degrees of screw stainless steel

"John B." wrote in message
...
On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 10:23:06 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 12:13:41 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/15/2017 2:07 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jun 2017 21:20:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 6/14/2017 8:36 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jun 2017 09:27:40 -0700, Jeff Liebermann

wrote:

On Wed, 14 Jun 2017 14:49:58 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jun 2017 21:20:14 -0700, Jeff Liebermann

wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jun 2017 18:33:28 +0700, John B.
wrote:
It is called being civilized, I suppose. And, of course, Civil
Rights.

Yep. Civilization can be a problem.

From: Congressional Research Service
Title: U.S. Foreign Aid to the Palestinians
December 16, 2016

Excerpts:

The U.S. government has committed more than $5 billion in
bilateral
economic and non-lethal security assistance to the Palestinians,

Since June 2007, U.S. aid to the Palestinians has occurred within
the
context of a geographical and factional split between
1. West Bank/Fatah: a U.S.- and Western-supported Palestinian
Authority (PA) in the West Bank led by President Mahmoud Abbas
(who
also directs the secular nationalist Fatah faction and the
Palestine
Liberation Organization, or PLO) 4 ; and
2. Gaza Strip/Hamas: Hamas de facto control in Gaza.

From the same source,
At the same time:
Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign
assistance
since World War II. To date, the United States has provided Israel
$127.4 billion (current, or non-inflation-adjusted, dollars) in
bilateral assistance.

Is there a bit of confusion here?

Chuckle. What's wrong with supporting both sides? During election
season, large companies often give money to both political parties
to
insure that they end up on the winning side, no matter who wins.
In
this case, I suspect it's something like buying peace, also knowns
as
bribing both sides not to shoot at each other. Oddly, it hasn't
worked too well and will probably need to eventually be
re-evaluated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_aid_to_Palestinians
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/world/which-countries-get-the-most-foreign-aid/
The cartograms (graphs) are rather interesting.

One of the least understood facts about Terrorism is that it takes a
lot of money to finance. Terrorist cells do not function in a
financial vacuum. So, if you finance both parties it is,
effectually,
encouraging both parties to continue the struggle.

But I find foreign aid and public opinion a bit of a joke.

Most of sub-Saharan Africa, for example, was, not that many years
ago,
colonies of various European countries and, apparently made a profit
for their colonial overlords. Then came the "home rule" movement
which
the U.S. liberals encouraged emphatically. So now all the former
colonies have became independent and we have "ethnic cleansing" and
"give us more money" in all the colonies. Some, Zambia comes to
mind,
had been extremely rich colonies and now are financial basket cases.

I'm not sure what the moral of this story is. Did the white men
shirk
their burden? Should we re-colonize Africa?

I was using it as an example of things that people do in the pursuit
of "doing what is right" that turn out to be just the opposite.

There was a discussion about the poor Somalia refugee who if not
admitted to the U.S. probably would have been massacred, which sounds
pitiful, except that last year it was her tribe that was doing the
killing and the present day killers were the ones that were being
massacred. It might be noted that as colonies this inter tribal
killing never reached the intensity that it is today.

Were the "common people" better or worse off under colonialism? A
difficult question but certainly in Zimbabwe the standard of living
has gone down hill since freedom, tribal warfare between the Matabele
and the Shona tribes began with the country's independence in 1980 and
continues till today although currently the shooting has stopped. But
in 2016 nationwide protests took place regarding the economic collapse
in the country

Zimbabwe's commercial farming sector was traditionally a source of
exports and foreign exchange, and provided 400,000 jobs. However, the
government's land reform program badly damaged the sector, turning
Zimbabwe into a net importer of food products. For example, between
2000 and 2016 annual wheat production fell from 250,000 tons to 60,000
tons, maize was reduced from two million tons to 500,000 tons and
cattle slaughtered for beef fell from 605,000 to 244,000.

So tell me. Is the average Zimbabwean better, or worse, off now that
the country is independent?

I suspect that there are countries in Africa that are worse off, and
countries in Africa that are better off since colonization.

I'm no expert on Africa. But I recently read that a lot of the ethnic
strife that's at the root of modern "ethnic cleansing" resulted from
Europeans arbitrarily drawing borders, and in some cases arbitrarily
selecting one ethnic group to rule the others. It's pretty similar to
what Europeans did in the Middle East.

It's a sad fact that people are tribal at all sorts of scales, and they
will fight very hard for the interests of their tribe. But when a much
bigger, stronger and better organized "tribe" (like Europe) moves in and
takes things over, it's not unusual for people to be discontent. If
that large "tribe" leaves (which doesn't seem to be all that common),
reorganization is required, and chaos shouldn't be surprising.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Just like in North America where there's the myth that the Amerindians at
the time of their discovery by Europeans were a peaceful bunch living a
bountiful life whereas the facts were that the various tribes were engaged
in ruthless inter-tribal wars often to annihilation of a tribe for the
best hunting/farming/gathering grounds. The other fact was that the
natives were often barely living at a substance level and the least little
upset in game numbers or climate could mean starvation and the end of that
tribal group.

Cheers

My wife's eldest sister married a Usian and moved to the U.S. Her son
married a "Native American" woman who I recently met when the family
visited Thailand and she assured me that the "Native Americans" were a
peace loving group.

Not so much with the Pawnee tribe I've been told.

American military helicopters are named after native American tribes.

Maybe they get the "peaceful until provoked" bit after all.

On 6/16/2017 3:11 PM, Ian Field wrote:


"AMuzi" wrote in message
news
On 6/15/2017 4:01 PM, Ian Field wrote:


"Doug Landau" wrote in message
...


Just like in North America where there's the myth that
the Amerindians at the time of their discovery by
Europeans were a peaceful bunch living a bountiful life
whereas the facts were that the various tribes were
engaged in ruthless inter-tribal wars often to
annihilation of a tribe for the best
hunting/farming/gathering grounds. The other fact was
that the natives were often barely living at a subsitance
level and the least little upset in game numbers or
climate could mean starvation and the end of that tribal
group.

Actually, what you paint as a simple picture is not so
simple. Conditions varied greatly between locales and
times, and as artifacts evidence, in some places in some
time periods life was easier than in others. Similarly,
ruthless inter-tribal wars existed, and peaceful
inter-tribal relations existed, and neither were uncommon.

As its been described to me; there were a few particularly
nasty tribes, but on the whole the settlers were greeted by
friendly helpful natives - until they realised it was an
invasion........


Great name for a band; Queen Boudicca & the Savages.

Didn't she lead an army of Pagans against the Romans? - WTF
is that to do with native Americans.

The preceding phrase reads:

" there were a few particularly nasty tribes, but on the
whole the settlers were greeted by friendly helpful natives
- until they realised it was an invasion........ "

I note that humans are pretty much human, across both
geography and time.


--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

"Frank Krygowski" wrote in message
news
On 6/15/2017 8:19 PM, John B. wrote:


My wife's eldest sister married a Usian and moved to the U.S. Her son
married a "Native American" woman who I recently met when the family
visited Thailand and she assured me that the "Native Americans" were a
peace loving group.

Unfortunately my family had lived in New England since the 1600's and
at least one of the daughters of our tribe was kidnapped by "Indians"
and never seen again and a number of the male members were "murdered"
by the "savages".

Two disparate points to relate: I've done some reading on the eastern
Amerindian's kidnapping practice. Apparently, in the moral system of many
of the tribes, it was not considered an evil act or an act of revenge. It
was often "The white people killed one of our tribe, so they owe us a
person." And the person (child, usually) who was taken became a fully
adopted member of the tribe, and often had no wish to return to white
society.

I can see how that might seem reasonable - but it didn't work so well for
the kidnapee's family.

On Friday, June 16, 2017 at 9:20:14 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Friday, June 16, 2017 at 7:42:10 AM UTC-7, Radey Shouman wrote:
John B. Alocomb writes:

On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 23:37:45 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 6/15/2017 8:19 PM, John B. wrote:


My wife's eldest sister married a Usian and moved to the U.S. Her son
married a "Native American" woman who I recently met when the family
visited Thailand and she assured me that the "Native Americans" were a
peace loving group.

Unfortunately my family had lived in New England since the 1600's and
at least one of the daughters of our tribe was kidnapped by "Indians"
and never seen again and a number of the male members were "murdered"
by the "savages".

Two disparate points to relate: I've done some reading on the eastern
Amerindian's kidnapping practice. Apparently, in the moral system of
many of the tribes, it was not considered an evil act or an act of
revenge. It was often "The white people killed one of our tribe, so
they owe us a person." And the person (child, usually) who was taken
became a fully adopted member of the tribe, and often had no wish to
return to white society. You might say "Stockholm syndrome," but I
think that humans are simply far more complicated than we normally believe.

There is at least one authenticated case of a woman who was kidnapped
by one of the western tribes and lived for a considerable time with
them. When she was "freed" she apparently became very depressed and
wanted to return to the tribe. This was apparently denied, after all
she had just been freed from captivity..

You're probably thinking of Cynthia Anne Parker, who was taken captive
by Commanches in Texas. She was the mother of Quanah Parker, the last
independent chief of the Commanches.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynthia_Ann_Parker

Half of all the Indians in the USA were in California. They warred continuously against one another. Hunter/Gather societies tend to do that. Farming communities less so except when arable land is in short supply.

When the Spanish installed the Mission system in California the claim by many people who aren't very bright is that they enslaved these Indians to farm in the Missions. The Indians so hated this that when the Spanish-Mexican War cut the funding for the Missions and the Priests went back to Spain, the tribes who were from many tribes retained the names of the Missions as their tribal names and remained farmers. Enslaved indeed.

Yes, the Spaniards were well known for bringing joy and happiness to the natives of North and Central America. Native populations skyrocketed during the mission period! They were so happy! Singing and dancing and praising the Lord.

-- Jay Beattie.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/8592338

On Friday, June 16, 2017 at 1:11:57 PM UTC-7, Ian Field wrote:

Didn't she lead an army of Pagans against the Romans? - WTF is that to do
with native Americans.

Not everything is about you Ian.

On Saturday, June 17, 2017 at 12:14:59 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Friday, June 16, 2017 at 1:11:57 PM UTC-7, Ian Field wrote:

Didn't she lead an army of Pagans against the Romans? - WTF is that to do
with native Americans.

Not everything is about you Ian.

get together n start a new discussion group ...

On Friday, June 16, 2017 at 1:22:03 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/16/2017 3:11 PM, Ian Field wrote:


"AMuzi" wrote in message
news
On 6/15/2017 4:01 PM, Ian Field wrote:


"Doug Landau" wrote in message
...


Just like in North America where there's the myth that
the Amerindians at the time of their discovery by
Europeans were a peaceful bunch living a bountiful life
whereas the facts were that the various tribes were
engaged in ruthless inter-tribal wars often to
annihilation of a tribe for the best
hunting/farming/gathering grounds. The other fact was
that the natives were often barely living at a subsitance
level and the least little upset in game numbers or
climate could mean starvation and the end of that tribal
group.

Actually, what you paint as a simple picture is not so
simple. Conditions varied greatly between locales and
times, and as artifacts evidence, in some places in some
time periods life was easier than in others. Similarly,
ruthless inter-tribal wars existed, and peaceful
inter-tribal relations existed, and neither were uncommon.

As its been described to me; there were a few particularly
nasty tribes, but on the whole the settlers were greeted by
friendly helpful natives - until they realised it was an
invasion........


Great name for a band; Queen Boudicca & the Savages.

Didn't she lead an army of Pagans against the Romans? - WTF
is that to do with native Americans.

The preceding phrase reads:

" there were a few particularly nasty tribes, but on the
whole the settlers were greeted by friendly helpful natives
- until they realised it was an invasion........ "

I note that humans are pretty much human, across both
geography and time.

Reading about the Gold Rush is informative about large human migrations. 300,000 people started on the gold rush and only 50,000 arrived and half of those died in the first year.

While there was CERTAINLY many things handled badly about the migration of the Cherokee from southern Texas to Oklahoma, of approximately 15,000 to 16,000 only 3,000 to 4,000 died on the Trail of Tears. That means that the military overseeing this migration were trying their best and succeeded far better than those on the gold rush.

wrote in message
...
On Friday, June 16, 2017 at 1:11:57 PM UTC-7, Ian Field wrote:

Didn't she lead an army of Pagans against the Romans? - WTF is that to do
with native Americans.

Not everything is about you Ian.

I'm nothing to do with either Pagans fighting romans or native americans.

But your inane whittering continues to amuse.

wrote in message
...
On Saturday, June 17, 2017 at 12:14:59 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Friday, June 16, 2017 at 1:11:57 PM UTC-7, Ian Field wrote:

Didn't she lead an army of Pagans against the Romans? - WTF is that to
do
with native Americans.

Not everything is about you Ian.

get together n start a new discussion group ...


Indeed - ****wit tom could have a discussion group all to himself.