Leftists Romanticize the Settling of the Americas, While Loathing the Emergence of the U.S. ⋆ Politicrossing
Connect with us

Life

Leftists Romanticize the Settling of the Americas, While Loathing the Emergence of the U.S.

On every continent, in every nation, for all of human history, “good” people and “bad” people have existed

Published

on

In their naive and ultra-simplistic worldview the Left sees only there is ‘good’ and there is ‘bad,’ and they’ll be the judge of that. Their soft spot for Native Americans includes a ready-made narrative about the absolute nobility of our earlier continental inhabitants.

Early inhabitants of North America originally migrated from Siberia over the probable land bridge at the Bering Strait, through Alaska and Canada, to what is now the United States, Mexico, Central America, and South America. These “Native Americans” preceded European explorers arriving in the 15th century.

Displaying many admirable traits, individually and collectively, Native Americans have been showcased with the rise of political correctness. That Native Americans, per se, did not represent a unified, homogeneous people is overlooked. More than 1000 nations occupied North America from the middle of the first millennium. To this day, 574 Indian tribes are legally recognized by the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs.

Trending on PolitiCrossing.com: Tucker: Because of Joe Biden, it’s that simple

Few Close Encounters

As happens with people everywhere, some nations – referred to as tribes – were peace-loving. Some were warring. Some respected nature; some did not. Many of the peace-loving characteristics we ascribe to Native American nations might actually be attributed to the curious fact that they hardly ever encountered each other.

Native American nations rarely interacted with each other unless they sought out one another to do battle or to trade. Until the introduction of the horse, brought over by Europeans, it was rare for a member of one tribe to see someone from another tribe.

Years back, I visited an exhibit at the Smithsonian Institute in Washington D.C., which showed that during the 100-year period when Native Americans relied heavily upon horses for mobility, roughly 1785 to 1885, some tribes engaged in hellish warfare with each other. Without being provoked, some nations decimated other peace-loving nations, and braves earned respect by committing barbarous acts against members of other tribes. Captives were turned into slaves. Entire villages were raped and plundered, as they had been in Central America since at least 500 A.D.

Slaughtering Each Other is Okay?

Native Americans often butchered one another, took slaves, made the conquered pay tribute, and forced the attractive women to be concubines. The Lakotas, mythologized in Kevin Costner’s Dances with Wolves, hacked off the limbs and scalps of those whom they slaughtered. They proudly exhibited such trophies with their tribe, particularly with the women, who held victory celebrations that included parading with severed limbs on sticks and dancing about with them hoisted high.

The poor braves who returned without such trophies felt ostracism and a bitter social sting from the tribe’s women. These women would make the warriors’ lives hell on earth until they “proved” themselves, and then re-proved themselves by murdering more braves of other tribes and hacking off more limbs. Among some nations, continual warfare was a way of life. Living peacefully with other nations was not within the norms of their culture.

Predictably, Ken Burns’ PBS series The West gives short shrift to long-standing, gross incidences of Native American inhumanities to each other. Meanwhile, the uber-leftist Burns highlighted the transgressions of the imperious white man. What political agenda is was he promoting?

Politically Correct Slaughter

Do historically, or geographically, related peoples have a “justifiable” right to brutalize each other? Is it politically “incorrect” that the technologically and tactically superior Spaniards, whether led by Cortes or Desoto, were more efficient at man’s inhumanity to man?

Before modern Europeans ever set foot in North America, Native Americans bestowed horrific carnage upon each other. Aztec artifacts reveal battles between warring factions as hostile as any in history. Entire villages, including babies, were wiped out. Unspeakable horrors were committed for power, glory, and riches. Rape was followed by dismemberment (of the living, no less) and decapitation.

Comanche, Pawnee, Creek, Haida, and Tlingit, among many other tribes, enslaved those who they captured in battle. The Incas engaged in regular rituals of human sacrifice. The Aztecs might eat the hearts or livers of their enemies, in some cases, actually plucking out the hearts or livers of live victims, known as vivisection. The victors felt it made them stronger.

To Generalize is To Deceive

Why call attention to decapitation, dismemberment, consumption of human organs, and vivisection? It is not to cast aspersions on any peoples, but to hone our present-day observations. When one makes sweeping generalizations about groups, it is stereotyping, even if the stereotype is presumably “positive.”

On every continent, in every nation, and at every locale, for all of human history, both “good” people and “bad” people have existed, to the complete denial or utter ignorance of Leftists.

– – – – –

We'd love to hear your thoughts about this article. Please take a minute to share them in the comment section by clicking here. Or carry the conversation over on your favorite social network by clicking one of the share buttons below.


Jeff Davidson is the world's only holder of the title "The Work-Life Balance Expert®" as awarded by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. He is the premier thought leader on work-life balance, integration, and harmony. Jeff speaks to organizations that seek to enhance their overall productivity by improving the effectiveness of their people. He is the author of Breathing Space, Simpler Living, Dial it Down, and Everyday Project Management. Visit www.BreathingSpace.com for more information on Jeff's keynote speeches and seminars, including: Managing the Pace with Grace® * Achieving Work-Life Balance™ * Managing Information and Communication Overload®



  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
 
 
 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.



Life

Authors Who Avoid Hasty Conclusions

Much of the information that we encounter, especially via the internet, is only partially true, if not completely bogus

Published

on

So much of the information that we encounter today, especially via the internet, is only partially true, if not completely bogus. As such, I admire the work of selected authors over the past few decades. They remind me to check out what seems to be common knowledge, for the truth the lies beyond it:

Self-help author Denis Waitley observed Albert Einstein always scored quite well in math and science. Some “historians” noted that his top grade of six on a scale of one to six dropped to a level of one from one year to the next, and they arbitrarily assumed he had started to flunk those courses. The school had reversed its grading system, however, to make the highest grade a one instead of a six.

For decades, no one had bothered to examine the original “evidence” leading to the proclamation that Einstein was an academic failure.

Trending on PolitiCrossing.com: Tucker: Because of Joe Biden, it’s that simple

Pop Trends

In her book, Backlash, author Susan Faludi told how “pop” market forecasters made a fortune by reviewing popular media, such as newspapers, television, movies and so forth, and then concluding what trends are looming in America. The extreme fallacy with this method of forecasting, Faludi noted, is that it tends to promulgate that which only a handful of editors, publishers and directors believe or perpetrate. No hard data supports the “forecasts.”

One such forecaster was credited with coining the term “cocooning” for the 1980s, where working men and women, particularly women, decided to spend more time in the household. Faludi shows that the assertion has no relationship to U.S. Department Bureau of Labor Statistics that indicated an increase in the number of women in the workforce and in the time each spent outside the home.

Nevertheless, corporations paid hefty sums to be told where we were all headed next. Because many other factors can obscure results, if the predicted “trend” then doesn’t help the corporate customer, it is rarely linked back to the forecaster. Such companies would do better, observed Faludi, to simply consult the U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, and other sources that independently collect data, presumably with no bias.

Dastardly Dads?

Faludi also uncovered this: The “fact” that an epidemic of divorced fathers refused to pay child care, which is a falsehood that distorted reality for decades. According to U.S. Census Bureau figures, the great majority of fathers with joint custody of their children – nearly 90% – paid their entire support obligation, in full and on time. Some 80% of fathers with visitation privileges, but not joint custody, paid regularly. Only when the courts deprive fathers of both custody and access do support levels drop to under 50%, the figure mistakenly attributed to all fathers.

Despite the strong correlation between a man’s ability to have joint custody or visitation with his children and his willingness to make regular support payments, most legislators and judges didn’t seem to see it. Their automatic and immediate response in cases of nonpayment was to blame the male, instead of enforcing the man’s right to visit his children and encouraging father-child relationships.

By continuing to make the majority of child custody awards to women, the courts systematically disregarded the role fathers played and all but ensured that the children would have adjustment problems. Even if a man legally wins visitation rights, his ability to visit his kids isn’t guaranteed. Judges don’t often put uncooperative mothers in jail. So, fathers end up going to court repeatedly – a costly venture. Sometimes after many attempts to visit their children, some fathers withhold support payments to force what the courts will not.

The media, charging to no one’s rescue and in search of thirty second sound bites, label such fathers as deadbeat, or worse. Hence, the widespread misconception about the true nature of what’s going on in this critical arena continues even to this day.

Abounded Influence

In his acclaimed 1990 book, Agents of Influence, author Pat Choate debunked the myth that the Japanese, as a whole, significantly contributed to the development of innovation and technology as evidenced by their annual lead in the number of U.S. patents they had filed and obtained. As Choate explained, the Japanese tilted the economic playing field, via the ruthless art of “patent flooding.”

When a U.S. firm, for example, applied for a patent representing an innovation on which the Japanese wanted to capitalize, Japanese firms issued a flurry of patent applications that surrounded the technology at hand. Thus, the original developer or inventor could not market his invention  without getting clearance from the Japanese, who could tie up an invention in the courts simply because they held nuisance patents for a component or contributing element to the major patent.

After decades of such tactics, and with China included as a leading culprit, the U.S. government still has failed to install comprehensive, necessary protections to safeguard the toil and genius of the original American patent applicant. As such, our government has unwittingly contributed to the redistribution of billions of dollars in royalties and revenues to others.

– – – – –

 

Continue Reading

Life

Friends: Real and Imagined

Technology can aid humankind but if we are not careful it can diminish the quality of our lives

Published

on

Researchers from the National Opinion Research Center have found that people who watch a lot of television seem to be as psychologically content as people who have many friends.

These disappointing findings stem from the fact that, “the human brain evolved long before television came along, so subconsciously it recognizes any face it sees regularly as a friend, even if it is on the screen,” says Satoshi Kanazawa, Ph.D., author of the study.

Does the above explain why society remains in a stupor of overfed, undernourished, overweight, socially inept citizens? After all they are, indeed, getting their social and psychological strokes by tuning in to see their favorite “friends” each week.

Trending on PolitiCrossing.com: Tucker: Because of Joe Biden, it’s that simple

Stuck in a Stupor?

Technology can certainly be an aid to human kind but if we are not careful it can greatly diminish the quality of our lives. Technology distracts us from our own thought, daydreams, even our own imagination.

When we fill in the time from the car to the elevator and the elevator to the office, or from lunch back to the office, with a cell phone, we interrupt the opportunity for people to marinate in their own imaginations.

– – – – –

 

Continue Reading

 

Our Newsletter

Become a Politicrossing insider: Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Sites We Like

Our Newsletter

Become a PolitiCrossing insider: Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Trending

Politicrossing
 
Send this to a friend