USA - Good - Bad and or the Ugly


JLM
No Party Affiliation
#61
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorter View Post

They didn’t destroy it, it evolved in meaning. That is how language changes, words evolve into different meaning, different connotation. There are many words that have a totally different meaning compared to say, 100 years ago. The words ‘stink’ and ‘discrimination’ used to have good meaning (if you said to somebody ‘you stink’, or ‘you have acted with discrimination’, that used to be a compliment, these days it is exactly the opposite).

The word ‘gay’ has evolved, nothing more.

Risus does have a bit of a point there, the meaning of the word has changed for the vast majority of people and the change was brought about by a minority group, but having said that we (the majority) should have put a stop to it.
 
SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#62
Sure the meaning of ‘gay’ has changed JLM, I am not questioning that. My issue was with Risus saying that the word (gay) was destroyed. It was nothing of the sort; it simply evolved in meaning (as many words do).
 
AnnaG
#63
Actually, "gay" has only acquired another definition. The original definitions haven't evolved any.
Merriam-Webster:
Quote:

1 a : happily excited : merry <in a gay mood> b : keenly alive and exuberant : having or inducing high spirits <a bird's gay spring song>
2 a : bright, lively <gay sunny meadows> b : brilliant in color
3 : given to social pleasures; also : licentious
4 a : homosexual <gay men> b : of, relating to, or used by homosexuals <the gay rights movement> <a gay bar>

 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#64
Quote: Originally Posted by AnnaG View Post

Actually, "gay" has only acquired another definition. The original definitions haven't evolved any.
Merriam-Webster:

That's ironic, Webster lists the homosexual meaning last, whereas generally (I thought) meanings were usually listed in order of their usage. I'm pretty sure whatever context the word "gay" is used in 99% of the population think of that connotation. Anyway I think it's too late to change it now, it's been that way for a good 20 years or more.
 
Goober
Free Thinker
#65
Quote: Originally Posted by JLM View Post

Risus does have a bit of a point there, the meaning of the word has changed for the vast majority of people and the change was brought about by a minority group, but having said that we (the majority) should have put a stop to it.

Well what about the word Wench - At one time it was a position - now it is and enormous insult -
What about Car Washer - In the 80's that changed to Car grooming - Grooming a car - Yeah - right
 
AnnaG
#66
Quote: Originally Posted by JLM View Post

That's ironic, Webster lists the homosexual meaning last, whereas generally (I thought) meanings were usually listed in order of their usage. I'm pretty sure whatever context the word "gay" is used in 99% of the population think of that connotation. Anyway I think it's too late to change it now, it's been that way for a good 20 years or more.

According to the online etymology dictionary, M-W used the oldest definition first and the newest definition last. 1951 seems to have been the first usage of the homosexual definition. I didn't think it was that old.
 
AnnaG
#67
Quote: Originally Posted by Goober View Post

Well what about the word Wench - At one time it was a position - now it is and enormous insult -
What about Car Washer - In the 80's that changed to Car grooming - Grooming a car - Yeah - right

hehe I have a friend that works as a quench wench up at the golf course in the summer. I think that's a good term. She's popular.
I worked as a quench wench in a pub in Kelowna for a while, too. Not too much insulting there.
Car grooming is a new one on me. "Trim that moustache for you, Mr Lexus?" May I give you a manicure, Mrs. Silverado?"
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#68
Quote: Originally Posted by Goober View Post

Well what about the word Wench - At one time it was a position - now it is and enormous insult -
What about Car Washer - In the 80's that changed to Car grooming - Grooming a car - Yeah - right

You bet Goober, which brings to mind these "preowned" cars they sell these days- just weak minded people's attempt to try to bamboozle the consumer.
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#69
Quote: Originally Posted by AnnaG View Post

According to the online etymology dictionary, M-W used the oldest definition first and the newest definition last. 1951 seems to have been the first usage of the homosexual definition. I didn't think it was that old.

When I think about it that doesn't surprise me too much, in 1951 Gays could have possibly had their own private jardon as in those days heteros didn't consort with them too much..
 
Curiosity
#70
I have lived half my life in Canada and half in the United States....Paradox has outdone himself with an excellent representation of the here and now between the nations...A+ Five!

While the two are intertwined geographically and historically having been birthed by the same needs and peoples who over the growth of the two nations managed to
retain much of the original ideology and potential development and exploration and immigration issues to be cousins or half-siblings....if not some closer relations than many older nations even in Europe.

There will always be an examination of the differences between the two - the pride and dislike converging into a rambling explanation of reasons behind an individual's acceptance or prejudice - on either side of the 49th.

I rather tend to hold the positives because I love both nations and acknowledge with
joy regardless of economic squabbles and the almost tearful wish of Europe to capture the hearts and economic stimulus of Canada, she remains true to her neighbor to the south - even through major disagreement of the gigantic comedy being played out in the south....such emotional angst going on to view from afar.

We will always have each other and like an elderly married couple feel free to make cranky criticism regarding our differences, exaggerating them in great bounty and
making me laugh at all the picky things people love to dissect in cross-boundary forums. I often think we should have a Canadian/U.S. Olympics with rubber tipped arrows and spaghetti laden muskets on an annual basis to being reality back to the
emotional feelings both nations experience when being stuck to the other one.

I remain steadfast to the one issue which has been forged in my heart and has never let me question my belief..... that there would never be one hour should one of these two great "joined at the hip" nations need the other's assistance, it would be readily given, accomplished and set to right. 9/11 proved my thinking accurate.

Even when the complaints erupt at a later date when things again settle down...
it seems to be an international pastime like some unscored game of north vs south.

Can anyone know how beautiful that is? How some older nations would kill to have such a plentiful and peaceful relationship?

We have been blessed with the bounty of huge parcels of land, intelligent, far-sighted peoples, humans who are willing to work hard and take risk, love to profit from invention and exploration, accept peoples from other lands and give them a hand up in assimilation ...come to the aid of other nations in need...and as angry as it may sit make the readers here respond...

Even with our differences and petty irritations:
There is no doubt we are two as one.
Last edited by Curiosity; Nov 9th, 2009 at 01:55 PM..
 
AnnaG
#71
Yeah. I agree with Curiosity.
It seems that people have misplaced their competitiveness into negative areas. Competition is great when the subject of it is fun. Done that way it builds a good relationship.
Unfortunately, when the subject of the competition is politics or religion (maybe a few other things), it's negative and builds resentment and even hate sometimes. If people would just step back and look objectively, we'd see how ridiculous the issue of "us or them" is.
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#72
Quote: Originally Posted by AnnaG View Post

Yeah. I agree with Curiosity.
It seems that people have misplaced their competitiveness into negative areas. Competition is great when the subject of it is fun. Done that way it builds a good relationship.
Unfortunately, when the subject of the competition is politics or religion (maybe a few other things), it's negative and builds resentment and even hate sometimes. If people would just step back and look objectively, we'd see how ridiculous the issue of "us or them" is.

Ditto, ditto- In all the years I've travelled to the American Norhwest and Nevada, I've never had a bad moment with an American. Well I did once, a cop held me at gunpoint for 30 seconds, until his partner arrived on the scene and said he had the wrong guy. I (freshly bathed, shaven and in clean clothes) was mistaken for a guy who had been prowling and breaking into cars overnight. I never held it against the guy. Maybe his eyesight wasn't quite 20/20.
 
Ron in Regina
Free Thinker
#73
I'll ditto the ditto of the agreement with Curiosity. Both of these Guys
have either had or have control over a Nuclear Arsenal.





Even with these sobering pictures in mind, of all the nations on the
Earth that we could have as our closest and only neighbour, I'm glad
it's the U.S. of A.
 
Cliffy
Free Thinker
#74
Ron, where do you come up with this stuff? Do you keep it stored on your hard drive? You always have the appropriate pic for whatever is going on. It is uncanny.
 
In Between Man
Free Thinker
#75
Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister View Post

That's not precisely what I said, and your question is a false dichotomy.

I'll ask you this then: Who were the forefathers that wrote the declaration of independence imploring their argument to?

God or someone else?
 
In Between Man
Free Thinker
#76
I get the last word tonight.

Without an absolute moral law, and a moral law giver, the forefathers would have had no justification for their moral outrage towards England. It would have been mere opinion and therefore worthless. Because a moral standard exists however, they had a legitimate claim.
 
SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#77
Quote: Originally Posted by alleywayzalwayz View Post

I get the last word tonight.

Without an absolute moral law, and a moral law giver, the forefathers would have had no justification for their moral outrage towards England. It would have been mere opinion and therefore worthless. Because a moral standard exists however, they had a legitimate claim.

Alley, the question always comes down to, whose moral standards? Yours? Mine? Those of the Pope? Who decides what is moral and what is not? If you say that Bible decides, that really doesn’t get us any further.

There are many interpretations of the Bible. Some say Bible prohibits abortion, others say it doesn’t. Some say it outlaws homosexuality, others say it doesn’t. Some say Bible forbids women from working outside home (I am sure you have heard of the Titus 2 woman), others say it doesn’t. So whose interpretation are we to accept as moral?

Unless you can specify who decides what are the moral absolutes, any talk of there being absolutes in meaningless.
 
Curiosity
#78
Quote: Originally Posted by alleywayzalwayz View Post

I get the last word tonight.

Without an absolute moral law, and a moral law giver, the forefathers would have had no justification for their moral outrage towards England. It would have been mere opinion and therefore worthless. Because a moral standard exists however, they had a legitimate claim.

Moral Law is not necessarily "absolute" and as to your question alleywayzalways, I believe the original contracts among the founders were to the future peoples. I am not a seer nor mind reader nor fortune teller, but these people were dreamers, making an historical move, facing untold hardship, they may have been bargaining with the fates or their Deity...

However when two or more humans get together to begin what they hope is a legitimate cause for the future of their fellow humans, it is natural they would want to put their aims, reasons, hopes, and embryonic law into written and therefore more permanent proof than mere verbal discussion. No doubt they wished to promote it as "moral" to the public - when as a new nation nobody knew what "moral" would be. There were no "kings and/or queens" to dictate morality.

What has transpired since that beginning is how powerful the force is called:
"Freedom of responsibility". Nobody to make excuses to - we are on our own - free to fail or succeed - tremendous pressure, but creates a bountiful life for all
who choose to take the challenge.

I hardly think God was the only "divining" force of all the men, some were not religious at all but adventurers and warriors.

I believe their promise was freedom from or "of" government which has now been ripped from the hearts of many who still believe in the original Constitution. I have learned the kernal of wisdom was the belief in equality of humanity and the right to pursue a plentiful life of satisfaction (or happiness).

The ages have changed many hearts, along with new ideas encountered from open and healthy immigration of people who have lived under tyranny, and a burgeoning population eager to exercise the freedoms promised (previously anyway).

Where the nation is headed or what the future holds may be curtailment of some freedoms because the wealth (not only monetary but fruitful exercise of individuality), is being eroded as a response to a deeply divided two-pronged ideology of thought for the nation as a "whole" (which it is not at the present time).

I hope it will survive - too many depend upon its survival. Personally I will always be grateful the frightening tradition of "royal" has never been introduced...therefore allowing simple countrymen and women to become royal in their own rights.
Last edited by Curiosity; Nov 10th, 2009 at 08:00 AM..
 
Dexter Sinister
No Party Affiliation
#79
Quote: Originally Posted by alleywayzalwayz View Post

I'll ask you this then: Who were the forefathers that wrote the declaration of independence imploring their argument to?

God or someone else?

Someone else. There are two related references to a deity in the US's founding documents, both in the Declaration of Independence, where Jefferson refers to Nature's God in the first paragraph and the Creator (not the Christian deity) in the second, not as a source of moral values but as the source of natural law. Jefferson, like most of the founders, was very much a product of the European Enlightenment; that's Spinoza's idea of god he's writing about. The arguments are directed to the American people and the British crown.
 
EagleSmack
#80
Quote: Originally Posted by Risus View Post

I hate it when people call the USA 'America'. That is incorrect. All countries in north, south and central America are 'Americans'.

That's right Risus... we're American. That's what we call ourselves and that is what everyone else calls us.

Always have, always will.
 
EagleSmack
#81
Quote: Originally Posted by Risus View Post

How about yankees??

You can call me that too... or Yank. Just don't put NY in front of it.
 
EagleSmack
#82
But thanks for the support to the others!
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#83
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmack View Post

That's right Risus... we're American. That's what we call ourselves and that is what everyone else calls us.

Always have, always will.

I wouldn't worry about it, we have people in our country too who like to split hairs!~
 
SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#84
Quote: Originally Posted by Curiosity View Post

I hope it will survive - too many depend upon its survival. Personally I will always be grateful the frightening tradition of "royal" has never been introduced...therefore allowing simple countrymen and women to become royal in their own rights.

In what way do we not have the tradition of ‘Royal’? we acknowledge the authority of the monarch here in Canada. Our biggest (and incidentally, also the most efficient) bank is the Royal Bank. We do have the tradition of ‘Royal’ in this country. Or are you an American (if you are, I wasn’t aware of that).
 
Goober
Free Thinker
#85
Curosity - What a wonderful document of freedom and rights this is - There are other great historical documents that were printed prior to this and after - But how many can compare to the simplicity and complexity of this.

.Declaration of Independence


IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776.
THE UNANIMOUS
DECLARATION
OF THE
THIRTEEN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. WHEN, in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands, which have connected them with another, and to assume, among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's GOD entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the Causes which impel them to the Separation.
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their CREATOR, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate, that Governments long established, should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shown, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security. Such has been the patient Sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the Necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The History of the present King of Great-Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid World.
HE has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public Good.
HE has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing Importance, unless suspended in their Operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
HE has refused to pass other Laws for the Accommodations of large Districts of People, unless those People would relinquish the Right of Representation in the Legislature, a Right inestimable to them, and formidable to Tyranny only.
HE has called together Legislative Bodies at Places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the Depository of their public Records, for the sole Purpose of fatiguing them into Compliance with his Measures.
HE has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly Firmness his Invasions on the Rights of the People.
HE has refused for a long Time, after such Dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining, in the mean Time, exposed to all the Dangers of Invasion from without, and Convulsions within.
HE has endeavored to prevent the Population of these States; for that Purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their Migrations hither, and raising the Conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
HE has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
HE has made Judges dependent on his Will alone; for the Tenure of their Offices, and the Amount and Payment of their Salaries.
HE has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harass our People, and eat out their Substance.
HE has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the Consent of our Legislatures.
HE has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
HE has combined with others to subject us to a Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
FOR quartering large Bodies of Armed Troops among us:
FOR protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
FOR cutting off our Trade with all Parts of the World:
FOR imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
FOR depriving us, in many Cases, of the Benefits of Trial by Jury:
FOR transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended Offences:
FOR abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighboring Province, establishing therein an arbitrary Government, and enlarging its Boundaries, so as to render it at once an Example and fit Instrument for introducing the same absolute Rule into these Colonies:
FOR taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
FOR suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with Power to legislate for us in all Cases whatsoever.
HE has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection, and waging War against us.
HE has plundered our Seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our Towns, and destroyed the Lives of our People.
HE is, at this Time, transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to complete the Works of Death, Desolation, and Tyranny, already begun with Circumstances of Cruelty and Perfidy, scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous Ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized Nation.
HE has constrained our Fellow-Citizens, taken Captive on the high Seas, to bear Arms against their Country, to become the Executioners of their Friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
HE has excited domestic Insurrection amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the Inhabitants of our Frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known Rule of Warfare, is an undistinguished Destruction, of all Ages, Sexes, and Conditions.
IN every Stage of these Oppressions we have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble Terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated Injury. A Prince, whose Character is thus marked by every Act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the Ruler of a free People.
NOR have we been wanting in Attentions to our British Brethren. We have warned them, from Time to Time, of Attempts by their Legislature to extend an unwarrantable Jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the Circumstances of our Emigration and Settlement here. We have appealed to their native Justice and Magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the Ties of our common Kindred to disavow these Usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our Connections and Correspondence. They too have been deaf to the Voice of Justice and of Consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the Necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the Rest of Mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
WE, therefore, the Representatives of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in GENERAL CONGRESS Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the Rectitude of our Intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly Publish and Declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political Connection between them and the State of Great-Britain, is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; and that as FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which INDEPENDENT STATES may of Right do. And for the Support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection of DIVINE PROVIDENCE, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
John Hancock.
GEORGIA, Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, Geo. Walton.
NORTH-CAROLINA, Wm. Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn.
SOUTH-CAROLINA, Edward Rutledge, Thos Heyward, junr. Thomas Lynch, junr. Arthur Middleton.
MARYLAND, Samuel Chase, Wm. Paca, Thos. Stone, Charles Carroll, of Carrollton.
VIRGINIA, George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Ths. Jefferson, Benja. Harrison, Thos. Nelson, jr. Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton.
PENNSYLVANIA, Robt. Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benja. Franklin, John Morton, Geo. Clymer, Jas. Smith, Geo. Taylor, James Wilson, Geo. Ross.
DELAWARE, Caesar Rodney, Geo. Read.
NEW-YORK, Wm. Floyd, Phil. Livingston, Frank Lewis, Lewis Morris.
NEW-JERSEY, Richd. Stockton, Jno. Witherspoon, Fras. Hopkinson, John Hart, Abra. Clark.
NEW-HAMPSHIRE, Josiah Bartlett, Wm. Whipple, Matthew Thornton.
MASSACHUSETTS-BAY, Saml. Adams, John Adams, Robt. Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry.
RHODE-ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE, &c. Step. Hopkins, William Ellery.
CONNECTICUT, Roger Sherman, Saml. Huntington, Wm. Williams, Oliver Wolcott.
IN CONGRESS, JANUARY 18, 1777.
ORDERED,
THAT an authenticated Copy of the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCY, with the Names of the MEMBERS of CONGRESS, subscribing the same, be sent to each of the UNITED STATES, and that they be desired to have the same put on RECORD.
By Order of CONGRESS,
JOHN HANCOCK, President.
BALTIMORE, in MARYLAND: Printed by MARY KATHARINE GODDARD.
 
AnnaG
#86
Quote: Originally Posted by alleywayzalwayz View Post

I get the last word tonight.

Without an absolute moral law, and a moral law giver, the forefathers would have had no justification for their moral outrage towards England. It would have been mere opinion and therefore worthless. Because a moral standard exists however, they had a legitimate claim.

Obviously the morals of England and those of the States were not the same, otherwise they wouldn't have had a tiff.
 
Goober
Free Thinker
#87
Quote: Originally Posted by AnnaG View Post

Obviously the morals of England and those of the States were not the same, otherwise they wouldn't have had a tiff.

Anna G The 1st settlers from Britain were looking for religious freedom - Calvinist- Baptists - etc - so yes there was a large disconnect from Britain - time - distance - and the belief that the settlers had for a new beginning - a fresh start -
 
SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#88
Quote: Originally Posted by Goober View Post

Anna G The 1st settlers from Britain were looking for religious freedom - Calvinist- Baptists - etc - so yes there was a large disconnect from Britain - time - distance - and the belief that the settlers had for a new beginning - a fresh start -


No doubt that is how it started, Goober. Unfortunately, in USA the settlers became even more intolerant, more bigoted that their counterparts in Britain, they gave us the Salem Witch Hunts.

Also, the same settlers which supposedly scorned the ways of Britain, these same people wouldn’t abolish the slavery, they had to fight a civil war over it (Britain abolished it without any fanfare). And I won’t even touch on their shabby treatment of Indians.

So no doubt they came to USA to except persecution, but they on their own launched even a bigger, nastier persecution.
 
AnnaG
#89
Quote: Originally Posted by Goober View Post

Anna G The 1st settlers from Britain were looking for religious freedom - Calvinist- Baptists - etc - so yes there was a large disconnect from Britain - time - distance - and the belief that the settlers had for a new beginning - a fresh start -

Exactly. They didn't like the morals and other things that England offered, so they moved and started their own country where they could design things the way they wanted..
 
Goober
Free Thinker
#90
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorter View Post

No doubt that is how it started, Goober. Unfortunately, in USA the settlers became even more intolerant, more bigoted that their counterparts in Britain, they gave us the Salem Witch Hunts.

Also, the same settlers which supposedly scorned the ways of Britain, these same people wouldn’t abolish the slavery, they had to fight a civil war over it (Britain abolished it without any fanfare). And I won’t even touch on their shabby treatment of Indians.

So no doubt they came to USA to except persecution, but they on their own launched even a bigger, nastier persecution.

SJP Best read up on the Terror Tactics the Brits and Settlers used with the Native Americans - also note the difference between how the French worked with the NA - Also refresh your history on the tactics of instilling terror on the colonials by Brit Troops - Hessians -
 

Similar Threads

0
7
These shots are very Mug Ugly!
by Blackleaf | Jun 8th, 2007