Summations Only

All I was doing was presenting the original source to all knowledge we have about the celebration that is no referred to as the first Thanksgiving. It was not called that at the time.
I don't give a rat's ass if you read it. It is a very interesting historical nugget that I chose to share. All the ideas we have about what was eaten, what was said and even who was there are for the most part wrong. Any painting you see of this event is wrong.
Use the info if you want or ignore it. I don't care.

I don't trust anything you say, that's the bottom line.Either produce some of the content or don't. I don't care either.

I do not really care what the debatable history of the Thanksgiving holiday entails. There is the more important matter of its contemporary meaning as seen by an entire segment of the captured native populations.We have a large population of Apache and Navajo in Arizona. Their view of this white man's holiday is quite different from that of the society that has systematically impoverished and deliberately exterminated their peoples and their cultures over these last 300 years.My avatar honors their view. If that reality makes some people upset then it has achieved its goal.Thank you for noticing.
Edited by AZPaul3, : title

I think Faith is confused and thinks you're denying that any Indians were at the feast where they could "after a more special manner rejoice together" that is today called the First Thanksgiving. The http://mayflowerhistory.com/letter-winslow-1621 you linked to says that Indians were there:

quote:

---

We exercised our arms, many of the Indians coming amongst us, and among the rest their greatest King Massasoit, with some ninety men, whom for three days we entertained and feasted, and they went out and killed five deer, which they brought to the plantation and bestowed on our governor, and upon the captain, and others.

---

So I didn't think you were telling Faith she was wrong, but she seemed to believe you were. I thought you were only pointing out that despite the First Thanksgiving that relations between the colonists and the Indians quickly deteriorated, much to their detriment.--Percy

The persecution complex is large in that group of people and Faith in particular. I was attempting to give some historical background explaining why natives do not get so misty eyed over Thanksgiving. Which in reality is a made up holiday and in reality has nothing to do with the feast at Plimouth plantation.
Faith is proud of her ignorance. She revels in it. She has no desire to rise above her ignorance. But there are a lot of lurkers. If I can help them remove some of their ignorance, I will and I will feel good about it.
I have learned a lot of things I was profoundly ignorant of by participating on this forum. I hope others that participate here have also. I also hope the lurkers have removed some of their own ignorance and have learned from what I and others have posted.Thank you for providing such a wonderful forum to discuss the myriad of ideas we discuss. At times it feels like I am stepping into a tavern and meeting with the locals when I come here.

STOP TALKING ABOUT ME. WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE? YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT ME AT ALL, AND YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO TALK ABOUT ME ANYWAY. THIS IS A TAVERN FOR LEFTISTS ONLY, IT CERTAINLY ISN'T FOR SOME OF US.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm sick of all the anti-American propaganda and that's all your avatar represents to me. And all you are doing is repeating all the propaganda points. The history is far more complex than that. In fact history is in general far more complex than anything Leftists say about any of it, which is ALL propaganda, all manufactured hate-America Marixist lies.Gosh isn't it interesting how censorship has become the weapon of choice at EvC against Leftist opinions? Kinda reminds a person of how the Communist world operates, oh and the Fascistic world too. That's what the Prager story was about that got posted recently, and interestingly enough treated to the very methods it was trying to expose. Gosh isn't that just too coincidental?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You support the destruction of whole nations of people?Your christian is showing again. Destructive. Hateful. Evil.

Yeah, right, you've got all those Lefist lies down pat, all the PC labels, such a conformist you are sad to say. Just as Prager says, it's all to intimidate and shut us up. No, I'm not going to defend myself against the Leftist propaganda machine, they're going to destroy the country and probably kill me too. You can have first swing at me if you like. That's because I'm fond of you of course, so I give you permission to kill me. There are some leftists I would not want to be killed by so you should take it as a compliment..Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Were the Cherokee forced to leave their homelands?

You're the christian, not me. I don't want to kill anyone, especially you.I don't think anyone here wants to kill anyone else here. But when evil arises it must be called out for what it is. My views on religion, especially yours, are well known. You shouldn't be surprised, or insulted (well maybe a little), by my response.Your pollyanna view of American history is quaint but nieve. We American's do not have a good reputation with our native populations. Or the populations that we forced into slavery. In fact we have one of the worst records on the planet. For all our law and talk of freedoms we have a major problem actually practicing those high principles outside our limited family. We have abused, subjugated, and exterminated those we consider "them".Part of real patriotism is knowing and accepting our countries tainted history so as to safeguard against repeating our past crimes.

America has long had a real immigration problem. Ask any Native American.AbE:We tend to forget that there have been thriving cultures here in the Americas since at least 20,000 years before the Garden of Eden.Edited by jar, : see AbE:

I find the treatment of Native Americans often to be largely fictionalized by both sides. The mythos of Thanksgiving is based around kernel's of truth. There was a peace pact and a celebration of sorts. But this was in one area with one or two tribes and this occasion really only happened once. So the traditional aspect is grossly exaggerated. Other pacts between tribes and colonials were war pacts where the certain tribes sided with either the French, the English, or the Americans. It was an expedient for both sides.Native Americans are often viewed homogeneously, as if belonging to one large group. The reality is that long before Europeans invaded foreign, tribes were as disparate and nuanced as any other tribe on earth. They damn sure didn't view one another as brothers but rather enemies... or in some cases, frenemies. The idealized "Noble Savage" narrative that's in touch with nature and passing the peace pipe is a Disney-fied version of history just as out of touch with historical reality as Thanksgiving is. Some tribes really were much more meek than others. Some, like the Comanches in particular, terrorized anyone not in their tribe -- whether colonials or other Native American tribes.The barbarity of the Comanches, and some other tribes, were astonishing. And this wasn't consigned to only North America but also tribes in Central and South America reflect the same nature -- some being very meek and peaceful and others existing by brutality.Long before the white man did N.A. tribes war with one another.Having said that, no one can overlook how different settlers treated Natives. Some treated them well and wanted to live in harmony with them while many, many others brutalized them, used them, betrayed them in many instances and, while we're on the topic of savagery, also brutalized many different tribes to advance their view of Manifest Destiny.My take on it is that, like it is with anything else, there's good people and there are bad people. They are mingled in with different races. There's no such thing as a benevolent race or a malevolent race. There's only good people and bad people and they are scattered throughout the earth.Am I bothered by their eventual fate? Sure, how can you not be? Land was given back to them and there's not a single reservation flourishing anywhere in the United States. All of them are downtrodden.I lived in Flagstaff for a few years ('04 - '06) and I met plenty of Navajo and Hopi peoples. I found that many didn't seem to want to dwell on the past but were much more interested in the future. I met others that looked at me with the coldest disdain imaginable because I was a representation of all that was wrong in their world.Whatever the case, its incontestable that just as slavery was a scar on the American conscience, so too has been the fate of Natives.

Is my view Pollyanna or is yours Marxist propaganda? I don't usually try to find middle ground in this ideological war but in this case maybe that's where the truth lies.AbE Gosh pretty soon I'll have no words left.\Oh and here comes the lecture from Percy or someone else on behalf of poor abused EvC.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You are portraying an incorrect fictional view of native tribes pre contact. Most of the native peoples had been knocked back to a brutal stone age existence by disease that was caused by white contact. The Europeans did not make contact with most natives until well after the devastation by disease. Probably the only non tainted contact was Columbus and the first Spanish to land on the mainland. Most native societies pre contact were quite sophisticated. Not only is the concept of noble savage quite in correct, the concept of native american being savages at all is white ethnocentric concept that is probably not true at all.A very good general book that explores this is
1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus - WikipediaAs far as reservations you make big misrepresentation. Land was not given to them. The land they were put on was all that was left to them. It was usually the most inhospitable, least productive and most remote place the government could find. A lot if reservations were not even in the tribes traditional place of living. For this and other reasons it is no wonder why reservations are poverty stricken.You make some good points about peoples mistaken beliefs, but your beliefs are based on myths and inaccurate information also.I want to make clear. I am not attacking you or your post. All I am doing is pointing out inaccuracies in your post.