10 days that unexpectantly changed america
 

T

??????

Some of your best work Snowman.

i appreciate the minimalist ethic

if less is more then that's a lot...

The Flower Mound Texas T-ball Championships.

10 days that unexpectantly changed america, a presentaiton of the History Channel. Revisionist history of the Pequot Wars. One of my ggggg grandfathers was Capt John Underhill. He was one of he really bad guys according the history channel presentation. No mention of his later becoming one of the really good guys. In fact the Indians bought him a farm of about 90 acres for their gratitude. Its now the Underhill burying ground on LI.

I did not watch the History Channel, but his popularity certainly depends on if you were a Pequot (whom he and others almost exterminated)...or one of their rival tribes.Mohawk..etc

War is hell...but the winners write the history...
Then the liberals rewrite it again to ensure our country looks bad.

Yep...as we speak.

The far right has some kind of "Constitutional Revisionist Law" going on in Congress. C-span said it has a lot of "God" in it thrown around. If a judge can take a position that "God would have wanted me to rule this way so that's the my position on the law" then that will be a legal ruling.

The NY Univ prof said 18 states are controlled by the far right.

NYU is loaded w/ far left.

I only caught the last 15 minutes of it. I'm just curious, what specifically was rewritten?

I think you're asking me?

The law has God over looking Constitutional interpertitions. I haven't heard anything about it besides that it's in Congress somewhere.

Oh no Ronin, I was talking about the original post. Revisionist to me means it didn't happen that way or something....

I was just wondering what was rewritten......

I'm just happy we found a way to slam liberals in a post that really had little to do with current politics. You must be going after Coulter's position when she finally get's committed.

Looks like the got the last laugh with Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun... MUNDU WIGO WIGWOMUN!

and all Underwood got was a piece of land with some worm food and a bad rap on the History channel - oh ya, he also has some distant relative that spits fire in the general direction of any immigration issue. Some less informed would call him an isolationist or even a racist but I am more informed than that...

I'm going to venture a guess here, but snowman's original post:
was rewritten to:
Not sure how that helps to explain the Pequot wars, but there you have it. My personal opinion, the "T" answer is more succinct and eloquent.

-Z-man, with a feeble attempt at Monday humor! :eek:

The history of white versus indian relationships has been rewritten several times. Up to about 1800, give or take a few years, most of the land obtained by whites from Indians was lawfully gained.

I think the first US president that forcefully took indian land in a major way was Andrew Jackson; the illegal takings began in earnest during the Lincoln dictatorship, and was scaled up during the next two decades. The planned annihilation of the plains indians was largely carried out by those that had murdered hundreds of thousands of Confederate citizens.

Sherman and Sheridan.

We'll know that America has been successfully rid of it's militarized government when these two have been properly recognized as the war criminals that they were, and all honors and recognition withdrawn.

Pat is pretty close to being right on. As to Capt Underhill, the history channel neglects to state that the action he was involved in, called the Pequot wars, was basically a police action. Pequot, according to a Pequot friend of mine, means Warlike. They were basically causing a lot of trouble and the white settlers as well as the Indians in general needed to do something about it. So they did. Both Indian and Europeans lived alike back then. The Indians were not ignorant idiots, they were full participants in the life of the times, they owned , bought, sold land just like the Europeans did.

As the the BS that the euro method of war was worse than the Indian methods think about this for one minute. The Europeans called the Indians Savages. That’s Savage in terms of the 1600's not current terms, which means really really SAVAGE or barbarian. The reason that they did so was due to actual experience not some preconceived idea of what the Indians were. So we have a culture who considers another culture Savage, by standards that are considered savage by today’s standards. To say that the Europeans somehow did something worse than people they considered savages is inconsistent with logic and reality. Those people were considered heroes by their contemporaries and had huge monuments constructed to them by people who knew a whole lot more about them than we do.

Capt Underhill was basically the local sheriff. He was hired by citizens to do police work.

The history channel neglected to state that Capt Underhill later became one of the Indians best friends, consequently they, the Indians of the time, that knew him well gave him about 90 acres of land to acknowledge his contribution to them.

The history channel also forgot that there are at least 2 factions of Pequot’s, only one of which is the True Pequot descendants. Which one is correct, I do not know, but there were many more than the three people the history channel presented. Many of the surviving Pequot’s were sold into slavery, to other Indians. Yes Indians kept slaves to. Others ended up in a reservation. The group that mixed with blacks was not considered to be "pure" as the others.

Search online for "Pequot wars" to find out a lot more info. Also see the Underhill society.org.

An additional fact. Mason and Underhill were very lucky. The Pequot war parties were not at home when they attacked at Mystic; if they had been the outcome would have been far different.

--xenophobic?

Isolationism has nothing whatsoever to do with immigration. Where did you get such a notion, government school?