Posted on 08/22/2012 7:05:20 AM PDT by Renfield
every test like this today is for one reason only
to declare everyone is part Negro race
and then next week they swear race is a fake construct or doesn’t matter
the past 35,000 years of history are all wrong
and we know better
about everything basically
amazing
I understood it, but when you throw in that statement I responded to, you open the door for every other group that later came to the US to begin exaggerating their role in the creation of this country, and that is the aim of an assortment of more recently arrived groups who constantly whine that their "contributions" to the US aren't sufficiently recognized.
Stressing irrelevant factors and exaggerating minor contributions of the later immigrants to the US has become a major occupation for a wide range of ethnic interest groups. US history will be rewritten as to have little relationship to reality if it is allowed to happen.
Not at all. You sound like an English chauvinist. The English suppressed the Scots and Irish in this country for generations. My point was not about racial superiority, rewriting history or anything of the kind. It was that all peoples have an equal shot at opportunity in a land that does not privilege people by race or heritage. That said, I do NOT favor the rewriting of history. My own people would be trashed by such.
What have I said that is untrue? You sound like a hater of the English who chooses to emphasize their wrongs while minimizing their accomplishments, such as the settlement and founding of the USA.
In most all groups we find conflicts where some become dominant and others become subservient. The real "crime" of the English is that, when that was the the way the world worked, the English had far more success than most.
Maybe you should ask yourself why all those other groups of Europeans wanted to leave the nations where their ethnic group was dominant and come to a new nation settled and founded by the English. Maybe the English settlers had a better idea about how to govern?
The issue is, who was he? The gardener? The next door neighbor? The milk man?
I don’t know, you don’t know and the guy who married your ( and mine) G-G-G grandmother didnt know.
Come to think of it, I may have.
Thanks!
You seem bent on continuing the meme that the English were and are superior. That’s a non-starter and it’s un-American. This is my last post on the topic. Have a nice life.
My point is, that women in the pre-birth control, pre-welfare mom and pre-liberation days were held to a much stricter standard than men, and were the ones punished for any sexual indiscretions, such as turning up pregnant unmarried, or having a child that did not resemble the father. The simple fear of social ostracism and a life of impoverishment, banished from polite society or the religious community, served to keep women in line. The incidence of infidelity by women was and is historically much lower than that by men until very, very recently.
I’m not sure there’s any way to document that. The understanding of genetics was non-existent for much of human history so a child could easily look like the mother instead of the father without causing much comment. Obviously a half-African child born to a Scottish mother would raise eyebrows but if the father were Jewish or Berber the child might pass.
It’s been observed by others more than once that women (some, at least) have a gift for deception. I believe that the sexes are nearly equally represented in terms rates of infidelity.
Lol, I've said nothing about the English being superior. All I've done is accurately discuss their role in the creation and founding of the USA, and for whatever reason that seems to get under your skin.
Believe what you want; a man is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts. Statistical studies say otherwise.
Believe what you want; a man is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts. Statistical studies say otherwise.
Cheer up! We'll get a reparations check from the gubmint.
On my bookshelf and enthusiastically recommended; appropriate and freely comprehensible even for an Englishman...
While we’re on the subject of Scottish origins, there is a section of the Declaration of Abroath from 1320 AD that is interesting, since they give a brief description of their own understanding of their origins, at that time:
“Most Holy Father and Lord, we know and from the chronicles and books of the ancients we find that among other famous nations our own, the Scots, has been graced with widespread renown. They journeyed from Greater Scythia by way of the Tyrrhenian Sea and the Pillars of Hercules, and dwelt for a long course of time in Spain among the most savage tribes, but nowhere could they be subdued by any race, however barbarous. Thence they came, twelve hundred years after the people of Israel crossed the Red Sea, to their home in the west where they still live today. The Britons they first drove out, the Picts they utterly destroyed, and, even though very often assailed by the Norwegians, the Danes and the English, they took possession of that home with many victories and untold efforts; and, as the historians of old time bear witness, they have held it free of all bondage ever since. In their kingdom there have reigned one hundred and thirteen kings of their own royal stock, the line unbroken a single foreigner.”
LOL -- I have nothing in particular against the English; I'm part English myself, and very much admire our Founding; but my point was otherwise....
"The explanation is simple. We are a people on the edge of beyond; on the end of a massive continent. Peoples were migrating northwest; and they couldn't get any further. We have collected them."....
I don't quite see the logic in that. If all these groups were travelling over Russia and Germany and France to get to Scotland, wouldn't those countries be more "diverse" than Scotland, way at the end of the world?
I suppose various routes across Europe were possible, but I'd assume there was more ethnic mixing in countries along the way than in the one at the end of the journey that many groups may not have finished.
What geneticists are finding, if I understand correctly, is that the "Celtic" countries are genetically more related to or derived from ancient pre-Celtic populations than to the Celts themselves, and also that Celts and Anglo-Saxons mixed more than some theorists had believed.
A most interesting tracery of the many kinds of people who came to be Scots, a national identity apparent to them even in the 14th century that transcended ethnicity. Surely the Declaration of Independence owes a debt to the Declaration of Abroath:
...as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom – for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself...
|
|
|
| GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother & Ernest_at_the_Beach | |
|
|
Thanks Renfield and Albion Wilde. |
|
|
|
|
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.