slatten49 wrote:
An unnamed/unknown source confirms the floating rumor that Loki attend sensitivity training during his brief suspension. Word is out...source(s) unknown, that he is now a "kinder & gentler" knuckle-dragging savage.
Those sources (reportedly) also claim that the rumor was started by BadBobby. He claims the information came from an undisclosed source.
I'ma guessing AuntiE was the culprit.
But, then, that's just what I heard.
An unnamed/unknown source confirms the floating ru... (
show quote)
The new Loki is an improvement. He walks on his knuckles rather than dragging them. He will be a shining example of Homo Erectus Liberalis before you can say
Adlai Stevenson.
Loki wrote:
The new Loki is an improvement. He walks on his knuckles rather than dragging them. He will be a shining example of Homo Erectus Liberalis before you can say Adlai Stevenson.
I knew it...rumor verified
Kevyn wrote:
However, for Americans who view the Pequot massacre as the origin of Thanksgiving
I don't. Have a nice day.
archie bunker wrote:
You have documentation of all of this, I assume?
Don't you people ever read a history book ?? They raided the loges the Iroquois had stored food for the winter Burned the store houses and their housing lodges leaving the survivors to survive the winter with out food or lodging. Nice guy's those Pilgrim's, if they caught a native hunting on the Sabbath they would tie them to a tree and whip them with a bull whip
Nickolai wrote:
Don't you people ever read a history book ?? They raided the loges the Iroquois had stored food for the winter Burned the store houses and their housing lodges leaving the survivors to survive the winter with out food or lodging. Nice guy's those Pilgrim's, if they caught a native hunting on the Sabbath they would tie them to a tree and whip them with a bull whip
Who wrote this? Was it Marx, or Engels? The Iroquois stomping ground was a long way from the Massachusetts coast.
Loki wrote:
Who wrote this? Was it Marx, or Engels? The Iroquois stomping ground was a long way from the Massachusetts coast.
Some aspects of the conventional story are true enough. But it's also true that by 1637 Massachusetts Gov. John Winthrop was proclaiming a thanksgiving for the successful massacre of hundreds of Pequot Indian men, women and children, part of the long and bloody process of opening up additional land to the English invaders. The pattern would repeat itself across the continent until between 95 and 99 percent of American Indians had been exterminated and the rest were left to assimilate into white society or die off on reservations, ( concentration camps) out of the view of polite society. The first president, George Washington, in 1783 said he preferred buying Indians' land rather than driving them off it because that was like driving "wild beasts" from the forest. He compared Indians to wolves, "both being beasts of prey, tho' they differ in shape." Thomas Jefferson—president #3 and author of the Declaration of Independence, which refers to Indians as the "merciless Indian Savages"—was known to romanticize Indians and their culture, but that didn't stop him in 1807 from writing to his secretary of war that in a coming conflict with certain tribes, "[W]e shall destroy all of them."
How does a country deal with the fact that some of its most revered historical figures had certain moral values and political views virtually identical to Nazis? Here's how "respectable" politicians, pundits, and professors play the game: When invoking a grand and glorious aspect of our past, then history is all-important. We are told how crucial it is for people to know history, and there is much hand wringing about the younger generations' lack of knowledge about, and respect for, that history. In the United States, we hear constantly about the deep wisdom of the founding fathers, the adventurous spirit of the early explorers, the gritty determination of those who "settled" the country—and about how crucial it is for children to learn these things. But when one brings into historical discussions any facts and interpretations that contest the celebratory story and make people uncomfortable—such as the genocide of indigenous people as the foundational act in the creation of the United States—suddenly the value of history drops precipitously and one is asked, "Why do you insist on dwelling on the past?"
Nickolai wrote:
Some aspects of the conventional story are true enough. But it's also true that by 1637 Massachusetts Gov. John Winthrop was proclaiming a thanksgiving for the successful massacre of hundreds of Pequot Indian men, women and children, part of the long and bloody process of opening up additional land to the English invaders. The pattern would repeat itself across the continent until between 95 and 99 percent of American Indians had been exterminated and the rest were left to assimilate into white society or die off on reservations, ( concentration camps) out of the view of polite society. The first president, George Washington, in 1783 said he preferred buying Indians' land rather than driving them off it because that was like driving "wild beasts" from the forest. He compared Indians to wolves, "both being beasts of prey, tho' they differ in shape." Thomas Jefferson—president #3 and author of the Declaration of Independence, which refers to Indians as the "merciless Indian Savages"—was known to romanticize Indians and their culture, but that didn't stop him in 1807 from writing to his secretary of war that in a coming conflict with certain tribes, "[W]e shall destroy all of them."
How does a country deal with the fact that some of its most revered historical figures had certain moral values and political views virtually identical to Nazis? Here's how "respectable" politicians, pundits, and professors play the game: When invoking a grand and glorious aspect of our past, then history is all-important. We are told how crucial it is for people to know history, and there is much hand wringing about the younger generations' lack of knowledge about, and respect for, that history. In the United States, we hear constantly about the deep wisdom of the founding fathers, the adventurous spirit of the early explorers, the gritty determination of those who "settled" the country—and about how crucial it is for children to learn these things. But when one brings into historical discussions any facts and interpretations that contest the celebratory story and make people uncomfortable—such as the genocide of indigenous people as the foundational act in the creation of the United States—suddenly the value of history drops precipitously and one is asked, "Why do you insist on dwelling on the past?"
Some aspects of the conventional story are true en... (
show quote)
First off, Pequots are not Iroquois. I know you progressives think one Injun is as good as another for conservative castigation purposes.
I have tried, to no avail, to explain historical reality in terms simple enough for anyone with a fourth grade education to understand. It did not work.
Pennylynn wrote:
This part of our history is interesting, what started as a trade war (French and English) gave rise to the many battles or skirmishes between native Americans and the English. What led to the burning of the Pequot village, mentioned in the start of this thread was precipitated from the very bloody murder of a trader named John Stone and his entire crew on the Connecticut River the summer of 1634. This then led to another tribe, the Manisses, to attack and kill John Oldham the following year. And that began the Pequot War. However, this had nothing to do with the tradition of Thanksgiving, which began in 1621. The holiday we call Thanksgiving was celebrated with the Wampanoag Indians in Virginia, a considerable distance from Connecticut and years earlier.
This part of our history is interesting, what star... (
show quote)
This post I'll take as honest. Kevin ALWAYS finds the negative.
Nickolai wrote:
Some aspects of the conventional story are true enough. But it's also true that by 1637 Massachusetts Gov. John Winthrop was proclaiming a thanksgiving for the successful massacre of hundreds of Pequot Indian men, women and children, part of the long and bloody process of opening up additional land to the English invaders. The pattern would repeat itself across the continent until between 95 and 99 percent of American Indians had been exterminated and the rest were left to assimilate into white society or die off on reservations, ( concentration camps) out of the view of polite society. The first president, George Washington, in 1783 said he preferred buying Indians' land rather than driving them off it because that was like driving "wild beasts" from the forest. He compared Indians to wolves, "both being beasts of prey, tho' they differ in shape." Thomas Jefferson—president #3 and author of the Declaration of Independence, which refers to Indians as the "merciless Indian Savages"—was known to romanticize Indians and their culture, but that didn't stop him in 1807 from writing to his secretary of war that in a coming conflict with certain tribes, "[W]e shall destroy all of them."
How does a country deal with the fact that some of its most revered historical figures had certain moral values and political views virtually identical to Nazis? Here's how "respectable" politicians, pundits, and professors play the game: When invoking a grand and glorious aspect of our past, then history is all-important. We are told how crucial it is for people to know history, and there is much hand wringing about the younger generations' lack of knowledge about, and respect for, that history. In the United States, we hear constantly about the deep wisdom of the founding fathers, the adventurous spirit of the early explorers, the gritty determination of those who "settled" the country—and about how crucial it is for children to learn these things. But when one brings into historical discussions any facts and interpretations that contest the celebratory story and make people uncomfortable—such as the genocide of indigenous people as the foundational act in the creation of the United States—suddenly the value of history drops precipitously and one is asked, "Why do you insist on dwelling on the past?"
Some aspects of the conventional story are true en... (
show quote)
Perhaps, in your all-knowing wisdom, you can name one civilization, just one who did not indulge in the same behavior. Chinese? Hindu? Muslim? Greek? Roman? European? African? How about the Hittites? The Egyptians? Maybe the Chaldeans? Babylonians? Assyrians? Mongols? Let's have it, Mr. Morality.
Peace, Love and [Red] Tofu.
slatten49 wrote:
An unnamed/unknown source confirms the floating rumor that Loki attend sensitivity training during his brief suspension. Word is out...source(s) unknown, that he is now a "kinder & gentler" knuckle-dragging savage.
Those sources (reportedly) also claim that the rumor was started by BadBobby. He claims the information came from an undisclosed source.
I'ma guessing AuntiE was the culprit.
But, then, that's just what I heard.
An unnamed/unknown source confirms the floating ru... (
show quote)
Hey
I'm innocent
that's just another attempt by a dastardly marine to denigrate a fine upstanding handsome Swabbie.
And then he jumps on Auntie
I fear for you Slat
those 1500 miles are shrinking fast
rebob14 wrote:
NOT a fact! Read The Mayflower by Nathaniel Philbrick
so long ago
so many different stories
lets just be thankful
period
archie bunker wrote:
Pass the bong Willy. Would ya?😂😂
Sure, all packed with some green frosty for ya
be sure to save some for the next person
PaulPisces wrote:
It's the new Loki, Willy!!! br br (or, maybe he i... (
show quote)
It just caught me by surprise Paul......it shall take some getting used to, fo sho
Weewillynobeerspilly wrote:
It just caught me by surprise Paul......it shall take some getting used to, fo sho
I'm back. All that nice made me throw up.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.