Women Warriors have existed
Ann Logan
When a horse puts on its blinds, does that rule out the
others racing? No. I've seen what some assume is educational
logic. Amazons did exist, if an Amazon is a woman warrior. They
have been uncovering burial sites...most recent was in Russia.
Young women with weapons and mortal wounds indicating their
unnatural death.
Is it so hard to realize that women have always battled? It is
only through a soul-crunching society that the warrior within
is dimmed. Hurt a mother's child and you'll find that side.
It's funny how much easier it is to battle for another than
when we need to battle for ourselves.
Roar, Sisters, roar!
w3
Douglas Henderson
Ann Logan wrote:
No problem with the idea of woman warriors. Just that there is no
evidence of a tribe of Amazons. But if as Erin says, (damn you Erin,
don't you know better to correct a man?) there are tribes in South
America, well, then I'm wrong and tribes of woman warriors did exist
Just not any in the vicinity of Greece :-p
--
Douglas Henderson
Remove Wombats to reply
Aethelrede
Ann Logan wrote in message <36C52E...@li-fish.net>...
>Hello!
>
>When a horse puts on its blinds, does that rule out the
>others racing? No. I've seen what some assume is educational
>logic. Amazons did exist, if an Amazon is a woman warrior. They
>have been uncovering burial sites...most recent was in Russia.
>Young women with weapons and mortal wounds indicating their
>unnatural death.
Is this just wishful thinking or can you cite unbiased sources? Maybe
even something from a reputable, peer-reviewed archaeological journal?
Specially about those "mortal wounds"? Wasn't dying of mortal wounds
supposed to be THE natural death for the Amazons, if they ever existed?
And where do you live that horses put on 'blinds' before they race? Is
this before or after they put on their saddles?
Czaerana
>even something from a reputable, peer-reviewed archaeological journal?
Not long ago on PBS' "Nova," there was a series of programs about mummified
humans. One program was about a burial site in the former Soviet Union (Asiatic
portion). It was the burial site of a high-ranking woman. The archaeological
evidence indicated that the women probably fought along side their men.
Cynthia
Douglas Henderson
Czaerana wrote:
"Fought alongside their men" does not equal Amazons (I am assuming that this post
followed the "Amazon" thread, if not please disregard). By that token, the
Japanese women of the Samuria class who were trained in Naginata were "Amazons"
Have there been any other sites where women were buried with weapons and theories
that they actually used them or were they symbols of leadership, after all the
Queen of England knights people with a sword, (or have I seen too many movies) but
that does not make her a warrior.
There was also a few cases in continental armies IIRC of women who passed for men,
during the 18th or 19th c and fought, but they were the exception obviously. Were
there ever woman who made war their full time occupation (does Mollie Pitcher (sp?)
count?)
There were Russian tankers and pilots during the Great Patriotic War (WWII to the
rest of us) so I guess they qualify, but even they were not mano a mano fighters.
One of the Roman historians cites the ferocity of the Gaulish women, but the
context indicates that it is not in a battlefield setting.
Ann Logan
>
> Ann Logan wrote:
>
> > Hello!
> >
> > When a horse puts on its blinds, does that rule out the
> > others racing? No. I've seen what some assume is educational
> > logic. Amazons did exist, if an Amazon is a woman warrior. They
> > have been uncovering burial sites...most recent was in Russia.
> > Young women with weapons and mortal wounds indicating their
> > unnatural death.
> >
> > only through a soul-crunching society that the warrior within
> > is dimmed. Hurt a mother's child and you'll find that side.
> > It's funny how much easier it is to battle for another than
> > when we need to battle for ourselves.
> >
> > Roar, Sisters, roar!
> > w3
>
> No problem with the idea of woman warriors. Just that there is no
> evidence of a tribe of Amazons. But if as Erin says, (damn you Erin,
> don't you know better to correct a man?) there are tribes in South
> America, well, then I'm wrong and tribes of woman warriors did exist
>
> Just not any in the vicinity of Greece :-p
>
> Douglas Henderson
> Remove Wombats to reply
I'm doing a cursory research into Warrior Women and Amazon links
to Berzers. What keeps cropping up is the relationship between
moneys for archeology and prejudices. It is fantistic stuff for
a fiction writer. If history is so shaded on notions
of supreme race, supreme sex; it makes you wonder what could
slip by.
Today, i don't have the links relating to warrior women digs. It
is another fantastic area. You might want to peek into Iroquois
history as well. The native American cultures are 10,000 years
old. The way the society breaksdown is...a "he" may be the chief
but he is elected or tossed by the elder females of the tribe.
There is evidence of warrior women there, although that is
mostly in the northern Mohawk tribes.
As for Amazons in Greece, look at the cultural writings. Socrates
refers to them, and not as myths! The are depicted on pottery,
in busts, full-length portraits. They may have originated from
African Amazons...and that would explain some of the unusually
advanced fortresses ...
excuse me, i forget how long i can go. *G*
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Affiliate: Amazon.com, Barnes & Nobles, . . . businesses you know
***Looking for a book, CD, or video and don't have the time?
Did you want to mail one as a thank-you gift? Birthday coming.
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/8797/request.html
At REQUEST, we hunt for your item then generate a direct
hyper-link on the page. No extra cost. WE GOT THE TIME.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ann Logan
> >
> >When a horse puts on its blinds, does that rule out the
> >others racing? No. I've seen what some assume is educational
> >logic. Amazons did exist, if an Amazon is a woman warrior. They
> >have been uncovering burial sites...most recent was in Russia.
> >Young women with weapons and mortal wounds indicating their
> >unnatural death.
>
> even something from a reputable, peer-reviewed archaeological journal?
> supposed to be THE natural death for the Amazons, if they ever existed?
> And where do you live that horses put on 'blinds' before they race? Is
> this before or after they put on their saddles?
With respect to horses slipping on their blinds, just check
out Nick at Nite cartoons. *LOL*
With respect to case and point to Russian excavations...that was
in 1998. Dig is still ongoing.
Try this one:
http://www.archaeology.org/9701/abstracts/sarmatians.html
Ann Logan
>
> > Maybe
> >even something from a reputable, peer-reviewed archaeological journal?
>
> humans. One program was about a burial site in the former Soviet Union (Asiatic
> portion). It was the burial site of a high-ranking woman. The archaeological
> evidence indicated that the women probably fought along side their men.
>
> Cynthia
http://www.archaeology.org/9701/abstracts/sarmatians.html
there are others, as well.
Ann Logan
>
> Czaerana wrote:
>
> > > Maybe
> > >even something from a reputable, peer-reviewed archaeological journal?
> >
> > Not long ago on PBS' "Nova," there was a series of programs about mummified
> > humans. One program was about a burial site in the former Soviet Union (Asiatic
> > portion). It was the burial site of a high-ranking woman. The archaeological
> > evidence indicated that the women probably fought along side their men.
> >
> > Cynthia
>
> followed the "Amazon" thread, if not please disregard). By that token, the
> Japanese women of the Samuria class who were trained in Naginata were "Amazons"
> Have there been any other sites where women were buried with weapons and theories
> that they actually used them or were they symbols of leadership, after all the
> Queen of England knights people with a sword, (or have I seen too many movies) but
> that does not make her a warrior.
>
> There was also a few cases in continental armies IIRC of women who passed for men,
> during the 18th or 19th c and fought, but they were the exception obviously. Were
> there ever woman who made war their full time occupation (does Mollie Pitcher (sp?)
> count?)
>
> There were Russian tankers and pilots during the Great Patriotic War (WWII to the
> rest of us) so I guess they qualify, but even they were not mano a mano fighters.
>
> One of the Roman historians cites the ferocity of the Gaulish women, but the
> context indicates that it is not in a battlefield setting.
>
> Douglas Henderson
> Remove Wombats to reply
this is not the one i was referring too. But it is interesting.
I'm IRISH and until i was 21 I didn't know that there existed
an IRISH language. I was raised to believe the Irish language
was Gaelic. That is not the case.
I was also raised to believe that the Irish descended from the
English as a second-rate race. That is also, not the case.
What I was shocked to find is Irish culture stems back thousands of
years, apart from the Cornwalls, and such. It amazed me that the
truth could evade my studies here in the states. Yet, to destroy
one's language is to destroy their ties to the past. my
grandparent-immigrants had to ditch what they knew to get along
here.
When it comes to history, the aspects of truth are often parked
in shadows.
Ann Logan
>
> In article <36C52E...@li-fish.net>, Ann says...
>
> >Amazons did exist, if an Amazon is a woman warrior. They
> >have been uncovering burial sites...most recent was in Russia.
> >Young women with weapons and mortal wounds indicating their
> >unnatural death.
>
> Salmoneus) ISBN 1-55778-420-5. There were bazillions of 'em.
>
> Lil
OO, she is a great writer. Unfortunately, her books are
out of print. that was 1992. It's on my lists of seek.
Good input! :)
Ann Logan
>
> In article <36C52E...@li-fish.net>, Ann says...
>
> >Amazons did exist, if an Amazon is a woman warrior. They
> >have been uncovering burial sites...most recent was in Russia.
> >Young women with weapons and mortal wounds indicating their
> >unnatural death.
>
> Check out "The Encyclopedia of Amazons" by Jessica Amanda Salmonson (not
> Salmoneus) ISBN 1-55778-420-5. There were bazillions of 'em.
>
> Lil
OH my Gosh, I found it...At border. Will take 6 weeks, but
WoW KEWL. *hugs* You brought me luck!
Thank you!!!!!!!!
Michael Martinez
>With respect to case and point to Russian excavations...that was
>in 1998. Dig is still ongoing.
And those sites have been under excavation since the 1950s.
--
\\ // Worlds of Imagination on the Web in...@xenite.org
\\// RealName: Science Fiction and Fantasy Xenite.Org
//\\ [http://www.xenite.org/index.htm]
// \\ENITE.org...............................................
XMcDonaldsX
>
> Hello!
>
> When a horse puts on its blinds, does that rule out the
> others racing? No. I've seen what some assume is educational
> have been uncovering burial sites...most recent was in Russia.
is that in japan or soem where
> Young women with weapons and mortal wounds indicating their
> unnatural death.
could be pms HA
> Is it so hard to realize that women have always battled? It is
> only through a soul-crunching society that the warrior within
> is dimmed. Hurt a mother's child and you'll find that side.
> It's funny how much easier it is to battle for another than
> when we need to battle for ourselves.
>
> Roar, Sisters, roar!
> w3
so i geuss ammazons are lesbinans
Douglas Henderson
Ann Logan wrote:
> Douglas Henderson wrote:
> >
> > Ann Logan wrote:
> >
> > > Hello!
> > >
> SNIP your cogent points
>
> > No problem with the idea of woman warriors. Just that there is no
> > evidence of a tribe of Amazons. But if as Erin says, (damn you Erin,
> > don't you know better to correct a man?) there are tribes in South
> > America, well, then I'm wrong and tribes of woman warriors did exist
> >
> > Just not any in the vicinity of Greece :-p
> >
> > --
> > Douglas Henderson
>
> I'm doing a cursory research into Warrior Women and Amazon links
> to Berzers. What keeps cropping up is the relationship between
> moneys for archeology and prejudices. It is fantistic stuff for
> a fiction writer. If history is so shaded on notions
> of supreme race, supreme sex; it makes you wonder what could
> slip by.
>
Good point, what you find is influenced by what you are looking for, but
cuts both ways, kid <grin>
>
> Today, i don't have the links relating to warrior women digs. It
> is another fantastic area. You might want to peek into Iroquois
> history as well. The native American cultures are 10,000 years
> old. The way the society breaksdown is...a "he" may be the chief
> but he is elected or tossed by the elder females of the tribe.
> There is evidence of warrior women there, although that is
> mostly in the northern Mohawk tribes.
>
Also males who would dress as woman but were not ostracized. Don't
remember though how the tribes felt about homosexuality.
>
> As for Amazons in Greece, look at the cultural writings. Socrates
> refers to them, and not as myths! The are depicted on pottery,
> in busts, full-length portraits. They may have originated from
> African Amazons...and that would explain some of the unusually
> advanced fortresses ...
> excuse me, i forget how long i can go. *G*
>
The Socrates quotes is nice but I would like the source, (I tended towards
Aristotle myself, so I am not as familiar with Soc's works) but in terms of
depictions as being proof, by the token Gorgons definitely existed by the
number of times they are portrayed, let alone men with three foot
schlong's! :-)
>
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Affiliate: Amazon.com, Barnes & Nobles, . . . businesses you know
> ***Looking for a book, CD, or video and don't have the time?
> Did you want to mail one as a thank-you gift? Birthday coming.
> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/8797/request.html
> At REQUEST, we hunt for your item then generate a direct
> hyper-link on the page. No extra cost. WE GOT THE TIME.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--
Douglas Henderson
Ann Logan wrote:
> Lilith wrote:
> >
> > In article <36C52E...@li-fish.net>, Ann says...
> >
> > >Amazons did exist, if an Amazon is a woman warrior. They
> > >have been uncovering burial sites...most recent was in Russia.
> > >Young women with weapons and mortal wounds indicating their
> > >unnatural death.
> >
> > Check out "The Encyclopedia of Amazons" by Jessica Amanda Salmonson (not
> > Salmoneus) ISBN 1-55778-420-5. There were bazillions of 'em.
> >
> > Lil
> OO, she is a great writer. Unfortunately, her books are
> out of print. that was 1992. It's on my lists of seek.
>
> Good input! :)
>
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Affiliate: Amazon.com, Barnes & Nobles, . . . businesses you know
> ***Looking for a book, CD, or video and don't have the time?
> Did you want to mail one as a thank-you gift? Birthday coming.
> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/8797/request.html
> At REQUEST, we hunt for your item then generate a direct
> hyper-link on the page. No extra cost. WE GOT THE TIME.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
P.S. and since I have not seen you around here before and the welcome wagon
is not around (julie e?) Welcome.
Just watch out for Giant Sloth posts. Those of us who blather on about topics
that are not specifically related to Xena, or are tangtially related to Xena,
or are not related to Xena but only to other Xenites, we put a OT for "off
topic" in our headers so dems that wants to read, and dose that don't wont.
There is a FAQ here somewhere.
Douglas Henderson
XMcDonaldsX wrote:
> Ann Logan wrote:
> >
> > Hello!
> >
> SNIP
> >
> > Roar, Sisters, roar!
> > w3
>
> so i geuss ammazons are lesbinans
Dammit, its "Lesbonaines"! Can't you spell?!!
Aethelrede
Czaerana wrote in message <19990213001824...@ng-fb1.aol.com>...
>> Maybe
>>even something from a reputable, peer-reviewed archaeological journal?
>
>Not long ago on PBS' "Nova," there was a series of programs about mummified
>humans. One program was about a burial site in the former Soviet Union
(Asiatic
>portion). It was the burial site of a high-ranking woman. The
archaeological
>evidence indicated that the women probably fought along side their men.
"Nova" is scarcely a peer-reviewed journal; its another "golly-gee,
lookey this folks" TV show. I saw that program and IIRC the tatooed woman
was someone the directors insisted was a 'shamaness': since all the
archaeologists were Russian and almost nothing about their work has been
published outside Russia there is little more to be said about the matter
All the evidence is that some burials have been found containing the
bodies (more often the bones) of women and weapons. Period. Not large
numbers of burials in which no men were found, not even many burials in
which only female graves contained weapons. The interpretation of these
relatively scarce women/weapon graves as proof of tribes of women warriors
from eastern Europe all the way across Siberia is almost entirely due to
wishful thinking and an agenda comparable with the Afrocentrism being pushed
as history by some groups.
Aethelrede
Ann Logan wrote in message <36C552...@li-fish.net
>
>I'm IRISH and until i was 21 I didn't know that there existed
>an IRISH language. I was raised to believe the Irish language
>was Gaelic. That is not the case.
I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but the language of Ireland IS Gaelic.
The word is used by the Irish government and the Irish themselves, although
obviously they often refer to it just as Irish, as in "I wasted hours a week
in school because everyone had to try to learn that damn stupid Irish".
It's closely related to Scots Gaelic and less so to Welsh and Breton.
Gaelic (or Gaulish) was the group os languages spoken by, and defining, the
people known by the Romans as Gauls who occupied large areas of western
Europe.
>I was also raised to believe that the Irish descended from the
>English as a second-rate race.
Now there's a lie. The English are just a bunch of Norewegians, Swedes,
Dutch, Danes and (god save us) even a few Belgians who arrived before the
immigration service was established. I personally am British, not English.
>That is also, not the case.
>What I was shocked to find is Irish culture stems back thousands of
>years, apart from the Cornwalls, and such. It amazed me that the
>truth could evade my studies here in the states.
Just think how many people educated in the USA used to think that there
was no American history before the Pilgrims landed, and that Africa had no
history before the British started colonising 200 years ago (Ignoring the
Portugese and Spanish who'd been there sinve the 15th century).
If you get factual, the history of Ireland started around 1-200 AD when
a Welshman introduced the natives to Christianity and writing: before that
there was only an oral tradition (1). The same applied to America and
Africa: it's not history until it's written down: then it's current
propaganda(2); before that its myth.
(1) not worth the paper it's written on
(2) Compare the white house version of the presidents deeds over the last
decade or so with whatever fragments of the truth that havn't been swept
away, lost, hidden or shredded.
Douglas Henderson
Aethelrede wrote:
I tend to agree with you on this, since pre-history denotes before written
records. Was Ogham later than or before Patrick?
OTOH there is a basis for a Irish Culture before this, as a Celtic Kingdom.
When did the Celts make it to Ireland? Also I don't think that they were
Megalith builders (e.g. New Grange) so I am not sure that a Irish culture could
be defined as going back "thousands of years."
hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu
: Ann Logan wrote in message <36C552...@li-fish.net
: >
: >I'm IRISH and until i was 21 I didn't know that there existed
: >an IRISH language. I was raised to believe the Irish language
: >was Gaelic. That is not the case.
: I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but the language of Ireland IS Gaelic.
: The word is used by the Irish government and the Irish themselves, although
: obviously they often refer to it just as Irish, as in "I wasted hours a week
: in school because everyone had to try to learn that damn stupid Irish".
: It's closely related to Scots Gaelic and less so to Welsh and Breton.
: Gaelic (or Gaulish) was the group os languages spoken by, and defining, the
: people known by the Romans as Gauls who occupied large areas of western
: Europe.
If I might offer a minor clarification. (Ok, not so minor to me, but it's
my professional field, so my point of view is skewed.) "Gaelic" and
"Gaulish" are far from synonymous. "Gaelic" is generally reserved for
medieval or modern languages of the Goidelic branch of the Celtic language
family. "Gaulish" refers to a branch of the Celtic language family spoken
on the continent during a much earlier period (disappearing roughly during
the Roman Empire period). Not only are Gaelic and Gaulish not
interchangeable, but from an evolutionary viewpoint, they are cousins
rather than in the same direct line. (This confusion may derive from a
mistaken equation of "Gaelic" with the umbrella term "Celtic" -- a fairly
common misconception.)
--
*********************************************************
Heather Rose Jones hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu
**********************************************************
K Giles
>
>Lilith wrote:
>> Check out "The Encyclopedia of Amazons" by Jessica Amanda Salmonson
(not
>> Salmoneus) ISBN 1-55778-420-5. There were bazillions of 'em.
>
>WoW KEWL. *hugs* You brought me luck!
Have fun reading the book, but be sure to take it with a grain or two of
salt. There are bits where even I could tell that the author's
conclusions weren't supported by the evidence.
Speaking of Amazons, it seems that different posters interpret the word
in different ways. Some confusion in this thread may be avoided if
everyone made it clear whether they were speaking of women warriors in
general or women warriors who live in a society without men or one in
which men play a secondary role. That the first group of women existed
is certain, it is the second group that is questionable.
-Lamia Ledbetter
*Who fan* *Amazon* *High-school Senior*
paghat
wil...@li-fish.net wrote:
> Lilith wrote:
> >
> > In article <36C52E...@li-fish.net>, Ann says...
> >
> > >Amazons did exist, if an Amazon is a woman warrior. They
> > >have been uncovering burial sites...most recent was in Russia.
> > >Young women with weapons and mortal wounds indicating their
> > >unnatural death.
> >
> > Salmoneus) ISBN 1-55778-420-5. There were bazillions of 'em.
> >
> OO, she is a great writer. Unfortunately, her books are
> out of print. that was 1992. It's on my lists of seek.
>
Thanks for the kind words. My novel of
the woman samurai Tomoe Gozen, THE
DISFAVORED HERO, has just been
reissued by Pacific Warriors
Incorporated in trade paperback & a
collectors' hardcover. The publisher can
be reached through their website:
http://www.pacificwarriors.com/
There's some sort of publishers'
convention in San Jose the weekend of
the 25th and Pacific Warriors is sendind
plane tickets to me & my sweetie, & I'll
be at there signing the book at the PWI
table.
I have a website too & there's an article
posted there on Amazon heroic fantasy.
-Jessica
http://www.violetbooks.com
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Ann Logan
***
Sorry, they are two languages: Gaelic and Irish. Irish is a rare
language, spoke in southern Ireland. My lesson in the difference
came from a theologian raised in the southern regions.
He has taught both, Gaelic and Irish in NY Universities for 25 years.
According to him, Irish consists of 24 letters and the proper
pronounciations are harsh like early German.
It is does not share the ease of learning, Gaelic does. However, there
are some cross-over in terms between the two.
From the way it was explained to me, Gaelic is comparitive to
Swaheli which the English used to bring uniform dialogue in
African areas.
If you have a chance to hear both languages, you
will easily note the difference.
Ann Logan
>
> Aethelrede wrote:
>
> > Ann Logan wrote in message <36C552...@li-fish.net
> > >
> > >I'm IRISH and until i was 21 I didn't know that there existed
> > >an IRISH language. I was raised to believe the Irish language
> > >was Gaelic. That is not the case.
> >
> > I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but the language of Ireland IS Gaelic.
> > The word is used by the Irish government and the Irish themselves, although
> > obviously they often refer to it just as Irish, as in "I wasted hours a week
> > in school because everyone had to try to learn that damn stupid Irish".
> > It's closely related to Scots Gaelic and less so to Welsh and Breton.
> > Gaelic (or Gaulish) was the group os languages spoken by, and defining, the
> > people known by the Romans as Gauls who occupied large areas of western
> > Europe.
> >
History shifts according to whom is telling his story.
Irish history goes back several thousand years, it goes
beyond Greeks. It's prejudice that keeps Irish history
from American classrooms.
We hear nibbles of the magic ways of the Druids.
Who would be able to understand the ancient writings?
Who would fund the research? Is the ostrich right?
When you destroy a people's language, you destroy their
history, their culture. Not all of Ireland has died.
;)
Ann Logan
> as history by some groups.
Oh, and I suppose the original digs where completely without
prejudice? Give me a break. Darwin had his theories and
a famous hoax that has easily been forgiven.
They found young women and ancient weapons in the the same
dig. You are asserting that THEY should ASSUME the weapons
were used by absent men? Of course, I can understand your
persistance to this inclination. Why be accurate when
your personal bias is threatened?
AHJR 1954
Prehistory to Present_ by Linda Grant De Pauw may shed some light on this
topic.
ahjr
Ann Logan
AAAAHHHH! Wonderful to Greet you!
I found "The Encyclopedia of Amazons", at Borders.com . . .it's the red
head part of me. Should be here in 4 weeks, they said.
**I'm a published poet (my first three poems, this year) and
keep-at-it writer. Do you have a gem of advice? Recently,
a vengeance short-story made the short-list. Best rejection letter
so far. Editor took pen-in-hand to say, "Enjoyed it!"
Ann
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Someday the FDA will approve AMPLIGEN. I'd like a life.
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/8797/CFIDS.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Michael Martinez
> Just think how many people educated in the USA used to think that there
>was no American history before the Pilgrims landed,
History is the written record of past events. Until the code of the Maya
was broken, we DIDN'T have a history before 1492 (but no one ever taught us
that American history began with the Pilgrims -- just the Thanksgiving Day
tradition).
Ann Logan
>
> Ann Logan wrote:
> >
> > Hello!
> >
> > others racing? No. I've seen what some assume is educational
> > have been uncovering burial sites...most recent was in Russia.
>
****I wouldn't know are you Japanize?***
>
> > Young women with weapons and mortal wounds indicating their
> > unnatural death.
>
> could be pms HA
***Getting angry for any sword battle is an advantage given to
your opponent. ****
> > Is it so hard to realize that women have always battled? It is
> > only through a soul-crunching society that the warrior within
> > is dimmed. Hurt a mother's child and you'll find that side.
> > It's funny how much easier it is to battle for another than
> > when we need to battle for ourselves.
> >
> > Roar, Sisters, roar!
> > w3
>
> so i geuss ammazons are lesbinans
***I don't think we opened a discusion on Amazon sexuality. For the
most part, this post has been exploring the existence of Amazons
as a society. I'd guess their were male Amazons. Pregnancy happened.
...I don't know if we can open this topic...
Battle On!
Douglas Henderson
Ann Logan wrote:
> SNIP
>
> History shifts according to whom is telling his story.
> Irish history goes back several thousand years, it goes
> beyond Greeks. It's prejudice that keeps Irish history
> from American classrooms.
>
> We hear nibbles of the magic ways of the Druids.
> Who would be able to understand the ancient writings?
> Who would fund the research? Is the ostrich right?
>
> When you destroy a people's language, you destroy their
> history, their culture. Not all of Ireland has died.
> ;)
Sorry, but with there being Irish AND Gaelic (!?!) based on the testimony of one
theologian, and the megalith builders as being Celts (or so I presume from your
pre-Greek comments) when Halltstat, the earliest Celtic period is from 750-450 BCE,
Well, good luck to you but I am no longer interesting in this discussion. Ta.
Douglas Henderson
Douglas Henderson wrote:
> Ann Logan wrote:
>
> > SNIP
>
> SNIP
>
> Well, good luck to you but I am no longer interesting in this discussion. Ta.
^^^^^^^^
>
> --
> Douglas Henderson
> Remove Wombats to reply
Hmm, there's an apt Freudian slip!
Aethelrede
Ann Logan wrote in message <36C6B0...@li-fish.net>...
>From the way it was explained to me, Gaelic is comparitive to
>Swaheli which the English used to bring uniform dialogue in
>African areas
When did they do this? From what I recall of what I was taught about
colonial Africa, the natives were free to speak their own langueages, but
spoke English as the official language of colinial administration.
So those East Africans who spoke Ki-Swahili continued to do so.
I've always wondered why black Americans in the 60's decided that the
correct language to adopt as "African" should be Swahilii when most slaves
were West African, mostly speaking some sort of Bantu language. If
anything, the Swahili language adopted most of its current Arabic elements
during the centuries in which Swahili speakers took part in the trade of
Bantu slaves to Arabia.
As a result of the colonisation and the drawing of 'national' boundaries
around areas containing many different tribes and modern attempts to appease
everyone, the Nigerian navy is said to have over 50 warships named
"hippopotamus' in different languages.
js...@cornell.edu
sons...@wombatsmindspring.com.com wrote:
>
>
> Ann Logan wrote:
>
>
> The Socrates quotes is nice but I would like the source, (I tended towards
> Aristotle myself, so I am not as familiar with Soc's works) but in terms of
> depictions as being proof, by the token Gorgons definitely existed by the
> number of times they are portrayed, let alone men with three foot
> schlong's! :-)
There are some more recent examples of women warriors. Joan of Arc lead the
french in battles against the English, and Queen NZhinga of Angola was a
Warrior Queen who led her nation to victories against the Portugese(Angola
didn't get conquoered until long after her death.)
>
> >
> > --
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > Affiliate: Amazon.com, Barnes & Nobles, . . . businesses you know
> > ***Looking for a book, CD, or video and don't have the time?
> > Did you want to mail one as a thank-you gift? Birthday coming.
> > http://www.geocities.com/Athens/8797/request.html
> > At REQUEST, we hunt for your item then generate a direct
> > hyper-link on the page. No extra cost. WE GOT THE TIME.
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> --
> Douglas Henderson
> Remove Wombats to reply
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
js...@cornell.edu
wil...@li-fish.net wrote:
> Douglas Henderson wrote:
>
> History shifts according to whom is telling his story.
> Irish history goes back several thousand years, it goes
> beyond Greeks. It's prejudice that keeps Irish history
> from American classrooms.
ALl histories go back more than several thousands years. What's documented is
an entirely different story however . Nevertheless, you can only teach so much
in the primary and secondary schools . People who have further interests in
History will have to study whatever areas they prefer at Universities or on
their own.
>
> When you destroy a people's language, you destroy their
> history, their culture. Not all of Ireland has died.
> ;)
Well, languages come and go. The Celtic languages are essentially gone, as are
the Indian languages in the US.
js...@cornell.edu
Mic...@xenite.org (Michael Martinez) wrote:
> In article <7a4vhu$8...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>, "Aethelrede"
<Aethe...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > Just think how many people educated in the USA used to think that there
> >was no American history before the Pilgrims landed,
>
> History is the written record of past events. Until the code of the Maya
> was broken, we DIDN'T have a history before 1492 (but no one ever taught us
> that American history began with the Pilgrims -- just the Thanksgiving Day
> tradition).
There was a history . It simply wasn't documented. Archealogist have learned
white a bit about the past of the Incas, Aztecs, Mayas and other Indian
groups.. Also, things can be learned by documenting oral traditions.
Nevertheless, it was know there was always a history before 1492, because the
Europeans knew they were conquoering the Indians, and they did learn something
about them that were documented in the early 1500s.
>
> --
> \\ // Worlds of Imagination on the Web in...@xenite.org
> \\// RealName: Science Fiction and Fantasy Xenite.Org
> //\\ [http://www.xenite.org/index.htm]
> // \\ENITE.org...............................................
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
js...@cornell.edu
This is one thing to remember, that all writers are biased and all have an
agdenda. ALthough I have not read any cases of Entire tribes of warrior
women, there certain were women in history who led armies into battle. Joan
of Arc comes to mind, as does Queen Nzhingha of Angola.
Douglas Henderson
Malvinas, and Golda Meier (sp?) lead the Israelis to Victory in 73, and I could
take out both of them with one punch. Leading is not the same thing as fighting.
:-)
js...@cornell.edu wrote:
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
--
Aethelrede
js...@cornell.edu wrote in message <7a7e0q$n0$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <36C6B3...@li-fish.net>,
>This is one thing to remember, that all writers are biased and all have an
>agdenda. ALthough I have not read any cases of Entire tribes of warrior
>women, there certain were women in history who led armies into battle. Joan
>of Arc comes to mind, as does Queen Nzhingha of Angola.
Funny how its always "Women Warriors who LED armies into battle" that
you hear people talking about. Almost nobody talks about the real women who
carried a flintlock musket backwards and forward over Europe for 20 years or
so before getting wounded and found out for what they were. Just not
glamorous enough probably.
Just like all the spiritualists and channelers always yack about great
kings and queens and mighty warriors: never someone who spent all 35 years
of their life within sight of the patch of land they grew their cabbages on.
hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu
: hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu wrote:
: > If I might offer a minor clarification. (Ok, not so minor to me, but it's
: > my professional field, so my point of view is skewed.) "Gaelic" and
: > "Gaulish" are far from synonymous. "Gaelic" is generally reserved for
: > medieval or modern languages of the Goidelic branch of the Celtic language
: > family. "Gaulish" refers to a branch of the Celtic language family spoken
: > on the continent during a much earlier period (disappearing roughly during
: > the Roman Empire period). Not only are Gaelic and Gaulish not
: > interchangeable, but from an evolutionary viewpoint, they are cousins
: > rather than in the same direct line. (This confusion may derive from a
: > mistaken equation of "Gaelic" with the umbrella term "Celtic" -- a fairly
: > common misconception.)
: ***
: Sorry, they are two languages: Gaelic and Irish. Irish is a rare
: language, spoke in southern Ireland. My lesson in the difference
: came from a theologian raised in the southern regions.
: He has taught both, Gaelic and Irish in NY Universities for 25 years.
: According to him, Irish consists of 24 letters and the proper
: pronounciations are harsh like early German.
: It is does not share the ease of learning, Gaelic does. However, there
: are some cross-over in terms between the two.
: From the way it was explained to me, Gaelic is comparitive to
: Swaheli which the English used to bring uniform dialogue in
: African areas.
: If you have a chance to hear both languages, you
: will easily note the difference.
I must confess that despite having spent the last half-dozen years working
on a PhD in Celtic linguistics, I have no idea what the distinction is
that you're trying to make.
In everyday conversation, when the terms "Irish" and "Gaelic" (as applied
to languages) are contrasted with each other, "Irish" is being used as
shorthand for "Irish Gaelic" while "Gaelic" is being used as shorthand for
"Scottish Gaelic". (Linguists tend to use the full form of both in order
to avoid confusion.) But you appear to be referring to two different forms
of language within Ireland itself.
The comparison to Swahili is confusing. Swahili is a Bantu language that
has, for practical reasons, evolved as a "standard common tongue" among
speakers of a wide variety of Bantu languages (which individually may have
a very small population base). A good comparison might be the use of
"classical" literary Arabic in the Middle East among people whose local
dialects of everyday Arabic have become mutually unintelligible. In the
context of the Goidelic languages there is no parallel need for a "common
tongue", since the existing dialectal variants don't cover as wide a
spread.
The only thing that might possibly make sense is if you are using "Gaelic"
to refer to the language as taught in schools to new learners, and "Irish"
to refer to the language as used in the "Gaeltacht" (sp?) where it has
survived continuously as an everyday language. (The equivalent would be
treating the English you learned at home as an entirely different language
than the English learned by high-school students in, say, Germany.) But,
if so, I think you will find that your teacher is using a very
idiosyncratic set of terminology and distinctions, and that you are likely
to regularly run into problems of communication when discussing the topic
with others.
At any rate, I stand by my correction that "Gaelic" and "Gaulish" are
completely separate concepts.
Douglas Henderson
Michael Martinez wrote:
> In article <36C6DC77...@mindspring.com>, sons...@wombatsmindspring.com.com wrote:
> >Sorry, but with there being Irish AND Gaelic (!?!) based on the testimony of
> >one theologian, and the megalith builders as being Celts (or so I presume
> >from your pre-Greek comments) when Halltstat, the earliest Celtic period
> >is from 750-450 BCE, Well, good luck to you but I am no longer interesting
> >in this discussion. Ta.
>
> Languages, Megaliths, and Freudian slips aside, Celtic pre-history is
> generally thought to have begun with the Urnfield Culture of Central
> Europe, which goes back to around 1200 BCE, IIRC. There are strong
> indications that the Halstatt Culture was simply a successor to the
> Urnfield Culture (one of the significant differences being the use of iron
> by Halstatt peoples).
>
> Of course, many people may feel that the Boyne Culture of the Second
> Millenium BCE was just a logical precursor of the later Gaelic cultures.
> After all, the Celts were not the first people to colonize Ireland (and
> there were at least three waves of Celtic migration to the British Isles)
> and they seem to have settled among older peoples either as conquerors or
> as neighbors.
>
> --
> \\ // Worlds of Imagination on the Web in...@xenite.org
> \\// RealName: Science Fiction and Fantasy Xenite.Org
> //\\ [http://www.xenite.org/index.htm]
> // \\ENITE.org...............................................
Possible, I'm feeling lazy and don't want to dig among my boxes of books, but still its a
stretch to say that the Celts predated the Greeks. If one goes back to "proto-celts" why
can't you go back to "proto-greeks"? I just think Ann Logan was overplaying her hand. She
had some good points but she lost me when she pushed the envelope of the discussion further
than I'm willing to go currently.
Hey mike, I guess this means we're not killfiling each other, eh? <friendly grin>
Michael Martinez
Michael Martinez
>In article <7a60h5$s0u$3...@camel15.mindspring.com>,
> Mic...@xenite.org (Michael Martinez) wrote:
>> In article <7a4vhu$8...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>, "Aethelrede"
><Aethe...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> > Just think how many people educated in the USA used to think that there
>> >was no American history before the Pilgrims landed,
>>
>> History is the written record of past events. Until the code of the Maya
>> was broken, we DIDN'T have a history before 1492 (but no one ever taught us
>> that American history began with the Pilgrims -- just the Thanksgiving Day
>> tradition).
>
>There was a history . It simply wasn't documented. Archealogist have learned
>white a bit about the past of the Incas, Aztecs, Mayas and other Indian
>groups.. Also, things can be learned by documenting oral traditions.
"History" has a formal definition. If it's written down, it's history. If
it's not written down, it's tradition, folklore, legend, or myth.
Aethelrede
hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu wrote in message
<7a7ho5$8eb$1...@agate.berkeley.edu>...
>The comparison to Swahili is confusing. Swahili is a Bantu language that
>has, for practical reasons, evolved as a "standard common tongue" among
>speakers of a wide variety of Bantu languages (which individually may have
>a very small population base).
That sounds weird to me because this point was mentioned to me by some
African students I knew a while back when they were having an indignation
meeting about being slapped on the back and referred to a "African brothers"
by the local black students. Their point of view was that they were not
the brothers of anyone whose ancestors had been slaves because nobody from
their tribes had ever been slaves(1). They were from Nigeria and Ghana and
brought up the point about Swahili not being their language, but an East
African language.
Of course, since this was a long time ago I might have forgotten the
particualr language family they said their own (each different) belonged,
but I always thought that it extended from the west subsaharan coast inland,
south through central Africa and then south, often through fairly recent
migration, to the northern fringes of South Africa, and was Bantu.
But then I'm no linguist: I speak French like a (Waloon) Belgian,
German like a Dutchman, and Italian, Turkish and Greek mostly by waving my
hands about or pointing.
(1) there was a distinct implication that their tribes had never had a
problem with owning slaves, but that was a long time ago....
Aethelrede
Michael Martinez wrote in message <7a80h3$vm0$5...@camel25.mindspring.com>...
>In article <36C6DC77...@mindspring.com>,
sons...@wombatsmindspring.com.com wrote:
>>Sorry, but with there being Irish AND Gaelic (!?!) based on the testimony
of
>>one theologian, and the megalith builders as being Celts (or so I presume
>>from your pre-Greek comments) when Halltstat, the earliest Celtic period
>>is from 750-450 BCE, Well, good luck to you but I am no longer interesting
>>in this discussion. Ta.
>
>Languages, Megaliths, and Freudian slips aside, Celtic pre-history is
>generally thought to have begun with the Urnfield Culture of Central
>Europe, which goes back to around 1200 BCE, IIRC. There are strong
>indications that the Halstatt Culture was simply a successor to the
>Urnfield Culture (one of the significant differences being the use of iron
>by Halstatt peoples).
>
>Of course, many people may feel that the Boyne Culture of the Second
>Millenium BCE was just a logical precursor of the later Gaelic cultures.
>After all, the Celts were not the first people to colonize Ireland (and
>there were at least three waves of Celtic migration to the British Isles)
>and they seem to have settled among older peoples either as conquerors or
>as neighbors.
Of course you are committing the logical flaw of equating archaeological
discoveries with linguistic groups and inferring a continuity of culture
from much later historical records when there is no real proof of a
connection.
But the urnfield culture just might be a real precursor of the Halstatt
culture, and you'd have to be a real nitpicker do question some continuity
of iron working and jewel making between that and the historical celts, even
though there is no evidence of what language was spoken by the Halstatt
people, or the urnfield types either. For all we know they were Scythian
speaking Warrior Women from Siberia.
Michael Martinez
>Michael Martinez wrote in message <7a80h3$vm0$5...@camel25.mindspring.com>...
>>Millenium BCE was just a logical precursor of the later Gaelic cultures.
>>After all, the Celts were not the first people to colonize Ireland (and
>>there were at least three waves of Celtic migration to the British Isles)
>>and they seem to have settled among older peoples either as conquerors or
>>as neighbors.
>
> Of course you are committing the logical flaw of equating archaeological
>discoveries with linguistic groups and inferring a continuity of culture
>from much later historical records when there is no real proof of a
>connection.
No, I'm just summarizing what's written in a shelf-full of books to avoid
getting into lengthy citations for which I don't have time.
Linguistic data are not available, although some reconstructivists
apparently suggest that there may indeed be indirect linguistic evidence of
a connection.
Ann Logan
>
> In article <7a4vhu$8...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>, "Aethelrede" <Aethe...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > Just think how many people educated in the USA used to think that there
> >was no American history before the Pilgrims landed,
>
> History is the written record of past events. Until the code of the Maya
> was broken, we DIDN'T have a history before 1492 (but no one ever taught us
> that American history began with the Pilgrims -- just the Thanksgiving Day
> tradition).
>
> \\ // Worlds of Imagination on the Web in...@xenite.org
> \\// RealName: Science Fiction and Fantasy Xenite.Org
> //\\ [http://www.xenite.org/index.htm]
> // \\ENITE.org...............................................
Thanksgiving was a wonder adoption from the native American
cultures. They didn't understand why the settlers didn't take
out a special occasion to say thank you to creator. Of course, they
Native Americans had more than an annual thanksgiving.
I was chatting with New Zealand friend, Maori. They learn
their oral history at age four and have kept their heritage
from the marvelous practice. There is so much study being
explored as to lineage back and forth between continents.
In one, a lineage between Maori and Algonquin.
It is better to have a written history but saying history doesn't exist
outside the written word?
Dewey Decimal doesn't run that way. *G*
I've been enjoying your conversation. Generates a lot of
ideas. I see someone else not sharing the enthusiasm. We don't
have to agree to get along. I hope others share,
exchanging ideas doesn't require pontification or proslatizing.
Thank you for sharing!
Ann
Ray Radlein
>
> Thanks for the kind words. My novel of the woman samurai Tomoe Gozen,
> THE DISFAVORED HERO, has just been reissued by Pacific Warriors
> Incorporated in trade paperback & a collectors' hardcover.
Is this a sqeuel to "Tomoe Gozen," "The Golden Naginata" and "Thousand
Shrine Warrior"? Or is this an unrelated novel?
- Ray R.
--
***********************************************************************
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Strom Thurmond Congress wagh'nagl fhtagn.
Ray Radlein - r...@learnlink.emory.edu
homepage coming soon! wooo, wooo.
***********************************************************************
IrishRose
>
> Well, languages come and go. The Celtic languages are essentially gone, as are
> the Indian languages in the US.
I have some Irish, Scottish, Welsh, and Navaho friends who might argue
with that assertion.
Linda
--
@->--- @->--- @->--- @->--- @->--- @->---
"Not Everything that is beautiful is good.....
But everything that is Good is beautiful"
@->--- @->--- @->--- @->--- @->--- @->---
Michael Martinez
>It is better to have a written history but saying history doesn't exist
>outside the written word?
That's the definition of "history", however. It may seem limiting or
inadequate, but you even use the phrase "oral history" to make the
distinction between "something else" and "history".
Simon Bailey
<musg...@u.arizona.edu> writes
>js...@cornell.edu wrote:
>
>>
>> Well, languages come and go. The Celtic languages are essentially gone, as are
>> the Indian languages in the US.
>
>I have some Irish, Scottish, Welsh, and Navaho friends who might argue
>with that assertion.
>
>Linda
All public signs in Wales are English-Welsh bilingual. Some Welsh
council authorities insist that you can speak Welsh. The languages
spoken on Welsh TV channel S4C is half English, half Welsh. The soap
opera 'Pobol y cwm' is Welsh language and is very popular in Wales.
--
Simon Bailey, | No strawberry-blonde bards
Carrera AMD K6 with modem, | were harmed during the composition
Waterlooville, Hants., England | of this message.
http://www.xalanth.demon.co.uk | BSc MEng ROCTOS GGGHD P45 BBC ITV PTO
Erin
Martinez) wrote:
>In article <36C7F5...@li-fish.net>, wil...@li-fish.net wrote:
>>It is better to have a written history but saying history doesn't exist
>>outside the written word?
>
>That's the definition of "history", however. It may seem limiting or
>inadequate, but you even use the phrase "oral history" to make the
>distinction between "something else" and "history".
Hmm, my Websters defines history as "an account of what has happened,
esp. in the life of a people, country, etc. 2. all recorded past
events 3. the branch of knowledge that deals with the recording,
analysis, etc. of past events 4. a known past". Nothing in there
specifically about *written* as opposed to oral, history. What source
are you using that limits history to written records only?
Erin
--
"Fine, you kick butt and I'll take notes." - Xena
*Xena Convention Source: http://www.heckman.net/xena
*Subtext Site: http://www.heckman.net/erin/xena.htm
*email: er...@heckman.net
Ann Logan
I don't know from where this alternate history definition is
coming. Perhaps someone is making a Phd on a new linguistical
perspective.
My dictionaries jive with yours Erin. I was wondering how the bible
would fit into this "new" history definition. For a hundred years, it
was oral history. does that mean it is now . . . Myth?
And the many archeologist who use it as a reference to
time-line are myth-hunters?
Interesting stuff.
Ann
Michael Martinez
>On Mon, 15 Feb 1999 18:17:01 GMT, Mic...@xenite.org (Michael
>Martinez) wrote:
>
>>In article <36C7F5...@li-fish.net>, wil...@li-fish.net wrote:
>>>It is better to have a written history but saying history doesn't exist
>>>outside the written word?
>>
>>That's the definition of "history", however. It may seem limiting or
>>inadequate, but you even use the phrase "oral history" to make the
>>distinction between "something else" and "history".
>
>Hmm, my Websters defines history as "an account of what has happened,
>esp. in the life of a people, country, etc. 2. all recorded past
>events 3. the branch of knowledge that deals with the recording,
>analysis, etc. of past events 4. a known past". Nothing in there
>specifically about *written* as opposed to oral, history. What source
>are you using that limits history to written records only?
Perhaps you should look up the words "record" and "recorded". Or try
http://www.dictionary.com/
Douglas Henderson
Ann Logan wrote:
> Erin wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 15 Feb 1999 18:17:01 GMT, Mic...@xenite.org (Michael
> > Martinez) wrote:
> >
> > >In article <36C7F5...@li-fish.net>, wil...@li-fish.net wrote:
> > >>It is better to have a written history but saying history doesn't exist
> > >>outside the written word?
> > >
> > >That's the definition of "history", however. It may seem limiting or
> > >inadequate, but you even use the phrase "oral history" to make the
> > >distinction between "something else" and "history".
> >
> > Hmm, my Websters defines history as "an account of what has happened,
> > esp. in the life of a people, country, etc. 2. all recorded past
> > events 3. the branch of knowledge that deals with the recording,
> > analysis, etc. of past events 4. a known past". Nothing in there
> > specifically about *written* as opposed to oral, history. What source
> > are you using that limits history to written records only?
> >
> > Erin
> > --
> > "Fine, you kick butt and I'll take notes." - Xena
> > *Xena Convention Source: http://www.heckman.net/xena
> > *Subtext Site: http://www.heckman.net/erin/xena.htm
> > *email: er...@heckman.net
>
> I don't know from where this alternate history definition is
> coming. Perhaps someone is making a Phd on a new linguistical
> perspective.
>
> My dictionaries jive with yours Erin. I was wondering how the bible
> would fit into this "new" history definition. For a hundred years, it
> was oral history. does that mean it is now . . . Myth?
> And the many archeologist who use it as a reference to
> time-line are myth-hunters?
>
> Interesting stuff.
> Ann
from Dictionary.com
History \His"to*ry\, n.; pl. Histories. [L. historia, Gr. 'istori`a history,
information, inquiry, fr. 'istwr,
"istwr, knowing, learned, from the root of ? to know; akin to E. wit.
See Wit, and cf. Story.] 1. A
learning or knowing by inquiry; the knowledge of facts and events, so
obtained; hence, a formal
statement of such information; a narrative; a description; a written
record; as, the history of a patient's
case; the history of a legislative bill.
2. A systematic, written account of events, particularly of those
affecting a nation, institution, science, or
art, and usually connected with a philosophical explanation of their
causes; a true story, as distinguished
from a romance; -- distinguished also from annals, which relate simply
the facts and events of each
year, in strict chronological order; from biography, which is the
record of an individual's life; and from
memoir, which is history composed from personal experience,
observation, and memory.
Histories are as perfect as the historian is wise, and is gifted with
an eye and a soul. --Carlyle.
For aught that I could ever read, Could ever hear by tale or history.
--Shak.
What histories of toil could I declare! --Pope.
History piece, a representation in painting, drawing, etc., of any real
event, including the actors and the
action.
Natural history, a description and classification of objects in nature,
as minerals, plants, animals, etc.,
and the phenomena which they exhibit to the senses.
Syn: Chronicle; annals; relation; narration.
Usage: History, Chronicle, Annals. History is a methodical record of
important events which concern a
community of men, usually so arranged as to show the connection of
causes and effects, to give an
analysis of motive and action etc. A chronicle is a record of such
events, conforming to the order of
time as its distinctive feature. Annals are a chronicle divided up into
separate years. By poetic license
annals is sometimes used for history.
Justly C[ae]sar scorns the poet's lays; It is to history he trusts for
praise. --Pope.
No more yet of this; For 't is a chronicle of day by day, Not a
relation for a breakfast. --Shak.
Many glorious examples in the annals of our religion. --Rogers.
Source: Webster's
Revised Unabridged Dictionary
History \His"to*ry\, v. t. To narrate or record. [Obs.] --Shak.
Source: Webster's
Revised Unabridged Dictionary
History n 1: the aggregate of past events: "a critical time in the
school's history" 2: a record or narrative
description of past events: "a history of France"; "he gave an
inaccurate account of the plot to kill the
president"; "the story of exposure to lead" [syn: account, chronicle,
story] 3: the discipline that records
and interprets past events involving human beings: "he teaches Medieval
history"; "history takes the long
view" 4: the continuum of events occurring in succession leading from
the past to the present and even
into the future: "all of human history" 5: all that is remembered of
the past as preserved in writing; a
body of knowledge: "the dawn of recorded history"; "from the beginning
of history"
Source: WordNet ® 1.6
So, while there is some justification for the use of history as "narrative"
there is equal justification for it as a written record or based on written
records. Else, what is prehistory? By the other definition allowing oral
transmission or other forms, Cro-Magnon man is not pre-historic on the basis of
cave paintings. If you are a Jungian, there is no prehistory *ever* because of
the collective unconscious and Bob Howard's favorite "race memories."
Michael Martinez
As usual. Erin has overlooked a glaring problem in her analysis. I suggest
you also look up the words "record" and "recorded" if you're certain Erin
has vindicated the erroneous notion that history is not a written account
of the past.
Douglas Henderson
Ann Logan wrote:
>
SNIP
>
> My dictionaries jive with yours Erin. I was wondering how the bible
> would fit into this "new" history definition. For a hundred years, it
> was oral history. does that mean it is now . . . Myth?
> And the many archeologist who use it as a reference to
> time-line are myth-hunters?
>
> Interesting stuff.
> Ann
First, the bible became rather more usable for archaeologist after the written
records of the cultures the Hebrews interacted with became available to us.
Second, regarding the mythology of the bible it reminds me of the Calvin
Trillin novel, "Floater" where a writer assigned to the religion beat (which he
hated) would get out of it by applying journalistic standards, viz: "The
person who claims to be the son of god." The alleged parting of the Red Sea."
etc.
Most christians I've bumped up against don't read it anyway, fewer practice its
tenets in a serious or systematic way. Nice book though, I tend to reread it
despite the christians.
Or as a zen master said after being told the sermon on the mount, "This Jesus,
he will become a Buddha someday."
Ann Logan
> he will become a Buddha someday."
> --
> Douglas Henderson
*L* That's a wonderful statement!
Ann
Erin
Martinez) wrote:
>As usual. Erin has overlooked a glaring problem in her analysis. I suggest
>you also look up the words "record" and "recorded" if you're certain Erin
>has vindicated the erroneous notion that history is not a written account
>of the past.
Personal attacks do nothing for your case, and make you seem
intractable and foolish. I implore you, yet again, to forego such
attacks when engaged in reasonable dialogue.
Erin
Martinez) wrote:
>Perhaps you should look up the words "record" and "recorded".
Ok...
"Record: n. 1. a recording or being recorded 2. any registered
evidence of an event, etc. 3. the known facts about anything or
anyone 4. a grooved disc for playing on a phonograph 5. the best
official performance attained. v. 1. to write down for future use
2. to register, as on a graph 3. to register sound or visual images
on a disc, tape, etc. for future reproduction."
So the verb form does allow for written records, but it also allows
for oral and visual records as well. So my point stands.
And I was using Webster's New World Dictionary, 1987.
Now, if you are truly interested in viable discussion, I would ask you
to forego the insults and snide comments you have shown yourself more
than willing to engage in elsewhere. If you cannot help yourself, I
would ask you to be honest and admit as much, and I will forego
wasting your time and mine in an attempt at discussion.
hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu
: In article <36C93A...@li-fish.net>, wil...@li-fish.net wrote:
: >My dictionaries jive with yours Erin.
: As usual. Erin has overlooked a glaring problem in her analysis. I suggest
: you also look up the words "record" and "recorded" if you're certain Erin
: has vindicated the erroneous notion that history is not a written account
: of the past.
Just for the sake of communicative clarity, you might also want to look up
"jive" and "jibe".
Pam
says...
>
>On Tue, 16 Feb 1999 06:36:17 GMT, Mic...@xenite.org (Michael
>Martinez) wrote:
>
>>Perhaps you should look up the words "record" and "recorded".
>
>Ok...
>
>"Record: n. 1. a recording or being recorded 2. any registered
>evidence of an event, etc. 3. the known facts about anything or
>anyone 4. a grooved disc for playing on a phonograph 5. the best
>official performance attained. v. 1. to write down for future use
>2. to register, as on a graph 3. to register sound or visual images
>on a disc, tape, etc. for future reproduction."
>
>So the verb form does allow for written records, but it also allows
>for oral and visual records as well. So my point stands.
>
>And I was using Webster's New World Dictionary, 1987.
>
>Now, if you are truly interested in viable discussion, I would ask you
>to forego the insults and snide comments you have shown yourself more
>than willing to engage in elsewhere. If you cannot help yourself, I
>would ask you to be honest and admit as much, and I will forego
>wasting your time and mine in an attempt at discussion.
You go Erin!!!!!!!!
:-)
Michael Martinez
>On Tue, 16 Feb 1999 06:37:33 GMT, Mic...@xenite.org (Michael
>Martinez) wrote:
>
>>As usual. Erin has overlooked a glaring problem in her analysis. I suggest
>>you also look up the words "record" and "recorded" if you're certain Erin
>>has vindicated the erroneous notion that history is not a written account
>>of the past.
>
>intractable and foolish. I implore you, yet again, to forego such
>attacks when engaged in reasonable dialogue.
Erin, cut the bullshit. You jumped into the thread with your guns
half-cocked as usual hoping to "one up" me, so if you don't like the tone
of my response, that is YOUR problem. You came looking for the fight -- so
please spare us all pretense of being offended by what you started.
No one held a gun to your held and made you look stupid -- you did that
willingly and intentionally.
Next time, think and LOOK before you leap.
And if you don't like the fighting, stop initiating the fights.
Michael Martinez
>On Tue, 16 Feb 1999 06:36:17 GMT, Mic...@xenite.org (Michael
>Martinez) wrote:
>
>>Perhaps you should look up the words "record" and "recorded".
>
>Ok...
>
>"Record: n. 1. a recording or being recorded 2. any registered
>evidence of an event, etc. 3. the known facts about anything or
>anyone 4. a grooved disc for playing on a phonograph 5. the best
>official performance attained. v. 1. to write down for future use
>2. to register, as on a graph 3. to register sound or visual images
>on a disc, tape, etc. for future reproduction."
>
>So the verb form does allow for written records, but it also allows
>for oral and visual records as well. So my point stands.
Now look up the definition for "recording". And note that "any registered
evidence of an event" implies a written record as well. You'd better do
some more research here as you keep showing yourself up with your
citations.
>Now, if you are truly interested in viable discussion,
I was not interested in your cheap attempts to undermine the validity of
what I said. If you want to continue posting citations which show you
obviously aren't putting any thought into your attempts to goad me, that's
your business.
Michael Martinez
>Michael Martinez (Mic...@xenite.org) wrote:
>: In article <36C93A...@li-fish.net>, wil...@li-fish.net wrote:
>: >My dictionaries jive with yours Erin.
>
>: you also look up the words "record" and "recorded" if you're certain Erin
>: of the past.
>
>"jive" and "jibe".
I almost pointed that out myself, but once again Erin is on a crusade to
bury the truth in innuendo and cheap shots. Anyone who gets suckered in by
her is, in my view, just so much cannon fodder, so I'll reserve my retorts
for the source of the problem.
Douglas Henderson
Michael Martinez wrote:
> In article <36c98c9e...@news.ocnsd1.sdca.home.com>, er...@heckman.net (Erin) wrote:
> >On Tue, 16 Feb 1999 06:37:33 GMT, Mic...@xenite.org (Michael
> >Martinez) wrote:
> >
> >>As usual. Erin has overlooked a glaring problem in her analysis. I suggest
> >>you also look up the words "record" and "recorded" if you're certain Erin
> >>has vindicated the erroneous notion that history is not a written account
> >>of the past.
> >
> >Personal attacks do nothing for your case, and make you seem
> >intractable and foolish. I implore you, yet again, to forego such
> >attacks when engaged in reasonable dialogue.
>
> Erin, cut the bullshit. You jumped into the thread with your guns
> half-cocked as usual hoping to "one up" me, so if you don't like the tone
> of my response, that is YOUR problem. You came looking for the fight -- so
> please spare us all pretense of being offended by what you started.
>
> No one held a gun to your held and made you look stupid -- you did that
> willingly and intentionally.
>
> Next time, think and LOOK before you leap.
>
> And if you don't like the fighting, stop initiating the fights.
>
> --
> \\ // Worlds of Imagination on the Web in...@xenite.org
> \\// RealName: Science Fiction and Fantasy Xenite.Org
> //\\ [http://www.xenite.org/index.htm]
> // \\ENITE.org...............................................
You know, I had just reached the point where I could read your posts again and think that
you were capable of posts that were not insulting, needlessly provocative, or otherwise
hateful. Too bad (from my point of view, of course) I was starting to enjoy reading them.
If you look at the definition in my earlier post, you'll see that Erin's definition is also
allowed. Like you, I tend towards the stricter definition but the definition that Erin uses
does have some standing.
::sigh::
Michael Martinez
>You know, I had just reached the point where I could read your posts
>again and think that you were capable of posts that were not insulting,
>needlessly provocative, or otherwise hateful.
Jumping in and stirring the pot like this is only going to egg Erin on and
keep this "distateful" thread going. Surely you realize that?
Ann Logan
support I am adding these two references. History
is not exclusive to the written word.
____
WEBSTER'S Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary
1989:
history: 1. the branch of knowledge dealing with past events.
2. a continuous systematic narrative of past events as relating to a
particular people, country, period, person, ect., usually written in
chronological order.
((systematic narrative does not say it is
required to be written))
3. the aggregate of past events
_____
THE NEW SHORTER OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY:
The New Authority on the English Language (1993)
History: [L historia f. Gk learning or knowing by enquiry, narrative,
history, ] 1. A narration of (in later use, esp. professedly true)
incidents; a narrative, a story. obs. exc. as passing into sense.
:)
____
Oral history does not necessitate a written record of events. It is an
oral history. From the tomes listed above, I saw some definitions
denoting history as a written record. History is not exclusively to the
written process.
____
Irish language. I looked to clarify my postion on the
differences of Gaelic and Irish. Everything I could find
online says they are the same.
I should be wrong.
I have reservations. When I was 21, I said to an Irish Linguist
Gaelic and Irish were the same. He was adamantly
against that statement. He grew up speaking Irish, a rare language
and Gaelic - - a popular Irish spoken by 40,000 people.
When he spoke one then the other, it was easy to hear
the difference between them. I am by no means an expert.
What he shared with me, while he was alive, is
all I have to remember. When I visit County Cork and
explore other references he made, maybe I'll find
what he meant on this topic and more.
In Ireland, there are structures that date 5,000 years back.
They stand, they have been tested, they are history of Ireland.
Some structures are rumored to be related to the Druids.
I'd love to see the full Book of Kells posted online.
It is rumored that the book had been preserved by the
Irish Republican groups, protecting the Irish culture.
It would be filled with old Irish myths, stories, folklore,
and ancient history. Of course, I'd hope
for a version we could read. Finding someone who could
interpret the old language is not going to be easy.
Native American languages thrive. Their human histories
stem 10,000 years or more. (depending on where tribe were in
relation to glacial activities.) Their herbal remedies
are hallmarks in modern alternative medicine. Granted
regular drugs have patents and cost. Buyer
beware. Herbals and other natural substances are
patent-free. They usually cost less, both in price
and side-effects.
Battle On, Xena!
Ann
I feel better now. *G*
Ann Logan
li1...@cybergal.com
> You know, I had just reached the point where I could read your posts
> again and think that you were capable of posts that were not insulting,
> needlessly provocative, or otherwise hateful. Too bad (from my point
> of view, of course) I was starting to enjoy reading them.
Doug, I invite you to renew your anti-anti-Martinez Posting Pledge of four
weeks ago. Get back on the ol' wagon! ;-)
Lil
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
1i1...@my-dejanews.com
wil...@li-fish.net wrote:
But the nature of divinity is to possess pure actuality without any
potentiality mixed in. Jesus, being divine, cannot *become* a Buddha,
rather, there was/is no time at which He did/does not already possess the
fullness of Buddha nature.
Lou Mougin
your arguments might have. Even if you're in the right in the argument (and I'm not
going to judge whether you are or not), you're shooting yourself in the foot by insulting
other people. It rallies uncomitted people to the other side.
And here I thought we were free of the Jenga-levelled argument string again. A
prediction: you'll claim it's all my / our / somebody's fault again, and keep going.
Nuts.
Michael Martinez
>Michael, once again you're letting your predilection for insult negate any
> debative value
Once again you interject your own insults into a thread where Erin started
the mess.
You've shown up -- Doug has shown up. How predictable.
Michael Martinez
>Erin, I enjoyed your accurate discussion. As a matter of
>support I am adding these two references. History
>is not exclusive to the written word.
English is a living language -- that means that it evolves, and words take
on new meaning. However, history cannot exist if there is no written
record. That is precisely what the word is used to refer to by historians.
Erin's "accurate" discussion consisted of:
Hmm, my Websters defines history as "an account of what has happened,
esp. in the life of a people, country, etc. 2. all recorded past
events 3. the branch of knowledge that deals with the recording,
analysis, etc. of past events 4. a known past". Nothing in there
specifically about *written* as opposed to oral, history. What source
are you using that limits history to written records only?
Note that definition (2) says "all recorded past events" and that
definition (3) says "the branch of knowledge that deals with the recording,
analysis, etc. of past events".
History begins with the written record, and yet Erin in her "accurate
discussion" said "nothing in there specifically about *written* as opposed
to oral".
Since when is "oral history" considered a recording?
This was just the latest example of a long series of erroneous statements
from Erin, accompanied by her usual condescending patronization.
There is a reason why the term "oral history" is used. That's because it's
not "history" as in a recorded account of the past, but a remembrance of
the past passed on orally, without a true record.
So, we can continue the semantic discussion, or we can let it drop. It's
up to you. I fully expect to see a couple of other "old hands" jump into
the thread with yet more nonsense about "who started what". That's what
usually happens with Erin's little gems.
Douglas Henderson
li1...@cybergal.com wrote:
> In article <36C9C3F1...@mindspring.com>,
> sons...@wombatsmindspring.com.com wrote:
>
> > You know, I had just reached the point where I could read your posts
> > again and think that you were capable of posts that were not insulting,
> > needlessly provocative, or otherwise hateful. Too bad (from my point
> > of view, of course) I was starting to enjoy reading them.
>
> Doug, I invite you to renew your anti-anti-Martinez Posting Pledge of four
> weeks ago. Get back on the ol' wagon! ;-)
>
> Lil
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
--
Douglas Henderson
1i1...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <36C96B...@li-fish.net>,
> wil...@li-fish.net wrote:
>
> > > Or as a zen master said after being told the sermon on the mount,
> > > "This Jesus, he will become a Buddha someday."
> > > --
> > > Douglas Henderson
> >
> > *L* That's a wonderful statement!
>
> But the nature of divinity is to possess pure actuality without any
> potentiality mixed in. Jesus, being divine, cannot *become* a Buddha,
> rather, there was/is no time at which He did/does not already possess the
> fullness of Buddha nature.
>
> Lil
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Well, we can all become Buddha's but we have to realize our intrinsic Buddha
nature, IIRC. Hence, until we do so, we are not, as it were fully realized.
Or could the Buddha be the Buddha before he became the Englightened One under
the Bo tree?
Michael Martinez
>Yes'm.
>
>
>li1...@cybergal.com wrote:
>>
>> Doug, I invite you to renew your anti-anti-Martinez Posting Pledge of four
>> weeks ago. Get back on the ol' wagon! ;-)
Okay, I'll not respond any further to this thread. Give it time to wash
out.
Ann Logan
accounted. I read something regarding a prophet Issa who
may have been Jesus. I think the title of the book is
the Missing Years of Christ. It is hypothetical...it is
very interesting.
Christ could have traveled and learned from other religious
masters. I don't recall if the book I read mentioned Buddism.
They mentioned the already established habit of chastity
and yoga and mediation.
Ann
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Affiliate: Amazon.com, Barnes & Nobles, . . . businesses you know
***Looking for a book, CD, or video and don't have the time?
Did you want to mail one as a thank-you gift? Birthday coming.
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/8797/request.html
At REQUEST, we hunt for your item then generate a direct
hyper-link on the page. No extra cost. WE GOT THE TIME.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ann Logan
>
> Michael, once again you're letting your predilection for insult negate any debative value
> going to judge whether you are or not), you're shooting yourself in the foot by insulting
> other people. It rallies uncomitted people to the other side.
> And here I thought we were free of the Jenga-levelled argument string again. A
> prediction: you'll claim it's all my / our / somebody's fault again, and keep going.
> Nuts.
"Jenga-levelled argument" great phrase!!!
Ann
Vrondi
from Archaeological Institute of America Website:
WARRIOR WOMEN OF THE EURASIAN STEPPES
http://www.he.net/~archaeol/9701/abstracts/sarmatians.html
complete with photos of some weapons found buried with these women.
Here's an article from the "New york Times" about hte same dig.
Ancient Graves of Warrior Women Offer Hints of Amazons.
http://www.sbcnews.sbc.edu/9702/9702nyt-sci-amazon-women.html
And here's one from THE WASHINGTON POST.
Were Amazons More Than Myth? Evidence Unearthed
http://www.sltrib.com/97/jul/073197/science/29499.htm
I think it's really intriguing.
-Vrondi
On 13 Feb 1999 04:39:31 GMT, "Aethelrede"
<Aethe...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>Ann Logan wrote in message <36C52E...@li-fish.net>...
>>Hello!
>>
>>When a horse puts on its blinds, does that rule out the
>>others racing? No. I've seen what some assume is educational
>>logic. Amazons did exist, if an Amazon is a woman warrior. They
>>have been uncovering burial sites...most recent was in Russia.
>>Young women with weapons and mortal wounds indicating their
>>unnatural death.
>
> Is this just wishful thinking or can you cite unbiased sources? Maybe
>even something from a reputable, peer-reviewed archaeological journal?
>Specially about those "mortal wounds"? Wasn't dying of mortal wounds
>supposed to be THE natural death for the Amazons, if they ever existed?
> And where do you live that horses put on 'blinds' before they race? Is
>this before or after they put on their saddles?
>
>
>
Vrondi
>>From the way it was explained to me, Gaelic is comparitive to
>>Swaheli which the English used to bring uniform dialogue in
>>African areas
ummm, "Irish" is a variety of "Gaelic". That language's word for
itself is "Gaelge" (i may have the spelling wrong, if so, forgive me.)
it is similar to Scottish "Gaelic".
dhia dhuit.
-Vrondi
#! rnews 3156
Path: wvnvm!news3.cac.psu.edu!news.ems.psu.edu!news.stanford.edu!
newsfeed.berkeley.edu!pln-w!spln!newsgate.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!mdrn
From: larry-mcmanus-...@worldnet.att.net (Lawrence F. Mc Manus, MD)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.transplant
Subject: [TRNSPLNT]
=?iso-8859-1?Q?RE=3A_=5BTRNSPLNT=5D_Programs_to_help_people_wh?=
=?iso-8859-1?Q?o_can=27t_afford_medications?=
Date: 16 Feb 1999 18:41:55 -0800
Organization: Gift of Life Trust Fund
Lines: 92
Message-ID: <01BE59F4.C0FAB260.larry...@worldnet.att.net>
Reply-To: "Lawrence F. Mc Manus, MD"
<larry-mcmanus-...@worldnet.att.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
There is a volunteer organization called the Medicine Program which is Link
#24 on our site www.giftoflife-sc.org which will assist patients in need of
obtaining medications. I have not used the service but it was in the TRIO
Update last year and that is why it is on our web site.
Larry Mc Manus, MD
-----Original Message-----
From: TackneyNY%aol...@WUVMD.Wustl.Edu
[SMTP:TackneyNY%aol...@WUVMD.Wustl.Edu]
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 1999 5:58 PM
To: TRNS...@WUVMD.WUSTL.EDU
Subject: [TRNSPLNT] Programs to help people who can't afford medications
Programs to help people who can't afford medications
Most pharmacies have what are called Indigent Drug Programs that help
people
who cannot afford to buy medications. If you need help, call for
information
and application procedures. In most cases your physician will need to apply
on
your behalf. If the company that manufacturers the medications you require
is
not listed below, call them anyway and ask if they have an Indigent Drug
Program.
Amgen 800-272-9376 Epogen, Neupogen
Bayer Corp. 800-998-9180 Mycelex
Boehringer Ingelheim 800-556-8317
Burroughs-Wellcome 800-722-9294
Eli Lilly and Co. 800-545-6962 Insulin.
Fujisawa 800-477-6472 Prograf
Glaxo Wellcome 800-745-2967
Customer Service 800-334-0032
Patient Assistance 800-722-9294
Reimbursement Line 800-423-6869 Imuran
Hoechst-Marion-Roussel, Inc. 800-362-7466 Lasix
Customer Information Line 800-552-3656
Hoffman-La Roche 800-526-6367 CellCept
Janssen 800-544-2987 Propulsid
Johnson & Johnson 800-447-3437
Novartis Patient Assistance 800-722-9294
Program (Cyclosporine)
Novartis Patient Assistance 888-455-6655
Program for Sandoz
Parke-Davis 800-755-0120
Pfizer, Inc. 800-646-4455
Pharmacia & Upjohn 800-366-5570
Proctor & Gamble Pharm. Inc. 800-448-4878
Roche Labs 800-443-6676 800-285-4484
Smithkline Beecham 800-546-0420 Augmentin, Tagamet, Compazine,
UpJohn Co. 800-242-7014 Prednisone
Wyeth-Ayerst Labs 703-706-5933,
Make certain you're sending to trns...@wuvmd.wustl.edu if you're
replying to the entire list.
For signing off, and other commands for TRNSPLNT, use the form at
http://www.concentric.net/~holloway
Make certain you're sending to trns...@wuvmd.wustl.edu if you're
replying to the entire list.
For signing off, and other commands for TRNSPLNT, use the form at
http://www.concentric.net/~holloway
Lou Mougin
ROOTS apparently did not come from a griote. It apparently came from a book called THE AFRICAN, written
by somebody else. I believe there was an out-of-court settlement. No access to a library right now,
anyone have more details?
Steve Christianson wrote:
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
> OK, well I followed this thread back to see what you guys are arguing
> about. Let me toss in my two cents. I've written enough history books to
> think I know what I'm talking about.
>
> Michael Martinez wrote:
> >
> > In article <7a4vhu$8...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>, "Aethelrede" <Aethe...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > > Just think how many people educated in the USA used to think that there
> > >was no American history before the Pilgrims landed,
> >
> > History is the written record of past events.
>
> History can be oral too. Homer is a classic example: during the Greek
> dark ages after the collapse of Mycenae, legends were handed down from
> one generation to the next. It's not as reliable as written records, or
> course, but as Schliemann discovered there really *was* a Trojan War.
> Oral history still survives in some parts of the world, such as West
> Africa where the "griots" memorize lengthy tribal histories. Alex Haley
> consulted one when he was writing Roots, and the griot's account of a
> certain Kunta Kinte never being seen again when he went to find a log in
> order to make a drum for his brother matched with his own family's tale
> of that event.
>
> There's also archeological history. For example, the discovery of the
> Folsom point, a type of chipped flint stone blade, denotes a historical
> event in the Stone Age.
>
> > Until the code of the Maya
> > was broken, we DIDN'T have a history before 1492 (but no one ever taught us
> > that American history began with the Pilgrims -- just the Thanksgiving Day
> > tradition).
>
> Of course there was a history: it's just harder to determine, and is
> primarily non-European.
Lou Mougin
Thanks, Ann. When you see the same name(s) turning up in every other post (a / b / a / b / c /
b / d / b) you'll know what I mean. So much for that...
Lou Mougin
> In article <36C9E9B0...@wf.net>, Lou Mougin <lomo...@wf.net> wrote:
> >Michael, once again you're letting your predilection for insult negate any
> > debative value
>
> Once again you interject your own insults into a thread where Erin started
> the mess.
>
> You've shown up -- Doug has shown up. How predictable.
>
> --
>
Only because you made your own predictable response, lad. With that, I quit
the discussion. There's a lot more pleasurable things I could be doing, and
will do.
Erin
Martinez) wrote:
>Now look up the definition for "recording". And note that "any registered
>evidence of an event" implies a written record as well. You'd better do
>some more research here as you keep showing yourself up with your
>citations.
Not at all; the definition allows for both oral, written, and visual
record, as I have stated, and others can clearly see.
>I was not interested in your cheap attempts to undermine the validity of
>what I said. If you want to continue posting citations which show you
>obviously aren't putting any thought into your attempts to goad me, that's
>your business.
It has been said here before: Disagreement is not attack. Just
because I disagree with something you have to say does not mean that I
am attacking you, or undermining your validity, or whatever. Now,
perhaps you cannot see that; perhaps you refuse to believe that
anything I say is *not* an attempt to "goad" you. In fact, I would
prefer if you were not "goaded"; this is a newsgroup for discussion,
and I had hoped to find the discussion reasonably civil. But my
simple disagreement seems to you to be an attack; I wish I didn't
inspire such fear or defensiveness on your part, but there it is.
I'll take your admission above to mean that you really cannot be
involved in a civil discussion with me, and I will bow out this time.
In the future, however, you really cannot expect me to not involve
myself in interesting discussions merely because my disagreement
threatens you.
But for the moment, I am bowing out of this one. A pity, because I
think we (and by extension, the group) could have really learned a lot
from each other.
Michael Martinez
>As a sidebar, I might note (as Tom Wolfe did in his book re: the Seventies)
>that some of the material in ROOTS apparently did not come from a griote.
>It apparently came from a book called THE AFRICAN, written by somebody
>else. I believe there was an out-of-court settlement. No access to a
>library right now, anyone have more details?
The last time I mentioned ROOTS on Usenet, it was pointed out to me by many
people the book had been debunked. There are details on the Net somewhere,
but I don't remember where. I do recall going and searching for the
information and finding it (in the form of news articles, I think).
Aethelrede
Vrondi wrote in message <36ca0ed8...@wvnvm.wvnet.edu>...
>ok, here's the academic, unbiased, sources for ya:
>from Archaeological Institute of America Website:
> WARRIOR WOMEN OF THE EURASIAN STEPPES
>http://www.he.net/~archaeol/9701/abstracts/sarmatians.html
> complete with photos of some weapons found buried with these women.
> Here's an article from the "New york Times" about hte same dig.
>Ancient Graves of Warrior Women Offer Hints of Amazons.
>http://www.sbcnews.sbc.edu/9702/9702nyt-sci-amazon-women.html
> And here's one from THE WASHINGTON POST.
>Were Amazons More Than Myth? Evidence Unearthed
>http://www.sltrib.com/97/jul/073197/science/29499.htm
The NY times and a quote of the Washington Post taken from the Salt Lake
Tribune? And a quote from "Archaeology"? This is what you seriously regard
as "academic, unbiased, sources"?? Are you serious?
If so, forget it.
Even Jeannine Davis-Kimball had to take a few steps back from some of
the stuff you quoted. But when you get down to it this all women excavation
team seems to have found some burial sites containing women and weapons,
but there is no evidence that the women were warriors any more than there is
evidence that male burials were of warriors.
The bowed leg position simply points out the fact that these people
spent most of their lives riding horses: men, women and children The
horsepeople of the Steppes were notorious from classical time for never
getting off their horses unless they had to
And as for the bent arrow point found in one female corpse that seems
to have proved she died in battle, well really! She could, like any of the
male corpses, have been hit by accident, or during a raid by robbers or in
any number of ways. And a 13 or 14 year old girl buried with arrows is more
likely to be a sacrifice victim that a warrior, or to have been buried with
arrows as a symbolic safeguard.
Douglas Henderson
Lou Mougin wrote:
> Ann Logan wrote:
>
> > Lou Mougin wrote:
> > >
> > > Michael, once again you're letting your predilection for insult negate any debative value
> > > your arguments might have. Even if you're in the right in the argument (and I'm not
> > > going to judge whether you are or not), you're shooting yourself in the foot by insulting
> > > other people. It rallies uncomitted people to the other side.
> > > And here I thought we were free of the Jenga-levelled argument string again. A
> > > prediction: you'll claim it's all my / our / somebody's fault again, and keep going.
> > > Nuts.
> >
> > "Jenga-levelled argument" great phrase!!!
> > Ann
>
> Thanks, Ann. When you see the same name(s) turning up in every other post (a / b / a / b / c /
> b / d / b) you'll know what I mean. So much for that...
Sorry, Jenga?
I thought you were posting the rhyme scheme for a spenserian sonnet <g>
Marcus Seeck
>In article <36C9F689...@mindspring.com>, Douglas says...
>>
>> Well, we can all become Buddha's but we have to realize our
>> intrinsic Buddha nature, IIRC. Hence, until we do so, we are
>> not, as it were fully realized. Or could the Buddha be the
>> Buddha before he became the Englightened One under the Bo tree?
>
>Only Xena can see Xena. For a woman to see Xena, she must become Xena. Be
>constantly absorbed in the thought of Xena and you will become Xena. Woman
>awakening to her own Xena-consciousness brings liberation. Let those who do not
>know Xena come to know Xena because they know you. If women wish to draw near
>to Xena they must seek her in the heart of their sisters. The woman who would
>seek Xena alone is the one she will never receive.
>
>Lil
Pwaise Xena!
--
The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.
Terry Pratchett, 'Hogfather'
Ann Logan
"likely?"
It's evidence of possibilities. At most, that is all we can reach
at this time. If you are implying that all female archeologist
are by nature bias....then that says all we need to know, dear.
Ann Logan
>
> In article <36C9F689...@mindspring.com>, Douglas says...
> >
> > Well, we can all become Buddha's but we have to realize our
> > intrinsic Buddha nature, IIRC. Hence, until we do so, we are
> > not, as it were fully realized. Or could the Buddha be the
> > Buddha before he became the Englightened One under the Bo tree?
>
> Only Xena can see Xena. For a woman to see Xena, she must become Xena. Be
> constantly absorbed in the thought of Xena and you will become Xena. Woman
> awakening to her own Xena-consciousness brings liberation. Let those who do not
> know Xena come to know Xena because they know you. If women wish to draw near
> to Xena they must seek her in the heart of their sisters. The woman who would
> seek Xena alone is the one she will never receive.
>
> Lil
I loved what you are saying and am not aiming to undermine.
When I read it, that other side of my brain,
saturated with a recent run of Ginsana commercials, wanted to
know where I could find my Gin-Xena? *L*
Battle On!
Ann Logan
>
> In article <36cf6b17...@news.ocnsd1.sdca.home.com>,
> Erin <er...@heckman.net> wrote:
> >Thanks! I think something being missed here is that no one is saying
> >that History *can't* be written (that would be foolish), just that
> >History *isn't limited* to writing. There are many oral historical
> >traditions that thrived (and continue to thrive).
>
> But written documents are not subject to error from the passage of
> time, as oral histories are.
> --
> Planet Bog -- pools of toxic chemicals bubble under a choking
> atomsphere of poisonous gases... but aside from that, it's not
> much like Earth.
I think it would depend on the culture. Since, say Maori,
Oral History is learned verbatim at age four and
recited as same throughout their life and family gatherings.
There is enough peer review to call it accurate. It
is constantly scrutinized and unlike our History-Ed...
it is tested throughout their adult lives. Mandatory to
know.
Anything that is processed by human hands is subject to error.
I would hope written would be consistant. Just because a
fact is in print does not mean it is accurate.
Da Chicken Lady
meanings of words in languages?
James Buster wrote in message <7aftdg$6h...@fido.engr.sgi.com>...
Medusa Firefly
thought to be a literal reference to the woman warriors of ancient
Greece, pointing to the belief that they cut off one breast to be better
archers- a ridiculous assumption that could only be made by someone who
had no breasts. It is more likely that the word was originally formed to
refer to women who did not live in the traditional female roles of the
culture, and often, this meant they were warriors, hunters, or other
roles traditionally held by men at the time.
Other cultures have shown this to be prevalent.
For example, among many pre-invasion Native American tribes, women
became hunters, warrirs, mediators and even chiefs. In the more
patriarchal tribes, a woman taking up the role of hunter or warrior,
often taking a wife, was from then on referred to as 'manly hearted'.
Read, "Living the Spirit: A Gay American Indian Anthology" (ISBN
0-312-03475-x).
The women warriors of Japan, one group being called the Gonoiche
(spelling?) were renowned for their stealth and skill as warriors and
assasins. The G are part of the Martial Art tradition of Budo Taijutsu,
and are taken very seriously to this day. For more information, try
researching the Bujinkan, Hatsumi, and other Martial Arts.
The fact is, prior to the big patriarchal shift in the human race's
history, men's and women's roles, in many cultures, were very different
from what you may believe. If you do the research, going back far
enough, you will find it. After all, there must be some reason why so
many fairly recent cultures prohibited woman from learning any fighting
skills, or picking up a weapon. They must have been afraid of something.
:) Physical evidence has been found over and over again that there were
matriarchal cultures (meaning women held positions of power and import,
usually egalitarian in nature), and that these cultures were not as
violent as patriarchal cultures (usually an imbalance of male-female
power ratio) tended to be. It's likely to be the reason why the
matriarchies died out- not enough women warriors compared to the numbers
of the invading patriarchal tribes.
Also, there's a blurb about Greek women warriors here:
http://www.phoenixgate.com/xena2.html
And, no, I am not a separatist, or a radical, or a man hater- I just
like to know the truth.
MMMedusaFirefly,
In love with a dead Amazon Queen.
Douglas Henderson
Medusa Firefly wrote:
Friend of mine was ruminating on this recently. Men tend to be
hunters/warriors women tend to be gathers in such cultures, pre
agriculture. But in at least some of those cultures most of the calories
were coming from the gatherers not from the hunters. If you put your
strength to a comparative advantage analysis, why did't the men gather since
they could gather more becuase of greater strength (my friend teaches
business and so thinks in those terms). Maybe the Amazons were a culture
where the gathering was done by the men and war was waged by women since it
was an inferior pastime (tongue only slightly in cheek).
paul holdsworth
last few days so thanks. So many Phds out there my last class in History
Junior year of college my degree Finance so please be kind.
James wrote that " written documents are not subject to error from
passage of time'
But words put on paper cut into stone or pass down from father/mother to
son/daughter are all subject to erosion. i cant or my guess no one in
this group would be able to talk with someone
whom spoke eighth century english. so what happens when you have a
passing of time plus translating from old greek into english, or
sandskrit into french then into english. How much of the meaning is last
or translated wrong . I feel there is a very strong possibility of
error.
I heard that History is written by the victor so from the start can you
trust everything put on paper-I cant.
Maybe using a oral history with written history plus diggs at ruins
maybe is the right path to take?
Last point thank God right? the Priestesses(?) of Artemis's cult at
Taurian , fury in battle was legendary in Greece.
Take care ........ paul
Erin
Martinez) wrote:
>This was just the latest example of a long series of erroneous statements
>from Erin, accompanied by her usual condescending patronization.
You are incapable of discussing anything without throwing in these
snide, inaccurate, and defensive remarks, aren't you?
Back off, Michael. For everyone's sake, before you start to get
everyone pissed off at you again. You've chewed up too much bandwidth
with this little vendetta of yours.
Erin
wrote:
>Erin, I enjoyed your accurate discussion. As a matter of
>support I am adding these two references. History
>is not exclusive to the written word.
Thanks! I think something being missed here is that no one is saying
that History *can't* be written (that would be foolish), just that
History *isn't limited* to writing. There are many oral historical
traditions that thrived (and continue to thrive).
>Irish language. I looked to clarify my postion on the
>differences of Gaelic and Irish. Everything I could find
>online says they are the same.
>I should be wrong.
>I have reservations. When I was 21, I said to an Irish Linguist
>Gaelic and Irish were the same. He was adamantly
>against that statement.
Hmm, AFAIK, Irish is a single language in the Gaelic language group.
I'm not an Irish linguist, though. I know that there are two branches
of Celtic, p Celtic and q Celtic, and that there are several different
languages of either branch (Irish, Scottish, Manx, Breton, Welsh,
etc.). I'm not sure how he was defining "Gaelic", though, unless he
was talking about Scottish Gaelic (I've seen books and websites which
are listed as "Gaelic", and usually they're talking about Scottish).
>I'd love to see the full Book of Kells posted online.
>It is rumored that the book had been preserved by the
>Irish Republican groups, protecting the Irish culture.
>It would be filled with old Irish myths, stories, folklore,
>and ancient history. Of course, I'd hope
>for a version we could read. Finding someone who could
>interpret the old language is not going to be easy.
I believe there are translations available; the original is kept at
Trinity College in Dublin. There might be books available from Amazon
that have complete translations.
If you're interested in old Irish info, the best sources would
probably be The Book of Invasions, The Cattle Raid of Cooley (the
story of Cuchulain), and The Fenian Cycle (the story of Finn
MacCumhail and the Fianna). Sheesh, there are so many good sources
out there... :)
Anyone else who is interested can also check out
http://www.luminarium.org/mythology/ireland/
and
http://celt.net/og/ething.htm
James Buster
>that History *can't* be written (that would be foolish), just that
>History *isn't limited* to writing. There are many oral historical
>traditions that thrived (and continue to thrive).
But written documents are not subject to error from the passage of
time, as oral histories are.
--
Mel
On Thu, 18 Feb 1999 01:21:10 GMT,
Erin <er...@heckman.net> wrote in
<36ce6a8e...@news.ocnsd1.sdca.home.com>:
>
> On Tue, 16 Feb 1999 22:11:42 GMT, Mic...@xenite.org (Michael
> Martinez) wrote:
>
> >This was just the latest example of a long series of erroneous
> >statements from Erin, accompanied by her usual condescending
> >patronization.
>
> You are incapable of discussing anything without throwing in these
> snide, inaccurate, and defensive remarks, aren't you?
>
> Back off, Michael. For everyone's sake, before you start to get
> everyone pissed off at you again. You've chewed up too much bandwidth
> with this little vendetta of yours.
>
> Erin
How refreshing to see that others are able to appreciate his
consistency.
-Mel
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In a time of conservative: politicians... pseudo-religious pundits...
and billion-dollar multi-national media conglomerates... a land in
turmoil cried out for its first truly feminist media hero.
She was Xena... a mighty princess... forged in the heat of battle in
syndicated television.
The Power. The Passion. The Danger. The Ratings.
We dearly hope that her courage will change our world.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Michael Martinez
>On Tue, 16 Feb 1999 22:11:42 GMT, Mic...@xenite.org (Michael
>Martinez) wrote:
>
>>This was just the latest example of a long series of erroneous statements
>>from Erin, accompanied by her usual condescending patronization.
>
>You are incapable of discussing anything without throwing in these
>snide, inaccurate, and defensive remarks, aren't you?
You are incapable of letting other people speak freely, aren't you?
Back off, Erin, before you start another of your stupid, senseless, petty,
insane flame wars.