| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Aboriginal peoples in your country
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Aboriginal peoples in your country

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 19>
Author
Flipper View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 23 Apr 2006
Location: Anatolia&Balkan
Status: Offline
Points: 2798
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Flipper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Jul 2009 at 11:34
Here's some interiors of a Sarakatsanoi house






They're mainly producing feta and other cheesetypes. A large part of a typical modern Greek breakfast is based on their cuisine. That is for example a cheese pie called tyropita.






Edited by Flipper - 13 Jul 2009 at 11:35
FΑΝΑΚΤΟΥ ΜΙΔΑ ΓΟΝΟΣ
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Jul 2009 at 14:07
Mmmm, cheese pie, it sounds good. And feta is really good too. When I was in Greece I really enjoyed the food.
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Jul 2009 at 14:49
"Well, you cannot speak of aboriginals in Greece, since the people are a result of heavy tribe mixing. The only ones that seem to belong to an older group of people than the rest are the Sarakatsanoi. They live a nomadic life, marry mostly within the tribe and use versions of words that were popular in homers time and backwards."
 
And you should have not, Flipper, for the Sarakatsanoi (or Karakachani/Karatkasani) are in no way classifiable as "aborigines", nor even an ethnic minority (unless one is in Bulgaria). Needless to say, however, as with all things having to do with the Balkans excess fervor colors definition. Perhaps during the the course of the Middle Ages they became pastoral isolates but in terms of the historical record, notice does not surface until the 14th century. Further, the language spoken is not archaic Greek but more or less just simply a variant northern modern Greek dialect (as distinct from artificially imposed constructs recalling classical Greek).
 
In a lighter vein...ain't transhumant behavior a kick in the pants. Nevertheless, the Roumeliotes are fascinating.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Flipper View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 23 Apr 2006
Location: Anatolia&Balkan
Status: Offline
Points: 2798
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Flipper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Jul 2009 at 16:09
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

And you should have not, Flipper, for the Sarakatsanoi (or Karakachani/Karatkasani) are in no way classifiable as "aborigines", nor even an ethnic minority (unless one is in Bulgaria). Needless to say, however, as with all things having to do with the Balkans excess fervor colors definition. Perhaps during the the course of the Middle Ages they became pastoral isolates but in terms of the historical record, notice does not surface until the 14th century. Further, the language spoken is not archaic Greek but more or less just simply a variant northern modern Greek dialect (as distinct from artificially imposed constructs recalling classical Greek).


Easy there drgonzaga.

1) From my first message i said "you cannot speak of aboriginals in Greece". So, i did not classify them as aborigines nor as an ethnic minority.

2) I said not that they speak archaic Greek but that they use some archaic versions of words.

3) The only reason i mentioned them is because some suspect they belong to an early group of inhabitants in their area. In their portals, they claim to be Ellopes, but that does not necessarely mean "aboriginal" nor is there a historic account that prooves they have historically related themselves to that tribe.
FΑΝΑΚΤΟΥ ΜΙΔΑ ΓΟΝΟΣ
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Jul 2009 at 16:45
Easy there, Flipper, since the "you should have not" was in reference to "entertaining" the lure set out in the thread. However, please keep in mind that even a simple reference to "archaic" with regard to vocabulary is more than confusing. In no way shape or form do the Sarakatsanoi speak or employ Archaic Greek and the most that can be said is the presence of vocabulary intersecting Byzantine Greek, which, interestingly enough, is a parallel with early written historical notice of their existence as a "group". Let's not even get into ancient Evvia...
 
As with the Sami, one can not really speak of "aboriginal" peoples of Europe and really make any sense beyond the realm of archaeology. "Original" inhabitants, say what? It makes as much sense to describe the "Hillbillies" of Appalachia's hollers as aborigenes as it does to classify the groups put forth here as such.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Flipper View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 23 Apr 2006
Location: Anatolia&Balkan
Status: Offline
Points: 2798
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Flipper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Jul 2009 at 16:57
drgonzaga you've made your point. All good.

As for the second part of your message i will agree. What makes an aboriginal  "aboriginal" really? Just the fact that an aboriginal is the only remain of people we know, that lived there before some other newcomer. There was probably always someone there before that we have no clue about. The samis did migrate to these regions as well. They did not came out from the ground.
FΑΝΑΚΤΟΥ ΜΙΔΑ ΓΟΝΟΣ
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Jul 2009 at 17:16
In some cases it is more clear cut who is, or was, an aboriginal, as in the case of Tasmania where the natives seem to have lived isolated for millenia before the Europeans arrived.

Edited by Carcharodon - 13 Jul 2009 at 17:16
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Jul 2009 at 17:54
 
About Samis, here is a map of what is usually characterized as Sapmi, the land of the Samis:
 
 
 
 
They even have a flag of their own:
 
 
 
 


Edited by Carcharodon - 13 Jul 2009 at 17:56
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Jul 2009 at 18:15
Really, Carch, you take the cake in pushing for the extraneous. If the site is to have any credibility in terms of historical study and integrity, forays such as this one are to be discouraged. It is in line with other favored agiprop topics you apparently favor. Let this stuff flourish as part of the Young Socialists agenda, but please respect what is meant by History. You want a thread on the problems and adaptations of transhumant ethnic groups, that's just fine but don't clutter Allempires with tenuous assertions formulated under poorly defined terminology.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Jul 2009 at 18:33
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Really, Carch, you take the cake in pushing for the extraneous. If the site is to have any credibility in terms of historical study and integrity, forays such as this one are to be discouraged. It is in line with other favored agiprop topics you apparently favor. Let this stuff flourish as part of the Young Socialists agenda, but please respect what is meant by History. You want a thread on the problems and adaptations of transhumant ethnic groups, that's just fine but don't clutter Allempires with tenuous assertions formulated under poorly defined terminology.
 
It seems that you see agiprop, political motifs and conspiracys behind every bush. Aboriginal people are also a part of History and maybe it can be hard to define what is aboriginal or not but it is still of interest to learn something about these peoples. And it seems that  in the case of the Swedish Samis, Swedens government has recognized them as an aboriginal people. Also UN has forwarded a declaration of aboriginal peoples. So the concept are not only agiprop (your favourite word?) or political conspiracy (maybe of the leftist sort?).


Edited by Carcharodon - 13 Jul 2009 at 18:41
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Jul 2009 at 19:15
Politicians do not define the validity of terminology within the context of historiography or proper usage, Carcharodon. And that is the problem...you are trying to play contemporary politics on the historical horizon. It is much the same with the delusions of the Chomskyites and their near unintelligible abuse of history for the sake of jargon. In historical writing no scholar worth his salt would discuss the Berber as an aboriginal people but would treat them within the context of their own identity and history. Present day politics within a national context is something else entirely. An aborigine exists solely in the eyes of the beholder and the term itself carries a derogative tone.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Jul 2009 at 19:28
Well, one can always problematize everything in absurdum. As for the Samis they call themselves an indigenous or aboriginal people and they would certainly not use a derogative term about themselves. And the terms indigenous, aboriginal or native are used in many historiographical books and articles.
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Jul 2009 at 20:31
By all means, let us all go native and get high on a certain indigenous plant so as to commune with our aboriginal instincts.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Jul 2009 at 20:36
Confused
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Jul 2009 at 20:44
Well Carch the moral of this encounter is that our common humanity should give us pause before embarking upon language games that somehow endow some sort of uniqueness to our present quandaries.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Jul 2009 at 21:00
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Well Carch the moral of this encounter is that our common humanity should give us pause before embarking upon language games that somehow endow some sort of uniqueness to our present quandaries.
 
Well I did not open this thread to play language games, I was just curious about what people can tell about indigenous peoples in their countries or their neighbourhood. Also I shared something about the Sami people here in Sweden.
 
You seem to be able to problematize everything and turn it into severe political issues.


Edited by Carcharodon - 14 Jul 2009 at 10:03
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Jul 2009 at 04:44
what do you mean by indigenous people?
 
Choose:
 
(1) First peoples. Certainly Native Americans, Maories and others meet that criteria; I don't know if Sami do.
 
(2) Nomadic people. In that case peoples like the Tuaregs, the Gypsies meet the criteria as much as the natives of the Amazons and perhaps ancient Samis.
 
(3) Tribal people. In this case many groups worldwide meet that criteria, like the Berbers, the Khoisans, lots of native American groups and many people. Curiously, some Amerindians of the past weren't tribal peoples (Incans, Mayans, Aztecs, for instance).
 
(4) Minorities. Well, in that case you can include immigrants too.
 
 
Back to Top
Flipper View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 23 Apr 2006
Location: Anatolia&Balkan
Status: Offline
Points: 2798
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Flipper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Jul 2009 at 07:54
I don't understand the point anymore.
FΑΝΑΚΤΟΥ ΜΙΔΑ ΓΟΝΟΣ
Back to Top
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 Aug 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 3608
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Styrbiorn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Jul 2009 at 08:20
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

 
And it seems that  in the case of the Swedish Samis, Swedens government has recognized them as an aboriginal people. Also UN has forwarded a declaration of aboriginal peoples. So the concept are not only agiprop (your favourite word?) or political conspiracy (maybe of the leftist sort?).

They have classified them as indigenous, but so what? They aren't anymore indigenous than the Scandinavians anyway. The choice is entirely political - or politically correct. Swaths of the so called Sapmi has only a tiny minority of Sami, whereas the others living there suddenly get to hear they have "stolen" the territory even though their families have lived there for thousands of years.

Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Jul 2009 at 10:07
Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:

They have classified them as indigenous, but so what? They aren't anymore indigenous than the Scandinavians anyway. The choice is entirely political - or politically correct. Swaths of the so called Sapmi has only a tiny minority of Sami, whereas the others living there suddenly get to hear they have "stolen" the territory even though their families have lived there for thousands of years.
 
As i mentioned one can always problemitize everything. At least the Samis are indigenous in some parts of Sapmi. Then one can also see, both in Sweden, and in many other countries that the term indigenous many times is dismissed and disliked for political reasons. If there is no people indigenous to a certain area then it is more easy for others to claim it.
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Jul 2009 at 10:13
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

what do you mean by indigenous people?
 
Choose:
 
(1) First peoples. Certainly Native Americans, Maories and others meet that criteria; I don't know if Sami do.
 
(2) Nomadic people. In that case peoples like the Tuaregs, the Gypsies meet the criteria as much as the natives of the Amazons and perhaps ancient Samis.
 
(3) Tribal people. In this case many groups worldwide meet that criteria, like the Berbers, the Khoisans, lots of native American groups and many people. Curiously, some Amerindians of the past weren't tribal peoples (Incans, Mayans, Aztecs, for instance).
 
(4) Minorities. Well, in that case you can include immigrants too.
 
 
 
It is a combination of these four with emfasis on nr one. For example gypsies are not called indigenous because they immigrated relatively recently (at least to northern Europe).
 


Edited by Carcharodon - 14 Jul 2009 at 10:16
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Jul 2009 at 10:14
Originally posted by Flipper Flipper wrote:

I don't understand the point anymore.
 
Well, I start to wonder too, it seems that we are getting stuck in meaningless debates about definitions.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Jul 2009 at 13:32
As far as I know Nordics are indigenous to Northern Europe, so I don't see the point to call Samis the original people there. Besides, Nordics and Samis seems to be of the same stock with a different in height only. The difference in lifestyle is relatively recent, knowing that norse and other Germanic peoples were tribal up to a thousand years ago. For me it is like to argue who is more indigenous: a pigmey or a bantu

Edited by pinguin - 14 Jul 2009 at 13:33
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Jul 2009 at 13:48
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

By all means, let us all go native and get high on a certain indigenous plant so as to commune with our aboriginal instincts.
 
Well, maybe there is some point to that remark. Todays entertainment industry has discovered, or rediscovered, different native peoples around the world. So now they actually send out people to some of these groups just to go native. One such show is the MTV Exciled where young, rich and extremely spoiled girls (and some boy too) are exiled; it means they have to live with a tribal people for one week just to discover how other people can live and learn to cooperate for the benefit of a group instead of just thinking about themselves. So one girl went to the Masai in Kenya, one to the mountains of Bolivia, one to the Engbera of Panama, one to agroup in India and one to natives in the Amazon. One girl also visited Samis in Norway. And lo and behold: after just one week many of them saw the light and learned not to be so selfish. On top of that a couple of them also promised to fight for the survival and rights of the group they spent a week with.
 
Another series were from England where women in their middle ages also went out to different tribal peoples to find themselves. Most of them also claimed that they actually found themselves and their inner harmony by visiting these peoples.
 
A third series was about one man from England who also went to different tribes and tested different sensory enhancing substances (drugs), fought with sticks and did other more or less spectacular things that in some way enlightened him.
 
What one was missing in all these shows was the deeper thoughts, opinions, dreams, hopes and aspirations of people in these indigenous groups. In these shows they became only like some extras in the narrative about the westerner who comes to the wilderness to find himself.
 
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Jul 2009 at 13:55
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

As far as I know Nordics are indigenous to Northern Europe, so I don't see the point to call Samis the original people there. Besides, Nordics and Samis seems to be of the same stock with a different in height only. The difference in lifestyle is relatively recent, knowing that norse and other Germanic peoples were tribal up to a thousand years ago. For me it is like to argue who is more indigenous: a pigmey or a bantu
 
Well, the difference in lifestyle between nomadic, hunter gatherer Samis and agricultural peoples in Scandinavia goes at least 4000 years back in time, or even more. The reindeer herding life style of the Samis were developed maybe 1200 years ago or more (at least it is described in contemporary sources from that time). State organised society started among the Scandinavians for more than 1000 years ago.
 
But what is recent or not is of course always relative.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Jul 2009 at 14:18
Definitively, you are not talking about indigenous people here and overseas invaders, no matter how much you stretch the concept. You are just talking about rival tribes, which is another matter.
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Jul 2009 at 14:29
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Definitively, you are not talking about indigenous people here and overseas invaders, no matter how much you stretch the concept. You are just talking about rival tribes, which is another matter.
 
Well, the rivalry is described in different ways, the Samis say they are an indigenous people whos native lands have been invaded by the Scandinavians (and Finns and Russians in respective countries). The conflict is also referred to as a conflict between an ethnic minority and storsamhaellet i e the society of the large majority (who is of another ethnic affinity).
 
Here is some Sami views from a site thtat states: "Our goal is to increase people's knowledge about the Sami as an indigenous people and about Sami affairs":
 
Here is also some Sami version on history:
 
The question is also who it is who shall define what is an indigenous people or not, is it the members of the people in question themselves, or is it other people, or is it...?
 


Edited by Carcharodon - 14 Jul 2009 at 14:39
Back to Top
Flipper View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 23 Apr 2006
Location: Anatolia&Balkan
Status: Offline
Points: 2798
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Flipper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Jul 2009 at 14:40
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

 (and Finns and Russians in respective countries).


That's utter crap of some politically/maliciously involved people! The "invaded by Finns" part... Aren't they both speaking an Uralic language? Can anyone prove that Finns came later than Saamis in some way? No. It's just easy to blame on the Finns because they differentiated themselves in terms of lifestyle.

I truly detaste victimization in the name of land, property, political ideology, ethnic conflicts etc.

PS: Just to avoid misunderstandings, my sharp language did not point to you Carcharodon.


Edited by Flipper - 14 Jul 2009 at 15:25
FΑΝΑΚΤΟΥ ΜΙΔΑ ΓΟΝΟΣ
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Jul 2009 at 14:43
It is said that the Swedes in the 17th century learned to closely know indigenous peoples both in Northern Scandinavia and North America because of their colonial endevours. The Swedish historian Gunloeg Fur has written a dissertation about it: Cultural Confrontations on Two Fronts (1993), presented at the University of Oklahoma, which deals with Swedes contacts and conflicts with Lenape Indians in New Sweden and with Sami in Lapland.

Edited by Carcharodon - 14 Jul 2009 at 14:46
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Jul 2009 at 14:45
Originally posted by Flipper Flipper wrote:


PS: Just to avoid misunderstandings, my sharp language did not point to you Carcharodon.
 
Good to hear, since I did not invent the historical narratives about these conflicts.


Edited by Carcharodon - 14 Jul 2009 at 14:46
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 19>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.