Lost Colony of Roanoke

[yiostheoy]

Why would they call them Natives anyway? They have only been here for 20K years. Wouldn't Africans be the only true Natives? According to current knowledge, anyways?
I guess that would depend on your interpretation of "native?"

Anybody who was there before you is a "native".

We still don't know exactly where they came from.

The current "thinking" on Africa is that everyone came out of Africa.

I say that is bullsh!t.

We could all have just as easily come out of the ice and migrated to Africa instead, where the intense heat made everyone there really tanned.

 

[strollingbones]

so you have english settlers landing on inhospital land with little rations and no long term supplies or plans....and it went south (no it didnt lol the dare stones are a hoax)

i still think if you could find dna matches from the brits and then the natives ...if any exists to prove the natives took them in

 

[strollingbones]

i think dna testing has solved that question...mankind descends from one women in africa

 

[strollingbones]

Genetic 'Adam' and 'Eve' Uncovered

 

[yiostheoy]

kkk owes me a favor from a few years back.....women love me....

hell when i turn on the charm...old white men love me

When I was a kid there was a mixed race family living nearby.

Their dad was a US Army major and their mom was a beautiful German lady.

Alvin was the biggest of their kids, and in high school he was big enough to play for the NFL already. He was the first to earn a Brown Belt from scratch in our dojo. Fighting him was like trying to stop a freight train.

He was also a very handsome kid and could have been a movie star too.

His younger brother Ronnie was a lanky, skinny clown. And even though he had long arms like a BBall player (which he also was) he could not fight very well. He did not have the mind set.

These were the first mixed race kids I ever knew growing up.

 

[yiostheoy]

i think dna testing has solved that question...mankind descends from one women in africa

But what if she simply moved to Africa from Iceland to get away from the snow ?!

 

[strollingbones]

dont hijack this thread....op wants a serious discussion for the most part

 

[yiostheoy]

There is a puzzling ingrained (bigoted?) idea even among historians that English Colonists would keep their pathetic small society separate and isolated from the Native Indians during several harsh winters. England was constantly engaged in a naval war and even if the tiny ships did get back to England there was a chance that the quirky Brit monarchy couldn't afford or wasn't interested in another expensive expedition to supply the foothold in the new world. The Roanoke leadership was surely aware of the political climate in England before they left and a couple of harsh winters (and a couple of Indian/White babies?) might have convinced them to throw their lot with the Natives.

I'm sure you're right. The Roanoke settlers and the natives both had to deal with the worst drought in 800 years during 1587-1589. Not sure the winters were the problem down there.
One thing you should be aware of, though, is that many of the English colonists were totally sure that these "salvages" were wild, backward and repulsive. Once the natives started killing the colonists, that grew into a belligerent, bigoted hatred. I think the Roanoke survivors did end up living with the natives, but whether that was done voluntarily or if they were eventually taken captive/traded is another story. On the other hand, there are many stories of European colonists being taken captive during Indian raids and going on to live their lives happily among them. Some of them refused to leave when they had been "found" by other white folks. So both happened. Back then, at the very beginning of European encroachment on North America, things may have been a bit more innocent and open than they became later, but there were still "wars" and raids between the natives and the whites even during the Roanoke days.

Virginia gets damn cold too.

I remember crawling back and forth in the snow and slush of January in a big athletic field at advanced infantry school (platoon and company tactics) on my belly freezing in the cold with my M-16 and my G/I joe gear on.

 

[OldLady]

and why would the natives kill the settlers.....remember natives are not the killers that white man likes to pretend...it is more likely they would assimilate them..esp the children......remember in that time....children were valued by everyone...unlike today

The children part--if mom were dead and the child was still nursing, kill it. The warriors weren't into taking care of babies. Captives had to be able to keep up on the march back to wherever they were going. Little kids and big burly men who would be more of a pain in the ass to control were not taken along. Infants also cry, which is a big no no on a march near enemy territory. So infants and young children didn't get taken along. Kids maybe 5 or older sometimes got taken and grew up with the tribe.
There were many reports of native attacks on the Europeans, many of them made by the natives themselves. The Natives, like everyone else, were suspicious of foreign intruders in their territory. Some figured killing them was a good idea. Some saw the Europeans as trade opportunities and figured they would move on, so no problem. In Maine, the natives stopped being enemies as soon as the French and Indian War was over, so in this area, everyone remembers the natives as being peaceful. They still kept their distance. People were afraid of them, due to all the raids and kidnappings and murders and burnings out the natives did as allies of the French during the war. The natives would take hostages to Canada and have the Catholic priests negotiate their release with wads of cash.
The natives weren't any more peaceful than we were, bones.

 

[TNHarley]

i think dna testing has solved that question...mankind descends from one women in africa

should I start calling you "sissy?"

 

[yiostheoy]

dont hijack this thread....op wants a serious discussion for the most part

I think we already concluded that her little rock was a hoax.

 

[yiostheoy]

and why would the natives kill the settlers.....remember natives are not the killers that white man likes to pretend...it is more likely they would assimilate them..esp the children......remember in that time....children were valued by everyone...unlike today

The children part--if mom were dead and the child was still nursing, kill it. The warriors weren't into taking care of babies. Captives had to be able to keep up on the march back to wherever they were going. Little kids and big burly men who would be more of a pain in the ass to control were not taken along. Infants also cry, which is a big no no on a march near enemy territory. So infants and young children didn't get taken along. Kids maybe 5 or older sometimes got taken and grew up with the tribe.
There were many reports of native attacks on the Europeans, many of them made by the natives themselves. The Natives, like everyone else, were suspicious of foreign intruders in their territory. Some figured killing them was a good idea. Some saw the Europeans as trade opportunities and figured they would move on, so no problem. In Maine, the natives stopped being enemies as soon as the French and Indian War was over, so in this area, everyone remembers the natives as being peaceful. They still kept their distance. People were afraid of them, due to all the raids and kidnappings and murders and burnings out the natives did as allies of the French during the war. The natives would take hostages to Canada and have the Catholic priests negotiate their release with wads of cash.
The natives weren't any more peaceful than we were, bones.

This is bullsh!t.

Injuns don't kill women and kids.

They raised them as their own.

 

[TNHarley]

and why would the natives kill the settlers.....remember natives are not the killers that white man likes to pretend...it is more likely they would assimilate them..esp the children......remember in that time....children were valued by everyone...unlike today

The children part--if mom were dead and the child was still nursing, kill it. The warriors weren't into taking care of babies. Captives had to be able to keep up on the march back to wherever they were going. Little kids and big burly men who would be more of a pain in the ass to control were not taken along. Infants also cry, which is a big no no on a march near enemy territory. So infants and young children didn't get taken along. Kids maybe 5 or older sometimes got taken and grew up with the tribe.
There were many reports of native attacks on the Europeans, many of them made by the natives themselves. The Natives, like everyone else, were suspicious of foreign intruders in their territory. Some figured killing them was a good idea. Some saw the Europeans as trade opportunities and figured they would move on, so no problem. In Maine, the natives stopped being enemies as soon as the French and Indian War was over, so in this area, everyone remembers the natives as being peaceful. They still kept their distance. People were afraid of them, due to all the raids and kidnappings and murders and burnings out the natives did as allies of the French during the war. The natives would take hostages to Canada and have the Catholic priests negotiate their release with wads of cash.
The natives weren't any more peaceful than we were, bones.

This is bullsh!t.

Injuns don't kill women and kids.

They raised them as their own.

They would bring child slaves and trade them for peace negotiations.
Those same people would slaughter little babies and roast women like pigs.
Council House Fight - Wikipedia

 

[strollingbones]

ya wanna see some tortures....study the witch trials in the old world and the new world...

 

[OldLady]

dont hijack this thread....op wants a serious discussion for the most part

I think we already concluded that her little rock was a hoax.

Conclude what you want. I haven't seen anything that disproves the original Dare Stone yet. There are two things I am taking seriously: This traveling salesman from Cali who discovered it in 1937 couldn't be found four years later when the reporter started nosing around. This was during the Depression and we didn't have facebook, so I'm not sure that is damning in itself.
Second, the fact that another hoax stone was unsuccessfully introduced not long before the Dare Stone was found. I found no additional information on that and it doesn't seem to be related to the undeniably faked stones that followed the original Dare Stone's discovery.
I'm open to the hoax theory, but I'm not buying it yet. There has been a lot of research done on the stone itself and nothing shows it as a forgery. You might want to watch the History Channel show--it has a lot more details on that. I think Eleanor wanted the stone with her husband and child's death date and the story of what had happened to them all to be placed at the grave of the 17 murdered in the massacre. She also wanted her Dad to know what happened. None of the phony words or microscopic signs of being carved with a drill bit were found on the original stone and it is not related to the subsequent phony stones through any connection, except that the professor was looking for more and collected them.

 

[strollingbones]

my view of the stone as a hoax is worth two cents and not much more....i just have a hard time buying into the scenario...i tend to go with gut feelings on this stuff...btw you do know there is no gold on oak island? ....i slay me

 

[strollingbones]

Dare Stone revisited: Not a hoax after all? « North Carolina Miscellany

there are great minds on both sides

 

[OldLady]

and why would the natives kill the settlers.....remember natives are not the killers that white man likes to pretend...it is more likely they would assimilate them..esp the children......remember in that time....children were valued by everyone...unlike today

The children part--if mom were dead and the child was still nursing, kill it. The warriors weren't into taking care of babies. Captives had to be able to keep up on the march back to wherever they were going. Little kids and big burly men who would be more of a pain in the ass to control were not taken along. Infants also cry, which is a big no no on a march near enemy territory. So infants and young children didn't get taken along. Kids maybe 5 or older sometimes got taken and grew up with the tribe.
There were many reports of native attacks on the Europeans, many of them made by the natives themselves. The Natives, like everyone else, were suspicious of foreign intruders in their territory. Some figured killing them was a good idea. Some saw the Europeans as trade opportunities and figured they would move on, so no problem. In Maine, the natives stopped being enemies as soon as the French and Indian War was over, so in this area, everyone remembers the natives as being peaceful. They still kept their distance. People were afraid of them, due to all the raids and kidnappings and murders and burnings out the natives did as allies of the French during the war. The natives would take hostages to Canada and have the Catholic priests negotiate their release with wads of cash.
The natives weren't any more peaceful than we were, bones.

This is bullsh!t.

Injuns don't kill women and kids.

They raised them as their own.

What proof have you got of that? Maybe sometimes they took one in, but raiding parties sure didn't. One of my ancestors' stories is below. I've read a lot more on it but this is a good overview of what happened.

Hannah Duston (Dustin, Dustan, and Durstan) (born Hannah Emerson, December 23, 1657 – c. 1737[1]) was a colonial Massachusetts Puritan mother of nine who was taken captive by Abenaki people from Québec during King William's War, with her newborn daughter, during the Raid on Haverhill (1697), in which 27 colonists were killed. While detained on an island in the Merrimack River in present-day Boscawen, New Hampshire, she killed and scalped ten of the Native family members holding them hostage, with the assistance of two other captives.
Hannah Dustin/Duston's newborn baby was thrown against a tree trunk and killed by the Indian captors. They kidnapped her, another son, and several others and held them against their will. They were later able to escape.
Hannah Duston - Wikipedia

 

[OldLady]

my view of the stone as a hoax is worth two cents and not much more....i just have a hard time buying into the scenario...i tend to go with gut feelings on this stuff...btw you do know there is no gold on oak island? ....i slay me

No shit. All of us at work are addicted to that damned show, but it's like rubber necking at a car wreck. If there was ever gold there, it's long gone. And did you pick up that the island was heavily mined at one time? Most of what they are finding is old mine shafts, I'm sure.

 

[strollingbones]

The Dare Stones

and i would go to the school in ga to look at them if given the chance