Scotch whiskey, haggis, and Robbie Burns.
Scotch whiskey, haggis, and Robbie Burns.
Begbie wrote:
Saturday night psychos like Begbie from Trainspotting:
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=begbie+from+trainspotting&num=100&as_qdr=all&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=mWYXVK_gEMzy8QWuyoLABQ&ved=0CB4QsAQ&biw=1252&bih=636
Haha, check out the YouTube bar fight links.
Sheena Easton
Straw M Thoroughman wrote:
Scotch, Bagpipes, Andy Murray, The Claymore....
Bagpipes were created from a boy sheep herder in India.
Jefferson advocated removal or extermination of native americans. (quote)
Had not Europeans colonised what became the US, the natives of that area of the world you now live in would still be living in wigwams and hunting buffalo.
They were primitives and incapable of advancing any further up their evolutionary level and incapable of taking advantage of all the opportunities and benefits that the advancing New World provided.
As this thread is about the Scots, what ‘native american’ could have created the Bank of England as William Paterson did in 1694, which at one stage (1850) had more money in its vaults than all the rest of the world’s banks combined.
What native american could have invented the engines that began the modern Industrial Revolution that sent Britain into a position of total, global industrial mastery. (James Watt)
Where is the native american Adam Smith who spelt out the way in which a modern market economy works.
Where is the native american John Logie Baird, born in Dunbartonshire, who built the first television set using a tea chest, a pair of scissors and some bicycle lights - or the native american Alexander Fleming who was born in Ayrshire and who discovered penicillin, a discovery that would save millions of lives and win him a Nobel Prize?
No, Jefferson had the right idea - they were no great loss.
i'm all about the bass wrote:
What have the Scots ever contributed to the world beside the steam engine?
Lynsey Sharp's body.
Gingers. I love gingers.
Burr wrote:
why should i read wikipedia? I already know more about him than you do
Jefferson did not get along with George Washington, that's all I need to know.
ticking to the La. Purchase:
Jefferson promised 1. to be frugal 2. to eliminate national debt 3. to limit executive and federal power
instead he: spent lavishly on the White House and other projects, gazillionified the national debt to take on the Louisiana Purchase and 3. did the Louisiana Purchase without constitutional authority or congress' approval
but if you really like wikipedia: Jefferson's first "act as president, was to make a deal with the state of Georgia that if Georgia were to release its legal claims to discovery in lands to the west, then the U.S. military would help forcefully expel the Cherokee people from Georgia. At the time, the Cherokee had a treaty with the United States government which guaranteed them the right to their lands, which was violated in Jefferson's deal with Georgia."
Jefferson advocated removal or extermination of native americans.
I agree, the Louisiana Purchase was a horrible idea that has plagued our great nation from day one. There is nothing west of the Mississippi worth a damn, it should all belong to New France and we should be happy with the 13 colonies, which is the only place truly American.
Popcorn, chocolate, etc.
Euro centric historians do not give credit where credit is due:
Though Scotsman Alexander Wood is credited with inventing the syringe in 1853, in pre-Columbian times South American Indians used a type of syringe made from sharpened hollow bird bones attached to small bladders to inject medicine, irrigate wounds or even clean ears.
Indian governments in eastern North America, particularly the League of the Iroquois, served as models of federated representative democracy to the Europeans and the American colonists. The United States government is based on such a system, whereby power is distributed between a central authority (the federal government) and smaller political units (the states).
And your Scots are''nt really Scots are they, they are British subjects and chattel.
Joe Binks wrote:
Jefferson advocated removal or extermination of native americans. (quote)
Had not Europeans colonised what became the US, the natives of that area of the world you now live in would still be living in wigwams and hunting buffalo.
They were primitives and incapable of advancing any further up their evolutionary level and incapable of taking advantage of all the opportunities and benefits that the advancing New World provided.
As this thread is about the Scots, what ‘native american’ could have created the Bank of England as William Paterson did in 1694, which at one stage (1850) had more money in its vaults than all the rest of the world’s banks combined.
What native american could have invented the engines that began the modern Industrial Revolution that sent Britain into a position of total, global industrial mastery. (James Watt)
Where is the native american Adam Smith who spelt out the way in which a modern market economy works.
Where is the native american John Logie Baird, born in Dunbartonshire, who built the first television set using a tea chest, a pair of scissors and some bicycle lights - or the native american Alexander Fleming who was born in Ayrshire and who discovered penicillin, a discovery that would save millions of lives and win him a Nobel Prize?
No, Jefferson had the right idea - they were no great loss.
And if the Romans hadn't colonized England Scotland and Wales, you'd still be running around in painted blue faces. And if the English hadn't taken an interest in conquering then governing you, you'd all be dueling over long haired cattle and toothless red-haired women. And if Americans hadn't come to your rescue in WWI and WWII you'd all be speaking German.
No Way wrote:
what the hell? wrote:Where does it prove definitively that Scots or the South Americans or any race besides the Africans traveled from East Africa? It's a theory. Just like the one that says the different races developed individually on different continent.
I wouldn't say your theory is "just like" the other one.
Uhh, not my theory. Please tell me you know something other than the "Out of Africa" theory.
I guess this is what happens when you're educated at Phoenix University.
I'll help you...
http://anthrojournal.com/issue/october-2011/article/analysis-of-two-competing-theories-on-the-origin-of-homo-sapiens-sapiens-multiregional-theory-vs-the-out-of-africa-2-modelLorenzo the Magnificent wrote:
Apparently everything.
http://www.amazon.com/How-Scots-Invented-Modern-World/dp/0609809997
Right, I know, right?
I've been wanting to crack open my copy of that book the past few weeks but am swamped to the gills.
http://www.amazon.com/How-Scots-Invented-Modern-World/dp/0609809997I wish the first answer on this thread had someone been:
Steve Scot. (sic) (end of thread.)
A Duck wrote:
Right, I know, right?
I've been wanting to crack open my copy of that book the past few weeks but am swamped to the gills.
http://www.amazon.com/How-Scots-Invented-Modern-World/dp/0609809997I wish the first answer on this thread had someone been:
Steve Scot. (sic) (end of thread.)
Ducky's on the sauce this early in the morning, get ready for a few rants about the Brojo's and LR.
Andy Murray wrote:
Haggis
Who, in their right mind, eat haggis outside Scotland?
The Loch Ness Monster!!
"The Wind in the Willows," far and away the most sophisticated and mind-expanding book I read as a child.
(Author Kenneth Grahame was Scottish.)
what the hell? wrote:
Uhh, not my theory. Please tell me you know something other than the "Out of Africa" theory.
I guess this is what happens when you're educated at Phoenix University.
I'll help you...
http://anthrojournal.com/issue/october-2011/article/analysis-of-two-competing-theories-on-the-origin-of-homo-sapiens-sapiens-multiregional-theory-vs-the-out-of-africa-2-model
I think you meant the University of Phoenix, and no, I was not educated there.
First of all, both of the competing theories in the link you provided support the "out of Africa" theory. Neither suggests that different groups of humans evolved separately.
There are absolutely other theories out there. When I said that they're not the same as the out of Africa theories, I meant that some theories have a lot more evidence than the others. You then linked to an article proving my point.
Thanks.
For what it's worth, I received my B.S. in Biology from Clarkson University, my Ph.D. in Genome Science from the University of Washington, and completed my post doc studying genetics at the Jackson Laboratory. I'm by no means an expert in human origins, but I have a little more than a University of Phoenix level understanding of the topic.
No Way wrote:
what the hell? wrote:Uhh, not my theory. Please tell me you know something other than the "Out of Africa" theory.
I guess this is what happens when you're educated at Phoenix University.
I'll help you...
http://anthrojournal.com/issue/october-2011/article/analysis-of-two-competing-theories-on-the-origin-of-homo-sapiens-sapiens-multiregional-theory-vs-the-out-of-africa-2-modelI think you meant the University of Phoenix, and no, I was not educated there.
First of all, both of the competing theories in the link you provided support the "out of Africa" theory. Neither suggests that different groups of humans evolved separately.
There are absolutely other theories out there. When I said that they're not the same as the out of Africa theories, I meant that some theories have a lot more evidence than the others. You then linked to an article proving my point.
Thanks.
Allan Wells.
Last white olympic gold medalist in 100m.
You beat me to it. That and whisky.