Evocative post in the Kilt Accessories forum - some thoughts

[Oatmeal Savage]

Oatmeal Savage (curious nick, no?), My father called me that when I was a lad.

Kevin

[Scott Gilmore]

Oatmeal Savage (curious nick, no?), My father called me that when I was a lad.

Kudos to Dad. I can just imagine the thrusting and flinging of oatmeal flecks and chunks hither and thither with great and energetic abandon. Good nick.

Regards,
Scott Gilmore

[Andrew Green]

Interesting. I have only scratched the article... but it seems like a good read. like others on here, I am also interested in aspects that we do not know. It's more fun to speculate sometimes.

[pdcorlis]

As always Scott, you've given us some interesting history to consider - THANKS!

[MacWage]

Scott,

I had not read the article yet (or book), but have read a number of reviews and talked to a few who had read it. It is definately interesting. In general, I try to hold judgement (pro or con) until I actually read it (or see it, for documentaries). The "specualtive" statement is from several of the reviews (by professional historians). I had not heard the Genghis Khan reference before, but have recognized the same point previously.

I too love reading about "unsettled" history, particularly King Arthur, Atlantis (Thera/Santorini), the Celtic Church and early Irish/Scottish history, MacBeth, and the many Biblical-related matters. Pre-Columbus Americas is more on the periphory of my interests, but "1491" intrigues me. By nature, the historical topics that have the most question marks (either by a marked lack of primary sources or enormous legends and myths layed above the actual history) leads to the most speculative history. I am always interested in what sources and arguements are used to make a point. Mann tries to limit the speculation, though eliminating it is impossible, especially for the topic. Cahill's "How the Irish Saved Civilization" suffers from the same problem, lack of primary sources (Cahill by the destruction of the Viking raids and Mann by the lack of readable native writings and the level of the disease induced destruction) and attempts to make up for that by archeology and other fields.

Thanks for bringing up the article!!

[Norbydog]

Just to add a little.

I had a college professor, in West History, who was a member of the Sioux Rosebud Tribe. She called the contact between Europe and North America, "The Columbian Exchange". She said that although it is highly published that European diseases killed many American Indians; but the tribes that had contact with Europeans also gave the explorers diseases. I am fairly certain, but do not hold me to this, that the American Indian population exposed Europeans to syphillis. That is her account, not mine. But I have some belief in it, as I do not recall learning of any European being diagnosed with syphillis prior to 1492.

Just food for thought.

P.S. Oh yeah, she also taught that horses and cattle were not native to the Americas, and cows were deadly, manical beasts before they were domesticated, much like the hippo is today.

[MacWage]

P.S. Oh yeah, she also taught that horses and cattle were not native to the Americas, and cows were deadly, manical beasts before they were domesticated, much like the hippo is today.

If you've ever been to a dairy farm (with the cows, NOT ON A TOUR), you will soon learn that the cows are dangerous, but VERY STUPID. To stop a charging cow, extend your arms holding a piece of wide fabric. The cow STOPS (it can't tell the difference between a piece of fabric, a brick wall, and larger beast). I was told not to show fear and I would outwit the cow.


I know some deseases went from the natives to the Europeans, but can't recall which ones. They were, however, much less deadly than than the ones that went from Europeans (for they included most of the pathagens from Europe, Asia, and Africa) to the natives.

Now, most of us are immune to many of them and are "used" to the rest.