I find it kinda funny when the liberals do the land acknowledgement thing and they'll name numerous tribes. And half of the named tribes are extinct because the people who conquered them genocided them.
It’s because Europeans/whites were the only race that felt bad about it, or at the very least tried to be compassionate about it. It was a mistake. As was the 19th Amendment that allowed women to vote based on those feelings.
We're such a superior people that it only matters when we massacre your people out of existence. The petty squabbles of the tribesmen are immaterial compared to when we take to the field.
In a way, it's a rather "racist" perception on the part of leftists. Where they tout tribal warfare as being nowhere near as big of a deal, simply because the scale of war and weaponry employed aren't comparable to that of Europeans.
Which is also doubly stupid if they're not comparing against examples of European warfare with similar population sizes/density and relative technological development.
To be honest it would have been cool to see the Germanics as they were thousands of years ago, shouting in the woods at Romans to defend big empty woods. The micro ethnicities of Europe that were paved over by the Romans and the Mongols and the Vikings and now the EUists could have provided some legitimately amazing insights into the world if they weren't paved over by more localized versions of globohomo.
Shall we not also acknowledge that America has actually held the Black Hills region, for example, longer than the native Lakota/Sioux? (This would be the land that Sitting Bull was fighting George Custer & Nelson Miles over.) The Lakota conquered it with their usual brutality from the Cheyenne in 1776, and lost it to the Americans almost exactly a century later in 1877; the US, obviously, has held it in the 147 years since.
Oh who am I kidding, violent conquest & the displacement or assimilation of the people who were there before (accompanied with one's own settlement of the region) is only bad when whitey does it, amirite.
Its also why the Western genre was forcefully killed off and basically nothing is ever made in the genre, except for "subversions" and "deconstructions" about it ending and talking about how evil the white outlaws were.
Because the Wild West, for whatever true reality it was, was filled to the brim with examples that showed that Indians, and Mexicans, were brutal subhuman savages worse than any White man could ever hope to be. The moment they had the upperhand or could fight back, they would massacre and destroy everything they saw.
The fact that scalping as a concept exists, and is something they regularly did to people alive, disproves any "peaceful" notion of them.
As one example, a movie called Hostiles is one of those deconstruction Westerns. It starts out showing the brutality of the Indians, and from then on, it's a never ending parade of "Indians good and oppressed" and "White man bad". It wasn't even subtle. Every single White character, other than Christian Bale and Rosamund Pike (the two main characters), range from bad to comically evil. It was made by people who hate Westerns, hate the West, and hate White people.
I was so thoroughly disgusted I've never entertained another newer Western made by Hollywood.
And what makes it even more comical is that the "Wild West" was filled to the brim with evil white guys doing awful shit. It was a lawless time and the draw of money/freedom/violence appealed to the worst of society. That's not even them making anything up.
Its just missing the point that the Indians were worse by a huge margin, and more than equally contributed to the cycle of violence that made both sides increasingly monstrous. Their brutality wasn't justified, they weren't "noble, proud warriors" defending themselves against invaders. They were Savages in every sense of the word and constantly provoked the responses that lead to their eventual near extinction.
This was always government propaganda because there were far too many people living peaceful lives without the government.
Here's a deep dive into the actual history of the wild west, specifically that violence and 'outlaws' were so exceptionally rare, that's why we remember them all by name. The way that these 'lawless' people left government behind and maintained a proper civilisation is genuinely remarkable. And that's why the entire period must be deconstructed by marxists.
A well known Anarchist argues that history is all a lie and that Anarchy totally worked and was wonderful guys?
I'd believe it was propaganda if anyone but Stefan Molyneux was trying to tell me about it, because he was a meme and a known grifting liar before 90% of the people here were paying attention.
Funny, he never mentioned anarchy, but yes factual information ceases to be relevant if it's presented by someone you don't like.
He never touched on Christianity either, the real reason why these people maintained "civilised" even as they left "civilisation." Feel free to ignore his presentation of history and continue to believe the wild west was "lawless" and dangerous because that's what some communists put in your school curriculum.
He didn't need to because I know who he was and that he has an angle to begin with. He has written numerous books on the topic and has been incredibly opinionated on that fact, which makes any presentation on examples of it working (even if not directly named) about as trustworthy as the communists telling me communism can work.
He was also a famous atheist back in the era when those were popular (which is why he got big to begin with), and considered "faith" a literal scourge on humanity and was one of the key figures of the movement. And I'll level with you, I think anyone who helped contribute to the rejection of God holds more than plenty responsibility for the current state of the world. Which means its more than "someone I don't like."
See, when you actually know who the people speaking are, instead of just believing them at their word because they say what you want to hear, you can recognize when they have extra motives behind their words.
Okay, you have lots of reasons to dislike him, and I never did say I agreed with his conclusions. I don't.
But in this one specific video, the only thing I have ever seen of the man or cared to, he brings plenty of receipts to prove the very simple point that the WW was not anywhere near as dangerous and lawless as many have been lead to believe through nothing more than repetition of the worst of it.
In the United States we have massive amounts of records, genealogies, newspapers, biographies, contracts, legal and court records, to trace the entirety of the so called wild west, and in those records we have the safest cities, with the lowest crime levels, to have ever existed on earth.
Exemplifying the "wild" part of the wild west has served at different points: the advancement of federalism, the marxist 'noble savage" narrative, and the push for "progress" in the form of degeneracy and the welfare state.
If I cared to make videos I would have linked you mine. But I can separate presented facts from the presenters bias without much issue and it is a failure of mine to expect the same of others.
It's comical watching "Dances With Wolves" when the calvary shows up. They are so cartoon over the top evil. They do almost everything bad except rape Costner. They even just shoot at wolves for fun. And they make it seem like McDonell's character was a better person because she was a slave.
Hollywood writers know that they can shape reality by putting a lie in front of people's eyes. Just make a thousand "Based on a true story" atrocity flic that incites feelings and that little lie becomes a big fact.
Well that, and the genre was done to absolute death for decades. That's not to say that the various resurgences weren't pretty damn cool, like spaghetti westerns and some of the more modern ones from the 80's-90's.
But there's only so much variety and creativity you can ultimately carve out of such a genre. And many modern attempts have been remarkably retarded with their leftist-influenced takes.
Conversely, I wish there was a greater volume of quality films that take place closer to the colonial era, and the early U.S. I've seen at least a few over the years, but it's still remarkably sparse. Especially anytime past the 40's-60's.
There was an expectation of heroism, family values, and pro americana in the genre, and pedowood wanted to make movies and shows about suburbanites and degeneracy instead.
Those resurgences were as you say, attempts to alter the formula towards leftism once it had been long enough for the positive expectations to have waned.
Reality shows are... not exactly a good example, since they're more ingrained with a particular format or structure than a strict setting. As for why they're still so rampant, a lot of that can be attributed to low production costs and a particularly effective appeal to women.
They've essentially overtaken what used to be reserved for sitcoms and gameshows. Low cost and minimal effort to make, minimal conflict, low effort on plot (generally), sometimes episodic in nature (due to minimal plot), etc. A fair bit more braindead than some of the better sitcoms in the past though.
I wasn't talking about "reality show" as a genre. It's a medium.
I'm talking about the shows themselves, including game shows.
Survior had been on the air for 24 years. Amazing Race almost as long.
Game shows have had worse scandals than almost any industry and have a core set that have endured for nearly 30 years, and countless new versions and varients. Not a single one has failed and then had "genre fatigue" be blamed.
Because people don't get tired of what they enjoy. The "New shiny" phenomenon is one of distraction, not boredom. Producers and taste makers decide what get's made, not consumers. And if one of their ideas fails, well "genre fatigue" is a great unfalsifiable excuse.
Never mind that your version sucked ass because you're retarded. People don't hate star wars because sci fi is old. And they don't hate concord because FPSs are passe.
Is there Sports Fatigue? Romance Novel Fatigue? Skate Park Fatigue?
Of course not. The only things with "fatigue" are the ones where some worthless swill of humanity can blame their failure on it.
You really think that Marvel's decline is because people hate super heroes all of a sudden? Sure took a long time. A good 65 years. It's cause the movies are garbage. They were always garbage, but now they're even worse.
But you can't admit to making crap and shovelware. it has to be "Market conditions" and "shifts in taste" and "genre fatigue."
Aye, those are some fair points. And you're right. If someone likes something, a lot, they're rarely going to get completely burned out on it. Or at least not enough to abandon it completely, generally.
And while I thought I'd been arguing in good faith, I admit I may not have been aware of my own clouded bias. Just because I don't really dig a lot of those earlier Western films doesn't mean that a lot of other people with perfectly good taste couldn't.
I do think that there can be at least some degree of genre fatigue though, but it's probably something that has to be especially over-saturated to cause any kind of significant audience "burnout". Usually, the average person just naturally addresses such things by changing things up with their own variety in what kind of media they partake in.
Not so easy of course when leftists have done everything they can to turn things to shit.
I can see it existing as a function of something being forced. Becoming tired of movies because they're all propaganda.
Which is an angle I hadn't thought of until this last comment you made.
In that case I think it's more a saturation point of something bad, a bit of lead in a well might be survivable for a moment, but long term the quantity you'll tolerate drops lower and lower.
But I think that's different from "Oh everybody loved it too long now they stopped" for something with consistent quality.
Eh, I dunno. Might just be me. I found a lot of them extremely repetitive. More-so before the 70's. Jeremiah Johnson is one I rather liked though. And Wyatt Earp, starring Kevin Costner.
Sometimes people like a little bit of extra spice to their entertainment every now and then. Leftists push the envelope to the extreme though.
I'd say that was true, excepting that multiple other genres have been done to death over the decades and still don't completely die out.
For a comparison, WW2 shooters were done to death in gaming over the 90s/00s to the point where Modern Warfare was able to basically shake the world up by not being so. But they never stopped being made after, they just weren't in vogue, and scarcely a decade later they were being made in earnest again.
While there are plenty reasons why they'd be less popular, their complete absence is notable, just the same as the ones missing from any pre-WW2 America in general. Likely because it would be impossible to make without either going into Wrong Think or changing history so hard to make it fit Leftie Sensibilities.
There was also the problem with WW2 multiplayer that as time went on, it became impermissible to portray the Nazi side as a fully playable, equivalent option.
I think it depends a lot on how much variety you can actually get out of a particular genre or setting. More-so when it comes to film and TV shows. When it comes to games you have a much wider range of options available since you're not just offering a linear story, but gameplay, combat, interaction, etc.
I do agree though, the complete absence is a little bit curious. Especially when it comes to games. Might be too much of a hard sell for publishers and developers to take their chances on.
I don't have a lot I can offer unfortunately. Because like I said, they're exceedingly uncommon, and not a lot are really something I can strongly recommend. And I'm sure you've already heard of the ones I can name. IE, The Patriot, Last of the Mohicans, and... that's all I can remember off the top of my head.
There was also a little bit of a semi-dramatized documentary on Daniel Boone from the History channel that was kind of interesting. I unfortunately don't know the name, it was part of a series covering him, Davy Crocket, and Louis and Clark.
Edit: Think I found it. Not sure why the video is so dim/dark though, especially since it's on the History channel's own YT channel.
The scene from Wounded Knee should be shown in school. Also didn’t other tribes help the Spanish due to how the Aztecs treated them? I also read that Shaka Zulu was very ruthless with neighboring tribes. I wonder if any of them helped the British. The good/bad/ugly of western history has been rehashed to death. Let’s get some mini series about non western history. Especially slavery and other atrocities
'Teamed up' undersells it. In many conquistador armies, they were outnumbered 10-1 by native allies.
The conquistadors had better direction, organization, and tactics, but the overwhelming bulk of the armies were natives. They were native uprisings, featuring conquistador support.
Indeed. There was virtually no way the Conquistadors could've pulled off their campaign without at least a fair bit of manpower and additional combatants to bolster their extremely small numbers and limited supplies.
I did learn about that. The Spanish word “malinchista” has its roots in that. A native woman who sided with the Spanish. Or their version of Benedict Arnold I think
Just more sour grapes from the losers of history, turned into a wine everyone has been told is the finest of all time since the wrong side consistently won Mexican civil wars - the Reform War, Mexican Revolution, Cristero War, etc. - often with assistance from American liberals. Did you know that the Americans were backing Satanic Mexican Freemason leftists and indigenous malcontents against the Catholic criollo factions as early as before the civil war? Because they did just that.
No doubt about the sour grapes. Some just can’t accept there are losers and winners. I’ve been meaning to research the Cristero wars more ever since I heard a ranchera song about it
There was a movie on the Cristiada directed by a veteran of the production staff for the latter two LOTR movies, which of course was immediately bashed by those 'professional' critics who even bothered to watch it in the first place. Worth a watch, IMO. Of the Mexican internal conflicts where the bad guys won, that was definitely the most recent and will remain so, at least until the cartels finish toppling whatever facade of a government still exists entirely.
I honestly thought for a second you meant Indians in India who pretend before the British came they have some amazing civilization and the British somehow managed to destroy it all and send them back centuries...
The total population of Tenochtitlan at the time was about 200k. That would mean a male military age (12-35) population of about 20k (10%) at best. That is just not enough to handle 80k prisoners, all of them military age men (the group typically captured through war for human sacrifice) without being overrun.
I point this out because it is an obvious exaggeration that is easy for "noble savage" advocates to dismiss and ridicule.
The reality is that the numbers were close to 4k-5k individuals, which is a fucking large number of people to murder over four days, by any standard.
Add to that that human sacrifice was an ONGOING activity and you get into the tens of thousands of people murdered for any one given year.
The Aztecs were not typical in terms of sacrificing people; they had wars with the primary goal of sacrificing people. Those captured wanted to be sacrificed because they believe it was an honorable death, restoring balance to nature after the great famines.
So none of your pontificating is reasonable except that we don't actually know how many were sacrificed. The 4k-5k figure is the lowest estimate, from oral tradition, but it's entirely possible that these claims were of one specific sacrificial holy site - there were 16 - especially since 5k x 16 is 80k.
There is no evidence that this is true at all. The Mexicah were universally hated by other mesoamerican tribes, and it is unlikely that these men would have been happy about being sacrificed to a deity from a completely different religion.
there were 16 - especially since 5k x 16 is 80k.
Yes, there was certainly more than one site, much more likely more than 16. The 80k number however is clearly for one temple at one location, during its consecration.
Tenochtitlan is now at part of a massively populated region, Mexico City, and has been excavated and closely studied, and still no remains have been found to support this number.
Exaggeration just makes it easy to dismiss the key point: Aztecs routinely made human sacrifices in large numbers, and were not the innocent little lambs portrayed by new age liberal retards.
Yes, there was certainly more than one site, much more likely more than 16. The 80k number however is clearly for one temple at one location, during its consecration.
Clearly? Who even said it was all at one site except you?
Full article is paywalled but they seem to have done a lot of research. I did misread that as 16 sites, when it's saying 15 other alters at other sites.
Also, done with this.
Did you even start?? The only thing you've contributed is trying to minimalize the Aztecs' savagery with some baseless opinions.
"Sacrifice was practised across the Valley of Mexico, and Aztec warriors accepted that they might receive the ‘flowered death by the obsidian knife’ as their own likely, even desirable, destiny"
Those sacrificed here were war prisoners taken from other tribes. They were not Mexicah (Aztecs). They followed completely different deities and religion. There would be no reason for them to find any honor in being sacrificed to a foreign god.
Who even said it was all at one site except you?
The 80k number refers exclusively to one event specifically, the re-consecration of The Great Temple at Tenochtitlan.
It is in the post itself. You argue like you read, at elementary level.
Also, you never addressed the lack of archaeological evidence to back the 80k sacrifices over 4 days claim. There simply is none.
It is simply logistically implausible to capture, mobilize, slaughter and dispose of such a large number of people, let alone leave no mass graves or at least a sizable ash layer (if cremated).
If you argue this poorly against someone who agrees with you, you will be handed your ass when you find real opposition.
They followed completely different deities and religion. There would be no reason for them to find any honor in being sacrificed to a foreign god
The other societies in the region had similar practices and beliefs - it's in the quote, dude. In the flower wars the sides would fight, take captives, and sacrifice those captives. What do you think, that the Aztecs were sacrificing their own warriors? Why would they fight and be desiring of death by obsidian blade (ie as a sacrifice) from their own people? Think for a second before reflexively responding with more lame opinions.
The 80k number refers exclusively to one event specifically, the re-consecration of The Great Temple at Tenochtitlan.
Yes one event, the four-day festival where sacrifices were held at several sites. Not one site. At least four thousand, less than 80,000. But we should pretend it was definitely only four thousand to kowtow to the left, according to you.
It is simply logistically implausible to capture, mobilize, slaughter and dispose of such a large number of people, let alone leave no mass graves or at least a sizable ash layer (if cremated).
There is no evidence that this is true at all.
To keep arguing when you have no evidence or facts, are you retarded?
The other societies in the region had similar practices and beliefs
No, this shows how ignorant you are about Mesoamerica. Itza, Pipilt, Toltecah and other tribes that were routinely targeted by the Mexihcah, followed completely different deities, and did not routinely engage in human sacrifices.
Their deities required sacrifices of small reptiles, butterflies or flowers and forbade sacrifices for other deities in this case Huitzilopochtli, Mexicah god of war, in other cases Tlaloc.
To them, there would be no honor in dying for a foreign god.
Whole wars were fought over this, from the falls of Toltec Tolans to the rise of the Mexicah empire.
Yes one event, the four-day festival where sacrifices were held at several sites. Not one site.
Again, no. All references I find are to all sacrifices taking place on the four altars of the Great Temple (one altar facing each cardinal point: Red, White, Black, Blue). This according to codices from colonial times.
There is no evidence that this is true at all.
I pointed that out. There is no archaeological evidence that 80k bodies were disposed at these sites.
You are simply ignorant and self righteous in your stupidity.
You're so weak-willed you can't even walk away. And the reason is of course because you know you look like a moron but if you get the last word maybe you can save your ego.
This one is just concerned with the wars on the plains. Cowboys and indians stuff but as it actually happened, not the hollywood shit. It is brutal. Fans of Corman McCarthy will love it (you sick fucks) Everyone else will probably want to vomit.
It's interesting that modern day Indigenous politics are inextricably linked to leftist grievance identity politics culture.
Their leadership bleats constantly about their desire for sovereignty, self-reliance and self-determination. But they constantly throw their lot in with the big government and ever-expanding centralized social welfare state.
You have local Indigenous activists marching with Free Palestine demanding concessions on the other side of the globe and allying with the latest flavor of neocolonialists.
It's also curious that despite the cultural and genetic diversity of the various tribes across North America, their modern day cultural narrative is inevitably gay race communist politically.
There was a reason many natives in the Americas sided with the Europeans over the then native rulers, plus few of them went full.... 'Portuguese'
A lot saw them as trading partners and would rather employ them as hunters for the very lucrative fur trade. It was one of the reasons native Americans sided with the British against the colonial Americans and that was where the bad blood REALLY started as they used the barbaric war tactics they used against each other against Americans and, well you get an Andrew Jackson as president because of that..
It's not even a new lie at that. And while I know it's all "it's just like [insert media here]", but even back in 2007 this lie was known as a lie when it was explicitly stated as such in Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee. And I think that most people know this. But they don't want to say it. Because they've been conditioned to never say things that aren't nice. That are uncomfortable. That challenge pre-conceived notions.
The only thing white people did with their arrival was give Natives further means to slaughter each other in greater ways through guns. Every civilisation on the planet has slaughtered another. The greatest lie on earth is that peace is the normal state of affairs. Peace has been a blip on our history. A rather nice blip. But a blip all the same.
"Dey were/weren't peaceful" is about as relevant as "Imagine if the other side did this!". Useless jew wordplays that distract from what really should be a focus. Inside the territories of Western Nations is random little enclaves of unbridled rage and savagry that wants to tear back at White people. The Democratic party platform, on page 1, stated that their United States of America is ashamed to be on this land. The idea of seceding these lands to trailer park drunkards failing to live life on easy mode is now a mainstream political talking point. Over in Europe another Catholic church was burned down to claim the land as a multicultural shopping center, how long until American monuments are bombed to be replaced with indian dance rings?
I find it kinda funny when the liberals do the land acknowledgement thing and they'll name numerous tribes. And half of the named tribes are extinct because the people who conquered them genocided them.
Tribes conquering other tribes is as old as time but somehow it’s only relevant when Europeans do it
It’s because Europeans/whites were the only race that felt bad about it, or at the very least tried to be compassionate about it. It was a mistake. As was the 19th Amendment that allowed women to vote based on those feelings.
There's a reason why museums are a White Man invention and interest.
We're such a superior people that it only matters when we massacre your people out of existence. The petty squabbles of the tribesmen are immaterial compared to when we take to the field.
I mean yeah.
In a way, it's a rather "racist" perception on the part of leftists. Where they tout tribal warfare as being nowhere near as big of a deal, simply because the scale of war and weaponry employed aren't comparable to that of Europeans.
Which is also doubly stupid if they're not comparing against examples of European warfare with similar population sizes/density and relative technological development.
Because we are at the top of the food chain.
To be honest it would have been cool to see the Germanics as they were thousands of years ago, shouting in the woods at Romans to defend big empty woods. The micro ethnicities of Europe that were paved over by the Romans and the Mongols and the Vikings and now the EUists could have provided some legitimately amazing insights into the world if they weren't paved over by more localized versions of globohomo.
Shall we not also acknowledge that America has actually held the Black Hills region, for example, longer than the native Lakota/Sioux? (This would be the land that Sitting Bull was fighting George Custer & Nelson Miles over.) The Lakota conquered it with their usual brutality from the Cheyenne in 1776, and lost it to the Americans almost exactly a century later in 1877; the US, obviously, has held it in the 147 years since.
Oh who am I kidding, violent conquest & the displacement or assimilation of the people who were there before (accompanied with one's own settlement of the region) is only bad when whitey does it, amirite.
Noble savage is just one of several foundational mythologies of progressive ideology. Blank Slate theory of human development is another one.
They love the “Magical Negro” trope, too.
Its also why the Western genre was forcefully killed off and basically nothing is ever made in the genre, except for "subversions" and "deconstructions" about it ending and talking about how evil the white outlaws were.
Because the Wild West, for whatever true reality it was, was filled to the brim with examples that showed that Indians, and Mexicans, were brutal subhuman savages worse than any White man could ever hope to be. The moment they had the upperhand or could fight back, they would massacre and destroy everything they saw.
The fact that scalping as a concept exists, and is something they regularly did to people alive, disproves any "peaceful" notion of them.
As one example, a movie called Hostiles is one of those deconstruction Westerns. It starts out showing the brutality of the Indians, and from then on, it's a never ending parade of "Indians good and oppressed" and "White man bad". It wasn't even subtle. Every single White character, other than Christian Bale and Rosamund Pike (the two main characters), range from bad to comically evil. It was made by people who hate Westerns, hate the West, and hate White people.
I was so thoroughly disgusted I've never entertained another newer Western made by Hollywood.
Seen Bone Tomahawk?
No, and I don't want to. I've already heard about that scene. I've seen enough gore crap posted on 4chan.
And what makes it even more comical is that the "Wild West" was filled to the brim with evil white guys doing awful shit. It was a lawless time and the draw of money/freedom/violence appealed to the worst of society. That's not even them making anything up.
Its just missing the point that the Indians were worse by a huge margin, and more than equally contributed to the cycle of violence that made both sides increasingly monstrous. Their brutality wasn't justified, they weren't "noble, proud warriors" defending themselves against invaders. They were Savages in every sense of the word and constantly provoked the responses that lead to their eventual near extinction.
This was always government propaganda because there were far too many people living peaceful lives without the government.
Here's a deep dive into the actual history of the wild west, specifically that violence and 'outlaws' were so exceptionally rare, that's why we remember them all by name. The way that these 'lawless' people left government behind and maintained a proper civilisation is genuinely remarkable. And that's why the entire period must be deconstructed by marxists.
https://rumble.com/v3k5qk0-the-truth-about-the-wild-west.html
A well known Anarchist argues that history is all a lie and that Anarchy totally worked and was wonderful guys?
I'd believe it was propaganda if anyone but Stefan Molyneux was trying to tell me about it, because he was a meme and a known grifting liar before 90% of the people here were paying attention.
Funny, he never mentioned anarchy, but yes factual information ceases to be relevant if it's presented by someone you don't like.
He never touched on Christianity either, the real reason why these people maintained "civilised" even as they left "civilisation." Feel free to ignore his presentation of history and continue to believe the wild west was "lawless" and dangerous because that's what some communists put in your school curriculum.
He didn't need to because I know who he was and that he has an angle to begin with. He has written numerous books on the topic and has been incredibly opinionated on that fact, which makes any presentation on examples of it working (even if not directly named) about as trustworthy as the communists telling me communism can work.
He was also a famous atheist back in the era when those were popular (which is why he got big to begin with), and considered "faith" a literal scourge on humanity and was one of the key figures of the movement. And I'll level with you, I think anyone who helped contribute to the rejection of God holds more than plenty responsibility for the current state of the world. Which means its more than "someone I don't like."
See, when you actually know who the people speaking are, instead of just believing them at their word because they say what you want to hear, you can recognize when they have extra motives behind their words.
Okay, you have lots of reasons to dislike him, and I never did say I agreed with his conclusions. I don't.
But in this one specific video, the only thing I have ever seen of the man or cared to, he brings plenty of receipts to prove the very simple point that the WW was not anywhere near as dangerous and lawless as many have been lead to believe through nothing more than repetition of the worst of it.
In the United States we have massive amounts of records, genealogies, newspapers, biographies, contracts, legal and court records, to trace the entirety of the so called wild west, and in those records we have the safest cities, with the lowest crime levels, to have ever existed on earth.
Exemplifying the "wild" part of the wild west has served at different points: the advancement of federalism, the marxist 'noble savage" narrative, and the push for "progress" in the form of degeneracy and the welfare state.
If I cared to make videos I would have linked you mine. But I can separate presented facts from the presenters bias without much issue and it is a failure of mine to expect the same of others.
It's comical watching "Dances With Wolves" when the calvary shows up. They are so cartoon over the top evil. They do almost everything bad except rape Costner. They even just shoot at wolves for fun. And they make it seem like McDonell's character was a better person because she was a slave.
Hollywood writers know that they can shape reality by putting a lie in front of people's eyes. Just make a thousand "Based on a true story" atrocity flic that incites feelings and that little lie becomes a big fact.
Well that, and the genre was done to absolute death for decades. That's not to say that the various resurgences weren't pretty damn cool, like spaghetti westerns and some of the more modern ones from the 80's-90's.
But there's only so much variety and creativity you can ultimately carve out of such a genre. And many modern attempts have been remarkably retarded with their leftist-influenced takes.
Conversely, I wish there was a greater volume of quality films that take place closer to the colonial era, and the early U.S. I've seen at least a few over the years, but it's still remarkably sparse. Especially anytime past the 40's-60's.
And yet, people never actually tired of watching them, pedowood got tired of making them: https://infogalactic.com/info/Rural_purge
There was an expectation of heroism, family values, and pro americana in the genre, and pedowood wanted to make movies and shows about suburbanites and degeneracy instead.
Those resurgences were as you say, attempts to alter the formula towards leftism once it had been long enough for the positive expectations to have waned.
Genre fatigue does not exist and has never existed. The existence of any number of reality shows proves this.
Survivor being one example.
Things becoming corrupted by suits, rent seekers, and commies doesn't mean the things themselv3s were passe
Reality shows are... not exactly a good example, since they're more ingrained with a particular format or structure than a strict setting. As for why they're still so rampant, a lot of that can be attributed to low production costs and a particularly effective appeal to women.
They've essentially overtaken what used to be reserved for sitcoms and gameshows. Low cost and minimal effort to make, minimal conflict, low effort on plot (generally), sometimes episodic in nature (due to minimal plot), etc. A fair bit more braindead than some of the better sitcoms in the past though.
Assuming good faith.
I wasn't talking about "reality show" as a genre. It's a medium.
I'm talking about the shows themselves, including game shows.
Survior had been on the air for 24 years. Amazing Race almost as long. Game shows have had worse scandals than almost any industry and have a core set that have endured for nearly 30 years, and countless new versions and varients. Not a single one has failed and then had "genre fatigue" be blamed.
Because people don't get tired of what they enjoy. The "New shiny" phenomenon is one of distraction, not boredom. Producers and taste makers decide what get's made, not consumers. And if one of their ideas fails, well "genre fatigue" is a great unfalsifiable excuse.
Never mind that your version sucked ass because you're retarded. People don't hate star wars because sci fi is old. And they don't hate concord because FPSs are passe.
Is there Sports Fatigue? Romance Novel Fatigue? Skate Park Fatigue?
Of course not. The only things with "fatigue" are the ones where some worthless swill of humanity can blame their failure on it.
You really think that Marvel's decline is because people hate super heroes all of a sudden? Sure took a long time. A good 65 years. It's cause the movies are garbage. They were always garbage, but now they're even worse.
But you can't admit to making crap and shovelware. it has to be "Market conditions" and "shifts in taste" and "genre fatigue."
Aye, those are some fair points. And you're right. If someone likes something, a lot, they're rarely going to get completely burned out on it. Or at least not enough to abandon it completely, generally.
And while I thought I'd been arguing in good faith, I admit I may not have been aware of my own clouded bias. Just because I don't really dig a lot of those earlier Western films doesn't mean that a lot of other people with perfectly good taste couldn't.
I do think that there can be at least some degree of genre fatigue though, but it's probably something that has to be especially over-saturated to cause any kind of significant audience "burnout". Usually, the average person just naturally addresses such things by changing things up with their own variety in what kind of media they partake in.
Not so easy of course when leftists have done everything they can to turn things to shit.
I can see it existing as a function of something being forced. Becoming tired of movies because they're all propaganda.
Which is an angle I hadn't thought of until this last comment you made.
In that case I think it's more a saturation point of something bad, a bit of lead in a well might be survivable for a moment, but long term the quantity you'll tolerate drops lower and lower.
But I think that's different from "Oh everybody loved it too long now they stopped" for something with consistent quality.
Eh, I dunno. Might just be me. I found a lot of them extremely repetitive. More-so before the 70's. Jeremiah Johnson is one I rather liked though. And Wyatt Earp, starring Kevin Costner.
Sometimes people like a little bit of extra spice to their entertainment every now and then. Leftists push the envelope to the extreme though.
I'd say that was true, excepting that multiple other genres have been done to death over the decades and still don't completely die out.
For a comparison, WW2 shooters were done to death in gaming over the 90s/00s to the point where Modern Warfare was able to basically shake the world up by not being so. But they never stopped being made after, they just weren't in vogue, and scarcely a decade later they were being made in earnest again.
While there are plenty reasons why they'd be less popular, their complete absence is notable, just the same as the ones missing from any pre-WW2 America in general. Likely because it would be impossible to make without either going into Wrong Think or changing history so hard to make it fit Leftie Sensibilities.
There was also the problem with WW2 multiplayer that as time went on, it became impermissible to portray the Nazi side as a fully playable, equivalent option.
I think it depends a lot on how much variety you can actually get out of a particular genre or setting. More-so when it comes to film and TV shows. When it comes to games you have a much wider range of options available since you're not just offering a linear story, but gameplay, combat, interaction, etc.
I do agree though, the complete absence is a little bit curious. Especially when it comes to games. Might be too much of a hard sell for publishers and developers to take their chances on.
I would be interested in your recommendations in that genre. Thanks.
I don't have a lot I can offer unfortunately. Because like I said, they're exceedingly uncommon, and not a lot are really something I can strongly recommend. And I'm sure you've already heard of the ones I can name. IE, The Patriot, Last of the Mohicans, and... that's all I can remember off the top of my head.
There was also a little bit of a semi-dramatized documentary on Daniel Boone from the History channel that was kind of interesting. I unfortunately don't know the name, it was part of a series covering him, Davy Crocket, and Louis and Clark.
Edit: Think I found it. Not sure why the video is so dim/dark though, especially since it's on the History channel's own YT channel.
The scene from Wounded Knee should be shown in school. Also didn’t other tribes help the Spanish due to how the Aztecs treated them? I also read that Shaka Zulu was very ruthless with neighboring tribes. I wonder if any of them helped the British. The good/bad/ugly of western history has been rehashed to death. Let’s get some mini series about non western history. Especially slavery and other atrocities
The conquistadors teamed up with native tribes. It's even taught in history classes in Mexico.
'Teamed up' undersells it. In many conquistador armies, they were outnumbered 10-1 by native allies.
The conquistadors had better direction, organization, and tactics, but the overwhelming bulk of the armies were natives. They were native uprisings, featuring conquistador support.
The equivalent of the French lending support to the Colonies in our revolution, I presume.
Indeed. There was virtually no way the Conquistadors could've pulled off their campaign without at least a fair bit of manpower and additional combatants to bolster their extremely small numbers and limited supplies.
I did learn about that. The Spanish word “malinchista” has its roots in that. A native woman who sided with the Spanish. Or their version of Benedict Arnold I think
Just more sour grapes from the losers of history, turned into a wine everyone has been told is the finest of all time since the wrong side consistently won Mexican civil wars - the Reform War, Mexican Revolution, Cristero War, etc. - often with assistance from American liberals. Did you know that the Americans were backing Satanic Mexican Freemason leftists and indigenous malcontents against the Catholic criollo factions as early as before the civil war? Because they did just that.
Also the natives who teamed up with the Spanish to bring down the Aztecs (such as the Tlaxcalans) weren't screwed over, they actually made out very well for themselves and gained tons of privileges under the new order, even the right to self-government within their own autonomous vassal principalities under the Spanish crown. The Tlaxcalans never regretted their alliance and contributed auxiliary troops to support the Spanish in conquests elsewhere, ex. Guatemala.
No doubt about the sour grapes. Some just can’t accept there are losers and winners. I’ve been meaning to research the Cristero wars more ever since I heard a ranchera song about it
There was a movie on the Cristiada directed by a veteran of the production staff for the latter two LOTR movies, which of course was immediately bashed by those 'professional' critics who even bothered to watch it in the first place. Worth a watch, IMO. Of the Mexican internal conflicts where the bad guys won, that was definitely the most recent and will remain so, at least until the cartels finish toppling whatever facade of a government still exists entirely.
Thanks! Will check it out
During the Anglo-Zulu war native African troops fought for the British.
I need to watch the Zulu series from early 80s. I hear it’s good.
Nandi!
Nandi?
NAAAAANDI!
I don’t get it
Nani? 🤔
It’s gay anime stuff, just ignore it
It's a lie told about every dark-skinned native populace.
I honestly thought for a second you meant Indians in India who pretend before the British came they have some amazing civilization and the British somehow managed to destroy it all and send them back centuries...
The total population of Tenochtitlan at the time was about 200k. That would mean a male military age (12-35) population of about 20k (10%) at best. That is just not enough to handle 80k prisoners, all of them military age men (the group typically captured through war for human sacrifice) without being overrun.
I point this out because it is an obvious exaggeration that is easy for "noble savage" advocates to dismiss and ridicule.
The reality is that the numbers were close to 4k-5k individuals, which is a fucking large number of people to murder over four days, by any standard.
Add to that that human sacrifice was an ONGOING activity and you get into the tens of thousands of people murdered for any one given year.
The Aztecs were not typical in terms of sacrificing people; they had wars with the primary goal of sacrificing people. Those captured wanted to be sacrificed because they believe it was an honorable death, restoring balance to nature after the great famines.
So none of your pontificating is reasonable except that we don't actually know how many were sacrificed. The 4k-5k figure is the lowest estimate, from oral tradition, but it's entirely possible that these claims were of one specific sacrificial holy site - there were 16 - especially since 5k x 16 is 80k.
There is no evidence that this is true at all. The Mexicah were universally hated by other mesoamerican tribes, and it is unlikely that these men would have been happy about being sacrificed to a deity from a completely different religion.
Yes, there was certainly more than one site, much more likely more than 16. The 80k number however is clearly for one temple at one location, during its consecration.
Tenochtitlan is now at part of a massively populated region, Mexico City, and has been excavated and closely studied, and still no remains have been found to support this number.
Exaggeration just makes it easy to dismiss the key point: Aztecs routinely made human sacrifices in large numbers, and were not the innocent little lambs portrayed by new age liberal retards.
Also, done with this.
"Sacrifice was practised across the Valley of Mexico, and Aztec warriors accepted that they might receive the ‘flowered death by the obsidian knife’ as their own likely, even desirable, destiny"
Clearly? Who even said it was all at one site except you?
Regarding the Aztec Blood Festival: "All sources agree that on that day a huge number of captives were sacrificed to the gods on four altars set up on top of the pyramid in Tenochtitlan and 15 at other sacred sites in the city.
Full article is paywalled but they seem to have done a lot of research. I did misread that as 16 sites, when it's saying 15 other alters at other sites.
Did you even start?? The only thing you've contributed is trying to minimalize the Aztecs' savagery with some baseless opinions.
Those sacrificed here were war prisoners taken from other tribes. They were not Mexicah (Aztecs). They followed completely different deities and religion. There would be no reason for them to find any honor in being sacrificed to a foreign god.
The 80k number refers exclusively to one event specifically, the re-consecration of The Great Temple at Tenochtitlan.
It is in the post itself. You argue like you read, at elementary level.
Also, you never addressed the lack of archaeological evidence to back the 80k sacrifices over 4 days claim. There simply is none.
It is simply logistically implausible to capture, mobilize, slaughter and dispose of such a large number of people, let alone leave no mass graves or at least a sizable ash layer (if cremated).
If you argue this poorly against someone who agrees with you, you will be handed your ass when you find real opposition.
Done and done.
The other societies in the region had similar practices and beliefs - it's in the quote, dude. In the flower wars the sides would fight, take captives, and sacrifice those captives. What do you think, that the Aztecs were sacrificing their own warriors? Why would they fight and be desiring of death by obsidian blade (ie as a sacrifice) from their own people? Think for a second before reflexively responding with more lame opinions.
Yes one event, the four-day festival where sacrifices were held at several sites. Not one site. At least four thousand, less than 80,000. But we should pretend it was definitely only four thousand to kowtow to the left, according to you.
There is no evidence that this is true at all.
To keep arguing when you have no evidence or facts, are you retarded?
No, this shows how ignorant you are about Mesoamerica. Itza, Pipilt, Toltecah and other tribes that were routinely targeted by the Mexihcah, followed completely different deities, and did not routinely engage in human sacrifices.
Their deities required sacrifices of small reptiles, butterflies or flowers and forbade sacrifices for other deities in this case Huitzilopochtli, Mexicah god of war, in other cases Tlaloc.
To them, there would be no honor in dying for a foreign god.
Whole wars were fought over this, from the falls of Toltec Tolans to the rise of the Mexicah empire.
Again, no. All references I find are to all sacrifices taking place on the four altars of the Great Temple (one altar facing each cardinal point: Red, White, Black, Blue). This according to codices from colonial times.
I pointed that out. There is no archaeological evidence that 80k bodies were disposed at these sites.
You are simply ignorant and self righteous in your stupidity.
You're so weak-willed you can't even walk away. And the reason is of course because you know you look like a moron but if you get the last word maybe you can save your ego.
You're pathetic.
If you want some good books to read on the subject:
This one covers all of North America and is sourced from diaries, letters, and memoirs of those who saw the brutal savagery in person.
https://www.amazon.com/Cannibalism-Headhunting-Human-Sacrifice-America-ebook/dp/B0D541PP3H
This one is just concerned with the wars on the plains. Cowboys and indians stuff but as it actually happened, not the hollywood shit. It is brutal. Fans of Corman McCarthy will love it (you sick fucks) Everyone else will probably want to vomit.
https://www.amazon.com/Scalp-Dance-Indian-Warfare-1865-1879/dp/0811729079
It's interesting that modern day Indigenous politics are inextricably linked to leftist grievance identity politics culture.
Their leadership bleats constantly about their desire for sovereignty, self-reliance and self-determination. But they constantly throw their lot in with the big government and ever-expanding centralized social welfare state.
You have local Indigenous activists marching with Free Palestine demanding concessions on the other side of the globe and allying with the latest flavor of neocolonialists.
It's also curious that despite the cultural and genetic diversity of the various tribes across North America, their modern day cultural narrative is inevitably gay race communist politically.
Every group who did not succeed is oppresed and good and any group that succeeded in creating a society that can be admired is considered evil.
black people selling other black people in to slavery - good
Aztecs doing mass murder of kids - good
gypses moving in to foreign lands, stealing and cheating - good
There was a reason many natives in the Americas sided with the Europeans over the then native rulers, plus few of them went full.... 'Portuguese'
A lot saw them as trading partners and would rather employ them as hunters for the very lucrative fur trade. It was one of the reasons native Americans sided with the British against the colonial Americans and that was where the bad blood REALLY started as they used the barbaric war tactics they used against each other against Americans and, well you get an Andrew Jackson as president because of that..
It's not even a new lie at that. And while I know it's all "it's just like [insert media here]", but even back in 2007 this lie was known as a lie when it was explicitly stated as such in Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee. And I think that most people know this. But they don't want to say it. Because they've been conditioned to never say things that aren't nice. That are uncomfortable. That challenge pre-conceived notions.
The only thing white people did with their arrival was give Natives further means to slaughter each other in greater ways through guns. Every civilisation on the planet has slaughtered another. The greatest lie on earth is that peace is the normal state of affairs. Peace has been a blip on our history. A rather nice blip. But a blip all the same.
"Dey were/weren't peaceful" is about as relevant as "Imagine if the other side did this!". Useless jew wordplays that distract from what really should be a focus. Inside the territories of Western Nations is random little enclaves of unbridled rage and savagry that wants to tear back at White people. The Democratic party platform, on page 1, stated that their United States of America is ashamed to be on this land. The idea of seceding these lands to trailer park drunkards failing to live life on easy mode is now a mainstream political talking point. Over in Europe another Catholic church was burned down to claim the land as a multicultural shopping center, how long until American monuments are bombed to be replaced with indian dance rings?