Natives Americans are famously straightforward people in their dealings with others, but as hunters they are clever.

There is a famous true story about a Native small village that was being bothered by a bear that would come to steal food when the people had left. The people would sometimes leave as a group in several boats. To solve the problem they all left the village noisily in their boats leaving one person behind to deal with the bear.

The United States uses a lot of clever tricks to eliminate indigenous populations as survivable entities so they can be consumed, assimilated and eliminated.

Because of the 'accelerating' nature of conflicts with indigenous people, groups of colonizers often use cognitive tricks to facilitate cultural extermination.

1) One interesting example involves an old project from the 1950s. 

aside from the intimidating psychological effect at the time, there is also a sort of time bomb effect built in for future use.

Notice at the end of the second paragraph

"...the AEC announced that Project Chariot would be "held in abeyance." It has never been formally canceled."

 This is a clever trick to head off the possibility of Natives using this project to resist further conquest.

Melting pots always have individuals used as 'mafia store fronts', as described on other pages. In this case there are lots of 'pretend good' white people masquerading as Natives, and these white people can act against the interests of Natives while pretending to be their friends or defenders.

In this case the set up involves leaving the Chariot project 'uncancelled'.

This creates a future, or pending, scenario in which fake indigenous people can deflate future Native power by shifting the narrative back to U.S. 'new' benevolence.

When the colonizing side needs new weapons, it can bring up Project Chariot, but in the context of how the melting pot is now more accommodating. In other words the new narrative is "We will cancel the project because now Natives are our friends, and they can finish surrendering without worrying about nukes".


2) For a long time Europeans conquered other races and took their land, and now it is getting difficult to cement ownership of that land 

The big battles are in Africa but the entire United States land mass is territory taken to give power to European worldviews in non European areas.

A smart move would be to give some of the plunder back to the actual owners.

Notice in that article that the 'news site' gives an elaborate story about the heroism of the white people trying to cement their ownership of another people's land.

"They could have killed Kunzelman, Seabright said, but added that Alo-Kaonohi and Aki should also be glad to be alive. Kunzelman had a gun during the attack, Seabright said, but chose not to use it.

"He had a right to defend himself," Seabright said. "He didn't use that firearm." "

 Almost all news sites in the U.S. are owned by people interested in preserving the status quo, so a person should ask if there might be a competing narrative.

First, obviously, guns are plentiful in Hawaii and if the Hawaiians had really wanted to kill the foreigners they would have brought guns or killed them.

Second, of course, there is a clear reason that this particular incident was prosecuted so publicly, and the reason is that it has many elements that can be spun to portray the descendants of the conquerors as benevolent people who are civilizing savages.

 Here is a related mainstream story about savages who need Europeans to help protect them from themselves. 

Last ween a "Native American" news site had two 'legal system' articles with the same theme. 

Is the version accurate? Or is the mainstream owned media enabling a spin that tries to justify European ownership of 'savages'?

Another example involves another page in this section. Neighbors in a 'melting pot frontier' area described on another page use a lot of trickery to force themselves on 'outsiders' as a way to preserve their own ownership and power over land that was taken generations ago.

One example given involved parking cars at a person's house, along with vandalism and similar things. Sort of a good cop/bad cop tactic where they make it clear a person either treats them as having more rights than others, or pays a price.

The tactic of parking at somebody else's house is obviously meant to impose on a person, to crowd them and show that they only have the influence over a property that the local gang allows.

But how do they provide cover for something so brazen?

A lot of burglars look for unoccupied houses to rob, and in this case could the neighbors pretend they are helping the person by putting a car in front of the house?

Well, not quite. In the example given on the other page, the house has no chance of being robbed by somebody looking for a place that might have valuables. It is, by far, the most unlikely house within some distance for anybody to think of stealing from.

After neighbors began parking at the property one neighbor who appeared to be the one parking at the property was told that if he needed more space for his vehicles he could use the driveway. He said he did not, and when asked later if a specific vehicle was his, he said it was not his nor was it a neighbors. That vehicle had its gate down to hide the license plate which is shown on another page.

A person has no choice but to pretend to be friendly in the transactional way imposed in areas like that, but no decent person would live in an area like that if they had better options.

3) A common trick in the latter stages of conquest is for the colonizer to project 'crimes' onto the victim

Certain types of crimes are virtually non existent in tribal societies, but become more and more common in melting pots until they fracture. 

In that case indigenous people have been crushed, and had their normal social structures destroyed, until they start to imitate their colonizer. Once the conquered group 'misinterprets' some aspect of the colonizing culture, in other words once they imitate the wrong behavior, they can be portrayed as having inherent tendencies to that behavior. The colonizing use of this is not always obvious at the local level, but as a pattern across places and times it is very consistent, and very useful.

Indigenous people in polar regions especially have been terrorized to the point where they know they have no secure place to go, and the colonizer bleeds them slowly to death even as it tries to portray itself as helping savages find civilization.

As long as the colonizer can make sure that there is one part of the victim society that benefits from the game they can keep perpetuating it. In this case the victimized women would not have been victimized if not for the colonial imposition on their culture, but once victimized they can be 'converted' to supporting the conqueror, and likewise the offenders can be made to play the role of 'prisoner' to the conquering society.