h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Republican = "Right wing puritanical red/other neck" or "right wing puritanical red/other neck" are a subgroup of Republican ?

Would the tea party be a subgroup of the "right wing puritanical red/other neck"?

More or less, but don't get too hung up on labels.

They (almost) all are simply conservative and patriotic
Americans steeped in the mythos of the Land of the Free
which preaches rugged individualism as a cult of togetherness.

Among these there are sub-groups with specific agendas
but generally they agree on old fashioned religious ideas
of morality and a distrust of authority but faith in the power
of righteousness.

They all seem to follow strong outspoken charismatic
figures just as their forefathers did in lynching mobs or
their fore-fore-fathers did when certain Boston brewers
whipped them into a frenzy over taxes on tea as part of
a marketing plan to sell more beer.


~jwf~

>> the power of righteousness <<
That's probably quite a complex task to unpack and analyse.

On a separate note I read somewhere that the National Socialists of Germany (the goose steppers) were partly inspired by Americans ... their concept of Manifest Destiny in moving West and displacing the savages. The Germans called their plan Lebensraum moving east and displacing the untermensch ... but the German leaders themselves weren't religious ... they had the God is dead Nietzschean ideology of the ubermensch ... so whereas the Americans were happy to displace the natives into unproductive mountainous regions and let then starve or assimilate (only massacring them if they resisted) the German ideology allowed them to just kill them (round them up and send them to the death factories or into the woods and into trenches etc) .

I suppose the other difference is related to the distrust of authority. The Americans believed it was their divine right to take and develop the land but as an amalgamation of individuals, whereas the Germans leaders were extreme socialists and so Lebensraum was a more planned incisive development and controlled from the top downwards.

>> (only massacring them if they resisted) <<

This is a large cornerstone of the American mythos
that supports the righteous belief that good will
prevail - but it is historically inaccurate.

I refer you to the early example of the Pequot indians
(Herman Melville immortalised their name in Ahab's ship)
who were driven to a final extinction by the Puritans who
set fire to a winter stockade at Mystic, Connecticut and
burnt the last 600 alive.

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

William Bradford, in his History of the Plymouth Plantation, celebrated the 1637 Pequot massacre:

“Those that scraped the fire were slaine with the sword; some hewed to peeces, others rune throw with their rapiers, so as they were quickly dispatchte, and very few escapted. It was conceived they thus destroyed about 400 at this time. It was a fearful sight to see them thus frying in the fyer, and the streams of blood quenching the same, and horrible was the stincke and sente there of, but the victory seemed a sweete sacrifice, and they gave the prayers thereof to God, who had wrought so wonderfully for them, thus to inclose their enemise in their hands, and give them so speedy a victory over so proud and insulting an enimie.”

When James Fenimore Cooper wrote the Last of the Mohichans
he meant the 'last'.


~jwf~

The colonisation of North America occurred in stages. What seem to inspire the National Socialist goose stepping leadership was that part where the eastern population expanding westward through the ideals of Manifest Destiny etc.

It seems to me that European colonialism was to a large extent a private endeavour (for profit) which was sanctioned and promoted (and sometimes taken over) by various European monarchs and state leaders. British colonialism was about the setting up of companies to exploit overseas resources, taking over land where the opportunity arose etc ... but primarily for profit. With the Americas (and Australia & New Zealand) it was also a means of getting rid of undesirables from Britain (puritans protestants etc, trouble-makers, "prisoners") - with the undesirables either leaving willingly or not being forced. Colonisation is part of the history of merchant profit making ... capitalism ... and globalisation.

Going back to the North American colonisation I would also like to know what happened to those Indian tribes that initially worked with the British etc.

either leaving willingly or not being forced. --> should have been either "either leaving willingly or not" or "either leaving willingly or being forced" [p.s. many of these linguistic errors are due to conflation of choices]

>>..like to know what happened to those Indian tribes
that initially worked with the British etc. <<

Here in Halifax, founded in 1749 as a base to attack
the French fortress of Louisburg, Governor Cornwallis
quickly established a bounty on indians, paying 5 pounds
for every scalp brought in. It was a way to build many
fortunes of the older families here-abouts.

Yes, scalping is a British tradition which was only much
later copied by Western Indian tribes.

The French, who were here first, were (almost) always
on friendly terms with the aboriginal tribes they met and
had been for 150 years.

In fact, the survival of the first 17th century French
'habitants' depended on the social graces of the natives
who were generally willing to share and instruct. This
is the source of the great Yankee Thanksgiving myth.

The British, for the first 200 years of colonisation did not
consider aboriginals to be human beings. Here is the truth
about the British-American Thanksgiving tradition.

http://www.republicoflakotah.com/2009/cooking-the-history-books-the-thanksgiving-massacre/

When later wars erupted between France and Britain, native
tribes usually sided with the French who had treated them
well, traded fairly and brought innovations such as steel tools
and weapons as well as oil lamps and gunpowder. The British
were considered, murderers, thieves, rapists, slavers...

It was not until long after what the pre-revolutionary
Americans call the French-Indian Wars (mid 1700s) that
many Indians would ally with British forces against the
new founded United States.

Only during the War of 1812 did Britain manage to ally with
native tribes against the expansionist policies of the newly
founded United States by promising to preserve huge grants
of land as Indian Territory from Detroit westward.

The great chief Tecumseh organised many tribes west of the
Mississippi and Great Lakes regions and these fought beside
British regulars against Yankee expansionist volunteers. But
when Tecumseh was killed his `confederation` fell apart and
in the final 1814 Treaties of Paris and Ghent the promises
made to natives were ignored and forgotten.

http://www.galafilm.com/1812/e/background/amer_peace.html

After that, the West was opened up to pioneer settlement that
was even more murderous than the first 2oo years of colonisation.

The phrase `The only good Indian is a dead Indian` continued as
un-official pôlicy up to the death of Ishi, the last of the Yahi
tribe of California in the early 20th century.

Three hundred years of ethnic cleansing...


-jwf-

A further short paragraph or three on the impact of treaties
that ended the war of 1812:

http://www.galafilm.com/1812/e/background/nat_peace.html


-jwf-

Many Americans seem to get very emotional and angry when it is suggested to them of the possibility that their nation is built from organised and aggregated ethnic cleansing and genocide. This results in the subject not being properly discussed, debated and researched. Some might describe it as a form of deep-rooted censorship and leads to the continuation of myth. Even atheist Americans seem to fall into this category ... imagining the "founding fathers" were Jesus like figures and blaming the "British" or "nature" for any "ethnic cleansing / genocide" programmes that might have occurred. Yet the founding fathers and most Americans today were / are from British or/and European stock - the Americans as a people contains mythological elements ... they are basically a group of Brits and Europeans that took over a continent and made themselves independent from the "homelands".

Personally I don't have any quibble in accepting my nation as being founded on ethnic cleansing and genocide if it was in fact founded on ethnic cleansing and genocide. In the UK it happened a long time ago there was both ethnic cleansing, genocide and assimilation ... the Anglo-Saxons were from regions of present day Germany and Denmark. When the Normans took over they basically subjugated the resident population (now called British subjects) and took for themselves all the resources. Even today no-one can truly own land ... all land belongs to the Crown (freehold ownership is a form of tenancy with an indefinite period for holding the land).

Back to America ... one of the continuing myths is that native Americans were / are "Indians". They used to be called "red indian" but I don't think anyone calls them that nowadays ... presumably because red is deemed to be a racist epithet ... yet many don't seem to consider the term Indian to be a "racist" epithet, yet in fact it is the main racist epithet. Another thing I have noticed is that if one uses the word "American" in a sentence / conversation - it seems to prick the attention of many Americans in the sense they get nervous, protective, defensive, belligerent etc i.e. there is an emotional attachment to it that influences their thinking and behaviour - the effect is not dissimilar to some religious types when they hear Jesus being mentioned in a conversation.

Yeah, it's funny how some words have power.

There are quite a few in both religion and nationalism
that can operate like a post-hypnotic trigger.

~jwf~

Ethnic cleansing in Norman England

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

Noggin

So in those days harrying meant war / pillaging/ ethnic cleansing / genocide. Nowadays it tends to refer to the more gentler activity of harassment. So pre-Norman northern England was dominated by (Anglo) Scandinavians until the Normans decided on their "harrying" campaign. It seems to me that "Great Britain" was a fairly multicultural land (Germanic tribes - different waves, Scandinavians, Irish, "ancient" Britains) until a centralising power grabbing lot took over.

Have been reading Friedlander's book At The Fringes of Science & his Number 1 example of pseudo academic nonsense is Velikovsky. Friedlander had direct experience of debating the matter with Velikovsky and found Velikovsky to be a fruitcase unable to engage in critical debate. Friedlander also points to a book that details the errors in Velikovsky work:
http://www.velikovsky.info/Beyond_Velikovsky

The errors are not confined to Velikovsky's "science" but also to his "reading" of ancient documents and legends.

Breaking News regarding 'death' which may give pause
to those who do not believe in a soul.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1112905666/pathway-death-worms-revealed-wave-blue-fluorescence-072413/


~jwf~

If there were no soul, we would be listening to zombie music and not soul music. On such a dreadful thought Whitney and Michael would be turning in their graves.

Uh... can you explain how calcium-mediated cell death is giving pause to those of us who don't believe in a soul...?

Gif

Didn't give me any pause.

I didn't even find it the least bit surprising. I've never believed in the idea that we die like one turns of an incandescent light bulb, that there is an instantaneous change of state. When you cut down a tree is it suddenly "dead"? Sure, we go from "alive" to "dead" quicker than plants do, but it's still a process.

I'm not sure it's possible to speak of a "soul" at the cellular level. One can be brain dead but the body can still be alive ... and used for organ donations. At the cellular level our cells are passed on to the next generation in (sexual) reproduction albeit in a one half diluted form. There are probably several mechanisms in cell death, one of which is a concerted wave triggering apoptosis. I suppose I should read the paper.

Hi Stone Aart

Haven't been around for a while, but have to congratulate you on the ad hominem. Did you have any concrete examples relating to the chronology?

I do actually agree that Velikovsky was often guilty of crimes against rigour, so to speak, but there's an implication here that standard chronologists are never guilty of interpreting the evidence to fit a pre-conceived chronological scheme. Just plain untrue, unfortunately.

To give just one concrete example.

In the archaeology of Beth-Shean, level VII is ascribed to the 19th dynasty, but the principle datable objects of this dynasty, two stelae of Seti I and Rameses II, were actually found in level V. The official explanation is that they were "re-used", and while this would be reasonable enough if they had been found built into a wall with the writing facing inwards, they were actually found erected at the entrance to a temple. So the argument must be that Seti and Rameses would never have done such a thing, and that it's much more reasonable that the early Israelites would have done it 300 years later. But such an argument is absurd. The real argument is that these objects need to be in level VII to fit the standard chronology. Level VII = 19th dynasty is then offered as a proof of the said chronology, when it's plainly a circular argument. The kicker is that if Velikovsky's chronological reconstruction is right then these stelae should be in level V.

Noggin