WRITING in response to this post about a journalist who claims it is immoral to have children because they will harm the “environment,” Regina Hess writes:

Last week, my husband and I took our five children on a field trip to Plymouth Plantation in Massachusetts. I had forgotten how politically correct Plymouth had become, but was rudely jarred awake as we chatted with a Native American woman in the Crafts’ Building.

As I stood with my five children watching her comb fur, she launched into a speech about how the Native Americans were much more “in tune” with their environment and did not have more children than their land could support. The Pilgrims on the other hand, were forced to have large families because they were in debt and needed their children to work to help retire their parent’s debt. I had not studied the fertility practices of the Native Americans so I did not feel I had enough knowledge to question her “facts.” I was pretty sure that Native Americans did not practice birth control….

Thankfully, we spent the afternoon with a miller, Leo Martin (Jenney Grist Mill) who took us around present-day Plymouth and told the story of the Pilgrims and the real reason they came — religious freedom and spreading of the gospel — not the PC version. Mr. Martin said that the history version of the Native Americans we received is quite common and comes from forcing present-day views on history to allow it to tell the story you want it to say.

 James P. writes:

“As I stood with my five children watching her comb fur, she launched into a speech about how the Native Americans were much more “in tune” with their environment and did not have more children than their land could support.”

I would have been forced to observe that the methods by which Indians lived “in tune with nature” and kept their population “sustainable” primarily included starvation, disease, and war. Personally I am happy that I do not have to use the “natural” method to ensure that a couple of children survive to adulthood – namely, having ten children knowing that most of them will die.

KB writes:

I am from a real Indian family (dots not feathers) and it galls me to hear this Marxist claptrap knowing all the anti-British talk Indians love to bandy about the pre-Independence days. It is true that natives were treated badly by an expansionist America. It is also true that a native had rights before and after the American Revolution. Crimes committed against them were prosecuted as harshly as they would be against whites. It is also true that the Indians were not above murder, kidnapping and rape even before any white man came to these shores and some tribes continued to do so AFTER they had agreed to stop raiding. Which explains the true tales of “frontier justice” against native Americans that are used to spit upon the whole of American history.

The politically correct view of the Indians as living pacifist lives may also explain why Mel Gibson’s Apocalypto was received the way it was.

Lydia Sherman writes:

There is not one historical tour that I’ve been on recently that will not refrain from telling you how miserable people were in the past. Women were miserable (but men were not) and children were miserable. Houses were miserable to live in, and no one was happy unless they were rich. In an art museam the tour guide made sure to tell us that the beautiful paintings of the 19th century did not represent real life, because in reality, life was miserable before this present age. While touring a quilt museum, the spokes-woman felt obligated to tell us, while we looked at the intricate patterns and vivid dyes of the period, that the quilters were all women and they were all miserable and had to make the quilts because they needed the money. 

In a tour of historic homes, the guide, a woman, felt obligated to tell us that women were oppressed at the time and life was not much fun for them. 

While the evidence inside these places speaks volumes of the manners, education, Biblical values (a minister’s home, for example, showed his study, lined with photographs of his family), architecture, art, music, poetry and literature of the people in that period, the modernist speaks over the evidence and tells us that we are seeing is all a lie. The revisionists have been at it for a century. For example, when touring the winter palace of the Czar of Russia, a tour guide told tourists, “This is where the children all slept. All that luxury and all those rooms, and the children had to sleep in one bedroom!” We must all be re-educated to hate the past and hate history. If the evidence won’t do it, the tour guides will.

Lydia adds:

Just to explain about the comment by the tour guide in Russia: the royal children were educated together and well-bonded, and prefered to be in the same bedroom. Unlike modern families, they apparently prefered one another’s company and it was less scary at night. The guide did not relate that to the tourists, although that fact was recorded in personal letters and papers of the era. The Marxist agenda is clear, in these tours. In one antique quilt show, the woman talked out of both sides of her mouth, saying at first, while pointing to the humble, worn out quilts of the pioneers, that poor women were forced to make their own blankets, and then showing us the Baltimore quilt, which was in pristine condition, and saying that it was made by wealthy women in Baltimore, who had nothing better to do. It is no wonder that sometimes young people find history confusing, or dislike the subject altogether

Please follow and like us: