The Foundation of America

The Foundation of America | WOMEN ARE THE FOUNDATION OF AMERICA! AND GUESS WHO LAID THE FOUNDATION? | image tagged in angry feminist,men | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
share
22,680 views, 248 upvotes, Made by MrMeme951 3 months ago angry feministmen
Add Meme
Post Comment
reply
12 ups, 1 reply
Native American | A FOUNDATION OF BLOOD | image tagged in native american | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
6 ups, 2 replies
Losing implies contestation, not subjugation. But yeah we know who the “victor” was.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
contestation not subjugation? So the natives never attacked european settlements or fought wars? Have you literally learned nothing about the history of your own nation? To say there was no contest is an outright LIE. The only history being covered up is by people like you who want to pretend the natives were peaceful tent-hippies who smoked peace pipe and sang kumbayah, rather than a collection of independent tribes(many of which were warrior tribes with a VERY aggressive foreign policy) who fought and lost to foreign colonizers
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Yeah ok. I never said once native Americans were all peaceful. But you can keep putting words in another person’s mouth all you want if it makes you feel like the bigger person. I’m saying they were slaughtered in the name of settlement and expansion. Don’t know about you but if someone tried to force me off of my land with false promises and a gun you better believe I’d fight back.

I think you’re confusing a contest with a skirmish. Which the Indians did indeed have and it led to eventual genocide.

I know all too well about the collection of tribes. More than you think. Especially the canabalistic types that did attack innocent Europeans. Don’t misunderstand. I also saw how Andrew Jackson used that as a lame justification of the Indian removal act involving Tribes that had little to no involvement outside of defending themselves.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Of course you'd fight back. You'd also fight back if you had moved away from Europe to escape persecution or poverty and YOUR HOME was attacked by a native tribe who was just defending THEIR HOME. What Jackson did is indeed pretty despicable, especially considering the Cherokee had been staunch US allies in multiple wars and had already willingly assimilated. But to view it from the lens of the indians being the defenders and the Americans being the attackers is an incredibly simplistic view that completely disregards the fact that it was a centuries long conflict where both sides conducted themselves as both defenders and attackers. Do you think the wooden palisades around the early colony towns were there for show? They were literally fighting for their survival at first. Manifest Destiny wasn't a real concept until very late into colonization, after dozens of conflicts had already been fought between colonists and natives
reply
0 ups
I know it’s more broad than that. History books are quite divided on who started the conflict. Perhaps we may never really know.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
LOL. What sociology department did that idea come from? Btw: guessing you don't know what "victis" actually means.
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
No sociology department, just many many history books. Vae Victus, no pity to the conquered/vanquished.

Doesn’t change my statement. It wasn’t about win or lose. It was about invading and slaughtering
reply
1 up, 1 reply
That's how nations are built. That's how they've always been built. That's how they always will be build. Like it or not.
reply
3 ups
The only thing I don’t like is how it’s being covered up.
reply
2 ups
Couldn't resist, one of my favorite movies
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Cool, so if someone breaks into your house and steals your stuff and attacks your family, we can all say "vae victis" :) sorry, bro, you lost.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
No, I'm saying if a superior civilization conquers an inferior civilization, woe to the conquered. That's the way it works.

And anyone who whines about conquered Indians probably doesn't realize that she's wishing she'd never been born, because without such conquest there would never have been a United States, certainly not in its present form or in its present borders, nor populated by its present descendants of immigrants and CONQUERORS.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
1. Who is "she"? If you're referring to me, I'm a guy.
2. So people should be thankful for genocide, because without it there wouldn't be a USA? That's like saying Jews should be thankful for the Holocaust, because without it there probably wouldn't be a nation of Israel. And black people should be thankful for slavery, because without it they wouldn't have been born in this country (And yes, I have heard a black guy say that). Way to miss the point.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
The only thing I have an issue with is the way the U.S. government was less than scrupulous in observing the terms of various treaties they entered into with various tribes. We should either have conquered them outright, or followed through more diligently on treaty commitments. Other than that, the White Man won. The Red Man LOST. It's over. THE END. Conquest =/= "genocide". As for "missing the point", you have done likewise, since I see you're still here and haven't been un-born. And with that, enough with the threadjacking.
reply
1 up
Again, if someone came into your house and took your stuff and killed your family, they won. You lost. It's over. THE END.
reply
10 ups, 1 reply
reply
3 ups
Nice try.
reply
9 ups
reply
9 ups, 3 replies
reply
2 ups
Jesus coming to Earth born as a man, yet still God, to die on the cross and raise from the dead three days later, took care of all that.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Apparently no one ever taught you that brevity is the soul of wit.
reply
5 ups
Not where I come from.
reply
5 ups
i.imgflip.com/2iw9a8.gif (click to show)
reply
5 ups
reply
4 ups
reply
4 ups
reply
4 ups
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Is Squidward asserting his dominance?
reply
3 ups
reply
3 ups
LMAO!!
reply
3 ups
reply
3 ups
gays
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
It took me a a couple of seconds to get the joke! LOL. Thank you for the laugh.
reply
2 ups
My pleasure.
reply
2 ups
reply
2 ups
reply
2 ups
reply
2 ups
Put this meme back on FaceBook where it belongs.
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
Well, it didn’t quite go down just like that but... ; )
reply
2 ups, 3 replies
sure... never mind the facts
- That 'Native Americans' are not Homogeneous
- The Pilgrims and Manifest Destiny were over 100 years apart
- That Exponentially more Natives fell to Natural Disease in the wake First Contact (Through no Fault of the settlers) than in the 4 Centuries and change Since... some estimates put it at 90% Fatality between the arrival of the Santa Maria and the Mayflower
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
http://www.history.org/foundation/journal/spring04/warfare.cfm
reply
1 up
"In the wake of First contact."...

You connected me to an article in which the first date (not counting a Machiavelli quote) is 1763

in case you failed History 'first contact' was 1492

and if you failed Math that is 271 Years earlier...
reply
1 up
Like I said, it didn’t quite go down like that. But it’s still funny...
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
"That 'Native Americans' are not Homogeneous
- The Pilgrims and Manifest Destiny were over 100 years apart"

What does that have to do with anything? The pilgrims still mistreated native people.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Different Tribes had different relationships with the settlers, and Native Peoples took BOTH sides of the assorted 'skirmishes' up to and during the American Revolution
- It's no accident Our democracy owes as much or more to the Iroquois Confederacy as the Greeks

and the 'general Policy' of "we will Kill you now because you don't have guns" (ie Manifest Destiny) came much later

Do NONE of you know how Time works?
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
So you're saying Europeans didn't slaughter or attack Indians until after westward expansion started?
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
and Natives Slaughtered Europeans, and Other Natives helped both sides do it to each other,
reply
0 ups, 2 replies
But which side 1. wiped out more of the other and 2. forced the other side to adopt their beliefs and customs?
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
and now I have to ask "Who Tied your Shoes this Morning?"

More than a Few Natives Tribes Slaughtered and Subjugated OTHER Native Tribes (repeatedly) Before they EVER saw a single Bearded Face with a Buckle on his Hat

There's a reason why we use the word 'Sioux' to Describe Multiple Tribes,(Dakota, Lakota, Nakota) and that Said Word comes from another Tribe's word meaning, paraphrased, "Those Assholes Over There."

The Comanche and Apache were not exactly beloved by their neighbors either...

You make it sound like we arrived to a Kitten Picnic with Frag Grenades and a Chainsaw.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
I never implied anything of the sort. But which group, native Americans or Europeans, did more to wipe out the other? Which group forced the other off of land where they lived first? Do you really not know the answer?
reply
1 up, 2 replies
You do seem to be implying that Europeans need to feel guilty about winning...

If History has taught you nothing else you should know that "Cohabitation" doesn't work... so the choices were Kill or be killed.

One Side was Better at it.
1 up
we WERE Doing fine when it was a "Melting Pot"... New arrivals Failing to assimilate is what leads to Muslims Rioting at Valley Fair... and the call for a wall

and in case you missed the start of this thread... 90% of the Natives fell to Disease before the Pilgrims arrived...

Had the assorted Tribes have been 100% Colonization/Invasion would have been stopped Dead, much like it was when the Vikings tried to set up shop 500 years prior.

I'm saying when TWO (or more) Societies occupy the same space, there will be Friction (see Israel and Palestine)
0 ups
No, I'm saying that genocide is inexcusable. It's not "winning". It's genocide and slaughter.

And if cohabitation does work, then why do people do it all the time? Look at the United States. We have people from all over the globe and we're doing just fine. Are you suggesting that people of different backgrounds or ethnicities couldn't or shouldn't live near each other?
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
So are you suggesting the pilgrims should have allowed the indians to slaughter them to a man rather than fight back? It doesn't matter who killed more of who- both sides were aggressors. To not fight back is to simply lie down and accept death. That one side fought back more successfully due to numbers/technology has absolutely nothing to do with the moral situation.
reply
0 ups, 4 replies
No, I'm not saying the pilgrims shouldn't have fought back if they were attacked. My point is that when all was said and done, Europeans did more harm and devastation to native Americans than native Americans did to Europeans.

"That one side fought back more successfully due to numbers/technology has absolutely nothing to do with the moral situation."

I would call genocide immoral. Just because one side has better technology doesn't excuse what Europeans did to native Americans. Were the Spaniards justified in slaughtering South American Indian peoples, just because they had better technology?
reply
1 up, 1 reply
I never said they were primitive or uncivilized, I simply said they are now US citizens and can leave their reservations whenever they like. Or do you deny that we've built something on the land we took? They lost their land, we built our civilization upon it, and they are welcome to join it if they want. They are not FORCED to stay on their reservations, and that is simply a fact. I made no comment as to whether what we built was superior to what they had before. I simply pointed out the situation they are currently in, which could be the same situation as every other american citizen, if that is what they wanted. There is no law limiting them to squalor, they are NOT second-class citizens.

I'm not personally a fan of forcible conversion either, but it ties into what I said about once we had settled lands, we were left with tribes of (sometimes)hostile indians on those lands, and the people of the time tried to figure out what to do. In their opinion, bringing the indians to christ was the easiest way to assimilate them and try to integrate them into american culture. was it right? no. was it done out of malice? no.
0 ups
Your argument could be used to justify Muslims who conquered groups of people and forced them to convert...sorry, assimilate...into Islamic culture.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
I'd suggest you take your own advice, because it's clear that you know very little about what happened to the natives in North America. In lands that had not been settled yet, the only converting going on was NOT by force, it was done by missionaries in essentially the same way it happens today. After the US had settled lands, there were natives still living on that land. The government and people at the time looked for a way to either move them away or assimilate them. Yeah there were shitty practices, for sure. But expansion wasn't done with the INTENT of destroying/converting the natives, unlike in South and Central America. It wasn't even done by military invasion, most of the time. Common US citizens who wanted a plot of land for themselves to build a new life, would move West to the frontier, and work to create it. Conflict obviously followed because that land was already inhabited, and then the US army would come in to protect.. US citizens, what a thought. The local natives rarely stood a chance against the army, and the army clearly considered them to be barbarians considering the way the army treated them, but for the majority of US history there was NOT some mass campaign to annihilate them. If that had been the goal, there wouldn't be any left. They were in the wrong place, at the wrong time, facing the wrong people. Does that make it moral what happened to them? No. But if you consider that the same as conquistadors landing armies on a new continent with the express INTENT of enslaving, conquering, and looting as much gold and treasure as possible to bring home to Spain, then you have very little room to judge morality to begin with.
0 ups
Not all Europeans in America converted Indians by force or coercion, but it was not unheard of.

"it was done by missionaries in essentially the same way it happens today."

So missionaries today put people into special towns and schools to remove their native language, culture, beliefs and customs and convert them to a European Christian way of life, like the Indian schools in the US?

"After the US had settled lands, there were natives still living on that land."

Go figure

I am not saying that westward expansion was done with the express purpose of wiping out native Americans, but it certainly had that effect some of the time. And even if that wasn't the intent, that doesn't excuse what happened. If I fire a gun into the air and accidentally kill someone a mile away, is it okay because my intent wasn't to kill them? Of course not.

"Conflict obviously followed because that land was already inhabited, and then the US army would come in to protect.. US citizens, what a thought."

Go figure. It's not like the Indians were there first or anything. Oh, wait...

"If (annihilation) had been the goal, there wouldn't be any left."

It wasn't a complete annihilation. That makes me feel so much better.

"They were in the wrong place, at the wrong time, facing the wrong people."

Here's where you're just wrong. They weren't in the wrong place at the wrong time. They were on *their own* land. By your logic, if someone comes onto *your* property and kills your family, that's too bad, because your family was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Try not cutting my sentence in half and try that again with the missionaries bit. I said in lands not yet settled by the US. The boarding schools happened in lands after settlement had happened.

The gauls were on their own land when the Romans conquered them. Christians lived in Egypt, Palestine, Syria, and virtually all of the mediterranean coast of africa before they were conquered by Mohammed and those that followed him. How about the english before french, german, and norse warlords ran rampant across their lands and set up several kingdoms?

What would you have us do? get on boats and planes and all go back to whatever continent? Who gets to stay? Just 100% native americans? It is OVER. It is DONE. It is IRREVERSIBLE. Those natives still living here are full US citizens with every right any other US citizen has, and MORE. I've been to several reservations, and I'll admit they aren't the nicest places. But those people have the option to leave. There's no guard at the border of their reservation preventing them from being a part of everything we've built. They are a part of us now.
0 ups
You're right, I didn't pay attention to the first part of your sentence. That was my mistake.

As far as your second paragraph, of a group of people invaded a place where another group lives and forcibly subjugates them and pushed their religious beliefs onto them, I have a problem with that, regardless of who is doing it.

I never said anything about undoing what has been done. But just because we can't turn back the clock, that doesn't mean we should ignore or try to rewrite history, as many people wish to do.

"There's no guard at the border of their reservation preventing them from being a part of everything we've built"

That sentence is more arrogant and condescending than you seem to realize. You act as if native Americans were so primitive and uncultured that they would have been simply lost in a sea of barbaric anarchy if it weren't for those nice, generous, caring Europeans to show them the light of civilization and Christianity.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
The Spaniards launched full scale invasions with the Express intent of converting or killing the natives and to pillage - the Spanish expeditions were about wealth and power. Westward expansion in the US was driven by settlers looking to build new lives for themselves, usually by farming. The army came along to "keep the savages at bay". My point is that American and Canadian settlers were fighting the Indians to defend their new homes, just as the Indians themselves were fighting to defend their homes. The situation was not even remotely similar to what Spain did in SA or CA
0 ups
If it wasn't similar, then why were the results often the same? Indians were slaughtered or forcibly removed from their land and relocated against their will. And yes, Americans (and European settlers before them) did a hell of a lot of converting, often by force. Read a history book. It's all in there.
reply
2 ups
reply
3 ups
reply
2 ups
reply
1 up
foundation got laid
reply
1 up
reply
1 up
reply
1 up
reply
1 up
You didn't get laid though
reply
1 up
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
reply
6 ups
when you dab on libtards in AMERICAN STYLE
reply
0 ups
Flip Settings

Created with the Imgflip Meme Generator

EXTRA IMAGES ADDED: 1
IMAGE DESCRIPTION:
WOMEN ARE THE FOUNDATION OF AMERICA! AND GUESS WHO LAID THE FOUNDATION?
hotkeys: D = random, W = like, S = dislike, A = back
Feedback