Escape from Elba
Exiles of the New York Times
June 25, 2018, 03:35:23 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: As you may have noticed, this is a very old backup, I'm still working through restoring the site.  Don't be surprised if you post and it all goes missing....
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 73 74 [75] 76 77 ... 165
  Print  
Author Topic: American History  (Read 29592 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Donotremove
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 1068


View Profile Email

Ignore
« Reply #1110 on: September 09, 2007, 02:25:36 PM »

Weezo, the debate you and Bob are having can go on forever, around and around.  That Knickerbockian Washington Irving once remarked (paraphrasing) a curiousity as to why those grand Dutch men didn't take the comely Indian women to wife.  that there was no sense to be made in them living in lonely batchelorhood (there were lots more men pioneers than women) till Dutch women could be imported.  That the Indian ladies were worthy lovelies. In fact, as men moved West they did begin to take Indian women as wives (or at least consorts,) some unions lasting for life, others not so when the men again moved farther West.
Logged
weezo
Poll Manager
Superhero Member
****
Posts: 3431


Resue when he was a cute little kitten


View Profile WWW

Ignore
« Reply #1111 on: September 09, 2007, 04:44:54 PM »

Donot,

There was a lot of mention in the Jamestown Narratives about the proscription against marrying and moving in with the Natives. Many a hungry Jamestowner tried to move into a tribe, but was traded back to Jamestown in lieu of war between Jamestown and the Natives, only to be executed for having wanted a good meal and friendly company. The leaders at Jamestown perceived that the Indians lived a lazy and indolent life, with their wives doing all the work (which archeologists such a Roundtree refute), and preferred to execute those who tried it rather than let them live having had a taste of "the good life" without being born to it as "noblemen" and "gentlemen". When he was the leader, John Smith tried to enforce a rule "those who don't work, don't eat", and it is interesting that the worse "starving time" occured after he sailed back to England and once again, those born to a "higher station" expected to play all day instead of work. But these were the same people who wrote letters and diaries stating that the Indians were lazy!



Logged
Bob
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 671


View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #1112 on: September 09, 2007, 05:00:32 PM »

Quote
...highly speculative to assume that the world is better off with the Indians dispossessed and the white man in charge of the country. If the Europeans hadn't come to conquer, and had come to live here with the Indians, the world and the country would probably be better off.

Highly speculative!!!! That's exactly what happened. it'sw not speculative at all, its reality. But they didn't come here  to live with the Indians, that's also reality!!!

An the reality is that a piece of you wouldn't be here, because your abcestors would probably have stayed where they were, because there wouldn't have been a United States of America.

And the Indians were as stifled and stagnant as portrayed. That's not an excuse to justify anything. That's what any anthropolgist will tell you. They never wanted to change and to a great extent tens of thousands remain on reservations as a result of their inabilty or refusal to change. If they were so advanced one would think they'd figure it out by now that in keeping their traditions they way they do they're stuck where they are. The smart ones left the resevations and never went back.
Logged
Bob
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 671


View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #1113 on: September 09, 2007, 05:06:21 PM »

The problem in Jamestown with those who refused to work had nothing to do with laziness. It had everything to do with brinjging over a class of citizenry called "Gentlemen."  Therewere too many gentlemen in Jamestown and not enough laborers. Gentleman was a title and a status. Gentlemen did not work.
Logged
weezo
Poll Manager
Superhero Member
****
Posts: 3431


Resue when he was a cute little kitten


View Profile WWW

Ignore
« Reply #1114 on: September 09, 2007, 05:47:05 PM »

Bob,

About half of my ancesters go back to before there was a United States, just Penn's Woods, and the urge to get rid of the forests and have nice open fields everywhere.

Any politician will tell you that he/she will preserve the "traditions" of our great country. Why should the Natives have changed their "Traditions" just because some interlopers came on the scene. For the most part, Natives were not encourage to change, except to either become slaves to the newcomers, or to adopt the religion of the newcomers. Those at Jamestown were told to limit their trading to inconsequental trinkets rather than the metal tools and guns the Natives wanted to trade for. Sure, shiney beads may catch your eye one day, but a hoe means a lot less back-breaking work in the fields. Have you read the Jamestown Narratives? If you read it after Roundtree, it makes you want to go punch those "settlers" in the eye!

It was interesting in reading the Glorious Defeat, that at the time, Americans perceived Mexicans to be very lazy, just as they did the Natives. Yet, local folks who have employed the Mexicans on their farms tell me they are very hard workers.

And, I am really not impressed with the idea that "gentlemen" shouldn't have to "work" to be fed. They were all in a bad situation, and those who styled themselves "gentlemen" were lazier than the Natives they disdained. I know I am looking at 17th century issues through 21st century eyes, but it is a good way to view the "reality", which was that some chose to be lazy and to profit without cause from the labors of the others. And, they were the ones who wrote the literature that says that the Natives were lazy. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
Logged
nytempsperdu
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 402


View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #1115 on: September 09, 2007, 06:36:16 PM »

Quote
The problem in Jamestown with those who refused to work had nothing to do with laziness. It had everything to do with brinjging over a class of citizenry called "Gentlemen."  Therewere too many gentlemen in Jamestown and not enough laborers. Gentleman was a title and a status. Gentlemen did not work.

Whether they were lazy individuals or not, they certainly lacked the necessary skills.  Then too, if they could trade or raid for their needs, why learn those skills?  The crunch came when unfavorable weather or other conditions made for a starving time for settlers and natives. 

The Rountree book sure put paid to the "Noble Savage" (a European idea, btw--Rousseau wasn't it?) idea of peaceable natives living in harmony with nature and their kind until their despoilation by wicked and corrupt Europeans--so many mini-empires were being built, so many alliances between and among tribes and families, and intrigue galore, it was almost refreshing, in a way.  
« Last Edit: September 09, 2007, 06:37:55 PM by nytempsperdu » Logged
weezo
Poll Manager
Superhero Member
****
Posts: 3431


Resue when he was a cute little kitten


View Profile WWW

Ignore
« Reply #1116 on: September 09, 2007, 08:23:30 PM »

NY Temps,

You may remember reading in Roundtree that the Natives had a good backup for "starving times" - in the first year or two of drought, they would increase hunting, and would harvest the Tuckahoe roots, that, if less tasty, did fill their bellies. They also could collect other roots and plants from the forests, that is they could, until the settlers turned their livestock to roam in the woods to eat up all the foragable foods. During the "starving time" of 1608-09, the Natives had enough to eat, but not enough to also feed the settlers. During 1607, the brought food to the settlers, but after the settlers let a year go without growing their own corn, the Natives were understandably reluctant to give away that which they had worked so hard to raise. And, who was it that the Jamestown folk said were lazy and indolent? Not themselves, of course, it was those lazy Natives who were stingy with their food and didn't show the proper respect for their "betters".

Actually, as long as the Natives were allowed to live on their land unencumbered, they lived comfortably. It was when the were forced west, off their own land, onto the land of other Natives, and then further west onto the desert, that they had a hard time keeping themselves in what they considered "comfort".

I remember some decades back, perhaps the sixties, reading about how awful it was that the Natives would not accept food stamps, but continued to demand they be given their land to live on as they chose. They refused to be induced to live on "charity", and wanted to make their own way as they had traditionally done.

It is true that the Natives had not yet discovered metals and were still using stone and wooden tools. But, today, there are many countries that have not yet discovered their nuclear potential. Look at how we treat those countries (like Iran, Pakistan, etc.) who are trying to develop their nuclear potential. We threaten them to stop developing their "skills" and expanding their "technology".
Logged
Shirley Marcus
Newbie
*
Posts: 19


View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #1117 on: September 10, 2007, 12:29:12 AM »

   I do not want to vote in a poll.




     I vote for Conquering Gotham. 
Logged
Dzimas
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 4500


I thought you said your name was Nobody.


View Profile WWW

Ignore
« Reply #1118 on: September 10, 2007, 02:41:35 AM »

And the Indians were as stifled and stagnant as portrayed. That's not an excuse to justify anything. That's what any anthropolgist will tell you. They never wanted to change and to a great extent tens of thousands remain on reservations as a result of their inabilty or refusal to change. If they were so advanced one would think they'd figure it out by now that in keeping their traditions they way they do they're stuck where they are. The smart ones left the resevations and never went back.

The issue of sustainability kind of turns this argument on its ear, Bob.  I see your point, but as we are finding out today the industrial revolution has wreaked incredible damage on nature and society, so the more passive form of living with the land would have stood us in better stead.  Not that the native Americans didn't overdevelop, in cases like the Anasazi, but nowhere to the degree we do today, taxing our natural resources to the breaking part. 

But, it seems the Indians have learned a few things from the Whites, life on the Rez isn't so bad these days with all the casinos, golf courses, spas and what not that provide valuable income to the reservations, not to mention mineral resources.  Interesting that the Seminoles chose to buy Hard Rock Cafe.  Many tribal councils have made interesting investments over the years, and those investments are paying big dividends.

But, there is a lot we could have learned from the native Americans, had we chose to do so.  As it is, the early settlers owed a lot to the local natives for their survival in those beginning years.
Logged
thanatopsy
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 501



View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #1119 on: September 10, 2007, 08:44:26 AM »


Four votes for Conquering Gotham.

It appears that we have a general consensus.

I propose that we agree to reading this captivating book and request that we set a tentative starting date.
Logged

''Love much & be forgiven''

- - - Margaret Fuller
Dzimas
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 4500


I thought you said your name was Nobody.


View Profile WWW

Ignore
« Reply #1120 on: September 10, 2007, 09:39:59 AM »

October 1 would be good for me.  I ordered the book this morning from amazon.co.uk.  Usually, takes a week to get here from London.
Logged
madupont
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 5413


View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #1121 on: September 10, 2007, 10:58:54 AM »

Bob,
I was going to comment on your post last night but was in the throes of a big physical maintenance problem and lost track. I forgot to look at your post number, at 8:55a.m, a snip of a quote,

"in fact they were as warlike as we are and in a very primitive state and not progressing at all, but in stalled cultural status."

I had an interesting experience in that regard at about the time that the senior Bush dived into his Gulf War. My cousin contacted me, I had not heard from her since 1948-49(?), and I think she wheedled my address from my sister. She was older than me by about ten or more years and her parents were deceased for some time by then; but she wanted me to know that her husband was doing anthropology-historic research and that they had moved to New Mexico and that's what I'm getting at because it backs up the quote from your post.

(you may not recall, but it was her father who was the reservation doctor at San Carlos among the Apache in the 1930s, coming down from Cibique,in Arizona up until and during WW2)

Anyway, I read her husband's book, I wish that I could off the top of my head recall the publisher but I can assure you that it is a university press from a Western school that specializes in Native American studies and the publication of continuing research. His special area was the Sioux, and I was interested but, as this was before I encountered your work in these  forums of American History, I am sorry that I did not take careful note of title, author, press, and especially the contents covering a number of  tribal wars, and the spiritual movements, which is touched on in about one line from the well-known production for tv: Bury my Heart at Wounded Knee, in which one of the military officers, sounding like some contemporary in our day, makes a non-refutable criticism that the Sioux ought to accept the reservation land at value offered and that contrary to  critical remarks by great battle warriors speaking against the deal,this is the best deal they can expect because,(paraphrase)"before we settled this situation, you were raiding other tribes as far north as Canadian territory, mercilessly plundering their hunting territories, starving them off at the same time that you were driving them off into dependence upon the mercies of other hostiles".

Be that as it may.  As I thoroughly read the account, with foot-notes of the research by my cousin's husband, it did impress upon me that some of the long term European conclusions of the Romantic native child of nature ( in fact, I find Gunther Grass, not by-passing the popular authors  of his youth[on this topic], in his recent account of his life ) of course even found the "wars" romantic. It certainly was not neglected as a given over here either, when in the same period of time I went to see the latest production of James Fennimore Cooper's,The Last of the Mohicans (which was a delightful movie by the way, I understood the French-speaking  indigenous leaders perfectly as they parlayed with a translator delivering the news to the British, nice touch that, but this made them none the less violent in their savagery.

Of course, the war went on in the Gulf, prelude to how shocked and awed we were as it resumed in Iraq, and I closed the book that I may have interlibrary loaned(?) reminded how things had been here in America on the northern Plains west of the Mississippi.

So, I stand by your quote but also ponder if not possibly we as well are not also "... in a very primitive state and not progressing at all, but in stalled cultural status." ("warlike as we are")

« Last Edit: September 10, 2007, 11:05:40 AM by madupont » Logged
caclark
Guest

« Reply #1122 on: September 10, 2007, 12:09:36 PM »

".....the reason why I got such a kick out of 1421, since it, as have other books I've read in recent years, takes a whack at knocking Columbus off that pedestal he climbed on!"

That admission tends to confirm what’s been obvious throughout this discussion and that is that Menzies is credible to you primarily because he offers an alternate history that you wish to believe no matter how strained its probability or how unprofessional his 'scholarship.' It's stated over and over again in your rants which are as repetitious as they are shrill. But your rants never give me pause for reflection. They just give me a headache.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2007, 12:50:37 PM by caclark » Logged
Bob
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 671


View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #1123 on: September 10, 2007, 09:08:25 PM »

Quote
Weezo, the debate you and Bob are having can go on forever, around and around

"I see," said the blindman. I agree--enough is enough. Thanks for bringing up the obvious.
Logged
Bob
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 671


View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #1124 on: September 10, 2007, 09:17:53 PM »

The above reminds me of Barrba Tuchman's comment on research. Speaking of writing books she pointed out that the writer or the historian has to put an end to research at a given point, lest it go on so far as to retard the writing of the book itself. She used as an example a brilliant researcher who got so far into researching her subect that she spent  decades researching and  became an absolute expert on it but failed to put anything in writing and thus nobody knew the results of all her reasearch--what a tragic loss.

It's the same with discussions when two points of view are exposed over and over again using different data, intrerest  wanes and redundancy leads nowhere. 
« Last Edit: September 10, 2007, 09:31:38 PM by Bob » Logged
Pages: 1 ... 73 74 [75] 76 77 ... 165
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!