SPYING 1 Posted May 16, 2022 Author Share Posted May 16, 2022 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SPYING 1 Posted May 16, 2022 Author Share Posted May 16, 2022 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SPYING 1 Posted May 16, 2022 Author Share Posted May 16, 2022 Pete Buttigieg told baby formula shortage 'lie': Rep. Kat Cammack WWW.FOXBUSINESS.COM Rep. Kat Cammack, R-Fla., slammed Transportation Sec. Pete Buttigieg for a "lie" about... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happyone Posted May 16, 2022 Share Posted May 16, 2022 14 hours ago, SPYING 1 said: First off if the Indians would've protected their borders & didn't let the Europeans bring their diseases America would've been a 3rd world country. Didn't the Indians sell New York for $12 worth of trinkets The part in red makes no sense--because if the American natives did not allow the Europeans to settle and displace them, then the United States and Canada would be entirely indigenous and would not have evolved as it is today. Maybe relying on what you were erroneously taught in school, a point I tried to make in my post above, try doing some research to see if what you were taught is in fact accurate, rather than perpetuating myth Also your $12 figure is actually $24 in the myth. Was Manhattan really sold for $24 worth of beads and trinkets? | Live Science WWW.LIVESCIENCE.COM This historical transaction has become part of New York's origin story. But have the mythical elements of this tale obscured the facts? The magnitude of the myth The account of Manhattan's founding sale is, it would seem, more falsehood than truth. Why, then, has the story persisted for so long? Like any good legend, its colorful details — the $24 worth of trinkets and beads — have kept people captivated over the centuries. These details have also had a troubling effect on how the story has been interpreted. The misleading $24 figure makes the payment seem pitiably small. Over numerous recountings, and as shown in dozens of paintings, there's been an emphasis on the idea that "trinkets" were all that native people received in return for their ancestral home. That has created an impression of Manhattan's Indigenous inhabitants as guileless, unsophisticated people who were oblivious to the value of what they had, Gorelick said — an offensive interpretation that couldn't be further from the truth. "Native people were extremely, extremely scrupulous traders," she said. "They didn't just take what was offered to them. There are great accounts from Europeans at the time which said, 'This color cloth is not desired by native people. They would prefer this other color cloth.' [Native people] were very much orchestrating how and what was traded in those early years." By perpetuating the misconception that Manhattan was so easily and willingly let go, the story might have served another purpose: to help justify why things are as they are today — why some people, and not others, find themselves in positions of power, Sanderson believes. "I think the myth of the purchase of Manhattan served the powers that be for so long, and that's why it persisted, and that's why people kept telling it," Sanderson said. But 2024 will mark the 400th anniversary of New York's official colonization by the Dutch in 1624, and Sanderson thinks this might prompt a reckoning over the real facts of Manhattan's "sale." "It's one of these founding myths that people took very seriously in the 19th century and started to make fun of in the 20th century," Sanderson said. "I think in the 21st century, we're going to see a full repudiation of that story." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SPYING 1 Posted May 16, 2022 Author Share Posted May 16, 2022 22 minutes ago, happyone said: The part in red makes no sense--because if the American natives did not allow the Europeans to settle and displace them, then the United States and Canada would be entirely indigenous and would not have evolved as it is today. Maybe relying on what you were erroneously taught in school, a point I tried to make in my post above, try doing some research to see if what you were taught is in fact accurate, rather than perpetuating myth Also your $12 figure is actually $24 in the myth. Was Manhattan really sold for $24 worth of beads and trinkets? | Live Science WWW.LIVESCIENCE.COM This historical transaction has become part of New York's origin story. But have the mythical elements of this tale obscured the facts? The magnitude of the myth The account of Manhattan's founding sale is, it would seem, more falsehood than truth. Why, then, has the story persisted for so long? Like any good legend, its colorful details — the $24 worth of trinkets and beads — have kept people captivated over the centuries. These details have also had a troubling effect on how the story has been interpreted. The misleading $24 figure makes the payment seem pitiably small. Over numerous recountings, and as shown in dozens of paintings, there's been an emphasis on the idea that "trinkets" were all that native people received in return for their ancestral home. That has created an impression of Manhattan's Indigenous inhabitants as guileless, unsophisticated people who were oblivious to the value of what they had, Gorelick said — an offensive interpretation that couldn't be further from the truth. "Native people were extremely, extremely scrupulous traders," she said. "They didn't just take what was offered to them. There are great accounts from Europeans at the time which said, 'This color cloth is not desired by native people. They would prefer this other color cloth.' [Native people] were very much orchestrating how and what was traded in those early years." By perpetuating the misconception that Manhattan was so easily and willingly let go, the story might have served another purpose: to help justify why things are as they are today — why some people, and not others, find themselves in positions of power, Sanderson believes. "I think the myth of the purchase of Manhattan served the powers that be for so long, and that's why it persisted, and that's why people kept telling it," Sanderson said. But 2024 will mark the 400th anniversary of New York's official colonization by the Dutch in 1624, and Sanderson thinks this might prompt a reckoning over the real facts of Manhattan's "sale." "It's one of these founding myths that people took very seriously in the 19th century and started to make fun of in the 20th century," Sanderson said. "I think in the 21st century, we're going to see a full repudiation of that story." Document: The Purchase of Manhattan Island, 1626 - Dutch New York WWW.THIRTEEN.ORG This letter from Peter Schaghen, written in 1626, makes the earliest known reference to the... Believe what you want, cause we weren't there to witness the deal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happyone Posted May 16, 2022 Share Posted May 16, 2022 4 minutes ago, SPYING 1 said: Document: The Purchase of Manhattan Island, 1626 - Dutch New York WWW.THIRTEEN.ORG This letter from Peter Schaghen, written in 1626, makes the earliest known reference to the... Believe what you want, cause we weren't there to witness the deal If you read the article, this document was discussed--so read and get informed Where's the evidence? The first known mention of the historic sale comes from a 1626 letter penned by a Dutch merchant named Pieter Schagen, who wrote that a man named Peter Minuit had purchased Manhattan for 60 guilders, the Dutch currency at the time. This information fits within a crucial period of New York's history. During this time, the Dutch — growing rich off the beaver trade and dependent on the Native Americans to propel their industry — were trying to secure their dominance in the New World against other European competitors. This motivated them to secure territory far and wide, across Manhattan, Brooklyn, Governors Island and Staten Island. Some accounts of the sale suggest that the individuals who sold Manhattan were Munsees, a subtribe of the Lenape people — though that's not confirmed. This marks just the first of several uncertainties about the information in Schagen's letter. Most notably, it isn't primary evidence; Schagen's text discusses the sale of Manhattan, but there's no known paper record of the exchange. Schagen himself had never even been to New York, said Johanna Gorelick, manager of the education department at the Smithsonian National Museum of the American Indian. "[Schagen's letter] is the only piece of evidence we have — the only document. Whether you call it a piece of evidence is questionable." The letter contains no details of the individuals involved in the sale, nor the precise date of the exchange. "We don't really know what happened," Gorelick said. Even the one detailed piece of information — the 60-guilder value of the trade — has been warped through time and misinterpretation into $24. That figure was taken from a history book published in 1846 and has somehow remained unchanged since then. Adjusted to present-day value, 60 guilders would be the equivalent of more than $1,000 today. Furthermore, there's no indication of what that money represented in terms of traded goods, though many accounts have perpetuated the questionable idea that native people sold their homelands for little more than a few "trinkets." The absence of evidence doesn't mean the exchange didn't occur, however. Trading land was actually common during this period; there are many cases in which there is much more convincing evidence that land was exchanged in some way between Native Americans and the Dutch. For instance, there are several formal land deeds, signed by Native American sellers and Dutch buyers, for the purchase of Staten Island in 1630, for parts of Long Island in 1639, and also for Manhattan, again, in 1649. But considering that it's become the defining symbol of New York City's "origins," that first purported 1626 sale ironically seems to be the least reliable account we have. Even assuming the historic transaction did go ahead, there are other factors that make it unlikely that Manhattan was traded so straightforwardly, as the story suggests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SPYING 1 Posted May 16, 2022 Author Share Posted May 16, 2022 On 5/15/2022 at 12:36 PM, happyone said: And this ruling by the 9th Circus Court of Appeals is ridiculous. No person in the US needs to own automatic assault type weapons, especially those under the age of 21 and they also do not need to own any firearms IMO What gun was used by Jim Jones when he killed hundreds of people 😳 oh he used Kool-aid 🤔 On 9/11 what gun did Osama used to kill over 3,000 people 🤔 😳 oh he used airplanes ✈️ 🤔 When some nut wants to kill he's going to find a way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SPYING 1 Posted May 16, 2022 Author Share Posted May 16, 2022 USPS trucking contractor Matheson files for bankruptcy - FreightWaves WWW.FREIGHTWAVES.COM California-based USPS trucking contractor Matheson Postal Services recently filed for... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SPYING 1 Posted May 16, 2022 Author Share Posted May 16, 2022 How the arrival of the Amadea superyacht wedged Fiji between a Russian oligarch and the United States government - ABC News WWW.ABC.NET.AU Seizing the opulent superyachts of Vladimir Putin's nearest and dearest is a move designed to... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SPYING 1 Posted May 16, 2022 Author Share Posted May 16, 2022 Biden administration expands flights to Cuba, lifts remittance limits - MarketWatch WWW.MARKETWATCH.COM The Biden administration announced Monday that it will expand flights to Cuba and lift... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SPYING 1 Posted May 16, 2022 Author Share Posted May 16, 2022 GM Factory Workers in Mexico Get a 25-Cent Raise to $3.25 an Hour JALOPNIK.COM The labor union at Silao, where Chevy and GMC pickups are built, agreed on a contract that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SPYING 1 Posted May 17, 2022 Author Share Posted May 17, 2022 Verizon: Everyone Is Moving to Florida WWW.PCMAG.COM The wireless carrier says its subscribers are decamping en masse for the Sunshine State. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts