Indian Land???

[rightwinger]

Indians were repeatedly removed from land that the Great White Father had "given" them by treaty for as long as the grass grows and the river flows

 

[NYcarbineer]

Okay, that's one.

How about it, Nycarbineer? When are you giving your house to a local Indian? If you're not, why is your profiting from "forced removals of Indians from their lands" okay?

This thread is about history. And people like the OP trying to rewrite it.

Still trying to dictate what others may and may not say, I see. How's that working out for you?

It's okay, Carby. I understand you're uncomfortable when your progressive hypocrisy is pointed out.

PC has to be trained to debate.

You are clearly a "spherical imbecile" because you are an "imbecile" any way you are observed.

The indoctrinates, i.e., the Leftists love to besmirch the early settlers.

Case in point, by our pal Dot Com.....

Here is the education that Dot Com never received in government schooling:



"Indian Land"


1. Pilgrims landed in 1620. Land was hardly the problem for these folks, as they found that diseases caused by earlier explorers had left entire villages empty and available.

Pilgrim Wm. Bradford was Plymouth Colony governor for 30 years.

"Another smallpox epidemic struck the Indians after 1633, renewing the 'providential', die-off that preceded the Pilgrims. There was indeed land to spare which tribal chiefs wee pleased to sell, especially since contracts of sale invariably reserved to the Indians the right to hunt, fish and sometimes even plant on land they gave up. "
"Freedom Just Around the Corner: A New American History: 1585-1828," p. 58-59,
byWalter A. McDougall



Boundary disputes were rare as well for 'The Natives are very exact and punctuall in the bounds of their Lands."
"New England Frontier: Puritans and Indians, 1620-1675," p. 104-109,
by Alden T. Vaughan


2. The Massachusetts Bay Colony was founded in the late 1620s, by Puritans who received a royal charter in 1629. John Winthrop was a leader of the colony, and governor off and on.



3. Especially along the Eastern seaboard, the view that the Indians objected to Europeans taking their land is a misunderstanding of the concept of land ownership. Indians were largely nomadic, and where they stopped was 'their land'....for the moment.

They laughed at the whites paying them for land.

a. "We could say that all conflicts between European settlers in America and American Indians were about land. The Indians had it; the Europeans wanted it. In many cases, Europeans simply took what they wanted. In most of British North America, though, settlers actually purchased land from natives. You might think that buying land rather than taking it would prevent conflict. But because Europeans and American Indians had very different ideas about what it meant to buy and to “own” land, these deals actually could cause as much conflict as they prevented.

The traditional view of European-Indian land deals is that Europeans tricked the Indians, who failed to understand the consequences of their actions. In fact, though, Indians often provedsavvynegotiators, and most European settlers understood far less about Indian ideas of land ownership than the Indians understood about theirs."
Who owns the land - North Carolina Digital History



b. "The implications for the Indian question are straightforward. Namely: In the extremely unlikely event that any particular Indian can show that he personally is the rightful heir of a particular Indian who was wrongfully dispossessed of a particular piece of property, the current occupants should hand him the keys to his birthright and vacate the premises. Otherwise the current occupants have the morally strongest claim to their property, and the status quo should continue. Anything more is just the doctrine of collective guilt masquerading as a defense of property rights."
Do Indians Rightfully Own America Bryan Caplan EconLog Library of Economics and Liberty


c. "One popular history of Manhattan notes that the Canarsie Indians "dwelt on Long Island, merely trading on Manhattan, and their trickery [in selling what they didn't possess to the Dutch] made it necessary for the white man to buy part of the island over again from the tribes living near Washington Heights. Still more crafty were the Raritans of [Staten Island], for the records show that Staten Island was sold by these Indians no less than six times."
The Straight Dope How much would the 24 paid for Manhattan be worth in today s money


d. Nor was available land a problem sinced the Puritans readily purchased it from the Indians, as confident as Virginians about their right to do so. (McDougall, Op. Cit.)

John Winthrop, Puritan and early governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, wrote:

".… And for the Natives in New England they inclose noe land neither have any settled habitation nor any tame cattle to improve the land by, & soe have noe other but a naturall right to those countries Soe as if wee leave them sufficient for their use wee may lawfully take the rest, there being more than enough for them & us."
Winthrop Papers, Volume V, 1645–1649. Edited byAllyn B. Forbes.

From kings of the American plains to piles of sun-bleached bones How mass slaughter by hunters nearly wiped out the buffalo Daily Mail Online

Now to deal with the stupidity of the Left, exemplified by their romanticized version of the American Indian.


After slapping you around, educating you may be my second best enjoyment.

The Indians were the destroyers of the buffalo ....




1. "According to the myth of the noble eco-savage, indigenous peoples live in such a sympathetic relationship with the eco system that they only kill for their immediate needs, and never on a scale likely to drive species to extinction.... In fact, these ‘cultural mechanisms’ exist primarily in the minds of Western environmentalists.

It is difficult to find any evidence of them amongst the tribal peoples, either now or in the past.... The aim was to kill as much as possible as quickly as possible, with the minimum risk to the hunter. There was no concern for conserving future stocks, nor for taking only as much as was necessary to meet present needs."
Whelan, "Wild in the Woods: The Myth of the Noble Eco-Savage"



A favorite Indian device was the ‘jump’, which meantstampeding herds of animalsover a cliff, so that the fall would kill them, described in "Playing God in Yellowstone," by Alston Chase.

"The Vore buffalo jump site in Wyoming...was used five times between 1550 and 1690, and holds the remains of 20,000 buffalo. That means 4,000 or more buffalo were killed each time the jump was used. Other buffalo jumps in the West display the remains of as many as 300,000 buffalo. These sites were so numerous, in fact, and held such large deposits of bone, that for many years they were mined as a source of phosphorus for fertilizer!"
Frison, G.C., "Prehistoric Hunters of the High Plains," pp.239-44

Large amounts of meat were left to rot and herds of animals were decimated, and sometimes driven to local extinction. Buffalo and antelope traps killed so many that it took the herds decades to recover.





And so...as the sun sets over this mysterious land, we say good-bye to the 'Noble Savage,' who is too busy to say good-bye.....

...he's busy burning down forests, and destroying every animal he can find.

That's a creepy way of justifying genocide.

Answering only yes or no,

was the bison in danger of extinction before the Europeans had begun to populate North America?

The indoctrinates, i.e., the Leftists love to besmirch the early settlers.

Case in point, by our pal Dot Com.....

Here is the education that Dot Com never received in government schooling:



"Indian Land"


1. Pilgrims landed in 1620. Land was hardly the problem for these folks, as they found that diseases caused by earlier explorers had left entire villages empty and available.

Pilgrim Wm. Bradford was Plymouth Colony governor for 30 years.

"Another smallpox epidemic struck the Indians after 1633, renewing the 'providential', die-off that preceded the Pilgrims. There was indeed land to spare which tribal chiefs wee pleased to sell, especially since contracts of sale invariably reserved to the Indians the right to hunt, fish and sometimes even plant on land they gave up. "
"Freedom Just Around the Corner: A New American History: 1585-1828," p. 58-59,
byWalter A. McDougall



Boundary disputes were rare as well for 'The Natives are very exact and punctuall in the bounds of their Lands."
"New England Frontier: Puritans and Indians, 1620-1675," p. 104-109,
by Alden T. Vaughan


2. The Massachusetts Bay Colony was founded in the late 1620s, by Puritans who received a royal charter in 1629. John Winthrop was a leader of the colony, and governor off and on.



3. Especially along the Eastern seaboard, the view that the Indians objected to Europeans taking their land is a misunderstanding of the concept of land ownership. Indians were largely nomadic, and where they stopped was 'their land'....for the moment.

They laughed at the whites paying them for land.

a. "We could say that all conflicts between European settlers in America and American Indians were about land. The Indians had it; the Europeans wanted it. In many cases, Europeans simply took what they wanted. In most of British North America, though, settlers actually purchased land from natives. You might think that buying land rather than taking it would prevent conflict. But because Europeans and American Indians had very different ideas about what it meant to buy and to “own” land, these deals actually could cause as much conflict as they prevented.

The traditional view of European-Indian land deals is that Europeans tricked the Indians, who failed to understand the consequences of their actions. In fact, though, Indians often provedsavvynegotiators, and most European settlers understood far less about Indian ideas of land ownership than the Indians understood about theirs."
Who owns the land - North Carolina Digital History



b. "The implications for the Indian question are straightforward. Namely: In the extremely unlikely event that any particular Indian can show that he personally is the rightful heir of a particular Indian who was wrongfully dispossessed of a particular piece of property, the current occupants should hand him the keys to his birthright and vacate the premises. Otherwise the current occupants have the morally strongest claim to their property, and the status quo should continue. Anything more is just the doctrine of collective guilt masquerading as a defense of property rights."
Do Indians Rightfully Own America Bryan Caplan EconLog Library of Economics and Liberty


c. "One popular history of Manhattan notes that the Canarsie Indians "dwelt on Long Island, merely trading on Manhattan, and their trickery [in selling what they didn't possess to the Dutch] made it necessary for the white man to buy part of the island over again from the tribes living near Washington Heights. Still more crafty were the Raritans of [Staten Island], for the records show that Staten Island was sold by these Indians no less than six times."
The Straight Dope How much would the 24 paid for Manhattan be worth in today s money


d. Nor was available land a problem sinced the Puritans readily purchased it from the Indians, as confident as Virginians about their right to do so. (McDougall, Op. Cit.)

John Winthrop, Puritan and early governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, wrote:

".… And for the Natives in New England they inclose noe land neither have any settled habitation nor any tame cattle to improve the land by, & soe have noe other but a naturall right to those countries Soe as if wee leave them sufficient for their use wee may lawfully take the rest, there being more than enough for them & us."
Winthrop Papers, Volume V, 1645–1649. Edited byAllyn B. Forbes.

From kings of the American plains to piles of sun-bleached bones How mass slaughter by hunters nearly wiped out the buffalo Daily Mail Online

Now to deal with the stupidity of the Left, exemplified by their romanticized version of the American Indian.


After slapping you around, educating you may be my second best enjoyment.

The Indians were the destroyers of the buffalo ....




1. "According to the myth of the noble eco-savage, indigenous peoples live in such a sympathetic relationship with the eco system that they only kill for their immediate needs, and never on a scale likely to drive species to extinction.... In fact, these ‘cultural mechanisms’ exist primarily in the minds of Western environmentalists.

It is difficult to find any evidence of them amongst the tribal peoples, either now or in the past.... The aim was to kill as much as possible as quickly as possible, with the minimum risk to the hunter. There was no concern for conserving future stocks, nor for taking only as much as was necessary to meet present needs."
Whelan, "Wild in the Woods: The Myth of the Noble Eco-Savage"



A favorite Indian device was the ‘jump’, which meantstampeding herds of animalsover a cliff, so that the fall would kill them, described in "Playing God in Yellowstone," by Alston Chase.

"The Vore buffalo jump site in Wyoming...was used five times between 1550 and 1690, and holds the remains of 20,000 buffalo. That means 4,000 or more buffalo were killed each time the jump was used. Other buffalo jumps in the West display the remains of as many as 300,000 buffalo. These sites were so numerous, in fact, and held such large deposits of bone, that for many years they were mined as a source of phosphorus for fertilizer!"
Frison, G.C., "Prehistoric Hunters of the High Plains," pp.239-44

Large amounts of meat were left to rot and herds of animals were decimated, and sometimes driven to local extinction. Buffalo and antelope traps killed so many that it took the herds decades to recover.





And so...as the sun sets over this mysterious land, we say good-bye to the 'Noble Savage,' who is too busy to say good-bye.....

...he's busy burning down forests, and destroying every animal he can find.

That's a creepy way of justifying genocide.

Answering only yes or no,

was the bison in danger of extinction before the Europeans had begun to populate North America?

No! But history revised by arrogant asshole like PC hope to convince the dumber members of our society that this is so

I'm regularly shocked to find fools like you who have accepted the indoctrination, and complain that those of us with the research on our side are the dumb ones.

Why haven't you quoted anything that I've posted and indicated where it is in error?

Because it is linked, sourced, and supported.....and not in error.


The Indians slew every animal they could...and left the majority of the carcasses to rot.



Buffalo were the least of their victims.
Watch me rip you a new one AGAIN:

The extinction of the megafauna coincides with the time the first tribes inhabited the continent.

1. "Saber-toothed cats, American lions, woolly mammoths andother giant creaturesonce roamed across the American landscape. However, at the end of the late Pleistocene about 12,000 years ago, these "megafauna" went extinct, a die-off called the Quaternary extinction."
Starvation Didn t Wipe Out Sabertooth Cats


2. "Prevailing ideas point to all Native Americans descending from ancient Siberians who moved across the Beringia land bridge between Asia and North America between 26,000 and 18,000 years ago. As time wore on, the thinking goes, these people spread southward and gave rise to the Native American populations encountered by European settlers centuries ago.
:History Travel Arts Science People Places Smithsonian



3. No matter the animal....primitives everywhere found ways to kill them.


a. " When the Aborigines arrived in Australia the fauna ‘included a large variety of monotremes and marsupials, including ‘giant’ forms of macropodids (kangaroos and related species).Within 15,000 years all were extinct."
Alvard, M.S., ‘Conservation by Native Peoples: Prey Choice in a Depleted Habitat’, Human Nature, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1994, pp.127-154, citing Horton, J., 'Red Kangaroos: Last of the Australian Megafauna' in Martin, P., and Klein, R., (eds.) Quartenary Extinctions, Tuscon: University and Murray, P., 'Extinctions Down Under: A Bestiary of Extinct Australian Late Pleistocene Monotremes and Marsupials, in Martin, P. and Klein, R.


b. "The ‘prime peoples’ of Madagascar hunted several species of giant lemurs to extinction."
Dewar, R., 'Extinctions in Madagascar: The Loss of the Subfossil Fauna’


Know what "extinction" means???? It refers to your intellect.


c. "The arrival of the Maoris in New Zealand was quickly followed by the extinction of 34 species of birds."
Alvard, M.S., Op.Cit


c. As Matt Ridley puts it, ‘the first Maoris sat down andate their way through all twelve species of the giant moa birds’, leaving about a third of the meat to rot, and entire ovens stuffed with roast haunches unopened, so plentiful was the initial supply.
Ridley, M., "The Origins of Virtue," p.219




4. Peter Martin developed what has become known asthe ‘Overkill Hypothesis’to explainthe disappearance of large number of species - particularly mammal species - over the relatively short time-span of a few thousand years following the arrival of humans on the different continents.He argued that, where animals had plenty of time to get used to humans, as in Europe and Africa where homo sapiens first appeared, they learned to be cautious.

It was the arrival of man in Australia and America which was particularly devastating as the animals did not know what to expect and provided easy targets. North America lost 73 per cent of its large mammalian species, South America 79 per cent, Australia 86 per cent, but Africa only 14 per cent.
Peter Ward, "The End of Evolution: Dinosaurs, Mass Extinction and Biodiversity," p. 202.


AGAIN: linked, sourced, supported.

Get it, you moron????

There were 50 million bison in America just before the white man arrived.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Indians were repeatedly removed from land that the Great White Father had "given" them by treaty for as long as the grass grows and the river flows

It is entertaining to get PC to deny irrefutable facts isn't it?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Indians were repeatedly removed from land that the Great White Father had "given" them by treaty for as long as the grass grows and the river flows

Too bad you weren't smart enough to read the OP before you wrote your bumper-sticker post.

But you Leftwingers seem to get your education from bumper-stickers and T-shirts....so, it's fitting.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Indians were repeatedly removed from land that the Great White Father had "given" them by treaty for as long as the grass grows and the river flows

It is entertaining to get PC to deny irrefutable facts isn't it?

You'd better hide, the garbage collector is coming!

 

[rightwinger]

Indians were repeatedly removed from land that the Great White Father had "given" them by treaty for as long as the grass grows and the river flows

Too bad you weren't smart enough to read the OP before you wrote your bumper-sticker post.

But you Leftwingers seem to get your education from bumper-stickers and T-shirts....so, it's fitting.

You know better than think I would waste my time reading one of your OPs
You did address the fact that our government had given them that land didn't you?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Indians were repeatedly removed from land that the Great White Father had "given" them by treaty for as long as the grass grows and the river flows

It is entertaining to get PC to deny irrefutable facts isn't it?

You'd better hide, the garbage collector is coming!

Trivia for you:

In Australia, the slang for a garbage collector is a 'garbo'.

I happened to hear that about 30 minutes ago. Nice coincidence. And now you're one word smarter. Baby steps.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Did we buy the Louisiana Purchase from the Indians?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Indians were repeatedly removed from land that the Great White Father had "given" them by treaty for as long as the grass grows and the river flows

Too bad you weren't smart enough to read the OP before you wrote your bumper-sticker post.

But you Leftwingers seem to get your education from bumper-stickers and T-shirts....so, it's fitting.

You know better than think I would waste my time reading one of your OPs
You did address the fact that our government had given them that land didn't you?

First of all, you lie....I've caught you several times denying same, then quoting the post.....but, that's what make you a Liberal, huh?

Second....had you gone further than simply reading, and tried to understand same, you wouldn't have embarrassed yourself.
But...that's what makes you a Liberal, huh?

Now go have some more turkey, get cosseted, and take your nap.
You've served your purpose here.

 

[rightwinger]

Indians were repeatedly removed from land that the Great White Father had "given" them by treaty for as long as the grass grows and the river flows

Too bad you weren't smart enough to read the OP before you wrote your bumper-sticker post.

But you Leftwingers seem to get your education from bumper-stickers and T-shirts....so, it's fitting.

You know better than think I would waste my time reading one of your OPs
You did address the fact that our government had given them that land didn't you?

First of all, you lie....I've caught you several times denying same, then quoting the post.....but, that's what make you a Liberal, huh?

Second....had you gone further than simply reading, and tried to understand same, you wouldn't have embarrassed yourself.
But...that's what makes you a Liberal, huh?

Now go have some more turkey, get cosseted, and take your nap.
You've served your purpose here.

Now, explain to the nice people how the US taking away Indian land that had been deeded to them was not stealing Indian land

Your turn

 

[PoliticalChic]

Indians were repeatedly removed from land that the Great White Father had "given" them by treaty for as long as the grass grows and the river flows

Too bad you weren't smart enough to read the OP before you wrote your bumper-sticker post.

But you Leftwingers seem to get your education from bumper-stickers and T-shirts....so, it's fitting.

You know better than think I would waste my time reading one of your OPs
You did address the fact that our government had given them that land didn't you?

First of all, you lie....I've caught you several times denying same, then quoting the post.....but, that's what make you a Liberal, huh?

Second....had you gone further than simply reading, and tried to understand same, you wouldn't have embarrassed yourself.
But...that's what makes you a Liberal, huh?

Now go have some more turkey, get cosseted, and take your nap.
You've served your purpose here.

Now, explain to the nice people how the US taking away Indian land that had been deeded to them was not stealing Indian land

Your turn

Have someone with an IQ above room temperature read and explain the OP to you.

And don't worry, ....USMB will still be here when the bus brings you back to the home after bingo.

 

[rightwinger]

Indians were repeatedly removed from land that the Great White Father had "given" them by treaty for as long as the grass grows and the river flows

Too bad you weren't smart enough to read the OP before you wrote your bumper-sticker post.

But you Leftwingers seem to get your education from bumper-stickers and T-shirts....so, it's fitting.

You know better than think I would waste my time reading one of your OPs
You did address the fact that our government had given them that land didn't you?

First of all, you lie....I've caught you several times denying same, then quoting the post.....but, that's what make you a Liberal, huh?

Second....had you gone further than simply reading, and tried to understand same, you wouldn't have embarrassed yourself.
But...that's what makes you a Liberal, huh?

Now go have some more turkey, get cosseted, and take your nap.
You've served your purpose here.

Now, explain to the nice people how the US taking away Indian land that had been deeded to them was not stealing Indian land

Your turn

Have someone with an IQ above room temperature read and explain the OP to you.

And don't worry, ....USMB will still be here when the bus brings you back to the home after bingo.

Hmmm.....

I missed where you explain how the US taking away land that had been given in treaty was not taking away Indian Land

Why am I not surprised?

Don't you have some unrelated cut and paste you can respond with?

 

[Wry Catcher]

The indoctrinates, i.e., the Leftists love to besmirch the early settlers.

Case in point, by our pal Dot Com.....

Here is the education that Dot Com never received in government schooling:



"Indian Land"


1. Pilgrims landed in 1620. Land was hardly the problem for these folks, as they found that diseases caused by earlier explorers had left entire villages empty and available.

Pilgrim Wm. Bradford was Plymouth Colony governor for 30 years.

"Another smallpox epidemic struck the Indians after 1633, renewing the 'providential', die-off that preceded the Pilgrims. There was indeed land to spare which tribal chiefs wee pleased to sell, especially since contracts of sale invariably reserved to the Indians the right to hunt, fish and sometimes even plant on land they gave up. "
"Freedom Just Around the Corner: A New American History: 1585-1828," p. 58-59,
byWalter A. McDougall



Boundary disputes were rare as well for 'The Natives are very exact and punctuall in the bounds of their Lands."
"New England Frontier: Puritans and Indians, 1620-1675," p. 104-109,
by Alden T. Vaughan


2. The Massachusetts Bay Colony was founded in the late 1620s, by Puritans who received a royal charter in 1629. John Winthrop was a leader of the colony, and governor off and on.



3. Especially along the Eastern seaboard, the view that the Indians objected to Europeans taking their land is a misunderstanding of the concept of land ownership. Indians were largely nomadic, and where they stopped was 'their land'....for the moment.

They laughed at the whites paying them for land.

a. "We could say that all conflicts between European settlers in America and American Indians were about land. The Indians had it; the Europeans wanted it. In many cases, Europeans simply took what they wanted. In most of British North America, though, settlers actually purchased land from natives. You might think that buying land rather than taking it would prevent conflict. But because Europeans and American Indians had very different ideas about what it meant to buy and to “own” land, these deals actually could cause as much conflict as they prevented.

The traditional view of European-Indian land deals is that Europeans tricked the Indians, who failed to understand the consequences of their actions. In fact, though, Indians often provedsavvynegotiators, and most European settlers understood far less about Indian ideas of land ownership than the Indians understood about theirs."
Who owns the land - North Carolina Digital History



b. "The implications for the Indian question are straightforward. Namely: In the extremely unlikely event that any particular Indian can show that he personally is the rightful heir of a particular Indian who was wrongfully dispossessed of a particular piece of property, the current occupants should hand him the keys to his birthright and vacate the premises. Otherwise the current occupants have the morally strongest claim to their property, and the status quo should continue. Anything more is just the doctrine of collective guilt masquerading as a defense of property rights."
Do Indians Rightfully Own America Bryan Caplan EconLog Library of Economics and Liberty


c. "One popular history of Manhattan notes that the Canarsie Indians "dwelt on Long Island, merely trading on Manhattan, and their trickery [in selling what they didn't possess to the Dutch] made it necessary for the white man to buy part of the island over again from the tribes living near Washington Heights. Still more crafty were the Raritans of [Staten Island], for the records show that Staten Island was sold by these Indians no less than six times."
The Straight Dope How much would the 24 paid for Manhattan be worth in today s money


d. Nor was available land a problem sinced the Puritans readily purchased it from the Indians, as confident as Virginians about their right to do so. (McDougall, Op. Cit.)

John Winthrop, Puritan and early governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, wrote:

".… And for the Natives in New England they inclose noe land neither have any settled habitation nor any tame cattle to improve the land by, & soe have noe other but a naturall right to those countries Soe as if wee leave them sufficient for their use wee may lawfully take the rest, there being more than enough for them & us."
Winthrop Papers, Volume V, 1645–1649. Edited byAllyn B. Forbes.

From kings of the American plains to piles of sun-bleached bones How mass slaughter by hunters nearly wiped out the buffalo Daily Mail Online

Now to deal with the stupidity of the Left, exemplified by their romanticized version of the American Indian.


After slapping you around, educating you may be my second best enjoyment.

The Indians were the destroyers of the buffalo ....




1. "According to the myth of the noble eco-savage, indigenous peoples live in such a sympathetic relationship with the eco system that they only kill for their immediate needs, and never on a scale likely to drive species to extinction.... In fact, these ‘cultural mechanisms’ exist primarily in the minds of Western environmentalists.

It is difficult to find any evidence of them amongst the tribal peoples, either now or in the past.... The aim was to kill as much as possible as quickly as possible, with the minimum risk to the hunter. There was no concern for conserving future stocks, nor for taking only as much as was necessary to meet present needs."
Whelan, "Wild in the Woods: The Myth of the Noble Eco-Savage"



A favorite Indian device was the ‘jump’, which meantstampeding herds of animalsover a cliff, so that the fall would kill them, described in "Playing God in Yellowstone," by Alston Chase.

"The Vore buffalo jump site in Wyoming...was used five times between 1550 and 1690, and holds the remains of 20,000 buffalo. That means 4,000 or more buffalo were killed each time the jump was used. Other buffalo jumps in the West display the remains of as many as 300,000 buffalo. These sites were so numerous, in fact, and held such large deposits of bone, that for many years they were mined as a source of phosphorus for fertilizer!"
Frison, G.C., "Prehistoric Hunters of the High Plains," pp.239-44

Large amounts of meat were left to rot and herds of animals were decimated, and sometimes driven to local extinction. Buffalo and antelope traps killed so many that it took the herds decades to recover.





And so...as the sun sets over this mysterious land, we say good-bye to the 'Noble Savage,' who is too busy to say good-bye.....

...he's busy burning down forests, and destroying every animal he can find.

That's a creepy way of justifying genocide.

Answering only yes or no,

was the bison in danger of extinction before the Europeans had begun to populate North America?

The indoctrinates, i.e., the Leftists love to besmirch the early settlers.

Case in point, by our pal Dot Com.....

Here is the education that Dot Com never received in government schooling:



"Indian Land"


1. Pilgrims landed in 1620. Land was hardly the problem for these folks, as they found that diseases caused by earlier explorers had left entire villages empty and available.

Pilgrim Wm. Bradford was Plymouth Colony governor for 30 years.

"Another smallpox epidemic struck the Indians after 1633, renewing the 'providential', die-off that preceded the Pilgrims. There was indeed land to spare which tribal chiefs wee pleased to sell, especially since contracts of sale invariably reserved to the Indians the right to hunt, fish and sometimes even plant on land they gave up. "
"Freedom Just Around the Corner: A New American History: 1585-1828," p. 58-59,
byWalter A. McDougall



Boundary disputes were rare as well for 'The Natives are very exact and punctuall in the bounds of their Lands."
"New England Frontier: Puritans and Indians, 1620-1675," p. 104-109,
by Alden T. Vaughan


2. The Massachusetts Bay Colony was founded in the late 1620s, by Puritans who received a royal charter in 1629. John Winthrop was a leader of the colony, and governor off and on.



3. Especially along the Eastern seaboard, the view that the Indians objected to Europeans taking their land is a misunderstanding of the concept of land ownership. Indians were largely nomadic, and where they stopped was 'their land'....for the moment.

They laughed at the whites paying them for land.

a. "We could say that all conflicts between European settlers in America and American Indians were about land. The Indians had it; the Europeans wanted it. In many cases, Europeans simply took what they wanted. In most of British North America, though, settlers actually purchased land from natives. You might think that buying land rather than taking it would prevent conflict. But because Europeans and American Indians had very different ideas about what it meant to buy and to “own” land, these deals actually could cause as much conflict as they prevented.

The traditional view of European-Indian land deals is that Europeans tricked the Indians, who failed to understand the consequences of their actions. In fact, though, Indians often provedsavvynegotiators, and most European settlers understood far less about Indian ideas of land ownership than the Indians understood about theirs."
Who owns the land - North Carolina Digital History



b. "The implications for the Indian question are straightforward. Namely: In the extremely unlikely event that any particular Indian can show that he personally is the rightful heir of a particular Indian who was wrongfully dispossessed of a particular piece of property, the current occupants should hand him the keys to his birthright and vacate the premises. Otherwise the current occupants have the morally strongest claim to their property, and the status quo should continue. Anything more is just the doctrine of collective guilt masquerading as a defense of property rights."
Do Indians Rightfully Own America Bryan Caplan EconLog Library of Economics and Liberty


c. "One popular history of Manhattan notes that the Canarsie Indians "dwelt on Long Island, merely trading on Manhattan, and their trickery [in selling what they didn't possess to the Dutch] made it necessary for the white man to buy part of the island over again from the tribes living near Washington Heights. Still more crafty were the Raritans of [Staten Island], for the records show that Staten Island was sold by these Indians no less than six times."
The Straight Dope How much would the 24 paid for Manhattan be worth in today s money


d. Nor was available land a problem sinced the Puritans readily purchased it from the Indians, as confident as Virginians about their right to do so. (McDougall, Op. Cit.)

John Winthrop, Puritan and early governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, wrote:

".… And for the Natives in New England they inclose noe land neither have any settled habitation nor any tame cattle to improve the land by, & soe have noe other but a naturall right to those countries Soe as if wee leave them sufficient for their use wee may lawfully take the rest, there being more than enough for them & us."
Winthrop Papers, Volume V, 1645–1649. Edited byAllyn B. Forbes.

From kings of the American plains to piles of sun-bleached bones How mass slaughter by hunters nearly wiped out the buffalo Daily Mail Online

Now to deal with the stupidity of the Left, exemplified by their romanticized version of the American Indian.


After slapping you around, educating you may be my second best enjoyment.

The Indians were the destroyers of the buffalo ....




1. "According to the myth of the noble eco-savage, indigenous peoples live in such a sympathetic relationship with the eco system that they only kill for their immediate needs, and never on a scale likely to drive species to extinction.... In fact, these ‘cultural mechanisms’ exist primarily in the minds of Western environmentalists.

It is difficult to find any evidence of them amongst the tribal peoples, either now or in the past.... The aim was to kill as much as possible as quickly as possible, with the minimum risk to the hunter. There was no concern for conserving future stocks, nor for taking only as much as was necessary to meet present needs."
Whelan, "Wild in the Woods: The Myth of the Noble Eco-Savage"



A favorite Indian device was the ‘jump’, which meantstampeding herds of animalsover a cliff, so that the fall would kill them, described in "Playing God in Yellowstone," by Alston Chase.

"The Vore buffalo jump site in Wyoming...was used five times between 1550 and 1690, and holds the remains of 20,000 buffalo. That means 4,000 or more buffalo were killed each time the jump was used. Other buffalo jumps in the West display the remains of as many as 300,000 buffalo. These sites were so numerous, in fact, and held such large deposits of bone, that for many years they were mined as a source of phosphorus for fertilizer!"
Frison, G.C., "Prehistoric Hunters of the High Plains," pp.239-44

Large amounts of meat were left to rot and herds of animals were decimated, and sometimes driven to local extinction. Buffalo and antelope traps killed so many that it took the herds decades to recover.





And so...as the sun sets over this mysterious land, we say good-bye to the 'Noble Savage,' who is too busy to say good-bye.....

...he's busy burning down forests, and destroying every animal he can find.

That's a creepy way of justifying genocide.

Answering only yes or no,

was the bison in danger of extinction before the Europeans had begun to populate North America?

No! But history revised by arrogant asshole like PC hope to convince the dumber members of our society that this is so

I'm regularly shocked to find fools like you who have accepted the indoctrination, and complain that those of us with the research on our side are the dumb ones.

Why haven't you quoted anything that I've posted and indicated where it is in error?

Because it is linked, sourced, and supported.....and not in error.


The Indians slew every animal they could...and left the majority of the carcasses to rot.



Buffalo were the least of their victims.
Watch me rip you a new one AGAIN:

The extinction of the megafauna coincides with the time the first tribes inhabited the continent.

1. "Saber-toothed cats, American lions, woolly mammoths andother giant creaturesonce roamed across the American landscape. However, at the end of the late Pleistocene about 12,000 years ago, these "megafauna" went extinct, a die-off called the Quaternary extinction."
Starvation Didn t Wipe Out Sabertooth Cats


2. "Prevailing ideas point to all Native Americans descending from ancient Siberians who moved across the Beringia land bridge between Asia and North America between 26,000 and 18,000 years ago. As time wore on, the thinking goes, these people spread southward and gave rise to the Native American populations encountered by European settlers centuries ago.
:History Travel Arts Science People Places Smithsonian



3. No matter the animal....primitives everywhere found ways to kill them.


a. " When the Aborigines arrived in Australia the fauna ‘included a large variety of monotremes and marsupials, including ‘giant’ forms of macropodids (kangaroos and related species).Within 15,000 years all were extinct."
Alvard, M.S., ‘Conservation by Native Peoples: Prey Choice in a Depleted Habitat’, Human Nature, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1994, pp.127-154, citing Horton, J., 'Red Kangaroos: Last of the Australian Megafauna' in Martin, P., and Klein, R., (eds.) Quartenary Extinctions, Tuscon: University and Murray, P., 'Extinctions Down Under: A Bestiary of Extinct Australian Late Pleistocene Monotremes and Marsupials, in Martin, P. and Klein, R.


b. "The ‘prime peoples’ of Madagascar hunted several species of giant lemurs to extinction."
Dewar, R., 'Extinctions in Madagascar: The Loss of the Subfossil Fauna’


Know what "extinction" means???? It refers to your intellect.


c. "The arrival of the Maoris in New Zealand was quickly followed by the extinction of 34 species of birds."
Alvard, M.S., Op.Cit


c. As Matt Ridley puts it, ‘the first Maoris sat down andate their way through all twelve species of the giant moa birds’, leaving about a third of the meat to rot, and entire ovens stuffed with roast haunches unopened, so plentiful was the initial supply.
Ridley, M., "The Origins of Virtue," p.219




4. Peter Martin developed what has become known asthe ‘Overkill Hypothesis’to explainthe disappearance of large number of species - particularly mammal species - over the relatively short time-span of a few thousand years following the arrival of humans on the different continents.He argued that, where animals had plenty of time to get used to humans, as in Europe and Africa where homo sapiens first appeared, they learned to be cautious.

It was the arrival of man in Australia and America which was particularly devastating as the animals did not know what to expect and provided easy targets. North America lost 73 per cent of its large mammalian species, South America 79 per cent, Australia 86 per cent, but Africa only 14 per cent.
Peter Ward, "The End of Evolution: Dinosaurs, Mass Extinction and Biodiversity," p. 202.


AGAIN: linked, sourced, supported.

Get it, you moron????

Your "truths' ain't. Selective sources used to prove a point sans alternatives is your game, and rarely if ever is convincing. I question authority, and your sources always hammer your political objective using appeals to authority.

My response has probative evidence that the white man slaughtered the American Bison; my "West in American History" readings were all primary sources - journals, newspapers and notes of first person interviews - and the photographs of mass slaughters are worth more than your 'thousand words".

Below I'll post a longer issue, fairly written as theory of why larger animals disappeared from N. America. Note I use the word theory, only fools take anything you write as a truth (or law as in the case of scientific explanation).

Late Pleistocene Extinctions

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Okay, that's one.

How about it, Nycarbineer? When are you giving your house to a local Indian? If you're not, why is your profiting from "forced removals of Indians from their lands" okay?

This thread is about history. And people like the OP trying to rewrite it.

Still trying to dictate what others may and may not say, I see. How's that working out for you?

It's okay, Carby. I understand you're uncomfortable when your progressive hypocrisy is pointed out.

PC has to be trained to debate.

All she can do is paste crap from her hates sites. A one trick pony.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Okay, that's one.

How about it, Nycarbineer? When are you giving your house to a local Indian? If you're not, why is your profiting from "forced removals of Indians from their lands" okay?

This thread is about history. And people like the OP trying to rewrite it.

Still trying to dictate what others may and may not say, I see. How's that working out for you?

It's okay, Carby. I understand you're uncomfortable when your progressive hypocrisy is pointed out.

PC has to be trained to debate.

All she can do is paste crap from her hates sites. A one trick pony.

OK....you three (mental) dwarfs have convinced me: the beatings must continue until I am satisfied that you have been educated.

Early next week.....a more thorough disciplining.

Unfortunately, the Wry guy loves beatings......

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Indians were repeatedly removed from land that the Great White Father had "given" them by treaty for as long as the grass grows and the river flows

Too bad you weren't smart enough to read the OP before you wrote your bumper-sticker post.

But you Leftwingers seem to get your education from bumper-stickers and T-shirts....so, it's fitting.

I'm not a Left winger, I'm a conservative. You seem to come from an extreme right wing hate school of thought and it wouldn't surprise me to hear you deny the holocaust happened too. It isn't "Left wing" to acknowledge what happened to my people's ancestors was an historic wrong. Nearly all conservatives agree with that. So making this a "Left wing" thing cements your reputation as a horse's ass.

 

[rightwinger]

Okay, that's one.

How about it, Nycarbineer? When are you giving your house to a local Indian? If you're not, why is your profiting from "forced removals of Indians from their lands" okay?

This thread is about history. And people like the OP trying to rewrite it.

Still trying to dictate what others may and may not say, I see. How's that working out for you?

It's okay, Carby. I understand you're uncomfortable when your progressive hypocrisy is pointed out.

PC has to be trained to debate.

All she can do is paste crap from her hates sites. A one trick pony.

OK....you three (mental) dwarfs have convinced me: the beatings must continue until I am satisfied that you have been educated.

Early next week.....a more thorough disciplining.

Unfortunately, the Wry guy loves beatings......

Oh.......nose!

Threatening us with more cut and paste

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Oh.......nose!

Threatening us with more cut and paste

 

[NYcarbineer]

Okay, that's one.

How about it, Nycarbineer? When are you giving your house to a local Indian? If you're not, why is your profiting from "forced removals of Indians from their lands" okay?

This thread is about history. And people like the OP trying to rewrite it.

Still trying to dictate what others may and may not say, I see. How's that working out for you?

It's okay, Carby. I understand you're uncomfortable when your progressive hypocrisy is pointed out.

PC has to be trained to debate.

All she can do is paste crap from her hates sites. A one trick pony.

OK....you three (mental) dwarfs have convinced me: the beatings must continue until I am satisfied that you have been educated.

Early next week.....a more thorough disciplining.

Unfortunately, the Wry guy loves beatings......

Was that before or after I used your own pet historian to prove you wrong?

 

[Roadrunner]

Indians were repeatedly removed from land that the Great White Father had "given" them by treaty for as long as the grass grows and the river flows

Too bad you weren't smart enough to read the OP before you wrote your bumper-sticker post.

But you Leftwingers seem to get your education from bumper-stickers and T-shirts....so, it's fitting.

I'm not a Left winger, I'm a conservative. You seem to come from an extreme right wing hate school of thought and it wouldn't surprise me to hear you deny the holocaust happened too. It isn't "Left wing" to acknowledge what happened to my people's ancestors was an historic wrong. Nearly all conservatives agree with that. So making this a "Left wing" thing cements your reputation as a horse's ass.

What whites did to Indians is certainly not as bad as what Aztecs did to their neighbors.

It was just another case of historical tough shit.

Too bad Indians didn't have a Stalin or Mao to jerk them forward a few centuries, whether they liked it or not.

The world changes; it is adapt or die.

When Stone Age met Modern Age, something had to give.

That is just the way it is.