A very British problem

[Big RR]

we (the Americans) moved in and, rather than set up apartheid like zones, just cleared the native out of where we wanted to live by a combination of extermination and expulsion until there was nowhere for us to push them.

I think you'll find that it was us Brits that did that in America, not "the Americans".

Gob--to a certain extent I agree with you, but the Americans made it a science with their manifest destiny fueled westward expansion. Early British settlements coexisted with the native americans because they had to; later ones did push the native americans westward (especially after the French and Indian War gave them a good excuse to do so).

[Gob]

When did "the Americans" first become non-Brits I suppose is the question?

[MajGenl.Meade]

At Calais?

[Big RR]

At the very least, after the revolution. Likely after the Declaration of Independence was signed. Possibly a bit earlier when armed hostilities began. I guess England would say after the War of 1812/Napoleonic War?

[liberty]

Having read widely on the Anglo-Zulu wars and visited iSandlwana and Rorke's Drift twice, I think your repeating Chelmsford's mistake.

He too was rather dismissive of a native "militia" and thought the force he left behind at iSandlwana was more than sufficient to deal with an enemy he considered inferior and unlikely to offer open battle. He was wrong on all counts as the numerous cairns marking the burial spots of 1,300 British and native auxiliary soldiers prove to this day.



Cairn imitates mountain

General, it is my opinion that the reason the British lost the battle of Isandlwana was racism and the snobbery a of a professional army. The fact that Zulu army was composed of militia alone was enough for the British looked down their noses in contempt, but add to that they were also black was enough to set British on the path to disaster. They expected to encounter a swarm of monkeys they could scatter with a few shots. They learned the hard way to never under estimate any enemy. Racism is a dangerous mind set for a military man.

The British should have never lost the battle; they had all the advantages, but due to sloppiness failed employ them to best effect:

The martini henry rifle was vastly superior to anything the Zulu had. The Zulu were mostly armed with shield and stabbing spear ; the few muzzle loading riffles they had were no real threat.

The few horses the Zulu had were no match for the British Calvary either.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Whatever, lib. I'll read your book when it comes out. You said this:

Jim, if you remembered the British were a little desperate at the time; in my opinion, it was a miracle that they were able to fight off the Zulu and survive even with superior weaponry.

The battle of Isandlwana was different there they should have defeated the Zulu Militia rather easily.

The first para must refer to Rorke's Drift. There, a small British force, thoroughly forewarned, prepared and fortified held off 3-4000 Zulus long enough for the natives to give up and go home (the hall mark of a militia). The Zulus fought amazingly well given the distance they'd already travelled, their humiliation at having missed out on the kudos for iSandlwana and the fact that they had so few rifles and were piss-poor shots.

It may have been a miracle but not nearly as surprising as an imperial victory at iSandlwana would have been given the actual circumstances (despite your second contention). The British there were surrounded in open country and defeated by superior numbers and tactics. The available "cavalry" was colonial horse such as Durnford's mounted infantry who bravely fought themselves out on the British right until the Zulu left horn swept past and around them while the right horn was doing similarly from the opposite heights and behind iSandlwana mountain itself. The superiority of the rifle vs. stabbing spears is negated once the hand to hand combat begins.

I commented upon Chelmsford's (possibly racist but more likely classist) belief that the Zulus could not possibly mount such a determined assault. But he believed if they did, he'd left more than enough men to beat off such a militia handily. British experience didn't doubt the bravery of native peoples - it did rely on superior firepower and discipline. Had they been laagered, as the Boers continually advised, Pullein and his men would have been as successful as the Boers had been at Blood River (also worth a visit).

So I tend to agree with you that things would have turned out differently if things had turned out differently. Your best example of that would be the Battle of Ulundi - the British had learned their painful lesson

[Guinevere]

When did "the Americans" first become non-Brits I suppose is the question?

Pretty sure this language makes it unequivocal:

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

[Guinevere]

we (the Americans) moved in and, rather than set up apartheid like zones, just cleared the native out of where we wanted to live by a combination of extermination and expulsion until there was nowhere for us to push them.

I think you'll find that it was us Brits that did that in America, not "the Americans".

Gob--to a certain extent I agree with you, but the Americans made it a science with their manifest destiny fueled westward expansion. Early British settlements coexisted with the native americans because they had to; later ones did push the native americans westward (especially after the French and Indian War gave them a good excuse to do so).

Coexistence didn't last long. Recall King Phillips War early on (1675 and on). Many of the larger Indian tribes signed on with the Brits during the French & Indian war, and continued that allegiance during the Revolution. The Brits then totally threw their allies under the bus and ceded Indian lands to the Americans in the Treaty of Paris in 1783.

Early on in the colonies and in the young American nation, the plan was to "civilize and assimilate" but that quickly turned to moving the natives to different lands as the need for more and more land grew. That concept eventually became manifest destiny - which is far different than colonialism - and was conceived as the notion that it was a god-given right: " it is the right of our manifest destiny to overspread and to possess the whole of the continent which Providence has given us for the development of the great experiment of liberty and federated self-government entrusted to us" as stated by John Sullivan the journalist who coined the term.

Finally, Meade, your USians or whatever is rather annoying. You might go back and check your passport cover as you've left off the America piece. We are and always have been Americans. And hey, if you don't like it, please, feel free to give back the citizenship....

[wesw]

in the book that I recommended to meade there is quite a bit about this very subject. there were problems between the early dutch and the Indians as well as the early English.

the Indians did not see land ownership in the same way as the Europeans.

the real problems for the Delaware Indians began after the English assumed governance of the area. It was necessary to have a deal with the Indians before kicking them off their land or getting them to agree to leave.

the agreement did not have to be proper, it did not have to be honest, it did not even have to be with anyone who actually had a right to the land that was ceded. the agreements did not have to be understood by the natives or followed by the English as written, but there was always an agreement with a native affixing his mark to it. it wouldn t have been proper otherwise. (eye rolling emoticon)

gob is right, the English were no slouches at swindling natives and shipping them off

[MajGenl.Meade]

Guin, you seem to miscomprehend

I am a USian - a citizen of the United States of America - and happy to be so.

"American" is a not the exclusive property of US citizens. Canadians, Mexicans, Brazilians, Panamanians and many other nationalities are all equally "American".

I strive for more exactitude and less presumption in annexing a word that applies to more than those with US passports.

Here's your horse

[Lord Jim]

I strive for more exactitude and less presumption

Really...

And all this time I thought you were using that silly made up word because you were striving to be an annoying

[Big RR]

Canadians, Mexicans, Brazilians, Panamanians and many other nationalities are all equally "American".

They're also earthlings--so? Face it, the bulk of the world knows what American means, and it is a citizen of the USA whether you like it or not. If there was confusion from Brazilians, Panamanians, etc. choosing to call themselves American you might have a point, but few (if any) do in my experience. The point of language is communicate words and ideas unambiguously, and "American" does just that (indeed it even extends to cover people who are not in north, south, or central America, like those in Hawaii). In light of that, it's pretty silly to insist that everyone must adapt to your definition, even if it is more exact and less presumptuous.

[Sue U]

Miss Teen USA-South Carolina 2007 knows that the correct appellation is "U.S Americans."

[Big RR]

Well Meade's in good company.

[wesw]

guin, don t let him know it annoys you, it just encourages him.....

you are 100% correct of course. that s the big line within the Hispanic immigrants, we are americans too....

yes, central americans, south americans and north americans........

now even the british want to be americans......

if you can t beat em, join em....

[MajGenl.Meade]

Some funny stuff there

Big RR my dear... I seem to have misplaced the post in which I insisted other people must adapt to my definition. Is there a link, please? I rather thought the boot was on the other foot...

I like to refer to USians - fellow citizens of the United States (an important and significant name) of America (a generic one). I don't insist anyone else must do so and fail to understand why I am insulted. It's racism, isn't it? Know-nothings strike back?

The UK has a similar problem of course. UKians? I don't think so. Much better to be honest and say "English" or "Scots" or "Welsh" and (if one is so unfortunate to be so) "Northern Irish" - or Ulsterian I suppose, since Ulsterman is sexist.

The latter problems can be solved by giving Ireland (entirely) back to the Irish which will then get rid of "UK" once and for all - citizens of Great Britain having the facility of being "British".

[MajGenl.Meade]

Oh and LJ - less of the selfies please!

Thanks

[rubato]

We are "THE United States of America". Not "AN United States of America". If other people want to hero-worship us by borrowing part of our name; well that is only natural. And I understand why it makes you jealous and resentful.




yrs,
rubato

[Guinevere]

Guin, you seem to miscomprehend

I am a USian - a citizen of the United States of America - and happy to be so.

"American" is a not the exclusive property of US citizens. Canadians, Mexicans, Brazilians, Panamanians and many other nationalities are all equally "American".

I strive for more exactitude and less presumption in annexing a word that applies to more than those with US passports.

Here's your horse

Pretty sure you're riding the high horse, with your saddle of "exactitude."

[liberty]

Guin, you seem to miscomprehend

I am a USian - a citizen of the United States of America - and happy to be so.

"American" is a not the exclusive property of US citizens. Canadians, Mexicans, Brazilians, Panamanians and many other nationalities are all equally "American".

I strive for more exactitude and less presumption in annexing a word that applies to more than those with US passports.

Here's your horse

I admire the General for sticking to his guns; keep it up General the world will eventually come around to your way of thinking. However traditionally we refer to ourselves as our states such as Louisianan , New Yorkers and that superior brand of American Texans.