Talk:Scottish Indian trade

This article is in error.

See why here: [1]

How is it that the Scots are portrayed as lovers of Indian women, when the most notorious Scottish colonists (Protestants like Andrew Jackson, hello?) were those who partook in the extirpation and destruction of the Indians? Leave it to the French "couriers du bois" to have Indian relations (see Metis). Just because the Scots dressed up in hides and lived in impoverished abodes acccording to Indian style about in old Appalachia, does not mean it is anything different than the English adopting Indian consumption of tobacco and maize. Oh and just in case anybody here believes that Democracy began with the Iroquois, then they must never have heard of Athens? Or, would there have been no relation between the Neoclassical Enlightenment and American Independence? God, the ignorance that abounds in the world today! So, the Scots want to play the victims of genocide (the perpetrator switches sides to avoid criticism?) or the like in the colonies...how awesome to do that in Ireland and America. Some people just don't have the heart to be honest and care for integrity. Onward march! Multiculturalism at its finest! Deprive the legit cases with wannabes and nobody is genuine! How amusing! Are these Scottish Catholics? Irish American Catholics often claim Indian blood, but it's all a victimisation free-for-all. When ever did Ellis Island Irish ever move into Indian areas? Sorry mates, but the time for that had come and gone long before the Know-Nothings let Catholics into New York. Misery loves company, but cannot make facts. Lord Loxley 08:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid the link you have provided is dead, and that you may have taken the article to mean more than it actually is. The article is well referenced and describes the positive relations between Scots traders and Natives in North America and how it benefited the trade. There is no mention of Iroquois developing democracy, nor any criticism of Athenian democracy (like exluding women, men without military training or slaves from voting), of victimisation or of Ellis Island Irish. The above-mentioned Métis (with acute accent), historically known as, amongst other things, "Black Scots" (I do not know why) and "Countryborn", who spoke the Bungee language (a mixture of Cree and Scottish Gaelic) were of mixed French, Scottish, Cree, Saulteaux and Ojibwa ancestry. The Métis National Council's website does not explicitly state any nationality, only "Europeans", which does not suggest that they're European ancesty is exclusively French. People like Cuthbert Grant, Alexander Kennedy Isbister, Angus McGillis (husband of Isabelle McGillis) and the Selkirk Settlers were certainly Scots.

This article does not deny the actions of any Scot, or person of Scots ancestry partaking in the "extirpation and destruction" of the Indians, indeed one of Cherokee John Ross' (whose father, Daniel, was from Sutherland) first military actions was against above-mentioned Ulsterman Andrew Jackson (who actually hailed from South Carolina). Major-General Winfield Scott, who may have been of Scots ancestry (although of a Whig rather than a Tory-Loyalist background), led the troops occupying Cherokee lands and took part in Seminole Wars and the Black Hawk War. Other Scots were on the Indian side of these conflicts, like William McIntosh (nephew of Lachlan McGillivray), Peter McQueen, Menawa, John Norton, William Weatherford. During the potato famine in the Highlands and Islands, the Cherokee sent money to Scotland.

To answer the question "How is it that the Scots are portrayed as lovers of Indian women, when the most notorious Scottish colonists were those who partook in the extirpation and destruction of the Indians?", I would say that it is probably because they were both. Descendants of Scots colonists did partake in extirpation and destruction of the Indians, and Scots traders also intermarried with Indian women (or vice versa in the case of John Norton). The Scots race were not, as a whole, either bedfellows or destroyers of the Indians, but played a part of both sides and opened up trading with Indians where other Europeans did not. Benson85 18:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, take a look at Scottish (and Irish) history and see that they fought among themselves, along clan lines, and often committed acts of barbarity and cruelty to each other - does it make them anti-Scottish that they murdered women, children and the elderly during their raids? Indians themselves fought similarly and it wasn't unknown for them to exterminate another tribe in warfare. Just more people being people, with all the same failings. 74.215.242.83 (talk) 22:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

It is beyond my understanding why the name of George Galphin of Silver Bluff, South Carolina is not mention once in this article. As the American Revolution approached, he was by far, the most influential trader among the Lower Creek Nation (the largest of the Creek nation) and was used by SC and Ga governors to maintain peace with the Native Americans of the Central Savannah Region Area. He has been ignored by historians and is never mentioned in any SC History text. The cause of this is a mystery to me. Surely his multi-race family is not sufficient reason for his omission. His influence with the elders and most powerful leader of Lower Muskogee Creek Nation is indisputable and his repeated insistence that they remain neutral is one the most important factors in the Loyalist, Tories and British Armies' failure in the Southern colonies. How can this be ignored? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.139.120.233 (talk) 23:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

“French men generally did not marry Indian women”

Throw this whole article in the garbage lmao 24.201.254.78 (talk) 19:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)