical record: They did resist.


With the benefit of your vast readings on history of the Second World War, is Wikipedia really the best source you could come up with regarding the allegations of misconduct by the Bielskis in their efforts to survive and supply their dependents in the forest community they had created? I would call the threat of genocide a rather pressing exigency, wouldn't you? Perhaps you think it would have been more sporting of them to just lay down their arms and volunteer for the concentration camps.

Many critical components enabled the success of the Bielski Partisans. Firearms alone would not have have assured their survival. The lack of firearms certainly would have presented additional serious challenges for the group. Skills, knowledge and determination along with proximity to certain resources were all critical.

The long and short of the this is that catastrophic consequences will motivate the use of any tool, advantage or resource present. Arguing that survival would have been possible had the partisans given up or never possessed guns is illogical. One could suggest that survival would have been possible without some particular tool or resource. It can be demonstrated from history as well. I infer that JTO's argument is against the idea that gun played a necessary and critical role survival.

The partisans are heroes. They're not heroes because of who they killed or how many. They're heroes because lived, weren't killed, didn't die. Many people today are heroes. They continue doing something of value and importance in the face of adversity and loss.

Tuvia Bielski: "I'd rather save one old Jewish woman, than kill ten Nazis."

Thanks for putting it so clearly and succinctly.

I put the idea of a thought experiment which removes the guns from the partisans as roughly analogous to a thought experiment which removes the seats from car being used to travel a few hundred miles. Removing the seats doesn't make the car non-mobile. What the removal does is to create extra work and distractions, reduce basic safety (with the seats go the seat belts) and reduce the confidence of the travelers.

One could argue that removing guns also increases another aspect of safety in that firearm accidents are eliminated. While that is true, removing comfortable seats from a car also mostly eliminates the chances of the driver falling asleep at the wheel.

You're respondent seems fond of flights into the absurd and takes the tangent train to get to the airport.

policies, and the enforcers of those policies, then why were Jews disarmed?

key words, sioux, 7th cavalry: December 29, 1890; .. murder of 297 Sioux Indians at Wounded Knee These 297 people, in their winter camp, were murdered by federal agents and members of the 7th Cavalry who had come to confiscate their firearms "for their own safety and protection". The slaughter began AFTER the majority of the Sioux had peacefully turned in their firearms.
at wounded knee, 1890: The 7th Cavalry troopers, most of them young and unseasoned, clenched their jaws... Custer’s fatal drive to the Little Bighorn was only 14 years in their regiment’s past.

The Battle of the Little Bighorn,.. commonly referred to as Custer's Last Stand, was an armed engagement between combined forces of the Lakota {sioux}, Northern Cheyenne, and Arapaho tribes and the 7th Cavalry Regiment of the United States Army. The battle, which occurred June 25–26, 1876, near the Little Bighorn River in eastern Montana Territory, was the most prominent action of the Great Sioux War of 1876.

greydee Thos: One big point is: Unarmed people do not fight back

Not true, unarmed people often do fight back, tho they tend to suffer more severe casualties. What maybe you meant to say is Armed people sometimes do not fight back, when they are outnumbered or demoralized.

.. the sound of a shot pierced the early morning gloom. Within seconds the charged atmosphere erupted as Indian braves scurried to retrieve their discarded rifles and troopers fired volley after volley into the Sioux camp. From the heights above, the army's Hotchkiss guns raked the Indian teepees with {cannon} grapeshot.
http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/knee.htm

seemingly a better source for wounded knee than the rightwing crap you cited: Eyewitness to a Massacre Philip Wells was a mixed-blood Sioux who served as an interpreter for the Army. He later recounted what he saw that Monday morning:
"I was interpreting for {colonel} Forsyth just before the battle of Wounded Knee, December 29, 1890. The captured Indians had been ordered to give up their arms, but Big Foot replied that his people had no arms. Forsyth said to me, 'Tell Big Foot he says the Indians have no arms, yet yesterday they were well armed when they surrendered. He is deceiving me. Tell him he need have no fear in giving up his arms, as I wish to treat him kindly.' Big Foot replied, 'They have no guns, except such as you have found.' Forsyth declared, 'You are lying to me in return for my kindness.'
During this time a medicine man, gaudily dressed and fantastically painted, executed the maneuvers of the ghost dance,.. Turning to the young warriors who were squatted together, he said 'Do not fear, but let your hearts be strong. Many soldiers are about us and have many bullets, but I am assured their bullets cannot penetrate us. The prairie is large, and their bullets will fly over the prairies and will not come toward us. If they do come toward us, they will float away like dust in the air.'
{soldier said} 'Tell the Indians it is necessary that they be searched one at a time.' The young warriors paid no attention to what I told them. I heard someone on my left exclaim, 'Look out! Look out!' I saw five or six young warriors cast off their blankets and pull guns out from under them and brandish them in the air. One of the warriors shot into the soldiers, who were ordered to fire into the Indians.
Troop 'K' was drawn up between the tents of the women and children and the main body of the Indians, who had been summoned to deliver their arms. The Indians began firing into 'Troop K' to gain the canyon of Wounded Knee creek. In doing so they exposed their women and children to their own fire.

Around 40 members of the 7th Cavalry were killed, over half cut down by friendly fire from the Hotchkiss guns of their overzealous comrades-in-arms. Twenty members of the 7th Cavalry were deemed "National Heros" and awarded the Medal of Honor for their acts of cowardice.

another source: Yet getting warriors to surrender their guns was a touchy business.. as Forsyth and an ailing Big Foot parleyed in the center of the camp on Wounded Knee Creek, using the 40-year-old Wells as their go-between, a medicine man whirled and dipped, threw handfuls of dust into the air and urged the Minneconjous to believe what the Ghost Dance taught... Men leaped to their feet. Younger warriors were throwing off their blankets, bringing their rifles to their shoulders. One brandished his rifle in the air, vowing to keep his gun forever. Another fired into the soldiers. Officers screamed at their men to return fire. The camp exploded in a tumult of gunfire and smoke. http://www.historynet.com/philip-wells-wounded-at-wounded-knee.htm

...that massacres of Native Americans are their own fault, is correct.

dscntnt: I'm sure your implication......that massacres of Native Americans are their own fault, is correct - sarcasm

To take one example & apply it broadly is a RWNJ in his nutshell.
Wounded Knee apparently was provoked by the 7th Cavalry, and sympathetic magic.
What were those 4 hotchkiss cannon doing at the top of the cliff?

End of story...

...that's almost never exhibited at a meeting.