What Do We Think About Climate Change

OK, you added this after I answered your post.

The reason I'm offended by your 'alternative view' of the relationship between the Pilgrims and the Indians is because it's pure BS. Of all the European settlers in the Americas, you've chosen to demonize one of the most harmless groups.

The Pilgrims usually had a good relationship with the local Indians. As I've pointed out earlier, they even intermarried with them. It's hardly their fault that those Indians were later decimated by a 'multitude of means.'

Maybe you think they should have told their Indian friends, "you know, we'd love to have you join us in our harvest celebration this year, since your help is one of the main reasons we had a good harvest to begin with. But hey... you and your descendants are most likely going to get wiped out by diseases or wars with other whites anyway, so what's the effing point?"

You keep lecturing me about history, Boston. But it's pretty clear you know less about it than I do, and aren't able to put events into proper perspective. I think your problem is that you're too narrowly focused.

My dad started teaching me to read before I turned five years old, and I've been at it ever since. Although I've never written any scholarly dissertations, you'd be hard put to mention a part of history that I haven't at least been exposed to.

When I read Xenophon's Anabasis online, about the march of the Ten Thousand to the sea, I recognized some of the tribes they encountered.

I know that Jewish mercenaries serving under the pharaohs were garrisoned on the island of Elephantine five hundred years before Jesus was born; that they stayed there for three hundred years holding back the Nubians, and that they had their own temple -- in contradiction to the claim that the only valid Jewish temple was the one in Jerusalem.

I know Squanto had lived for years in London, and that it was natural for him to take up with the Pilgrims when he returned and found his own Patuxet people had been wiped out in an epidemic.

I also know it's entirely natural his tribe was wiped out by diseases they had no immunity to (before the Pilgrims got there). Just as I know that diseases spread from Mexico through through Central America and into South America were wreaking havoc in the Inca Empire before the Incas ever saw a white man. That wasn't an evil Spanish plot; it was nature at work. It's what happens when an isolated population comes into contact with other peoples.

So on and so forth. If you keep implying that I disagree with you only because I'm ignorant, I am going to get angry.

 

The practice of scalping was encouraged by both sides in colonial North America and became a source of racial rage against the native Americans who practised it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalping

The English were very bad for paying bounties and the French responded in kind were equally bad.

 

Those would be tears of happiness and joy. What you perceive as a freedom for many is just slavery wrapped in a shiny paper.

Don't you remember the series called "Roots"? Kunta Kinte and the family? In one episode one black guy said that the life was actually better when he was a slave. He had at least free food, free housing and clean clothes.

In capitalism he had his freedom to move around but he couldn't get a job, he had nowhere to sleep, and his clothes, years after capitalism abolished the slavery were what he had on him when the northern yankees beat the **** out of the southern yankees.

Just as afghanis and iraqis today.

Those would be tears of joy, my friend. Pure joy and relief.

 

That would be 198 years in total, if we assume 22 years between father and son, 270 for 30 years difference.

Still an immigrant. You have imposed your own culture and religion onto the natives and took their land.

Mine too, but I, at least, admit it...

Only when used in a context where it is clear that if I call someone Indio, want to actually insult him. Otherwise it is not an insult in a general speech.

True that about the democrats. It only goes to show that there is no difference between the two parties. forrest gump opened a concentration camp in Cuba, obama promised to close it as the first thing of his first day in the job.

It is still open and working as a conc camp.

And as for the "we leave even when we win" you need to rethink that. usa is still in South Korea, Japan, Germany, Italy, Honduras, Colombia, Panama, Marshall Islands (and a whole swag of smaller islands in Pacific), Diego Island in Indian Ocean, Haiti (but usanian doctors have left LOOOONG time ago, leaving only Cuban doctors and a few Medicines Sans Frontiers), may all other countries I missed here forgive me. Here's the full list:

http://www.militaryinstallations.dod.mil/pls/psgprod/f?p=MI:ENTRY:7363123469785010

 

Now I truly believe that the climate in this thread has changed....

 

It is quite possible that some of my ancestors were here to greet the whites when they first arrived. The documents are not clear. As for the white ones, the first documented arrived in 1637, and their may be matches to others whose people arrived as early as 1620, so your math is off by nearly 200 years.
As for the rest of your inaccuracies, I won't waste more space, as we are political adversaries and will never agree on that. Have a great day.

 

Well, since everyone is sooo out of the closet, I think its my turn;
Way back, on my fathers side one of my ancestors; there's a Swede... To make it worse; on my mothers side, approx 1640; there's a Dane.
Now , this really helped.. Good to come out of the closet. Now I beg for your understanding.

Actually, I've always used to consider myself to be Norwegian, it was a painful educacation to learn that it was a lie...

 

Norswedanish-scandinavian? Speaking as a mongrel, I congratulate you.

 

We will soon be Mexamericanadians.

 

Adios for now.

 

Apparently the truth is out...

www.wikileaks.org



( I kinda liked the one about Merkel and Berlusconi...)

 

And it's a change completely man-made. No natural cycles here...

 

kinda seems like there was some anger to begin with which I was unaware of.

it also sounds like we have a fundamental difference in our views of the holidays, for me its not a time to shut out the past, close my eyes and forget who I or my friends are but instead, a time of reflection on not just the past but also of the realities of our future. A future that must be based on a realization of our past difficulties if it is to effectively address and ameliorate those past difficulties. It is unfortunate that the true history of the interaction between the pilgrims and the Native Americans is less well known that the fairy tail that is typically taught in the public schools. Where the focus of our school system on an unbiased review of history we might just be a little further on the path to a better future but as it is people seem to be polarizing in there views far more than they seem to be reaching out and joining together in a common goal of a better future, for all.

There are droves of articles on line concerning the breakdown of relations from very early on in the history of colonization. The treatment of the Native Americans was hardly benign by those original colonists and if you like, I can offer article after article concerning this issue. While I apologize that you seem to be having difficulties with this past, its a very real segment of our history that unfortunately most are unaware of. I am however quite grateful that this thanksgiving has managed to generate a meaningful even if occasionally abrasive dialog concerning the true history of the America's. I hope that eventually you will be able to see the truth in this history without an angry response and realize that the sanitized version presently taught in the public schools is somewhat less than accurate

cheers
B

 

Apparently you're so ignorant that you still haven't realized the Puritans you're talking about were not the people commonly known as Pilgrims. And yet you still presume to lecture me on history?

We weren't talking about early history in general; no one I know of denies that a lot of bad things happened to Indians (although some of them did bad things too, like seeing how long they could keep prisoners alive while they tortured them). We were specifically discussing the origins of Thanksgiving, and the claim you posted that a massacre of Indians in 1637 was the 'first actual Thanksgiving' is some sort of bizarre, sick rewriting of history.

The first Thanksgiving celebration was held by the Pilgrims in the fall of 1621. It lasted three days and was based on typical English-style harvest festivals, with "many of the Indians coming... amongst the rest their great king Massasoit, with some ninety men." That means the Indians outnumbered the whites. Hardly an anti-Indian celebration, Boston....

"The Pilgrim Governor William Bradford proclaimed a day of thanksgiving to be shared by all the colonists and the neighboring Native Americans. They invited Squanto and the other Indians to join them in their celebration. Their chief, Massasoit, and 90 braves came to the celebration which lasted for 3 days. They played games, ran races, marched and played drums. The Indians demonstrated their skills with the bow and arrow and the Pilgrims demonstrated their musket skills. Exactly when the festival took place is uncertain, but it is believed the celebration took place in mid-October.

"The following year the Pilgrims harvest was not as bountiful, as they were still unused to growing the corn. During the year they had also shared their stored food with newcomers and the Pilgrims ran short of food.

"The 3rd year brought a spring and summer that was hot and dry with the crops dying in the fields. Governor Bradford ordered a day of fasting and prayer, and it was soon thereafter that the rain came. To celebrate - November 29th of that year was proclaimed a day of thanksgiving. This date is believed to be the real true beginning of the present day Thanksgiving Day."

http://www.holidays.net/thanksgiving/pilgrims.htm

In other words, I'm not 'denying history' when I observe Thanksgiving without going off on some sort of guilt trip about what happened to Indians, years after that first innocent, peaceful celebration.

Instead, you're trying to shoehorn a history into Thanksgiving that has nothing to do with Thanksgiving, and turn it into something it was never meant to be.

The fact that I refuse to waste a family holiday wallowing around in guilt for things that happened hundreds of years ago hardly means I'm ignorant of history or ignoring it, Boston.

I think I'm done now; we've beaten this subject to death. Your mind is made up; I'm not going to change it with facts that don't fit the simple, anti-white narrative you apparently want to build your world view around. Given the chance you'll use George Washington's Birthday, Christmas, the Fourth of July, and any other national holiday as just another excuse to rail about the mistreatment of Indians by people who've been dead for generations.

In spite of what you think, most of us know everything wasn't peaches and cream for the Indians; we just don't think of holidays as the perfect time to bring up ancient history instead of enjoying the day.

 

what about what we do to turkeys?