1914: "Strategy is strategy for white men, but when Indian strategy is chronicled by a white historian is is called treachery,"

Often language is used against the Native American people. Words used to describe them, their history, their culture and their actions are twisted into US vs THEM terminology.

Innocent settlers/pioneers     vs       savage warriors/ redskins

Indians massacre whites       vs       a battle won against Indians (with indigenous casualties)

Christian faith                       vs       superstitious barbarism practices 

Civilized                               vs        wild

Whites needs land                 vs        Native people had too much land

Americans with rights           vs        Wards of the nation/ children

And so forth.... 

It happens again and again, especially in history and school textbooks. In 1914, this biasedness was called out: 

INDIAN ORATOR FLAYS "WHITE HISTORIANS"

YMCA Big Meeting Says False Light is Thrown on Race Because of Bias of Authors
1914, Feb 16  The Indianapolis Star 

     "White historians, with their biased views, have done much to degrade the memory of the passing Indian race," said Tahan, an Indian, [who spoke in front of 1813 men at YMCA meeting].
     "Strategy is strategy for white men, but when Indian strategy is chronicled by a white historian is is called treachery," Tahan said. "A victory is a victory for white troops, but when the Indians won victories the historians always refer to them as massacres."
     Tahan is the son of a white father and an Indian mother. His mother was killed when a settlement in which his parents lived was raided by a band of Kiowas. A warrior was about to dash out the baby's brains, after killing the mother, when he became superstitious because the child clung to his hair. Tahan was reared as an Indian and married an Indian girl. It was not until later that he learned he was the son of a white man.
     The Rev William J Griffis is the name under which Tahan is known now. He recently moved from Buffalo, NY, to Cleveland, Ohio. He is a minister in the Presbyterian Church, although converted by the Salvation Army.

Battles, Not Massacres

     He declared that the Indians were fighting for their rights and the perpetuation of their race, and that the battles they won were not massacres any more than were the slaughters by white soldiers when they were victorious.
     "Custer's fate was only one great loss for the whites," he said. "Time and again the Indians were entrapped and killed in hordes, but these battles have not lived in history, as the massacre of Indians was not as important as the killing of white men in battle. Had Custer won every Indian who took part in the battle would have been killed."

1914, Feb 16  The Indianapolis Star 

Here... it's perfectly said.... well, kind of. I mean, they are trying: 

We ought to revise our histories that paint 

terrible stories of savage Redskins 

who tomahawked defenseless women and children hundreds of years ago. (1914) 

1915, May 12  The Intelligencer 

These terms are still used today - here's examples of tethering 

the word 'Warpath' to "Indian themes" in sports.

 What does this say about indigenous people? Think about it.