Everyone conquered each other to get ahead. One native American tribe
conquered another long before the Europeans taught them how to use gun
powder. Africans conquered each other again long before Europeans interfered
with them. I suppose the Europeons just were more technologically advanced
in conquering each other than either the native Americans or the Afrians
were. I wonder what would have happened if the native Americans and the
Afrians had the technology and the Europeans didn't? Would Europeons been
turned into slaves for the betterment of native Americans and African
societies? One can only speculate. None of these societies in my humble
opinion were better or worse than the other. All enslaved their people in
one way or another. It's just that one society was stornger than the other -
as it has always been since the beginning of time. That's history. And those
who refuse to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it - sadly
as we continue to do time and time again.

Lonny J. Watro

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Frederick Fausz" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 9:54 AM
Subject: JAMESTOWN LIVE!


> Did anyone view the webcast of JAMESTOWN LIVE! yesterday 11/9?
>
> They should have called it "MTV-Chesapeake" because the singing
> and dancing sure received more attention than the historical content,
> which was rather simplistic, shallow, and bland even for an elementary
> and middle school audience.   Emphasizing cultural diversity is admira-
> ble and long overdue, of course, but it is wrong to talk about the
> "culture"
> (singular) of Europe (or even Britain), Indian America, or Africa.
> Diversity
> was the norm on all three continents, not just between continents.
>
> Especially erroneous was the song about the first slaves (sic) who came
> from the "African nation" in 1619 and anachronistic mention of the 3/5ths
> compromise that early.
>
> The explanation of indentured servitude confused that system of
> agricultural
> labor with "apprenticeship" to craftsmen, as in England.
>
> Chief Adkins didn't even mention that his own Chickahominies were inde-
> pendent of Tsenacommacah under "Powhatan," and he expanded that
> paramount chief's domain to "35 to 40" tribes, which no scholar could
> defend.
>
>
> The "Virginia Company was [NOT] here to stay," and if I heard it right,
> the
> wrong date was given for the Laws Divine, Moral, and Martial.
>
> Aside from two brief references to "occasional warfare" between the Powha-
> tans and the English, most of the expert commentators carefully skirted
> the
> issue of prolonged, frequent, and intense intercultural violence.  Such
> myth-
> ical FEELGOODISM and Sanitized history is deceptive. Even young children
> should not be lied to, or they'll grow up to be as ignorant and complacent
> as
> Rush Limbaugh, who once talked about the "so-called trail of tears."
>
> Like it or not, the European colonization of America was an exceedingly
> violent and disruptive invasion--representing a more universal
> characteristic
>
> of cultural expansionism and territorial invasion than multiethnic
> toleration
> or "democracy" (can you spell, IRAQ?)  Let's not be hypocritical about our
> heritage, since our homesteads and mortgages are grounded in inventions
> of the conquering invaders, facilitated by centuries of exploiting Indian
> lands
> and African labor.  If we hope that history will help explain the present
> and
> give us a glimpse into the future, we must tell the whole story of our
> ancestors.  That may not be very popular, but it is at least honest.
>
> Fred Fausz
> St. Louis
>
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
> at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
>

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html