It's hardly Pocahontas:

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maratom
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
England did not send its best and brightest out to the colonies. Many, perhaps even most, of the early colonists had criminal backgrounds – they weren’t nearly all peaceful religious dissenters. Much like Australia, America was considered something of a penal colony.

That the early settlers weren’t nice people should be no surprise, especially considering some of the things they’re known to have done before this ‘era of debunking many of our favorite characters in history’. Smallpox blankets, anyone?
 
The only people who came to America for religious freedom were Catholics. Only two colonies had religious freedom, Maryland and Rhode Island. The former was a refuge for Catholics, the latter a refuge for people driven out of Massachusetts by the Puritans. Despite the rhetoric, the Puritans did not come to establish religious freedom, but rater to establish a religious tyranny.

Despite that, the early settlers were mostly men looking for economic opportunity, and they were no worse than those who stayed home – and no better, except for being more adventurous.
 
Mirdath said:
England did not send its best and brightest out to the colonies. Many, perhaps even most, of the early colonists had criminal backgrounds – they weren’t nearly all peaceful religious dissenters. Much like Australia, America was considered something of a penal colony.

That the early settlers weren’t nice people should be no surprise, especially considering some of the things they’re known to have done before this ‘era of debunking many of our favorite characters in history’. Smallpox blankets, anyone?
Click to expand...
As painful as it may be, this country should have the courage and maturity to face our past as it was. It is true that “history is written by the winner” but as long as there were survivors, there will always be other versions of history. I heard an author being interviewed just a couple days ago. His book contains the racial cleansing that happened in many places in the US. He describes several counties in GA where the white threatened, chased, or burned the black population out. And yet, there are still totally different histories to this event. With most whites saying, “no, they just left and sold their land”, and most blacks saying they were driven out and their land was stolen. Both sides KNOW they are right.

Maybe we can learn something from the former British Empire, or how South Africa has handled their situation over the last 2 decades.
 
Smallpox blankets, anyone?
Click to expand...
Thanks, but no thanks. I’ll make no ‘blanket’ generalizations. And Wikipedia (not one of my favorite sources but still a good point to ‘jump off’) agrees. . . en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_American_indigenous_peoples

Deliberate infection?
One of the most contentious issues relating to disease and depopulation in the Americas concerns the degree to which American indigenous peoples were intentionally infected with diseases such as smallpox. Despite some legends to the contrary, there seems to be no evidence that the Spanish ever attempted to deliberately infect the American natives.[8]

However, there is at least one documented incident in which British soldiers in North America infected native people. During Pontiac’s Rebellion in 1763, a number of Native Americans launched a widespread war against British soldiers and settlers in an attempt to drive the British out of the Great Lakes region. In what is now western Pennsylvania, Native Americans (primarily Delawares) laid siege to Fort Pitt on June 22, 1763. Surrounded and isolated, and with over 200 women and children in the fort, the commander of Fort Pitt gave representatives of the besieging Delawares two blankets that had been exposed to smallpox which infected the natives. However, there is no evidence that the British officers knew the blankets were infected or infected the natives intentionally.

A number of recent scholars, however, have noted that evidence for connecting the blanket incident with the smallpox outbreak is doubtful, and that the disease was more likely spread by native warriors returning from attacks on infected white settlements.[9]

A disputed incident is Ward Churchill’s claim that in 1837 the United States Army deliberately infected Mandan Indians by distributing blankets that had been exposed to smallpox. Most other historians who have looked at the same event disagree with Churchill’s interpretation of the historical evidence, and believe no deliberate introduction occurred at this time and place.[10][11] The Investigative Committee of the Standing Committee on Research Misconduct at the University of Colorado at Boulder reviewed this claim by Mr. Churchill, compared the claim to the cited source, and reported “Professor Churchill therefore misrepresents what Thornton says”.
 
Regarding the Mandans: The Flatheads and Nez Pierce sent a delegation east to seek technology (or magic) from the United States. Most of the members of this delegation died of disease. The survivor, Rabbitskin Leggings returned home, taking the steamboat Saint Peter and Saint Paul up the Missouri and on to the Mandan villages. He died of smallpox en route, and is believed to be the carrier of that disease to the Mandans.
 
Well, we were taught incorrectly about the Jamestown Settlement (in part at least). Disney didn’t do a very good job with the history of that settlement either and its most famous myth (John Smith and Pocahontas), but they did semi rectify themselves by telling the truth in the second Pocahontas, except they forgot to mention her conversion to Christianity. John Smith was an adult when she was a child, so a romance never happened as the famous myth portrays.

Also a few years ago when I visited the settlement in Virginia, everything that was taught was pretty dead on accurate from the numerous readings written about the settlement by historians and archeaologists.
 
gmarie21 said:
Well, we were taught incorrectly about the Jamestown Settlement (in part at least). Disney didn’t do a very good job with the history of that settlement either and its most famous myth (John Smith and Pocahontas), but they did semi rectify themselves by telling the truth in the second Pocahontas, except they forgot to mention her conversion to Christianity. John Smith was an adult when she was a child, so a romance never happened as the famous myth portrays.

Also a few years ago when I visited the settlement in Virginia, everything that was taught was pretty dead on accurate from the numerous readings written about the settlement by historians and archeaologists.
Click to expand...
I lived in Virginia within walking distance of the Yorktown Battlefield, and used to bicycle to Williamsburg and Jamestown along Colonial Parkway.

When Disney released “Pocahantas,” its inaccuracies (and its bigotry – portraying short, dark John Smith as tall and blond) made many Virginians mad. I am convinced that the rejection of a Disney park near Manassas was a reaction to that movie.
 
The Jamestown 2007 official website is a huge political-correctness fest over there, but more importantly, it looks like it’s a huge money-making venture. Some of the sponsors are Anheuser-Busch and Verizon:

jamestown2007.org/
 
Eden said:
The Jamestown 2007 official website is a huge political-correctness fest over there, but more importantly, it looks like it’s a huge money-making venture. Some of the sponsors are Anheuser-Busch and Verizon:

jamestown2007.org/
Click to expand...
Who takes the King’s shilling is the King’s man – and who takes huge private donations . . .

This is why I always adivse the Church not take public funding for schools, charities, and so on – when you take the money, they own you.
 
There are plenty of historical inaccuracies all around. The Native Americans are constantly being portrayed by the politically correct crowd as “peaceful people.” In most locations, they were constantly warring people, and some were pretty brutal with those they vanquished. In the case of Jamestown, Powhatan and other leaders are even described as “great warriors.” They had to get that reputation from doing something other than singing about the “colors of the wind.”

In a time when might meant right, the Europeans arrived and did what the Native Americans were already doing amongst themselves - trading and fighting. “To the victors go the spoils.”

I’m not claiming that everything was done in a Christian manner by the Europeans, but to go back and look at things through a modern prism is hardly fair and balanced. Luckily, we have progressed as a people…I think. :o
 
Now, maybe.
When I was a kid in the 1950s, the media ALWAYS portryed Indians as the bad guys. They were portrayed as ignorant blood thirsty savages who were all hell-bent on mudering, raping and scalping whites.
Even our “history” books portrayed them in that way when I went to school.
 
rlg94086 said:
In a time when might meant right, the Europeans arrived and did what the Native Americans were already doing amongst themselves - trading and fighting. “To the victors go the spoils.”

I’m not claiming that everything was done in a Christian manner by the Europeans, but to go back and look at things through a modern prism is hardly fair and balanced. Luckily, we have progressed as a people…I think. :o
Click to expand...
But those Europeans claimed to be Christians. They should be held to the standard they set. Especially when some like to claim this as a Christian nation it is imperative that we understand every wart and dark niche in our history in order to adjudicate that question.
 
a_cermak said:
But those Europeans claimed to be Christians. They should be held to the standard they set. Especially when some like to claim this as a Christian nation it is imperative that we understand every wart and dark niche in our history in order to adjudicate that question.
Click to expand...
I see, so Christians are not to be judged by the history of their time? Were there not devout Christians and non-devout Christians? Slave-owning Christians and abolitionist Christians? Peaceful Christians and warring Christians?

BTW…adjudicate what question…that we are a Christian nation? It depends on how you mean that. We are a Christian nation as in a nation, predominantly formed by Christians and comprised of Christians, and therefore based on Christian values/ethics. We are not a Christian nation in regards to our government. It is secular and provides Freedom of Religion.
 
I would recommend reading Bernal Diaz account of the Conquest of Mexico. He was one of those who stormed the first temples – and his account of the skull rack, the priests covered with dried human blood, the dried human hearts and so on is an eye witness version.

And his conclusion, “We had now come into the abode of a demon” is telling.

It ain’t all one-sided.
 
rlg94086 said:
I see, so Christians are not to be judged by the history of their time? Were there not devout Christians and non-devout Christians? Slave-owning Christians and abolitionist Christians? Peaceful Christians and warring Christians?
Click to expand...
Christians have always claimed to follow the Scriptures. So yes, they should be judged against those Scriptures which clearly state that murder is a crime, that defrauding the laborer of his wages (e.g. slavery) is wrong, that oppressing the stranger is wrong…

So yes, they should not be judged on the basis of their age but on the basis of what they claimed to believe.
 
a_cermak said:
Christians have always claimed to follow the Scriptures. So yes, they should be judged against those Scriptures which clearly state that murder is a crime, that defrauding the laborer of his wages (e.g. slavery) is wrong, that oppressing the stranger is wrong…

So yes, they should not be judged on the basis of their age but on the basis of what they claimed to believe.
Click to expand...
B’george, you’re right.

Now, to avoid a charge of hypocracy for living on land once owned by indians and enjoying the fruit of the conquest, I suppose the only honorable thing for you to do is walk east until your hat floats.😃
 
a_cermak said:
Christians have always claimed to follow the Scriptures. So yes, they should be judged against those Scriptures which clearly state that murder is a crime, that defrauding the laborer of his wages (e.g. slavery) is wrong, that oppressing the stranger is wrong…

So yes, they should not be judged on the basis of their age but on the basis of what they claimed to believe.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure you read my post…“they” (i.e. Christians in history) are not a monolithic group. There were Christians at the time judging the other Christians for slavery. Your historical exercise is a waste of mental energy. The real work was already done by the abolitionists…mostly Christians.

Unfortunately, some killing had to be done to end slavery. Some Christians killed other Christians in the Civil War. The Christians won. 😃
 
rlg94086 said:
I’m not sure you read my post…“they” (i.e. Christians in history) are not a monolithic group. There were Christians at the time judging the other Christians for slavery. Your historical exercise is a waste of mental energy. The real work was already done by the abolitionists…mostly Christians.

Unfortunately, some killing had to be done to end slavery. Some Christians killed other Christians in the Civil War. The Christians won. 😃
Click to expand...
You know, of all the religious groups in America, it was the Quakers that really got behind abolition. They had slaves in the day of William Penn, but he didn’t like the effect it had on the people and they freed them and then never had them again. Many, many Quakers risked life and limb (and them being Pacifists) assisting with the Underground Railroad and they were big into getting Abolitionist literature printed up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top