|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
In a war where cities were destroyed as a matter of course and dozens of millions of civillians were killed it really really strains the imagination to accept that the Japanese would go oh golly gee those darned Americans killed 300k ppl and destroyed two cities we better give up now. They were planning for a Homeland defense that would leave at least 10 _million_ of their ppl dead why the fuck would they give up because American bombers destroyed two more cities? The allied flattened all of Europe and Germans didn't give up, the Germans killed some 20 million Soviets and the Soviets didn't give up. The Chinese drowned, what, a dozen? Million of their own people just so to slow down the Japanese advance. Ww2 was insanley bloody. The nuclear bombs were not particularly special and I don't believe for a second that 300k dead civilians would factor into the decisions of the Japanese high command. The Japanese gave up 2 days after the Soviet Union declared war in Japan, because Soviet occupation was an existential threat to the existence of the Japanese nation in a way that American occupation was not. No nuclear bombs and they still give up. No Soviet invasion and no way in hell they give up, nukes or no nukes.
|
Nah Klack, didn't you hear Plansix? The Imperial Japanese had books about raping women. It was necessary to nuke them and obliterate North Korea five years later with more bombs than used throughout the entire Pacific Theatre in WWII.
I'm so sick and tired of that bullshit excuse "think of the women and children!" What? The ones you murdered? Yeah, Muslims are raping women so the invasion and bombings are justified since they're just savages, Japanese are raping women so its fine to nuke them, the Soviets raped women in WWII so they're all socialist subhuman scum. And clearly we must monitor and log all activity on the entire internet, just think of the children! Blah blah blah blah.
|
On November 25 2017 14:57 urmomdresslikafloozy wrote: Are magazines really still a thing? I honestly havent seen one in years. I imagine that people that buy them are climate change deniers that love felling trees and increasing co2 emissions. It can get quite cold where I live during winter, so I personally do my best to keep various magazine companies afloat.
|
On November 25 2017 12:49 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2017 12:39 a_flayer wrote:On November 25 2017 11:54 Plansix wrote:On November 25 2017 11:34 darthfoley wrote:On November 25 2017 11:16 Nevuk wrote: I thought the current semi consensus was that it was mostly about keeping Russia from claiming all of Europe by scaring them? Gar Alperovitz makes a pretty convincing argument that this was the main reason for dropping the bombs. Especially the second one. IIRC among other things, we intercepted Japanese comms that they were getting ready to unconditionally surrender, etc., and we still dropped them. Here's the abridged version: https://www.thenation.com/article/why-the-us-really-bombed-hiroshima/ Although I agree that there were signs part of the Japanese leadership wanted to unconditionally surrender, that was set against a backdrop of the public vowing to fight forever. Even after the first bomb was dropped. It was never clear that unconditional surrender was coming. Even if we had not used it, they would have been used in the Korean War 5 years later. Might as well have, considering the way your country handled that one. Bombing rice fields and damns to try and starve the population. That must be why your country supports the way the Saudis are bombing Yemen. Its imperial Japan, they spent a good chunk of time abusing china and raping the women of child to keep their soldiers happy. They had a whole handbook about it and everything. There isn't a lot of moral high ground for the treatment of civilians in WW2 on any side.
And here gentlemen is a typical occurence of history (re)writing by the winners.
|
On November 25 2017 16:57 Furikawari wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2017 12:49 Plansix wrote:On November 25 2017 12:39 a_flayer wrote:On November 25 2017 11:54 Plansix wrote:On November 25 2017 11:34 darthfoley wrote:On November 25 2017 11:16 Nevuk wrote: I thought the current semi consensus was that it was mostly about keeping Russia from claiming all of Europe by scaring them? Gar Alperovitz makes a pretty convincing argument that this was the main reason for dropping the bombs. Especially the second one. IIRC among other things, we intercepted Japanese comms that they were getting ready to unconditionally surrender, etc., and we still dropped them. Here's the abridged version: https://www.thenation.com/article/why-the-us-really-bombed-hiroshima/ Although I agree that there were signs part of the Japanese leadership wanted to unconditionally surrender, that was set against a backdrop of the public vowing to fight forever. Even after the first bomb was dropped. It was never clear that unconditional surrender was coming. Even if we had not used it, they would have been used in the Korean War 5 years later. Might as well have, considering the way your country handled that one. Bombing rice fields and damns to try and starve the population. That must be why your country supports the way the Saudis are bombing Yemen. Its imperial Japan, they spent a good chunk of time abusing china and raping the women of child to keep their soldiers happy. They had a whole handbook about it and everything. There isn't a lot of moral high ground for the treatment of civilians in WW2 on any side. And here gentlemen is a typical occurence of history (re)writing by the winners. Uh... are you saying the Rape of Nanking is not a real thing that happened?
|
On November 25 2017 16:59 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2017 16:57 Furikawari wrote:On November 25 2017 12:49 Plansix wrote:On November 25 2017 12:39 a_flayer wrote:On November 25 2017 11:54 Plansix wrote:On November 25 2017 11:34 darthfoley wrote:On November 25 2017 11:16 Nevuk wrote: I thought the current semi consensus was that it was mostly about keeping Russia from claiming all of Europe by scaring them? Gar Alperovitz makes a pretty convincing argument that this was the main reason for dropping the bombs. Especially the second one. IIRC among other things, we intercepted Japanese comms that they were getting ready to unconditionally surrender, etc., and we still dropped them. Here's the abridged version: https://www.thenation.com/article/why-the-us-really-bombed-hiroshima/ Although I agree that there were signs part of the Japanese leadership wanted to unconditionally surrender, that was set against a backdrop of the public vowing to fight forever. Even after the first bomb was dropped. It was never clear that unconditional surrender was coming. Even if we had not used it, they would have been used in the Korean War 5 years later. Might as well have, considering the way your country handled that one. Bombing rice fields and damns to try and starve the population. That must be why your country supports the way the Saudis are bombing Yemen. Its imperial Japan, they spent a good chunk of time abusing china and raping the women of child to keep their soldiers happy. They had a whole handbook about it and everything. There isn't a lot of moral high ground for the treatment of civilians in WW2 on any side. And here gentlemen is a typical occurence of history (re)writing by the winners. Uh... are you saying the Rape of Nanking is not a real thing that happened? I'm sure it happened and was an awful event.
I'm also sure it is no coincidence that US media dominates the world and that every US enemy are a bunch of rapists.
I'm sure the northern barbarians raped plenty of women between 50 BC and 400 AD.
I'm also sure that it is no coincidence that Imperial Rome dominated the media of the era.
|
On November 25 2017 17:22 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2017 16:59 Aquanim wrote:On November 25 2017 16:57 Furikawari wrote:On November 25 2017 12:49 Plansix wrote:On November 25 2017 12:39 a_flayer wrote:On November 25 2017 11:54 Plansix wrote:On November 25 2017 11:34 darthfoley wrote:On November 25 2017 11:16 Nevuk wrote: I thought the current semi consensus was that it was mostly about keeping Russia from claiming all of Europe by scaring them? Gar Alperovitz makes a pretty convincing argument that this was the main reason for dropping the bombs. Especially the second one. IIRC among other things, we intercepted Japanese comms that they were getting ready to unconditionally surrender, etc., and we still dropped them. Here's the abridged version: https://www.thenation.com/article/why-the-us-really-bombed-hiroshima/ Although I agree that there were signs part of the Japanese leadership wanted to unconditionally surrender, that was set against a backdrop of the public vowing to fight forever. Even after the first bomb was dropped. It was never clear that unconditional surrender was coming. Even if we had not used it, they would have been used in the Korean War 5 years later. Might as well have, considering the way your country handled that one. Bombing rice fields and damns to try and starve the population. That must be why your country supports the way the Saudis are bombing Yemen. Its imperial Japan, they spent a good chunk of time abusing china and raping the women of child to keep their soldiers happy. They had a whole handbook about it and everything. There isn't a lot of moral high ground for the treatment of civilians in WW2 on any side. And here gentlemen is a typical occurence of history (re)writing by the winners. Uh... are you saying the Rape of Nanking is not a real thing that happened? I'm sure it happened and was an awful event. I'm also sure it is no coincidence that US media dominates the world and that every US enemy are a bunch of rapists. I don't doubt that US media shades things, but I don't think that's a controversial statement either. If you're claiming they are making shit up (edit: on the scale of war crimes) from whole cloth that's a different statement, and I think you need to be exceptionally clear which of those you mean.
That being said: your statement is nearly entirely empty without concrete examples.
To return to our central point, are you saying you believe that in terms of moral high ground, the nuclear bombs dropped on Japan (plus the US imprisoning citizens of Japanese descent, plus all else the West did) outweigh the actions of the Japanese with respect to occupying China, prisoners of war, etc.?
|
On November 25 2017 13:04 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2017 11:37 Plansix wrote:On November 25 2017 11:34 bo1b wrote: I don't think murdering thousands of natives is what people celebrate thanksgiving for. Mostly nope. We are aware of it has a troubled history. But to many it's a tradition about families gathering once a year. I would say all the way nope. Where was there a time where Thanksgiving was used to celebrate indigenous death? Washington used it to celebrate the conclusion of the Revolution, true. Lincoln used it towards the end of the Civil War to "“commend to his tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife” and to “heal the wounds of the nation.”" And very rarely were relations between indigenous and settlers as amicable as Tisquantum's contribution to the survival of the pilgrims and the following reciprocal feast. Nonetheless, it seems to me it has always been used an opportunity for thankfulness, rather than a celebration of death.
Uh...
Additionally, English Major John Mason rallied his troops to further burn Pequot wigwams and then attacked and killed hundreds more men, women and children. According to Mason’s reports of the massacre, “We must burn them! Such a dreadful terror let the Almighty fall upon their spirits that they would flee from us and run into the very flames. Thus did the Lord judge the heathen, filling the place with dead bodies.”
The Governor of Plymouth William Bradford wrote: “Those that escaped the fire were slain with the sword; some hewed to pieces, others run through with their rapiers, so that they were quickly dispatched and very few escaped. It was conceived they thus destroyed about 400 at this time. It was a fearful sight to see them thus frying in the fire…horrible was the stink and scent thereof, but the victory seemed a sweet sacrifice, and they gave the prayers thereof to God, who had wrought so wonderfully for them.”
The day after the massacre, William Bradford who was also the Governor of Massachusetts Bay Colony, wrote that from that day forth shall be a day of celebration and thanks giving for subduing the Pequots and “For the next 100 years, every Thanksgiving Day ordained by a Governor was in honor of the bloody victory, thanking God that the battle had been won.”
Source
Then after the civil war they white washed Thanksgiving and told the lie about how the separatists and Wampanoags got along so well.
It's nice that people use the holiday to celebrate other things too. But almost all of the pilgrim and indigenous people story is propaganda.
|
On November 25 2017 17:30 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2017 17:22 a_flayer wrote:On November 25 2017 16:59 Aquanim wrote:On November 25 2017 16:57 Furikawari wrote:On November 25 2017 12:49 Plansix wrote:On November 25 2017 12:39 a_flayer wrote:On November 25 2017 11:54 Plansix wrote:On November 25 2017 11:34 darthfoley wrote:On November 25 2017 11:16 Nevuk wrote: I thought the current semi consensus was that it was mostly about keeping Russia from claiming all of Europe by scaring them? Gar Alperovitz makes a pretty convincing argument that this was the main reason for dropping the bombs. Especially the second one. IIRC among other things, we intercepted Japanese comms that they were getting ready to unconditionally surrender, etc., and we still dropped them. Here's the abridged version: https://www.thenation.com/article/why-the-us-really-bombed-hiroshima/ Although I agree that there were signs part of the Japanese leadership wanted to unconditionally surrender, that was set against a backdrop of the public vowing to fight forever. Even after the first bomb was dropped. It was never clear that unconditional surrender was coming. Even if we had not used it, they would have been used in the Korean War 5 years later. Might as well have, considering the way your country handled that one. Bombing rice fields and damns to try and starve the population. That must be why your country supports the way the Saudis are bombing Yemen. Its imperial Japan, they spent a good chunk of time abusing china and raping the women of child to keep their soldiers happy. They had a whole handbook about it and everything. There isn't a lot of moral high ground for the treatment of civilians in WW2 on any side. And here gentlemen is a typical occurence of history (re)writing by the winners. Uh... are you saying the Rape of Nanking is not a real thing that happened? I'm sure it happened and was an awful event. I'm also sure it is no coincidence that US media dominates the world and that every US enemy are a bunch of rapists. I don't doubt that US media shades things, but I don't think that's a controversial statement either. If you're claiming they are making shit up from whole cloth that's a different statement, and I think you need to be exceptionally clear which of those you mean. That being said: your statement is nearly entirely empty without concrete examples. To return to our central point, are you saying you believe that in terms of moral high ground, the nuclear bombs dropped on Japan (plus the US imprisoning citizens of Japanese descent, plus all else the West did) outweigh the actions of the Japanese with respect to occupying China, prisoners of war, etc.?
Ah, so we are back to: "our only goal is to be slightly less shit than the others, let's discuss if we reached that or if we overshot".
Not sure why anybody would want to join that discussion.
|
On November 25 2017 17:46 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2017 17:30 Aquanim wrote:On November 25 2017 17:22 a_flayer wrote:On November 25 2017 16:59 Aquanim wrote:On November 25 2017 16:57 Furikawari wrote:On November 25 2017 12:49 Plansix wrote:On November 25 2017 12:39 a_flayer wrote:On November 25 2017 11:54 Plansix wrote:On November 25 2017 11:34 darthfoley wrote:On November 25 2017 11:16 Nevuk wrote: I thought the current semi consensus was that it was mostly about keeping Russia from claiming all of Europe by scaring them? Gar Alperovitz makes a pretty convincing argument that this was the main reason for dropping the bombs. Especially the second one. IIRC among other things, we intercepted Japanese comms that they were getting ready to unconditionally surrender, etc., and we still dropped them. Here's the abridged version: https://www.thenation.com/article/why-the-us-really-bombed-hiroshima/ Although I agree that there were signs part of the Japanese leadership wanted to unconditionally surrender, that was set against a backdrop of the public vowing to fight forever. Even after the first bomb was dropped. It was never clear that unconditional surrender was coming. Even if we had not used it, they would have been used in the Korean War 5 years later. Might as well have, considering the way your country handled that one. Bombing rice fields and damns to try and starve the population. That must be why your country supports the way the Saudis are bombing Yemen. Its imperial Japan, they spent a good chunk of time abusing china and raping the women of child to keep their soldiers happy. They had a whole handbook about it and everything. There isn't a lot of moral high ground for the treatment of civilians in WW2 on any side. And here gentlemen is a typical occurence of history (re)writing by the winners. Uh... are you saying the Rape of Nanking is not a real thing that happened? I'm sure it happened and was an awful event. I'm also sure it is no coincidence that US media dominates the world and that every US enemy are a bunch of rapists. I don't doubt that US media shades things, but I don't think that's a controversial statement either. If you're claiming they are making shit up from whole cloth that's a different statement, and I think you need to be exceptionally clear which of those you mean. That being said: your statement is nearly entirely empty without concrete examples. To return to our central point, are you saying you believe that in terms of moral high ground, the nuclear bombs dropped on Japan (plus the US imprisoning citizens of Japanese descent, plus all else the West did) outweigh the actions of the Japanese with respect to occupying China, prisoners of war, etc.? Ah, so we are back to: "our only goal is to be slightly less shit than the others, let's discuss if we reached that or if we overshot". Not sure why anybody would want to join that discussion. I don't believe not being worse than the other guy is sufficient justification for anything, although I can understand why you jumped to that conclusion upon reading my post.
Nevertheless, I need an answer so as to understand what a_flayer's actual position is.
Just repeating abstract and/or unsubstantiated comments to the effect of "the winner writes history" or similar is a waste of thread space.
|
On November 25 2017 17:32 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2017 13:04 Falling wrote:On November 25 2017 11:37 Plansix wrote:On November 25 2017 11:34 bo1b wrote: I don't think murdering thousands of natives is what people celebrate thanksgiving for. Mostly nope. We are aware of it has a troubled history. But to many it's a tradition about families gathering once a year. I would say all the way nope. Where was there a time where Thanksgiving was used to celebrate indigenous death? Washington used it to celebrate the conclusion of the Revolution, true. Lincoln used it towards the end of the Civil War to "“commend to his tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife” and to “heal the wounds of the nation.”" And very rarely were relations between indigenous and settlers as amicable as Tisquantum's contribution to the survival of the pilgrims and the following reciprocal feast. Nonetheless, it seems to me it has always been used an opportunity for thankfulness, rather than a celebration of death. Uh... Show nested quote +Additionally, English Major John Mason rallied his troops to further burn Pequot wigwams and then attacked and killed hundreds more men, women and children. According to Mason’s reports of the massacre, “We must burn them! Such a dreadful terror let the Almighty fall upon their spirits that they would flee from us and run into the very flames. Thus did the Lord judge the heathen, filling the place with dead bodies.”
The Governor of Plymouth William Bradford wrote: “Those that escaped the fire were slain with the sword; some hewed to pieces, others run through with their rapiers, so that they were quickly dispatched and very few escaped. It was conceived they thus destroyed about 400 at this time. It was a fearful sight to see them thus frying in the fire…horrible was the stink and scent thereof, but the victory seemed a sweet sacrifice, and they gave the prayers thereof to God, who had wrought so wonderfully for them.”
The day after the massacre, William Bradford who was also the Governor of Massachusetts Bay Colony, wrote that from that day forth shall be a day of celebration and thanks giving for subduing the Pequots and “For the next 100 years, every Thanksgiving Day ordained by a Governor was in honor of the bloody victory, thanking God that the battle had been won.” SourceThen after the civil war they white washed Thanksgiving and told the lie about how the separatists and Wampanoags got along so well. It's nice that people use the holiday to celebrate other things too. But almost all of the pilgrim and indigenous people story is propaganda.
You are doing that thing again where you take a few lines from a... strange source and use it to say something equally strange.
First and most obviously, none of that shows why the mentioned event is the one that spawns the national holiday. It was even acknowledged that a feast is held in 1621! I've never seen any evidence that the celebration in winning a fight was ever the impetus for TG.
I hate to refer to wikipedia, but one could look there and see the origins of the holiday laid out in a fairly clear way. The thanksgiving holiday has nothing to do with this fight or a slaughter.
I haven't seen that from any of my books written by left-wing historians, either. That I can remember.
|
On November 25 2017 17:22 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2017 16:59 Aquanim wrote:On November 25 2017 16:57 Furikawari wrote:On November 25 2017 12:49 Plansix wrote:On November 25 2017 12:39 a_flayer wrote:On November 25 2017 11:54 Plansix wrote:On November 25 2017 11:34 darthfoley wrote:On November 25 2017 11:16 Nevuk wrote: I thought the current semi consensus was that it was mostly about keeping Russia from claiming all of Europe by scaring them? Gar Alperovitz makes a pretty convincing argument that this was the main reason for dropping the bombs. Especially the second one. IIRC among other things, we intercepted Japanese comms that they were getting ready to unconditionally surrender, etc., and we still dropped them. Here's the abridged version: https://www.thenation.com/article/why-the-us-really-bombed-hiroshima/ Although I agree that there were signs part of the Japanese leadership wanted to unconditionally surrender, that was set against a backdrop of the public vowing to fight forever. Even after the first bomb was dropped. It was never clear that unconditional surrender was coming. Even if we had not used it, they would have been used in the Korean War 5 years later. Might as well have, considering the way your country handled that one. Bombing rice fields and damns to try and starve the population. That must be why your country supports the way the Saudis are bombing Yemen. Its imperial Japan, they spent a good chunk of time abusing china and raping the women of child to keep their soldiers happy. They had a whole handbook about it and everything. There isn't a lot of moral high ground for the treatment of civilians in WW2 on any side. And here gentlemen is a typical occurence of history (re)writing by the winners. Uh... are you saying the Rape of Nanking is not a real thing that happened? I'm sure it happened and was an awful event.I'm also sure it is no coincidence that US media dominates the world and that every US enemy are a bunch of rapists. I'm sure the northern barbarians raped plenty of women between 50 BC and 400 AD. I'm also sure that it is no coincidence that Imperial Rome dominated the media of the era.
Fuck right off with this pretentious facetious bullshit.
China gives no shit about your shitty western media winners rewriting history conspiracy and every Chinese person you'll meet will have some stories of ancestral racism vs Japan because of this event. Take your shitty denial somewhere else.
|
On November 25 2017 17:55 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2017 17:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 25 2017 13:04 Falling wrote:On November 25 2017 11:37 Plansix wrote:On November 25 2017 11:34 bo1b wrote: I don't think murdering thousands of natives is what people celebrate thanksgiving for. Mostly nope. We are aware of it has a troubled history. But to many it's a tradition about families gathering once a year. I would say all the way nope. Where was there a time where Thanksgiving was used to celebrate indigenous death? Washington used it to celebrate the conclusion of the Revolution, true. Lincoln used it towards the end of the Civil War to "“commend to his tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife” and to “heal the wounds of the nation.”" And very rarely were relations between indigenous and settlers as amicable as Tisquantum's contribution to the survival of the pilgrims and the following reciprocal feast. Nonetheless, it seems to me it has always been used an opportunity for thankfulness, rather than a celebration of death. Uh... Additionally, English Major John Mason rallied his troops to further burn Pequot wigwams and then attacked and killed hundreds more men, women and children. According to Mason’s reports of the massacre, “We must burn them! Such a dreadful terror let the Almighty fall upon their spirits that they would flee from us and run into the very flames. Thus did the Lord judge the heathen, filling the place with dead bodies.”
The Governor of Plymouth William Bradford wrote: “Those that escaped the fire were slain with the sword; some hewed to pieces, others run through with their rapiers, so that they were quickly dispatched and very few escaped. It was conceived they thus destroyed about 400 at this time. It was a fearful sight to see them thus frying in the fire…horrible was the stink and scent thereof, but the victory seemed a sweet sacrifice, and they gave the prayers thereof to God, who had wrought so wonderfully for them.”
The day after the massacre, William Bradford who was also the Governor of Massachusetts Bay Colony, wrote that from that day forth shall be a day of celebration and thanks giving for subduing the Pequots and “For the next 100 years, every Thanksgiving Day ordained by a Governor was in honor of the bloody victory, thanking God that the battle had been won.” SourceThen after the civil war they white washed Thanksgiving and told the lie about how the separatists and Wampanoags got along so well. It's nice that people use the holiday to celebrate other things too. But almost all of the pilgrim and indigenous people story is propaganda. You are doing that thing again where you take a few lines from a... strange source and use it to say something equally strange. First and most obviously, none of that shows why the mentioned event is the one that spawns the national holiday. It was even acknowledged that a feast is held in 1621! I've never seen any evidence that the celebration in winning a fight was ever the impetus for TG. I hate to refer to wikipedia, but one could look there and see the origins of the holiday laid out in a fairly clear way. The thanksgiving holiday has nothing to do with this fight or a slaughter. I haven't seen that from any of my books written by left-wing historians, either. That I can remember.
You'd be amazed at how much you haven't heard of. Can't imagine why white history would have a very different version of events propagated than indigenous people...
There is absolutely no evidence the indigenous people that showed up to the feast in 1621 were invited. More that the separatists were terrified and wanted deer.
The national holiday was born out of tradition, the tradition was born out of slaughter (there were no more of the propaganda version of the 1621 feasts that was pretty much a one-off deal)
Part of the "peace" they are always referring to is the lack of indigenous people fighting them off.
Your first clue should be that no one called pilgrims, pilgrims when they were alive.
EDIT: It is one of the premier indigenous peoples news publications btw.
|
On November 25 2017 18:06 Blisse wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2017 17:22 a_flayer wrote:On November 25 2017 16:59 Aquanim wrote:On November 25 2017 16:57 Furikawari wrote:On November 25 2017 12:49 Plansix wrote:On November 25 2017 12:39 a_flayer wrote:On November 25 2017 11:54 Plansix wrote:On November 25 2017 11:34 darthfoley wrote:On November 25 2017 11:16 Nevuk wrote: I thought the current semi consensus was that it was mostly about keeping Russia from claiming all of Europe by scaring them? Gar Alperovitz makes a pretty convincing argument that this was the main reason for dropping the bombs. Especially the second one. IIRC among other things, we intercepted Japanese comms that they were getting ready to unconditionally surrender, etc., and we still dropped them. Here's the abridged version: https://www.thenation.com/article/why-the-us-really-bombed-hiroshima/ Although I agree that there were signs part of the Japanese leadership wanted to unconditionally surrender, that was set against a backdrop of the public vowing to fight forever. Even after the first bomb was dropped. It was never clear that unconditional surrender was coming. Even if we had not used it, they would have been used in the Korean War 5 years later. Might as well have, considering the way your country handled that one. Bombing rice fields and damns to try and starve the population. That must be why your country supports the way the Saudis are bombing Yemen. Its imperial Japan, they spent a good chunk of time abusing china and raping the women of child to keep their soldiers happy. They had a whole handbook about it and everything. There isn't a lot of moral high ground for the treatment of civilians in WW2 on any side. And here gentlemen is a typical occurence of history (re)writing by the winners. Uh... are you saying the Rape of Nanking is not a real thing that happened? I'm sure it happened and was an awful event.I'm also sure it is no coincidence that US media dominates the world and that every US enemy are a bunch of rapists. I'm sure the northern barbarians raped plenty of women between 50 BC and 400 AD. I'm also sure that it is no coincidence that Imperial Rome dominated the media of the era. Fuck right off with this pretentious facetious bullshit. China gives no shit about your shitty western media winners rewriting history conspiracy and every Chinese person you'll meet will have some stories of ancestral racism vs Japan because of this event. Take your shitty denial somewhere else. What denial? I wasn't being sarcastic or anything. Rape happened. Atrocities were committed. I read there were 300,000 deaths in that particular event. I absolutely believe that.
I also believe that narratives are drawn and used within dominating media spheres in order to justify atrocities, and I just don't care to justify one atrocity with another, and I'm especially annoyed that people (I'm looking at Plansix here) keep going to that same sort of excuse.
Do you think what Japanese soldiers did in Nanking justifies nuking the people living in Hiroshima and Nagisaki?
Or, which is what brought this all up as Plansix started raving about the rapey Japanese, do you think that whatever went down between the Koreas in the 1950s or whatever Imperial Japan did during their entire reign of Korea - regardless of awfulness - somehow justifies the US dropping 635,000 tons of bombs on North Korea (more than what they used in the entire Pacific Theatre of WWII)?
Pyongyang, which saw 75 percent of its area destroyed, was so devastated that bombing was halted as there were no longer any worthy targets. On 28 November, Bomber Command reported on the campaign's progress: 95 percent of Manpojin was destroyed, along with 90 percent of Hoeryong, Namsi and Koindong, 85 percent of Chosan, 75 percent of both Sakchu and Huichon, and 20 percent of Uiju. According to USAF damage assessments, "eighteen of twenty-two major cities in North Korea had been at least half obliterated." By the end of the campaign, US bombers had difficulty in finding targets and were reduced to bombing footbridges or jettisoning their bombs into the sea. That certainly sounds like it must've saved a lot of women and children!
On November 25 2017 17:30 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2017 17:22 a_flayer wrote:On November 25 2017 16:59 Aquanim wrote:On November 25 2017 16:57 Furikawari wrote:On November 25 2017 12:49 Plansix wrote:On November 25 2017 12:39 a_flayer wrote:On November 25 2017 11:54 Plansix wrote:On November 25 2017 11:34 darthfoley wrote:On November 25 2017 11:16 Nevuk wrote: I thought the current semi consensus was that it was mostly about keeping Russia from claiming all of Europe by scaring them? Gar Alperovitz makes a pretty convincing argument that this was the main reason for dropping the bombs. Especially the second one. IIRC among other things, we intercepted Japanese comms that they were getting ready to unconditionally surrender, etc., and we still dropped them. Here's the abridged version: https://www.thenation.com/article/why-the-us-really-bombed-hiroshima/ Although I agree that there were signs part of the Japanese leadership wanted to unconditionally surrender, that was set against a backdrop of the public vowing to fight forever. Even after the first bomb was dropped. It was never clear that unconditional surrender was coming. Even if we had not used it, they would have been used in the Korean War 5 years later. Might as well have, considering the way your country handled that one. Bombing rice fields and damns to try and starve the population. That must be why your country supports the way the Saudis are bombing Yemen. Its imperial Japan, they spent a good chunk of time abusing china and raping the women of child to keep their soldiers happy. They had a whole handbook about it and everything. There isn't a lot of moral high ground for the treatment of civilians in WW2 on any side. And here gentlemen is a typical occurence of history (re)writing by the winners. Uh... are you saying the Rape of Nanking is not a real thing that happened? I'm sure it happened and was an awful event. I'm also sure it is no coincidence that US media dominates the world and that every US enemy are a bunch of rapists. I don't doubt that US media shades things, but I don't think that's a controversial statement either. If you're claiming they are making shit up (edit: on the scale of war crimes) from whole cloth that's a different statement, and I think you need to be exceptionally clear which of those you mean. That being said: your statement is nearly entirely empty without concrete examples. To return to our central point, are you saying you believe that in terms of moral high ground, the nuclear bombs dropped on Japan (plus the US imprisoning citizens of Japanese descent, plus all else the West did) outweigh the actions of the Japanese with respect to occupying China, prisoners of war, etc.? I don't care about comparisons or moral high grounds between nations. Whether it is eradicating 10% of the North Korean population, eradicating 5% of the Chinese population, or sending 0.5% of the US population to their deaths is irrelevant. Every death is awful and horrible. Every person being raped, starving or otherwise suffering is terrible.
And making excuses for more of the same seems like a really stupid thing to do. I'm convinced that's what was happening in some of these cases for the sake of power, economics, and who knows what else, rather than some kind of altruistic goal of lessening the suffering of people or saving the lives.
|
On November 25 2017 18:17 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2017 17:55 Introvert wrote:On November 25 2017 17:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 25 2017 13:04 Falling wrote:On November 25 2017 11:37 Plansix wrote:On November 25 2017 11:34 bo1b wrote: I don't think murdering thousands of natives is what people celebrate thanksgiving for. Mostly nope. We are aware of it has a troubled history. But to many it's a tradition about families gathering once a year. I would say all the way nope. Where was there a time where Thanksgiving was used to celebrate indigenous death? Washington used it to celebrate the conclusion of the Revolution, true. Lincoln used it towards the end of the Civil War to "“commend to his tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife” and to “heal the wounds of the nation.”" And very rarely were relations between indigenous and settlers as amicable as Tisquantum's contribution to the survival of the pilgrims and the following reciprocal feast. Nonetheless, it seems to me it has always been used an opportunity for thankfulness, rather than a celebration of death. Uh... Additionally, English Major John Mason rallied his troops to further burn Pequot wigwams and then attacked and killed hundreds more men, women and children. According to Mason’s reports of the massacre, “We must burn them! Such a dreadful terror let the Almighty fall upon their spirits that they would flee from us and run into the very flames. Thus did the Lord judge the heathen, filling the place with dead bodies.”
The Governor of Plymouth William Bradford wrote: “Those that escaped the fire were slain with the sword; some hewed to pieces, others run through with their rapiers, so that they were quickly dispatched and very few escaped. It was conceived they thus destroyed about 400 at this time. It was a fearful sight to see them thus frying in the fire…horrible was the stink and scent thereof, but the victory seemed a sweet sacrifice, and they gave the prayers thereof to God, who had wrought so wonderfully for them.”
The day after the massacre, William Bradford who was also the Governor of Massachusetts Bay Colony, wrote that from that day forth shall be a day of celebration and thanks giving for subduing the Pequots and “For the next 100 years, every Thanksgiving Day ordained by a Governor was in honor of the bloody victory, thanking God that the battle had been won.” SourceThen after the civil war they white washed Thanksgiving and told the lie about how the separatists and Wampanoags got along so well. It's nice that people use the holiday to celebrate other things too. But almost all of the pilgrim and indigenous people story is propaganda. You are doing that thing again where you take a few lines from a... strange source and use it to say something equally strange. First and most obviously, none of that shows why the mentioned event is the one that spawns the national holiday. It was even acknowledged that a feast is held in 1621! I've never seen any evidence that the celebration in winning a fight was ever the impetus for TG. I hate to refer to wikipedia, but one could look there and see the origins of the holiday laid out in a fairly clear way. The thanksgiving holiday has nothing to do with this fight or a slaughter. I haven't seen that from any of my books written by left-wing historians, either. That I can remember. You'd be amazed at how much you haven't heard of. Can't imagine why white history would have a very different version of events propagated than indigenous people... There is absolutely no evidence the indigenous people that showed up to the feast in 1621 were invited. More that the separatists were terrified and wanted deer. The national holiday was born out of tradition, the tradition was born out of slaughter (there were no more of the propaganda version of the 1621 feasts that was pretty much a one-off deal) Part of the "peace" they are always referring to is the lack of indigenous people fighting them off. Your first clue should be that no one called pilgrims, pilgrims when they were alive.
I'm focused on the origin of the event, not if the nearby tribe showed up by accident or not. Either way it clearly didn't end with them all shooting each other. What is weird is why you think the 1636 event is the origin of the American Thanksgiving. The story people know, that the separatists were giving thanks for surviving a horrid winter, makes no mention of whether the event is recurring one or not. Perhaps someone has that impression. So what?
It doesn't matter if the indigenous were invited. It doesn't matter if it was a one off event. It doesn't matter if Squanto was a formerly captured native or not. Yes, if no one is there to fight you, or chooses not to, then that certainly could be described as a "peace."
Those latter three are things people know, anyways. I have to conclude this is just Greenhorizons being Greenhorizons, where you draw together some loose "facts" or stories and assemble them in the way that makes the least sense but is best for the narrative. You must admit that you are asking that 3 paragraphs from "one of the premier indigenous peoples news publications" to do a LOT of leg work it hasn't offered to do. Though that doesn't stop it from leading with The Thanksgiving Day Celebration Originated From a Massacre and then doing virtually nothing to help it.
Not only do you have to show that there is any link between the two, but you have to show that it's stronger than the "propaganda" that is apparently being shoveled by all those apparently right-wing historians and professors. I know what debating you can be like (I learned it far before everyone else did in 2016), but thread readers should know that this perspective is not mainstream, to put it mildly.
|
On November 25 2017 18:33 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2017 18:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 25 2017 17:55 Introvert wrote:On November 25 2017 17:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 25 2017 13:04 Falling wrote:On November 25 2017 11:37 Plansix wrote:On November 25 2017 11:34 bo1b wrote: I don't think murdering thousands of natives is what people celebrate thanksgiving for. Mostly nope. We are aware of it has a troubled history. But to many it's a tradition about families gathering once a year. I would say all the way nope. Where was there a time where Thanksgiving was used to celebrate indigenous death? Washington used it to celebrate the conclusion of the Revolution, true. Lincoln used it towards the end of the Civil War to "“commend to his tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife” and to “heal the wounds of the nation.”" And very rarely were relations between indigenous and settlers as amicable as Tisquantum's contribution to the survival of the pilgrims and the following reciprocal feast. Nonetheless, it seems to me it has always been used an opportunity for thankfulness, rather than a celebration of death. Uh... Additionally, English Major John Mason rallied his troops to further burn Pequot wigwams and then attacked and killed hundreds more men, women and children. According to Mason’s reports of the massacre, “We must burn them! Such a dreadful terror let the Almighty fall upon their spirits that they would flee from us and run into the very flames. Thus did the Lord judge the heathen, filling the place with dead bodies.”
The Governor of Plymouth William Bradford wrote: “Those that escaped the fire were slain with the sword; some hewed to pieces, others run through with their rapiers, so that they were quickly dispatched and very few escaped. It was conceived they thus destroyed about 400 at this time. It was a fearful sight to see them thus frying in the fire…horrible was the stink and scent thereof, but the victory seemed a sweet sacrifice, and they gave the prayers thereof to God, who had wrought so wonderfully for them.”
The day after the massacre, William Bradford who was also the Governor of Massachusetts Bay Colony, wrote that from that day forth shall be a day of celebration and thanks giving for subduing the Pequots and “For the next 100 years, every Thanksgiving Day ordained by a Governor was in honor of the bloody victory, thanking God that the battle had been won.” SourceThen after the civil war they white washed Thanksgiving and told the lie about how the separatists and Wampanoags got along so well. It's nice that people use the holiday to celebrate other things too. But almost all of the pilgrim and indigenous people story is propaganda. You are doing that thing again where you take a few lines from a... strange source and use it to say something equally strange. First and most obviously, none of that shows why the mentioned event is the one that spawns the national holiday. It was even acknowledged that a feast is held in 1621! I've never seen any evidence that the celebration in winning a fight was ever the impetus for TG. I hate to refer to wikipedia, but one could look there and see the origins of the holiday laid out in a fairly clear way. The thanksgiving holiday has nothing to do with this fight or a slaughter. I haven't seen that from any of my books written by left-wing historians, either. That I can remember. You'd be amazed at how much you haven't heard of. Can't imagine why white history would have a very different version of events propagated than indigenous people... There is absolutely no evidence the indigenous people that showed up to the feast in 1621 were invited. More that the separatists were terrified and wanted deer. The national holiday was born out of tradition, the tradition was born out of slaughter (there were no more of the propaganda version of the 1621 feasts that was pretty much a one-off deal) Part of the "peace" they are always referring to is the lack of indigenous people fighting them off. Your first clue should be that no one called pilgrims, pilgrims when they were alive. I'm focused on the origin of the event, not if the nearby tribe showed up by accident or not. Either way it clearly didn't end with them all shooting each other. What is weird is why you think the 1636 event is the origin of the American Thanksgiving. The story people know, that the separatists were giving thanks for surviving a horrid winter, makes no mention of whether the event is recurring one or not. Perhaps someone has that impression. So what? It doesn't matter if the indigenous were invited. It doesn't matter if it was a one off event. It doesn't matter if Squanto was a formerly captured native or not. Yes, if no one is there to fight you, or chooses not to, then that certainly could be described as a "peace." Those latter three are things people know, anyways. I have to conclude this is just Greenhorizons being Greenhorizons, where you draw together some loose "facts" or stories and assemble them in the way that makes the least sense but is best for the narrative. You must admit that you are asking that 3 paragraphs from "one of the premier indigenous peoples news publications" to do a LOT of leg work it hasn't offered to do. Though that doesn't stop it from leading with The Thanksgiving Day Celebration Originated From a Massacre and then doing virtually nothing to help it. Not only do you have to show that there is any link between the two, but you have to show that it's stronger than the "propaganda" that is apparently being shoveled by all those apparently right-wing historians and professors. I know what debating you can be like (I learned it far before everyone else did in 2016), but thread readers should know that this perspective is not mainstream, to put it mildly.
William Bradford who was also the Governor of Massachusetts Bay Colony, wrote that from that day forth shall be a day of celebration and thanks giving for subduing the Pequots and “For the next 100 years, every Thanksgiving Day ordained by a Governor was in honor of the bloody victory
It kinda does matter if they were invited because it changes the story, along with the other information. As opposed to the whitewashed and misleading version you're familiar with.
The whole dinner was a one-off thing (that happened very differently) that was romanticized and lied about until people forgot that it was a one off thing and all the savagery those same (along with new) separatists were celebrating afterwords.
But yeah so what if we neglect to mention the slavery part of Squanto or anything else that would spoil the commercial propaganda that still references that dinner as something it never was.
|
On November 25 2017 18:42 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2017 18:33 Introvert wrote:On November 25 2017 18:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 25 2017 17:55 Introvert wrote:On November 25 2017 17:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 25 2017 13:04 Falling wrote:On November 25 2017 11:37 Plansix wrote:On November 25 2017 11:34 bo1b wrote: I don't think murdering thousands of natives is what people celebrate thanksgiving for. Mostly nope. We are aware of it has a troubled history. But to many it's a tradition about families gathering once a year. I would say all the way nope. Where was there a time where Thanksgiving was used to celebrate indigenous death? Washington used it to celebrate the conclusion of the Revolution, true. Lincoln used it towards the end of the Civil War to "“commend to his tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife” and to “heal the wounds of the nation.”" And very rarely were relations between indigenous and settlers as amicable as Tisquantum's contribution to the survival of the pilgrims and the following reciprocal feast. Nonetheless, it seems to me it has always been used an opportunity for thankfulness, rather than a celebration of death. Uh... Additionally, English Major John Mason rallied his troops to further burn Pequot wigwams and then attacked and killed hundreds more men, women and children. According to Mason’s reports of the massacre, “We must burn them! Such a dreadful terror let the Almighty fall upon their spirits that they would flee from us and run into the very flames. Thus did the Lord judge the heathen, filling the place with dead bodies.”
The Governor of Plymouth William Bradford wrote: “Those that escaped the fire were slain with the sword; some hewed to pieces, others run through with their rapiers, so that they were quickly dispatched and very few escaped. It was conceived they thus destroyed about 400 at this time. It was a fearful sight to see them thus frying in the fire…horrible was the stink and scent thereof, but the victory seemed a sweet sacrifice, and they gave the prayers thereof to God, who had wrought so wonderfully for them.”
The day after the massacre, William Bradford who was also the Governor of Massachusetts Bay Colony, wrote that from that day forth shall be a day of celebration and thanks giving for subduing the Pequots and “For the next 100 years, every Thanksgiving Day ordained by a Governor was in honor of the bloody victory, thanking God that the battle had been won.” SourceThen after the civil war they white washed Thanksgiving and told the lie about how the separatists and Wampanoags got along so well. It's nice that people use the holiday to celebrate other things too. But almost all of the pilgrim and indigenous people story is propaganda. You are doing that thing again where you take a few lines from a... strange source and use it to say something equally strange. First and most obviously, none of that shows why the mentioned event is the one that spawns the national holiday. It was even acknowledged that a feast is held in 1621! I've never seen any evidence that the celebration in winning a fight was ever the impetus for TG. I hate to refer to wikipedia, but one could look there and see the origins of the holiday laid out in a fairly clear way. The thanksgiving holiday has nothing to do with this fight or a slaughter. I haven't seen that from any of my books written by left-wing historians, either. That I can remember. You'd be amazed at how much you haven't heard of. Can't imagine why white history would have a very different version of events propagated than indigenous people... There is absolutely no evidence the indigenous people that showed up to the feast in 1621 were invited. More that the separatists were terrified and wanted deer. The national holiday was born out of tradition, the tradition was born out of slaughter (there were no more of the propaganda version of the 1621 feasts that was pretty much a one-off deal) Part of the "peace" they are always referring to is the lack of indigenous people fighting them off. Your first clue should be that no one called pilgrims, pilgrims when they were alive. I'm focused on the origin of the event, not if the nearby tribe showed up by accident or not. Either way it clearly didn't end with them all shooting each other. What is weird is why you think the 1636 event is the origin of the American Thanksgiving. The story people know, that the separatists were giving thanks for surviving a horrid winter, makes no mention of whether the event is recurring one or not. Perhaps someone has that impression. So what? It doesn't matter if the indigenous were invited. It doesn't matter if it was a one off event. It doesn't matter if Squanto was a formerly captured native or not. Yes, if no one is there to fight you, or chooses not to, then that certainly could be described as a "peace." Those latter three are things people know, anyways. I have to conclude this is just Greenhorizons being Greenhorizons, where you draw together some loose "facts" or stories and assemble them in the way that makes the least sense but is best for the narrative. You must admit that you are asking that 3 paragraphs from "one of the premier indigenous peoples news publications" to do a LOT of leg work it hasn't offered to do. Though that doesn't stop it from leading with The Thanksgiving Day Celebration Originated From a Massacre and then doing virtually nothing to help it. Not only do you have to show that there is any link between the two, but you have to show that it's stronger than the "propaganda" that is apparently being shoveled by all those apparently right-wing historians and professors. I know what debating you can be like (I learned it far before everyone else did in 2016), but thread readers should know that this perspective is not mainstream, to put it mildly. Show nested quote +William Bradford who was also the Governor of Massachusetts Bay Colony, wrote that from that day forth shall be a day of celebration and thanks giving for subduing the Pequots and “For the next 100 years, every Thanksgiving Day ordained by a Governor was in honor of the bloody victory
It kinda does matter if they were invited because it changes the story, along with the other information. As opposed to the whitewashed and misleading version you're familiar with. The whole dinner was a one-off thing (that happened very differently) that was romanticized and lied about until people forgot that it was a one off thing and all the savagery those same (along with new) separatists were celebrating afterwords. But yeah so what if we neglect to mention the slavery part of Squanto or anything else that would spoil the commercial propaganda that still references that dinner as something it never was.
I'm not disputing that certain parts of the story as many people know can be wrong (although in my estimation you are overplaying that part)-- but that's true for lots of events, and events are retold from every side (this happened a crapton in the Revolutionary War). However, it remains true that the basis of the Thanksgiving Holiday is not a massacre. It is in fact the feast of 1621.
Edit: I see now that you re upped that Bradford quote. Still no connection to the thanksgiving we know has been provided. Some would argue that there is, but it's weak and from what I can tell most historians know it.
|
On November 25 2017 18:50 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2017 18:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 25 2017 18:33 Introvert wrote:On November 25 2017 18:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 25 2017 17:55 Introvert wrote:On November 25 2017 17:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 25 2017 13:04 Falling wrote:On November 25 2017 11:37 Plansix wrote:On November 25 2017 11:34 bo1b wrote: I don't think murdering thousands of natives is what people celebrate thanksgiving for. Mostly nope. We are aware of it has a troubled history. But to many it's a tradition about families gathering once a year. I would say all the way nope. Where was there a time where Thanksgiving was used to celebrate indigenous death? Washington used it to celebrate the conclusion of the Revolution, true. Lincoln used it towards the end of the Civil War to "“commend to his tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife” and to “heal the wounds of the nation.”" And very rarely were relations between indigenous and settlers as amicable as Tisquantum's contribution to the survival of the pilgrims and the following reciprocal feast. Nonetheless, it seems to me it has always been used an opportunity for thankfulness, rather than a celebration of death. Uh... Additionally, English Major John Mason rallied his troops to further burn Pequot wigwams and then attacked and killed hundreds more men, women and children. According to Mason’s reports of the massacre, “We must burn them! Such a dreadful terror let the Almighty fall upon their spirits that they would flee from us and run into the very flames. Thus did the Lord judge the heathen, filling the place with dead bodies.”
The Governor of Plymouth William Bradford wrote: “Those that escaped the fire were slain with the sword; some hewed to pieces, others run through with their rapiers, so that they were quickly dispatched and very few escaped. It was conceived they thus destroyed about 400 at this time. It was a fearful sight to see them thus frying in the fire…horrible was the stink and scent thereof, but the victory seemed a sweet sacrifice, and they gave the prayers thereof to God, who had wrought so wonderfully for them.”
The day after the massacre, William Bradford who was also the Governor of Massachusetts Bay Colony, wrote that from that day forth shall be a day of celebration and thanks giving for subduing the Pequots and “For the next 100 years, every Thanksgiving Day ordained by a Governor was in honor of the bloody victory, thanking God that the battle had been won.” SourceThen after the civil war they white washed Thanksgiving and told the lie about how the separatists and Wampanoags got along so well. It's nice that people use the holiday to celebrate other things too. But almost all of the pilgrim and indigenous people story is propaganda. You are doing that thing again where you take a few lines from a... strange source and use it to say something equally strange. First and most obviously, none of that shows why the mentioned event is the one that spawns the national holiday. It was even acknowledged that a feast is held in 1621! I've never seen any evidence that the celebration in winning a fight was ever the impetus for TG. I hate to refer to wikipedia, but one could look there and see the origins of the holiday laid out in a fairly clear way. The thanksgiving holiday has nothing to do with this fight or a slaughter. I haven't seen that from any of my books written by left-wing historians, either. That I can remember. You'd be amazed at how much you haven't heard of. Can't imagine why white history would have a very different version of events propagated than indigenous people... There is absolutely no evidence the indigenous people that showed up to the feast in 1621 were invited. More that the separatists were terrified and wanted deer. The national holiday was born out of tradition, the tradition was born out of slaughter (there were no more of the propaganda version of the 1621 feasts that was pretty much a one-off deal) Part of the "peace" they are always referring to is the lack of indigenous people fighting them off. Your first clue should be that no one called pilgrims, pilgrims when they were alive. I'm focused on the origin of the event, not if the nearby tribe showed up by accident or not. Either way it clearly didn't end with them all shooting each other. What is weird is why you think the 1636 event is the origin of the American Thanksgiving. The story people know, that the separatists were giving thanks for surviving a horrid winter, makes no mention of whether the event is recurring one or not. Perhaps someone has that impression. So what? It doesn't matter if the indigenous were invited. It doesn't matter if it was a one off event. It doesn't matter if Squanto was a formerly captured native or not. Yes, if no one is there to fight you, or chooses not to, then that certainly could be described as a "peace." Those latter three are things people know, anyways. I have to conclude this is just Greenhorizons being Greenhorizons, where you draw together some loose "facts" or stories and assemble them in the way that makes the least sense but is best for the narrative. You must admit that you are asking that 3 paragraphs from "one of the premier indigenous peoples news publications" to do a LOT of leg work it hasn't offered to do. Though that doesn't stop it from leading with The Thanksgiving Day Celebration Originated From a Massacre and then doing virtually nothing to help it. Not only do you have to show that there is any link between the two, but you have to show that it's stronger than the "propaganda" that is apparently being shoveled by all those apparently right-wing historians and professors. I know what debating you can be like (I learned it far before everyone else did in 2016), but thread readers should know that this perspective is not mainstream, to put it mildly. William Bradford who was also the Governor of Massachusetts Bay Colony, wrote that from that day forth shall be a day of celebration and thanks giving for subduing the Pequots and “For the next 100 years, every Thanksgiving Day ordained by a Governor was in honor of the bloody victory
It kinda does matter if they were invited because it changes the story, along with the other information. As opposed to the whitewashed and misleading version you're familiar with. The whole dinner was a one-off thing (that happened very differently) that was romanticized and lied about until people forgot that it was a one off thing and all the savagery those same (along with new) separatists were celebrating afterwords. But yeah so what if we neglect to mention the slavery part of Squanto or anything else that would spoil the commercial propaganda that still references that dinner as something it never was. I'm not disputing that certain parts of the story as many people know can be wrong (although in my estimation you are overplaying that part)-- but that's true for lots of events, and events are retold from every side (this happened a crapton in the Revolutionary War). However, it remains true that the basis of the Thanksgiving Holiday is not a massacre. It is in fact the feast of 1621. Edit: I see now that you re upped that Bradford quote. Still no connection to the thanksgiving we know has been provided. Some would argue that there is, but it's weak and from what I can tell most historians know it.
The holiday as we know it (I know as it was taught to me) was about a bullshit lie about peaceful cohabitation being marked by the dinner which was greatly misconstrued. No one ever said shit about Washington or Lincoln or the Civil War.
Decorations were all Pilgrim bullshit and so on. I don't even want to get into the puritanical bullshit or why the pilgrims would probably beat/kill people celebrating Christmas, let alone commercial Christmas as we know it now.
What it "really" is, is a way to remember a bs story about peace between "pilgrims" and "indians" that does everyone a disservice.
The point is everyone knows the BS story about the dinner, no one wants to remember what happened after the dinner.
Long story short, the pilgrims/puritans were shitty people not heroes or the kind of Christians people like to imagine they were.
|
On November 25 2017 17:32 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2017 13:04 Falling wrote:On November 25 2017 11:37 Plansix wrote:On November 25 2017 11:34 bo1b wrote: I don't think murdering thousands of natives is what people celebrate thanksgiving for. Mostly nope. We are aware of it has a troubled history. But to many it's a tradition about families gathering once a year. I would say all the way nope. Where was there a time where Thanksgiving was used to celebrate indigenous death? Washington used it to celebrate the conclusion of the Revolution, true. Lincoln used it towards the end of the Civil War to "“commend to his tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife” and to “heal the wounds of the nation.”" And very rarely were relations between indigenous and settlers as amicable as Tisquantum's contribution to the survival of the pilgrims and the following reciprocal feast. Nonetheless, it seems to me it has always been used an opportunity for thankfulness, rather than a celebration of death. Uh... Show nested quote +Additionally, English Major John Mason rallied his troops to further burn Pequot wigwams and then attacked and killed hundreds more men, women and children. According to Mason’s reports of the massacre, “We must burn them! Such a dreadful terror let the Almighty fall upon their spirits that they would flee from us and run into the very flames. Thus did the Lord judge the heathen, filling the place with dead bodies.”
The Governor of Plymouth William Bradford wrote: “Those that escaped the fire were slain with the sword; some hewed to pieces, others run through with their rapiers, so that they were quickly dispatched and very few escaped. It was conceived they thus destroyed about 400 at this time. It was a fearful sight to see them thus frying in the fire…horrible was the stink and scent thereof, but the victory seemed a sweet sacrifice, and they gave the prayers thereof to God, who had wrought so wonderfully for them.”
The day after the massacre, William Bradford who was also the Governor of Massachusetts Bay Colony, wrote that from that day forth shall be a day of celebration and thanks giving for subduing the Pequots and “For the next 100 years, every Thanksgiving Day ordained by a Governor was in honor of the bloody victory, thanking God that the battle had been won.” SourceThen after the civil war they white washed Thanksgiving and told the lie about how the separatists and Wampanoags got along so well. It's nice that people use the holiday to celebrate other things too. But almost all of the pilgrim and indigenous people story is propaganda.
Let's not whitewash the Native American tribes either. Conflict was rampant and there were killings and slayings and aggressive violence on both sides in relation to the fur trade. This narrative that Native Americans were peaceful people and didn't do anything to suggest the acts on colonists behalves is as much propaganda. When two sides are awful, picking one or the other is generally not a good proposition for moral high-ground (unless of course, you're a moral relativist and just hate white people, or vice versa).
|
On November 25 2017 19:33 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2017 17:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 25 2017 13:04 Falling wrote:On November 25 2017 11:37 Plansix wrote:On November 25 2017 11:34 bo1b wrote: I don't think murdering thousands of natives is what people celebrate thanksgiving for. Mostly nope. We are aware of it has a troubled history. But to many it's a tradition about families gathering once a year. I would say all the way nope. Where was there a time where Thanksgiving was used to celebrate indigenous death? Washington used it to celebrate the conclusion of the Revolution, true. Lincoln used it towards the end of the Civil War to "“commend to his tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife” and to “heal the wounds of the nation.”" And very rarely were relations between indigenous and settlers as amicable as Tisquantum's contribution to the survival of the pilgrims and the following reciprocal feast. Nonetheless, it seems to me it has always been used an opportunity for thankfulness, rather than a celebration of death. Uh... Additionally, English Major John Mason rallied his troops to further burn Pequot wigwams and then attacked and killed hundreds more men, women and children. According to Mason’s reports of the massacre, “We must burn them! Such a dreadful terror let the Almighty fall upon their spirits that they would flee from us and run into the very flames. Thus did the Lord judge the heathen, filling the place with dead bodies.”
The Governor of Plymouth William Bradford wrote: “Those that escaped the fire were slain with the sword; some hewed to pieces, others run through with their rapiers, so that they were quickly dispatched and very few escaped. It was conceived they thus destroyed about 400 at this time. It was a fearful sight to see them thus frying in the fire…horrible was the stink and scent thereof, but the victory seemed a sweet sacrifice, and they gave the prayers thereof to God, who had wrought so wonderfully for them.”
The day after the massacre, William Bradford who was also the Governor of Massachusetts Bay Colony, wrote that from that day forth shall be a day of celebration and thanks giving for subduing the Pequots and “For the next 100 years, every Thanksgiving Day ordained by a Governor was in honor of the bloody victory, thanking God that the battle had been won.” SourceThen after the civil war they white washed Thanksgiving and told the lie about how the separatists and Wampanoags got along so well. It's nice that people use the holiday to celebrate other things too. But almost all of the pilgrim and indigenous people story is propaganda. Let's not whitewash the Native American tribes either. Conflict was rampant and there were killings and slayings and aggressive violence on both sides in relation to the fur trade. This narrative that Native Americans were peaceful people and didn't do anything to suggest the acts on colonists behalves is as much propaganda. When two sides are awful, picking one or the other is generally not a good proposition for moral high-ground (unless of course, you're a moral relativist and just hate white people, or vice versa).
Indigenous people wouldn't have killed a single white person if they didn't come to the land indigenous people inhabited. Indigenous people weren't all the same and far from angels, but they were killing people who were there to commit genocide on them.
White America didn't stop trying to kill/brainwash all indigenous people until pretty recently. I don't think you guys appreciate just how shitty white people were in the US territory from the 1620's on through until the 1960's.
It's fair to say indigenous people weren't saints, but there's no comparison to the brutality of the people who tried for hundreds of years to eliminate them from earth.
I haven't talked much with Indigenous people about it, but by most accounts I've seen they seemed to get along pretty well with French settlers, English settlers were especially dickish and bad people compared to the French from an indigenous perspective.
|
|
|
|