US Veterans of Foreign Wars Stamp

On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 13:22:40 +0100, "Victor Manta"
wrote:

I have seen by chance in Scott the stamp 1525, issued March 11th, 1974, and
dedicated to the 75th anniversary of the Veterans of Foreign Wars
organization.

Quite interesting, because the only non-foreign US American war that I can
remember was the Civil (Secession, Rebellion) War, one that happened about
150 years ago. Even if it looks as a long time ago, actually this war was
not so old for an organization that was probably created in 1899.

Victor Manta

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philatelic Webmasters Organization: http://pwmo.org
Art on Stamps: http://values.ch
Romania Shown by Its Stamps: http://marci-postale.com
Communism on Stamps: http://www.values.ch/Communism/
Spanish Africa: http://www.values.ch/sna-site/
Remove "um" from the e-mail address to reply
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


I suspect that neither the American Revolution nor the Indian wars
nor the Civil War was considered "FOREIGN". I doubt ANY participants
in the latter are still alive today.

The Mexican-American war, the War of 1812, the Spanish-American War
and all post 1900 wars would be considered foreign.

Blair


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

To go back to the alleged use of poisoned meat. I too find that
difficult to swallow ( if you will forgive the pun ). While I would
agree that the treatment of native Americans was less than perfect I
would doubt that even at that time,when humanitarian issues such as
the abolition of slavery was on the agenda of every civilized nation -
even if not achieved by many, the public at large would not have
tolerated any officially authorised incident of such barbarity without
at least some quite highly placed heads rolling.
I think we should all understand that many people who promulgate such
statements do so with a particular political axe to grind and while no
doubt not Lying, present the truth in such a way that the reader or
listener draws the conclusion intended. You only have to look at the
"news" printed by the organs of a certain Australian press magnate to
know what I am talking about - and this is true of all parts of the
political spectrum. In questions like this there is never black or
white-only shades of gray.
The other thing which I think we all should beware of is judging the
actions of the 19th century in terms of 21st century morality, rather
than in terms of the mores of the time - certainly when it comes to
the personality of individuals.
To give an example one of my heroes Baden-Powell the founder of the
scout movement. Judged by todays standards a colonialist upholder of
priviledge judged to be somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun !!
Contrast this to how he was viewed by the establishment of the time -
a dangerous liberal with definite shock horror SOCIALIST tendencies (
though he did not see himself in those terms ). And give working class
boys some pride and hope that things could be different and allow them
to mix socially with their betters! That won't do at all- where are
the next generation of downtrodden servants going to come from?
I am an amateur student of history and sensationalising of events in
the interests of promoting a point of view is not something I can
agree with although all societies try to sanitise the darker Parts of
their history
Please note that all this is not to suggest that the original
statement is untrue but that it is unlikely to be as simple as the
statement portrays (in my opinion quite deliberately at sometime
between the original statement being made in 18 whenever it was and
being posted on these pages no doubt in good faith)
I also think in fairness to the US that at the present time such
comments are unhelpful in view of the uncertainties and soul-searching
going on in respect of the involvement in Iraq , and some people are
going to try to draw parallels between then and now - where there is
absolutely no correlation between the two situations- but some people
are going to be drawing conclusions such as "nothing has changed".
This is not good either in terms of accuracy or in terms of trying to
stop the average US citizen developing a siege mentality,leading
inevitably to the US withdrawing from world affairs and hence damaging
the rest of us.
In case you want to accuse me of sycophancy to all things American for
the record I was against the Iraq episode from the beginning.
End of soapbox
Malcolm



"Victor Manta" wrote in message ...
"Bob Ingraham" wrote in message
...

Stretching the point somewhat, and not very much if you happen to be a
native American, the U.S. Army engaged in "foreign wars" when it set about
exterminating several Indian tribes on land that the Indians "owned" in
the
sense they had always had full freedom of movement upon it,
notwithstanding
the ongoing conflicts between various Indian tribes.

snip

I recently watched a documentary about the last of the Indian resistance
and
was reminded that it seemed very much like a preview of the Second World
War
when the Germans were exterminating Jews in Eastern Europe.

snip

Bob Ingraham

Indian tribes owned nothing, for the simple reason that they didn't
recognize the individual rights, i.e. the right to life and liberty (and the
resulting one, to property) not only for the non-Indians, but also for
themselves, as individuals. Their history, like any tribal one, is a history
of continuous and bloody struggles ones against others, the total submission
of the members of the tribes to the community (represented by their chiefs),
extreme cruelty and the exploitation of women.

For these reasons they had no rights. Their armed conflicts with the
European colonists and their descendants (who have attained the point of
recognizing and implementing the inviolability of fundamental individual
rights later -- but this isn't relevant in this context) cannot be judged
just by taking into consideration Native Americans tragic fate. Should the
Native Americans be militarily more powerful, they had exterminated the
colonists (and scalped most of them, alive, what they haven't hesitated to
make when they were given the opportunity).

"Stretching the point somewhat, and not very much if you happen to be a
native American" can mean that the truth of falsity of some of basic ideas
depend on the ethnicity of the persons who hold them, which is a rather
racist idea.

There is *no* parallel between the Native Americans, and the Jews from
Central and Eastern Europe who were exterminated by the Nazi Germany. In a
certain sense, one can make a parallel between the Native Americans of the
distant past and the Nazi Germany, the philosophy of both being based on
different variants of the same socialist line of thinking.

Victor Manta

PS. My considerations are mainly based on the Declaration of Independence:

"... We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of
Happiness...."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philatelic Webmasters Organization: http://pwmo.org
Art on Stamps: http://values.ch
Romania Shown by Its Stamps: http://marci-postale.com
Communism on Stamps: http://www.values.ch/Communism/
Spanish Africa: http://www.values.ch/sna-site/
Remove "um" from the e-mail address to reply
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

| To go back to the alleged use of poisoned meat. I too find that
| difficult to swallow ( if you will forgive the pun ).

yes I may have made a mistake, I had taken it from Television documentary
what I had in fact heard, correct or not, was that "blankets had been infected with smallpox"
hence my comment on "chemical warfare"
My memory was jogged by the following

try this.....
http://aistm.org/david_rider_essay.htm

The extirpation of Indians, of course, did not begin with America's founding fathers. United States citizens and public
servants like Washington, Jefferson, and Jackson, were only following a tradition that had long been established by
European colonists.. Like most American traditions, it was chartered by religious zealots. Puritan Saints who governed
the Massachusetts Bay Colony, within a decade of its founding in 1630, passed what amounts to the first gun-control
legislature on the continent when it legislated that settlers could not "...shoot off a gun on any unnecessary occasion,
or at any game except an Indian or a wolf" (quoted in Lopez, 1978, p. 170). Lopez notes that the Puritans used similar
tactics in liquidating both wolves and Indians: "He set out poisoned meat for the wolf and gave the Indian blankets
infected with smallpox. He raided the wolf's den to dig out and destroy the pups, and stole the Indian's children"
(1978, pp. 170-171).

Rodney,

I heard it on a television documentary, or someone posted an essay --
blah.. blah.. Not good enough.

Even if you could state your sources, this is a stamps discussion
newsgroup. If it isn't on a stamp, it doesn't make any sense discussing
here.

-a


"Rodney" wrote in message
...
| To go back to the alleged use of poisoned meat. I too find that
| difficult to swallow ( if you will forgive the pun ).

yes I may have made a mistake, I had taken it from Television documentary
what I had in fact heard, correct or not, was that "blankets had been
infected with smallpox"
hence my comment on "chemical warfare"
My memory was jogged by the following

try this.....
http://aistm.org/david_rider_essay.htm

The extirpation of Indians, of course, did not begin with America's
founding fathers. United States citizens and public
servants like Washington, Jefferson, and Jackson, were only following a
tradition that had long been established by
European colonists.. Like most American traditions, it was chartered by
religious zealots. Puritan Saints who governed
the Massachusetts Bay Colony, within a decade of its founding in 1630,
passed what amounts to the first gun-control
legislature on the continent when it legislated that settlers could not
"...shoot off a gun on any unnecessary occasion,
or at any game except an Indian or a wolf" (quoted in Lopez, 1978, p.
170). Lopez notes that the Puritans used similar
tactics in liquidating both wolves and Indians: "He set out poisoned meat
for the wolf and gave the Indian blankets
infected with smallpox. He raided the wolf's den to dig out and destroy
the pups, and stole the Indian's children"
(1978, pp. 170-171).

The part I find rather dubious is giving poisoned/contaminated, etc.
meat to Indians that are starving. If whoever was alleged to perpetrate
this, why didn't they save on the meat and just allow the Indians to starve
to death?
Of course these stones are being thrown by an Aussie who needs to look
into his own country's wrongs against the Aboriginie people. Don't anyone
from New Zealand jump in either as the Maori were trampled on as well.
Personally, I have know many American Indians (and they all prefered
Indian rather than "native-American") and never met one I didn't like. I
have also known Australian Aboriginie and Maori and have found them to be
delightful to know and have as friends.
Dave (not a member of the VFW)
"malcolm hirst" wrote in message
m...
To go back to the alleged use of poisoned meat. I too find that
difficult to swallow ( if you will forgive the pun ). While I would
agree that the treatment of native Americans was less than perfect I
would doubt that even at that time,when humanitarian issues such as
the abolition of slavery was on the agenda of every civilized nation -
even if not achieved by many, the public at large would not have
tolerated any officially authorised incident of such barbarity without
at least some quite highly placed heads rolling.
I think we should all understand that many people who promulgate such
statements do so with a particular political axe to grind and while no
doubt not Lying, present the truth in such a way that the reader or
listener draws the conclusion intended. You only have to look at the
"news" printed by the organs of a certain Australian press magnate to
know what I am talking about - and this is true of all parts of the
political spectrum. In questions like this there is never black or
white-only shades of gray.
The other thing which I think we all should beware of is judging the
actions of the 19th century in terms of 21st century morality, rather
than in terms of the mores of the time - certainly when it comes to
the personality of individuals.
To give an example one of my heroes Baden-Powell the founder of the
scout movement. Judged by todays standards a colonialist upholder of
priviledge judged to be somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun !!
Contrast this to how he was viewed by the establishment of the time -
a dangerous liberal with definite shock horror SOCIALIST tendencies (
though he did not see himself in those terms ). And give working class
boys some pride and hope that things could be different and allow them
to mix socially with their betters! That won't do at all- where are
the next generation of downtrodden servants going to come from?
I am an amateur student of history and sensationalising of events in
the interests of promoting a point of view is not something I can
agree with although all societies try to sanitise the darker Parts of
their history
Please note that all this is not to suggest that the original
statement is untrue but that it is unlikely to be as simple as the
statement portrays (in my opinion quite deliberately at sometime
between the original statement being made in 18 whenever it was and
being posted on these pages no doubt in good faith)
I also think in fairness to the US that at the present time such
comments are unhelpful in view of the uncertainties and soul-searching
going on in respect of the involvement in Iraq , and some people are
going to try to draw parallels between then and now - where there is
absolutely no correlation between the two situations- but some people
are going to be drawing conclusions such as "nothing has changed".
This is not good either in terms of accuracy or in terms of trying to
stop the average US citizen developing a siege mentality,leading
inevitably to the US withdrawing from world affairs and hence damaging
the rest of us.
In case you want to accuse me of sycophancy to all things American for
the record I was against the Iraq episode from the beginning.
End of soapbox
Malcolm



"Victor Manta" wrote in message
...
"Bob Ingraham" wrote in message
...

Stretching the point somewhat, and not very much if you happen to be a
native American, the U.S. Army engaged in "foreign wars" when it set
about
exterminating several Indian tribes on land that the Indians "owned"
in
the
sense they had always had full freedom of movement upon it,
notwithstanding
the ongoing conflicts between various Indian tribes.

snip

I recently watched a documentary about the last of the Indian
resistance
and
was reminded that it seemed very much like a preview of the Second
World
War
when the Germans were exterminating Jews in Eastern Europe.

snip

Bob Ingraham

Indian tribes owned nothing, for the simple reason that they didn't
recognize the individual rights, i.e. the right to life and liberty (and
the
resulting one, to property) not only for the non-Indians, but also for
themselves, as individuals. Their history, like any tribal one, is a
history
of continuous and bloody struggles ones against others, the total
submission
of the members of the tribes to the community (represented by their
chiefs),
extreme cruelty and the exploitation of women.

For these reasons they had no rights. Their armed conflicts with the
European colonists and their descendants (who have attained the point of
recognizing and implementing the inviolability of fundamental individual
rights later -- but this isn't relevant in this context) cannot be
judged
just by taking into consideration Native Americans tragic fate. Should
the
Native Americans be militarily more powerful, they had exterminated the
colonists (and scalped most of them, alive, what they haven't hesitated
to
make when they were given the opportunity).

"Stretching the point somewhat, and not very much if you happen to be a
native American" can mean that the truth of falsity of some of basic
ideas
depend on the ethnicity of the persons who hold them, which is a rather
racist idea.

There is *no* parallel between the Native Americans, and the Jews from
Central and Eastern Europe who were exterminated by the Nazi Germany. In
a
certain sense, one can make a parallel between the Native Americans of
the
distant past and the Nazi Germany, the philosophy of both being based on
different variants of the same socialist line of thinking.

Victor Manta

PS. My considerations are mainly based on the Declaration of
Independence:

"... We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of
Happiness...."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Philatelic Webmasters Organization: http://pwmo.org
Art on Stamps: http://values.ch
Romania Shown by Its Stamps: http://marci-postale.com
Communism on Stamps: http://www.values.ch/Communism/
Spanish Africa: http://www.values.ch/sna-site/
Remove "um" from the e-mail address to reply

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-