You think you own whatever land you land on

You think you own whatever land you land on.

The Earth is just a dead thing you can claim.

Other urls found in this thread:

powhatan.org/pocc.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_syphilis#The_Columbian_theory
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Chief Powhatan had just finished up a huge war to claim that land.

Crap song. I'm convinced the voters just check to see what Disney submitted and say OK.

Ugh, another self-righteous Mary Sue who cries about how her way is the right way & the white man is wrong.

Was there any reason for her to hang around John Smith aside from her loins?

But I know every rock and tree and creature,

Has a life, has a spirit, has a name.

You think the only people who are people

Are the people who look and think like you.

Well, if you walk in the footsteps of a stranger,

You'll learn things you never knew, you never knew.

HAVE YOU EEEEVER HEARD THE WOLF CRYYYY TO THE BLUE CORN MOOOOON,

OR ASKED THE GRINNING BOBCAT WHYYY HE GRIIIINNED?

CAN YOU SIIIING WITH ALL THE VOICES OF THE MOOOUNTAIN?

Can you paint with all the colors of the wind?

CAN YOU PAINT WITH ALL THE COLOOOOOORS OOOOOOOOF
THE WIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIND?

Today's homework: compare and contrast these two (sets of) songs about explorers setting out across the ocean to settle a new land: "The Virginia Company"/"Mine, Mine, Mine," and "We Know the Way."

if you watch Pocahontas in the right mood it can feel like an amazing parody of a Disney movie

I've heard that the Powhatan tribe welcomed the whites because they wanted to acquire their weapons through trading and wipe out neighboring tribes. That fucked me up a bit. Everyone's awful.

Nope. The literal driving point of that movie was kid-grade love. Which, we all know, when translated to any other rating, is to get down and dirty with interracial lovin'.

Their intent or not they apparently grew pretty attached to guns. That is if you believe that a major catalyst for Pocahontas conversion to Christianity was her father's refusal to return stolen guns in exchange for her freedom.

>It's the "I can't win through conventional means so I'm going to make falsely morally Sanctimonious arguements to distract you from the fact that I'm weak and pathetic while simultaneously ignoring the fact that I never respected your morals or values in the first place" arguement
Mercy was a mistake.

That's depressing if true. I know they're like magic meat wands for a society of hunters but there's a line.

Also Columbus left a small manned fort on Hispaniola when he returned to Spain after his first voyage. When he came back both the fort and his men were missing, and he just so happened to have hundreds of vetran Castillian mercenaries with him.

Fun fact: A reason as to why the Aztecs got their asses handed to them by Cortez was because the neighboring tribes sided with the Spaniards, tired of the abuse of the Aztecs.

People like to play the "noble savages" trope so often but indigenous cultures behaved like any society at their level of progress would do, and that included partaking in warfare. There were oppressors and oppressed long before the Europeans touched America.

Tribal names are pretty enlightening, most of them just mean just mean "human being" like the Lakota. Others are derived from what other tribe called them, usually some variation of "Assholes". "Apache" for instance comes from a word meaning "enemy" and "Chicago" means "smelly place"

Savages! Savages!

>Disney thought this movie would do better than Lion King

John Ratcliffe was in reality a pretty decent guy who wanted to cooperated with the Indians and live peacefully. He was killed when the Powhatten led him and several other colonists into a trap after they had promised them corn. Ratcliffe tired to a stake and was literally skinned alive, his flayed skin tossed into the fire as he watched. They saved his face for last, and then burned him at the stake. Noble savages my ass.

Tbf, the Five Civilized Tribes did know when enough was enough and sued for peace. The Plains Nations were the ones who didn't know when to quit.
>I feel like we could have gotten along much better than we did, shame.

Another Pocahontas thread...
Another thread where no one wants to talk about how cute Nakoma is.

Wasnt she a turaga in Bionicle?

Maku should've been Toa and not that cunt Hahli.

I like this movie

pink and turquoise everywhere

pink and turquoise fucking everywhere

Nobody is saying that they didn't fight.
The difference is that they managed to avoid genociding an entire culture/race of people because they were different.

Also, they didn't lock up the surivors in boarding schools to wipe out their culture.

>Aztecs got their asses handed to them by Cortez was because the neighboring tribes sided with the Spaniards, tired of the abuse of the Aztecs.
That's like 8th grade history, user. And what's one of the first few things people will think of when they hear "Aztec"? Bloody ritual human sacrifice is probably somewhere up there.

The Europeans didn't even do most of the legwork when it came to ousting the natives with how badly disease ravaged the continents.

>because they were different.
Protip: Genocide takes a lot of work. Nobody would bother doing it just because another race is "different". There's always a reason for it, even if it's as trivial as something like superstition. In this case, they had shit we wanted, so we took it from them.

>pink and turquoise everywhere
>pink and turquoise fucking everywhere
Welcome to the 1990s. Enjoy your stay.

>According to Chief Roy Crazy Horse of the Powhatan Renape Nation, the film "distorts history beyond recognition" and "perpetuates a dishonest and self-serving myth at the expense of the Powhatan Nation.". Roy claims that Disney refused the tribe's offers to help create a more culturally and historically accurate film.[126] An editorial in the Los Angeles Times pointed out America's fascination with the Indian princess who was rarely shown as having anything more important in her life than her male relationships.[127]

The real Pocahontas was 10 years old and also went around naked since Indian children under 12 usually didn't wear anything if the weather permitted. She would have been shaved bald and covered in tribal tattoos.

>According to Chief Roy Crazy Horse of the Powhatan Renape Nation, the film "distorts history beyond recognition" and "perpetuates a dishonest and self-serving myth at the expense of the Powhatan Nation."
Is he actually complaining that they didn't show all the gruesome bits of Pocahontas' story? Or was the movie where the peaceful but strong Native Americans were forced to take action after the evil white men attacked and killed their warriors not fucking enough for him?

powhatan.org/pocc.html

You can read the full thing here, putting aside that it perpetuates the self-serving narrative that the Powhatan were peaceful people massacred by evul Yurrupeans, even though Chief Powhatan had conquered neighboring tribes in a series of bloody wars.

>The difference is that they managed to avoid genociding an entire culture/race of people because they were different.
There were terrible massacres and genocides though, in particular the Erie were wiped out of existence for daring to oppose Iroquois dominance of the Great Lakes region.

And the vast majority of Amerindians died of introduced diseases rather than warfare with Europeans.

The Europeans were total fucking monsters. Columbus in particular enslaved and murdered anyone he could get his hands on. But the Comanches cut off the soles of their enemies' feet, tied them down with hot coals piled on their stomachs and cut off woman's noses before raping them. Nobody in the history of the Americas comes off well.

>Hercules or Pocahontas thread
>half of the posts are "well ackshully"
Every fucking time.
We know you faggots, this is the most trivial shit to know, you don't need to keep spreading your limited knowledge of history.

>and "Chicago" means "smelly place"

Kek, that makes me so happy for some reason, it fits the city and state perfectly.

Yes, it was so terrible to build roads, schools, hospitals, introduce draft animals (which did not exist in the Americas in pre-Columbian times), and making the savages wear pants and stop cutting the hearts out of living people as a sacrifice to the gods.

>genociding an entire culture/race of people because they were different.

Nice narrative, I'm sure there is nothing more to the story than just that tid-bit.

Pocahontas bears an uncanny resemblance to the girl I've been in love with since high school

As a result, I want nothing more than to fuck the shit out of Pocahontas

>There were oppressors and oppressed long before the Europeans touched America.
No one is denying this. What changed after the arrival of the Europeans was the scale and inhumanity of the oppression.

I know for a fact I'd rather be taken captive by a neighbouring tribe that shares much of the same cultural traits as my own than be taken captive by an indifferent foreign race who's desire to dominate the land is completely alien to my own worldview.

This.

So sick and tired of the "Euros. are evil" when they literally built, designed and created the current overall system of the world and actually pushed for the ideology of human rights, and in the US especially, freedom based individual rights.

If I had to choose a time and place to live in the past, I would much rather lived in Europe or a Western Civ., compared to any other place in history on Earth in the past.

The demonetization of the West and the hyper focus on the narrative that they are evil and all other's were pure and innocent is at best, laughable.

Powhatten

I'm sure the occupation of Poland by Germany and Russia in WWII was quite alright then since they were neighboring cunts with much in common culturally, or that all of those Balkan genocides in the 90s were ok because same reason.

Noble savage my butt. Here in Canada, 80% of prison inmates are redskins. The city with the highest crime rate nationwide is Winnipeg which has a large native population.

Are you really comparing the industrial warfare of the 20th century to the tribal skirmishes of time immemorial?

The fuck do you think the Balkan wars were but a glorified tribal blood feud?

>I know for a fact I'd rather be taken captive by a neighbouring tribe
And have them mutilate you, sacrifice you to the gods, burn your village down, and rape/steal all of your women? :-*

Perhaps it was, but it was still fought with all the tools of industrialisation, in a society that had long since been industrialised.

Look, I'm not saying that the native wars were somehow good or noble. War is war, no matter what weapons it's fought with. What changed with the arrival of the Europeans, however, was the scale and aims of that war. Make no mistake, the death of the native American cultures was nothing short of an Armageddon.

As oppose to the Europeans, who would wipe out my entire people to make room for more farming land?

You think the only people who are people, are the people who people people people.

Smith tried to be friends with them, and look at what they've done to him!

>As oppose to the Europeans, who would wipe out my entire people to make room for more farming land?
What do you think happened to the Erie? The Iroquois wiped them out of existence and their territory was mostly just an Iroquois hunting ground thereafter.

If the primary goal of the colonization of the America's was the genocide of the native Americans, there wouldn't be any left today. 95% of native Americans died because of diseases the Europeans didn't even know they had because they were immune carriers.

>by an indifferent foreign race who's desire to dominate the land is completely alien to my own worldview.

Because living in tipi's and being nomadic without even inventing the wheel yet was glorious living, when the rest of the world surrounding them is changing at an alarming rate with science and technology, hell the Egyptians were far more advanced than the Native Americans before the Europeans ever began to get a foot hold onto their own civilization surrounding the Mediterranean.

>arrival of the Europeans was the scale and inhumanity of the oppression.

And you think it would have been any better or different if a Chinese, Asiatic or Middle Eastern Empire came over. When you push this Europeans are evil crap, especially with today's debates and topics, it becomes less of an analyzation of past cultures and civilizations and more of a jab at racial groups, specifically aimed at Caucasian with regards to the common hate narrative that is given to Europe. The only difference being that Europeans were at the apex at the time, and so they were the ones to explore, discover and had the power. Reverse the situation with any other continent or large region of the world, be it if Africa had a huge empire, the Ottoman Empire, China, or the Middle East and began to explore and expand it's influence, the results would be the same, if not worse with certain ideologies. As human beings overall, all of our past ancestors are chest deep in blood. But people would rather bash Europeans than evaluating the overall, overreaching and repeating tendencies of the human condition and flaws that repeat themselves so commonly throughout history.

there effectively aren't. And even so a failed genocide is still pretty bad

Right of the Conquerer

>nobody even talking about the movie
Can you take that shit to /his/ already.

Obviously the goal wasn't genocide. The goal was colonisation. Genocide was instead used as a tool from time to time to advance the interest of colonising powers.

You only have to look at the westward expansion to see that almost no mind was paid to the wishes of the natives, disease or not.

That in no way justifies the destruction imparted upon the natives.

>Because living in tipi's and being nomadic without even inventing the wheel yet was glorious living,
You know, living in tipis and hunting for food might not have solved polio, but it also wasn't responsible for the industrial-scale slaughter and oppression that technology resulted in. Everything isn't so black and white. You, personally, might feel pretty chuffed at the fact you can use technology to browse for waifus, but I'm not so sure you'd be just as happy to be the victim of a phosphorus bomb or blitzkreig, which are just as much products of technology.

>And you think it would have been any better or different if a Chinese, Asiatic or Middle Eastern Empire came over.
If it was the Chinese or Middle Easterns or anyone else who colonised America instead, I'd put the blame on them, not the Europeans. I'm not interested in cheap racial politics. I'm interested in history and truth, and the simple fact is the way the Europeans, in the context of the Americas, treated the natives was nothing short of inhuman. If we were talking about any other time and place in history I wouldn't mention them. But we're not. We're talking about the Americas.

I would tell you to get out, but then I remembered where I was.

One is from a shit movie, one is from a good movie

>I'm interested in history and truth, and the simple fact is the way the Europeans, in the context of the Americas, treated the natives was nothing short of inhuman
Do you think anyway that 17th century people had the same moral standards as today? I mean, Europeans did worse to each other in the Reformation/Wars of Religion. Half of Germany died in the Thirty Years War.

No, in those days you conquered your neighbor, stole his land, raped his women, and burned his villages. That's just how it worked. There was no UN Council on Human Rights and no Amnesty International in those days.

Sup Forums pls

And I would've been just as appalled by those things back then as I am today. You have to remember, these things didn't end by magic. Slavery wasn't collectively decided to be wrong because humanity suddenly grew a conscious. It was decided to be wrong because the people who had been saying it was wrong the whole damn time had finally found themselves in the right positions to end it.

>Slavery wasn't collectively decided to be wrong because humanity suddenly grew a conscious
Go back to, say, the Roman Empire. Everyone kept slaves in those days, there was no moral objection to it.

Slavery died out as a modern capitalist economy emerged and it was no longer necessary or practical.

> I'm interested in history and truth, and the simple fact is the way the Europeans, in the context of the Americas, treated the natives was nothing short of inhuman.

You're really not though. You're attempting to put a moral judgement on history instead of simply examining the complex circumstances surrounding events. Did Europeans do some fucked up shit? Sure. Did they do anything the natives wouldn't have done or hadn't already to other tribes? No. There are no "noble" peoples in history. Just people attempting to secure the best possible deal for themselves they can and teaching history as a play that has a good faction and a bad faction muddies the waters and clouds the truth.

I would get down get down and dirty with Pocahontas

And there was opposition to slavery back then. In fact, one of the biggest reason's for Christianity's early success is because it advocated rights for slaves in ways that the previous cultural religions did not.

What's more, tribes would fight each other SPECIFICALLY for the purpose of being able to trade with Europeans for iron goods, liquour, and firearms.

It can't be understated how crucial iron goods were to the Natives. Can you imagine the difference when you first use an iron knife or an iron cooking pot after using clay and rock your whole life? That was fucking huge.

Furthermore, having sole access to the supply of European goods meant that they could act as middlemen to other tribes which was insanely profitable.

Yes and no. Yes, the Natives did fucked up shit and we're all humans and all assholes here, but let's not pretend that "everyone else was doing it too" excuses the actions of the Europeans.

This is because they didn't make them blue cats in space.

>You're attempting to put a moral judgement on history instead of simply examining the complex circumstances surrounding events
See, I used to think like this, because I was under the impression that since history was "history", then it wasn't all that important to make judgements about people's actions or to not judge them in the same light you would judge someone today.

And then I realised, such a view is horseshit. Things like captivity, conquest, rape, etc. can never be excused or justified. Humans had just as much capacity to suffer in the past as they do today, so to say that "well these people were just trying to make a living for themselves with the reality of the time so it's not so bad they treated other horribly" doesn't really hold any water.

And as far as human suffering goes, the conquest of the natives at the hands of Europeans is pretty high up there in terms of "mind-fuckingly awful." That's not to say there wasn't suffering in the Americas before the Europeans got there, of course there was, but that's like saying that getting a cold and getting stage 4 liver cancer are the same thing because they're both just "getting sick."

>Europeans, in the context of the Americas, treated the natives was nothing short of inhuman.

I agree, it was extremely inhuman by today's standards, back then, with regards to the perspective of the rest of the world, it was pretty damn standard, if not for the fact that Europeans at the very least tried to convert them first. But the danger of just saying Europeans when not giving any other context to the rest of the world and it's atrocities gives a tunnel vision and a false perspective that Europeans are overall evil in the past, especially with regards to Caucasians, which is not true.

But then what is the end goal of debating this? I think everyone can unanimously agree to a greater extent that almost everything moral wise in the past with regards to modern humanism was inhumane. But from most, if not all past empires and civilizations, it is nothing new, nor' surprising in the least of the atrocities committed. The main reason the Americas are so focused on, was because of an entirely newly discovered civilization that had the unfortunate timing to be caught between a rock and a hard place of a empire expanding and an entire new part of the world to them, that was both far advanced and changing with it's own alien politics and culture, one could even say extreme culture shock.

But, with regards to Europe and the hyper focus on past atrocities in the Americas in particular, whilst most any other benefit that Western Civ. provided during the time is overlooked, only reinforces the popular controversial debate and narrative that Europeans and Western Civ. has been one of the worst civilizations and culture compared to any other in the world, which is untrue, which usually these debates lack any kind of perspective outside of the the current narrative.

Basically this. The Indians sure as hell weren't Noble Savages like a lot media portrays them as, but there's a big gulf between acknowleding this and deciding that they were Asking For It. People are people, whatever culture they come from, and people in power tend to shit on those beneath them. A "comeuppance" to a culture that did bad things means that the peons at the bottom of that culture will suffer most of all.

There have always been a small bunch of moralfags but in the end it was really practical socioconomics. The vast majority of Americans did not care about abolition of slavery in the Civil War, it was a small, noisy group of New Englanders, and most of them just felt they were fighting to save the Union. The emergent industrial US economy simply had no need of chattel labor.

Moralfags are the force that keeps humanity from descending into chaos, my friend.

So basically you used to be halfway intelligent but then decided to be an overly emotional retard? The point of history isn't to "justify" anything. It's to simply see it for what it really was without bias or judgement. When you start applying those moral judgements you get bullshit like this movie that completely fabricates and misrepresents the truth and warps peoples perception of history.

Lots of things in the modern world are built off of the actions of the past, and especially in terms of Native Americans our culpability is a factor in how we treat them today. It is extremely important to admit our guilt in wiping them out to build our country when there's still remnants remaining.

There have always been wars and conquests in history where one tribe displaced the other through brutal warfare, there was nothing unusual or exceptionally malicious about the European conquest of the Americas or the Jewish conquest of Palestine, you've merely been sold a bill of goods by cultural Marxists that white men are this exceptionally singular force of evil on the planet.

The fact is, natives killed, enslaved, and massacred each other for millenia before European contact, also they drove numerous species of fauna to extinction in the New World as they spread out into the Americas from Asia. The idea that they were all peaceful vegetarian hippies who were wronged by Whitey is, as I said, a myth created by cultural Marxism.

If you were really serious about redeeming yourselves you all Indo-European&African cunts would fuck off from America, Australia, Europe and return to your original homelands in Central Asia/Sub-Saharan Africa.

>It is extremely important to admit our guilt in wiping them out
My ancestors came here from Austria-Hungary in the early 1900s, they had nothing to do with killing any redskins or enslaving any blacks.

Believe it or not, being an "overly emotional retard" is actually the more rational response if you take the study of history to its logical conclusion.

When you realise that history *actually happened* - or perhaps, more correctly, actually happens now as projections of our own minds and conditioning, you slowly realise that the idea that it's OK to be a dick just because every other guy is a dick holds zero weight, and if anything makes the people who stood up to these forces all the more inspiring, because while we today feel so enlightened about holding their views, they had to hold these views in a time when no one else did, and doing so could very likely get you ostracized or even killed.

If you identify them as Austrian-Hungarian, they didn't. But I'm going to guess you identify as an American, in which case it's absolutely part of your history.

>If you identify them as Austrian-Hungarian, they didn't. But I'm going to guess you identify as an American, in which case it's absolutely part of your history.
Go to bed Dequan, I'm not writing you a reparations check because your ggggggggrandfather was a slave back when my ggggggggrandfather was a peasant somewhere in Central Europe.

>It is extremely important to admit our guilt in wiping them out to build our country when there's still remnants remaining.

I agree, but again, no one is denying it, and trying to guilt trip people on things they never did in a time they were never alive usually ticks off most, if not all people. It was wrong what happened by today's standards, and most people know and acknowledge that. Though, constantly bringing it up to the forefront, just like past racism only creates more and more tension, rather than just trying to bridge a gap and let bygones be bygones.

But that is what irks me the most is "admit our guilt", implies people today did something proactively to contribute what happened in the past, which is absolutely absurd and falls in line with current narratives that Caucasians, Europe and Western Civ. is still extremely atrocious as it was in the past.

If anything, that comment hides and pushes the narrative of "white guilt", which falls into the category of racial/ethnic/group identity politics which is extremely dangerous, a slippery thought process slope, unfair and detrimental to all people, rather than judging people on an individual case by case basis. And again, only feeds into the racist narrative of Europeans, Caucasians and Western Civ. as being evil or bad, and needing to pay some form of reprimands to past atrocities and peoples, from and by current modern ethnic populations, which again implies people today did something proactively to contribute what happened in the past, which again, is absurd.

If you want to call yourself an American, you'll admit America's past as your own. You're not Austrian-Hungarian, you're from Wisconsin!

Nothing you have said so far is even remotely rational. Your first post said that you valued truth and history and every post after has shown that you clearly don't value either of those things. You value virtue signalling. You value looking back on history with an attitude of smug superiority while ignoring the factors that contributed to those events. Anyone can recognize that people suffered in history but you act as if one side inflicted suffering that was unique or somehow particularly malicious which causes you to ignore that even with those actions the main perpetrator of the genocide that you're so concerned about wasn't human action but simple biology.

I'm a lot of things but in the end I'm only responsible for my own actions. America did what America did back then and I do what I do now.

country of immigrants! but what is the point in apologizing for shit you didn't actually do and feeling guilt for the actions of your "spiritual" ancestors?

Not that user, but that is either really good bait, or you have really shitty perspectives, and a really narrowed far left tunnel vision of SJW views that needs to be seriously reevaluated if you ever want to make a change in the world.

But then again, with such freedom if you are an American, comes the the freedom to be as close minded, ignorant and stupid as you so wish to be.

Because there are still Native Americans around and America's choices in how to treat them now must factor in our treatment in the past. We cannot try to wipe out a culture, stop when we get 99% there, and then ignore that anything happened.

>You value looking back on history with an attitude of smug superiority while ignoring the factors that contributed to those events.
Not at all. I can fully appreciate the desire for European countries to find alternate routes for the spice trade, the rise of the mercantile class as an active force in society, etc.

>if one side inflicted suffering that was unique or somehow particularly malicious
The reason I'm focusing so much on European actions in the Americas is because it's a thread discussing European colonisation of the Americas. If we were talking about the Japanese execution of Christians, I'd call the Japanese out on being bloodthirsty autocrats. If we were discussing the Mongolian conquests of Asia, I would call the Mongols out for taking an almost demonic-level of pleasure in the death of conquered peoples.

Everything I say comes from the position that these events **actually happened.** When we here that 10 million native Americans died as a direct or indirect result of colonisation, that means that 10 million native Americans actually died as a direct or indirect result of colonisation. I hold absolutely no weight to the idea that history is somehow "removed" from us, because in reality it isn't, and the more we believe it so the more likely it is we will repeat the mistakes of the past.

I'm sure the vast majority of natives who died of smallpox really appreciated it user.

We haven't ignored what happened though. Natives have won shit tons of legal cases against the government to honor broken treaties. If you can claim membership in a tribe you're able to get a shit ton of benefits. Most of which get squandered and then have their members going back to big daddy US for more.

To be fair they did give syphilis to the Columbus's crew. At least, that is one theory.

All in exchange for some small pox. One disease given through bumping uglies, the second by being in the presence of people sick at the time of meeting them.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_syphilis#The_Columbian_theory

>The idea that they were all peaceful vegetarian hippies who were wronged by Whitey is, as I said, a myth created by cultural Marxism.
You're right. They were hunter-gatherer warriors wronged by Whitey instead.

She's like twelve years old when he met and "fell in love" with her.

You know some of them were agrarian right? Stop talking about the damn Indians like all they did was hunt buffalo and dance in headdresses. You're misrepresenting the savages culture.

You forget they also waged war between their tribes quite frequently.

Although warrior still implies that they were noble still, in some sense, which is false.

Different time man. When you only live to 45 and might only expect 2 out of 8 kids to reach adulthood, to say nothing of even surviving getting 8 out in the first place, you better get fucking asap.

Its great isn't it? If everyone's an ass, no one's an ass.

>he thinks anyone in the 1500s knew about germ theory
Come on now.