*post by criminal, not me, he blew his browser and cant acess DA right now.*


They did not teach this in my school school.

http://www.nrg.to/RNT/webdoc12.htm

by Richard Williams
One day in 1605, a young Patuxet Indian boy named Tisquantum and his dog were out hunting Owhen they spotted a large English merchant ship off the coast of Plymouth, Mass. Tisquantum, who later became known as Squanto, had no idea that life as he knew it was about to change forever.

His role in helping the Pilgrims to survive the harsh New England winter and celebrate the "first" Thanksgiving has been much storied as a legend of happy endings, with the English and the Indians coming together at the same table in racial harmony. Few people, however, know the story of Squanto's sad life and the demise of his tribe as a result of its generosity. Each year, as the nation sits down to a meal that is celebrated by all cultures and races - the day we know as Thanksgiving - the story of Squanto and the fate of the Patuxet tribe is a footnote in history that deserves re-examination.

The day that Capt. George Weymouth anchored off the coast of Massachusetts, he and his sailors captured Squanto and four other tribesmen and took them back to England as slaves because Weymouth thought his financial backers "might like to see" some Indians. Squanto was taken to live with Sir Ferdinando Gorges, owner of the Plymouth Company. Gorges quickly saw Squanto's value to his company's exploits in the new world and taught his young charge to speak English so that his captains could negotiate trade deals with the Indians.

In 1614, Squanto was brought back to America to act as a guide and interpreter to assist in the mapping of the New England coast, but was kidnapped along with 27 other Indians and taken to Malaga, Spain, to be sold as slaves for about $25 a piece. When local priests learned of the fate of the Indians, they took them from the slave traders, Christianized them and eventually sent them back to America in 1618.

But his return home was short-lived. Squanto was recognized by one of Gorges' captains, was captured a third time and sent back to England as Gorges' slave. He was later sent back to New England with Thomas Dermer to finish mapping the coast, after which he was promised his freedom. In 1619, however, upon returning to his homeland, Squanto learned that his entire tribe had been wiped out by smallpox contracted from the Europeans two years before. He was the last surviving member of his tribe.

In November 1620, the Pilgrims made their now-famous voyage to the coast of Plymouth, which had previously been the center of Patuxet culture. The next year, on March 22, 1621, Squanto was sent to negotiate a peace treaty between the Wampanoag Confederation of tribes and the Pilgrims. We also know that Squanto's skills as a fisherman and farmer were crucial to the survival of the Pilgrims that first year - contributions which changed history.

But in November 1622, Squanto himself would also succumb to smallpox during a trading expedition to the Massachusetts Indians. The Patuxet, like so many other tribes, had become extinct. The lesson of Squanto and the Pilgrims is not one of bitter remembrance, but rather a celebration of the generosity of Indian people. Under the guidance of Squanto, the Pilgrims followed a longstanding Indian tradition of offering thanks. Although we celebrate Thanksgiving as an "American" holiday, its beginnings are Native to the core.

Feasts of gratitude and giving thanks have been a part of Indian culture for thousands of years. In Lakota culture, it's called a Wopila; in Navajo, it's Hozhoni; in Cherokee, it's Selu i-tse-i; and in Ho Chunk it's Wicawas warocu sto waroc. Each tribe, each Indian nation, has its own form of Thanksgiving. But for Indian culture, Thanksgiving doesn't end when the dishes are put away. It is something we celebrate all year long - at the birth of a baby, a safe journey, a new home.

So when you sit down to Thanksgiving dinner this year, remember Squanto and the great sacrifices made by him and his tribe to a people they didn't know. That is the legacy of the Indian people of New England - one that we can all enjoy.

Richard B. Williams is the executive director of the American Indian College Fund, a historian, educator and the founder of the Upward Bound Program at the University of Colorado at Boulder. Members of the Compass panel are selected each spring

Let us give thanks.

*post by criminal, not me, he blew his browser and cant acess DA right now.*...He did what to his browser?!?!?!:eek: :eek3: :eek:

i wouldnt suspect oki to have the balls to post such a long tread. :)

i wouldnt suspect oki to have the balls to post such a long tread. :) :p youre right my balls have different purpuses.

He did what to his browser?!?!?! I dont know exactly, its messed up. probbly spyware or something.

He did what to his browser?!?!?!:eek: :eek3: :eek:
Oki should not post such personal information about me... at least he should post this in the everything forum. :mad:

:jk:

I installed DSL last week and as a result, my IE browser was mucked up. I could not get the address bar or anything. I got the problem fixed finally.

I installed DSL last week and as a result, my IE browser was mucked up. I could not get the address bar or anything. I got the problem fixed finally.

Just get firefox, much better than IE for a number of reasons.

Just get firefox, much better than IE for a number of reasons. lol... was the first thing I told him too.. but crim has better things to do then mess around with compu... oops too much info again... :|

Excellent post.

next one is. "true story of christmas" :)

next one is. "true story of christmas" :)
Starring Oki, Æsir, and h2g2 as the three wise men & Smoochie as the baby Jesus.

and kenneth starr as the evil king.

Starring Oki, Æsir, and h2g2 as the three wise men & Smoochie as the baby Jesus. :w00t:

The Indians were not a generous people. They were brutal savages who held slaves, murdered and made war. I for one am glad their entire civilization was destroyed.

They were brutal savages who held slaves, murdered and made war.

Yes, I'm sure glad they were replaced by racist slave holders who murdered and made war! :|

I for one am glad their entire civilization was destroyed.

So, in other words, you approve of their virtual genocide?

Yes, I'm sure glad they were replaced by racist slave holders who murdered and made war! :|


Actually the US Army had to liberate slaves from Indian tribes after the civil war. Yay, history is fun!


So, in other words, you approve of their virtual genocide?

There was no "genocide" or anything close. I approve of the destruction of their inferior and savage culture. I never said I supported killing anyone.

Actually the US Army had to liberate slaves from Indian tribes after the civil war. Yay, history is fun!

Same tactic here as in the Bush lied/mislead thread :rolleyes:

I approve of the destruction of their inferior and savage culture. I never said I supported killing anyone.

what if there were resistant bands? Like the Apaches for example. They wouldn't assimiliate or submit, so how would you have had the destruction of their culture/civilization by any other means besides the gun? Again, all I see is dancing around the ugly truths of your beliefs. Pathetic.

what if there were resistant bands? Like the Apaches for example. They wouldn't assimiliate or submit, so how would you have had the destruction of their culture/civilization by any other means besides the gun? Again, all I see is dancing around the ugly truths of your beliefs. Pathetic.

The new immigrants to the Americas had every right to establish their culture and defend it from the savages who lived here. They didn't have to attack them to displace their cultural hegemony in this land. But if attacked, as they were, they had a right to strike back, defend themselves and take pre-emptive action.

The new immigrants to the Americas had every right to establish their culture and defend it from the savages who lived here. They didn't have to attack them to displace their cultural hegemony in this land. But if attacked, as they were, they had a right to strike back, defend themselves and take pre-emptive action.

LOL. "New Immigrants" Why not the Snouter speak?
:rofl:

They were immigrants. Why, in your opinion only brown people can be immigrants? :rolleyes:

So Contra? Were all Indians uncivilized savages deserving of death?

Actually the US Army had to liberate slaves from Indian tribes after the civil war. Yay, history is fun!



liberate slaves, thats hilarious.... they had a 'few' slaves of their own, didnt they?

liberate slaves, thats hilarious.... they had a 'few' slaves of their own, didnt they?
A number of tribes in Oklahoma and elsewhere did have slaves. This was particularly of the "five civilized tribes" who were southern in customs and habits. Interesting to note, even today there are "black indians" who are former slaves of indian tribes. Many of them live in Oklahoma where they continue to practice indian customs.

The Indians were not a generous people. They were brutal savages who held slaves, murdered and made war. I for one am glad their entire civilization was destroyed.
Some were warlike and some were peaceful. But they were no worse than the whites who conquered them. For instance, the custom of scalping came from the Dutch (sorry Oki) who paid the Iriquois for scalps of their enemies in exchange for guns and liquor.

But do remember, whether you like the indians or not, they were here first.

So Contra? Were all Indians uncivilized savages deserving of death?

Contra completely whitewashes expansionist history and even attempts to give "pre-emptive" action deep american historical antiquity! LOL.

For instance, the custom of scalping came from the Dutch (sorry Oki) who paid the Iriquois for scalps of their enemies in exchange for guns and liquor.

no need to apologise, Im fully aware of what basterds the dutch were (and are, apperently)

liberate slaves, thats hilarious.... they had a 'few' slaves of their own, didnt they?

Ah, not after the civil war they didn't. That was kind of the whole point. Why don't you read a book or two once in a while. :rolleyes:

Some were warlike and some were peaceful. But they were no worse than the whites who conquered them.


Most were warlike. Most of the peaceful ones were simply that way because there was no one in the area weak enough for them to attack. They were worse than the whites in many ways, and their culture was far inferior.


But do remember, whether you like the indians or not, they were here first.

Irrelevant.

So Contra? Were all Indians uncivilized savages deserving of death?

Strawman. :rolleyes:

The Indians were not a generous people. They were brutal savages who held slaves, murdered and made war. I for one am glad their entire civilization was destroyed.


Individuals within the Native American population were certainly guilty of atrociities common to every nation in history...such is an inherent flaw of humanity. and the reason there must be some form of government.
But your generalizing the negative expressions of the fraction onto the whole is nothing less than racist propaganda, and quite typical of your hate-fueled agenda. Adding to that your celebration of genocide, one can only see your rightful destiny as having your loathsome head crushed beneath the heel of woman.

But your generalizing the negative expressions of the fraction


Prove its a fraction.


racist propaganda, and quite typical of your hate-fueled agenda.


BWAHAHAHAAHH!


Adding to that your celebration of genocide,


I never celebrated genocide. You however are an apologist for a savage and inferior culture and murdering indian tribes.


one can only see your rightful destiny as having your loathsome head crushed beneath the heel of woman.

This is a threat of violence. How very progressive of you.

I for one am glad their entire civilization was destroyed .
Maybe you aught to pick up a book, pal.


I approve of the destruction of their inferior and savage culture
You sound rather inferior and savage, at this point.

I for one am glad their entire civilization was destroyed.
I approve of the destruction of their inferior and savage culture

Bands of cavemen is not a culture. They were savage brutes and needed to be civilized. Nuff said.

cul·ture
The totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought.
These patterns, traits, and products considered as the expression of a particular period, class, community, or population.

Culture, of which you, seem to have none.

Prove its a fraction.

That would be quite easy to do, but your "satisfaction" is not worth the least bit of effort.



I never celebrated genocide. You however are an apologist for a savage and inferior culture and murdering indian tribes.
You not only continue with your racist overgeneralizations, but you even deny your own statements. Weak.

This is a threat of violence. How very progressive of you.

Weak again. My condemnation could only be perceived as a threat if I were the Womankind in my statement. I'm fairly certain my reference to the serpent of Eden was not lost on other readers here.

You know, your noxious attitude is common to that of immigrants from countries with a history of fascism. You weren't born an American, were you?
You certainly don't espouse any of the loftier American ideals.

It's very simple. The article posted here is by a historian. Contra used a generalization to counter the argument of the article. Why doesn't Contra use historical details relevant to the events and interpretations specific to the article to help his argument?

Oh and his comment of "bands of cavemen" shows he knows not of history. Secondly, he remains curiously silent on the role of violence in the destruction of what he notes as an "inferior" culture.

Culture, of which you, seem to have none.

Now that one hurt. :rolleyes:

It's very simple. The article posted here is by a historian. Contra used a generalization to counter the argument of the article. Why doesn't Contra use historical details relevant to the events and interpretations specific to the article to help his argument?


Anyone who knoes anything about history knows the facts. It is not needed.


Oh and his comment of "bands of cavemen" shows he knows not of history.


They didn't have a system of writing nor did they even invent the wheel. They were basically cavemen.


Secondly, he remains curiously silent on the role of violence in the destruction of what he notes as an "inferior" culture.

There was a clash of cultures. They both used violence. The superior culture won.

Anyone who knoes anything about history knows the facts. It is not needed.

Facts do not support lies, do they?



They didn't have a system of writing nor did they even invent the wheel. They were basically cavemen.
Some tribes did have systems of writing, and they did not live in caves, as the "superior" Britons once did.



There was a clash of cultures. They both used violence. The superior culture won.

What decimated the Native nations was not superior warfare, but the incidental as well as purposeful infection by diseases, namely smallpox, plus the cowardly destruction of their principal food source, the buffalo. There was nothing "superior" nor honorable about either means.

Anyone who knoes anything about history knows the facts. It is not needed.


This is as weak a cop-out as I have ever seen. LOL.

This is as weak a cop-out as I have ever seen. LOL.

This is not a cop out. You just don't know your history.

This is not a cop out. You just don't know your history.


Make the case, in detail, relevant to the specifics of the article. If for nothing else, just for ****z and giggles since you have already made your historical ignorance known here.

Ah, not after the civil war they didn't. That was kind of the whole point. Why don't you read a book or two once in a while. :rolleyes: if you had any grasp of history youd know that these time frames are nothing. its hardly a difference that the whites abiolished slavery a few years earlyer.

You know, your noxious attitude is common to that of immigrants from countries with a history of fascism. You weren't born an American, were you?
You certainly don't espouse any of the loftier American ideals.


LOL....I thought so.
I'm guessing East German.

Most were warlike. Most of the peaceful ones were simply that way because there was no one in the area weak enough for them to attack. They were worse than the whites in many ways, and their culture was far inferior.



Irrelevant.Well if you study the history of Europe you will note that ancient Celts were barbarians who sacreficed children and burned war captives alive and took the heads of their enemies as trophies. Those are the ancestors of modern British and Irish. Romans loved to watch men fight to death and placed money on the games. They also were fond of watching people being eaten by Lions. Germans were even more savage. Even the Moses of the Bible commanded his people to commit bloody massacres of entire peoples. War is something almost universal. The only truely people tend to be very basic hunter-gather societies such as the African Bushmen who live in deserts and survive in lands nobody where else would want to live. Similarly, the Aborigonees, before Australia was colonized never knew war and were shocked by the degree of cruelty shown by the British.