Westside Steve Posted June 9, 2019 Report Share Posted June 9, 2019 10 hours ago, Clevfan4life said: fail....try again straw man☕ Sorry I'm right, you're wrong. It isn't about race. It's about South Africa being a shit hole. It's about South Africa being less of a shithole under European rule. And more of a shit hole now that they butchered the whites. It's a simple as that. More advanced cultures have been over running Westside vanced cultures on Earth since time began. (The American Indians are a similar situation) WSS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canton Dawg Posted June 9, 2019 Report Share Posted June 9, 2019 18 hours ago, Clevfan4life said: The east coast indians welcomed the white man with open arms I’m sure Sir Walter Raleigh and the Roanoke people would disagree with that statement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted June 9, 2019 Author Report Share Posted June 9, 2019 29 minutes ago, Canton Dawg said: I’m sure Sir Walter Raleigh and the Roanoke people would disagree with that statement. do they know what happened to tjat colony? they found it abandoned with no signs of a war. What if some of the colonists traveled west via Albemarle Sound to the mouth of the Chowan River , to a protected inlet occupied by a sympathetic tribe? (See "What 'Sleepy Hollow' Didn't Tell Us About Roanoke's Lost Colony." ) Furthermore, archaeologists have identified the nearby site of a small Native American town named Mettaquem, which may have adopted some of the colonists. Klingelhofer said that while researchers don't know much about the Native American town and its inhabitants, its existence has been verified. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted June 9, 2019 Author Report Share Posted June 9, 2019 and would one conflict with natives negate how reasonable the natives were with us at the beginning? look how u CHAFE at immigration....esoecially from oeople who dont share our national religion. But itsxexactly what the originsl settlers did. Zero difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canton Dawg Posted June 9, 2019 Report Share Posted June 9, 2019 1 hour ago, Clevfan4life said: do they know what happened to tjat colony? they found it abandoned with no signs of a war. What if some of the colonists traveled west via Albemarle Sound to the mouth of the Chowan River , to a protected inlet occupied by a sympathetic tribe? (See "What 'Sleepy Hollow' Didn't Tell Us About Roanoke's Lost Colony." ) Furthermore, archaeologists have identified the nearby site of a small Native American town named Mettaquem, which may have adopted some of the colonists. Klingelhofer said that while researchers don't know much about the Native American town and its inhabitants, its existence has been verified. If you think all of the eastern Native Americans loved the European settlers, you’re delusional. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-shocking-savagery-of-americas-early-history-22739301/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted June 9, 2019 Author Report Share Posted June 9, 2019 2 hours ago, Canton Dawg said: If you think all of the eastern Native Americans loved the European settlers, you’re delusional. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-shocking-savagery-of-americas-early-history-22739301/ did u read any of that shit or did u just slap a link down cal style? csuse im lije 3-4 pages into that shit and it aint paintin early settlers in a good light. Its also mentioning tge natives doing bad but so far i havent seen a "lick" of verifiable citation. look, dude.....history on this matter is rather clear. Later on the european settlers even sent people to live with indians and vice versa. Ive read excerpts by both natives and settlers about their experiences living with the other people. Tjis is settled history. Were all the tribes peaceful and accomodating to whitey? no ofc not. The indians had a COMPKETELY different concept of land ownership that was antithetical to european norms. This led to conflict. Imdians didnt mind the white man crossing their lsnds but ehen whitey started agricultural and clearing land too much which the indians KNEW would lead to soil degradation and the land going fallow...tgey had a prob with it. And rightfully so. Its tsken the white man 400 years to figure out what the indians kbew bsck then cause ohio state agriculture..which is one of the premier AG programs in the country...is acknowledging our soil issues and suggesting things that sound an awful lot like old injun know how. ppint is this was their country and whitey came and started fucking shit up. If i went back in time and showed pictures of our fsrmlands depleted soil to those nice indians.....the usa would never have come to be cause those indians wouldnt have let anybody even dip their toes in the surf. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canton Dawg Posted June 9, 2019 Report Share Posted June 9, 2019 1 hour ago, Clevfan4life said: did u read any of that shit or did u just slap a link down cal style? csuse im lije 3-4 pages into that shit and it aint paintin early settlers in a good light. Its also mentioning tge natives doing bad but so far i havent seen a "lick" of verifiable citation. look, dude.....history on this matter is rather clear. Later on the european settlers even sent people to live with indians and vice versa. Ive read excerpts by both natives and settlers about their experiences living with the other people. Tjis is settled history. Were all the tribes peaceful and accomodating to whitey? no ofc not. The indians had a COMPKETELY different concept of land ownership that was antithetical to european norms. This led to conflict. Imdians didnt mind the white man crossing their lsnds but ehen whitey started agricultural and clearing land too much which the indians KNEW would lead to soil degradation and the land going fallow...tgey had a prob with it. And rightfully so. Its tsken the white man 400 years to figure out what the indians kbew bsck then cause ohio state agriculture..which is one of the premier AG programs in the country...is acknowledging our soil issues and suggesting things that sound an awful lot like old injun know how. ppint is this was their country and whitey came and started fucking shit up. If i went back in time and showed pictures of our fsrmlands depleted soil to those nice indians.....the usa would never have come to be cause those indians wouldnt have let anybody even dip their toes in the surf. Clevis, you’re trying to rewrite history again. There was hatred on both sides. From page 1 of the article. . . ”Yes,” he agrees. “Look at the ‘peaceful’ Pilgrims. Our William Bradford. He goes to see the Pequot War battlefield and he is appalled. He said, ‘The stink’ [of heaps of dead bodies] was too much.” Bailyn is speaking of one of the early and bloodiest encounters, between our peaceful pumpkin pie-eating Pilgrims and the original inhabitants of the land they wanted to seize, the Pequots. But for Bailyn, the mercenary motive is less salient than the theological. “The ferocity of that little war is just unbelievable,” Bailyn says. “The butchering that went on cannot be explained by trying to get hold of a piece of land. They were really struggling with this central issue for them, of the advent of the Antichrist.” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted June 9, 2019 Author Report Share Posted June 9, 2019 4 minutes ago, Canton Dawg said: From page 1 of the article. . . ”Yes,” he agrees. “Look at the ‘peaceful’ Pilgrims. Our William Bradford. He goes to see the Pequot War battlefield and he is appalled. He said, ‘The stink’ [of heaps of dead bodies] was too much.” Bailyn is speaking of one of the early and bloodiest encounters, between our peaceful pumpkin pie-eating Pilgrims and the original inhabitants of the land they wanted to seize, the Pequots. But for Bailyn, the mercenary motive is less salient than the theological. “The ferocity of that little war is just unbelievable,” Bailyn says. “The butchering that went on cannot be explained by trying to get hold of a piece of land. They were really struggling with this central issue for them, of the advent of the Antichrist.” ummm...is he not talking about the pilgrims bro? this is why i stopped reading cause this author isnt writing well. That passage u quoted....is seemingly implying it was our guys that were the butchers. Thats why he facetiously is calling them "pumpkin pie eaters" cause thats the noble image we had of them....which this guy might be saying is BS. theres a reason he put quotes on "peaceful".... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted June 9, 2019 Author Report Share Posted June 9, 2019 2 minutes ago, Clevfan4life said: But for Bailyn, the mercenary motive is less salient than the theological. uhhh.....that passage makes it clear who the author is talking about. He's explaining why the pilgrims butchered the pequots. Im going to research this now.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canton Dawg Posted June 9, 2019 Report Share Posted June 9, 2019 Bernard Bailyn is a 90 year old Harvard professor that writes for the Smithsonian (and won 2 Pulitzer Prizes). Let’s see...do I believe him, or some kid from Akron? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted June 9, 2019 Author Report Share Posted June 9, 2019 1 minute ago, Canton Dawg said: Bernard Bailyn is a 90 year old Harvard professor that writes for the Smithsonian. Let’s see...do I believe him, or some kid from Akron? yeah i understand that dude but im not refuting what the guy is saying....im telling YOU that u may have "grossly" misunderstood what the article is about. maybe. lije i said i have to research this... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted June 9, 2019 Author Report Share Posted June 9, 2019 ok so the pequot war was a proxy war between the dutch and english colonists and the tribes allied with them. So first off, this must be well after the initial settlers because we're already talking about alliances. So the tribes allied with the dutch were at war with the tribes allied with the english. Second, this pequot massacre was enacted "against" the pequots not by them. So the brutality ur author was talking about was on the part of the settlers as i suspected. Sorry. so now how does this relate to the welcoming reception the earliest settlers got from the tribes they first encountered? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axe Posted June 9, 2019 Report Share Posted June 9, 2019 2 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorka Posted June 9, 2019 Report Share Posted June 9, 2019 5 hours ago, Clevfan4life said: ok so the pequot war was a proxy war between the dutch and english colonists and the tribes allied with them. So first off, this must be well after the initial settlers because we're already talking about alliances. So the tribes allied with the dutch were at war with the tribes allied with the english. Second, this pequot massacre was enacted "against" the pequots not by them. So the brutality ur author was talking about was on the part of the settlers as i suspected. Sorry. so now how does this relate to the welcoming reception the earliest settlers got from the tribes they first encountered? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.