Posted on 03/08/2007 5:24:52 AM PST by SJackson
Perhaps. Don't mention it to the Jamestown people, they'll start berating the colony as Christian invaders.
No, the white man intentionally brought smallpox among the Indian Nations. He was immune.
You forgot the barf alert.
Some historians have made much of an incident in Pontiac's rebellion in which Fort Pitt was besieged. There is no doubt the Indian intent was to slaughter every person in the fort, save whatever few they might fancy to take as captives.
During a parley with the attackers, a British officer handed the Indian representatives two blankets and a handkerchief thought to have been exposed to smallpox, in a desperate gambit to break the siege and save the lives of those inside.
The gambit in fact failed, as the Indians outside who kept up the siege were apparently unaffected by disease a month later.
Nevertheless, many Indians in attacks on other locations did contract the disease and spread it in their villages when they returned. This outbreak of the disease predated the blanket-giving incident at Fort Pitt. It appears that as the Indians in these other locations were slaughtering their victims (an up-close and personal activity), during this contact they contracted the disease. So some of these Indians thus got their just desserts.
Look at it this way. Consider a hypothetical. What if there were no other tribes in North America, except the tribes near the shores of present day Virginia. Would it be accurate to say that those tribes had a rightful claim over unoccupied lands in the Pacific Northwest of North America, simply because there is no Ocean in between?
Modern states have formal arrangements between one another recognizing established boundaries, etc. This is the basis of their claims. But if suddenly an unoccupied large continent were discovered, no single country would have a right to simply declare ownership of the entire region without some utilization of it, would they? They wouldn't have a right to say that the entire continent belongs to them because they have 3,000 settlers covering only 1/1000th of it, would they?
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
It would seem that these revisionists with such a narrow, agenda driven view of history would have us all leave the continent immediately to the so-called aborigines. Anything short of that and entitles them to their ranting and distortion ad infinitum.
They wouldn't even be here but for their own 'invader' ancestors. Until they turn over the deed to their own property to the descendants of those poor displaced tribes, they need to shut down and shut up.
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...
If we had just dropped a nuke on the Indians we would not have been invaders. Worked for Japan.
These people never heard of places like Blood Mountain
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.
Thanks so much for that link!!!!!!!!
You're welcome.
I must do what I can to stamp out hysteria.
Just last night my husband commented about having to start scheduling his vacation time and I said I would be interested in checking out some of the 400th Celebration stuff.......and now you provided me with a link for info!!!
Glad to help.
The American government did remove millions of Indians and relocated them to other areas. That is an historic fact. The American Government did perform acts, such as providing blankets contaminated with small pox, which by all rights can be considered the act of an invading force.
We did not stay on our side of the boarder. The American Government broke more treaties with Native Americans than did the Native Americans. The various tribes east of the Mississippi were predominately stationary. They lived in permanent villages. The American army forcibly removed them.
I believe the founding of Jamestown should be celebrated, but let's not ignore the fact that the Native peoples were not always treated with fairness.
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.