This is an excellent video up until she says the natives knew the American colonists were "land grabbers that would beg borrow and steal land" The American colonists were English colonists. They weren't Americans yet. No one knew what they would do with independence. Most tribes in the Iroquois Confederacy thought they could stop English expansion west if they sided with King George III because they banked on his military winning the war and the king would grant them favors. They never imagined the less funded, and barely clothed English rabble would defeat the forces of their king. Remember, the crown, and Congress were both attempting to purchase the loyalty of the natives. Congress simply had fewer resources to offer the natives, and so they went with the benefactor who had deeper pockets. That just happened to be King George III. So I disagree that it was all just because they could magically see into the future and somehow know that the future United States nation would grab their land. We have that benefit from hind sight being 20/20. They didn't. The tribal nation (Oneidea) that sided with the American patriots simply chose the winning side was given 6 million acres of land after the war. The overwhelming majority of the rest simply chose the wrong one because they were blinded by deep pockets and false promises. They paid for their miscalculation in aiding the enemy. Now it is true, and also very unfortunate that most settlers couldn't distinguish between the tribal allies and foes, and thusly the Oneida were also embroiled in unjust reprisals for the sins of their brethren.
You made some very good points! However, I think she said 'Americans' to simply to distinguish whom she was talking about. Plus, I think she was summarizing tribal histories [from many time periods] within the space of a 20 minuet video. After all, [the Americans] "land grabbers that would beg borrow and steal land" comes from a different national perspective. For example, the Northerners of the U.S. title of the 'Civil War' is called the 'War of Northern Aggression' in the South.
@@113-M I tend to think part of our national issue is that historians, educators, media people etc... are trying to over simplify a subject that gets distorted when it's simplified too much. Maybe she did just say "Americans" to distinguish whom she was talking about, but didn't really mean Americans. The problem there, is that someone watching this video that knows nothing might take her meaning literally. I hear all the time how the United States enslaved black people for 400 years! and thusly we owe black folks 400 years worth of reparations. The truth though, is that within 88 years of our country's existence slavery was abolished. That's a far cry from 400 years. So where did they get that from? They heard someone somewhere say "black folks had been enslaved by Americans for over 400 years!" However, during that time America wasn't a country, and the land was split up between England, France and Spain, to changing degrees during that time. And all without a single mention that 67% of the North American colonies in the 1770's were populated by white slaves. Indentures who had lost their freedom through debts, imprisonment, captives of war etc...Kings George I, II,and III flooded the colonies with those indentured slaves. No one even talks about it. They all act like indentured servitude was somehow more humane than chattel slavery, when in reality it was every bit as severe. So, while I understand what she was generalizing, only because I study this stuff regularly these blanket generalized statements (maybe intentional, maybe unintentional) work to create a false narrative that gives unsuspecting folks who don't make a hobby of looking for source material, a false impression, which is then politically weaponized. It's disgusting to me.
@@chasengrieshop Thank you very much for commenting! Yeah, I was rethinking my comment from yesterday. Because, history requires a lot of mental gymnastics, in that: Communication [Popular Culture, Mass Media, etc.] is as complicated as Anthropology. Let’s take your point about how 67% of the North American colonies in the 1770's were populated by white slaves. I remember learning about it a few years ago in this video, that, unfortunately, I cannot seem to find. Anyway, it extended to what you summarized. However, many seem to forget the gaps between Irish Need Not Apply and the White Anglo-Saxon Protestants. Another vain to go down are those pictures use see of pre-Child Labor Laws; many showing white children unable to reach higher education. That and agricultural migrants are examples of white slavery. That’s why I’ve brought up Communication and Anthropology. Encapsulating it is unbelievably complex! To give the mental gymnastics as an example: influences and contradictions from novels, films, genealogy, biases, oral tradition v. written tradition, ‘the news’... I was studying the Northern Cheyenne from the Longmire series. In hobby research, I wondered why the Northern Cheyenne didn’t like Thanksgiving (other than the popular cultural explanation of Columbus.) My answer came after I revisited the answer several times: The Sand Creek Massacre of November 29, 1864. Close to the timeline of Thanksgiving. Secondly, “within 88 years of our country's existence slavery was abolished.” And Abe was Republican. Perhaps what they are trying to add in the various forms of prison slavery and Jim Crow laws thereafter? Or they are trying to jam all whites into one box; I am not sure. I wish I had more material to discuss this with you, but here is an interesting video (ua-cam.com/video/4NLiVR24188/v-deo.html) Forgotten White Slaves Irish, Scots, poor Englishmen ended up as slaves in America.
@@113-M ABSOLUTELY! Our world today is complicated. I mean, think of how many different factions, and views there are... the 18th century was no different. I like your "ah HA!" moment with the Cheyenne and Thanksgiving. I've had so many of those. It seems like if I take the popular narrative, and dig real deep for the truth, an opposite and more realistic reason seems to always shine through. My point about the colonies being populated by white slaves/ indentures is actually mentioned by a number of founding fathers. Notably Benjamin Franklin, who used the idea of King George dumping his rattle snakes on the colonies (which was code for less than desirables) At first wink it sounds totally different than slavery, until you read what that meant. Over in England, someone would get arrested, and convicted, or captured in war, or they'd lose their lives to debt and end up in a debtors prison, instead of being put into a prison there, they would be shipped across the Atlantic to work off their sentence on plantations for the crown. Many of them died a few years into their sentences due to harsh labor conditions. Some had children that were immediately put into servitude. Lemuel Haynes was an African American that was placed into indentured servitude at 5 months of age and wasn't freed until he was 21. Prison laws as a form of slavery were kind of grandfathered in and carried over from the English common laws. Interestingly the US constitution still allows for work without pay where prisoners are concerned, aka slave labor. I personally believe that the Jim Crow era had direct causality from the way Lincoln went about freeing the slaves. Abolition was gaining a natural momentum. If Lincoln hadn't used slavery as a political tool to continue the Civil war, those families that suffered deaths during the war probably wouldn't have harbored such animosity towards blacks. But they did. In the 18th century there was great progress in the thinking about African capabilities. If anything, in the 18th century there seemed to be more favorability towards blacks than there was after the Civil War during the reconstruction period and Jim Crow era. But to hear folks talk about it all, it was this unilateral inhumane thing as if there weren't nuances to it. Phillis Wheatley was purchased as a slave by the Wheatley family, but they never treated her as one. She was loved as a daughter, treated as a daughter, educated as a daughter. She was only a slave on paper. The Wheatleys had essentially used slave laws as an adoption process. And she wasn't the only one. So, there's so much nuance in history that the more I read about the every day common folks and their experiences through court documents, muster roles, letters, journals etc... the more I realize this generalization in the main stream public discussion is so far off base. And it's to our detriment as a country, as evidenced by the rage infused mob ripping down monuments.
@@chasengrieshop Watch this beautiful performance: ua-cam.com/video/jqOgWngL5aY/v-deo.html Maggie Delaney: Her Story - Feature Length. For years, Carol has been researching and mastering her live performances of fictional character Maggie Delaney, an I Irish indentured servant who gains passage to the new world, only to lose her family in the process. Townsends is proud to present the telling of this story.
This lady is deeply troubled. If you listen carefully... she begins okay, but the longer she speaks, the more she can't contain her internal turmoil. By the end of this video, you can feel the hatred erupting from her heart. Beware of this kind of historian. They simply cannot portray history without deep emotional bias.
Great Video!
This is an excellent video up until she says the natives knew the American colonists were "land grabbers that would beg borrow and steal land" The American colonists were English colonists. They weren't Americans yet. No one knew what they would do with independence. Most tribes in the Iroquois Confederacy thought they could stop English expansion west if they sided with King George III because they banked on his military winning the war and the king would grant them favors. They never imagined the less funded, and barely clothed English rabble would defeat the forces of their king. Remember, the crown, and Congress were both attempting to purchase the loyalty of the natives. Congress simply had fewer resources to offer the natives, and so they went with the benefactor who had deeper pockets. That just happened to be King George III. So I disagree that it was all just because they could magically see into the future and somehow know that the future United States nation would grab their land. We have that benefit from hind sight being 20/20. They didn't. The tribal nation (Oneidea) that sided with the American patriots simply chose the winning side was given 6 million acres of land after the war. The overwhelming majority of the rest simply chose the wrong one because they were blinded by deep pockets and false promises. They paid for their miscalculation in aiding the enemy. Now it is true, and also very unfortunate that most settlers couldn't distinguish between the tribal allies and foes, and thusly the Oneida were also embroiled in unjust reprisals for the sins of their brethren.
You made some very good points! However, I think she said 'Americans' to simply to distinguish whom she was talking about. Plus, I think she was summarizing tribal histories [from many time periods] within the space of a 20 minuet video. After all, [the Americans] "land grabbers that would beg borrow and steal land" comes from a different national perspective. For example, the Northerners of the U.S. title of the 'Civil War' is called the 'War of Northern Aggression' in the South.
@@113-M I tend to think part of our national issue is that historians, educators, media people etc... are trying to over simplify a subject that gets distorted when it's simplified too much. Maybe she did just say "Americans" to distinguish whom she was talking about, but didn't really mean Americans. The problem there, is that someone watching this video that knows nothing might take her meaning literally. I hear all the time how the United States enslaved black people for 400 years! and thusly we owe black folks 400 years worth of reparations. The truth though, is that within 88 years of our country's existence slavery was abolished. That's a far cry from 400 years. So where did they get that from? They heard someone somewhere say "black folks had been enslaved by Americans for over 400 years!" However, during that time America wasn't a country, and the land was split up between England, France and Spain, to changing degrees during that time. And all without a single mention that 67% of the North American colonies in the 1770's were populated by white slaves. Indentures who had lost their freedom through debts, imprisonment, captives of war etc...Kings George I, II,and III flooded the colonies with those indentured slaves. No one even talks about it. They all act like indentured servitude was somehow more humane than chattel slavery, when in reality it was every bit as severe. So, while I understand what she was generalizing, only because I study this stuff regularly these blanket generalized statements (maybe intentional, maybe unintentional) work to create a false narrative that gives unsuspecting folks who don't make a hobby of looking for source material, a false impression, which is then politically weaponized. It's disgusting to me.
@@chasengrieshop
Thank you very much for commenting! Yeah, I was rethinking my comment from yesterday. Because, history requires a lot of mental gymnastics, in that: Communication [Popular Culture, Mass Media, etc.] is as complicated as Anthropology. Let’s take your point about how 67% of the North American colonies in the 1770's were populated by white slaves. I remember learning about it a few years ago in this video, that, unfortunately, I cannot seem to find. Anyway, it extended to what you summarized. However, many seem to forget the gaps between Irish Need Not Apply and the White Anglo-Saxon Protestants. Another vain to go down are those pictures use see of pre-Child Labor Laws; many showing white children unable to reach higher education. That and agricultural migrants are examples of white slavery. That’s why I’ve brought up Communication and Anthropology. Encapsulating it is unbelievably complex!
To give the mental gymnastics as an example: influences and contradictions from novels, films, genealogy, biases, oral tradition v. written tradition, ‘the news’... I was studying the Northern Cheyenne from the Longmire series. In hobby research, I wondered why the Northern Cheyenne didn’t like Thanksgiving (other than the popular cultural explanation of Columbus.) My answer came after I revisited the answer several times: The Sand Creek Massacre of November 29, 1864. Close to the timeline of Thanksgiving.
Secondly, “within 88 years of our country's existence slavery was abolished.” And Abe was Republican. Perhaps what they are trying to add in the various forms of prison slavery and Jim Crow laws thereafter? Or they are trying to jam all whites into one box; I am not sure. I wish I had more material to discuss this with you, but here is an interesting video (ua-cam.com/video/4NLiVR24188/v-deo.html) Forgotten White Slaves Irish, Scots, poor Englishmen ended up as slaves in America.
@@113-M ABSOLUTELY! Our world today is complicated. I mean, think of how many different factions, and views there are... the 18th century was no different. I like your "ah HA!" moment with the Cheyenne and Thanksgiving. I've had so many of those. It seems like if I take the popular narrative, and dig real deep for the truth, an opposite and more realistic reason seems to always shine through.
My point about the colonies being populated by white slaves/ indentures is actually mentioned by a number of founding fathers. Notably Benjamin Franklin, who used the idea of King George dumping his rattle snakes on the colonies (which was code for less than desirables) At first wink it sounds totally different than slavery, until you read what that meant. Over in England, someone would get arrested, and convicted, or captured in war, or they'd lose their lives to debt and end up in a debtors prison, instead of being put into a prison there, they would be shipped across the Atlantic to work off their sentence on plantations for the crown. Many of them died a few years into their sentences due to harsh labor conditions. Some had children that were immediately put into servitude. Lemuel Haynes was an African American that was placed into indentured servitude at 5 months of age and wasn't freed until he was 21.
Prison laws as a form of slavery were kind of grandfathered in and carried over from the English common laws. Interestingly the US constitution still allows for work without pay where prisoners are concerned, aka slave labor. I personally believe that the Jim Crow era had direct causality from the way Lincoln went about freeing the slaves. Abolition was gaining a natural momentum. If Lincoln hadn't used slavery as a political tool to continue the Civil war, those families that suffered deaths during the war probably wouldn't have harbored such animosity towards blacks. But they did. In the 18th century there was great progress in the thinking about African capabilities. If anything, in the 18th century there seemed to be more favorability towards blacks than there was after the Civil War during the reconstruction period and Jim Crow era. But to hear folks talk about it all, it was this unilateral inhumane thing as if there weren't nuances to it. Phillis Wheatley was purchased as a slave by the Wheatley family, but they never treated her as one. She was loved as a daughter, treated as a daughter, educated as a daughter. She was only a slave on paper. The Wheatleys had essentially used slave laws as an adoption process. And she wasn't the only one. So, there's so much nuance in history that the more I read about the every day common folks and their experiences through court documents, muster roles, letters, journals etc... the more I realize this generalization in the main stream public discussion is so far off base. And it's to our detriment as a country, as evidenced by the rage infused mob ripping down monuments.
@@chasengrieshop Watch this beautiful performance: ua-cam.com/video/jqOgWngL5aY/v-deo.html
Maggie Delaney: Her Story - Feature Length.
For years, Carol has been researching and mastering her live performances of fictional character Maggie Delaney, an I Irish indentured servant who gains passage to the new world, only to lose her family in the process. Townsends is proud to present the telling of this story.
This lady is deeply troubled. If you listen carefully... she begins okay, but the longer she speaks, the more she can't contain her internal turmoil. By the end of this video, you can feel the hatred erupting from her heart. Beware of this kind of historian. They simply cannot portray history without deep emotional bias.
she portrayed history very well in this video so you’re just ignorant.
100% this guy has a confederate flag on the back of his truck.
I can't get past the reverse beeping in the background. If you can't realize that it's not a time to record... you're an IDIOTTTTTTTT!