On Sat, 3 Nov 2012 16:57:55 +0000 (UTC), jdnic...@panix.com (James
Nicoll) wrote:
>(The First Nations, on the other hand, could put together a much >stronger claim, which brings up the hilarious lack of tolerance
>Pequistes have for native claims. In fact, I seem to recall one
>group of natives in Quebec took a PQ position paper, did a search
>and replace "native" for "Quebecois" and presented it; the PQ
>thought it was the stupidest thing they'd heard)
>French Canadians would have a claim under Declaration on the Rights >of Indigenous Peoples if they counted as indigenous and if that
>had been around in the 19th and 20th centuries. Again, if claims
>against Canada get made under this, the First Nations are going
>to have a place at the head of the line reserved.
If that claim is to be made then I as a Mayflower descendant (no
fooling!) have as good a claim.
My US roots are at least as strong as my Canadian roots - my family
has only been in THIS country since 1912... which is rather funny
since during the summer I gave my Toastmasters club a rather
chauvinistic speech on the War of 1812 (putting rather forcefully the
Canadian view of things) despite my only ancestors who took part in
that war fighting on the American side.
>>French Canadians would have a claim under Declaration on the Rights >>of Indigenous Peoples if they counted as indigenous and if that
>>had been around in the 19th and 20th centuries. Again, if claims
>>against Canada get made under this, the First Nations are going
>>to have a place at the head of the line reserved.
>Note for non-Canadians: French Canadian and Quebecois are overlapping
>but not identical sets.
Brian Mulroney was exceptionally careful on this point when preparing
the Meech Lake accord since much of New Brunswick (among other places)
very strongly consider themselves French Canadian but not Quebecois
while there are at least 1/2 million people of whom the reverse is
true.
On Sat, 3 Nov 2012 02:50:07 -0700 (PDT), The Old Man
<Braung...@verizon.net> wrote:
>On Saturday, November 3, 2012 2:46:34 AM UTC-4, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>> I'll expect you to come over here RIGHT now and clean the coffee off of
>>> my monitor.....
>> Old joke - heard it in my high school days. (Early 1970s)
>As did I from my ex-wife and her family - in Montreal (I suspect that they were all good swimmers or planning on leaving). Since then, most have all relocated.
>I saw a story on "60 Minutes" (an American National News television Program for the non-American readership) that talked about how the Quebecers fought like crazy to get the French language accepted as a legal language in Quebec for wills, deeds or other such paperwork. After that was done, and a number of non-French moved out to elsewhere in Canada, the Quebec language-police started demanding that any signs posted on storefronts be posted in either the English or French languages ONLY. This included Chinese in Chinatown, Vietnamese on restaurant fronts, etc. Later, they started demanding (and getting their way in the courts) that the English signs come down as well.
>So when does that wall go up again?
>BTW, Goat, how was your earthquake?
I didn't even notice.
Mind you I was 500 miles away. May as well ask a Torontonian how he
felt about the Just For Laughs festival in Montreal - he would have
been closer to Montreal than I was to the earthquake.
On Saturday, November 3, 2012 5:35:16 PM UTC-4, The Horny Goat wrote:
> I didn't even notice.
> Mind you I was 500 miles away. May as well ask a Torontonian how he
> felt about the Just For Laughs festival in Montreal - he would have
> been closer to Montreal than I was to the earthquake.
> But thanks for asking...
Da nada, but it's funny how things work out. They were well and truely scared of a tsunami in Hawaii and Japan, although nothing really came of it. And I've read how much of Vancouver's foundation soil isn't mauch better than San Franciso's. But in addition to you, I know of several other folks in that neck o' the woods (my ex among them) and I'd hate to see anything bad happen to any of them.
Regards,
John Braungart
(who lives about three miles from the local War of 1812 Cemetery)
On Nov 3, 9:31 pm, The Horny Goat <lcra...@home.ca> wrote:
SNIP
> If that claim is to be made then I as a Mayflower descendant (no
> fooling!) have as good a claim.
END SNIP
roflmao
I lived in Massachusetts for 20 years. In a small Town. Most of the
people were from the Mayflower. Cousins of yours I guess? The
Mayflower must have been the largest super ship ever made or else the
colonists super fertile?
>>(The First Nations, on the other hand, could put together a much >>stronger claim, which brings up the hilarious lack of tolerance
>>Pequistes have for native claims. In fact, I seem to recall one
>>group of natives in Quebec took a PQ position paper, did a search
>>and replace "native" for "Quebecois" and presented it; the PQ
>>thought it was the stupidest thing they'd heard)
>>French Canadians would have a claim under Declaration on the Rights >>of Indigenous Peoples if they counted as indigenous and if that
>>had been around in the 19th and 20th centuries. Again, if claims
>>against Canada get made under this, the First Nations are going
>>to have a place at the head of the line reserved.
>If that claim is to be made then I as a Mayflower descendant (no
>fooling!) have as good a claim.
I don't see the situations as analogous: the French Canadians found themselves under the control of a state whose ruling classes
had a different language, culture and religion. The Mayflower
guys were just the Branch Davidians of the 17th century. Well,
an example of that sort of religious extremism, which was not
that uncommon back in the Dung Age.
(Of course, Quebec's deplorablest bits of jackassery from the British
pale against what got done to their cousins over in Acadia)
Here's an interesting question: what about the active hostility and
benign neglect by various governments in Canada against Gaelic? In
a country as overrun by Celts as Canada it seems odd they put up
with this and yet
On Sunday, November 4, 2012 2:09:38 PM UTC-5, Des wrote:
> I lived in Massachusetts for 20 years. In a small Town. Most of the
> people were from the Mayflower. Cousins of yours I guess? The
> Mayflower must have been the largest super ship ever made or else the
> colonists super fertile?
Not super fertile, just the better part of four hundred years ago. Think how many descendants YOU'D have in that time, especially with no radio or television for three hundred-fifty of them.....
Seriously, lat's say three generations per century, abd be moderate with three surviving kids (surviving to have kids of their own) per generation.
Four hundred years time three generations equals twelve generations times three kids per generation equals 1,594,323 potential descendants (do the math yourself). This figure doesn't include those horney bastards who have eight or ten kids, just three per family. Of course, some families might only have one or two, or none at all, but you see where I'm going.
On Sun, 4 Nov 2012 19:58:12 +0000 (UTC), jdnic...@panix.com (James
Nicoll) wrote:
The Mayflower
>guys were just the Branch Davidians of the 17th century. Well,
>an example of that sort of religious extremism, which was not
>that uncommon back in the Dung Age.
On Sun, 4 Nov 2012 03:31:56 -0800 (PST), The Old Man
<Braung...@verizon.net> wrote:
>On Saturday, November 3, 2012 5:35:16 PM UTC-4, The Horny Goat wrote:
>> I didn't even notice.
>> Mind you I was 500 miles away. May as well ask a Torontonian how he
>> felt about the Just For Laughs festival in Montreal - he would have
>> been closer to Montreal than I was to the earthquake.
>> But thanks for asking...
>Da nada, but it's funny how things work out. They were well and truely scared of a tsunami in Hawaii and Japan, although nothing really came of it. And I've read how much of Vancouver's foundation soil isn't mauch better than San Franciso's. But in addition to you, I know of several other folks in that neck o' the woods (my ex among them) and I'd hate to see anything bad happen to any of them.
Well in fairness Hawaii and Japan do not have land between the site of
the earthquake (off the west coast of the Queen Charlotte Islands) -
Vancouver has a couple of hundred miles of the northern Straights of
Georgia separating Vancouver Island and the mainland.
We're pretty much describing a tsunami at Narvik in northern Norway
reaching Oslo...
I get the CKNW radio headline news e-mails and those were the first I
heard of the quake.
<desmondkavan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 3, 9:31 pm, The Horny Goat <lcra...@home.ca> wrote:
>SNIP
>> If that claim is to be made then I as a Mayflower descendant (no
>> fooling!) have as good a claim.
>END SNIP
>roflmao
>I lived in Massachusetts for 20 years. In a small Town. Most of the
>people were from the Mayflower. Cousins of yours I guess? The
>Mayflower must have been the largest super ship ever made or else the
>colonists super fertile?
Well I'm descended from the Aldrich family - given their later
prominence in New York state I doubt you'd have trouble finding them.
[For what it's worth, my 4x great-grandmother was the eldest of 12
children (daughter 5 or 6 - can't remember which - was the grandmother
of Nelson Rockefeller which would make me 1st cousin 7x removed which
is worth about what you paid for it. My point is that at least for
that generation 12 children can be called 'super fertile' in my
books!]
On Sun, 4 Nov 2012 19:58:12 +0000 (UTC), jdnic...@panix.com (James
Nicoll) wrote:
>Here's an interesting question: what about the active hostility and
>benign neglect by various governments in Canada against Gaelic? In
>a country as overrun by Celts as Canada it seems odd they put up
>with this and yet
>Could the Cape Bretoners complain to the UN about what amounts to
>cultural genocide?
Having been in Cape Breton in 2004 and given what I saw of the impact
of the Scots there I seriously suspect any such complaints would be
met with hilarity.
Gaelic IS spoken there though I would suggest it would be no more
common than in Ireland or Scotland today. You could say much the same
of the northern part of Nova Scotia (I did not go to Halifax or parts
south so cannot venture an opinion)
> On Sunday, November 4, 2012 2:09:38 PM UTC-5, Des wrote:
> > I lived in Massachusetts for 20 years. In a small Town. Most of the
> > people were from the Mayflower. Cousins of yours I guess? The
> > Mayflower must have been the largest super ship ever made or else the
> > colonists super fertile?
> Not super fertile, just the better part of four > hundred years ago.
And a lot of intermarriage. The MAYFLOWER passengers
and their children intermarried with later immigrants
to Plymouth colony; their descendants moved around
New England intermarrying with the Mass Bay colonists,
with Connecticut and New Hampshire colonists, even
a few with the Rhode Island infidels.
-- The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.
<rrostrom.21stcent...@rcn.com> wrote:
>The Old Man <Braung...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On Sunday, November 4, 2012 2:09:38 PM UTC-5, Des wrote:
>> > I lived in Massachusetts for 20 years. In a small Town. Most of the
>> > people were from the Mayflower. Cousins of yours I guess? The
>> > Mayflower must have been the largest super ship ever made or else the
>> > colonists super fertile?
>> Not super fertile, just the better part of four >> hundred years ago.
>And a lot of intermarriage. The MAYFLOWER passengers
>and their children intermarried with later immigrants
>to Plymouth colony; their descendants moved around
>New England intermarrying with the Mass Bay colonists,
>with Connecticut and New Hampshire colonists, even
>a few with the Rhode Island infidels.
I never said the family tree was ENTIRELY Mayflower descendents - I'd
be surprised if there's anybody in 2012 whose family tree is made up
of 25% such folks.
My father's family lines have your stereotypical 'American dream'
background - starting in upper NY state and over time moving to the
west coast. I have been in contact with a fellow with my family name
in Albany, NY (near the ancestral village from the early 1700s) and
while it's interesting (I think you can fairly assume anybody posting
in this newsgroup is interested in history more than the average
person) my sense of self-worth doesn't hinge on it.
In article <7nud98tpunpg03ilkkkbdh4loaa1nlv...@4ax.com>, lcra...@home.ca
(The Horny Goat) wrote:
> My point is that at least for
> that generation 12 children can be called 'super fertile' in my
> books!]
Actually the interesting point there is 12 surviving children. Large numbers of children were common in the period so were large numbers of them dying. Mind you over about 5000 years (not double checked the figure) all europeans can be traced back to one common ancestor.
>> My point is that at least for
>> that generation 12 children can be called 'super fertile' in my
>> books!]
> Actually the interesting point there is 12 surviving children. Large
>numbers of children were common in the period so were large numbers of
>them dying. Mind you over about 5000 years (not double checked the
>figure) all europeans can be traced back to one common ancestor.
That figure sounds more like the estimate for all humans. Supposedly all (or nearly all) Europeans (for suitable values of European) descend from Charlemagne.
> In message <nYmdnaRqU9qVkgXNnZ2dnUVZ8qGdn...@giganews.com>,
> ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk writes
>> In article <7nud98tpunpg03ilkkkbdh4loaa1nlv...@4ax.com>, lcra...@home.ca
>> (The Horny Goat) wrote:
>>> My point is that at least for
>>> that generation 12 children can be called 'super fertile' in my
>>> books!]
>> Actually the interesting point there is 12 surviving children. Large
>> numbers of children were common in the period so were large numbers of
>> them dying. Mind you over about 5000 years (not double checked the
>> figure) all europeans can be traced back to one common ancestor.
> That figure sounds more like the estimate for all humans. Supposedly all
> (or nearly all) Europeans (for suitable values of European) descend from
> Charlemagne.
The homo sapiens bottleneck occurred much farther back in time.
-- The 'Enterprise' crew in the 2009 Star Trek are adrenaline addicted, hyper-active teenagers with ADD whose Ritalin got replaced with methamphetamine, displaying a level of discipline that a Somali pirate wouldn't tolerate.
>On 11/6/2012 12:27 PM, Kelbert Hawsing wrote:
>> In message <nYmdnaRqU9qVkgXNnZ2dnUVZ8qGdn...@giganews.com>,
>> ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk writes
>>> In article <7nud98tpunpg03ilkkkbdh4loaa1nlv...@4ax.com>, lcra...@home.ca
>>> (The Horny Goat) wrote:
>>>> My point is that at least for
>>>> that generation 12 children can be called 'super fertile' in my
>>>> books!]
>>> Actually the interesting point there is 12 surviving children. Large
>>> numbers of children were common in the period so were large numbers of
>>> them dying. Mind you over about 5000 years (not double checked the
>>> figure) all europeans can be traced back to one common ancestor.
>> That figure sounds more like the estimate for all humans. Supposedly all
>> (or nearly all) Europeans (for suitable values of European) descend from
>> Charlemagne.
> In message <5099b306$0$76979$742ec...@news.sonic.net>, Dimensional
> Traveler <dtra...@sonic.net> writes
>> On 11/6/2012 12:27 PM, Kelbert Hawsing wrote:
>>> In message <nYmdnaRqU9qVkgXNnZ2dnUVZ8qGdn...@giganews.com>,
>>> ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk writes
>>>> In article <7nud98tpunpg03ilkkkbdh4loaa1nlv...@4ax.com>,
>>>> lcra...@home.ca
>>>> (The Horny Goat) wrote:
>>>>> My point is that at least for
>>>>> that generation 12 children can be called 'super fertile' in my
>>>>> books!]
>>>> Actually the interesting point there is 12 surviving children. Large
>>>> numbers of children were common in the period so were large numbers of
>>>> them dying. Mind you over about 5000 years (not double checked the
>>>> figure) all europeans can be traced back to one common ancestor.
>>> That figure sounds more like the estimate for all humans. Supposedly all
>>> (or nearly all) Europeans (for suitable values of European) descend from
>>> Charlemagne.
>On 06/11/2012 5:32 PM, Kelbert Hawsing wrote:
>> In message <5099b306$0$76979$742ec...@news.sonic.net>, Dimensional
>> Traveler <dtra...@sonic.net> writes
>>> On 11/6/2012 12:27 PM, Kelbert Hawsing wrote:
>>>> In message <nYmdnaRqU9qVkgXNnZ2dnUVZ8qGdn...@giganews.com>,
>>>> ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk writes
>>>>> In article <7nud98tpunpg03ilkkkbdh4loaa1nlv...@4ax.com>,
>>>>> lcra...@home.ca
>>>>> (The Horny Goat) wrote:
>>>>>> My point is that at least for
>>>>>> that generation 12 children can be called 'super fertile' in my
>>>>>> books!]
>>>>> Actually the interesting point there is 12 surviving children. Large
>>>>> numbers of children were common in the period so were large numbers of
>>>>> them dying. Mind you over about 5000 years (not double checked the
>>>>> figure) all europeans can be traced back to one common ancestor.
>>>> That figure sounds more like the estimate for all humans. Supposedly all
>>>> (or nearly all) Europeans (for suitable values of European) descend from
>>>> Charlemagne.
>>> The homo sapiens bottleneck occurred much farther back in time.
>> The bottleneck and the latest common ancestor are very different things.
>If you're looking for "Mitochondrial Eve", Wikipedia puts her at
>present - 200K years. (Or you could look at the Galactica finale :) )
mtEve is the last common ancestor by matrilineal ancestry, which is something very different from both the bottleneck and the last common ancestor *by any path of descent*.
-- Kelbert Hawsing
>> That figure sounds more like the estimate for all humans.
> Any figure for all humans has to accommodate outliers like Tasmania and
>I have not seen definite evidence of when the first humans arrived there.
The remaining Tasmanians have recent European ancestry. (Before the Age of Exploration the age of the latest common ancestor of mankind may well have been considerably greater that the current estimates.)
