Cambridge wants to remove sword from state flag

Wildcard

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Apr 25, 2017
Messages
149
Likes
132
Location
Worcester County
The state flag is pretty lame though. Not the worst but not the best either. Only problem I have with changing it is they would probably choose something worse.
 

whacko

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jul 26, 2012
Messages
9,927
Likes
5,650
The guy is quoted as saying we in mass live on stolen land.

Is his rich ass volunteering to move?

I don't think that flag represents decapitating Indians. These people are f***ing crazy
 
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Nov 16, 2014
Messages
4,126
Likes
1,055
The guy is quoted as saying we in mass live on stolen land.

Is his rich ass volunteering to move?

I don't think that flag represents decapitating Indians. These people are f***ing crazy
Right lol give it back if you feel that way
 

LoginName

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
17,283
Likes
6,911
The guy is quoted as saying we in mass live on stolen land.

Is his rich ass volunteering to move?

I don't think that flag represents decapitating Indians. These people are f***ing crazy
We didn't exactly "steal" their land, we kicked their ass's and took it. [wink]

If they want it back, they're more than welcome to try, but I'm predicting it wouldn't
be a favorable outcome.
 

upcountry

NES Member
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Jan 14, 2008
Messages
369
Likes
179
Location
Oracle, AZ
I can't remember the book but in that book an Indian, John JoJola from the Taos pueblo said "We're the first Americans. We just needed better immigration laws".
 
  • Like
Reactions: LLF

LLF

NES Member
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Mar 30, 2017
Messages
339
Likes
350
Location
Martyville
I grew up in Cambridge and worked in MA 'til I retired.
That's why I live in Arizona now.
I grew up in Cambridge too. Porter Square area. I haven't been back there since 2011 when my father died. Back in the 80s we used to refer to Cambridge as "Peoples Republic of Cambridge" or "Kremlin on the Charles". If anything it is now worse than ever. This whining about the flag is just another example of Cantabridgian moonbattiness.
 

LLF

NES Member
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Mar 30, 2017
Messages
339
Likes
350
Location
Martyville
We didn't exactly "steal" their land, we kicked their ass's and took it. [wink]

If they want it back, they're more than welcome to try, but I'm predicting it wouldn't
be a favorable outcome.
"Whatever happens
We have got
The Maxim gun
And they have not"
 
Rating - 100%
5   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
34,741
Likes
11,261
Do they also want to recall MA state quarters with an armed militaman on the reverse from circulation? And will NJ, the only other state with a gun on its state quarter pull their quarter? The guns are hard to see on the NJ 1/4 but it depicts WA crossing the Deleware before the era of bridges.
 
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
May 31, 2009
Messages
8,185
Likes
3,307
Location
Braintree, MA
We didn't exactly "steal" their land, we kicked their ass's and took it. [wink]

If they want it back, they're more than welcome to try, but I'm predicting it wouldn't
be a favorable outcome.
I love how people like to pretend the laws of war and theft don't apply just because it's the 21st century.
 

C. Stockwell

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Dec 12, 2018
Messages
2,468
Likes
2,344
Location
RI
I love how people like to pretend the laws of war and theft don't apply just because it's the 21st century.
1) Dupe

Removing The Massachusetts State Flag

2) "Laws of War" are fluid and functionally applicable only when both sides are equally balanced, more or less. Laws of war in the currently-understood sense are also a relatively modern concept originating from the late 1800s. Nuremberg was the first "war crimes" trial and arguably Nuremberg was a show trial. The victors in Nuremberg wrote the rulebook. Not saying the Nazis and Japanese war criminals shouldn't have hanged, its just important to see all sides of the argument.

There's basically a few phases of colonial settlement in Southern New England. First phase was tense but more or less peaceful coexistence between the English and natives from 1620-1636. Then there was the Pequot War when Mass and proto-CT forces teamed up with the Narragansett and Mohegan to effectuate genocide against the Pequot. Between the Pequot War and King Philip's War in 1675 was a long period of peace where the English generally bargained and paid for land. RI's four founding cities were settled in this peaceful period between the Pequot War and King Philip's War. Roger Williams bought what is now Providence County, Anne Hutchinson's group bought Aquidneck Island, and Samuel Gorton bought more or less what is Kent County. Some deals were coerced, some were fair. RI tended to make fair deals with natives with the stronger Mass Bay and CT colonies being more demanding. Look into the history of Deerfield and Springfield and the English basically demanded food and support from the natives at first (although Springfield became a key trading point between natives and English). In RI, the colony was dependent on a peaceful environment between itself, natives, Mass Bay, and Plymouth.

King Philip's War was a response by the natives against English settlement and demands for land. Both sides exacted equal cruelty on each other. Tell a bunch of Narragansett and Wampanoag about medieval-era notions of chivalry or complex legal theories developed by Grotius or Coke, I'm sure they would listen back in 1675. Lots of towns got burned, many POWs taken, many brutal killings. English won though.

After King Philip's War, eastern Mass, RI, and most of CT were safe from native raids supported by the French. Northern and western Mass, NH, and Maine were the frontiers and as such lawless, violent, and dependent on mother colonies like Mass Bay. This period stabilized once Mass started asserting control over the NH/VT/Maine area in the 1740s and wars with natives in New England largely ended with the English victory in the French and Indian War.

Nations agree to laws of war in situations where the sides are balanced and there's a goal of trying to minimize collateral damage in the war. When there's a war between France and the Holy Roman Empire, or France and England, or Sweden and Denmark, both sides cannot destroy each other. But when the sides are fighting for survival, such notions of chivalry or lawful war go out the window. From the invaded's point of view, your goal is to get your pound of flesh and to drive out the invader. The invader's goal is to assert control over the area and effect pacification.

Self-defense doesn't just apply when there's a burglar in your home at midnight or when someone's trying to rob your wife. Nations, especially young nations in the early throws of their birth, have the right to self-defense and existence. Again, I'm quite sure an attempt to explain jurisprudence authored by 17th and 18th century legal scholars would've been either laughed at or ignored by the natives back then.
 

Broccoli Iglesias

NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Sep 18, 2010
Messages
20,615
Likes
9,919
Location
Suckachusetts
We didn't exactly "steal" their land, we kicked their ass's and took it. [wink]

If they want it back, they're more than welcome to try, but I'm predicting it wouldn't
be a favorable outcome.
In today's society, they would find a bunch of people blowing their rape whistles while curled up in the fetal position crying.

And the ones that dare defend themselves would go to jail.

They should totally come back and claim it, they would win.
 
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Oct 6, 2005
Messages
1,954
Likes
53
Location
SShore
Maybe the Indians should have built a wall.
I'm as sure as TRUMP is it would have slowed down todays open borders!

A wall lining the Atlantic shores w/armament and the like would certainly have slowed down the "confiscation" and overtake of this nation riches. jmo.
 
Top Bottom