Upload
Login or register
x

makes sense

aua.. ppy 1). ution. mll I'. en. beide Day'. This Thanksgiving, Remember
America' s Pilgrims Were Refugees,
an an an rif, i . II I Too
Enigma n
ad mine abos, ", that ad tke
Zuni in he my fastboy ha; 'dammet* 1
In wheel he in in sucke
hitller , casa hamertime
and a oracle elf trom .
aches, mid! it new u.
In an I Tia an The Elk llvk Fin" pull: . me
In hm In an all Agni. I In " 1113- ! In "ere" "har I! -pry assgots
in nub. trc are hairdo
...
+1297
Views: 36106
Favorited: 113
Submitted: 11/27/2015
Share On Facebook
submit to reddit +Favorite Subscribe to cheastnut

Comments(158):

Leave a comment Refresh Comments Show GIFs
12>
[ 158 comments ]
Top Rated Controversial Best Lowest Rated Newest
Anonymous comments allowed.
145 comments displayed.
Reply
+102
#5 - bigmanblue ONLINE (11/27/2015) [-]
the american pilgrims were not refugees, they werent fleeing any war or anything.
they went to america because they thought that england and other european countries werent strict ENOUGH
Reply
+4
User avatar #8 to #5 - vbss (11/27/2015) [-]
and they forget we made north america from a ******* forest to what is know. AND they natives sold their land for plates to use
Reply
+2
User avatar #29 to #5 - vorarephilia (11/27/2015) [-]
wasn't that what the Catholics said about puritians to characterize all protestants as being bad?
Reply
+4
#141 to #5 - anon (11/28/2015) [-]
Protip:
Filth arriving at europe aren't refugees either - refugees are coming to the closest neighbouring country, not the one with highest social benefits with people and culture that you abhor
Reply
+4
User avatar #11 to #5 - icefried (11/27/2015) [-]
I vaguely remember someone being thrown out a window and the pope wanting to kill them all.
Reply
+2
#53 to #11 - anon (11/28/2015) [-]
You're thinking of the defenestration of Wurms. That's from the Protestant Reformation, and has little to nothing to do with the pilgrims. The Pope didn't give a **** about the puritans (pilgrims), and the pilgrims openly hated the pope due them being Protestants.
Reply
+2
User avatar #101 to #53 - recoveryone ONLINE (11/28/2015) [-]
>Defenestration

******* love that word, literally defined as "The act of someone being thrown out of a window."
Reply
+8
#121 to #5 - anon (11/28/2015) [-]
Reply
+9
#114 to #5 - anon (11/28/2015) [-]
This is very incorrect. The first settlers came to flee from persecution. Not sure why you're getting green thumbs.
Reply
0
User avatar #156 to #114 - rockerforlife (11/28/2015) [-]
because most of FJ's filled with right-wing 12 year olds that don't know anything about history or politics
Reply
+12
User avatar #88 to #5 - rockerforlife (11/28/2015) [-]
what?

they were fleeing religious persecution in England.

The church of England was all "oy m8 you cant be practicing that puritan **** here"
Reply
+3
#139 to #88 - masaasa (11/28/2015) [-]
This excactly. In 1555 Augsburg peace began the "Quius regio, eius religio". Meaning that a country's king/queen determined which religion the whole country followed. Puritans and other reformists such as Calvinists were without a country to stay in. Most went to Netherlands which was the safest place to be. But when the opportunity to go overseas arised they took it and went to what is now the USA.
Reply
+1
#103 to #88 - anon (11/28/2015) [-]
this

Reply
+41
#38 to #5 - anon (11/28/2015) [-]
Ummm...there was this whole religious persecution thing. Jesus, dude. Common core, huh?
Reply
+58
User avatar #15 to #5 - nought (11/27/2015) [-]
that is misleading, they wanted religious freedom
a portion of the practicing were Puritan but some weren't
Reply
-31
#17 to #15 - bigmanblue ONLINE (11/27/2015) [-]
they had religious freedom in eurpoe. they left because they wanted the "freedom" to persecute as their particular strain of christianity desired
Reply
+31
User avatar #46 to #17 - quantumranger (11/28/2015) [-]
This is you. "they had religious freedom, they just couldn't practice the religion they wanted"
Reply
+8
User avatar #37 to #17 - thepizzadevourer (11/28/2015) [-]
And your evidence for this is . . . ?
Reply
-12
User avatar #28 to #17 - nimba (11/27/2015) [-]
woah it's like the religious ethos in the US is still exactly the same 'RELIGIOUS FREEDOM so that we may continue to keep freedom from others'
Reply
0
#143 to #28 - anon (11/28/2015) [-]
woah it's like you're a know it all cunt that doesn't actually know anything.
Reply
+5
User avatar #2 - peanutsaurusrex (11/27/2015) [-]
its just

fake yo
like why
Reply
+4
User avatar #6 to #2 - ezzay (11/27/2015) [-]
your dick is fake.
Reply
+5
#7 to #2 - anon (11/27/2015) [-]
**anonymous used "*roll picture*"**
**anonymous rolled image**
Reply
+1
#150 to #24 - anon (11/28/2015) [-]
When i was young i had a nightmare about floating mouths that were eating people. No head no both no nothing, just floating mouths.
Reply
0
#154 to #150 - alfrsa (11/28/2015) [-]
That's ******* terrifying
Reply
0
#151 to #150 - anon (11/28/2015) [-]
Body, not both.
Reply
-4
User avatar #27 - platinumaltaria (11/27/2015) [-]
Except a tiny minority of syrian immigrants are actually extremists... But other than that cool.
Reply
+6
#54 to #27 - autoxx (11/28/2015) [-]
Over 40% according to germany
Reply
-5
User avatar #56 to #54 - platinumaltaria (11/28/2015) [-]
Those questions were highly unfair, not to mention ridiculous. And none of them amounted to "So are you a member of isis then?"
Reply
+11
#57 to #56 - autoxx (11/28/2015) [-]
Would you answer truthfully if YOU were?
Reply
-2
User avatar #59 to #57 - platinumaltaria (11/28/2015) [-]
Well no, which begs the question why would anyone think a survey was valid?
Reply
+4
#61 to #59 - autoxx (11/28/2015) [-]
It's why we're only letting women and families into Canada. (I still don't agree with accepting ANY when our economy is already struggling and this will cost over 1.6 BILLION.)
I think the whole thing is ******** .
Germany has a population of 80 million, they want to add 2 million a year.
This is cultural genocide and their politicians are okay with it?
What the **** ? Over.
Reply
-3
User avatar #62 to #61 - platinumaltaria (11/28/2015) [-]
Migrant workers improve an economy...

Cultural genocide? Hardly. 99% of refugees are in turkey, only a tiny proportion go to work elsewhere.
Reply
+6
#80 to #62 - figatron (11/28/2015) [-]
Migrant workers can only improve an economy when there is a labor shortage. In America there is most certaintly not as labor participation is at all time lows
Reply
+2
#63 to #62 - autoxx (11/28/2015) [-]
Sweden has already embarked on their long walk into this goodnight. Prime example of what I'm talking about.
SOME migrant workers improve an economy, Haitian immigrants for example have a near 100% welfare and/or crime path.
But at least they don't have black rings around their lips from blowing up busses.
Reply
-3
User avatar #64 to #63 - platinumaltaria (11/28/2015) [-]
Ok kid, calm down, I think you've injected one too many fox news.
Reply
+2
#66 to #64 - autoxx (11/28/2015) [-]
Never watch mass media.
Canadian too, I don't get that **** up here.
Pull your head out of the sand buddy. I can see the ******* from here in my igloo
Reply
-3
User avatar #67 to #66 - platinumaltaria (11/28/2015) [-]
I live in the UK, your view of multiculturalism is laughable.
Reply
+2
#68 to #67 - autoxx (11/28/2015) [-]
Enjoy your new shariah law.
Reply
-2
User avatar #69 to #68 - platinumaltaria (11/28/2015) [-]
Our population is 5% muslim.
Reply
+2
#70 to #69 - autoxx (11/28/2015) [-]
And you already have 3 points of shariah law in place.
What happens when they are the voting majority?
You gon' be fukd.
Reply
-3
User avatar #71 to #70 - platinumaltaria (11/28/2015) [-]
No we ******* don't xD Don't know who your source is but they lied.
They are never going to be the ******* majority because they are 5% ******* percent! Do you think all the white people are going to vanish overnight?
Reply
+3
#73 to #71 - autoxx (11/28/2015) [-]
No, generally takes a few generations to breed you out.
Muhammed is the most common name in britain already.
Whites have 1.2kids on average.
Muzzies have >8 on average.
Muzzies breeding like flies back home still flooding in.
How are you not seeing this?
Sweden has made it illegal to criticize their immigration policy.

www.billionbibles.org/sharia/uk-sharia-law.html
These shariah courts disobey the law of the country, yet in several cases the verdict has been upheld. Precident already set. Your laws are broken by the minority and your country does nothing then that means they rule your country.
Reply
-2
User avatar #75 to #73 - platinumaltaria (11/28/2015) [-]
Muhammed is not the most common name: www.behindthename.com/top/lists/england-wales/2014
5 ******* percent man, come on...

Citation so needed right here. The birth rate is clearly only collated for nationality, not religion.

Sharia courts are highly ******* condemned, and only even exist in tiny numbers. They remain illegal practices.
Reply
-2
User avatar #78 to #77 - platinumaltaria (11/28/2015) [-]
Ok cool, except I actually live here, and know a grand total of 1 person that is called mohammed, and even then only on his birth certificate. Only muslims would call a child that, and since they are 5% of people chances are they aren't going to override the rest of people. Most names in england are biblical names, like thomas and james for instance.
Reply
-1
User avatar #96 to #77 - Ruspanic (11/28/2015) [-]
The "Mohammad" thing is supposed to cause hysteria about Muslims supposedly taking over the UK, but we actually know the percentage of Muslims in the UK, so it's completely irrelevant. All it indicates is that a huge portion of Muslims name their kid some variation of Mohammad, while Britons of other religions and backgrounds draw from a much larger pool of names, so no single name is quite that popular.

This Muslim naming convention is just a tradition. Due to the high number of Muslim men with the first name Mohammad, many of them choose to go by a middle name or a nickname instead.
Reply
+5
#118 to #96 - autoxx (11/28/2015) [-]
Replying here as we have run out of space.
There are those with more knowledge than I, here are the words of one such individual.
0
User avatar #129 to #118 - Ruspanic (11/28/2015) [-]
What the Qur'an literally says is less important than what Muslims actually believe. Reading the Qur'an is of course crucial to understanding Islam, but it alone won't tell you which parts most Muslims take seriously, and it also won't explain why different Muslims hold different beliefs (for example, why there are different sects in Islam). Not just because most Muslims also draw beliefs from some of the Hadiths and from the teachings of certain imams, but also because Islam varies according to culture, family upbringing, political system, etc.

True, Islam as a whole does not have a tradition of political secularism, but that doesn't mean such a tradition cannot develop - as it did in Turkey, for example, until the fairly recent resurgence of Islamism there. For a long time there was no separation of church and state in many Christian countries, either: the Catholic church was the most powerful institution in Europe, and its realm was all of Christiandom - hence the Crusades, for example. Even most absolute monarchs had to defer to the authority of the church.
In my native Russia, the church-state union was the central institution of the country for hundreds of years. Moscow was called the "third Rome" and was viewed by the Russian Orthodox Church as the legitimate capital of all Christian kingdoms. The Church imposed strict controls on art and literature, which is why Russia had almost no notable painters or writers or composers until Peter the Great broke the power of the Church.

Of course, this has all changed, but not because the Bible itself has changed. The Protestant Reformation happened, for one thing, as well as the Enlightenment. The Theory of Evolution changed Christianity as well, causing more progressive Christians to adopt more liberal interpretations of Scripture and reactionary Christians to turn to Young Earth Creationism and Biblical literalism.
The point is, regardless of what the holy text and chief prophet actually said, religion can very much adapt.
Even though Islam today is, broadly speaking, a semi-medieval religion in a modern world, the diversity of views among Muslims of different countries and sects demonstrates that it can be reformed. For example, North American Muslims are, as a group, considerably more liberal than Muslims in most Muslim-majority countries. Not only do many of them believe in separation of church and state in accordance with Western values, but some of them even support LGBT rights. Or look at Sufism, a mystical branch of Islam focused on internal peace and enlightenment. Or look at 1950s-era Iran, where women with uncovered hair wore bikinis to the beach (for that matter, Shi'a Islam seems to produce far less terrorism than Sunni Islam - I wonder why). The tyrannical Wahhabism that characterize the beliefs of the Saudis and of al-Qaeda is far from the only or the "truest" form of Islam, historically speaking.
Reply
+2
#105 to #96 - autoxx (11/28/2015) [-]
I was actually illustrating how dangerous the name itself is.
The individual they are named after carved a bloody swath through a surprisingly large part of the world.
The quaran was written by this person as a way to live as he did.
The whole married his favorite wife when she was 6 and consummated at 9 thing is indicative of what those who would name their child Muhammad aspire to be.
Most of the rest of the world believes in freedom and choice, those following the words of a warlord cannot.
0
User avatar #116 to #105 - Ruspanic (11/28/2015) [-]
They absolutely can, if they cherry pick and creatively interpret their religion the way everyone else does.
Obviously, it's a bit harder when your chief prophet is a literal warlord rather than a sandal-wearing hippie, but it's completely possible.
Reply
0
#145 to #64 - anon (11/28/2015) [-]
Dismissing the point by attacking it rather than discussing it.

No better than the people who shout SJW at every left leaning point. You're just as much of an ignoramus as the other side of the mirror.
Reply
+4
User avatar #58 to #27 - phoenixprince ONLINE (11/28/2015) [-]
and less then one fifth are actually Syrian
Reply
-3
User avatar #60 to #58 - platinumaltaria (11/28/2015) [-]
Citation is so needed right now. 100% of syrian immigrants are syrian, dummy.
Reply
+4
User avatar #84 to #60 - Ruspanic (11/28/2015) [-]
okay yes, but not 100% of those claiming to be Syrian are actually Syrian.
Don't know what the actual proportion is, though.

www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/migrants-are-disguising-themselves-as-syrians-to-gain-entry-to-europe/2015/09/22/827c6026-5bd8-11e5-8475-781cc9851652_story.html
Reply
+31
User avatar #16 - failtolawl (11/27/2015) [-]
Huffington Post, Breitbart, Gawker, The Blaze

They are all ****** blogs that give the impression they are news websites. Obviously they are gonna go against themselves eventually if they have zero fact checking and no proper application to post on their websites.
Reply
+3
#22 to #16 - Kingsly (11/27/2015) [-]
Basically any news website linked to from FJ is full of **** .
Reply
+2
User avatar #23 to #22 - kwanzalord (11/27/2015) [-]
or tumblr
Reply
0
#152 to #23 - anon (11/28/2015) [-]
NO! Tumblr always tells the truth!



Sarcasm doesn't read so well over the internet but i think my statement can only be seen as sarcastic, because, "NO! Tumblr always tells the truth!" Simply cannot exist in any serious form and thus must be sarcastic.
Reply
+217
#1 - levvy (11/27/2015) [-]
Just like how "the guardian" removes all comments slandering the west and euopean policys. But does nothing but make up lies about Russia and the Syrian government. All western media does is lie.

OP are you a hugboxer - you gonna delete my comment becasue I say something you don't like?
Reply
0
#149 to #1 - jdizzleoffthehizzl (11/28/2015) [-]
Can't believe I'm agreeing but let these ****** know fam
Reply
0
#25 to #1 - urineidiot (11/27/2015) [-]
you're an idiot
Reply
0
#123 to #25 - Sevenseas (11/28/2015) [-]
**Sevenseas used "*roll picture*"**
**Sevenseas rolled image**I disagree with you fine Sir / Madam.
Reply
+1
#42 to #1 - anon (11/28/2015) [-]
**** russia and **** syria
Reply
+1
User avatar #140 to #1 - shoryuken ONLINE (11/28/2015) [-]
western media hates "Russia Today" for exposing their lies.
Reply
+1
#144 to #1 - anon (11/28/2015) [-]
"I spent my entire life saying the contrarian point of view to any post to be universally known as someone who doesn't actually mean what I say please let me keep *********** "
Reply
+7
User avatar #9 to #1 - mrwalkerfour (11/27/2015) [-]
A LEVVY COMMENT IN THE POSITIVE???? somebody save this ****
Reply
+55
User avatar #18 to #9 - greyhoundfd (11/27/2015) [-]
When he's right he's right. Even a broke clock is correct twice a day.
Reply
+7
#47 to #18 - McDc (11/28/2015) [-]
Why's the clock broke?Did it get fired?
Reply
+8
User avatar #51 to #47 - greyhoundfd (11/28/2015) [-]
Maybe the clock has a faint Texan accent
Reply
0
User avatar #32 to #18 - abesimpson (11/28/2015) [-]
That's a nice quote.
Reply
0
User avatar #135 to #18 - dasbrot (11/28/2015) [-]
that's some totallytito **** right there.
Reply
+1
User avatar #138 to #135 - totallytito (11/28/2015) [-]
Aye you give me too mucb credit im just a shjtposter
Reply
+6
#49 to #1 - stianan (11/28/2015) [-]
levvy actually saying something reasonable?!
Reply
+8
#52 to #1 - bronywiseman (11/28/2015) [-]
Levvy proves a good point.
Something has gone horribly wrong.
I know something has gone horribly wrong, because Levvy is making a good point.
Reply
0
User avatar #146 to #52 - beldepinda (11/28/2015) [-]
It get's weirder a former **** poster confirms that a current **** poster has a good point.... And he is right.... Where in the world it is going?!!

Y'all mother ******* need Thalos
Why you stopped **** posting btw? I still wonder why people **** post
Reply
0
#157 to #146 - bronywiseman (11/28/2015) [-]
Excuse me?
Go to my profile, look at my location.
Reply
0
User avatar #158 to #157 - beldepinda (11/29/2015) [-]
It could be that I remembered it wrong. On the other hand, your negative comment thumbs are the half of your green one's. So I am not convinced. Im sorry
Reply
+6
User avatar #19 to #1 - huszti (11/27/2015) [-]
there's two simple as **** reasons for it.
1 - saying something people strongly agree or disagree with makes them click on articles
2 - clickbait

its simply just capitalism. more traffic = more money.
by now, its more important to get traffic than to actually do some proper research
Reply
+5
#31 to #1 - billburr (11/28/2015) [-]
There are a lot of reasons for that:
- They can't ever run a bad story about their advertisers or affiliates
- If they challenge politicians or anyone else they no longer have access to those politicians
- Most media is run by huge conglomerates who are themselves giant corporations and have an incentive not to say things that hurt corporations generally
- They're lazy and looking for ratings. Note that this last one is less important than the first three

Ever wonder why defense companies started to advertise on CNN around 2002? I don't think it was to sell missiles to the viewers
Reply
+6
User avatar #13 to #1 - threeeighteen ONLINE (11/27/2015) [-]
*All media does is lie.
Reply
+6
#26 to #1 - anon (11/27/2015) [-]
Western media? Try all media, they've no incentive to care.
Reply
+19
#35 to #1 - thepizzadevourer (11/28/2015) [-]
>levvy speaking sense
These truly are the end times.
Reply
+33
User avatar #3 to #1 - ganjalf ONLINE (11/27/2015) [-]
Levvy trying so hard to bait, he actually said something sensible this time
Reply
+12
User avatar #10 to #3 - brobafett (11/27/2015) [-]
He's been doing that alot lately. I think the world is rip roaring retarded lately even he can accidentally be in right.
Reply
+10
#14 to #10 - gentledragon (11/27/2015) [-]
Or maybe funnyjunk is slowly becoming retarded
Reply
+5
User avatar #21 to #10 - thesovereigngrave (11/27/2015) [-]
Maybe he's trying to slowly increase his credibility as someone who doesn't ******** , so that eventually he can go back to *********** and there'll be less people going "Oh, it's just levvy being levvy".
Reply
-1
#30 to #21 - noonesperfect (11/28/2015) [-]
**noonesperfect used "*roll picture*"**
**noonesperfect rolled image**I heard that levvy=biebergotswag or someone whos not too unpopular here
Or at least they know eachother well enough
Reply
+1
User avatar #160 to #30 - biebergotswag (11/30/2015) [-]
sorry, i don't know levvy at all.
Reply
+6
User avatar #20 to #1 - carth (11/27/2015) [-]
Holy **** , I just looked at your recent comments thing on your profile. You're actually getting thumbs now
Reply
+15
User avatar #34 to #20 - bendingtimeisgood ONLINE (11/28/2015) [-]
Levvy's getting positive thumbs, with the same routine that was considered *********** when he/she started. What's happened?
Reply
+6
#39 to #34 - anon (11/28/2015) [-]
levvys getting thumbed up cause he's a ******* troll. dont agree with him, just destroying his level
Reply
0
User avatar #82 to #34 - Ruspanic (11/28/2015) [-]
I think people are actually agreeing with him now. Funnyjunk has gone full retard
Reply
0
#87 to #82 - anon (11/28/2015) [-]
People are agreeing with him because he's right
Reply
+3
#112 to #87 - anon (11/28/2015) [-]
He's dead wrong.

I really wonder what the global demographic of people up voting him are.
Reply
0
User avatar #119 to #112 - valigar ONLINE (11/28/2015) [-]
It's not global. It's FJ, we've got like... The all Englishers and the Eurofags that speak five from birth... That's like, not even 3 people
Reply
+1
User avatar #93 to #87 - Ruspanic (11/28/2015) [-]
about what? Poor little Russia and Syria being slandered by the evil capitalist Western media? Putin and Assad have more than earned the criticism they're getting.
Reply
+3
#110 to #93 - anon (11/28/2015) [-]
Absolutely. The western media, as **** as it may get, can't compare to lying dictators who force the media to play a side they want.
Reply
-1
#122 to #34 - Sevenseas (11/28/2015) [-]
He's posting something people are agreeing with, it was bound to happen.
Reply
+9
#100 to #1 - recoveryone ONLINE (11/28/2015) [-]
>media lies

Stop the ******* pressesGet it? Because, you know, presses make newspapers, which are part of the media.
Reply
+15
User avatar #36 - hudis (11/28/2015) [-]
I don't get why refugees today are being compared with pilgrims. Pilgrims settled in lands which was no one's territory or bought natives' territory through trade and diplomacy. In some cases they took territories by force. Point is, at no point did they seek refuge in already inhabited lands, cities, societies. Things would have gone very, very differently and the story would have been a lot darker if they had all decided to settle in an established nation.

Refugees today are treated better than ever. If they had flooded countries like they do now 500 years ago, there would've been a lot of bloodshed, regardless of where they went.
Reply
+4
User avatar #40 to #36 - SuperCollider (11/28/2015) [-]
Whoah whoah whoah. Just because the landscape looked empty to the pilgrims, doesn't mean that it was. All the lands of North America (and South America) were peopled and were territorially divided just like anywhere else. They were most certainly not empty as you seem to describe.
Reply
+5
User avatar #48 to #40 - swimmingprodigy (11/28/2015) [-]
Didnt the Native Americans agree to sell their land to the Pilgrims for some shiny beads and stuff? If they sold their land then the pilgrims had every right to it. Not their fault that the Indians made an absolutely **** bargain
Reply
+2
User avatar #50 to #48 - SuperCollider (11/28/2015) [-]
I'm thinking of like New York here, though I think it was much the case for most of what became the eastern United States. The idea of land ownership and rights were quite fundamentally different between indigenous peoples and settlers, so, in the case of NY, land was sold to the Dutch with the assumption that they were giving resource rights to them (like usufruct essentially), not knowing that the Dutch understood this to mean that the land was being transferred to them in full.
Reply
+1
User avatar #65 to #50 - swimmingprodigy (11/28/2015) [-]
Ah ok, yes you reminded me of the native American "live off the land" type of mentality where they dont feel they own any land. Gotcha.
Reply
+1
User avatar #76 to #65 - SuperCollider (11/28/2015) [-]
No, you missed the point. They absolutely did feel like they owned their land -- its that they had rules of usufruct between eachother and when Europeans came, they often traded their land on these assumptions.
Reply
0
#113 to #76 - anon (11/28/2015) [-]
Can confirm. The Indians didn't intend to completely sell their lands like Europeans did and we do now.
Reply
+1
User avatar #41 to #40 - hudis (11/28/2015) [-]
I'm not saying they were empty, just that they weren't packed with firmly established nations with cities, towns and farmlands all over the continent.
Reply
+4
User avatar #43 to #41 - SuperCollider (11/28/2015) [-]
But they absolutely were, though it wouldn't have appeared as so to the first European settlers. I always have to take issue with this, it simply isn't the case. I'm coming at this from an archaeological perspective (because I am an archaeologist) and as it turns out, its becoming more and more established that our traditional historical view of the New World at contact is not reflective of what was actually going on at the time. We have tons of lines of evidence which have completely changed our picture of what things were like. If you're interested in an excellent summary and discussion of whats going on in this subject I'd recommend the followling article here:

www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2002/03/1491/302445/
Reply
+1
User avatar #44 to #43 - hudis (11/28/2015) [-]
To be clear here, I already know that was the case in Central and South America, and those are not the Indians or settlers I'm talking about - but I will read the article.
Reply
-1
User avatar #45 to #44 - SuperCollider (11/28/2015) [-]
Alright cool man! It definitely is more focused on the Amazon, but it does discuss North America in good detail as well.
Reply
+1
User avatar #55 to #40 - heartlessrobot (11/28/2015) [-]
Yeah but they were inhabited by people on par with ******* cavemen.
Had they kept their land, the US would look like Africa with more trees.
Reply
+1
User avatar #79 to #55 - SuperCollider (11/28/2015) [-]
So, two things here. The societies that Native North/South Americans lived in were anything but primitive - have a cursory look into the archaeological research, you'd think otherwise before making that claim, unless for some reason you're someone who doesn't like it when physical evidence proves them wrong.

Second, you'd probably also be surprised to hear that forests on both North and South America were intensely managed through a variety of practices. Burning is one that we know of very well, the scale of which is truly incredible -- so much so that we now believe that when colonists first arrived in the New World, the disruption to this burning set the Little Ice Age in motion from around 1500 -1700.
Reply
0
User avatar #131 to #40 - deviousdanish (11/28/2015) [-]
However, there was a fairly big lack of permanent settlements on the part of the natives, which is what most people attribute to land ownership.
Reply
0
#90 to #40 - slyblade (11/28/2015) [-]
I don't think that was the point. The refugees are entering our land looking for refuge from the war and a better life in terms of an already established society.

The pilgrims desired to buy/gain/annex the land to setup their own culture and cities.

If the refugees start attacking police whilst declaring their neighbourhoods independant then you could make a better comparison.
Reply
-1
User avatar #94 to #90 - SuperCollider (11/28/2015) [-]
I might need a little clarification about your comment, but for my initial comment, I was more so taking issue with the assumption about the lands in the New World being uninhabited, because in actuality the pilgrims were settling in areas that were settled by indigenous peoples and had been for thousands of years.

But yes, I'd say the comparison between Syrian refugees and pilgrims isn't the best comparison because the contexts were/are very different.
Reply
+1
#95 to #94 - slyblade (11/28/2015) [-]
Sincerest apologies completely glanced over that bit, carry on.
Reply
0
User avatar #97 to #95 - SuperCollider (11/28/2015) [-]
No worries man! I'm stoked, this is like the most civil comment thread I've had on FJ for a long time!
Reply
-1
#133 to #94 - anon (11/28/2015) [-]
Your wrong. your so wrong. The natives hadn't settled where the pilgrims did, the natives never settled any thing, at all, they were nomads, they had scarce farm land at times but no they did not settle and develop settlements for the most part. That's why they thought it was largely uninhabited because they saw little to no signs of civilization.
Reply
0
User avatar #148 to #133 - Stamyham ONLINE (11/28/2015) [-]
The natives actually had established cities, some that were quite large, before the Europeans came over. Though, I'm also pretty sure at 90% of natives were wiped out by some sort of plague shortly after the first Europeans landed on the shores and had contact.
Reply
0
User avatar #134 to #133 - SuperCollider (11/28/2015) [-]
No, I'm not wrong at all. I'm not sure that there's a simple way to convince you otherwise. Keep in mind that a lot has changed in our understanding of what the New World was like before European contact. As a starter, look into the archaeology on this topic.

I'm open to having a discussion about this, I'm curious how you'd argue this point because it really isn't supported in any scientific/academic discourse.
Reply
+4
#120 - anon (11/28/2015) [-]
Except pilgrims didn't go to a decent country and **** it up. They made it better.
Reply
+2
User avatar #147 to #120 - Sethorein ONLINE (11/28/2015) [-]
... for the small small price of genocide.
Reply
+4
#117 - ibanezvbt (11/28/2015) [-]
i don't remember the settlers being refugees..most were aprove by the crown to settle here before they even seat foot on a boat
Reply
+2
#125 to #117 - anon (11/28/2015) [-]
They were not, many of them came here to escape the oppressive church of England and practice their own version of Christianity which I believe was largely the same, but the English church was...doing something they didn't agree with.

Whatever the case they still were not refugee's so your right on that front.

Also there was no genocide, if there was there wouldn't' be any natives left, eh? The genocide they're talking about is the simple, very common act of a more civilized people finding a new place and the people there contracting diseases they cant' fight off. something like 90% of native deaths were attributed to disease. And no the pilgrims did not throw small pox blankets on them, that's just retarded.
Reply
0
#159 to #125 - ibanezvbt (11/29/2015) [-]
yea the early "pilgrims" their was quite a few groups and the pilgrims was only one somewhat it was just a way to get the protestations and Lutherans out of England ...but very few of there settlements survived after a year i can only think of two and one that kept going after the other finally failed) all of the actual settlements the ones that became towns and cities up to the rebellion that thrived were all there for economical reasons invested by either a company or the crown itself. partly because both Spain, and France were funding there settlements as well

and yea you are correct on the disease part. 2/3 of the native population die from European diseases without ever even meeting one. i believe it was a form of influenza and scarlet fever that wiped out most..

but the smallpox blackets did happens only that was well after the us independents...that was during the manifest destiny period were almost any goes during that time.
Reply
+4
#91 - Lilstow (11/28/2015) [-]
if anyone wants the two posts together in a more sharable format, here it is.
Reply
+3
User avatar #99 - moldybreadcrumb (11/28/2015) [-]
Aah national genocide day, the one day of the year where it's perfectly acceptable to hang my swastika flag on my house!
Reply
+3
#86 - kanadetenshi (11/28/2015) [-]
Oh for ***** sake the decline of the Native population was not a ******* genocide.

The largest decline and deaths of the Native population was caused by diseases, not by deliberate ethnic cleansing.

For something to be considered a genocide it has to have been committed with the intent to destroy. Just because people didn't know **** about auto immune diseases doesn't mean they were committed a genocide. Sure there were alleged cases of them giving blankets with small pox but there's no evidence that it worked.

Are the crimes done against Natives terrible? Yes. Is it a genocide comparable to the holocaust or holodomor? No.
Reply
-1
#107 to #86 - anon (11/28/2015) [-]
dude
the diseases were intentionally spread to weaken the natives and drop their ability to resist white settlers attacks

read up on biological warfare dude....
Reply
+1
#130 to #107 - anon (11/28/2015) [-]
You should read up on it yourself. the myth of the small pox blankets is completely retarded. You really think the pilgrims knew about germ theory hundreds of years before it was discovered and popularized? Are you that retarded? What they knew about sickness then amounted to "poop and pee left to fester makes you sick. dead bodies left out in the open make you sick." They had no concept that rubbing small pox infected people all over blanket would spread the disease. That **** just happened naturally because the civilized new comers brought new diseases the natives never experienced and had no defense against. it's happens countless times through out history.
Reply
+1
User avatar #109 to #86 - trapposternohomo (11/28/2015) [-]
I dunno bruh, it wasn't gassing but they did try to do the exact same thing in a different way.

They had different ways to get rid of the "Indian", you could murder them, or you could kill their culture. Here in Canada where I'm from, they tried to kill the culture, and probably will succeed in the next few generations considering how few people can still speak the native languages and practice the tradtitions.

Ever hear of the residential schools? You HAD to give your kid to the church when they were old enough for schooling or face criminal charges. You would not see them for years and by then, they have a different name, don't speak any cree or whatever first language you taught them, and are living as a "white person" would.
Reply
0
User avatar #111 to #109 - trapposternohomo (11/28/2015) [-]
They stopped the horrible **** now but I don't think First Nations will ever be the same again.
Reply
+1
#137 to #86 - anon (11/28/2015) [-]
yeaaah... I think we all know about the railroad story. *cough cough* "The more indians we kill now the less we have to later on" *cough cough*

throwing a nazi card is also kinda ****** argumentation. and "it's not so bad because it wasn't xxxx bad" is just really retarded reasoning, through that no one can ever be sad or feel used since there is the one person who has it worse.

indians were allowed to be killed in the wild west. people celebrated when they died. the friendlier indians who didn't fight for their lands got cheated of their lands and "relocated" to what was basically a concentration camp. you know you guys also had concentration camps for them? they weren't allowed to leave there, and when coca cola became a thing you sold it to them cheaper than milk, and mothers fed cola to their children and they died young. those camps were filled with diseases too. seriously though almost every country has had a concentration camp at some point in their history. it wasn't hitler invention, british used them before nazies.

come on. it was pretty damn bad.
Reply
+2
User avatar #12 - nimba (11/27/2015) [-]
>what are opinion pieces?
Reply
+1
User avatar #128 - smallsikndchild (11/28/2015) [-]
Even so. Why should we allow them to do it to us?
Reply
0
User avatar #126 - xxmemesxx (11/28/2015) [-]
The Huffington Post is satirical, dumbass
Reply
+1
#153 to #126 - anon (11/28/2015) [-]
That's The Onion
Reply
+1
#115 - nerfhead (11/28/2015) [-]
ever notice how almost all the not white countries are ****** and all the white countries are better? you really think the native american, canadians and australians would have done any better than central and south america? it would have just been 3 more third world countries. even albert einstien escaped to america to escape from the nazis. not like he could have gone to england seeing how germany was beating them until the us helped england
Reply
+1
#92 - dansname (11/28/2015) [-]
**dansname used "*roll picture*"**
**dansname rolled image**
Reply
-3
User avatar #104 - fiveblackmen (11/28/2015) [-]
Technically, they are both true.
Reply
0
User avatar #124 - sideismss (11/28/2015) [-]
progressive left logic:
>demonize the the Europeans who immigrated to america
>"lets accept all the immigrants that want to come here"
Reply
0
#108 - anon (11/28/2015) [-]
**anonymous used "*roll picture*"**
**anonymous rolled image** look im sorry
12>
[ 158 comments ]
Leave a comment
<
>
 Friends (0)