It's time we stand up against LL and tell them they need to make SL far for everyone

[Ceka Cianci]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Dillon Levenque wrote:

Your point that the majority of today's Americans don't have ancestors from this country dating back to revolutionary or pre-revolutionary times is 'still good', at least if the latest census information is correct. Your thesis, in my opinion, is still wrong.

As it happens my tree includes at least one person born on American soil long before any Europeans—or Scandinavians, or Prester John—had visited. There's also one (of British descent) born in Massachusetts almost one hundred years before the Revolution. One who fought at Bunker Hill (on OUR side). One who rode with Light Horse Harry Lee.

That does not make me even one tiny speck more American than anyone else who either grew up here or adopted this country as an adult. We are still

we

. And in fact

we

(even if our ancestors might have actually been on the other side at the time or somewhere else entirely) did in fact outlast the world's most formidable army, just because

we

had the guts to do it. It probably helped that Britain practically committed suicide in the process, ignoring the advice of men of good will while trying to placate a mad king. Nevertheless, beat Britain we did.

I was born and raised and live in California. I'm not positive but I am fairly certain we have the highest percentage of immigrants of any state in the union. I've grown up in that. I've seen the same thing in my life that I've discerned from reading about people elsewhere. The first generation holds tight to their roots, but their kids are Americans.

I live in one of the major agricultural regions of the state and the population here includes a massive number of peope whose parents or grandparents were born in Mexico.  When I do my grocery shopping the week before Thanksgiving I see families who appear to be of Mexican descent buying the same things I am. They'll probably follow the instructions and overcook the turkey (and how American is THAT?) but the point is they are observing the day.They are Americans. WE are Americans.

So Phil, I speak against your thesis. All it takes to be one of us is to say, "I am one of you". We don't really care who your daddy is.

---

The point I'm making is that those who say "

we

did it", who don't have ancestors that actually did do it, or supported those who did it, can't correctly say that "

we

did it".

An extreme example would be if I moved over there today and tomorrow I said that "we beat you Brits". That would be ridiculous, of course, because there's nothing in me, or my ancestry, that beat the Brits. I say that the same applies to most of today's U.S. Americans, and I believe that's true.

About the line in your family tree that includes native Americans, which I think is what you meant: it depends which native Americans, because I believe that both sides had native Americans fighting with them. Maybe the ones in your family tree were beaten with us Brits

More likely, though, they weren't involved at all and, if that's the case, you can't say that "

we

beat you" on the strength of that particular line in your family tree.

However, you can say that "

we

beat you" on the strength of the other line you mentioned, if I understood that line correctly. But I contend that most of today's U.S. Americans don't have such a family history and, therefore, can't say it with any truth. Many of those were beaten by the Americans, because all their family lines were over here at the time, but still they imagine that they beat the Brits when in fact they lost that war.

---

ya i'm not Shawnee myself..and not related to those that fought in the tecumseh times..

but i do look at those as a huge part of natives in one huge war to hold our lands..

there was always one enemy in all that..and  we were all looked at as the same..

and we were at one point in time the same..then went our own ways over time..

and we are grouped by them now..so i use the word "we" when it comes to the taking of this land..and that whole war..

but my blood is with the final war not the 1812 war if we are being technical..

which is fine also hehehe

 

[Ceka Cianci]

---

Dillon Levenque wrote:

Chiricahua? You're Chiricahua? That explains a lot. Hell, I'd say at 5000 the cavalry might have been slightly outnumbered!

To anyone who has seen Ceka's pictures on the Forum and been somewhat intimidated: you have no idea.

 

---

i'm pretty assimilated really..

i'm having to learn a lot of it myself..my faher was assimilated also..my grandmother and grandfather were in the bording schools which lead us to where we are..

so i spend a lot of time trying to reconnect with many things..which is pretty awesome way to spend a lot of my time when my husband is out of town..

he's not chiricahua though..so i guess i broke the chain..but he is worth it hehehe

 he is nom noms ..my Samoan warrior..=)

hehehe

[Ciaran Laval]

---

Deltango Vale wrote:

Crudely, £10 = US$15 = 12 euros. The separate UK price was introduced about a year ago. Before that, UK residents paid in euros. CCP does not add tax to these prices; the tax is included in the price. Yes, the euro price is slightly out of line with UK and US prices, but it has more to do with choosing a psychological price-point base (9.99 v 14.99, one or the other) and fluctuating exchange rates than deliberate price discrimination. I believe CCP anticipated that the euro would approach parity with the US dollar (which it is slowly doing). In which case, I understand why they would have left the euro price unchanged (because it would fall in line with US and UK prices). The goal is broad uniformity, not price discrimination.

---

The US dollar is not approaching parity with the Euro, 1 Euro is 1.33 dollars.

You're correct about the psychological price points, it would be foolhardy for CCP to raise the US price due to the Euro strenghtening against the dollar.

[Czari Zenovka]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Czari Zenovka wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

There are far too many 'new' posts in this thread for me to bother reading, but I do have a comment about one little sub-topic that's come up...

All you U.S. citizens did 

NOT

free yourselves from British rule, so almost all of you can completely forget that idea. Why do I say that? Because very very very few of you had ancestors in North America at the time. Almost all of you were still over on this side of the pond, as it were. So when you think about the war of independence, remember that your ancestors didn't win it. They lost it 

---

Have to agree with Charly on this one - speaking personally, the majority of my ancestors are from Ireland.  I'm not going to get into a debate with you because you're too good at it...lol. 

Regardless of where my ancestors were at the time of the Revolutionary War, someone somewhere had the good sense to come to the U.S. *Grins*

Edit: Typo - no caffeine yet today.

OTOH, I'm not spewing Coke on the monitor while reading some of the replies.

---

So the majority of your ancestors back then were under British rule, and the few people who were over in North America at the time of the War of Independence won against your ancestors and mine

Actually we lost intentionally because they were too costly for us, but don't tell them that - they never knew and it's best of it doesn't get out 

I'm not happy about you not wanting to get into an argument with me though. I like forum arguments - they make it interesting.

Btw, I was watching TV when you IMed. I've IMed back but you'd logged out

---

I mentioned earlier in the thread (you may not have read back that far) that my grandfather on my mother's side was 1/4 Cherokee; Native Americans inhabited what is now the United States of America prior to ANYONE coming over; ergo, I have an ancestor way back that was on this continent all along, so I *did* have one or more ancestors here during Revolutionary times.

Re: the IM - I pop in and out of SL a lot...sorry I missed you; I thought you were likely afk. 

 

[Dillon Levenque]

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

i'm pretty assimilated really..

i'm having to learn a lot of it myself..my faher was assimilated also..my grandmother and grandfather were in the bording schools which lead us to where we are..

so i spend a lot of time trying to reconnect with many things..which is pretty awesome way to spend a lot of my time when my husband is out of town..

he's not chiricahua though..so i guess i broke the chain..but he is worth it hehehe

 he is nom noms ..my Samoan warrior..=)

hehehe

---

Geronimo could have become assimilated if he'd wished...it would still have been a mistake to take him lightly. :-)

 

 

[X3aV]

Funny, lots of people like to claim they are part Native American, usually Cherokee. I doubt the spirit fathers would approve of a virtual trollop.

[Charly Muggins]

---

Czari Zenovka wrote:

Native Americans inhabited what is now the United States of America prior to ANYONE coming over; ergo, I have an ancestor way back that was on this continent all along

---

Erm, no, the North American landmass was initially populated by immigrants from what is now Russia, who arrived across a land bridge of which all that remains is islands in the Bering Straits.

So North America was devoid of intelligent human life for a long time even before the ancestors of Jim Carrey arrived.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Dillon Levenque wrote:

We continue to disagree

, and there's no point in pursuing the matter. Yes, if you moved here tomorrow and then said "We beat you Brits" to your previous neighbors—or neighbours, in your case—it would be a bit ridiculous.

If you stayed here and raised children and your children said that same thing to their trans-atlantic cousins, there would be nothing ridiculous about it. They'd be right.

Doesn't matter what your daddy did; that was the point I was trying to make. If you're one of us, you're one of us and you get all the historical baggage to go along with it, both good and bad (we scuffle amongst ourselves, as everyone knows).

---

And we'll have to agree to disagree

And the brown text is why we don't agree. They'd be wrong. Look at it this way. If your grandfather died before he had any children, where would you be now? You wouldn't exist of course, because your potential life died with him. So there is a compelling sense that, wherever your grandfather was, you were also there. If he was over here, so were you.

You agree that it would be ridiculous for me to go over there to stay and then turn round to the Brits and say, "we beat you". I say that it's equally ridiculous for my hypothetical children, who are born over there to my hypothetical wife, who also went over there with me, to turn around and say the same thing. Those children didn't beat the Brits at all. They are the Brits who were beaten even though they are U.S. citizens. So at what point do such immigrants become the U.S. Americans who actually beat the Brits and can say "we beat you"? Where is the line drawn? You say that they magically morph into those U.S. Americans who beat the Brits. I say never. They certainly become U.S. citizens, of course, but they never morph into the decendants of the people who beat the Brits, and only those whose forbears beat the Brits can rightly say that "we beat you". Their forefathers simply didn't do it, and they are wrong to say "we beat you" because they didn't. They can rightly say that those who were here (in North America) before me beat you, but not "we beat you".

Just because a person chooses to align themselves with other people, and become part of them, doesn't mean that the person and/or his/her decendants actually have the history that the other people have. You are arguing that it does mean that, but it doesn't. They can say, "we Americans", of course, because they've joined, but the history of those who were there before them cannot be the history of those individuals who joined later or their decendants. It's the history of the U.S. nation - I can't argue against that - but it's not the history of those people who where elsewhere in the world (foreigners) at the time and their decendants, or of those who were on the continent at the time but had no involvement with the winning side in the war. And I believe that applies to almost all of today's U.S. Americans.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Czari Zenovka wrote:

I mentioned earlier in the thread (you may not have read back that far) that my grandfather on my mother's side was 1/4 Cherokee; Native Americans inhabited what is now the United States of America prior to ANYONE coming over; ergo, I have an ancestor way back that was on this continent all along, so I *did* have one or more ancestors here during Revolutionary times. 

---

I haven't read a lot of the posts in this thread, so I probably missed it.

About your ancestors who were there at the time: were they involved in beating the Brits? Did they fight on the British side and were actually beaten? It was only the eastern part of the continent that was involved so the chances are that most decendants of native Americans also cannot rightly say that "we beat you" on the strength of that ancestry.

 

ETA: This really belongs in my reply to Dillon, but that post is already a bit too long, so I'm sticking in this post....

I have a lady friend here in the U.K. who has a married daughter who went to live and work in California due to her job with an international company. While her and her husband were over there, they had 2 children. The children were born there and grew into teenagers there. They are American citizens because they were born there. (They probably have dual nationality because of their parents) . They recently came back to stay, with the children, again because of the job. What can those children say to their parents? "We beat you"? That would be a bit ridiculous, wouldn't it? Nope. Only those with an actual history of beating the Brits in their family tree can correctly say, "We beat you". The rest weren't there in their forbears loins. Most of the U.S. population is made up of people who went over there after the war of independence, and their decendants. So most of the populations cannot rightly say, "we beat you". And most of those who have American Indians in their family trees, also can't rightly say it, because most of the American Indians on the continent at the time weren't involved in that war, and probably had no idea that it was happening.

[Charly Muggins]

From what I have read, there are a considerable number of parents in the USA who can accurately say that they beat their children.

And the number is increasing.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

how you like mah 2 second version of history lol 

---

I like history, and I would have loved your 2 second version - if I'd understood any of it :matte-motes-confused:

More recent history shows clearly that the U.S. owes its position in the world to us Brits At the turn of the previous century, the U.S. was insular and didn't want to be troubled or bothered about anything outside its borders. WWI came along and still the U.S. remained insular and wanted nothing to do with it. But persistent persuasion by the Brits caused the U.S. to join in - late in the day but with a very powerful impact. I think I'm right in saying that the U.S. troops only fought one battle and then the war was won. Not because the U.S. defeated the enemy but because the addition of U.S. troops, and the numbers that could be brought over, caused Germany to realise that it was futile to continue, especially since German people were suffering badly in Germany itself. That was the start of the U.S. awakening to the idea of the power they could have in the world.

Not long afterwards, WWII came along. Again the U.S. preferred to be insular and wanted no part of it, although the President believed it was necessary. And again, because of much persuasion by the Brits, they joined in in Europe when Japan triggered war for the U.S. That completed the awakening.

Ever since then, the U.S. has seen itself as being very powerful in the world, and it's we Brits who caused that to happen 

 

Note: In some ways, the power has been bad for the U.S. people - getting involved in wars everywhere - but it wasn't me who did the persuading, so don't blame me - I wasn't around at those times :matte-motes-sour:

[Drake1 Nightfire]

---

X3aV wrote:

Funny, lots of people like to claim they are part Native American, usually Cherokee. I doubt the spirit fathers would approve of a virtual trollop.

---

/me glares at the person who clearly has a death wish, "What did you just call her?"

[Phil Deakins]

---

GoldxRazer wrote:

LL are thief's all they want is your money and they don't care if they don't run a far system if you're not in the USA you have to pay more for a full sim in the USA it's $295 in the UK it's $354 how is that far how can we all enjoy SL if they change different prices if someone out said the USA want's to run a estate they can't as there out priced this needs to be changed we all need to stand up to them and make them make SL far for everyone.

---

I know the OP is seriously off-topic in this thread, which is about the American War of Independence, but I thought I'd post a comment anyway...

I know of no way for LL to make it appear "far" (sic) for everyone, because we live in different countries that have different taxes. Europeans are able to register for VAT, and then we can claim the VAT back, which means we can pay the VAT to LL, claim it back, and end up paying the same as U.S. people do. Registering for VAT, just so that our SL costs are the same as they are for U.S. people, would be a bit extreme, and would cause more problems than it was worth, but it can be done.

The best thing that we Euros can do is accept the way it is and, if it means the costs for an accommodation rental business is too much to compete with U.S. people, then find a different business to play with.

It's all about land. Some Euros complain that their tier costs are too high to compete because of VAT. Some non-euros complain that their tier costs are higher than BIG land owners' tier costs, who get quantity discounts on tier,, and therefore they can't compete. So, for those who think they can't compete because of tier costs, do something different instead. There are many other types of business to get into that are equally satisfying, if not more so.

[Ceka Cianci]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

how you like mah 2 second version of history lol 

---

I like history, and I would have loved your 2nd version - if I'd understood any of it :matte-motes-confused:

More recent history shows clearly that the U.S. owes its position in the world to us Brits

At the turn of the previous century, the U.S. was insular and didn't want to be troubled or bothered about anything outside its borders. WWI came along and still the U.S. remained insular and wanted nothing to do with it. But persistent persuasion by the Brits caused the U.S. to join in - late in the day but with a very powerful impact. I think I'm right in saying that the U.S. troops only fought one battle and then the war was won. Not because the U.S. defeated the enemy but because the addition of U.S. troops, and the numbers that could be brought over, caused Germany to realise that it was futile to continue, especially since German people were suffering badly in Germany itself. That was the start of the U.S. awakening to the idea of the power they could have in the world.

Not long afterwards, WWII came along. Again the U.S. preferred to be insular and wanted no part of it, although the President believed it was necessary. And again, because of much persuasion by the Brits, they joined in in Europe when Japan triggered war for the U.S. That completed the awakening.

Ever since then, the U.S. has seen itself as being very powerful in the world, and it's we Brits who caused that to happen 

 

Note: In some ways, the power has been bad for the U.S. people - getting involved in wars everywhere - but it wasn't me who did the persuading, so don't blame me - I wasn't around at those times :matte-motes-sour:

---

lol ya i kind of jumbled it together..i was kind of in a hurry and  getting ready for bed..it went from the war of 1812 right to Geronimos final surrender lol

a lot of it is a view from our side of the history not the one the victors really wrote about..

but ya i know about ww1 and ww2..

navajo played a pretty important role in the war with the Japanese

[Ceka Cianci]

---

Charly Muggins wrote:

---

Czari Zenovka wrote:

Native Americans inhabited what is now the United States of America prior to ANYONE coming over; ergo, I have an ancestor way back that was on this continent all along

---

Erm, no, the North American landmass was initially populated by immigrants from what is now Russia, who arrived across a land bridge of which all that remains is islands in the Bering Straits.

So North America was devoid of intelligent human life for a long time even before the ancestors of Jim Carrey arrived.

---

i think she was talking about before people started sailing over from spain..

at least that is how i read it.

 

[Charly Muggins]

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

---

Charly Muggins wrote:

---

Czari Zenovka wrote:

Native Americans inhabited what is now the United States of America prior to ANYONE coming over; ergo, I have an ancestor way back that was on this continent all along

---

Erm, no, the North American landmass was initially populated by immigrants from what is now Russia, who arrived across a land bridge of which all that remains is islands in the Bering Straits.

So North America was devoid of intelligent human life for a long time even before the ancestors of Jim Carrey arrived.

---

i think she was talking about before people started sailing over from spain..

at least that is how i read it.

 

---

If she had meant that then she should have said it.

Incomplete or implicit arguments are inadequate arguments.

[Sy Beck]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

how you like mah 2 second version of history lol 

---

I like history, and I would have loved your 2nd version - if I'd understood any of it :matte-motes-confused:

More recent history shows clearly that the U.S. owes its position in the world to us Brits

At the turn of the previous century, the U.S. was insular and didn't want to be troubled or bothered about anything outside its borders. WWI came along and still the U.S. remained insular and wanted nothing to do with it. But persistent persuasion by the Brits caused the U.S. to join in - late in the day but with a very powerful impact. I think I'm right in saying that the U.S. troops only fought one battle and then the war was won. Not because the U.S. defeated the enemy but because the addition of U.S. troops, and the numbers that could be brought over, caused Germany to realise that it was futile to continue, especially since German people were suffering badly in Germany itself. That was the start of the U.S. awakening to the idea of the power they could have in the world.

Not long afterwards, WWII came along. Again the U.S. preferred to be insular and wanted no part of it, although the President believed it was necessary. And again, because of much persuasion by the Brits, they joined in in Europe when Japan triggered war for the U.S. That completed the awakening.

Ever since then, the U.S. has seen itself as being very powerful in the world, and it's we Brits who caused that to happen 

 

Note: In some ways, the power has been bad for the U.S. people - getting involved in wars everywhere - but it wasn't me who did the persuading, so don't blame me - I wasn't around at those times :matte-motes-sour:

---

I'm afraid that the US has been an expansionist power since it's very founding and has been involved in a war of territory or economic expansion on average every 5 years since its inception.

Between 1776 and 1914 (I should say 1917 for US involvement in WW1) for example here is a list of countries the US has gone to war against in that period; many, more than once, twice or three times:

 

• Britain
• Algeria
• Vilayet of Tripoli (now Libya)
• Morocco
• Malaya
• Sumatra
• Japan
• Samoa
• Spain
• Algeria
• Mexico
• New Zealand Maoriis
• Nicaragua
• Fiji
• Paraguay
• Its own Civil War
• The Phillipines
• Various Chinese provinces
• Formosa (now Taiwan)
• Korea
• The Dominican Republic
• Haiti
• Not to mention the continuing battles with the native Americans throughout this period

And as I say that's only up to 1917.  The 20th century bar WW2 had been a relatively peaceful period for the US as it was not quite so isolationist, but was able to project its power through economic influence or proxy states during the Cold War and only with the end of that has the US had to take on a more physical presence e.g. Kuwait, The Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya to conduct/project its foreign policy.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Charly Muggins wrote:

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

---

Charly Muggins wrote:

---

Czari Zenovka wrote:

Native Americans inhabited what is now the United States of America prior to ANYONE coming over; ergo, I have an ancestor way back that was on this continent all along

---

Erm, no, the North American landmass was initially populated by immigrants from what is now Russia, who arrived across a land bridge of which all that remains is islands in the Bering Straits.

So North America was devoid of intelligent human life for a long time even before the ancestors of Jim Carrey arrived.

---

i think she was talking about before people started sailing over from spain..

at least that is how i read it.

 

---

If she had meant that then she should have said it.

Incomplete or implicit arguments are inadequate arguments.

---

You're probably the only one who didn't understand what was meant. I think it was clear to everyone else.

[Phil Deakins]

I can't argue with any of that because I simply don't know. If it's all true, it surprises the hell out of me.

My post was somewhat tongue-in-cheek.

[Sy Beck]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

I can't argue with any of that because I simply don't know. If it's all true, it surprises the hell out of me.

My post was somewhat tongue-in-cheek.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States

 

And I knew you were being tongue in cheek :smileywink:

[Charly Muggins]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Charly Muggins wrote:

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

---

Charly Muggins wrote:

---

Czari Zenovka wrote:

Native Americans inhabited what is now the United States of America prior to ANYONE coming over; ergo, I have an ancestor way back that was on this continent all along

---

Erm, no, the North American landmass was initially populated by immigrants from what is now Russia, who arrived across a land bridge of which all that remains is islands in the Bering Straits.

So North America was devoid of intelligent human life for a long time even before the ancestors of Jim Carrey arrived.

---

i think she was talking about before people started sailing over from spain..

at least that is how i read it.

 

---

If she had meant that then she should have said it.

Incomplete or implicit arguments are inadequate arguments.

---

You're probably the only one who didn't understand what was meant. I think it was clear to everyone else.

---

Ah, the wisdom of crowds.

Crowds of sloppy thinkers, that is, who make erroneous assumptions instead of actually reading the words.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Sy Beck wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

I can't argue with any of that because I simply don't know. If it's all true, it surprises the hell out of me.

My post was somewhat tongue-in-cheek.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States

 

And I knew you were being tongue in cheek :smileywink:

---

That's a very good link. It enables me to get more understanding of Ceka's potted history. Over here, were don't tend to get to know such details and I do find them interesting. For some reason, I've always found the American history to be interesting - 19th century and earlier.

[Charly Muggins]

I thought of doing a PhD once, but I didn't have much spare time, so I looked for something where there wasn't much content involved.

It was a deadheat between USA Cultural History and American Literature.

[Czari Zenovka]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Czari Zenovka wrote:

I mentioned earlier in the thread (you may not have read back that far) that my grandfather on my mother's side was 1/4 Cherokee; Native Americans inhabited what is now the United States of America prior to ANYONE coming over; ergo, I have an ancestor way back that was on this continent all along, so I *did* have one or more ancestors here during Revolutionary times. 

---

I haven't read a lot of the posts in this thread, so I probably missed it.

About your ancestors who were there at the time: were they involved in beating the Brits? Did they fight on the British side and were actually beaten? I

t was only the eastern part of the continent

that was involved so the chances are that most decendants of native Americans also cannot rightly say that "we beat you" on the strength of that ancestry.

 

---

I'm getting bored with this discussion; I honestly don't care who came here when. The U.S. is a nation of immigrants who came from all over the world and worked hard to create the nation in which I was born and love.  Just a point on the bolded part of your comment - the Cherokee are/were located in "the eastern part of the continent" - Southeastern (where my relatives on my Mother's side live) but are thought to have begun in a Northern area on the Eastern side of the continent and migrated south.

ETA: While Florida, where I live, didn't become a state until 1845, at least part of it was included in the vast territory intially called The Virginia Colony, and was home to a number of indigenous Native American tribes, my point being, all Indians did not live in the Western part of the continent.

I love visiting Colonial Williamsburg in Virginia.  It is like stepping back into the country's past - during the revolutionary period.  What I especially love is that Colonial Williamsburg is a "living" museum, in that actors portray the inhabitants of the city.  One can enter a pub and hear a heated debate in progress between those who want independence from the Crown and others who do not.  What I find great fun is interacting with them, which they encourage.  The actors are very good at not breaking character.  I happened upon a discussion among some of the male actors in the city square and stopped to watch/listen.  One of them addressed those of us standing by and asked what part of the Territory we were from.  I said Florida.  He asked, "North or South."  I replied, "Central."  The man looked at the others and said, "A very politic answer from the lady; I ask North or South, she replies Central; very well done" and they all nodded.  Then the man looked back at me and said, "Are you having many problems with the Indians?"  I replied that I had not seen any but that I lived near Seminole County.  The men began discussing this amongst themselves and agreed that it was a good idea to gather them all together in one area. (Note: all comments from the actors are in keeping with the historical perspectives and mores of the time.)

 

 

[Czari Zenovka]

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

---

X3aV wrote:

Funny, lots of people like to claim they are part Native American, usually Cherokee. I doubt the spirit fathers would approve of a virtual trollop.

---

/me glares at the person who clearly has a death wish, "What did you just call her?"

---

*Continues standing behind my Captain of the Guards, making mental note to increase his salary*