Posted on 03/03/2007 4:29:59 PM PST by CedarDave
I suppose "Aboriginal Day" would be politically incorrect. Whatever. We could, of course, celebrate them both. There are some wrinkles to be ironed out - I can wear a goofy green bowler on St. Paddy's Day when I'm getting sozzled but I bet they'd get ticked off if I wore a war bonnet on Aboriginal Day. Some folks got no sensayuma.
While we're at it, let's change the names of Columbus Ohio, Georgia, New Mexico and elsewhere to Indigenous Ohio, Georgia, etc.
Hmmm....this sounds like folk etymology to me. I've seen some old maps -- dang, I don't know if I still have the book or not -- I'll have to look for it -- anyway, instead of "America," the map says "Nova India" -- Latin for "New India."
In Deos -- Hmmm....in Latin this would be gods, accusative plural rather than In Deis, ablative plural. In plus accusative is "into," compared to in plus ablative, which is "in."
Crazy Horse was one cool dude.
***Well they were very much more successful in eliminating illegal aliens in New Mexico. From 1680 to 1692 the "Pueblo Revolt" succeeded in forcing all Spaniards from Mexico back south to El Paso.***
The Spaniards didn't stay gone for long though! In 1692 they came back.
Diversity ain't it great! Let's continually pick scabs, Find and accentuate ALL that divides us and then wonder why we "can't just all get along". Good thing the evil white men thought enough to have the second amendment because we going to need it before long.
Bosnia, It's not just for Europe anymore!
I know, was trying post a humorous answer to the question.
Whatever ... it still is the fact that India was referred to as Hindustan in the 1400's ... my Latin is not up to your expertise ... but what Columbus conveyed to his sponsors was that the locals were "in god" or indeos ... however that translates out ..... as Indian ... today ...
Well, I know that but ya gotta admit, that was no mean accomplishment.
NEW Mexico is not part of the United States according to some high ranking guy in the Clinton administaration.
Ericson may have arrived first, but Columbus was the first one savvy enough to go back home and hold a press conference about it.
Riddle me this. Native Americans blame Columbus for killing most of them. I understand Old World diseases were the actual agents of death. If so, why didn't these diseases spread during the Viking explorations? Or maybe they did? Maybe the Norwegians, Swedes, and Danes should take the rap?
There's this little thing called context.
I've heard this argument before. It's silly. No one ever claimed he discovered it for the people who were already here, that wouldn't make sense. Nor does it make sense to say the continent was discovered by the indians other than to say the indians saw the obvious, they were here. Discovery is about getting new information to to people who don't have it by someone who discovers it. He discovered America and the West Indies for the Europeans who didn't know there was a landmass (or people) between Europe and Asia. Initially, they thought this was Asia and later figured out that they had farther to go. But as the Europeans were concerned, he did discover it, the natives who lived here included.
Context.
Well I would rather be called conquerer, but that is just me...I hope this is not really needed but just in case </Sarcasm>
JFC
Here's a map made several decades before Columbus:
http://camel2.conncoll.edu/academics/departments/relstudies/290/theory/worldmaps/166.html
which has "India" on the map, as well as the Indus River.
"Although it was not easy, I will grant you that given the technological and social differences, it was inevitable."
I guess it's a matter of perspective. The wars did go on for a long time. But, there doesn't seem to have ever been doubt about pressing on. The losses were tolerable, (different time, different sensiblities, stronger people). And it wasn't continuous. The Indians were driven back and their land was slowly encroached upon. The new Americans could have stopped and drawn the line anytime they wanted.
If Democrats had been part of the settlers, I doubt America's western border would be any farther than Ohio.
I agree...but will go even one further. If today's Democrats and many other Americans had been part of the settlers, it is dounbtful in my mind that the colonies would have survived at all. They would have gone back to their "known" problems in Europe rather than risk all to eak out a future in the New World with all of its harships.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.