Turkeys Died To Set The White Man Free?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Thanksgiving was not instituted to celebrate genocide of Indians.

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

Originally Posted by Praxeas

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.

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

Originally Posted by Praxeas

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/

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.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

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.

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.

[Praxeas]

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

After attempts to increase his own power by turning the Pilgrims against Massasoit, Squanto died in 1622, while serving as Bradford's guide on an expedition around Cape Cod.

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)

Other tribes, such as the Massachusetts and Narragansetts, were not so well disposed towards European settlers, and Massasoit's alliance with the Pilgrims disrupted relations among Native American peoples in the region

And now, for the rest of the story

Over the next decades, relations between settlers and Native Americans deteriorated as the former group occupied more and more land. By the time William Bradford died in 1657, he had already expressed anxiety that New England would soon be torn apart by violence. In 1675, Bradford's predictions came true, in the form of King Philip's War. (Philip was the English name of Metacomet, the son of Massasoit and leader of the Pokanokets since the early 1660s.) That conflict left some 5,000 inhabitants of New England dead, three quarters of those Native Americans. In terms of percentage of population killed, King Philip's War was more than twice as costly as the American Civil War and seven times more so than the American Revolution.

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

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Genocide is a systematic slaughtering of a race.

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.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

It was a war and in wars often one side loses

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

Originally Posted by Praxeas

The Pilgrims did not wear buckles.

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

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

King Phillip's War, which correctly should be called the Puritan's War, was fought over the Puritans cheating the Wampanoag tribe.

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

The U.N. General Assembly...

See? Pure commie kool-aid.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

King Phillip's War, which correctly should be called the Puritan's War, was fought over the Puritans cheating the Wampanoag tribe.

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

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.

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 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.

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

By the way, they just didn't pike King Phillip's head, they sold his wife and children into slavery.

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

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.

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

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."

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

The Pequot and Wampanoag were denied their right of existence.

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

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

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

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

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

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.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

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

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'.

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.

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.

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,

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...

the Pilgrims landing in Plymouth Massachusetts not the advent of Christian love, but death.

More lies.

The Pequot,

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

the Narraganset, and the Wampanoag

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

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.

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?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

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'.

What a jumble.

The Wampanoag Confederacy was made up a many sub tribes, in 1614 and epidemic swept throughout the Confederacy, yet didn't decimate them to 2,000 or some claim after King Phillip's war down to a measly 400? The Pequots where attacked by the Puritans because the Pequots controlled the wampum, because their nation was located at the eastern shore of the Massachusetts. Since the Pequot manufactured the most valuable piece of northern American Indian currency the Puritans decided they needed to attack the Pequot enclosure. This took place between 1634 and 1638, the Puritans hardly had time to wipe the greasy chitterlings they ate from the Thanksgiving of 1621, (just a mere 13 years prior) from their lips. Hey, and what about Squanto? Half dead sick from malnutrition, his Pawtuxet tribe half dead. Do these benevolent Puritans help this poor devil out? No, they put him to work teaching them how to grow corn. So, we should all be lead to believe once again, that the European came to this country to help the indigenous backward people, and all the stories of killing, rape, and forced labor was just some self inflicted wound the Indians brought upon themselves?

Originally Posted by Esaias

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'?

Hey maybe you can also use the above argument to prove that it wasn't such a bad thing to massacre the Aborigine of Australia (ranging roughly from 1789 to 1928 ) because one day they would get flushing toilets. A meager price to pay for someday to have indoor running water.

Originally Posted by Esaias

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?

What a bargain! Did you forget why the Puritans were in the Americas to begin with? They not only wanted to convert the Church of England to their teachings, they wanted a Theocracy. Remember that John Winthrop called Massachusetts Bay Colony "The City Upon a Hill" they believed that they were going to establish a Theocracy of Puritan rule, under Puritan dogma, basically a Puritan hegemony which would last for a century. No separation of church and state in Massachusetts, you couldn't even vote if you weren't a church member. Yep, while we are peddled a teary eyed tail of Pilgrims struggling on the Mayflower clutching their Geneva Bibles looking for religious freedom. It was more like Oliver Cromwell breathing a sigh of relief that the Puritans and Separatists were leaving. But, what about the Indian? Your point is that the European settlers came to this country and made their lives much, much, better. Before I start posting about the alcoholism, and suicide rates (young to old) I think you should reconsider how we bless the mess out of our indigenous people.

Originally Posted by Esaias

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

Nice, so you throw the Indian a bone by acknowledging their contribution to the Illuminists Freemasons wealthy elite who started this country?

Originally Posted by Esaias

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.

Christopher Columbus and his men enslaved native inhabitants of the New World, to dig out the gold until they died. I'm not trying to say Decent Clean White Christian civilization is the scourge of humanity. I believe stupid racist people are the scourge of humanity.

Originally Posted by Esaias

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?

Your a Calvinist?

No wonder your a Puritan enabler.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

What a jumble.

The Wampanoag Confederacy was made up a many sub tribes, in 1614 and epidemic swept throughout the Confederacy, yet didn't decimate them to 2,000 or some claim after King Phillip's war down to a measly 400?

Do you have some sort of supporting cast for these claims?