slingblade
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2005
- Messages
- 23,466
I said the relationship between the Christian pilgrims and the Indians was good. This is not about the Pilgrims -- but if its true, thanks for bringing it in because I'm all for talking about true secular and religious history.
Last edited:
Cleon
King of the Pod People
I don't care what "feelings" you may or may not have.
What evidence do you have that any single organization, secular humanist or otherwise, made any decision about the teaching of Columbus' name?
So far, the answer seems to hover between "jack" and "squat," and Jack appears to be getting bored.
Cleon
King of the Pod People
Cleon
King of the Pod People
And it might not be a good idea to blame the settlers for everything because there was tribe on tribe violence and 2 tribes actually sided with the English against the Pequots.
From Wikis article on the Pequots:
Main article: Pequot War
In 1637, long-standing tensions between the Puritan English of Connecticut and Massachusetts Bay colonies and the Pequot escalated into open warfare. The Mohegan and the Narragansett sided with the English. Perhaps 1,500 Pequot were killed in battles or hunted down. Others were captured and distributed as slaves or household servants. A few escaped to be absorbed by the Mohawk or the Niantic on Long Island. Eventually, some would try to return to their traditional lands, while family groups of "friendly" Pequots stayed. Of those enslaved, most were awarded to the allied tribes, but many were also sold to plantations in the West Indies.[7] The Mohegan in particular treated their Pequot hostages so severely that colonial officials of Connecticut Colony eventually removed them. Two reservations were established by 1683. While both of their land bases were exceedingly reduced by what eventually became the state of Connecticut, they continue to exist to the present.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pequot
From Wikis article on the Pequots:
Main article: Pequot War
In 1637, long-standing tensions between the Puritan English of Connecticut and Massachusetts Bay colonies and the Pequot escalated into open warfare. The Mohegan and the Narragansett sided with the English. Perhaps 1,500 Pequot were killed in battles or hunted down. Others were captured and distributed as slaves or household servants. A few escaped to be absorbed by the Mohawk or the Niantic on Long Island. Eventually, some would try to return to their traditional lands, while family groups of "friendly" Pequots stayed. Of those enslaved, most were awarded to the allied tribes, but many were also sold to plantations in the West Indies.[7] The Mohegan in particular treated their Pequot hostages so severely that colonial officials of Connecticut Colony eventually removed them. Two reservations were established by 1683. While both of their land bases were exceedingly reduced by what eventually became the state of Connecticut, they continue to exist to the present.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pequot
Last edited:
quixotecoyote
Howling to glory I go
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2006
- Messages
- 10,379
You know, there were some Jewish collaborators in Nazi Germany. I guess the Nazi's weren't that bad after all.
Wheezebucket
Master Cylinder
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2006
- Messages
- 1,491
You're not big on context, are you? Did you really just go over to wikipedia to try and cherry pick some info that sounded like it might support your insane ramblings?
ETA - Of course he did. I shouldn't have been so surprised. We redskins just don't know when to quit!
ETA - Of course he did. I shouldn't have been so surprised. We redskins just don't know when to quit!
Last edited:
Cleon
King of the Pod People
Despite having it explained to him explicitly, DOC has yet to grasp the high-school concept that history is not about the factoids, it's about the context.
Ladewig
I lost an avatar bet.
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2001
- Messages
- 28,828
Well said.
gypsey
Thinker
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2006
- Messages
- 222
i can cherry pick too
According to a decree by Queen Isabella of Castile and also later under British colonial rule, slavery was considered to be illegal unless the people involved were so depraved that their conditions as slaves would be better than as free men. Demonstrations of cannibalistic tendencies were considered evidence of such depravity, and hence reports of cannibalism became widespread.[9] This legal requirement might have led to conquerors exaggerating the extent of cannibalistic practices, or inventing them altogether.
[edit] Early history era
In Germany some experts like Emil Carthaus and Dr. Bruno Bernhard found 1,891 signs of cannibalism in the caves at the Hönne (BC 1000 - 700).
Cannibalism is reported in the Bible during the siege Samaria
(2 Kings 6:25-30). Two women made a pact to eat their children, but after the first mother cooked her child, the second mother ate it but refused to reciprocate by cooking her own child.
Almost exactly the same story is reported by Flavius Josephus during the siege of Jerusalem by Rome in 70AD.
Cannibalism was documented in Egypt during a famine caused by the failure of the Nile to flood for eight years (AD 1064-1073).
St. Jerome, in his letter Against Jovinianus, tells of meeting members of a British tribe, the Atticoti, while traveling in Gaul. According to Jerome, the Britons claimed that they enjoyed eating "the buttocks of the shepherds and the breasts of their women" as a delicacy (ca. 360 AD). In 2001, archaeologists at the University of Bristol found evidence of Iron Age cannibalism in Gloucestershire.[11]
Reports of cannibilism were recorded during the First Crusade. Due to encroaching starvation, crusaders fed on the bodies of their dead opponents following the capture of the Arab town of Ma'arrat al-Numan. Amin Maalouf also discusses further cannibalism incidents on the march to Jerusalem, and to the efforts made to delete mention of these from western history. (Amin Maalouf, The Crusades through Arab Eyes. Schocken, 1989, ISBN 0-8052-0898-4).
William Arens, author of The Man-Eating Myth: Anthropology and Anthropophagy (New York : Oxford University Press, 1979; ISBN 0-19-502793-0), questions the credibility of reports of cannibalism and argues that the description by one group of people of another people as cannibals is a consistent and demonstrable ideological and rhetorical device to establish perceived cultural superiority. Arens bases his thesis on a detailed analysis of numerous "classic" cases of cultural cannibalism cited by explorers, missionaries, and anthropologists. His findings were that many were steeped in racism, unsubstantiated, or based on second-hand or hearsay evidence. In combing the literature he could not find a single credible eye-witness account. And, as he points out, the hallmark of ethnography is the observation of a practice prior to description. In the end he concluded that cannibalism was not the widespread prehistoric practice it was claimed to be; that anthropologists were too quick to pin the cannibal label on a group based not on responsible research but on our own culturally-determined pre-conceived notions, often motivated by a need to exoticize. He wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibal
you claim to know so much yet know so little, maybe you should finish school and get out into the world a little more
home schooling and too much church is truly a bad bad thing
oh and it's seems past time for cats
This really isn't as surprising news as someone might have you think. During the early 1400's and long up into the 1700's in the Western mind there festered an idea that Paradise was real, and could ve found on Earth.
While it, of course partly is true that Columbis sought the searoute to India so that the West could get cheap(er) spices, herbs, silks etc, it is also partly true that this quest also was somewhat related to finding Paradise on Earth.
In the early 1400's and maybe longer? people did believe that Jesus wouldn't come again, untill the world has been christianized, that is untill the whole globe was under the dominion of the Christian Pope and that all the world's people had been converted to the true faith, the Holy Roman Catholic faith.
As for the Pilgrims, they were Puritans, a sect that lived in England during the Cromwell years (Cromwell as a Puritan, too and wanted the world and society to be built upon the Holy Word of the People). The Puritans attacked anything they didn't, including nakedness, earthly pleasures etc. etc. and wanted generally to take the word of God (way too) litterally. And so they moved to the Netherlands, but the Dutch didn't like these people much, so they set sail for the 'new world'. And started to built their dream society, a society in which the word of God, the Bible, was the fundament, or foundation for society. (does this ring a bell, anyone??) Luckily, the founding fathers did not think as the Puritans do. They were well educated (most of them, anyway), and so they wrote the Declaration on Independence based on the Bill of Rights from 1218, I think? In the US today, as I see it, we have two traditions opposing each other, the Puritan/bible tradition and the Englightement tradition. (from the Enlightement Age around 1720-1780).
As in all other countries throughout the world, modernist are clashing with traditionalists, liberals are clashing with conservatives, and much more...
While it, of course partly is true that Columbis sought the searoute to India so that the West could get cheap(er) spices, herbs, silks etc, it is also partly true that this quest also was somewhat related to finding Paradise on Earth.
In the early 1400's and maybe longer? people did believe that Jesus wouldn't come again, untill the world has been christianized, that is untill the whole globe was under the dominion of the Christian Pope and that all the world's people had been converted to the true faith, the Holy Roman Catholic faith.
As for the Pilgrims, they were Puritans, a sect that lived in England during the Cromwell years (Cromwell as a Puritan, too and wanted the world and society to be built upon the Holy Word of the People). The Puritans attacked anything they didn't, including nakedness, earthly pleasures etc. etc. and wanted generally to take the word of God (way too) litterally. And so they moved to the Netherlands, but the Dutch didn't like these people much, so they set sail for the 'new world'. And started to built their dream society, a society in which the word of God, the Bible, was the fundament, or foundation for society. (does this ring a bell, anyone??) Luckily, the founding fathers did not think as the Puritans do. They were well educated (most of them, anyway), and so they wrote the Declaration on Independence based on the Bill of Rights from 1218, I think? In the US today, as I see it, we have two traditions opposing each other, the Puritan/bible tradition and the Englightement tradition. (from the Enlightement Age around 1720-1780).
As in all other countries throughout the world, modernist are clashing with traditionalists, liberals are clashing with conservatives, and much more...
kmortis
Biomechanoid, Director of IDIOCY (Region 13)
kmortis
Biomechanoid, Director of IDIOCY (Region 13)
It's OK, Hokulele. I popped a brain vessel reading that, so I'm relinquishing my hold on insulting him. Have at. He's a stupid, racist bigot that only deserves to be derided and insulted. We've tried to demonstrate rationally how his arguments were wrong, and so far the only thing that he's managed to learn is that he posts his threads in a forum, not that he posts his forums.
The truth of the matter is that the Natives were humans before the Europeans got here. Some were peacable, some were not; usually in the same tribe. They did not lead an idyllic life, nor a barbaric one. Most tribes were hunter/gatherers, some had rudimentary agriculture. Some tribes got along with the Europeans (the Cherokee come to mind) and generally paid dearly for that behavior. Those that were hostile just paid faster.
Let's face it, Geo. Washington got his name fighting Indians...French-Indian War anyone?
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 54,545
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 54,545
The whole problem here is that there never was a uniform culture in the Americas. Now cannibalism has little and only isolated evidence for it, at least in the sense of a group attacking outsiders primarily in interest of eating them. But there where also certainly brutal violent elements in many native cultures as well.
joobz
Tergiversator
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 17,998
NO! NO! NO!
you originally claimed that the christianity was good for the native americans becuase it protected them from crazed, evil people like napoleon and Hitler from wiping them out.
What Slingblade showed was that christianity was used to commit attrocity on the native americans. It didn't protect them, like you seem to believe. It made them more at danger.
Couple this with the fact that entire civilizations were wiped out in south america at the hands of the true christian spaniards, and you see that christianity protected the native americans from NOTHING!
See, at this point, you have only two options
1.) Admit you were wrong and drop that entire line of thought
2.) Become a complete fool and receive nothing but insult and scorn.
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 54,545
Not exactly. The pilgrims where not puritans, but the only main difference I am aware of is that the puritans wanted to turn the Church of england into their model, and the pilgrims thought it was too corrupt to save and wanted out and to be by them selves. Now many real puritans came latter, and I am not sure that the minor differences in doctrine matter all that much, but they where not puritans and would never have thought of themselves as such.