Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
News

Chinese Explorers 'Discovered America'? 822

FLY9999 writes: "According to British historian and map expert Gavin Menzies, Chinese explorers discovered America way before Columbus did. He will disclose his information to the prestigious Royal Geographical Society (RGS) at a conference next week."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Chinese Explorers 'Discovered America'?

Comments Filter:
  • by Fred Millington ( 444639 ) on Friday March 08, 2002 @06:56AM (#3129381) Homepage
    Well, it seems that now scientists think that not only Egyptians and Vikings 'discovered' America, but now Chinese. Well, I wonder how many other sea-faring cultures have landed on these lee shores in search of a land of riches? Sort of brings to mind various historical-fantasy novels.

  • Discovered? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 08, 2002 @06:56AM (#3129382)
    One theory is that so-called Native Americans came across the land bridge at what is the the Bering Strait. Weren't these Native Americans already here when Columbus landed on the West Indies in 1492?

    It might very well be that the Chinese discovered California for China before Columbus discovered Florida for Spain, but if there were already people living here, well, it would appear the area was already discovered.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 08, 2002 @06:56AM (#3129383)
    There is some evidence that there have been multiple waves of settlers coming to America over the last 20000 years, each exterminating the people that preceded them and each wreaking havoc on the environment. Europeans were following a proud tradition.
  • by rufusdufus ( 450462 ) on Friday March 08, 2002 @07:01AM (#3129397)
    There is strong evidence that people as diverse as the Phoenicians, the Vikings, the Irish, the Welsh, the Chinese, the Japanese and English fisherman were actually in the New World, in some cases, millennia before 1492.

    Search internet for lots of sources: One with a short description here [millersville.edu]
  • Re:Eric the Red (Score:2, Interesting)

    by leviramsey ( 248057 ) on Friday March 08, 2002 @07:07AM (#3129415) Journal
    According to the times in the article, this shouldn't change who is noted for discovering America. Isn't it Eric the Red and the Vikings in 1440 A.D.?

    IIRC, Eric discovered Greenland and Iceland. His son Leif made the jump to somewhere between Newfoundland and Virginia.

    Of course, there is some evidence that Columbus wasn't even the first Catholic western European to settle North America. Some have speculated that the Knights Templar fled France in 1307 and landed in Massachusetts/Rhode Island.

    It's the what-ifs like this that make history so great.

  • by Interfacer ( 560564 ) on Friday March 08, 2002 @07:07AM (#3129419)
    didn't i read somwhere that the vikings and norsemen discovered america some few 100 years before columbus too? and i agree with the original subject: the only 'true' americans are the natives. all the rest: black, white or other are immigrants.
  • It's not a big deal (Score:4, Interesting)

    by _Ash_ ( 126458 ) on Friday March 08, 2002 @07:09AM (#3129425) Homepage
    According to the article:

    When explorer Christopher Columbus landed in America in 1492, he was 72 years behind a Chinese expeditionary force, which had already made its way to the area.

    And although Captain James Cook was credited with discovering Australia for the British Empire in 1770, the Chinese had mapped the island continent 337 years earlier.

    Sailing in 1,000-foot-long ships with nine massive junk-style sails, the Chinese also circumnavigated the world a century before explorer Ferdinand Magellan's epic journey, and reached South America.


    The reason why Columbus, Cook and Magellan get the credit is because they were Europeans. And, in those days, Europe was the center of the world. Western civilization sprung from Europe so to speak. Think about it: most (both north and south) American citizens have ancestors in Europe, so do the citizens in Australia.

    For Europeans, America and Australia didn't exist until Columbus and Cook hit their shores (the Vikings did it before Columbus ofcourse but that was forgotten). After that, lots and lots of Europeans emigrated to America and Australia (most of them for economic reasons ofcourse). Contact between them and the homefront was never lost and therefore Columbus, Cook and Magellan deserve some credit. Maybe not for first discovering the continents but for putting them on the map.

  • How... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by garethwi ( 118563 ) on Friday March 08, 2002 @07:14AM (#3129440) Homepage
    ...do you discover a country when there are already people living there?
  • by green.vervet ( 565158 ) <cheyenne.martin@NOspaM.flashmail.com> on Friday March 08, 2002 @07:22AM (#3129451)
    The history books are always slow to change. We know, for instance, that Basque fishermen fished the Grand Banks (off Newfoundland) for at least a hundred years before Columbus sailed. It was a well-kept secret, but it was often argued that Columbus' wife (who was Basque) let him in on the secret. The Viking settlement on Newfoundland lasted a long time, so there was never much of a hiatus in contact between Europe and North America. Indications of trade with Asia on the West Coast of North America are long-standing - Chinese goods reached as far as Mexico. If this presentation is true (and it would be interesting to see what he is actually presenting, as opposed to what is reported) it would be welcome just as a response to those historians who speculate, what would have happened if zheng he had not stopped at East Africa and gone on to Europe? Would we all be speaking Chinese? The answer would be nothing, and no (or not yet, anyway). The difference between the two voyages of discovery was that for the Chinese, their motive was altruistic: to discover the world and share their civilization with others. For the Europeans, their motive was greed. The difference being, when discovery was starting to bankrupt the government in China it was first on the cutback list. Greed showed to be a more durable basis for exploration than altruism.
  • geee (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Iamthefallen ( 523816 ) <Gmail name: Iamthefallen> on Friday March 08, 2002 @07:25AM (#3129456) Homepage Journal

    And I thought the Native Americans, aka Indians would have discovered it since they lived there, silly me!

    The chinese couldn't have discovered it first, per our definition Discovering means "found and claimed by a white person with european descent".

  • Yes, and ... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SimonK ( 7722 ) on Friday March 08, 2002 @07:31AM (#3129470)
    Henry Sinclair beat the Chinese by another 30 years. When he got there he found people in Nova Scotia speaking a Celtic dialect, He, in turn, was directed there by a couple of Venetians. The Vikings beat him by a few hundred years, and there is plenty of evidence that European fishermen had been sailing across the Atlantic pretty much all through history.

    The only thing that makes Columbus different is that by the time he got there the mechanisms and motivation to publicise the discovery and start the process of conquest and colonisation were in place.
  • by gutigre ( 539743 ) on Friday March 08, 2002 @08:17AM (#3129537)
    The difference between the two voyages of discovery was that for the Chinese, their motive was altruistic: to discover the world and share their civilization with others. For the Europeans, their motive was greed.

    You really think the Chinese emperors were such good, moral people? No, their interests were just as strongly economic, but America simply contained nothing China needed or wanted. While Spaniards and Portuguese were scouring the Americas in search of silver and gold (not by coincidence, Columbus' journey was inspired by Marco Polo's tale of imperial China), the Chinese were bullying smaller states around the Indian Ocean rim into paying tribute. America, lacking in precious minerals and fragrant herbs, simply was of no interest to the Chinese. It was of interest, though, to a growing European population that demanded space and raw materials.

    We remember Columbus better than any Chinese explorer for the same reason that we remember Alexander Graham Bell for inventing the telephone, though Elisha Gray had build one earlier (but missed Bell's patent by a few hours).
  • Uhhh....... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Cranial Dome ( 28458 ) on Friday March 08, 2002 @08:23AM (#3129550)
    .....it still amazes me that so-called educated people still dispute who "discovered" lands already populated by humans for THOUSANDS of years -- as if their existence and lives don't "count" for anything.

    ...all those formerly pristine frontiers just quietly awaiting their future deforestation, mass flora/fauna species extinction, genocide, colonialism, and natural disaster events.

    Whew -- on second thought, I guess "America" is lucky all those folks were "racing" to discover it. Those natives sure weren't doing much with it. If not for that race, it would still be an unspoiled, underpopulated, wild, undeveloped, unpolluted, useless area. Only lately has it begun to realize it's full potential!
  • by nhavar ( 115351 ) on Friday March 08, 2002 @08:28AM (#3129558) Homepage
    Actually if you look at the build, language, art, and customs of the "Native Americans" you will notice many similarities to the northern chinese nomadic populace. This is probably because that is the exact area that the native american ancestors came from, whether crossing a land bridge or by more direct ocean crossing. I think we're finding more and more that our ancestors (all of them white/red/whatever) were wildly nomadic and roamed to a lot more areas than we would have thought possible.
  • by dinotrac ( 18304 ) on Friday March 08, 2002 @08:28AM (#3129559) Journal
    Can that really be true?
    On nine sails?

    The freakin' Titanic was only 900 feet long and needed 31,000 steam-driven shaft horsepower just to get halfway across.

    Thousand foot wooden ships with a single sail every hundred feet or so were either a remarkable engineering accomplishment or a mariner's nightmare.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 08, 2002 @08:28AM (#3129560)
    I am a Native American and I just wanted to let the SlashDot community know that I believe that I am speaking on behalf of my people when I tell you that the "from the native-americans-don't-count dept." comment under the posted article on the SlashDot homepage.

    It is bad enough that my people barely have a voice in a nation that was once ours alone, and now we have to stand by while you insult us by saying we don't count. Why don't we count? Because our love of mother earth over-shadows our lust for power and strife among the nations? You didn't even bother to capitalize "Native American", as I'm sure you would have capitalized any other nationality.

    You may laugh at my people now and see them as weak. But vengeance will be ours when the great spirit calls us and the winds blow our ashes with the dust. We will be worshiped with the earth and people will say - there is a land, and there is her people, they are one.
  • by skribe ( 26534 ) on Friday March 08, 2002 @08:29AM (#3129564) Homepage
    Actually, Cook wasn't even the first European to discover Australia. Dutchmen Willem Janszoon, from the Duyfken [duyfken.com], mapped the top end in 1606, and Dirk Hartog landed on an island (now named after him) off the coast of Western Australia (WA) in 1616. In fact several Dutch 'explorers' visited WA in the years before the English laid claim to it and recently there has been suggestions that a Dutch colony was established in the North-West about one-hundred years before the English colony on the east-coast at Botany Bay (now Sydney).
  • by marijne ( 536748 ) on Friday March 08, 2002 @08:47AM (#3129599)
    actually settlers, drifting in small boats on the currents of the ocean, have probably landed all along Americas west coast. The Nowegian guy Thor Heierdal proved this when he built the Contiki and the other boat (I forgot it's name) from material growing in the ilands in the Indonesian archipel and used this to sail across the Pacific from the Indonesian archipel. It took him two tries, but he got as far as Easter Iland. this is of course just one of the many way's in which people reached the worlds remote continents, next to crossing the Bering street (the Inuit way) and crossing the atlantic from Ysland (the Viking way)
  • by thogard ( 43403 ) on Friday March 08, 2002 @09:03AM (#3129629) Homepage
    The boat that was found under the pyramid in Giza was only slightly smaller than the Mayflower. While it wasn't built for ocean voyages, it does seem to be built stronger than the repoduction of the Mayflower I saw.

    A common picture in tombs have a picture of the deceased holding a knife to the neck of an Indian or Ethiopian. There are reports that they knew of at least four other races 3000 years ago. There are almost no detailed drawings of ships or maps. There are also reports that the Egypteans didn't go far in their ships but hired crews from other areas. Maybe they had some superstition about going too far from home.

    Some of the survey maps from 3000 to 5000 years ago have areas that are very accurate. As in better than the ones done in the 1800's by the French and require round earth calculations. There is an map of the entire coast of Africa in the British Museum so someone was going long distances in boats and getting back. I'm not sure the ones that got to Australia ever got back since a long boat at that time had a high risk of being a one way trip to fish food.
  • Re:So? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by markmoss ( 301064 ) on Friday March 08, 2002 @09:05AM (#3129635)
    Exploration is one thing. Exploiting a discovery across an ocean is quite another. The Vikings had too many opportunities closer to home to leave very many of them interested in taking up farms in Newfoundland. (One group had already conquered Russia; another conquered a province of France, became Christians, then conquered England, Ireland, Sicily, Jerusalem, ...) So they didn't get a big enough colony to fight off the indian tribes. There wasn't much chance they could get along with them. Lief Ericson's father had been run out of two countries for murdering his neighbors, and in America Lief couldn't even speak the neighbors' language before he started off by stealing their land...

    So the Vikings might have ranged along the coast, and their fishermen might have landed there to dry cod for some centuries. There are also indications that English fishermen were taking cod from the Grand Banks well before Columbus sailed, and of course they would have noticed the nearby land. But in 1492, Europeans were finally becoming ready to cross an ocean and _stay_. It was no longer possible to loot the middle east under guise of a crusade. Looting each other led to early death far more often than to wealth. But now they had much improved sailing ships so they could go out and loot new lands...

    Of course, those Englishmen who landed at Jamestown in the expectation of digging gold up on the beach, or stealing it from the Indians, were sorely disappointed. They had to turn farmers just to survive -- and then farming turned out to be quite lucrative, especially once explorers along the African coast found a solution to the labor problem...
  • by Alien54 ( 180860 ) on Friday March 08, 2002 @10:15AM (#3129926) Journal
    If you dig around, you can find some weird linguistic analysis that indicates traces of many european and asian languages in the american indian mix. "Language remembers more than its speakers. We can still sort out Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, French, Latin, and Greek in English, plus loans from Nahuatl, Hawaiian, ad inf., aware of centuries' infusions."

    Given the probability of one way trips to the americas, this is not totally outrageous [wfu.edu], but is so far off the map as far as normal high school educations go as to appear bizarre.

    While I may quibble on the details and the analysis, the basic concept is reasonable.

  • Re:They Lost a War (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Alan Partridge ( 516639 ) on Friday March 08, 2002 @10:26AM (#3129963) Journal
    and who the hell is "WE" in this context? Care to divulge your lineage, immigrant boy?
  • Re:So? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dallen ( 11400 ) on Friday March 08, 2002 @10:41AM (#3130047) Homepage Journal
    The most exciting part of Mr. Menzies discovery was not only that discovered America; Zheng He's ships also circumnavigated the globe and got very close to both the North and South poles.

    Additionally, Cook, Magellan, de Gama and Columbus all had accurate maps of the world. Mr. Menzies says: "What nobody has explained is why the European explorers had maps. Who drew the maps? There are millions of square miles of ocean. It required huge fleets to chart them. If you say it wasn't the Chinese, with the biggest fleets and ships in the world, then who was it?"

    Also, apparently the Chinese ships dwarfed european ships of the 15th and 16th centuries, and only about 5% of the Chinese explorers survived to return to China; But by the time Zheng He returned to China, the government was in chaos and the fleets were mothballed.

    A small number of records and charts survived to be passed to Western explorers.

    There is a more complete article about this in the London Daily Telegraph [telegraph.co.uk].
  • by Self-Important ( 460103 ) on Friday March 08, 2002 @10:51AM (#3130089)
    I took a world history course only two years ago in which I learned about the Chinese treasure ships. They were intended to be these massive, floating testements to the wealth and power of the Chinese civilization. The point of the treasure ship expeditions was to impress upon other cultures the strength of the Chinese emperor. As nine-sailed behemoths weighed down with gold, silk, and other riches, the treasure ships didn't disappoint.

    One of the more hotly contested historical points is why China turned inward when it was, hands down, *the* strongest nation in the world in the latter half of the fifteenth century. It was on the verge of an industrial revolution predating the British one by hundreds of years, but that never happened: A new emperor came to power who associated the treasure ship expeditions with both the old emperor and the eunuch power regime, and the Chinese policy of expansionism came to a quick end.

    It was previously known that the Chinese made it around the tip of Africa, and even as far as South America. Only a small number of people accept early Chinese circumnaviagtion of the globe as truth. I'm one of them, and so was my professor.

  • Chinese Archives (Score:2, Interesting)

    by martijnd ( 148684 ) on Friday March 08, 2002 @11:00AM (#3130129)
    What is probably the most fascinating of the discovery is probably not that America was discovered by whom, but that a whole library of information (related to the chinese imperial archives) is becoming more and more accessible to Chinese and other researchers around the world.

    Imperial China kept detailed records on a day to day basis of communications and other records. A gold mine of unique historic information can be found in there.

    One gold nugged dug up by a French historian (sorry, don't have a link handy) descibes in detail a world journey and visit by a late 18th century British trade delegation that could thus be retraced as the British had kept diaries they published after their travels. The emperor had kept a day to day watch of their activities as they travelled through China and made detailed comments in the sidelines of the reports he was receiving on the foreigners.

    The British were out to sell horse drawn carriages, canons, clocks and other "high tech". They had visions of selling huge amounts of their products to China's immense population....

  • Re:They Lost a War (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 08, 2002 @11:07AM (#3130150)

    and that would be true if in fact we had actually gone to war or declared war at any point (military exercises are what we would consider the activities today). Dismissing the fact that 'americans' however far in our past lied, cheated, stole, murdered, misrepresented, and raped the 'native' population of the americas allows us the comfort of continuing in the same vein of action without remorse or consideration. If we do not look to our past, we cannot learn from it and grow to be a better people.

    Everyone DESERVES respect. Our own constitution is based on 'unalienable' rights afforded to man (all man, mankind). In the government and individual actions in the slaughter of societies, tribes and individuals (something we should very closely equate to the Jewish Holocaust) 'we' denied those people of their 'unalienable' rights.

    The sad part is that lets say we "move on", we "move past" what happened and the wrong doings of generations past... what are we doing today to make sure that 1) we preserve what little of that culture is left 2) we ensure that the native american as a bloodline doesn't dissappear entirely. And the answer is 'very little'. I don't believe in 'affirmative action' I believe in 'equality'. 'We' put more effort into building 3rd world countries up than we do in building up the nations that exist within this country. We need to look to the past to see what we can avoid repeating and what we may need to correct so that WE (all of us) have a more prosporous and rich future.

  • by ichimunki ( 194887 ) on Friday March 08, 2002 @01:01PM (#3130719)
    I don't think a critique of US' aggression against foreign nations implies forgiveness for the aggression those nations may have been engaged in themselves. It certainly doesn't imply approval for slavery (which doesn't even begin to address the issue that there are many forms of slavery, all of them inappropriate, but which vary in degree). The fact that history is filled with stories of invasion, genocide, war, and plunder is not a good reason to pardon one or more groups for their aggressions, nor to endorse similar aggression in the future.

    I'm not trying to be politically correct. I'm trying to be accurate in response to an overly euphemistic description of history. If I am not accurate, please correct me. And you have a point that in order to be fully accurate we might put these conflicts into a larger context. That the land was stolen does not necessarily mean that it should be returned-- as you point out, they may well have stolen it from others. That an injustice was committed does not necessarily obligate descendents of the original malefactors to produce some sort of recompense. And when it comes down to it, this is land we're talking about. It's pretty hard, imho, to "own" something that predates you by millions of years and which upon your death, you will become part of.
  • by rab ( 11358 ) on Friday March 08, 2002 @01:03PM (#3130727)
    Actualy, it's pretty unlikely that the indians ever had a population close to that of europe. Almost all of america was vast, untouched wilderness before the europeans came. Europe, in contrast was almost all farmland, and the hands of humans are evident everywhere.

    Ever wonder why the names of so many New England towns end in the word "field"? Most of what is now New England (and anywhere else on the continent with good dirt and a decent growth season) was cleared fields long before European settlers showed up. Further, most recent estimates (recent, because previous estimates have been uniformly politically self-serving, but based on the same historical observations) show that aboriginal populations in North America rival europe's population at the time of westward expansion.

    The density of population from one place to another was much more consistent than in Europe, so there were no streets being used as open sewers , no Bubonic plague, no resistance to the diseases that appear among densely populated cities.

    What you learned in High School about native populations is simply wrong. When the plagues started depopulating native villages (mortality rates were about 95%), the settlers thought that all of this wealth sitting and waiting for them to come along was the will of God and in their prayers thanked God for their good fortune.

    To get back to the current topic. Just about everyone has been to the Americas before Columbus. The obsession with his successful trips to enslave a few natives and steal a lot of gold shouldn't be interesting to anyone actually interested in history.

    Don't get me wrong. The natives made plenty of mistakes. The Mayans were likely wiped out by an ecological disaster of their own making. Other native tribes made their own mistakes. They were human, but several of my ancestors uniformly and repeatedly screwed them over by breaking treaties and contracts time and time again. Pretending it didn't happen or even outright denying it doesn't change the facts.

    Here's another one for you. The sale of Manhattan for a few beads? Two problems: First, the deal was made with a tribe that had no claim to Manhattan at the time (though they said they did) . Second, the treaty as signed was for one season's hunting rights (the natives were very savvy with land contracts and land rights). At the end of the contract, we had to vacate, but we pulled out our guns, enslaved the natives, and shipped them back to Europe (the slave trade went both ways across the Atlantic).

    Regards, Ross

  • Let's be accurate! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by olafva ( 188481 ) on Friday March 08, 2002 @01:08PM (#3130752) Homepage
    Anyone who has had the opportunity to examine the actual artifacts first-hand in the travelling Smithsonian exhibit (now in LA):
    http://www.mnh.si.edu/vikings/
    will have no doubt that the Vikings came to America and settled on the northern tip of Newfoundland nearly 500 years in advance of any Chinese or Italian seafarers. Of course no one can claim to have "discovered" America as it was already inhabited by what the Vikings referred to as skrallings, who killed some of the Vikings and is the likely reason that they retreated to Greenland after a year or so of living in L'Anse aux Meadows, Newfoundland. For more see:
    http://parkscanada.pch.gc.ca/parks/newfoundl and/an se_meadows/english/history_e.htm

  • Re: eyes roll (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 08, 2002 @01:27PM (#3130856)
    I think you mean the Hebrews not the Jews, and it never happened anyway. There is not a single mention of a large Hebrew slave population at any time in any of the ancient Egyptian documents we have unearthed. The only historical record of it is in the Bible, and we all know how reliable that is *eyes roll*

    Strangely enough, people said the same thing about Assyria. (until Ninevah was discovered in 1920)
  • Re:Chinese yes, (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mrtransistor ( 565190 ) on Friday March 08, 2002 @01:53PM (#3131001)
    If I remember correctly, Tom Dillehay wrote a book proposing very early dates for Monte Verde based on radiocarbon dates of layers associated w/ certain stone tools. There has been a lot of controversy, however, as to whether these artifacts were actually associated with the dated layers. The linguistic evidence is which one of the other posts mentions is based on the assumption of steady rates in linguistic mutation - something which I admit that I don't necessarily buy into.

    What you do have to keep in mind, though, is that Monte Verde is in Chile. If the Americas were populated solely via the Bering land bridge, then these people most likely would have taken many generations to not only travel all across two continents, but also to adapt lifeways suited to the new environments which they were encountering. The same goes for Meadowcraft, at least to a lesser extent. Even assuming an incredibly swift migration, you have to go back several centuries from even the latest dates to get to the date of the actual crossing into North America

    Unfortunately, if the earliest migrations southward took place along the pacific coast, any habitation sites have likely been submerged with the rise in sealevels following the alst ice age. Robert Ballard and his bunch have recently had a lot of success identifying submerged sites in the Black Sea, so it is conceivable that some of the earliest sites might be found, but as of yet, we still know next to nothing about them.

  • by maxpublic ( 450413 ) on Friday March 08, 2002 @03:22PM (#3131619) Homepage
    What a crock. Disease was introduced *accidentally* in the early 1500's and pretty much wiped out most Native Americans by the beginning of the 1600's. Using polio-infected blankets against certain tribes didn't take place until the 1800's. By this time the flu had already done it's work.

    There were no concentration camps, no ovens, no Gestapo. The number of people actually killed - as in, murdered - by Europeans can be measured in the tens of thousands. This isn't insignificant but it's by no means unique in history. As I said before the Assyrians did much, much worse and with more brutality than even the Spaniards were capable of. Hell, the Incans and the Aztecs *both* committed atrocities far beyond anything than Cortez and company envisioned, and these boys were complete lunatics.

    This pathetic attempt at revisionist history isn't appreciated.

    And please note: accepting historical fact by no means exempts people from moral action *today*. Passing laws to protect Native Americans and provide them with equal opportunity are a sign of ethical behavior; indulging in blame-fests is a way of avoiding concrete action which might affect one's pocketbook. Blaming ourselves for what thousands of peoples have done during the entirety of human history is a great way to 'accept responsility' without having to take corrective action to make the lives of Native Americans *alive now, today* more equitable - especially when self-blame is free and money is not.

    I do not hold myself responsible for what my ancestors did to Native Americans, intentionally or unintentionally. Life isn't fair, and such is the lot of the conquered. I do, however, blame myself if I don't act to improve the lives of Native Americans in our nation today. So lets stop whining and start doing something constructive, eh?

    Max
  • Interesting ... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by SimonK ( 7722 ) on Friday March 08, 2002 @04:04PM (#3131859)
    But I'm a bit suspicious of the claim that a Cherokee chief said Madoc's people were called "welsh". Welsh is an old English word meaning "strangers" or "enemies". Welsh people (as I guess you know) would have called themselves "cymraeg", or even "British" (Prythaeg ?).

E = MC ** 2 +- 3db

Working...