Reply to Should so called “thanksgiving” be a national day of mourning?

Forum Index » Off-Topic

Reply to "Should so called “thanksgiving” be a national day of mourning?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]You cannot fault the Europeans, who at the time did not understand the germ nature of disease, for the killing of natives who had no immunity to European diseases. The stories of Europeans deliberately bringing smallpox to natives were true, but they were the exception not the rule. In the 14th Century Europeans nearly all went extinct during the Black Death--who you gonna blame for that? [/quote]

We can certainly fault them for violence and oppression. [/quote]
Who cares? Everyone who did whatever bad things you want to list is long dead.

My family came to this continent in 1981. I don't have any responsibility or guilt for something that was done by people centuries ago.

One of the great things about the US is that you're not held guilty for the sins of your ancestors. [/quote]
The atrocities perpetrated on Native Americans are not just historical footnotes from long ago. The effects of centuries of oppression of Native Americans are still felt very keenly today. They continue to suffer disproportionately from poverty, alcoholism, lack of access to appropriate medical care, and domestic violence. Native American women and girls are murdered at a far higher rate than women in general. We don’t need to feel guilt over how we got to this place, but we certainly shouldn’t turn a blind eye to suffering and pretend that it’s not relevant to us. [/quote]

+1000

Plus, if you step foot on this continent you are occupying stolen land.[/quote]

How could it be “stolen” from people who had no private property that they owned to begin with?[/quote]

Huh? Because they didn’t have written land deeds recorded at the county courthouse it didn’t belong to them? [/quote]
A tribe can only hold onto land until a stronger tribe comes along and takes it from them. That's the way of the world.

No, we're not giving our land back to tribes that couldn't hold onto it in the first place. [/quote]

Question here, would you support more modern day colonization?  If the US is a "stronger tribe" why do we not just go overtake a lot more land mass than we already have?  We are getting crowded and low on natural resources....why not go take them?[/quote]

Trust me if we needed to, we would. The same way if your children were hungry, you'd steal from your neighbor. [/quote]

But what does it mean to "need to."  Did the early settlers "need to" take over this land?  And later did the British government "need to" formally invade and take over?

I read the PP as saying that it is "the way of the world" for people to just take what they want as long as they have the force to do it.[/quote]

Yes actually European immigration was largely based on necessity. Things like famine and class/religious persecution. The wealthy few were exploiting the whole thing for massive personal gain but that is still happening today.[/quote]

This is not a well-informed viewpoint.  The formal government of the country invaded, and it wasn't because of either famine or class/religious persecution.[/quote]

The formal “government”?! You mean a brutal blood-line Monarchy that had perfected the art of subjugation over the course of thousands of years? That’s the fault of the commoner?[/quote]

I'm not sure what you are taking issue with.  One PP said that populations should only colonize out of necessity.  Another said that there was a necessity because of poverty and starvation.  I said that was not the reason.  It was the government (say rulers if you want) that did it to gain more wealth.

Where do you see a fault in that?[/quote]

The Kings stayed in Europe. The actual human beings that physically immigrated to the continent were largely escaping horrible oppression and poverty in Europe. Those are simple facts. I have no idea what is so confusing about that. It’s documented historical fact.

[/quote]

What group of people, specifically, are you talking about?

I don’t dispute that there were poor people involved.  But your reductionist view is simply not “documented historical fact.”[/quote]

DP. This is AP US History. The Quakers came to escape persecution and settled in Pennsylvania. The Catholics came to Maryland to escape persecution. The pilgrims, Moravians, and others left Europe to escape persecution. Many others were poor and looking for new opportunities, or they came over as indentured servants. [/quote]

Catholics settled in Maryland because THE KING OF ENGLAND gave Lord Baltimore a land grant in exchange for a share of the profits from the colonization.

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/the-settlement-of-maryland[/quote]

So the king solved two problems: new settlers to develop the land and (self) deportation of some religious dissidents. He also created a new revenue stream for the monarchy.[/quote]

Thank you for agreeing with me?[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics