7j43kI HAVE to remind you of Stan Freburg's piece, where Columbus lands on the beach, and he tells the Indians he has discovered them. An Indian disagrees. He says: "No. We discover YOU. Here on beach."
Wow, did you get that watching Saturday morning cartoons? Columbus never landed in North America. Your choice is the Bahamas or Haiti, in which case I am sure neither spoke Spanish.
CMStPnP How long was the travel period on land before the Aztecs were discovered. I think it was pretty rare for a reception party of Natives to intercept settlers right as they landed.
How long was the travel period on land before the Aztecs were discovered. I think it was pretty rare for a reception party of Natives to intercept settlers right as they landed.
I think the Aztecs were inland. But, I believe the Spaniards were discovered, pretty much, right away. Kind of hard to miss, when you're lying on the beach, and all (this was commonly done before capitalists arrived).
And, even if it took a couple of days, I don't see conferring on the Spaniards a special "gotcha" exception. "Hey. You dudes were three hours late. We own all of New Spain, now. Nyah, nyah."
I HAVE to remind you of Stan Freberg's piece, where Columbus lands on the beach, and he tells the Indians he has discovered them. An Indian disagrees. He says: "No. We discover YOU. Here on beach."
Makes sense to me. Dude.
Ed
Convicted OneThrough that logic, I guess it would be fair for me to decide that " any land not being actively defended is there for the taking"? Wonder how I would fare building a homestead in undefended Utah today? Probably not much better than Cliven Bundy did during his misadventures with free range diplomacy?
Well you have to at least be consistent in your logic. If the Native Americans extended and took unoccupied land as their own........why is it evil when settlers do the same thing? It's the same course of action by both sides.
Further one can look at the settler vs Native tribe settlement issue in other regions and continents. How long was the travel period before the Zulus were encountered? How long was the travel period on land before the Aztecs were discovered. I think it was pretty rare for a reception party of Natives to intercept settlers right as they landed. One can form conclusions about North America based on experiences on other continents even though some Native American tribes would rather us believe everything they say (not all but some and in my view some of it is just BS). There is the rub as well. Native American tribal history does not always match up with what other Native American tribes claim or have recorded nor does it match what anthropoligists uncover.
I am looking forward to reading the reactions to this event from the citizens of Merced and Bakersfield. Where is the New York Times on this matter?
Oh. They don't know where Merced or Bakersfield IS.
I do. I will be passing the C(not)HSR edifice when I go to Bakersfield on March 7th. Looking forward to my semi-annual viewing of the progress of, well, it.
Oh. I know you're wondering. Oh, c'mon. SURE you are. Why'd I add (not) in the above paragraph? That's because they're going to go from San Jose to San Francisco on a surface route. And 200 mph just MIGHT be a bit fast for all those folks who like to go around the gates.
(Oh, come ON! You know who you are: a big chance to make the local news. Once.)
So. Ya gotta wonder (or not): 200 mph thru San Mateo? Absolutely!!
(I'm talking TRAINS, people. NOT Lamborghinis. By the way.)
200 mph Lamborghini. 200 mph Train. Tough call. Love 'em both!!
Oh, yeah. I completely blew this, back before I discovered I cared. But. How come they didn't use the right-of-way of Highway 5? See. I told you. Me: asleep at the wheel. (Notice that it's a longer route following Highway 99 than Highway 5. Gets a person wondering.) (You know, that graft* that was mentioned earlier.) (By people who disapprove of such things.)
*Bribes? Graft? Who can keep it straight?
But. Once again, back to the subject.
For the past 3 years, I have driven past the construction of this thing. For the first two years, all I saw was a few concrete uprights, next to the road (Highway 99). Last time, it looked a bit busier, and a little further along.
So, all this time, I'm thinking "Is that all there is?" (my compliments to Miss Peggy Lee). Billions and billions, and all that's visible to the taxpayers driving by is some concrete pilings.
I thought it would have been real nice to see a train zooming, even for a few miles, to demonstrate money well spent.
Looks like they finally got the hint. Merced to Bakersfield. If there's going to be any enthusiasm for this project from the people paying for it, seeing a train go will help generate it.
Sorta like a train under the Christmas tree: so much better with a train on the track, which actually surrounds the tree. Don't you think?
BaltACD From the European perspective - there was no culture in the Americas by any of the people that inhabited the land prior to their arrival. From their viewpoint the Aztec's , Inca's and Native Americans had no culture or structure to their existance.
From the European perspective - there was no culture in the Americas by any of the people that inhabited the land prior to their arrival. From their viewpoint the Aztec's , Inca's and Native Americans had no culture or structure to their existance.
The Powhatans that the English met clearly had a chief, because they treated him thusly. He was The Man. Hence there was "structure".
One could argue there was no culture in the Americas if you say there is only one possible culture. And they don't have it. I suspect that view had its proponents. But some likely had "open eyes", at least in part.
That moved on to include importing Africans as slaves and the denial that they had possessed any culture.
If you minimize people's culture, you can minimize their humanity. Which can be handy if you're in the slave business.
They sure didn't get to keep much, after they were transported to their new "home". Whatever they did have was likely considered extraneous. They, on the other hand, may have felt otherwise.
From the European perspective - there was no culture in the Americas by any of the people that inhabited the land prior to their arrival. From their viewpoint the Aztec's , Inca's and Native Americans had no culture or structure to their existance. That moved on to include importing Africans as slaves and the denial that they had possessed any culture.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Convicted One 7j43k Mom said. You should give The Florentine Codex a good read. you might find it enlightening. Volume 12 is probably the best reference of the European conquest from the perspective of the indigenous people in existence,
7j43k Mom said.
You should give The Florentine Codex a good read. you might find it enlightening. Volume 12 is probably the best reference of the European conquest from the perspective of the indigenous people in existence,
Probably. I have done a slight bit of reading on the conquest, but my interests lie farther north. Perhaps it's the movies and television of my youth, or perhaps it's that it's a much more local story.
I also am less interested in larger and more complex cultures, I think.
Still another is that American culture picked up things from the local Indians. And that is with us today. Maybe I then have more affinity.
Apparently, one reason the Aztecs were less pugnacious to the new guys is because there was a belief that God would arrive on big ships and be fair (as in light skinned). Say, like the Spaniards. When I read that, it got me wondering if some of those darn Vikings journeyed a bit farther south than Canada, a few hundred years earlier: "Say, guys. We seem to be a bit lost. Do you know the way to Norway?" "Thanks for the corn. We'll be seein' ya!"
So, I guess that the "take away" from the story in the OP's post is that the Line from Merced to Bakersfield will be completed as the public's contribution to the Public/Private partnership, while tying it in to the major metropoli at either end will be the responsibility of the private "partners"?
LOL! How can the public remain so gullible? I guess this will be a real windfall for those living in Merced and working at the oil fields in Bakersfield
Convicted One 7j43k I recommend getting a copy of the above noted book. Ed I read this post before you edited it, and I have only two words for you: Aw' shucks!
7j43k I recommend getting a copy of the above noted book. Ed
I read this post before you edited it, and I have only two words for you:
Aw' shucks!
It's nice to be nice. Mom said.
7j43kAs far as the written word, I don't recall there being any written Indian languages
Sequoah developed a written Cherokee (Southern Iroquois) language around 1820.
7j43kAnd you probably should stay in academia, as it doesn't look like business is your forte.
Perhaps you should return to grade school as neither your reading comprehension nor logic are up to snuff.
7j43kI recommend getting a copy of the above noted book. Ed
Convicted One Then you have to add to that the well documented fact that both English and French combatants in pre revolutionary war America actively recruited native hostilities towards their adversaries.
Then you have to add to that the well documented fact that both English and French combatants in pre revolutionary war America actively recruited native hostilities towards their adversaries.
And you could also add that the Indians were known to manipulate those English and French combatants against other Indians. No group has a monopoly on saints or sinners. If, indeed, it be "sainting" or sinning.
I recommend getting a copy of the above noted book.
A very long time ago, I read a book called "The Indian and the White Man". It was a stunning collection of original source material. There were, indeed, Indian accounts. It's been a long time, but I do remember there was an Indian's account, as presented in a court of law. I believe there were other honest transcriptions presented.
As far as the written word, I don't recall there being any written Indian languages, but learning English and how to write it is certainly doable by a majority of people--even young Indian children compelled to learn it in school. Spanish too, for that matter.
I noted no "false notes" in the entire collection. Again, a recollection from a long time ago. But one of the few books assigned in college that impressed me enough to still remember it, a bit.
I was just inspired to buy a copy online, and look forward to rereading it.
You can find it through here:
https://www.worldcat.org/title/indian-and-the-white-man/oclc/16416075
I got mine from Amazon. Which is interesting, because when I entered the title into Amazon book title search, it didn't come up. What a loser search engine! Maybe they couldn't find New York City, either.
CMStPnP They had significant portions of no mans lands between tribes. Some tribes bordered others but not in all cases.
Through that logic, I guess it would be fair for me to decide that " any land not being actively defended is there for the taking"? Wonder how I would fare building a homestead in undefended Utah today? Probably not much better than Cliven Bundy did during his misadventures with free range diplomacy?
Anecdotal accounts that I have been able to uncover locally indicate that the natives and the settlers were able to co-exist peacefully until the Federal juggernaut would come along from time to time to remind both sides that peace was impossible. YMMV
Paul of Covington When you break up a playground fight, which kid do you listen to when they both say, "He started it!"? How many letters are there from Native Americans concerning settlers' behavior?
News like that would be of great interest and impossible to suppress along the Native American "grapevine". Even among those not previously contacted, I'm sure that the newcomer's reputation preceded them.
Paul of CovingtonHow many letters are there from Native Americans concerning settlers' behavior?
Some of their history is oral but some of it is also documented by observers not always settlers some were expeditions into Indian Country. Other parts of their history can be found via dig sites.
Convicted OneWho would be the official record keeper to have made that determination? And at what date?
Depends on who you ask but I tend to believe the settlers as a source as they dealt with the Indians at times and observed their behavior though their time is after settlement. Now there is significant Native American propaganda out there that they felt all the lands were theirs but the historical fact was and studying oral and written Native American history. They had significant portions of no mans lands between tribes. Some tribes bordered others but not in all cases. I don't think you will ever find a decent map. Maps sold by Native American Tribes do not show borders to tribal lands but that is BS. Even nomadic tribes across the world had specific areas they would not venture into and generally had a map of areas they could traverse and areas to avoid.
I know the Caddo tribe had loosely defined borders that were not respected by other tribes or in which other tribes would raid their crop stores and/or villages. Part of their history. Borders were established via agreement with some other tribes after clashes with them.
One guy that is trying to reproduce an Indian map prior to settlement has them blanketing the entire United States with no sections of nomans lands, in my view that is inaccurate and a cop out and he is doing that to keep all the remaining Native American tribes of today happy. The tribes like that depiction because it fits a lot with their narrative.
CMStPnPGo to the Library of Congress online and start reading some of the settlers letters concerning Native American behavior. There is a wealth of information there from folks that dealt with the tribes first hand on frontiers.
When you break up a playground fight, which kid do you listen to when they both say, "He started it!"?
How many letters are there from Native Americans concerning settlers' behavior?
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Convicted One CMStPnP Indian Tribal land did not cover what would be the entire continental United States. Who would be the official record keeper to have made that determination? And at what date?
CMStPnP Indian Tribal land did not cover what would be the entire continental United States.
Who would be the official record keeper to have made that determination? And at what date?
No one. Hence at no date.
Do you think the facts of geography, culture and demographics only exist if there is an official record keeper?
With that view, the other side of the moon only came into existence a few decades ago.
Convicted One Who was here first?
In many cases the Settlers were. Indian Tribal land did not cover what would be the entire continental United States. Yet the Native American tribes routinely left their tribal lands to attack settlements, sometimes for sport other times to prove they were the dominant force to be reckoned with. In other cases they would dispute hunting grounds with other tribes and slaughter each other. Sometimes slaughter a party of settlers for just the crime of crossing their lands without their permission....yet the same standard would not apply to them in reverse.
Again all in the settlers letters or a good portion of it is. I think of all the tribes the Caddo were the most civil in that they attempted to protect settlers from being slaughtered by the more aggressive tribes, stayed neutral in our Civil War as well.
CMStPnP We see it constantly in the tribal Middle East........do we not?
Interesting question. Here's one for you: What do the treaty of Ghent and the Balfour declaration have in common?
CMStPnP There is a wealth of information there from folks that dealt with the tribes first hand on frontiers. It was a mixed bag, some tribes were friendly to settlers and others were just openly hostile from the get go (with no past history of betrayal) and were savages, even though it is politically incorrect to say so.
I suggest that it might be most relevant to weigh that sentiment in the same context that many here have historically twisted the "NIMBY-Railroad" conflicts? ie Who was here first?
As for the whole Native American thing with the transcontinental railroads. Lets not our thinking be influenced totally by Hollywood movies here.
Go to the Library of Congress online and start reading some of the settlers letters concerning Native American behavior. There is a wealth of information there from folks that dealt with the tribes first hand on frontiers. It was a mixed bag, some tribes were friendly to settlers and others were just openly hostile from the get go (with no past history of betrayal) and were savages, even though it is politically incorrect to say so.
Even if we had not pushed West as a country, pretty confident we still would have intervened militarily in the inter tribal wars at some point to limit the savagery that took place. I would not comprehend Liberals just sitting silent on the sidelines of tribal savagery as observers, they would have pushed hard to keep some tribes seperated from others via some kind of expeditionary force and we would have been drawn West anyways probably due to that. We see it constantly in the tribal Middle East........do we not?
Hey I am just curious here. What was the last cost figure for completion of this California HSR project? I am reading and hearing everything from $77 Billion to $100 Billion in the press. What was the last official cost estimate?
Also, if the CA Governor is proposing a new incremental approach I am all on board with that and they should have done that to begin with. Get the damn trains running on a small but useful segment first........then expand in increments. I am confused on where the final stance is on the California Governor as he has issued multiple statements so far and has even engaged in a Tweet storm with current POTUS.
If he does cancel the project completely he is in material breach of the former Obama Administration agreement. As I outlined previously with Wisconsin, these "grants" from the Federal Government flip to "loans" that have to be paid back if the project does reach operating status by a specific date. Illinois also faces this "payback" period with it's Chicago to St. Louis "grants" but somehow or another has got a temporary waiver, the clock is still ticking with Illinois though. That "payback" feature was written in by Ray LaHood (I think he was former NJ Transit head) because in the past he had seen so many rail projects never reach fruition.
NKP guy So the true costs of the Transcons were, in part, socialized and the profits were privatized,
Isn't that the very essence of "public-private partnership"? Well connected capitalists get the popcorn, while the public is left holding the bag.
NKP guy NKP guy Question: to what extent was the building of the Transcons socialism? First, we need an agreed upon definition of socialism.
NKP guy Question: to what extent was the building of the Transcons socialism?
First, we need an agreed upon definition of socialism.
OK. I'll go first:
(Mirriam-Webster) "any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods"
Hence Transcon = not. And Panama Canal = yes
Then we can ask if the building of the Transcons was simply a matter of crony capitalism.
Probably. Capitalists tend to know other capitalists. So it seems likely that they might want to go in together on a big, cool, money-making project. Which is kind of necessary when you're working on what was probably the biggest construction project in the world.
Or corruption: After all, I think many of us here are familiar with the Credit Mobilier scandal. Would the Transcons have been built without massive bribes?
Yup. Money attracts thieves. That doesn't mean everyone connected with the project was one. People familiar with the Credit Mobilier scandal know that it did not involve the Central Pacific. Which WAS half the project.
Bribes. Undoubtedly. That would explain why so many public officials were thrown in jail for accepting them.
The Transcons couldn't have been built and operated until the Indian tribes were defeated and dispossed of their "worthless" land, and doing that required large numbers of troops and the construction of many army forts. How much did that cost and who paid for that? Not the railroads, I warrant. So the true costs of the Transcons were, in part, socialized and the profits were privatized, a frequent occurence in a country that exalts risk-taking and free enterprise.
The goal of, how shall I say, "pacifying" the Indians started long before the Transcon. And it occurred in far more places than just along the railroad's route. So, in fact, the entire population of the United States benefited (leaving out, of course, those Indians). Why SHOULD only the Transcon railroad pay for that? It was done for the benefit of ALL (except, again, those Indians).
I suppose controlling the Indians was just another example of socialism.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.