Kit Carson Park in New Mexico Renamed over American Indian Concerns

Fox News, June 13, 2014

A northern New Mexico town council has voted to change the name of Kit Carson Park over concerns by critics that the famed scout and explorer was cruel to American Indians.

The Taos Town Council passed a resolution Tuesday to rename the downtown park Red Willow following a presentation from activists, the Albuquerque Journal reports.

Council member Fritz Hahn said one American Indian activist felt uncomfortable in the park, which is named after someone who egregiously hurt her people. “We have got to heal the wreckage of the past, and Kit Carson is part of that,” Hahn said.

Carson, who died in in 1868, is buried in the cemetery at the park and his name is all over Taos. He largely is known as an explorer, trapper, soldier and American Indian agent.

But Carson was ordered by the U.S. Army to relocate around 8,000 Navajo men, women and children 300 miles from Arizona to Fort Sumner, New Mexico, on what’s called the “Long Walk.” An estimated 200 Navajos died from cold and starvation after traveling in brutal and harsh winter conditions for almost two months.

Taos Pueblo tribal Secretary Ian Chisholm says the pueblo viewed the council’s actions as a gesture of “healing and reconciling the past.”

{snip}

Topics: , , ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • MikeofAges

    How about naming the next park after an iconic Native American figure from the era? Or is that too decent and minimalist?

    • tlk244182

      Not from that era but I’d love to see a park named after David Yeagley.

      • MikeofAges

        David Yeagley is unperson. Get with it!

    • Jacobite2

      I’m voting for “Tonto”.

  • D.B. Cooper

    I have a question for you Indians. One of your greatest chiefs ever was Quanah Parker. I suspect a lot of his intelligence was inherited. He also happened to be half white. I wonder if you Navajos might wean yourselves from the white man if your leaders had some better DNA.

    • D.B. Cooper

      Too many Americans thought the typical American Indian was as noble looking as Parker, unaware where 50% of his genes came from.

      • Einsatzgrenadier

        Like negroes, most prominent Indians had a significant amount of European ancestry. For example, Sequoyah, probably the greatest Indian scholar who ever lived and inventor of the Cherokee alphabet and writing system, had a white man for a father.

        • Adolf Verloc

          The Cherokees at the time of Sequoyah were among the few Indian tribes that I can regard as having been genuinely screwed by the white man. Unavoidable perhaps (as Andrew Jackson said) but still unjust. As far as the Plains Indians went, it was the age-old struggle between hunter-gatherers and agriculturists that has been playing out since the Neolithic.

          • freddy_hills

            The wars with the Plains Indians took place in the late 1800’s after the civil war. I guarantee there weren’t many Southerners fighting for the Union during reconstruction. So it was mostly fought by Yanks and their newly freed pets. After having beaten the South they decided that the Indian tribes who had allied with the Confederacy could use a beating, too. Interesting how the history books consider slavery a “Southern” thing even though some New England states had slavery. Yet the wars against the Plains Indians are considered an “American” thing.

          • Bossman

            Every loser from the East went West in the chance of making of making it.

          • American_cavalier

            Actually there were large numbers of ex confederates in the old blue army, especially 1870. Other large contigents included naturalized Irish, British, and German immigrants, as well as Yankees. The Indians who allied with the Confederacy were paradoxically the Southerners early enemy the, Cherokee, Seminole, and other so called civilized tribes. Iam unaware of any other real large scale involvement of plains tribes with the Confederacy and their war effort. Most Union Army strenght which wasnt spent on unconstitutionally occupying the South was fighting for protection of settlers in the plains, a.process which had been going on for a generation by them.

          • American_cavalier

            Cherokees were bitter savage enemies of us Americans long before Andy and Congress sent them away. By the time that happened, the Cherokee had been waging mercilless savage war against Americans for nearly two hundred years. When the went there was a huge sigh and cry of victory filled with many tears at the hundreds of thousands who had died and been murdered, kidnapped, or raped by the Cherokee. The Indian wars on the plains had nothing on the Eastern seaboard and Appalachia wars. A totally ignored piece of American history. Ignored on purpose.

        • Bossman

          Yeah, cross-breeding with the native tribes of the Americas began on day one and continues to this day. And many of these half and quarter Indians these days are called Hispanic if they happen to speak Spanish.

          • John R

            Further-genetically speaking-the average “Hispanic” especially Mexicans and Central Americans is more Indian in ancestry than most of the Indians living on our reservations. That is because throughout history the vast majority of the Mexican people in the Spanish colonial period were pure Indians. Mexico, mid-1800’s, five million Indians, a million or so mestizos, and a million Whites.

      • John R

        Quanah Parker did look like a “Hollywood” Indian. But the Comanches were savages, to all peoples around them. Read “Empire of the Summer Moon” a very un-PC book that tells it like it is about the Indians. (Don’t know how that book got published, btw.)

    • Laura Dilworth

      quanah’s mother was kidnapped by the commanches

  • Alexandra1973

    How long before it’s demanded that Great Slave Lake in Canada is renamed?

    • MekongDelta69

      I’m gonna go with… this weekend

      • Alexandra1973

        I can imagine these guys just looking at Google Earth…”Hey…this place needs to change their name–waitaminnit, how about this place….”

    • Löwenmensch ᛟ

      I’m surprised Andrew Jackson isn’t taken off the 20 dollar bill. Maybe Odummy will be his replacement in the future

      • Alexandra1973

        Obummer’s better suited for a three-dollar bill. Every bit as real.

        • ElComadreja

          The phrase “queer as a three dollar bill” springs to mind.

      • DonReynolds

        No reason to take Jackson off the 20 dollar bill.
        The only son he ever had, was an Indian infant he found on the battlefield and raised some 16 years, before he died.

      • John R

        You can bet that would have already happened if Indians had the political clout that blacks do.

  • MekongDelta69

    Council member Fritz Hahn said one American Indian activist felt uncomfortable in the park.”

    Awwwwwww – One single radical said they felt uncomfortable (they really didn’t – they just made it up to see if by stomping their feet like a five year old they would get their way – and they did), so Fritz Hahn (possibly 1/2,048 Indian in his dreams) and every other idiot immediately caves in.

    • Alexandra1973

      I’m 1/32 Amerind at most and something like that gets a shrug from me. Hey, it’s history…there are winners and there are losers.

    • MartelC

      it has NOTHING to do with indians being uncomfortable it have everything to do with cultural marixism.

  • Truth Teller

    He was an incredible explorer. There is a ravine in the Presidio of San Francisco. He and others crossed from Marin in small boats (a feat in itself) hid in the ravine overnight and next day conquered the messicans at the Fort.

  • Katherine McChesney

    He was married to a ‘native’ American woman.

    • Bossman

      As I understand most of the Hispanics of the Southwest were already part Indian by the time the Anglo-Americans were invading the area. Also this Kit Carson looks kind of Indian in his photos. Broad round face, small eyes…

      • Jacobite2

        Most of the Hispanics of everywhere between the Mission de San Francisco and Tiera del Fuego are almost 100% Indian. There’s a thin layer of actual Europeans (i.e., Vicente Fox, Bernardo O’Higgins, or Anthony Quinn) floating on top of the whole mess, but only a skim.

  • John Smith

    “healing and reconciling the past”

    Yea right.

    It would be nice to do the same with the staggering level of interracial violent crime committed against whites that is swept under the rug by the anti-white media creatures.

    That is where I would like to see the “healing and reconciling” to begin.

    • Zaporizhian Sich

      I for one feel I have nothing to apologize for, and neither should any other white American. Why? Because we have been the target of violence on the part of these heathens, and they will never admit they ever did anything barbaric or evil towards us, let alone each other. So I not only feel no guilt, but rising anger at their barbarism towards us.

      • Bossman

        They only reacted when their resources were being taken away from them. According to some historians every Indian attack happened only after some injustice or provocation by the invading whites. Remember, they were the first inhabitants of North America.

        • American_cavalier

          Wrong. The first hostile action occurred in 1601 when Indians on Virginia began stealing the crops, toos, and weapons of the Jamestown colonists. The colony was on an area unclaimed by any tribe. Then from then until 1624 the Jamestown colony was intermitantly under seige. Warfare was broken at times with Peace during which settlers offered agricultural toos, training, and education. The indians on two separate occassions used these moments to enter homes as “apprentices” to later after a few years uprise simultaneously with surprise invasions and slaughter their hosts. Each time the Virginia population was almost entirely genocided losing 1/3 of it populationen, women,.and children in the opening days. Between 1601-1628 100,000 colonists and their native born descendents lost their lives. That pretty much set the stage for the remainder of American and Indian relations.

          • Jacobite2

            Just to sum up: “Scr*w the damn Indians.” If they want to re-name the park, let them fight a battle with the US Army and re-take it from the white man.

          • John R

            Generally right. But the figure of 100,000 colonists losing their lives is a gross exaggeration. During 1622, during the first uprising in Virginia, about 350 settlers were wiped out, that was about one fourth of the total.

          • American_cavalier

            I see I wrote 1622 but meant 1642. Although I believe the 1622 numbers where higher than 385. Additionally Iam including thise who died from disease and wounds. Starting in the 1630s the Virginia colony lost an average of 20,000 British colonists per year to disease, warfare, violence, etc,.

        • John R

          BULL! That is what you read on the PC history books! Get yourself educated. The Apaches Comanches and Navajoes were attacking Mexicans, Americans, and other tribes of Indians long before we took over the land. Btw, why weren’t the Papagoes, Pimas, Hopis, Zunis, among others, “conquered”? Because they were peaceable, that’s why. Stop with the anti-white B.S. Or are you just trolling?

  • The Indians should be making healing gestures to white people for their massacres and scalpings of innocent white children on the frontier.

    • John R

      Maybe. But I would rather the blacks do the same. I want, for once, the black community to finally apologize for all the violence and depredations they have committed against White people.

  • JohnEngelman

    As long as this was done by elected officials, rather than judges I see no problem with it. If this was on a referendum I would have voted for the name change.

    • LHathaway

      Locals acting on their own? I would have guessed you’d be against this, fearing it might go against the States interests? I really wonder if you’re just trying to get a rise out of us. It’s taken me a long time for that to cross my mine. I’m a slow thinker. I suppose we all come on here looking for attention.

      • JohnEngelman

        I am sympathetic to American Indian concerns.

        Blacks are better off because their ancestors were brought to the United States. It cannot be said that American Indians are better off because of what whites did to them.

        • Yea !! to heck with all them casinos anyway . .all they draw is them
          gamblers . . .the scourge of the universe ..

        • Guest

          Yea !! to heck with all them casinos anyway . .all they draw is them gamblers . . .the scourge of the universe ..

        • Bossman

          Yes, according to some thinkers, the nomadic way of life is the freest, healthiest and happiest mode of existence. The philosophers of 18th century Europe were much inspired by the American Indians.

        • American_cavalier

          Your sympathetic to the Indians concerns? Those who the Founding Father said were, “the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.” I take it then you would be for taking away the names of the Founding Fathers as well? I mean despite being survivors of generations of mercilless and terrorist warfare by the Red Man which resulted in a million dead, you must take the side of the Red Man and culturally genocide American simply because they were victorius? You must be a descendent of one of those wretched refuse who glory in calling themselves immigrants and stand atop the shoulders of giants casting dispersions and hatred against the real Native Americans? If so be careful. Becuase you are just a guest in this country of true blue Americans who gave their blood, lives, and tears making this great land of freedom.

          • JohnEngelman

            On American Renaissance I occasionally read of the dangers of genocide and race replacement. The only Americans who have the right to complain about genocide and race displacement are American Indians.

          • American_cavalier

            Your.statement presumes Indians were Americans, which quiet patently they were not.

          • DonReynolds

            They certainly were not considered American citizens until 1924 and the Indian Civil Rights Act did not pass until 1968.
            Until 1935, Indians could be fined or imprisoned for practising their “traditional religious beliefs.”

          • American_cavalier

            Great points. Paradoxically it is also why we can overturn the whole mess.

          • JohnEngelman

            American Indians were the first Americans. They, and other non white American citizens, are as American as you are, with the same Constitutional rights, and worthy of the same consideration.

          • Bossman

            Yes, every educated professional describe them as such and American democracy has become more inclusive as time goes by.

          • JohnEngelman

            Every now and then I need to quote this passage from the Fourteenth Amendment: “Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

            There is no white privilege here. The United States is Constitutionally declared to be a multi racial country.

          • American_cavalier

            Subject to jurisdiction is the key. Indians tribal nationals are not subject to the jurisdiction of the constitution nor are unlawful foreigners and their.progeny. At any no one is arguing whether citizenship is color coded in the US. What is argued iswho can claim to be an American national. You see at one time, national, subject, and citizen where mutually exclusive. Only since the corruption of secular humanistic philosophy in political statecraft have these terms becime interchangeable in wonkish circles. However here at AR we are about restoring the original framework of discorse which allow us to intelligibly answer these questions. Consequently one can be an US citizen without being an American National in the traditional sense of discourse.

          • JohnEngelman

            Whether or not the United States is a multi racial and multi ethnic nation is a matter of definition. Definitions in turn are social conventions. This is a normative issue, not an empirical issue. I prefer to debate issues where facts and logic matter.

          • American_cavalier

            Fact: A nation is a group of people united by common blood, history, language, and religion, AND living in a distinct defined territory.

            Conclusion: Clearly, the American nation still exists, but the USA is no longer a nation. So we have USA citizens but not all USA citizens are American nationals.

          • JohnEngelman

            Definitions are not facts, but social conventions. They differ between individuals, and change over time.

            Conclusions come from logical reasoning, not dogmatic assertions.

          • American_cavalier

            They are not American by nationality. Instead they are US citizens. As such they are deserving the same Constitutional Rights and obligations of other US citizens. Which is important in.considering why US citizenship should be taken from most Indians. Paradoxically because Indians are also citizens of their own nation, they are actually unConstitutionally double citizens. So that needs to be rectified by applying the constitution to them equally; if you hold another citizenship you automatically give up your US citizenship. In turn, this brings me to the second point: If they are citizens of separate Indian nations which predate the American nation, how can they be considered the first Americans as gou claim? In point of fact, most Indians will gladly conceed they are not American but proud Navajo, Cherokee, etc nationals. Indeed, the original enemies of us original Native Americans, were the merciless Indian savages. Thus Indians are separate nationals predating and exclusive of the formation of the American nation which categorically did not include Indians tribes but.instead was limited to free whites, primarilly descended of British colonists and settlers. They were not granted citizenship unti 1933 by unconstitutional statute. Unconstitutional because it made them double citizens. The fact remains true Native Americans are like me, descendents of the British Protestants who seceeded from the British Empire and claimed for themselves and their posterity the title of Americans and the control and soveriegnty over the whole continent. All others are simply guests.

          • JohnEngelman

            What you advocate will never come about. I am glad it will never come about. Advocating that American Indians become second class citizens, or non citizens will deprive you of legitimacy on issues where you might be effective.

            One gets places in politics by getting in front of popular issues. One does not get places by promoting dead issues.

            One does not get places politically by changing people’s minds, but by articulating and channeling sentiments that already exist.

          • American_cavalier

            What makes you think Indians want to be US citizens? Given a choice between citizenship in their own nation versus citizenship in the US, which one do you think they will take? Seems to me you are attempting to deny them the right of self determination, or at the very least to deny them the value of their own nationality. We have a word for that kind of hypocritical Imperial Supremacy hiding behind some facade of Equality, its called Tyranny.

          • JohnEngelman

            What makes you think Indians want to be US citizens?

            – American_cavalier

            I am confident that they appreciate the benefits of citizenship in the United States. If you have a poll compiled by a credible polling agency that indicates otherwise, please post it.

        • John R

          Yes, they are. You think they lived a noble paradise before Whites tamed this land? You have been fed too much PC propaganda.

          • JohnEngelman

            In other words I’ve been brainwashed, right?

            Golly, the concept of brainwashing and propaganda is a stupid concept.

    • John R

      Why? You have something against White leaders? Are you ashamed of your White heritage?

      • JohnEngelman

        I am ashamed of white treatment of Indians. The Indian Wars pitted one of the most technically advanced nations in the world against stone age savages. The outcome was never in doubt.

        While I am on the subject, I am not proud of the Mexican War either. It was a land grab against a weaker country. Mexico never had a chance.

        No, my opinions of the Indians Wars and the Mexican War did not come because I was brainwashed. They came because I read about both on my own, and because I do not like aggression against weaker peoples.

        • American_cavalier

          I thought you said Indians where part of the American nation but here you declare Indians fought against the American nation.

          • JohnEngelman

            My sympathy is with the American Indians. They, and not white Gentiles, are the victims of genocide and race displacement.

            I also appreciate the existence in the United States of Jews, Orientals, and East Indians. I am glad that they are prospering in the United States. They deserve to be successful, because they behave and perform well.

          • American_cavalier

            So you admit you are an Indian loving, foriegn supporting, Alienist. The truth is the process of American settlement on a continent containing more than three Hundred Indians over a period of Four Hundred years could hardly be called genocide. Whereas the process of Ethnically cleansing Americans in from their Continental homeland over a period of Sixty years certainly can be called genocide. Quiet obviously you are a hypocrite with an ulterior agenda, which iscommon for your type. Indeed most certainly you dont even really care about Indians, East Indians, blacks, etc except whether they serve your genicidal murderous purpose of destroying Americans.

          • JohnEngelman

            Genocide consists of killing people. It does not consist of successfully competing with them academically and economically.

  • Pro_Whitey

    And so it goes, as with the statue to Tom Watson at the Georgia state capitol. When whites drop the whip of power, others pick it up and use it against whites.

  • Truth Teller

    Interesting. Naming sports teams after indians is an insult and a racial slur. Renaming a park after an Indian is all right?

    • rebellisMMXII

      At the current pace of removing any references of any tribe (positive or negative) we will completely eradicate any working memory or knowledge that the native Americans even existed.

  • LHathaway

    If only this explorer was a person of color and had actually murdered people. Then the ‘sensitive’ folks wouldn’t be cursing his name but instead making him their cause. I’m beginning to suspect it is all about skin color.

  • freddy_hills

    “Council member Fritz Hahn said one American Indian activist felt uncomfortable in the park, which is named after someone who egregiously hurt her people.”

    My people are egregiously hurt on streets named Martin Luther King Boulevard all the time. Kind of makes me feel uncomfortable. Perhaps we should change those street’s names too.

    • Alexandra1973

      Nathan Bedford Forrest has a nice ring to it….

  • archer

    What tribe does Fritz Hahn belong to?

  • Bossman

    Or become president of the USA. Bill Clinton claims to be 1/32nd Cherokee Indian.

    • Who Me?

      I though Bill Clinton claimed to be black….

      • Bossman

        He never claimed to be black. USA Blacks called him the first black president because he could play the saxophone and had many black friends.

        • The just departed Toni Morrison coined that mentality of Clinton.

          • MikeofAges

            Maya Angelou is the just departed.

          • Fighting_Northern_Spirit

            Sadly Toni is still with us.

        • Jacobite2

          And lied like a rug, didn’t ever have a real job, and molested women now and then.

        • MikeofAges

          That was a political judgement, so to speak. By the criteria applied, Lyndon Johnson might rightly be said to be the first however. The one we have now hardly qualifies, except for the tone of his sorry hide.

    • John R

      I’m not surprised by that. What I AM surprised is that he would ADMIT to it! I know I sure as Hell wouldn’t.

  • Bossman

    These “Stone-age” people were free, generally healthy and happy. They were careful observers of nature. They knew what plants to eat when they were sick. They did not work very hard, did not wear much clothes, had no real religion and no government. But they loved their way of life and wanted to preserve it. They were an inspiration to many 18th century European philosophers.

    • American_cavalier

      Apparentely stupid British settlers arrived by miracle. They knew nothing about nature, how to maintain sustainable environments and knew nothing about laws, freedom, or self government. In fact I wonder if they learned the constellations and even writing from the Indians.

      • Bossman

        According to one history book that I read said that what turned stuffy English Puritans into Americans was contact with American Indians.

        • American_cavalier

          Sad

  • IstvanIN

    The winners always rename things and pull down monuments of the people they conquered. We are unusual in the US that we still have places named after both Indians and the British Aristocracy on the east coast and Spanish names on the west.

    • American_cavalier

      The people responsible for this are probably third generation descendents of the shtetles of Eastern Europe and slums of New York. After getting rid of British and American place names they will go after Spanish and Indian names. If they win, they will replace them all with Bernie Bernie Weinbaum names. Lincoln’s head will be replaced with that of Karl Marx. And our children after eating their grool in their dirt poor hovels will be forced to watch as their mothers are taken from them for concubine slaves to the local Judeo-Mongrel chieftain who in turn might sell her to the fleshpots of China and Moseldom. Welcome to the 21st century version of the steppes and forests of Eastern Europe and Central Asia from days of yore.

  • American_cavalier

    Taos New Mexico? Of course! Its now occupied by the same Jewish and Catholic leftists who ruined California, New York, and Illinois. Again take the names of those responsible for trial and punishment later.

    • MikeofAges

      Now I get it. The wussy white people who live there are the ones who are offended: At the thought of a virile man who made his own way in the world. He started out in his teens as a trail hand in a merchant caravan. He learned to speak Apache, one of the few whites who ever had, maybe even the first. Later Spanish, Cheyenne and several other Native American languages. During his lifetime he lived at different times with both the Cheyenne and the Apache. He was involved in some brutal events, generally under orders from above, but it was a brutal time which also encompassed the Civil War.

  • DonReynolds

    Kit Carson has been blamed by the Navajos for the “long walk”, even though Carson was not there and had already left the Army and returned home before the march began!
    The truth is that Carson was in the Army during wartime and carried out orders as directed by his superiors.

  • WR_the_realist

    Show you care. Rename it “Redskins Park”.

  • Conrad

    It’s interesting that no one is interested in what was done to white people. Or how unfairly we were treated. Or healing and reconciling that past.

  • Erasmus

    And instead of trying to create a viable future today, our “leaders” in attempting to heal the imaginary wounds of the past, will create new wounds instead. The number of people in public offices who are outright jackasses never ceases to amaze me.

  • IstvanIN

    The South has been pretty much occupied territory since the end of the war of southern independence. Southerners are spoken of with derision on northeastern TV and radio. Southerners are considered backwards. Although I must admit that the people of the flyover states are also getting a beating for their traditional views. So, yes, the most loyal Americans, White Southerners, are pretty much the punching bags for the Washington/New York/Los Angeles elites.

  • John R

    Kit Carson was a great American leader. The Navajo were a warlike people, committing atrocities on others around them, both red and white. Carson defeated them, and brought about an end to their depredations. What else were we supposed to do? And what if America did not settle Arizona? Would the Navajo still have it today? That is a pipe dream. Also, the fate of the Navajo was a lot better than that of most hostile tribes that resisted the United States. The Apache were relocated to Florida-thousands of miles from their ancestral homeland. The Comanche were killed off almost to extinction. From nearly 20,000 members in the 1700’s they were reduced to less than 2,000 persons by 1900. The Navajo bounced back to their former numbers and eventually became one of the nation’s largest Indian tribes. They became quite successful as shepherds and gave up war. They were allowed to return to their original homeland. Finally, for the record, Carson opposed most of the worst atrocities committed against Native Americans. He referred to soldiers and volunteers who massacred Indians as “cowards and dogs.” Just had to set the record straight.

  • Malgus

    Yep, nothing like erasing from memory the names of every white person who ever did anything noteworthy… rename the park and eventually nobody will remember it was named for Kit Carson, much less who Kit Carson was… at least with a park named after him, perhaps some small white child would ask “Who was Kit Carson?”, which would hopefully prompt the little urchin to read about the famous, and infamous, whites of the past…

    Bunch of gutless wonders… I’m sure the “city council” voted to rename it because if they held an open vote on the matter, it would have gotten voted down…

    Craven, gutless pieces of…

  • American_cavalier

    The interbreeding between frontier settlers and the Indians from what I have read came in the following categories: Non hostile Indian tribal women marrying Americans, hostile Indian men kidnapping American older girls and young women turning them into raped concubines, and American or other European male explorers intermarrying with Indian tribal chieftains to gain protection. Over time, many of the kidnapped women would be REDEEMED, I.e. rescued, and along with their half breeds reintegrated inot American culture. Descendents of American men and Indian women would also be considered part of American culture. Thise not redeemed would remain part of Indian culture. Over a period of 150 years as the frontier waxed and waned but went inexorably westward one can imagine how large amounts of Indian nationals were part white and equally sized but as percentage of over all population smaller, American frontier communities had their half breeds. White ratios within the civilized tribes increased with the revolution when substantial numbers of frontier loyalists joined with Americas traditional Indian enemies and went into exile with them at the time of American final victory. In turn this multigenerational history of communal violence and interbreeding led to increased levels of American concern with racial and CIVILIZATIONAL purity within their nation. This was especially true among the Appallachan and Southern whites where familial memories played such a role that even today White Trash has a particularly meaning to the term not found elsewhere. For in Dixie it carried with it both a cultural if not racial stench of impurity identified with admixing, acculturating, and degrading high British values and race with that of mercilless savagery of Indians. When one considers the role the French and Spanish Catholics played in agitating black slave revolts and subsequently encouraging freed slaves to copulate with Indians and rape white kidnapped women and how these groups also intermarried with the margins of American and Indian societies, the racial and religious fears where further reinforced. Indeed considering how these European Catholics used such admixtures, all of which depended upon kidnapped American females forced to endure rape in creating specially bred warrior tribes like the Seminoles, one understands the depth of fear, loathing, and despair which could be conjured by such terms as White Trash, slave revolt, Romanism, Imperialism, Half Breed, Mulatto, etc. Tragically for Southern families such terms equally cut deep for such people could rightfully be considered long lost relatives, descendents of half forgotten foremothers and forefathers who were stolen from their civilized families by rampaging frontiers and lost forever. How insulting to now see our heroes of those conflicts such as Kit Carson to be denounced by what can only be termed the White Trash Council of Taos.

  • American_cavalier

    Great point. I was going to bring up the movie the Searchers as an example of the complicated feelings frontier American families endured. Once kidnapped the objective was Redemption from savagery before it was too late, in which case it wouldve been better to die, which was the goal of John Wayne after the months turned to years. He could not stand the stain impurity would bring upon his family’s bloodline after his niece turned to womenhood under the savages hands. No better bitter internal conflict could be presented than when the old Indian fighter finally found his niece, now no more better than a Indian squaw, and ran her down to kill her and held her in his grip to slay with his own hand his IRREDEEMABLE daughter of his murdered brother and then……

  • American_cavalier

    By the way, the Parkers where a noted legendary frontier family in their time. The first Parkers had fought thru to Texas after settling for a time at the end of the Appallachans. And before that they had fought across the Ohio Valley and Cumberland Gaps in the 18th century after succesfully settling the earliest Atlantic colonies in the 17th century. Experienced Indian fighters, Pioneers, surveyors, real estate developers, colonial proprieters, revolutionary war leaders, and above all Patriots, the Parkers were among Americas earliest celebrity families. If you were with the Parkers you where in good hands as they had not only their skills, but the henchmen, retainers, and allies from the frontier to the landed gentry of Virginia. Thus, the defeat of Parkers, slaying of almost the entire clan as well as their fellow settlers by a blitzkrieg Commanche Murder Raid, sent a shock throughout thee South, lower Midwest, and Appalachia. Even though there were thousands if not tens of thousands of Americans, mostly young girls captured in the hands of the savages, the Parker case became almost mythical in the sense of REDEEMING one of the last great American Frontier Ascendancy Families. On the the hand, in the teeming stinking masses of newly formed ghettoes in Americas immigrant overrun cities, such events meant little. Why this lack of knowledge on such a legendary piece of Americana? Well, what was important for many Big City Media Machines even then and certainly now was what was important for all shtetle inhabitants: WHO REALLY WAS THE FIDDLER ON THE ROOF!

  • American_cavalier

    Yes correct I see I wrote 1622 and not 1642. The Virginia Colony as I recall reached about 100,000 total by 1630s and 40’s and stayed there for quiet sometime despite getting subsantial numbers of settlers. Disease from Indians ha ha, killed most of them. Interestingly, unlike Boston Heritage societies, MOST Virginia Heritage Societies allow for substuntial generational time periods for membership. In other words whereas most Puritan societies are organized around settlers between 1620-1640, Virginia allows from 1601-1660s. The reason is simple. Most of the Virginia settlers or their descendents didnt make it out of the Chesepeaks onslaught of deadly environment and large hostile Indian tribes. Death numbers from violence, war, and disease, averaged 20,000 per year from 1630s onward. Not until they brike the Indian confederacies surrounding the beleagured bays and inlets and managed to settle the Piedmont did Virginians explode in pooulation and wealth. Great honor nust be given to those hardy early colonists who managed to successfully keep the colony alive against great odds. It wasnt a sure thing by any matter.except by Grace of God.

  • American_cavalier

    That is why the real invaders here and hopefully the ones who will actually have their names permanentely marked as traitor and removed from any memorial are the ethnic and tribal whites who came to feast and plunder the stored riches of a civilization made before by men like Kit Carson. In other words the current Taos Council.

  • Laura Dilworth

    and the redskins lost their trademark. searchers is a great movie

  • Laura Dilworth

    the other tribes hated the commanches and helped the whites attack them. the texas rangers developed in order to defeat the commanches. the commanches are why mexico sold us texas-they couldn’t handle the commanches. tx rangers killed the buffalo-then the commanches caved. read the rise of the empire moon