[OT] American colonists flame war ;) was Re: immigrant royal

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Gjest

[OT] American colonists flame war ;) was Re: immigrant royal

Legg inn av Gjest » 25 okt 2004 19:51:37

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.


Was speaking English really a requirement of the colonists? I seem to recall
some legend that America came within a hair of having GERMAN as our national
language.
Will

Denis Beauregard

Re: [OT] American colonists flame war ;) was Re: immigrant r

Legg inn av Denis Beauregard » 25 okt 2004 21:11:42

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 15:51:37 +0000 (UTC), WJhonson@aol.com wrote in
soc.genealogy.medieval:

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.


Was speaking English really a requirement of the colonists? I seem to recall
some legend that America came within a hair of having GERMAN as our national
language.

Actually, it was only in Pennsylvania and not in all states.


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: [OT] American colonists flame war ;) was Re: immigrant r

Legg inn av Bronwen Edwards » 26 okt 2004 02:57:58

WJhonson@aol.com wrote in message news:<141.3706467d.2eae7afc@aol.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.


Was speaking English really a requirement of the colonists? I seem to recall
some legend that America came within a hair of having GERMAN as our national
language.
Will

When Webb decides to display his ignorance, he makes no bones about
it. His "Red Indians" have always been fully sovereign nations right
up to this moment. The only reference in the Constitution to them is
in the part about the power of Congress to regulate trade, where it
simply says that Congress shall regulate trade between the states,
with foreign nations and with Indian Nations. By law (1924) Native
Americans have dual citizenship - of their tribal nation and of the
US. If they are from a nation on the Canadian-US border, they are
triple citizens as they have both US and Canadian citizenship along
with their tribal nation (as in the Mohawk Nation). Although there
have always been those who have wished to take away Native sovereignty
(a legal impossibility according to International Law), they have
never succeeded.
In regard to an official language, it was only very recently that
the federal government declared English an official language to the
exclusion of others. In California there is no attempt to abide by
this silly idea and I have never heard of anyone in trouble for not
abiding by it. This is a very large country with regions that were
never under English rule (such as my home, California and the entire
Southwest - which was the northern half of Mexico until 1848). English
rule never made it past the 13 original colonies. In some areas the
most prominent European language is French, in others Russian, in
others Spanish. In some areas there are multiple official languages -
generally English and Spanish. I have been to many places in the
Southwest and here in California where the only language you hear in
public is Spanish. People are also practical and wish to get along
socially and economically. For that reason, English has become
dominant - as it is the business language throughout the
industrialized world. At this time in California, people with heritage
from only the British Isles are a numerical minority; in fact, people
with a solely European heritage are now a minority here. The only
reason why anyone would be threatened by a "non-white" majority would
be because of their own insecurity and the fear that they may reap
what they have sown.

Just briefly, Webb's concept of the so-called "Red Indians" is based
on the fiction that came out of war time propaganda. The idea that the
Native people were naked just running around the forest is absurd. The
concept of the Native people of North America as bloodthirsty savages
is also war-time propaganda. During the colonial era, this was NOT the
prevailing image. Far from it. The "Red Indians" symbolized liberty,
freedom, independence, refusal to be governed without consent. In
Paris there were street gangs during the colonial period that shaved
their heads into "mohawk" style and wore what they thought were
"Indian" outfits - to show their rebellious and independent nature. At
the Boston Tea Party, the revolters dressed specifically like Iroquois
(which includes the Mohawks) in order to demonstrate that they, too,
were independent and rebellious. There was never any attempt to hide
their identities as "white". The statue on top of the Capitol dome
likewise portrays this icon of liberty. 75% of the modern diet in
industrialized nations outside of Asia comes from Native cultivation
in the Americas, as does 60% of modern medicines. I could go on (maybe
I miss teaching all this in a classroom...) but suffice it to say that
Webb has no idea about the US and its people, Native or immigrant.
Bronwen

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: [OT] American colonists flame war ;) was Re: immigrant r

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 26 okt 2004 03:21:07

Bronwen Edwards wrote:
When Webb decides to display his ignorance, he makes no bones about
it.

But he does have an amazing ability to entice others into posting
off-topic material . . . .

Gjest

Re: [OT] American colonists flame war ;) was Re: immigrant r

Legg inn av Gjest » 26 okt 2004 05:03:52

"English rule never made it past the 13 original colonies."

I think you overreached.
I believe that part of Maine, Washington (State), Oregon, part of Minnesota, maybe others... were all under English at some point. For Washington it was rather late when "54'40" or fight" was the motto of ... who... maybe Zachary Taylor?

Will Johnson

Bronwen Edwards

Re: [OT] American colonists flame war ;) was Re: immigrant r

Legg inn av Bronwen Edwards » 26 okt 2004 09:54:09

WJhonson@aol.com wrote in message news:<037BC98D.348CE8F3.007FA2F6@aol.com>...
"English rule never made it past the 13 original colonies."

I think you overreached.
I believe that part of Maine, Washington (State), Oregon, part of Minnesota, maybe others... were all under English at some point. For Washington it was rather late when "54'40" or fight" was the motto of ... who... maybe Zachary Taylor?

Will Johnson

The reference is to actual rule, not to attempted grabs. There was
even a brief moment when England tried to take California! I am not
aware of English rule in Washington or Oregon - enlighten me. Perhaps
they never got past the "or fight" part.

Gjest

Re: [OT] American colonists flame war ;) was Re: immigrant r

Legg inn av Gjest » 26 okt 2004 17:25:06

Tuesday, 26 October, 2004

[advance apologies to Todd et al. for any impact
in furthering this thread.....]


Dear Bronwen, Will, et al.,

The question as to claimed authority vs. effective rule is an
interesting one, which could certainly be debated ad infinitum. The "Thirteen Original
Colonies" had frontiers which were minimally controlled at the Declaration of
Independence: central Pennsylvania, for one, was so minimally settled and
controlled in 1778 that Daniel Roberdeau was sent there with Congressional
approval to establish a fort (near Hollidaysburg) for defense against
British-inspired Indian attack [1]. At the same time, the claims of the colonies (or the
Crown) generally restricted the boundaries between colonies, but not to the West:
again, maps do not = control, but a map of 18th century English America
depicting colonial boundaries will show that Tennesse belonged to North Carolina,
Pennsylvania claimed what is now northern Ohio, Indiana and Illinois, and
Virginia claimed (contrary to Pennsylvanian pretensions) Kentucky and the entire
Northwest Territory (Ohio, Michigan and the states westward to the Mississippi
and northwest to Lake Superior).

British 'authority' was exerted in the Northwest Territories prior to
1776, courtesy of their surrender by France after the Seven Year's War [French
and Indian War to most Yanks] - the regional government was based at Mackinac
as I recall, with settlements/forts at Detroit, Vincennes [Fort Sackville} & c.
Patrick Sinclair was Lt. Governor [British] at Mackinac at the time of
Rogers' assault on Vincennes, in 1778 [2].

Cheers,

John



NOTES

[1] Daniel Roberdeau was an 18th century GARD. This almost makes
this on-topic.

[2] Sinclair was doubtless a descendant of the Rosslyn family -
again would [if true] be a GARD, as would be any emigrant
sibling[s].

Gjest

Re: [OT] American colonists flame war ;) was Re: immigrant r

Legg inn av Gjest » 26 okt 2004 21:28:03

In a message dated 10/26/2004 1:00:43 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
lostcooper@yahoo.com writes:

The reference is to actual rule, not to attempted grabs. There was
even a brief moment when England tried to take California! I am not
aware of English rule in Washington or Oregon - enlighten me. Perhaps
they never got past the "or fight" part.


Perhaps you have heard of Fort Vancouver? This was constructed on the north
bank of the Columbia River. That river seperates Washington from its southern
neighbor Oregon. As people who've been there know, Vancouver is only a
figurative stone's-throw from Portland, Oregon. Fort Vancouver was constructed by
the BRITISH Hudson's Bay Company and served as the center was White settlement
in the Pacific Northwest. This was in 1824.
Until the 1840s by international treaty both British and US citizens were
allowed to settle in the Pacific Northwest (Washington and Oregon mostly).
The 54'40 latitude line established the final border between the US area and
Canada. Although Oregon and Washington at that time were not yet states. In
fact the area was just called the Oregon territory.

Will Johnson

David Webb

Re: [OT] American colonists flame war ;) was Re: immigrant r

Legg inn av David Webb » 26 okt 2004 22:16:02

<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message news:141.3706467d.2eae7afc@aol.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.


Was speaking English really a requirement of the colonists? I seem to
recall
some legend that America came within a hair of having GERMAN as our
national
language.
Will


But can you deny that America as the nation was made was made along an
Anglo-Saxon model with English as the common language? The fact that people
of other languages came to America makes no difference; the final language
was English, not Cree, Sioux, Navajo, Ebonics, or German. That reflects the
impact of a British heritage on the polity as a whole. It could have gone
the other way, and as a German speaking nation the USA would have still been
an extension of Europe, but probably with some more features from Germany.
Either way, the red Indians contributed next to nothing to it.

David Webb

Re: [OT] American colonists flame war ;) was Re: immigrant r

Legg inn av David Webb » 26 okt 2004 22:24:01

When Webb decides to display his ignorance, he makes no bones about
it. His "Red Indians" have always been fully sovereign nations right
up to this moment. The only reference in the Constitution to them is
in the part about the power of Congress to regulate trade, where it
simply says that Congress shall regulate trade between the states,
with foreign nations and with Indian Nations. By law (1924) Native
Americans have dual citizenship - of their tribal nation and of the
US. If they are from a nation on the Canadian-US border, they are
triple citizens as they have both US and Canadian citizenship along
with their tribal nation (as in the Mohawk Nation).

If what you are saying is true, the 1924 law was unconstitutional.

Although there
have always been those who have wished to take away Native sovereignty
(a legal impossibility according to International Law), they have
never succeeded.


Of course it is possible. We subject them by right of conquest. Their
sovereignty was nullified by the white man's fire power. Thank goodness for
Andrew jackson!

In regard to an official language, it was only very recently that
the federal government declared English an official language to the
exclusion of others. In California there is no attempt to abide by
this silly idea and I have never heard of anyone in trouble for not
abiding by it. This is a very large country with regions that were
never under English rule (such as my home, California and the entire
Southwest - which was the northern half of Mexico until 1848).

Well I read that when the USA defeated Mexico and got California, there were
fewer than 10,000 Mexicans in the territory - not exactly a justification
for the immigrant invasion of millions of espaldas mojadas, eh?

English
rule never made it past the 13 original colonies. In some areas the
most prominent European language is French, in others Russian, in
others Spanish. In some areas there are multiple official languages -
generally English and Spanish. I have been to many places in the
Southwest and here in California where the only language you hear in
public is Spanish. People are also practical and wish to get along
socially and economically. For that reason, English has become
dominant - as it is the business language throughout the
industrialized world. At this time in California, people with heritage
from only the British Isles are a numerical minority; in fact, people
with a solely European heritage are now a minority here.

George Washington would be turning in his grave. So would Jefferson Davis
and Robert E Lee.

The only
reason why anyone would be threatened by a "non-white" majority would
be because of their own insecurity and the fear that they may reap
what they have sown.

That is a justification for colonnisation the world over. Why should the
Tibetans mind if the Chinese influx makes them a minority in their own land?
Why should East Timor have minded Indonesianisation?

Just briefly, Webb's concept of the so-called "Red Indians" is based
on the fiction that came out of war time propaganda. The idea that the
Native people were naked just running around the forest is absurd. The
concept of the Native people of North America as bloodthirsty savages
is also war-time propaganda.

I personally could not bring myself to scalp another human being.

During the colonial era, this was NOT the
prevailing image. Far from it. The "Red Indians" symbolized liberty,
freedom, independence, refusal to be governed without consent. In
Paris there were street gangs during the colonial period that shaved
their heads into "mohawk" style and wore what they thought were
"Indian" outfits - to show their rebellious and independent nature. At
the Boston Tea Party, the revolters dressed specifically like Iroquois
(which includes the Mohawks) in order to demonstrate that they, too,
were independent and rebellious. There was never any attempt to hide
their identities as "white". The statue on top of the Capitol dome
likewise portrays this icon of liberty. 75% of the modern diet in
industrialized nations outside of Asia comes from Native cultivation
in the Americas, as does 60% of modern medicines. I could go on (maybe
I miss teaching all this in a classroom...) but suffice it to say that
Webb has no idea about the US and its people, Native or immigrant.
Bronwen

John jay specifically referred to the fact that America was formed of
closely related peoples as a factor in aiding the development of the union.

Gjest

Re: [OT] American colonists flame war ;) was Re: immigrant r

Legg inn av Gjest » 27 okt 2004 00:34:42

"Either way, the red Indians contributed next to nothing to it."

Actually I was reading a thesis the other day that said that some parts of the Constitution were probably traceable to certain compacts in existence among the Indians. I just can't remember where I saw that.
Will

Brant Gibbard

Re: Re: [OT] American colonists flame war ;) was Re: immigra

Legg inn av Brant Gibbard » 27 okt 2004 05:14:06

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 17:28:03 +0000 (UTC), WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

Until the 1840s by international treaty both British and US citizens were
allowed to settle in the Pacific Northwest (Washington and Oregon mostly).
The 54'40 latitude line established the final border between the US area and
Canada.

No, the final border was set at the 49th parallel.


Brant Gibbard
Toronto, ON

Gjest

Re: [OT] American colonists flame war ;) was Re: immigrant r

Legg inn av Gjest » 27 okt 2004 08:13:23

In a message dated 10/26/2004 8:15:38 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
bgibbard@ca.inter.net writes:

Until the 1840s by international treaty both British and US citizens
were
allowed to settle in the Pacific Northwest (Washington and Oregon mostly).

The 54'40 latitude line established the final border between the US area
and
Canada.

No, the final border was set at the 49th parallel.


Brant Gibbard
Toronto, ON

Oops you're right. James Polk WANTED to extend it to the 54'40" latitude but
he didn't get his way :) His slogan confused me, I misremembered that the
final line was and agreement to "split the difference" between the 42' latitude
(southern edge of Oregon) and the 54'40" (southern edge of Russia's Alaska
Territory). So I guess 49' is about half-way... we got a little better deal than
you.
Will Johnson
California

Bronwen Edwards

Re: [OT] American colonists flame war ;) was Re: immigrant r

Legg inn av Bronwen Edwards » 27 okt 2004 09:47:15

"David Webb" <djwebb2002@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:<Bnyfd.159863$BI5.123434@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>...
If what you are saying is true, the 1924 law was unconstitutional.

Don't be silly. The Supreme Court has tested it over and over and

always upheld it. Indians are not the only legal dual citizens,
either. What part of the Constitution do you imagine is being broken
here?


Of course it is possible. We subject them by right of conquest. Their
sovereignty was nullified by the white man's fire power. Thank goodness for
Andrew jackson!

Until the invention of the repeating rifle, the only "fire power"
whites had was in carrying exotic microbes into "virgin" territory,
biologically speaking. And even after the invention of the repeating
rifle, the Indians had better ones than most of the US Army - via the
Canadian black market. Military power was not what defeated the Indian
nations. As to the "right of conquest", I don't believe in such a
right. Since it is not universally acknowledged as a right, its only
"power" is the power of belief in it. Unfortunately, the US government
agrees with you - although they know better than to call it
"conquest". Terms like "liberation" or "democratization" mask it only
a little.

Well I read that when the USA defeated Mexico and got California, there were
fewer than 10,000 Mexicans in the territory - not exactly a justification
for the immigrant invasion of millions of espaldas mojadas, eh?

You read that, did you? Don't forget to read about the true reasons
for the war and the invention of a phony concept, "manifest destiny",
to justify a conquest that American citizens would not have supported.
Among the reasons for the war besides US domination from coast to
coast: Mexico outlawed slavery before the US and the "Americans"
living in Mexico did not want to give up their slaves.
If "right of conquest" was regarded as right and moral by Americans in
general, why was it cloaked in the language of "God's destiny"? A war
started by the US and justified by lies to US citizens: sounds all too
familiar.

George Washington would be turning in his grave. So would Jefferson Davis
and Robert E Lee.

Oh I hope so.


I personally could not bring myself to scalp another human being.

Then what are you doing wanting to go around conquering people? As far
as scalping is concerned, the first known instance of the practice
involved the New England white settlers offering bounties for the
scalps of Indians. While such practices(and other tortures and
mutilations) certainly happened in Indian cultures, they also came
over from Europe. There are records written by Europeans in New
England of Indian leaders pleading for the lives of English or French
prisoners of war who were scheduled to be executed. There is also a
detailed account of an Indian man skinned alive and then subjected to
hot sand being poured on his body. A woman was present, as was
apparently the custom, who gave the signal to kill the prisoner. Do
you think you could flay the whole body, not just the scalp, and
torture someone before killing him? That was your people, not mine.
All of that said, humans have been nasty to each other everywhere. I
keep saying that Indians are human like everyone else - for good or
for bad - whereas you keep saying that Indians are less than human.
Your attitude is anachronistic to say the least.

During the colonial era, this was NOT the
prevailing image. Far from it. The "Red Indians" symbolized liberty,
freedom, independence, refusal to be governed without consent. In
Paris there were street gangs during the colonial period that shaved
their heads into "mohawk" style and wore what they thought were
"Indian" outfits - to show their rebellious and independent nature. At
the Boston Tea Party, the revolters dressed specifically like Iroquois
(which includes the Mohawks) in order to demonstrate that they, too,
were independent and rebellious. There was never any attempt to hide
their identities as "white". The statue on top of the Capitol dome
likewise portrays this icon of liberty. 75% of the modern diet in
industrialized nations outside of Asia comes from Native cultivation
in the Americas, as does 60% of modern medicines. I could go on (maybe
I miss teaching all this in a classroom...) but suffice it to say that
Webb has no idea about the US and its people, Native or immigrant.
Bronwen

John jay specifically referred to the fact that America was formed of
closely related peoples as a factor in aiding the development of the union.

Huh? I can't even figure out what you are trying to say - it is very
garbled.

Bronwen Edwards

Re: [OT] American colonists flame war ;) was Re: immigrant r

Legg inn av Bronwen Edwards » 27 okt 2004 10:02:54

WJhonson@aol.com wrote in message news:<384A6C90.37C1033A.007FA2F6@aol.com>...
"Either way, the red Indians contributed next to nothing to it."

Actually I was reading a thesis the other day that said that some parts of the Constitution were probably traceable to certain compacts in existence among the Indians. I just can't remember where I saw that.
Will


This is not some arcane theory. The evidence is overwhelming and stems
from original documents by Benjamin Franklin and others. It was also
not mere observation by the settlers but involved Canisatego
(representative of the Iroquois Confederacy) at the Albany Congress.
The Congress was initially called in order to cement the tie between
England and the Iroquois. Canisatego advised the colonists to use the
Iroquois model in order to unite "of one mind"; unless they united in
that way, they would always be fighting one another. There is far too
much to describe here, especially since we're all in trouble anyway
for being so flagrantly OT, but there have been many books written on
the topic. I used to have to document this to my college
administration all the time because they, like most Americans (and
others...) tend to think of the stereotypes from war propaganda and
not believe the truth when they first hear it. Luckily for me, it is
very easy to document. Incidentally, in 1987/8 a joint resolution of
Congress thanked Indians in general and the Iroquois in particular for
their contributions to the political development of the US. They
specified some of the exact points, such as the separation of powers.
If people like Webb want to deny such things because their prejudices
are stronger than their intellects,
they will have to argue with Congress for starters. Certain
personalities seem unable to take new information and learn. When I
was teaching at a local college, a student of mine attempted to do a
research paper on the topic for a very right-wing history instructor.
The student asked me for documentation to show the instructor. I
helped the student find the material (I didn't want to do his research
for him!). He presented it to the instructor and the man actually
refused to look at it. He, like Webb, simply reacted to things that
went against his preconceptions. Of course, he was also a basketball
coach (no offense to basketball players). Best, Bronwen

David Webb

Re: [OT] American colonists flame war ;) was Re: immigrant r

Legg inn av David Webb » 27 okt 2004 21:21:26

"Bronwen Edwards" <lostcooper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:54ca55f1.0410262347.11d882ea@posting.google.com...
"David Webb" <djwebb2002@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<Bnyfd.159863$BI5.123434@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>...

If what you are saying is true, the 1924 law was unconstitutional.

Don't be silly. The Supreme Court has tested it over and over and
always upheld it. Indians are not the only legal dual citizens,
either. What part of the Constitution do you imagine is being broken
here?

The bit you quoted about negotiations with Indian tribes as foreign nations.
Note that the Supreme Court is stuffed with traitors who refuse to apply the
constitution properly.

Well I read that when the USA defeated Mexico and got California, there
were
fewer than 10,000 Mexicans in the territory - not exactly a
justification
for the immigrant invasion of millions of espaldas mojadas, eh?

You read that, did you? Don't forget to read about the true reasons
for the war and the invention of a phony concept, "manifest destiny",
to justify a conquest that American citizens would not have supported.
Among the reasons for the war besides US domination from coast to
coast: Mexico outlawed slavery before the US and the "Americans"
living in Mexico did not want to give up their slaves.
If "right of conquest" was regarded as right and moral by Americans in
general, why was it cloaked in the language of "God's destiny"? A war
started by the US and justified by lies to US citizens: sounds all too
familiar.

Mexico was defeated by a superior culture. The development of the US as a
global power since then and the stagnation of Mexico retrospectively justify
the conquest of those territories.

Then what are you doing wanting to go around conquering people? As far
as scalping is concerned, the first known instance of the practice
involved the New England white settlers offering bounties for the
scalps of Indians. While such practices(and other tortures and
mutilations) certainly happened in Indian cultures, they also came
over from Europe. There are records written by Europeans in New
England of Indian leaders pleading for the lives of English or French
prisoners of war who were scheduled to be executed. There is also a
detailed account of an Indian man skinned alive and then subjected to
hot sand being poured on his body. A woman was present, as was
apparently the custom, who gave the signal to kill the prisoner. Do
you think you could flay the whole body, not just the scalp, and
torture someone before killing him?

No I couldn't, and I don't support such actions, because that is lowering
ourselves to the level of savages.

John jay specifically referred to the fact that America was formed of
closely related peoples as a factor in aiding the development of the
union.

Huh? I can't even figure out what you are trying to say - it is very
garbled.

Well, maybe you have a low IQ, as I pointed out before.

David Webb

Re: [OT] American colonists flame war ;) was Re: immigrant r

Legg inn av David Webb » 27 okt 2004 21:23:39

For Bronwen's BS, see below. The separation of powers has its origin in
European political thought of the 17th and 18th centuries. I have no idea if
the Iroquois had any parallel notion, but so what if they did? The US
constitution is a distillation of the best points of the English common law.


"Bronwen Edwards" <lostcooper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:54ca55f1.0410270002.f113cbb@posting.google.com...
WJhonson@aol.com wrote in message
news:<384A6C90.37C1033A.007FA2F6@aol.com>...
"Either way, the red Indians contributed next to nothing to it."

Actually I was reading a thesis the other day that said that some parts
of the Constitution were probably traceable to certain compacts in existence

among the Indians. I just can't remember where I saw that.
Will


This is not some arcane theory. The evidence is overwhelming and stems
from original documents by Benjamin Franklin and others. It was also
not mere observation by the settlers but involved Canisatego
(representative of the Iroquois Confederacy) at the Albany Congress.
The Congress was initially called in order to cement the tie between
England and the Iroquois. Canisatego advised the colonists to use the
Iroquois model in order to unite "of one mind"; unless they united in
that way, they would always be fighting one another. There is far too
much to describe here, especially since we're all in trouble anyway
for being so flagrantly OT, but there have been many books written on
the topic. I used to have to document this to my college
administration all the time because they, like most Americans (and
others...) tend to think of the stereotypes from war propaganda and
not believe the truth when they first hear it. Luckily for me, it is
very easy to document. Incidentally, in 1987/8 a joint resolution of
Congress thanked Indians in general and the Iroquois in particular for
their contributions to the political development of the US. They
specified some of the exact points, such as the separation of powers.
If people like Webb want to deny such things because their prejudices
are stronger than their intellects,
they will have to argue with Congress for starters. Certain
personalities seem unable to take new information and learn. When I
was teaching at a local college, a student of mine attempted to do a
research paper on the topic for a very right-wing history instructor.
The student asked me for documentation to show the instructor. I
helped the student find the material (I didn't want to do his research
for him!). He presented it to the instructor and the man actually
refused to look at it. He, like Webb, simply reacted to things that
went against his preconceptions. Of course, he was also a basketball
coach (no offense to basketball players). Best, Bronwen

Gjest

Re: [OT] American colonists flame war ;) was Re: immigrant r

Legg inn av Gjest » 27 okt 2004 22:07:07

Well I read that when the USA defeated Mexico and got California, there were
fewer than 10,000 Mexicans in the territory - not exactly a justification
for the immigrant invasion of millions of espaldas mojadas, eh?

Well the problem with that reasoning is that there were even fewer Americanos.


"You read that, did you? Don't forget to read about the true reasons for the war and the invention of a phony concept, "manifest destiny", to justify a conquest that American citizens would not have supported."

The citizens of Sonoma, who precipitated the war, alledgedly wanted to form their own "nation". They did not necessarily want to be part of the US. However there just happened to be a US Army scouting party in the "vicinity" (within a thousand miles) who heard about the revolt and came to Sonoma. They lowered the Bear Flag, put up the US Flag and took control from the citizens.

That is how the war started between the US and Mexico over California.

Todd A. Farmerie

STOP!!!! Re: [OT] American colonists flame war ;) was Re: i

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 28 okt 2004 00:46:13

Bronwen, Will, David and everyone else participating in this thread:

Nothing being discussed is genealogical.

KNOCK IT OFF!

Everyone has said enough to allow the group to form an accurate picture
of their opinions along these lines, all of which, having nothing to do
with one medieval person being child of another, are irrelevant to this
group. However wrong you may think someone is, you will not get the
last word if they insist on responding each time (unless they die before
you do). Please respect the rest of the participants and let it drop.

Bronwen Edwards

Re: [OT] American colonists flame war ;) was Re: immigrant r

Legg inn av Bronwen Edwards » 28 okt 2004 07:58:11

WJhonson@aol.com wrote in message news:<03CA4771.10B9CE3E.007FA2F6@aol.com>...

The citizens of Sonoma, who precipitated the war, alledgedly wanted to form their own "nation". They did not necessarily want to be part of the US. However there just happened to be a US Army scouting party in the "vicinity" (within a thousand miles) who heard about the revolt and came to Sonoma. They lowered the Bear Flag, put up the US Flag and took control from the citizens.

That is how the war started between the US and Mexico over California.

Not exactly and my recollection is that it was Monterey, not Sonoma.
The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo involved the entire Southwest (except
Texas and the Gadsden Purchase which were separate deals though near
the same time). Actions in various regions occurred throughout but no
single action began the war. The war began on a series of false
accusations and the creation of an anti-Mexican stereotype that
plagues that community even today. During the period of warfare, the
only value seen in California was that there were some good harbors.
Its agricultural potential and gold fields were not yet known.

Janko Pavsic

Re: STOP!!!! Re: [OT] American colonists flame war ;) was R

Legg inn av Janko Pavsic » 28 okt 2004 16:48:26

I agree...

Janko Pavsic
Montréal

"Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote in message news:<41802535.9040108@interfold.com>...
Bronwen, Will, David and everyone else participating in this thread:

Nothing being discussed is genealogical.

KNOCK IT OFF!

Everyone has said enough to allow the group to form an accurate picture
of their opinions along these lines, all of which, having nothing to do
with one medieval person being child of another, are irrelevant to this
group. However wrong you may think someone is, you will not get the
last word if they insist on responding each time (unless they die before
you do). Please respect the rest of the participants and let it drop.

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»