Oldest European Settlement in US

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by sailingfarmer

Hey... if history forgets 1000 years from now... American 3rd or 4th generation Europeans colonized the moon for a few hours in a very primitive ship.

You sure it was not a studio set...

[nicholson31]

Originally Posted by Kalinka1

i was part of the crew that sailed it across from Sydney to St. Johns and then Duardene France. Fun trip!

That's an opportunity that doesn't come along everyday, hope you got pictures!!

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by Polux

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.

I know what the denotations of the word are, they are fairly innocuous and mean pretty much what I think you meant which had no racist intent.

I am not personally offended but figured that since you appear to be a non-native English speaker you might want to know that in the US there are racist connotations to the word. If you had read further down in the Wikipedia article to the etymology of the word you would have found its origin in a pamphlet in opposition to the Civil War which freed enslaved blacks. Since then miscegenation has been used extensively in the US as a euphemism for racial purity. Indeed it was just before I was born that the US Supreme court struck down the Miscegenation Laws that remained in 1/3 of the states accounting for almost half the population. As recently as 2009 there was a judge in Louisiana that refused to marry a couple from different races.

As I said I understand your intended use of the word and am not offended, but there are plenty of folks in the US who, reading your posts with that word, would out of hand dismiss you and anything else you wrote as racist but would not pursue the issue with you.

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by CSY Man

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

Try reading the posts again. Polux was discussing the non-forced merging of racial groups in North America and it was for that use I was offering an alternative term to use.

Between slaves and slave owners it was rape as you say.

[CSY Man]

Originally Posted by Adelie

Try reading the post again. Polux was discussing the non-forced merging of racial groups in North America and it was for that use I was offering an alternative term to use.

Between slaves and slave owners it was rape as you say.

I read the post. You suggested calling fornication between races "Intermarriage" just to clean up the history books a bit? Reality is too harsh?

[DumnMad]

Originally Posted by sailingfarmer

There was a certain disdain throughout European history for the Spanish or Portuguese... some didn't even consider them truly European. Since Iberia was raped by the Moors for 800 years and the Moors were only stopped moving north by the Franks (French) once they crossed the Pyrenees.... Iberia was cut off from the rest of Europe for centuries culturally and genetically..

We've all got rape and murder in our genes otherwise we wouldn't be here. Most if not all the "So & So the Great"s got there through threats, conscription, & brutality.
Maybe the OP was talking oldest "civilised" settlement? i.e. where government of the people is controlled by the people without force.

The process of civilisation seemed to succeed when they more or less controlled stuff that was detrimental to good governance including providing protection to the vulnerable (so they can get on with their work) and to get as many as possible working productively for the common good. More collective work = more collective wealth.
In todays civilised countries the uncivilised economic heroes have to steal their wealth much more subtly.

[sailingfarmer]

Originally Posted by Adelie

I know what the denotations of the word are, they are fairly innocuous and mean pretty much what I think you meant which had no racist intent.

I am not personally offended but figured that since you appear to be a non-native English speaker you might want to know that in the US there are racist connotations to the word. If you had read further down in the Wikipedia article to the etymology of the word you would have found its origin in a pamphlet in opposition to the Civil War which freed enslaved blacks. Since then miscegenation has been used extensively in the US as a euphemism for racial purity. Indeed it was just before I was born that the US Supreme court struck down the Miscegenation Laws that remained in 1/3 of the states accounting for almost half the population. As recently as 2009 there was a judge in Louisiana that refused to marry a couple from different races.

As I said I understand your intended use of the word and am not offended, but there are plenty of folks in the US who, reading your posts with that word, would out of hand dismiss you and anything else you wrote as racist but would not pursue the issue with you.

It is very offensive to some people to have their choice of words edited by some one who is Politically Correct from the Left. It reminds me of the Great Inquisition in Spain. Thoughts are to be controlled by the words you are allowed to use or ostracizing those who don't avoid subjects that haven't been sanctioned for public discussion. I think these people are so emotionally trained that they have anxiety attacks if someone avoids the unwritten laws of Political Speech. People have become very fragile to free-ranging discussion. I wonder if it is a gene passed down from the Puritans of the Massachusetts Bay Colony in America. Dunking anyone?

I find it ironic that many liberals who espouse Political Correctness are generally atheists or agnostics. If they follow that anti-spiritual philosophy then logically the human being possesses no soul. It then follows that humans are just evolved smart great apes. If that is so then we are animals. If we are animals we have differences as birds or other animals do as a species. Then as a species we have different races like other animals do. For instance crows are very similar to sea gulls in size, flight characteristics, etc. But both very different and don't commune together or breed together. They are only animals... but what if the anti-theological liberals are right? That opens all logical discussion of differences since there is no soul that separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom. As a result no one can or should be offended by the scientific differences discussion of the different genes of different races of humans living on this planet.

To the discussion regarding the breeding of different races. It should be a factual non-emotional, non-political discussion with no editing in choices of words.

Who cares if in discussing the history of races if one party was Caucasian, Asian, African, Eskimo or Martian? History should be factual and nobody should be offended by who wronged who nor which choice of words were used...it's history..

[tropicalescape]

Originally Posted by reed1v

Some folks,like SailingFarmer, show a real lack of historical knowledge. Vikings routinely sailed down and into the Mediterranean to trade with the various cultures, including the ancient Greeks. That is way longer than taking a trip to America, and going through the Bay of Biscay probably more dangerous. The lapstrake construction made their ships incredibly strong and seaworthy. Ericson's son's settlements along Greenland are well documented.

So, as far as sailing capabilities, the Vikings could and did sail the high seas as well as if not better than later European sailors. The viking ship's design is superb for ocean storms, with reserve buoyancy in both bow and stern sections, extremely low windage, design that allows the boat to ride over waves and exceed hull speeds, and the option to sail, row, or both at the same time gave it maneuverability far exceeding any sailing vessel up till the 19th century. Its long, narrow design along with a center square sail probably gave it a very low center of gravity; making for a real comfy ride. Obviously design by he inhabitants of K-Pak.

Now we have another boat design to debate..I was getting tired of the full keel verses the fin keel debate..

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by CSY Man

I read the post. You suggested calling fornication between races "Intermarriage" just to clean up the history books a bit? Reality is too harsh?

I didn't say it was the best or most accurate; it was offered as an alternative that was not rooted and maintained in an attempt to enforce racial purity.




Sent from my iPhone using Cruisers Sailing Forum

[sailingfarmer]

Originally Posted by DumnMad

We've all got rape and murder in our genes otherwise we wouldn't be here. Most if not all the "So & So the Great"s got there through threats, conscription, & brutality.
Maybe the OP was talking oldest "civilised" settlement? i.e. where government of the people is controlled by the people without force.

The process of civilisation seemed to succeed when they more or less controlled stuff that was detrimental to good governance including providing protection to the vulnerable (so they can get on with their work) and to get as many as possible working productively for the common good. More collective work = more collective wealth.
In todays civilised countries the uncivilised economic heroes have to steal their wealth much more subtly.

Collective wealth? Tell that to people of the Pharaohs or the citizens of North Korea if I understand where your logic is taking this.

[DumnMad]

Originally Posted by sailingfarmer

Collective wealth? Tell that to people of the Pharaohs or the citizens of North Korea if I understand where your logic is taking this.

I'm talking GDP stuff, - see my definition of "civilised".

[Island Time O25]

Originally Posted by boatman61

So... eating rice all the time slits your eyes over the centuries with the straining and the Soy Sauce yellowed the skin..
That's the Chinese sorted..

Yeah.. okay I'll go for it

1.5 bil people eating rice and straining is infinitely better than them eating beans.... What's with the ozone destruction and such

[Polux]

Originally Posted by sailingfarmer

There was a certain disdain throughout European history for the Spanish or Portuguese... some didn't even consider them truly European. Since Iberia was raped by the Moors for 800 years and the Moors were only stopped moving north by the Franks (French) once they crossed the Pyrenees.... Iberia was cut off from the rest of Europe for centuries culturally and genetically.

One of the reasons the new Spanish monarchy pushed the "Conquistadores" into the New World was that they felt uncomfortable with these ruthless killers remaining behind with no new Pure Moorish enemies to fight. Like the hired gunslingers with a badge cleaning up the Western towns in America... what did you do with them when the crime problem was solved...? With 800 years of the rape of Spain... the genes were more Arabic/Semitic or African than European... especially in the south of Iberia. So maybe the first true Europeans to colonize America were the English. If so then Jamestown, Virginia was the first European colony... Controversial? Yes.

What a post!!!!!!!

Iberia raped by Moors? Ruthless killers? Crime problem?

You need do learn history. Both Portugal and Spain are proud of its Muslim heritage. It seems you don't know that Cordoba, Seville and Toledo were among the more civilized cities in the world, when they were Muslim cities.

Quite incredibly you seem not to be aware that the Greek Roman tradition, that is the basis of our culture, was saved by the Muslims and that were them that recovered and translated the old classic knowledge that had been forbidden and lost by the Catholic church. Without Muslims probably there would not have been a Renaissance or it would have happened much later.

Not to mention that old knowledge was increased substantially by the Muslims in domains like medicine and mathematics.

Besides you seem also to ignore that the Muslims never occupied all Iberia and the kingdom of Asturias, where the remains of the Visigothic defeated kingdom congregated was never conquered and that from there soon more Christian kingdoms were born, among them Leon, Aragon, Navarra, Castilla and Portugal. And that those kingdoms were continuously enriched with noblemen from several French regions that come to fight and to colonise lands that were recovered from the Muslims.

Iberia cutted from the rest of Europe? Portugal is the oldest European country with the same borders. As a County it is a 1000 years old and as a fully independent country is almost 900 years old.

Both Portugal and Spain were the two first European countries to expand themselves worldwide as empires, the Portuguese a more Maritime and commercial one, the Spanish more linked to colonization and doctrination (to catholicism) of the new discovered lands.

It seems also that you don't know that Spain owned a part of Italy, part of France, what is today Belgium and part of Holland.

"There was a certain disdain throughout European history for the Spanish or Portuguese... some didn't even consider them truly European....Iberia was cut off from the rest of Europe for centuries culturally and genetically."

I guess you are American, not meant as an offense, but any European would know better about European history and would not have such a ridiculous vision of European history. I guess that even most Americans would know better.

[FSMike]

Originally Posted by CSY Man

-----Do you also believe the earth is flat and the moon landing was fake?

I always thought the moon was flat and the earth was fake lol.

(Gotta put that lol in there, someone on this thread might take me seriously.)

[Polux]

Originally Posted by sailingfarmer

Hey... if history forgets 1000 years from now... American 3rd or 4th generation Europeans colonized the moon for a few hours in a very primitive ship.

Colonised for a few hours is also a good one. I have been colonising a lot of places in many countries for a few hours