I'm sorry, but a few wandering tribes did not have a right to monopolize an entire continent, most of which was unused.
This is what a couple decades of political correctness has wrought. PC tells us that all that is good, decent and enlightened in our history and traditions are not worth defending.
Europe is no long willing to defend its civilization. We are not far behind.
An invasion? You mean like what Mexico is doing to us now?
Just one more indication of just how far things have gone here in (what used to be) America!
We are all acutely afflicted with this plague called (whispered) Political Correctness!!!!! It runs the gamut from....whatever, to the audacity to use not-so-nice words in a cartoon--WTF!!!!!!!!!!
Okay, quick, first person to name a modern nation state that was founded in its present state without colonization or warfare gets a cookie!
Mary Wade is, suffice it to say, completely incapable of dealing with history with an honest, objective lens and is woefully incapable of fulfilling the job she hopes to fufill.
This what Virginians get for electing two DemocRAT governors, Warner and Kaine. Silly Virginians, you have handed the Commonwealth to the left, and now they are destroying it.
Does it mean we can't celebrate D-Day of June 6th, 1944?
Now that was an invasion!
The link above is to the commemoration goals. Too bad no one at WND daily has a dictionary handy.
commemorate: to celebrate the memory of, as with a ceremony.
That article made a very good and important point on PC run amuk, but then the remaining 4/5s was virtually a sermon. Worldnet should leave that part to the religious blogs and focus on the immediate issue.
Mark
Hell, We celebrate D-Day !!!! These people are out of control. It is TIME to cull the herd .
Shades of the hand-wringing we saw in 1992, which was the 500th year after Columbus' 1492 discovery.
It wasn't an invasion. It was a settlement. Yes, it is unfortunate that the partially hunter/gather, partially agricultural inhabitants were essentially pushed out over time by the newly established agricultural civilization, but Jamestown is a founding act of our society and is worth commemorating in a positive way, even if we can at the same time recall the unfortunate things that happened to the Indians. This unadulterated negativism is the typical self-loathing hatred of Liberals for their own Western civilization.
Poppycock.
Yeh, why CAN't you celebrate an invasion? I'd go there if they were doing it right. But NO, they have to self-flagellate about it. GAG.
OK, I contacted them on their website and told them that I, for one, would NEVER come to their stupid Quadricentennial if all they were going to do was self-flaggelate. You can do the same.
THESE moronic liberals do not own our history. It is not theirs to remake. They need to hear from EVERY Freeper.
The Left has been scrubbing history for decades. They won't be happy until any memory of the Creator or those who have served Him, is gone from all records and all minds.
Although prior to contact with the Europeans the Indians were illiterate and left no written records, much is known about their history of constant and savage warfare beginning with the writings of early European explorers such as Jacque Cartier in the first half of the 1500s, who described the wars then going on as well as oral traditions of what had gone on before.
Indian wars were shockingly brutal and bloody affiars, and there was little of what the British colonists would recognize as honor or decency involved. In Indian attacks such as in the French and Indian War and Pontiac's rebellion, atrocities that would be labeled as war crimes by any objective observer (were not the fact that Indians were the perpetrators) were the rule, not the exception, in the manner of Indian attacks. Modern psychologists, if told of the details of a typical Indian attack on settlers, but not the identity of the perpetrators, would no doubt conclude that the persons carrying it out must necessarily be demented psychopaths, because of the nature of the violence perpetrated.
As one writer described: "Typically, a group of five to twenty warriors would kill the husband while he labored in the fields, then rush the house. The family would be gathered together; the women were taken for slaves; old people were immediately tomahawked and scalped, as were infants, unless their mother could expeditiously carry them. If time permitted, teenagers, children, and women were raped or sodomized, the house plundered of all useful items, then burnt, along with the barn and other outbuildings. All of the livestock would be slaughtered. While the main body moved on to the next farm, a couple of warriors led the captives back to the Indian towns as quickly as possible. Anyone who delayed the march was immediately killed and scalped." Cruelty was the rule, not the exception, for the Indians.
Historians try to excuse or justify the violence against innocent people, on the grounds that the treaties entered into the by leaders of the Indians in which they surrendered various tracts of land were not good bargains for their side. Perhaps not in some cases, but nevertheless historians breezily dismiss the value of goods offered to the Indians as if they had no value. To a people who lived by hunting and had no manufacturing ability, the value of a musket or a high quality steel knife is enormous. What a vast improvement it was to the Indian to be able to hunt buffalo and deer using a firearm instead of a hand-made bow and arrow or a wooden spear. How much easier to skin an animal using a steel knife instead of a sharp rock. These types of items had enormous utility to the Indians, who placed great value on them, as well as on manufactured clothing.
The Indians were actually far fewer in number than most people commonly believe, and the biggest factor in their demise was disease, not casualties in their wars against the colonists. Just as much of Europe had been wiped out by plague, smallpox and other diseases in earlier centuries, so it happened to the Indians. It was inevitable that sooner or later the dwellers in North America would come into contact with people of other continents and be exposed to new diseases. This was not the "fault" of the settlers.
This country was built by white men with guns get over it.
You forgot the barf alert.
But if you take this argument to its logical conclusion, you could argue that there should not even be a park or memorial in the Jamestown vicinty. The very existence of any reminder of historic Jamestown could be considered a "celebration of invasion".
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Something about that history thing, especially considering the conquest of Mexico, and colonization of Florida, as well as explorations reaching at least as far north as Colorado.
Not to mention the Vikings...
VA isn't for lovers. It's for chickens.
Perhaps it wasn't true of every tribe of Indian, but from what I understand, at least most of them thought that no one could 'own' land.
Ohfercryinoutloud...so they're saying "commemoration" instead of "celebration."
The reality is there ARE significant contributions by the American Indians and the African Americans over the last 400 years. But the reality also is that there is a HUGE emphasis on the English settlement beginning with a reenactment of the landing at Cape Henry.
But with concerts, seminars, special exhibits, fireworks, a visit by the Queen and more fretting over the use of one word is just a bit silly.
Man, you just can't make this crap up!
So...liberals don't celebrate the Mexican/illegal invasion of our country by throwing "May-Day" celebrations?
Looks like the Ward Churchill POV has won.
The calendar at that site lists scores of events, of which a scant few fit the picture WND paints.
The RevWar/Colonial History/General Washington ping list
Freepmail me to get on or off this list.
And what about the invasion of this Eden-like continent by the people from Asia who came here before there were any humans? They made several species extinct, didn't they? We should not celebrate their invasion either...
Who is Mary Wade?
And as a history-minded person, I've seen plenty of worthwhile exhibits which include the negative parts of our history, stated well, & informatively in a balanced way.
Didn't any Indians ever take land from other Indians??
I'm not sure about Jamestown, but I know the land the pilgrims landed on did not belong to anyone. The closest tribe was 50 miles away.
Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on or off the
"Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list or GGG weekly digest
-- Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)
I really detest all this PC garbage.
The story of the human past is the story of invasion and conquest. It may really be the "end of history" as western civ at least has seemed to abandon these ancient principles.
As with most things now, this is a spiritual battle between Good and Evil... one side believes that war and death are the ultimate and highest wrongs and are to be condemned and avoided at all costs and the other side believes (rightly) that death comes no matter and the ultimate wrong is going to hell.
jw
Does this mean no more celebrations at Normandy or Anzio, either? No more MacArthur pageants?
Must we ban The Charge of the Light Brigade?
The last time we were at Jamestowne, the clerks who dealt with our entry to the settlement were all Eastern European. Talk about an invasion!
That's multiculturalism. Celebrate diversity and encourage the validation of every tribe and culture but ours.
For us, the invalidation of America.
Next move will be to stop honoring the D-Day invasion.
We Southerners have had to deal with this PC crap for many years now. I'm sure you've seen pictures of Leftist demonstrations with the signs that say "US Out of North America". That's what it's gotten down to.
The foundation of "sovereign title and dominion" to portions of the New World was the "right of first discovery" recognized among the maritime Christian European nations under International Law. This doctrine held that: (1) the initial discovery of lands unoccupied by any Christian Power; and (2) the setting up a mark of possession by subjects acting on authority of a European sovereign, conferred exclusive territorial title and dominion to that sovereign - good against all other European governments. http://users.sisqtel.net/armstrng/Indlegalhis.htm
According to Justice Story, in a conquered country, where there were no existing laws, or none adaptable to a civilized community, or where the laws were silent, or were rejected and none substituted, the territory must be governed according to the rules of natural equity and right. Englishmen settling there must be deemed to carry with them those rights and privileges that belong to them in their native country. [2 Salk. 411, 412; See also Nall v. Campbell, Cowp. R. 204, 211, 212; 1 Chalm. Ann. 14,15, 678, 679, 689, 690; 1 Chalm. Opinions, 194; 2 Chalm. Opinions, 202; Chitty on Prerog. ch. 2; 2 Wilson's Law Lect. 48, 49.]
The ideological legal foundation for the American colonists' assertion of the right to English liberties and common law rested upon the validity of the claim that the colonies were vacant lands or "wastelands" settled by Englishmen and subject to English law. It is upon this foundation, in part, that the colonists justified their right to revolt against English acts of tyranny in regard to their liberties and rights.
Under the law recognized among European nations, a Christian sovereign was the titled owner to land in the wilderness that was "discovered" in his/her name. It was deemed a right exclusively belonging to the European government in its sovereign capacity to "extinguish" the "Indian title" or "Indian right of occupancy" and dispose of the land according to its own sovereign will. Land could only pass into private hands directly or indirectly by charter or grant from the Crown.
European sovereigns came to exclude persons from any right to acquire the soil by any direct grant from the natives. (For instance, the government of the Virginia Colony outlawed direct Indian land purchases in 1658, and in 1662 declared all such transactions void.)
The indigenous peoples ceased to be its legal owners and became merely "occupants." If at any time thereafter, Indians made a cession of land to an official representative of the sovereign, actually, all they were ceding was the right of occupancy of the land and not the legal title, which had already vested in the Christian sovereign.
In effect, the system developed whereby the European sovereigns exercised the right to grant legal title to the soil by charter and letters patent, even though it was still arguably in the possession of natives. The European title so granted was universally considered to convey a sufficient title in the soil to the grantees in perfect dominion, or a transfer of "plenum et utile dominium."
In Johnson v. McIntosh, 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543 (1823), the Court held that Indian tribes were incapable of conveying their land directly to individuals. Chief Justice Marshall concluded that discovery conferred upon the European sovereign a title good against all European governments. The United States succeeded to that title to the extent that it was held by the British.
Marshall stated as to the Indians: "They were admitted to be the rightful occupants of the soil, with a legal as well as just claim to retain possession of it, and to use it according to their own direction; but their rights to complete sovereignty, as independent nations, were necessarily diminished, and their power to dispose of the soil at their own will, to whomsoever they pleased, was denied by the original fundamental principle, that discovery gave exclusive title to those who made it."
I know that in New England, very early settlers came with their own legal understanding that wasteland - land not enclosed by a fence, was open and available for establishment of a right in property. Continuous beneficial use ripened after the statute of limitations into a prescriptive right good against all but the sovereign. In many cases, colonists went out of the way to pay indigenous "owners." Unfortunately, tribal people who were often seasonal hunters and gatherers, did not have the same Western frame of property rights. They did not understand what they were selling and often would not have been the proper party to "sell it."
It should be noted that in the Indian Wars and raids, the Indians were not the only folk to be injured. In my family tree, I can name 10 people who were killed over a span of 200 years by Indians on the frontiers.
So what are they going to attack next? Will Our Thanksgiving become UnThanksgiving? What will Independence Day be called? This is becoming Not the Country I grew up in. We have gone soft, The American people have lost thier Will. Take God out of the Country and the Country will fall. We are falling.