On Oct 21, 2008, at 6:55 AM, Anne Pemberton wrote:

> James,
>
> The clarify, I was not referring to the Norsemen as the first  
> European settlers in the New World, but the Albans who lived on  
> mainland of Canada for perhaps hundreds of years before the Norsemen  
> came. They were not totally isolated, but made annual trips back to  
> their home islands with furs and even brought back a bishop from  
> time to time to perform marriages and baptisms. They were a  
> predominantly seafaring people who may have used their boats in  
> winter as roofs to their stone houses (which still exist).
Citations please? Where on earth do you get these ramblings?
>
>
> What is a distince different between the Albans in the 10th-11th and  
> 12th cenutry is that they strove to get along with and intermarried  
> with the natives rather than trying to conquer or enslave them.
>
> There is also the high likelihood that the great fishermen of 1000  
> years ago regularly used the extensive fishing banks of America,  
> but, in order to insure that their "fishing holes" were not crowded  
> with everyone, chose to keep the locations secret.
That has been a long-time postulation but in the absence of evidence,  
must remain speculative.

> Again, they used the land for curing fish for transport back to  
> Europe, and traded with the Indians rather than attempting to  
> conquer or enslave them.
And what would you expect from small seasonal populations? Don't  
torque the natives or it will have dire consequences is a basic  
survival technique. When you have overwhelming numbers and a beach  
head, you can do other things. Again, you are confusing two different  
scenarios and using them to draw erroneous conclusions.
>
>
> It is unfortunate that when the Americas does enter into the history  
> record, it is accompanied by inhuman behaviors that ended up  
> destroying large swathes of the native population.
Would you please stop the presentist posturing. Every time a  
technologically advanced culture encounters a not so technologically  
advanced culture, the result is the same. It has happened countless  
times throughout history on all inhabited continents.
>
>
> The archeological evidence also points to a Chinese presence on the  
> west coast of the Americas preceding Columbus.
I don't know what evidence you're pointing to but whatever source you  
have has been debunked. There is not one shred of evidence to support  
that notion.

> It also points to a Pacific Coast South American civilization that  
> co-existed with the Sumerian civilizations
Sorry, but no evidence again.

> which pushes back the date of the arrival of humanity to America by  
> several thousand years and suggests that not all Americans arrived  
> by a northern route across the Bering Straits.
That one is still hotly contested.
>
>
> I agree that the fascination with history is that what is written is  
> never the final answer or story. There is always more to be  
> discovered in various nooks and crannies.
>
> My objection is the tendency to dismiss out of hand that which comes  
> to us via long-repressed oral histories because it "tarnishes" the  
> reputation of those we've put on pedestals. First of all, we need to  
> stop putting historical people on pedestals, and second, we need to  
> recognize that certain aspects of lives were repressed in their time  
> but that is not evidence they didn't take place.
As has been pointed out, oral histories are different from oral  
traditions. They are but one thread in the tapestry and are not  
standalone proof of anything.
>
>
> I think we need to keep open minds on the paternity claims of oral  
> history, and do the research to estalish them, bearing in mind that  
> we could be looking for evidence that was deliberately repressed in  
> the original lifetimes. I would not assume that oral histories are  
> necessarily matters of aggrandizing one's family history without  
> strong evidence that this is the case. Otherwise, oral family  
> histories are just more clues to be investigated rather than negated  
> out of hand. We know with certainty that some slaveowners felt the  
> way to increase their wealth was by siring more slaves.
Citations please? That sentiment was certainly true but the phrase was  
"natural increase" and it was not referring to siring by owners.

> That they had an innate sense they were doing wrong by keeping such  
> issue in bondage points out the inhumanity of slavery as much as the  
> sins of those who used this method to increase their wealth.
There may be a few misguided and tainted souls who think today that  
those of African-American ancestry still belong in bondage. You just  
keep on conflating things that don't match in your incessant guilt  
trip. It is time for you to leave that one alone, please.

>
>
> At present, we hold in high esteem those who "create wealth" and  
> amass great fortunes. At some time in the future, this may be seen  
> as unsavory, and the "heroes" of the present day will become  
> notorious in the future.
Does the phrase "Robber Barons" bring anything to mind?


Lyle Browning
>
>
> Anne
>
> Anne Pemberton
> [log in to unmask]
> http://www.erols.com/apembert
> http://www.educationalsynthesis.org
> ______________________________________
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the  
> instructions at
> http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html

______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html