Rick Santorum Says ‘Nothing’ Was In America Before White Colonizers Arrived

[public hermit]

What evidence do you have that he is dominionist? I hadn't heard that.

I don't know the guy's personal philosophy. I'm just going by who he aligns with and what he says. So, you have a point.

 

[East of Eden]

The norm for the history of the world is, those cultures which do not evolve, cease to exist.

The book, "Guns Germs and Steel" by Jared Diamond, gives a good look at why European and other societies developed while others declined. Race had nothing to do with it.

To say otherwise is to buy into the race hustling that says blacks lack of progress is due to racism.

 

[tulc]

Your question was stillborn, try again.

You do understand "dismissing" isn't the same as "answering" right? Because the above is, again, not answering what would seem to be a fairly easy question.
tulc(just a thought)

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Actually in the 17 century when the first French Arrived in Quebec Province just north of New York State, they set up schools and hospitals to serve the Heron nation. The Jesuits, the so-called Black Robes, brought Christianity to the tribes and tried to convert the Iroquois, who were enemies of the Heron's. Fr Isaac Jogues and others were martyred, but were tortured severely. The Iroquois tribe tide up one of the priest in the center of the village where the women and children could chew his thumbs off. Torturing for sport was part of both the Heron and Iroquois tribes until the Jesuits got the Heron's to stop. Fr Jogues lived with the Iroquois before he was killed by a renegade in the village when the elders were out on a hunting party. So they actually tried to make friends with the Iroquois but they saw this as weakness.


Read the book, "Saint Among Savages," by Francis X. Talbot. The author used the memoirs written by St Isaac Jogues and others to write the book.

Myself I visited the Shrine of North American Martyrs in upstate New York and visited the so called "Hill of Pain," where many of the captives were tortured to death.

The reason why the Iroquois sided with the British during the French and Indian War was because they saw the British as being stronger as they refused to simulate and live with the natives as the French did. They saw the French as weak because of their assimilating with the natives There was a marked difference between how the French and British treated the Native Americans. As it was, the Nipmuc Indians helped the French Acadians, but hated the British.

One of the first acts of Champlain upon founding Quebec was to lead an offensive campaign against the Iriquois to cement his alliance with the Huron. The official policy of New France was a war footing against them, hence they refused to sell them guns and this ended up in a series of wars over control of the Great Lakes (Beaver Wars). France built a whole series of forts to impede Iriquois attempts at expansion into the Ohio valley. France did not come to the Iriquois with open arms, rather open sights. I am sure Jesuits made their way amongst them, and certainly France would encourage this - a useful way to create divided loyalties, gain intelligence perhaps, and maybe they hoped to rope them into their colonial trade network eventually - on French terms. But the idea that the French were just friendly to the natives is flawed. They did classic divide and rule, playing tribe against tribe, reminiscent of Roman policy in Germania or the British in Central Asia.

The reason the Iriquois sided with the British is because they had sided with the British in each previous Anglo-French war, because the French were their enemies - whose whole policy towards the Iriquois had been one of belligerence and containment since their arrival. There had even been attempts by the Iriquois to make peace with the French and have them open a trading post in the 1640s, which the French rebuffed. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. There was a marked difference between British and French Indian policy as I noted too, which had to do with the nature of their colonial efforts - not that the French were more altruistic. The English policies in Prince Rupert's Land were similar, and the British-Iriquois alliance held firm - right into many Iriquois following their British friends into Canada after the American War of Independance.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Native Americans were often warring on and trying to take over other tribes and hunting lands, doesn't that make them colonists too?

Everyone comes from somewhere else.

 

[East of Eden]

You do understand "dismissing" isn't the same as "answering" right? Because the above is, again, not answering what would seem to be a fairly easy question.
tulc(just a thought)

I have no obligation to answer your questions starting from a false premise. Do you want to rejoin the conversation now?

 

[East of Eden]

Everyone comes from somewhere else.

And some of the Indians in areas where there were clashes with Europeans got there not a whole lot before the white men.

 

[tulc]

I have no obligation to answer your questions starting from a false premise.

You do realize unless you can show what's a false premise in the question the above is (once again) you dodging a question you hadn't anticipated.

Do you want to rejoin the conversation now?

How can there be a conversation if you wont answer a simple question?
tulc(is just wondering)

 

[JimR-OCDS]

To say otherwise is to buy into the race hustling that says blacks lack of progress is due to racism.

The author of the book, Guns Germs and Steel, warns against this.

The fact is, the same race of people attacked and subjugated others who remained in a more primitive state. One he described was in New Zealand and the island off the coast. The mainland tribe attacked those on the island who were hunter gatherers, and enslaved and tortured those they didn't kill outright

 

[JimR-OCDS]

One of the first acts of Champlain upon founding Quebec was to lead an offensive campaign against the Iriquois to cement his alliance with the Huron. The official policy of New France was a war footing against them, hence they refused to sell them guns and this ended up in a series of wars over control of the Great Lakes (Beaver Wars). France built a whole series of forts to impede Iriquois attempts at expansion into the Ohio valley. France did not come to the Iriquois with open arms, rather open sights. I am sure Jesuits made their way amongst them, and certainly France would encourage this - a useful way to create divided loyalties, gain intelligence perhaps, and maybe they hoped to rope them into their colonial trade network eventually - on French terms. But the idea that the French were just friendly to the natives is flawed. They did classic divide and rule, playing tribe against tribe, reminiscent of Roman policy in Germania or the British in Central Asia.

The reason the Iriquois sided with the British is because they had sided with the British in each previous Anglo-French war, because the French were their enemies - whose whole policy towards the Iriquois had been one of belligerence and containment since their arrival. There had even been attempts by the Iriquois to make peace with the French and have them open a trading post in the 1640s, which the French rebuffed. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. There was a marked difference between British and French Indian policy as I noted too, which had to do with the nature of their colonial efforts - not that the French were more altruistic. The English policies in Prince Rupert's Land were similar, and the British-Iriquois alliance held firm - right into many Iriquois following their British friends into Canada after the American War of Independance.

But this was after the black robes had arrived and the French did in fact try to befriend the Iroquois. However, they saw the French making friends with their enemy the Herons which upset them.

However, Fr Isaac Jogues on his return trip from France, returned to the Iroquois tribe to try and make peace between them and the Horons. As I stated before, the Iroquois say peacemaking as a weakness and so remained allied to the French and Dutch.

Keep in mind that New England and most of the British colonies were anti-Catholic and hated the French. It's one of the reasons why they attacked the Acadians in what is now Nova Scotia several times at a result of pressure from the New England Puritan ministers who saw the Catholics as idolaters. In fact, some ministers joined the British troops when they invaded Nova Scotia and used what was called an exorcism sword, to smash statues in the Catholic Church.

BTW, the Acadians were sent into exile by the British and are known today as Cajuns in Louisiana. Some of the Acadians were sold into slavery in the South and some managed to escape down to Louisiana.

Henry Wadsworth Longfellow wrote the book, "Evangeline," which was based on this event.

The historical book on it, which is no longer in print by may be in the public library is "The Acadian Miracle," by Dudley Leblanc, who was a history professor at UNIVERSITY OF LOUISIANA AT LAFAYETTE

 

[East of Eden]

You do realize unless you can show what's a false premise in the question the above is (once again) you dodging a question you hadn't anticipated.


How can there be a conversation if you wont answer a simple question?
tulc(is just wondering)

You question was completely non-sensical, if nothing else you've added one to your post count. If there was a street, some human built it, were there any in North America before the Europeans arrived? I assume you're referring to paved streets with curbs, etc. as we know them today. How about you stop dodging my question on post #36?

 

[tulc]

You question was completely non-sensical, if nothing else you've added one to your post count. If there was a street, some human built it, were there any in North America before the Europeans arrived? I assume you're referring to paved streets with curbs, etc. as we know them today.

Well...you really shouldn't assume. I've lived in a lot of places that the streets weren't paved, didn't have curbs and still had houses and people living there. That being said this is where the question came from:

To say we didn't discover America because it was already there is like saying Marie Curie didn't discover radium and no planet has ever been discovered.

which led me to ask:

So...if you "discover" a street you didn't know was in the area where you live, you can claim to be the guy who discovered it? and if the people living on that street aren't living how you think they should, you would than have the right to throw them out because, after all, you're the guy who "discovered" that street?

which you've tried real hard not to answer.

How about you stop dodging my question on post #36?

two points: A) I asked a question you didn't answer before you said that and usually people should answer the first question before expecting an answer to their question and B) you didn't ask me that question, you asked Kettriken. If you'd asked me I would have probably said "you appear to be trying to compare apples to oranges". apples to oranges
tulc(just a thought)

 

[East of Eden]

Well...you really shouldn't assume. I've lived in a lot of places that the streets weren't paved, didn't have curbs and still had houses and people living there. That being said this is where the question came from:

which led me to ask:

which you've tried real hard not to answer.



two points: A) I asked a question you didn't answer before you said that and usually people should answer the first question before expecting an answer to their question and B) you didn't ask me that question, you asked Kettriken. If you'd asked me I would have probably said "you appear to be trying to compare apples to oranges". apples to oranges
tulc(just a thought)

Dodge noted (just a thought)

 

[tulc]

Dodge noted (just a thought)

Well, except I did answer the question you didn't ask me and you still haven't answered the one I asked you.
tulc(just thought that should be pointed out)

 

[East of Eden]

Well, except I did answer the question you didn't ask me and you still haven't answered the one I asked you.
tulc(just thought that should be pointed out)

LOL, same way I answered your question. You just like to argue and nitpick, don't you?

 

[Laverne08]

Wow, Rick Santorum needs to come to OK. There are so many different tribes and their rich history is absolutely fascinating. They own the casinos, but they give back and contribute to the state alot too.

 

[Kettriken]

Show me a Native American Shakespeare, Newton or Bach.

I'm not personally a scholar of native American culture. Those who are could doubtless site many literary artisans, musicians, and scientists. Or wikipedia could provide you with a basic understanding, assuming you had any real interest in the question.

The American Native cannot show parity in material civilisation to Europe. Afterall, it is Europe that came to America and took it over, and not the other way around. A gun vs a spear speaks volumes. This was why they were so ready to trade, as the Europeans brought stuff they did not have nor were capable of producing. Why they risked crossing over was on many different factors, from poverty to religious persecution to simple greed. The natives in America were not so idyllic as people believe, as native wars and famines and the like were just as common, really. The Noble Savage myth is just as racist as the Savage one. It ignores who the people really were, and replaces them with a caricature simply as a foil to comment on the West - it says more about the West than anyone else, and is similar to Orientalism in that way.

To your first point material parity is not proved by the barbary of European conquest. Also, willingness to trade quite clearly went both ways. Yes, Americans were interested in European weaponry and technology, but the Europeans were willing to risk the Atlantic passage in the trade of furs and tobacco, not to mention their immortal souls for rum and slaves.
Additionally, there are few who would make the mistake of assuming that society was idyllic in the Americas prior to, during, or after the European conquest.

Lol, what's with this 'we' / 'them' stuff? I get called a racist when I do it!

What's to be gained pushing a narrative that misses his point entirely? He didn't say anything against the Native Americans. Why does he need to point at the horrors done by the settlers? That wasn't his point. Why should it be his point? Is that the only point worth making about the Native Americans?

You claim Santorum said nothing against the native Americans? Really? Relegating their entire thousands of years of culture to less than a footnote is nothing? One could say that he misspoke, and as a Christian that is my gracious assumption towards a brother, but his actual statements are indefensible.

You question was completely non-sensical, if nothing else you've added one to your post count. If there was a street, some human built it, were there any in North America before the Europeans arrived? I assume you're referring to paved streets with curbs, etc. as we know them today. How about you stop dodging my question on post #36?

Paved streets and curbs? That's your litmus? Must they be concrete? Macadam? I must apologize for my sarcastic tendencies. I truly don't mean to be unkind, but why would you ask about modern innovations? Yes, cobbles and paver rocks go back quite some time, but many small towns lack curbs and back roads pavement. Are they also worthy of disregard?
As I mentioned before, the entirety of the internet is available. You could look up what type of roads, paths, streets, were present in America before Europeans arrived. Personally, I know that many of the existing highways and byways in my area are expansions of native roads. So, yes, there were many roads in America before Europeans arrived.

 

[tulc]

LOL, same way I answered your question.

No, when I answered the question you asked someone else I pointed out why your question was wrong, you were basically comparing apples to oranges on the other hand you've simply dodged and dismissed with your "answer". There's a difference

You just like to argue and nitpick, don't you?

if by "argue and nitpick" you mean "a simple direct answer to a simple direct question" like what I asked, then yeah, I guess a do. Of course if by "argue and nitpick" you mean the actual definitions of those words, I'm going to have say no, I really don't.
tulc(is finishing the last cup of coffee for the night)

 

[East of Eden]

tulc(is finishing the last cup of coffee for the night)

Maybe try decaf?

 

[East of Eden]

Wow, Rick Santorum needs to come to OK. There are so many different tribes and their rich history is absolutely fascinating. They own the casinos, but they give back and contribute to the state alot too.

Which has what to do with the time before the Europeans arrived?