One of My Favorite Thanksgiving Traditions

[wvkeeper(HN)]

Is no question the inane and illogical, not to mention ahistorical attempt that some make to tie in the Mayflower with illegal immigration.

I can't imagine two things that have less in common.

 

[big_country90]

My niece’s liberal husband has already started on this. He also espouses “democratic” socialism and is a teacher...so.

 

[GK4Herd]

Is no question the inane and illogical, not to mention ahistorical attempt that some make to tie in the Mayflower with illegal immigration.

I can't imagine two things that have less in common.

I agree. Colonialism is the most accurate way to explain it.

 

[wvkeeper(HN)]

Mayflower ≠ Cortez

Nor does colonialism explain much of anything really.

Besides honest to goodness "colonialism" of that sort is a 19th Century thing.

Though as an aside, it is telling how many people still hold out the old "noble savage" ideas.

 

[GK4Herd]

Mayflower ≠ Cortez

Nor does colonialism explain much of anything really.

Besides honest to goodness "colonialism" of that sort is a 19th Century thing.

Though as an aside, it is telling how many people still hold out the old "noble savage" ideas.

Colonialism explains it perfectly. It was an English colonial venture that formed the Plymouth Colony. The very words of the Mayflower Compact was the basis of establishing the colony in the name of King James.



I agree that you can’t call these people illegal immigrants. There were no laws established that even addressed the issue of immigration among the hodgepodge of tribes that was strewn across North America. So because there wasn’t these large empires that covered thousands of miles and took in millions of people like with the Aztecs in Mexico and Incas in South America, the need for a major and brutal military campaign like Cortés and Pizarro fought wasn’t necessary. But make no mistake about it, this was the classic definition of colonialism that was defined in the very verbiage of the Mayflower Compact itself.


I agree with you on the “noble savage” belief held by many. The native Americans were just as prone to the corruptions of their civilization as the Europeans who came here to exploit them. But if we apply that same intellectual honesty both ways, it’s just as easy to romanticize the European influx by saying they came here to save the souls of the natives by “converting” them to Christianity.

Both sides need to make concessions here. Liberals can’t continue to hold us hostage to the sins of our father and conservatives can’t gloss over the fact that our fathers’ sins were pretty egregious.

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

The Pilgrims didn't get chopped to death by the natives because that particular area had suffered a large population decline due to illness.

Believe me, there was immigration law....if they didn't want you there, they let you know. That's law enough for me.

 

[wvkeeper(HN)]

The local natives didn't care too much for the other brown-skinned people encroaching on the area, and were not as nice to them as they were the white folks. #whiteprivilege

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

The local natives didn't care too much for the other brown-skinned people encroaching on the area, and were not as nice to them as they were the white folks. #whiteprivilege

Point 1 is definitely an immigration policy. Point 2, the white man had cool shit, like guns and liquor.

 

[wvkeeper(HN)]

Most of the archaeological evidence we have from the 16th and 17th centuries show us the tribes present in those areas in North America (actually North, not Central) were not long-time residents and had "colonialized" the area from "natives" whom they slaughtered pretty viciously, in ways that make Pizarro look like Mother Teresa.

All of human history is one tribe taking over one area, bringing their "culture" to "exploit" and "colonize" the area.

Thomas Sowell did a fascinating three-volume polymath study on this subject which I will link below.

Migrations and Culture

Race and Culture

Conquests and Culture

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

All of human history is one tribe taking over one area, bringing their "culture" to "exploit" and "colonize" the area.

No shit. We are an evil species.

 

[wvkeeper(HN)]

Which is the point. The whole "Oppressor/oppressed" dynamic of the "poor Natives"/"mean Whitey" argument surrounding the Pilgrim/Native question is irrational and not based in any sense of reality.

 

[i am herdman]

Which is the point. The whole "Oppressor/oppressed" dynamic of the "poor Natives"/"mean Whitey" argument surrounding the Pilgrim/Native question is irrational and not based in any sense of reality.

I agree.

 

[GK4Herd]

Most of the archaeological evidence we have from the 16th and 17th centuries show us the tribes present in those areas in North America (actually North, not Central) were not long-time residents and had "colonialized" the area from "natives" whom they slaughtered pretty viciously, in ways that make Pizarro look like Mother Teresa.

All of human history is one tribe taking over one area, bringing their "culture" to "exploit" and "colonize" the area.

Thomas Sowell did a fascinating three-volume polymath study on this subject which I will link below.

View embedded media

View embedded media

View embedded media

I’ve read several books on Pre Colombian America. I agree with you that the native brutality between each other was pretty “savage” (pun intended). The Aztecs in particular used strong military campaigns to hold together an alliance of city states that covered 80 thousand square miles. They were notorious for their human sacrifice of the prisoners and demanded a steady supply of men to sacrifice as tribute. In fact, this dynamic (along with small pox) was why Cortez was ultimately successful. He formed a political alliance with tons of disgruntled groups who were eaten up in the Aztec expansion.

In South America, small pox arrived ahead of the arrival of Pizzaro. The death of of Huayna Capac started a civil war between his two sons for control over the Incan Empire. To say it was brutal is an understatement. Huáscar was captured, tortured, urinated on, and brutally murdered.

America prior to Columbus was no different from civilizations in the old world...political, brutal, and military ventures of empire building. But to say they were more brutal than the Europeans post Columbus isn’t exactly right either.

I think the point of your OP is are liberals minimizing these realities to display our white heritage in a poor light? Of course they are. But did that justify the colonization of America in the name of spreading Christianity as a front for their empire building and wealth grab? Of course not to that too. Either way you can’t minimize how the discovery of America changed the world. Columbus was the unwitting party of one of the greatest economic and cultural shifts the world has ever seen.

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

Which is the point. The whole "Oppressor/oppressed" dynamic of the "poor Natives"/"mean Whitey" argument surrounding the Pilgrim/Native question is irrational and not based in any sense of reality.

I agree. We are just expanding on that thought. But I will say Myles Standish was up to no fvcking good...I believe he enjoyed brutality.