Disaster near San Diego

On Nov 23, 4:26*am, schwarzesonne >
wrote:
> On Nov 22, 10:54*am, Oci-One Kanubi > wrote:
>
> > And of course, said "international law" was agreed to (if formal
> > agreement existed at all) by the imperial nations. *I doubt the
> > inhabitants of the "uninhabited territories" were consulted in the
> > course of the ratification of such "international law".
>
> Why should any civilized nation with gunpowder and blunderbusses ask
> the mud people living in brush huts for their opinion where "progress"
> is concerned?
>
> And which savage or tribe of savages do you make a treaty with?
>
> What types of international laws were operative during the development
> of the New World?
>
> If I was a European explorer in 1650 and I found an attractive
> uninhabited coast with good fishing or tall stands of timber, or
> exotic spices, I could add the valuable land to my sovereign majesty's
> littoral empire under the doctrine of "terra nullius," i.e., "no man's
> land." (1)
>
> Captain John Smith of Jamestown and Pocahontas fame explored the area
> around Massachusetts Bay in 1612 and met friendly Indians (who wanted
> to ally with the English against hostile tribes).
>
> Smith returned to England and published a prospectus regarding the
> possible commercial development of the pristine "New England."
>
> It seems that the English had cut down most of the Great Caledonian
> Woods centuries before, in order to make charcoal to manufacture iron
> and steel, so wood was at a premium in the British Isles...
>
> So the various companies of English gentlemen, among whom were my
> ancestors, sold shares and raised money and built merchantmen sailing
> ships and proceeded with the development of New England.
>
> They bought land outright from the Indians, in *fee simple*, but the
> unsophisticated Indians knew nothing of *real estate* (which is
> basically the concept that the *king* of a country owns all land and
> can parcel it out as he pleases).
>
> The Indians often thought that the gifts the White men brought were
> offered to secure *military alliances* against their enemies and
> didn't realize that they were giving up hunting and fishing rights to
> the lands they'd ceded.
>
> Some aggrieved individual Indians would go "on the war path," in an
> attempt to regain ancestral territories, but they usually couldn't
> even count on the support of their entire *clan*, let alone the
> support of their whole tribe.
>
> Only a few war chiefs, like Tecumseh, Black Hawk, Geronimo, Sitting
> Bull, etc., were able to get whole Indian nations organized against
> European expansion, and of course they failed because they couldn't
> stand in the way of progress.
>
> Even today, if your house stands in the way of a new avenue leading to
> a Super Dooper Supreme Wal*Mart and shopping mall, you're going to get
> pushed out of the way of commercial "progress" under the doctrine of
> "eminent domain."
>
> You're one individual, standing alone against the behemoth of
> comercialism...
>
> > The whole idea reeks of the concept that "the winners write the
> > history books". *And the laws.
>
> The Native Americans had *no laws*, they had *customs*. There was no
> Indian police force to enforce non-existant laws, but there were
> "shirts" (leaders who wore buckskin shirts) and "club men" (who would
> beat persons who violated traditional customs.)
>
> The Native Americans (with the exception of the Tsalagi aka
> "Cherokee") had no written language, so they couldn't have written
> their history or laws if they'd wanted to.
>
> Sometimes they did record their tribal history in the form of
> pictographs on buckskin or petroglyphs on rocks, but only one shaman
> and his disciples would know what the pictures meant...
>
> > I, as an American citizen, am quite satisfied with the way things
> > worked out, but I don't stick my head in the sand and pretend that our
> > ancestors had much of a moral leg to stand upon.
>
> Well, the USA would have been a deluded nation if it hadn't taken care
> of the grandchildren of the English colonists who settled the Atlantic
> seaboard, would it?
>
> During the 1820's, the USA opened up land in Ohio and Missouri for
> homesteading by veterans of the American Revolution and the War of
> 1812.
>
> That's why my great great great grandfather moved his family from New
> Hampshire to Ohio.
>
> He couldn't enter Indiana and Illinois until the savages were
> pacified.
>
> My great great grandfather homesteaded Missouri after the savages were
> pacified.
>
> My great grandfather homesteaded Nebraska after the savages were
> pacified.
>
> > At the same time, I am not overwhelmed by the nobility of "the noble red man," > either.
>
> The concept of the "noble savage" was invented by romanticists in the
> late 19th century, in order to sell cheap reading material to an
> ignorant public that was starved for entertainment other than church
> on Sunday and prayer meeetings on Wednesday.
>
> > Peeps is peeps, yanno?
>
> American socialists *need* social equality to give Americans the
> impression that "all men are created equal" so they can push us around
> like sheep.
>
> The international communists fostered dissatifaction amongst the
> European workers from the French Revolution, through the German
> revolution (and other European revolutions of the middle 19th century,
> up to the point of the Russian revolution of 1917.
>
> The idea was simple. The socialists told the workers that the nobility
> had usurped all land and wealth and that it should be redistributed
> amongst the common people.
>
> However, the common people are *not* geniuses and entrepreneurs like
> my English ancestors, and, having been handed wealth in the form of
> money or lands will *squander* said wealth, and it will eventually
> trickle *upwards*, into the hands of humans of superior intelligence
> and managerial acumen.
>
> (1) If I'd been a rancher back in the 1850's, herding cattle on the
> *open range*, and I found a dogie without a brand and it wasn't
> following its mother, all I had to do was lasso it and burn my brand
> on it and it was indisputably mine under the doctrine of "res
> nullius," i.e., "no man's thing."
>
> If I was a pioneer, seeking free farm land in a new state of the
> Union, or a territory thereof, I could *squat* on desirable land until
> it was opened for homesteading, and then I would have first priority
> at the government land office.

The whole post = "Might makes Right" no matter how you try to avoid
it.

Harry K

"TOG@Toil" > wrote
schwarzesonne > wrote:

>> Of the 100 brave English souls who set forth on this epic voyage of
>> colonization, only 50 survived the first winter. Yet the survivors
>> sired *millions* of American citizens

> Not unless their descendants were remarkably inbred.

They were. Note the distances to other colonies.

St. Augustine in the northeast section of Florida, founded in 1565 by
Spanish explorer Pedro Menéndez de Avilés, it is the oldest continuously
occupied European-established city and port in the continental United States

Roanoke Island is best known in European-American history for its historical
significance as the site of Sir Walter Raleigh's attempt to establish a
permanent English settlement with his Roanoke Colony in 1585.

The Jamestown Settlement Colony was the first successful English settlement
on the mainland of North America.[1] Named for King James I of England,
Jamestown was founded in the Colony of Virginia on May 14, 1607. Thirteen
years later ....

Plymouth Colony was an English colonial venture in North America from 1620
to 1691. Founded by a group of separatists and anglicans, who together later
came to be known as the Pilgrim Fathers. Ultimately, the colony was annexed
by the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1691.

Check out the List of British colonies in North America
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British...ent_in_america

On Nov 23, 4:23*pm, "Vito" > wrote:
> "TOG@Toil" > wrote
>
> schwarzesonne > wrote:
> >> Of the 100 brave English souls who set forth on this epic voyage of
> >> colonization, only 50 survived the first winter. Yet the survivors
> >> sired *millions* of American citizens
> > Not unless their descendants were remarkably inbred.
>
> They were.

Whoosh

On Nov 23, 7:16*am, Harry K > wrote:

> I think you are overly sensitive. His statement is correct. The
> pilgrims _were_ foriegners.

That is patently absurd. The Pilgrims and the Puritans and the
colonists of every other colony settled their particular region with
the *explicit permission* of whatever king sat on the English throne
at the time.

They had royal charters to settle and develop the area and to save the
souls of the heathen Indians.

The colonists brought an appointed English governor with them and they
spent English money and the free men of the colony could travel back
and forth between
the different parts of the realm.

So far as the Indians were concerned, they had only wandered into New
England about 150 years before, and the area had already been
colonized by Europeans
(Norse and Irish) 500 years before, as evidenced by stone buildings
that the Indians denied erecting.

On Nov 23, 7:21*am, Harry K > wrote:

> The whole post = "Might makes Right" no matter how you try to avoid
> it.

"History is the record of violent struggles between peoples."---A.
Hitler.

"schwarzesonne" > wrote in message
...
On Nov 23, 7:16 am, Harry K > wrote:

> I think you are overly sensitive. His statement is correct. The
> pilgrims _were_ foriegners.

That is patently absurd. The Pilgrims and the Puritans and the
colonists of every other colony settled their particular region with
the *explicit permission* of whatever king sat on the English throne
at the time.

They had royal charters to settle and develop the area and to save the
souls of the heathen Indians.

The colonists brought an appointed English governor with them and they
spent English money and the free men of the colony could travel back
and forth between
the different parts of the realm.

So far as the Indians were concerned, they had only wandered into New
England about 150 years before, and the area had already been
colonized by Europeans
(Norse and Irish) 500 years before, as evidenced by stone buildings
that the Indians denied erecting.

Yes but no amount of royal charters and the like, make it legal, and if it's
not legal then they must be illegal immigrants, mind you if this is true
where does that leave both our countries regarding the Middle East. Ken
(from a small country called England and even more confused)

On Nov 23, 10:40*am, "ken" <robin.*******@ ntlworld.com> wrote:

> Yes but no amount of royal charters and the like, make it legal, and if it's
> not legal then they must be illegal immigrants

That is absurd, and you're making yourself sound like that retarded
kiwi who called himself BrianNZ. I could explain the true history of
the American colonies over and over and he would keep coming back with
a bunch of liberal socialist *bull***** just like you're doing.

The fledgling British empire was the law on the Atlantic seaboard of
North America from about 1615 on.and the English colonists were
beholden to the king's law and royal pleasure and they obeyed English
law.

The sabage Indians, OTOH, had NO laws whatever, only customs. They had
no concept of immigration and settling down to develop private
property, they were nomadic wanderers themselves who practiced slash
and burn agriculture and then wandered on.

> mind you if this is true where does that leave both our countries regarding
> the Middle East.

Europe battled the Muslim invaders from the 7th century until the 16th
century, when they finally evicted *most* of them, except for those
who remained in the Balkan states.

But that was when kings and emperors had *balls*.

If the modern European governments weren't overwhelmed with fatuous
notions of
"human rights", they would round up all the third world immigrants and
deport them.

However, at the rate things are going now, one expert on Islam
predicted that all of Europe would be Muslim by the end of this
century.

And how are you going to like having to make the choice of being a
Muslim 2nd class citizen or a Christian 3rd class citizen of England.

The supposed descendants of Muhammad will be the rulers of Europe,
yannow, and Christians will have to pay taxes to the Muslims...

Dave Head wrote:


>
>>What a maroon!
>
>
> That's moron, and I know you are, what am I?

Your education apparently did not include Bugs Bunny cartoons.

On Nov 23, 11:39*am, Sam Spade > wrote:
> Dave Head wrote:
>
> >>What a maroon!
>
> > That's moron, and I know you are, what am I?
>
> Your education apparently did not include Bugs Bunny cartoons.

I wonder if the Bugs Bunny script writers had any concept whatever
that there are real people in this world who are called "Maroons"...

I know that Poison Pete doesn't give a **** about the Maroons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maroon_(people)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cimarron_people_(Panama)

"TOG@Toil" > wrote in message
...
On Nov 23, 4:23 pm, "Vito" > wrote:
> "TOG@Toil" > wrote
>
> schwarzesonne > wrote:
> >> Of the 100 brave English souls who set forth on this epic voyage of
> >> colonization, only 50 survived the first winter. Yet the survivors
> >> sired *millions* of American citizens
> > Not unless their descendants were remarkably inbred.
>
> They were.

> Whoosh
No, I'm just willing to admit it.