Author: Scott E. Medine
Tuesday, 25 June 2002 - 03:06 pm |        |
Now, I know this has nothing to do with Jack and his bad self. And this is totally out in left field, probably so far out I’m on the warning track. But I need a little help.
I am writing an article for Military History Magazine and it may turn into a book if the research keeps going as it is going. I need to know the British stand point on the 1917 Balfour Declaration and the 1922 White Paper. I would like to know what is taught in the British School System on the matter. I’m not looking to start any trouble, I just need a British view.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 25 June 2002 - 05:26 pm | |
In liberal-minded nonconformist schools like mine, Scott, yet another example of British Imperialist SIN. Promising someone else's country to two people at once (via Lawrence of Arabia). Cf Ireland, India, etc. (Conservative alternatives were always permitted in history teaching, however, except that Easter 1916 was always going to be taught as MONSTROUS ENGLISH SIN. Killing Sir Roger Casement, on the other hand, was a more grey area, since relevant or not, his black diaries suggested that he kenw about non-political sins that rather perturbed good Methodists). Whether Lawrence of Arabia was a Great Man or a Self-Inflating Loon was an interestingly moot point. But borrowing money against a promise to give Zionists the Jewish homeland that only they and Jehovah in the Old Testament thought belonged to them was not highly thought of. (Of course in those days we were still very close to the fact that the state of Israel was effectively founded by terrorists: at least it was terrorism that led evrybody else to give up trying to govern it under League or UN mandate. Personally I wish the Porte still had it. Even before Ataturk, the Ottomans showed themselves far more capable of benign religious tolerance than Christians or Jews or Saudis.)
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Tuesday, 25 June 2002 - 09:23 pm | |
Thanks Martin, as always, your opinion is highly thought of and welcomed. I must ask if you mind if I quote you.
"Even before Ataturk, the Ottomans showed themselves far more capable of benign religious tolerance than Christians or Jews or Saudis."
Peace,
Scott |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 26 June 2002 - 06:38 am | |
Quote me where, Scott? I don't want to be the victim of Zionist demonstrations, or investigation by the puppet government it seems Sharon has successfully placed in Washington.
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Wednesday, 26 June 2002 - 08:31 am | |
I am working on an article for Military History Magazine in reference to the question; was there ever a Palestinian State. To my embarassment, I never thought of the possible anti-semitic outlook of the article, especially when a person known for his JTR work has been quoted. That could well....blow up all over the place in a real nasty way. So disregard, I'll just work around the statement. BUt thanks again for the insight.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Wednesday, 26 June 2002 - 08:38 am | |
Oh Martin, as far as that puppet government that Sharon has emplaced in Washington, I am probably already on their list, which is manned by Lynn Cheny. So all of you here that have emiled me.....you're probably on Ms. Cheny's list also.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: stephen stanley
Wednesday, 26 June 2002 - 02:39 pm | |
Just to confuse matters....surely the term Palestinian refers to a geographical area,therfore Israel is a palestinian state....
Steve |
Author: LeatherApron
Wednesday, 26 June 2002 - 07:55 pm | |
Hi Martin,
Good to see you still around.
"I don't want to be the victim of Zionist demonstrations..."
You'd have to do some explaining to your wife then, wouldn't you? 
Scott,
I'd be worried about the Mossad's list too. 
Back to JtR...somebody scribbled this near a stairwell -- The Freemasons Are The Men That Will Not be Blamed for Nothing
Regards,
Jack |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 26 June 2002 - 09:11 pm | |
Now you really have me wondering who you are, Leather Apron! My first wife is the only one of the three who is Jewish; but she is not Zionist. Like me she is a huge admirer of our very old friend Rabbi David Goldberg for his constant and courageous insistence that Jews must judge Israel by their own highest moral standards, and his willingness to say when these are not being met.
Stephen - I like it!
Scott - bear in mind that the liberal school views I imbibed date back to the 1950s, and the admiration of early and modern Turkish religious tolerance is all my own.
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Howard Brown
Sunday, 28 July 2002 - 09:46 am | |
| Mr. Fido: Hats off for speaking the truth about the Zionist bandit-state.....Rare that a mainstream historian of your caliber has the guts to stand up.....Your admirer as always |
Author: Martin Fido
Monday, 29 July 2002 - 12:43 am | |
Only one thing, Howard... there are people aged 40+ who were born and grew up in former Palestine and were told by their parents that this was their country. And their nation is Israel and their descent Jewish. Now are these innocent people who have never encroached on any territory other than that in which God (by their place of birth) deposited them, to be told that they are bandit invaders of some one else's land?
These messes caused by European war needs, or British imperialism, or whatever else you care to put it down to that has nothing whatsoever to do with the legitimate interests of ancestrally legitimated Palestinians or modern Jews whose native land is Palestine, are horribly difficult to sort out. I try as hard as I can to avoid having predetermined views to suggest what should be done (which is think is very far from obvious) no matter how clear I think it may be that things done in the past were wrong. As far as I know, on my father's side I descend from Normans who stole England by violence from innocent Anglo-Saxons. But on my mother's side I appear to descend from the Anglo-Saxons' co-invading Jutes, who stole England from the Romano-British. Should my children and grandchildren be kicked out of their homes in Leeds to make room for any Cornish, Welsh, Irish or Scottish (or Manx) who think they have a 2000-year-old prior claim?
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Jim Jenkinson
Monday, 29 July 2002 - 03:15 am | |
Mr Fido,
As there is no reference to land ownership in Yorkshire, in the King James version, British aboriginies would find it difficult to justify settling on the West Riding, to the rest of the world.
If certain Victorian scholars had found one of the "Lost Tribes", where they were looking, instead of fantasizing about it, would modern Israel have Test Match status in cricket and rugby ?
You're glaring omission of the Picts in your Romano-British overview, would suggest a visit from Orde Wingate's disciples or the Illuminati, is the least of your worries !
All the best
Jim |
Author: Martin Fido
Monday, 29 July 2002 - 09:02 am | |
Funnily enough, Jim, it seems that some American genealogists think the clan Fido is Pictish in origin, unlike their British counterparts who trace it from two brothers FitzDieu.
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Jim Jenkinson
Tuesday, 30 July 2002 - 02:52 am | |
Martin,
It is quite suprising how often dual derivations of surnames surfaces. I read one source recently that the surname Smith may be Pictish in origin.
Regards,
Jim |
Author: Eduardo Zinna
Tuesday, 30 July 2002 - 06:28 am | |
Jim,
'Smith' has equivalents in Germanic and Scandinavian languages, such as 'Schmidt' in German and 'Smed'in Danish. It refers to a common trade, that of metal or ironworker, for which most languages have a word, like Kusnetzov in Russian or Herrero in Spanish. If one acepted a Pictish origin for 'Smith' in Britain, one would be hard put to explain how the same root crops up in other languages.
Best,
Eduardo |
Author: Jim Jenkinson
Tuesday, 30 July 2002 - 07:31 am | |
Eduardo,
I agree with what you write, however the original migration wave of Celts to the British Isles (possibly 2000 - 1200 BC) spoke a much older Celtic form of language than later Celtic settlers (Scots, Irish, Welsh etc). Earlier are called q-celts, later p-celts. Their language was descended from the Ur language and before that the Indo- European Language Tradition. This ancient tongue was the closest cousin to Italic, the precurser of Latin.
The Celts wandered all over Europe, and I think it is difficult to determine where various words or names originally came from, as no written texts from these Celts exist.
The first instance surnames were written down and recorded, occurred at similar times all over Europe. eg Smith and Schmidt appear in North East Scotland, Utrecht in Holland and in Germany within a few years of each other.
So where did the first Smith live ? I don't think we can say for certain.
Regards
Jim |
Author: Eduardo Zinna
Tuesday, 30 July 2002 - 09:57 am | |
Jim,
What you're saying is very interesting indeed. I have to get back to my books before I can add anything.
Best,
E. |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 30 July 2002 - 07:47 pm | |
Hi, Jim:
I would not be surprised to learn that "Smith" is of Pictish origin. Before I started doing research into the War of 1812 I would never have thought of Smith of being an Irish name, but indeed one of the American commanders here in Baltimore was Major General Samuel Smith whose people were Scots-Irish Presbyterians from County Tyrone, Northern Ireland. Previously, I would have put money on Smith being a 100% English name. There is additionally a Smithstown in County Kilkenny and a Smithborough in County Monaghan plus a Smithtown in Inverness, reinforcing this link to Scotland and Ireland. Having said this, we should not of course underestimate the fact that a name like "Smith" could have come from the trade the man pursued, be he a blacksmith or silver- or goldsmith, for example. Basically, "smith" denoted any man who worked with metal when it is hot and malleable, so technically such men could have come from anywhere in the British Isles.
All the best
Chris George |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Wednesday, 31 July 2002 - 04:02 pm | |
"Smith". Anglo-Saxon term for a tinker, traveller,
dealing in tin or other metal working and fabrication...a peripatetic tribe accorded Scottish "Sept" status about the 17th century.
There were no people called "Picts".
Rosey :-) |
Author: Jim Jenkinson
Wednesday, 31 July 2002 - 04:43 pm | |
Rosey,
Thank you, my favourite coleen. I did specify in a previous post; q - celts. I have to say, why tell us there were no people called Picts, tell Robbie the Pict c/o Isle of Skye Bridge Tolbooth.
In my previous posting, I am disputing that "Smith" is an Anglo-Saxon surname, before all the clans with sept status were recorded in the 1600s, where were they all ?
Jim |
Author: Robin
Wednesday, 31 July 2002 - 07:48 pm | |
Rosemary,
Re: There were no people called "Picts".
"Venit et extremis legio praetenta Britannis, Quae Scotto dat frena truci ferronque notatas Perlegit examines Picto moriente figuras"
The above words of the Roman poet Claudian perhaps give the only physical description of the race of people known as Picts who once raided Roman Britain, defeated the Angle-Saxon invaders and in one of the great mysteries of the ancient world, disappeared as a separate people by the end of the tenth century. "This legion, which curbs the savage Scot and studies the designs marked with iron on the face of the dying Pict," are the Claudian words which give some insight as to the name given by Rome to the untamed tribes north of Hadrian's Wall . The Romans called this pre-Celtic people Pictii, or "Painted," although Claudius' words are proof that (as claimed by many historians), the ancient Picts actually tattooed their bodies with designs. To the non-Roman Celtic world of Scots and Irish and the many tribes of Belgic England and Wales they were known as "Cruithni".
Thought you'd like to know. Must be honest though, I lifted the text of a web site on the Picts. My knowledge of matters historical is not THAT good!
Regards,
Robin |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Wednesday, 31 July 2002 - 10:09 pm | |
Dear Jim & Robin,
Unlike Caesar and Claudius, Posidonius (c.135-c.50BC) came amongst us with an open palm and enquiring mind.
Prof. Martin Carver is the modern authority on the
"Picts". My public rebuke regarding his folly has yet to be countered.
Fortunately, Robbie the Pict was not in residence the last time I crossed over the bridge to Skye.
Rosey :-) |
Author: Jim Jenkinson
Thursday, 01 August 2002 - 01:12 am | |
Rosey,
Prof. Martin Carver's lecture in Oct 2000 was entitled "The settlement at Portmahomack, Easter Ross, and the conversion of the Picts".
I fully accept that these people never called themselves Picts. But that is their popular alias.
Jim |
Author: Robin
Thursday, 01 August 2002 - 06:44 am | |
Rosemary & Jim,
A rose by any other name. . .
(really must make the effort to think of something original instead of habitually knicking other peoples' words).
Rosemary,
So, ol' Posidonius "came amongst us with an open palm", did he? Sounds like one of those illegal immigrant chappies to me. 
Bye
Robin |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Thursday, 01 August 2002 - 10:12 am | |
Dear Jim & Robin,
The relationship between the Norse and Gaelic languages via the intermediary Ogam/Ogham cypher system, is discussed in depth in Dr Richard Cox's The Language of Ogam Inscriptions of Scotland: Contributions to the Study of Ogam, Runic and Roman Alphabet Inscriptions in Scotland.(1999).
Dr Cox demonstrates beyond doubt that the mysterious "Pictish" language is, in fact, Old Norse utilising the the Ogam inscription.
The dynastic legacy between the Norse royalty, The Lords of the Isles (MacDonald),and the High King of Alba (Broudie), are a matter of historical record.
The 'miraculous' conversion of the High King Broudie by the druid Columba, is perhaps, the greater mystery!
Rosey :-) |
Author: Robin
Thursday, 01 August 2002 - 04:19 pm | |
Rosemary,
Phew! You've got me there.
Er, um, over to you Jim.
Robin. |
