Real thanksgiving

[Empty Hands]

Go find what Rahm's brother has actually said about health care in the U.S. and tell me, did Beck make it up?

Beck lies, misrepresents, and conspiracy theorizes with nearly every breath. I would sooner trust my parrot's knowledge of political science and history over Beck's. Here is a takedown of Beck's history from a libertarian at Reason magazine, hardly someone opposed to Beck's ideology on principle. Maybe you will listen to him.

Just because someone flatters your ideology doesn't make them right. Do you think Bill Bennett or Irving Kristol (luminaries of the conservative past) would pay the slightest attention to Beck's antics? Follow their infinitely more sound example.

This applies to basically everyone you've indicated you get your information from. You are being misled.

 

[Omar B]

 

[billc]

Aedrasteia, My initial post dealt with Bradford stating that the colonists had an equal share regardless of what their contribution was. I heard this account through Rush and now Stossle, Stossle had an Economist from George Mason University who discussed the Company policy that forced the colonists to the original arrangement. Rush read from Bradfords account of how the amount of productivity increased in the colony once each family was allowed to work their own parcel of land. I have to say, I am not a historian, so my research in this is going to be limited to other people who do the research, and I like to point people to other perspectives they may not have seen or heard before. Yes, socialism of the modern period is not what they knew, but they practiced communal living and suffered for it. Way back when and they learned the hard lesson that from each, according to their abiltiy, to each according to their needs, just doesn't work.

Did you see the Stossle show, it was interesting. The explanation of why the buffalo were slaughtered and why the jungles are being deforested was interesting. The best part was the woman who defended publicly managed parks vs. privately managed parks.

I do not plan on getting my books out to dig into this topic. I do not plan on doing research on the colonies, did enough of that in college, the same for fascism, communism and nazism. For me, this is sitting around and hashing things out. I like Rush, Coulter, Stossle, Levine, Thomas Sowell, Walter williams, I consider them my research staff. I have enjoyed Hayeks works, The Road to Serfdom, and the Constitution of Liberty, and Dinesh D'souza is another great source. Dennis Prager is another great thinker, with lots of wisdom, especially his book "Think a Second Time." He presents a great argument for ethical monotheism, as well as several interesting arguments including a great discussion on the death penalty as well as the evils of pacifism. I have to say your screen name is a handful, had to go back and write it down. Good talking to you.

I also like Mark Levine, I listen to him on my way home from my kali class. He is great as well.

 

[billc]

Well, topic police, everyone else brings things up and I respond. I wouldn't mind starting another thread, but it seemed silly when this one is going so strong, look at the number of views. Let me know, I'll start fresh if you want. Oh, did Rahms brother actually say the things that Beck said he did? Just asking, it would be a good check on Beck. I learned about the Road to Serfdom from both Rush and Walter Williams, the former chair of the economics department of George Mason University. Also, I learned about the great little book by Friedrich Bastiate, "the law" written just when socialism was getting wound up in France. It is a great, short read against taking other peoples property.

 

[Blade96]

But he said he went to many sources like breitbart.com, Rush and Mark Levin! I'm just surprised he also didn't list that well known historian and academic expert Glenn Beck. Must have been a simple oversight.

Oh gosh, I stand corrected, he really does know his history then!

 

[billc]

Empty hands, Beck interviews Bennet on his radio show, you could yahoo Beck and Bennet. It is at Becks website.

 

[elder999]

. I'm curious, how does the fact that the primitive shelters kept out water disprove anything I pointed out.

Alone it doesn't. Convenient how you ignored that Stossel and Rush had the wrong "Thanksgiving," pretty much disproving everything in your original post. It does point out that what you're calling "technologically inferior" or "superior" isn't necessarily inferior or superior at all-merely different.

. Do you still live in the teepee? Probably not.

Boy, did you ask the wrong guy! I have three tepees. One was kept outside of our old house in the Jemez, and yes, it pretty much continued to function as our bedroom-in spite of having a rather decent master suite in the house. We like sleeping outside-these days, we sleep on the patio I built at our new (hopefully temporary) home. I also regularly attend or run ceremonies in a tepee-those last all night long, so, while I'm not getting any sleep, I'm still in there for a great deal of time. The smallest tepee is used for camping-especially if I'm attending a Sundance-some people are looking for it to know that I'm there.

.
Did shelters that kept out water prove a definitive advantage over a written language, superior metal working skills, gunpowder, the wheel...

Well, what "advantage" did a written language offer the Pilgrims, or other early colonists? Do you have any idea how the Indians transmitted information at that time, in order to compare? WHile only a few Indian cultures had a written language, and one Cherokee-Sequoyah- saw the advantage of it and invented one, the Indians had methods of communication that were just as rapid or more so than the colonists, and traditions fo maintianing oral histories that were as accurate as writing.

While the advantages of metal working might be readily apparent, anyone who has handled an obsidian knife-which some primitive societies used to remove cataracts, so they're remarkably sharp-or worked with one made of horn or other stone will tell you that there's very little that can be accomplished with a metal knife over a good stone one. Axes, of course, were another story.....

As for gunpowder, and guns themselves, this is vastly overrated, especially considering the time period. Have you ever fired a matchlock musket? I have-they're impressively loud and smokey, long to reload and fire, and not very accurate. The bow and arrow, on the other hand, was accurate within the same range, easy to reload and fire repeatedly, and easy to reproduce.Firearms didn't really become much of an advantage for more than 200 years, with the advent of longer range and repeating rifles in the mid to late 19th century.By the time of King Phillip's war, there were close to 80000 colonists in New England, compared to around 10000 Indians-it was this, that the Europeans kept coming, and coming, and coming, and quickly outnumbered the Natives-as well as the Indians' reluctance to completely destroy villages-whatever their brutal procilivities towards fallen enemies-as their European counterparts did, that led time and again to the Indians' defeat. A clash of cultures, not technologies.

As for the wheel-again, not much of an advantage where there were no roads, and only a marginal one where there were roads at that.

As for the cooperative compact of the Pilgrims, it was not unlike the way alot of other villages subsisted. That it wasn't successful has more to do with the weather, and the Pilgrims' general ineptitude. Bradford writes of their successful season in 1623-a full three years after their arrival, and two after the feast that is known as the "first Thanksgiving," also being due to the weather.

And, of course, they'd learned European planting methods by that point.......from an Indian. :lfao:

 

[billc]

I almost forgot one of my favorite radio guys, hugh hewitt, a constitutional law professor who also has a law practice that helps to protect people from the abuses of endangered species laws. Great knowledge and wisdom.

 

[granfire]

I almost forgot one of my favorite radio guys, hugh hewitt, a constitutional law professor who also has a law practice that helps to protect people from the abuses of endangered species laws. Great knowledge and wisdom.

what?

Dude, What ever it is you are drinking and smoking....it ain't good for you...

 

[Omar B]

I like chicks with long legs.

Since we are randomly saying stuff.

 

[billc]

Elder 999, the technology of the sail, ships, navigation were what I tried debating with my history professor, it is good that you caught that little bit of technology. Had the early native americans had their own navy things would have been completely different back then. Rush and Stossle are still right, the communal nature of the settlement was killing them. Supply ships took months to make that crossing, when they were able to get there in the first place. The giving each family a parcel of land for their own use saved the settlers. You need food to feed 80,000 people. I also remember an account, I'm not sure if my professor mentioned it or if it was in our reading samples, when the colonists and early native americans were comparing weapons. The natives showed how quickly they could use their bows, vs. the slower weapons of the colonists. However, the colonists placed a metal breast plate on a tree. The natives shot at it only to have their arrows bounce off. The natives were then said to have picked up their gear and left in a huff.
The technological advantage of the Europeans eventually won the day, that's all. They brought more people, their tech improved and the early native americans were pushed out because they couldn't compete. It happens.

You might want to check out the book, "War before civillization," because the early peoples were just as savage as the europeans. Also look at the book, " why we fight," Iwould quote from the books but I just lent them to a friend. It was interesting that archeologists have had a blind eye when it comes to the way early peoples fought with each other and used up their resources. One of the thoughts in War Before... is that more advanced millitaries often need to adopt the tactics of less tech sophisticated enemies, colonists who had to fight off indian raids adopted their tactics, Rogers Rangers and such and then used those skills to fight the British Army. Part of the reason is that the natives could fade away and didn't have population centers like those in Europe. But, the natives would eventually lose because the more advanced millitary had the supply base to attack the natives in the middle of winter, giving the natives no time to recoup their personel and supply losses. Something along those lines anyway, I need the book to be more exact.

 

[elder999]

I like chicks with long legs.

Since we are randomly saying stuff.

I like pie. :lfao:

 

[Omar B]

Elder 999, the technology of the sail, ships, navigation were what I tried debating with my history professor, it is good that you caught that little bit of technology. Had the early native americans had their own navy things would have been completely different back then. Rush and Stossle are still right, the communal nature of the settlement was killing them. Supply ships took months to make that crossing, when they were able to get there in the first place. The giving each family a parcel of land for their own use saved the settlers. You need food to feed 80,000 people. I also remember an account, I'm not sure if my professor mentioned it or if it was in our reading samples, when the colonists and early native americans were comparing weapons. The natives showed how quickly they could use their bows, vs. the slower weapons of the colonists. However, the colonists placed a metal breast plate on a tree. The natives shot at it only to have their arrows bounce off. The natives were then said to have picked up their gear and left in a huff.
The technological advantage of the Europeans eventually won the day, that's all. They brought more people, their tech improved and the early native americans were pushed out because they couldn't compete. It happens.

You might want to check out the book, "War before civillization," because the early peoples were just as savage as the europeans. Also look at the book, " why we fight," Iwould quote from the books but I just lent them to a friend. It was interesting that archeologists have had a blind eye when it comes to the way early peoples fought with each other and used up their resources. One of the thoughts in War Before... is that more advanced millitaries often need to adopt the tactics of less tech sophisticated enemies, colonists who had to fight off indian raids adopted their tactics, Rogers Rangers and such and then used those skills to fight the British Army. Part of the reason is that the natives could fade away and didn't have population centers like those in Europe. But, the natives would eventually lose because the more advanced millitary had the supply base to attack the natives in the middle of winter, giving the natives no time to recoup their personel and supply losses. Something along those lines anyway, I need the book to be more exact.

Who needs a Navy when you have everything you need right there? Besides, the Arawak Indians of Jamaica expanded outwards as far as Florida and Brazil as well as every island within the Caribbean.

How was their communal nature killing them? You keep saying it but not pointing to actual proof.

Yeah, giving other people's land.

Numbers won the day, if it was technology then they would have all been wiped out then, last I checked they are still around ... Hey how ya doin' Elder?

You mean like every other society? Oh how recently were we fighting a war for oil.

Ever heard that there's no resistance tougher than an indigenous population?

 

[Blade96]

The sun will die in 5 billion years.

 

[Omar B]

The sun will die in 5 billion years.

My kicks are f-ing devastating.

 

[elder999]

.

Numbers won the day, if it was technology then they would have all been wiped out then, last I checked they are still around ... Hey how ya doin' Elder?

Doin' good. They don't come much more technological than me. :lfao:

 

[Omar B]

I wanna eat that bear in your avatar.

 

[elder999]

I wanna eat that bear in your avatar.

Dude.

You should look here. A while ago, Danny-the man who facilitated my vision quest-was introducing me to a Mexican fellow. The Mexican guy asked my name, and Danny said "el Oso." At which point, the Mexican asked, ¿Qué clase de oso es él?-"What sort of bear is he?"- and Danny replied, el Oso de Dios, or " the bear of God."

That's how we get names around this stuff, and how I wound up with that one.

You don't wanna eat that bear. :lol:

(Okay-ultra tech and ultra primitive,hence another name" walks in both worlds. :lol: )

Except for this time of year, bear pretty much tastes like crap, anyway....:lfao:

 

[granfire]

Pass that pipe that's circulating, this is turning into surreal theater...

 

[Omar B]

Dude.
You should look here. A while ago, Danny-the man who facilitated my vision quest-was introducing me to a Mexican fellow. The Mexican guy asked my name, and Danny said "el Oso." At which point, the Mexican asked, ¿Qué clase de oso es él?-"What sort of bear is he?"- and Danny replied, el Oso de Dios, or " the bear of God."
That's how we get names around this stuff, and how I wound up with that one.
You don't wanna eat that bear. :lol:
(Okay-ultra tech and ultra primitive,hence another name" walks in both worlds. :lol: )
Except for this time of year, bear pretty much tastes like crap, anyway....:lfao:

I've got some Russian friends who are really into bear. Only thing is you can't buy the meat in stores here. I've already got a trip to Russia planned for 2018, but if I don't make it sooner I'm coming after that avatar man!