Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #41059
    Profile photo of MountainBiker
    MountainBiker
    Survivalist
    member10

    I read a newspaper article this morning about a now annual commemoration of the 1676 Falls Massacre in what is now Gill, MA. It was a massacre for sure, but the # of dead seems to keep growing and no one dares counter them on it. It’s not like there is new data emerging to change the count several centuries later. One of my wife’s ancestors died in the battle. What irritates me is that there is not one word in the article about what prompted the attack. The English in Deerfield had suffered a devastating attack by that same tribe the prior autumn in 1675. For more than 3 centuries it was known as the Bloody Brook Massacre. The English suffered a 94% fatality rate. A couple prisoners were tortured and then burned at the stake. My wife’s many times great grandfather was one of the few survivors of that attack. The atrocity that happened in 1676 was in direct retaliation for the atrocity that happened in 1675. The only difference is that whereas in 1675 the English lost, in 1676 they won. The Falls Massacre is still known as the Falls Massacre. However, the politically correct white apologists have renamed the Bloody Brook Massacre the Battle at Bloody Brook. I’m sure they’d have dropped the Bloody Brook part altogether if they could but the little stream where the attack occurred is in fact Bloody Brook on account the stream ran red with blood during the 1675 attack. There is a mass grave there still.

    I am left wondering what the kids are being taught these days about the events of 1675 and 1676. If the newspaper dares not give the full story, are the schools? Deerfield itself likely still tells the story, even if passed through a politically correct filter, because in the village of South Deerfield there is no avoiding the monument commemorating the dead nor the mass grave marker, the stream Bloody Brook itself as well as a couple associated street names, but outside of Deerfield I wonder if the kids are learning anything about 1675? They surely are being taught about 1676.

    Rest assured that given the family roots in Deerfield, my grandchildren will learn the full story of both 1675 & 1676, but few modern day people really care anymore,and so the politically correct are free to rewrite history. The 1704 Deerfield Massacre in which several of my wife’s relatives died and her 11 year old many times great grandmother was taken prisoner back to Canada, never to return, has similarly been renamed to the Raid on Deerfield on account most of the dead women, babies, and such were the English residents attacked during the night. The term massacre can now only be used when the English won the fight.

    The victors get to write the history and currently that means the politically correct.

    #41062
    Malgus
    Malgus
    Survivalist
    member8

    MB,

    I have run into history being rewritten and have argued vehemently and passionately against it.

    North America was the site of a full-on, no holds barred race war for control of the continent between the Indians and the Europeans from the time of Virginia Dare till the closing of the frontier in 1890 – a period of almost 400 years, exactly.

    Indians – I refuse to call them “Native Americans” since there is proof that European settlements in North America predated those of the Mongolians that crossed the Alaskan land bridge and filtered down into the continent – were committing atrocities against each other for thousands of years prior to the “formal” arrival of Euros. To include slavery, genocide and cannibalism. It’s not spoken of, because it does not fit with the victimhood narrative that “Native Americans” were all peacefully sitting around, communing with nature and smoking sh*^, when Big Bad Whitey showed up and started beating up on them…

    The sad truth is that cultures clash, and the more dissimilar and distant those cultures are, the more violently they clash. Atrocities piled on top of one another in retaliation to previous atrocities piled on top of one another… in the war for North America, nobody has clean hands. But, modern practice is to rewrite it to exonerate the Indians and blame Whitey for everything.

    It is good that you argue against it. Do not let them rewrite history with no opposition. If nothing else, teach the truth to your own children, and have them teach their children. That’s how we win – we arm and armor our children with truth before the brainwashing b-stards get ahold of them… teach them to ask the hard and awkward questions, make the brainwashing thugs prove what they’re saying is truth (which is always fun, since they cannot. Their “truth” is invented. A fiction. Therefore, it is unprovable and indefensible).

    Rage against the dying of the light, my friend…

    The wicked flee when none pursueth..." - Proverbs 28:1

    #41069
    Profile photo of 74
    74
    Survivalist
    rnews

    MtB, I hope you will send a copy of your post to several of the area news papers for publication in the opinion section.

    Chiming in on Malgus’s post, where he has astutely pointed out that the American natives were brutal to each other and everyone else including the Europeans. An excellent book written about Red Cloud, a Lakota Sioux chief discribes the horrible painful acts committed against anyone not of their tribe. Anothe work the writing of Samuel Champlain give a first hand account of the Iroquois and Huron indians and are well worth the read for anyone interested in the actual conditions in the US circa 1600.

    #41070
    Profile photo of sledjockey
    sledjockey
    Bushcrafter
    member8

    Don’t think that just the history from that time is being rewritten. My kids were taught that the only reason the American Civil War was fought was because of slavery. There was no mention of anything else. When I pulled out the CSA petitions to English Parliament (available for download via Google since it is over 100 years old) that spelled out all their grievances, they flat acknowledged that slavery was only needed because of illegal taxation and tariffs imposed by Northern manufacturing and textile factories. Not that slavery wasn’t a horrible thing, but there was MUCH more to the secession than just slavery.

    The same school also said that the reason people don’t see a lot of Native Americans running around is because they are all “drunk on their reservations and casinos.” I put it in quotes because that is exactly what the history teacher said in class for both my kids (2 years apart).

    How about the idiots teaching kids that Paul Revere rode around yelling, “The British are coming!” All the population were British…. In his account he declared that the “Regulars” or “red coats” are coming depending on the source.

    Try reading a history book published before 1920. It reads like a totally different account of what we were taught.

    http://ageofdecadence.com

    #41072
    Profile photo of MountainBiker
    MountainBiker
    Survivalist
    member10

    An ancestor of mine gets beat up these days for his role in the Pequot War in 1637. That the Narragansett and Mohegan Indians helped the English defeat their common enemy the Pequots doesn’t matter to the politically correct. Only the English were the bad guys. The Narragansetts and Mohegans get a pass.

    In the march to Quebec following the Feb. 1704 Deerfield Massacre ( I refuse to use the new name Raid on Deerfield because it was a massacre), captives who couldn’t keep up trudging through the snow were killed by the Indians. Eunice Williams, wife of the minister and weak from recent childbirth, was one of those killed with a hatchet 10 miles or so into the march. The modern day apologists accept that the Indians couldn’t slow for stragglers what was a 2 month 200+ mile march. There was another option available to the Indians however. They could have let her return home but the politically correct never offer that there were options other than killing her. In one modern day account I read it simply says Eunice didn’t survive the march to Quebec. That is technically correct but it allows the reader to reach an incorrect conclusion as to why she didn’t survive the march. It is the small subtle changes like that that slowly rewrites history.

    These are things where I know the actual history very well, but I am left wondering how much rewritten history am I getting elsewhere where I don’t realize that what I’m getting is a rewrite?

    #41080
    Profile photo of matt76
    matt76
    Survivalist
    member8

    Sled,
    could you possibly post a link to those petitions. All I can seem to find is rules for petitioning parlement. Thanks.

    #41081
    Whirlibird
    Whirlibird
    Survivalist
    member10

    Hmm, my previous response has vanished into the nethersphere.

    Sled, I agree and had posted an interesting quote from Lincoln himself that gives quite a bit of insight into the great emancipator.

    It is certainly not taught in the schools, and I had to drag it out as well as a few others to show my eldest during one particular history lesson, they spend almost no time on real history anymore.

    Here goes again.

    “I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.”by:Abraham Lincoln(1809-1865)

    16th US PresidentSource:Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858(The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, pp. 145-146.)

    #41083
    Profile photo of sledjockey
    sledjockey
    Bushcrafter
    member8

    Matt:

    You have to download the transcripts of the arguments to British Parliament from around July 1862 to September 1864. If you look for arguments from the summer of 1859 you can also see the initial request for assistance due to the illegal taxations. I will try to download the archives from my Nook that I got from Google and post them up. There are MANY volumes. There are also several interesting trade issues that were discussed regarding piracy during that period.

    http://ageofdecadence.com

    #41084
    Profile photo of 74
    74
    Survivalist
    rnews

    Our civil war was about money. States rights, slavery, and taxes in this circumstance only manifestations of wealth and how it is made and circulated.

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.