New Amsterdam in particular, and the New World colonies generally prior to the Colonist Chimpout of '75

>Englishman Henry Hudson hires himself out to Dvtch merchantmen in the East India Company after failing to sail north around Russia
>discovers the Hudson river, plants the seed of Dvtch colonialism in the New World which leads to the peg-legged governorship of Peter Stuyvesant (noted Jew hater extraordinare but chill with freed blacks kek) in New Amsterdam before the Brits came knocking
>Hudson, the poor bastard, gets fucking mutinied in the Artic Circle (Hudson Bay) with his son and six others on a raft, literally left to starve or freeze to death whichever comes first
>followed by French Chad Samuel de Champlain, future governor of New France
>first to see the Great Lakes with Henry IV's (rest in power, King) patronage
>gets shut down by that faggot Louis XIII
>friend to the savages, all around amazing dude (get David Fischer's book, you won't regret it)
>Johnny Smith and the gang in the backwater swamplands of Virginia
>Smith was such a Chad he made people seethe uncontrollably just by drawing oxygen
>Edwin Sandys, contemporary to everyone mentioned, fucking plants the seed of representative democracy in Virginia right under the King's nose
>grows into the Tree of Liberty
>Christopher Newport, one of the most successful 'Elizabethan Sea Dogs' (privateer) to sack the Spanish Main, Captain of the Susan Constant that sailed to Jamestown, AND fellow explorer with Smith who planted a cross at the Fall Line in Richmond
>James VI and I, speaks for himself
>Pedro Menendez de Aviles, founder of the Spanish Main voyages and governor of Spanish Florida whose actions underlay everything mentioned
The Mutt Revolution of '75 is highkey the least interesting part of New World colonization when you really start digging into what led up to it all. I didn't even mention the wars between the European powers in the 18th century for control over American land claims

I don't even know why this is up for debate, though it's probably just another issue used to create division and waste the time of peasants.
Males are males and females are females, two distinct creatures with biological differences. I think most reasonable/rational people know this
though for those who believe otherwise i ask: at what point does a biological man, in your mind, become a woman? Does putting on a wig, or having long hair make a man a woman? Of course not, we cannot classify anybody with long hair as a woman for there are many men who consider themselves as such who have long hair. Is it the combination of having long hair and wearing make-up? Again, this cannot be true, makeup is used for a variety of purposes that have nothing to do with gender. Is it the combination of having long hair, wearing make-up and wearing a specific style of clothing? IS it speaking a certain way, liking a certain thing, or subscribing to a specific belief? Is a woman merely a costume that anyone, in wearing, can become? No. If i strap a shell to my back and crawl around on all fours, does that make me a tortoise? Or if i strap a horn to my forehead and gallop, am I an unicorn? NO, just a dickhead.
Such a retarded topic

What's the appeal of muscle loli?

What's the appeal of muscle loli?