Posted on 07/04/2020 7:10:45 AM PDT by Starman417
The NY Times has totally given up on a few things- journalism, objectivity, veracity and history.
They now advocate for the destruction of Mount Rushmore
First, a history lesson.
The Lakota tribe only held the land around Mt. Rushmore for a time. They stole it from the Cheyenne.
After this, the Lakotas became fierce buffalo hunters riding on horseback. In around 1720 the Lakota split into sects and scattered in the region but later by about 1760 they relocated in close proximity on the east bank of the Missouri river. However, they couldn’t cross the river for over a decade due to the influence of powerful tribes Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara. Ending the long wait, in 1780, after the great small-pox epidemic killed three quarters of these powerful tribes, the Lakota crossed the river and settled in the grass prairies of the high plains. By 1775 all the Lakota sects were settled in the high plains and a year later they defeated the Cheyenne people and captured the Black Hills (Paha Sapa) and made it their home.They weren't exactly a peaceful tribe:
The Lakota are a very strong and fierce tribe with legendary warriors and the battles and treaties that took place between the Lakotas and the United States’ Government have a long and popular history. First recorded incidence was the Lewis and Clark expedition in 1804 where the Lakotas did not allow the explorers to head upstream the Missouri river and the conflict ended without casualties after a standoff. The southern Lakotas, in 1843, attacked a village owned by Pawnee chief Blue Coat in Nebraska and killed many and burned their lodges down.The US obtained the land from the Lakotas who killed the Cheyenne for it. The Pawnee also got hammered along the way. It was all so peaceful.However, Lakotas and other tribal bands attacked emigrant trains and settlers which attracted a vengeful hit back from the US Army in 1855 under General William Harney, killing more than 100 Lakotas.
The Lakota slowly migrated south and westward and pushed aside the Omaha tribe in this early migration. At first, they didn’t have horses, but horses were spreading throughout the Plains from Spanish settlements in the Southwest. By 1742 the Tetons had gotten horses and they became more and more like horse-riding nomads. In the Central Plains the Lakota came into conflict with the Pawnee, a village tribe that held the rich hunting lands of the Republican River Valley until the Lakota entered the region. The Pawnee war parties usually made their trips on foot, unlike other tribes. Because the Lakota were mounted on horses, they had an advantage.The Times cannot bring itself to tell you how brutal these tribes were to each other, but it is the truth.The Omaha war parties varied from eight to a hundred warriors. All members of the party were volunteers. The leader was usually a well-known warrior who had demonstrated his skill in battle. The warriors are said to have worn a white covering of soft, dressed skin for their heads. No shirt was worn, but a robe was belted around the waist and tied over the breast. No feathers or ornaments could be worn at this time. In actual battle, the warriors wore only moccasins and breechcloth.
Sometimes the wives of a few of the men accompanied a large war party to help care for their clothing and to do the cooking. A sacred War Pack, kept in the Tent of War, was important in any war activities. The contents of the pack were believed to protect the tribe from harm. A returning war party with the scalp of an enemy held a special scalp or victory dance. Men who won special honors on the warpath were permitted to wear an eagle feather in their scalp locks. Certain warriors might also wear a deer-tail headdress. Only important men wore the large feathered headdress seen in movies and only on social occasions. Only the men wore feathers in their hair, but the women might wear them on their clothing.
Trump spoke at the monument last night. The Times' response was predictable
Yet when obama visited there in 2008 Mt. Rushmore it was well, different
(Excerpt) Read more at Floppingaces.net...
I like to tell people who also say that the land was “stolen” that if it wasn’t for the English, North America eventually probably would have ended up ruled by the Spanish, and look how great all those Spanish countries down south are doing today. Last I recall, the left called them “refugees” that should be let into the white supremacist racist USA.
The New York Times, as the flagship of the Ministry of Propaganda, MUST GO!
Today Omaha beach would be considered too risky to ever be done, unless the President was the correct party.
Who originally owned the land on which the NY Times building stands?
The next time I see Kevin Costner, I will slap him for making the Native Americans appear sympathetic.
They called them savages for a reason. They were just as bad as the British or French. Sucks for them that they couldn’t win.
But I don’t see the Eastern Asian’s bitching about the Khan invasions and destruction? Stuff happens.
Do they have security there? Because I would imagine the Democrap terrorists will try to blow it up
The Left riots, loots, and kills. The media roots them on.
The President gives a speech opposing the rioting, looting, and killing. The media labels it “divisive”.
Where would the claim for return if Native American lands end?
“....These people are insane traitors and need to be exterminated....”
The time has come for them to be gone....one way or another.
Communist mouthpieces trying to stir up more trouble.
They need to go.
Life was, for lack of a better word, cheaper back then. Heck, look at Picket’s charge. I’m sure most of those men stormed the Union lines fully expecting to be cut down. But they did it anyway because some things are more important than life itself. That is how this nation was built and that is why we celebrate the amerecans that gave their lives for the sake of freedom - even freeing black slaves in the Civil War.
A nation of atheists/humanists simply can not win such battles because they don’t believe in anything greater than themselves. And this country has become much more atheist/humanist.
If Hillary Clinton was elected president and added to Mt. Rushmore would the NY Times dynamite her image? Would womens’ groups protest? The NY Times could be slammed as sexist. Or, in all likelihood, would she remain and the males be gone?
Dream on, Commies!
Manhattan was purchased.
Get ready for it... Soon The Slimes is going to call for white Americans to get out of America.
I’m sure the Native Americans were cheated,so it’s still stolen land....Ask any liberal..Whites never play fair with minority groups....
heheh
Shots are going to be fired and flesh is going to be cut.
It was a gift to us from the French...WHO ARE WHITE!!!
It's basically open season on Caucasians and the fourth estate is actively promoting that genocidal agenda. We must BLOAT and comport ourselves accordingly, as the government is failing us and a state anarcho-tyranny now exists.
“Do they have security there? “
Don’t know about security. There are park police. Also, the monument takes constant upkeep as the rock weathers. Cracks develop and water freezes in them, causing breaks. The cracks are filled in and smoothed over. So, there are lots of people there to notice if anything is going on.
Practically anyplace can be overwelled my sufficient force, but destroying that monument would take weeks of effort. About the only thing that could be accomplished in the hours after the Left got control, and before they lost it again, would be defacement with paint.
Now if the government goes batsh%t loonie, then, yes, say goodbye to all the monuments.
Some were actually cannibals.
PRAVDA lives.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
