Snaphaunce Gunlock Found on Hatteras by Dr. Phelps in 1997/8

Permission of Phelps Archaeology Laboratory, East Carolina University

What do you do?


This past summer, I have worked with a really fine group of people who actually are friends with one another and do some damned fine research... together, as a group. They include REAL professionals, an Archaeology PhD candidate, an expert on Indian migration and DNA studies, a Maritime History MA candidate (myself), many specialists in many different fields, including a mayor from Bidford, England!  I'm new to graduate research and should be forgiven for the shock I expressed maybe.


During my own research, I have casually sought other experts to help me understand the significance of certain finds, namely a gunlock that may date to the late 16th century (which would be highly significant!) and the Kendall ring (an artifact that may relate to one member of the Roanoke voyages, can be viewed here: http://digital.lib.ecu.edu/special/ead/view.aspx?id=1061&q=croatan ).  These items were found by the late Dr. David S. Phelps, Professor Emeritus at East Carolina University.  An ECU report on this archaeological site is available at http:///www.delabrooke.com/ECUreportGray.pdf.  I have made the legitimate resources available to all for the sake of unbiased opinions.  


One point that I feel is necessary to make and that is that my research and my friends' research is in no way connected to ECU.  We all ask questions of experts, some of them happen to be at that university... but, still, this is a group project that makes no such claims to any eminent institution.

BTW: Shameless plug - WRAL TV interview with two of our guys Monday night, interviewed by Sloan Mason at 5:55 pm, if I remember correctly. If you miss it, you can catch it later on their website.


Not much has been done on this "Croatan" (spelled "Croatoan" by the Indians) archaeological site lately.  Part of it has been due to Dr. Phelps passing.  It may also be due to problems similar to one that I have encountered lately.  Someone has been "poisoning the well" so to speak.  


I wrote an email to a snaphaunce expert in England just for an opinion on the gunlock (open for view at ECU Special Collections)... I got the sudden response that he had already given his opinion on this artifact and he insinuated that I was "butting in" on another man's research!  Well, this was definitely unexpected and strange.  The guy was only defending someone else, I know.  But... geesh!  I mean, Phelps was no longer around but the site was still under the direction of ECU and they didn't seem to mind.  In fact, the Archaeology department has been very helpful as you might expect them to be.  If this artifact had already been analyzed, I would love to hear about the analysis.  I'd love to know who it was that did it.  He referred me to the "site director."  Well?  This English expert mentioned a name that has nothing to do with the archaeology department at ECU and he said that he was the "site director" of the "Lost Colony site."  Well, I would not have wanted to butt in on anyone's "territory," but this particular person was NOT the director of that site nor has he ever been!   I was astounded!  "What did I do to him?" was the question that went through my mind repeatedly.  For some reason, he believed that I was asking him his opinion to undermine someone else.  Who gave him that idea? 



Anyway, I directed him to the proper authorities and all is well.  Honest, forthright research means cooperation... everyone working together to accomplish the goal.  "Poisoning water" does not help.  If one wishes to make great discoveries, then one must be willing to cooperate on such multidisciplinary endeavors and share the credit, not spoiling the resources for everyone else.  I welcome any cooperative efforts to further this very important end.  Tell me, why do I feel like my Dad?

The link to FtDNA Lost Colony project is located at http://www.familytreedna.com/public/LostColonyYDNA/default.aspx .  This is the legitimate site and you will NEVER be charged by anyone from the group... only by FtDNA, if you decide to have the test performed.  It would be great to know if you connect to the Native Americans involved here... especially to the Lost Colony!  But, that's why some illegitimate ruses work.  So, don't listen to us or any other website... go straight to FtDNA if you're interested.  In fact, don't use the link I gave you... Google it and get there that way.  With the internet, you have to be careful to drink from the right waterholes. Cooperation, folks!  That's how we get answers. 

Acts of the North Carolina General Assembly, 1749

I thought you folks might enjoy a few of our fine state's laws from 1749:  These are available online at http://docsouth.unc.edu/csr/index.html/document/csr23-0022

An Act for the Punishment of such as shall take away young women that be Inheritors being within the Age of Sixteen Years, or marry them without Consent of their Parents.

An Act for taking away Clergy from Offenders against a certain Statute, made in the Third Year of the reign of Henry 7, concerning the taking away Women against their Wills, unlawfully.

An Act that no Person, robbing any House in the Day Time, altho' no Person be therein, shall be admitted to have the Benefit of his Clergy.

An Act to take away the Benefit of Clergy from some Kind of Manslaughter.

An Act to restrain all Persons from Marriage, until their former Wives, and former Husbands, be dead.

An act to prevent the destroying and murdering Bastard Children.

An Act to prevent Malicious burning of Houses, stacks of Corn and Hay, and killing or Maiming of Cattle.

An Act for the preserving all Ships and Goods thereof, which shall happen to be forced on Shore, or stranded, upon the Coasts of this Kingdom, or any other of his Majesty's Dominions.

Starting off With Columbus

Well, it's fall again and that means that I'm back in classes and you folks get to share that experience with me once again!  To start off, as a student in Maritime History 1415-1815, we write essays based upon books that we read.  These essays are critical analyses of the book... how good it was, what were its strengths, weaknesses, etc.  We began with an awesome book that I would highly recommend to everyone... 


William D. Phillips Jr. and Carla Rahn Phillips, The Worlds of Christopher Columbus (Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, 1992).


William and Carla Phillips introduce readers to the Worlds of Christopher Columbus, unabashedly reviling past historiography.  America’s unfamiliarity with the European world that created Columbus had a great deal to do with this skewed representation as much as the historical worship of so great a figure in its history.  For much of the nineteenth century America tended to ignore the enslavement of Indians and Columbus’ direct violation of orders from his Spanish sponsors that resulted in his arrest.  These very human frailties only top the list.  America in this time, however, avoided these frailties for the sake of preserving national dignity.  

Washington Irving’s 1828 popular biography of Christopher Columbus set the tone for nearly a century of textbook depictions of the “hero” Columbus.  The fourth centenary of Columbus’ first voyage to the New World, held at the World’s Columbian Exposition in Chicago in 1893, began to erode that romantic vision.  Although sluggish immediately following the “Great Man” era of American history (an idea cultivated by Thomas Carlyle), men like Justin Winsor, set out to become Irving’s “great American debunker” and change modern views of Christopher Columbus (Phillips and Phillips, 6).  

It cannot be argued that Columbus was an important personality in the development of the New World since 1492.  Columbus was, indeed a hero to many Americans.  This also holds true for the rest of the world as the Columbian Exchange of ideas and material culture influenced the entirety of the globe.  This book did not dispute Christopher Columbus’ contribution to history.  Still, that Columbus was simply human and not a “hero,” per se, the Phillipses labored to be understood.  They endeavored to set the historical record straight, to encourage other historians to provide a body of Columbian scholarship that contained the known facts about the previously misconstrued Genoan adventurer.  They were even successful in portraying a much more complex and convoluted human being that students across America could easily identify with.

This book was as much about the events leading to exploration beyond the eastern Atlantic as it was about Columbus himself.  As such, it provides an excellent historical setting and whets the appetite for the discovery to follow.  The first third of the Phillipses’ work give an excellent review of the history of navigation, the building technological capability for farther exploration, Asian spice availability, and religious incentives.  This book argues that all of these facets of Christopher Columbus’ world need to be fully understood before taking on the daunting task of analyzing the man.  The intricacies of following the polestar to reckon latitude, Portuguese expansion before 1492, advances in astronomical and geographic knowledge through Ptolemy, Copernicus, Bacon, d’Ailly, et al., and the Muslim conquest and control of the routes to the east all contributed.  Martin Behaim’s 1492 cartographic depiction of the world reflected the remarkably accurate view held by fifteenth-century geographers – only the Americas were missing.  That Columbus, or anyone for that matter, would eventually find America was a foregone conclusion.  The final puzzle piece would be found.

Many of today’s readers would not understand these contributing factors.  At first, Columbus was worshipped and then denounced.  History glorified in his fame, then became blinded by Columbus’ all too human and potentially instructional frailty.  The Phillipses believe that a lack of understanding of these subtle nuances of history contributed to the early archetypal works that filled our modern history texts with their many apocryphal tales of the “great man.”  The new tales carry starkly opposing views, also just as exaggerated.  As the saying goes, the truth is often in the middle.  True tales of Columbus yet waited for works like this book.   

Once the Phillipses established the historical setting for Columbus’ iconic voyage, they carefully began to analyze his origins and physical appearance.  Again, there existed controversy in the historiography.  Seventy-one portraits appeared in the 1893 Chicago Exposition, few of which resembled the accepted Lorenzo Lotto 1512 painting, commissioned in Venice only six years after Columbus’ death.  Still, the discovery of this painting came perhaps not in time for the 400th anniversary celebration and had not even been pronounced “authentic” until 1956.  There seems to have been no rhyme or reason to the speculative fascination, however.  Columbus himself mentioned his Genoese birth.  Still, others, not believing Columbus, speculated that he was English, French, or Spanish.  Gonzalo Fernández de Oviedo, who wrote only thirty years after Columbus, declared him to be red-headed with freckles, a complexion difficult to find in native Spaniards.  The Phillipses demonstrate how simple it can be to lazily accept fact without considering context.  For Americans, intent upon hero worship of Christopher Columbus and unfamiliar with Italian culture, this would have resulted in the observed factual distortions.  

American historiography was not solely responsible for the misinformation on Columbus.  He, himself was quite adept at that business, as much as his father at weaving wool.  On an early voyage to the Mediterranean island of Chios, he misidentified many plants as mastic bushes eager to find the popular and expensive perfume base.  He later repeated these errors in his zeal to discover new “Asian” spices.  Also, Columbus supposedly entered into a chart-making business with his sons, Hernando and Bartolomeo.  The Phillipses make it clear from Hernando Colón’s presumed early passages in his father’s biography that historians have assumed more than the documentary evidence revealed.  No documentation ever backed this.  Besides, what documents remain available to historians are mostly those of Columbus, who had a penchant for exaggeration. 
The Phillipses explain every important aspect of Columbus’ life that led to his famous voyage while informing readers of the difficulties involved in the analysis. By no means was this simple.  Even though from Genoa, born of weaver-parents Domenico and Susanna Fontanarossa Colombo, leaving at fourteen with a rudimentary education, Columbus’ formative decade in Portugal, they declare, explains the most confusing detail in the documentation – that of his writing almost exclusively in Latin and Portuguese.  Even his fortuitous marriage to Felipa Moniz was misconstrued in the past.  Columbus, not so downtrodden as he has been presented, received a welcome dowry, but so did most eligible and successful men of his time.  Again, Columbus’ story reads somewhat differently in true light.  

Even in the face of blaring blunders such as twice trying to sail directly east from the Caribbean, the Phillipses would have us know that Columbus was not an idiot.  He knew at least the basics of navigation and geography even if he did not completely understand the nature of the trade winds.  His estimates of the earth’s circumference were small, but still acceptable to the learned men of his day.  Still, they argue that the impetus for his monumental voyage came from “fables and stories” (Phillips and Phillips, 101).  So, he was impressionable.  These impressions somehow sparked the idea that something lay to the west.  Strange pieces of carved wood, of hitherto unknown species of trees, and large cane plants, all contributed to this idea that eventually became a dream.  The human Columbus dreamed, but he was not alone.  The wonder of the unknown tantalized many an imagination, not just Columbus.  His voyage was no certain success, but a gamble on the unknown that could have cost many lives.  Furthermore, these tales delight the expectant reader, a much needed reprieve from the first few chapters of background that, while excellent, did tread wearily at times.  

Enthralling, however, were the elaborate and highly decorative stories appended to Columbus’ tale as early as 1534.  One included a trip to Iceland, but the documentation for this speculation remained invisible.  These European “enhancements” were undoubtedly in response to Columbus’ own exaggerations, but the majority of these tales have developed in America, the results of nineteenth-century romanticism.  After all, in contrast to America, Europeans usually regard 1492 as the year that Granada returned to Spain from the hands of the Moors.  There was a distinct difference in historiographical motivation on opposite sides of the Atlantic.  Like James Loewen before them, the Phillipses want readers to understand that this romanticism has strongly affected past history education in America.  A real disservice has been performed to history students, even if Columbus himself would have approved the tales.  Columbus’ greatest failing, perhaps, was pride. Vanity would reveal itself many times during his career.  

There are many intrigues and amorous devices that Columbus may have used to get approval from the Spanish court of Fernando and Isabel, after having been turned down by King João of Portugal.  The writers preserve Columbus’ early struggles and his battle to be understood and accepted.  Few of these facts gain as much attention as the voyages themselves, however.  Once permission was received, the reader virtually sails beside Columbus, taking in the salt spray and the swells of the sea.  The Phillipses best writing in this book captures the maritime adventure upon departing Palos for what would be a long and tenuous voyage.

Another example of Columbus’ vanity stealing the show was the 10,000 maravedis that would go to the first man to sight land.  This reward Columbus claimed for himself, as if the glory of being admiral, governor, and collecting ten percent of all the American wealth were not enough.  Despite the failings, say the Phillipses, Columbus, as any mariner, kept two sets of numbers in his journal for ease of communication in foreign ports, not so he could deceive his crew.  Besides, he would have had to somehow change the logbooks of the other two ships, a difficult trick with the ocean between them.  Bartolomé de Las Casas began this rumor out of his ignorance of navigation and paraphrasing Columbus’ logs rather than quoting them directly.  

On page 155, the Phillipses finally bring the reader ashore in America, though where, exactly remains a mystery.  And, of course, what Columbus finds was not what he expected to find.  These are familiar details to most Americans.  His disappointment at not finding the riches of Cipango and a desire to impress his sponsors encouraged him to inaugurate the European practice of slavery in America.  God rewarded his efforts by allowing Martín Alonzo Pinzón to abscond with the Pinta and also by sinking his flagship, the Santa Maria, to whom Columbus partly attributed his treacherous crew as well.  Eventually, the treacherous Pinzón returned (which shone some credit upon Columbus as a navigator) with the Pinta and so ended the first fateful voyage, literally on a wing and a prayer.  The Phillipses detail the politics and the fervor that Columbus caused with his green parrots, seven Tainos, and sales pitches.  But, they also tell of his trials during subsequent voyages, increased responsibilities, and arrest in great detail.  Where a missing account fails them, they replace it with several peripheral accounts to fill the gap.    

The latter three voyages allow the Phillipses the chance to really explore Columbus’ character, his questionable ability to command, his desperate desire to receive even posthumous recognition, his gift of elaboration and redirection, but also his ingenuity in the face of adversity.  Still, political machinery gained momentum after the great discovery and Columbus barely balanced on the wave that resulted.  It only worsened after the riches were finally found.  The writers tell that Columbus’ troubles were a result of his vocation as mariner, not an administrator.  Still, allowing colonists to make slaves of the natives was directly opposed to his patrons’ orders.  Vanity stepped in again and Columbus’ theatrics surprisingly gave him a fourth voyage.  

This book revives the thrill of the exploration and the eager anticipation that must have been felt by all on the first voyage to America.  Thankfully, the writers steered away from detailed descriptions of spoiled meat, hardtack, weevils, and long sea voyages without baths.  Still, the political intrigues and machinations of the European courts were delightfully present in this book, as were the cannibal Caribs and ribald tales of conquest.  The effects of the Columbian Exchange were also richly detailed.  

William and Carla Phillips explore every facet and in the end, they lift somewhat their mantle as “debunker” to reveal the actual Columbus with all of his faults, but also his talents.  In many ways, he seems an even more exciting character than recently believed.   As a human being, Columbus remained an extraordinary man.  The vaporous romanticism that once surrounded the Genoese adventurer and discoverer of America truly hid the real intricacies of the man himself.  The glory of what Columbus did and the tragic mistakes that he made while doing them provide a human tale, one from which all Americans can identify and learn.  For himself, Columbus never publically admitted that he did not find Asia, to which the Phillipses offer that his stubborn insistence affected Europeans for decades after his death.  That predisposition quickly faded, but the exchange of plants, culture, diseases, and ideas had profound implications forever.

History's Humor and Dreadful Lessons

Well, a new semester is starting and all of us students gathered at the campus bookstore today, filed through the hallways like a serpent coiling up to purchase textbooks.  After spending the last two years going to classes, buying books, and dealing with the dreaded financial aid department (to tell you the truth, they're rather efficient at my school, but that's not what you hear in the scuttlebutt), I was thinking that I was getting thirsty, needing to go to the bathroom, planning for my lunch at 8:30 a.m., humming tunes to old TV shows, and wondering why we did all of this so we can pay $350 for two small bags of books!  

My first response (to myself... I began talking to myself as well) was "That's America for ya!"  The system puts us through the rigmarole so we can dish out all the state's money.  We're part of the well-oiled money machine (more closely related to a spoke, I should say..).  

Then I thought, "Well how could we make this simpler?  How could we make it less expensive?"  Yeah, I'm thinking how to save the country money.  Imagine that!  

Well, I remembered that while taking certain classes, the instructors rarely even referred to our texts.  Well, why not?  Because of that little thing that James Loewen likes to talk about in "Lies My Teacher Told Me."  Teachers don't come right out and say that the texts are mostly useless, they just use something else and assume that the money for your textbooks will get recycled anyway (sure enough, just before we finally made it into the bookstore - clouds parting, angels singing - a nice elderly woman handed us a book buyback policy card... they were buying the books back before we even purchased them! lol).  Of course, the price you get for an old textbook is much less than you paid for it.  I figure that's the textbook company's profit percentage so, the bookstore works directly with the financial system that we all have to deal with.  


Now, this is where it gets as deep and sticky as a pile of horse manure (I know... you needed the mental picture with "sticky manure").  This is the old system.  It has been done this way for centuries.  And, the powers-that-be want to keep what works best to generate revenue.  But, remember that most of my teachers didn't even use the textbooks?  What did they use?  They used today's innovative technology, like Powerpoint, Word, Access, or Excel.  Do these names sound familiar to you.  I'll bet they do.  How about Kindle, .pdf, .mov, or any number of file extensions that describe electronic media.  Electronic books and videos are what I used and I found them a great deal more educational than the dull, plodding textbooks that we've all grown to hate.  Even Wikipedia gives you great resources... I've had professors recommend it for the bibliographies (not to be used as an official reference itself you understand).  

Some people don't have computers, say the bookstores.  But, the colleges and universities most of their services online and virtually demand that you have to use them.   On one hand, they're saying, "Use the old system."  The other hand says "Here's something newer, faster, easier to use... and cheaper for us."  Well, I say "Why don't you put your textbooks online?"  They don't like reasonable questions... why!  This boy asked a reasonable question!  He must have a screw loose.  I still ask those kinds of questions... yeah, mostly for fun.


So, why are we still buying $350 worth of books that we mostly won't even use (indeed, are not nearly as educational as our many electronic sources and the internet... the internet, Wow!)?  Well, that question is similar to why do we pay income tax?  To oil the machine.  Where's Judge Andrew Napolitano?    

Here's some history (I knew you were wondering when I'd get around to that... slightly modified from Thomas Jefferson):  We are most easily taken advantage of when we fear the system... defined at similar times as a state of Tyranny.  But, when that state or system fears us, then we have democracy.  


What we have right now is a system that takes advantage of us, herds us into money making machines, so that the system (capitalization) can continue.  Judge Napolitano said that we live to serve the system, not the other way around, but that system was originally envisioned to serve us.  1787 changed all that with the adoption of the Constitution (the document of all documents... the holy of holies).  What the Constitution really became was the great compromise... the needs of the state versus the needs of the individual.  The state no longer functions by the people or for the people, as in the Declaration of Independence.  I know, ironically that wording comes from the Constitution.  But, the real democracy was in the Declaration, with "We the people...."  It was at that moment in July 1776 that WE functioned as a democracy and it lasted eleven blissful (ideologically speaking of course) years.  Today, the Constitution exists to serve the "libido dominati"... the great ego of the higher class, the ruling class, the people who already have money and  know how to make more, the Federalist Alexander Hamilton's (you know him, Mr. National Bank) sellout to the English system that we shed so much blood to denounce.  This is Hamilton's "compromise"... a central government that promised to grow in power, virtually unchecked.


So, we cogs and spokes stand in lines, wading through the mucky BS (Bureaucratic Shuffle), to get what the state is handing out so that companies run by the LD's can oil their machine and produce capital.  If this sounds familiar, it's the age-old argument made by Karl Marx... soundly denounced by the ruling class of America as detrimental to the American way of life (the opinion of the ruling class, remember), the old faithful red, white, and blue... Columbia herself in her elegant, flowing gold gown, who grew angelic wings to lead us in our divinely ordained "Manifest Destiny."

Do you know the expression, "seen through rose-colored glasses?"  This is another argument that is, encouragingly becoming well-told... Imperialism.  It's starting to get recognition from the American people... the idea that maybe our government made a mistake.  Took awhile!  It wasn't until the 1960's that we began to dump "virtual slavery" (still a long way to go, too) or recognition of the Native American as the actual owners of the land that we live on (don't worry... we're all natives, now).  A scant 19 years later, conservatives sold us to the highest bidder, removing controls that prevented corporations from taking advantage of us.  Now, we're all the slaves.  At least, there's no discrimination by color anymore!  But, mistakes were made, even if we didn't admit them then... or now.  The rose-colored glasses that were handed out since 1787, grew photo-gray and got darker,and can still be found in our textbooks (according to Mr. Loewen) and that may be why educated men do not like to use them.  It's taking time, but we're trying on a different pair of glasses... with clear lenses and no funny mirrors.  Judge Napolitano has a great and humorous way of telling this.  The main point is that he warns Americans, yet in a positive way... a true democrat who believes that when government abuses its power, then we the people who gave it that power have the right to take it back:


That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

 As Napolitano was trying to say (after Jefferson) was that we have the power to make our country what we want it to be... in 1776 or 2010.  But, simply going to the polls is not enough.  We must take an active part in establishing freedom, keeping an ever watchful eye on the "libido dominati" in Congress, removing them when they don't do their jobs, removing the damnable "Patriot Act," just like we removed the "Alien and Sedition Act" in the early 19th century.  At that time, we didn't have Islamic fundamentalists to fear... it was the French.  Yeah, the French.  I know... The point is that we react from fear and lose another notch of freedom each time we do.  Imagine this:  we reacted with the "Alien and Sedition Acts" that made it illegal to "bad-mouth" the President just because three French ministers snuffed our ambassador (imagine not being able to call George W. Bush a stupid redneck!  What would David Letterman do?).  Still, I'm sure that flying airplanes into buildings got a rise from us and more of our freedoms lost in that fight.  Still, we survived the French... we'll probably survive Al Quada too.   

Well, I came from the line at the bookstore, to the line at financial aid, and endured the BS (not Bureaucratic Shuffle this time) once more for the machine.  Out of all this, I'll get an education.  Of course, the statistics say that I'll be oiling machinery at Wal-mart most of my future.  I have more confidence in myself than that, however.  I'll keep my clear specs on, pay attention to what my Congessman Libido says and does (less to who he cheats on his wife with), no attention to silly distractions like Britney or Lindsey, and try to laugh and cajole regularly with my friends.  That's a good recipe for a "bon'as civis" or a good citizen, a watchful or observant citizen.   For, as I'm sure that Jefferson would agree, freedom must be constantly maintained.  It rarely comes to you of its own free will. 

Definitions of Capitalization

What is very telling in American society is that we tend to think of "capitalizing" as not to take advantage of a resource, but rather to promote corporate, or American ideals and health.  This may be a mental justification of our system.  Our closest national relatives, the British people, began the capitalistic endeavors (which we have perfected) with Dutch ideas of business, capitalizing on resources such as slaves, tea, and rice... still, they do not focus on a definition of "capitalize" as anything else but what it is... "to take advantage."  Below is what an English dictionary entry for the word, "capitalize" says. This is followed by an American entry that is fairly common in most American dictionaries, including the Random House one on my desk now.  You can tell by the simple variation how we Americans rank the "to take advantage" definition of the term.

---

capitalize, capitalise [ˈkæpɪtəˌlaɪz]

vb (mainly tr)

1. (intr; foll by on) to take advantage (of); profit (by)

2. (Communication Arts / Printing, Lithography & Bookbinding) to write or print (text) in capital letters or with the first letter of (a word or words) in capital letters

3. (Economics, Accounting & Finance / Accounting & Book-keeping) to convert (debt or retained earnings) into capital stock

4. (Economics, Accounting & Finance / Accounting & Book-keeping) to authorize (a business enterprise) to issue a specified amount of capital stock

5. (Economics, Accounting & Finance / Banking & Finance) to provide with capital

6. (Economics, Accounting & Finance / Accounting & Book-keeping) Accounting to treat (expenditures) as assets

7. (Economics, Accounting & Finance / Accounting & Book-keeping)

a.  to estimate the present value of (a periodical income)

b.  to compute the present value of (a business) from actual or potential earnings

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

And now, the American view:

cap·i·tal·ize (kp-tl-z)

v. cap·i·tal·ized, cap·i·tal·iz·ing, cap·i·tal·iz·es

v.tr.

1. To use as or convert into capital.

2. To supply with capital or investment funds: capitalize a new business.

3. To authorize the issue of a certain amount of capital stock of: capitalize a corporation.

4. To convert (debt) into capital stock or shares.

5. To calculate the current value of (a future stream of earnings or cash flows).

6. To include (expenditures) in business accounts as assets instead of expenses.

7.

a. To write or print in capital letters.

b. To begin a word with a capital letter.

v.intr.

To turn something to one's advantage; benefit: capitalize on an opponent's error. See Synonyms at benefit.

---

At least my Random House dictionary puts "to take advantage" as number six!  When I read a book on Tobacco business in early America that gave "debt to England" as one source of the American Revolution, I had to think about this.  The American Revolution erased our debts to England, for the most part.  After that, we had the freedom to "take advantage" as much as possible.  It became our ultimate creed, our "Manifest Destiny" to conquer the whole continent.  I don't know about you, but this was a hard pill to swallow.  

Education and religion are two areas where capitalization should not occur.  I know of few people who would dispute this.  But, commercialism has invaded our schools and churches and what was once the public sector has now gone private... again, capitalization of every available resource.  


The definitions that we have outlined for ourselves - the very essence of the idea - has been redefined to avoid the guilt that many of us still feel for what has gone in the past... the African and the Indian are only the most visible today.  What remains not-so-visible is what may eventually spell the end of what we know.  Change it now.  


A joke that I once heard states "Politics is merely the modern tool of the advantage-seeking capitalist that replaced the large, heavy bones wielded by their predecessors..."

I don't laugh at it anymore.  I'd like to do as my poor, yet wise and loving Grandma taught me instead... love thy neighbor.   She did and she was truly a happy woman.  Like I said... she was wise!

Update:  wikipedia definitions concur:

Verb [UK]

to capitalise (third-person singular simple present capitalises, present participle capitalising, simple past and past participle capitalised)

1. (followed by on) To seize, as an opportunity; to obtain a benefit.
   The home team appeared to have the advantage throughout the game, and finally capitalised on their opponents' weakness with just two minutes remaining, scoring several points in quick succession.
2. (writing, editing) to make use of capital letters (a.k.a. upper case).
   In English, proper nouns should always be capitalised.
3. (business) to have, contribute or acquire capital (money or other resources) for a business.
   Some states require proof that a new venture is properly capitalised before the state will issue a certificate of incorporation.
4. (finance) to convert into capital, ie to get cash or similar immediately fungible resources for some less fungible property or source of future income.
   If we obtain a loan using the business as collateral, the effect will be to capitalise our next ten years of income, giving us cash today that we can use to buy out our competitor.
5. (accounting, taxation) to treat as capital, not as an expense. (This has implications for when deductions may be taken, at least under US law.)
6. (intransitive): To profit or to obtain an advantage.
   The home team took several shots on goal but was unable to capitalise until late in the game.

Pasted from <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/capitalise>

Verb [US]

to capitalize (third-person singular simple present capitalizes, present participle capitalizing, simple past and past participle capitalized)

1. (transitive) In writing or editing, to write in capital letters, in upper case, either the entire word or text, or just the initial letter(s) thereof.
   In English, proper nouns should always be capitalized.
2. (transitive, business, finance) To contribute or acquire capital (money or other resources) for.
   Some states require proof that a new venture is properly capitalized before the state will issue a certificate of incorporation.
3. (transitive, finance) To convert into capital, ie to get cash or similar immediately fungible resources for some less fungible property or source of future income.
   If we obtain a loan using the business as collateral, the effect will be to capitalize our next ten years of income, giving us cash today that we can use to buy out our competitor.
4. (transitive, accounting, taxation) To treat as capital, not as an expense.
5. (intransitive) To profit or to obtain an advantage.
   The home team took several shots on goal but was unable to capitalize until late in the game.
6. (intransitive, followed by on) To seize, as an opportunity; to obtain a benefit.
   The home team appeared to have the advantage throughout the game, and finally capitalized on their opponents' weakness with just two minutes remaining, scoring several points in quick succession.

Pasted from <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/capitalize>

1870 Storm... the North Carolina report from Wilmington

On February 9, 1870, the New York Herald reported on a big Nor-easter that affected the entire eastern seaboard.  Several excerpts from affected cities and their respective newspapers were included.  The below report came from Wilmington, NC:

Nantucket Whalers in North Carolina: The Pinkhams

There’s a different world on the coast.  Outer Bankers are said to have spoken an older English dialect which still has traces today and while most North Carolinians can trace their ancestry back to England and Barbados, few of us realize the enormous maritime contribution of New Englanders like the Barnards, the Coffins, Folgers, Chadwicks, Colemans, Harkers, and numerous other families that still survive in North Carolina today.  Another factor which contributes to that “alien” feel to the Outer Banks, drawing a distinct line between farmer and seaman, is the recent presence on our coast of an industry that no longer exists today.  Creatures of the sea were hunted to extinction and the industry died with them.  The oil and ambergris they produced were no longer found off North Carolina.  These were “right whales” (shown above) and the enormously profitable whaling business has been conducted until the 19th century right here, off the coast of the Old North State.


Still, New England led in this industry and provided the whaling crews and captains that became a part of New England legend… and some that contributed to Carolina legend and folklore.  What were these men chasing whales for, you may ask?  I asked.


Whale oil was then used for making soap and burning in lanterns and candles, purely personal items.  In 1736, London, England went from the reputation of being the darkest city in Europe, with the darkest and most dangerous street corners to a lighted city, thanks to the discovery that “right-whale” and spermaceti whale oil burned cleaner and with a distinctly sweeter smell than vegetable oil, in use before 1736.  The lanterns went on poles and the street light was born.  The increased use of oil lamps on streets made whales very important in the English maritime world and contributed to great fortunes in the Americas.  Without an agricultural staple of value in New England, whale oil became a leading export, rising over three times in price from 10 pounds to 30 pounds by 1770. 


England's desire for the oil shows in the bounty provided from the British government on whale oil, increasing from 20 shillings per ton in 1733 to 40 shillings in 1749.  By 1757, the Lords of Trade and Plantations declared, "whale-bone and whale oil are materials indispensably necessary for the manufactures of this Kingdom."  The price of whale oil had risen so fast, in fact, that merchant Aaron Lopez, in 1761, joined eight other merchants to form a trust to control the price and distribution of whale oil.

In his History of Massachusetts, II (Boston, 1767), 445, Hutchinson writes, with reference to this period: "The increase of the consumption of oyl by lamps as well as by divers manufactures in Europe has been no small encouragement to our whale fishery. The flourishing state of the island of Nantucket must be attributed to it. The cod and whale fishery, being the principal source of our returns to Great Britain, are therefore worthy not only of provincial but national attention."

Still, whaling was a dangerous occupation, with the dangers of an open flame on board an already storm-threatened ship in the dangerous North Atlantic.  Still that’s where the whales were to be found… from Newfoundland to Cape Hatteras.  And that’s where many a whaler met his death.  Whalers always died young and rarely left wills.  Many of them died passing the deadly shoals of Cape Hatteras.  Numerous eighteenth-century newspaper articles reflect a sailor’s preoccupation with the Cape.  This example is only one of many:

Cape Hatteras, meeting place of the Gulf Stream and Labrador sea currents, churning dangerous shoals, topped off with Nor’easters immediately following hurricane season, became known as an obstacle to mariners and a place of danger.  Thrill-seeking whalers from Nantucket must have liked it.  They found it a great place to camp during the fall whaling season.


One unusual demographic factor amongst these whaling crews was the presence of the Native American.  Algonquians, mostly, comprised a large portion of whaling crews and often shared in the dangers of the whaling trade.  Another danger to whaling crews, as if fire and storms weren’t enough, were the French:

Pinkham was one of the old time whaling Nantucket families.  Zephaniah Pinkham, recently married to Sarah Maxey in 1744, was commanding a vessel that had fourteen crew, including these three Indian men.  Pinkham and several men escaped from Canada in short time:

This intrepid mariner’s son, Zephaniah Pinkham Jr. found North Carolina to his liking (probably because of family money problems) and came there in 1762, purchasing land in Carteret County on the “Straits” from two fellow Nantucket Chadwick brothers.  Presumably, Indian crews followed or Algonquians of North Carolina found work on whalers just as Mordicai Job and his friends.  Certainly, there was interchange because the whaling industry thrived on following the herds, as Sioux with buffalo.

Soon, North Carolina entrepreneurs desired a piece of the whaling action and fitted out a vessel expressly for that purpose… with Zephaniah Pinkham as the master of this sloop, named Sally, owned by Richard Ellis and refitted in 1768.  No massive whaling industry developed.   It may be that North Carolinians were content with hunting porpoises.  Still, Pinkham continued his base in Carteret until his death.


North Carolina held even more attraction for Zephaniah Pinkham in the lovely feminine form of Susanna Hampton, probably of the Currituck County Hamptons.  Zephaniah had at least two children by her, for in a deed, dated 1771, he leaves “Susanna Hampton” his land in the Straits for the love and affection he bore to her two sons, “Nathaniel and Job Hampton.”


The trouble that Zephaniah had, after 1770 was the woman that he married in Nantucket, Mary Coffin.  It has been surmised, not by myself… rather by my colleague, Roberta Estes, that Zephaniah gave Susanna the land because he feared her wrath.  That’s quite possible!  A male just doesn’t see these clues as well… or so my wife tells me.  As Roberta guesses, he had at least two children (3-5 years of personal history), with Susanna’s expectations shattered by the news of his marriage to Ms. Coffin.


That Pinkham still operated his Carolina trade we know from a 1774 Greenwich Hospital record on the Thames in London.  “EXTRACT from accounts of the collector of the Greenwich Hospital sixpenny duty: MARY and HENRY, of North Carolina, Zepha. Pinckam, master, of North Carolina trade. 6 Oct.”


What’s the phrase?  A girl in every port?  We can only wonder what Mary Coffin knew.  Perhaps her surname helped to form a picture not unlike the dangerous storms and shoals of North Carolina.  Davy Jones together with James Coffin and his shotgun… not pleasant.


Zephaniah Pinkham later settles in North Carolina permanently, records showing that Mary Coffin Pinkham married a cousin of Zephaniah’s, Charles Pinkham, by 1775.  Mary probably got wind… Susanna then adopts the name “Pinkham” as do the two boys, Nathaniel and Job.  We’re giving them the benefit of the doubt and declaring them to be married.




Zephaniah serves North Carolina in the Revolution as 1st lieutenant of Fort Hancock on Cape Lookout, a patriot like his sons, Nathaniel and Job in the War of 1812.  Zephaniah eventually passes on c1787.  Susanna married again to John Larrance (Lawrence) in 1796.


Nathaniel, now "Pinkham," becomes quite a North Carolina personality, serving John Gray Blount as crewman of the Beaver before joining in Blount’s venture of Shell Castle Island at the inlet at Ocracoke.  Nathaniel ran the tavern on that man-made island for “Governor” John Wallace, an uncle of David Wallace, a probable son-in-law of Zephaniah Pinkham.  Shell Castle Island was terraformed into a 25-acre facility that held storehouses and retail supplies for mariners, attracted to Carolina fishing.  As Pinkham would testify, it also held some entertainment at his establishment… the island’s tavern.


Shell Castle Island Tavern offered lodging, rum, wine, beer Porter, and many kinds of liquid refreshment as well as food.  Windsor chairs were even ordered by Wallace to spice up the atmosphere, which included imported wines and beer, all the way from Liverpool, New York, and Philadelphia.  Not to worry, fellow mariners and whalers, the state controlled the prices of the liquor:

“India Rum” was only 8 pence if sweetened with loaf sugar and “Country Made Brandy,” 6 pence.  Or, you could have a punch made from your favorite liquor at a fraction of the cost.  Step right up!


It was in the Heyday of mercantile bliss, in 1802, just as Shell Castle Island proved its worth, that native Hatteras Indian, Elizabeth Elks, deeded as a gift, the Indian grant of 1759 to Nathaniel Pinkham for his use until her son came of age.  The question is: what did Pinkham need with an old Indian village?  He may have been interested in a fishery to provide food for Shell Castle, not too distant from Hatteras.  John Wallace mentions in another letter that Pinkham was to “return with mullet” probably located in abundance on the sound side of Hatteras Island.  David Cecelski, in The Waterman’s Song, says that:


Mulleting demanded  able boatmen who knew their way around local waters but also required an intimacy with the barrier islands to tolerate the camp life.  


Carolina mullet fisherman usually built crude temporary shelters, resembling “Robinson Crusoe looking structures,” often rounded in shape quite like West African roundhouses (slave contributions).  This could very well have been what Nathaniel Pinkham was doing with the Elks land on Hatteras.  The fish supply would have been a great asset at his tavern on Shell Castle Island.


 The island site may also have served as a storage base for the Shell Castle salvage operations, due to the limited storage space available on the primary facility at the inlet.

The state became quite interested in the enterprise at Shell Castle, calling for a beacon to be constructed there in the same requisition as the lighthouse at Hatteras as this 1796 newspaper report tells.


A 1795 hurricane left little damage to Shell Castle Island.  Business was lucrative until a major hurricane struck the Carolina coast in 1806.  The 1806 hurricane, however may not have done much physical damage to the facilities as to currents and shoals at the inlet, restricting the traffic flow and access to the docks.  It also took quite a few lives.


WikiReference:  Great Coastal Hurricane of 1806—“The first major hurricane of the 19th Century made landfall south of the city of Wilmington on the southern shores of North Carolina on August 21st, and then proceeded on a gradual northeasterly drift for about 250 miles over the subsequent 36 hours. Constant gale force winds produced tremendous beach erosion, and "firmly established" the sandbar of Willoughby Spit at the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay near Norfolk. It was also responsible for the loss of the ship, Rose-in-Bloom, which founded near Barnegat, New Jersey.”


This hurricane was said to have accounted for at least 46 deaths, not to include all of those who may have died later from disease and infection.  Penicillin has yet to be invented (actually not until the 20th century!).  Realistically, hundreds may have died from this storm and may account for another brother of Nathaniel Pinkham’s, George’s death (seen as witness on an 1802 deed, the registration of which stated that he was dead in 1823) as well as others.  Census records indicate that Nathaniel had a rather large family in 1800, but a much reduced core group by 1810 and few Pinkhams survive in census records or as heirs to Nathaniel (actually, only one according to estate records, Nathaniel Jr.).  Nathaniel’s brother Job seems to have been spared the loss of his two sons, William and James who later moved to Beaufort County (Bath & Pantego areas) and founded the greater part of the Pinkham family that still lives in North Carolina today.  Job, himself may not have been so lucky, apparently gone by 1810, another possible victim of nature’s “indigestion.”

All in all, the venture on Shell Castle Island sank beneath the waves eventually, lasting about fifteen years.  The storm may have had a strong affect on people and business at Shell Castle, and most likely the formerly deep channel it was built upon shoaled up and became useless to Wallace and Blount.  The only visual memory that remains is this image on a ceramic pitcher showing the facilities on the island


Nathaniel Pinkham served as a Justice of the Peace and as representative for Carteret County in the General Assembly at various times from 1798 to 1819.  He passed away July 1821 leaving a small family to follow him, three daughters and one son.  His brother, Job, despite his own early demise, left a large number of descendants in Beaufort County.


Like the churning maelstrom that is the Outer Banks, the exciting tale that is the Pinkhams in North Carolina comes full circle and settles down.  Nathaniel Pinkham Jr. married Rebecca Styron, daughter of Littleton Styron and followed a large Carteret contingent to the newly-opened former Indian territory of Alabama following the 1830 Indian Removal Act under Andrew Jackson.  The Pinkhams of North Carolina, though remain with us still.

Futile Resistance to the Wave

Hinmuuttu-yalatlat
Known by the United States as "Chief Joseph" of the Wal-lam-wat-kain (Wallowa) band of Nez Perce became known for his principled resistance to the removal of his people by United States soldiers under General Oliver O. Howard to a reservation in Idaho.


Hinmuutu-yalatlat became the chief of his band when his father died.  The elder man knew of the white man's thirst for land and warned his son that he was not give in:


The younger man said, "I clasped my father's hand and promised to do as he asked. A man who would not defend his father's grave is worse than a wild animal."

A Stubborn Hinmuutu Removed as Chief

In 1863, a treaty between the United States and the Nez Perce reduced the size of the tribe's reservation in Idaho by nearly ninety percent, from 6,932,270 acres to 748,996 acres.  The "lower" or "non-treaty" Nez Perce viewed this "thief" treaty made by Chief Lawyer and the Indian Commissioners as a sell-out, exactly what the past chief, Hinmuutu's father had warned him about.

In "THE INVALIDITY OF THE NEZ PERCE TREATY OF 1863 AND THE TAKING OF THE WALLOWA VALLEY," by John K. Flanagan, printed in American Indian Law Review, Vol. 24, No. 1 (1999/2000), pp. 75-98, Flanagan states:
 
Lawyer had been made the "principal chief of the Nez Perce tribe in 1855. It is unclear whether the Nez Perce had actually elected Lawyer or whether he was chosen and then appointed by U.S. government officials.  Nevertheless, Washington Territory Governor Issac I. Stevens and other Americans had "recognized" him as the principal representative of the tribe for the 1855 Walla Walla Council, which had created the very first Nez Perce reservation.
Reflecting on the recent past...

Cherokee Removal Before the Nez Perce

This portrait of Major Ridge was painted by Charles Bird King in 1834.

 This tactic of divide and conquer was typical in Native-American/United States relations.  The Cherokee were split into two factions by government pressures in the 1830s, with the "Ridge" party making a "back-room" deal with the United States that gave away the reservation in North Carolina and Tennessee.  The deal was that the United States would give the "Ridge" party land in Oklahoma for signing the treaty and agreeing to move their entire band.  The main problem with this treaty was that the majority of the Cherokee had never agreed to the removal and felt betrayed by Major Ridge.  The United States negotiators clearly understood the wishes of the non-Ridge Cherokee, but were encouraged to "finish the job" by a Congress heavily-influenced by Andrew Jackson's administration.  Some Cherokee avoided trouble and moved to Oklahoma.  Many did not.  These Cherokee defied the U.S. Troops and hid in the wilds to avoid being forced upon the "Trail of Tears."  This was not easy for the Cherokee who spent years acclimating to white society, developed a complex political and economic structure, an alphabet used in their own newspapers... they even owned slaves like their white neighbors.  But, Georgians wanted their land, lobbied Congress and despite their civilized ways, the Cherokee were still not of the privileged white class.  The final decision was inevitable.

The tide of greed had not yet breached the Mississippi River before the 1830s and the Nez Perce prophetically enjoyed the same trading relationship with the United States that the Cherokee, Creek, Choctaw, and others had enjoyed before the Indian Removal Act of 1830.  Still, as sociologist Stephen Cornell has noted, any reciprocity which may have existed was "weighted eventually against the Indians."

With the doctrine of "Manifest Destiny"firmly in hand, the United States continued to conquer territory on the steadily-expanding western border... until it reached the Pacific Ocean.  The Nez Perce eventually fell victim to this greed with all other Indian nations.

Peaceful Resistance of Hinmuutu

Executive Order of 1873 was signed by President Grant upon the recommendations of two government agents. John B. Monteith, the U.S. Indian Agent at Lapwai, and T. B. Odeneal, the Superintendent of Indian Affairs for Oregon, had met with Joseph and his younger brother, Ollokot, to discuss the legal aspects of the Treaty of 1863 and to convince Joseph and his band to move onto an already established reservation.

In 1873, Hinmuutu again negotiated with the militariliy-superior United States to keep his promise to his father and remain on their land.  But, President Grant, ignorant of Indian culture, grew quickly tired of the cultural objections in the negotiations.  Flanagan tells the inevitable results:


In 1875, President Grant rescinded his order and restored the land to the public domain. Any possible fraud in making the Treaty of 1863 did not much matter in the end. The nontreaty Nez Perce would inevitably lose. A decision would eventually be made to give Joseph's band an ultimatum to leave the Wallowa country of Oregon for the reservation in Idaho. By 1877, Joseph's band and other nontreaty Nez Perce would be forced to choose between war and the reservation. In the process of choosing the reservation, a war would begin and Joseph's band would lose the Wallowa country forever.

The United States once again reneged on an Indian treaty and sent General Howard to remove them.  History repeats itself.   Hinmuutu did what was best for his people and peaceably moved.


In 1941, Hinmuutu's band of the Nez Perce brought suit against the United States in the U.S. Court of Claims, seeking rights to regain their homeland.  The federal courts upheld the former "bad treaty" and denied the claim.  However, Flanagan suggests:

... the Court of Claims should have found the 1863 Nez Perce Treaty invalid in so far as it pertained to Joseph's band, and therefore should have recognized that the band had rights in the Wallowa or at least should have awarded the band appropriate compensation. 

In the suit brought by Joseph's band in 1941, the U.S. Court of Claims found that the Treaty of 1863 was valid and held the dissenting minority of Nez Perce bound by the action of the majority of the tribe. The dissenting minority included Joseph's band. The Court basically concluded that Principal Chief Lawyer and others represented the Nez Perce tribe "as an entity," thus making the 1863 treaty binding on the entire tribe. The Court failed to recognize Joseph's band as having rights in the Wallowa country separate from the tribe as a whole. The decision effectively denied Joseph's band any compensation for their land that was taken by the U.S. government and placed
in the public domain.

Bureaucratic double-speak for we win - you lose.  Thousands of words to say absolutely nothing.  The court's decision had already been made decades ago.  The Nez Perce today still fight for whatever piddling rights they still have, salmon fishing, logging, the right to environmental damage by Bonneville Power Administration, the list goes on... the United States attained the status of "superpower."  It's easy to win the game when you're holding all the cards.

 
The preceding article is provided as thoughtful reflection on the past imperialistic actions of the United States.  These acts are easy to ignore. Most of our ancestors were completely ignorant of these events.  But, would they have objected?  Still... they're history now.  But as George Orwell once said:

‎"Whoever controls the past, controls the future... but, whoever controls the present, controls the past"

The image of Hinmuttu in a 1901 advertisement.

History repeats itself.  Clearly, the past is instructive for our future, but what happens today is extremely important as to how that past is perceived, indeed as to how that past is transmitted to the future.  Perhaps students of tomorrow will hopefully view our actions in the Middle East today as a continuation of similar actions in the past, of the Phillipines, of Spanish territories in the West Indies and Central America and prevent these actions in the future.

Hopefully, we can learn to be more responsible, to make good decisions like Hinmuutu-yalatlat.