I’m going away to my aunt and uncle’s house this week, and so I wish you all a happy Thanksgiving! I hope that you enjoy your feast commemorating the year that ungrateful colonists accepted gifts from the Native Americans and then proceeded to steal their land for our own. Hope you like your turkey!
Happy Dead Indian Day.
Bastards with your three days off. >:(
Usually, when I want to thank someone, I give them smallpox, introduce alcoholism into their culture, murder them by the thousand, and take everyting they own then deign to give them shitty little pieces of land to eke out an existance on.
What? Get on the ball America. Thanksgiving was over a month ago.
Screw long-dead pilgrims. I’m giving thanks I get to be together with my relatives. said with with no sarcasm
I wish to now share the TRUE story of Thanksgiving, for those who wish to learn.
Some research was prompted by a thread over at another Forum, about that lovely and fateful meeting at Plymouth in 1921. Our players: The Pilgrims (extremists that were kicked out of England) and the Wampanoag.
The Wampanoag had been defending themselves from the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) people for the past 600 years (you really, really don’t want to have to fight against the Haudenosaunee), for the past 100 or so they’d had unpleasant encounters with white explorers and fisherman raiding their coastal towns, and their population had already been drastically reduced by epidemics spreading from French colonies. They were in a rather delicate, vulnerable situation; Massasoit, their leader, managed to keep a strained peace, hoping to gain the alliance of the Pilgrims against the Narragansett tribe. And their beliefs required that they offer charity and hospitality to the helpless and such.
And, of course, the Pilgrims were in a delicate situation themselves. They were relatively alone out there, and aware of the power that the Wampanoag held; to court their favor and maybe negotiate with them was a sound idea, at least until more Pilgrims arrived. A meeting is necessary - and a harvest festival is a good way to do it, right? They were common in Europe, and they really had to be thankful for whatever they managed to grow out here, so sure, harvest festival time. The Wampanoag ended up bringing the majority of the food, but I think that point’s moot.
So everyone comes together, they all have their own reasons, be they selfish, understandable, or noble. They negotiate, promise security for the Pilgrims, alliance with the Wampanoag, and everyone got what they came for - and hey, there was food too. So there was peace (between them) for a while. The situation really only shifts 54 years later, in King Phillip’s War, after which native peoples would be increasingly marginalized by the dominant European settlers. But for a time, things were relatively balanced - not necessarily out of any interracial brotherhood, but out of mutual fear and vulnerability.
And THAT, my friends, is the true story of Thanksgiving.
Not stolen. Conquered.
Can you imagine if every successful nation in the world bitched and moaned over their ancestor’s victories like the American liberal. I wonder if the English mope around in liberal guilt over their Anglo-Saxon ancestors’ throwing out the Celts. Or the Germanic tribes skulking over conquering Celts, Romans, etc. Or the Spanish re-taking their lands from the Muslims. Or the Muslims, for that matter, pouting over the vast territories they’ve won. I guess as long as its white colored people killing eachother, its all fair. But that would seem to go against your egalitarian “progressive” political “humanism”.
Tomorrow, I’ll make sure to give thanks that on the banks of the Hudson, Chicago, Missisippi, and Cuyahoga rivers now stand marvelous towers of steel, glass, and concrete rather than a few wigwams or teepees, as well as people who have furthered European culture, which is the best humanity has done so far (although it did allow your progressive ideas.)
American and European culture are self-destructive from a conservationist pov. Asian culture is too, maybe more. “The best humanity has done so far” will end our existence in the next few hundred years through the destruction of biodiversity. Even small losses can be catastrophic because they throw off the equilibrium of the biosphere. Our modern cultures are also the cause of our unhappiness and sense of unfulfillment, they’re just very good at convincing us that we’re happy.
Also, people are not their grandparents. They can think whatever they want. Our ancestors were raised under a different value system than us, a far less educated one. And looking at today’s youth, that scares me. A lot.
That is one of the more inane comments I have ever heard made. Beyond explaining that you make me want to start drinking, not merely so that I might forget the stupidity of your remarks in an alcohol-induced haze but out of a new desire in my brain cells for suicide; they want the liquor to kill them, as many as it can, for all your pretentious literati elitism, you fucking misused skulk. It’s not even a fucking SAT word. It’s a fucking grade-school word. I knew what it went when I was in third grade, maybe before. I’m certain the Visigoths and Ostrogoths “move about stealthily” over conquering the romans. The closest definition to anything that would make a shred of sense is “To lie in hiding, as out of cowardice or bad conscience; lurk,” and even then to argue that a people lie in hiding makes little or no sense; I do not go into a fucking burrow and try to blend with the shadows whenever I express a leftist opinion, nor does anyone else I know, so the comparison of such an action between Germanic tribesmen (who, gimme a second, are not under the same national authority or government and do not continue to possess the land they are stated to ahve taken over) and an American “liberal” is completely baseless, if that’s what you intended. Otherwise, you the word “sulk” instead of trying to use a more occult term and make yourself look erudite when you’re using it incorrectly and just look like a fucking pretentious jackass trying to convince everyone he is right on an illogical premise by using bigger words.
Simply because other people in the past have done something and do not feel guilt about it or feel that it should be undone does not make it right to do such a thing or feel that way in every single respect. Let’s look at all your examples and see how few of them are actually even remotely related to the subject. Okay, Spain. Reconquering. Re. We did not REconquer North America from its native people. We took it. That is different. Example: Invalid.
The English have as many ancestors of Celt, Gael, and Norseman as they have Anglo-Saxon. So it’s difficult to feel guilty over it when it’s difficult to be certain what even happened; the Celts were not a single, defined people. Anglo-Saxons are considered a Celtic tribe to some. Additionally, the Normans, french descended from Danes, and Danes themselves, kicked some poeple into and out of England. It ended up a metling pot of European cultures because none of them was ever truly kicked out and continued to exert a fair amount of power as it blended with the other groups throughout history. Not so, in our case. We killed any people of different skin colour (as did those in England a long time ago to an Afro-Mediteranean tribe distantly related to the Pygmies who evolved into mythical Leprechauns) and those we did not kill, we held on special reservations and did not give or allow power to. Which is quite different than constant power shifts among hundreds of tribes unifying as a “nation” only in the most feudal and pragmatic sense; in fact, England in the time you describe functioned much more like a more war-torn version of the Native American tribes. By the time there became a real, definitive England, battles were no longer based on nationality of origin so much as individual and kin-based alliances. It wasn’t Anglo-Saxons fighting Danelaw, it was families fighting families for the throne or similar stations of power. Not valid.
The Germanic tribes conquered lands, yes, but if you’ll note, the area of German possession does not include any of those areas, essentially, any longer. France posses most Frankish and Visigoth territory, while germany possess some Ostrogoth territory, and Austrai, the XCzech republic, and former soviet countries hold the rest of it. Essentially, there is no continued identity of a Germanic people or lasting conquest to hold guilt over. German people do hold guilt over the genocidal actions of the Nazis, which are “conquest” by your argument; the systematic eradication or imprisonment of a people for personal or political gain. He just did it with Jews, instead of Native American tribes, and on a larger, more public and deliberate scale, but the intent was the same as could be argued to be held by Andrew Jackson.
Now, let’s look at the Muslims. Let me think about them, just for a second. Are they a nation? No, in fact, Islam is a religion, and Muslim is a term for its followers. This might be difficult for you to comprehend, that the “Muslims” are not a united group of people making decisions in a big mosque about who to go to war with next. They haven’t been anything close to a united, defined people like Americans or Anglo-Saxons or Visigoths since the death of Muhammad, when they went into rivalries over who was to become Caliph, since there was no set process for selecting a new Caliph. After this, the Muslims became divided groups and tribes under different dynasties, different nations, and even different religious ideaologies. Saying Muslims as a group to hold collective guilt over their actions is like saying all Christians invaded Byzamtium in a crusade because the Venetians were Christians, and they did it. They’re all the same, right? Islamic conquest follows the same flaws I pointed out in Germanic; no set group of people responsible, most land gained by conquest not retained (although most land gained by Peaceful conversions are), therefore it is nowhere near the same as a deliberate National action taking land that is still retained.
There is, to add to your flawed hypothesis, the matter that some of the land was legitimately stolen. The Native American tribes sign a contract granting them certain payments and rights for the land, which we also sign, and then back the fuck out of. Taking something without paying for it, especially when you have made an agreement to do so, is generally considered theft; if you son someone out of their money, it may be said without undo stretching of the word that such money was stolen. However, given your poor understanding of our native tongue, as evidenced by your misuse of so simple a word as “skulk,” I can understand how you would not understand this.
As for those towers, fair enough. As for European Civilization being the best humanity has produced, need I remind you that nearly all European sociologic advances were made first by the Chinese (moveable type, notably, being considered the single most important invention in history by most, was invented in China in the early postclassical era, whereas it didn’t come about until centuries later in that superior Europe). European culture was elevated, largely, by the knowledge gained from Mongolian invaders. The Mongol Hordes were father along in many ways as a civilization than Europeans, and regarded by other Asians as barbarians. India and China, not to mention Arabian city-states you so readily group together as “muslims” were all leads ahead of Europe culturally for most of history. Out culture just kills the best. That’s hardly “superiority.” From a purely factual, analytical perspective of “Who had the Important Discoveries and Ideas First, we lag sorely behind the rest of the world,” and from any other perspective, it is entirely based upon opinion and a subjective matter, not one to be presented, as you did, as fact. Stating one culture to be “superior” to another is bigotry-in-a-bottle, not to mention one of the stupidest things you can say. It’s entirely a matter of opinion. No culture is inherently better than another, let alone a sing’e cultre the “Best that Humanity Has Done So Far.”
I mean, European culture produced you, for one thing, a textual abomination composed of such great arrogance you suggested that you manoeuvre people like pawns on a chessboard in direct, blatant language, then tread back upon your remark when you realize its utter falsehood and explain that it was “not what you meant.” You make baseless arguments, using logic from false premises (if at all), and act as though you are so vastly intelligent we merely don’t understand the substance that your statements do not possess. It is difficult to find holes in your arguments, I will admit. Not, however, because they are solid, but as a result of the fact that your arguments lack substance for holes to be in. Proverabial Thin, or shuld I say “hot,” air does not have holes in it, for it has no form for there to be holes in. This is the state of your argument. They do not possess holes, they are holes. I’m going to put this as simply and bluntly as I can.
Get off my internet, you fucking idiot.
Been a while since someone used the generator. I like it.
I will edit the post so that my summary statement is in larger text for those of you who do not wish to read my entire argument.
Arac makes me wanna drink >_<. Great stuff though. laughs at the “summary statement”
Stopped reading around here.
Calm down darling, its just the internet. We’re all friends here ^____^v;;
Which T, man? I have to say, I think my fourth T is by far the best in the piece.
How can I “the pronoun of the second person singular or plural, used of the person or persons being addressed, in the nominative or objective case” the word “sulk”? Giving you the benefit of the doubt on your apparent attempt at an elipitical construction, I am certainly not the word “sulk”. “You” isn’t even a third-grade word, its a two-year-old word, and you didn’t even use it as the proper part of speech. Next time, use the word “use” and you won’t make a fool out of yourself in trying to do so to another.
I might add that your use of “erudite” is misguided. If not an outright incorrect usage, it is a poor choice of word, “erudite” most commonly connotating a vast working knowledge of various things rather than having a large vocabulary.
Game, set, match!
…when you’re using it incorrectly and just look like a fucking pretentious jackass trying to convince everyone he is right on an illogical premise by using bigger words.
I’ll respond to your meaning later, I just had to give you my first verbal thrashing in a month or two.
HAHahaha yeah, no shit.
If you are insinuating that your use of “skulk” was a typo, I’ll accept that. If you are trying to explain that using the wrong word and simply forgetting to type a word are the same thing, from a perspective of establishing an opponent’s ignorance, it is no longer acceptable.
I forgot the word use. I did not misuse “you,” so establishing its grade level is irrelevant. I did, in fact, use it as its correct part of speech, I merely left out a verb. Your inability to note such an error, instead believing that I meant “you” as a verb (or intending, evidently, to argue such), shows your lack of reasoning ability, or at least your willingness to sacrifice rationality to make a “clever” comeback. Please, spare me the assaults of ignorance based on hurried typing.
No. My use is not misguided. I mentioned no specifics of increased vocabulary; I meant that you were using the word in an attempt to show a greater knowledge than you actually posses. Yes, in this instance, that knowledge was specifically of vocabulary, but I was not limiting my statement to the afformentioned. That was merely the example of it that came to hand. The bullshit proverbially boiling over the remainder of your post serves as further example in another field.
I don’t believe a player in a game is allowed to declare himself the victor, under most circumstances. Additionally, the small matter of you having found two tiny nit-picks upon my text, one of which is invalid and the other of which is the citation of a typo, while ignoring the body of my text concerning your actual argument hardly consitutes as game, set, or match, let alone all three. Your ability to refute any of the points concerning the actual argument, rather than try and make your word misuse seem les embarassing, perhaps, could achieve this. As it is, you’ve simply devolved (if such a thing was even possible from your former state) into the internet stereotype who is utterly unable to argue any of the actual points being debated, and therefore points out his opponent’s typos. You have verily polymorphed yourself into a caricature of a human being.
Yes, please do respond to my meaning; the essential point of me. Since I’m uncertain of the core meaning of a person, even myself, I’ll be quite intruiged to see your response to something which does not exist in such a manner as it may be defined.
A response to the meaning of my argument(s) might be more productive.
You manage you make a powerful semantic argument which doesn’t address the matter at hand. There is a simple feat of synecdoche between otherwise ridiculous over-generalizations like the idea of “England” or “France”, which are utterly complicated. The fact of the matter is that almost every group of people in the entire world that have survived to this point in history have at numerous points conquered other people and taken their land, from nomadic pre-neanderthal tribes to much larger groups of people up until the present day. Whether you want to debate the methods or purpose of the conquerers is one thing, which may be admirable, but to mope about as many do today over the actions of one’s ancestors 500 years ago is entirely fruitless. The better mindset is to be grateful for all the events of the past because they’ve led to this moment and the next. Which are good unless you’re a depressed person. As for your claim that Anglo-Saxons are actually Celts… You’ll need to cite some sources for this opinion, which begins to sound like “aliens built the pyramids” or “Shakespeare was really Queen Elizabeth.”
The Germanic tribes conquered lands, yes, but if you’ll note, the area of German possession does not include any of those areas, essentially, any longer. France posses most Frankish and Visigoth territory, while germany possess some Ostrogoth territory, and Austrai, the XCzech republic, and former soviet countries hold the rest of it.
I would say go back to your history books, but these are the same books which have taught you that Anglo-Saxons are Celts. You have a naive understanding of history if you don’t consider the Franks and Goths as Germanic tribes, considering they were two of the most successful.
(Hitler) just did it with Jews, instead of Native American tribes, and on a larger, more public and deliberate scale, but the intent was the same as could be argued to be held by Andrew Jackson.
This is true, but I’m not arguing for the extermination of American Indians; I’m acknowledging that they were exterminated, and affirming my existence.
Now, let’s look at the Muslims. Let me think about them, just for a second. Are they a nation? No, in fact, Islam is a religion, and Muslim is a term for its followers. This might be difficult for you to comprehend, that the “Muslims” are not a united group of people making decisions in a big mosque about who to go to war with next. They haven’t been anything close to a united, defined people like Americans or Anglo-Saxons or Visigoths since the death of Muhammad, when they went into rivalries over who was to become Caliph, since there was no set process for selecting a new Caliph.
I’m not sure if you know this,but the vast majority of Muslim lands were acquired in the century immediately after Muhammand’s death, when they were far more united than as currently. You continue to display your frustratingly puritanical aversion to figurative language, and figurative thinking, in all its forms.
Stating one culture to be “superior” to another is bigotry-in-a-bottle, not to mention one of the stupidest things you can say. It’s entirely a matter of opinion. No culture is inherently better than another, let alone a sing’e cultre the “Best that Humanity Has Done So Far.”
I’ll retreat to an utterance of Saul Bellow: “Show me the Proust of the Papuans, and I’ll read him.” Of all the regional cultures of the world, none have beaten Europe in producing the body of art, science, philosophy, etc. that we may call “culture”. No artist in the world has trumped Michaelangelo, Shakespeare, or Beethoven. There are many artists from various parts of the world that can stand alongside the best class of Europeans, but the Europeans begin to crowd them out. Of course, nowadays, everyone in the connected world is increasingly European, which is a fact you will have a hard time avoiding, though I know you’ll try. It’s not some cosmic coincidence that the modern American Indian, Chinese man, Indian Indian, and Austrailian aborigine all speak in the language called “English” and dress in a Western business suit when they want to be heard. Of course, when it comes to the political issues you care so much about, in many parts of the world that consciously reject European Enlightenment values, innocent women, homosexuals, and political/religious desenters of all stripes are beheaded; caste systems continue brutally uncontrolled; illiteracy and ignorance in general run rampant. Whoever invented moveable type (or gunpowder for that matter) first doesn’t matter. Europeans took or invented these things themselves and are now winning the race. Other societies can continue with us, or try to do it their own way, but they will be playing second fiddle, and they will probably atrophy at some point.
I mean, European culture produced you, for one thing, a textual abomination composed of such great arrogance you suggested that you manoeuvre people like pawns on a chessboard in direct, blatant language, then tread back upon your remark when you realize its utter falsehood and explain that it was “not what you meant.”
That’s a goddam lie and I can’t believe you need this dead horse again. There are 84 entries for the word “make” on the dictionary.com website. When I said that I had “laughed at all the things I have made people say” I was suggesting, however infelicitously, 1.) that I was the stimulus behind people writing things, which by any account I was, just as I “made” you write that rambling, mindnumbing post a few computer screens up from this one; and 2.) that I enjoyed (e.g.: found amusement; pleasure in) participating in the thread, especially at that point when it had devolved into the chaos of the many familiar characters here writing exactly what you would expect them to, which struck me as a bit funny and/or satisfying in some way. Or you can take the conspiracy theory route where I’m the unibomber or whatever, just like your Celtic Anglo-Saxons, come to think of it.