INTRODUCTION :
Have you ever wondered why, when Attila the Hun and then later Ghenghis Khan "discovered" Europe, their conquests were called "invasions", but when Christopher Columbus led Europeans into an invasion of the Americas, that was called a "discovery"?
In an ideal world, history would be written by scholars distinguished by their knowledge of the facts and their unquestioned impartiality in reporting them. But in our unreal world, the history that the masses are taught is what history's victors and their descendants have wanted written. And contrary to what Darwin may have said about the "survival of the fittest", we don't need to be professional scientists to know that, where human beings are concerned, those who survive and prosper, and who get to write history, are not the "fittest", in any truly human sense of the word, but more often than not, the best armed and most vicious, i.e. the most "unfit", morally speaking.
Ever since the invasion and the conquest of the Americas, each subsequent generation of white European Christian children who have inherited the lands which their ancestors stole from their rightful Native American owners have been taught that:
- the "discovery" of the Americas by Christopher Columbus on behalf of Spain and the Roman Catholic Church was a triumphal moment in the history of mankind, with a whole day given over to its celebration as a national holiday every year.
- the American continents were vast wildernesses, a vacuum which nature abhorred, just waiting for somebody like the Europeans to discover and fill.
- the rare occupants of these continents were nothing but stone-age uncivilized pagan savages. What they had built up was worthless compared to what Europeans had built back in the "old world".
- these lands were free for the taking by whichever ship captain happened to be the first to "discover" them and plant a cross on them to claim them on behalf of their Christian European monarch, because such were the rules of international law laid down by Europe's "Supreme Pontiff", the Roman Catholic pope. The fact that the occupants of these lands and their ancestors had lived on and developed those lands for thousands of years gave the native inhabitants no claim to them whatsoever, and if they didn't hand them over to their rightful owners, they were criminals and savages that needed to be dealt with accordingly. They themselves were worthless except as slaves to work their own lands and mines for the benefit of their higher class Christian European masters.
- What Europeans would bring these benighted pagans was infinitely better than what they had, the blessings of Christian salvation and higher civilization.
- Given that the Roman Catholic Conquerers were blessed with the one true faith, it was their duty to do whatever it took to "save" these pagan savages, even if they had to torture and/or kill many of them to get them or their survivors at least to see the light.
As best described by its most famous proponent, the eminent Spanish scholar Juan Gines de Sepulveda, the new world's Indians were 'creatures of a subhuman nature who were intended by God to be placed under the authority of civilized and virtuous princes or nations, so that they may learn, from the might, wisdom, and law of their conquerors, to practice better morals, worthier customs and a more civilized way of life.'
{ American Holocaust, by David E. Stannard, p. 64 }
|
To see how terribly wrong these views actually are, we urge you to read the masterful book, American Holocaust, by David E. Stannard (or others like it), excerpts from which are offered on this web site, to give you a taste of what you can learn from reading the entire book. Is it too much to ask the millions of people who, like myself, are part of the white, Christian, European majority in America today, to admit that we are "in possession of stollen goods"?
And that our ancestors often took the very lives of the rightful owners of these goods in order to take their property and never have to return it?
|