It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Tecumseh

page: 5
24
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 05:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by frazzle

Originally posted by tintin2012
reply to post by frazzle
 


I wander what Tecumseh would have said if he was to be here today.


Tecumseh and all the other great Chiefs are probably sitting around their campfires in the sky smoking peace pipes and laughing at the whites for being such fools as to believe the treaty makers intended to keep their twisted promises to them, either. They're probably telling stories about how the whites are now the Indians. But it really isn't funny at all because whites of today have no culture or traditions to lose anyway and no spiritual connections with the earth that sustains them other than as dollar figures and worthless certificates of title that bind them not to the land, but to the taxing powers of the "kings". The sad part is that people seem to be completely oblivious that it was set up this way from the beginning.

Six thousand years of pillaging and plundering. It was always about centralized power and how the aristocrats could so easily scam the masses into believing they were heroes to whom every last grain of sand and drop of water must be given to be fouled and exploited for their profit. Its a religion and people keep giving their children as blood sacrifices to these greedy gods while calling the Aztecs barbarians.

"Our treaty" with the aristocrats ... Our national bible code ...


The noble Aztecs........were so loved by all that every large tribe living around the area joined in with Cortez to destroy these jackbooted thugs. Oh yea they were very cultured but no better than any power mongering kingdom anywhere. With Cortez they simply found their match.




posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 05:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by ColoradoJens

Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by ColoradoJens
 


Thank you CJ, but the gratitude is all on my end because there are so few topics posted that I have enough passion for to dive into so when one does come along, like yours, its easy to go overboard and I worry about wearing out my welcome and going too far afield with my comments, so I'm more inclined to thank you for putting up with me.

But in retrospect, its pretty strange that as we get older its so easy to look back and admit how many times we zigged when we should have zagged, but at the same time its so difficult to admit the same thing when we’re talking about the nation and the people who founded it. WE aren’t to blame for what happened so long before we were born, and certainly not in the sense that we are to blame for our own personal bad decisions. But acknowledging what happened back then and why it happened is the only way to start the healing.

Whether people acknowledge those long ago terrible decisions or not, somewhere down the road there is a price waiting to be paid for them and too many people won’t even understand why they’re paying it. But I guess, more than anything else, its all the innocent lives that have been taken and all the people who've given their lives defending those lies is what really gets to me. It just never ends.


I agree. Those who stood before tyranny and died for it are those who we should be celebrating. Not that many whites didn't. When it comes to the shame of past crimes, all need to be held accountable the same. The simple fact that where charity and good will could have existed in the times of American expansion was replaced instead with avarice and theft is an indication of the corruption of the white man and his system. I fear one day no one will know anything other than Tonto and his stylings.

CJ



You dont have to worry about that. As we speak and for some time now great effort has been made to reconstruct the way american natives are to be understood......much of which is bunk!



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 05:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by ColoradoJens
 



I agree. Those who stood before tyranny and died for it are those who we should be celebrating. Not that many whites didn't. When it comes to the shame of past crimes, all need to be held accountable the same. The simple fact that where charity and good will could have existed in the times of American expansion was replaced instead with avarice and theft is an indication of the corruption of the white man and his system. I fear one day no one will know anything other than Tonto and his stylings.

CJ


I hope you didn’t think old frazzle was hauling out the big old broad brush and painting the whole crew as bad guys. Of course its long past time for holding anyone from the early days accountable, but its true that many of them did stand against tyranny and they clearly saw it coming with the new constitution. Out of the 55 delegates at the constitutional convention, only 39 of them signed it and the number of states required to pass it had to be reduced from 11 to 9 or it would have failed. But I consider the 16 delegates who didn’t sign to be only semi good guys because although they had a slew of reasons for not agreeing to the terms, it mainly boiled down to their distrust of the implied powers and how they would be used to herd White Americans into corrals. State’s Rights was their issue, not that they had any particular concern for the fate of the Indian or black people, at least not that they wrote about.

Actually I think bigotry against non whites in the early days was far worse than it is today, particularly among the upper crust of society which unfortunately drives all of society, so charity and good will towards minorities within that group was close to nil and they had stratified the lower classes in such a way that they were always fighting among themselves for the crumbs, regardless of color. There are some horror stories about life in those times for poor white people, which is why it was so easy to incite them to barrel westward for a ‘better’ life.

But backing up even further, the influx of French into lower Canada in the 1600s probably gives the best example of whites and indigenous people living and working well together despite the machinations of the Church and royal decrees from the Fricking French king. If we could have followed the example set by those immigrants we’d all be far better off today but that also ended with the revolution when the Americans chased the British loyalists into Canada and all bets were off for the French, the Indians and mixtures of both. Say what you will about the French, those people do know how to get along in just about any culture, at least until a third party crashes the scene.



In what is now the United States, much if not most of the fighting that took place between white and tribes was done between indians and groups of local settlers. There was hardly any disharmony, say in ohio, that was cused by a third party crashing in. Regular troops didnt get involved as an offical answer by the white governments untill the issue had aready become blown out between the outpost towns and the tribes.

This is not to say that settlers coming into lands granted for service fighting in our early wars did so without regard to what the tribes thought about it.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by ColoradoJens

Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by ColoradoJens
 


Thank you CJ, but the gratitude is all on my end because there are so few topics posted that I have enough passion for to dive into so when one does come along, like yours, its easy to go overboard and I worry about wearing out my welcome and going too far afield with my comments, so I'm more inclined to thank you for putting up with me.

But in retrospect, its pretty strange that as we get older its so easy to look back and admit how many times we zigged when we should have zagged, but at the same time its so difficult to admit the same thing when we’re talking about the nation and the people who founded it. WE aren’t to blame for what happened so long before we were born, and certainly not in the sense that we are to blame for our own personal bad decisions. But acknowledging what happened back then and why it happened is the only way to start the healing.

Whether people acknowledge those long ago terrible decisions or not, somewhere down the road there is a price waiting to be paid for them and too many people won’t even understand why they’re paying it. But I guess, more than anything else, its all the innocent lives that have been taken and all the people who've given their lives defending those lies is what really gets to me. It just never ends.


I agree. Those who stood before tyranny and died for it are those who we should be celebrating. Not that many whites didn't. When it comes to the shame of past crimes, all need to be held accountable the same. The simple fact that where charity and good will could have existed in the times of American expansion was replaced instead with avarice and theft is an indication of the corruption of the white man and his system. I fear one day no one will know anything other than Tonto and his stylings.

CJ



You dont have to worry about that. As we speak and for some time now great effort has been made to reconstruct the way american natives are to be understood......much of which is bunk!


You don't say. The great effort, as you put it, doesn't seem to be working. I would venture to guess more children today know who Daniel Boone is but couldn't tell you who Tecumseh was. And regarding revisionist history, I suppose you believe Columbus actually discovered America. Did John Wayne play a large role in your understanding of the cowboys vs Indians?

CJ



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by ColoradoJens

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by ColoradoJens

Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by ColoradoJens
 


Thank you CJ, but the gratitude is all on my end because there are so few topics posted that I have enough passion for to dive into so when one does come along, like yours, its easy to go overboard and I worry about wearing out my welcome and going too far afield with my comments, so I'm more inclined to thank you for putting up with me.

But in retrospect, its pretty strange that as we get older its so easy to look back and admit how many times we zigged when we should have zagged, but at the same time its so difficult to admit the same thing when we’re talking about the nation and the people who founded it. WE aren’t to blame for what happened so long before we were born, and certainly not in the sense that we are to blame for our own personal bad decisions. But acknowledging what happened back then and why it happened is the only way to start the healing.

Whether people acknowledge those long ago terrible decisions or not, somewhere down the road there is a price waiting to be paid for them and too many people won’t even understand why they’re paying it. But I guess, more than anything else, its all the innocent lives that have been taken and all the people who've given their lives defending those lies is what really gets to me. It just never ends.


I agree. Those who stood before tyranny and died for it are those who we should be celebrating. Not that many whites didn't. When it comes to the shame of past crimes, all need to be held accountable the same. The simple fact that where charity and good will could have existed in the times of American expansion was replaced instead with avarice and theft is an indication of the corruption of the white man and his system. I fear one day no one will know anything other than Tonto and his stylings.

CJ



You dont have to worry about that. As we speak and for some time now great effort has been made to reconstruct the way american natives are to be understood......much of which is bunk!


You don't say. The great effort, as you put it, doesn't seem to be working. I would venture to guess more children today know who Daniel Boone is but couldn't tell you who Tecumseh was. And regarding revisionist history, I suppose you believe Columbus actually discovered America. Did John Wayne play a large role in your understanding of the cowboys vs Indians?

CJ




Around here in Tecumsehs home stomping grounds......forget about him? Not much chance of that. They have had a yearly play here, down in the hills at an open air theater about Tecumseh. It runs about 2 months out of the year and ticket sales are backed up for years. Plus we are in the heart of the old Mound Builder culture. There are several mounds within a few miles of where I am now and some are on private property.

As for Columbus it just so happens that I have been a student of defusion for years.....China, Celts, ect ect coming to america long before columbus. I have a good number of books in my own collection.

Dan Boone is being written out of history around here. I happen to own two old Boone life story books one with a lot of qoutes and talking he did about his life. Very interesting. He actualy said he was called by god to clear the land of indians......so you can see why he is being written out of history these days. Even though tecumseh claimed it was the will of god to drive the whites out.

So where do youn get your ideas about indians? Dancing With Wolves? I like the Richard Harris flick Man Called Hourse. What do you think of the Jeramiah Johnson move?



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 10:01 AM
link   
Memory of Tecumseh needs to be "refreshed" as nothing really has changed. It has been discreetly made to disappear from the public conscientiousness by being replaces with Pocahontas type stories.

The following is what continues to be hidden and there is no explaining it away (Pussy Cat band problems everyone knows),



UNREPENTANT: KEVIN ANNETT AND CANADA'S (NATIVE PEOPLES) GENOCIDE



and the case of Hanford Nuclear Labs where on their web site they say



Uninformed Hanford workers, their families, and other downwind residents became literal guinea pigs for radiation experiments carried out at the facility by the former Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), Department of Energy (DOE), the Department of Defense, and civilian sub-contractors including DuPont and General Electric from 1944 to 1972.
The Overview in its first sentence fails to mention the Native People. Guess they are not that important.

The "Native Americans" link's text at the very very end states this (today we have 2012),


Although the cancers and birth deflects suffered by regional Native Americans may be attributed to other sources of contamination including other industrial practices found along the river it is generally agreed by health professionals that most previous estimates of potential radiation exposure for Native Americans resulting from Hanford facility are extremely low and need to be reevaluated.
Boy o boy, they must still be working on this one, NOT.
Hanford Project
Notice the ever present text on this website ---> "Safe as Mother's Milk": Hanford Project. Is this a subliminal message? How about that smiley photo on the above link.


I am guessing the "Operation Paperclip" people are still at work there.

More of the same was happening here St. Louis



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 



In what is now the United States, much if not most of the fighting that took place between white and tribes was done between indians and groups of local settlers. There was hardly any disharmony, say in ohio, that was cused by a third party crashing in. Regular troops didnt get involved as an offical answer by the white governments untill the issue had aready become blown out between the outpost towns and the tribes.

This is not to say that settlers coming into lands granted for service fighting in our early wars did so without regard to what the tribes thought about it.


My comments about 1600's French and Indian relations in Quebec had nothing to do with Ohio's wars.

Nevertheless, I don't think George Rogers Clark, General Josiah Harmar, Governor St. Clair, General Anthony Wayne or William Henry Harrison were what you could call settlers, they led federal troops against Tecumseh's people, not a gaggle of homesteaders.

Granted the Canadian French had been trading with the native tribes all up and down the major US waterways for all of that time, but guess who wanted to own and control that entire area and all of its people and its resources Yep, you got it, it was the powers behind the scenes that commanded the above named individuals.

Tecumseh's death was the death knell for the native people of those tribes who were then forced onto government run reservations. But that was just progress, dontchaknow, nothing like part of a plan to gain territory and wealth and power for the fledgling empire. And guess what ~ the federal empire now controls every single blade of grass in that territory and they control you, too, whether you know it or not. The really sad thing is that while it took real guns and real bullets to take the land from the Indians, all it took to take it from the settlers was reams of paper and gobs of ink called mortgages.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 




all it took to take it from the settlers was reams of paper and gobs of ink called mortgages.
Well frazzel you handle the keyboard like Mark Twain. I wish though that text was closer to what it looks like when someone uses an ink pen



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by tintin2012
reply to post by frazzle
 




Well frazzel you handle the keyboard like Mark Twain. I wish though that text was closer to what it looks like when someone uses an ink pen


Well thank you, but using an ink pen would make anything I write impossible to read. Al Gore stole my penmanship.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by Logarock
 



In what is now the United States, much if not most of the fighting that took place between white and tribes was done between indians and groups of local settlers. There was hardly any disharmony, say in ohio, that was cused by a third party crashing in. Regular troops didnt get involved as an offical answer by the white governments untill the issue had aready become blown out between the outpost towns and the tribes.

This is not to say that settlers coming into lands granted for service fighting in our early wars did so without regard to what the tribes thought about it.


My comments about 1600's French and Indian relations in Quebec had nothing to do with Ohio's wars.

Nevertheless, I don't think George Rogers Clark, General Josiah Harmar, Governor St. Clair, General Anthony Wayne or William Henry Harrison were what you could call settlers, they led federal troops against Tecumseh's people, not a gaggle of homesteaders.



Thats what I said.

Tecunseh and some of the chiefs really pushed the issue, burning Goodale at the stake and all, killing of all the chiefs that saw their survival in making peace with the whites, dealing with their own that were kindly to the christain missions. Not to mention at some point many of his own started to see Tecumseh as a farce and it was he among others that gave whites no option but to come down hard.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 




Tecunseh and some of the chiefs really pushed the issue, burning Goodale at the stake and all, killing of all the chiefs that saw their survival in making peace with the whites, dealing with their own that were kindly to the christain missions
Logarock I like your avatar picture


I don't know the particulars of how the fights/action went but do you truly think that if he tried to be nice guy the final result would have been different?

Take a look at the post at the top of this link
Good 'ol Tom



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 



Thats what I said.

Tecunseh and some of the chiefs really pushed the issue, burning Goodale at the stake and all, killing of all the chiefs that saw their survival in making peace with the whites, dealing with their own that were kindly to the christain missions. Not to mention at some point many of his own started to see Tecumseh as a farce and it was he among others that gave whites no option but to come down hard.


No, that's not what you said.

Less than 80 years after the constitution was ratified and Tecumseh's Indians had been disposed of, the next generation of generals and federal troops came down hard on WHITE people who had resettled those lands, but who weren't impressed enough, or beholden enough, or passive enough to lick the boots of the self defined rulers in Washington. How many (slaveless) WHITE people were burned at the stake, hung on their front doorsteps, thown into prison, starved to death or burned alive in their own beds throughout that very uncivil war so the feds could maintain power and control? Women and children included.

Justification of what was done to the Indians AND to the white settlers who came after is the real farce. And all that "coming down hard" continues today to people of all nationalities and ethnicities around the world. Some justify it because they think killing others and taking their stuff will improve their own miserable lives. It never does.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by tintin2012
 


Well there are plenty of native tribes still on the home ground east of the Mississippi.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock
reply to post by tintin2012
 


Well there are plenty of native tribes still on the home ground east of the Mississippi.



Unrecognized tribes are organizations of people who claim to be historically, culturally and genetically related to historic Native American Indian tribes but who have not been officially recognized as legitimate indigenous nations by the larger United States federal government or by individual states. The following are groups that claim to be Native American Indians/Aboriginal First Nations by ethnicity, but whose historic and cultural legitimacy are not recognized by either the federal government through the Bureau of Indian Affairs[1] or any state government in the United States, and whose claims here have not been tested.

en.wikipedia.org...

There are 25 unrecognized tribes in your own state of Ohio.


To date, the BIA has rejected 13 recognition applications while approving just eight. Seventy-two other "unrecognized" tribes have been waiting up to 13 years for a decision on whether, in the eyes of the government, they exist. With only 11 staffers reviewing the applications, the BIA won't finish their reviews until well after the year 2000. [Ed. Note: There are over 220 non-recognized tribes today - See Federally Non-Recognized Tribes]

www.manataka.org...

I wonder if anyone knows ~ or cares, how many tribes were here when the first boat landed that simply no longer exist at all.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock
reply to post by tintin2012
 


Well there are plenty of native tribes still on the home ground east of the Mississippi.


How many is "plenty"? Seriously wondering. A thousand individuals? Ten thousand?

CJ



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 02:41 AM
link   
No comment needed




posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 05:24 AM
link   
reply to post by ColoradoJens
 




No quarter was asked or given on either side in this war. After a stubborn resistance the Erie palisade was carried, and the Onondaga, "entered the fort and there wrought such carnage among the women and children that blood was knee-deep in certain places." This was at the town of Riqué, which was defended by between 3,000 and 4,000 combatants, exclusive of women and children, and was assailed by about 1,800 Iroquois. This devastating war lasted until about the close of 1656, when the Erie power was broken and the people were destroyed or dispersed or led into captivity. Six hundred surrendered at one time and were led to the Iroquois country to be adopted as one of the constituent people of the Iroquois tribes. The victory at Riqué was won at a great loss to the Iroquois, who were compelled to remain in the enemy's country two months to care for the wounded and to bury the dead.


Indians loving Indians

This is just one little slice of the truth about one with nature and living at peace with "Mother Earth".



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 05:28 AM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 


Frazz, in another post you said something about Tecumseh and the boys setting around the great lodge fire in the sky laughing. Thier probably crying about not having a casino up there.



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 05:41 AM
link   

Text During 1671-72 the expatriated Hurons, composed largely of the Tionontati and the (Black) Squirrel band of the Ottawa (Sinagos), having perfected preparations, together marched against the Sioux, who were at peace with them. On their way they succeeded in corrupting the Sauk with presents, and the Foxes and Potawatomi also were induced to join the expedition. The united tribes mustered about 1,000 warriors for this raid, nearly all of whom were armed with guns and provided with ammunition which the first two tribes had obtained in Montreal during the previous year. As a precautionary measure they had moved their villages back to Michilimackinac and Manitoulin Island. As soon as this force reached the Sioux country, it fell upon some small villages, putting the men to flight and capturing the women and children. Fugitives soon spread the alarm in all the allied villages of the Sioux, whence issued swarms of warriors who attacked the enemy so vigorously that the latter were forced to abandon a fort which they had commenced to erect and to flee in consternation. The Sioux pursued them so closely that they were enabled to kill many of the fugitives, some of whom threw away their arms to expedite their flight. These losses and those caused by hunger and the rigor of the weather resulted in the practical annihilation of the allies; the Foxes, the Kiskakon, and the Potawatomi, being less inured to the stress of warfare than the others, did not lose many warriors on this occasion, because they fled at the beginning of the combat. The Hurons, the Squirrel band of the Ottawa, and the Sauk, however, distinguished themselves by their courage and prowess, and by their stubborn resistance materially aided the others in making their escape. In the retreat, which was turned to a rout by the furious pursuit of the Sioux, the confusion became so great that many of the fugitives, driven by privation and hunger, were compelled to eat one another. The chief of the Squirrel band of the Ottawa was captured by the Sioux and condemned to torture by fire. They broiled pieces of his flesh and forced him to eat them. He and his brother-in-law, the Sauk chief, were thus fed until their death at the stake. The rest of the prisoners were shot to death with arrows.


More Love and Hormony



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 


I read your links. History, as told by jesuit priests. LOL


1640
Everywhere the Black Robes (Jesuit) go the People say, famine and disease are coming; Some women flee, others hide their children from us; almost all refuse us the hospitality which they grant even to the most unknown tribes. Their host has to position a guard at the door so that no one splits their head. The Jesuit say they know why they are being rejected at every village. They say it is because they forbid the diabolical ceremonies. The prime reason is the Black Robes are deliberately spreading disease among the People in their attempt to baptize dead and dying children.

1641
The Dutch Governor of Manhattan declared a Thanksgiving feast offering thanks for the first Indian scalp bounty. The Thanksgiving feast was expanded to include a bounty for natives fit to be sold into slavery. The Dutch and Puritans then joined forces to exterminate all Native Savages.

Only two Jesuit can speak the barbarian Algonquian language, as they called it, Father (I)-Claude Pisart (1600-1683) and Father (I)-Charles Raymbaut (Raimbaut, Raymbault) (1602-1642). These French followed the Algonquin back to their country in the spring of 1641. These Algonquian People are slow to anger and very tolerant of other people opinion. These Black Robes or [sic] so obnoxious, barbaric and lacking in manners and their lives are threatened.

January 12: James Town, Virginia passed a law that if any Indian commits a crime, the first Indian apprehended must pay the penalty, with his life if necessary.

1642
The Jesuit say the Peoples dance is paying homage to the Devil. They say an infidel, by their vary nature, is possessed by the Devil. It is noteworthy that the Indians had no concept of a Devil until the Jesuits introduced this European belief.

The Jesuit say to be Christian is to give up all the Peoples medicines that have been given to them by God. How quickly the Jesuit forget that this medical knowledge saved the early French colony.


www.agt.net...

Introduce priests, missionaries and zealots to heaven and it would soon be hell.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join