Tema: Necesito ayuda. (Leyenda negra)

La leyenda negra

Oliver Cromwell era una pieza de cuidado. Era comandante del invencible Nuevo Ejército Modelo, vencedor de la Guerra Civil, azote de Irlanda, Lord Protector de la «Commonwealth», terror de tiranos, defensor de la fe; en resumen, una de las peores personas que han vivido en Inglaterra. Pero él no lo hubiera creído así, ni tampoco aquellos que le escuchaban mientras hablaba al Parlamento inglés el 17 de septiembre de 1656. No, el «gran enemigo», el enemigo «de todo lo divino que cada uno de vosotros tiene» eran «los españoles».

Pocos de los puritanos de cabezas redondas que le escuchaban en el Parlamento aquel día habrían estado en desacuerdo con él: España era el imperio malvado, una cruel, codiciosa, intolerante raza de semi-bárbaros que imponía su dominio con la prisión, la hoguera y el potro de tormento de la Inquisición. No estaban contentos con suprimir a sus propios pobres ciudadanos con el yugo de la superstición e idolatría sino que también querían esclavizar al mundo entero. «En verdad» —Cronwell dijo a su audiencia— «los españoles están interesados en vuestras entrañas».

Esa ha sido la opinión de muchos durante los últimos cuatrocientos años. La Leyenda Negra —la imagen de España como una nación intolerante y cruel y la Inquisición como el colmo de la intolerancia— ha sido tan verdadera como el evangelio en muchas partes del mundo y la palabra Inquisición se ha convertido en sinónimo de caza de brujas, juicios-farsa, regímenes opresivos e intolerancia supersticiosa. ¿Cómo comenzó la Leyenda Negra? ¿Cuánto hay de verdad en sus acusaciones?

La Inquisición española fue fundada por los reyes Isabel de Castilla y Fernando de Aragón en 1480 para probar la buena fe de los conversos, los judíos convertidos al cristianismo. En el reino de los reyes católicos, la ortodoxia equivalía a lealtad política y, por tanto, usaron la Inquisición como un instrumento de la monarquía para asegurarse de ella. Bajo Tomás de Torquemada, la Inquisición cometió serios errores y en ocasiones fue más allá de lo justo en perseguir a los conversos, algunos de los cuales fueron entregados a la Inquisición por vecinos envidiosos de su riqueza o de su posición social. Durante los 15 primeros años de la Inquisición fueron ejecutados alrededor de 2,000 personas, pero hacia 1500, bajo un nuevo jefe, la Inquisición fue reformada considerablemente.

Desde aquel momento se convirtió en el más benévolo tribunal de toda Europa. A lo mucho, sentenció a muerte a 60 personas durante todo el siglo XVI, algo admirable en una época en que la gente podía ser condenada a muerte por crímenes triviales y cuando otras naciones quemaban en la hoguera a decenas de miles de mujeres inocentes acusadas de practicar la brujería. Inglaterra, bajo las reinas María e Isabel I, ejecutaron a más de 400 herejes de la forma más cruel imaginable, y excesos semejantes tuvieron lugar a lo largo y ancho de la Europa católica y protestante. Los extensos archivos de la Inquisición muestran que de las más de 7000 personas que fueron llevadas ante su tribunal en Valencia, sólo 2% fueron torturadas y sólo durante 15 minutos cada uno. Esto era una nonada en comparación con las doncellas de hiero, el potro de tortura, los azotes y la rueda aplastadora usada por los sistemas judiciales usados en los primeros años en la mayoría de las naciones modernas. Sin embargo la imaginación popular asocia irrevocablemente a la Inquisición española con verdugos encapuchados, torturas sádicas y malolientes calabozos. ¿Por qué ha sido España tan maltratada por la historia cuando otras naciones han sido mucho peores?

La respuesta está en la Reforma protestante, en el poder bélico de España y en la imprenta, que acababa de ser inventada. En 1517 Lutero prendió el fuego de la revuelta protestante a lo ancho del norte de Europa. La guerra inicial de palabras se convirtió en guerra sangrienta, pero el ejército de los príncipes protestantes no fue un enemigo suficientemente poderoso para las tropas de Carlos V, emperador de Alemania y rey de España. Derrotados en el campo de batalla, los protestantes recurrieron a la guerra de palabras a través de la imprenta. En 1567 publicaron un folleto, traducido del inglés, al alemán, francés y flamenco, titulado Descubrimiento y simple declaración de las acendradas y sutiles prácticas de la santa Inquisición española. El autor, que escribe con el pseudónimo de Montanus, pretendía haber sido él mismo víctima de la Inquisición. Este folleto es considerado como el inicio de la Leyenda negra y fue el golpe de propaganda más sensacional del milenio. La mayoría de las tan conocidas patrañas tuvieron origen en él. Se esparció con rapidez por la Europa protestante, terreno fértil pare recibir la semilla de la mala propaganda contra un enemigo al que odiaban y temían por razones tanto políticas como religiosas. Felipe II, hijo de Carlos V, gobernó en un imperio en el «que no se ponía el sol» y las décadas siguientes fueron testigo de un choque espectacular entre la Inglaterra protestante y la España católica, que culminó con la derrota de la Armada Invencible de España en 1588.

Mientras tanto, los propagandistas anti-españoles estaban atareados tejiendo otros dos hilos de la Leyenda Negra: que la Inquisición tenía un inmenso poder político y que la Inquisición había matado a cientos de miles de personas. En 1569, don Carlos, hijo de Felipe II, murió en un misterioso accidente y los enemigos de Felipe atacaron inventando una historia, repetida docenas de veces, hasta que adquirió carácter lapidario en el siglo XIX a golpe de pluma y batuta de Schiller y Verdi. La trama presentaba a don Carlos como mártir heroico de la libertad de conciencia. Por el contrario, Felipe II era un monstruo moral, empujado por el Gran Inquisidor a matar a su propio hijo para «salvar a la nación». Esta imagen de la Inquisición como la eminencia gris detrás del trono y de su poder policíaco que oprimía a la entera nación, ha tenido una larga vida.

Nada está más lejos de la verdad. La Inquisición nunca fue numerosa pues constaba solamente de dos o tres inquisidores y de un grupo de empleados en cada uno de los 20 tribunales que se encargaban de toda España. Tenían poder en los pueblos y ciudades, es verdad, pero su poder era limitado, con frecuencia controlado por asociaciones civiles, otras autoridades eclesiásticas y magistrados locales. En el campo, en el que vivían cuatro de cada cinco españoles, tenía poco poder. Los historiadores aseguran que la gran mayoría de los campesinos de las áreas rurales nunca habrían visto a un inquisidor en su vida.

El segundo hilo tiene origen en un folleto publicado en 1570. Era presentado como una carta a los inquisidores dándoles instrucciones para acabar con poblaciones enteras sospechosas de herejía. Hace tiempo ya se ha demostrado que es un documento falso, pero la leyenda sigue viva: la odiada Inquisición torturaba y mataba a miles, no, millones, de víctimas inocentes. La verdad es que la Inquisición sentenció aproximadamente a 4,000 personas durante sus 350 años de existencia, con lo cual es, con mucho, el tribunal nacional más benigno de Europa durante el mismo período.

«Todo se vale en el amor y en la guerra», escribió Shakespeare en aquella época, pero después de 400 años ya es tiempo de gritar: «¡Ya basta!» Sin embargo, el daño ya está hecho y la mayor lección de la Leyenda negra es el poder de la prensa. El norte de Europa, especialmente Inglaterra, usó la imprenta con mucha más frecuencia y eficacia que España. Sirva como ejemplo que entre los cuarenta autores más traducidos a lo largo de 25 años de historia, veinticinco con de lengua inglesa y ni uno solo es español. Los grandes de España consideraban indigno de un caballero responder a las acusaciones contra su país tramadas por la máquina protestante de propaganda. De ser posible, preferían decidir la contienda en un duelo. Está muy bien, pero tales caballeros murieron hace cuatro siglos, mientras la imagen pintada por sus enemigos sigue adornando los salones de la cultura popular en todo el mundo. La historia la escriben los vencedores y el vencedor ha sido la pluma, no la espada.

-----------------

Fuente: conoZe.com | La leyenda negra

Esto lo he tomado de un sitio de Internet indigenista de los indios norteamericanos que saca muchos trapos sucios de los colonizadores anglosajones. Aquí vemos como cae por tierra uno de los grandes mitos gringos, el de los peregrinos calvinistas de Plymouth que, según cuentan ellos, fueron tan buenos y tan cristianos con los indios y ese Día de Acción de Gracias que celebran en Yanquilandia desde entonces. Pues nada de eso.






The words on the monument speak for themselves
Treachery Commemorated

After posting this, I received the following Email from a descendent of Standish:
May 31, 2008
Dear Dr. Paul:
Thank you for posting that article about the Real Thanksgiving, and the role of Myles Standish in early Plymouth. I am a descendent of Standish and it has been my goal to understand him and the events concerning him in a deeper way. I want to know ALL the history. I’ve read the WASP approved version and it’s good to see the other versions coming to light.
I work very closely with my ancestors and live my life to redeem their blood. A better knowing of the results of their actions helps in two ways; it clears the propaganda and glamour from my eyes and it inspires me to be a better person in my daily decisions and living. It also teaches me history. Which I wasn’t very good at in high school. Now it has a whole new meaning as I think about my ancestors living in those times and places. My nieces and nephews will learn the truth from me. And their children too.
For what its worth, I apologise for my grandfathers actions. Indeed all my ancestors.
Respectfully and sincerely,
Clarence Standish, IV
The Real Thanksgiving

Quoted from: The Hidden History of Massachusetts
Much of America's understanding of the early relationship between the Indian and the European is conveyed through the story of Thanksgiving. Proclaimed a holiday in 1863 by Abraham Lincoln, this fairy tale of a feast was allowed to exist in the American imagination pretty much untouched until 1970, the 350th anniversary of the landing of the Pilgrims. That is when Frank B. James, president of the Federated Eastern Indian League, prepared a speech for a Plymouth banquet that exposed the Pilgrims for having committed, among other crimes, the robbery of the graves of the Wampanoags. He wrote:
"We welcomed you, the white man, with open arms, little knowing that it was the beginning of the end; that before 50 years were to pass, the Wampanoag would no longer be a free people."
But white Massachusetts officials told him he could not deliver such a speech and offered to write him another. Instead, James declined to speak, and on Thanksgiving Day hundreds of Indians from around the country came to protest. It was the first National Day of Mourning, a day to mark the losses Native Americans suffered as the early settlers prospered. This true story of "Thanksgiving" is what whites did not want Mr. James to tell.
What Really Happened in Plymouth in 1621?
According to a single-paragraph account in the writings of one Pilgrim, a harvest feast did take place in Plymouth in 1621, probably in mid-October, but the Indians who attended were not even invited. Though it later became known as "Thanksgiving," the Pilgrims never called it that. And amidst the imagery of a picnic of interracial harmony is some of the most terrifying bloodshed in New World history.
The Pilgrim crop had failed miserably that year, but the agricultural expertise of the Indians had produced twenty acres of corn, without which the Pilgrims would have surely perished. The Indians often brought food to the Pilgrims, who came from England ridiculously unprepared to survive and hence relied almost exclusively on handouts from the overly generous Indians-thus making the Pilgrims the western hemisphere's first class of welfare recipients. The Pilgrims invited the Indian sachem Massasoit to their feast, and it was Massasoit, engaging in the tribal tradition of equal sharing, who then invited ninety or more of his Indian brothers and sisters-to the annoyance of the 50 or so ungrateful Europeans. No turkey, cranberry sauce or pumpkin pie was served; they likely ate duck or geese and the venison from the 5 deer brought by Massasoit. In fact, most, if notall, of the food was most likely brought and prepared by the Indians, whose 10,000-year familiarity with the cuisine of the region had kept the whites alive up to that point.
The Pilgrims wore no black hats or buckled shoes-these were the silly inventions of artists hundreds of years since that time. These lower-class Englishmen wore brightly colored clothing, with one of their church leaders recording among his possessions "1 paire of greene drawers." Contrary to the fabricated lore of storytellers generations since, no Pilgrims prayed at the meal, and the supposed good cheer and fellowship must have dissipated quickly once the Pilgrims brandished their weaponry in a primitive display of intimidation. What's more, the Pilgrims consumed a good deal of home brew. In fact, each Pilgrim drank at least a half gallon of beer a day, which they preferred even to water. This daily inebriation led their governor, William Bradford, to comment on his people's "notorious sin," which included their "drunkenness and uncleanliness" and rampant "sodomy"...
The Pilgrims of Plymouth, The Original Scalpers
Contrary to popular mythology the Pilgrims were no friends to the local Indians. They were engaged in a ruthless war of extermination against their hosts, even as they falsely posed as friends. Just days before the alleged Thanksgiving love-fest, a company of Pilgrims led by Myles Standish actively sought to chop off the head of a local chief. They deliberately caused a rivalry between two friendly Indians, pitting one against the other in an attempt to obtain "better intelligence and make them both more diligent." An 11-foot-high wall was erected around the entire settlement for the purpose of keeping the Indians out.
Any Indian who came within the vicinity of the Pilgrim settlement was subject to robbery, enslavement, or even murder. The Pilgrims further advertised their evil intentions and white racial hostility, when they mounted five cannons on a hill around their settlement, constructed a platform for artillery, and then organized their soldiers into four companies-all in preparation for the military destruction of their friends the Indians.
Pilgrim Myles Standish eventually got his bloody prize. He went to the Indians, pretended to be a trader, then beheaded an Indian man named Wituwamat. He brought the head to Plymouth, where it was displayed on a wooden spike for many years, according to Gary B. Nash, "as a symbol of white power." Standish had the Indian man's young brother hanged from the rafters for good measure. From that time on, the whites were known to the Indians of Massachusetts by the name "Wotowquenange," which in their tongue meant cutthroats and stabbers.
Who Were the "Savages"?
The myth of the fierce, ruthless Indian savage lusting after the blood of innocent Europeans must be vigorously dispelled at this point. In actuality, the historical record shows that the very opposite was true.
Once the European settlements stabilized, the whites turned on their hosts in a brutal way. The once amicable relationship was breeched again and again by the whites, who lusted over the riches of Indian land. A combination of the Pilgrims' demonization of the Indians, the concocted mythology of Eurocentric historians, and standard Hollywood propaganda has served to paint the gentle Indian as a tomahawk-swinging savage endlessly on the warpath, lusting for the blood of the God-fearing whites.
But the Pilgrims' own testimony obliterates that fallacy. The Indians engaged each other in military contests from time to time, but the causes of "war," the methods, and the resulting damage differed profoundly from the European variety:
o Indian "wars" were largely symbolic and were about honor, not about territory or extermination.
o "Wars" were fought as domestic correction for a specific act and were ended when correction was achieved. Such action might better be described as internal policing. The conquest or destruction of whole territories was a European concept.
o Indian "wars" were often engaged in by family groups, not by whole tribal groups, and would involve only the family members.
o A lengthy negotiation was engaged in between the aggrieved parties before escalation to physical confrontation would be sanctioned. Surprise attacks were unknown to the Indians.
o It was regarded as evidence of bravery for a man to go into "battle" carrying no weapon that would do any harm at a distance-not even bows and arrows. The bravest act in war in some Indian cultures was to touch their adversary and escape before he could do physical harm.
o The targeting of non-combatants like women, children, and the elderly was never contemplated. Indians expressed shock and repugnance when the Europeans told, and then showed, them that they considered women and children fair game in their style of warfare.
o A major Indian "war" might end with less than a dozen casualties on both sides. Often, when the arrows had been expended the "war" would be halted. The European practice of wiping out whole nations in bloody massacres was incomprehensible to the Indian.
According to one scholar, "The most notable feature of Indian warfare was its relative innocuity." European observers of Indian wars often expressed surprise at how little harm they actually inflicted. "Their wars are far less bloody and devouring than the cruel wars of Europe," commented settler Roger Williams in 1643. Even Puritan warmonger and professional soldier Capt. John Mason scoffed at Indian warfare: "[Their] feeble manner...did hardly deserve the name of fighting." Fellow warmonger John Underhill spoke of the Narragansetts, after having spent a day "burning and spoiling" their country: "no Indians would come near us, but run from us, as the deer from the dogs." He concluded that the Indians might fight seven years and not kill seven men. Their fighting style, he wrote, "is more for pastime, than to conquer and subdue enemies."
All this describes a people for whom war is a deeply regrettable last resort. An agrarian people, the American Indians had devised a civilization that provided dozens of options all designed to avoid conflict--the very opposite of Europeans, for whom all-out war, a ferocious bloodlust, and systematic genocide are their apparent life force. Thomas Jefferson--who himself advocated the physical extermination of the American Indian--said of Europe, "They [Europeans] are nations of eternal war. All their energies are expended in the destruction of labor, property and lives of their people."
Puritan Holocaust
By the mid 1630s, a new group of 700 even holier Europeans calling themselves Puritans had arrived on 11 ships and settled in Boston-which only served to accelerate the brutality against the Indians.
In one incident around 1637, a force of whites trapped some seven hundred Pequot Indians, mostly women, children, and the elderly, near the mouth of the Mystic River. Englishman John Mason attacked the Indian camp with "fire, sword, blunderbuss, and tomahawk." Only a handful escaped and few prisoners were taken-to the apparent delight of the Europeans:
To see them frying in the fire, and the streams of their blood quenching the same, and the stench was horrible; but the victory seemed a sweet sacrifice, and they gave praise thereof to God.
This event marked the first actual Thanksgiving. In just 10 years 12,000 whites had invaded New England, and as their numbers grew they pressed for all-out extermination of the Indian. Euro-diseases had reduced the population of the Massachusett nation from over 24,000 to less than 750; meanwhile, the number of European settlers in Massachusetts rose to more than 20,000 by 1646.
By 1675, the Massachusetts Englishmen were in a full-scale war with the great Indian chief of the Wampanoags, Metacomet. Renamed "King Philip" by the white man, Metacomet watched the steady erosion of the lifestyle and culture of his people as European-imposed laws and values engulfed them.
In 1671, the white man had ordered Metacomet to come to Plymouth to enforce upon him a new treaty, which included the humiliating rule that he could no longer sell his own land without prior approval from whites. They also demanded that he turn in his community's firearms. Marked for extermination by the merciless power of a distant king and his ruthless subjects, Metacomet retaliated in 1675 with raids on several isolated frontier towns. Eventually, the Indians attacked 52 of the 90 New England towns, destroying 13 of them. The Englishmen ultimately regrouped, and after much bloodletting defeated the great Indian nation, just half a century after their arrival on Massachusetts soil. Historian Douglas Edward Leach describes the bitter end:
The ruthless executions, the cruel sentences...were all aimed at the same goal-unchallengeable white supremacy in southern New England. That the program succeeded is convincingly demonstrated by the almost complete docility of the local native ever since.
When Captain Benjamin Church tracked down and murdered Metacomet in 1676, his body was quartered and parts were "left for the wolves." The great Indian chief's hands were cut off and sent to Boston and his head went to Plymouth, where it was set upon a pole on the real first "day of public Thanksgiving for the beginning of revenge upon the enemy." Metacomet's nine-year-old son was destined for execution because, the whites reasoned, the offspring of the devil must pay for the sins of their father. The child was instead shipped to the Caribbean to spend his life in slavery.
As the Holocaust continued, several official Thanksgiving Days were proclaimed. Governor Joseph Dudley declared in 1704 a "General Thanksgiving"-not in celebration of the brotherhood of man-but for [God's] infinite Goodness to extend His Favors...In defeating and disappointing... the Expeditions of the Enemy [Indians] against us, And the good Success given us against them, by delivering so many of them into our hands...
Just two years later one could reap a ££50 reward in Massachusetts for the scalp of an Indian-demonstrating that the practice of scalping was a European tradition. According to one scholar, "Hunting redskins became...a popular sport in New England, especially since prisoners were worth good money..."
References in The Hidden History of Massachusetts: A Guide for Black Folks ©© DR. TINGBA APIDTA, ; ISBN 0-9714462-0-2
For purchase details Email A. Muhammad "mghemlf@att.net"

********************

During March 1623 Myles Standish lured two Chiefs to a meeting then murdered them. The picture of the monument, erected by the Weymouth Historical Commission, depicts how the town of Weymouth, Mass, takes pride in his barbaric deed.

What Hellish Pride and Prejudice

What in hell is a hearth built on blood of a brother’s harvest you absconded, along with a curve of land kissed by ocean for first people given this fine land, who were sickened on your flu-filled flannel gifts until they were too weak to wise on to your malicious plans?
You merchant-adventurers of Weymouth, mount your monument of treason against corn-fed Wessagusset, as you celebrate 300 years of your encroachment on eternity’s placement of a people who had heroes like Pecksuot who, even thirty years ago, still, is said, tucked a child into her covers at Bricknell house so she did not have to see your scurrilous skirmishes.
You promote your pestilent importance on this land, as if you thought you would be allowed to stay forever. You hold a fatal flaw in this grasp to make it seem you made something worthy.
What is worthier than Wampanoag in first light, who had their blood spilled by you, on the very ground you grind against?
Listen, they speak, and trace truthful steps through and around this place you think you own: Such pride and prejudice in this piece of cement that will not outlast us, the true people of the East, or sun that burns red on mornings it remembers.
Carol Desjarlais

*******************

New York Times
November 25, 2004
Banned in Boston: American Indians, but Only for 329 Years
By KATIE ZEZIMA
BOSTON, Nov. 24 - It is a prejudicial, archaic concept that prohibited Native Americans from entering a city for fear members of their "barbarous crew" would cause residents to be "exposed to mischief."
But it is more than notions and phrases in Boston. A ban on Indians entering Boston has been the law since 1675.
Mayor Thomas M. Menino took a step toward repealing the ban on Wednesday, filing a home rule petition. Mr. Menino said a repeal would remove the last vestiges of discrimination from a vibrant, diverse city that is looking past old racial conflicts.
"This law has no place in Boston," Mr. Menino said. "Fortunately this act is no longer enforced. But as long as it remains on the books, this law will tarnish our image. Hatred and discrimination have no place in Boston. Tolerance, equality and respect - these are the attributes of our city."
Joanne Dunn, executive director of the Boston Native American Center, said she laughed a bit as she drove into Boston on Wednesday, realizing that she was, technically, breaking the law (being without benefit of the "two musketeers" required to escort American Indians with business in the city). "For us indigenous people it brings some closure," Ms. Dunn said. "You come into the City of Boston and it crosses your mind that you're not welcome here."
The Boston City Council, which in April 2003 unanimously passed a resolution calling for repeal, must now approve the petition to remove the ban. The repeal must then pass the legislature and be signed by Gov. Mitt Romney.
A spokeswoman for Robert E. Travaglini, the president of the State Senate, said Mr. Travaglini had not seen the petition and would allow the City Council to act before considering action. A spokeswoman for Mr. Romney, a Republican, said he had not seen the petition either and would be "happy to take a look at it" when it crossed his desk.
Felix Arroyo, a city councilman, said he expected the measure to pass unanimously at a council meeting on Dec. 1. "I think all of us will look forward to voting yes on this," Mr. Arroyo said.
The Massachusetts General Court enacted the law, called the Indian Imprisonment Act, in 1675. The legislation came at the height of King Philip's War, a conflict between the Wampanoag tribe, led by Metacom, known as Philip, and settlers near Plymouth, Mass. The war began in 1675 with a raid on the town of Swansea and spread across Massachusetts, spilling north to New Hampshire and south to Connecticut. The war, one of the bloodiest on American soil, ended the next year.
The law rolled over when the state's Constitution was enacted in 1780 and has lingered for centuries, with no one taking the steps to repeal it. The Muhheconnew National Confederacy, a lobbying group based in Falmouth, Mass., started pushing for repeal in 1996 after working with the city to protect Indian burial grounds on the Boston Harbor islands. The group petitioned the legislature, then the city, and received the necessary resolution last year. It renewed the push in July, before the Democratic National Convention.
"It means a great thing," said Sam Sapiel, 73, a member of the Penobscot Nation of Maine who lives in Falmouth and worked with the Muhheconnew Confederacy on the repeal. "It's what we've been striving for."
It was little coincidence that Mr. Menino signed the petition the day before Thanksgiving. The podium at the news conference was decorated with a splash of crimson chrysanthemums, and the desk Mr. Menino used to sign the petition was festooned with a pumpkin and other gourds. An Indian leader also invoked the holiday.
"Being so close to Thanksgiving, this is a good day for native people," said Beverly Wright, a member of the Wampanoag tribe of Martha's Vineyard, the state's only federally recognized tribe. "It's been on the books for a long time."
Ms. Wright believes there might be other, similarly discriminatory laws. Mr. Menino said he would look into the possibility of repealing them.

The Real Thanksgiving

Otra leyenda. No eran exactamente los indios de Norteamérica los que arrancaban el cuero cabelludo. Vean, señores, vean lo que hacían estos ingleses...



Bounty Hunters

Governor William Shirley (1694-1771)
Click for Bio Information
"http://www.blupete.com/Hist/BiosNS/1700-63/Shirley.htm

BRITISH SCALP PROCLAMATION - 1744

In the face of a resumption of full scale war on October 19, 1744, the government of Massachusetts, responding to a request from Nova Scotia's Governor Jean Paul Mascarene, declared war upon the Mi'kmaq and Maliseet Nations. It states:
"By His Excellency Wm. Shirley, Captain General and Commander in Chief in and over His Majesty's Province of the Massachusetts Bay in New England. A Proclamation for encouragement of volunteers to prosecute War against the St. John's and Cape Sable Indians....
"Whereas, the Indians of the Cape Sables & St. John's Tribes have by their violation of their solemn Treaties with His Majesty's Governors, & their open hostilities committed against His Majesty's Subjects of this Province & the Province of Nova Scotia, obliged me with the unanimous advice of His Majesty's Council to declare war against them,
"In consequence of which the General Assembly of this Province have voted, that there be granted to be paid out of the Public Treasury to any Company, Party or Person belonging to and residing within this Province who shall voluntarily & at their own proper cost and charge go out and kill a male Indian of the age of twelve years or upwards, of the Tribe of St. John or Cape Sables...
"....and produce his scalp in evidence of his death, the sum of one hundred pounds in bills of credit of this Province of New England, and the sum of one hundred and five pounds for any male of the like age who shall be taken captive.
"And the sum of fifty pounds in said bills for women, and for children under the age of twelve years killed in fight, and fifty-five pounds for such of them as shall be taken prisoners together with the plunder. No payment shall be made for killing or taking captive any of the said Indians, until proof thereof be made to the acceptance of the Government and Council. November 2, 1744."
By no measure can such horrendous documents be called products of a civilized people. The horror of their intent is reprehensible. Only a sick and barbaric mind could conceive of and implement such unspeakable crimes against humanity. Hitler would have admired the genius of the men who introduced this horrible method of bringing people he considered inferior to extinction.
That the scalp harvest was carried out enthusiastically there is no doubt, the records are full of references to successful "hunts." In her book "The Old Man Told Us So," page 102, Ruth Whitehead relates an incident that is horrific. It happened in late October 1744, near Annapolis Royal, where Gorham and his bounty hunters encountered a group of Mi'kmaq:
"...five women and three children, two of the women were big with child..." Gorham's Rangers "ransacked, pillaged, and burnt the two huts, and massacred the five women and three children."
"...It is observed that the two pregnant women were found with their bellies ripped open. An act which the Micmac cannot forget, especially as at that time they made fair war with the English. They have always looked on this deed as a singular mark of the most unheard-of-cruelty."

GOVERNOR WILLIAM SHIRLEY: BRITISH GENOCIDE - SCALP PROCLAMATION, 1744

Leyes de Indias o, mejor dicho, leyes antiindias del Canadá:

INDIAN ACT: 1876
If I were an uninformed person, needing more hard evidence to cement views that Canada had careless indifference towards managing judiciously its trust responsibilities, for First Nations and their lands, this would do it; it took the government almost a decade to enact the legislation it needed to manage Indian affairs.
Finally, in 1876, nine years after Confederation Canada devised and legislated the legal code it required to manage and fulfil the requirements of its Constitutional obligations! But the government of 1876, in direct contradiction of its trust position, was true to form. It included a section in the Indian Act which made it illegal for an Indian Agent not to make every effort to sell off First Nation lands:
138. Every Agent who knowingly and falsely informs, or causes to be informed, any person applying to him to purchase any land within his division and agency, that the same has already been purchased, or who refuses to permit the person so applying to purchase the same according to existing regulations, shall be liable therefore to the person so applying, in the sum of five dollars for each acre of land which the person so applying offered to purchase, recoverable by action of debt in any court of competent jurisdiction.
This section of the 1927 Indian Act placed an impossible burden upon Bands that wished to take legal action against the Crown or file a claim:
RECEIVING MONEY FOR THE PROSECUTION OF A CLAIM
141. Every person who, without the consent of the Superintendent General expressed in writing, receives, obtains, solicits or requests from any Indian any payment or contribution or promise of any payment or contribution for the purpose of raising a fund or providing money for the prosecution of any claim which the Tribe or Band of Indians to which such Indian belongs, or of which he is a Member, has or is represented to have for the recovery of any claim or money for the said Tribe or Band, shall be guilty of an offense and liable upon summary conviction for each such offence to a penalty not exceeding two hundred dollars and not less than fifty dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two months.38
ENFRANCHISEMENT
Some of the most insidious provisions the government included in the Indian Act, and added to with future amendments, were the enfranchising sections. These provisions were enacted for the express purpose of hastening extinction of Registered Indians by assimilation. Under these sections, individuals and entire Bands were enfranchised. They were hoodwinked into believing that somehow or other, by giving up their rights as Indians, they would reap all the benefits of Canadian citizenship. But, most of those who gave up their "Indian" rights were rewarded by becoming destitute wanderers that nobody in Canada wanted. Fortunately, despite the best efforts of succeeding governments to entice them to do so, the vast majority of First Nations' Peoples refused the bait.
Section 86 was the 1876 enfranchisement section:
Whenever any Indian man, or unmarried woman, of the full age of twenty-one years obtains the consent of the Band of which he or she is a member to become enfranchised, and whenever such Indian has been assigned by the Band a suitable allotment of land for that purpose, the local Agent shall report such action of the Band and the name of the applicant to the Superintendent General.
Whereupon the said Superintendent General, if satisfied that the proposed allotment of land is equitable, shall authorize some competent person to report whether the applicant is an Indian, who from the degree of civilization to which he or she has attained, and the character for integrity, morality and sobriety which he or she bears, appears to be qualified to become a proprietor of land in fee simple; and upon the favourable report of such person, the Superintendent General may grant such Indian a location ticket as a probationary Indian for the land allotted to him or her by the Band.
(1) Any Indian who may be admitted to the degree of Doctor of Medicine, or to any other degree by any University of Learning, or who may be admitted in any Province of the Dominion to practice law, either as an Advocate or as a Barrister, or Counsellor, or Solicitor, or Attorney, or to be a Notary Public, or who may enter Holy Orders, or who may be licensed by any denomination of Christians as a Minister of the Gospel, shall ipso facto become and be enfranchised under this Act.
A few others:
Indian Act, Section 140, 1927, Dances and Festivals (forbid such activities)
Indian Act, Section 140A, 1930, poolrooms (barred poolroom usage)
Indian Act, Section 120, 1930, Prevention of Trade (could not sell their goods without permission)
Indian Act, Section 46, 1911, removal of Indians, (This was used in Nova Scotia)
Biased Indian Act Sections such as these were not unusual. Its another piece of irony that prior to Confederation the First Nations Peoples had suffered unremitting racist persecution, most of which was dished out in an ad hoc fashion. After Confederation, when more enlightened thought was supposed to be afoot, persecution was codified in federal and provincial laws.
I want to clarify this before we go further: For any who might be inclined to think that the Indian Act was designed to preserve First Nations' cultures it wasn't. In fact, it was designed to deliver the final blow to them, but fittingly, in the end it was their salvation. The men who sought to destroy these cultures, motivated by racist perceptions of themselves as products of superior civilizations, would roll over in their graves today if they knew that the actions they took to facilitate the demise of First Nation civilizations were the very actions that ultimately saved them.

INDIAN ACT: 1876

Más leyes abusivas contra los indios del Canadá:

INDIAN ACT SECTION 46
REMOVAL OF INDIANS
To assure that Whites could improve the "amenities" of their communities by having Indians removed from close proximity, the government included this section in the Indian Act:
Removal of Indians
46. (1) In the case of an Indian reserve which adjoins or is situated wholly or partly within an incorporated town or city having a population of not less than eight thousand ... the Governor in Council may, upon the recommendation of the Superintendent General, refer to the judge of the Exchequer Court of Canada for inquiry and report the question as to whether it is expedient, having regard to the interest of the public and of the Indians of the band for whose use the reserve is held, that the Indians should be removed from the reserve or any part of it....
If the judge finds that it is expedient that the band of Indians should be removed from the reserve or any part of it, he shall proceed, before making his report, to ascertain the amounts of compensation, if any, which should be paid respectively to individual Indians of the band for the special loss or damages which they will sustain in respect of the buildings or improvements to which they are entitled upon the lands of the reserve for which they are located.....
The judge shall transmit his findings, with the evidence and a report of the proceedings, to the Governor in Council, who shall lay a full report of the proceedings ... before Parliament ... and upon such findings being approved by resolution of Parliament the Governor in Council may thereupon give effect to the said findings and cause the reserve, or any part thereof from which it is found expedient to remove the Indians, to be sold or leased by public auction after three months advertisement in the public press, upon the best terms which in the opinion of the Governor in Council, may be obtained therefor.
The proceeds of the sale or lease, after deducting the usual percentage for management fund, shall be applied in compensating individual Indians for their buildings or improvements as found by the judge, in purchasing a new reserve for the Indians removed, in transferring the said Indians with their effects thereto, in erecting buildings upon the new reserve, and in providing the Indians with such other assistance as the Superintendent General may consider advisable....
For the purpose of selecting [a] new reserve to be acquired for the Indians ... the Superintendent General shall have all the powers conferred upon the Minister by the Expropriation Act.39
Shortly after the turn of the century this provision was used in Nova Scotia. The victims were the Mi'kmaq residing near Kings Road in Sydney (about where the Holiday Inn is now located). Whites, residing close to the area, went to court and used the provision to force the Band members to move to Membertou Reserve.
No attempt has ever been made by the federal Crown to right this historic wrong. However, on March 21, 1999, at a dinner in Membertou the Mayor of the Cape Breton Regional Municipality, David Muise, officially apologized on behalf of the municipality to the descendants of the Mi'kmaq removed from their Kings Road Reserve starting in 1915. He told the gathering: "There's nothing we can do to undo the move.... What I'm here to do is start the healing process for wrongs of the past." Right on, Mr. Mayor!
Section 46, in addition to being contrary to the laws of a civilized Nation, was contrary to human decency! Until it was repealed in 1951, this obnoxious section gave the bureaucrats an enormous club to wield in their efforts to force the First Nations peoples to do their bidding. The threat of removal caused the Mi'kmaq to think twice before opposing the Department. Adding to the obnoxiousness of the legislation was the fact that the Department could force the People to pay for their own expulsion, as was done in the case of the Sydney Mi'kmaq.

INDIAN ACT SECTION 46: REMOVAL OF INDIANS

Y todavía en tiempos muy recientes trataban a los indios como a putas. Y tu profesora canadiense tiene el descaro de acusarnos a los españoles.


MEDICAL EXPERIMENTATION:
USING FIRST NATIONS STUDENTS AS TEST SUBJECTS
Medical experimentation also took place at Indian Residential and Indian Day schools. This example, reported in the May 8, 2000, issue of Maclean's magazine makes one wonder whether this is modern Canada or a throwback to the Dark Ages:
Natives denied dental care Federal government doctors withheld specialized dental care, such as professional cleaning and treatment of decay, for aboriginal children living in eight residential schools in the 1940s and 1950s to see what the effect would be on their health. The director of the study, Dr. L.B. Pett, said last week that students' teeth and gums were in terrible condition to begin with, and that delaying treatment did not create more decay, but helped keep the study's results accurate.
Such views about experiments, using people deemed "inferior" as guinea pigs, were expressed by another majority group, the Nazis. As might be expected from a systemically racist society, to my knowledge, not one word of condemnation has been uttered about this revelation from any level of government, or human rights commission in Canada.

CANADIAN MEDICAL EXPERIMENTATION: USING FIRST NATIONS STUDENTS AS TEST SUBJECTS

Y hasta 1960 no dejaron votar a los indios. No tenían voz ni voto, ni cabildos ni podían escribir una carta al rey. Hay que enseñarles unas cuantas cosas a estos canadienses.

CANADA'S FIRST NATIONS PEOPLES
GIVEN VOTING RIGHTS: MARCH 31, 1960

In 1960, under Prime Minister John Diefenbaker's enlightened thinking, the government made a decision that would prove to be most beneficial in promoting the eventual recognition of the civil and human rights of First Nations citizens. It decided to permit all Registered Indians to vote in federal elections. Registered Indians living on-Reserve had previously been prevented from doing so by this section of the Canada Elections Act:
14. (2) The following persons are disqualified from voting in an election and incapable of being registered as electors and shall not vote nor be so registered, that is to say, ...
(e) every Indian, as defined in the Indian Act, ordinarily resident on a reserve, unless
(i) he was a member of His Majesty's Forces during World War I or World War II, or was a member of the Canadian Forces who served on active service subsequent to the 9th day of September, 1950, or
(ii) he executed a waiver, in a form prescribed by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, of exemptions under the Indian Act from taxation on and in respect of personal property, and subsequent to the execution of such waiver a writ has issued ordering an election in any electoral district.
An "Act to Amend the Canada Elections Act," repealing the discriminatory parts of Section 14, was given royal assent on March 31, 1960.
By acquiring the right to vote ninety-three unjustifiable years after Confederation, the First Nations peoples of Canada had acquired a useful tool in their future struggles for freedom and justice. Politicians now had to address their problems or suffer at the polls. After this, things began to slowly change for the better for First Nations peoples.
Why the change wasn't more rapid is explained by the following example of the racist attitudes that still prevailed among the bureaucrats: When I returned from the States in 1960 with the intention of going back to school, I went to see the Indian Agent with a request for financial assistance to do so. His response was: "Why don't you go get a pick and shovel and go do what you're best qualified for? " With the angry intervention of my Member of Parliament, Mr. Cyril Kennedy, who was a war veteran and a fine gentleman, the Agent changed his attitude and I started business college in September of that year.
Another thing that changed after the vote was granted was that departmental bureaucrats became more adept at concealing their misdeeds and failings from Members of Parliament, who were now answerable to the people making complaints about bureaucratic job performance. The bureaucrats came up with the ideal solution, amazingly never challenged by any politician. To this day they assign themselves to investigate their own misdeeds and failings and, of course, almost always exonerate themselves. The worst result is that First Nations citizens are left with no effective legal recourse for their complaints about the actions of Indian Affairs bureaucrats and Band Councils. As this situation demonstrates, full protection of our People's civil rights is still hard to come by.
NOTE: Probably related to white supremacist thinking that was implanted in them through the social development of the mother country, England, all the white overseas countries founded by it were extremely barbaric in their treatment of the indigenous inhabitants they displaced. In one form or other, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States have subjected them to genocidal treatment.
Austrailia took even longer than Canada to grant it's indigenous people the right to vote in the country's elections: November 24, 1973!

CANADA'S FIRST NATION CITIZENS GRANTED VOTING RIGHTS: MARCH 31, 1960

Y como buena canadiense, seguro que tu profesora conoce bien el francés, así que también le puedes dar este artículo:

http://hispanismo.org/francais/9074-...kingechee.html

Gracias por vuestra ayuda.. Sólo con el primer mensaje, Hyeronimus, tengo para darle caña un buen rato.

Lo de los indios (que no no hindues), se lo dije hace mucho, cuando, precisamente, nos estaba vilipendiando. Tenía una compañera de Colombia con rasgos nativos muy marcados, cuando esta profesora empezó su retalía de mentiras contra nosotros y nuestra crueldad (no eran sino los usos de aquella época)me referí a esta compañera, y acto seguido la pregunté que dónde estaban los indios canadienses y me dijo que en las reservas, le contesté: aun no he visto ninguno y que me parecen una mentira.
Trás un parrafada(suya) le dije que si en realidad no estarían en zoos. Ya que la gente paga por verlos y no pueden salir de sus reservas. No dijo nada en contra nuestro en un tiempo.

Ella es de antepasados hindues, con algo de sangre judia y del el Salvador.

Iniciado por mazadelizana

Ella es de antepasados hindues, con algo de sangre judia y del el Salvador.

Ahora que mencionas eso, también vale recordar que los judíos expulsados de España se aliaron a los ingleses y a todos los enemigos de España para destruir los cimientos del Imperio. Detrás de todo el proceso de descomposición del Imperio Español estuvo la masonería, que de hecho fomentó el crecimiento movimientos independentistas en territorio americano.

Espero que te sirvan de algo las oportaciones de tan cultivados hermanos, pero me temo que aun teniendo una maquina del tiempo que os teletransporte a ti y a tu profesora a los iglos XV, XVI, XVII e incluso el XVIII, no la haras entrar en razón.
para eso deveria vaciar sus pensamientos de años de mentiras y prejuicios, y siend como supongo inteligente, su mente negara los hechos.

Suscribo lo dicho por Tercio, por mucho que se diga al final sale siempre el prejuicio anti español a la superficie, son varios siglos machacando sobre lo mismo para que se cambie la cosa así como así.

Lo que tiene bemoles es que sea una anglosajona, lo digo porque presumo que sigues en Ottawa y supongo que tu profesora lo será, te hable de "genocidios contra los indígenas americanos". Pues anda que hay muchos indígenas en Canadá y USA, del Atlántico hasta el Pacifico hicieron una buena "impia" sus antepasados, se cargaron varios millones, no sé si los 6 millones que se dicen murieron en el llamado Holocausto judío, pero por ahí le anda la cosa, sólo mal viven algunos pocos, los que se salvaron del exterminio, en las llamadas reservas. Ah, y me apuesto un céntimo de euro que tu profe es de izquierdas.