Turkeys Died To Set The White Man Free?
 

Now, before all you turkey eating, cider swallowing, football watching Thanksgivingites get upset, please consider this....


Isn't celebrating Thanksgiving in the U.S. like setting aside a day in Germany to celebrate the Holocaust? I know that no one (that I know of) on this forum is celebrating the genocide of the American Indian when they sit down with family and friends to engorge themselves with cranberries smothered in gluten. No, but isn't it something to ponder that after six decades of landing at Plymouth Rock, the Europeans had forever destroyed a culture that had inhabited the area for thousands of years prior to the arrival of the Mayflower? I mean, who was really thankful? It sure wasn't the Indians, because in 1620 the Europeans landed on Plymouth Rock, then 55 years later by 1675, the Puritans would almost decimate the entire Wampanoag tribe.

A tribe which included more than 30,000 people with a highly organized governmental system. They were reduced to no more than 2,000 Indians at the end of what would be called "King Philip’s War." King Phillip was known by his people as Metacomet, the son of Chief Massasoit who would welcome the Pilgrims to the New World (old world to the Indians) Metacomet would fight a war against the Puritans who were trying to move Wampanoag off their happy hunting grounds. Yet, as most Indian vs the paleface situations go, Metacomet lost.

Yet, the Puritans wanted to send a message to every Indian in New England just what can happen if they decide to get uppity. They decapitated Metacomet "King Phillip," his head was piked at the entrance of Fort Plymouth where it remained for TWO decades.

Now, I would also like to add here, that Metacomet "King Phillip" was what the Puritans called a "Praying Indian" meaning, he was a convert to the Puritan form of Christianity, he was baptized into their faith. But alas this didn't deter the Europeans who set their buckled shoes on Plymouth Rock from later on killing the Indians they once baptized. So, with all that being said, may you all have a wonderful day of fellowship and light fun. But please remember as you sink your teeth into that turkey drumstick which MeeMaw took such loving care and time to cook (98.00 bird?) to reflect and to be really thankful, not just on November 27th, but every day of the year. Because you might just be living on some land that was once inhabited by a tribe who no longer lives there. Maybe they we marched from one state to another (force marches, perish the thought) maybe you even live near an area where a massacre took place, or even by the res. Be thankful that you are free to live where you want to live, and practice your religion, ( or not practice) however you like. So, have a nice day, and spend that day wisely. :)

Re: Turkeys Died To Set The White Man Free?
 

I live in 2013.

Re: Turkeys Died To Set The White Man Free?
 

You sure do my brother, and thankful to be there. :heeheehee

Re: Turkeys Died To Set The White Man Free?
 

Amen, we got issues but thankfully not like then.

Re: Turkeys Died To Set The White Man Free?
 

Indeed thankful. :highfive

Re: Turkeys Died To Set The White Man Free?
 

The problem with history is is not always pretty but quite ugly at times. The is when folks present the sanitized version.

Re: Turkeys Died To Set The White Man Free?
 

Well, I'm thankful that we aren't living in some pagan Indian tribal community never having heard the gospel, collecting scalps and having to run the gauntlet for Okee.

Or that we aren't still stuck in the 'Old Country' having our friends and family burnt at the stake for 'heresy'.

Re: Turkeys Died To Set The White Man Free?
 

Fixed type errors

Re: Turkeys Died To Set The White Man Free?
 

I bet you are also thankful you didn't live during the Battle of Washita River to see the cavalry mowing down your wife and children under the hoofs of their horses.

Anyway, we can mosey all the way through time of the early history of this nation and point to different occurrences, like the Puritans hanging Quakers in Boston because they refused to conform.

Yet we don't celebrate (not that I know of ) any holiday that was started during a meal with Quakers, who years later ended up swinging from a rope in Boston.

Re: Turkeys Died To Set The White Man Free?
 

Yeah, they not only present the sanitized version but make a national holiday out of it. ;)

Re: Turkeys Died To Set The White Man Free?
 

You know what that sounds like you're saying? It sounds like unless the early settlers wiped out entire tribes we would currently be living in Indian communities? If the Puritans didn't slaughter Indians so Abraham Lincoln could start a holiday over one meal between the two future combatants, the Gospel wouldn't of been preached to these Indians? Wait, the record shows that the Puritans not only converted the Wampanoag, but later murdered the Indians that they had given the Gospel.

No we are in the new country were you are burnt at the stake on the Internet and left alive to see the damage.

Re: Turkeys Died To Set The White Man Free?
 

I'm not going to feel guilt for something that happened years ago. I am going to enjoy the day with my family and be thankful! There are thousands of things we can manufacture guilt for but I try not to. ;)

so what you're saying is that you didn't vote for Obama?

Re: Turkeys Died To Set The White Man Free?
 

Israel had (and still does) a national holiday celebrating the supernatural devastation of Egypt, including the mass killing (by God) of every firstborn in the land.

What's your point?

Re: Turkeys Died To Set The White Man Free?
 

Sorry, not a democrat, so not buying your revisionist history. In any event, the Lord giveth, and the Lord taketh away. Blessed be the name of the Lord.




I guess you would have preferred living under the tyranny of pagan savagery or the tyranny of religious hegemony, then.

You are certainly free to move somewhere more to your liking.

Re: Turkeys Died To Set The White Man Free?
 

http://custer.over-blog.com/article-11602057.html

We should be thankful we live in a country that had Pilgrims and Puritans for its Founders, rather than either the Vatican or some heathen tribal chiefs.

After all, if it weren't for the Puritans and Pilgrims, there wouldn't be an America, no internet, no AFF. No Holiness movement, no Pentecostal Revival, and most likely no YOU.

I do realise some have drank the Kommie Kool-aid and hate America, its heritage and its history, but such people aren't living in reality and wouldn't want to anyway.

Re: Turkeys Died To Set The White Man Free?
 

The absolute ignorance of history and the bible by some in our generation astonishes me at times.

First, fact is there are NO true "natives" of any land. Period.

Different tribes of mankind have moved from one area to another killing each other in the process - it's called "sin" and EVERY man and woman has that nature at birth. One can read about it in this book called the "Bible."

Re: Turkeys Died To Set The White Man Free?
 

And, you're cool with that?

Re: Turkeys Died To Set The White Man Free?
 

Cool with what?

Re: Turkeys Died To Set The White Man Free?
 

Never mind. I see you called it "sin", so I guess you're not cool with it. (People attacking and forcing other people out of their home land.)

Re: Turkeys Died To Set The White Man Free?
 

I'm a bit confused at what you are complaining about, though.

Re: Turkeys Died To Set The White Man Free?
 

Ok, but do you feel the same about the Holocaust issue and the American slavery issue? I mean you would be able to tell all those who want to keep bringing up the Holocaust to get over it and move on, wouldn't you? Also those who bring up reparations concerning their ancestors who were once promised 30 acres and a mule, you would tell them to stop trying to make good decent people feel guilty for something that happened years ago. Right?

Re: Turkeys Died To Set The White Man Free?
 

Thanksgiving was not instituted to celebrate genocide of Indians.

Indians were not systematically wiped out by the Pilgrims, nor was there violence at first. Yes later there was bloodshed but I would not call that genocide

A Lot of people on both sides of the argument would be surprised to learn the facts of the first settlers AND How our Thanksgiving Holiday began

http://www.history.com/topics/pilgrims

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...-the-pilgrims/

Re: Turkeys Died To Set The White Man Free?
 

So, let me see if I understand you, since man is sinful, we give him a pass for genocide?

Yes? No?

Since no one really owns or belongs to any piece of property on the planet, and man is sinful, occupation, subjugation, and genocide shouldn't be discouraged?

Re: Turkeys Died To Set The White Man Free?
 

Never said it was instituted to remember the genocide of the Indians.


The Wampanoag tribe was whittled down from 30,000 to 2,000 that's not genocide because 2,000 manged to survive?

I understand the whole history of how Thanksgiving became a national holiday, but what the real irony here is that the coming of the Puritan Europeans didn't bring anything to be thankful about to a people who were already living in North Eastern America. The Washington Post snippet makes everything pretty much vanilla, when the facts remain, like Columbus landing in Hispaniola which caused GENOCIDE of the Taíno Indians, the Pilgrims landing in Plymouth Massachusetts not the advent of Christian love, but death.

The Pequot, the Narraganset, and the Wampanoag all fell under the buckled shoes of the Puritans, and in time the rest of the American Indian population was next on the menu when the Europeans decided to populate the rest of the country.

Yet, I think I know what you are trying to get at with the websites you offered.

Re: Turkeys Died To Set The White Man Free?
 

Do you believe the Bible is the Word of God?

Re: Turkeys Died To Set The White Man Free?
 

Genocide is a systematic slaughtering of a race.

What happened to one tribe may not have been based on the attempt to slaughter them because they wanted to kill all Indians. Read the history and you'll see there was growing strife between various tribes AND the Pilgrims.

It was a war and in wars often one side loses

The Pilgrims did not wear buckles.

Re: Turkeys Died To Set The White Man Free?
 

The strife was not "Pilgrims vs Indians". The Strife was both groups were involved and the "Indian" side made up of several tribes

Some of that Strife was started by the indian guide the Pilgrims had

It was the Indians that did not like the settlers, not the other way around necessarily that was the problem (Not excusing them being settlers but you can see how they may have wanted to defend themselves and not merely practiced genocide)

And now, for the rest of the story

You see? If the Settlers were guilty of something, it was growing and occupying more land. It appears the Indians might have been the agressors as far as War was concerned and the Settlers also lost lives. That's called War not Genocide.


I'd say that even if the Indians were not the aggressors, there was a gradual build up of animosity on both sides. The result was war and one side in wars are usually more victorious

Re: Turkeys Died To Set The White Man Free?
 

The Wampanoag tribe were whittled down by desease not war or genocide

There were sixty-seven tribes and bands of the Wampanoag Nation. Three epidemics swept across New England between 1614 and 1620, killing many Native peoples. Some villages were entirely wiped out (such as Patuxet). When the colonists we now call Pilgrims arrived in 1620, there were fewer than 2,000 Wampanoag. After English colonists settled in Massachusetts, epidemics continued to reduce the Wampanoag to 1,000 by 1675. Only 400 survived King Philip’s War.

http://www.gilderlehrman.org/history...ns-seventeenth

Then, again, War broke out after an Indian leader (Called King Phillip) came into power..

The colonists actively worked to convert the Wampanoag to Christianity. Those who did convert were called “praying Indians.” There were many differences between the groups, which eventually led to conflicts. For example, colonists let their livestock run loose and destroy Wampanoag crops. Still, the treaty was honored until 1662, when Metacomet, known to the English as King Philip, became the tribe’s leader, and relations between the Wampanoag and colonists became very tense. In 1675, hostilities broke out in the town of Swansea. The conflict, know as King Philip’s War, soon spread to the New Hampshire and Connecticut colonies. King Philip’s War was one of the bloodiest and costliest wars in American history.

yes! Get over it.

Re: Turkeys Died To Set The White Man Free?
 

Like when God commanded Israel to attack the Amorites/Canaanites and exterminate them, and take over their land?

Re: Turkeys Died To Set The White Man Free?
 

I think it's odd that everyone talks about one group taking someone else land, but forget that the other groups did it too. Indians killed each other and took each others land and food.

This sort of Human behavior has been going on for centuries

point?

Re: Turkeys Died To Set The White Man Free?
 

Did they die from a specific policy of the European settlers conceived with the purpose of exterminating the Wampanoags? Or were there other reasons for the decline of the Wampanoags? The article I quoted from earlier points out that the vast majority of 'decline' among 'native Americans' was due to disease. Also, the Indian tribes were just as busy fighting and killing and enslaving each other as they were fighting European settlers. Finally, the European settlers were not on a mission to exterminate the Indians, that's pinko commie revisionist 'history'.



So, bringing the bible, literacy, the story of Jesus, not to mention a national political structure where religious tolerance was and is possible, as well as a culture of scientific advancement (running water, anyone? electricity? internet? hello?) that far surpassed anything the Wampanoags or their cousins were going to come up with on their own is not 'anything to be thankful about'?

Did the Wampanoags lose their culture? Pretty much. Was their culture something to be preserved inviolate? Hmmm.. human sacrifice, cannibalism, idolatry, immorality, superstitious ignorance... vs The Bible, Anglo-Saxon common law/Magna Carta/Bill of Rights, representative government*, scientific advancement, the reformation, renaissance, the Enlightenment, literacy, concepts of political, economic, and religious liberty... hmmm, pretty tough call there, eh?

*I realise the US system of government was partially modelled on Iroquois tribal government, so no need to go there.

Balderpoppydash. Columbus was not sailing west to 'exterminate every savage he could find'. Nor was his primary (stated) interest just gold and wealth, either.

Next you know you'll be telling us how white christian civilization is the scourge of humanity. Oh wait, seems that is what you are getting at already...

More lies.

Known for their savagery, so much so all the other tribes feared and hated them.

Who joined with the Europeans in waging war against the Pequot...

It's amazing how many people have no common sense. You decry the very things that, without which, you would in all likelihood not even exist, let alone have a Bible to read and an internet to pontificate on.

Why do you despise the Providence of a Sovereign God, who both plants and overthrows nations according to His Will?

Re: Turkeys Died To Set The White Man Free?
 

Point being a blanket condemnation of 'one people taking another people's land' as 'sin' is error. God commanded it in the case of Israel and Canaan, and it was not 'sin'. God did it again and again as punishment for Israel and Judah's sins.

In fact, when a nation becomes abominable to God and their wickedness exceeds his longsuffering, he often will bring upon them a nation to oppress them, subjugate them, remove them from their land, and even exterminate them.

Which is probably why Americans need to keep an eye out for Russia and China....

Re: Turkeys Died To Set The White Man Free?
 

King Phillip's War, which correctly should be called the Puritan's War, was fought over the Puritans cheating the Wampanoag tribe. It left the Wampanoag tribe with no choice but to fight against an oppressor. 30,000 of any race of people reduced to 2,000 is considered genocide. The 30,000 wasn't reduced to 2,000 only because of the two year war, but due to the Puritans slaughtering the Wampanoag until their numbers dwindled to a ragged people. By the way, they just didn't pike King Phillip's head, they sold his wife and children into slavery.

What happened to one tribe may not have been based on the attempt to slaughter them because they wanted to kill all Indians. Read the history and you'll see there was growing strife between various tribes AND the Pilgrims.

The U.N. General Assembly adopted this term of genocide and defended it in 1946 as "....a denial of the right of existence of entire human groups."

The Pequot and Wampanoag were denied their right of existence.

And the ones who win get to write the history and teach it to all the generations who succeed them. :heeheehee


Levity? So you are looking for historic accuracy in my sarcasm?

:texasgranny

Re: Turkeys Died To Set The White Man Free?
 

For the interested reader of this thread, the above nonsense was dealt with previously in this thread.



See? Pure commie kool-aid.

:laffatu

Re: Turkeys Died To Set The White Man Free?
 

Do they have a celebration for any of these other groups who had their land taken from them? Do these other groups have a day of thanksgiving for a time when they and the other group were living in harmony? Then behind the facade of that bed time story you have the reality of the people being subjugated, oppressed, and exterminated? I agree this sort of human behavior has been going on for centuries, but no one has a kumbaya story making it into a celebration feast when in fact the real story was about a people having their lives ruined by the people they once shared sweet fellowship?

Re: Turkeys Died To Set The White Man Free?
 

Purim?

Re: Turkeys Died To Set The White Man Free?
 

Whether that is true or not, that's not "Genocide", that's war

As I already detailed. The Tribe numbered no more than 1000 not 30,000. It was reduced to about 400...from war. What was the oppression? The Tribe actually relied on the Pilgrims for protection from the other tribes.

Here is the definition of Genocide
the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

In order for this to have been a case of Genocide you have to prove it was deliberate and systematic and not rather the result of one party attacking the other and one party being more successful


The tribe was reduced to 1000 by disease BEFORE the Puritans arrived

Whether that is true or not, the facts seem to be that the Tribe numbered around 1000 by the time the Pilgrims landed, made a peace treaty with the Pilgrims and relied on them for protection. It was not until this Indian leader gained power that things went town hill. It was not Genocide

I did read the history. I even quoted it and provided the links.

Right, not a WAR between two parties where one side dismally loses

No, they had been reduced in number by disease. Then, after several years of peace with the Pilgrims the Indians revolted.

As I said, the issue isn't whether it's right or wrong to move into a new land, and repopulate it, the Indians had done that to each other for years. The issue you raised was Genocide and it seems that the Historical facts are the Indians attacked the Pilgrims and lost

That's not genocide

IF that is true then you have no other history to go by and are going by something that was invented