Florida Injun Tribes

Of course, this is just anti-white propaganda posted at a state park by hateful progressives; all local, state, and national employees are that.

https://www.netstate.com/states/intro/fl_intro.htm

What is not listed above is the Naugahyde Tribe, a tribe so secretive, skittish, and shy that not one member of that tribe has ever been seen by a white man.

It has been said by anthropologists and crackers that they can smell them from kilometers away somewhere near the Great Cypress Reservation; There is a very heavy smell of  fake leather during the rainy season in the Everglades and we think that is where these tiny shy Naugahyde injuns live.

The photo above is of the great Seminole Sachem, Butt Thunder Circling Vulture teaching his son, Pee Pee on Teepee strutting skunk, how to pick his nose.

Eschewing the Devil white-man's education, Butt Thunder has made a wooden mask and is using it to teach Pee Pee how to pick his nose which is the action that initiates a tribal council.

The traditional ways of these injuns are quite heart-warming, not unlike the tradition of the Amish in which they trade their retarded kids to The Mennonites for a basket of radishes because the retards are always falling from the rafters onto the family pig during barn-raisings, crippling the family pig, the usual dowry for those hulking husk-huffers.

The Mennonites put the retards to work varnishing the wooden pillows they are so famous for but which their kids are irked to have to use: Dad, it is bad enough that I just started my period but you make me to sleep on a wooden pillow that makes my neck sore, gives me insomnia, and fills my ear lobes with splinters just because it is our tradition?  Darn You.

Francis Parkman on injuns: : The Indians not only were bound to be defeated; it was good that they were defeated because they fought what today we would call a terrorist war. How was their terrorism manifested? First, Indians were sometimes guilty of torture and cannibalism, both of which Parkman graphically described. His explanation of Indian cannibalism is worthy of special note:

A hideous scene of feasting followed the torture of a prisoner. Like the torture itself, it was, among the Hurons, partly an act of vengeance, and partly a religious rite. If the victim had shown courage, the heart was first roasted, cut into small pieces, and given to the young men and boys, who devoured it to increase their own courage. The body was then divided, thrown into the kettles, and eaten by the assembly, the head being the portion of the chief. Many of the Hurons joined in the feast with reluctance and horror, while others took pleasure in it.

In speaking of the victim’s “courage”, Parkman implies that cannibalism was restricted to defeated warriors. But horrifying acts of war were also committed against defenseless civilians. Here Parkman describes tactics employed by the French and their Indian allies in the 18th-century wars against the British:

The French and Indian war-parties commonly avoided the true garrison houses, and very rarely captured them, except unawares, for their tactics . . . consisted, for the most part, in pouncing upon peaceful settlers by surprise, and generally in the night. Combatants and non-combatants were slaughtered together. . . . To attack military posts . . . was a legitimate act of war; but systematically to butcher helpless farmers and their families can hardly pass as such.

This surely defines what we think of as terrorism today.

As a matter of empirical fact, Parkman was right about Indian cannibalism and torture. Jacobs, who is far from being an uncritical admirer of Parkman’s, notes that, “modern authorities on the Iroquois and other woodland tribes . . . differ little from Parkman [on these matters]. . . . As Parkman stated, both [cannibalism and torture] were practiced among the Hurons, Miamis, and other eastern tribes.”2

As to the claim that the terrorist label can (anachronistically) be applied to the way the Indians waged war, consider the assessment by Rutgers historian Peter Silver, author of Our Savage Neighbors: How Indian War Transformed Early America(2007):

The violence that provincial Americans found themselves first dreading and then experiencing was, in the most literal sense, terroristic. It had been carefully planned and carried out by the Indians with whom they were at war to induce the greatest fright possible. . . . All contemporary accounts of Indian attacks noted that they had fallen on exactly those people—children, women, farm folk obliviously going about their housework and harvesting, sleeping people ‘surprised and murdered in their Beds’—who could make no resistance.

Parkman’s history again mirrors the contemporary struggle against terrorism in his quoting (and rejecting) a defense of Indian terrorism that sounds eerily like contemporary multiculturalism. In 1757, France’s Ottawa allies participated in a successful siege of Fort William Henry, a British fort located at the head of Lake George. In the aftermath of the siege, a Jesuit missionary, Roubaud, observed the Ottawas celebrating their victory:

He presently saw a large number of [Ottawas] squatted [sic] about a fire, before which meat was roasting on sticks stuck in the ground; and, approaching, he saw that it was the flesh of an Englishman, other parts of which were boiling in a kettle, while near by sat eight or ten of the prisoners, forced to see their comrade devoured. The horror-stricken priest began to remonstrate; on which a young savage replied in broken French: ‘You have French taste; I have Indian. This is good meat for me’; and the feasters pressed him to share it.