immigrant royal ancestors

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Bronwen Edwards

immigrant royal ancestors

Legg inn av Bronwen Edwards » 24 okt 2004 23:59:35

It has been my impression that discussions here and in various
publications restrict themselves to immigrants to the US or original
13 English colonies during the colonial period, thus linking royal
lines to "American" colonists. What is the usual cut-off date? Is the
interest only in the East Coast of the US during that period or does
anyone look for royal lines to immigrants in Canada, areas west of the
Appalachians, Alaska, etc.? Just asking. Best, Bronwen Edwards

David Webb

Re: immigrant royal ancestors

Legg inn av David Webb » 25 okt 2004 09:22:02

"Bronwen Edwards" <lostcooper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:54ca55f1.0410241359.79115560@posting.google.com...
It has been my impression that discussions here and in various
publications restrict themselves to immigrants to the US or original
13 English colonies during the colonial period, thus linking royal
lines to "American" colonists. What is the usual cut-off date? Is the
interest only in the East Coast of the US during that period or does
anyone look for royal lines to immigrants in Canada, areas west of the
Appalachians, Alaska, etc.? Just asking. Best, Bronwen Edwards


In a "mediaeval" group, colonists arriving in North America in the late
1500s, early 1600s are covered. Later immigrants no doubt are of interest to
royal genealogists and others, but may fall too far out of the frame of
reference to be truly mediaeval. As for your pathetic decision to put
"American" in quotation, implying that the original colonists weree not
American: you are full of every prejudice going against white Americans. The
colonists made America. They brought its language, its religion, its laws,
its culture. The red Indians were not "American"- they didn't speak English,
were not Christians, did not have the common law, and knew nothing of
Shakespeare. Even up to a relatively late date they were legally classed as
"quasi-foreign nations". No colonists, no America.

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: immigrant royal ancestors

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 25 okt 2004 18:19:42

Bronwen Edwards wrote:
It has been my impression that discussions here and in various
publications restrict themselves to immigrants to the US or original
13 English colonies during the colonial period, thus linking royal
lines to "American" colonists. What is the usual cut-off date? Is the
interest only in the East Coast of the US during that period or does
anyone look for royal lines to immigrants in Canada, areas west of the
Appalachians, Alaska, etc.? Just asking. Best, Bronwen Edwards

In all honesty, the colonial immigrants were included because of the
degree of interest in them. However, their inclusion can likewise be
justified, as they departed Europe at the end of the time which, for the
purposes of this group, is considered 'Medieval', roughly 1600 +/- 50
years, and because they serve as critical, shared bridges to the gentry
lines tracable to medieval times. It was never the intent to restrict
this to the English North American colonies that later became the USA,
but rather to include the French and English colonies in modern Canada,
the Spanish from Florida south and west, the Portuguese to Brazil,
Dutch, Swedes, etc. It was, however, intended to focus on discussing
them in a genelogical context in 'medieval' Europe, rather than their
descendants in the colonial Americas. It is their personal derivation
from 'medieval Europe' that makes them on-topic, not their destination
or the fact that they have medieval ancestry somewhere back the pedigree
(as do the majority of people in the Americas).

taf

Martin E. Hollick

Re: immigrant royal ancestors

Legg inn av Martin E. Hollick » 25 okt 2004 18:25:04

"David Webb" <djwebb2002@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:<uQ1fd.153233$BI5.109354@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>...
In a "mediaeval" group, colonists arriving in North America in the late
1500s, early 1600s are covered. Later immigrants no doubt are of interest to
royal genealogists and others, but may fall too far out of the frame of
reference to be truly mediaeval. As for your pathetic decision to put
"American" in quotation, implying that the original colonists weree not
American: you are full of every prejudice going against white Americans. The
colonists made America. They brought its language, its religion, its laws,
its culture. The red Indians were not "American"- they didn't speak English,
were not Christians, did not have the common law, and knew nothing of
Shakespeare. Even up to a relatively late date they were legally classed as
"quasi-foreign nations". No colonists, no America.

Normally I don't respond to the gibberish on this group that falls
outside what I perceive to be the purpose, i.e. medieval genealogy.
However, such as statement as above, needs response, lest others think
that any of us, in any way, shape or form, approve of such a
statement. Mr. Webb has a right to voice his opinion, hateful as it
may be. He belongs in this group because his thinking is medieval.
The rest of us study the time period, he obviously lives in it.

Denis Beauregard

Re: immigrant royal ancestors

Legg inn av Denis Beauregard » 25 okt 2004 21:19:38

On 24 Oct 2004 14:59:35 -0700, lostcooper@yahoo.com (Bronwen Edwards)
wrote in soc.genealogy.medieval:

It has been my impression that discussions here and in various
publications restrict themselves to immigrants to the US or original
13 English colonies during the colonial period, thus linking royal
lines to "American" colonists. What is the usual cut-off date? Is the
interest only in the East Coast of the US during that period or does
anyone look for royal lines to immigrants in Canada, areas west of the
Appalachians, Alaska, etc.? Just asking. Best, Bronwen Edwards

If we target North America, then there are basically 3 areas:
English, French and Spanish territories.

The English territories are already covered by the RD600 list and
similar works. This should include other colonies conquered by the
English, like New Sweden, Fort Orange or Manhattan.

I explore the French territories, building a database covering
everybody and will include as I find them the known royal lines.
The last one I have seen (not yet in my list) is that of Sicard
de Carufel family, apparently linked thru a mailing list discussion.
I keep track of what I found in my QRD30 list at
http://www.francogene.com/genealogie/qrd30.php and
http://www.francogene.com/genealogy/qrd30.php

So, what is missing is some list for the Spanish territories, like
Florida, Texas or New Mexico.

And if we target Central and South America, and Antillas, then I
think there is no reference list but we have at least one
contributor on this list that is from Brasil.


Denis

--
0 Denis Beauregard
/\/ http://www.francogene.com
|\ >>Adresse modifiée souvent/email changed frequently<<
/ | Société généalogique canadienne-française
oo oo Ses Mémoires 60 ans en 2004 ! - http://www.sgcf.com

Bronwen Edwards

Re: immigrant royal ancestors

Legg inn av Bronwen Edwards » 26 okt 2004 03:01:49

"Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote in message news:<417D279E.3060407@interfold.com>...

In all honesty, the colonial immigrants were included because of the
degree of interest in them. However, their inclusion can likewise be
justified, as they departed Europe at the end of the time which, for the
purposes of this group, is considered 'Medieval', roughly 1600 +/- 50
years, and because they serve as critical, shared bridges to the gentry
lines tracable to medieval times. It was never the intent to restrict
this to the English North American colonies that later became the USA,
but rather to include the French and English colonies in modern Canada,
the Spanish from Florida south and west, the Portuguese to Brazil,
Dutch, Swedes, etc. It was, however, intended to focus on discussing
them in a genelogical context in 'medieval' Europe, rather than their
descendants in the colonial Americas. It is their personal derivation
from 'medieval Europe' that makes them on-topic, not their destination
or the fact that they have medieval ancestry somewhere back the pedigree
(as do the majority of people in the Americas).

taf

Thanks - I think I get it now! Best, Bronwen

Bronwen Edwards

Re: immigrant royal ancestors

Legg inn av Bronwen Edwards » 26 okt 2004 03:11:59

"David Webb" <djwebb2002@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:<uQ1fd.153233$BI5.109354@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>...
In a "mediaeval" group, colonists arriving in North America in the late
1500s, early 1600s are covered. Later immigrants no doubt are of interest to
royal genealogists and others, but may fall too far out of the frame of
reference to be truly mediaeval. As for your pathetic decision to put
"American" in quotation, implying that the original colonists weree not
American: you are full of every prejudice going against white Americans. The
colonists made America. They brought its language, its religion, its laws,
its culture. The red Indians were not "American"- they didn't speak English,
were not Christians, did not have the common law, and knew nothing of
Shakespeare. Even up to a relatively late date they were legally classed as
"quasi-foreign nations". No colonists, no America.

We have always been and continue to be fully sovereign nations. Our
relationship to the US is, by national and international law, similar
to that of nations such as San Marino-Italy. The difference is that
there are about 500 of our nations, still with functioning tribal
governments, and both our land base and resource base is much larger
than the tiny European nations. We are *so* sovereign and untouchable
by local governments like states that we drive the greedy bastards
crazy. And yet - there is on record one of our own who was a graduate
of Oxford and gave a speech in Latin in 1660. Another of our own had
crossed the Atlantic more often than any European during his lifetime
- 16th century. And there is mounting evidence that in the 15th
century, well before 1492, a group of Taino Carib people crossed the
Atlantic to Europe, were received in several courts as exotic visitors
(although the Europeans did not know where they were actually from -
they assumed them to be from Cathay although nothing about them fit
such a description and they had come from the west). This last thing
is being researched by Jack Forbes.

Bronwen Edwards

Re: immigrant royal ancestors

Legg inn av Bronwen Edwards » 26 okt 2004 03:18:31

I forgot to mention that the Native American man who crossed the
Atlantic at least six times also greeted English colonists *in
English*. He was quite fluent. The Native Americans much preferred the
French to the English. The French happily assimilated into the Native
way of life (note, for example, the Metis culture and language of
Canada and the northern US) whereas the English were stand-offish and
crude. The English even turned down Native offers of food, medicine,
goods of all kinds during a year of starvation (the first year of the
Jamestown colony) because they could not imagine gifts being offered
without some kind of treachery. So they turned down the offer and
attacked the resources of the Native people instead. There is a famous
speech by Powhatan in which he says "Why take with force what was
freely offered in love?"

Kelly Graham

Re: immigrant royal ancestors

Legg inn av Kelly Graham » 26 okt 2004 05:57:17

In a message dated 10/25/2004 8:45:15 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
djwebb2002@blueyonder.co.uk writes:

The red Indians were not "American"- they didn't speak English,
were not Christians, did not have the common law, and knew nothing of
Shakespeare. Even up to a relatively late date they were legally classed as
"quasi-foreign nations". No colonists, no America.


Hmmm... America, a land-mass named for map-maker Americo Vaspucci,
whose land- once "discovered" was carved up by the SPANISH, PORTUGUESE,
FRENCH, DUTCH, DANES, SWEDES, RUSSIANS, and English.

And even the English colonies were a patchwork of languages! You would
hear Dutch in the Hudson River Valley, Dutch, French, German, Swedish, Finnish,
and Gaelic in Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New Jersey, and German, Gaelic, and
French in the Carolinas and Georgia, as well as English.

As far as "Christian"? some sects didn't even consider others Christian!
The Puritans of New England weren't really welcomer in Virginia and any place
south of there. And the Anglicans and Presbyterians of the south weren't that
welcome in New England. And, the Quakers tended to be despised anywhere
but the Delaware River Valley! They were even whipped in New England! As for
the Catholics ?

So... tell me again what makes an American, and why the Red Man isn't
an American... although his family has lived here the longest!

Kelly Paul Graham

David Webb

Re: immigrant royal ancestors

Legg inn av David Webb » 26 okt 2004 22:07:45

"Martin E. Hollick" <mhollick@mac.com> wrote in message
news:5d20e7f.0410250825.1eb5108e@posting.google.com...
"David Webb" <djwebb2002@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<uQ1fd.153233$BI5.109354@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>...
In a "mediaeval" group, colonists arriving in North America in the late
1500s, early 1600s are covered. Later immigrants no doubt are of
interest to
royal genealogists and others, but may fall too far out of the frame of
reference to be truly mediaeval. As for your pathetic decision to put
"American" in quotation, implying that the original colonists weree not
American: you are full of every prejudice going against white Americans.
The
colonists made America. They brought its language, its religion, its
laws,
its culture. The red Indians were not "American"- they didn't speak
English,
were not Christians, did not have the common law, and knew nothing of
Shakespeare. Even up to a relatively late date they were legally classed
as
"quasi-foreign nations". No colonists, no America.

Normally I don't respond to the gibberish on this group that falls
outside what I perceive to be the purpose, i.e. medieval genealogy.
However, such as statement as above, needs response, lest others think
that any of us, in any way, shape or form, approve of such a
statement. Mr. Webb has a right to voice his opinion, hateful as it
may be. He belongs in this group because his thinking is medieval.
The rest of us study the time period, he obviously lives in it.

I notice you do not critique my posting! you probably cannot find anything
untrue in my message.

David Webb

Re: immigrant royal ancestors

Legg inn av David Webb » 26 okt 2004 22:08:54

"Bronwen Edwards" <lostcooper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:54ca55f1.0410251711.52990805@posting.google.com...
"David Webb" <djwebb2002@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<uQ1fd.153233$BI5.109354@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>...
We have always been and continue to be fully sovereign nations. Our
relationship to the US is, by national and international law, similar
to that of nations such as San Marino-Italy. The difference is that
there are about 500 of our nations, still with functioning tribal
governments, and both our land base and resource base is much larger
than the tiny European nations. We are *so* sovereign and untouchable
by local governments like states that we drive the greedy bastards
crazy. And yet - there is on record one of our own who was a graduate
of Oxford and gave a speech in Latin in 1660. Another of our own had
crossed the Atlantic more often than any European during his lifetime
- 16th century. And there is mounting evidence that in the 15th
century, well before 1492, a group of Taino Carib people crossed the
Atlantic to Europe, were received in several courts as exotic visitors
(although the Europeans did not know where they were actually from -
they assumed them to be from Cathay although nothing about them fit
such a description and they had come from the west). This last thing
is being researched by Jack Forbes.

There is mounting evidence that the white man got to North America first.
See the Spirit Cave Mummy and Kennewick Man...

David Webb

Re: immigrant royal ancestors

Legg inn av David Webb » 26 okt 2004 22:10:31

"Bronwen Edwards" <lostcooper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:54ca55f1.0410251718.4ca1ac45@posting.google.com...
I forgot to mention that the Native American man who crossed the
Atlantic at least six times also greeted English colonists *in
English*. He was quite fluent. The Native Americans much preferred the
French to the English. The French happily assimilated into the Native
way of life (note, for example, the Metis culture and language of
Canada and the northern US) whereas the English were stand-offish and
crude. The English even turned down Native offers of food, medicine,
goods of all kinds during a year of starvation (the first year of the
Jamestown colony) because they could not imagine gifts being offered
without some kind of treachery. So they turned down the offer and
attacked the resources of the Native people instead. There is a famous
speech by Powhatan in which he says "Why take with force what was
freely offered in love?"

Well think of America's Thanksgiving. This has been multi-cultified now and
most Americans probably think they are thanking the Indians, but the origin
was to thank God for using even backward savages to save his anointed people
in north America!

David Webb

Re: immigrant royal ancestors

Legg inn av David Webb » 26 okt 2004 22:13:20

""Kelly Graham"" <caellach@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:006d01c4baff$419f4400$3954af18@houston.rr.com...
In a message dated 10/25/2004 8:45:15 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
djwebb2002@blueyonder.co.uk writes:

The red Indians were not "American"- they didn't speak English,
were not Christians, did not have the common law, and knew nothing of
Shakespeare. Even up to a relatively late date they were legally classed
as
"quasi-foreign nations". No colonists, no America.


Hmmm... America, a land-mass named for map-maker Americo
Vaspucci,
whose land- once "discovered" was carved up by the SPANISH, PORTUGUESE,
FRENCH, DUTCH, DANES, SWEDES, RUSSIANS, and English.

And even the English colonies were a patchwork of languages!
You would
hear Dutch in the Hudson River Valley, Dutch, French, German, Swedish,
Finnish,
and Gaelic in Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New Jersey, and German, Gaelic,
and
French in the Carolinas and Georgia, as well as English.

As far as "Christian"? some sects didn't even consider others
Christian!
The Puritans of New England weren't really welcomer in Virginia and any
place
south of there. And the Anglicans and Presbyterians of the south weren't
that
welcome in New England. And, the Quakers tended to be despised anywhere
but the Delaware River Valley! They were even whipped in New England! As
for
the Catholics ?

So... tell me again what makes an American, and why the Red
Man isn't
an American... although his family has lived here the longest!



Yes, let me clarify that point for you. America is a white, Christian
country, an extension of Europe on the other side of the ocean.

Bronwen Edwards

Re: immigrant royal ancestors

Legg inn av Bronwen Edwards » 27 okt 2004 09:02:40

"David Webb" <djwebb2002@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:<Adyfd.159851$BI5.6428@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>...
Yes, let me clarify that point for you. America is a white, Christian
country, an extension of Europe on the other side of the ocean.

Item 1: "America" consists of a great many countries on both sides of
the Equator. To which country are you referring?
Item 2: In the case of the USA, we are very clear about the place of
religion here. Granted, there are elements of Christendom in US
history. But the concept of religious freedom means that there is no
official state religion. Nor is it required that one be religious at
all in order to achieve the highest positions in the country,
including political positions. The Constitution guarantees that the US
does not have an official religion. That said, there are
inconsistencies in practice - such as the existence of chapels in
national parks. Has this constitutional doctrine always been followed?
No but it remains the ideal. The issue of "one nation under God" being
part of the US Pledge of Allegiance is a hot topic right now but it
should be remembered that it was in the ultra-conservative 1950s when
that phrase was first put in.
Item 3: Religious freedom means that no only are Christians of all
stripes free to practice their faiths, but so are Jews, Muslims,
Buddhists, Wiccans, and atheists. Legally there is no preference given
to Christians although the majority of Americans probably identify as
such.
Item 3: Every society has an ideal aspect as well as a modal aspect.
No society achieves its ideal; the modal is the way things actually
are and they always fall short to some degree. Thus religion and
Christianity will probably always continue to be controversial topics.
This cannot be otherwise when so many religions have the strange idea
that they must force their beliefs on others.

Bronwen Edwards

Re: immigrant royal ancestors

Legg inn av Bronwen Edwards » 27 okt 2004 09:12:06

"David Webb" <djwebb2002@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:<Xayfd.159847$BI5.9951@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>...
Well think of America's Thanksgiving. This has been multi-cultified
now and
most Americans probably think they are thanking the Indians, but the origin
was to thank God for using even backward savages to save his anointed people
in north America!

Your ignorance knows no bounds. Most Americans do not even realize who
to thank. The real origin of Thanksgiving was two-fold: first, the
Indians of the area had annual Thanksgiving ceremonies to which they
invited the European boat people. The boat people were happy to
respond because the Indians literally saved their lives by giving them
new kinds of food crops (corn, beans, squash) and teaching them how to
cultivate them. They also showed them how to use fish as fertilizer.
Second, the little dinner party that the holidary depicts probably did
not happen. The first recorded Thanksgiving Holiday was in 1639 when
the Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony led an attack on 800
Indians holding Thanksgiving ceremony indoors. The building was set on
fire, the windows and doors bolted shut and those few who were able to
get out were shot down. The governor's holidary was to thank God that
they had killed the Indians. The holiday was held for at least a
century. Then Washington declared a Thanksgiving day to thank God for
independence from you folks. Then Lincoln declared one for keeping the
union together when the southern states attempted to separate; it was
at this time that it was held on the third Thursday of November. Today
it is a family holiday where people thank God for their prosperity,
fortune, health, etc. In other words, the original Indian concept.
I realize that you say what you do in order to provoke; like any other
small child, you like to do things intended to shock. What you really
need is to shut up and educate yourself.

Bronwen Edwards

Re: immigrant royal ancestors

Legg inn av Bronwen Edwards » 27 okt 2004 09:22:26

"David Webb" <djwebb2002@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:<q9yfd.159844$BI5.117816@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>...
There is mounting evidence that the white man got to North America first.
See the Spirit Cave Mummy and Kennewick Man...

As usual you are aware of the soundbite, the headline, but not the
substance. I am well aware of those finds. None of the scientists
involved ever said that the ancient skulls were European, much less
"white". There are also ancient skulls from South America that bear
little resemblance to modern Europeans or American Indians. Those from
North America are said to most resemble the Ainu, the aboriginal
people of Japan and Sakhalin Island. Contrary to popular belief, the
Ainu are NOT Caucasian but are descended from the same
"Palaeo-Siberians" as the general east Asian population (and, by
extension, American Indians). The Ainu and the Indians of the
Northwest Coast both have long oral histories about contact with one
another. The South American skulls most resemble the Melanesian
people, such as the aboriginal people of Australia. These ancient
skulls do not preclude the co-existence of the ancestors of the
American Indians. The odds of finding any skull more than 10,000 years
old anywhere in the world are quite slim (when you consider how many
people have left their bones in or on the earth). Also there is no
reason to suppose that these skulls were not from ancestors of the
modern Indians or some of the modern Indians. There are many Native
American physical types, distinct languages, and traditional accounts
of origin. No one, especially the Indian people, maintains the idea
that all Indians have the same origin. Today archaeologits are looking
at quite a lot of evidence that suggests relatively few people came
across the Bering land "bridge" (it was actually a very large region,
even a subcontinent).
We seem to be jumping all around the OT neighborhood - everywhere
except during the medieval period!

David Webb

Re: immigrant royal ancestors

Legg inn av David Webb » 27 okt 2004 21:25:47

Don't forget that the Conquistadores who subjugated the Incas and Aztecs
were able to do so because their legends told of white people who had
orignally visited them and were their gods. In fact the Inca king was
white - whiter than the Spaniards in fact!


"Bronwen Edwards" <lostcooper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:54ca55f1.0410262322.661463a3@posting.google.com...
"David Webb" <djwebb2002@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<q9yfd.159844$BI5.117816@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>...
There is mounting evidence that the white man got to North America
first.
See the Spirit Cave Mummy and Kennewick Man...

As usual you are aware of the soundbite, the headline, but not the
substance. I am well aware of those finds. None of the scientists
involved ever said that the ancient skulls were European, much less
"white". There are also ancient skulls from South America that bear
little resemblance to modern Europeans or American Indians. Those from
North America are said to most resemble the Ainu, the aboriginal
people of Japan and Sakhalin Island. Contrary to popular belief, the
Ainu are NOT Caucasian but are descended from the same
"Palaeo-Siberians" as the general east Asian population (and, by
extension, American Indians). The Ainu and the Indians of the
Northwest Coast both have long oral histories about contact with one
another. The South American skulls most resemble the Melanesian
people, such as the aboriginal people of Australia. These ancient
skulls do not preclude the co-existence of the ancestors of the
American Indians. The odds of finding any skull more than 10,000 years
old anywhere in the world are quite slim (when you consider how many
people have left their bones in or on the earth). Also there is no
reason to suppose that these skulls were not from ancestors of the
modern Indians or some of the modern Indians. There are many Native
American physical types, distinct languages, and traditional accounts
of origin. No one, especially the Indian people, maintains the idea
that all Indians have the same origin. Today archaeologits are looking
at quite a lot of evidence that suggests relatively few people came
across the Bering land "bridge" (it was actually a very large region,
even a subcontinent).
We seem to be jumping all around the OT neighborhood - everywhere
except during the medieval period!

David Webb

Re: immigrant royal ancestors

Legg inn av David Webb » 27 okt 2004 21:29:05

"Bronwen Edwards" <lostcooper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:54ca55f1.0410262302.74dc10cf@posting.google.com...
"David Webb" <djwebb2002@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<Adyfd.159851$BI5.6428@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>...
Yes, let me clarify that point for you. America is a white, Christian
country, an extension of Europe on the other side of the ocean.

Item 1: "America" consists of a great many countries on both sides of
the Equator. To which country are you referring?
Item 2: In the case of the USA, we are very clear about the place of
religion here. Granted, there are elements of Christendom in US
history. But the concept of religious freedom means that there is no
official state religion.

That is because the 13 states had different Christian traditions, so the
central federal state was not allowed to set up any one church as the
official church. The constitution prevents the federal congress from
establishing a church - not the state legislatures. That is why the
Episcopalian church was establshed in Maryland until the 1830s. Of course
this part of the constitution is deliberately misinterpreted by the Supreme
Court today as establishing a complete separation between churhc and state.

Nor is it required that one be religious at
all in order to achieve the highest positions in the country,
including political positions. The Constitution guarantees that the US
does not have an official religion. That said, there are
inconsistencies in practice - such as the existence of chapels in
national parks. Has this constitutional doctrine always been followed?
No but it remains the ideal. The issue of "one nation under God" being
part of the US Pledge of Allegiance is a hot topic right now but it
should be remembered that it was in the ultra-conservative 1950s when
that phrase was first put in.
Item 3: Religious freedom means that no only are Christians of all
stripes free to practice their faiths, but so are Jews, Muslims,
Buddhists, Wiccans, and atheists.

Terrible!

Legally there is no preference given
to Christians although the majority of Americans probably identify as
such.
Item 3: Every society has an ideal aspect as well as a modal aspect.
No society achieves its ideal; the modal is the way things actually
are and they always fall short to some degree. Thus religion and
Christianity will probably always continue to be controversial topics.
This cannot be otherwise when so many religions have the strange idea
that they must force their beliefs on others.

MIB529

Re: immigrant royal ancestors

Legg inn av MIB529 » 29 okt 2004 07:10:07

"David Webb" <djwebb2002@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:<%CSfd.57088$i02.21695@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>...
Don't forget that the Conquistadores who subjugated the Incas and Aztecs
were able to do so because their legends told of white people who had
orignally visited them and were their gods. In fact the Inca king was
white - whiter than the Spaniards in fact!

Actually, that's all a myth. The "white god" story was started by Cortes.
Hadn't heard one about Tupac Ypanki being white. Of course, none of these
hyperdiffusionists deal with the fact that these are the SAME CULTURES
which practiced human sacrifice; they blame the Indians for THAT aspect
of Aztec and Maya culture.

"Bronwen Edwards" <lostcooper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:54ca55f1.0410262322.661463a3@posting.google.com...
"David Webb" <djwebb2002@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<q9yfd.159844$BI5.117816@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>...
There is mounting evidence that the white man got to North America
first.
See the Spirit Cave Mummy and Kennewick Man...

No, they did a double standard: They argued that Indians were mongoloids
based solely on brow ridges. Note that most whites and blacks would be
mongoloids based on this definition. From there, they compared Kennewick
man to classically southern Han features and determined from there that
since Kennewick man wasn't southern Han, he had to be white.

As usual you are aware of the soundbite, the headline, but not the
substance. I am well aware of those finds. None of the scientists
involved ever said that the ancient skulls were European, much less
"white". There are also ancient skulls from South America that bear
little resemblance to modern Europeans or American Indians. Those from
North America are said to most resemble the Ainu, the aboriginal
people of Japan and Sakhalin Island. Contrary to popular belief, the
Ainu are NOT Caucasian but are descended from the same
"Palaeo-Siberians" as the general east Asian population (and, by
extension, American Indians). The Ainu and the Indians of the
Northwest Coast both have long oral histories about contact with one
another. The South American skulls most resemble the Melanesian
people, such as the aboriginal people of Australia. These ancient
skulls do not preclude the co-existence of the ancestors of the
American Indians. The odds of finding any skull more than 10,000 years
old anywhere in the world are quite slim (when you consider how many
people have left their bones in or on the earth). Also there is no
reason to suppose that these skulls were not from ancestors of the
modern Indians or some of the modern Indians. There are many Native
American physical types, distinct languages, and traditional accounts
of origin. No one, especially the Indian people, maintains the idea
that all Indians have the same origin. Today archaeologits are looking
at quite a lot of evidence that suggests relatively few people came
across the Bering land "bridge" (it was actually a very large region,
even a subcontinent).
We seem to be jumping all around the OT neighborhood - everywhere
except during the medieval period!

MIB529

Re: immigrant royal ancestors

Legg inn av MIB529 » 29 okt 2004 07:16:52

"David Webb" <djwebb2002@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:<%CSfd.57088$i02.21695@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>...
Don't forget that the Conquistadores who subjugated the Incas and Aztecs
were able to do so because their legends told of white people who had
orignally visited them and were their gods. In fact the Inca king was
white - whiter than the Spaniards in fact!

Actually, that's all a myth. The "white god" story was started by Cortes.
Hadn't heard one about Tupac Ypanki being white. Of course, none of these
hyperdiffusionists deal with the fact that these are the SAME CULTURES
which practiced human sacrifice; they blame the Indians for THAT aspect
of Aztec and Maya culture.

"Bronwen Edwards" <lostcooper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:54ca55f1.0410262322.661463a3@posting.google.com...
"David Webb" <djwebb2002@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<q9yfd.159844$BI5.117816@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>...
There is mounting evidence that the white man got to North America
first.
See the Spirit Cave Mummy and Kennewick Man...

No, they did a double standard: They argued that Indians were mongoloids
based solely on brow ridges. Note that most whites and blacks would be
mongoloids based on this definition. From there, they compared Kennewick
man to classically southern Han features and determined from there that
since Kennewick man wasn't southern Han, he had to be white.

As usual you are aware of the soundbite, the headline, but not the
substance. I am well aware of those finds. None of the scientists
involved ever said that the ancient skulls were European, much less
"white". There are also ancient skulls from South America that bear
little resemblance to modern Europeans or American Indians. Those from
North America are said to most resemble the Ainu, the aboriginal
people of Japan and Sakhalin Island. Contrary to popular belief, the
Ainu are NOT Caucasian but are descended from the same
"Palaeo-Siberians" as the general east Asian population (and, by
extension, American Indians).

Actually, the DNA evidence and simple anatomy have Indians descended
from ANY GROUP OTHER THAN said Siberians. Trust me, Siberia during the
Wurm is hardly a place where anyone with the same genetic makeup as
modern Indians could survive for long. This reminds me of the aquatic
ape hypothesis, which argues that -- even though there are no extant
aquatic primates -- the ancestors of hominids just moved into the water
and adopted bipedalism, even though there is no evidence of bipedalism
in mammals being related to an aquatic environment. (There are mammals
which are occasionally bipeds; of them, one, the grizzly bear, can even
be remotely considered semiaquatic.) The fallacy, of course, is the
idea that you can just "adapt" to a particular niche: In reality, a
population has to have the genes to survive in a particular niche before
the rest of the genes can disappear via natural selection.

Also, human habitation of the Americas begins before human habitation
of Siberia, save for a few neanderthals.

David Webb

Re: immigrant royal ancestors

Legg inn av David Webb » 29 okt 2004 08:43:29

You are ill informed. See the works of Thor Heyerdahl.


"MIB529" <man_in_black529@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4ad78f65.0410282116.1799ed92@posting.google.com...
"David Webb" <djwebb2002@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<%CSfd.57088$i02.21695@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>...
Don't forget that the Conquistadores who subjugated the Incas and Aztecs
were able to do so because their legends told of white people who had
orignally visited them and were their gods. In fact the Inca king was
white - whiter than the Spaniards in fact!

Actually, that's all a myth. The "white god" story was started by Cortes.
Hadn't heard one about Tupac Ypanki being white. Of course, none of these
hyperdiffusionists deal with the fact that these are the SAME CULTURES
which practiced human sacrifice; they blame the Indians for THAT aspect
of Aztec and Maya culture.

"Bronwen Edwards" <lostcooper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:54ca55f1.0410262322.661463a3@posting.google.com...
"David Webb" <djwebb2002@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<q9yfd.159844$BI5.117816@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>...
There is mounting evidence that the white man got to North America
first.
See the Spirit Cave Mummy and Kennewick Man...

No, they did a double standard: They argued that Indians were mongoloids
based solely on brow ridges. Note that most whites and blacks would be
mongoloids based on this definition. From there, they compared Kennewick
man to classically southern Han features and determined from there that
since Kennewick man wasn't southern Han, he had to be white.

As usual you are aware of the soundbite, the headline, but not the
substance. I am well aware of those finds. None of the scientists
involved ever said that the ancient skulls were European, much less
"white". There are also ancient skulls from South America that bear
little resemblance to modern Europeans or American Indians. Those from
North America are said to most resemble the Ainu, the aboriginal
people of Japan and Sakhalin Island. Contrary to popular belief, the
Ainu are NOT Caucasian but are descended from the same
"Palaeo-Siberians" as the general east Asian population (and, by
extension, American Indians).

Actually, the DNA evidence and simple anatomy have Indians descended
from ANY GROUP OTHER THAN said Siberians. Trust me, Siberia during the
Wurm is hardly a place where anyone with the same genetic makeup as
modern Indians could survive for long. This reminds me of the aquatic
ape hypothesis, which argues that -- even though there are no extant
aquatic primates -- the ancestors of hominids just moved into the water
and adopted bipedalism, even though there is no evidence of bipedalism
in mammals being related to an aquatic environment. (There are mammals
which are occasionally bipeds; of them, one, the grizzly bear, can even
be remotely considered semiaquatic.) The fallacy, of course, is the
idea that you can just "adapt" to a particular niche: In reality, a
population has to have the genes to survive in a particular niche before
the rest of the genes can disappear via natural selection.

Also, human habitation of the Americas begins before human habitation
of Siberia, save for a few neanderthals.

Gjest

Re: immigrant royal ancestors

Legg inn av Gjest » 29 okt 2004 23:37:05

In a message dated 10/27/04 2:16:17 AM Central Daylight Time,
lostcooper@yahoo.com writes:
The first recorded Thanksgiving Holiday was in 1639 when
the Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony led an attack on 800
Indians holding Thanksgiving ceremony indoors.

Hog wash! Try the site below and you will find that the FIRST Thanksgiving
was in Va. on Dec. 4, 1619.

Jno


http://www.thefamilytravelfiles.com/ezi ... es/518.asp

Gjest

Re: immigrant royal ancestors

Legg inn av Gjest » 30 okt 2004 04:22:01

Dear Newsgroup,
Interesting idea, that the Inca was white, but I believe
Pizarro encountered the two sons of Inca Huayna Capac, namely Huascar and his
half brother Attahulpa when He landed in Peru in about 1525. Inca Attahulpa used
the myth of the returning white god Viracocha to try to unite the Inca Empire
by allying with Pizarro`s puny little band, whom He would have crushed at
once had They not been of use to him, just like any good monarch. Afyer He
captured Huascar in 1533, He had him put to death, became overly confident about the
Spaniards and suffered the humiliations of imprisonment, ransom, and forced
conversion to Catholicism ( unless He wanted to be burned as a heretic) So He
converted in 1533 and was strangled by his captors instead. Then his brother
Inca Manco Capac II was appointed by Pizarro and having accompanied him to the
Inca capital Cuzco was imprisoned there for 3 years. In 1536 Manco Capac II
escaped to the mountains and some of the Spainiards mutinied under one Almagro in
1542. Manco gave them his protection and two years later, They killed him,
his son Sayri Tupac 1544-1561 succeeding. He submitted to the Spainiards in
1557, recieved a special dispensation from the Pope to marry his sister in a
Catholic ceremony, and shortly after was poisoned, his half brother Titu Cusi
Yupanqui usurping the throne from Sayri`s legitimate brother Tupac Amaru. Titu Cusi
Yupanqui held power from 1561-1571, then Tupac Amaru was Inca from 1571-1574,
when He was captured and beheaded. He was the last reigning Inca.
Sincerely,
James
W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA

Bronwen Edwards

Re: immigrant royal ancestors

Legg inn av Bronwen Edwards » 30 okt 2004 04:53:21

No, they did a double standard: They argued that Indians were mongoloids
based solely on brow ridges. Note that most whites and blacks would be
mongoloids based on this definition. From there, they compared Kennewick
man to classically southern Han features and determined from there that
since Kennewick man wasn't southern Han, he had to be white.

I don't know where you get your information but that simply is not
true. There has been no determination as to Kennewick Man's "race".
From the very beginning to the present, the shape of the eye sockets
and the measurements of the skull's face have compared most favorably
to the Ainu. This information is directly from the coroner who first
saw it and from the government archaeologists who seized the skull
because of the NAGPRA (Native American Graves Protection and
Repatriation Act) of 1990. The coroner had taken measurements, photos,
and made a plaster cast; he shared all of this with archaeologists.
Also brow ridges never had anything to do with the identification of
Native Americans as "Mongoloid". The tooth structure is of the type
found in Asia, the consistency of the ear wax is like that of Asia,
specifically the northernmost areas, the bone structure (but not the
brow ridges) of the face were the primary criteria. I am not, however,
arguing for the Bering Strait theory as I do not happen to believe
that most Native Americans are descended from the folks up there. I
believe that people from many different areas have always populated
the Americas.
Actually, the DNA evidence and simple anatomy have Indians descended
from ANY GROUP OTHER THAN said Siberians. Trust me, Siberia during the
Wurm is hardly a place where anyone with the same genetic makeup as
modern Indians could survive for long. This reminds me of the aquatic
ape hypothesis, which argues that -- even though there are no extant
aquatic primates -- the ancestors of hominids just moved into the water
and adopted bipedalism, even though there is no evidence of bipedalism
in mammals being related to an aquatic environment. (There are mammals
which are occasionally bipeds; of them, one, the grizzly bear, can even
be remotely considered semiaquatic.) The fallacy, of course, is the
idea that you can just "adapt" to a particular niche: In reality, a
population has to have the genes to survive in a particular niche before
the rest of the genes can disappear via natural selection.

Holy cow. You need to take some anthropology. Also you need to find
out where American Indians live, as many groups (Athabascan and many
Algonquian speakers) live in the Subarctic now, as they have for
thousands of years. I am not talking about the Inuit (Eskimo) people,
but people identified as "Indians".
Many of their inventions, such as snow shoes, have been adopted ,
along with such things as using snow for insulation (against a skin
tent). As for DNA analysis, markers have been found that indicate
indigenous American status but they have not been linked specifically
to any one place. What they have shown mostly is that the Native
people have been here for a very long time and have developed many
more specific lineages within single tribes that had been previously
supposed. As to adaptation, humans have always been the most adaptable
species around. Over time a population may develop characteristics
(through, as you said, natural selection), but these populations
migrated to these areas before developing such characteristics (as,
for example, an extra layer of fat in Asians and Inuit that reflects
their Arctic and Subarctic origin, and the lungs of Andean Indians
that are better able to draw oxygen from thin air than the rest of
us). You put the cart before the horse. There are Subarctic Indians
who migrated into the American Southwest (Navajo and Apache people)
within the last 1000 years. They adapted through culture, learning
from the people already there.


Also, human habitation of the Americas begins before human habitation
of Siberia, save for a few neanderthals.

No, sorry, ever hear of Peking Man (Homo erectus)? But ever closer to
us in time, there are archaeological sites in Siberia and crossing
into northern Alaska and Yukon Territory that have been given dates
older than any known occupation in the Americas. Exciting discoveries
at places like Pedra Furada, Brazil, are sure to shed even more light
on all this. But your knowledge of these things is quite garbled.
Neanderthals don't even enter the picture. They were in Europe, Africa
and Asia Minor. The National Geographic, by the way, is working on a
documentary at the moment to show another new find - unrelated to the
Americas. They have found the smallest humans known, much smaller than
the so-called "Pygmies" of Africa. They are in (if I remember
correctly - the report is not in front of me at the moment) Indonesia,
in any case, the South Pacific near Asia. The archaeologists dubbed
them "hobbits" (no kidding).

Bronwen Edwards

Re: immigrant royal ancestors

Legg inn av Bronwen Edwards » 30 okt 2004 07:08:47

JKent10581@aol.com wrote in message news:<1de.2d1cac81.2eb3f5d7@aol.com>...
In a message dated 10/27/04 2:16:17 AM Central Daylight Time,
lostcooper@yahoo.com writes:
The first recorded Thanksgiving Holiday was in 1639 when
the Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony led an attack on 800
Indians holding Thanksgiving ceremony indoors.

Hog wash! Try the site below and you will find that the FIRST Thanksgiving
was in Va. on Dec. 4, 1619.

Jno


http://www.thefamilytravelfiles.com/ezi ... es/518.asp

I was referring to the first declared *annual* holiday, not a single event.

Bryant Smith

Re: immigrant royal ancestors

Legg inn av Bryant Smith » 30 okt 2004 13:27:02

A fascinating and instructive post even if OT. Or is it? Are there
any records of any of Pizzaro's gang fathering children (in or out of
wedlock) by relatives or subjects of the Inca?
Has anyone investigated Pizzaro's own pedigree? Those of his gang?
(Surely on topic!)
BTW, what are the sources for this post?

@aol.com wrote in message news:<12f.4effde79.2eb42a9b@aol.com>...
Dear Newsgroup,
Interesting idea, that the Inca was white, but I believe
Pizarro encountered the two sons of Inca Huayna Capac, namely Huascar and his
half brother Attahulpa when He landed in Peru in about 1525. Inca Attahulpa used
the myth of the returning white god Viracocha to try to unite the Inca Empire
by allying with Pizarro`s puny little band, whom He would have crushed at
once had They not been of use to him, just like any good monarch. Afyer He
captured Huascar in 1533, He had him put to death, became overly confident about the
Spaniards and suffered the humiliations of imprisonment, ransom, and forced
conversion to Catholicism ( unless He wanted to be burned as a heretic) So He
converted in 1533 and was strangled by his captors instead. Then his brother
Inca Manco Capac II was appointed by Pizarro and having accompanied him to the
Inca capital Cuzco was imprisoned there for 3 years. In 1536 Manco Capac II
escaped to the mountains and some of the Spainiards mutinied under one Almagro in
1542. Manco gave them his protection and two years later, They killed him,
his son Sayri Tupac 1544-1561 succeeding. He submitted to the Spainiards in
1557, recieved a special dispensation from the Pope to marry his sister in a
Catholic ceremony, and shortly after was poisoned, his half brother Titu Cusi
Yupanqui usurping the throne from Sayri`s legitimate brother Tupac Amaru. Titu Cusi
Yupanqui held power from 1561-1571, then Tupac Amaru was Inca from 1571-1574,
when He was captured and beheaded. He was the last reigning Inca.
Sincerely,
James
W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA

David Webb

Re: immigrant royal ancestors

Legg inn av David Webb » 30 okt 2004 14:27:14

Bronwen, black supremacism is definitely OT.



"Bronwen Edwards" <lostcooper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:54ca55f1.0410291853.7e58d86c@posting.google.com...
No, they did a double standard: They argued that Indians were mongoloids
based solely on brow ridges. Note that most whites and blacks would be
mongoloids based on this definition. From there, they compared Kennewick
man to classically southern Han features and determined from there that
since Kennewick man wasn't southern Han, he had to be white.

I don't know where you get your information but that simply is not
true. There has been no determination as to Kennewick Man's "race".
From the very beginning to the present, the shape of the eye sockets
and the measurements of the skull's face have compared most favorably
to the Ainu. This information is directly from the coroner who first
saw it and from the government archaeologists who seized the skull
because of the NAGPRA (Native American Graves Protection and
Repatriation Act) of 1990. The coroner had taken measurements, photos,
and made a plaster cast; he shared all of this with archaeologists.
Also brow ridges never had anything to do with the identification of
Native Americans as "Mongoloid". The tooth structure is of the type
found in Asia, the consistency of the ear wax is like that of Asia,
specifically the northernmost areas, the bone structure (but not the
brow ridges) of the face were the primary criteria. I am not, however,
arguing for the Bering Strait theory as I do not happen to believe
that most Native Americans are descended from the folks up there. I
believe that people from many different areas have always populated
the Americas.

Actually, the DNA evidence and simple anatomy have Indians descended
from ANY GROUP OTHER THAN said Siberians. Trust me, Siberia during the
Wurm is hardly a place where anyone with the same genetic makeup as
modern Indians could survive for long. This reminds me of the aquatic
ape hypothesis, which argues that -- even though there are no extant
aquatic primates -- the ancestors of hominids just moved into the water
and adopted bipedalism, even though there is no evidence of bipedalism
in mammals being related to an aquatic environment. (There are mammals
which are occasionally bipeds; of them, one, the grizzly bear, can even
be remotely considered semiaquatic.) The fallacy, of course, is the
idea that you can just "adapt" to a particular niche: In reality, a
population has to have the genes to survive in a particular niche before
the rest of the genes can disappear via natural selection.

Holy cow. You need to take some anthropology. Also you need to find
out where American Indians live, as many groups (Athabascan and many
Algonquian speakers) live in the Subarctic now, as they have for
thousands of years. I am not talking about the Inuit (Eskimo) people,
but people identified as "Indians".
Many of their inventions, such as snow shoes, have been adopted ,
along with such things as using snow for insulation (against a skin
tent). As for DNA analysis, markers have been found that indicate
indigenous American status but they have not been linked specifically
to any one place. What they have shown mostly is that the Native
people have been here for a very long time and have developed many
more specific lineages within single tribes that had been previously
supposed. As to adaptation, humans have always been the most adaptable
species around. Over time a population may develop characteristics
(through, as you said, natural selection), but these populations
migrated to these areas before developing such characteristics (as,
for example, an extra layer of fat in Asians and Inuit that reflects
their Arctic and Subarctic origin, and the lungs of Andean Indians
that are better able to draw oxygen from thin air than the rest of
us). You put the cart before the horse. There are Subarctic Indians
who migrated into the American Southwest (Navajo and Apache people)
within the last 1000 years. They adapted through culture, learning
from the people already there.


Also, human habitation of the Americas begins before human habitation
of Siberia, save for a few neanderthals.

No, sorry, ever hear of Peking Man (Homo erectus)? But ever closer to
us in time, there are archaeological sites in Siberia and crossing
into northern Alaska and Yukon Territory that have been given dates
older than any known occupation in the Americas. Exciting discoveries
at places like Pedra Furada, Brazil, are sure to shed even more light
on all this. But your knowledge of these things is quite garbled.
Neanderthals don't even enter the picture. They were in Europe, Africa
and Asia Minor. The National Geographic, by the way, is working on a
documentary at the moment to show another new find - unrelated to the
Americas. They have found the smallest humans known, much smaller than
the so-called "Pygmies" of Africa. They are in (if I remember
correctly - the report is not in front of me at the moment) Indonesia,
in any case, the South Pacific near Asia. The archaeologists dubbed
them "hobbits" (no kidding).

Mary Jane Battaglia

Re: immigrant royal ancestors

Legg inn av Mary Jane Battaglia » 30 okt 2004 16:31:01

RE "Indians" in No America. Right on!! ....and those "hobbits" are
currently front page news upsetting a few applecarts!
mary jane
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bronwen Edwards" <lostcooper@yahoo.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2004 7:53 PM
Subject: Re: immigrant royal ancestors


No, they did a double standard: They argued that Indians were mongoloids
based solely on brow ridges. Note that most whites and blacks would be
mongoloids based on this definition. From there, they compared Kennewick
man to classically southern Han features and determined from there that
since Kennewick man wasn't southern Han, he had to be white.

I don't know where you get your information but that simply is not
true. There has been no determination as to Kennewick Man's "race".
From the very beginning to the present, the shape of the eye sockets
and the measurements of the skull's face have compared most favorably
to the Ainu. This information is directly from the coroner who first
saw it and from the government archaeologists who seized the skull
because of the NAGPRA (Native American Graves Protection and
Repatriation Act) of 1990. The coroner had taken measurements, photos,
and made a plaster cast; he shared all of this with archaeologists.
Also brow ridges never had anything to do with the identification of
Native Americans as "Mongoloid". The tooth structure is of the type
found in Asia, the consistency of the ear wax is like that of Asia,
specifically the northernmost areas, the bone structure (but not the
brow ridges) of the face were the primary criteria. I am not, however,
arguing for the Bering Strait theory as I do not happen to believe
that most Native Americans are descended from the folks up there. I
believe that people from many different areas have always populated
the Americas.

Actually, the DNA evidence and simple anatomy have Indians descended
from ANY GROUP OTHER THAN said Siberians. Trust me, Siberia during the
Wurm is hardly a place where anyone with the same genetic makeup as
modern Indians could survive for long. This reminds me of the aquatic
ape hypothesis, which argues that -- even though there are no extant
aquatic primates -- the ancestors of hominids just moved into the water
and adopted bipedalism, even though there is no evidence of bipedalism
in mammals being related to an aquatic environment. (There are mammals
which are occasionally bipeds; of them, one, the grizzly bear, can even
be remotely considered semiaquatic.) The fallacy, of course, is the
idea that you can just "adapt" to a particular niche: In reality, a
population has to have the genes to survive in a particular niche before
the rest of the genes can disappear via natural selection.

Holy cow. You need to take some anthropology. Also you need to find
out where American Indians live, as many groups (Athabascan and many
Algonquian speakers) live in the Subarctic now, as they have for
thousands of years. I am not talking about the Inuit (Eskimo) people,
but people identified as "Indians".
Many of their inventions, such as snow shoes, have been adopted ,
along with such things as using snow for insulation (against a skin
tent). As for DNA analysis, markers have been found that indicate
indigenous American status but they have not been linked specifically
to any one place. What they have shown mostly is that the Native
people have been here for a very long time and have developed many
more specific lineages within single tribes that had been previously
supposed. As to adaptation, humans have always been the most adaptable
species around. Over time a population may develop characteristics
(through, as you said, natural selection), but these populations
migrated to these areas before developing such characteristics (as,
for example, an extra layer of fat in Asians and Inuit that reflects
their Arctic and Subarctic origin, and the lungs of Andean Indians
that are better able to draw oxygen from thin air than the rest of
us). You put the cart before the horse. There are Subarctic Indians
who migrated into the American Southwest (Navajo and Apache people)
within the last 1000 years. They adapted through culture, learning
from the people already there.


Also, human habitation of the Americas begins before human habitation
of Siberia, save for a few neanderthals.

No, sorry, ever hear of Peking Man (Homo erectus)? But ever closer to
us in time, there are archaeological sites in Siberia and crossing
into northern Alaska and Yukon Territory that have been given dates
older than any known occupation in the Americas. Exciting discoveries
at places like Pedra Furada, Brazil, are sure to shed even more light
on all this. But your knowledge of these things is quite garbled.
Neanderthals don't even enter the picture. They were in Europe, Africa
and Asia Minor. The National Geographic, by the way, is working on a
documentary at the moment to show another new find - unrelated to the
Americas. They have found the smallest humans known, much smaller than
the so-called "Pygmies" of Africa. They are in (if I remember
correctly - the report is not in front of me at the moment) Indonesia,
in any case, the South Pacific near Asia. The archaeologists dubbed
them "hobbits" (no kidding).


Reedpcgen

Re: immigrant royal ancestors

Legg inn av Reedpcgen » 30 okt 2004 21:17:41

John, Don't mention me, but in my article on the Woodfords in TAG a couple
years ago I provided the exact original text, and it was declared that
Thanksgiving should be had every year. It's just that the Berkeley Colony
eventually failed. So it was originally declared to be an annual event.

Bronwen Edwards

Re: immigrant royal ancestors

Legg inn av Bronwen Edwards » 31 okt 2004 23:35:22

skip31@racsa.co.cr (Bryant Smith) wrote in message news:<a9b2ce02.0410300327.74984ddd@posting.google.com>...
A fascinating and instructive post even if OT. Or is it? Are there
any records of any of Pizzaro's gang fathering children (in or out of
wedlock) by relatives or subjects of the Inca?

Although not a son of Pizarro, there was one man whose mother was
Quechuan (Inca) and father Spanish who became an explorer to North
America. There are published accounts by him describing, for example,
the land and people around the present US Gulf States, especially
Florida. I am hampered by having most of my academic library in
storage at the moment and can't recall his name, although "Garcia" and
"Vega" leap to mind. I do recall that his mother's Quechuan name was
used as part of his name. I assume that many Peruvians and Bolivians
of today can trace their ancestry to such unions. It would be
interesting to get some genealogical information regarding
Spanish-Inca unions, especially if both sides could be traced to
important people in those countries.
Regarding the "white god" idea, this notion seems to pop up wherever
European explorers have gone. When the Native people of those regions
are questioned, they almost always point to these ideas as having come
from the Europeans themselves and their interpretations of Native
behavior toward them. To give an example from the 16th century with
which I am familiar (Hopi), the Spanish interpreted the ritual welcome
they received from the Hopi as being worship. The Hopi, on the other
hand, saw the coming of the Spanish as the possible fulfillment of a
prophecy, but it was not about a "white" person, but a "shining"
person, the Hopi word denoting "shining" as in the color and texture
of an iridescent shell. Some Hopi accounts say that the sun shining
off the metal armor was first thought to be their shining hero
returning, but when the Spanish actually arrived, the Hopi priests
realized immediately that these were ordinary men, albeit very
different from anyone they had met before. Also the first "white man"
they met was an African man, Estavanico, who was leading a side
expedition of Cabeza de Vaca. The Hopi are still waiting for the
shining hero to return. The legend is that he will not only unite the
Native people, but all people of the earth. It is interesting how many
historical accounts refer to Estavanico as a "slave" (probably because
he was black-skinned) but it strikes me as odd that a "slave" would be
leading a side expedition. Bronwen

Francisco Antonio Doria

Re: immigrant royal ancestors / Garcillaso Inca de la Vega

Legg inn av Francisco Antonio Doria » 01 nov 2004 11:41:02

Garcillaso Inca de la Vega.

(García Llaso Inca de la Vega.) He had a very
illustrious and old Spanish ancestry.

fa

--- Bronwen Edwards <lostcooper@yahoo.com> escreveu:
skip31@racsa.co.cr (Bryant Smith) wrote in message

news:<a9b2ce02.0410300327.74984ddd@posting.google.com>...
A fascinating and instructive post even if OT. Or
is it? Are there
any records of any of Pizzaro's gang fathering
children (in or out of
wedlock) by relatives or subjects of the Inca?

Although not a son of Pizarro, there was one man
whose mother was
Quechuan (Inca) and father Spanish who became an
explorer to North
America. There are published accounts by him
describing, for example,
the land and people around the present US Gulf
States, especially
Florida. I am hampered by having most of my academic
library in
storage at the moment and can't recall his name,
although "Garcia" and
"Vega" leap to mind. I do recall that his mother's
Quechuan name was
used as part of his name. I assume that many
Peruvians and Bolivians
of today can trace their ancestry to such unions. It
would be
interesting to get some genealogical information
regarding
Spanish-Inca unions, especially if both sides could
be traced to
important people in those countries.
Regarding the "white god" idea, this notion seems to
pop up wherever
European explorers have gone. When the Native people
of those regions
are questioned, they almost always point to these
ideas as having come
from the Europeans themselves and their
interpretations of Native
behavior toward them. To give an example from the
16th century with
which I am familiar (Hopi), the Spanish interpreted
the ritual welcome
they received from the Hopi as being worship. The
Hopi, on the other
hand, saw the coming of the Spanish as the possible
fulfillment of a
prophecy, but it was not about a "white" person, but
a "shining"
person, the Hopi word denoting "shining" as in the
color and texture
of an iridescent shell. Some Hopi accounts say that
the sun shining
off the metal armor was first thought to be their
shining hero
returning, but when the Spanish actually arrived,
the Hopi priests
realized immediately that these were ordinary men,
albeit very
different from anyone they had met before. Also the
first "white man"
they met was an African man, Estavanico, who was
leading a side
expedition of Cabeza de Vaca. The Hopi are still
waiting for the
shining hero to return. The legend is that he will
not only unite the
Native people, but all people of the earth. It is
interesting how many
historical accounts refer to Estavanico as a "slave"
(probably because
he was black-skinned) but it strikes me as odd that
a "slave" would be
leading a side expedition. Bronwen







_______________________________________________________
Yahoo! Acesso Grátis - Internet rápida e grátis. Instale o discador agora! http://br.acesso.yahoo.com/

Bronwen Edwards

Re: immigrant royal ancestors / Garcillaso Inca de la Vega

Legg inn av Bronwen Edwards » 01 nov 2004 22:26:55

franciscoantoniodoria@yahoo.com.br (Francisco Antonio Doria) wrote in message news:<20041101103018.86583.qmail@web41727.mail.yahoo.com>...
Garcillaso Inca de la Vega.

(García Llaso Inca de la Vega.) He had a very
illustrious and old Spanish ancestry.

fa

Yes! Thank you. Do you know if anyone has traced his mother's ancestry?
- Bronwen
_______________________________________________________
Yahoo! Acesso Grátis - Internet rápida e grátis. Instale o discador agora! http://br.acesso.yahoo.com/

Bronwen Edwards

Re: immigrant royal ancestors / Garcillaso Inca de la Vega

Legg inn av Bronwen Edwards » 01 nov 2004 22:48:56

franciscoantoniodoria@yahoo.com.br (Francisco Antonio Doria) wrote in message news:<20041101103018.86583.qmail@web41727.mail.yahoo.com>...
Garcillaso Inca de la Vega.

(García Llaso Inca de la Vega.) He had a very
illustrious and old Spanish ancestry.

fa

I quickly googled de la Vega (1539-1616) and located a webpage from
Notre Dame - http://www.rarebooks.nd.edu/exhibits/du ... ilaso.html
- that mentions something of his Quechuan ancestry, as well as his
father's identity.
According to this page "Selections from the Library of Jose Durand",
de la Vega was born Gomez Suarez de Figueroa in Cuzco, 12 April 1539.
His father was Sebastian Garcilaso de la Vega y Vargas. His mother was
Isabel Suarez Chimpu Ocllo, niece of Huaina Capac (the Inca, or
Emperor). She apparently was Sebastian's concubine and did not marry
him although she provided him with his first son, the subject of these
posts. Sebastian eventually married a Spanish woman, dona Luisa
Martel, and essentially married off (sold?) Isabel to a man named Juan
del Pedroche, a Spaniard described as "a commoner". Garcilaso Inca de
la Vega is one of the first mestizos from Peru on record (I would
assume that the status of his father and, possibly, his mother as an
imperial princess, may have provided the incentive of keep the
record). He was bicultural and bilingual, eventually becoming a
student of Latin in Cuzco. Sebastian was accused of treason and left a
will stating that his son should be educated in Spain; he studied
Latin under Pedro Sanchez de Herrera in Seville and by 1563 had
assumed his father's name. He was frustrated by Spain's refusal to
treat him as visiting royalty (based on his mother's status) and seems
to have gone to some length to earn acceptance in Spain. He inherited
a large amount of money from his father's brother and wished to return
to Peru, but after Tupac Amuru was executed in 1572, it was dangerous
for high-born Quechuans in that country and so he never returned. He
lived in the Cordoban village of Montilla where he wrote a number of
books, including poetry, a diary, and - ta dah! - "La descendencia de
Garci Perez de Vargas", as well as cultural and historical information
on Native Americans. He also published his own translation of an
Italian work, "Dialoghi de amore" by Leon Hebreo.



_______________________________________________________
Yahoo! Acesso Grátis - Internet rápida e grátis. Instale o discador agora! http://br.acesso.yahoo.com/

Francisco Antonio Doria

Re: Garcillaso Inca de la Vega

Legg inn av Francisco Antonio Doria » 01 nov 2004 22:51:02

Dear Bronwen,

Sure. I believe I have it here - but please give me
some time to look for it.

Best, chico

--- Bronwen Edwards <lostcooper@yahoo.com> escreveu:
franciscoantoniodoria@yahoo.com.br (Francisco
Antonio Doria) wrote in message

news:<20041101103018.86583.qmail@web41727.mail.yahoo.com>...
Garcillaso Inca de la Vega.

(García Llaso Inca de la Vega.) He had a very
illustrious and old Spanish ancestry.

fa

Yes! Thank you. Do you know if anyone has traced
his mother's ancestry?
- Bronwen


_______________________________________________________

Yahoo! Acesso Grátis - Internet rápida e grátis.
Instale o discador agora!
http://br.acesso.yahoo.com/







_______________________________________________________
Yahoo! Acesso Grátis - Internet rápida e grátis. Instale o discador agora! http://br.acesso.yahoo.com/

Francisco Antonio Doria

Re: immigrant royal ancestors / Garcillaso Inca de la Vega

Legg inn av Francisco Antonio Doria » 02 nov 2004 00:21:01

Just a footnote to your remarks: Leon Ebreo was an
Abravanel, originally from Portugal.

fa

--- Bronwen Edwards <lostcooper@yahoo.com> escreveu:
franciscoantoniodoria@yahoo.com.br (Francisco
Antonio Doria) wrote in message

news:<20041101103018.86583.qmail@web41727.mail.yahoo.com>...
Garcillaso Inca de la Vega.

(García Llaso Inca de la Vega.) He had a very
illustrious and old Spanish ancestry.

fa

I quickly googled de la Vega (1539-1616) and located
a webpage from
Notre Dame -

http://www.rarebooks.nd.edu/exhibits/du ... ilaso.html
- that mentions something of his Quechuan ancestry,
as well as his
father's identity.
According to this page "Selections from the Library
of Jose Durand",
de la Vega was born Gomez Suarez de Figueroa in
Cuzco, 12 April 1539.
His father was Sebastian Garcilaso de la Vega y
Vargas. His mother was
Isabel Suarez Chimpu Ocllo, niece of Huaina Capac
(the Inca, or
Emperor). She apparently was Sebastian's concubine
and did not marry
him although she provided him with his first son,
the subject of these
posts. Sebastian eventually married a Spanish woman,
dona Luisa
Martel, and essentially married off (sold?) Isabel
to a man named Juan
del Pedroche, a Spaniard described as "a commoner".
Garcilaso Inca de
la Vega is one of the first mestizos from Peru on
record (I would
assume that the status of his father and, possibly,
his mother as an
imperial princess, may have provided the incentive
of keep the
record). He was bicultural and bilingual, eventually
becoming a
student of Latin in Cuzco. Sebastian was accused of
treason and left a
will stating that his son should be educated in
Spain; he studied
Latin under Pedro Sanchez de Herrera in Seville and
by 1563 had
assumed his father's name. He was frustrated by
Spain's refusal to
treat him as visiting royalty (based on his mother's
status) and seems
to have gone to some length to earn acceptance in
Spain. He inherited
a large amount of money from his father's brother
and wished to return
to Peru, but after Tupac Amuru was executed in 1572,
it was dangerous
for high-born Quechuans in that country and so he
never returned. He
lived in the Cordoban village of Montilla where he
wrote a number of
books, including poetry, a diary, and - ta dah! -
"La descendencia de
Garci Perez de Vargas", as well as cultural and
historical information
on Native Americans. He also published his own
translation of an
Italian work, "Dialoghi de amore" by Leon Hebreo.





_______________________________________________________

Yahoo! Acesso Grátis - Internet rápida e grátis.
Instale o discador agora!
http://br.acesso.yahoo.com/







_______________________________________________________
Yahoo! Acesso Grátis - Internet rápida e grátis. Instale o discador agora! http://br.acesso.yahoo.com/

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»