American History

[Bob]

"Biggest mistake America made was to leave the empire."

Lordy, lordy, lodbroket--surely you jest.

Are you going to join us in the discussion of Pocahontas? 

[Bob]

I just noticed the authors name is ROUNTREE rather than Roundtree. Sorry

[thanatopsy]

Biggest mistake America made was to leave the empire. Just look at the mess you are in now. A queen rather than a buffoon would have altered all the current problems.

She sure hasn't done very much to stop that nitwit at # 10. But, you may be right.

[weezo]

If we hadn't left the empire, the nitwit at #10 would be our nitwit, along with the nitwit on Pennsylvania Avenue. Could we handle 'em both?

[Bob]

Biggest mistake America made was to leave the empire. Just look at the mess you are in now. A queen rather than a buffoon would have altered all the current problems.

The Queen couldn't alter the width of a street without the permission of her government. The Queen's government is outside of her control. Besides, isn't she the one who accepted the government of present Prime Minister. And if I'm not mistaken he not approved of the buffoon's policy, but pushed it, aided it and abetted it all along the route even unto today. I don't see that the Quenn ever tried to alter that. It was the people  who got the message across--not the monarch. If history serves me, I think the last time a British Monarch ever had any say about who constituted the government was George VI who objected to Lord Halifax and made known his preference for Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill.  That was 67 years ago or so.

The biggest mistake the British made was not making an accomodation with the revolutionaries when they had a chance. We started the Revolution with a view of staying in the empire. At the end of seven years the British Parliament opted to give up, not to fund the war any longer. We didn't win the Revolution, the British gave up.Yorktown was merely the last straw---not a decisive war winning victory, but an embarrassing rout that caused the British to throw up their arms and say---ENOUGH!!! They had had it with the war and like us in Vietnam just wanted to get out...so they told the monarch  that anmd that was that --so much for the power of the Monarch and mistakes.

[Donotremove]

Bob, I wish you'd warn me when you are going to take all the air out of an argument for/against an issue/idea so I can get out of the way of falling objects.  Beautiful job you did on the monarchy's ability to do much more than make the society pages and, while speading goodwill, make us all feel warm and fuzzy.  But heck, feller.  That deflated mess just dropped on my big toe.  Ouch. 

[weezo]

DNR,

Oh, your poor big toe!

The monarchy of England have been powerless for some time now. They are just for show and tell. And, the many children in Richmond will have much to tell about this week.

The word from those who know, is that the Native Americans gave the Queen an Onyx Brooch inside that shell decorated with feathers. Governor Kaine gave her two Jefferson Books, one a very rare early edition with a woodcut of Natural Bridge.

BTW, I have been asked to put in a bid on writing 27 80-page children's books, but I have no idea how much the bid could be. I do not have to do illustrations, but have to use certain words and words that contain certain letter combinations. Any suggestions? I know this is off topic, but I hope maybe some book folks may be able to help.
Apologies if this is out of line. Thanks.

Anne

[Bob]

I just find it amazing there are comparisons between the American Revolution and the Vietnam War. Barbara Tuchman wrote a book about it. We in Vietnam almost exactly what the British did in the American Revolution with regard to ending the war. In both instances the major power opted out after the revolutionaries persisted against all odds. In both instances the legislature cut off funds, or threatened to do so, in both instances public opinion had turned against the war. Lord North literally threw up his hands on hearing of Yorktown and said "Oh God, it's all over." He then went before Parliament and made a speech against continuing the war--this led to a confidence vote  and his resignation and the appointment of Rockingham, an anti-war MP hated by the King, as Prime Minister. Rockingham then led the way to negotiations for peace in spite of the wishes of the monarch---so much for the power of the monarch regarding wars even then....George the III was George the II of 1782--leader of buffoons international.

Now we sit In Iraq--creation of the British--being  called buffoons, when, in reality it was the bunch of buffoons across the pond who laid the groundwork when they "created" a state doomed to fall apart if not ruled  autocratically from above. We, in the name of Democracy, thought we were so smart marching into Baghdad waiting for the roses to be strewn only to find bombs being thrown at us. John Warner put it right when he came back from one of his trips to Iraq and was asked what he learned  while he was over there; he replied: the next time maybe we ought to learn the history and culture of the nation before we decide to invade it!! Well said, Senator.

[Bob]

"I do not have to do illustrations, but have to use certain words and words that contain certain letter combinations. Any suggestions? I know this is off topic, but I hope maybe some book folks may be able to help."

Do they tell you what words  and letter combinations they want you to use? Do they give you topics?

[weezo]

Bob,

No topice, but they do provide the letter sets and the words they want in the story. Based on the time I took me to do my own alphabet books which were very formulmatic and each used words that could be illustrated from clip art according to the beginning letter, I should be able to do the set of books in a month, if I put in eight hours a day, longer if I stretch it out, but about 160-200 hours. I have no idea what the per hour or per book value of such work is. I have seen such types of books and they are usually pretty dreary and not at all entertaining, so I want to do better if I write them.

Thanks for any and all suggestions.

[Donotremove]

Bob, thanks for the American revolution info.  I wasn't aware the British just gave up like we did (thank the gods) in Vietnam.

Weezo, I know nothing about the making of children's books.  I am a consumer.  I buy children's books for myself because I like them ("If You Give a Mouse a Cookie"), and to read to my great granddaughter, Chrissy, although she is a super active three year old child who will not sit still long--she'll let me read while she shoots baskets, for instance.

I love to talk about children's books, and hear other folks talk about them.  Perhaps we should have a Children's Books discussion?  At any rate, such talk, for now, probably belongs in Meander.

[weezo]

DNR,

I have posted my question on Meander. Until now, I didn't know what that thread was. It seems it will be interesting, so thank you for suggesting it.

A lot of my children's books are about history, since I am excited about history myself, and loath the boring books that are given to children to read about people in history. The history books take longer to write than the other genre, since I used up all the people I knew enough about to write without research, and am now having to do more than a quick trip to google to research my history stories. If you want to check them out for your granddaughter, you can find them at: http://www.educationalsynthesis.org/books .... They are personalized books, which may hold the little miss' attention a bit longer. She may enjoy the book under "Folk Tales" called the Talent contest, if she is like so many little girls who picture themselves as a "princess".

Now, back to Pocahontas.

Today's email from Virginia Historians stated that the Onyx Broach given by the Natives to QEII on Thursday is a replica of one worn by Pocahontas when she was in London. I will be looking for a picture of it, and if I find it, I will share the link.

[Bob]

POCHAHONTAS  POWHATAN  AND OPECHANCANOUGH

In her introduction, Rountree points out she will present the story from the Indian point of view. This  is a growing trend in Indian history as it overcomes, or attempts to overcome, past bias towards the European
ethnocentrism. One of the first things she makes clear is that the Indians, the Powhatans, did not believe the Europeans had any right to settle anywhere in their land. Thus she doesn't use the word "colonist" since it implies some sort of right on the part of the strangers. Instead throughout the text she uses words which were probably used by the Powhatans to designate the people of Jamestown---tassantassa (strangers). She also separates the year into the seasons as seen by the Powhatan rather than in months as seen by the Europeans.  Food getting, she says, was far more important to the natives than the position of the moon.  at any given time.

She also "uses"  John Smith from the native viewpoint, assigning him the position of a foreign prisoner who agreed to become  a subject of their land and chief in order to be freed. The Powhatans judged his behaviors based on his promise and his failure to follow through with it. The English, of course, judge his behaviors from an entirely different perspective.  In the book he is not referred to as John Smith, but rather as Chawnzmit as the Powhatans  called him.

Lastly she does not refer to the events of 1622 and 1624 as massacres even though they were massacres from the European viewpoint. The Powhatans viewed them as "great assaults" and so does she.

So let's begin the discussion, keeping in mind  the book is a presentation from the view of the Powhatans and that the author is very well credentialed to tell it.

I  found it a bit choppy in style due to the Powhatan names and terminology. I  don't think I was alone in that....but I found it one of the more interesting and informative books I've read in a long time. I'm about to finish it in a day or so....I look forward to the discussion.

[Bob]

Sometimes I like to go through a book chapter by chapter, other times  its better to go through on  a theme basis, a subject , going through the book at random. Can we start with Chapter One and see how it goes? WE can always switch midstream.  (I'm experimenting to see if the color section works--I might use it for special effects).

[Bob]

That looks nice----

Right off the bat in Chapter one  Rountree tells us the Powhatans arrived in their country (Tsenacomoco) about 200 AD. That's about 1400 years before John Smith. They were of the Alogonquian speaking peoples who inhabited the American East Coast and who engaged in agricultural and foraging  pursuits since about 1000AD.