Questions for our British friends

[Budo]

Originally Posted by Arturo2nd

That was only at first. Soon, enterprising entrepreneurs were providing them with the latest in small arms technology. At the Battle of the Greasy Grass aka Little Bighorn, for example, Custer's men had Army issue carbines, while the Sioux were armed with Winchester repeating rifles. According to the victors the fighting was over in a very few minutes.

Weren't most of those rifles scavenged off settlers and army personnel who they killed? Chances are they even ended up with most of Custer's equipment after they'd finished with him as well.

[Arturo2nd]

Originally Posted by Budo

Weren't most of those rifles scavenged off settlers and army personnel who they killed? Chances are they even ended up with most of Custer's equipment after they'd finished with him as well.

No, most were traded for furs, buffalo robes, and other commodities. Even under British rule, Native American tribes acquired muskets and powder from outlaw traders.

General Crook's infantry units were equipped with artillery and repeating rifles. They were greatly and justly feared by the plains tribes.

[Budo]

Originally Posted by Arturo2nd

No, most were traded for furs, buffalo robes, and other commodities. Even under British rule, Native American tribes acquired muskets and powder from outlaw traders.

General Crook's infantry units were equipped with artillery and repeating rifles. They were greatly and justly feared by the plains tribes.

Ah yes, I think I remember reading that they got at least some of their weapons through trading furs. But you must admit that they almost certainly got a LOT of their weapons from subsequent raids and battle victories.

The famous expression, "White man speaks with forked tongue," is actually true and not a myth as some people might think. It comes from their dealings with the French, who would lure the chiefs and warriors into fake peace talks, whilst at the same time the French military would send the troops in behind their backs to murder all the women and children. How charming...

On the other hand, the earliest English settlers, like those at Jamestown, tried to get along with the natives, even going as far as trading for food with them. Things only went bad when both sides started running out of food in the winter of 1609. The settlers at Jamestown even resorted to eating their own dead in order to survive!

[Arturo2nd]

Originally Posted by Budo

On the other hand, the earliest English settlers, like those at Jamestown, tried to get along with the natives, even going as far as trading for food with them. Things only went bad when both sides started running out of food in the winter of 1609. The settlers at Jamestown even resorted to eating their own dead in order to survive!

That is not the impression I got of the Jamestown settlers from reading the histories.

The Six Nations wound up allied with the British because they were the sworn enemies of all the Huron and Algonquin tribes who allied with the French. If the French were so bad, why is it that so many tribes chose to align with them during conflicts?

But really, it was the American colonists and later United States government that continually broke treaties. The conflicts were inevitable. Tribal governments did not have power over individual members. So, young warriors would not observe peace treaties negotiated by tribal elders. Moreover, the white communities had no understanding of tribal politics or which tribe controlled particular areas. Several times a tribe "sold" their enemies territories to whites who were then outraged to find themselves violently attacked. The destruction of the native tribes and overrunning of tribal lands was inevitable. Just like the water wars that are beginning to emerge will be playing out in horrible ways.

By the way, trading women could often buy more weapons than trading furs. There were many more white penises than white women, and remember that prior to the 20th century women's life expectancy was severely curtailed by deaths while giving birth.

[Selebian]

Originally Posted by HugoHackenbush

Lady Hackenbush and I are going to be traveling this summer to the Fringe Festival in Edinburgh. On the way back we will be spending a few days in London. We have tentatively planned day trips to Windsor and Canterbury.

Now outside of the obvious sites in each fair town (the castle in Windsor and the cathedral in Canterbury) any suggestions for interesting sites or things to do in each place? Remember these are days trips, so great night life is probably not in the cards.
Cheers!
HH

I can't imagine why anybody would travel from Edinburgh to London and not stop in God's own county for a few days. Helmsley for the North Yorkshire Moors or Skipton for the Yorkshire Dales.

Anyway Mrs. S and I have had a long wekend in Edinburgh so here goes;

If you go on a ghost walk you want one with "jumpy ooties".
Have lunch at Valvona & Crolla and if you take a walk on the Royal Mile try that Scotish delicacy the deep fried Mars Bar.
Look out for bogus Americans they are usually English and want a free meal in exchange for a walk round the city.
Check out GrassMarket there is a shop that sells only brushes.
The area at the back of the castle is home to sex shops, strip clubs and massage parlours. (Make your own mind up on this one).

[otokonomidori]

Originally Posted by HugoHackenbush

Lady Hackenbush and I are going to be traveling this summer to the Fringe Festival in Edinburgh.

Now outside of the obvious sites in each fair town any suggestions for interesting sites or things to do in each place? HH

Come to Glasgow, Edinbugh is shite , overpriced , full of people that talk funny! [ the locals] and crammed with hideously dressed tourists

[Budo]

Originally Posted by Arturo2nd

That is not the impression I got of the Jamestown settlers from reading the histories.

The Six Nations wound up allied with the British because they were the sworn enemies of all the Huron and Algonquin tribes who allied with the French. If the French were so bad, why is it that so many tribes chose to align with them during conflicts?

But really, it was the American colonists and later United States government that continually broke treaties. The conflicts were inevitable. Tribal governments did not have power over individual members. So, young warriors would not observe peace treaties negotiated by tribal elders. Moreover, the white communities had no understanding of tribal politics or which tribe controlled particular areas. Several times a tribe "sold" their enemies territories to whites who were then outraged to find themselves violently attacked. The destruction of the native tribes and overrunning of tribal lands was inevitable. Just like the water wars that are beginning to emerge will be playing out in horrible ways.

By the way, trading women could often buy more weapons than trading furs. There were many more white penises than white women, and remember that prior to the 20th century women's life expectancy was severely curtailed by deaths while giving birth.

Yes, I've been made quite aware of your "education system" by other Americans, especially its habit of demonising us English by "editing" history in its favour. But rest assured, the first English settlers DID try to get along with the natives, quite unlike other Europeans who followed. And yes, I've looked it up and the Native American expression does originate from their dealings with the French in the late 17th Century.

Here's the Wiki on the period known as "The Starving Time" in the winter of 1609. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starving_Time

[bowlinggreen]

Originally Posted by Arturo2nd

No, most were traded for furs, buffalo robes, and other commodities. Even under British rule, Native American tribes acquired muskets and powder from outlaw traders.

General Crook's infantry units were equipped with artillery and repeating rifles. They were greatly and justly feared by the plains tribes.

Don't forget Gatling guns. According to what I have read, Custer actually had the opportunity to take a few of those on campaign and turned it down, saying the guns and their carriages would slow down his cavalry troops.

If he had not split his forces and rushed in, instead establishing a decent laager with several Gatling gun strongpoints, and drawing the Indians to his position with a few recon parties, things might have turned out quite differently.

I've been to the Custer Battlefield, you can see how the whole thing developed, he really fucked it up. He didn't have a chance.

[Arturo2nd]

Originally Posted by Budo

Yes, I've been made quite aware of your "education system" by other Americans, especially its habit of demonising us English by "editing" history in its favour. But rest assured, the first English settlers DID try to get along with the natives, quite unlike other Europeans who followed. And yes, I've looked it up and the Native American expression does originate from their dealings with the French in the late 17th Century.

Here's the Wiki on the period known as "The Starving Time" in the winter of 1609. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starving_Time

And just why should we buy your British apologia and propaganda?

Be happy that we credit the very definite English heritage that shapes so much of the United States. Really, the choice between holding on to the money draining American colonies and keeping the French out of India was not at all difficult to make.

[haroldeye]

And just why should we buy your British apologia and propaganda?


Well it's cheaper, better quality and a lot less inaccurate than yours.