I wonder if CN wished they still had the Ottawa Valley route available to detour around the blockade at Belleville.
tree68In some ways, I see a parallel with the Amish vs the "English," chiefly in that the First Nations seem to want to hold on to their heritage, despite technology, etc moving forward
Your comment forced me to think.
And after the pain wore off, I started remembering how both the French and the British exploited the native Americans as pawns in their dirty dealings between one another, as well as against the fledgling United States. (think time period from the 6 years war up to and including the war of 1812, just as a generality)
Memories can be long, especially for promises made but never kept.
One can hardly blame the first nations people for being skeptical of euro-american pleas for reason.
Convicted OneO
Convicted OneOne can hardly blame the first nations people for being skeptical of euro-american pleas for reason.
Agreed.
Don't forget Queen Anne's War (early 18th century) and the French and Indian War (mid-18th century), which were related to the continental wars of the time.
Johnny
BaltACD Flintlock76 charlie hebdo Unless many years ago, I rode behind CB&Q 5632 part of the time in a gondola. I was covered with oil residue. Not surprised, 5632 was an oil burner, and probably not burning it well. But were you happy? When I was first assigned to Baltimore Terminal as a Terminal Trainmaster - all the B&O yard engines were Fairbank-Morris models - when ever they got placed under load they were also 'oil burners'. The prime movers may have performed well in their marine applications - being nominally operated under steady load conditions. In railroad service, the constant reving and decelerating as well as the continual impacts of couplings didn't favor the 'economical' operation of those prime movers. My daily driver (as well as other employees vehicles) would be pelted by the escaping oil.
Flintlock76 charlie hebdo Unless many years ago, I rode behind CB&Q 5632 part of the time in a gondola. I was covered with oil residue. Not surprised, 5632 was an oil burner, and probably not burning it well. But were you happy?
charlie hebdo Unless many years ago, I rode behind CB&Q 5632 part of the time in a gondola. I was covered with oil residue.
Unless many years ago, I rode behind CB&Q 5632 part of the time in a gondola. I was covered with oil residue.
Not surprised, 5632 was an oil burner, and probably not burning it well. But were you happy?
When I was first assigned to Baltimore Terminal as a Terminal Trainmaster - all the B&O yard engines were Fairbank-Morris models - when ever they got placed under load they were also 'oil burners'. The prime movers may have performed well in their marine applications - being nominally operated under steady load conditions. In railroad service, the constant reving and decelerating as well as the continual impacts of couplings didn't favor the 'economical' operation of those prime movers. My daily driver (as well as other employees vehicles) would be pelted by the escaping oil.
Reminds me of something Mike Bednar said about Fairbanks-Morse Trainmasters, crews always, always preferred to run them short hood forward. Run them long hood forward and diesel fumes (among other things) would drift into the cab nauseating the head-end crews.
Convicted One tree68 In some ways, I see a parallel with the Amish vs the "English," chiefly in that the First Nations seem to want to hold on to their heritage, despite technology, etc moving forward Your comment forced me to think. And after the pain wore off, I started remembering how both the French and the British exploited the native Americans as pawns in their dirty dealings between one another, as well as against the fledgling United States. (think time period from the 6 years war up to and including the war of 1812, just as a generality) Memories can be long, especially for promises made but never kept. One can hardly blame the first nations people for being skeptical of euro-american pleas for reason.
tree68 In some ways, I see a parallel with the Amish vs the "English," chiefly in that the First Nations seem to want to hold on to their heritage, despite technology, etc moving forward
The Americans, whether as colonials or as members of a new nation, had/have a pretty dismal record with Native Americans through the present.
Thrilled and obviously, even as teen, I was fully aware of 5632's fuel. Good ol' brown soap (Fels Naphta) did the removal trick.
charlie hebdoThe Americans, whether as colonials or as members of a new nation, had/have a pretty dismal record with Native Americans through the present.
Unfortunately, there is no written record of Native American history prior to the arrival of the Europeans. I do recall reading that it wasn't unheard of (according to lore) for one tribe to chase another out of a territory - and they weren't always gentle about it.
The very fact that a confederacy of Iroquois nations in NY (originally the Five Nations, now the Six Nations) was formed suggests that perhaps things weren't as amiable beforehand.
The name "Adirondack" is derived from a derogatory term used by the Mohawk to describe the Algonquin. It literally means "tree eaters."
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
tree68 charlie hebdo The Americans, whether as colonials or as members of a new nation, had/have a pretty dismal record with Native Americans through the present. Unfortunately, there is no written record of Native American history prior to the arrival of the Europeans. I do recall reading that it wasn't unheard of (according to lore) for one tribe to chase another out of a territory - and they weren't always gentle about it. The very fact that a confederacy of Iroquois nations in NY (originally the Five Nations, now the Six Nations) was formed suggests that perhaps things weren't as amiable beforehand. The name "Adirondack" is derived from a derogatory term used by the Mohawk to describe the Algonquin. It literally means "tree eaters."
charlie hebdo The Americans, whether as colonials or as members of a new nation, had/have a pretty dismal record with Native Americans through the present.
Not a written record as such, but oral historys abound. This wasn't a paradise for the native peoples before the whites showed up. The tribes made war on each other, enslaved each other, captured and tortured each other, extorted tribute from each other (In some ways the Six Nations of the Iroquois League was like an organized crime syndicate) and had feuds that went way back, like the "hot war, cold war" situation that went on for decades between the Iroquois and Algonquian tribes.
But it is true that the both the English and the French made use of those old animosities when they could make allies out of those warring tribes.
And when the American Revolution began that was the end of the Iroquois League, at least at the time. Some tribes wanted to back the English, some the Americans, some chiefs wisely counseled that it was a white man's war and the tribes should stay completely out of it. Not all agreed.
Human history - on all continents is filled with tribal warfare. The so called advanced nations have managed to expand the size of their tribes into nationalities. The continued issues of violence in the Middle East is based on the realities that they have yet, after multiple millennia to settle their 'minor' tribal differences and form a strong nationality.
Native American continent peoples had the same tribal rivalries, which the US Government exploited in their divide and conquer Indian Wars.
Anytime you have small groups of people competing for the same limited resources you are going to have conflict - that is just human nature, that is just the nature of animals and humans are animals that have developed a samll level of civilization and working for their common good.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Although somewhat true, tree and you to a lesser extent engage in false equivalencies, aka, "whaddaboutism" the last refuge of folks who don't want to face unpleasant truths.
Internecine tribal skirmishes never approached the degree of depopulation or ethnic cleansing (genocide) that the western powers and the US engaged in against the native people, often in a calculated, organized manner.
Don't misunderstand, I'm not using "whaddaboutism" to excuse the ill-treatment of the native peoples by the more advanced and technologically sophisticated whites, far from it. Those who called themselves "Christians" could and should have done a lot better than they did.
You do a lot better in the long run if you lift people up instead of keeping them down.
But don't kid yourself, if tribal wars never hit the level of depopulation or genocide Western Civilization was capable of it's because of their lack of the technology to do so. And if the other tribe can run faster than you...
Kid? I don't think the limited facts support the idea of native people being in frequent warfare. Most of that is our projection of the European history of almost continuous warfare. Technology was quite limited in the first half of the 17th c. Yet the major powers managed to eliminate between one third to one half of the population in the various German states in the Thirty Years War.
tree68Unfortunately, there is no written record of Native American history prior to the arrival of the Europeans.
There was, however, a rather extensive history recorded by a priest who interviewed many many native Americans writing their oral histories, and then sent it off to a library back in europe, I believe ,where it sat unopened for several centuries ....only being studied in earnest in the last century or so. It was recorded in latin I believe.
Can't think of the title to save me, anyone else know the book I'm talking of? It was originally written with the intent that the natives would be easier to convert to christianity IF the teachers had a better understanding of what the natives already believed, so it was written, but then promptly shelved., then forgotten about
charlie hebdoKid? I don't think the limited facts support the idea of native people being in frequent warfare. Most of that is our projection of the European history of almost continuous warfare. Technology was quite limited in the first half of the 17th c. Yet the major powers managed to eliminate between one third to one half of the population in the various German states in the Thirty Years War.
And before the Major Powers were major powers, they were just a aggregation of warring tribes - tribes that through one means or another learned to accept (or dominate) each other and work towards common goals.
The Ethnic warfare in Yougoslavia in the 1990's showed just how tenuous the bonds holding the tribes together from the end of WW I until 1991 were.
The technology of warfare was advanced enough by the 17th Century to cause all the carnage of the Thirty Years War, advances in gunpowder weapons plus the tactics to get the most out of them, a greater sophistication in military organization, and throw in the Protestant versus Catholic fanatacism (Probably the deadliest weapon of all) and it was a perfect recipe for disaster. Throw in disease for good measure too.
It was the excesses of the Thirty Years War that led to the more formalized warfare of the 18th Century as in, "Let's try and keep this limited to the professionals and leave the civilians out of it as best we can!" No one in Europe wanted to repeat the experience of the Thirty Years War and for the most part they didn't, at least not until the Wars of the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars.
Again, the tribes did make frequent war on each other, but don't misunderstand, I'm not saying that fact excuses the European mistreatment of the native peoples.
BaltACD charlie hebdo Kid? I don't think the limited facts support the idea of native people being in frequent warfare. Most of that is our projection of the European history of almost continuous warfare. Technology was quite limited in the first half of the 17th c. Yet the major powers managed to eliminate between one third to one half of the population in the various German states in the Thirty Years War. And before the Major Powers were major powers, they were just a aggregation of warring tribes - tribes that through one means or another learned to accept (or dominate) each other and work towards common goals. The Ethnic warfare in Yougoslavia in the 1990's showed just how tenuous the bonds holding the tribes together from the end of WW I until 1991 were.
charlie hebdo Kid? I don't think the limited facts support the idea of native people being in frequent warfare. Most of that is our projection of the European history of almost continuous warfare. Technology was quite limited in the first half of the 17th c. Yet the major powers managed to eliminate between one third to one half of the population in the various German states in the Thirty Years War.
Nation states were emerging in the early 18th c. in Europe, if not before. The Balkans had been part of various outside empires prior to the latter half of the 19th c. Don't project Eurocentric values on every other region and assume they apply.
Convicted One tree68 Unfortunately, there is no written record of Native American history prior to the arrival of the Europeans. There was, however, a rather extensive history recorded by a priest who interviewed many many native Americans writing their oral histories, and then sent it off to a library back in europe, I believe ,where it sat unopened for several centuries ....only being studied in earnest in the last century or so. It was recorded in latin I believe. Can't think of the title to save me, anyone else know the book I'm talking of? It was originally written with the intent that the natives would be easier to convert to christianity IF the teachers had a better understanding of what the natives already believed, so it was written, but then promptly shelved., then forgotten about
tree68 Unfortunately, there is no written record of Native American history prior to the arrival of the Europeans.
I have a book called "Yucatan -- Before and After the Conquest" which is a translation of the writings of Friar Diego de Landa which may be the one you're thinking of. According to the notes on the back cover, this was "written in Spain to defend himself against charges of despotic mismanagement." Friar Landa had sought out and burned every Mayan book he could find as part of his effort to "wipe out Maya culture and civilization." Ironically, according to these notes most of what we know about the Maya comes from his writings.
As to the statement that there was no written history, we don't know what was in those books. Only one survived, the "Dresden Codex", and as I recall, it is about science and/or math.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
One more thing. I don't know much about the Canadian history with original people in terms of any formal study. I only dimly recall the story my grandfather, who grew up in Toronto, moving to Manhattan in 1895 after UT medical school, told my mother about the Indians (as they were once called) having been badly treated, at least in his opinion.
charlie hebdo BaltACD charlie hebdo Kid? I don't think the limited facts support the idea of native people being in frequent warfare. Most of that is our projection of the European history of almost continuous warfare. Technology was quite limited in the first half of the 17th c. Yet the major powers managed to eliminate between one third to one half of the population in the various German states in the Thirty Years War. And before the Major Powers were major powers, they were just a aggregation of warring tribes - tribes that through one means or another learned to accept (or dominate) each other and work towards common goals. The Ethnic warfare in Yougoslavia in the 1990's showed just how tenuous the bonds holding the tribes together from the end of WW I until 1991 were. Nation states were emerging in the early 18th c. in Europe, if not before. The Balkans had been part of various outside empires prior to the latter half of the 19th c. Don't project Eurocentric values on every other region and assume they apply.
I am only projecting tribal conflicts - be they European or elsewhere be they today or any time in the past. There is a whole history of tribal conflicts involved in the creation of the USSR as well as China that we know next to nothing about - and most likely will never find out.
There is a saying 'All politics is local'. Very true in tribal societies.
charlie hebdoInternecine tribal skirmishes never approached the degree of depopulation or ethnic cleansing (genocide) that the western powers and the US engaged in against the native people, often in a calculated, organized manner.
Very true. Any time one group feels they are superior to another, there will be problems.
I don't live that far from areas that have experienced recent conflicts between the Native American populations and the powers that be. In fact, my property could have be affected by a lawsuit challenging the treaty between the Six Nations and New York State. But my property wasn't part of the land (which ran from the Canadian border to Pennsylvania) that the Six Nations ceded to NY in that treaty.
My point is that the Europeans weren't the first to victimize the natives. And from what I've read, some of those internecine conflicts were quite brutal and did displace the former occupants of a given territory, including here in NY.
Paul of Covington As to the statement that there was no written history, we don't know what was in those books. Only one survived, the "Dresden Codex", and as I recall, it is about science and/or math.
Honest to goodness, I don't know if you were setting me up, or you just got me so close by coincidence that my memory kicked in....but thanks either way.
The book I was trying to recall is actually titled "The Florentine Codex" and is likely the best there is to such a written history, including a contemporary view into how the natives actually felt about all the euro-immigrants at the time.
Another book "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond, although not universally embraced by all experts, is still a very worthwhile read to examine the spread of european influence.
Convicted One Paul of Covington As to the statement that there was no written history, we don't know what was in those books. Only one survived, the "Dresden Codex", and as I recall, it is about science and/or math. Honest to goodness, I don't know if you were setting me up, or you just got me so close by coincidence that my memory kicked in....but thanks either way. The book I was trying to recall is actually titled "The Florentine Codex" and is likely the best there is to such a written history, including a contemporary view into how the natives actually felt about all the euro-immigrants at the time.
Glad I could help, even if it was inadvertent.
After I responded, I reviewed your post and realized that it really didn't fit the description of my book. I'm gonna have to check into yours.
____________
edit: It's available on Kindle, but since it seems to have many illustrations, I may try to get the book.
Not exactly. Did you know that around 1650 the Iroquois from New York came to a place in today's Akron, Ohio and murdered every Erie indian they could? The few survivors were made slaves to their captors and in a generation the Eries were gone forever. That is genocide. I take your point about the scale, however.
I was surpised to learn this 40 years ago because it does seem to go against the usual narrative.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erie_people
Tribal conflicts of the past were every bit as brutal as the technologies of the times would permit. Catapulting corpses of plague infected individuals over castle walls was nothing less than brutal. The fact that we posess even more lethal technologies today does not excuse the methods of history.
Five and a half years ago, I was in Prince Rupert, British Columbia, and visited the museum there. Not only is there much handiwork of people who had lived there, there was also some history (transcription of oral history?) which described the enmity between various groups.
NKP guyNot exactly. Did you know that around 1650 the Iroquois from New York came to a place in today's Akron, Ohio and murdered every Erie indian they could? The few survivors were made slaves to their captors and in a generation the Eries were gone forever. That is genocide. I take your point about the scale, however.
And therein lies the purpose of my post - historical perspective, not a false narrative.
NKP guy I was surpised to learn this 40 years ago because it does seem to go against the usual narrative.
Again, my point. My impression is often that people want to present the Native Americans as peaceful victims conquered by the evil Europeans. In reality, it was just a new enemy from a distant land.
This same internecine conflict occurs even today. Look at what happened in the Balkans when the dictatorships were removed from power. The oppressed no longer had a common enemy and reverted to their old "inter-tribal" conflicts.
The Balkans were a true, ironic tragedy. I say ironic because it seemed as soon as Tito's iron boot was off their necks they were back at each other's throats.
In some places having someone to hate is just as important as having someone to love.
Re: The Balkans-- I've seen on the news at that time and read about who was who and what was what, tried through the years since and I still could not relate to anyone what was going on and who was killing who. About half way through the stories I get totally confused.
I can imagine how confusing what multiple tribal rivalries and warfare at a time when there was no written accounts was like.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.