Fastpat - Question about Civil War

[911skb]

You seem to believe that the South was unfairly attacked by the North during the Civil War (or War of Northern Aggression, etc) and that the South has the right to secede now to reclaim their fair independence.

How do you come to terms with what the Western Europeans, in the North and the South, did to the Native Americans and taking of their land, culture, way of life, etc by force?

Do you consider that they have the right to re-establish their ways of life? If the North's physical ability to beat the South doesn't justify the winning of the Civil War, then why should the Western European's ability to annihilate the Native Americans justify the actions of destroying their way of life?

It seems that you want to roll back to pre-civil war status. Why stop there? That doesn't seem fair to the Native Americans and their claim to sovereign rights.

This is not a jab at you, I'm interested in hearing your reasoning on this. Because it begins the question of which group has true historical or ancestral rights to an area and when does "might make right".

[tobster1911]

Originally posted by 911skb
It seems that you want to roll back to pre-civil war status. Why stop there? That doesn't seem fair to the Native Americans and their claim to sovereign rights.

This is not a jab at you, I'm interested in hearing your reasoning on this. Because it begins the question of which group has true historical or ancestral rights to an area and when does "might make right".

Pat can't answer this one because he does not know how else to put "Because I say so". That goes for the might makes right question as well. Evidenced by his implied threat against a LEO in a different thread.

He lives in the world according to Pat. I think it must be a parallel dimension or something.

[tcar]

Originally posted by 911skb
You seem to believe that the South was unfairly attacked by the North during the Civil War (or War of Northern Aggression, etc) and that the South has the right to secede now to reclaim their fair independence.

All this time, I thought the Confederacy attacked Ft. Sumter.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by 911skb
You seem to believe that the South was unfairly attacked by the North during the Civil War (or War of Northern Aggression, etc) and that the South has the right to secede now to reclaim their fair independence.

I recommend you read the Declaration of Independence, it explains the power of the right of self government very well.

How do you come to terms with what the Western Europeans, in the North and the South, did to the Native Americans and taking of their land, culture, way of life, etc by force?

I don't make an excuse for it. First, much of the land concerning the original 13 States was acquired legitimately, not all, but most. Further, this question is in fact being answered in the courts all the time. Most people don't really look deeply into this issue, particularly not at the genocide planned and carried out by the two most criminal generals of the Union Army; Sheridan and Sherman.

Do you consider that they have the right to re-establish their ways of life? If the North's physical ability to beat the South doesn't justify the winning of the Civil War, then why should the Western European's ability to annihilate the Native Americans justify the actions of destroying their way of life?

They may assert this position.

It seems that you want to roll back to pre-civil war status. Why stop there? That doesn't seem fair to the Native Americans and their claim to sovereign rights.

I assert what is right for my land and family, I don't assert positions for others, but they may do so, and in fact have successfully done so.

This is not a jab at you, I'm interested in hearing your reasoning on this. Because it begins the question of which group has true historical or ancestral rights to an area and when does "might make right".

It appears that you think the indians owned all of North America and had always done so; neither may be true. First, no indian group, to my knowledge, asserted ownership of the entire North American continent; and many understood the concept property in land, and sold land to both europeans and other settlers (my relatives were mostly Celts, not europeans). There is another issue as well, it's entirely possible that white's of some kind lived in North America prior to the "indian" invasion from Asia into North America and were wiped out by the indians. See the Kennewick Man, there are things about this continent yet to be fully known.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by tcar
All this time, I thought the Confederacy attacked Ft. Sumter.

The initial act of war in South Carolina was the movement of the Fort Moultrie garrison into the new, and unmanned Fort Sumter. That occured in the middle of the night on Christmas Day 1860, in direct violation of written agreements by both sides to not occupy the Fort until negotiations over it were complete.

Further, the government of South Carolina, no longer in the Union compact of states; gave the Union garrison over 4 months to vacate; allowing them to buy food and comfort provisions in Charleston, but nothing else.

When the Union decided to land additional troops, a second act of war, to reinforce the garrison, South Carolina shelled the fort to force them to vacate, which they did. No one was killed in the action.

So, the Union initiated the War; not the Confederacy.

[tcar]

Thank you. Didn't know that.

[Tervuren]

Fastpat, don't forget the trail of tears under Jackson. I'd put that with the march to the sea.

[M.D. Holloway]

Pleeeze - from now on can we refer to the "Civil War" as the true and accurate term being the "War of Northern Enlightenment"!

[M.D. Holloway]

Originally posted by fastpat
...my relatives were mostly Celts, not europeans...

Wrong: European - a native or inhabitant of Europe
Byelorussian; Belorussian; White Russian, Bulgarian, Belgian, Basque, Austrian, Andorran, Albanian, Teuton, Frank, Celt (Kelt), Eurasian, Eurafrican

European of or relating to or characteristic of Europe or the people of Europe; "European Community".

Oh ya, unless your family came from a very remote village that the Moors, Romans, Spainish didn't get a look at, you got some dark blood in ya FastScat! I'm sure the Brothas of the Confedarcy would be proud to know you may like a lil barnyard and koolaid!

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Tervuren
Fastpat, don't forget the trail of tears under Jackson. I'd put that with the march to the sea.

Yes, I would agree. This is even more egregious because the Cherokee took this to the Supreme Court and won their case, bringing on the infamous Congressional censure for Jackson; the same as was requested for Clinton. As a reward for his furtherance of federal power, Jackson graces the 20 dollar bill and is seen as a strong if somewhat quirky president.

This is why large numbers of the Cherokee threw in their lot with the Confederacy; with full Cherokee Chief Stand Watie becoming the first indian Army General in America.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by LubeMaster77
Wrong: European - a native or inhabitant of Europe
Byelorussian; Belorussian; White Russian, Bulgarian, Belgian, Basque, Austrian, Andorran, Albanian, Teuton, Frank, Celt (Kelt), Eurasian, Eurafrican

European of or relating to or characteristic of Europe or the people of Europe; "European Community".

Oh ya, unless your family came from a very remote village that the Moors, Romans, Spainish didn't get a look at, you got some dark blood in ya FastScat! I'm sure the Brothas of the Confedarcy would be proud to know you may like a lil barnyard and koolaid!

Scotland was north of Hadrians wall, and the Roman's never went to Ireland successfully to my knowledge.

So, no, my Celtic ancestors weren't europeans, nor caucasians.

I do,however, have Dutch blood, and as you know, only God knows what they got into.

[gaijindabe]

The Celts were all over Europe. They just wound up on the fringe.

The Celtic language family is a branch of the larger Indo-European family, which leads some scholars to a hypothesis that the original speakers of the Celtic proto-language may have arisen in the Pontic-Caspian steppes (see Kurgan). However, as the Celts enter history from around 600 BC, they are already split into several languages groups, and spread over much of Central Europe, the Iberian peninsula, Ireland and Britain, and studies now suggest that some of the Celtic peoples - including the ancestors of all the modern Celtic nations - had a largely pre-Celtic genetic ancestry, shared with the Basque people and possibly going back to the Palaeolithic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celts

As for Scotland and Ireland. Not too many Romans, but plenty of those Vikings.

[911skb]

Interesting response overall.

To be concise, you:
1- minimize the suffering inflicted upon the Native Americans by any Southerners.

2- distance yourself from "Europeans" by splitting hairs that Celts are not Europeans.

3- cloud the issue by stating that Native Americans may not have been the true indigenous people in N. America in the first place.

Pretty good spin job overall. I guess I really didn't expect much else.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by 911skb
Interesting response overall.

To be concise, you:
1- minimize the suffering inflicted upon the Native Americans by any Southerners.

2- distance yourself from "Europeans" by splitting hairs that Celts are not Europeans.

3- cloud the issue by stating that Native Americans may not have been the true indigenous people in N. America in the first place.

Pretty good spin job overall. I guess I really didn't expect much else.

Your facts which refute mine are...? Exactly nothing.

Come back when you've got something.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by gaijindabe
The Celts were all over Europe. They just wound up on the fringe.

The Celtic language family is a branch of the larger Indo-European family, which leads some scholars to a hypothesis that the original speakers of the Celtic proto-language may have arisen in the Pontic-Caspian steppes (see Kurgan). However, as the Celts enter history from around 600 BC, they are already split into several languages groups, and spread over much of Central Europe, the Iberian peninsula, Ireland and Britain, and studies now suggest that some of the Celtic peoples - including the ancestors of all the modern Celtic nations - had a largely pre-Celtic genetic ancestry, shared with the Basque people and possibly going back to the Palaeolithic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celts

As for Scotland and Ireland. Not too many Romans, but plenty of those Vikings.

When I say the Celts weren't european, I'm not speaking of genetics, genetics have only some effect on the culture. Celtic culture was radically different than european culture at the time of the English settlement of North America, that's what we're concerned with here.

[M.D. Holloway]

fastscat - It is an agreed upon definition. I’m not sure if I should sympathize with your tilt or become as frustrated as anyone else. And what color is the sky in your fantastic world? Let me guess – Union Jack with a smoldering cross?

Without question you are well read on historical subject matter, that is not the issue. Rather your bend with desire to be proven wrong by reference is downright laughable. To say Celt i.e. Scots, Irish, Anglo Saxon, even a *****’n Druid is not European is ridiculous. Do you do this just to get a rise out of people or do you really believe your angle?

Being in the quasi-medical arena you have drug options. Please either change medication or begin some.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by LubeMaster77
fastscat - It is an agreed upon definition. I�m not sure if I should sympathize with your tilt or become as frustrated as anyone else. And what color is the sky in your fantastic world? Let me guess � Union Jack with a smoldering cross?

Without question you are well read on historical subject matter, that is not the issue. Rather your bend with desire to be proven wrong by reference is downright laughable. To say Celt i.e. Scots, Irish, Anglo Saxon, even a *****�n Druid is not European is ridiculous. Do you do this just to get a rise out of people or do you really believe your angle?

Being in the quasi-medical arena you have drug options. Please either change medication or begin some.

No, culturally, none of the Celtic nations* fancied themselves european; and their cultures are hardly european at all. Usually, when someone wants to use the term "european" it's a racist term, secregating all from the east side of the Atlantic as interlopers in the otherwise peaceful, placid lives being led by the indians.

That's just plain not the way it happened.

Here's a reference work on the settling of the 13 colonies, Albion's Seed : Four British Folkways in America describing how different the colonies were, even though they all came from the British Isles. The British were much different yet again from anyone else settling from europe; such as Spain and France.

To lump them altogether as "european" is just plain wrong.

Now, let's get back on topic, we're done with this digression I hope.

*the ancient Celtic nation north of Portugal isn't relevant, it was gone long before North American colonization began.

[M.D. Holloway]

Originally posted by fastpat
Now, let's get back on topic, we're done with this digression I hope.

nope - not done.

It is a collective term. Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Isle of Man, England - pretty much the United Kingdom is considered Europen. It is not a racist term no more than being considered Asian if you live in China or parts of Russia would be. It is just a label given to a bunch of folks froma particular area.

The guy who you mention is trying to coin a concept that has the legs of a jelly fish. Its just dumb.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by LubeMaster77
nope - not done.

It is a collective term. Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Isle of Man, England - pretty much the United Kingdom is considered Europen. It is not a racist term no more than being considered Asian if you live in China or parts of Russia would be. It is just a label given to a bunch of folks froma particular area.

I see. So it's inaccuracy notwithstanding, you'll continue to use it. Suit yourself.

The guy who you mention is trying to coin a concept that has the legs of a jelly fish. Its just dumb.

You may reject if you wish, but it's one of the most respected anthropological studies of British colonial cultural differences yet done.

Perhaps you'll do better when you finish your research and get it published and read worldwide.

[M.D. Holloway]

And you have contributed how to the world of your choice - typical duties notwithstanding?

I can spew quotes from notables all day long as well. I choose not to but rather engage in more meaningful work that actually does have an impact - work that exceeds my job scope. And your last contribution was???