• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How Should We Teach History?

What should students be taught about slavery and racism in the US?

Of course what we teach 7-year-olds is different from 16-year-olds, so let's make the question about High School. How should the nation's history be characterized in their history classes, in general?

Here's a number line in order to provide a rough means of placing your opinion. I'm going with 7. I believe kids today receive a version closer to 3, and that's here in blue Seattle. Kids in Texas or Mississippi probably get something closer to 0 or 1. Or am I wrong?
View attachment 67337572

I am what you people have been calling an African American since the mid-90s. Don't teach history in grammar school. It is usually propaganda and the kids aren't mature enough to be objective anyway.

There is public domain material from that time in history:

THE INTERESTING NARRATIVE OF THE LIFE OF OLAUDAH EQUIANO, OR GUSTAVUS VASSA, THE AFRICAN.
TWELVE YEARS A SLAVE (1853) by SOLOMON NORTHUP
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/45631/45631-h/45631-h.htm
Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl, Written by Herself
ON BEING NEGRO IN AMERICA (1951) by J. Saunders Redding
 
What should students be taught about slavery and racism in the US?

Of course what we teach 7-year-olds is different from 16-year-olds, so let's make the question about High School. How should the nation's history be characterized in their history classes, in general?

Here's a number line in order to provide a rough means of placing your opinion. I'm going with 7. I believe kids today receive a version closer to 3, and that's here in blue Seattle. Kids in Texas or Mississippi probably get something closer to 0 or 1. Or am I wrong?
View attachment 67337572

Students should be taught the history of slavery. Teaching ONLY the history of slavery in the US is like teaching the history of farming or anything else and starting the consideration in the New World.

Your chart is absolutely unconnected from anything useful regarding the history of slavery.

Why do you think this chart is connected in any way to a full view of history, the United States or anything else that is not based entirely in propaganda?
 
Students should be taught the history of slavery. Teaching ONLY the history of slavery in the US is like teaching the history of farming or anything else and starting the consideration in the New World.
Your chart is absolutely unconnected from anything useful regarding the history of slavery.
Why do you think this chart is connected in any way to a full view of history, the United States or anything else that is not based entirely in propaganda?
It's a simple question. The answer is a number from 0 to 10. Give it a try sometime.
 
Students should be taught the history of slavery. United States or anything else that is not based entirely in propaganda?
There is World history & national histories.

Only specialists would pay attention to history of slavery.

You are trying to dodge a particular national history.
 
There is World history & national histories.

Only specialists would pay attention to history of slavery.

You are trying to dodge a particular national history.

I am always confused by posters who edit away parts of a post and then respond as if they are responding to the whole thought.

Why did YOU do this?

My point was not that Slavery should be universally taught as a specialized, stand alone topic, but that, if slavery is taught, then the entire history of slavery should be taught.

Covering the topic from its inception at the dawn of history to the present day as practiced in China and other places globally creates a more complete picture and provides thereby a better perspective.

The goal should be to describe and define the practice as it has existed throughout world history.

Using the topic as nothing more than a cudgel to attack the US or diminish the thoughts of the Founders seems to be the current approach used by the propagandists in our public schools.

IF the topic is to be to be taught at all, THEN the topic should be taught. Right now, it is offered only as a propaganda course of racism and deceit.
 
I am always confused by posters who edit away parts of a post and then respond as if they are responding to the whole thought.

Why did YOU do this?

My point was not that Slavery should be universally taught as a specialized, stand alone topic, but that, if slavery is taught, then the entire history of slavery should be taught.

Covering the topic from its inception at the dawn of history to the present day as practiced in China and other places globally creates a more complete picture and provides thereby a better perspective.

The goal should be to describe and define the practice as it has existed throughout world history.

Using the topic as nothing more than a cudgel to attack the US or diminish the thoughts of the Founders seems to be the current approach used by the propagandists in our public schools.

IF the topic is to be to be taught at all, THEN the topic should be taught. Right now, it is offered only as a propaganda course of racism and deceit.
244366221_270528198408487_7722567137055140992_n.jpg
 
My point was not that Slavery should be universally taught as a specialized, stand alone topic, but that, if slavery is taught, then the entire history of slavery should be taught.
I think you just demonstrated my point.
I am not going to put more effort into bursting your delusional bubble.
 

This seems to picture an issue occurring in our society that was the result of the political and social divisiveness that was a tool employed by the Democrat Party to accomplish the societal divisions they sought at that time.

"That time" was 100 years AFTER slavery was ended at the command of and then through the work of the Republican, Abraham Lincoln.

The divisiveness sought then and the divisiveness sought now are identical. Blindly destructive to the people to maintain political power of the Democrat Party.

The picture above is one mile post in the journey of pain traveled by our injured nation as we searched for a more just and moral good rising from the sludge of our past.

Taught in the class that would include this picture might be:

The mistakes of the huge Federal government program of Reconstruction,
the abuses and corruption that accompanied it exploited by both the Carpet Baggers and the locals,
the rise of the Ku Klux Klan and the weaving of the Klan into Southern Democrat Party politics,
and the injustices of the Supreme Court decisions authorizing the Separate But Equal stupidities.

Slavery was not a part of this. Injustice was.
 
I think you just demonstrated my point.
I am not going to put more effort into bursting your delusional bubble.

What is the point to which you refer?
 
Don't teach history until high school.
Encourage kids to think in grade school.


I DO think that teaching kids HOW to think is the main responsibility of education.

History demonstrates the importance of using a good method of thought and planning and teaching kids the best way to analyze options is good.

Whether it's coaching decisions in a game setting, field general tactics in warfare, political decisions or whatever, history is filled with examples of good thinking and poor thinking.

NOT teaching history seems to run counter to teaching how to think.

IF all school children were taught that Afghanistan is the place where empires go to die, THEN invading Afghanistan might have given pause to the grown adults making a decision regarding invading Afghanistan.
 
This seems to picture an issue occurring in our society that was the result of the political and social divisiveness that was a tool employed by the Democrat Party to accomplish the societal divisions they sought at that time.

"That time" was 100 years AFTER slavery was ended at the command of and then through the work of the Republican, Abraham Lincoln.

The divisiveness sought then and the divisiveness sought now are identical. Blindly destructive to the people to maintain political power of the Democrat Party.

The picture above is one mile post in the journey of pain traveled by our injured nation as we searched for a more just and moral good rising from the sludge of our past.

Taught in the class that would include this picture might be:

The mistakes of the huge Federal government program of Reconstruction,
the abuses and corruption that accompanied it exploited by both the Carpet Baggers and the locals,
the rise of the Ku Klux Klan and the weaving of the Klan into Southern Democrat Party politics,
and the injustices of the Supreme Court decisions authorizing the Separate But Equal stupidities.

Slavery was not a part of this. Injustice was.

Teaching "the mistakes of the huge Federal government program of Reconstruction" isn't teaching. It's indoctrinating.

Teaching the corruption of the Caroetbaggers and locals is also indoctrination, unless you include the corruption of the redeemers who replaced them as well.

Would learning about the Klan stop at the point the Republican Party members get involved?

I'm not sure teaching history is really what you're after.
 
I've mentioned this before. High school students in particular do not enter history class as blank slates. When we read about Reconstruction, they unfailing ask me if it's a misprint that it was the Republicans who supported civil and voting rights. They aren't idiots.
 
What should students be taught about slavery and racism in the US?

Of course what we teach 7-year-olds is different from 16-year-olds, so let's make the question about High School. How should the nation's history be characterized in their history classes, in general?

To which nation are you referring? The Chickasaw Nation? The US is not a nation. Never has been, never will be, so we can start by teaching that truth.

We can start by placing slavery in its proper context by telling the truth.

Every race practiced slavery. The fact that some Blacks in America were slaves is largely irrelevant given that they would have been slaves in Africa.

African tribal groups had slaves. So-called Native Americans practiced slavery long before Europeans arrived. Asians practiced slavery. Europeans practiced slavery.

Arab Muslims began the African slave trade circa 800 CE. They purchased African slaves from African tribes and then transported them around world.

In South Africa, there were Whites, Blacks and Coloreds. Who are the Coloreds?

I just explained that. Muslim Arabs bought slaves from African tribes and then took those slaves to India where they traded or sold them and then took Indians as slaves to Malaysia and Indonesia where they sold/traded Africans and Indians, and then took Africans, Indians, and people from tribes in Malaysia and Indonesia to what is now South Africa. The Coloreds in South Africa were the people descended of Indian, Malaysian and Indonesian peoples.

The Muslim Arabs conquered the Spanish Peninsula in part to put an end to the constant warfare between the Gothic tribes living on the Spanish Peninsula.

Eventually, what became Portugal and Spain adopted slavery, and the Spanish and Portuguese introduced it to the French and British 600 years after the Muslim Arabs began the slave trade.

Dr. Livingston, I presume? Europeans were unable to travel into the interior of Africa until the 1880s. The environment, especially the diseases, made it way to deadly for Europeans. They bought their slaves from African tribes all too happy to sell them.

Once students understand the truth, which is that slavery was a global thing, you can explain the different flavors of slavery to the students.

Slavery could be voluntary, meaning someone agreed to be a slave in order to gain certain advantages, like 3-hots and a cot, and to have their children looked after.

In Islam, the penalty for abusing a slave was death. The last public execution for abusing a slave was of an Albanian pasha in 1874 just prior to the Tanzimat Reforms that banned slavery. Shari'a Law required that all of your slaves live under your roof, instead of a barn or some other place on your property, and teaching slaves how to read and write, and teaching them a skill. If a slave converted to Islam, they were freed and given a parcel of land by their master.

Customary Law was based on a person's mother, meaning if your mother was of this tribe or nation, then so were you, even though your father may have been of a different race, nation or tribe, and if your mother was a slave, then so were you, even if your father was a free man.

In Britain, if you were a freed slave -- and, why, yes, we're talking about White people -- it was important that you carry your Writ of Manumission (Free Papers) at all times. If you wandered into another Shire (a county) they wouldn't know who you were and if you looked low-class, you'd be put in the stocks until they could find out where you came from. If you were a slave, you'd be returned to your master, and if not, you'd be released with a thousand apologies.

The brand of slavery the US practiced was different than those and certainly quite brutal, but it was like what some peoples around the world practiced. The type practiced by Africans and Native Americans also ranged from "benevolent" to brutal.

Once students have a full understanding, you can ask them questions:

1) Is there a difference between being a slave in the US, or being a slave to an African tribe?
2) Why were Africans slaves, but Native Americans not slaves?
3) Initially, American slavery was not so brutal, but it evolved to become unconscionable. How?/Why?
4) Would someone be better off if their ancestors never came to the Americas as slaves?
5) Is there a moral difference between the different types of slavery?
 
I DO think that teaching kids HOW to think is the main responsibility of education.

History demonstrates the importance of using a good method of thought and planning and teaching kids the best way to analyze options is good.
History is a record of power games. The books we get in schools are usually just propaganda.

For thinking try:

Tyranny of Words by Stuart Chase

It mentions Hitler quite a bit. He was still alive when it was published.
 
To which nation are you referring? The Chickasaw Nation? The US is not a nation. Never has been, never will be, so we can start by teaching that truth.

We can start by placing slavery in its proper context by telling the truth.

Every race practiced slavery. The fact that some Blacks in America were slaves is largely irrelevant given that they would have been slaves in Africa.

African tribal groups had slaves. So-called Native Americans practiced slavery long before Europeans arrived. Asians practiced slavery. Europeans practiced slavery.

Arab Muslims began the African slave trade circa 800 CE. They purchased African slaves from African tribes and then transported them around world.

In South Africa, there were Whites, Blacks and Coloreds. Who are the Coloreds?

I just explained that. Muslim Arabs bought slaves from African tribes and then took those slaves to India where they traded or sold them and then took Indians as slaves to Malaysia and Indonesia where they sold/traded Africans and Indians, and then took Africans, Indians, and people from tribes in Malaysia and Indonesia to what is now South Africa. The Coloreds in South Africa were the people descended of Indian, Malaysian and Indonesian peoples.

The Muslim Arabs conquered the Spanish Peninsula in part to put an end to the constant warfare between the Gothic tribes living on the Spanish Peninsula.

Eventually, what became Portugal and Spain adopted slavery, and the Spanish and Portuguese introduced it to the French and British 600 years after the Muslim Arabs began the slave trade.

Dr. Livingston, I presume? Europeans were unable to travel into the interior of Africa until the 1880s. The environment, especially the diseases, made it way to deadly for Europeans. They bought their slaves from African tribes all too happy to sell them.

Once students understand the truth, which is that slavery was a global thing, you can explain the different flavors of slavery to the students.

Slavery could be voluntary, meaning someone agreed to be a slave in order to gain certain advantages, like 3-hots and a cot, and to have their children looked after.

In Islam, the penalty for abusing a slave was death. The last public execution for abusing a slave was of an Albanian pasha in 1874 just prior to the Tanzimat Reforms that banned slavery. Shari'a Law required that all of your slaves live under your roof, instead of a barn or some other place on your property, and teaching slaves how to read and write, and teaching them a skill. If a slave converted to Islam, they were freed and given a parcel of land by their master.

Customary Law was based on a person's mother, meaning if your mother was of this tribe or nation, then so were you, even though your father may have been of a different race, nation or tribe, and if your mother was a slave, then so were you, even if your father was a free man.

In Britain, if you were a freed slave -- and, why, yes, we're talking about White people -- it was important that you carry your Writ of Manumission (Free Papers) at all times. If you wandered into another Shire (a county) they wouldn't know who you were and if you looked low-class, you'd be put in the stocks until they could find out where you came from. If you were a slave, you'd be returned to your master, and if not, you'd be released with a thousand apologies.

The brand of slavery the US practiced was different than those and certainly quite brutal, but it was like what some peoples around the world practiced. The type practiced by Africans and Native Americans also ranged from "benevolent" to brutal.

Once students have a full understanding, you can ask them questions:

1) Is there a difference between being a slave in the US, or being a slave to an African tribe?
2) Why were Africans slaves, but Native Americans not slaves?
3) Initially, American slavery was not so brutal, but it evolved to become unconscionable. How?/Why?
4) Would someone be better off if their ancestors never came to the Americas as slaves?
5) Is there a moral difference between the different types of slavery?
The difference is that we are Americans and there are Americans alive today that have been damaged by American slavery and are still being damaged by American racism. It will take generations to heal the damage done to American culture no matter your ethnicity. Let's get it done.
 
To which nation are you referring? The Chickasaw Nation? The US is not a nation. Never has been, never will be, so we can start by teaching that truth.

We can start by placing slavery in its proper context by telling the truth.

Every race practiced slavery. The fact that some Blacks in America were slaves is largely irrelevant given that they would have been slaves in Africa.

African tribal groups had slaves. So-called Native Americans practiced slavery long before Europeans arrived. Asians practiced slavery. Europeans practiced slavery.

Arab Muslims began the African slave trade circa 800 CE. They purchased African slaves from African tribes and then transported them around world.

In South Africa, there were Whites, Blacks and Coloreds. Who are the Coloreds?

I just explained that. Muslim Arabs bought slaves from African tribes and then took those slaves to India where they traded or sold them and then took Indians as slaves to Malaysia and Indonesia where they sold/traded Africans and Indians, and then took Africans, Indians, and people from tribes in Malaysia and Indonesia to what is now South Africa. The Coloreds in South Africa were the people descended of Indian, Malaysian and Indonesian peoples.

The Muslim Arabs conquered the Spanish Peninsula in part to put an end to the constant warfare between the Gothic tribes living on the Spanish Peninsula.

Eventually, what became Portugal and Spain adopted slavery, and the Spanish and Portuguese introduced it to the French and British 600 years after the Muslim Arabs began the slave trade.

Dr. Livingston, I presume? Europeans were unable to travel into the interior of Africa until the 1880s. The environment, especially the diseases, made it way to deadly for Europeans. They bought their slaves from African tribes all too happy to sell them.

Once students understand the truth, which is that slavery was a global thing, you can explain the different flavors of slavery to the students.

Slavery could be voluntary, meaning someone agreed to be a slave in order to gain certain advantages, like 3-hots and a cot, and to have their children looked after.

In Islam, the penalty for abusing a slave was death. The last public execution for abusing a slave was of an Albanian pasha in 1874 just prior to the Tanzimat Reforms that banned slavery. Shari'a Law required that all of your slaves live under your roof, instead of a barn or some other place on your property, and teaching slaves how to read and write, and teaching them a skill. If a slave converted to Islam, they were freed and given a parcel of land by their master.

Customary Law was based on a person's mother, meaning if your mother was of this tribe or nation, then so were you, even though your father may have been of a different race, nation or tribe, and if your mother was a slave, then so were you, even if your father was a free man.

In Britain, if you were a freed slave -- and, why, yes, we're talking about White people -- it was important that you carry your Writ of Manumission (Free Papers) at all times. If you wandered into another Shire (a county) they wouldn't know who you were and if you looked low-class, you'd be put in the stocks until they could find out where you came from. If you were a slave, you'd be returned to your master, and if not, you'd be released with a thousand apologies.

The brand of slavery the US practiced was different than those and certainly quite brutal, but it was like what some peoples around the world practiced. The type practiced by Africans and Native Americans also ranged from "benevolent" to brutal.

Once students have a full understanding, you can ask them questions:

1) Is there a difference between being a slave in the US, or being a slave to an African tribe?
2) Why were Africans slaves, but Native Americans not slaves?
3) Initially, American slavery was not so brutal, but it evolved to become unconscionable. How?/Why?
4) Would someone be better off if their ancestors never came to the Americas as slaves?
5) Is there a moral difference between the different types of slavery?
How many of those cases had a racial aspect where the slaves were instantly recognizable?

Why isn't the US a nation? Not that I really give a damn about any nation.
 
Teaching "the mistakes of the huge Federal government program of Reconstruction" isn't teaching. It's indoctrinating.

Teaching the corruption of the Caroetbaggers and locals is also indoctrination, unless you include the corruption of the redeemers who replaced them as well.

Would learning about the Klan stop at the point the Republican Party members get involved?

I'm not sure teaching history is really what you're after.

I'm am sure that there are various other things that you blind yourself to in order to maintain your on board biases and prejudices.

Perhaps your view(s) of the world will widen in the future.

Until then, I am thankful that your blindness does not impact me directly.

Out of curiosity, are you seriously suggesting that the Carpet Baggers were doing altruistic work?
 
History is a record of power games. The books we get in schools are usually just propaganda.

For thinking try:

Tyranny of Words by Stuart Chase

It mentions Hitler quite a bit. He was still alive when it was published.

Eduction is recognized by most authoritarians as the best way to bend the twig.

All education is at some level indoctrination, but the intentional perversion of education, AS IS HAPPENING IN THE US TODAY, is a criminal exercise by the agenda driven who see ALL things as a means to an end.

When all things are merely a means to and end, then the means become the ends.


Joseph Stalin
> Quotes > Quotable Quote​

Joseph Stalin

“Education is a weapon, whose effect depends on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed.”​

― Joseph Stalin
 
How many of those cases had a racial aspect where the slaves were instantly recognizable?

By "cases" I'm assuming you're referring to race or ethnicity.

In the case of the Roman Catholic Church, the 10s of 1,000s of Slav slaves -- from which the word slave comes -- the Slavs were physically indistinguishable from other Europeans.

Most aboriginal peoples in the Americas are physically indistinguishable from each other, but apparently the Hopewell were, which is why several tribes of Plains Indians exterminated the Hopewell, murdering every last man, woman and child in a genocidal frenzy. If you want to know how bad it was, the final slaughter took place in area of a little more than 30 acres and each acre has 1,000 to 3,000 dead Hopewell. That happened a couple centuries before Europeans arrived.

In the case of Africa, many tribes are readily distinguishable by their physical appearance. For Asians, they can tell the difference. While most Americans can't differentiate between Han Chinese, non-Han Chinese, Japanese, Cham, Viets, Nung, Montagnards etc, I can. I can usually tell the difference between Koreans and Chinese, but not always (unless I hear them talking.)

Why isn't the US a nation?

A nation is a homogeneous group of people that share the same culture. That means they are the same ethnicity, speak the same language, have the same shared history, revere the same heroes, worship the same god(s), celebrate the same holidays, have the same myths, prose and poetry, etc etc etc.

The US is a country, because it is heterogeneous.
 
Most aboriginal peoples in the Americas are physically indistinguishable from each other, but apparently the Hopewell were, which is why several tribes of Plains Indians exterminated the Hopewell, murdering every last man, woman and child in a genocidal frenzy.
Citation, please.
 
I've mentioned this before. High school students in particular do not enter history class as blank slates. When we read about Reconstruction, they unfailing ask me if it's a misprint that it was the Republicans who supported civil and voting rights. They aren't idiots.
Are you a history teacher? I was when I was young, although I was not a professionally trained educator. I had advanced degrees in history and an independent school hired me without the teaching credentials. I loved that job. :)
 
Citation, please.
You can start with the Smithsonian.

At least a dozen tribes were exterminated by genocide prior to the arrival of Europeans. After the arrival of Europeans, there were several more but none had European involvement. For example, although the Spanish were in California, neither the tribe that was exterminated nor the tribes that committed genocide had any contact with the Spanish.

There are an additional 6-8 other genocides based on oral histories of tribes, but it is known in at least one instance that two of the oral histories are describing the same act of genocide. You have to remember that the 560+ tribes are ethnic groups in their own right with their own culture, religion and language and their languages were not mutually intelligible. Those tribes associated with the Iroquois had mutually intelligible languages and those with the six Sioux tribes had mutually intelligible languages, but the Sioux and Iroquois could not communicate and those two could not communicate with the Choctaw, Seminole, Chickasaw or others.

Of the Y-DNA (father-to-son) and mt-DNA (mother-to-daughter) Haplogroups in the Americas, 3 of the Y- and 2 of the mt-DNA Haplogroups are Australasian in origin, meaning they came from Australia, Indonesia and the islands in-between. One Y- and two mt-DNA Haplogroups are European in origin. The rest come from the area ranging from Southeast to Northeast Asia.

The Adena and Hopewell are come from the Haplogroups of European origin. Both groups were taller than your average Native Americans.

The largest massacre site on Earth is located in a 30 acre region between Fort Smith, Arkansas and Hot Springs, Arkansas. You will need to consult various archaeology journals, because archaeologists from Washington University (in St Louis) and the University of Arkansas uncovered the remains of more than 100,000 dead, approximately 2,000 to 3,000 dead per acre.

Obviously, that is much large than the Crow Creek (South Dakota) site where more than 500 people were massacred prior to the arrival of Europeans.

All of the skeletons show signs of blunt-force trauma to the skull, collar bones, arms ribs and legs. Effectively, they were beaten to death by club-like weapons.

I frequently visit Hopewell sites in Ohio. I live about an hour from Serpent Mound which is incredibly intriguing.

The Hopewell were driven out of Ohio into Indiana, and then driven south along the Ohio River into Missouri where Plains Indian tribes drove them further south into Arkansas.

That's where they made their last stand.

You can read about it in Advanced Civilizations of Prehistoric America: The Lost Kingdoms of the Adena, Hopewell, Mississippians, and Anasazi by Frank Joseph who summarizes the archaeological reports from Washington University and the University of Arkansas. If you have access to JSTOR, you can read most of them.

It sucks because the Hopewell were cool. They were one of the few settled tribes and their civilization was way, way more advanced than the other 90% of the tribal groups here.
 
You can start with the Smithsonian.

At least a dozen tribes were exterminated by genocide prior to the arrival of Europeans. After the arrival of Europeans, there were several more but none had European involvement. For example, although the Spanish were in California, neither the tribe that was exterminated nor the tribes that committed genocide had any contact with the Spanish.

There are an additional 6-8 other genocides based on oral histories of tribes, but it is known in at least one instance that two of the oral histories are describing the same act of genocide. You have to remember that the 560+ tribes are ethnic groups in their own right with their own culture, religion and language and their languages were not mutually intelligible. Those tribes associated with the Iroquois had mutually intelligible languages and those with the six Sioux tribes had mutually intelligible languages, but the Sioux and Iroquois could not communicate and those two could not communicate with the Choctaw, Seminole, Chickasaw or others.

Of the Y-DNA (father-to-son) and mt-DNA (mother-to-daughter) Haplogroups in the Americas, 3 of the Y- and 2 of the mt-DNA Haplogroups are Australasian in origin, meaning they came from Australia, Indonesia and the islands in-between. One Y- and two mt-DNA Haplogroups are European in origin. The rest come from the area ranging from Southeast to Northeast Asia.

The Adena and Hopewell are come from the Haplogroups of European origin. Both groups were taller than your average Native Americans.

The largest massacre site on Earth is located in a 30 acre region between Fort Smith, Arkansas and Hot Springs, Arkansas. You will need to consult various archaeology journals, because archaeologists from Washington University (in St Louis) and the University of Arkansas uncovered the remains of more than 100,000 dead, approximately 2,000 to 3,000 dead per acre.

Obviously, that is much large than the Crow Creek (South Dakota) site where more than 500 people were massacred prior to the arrival of Europeans.

All of the skeletons show signs of blunt-force trauma to the skull, collar bones, arms ribs and legs. Effectively, they were beaten to death by club-like weapons.

I frequently visit Hopewell sites in Ohio. I live about an hour from Serpent Mound which is incredibly intriguing.

The Hopewell were driven out of Ohio into Indiana, and then driven south along the Ohio River into Missouri where Plains Indian tribes drove them further south into Arkansas.

That's where they made their last stand.

You can read about it in Advanced Civilizations of Prehistoric America: The Lost Kingdoms of the Adena, Hopewell, Mississippians, and Anasazi by Frank Joseph who summarizes the archaeological reports from Washington University and the University of Arkansas. If you have access to JSTOR, you can read most of them.

It sucks because the Hopewell were cool. They were one of the few settled tribes and their civilization was way, way more advanced than the other 90% of the tribal groups here.
What you provided are not citations.
 
Back
Top Bottom