Posted on 11/27/2021 11:12:44 AM PST by rktman
We all know that history is not the left’s favorite subject. Many times, it’s just too inconvenient for their political narratives. Often, history has to be erased or submerged in order to achieve the “greater good” of creating a just and moral society.
In truth, it’s not much better on the right, although generally, the conservative take on American history is more nuanced. Christopher Columbus was an ass — a greedy, cruel, ambitious man who didn’t let anyone stand in his way to achieving riches and power, especially native people. But he was courageous enough to cross an unknown ocean in a rickety ship and with a mutinous crew.
Do his sins outweigh the good he’s done? Not our call. And certainly not the call of biased, cretinous leftists who don’t want to understand Columbus and only use his sins as illustrations in their little morality plays to condemn the entire “Age of Exploration.”
American history did not begin in 1492. There have been human beings residing in North America for at least 20,000 years and probably longer. But the people who crossed the Bering Sea land bridge from Asia to North America during the last Ice Age may not have been the first humans to arrive here. Recent DNA evidence shows that there have been several different migrations to North America with Native American tribes only being the most recent.
And that leads to the inescapable conclusion: the Native Americans who were present on the North American continent when Europeans arrived were not the same Native Americans who arrived 20,000 years ago. DNA evidence tracks the migration of one early American civilization — the Clovis people, so-called because the first tools and weapons were found in Clovis, New Mexico —
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
Yesterday is history! Tomorrow is a mystery!
Indeed...you have it right...They conquered other tribes...nothing to do with the white man. I think it was Roosevelt who said...If we didn’t tame them, they would have wiped themselves off the earth.
Oak Island Mystery is uncovering earlier inhabitant evidence.
Solutreans were from Western Europe. The Clovis were from Asia. Their methods of tool making were similar, but the shapes of their tools were different.
Solutreans were from Western Europe. The Clovis were from Asia
—
Not to my reading - sorry I have no references handy, but the Clovis, had they been from Asia, skipped over west and interior of the North American continent to settle in along the East coast, spreading south and west from there. Their earliest artifacts were found in dredging some miles off the East coast when sea levels were lower.
Check with PETA.
You may be transposing the two. The first Clovis discovery was found in New Mexico, they were named after the town of Clovis, N.M. Their sites are more common in the southwest. The Solutreans landed on the east coast, the Cactus Hill site in Virginia, for example. 80% of native Americans are descended from the Clovis, who also share genetic ancestry with northeast Asians.
.
Nope.
They slaughtered plenty of people.
Not putting the red/brown man on a pedestal. No sirreee.
Kohokia, if by that he means the builders of the mound city of Cahokia, never called themselves that. Cahokia was the name of a much later historic tribe, a member of the Illini confederacy, that settled on the ruins of the earlier moundbuilding Mississippi who never recorded their name for posterity. The Cahokia/Kabobs were asked by the French about the mounds but told them that they did not build them nor did they know who did. It is thought that descendents of the moundbuilders at Cahokia moved became the Quapaw after the city life became unappealing, either due to political discontent, or a particularly bad drought and fire, or flooding, theories vary. Cahokia did not end ubruptly in violence but more likely became disunified over time, as extended families or clans already accustomed to going on the hunt during winter months may have eventually decided they had the numbers and will to make it on their own and grow their own crops untaxed, and decided not to return to the city on the floodplain to plant and tend corn that might be “taxed” by an authoritarian ruler. Maybe there was a series of devastating floods that forced a dispersal, and bonds were not strong enough to cause a return.
humm you may be right I’ll have look again thanks
Or do you just mean Buddy Holly?
The anasazi.
🎸😂 some may not get it.
History is the left’s worst enemy.
To understand this fact, you must first understand the nature of truth, and how the left responds to truth.
A concise way to explain it to you is to say the left believes they create truth, but since truth exists independently of them, they have no ability whatsoever to control it.
And because they can’t sell their ideology without making it look like the opposite of what it is, the left’s entire existence is spent lying about what they do and covering it up with more lies.
I wish we were less nuanced. I don’t like nuance.
I don't say these things with glee in my heart. It's just the opposite. Nothing but sorrow.
History can't be the left's worst enemy because we don't have anybody in large enough numbers weaponizing it against them. Progressives can change history at will because they completely own it - as the person who replied to me just before you, made note of. There are to be sure, one or two people here on FR that truly take history seriously above and beyond convenient quotes used for gotcha purposes, and then there's David Barton, and then really that's about it. The conservative activism on the historical front is alarmingly slim.
I'm sure there's probably 3 or 5 other people who could be named, but they are far and few in between. Sure there are a handful of newcomers, there's this 1776 Unites which was formed in response to the 1619 Project.
Progressives have controlled written history for over a century. You don't overcome that kind of advantage with a dozen people and a 1 year old organization. It's not mathematically feasible.
I disagree with the contention that the left has controlled history.
The only thing they’ve controlled is their lies. What they’ve done to history is to replace it with their own invention.
That is to say, on the one hand we have history. On the other, the left’s distortion of history.
Two things which are categorically different and existentially separate.
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.