Seattle Democrats Cancel Columbus Day. Replace It With "indigenous People's Day"

[daws101]

In fact, Columbus was the first slave trader in the Americas. As the native slaves died off, they were replaced with black slaves. Columbus' son became the first African slave trader in 1505..

The first African slave traders were Africans. The first slave traders in the western hemisphere were the natives themselves. Lay off the bong for a couple of years.

false...
The history of slavery traces the history of the slave trade from ancient times to the present. Slavery was a legally recognized system in which people were legally considered the property or chattel of another.[1] A slave had few rights and could be bought or sold and made to work for the owner without any choice or pay. As Drescher (2009) argues, "The most crucial and frequently utilised aspect of the condition is a communally recognised right by some individuals to possess, buy, sell, discipline, transport, liberate, or otherwise dispose of the bodies and behaviour of other individuals."[2] In the American colonies and other places, an integral element was frequently the assignment of children of a slave mother to the status of slaves born into slavery.[3] Slavery under this definition does not include other forced labour systems, such as historical forced labor by prisoners, labor camps, or other forms of unfree labor, in which labourers are not legally considered property. Slavery typically requires a shortage of labor and a surplus of land to be viable.[1] While slavery has existed for thousands of years, the social, economic, and legal position of slaves was vastly different in different systems of slavery in different times and places.[4]

Slavery can be traced back to the earliest records, such as the Code of Hammurabi (c. 1760 BC), which refers to it as an established institution.[5] Slavery is rare amonghunter-gatherer populations, as it is developed as a system of social stratification. Slavery was known in civilizations as old as Sumer, as well as almost every other ancient civilization. The Byzantine-Ottoman wars and the Ottoman wars in Europe resulted in the taking of large numbers of Christian slaves. Similarly, Christians sold Muslim slaves captured in war and also the Islamic World was engaged in slavery throughout its history. Slavery became common within the British Isles during the Middle Ages. Britain played a prominent role in the Atlantic slave trade, especially after 1600. Slavery was a legal institution in all of the 13 American colonies and Canada (acquired by Britain in 1763). Slavery was endemic in Africa and part of the structure of everyday life. David P. Forsythe wrote: "The fact remained that at the beginning of the nineteenth century an estimated three-quarters of all people alive were trapped in bondage against their will either in some form of slavery or serfdom."[6]Denmark-Norway was the first European country to ban the slave trade.

Although slavery is no longer legal anywhere in the world,[7] human trafficking remains an international problem and an estimated 29.8 million persons are living in illegal slavery today.[8] In modern times, the trading of children has been reported in modern Nigeria and Benin. During the Second Sudanese Civil War people were taken into slavery.[9] In Mauritania it is estimated that up to 600,000 men, women and children, or 20% of the population, are currently enslaved, many of them used as bonded labor.[10] Slavery in Mauritania was criminalized in August 2007.[11] Evidence emerged in the late 1990s of systematic slavery in cacao plantations in West Africa; see the chocolate and slavery article.[12]

History of slavery - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[daws101]

nice dodge ...ok, how am I ignorant of history?...

You never heard of the Dawes Act? I gave you a whole day to Google it, and you still don't get it.

yes but it's irrelevant to this conversation.
it also has jack shit to do with my screen name..
btw you gave me nothing kinda of pretentious to think so.

 

[daws101]

The history and genocide and dispersal of the Huron.

If combined with populations of the Neutrals, Tionontati, and Wenro, the Huron in 1535 probably numbered somewhere between 30,000 and 45,000. French estimates of the four core tribes of the Huron Confederacy in 1615 varied from 20,000 to 30,000 and 16 to 25 villages. After European contact, the Huron population loss was dramatic. By 1640 epidemic and war had reduced them to less than 10,000. After their dispersal in 1649 by the Iroquois, only 300 Huron were able to relocate safely at Lorette near Quebec. Another 1,000, mixed with Tionontati and Neutrals, escaped to the western Great Lakes to become the Wyandot. The number of Huron adopted into the Iroquois League is uncertain but must have been considerable. In 1736 the population at Lorette had remained near its original 300, while the Wyandot, relocated to the west end of Lake Erie, had increased to near 1,500.

...

These villages varied in size, but the larger ones were usually fortified and had populations well over 1,000. Fortification and large size probably resulted from the region's constant warfare, but the densely populated villages and large communal bark-covered longhouses (sometimes 200' long) made the Huron vulnerable to European epidemics. In most ways, the Huron lifestyle closely resembled that of the Iroquois. Beginning around 1100, the Iroquian people in this region began large-scale agriculture. A dramatic increase in population followed which, unfortunately, was accompanied by a similar increase in organized warfare.

...

Huron justice could be harsh. Convicted murderers were often tied to their victim's corpse and allowed to starve. In later times offenders were shot by firing squad.

...

Unfortunately for the French and their hopes for the fur trade, the St. Lawrence west of Quebec was a war zone and had been this way for at least 50 years before their arrival. It was a disputed area claimed by the Iroquois, Huron, Algonkin, and Montagnais. After listening to the complaints of his trading partners against the Iroquois, Champlain decided in July, 1609 to accompany a mixed Algonkin, Montagnais, and Huron war party against the Mohawk.

...

After wars with the Susquehannock (1615) and the Mahican (1624-28), they emerged as the dominant Dutch trade partner. Unfortunately, the Iroquois homeland did not not have many beaver, and in attempting to supply the Dutch, the Iroquois quickly used up what little they had. Dutch attempts to bypass them and gain access to the St. Lawrence trade through the Mahican had only intensified the dilemma and had led to the Mohawk war with the Mahican in 1624. However, their victory over the Mahican had merely eliminated a rival and did not provide them with access to more fur. The Huron homeland had a lot of beaver in the beginning, but it also became exhausted from trade with the French. However, the Huron easily overcame this through trade with tribes to the north and west. Surrounded by enemies, the Iroquois had no such opportunity, and threatened with the loss of their trade position with the Dutch, they desperately needed the Huron to supply them with fur, or at least allow them to hunt outside their homeland. The Huron would not allow either of these things. Their fur went directly to the French, and the Huron were powerful enough to keep Iroquois hunters confined to their own lands.

...

During those three long years, the Iroquois, because of their uninterrupted trade with the Dutch, gained an arms advantage over the Huron and Algonkin. Beginning in 1629, a new round of warfare for fur and territory began which evolved into the Beaver Wars (1630-1700)

...

At the time, Ohio was empty ..no one lived there, and because of this, it was especially attractive, not only for its rich farmland, but hunting since there had been virtually no human habitation for the previous 50 years. The Iroquois claimed it by right of their conquest of the Erie,Shawnee, Kickapoo, and several tribes whose names have been lost because they disappeared during the Beaver Wars before European contact.

... and more, just on the Huron and the politics of their region.

Huron

The silly claims that Europeans wiped out the natives is nonsense. The type of genocides like those of the Plains tribes began with none other than Abraham Lincoln and the sending of Pope and Federal troops into Minnesota during the Civil War and the attempt to genocide the Sioux tribe there. Lincoln's policies were carried on by the likes of Pope, Sheridan, and the other Union butchers, in support of Lincoln's and the Republican Party's best friend Grenville Dodge and his Federally subsidized railroad system, one of the main reasons Lincoln started his illegal civil war in the first place.

A detailed study of tribes and politics of the Mississippi Valley can found inIndians, Settlers, & Slaves in a Frontier Exchange Economy: The Lower Mississippi Valley Before 1783 - Daniel H. Usner, Jr. References in diaries and the history of the period document instances where slaves who escaped from or were captured from the French and Spanish settlements would beg English traders to buy them from the Indians and return them to their former masters cited in this book. Just a sample of real native american history, which doesn't remotely resemble the hippie fantasies concocted in the 1960's and later re 'the noble savage' myth.

more rationalizing.
whatever the native american did to each other is
immaterial..
and a false comparison..

 

[daws101]

The early American colonists came here and killed an enormous amount of people and destroyed entire cultures. The least anyone can do is have a holiday commemorating the original peoples of this country. If that offends you, you are probably a bigot.

And Columbus was a horrible person. He was a slave trader and a despot, hated by colonists. He also sold young indigenous girls (aged 9-10) into sexual slavery. As a result of his brutal slavery, which often involved punishments like cutting off the hands of workers who were not productive enough, there was a mass suicide of 100 people. If attack dogs to hunt escaping natives did not have enough food, Columbus had Arawak babies killed to feed them.

In fact, Columbus was the first slave trader in the Americas. As the native slaves died off, they were replaced with black slaves. Columbus' son became the first African slave trader in 1505.

We might as well have Stalin day, Bin Laden day, and Kim Jong etc. day.

Let's bring back Lincoln day too. He killed 600,000 americans in his quest to destroy the states rights principle that our constitution is founded upon.

more absolute bullshit.....

 

[daws101]

as to hip hop...it sells, the rest is history
btw not a fan of that hippy hop music
do love jazz, blues,60's r&b....

 

[Asclepias]

nice dodge ...ok, how am I ignorant of history?...

You never heard of the Dawes Act? I gave you a whole day to Google it, and you still don't get it.

yes but it's irrelevant to this conversation.
it also has jack shit to do with my screen name..
btw you gave me nothing kinda of pretentious to think so.

Unk is a moron. He cant let it go because he wants everyone to think he was the only one to know about the Dawes Rolls.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

First, where have I lied ?
Second, I only bring up the CDC findings to illustrate that this poster demonstrates that he'll deny facts.

Despite your diversion, I only denied the accuracy of it. Not that the findings dont exist. I noticed you never explained how they determined half of Black women have herpes. Got any insight yet?

I don't know what their methods of gathering data is. I'm willing however to accept their findings since I sincerely doubt a reputable agency as the CDC would publish a study unless they were certain the results were accurate.

You should be able to explain why you are willing to accept something on face value without questioning the methods used to reach the conclusion. Basically you are admitting that if someone snows you good enough you will believe them without using your ability to think.

What would be the motivating factor for a reputable government agency such as the CDC to "snow" all of us ?

You avoided my question. Explain to me how they came up with the conclusion. Are you afraid you cant?

It's not important to me how they came to their conclusion, I trust their findings. If you want to know their methods, do some research.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You're not likely to penetrate his skull. He's also in complete denial over the CDC findings that a huge percentage of black women have the herpes virus.

One, the site is reputable, and you two are not.

Second, I have not said one word boo about black women and herpes.

Third, you, DD, are a habitual liar.

First, where have I lied ?
Second, I only bring up the CDC findings to illustrate that this poster demonstrates that he'll deny facts.

Despite your diversion, I only denied the accuracy of it. Not that the findings dont exist. I noticed you never explained how they determined half of Black women have herpes. Got any insight yet?

Your denial about the facts means nothing.

I have never denied anything about black women.

My denial of the validity of the report means everything. Maybe you can explain how they know half of Black women have herpes?

I never claimed you denied anything about Black women. Where did you see me say that?

So DD deleted it. Good. Manliness should have generated an apology.

 

[Asclepias]

Despite your diversion, I only denied the accuracy of it. Not that the findings dont exist. I noticed you never explained how they determined half of Black women have herpes. Got any insight yet?

I don't know what their methods of gathering data is. I'm willing however to accept their findings since I sincerely doubt a reputable agency as the CDC would publish a study unless they were certain the results were accurate.

You should be able to explain why you are willing to accept something on face value without questioning the methods used to reach the conclusion. Basically you are admitting that if someone snows you good enough you will believe them without using your ability to think.

What would be the motivating factor for a reputable government agency such as the CDC to "snow" all of us ?

You avoided my question. Explain to me how they came up with the conclusion. Are you afraid you cant?

It's not important to me how they came to their conclusion, I trust their findings. If you want to know their methods, do some research.

I dont have to. Common sense dictates they cant possible know this without interviewing all Black women and getting truthful answers moron.

If they said 50% of the reported cases of herpes were Black women then that would be something that I would attempt to research.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

One, the site is reputable, and you two are not.

Second, I have not said one word boo about black women and herpes.

Third, you, DD, are a habitual liar.

First, where have I lied ?
Second, I only bring up the CDC findings to illustrate that this poster demonstrates that he'll deny facts.

Despite your diversion, I only denied the accuracy of it. Not that the findings dont exist. I noticed you never explained how they determined half of Black women have herpes. Got any insight yet?

Your denial about the facts means nothing.

I have never denied anything about black women.

My denial of the validity of the report means everything. Maybe you can explain how they know half of Black women have herpes?

I never claimed you denied anything about Black women. Where did you see me say that?

So DD deleted it. Good. Manliness should have generated an apology.

What did I delete ?

 

[DigitalDrifter]

I don't know what their methods of gathering data is. I'm willing however to accept their findings since I sincerely doubt a reputable agency as the CDC would publish a study unless they were certain the results were accurate.

You should be able to explain why you are willing to accept something on face value without questioning the methods used to reach the conclusion. Basically you are admitting that if someone snows you good enough you will believe them without using your ability to think.

What would be the motivating factor for a reputable government agency such as the CDC to "snow" all of us ?

You avoided my question. Explain to me how they came up with the conclusion. Are you afraid you cant?

It's not important to me how they came to their conclusion, I trust their findings. If you want to know their methods, do some research.

I dont have to. Common sense dictates they cant possible know this without interviewing all Black women and getting truthful answers moron.

If they said 50% of the reported cases of herpes were Black women then that would be something that I would attempt to research.

I don't know what their methods of gathering data is. I'm willing however to accept their findings since I sincerely doubt a reputable agency as the CDC would publish a study unless they were certain the results were accurate.

You should be able to explain why you are willing to accept something on face value without questioning the methods used to reach the conclusion. Basically you are admitting that if someone snows you good enough you will believe them without using your ability to think.

What would be the motivating factor for a reputable government agency such as the CDC to "snow" all of us ?

You avoided my question. Explain to me how they came up with the conclusion. Are you afraid you cant?

It's not important to me how they came to their conclusion, I trust their findings. If you want to know their methods, do some research.

I dont have to. Common sense dictates they cant possible know this without interviewing all Black women and getting truthful answers moron.

If they said 50% of the reported cases of herpes were Black women then that would be something that I would attempt to research.

Obviously they studied a certain number of AA women, then made an estimate for the entire population of AA women.

You do realize that when they poll American voters for say, the president, they don't actually call all 170 million of us, right ?

 

[Asclepias]

You should be able to explain why you are willing to accept something on face value without questioning the methods used to reach the conclusion. Basically you are admitting that if someone snows you good enough you will believe them without using your ability to think.

What would be the motivating factor for a reputable government agency such as the CDC to "snow" all of us ?

You avoided my question. Explain to me how they came up with the conclusion. Are you afraid you cant?

It's not important to me how they came to their conclusion, I trust their findings. If you want to know their methods, do some research.

I dont have to. Common sense dictates they cant possible know this without interviewing all Black women and getting truthful answers moron.

If they said 50% of the reported cases of herpes were Black women then that would be something that I would attempt to research.

You should be able to explain why you are willing to accept something on face value without questioning the methods used to reach the conclusion. Basically you are admitting that if someone snows you good enough you will believe them without using your ability to think.

What would be the motivating factor for a reputable government agency such as the CDC to "snow" all of us ?

You avoided my question. Explain to me how they came up with the conclusion. Are you afraid you cant?

It's not important to me how they came to their conclusion, I trust their findings. If you want to know their methods, do some research.

I dont have to. Common sense dictates they cant possible know this without interviewing all Black women and getting truthful answers moron.

If they said 50% of the reported cases of herpes were Black women then that would be something that I would attempt to research.

Obviously they studied a certain number of AA women, then made an estimate for the entire population of AA women.

You do realize that when they poll American voters for say, the president, they don't actually call all 170 million of us, right ?

So its an estimate? Which means its not a fact or even exact?

Normally what they do is count the votes moron.

 

[Dot Com]

Bunch of goddam boozing welfare bums do nothing but drag down america. Fact is the indigenous people of north america and south america and africa don't have the intelligence for technology.

you never said what it is that you do to contribute to society ShootSpeeders

As to the OP, good on them.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

What would be the motivating factor for a reputable government agency such as the CDC to "snow" all of us ?

You avoided my question. Explain to me how they came up with the conclusion. Are you afraid you cant?

It's not important to me how they came to their conclusion, I trust their findings. If you want to know their methods, do some research.

I dont have to. Common sense dictates they cant possible know this without interviewing all Black women and getting truthful answers moron.

If they said 50% of the reported cases of herpes were Black women then that would be something that I would attempt to research.

What would be the motivating factor for a reputable government agency such as the CDC to "snow" all of us ?

You avoided my question. Explain to me how they came up with the conclusion. Are you afraid you cant?

It's not important to me how they came to their conclusion, I trust their findings. If you want to know their methods, do some research.

I dont have to. Common sense dictates they cant possible know this without interviewing all Black women and getting truthful answers moron.

If they said 50% of the reported cases of herpes were Black women then that would be something that I would attempt to research.

Obviously they studied a certain number of AA women, then made an estimate for the entire population of AA women.

You do realize that when they poll American voters for say, the president, they don't actually call all 170 million of us, right ?

So its an estimate? Which means its not a fact or even exact?

Normally what they do is count the votes moron.

Look I don't want to embarrass you here. I was talking about "polling" American voters. You know what pollsters are, right ? Gallup, Rassmussen, Zogby, etc.
When they conduct a poll, they call a certain # of voters, find out who they intend to vote for, then make an estimate based on their findings for all voters.

 

[Asclepias]

You avoided my question. Explain to me how they came up with the conclusion. Are you afraid you cant?

It's not important to me how they came to their conclusion, I trust their findings. If you want to know their methods, do some research.

I dont have to. Common sense dictates they cant possible know this without interviewing all Black women and getting truthful answers moron.

If they said 50% of the reported cases of herpes were Black women then that would be something that I would attempt to research.

You avoided my question. Explain to me how they came up with the conclusion. Are you afraid you cant?

It's not important to me how they came to their conclusion, I trust their findings. If you want to know their methods, do some research.

I dont have to. Common sense dictates they cant possible know this without interviewing all Black women and getting truthful answers moron.

If they said 50% of the reported cases of herpes were Black women then that would be something that I would attempt to research.

Obviously they studied a certain number of AA women, then made an estimate for the entire population of AA women.

You do realize that when they poll American voters for say, the president, they don't actually call all 170 million of us, right ?

So its an estimate? Which means its not a fact or even exact?

Normally what they do is count the votes moron.

Look I don't want to embarrass you here. I was talking about "polling" American voters. You know what pollsters are, right ? Gallup, Rassmussen, Zogby, etc.
When they conduct a poll, they call a certain # of voters, find out who they intend to vote for, then make an estimate based on their findings for all voters.

Look I hate to be the one to show you how illogical your logic is but polling people has been wrong countless times before. The fact you actually believe it to be correct concerns me if you are old enough to drive or vote. If a poll was used to gather this figure and used by the CDC as fact, that alone should make you question the validity of their "facts".

 

[DigitalDrifter]

It's not important to me how they came to their conclusion, I trust their findings. If you want to know their methods, do some research.

I dont have to. Common sense dictates they cant possible know this without interviewing all Black women and getting truthful answers moron.

If they said 50% of the reported cases of herpes were Black women then that would be something that I would attempt to research.

It's not important to me how they came to their conclusion, I trust their findings. If you want to know their methods, do some research.

I dont have to. Common sense dictates they cant possible know this without interviewing all Black women and getting truthful answers moron.

If they said 50% of the reported cases of herpes were Black women then that would be something that I would attempt to research.

Obviously they studied a certain number of AA women, then made an estimate for the entire population of AA women.

You do realize that when they poll American voters for say, the president, they don't actually call all 170 million of us, right ?

So its an estimate? Which means its not a fact or even exact?

Normally what they do is count the votes moron.

Look I don't want to embarrass you here. I was talking about "polling" American voters. You know what pollsters are, right ? Gallup, Rassmussen, Zogby, etc.
When they conduct a poll, they call a certain # of voters, find out who they intend to vote for, then make an estimate based on their findings for all voters.

Look I hate to be the one to show you how illogical your logic is but polling people has been wrong countless times before. The fact you actually believe it to be correct concerns me if you are old enough to drive or vote. If a poll was used to gather this figure and used by the CDC as fact, that alone should make you question the validity of their "facts".

 

[Asclepias]

I dont have to. Common sense dictates they cant possible know this without interviewing all Black women and getting truthful answers moron.

If they said 50% of the reported cases of herpes were Black women then that would be something that I would attempt to research.

I dont have to. Common sense dictates they cant possible know this without interviewing all Black women and getting truthful answers moron.

If they said 50% of the reported cases of herpes were Black women then that would be something that I would attempt to research.

Obviously they studied a certain number of AA women, then made an estimate for the entire population of AA women.

You do realize that when they poll American voters for say, the president, they don't actually call all 170 million of us, right ?

So its an estimate? Which means its not a fact or even exact?

Normally what they do is count the votes moron.

Look I don't want to embarrass you here. I was talking about "polling" American voters. You know what pollsters are, right ? Gallup, Rassmussen, Zogby, etc.
When they conduct a poll, they call a certain # of voters, find out who they intend to vote for, then make an estimate based on their findings for all voters.

Look I hate to be the one to show you how illogical your logic is but polling people has been wrong countless times before. The fact you actually believe it to be correct concerns me if you are old enough to drive or vote. If a poll was used to gather this figure and used by the CDC as fact, that alone should make you question the validity of their "facts".

Dont get frustrated. Use your words.

 

[daws101]

Despite your diversion, I only denied the accuracy of it. Not that the findings dont exist. I noticed you never explained how they determined half of Black women have herpes. Got any insight yet?

I don't know what their methods of gathering data is. I'm willing however to accept their findings since I sincerely doubt a reputable agency as the CDC would publish a study unless they were certain the results were accurate.

You should be able to explain why you are willing to accept something on face value without questioning the methods used to reach the conclusion. Basically you are admitting that if someone snows you good enough you will believe them without using your ability to think.

What would be the motivating factor for a reputable government agency such as the CDC to "snow" all of us ?

You avoided my question. Explain to me how they came up with the conclusion. Are you afraid you cant?

It's not important to me how they came to their conclusion, I trust their findings. If you want to know their methods, do some research.

major dodge....

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Normally what they do is count the votes moron.

Stupid jackass. Learn how to use delete. Everyone is sick of your posts that always contain comments from ten other people.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

I don't know what their methods of gathering data is. I'm willing however to accept their findings since I sincerely doubt a reputable agency as the CDC would publish a study unless they were certain the results were accurate.

You should be able to explain why you are willing to accept something on face value without questioning the methods used to reach the conclusion. Basically you are admitting that if someone snows you good enough you will believe them without using your ability to think.

What would be the motivating factor for a reputable government agency such as the CDC to "snow" all of us ?

You avoided my question. Explain to me how they came up with the conclusion. Are you afraid you cant?

It's not important to me how they came to their conclusion, I trust their findings. If you want to know their methods, do some research.

major dodge....

Why ? It's a very legitimate agency, I have no reason to question their findings. If he doesn't want to believe them, let him debunk it then. It's not my job.