Debunking Native American Fairy Tales

[quintessentone]

There is quite a bit of opposition to Matt Walsh’s history presentations. 

I will definitely need to research other viewpoints. 


Matt Walsh is a prominent American conservative political commentator, author, and podcast host for The Daily Wire who is widely associated with Christian nationalist viewpoints and right-wing populist rhetoric. He is known for his vocal, traditionalist Christian stances on social issues, including intense criticism of LGBTQ+ rights, transgender ideology, and secular culture.

It appears he also believes in 'race (or great) replacement theory' as a fact, not a theory.

----

"Critics and former supporters have labeled Walsh a "virulent racist" and a "white supremacist," citing his promotion of "race replacement theory" and his derogatory comments regarding Hispanic music and culture.

• He has been accused of supporting the "maltreatment of America's indigenous peoples" and describing the defeat of Native Americans as "a good thing," which opponents argue aligns with Manifest Destiny ideology.
  
• Some critics describe his rhetoric as "stochastic terrorism" and argue that his anti-trans and anti-immigration stance is rooted in a desire to protect a specific white, conservative American identity rather than universal religious values." (LLM)
  ---------
  
  "Analysts and critics, including those from Jacobin and Word on Fire, argue that Walsh’s Christianity is "distinctly anti-Christian" because it emphasizes hatred, condemnation, and political power over compassion, charity, or the teachings of Jesus." (LLM)
  
•  
  
• https://jacobin.com/2023/05/matt-walsh-a...phy-review
  

"In the end, Walsh’s worldview is deeply contrary to the “Christian” philosophy it espouses. In fact, for all Walsh’s anxieties about secularization, he perfectly embodies Nietzsche’s observation about the worst tendencies of moralistic Christianity to provide a license to demand hatred through a perversion of the language of love. Believer or nonbeliever, I can think of nothing that would make Christianity less appealing."

• -----
  
  "Daily Wire host says the white supremacist great replacement conspiracy is “just a fact”
  Matt Walsh: “Now, this isn't a conspiracy theory. There's nothing wild or speculative about it. It's just a fact.”"
  
  https://www.mediamatters.org/daily-wire/...-just-fact
  

[Harte]

Not sure if it’s been “debunked” but I wanna know what he says about the 13 months of Northern Natives American calendars being represented by animals.

Specifically since it sometimes incorporates Bigfoot alongside beaver, deer, eagle, etc.

Plain as day.

Also am a bit curious why he chose to hone in on the population as opposed to other native cultures and/or fairy tales in general.

Please provide evidence of this bigfoot inclusion claim.

Harte

[SteamyAmerican]

Please provide evidence of this bigfoot inclusion claim.

Harte

Wish I could. It’s just something I ran across, as in an image. This was awhile back and it could have even been on here or ATS. It wasn’t anything I saved at the time.

What caught my eye was the relation of using turtle shells to depict the 13 months. And While the focus of the thread or article I was engaged in had to do with Native America and calendar-keeping, it the was bent that 13 28-day months with a day to spare is what has been changed since the Gregorian Calender was implemented. With the 13th Zodiac being the Seroent-Bearer, which was hidden “for reasons” by TPTB at that time.

The thought was interesting to me because Native Americans would of course kept this moon-locked calendar as well as it just made sense.

The thread contained a wheel of sorts with different animals depicting the different months, not moons as was incorrectly assessed. Whether it was AI generated or just a fluke, the “wheel” included various animals including Bigfoot.

I seem to recall this was in part to N. North American tribes at the time.

[Harte]

All I've ever read indicates an ordinary local animal associated with each month on the turtle carapace.

Harte

[Byrd]

No, you seem to want to push the false narrative that large, well-organized tribes were replaced by carefully managed European settlement. You seem to want to gloss over the period after epidemics wiped them almost out and the Americas could have started to fill up with squatters or escaped pirate deck hands or other non-state actors. Tell me, can you sense deep down inside that you would have been persecuted where you live if you had not adopted this false narrative?

Actually, I'm following the historical documents, including immigration and township documents.  

Two points:
* the decimating of the Native American population takes place over a period of 150 years or so.  Not a single incident.
* Any "squatters" would have been born in the Americas to Europeans.

Tribes were organized (and groups of tribes were organized into nations.)  America wasn't barren land.  And the number of people engaged as pirates was small compared to the 2 million plus people living in the USA from around 1400 onwards.

The original folk surely came from Siberia across the land bridge but they could have absorbed or even been conquered by escaped pirate crewmen or desperate folk from the old world who got shipped across any way they could so they could get a piece of the new world. They may have heard that illness had emptied the place.  They may have drifted back into the fringes of American society when the actual natives got deported to Oklahoma.

...and this is what I mean by your scrambled timelines.  Before the discovery of the USA, there were around 2 million people living there (with numbers being perhaps as high as 5 million https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Ame...ted_States).  No pirate crew or desperate vikings ever conquered the Inuit or other people.  The smallpox blanket effect was local to one large area (Ft Pitt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_F...al_warfare) and not widespread AND it was in 1763.

The 8 million smallpox deaths were from Mexico (and thus Aztecs -   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Ame..._epidemics)  

Newspapers were part of the process that inspired people to move westward -- along with (in the 1840's) the Manifest Destiny doctrine.

Not in 1500 when the epidemics had emptied the place. Europe had to work and fight for that state of affairs in order to prevent the place from being overrun.

It hadn't.  In the 1500's, it was Mexico that had a huge drop in the indigenous people.  "Europe" as an entity didn't exist.  Spain did, and had control of Central (and most of Western) America and the Gulf of Mexico.   Inland, the natives of continental USA hadn't been affected.

Did the occasional smuggler or pirate manage to get ashore, find people to live with, and integrate into society?  Certainly, particularly in the big Caribbean ports or in New Orleans.  Did they have an impact on US history?  Only a few did, like Jean Lafitte and John Paul Jones -- but only because they were sanctioned by the US government.

[Solvedit]

You ought to ask yourself why you are working so hard to deny the obvious truth that the old world would have right away begun spilling into the new as soon as discovered by the overcrowded masses.  The kings and governments who discovered and explored the land would not have wanted to legitimize any claims from non-state actors to ownership of the land.  

What if even one member of Columbus' or Vespucci's or Cabot's crew decided they were tired of the lash and, after their return to the old world, got a crew together from other disgruntled sailors or other marginalized members of society to go live in the New World?

They could have paid pirates for their passage.  Perhaps they paid them with the very knowledge of the new world which they had just acquired.  

My point isn't thread drift. The original post points out that natives weren't particularly good to one another but it overlooks the greater point that they may not have been numerous or organized enough to keep the place from filling up with pirates and pickpockets.  Which means the natives would have lost the land anyway if Europe had officially left it alone.  And were probably well on their way to doing so. 

Europe and perhaps the Middle East and North Africa were getting crowded in the late Middle Ages as compared to their ability to grow food.

Europe's bursting with people and you try to deny that they could have started spilling over into the New World while the new world only had 200,000 to 500,000 defenders in the early 1500s???

How long would the numbers of unofficial colonists have remained small if they had Eastern North America almost to themselves?

The kings of Europe may have been a little prejudiced about whether a society made up of the Old World's most desperate people would have made good global neighbors after they filled up the Americas.

The point relevant to the original post is that after the official discovery of the new world, Europe had few choices besides taking and controlling the place. 
 

Actually, I'm following the historical documents, including immigration and township documents.  

Two points:
* the decimating of the Native American population takes place over a period of 150 years or so.  Not a single incident.
* Any "squatters" would have been born in the Americas to Europeans.

Tribes were organized (and groups of tribes were organized into nations.)  America wasn't barren land.  And the number of people engaged as pirates was small compared to the 2 million plus people living in the USA from around 1400 onwards.

That's still probably not enough people to control all the land, even if the population graphs some have put forward are 100% wrong and population didn't plummet 90% in one generation after first contact.

...and this is what I mean by your scrambled timelines.  Before the discovery of the USA, there were around 2 million people living there (with numbers being perhaps as high as 5 million https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Ame...ted_States).  No pirate crew or desperate vikings ever conquered the Inuit or other people.  The smallpox blanket effect was local to one large area (Ft Pitt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_F...al_warfare) and not widespread AND it was in 1763.

The Inuit?  How you cherry pick.  I would wholeheartedly agree that an escaped pirate crew would not try to survive off the land in the Arctic.

The 8 million smallpox deaths were from Mexico (and thus Aztecs -   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Ame..._epidemics) 

Would you say that proves there were no epidemics at any other time or in any other place in the Americas in the 1500s?  People have put forward graphs of a 90% decline in American native populations which seemed to happen in about a generation.  There were more people keeping track in Mexico and Central America but there is no reason to suspect that epidemics didn't spread.

It hadn't.  In the 1500's, it was Mexico that had a huge drop in the indigenous people.  "Europe" as an entity didn't exist.  Spain did, and had control of Central (and most of Western) America and the Gulf of Mexico.   Inland, the natives of continental USA hadn't been affected.

Nonsense.  Epidemics spread.  Europeans were keeping records in Spanish America but who was keeping records in what became the eastern United States?

The Spanish explored the eastern part of North America.  Can it be that someone had already gathered up the alluvial gold in the rivers, because Spain did not try to colonize and develop it very much?  There have been occasional gold rushes in the southeastern US after Independence, so contrary to your previous claim in another post, it wasn't devoid of gold.   Pre-Columbian contact is a possibility.

Did the occasional smuggler or pirate manage to get ashore, find people to live with, and integrate into society?  Certainly, particularly in the big Caribbean ports or in New Orleans.  Did they have an impact on US history?  Only a few did, like Jean Lafitte and John Paul Jones -- but only because they were sanctioned by the US government.

That's only if you demand proof positive in the form of government documentation.  There was no unified, record-keeping government regulating eastern North America in the 1500s.

Pirates had crews. None of them ever ran off?  Do you think we would know the name of every deck hand who ran off or got caught by natives while foraging for food?  Would they have waited for government permission and documentation before they ran off?

[Byrd]

You ought to ask yourself why you are working so hard to deny the obvious truth that the old world would have right away begun spilling into the new as soon as discovered by the overcrowded masses.  The kings and governments who discovered and explored the land would not have wanted to legitimize any claims from non-state actors to ownership of the land.  

What if even one member of Columbus' or Vespucci's or Cabot's crew decided they were tired of the lash and, after their return to the old world, got a crew together from other disgruntled sailors or other marginalized members of society to go live in the New World?

They could have paid pirates for their passage.  Perhaps they paid them with the very knowledge of the new world which they had just acquired.  

My point isn't thread drift. The original post points out that natives weren't particularly good to one another but it overlooks the greater point that they may not have been numerous or organized enough to keep the place from filling up with pirates and pickpockets.  Which means the natives would have lost the land anyway if Europe had officially left it alone.  And were probably well on their way to doing so. 

Europe and perhaps the Middle East and North Africa were getting crowded in the late Middle Ages as compared to their ability to grow food.

Europe's bursting with people and you try to deny that they could have started spilling over into the New World while the new world only had 200,000 to 500,000 defenders in the early 1500s???

How long would the numbers of unofficial colonists have remained small if they had Eastern North America almost to themselves?

The kings of Europe may have been a little prejudiced about whether a society made up of the Old World's most desperate people would have made good global neighbors after they filled up the Americas.

The point relevant to the original post is that after the official discovery of the new world, Europe had few choices besides taking and controlling the place. 
 
That's still probably not enough people to control all the land, even if the population graphs some have put forward are 100% wrong and population didn't plummet 90% in one generation after first contact.
The Inuit?  How you cherry pick.  I would wholeheartedly agree that an escaped pirate crew would not try to survive off the land in the Arctic.
Would you say that proves there were no epidemics at any other time or in any other place in the Americas in the 1500s?  People have put forward graphs of a 90% decline in American native populations which seemed to happen in about a generation.  There were more people keeping track in Mexico and Central America but there is no reason to suspect that epidemics didn't spread.
Nonsense.  Epidemics spread.  Europeans were keeping records in Spanish America but who was keeping records in what became the eastern United States?

The Spanish explored the eastern part of North America.  Can it be that someone had already gathered up the alluvial gold in the rivers, because Spain did not try to colonize and develop it very much?  There have been occasional gold rushes in the southeastern US after Independence, so contrary to your previous claim in another post, it wasn't devoid of gold.   Pre-Columbian contact is a possibility.

That's only if you demand proof positive in the form of government documentation.  There was no unified, record-keeping government regulating eastern North America in the 1500s.

Pirates had crews. None of them ever ran off?  Do you think we would know the name of every deck hand who ran off or got caught by natives while foraging for food?  Would they have waited for government permission and documentation before they ran off?

You seem to have gotten a rather romantic view of pirates, jumping back and forth from pirates to privateers to buccaneers to Barbary Coast corsairs.  Everything is "could have" or "might have" and you change and ignore timelines.  Sometimes it's the 1500's, sometimes much later.

If you want to make a good argument, you have to present something coherent - the timeline, the exact groups you want, a good handle on the ships, the landing spots, the cultures, AND (most important) what signs are present when pirates take over an area.

Google the question and show some of the bits of evidence. 

You seem to have an idea but no real understanding of how big the ships are, how easy it would be to find any stowaway (and what happens to them), how long it takes to cross the ocean (if things go right), or anything else about the situation.  

...or what might happen to pickpockets aboard a ship (you might look up pirate contracts and matelots.)

You have a lot of drive and energy, but what you're lacking is some research about the topic.  There's lots of good books on real pirates (and loads of garbage videos... avoid those.)

The old ATS motto was "deny ignorance."  That means "read up on the topic and don't just jump into speculative history without some facts to back you up."

I can recommend Wikipedia for quick information -- and Gutenberg.org has free books written by people who actually sailed aboard those ships and encountered those people.  I encourage you to read some.  Some of that stuff is really wild.

[Antidoppleganger]

I see bias against the source tainting perception of the product. I wonder how well facts would be received and honest discussion had if we analyse content without preparing an outright dismissal before looking at the material. It's telling when the first response is a community note attempting to diminish the 'speaker' while failing to really discuss the material. Facts were presented that are independent of the speaker. 

Distill the facts from the flavor in which they were presented or all we're left with is a thread about your opinions and feelings. Most care about neither.

[quintessentone]

I see bias against the source tainting perception of the product. I wonder how well facts would be received and honest discussion had if we analyse content without preparing an outright dismissal before looking at the material. It's telling when the first response is a community note attempting to diminish the 'speaker' while failing to really discuss the material. Facts were presented that are independent of the speaker. 

Distill the facts from the flavor in which they were presented or all we're left with is a thread about your opinions and feelings. Most care about neither.

Members here are familiar with certain bait thread behaviours, so that may be something you need to consider.

[ANNEE]

I see bias against the source tainting perception of the product. I wonder how well facts would be received and honest discussion had if we analyse content without preparing an outright dismissal before looking at the material. It's telling when the first response is a community note attempting to diminish the 'speaker' while failing to really discuss the material. Facts were presented that are independent of the speaker. 

Distill the facts from the flavor in which they were presented or all we're left with is a thread about your opinions and feelings. Most care about neither.

When you start a thread using a strongly bias source it’s only fair it gets called out. 

Yes - I always check sources first. For me it’s important to know the slant and how credible the source is. Some definitely are not. 

I’ve never seen it stop discussion of subject matter.