Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I have come to believe that tribalism trumps all other -isms.
Is that the truth, or a truism? ;DKidding aside, I agree. If you talk to soldiers who have been in battle, most of them will tell you that when the bullets are flying it isn't about God and country; it's about the guy on your left and the guy on your right because they are doing the same for you.
I would not consider any of the Native American religions major world religions.
I am late to the party and reopening an old thread, I know, but this is a topic of great interest to me. Take a look at a different ranking:http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.htmlThey lump “primal-indigenous” together as a single item and it definitely qualifies. You may cry foul because they aren't a single religion organized under some umbrella organization. I would argue that they never have been and never will be because that is one of the many attributes that defines it. In many (most?) of the cultures, they don't disbelieve in the gods of other tribes or cultures. It is often a form of “inclusive polytheism” where they worship one or more gods of their own while respecting the gods of their allies and fearing the gods of their enemies.Joseph Campbell was mentioned earlier. “Myths To Live By” is a very interesting read. Tremendous similarities in the religious stories of disconnected societies.
Your reply made me think of a better way to summarize my thoughts…I like historical fiction to augment my research, not invalidate it.
I enjoy historical fiction the most when it is interesting minor events set in a point in time that has accurate portrayals of the culture where it takes place. I am less enamored with enbellishments of well known events. The latter ones can confuse me by introducing fictional elements into something I had only facts about before, if that makes any sense. Mel Gibson has conned me into thinking that Robert the Bruce was a traitor at some point. I much prefer to read about Owen Archer solving mysteries in York (although the author, Candace Robb, does tend to get a little bogged down some times) and learn a lot about daily life in a medieval city that is accurate. I also must confess to browsing the shelves in the “Young Adult” section and I enjoy Michael Cadnum's books (though it looks like his latest might be in the first category I mentioned). He has some on young knights and squires that went to and from England and the crusades that are pretty good IMO. Besides what seems an accurate portrayal of daily life, he also has a nice technique of repeating just a word or phrase used in dialog in Middle English. In other words, the dialog will appear in modern English and following it will be an italicized fragment in Middle English.
I have documents from the 19th and 20th. The family was in that town from around 1800 until the early 1900s. Georgia had a land grant lottery and Revolutionary War veterans were given substantially more entries than anyone else, so a lot of soldiers moved there. My ancestor was one. What we don't have is any information about where he was before hand.
Sorry to dredge up an old topic, but this one has some personal relevance. I got a pretty well researched family tree from cousins and I had a thought about trying to see if I could find some information on a few dead ends from family that is still in the area where ancestors lived. While not extremely likely, it is possible that Bibles or correspondence are still there in a home passed down through generations. My idea was to find this family via facebook and possibly other social sites. Some of my ancestors were cotton farmers in a small town in Georgia. Searching there, I did find some people with the last name I was looking for and it is quite possible they were descended from slaves at the plantation. I did not contact them and don't intend to, partly because there is almost no chance they would have the information I am looking for and partly because I do think it is possible that such inquiries would not be well received even if it is far enough back in history that neither of us is really effected by it. I also have Norman ancestors and I refuse to apologize to Anglo-Saxons. ;D
The Sumerians were way ahead of their time (they had their Renaissance about 2000 BC 😀 ) and had libraries and scholars in addition to making advances in agriculture and architecture. However, they built most of their structures out of mud bricks and to answer the second part of your question (and conflict with my first answer) they failed to do what seems to be the primary attribute we look for in ancient cultures before we bestow greatness upon them – they didn't move any really big rocks. ;D
Interesting; the timing kind of fits. It was mostly after mid-19th century that branches that were almost entirely traced back to English gentry started mixing. It struck me as rather odd as I have some ancestors from Germany, Holland, Luxembourg and Ireland that seemed to mix right away while the English went 4 or more generations only marrying others descended from other English land holders. I never considered whether they were loyalists or not; I have seen some service records that indicate my German ancestors had no hesitation in taking arms against the British. :)BTW, the ones that mixed very little were primarily mid-Atlantic. Besides the timing, it seemed they mixed once they moved out of MD and VA.
