Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest #1Stunner

What "generation" American are you (how long have your peeps been in the States)

What "generation" American are you (how long have your peeps been in the States)  

30 members have voted

  1. 1. What "generation" American are you (how long have your peeps been in the States)

    • I'm a first generation American (I'm a son / daughter of an immigrant, who was not born in the States)
      3
    • I'm a second generation American (my grandparents were immigrants, not born in the States)
      7
    • I'm a third generation american (my great-grandparents were immigrants were not born in the States)
      6
    • I'm pretty sure my great great great great Granddad was on the Mayflower
      10
    • My last name is Columbus, dammit
      2
    • Don't know...I'm a descendant of African Slaves
      0
    • I'm a Native American (whole or part) (fake Cherokee Indian descendants, don't count)
      2


Recommended Posts

39 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Ohhh this is a great thread but this is a post I simply can not agree with.  I happen to side with Voltaire on the matter in most regards.  History has a lot of gray.

How is there "a lot of gray" to an order of battle? Or its outcome?

For instance, Constantinople fell in 1453 to the Ottomans. That is historical fact, a reality that each of us shares regardless of our prism of perception, as is their use siege weapons to breach the fortifications.

St-Javelin-Sm.jpgChase.jpg 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, madmartigan said:

Immensely talented. I can only think of two lead singer rockstars that are better vocally. 

Who would that be?

 

 

 

 

down in a hole.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Broncomare said:

Who would that be?

Mercury and maybe Robert Plant 

There are only two things I can't stand in this world: people who are intolerant of other people's cultures and the Dutch. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, madmartigan said:

Mercury and maybe Robert Plant 

Mercury definitely but they are also two different signing styles.  If Disturbed hadn't done Sound of Silence most people wouldn't know the depth of David's signing because most of their songs are so different.  Saw them in Salt Lake in January and then had a meet and greet with them in Boise last week.  They put on a hell of a show!!!

 

 

 

 

down in a hole.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Broncomare said:

Mercury definitely but they are also two different signing styles.  If Disturbed hadn't done Sound of Silence most people wouldn't know the depth of David's signing because most of their songs are so different.  Saw them in Salt Lake in January and then had a meet and greet with them in Boise last week.  They put on a hell of a show!!!

I would say the lead singer of Muse has incredible range and could likely star in Broadway too, Matt Bellamy. Even if you're not a fan of their brand of rock, you should listen to his vocals. Incredible. Insanely jealous you got to see them (Disturbed). I will make it a point to go see them next time they're in SLC. You'll enjoy this:

 

There are only two things I can't stand in this world: people who are intolerant of other people's cultures and the Dutch. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, madmartigan said:

I would say the lead singer of Muse has incredible range and could likely star in Broadway too, Matt Bellamy. Even if you're not a fan of their brand of rock, you should listen to his vocals. Incredible. Insanely jealous you got to see them (Disturbed). I will make it a point to go see them next time they're in SLC. You'll enjoy this: 

I've heard him, he is very good.  I also like Geoff Tate's voice and range. Whether you like his music or not, Ronnie James Dio was always pitch perfect.  You'll have to wait several years to see Disturbed.  David said back in January that after this tour, they are taking 2 -3 years off from touring.  That's why my friend and I went down to SLC because the second leg of the tour hadn't been announced and we didn't know they were going to be coming to Boise.  I would easily put them in a three way tie for my favorite concerts, with Tool and Metallica.  You could easily get a sunburn from all of the fire, when they finish Inside the Fire and David starts his laugh!  The piano is on fire during Sound of Silence.  Great, great show!!!

 

 

 

 

down in a hole.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TheSanDiegan said:

How is there "a lot of gray" to an order of battle? Or its outcome?

For instance, Constantinople fell in 1453 to the Ottomans. That is historical fact, a reality that each of us shares regardless of our prism of perception, as is their use siege weapons to breach the fortifications.

Look at those declared heretics by the council of Carthage in 418.  

Look at the removal and altering of hieroglyphs sanctioned by new regimes throughout the worlds history.  

Look at Catherine the Great, it is still taught in school she used a system of ropes and levers to +++++ a horse, despite evidence now showing that was a lie construed by political opponents. 

Much of history is a lie that those in power at the time it was written agreed upon. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Look at those declared heretics by the council of Carthage in 418.  

Look at the removal and altering of hieroglyphs sanctioned by new regimes throughout the worlds history.  

Look at Catherine the Great, it is still taught in school she used a system of ropes and levers to +++++ a horse, despite evidence now showing that was a lie construed by political opponents. 

Much of history is a lie that those in power at the time it was written agreed upon. 

Objective Fact: There were those declared heretics by the council of Carthage in 418.

Objective Fact: There are instances of dynasties removing the hieorglyphs of predecessors for varying reasons.

Objective Fact: It has long been taught in school that Catherine the Great was a horsef*cker.

Victors do write the historical record, which may or may not reflect the historical facts. I really do not think we are expressing mutually exclusive thoughts.

St-Javelin-Sm.jpgChase.jpg 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, TheSanDiegan said:

Objective Fact: There were those declared heretics by the council of Carthage in 418.

Objective Fact: There are instances of dynasties removing the hieorglyphs of predecessors for varying reasons.

Objective Fact: It has long been taught in school that Catherine the Great was a horsef*cker.

Victors do write the historical record, which may or may not reflect the historical facts. I really do not think we are expressing mutually exclusive thoughts.

So the fact is that it was recorded as history?  Sorry, that is much different than math.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

English ancestors came over to Baltimore in the 17aughts. German ancestors came in 1790s 

 

Bolivian half came in the 1960s

On 12/1/2016 at 12:26 PM, WyomingCoog said:

I own a vehicle likely worth more than everything you own combined and just flew first class (including a ticket for a 2 1/2 year old), round trip to Las Vegas and I'm not 35 yet. When you accomplish something outside of finishing a book, let me know. When's the last time you saw a 2 year old fly first class in their own seat? Don't tell me about elite.  

28 minutes ago, NorCalCoug said:

I’d happily compare IQ’s with you any day of the week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

So the fact is that it was recorded as history?  Sorry, that is much different than math.

Primary sources are analyzed for accuracy and motive before definitive statements about “facts” are made in academic work. 

If there’s something that I’m writing where I don’t entirely trust the source, or if I’m making an inference, I make it clear in the work.

On 12/1/2016 at 12:26 PM, WyomingCoog said:

I own a vehicle likely worth more than everything you own combined and just flew first class (including a ticket for a 2 1/2 year old), round trip to Las Vegas and I'm not 35 yet. When you accomplish something outside of finishing a book, let me know. When's the last time you saw a 2 year old fly first class in their own seat? Don't tell me about elite.  

28 minutes ago, NorCalCoug said:

I’d happily compare IQ’s with you any day of the week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

So the fact is that it was recorded as history?  Sorry, that is much different than math.

No. The fact is the fact: either Catherine the Great f*cked horses or she didn't. If the issue cannot be settled one way or the other, we may never know the fact, but the fact is she either did, or didn't, f*ck horses.

The analog would be that there are mathematical properties we are yet to discover. They still exist, and once we discover them, their existence will be known. But even in the absence of their discovery, they still exist.

In the historical context, we know that there are multiple instances across multiple dynastic periods of rulers defacing and/or erasing the recorded existence of a predecessor. This is historical fact. The historical record would be the codified record left behind by those in a position of power to record it.

Fortunately history is resplendent with examples of a convergence of historical record and fact. It is the unknowns that keep - and will forever keep - history alive as a field of study. As Faulkner said, the past is never dead; it's not even past.

St-Javelin-Sm.jpgChase.jpg 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, youngrebelfan40 said:

Primary sources are analyzed for accuracy and motive before definitive statements about “facts” are made in academic work 

Anthropological evidence surfaces all the time that challenges what we are taught.  

If you want to limit this to, say history in the last 400-500 years, sure. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Anthropological evidence surfaces all the time that challenges what we are taught.  

If you want to limit this to, say history in the last 400-500 years, sure. 

What evidence are you referring to?

I have a good friend who's one (by degree though not practicing) who's response to every anthro-related article I come across in Archaeology magazine is the same - that it is another peg in the well-established trail of evidence. Paleolithic timelines change all the time - Clovis-firsters are an increasingly rare breed, for instance - but not our fundamental understanding.

 

ETA: Said friend is the only person I know IRL who quotes Voltaire btw, so you're keeping good company. :) I don't know jack shit about philosophy (even though he tells me I am a philosopher, the evil bastard) and get intimated when we starts deep diving on the subject.

St-Javelin-Sm.jpgChase.jpg 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, TheSanDiegan said:

No. The fact is the fact: either Catherine the Great f*cked horses or she didn't. If the issue cannot be settled one way or the other, we may never know the fact, but the fact is she either did, or didn't f*ck horses.

The analog would be that there are mathematical properties we are yet to discover. They still exist, and once we discover them, their existence will be known. But even in the absence of their discovery, they still exist.

In the historical context, we know that there are multiple instances across multiple dynastic period of rulers defacing and/or erasing the recorded existence of a predecessor. This is historical fact. The historical record would be the codified record left behind by those in a position of power to record it.

Jesus christ.  Math is able to be proofed, history is not. They are not the same.  

Cleopatra was not Egyptian.  Napolean was not short.

The entire culture of Vikings was turned on it's head just two years ago, with nearly everything taught about their culture as "fact" being proven wrong.

The first Americans did not come over across the Bering strait, but that was taught as fact as well.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Jesus christ.  Math is able to be proofed, history is not. They are not the same.  

Cleopatra was not Egyptian.  Napolean was not short.

The entire culture of Vikings was turned on it's head just two years ago, with nearly everything taught about their culture as "fact" being proven wrong.

The first Americans did not come over across the Bering strait, but that was taught as fact as well.

 

I'm not saying they are the same ffs. I'm saying they share a basic, underlying commonality.

And yes, history too can be proved, like the Holocaust, for instance.

St-Javelin-Sm.jpgChase.jpg 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://eh.net/encyclopedia/immigration-to-the-united-states/

 

Please note the MINUTE number of people immigrating into what is now the USA in the 1600's and early 1700's. It seems very unlikely that so many Americans could be descended from this very small  number of immigrants. I have English immigrants in my family who came in in 1702 and 1716 and I have checked the records both in Maryland and Bath but considering the minute number of people who came in in this period even I have begun to have doubts.

Immigration to the United State   by  Raymond L. Cohn,

The above is a worth wile and unbiased article and I recommend it to you.

1066

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My dad's side of the family came to New Mexico with Oñate in 1598. My Great Grandfather on my mother's side came to the US from Lucca Italy and settled in El Paso. The rest of my mom's side has been in El Paso since 1760 when they came up from Mexico.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was able to trace my family back pretty far on Ancestry.com .I was very surprised how long everyone had been here. I'm pretty much equal parts English, Swedish, Scots, and Dutch. The Swedes were the late-comers, arriving by ship in Minnesota in the 1880's. I've traced the Scots back to Pennsylvania in the 1820's but reached a dead end. The Dutch were on Long Island in the 1660's. By the time of the Revolution they're in New Jersey and the name is recorded in a number of New Jersey regiments, with one ancestor commanding a regiment. The English are in Massachusetts in the mid-17th century. Everyone was in California by 1950. I sent in my DNA and it was pretty much as expected given the above. 

Thay Haif Said: Quhat Say Thay? Lat Thame Say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Uncle Juan said:

My dad's side of the family came to New Mexico with Oñate in 1598. My Great Grandfather on my mother's side came to the US from Lucca Italy and settled in El Paso. The rest of my mom's side has been in El Paso since 1760 when they came up from Mexico.

Damn. That's where my grandmother's family is from. Well, there and Trieste. Small world. Maybe we're cousins. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...