Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old December 31st, 2012 #41
Sam Fisher
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Near the kike hive
Posts: 1,078
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bev View Post
Source for the Irish cannibal claim, please?
I'm sure some Irish resorted to it during the potato famine, but to claim "the Irish practiced cannibalism" is intellectually dishonest and typical of nonwhites trying to grasp at straws to drag us down to their savage level.
 
Old January 9th, 2013 #42
N.M. Valdez
SMASH THE FASH
 
N.M. Valdez's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,382
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angel Ramsey View Post
Looks like somebody has picked up a new phrase.
New phrase? It's a pretty common phrase where I'm from.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Fisher View Post
You're trying to take credit for April leaving, as of you're that significant of a cockroach.

Here's the full quote:

So no, you weren't the reason, but an example of why she didn't want to stay. Damn spics are always trying to take credit for things that they didn't do. Like half of America via reconquista
Here's another full quote, Sam Fister.

Quote:
Originally Posted by April View Post
This is true Alex, he messes up just about every thread eventually. It is to the point that I avoid posting here anymore because I am tired of serious threads being put off track by dumbasses like him and a few others. I am not trying to make myself sound so important, or say " its me or him" but seriously, how many threads are you going to allow him to take over?
Well, it wasn't me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Where to begin. View Post
Stole?

Conquered, shit head.
Conquered? The vast majority of Native Americans were killed by communicable disease transmission. As the late James Blaut wrote in his Colonizer's Model of the World, "The Americas were not conquered: they were infected."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Where to begin. View Post
I wish we finished the job.
"We"? What justifies your usage of that possessive pronoun? What role did you personally play?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Where to begin. View Post
Scary thing is, that you learned something from us. You won't make our mistake.

It is to the death, now.
Your mind is clouded with fantasies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenria View Post
LOL that you actually think you're affecting April's life in any way. You certainly have some ego. April left the forum for reasons other than you. I'm sure you can find them out easily enough if you care to. The point is, get over yourself. I don't personally know April, but I can pretty much guarantee you that she doesn't give a shit about any of YOUR antics.
Obviously she did, if she was agitating for me to be restricted to one section of the forum, because she was too stupid to win any debates with me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy McQuade View Post
Damn straight. You know you'd get your Oompa Loompa teeth knocked down your throat by a mick. You're smarter than the average bean, I guess.

Bullshit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bev View Post
Source for the Irish cannibal claim, please?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Fisher View Post
I'm sure some Irish resorted to it during the potato famine, but to claim "the Irish practiced cannibalism" is intellectually dishonest and typical of nonwhites trying to grasp at straws to drag us down to their savage level.
I didn't say "the Irish practiced cannibalism," you fucking clown. I said that cannibalism was practiced in ancient Ireland; I never said that the modern day Irish ethnic group was involved in it en masse.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...nnibalism.html

Quote:
Recent evidence that Druids possibly committed cannibalism and ritual human sacrifice—perhaps on a massive scale—add weight to ancient Roman accounts of Druidic savagery, archaeologists say.

After a first century B.C. visit to Britain, the Romans came back with horrific stories about these high-ranking priests of the Celts, who had spread throughout much of Europe over a roughly 2,000-year period.

Julius Caesar, who led the first Roman landing in 55 B.C., said the native Celts "believe that the gods delight in the slaughter of prisoners and criminals, and when the supply of captives runs short, they sacrifice even the innocent."

First-century historian Pliny the Elder went further, suggesting the Celts practiced ritual cannibalism, eating their enemies' flesh as a source of spiritual and physical strength.

But with only the Romans' word to go on—the ancient Celts left no written record of their own—it's been easy for historians to dismiss such tales as wartime propaganda.

Until now, that is.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
I don't know what the truth is, and have said as much.

Last edited by N.M. Valdez; January 10th, 2013 at 02:55 AM.
 
Old January 9th, 2013 #43
Jimmy McQuade
Hrvatski Prijatelj
 
Jimmy McQuade's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: SFV
Posts: 1,131
Default

Britain isn't Ireland, clown. The Romans never set foot there. You've been caught in yet another lie.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Truth At Last View Post
A faggot is a traditional dish in many parts over here
 
Old January 9th, 2013 #44
N.M. Valdez
SMASH THE FASH
 
N.M. Valdez's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,382
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy McQuade View Post
Britain isn't Ireland, clown. The Romans never set foot there. You've been caught in yet another lie.
Modern Britain's considered as including Northern Ireland, McQueef. The same Celtic ethnic groups inhabited the region prior to Germanic invasion.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
I don't know what the truth is, and have said as much.
 
Old January 9th, 2013 #45
Jimmy McQuade
Hrvatski Prijatelj
 
Jimmy McQuade's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: SFV
Posts: 1,131
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by N.M. Valdez View Post
Modern Britain's considered as including Northern Ireland, McQueef. The same Celtic ethnic groups inhabited the region prior to Germanic invasion.
Look at a map jerkoff. Ireland is an island. The Romans never set foot there.

You're also wrong about the same celtic groups inhabiting both islands. Ireland's celts were Gaels from Galicia and Asturias. The Celts in Britain were Gaulish from what is now France.

Try again, ignoramus.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Truth At Last View Post
A faggot is a traditional dish in many parts over here
 
Old January 9th, 2013 #46
Ian
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Cumbria, England
Posts: 1,237
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Fisher View Post
I'm sure some Irish resorted to it during the potato famine, but to claim "the Irish practiced cannibalism" is intellectually dishonest and typical of nonwhites trying to grasp at straws to drag us down to their savage level.
In fact, cannibalism is very rare among the irish. I was told of one known case during the 1800s famine. This academic has found mention of two cases:

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Can...151504185.html

In some parts of the world, cannibalism has been rife. Universalists want to make out that all peoples are the same in response to environmental pressure.
 
Old January 9th, 2013 #47
N.M. Valdez
SMASH THE FASH
 
N.M. Valdez's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,382
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy McQuade View Post
Look at a map jerkoff. Ireland is an island. The Romans never set foot there.
Do you just make up random shit as you go along? The Celts: History, Life, and Culture

"Strabo is the first to describe the Irish people, albeit in unflattering terms as gluttonous, incestuous cannibals. The short 1st-century AD passage of Tacitus is the clearest and most informative statement on Ireland in classical literature, revealing that some Romans had military intentions toward Ireland, were familiar with the land and its people, and were actively engaged in trade with the island (Agricola 24)."

Roman contacts with Ireland

"It does seem, however, that there were extensive trade contacts between Ireland and Britain and it is likely that Romanised Britons and indeed Romans themselves would have been regular visitors to Irish shores. They probably came to trade, make political alliances, and to visit sacred sites such as Newgrange. Some may even have stayed long enough to form small communities, who chose to bury their dead according to Roman custom."

Actually, Greco-Roman narratives on Ireland and its inhabitants are similar to Western European colonial narratives on America and its inhabitants, both involving a negative depiction of those inhabitants as barbarous and uncivilized, which is simply a colonizer's racist justification.

The Greek geographer and philosopher Strabo writes of Ireland that, "The people living there are more savage than the Britons, being cannibals as well as gluttons. Further, they consider it honorable to eat their dead fathers, and to openly have intercourse, not only with unrelated women, but with their mothers and sisters as well."

The Roman geographer Pomponius Mela writes that, "The inhabitants of this island are unrefined, ignorant of all the virtues more than any other people and totally lack all sense of duty."

As summarized in Thomas Wright's History of Ireland, "Strabo had expressed his opinion of the barbarism of the inhabitants of Ierne, by informing us that they eat human flesh, and that the sexes lived in promiscuous intercourse, without paying attention even to the ties of blood. Mela tells us that the Irish of his time were so uncivilized, that they were equally without sense of virtue or of religion, and Solinus, who describes them as an inhospitable and warlike people, and gives several other instances of their barbarism, assures us that they made no distinction between right and wrong. Their cannibalism seems to have been almost proverbial; it is alluded to by Diodorus Siculus; and St. Jerome, at a much later period, declares that in his youth he had seen Scots or Irishmen exhibited in Gaul, eating human flesh."
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
I don't know what the truth is, and have said as much.

Last edited by N.M. Valdez; January 10th, 2013 at 03:09 AM.
 
Old January 11th, 2013 #48
Squarehead Chris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Crawlin' from the wreckage
Posts: 1,951
Default

Sorry Valdez, I have a hard time believing you're a "brown boy".I strongly believe you're a "Peach Bearded" white leftist college punk posing on the internet as a "minority".If I am wrong, I apoligize.There's nothing wrong with standing up for your race.
 
Old January 11th, 2013 #49
N.M. Valdez
SMASH THE FASH
 
N.M. Valdez's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,382
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Squarehead Chris View Post
Sorry Valdez, I have a hard time believing you're a "brown boy".I strongly believe you're a "Peach Bearded" white leftist college punk posing on the internet as a "minority".If I am wrong, I apoligize.There's nothing wrong with standing up for your race.
I guess that I've posted numerous pictures to the contrary means nothing.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
I don't know what the truth is, and have said as much.
 
Old January 11th, 2013 #50
Clancy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 555
Default

Quote:
Conquered? The vast majority of Native Americans were killed by communicable disease transmission. As the late James Blaut wrote in his Colonizer's Model of the World, "The Americas were not conquered: they were infected."
Given their vast technological superiority over the Indians, Europeans would almost certainly have successfully conquered the Americas without the disease factor: it would have just taken slightly more time and effort.
 
Old January 11th, 2013 #51
N.M. Valdez
SMASH THE FASH
 
N.M. Valdez's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,382
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clancy View Post
Given their vast technological superiority over the Indians, Europeans would almost certainly have successfully conquered the Americas without the disease factor: it would have just taken slightly more time and effort.
Europeans did not have a vast technological superiority over Indians. On the contrary, America was more highly populated than Europe at the time of contact and possessed superior science, mathematics, and medicine.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
I don't know what the truth is, and have said as much.
 
Old January 11th, 2013 #52
Clancy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 555
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by N.M. Valdez View Post
Europeans did not have a vast technological superiority over Indians.
Considering that the greatest pre-Columbian civilizations never so much as invented the wheel, iron and bronze refining and gun powder/weapons employing it (yes, I realize that gun powder itself originated in China) the idea that Europeans would not eventually prevail over the Indians militarily is laughable.
Quote:
On the contrary, America was more highly populated than Europe at the time of contact and possessed superior science, mathematics, and medicine.
Even if all of these claims were true, they have nothing to do with Europeans being technologically more advanced than the Indians, thus enabling them to swiftly conquer them, contrary to your theory that the Indians would have never been conquered were it not for diseases contracted from Europeans.
 
Old January 11th, 2013 #53
N.M. Valdez
SMASH THE FASH
 
N.M. Valdez's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,382
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clancy View Post
Considering that the greatest pre-Columbian civilizations never so much as invented the wheel,
I've literally refuted this lie about the wheel at least ten to fifteen times on this forum, and yet it's still repeated.

http://www.precolumbianwheels.com/







Mesoamericans used wheels on small ceramic figurines; they did not use the wheel for transport because of the absence of suitable draft animals such as horses or oxen. If the Mesoamerican Indians' wheel had met the Andean Indians llamas and alpacas, things might have been different, although those animals are best suited for mountain climbing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clancy View Post
iron
The "greatest European civilizations" did not invent iron either; it's generally believed that European iron production originated from a barbarian or semibarbarian tribe in Anatolia or the Caucasus Mountains between 1400 and 1200 B.C., although there was independent African production, as evidenced in research such as Schmidt and Childs's Innovation and industry during the Early Iron Age in East Africa: the KM2 and KM3 sites of northwest Tanzania:

"The KM2 and KM3 sites provide critical evidence for the assessment of the development of complex forms of iron production in Africa. The density of similar sites along the western shores of Lake Victoria indicates that this area was the center of a highly productive, technologically efficient, and innovative Iron Age culture. The origins of this technology perhaps originated in the desiccated zones of West Africa, such as southeastern Niger. In that region at Agadez, Gr~benart (1983:14) has dated iron smelting (with a southern origin) to 490 _+ 100 bc, and iron smelting has been documented in the 7th century bc at Azelik, 145 km NE of Agadez (Calvocoressi and David 1979:10). It is always possible, though, that the evolutionary progression we have seen in the development of the preheating technique during the first half of the first millennium AD may indicate an invention indigenous to the region."

There was likely also an independent (Asian) Indian production of iron that predated the Anatolian tradition, as evidenced in Tewari's The origins of iron-working in India: new evidence from the Central Ganga Plain and the Eastern Vindhyas

"These results indicate that iron using and iron working was prevalent in the Central Ganga Plain and the Eastern Vindhyas from the early second millennium BC. The dates obtained so far group into three: three dates between c. 1200-900 cal BC, three between c. 1400-1200 cal BC, and five between c. 1800-1500 cal BC. The types and shapes of the associated pottery are comparable to those to be generally considered as the characteristics of the Chalcolithic Period and placed in early to late second millennium BC. Taking all this evidence together it may be concluded that knowledge of iron smelting and manufacturing of iron artefacts was well known in the Eastern Vindhyas and iron had been in use in the Central Ganga Plain, at least from the early second millennium BC. The quantity and types of iron artefacts, and the level of technical advancement indicate that the introduction of iron working took place even earlier."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clancy View Post
and bronze refining
Can't you even use something as simple and easily accessible as Wikipedia?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallu...an_Mesoamerica





Quote:
Originally Posted by Clancy View Post
gun powder/weapons employing it (yes, I realize that gun powder itself originated in China)
Gunpowder and weapons employing it played a very minor role in European colonization of America; a better example of a clearly superior weapon would be the steel sword.

In Seven Myths of the Spanish Conquest, Matthew Restall explains that guns were of limited use to the earliest Europeans in America artillery pieces such as cannons and firearms such as harquebuses were in short supply and difficult to transport, tropical and sub-tropical humidity dampened powder, rendering guns inoperable, and that more effective weapons such as the musket and more effective battle techniques such as volley-firing had yet to be developed.

In 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus, Charles Mann explains that the pistols owned by Jamestown colonists were inferior to arrows in range and penetration.

In The Mystic Warriors of the Plains, Thomas E. Mails explains that quickly drawn and discharged arrows can be fired more rapidly than a historic revolver, and at short range can penetrate further than the ball of a historic Colt's navy pistol and that the bow and arrow was not abandoned to a very great extent by Plains warriors until they acquired repeaters such as the Winchester 66 and the Sharps .50 caliber carbines.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clancy View Post
the idea that Europeans would not eventually prevail over the Indians militarily is laughable.
The "Europeans" did not fight a war with "the Indians." The Indians were the majority of the combatants, as described in Indian Conquistadors: Indigenous Allies in the Conquest of MesoAmerica.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clancy View Post
Even if all of these claims were true, they have nothing to do with Europeans being technologically more advanced than the Indians,
Obviously, they do. You didn't specify that Europeans were more technologically advanced militarily; you just said more technologically advanced.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clancy View Post
thus enabling them to swiftly conquer them, contrary to your theory that the Indians would have never been conquered were it not for diseases contracted from Europeans.
They would not have been.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
I don't know what the truth is, and have said as much.
 
Old January 11th, 2013 #54
Angel Ramsey
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,145
Default

April, we'll be ordering some of your honey.
 
Old January 11th, 2013 #55
N.M. Valdez
SMASH THE FASH
 
N.M. Valdez's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,382
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angel Ramsey View Post
April, we'll be ordering some of your honey.
For what, putting a bird feeder on your head?

And April's gone, bitch! I sent her stupid fat ass off the forum and told her not to come back, just like my people sent her stupid fat ass out of California and told her not to come back.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
I don't know what the truth is, and have said as much.
 
Old January 11th, 2013 #56
Angel Ramsey
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,145
Default

Orange wildfire sounds good.
 
Old January 11th, 2013 #57
Clancy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 555
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by N.M. Valdez View Post
I've literally refuted this lie about the wheel at least ten to fifteen times on this forum, and yet it's still repeated.

Mesoamericans used wheels on small ceramic figurines; they did not use the wheel for transport because of the absence of suitable draft animals such as horses or oxen. If the Mesoamerican Indians' wheel had met the Andean Indians llamas and alpacas, things might have been different, although those animals are best suited for mountain climbing.
Why didn't the Mesoamerican Indians think to invent the wheelbarrow?
Quote:
The "greatest European civilizations" did not invent iron either; it's generally believed that European iron production originated from a barbarian or semibarbarian tribe in Anatolia or the Caucasus Mountains between 1400 and 1200 B.C., although there was independent African production, as evidenced in research such as Schmidt and Childs's
Your tangent about the origins of iron production is completely irrelevant, since I was simply discussing the technology available to Europeans vs. A. Indians, not who invented what. I never said that Europeans invented iron. The relevant fact is that Europeans had access to iron at the time of the conquest of the Americas.

Quote:
Obviously, they do. You didn't specify that Europeans were more technologically advanced militarily; you just said more technologically advanced.
Mathematics and science are not technology (and the supposed mathematical and scientific superiority of the Indians is a fantasy).
Quote:
Gunpowder and weapons employing it played a very minor role in European colonization of America; a better example of a clearly superior weapon would be the steel sword.

In Seven Myths of the Spanish Conquest, Matthew Restall explains that guns were of limited use to the earliest Europeans in America artillery pieces such as cannons and firearms such as harquebuses were in short supply and difficult to transport, tropical and sub-tropical humidity dampened powder, rendering guns inoperable, and that more effective weapons such as the musket and more effective battle techniques such as volley-firing had yet to be developed.

In 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus, Charles Mann explains that the pistols owned by Jamestown colonists were inferior to arrows in range and penetration.

In The Mystic Warriors of the Plains, Thomas E. Mails explains that quickly drawn and discharged arrows can be fired more rapidly than a historic revolver, and at short range can penetrate further than the ball of a historic Colt's navy pistol and that the bow and arrow was not abandoned to a very great extent by Plains warriors until they acquired repeaters such as the Winchester 66 and the Sharps .50 caliber carbines.
And? Superior firearms would eventually be developed by Europeans, even if they didn't exist at the time of initial contact with the Indians. My contention is that Europeans would have eventually conquered the Americas without the disease factor, albeit at a later date. And none of this changes the fact that the conquistadors had steel weapons and the Indians did not.
 
Old January 11th, 2013 #58
N.M. Valdez
SMASH THE FASH
 
N.M. Valdez's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,382
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clancy View Post
Why didn't the Mesoamerican Indians think to invent the wheelbarrow?
Why didn't Europeans think to invent the wheel, and why did you incorrectly assert that Indians did not invent the wheel, when they did and Europeans did not?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clancy View Post
Your tangent about the origins of iron production is completely irrelevant, since I was simply discussing the technology available to Europeans vs. A. Indians, not who invented what. I never said that Europeans invented iron. The relevant fact is that Europeans had access to iron at the time of the conquest of the Americas.
You mentioned that the greatest pre-Columbian civilizations did not invent the wheel (false), bronze (false), iron, and gunpowder and firearms. You added the caveat that you knew that Europeans did not invent gunpowder and firearms, but said nothing of iron, so I had to make sure that you knew that Europeans did not invent iron.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clancy View Post
Mathematics and science are not technology (and the supposed mathematical and scientific superiority of the Indians is a fantasy).
How so? Mesoamericans used their superior mathematics and astronomy to develop their famous calendar and reckon the age of the universe long before Giordano Bruno was burnt at the stake and Galileo placed under house arrest for accurately writing that the Earth revolves around the Sun.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clancy View Post
And? Superior firearms would eventually be developed by Europeans, even if they didn't exist at the time of initial contact with the Indians.
Yes, by which time they became an Indian weapon, and didn't play a major factor into European defeat of Indians, contrary to the mythical Hollywood image of the cowboy and his six shooters taking out the primitive Indian with his bow and arrow.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Clancy View Post
My contention is that Europeans would have eventually conquered the Americas without the disease factor, albeit at a later date.
If a "race war" as you envision it had actually occurred, Europeans would not have conquered the Americas in the absence of disease, since there were more Indians than there were Europeans at the time of contact, and it was select groups of Western European colonizers that were traveling to America.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clancy View Post
And none of this changes the fact that the conquistadors had steel weapons and the Indians did not.
Steel swords were the main military technological advantage that European colonizers possessed, but it played a minuscule role in the outcome of events.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
I don't know what the truth is, and have said as much.
 
Old January 11th, 2013 #59
keifer
Senior Member
 
keifer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,216
Default

Is this link suppose to strengthen your arguement?
http://www.precolumbianwheels.com/
2) Wheels were heretical, or forbidden for other reasons. Again this might be a case of a religious connection. Certainly, in Western religious traditions there have been numerous objects that were forbidden from use. However, there is no record of this being the case for pre-Columbian Wheels.


5) They could not solve or evolve the supportive technologies needed for functional wheels: bearings, uniform manufacture, etc. For a wheel system to function, to be used for its intended purpose as a load-bearing locomotion system

6) Wheels might have been in limited use, but the technology was lost, and no artifacts remain.
 
Old January 11th, 2013 #60
N.M. Valdez
SMASH THE FASH
 
N.M. Valdez's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,382
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by keifer View Post
Is this link suppose to strengthen your arguement?
There's no "argument" that there were wheels in pre-Columbian America, queefer. It's just a fact that I was pointing out.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
I don't know what the truth is, and have said as much.
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:10 AM.
Page generated in 0.21295 seconds.