Thursday, November 27, 2014

The True Story of Thanksgiving

An oldie but goodie on Vault-Co.

The reason the early colonists nearly starved to death is that they attempted to run the colony as a communist collective. No sooper seekret magic injuns showed the colonists how to "plant corn." Europe had been continuously innovating in agriculture for centuries before a single colonist set foot in Amerikwa. They were well aware of methods for growing corn beyond the wildest dreams of the indians and their subsistence paleolithic practices. When this fairy tale is supposed to have happened of a fantasy love-in feast between indians and colonists, in reality my ancestors were fighting at Blakemore's fort in Virginia against huge hordes of cannibal savages who didn't have any idea of territorial boundaries - they were simply hungry for some white meat at the end of November. These noble savages who were said to have mystical knowledge of the earth didn't even pause at killing babies and women they were able to catch alone. They had no knowledge of mercy, honor, kindness or friendship, viewing all of these as forms of weakness. Less DANCING WITH WOLVES and more BLACK ROBE.

In the early 1920's, anthropologists tried to blame the indians on Neanderthals as was fashionable back then whenever you needed a stooge to frame for some crime you found in the fossils. DNA sequencing has shown that the North American indians were pure, undiluted Cro-Magnons in their origins, which explains so much. In the Indians you see the Cro-Magnons without a huge army of Neanderthal slaves at their beck and call. That's how far they would progress in technology. Simple hunting and gathering with fighting in-between forever.


Sam said...

Before disease killed off the Native Americans they had large villages and advanced agriculture. As good as Europe? We don't know they died off in absolutely horrendous numbers. There's a large mound near my house. It's really big and at one time had a huge village run by a giant Indian around 8 feet tall.

In the Amazon a Spanish explorer saw millions of people on the banks. 200 years later only jungle was left. We just now learning about the tremendously rich soil they made called Terra preta. After their society broke down they did become hunter gatherers but before we know much less about them.

dé bile said...

Your 19th century history book is starting to be outdated.

I enjoy reading your blog sometimes but you shouldn't have so many certitudes when your studying of this particular subject is obviously not rigorous and barely factual.

The same way you still refer to Dark Ages when speaking of the Medieval era. Though this one is a prejudice that outlived the Victorian age right into the 21th as far as the average ''education'' is concerned.

Are you a Calvinist?

Texas Arcane said...

@De Bile

I can even go you one better on Orwellian new-think gibberish. You're supposed to be using Common Era time, not old fashioned capitalist centuries.

Even the people who lived at the time including scribes called it the Dark Ages.

Are you enforcing historical conventions or speech? Do you even know any more?

Texas Arcane said...

@De Bile

I recommend THE INVENTED INDIAN, it's excellent.

I love it best when academics discredit eyewitnesses who actually fought hand-to-hand with Indians, like my ancestors who had a fort in Virginia named after them that fell to indian attacks and is now a historical landmark. "Your ancestors were all messed up and should not have done stuff instead of sitting around sipping cappuccinos the way we do."

dé bile said...

''Even the people who lived at the time including scribes called it the Dark Ages.''

Every authors were calling it ''dark ages'' ?

Which authors are we speaking of? Which century? Which part of Europe?

''Are you enforcing historical conventions or speech? Do you even know any more?''

You are being fairly myopic. I am stating that the Medieval era is not at all deserving of being called the Dark Ages as far as Western Europe is concerned. It's a period that produced after all the cathedrals, at it's height.

Beyond that my point is that you are spewing outdated theories which were developed mostly in the 19th century with little hard evidence and many biased accounts.

The natives were not cannibalistic savages incapable of composure, dialogues and thoughts. As sam said and as archeology proved it in recent years, they had sophisticated societies.

You have an Anglo-Saxon bias. The relations the British settlers had with the natives were mostly hostile, unlike the French who relied a lot more on peaceful agreements and cohabitation with them.

Have you even met pure blooded native Americans? I assume in Texas there's not too much of them.

What's your opinion on the Southern American natives?

dé bile said...

"I love it best when academics discredit eyewitnesses who actually fought hand-to-hand with Indians, like my ancestors who had a fort in Virginia named after them that fell to indian attacks and is now a historical landmark"

Being in the academic system myself I know it isn't without flaw, even in Physics.

I wouldn't mind reading these accounts, however I am aware that many of them are in fact biased and discredited for this legitimate reason, when more tangible proofs exist.

I know that a small bunch of my ancestors had no problem trading and negotiating with them. I also know from my experience with their descendants that they can be more civilized than the literal wreckages that were my other neighbors.

Texas Arcane said...

@De Bile

Discredited? First hand accounts?

dé bile said...

Yes? Is this an odd idea?

An example.

Various members of Tribe A give an account of being attacked by a ravenous tribe B out to drink their blood.

1. Distortion of facts, tribe B is not cannibal. It is trying to kill A, not eat them.

2. Omission of facts. Tribe A raided B's village before.

This is not what necessarily happened in our case but just a simple example as to why eyewitness accounts must be taken with a grain of salt if nothing else backs it up.
Stories were sometimes consciously distorted to fit in a quasi mythical narrative, which was even more true for the ultra religious rejects that were sent in North America.

Then there's also the possibility that this was an isolated, particularly vicious tribe. As I mentioned, the French had no problem engaging peacefully with the natives and the descendants I've met did not strike me as particularly notable though it depends on the community.

Sam said...

What they had before and what they were like after their society collapsed from disease were two different things. There was a hundred years or more between first contact and the time Whites started moving in large numbers to America. The first contact spread disease well before Europeans ever got to the inland areas. By this time they had gone back to hunter gatherer stage mostly. Not that they didn't plant crops or have settlements but they were small. A lot of tribes just hunted nomadicly within their territory. If anyone moved into their hunting territory moved in they were extremely brutal.

Even before Europeans got there they were brutal. Worshiping gods by ripping peoples hearts out and eating them is brutal in my opinion.

On another note some these captchas are tough. Sometimes I have to hit the change button three or four times. I have no doubt that as computers get smarter the captchas will be so tough only computers will be able to read them and humans will not be allowed to comment at all. We'll just have to read what the computers are talking about. I sure most of the computer talk on forums will be about "how humans are so inferior and how they should be done away with".

Texas Arcane said...

@De Bile

No sooner had the French made contact with them than they began to pay those indians to take scalps.

As for quasi-mythical narratives, you mean the one about the noble savage? A fantasy. Never happened.

Texas Arcane said...

@De Bile

Samuel Clemens was always amused when he would get back from the frontier and hear the stories the women were telling in the big cities about the indians. He said the real indians themselves would have been amazed to hear these wild tales. The truth is that they were short, brutish cannibals who were left from countless thousands of years of killing each other off.

Texas Arcane said...


Those societies were run by melonheads. The Indians said as much themselves many times. The Ti-Que-Ta red haired giants had built all those mounds and pyramids and I don't doubt they used the indians as slave labor to do it.

dé bile said...

No sooner had the French made contact with them than they began to pay those indians to take scalps.''

And standard trade agreements. And conversions. And coupling relatively freely with them giving birth to a mixed people.

If these were the pure blooded half humans you describe none of this would have been even remotely possible. It wasn't always all bright and there were still occasional conflicts. Yet, the Europeans were no strangers to butchering each others for nonsensical reasons.

''As for quasi-mythical narratives, you mean the one about the noble savage? A fantasy. Never happened.''

There's only few actual tribes in the world who ever came close to the noble savage.
Noble savage was ironically used mostly to describe the old Celtic and Germanic tribes. When it became painfully apparent to the elite that they were not descended from a mythical Trojan tribe they came up with this idea to make themselves feel better.

The quasi mythical narrative I referred to is an habit found around the world amongst the more religious elements. Accounts become distorted, influenced by their own mythology and rituals.

dé bile said...

"The Ti-Que-Ta red haired giants had built all those mounds and pyramids and I don't doubt they used the indians as slave labor to do it."

It's an interesting theory.

Are you going to compile all these facts, findings and your own pet theories on this Third Race at some point?

Texas Arcane said...

@De Bile

My theory came from the Indians themselves.

In North America, they said a race of white red haired giants had built all the burial mounds and cities that were there before.

In South America, they said everything was taught them by Quetzocoatl, a white red haired giant who came across the sea in a reed boat. They said he had taught them how to do these things and had forbade them to eat human flesh. No more ruler, cannibalism started up again.

dé bile said...

Wouldn't Quetzocoatl concern only the Aztecs?

As far as I know the Aztecs were newcomers, rather barbaric, from the North.

I did hear, and it is my belief from my own observations, that there is a clear ethnic difference between the North American natives, and the South American ones. And the border is around Yucatan, where the Aztecs stopped.

The Aztecs would also sacrifice in the thousands each years, at a pace unmatched by any other people I have knowledge of. Whereas the Mayas would do so with much less frequency, and the Incas even less so.
I'm also inclined to believe the Aztecs cleansed the previous ethnicities trough these sacrifices.

In short, unless there is more, it seems those red haired giants would only concern the North Americans, which included the Aztecs, and not the southern Americans Empires and city states.

I did hear other stories about fair people in south America though.

What do you make of that?

Texas Arcane said...

@De Bile

Si-Te-Ca, another word for the red haired giants, is sometimes used as Saiduka, which is amazingly similar to the Chinese word for "mythical people who live under the sea."

The Paiutes referred to them as "tyrants" with the word "Say-do-carah" meaning "the tyrants who rule from their great reed boats on the waters." Historians assumed they meant the red hair giants lived on rafts in the lakes but this is arbitrary, it might as just as well meant "an island on the oceans." Remember, all these legends always end up at Atlantis. Every one of them.

dé bile said...

Would there have been several previous, Boskopoids ruled civilizations on now sunken landmasses?

You talked in other posts of Riders such as the Hyksos or Khazars. The people you describe intrigues me very much as it does bear element of similarities with what I would read in older used books on the matter of Antique ruins and societies.

Would it be possible for you to clarify in a future blog post, what of the fate of this race, and the traces it left all across the world ?

Texas Arcane said...

@De Bile

Really good book here if you want to see a ton of information linking red haired giants and Atlantis :

Texas Arcane said...

@De Bile

Mainstream historians classify the Hyksos, Scythians and Khazars as descended from former rulers of Sumeria and Akkadia who were deposed in a slave revolt.

Not mainstream but pretty interesting are Sumerian texts describing the revolt of the "Lulus," the manufactured slave classes, against their own makers, driving them from Sumeria.

Herman said...

World myths are similar all across the board. Red headed Giants/annunaki servants of the gods. Even some African tribes have a Thunder God with a chariot pulled by goats. All cultures have a flood myth. Gothenburg reversal? The exception I think would be the Dan (who fought off those bastard fomorians/femulre to the Inuit) although I see some Norse correlations. Also injuns would regularly watch the homestead my family settled to wait for the men to leave, as soon as that happened all the food would disappear. Maybe quetzecoatl was Osiris or manu

Sam said...

"...Those societies were run by melonheads..."

I don't doubt it although I don't have exact evidence of such.

One major note it was Europeans that built large sailing ships that came to America. Not the other way around.

There's a decent sci-fi book I read where Columbus was told by God, in reality time travelers, to go to America. In the time travelers history the Indians came to Europe and a reign of cannibalistic terror happened. They wished to stop it.