Christopher Columbus was Scottish

**macwilkin** · 10th March 09, 08:39 AM

Originally Posted by Kerr the Walker

I get a kick out of the term "Native American." I mean, if you were born between 35* W and 170* W, regardless of when, then you're native to the Americas right?

To me the label "First Nations" makes more sense. Doesn't make it sound so much like there was one vast group of people who all identified with one another before the Europeans arrived. Heck, the fought like the dickens some times. Calling them one people would probably have ticked them off just as much as if you called a Scotsman an Englishman during.....well.....pretty much any time.

Well said, sir. A lack of political unity was the very reason that the "First Nations" were not able to resist European colonization & American expansion. Goodness knows some leaders like Tecumseh tried, but the various clans and tribes of North America were a lot like their counterparts in the Highlands of Scotland (see Calloway's White People, Indians and Highlanders), and as you pointed out, many of them were all too happy to fight rival groups and use Europeans and Americans to their advantage.

Only in Hollywood and on television is the Indian the passive victim; in reality he was just as human as his European/American opponent.

Regards,

Todd

**McFarkus** · 10th March 09, 08:45 AM

It will be interesting to see if anyone follows up on this research.

**Nick the DSM** · 10th March 09, 01:13 PM

Originally Posted by Bryan

Proof of what? The Columbus being Scottish story or L'Anse aux Meadows?

Columbus being Scottish, I don't see it. Just because his last name is Scotto doesn't mean he's Scottish. For all we know the name could be derived from Scoti, which meant pirate(right?). I've looked on wikipedia and a bunch of Italian and Italian- Americans had the last name Scotto.

But that's just me, skeptical as usual.

**Bryan** · 10th March 09, 08:45 PM

Originally Posted by Nick the DSM

Columbus being Scottish...

Couldn't agree more. It's silly.

**Bryan** · 10th March 09, 08:46 PM

Only in Hollywood and on television is the Indian the passive victim; in reality he was just as human as his European/American opponent.

I couldn't have said that better myself.

**Bryan** · 10th March 09, 08:47 PM

Originally Posted by cajunscot

A lack of political unity was the very reason that the "First Nations" were not able to resist European colonization & American expansion

The introduction of smallpox, influenza, etc. helped.

**The Barry** · 10th March 09, 11:04 PM

Originally Posted by Bryan

The introduction of smallpox, influenza, etc. helped.

As did the whole "superior armaments" thing that the Europeans had going for them.

**macwilkin** · 11th March 09, 04:43 AM

Originally Posted by Bryan

The introduction of smallpox, influenza, etc. helped.

Good point, Bryan.

Todd

**macwilkin** · 11th March 09, 04:46 AM

Originally Posted by The Barry

As did the whole "superior armaments" thing that the Europeans had going for them.

Yes and no. Remember that Native Americans quickly realised that Europeans could prove to be very important allies in tribal conflicts, and soon made alliances with them in hopes that the latter would be able to defeat enemies -- witness the willingness of a number of tribes in the central valley of Mexico who were all too happy to see Cortes and his men and help them defeat the Aztecs.

Regards,

Todd

**Bryan** · 11th March 09, 05:33 AM

Originally Posted by cajunscot

Yes and no. Remember that Native Americans quickly realised that Europeans could prove to be very important allies in tribal conflicts, and soon made alliances with them in hopes that the latter would be able to defeat enemies -- witness the willingness of a number of tribes in the central valley of Mexico who were all too happy to see Cortes and his men and help them defeat the Aztecs.

Regards,

Todd

Very true!