HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hod@amazon.chem.columbia.edu (Hod Greeley)
Subject: Guantanamo Bay
Organization: Center for Biomolecular Simulation, Department of Chemistry,
	Columbia University
Distribution: soc.history
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 23:17:11 GMT


Hi, I don't normally subscribe to this group, but I have a question
that has been bugging me recently, and this seems like the  best place
to look for an answer.  Can anyone tell me something about the history
of the naval reserve at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba?  I'm puzzled.  How is it
possible that the U.S. has a military base in a country with which we
have such antagonistic relations?  What role did it play in Bay of
Pigs, or the Cuban missile crisis?  By the way, what's the Cuban name
for the Bay of Pigs (the location, not the incident).  Email or post
replies, as you see fit.  Thanks.

Hod
hod@cucbs.chem.columbia.edu
From: JBrandt@AAA.UOregon.EDU (Laurie Brandt)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Henry & the Monestaries?
Date: 27 Sep 92 18:46:57 GMT
Organization: University of Oregon, Architecture

I am posting this query for a friend who does not have access to the
Internet.

She is starting to look for what is available in source documents and
secondary works in the areas of :
Henry the Eighth of England and the dissolution of the monasteries.

The second area of inquiry is that of Lady Jane Gray and the succession.

Any and all suggestions and advice would be quite helpful. 

Laurie
Brandt
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: onf@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (omar.farooq)
Subject: Quick fact question
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 19:29:49 GMT

I came across the following question in a magazine, and would appreciate
if someone who knew the answer could e-mail or post the response.

Q. What two men are tied in establishing the first magazine in
   America in January 1741?

   a. Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin
   b. Andrew Bradford and Benjamin Franklin
   c. John Hancock and Andrew Bradford.


Thanx

Omar Farooq

omar.farooq@att.com

Newsgroups: soc.history
From: cutchin@cs.purdue.edu (Steve Cutchin)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: World Culture and Western Culture
Date: 29 Sep 92 19:56:51 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Department of Computer Sciences


In article <19764@ector.cs.purdue.edu>, cutchin@cs.purdue.edu (Steve Cutchin) writes:
|> 

|> |> --
|> |> John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
|> |> *
|> |> He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
|>      Obviously the speaking of arithmetic is not a necessary condition
                                                      ^^^^^^^^^
|>      for not talking nonsense.
|> 
           I meant sufficient, I meant sufficient, I meant sufficient! 
           I swear I did! ;-)
|> ----
|> Steve Cutchin
|> cutchin@cs.purdue.edu
From: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: Oldest City in North America?
Date: 29 Sep 92 21:43:19 GMT
Reply-To: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh Computer Science

In article <1992Sep23.213306.1360@Princeton.EDU> kph@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Kevin Hamilton) writes:

>In a recent visit to New Mexico I encountered two Indian settlements
>that claimed to be the "oldest continuously inhabited cities in
>the U.S.".  Acoma is claimed to date from about 1100 A.D. and
>is still an impressive sized town.  However, it is really only
>nominally inhabited now by 13 families (I think if you get elected 
>to the tribal council you have to live there during your term).

Last time I was there it seemed to be more than 100 people.
Maybe they are large families.  The Hopis claim Oraibi is
older.

>Taos Pueblo (on the outskirts of the present day town of Taos) may
>date from about 1500 A.D. (it was definately there when the
>Spanish arrived).  It has apparently been inhabited since then
>and today ~200 families live there (without electricity or running
>water).  The two multistory Taos Pueblo "apartment buildings" (which have
>been a major influence on the Southwest architectural styles) apparently
>have been at this site for ~500 years.
>

Taos is definitely not as old as Acoma or the Hopi villiages.








-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "I have given you an argument; I am not obliged
geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu   |  to supply you with an understanding." -S.Johnson
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky soc.history:8791 soc.culture.celtic:6491 sci.archaeology:2576
From: pmclaugh@ecs.umass.edu
Newsgroups: soc.history,soc.culture.celtic,sci.archaeology
Subject: Re: Who lived in Great Britain before the Kelts?
Date: 4 Oct 92 23:05:42 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.232312.19203@unixg.ubc.ca>, lahaye@reg.triumf.ca (RAYMOND GABIN , TRIUMF OPERATIONS) writes:
>> 
> 	We should not apply modern customs with customs of long ago.  You and I
> know that car-owning people are integrated with non car-owning people.  A
> better example is the following: immigrants are welcome - generally - within
> another culture, such as Asians in North America, or Turks in Germany ( I won't
> go into the sad but true behavior of racist radicals).  However, two thousand
> years ago, this may not be the truth: ancient literature abounds with stories
> of 'immegrants' having to fight to remain ( the Trojans in Italy, The swiss
> into Gaul, Germanic tribes into Gaul, Celts into Galacia, the goths, the
> Vandals, the Franks,...). Rarely was a new 'people' welcome with open arm by
> the indigenous tribes.  I do hope that there were exceptions, but I cannot
> think of any off hand.  Nevertheless the rule was for new 'people' to fight
> their way in!!

I can. The Greeks were barbaric hicks wandering down the Balkans approx. 1000 BC
when they met the more advanced Aegean civilization (based in Crete, also known \
as the Minoan). The Aegeans taught the Greeks the use of iron tools and there 
is evidence that the two peoples lived side by side for several centuries some
unknown circumstances--famine, esxploitation, who knows--caused widespread 
warfare throughout the Aegean. Archaeologists have unearthed cities that,
one by one, were attacked and destroyed by Greeks (Mycenae and Troy being
two of the better known) by about 700 BC. By the way, Troy is on the western
coast of Turkey; I've been there. 

One big point, though. In most cases (though not all) the dominant people
integrated with the conquered, by intermarrying, trading, and generally
culturally merging. Your point is taken, however; in those rare cases when
a new people were accepted peacefully, if not overly welcome, hostility
did eventually break out.
From: livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: Battle of New Orleans
Date: 28 Sep 92 20:25:19 GMT
Organization: sgi

In article <1992Sep28.150147.11998@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, cthorne@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Charles E Thorne) writes:
>
> That's probably true from a British viewpoint, but from the U.S. 
> viewpoint, the possibility that a larger, more powerful country 
> would want to again invade (as they did in India) was very much 
> in the minds of U.S. citizens.

My point exactly.  That's why I said "Also, the war of 1812 
was simply much less important to the UK than it was to the 
US."

It's clear that from 1800 to 1812, some portion of the US 
population was very stirred up about relations with the UK, 
and also that the Press of the time kept stirring the pot.

However, what some sections of the US population can be
persuaded to get excited about is not always the same as
actualy, objective, threats to the US.   We've been through
this over and over.  The supposed threat from Japanese Americans
in 1942.    The supposed threat from Soviet Spetznast taking 
over Alaska.  The supposed threat from the Evil Empire.   The
supposed threat from Nicaragua.

What alarms a population goes through from time to time are
also historical phenomena, of course, but they don't necessarily
represent considered or realistic evaluations of reality.

> It wasn't until the Civil War that the U.S. population approached 
> that of Britain and there were even fears then that Britain would 
> side with the South to ensure cheap cotton.

I guess it's a good job that the South didn't have oil.   Oops,
sorry, wrong war.

jon.
Xref: sparky soc.history:8675 soc.culture.indian:32552
From: bhattach@quip.eecs.umich.edu (sayan bhattacharyya)
Subject: Re: World Culture and Western Culture
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor, MI
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 20:30:32 GMT

In article <BvIDJL.KwK@cs.psu.edu> narayana@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu (Kuram T Narayana) writes:
>In article <BvI1xw.7Js@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca> jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) writes:
>>
>>	All  it really takes to  kill a few million colonials is  
>>mind-bogglingly  stupid  imposed agricultural policy. Ireland's
>>potato famine comes to  mind as  an obvious example of the  
>>English managing to starve multitudes in the midst of plenty,
>>and I have  dim memories of something similar in 1940s India.
>>
>>						James Nicoll
>
>The Bengal famine of the early forties is perhaps the most
>comparable thing to the Potato famine imposed on Ireland by
>the colonial British. Satyajit Ray made a movie on the effects
>of the Bengal famine on a small brahmin family! I saw this movie
>(made in color) sometime in  76-78.
>...kt

The name of this Ray film is "Ashani Sanket" ("Signal of Thunder").
Ray adapted this film from the memorable Bengali novel of the same
name by , I think, Tarashankar Banerjee.

-Sayan Bhattacharyya.


Newsgroups: soc.history
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: World Culture and Western Culture
Followup-To: soc.history
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<JMC.92Sep28214354@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> <19764@ector.cs.purdue.edu>
Date: 29 Sep 92 15:07:39

Since Cutchin does not agree that progress is a good thing, it would
take me too far afield to argue that point.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: c34657b@saha.hut.fi (Tuomas Viljanen)
Subject: Re: Who Burned The Parthenon To Achieve Fame?
Organization: The Nibelungenlied Incorporated
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1992 19:58:30 GMT

In article <12504@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>
>Issac Asimov's book on the Greeks mentions that one man burned the
>Parthenon in classical times for the express purpose of achieving
>fame as the man who burned the Parthenon.  His punishment was supposed
>to have been that his name was removed from all records.

It was not the Parthenon, but the Temple of Artemis of Ephesos (the same
city from which the Apostle Paul (or was it Peter) was driven off). The
man who burned it was named Herostratos, and he did this just to preserve
his name to the generations come. Well, a way to become immortal...

The censors must have been sloppy, because not only the name of Herostratos
has survived, but his name has become a term: "herostratic fame" is something
one gets by very questionable means.

BTW, does anyone know from which era does the name Parthenon originate ?
The Greek word "parthenos" means a virgin; during the Byzantine age the
Parthenon was a christian church, named for The Blessed Virgin St. Mary,
for more than thousand years. As I would remember, none but Artemis of
the Greek goddesses were virgins, but lived in promiscuity...
  ++ Tuomas Viljanen                     ++ For a battle like Crecy, you do  ++
  ++ Lahderanta 20 A 19                  ++ not need a military genius like  ++
  ++ SF-02720 Espoo 72 FINLAND           ++ Edward III. All you need is an   ++
  ++ 358-0-592175 or c34657b@saha.hut.fi ++ idiot like the Duke of Alencon.  ++
Newsgroups: soc.history,soc.culture.celtic,sci.archaeology
From: lahaye@reg.triumf.ca (RAYMOND GABIN , TRIUMF OPERATIONS)
Subject: Re: Who lived in Great Britain before the Kelts?
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 23:23:00 GMT

>In article <BvFMH5.GL1@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk>, newt@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Michael Steven Newton) writes:
>> How 'bout an analogy?  If we were archaeologists of the future and we saw
>> cars suddenly appearing in Europe, would it be fair to say that a
>> band of conquering car owners wiped out the indigenous cultures and
>> replaced them with the "car-owning" culture?  That'd be a load of rubbish,
>> wouldn't it?
> 
	We should not apply modern customs with customs of long ago.  You and I
know that car-owning people are integrated with non car-owning people.  A
better example is the following: immigrants are welcome - generally - within
another culture, such as Asians in North America, or Turks in Germany ( I won't
go into the sad but true behavior of racist radicals).  However, two thousand
years ago, this may not be the truth: ancient literature abounds with stories
of 'immegrants' having to fight to remain ( the Trojans in Italy, The swiss
into Gaul, Germanic tribes into Gaul, Celts into Galacia, the goths, the
Vandals, the Franks,...). Rarely was a new 'people' welcome with open arm by
the indigenous tribes.  I do hope that there were exceptions, but I cannot
think of any off hand.  Nevertheless the rule was for new 'people' to fight
their way in!!
Newsgroups: soc.history,soc.culture.indian
From: tushar@dent.uchicago.edu ()
Subject: Re: World Culture and Western Culture
Organization: Dept. of Mathematics, U. of Chicago
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 04:43:36 GMT

In response to a letter which said

>I'll bet that some of the responses will be to accuse me of saying
>things I don't say.

Sridhar Venkateswaran writes:

>>	2. Harmony and counterpoint in music.  This has
>>penetrated all countries, ...
>
>As far as i know, The `Classical' form of music - where u have proper notes,
>styles, variations etc started in India. MUCH before the western civilization
>was even BORN !!!! and the 2 broad forms of Classical music in india -
>Hindustani (followed by mainly the northern states) and Carnatic (followed by
>the southern states) are still probably the most popular forms of music in 
>India. (there is ofcourse the film music `form' which is heard by more numbers
>but here i am referring to `formal' music. So - 
>	Western music (classical or otherwise) is NOT older
>	It is Not the first to formalise music either. !!


tushar
Newsgroups: soc.history,soc.culture.indian
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: World Culture and Western Culture/ British Misuse Of Sati.
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 20:53:18 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

 uds@wsu-eng.eng.wayne.edu (Seetamraju Udaybhaskar) writes:
>
>Did you know all the soldiers in british uniforms were indians.
>Only the officers were actual whites.  (Not even hybrids-angloindians)...
>The only time indians saw actual british foot soldiers were
>near the WW II time....

  This is incorrect.  At the time of the Indian Mutiny, for instance 
  there were some 27,000 British soldiers in India, and this number
  was increased to 40,000.   There were units of Welsh Guards, Scottish
  Guards, and Lancaster Rifles, among many others.  It's also worth
  noting that there were European soldiers working for the Company
  (whatever it was called by then) -- these were integrated into the
  regular British army shortly after the Mutiny.   

  (source: _Queen Victoria's Little Wars_ by Byron Farwell)

  It is true that most of the forces fighting under the Union Jack 
  in India were native forces, led as the poster says, by Europeans.
  Farwell claims that it was this latter factor that accounted for 
  the British success in the Mutiny and the earlier Sikh wars, since
  the quality of the weapons, and the quality of the individual
  foot soldier fighting under the British flag, whether British
  or Indian, was matched by his opponents.


---peter


  
  
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: cb@tamarack13.timbuk (Chris Brewster)
Subject: Re: World Culture and Western Culture
In-reply-to: hlin@cbnewsi.cb.att.com's message of Tue, 6 Oct 1992 15:20:54 GMT
Organization: pubs
	<19877@ector.cs.purdue.edu> <1992Oct6.152054.18015@cbnewsi.cb.att.com>
Distribution: usa
Date: 6 Oct 92 13:22:15 CDT

hua.t.lin writes:

   "China is a sleeping giant" - Napoleon.

I think it was more like "Let China sleep.  When she wakes, the world
will take notice."

Chris Brewster
cb@cray.com
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: traynor@fnalo.fnal.gov
Subject: Re: World Culture and Western Culture
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 23:40:30 GMT
X-Posted-From: fnalo.fnal.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <BvEHz8.MrI@ucunix.san.uc.edu>, ghayalm@ucunix.san.uc.edu (Manoj Ghayalod) writes:
> In article <29SEP199216102199@rosie.uh.edu> mece21x@rosie.uh.edu (Yesudas, Michael) writes:
>>In article <JMC.92Sep28214354@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>, jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes...
>>>Manoj Ghayalod includes:
>>> 
>>>     Obviously the Western form of democracy is a better system
>>>     than the others available and India is implementing this
>>>     system, but the fact remains that no former Western powers
>>>     ever used their systems to benifit their former colonies (as
>>>     the orginal poster seems to claim).  But on the contrary all
>>>     the colonies were ruthlessly exploited.
>>> 
>>>I did not wish to suggest taht Western powers were very often
>>>motivated by benevolence, although I would suppose there is
>>>an element of that in the 1829 suppression of sati.
>>>Incidentally, that is 1829, and I suppose the Indian leaders
>>>Manoj Ghayalod refers to were much later.
>>
>>True, the legal abolition of Sati was by William Bendick in 1829.
>>
> Just one point here.  No law has any value if it is not implemented.
> The American constitution has always had 'All men are born equal', the
> men who were responsible for this constitution had slaves and till
> the 1950s not all people were treated equally.  The credit with
> abolishing sati lies solely with Indian leaders, the British could
> not abolish sati.  The people at that time had their priorities mixed
> up (according to me), they held religion at a much higher than basic
> human rights and there would have been extreme resistance if Hinduism
> was percieved as being attacked (that was the reason for the mutiny,
> which is regarded as the first freedom struggle).
> 
> Manoj
> 
Can we reverse the argument and then say that none of the problems 
in the period of British domination were possible without the
acquiescence of the Indian leaders?  Just a thought.

					-Mike Traynor

NNN  NN DDDD    Mike Traynor (ND '86)(Rice '93?) |||     Amiga 500 owner   ///
 N N N   D  D   Fermilab PO Box 500 MS 221 E683  |||     w/MMR 7 Meg DRAM ///
 N  NN   D  D   Batavia IL, 60510               //|\\    190 Meg HD   \\\/// 
NN   NN DDDD    (708) 879-6095 [ans. mach.]    /// \\\   14.4Kbps modem\XX/

Newsgroups: soc.history
From: sechrest@dip.eecs.umich.edu (Stuart Sechrest)
Subject: Re: Invention of the Novel
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 03:26:51 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.015154.1476@newshost.anu.edu.au> (David Bofinger) writes:
>It's been claimed here recently that the novel was invented
>in, variously, the west or India. I've always seen the credit
>go to the Japanese lady who wrote _The Tale of Genji_. Is this
>a matter of definition of what a novel is?

What is a novel:

	A novel is an extended written prose fiction form in which a set of 
	characters show personal growth and development over the course of a 
	unified linear plot.

	Originally, novels were popular for readings aloud, over an
	extended period of time (a chapter or two of Don Quixote per night).
	Later they tended to be read silently for longer periods of time.  
	This development tended to increase the cohesion of the plot.

This characterized novels from the sixteenth through nineteenth century.
Twentieth century novels have set off in new directions, such as elimination
the linearity of the plot.

It is important to remember that before printing presses novels were
very difficult to create.  Much literature had to be memorized.  Other 
forms of literature included poems, sermons, epic poems, and plays.  
Some of these were oral, some for solo performance, other for group 
performance.

There are examples of early extended prose fiction, similar to novels,
such as Apuleus's ``The Golden Ass'' and Lady Murasaki's ``Tales of Genji,''
but the true form is a creation of a later commercial interaction,
between author and reading public.  (People wrote these things for a living.)

--Stuart Sechrest
Xref: sparky soc.history:8702 soc.culture.indian:32647
From: K.Spagnolo@massey.ac.nz (Ken Spagnolo)
Newsgroups: soc.history,soc.culture.indian
Subject: Re: World Culture and Western Culture
Summary: ????
Keywords: ????
Date: 30 Sep 92 22:38:10 GMT
Article-I.D.: massey.1992Sep30.223810.28133
 <JMC.92Sep28214354@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> <1992Sep30.030720.29922@massey.ac.nz> <30SEP199210362004@elroy.uh.edu>
Organization: Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand
X-Reader: NETNEWS/PC Version 2c


|>attaining freedom. India raised the life expectancy of 350
|million
|>people by 6 years in a span of 5 years after we gave the British
|>the boot. The life expectancy today is 63 years - Not as good as
|>it
|>should be but way higher than 26.

>I think it is still below 50. Life expectancy never went up by 37
>years in 45 years.

I might be wrong but it is worth checking. Last I heard it had gone
past the 60 year mark:)

|>Britain's economic greatness had less to do with the Industrial
|>Revolution than with opium. The nation of drug pushers gained
|>1/7th

^^^^^^^^
|>of the total revenue for British India from the sale of drugs. 
                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|The
|>British made sure that the Chinese bought the drugs -The British
|>even sent gunboats and their esteemed army to see that the drugs
|>got across to China without interference from the Chinese
|>government. 

M. Yesudas writes:

>It definitely not correct to say that the British made money only
>from opium. And to say that they built up an empire out of opium
>would be pushing imagination too far. They were a group of daring
>and brilliant people, more than the Indians at that time. They
>ruled over them.

1/7th of revenue from British India was through the sale of opium.
What does that make them? The sale of opium was state sponsored
too.

No doubt about their brilliance and daring but U have to state
history as it was - They were a bunch of greedy drug dealers with
no respect for fellow humans. If there is any 'maligning' in this
statement do feel free to challenge me.

>Maligning them does not change history.

Sure!

As for this crap about 'Western technology' - All I have to say is
that they flourished and the East and Africa did not - not because
the Africans, Indians, Chinese or Malay were/are stupid - but only
because it was what they had to do under the rule of the British.

Today countries that are referred to the 'tigers of the East' have
their sovereignty. Having been left 200 years behind the West has
not stopped them from catching up to todays technology and
'overtaking' the West in merely 30-40 odd years.

John Ainikkal
'Aotearoa' - Land of the long white cloud
-- 
Ken Spagnolo - Ph: +64-6-350-5160
Systems Programmer, Network Support, Usenet Admin, etc.
Xref: sparky soc.history:8737 soc.culture.celtic:6410 sci.archaeology:2550