Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Wasn't seeing the natives as "savages" fairly universal among the Colonists and people in the early Republic. I know people now who still think Indians are "savages".
If we aren't careful, we may have another verbal skirmish over a semantics issue, but I will offer my opinion anyway...Yes, it was a common perception. Had we considered them a civilized people with significant cultural differences, we would have had to call frontier families invaders instead of settlers. I don't think this was lost on the Colonial leaders; I think the depersonalization (it would not be much of a stretch to call it dehumanization) of the natives was intentional. It virtually eliminated the legitimacy of their claims.
The bit that Franklin wrote (quoted in the article) was a double edged sword. While it did indicate that he took notice of their unity, he did not exactly confer a lot of respect on them. It didn't sound like he got the idea from them but just used them as an example of it working, even when the implementors were “savages”.
Isaac Asimov once wrote an article on the possibility of finding intelligent life on other planets. He went through a lot of the standard factors that make it seem unlikely that this is the only place it ever happened and also threw in another factor – time. His theory was that in order for intelligent life forms to find each other, they needed to progress to the point of communicating and/or traveling across great expanses of space. What he theorized drives life forms to do this is competition and battles for resources. As the civilization improves technology, it applies the new technology to weapons whenever possible to gain a competitive advantage. At some point, a weapon is developed that outstrips the reproductive capacity of the species and the civilization automatically comes to an end. Factoring that in, his theory was that it is unlikely we will encounter another civilization before ours comes to an end.Of course, it is just a theory...
Rare pictures of the migration:[img]http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTPKHsUsG2PSHlh6XbpN-G5pROEeRALvUkeRVQ59N9Ex4byl3M&t=1&usg=__JYfZw6eU59_qvBWDgIP5rGDmbts=[/img][img]http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR_8Ppw9aRwk0qtWn0JhNCppUtMdL0nbvXAx2aKArNVInZwvgA&t=1&usg=__fh5kG4XDOAyTZaPEPidjG46cOno=[/img] ;D
I missed that. I searched for Rufus. Not much discussion in that thread; it appears the accident story is pretty well accepted.This is the account that makes me wonder most:Abbot Suger, another chronicler, was Tirel's friend and sheltered him in his French exile. He said later:It was laid to the charge of a certain noble, Walter Tirel, that he had shot the king with an arrow; but I have often heard him, when he had nothing to fear nor to hope, solemnly swear that on the day in question he was not in the part of the forest where the king was hunting, nor ever saw him in the forest at all.(Suger, Vie de Louis VI le Gros, Waquet, H. (ed. & tr.), Belles Lettres, 1929 & 1964, p. 12.)The "official" story identifies Tirel as the shooter and as the king's hunting companion that day. Maybe it was Robin Hood, hidden on a grassy knoll...
We are in danger of this debate descending into an argument of semantics. ;D
Well, of course we are - the whole topic is semantics. The thread is about whether or not to use a particular term to describe the native people who died at the hands of the conquering forces. The term "Holocaust" is used to describe what happened to Jews in WWII. That term absolutely implies a moral judgement. Sometimes innocent people are slaughtered. Avoiding saying that directly because it implies some moral judgement would make the reporting of history less accurate, not more so (IMO).I have trouble when my idealistic viewpoint meets the reality of the world we live in. As much as I hate war, I know if we were to dissolve our forces tomorrow then I would probably have to learn a new language if I survived more than a few months.I won't beat this to death (since that might be construed as morally wrong by some future generation ;D ). I think we have both stated our contrary opinions and the likelihood of either of us changing is too low to spend much more energy on it.
Scout,The point, in my case, is protesting against justification or glorification of past wrongs. When you say the actions were legitimate, you are making a judgment and that judgement is incorrect IMO. Legitimate means "in accordance with the law", which doesn't necessarily mean it is right or good for humanity, and an invasion muddies the waters about what body of law is in effect anyway. However, taking lives and property is usually not in accordance with either body of law (or code of conduct for less formal societies).
One thing I took exception to is this statement:
There was no more evil intent than the intent of taking land/booty/slaves
which were/are pretty evil things to do from my perspective. I then inferred that being involved in those things justified taking lives if there was resistance.The other was the idea that moral posturing against wrongs done has the same base motives as the wrong doing. Reparations are a really tough issue. I think there should be some sort of statute of limitations, but I am admittedly quite biased.
What happened in the New World is not any type of -cide. It is what happens when society meets another that is technologically superior. Essentially the same thing happened to the tribes of sub-Saharan Africa. There was no more evil intent than the intent of taking land/booty/slaves; something that has happened all over the world throughout recorded and no doubt unrecorded history as well. The moral posturing is just that, posturing and done for the same base motives that the original conquerors had. Those doing the posturing sense an opportunity for gain just as the original conquerors sensed an opportunity for gain. the only difference is the way that gain will be achieved.
I hope we can make this a civil debate, but I disagree with you pretty strongly. Killing people and taking their property is wrong, especially when done without provocation. Along the same lines, unprovoked invasion and subjugation of a native population is wrong. Just because we have a long history of it doesn't make it right. Whether or not I owe you anything for what one of my ancestors did to one of yours is a different argument. Remember George Santayana's famous quote and the many variants - "those who don't learn from the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them". My ancestors include slave owners and invading soldiers. I am not ashamed of my heritage but I don't glorify or attempt to justify their actions either.
I am cut from the same cloth, though I do enjoy a few indulgent outings interspersed. We went on a Disney land/sea vacation a couple of years back that my wife and kids thought was the greatest thing ever. I paced the ship like a caged cat. The funny thing is I enjoy sailing small boats.
Well, I think I am going to write about the significance of Greek military victory during the Greek-Persian Wars between 490 - 479 BC to include Marathon, Thermopylae, Artemision, Salamis, Plataea, and Mycale.Off I go.... 😀
Just in case my earlier feeble attempt at humor:
Yeah, what book will show you blood flying around like this?http://www.history.com/shows/battles-bc/videos#battles-bc-battle-at-marathon 😮 ;D
came across as just a joke, there actually is some legitimate information about Marathon in the short video. I am not sure how respected Richard Gabriel is in the field, but he is the poster child for getting excited about history. Not so much in that clip, but some of the other stuff I have seen him in you can tell he is in awe of great strategists. They do "dumb it down" a bit, but I'm okay with that. ;DI love those narrations that sound like movie ads - "It all begins on the blood soaked plains of Marathon"...
I just noticed when flipping through upcoming shows to set the DVR that the show "Ancient Monster Hunters" is going shown a few times on the History Channel in the coming week. That is the one I referenced earlier that deals with the Greeks finding fossils. A sensationalist title and I am not sure it proves that the fossils are the source of the myths, but it offers pretty good proof that the ancient Greeks did find them.
You know, I may have seen that show before. At least, I did if it's the same one where they also talk about the Chinese seeing dragons and using dragon bones in different nutritional remedies.
I think they did tie that in, though also almost purely through speculation IMO. I thought the part about the Greeks and the fossils was the most interesting as it seem to actually be supported by sound research. Is that the source of the myths? Maybe; it seemed like a reasonable conclusion. But they didn't prove it. But I think they did prove the Greeks did find the fossils and give them some reverence.
I just noticed when flipping through upcoming shows to set the DVR that the show “Ancient Monster Hunters” is going shown a few times on the History Channel in the coming week. That is the one I referenced earlier that deals with the Greeks finding fossils. A sensationalist title and I am not sure it proves that the fossils are the source of the myths, but it offers pretty good proof that the ancient Greeks did find them.
Well, it turns out most places are still booked up down at the “Crystal Coast”. I am not sure if it is an NC law or if this is true everywhere, but if there is a hurricane watch/warning in effect and/or the bridge/ferry (there are virtually no mainland beaches in NC; some are across a narrow sound or canal, but the bridges still close in high winds) or the business closes due to weather, they have to refund full payment. So a lot of people don't cancel; they just wait and see. The shell hounds will be out in force this weekend, though the best stuff has probably already been scooped up.
Yeah, what book will show you blood flying around like this?http://www.history.com/shows/battles-bc/videos#battles-bc-battle-at-marathon 😮 ;D
