I wasn't saying it was right, only that it had been done for centuries prior to Jackson coming along.jerrab » 17 Feb 2023, 9:12 pm » wrote: ↑ by your analogy people should kill people in the gas chambers because hitler did.
Yeah, that's the only color that lies and cheats.jerrab » 17 Feb 2023, 7:48 pm » wrote: ↑ ****.
the lying sons of bitches white men cheated every step of the way.
RedheadedStranger » 17 Feb 2023, 9:37 pm » wrote: ↑ I wasn't saying it was right, only that it had been done for centuries prior to Jackson coming along.
Conquests and war have never been pleasant or cordial... especially in regards to the innocent.
RedheadedStranger » 17 Feb 2023, 9:37 pm » wrote: ↑ I wasn't saying it was right, only that it had been done for centuries prior to Jackson coming along.
Conquests and war have never been pleasant or cordial... especially in regards to the innocent.
And?jerrab » 17 Feb 2023, 7:48 pm » wrote: ↑ ****.
the lying sons of bitches white men cheated every step of the way.
So he did a better job than previous conquerers?jerrab » 17 Feb 2023, 7:51 pm » wrote: ↑ the cheating ways of jackson would be appalling to william the conqueror and charlemenge
Keep going, fruity. Tell us how Henry's generosity was repaid.jerrab » 17 Feb 2023, 7:55 pm » wrote: ↑ william the conqueror would have thought jackson the biggest pussie who ever lived.
-------------------------------------------------------------
King Henry continued to support the young duke,[26] but in late 1046 opponents of William came together in a rebellion centred in lower Normandy, led by Guy of Burgundy with support from Nigel, Viscount of the Cotentin, and Ranulf, Viscount of the Bessin. According to stories that may have legendary elements, an attempt was made to seize William at Valognes, but he escaped under cover of darkness, seeking refuge with King Henry.[27] In early 1047 Henry and William returned to Normandy and were victorious at the Battle of Val-ès-Dunes near Caen, although few details of the actual fighting are recorded.[28] William of Poitiers claimed that the battle was won mainly through William's efforts, but earlier accounts claim that King Henry's men and leadership also played an important part.[2] William assumed power in Normandy, and shortly after the battle promulgated the Truce of God throughout his duchy, in an effort to limit warfare and violence by restricting the days of the year on which fighting was permitted.[29] Although the Battle of Val-ès-Dunes marked a turning point in William's control of the duchy, it was not the end of his struggle to gain the upper hand over the nobility. The period from 1047 to 1054 saw almost continuous warfare, with lesser crises continuing until 1060.[30]
Those who did not assimilate in Virginia were damned well rounded up and marched west, son.jerrab » 17 Feb 2023, 8:08 pm » wrote: ↑ not in virginia where they were treated with respect and not forced on the trail of tears.
It's right there in the name, son.
Given that all is fair in love and war, one doesn't.
By your analogy, all of humanity should be hanged, penis tender.jerrab » 17 Feb 2023, 9:12 pm » wrote: ↑ by your analogy people should kill people in the gas chambers because hitler did.
Yes - presicely as in Custer's last stand. That battle strengthened the resolve of the hard liners in Washington, fired up public sentiment, and sat the softlings down in their chairs. Custer's death killed more damned injuns that he ever killed when living.
I'm saying it was right.RedheadedStranger » 17 Feb 2023, 9:37 pm » wrote: ↑ I wasn't saying it was right, only that it had been done for centuries prior to Jackson coming along.
Conquests and war have never been pleasant or cordial... especially in regards to the innocent.
Apparently so, listening to a sob sister with dick lips in a perpetual pout.
Great men. Good at killing injuns.
keep going, henry turned on himCannonpointer » 18 Feb 2023, 12:28 am » wrote: ↑ Keep going, fruity. Tell us how Henry's generosity was repaid.
Your "apparent" and my reality conflict, prog.
However you like to slice it, Henry's assistance came back to bite him. No one alive today can pick the moral superior betwixt henry and william - or declare with any legitimacy who "turned" on whom.jerrab » 18 Feb 2023, 1:08 am » wrote: ↑ keep going, henry turned on him
----------------------------
On the death of Hugh of Maine, Geoffrey Martel occupied Maine in a move contested by William and King Henry; eventually, they succeeded in driving Geoffrey from the county, and in the process, William had been able to secure the Bellême family strongholds at Alençon and Domfront for himself. He was thus able to assert his overlordship over the Bellême family and compel them to act consistently with Norman interests.[34] However, in 1052 the king and Geoffrey Martel made common cause against William at the same time as some Norman nobles began to contest William's increasing power. Henry's about-face was probably motivated by a desire to retain dominance over Normandy, which was now threatened by William's growing mastery of his duchy.[35] William was engaged in military actions against his own nobles throughout 1053,[36] as well as with the new Archbishop of Rouen, Mauger.[3
Doesn't look like they were forced on the trail of self-sufficiency or productivity either.... Did you actually read the link you posted regarding the Pamunkey Tribe?.... It looks like their Tribal Chief should go by the name Dances with Handouts, because apparently the Federal Government provides much of their Housing (HUD), Education & Healthcare funding... Not a large sum of money considering their total membership is 200 Injuns, with only 80 of them actually living on the Pamunkey Reservation... They survive on Grants. Supposedly they were approved to build a Casino in 2020, but haven't broken ground, as I'm sure they are waiting for that funding to be provided for them also.jerrab » 17 Feb 2023, 8:08 pm » wrote: ↑ not in virginia where they were treated with respect and not forced on the trail of tears.