HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: Battle of Shiloh
Date: 14 Apr 92 21:13:59 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

In article <1992Apr13.192202.3845@cs.umn.edu>, thornley@cs.umn.edu (David H. Thornley) writes:
> Was Britain really concerned with the Union at this time?  I hadn't realized
> the US was seen as a potential threat at that time.  The US had never been
> able to project power; the first ocean-going US navy capable of fighting
> the British on any reasonable basis was decades in the future.

The British always resented the Union.  The War of 1812 had only been
about 50 years before.  In addition, Canada was still a possesion, and
neighbored the United States.  I doubt British attitudes about it's
former colonies really changed until World War I.
                    === Al Sparks
From: fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: Let's be Pro-Active, not Re-active
Date: 10 Apr 92 19:14:10 GMT
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

In article <1992Apr10.132108.1@hamp.hampshire.edu>, jyanowitz@hamp.hampshire.edu writes:
> I fear that many of us are falling into an evil trap.
> We are letting the oppressor/oppression (in this case, the boneheads
> from B-CPU who are enough to inspire temporary insanity in Gandhi) set
> the agenda.  Fuck them.  Let them post this IHR drivel and BS.  They are not
> interested in debate.  Anyone's who's going to agreee with them is not likely
> to be convinced by specific refuations over USENET anyways.  Instead, just
> rgularaly post a FAQ refuting these boneheads.  I AM NOT ADVOCATING NOT
> RESPONDING, I AM SIMPLY SAYING *WE* SHOULD SET THE AGENDA.  They can distract
> all they want, and every time there comes a rash of these postings (since they
> all say the same things anyways:

I'll put you in my kill file too.  (*yawn*) === Al Sparks
From: mss2@quads.uchicago.edu (Michael S. Schiffer)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: 1302 - a boring year
Date: 15 Apr 92 04:08:17 GMT
Reply-To: mss2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Apr15.104235.3015@darwin.ntu.edu.au> salter_duke@darwin.ntu.edu.au writes:
>Did anything happen in 1302?

Not much.  According to the Timetables of History:

Anglo-Scot truce (which you mentioned)
First meeting of Fr. States General
Dante exiled from Florence
Papal bull "Unam sanctam" pronounces highest papal claims to supremacy
Cimabue d. (b. 1240) 


Interesting. At least three of these (Estates-General, Dante's exile,
and the papal bull) would have significant effect later, but nothing
really obviously important at the time.

Mike



-- 
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS	"Never let your sense of morality prevent
mss2@midway.uchicago.edu	 you from doing what's right!"
mike.schiffer@um.cc.umich.edu	 --Mayor Salvor Hardin of Terminus
mss2@usite-next.uchicago.edu     Isaac Asimov, _Foundation_
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: jyanowitz@hamp.hampshire.edu
Subject: Let's be Pro-Active, not Re-active
Organization: Hampshire College
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 17:21:08 GMT

I fear that many of us are falling into an evil trap.
We are letting the oppressor/oppression (in this case, the boneheads
from B-CPU who are enough to inspire temporary insanity in Gandhi) set
the agenda.  Fuck them.  Let them post this IHR drivel and BS.  They are not
interested in debate.  Anyone's who's going to agreee with them is not likely
to be convinced by specific refuations over USENET anyways.  Instead, just
rgularaly post a FAQ refuting these boneheads.  I AM NOT ADVOCATING NOT
RESPONDING, I AM SIMPLY SAYING *WE* SHOULD SET THE AGENDA.  They can distract
all they want, and every time there comes a rash of these postings (since they
all say the same things anyways:
    1) Jews are evil.
    2) They own everything.
    3) Because of 1 and 2, they have fabricated a massive lie about the
holocaust.
    4) Hitler got a bum rap.  In fact, he really just drank too much coffee.
    5) Aryans have been opppressed in this country for too long.
    6) Nazi's and W.A.R. are really nice people.)
Since these are all patently false "arguments", and they don't get true
regardless of how many times B-CPU buttheads post them, and no matter how
they changethe sentence structures their "arguments" remain the same, why
not just keep posting a few FAQs.

World Zionist Operative Yanowitz, signing off.
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: glhewitt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Gary L. Hewitt)
Subject: Re: Textbooks and Lefty history (Was: Re: history)
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 14:39:18 GMT

In article <92098.202658HERSCH@auvm.american.edu> Herschel Browne <HERSCH@auvm.american.edu> writes:
>In article <1992Apr7.184245.18817@oz.plymouth.edu>, m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu
>(Michael L. Le Houllier) says:
>>The dishonesty from the left in the academic world is sickening as is
>>the propaganda that white males are all evil and Colombus was the
>>source of all the evil in the world, which is something I frequently
>>hear from leftist pigs here.
>
>Unlike Cramer, who at least *tried* to give actual examples of the
>dishonesty of the left (although he never showed that the authors
>he was criticizing are leftists), you merely call names. Is this
>an example of your scholarship? Is "leftist pigs" a new
>analytical category? Can you show, with actual citations, that
>leftists *there* or leftists anywhere frequently assert that white
>males are all evil? Or that "Columbus was the source of all the evil
>in the world"? And even if you can show that some people who are
>demonstrably "left" frequently assert such things, can you show
>that leftist academics do so? Please put your money where your
>mouth is.

Actually, the Columbus one is pretty easy -- Kirkpatrick Sale in
"Conquest of Paradise."  He has pretty good left-wing/green credentials,
too.  But then again, almost every *marxist* or *leftist* historian of
Latin America that I've talked to thinks the book is pretty much full-
of-it.  Actually, many of the "inaccuracies" (so to speak) in the book
come from Sale's use of Fr. Las Casas's publication of the Columbus
journals -- some of what he says Columbus said were pretty clearly
interpolations of Las Casas!    

So, does Las Casas (a sixteenth-century Dominican friar) count as a
lefty-fascist-thought-police-commie-lying-pig-marxist?  Or should that
burden be shouldered by Sale?  Who is responsible for the "inaccuracies"
or misquoted words of Columbus?  Ah, it seems to be complicated....

As I recall, this thread started when someone complained about the
problems of accuracy in high school textbooks, and (I think) Mr. Cramer
attributed it to 1960s marxist historians who didn't care about the
truth.  I attributed it to a profit mentality in the publishing industry
and silly procedures to buy books in large states.  I still think that
this is a preferable explanation to "'60s historians."

So - challenge stands: attribute some errors to marxist historiography,
'60s scholarship, or whatever.

GARY
-- 
  ++================================++
  ||        Gary L. Hewitt          ||  HELP!  I've been imprisoned by
  || glhewitt@phoenix.princeton.edu ||  my .signature!  HELP!
  ++================================++
From: f90pegu@fy.chalmers.se (Peter Gustafsson)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: Want facts?  "WHO RUNS THE MEDIA?  The Alarming Facts"
Date: 9 Apr 92 09:17:08 GMT
Followup-To: Re: Want facts?  "WHO RUNS THE MEDIA?  The Alarming Facts"
Organization: Chalmers Univ. of Technology, G|teborg, Sweden

*YAWN*

You are a tiresome little devil, aren't you?


Peter Gustafson.

f90pegu@fy.chalmers.se (Peter Gustafsson)
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu (Michael L. Le Houllier)
Subject: Re: The British did lose!
Reply-To: m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu (Michael L. Le Houllier)
Organization: Plymouth State College - Plymouth, N.H.
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 92 18:25:02 GMT

In article <1992Apr1.190123.1@acad3.alaska.edu> fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks) writes:
>In article <1992Mar25.225752.8540@sdd.hp.com>, geroldf@sdd.hp.com (Gerold Firl) writes:
>> 
>> The US doesn't have an empire? We certainly employ mercenaries to 
>> violently maintain control of native populations which would rather
>> govern themselves. If it barks like an empire, if it smells like an
>> empire, maybe it's actually a co-prosperity sphere?
>
>I suppose you're referring to El Salvador and maybe Nicaragua
>(*yawn*).  While that does make us a bit interventionalist, I hardly
>would call us an empire over that.  === Al

Naah, he must be refering to the only major colony we ever had (the
Philippines).  Somehow, I don't think this qualifies an 'empire'.

-- 
 Michael Le Houllier           *  John 3:16  * Nov 12, 1991 - Dili      
 (m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu.us) *  Remember: June 4, 1989 - Beijing
 Go BLUE JAYS   1-0   at Tigers Monday (4-2), Wednesday and Thursday
 End the strike.  Get back on the ice.  Get the playoffs going.
From: morna@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Morna J Findlay)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: Roman Numerals, Greek Fractions
Date: 6 Apr 92 11:31:22 GMT
Reply-To: morna@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Morna J Findlay)
Organization: Laboratory for the Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh U

In article <1992Apr4.223356.9471@flood.com> tom@flood.com (Tom Chatt) writes:
>morna@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Morna J Findlay) writes:
>| 
>| Musing last night over the crossword, my S.O. said something along the
>| lines of "Of course, it was not having fractions that knackered
>| the Romans". :-)
>| 
>| 1. What is the "correct" way to write 49 in Roman Numerals?
>
>Well, LXIX would be my guess, but XXXXIX might also be supportable.
>I think IL was just not done. But then, the number of spaces in
>your crossword should make it clear what *they* thought was the
>right answer. :-)

I must admit, this isn't for a crossword.. We are re-painting ouR front
door and fancied having an interesting number on it.

Pretentious? Nous????

XLIX, looks nice and challenging for the postie :-)

M
--
Morna Findlay 					JANET:morna@uk.ac.ed.dcs 
	Thanksgiving For a National Victory (Robert Burns)
Ye hypocrites! are these your pranks? To murder men and give God thanks?
Desist, for shame! Proceed no further: God won't accept your thanks for murther.
From: jmcd@sag4.ssl.berkeley.edu (John McDonald)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: HoloCAUSTIC
Date: 9 Apr 1992 22:16:09 GMT
Organization: Space Science Labs
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: sag4.ssl.berkeley.edu


This is getting tiring.  Isn't there an alt.conspiracy.holocaust
or something out there for Winston's postings?  Shouldn't there be?


j
From: thornley@cs.umn.edu (David H. Thornley)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: Battle of Shiloh
Date: 7 Apr 92 21:19:22 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.1992Apr7.211922.22010
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, CSci dept.

In article <1992Apr5.015155.11518@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> pdunn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Patrick L Dunn) writes:
>
>
>I would go with Antietam and Perryville as the turning point of the war.  The
>confederacy had embarrassed the union army seriously in the east, and had taken
>the offensive.  In the west, the southern armies had taken up the initiative by
>
>invading Tennessee and Kentucky.  Europe was beginning to take notice of the
>Confederacy, and with one more southern victory, they might have recognized the
>existence of the Confederate States of America, lifted the blockade, and
>perhaps have sent troops to aid the south.
>
I've been wondering about the lifting of the blockade.  Granted that the
British (and probably the French) Navy was capable of lifting the blockade,
would they have?  If the USA and the CSA were recognized as at war, the
blockade would have to be considered legal and lifting it would be an act
of war.

Granted that Britain never liked blockades used by other nations, and granted
that there was a considerable amount of sympathy for the Confederacy (which
extended to providing them with warships), would Britain really have committed
itself to an alliance with the Confederacy and a war with the Union?  We're
talking about some real serious actions here.

DHT
From: danr@pro-franklin.cts.com (Daniel Roberts)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: Battle of Shiloh
Date: 16 Apr 92 15:17:49 GMT
Article-I.D.: crash.1992Apr16.151749.28253
Organization: Crash TimeSharing, El Cajon, CA

Wasn't there some hot headed discussion about a pre-emptive strike into
Canada by the US? It has been a while since I read in this area but I think
I remember in _Britian and the war for Union_ some discussion of the
British Government stregthening forces in BNA out of fear that the US would
attack there if Britian got too cozy with the CSA.

Dan
---------
danr@pro-franklin.cts.com
Sysop of pro-franklin 614-462-7458 at up to 2400 BPS.
Home of pro.apo pro.scout and 2nd home of pro.law and pro.security.
From: daniel@cs.kun.nl (Daniel Tuijnman)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: Roman Numerals, Greek Fractions
Date: 8 Apr 92 16:06:21 GMT
Organization: University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands

In article <rll8gINN36q@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> jsanders@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Justin M. Sanders) writes:
>Generally, the numbers 4 and 9 (and their multiples of powers of ten) were
>obtained by writing I (or the power of ten) before V (or 5 timees
>the multiple of ten) and X (or the next power of ten).  
>[...]
>One does occasionally see deviations from the usual notations, for example
>sometimes 90 = LXXXX.

This is indeed a deviation from the modern practice; but that is a
Middle Age invention, not a Roman one. The Romans indeed used to write 
90 = LXXXX etc.

-- 
Daniel Tuijnman
daniel@cs.kun.nl
From: parson_r@cubldr.colorado.edu (Robert Parson)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: 1302 - a boring year
Date: 15 Apr 92 18:36:22 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

In article <1992Apr15.104235.3015@darwin.ntu.edu.au>, salter_duke@darwin.ntu.edu.au writes:
> Did anything happen in 1302?
> 
> 
> Nothing appeared to have happened in 1302.  Edward 1 of England had
> a break from hammering the Scots: the Aztecs hadn't got round to building
> Tentotichlan (sp?), the Pope hadn't schismed and moved to Avignon,
> the barbarians weren't hording, the plague was still confined to
> rats. 
> 
 Only thing that comes to my mind is the battle of Courtrai, in which Flemish
 pikemen destroyed an invading force of French Knights. A foretaste of Crecy.
 
 The Ottoman Turks were getting started around then, but I can't remember
 specific years.

Robert
From: lpb@stratus.swdc.stratus.com (Len Bucuvalas x5363)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: Hemp-less history.  Can you help?
Date: 6 Apr 92 21:42:54 GMT

I find it amazing after all these years that so few know anything at all
about the value to this specific biomass.

Re: Article: 10100 of soc.history
From: jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Jewell)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: Hemp-less history.  Can you help?

>>This could be (and apparently has been up 
to colonial times) the world's number one subsistance food source.  
Why isn't it?  Who made sure that it isn't?

Why?: Because a decorticating machine had been invented in 1933(?) that 
effectively strips the stem ... strand by strand.  The fiber has a tensile
strength 10x greater than cotton.  Because the seeds can be pulped to produce
a machine oil as effective with varying viscosity just like any motor oil. In
fact they were using this for oil during WWII. They were using the fibers in the
parachutes combined with silk. The seed is the second highest source of protein,
second only to soy. Because you can grow something like 5 acres MUCH QUICKER 
than 1 acre of trees......ergo it becomes a useful source for paper....and more.
So now you have the Logging Industry, Oil Industry, and Beef Industry...curious
yes? ;^) 

Let's keep this off-line.  If you want more info, drop me Email at

	lpb@stratus.swdc.stratus.com

Len
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks)
Subject: Re: sci.history
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 21:35:00 GMT

In article <92092.164314HERSCH@auvm.american.edu>, HERSCH@auvm.american.edu (Herschel Browne) writes:
> 
> You might look into the BITNET LISTSERV discussion list HISTORY-L.
> I believe it used to be moderated but isn't any longer. However,
> the discussions there tend to be much more scholarly than those
> here. There are also a lot of more special-purpose or limited-field
> history lists on LISTSERV. If you don't have access to BITNET,
> it is possible to read LISTSERV stuff on usenet. Whether your
> local usenet access includes this, however, I have no idea.
> If it doesn't, ask for it. If you do have access to BITNET
> but don't know how to subscribe to a LISTSERV list, I'm sure
> there's plenty of help available to explain it.
> 
> H.

After History-L became generally accessable on Usenet, I found that it
had deteriorated to the level of soc.history.  Since I didn't have
time to read both groups, I chose soc.history.  === Al
From: bruce@STRATUS.SWDC.STRATUS.COM (Bruce Overby)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: THE HOLOCAUST STORY: HOW MUCH IS FALSE? The Case for Open Debate
Date: 16 Apr 92 19:08:47 GMT
Article-I.D.: echidna.9204161908.AA25351

In article <rdippold.703186330@cancun> rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com
(Ron Dippold) writes:
>louis@aie.nl (Louis Kossen) writes:
>>In article <gate.60TyiB1w164w@b-cpu.UUCP> ralphw@b-cpu.UUCP (Ralph Winston) writes:
>>>
>>>              THE HOLOCAUST STORY:  HOW MUCH IS FALSE?
>>>
>>>                      The Case for Open Debate
>>>
>
>>How much sense does it make to continue posting this kind of stuff again
>>and again.
>
>And perhaps someone could post again how to make nn and rn kill any
>article that has "b-cpu" in the header, for them that would truly like
>to make them banished.

The line in my rn killfile is:

     /From:.*b-cpu/h:j

It is very effective, however, I do still have to read all these
responses to the revisionist bozos. Perhaps refraining from such
responses would be a good idea. (I know this has been suggested
before, just thought I'd add my .02 to the fray.)

-------------------------------------------------
Bruce Overby
Stratus Computer, Inc.
San Jose, CA


"Get at dem beans!"  -- Hoss Cartwright

My opinions may not reflect those of my employer.
--------------------------------------------------
From: fil@css.itd.umich.edu (Fil Sapienza)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: A question about soc.history
Date: 7 Apr 92 15:18:12 GMT
Article-I.D.: terminat.1992Apr7.151812.261
Organization: University of Michigan, ITD Consulting and Support Services

In article <92096.211939HISJMA@BYUVM.BITNET> J MICHAEL ALLEN <HISJMA@BYUVM.BITNET> writes:
>I don't mean this question to sound flippant or anything like that, though
>I have no idea how it will come across.  It is actually a serious question
>from one who tunes into this newsgroup only very infrequently.  The question
>is this:  My impression is that the primary topics of discussion cluster around
>arguments about the reality (or otherwise) of the holocaust (Egads! Do serious
>people still doubt it happened?), and whether or not this person or that
>argument is anti-Semitic.  Am I right, or has my timing been such that I have
>simply tuned in during several cyclic returns to these topics?
>Just want to know what's being talked about, that's all.

Unfortunately, it has been a topic long discussed. Though this item
is about history, and though the holocaust certainly has historical
importance, there seem to be some individuals who desire to propagate
their own biases and prejudices for or against issues relating to
the reality of the holocause, rather than discuss issues in a constructive
manner.  In short, most of the time, when I see those items, I feel
preached at.

I posted a message like this to misc.headlines a few months ago, and I
can only share with you the advice I received: that is, if you don't
want to read them, then all you can really do is ignore them.
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: sos@oz.plymouth.edu (Steffan O'Sullivan)
Subject: Sailing Close Hauled
Reply-To: sos@oz.plymouth.edu (Steffan O'Sullivan)
Organization: Plymouth State College - Plymouth, N.H.
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 00:44:41 GMT

Can anyone suggest a source for how close to the wind a large sailing
ship could sail?  I'm looking for data on ships anywhere from Queen
Elizabeth to Napoleon.

-- 
  - Steffan O'Sullivan		         sos@oz.plymouth.edu
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: rath@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Subject: Re: Battle of Shiloh
Reply-To: rath@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 03:59:49 GMT

In article <3479@moscom.UUCP>, de@moscom.UUCP (David Esan) writes:
>In article <92104.144954C05705DA@wuvmd.wustl.edu> C05705DA@WUVMD writes:
>>For what I have heard, Europe had no intension of joining the war; but
>>they did sympothise.  It wasn't practicle to go to war.  At the beginning
>>of the war, the British docks and warehouses were packed with cotton.
>
>As noted above the British anticipated the war by overbuying cotton so
>that they had a several year supply.
>
>As this supply began to dwindle it was replaced.  There was cotton that was
>smuggled past the blockade.  And there was cotton that was run past the
>blockade by various legal and nearly legal means.  I believe the Bruce Catton
>series on the Civil War has some discussion on the sieve that was the economic
>blockade....[stuff deleted]

I recently visited Brownsville, TX.  Across the Rio Grande from Brownsville
lies Matamoros, Mexico.  Brownsville had been founded as a Fort during the
Mex-AM War.  At the mouth of the river, some twenty miles down from thesae two
cities lay the ports of Clarksville (US) and Baghdad(Mexico).  Clarksville had
about 10,000 residents at some point.  most of the Civil War it was occupied
largely by army troops concerned with the 'ill-reputed' port across the stream.  
Cotton was shipped from plantations to Brownsville,
were buyers ostensibly from Mexico would purchase it, bring it over to
Matamoros, and then send it dow to Baghdad, wherre it was sold to England
"legally."  As a footnote to a footnote, both Baghdad and Clarksville were
blown of the map, literally, by hurricanes later in the decade.  Today,
Clarksville shows no signs of ever having existed--dunes and the elements have
destroyed and covered it up.  Another thing, it seems that the last battle of
the civl war was fought just outside of Brownsville, three weeks after Lee had
surrendered.  It was a massacre of a practically disarmed freedmen unit by the
confederates.  Could this have been the turning point? ;^}
Rich Rath
Dpt of History
Brandeis University
Newsgroups: soc.history