Oldest European Settlement in US

[reed1v]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Yup.. 'Gone Native' is much more acceptable..

Interestingly, few Europeans went "native"with the American indians; unlike in Hawaii, Cuba, and SE Asia. The Frence were about the only Europeans that did not mind getting down and dirty with the locals. French fur trappers(the four legged kind of trapping)had no problems with American Indians while everyone else seemed to be at war with them. Same in old Siam.

The English colonialists got along quite well, in and out of bed, with the locals in India until British women were shipped over to India; and then the exclusions started.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Adelie

In the future you might consider using the term intermarriage rather than miscegenation which has unpleasant/racist connotations with certain groups in the US.
..

Ok, even if I was using the term with the sense that was on wikipedia and without any racial connotation:

"...is the mixing of different racial groups through marriage, cohabitation, sexual relations, or procreation."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscegenation

To call all that marriage seems a bit far fetched to me and not very scientific but I understand your point even if I was not aware of it. Anyway what I was pointing out is that the number of "intermariages" on a given country with diverse ethnic origins are inversely proportional to racist tendencies.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by reed1v

...
The English colonialists got along quite well, in and out of bed, with the locals in India until British women were shipped over to India; and then the exclusions started.

That is not important, what counts is if they would made the offspring of that relation their legitimate sons and heirs and if they keep those women for life, through marriage or cohabitation.

[CSY Man]

.
In the future you might consider using the term intermarriage rather than miscegenation which has unpleasant/racist connotations with certain groups in the US.

Intermarriage...?
Is that what you call it when a slave owner rapes a slave woman and produces a mulatto? Political correctness rather than reality?

[reed1v]

Originally Posted by Polux

That is not important, what counts is if they would made the offspring of that relation their legitimate sons and heirs and if they keep those women for life, through marriage or cohabitation.

Well of course not. No proper Englishman would marry anything other than a white woman. Good grief.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Polux

That is not important, what counts is if they would made the offspring of that relation their legitimate sons and heirs and if they keep those women for life, through marriage or cohabitation.

Many did.. and settled in India after they finished military service..
England had little to offer an ex-soldier who was not an officer and therefore not a 'Gentlemen'..
All they had to return to was a life of cold, grinding poverty and un-employment with a paupers grave.
Many who went out with the East India Company also settled there.. tho' often they married the 'Rejects of the Coming Out Balls' held in London to wed off the daughters of the 'Landed Gentry' who had failed to make the cut and were then shipped off to the Colonies to be wedded off there.. my own ancestors being amongst this later group ..

[reed1v]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Many did.. and settled in India after they finished military service..
England had little to offer an ex-soldier who was not an officer and therefore not a 'Gentlemen'..
All they had to return to was a life of cold, grinding poverty and un-employment with a paupers grave.
Many who went out with the East India Company also settled there.. tho' often they married the 'Rejects of the Coming Out Balls' held in London to wed off the daughters of the 'Landed Gentry' who had failed to make the cut and were then shipped off to the Colonies to be wedded off there.. my own ancestors being amongst this later group ..

Generally correct, but the Hindu culture frowned upon their women marrying outsiders. Still does. My ex sister in law is from Mumbai, and she even had a lot of pressure not to marry a non India person. You normally marry within your caste(yes, legally abolished but very much a force in India society today). Can not imagine it was easier 100 years ago.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by reed1v

Generally correct, but the Hindu culture frowned upon their women marrying outsiders. Still does. My ex sister in law is from Mumbai, and she even had a lot of pressure not to marry a non India person. You normally marry within your caste(yes, legally abolished but very much a force in India society today). Can not imagine it was easier 100 years ago.

Many of the 'Unclean' or Untochables' as they are referred too became Christians during the British Raj.. although it did not change their status amongst the Upper Castes.. they were however better off as they were acceptable by the British (also Untouchables) as servants, office workers etc.. a position of privilege they could never hope to achieve if they stayed Hindu.
For the lower caste's the British soldier/Christianity represented an escape from a life that had less value than a chicken.
I am well aware of the caste system..
Americans practice it as well.. extremely difficult.. nay.. impossible for an American working in Karachi to marry someone he works with because she has a Pakistani Passport.
But.. Thank you for the 'Generally Correct' none the less...

[rognvald]

Originally Posted by Adelie

In the future you might consider using the term intermarriage rather than miscegenation which has unpleasant/racist connotations with certain groups in the US.


Sent from my iPhone using Cruisers Sailing Forum

Adelie,
the term "miscegenation" is a latin derivative term describing marriage/offspring by two different races. It has only become unacceptable in our increasingly PC world but, from a scientific perspective is considered perfectly acceptable by many. When is this PC nonsense going to end? We live a tight-lipped world of stifled speech and fear of social repercussions. Why communicate at all when we can retreat to our electronic life-pods and be separated from the real world. How soon will it be before the thought police are knocking at our doors?

[svrodeorm]

Can't keep up with the pace here, several pages since my post yesterday.

I agree to disagree to most of the reply I got. What I tried to say, and still maintain as true, is that the the Scandinavian, aka Viking crafts were the fastest and most manouvrrable nimble sailing craft until the so called modern yacht came about in the late 19th century.

Nice job mentioning all those various crafts from different cultures but none of them are even close.... And yes, the "Vikings had freighters too (kogg) being Beamer, heavier and thus load carriers.

To claim that the longships were just raiding craft is utterly wrong. The were used in warfare, trade and exploring and were extremely versatile. They were regularly moved around rapids and whitewater on the main rivers on rollers of timber, rowed when there was no wind, but most of all excellent performers on and off the wind.


There is still debate as to the size and shape of their sails. As with the ridiculous horned helmets, we often see, the idea of small, but high square sails is due to misinterpreted pieces of art from centuries after. Given they were shallow craft, without ballast except their cargo, the sail had to be wide and of low aspect. This is also suggested by the materials available at the time.


But mow this thread are in India and slave trade and intermarrige.

Let it drift! Maybe new land will be discovered!

[sailingfarmer]

Originally Posted by Adelie

In the future you might consider using the term intermarriage rather than miscegenation which has unpleasant/racist connotations with certain groups in the US.


Sent from my iPhone using Cruisers Sailing Forum

Please no POLITICALLY CORRECT-ness in this forum... let's act like normal human beings that understand that there are many nuances in every conversation which every individual is entitled to use in a free society... regardless of whether you like it or hate it.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by rognvald

Adelie,
the term "miscegenation" is a latin derivative term describing marriage/offspring by two different races. It has only become unacceptable in our increasingly PC world but, from a scientific perspective is considered perfectly acceptable by many. When is this PC nonsense going to end? We live a tight-lipped world of stifled speech and fear of social repercussions. Why communicate at all when we can retreat to our electronic life-pods and be separated from the real world. How soon will it be before the thought police are knocking at our doors?

I remember in my early days I nearly got banned for Racism.. folk on here complained coz I typed 'Paki'..
Hilarious really seeing that's what I was called for my first couple of years in the UK and RN.. I was the 'Paki Bastard'... then my accent mellowed and they started calling me a Welsh Bastard...

[Polux]

Originally Posted by rognvald

The oldest European settlement in the continental US was recently discovered in Pensacola Bay, Florida. This was the first settlement founded by Spanish colonizers that pre-dates St. Augustine and the English settlement at Jamestown. The great Spanish navigator/captain Tristan de Luna brought 1500 people to establish the colony that was eventually destroyed by a hurricane. Here's the interesting account below. I wonder if Luna has AIS, GPS, Satnav or radar?
Oldest European multi-year settlement found in Pensacola - UPI.com

Getting back to topic, it seems this settlement was no better in what regards permanency then the Viking ones since it also disappeared shortly after being founded.

It seems that the honor of having been the first permanent settlement in US belongs to St. Augustine also a Spanish settlement and an important one since it was the capital of Spanish Florida for 200 years.

There is a mystery regarding the name since the original name was Spanish, San Agustin and even if the French tried to occupy the place they were never successful till the colony was traded and given to the British. So, why a French name?

St Augustine has an interesting story related with slave freedom (they took and freed slaves "owned" by the British) and the colony, with the help of the freed slaves and their descendants resisted always to be conquered by the British, not withstanding the several attempts.

It was finally exchanged without glory in return of Havana that had been conquered by the British.

It seems that it were not only the Vikings that made raids since at their early years the colony was raided two times by British raiders, one by Drake and another by Searle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Augustine,_Florida

[Island Time O25]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Mohenjo-Daro... 2500bce.. built in the Sind Desert on the then banks of the Indus.. Alexander's (aka Sikundar as he is refered to in ancient texts) men took a lot of knowledge from there when they started his catastrophic trek home.. ]
civilisation started according to each individual's dictated education.. and that may be completely erroneous..

I guess I should have pre-faced my post with "Western civilization". I am keenly aware of all the other either contemporaneous or pre-existing civilizations - ancient Chinese, Fertile Crescent, Egypt, Indus Valley, etc. But they all had negligible influence (with possible exception of Fertile Crescent ones) on our own.

But on a similar note what galls me the most is the continuing Euro-centric worship of the nautical prowess of the Western seafarers beginning with say the Vikings, when by the time of the Vikings the Polynesians have moved from originally Taiwan (8,000 yrs ago) to all over the Pacific by about the time of the Vikings. Now that's an accomplishment worth celebrating.

And even the Aussie Aboriginals are high achievers having come to Australia 40,000-50,000 yrs ago by crossing at least 20-50 miles of open sea. Don't think they did it by just riding atop logs or some such.

[Island Time O25]

Originally Posted by sailingfarmer

Viking ships were shallow water raiding ships... thy were designed to be rowed upstream to places of plunder. They plundered the coasts so well that capitals had to retreat upstream like Paris and London to avoid their barbarism. They were the ISIS of their day..... they raped and pillaged as far as northern Africa. They were the terror of Europe. Their ships had to be shallow drafted to get up river to the next pillage. Shallow draft boats are not good for TransAtlantic crossings. Thus I strongly doubt that one of the Dragon ships ever made it to North America. Remember the prevailing winds were from the west in the northern latitudes at the best time of the year. Imagine trying to sail into that with a small square sail. Maybe one got lost on a one way trip there if they didn't starve to death or die of thirst.

Actually we may never know the exact distribution of the prevailing winds and currents at that time as the weather was markedly different - much warmer temps in general, perhaps Gulfstream having a different route and different schedule and intensity of hurricanes, different patterns of calfing of iceberg, etc. It would be interested to see if anyone made detailed scientific studies of these patterns dating back to say 700-1000AD but I would guess that we may currently lack computer power to figure out such details.