|
VideoTapir posted:Uh, what? 40 degrees for rapid tradewinds, pick up slaves in west africa, offload on plantations in the carribean, pick up rum, take it to the colonies, sell rum for cotton or wood and then head back east.
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 05:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 18:52 |
|
|
He's talking about merchant ships going around the world the long way for some reason. I'm pretty sure there were ships going from London to New York you could get on if you wanted to
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 07:07
|
|
|
I think he's talking about the age of sail. The jet stream made it really easy to move goods and slaves across the Atlantic in that classic triangular pattern. Don't know whether he's right or wrong, but I think that's what he's claiming. Edit: so yeah, London to NYC was probably possible, but more difficult and thus expensive.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 07:34
|
|
|
London to NYC would indeed sail to Africa first in the age of sail. It's not just a matter of convenience, the prevailing winds and currents of the North Atlantic both pushed East. A square rigged ship won't sail within 40 degrees of the wind* and that leaves you tacking across the North Atlantic for several weeks. Tacking ship requires manpower to swing yards and haul on sheets, doing it for weeks on end every couple hours day and night is physically exhausting for the crew and generally a lot more trouble than it's worth. Sailing for the more westerly winds near the equator saved time effort and money. Many passages from Europe to India and back would stop at Brazil for food and water believe it or not. It was just easier to get to than theoretically closer locations. Currents and prevailing winds were a really big deal before steamers. *and you'd be lucky to get a square rigged merchantman within 50 degrees of the wind. A fast ship with a fore and aft rig like a mail carrier might make the direct run regularly but not anything designed for bulk cargo. Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 08:43 on Oct 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 08:38
|
|
|
It's pretty easy to get to Europe from the US even if you're going based on currents: Note that the North Atlantic currents follow a clockwise fashion. This is also why Columbus ended up in the Caribbean first.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 12:46
|
|
|
You are catching yourself on my point there. They would sail from europe to america by way of north africa.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 14:19
|
|
|
I think they often kinda just floated on the currents because there wasn't actually that much wind. That's what a slavery doc told me anyway - life in the hull was extra horrible because there was no wind/ventilation and the journey took forever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 17:14
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:I think he's talking about the age of sail. The jet stream made it really easy to move goods and slaves across the Atlantic in that classic triangular pattern. Don't know whether he's right or wrong, but I think that's what he's claiming. Asian ports? Pacific islands? Sounds like someone's going the long way 'round.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 17:24
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Hunters would kill tens of thousands a day, millions over a season. Most of the hunting was localized in their nesting areas. How is this even possible? Loading and firing that many rounds a day seems like a tall order without a machine gun, let alone actually hitting that many targets. Was it some sort of comedy option, like hunters climbing trees and dropping a giant net over a nest?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 17:36
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:How is this even possible? Loading and firing that many rounds a day seems like a tall order without a machine gun, let alone actually hitting that many targets. Was it some sort of comedy option, like hunters climbing trees and dropping a giant net over a nest?  An engraving of Passenger Pigeon hunting in the 1870's. 1. Load your shotgun. 2. Point it at the flock of birds flying through the sky in numbers so dense they reportedly would blot out the sun 3. Fire your shotgun, maybe get the bird or just continue to step 4 and get them later. 4. Repeat I imagine each individual pellet hits an individual bird. Anyone who knows more can feel free to chime in but Bill Cronon has a whole lecture on mass killing of the passenger pigeon and the buffalo you can probably scrounge up on his site (https://www.williamcronon.net), probably under his American Environmental History course materials. edit: oh yeah and you could hunt passenger pigeons with nets:  "wikipedia posted:Nets were propped up to allow passenger pigeons entry, then closed by knocking loose the stick that supported the opening, trapping twenty or more pigeons inside. Tunnel nets were also used to great effect, and one particularly large net was capable of catching 3,500 pigeons at a time. These nets were used by many farmers on their own property as well as by professional trappers. Ivan Prisypkin fucked around with this message at 17:59 on Oct 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
Anosmoman posted:I think they often kinda just floated on the currents because there wasn't actually that much wind. That's what a slavery doc told me anyway - life in the hull was extra horrible because there was no wind/ventilation and the journey took forever. I assume this is a joke because we only have a map of currents? Here.  You can see how you'd end up in Brazil to go around Africa, since you wouldn't want to risk running into southerly winds on your trip south. You can take the coast of Brazil down to the 40s and ride the westerly to the Indian monsoon which will take you just about anywhere you might want to go except Antarctica or Australia. That map doesn't show that the southern hemisphere 40s are much stronger than the northern hemisphere because there's no land to break up the wind. I think Australia's problem is not so much the wind as a lack of obvious destinations for its raw materials. Australia has nothing that India doesn't also have and it's farther away. In the age of sail China is a market for finished goods not an importer of raw materials. Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 03:31 on Oct 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:How is this even possible? Loading and firing that many rounds a day seems like a tall order without a machine gun, let alone actually hitting that many targets. Was it some sort of comedy option, like hunters climbing trees and dropping a giant net over a nest? Like was said, it was just "point gun at flock, pull trigger" only it wasn't necessarily shotguns as we think of them today. Sometimes it was scatter guns, which were comparable to shotguns but had a wider spread and puked more poo poo in the air. Generally people that wanted to eat some pigeons would just grab whatever scatter gun they had handy, blast away at the flock for a while, take the fattest pigeons home, and leave the rest for the dogs. That's ultimately why they went extinct. People thought they were literally inexhaustible and would kill a dozen or more for every one they actually ate. To get an idea of how loving massive the scatter guns used to hunt birds were take a look at pictures of punt guns. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punt_gun These weren't used to hunt passenger pigeons but they were used to hunt ducks and whatnot. They were too huge to actually fire standing so they were put on small boats, rowed out onto the pond, and then fired into a bunch of birds hanging out at the surface. It will kill them by the dozens. This sort of thing would be used to totally empty entire ponds or lakes of waterfowl. Certain species were totally wiped out in some areas. It hit its peak in the early 20th century when wearing feathers was fashionable. People would just kind of hunt the gently caress out of birds, pluck the feathers, eat a few for dinner, then just chuck the rest because gently caress it, who cares, there's always more birds.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
I find it interesting how very little people are defending the premise of Columbus Day on social media. (And those defending Columbus aren't really doing so; it's just culture war posturing.) Virtually every online publication has put out its "Columbus is actually a bad guy" piece; yet I don't see any consideration on the federal level to rethink the holiday. I just find it strange; there's new but overwhelming consensus that Columbus shouldn't be celebrated like Washington, Lincoln, or King; but very little "debate" where it matters.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 23:05
|
|
|
Echo Chamber posted:I find it interesting how very little people are defending the premise of Columbus Day on social media. (And those defending Columbus aren't really doing so; it's just culture war posturing.) Columbus was a horrific excuse for a human being, but it is tradition to celebrate it. Never underestimate the "that is just how it has always been" argument.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 01:25
|
|
|
Echo Chamber posted:I find it interesting how very little people are defending the premise of Columbus Day on social media. (And those defending Columbus aren't really doing so; it's just culture war posturing.) I had one friend who said it's really about celebrating Italian Americans, and if Native Americans want a holiday they should get their own. When I brought up the millions of dead, he posted a quote saying basically "progress has costs."
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 01:31
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:I assume this is a joke because we only have a map of currents? Here. Heh no that's what I heard :/ From looking around a bit it seems the journey from Africa to the Americas could take from one to six months in the early days of the slave trade depending on weather conditions with the norm being 2-3 months. Six months probably qualifies as riding the currents albeit it's not the typical journey.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 01:49
|
|
|
Is it safe to say Alexander Hamilton was the best politician America ever had? http://www.sparknotes.com/biography/hamilton/section1.rhtml Born a poor immigrant, led riots in NYC when he was 17, ended up the first President of the Treasury, started an anti-slavery organization.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 02:31
|
|
|
Columbus may have been a horrible individual, by god I am not going to give up an extra holiday and day off just because the person the holiday is named after was personally not that great by modern standards. In historychat, anyone have an opinion on Lysander Spooner/wanna get into some Spoonerchat?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 02:35
|
|
|
No need to get rid of it, just change it to 'day of mourning for the horrific (ongoing) genocide our nation owes its existence to' and move on.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 02:37
|
|
|
I don't even get the day off so I'm kinda neutral about it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 02:58
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I don't even get the day off so I'm kinda neutral about it. I don't get the day off and there was a parade that messed up my attempt to drop off a rental car today so if I get a time machine, Columbus, In 1492 I'm Coming For You.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 03:16
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Columbus may have been a horrible individual, by god I am not going to give up an extra holiday and day off just because the person the holiday is named after was personally not that great by modern standards. He was an rear end in a top hat for the time. That is the magic of Christopher.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 03:18
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:He was an rear end in a top hat for the time.  I thought you were talking about Spooner at first.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 03:36
|
|
|
Just change the name to Canadian Thanksgiving.Ferdinand the Bull posted:Is it safe to say Alexander Hamilton was the best politician America ever had? A-Ham is alright, but I'd still pick Robert Reich. Both for serious reasons, and because of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWliylnxSrA His son Sam is also hilarious; if you're a fan of CollegeHumor original videos you'll know who he is. PittTheElder fucked around with this message at 03:47 on Oct 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 03:44
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Badger of Basra posted:I had one friend who said it's really about celebrating Italian Americans Rename it Mafia Day. Can anyone recommend a book or books on Columbus, the Age of Exploration in general, and early exploration/colonisation in the Americas? I'm particularly interested in why it began and what effect it had on Europe. Or didn't; Cabot sailed in 1497, but the English didn't pay that much attention to Canada/New England until Elizabeth's reign, and I'm not sure why.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 06:55
|
|
|
House Louse posted:Can anyone recommend a book or books on Columbus, the Age of Exploration in general, and early exploration/colonisation in the Americas? I'm particularly interested in why it began and what effect it had on Europe. Or didn't; Cabot sailed in 1497, but the English didn't pay that much attention to Canada/New England until Elizabeth's reign, and I'm not sure why.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 06:59
|
|
|
There was contact up and down the coast, but I imagine the lack of interest comes from just how hostile the locals were to whitey setting up shop. Unless you're going to embark on a big state enterprise, it's not something that's just going to take off, and England had plenty of it's own problems. Once the 1600's start to roll around and everyone there has died, extracting surplus wealth is probably a lot more attractive.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 07:01
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Columbus may have been a horrible individual, by god I am not going to give up an extra holiday and day off just because the person the holiday is named after was personally not that great by modern standards. He wasn't that great even by the standards of the time he was living in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Columbus#Accusations_of_tyranny_during_governorship
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 07:05
|
|
|
House Louse posted:Rename it Mafia Day. Northern winters were harsh and Spain was more of a problem back home.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 14:41
|
|
|
House Louse posted:Rename it Mafia Day. The Columbian Exchange by Alfred W. Crosby Jr. 1491 by Charles Mann 1493 by Charles Mann In the case of the English, English privateers captured a Spanish treasure ship and ended up with England's GDP in gold. After that, the English wanted a piece of the action. PittTheElder posted:There was contact up and down the coast, but I imagine the lack of interest comes from just how hostile the locals were to whitey setting up shop. Unless you're going to embark on a big state enterprise, it's not something that's just going to take off, and England had plenty of it's own problems. Once the 1600's start to roll around and everyone there has died, extracting surplus wealth is probably a lot more attractive. There were a good deal of Native American tribes in the Northeast, especially in New England. The English colonists fought about 5 major wars in the seventeenth century and that's not including massacres and other incidences. EDIT: Tribes like the Pequot were somewhat receptive as well to English settlement because they used it and the fur trade to become a regional power. It would all come crashing down on them but they used the power vacuum caused by the initial outbreak of disease to their advantage. RocknRollaAyatollah fucked around with this message at 15:13 on Oct 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 15:06
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:He wasn't that great even by the standards of the time he was living in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Columbus#Accusations_of_tyranny_during_governorship And by not great you mean a homicidal tyrant even by 1500 standards.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 15:32
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:And by not great you mean a homicidal tyrant even by 1500 standards.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 17:22
|
|
|
RocknRollaAyatollah posted:There were a good deal of Native American tribes in the Northeast, especially in New England. The English colonists fought about 5 major wars in the seventeenth century and that's not including massacres and other incidences. There were, but there was a lot less of them then there had been. Which is all covered in 1491, which I'll recommend as well. Haven't read 1493 though. One thing to watch out for is to not confused those two with 1421 by Gavin Menzies, which is just a load of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 18:01
|
|
|
Ferdinand the Bull posted:Is it safe to say Alexander Hamilton was the best politician America ever had? You might be interested in this article: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/08/reading-hamilton-from-the-left/
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 18:02
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:There were, but there was a lot less of them then there had been. True, I was just a bit confused by your original wording. Never read anything by Gavin Menzies, he's pretty much one of the people they have on Ancient Aliens. He just got away with it for a while because most people in the US don't know anything about Chinese history. EDIT: Has anyone ever pointed out that your avatar picture is of Lord Palmerston? RocknRollaAyatollah fucked around with this message at 19:27 on Oct 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
RocknRollaAyatollah posted:EDIT: Has anyone ever pointed out that your avatar picture is of Lord Palmerston? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
Thanks for the answers, everyone.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 03:15
|
|
|
I've watched the documentaries on Robert McNamara and Donald Rumsfeld, and I wanted to ask what the dominant viewpoint is on Colin Powell. He wasn't Secretary of Defense, but IIRC he was a General, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs during Desert Storm and became Secretary of State under Bush.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 10:40
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I've watched the documentaries on Robert McNamara and Donald Rumsfeld, and I wanted to ask what the dominant viewpoint is on Colin Powell. He wasn't Secretary of Defense, but IIRC he was a General, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs during Desert Storm and became Secretary of State under Bush. Seconding this request. I've never had an informed conversation about him, but it did always seem weird that he seemed so willing to carry water for the administration, while coming off as professional and apolitical. Like Secretary Rice.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 11:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 18:52 |
|
|
KORNOLOGY posted:Seconding this request. At least, that's the version I remember being bandied about.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 22:58
|
|
