Not Stolen

Not Stolen: The Truth About European Colonialism in the New World, by Jeff Fynn-Paul ★★★★★

I’ve already posted several reviews of books related to the conflict between the European settlers and Indians. In this text, Fynn-Paul provides a more comprehensive review of the interactions between the Europeans and the Indians. This text offers a rebuttal to claims made beginning in the 1970s that the Americas were “stolen” from the Indians. In that, Fynn-Paul is highly successful.

Columbus was the first European mentioned, followed by the Spaniards in general, then the French and English. The Pilgrim Thanksgiving was discussed, the trail of tears, settlement west of the Mississippi, and the western Indian “wars”. In each of these times and epochs, Fynn-Paul outlined various issues. Did the Europeans slaughter the Indians? (No; generally as many Europeans died as Indians). Did the Europeans feel superior to the Indians? (Generally, no, and often regarded them as noble races). Did the Europeans steal their land? (On rare occasions, they did, but nearly always, they paid well for the land. The cover photo of this book shows the Dutch negotiating for the sale of Manhattan Island. The Dutch got a large piece of malaria-infested swamp land, while the Indians got what they considered to most valuable–useful products from Europe. Both sides were happy, and Manhattan Island had no value until the Europeans developed it). Were the native Indians peaceful? (Almost always, no. Indian life was that of constant migration and warfare. There was no sense of permanent property, and new property and hunting grounds were obtained through bloodshed). Were the Indians the true environmentalists? (To even ask the question is laughable. They had no great concern about the preservation of either flora or fauna). Was American Democracy a gift of the Iroquis Coalition? (Again, with a little bit of information, this is a laughable question, though Fynn-Paul shows that it was definitely not). Was the Trail of Tears forced migration of the southeast tribes wrong? (For the most part yes it was, and most Americans at the time felt that it was wrong. Yet it showed a struggle by the newly formed USA to solve a vexing problem. Though it is taught as a massacre, in reality, less than 5% of the Indians perished in the process. A far greater percentage of Europeans were slaughtered at the hands of Indians in their migration on the Oregon Trail. ) Was there ever a genocide, such as putatively claimed in California in the aftermath of the gold rush? (Indian populations significantly decreased, but this was multifactorial. In addition, it is impossible to get accurate population counts on the Indians before and after the gold rush, so, it is impossible to make any hard and fast claims). Did the Europeans attempt to kill off the Indians through disease? (Even the Christian high school teachers where our children attended claimed this was true, there is hardly any evidence for that. The Indian population was exceedingly sensitive to the new diseases of the old world. The Europeans made enormous efforts to offer vaccinations to the Indians, who mostly refused).

One issue was brought up that I never considered. Fynn-Paul examines the native populations before the arrival of the Europeans. The USA and Canada had only about 20,000 TOTAL Indians in the entire area which is now filled by over 300,000,000 people. The preponderance of the Indians were in central Mexico (the Aztecs) and in western South America (the Incas). These people intermarried with the Spaniards so it is now impossible to sort out the pure Spanish or pure Indians. Thus, nearly every Mexican is a mestizo, which is of combined Spanish/Native descent. Thus, the Indians remain and are prospering, thanks to the European influence in their lives.

Many questions were raised and answered in this book regarding the interactions between the European settlers and the Indians. The chapters are nicely arranged as questions which are then answered through the text. Truth be told, there were terrible wrongs committed by both the Europeans as well as the Indians, and no group had a monopoly on virtue. The last section of the book summarizes a few contemporary issues. Did Europeans commit cultural genocide? Libtard scholars cannot provide any evidence for a physical genocide of the Indians, so the only recourse is to claim that a “cultural” genocide occurred. But is that all bad? Since when is a cultural status ever stable? As an example, before the Europeans, the Indians rarely were extremely successful at hunting buffalo, that is, until the Europeans provided them horses and guns. Would anybody in their right mind consider that to be genocide? The Europeans quickly provided education to the Indians, to learn to read and write, which is also relegated as a form of genocide. Is it cultural genocide when the Europeans put a halt to the constant Indian wars? When we name things after Indians, is that a form of cultural appropriation, and thus wrong? To even ask the question shows an abundance of folly in the questioner! Are the natives owed reparations? Heavens to Murgatroyd!!!! Even now, the native Indians receive more government handouts and are offered more privileges than any other minority group, including the negro.

This book is a wonderful text to read. I learned much, and appreciate that serious academic scholarship is refuting the ridiculous claims of the new liberal academia who are hell-bent on reconstructing truth. It is easy to read, and so I highly recommend it without reservation.

Share