|
28 Feb 04 - 11:54 PM (#1126118) Subject: BS: Uhyvdla From: Walking Eagle I was just thinking that the Tsalagi (Cherokee) pronounced--Tsa (Ja),--la (lah),-- gi (ghee) word for cold and Republican is one and the same, Uhyvdla. The word is pronounced--U (Uh),--hvy (hyuh),--dla (hhlah). Gutteral sound on the last part. What a coincidence! (;->) Donadagohvi (Until we meet again) Uwohali |
|
29 Feb 04 - 12:24 AM (#1126122) Subject: RE: BS: Uhyvdla From: katlaughing Love it!! Wesa:-) |
|
29 Feb 04 - 01:12 AM (#1126135) Subject: RE: BS: Uhyvdla From: Peace That is apt. Also, Walking Eagle, thank you for sharing your language. Ah le, do na da. Bruce M |
|
29 Feb 04 - 11:51 AM (#1126204) Subject: RE: BS: Uhyvdla From: Bill D *wondering WHO decided what to call Republicans* ....surely there was Cherokee language before anyone needed a word for Republican. |
|
29 Feb 04 - 12:00 PM (#1126207) Subject: RE: BS: Uhyvdla From: CarolC God's frozen people? ;-) |
|
29 Feb 04 - 02:12 PM (#1126284) Subject: RE: BS: Uhyvdla From: Walking Eagle I'm doing a little checking on the origin of the word. I have a theory, but I need to see if it is right. |
|
29 Feb 04 - 02:53 PM (#1126306) Subject: RE: BS: Uhyvdla From: Walking Eagle OK, here it is. Bill D, you are right in your assumption that the Tsalagi language existed before there was a need for the word Republican. Like all languages, Tsalagi has to play catch up and add new words that fit within the constraints of that language. The Cherokees simply had no need for the word republican because our central govt. was far different than that of the United States. The first time that the U.S. govt. really affected Tsalagi life was in 1830, the time of the Indian Removal Act. White settlers wanted Indian territorial lands to settle on. Not just Tsalagi, but Lenapes, Creeks, Choctaws, Seminoles, and Senaca, just to name a few. All Eastern Indian nations were to be forcably removed from their lands and moved across the Mississippi into 'Indian Territory.'Andrew Jackson was president at the time. He HATED Indians. He was a Republican, like all presidential candidates at that time. My deduction is that the word for 'cold' already existed and was expanded at the time of the IRA to mean Republican as well. |
|
29 Feb 04 - 02:59 PM (#1126310) Subject: RE: BS: Uhyvdla From: katlaughing Thanks for that, WE. I love learning about other languages, histories, and cultures. luvyakat-wesa:-) |
|
29 Feb 04 - 04:48 PM (#1126388) Subject: RE: BS: Uhyvdla From: Walking Eagle If I were to guess, I'd say that the word came into being much like other words. Tribal elders were probably sitting around a council fire during the 'march' one evening trying to describe AJ or Republican. Having no word for it, some smart aleck probably threw in 'cold' as a candidate and everyone agreed. |
|
29 Feb 04 - 05:14 PM (#1126405) Subject: RE: BS: Uhyvdla From: Bill D *big smile*....I like the sound of that! (I also LOVE "God's Frozen People") |
|
29 Feb 04 - 05:59 PM (#1126432) Subject: RE: BS: Uhyvdla From: Walking Eagle Yeah, so did I. Thanks CarolC. |
|
29 Feb 04 - 10:38 PM (#1126608) Subject: RE: BS: Uhyvdla From: Walking Eagle Something else, slight thread drift here. The IRA is (or was) open ended. Wilma Mankiller, in her biography, relates how her family was relocated by the BIA from their birthplace in Oklahoma, to a place called Hunter's Point in San Francisco. The 'logic' being that 'induns' living on reservations didn't have the opportunities for advancment they would have if they were relocated 'off res.' This was in the mid 1950s folks! The Mankillers had to sell their farm, and along with that, a small truck vegetable and egg selling business. They were moved to a slum in S.F. and her dad, brothers, and sisters had to find jobs just to make a living wage for the family. No frills at all. They found solace at the Indian Center in Oakland. There, Wilma learned office skills. She loved her time there as she met many members of other nations that she had only heard of. There, she helped organize the takeover of Alcatraz. All of her brothers and sisters met and married members of other indian nations. Would white America stand for this? I think not. They would scream bloody hell about their 'rights' being tromped on. With good reason too. Sorry for the thread drift. |
|
29 Feb 04 - 10:48 PM (#1126614) Subject: RE: BS: Uhyvdla From: katlaughing WE, Wilma is one of my heroines! Do you ever listen to American Indian Radio on Satellite (AIROS)? Good stuff, from all over the NDNation. I esp. like the program Native Voices. WeSa:-) |
|
29 Feb 04 - 10:54 PM (#1126618) Subject: RE: BS: Uhyvdla From: Walking Eagle I met Wilma once at a Women's Voices conference at the University of Delaware. She was surprised to find someone there who could help her practice our spoken language. Her second husband was teaching her Tsalagi. |
|
01 Mar 04 - 12:53 AM (#1126671) Subject: RE: BS: Uhyvdla From: katlaughing Lucky Wilma to have met you. |
|
01 Mar 04 - 06:50 PM (#1127304) Subject: RE: BS: Uhyvdla From: CarolC My pleasure Bill D and Walking Eagle. But I can't take credit for it. I stole it from the TV show, "Home Improvement". It was a joke by Episcopalians about Episcopalians. Walking Eagle, I don't know if you would find this ridiculous or not, but I'm still pissed off at the Romans for what they did to my tribal ancestors (Kelts and Gaels). I guess some things never change ;-) |
|
02 Mar 04 - 02:54 AM (#1127454) Subject: RE: BS: Uhyvdla From: Walking Eagle Not rediculous at all. They pretty much tried to pound them into the ground by bad mouthing their gods and planting the bitter seeds of Christianity on Kelt and Gael land. |
|
02 Mar 04 - 04:56 AM (#1127490) Subject: RE: BS: Uhyvdla From: Teribus "I don't know if you would find this ridiculous or not, but I'm still pissed off at the Romans for what they did to my tribal ancestors (Kelts and Gaels)." Not only ridiculous, but a meaningless waste of time and energy, i.e. totally pointless. There is nothing that can be done about it (Celts/Kelts/Gaels + whoever v the Romans) consign it to history and get on with life. Now with Walking Eagle's case (i.e. the complaints of the indian nations v the government of the United States of America) there may well be something that could be done about it, as the principles are all still "in-place". Nothing will be done about it of course because the potential disruption could have disasterous consequences. |
|
02 Mar 04 - 09:57 AM (#1127666) Subject: RE: BS: Uhyvdla From: Walking Eagle I agree with you on my bit Teribus. I also know that history, no matter whose (Carol Cs) has a terrible way of playing itself forward. Whatif Lee had taken Gettysburg, for instance, or Germany, italy, and Japan had won. I have a feeling that some of us in the US would still be dealing with that today, even though there would be little we could do about it. VERY GOOD Points though Teribus. Glad to see you back! |
|
02 Mar 04 - 10:14 AM (#1127675) Subject: RE: BS: Uhyvdla From: Wolfgang And why is in English (and German, and...) the word 'right' used both to describe a political faction and to indicated that someone is on a good way? Wolfgang |
|
02 Mar 04 - 10:21 AM (#1127683) Subject: RE: BS: Uhyvdla From: CarolC I didn't ask you if you would find it ridiculous, Teribus. I was addressing Walking Eagle. I have no doubt that you would find the idea of the Romans not doing what they did an abhorant idea. And what they did was a lot more than just imposing a religion... they did to the Kelts and Gaels in continental Europe, pretty much the same thing that the Europeans did to the indigenous peoples of the Americas. They disconnected my tribal ancestors from their past. Which means they robbed me of the opportunity to know about that past. Fortunately for the indigenous peoples of the Americas, it happened recently enough for some people, like Walking Eagle, to recapture some of it and pass it on to new generations. That can't be done in my case. Still, it's my pissed offedness to do with as I will. And what I choose to do with it is to acknowlege it, not deny it, and incorporate that understanding of it into how I move forward. It's my responsibility, and it's not up to you to tell me what to do about it. |
|
02 Mar 04 - 10:23 AM (#1127690) Subject: RE: BS: Uhyvdla From: Walking Eagle Huhh? My mind isn't so sharp these days, Wolfgang, so please explain. |
|
02 Mar 04 - 10:49 AM (#1127699) Subject: RE: BS: Uhyvdla From: Wolfgang "The Republicans are right". Wolfgang |
|
02 Mar 04 - 10:52 AM (#1127701) Subject: RE: BS: Uhyvdla From: CarolC And another word for 'left' is 'sinister'. I think it goes back to the days when left-handed people were considered possessed by the devil. |
|
02 Mar 04 - 11:08 AM (#1127710) Subject: RE: BS: Uhyvdla From: Wolfgang In many languages across the world, the physical 'right' is associated with good, fine, correct and other positive meanings, the physical 'left' is associated with bad meanings. English is but one example: The Latin word for 'left' has given you 'sinister', the Latin word for 'right' has given you 'dexterity'. In German, 'right' also means 'law', 'correct', 'upright', and 'left' is associated with 'in an underhand way' or 'awkwardly'. Wolfgang |
|
02 Mar 04 - 01:31 PM (#1127818) Subject: RE: BS: Uhyvdla From: McGrath of Harlow I don't think the Romans ever had much to do with any Gaels I ever heard of. Not when it came to conquest and that. More the other way round, if anything. (I'm sure they would if they'd had the chance.) |
|
02 Mar 04 - 05:56 PM (#1127992) Subject: RE: BS: Uhyvdla From: CarolC My mistake, McGrath. I was referring to the Gauls, but my brain and fingers typed Gael. Oops. |
|
02 Mar 04 - 08:10 PM (#1128079) Subject: RE: BS: Uhyvdla From: pdq Many people hated Andrew Jackson, but please do not blame his actions on Republicans. There was no such party in 1830. The Republican party held its first state convention in July, 1854. The party was created by a group of Whigs, Free Soil Democrats, the Liberty Party, and elements of the Know-Nothing Movement, together with the Free-Soil Party and abolitionists. Republicans were united in their disapproval of slavery and aristocracy, and in their support for new railroads, free homesteads. They denounced the Supreme Court's decision in the Dred Scott Case. "Republican" was first used by Thomas Jefferson's party, later called the Democrat-Republican Party and then, simply Democrat. The name reappeared in the 1850s, when the present-day Republican party was founded. Democrat appears after Andrew Jackson's name in 1828. Generally belligerent toward the South, the Republicans were regarded by Southerners with hatred and fear They were successful in the elections of 1858 with Abraham Lincoln. The party platform in 1860 included planks calling for a high protective tariff, free homesteads, and a transcontinental railroad; these were bids for support among Westerners, farmers, and abolitionists. Elements of the Republican coalition also supported the right to vote for women and Blacks, positions generally opposed by Democrats |
|
03 Mar 04 - 03:17 AM (#1128256) Subject: RE: BS: Uhyvdla From: GUEST,Boab "God's Frozen People"---CarolC, that is a cracker!! Wish this was in audio---you'd hear some cackling!! |
|
04 Mar 04 - 12:23 AM (#1128852) Subject: RE: BS: Uhyvdla From: Walking Eagle pdq. It's late know, so I'll post my sources later today. |
|
04 Mar 04 - 03:32 AM (#1128900) Subject: RE: BS: Uhyvdla From: Teribus CarolC, In your post of 02 Mar 04 - 10:21 AM, when you say that: "They (the Romans) disconnected my tribal ancestors from their past. Which means they (the Romans) robbed me of the opportunity to know about that past." You could not, in fact, be more wrong. The Romans did at least record events, whereas those of whom you speak did not. The Romans provide the only link to that tribal past you seemingly hold so dear to the extent that you can be "pissed off" at those involved some 2000+ years ago. One sided? A history written by the victors? Assuredly, but only in certain aspects. They also recorded descriptions of the way of life, the society of those they conquered, their methods of farming, their trade, every-day aspects that had no political significance and were recorded as facts required to assess tax. These I believe would have been true accounts - the only ones in existence. |
|
04 Mar 04 - 10:40 AM (#1129089) Subject: RE: BS: Uhyvdla From: pdq W.E... nichidi'i'sh naalnish? |
|
04 Mar 04 - 11:26 AM (#1129120) Subject: RE: BS: Uhyvdla From: GUEST Destroying a culture is acceptable as long as you write down a biased and partial description of it. Got it. |
|
04 Mar 04 - 11:46 AM (#1129132) Subject: RE: BS: Uhyvdla From: CarolC These I believe would have been true accounts - the only ones in existence. My point exactly. They are the only ones. The culture of the Kelts and Gauls of Europe is dead and is no longer passed from one generation of these people to the next. And this is because they no longer exist as a people. And they no longer exist as a people in large part because of the Romans. The information recorded by the Romans is not sufficient for me to be able to know the culture of my tribal ancestors as my own. Many of the tribes of the Americas can have this knowlege. The people in places like India and some parts of Asia can have this knowlege. Jews can have this knowlege. But I cannot. I should also say that the Christian Church is also responsible to a great extent for the fact that the oral traditions of most of my Pagan ancestors (both the continental Europeans as well as the Irish and Scottish ancestors) have been interrupted. But don't get me wrong. It's not a huge part of my life to be thinking about these things. It's just a couple of things that I don't appreciate about the Romans and the Christian Church. |
|
04 Mar 04 - 11:49 AM (#1129136) Subject: RE: BS: Uhyvdla From: CarolC Oops. Forgot about Africa. There is still a living link to the past for many people in Africa also. |
|
04 Mar 04 - 01:01 PM (#1129167) Subject: RE: BS: Uhyvdla From: McGrath of Harlow Oral traditions can't tell you too much about what was happening thousands of years ago, when you are living on a society that has been changing all those years. |
|
04 Mar 04 - 04:14 PM (#1129283) Subject: RE: BS: Uhyvdla From: CarolC No, but they can tell you alot about the living history of a people, which, in the case of the tribal peoples I mentioned, would still be a living tradition today if they hadn't been obliterated. |
|
04 Mar 04 - 07:24 PM (#1129419) Subject: RE: BS: Uhyvdla From: McGrath of Harlow A lot of moving back and forth in mainland Europe over the last two thousand years, and a lot of coming and going. The Roman empire was just one of the episodes, and not necessarily the most disruptive. |
|
04 Mar 04 - 09:52 PM (#1129504) Subject: RE: BS: Uhyvdla From: Walking Eagle pdq--I'd gladly answer your question if it were tsalagi. It isn't. We have no character in our syllabary for "c" or "ch". My guess is that the question you asked is in Choctaw. I'd love to know what you wrote and what the answere is. Been a little sick today, so I'll post my Jackson/Republican info tomorrow. Please keep in mind that it wasn't me that assigned the word. I've met some very nice Republicans on my journey through this world. |
|
05 Mar 04 - 02:17 AM (#1129583) Subject: RE: BS: Uhyvdla From: CarolC I don't exactly agree with you McGrath, but I don't really want to turn Walking Eagle's thread into a debate about the Romans or the history of the peoples of Europe, so I'll just try exit the discussion as gracefully as possible. |
|
05 Mar 04 - 04:47 AM (#1129635) Subject: RE: BS: Uhyvdla From: Teribus GUEST, 04 Mar 04 - 11:26 AM "Destroying a culture is acceptable as long as you write down a biased and partial description of it. Got it." Do you mean today, or way back in past history? If the former then absolutely not, if the latter, then that is what happened, no more, no less - nothing can be done about it - Got it? I also said that the accounts written by the Romans, were in part biased and in others extremely accurate and detailed. The campaign histories written by such as Tacitus were embellished, the reports from Provincial Governors were on the other hand fairly accurate, as has been borne out by archeological studies - Got it? CarolC, Just a couple of observations. If indeed, "The culture of the Kelts and Gauls of Europe is dead and is no longer passed from one generation of these people to the next. And this is because they no longer exist as a people." owes more to natural assimilation than any other factor. To say that, "they no longer exist as a people in large part because of the Romans." is totally incorrect. You say that the, "Jews can have this knowlege. But I cannot." due in large to the influence of the Romans? Please correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the Romans occupy Judea and Samaria for a greater length of time than they ever occupied Northern Europe and parts of the British Isles? If they (the Jews) kept their identity, religion and culture, then a couple of obvious factors seem to be apparent, that they were of no significance to their Roman rulers (they did after all let the Jews keep their Kings as nominal rulers), and that what Roman ways were adopted, at the expense of whatever native cultures that existed, were adopted by the indigenous people as a matter of choice (i.e. the Roman way of doing this is better, therefore that is what we will do in the future). As Kevin has already pointed out Roman influence with regard to Ireland and the greater part of Scotland was so minimal as to be considered insignificant. As to the effect of the early Christian Church, particularly in Scotland and Ireland, you would be well advised to study exactly how this religion came to be adopted. It was adopted not by force but by choice, normally the choice of the native ruler, the histories of St.Patrick, Columba, Aidan and Cuthbert clearly show this. In Columba's case he wandered the Highlands and western isles of Scotland, often alone, or, with less than five companions - hardly enough to force their religion on the multitude of extremely war-like tribes who inhabited the place at that time. Where the Church of Rome went wrong in the British Isles (IMHO) was at the Synod of Whitby, where the almost secular method of practicing the religion that existed in Ireland and in Scotland was abandoned to conform with the main body of the Church at that time. It was done by agreement, not by force. By the bye, most of the present day "Christian" religious festivals and holidays are in fact adopted pagan festivals, the Roman Church advised and encouraged that practice in order to gain converts and increase it's popularity among the common people - again it was a process of assimilation. |
|
05 Mar 04 - 10:49 AM (#1129787) Subject: RE: BS: Uhyvdla From: Walking Eagle Well pdq? I would really like to know what you wrote. It sounds interesting. |
|
05 Mar 04 - 11:31 AM (#1129817) Subject: RE: BS: Uhyvdla From: pdq W.E...actually, I intended the phrase to be a bit whimsical. It is from a book on conversational Navajo. It is the question "is your car running?". When I first saw it, the old joke came to mind: "Do you have Prince Albert in a can?". The companion phrase "juice of the car" for gasoline is also charming. |