Uncensored2008
Libertarian Radical
- Feb 8, 2011
- 110,434
- 39,503
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Muslims demand independent Islamic state in Britian
- Thread starter GHook93
- Start date
Uncensored2008
Libertarian Radical
- Feb 8, 2011
- 110,434
- 39,503
[
yeah----ok sure-----and then there were the MAYANS------chopping the hearts out of living people-------so many stories
The Mayans were offspring of the invading Asians.
When the Indians came to America, it was a peopled land. The Indians over several thousand years migrated South and slaughtered the original inhabitants. The slaughter was a near total genocide, once thought total. But enclaves of the Aborigines have been found in the Amazon. America was once a land of the black man. The red man came, murdered the black men, and stole their land.
tinydancer
Diamond Member
- Oct 16, 2010
- 51,845
- 12,822
Britain's "Islamic Emirates Project"
So it begins. Muslims now make up 5% and growing if Britain. They now demand an independent state for Muslims only be craved out of Britain.
The Muzzie apologist will say it's a fringe group, but the vast majority of Muslims in Britain desire this. Only a decade ago they made up less than 1%, I 10 years they became 5%, by 2030 they are projected to make up 20%! The larger a percent they become the more demands they will make!
Britain (Europe and America) be warned!
Well, that was certainly the case with caucasions once they illegally came into the North American continent, then they just took and murdered their way into the whole thing.
Explain how they illegally came to the NA continent.
they stole a peopled continent----no one invited them
Great article here for you to understand the truth of what really happened in the beginning and not the propaganda bullshit we get today. And btw I am very pro First Nations but with reality at my side.
"In spite of the legal right the white race has to America, we often are confronted with the anti-American propaganda that the white race wronged the Indian by attacking and killing them and driving them out of their land. We thus need to look at the first conflicts that existed between the Indians and the colonial settlers. A summary of these first conflicts shows they were always initiated by Indians:6
- Shortly after the first colony was established at Jamestown in 1607, the settlers were attacked by the Indians, who wounded seventeen men and killed one boy.
- After the above conflict, peaceful relations prevailed, due to the wise policy of Captain John Smith and the good will of Powhatan, head chief of the Indian Confederacy. When Powhatan died in 1618, his brother Opechancanough, who disliked the English, began to plot war. In March 1622, the Indian tribes went on the warpath, and swept through a line of settlements marked by a trail of blood. In the white settlements, nearly 400 men, women, and children, were cruelly put to death before the ravages of the Indians could be checked.
- For 22 years after the massacre of 1622 there was peace. But Opechancanouch, at last head chief, only waited for another opportunity. In 1644, there was a civil war in England, and he thought the expected moment was at hand. The massacre he waged left over 300 white settlers slain in two days. Again the whites took up arms in defense, and in 1646 the aged chief himself was taken and killed - there was never again a general uprising in Virginia.
- In the Plymouth colony, a peace compact was established between the Indian chief Massasoit and Governor Carver. As time went on, the friendly old chief died. When his son, King Philip, came to be ruler of the Wampanoag tribe, trouble began to brew for the colonists. Urged on by his braves, King Philip began sending messages to friendly tribes, inviting them to join in a mighty war on the "pale faces." The war that followed was a terrible one. The Indians, avoiding the white troops, dodging them, and never meeting them face to face in the open field, carried on the contest in their savage way of massacring the helpless, and burning villages. Many a fair and quite settlement was made desolate. Women and children were ruthlessly murdered, and burned in the houses. But by the end of 1675 the force of the Indians was broken.
- In the New Haven colony the situation with the Indians (the Pequets) was similar. At first there were peaceful relationships between them and the white settlers. During 1637, the Pequots attempted to organize a confederacy, but unable to secure the help of the Narragansetts due to the influence of Roger Williams, they took to the warpath alone. T
- hey did not come out in open battle, but waylaid a party of whites and killed thirty of them. In response to this, a small party of English, along with some seventy friendly Indians, attacked the Pequet stronghold, killing over 450 of that tribe.
- The great Pequet tribe was crushed, and nearly forty years of Peace ensued.
History reveals that all the early hostilities and wars between the American Indians and the white settlers, were instigated or started by the Indians without just cause.
- Even though the white settlers had legal title to the land by way of purchase or claim of unoccupied lands, the Indian was always the one to disrupt peaceful relations with attacks, massacres, and wars. The retaliation by the white settlers were merely acts of self defense and self preservation in accordance with the law of nature.
- Thus it was the Indian who was the intruder and violator of land rights and of his own law. It was the Indian who, in the beginning, wronged the white man. The Indian's treachery, barbaric and warlike manner, and sneak attacks on the colonists was positive proof of the anti-social nature of the red man. This exhibit of the Indian's character caused much distrust of the Indian, and became the "code of conduct" which the Indian continued to live by and uphold in the future.
Thus, the white race has a rightful and legal claim and title to America pursuant to international law, the Indian's law, the law of nature, and by a combination thereof."
Did the White Man Steal North America from the Indians?
not all that impressed-----that you resort to the term RIGHTS OF THE WHITE MAN----is kinda disgusting. I am not entirely in agreement with the "EUROPEANS STOLE THE LAND FROM THE INDIANS" crowd---but unlike you----I do not dance on the dead bodies of the primitives who lived on the continent before the "UBER ALLES WHITE MAN" that you worship got here.
I worship no one but my Lord. I did not resort to the term. That is used in the article that shows the first smack downs were the natives beating the shit out of the settlers. Oh and that's what they did to each other.
Tribe against tribe. Very vicious. Very brutal. Stealing women and children to be used as slaves. These dudes weren't sitting around campfires smoking a peace pipe for crying out loud.
Learn First Nations history and then get back to me. And what the hell is this shit that I "dance on the dead bodies of the primitives". Get a grip irosie. I've worked with more First Nations peoples than you will ever meet in your lifetime.
Started out a long time ago fighting for clean water rights beginning with Grassy Narrows and White Dog First Nations with a battle against mercury poisoning now known as Minimata disease. Happened to be working at a trading post called the Beaverhead at that time.
I know how to make a porcupine quill basket with sweet grass. I can clean bear claws. I've learned a lot with my time over the years and this has been decades.
I've never danced nor ever would dance on anyone persons grave. What an insult!
I'm now blessed to live in the midst of the heart and soul of Metis country. After years of having Six Nations as my neighbors back east. I've always considered First Nations my brothers and sisters.
- Nov 17, 2009
- 71,250
- 39,141
What I object to is the collective miniscule intellect that on the one hand professes america to be an "exceptional" nation and people, a beacon of liberty, freedom, and justice, but then when confronted with its own mediocrity regarding its brutal past must fall back on the “well everyone else was doing it too” argument.
I don't say those things about America. Compared to most other nations on the planet, it's a freer place to live and I'd rather be here than most, but in reality, no, It's not a beacon of freedom, liberty, or justice. That's just propaganda. It really isn't practiced.
America is just another place, with a power structure, a propaganda machine, a history of oppression and brutality, and a continual disregard for the unsubstantial people. Just like every place else as you suggest.
No argument here.
frigidweirdo
Diamond Member
- Mar 7, 2014
- 47,046
- 10,286
Muslims, like anyone else, can become suicide bombers, it doesn't take someone to go to Mosque or a Church to do it.
so true-----it is a matter of cultural more's. What is your point. If some religious leader
in the USA decided to take advantage of
unhappiness in youth and claims a "ETERNAL ORGASM" in the sky reward----there would also be ENDLESS VOLUNTEERS---YOUR POINT?
My point was that what you said didn't really make much sense.
read it again---you alluded to SUICIDE---as a manifestation of ideology------I described the FACT -----that if offered ----there are LOTS OF VOLUNTEERS
Yes, there are. And there are FAR MORE since the invasion of Iraq. I wonder why.
you have back up stats?. Suicide attacks by muslims are not limited to attacks on US people or JOOOS----Shiites and sunnis use them against each other in various parts of the world----and muslims use them against Christians in various parts of the world
Do I have back up stats?
Terrorist attacks and deaths hit record high, report shows
"
As terrorism increasingly becomes a tactic of warfare, the number of attacks and fatalities soared to a record high in 2012, according to a new report obtained exclusively by CNN.
More than 8,500 terrorist attacks killed nearly 15,500 people last year as violence tore through Africa, Asia and the Middle East, according to the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism.
That’s a 69% rise in attacks and an 89% jump in fatalities from 2011, said START, one of the world’s leading terrorism-trackers."
I'm sure I could find lots. But then you know this is the case anyway.
Afghanistan, and then Iraq, became training grounds for terrorist activity. A petri dish.
frigidweirdo
Diamond Member
- Mar 7, 2014
- 47,046
- 10,286
It did happen, but ragging on it and greatly embellishing it today is what Liberals are doing to separate the people, in order to maintain control. Though, no Trump hasn't attacked either one.Thanks for proving my point. Pretending minorities are victims to turn Americans against each other.Whereas the right don't give a damn and make minorities victims.
Oh, minorities aren't victims? Slavery didn't happen? Segregation didn't happen? The Japanese Americans didn't get locked up in WW2? Trump hasn't attack both Hispanics and Muslims mercilessly?
Oh, let's pretend none of this ever happened, and then you'll be right.
The right are the ones who often try and separate. In post segregation USA many on the right have tried to keep segregation.
Often this is done in a clandestine way.
The way education is funded is one such way. In other countries where state education is funded fairly and equally, there are less problems with ghettos and the like. In the US, if you're born poor, chances are you're going to stay there because they'll give you inferior education to the richer areas.
I'm not sure what you think liberals are doing to separate the people. You might have a point at times, many liberals will do things that don't necessarily make sense, just as the right do, and this can cause separation. Conflict is inevitable within such a large society. The Partisan nature of the US is getting worse and the separate battlegrounds are not helping to join people together and to be tolerant of the other.
However, when the right lose their control over a group, like for example gay people, the right will then complain that they are being victimized, that their right to religion should come above another person's rights, which is ridiculous if you understand the theory of rights.
Pumpkin Row
Platinum Member
- May 26, 2016
- 5,692
- 2,811
Actually, everyone gets 'inferior education' so long as they go to any 'public schools'. It's just how government-run things work. Now, if those were phased out and education was privatized entirely, that would be a beautiful thing.The way education is funded is one such way. In other countries where state education is funded fairly and equally, there are less problems with ghettos and the like. In the US, if you're born poor, chances are you're going to stay there because they'll give you inferior education to the richer areas.
Constantly mentioning slavery, despite it being dead for many years in America. 'fighting for equal rights' while all humans have them. They've been single-handedly keeping 'race war' alive by accusing everyone of racism on a constant basis. Perpetuating the "hands up, don't shoot" myth and legislating affirmative action, pretending enforcing border laws is somehow racist, pretending America was stolen from Indians and that they should be compensated. Not to mention pretending that black people are somehow STILL being wronged, even though slavery was abolished in the United States MANY years ago, and nobody alive was even part of it, nor do most of them even know someone who was part of it. At this point, the left are offering them all supremacy and immunity rather than equal rights, just to get easy votes.I'm not sure what you think liberals are doing to separate the people.
Well, you had to eventually say something I agreed with.You might have a point at times, many liberals will do things that don't necessarily make sense, just as the right do, and this can cause separation. Conflict is inevitable within such a large society. The Partisan nature of the US is getting worse and the separate battlegrounds are not helping to join people together and to be tolerant of the other.
It's the higher concentration of religious people within the right. A higher concentration causes a higher chance of encountering people who take things out of context. You're not wrong that people like that are within the Republican party, but people like to characterize the entire party that way, which would make them wrong. You're more likely to meet a Republican who doesn't care, but also wouldn't want the rights they already have taken away, than one who thinks they shouldn't have equal rights.However, when the right lose their control over a group, like for example gay people, the right will then complain that they are being victimized, that their right to religion should come above another person's rights, which is ridiculous if you understand the theory of rights.
Britain's "Islamic Emirates Project"
So it begins. Muslims now make up 5% and growing if Britain. They now demand an independent state for Muslims only be craved out of Britain.
The Muzzie apologist will say it's a fringe group, but the vast majority of Muslims in Britain desire this. Only a decade ago they made up less than 1%, I 10 years they became 5%, by 2030 they are projected to make up 20%! The larger a percent they become the more demands they will make!
Britain (Europe and America) be warned!
Well, that was certainly the case with caucasions once they illegally came into the North American continent, then they just took and murdered their way into the whole thing.
Explain how they illegally came to the NA continent.
Did the native inhabitants authorize their settlement, or was it an invasion that dispossessed the native inhabitants? If the latter it was illegal.
There was no law at that time. But the website I linked to uses current International law to explain how the settlers were in their rights to claim their property in America.
At this point the following questions might be asked: What about the Indians? Weren't they here first? Didn't we (the white race) take this land away from the Indian? Doesn't the Indian have the rightful title to America?
Since we are dealing with a conflict between two nations or races, the white race and the Indian race, we need to turn to the Law of Nations or International Law for the solution. The following are some basic maxims of the International Law:
FIRST: That every nation possesses an exclusive sovereignty and jurisdiction in its own territory.
SECOND: That no state or nation can by its law directly affect or bind property that lies outside of its own territory, or persons not resident therein.
THIRD: That whatever force the laws of one country have in another depends solely on the municipal laws of the latter.
The first principle listed here would seem to suggest that all of America was the possession of the Indians prior to the age of discovery by the white race.
However, the Indians never laid claim to all of the "territory" of America because they had no understanding of its size and boundaries.
The Indian only claimed the land he was inhabiting and that which he used for hunting, burial, etc. At the time of discovery (circa 1500 A.D.), the American Indian numbered about 700,000 inhabitants, sparsely scattered over what is now America.
Thus the Indians never had a legal claim to much more than 3% of the land at any one time. So it can be said that the Indians did have a legal claim to America, 3% of it, which was considered their "own territory."
In light of this, it cannot be said that the white race violated the second principle of International Law either, since 97% of America was not legally the "property" of anyone.
When America was claimed by the English, French, and Spanish, they claimed the entire breadth and width of the land, from sea to sea, from one boundary to the next. However, the lands that the Indians occupied within these European claims were still Indian land.
It must also be addressed as to whether the white man encroached upon and took possession of lands that were legally claimed by the Indian. T
he third maxim of International Law says we have to look at the Indian's law, and that whatever measures or acts the white man took in regards to Indian land must be pursuant to Indian law. The following are some of the laws that were generally held by the Indians:
1. It was a law common among Indians that the stronger of two tribes or people (nations) has the right to conquer and subdue the weaker.
2. Under Indian common law it was understood that land claims existed by inhabiting the land and by any use of the land.
3. When any land was unoccupied or not used for one year, the land was free for anyone to claim and settle.
This first law of the Indian could actually render all other arguments of land rights academic. This law was almost a way of life with the Indian, which is why they were always warring among themselves. The wars and conflicts between the white race and the Indian race throughout history were numerous, and the fact that the white race was the stronger cannot be doubted."
Did the White Man Steal North America from the Indians?
you make important points, DANCER----in reference to INDIAN objection to WHITE MAN INCURSION----you cite WHITE MANS' Laws. As to being ATTACKED-----which-you obviously cite as justification for---just about ANYTHING------The native American AT THAT TIME were tribal of the RAIDING TYPE OF PEOPLE-----they raided other "nations" ---kinda like the VIKINGS----it was THEIR LAW
Britain's "Islamic Emirates Project"
So it begins. Muslims now make up 5% and growing if Britain. They now demand an independent state for Muslims only be craved out of Britain.
The Muzzie apologist will say it's a fringe group, but the vast majority of Muslims in Britain desire this. Only a decade ago they made up less than 1%, I 10 years they became 5%, by 2030 they are projected to make up 20%! The larger a percent they become the more demands they will make!
Britain (Europe and America) be warned!
Well, that was certainly the case with caucasions once they illegally came into the North American continent, then they just took and murdered their way into the whole thing.
Explain how they illegally came to the NA continent.
they stole a peopled continent----no one invited them
don't agree so fast, VIK----so did the ARYANS who took India and invented themselves as
DA BRAHMINS .---------
LONG LIVE THE DRAVIDIANS
Fenton Lum
Gold Member
- May 7, 2016
- 22,735
- 1,442
[
Well, that was certainly the case with caucasions once they illegally came into the North American continent, then they just took and murdered their way into the whole thing.
Serious question; were you born this way? Or did you ride a motorcycle at 90 MPH without a helmet and run into a brick wall?
The fact that this is all you have in the way of a response leaves it intuitively obvious to even the most casual of observers that you know this is a little too close to home for your comfort level.
Fenton Lum
Gold Member
- May 7, 2016
- 22,735
- 1,442
You saw it, now you're just lashing out emotionally. Pick a couple books off the list, read 'em, come back and let's discuss your reations?
I "lashed out" emotionally? You are unable to answer very simple questions asked to
clarify that which you are STRUGGLING to
imply ----as if your "POINT" is something mysterious
Genocide darling. Look, you're not up to this, clearly you can't deal with it and MUST remain in denial. Have a nice weekend.
Your comments are scattered and without sense---DYSPHASIC I am an elderly woman----punk----do not call me "darling" Keep it for your whore, ---pimp. I can deal and have dealt with circumstances and events and situations that you could NEVER IMAGINE
Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn, ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.......................
The Doctrine of Discovery is based on a principle of Roman law called terra nullius (“nobody’s land”) and grew out of the church’s conviction that “discovered” lands were devoid of human beings if the original people who lived there (defined as “heathens, pagans, and infidels”) were not ruled by a Christian ruler. “The Doctrine mandated Christian European countries to attack, enslave, and kill the Indigenous Peoples they encountered and to acquire all of their assets,” wrote the World Council of Churches in a 2012 statement.
Time to End the Papal Bull
"The destruction of the Indians of the Americas was, far and away, the most massive act of genocide in the history of the world." David E. Stannard. 4
"This violent corruption needn't define us.... We can say, yes, this happened, and we are ashamed. We repudiate the greed. We recognize and condemn the evil. And we see how the harm has been perpetuated. But, five hundred years later, we intend to mean something else in the world." Barry Lopez. 3
"By then [1891] the native population had been reduced to 2.5% of its original numbers and 97.5% of the aboriginal land base had been expropriated....Hundreds upon hundreds of native tribes with unique languages, learning, customs, and cultures had simply been erased from the face of the earth, most often without even the pretense of justice or law." Peter Montague 1
Genocide of Natives in the Western Hemisphere, starting 1492 CE
James Riding In, who is Pawnee and an associate professor of American Indian studies at Arizona State University, responded to D'Souza's thesis in an interview with Truthout, saying: "It seems to me that D'Souza does not understand what genocide is. [The UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide defines genocide as] 'the killing of members of a group.' Or causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group. The third part is deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part. And imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group and forcibly transferring children to another group."
One of the things that happened in the United States, Riding In points out, "was to take Indian children away from their parents, away from their tribes, away from their religious people, away from their nurturing environment of their communities and place them in these distant boarding schools where the Indian would be beat out of them if necessary. That policy falls within the definition of genocide, the plan to bring about the physical destruction of a ... people. This was aimed at the children."
The forced removal of children - which continues today as American Indian children are removed from their homes by state social service agencies at a far higher rate than non-Indian children are - was justified by the concepts of American exceptionalism and manifest destiny.
American exceptionalism is the precept that the United States is unique and qualitatively superior to other nations because it was founded based on democratic principles, Christian values and personal liberty. The concept in popular culture translates to Americans being somehow superior - more fair, more just, more moral, more acceptable in God's eyes than other groups.
The Native American Genocide and the Teaching of US History
The indigenous people of America, commonly known as the Native Americans, first came to America at least 30,000 years ago, thousands of years before the European settlers. They made America their home, with a population of 10 million and hundreds of tribes. The Native Americans thrived off of the land, using it for survival. But when the Europeans settled in America, they were enslaved, dispossessed, and annihilated. The Native Americans experienced a genocide that took tons of lives. History has seen some very gruesome genocide or methods of mass destruction, but none of them can be compared to the ongoing holocaust that the Native Americans have endured.
The Native American Genocide — Science Leadership Academy
Benjamin Franklin, from his autobiography, 1750s
“If it be the design of Providence to extirpate these Savages in order to make room for cultivators of the Earth, it seems not improbable that rum may be the appointed means.”
Orders of George Washington to General John Sullivan, May 31, 1779
“The immediate objectives are the total destruction and devastation of their settlements and the capture of as many prisoners of every age and sex as possible. It will be essential to ruin their crops in the ground and prevent their planting more.”
Governor William Henry Harrison, of the Indiana Territory (1800-1812) while defending displacement of the Indians
“Is one of the fairest portions of the globe to remain in a state of nature, the haunt of a few wretched savages, when it seems destined by the Creator to give support to a large population and to be the seat of civilization?”
John Quincy Adams, 1802, when rationalizing territorial imperatives as God’s will
“What is the right of the huntsman to the forest of a thousand miles over which he has accidentally ranged in quest of prey? Shall the fields and vallies, which a beneficent God has formed to teem with the life of innumerable multitudes, be condemned to everlasting barrenness?”
President Thomas Jefferson, The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, December 29, 1813
“This unfortunate race, whom we had been taking so much pains to save and to civilize, have by their unexpected desertion and ferocious barbarities justified extermination and now await our decision on their fate.”
James Monroe, in a letter to Andrew Jackson, October 5, 1817
“The hunter or savage state requires a greater extent of territory to sustain it, than is compatible with the progress and just claims of civilized life, and must yield to it. Nothing is more certain, than, if the Indian tribes do not abandon that state, and become civilized, that they will decline, and become extinct. The hunter state, tho maintain’d by warlike spirits, presents but a feeble resistance to the more dense, compact, and powerful population of civilized man.”
thanks FENTON you repeated precisely what I said----the Europeans brought the INQUSITION MINDSET --with them to the "New World"---------you made no point at all
other than the fact that you are admitting that
I AM RIGHT
I agree that some people would LIKE to deny
that fact-----but it was never me.
Like I said, genocide.
Fenton Lum
Gold Member
- May 7, 2016
- 22,735
- 1,442
Actually, the people that are convinced that the English murdered everyone and took the land are the ones being indoctrinated. The left tends to ignore that.
... Besides, even if the English showed up and committed genocide, pretty much every other country did that on a regular basis. I wouldn't care.
you would be better off not to go the way---EVERYONE DOES IT
Really?
"PS---fenton----native americans ALSO
"invest in rationalizing the same behaviors they rail against in others,""
What's that?
the violence that they inflicted on ---"the invaders" and on each other
Churchill, Ward. A Little Matter of Genocide: Holocaust and Denial in the Americas. San Francisco: City Lights Books, 1997.Find this resource:
Deloria, Philip J., and Neal Salisbury, eds. A Companion to American Indian History. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2002.Find this resource:
Jacoby, Karl. “‘The Broad Platform of Extermination’: Nature and Violence in the Nineteenth Century North American Borderlands.” Journal of Genocide Research 10 (June 2008): 249–267.Find this resource:
Kiernan, Ben. Blood and Soil: A World History of Genocide and Extermination from Sparta to Darfur. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2007.Find this resource:
Mann, Michael. The Dark Side of Democracy: Explaining Ethnic Cleansing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005.Find this resource:
Power, Samantha. “A Problem from Hell”: America and the Age of Genocide. New York: Basic Books, 2002.Find this resource:
Stannard, David. American Holocaust: The Conquest of the New World. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.Find this resource:
Thornton, Russell. American Indian Holocaust and Survival: A Population History since 1492. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1987.Find this resource:
Totten, Samuel, and Robert K Hitchcock, eds. Genocide of Indigenous Peoples. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 2011.Find this resource:
Wolfe, Patrick. “Settler Colonialism and the Elimination of the Native.” Journal of Genocide Research 8 (December 2006): 387–409.Find this resource:
Ward Churchill?
Michael Mann?
Not that you had any credibility to start with.
Plenty of others. You can't handle the material/concept so you must lash out at one or two of the authors, typical. I'm fine with your denial. Many so called "free" americans find it deeply disturbing to confront their institutionalized imprinting. We're told all our lives that other govts engage in propagandizing their masses, but we're blind to our own.
london 20 years later
Mostly SUNNIS
dani67
Gold Member
- Dec 21, 2015
- 5,028
- 505
mostly terroristlondon 20 years later
Mostly SUNNIS
Fenton Lum
Gold Member
- May 7, 2016
- 22,735
- 1,442
Well, that was certainly the case with caucasions once they illegally came into the North American continent, then they just took and murdered their way into the whole thing.
Explain how they illegally came to the NA continent.
they stole a peopled continent----no one invited them
Great article here for you to understand the truth of what really happened in the beginning and not the propaganda bullshit we get today. And btw I am very pro First Nations but with reality at my side.
"In spite of the legal right the white race has to America, we often are confronted with the anti-American propaganda that the white race wronged the Indian by attacking and killing them and driving them out of their land. We thus need to look at the first conflicts that existed between the Indians and the colonial settlers. A summary of these first conflicts shows they were always initiated by Indians:6
- Shortly after the first colony was established at Jamestown in 1607, the settlers were attacked by the Indians, who wounded seventeen men and killed one boy.
- After the above conflict, peaceful relations prevailed, due to the wise policy of Captain John Smith and the good will of Powhatan, head chief of the Indian Confederacy. When Powhatan died in 1618, his brother Opechancanough, who disliked the English, began to plot war. In March 1622, the Indian tribes went on the warpath, and swept through a line of settlements marked by a trail of blood. In the white settlements, nearly 400 men, women, and children, were cruelly put to death before the ravages of the Indians could be checked.
- For 22 years after the massacre of 1622 there was peace. But Opechancanouch, at last head chief, only waited for another opportunity. In 1644, there was a civil war in England, and he thought the expected moment was at hand. The massacre he waged left over 300 white settlers slain in two days. Again the whites took up arms in defense, and in 1646 the aged chief himself was taken and killed - there was never again a general uprising in Virginia.
- In the Plymouth colony, a peace compact was established between the Indian chief Massasoit and Governor Carver. As time went on, the friendly old chief died. When his son, King Philip, came to be ruler of the Wampanoag tribe, trouble began to brew for the colonists. Urged on by his braves, King Philip began sending messages to friendly tribes, inviting them to join in a mighty war on the "pale faces." The war that followed was a terrible one. The Indians, avoiding the white troops, dodging them, and never meeting them face to face in the open field, carried on the contest in their savage way of massacring the helpless, and burning villages. Many a fair and quite settlement was made desolate. Women and children were ruthlessly murdered, and burned in the houses. But by the end of 1675 the force of the Indians was broken.
- In the New Haven colony the situation with the Indians (the Pequets) was similar. At first there were peaceful relationships between them and the white settlers. During 1637, the Pequots attempted to organize a confederacy, but unable to secure the help of the Narragansetts due to the influence of Roger Williams, they took to the warpath alone. T
- hey did not come out in open battle, but waylaid a party of whites and killed thirty of them. In response to this, a small party of English, along with some seventy friendly Indians, attacked the Pequet stronghold, killing over 450 of that tribe.
- The great Pequet tribe was crushed, and nearly forty years of Peace ensued.
History reveals that all the early hostilities and wars between the American Indians and the white settlers, were instigated or started by the Indians without just cause.
- Even though the white settlers had legal title to the land by way of purchase or claim of unoccupied lands, the Indian was always the one to disrupt peaceful relations with attacks, massacres, and wars. The retaliation by the white settlers were merely acts of self defense and self preservation in accordance with the law of nature.
- Thus it was the Indian who was the intruder and violator of land rights and of his own law. It was the Indian who, in the beginning, wronged the white man. The Indian's treachery, barbaric and warlike manner, and sneak attacks on the colonists was positive proof of the anti-social nature of the red man. This exhibit of the Indian's character caused much distrust of the Indian, and became the "code of conduct" which the Indian continued to live by and uphold in the future.
Thus, the white race has a rightful and legal claim and title to America pursuant to international law, the Indian's law, the law of nature, and by a combination thereof."
Did the White Man Steal North America from the Indians?
not all that impressed-----that you resort to the term RIGHTS OF THE WHITE MAN----is kinda disgusting. I am not entirely in agreement with the "EUROPEANS STOLE THE LAND FROM THE INDIANS" crowd---but unlike you----I do not dance on the dead bodies of the primitives who lived on the continent before the "UBER ALLES WHITE MAN" that you worship got here.
I worship no one but my Lord. I did not resort to the term. That is used in the article that shows the first smack downs were the natives beating the shit out of the settlers. Oh and that's what they did to each other.
Tribe against tribe. Very vicious. Very brutal. Stealing women and children to be used as slaves. These dudes weren't sitting around campfires smoking a peace pipe for crying out loud.
Learn First Nations history and then get back to me. And what the hell is this shit that I "dance on the dead bodies of the primitives". Get a grip irosie. I've worked with more First Nations peoples than you will ever meet in your lifetime.
Started out a long time ago fighting for clean water rights beginning with Grassy Narrows and White Dog First Nations with a battle against mercury poisoning now known as Minimata disease. Happened to be working at a trading post called the Beaverhead at that time.
I know how to make a porcupine quill basket with sweet grass. I can clean bear claws. I've learned a lot with my time over the years and this has been decades.
I've never danced nor ever would dance on anyone persons grave. What an insult!
I'm now blessed to live in the midst of the heart and soul of Metis country. After years of having Six Nations as my neighbors back east. I've always considered First Nations my brothers and sisters.
So basically some a your best friends are "indians". Who said native peoples were devoid of violence amongst themselves before euros arrived and what does that have to do with anything at all?
you would be better off not to go the way---EVERYONE DOES IT
Really?
"PS---fenton----native americans ALSO
"invest in rationalizing the same behaviors they rail against in others,""
What's that?
the violence that they inflicted on ---"the invaders" and on each other
Churchill, Ward. A Little Matter of Genocide: Holocaust and Denial in the Americas. San Francisco: City Lights Books, 1997.Find this resource:
Deloria, Philip J., and Neal Salisbury, eds. A Companion to American Indian History. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2002.Find this resource:
Jacoby, Karl. “‘The Broad Platform of Extermination’: Nature and Violence in the Nineteenth Century North American Borderlands.” Journal of Genocide Research 10 (June 2008): 249–267.Find this resource:
Kiernan, Ben. Blood and Soil: A World History of Genocide and Extermination from Sparta to Darfur. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2007.Find this resource:
Mann, Michael. The Dark Side of Democracy: Explaining Ethnic Cleansing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005.Find this resource:
Power, Samantha. “A Problem from Hell”: America and the Age of Genocide. New York: Basic Books, 2002.Find this resource:
Stannard, David. American Holocaust: The Conquest of the New World. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.Find this resource:
Thornton, Russell. American Indian Holocaust and Survival: A Population History since 1492. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1987.Find this resource:
Totten, Samuel, and Robert K Hitchcock, eds. Genocide of Indigenous Peoples. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 2011.Find this resource:
Wolfe, Patrick. “Settler Colonialism and the Elimination of the Native.” Journal of Genocide Research 8 (December 2006): 387–409.Find this resource:
Ward Churchill?
Michael Mann?
Not that you had any credibility to start with.
Plenty of others. You can't handle the material/concept so you must lash out at one or two of the authors, typical. I'm fine with your denial. Many so called "free" americans find it deeply disturbing to confront their institutionalized imprinting. We're told all our lives that other govts engage in propagandizing their masses, but we're blind to our own.
you are over-estimating yourself, FENT-----in fact ----dancer introduced facts that may be difficult for YOU to handle-----GENOCIDE---of the "other nations"-----was legal in the Americas at that time. The Mayans went around raiding"other nations" just to have
lots of persons for religious observances that included CUTTING OUT THEIR HEARTS----
in north America----RAIDING AND PILLAGING was the way of life------and---the Europeans---well-----they had the INQUISITION mindset---
Indians were proper targets
Similar threads
- Replies
- 2
- Views
- 128
- Replies
- 34
- Views
- 741
- Replies
- 10
- Views
- 472
- Replies
- 1
- Views
- 110
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 128
- Views
- 568
- Replies
- 138
- Views
- 925
- Replies
- 173
- Views
- 932
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8711
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 485
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-