Scottish Shortbread, please.
Posted on 03/08/2007 5:24:52 AM PST by SJackson
Vikings?
Waging war on others, invading others. I think they're the native culture for at least the last couple thousand years.
Arabs solely in Saudi Arabia as well.
Isn't that Apache Territory?
...which makes my point even better than I did. The vast vast majority of the continent was unused, and therefore rightfully unclaimed.
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.
The native indian tribes had their own culture of warring against each other for territories. They took land from each other...killing, etc. along the way.
But, they are viewed as peaceable victims...innocent of any such behavior until the big bad 'invaders' came to grab their land and kill them.
FAct is fact, history is history. Corruption and twisting of facts and history is criminal.
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.
I'm thinking the Vikings would still be a-raping and a-pillaging if it were not for Christianity. And I may be wrong, but I just suspect those who enjoyed the former ways were not subdued by tea parties (speaking of MY heritage, by the way).
Folks, we have got to start fighting back agains this type of thinking. Right now we are like the frog in the frying pan.
I am sick to death of the loony left cutting off all debate and discussion on any particular issue. I am sick of the left criminalizing "thought crimes".
Thnink about it: in our lifetimes, the left has mainstreamed (not to equal status, but actually favored status) a mental disorder of same sex attraction.
'They took land from each other' -- and all etcetera. Don't forget the skinning victims alive stuff and all the really barbarian things they did.
When I visited my great-grandmother's hometown in Kansas, there was a display in the museum of graphic pictures of what the Indians had done to the settlers, with a sign explaining it all in great detail, "SO THAT WE SHOULD NEVER FORGET." I loved that museum.
Scottish Shortbread, please.
Interesting argument...does that mean that any unused land here in the US is up for grabs by foreign "colonists?"
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.
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.