New York - The State And City Must Change Their Names

...because they are named after the Duke of York, notorious slave trader.  Razing the city and state to the ground would be inhumane. 

"New York, both the city and the state, is named after the house of York and particularly for James Stuart, then Duke of York, one of the most successful slavers in colonial American history."

http://dailycaller.com/2017/08...endous-slave-trader/

Image result for statue duke of york
Topple this monument to a monstrous man -- the Duke of York.
Perhaps, NYC could revert to New Amsterdam, although, the Dutch were among the first to instigate the African slave trade.  Let New York state take the Iroquois name, whatever that is. 

TRUTH -- THE NEW HATE SPEECH!

Original Post

Equal Destruction for Unequal Interpretations based upon BS sensitivity to History by a minority of the most Leftest of the Left. Lefty's want them to Rule over the majority of the Leftist. You Dumb Dems are being Dictated to, by your own AltLeft Activist Mobs.  

Oh, that's right, "You Really Don't Care..." Your more amused at the destruction of the country your groups are having... via your Elite Funding Left, Put in motion & Instituted by Obama & Social Engineering Lobbyist, Trans-Forming America.

As is germane to other post/topics similar to the current trend to destroy everything relating to the remembrance of Slavery  or the old South, everyone here, or most, KNOW that the current trend, with great backing by the Liberal left, ONLY APPLIES to things, topics, and people that the left wants it to apply to.   Conservatives, Republicans, Donald Trump or anything that has nothing to do with Liberal causes or Liberals are at risk.  Anyone that is Liberal or a Democratic supporter or backer receives immediate exemption from any and all such activities and movements. 

Thus Hollywood, New York, or any liberal learning institution are not subject to the ethnic cleansing that is going on pushed by an ever emboldened Liberal Left media and that will continue. 

Republicans, Conservatives, Fox News, Donald Trump, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, the South or any of the afore mentioned sympathizers and the like are always guilty, never proven innocent, and deserving of banishment and relinquishment of all freedoms and rights to free speech.  Anyone that supports liberal causes though, such as Warren Buffet, Zuckerberg, or many in Hollywood receives the lifetime exemption and "get out of jail card free" award against any and all such liberal actions and such is the way of the current, Trump Derangement Syndrome Liberal Left and their Liberal Left Media in the Nation.  Along with Global warming and Russian Collusion which gather no steam or have no validity behind it the left has resurrected Racism as if there is a trademark and patient on it by the Right, Whites, Republicans, and Donald Trump along with anyone that supports him.   They finally found something that appears to stick and have some kind of emphasis behind it so it is the current thing that the left will push and use until it peters out.

Demmies are blind to the antifa groups violence.  They've adopted Karl Marx's "no enemies on the left."  Which, of course, wasn't real, just as his economic theories weren't real.

Antifa and white supremacists seem to mirror the street fights between the NSDAP and communists during the Weimar Republic.  What is the difference between holocaust deniers and gulag deniers, except more died in the gulags -- millions more died.  Both groups are anti-Semitic.  Although, the left calls themselves anti-Zionist or anti-Israel.  Same demented difference. 

jtdavis posted:

Gbrk, I hear your message. Conservative republican great, liberal anything else lousy. Just like the other posters. And from where I'm sitting, bs

I'm by no means trying to say that all republicans or conservatives are perfect in their actions or beliefs but my point was that the national media is completely ignoring the paid protesters that so obviously are there.  They, the liberal media, are the ones that are sugar coating and glossing over any negatives with regards to their side.

Another big non-issue of the day is all the hub bub about Trumps initial reply and condemnation of the protest and attacks.  Any thinking and reasonable person that did not have a preconceived agenda would now that Trump wasn't supporting neo-**** groups or skin head white nationalist.  Trump's statement about good people on both sides or all sides is also reasonable in that there are all kinds of people behind every  position, even the left.  There are good people who are conscientious in the Black Lives Matter organization but there are also some that should be prosecuted and are nothing  but the same as the KKK and white nationalist and are certainly racist in every way.

I'm just saying that the liberal press does their level best to present the left and liberal side as not having a fault while doing just the opposite with regards to Conservatives and even worse providing skewed coverage that has an obvious skewed opinion and agenda behind it.

Not that it would do you any good Jeff T, but if you had the guts
for the truth, you would compare liberal to conservative actions
for end results. What works and what failed. What US cities, what
US states or what foreign countries has the best success rates
with liberal as opposed to conservative policies.
All the empty whining you crank out annually doesn't move at all
up against one day of verified documented written truth, to which
you're proven to be blind.
 
Awaiting for your lame excuses.
giftedamateur posted:

Let the ones that actually own it rename America.

What did Native Americans call America before it was called America?

Lakota scholar Vine Deloria was asked that question once.
 
His reply was "Ours."

Sounds good to me. Give it back to us and then I can help decide who stays and who goes. Bye bye bye muzzies, bye bye mexicans, so long demoslops. Don't let the door hit you in the a** on your way out.

Sorry, but whoever wrote the Daily Caller article pulled the info from an unknown orifice. Here's the 411 on the name York:

The word York (Old Norse: Jórvík) derives from the Latinised name for the city, variously rendered as Eboracum, Eburacum or Eburaci. The first mention of York by this name is dated to circa 95–104 AD as an address on a wooden stylus tablet from the Roman fortress of Vindolanda in Northumberland.[4]

 

direstraits posted:

The first explorers in the new world hired Indians as janissaries to help fight their wars.  The Indians hated each other more than they hated the Europeans. 

I'm not real sure about that Dire. I have noticed lately a sudden interest in Native Americans by the trouble makers on the left. We are supposed to "stand" with the blacks now. I guess it IS possible to stir up some with their BS, but then again that would be against the nature of Native Americans.

New York City was settled by Europeans from The Netherlands in 1624. The Dutch called the whole area of New York "Nieuw Nederland" (New Netherland) and they named a fort and town on the south end of Manhattan Island Nieuw Amsterdam (New Amsterdam),[13] after the capital city of the Netherlands, which was to become present-day New York. The English took over the colony in 1664 during the second Anglo-Dutch War. They changed the name to New York, to honor the Duke of York, who later became King James II of England. The Dutch surrendered Nieuw Amsterdam without fighting. They were afraid of the English Royal Navy, so they traded the town to England for the colony of Surinam in South America, which they thought was worth more money.

By the time the English took New York, there were many other Dutch towns in what would become New York City, including Breukelen (Brooklyn), Vlissingen (Flushing), and Nieuw Haarlem (Harlem). There were already some English towns in the area also, such as Gravesend in Brooklyn and Newtown in Queens. Dutch, English and other people had been living together in New York for a long time.

New York quickly grew to become a large and important port city. The important Battle of Long Island of the American Revolutionwas fought in Brooklyn in 1776. New York was the capital of the United States under the Articles of Confederation from 1785 to 1788. When the US Constitution was made, it stayed as the capital from 1789 until 1790.[14]

In 1898, the cities of New York and Brooklyn came together with the Bronx, Staten Island, and the western towns in Queens County to make Greater New York. This is the total area of the City of New York today. Around this time, many new immigrantscame into New York City. They came in at Ellis Island, an island in New York's harbor near the Statue of Liberty. Many of them then moved to the Lower East Side neighborhood in Manhattan, which had over a million people living in just a few square miles.

Early in the twentieth century, with better transportation, more people moved to outer parts of the greater city, and many commuted to Manhattan. Many skyscrapers and other big buildings were put up to provide places to work.

Bestworking posted:
direstraits posted:

The first explorers in the new world hired Indians as janissaries to help fight their wars.  The Indians hated each other more than they hated the Europeans. 

I'm not real sure about that Dire. I have noticed lately a sudden interest in Native Americans by the trouble makers on the left. We are supposed to "stand" with the blacks now. I guess it IS possible to stir up some with their BS, but then again that would be against the nature of Native Americans.

Just look at the way the Indians allied with the French and English during the French and Indian war as part of the Seven Years war.  Or, the Cherokee with the Americans against other tribes in Tennessee and Alabama.  

Or the Chickamauga Wars [Cherokee <allied with the British>  vs America] in the colonial Southeastern states during the Revolutionary War.

In the first phase, lasting 1776–1783, the Cherokee also fought as allies of the Kingdom of Great Britain against its rebellious colonies. This first part of this phase, from summer 1776 to summer of 1777, involved the all sections of the entire Cherokee nation, and is often referred to as the "Cherokee War of 1776". At the end of 1776, the only militant Cherokee were those who migrated with Dragging Canoe to the Chickamauga towns, for which they were known to the frontierspeople as the "Chickamauga" or "Chickamauga Cherokee". 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...2%80%93American_wars

Two wrongs do not make a right, but maybe this will help some revisionist historians and the plain stupid understand how the Trail of Tears came about when a young man who suffered during these hard times became POTUS and payback was first and foremost on his mind.  Andrew Jackson.

Before you go thinking I'm down on the Cherokees, consider this.  One of my greatest heroes of War of Northern Aggression is Stand Watie.

And I am reminded every time an arrow point is found on my farm of the proud history of those here in northwest Alabama who settled this land long before my family 200 years ago.  Their heritage proudly lives on.

 

direstraits posted:
Bestworking posted:
direstraits posted:

The first explorers in the new world hired Indians as janissaries to help fight their wars.  The Indians hated each other more than they hated the Europeans. 

I'm not real sure about that Dire. I have noticed lately a sudden interest in Native Americans by the trouble makers on the left. We are supposed to "stand" with the blacks now. I guess it IS possible to stir up some with their BS, but then again that would be against the nature of Native Americans.

Just look at the way the Indians allied with the French and English during the French and Indian war as part of the Seven Years war.  Or, the Cherokee with the Americans against other tribes in Tennessee and Alabama.  

Hey, no offense but if I had my way I'd toss you all. Well, maybe not all, but most.

Add Reply

Likes (0)

×
×
×
×