Native American Martial Art
Timothy Króll
I recently found a class offered at a nearby college. It reads like this:
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Native American Self Defense
Self-Defense and fighting techniques used by Native American tribes.
Class instruction will teach movements and techniques copied from
traditional animal spirits such as: wolf, bear, hawk, and rattlesnake.
Instruction will also include strikes with palms and knees, grappling,
elbow strikes and most importantly the philosophy of of spiritual combat
against an aggressive attacker.
The instructor is an accomplished instructor of several marital art
disciplines. He has attained a black belt in Koppo-ryu and has instructed
at the Hand of Wisdom for Native American martial arts.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Sound like anything acclaimable? I was thinking of trying it just to see
what it was like. Sounds esoteric enough.
Although the idea in my head of this system is similar to the animal forms
of Ch'uan Fa, I fear it is just another Karate class with katas named
after these animals.
I'm just curious because I'd never heard of a Native American 'style'.
Any thoughts?
--
Timothy Króll
It's no problem. Why not?
tkr...@chs.cusd.claremont.edu
http://www.cusd.claremont.edu/~tkroll
wol...@nospam.flinthills.com
There was a guy in my unit that trained with an instructor in some
style called ALKALSIDO. I am not sure that the spelling is correct,
but I don't think it matters. The style's forms were bogus,
techniques ineffective. The instructor could not even explain what
the names of techniques meant (there was a punch called a "kimasi"
punch that is essentially a sloppy lunging type punch from one horse
stance to another. I asked what 'kimasi" meant and no one knew...),
nor could he explain what the forms contained. He told his student
(my friend) that he was always "instructor level," even though he only
trained for about 9 months.
Beware anything that the instructor cannot explain well enough. If
the instructor balks at answering any questions, or, God forbid, says
that he created the style himself from his own personal research into
the subject (qualifying point: If the instructor has spent beaucoup
years in MA, say 30+, then devising one's own approach to MA may be
okay. If the guy is 22 and claims 4th Dan or higher in 6+ styles, run
screaming to the safety of your basement...), tell the guy to look for
saps elsewhere.
It is so easy to prey on the easily fooled, and unfortunately the
American public is extremely naive regarding anything of Asian origin.
There is an institutionalized racism toward all things Asian, and this
creates a vacuum of understanding and knowledge of these same things.
Hence the gullibility of folks who buy into the cultic schools and
other such nonsense (like "empty force," moving someone with only your
chi/ki/qi with no physical contact whatsoever...).
Now I'll step off my soapbox...
JDScotchy
I recently found a class offered at a nearby college. It reads like this:
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Native American Self Defense
**LACROSSE**
===================
"The physically bound go for huffing and straining and miss the delicate way.
The intellectually bound go for idealism and exotics and will always lack
efficiency and actually seeing into realities."
-- Bruce Lee, Tao of Jeet Kune Do
JDScotchy
Native American Self Defense
Self-Defense and fighting techniques used by Native American tribes.
Class instruction will teach movements and techniques copied from
traditional animal spirits such as: wolf, bear, hawk, and rattlesnake.
Instruction will also include strikes with palms and knees, grappling,
elbow strikes and most importantly the philosophy of of spiritual combat
against an aggressive attacker.
The instructor is an accomplished instructor of several marital art
disciplines. He has attained a black belt in Koppo-ryu and has instructed
at the Hand of Wisdom for Native American martial arts.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
I live near Niagara Falls. When I was in 5th grade our class took a field trip
to the Niagara Gorge which is nature preserve along the Niagara River. They
also had a program teaching visitors about the Indians that lived there, etc.
Anyway, our tour guide told us this story about one of the first European
explorers to the Niagara area. He was captured by the Indians (the Mohawks I
think) and one of the Indians was about to kill him with a knife and he hauled
off and punched the guy. Apparently, the Indians were so shocked to see someone
hit with a fist that they let him go. I can't remember if the point of the
guide's story was that Indians (Mohawks) never fought without weapons or that
they just never used their fists.
Personally, I find the story a bit fishy as making a fist is a pretty natural
thing so I doubt the Indians would be shocked by it. But you don't hear much
about Indian martial arts (except Lacrosse). I suspect this college course is
just something the instructor made up to seem interesting and unique. Not
saying it couldn't be worthwhile, just that I doubt its authentic.
Scott
Mycroft
JDScotchy wrote:
> Personally, I find the story a bit fishy as making a fist is a pretty natural
> thing so I doubt the Indians would be shocked by it. But you don't hear much
> about Indian martial arts (except Lacrosse). I suspect this college course is
> just something the instructor made up to seem interesting and unique. Not
> saying it couldn't be worthwhile, just that I doubt its authentic.
That's interesting. I've always thought of Lacrosse as a sport, something
like hockey. But then again, I suppose you could classify hockey as a
martial art. :-)
--
******************************
Remove the "nospam" from my email to reply
Oli
In article <EuMK2...@campus-news-reading.utoronto.ca>, "Stephen M.
Ross" <ro...@onayamspayphm.utoronto.ca> writes
>Modern lacrosse is very much like hockey in strategy & scoring, but in the old
>days it was an extremely violent game. Toughened up the men for battle.
I would guess that the purpose was very much like that of Hurling (Irish
game). Take boys, give them sticks, make them hit a small moving target
with the sticks while running about and generally avoiding the other
sticks, make it a game so they do it a lot. Splendid training for the
use of slashing/crushing weapons in chaotic (battlefield) conditions -
reactions, use of an implement, fitness and co-ordination all catered
for.
--
Oli
JDScotchy
Supposedly, Hurling came about when an Irish mythological hero batted a stone
at an animal and killed it.
I've seen this game on ESPN. I absolutely cannot believe people can run and
dodge other players while bouncing a ball on the end of a stick.
Joy Chaudhuri
Oli <sam...@w3ath3r.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<c8NElCAk...@kether.demon.co.uk>...
> In article <EuMK2...@campus-news-reading.utoronto.ca>, "Stephen M.
> Ross" <ro...@onayamspayphm.utoronto.ca> writes
> >Modern lacrosse is very much like hockey in strategy & scoring, but in
the old
> >days it was an extremely violent game. Toughened up the men for battle.
>
> I would guess that the purpose was very much like that of Hurling (Irish
> game).
-----------
Lacrosse now is a sport. But its roots are in war games. The northeastern
tribes
often played with a large single stick...thats the mother of todays
lacrosse.
But the southeastern tribes specially the Muscogee Creeks played a two
handed
two stick game...they called it the little brother of war. The skills of
the game were very very complex much more so than todays escrima. the size
of the sticks were
the same as their light war clubs so the skills were directly transferable.
The
sticks were made out of hickory with the curved in net area having leather
thongs
for a net to catch the puck. Here and
there they still play the game though the skills are not what they used to
be.
They resolved many local and inter township disputes through stick ball
games
rather than all out war. Sensible compared to the concept of modern Total
war.
My late wife wrote a yet unpublished major book length manuscript on the
Creeks.
i am still in the process of editing and looking for a publisher.Joy
Chaudhuri
Downingmv
In article <tkroll-1106...@ppp1-3.cusd.claremont.edu>,
tkr...@chs.cusd.claremont.edu (Timothy Króll) writes:
>I recently found a class offered at a nearby college. It reads like this:
>- - - - - - - - - - - -
>Native American Self Defense
>
>Self-Defense and fighting techniques used by Native American tribes.
[snip]
It seems as though if the Native Americans had an effective hand to hand
fighting system it would be more prevelant today.
Kind regards,
Mark Downing
http://members.aol.com/downingmv
"Never offer advice. The wise do not need it. The fool will not heed it."
Hunter Kid
down...@aol.com (Downingmv) wrote:
>>Self-Defense and fighting techniques used by Native American tribes.
>[snip]
>
>It seems as though if the Native Americans had an effective hand to hand
>fighting system it would be more prevelant today.
Possibly, but then, probably not. Why? Simply because there's so few
Native Americans, and, as I understand it (not being friends with any
myself), they aren't particularly inclined to look for friendships
among other races.
BTW, 'Native American' is kind of an awkward name, and calling them
Indians is incorrect. Is there any one-word name for them? ^_^
Hunter Kid
http://www.serve.com/guilds/ranma/
gui...@mail.serve.com
>open hk.sig
"Why do I get the feeling," he rumbled to himself in a voice
that, if people who knew him had been asked, didn't sound
entirely like his own, "that this book is a crock?" Of course,
most 'books of magic' that one could buy on the common market
generally -were- crocks, so he wasn't entirely out of line in
assuming that this one was the same.
-from Brother, chapter 4
[hk.sig; errors-0; file terminating]
Ken Riggall
>BTW, 'Native American' is kind of an awkward name, and calling them
>Indians is incorrect. Is there any one-word name for them? ^_^
>
>Hunter Kid
[sorry to snip]
Unfortunately, as a person taking Native American Studies, I have yet to
find a name upon which all people can agree for those peoples indigenous to
the Americas. Perhaps indigenous peoples is about as good as one can get.
In reference to "native American" Martial Arts... I remember reading in
black Belt magazine quite a few years ago about this subject. However... as
I remember, the martial art in question was more of an eclectic martial art.
this does not mean that the native peoples of this continent did not have
war arts, of course, it simply seems to me that the historical foundation of
a Native American form of self defense is just a bit too cloudy for me to
trust...
regards
kenn
Mehran
Downingmv wrote:
> It seems as though if the Native Americans had an effective hand to hand
> fighting system it would be more prevelant today.
>
> Kind regards,
> Mark Downing
That's not actually accurate: For example, how many westerners had heard of
Judo/Karate/WC, say 80 years ago? I think that there are legitimate tests for
the validity of a martial art: I'm not sure popularity is one of them
Regards also,
Mehran
Hunter Kid
"Ken Riggall" <krig...@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
>I remember, the martial art in question was more of an eclectic martial art.
>this does not mean that the native peoples of this continent did not have
>war arts, of course, it simply seems to me that the historical foundation of
>a Native American form of self defense is just a bit too cloudy for me to
>trust...
Especially that stuff about the animals, I agree. As I recall, most
NAs usually hunted/fought with bow-and-arrow and spear, not kung
fu-wannabe animal stuff. ^_^
Tri...@my-dejanews.com
In article <zcvk1.762$mp.42...@newse1.twcny.rr.com>,
"Ken Riggall" <krig...@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
> >BTW, 'Native American' is kind of an awkward name, and calling them
> >Indians is incorrect. Is there any one-word name for them? ^_^
> >
> >Hunter Kid
> [sorry to snip]
>
> Unfortunately, as a person taking Native American Studies, I have yet to
> find a name upon which all people can agree for those peoples indigenous to
> the Americas. Perhaps indigenous peoples is about as good as one can get.
> In reference to "native American" Martial Arts... I remember reading in
> black Belt magazine quite a few years ago about this subject. However... as
> this does not mean that the native peoples of this continent did not have
> war arts, of course, it simply seems to me that the historical foundation of
> a Native American form of self defense is just a bit too cloudy for me to
> trust...
>
> kenn
>
This is a really intrigueing subject. Putting aside the legitimacy of the
course described in the original posting, I think that probably everyone has
heard of "Ïndian Wrestling". It must have been formidable enough for the
European invaders to recogniye it and give it a name - "Indian wrestling" as
opposed to just wrestling or fighting or whatever.
We know that a great many of the tribes had very strong warrior cultures, had
existed for time immemorial at war with various neighbors and then put up
stiff resistance to European invaders with the most modern weapons of the
day. So it figures that they must have had their martial arts too.
One thought that occured to me is that it is possible that their culture of
education was very different. They may well not have had formal martial arts
training, or have created something like a curriculum, or even named the
techniques. Training could have been more informal - or based on wrestling
games, games like lacrosse, hunting skills, and a lot of physical
conditionaing and toughening. Probably their war arts were very practical
for the warfare they practiced. They most likely emphasized weapons over
empty hand techniques (I at least would guess this). I think that most of us
have read or heard aboput the heavy social preassure and incentives that went
into producing good fighters. Honor and prestige to the guy who counted the
most coup, or brought home the most scalps and horses got lots of prestige
and honors and became influential. The guy who did not steal enough horses
couldn't get married or whatever.
My examples probably would get shot to pieces by an ethnologist or a good
sociologist, but I think that you get what I mean.
It is also interesting to note that there are loads of references to the
earlz colonists learning "Ïndian fighting" to cope with the conditions of
warefare on the frontier and during the French and Indian Wars.
I think that it is certain that the Native Americans were learning a lot of
interesting thing about fighting (among other things of course) This might be
an interesting subject to research and discuss.
Triglav
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
sun...@hotmail.com
>
> >I recently found a class offered at a nearby college. It reads like this:
> >- - - - - - - - - - - -
> >Native American Self Defense
> >
> >Self-Defense and fighting techniques used by Native American tribes.
> [snip]
>
> It seems as though if the Native Americans had an effective hand to hand
> fighting system it would be more prevelant today.
>
Although I know nothing at all about it, I would think that it's principals
and movements would be based upon their whole <ancient> spirit and culture..
probably deeply involved in nature and animal movements. It would be
somewhat like the animal forms of Kung Fu, yet more animal-like, probably
sacrificing fighting efficiency for animal-imitation. Not Zen-like like
Kung-Fu, but Native Americal philosophy.
There are probably few true practicioners, but it sounds interesting.
Sun
sun...@hotmail.com
> BTW, 'Native American' is kind of an awkward name, and calling them
> Indians is incorrect. Is there any one-word name for them? ^_^
>
Yes.. Cherokee, Lakota, etc.
Mehran
Tri...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> <SNIP>
>
>
That's a very interesting post and very penertating analysis: Please let me know
if you decide to go forward with your research.
Mehran
don griffen
good point , i think thwe indians martial arts had nothing to do with
animals per say but rather was a very phsicAL ,DEMANDING RUGGED
wrestling type art with basic kicks and punches. Isnt it
true white people started scalping and not the indians
Otskware
Ken Riggall wrote in message ...
>
>>BTW, 'Native American' is kind of an awkward name, and calling them
>>Indians is incorrect. Is there any one-word name for them? ^_^
...
I'm Mohawk and maybe I'm old school, but I like to be called an "Indian".
However, many others (even other FIRST NATIONS PEOPLE would disagree with
me - the political fight goes on...)
-Jim
Dunlop
There's a Native American 7th dan in kenpo. He also teaches Modern Arnis
and native American arts. If anyone is interested, I'll forward his web
address.
Brad Craig
On Thu, 18 Jun 1998 16:20:04 +0100, Oli <sam...@w3ath3r.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
>In article <EuMK2...@campus-news-reading.utoronto.ca>, "Stephen M.
>Ross" <ro...@onayamspayphm.utoronto.ca> writes
>>Modern lacrosse is very much like hockey in strategy & scoring, but in the old
>>days it was an extremely violent game. Toughened up the men for battle.
>
>I would guess that the purpose was very much like that of Hurling (Irish
>game). Take boys, give them sticks, make them hit a small moving target
>with the sticks while running about and generally avoiding the other
>sticks, make it a game so they do it a lot. Splendid training for the
>use of slashing/crushing weapons in chaotic (battlefield) conditions -
>reactions, use of an implement, fitness and co-ordination all catered
>for.
The modern lacrosse ball is a pretty potent weapon in itself, I can
testify from personal experience. Take the time to learn how to
juggle 4 balls well enough that you can transition from 3 to 4 ball
juggling without missing a beat when someone tosses the 4th ball into
you. Now take this interesting exercise to a well populated local
beach (this time of year is ideal) and, when the inevitable scrawny
looking little kid shows up to watch, offer to demonstrate the above
trick for him, giving him the 4th ball to toss in. Observe the
pronounced tendency of the little bugger to opt for a fireball groin
shot when he "tosses" the 4th ball in.
zxcv
> Isnt it
> true white people started scalping and not the indians
From what I remember about high school history, the Europeans did not start
scalping, but encouraged it by paying bounties on scalps.
Stereotypical Dark God (was: Hunter Kid)
sun...@hotmail.com wrote:
>Although I know nothing at all about it, I would think that it's principals
>and movements would be based upon their whole <ancient> spirit and culture..
>probably deeply involved in nature and animal movements. It would be
>somewhat like the animal forms of Kung Fu, yet more animal-like, probably
>sacrificing fighting efficiency for animal-imitation. Not Zen-like like
>Kung-Fu, but Native Americal philosophy.
Hm, well, if you find a good one, be sure to post it to the newsgroup.
^_^
--
Stereotypical Dark God
http://www.serve.com/guilds/ranma/
gui...@mail.serve.com
Chas
them for ears (but we forgot that there were two of them and sometimes
paid double)- then we hit on the idea that there was only one scalp
(it's taken from a specific part of the head)- There was no loyalty
between various tribes (any more than among white people)- some saw us
as allies against their hereditary enemies- others as enemies because of
their alliances with our European enemies.
Cheyenne were known as the 'Cut-Arm people' because they mutilated the
weapons arm of fallen enemies for example.
They were also doing cannibalism, human sacrifice, slavery and so on-
maybe they were the lost tribes of Israel after all, they and the Welsh.
Chas
Joseph Chalakee
zxcv wrote
=the europeans did not start scpaling but encouraged it by paying
bounty on scalps=
Europeans DID start scalpping.
It with the Dutch.You are right on one thing. There were bounties paid
for scalps,
but it was the Dutch who the ones who were paying.
What you learned in high school is America hitory (i.e. how this country
came to be after a white european was lost).
Joseph Chalakee
Hunter Kid wrote before thinking
'As I understand it (not being friends with any myself) they aren't
inclined to look for friendship among other races'.
Hunter if you don't have any NA friends you should not assume anything
about
what race are friends are or 'looking for friends among other races'.
If Native Americans were not so frindly then they would not have adopted
slaves
who ran away from "their owners" .
NAs believed no man could own another man or the land. Because the they
all belong to mother earth.
Like the martial arts learn everything before you go an ass u me you
know what you are taking about.
Chas
Joseph Chalakee wrote:
>
> Hunter Kid wrote before thinking about how PC retrohistorians would approach a reasonable attitude and a proper question couched in a respectful manner- and just before getting a condescending rap from some other dude:
> If Native Americans were not so friendly then they would not have adopted
> slaves who ran away from "their owners" .
> NAs believed no man could own another man or the land. Because the they
> all belong to mother earth.
poopy doop; Indigenous amerindians held slaves, including black ones-
they held slaves long before they ever met the white debbil.
If one is going to make condescending comments, one should have ones'
facts in order.
Indians did just about everything anyone else did- shamanistic animism
is no more forgiving to the environment than any other
religious/philosophical posture.
You guys weren't conquered with a firearm, it was a sewing needle made
of steel that sealed your doom. Industry comes, bud-
>
> Like the martial arts learn everything before you go an ass u me you
> know what you are taking about.
Gee, oh mystical seer of the truth of the stuff you know the truth
about, tell us more of asses and u
Chas
Chas
Joseph Chalakee wrote:
> zxcv wrote
> bounty on scalps=
> Europeans DID start scalping.
Well, what it was was that the indiges were already cutting people up in
a pretty butchery fashion- the northeast guys especially were into a lot
of torture and body mutilation back and forth with one another. We (evil
white guys (TM)) allied with some tribes against others for various
commercial reasons. We would pay our indians to go kill their hereditary
enemies- to prove that they had done it, they needed some sort of
trophy. At first they used ears, scrotums, forefingers and such, but
they decayed so quickly (and there was a lot of counterfeiting going on-
killing other indians we weren't mad at yet or hadn't met- and selling
off their body parts as 'proper' kills.)
There developed a fad in Europe for scalps- they were hooped and tanned,
dressed with a little quillwork and fetched a good price- indians made a
lot of money from it.
> It with the Dutch. You are right on one thing. There were bounties paid
> for scalps, but it was the Dutch who the ones who were paying.
> What you learned in high school is America history (i.e. how this country
> came to be after a white european was lost).
And which history would you have learned? We have no history but our
own- we're not responsible for keeping your history- if your history was
lost, so be it. My own cultural history was lost as Wales was conquered
by outsiders-
get over it.
and stop making up shit- the truth is enough fun already.
Chas
Dunlop
Here's the link of that Native American 7th dan kenpo master and instructor
of arnis and Native American martial arts.
http://homepages.waymark.net/~chief/
Stereotypical Dark God (was: Hunter Kid) wrote:
> I am. Please do so.
Stereotypical Dark God (was: Hunter Kid)
joe...@webtv.net (Joseph Chalakee) wrote:
>Hunter Kid wrote before thinking
>'As I understand it (not being friends with any myself) they aren't
>inclined to look for friendship among other races'.
>
>Hunter if you don't have any NA friends you should not assume anything
>about
>what race are friends are or 'looking for friends among other races'.
<snip>
I was about to flame you, but I decided to simply remind you that I
put AS I UNDERSTAND IT in front of my comment for a reason.
Stereotypical Dark God (was: Hunter Kid)
Dunlop <dst...@po-box.mcgill.ca> wrote:
>There's a Native American 7th dan in kenpo. He also teaches Modern Arnis
>and native American arts. If anyone is interested, I'll forward his web
>address.
I am. Please do so.
--
IDGUNFGHTR
Has anyone seen "Last of the Mohicans" with Daniel Day Lewis? observe the
fights and the use of the tomahawk and knife. Another thing to watch is the use
of the "Riflestock" war club. I understand the director Michael Mann ( of Miami
Vice fame) demanded authentic preiod weapons. As one who enjoys Muzzleloading
and Rendevous I found the movie enjoyable and somewhat educational.
IDGUNFGHTR
Douglas Henderson
Ken Riggall wrote:
>
> >BTW, 'Native American' is kind of an awkward name, and calling them
> >Indians is incorrect. Is there any one-word name for them? ^_^
> >
> [sorry to snip]
>
> Unfortunately, as a person taking Native American Studies, I have yet to
> find a name upon which all people can agree for those peoples indigenous to
> the Americas. Perhaps indigenous peoples is about as good as one can get.
> In reference to "native American" Martial Arts... I remember reading in
> black Belt magazine quite a few years ago about this subject. However... as
> I remember, the martial art in question was more of an eclectic martial art.
> this does not mean that the native peoples of this continent did not have
> war arts, of course, it simply seems to me that the historical foundation of
> a Native American form of self defense is just a bit too cloudy for me to
> trust...
>
> regards
> kenn
A couple of years ago I was writing up ethnic survey data and I wondered
about the term American Indian vs Native American. I called up the
Indian Community House here in NYC. We had a chat and they said that
they were easy on the terminology, since the name for some tribes, like
the Navahoe, that is the Dineh meant "the people" and anyone who wasn't
dineh wasn't people. "Yeah," I said, "but which term do you prefer,
Indian or Native American?" I could almost hear him shrug his shoulders
as he said "what does it matter, they're both White terms!"
FWIW
--
Douglas Henderson
Remove nospam from address to reply
Tri...@my-dejanews.com
In article <3593A38C...@cis.ohio-state.edu>,
Dear Mehran,
I do think that it would be kind of interesting to look into, but more so If
I could possibly inspire a couple of other folks to look into other aspects
of it and then get some interesting exchange and discussion going. Are you
interested in collaborating?
Jon AKA Triglav
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Mehran
Tri...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> <SNIP>
> > That's a very interesting post and very penertating analysis: Please let me know
> > if you decide to go forward with your research.
> >
> > Mehran
> >
>
> Dear Mehran,
>
> I do think that it would be kind of interesting to look into, but more so If
> I could possibly inspire a couple of other folks to look into other aspects
> of it and then get some interesting exchange and discussion going. Are you
> interested in collaborating?
>
> Jon AKA Triglav
Yes, very much. I'll send an email to the native american dept here (@ OSU). I'll get
back to you with the results.
Mehran
>
>
Downingmv
In article <199806280746...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
idgun...@aol.com (IDGUNFGHTR) writes:
If you think you might be a James Fenimore Cooper fan read the essay "Fenimore
Cooper's Literary Offenses" by Mark Twain. I think you might find it
interesting and amusing.
Kind regards,
Mark Downing
http://members.aol.com/downingmv
"Never offer advice. The wise do not need it. The fool will not heed it."
7141
On Fri, 26 Jun 1998 12:55:41 GMT, sun...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>> BTW, 'Native American' is kind of an awkward name, and calling them
>> Indians is incorrect. Is there any one-word name for them? ^_^
>>
>
>Yes.. Cherokee, Lakota, etc.
>
Yea, that's a great Idea, Lets try it in a post:
The martial arts of the Cherokee, Navajo, Sioux, Chippewa,
Choctaw, Pueblo, Apache, Iroquois, Lumbee, Creek, Blackfoot,
Chickasaw, Tohono O'Odham, Potawatomi, Seminole, Pima, Tlingit,
Alaskan Athabaskans, Cheyenne, Comanche, Paiute, Osage, Puget Sound
Salish, Yaqui....
I could go on, but doesn't one easy word make sense?
7141
On Sat, 27 Jun 1998 18:13:06 -0700 (PDT), joe...@webtv.net (Joseph
Chalakee) wrote:
>Hunter Kid wrote before thinking
>'As I understand it (not being friends with any myself) they aren't
>inclined to look for friendship among other races'.
>
>Hunter if you don't have any NA friends you should not assume anything
>about
>what race are friends are or 'looking for friends among other races'.
>
>If Native Americans were not so frindly then they would not have adopted
>slaves
>who ran away from "their owners" .
>NAs believed no man could own another man or the land. Because the they
>all belong to mother earth.
>
>Like the martial arts learn everything before you go an ass u me you
>know what you are taking about.
>
Anyone who wants to know the truth, go to alt.native and lurk for a
while, or for a laugh, ask there what you should call them, or even
troll there a little, but don't cross post here.
George Szaszvari
In article <359b7543.32860915@news>, jajones...@bewellnet.comi says...
>Anyone who wants to know the truth, go to alt.native and lurk for a
>while, or for a laugh, ask there what you should call them, or even
>troll there a little, but don't cross post here.
Well, being interested in the Old West and Native American culture
and lore, I dug up some stuff and asked about indigenous American
MAs in alt.old-west last year; someone did some research and posted
stuff on wrestling and other "sports" on alt.old-west....check it
out on deja-news. AFAIK it seems that MAs [as generally understood
in today's terms] in Native American culture were largely about
wrestling and simulated skirmishes/battles, plus growing up with
weapons used in hunting, as well as combat, that is: the bow and
arrow, knife, tomahawk, lance, etc. I think this subject is just
as relevant on rec.martial-arts, as anywhere else. Should anyone
have further info, please also post to alt.old-west. I've heard
that knife and tomahawk throwing is a pretty big sport in the US...
is anyone into this in the UK [specifically the south-east/London
area]?
--
George Szaszvari, DCPS Chess Club, 42 Alleyn Park, London SE21 7AA, UK
Tri...@my-dejanews.com
In article <3598E3C4...@cis.ohio-state.edu>,
Okay, lets go for it.
I think I will start by trying to brain storm up a list of research topics,
and search some of the books I have, plus my memory for some pertinent
thoughts/ideas to explore.
Jon aka Triglav
Otskware
7141 wrote in message <359a7060.31609283@news>...
That's the same thing as saying that Americans, Canadians, germans,
Russians, Swedish, etc. people are all the same with the same customs and
histories. Think about it.
Chas
We sure do get lumped together when people of color care to do so, yes.
The so-called 'imperialism' was a thing born of class, not race. The
sodjers and workers that came here were at the quick of the nobles they
were serfed to.
When we were attacked, we fought back- when we won we pressed onward.
The rule of the King and of the washingtondcgubmint sufficed to their
own ends; power, greed and the exploitation of hardworking family folks.
Poor white people didn't own slaves- get real; they didn't take a farm
from the indians, they took it from the buffalo; they didn't kill off
beaver or buffalo, the merchandisers did-
People who have a beef with someone based on race are foolish. People
who mistake who their real enemy is- are even foolisher.
Did anyone except locally see where the gubmint is taking water rights
from the Utes (still) in southern Colorado? It sure ain't the guys that
live there that will benefit- its the fatcats downstream that bought the
government.
Chas
7141
>
>7141 wrote in message <359a7060.31609283@news>...
>>On Fri, 26 Jun 1998 12:55:41 GMT, sun...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> >
>>The martial arts of the Cherokee, Navajo, Sioux, Chippewa,
>>Choctaw, Pueblo, Apache, Iroquois, Lumbee, Creek, Blackfoot,
>>Chickasaw, Tohono O'Odham, Potawatomi, Seminole, Pima, Tlingit,
>>Alaskan Athabaskans, Cheyenne, Comanche, Paiute, Osage, Puget Sound
>>Salish, Yaqui....
>>
>>I could go on, but doesn't one easy word make sense?
>
>
>That's the same thing as saying that Americans, Canadians, germans,
>Russians, Swedish, etc. people are all the same with the same customs and
>histories. Think about it.
>
No, it is totally different on many levels.
In the first place, no one screams when the term "white race" or
similar is used, but some, not most, Indians scream when any term
lumping them together is used. The black people don't scream at being
called African American, although they also had many tribes. You are
asking for something no one else wants, or gets. What makes you more
special? Let me guess. Your race?
In the second place, there are enough similarities in the various
tribes legally, culturally and politically to make an umbrella term
needed and useful.
There are other points, but I have already found out that discussing
racial issues with racist is pointless.
And is not capitalizing Germans intentional?
CNR
First of all, Try going to europe and see if that blanket phrase thing
will work there. You will find that the French are very proud of their
Frenchness, the Spanish of theirs and so on. Why do you think that
there is all this fuss about a united europe? It is because the
majority of people are afraid of loosing their national and racial
identity, like the whites in the U.S.
As to the blacks, they have no choice in the matter. Their ancestors
were knidnapped and dragged half way across the world. They were forced
to speak an alien language and accept an alien culture. To this day, it
would be vertually impossible to find out what tribe each of them
belong. Be the way, in Africa, tribal pride is still very strong. I
have alot of African friends and they do not like to be called Africans.
Each one prefers to be addressed as a member of this tribe or that one.
This "umbrella term" is only useful to people like you, who enjoy
lumping people into groups. This is what the KKK does in order to hate
certain people. Each tribe is different from the other. The Lakota are
traditionally ruled by a group of Chiefs, the Navajo on the other hand
are ruled by the eldest living family relative. The Navajo never had
Chiefs. The Iriquois are a confederation of tribes that are ruled by a
centralized government upon which this country's government is based.
All of the tribes with in this country speak different languages, they
have to speak english so that they can understand each other.
You call other people who have a different view from yours as racist.
Well, maybe it is you who should look at your reasons for wanting to
uphold these views. Maybe it is the fact that these tribes are still
proud of who they are and will continue to fight for their right to be
who they are.
By the way, I am Dine'e (Navajo) and very proud of being one. When
people ask me if I am an American Indian or Native American, I reply by
saying that I am Navajo. Also, I am an Assistant Instructor in the Yang
style of Tai Chi Chuan.
CNR
7141
On 1 Jul 1998 00:23:03 GMT, g...@dial.pipex.com (George Szaszvari)
wrote:
>In article <359b7543.32860915@news>, jajones...@bewellnet.comi says...
>I think this subject is just
>as relevant on rec.martial-arts, as anywhere else. Should anyone
>have further info, please also post to alt.old-west. I've heard
>that knife and tomahawk throwing is a pretty big sport in the US...
>is anyone into this in the UK [specifically the south-east/London
>area]?
American Indian MA's are germane here, but what politically correct
term to apply is not.
When I used to SCA style sword fight, a lot of guys were into axe
throwing. These were 'bearded axe', a little larger than the
'tomahawk', but throw the same. I imagine that there are some axe
throwers in the UK, as well as long bowmen and swordsmen. There are
tons of them in the US.
Anyone else ever do any SCA stuff?
7141
On Thu, 02 Jul 1998 10:04:26 -0400, CNR <cr...@columbia.edu> wrote:
>First of all, Try going to europe and see if that blanket phrase thing
>will work there.
>
The US is one country, Europe is several. We are not talking about
Europe, we are talking about the US. This is totally off point.
>As to the blacks, they have no choice in the matter. Their ancestors
>were knidnapped and dragged half way across the world. They were forced
>to speak an alien language and accept an alien culture. To this day, it
>would be vertually impossible to find out what tribe each of them
>belong. Be the way, in Africa, tribal pride is still very strong. I
>have alot of African friends and they do not like to be called Africans.
>Each one prefers to be addressed as a member of this tribe or that one.
>
Again, you are off point. I am not talking about Africans, I am
talking about African Americans. I realize it is presumptuous of me,
since I am white, but the point is valid.
As far as the absorbtion of blacks into American culture, it was
forced, but few blacks seem willing to go much past "African
American", even though genetic testing could point them toward a
particular tribe. I am sure you can find exceptions, of course, but
the generalization stands.
>This "umbrella term" is only useful to people like you, who enjoy
>lumping people into groups. This is what the KKK does in order to hate
>certain people.
Its also what the government does on many forms, and what you just did
with the statement "people like you". I think umbrella terms are
necessary to streamline exchange of ideas and information, I don't use
them because I "enjoy" them. You, on the other hand, think they are
racist. When I use them, I am not intending insult, when you use
them, you are.
Therefore, when you said "people like you" a definite, if not exacting
umbrella term, you proved yourself to be either a liar, a hypocrite,
or a racist, or perhaps all three.
> Each tribe is different from the other.
News flash for you, Each person is different from every other person!
>The Iriquois are a confederation of tribes that are ruled by a
>centralized government upon which this country's government is based.
You mean E Pluribus Unum is an Iroquois phrase?
>All of the tribes with in this country speak different languages, they
>have to speak english so that they can understand each other.
You mean they are incapable of learning each others language? How did
trade take place among the indigenous primitives prior to Columbus?
Did they have the ability to read minds?
>You call other people who have a different view from yours as racist.
I call racist people racists.
>Well, maybe it is you who should look at your reasons for wanting to
>uphold these views.
Um, my reasons being to streamline the exchange of information and
ideas. Your reasons are race based, not mine.
>Maybe it is the fact that these tribes are still
>proud of who they are and will continue to fight for their right to be
>who they are.
Nothing wrong with that, but if you pick fights over such minor
points, it makes it look more like you are unreasonable and
antagonistic because you want to cause trouble for everyone, and not
like you have a valid beef.
>
>By the way, I am Dine'e (Navajo) and very proud of being one.
And I am white Welch/Scottish descent, and proud of it, but I don't
make it the single point of my existence.
>When
>people ask me if I am an American Indian or Native American, I reply by
>saying that I am Navajo. Also, I am an Assistant Instructor in the Yang
>style of Tai Chi Chuan.
So what about Navajo martial arts? Are there any structured techniques
that have roots in the primitive times of the Navajo?
George Szaszvari
In article <6ni64n$j1m$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Tri...@my-dejanews.com
says...
>Dear George,
>I found the website of the National Muzzle Loading Rifle Association in the
>USA I am afraid that I don't know how to put this in as a link. The site
is
>http://www.nmlra.org/
>They sponser matches, and events like the Rondezvous where there is also
>knife and tomahwk throwing as well as various shooting contests with muzzle
>loaders, loads of teepees and people in period dress.
>I have been to one of these in Red Lodge Montana and it was
>a huge amont of fun. They might be able to put you in touch with a
>similar organization in Britain.
Much appreciated...thanks!!
>I tried to find the post that you described in Alt.old-west but had no
luck.
>It may be that I do not know how to search archives in dejanews. Maybe you
>could help me out here? I have been corresponding with Mehran about
>researching this subject a bit more seriously. If you are interested,
>perhaps you would also like to collaborate?
Hmmm, during a thread on this subject one of the more regular
alt.old-west contributors [perhaps Steve Grimm,..can't remember
offhand] checked out some archives in Denver and relayed it back
over the ng [iirc it was about wrestling...I'd have plow thru
my own post.logs, if it still exists] to find it...TE Mails has
published a good deal about Apache life and lore and in "The
People Called Apache" describes their mock battles [which could
get pretty realistic sometimes..]. As far as deja-news is concerned
I just follow their hints on searching...and of course a bit of
patience is needed...also deja-news, because of innumerable
network hiccups, is by no means a complete archive...
I'd certainly be interested in developing contacts along your
suggested lines...keep in touch.
Craig Hyatt
CNR wrote:
>
...edit...
> belong. Be the way, in Africa, tribal pride is still very strong. I
> have alot of African friends and they do not like to be called Africans.
> Each one prefers to be addressed as a member of this tribe or that one.
>
It's been my experience that Africans prefer to be
identified with a
country, not a tribe. If asked, many will say "I'm Kenyan",
"I'm
Nigerian", etc., not "I'm a Luo" or "I'm Ibo", probably
because they
believe that many Americans won't know what they are talking
about
if they refer to a tribal name. Of course a person is proud
of his/her
tribe, but tribalism is seen by some Africans as a
fragmenting
force in some African nations, perhaps in the same way that
racism is
viewed in America. BTW, some Africans are amused by
Americans who
can't seem to understand that Africa is a continent, not a
country.
Saying "I plan to visit Africa to see the game park" is like
saying
"I plan to visit North America to see the Washington
Monument."
Finally, back to the thread, there's a series of "coffee
table" books
on Native Amerian culture--Time Life, I think--that has one
volume
devoted to N.Am. martial culture. I read the books some
time ago,
but I remember a few things. One was a technique (I want to
say
"poling", but I can't remember) that involved getting close
enough
to touch or wound an enemy with a lance without actually
killing him.
There was a discussion of battle strategy that resembled the
"Art of
War". There was a fairly detailed discussion of how weapons
were made
and used. Also, that young men were taken along in battle
at an early
age but were kept from the front lines until mature enough
to fight.
There were purification rituals after fighting because the
warriors
accumlated some evil essence during battle.
Maybe the original poster can find these volumes to get a
brief
introduction to N.Am. martial arts. I believe the books had
a
bibliography that might be useful for more in-depth
research.
Happy training,
Craig Hyatt
hya...@nortel.ca
Ron Bain
Tri...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> I tried to find the post that you described in Alt.old-west but had no luck.
> It may be that I do not know how to search archives in dejanews. Maybe you
> could help me out here? I have been corresponding with Mehran about
> researching this subject a bit more seriously. If you are interested,
> perhaps you would also like to collaborate?
After you initial search, you have the option of selecting the "current"
archive, or the "old" archives. Perhaps you had just searched the
current one. If you are into "research", Dejanews is very handy. Learn
to use it well, and be creative in your selection of "search words".
Just a quick word on the preferred term for "Native Americans". Many are
hesitant to call themselves, Americans, Canadians, Australians, etc,
simply because this was something that was not chosen by themselves.
African Americans (and others) have the option of calling themselves
Americans, Nigerians, or Zulu, because they have a distinctive homeland.
If they tire of "America", they can always 'go home'. "Native Americans"
can't.
Imagine the Koreans being forced to call themselves Japanese after the
Japanese invasion. Or the Chechoslovakians (SP) being forced to call
themselves Russians after that invasion. ....Never gonna happen.
It's simply a matter of pride.
As far as Native martial arts, I was told many years ago, that it was
simply "survival", no different that current day 'street
fighting'...basic, informal ...but effective.
All in all, a very interesting thread. A BIG Good Luck in your research.
Ron
Eric Berge
In Article<359CC4CE...@nortel.ca>, <hya...@nortel.ca> writes:
> Finally, back to the thread, there's a series of "coffee
> table" books on Native Amerian culture--Time Life, I think--that has one
> volume devoted to N.Am. martial culture. I read the books some
> time ago, but I remember a few things. One was a technique (I want to
> say "poling", but I can't remember) that involved getting close
> enough to touch or wound an enemy with a lance without actually
> killing him.
"Counting Coup"; often done with a special Coup stick.
Primitive warfare is often fought for purposes other than those of more
advanced societies, and frequently has a strong ritual or religious
aspect; there are frequently all sorts of understood rules and tabus
that regulate how battles and duels (not often well differentiated)
are fought and for what objectives.
Try finding a copy of the movie, "Dead Birds", from the Rockefeller
expedition to New Guinea, which documents an actual battle between
two primitive tribes.
John Keegans "History of Warfare" has some good discussion of this stuff,
too.
Eric Berge
(remove _ for address)
Stereotypical Dark God (was: Hunter Kid)
jajones...@bewellnet.com (7141) wrote:
>>First of all, Try going to europe and see if that blanket phrase thing
>>will work there.
>>
>The US is one country, Europe is several. We are not talking about
>Europe, we are talking about the US. This is totally off point.
What you said was 'what no one else wants, or gets.' There has been
no specification to which country was under discussion, so 'this is
totally off point' is incorrect.
Downingmv
In article <359CE6...@cyberbeach.net>, Ron Bain <ba...@cyberbeach.net>
writes:
>Just a quick word on the preferred term for "Native Americans". Many are
>hesitant to call themselves, Americans, Canadians, Australians, etc,
>simply because this was something that was not chosen by themselves.
Aren't Canadians "Americans"?
North and South America are continents.
"The name was derived from Americus, the Latinized given name of Italian
navigator Amerigo Vespucci, one of the early explorers of the region."
Encarta® 98 Desk Encyclopedia © & 1996-97 Microsoft Corporation.
All rights reserved.
So in conclusion the continent was named for an Italian explorer and later
dominated by the English and Spanish who committed the majority of the
injustices against the indigenous population. So why would the natives be
sensitive about using an Italian name? What have the Italians ever done to the
Indians? ;-)
>African Americans (and others) have the option of calling themselves
>Americans, Nigerians, or Zulu, because they have a distinctive homeland.
>If they tire of "America", they can always 'go home'. "Native Americans"
>can't.
Excuse me while I get a tissue and wipe away the tears.
WARNING: If you don't want to see someone get on their soapbox quit reading
now!
You know... as a WASP there are a lot of things in our history I am not proud
of, one of which is the treatment of the Native Americans.
Listen people, it is not like the Native Americans were these innocent little
flower children living over here in the Garden of Eden or something! [re:
"Dances with Wolves" or "Little Big Man"] Wake up! Larger more powerful tribes
were dominating weaker tribes thousands of years before Amerigo Vespucci ever
played with his first toy boat in the bath tub.
The English and Spanish [Ok, ok...the French and Portugese too.] were just some
larger and more powerful "tribes". Everyone who came under these cultural
umbrellas by their own free will or not should just get over it! Your culture
is not exactly pure and sinless as the driven snow. Many peoples throughout the
history of the world have been dominated by other cultures. The ones who get
over it and move on are the ones who succeed. Hey, It could have been worse...
It could have been the Vikings or the Normans [their cousins]... they weren't
very benevolent.
We as U.S. citizens, regardless of our cultural heritage should thank God that
the dominate culture of this country had the forsight to enact a constitution
where all people [eventually] would be free and equal to do what they please
under the law.
Sorry to get waaaayyyy of topic.
Chas
Downingmv wrote:
>Hey, It could have been worse...
> It could have been the Vikings or the Normans [their cousins]... they weren't
> very benevolent.
Think what would have happened to the amerindians if they had met the
Japanese, the West Africans, Mongols, the Moghul expansionists... there
would be no memory of something having been forgotten; there would have
been no treaties to break- they would have been destroyed- no language,
no religion, no customs would remain.
Our own sense of fairplay and our evolution towards freedom for the
individual is not paralled anywhere else in the world. It is uniquely
European and Christian in nature and solitary in its' extension of human
rights to people that couldn't fight for them themselves. Only in our
culture are the weak, prior enemies, differing religions and so on
treated with the respect and dignity usually reserved for members of the
ruling class.
There is no doubt in my mind that the blue-eyed devil is the kindest
conqueror in history. We have treated our defeated enemies better than
any other culture in the history of the world (with the exception of the
defeated Confederacy).
Happy Independence Day! you don't get one anywhere else in the world,
and you can thank nasty violent racist imperialist Christian white men
for it.
Chas
Stereotypical Dark God (was: Hunter Kid)
Chas <gryp...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> >Think what would have happened to the amerindians if they had met the
>> >Japanese, the West Africans, Mongols, the Moghul expansionists... there
>> >would be no memory of something having been forgotten; there would have
>>
>> Interesting, but do you think that the Japanese, West Africans,
>> Mongols, or the Moghul expansionists could have defeated all the
>> Native American tribes?
>
>no, no, yes, yes.
>and you?
No, no, yes, and maybe. I really don't know much about the Moghul
expansionists. ^_^;;;
So shouldn't you have put 'if the amerindians had been *defeated*'
rather than 'met?' ^_^
hab...@cis.ohio-state.edu
Chas wrote:
>
><SNIP>
> The so-called 'imperialism' was a thing born of class, not race. <SNIP>
Read 'white man's burden' by kipling or 'heart of darkness' by conrad.
This "it was never about race, it was all about class " crap is just a
sound-bite that needs to be stopped.
Mehran
hab...@cis.ohio-state.edu
7141 wrote:
> I call racist people racists.
I snipped out all my other comments, because they really had nothing to
do with MA, but I'm going to indulge myself with this one: The problem
with racism is not the noticing of the fact that race is a factor in
social life. The problem with racism is, inherently, the fact that it's
unfair. When CNR notices race, he's not really doing any harm, because
he's not acting unfairly. He's asking that you refer to him as a Navajo.
What you are doing _is_ unfair: namely, not addressing him by the name
he prefers, given the fact that he's addressing you by the name you
prefer.
Mehran
Chas
justification was no longer there- with the increasing democratisation
of the British Empire, it *did* become very racial. Darwin had just
written his book and for the first time, people were beginning to see
one another as 'human'- prior to that, humanity was not even a question
between many races. Din'eh, for example, means 'the People'- Navahos'
didn't consider that anyone else had any rights that they were bound to
acknowledge- ask the Hopi.
India, in particular, was so stringently divided along racial and class
lines, that the British almost automatically lived by the same criteria-
they married into the wealthy upper class Indians and used the
untouchables as consumables- just like the Indians themselves did.
Wealth will overcome *any* skin color- it's class, not race. You told us
what your girlfriend does for a living, not what she looked like- her
class is much more important than her race.
Chas
Chas
Stereotypical Dark God (was: Hunter Kid) wrote:
> No, no, yes, and maybe. I really don't know much about the Moghul
> expansionists. ^_^;;;
Indonesia; the sultanates, rajahs, maharajahs and like that.
> So shouldn't you have put 'if the amerindians had been *defeated*'
> rather than 'met?' ^_^
opponent that they met. Prior to meeting with the Spanish, they had no
horses (they wiped them out along with the american tiger, the mammoth
and sloth- ate'em)- a small use of found copper, but no metallurgy, no
high fired ceramics- minimal chemistry, etc.
As I say, they were not defeated by a firearm, it was a sewing needle
that got them.
> Stereotypical Dark God
Chas
Downingmv
In article <359fa199...@news.mindspring.com>, gui...@mail.serve.com
(Stereotypical Dark God (was: Hunter Kid)) writes:
>Interesting, but do you think that the Japanese, West Africans,
>Mongols, or the Moghul expansionists could have defeated all the
>Native American tribes?
>
>
Oh boy... This is going to start all sorts of "Native Americans vs ???"
threads. ;-)
7141
Wrong answer. If I address CNR alone, I would use his name, If I
address his tribe, I would use the name of the tribe, but if I address
an issue that encompasses more than one tribe, the term American
Indian is perfectly acceptable and accurate, according to my preferred
language, english.
Also, are you implying it is OK if CNR (or anyone else) is a racist,
as long as they do no harm? An interesting philosophy.
And which name is it that I prefer to be addressed as?
Chas
7141 wrote:
> And which name is it that I prefer to be addressed as?
I don't know about you, but I'm kind of getting used to pindolicoye`
wasicun blue-eyed devil sonnavuhbitch- It shows me that we're not the
only racist pricks on the planet.
Amerindians are among the most racist humans in the world- look how
closely they follow how much 'Indian Blood' you 'have in you'- they make
a huge thing out of racial purity as a standalone criterion.
Chas
Kevin Hill
Downingmv wrote:
>Aren't Canadians "Americans"?
>North and South America are continents.
I'll accept 'North American' but not american. I think
it has to do with one too many 'little state up north'
jokes. Likely due to the fact that US refers to themselves
as 'americans'. We'll take 'Canadians', thanks.
>So in conclusion the continent was named for an Italian explorer and later
>dominated by the English and Spanish who committed the majority of the
>injustices against the indigenous population. So why would the natives be
>sensitive about using an Italian name? What have the Italians ever done to
the
>Indians? ;-)
Well, they aren't Indian, for one. Indians are from India,
and the only reason they got named Indians was that
the pioneers were hopelessly lost.
<snip speech>
I do agree with the notion of conquerer and conquered.
They lost, yadda yadda. But as a society that babbles
on incessantly about social injustices in other places,
it would make sense that we should either clean out the
skeletons in our own closets or just piss off and quite
the holy high road act elsewhere.
:o)
kEvin
7141
On Sat, 04 Jul 1998 14:57:06 GMT, gui...@mail.serve.com (Stereotypical
Dark God (was: Hunter Kid)) wrote:
>jajones...@bewellnet.com (7141) wrote:
>
>>>First of all, Try going to europe and see if that blanket phrase thing
>>>will work there.
>>>
>>The US is one country, Europe is several. We are not talking about
>>Europe, we are talking about the US. This is totally off point.
>
>What you said was 'what no one else wants, or gets.' There has been
>no specification to which country was under discussion, so 'this is
>totally off point' is incorrect.
Try going to Europe and calling an American French, Spanish, etc...
They will have a problem with it regardless of the ancestors of the
American.
Ask yourself what culture in the world contains the most diversity of
any kind (ie racial, cultural). It's us evil 'ol white eyes that have
built a land where races, religions, and cultures mix freely with very
few problems. Many countries have a history of thousands of years of
war based on a difference in race, religion, or culture.
American culture has absorbed the best of the rest, from before the
greeks until now. The very existence of MAs in this country is proof
of our willingness to expand our cultural limits to include others.
Ask yourself do most American Indian cultures share this trait?
Damon Stone
7141 wrote:
>
> Ask yourself what culture in the world contains the most diversity of
> any kind (ie racial, cultural). It's us evil 'ol white eyes that have
> built a land where races, religions, and cultures mix freely with very
> few problems. Many countries have a history of thousands of years of
> war based on a difference in race, religion, or culture.
> American culture has absorbed the best of the rest, from before the
> greeks until now. The very existence of MAs in this country is proof
> of our willingness to expand our cultural limits to include others.
> Ask yourself do most American Indian cultures share this trait?
Well that is a rather moot point. The Native American culture was
decimated by the imperealisitic nature of the British Empire and
then the American government. There are many indicators that
these
different tribes were moving more and more to a form of mutual
understanding and respect. Tribes that had been warring with each
othe rwere coming to terms, and then wham! Across the continent
they started losing more and more of what they identified
themselves
with. Old conflicts rose again.
Given the fact that America didn't become more than a stratified
society divided by socio-economic lines (read as both race AND
class)
in the last 50 years, comparing them to a culture that has been
forever altered, and in some cases exterminated, is hardly even.
There is a want to rewrite history, making the NA's appear to be
a single people who lived at peace with the world. This is not
true, however they lived in a way following philosophies that if
given 200 years of development had every chance of turning into
the very system that they are percieved of as having. Then again
they may have stepped up there level of inter-tribal warfare, and
gone back to the older ways of hunting and war, which would have
destroyed this land. Given the evidence present in both
historical
documents and oral histories, the former seems closer than the
later,
but more than likely a fair, just, and mostly crime free society
would have developed in the US' place, which would have used a
caste
system based on ability versus birth. Not Utopian, or
necessarrily
better, but definetly different.
dms
George Szaszvari
In article <35A14E56...@cisco.com>, dams...@cisco.com says...
>Well that is a rather moot point. The Native American culture was
>decimated by the imperealisitic nature of the British Empire and
You seem to forget the Spanish and French influence on Native
Americans. Spanish attitudes to the Indians were frequently less
than morally gratifying. For a long time [even before the US-Mexican
border was clarified] parts of Mexico had an *official* genocide
policy against the Apaches, paying bounty on Indian scalps. In
the north, many Indian tribes found refuge from American, er,
expansionism, behaviour across the Canadian border. Sitting
Bull survived in just such a way after the great Sioux-Cheyenne
victory at the Little Big Horn. I think you'll find that French
and British relations were less bloody than Spanish/Mexican and
American relations were with Native Americans...
[cross-posted from rec.martial-arts to alt.old-west]
7141
On Sun, 05 Jul 1998 22:15:05 -0400, hab...@cis.ohio-state.edu wrote:
>Chas wrote:
>>
>><SNIP>
>> The so-called 'imperialism' was a thing born of class, not race. <SNIP>
>Read 'white man's burden' by kipling or 'heart of darkness' by conrad.
>This "it was never about race, it was all about class " crap is just a
>sound-bite that needs to be stopped.
>
>Mehran
Harharhar
Thanks for the laugh, but it has always been about class, not race.
Read anything from Dickens, or any other writer of that time or
before. People were divided by class. You better believe that Indian
nobles ranked higher than common Brit foot soldiers. You also better
believe that serfs were lower than dirt.
7141
On Mon, 06 Jul 1998 15:23:18 -0700, Damon Stone <dams...@cisco.com>
wrote:
>7141 wrote:
>>
>> Ask yourself what culture in the world contains the most diversity of
>> any kind (ie racial, cultural). It's us evil 'ol white eyes that have
>> built a land where races, religions, and cultures mix freely with very
>> few problems. Many countries have a history of thousands of years of
>> war based on a difference in race, religion, or culture.
>> American culture has absorbed the best of the rest, from before the
>> greeks until now. The very existence of MAs in this country is proof
>> of our willingness to expand our cultural limits to include others.
>> Ask yourself do most American Indian cultures share this trait?
>
>Well that is a rather moot point. The Native American culture was
>decimated by the imperealisitic nature of the British Empire and
>then the American government.
With the help of each other, the French, Dutch, and the Spanish
>There are many indicators that
>these
>different tribes were moving more and more to a form of mutual
>understanding and respect. Tribes that had been warring with each
>othe rwere coming to terms, and then wham!
Very unlikely, The tribes were still at each others throats, and, as
their population density increased, so would war and disease, just
like every other developing culture in history.
> Across the continent
>they started losing more and more of what they identified
>themselves
>with. Old conflicts rose again.
They never lost the old conflicts
>
>Given the fact that America didn't become more than a stratified
>society divided by socio-economic lines (read as both race AND
>class)
>in the last 50 years, comparing them to a culture that has been
>forever altered, and in some cases exterminated, is hardly even.
What in history is even? Primitives have always fallen before more
advanced cultures, be they Phoenicians, Romans, Spanish, or English.
>
>There is a want to rewrite history, making the NA's appear to be
>a single people who lived at peace with the world. This is not
>true, however they lived in a way following philosophies that if
>given 200 years of development had every chance of turning into
>the very system that they are percieved of as having. Then again
>they may have stepped up there level of inter-tribal warfare, and
>gone back to the older ways of hunting and war, which would have
>destroyed this land. Given the evidence present in both
>historical
>documents and oral histories, the former seems closer than the
>later,
>but more than likely a fair, just, and mostly crime free society
>would have developed in the US' place, which would have used a
>caste
>system based on ability versus birth. Not Utopian, or
>necessarrily
>better, but definetly different.
>
>dms
Or the Mayan/Inca type culture would have developed bronze age
technology and conquered all the rest over a 500 year period like the
Romans did through Europe.
Second guessing history is fun, but it doesn't prove anything. The
primitive American tribes were too far behind the technology 8 ball to
survive once Europe had reliable means of spanning the ocean. They
were technologically inferior. They were not possessed of any higher
morals, and, in fact, had probably been at war for most of their
history. Their environmental record is terrible, and the reason there
were no horses until the Europeans reintroduced them is that the
natives had eaten them all! The lack of pre-1600 records leaves much
to conjecture, but placing the higher moral ground on the side of the
various tribes is pure wishful thinking. Here is the 'Noble Savage' at
work:
On the afternoon of the third of September, 1812, Jeremiah Payne and a
man by the name of Kauffmann, were surprised and
killed by a party of Indians while at work in the woods, about two
miles from the settlement. The Indians then - Shawnees, ten
or twelve in number - attacked the settlement about sunset, and
murdered one man, five women, and sixteen children. The
bodies of some of the victims were burned in the cabins where they
were slaughtered. Mrs. John Biggs alone escaped with her
three small children, reaching a settlement six miles distant near
daylight.
A number of the militia of Clark county proceeded to the scene of the
massacre, where they found only the mangled and
half-consumed bodies of the dead, and the ruins of the houses; and the
remains were all buried in one grave.
Early History of the West and North-West, pages 13-14
The Methodist Book Concern, Cincinnati, 1868
What do you suppose half-consumed means? Some tribes were cannibals!
7141
On Sun, 05 Jul 1998 15:54:42 GMT, gui...@mail.serve.com (Stereotypical
Dark God (was: Hunter Kid)) wrote:
>Chas <gryp...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>Think what would have happened to the amerindians if they had met the
>>Japanese, the West Africans, Mongols, the Moghul expansionists... there
>>would be no memory of something having been forgotten; there would have
>
>Interesting, but do you think that the Japanese, West Africans,
>Mongols, or the Moghul expansionists could have defeated all the
>Native American tribes?
The Japanese Islands were inhabited by natives when the Japanese
arrived. Guess where they are now? The Japanese do have a nice little
tourist area set up, where Japanese craftsmen have set up a primitive
village and mimic the art of the natives. It is really fun to visit
there.
7141
>Downingmv wrote:
>
>>Aren't Canadians "Americans"?
>>North and South America are continents.
>
>I'll accept 'North American' but not american. I think
>it has to do with one too many 'little state up north'
>jokes. Likely due to the fact that US refers to themselves
>as 'americans'. We'll take 'Canadians', thanks.
Soon to be two countries, If Quebec has its way.
>
>>So in conclusion the continent was named for an Italian explorer and later
>>dominated by the English and Spanish who committed the majority of the
>>injustices against the indigenous population. So why would the natives be
>>sensitive about using an Italian name? What have the Italians ever done to
>the
>>Indians? ;-)
But Vespucci was working for the Portuguese, not the Italians.
>
>Well, they aren't Indian, for one. Indians are from India,
>and the only reason they got named Indians was that
>the pioneers were hopelessly lost.
No, just Columbus. Most people realized it wasn't the Indies, but
after 500 years of calling them Indians, it is as good a name as any.
Even Webster thinks so.
>
><snip speech>
>
>I do agree with the notion of conquerer and conquered.
>They lost, yadda yadda. But as a society that babbles
>on incessantly about social injustices in other places,
>it would make sense that we should either clean out the
>skeletons in our own closets or just piss off and quite
>the holy high road act elsewhere.
>
>:o)
>kEvin
Bring back the Dawes act, that will do it.
Kevin Hill
>Kevin Hill wrote:
>>I'll accept 'North American' but not american. I think
>>it has to do with one too many 'little state up north'
>>jokes. Likely due to the fact that US refers to themselves
>>as 'americans'. We'll take 'Canadians', thanks.
>Soon to be two countries, If Quebec has its way.
I should be that lucky. Nah, they should stay. Despite
the rumour in Newfoundland, having them separate
does *not* shorten the drive to the east coast. :o)
>>Well, they aren't Indian, for one. Indians are from India,
>>and the only reason they got named Indians was that
>>the pioneers were hopelessly lost.
>No, just Columbus. Most people realized it wasn't the Indies, but
>after 500 years of calling them Indians, it is as good a name as any.
>Even Webster thinks so.
Sure, *now*. But originally they should never
have been called indians. Actually, I don't know
what they would have been called if not indians;
perhaps simply Natives, or Native americans.
>Bring back the Dawes act, that will do it.
Sorry, not familiar.
:o)
KEvin
Stereotypical Dark God
>>I'll accept 'North American' but not american. I think
>>it has to do with one too many 'little state up north'
>>jokes. Likely due to the fact that US refers to themselves
>>as 'americans'. We'll take 'Canadians', thanks.
>
>Soon to be two countries, If Quebec has its way.
So what do you call a person from Quebec? A Quebeci? Quebecese?
Quebecan? Quebecian?
Stereotypical Dark God
>>Interesting, but do you think that the Japanese, West Africans,
>>Mongols, or the Moghul expansionists could have defeated all the
>>Native American tribes?
>
>The Japanese Islands were inhabited by natives when the Japanese
>arrived. Guess where they are now? The Japanese do have a nice little
>tourist area set up, where Japanese craftsmen have set up a primitive
>village and mimic the art of the natives. It is really fun to visit
>there.
Well and good. Irrelevant, though, since the Japanese islands are
relatively small and North America is pretty damn big.
Richard Lancashire
>
> Stereotypical Dark God wrote:
>
> >So what do you call a person from Quebec? A Quebeci? Quebecese?
> >Quebecan? Quebecian?
>
Quebecois.
What would you colonials do without us?
:oP
Rich
Kevin Hill
No, no, the original question was *A* person, not more than
one person. "Quebecois" is a plural thing. :o)
As to what we would do without you, we haven't had any
problems thanks. We just send our embezzellers over
to murder your citizens with boat anchors occasionally
to remind you we are about. :o)
:o)
kevin
Eric Iverson
> > >Quebecan? Quebecian?
> >
> > Quebecoi (sp?)
>
> Quebecois.
You'll call them French, if the separatists get their way.
(Francais? :)
--Eric
Eric Berge
In Article<PXJo1.2$3M6....@client.news.psi.net>, <kh...@fpmx.REMOVE.com>
writes:
> Stereotypical Dark God wrote:
>
> >So what do you call a person from Quebec? A Quebeci? Quebecese?
> >Quebecan? Quebecian?
> Quebecoi (sp?)
Québecois.
Eric "Francophone" Berge
Eric Berge
In Article<27Lo1.4$3M6....@client.news.psi.net>, <kh...@fpmx.REMOVE.com>
writes:
> Richard Lancashire wrote:
> >Kevin Hill wrote:
> >> Stereotypical Dark God wrote:
>
> >> >So what do you call a person from Quebec? A Quebeci? Quebecese?
> >> >Quebecan? Quebecian?
> >> Quebecoi (sp?)
> >Quebecois.
> >What would you colonials do without us?
> No, no, the original question was *A* person, not more than
> one person. "Quebecois" is a plural thing. :o)
No, 'snot.
Un Québecois; plusieurs Québecois.
Eric Berge
Richard Lancashire
>
> Richard Lancashire wrote:
> >Kevin Hill wrote:
> >> Stereotypical Dark God wrote:
>
> >> >So what do you call a person from Quebec? A Quebeci? Quebecese?
> >> >Quebecan? Quebecian?
> >> Quebecoi (sp?)
> >Quebecois.
> >What would you colonials do without us?
> No, no, the original question was *A* person, not more than
> one person. "Quebecois" is a plural thing. :o)
Not if the plural of un Quebecois is les Quebecoix.
> As to what we would do without you, we haven't had any
> problems thanks. We just send our embezzellers over
> to murder your citizens with boat anchors occasionally
> to remind you we are about. :o)
So what's a good defence against an Inuit dog armed with a boat anchor?
:oP
Rich
Kevin Hill
>Québecois.
Wow, you even got the little accent going for you. Duly
impressed I am. I put no effort into this stuff, specially
since I can walk to the Quebec border from here if
I had a long lunch.
:o)
Kevin "Anglophone" Hill
Kevin Hill
>Kevin Hill wrote:
>> No, no, the original question was *A* person, not more than
>> one person. "Quebecois" is a plural thing. :o)
>Not if the plural of un Quebecois is les Quebecoix.
Damn. I was hoping you wouldn't know that.
Mumble mumble. :o)
>> As to what we would do without you, we haven't had any
>> problems thanks. We just send our embezzellers over
>> to murder your citizens with boat anchors occasionally
>> to remind you we are about. :o)
>So what's a good defence against an Inuit dog armed with a boat anchor?
According to Eric it has something to do with
a Mushin' State. Fortunately though, the dog
can't hold the anchor properly; no opposable
thumbs. Which brings us back round to the
banana again....have we done the banana?
:o)
Kevin "Pointy sticks" Hill
Kevin Hill
>I wrote:
>> No, no, the original question was *A* person, not more than
>> one person. "Quebecois" is a plural thing. :o)
>No, 'snot.
>Un Québecois; plusieurs Québecois.
Just kidding. Besides, I'm pretty sure Rich is right,
and the plural is Quebecoix, isn't it? It's been years
since I had to write in french.
:o)
Kevin "Who 'r you calling a snot?" Hill
Dunlop
> > > >So what do you call a person from Quebec? A Quebeci? Quebecese?
> > > >Quebecan? Quebecian?
> > >
> > > Quebecoi (sp?)
> >
> > Quebecois.
>
> You'll call them French, if the separatists get their way.
>
> (Francais? :)
Je veux mon pays!
Mehran
> <SNIP>Top ten reasons all Canadians should be euthanized:
>
> 10. Wide receivers should not be allowed forward motion until the ball is
> <SNIP>
> 1. William Shatner
>
Shatner's Canadian? oh geez...
> It's been a slow day.
>
> Kind regards,
> Mark Downing
> http://members.aol.com/downingmv
>
> "Never offer advice. The wise do not need it. The fool will not heed it."
Mehran
Eric Berge
In Article<DaMo1.13$3M6....@client.news.psi.net>, <kh...@fpmx.REMOVE.com> writes:
> From: "Kevin Hill" <kh...@fpmx.REMOVE.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.martial-arts
> References: <359CE6...@cyberbeach.net> <199807041503...@ladder03.news.aol.com> <6nqr4r$njm$1...@client2.news.psi.net> <35a4a44a...@news.bewellnet.com> <35a2db05...@news.mindspring.com> <PXJo1.2$3M6....@client.news.psi.net> <35A375...@ncl.ac.uk> <27Lo1.4$3M6.44048@clien
t.news.psi.net> <35A386...@ncl.ac.uk>
> Subject: Re: Native American Martial Art
> Lines: 28
> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3
> Message-ID: <DaMo1.13$3M6....@client.news.psi.net>
> Date: Wed, 08 Jul 1998 15:24:19 GMT
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.167.197.216
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 08 Jul 1998 11:24:19 EDT
> Organization: PSINet
> Path: news2.ibm.net!newsm.ibm.net!ibm.net!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!howland.erols.net!psinntp!pubxfer.news.psi.net!client.news.psi.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
> Xref: news2.ibm.net rec.martial-arts:266025
>
> Richard Lancashire wrote:
> >Kevin Hill wrote:
>
>
> >> No, no, the original question was *A* person, not more than
> >> one person. "Quebecois" is a plural thing. :o)
>
> Damn. I was hoping you wouldn't know that.
?
I'm not convinced. My 1973-vintage Petit Larousse dosn't say.
Any Canadians out there who know?
Eric Berge
jeff
Chas wrote:
I think the only reason anyone cares about how much Injun blood youhave in
you is because if you have enough (like 1/8 or 1/4 mebbe) you
can get on the rolls and reciave lotsa gummit assistance. Like free
college ejimication and health care for you and all of your decendants.
I'd get on the rolls but im too lazy to prove my heritage.
-jeff
jeff
7141 wrote:
"The very existence of MAs in this country is proof of our willingness to
expand our cultural limits to include others. Ask yourself do most American
Indian cultures share this trait?"
well this may be way off topic (read the title of the thread) but i think
that is what
the original poster was asking, do american indian cultures have any
formalized
martial arts? I'm gunna go out on a limb and say no one on here knows,
either that
or i missed a few posts.
-jeff
Todd D. Ellner
Stereotypical Dark God <gui...@mail.serve.com> wrote:
>>Soon to be two countries, If Quebec has its way.
>Quebecan? Quebecian?
If the separatists are successful we can start with:
jingoistic
impoverished
ridiculed
American-owned (in a very short time)
--
Todd Ellner | The eagle never lost so much time as when he submitted to
tel...@cs.pdx.edu | learn of the crow.
(503)493-4431 | --William Blake "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell"
Gerald Moffatt
..snip...
It's not generally known but there *are* four downs in Canadian football -
we just always punt on the third down out of conservatism.
Regards,
Gerald Moffatt
Regards,
In article <NEWTNews.899909100.13691.Eric_Berge@tirnanog>, Eric Berge
<e_db...@ibm.net> wrote:
>
>In Article<PXJo1.2$3M6....@client.news.psi.net>, <kh...@fpmx.REMOVE.com>
>writes:
>> Stereotypical Dark God wrote:
>>
>> >So what do you call a person from Quebec? A Quebeci? Quebecese?
>> >Quebecan? Quebecian?
>
Otter
>
> In article <35A375...@ncl.ac.uk>, Richard Lancashire
>
> 10. Wide receivers should not be allowed forward motion until the ball is
> 9. We're tired of having a "Canadian side" to Niagra Falls.
> 8. Canadians have not been able to teach their French to cook crawdads.
> 7.Canadian infiltrators live among us and we don't know who they are.
> 6. Stupid names for their political parties. Tories... Puuleeese!
> 5. We can substitue "Little round pieces of ham" for the term "Canadian bacon".
> 4. We won't have to worry about "No dang feriners!" winning the pennant.
> 3. Moose killers!
> 2. Huge border left undefended against mongrel Canadian hordes!
> [Drum roll please...]
> 1. William Shatner
>
> It's been a slow day.
Top 7 Reasons NOT to Euthanize Canadians:
7. It's the best place to view Detroit.
6. Hockey.
5. Molson.
4. LaBatt's.
3. Ricker's Red.
2. *Awesome* exchange rates!
And....
1. Shania Twain. 'Nuff said.
-- Otter
Kevin Hill
>It's not generally known but there *are* four downs in Canadian football -
>we just always punt on the third down out of conservatism.
Even less know is that people like Warren Moon were
once staples in Canadian football. And that now that
there are no Conservatives, hopefully we actually
get to use all four downs. :o)
:o)
kEvin
Kevin Hill
>Top ten reasons all Canadians should be euthanized:
<snip>
You're lucky us Canadians are too damn nice to send
letter bombs.
:o)
Kevin
Kevin Hill
>Top 7 Reasons NOT to Euthanize Canadians:
I appreciate the effort Otter, but you could only think
of seven!?
>7. It's the best place to view Detroit.
More importantly, it's the nicest spot to view Detroit
from, not to mention the safest.
>6. Hockey.
And basketball. Don't lets forget, hmm?
>5. Molson.
>4. LaBatt's.
>3. Ricker's Red.
Waterloo Dark. Argh. The warthog beer.
>2. *Awesome* exchange rates!
>1. Shania Twain. 'Nuff said.
She makes up at least 3 points, I insist. Also, "this
hour has 22 minutes...", and everything that films in
Vancouver.
Plus all the salmon you are getting that you wouldn't
get if our *#$@$%ing polititions would stand up for
us.
:o)
Kevin
Otter
>
> Otter wrote:
>
> >Top 7 Reasons NOT to Euthanize Canadians:
>
> I appreciate the effort Otter, but you could only think
> of seven!?
I figured Shania counted for more than 1, and I was drawing a blank on
other brews...I tried though!
> >7. It's the best place to view Detroit.
>
> More importantly, it's the nicest spot to view Detroit
> from, not to mention the safest.
>
> >6. Hockey.
>
> And basketball. Don't lets forget, hmm?
Canadian basketball? This isn't like your football, is it? Like, the
rim isn't 3' wide, etc...
Just don't bring up curling....
>
> >5. Molson.
> >4. LaBatt's.
> >3. Ricker's Red.
>
> Waterloo Dark. Argh. The warthog beer.
Haven't had that one..."warthog beer"? Should I be scared to try this
stuff?
>
> >2. *Awesome* exchange rates!
> >1. Shania Twain. 'Nuff said.
>
> She makes up at least 3 points, I insist. Also, "this
> hour has 22 minutes...", and everything that films in
> Vancouver.
Like X-Files :) I forgot that one.
>
> Plus all the salmon you are getting that you wouldn't
> get if our *#$@$%ing polititions would stand up for
> us.
Release, man, release! You have to remember...politicians can't stand
up for anything; they have no spines :)
-- Otter
Richard Lancashire
> Kevin Hill wrote:
> > Otter wrote:
> > >Top 7 Reasons NOT to Euthanize Canadians:
> >
> > I appreciate the effort Otter, but you could only think
> > of seven!?
>
> I figured Shania counted for more than 1, and I was drawing a blank on
> other brews...I tried though!
Joni Mitchell, Nanook of the north and some guy that stood me a beer
once on holiday. That brings it up to ten, at a stretch.
:oP
Rich
Scott
jeff wrote in message <35A420A4...@kdi.com>...
is missing the *marketing boat*. Remy Presas traveled around the Philippines
studying and learning different forms of FMAs then developed Modern Arnis.
It would be interesting if a native american *could* do the same thing by
studying native american wrestling and weapons fighting. But how would
someone even believe it was authentic? If there were differences, I don’t
think any at all has been passed down or recorded.
Scott
>-jeff
>
>
Neil Gendzwill
Kevin Hill <kh...@fpmx.REMOVE.com> wrote in article <6o2hj6$ah0$1...@client2.news.psi.net>...
> Otter wrote:
>
> >Top 7 Reasons NOT to Euthanize Canadians:
>
> >4. LaBatt's.
> >3. Ricker's Red.
>
> Waterloo Dark. Argh. The warthog beer.
Big Rock, any flavour
> >1. Shania Twain. 'Nuff said.
>
> She makes up at least 3 points, I insist.
Negative points, I think. I'll take Sarah McLachlan:
she's not so skinny, but at least I can listen to
her music.
--
Neil Gendzwill www.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca/sports/muttkendo/
Gain peace of mind: wack someone over the head with a big stick
NOTE: to check my homepage or reply by e-mail, kill my dog
TravIsGod
Trav
Kevin Hill
Tragically Hip, Kids in the Hall, Gordon Lightfoot,
National Film Board cartoons, and a whole whack
of some of the nicest people you'll ever meet...erm,
me excluded naturally.
:o)
kEvin