Lost Colony of Roanoke

Many years ago the History channel was great for learning about mankind's past.

But now most of the shows topics involve ancient aliens and UFO crashes. .... :cuckoo:
At least it's better when it first started in the 90s it was always military planes and stupid sharks


It drove me crazy


.
 
Many years ago the History channel was great for learning about mankind's past.

But now most of the shows topics involve ancient aliens and UFO crashes. .... :cuckoo:
At least it's better when it first started in the 90s it was always military planes and stupid sharks


It drove me crazy


.
I remember that! Nat Geo has a pretty good show on right now called Origins: Journey of Humankind. Not too bad. One of my favorites is PBS Secrets of the Dead (sometimes, depending on what they're digging up!).
 
Many years ago the History channel was great for learning about mankind's past.

But now most of the shows topics involve ancient aliens and UFO crashes. .... :cuckoo:
At least it's better when it first started in the 90s it was always military planes and stupid sharks


It drove me crazy


.
I remember that! Nat Geo has a pretty good show on right now called Origins: Journey of Humankind. Not too bad. One of my favorites is PBS Secrets of the Dead (sometimes, depending on what they're digging up!).
I am really starting to like the AHC channel been watching it a lot lately, the show fact or fiction is good



.
 
Years ago the History Channel was nicknamed the Hitler Channel because of all the episodes covering the events of WWll

My father was an Army infantryman fighting in Europe, and my uncle was a Marine infantryman who fought in the Pacific.

So I loved watching the History Channel about events during that time period. .... :cool:
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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
Some natives absolutely were killers.
 
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?"
 
the islands are not welcoming unless you have a condo with a/c.....hars land with green headed flies....brackish water etc and so forth...going west would not help much they would run into the great dismal...

Dismal Swamp State Park | NC State Parks

that picture does not do the swamp justice

this one does

640.12970.jpg
 
Per Nietzsche, that which does not kill us makes us stronger.

The Indians (Injuns for short) killed the Roanoke colonists.

That did not help them.

But since colonial North America was infested with Injuns like fleas and ticks on a dog, it forced the colonists who settled there to keep and bear arms.

This then led to American independence and also to the 2nd Amendment.

Free at last, free at last, thank God Almighty we are free at last.
 

Forum List

Back
Top