Thread Derail & Derailment Repository
Porpoiseless Thread Purpose
Monks there were mostly OK.But common priests,not so.
That is why part of indians there are still half-pagans.But - they are there.Becouse their ancestors were not genocided,like indians in North America.
It is really funny to see protestants converting indians in South America,when their ancestors genocided all their own indians.
Are you blaming Protestants for Smallpox now?
For your information, there are some regular posters here on the Sietch who claim some Red Indian ancestry.
Plenty of those tribes are still in existence. Some of them run casinos or have drinking problems - which is not the same thing at all as never having been born because their ancestors were genocided, as you seem to imagine happened.
Smallpox existed in South America,too.And,with another plagues,killed 90% of indians there.
Yet,there are still real indians there,and in most countries most populations are either indian or metises.
If what said was true,then half of NY population would be metises,too.Not happened,becouse those poor idiots who welcomed protestant settlers and gave them turkeys so they survived was genocided later.
No they weren't.
I think you need to realize that North America had a much lower "Red Indian" population than did the more tropical regions conquered by the Spanish, and that was also much, much more immigration from Europe into North America, both before and after the USA became independent.
Also, said immigration included massive numbers of both Protestants and Roman Catholics.
And as I said before but you appear to have ignored - there are still "real indians" all over North America too. They are just a small minority of the population.
Not to mention how many of your mestizo people from Latin America seem keen to move to North America.
Atlantic shore indians lived in villages.Pottohavan tribe alone had 200 such villages.But they ceased to exist,and so called tribes there are white people which ancestors was ensalved indian womans.
Even tribes who still officially survived,like Apaches,almost do not have purebreed members anymore.
What even more important,protestants belived that they have right to kill indians - like pastor Cotton Mather,who in 1702 claimed that they were made by satan .
No matter what you say about spaniards,they never tried genocide indians entirely,or belived that satan made them.
And that is why indians in Latin America survived,and in USA not.
Even those who converted,like Delewars,was killed - for example,colonel William Crawford burned one village inhabitants when they prayed in church.
Indian blood - yes,they exist.But how many,let say, Apaches are pureblood,or at least metises?
But,it is good that you at least do not deny facts about protestant attitude to indians.
I'll leave that point to people who know more about Colonial American history than I do. "Protestant attitude to Indians" is something that covers a wide spectrum. Calvinists would be at once extreme, Methodists at another. Quakers for example, would certainly not be killing anyone if they could avoid it.
No they didn't. There are still many Powhatan tribes living in Virginia on land reserved to them by treaty that has been respected for centuries by both the tribes and the Colony and then Commonwealth of Virginia. I'm not sure where you're getting your information from, but it's actually a small point of Virginia pride in the state that we have maintained these treaties in good faith for that entire time, to the point where it became a massive bipartisan effort in the Commonwealth to get these tribes Federal recognition (which had been denied them for centuries).
How many of those "indians" are at least metises ?
Becouse if they are indians,then we,poles,are all sarmatians !
You are right about Quakers - but they do not decided about England or USA politics."Heroes" from Woundeed knee did.
I've no way of knowing, but considering that it's been over 400 years and there was always intermarriage between the Powhatan and English settlers going back to JAMESTOWN, yes, they are likely mixed. However, despite your claims they were not genocide nor were they driven off their land. Further, you're also infantilizing many of the Native American tribes on the East Coast, whom made their own political decisions and often waged war on the English settlers or drew the English settlers into their own conflicts as allies. The actual history of relations between the Native Tribes and English settlers on the East Coast prior to the Revolutionary War is complicated and involves webs of treaties, invasions by outside tribes, and waves of displacement. To pretend it was simply the English genociding the natives is, frankly, insulting to all the people involved in that history and conflict, it infantilizes the natives and demonizes the settlers in ways neither side deserve.
. . . You just need to shut up concerning the relationship between the US and Native Americans. Wounded Knee happened in 1890, and it was at the end of the long conflicts between the Plains Indians and the US Government, and those involved in it did not really achieve any higher office.
I'm honestly questioning where you're getting your historical information from, as it seems you have a weird, anti-American propaganda driven view of these things. I'm not saying the US is clean in how it handled the Native tribes, far from it, but there WAS nuance to things that is missing and bringing up Wounded Knee as somehow a major point seems weird...
1.Which part of their territory Pottowank people still hold,and did they hold it 100 and 200 year ago,too?
And is there always treated as tribe,or some white dudes 50 year ago decided that they are indians?
Other tribes - at least 2,Wampaongow/who saved settlers in 1620/ and NNarraganse was wiped out.
And yes,indians were stupid enough to made deals with protestants.All payed for it.
And,i do not pretend anytching - i simply look at countries taken by Spain,and USA.Indians survived in spanish crown territories except Carribean.They existed in Florida and Caliphornia till catholics ruled there.
Then USA come,and there is no indians left there.
Becouse England in Canada let indians live there,too.
So,i was partially wrong - problem is not with protestants,but protestants from USA and it territory till England ruled there.
2.Those bandits in uniforms should be hanged.And,if american army had honour,it would happened.
It was not conflict,but stealing land from Plain indians.
Or,when antifa thug come for american property,we would say that it was OK,becouse they do not achieve any higher office.
Sand Creek massacre in 1864 was made by USA regiment lead by colonel,who was pastor as cyvillian.I do not hear about his sect complain about it.
And,USA made 371 pacts with Indians.They broke ALL OF THEM.
When,for example,in Guatemala indians keep their lands till bandits supported by USA take power there.
All of it. And yes, they've always been treated as Tribes, the treaty governing the land they hold have been in effect since 1677 and both sides (the Colony cum Commonwealth of Virginia and the Native Tribes) have upheld their treaty obligation since, with the tribal reservation being maintained since 1645 when it was established.
As to your second rambling point, the Colonel you're referencing: John Chivington, I find it interesting you didn't link to even his Wikipedia page, which indicates that: "The Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War conducted an investigation of the massacre... they condemned Chivington's and his soldiers' in the strongest possible terms..." This apparently led to: "the end of his political aspirations." In other words, while he was not court martialed and formally punished as he should have been (and the reason for that is a quirk of the general post Civil War amnesty not due to those involved not wanting to do so), he did face consequences for his actions and rather than become more important, his involvement explicitly ended his political aspirations, which stands in contrast to your earlier claims that people involved in these actions ended up setting policy.
As to why his denomination of Christianity didn't publicly condemn him? Why should they have? He wasn't acting in their name, and had effectively been retired by the denomination in 1862, two years before the massacre you've brought up. However, if you actually took the time to do research on this, you'd find that the Methodist Church DID in fact issue an apology to the Southern Cheyenne for the "actions of a prominent Methodist".
Again, your understanding of this is anti-American propaganda level, the Sand Creek Massacre was treated, even at the TIME, as a terrible action, the main perpetrator literally had it hanging over his head for his entire life and was faced with constant public condemnation for it, and the only reason he got out of being formally prosecuted for it was a quirk of timing that allowed his actions to be covered by the general amnesty issued post-Civil War, not out of some general malice towards the Native Americans.
So,state of Virginia spared few tribes,becouse King of England once did so.They really must have real nobility there.
Good for them.Canada treated them relatively well,too.
But USA as federal goverment? 371/371 pacts was broken.When in Spain colonies,except Carribean,indians hold their lands and rights till they become independent.
Your rambling about apology - it was made in...1996.And i do not hear anytching about indians reclaiming their lands.
Not my hero.I could undarstandt his reasons to fight in WW1,but not WW2.
If he really were noble,he would fight for Poland in 1939.
But,aside from that - both Baltic partisnts,and those who try hide in polish forest,died.
Against totalitarian regime which do not care about how many people die,including their own troops,forest is not hiding place,but tpmb.
Better death then in gulags,but - still death,not future victory.
If he really were noble,he would fight for Poland in 1939.
But,aside from that - both Baltic partisnts,and those who try hide in polish forest,died.
Against totalitarian regime which do not care about how many people die,including their own troops,forest is not hiding place,but tpmb.
Better death then in gulags,but - still death,not future victory.
