HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dadams@cray.com (David Adams)
Subject: Re: Aztec Thanksgiving meal
Reply-To: dadams@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 18 Nov 92 13:15:44 CST

Does anyone have anymore information about this:? 


In article 722058938@mik.uky.edu, uk01719@nx03.mik.uky.edu (Tracy D. Kilroy) writes:
|In <1992Nov16.134653.16063@hemlock.cray.com> dadams@cray.com (David Adams) writes:
||Isn't there a lot of sensationalism in all of this?  (I won't dispute
||that they had human sacrifices, but did they dine on them?)
|
|
|Unfortunately no there isn't, the Aztecs did feast on sacrificial victims
|and , as an example, would taunt the Spanish by saying they were going to
|be satiated for a long time after their battle was over, because they           would sacrifice the warriors that were captured in battle and have a            huge feast to celebrate.  I don't think they ate the hearts though, I           think they were reserved for the actual sacrifice to the gods and put           in a special altar.
|
|
|Tracy
|University of Kentucky
|uk01719@mik.uky.edu
| 
| 
|
|
|
|


In article 28318@castle.ed.ac.uk, wex@castle.ed.ac.uk (John Wexler) writes:
|What may be the earliest recorded recipe for chile con carne in European
|literature appears in Bernal Diaz's "Conquest of New Spain". 
|Unfortunately it is not practical to recreate this version today, but
|it might enhance the effect of your meal if you could at least describe
|the dish to your guests.  As I recall (I don't have the reference with
|me) the invading Spaniards were held up in a long and messy siege, and
|numbers of them were frequently captured, sacrificed and eaten.  The
|defenders of the city would taunt them by calling out tempting
|descriptions of the chillis and tomatoes boiling in cauldrons waiting
|for the addition of meat.  Look it up for more details.
|
|    John Wexler
|    Edinburgh



---
--David C. Adams  Statistician  Cray Research Inc.  dadams@cray.com
___________________________________________________________________
       Old Sourdoughs never die.  They just ferment away.
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: Founding Fathers
Date: 16 Nov 92 01:59:53 GMT
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1e4mfuINNsf2@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>, rick@crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu (Richard H. Miller) writes:
|> In article <1e4jnaINNquc@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> >
|> >[Following up to myself]   Actually, if one accepts "two hundred years"
|> >literally, it would not predate the Founding Fathers.   However, I'm pretty 
|> >sure that the anti-slavery movement goes back further than that.   I'll look 
|> >it up and post a reference.
|> 
|> And to add, I would be interested in that reference. I was not being flip
|> when I replied. I believe that the 'moral' antislavery effort started a little
|> after the formation of the US.

I took a look through my own home library.   I'm sure that anyone on a 
campus can do better.

There was some opposition to slavery in the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries.   Los Casos the Dominican argued for the protection of Indians
and the outlawing of slavery.   Paul III declared that the Indians "were
truly men, and capable of understanding the Gospel"[1]   In England,
there was agitation for the abolition of slavery in 1760-70. Wilberforce 
was an active anti-slavery campaigner in the mid eighteenth century, and 
was prominent enough that Pitt sponsored a Bill to regulate abuses in the
slave trade.   There ws a proposal to abolish slavery altogether in 1788,
but it failed in the Lords[2].  The Massachusetts Declaration of Rights
said that "All men are born free and equal", and this was interpreted
by the Courts as outlawing slavery in Ma.    Quark Walker used this
argument against slavery in 1781[3].     Dr Johnson was violently opposed to
slavery, and used to drink toasts "To the next uprising in the Caribbean".
Johnson wrote a brief in favour of a slave who was claiming his freedom
at the Court of Session in Scotland[4].  Enough slaves were freed that
Sierra Leone was ocquired partly to provide a home for slaves freed in
England[1].

Johnson said on one occasion (Sept 1777) "How is it that we hear
the loudest yelps for liberty among the drviers of negroes?"

jon.

[1] "History of the World" Roberts, J.M.
[2] "Norton History of England 1714-1815" Owen J.B.
[3] "History of the American People" Morison S.E.
[4] "Life of Johnson" Boswell.
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: Founding Fathers
Date: 18 Nov 1992 21:06:52 GMT
Organization: sgi
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1edhpiINNd47@transfer.stratus.com>, jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann) writes:
|> In article <1eckbfINNgr3@fido.asd.sgi.com>  
|> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> > In article <1992Nov16.203743.16005@acuson.com>, miklg@acuson.com >  
|> |> >Well, one recent example springs to mind.   When Spain, Portugal
|> > |> >and Greece applied for membership of the EC, they were told to  
|> clean
|> > |> >up their acts and re-establish democracy first.   
|> > |> 
|> > |> 	This wasn't a pre-existing federation accepting members.  If
|> > |> 	Virginia (the most populous state at the time) hadn't joined,
|> > |> 	it might have been the US of New England, and Great Britain
|> > |> 	might have regained some errant children.
|> > 
|> > That strikes me as a distinction without a difference.   What's so
|> > different between A, B and C deciding to welcome D into their fold,
|> > and A, B, C and D deciding to unite?
|> > 
|> 
|> But there is a very big difference.  The EC is not worried that
|> they'll collapse or be conquered by a foreign power if Spain
|> doesn't join.  The strongest economic powers in Europe are now
|> in the EC, and it'll do fine without those few countries are
|> not members.
|> 
|> The US, at the time of the Constitution, was very worried about
|> the collapse of the country, and subsequent takeover by
|> European powers.

I see, so in fact you are saying that the continuation of
slavery was a cynical act of realpolitic?   "Agree to let A 
enslave B, so that A will assist us."

Remember the sarcastic comment of Dr Johnson:  "How is it 
that we hear the loudest yelps for Liberty from the drivers
of negroes?".

It sounds as though you are saying that remaining part of the
British Empire - which was soon to abolish slavery itself -
was such a hideous fate, that staying out, even at the cost
of perpetuating slavery in North America, was preferable.

Actually, if you look at it this way, the constant references
to membership of the British Empire as "slavery" begin to make
more sense.    If the Northern States were trading the continuation
of real slavery for Southern help, their own consciences would
be a little easier if they insisted that they were in a state of
slavery themselves.

jon.
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: rwmurphr@wildcat.ecn.uoknor.edu (Robert W Murphree)
Subject: Re: Copernicus and Heliocentricity
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 05:38:37 GMT
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan) writes:

>In article <23874@galaxy.ucr.edu> judson@watserv.ucr.edu (Michael Judson) writes:
>>Copernicus was said to have "invented" a heliocentric universe simply because
>>it was more appealing to him.  Being that he believed that light was a symbol
>>of God, he would put that representation of God at the center of the universe
>>and hence put the sun at the center of the solar system.  However, the
>>Protestants, being literalists of the Bible, rejected this notion because the
Obviously, since Kepler was a protestant.
Newsgroups: soc.history,alt.activism.d,alt.activism
From: jmc@sail.stanford.edu (John McCarthy)
Subject: American communists and the Soviet Union
Followup-To: alt.activism.d
Originator: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 20:50:21 GMT

The opening of the archives of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union
has revealed many interesting facts about the connections between the
American Communist Party, the Comintern (Communist International) and
the Soviet espionage agencies.  An article by Harvey Klehr and John Haynes
in the 1992 December American Spectator gives some preliminary information.
They are editing a three volume collection of documents from the Russian
archives to be published by the Yale University Press.

1. Several of the top leaders of the Party, including Eugene Dennis
and Earl Browder, spent years abroad in different countries as agents
of the Comintern.  The Comintern had the practice of supervising
communist parties using foreign communists, called "CI reps", sort
of like Papal Nuncios.

2. There really was a communist apparatus among New Deal bureaucrats
who supplied information to Soviet intelligence in the 1930s.  There
is no fresh information about Alger Hiss yet.

3. Milton Wolff, the last commander of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade
in Spain, confirmed in 1992 much of the information about these
connections.

4. U.S. Communist Party leaders helped General Donovan recruit agents
for work in Europe until the Soviets told them to stop.

5. The party maintained an illegal apparatus for some years, for fear
of being outlawed.

6. Harry Bridges, leader of the International Longshoreman's and
Warehouseman's Union, whom the Government unsuccesfully attempted
to prove was a communist subject to deportation, was not only a
communist but a member of the Central Committee.

Much of what the anti-communists and reformed communists of the 30s,
40s and 50s said about communist involvement in espionage and about
Soviet control of American communism is now confirmed in detail by
Soviet Communist Party records.  The people who said it was *all* a
witchhunt are refuted.  Some of Senator Joseph McCarthy's more
ambitious charges are not supported.  There is no evidence as yet that
any major American politicians were under communist control.

--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: soc.history,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: [ACLU] Guardian of Liberty: American Civil Liberties Union
Date: 19 Nov 92 17:52:21 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Nov18.171739.27144@Princeton.EDU>, niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
> In article <Bxwt89.79D@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
# #I noticed that in the list of constitutionally protected rights, the ACLU
# #doesn't recognize the right to keep and bear arms, but that it DOES recognize
# #the right to privacy which is not listed in the constitution (not that I
# #disagree with the general idea of the government keeping out of private
# #affairs, but it would have to follow under the 9th amendment or something).
# 
# #Isn't it a bit fraudulent to claim to support the bill of rights when you
# #choose to ignore certain parts of it?
# 
# No; they don't ignore it.  They just don't interpret it the way you do.
# Maybe they're wrong, but they aren't ignoring it.
# 
# David M. Nieporent   | Mike Mussina 1993 AL Cy Young Winner

Gee, if they interpreted the First Amendment the way they 
interpret the Second, only state governments and the federal
government would have a right to freedom of the press, and
almost any sort of press censorship law that applied equally
to all private organizations or individuals would be legal.

But that would just be a matter of interpretation.  They aren't
ignoring it. :-)
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
We could say that Congress spends money like drunken sailors.  But that would
be unfair -- to the sailors.  They, at least, are spending their own money.
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: What technology did the American Indians have?
Date: 17 Nov 92 18:49:11 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Nov16.045605.2763@europa.lonestar.org>, tom@europa.lonestar.org (Tom Kimball) writes:
> 
> I recently watched a Nova episode on TV about the European Iceman from 3300 BC.
> It turns out he had a copper axe.
> 
> Eastern Hemisphere civilizations progressed from stone tools to copper tools
> to bronze tools to iron tools.  Which of these tools did the Western Hemosphere
> natives possess in 1491?

Copper tools, only.  Perhaps the reason that this step up to bronze
and iron wasn't made by the American Indians was because native copper
was relatively plentiful in North America, unlike Europe.  (One of the
ways to determine whether a copper implement is European or Indian
in origin is to examine for evidence of sulfur impurities in the
copper -- that usually indicates European origin, because it was 
smelted from CuS.)  Clearly, if you don't have a need to smelt copper
ore, you aren't like to develop bronze.  If you don't develop bronze,
you are unlikely to develop the strategies that make iron ore smelting
possible.

> I would like to get a sense of how advanced Western Hemisphere technology was
> in 1491 compared to the Eastern Hemisphere.  Did the Europeans have greater
> technology in 3300 BC than the Americans in 1491 AD?  How did the Aztec and
> Incan civilizations compare with the Roman or Egyptian civilizations, for
> example?
> 
> Tom Kimball  			tom@europa.lerctr.org    

Major technologies lacking in the New World: gunpowder, and large
draft animals.  Indians had the wheel, but it was of little value
without a large draft animal.



-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"Foxes prefer rabbits with short claws." -- Nadja Adolf
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Graduate School Suggestions?
Date: 19 Nov 92 19:02:03 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA


This is obviously peripheral to history, so email is definitely
preferred over postings.

I'm about a year away from getting my B.A., and it's time to
start looking at graduate schools.  There being a few professional
historians and history grad students in this group, I wanted to pick
your brains a bit.

My intended specialty is American history.  A subject that seems
(at the moment) appropriate for a dissertation is an examination 
of the motives behind the adoption of the 1831 Indiana statute
prohibiting concealed carrying of arms.  The statute was the
only such law adopted in a free state before the Civil War, and
was passed within a month of the statute that prohibited free
blacks from settling in Indiana.  There are a number of pieces
of circumstantial evidence that I found in research for my
new book that suggest a connection between such laws and issues
of race in the slave states.  (Note: I say, "issues of race"
because it is not clear whether these laws were aimed primarily
at blacks, or aimed primarily at white abolitionists, who were
frequently set upon by mobs in the slave states.)

1. Clearly, there would be advantages to doing such research
in Indiana.  Is it a major hindrance to try to do such research
from a distance?  I would expect that access to records would
require being present in Indiana much of the time.

2. Are there particular graduate schools that have particular
reputations (good or bad) in the area of American history?
(I promise not to redistribute any negative remarks.)

3. For reasons of cost of living and quality of life, I have ruled 
out big cities, and all of California.  Part of what will make this
possible is being able to buy a house free and clear with the
equity in my current house.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
We could say that Congress spends money like drunken sailors.  But that would
be unfair -- to the sailors.  They, at least, are spending their own money.
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: Silence...
From: cacst9+@pitt.edu (Cecelia A Clancy)
Date: 17 Nov 92 14:28:00 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Nov11.202547.20616@pellns.alleg.edu> twiddyd@carn21.alleg.edu (David Twiddy) writes:
>
>	I see that someone has taken the nescessary steps to remove Senar  
>Argic from the Net.

Good.   I have been trying for weeks to write a kill file that will
filter out Serdar Argic.    Now maybe I won't have to.

Cecelia   <muller+@pitt.edu>
From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: Founding Fathers
Date: 19 Nov 92 13:30:39 GMT
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
NNTP-Posting-Host: gondolin.pubs.stratus.com

In article <1eeb9cINN540@fido.asd.sgi.com>  
livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
> In article <1edhpiINNd47@transfer.stratus.com>,  
jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann) writes:
> |> The US, at the time of the Constitution, was very worried about
> |> the collapse of the country, and subsequent takeover by
> |> European powers.
> 
> I see, so in fact you are saying that the continuation of
> slavery was a cynical act of realpolitic?   "Agree to let A 
> enslave B, so that A will assist us."

Cynical, no. Realistic, yes.  The Founders realized they had
to compromise on the Constitution, that getting most of what they
wanted (though not all) is better than getting none of what
they wanted.

The Founders had two choices: a country which, while slavery
existed in some parts, or no union whatsoever. There was no
middle, ideal choice of a country with no slavery.  In any real
situation, you have to make some compromises. If nothing else,
if you don't get everything you want now, you may be able
to get it in the future. If you don't comporomise, you probably
won't get anything.

> 
> Remember the sarcastic comment of Dr Johnson:  "How is it 
> that we hear the loudest yelps for Liberty from the drivers
> of negroes?".
> 
> It sounds as though you are saying that remaining part of the
> British Empire - which was soon to abolish slavery itself -
> was such a hideous fate, that staying out, even at the cost
> of perpetuating slavery in North America, was preferable.

In balance, yes, especially since the Constitution (and the
Declaration of Independence) layed the foundation for the 
eventual elimination of slavery (which many of the Founders
believed).  Are you saying that subjugation to a foreign power
would be preferable?  Remember, that this was a foreign power
that was strictly controlling our trade (no trading rum and 
sugar with the West Indies except via British ships), felt
that quartering its troops in the houses of Americans was
quite OK, felt that they could close ports and do whatever 
they damn well pleased, etc.


--
Jim Mann            
Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com  
Newsgroups: soc.history,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Subject: Re: [ACLU] A History of the Bill of Rights
Organization: Syracuse University, CIS Dept.
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 18:36:32 EST

In article <1992Nov12.040909.625@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:

>The case in question, US v. Miller, says nothing of the sort. However,
>the ACLU position paper (and supporters of gun control in general)
>implies this. If fact, the ruling _does_ consider the Second Amendment:
>The Court ruled that the Amendment should be applied as a means to
>preserving the militia, which they said includes everyone "physically
>able to act in cencert for the common defense" (that is, just about
>everyone.) Specifically, the Court asked if Jack Miller's ownership
>of a sawed-off shotgun had a "reasonable relationship to the 
>preservation or efficiency of the militia." If so, his right to 
>own it would be protected under the Second Amendment. Miller was clearly
>a member of the militia (e.g. physically capable of military service.)
>However, the Court found no evidence that a sawed-off shotgun was
>a usefull militia weapon. They based this on past laws regulating
>the militia and on the sort of weapons issued by the Army. Therefore,
>the Court sustained Miller's conviction. The ruling, essentially,
>was that the Second Amednment protects a citizen's right to own
>militia-usefull weapons, but a sawed-off shotgun isn't such a
>weapon. Usually (as I believe is the case in the ACLU position
>paper), the Miller rulling is summerized as "limiting the Second
>Amendment to the militia." That's partially true, but the 
>ruling also defined the militia as including just about everyone...

I'm surprised that Frank didn't mention the oft-cited point that
Miller was not represented the in US v. Miller, and that the SC was
not presented with the fact that US troops used sawed-off shotguns
during WWI.

In any case, some time back I did my own mini-review of SC precedent
on second amendment issues, in order to settle a dispute that arose
during another thread.  I concluded that the only thing that can be
agreed upon is that SC precedent is so sparse and inadequate that nothing
can be definitely determined from it (and almost *any* theory can find support
in it).

Anybody who is interested in a copy of my summary should just send me email.
It will, at least, provide you with some background on second amendment
precedent.


-- 
J. S. Greenfield                                         greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here, 
but my d*mn system wants a 
*real* name!)                        "What's the difference between an orange?"
From: obul@watnxt06.ucr.edu (Lubo Diakov)
Newsgroups: soc.net-people
Subject: People willing to correspond by e-mail
Keywords: E-mail, penpals
Date: 23 Nov 92 05:27:35 GMT

Hi 
I'm asking this for a friend. If there is a guy out there in Paris, France who  
wants to write by e-mail to a girl here, e-mail to my account and I'll pass it  
on to her. My e-mail address is obul@watserv.ucr.edu (in the US)
Newsgroups: soc.net-people
From: kykcheun@laplace.uwaterloo.ca ()
Subject: **** SUSANNAH, SWAN, MELAINE ****
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 20:27:05 GMT

Hi netters,

I'm looking for 3 gals from COSS, Hk

     1.  Susannah Pang Hei Man (University of San Francisco, last year)
     2.  Swan Lau Si Wan (Boston University, last year)
     3.  Melaine Ma (University of British Columbia)

If you are one of them, please contact me as soon as possible (Hey, I'm
Karen.  It's a pity that we lost contact with one another!)

Otherwise, if you folks out there happen to know any of them, please, 
please, please ... give me her(their) e-mail address(es), or urge them
to drop me a few lines.

Thanks a bunch

Karen :)   
kykcheung@napier.uwaterloo.ca



Newsgroups: soc.net-people
From: geiste@hsi.com (Doug Geiste)
Subject: Bunnell High School Graduates on the NET
Organization: 3M Health Information Systems, Wallingford CT
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 15:26:09 GMT

I posted this once before but didn't get any response, so I thought I'd try
it one more time.

I'm looking for people that graduated from Bunnell High School in
Stratford, Connecticut in or around 1977 who are on the NET.

Thanks!!


-- 
 Doug Geiste                           ||   "We are all faced with a series
 3M Health Information Systems         ||    of great opportunities brilliantly
 ...!uunet!his!geiste                  ||    disguised as impossible situations"
 geiste@hsi.com                        ||
Newsgroups: soc.net-people
Subject: Physician Assistants on The Net
From: schira@ab.wvnet.edu (John Schira, PA-C)
Date: 15 Nov 92 12:03:30 -0500
Organization: Alderson-Broaddus College

I am looking for Physician Assistants on the net. Please email me your
email address, where your at, and what you're doing. Perhaps we can put 
together a disscussion group/ PA Forum.

John Schira, PA-C
Master's Degree Program in Emergency Medicine
Alderson-Broaddus College
Phillipi, WV

schira@ab.wvnet.edu