White Population in the World Set to Drop from 17% to 7% by 2050
While the populations of Europe, Russia, and the US have levelled off
and even decreased, the populations of China and Africa are
accelerating beyond all expectations. Immigration reduced the
percentage of Whites in the US from 99% when the US Constitution was
written to only 71% today, and similar patterns are being followed in
several European countries because of the failure by their governments
to do anything about unbridled immigration.
http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/8712/population2hm0.gif
"Don Pearce" wrote ...
> Chel van Gennip wrote:
>>[email protected] wrote:
>>> Immigration reduced the percentage of Whites in the US from 99% when
>>> the US Constitution was
>>> written
>>
>>http://usapopulationmap.com/race_1790.html
>>
>>Older figures, e.g. before 1492, would give a different picture.
>
> What happened in 1492?
As if this thread hadn't reached the point of being ridiculous
before now.
"Don Pearce" <[email protected]> wrote
> He's typical of his type, I'm afraid. I'm always amused at American
> cowboy films, with their virile white men doing brave things. The huge
> majority of cowboys were black or Chinese - and what they actually did
> was herd cattle. But I guess that won't put backsides on seats in
> movie theatres.
My goodness, little boy, what strange history books *you've* been reading!
There *were* black cowboys in the old west, and a fair number of Hispanics
as well, but they weren't a majority, and so far as recorded history goes
there were no Chinese cowboys worth mentioning unless you count the
occasional chuck-wagon cook, Etc.
In the heat of your fever you may have confused "Chinese cowboys" with
"Chinese construction workers" who actually *did* do the majority of the
dirty work in literally blasting the Central Pacific Railroad through
California's Sierra Nevada mountains on the way east to Promontory Point
(turned out the Irish weren't tough enough for the job) but there were very
few if any Chinese cowboys.
There's a good reason for this. A competent cowboy had typically been roping
and riding (and doing everything else cowboy-related as well) since about
the time he was big enough to sit astride a horse without being actually
tied on. This is still true in some parts of the American west.
Your typical Chinese immigrant on the other hand was a young-to-middle-aged
man of the peasant class who had most likely *seen* horses on several
occasions during his earlier life, but the odds of him having ever been in a
saddle were practically nil; much less had he ever learned to toss a lariat,
castrate bull calves, Etc., nor had he ever been afforded any way to acquire
*any* of the skills needed to perform the job in question.
These are *not* skills that one picks up overnight, and just as today,
employers preferred to hire workers who had at least *some* background in
the field. And spoke the same language as well.
Sorry.
On Nov 20, 1:18 pm, [email protected] (Don Pearce) wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 13:02:52 -0700, Turby <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 20:40:36 GMT, [email protected] (Don Pearce)
> >wrote:
>
> >>I was quite specific that it was the southern setups that were mostly
> >>black. It was less true in the more norther areas. And no, I wasn't
> >>mistaken about what was said; it was a very interesting programme
> >>(made by somebody with ACTUAL academic credentials, not pretend night
> >>class ones, you understand).
>
> >unh huh. But you convieniently forget the name of the show or the
> >names of these so-called academics. Boy, you're just a wealth of
> >factual information, aren't you, troll boy.
>
> Yup. A while ago now - couple of years at least. Tough break eh? Now
> I'm sure he could just have read the standard texts and trotted out
> the same arguments I have been hearing here, but he didn't. He went
> and did his own digging, his own research and found that things were
> quite different from the way everybody told it. That is hardly
> surprising, really; we tend to try and ignore and forget those whom we
> have treated badly.
So you can no longer recall clearly or recover any trace
of this guys research but apparantly still believe your
somewhat fuzzy recollection of it to be true ?
Does that pretty much summarize your position ?
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 13:02:52 -0700, Turby <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 20:40:36 GMT, [email protected] (Don Pearce)
>wrote:
>
>>I was quite specific that it was the southern setups that were mostly
>>black. It was less true in the more norther areas. And no, I wasn't
>>mistaken about what was said; it was a very interesting programme
>>(made by somebody with ACTUAL academic credentials, not pretend night
>>class ones, you understand).
>
>unh huh. But you convieniently forget the name of the show or the
>names of these so-called academics. Boy, you're just a wealth of
>factual information, aren't you, troll boy.
>
Yup. A while ago now - couple of years at least. Tough break eh? Now
I'm sure he could just have read the standard texts and trotted out
the same arguments I have been hearing here, but he didn't. He went
and did his own digging, his own research and found that things were
quite different from the way everybody told it. That is hardly
surprising, really; we tend to try and ignore and forget those whom we
have treated badly.
>(I guess he thinks "Chinese" and "black" are interchangeable, since
>he's stopped referring to Chinese now.)
Who's "he", exactly? Are you referring to the researcher? No, he
didn't think that. He was quite specific on the roles of both black
and chinese workers in the cattle business.
d
--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 19:30:44 -0700, "Bob Myers"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>... Now, the area
>covered by the American phrase "the Old West" is
>certainly enormous - in some contexts, it would include
>pretty much everything west of the Mississippi River,
>from Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona to the south, and
>up to Idaho, Montana, and the Dakotas in the north. By
>"southern setups" in this context you would have to be
>referring to the Arizona-through-Texas swath, but of those
>three (actually, at the time, Arizona and New Mexico
>were the New Mexico Territory, until 1912) only Texas was
>ever a slave state, and so had the highest black population
>following the American Civil War. Even so, the majority of
>cowboys in Texas were of European descent.
Yebbut... The traditional cowboy era we think of only lasted from the
Civil War to the 1880's. At least 50 years before that, there were
vaqueros in California. Richard Dana wrote about the cattle hides
stacked by the shore in San Diego in 1834 in Two Years Before The
Mast. Those hides were sitting about where my company office is today.
<Albrecht moment on>
One of my great grandmothers, who died when I was 16, came west in a
covered wagon. My grandmother was born in Pueblo, Colorado. My
grandfather claimed we are related to people who fought on both sides
of the gunfight at the OK Corral.
<Albrecht moment off>
About those Europeans - there were certainly far more English
"remittance men" than Chinese herding cattle. Hey, maybe that's our
boy Pearce's academic source - a remittance man.
--
Turby the Turbosurfer
"Don Pearce" <[email protected]> wrote
> Ah, I see you studied your history from such authoritative works as
> Rawhide and Wagon Train.
Heh. I majored in history -and psychology- and taught at the University of
California for twelve years thereafter. That included reading really
honest-to-goodness history texts written by really honest-to-goodness
American history scholars, and it's pretty amusing to hear a Brit try to
teach American history to someone who was raised in the American southwest,
went to school there, and has taught the subject himself.
But hey; feel free to cite your authoritative texts that show that (in your
words) "the huge majority of cowboys were black or Chinese".
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 12:59:10 GMT, Brendan Doyle <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (Don Pearce) wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 12:32:02 GMT, Brendan Doyle <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <[email protected]>,
>> > [email protected] (Don Pearce) wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 12:14:58 GMT, Brendan Doyle <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's
>> >> >mouth and remove all doubt." It's a bit late for you, I'm afraid.
>> >>
>> >> So for you a sensible person is somebody who swallows what he has been
>> >> told whole, challenges nothing. You must be another of those in this
>> >> group suffering from the disease of religion. You exhibit the
>> >> symptoms.
>> >>
>> >> d
>> >
>> >You know nothing about me whatsoever. And I can assure you that your
>> >baseless assumption completely misses the mark. You might want to engage
>> >your brain before your fingers next time.
>>
>> If you are a sensible person, who doesn't indulge in superstitious
>> fantasy, or kow tow to received authority, kindly stop posting like
>> some smug brainless git who does. Your witless platitude was decidedly
>> unimpressive.
>>
>> d
>
>You know, there is no shame in stating something that one thinks is
>fact, and then retracting it when it becomes obvious that one is were
>mistaken. Everyone makes mistakes. But when one digs in his heels with
>increasing belligerence and irrationality in the face of accumulating
>evidence to the contrary, supported by multiple citations, it just
>becomes an embarrassing spectacle. Hurling insults is not a substitute
>for reason, and does not advance your cause. It really is okay to admit
>you were mistaken. Noone will think less of you for it; quite the
>contrary.
You are the one who called me a fool, so you can lay off this pious
holier-than-thou shit about hurling insults. I stand by every word I
have written, because I consider my source to be well researched and
well reasoned. It stands in stark contrast to the attitude I have
found here which is that the situation must be so because that is what
we have always been told. That kind of head-in-the-sand attitude is
what perpetuates myths and untruths, normally arising from some
official line the people are expected to swallow. Those very citations
are typical of the ones which were examined and discredited.
d
--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Don Pearce) wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 12:59:10 GMT, Brendan Doyle <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >You know, there is no shame in stating something that one thinks is
> >fact, and then retracting it when it becomes obvious that one is were
> >mistaken. Everyone makes mistakes. But when one digs in his heels with
> >increasing belligerence and irrationality in the face of accumulating
> >evidence to the contrary, supported by multiple citations, it just
> >becomes an embarrassing spectacle. Hurling insults is not a substitute
> >for reason, and does not advance your cause. It really is okay to admit
> >you were mistaken. Noone will think less of you for it; quite the
> >contrary.
>
> You are the one who called me a fool, so you can lay off this pious
> holier-than-thou shit about hurling insults. I stand by every word I
> have written, because I consider my source to be well researched and
> well reasoned. It stands in stark contrast to the attitude I have
> found here which is that the situation must be so because that is what
> we have always been told. That kind of head-in-the-sand attitude is
> what perpetuates myths and untruths, normally arising from some
> official line the people are expected to swallow. Those very citations
> are typical of the ones which were examined and discredited.
>
> d
So let's see, the very fact that an opinion is contrarian increases the
likelihood that it is true? Interesting reasoning. Contrarian thinking
is always valuable, in fact indispensable, in testing accepted bodies of
knowledge, especially in science and in history, but without citable
evidence to support it, it's not particularly useful. You say that you
consider your sources to be well-researched and well-reasoned; if that
is indeed the case, surely you would be willing, even eager, to share
some of that reasearch and reasoning, and provide some citations to
support it. I am willing to be persuaded, but not without evidence. We
have heard multiple citations of evidence to the contrary, so the ball
is now in your court.
--
Brendan Doyle
On Nov 21, 5:07 am, [email protected] (Don Pearce) wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 12:59:10 GMT, Brendan Doyle <[email protected]> wrote:
> >In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] (Don Pearce) wrote:
>
> >> On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 12:32:02 GMT, Brendan Doyle <[email protected]> wrote:
> It really is okay to admit
> >you were mistaken. Noone will think less of you for it; quite the
> >contrary.
>
> You are the one who called me a fool, so you can lay off this pious
> holier-than-thou shit about hurling insults. I stand by every word I
> have written, because I consider my source to be well researched and
> well reasoned.
If you were able to offer a cite, we could then determine for
ourselves whether your source was well researched and
reasoned.
As it happens, several years ago on the telly, I saw a man
with ACTUAL academic credentials who said your source
and those who believed him were incredibly stupid.
Sorry I can't offer a better cite to back this up but I consider
my source to be much more well reasoned and researched
than your source so that pretty much proves my case.
Hope this helps.
Don Pearce wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 11:38:49 -0800, "P. Roehling"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>"Don Pearce" <[email protected]> wrote
>>>Ah, I see you studied your history from such authoritative works as
>>>Rawhide and Wagon Train.
>>
>>Heh. I majored in history -and psychology- and taught at the University of
>>California for twelve years thereafter. That included reading really
>>honest-to-goodness history texts written by really honest-to-goodness
>>American history scholars, and it's pretty amusing to hear a Brit try to
>>teach American history to someone who was raised in the American southwest,
>>went to school there, and has taught the subject himself.
>>
>>But hey; feel free to cite your authoritative texts that show that (in your
>>words) "the huge majority of cowboys were black or Chinese".
> Don't believe you. Give me some references to your papers so I can
> look you up. I thought Google's academic search might throw up a few,
> but strangely there was nought but silence.
Unless my reading comprehension is inferior to yours, Mr. Roehling
never claimed to have published any papers. He did say he read
history texts and taught history.
--
'01 SV650SK1 '99 EX250-F13 '98 ZG1000-A13
OMF #7
"Don Pearce" <[email protected]> wrote
> Don't believe you.
Who cares what you believe? You also claim to believe that "the huge
majority of cowboys were black or Chinese". Now either cite your proofs for
that claim or admit you were wrong.
Once again: there were quite a few Chinese in the western United States
between the California Gold Rush of 1849 and the beginning of the 20th
century. They did lots of different jobs (in fact, the town I live in sports
hundreds of split-granite-boulder walls and curbs that were built pre-1900
almost exclusively by Chinese labor) but Chinese cowboys? While it's always
possible there were a few who got missed by the historians, I have seen no
records of them existing at all; much less being extremely numerous.
> Give me some references to your papers so I can
> look you up. I thought Google's academic search might throw up a few,
> but strangely there was nought but silence.
Proving that you know even less about the hiring practices of the University
of California than you do about the American old west.
"Publish or perish" is still the rule for tenured faculty at UC, but I was
never tenured faculty, just a year-to-year contract employee who taught
night school. (Matter of fact, contract employees don't have to have a Ph.D,
or even a Master's degree to teach. All they have to do is be able to teach
a subject that the University needs taught and be willing to get paid
considerably less than the tenured instructors.)
"Don Pearce" <[email protected]> wrote
> Your claim shrinks somewhat when challenged. You have failed.
"Pearce Consulting", huh?
I hope you don't really get paid for using that mind, but, if so, it goes a
long ways towards explaining the decline of the United Kingdom.
What a maroon.
"Jay Kadis" <[email protected]> wrote
> Many if not most of us teaching at a university are lecturers and are
> not expected to do research or publish.
Not to worry: he's just trying to figure out how to get his foot out of his
mouth and his head out of his ass at the same time, and it's confusing him.
On Nov 20, 2:13 am, [email protected] (Don Pearce) wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 11:00:23 +0100, Chel van Gennip
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Don Pearce wrote:
> >> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 01:37:33 -0700, Turby <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> Your claim, OTOH, hasn't shrunk, it's damn well disappeared. Talk
> >>> about failure - can't you even fake a cite to support that ridiculous
> >>> claim?
>
> >> No need, when the so-called academic experts prove to be just hot air.
>
> >I see one example of hot air, and that is your claim: "The huge majority
> >of cowboys were black or Chinese" and your repeated statement that there
> >is no need to support that claim. You don't have to question the
> >academic status of the questioners, just answer the question, and
> >support your claim. So far you have given nothing to support your claim,
> >except a lot of hot air.
>
> I made no academic claim. My information comes from a variety of
> sources, mainly investigative journalistic programmes on the TV. Had I
> made an academic claim, you would be perfectly justified to call me on
> it. I didn't. Roehling did, I called him and he proved not to have the
> credentials he claimed.
I especially liked the part where you said you were always amused
by American ignorance:
>> He's typical of his type, I'm afraid. I'm always amused at American
>> cowboy films, with their virile white men doing brave things. The huge
>> majority of cowboys were black or Chinese - and what they actually did
>> was herd cattle. But I guess that won't put backsides on seats in
>> movie theatres.
Who do you reckon is displaying their ignorance here ?
On Nov 19, 2:53 pm, [email protected] (Don Pearce) wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 11:38:49 -0800, "P. Roehling"
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >"Don Pearce" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> >> Ah, I see you studied your history from such authoritative works as
> >> Rawhide and Wagon Train.
>
> >Heh. I majored in history -and psychology- and taught at the University of
> >California for twelve years thereafter. That included reading really
> >honest-to-goodness history texts written by really honest-to-goodness
> >American history scholars, and it's pretty amusing to hear a Brit try to
> >teach American history to someone who was raised in the American southwest,
> >went to school there, and has taught the subject himself.
>
> >But hey; feel free to cite your authoritative texts that show that (in your
> >words) "the huge majority of cowboys were black or Chinese".
>
> Don't believe you. Give me some references to your papers so I can
> look you up. I thought Google's academic search might throw up a few,
> but strangely there was nought but silence.
>
Hey, asshole, several of us have asked you to put up or shut up.
You've done neither and you want someone ELSE to post credentials?
On Nov 17, 4:40 pm, "The Henchman" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > White Population in the World Set to Drop from 17% to 7% by 2050
>
> > While the populations of Europe, Russia, and the US have levelled off
> > and even decreased, the populations of China and Africa are
> > accelerating beyond all expectations. Immigration reduced the
> > percentage of Whites in the US from 99% when the US Constitution was
> > written to only 71% today, and similar patterns are being followed in
> > several European countries because of the failure by their governments
> > to do anything about unbridled immigration.
>
> The White Population is the US was 99% at the time of the constitution.
> LOL. You are funny!!!!!!!!!!!! Care to cite a reference for that? That
> must be one of the biggest outright lies I have ever heard....
>
> 99% indeed. I'll be chuckling about that one for a long long time.
1790 Census
3,893,635 - Total population of the United States in 1790 according to
the U.S. Census.
694,280 / 59,150 - Population of enslaved Africans / free blacks in
the United States in 1790.
http://www.ushistory.org/presidentshouse/slaves/numbers.htm
Percent of blacks in the U.S. in 1790 = 753,430 / 3,893,635 x 100
= 19.4%
On Nov 20, 5:13 am, [email protected] (Don Pearce) wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 11:00:23 +0100, Chel van Gennip
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Don Pearce wrote:
> >> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 01:37:33 -0700, Turby <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> Your claim, OTOH, hasn't shrunk, it's damn well disappeared. Talk
> >>> about failure - can't you even fake a cite to support that ridiculous
> >>> claim?
>
> >> No need, when the so-called academic experts prove to be just hot air.
>
> >I see one example of hot air, and that is your claim: "The huge majority
> >of cowboys were black or Chinese" and your repeated statement that there
> >is no need to support that claim. You don't have to question the
> >academic status of the questioners, just answer the question, and
> >support your claim. So far you have given nothing to support your claim,
> >except a lot of hot air.
>
> I made no academic claim. My information comes from a variety of
> sources, mainly investigative journalistic programmes on the TV. Had I
> made an academic claim, you would be perfectly justified to call me on
> it. I didn't. Roehling did, I called him and he proved not to have the
> credentials he claimed.
>
I saw it on TV so it has to be true. New academic standard.
You must have brown eyes.
On Nov 19, 1:05 am, [email protected] (Don Pearce) wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 17:41:12 -0600, "Neil Larson"
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Wow, so you just as completly backwards from the original poster. "The huge
> >majority of cowboys were black or Chinese"? what history book did you read?
> >There were too many racisits for this to be even remotly true.
>
> When you are hiring manual labour you go for the cheapest. It is true
> today and it was true then. Racism could go hang when you were
> counting the dollars.
http://www.epcc.edu/nwlibrary/borderlands/21_black_cowboys.htm
Per this El Paso site, it's believed that perhaps 25% of cowboys may
have been black.
Chinese cowboys seem to have existed only in your imagination.
Cites to the contrary much appreciated.
On Nov 18, 9:32 am, "Bob Myers" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > Even if this were true, so what? Do you think that non-whites are somehow
> > less worthy or less human than whites?
>
> Gee, Arny, I would think that it's pretty obvious that, yes, this
> moron thinks that non-whites are somehow "less worthy or
> less human" than whites. I'm not sure which group you're seeing
> this stuff in (guessing rec.audio.pro, from the days I used to see
> you when I hung around the audio groups), but I'm getting it via
> rec.motorcycles, where unfortunately we seem to attract more
> than the usual share of brainless bigots who post the idiocy.
> Exactly WHY they post it, I've never been really clear on - on
> the surface, of course, it seems like an incredibly clumsy attempt
> to demonstrate some supposed "superiority" of the white race, but
> it always winds up being so completely lacking in anything even
> resembling intelligence that it winds up doing just the opposite.
> Assuming, of course, that the orignial posters are white; as far as
> I can tell, many of them shouldn't even qualify as human.
>
> Bob M.
Tried to fix that to have a :-) face after credibility but it didn't
go through... anyway - I meant is kiddingly and not harsh -
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 23:40:56 GMT, "The Henchman"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> White Population in the World Set to Drop from 17% to 7% by 2050
>>
>> While the populations of Europe, Russia, and the US have levelled off
>> and even decreased, the populations of China and Africa are
>> accelerating beyond all expectations. Immigration reduced the
>> percentage of Whites in the US from 99% when the US Constitution was
>> written to only 71% today, and similar patterns are being followed in
>> several European countries because of the failure by their governments
>> to do anything about unbridled immigration.
>
>
>The White Population is the US was 99% at the time of the constitution.
>LOL. You are funny!!!!!!!!!!!! Care to cite a reference for that? That
>must be one of the biggest outright lies I have ever heard....
>
>99% indeed. I'll be chuckling about that one for a long long time.
>
He's typical of his type, I'm afraid. I'm always amused at American
cowboy films, with their virile white men doing brave things. The huge
majority of cowboys were black or Chinese - and what they actually did
was herd cattle. But I guess that won't put backsides on seats in
movie theatres.
d
--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 20:40:36 GMT, [email protected] (Don Pearce)
wrote:
>I was quite specific that it was the southern setups that were mostly
>black. It was less true in the more norther areas. And no, I wasn't
>mistaken about what was said; it was a very interesting programme
>(made by somebody with ACTUAL academic credentials, not pretend night
>class ones, you understand).
unh huh. But you convieniently forget the name of the show or the
names of these so-called academics. Boy, you're just a wealth of
factual information, aren't you, troll boy.
(I guess he thinks "Chinese" and "black" are interchangeable, since
he's stopped referring to Chinese now.)
--
Turby the Turbosurfer
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 12:32:02 GMT, Brendan Doyle <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (Don Pearce) wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 12:14:58 GMT, Brendan Doyle <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's
>> >mouth and remove all doubt." It's a bit late for you, I'm afraid.
>>
>> So for you a sensible person is somebody who swallows what he has been
>> told whole, challenges nothing. You must be another of those in this
>> group suffering from the disease of religion. You exhibit the
>> symptoms.
>>
>> d
>
>You know nothing about me whatsoever. And I can assure you that your
>baseless assumption completely misses the mark. You might want to engage
>your brain before your fingers next time.
If you are a sensible person, who doesn't indulge in superstitious
fantasy, or kow tow to received authority, kindly stop posting like
some smug brainless git who does. Your witless platitude was decidedly
unimpressive.
d
--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com
In article <[email protected]>,
Brendan Doyle <[email protected]> wrote:
> You know, there is no shame in stating something that one thinks is
> fact, and then retracting it when it becomes obvious that one is were
> mistaken. Everyone makes mistakes.
Like I did just now while rewording the above statement. That should
have come out:
You know, there is no shame in stating something that one thinks is
fact, and then retracting it when it becomes obvious that one is
mistaken.
--
Brendan Doyle
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Don Pearce) wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 12:32:02 GMT, Brendan Doyle <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] (Don Pearce) wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 12:14:58 GMT, Brendan Doyle <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's
> >> >mouth and remove all doubt." It's a bit late for you, I'm afraid.
> >>
> >> So for you a sensible person is somebody who swallows what he has been
> >> told whole, challenges nothing. You must be another of those in this
> >> group suffering from the disease of religion. You exhibit the
> >> symptoms.
> >>
> >> d
> >
> >You know nothing about me whatsoever. And I can assure you that your
> >baseless assumption completely misses the mark. You might want to engage
> >your brain before your fingers next time.
>
> If you are a sensible person, who doesn't indulge in superstitious
> fantasy, or kow tow to received authority, kindly stop posting like
> some smug brainless git who does. Your witless platitude was decidedly
> unimpressive.
>
> d
You know, there is no shame in stating something that one thinks is
fact, and then retracting it when it becomes obvious that one is were
mistaken. Everyone makes mistakes. But when one digs in his heels with
increasing belligerence and irrationality in the face of accumulating
evidence to the contrary, supported by multiple citations, it just
becomes an embarrassing spectacle. Hurling insults is not a substitute
for reason, and does not advance your cause. It really is okay to admit
you were mistaken. Noone will think less of you for it; quite the
contrary.
--
Brendan Doyle
Don Pearce wrote:
>On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 22:34:50 +0100, Chel van Gennip
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>http://usapopulationmap.com/race_1790.html
>>
>>Older figures, e.g. before 1492, would give a different picture.
>
>What happened in 1492?
Columbus sailed the ocean blue.
(Ah, c'mon. Somebody had to say it.)
--
========================================================================
Michael Kesti | "And like, one and one don't make
| two, one and one make one."
mrkesti at hotmail dot com | - The Who, Bargain
Don Pearce wrote:
>On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 13:46:22 -0800, "Michael R. Kesti"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Don Pearce wrote:
>>
>>>What happened in 1492?
>>
>>Columbus sailed the ocean blue.
>>
>>(Ah, c'mon. Somebody had to say it.)
>
>Sure he did but what has that to do with North America? You are aware
>that he never went near the place in his life? Specifically not in
>1492, although he did make it to South America sometime around 1500,
>but by then everybody and his dog was going there.
Sure, Don, but even if there is no direct cause and effect between
Columbus' specific expeditions and the en masse arrival of white
Europeans in North America, a rising North American white population
was a result of explorations such as Columbus'.
Perhaps more to the point, do you know any rhyming couplets involving
any of Columbus' contemporaries?
--
========================================================================
Michael Kesti | "And like, one and one don't make
| two, one and one make one."
mrkesti at hotmail dot com | - The Who, Bargain
On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 22:34:50 +0100, Chel van Gennip
<[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>> Immigration reduced the percentage of Whites in the US from 99% when the US Constitution was
>> written
>
>http://usapopulationmap.com/race_1790.html
>
>Older figures, e.g. before 1492, would give a different picture.
What happened in 1492?
d
--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com
On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 23:01:30 -0800, "P. Roehling"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Don Pearce" <[email protected]> wrote
>
>> He's typical of his type, I'm afraid. I'm always amused at American
>> cowboy films, with their virile white men doing brave things. The huge
>> majority of cowboys were black or Chinese - and what they actually did
>> was herd cattle. But I guess that won't put backsides on seats in
>> movie theatres.
>
>My goodness, little boy, what strange history books *you've* been reading!
>
>There *were* black cowboys in the old west, and a fair number of Hispanics
>as well, but they weren't a majority, and so far as recorded history goes
>there were no Chinese cowboys worth mentioning unless you count the
>occasional chuck-wagon cook, Etc.
Ah, I see you studied your history from such authoritative works as
Rawhide and Wagon Train. Certainly in the northern reaches there were
considerable numbers of white cowboys, but further south there were
countless operations staffed almost entirely by black labour even
after abolition. It is true that most of these men did their work on
foot rather than mounted - maybe you think this means they don't count
as real cowboys?
d
--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 21:18:57 GMT, [email protected] (Don Pearce)
wrote:
>On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 13:02:52 -0700, Turby <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 20:40:36 GMT, [email protected] (Don Pearce)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>I was quite specific that it was the southern setups that were mostly
>>>black. It was less true in the more norther areas. And no, I wasn't
>>>mistaken about what was said; it was a very interesting programme
>>>(made by somebody with ACTUAL academic credentials, not pretend night
>>>class ones, you understand).
>>
>>unh huh. But you convieniently forget the name of the show or the
>>names of these so-called academics. Boy, you're just a wealth of
>>factual information, aren't you, troll boy.
>>
>Yup. A while ago now - couple of years at least. Tough break eh? Now
>I'm sure he could just have read the standard texts and trotted out
>the same arguments I have been hearing here, but he didn't. He went
>and did his own digging, his own research and found that things were
>quite different from the way everybody told it. That is hardly
>surprising, really; we tend to try and ignore and forget those whom we
>have treated badly.
Until you can come up with some cite, some evidence, something other
than your farcical claims, nobody's going to believe you. You made the
claim, back it up.
>>(I guess he thinks "Chinese" and "black" are interchangeable, since
>>he's stopped referring to Chinese now.)
>
>Who's "he", exactly?
You.
>Are you referring to the researcher? No, he
>didn't think that. He was quite specific on the roles of both black
>and chinese workers in the cattle business.
Either he was wrong, or, more likely, you didn't understand or
comprehend what he said, and put your own interpretation on it. The
fact remains, there was a negligible number of Chinese cowboys in the
American West.
--
Turby the Turbosurfer
On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 13:46:22 -0800, "Michael R. Kesti"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Don Pearce wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 22:34:50 +0100, Chel van Gennip
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>http://usapopulationmap.com/race_1790.html
>>>
>>>Older figures, e.g. before 1492, would give a different picture.
>>
>>What happened in 1492?
>
>Columbus sailed the ocean blue.
>
>(Ah, c'mon. Somebody had to say it.)
Sure he did but what has that to do with North America? You are aware
that he never went near the place in his life? Specifically not in
1492, although he did make it to South America sometime around 1500,
but by then everybody and his dog was going there.
d
--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 11:38:49 -0800, "P. Roehling"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Don Pearce" <[email protected]> wrote
>
>> Ah, I see you studied your history from such authoritative works as
>> Rawhide and Wagon Train.
>
>Heh. I majored in history -and psychology- and taught at the University of
>California for twelve years thereafter. That included reading really
>honest-to-goodness history texts written by really honest-to-goodness
>American history scholars, and it's pretty amusing to hear a Brit try to
>teach American history to someone who was raised in the American southwest,
>went to school there, and has taught the subject himself.
>
>But hey; feel free to cite your authoritative texts that show that (in your
>words) "the huge majority of cowboys were black or Chinese".
>
Don't believe you. Give me some references to your papers so I can
look you up. I thought Google's academic search might throw up a few,
but strangely there was nought but silence.
d
--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 00:38:47 -0700, Turby <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 21:18:57 GMT, [email protected] (Don Pearce)
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 13:02:52 -0700, Turby <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 20:40:36 GMT, [email protected] (Don Pearce)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>I was quite specific that it was the southern setups that were mostly
>>>>black. It was less true in the more norther areas. And no, I wasn't
>>>>mistaken about what was said; it was a very interesting programme
>>>>(made by somebody with ACTUAL academic credentials, not pretend night
>>>>class ones, you understand).
>>>
>>>unh huh. But you convieniently forget the name of the show or the
>>>names of these so-called academics. Boy, you're just a wealth of
>>>factual information, aren't you, troll boy.
>>>
>>Yup. A while ago now - couple of years at least. Tough break eh? Now
>>I'm sure he could just have read the standard texts and trotted out
>>the same arguments I have been hearing here, but he didn't. He went
>>and did his own digging, his own research and found that things were
>>quite different from the way everybody told it. That is hardly
>>surprising, really; we tend to try and ignore and forget those whom we
>>have treated badly.
>
>Until you can come up with some cite, some evidence, something other
>than your farcical claims, nobody's going to believe you. You made the
>claim, back it up.
>
You are very welcome to believe or disbelieve whomsoever you choose. I
can assure you it is a matter of no importance to me. It is highly
illuminating, though, that nobody (including our fake academic) has
managed to produce any actual evidence that I am wrong. Or are we in
the world of proof by shouting louder, here?
>>>(I guess he thinks "Chinese" and "black" are interchangeable, since
>>>he's stopped referring to Chinese now.)
>>
>>Who's "he", exactly?
>
>You.
>
>>Are you referring to the researcher? No, he
>>didn't think that. He was quite specific on the roles of both black
>>and chinese workers in the cattle business.
>
>Either he was wrong, or, more likely, you didn't understand or
>comprehend what he said, and put your own interpretation on it. The
>fact remains, there was a negligible number of Chinese cowboys in the
>American West.
Either that or his personal research, not relying on the standard
texts, threw up some stuff that was a bit different to the standard
model.
d
--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 13:04:31 GMT, Brendan Doyle <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
> Brendan Doyle <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> You know, there is no shame in stating something that one thinks is
>> fact, and then retracting it when it becomes obvious that one is were
>> mistaken. Everyone makes mistakes.
>
>Like I did just now while rewording the above statement. That should
>have come out:
>
>You know, there is no shame in stating something that one thinks is
>fact, and then retracting it when it becomes obvious that one is
>mistaken.
Are you actually Saint Brendan? You really are very, very good, you
know. Sanctimoniousness just knows no bounds in you, does it? And I
bet you never, ever question anything the priest tells you to do.
d
--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com
Don Pearce wrote:
> You are very welcome to believe or disbelieve whomsoever you choose. I
> can assure you it is a matter of no importance to me.
As are the facts.
> It is highly illuminating, though, that nobody ... has managed to produce
> any actual evidence that I am wrong. Or are we in
> the world of proof by shouting louder, here?
You indeed try to prove your statement "The huge majority of cowboys
were black or Chinese" by shouting louder without any supporting material.
Just read
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1157/is_2001_Jan-Dec/ai_95149972/pg_1
to find some factual information. The number of black cowboys is
estimated between 10% and 25%, not really a "vast majority" but just in
line with the population at the time as presented in:
http://usapopulationmap.com/race_1850.html
--
Chel van Gennip (chel vangennip nl)
On Nov 21, 8:12 am, [email protected] (Don Pearce) wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 13:04:31 GMT, Brendan Doyle <[email protected]> wrote:
> >In article <[email protected]>,
> > Brendan Doyle <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> You know, there is no shame in stating something that one thinks is
> >> fact, and then retracting it when it becomes obvious that one is were
> >> mistaken. Everyone makes mistakes.
>
> >Like I did just now while rewording the above statement. That should
> >have come out:
>
> >You know, there is no shame in stating something that one thinks is
> >fact, and then retracting it when it becomes obvious that one is
> >mistaken.
>
> Are you actually Saint Brendan? You really are very, very good, you
> know. Sanctimoniousness just knows no bounds in you, does it? And I
> bet you never, ever question anything the priest tells you to do.
>
> d
>
> --
> Pearce Consultinghttp://www.pearce.uk.com
What a douchebag! Are you like this in all aspects of your life? No
wonder you're a "consultant". You're too much of an asshole to work
amongst normal people. Business must not be too good though - it looks
like you spend most of your time trolling. You obviously impress
yourself with your command of the language, but all that aside, you
are a social retard. And besides that, you are just plain wrong.
"Don Pearce" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> You are very welcome to believe or disbelieve whomsoever you choose. I
> can assure you it is a matter of no importance to me. It is highly
> illuminating, though, that nobody (including our fake academic) has
> managed to produce any actual evidence that I am wrong. Or are we in
> the world of proof by shouting louder, here?
No, but the onus is on *you* to produce some evidence that you're right. The
rule "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" holds here.
You're claiming something that goes against the grain of accepted belief. No
law against that; it'show new ideas come into the canon. But you're not
going to be believed until and unless you present *evidence* for the
proposition.
> >Either he was wrong, or, more likely, you didn't understand or
> >comprehend what he said, and put your own interpretation on it. The
> >fact remains, there was a negligible number of Chinese cowboys in the
> >American West.
>
> Either that or his personal research, not relying on the standard
> texts, threw up some stuff that was a bit different to the standard
> model.
Which of course is entirely possible, but without information on who the guy
was, where he published, etc., we've no way to evaluate whether his research
is credible, or whether he's just another fringe researcher pushing the
academic equivalent of solid-silver cables with buckskin insulation. You
have Google; if you're going to present this guy's findings as established
fact ("the vast majority of cowboys were black and Chinese") rather than a
recent dissenting opinion ("one maverick researcher has suggested that the
vast majority..."), go find out who he is, and tell us.
A great bit of dialogue from the original film "Bedazzled" comes to mind.
I'm slightly paraphrasing; the participants are the devil (played by Peter
Cook) and Stanley Moon (played by Dudley Moore):
Stanley: You're a bleedin' nut case!
Devil: Ah, they said that about Newton, they said that about Galileo...
Stanley: They said it about a lot of bleedin' nut cases too.
Peace,
Paul
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 16:12:10 -0600, Mark Olson <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Don Pearce wrote:
>> On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 11:38:49 -0800, "P. Roehling"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>"Don Pearce" <[email protected]> wrote
>
>>>>Ah, I see you studied your history from such authoritative works as
>>>>Rawhide and Wagon Train.
>>>
>>>Heh. I majored in history -and psychology- and taught at the University of
>>>California for twelve years thereafter. That included reading really
>>>honest-to-goodness history texts written by really honest-to-goodness
>>>American history scholars, and it's pretty amusing to hear a Brit try to
>>>teach American history to someone who was raised in the American southwest,
>>>went to school there, and has taught the subject himself.
>>>
>>>But hey; feel free to cite your authoritative texts that show that (in your
>>>words) "the huge majority of cowboys were black or Chinese".
>
>> Don't believe you. Give me some references to your papers so I can
>> look you up. I thought Google's academic search might throw up a few,
>> but strangely there was nought but silence.
>
>Unless my reading comprehension is inferior to yours, Mr. Roehling
>never claimed to have published any papers. He did say he read
>history texts and taught history.
When you teach at a University, one of your jobs is to write and
publish papers. It is what keeps you credible within the faculty. If
he wasn't publishing papers, he wasn't teaching.
d
--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com
On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 17:41:12 -0600, "Neil Larson"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Wow, so you just as completly backwards from the original poster. "The huge
>majority of cowboys were black or Chinese"? what history book did you read?
>There were too many racisits for this to be even remotly true.
When you are hiring manual labour you go for the cheapest. It is true
today and it was true then. Racism could go hang when you were
counting the dollars.
d
--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 22:14:42 -0800, "P. Roehling"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Don Pearce" <[email protected]> wrote
>
>> Don't believe you.
>
>Who cares what you believe? You also claim to believe that "the huge
>majority of cowboys were black or Chinese". Now either cite your proofs for
>that claim or admit you were wrong.
>
>Once again: there were quite a few Chinese in the western United States
>between the California Gold Rush of 1849 and the beginning of the 20th
>century. They did lots of different jobs (in fact, the town I live in sports
>hundreds of split-granite-boulder walls and curbs that were built pre-1900
>almost exclusively by Chinese labor) but Chinese cowboys? While it's always
>possible there were a few who got missed by the historians, I have seen no
>records of them existing at all; much less being extremely numerous.
>
>> Give me some references to your papers so I can
>> look you up. I thought Google's academic search might throw up a few,
>> but strangely there was nought but silence.
>
>Proving that you know even less about the hiring practices of the University
>of California than you do about the American old west.
>
>"Publish or perish" is still the rule for tenured faculty at UC, but I was
>never tenured faculty, just a year-to-year contract employee who taught
>night school. (Matter of fact, contract employees don't have to have a Ph.D,
>or even a Master's degree to teach. All they have to do is be able to teach
>a subject that the University needs taught and be willing to get paid
>considerably less than the tenured instructors.)
>
Your claim shrinks somewhat when challenged. You have failed.
d
--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 11:15:27 +0100, Chel van Gennip
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Don Pearce wrote:
>
>> You are very welcome to believe or disbelieve whomsoever you choose. I
>> can assure you it is a matter of no importance to me.
>
>As are the facts.
>
>> It is highly illuminating, though, that nobody ... has managed to produce
> > any actual evidence that I am wrong. Or are we in
>> the world of proof by shouting louder, here?
>
>You indeed try to prove your statement "The huge majority of cowboys
>were black or Chinese" by shouting louder without any supporting material.
>
You think that is shouting? Interesting.
>Just read
>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1157/is_2001_Jan-Dec/ai_95149972/pg_1
>to find some factual information. The number of black cowboys is
>estimated between 10% and 25%, not really a "vast majority" but just in
>line with the population at the time as presented in:
>http://usapopulationmap.com/race_1850.html
Yes, that is the standard picture. I know all about that.
d
--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com
Don Pearce wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 11:15:27 +0100, Chel van Gennip
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Don Pearce wrote:
>>
>>> You are very welcome to believe or disbelieve whomsoever you choose. I
>>> can assure you it is a matter of no importance to me.
>> As are the facts.
>>
>>> It is highly illuminating, though, that nobody ... has managed to produce
>>> any actual evidence that I am wrong. Or are we in
>>> the world of proof by shouting louder, here?
>> You indeed try to prove your statement "The huge majority of cowboys
>> were black or Chinese" by shouting louder without any supporting material.
>>
> You think that is shouting? Interesting.
>
>> Just read
>> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1157/is_2001_Jan-Dec/ai_95149972/pg_1
>> to find some factual information. The number of black cowboys is
>> estimated between 10% and 25%, not really a "vast majority" but just in
>> line with the population at the time as presented in:
>> http://usapopulationmap.com/race_1850.html
>
> Yes, that is the standard picture. I know all about that.
>
If you know this, and I will give you a quote:
"The two best general works on African American cowboys, however,
explode the myth that there were no (or almost no) blacks on the western
ranches, ranges, and cattle trails. In 1965 two University of California
at Los Angeles English professors, Philip Durham and Everett L. Jones,
published a book called The Negro Cowboys. They estimated that there
were at least five thousand black cowhands in the late
nineteenth-century American West. Four years later, University of Oregon
history professor, Kenneth Wiggins Porter, argued that the number was
closer to eight thousand or nine thousand--about 25 per cent--of the
35,000 or so cowboys who worked in the frontier cattle industry. (6)"
And if you write: "The huge majority of cowboys were black or Chinese"
You are not just ignorant, but you are telling lies. BTW in TV programs
you may have seen on TV, and that you use as a base for your statements
(like Rawhide?) cowboys looked a bit darker because of the dust.
--
Chel van Gennip (chel vangennip nl)
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 01:37:33 -0700, Turby <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 08:12:29 GMT, [email protected] (Don Pearce)
>wrote:
>>On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 22:14:42 -0800, "P. Roehling"
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>"Don Pearce" <[email protected]> wrote
>>>
>>>> Don't believe you.
>>>
>>>Who cares what you believe? You also claim to believe that "the huge
>>>majority of cowboys were black or Chinese". Now either cite your proofs for
>>>that claim or admit you were wrong.
>>
>>Your claim shrinks somewhat when challenged. You have failed.
>
>Your claim, OTOH, hasn't shrunk, it's damn well disappeared. Talk
>about failure - can't you even fake a cite to support that ridiculous
>claim?
No need, when the so-called academic experts prove to be just hot air.
Is that you too, or do you have something?
d
--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 11:00:23 +0100, Chel van Gennip
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Don Pearce wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 01:37:33 -0700, Turby <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>
>>> Your claim, OTOH, hasn't shrunk, it's damn well disappeared. Talk
>>> about failure - can't you even fake a cite to support that ridiculous
>>> claim?
>>
>> No need, when the so-called academic experts prove to be just hot air.
>
>I see one example of hot air, and that is your claim: "The huge majority
>of cowboys were black or Chinese" and your repeated statement that there
>is no need to support that claim. You don't have to question the
>academic status of the questioners, just answer the question, and
>support your claim. So far you have given nothing to support your claim,
>except a lot of hot air.
I made no academic claim. My information comes from a variety of
sources, mainly investigative journalistic programmes on the TV. Had I
made an academic claim, you would be perfectly justified to call me on
it. I didn't. Roehling did, I called him and he proved not to have the
credentials he claimed.
d
--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com
On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 22:51:16 +0100, Chel van Gennip
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Don Pearce wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 22:34:50 +0100, Chel van Gennip
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>> Immigration reduced the percentage of Whites in the US from 99% when the US Constitution was
>>>> written
>>> http://usapopulationmap.com/race_1790.html
>>>
>>> Older figures, e.g. before 1492, would give a different picture.
>>
>> What happened in 1492?
>>
>
>Leonardo da Vinci's Vitruvian Man was created
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitruvian_Man
Ah! good. Figured it must be something noteworthy.
d
--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com
On 18 Nov 2007 17:50:43 -0500, [email protected] (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>Don Pearce <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>Sure he did but what has that to do with North America? You are aware
>>that he never went near the place in his life? Specifically not in
>>1492, although he did make it to South America sometime around 1500,
>>but by then everybody and his dog was going there.
>
>Cuba is pretty near North America. Near enough to scare Kennedy anyway.
>--scott
Close, but no cigar (like the pun?). The first discovery was in 1497
by John Cabot. He named the place after his sponsor, Richard Americ.
d
--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com
[email protected] wrote:
> Immigration reduced the percentage of Whites in the US from 99% when the US Constitution was
> written
http://usapopulationmap.com/race_1790.html
Older figures, e.g. before 1492, would give a different picture.
--
Chel van Gennip (chel vangennip nl)
Don Pearce wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 22:34:50 +0100, Chel van Gennip
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> Immigration reduced the percentage of Whites in the US from 99% when the US Constitution was
>>> written
>> http://usapopulationmap.com/race_1790.html
>>
>> Older figures, e.g. before 1492, would give a different picture.
>
> What happened in 1492?
>
Leonardo da Vinci's Vitruvian Man was created
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitruvian_Man
--
Chel van Gennip (chel vangennip nl)
Don Pearce wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 01:37:33 -0700, Turby <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> Your claim, OTOH, hasn't shrunk, it's damn well disappeared. Talk
>> about failure - can't you even fake a cite to support that ridiculous
>> claim?
>
> No need, when the so-called academic experts prove to be just hot air.
I see one example of hot air, and that is your claim: "The huge majority
of cowboys were black or Chinese" and your repeated statement that there
is no need to support that claim. You don't have to question the
academic status of the questioners, just answer the question, and
support your claim. So far you have given nothing to support your claim,
except a lot of hot air.
--
Chel van Gennip (chel vangennip nl)
P. Roehling wrote:
> "Don Pearce" <[email protected]> wrote
>
>> Your claim shrinks somewhat when challenged. You have failed.
>
> "Pearce Consulting", huh?
>
> I hope you don't really get paid for using that mind,
Consultants always get paid ;-)
http://daveola.com/Resume/Joke.html
--
Chel van Gennip (chel vangennip nl)
On Nov 18, 6:03 pm, [email protected] (Don Pearce) wrote:
> On 18 Nov 2007 17:50:43 -0500, [email protected] (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
> >Don Pearce <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>Sure he did but what has that to do with North America? You are aware
> >>that he never went near the place in his life? Specifically not in
> >>1492, although he did make it to South America sometime around 1500,
> >>but by then everybody and his dog was going there.
>
> >Cuba is pretty near North America. Near enough to scare Kennedy anyway.
> >--scott
>
> Close, but no cigar (like the pun?). The first discovery was in 1497
> by John Cabot. He named the place after his sponsor, Richard Americ.
>
> d
>
> --
> Pearce Consultinghttp://www.pearce.uk.com
I can't say anything about your cowboy argument, but there's a good
chance you're wrong about the "Richard Americ" thing.
I was taught that the Americas were named after the Italian
cartographer Amerigo Vespucci.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amerigo_Vespucci
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americas#Naming
-Nathan
On Nov 18, 5:22 am, [email protected] (Don Pearce) wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 23:40:56 GMT, "The Henchman"
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ><[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> White Population in the World Set to Drop from 17% to 7% by 2050
>
> >> While the populations of Europe, Russia, and the US have levelled off
> >> and even decreased, the populations of China and Africa are
> >> accelerating beyond all expectations. Immigration reduced the
> >> percentage of Whites in the US from 99% when the US Constitution was
> >> written to only 71% today, and similar patterns are being followed in
> >> several European countries because of the failure by their governments
> >> to do anything about unbridled immigration.
>
> >The White Population is the US was 99% at the time of the constitution.
> >LOL. You are funny!!!!!!!!!!!! Care to cite a reference for that? That
> >must be one of the biggest outright lies I have ever heard....
>
> >99% indeed. I'll be chuckling about that one for a long long time.
>
> He's typical of his type, I'm afraid. I'm always amused at American
> cowboy films, with their virile white men doing brave things. The huge
> majority of cowboys were black or Chinese - and what they actually did
> was herd cattle. But I guess that won't put backsides on seats in
> movie theatres.
And what's your source for that bullshit?
"Don Pearce" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Your claim shrinks somewhat when challenged. You have failed.
His claim is that your claim is wrong. Your claim, which is an extraordinary
one, is that most of the cowboys in the old west were black or Chinese.
You've produced precisely zero documentation of this claim. Until and unless
you can produce some references to back it up, you're in a pretty poor spot
to be saying someone else has failed.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." (- Carl Sagan) So far
you haven't even produced ordinary evidence. If you have some, produce it.
Otherwise climb down.
Peace,
Paul
On Nov 18, 2:22 am, [email protected] (Don Pearce) wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 23:40:56 GMT, "The Henchman"
>
>
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ><[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> White Population in the World Set to Drop from 17% to 7% by 2050
>
> >> While the populations of Europe, Russia, and the US have levelled off
> >> and even decreased, the populations of China and Africa are
> >> accelerating beyond all expectations. Immigration reduced the
> >> percentage of Whites in the US from 99% when the US Constitution was
> >> written to only 71% today, and similar patterns are being followed in
> >> several European countries because of the failure by their governments
> >> to do anything about unbridled immigration.
>
> >The White Population is the US was 99% at the time of the constitution.
> >LOL. You are funny!!!!!!!!!!!! Care to cite a reference for that? That
> >must be one of the biggest outright lies I have ever heard....
>
> >99% indeed. I'll be chuckling about that one for a long long time.
>
> He's typical of his type, I'm afraid. I'm always amused at American
> cowboy films, with their virile white men doing brave things. The huge
> majority of cowboys were black or Chinese - and what they actually did
> was herd cattle. But I guess that won't put backsides on seats in
> movie theatres.
>
> d
>
> --
> Pearce Consultinghttp://www.pearce.uk.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
If one examines the trends in the UK and France, you guys have a
pretty good chance you will be reading the Koran by then. We may have
a racial stew here in the States but you guys have a Kosovo waiting to
happen. Better get some flame retardent for your car...
Jim Williams
Audio Upgrades
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Don Pearce) wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 01:37:33 -0700, Turby <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 08:12:29 GMT, [email protected] (Don Pearce)
> >wrote:
> >>On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 22:14:42 -0800, "P. Roehling"
> >><[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>"Don Pearce" <[email protected]> wrote
> >>>
> >>>> Don't believe you.
> >>>
> >>>Who cares what you believe? You also claim to believe that "the huge
> >>>majority of cowboys were black or Chinese". Now either cite your proofs
> >>>for
> >>>that claim or admit you were wrong.
> >>
> >>Your claim shrinks somewhat when challenged. You have failed.
> >
> >Your claim, OTOH, hasn't shrunk, it's damn well disappeared. Talk
> >about failure - can't you even fake a cite to support that ridiculous
> >claim?
>
> No need, when the so-called academic experts prove to be just hot air.
> Is that you too, or do you have something?
>
> d
"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's
mouth and remove all doubt." It's a bit late for you, I'm afraid.
--
Brendan Doyle
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> White Population in the World Set to Drop from 17% to 7% by 2050
>
> While the populations of Europe, Russia, and the US have levelled off
> and even decreased, the populations of China and Africa are
> accelerating beyond all expectations. Immigration reduced the
> percentage of Whites in the US from 99% when the US Constitution was
> written to only 71% today, and similar patterns are being followed in
> several European countries because of the failure by their governments
> to do anything about unbridled immigration.
The White Population is the US was 99% at the time of the constitution.
LOL. You are funny!!!!!!!!!!!! Care to cite a reference for that? That
must be one of the biggest outright lies I have ever heard....
99% indeed. I'll be chuckling about that one for a long long time.
On Nov 20, 3:40 pm, [email protected] (Don Pearce) wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 08:36:06 -0700, "Bob Myers"
>
>
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >"Don Pearce" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> I made no academic claim. My information comes from a variety of
> >> sources, mainly investigative journalistic programmes on the TV. Had I
> >> made an academic claim, you would be perfectly justified to call me on
> >> it. I didn't. Roehling did, I called him and he proved not to have the
> >> credentials he claimed.
>
> >OK, Don, but I think it may be time to admit that your
> >"investigative journalistic programmes" may have erred here.
> >I've lived in the western U.S. most of my life and am reasonably
> >familiar with the history of the region. While you are correct
> >in the belief that there were a fair number of black and Chinese
> >persons working here throughout the latter half of the 19th
> >century, it is simply not correct to think that the "huge majority
> >of cowboys were black or Chinese." There certainly were
> >cowboys of both races in the American Old West - but they
> >were definitely not the majority.
>
> >You may have confused what these programs were saying
> >re the West (within the continental U.S.) with what they may
> >have said about U.S. possessions in the late 19th and early
> >20th centuries. For example, Hawaii (although it's certainly
> >not the place you first think of when someone says "cowboy")
> >did (and still does) have a fair number of "cowboys," and
> >through the period in question brought in a LOT of Chinese
> >and Japanese laborers, some of whom certainly wound up in their
> >share of "ranch" jobs.
>
> >Bob M.
>
> I was quite specific that it was the southern setups that were mostly
> black. It was less true in the more norther areas. And no, I wasn't
> mistaken about what was said; it was a very interesting programme
> (made by somebody with ACTUAL academic credentials, not pretend night
> class ones, you understand).
>
> d
>
> --
> Pearce Consultinghttp://www.pearce.uk.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Another brit blowhard. Agrees with nothing, is right about everything
and spends immense amounts of energy trying to prove how clever he is.
I see this a lot with other brits I deal with. I think it's that whole
ass whooping thing during the Revolution and then again in 1812. But
you need to relax Donnie. As our record during WWII will attest (how
we saved the brits from being conquered), we are a forgiving bunch.
Just admit you are wrong and all will be forgiven.
Chuck
Don Pearce wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 08:36:06 -0700, "Bob Myers"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
... snip
>>
>>You may have confused what these programs were saying
>>re the West (within the continental U.S.) with what they may
>>have said about U.S. possessions in the late 19th and early
>>20th centuries. For example, Hawaii (although it's certainly
>>not the place you first think of when someone says "cowboy")
>>did (and still does) have a fair number of "cowboys," and
>>through the period in question brought in a LOT of Chinese
>>and Japanese laborers, some of whom certainly wound up in their
>>share of "ranch" jobs.
>>
>>Bob M.
>>
>
> I was quite specific that it was the southern setups that were mostly
> black. It was less true in the more norther areas. And no, I wasn't
> mistaken about what was said; it was a very interesting programme
> (made by somebody with ACTUAL academic credentials, not pretend night
> class ones, you understand).
Well then, the information you got off the television was flat out wrong
(not that something like that would ever happen) and was apparently the
result of someone with a revisionist approach to history. Having had
family who were involved in agriculture from the late 1800's on in Texas, I
can assure you that your person with quote actual unquote academic
credentials was talking out of an orifice other than that normally used for
speech.
As others have said, the Irish, Chinese, and Black laborers were an
integral part of that project. But as to being the majority of those who
rode the open range herding cattle, that is not even close to true
historical information.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 08:36:06 -0700, "Bob Myers"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Don Pearce" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> I made no academic claim. My information comes from a variety of
>> sources, mainly investigative journalistic programmes on the TV. Had I
>> made an academic claim, you would be perfectly justified to call me on
>> it. I didn't. Roehling did, I called him and he proved not to have the
>> credentials he claimed.
>
>OK, Don, but I think it may be time to admit that your
>"investigative journalistic programmes" may have erred here.
>I've lived in the western U.S. most of my life and am reasonably
>familiar with the history of the region. While you are correct
>in the belief that there were a fair number of black and Chinese
>persons working here throughout the latter half of the 19th
>century, it is simply not correct to think that the "huge majority
>of cowboys were black or Chinese." There certainly were
>cowboys of both races in the American Old West - but they
>were definitely not the majority.
>
>You may have confused what these programs were saying
>re the West (within the continental U.S.) with what they may
>have said about U.S. possessions in the late 19th and early
>20th centuries. For example, Hawaii (although it's certainly
>not the place you first think of when someone says "cowboy")
>did (and still does) have a fair number of "cowboys," and
>through the period in question brought in a LOT of Chinese
>and Japanese laborers, some of whom certainly wound up in their
>share of "ranch" jobs.
>
>Bob M.
>
I was quite specific that it was the southern setups that were mostly
black. It was less true in the more norther areas. And no, I wasn't
mistaken about what was said; it was a very interesting programme
(made by somebody with ACTUAL academic credentials, not pretend night
class ones, you understand).
d
--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 12:14:58 GMT, Brendan Doyle <[email protected]> wrote:
>"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's
>mouth and remove all doubt." It's a bit late for you, I'm afraid.
So for you a sensible person is somebody who swallows what he has been
told whole, challenges nothing. You must be another of those in this
group suffering from the disease of religion. You exhibit the
symptoms.
d
--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Don Pearce) wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 12:14:58 GMT, Brendan Doyle <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's
> >mouth and remove all doubt." It's a bit late for you, I'm afraid.
>
> So for you a sensible person is somebody who swallows what he has been
> told whole, challenges nothing. You must be another of those in this
> group suffering from the disease of religion. You exhibit the
> symptoms.
>
> d
You know nothing about me whatsoever. And I can assure you that your
baseless assumption completely misses the mark. You might want to engage
your brain before your fingers next time.
--
Brendan Doyle
Don Pearce wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 08:36:06 -0700, "Bob Myers"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "Don Pearce" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> I made no academic claim. My information comes from a variety of
>>> sources, mainly investigative journalistic programmes on the TV. Had I
>>> made an academic claim, you would be perfectly justified to call me on
>>> it. I didn't. Roehling did, I called him and he proved not to have the
>>> credentials he claimed.
>> OK, Don, but I think it may be time to admit that your
>> "investigative journalistic programmes" may have erred here.
>> I've lived in the western U.S. most of my life and am reasonably
>> familiar with the history of the region. While you are correct
>> in the belief that there were a fair number of black and Chinese
>> persons working here throughout the latter half of the 19th
>> century, it is simply not correct to think that the "huge majority
>> of cowboys were black or Chinese." There certainly were
>> cowboys of both races in the American Old West - but they
>> were definitely not the majority.
>>
>> You may have confused what these programs were saying
>> re the West (within the continental U.S.) with what they may
>> have said about U.S. possessions in the late 19th and early
>> 20th centuries. For example, Hawaii (although it's certainly
>> not the place you first think of when someone says "cowboy")
>> did (and still does) have a fair number of "cowboys," and
>> through the period in question brought in a LOT of Chinese
>> and Japanese laborers, some of whom certainly wound up in their
>> share of "ranch" jobs.
>>
>> Bob M.
>>
>
> I was quite specific that it was the southern setups that were mostly
> black.
Not until your bluff was called you didn't.
Here's your earlier post.......
"He's typical of his type, I'm afraid. I'm always amused at American
cowboy films, with their virile white men doing brave things. The huge
majority of cowboys were black or Chinese - and what they actually did
was herd cattle. But I guess that won't put backsides on seats in
movie theatres.
d"
....in which you specific about "The huge majority of cowboys were black
or Chinese".....No mention of the South. Then you added this post later
on.........
"Ah, I see you studied your history from such authoritative works as
Rawhide and Wagon Train. Certainly in the northern reaches there were
considerable numbers of white cowboys, but further south there were
countless operations staffed almost entirely by black labour even
after abolition. It is true that most of these men did their work on
foot rather than mounted - maybe you think this means they don't count
as real cowboys?
d"
....where you mention the South, but the Chinese have disappeared?
> It was less true in the more norther areas. And no, I wasn't
> mistaken about what was said; it was a very interesting programme
> (made by somebody with ACTUAL academic credentials, not pretend night
> class ones, you understand).
>
> d
>
TV is entertainment first, factual if your'e lucky. Don't believe
everything you see on TV. :)
.....................................................................
Jack and Tom, are having a beer in a saloon when a cowboy walks in with
an Indian's head under his arm. He hands it to the barman, and the
barman hands him money. The barman turns to them and says, "I hate
Indians. Last week they burnt my barn to the ground and killed my wife
and three kids. Anybody brings me the head of an Indian, I'll give them
a thousand bucks."
Jack and Tom guzzle their beers and leave to go hunt Indians. After a
while, they finally spot one. Jack throws a rock, it hits him on the
head, the Indian falls off his horse, and rolls seventy feet down a
ravine. The two cowboys make their way down the ravine and Tom pulls
out his knife to claim their trophy.
Jack says, "Tom, take a look at this."
Tom says, "Not now, I'm busy."
Jack says, "I really think you should have a look."
Tom says, "Asshole, can't you see I'm busy? I've got a thousand dollars
in my hand."
Jack says, "Please, Tom, take a look."
Tom looks up at the top of the ravine, and there's five thousand Indians
standing around the rim.
Tom says, "Fuck! We're gonna be millionaires!"
"Don Pearce" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I was quite specific that it was the southern setups that were mostly
> black. It was less true in the more norther areas. And no, I wasn't
> mistaken about what was said; it was a very interesting programme
> (made by somebody with ACTUAL academic credentials, not pretend night
> class ones, you understand).
Sorry, Don, but credentials mean very, very little when
the facts turn out to be incorrect, as they do here. Your
original claim, as I think everyone will recall, was based on
your amusement at what you referred to as "American
cowboy films," which we can only assume are those of the
genre commonly referred to as "Westerns." Now, the area
covered by the American phrase "the Old West" is
certainly enormous - in some contexts, it would include
pretty much everything west of the Mississippi River,
from Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona to the south, and
up to Idaho, Montana, and the Dakotas in the north. By
"southern setups" in this context you would have to be
referring to the Arizona-through-Texas swath, but of those
three (actually, at the time, Arizona and New Mexico
were the New Mexico Territory, until 1912) only Texas was
ever a slave state, and so had the highest black population
following the American Civil War. Even so, the majority of
cowboys in Texas were of European descent.
If you still insist on academic credentials (I mean, what would
I know - I just live here; and wouldn't dream of lecturing you
on UK history, but I digress), then please consider the following
from Dr. Richard W. Slatta, professor of history at North
Carolina State University (and one who has written extensively
on the history of cowboys and the American Old West; he's
rather well known among Old West historians as the "cowboy
professor"):
"Frontier regions lack the extensive documentation typical
of cities. The lack of documents makes it difficult to compute
the number of cowboys or their ethnicity. According to the
highest estimate, the trail drives north from Texas (1866 to
1895) employed about 63 percent white, 25 percent black,
and 12 percent Mexican or Mexican-American cowboys.
Unfortunately, most black and Hispanic cowboys faced social
and economic discrimination in the West as they did elsewhere
in the country."
For more information, see:
http://social.chass.ncsu.edu/slatta/essays/blackcowboys.htm
http://social.chass.ncsu.edu/slatta/slattabks.htm
As to the "Chinese cowboys" - Asian immigrants in the West,
through the end of the 19th century were concentrated in the
Pacific Northwest and California coastal and mining regions;
they did tend to spread eastward, but not as cowboys - rather,
as was noted earlier, as railroad and mining workers. I am sure
that, given their numbers, a few no doubt wound up as
"cowboys" - but this was the exception rather than the rule. As
noted in the above, non-white cowboys were almost invariably
either black or Hispanic.
Bob M.
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 10:13:08 GMT, [email protected] (Don Pearce)
wrote:
>On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 11:00:23 +0100, Chel van Gennip
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Don Pearce wrote:
>>> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 01:37:33 -0700, Turby <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Your claim, OTOH, hasn't shrunk, it's damn well disappeared. Talk
>>>> about failure - can't you even fake a cite to support that ridiculous
>>>> claim?
>>>
>>> No need, when the so-called academic experts prove to be just hot air.
>>
>>I see one example of hot air, and that is your claim: "The huge majority
>>of cowboys were black or Chinese" and your repeated statement that there
>>is no need to support that claim. You don't have to question the
>>academic status of the questioners, just answer the question, and
>>support your claim. So far you have given nothing to support your claim,
>>except a lot of hot air.
>
>I made no academic claim. My information comes from a variety of
>sources, mainly investigative journalistic programmes on the TV.
Otherwise known as Rawhide and Wagon Train.
>Had I
>made an academic claim, you would be perfectly justified to call me on
>it. I didn't. Roehling did, I called him and he proved not to have the
>credentials he claimed.
heh heh. You really got us. You're obviously just one of those
attention-starved trolls who will say anything to get a rise. Ah, yes.
Well, consider this your 2 minutes of fame. Now, back to your cubicle
you go.
--
Turby the Turbosurfer
"The Henchman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:c_K%[email protected]...
>
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> White Population in the World Set to Drop from 17% to 7% by 2050
>>
>> While the populations of Europe, Russia, and the US have levelled off
>> and even decreased, the populations of China and Africa are
>> accelerating beyond all expectations. Immigration reduced the
>> percentage of Whites in the US from 99% when the US Constitution was
>> written to only 71% today, and similar patterns are being followed in
>> several European countries because of the failure by their governments
>> to do anything about unbridled immigration.
>
>
> The White Population is the US was 99% at the time of the constitution.
> LOL. You are funny!!!!!!!!!!!! Care to cite a reference for that? That
> must be one of the biggest outright lies I have ever heard....
>
> 99% indeed. I'll be chuckling about that one for a long long time.
>
I had the very same reaction. I guess the OP isn't factoring in the non
voting population.
Heck back then even the women had no say or vote in things.
Isn't it wonderful that the racists that use reverse discrimination have
such a broad shouldered target to rest thier justifacations upon?
On Nov 18, 9:32 am, "Bob Myers" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > Even if this were true, so what? Do you think that non-whites are somehow
> > less worthy or less human than whites?
>
> Gee, Arny, I would think that it's pretty obvious that, yes, this
> moron thinks that non-whites are somehow "less worthy or
> less human" than whites. I'm not sure which group you're seeing
> this stuff in (guessing rec.audio.pro, from the days I used to see
> you when I hung around the audio groups), but I'm getting it via
> rec.motorcycles, where unfortunately we seem to attract more
> than the usual share of brainless bigots who post the idiocy.
> Exactly WHY they post it, I've never been really clear on - on
> the surface, of course, it seems like an incredibly clumsy attempt
> to demonstrate some supposed "superiority" of the white race, but
> it always winds up being so completely lacking in anything even
> resembling intelligence that it winds up doing just the opposite.
> Assuming, of course, that the orignial posters are white; as far as
> I can tell, many of them shouldn't even qualify as human.
>
> Bob M.
You just stuck a wrench in your credibility with the comment about the
white race. Those anthropologists that use to say there were 3 races
have all concluded that there is less then .001% DNA change between
any and all people and that we are ALL one race. There is no white
race recognized.
Having said that, it doesn't change the fact that we all have our pre
conceived hate and most of us got it from our parents. Take a look at
old movies and gasp with the hate people had just a few years back...
Anyway, my prejudice is simple, anyone that thinks to much of them
self or values money over life or acts stupid on purpose or doesn't
care about the well being of others if stepping on others will raise
something in there, life gets my hate vote.
On Nov 19, 3:57 pm, [email protected] (Don Pearce) wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 16:12:10 -0600, Mark Olson <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Don Pearce wrote:
> >> On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 11:38:49 -0800, "P. Roehling"
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>>"Don Pearce" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> >>>>Ah, I see you studied your history from such authoritative works as
> >>>>Rawhide and Wagon Train.
>
> >>>Heh. I majored in history -and psychology- and taught at the University of
> >>>California for twelve years thereafter. That included reading really
> >>>honest-to-goodness history texts written by really honest-to-goodness
> >>>American history scholars, and it's pretty amusing to hear a Brit try to
> >>>teach American history to someone who was raised in the American southwest,
> >>>went to school there, and has taught the subject himself.
>
> >>>But hey; feel free to cite your authoritative texts that show that (in your
> >>>words) "the huge majority of cowboys were black or Chinese".
>
> >> Don't believe you. Give me some references to your papers so I can
> >> look you up. I thought Google's academic search might throw up a few,
> >> but strangely there was nought but silence.
>
> >Unless my reading comprehension is inferior to yours, Mr. Roehling
> >never claimed to have published any papers. He did say he read
> >history texts and taught history.
>
> When you teach at a University, one of your jobs is to write and
> publish papers. It is what keeps you credible within the faculty. If
> he wasn't publishing papers, he wasn't teaching.
And the reason for your original assertion that the majority
of cowboys were non-white was what exactly ?
An economic theory perhaps ?
Any evidence of any kind ?
"Arny Krueger" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Even if this were true, so what? Do you think that non-whites are somehow
> less worthy or less human than whites?
Gee, Arny, I would think that it's pretty obvious that, yes, this
moron thinks that non-whites are somehow "less worthy or
less human" than whites. I'm not sure which group you're seeing
this stuff in (guessing rec.audio.pro, from the days I used to see
you when I hung around the audio groups), but I'm getting it via
rec.motorcycles, where unfortunately we seem to attract more
than the usual share of brainless bigots who post the idiocy.
Exactly WHY they post it, I've never been really clear on - on
the surface, of course, it seems like an incredibly clumsy attempt
to demonstrate some supposed "superiority" of the white race, but
it always winds up being so completely lacking in anything even
resembling intelligence that it winds up doing just the opposite.
Assuming, of course, that the orignial posters are white; as far as
I can tell, many of them shouldn't even qualify as human.
Bob M.
Don Pearce <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Sure he did but what has that to do with North America? You are aware
>that he never went near the place in his life? Specifically not in
>1492, although he did make it to South America sometime around 1500,
>but by then everybody and his dog was going there.
Cuba is pretty near North America. Near enough to scare Kennedy anyway.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
"Don Pearce" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I made no academic claim. My information comes from a variety of
> sources, mainly investigative journalistic programmes on the TV. Had I
> made an academic claim, you would be perfectly justified to call me on
> it. I didn't. Roehling did, I called him and he proved not to have the
> credentials he claimed.
OK, Don, but I think it may be time to admit that your
"investigative journalistic programmes" may have erred here.
I've lived in the western U.S. most of my life and am reasonably
familiar with the history of the region. While you are correct
in the belief that there were a fair number of black and Chinese
persons working here throughout the latter half of the 19th
century, it is simply not correct to think that the "huge majority
of cowboys were black or Chinese." There certainly were
cowboys of both races in the American Old West - but they
were definitely not the majority.
You may have confused what these programs were saying
re the West (within the continental U.S.) with what they may
have said about U.S. possessions in the late 19th and early
20th centuries. For example, Hawaii (although it's certainly
not the place you first think of when someone says "cowboy")
did (and still does) have a fair number of "cowboys," and
through the period in question brought in a LOT of Chinese
and Japanese laborers, some of whom certainly wound up in their
share of "ranch" jobs.
Bob M.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Don Pearce) wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 16:12:10 -0600, Mark Olson <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Don Pearce wrote:
> >> On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 11:38:49 -0800, "P. Roehling"
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>>"Don Pearce" <[email protected]> wrote
> >
> >>>>Ah, I see you studied your history from such authoritative works as
> >>>>Rawhide and Wagon Train.
> >>>
> >>>Heh. I majored in history -and psychology- and taught at the University of
> >>>California for twelve years thereafter. That included reading really
> >>>honest-to-goodness history texts written by really honest-to-goodness
> >>>American history scholars, and it's pretty amusing to hear a Brit try to
> >>>teach American history to someone who was raised in the American
> >>>southwest,
> >>>went to school there, and has taught the subject himself.
> >>>
> >>>But hey; feel free to cite your authoritative texts that show that (in
> >>>your
> >>>words) "the huge majority of cowboys were black or Chinese".
> >
> >> Don't believe you. Give me some references to your papers so I can
> >> look you up. I thought Google's academic search might throw up a few,
> >> but strangely there was nought but silence.
> >
> >Unless my reading comprehension is inferior to yours, Mr. Roehling
> >never claimed to have published any papers. He did say he read
> >history texts and taught history.
>
> When you teach at a University, one of your jobs is to write and
> publish papers. It is what keeps you credible within the faculty. If
> he wasn't publishing papers, he wasn't teaching.
>
> d
Many if not most of us teaching at a university are lecturers and are
not expected to do research or publish.
-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x ---- Jay's Attic Studio ----x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 08:12:29 GMT, [email protected] (Don Pearce)
wrote:
>On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 22:14:42 -0800, "P. Roehling"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>"Don Pearce" <[email protected]> wrote
>>
>>> Don't believe you.
>>
>>Who cares what you believe? You also claim to believe that "the huge
>>majority of cowboys were black or Chinese". Now either cite your proofs for
>>that claim or admit you were wrong.
>
>Your claim shrinks somewhat when challenged. You have failed.
Your claim, OTOH, hasn't shrunk, it's damn well disappeared. Talk
about failure - can't you even fake a cite to support that ridiculous
claim?
--
Turby the Turbosurfer
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 22:14:42 -0800, "P. Roehling"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Don Pearce" <[email protected]> wrote
>
>> Don't believe you.
>
>Who cares what you believe? You also claim to believe that "the huge
>majority of cowboys were black or Chinese". Now either cite your proofs for
>that claim or admit you were wrong.
>
>Once again: there were quite a few Chinese in the western United States
>between the California Gold Rush of 1849 and the beginning of the 20th
>century. They did lots of different jobs (in fact, the town I live in sports
>hundreds of split-granite-boulder walls and curbs that were built pre-1900
>almost exclusively by Chinese labor) but Chinese cowboys? While it's always
>possible there were a few who got missed by the historians, I have seen no
>records of them existing at all; much less being extremely numerous.
I inherited a collection of western books that came from an old
Montana rancher. Some cool stuff. Among them are photographic
histories. A quick study shows not a single image of a Chinese. Other
sources say up to 30% of cowboys were Mexican and black. Of course, in
the early days, virtually all of the cowboys in California were
Mexican.
--
Turby the Turbosurfer
Wow, so you just as completly backwards from the original poster. "The huge
majority of cowboys were black or Chinese"? what history book did you read?
There were too many racisits for this to be even remotly true.
"Don Pearce" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 23:40:56 GMT, "The Henchman"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>><[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> White Population in the World Set to Drop from 17% to 7% by 2050
>>>
>>> While the populations of Europe, Russia, and the US have levelled off
>>> and even decreased, the populations of China and Africa are
>>> accelerating beyond all expectations. Immigration reduced the
>>> percentage of Whites in the US from 99% when the US Constitution was
>>> written to only 71% today, and similar patterns are being followed in
>>> several European countries because of the failure by their governments
>>> to do anything about unbridled immigration.
>>
>>
>>The White Population is the US was 99% at the time of the constitution.
>>LOL. You are funny!!!!!!!!!!!! Care to cite a reference for that? That
>>must be one of the biggest outright lies I have ever heard....
>>
>>99% indeed. I'll be chuckling about that one for a long long time.
>>
>
> He's typical of his type, I'm afraid. I'm always amused at American
> cowboy films, with their virile white men doing brave things. The huge
> majority of cowboys were black or Chinese - and what they actually did
> was herd cattle. But I guess that won't put backsides on seats in
> movie theatres.
>
> d
>
> --
> Pearce Consulting
> http://www.pearce.uk.com
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> White Population in the World Set to Drop from 17% to 7%
> by 2050
> While the populations of Europe, Russia, and the US have
> levelled off and even decreased,
Bad rendition of current events. The population of the US is continuing to
increase.
> the populations of China
> and Africa are accelerating beyond all expectations.
You forgot about India. No small omission. Yet another bad rendition of
current events.
> Immigration reduced the percentage of Whites in the US
> from 99% when the US Constitution was written to only 71%
> today,
Even if this were true, so what? Do you think that non-whites are somehow
less worthy or less human than whites? Why would that be? Do you think that
genetics might have something to do with it? If so, forget that because very
few people in the world are racially pure.
Do you think that just because a person has dark skin they are non-white?
That's silly because there are plenty of examples of people whose majority
of genes come from white people, who have dark skin and other physical
traits of so-called non-whites, and vice-versa. If genes are that important,
why aren't you showing due respect for people's genes instead of the color
of their skin?
Do you think that racial purity is necessarily a good thing? Again, if
racial characteristic and genetics are that important to you, why are you
discounting the benefits of hybrid vigor?
Not only don't you have a clue about current events, you don't know much
about history. There were a ton of African slaves in the south when the US
Constitution was written, which is one reason why it was written in such a
way as to not obviously prohibit slavery. Some estimate that the population
of the US included about 20% african slaves during the mid 1700s.
> and similar patterns are being followed in several
> European countries because of the failure by their
> governments to do anything about unbridled immigration.
Now cccccdfgdfgdgdfg, you're back talking trash about current population
trends.
> http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/8712/population2hm0.gif
Not sufficient evidence to support the hypothesis that was presented by the
OP.