From: crdunlea@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Christopher R. Dunlea)
Subject: Re: The story of the Scottish flag
Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 22:29:27 EST

In article <katherim.724957616@sfu.ca> katherim@fraser.sfu.ca (Katherine Merle Mason) writes:
>I'm sorry, but I cannot in good conscience let this stand unscathed.
>
>John Cabot was the first to discover Newfoundland (an Italian - real name
>Giovanni Caboto - working for the English) in 1497.  It was supposedly
>Britian's first colony, declared so a century later by Gilbert.  It was
>not however until 1855 that settlement was permitted in Newfoundland.
>Before that there was just a seasonal fishing fleet which came ashore
>to salt its catch.  The bases you speak of did not exist.  The fishing

Let WHAT stand? You're the one erecting the straw man here. Let me quote from 
J.M. Bumsted, "The Cultural Landscape of Early Canada", in Bailyn & Morgan,
_Strangers Within the Realm_:

"[Canada in 1800]"...first, there was Newfoundland, one of the oldest British 
colonies in North America and the only remaining part of British North America 
with a long tradition of British settlement...Newfoundland had been one of the
earliest centers of British colonization activity in the first half of the
Seventeenth century, but most of the settlements failed...and attention had
shifted farther south, to the mainland."

Fishing bases had been on Newfoundland, it is believed by archaelogists,
since the mid-Sixteenth century as temporary fishing villages. The
emergence of the fur trade made them permanent, year-round trading
depots for the Algonquian and Iroquois fur-trappers, fishing in the
summer, trapping in the winter.

Please check your documentation further before flaming me. (And if I 
have to tell you who Bumsted or Bernard Bailyn are you have no right
to flame me at all.)

>
>>So there was an Elizabeth I by 1603 in several of what became the 
>>Dominions.
>
>The dominion of Newfoundland?  Never heard of it.
>
Newfoundland was its own dominion before 1949, when it was
united with Canada (Canada was the traditional French area, the maritimes
were British)

>>Of ourse, the whole argument is facetious. It doesn't matter a
>>fig, because England is and always has been the ONLY nation of the
>>United kingdom that really mattered throughout its history.
>
>This is good flame-bait, especially in a string called the story
>of the SCOTTISH flag.  However, as I said above, I cannot in good
>conscience let this stand unscathed.  England has definetly always
>been the most noticed nation.  However:  ANALOGY - a pond.  Which is
>more noticable, the clean water and marine life underneath or the
>stale, stagnant fungus on top?  Which is more important? 

Bad analogy. You are describing a dying pond--living, healthy ponds
don't have stagnant fungus on top. Ask any limnologist. Are you 
implying that the British Empire was a dead, moribund entity during its 
prime???

Finally, your point remains to be seen. English capital, government,
slavery, military force established the Empire in the Sixteenth and
Seventeenth centuries. The Scots cooperated with the English because
it was to their advantage. Whenever English power was threatened English
authority responded. The Celts, sad to say (including my ancestors)
played a role in the buildup of the Empire as bonded servants for an ENGLISH
master in America. If you have any doubts about the Englishness of this
empire note that the Acts of Trade and Navigation of 1651 prohibited 
all foreign nations, including Scotland, from trading directly with
the colonies.

>
>>Chris STILL the Smartass
>
>Merry Christmas, one and all.
>Katherine Merle Mason
>Ne Oublie...

Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic,soc.culture.british