I’m Italian - and I was supremely ticked off when the outrage mob was threatening the local Columbus Statue.
On Deddit, I encountered someone who listed “better Italians” that should have statues. When I said “Italians will pick whoever they like to represent them” his response was “As long as it doesn’t offend my people.”
I laid into him. I told him “Your people were practicing human sacrifice and cannibalism when my people arrived. In fact, the word cannibal is derived from one of two things: it is a corruption of the word “Carib” - the name given to the people of the Caribbean, or it was the name of a particularly savage tribe, the Canib - who frequently raided towns, villages, and Columbus’ camps - and ate the people the captured.
So, the idea that your ancestors were dignified, noble people living in tranquility is BS. They perpetrated far worse on their own people than Columbus ever did.”
Cortez could not have taken Mexico without the help of the people the Aztecs had been enslaving and killing for human sacrifices. It says something that as horrific as the Spaniards were, it was worse before they came. For years people said the Spaniards were just making up stories to make the natives look bad, but in more recent years we have archaeological evidence that it was all true.
Many Indians have bought into the noble savage/Avatar beautiful blue people myth -- because 1) they don't know their own history (this is a very sad state of affairs -- shows how much history can be twisted as well); 2) it makes them feel good about themselves.
Everybody wants to not be "the baddies".
I'm of mostly Italian extraction (the part that isn't has a sizeable contribution from a couple of tribes, heh, go figure!) -- I rather prefer Columbus, problematic as he is: I suppose some noble sounding mythical entity might sound better, but I prefer a "warts and all" person instead. Besides, Columbus Day tends to often fall on my birthday. It always made me feel very American.
Any time I have pointed this out the goalposts move.
"Ok Native Americans owned slaves, but their nations aren't the subject here because they don't have power. White people and the United States are what we need to focus on."
For me, this is where the dialogue ends because at this point they have unmasked themselves. They don't truly care about slavery or any other social issue for that matter - they care about the movement. They care about being instruments of change, and in that, they care about attacking and defeating whiteness.
At any given time in 2016, an estimated 40.3 million people are in modern slavery, including 24.9 million in forced labour and 15.4 million in forced marriage.
Think of how crazy it sounds that white people should eternally be sorry for ever owning slaves, even if their family never owned slaves, but any other race who did own slaves gets a pass by the left.
Take reparations for example:
The left wants me to pay more taxes because they want to make sure black people get a paycheck for something that happened hundreds of years ago.
I'm half white, half Mexican. My dad's family came to America many years after the civil war. My mom's family was the result of Spanish mixing with Mayan. None of my family had ever owned slaves.
But because I have an Anglo-Saxon last name, they will make sure to tax me to pay for something my ancestors never had a part in.
They also imagine the Indians as one cohesive unit, instead of a number of tribes that had their own politics and conflicts. Some tribes loved us, and then there were some that hated us. You know the more I describe them, the more they sound like actual people.
Not just the Indians it happens with the barbarian tribes that overthrew the Western Roman Empire. These were just "immigrants" seeking to better themselves and it was a peaceful transition from Empire to the fractured Barbarian Successor states. Peter Heather in his Fall of Rome book does an excellent job refuting that idea. Well researched and written I highly recommend it.
It wasn't peaceful, but the fall of the western empire wasn't the barbarian fueled armageddon many portray it as either.
People seem to forget that the barbarian tribes were just that -- not one group. Many of the Germanic tribes (who are the ones principally remembered -- Attila notwithstanding) were Christianized, many had served in the legions (prior to the fall, but a fact many like to forget: Arminius was fighting against his own brother, Flavus) and were partially Romanized; a lot of them took to Romanization fairly quickly as it had some definite perks.
As with everything else, I'd say it was a bit of all -- the good and the bad.
Exactly! How do they not notice how racist it is, saying Indians were all just living peacefully together singing kumbaya? They're not some exotic pet, specially bred to live at one with nature. They're people, human beings that do good things and bad!
Cognitive Dissonance True Awakening: Always looks like someone just got a hard right hand from Mike Tyson!
Enslaving each other was so damn common. The noble savage myth is all these granola crunching, dirt fucking hippies believe in.
Blame the French "philosphers" of the Jacobin (father of "marxism) persuasion.
Rousseau I think.
Always conquerers who use this revisionist "race" history tactic.
Ignorance is as bad as crack in turning people into total criminals.
Yes, it was Rousseau -- who was an absolute dickhead. He gets the blame for a lot of things, deservedly. Absolute degenerate and hypocrite.
I’m Italian - and I was supremely ticked off when the outrage mob was threatening the local Columbus Statue.
On Deddit, I encountered someone who listed “better Italians” that should have statues. When I said “Italians will pick whoever they like to represent them” his response was “As long as it doesn’t offend my people.”
I laid into him. I told him “Your people were practicing human sacrifice and cannibalism when my people arrived. In fact, the word cannibal is derived from one of two things: it is a corruption of the word “Carib” - the name given to the people of the Caribbean, or it was the name of a particularly savage tribe, the Canib - who frequently raided towns, villages, and Columbus’ camps - and ate the people the captured.
So, the idea that your ancestors were dignified, noble people living in tranquility is BS. They perpetrated far worse on their own people than Columbus ever did.”
Cortez could not have taken Mexico without the help of the people the Aztecs had been enslaving and killing for human sacrifices. It says something that as horrific as the Spaniards were, it was worse before they came. For years people said the Spaniards were just making up stories to make the natives look bad, but in more recent years we have archaeological evidence that it was all true.
Many Indians have bought into the noble savage/Avatar beautiful blue people myth -- because 1) they don't know their own history (this is a very sad state of affairs -- shows how much history can be twisted as well); 2) it makes them feel good about themselves.
Everybody wants to not be "the baddies".
I'm of mostly Italian extraction (the part that isn't has a sizeable contribution from a couple of tribes, heh, go figure!) -- I rather prefer Columbus, problematic as he is: I suppose some noble sounding mythical entity might sound better, but I prefer a "warts and all" person instead. Besides, Columbus Day tends to often fall on my birthday. It always made me feel very American.
Hence why only 5 tribes made it to "Civilized" status.
The ritual carried over to America
Any time I have pointed this out the goalposts move.
"Ok Native Americans owned slaves, but their nations aren't the subject here because they don't have power. White people and the United States are what we need to focus on."
For me, this is where the dialogue ends because at this point they have unmasked themselves. They don't truly care about slavery or any other social issue for that matter - they care about the movement. They care about being instruments of change, and in that, they care about attacking and defeating whiteness.
If you need a link to give them, try the International Labor Organisation
Then they can't accuse you of right-wing bias :)
https://www.ilo.org/global/topics/forced-labour/lang--en/index.htm
Dude black people owned slaves.
Think of how crazy it sounds that white people should eternally be sorry for ever owning slaves, even if their family never owned slaves, but any other race who did own slaves gets a pass by the left.
Take reparations for example:
The left wants me to pay more taxes because they want to make sure black people get a paycheck for something that happened hundreds of years ago.
I'm half white, half Mexican. My dad's family came to America many years after the civil war. My mom's family was the result of Spanish mixing with Mayan. None of my family had ever owned slaves.
But because I have an Anglo-Saxon last name, they will make sure to tax me to pay for something my ancestors never had a part in.
They also imagine the Indians as one cohesive unit, instead of a number of tribes that had their own politics and conflicts. Some tribes loved us, and then there were some that hated us. You know the more I describe them, the more they sound like actual people.
Not just the Indians it happens with the barbarian tribes that overthrew the Western Roman Empire. These were just "immigrants" seeking to better themselves and it was a peaceful transition from Empire to the fractured Barbarian Successor states. Peter Heather in his Fall of Rome book does an excellent job refuting that idea. Well researched and written I highly recommend it.
I'd love to read it. I know that a huge portion of Gaul was very "Romanized" as well. Does he go into that?
thanks for the recommendation. I absolutely love books about ancient Rome. For the record, Robin Lane Smith the classical world was excellent as well.
It wasn't peaceful, but the fall of the western empire wasn't the barbarian fueled armageddon many portray it as either.
People seem to forget that the barbarian tribes were just that -- not one group. Many of the Germanic tribes (who are the ones principally remembered -- Attila notwithstanding) were Christianized, many had served in the legions (prior to the fall, but a fact many like to forget: Arminius was fighting against his own brother, Flavus) and were partially Romanized; a lot of them took to Romanization fairly quickly as it had some definite perks.
As with everything else, I'd say it was a bit of all -- the good and the bad.
Exactly! How do they not notice how racist it is, saying Indians were all just living peacefully together singing kumbaya? They're not some exotic pet, specially bred to live at one with nature. They're people, human beings that do good things and bad!
Well ain’t history a bitch
He even touched his ear. Probably thought his brain was leaking out