What is "Hegemony?"

Wikipedia says:

Noun: hegemony (plural hegemonies)

   1. (formal) Domination, influence, or authority over another, especially by one political group over a society or by one nation over others (e.g.: internationally among nation-states, and regionally over social classes, between languages or even culture).

          The two political parties battled viciously for hegemony.

   2. Dominance of one social group over another, such that the ruling group or hegemon acquires some degree of consent from the subordinate, as opposed to dominance purely by force

This cartoon was one of the first hits when I Googled "hegemony" on Yahoo.  The Black Commentator is a website devoted to issues of African Americans.  The first picture was a complicated diagram but, almost all of them involved similar ideas of "taking advantage" of one group over another.  Note that our "Sopranos" are the ones that actually comment on the US hegemony as destructive.  Still, I think the picture implies that universally.  Many today regard this as a primitive aspect of human behavior that is phasing out of a more enlightened world community.

Studying history, I've come to realize that a great deal of human history has been concerned with obtaining hegemony over another group.  Recently, we have had an article on Dutch Hegemony assigned to us.  I'm sure it was assigned because it made us think.  They really like to see students think... :)  The Dutch have been regarded as the first truly capitalistic society in the world.  They were the first to develop a corporate economic system conducive to capitalism and even built ships called flutes, with no guns, whose purpose was to sail amongst the Baltic nations (the Dutch's primary trade partners) and transport goods.  They were ships built specifically to haul loads, called harringbuis, or just "buss."  I call them "trucks" because that is essentially what they were most comparable to today.  These trucks transported goods down the highways of the 17th century, or the Baltic straits and sea.  Wallerstein tells "As late as 1728, Daniel Defoe was still referring to the Dutch as 'the Carryers of the World, the middle Persons in Trade,
the Factors and Brokers of Europe.'"  It reminded me of an ad for a trucking company... lol.

In reading this article, I was struck by some amazing parallels.  Immanuel Wallerstein, himself notes these parallels in his own article:

... a mass of urban proletarians who were living in slums,
many of the workers employed being female and child labor.  

As Jeannin says so aptly, “the tensions and the conflicts have a modern
resonance." Of course they do, because we are in the presence of
industrial capitalism. In summary, it can be said that in the late
sixteenth century, the northern Netherlands was set firmly on the
path of a productive efficiency that enabled the United Provinces to
flower in about 1600 into the principal (though of course not the
only) production center of the European world-economy.

Does this sound like the United States?  As Wallerstein says, you can't stay on top forever... the very nature of reaching the top means to have stepped on others, who respond by gaining a foothold over you.  In other words, you can never maintain top place.  This "battle scene" has something of a Malthusian (Thomas Malthus) quality to it.  I have put the definition for hegemony at the beginning of this entry because it is a word that many of us are not really familiar with.  I know that I wasn't.  It also gets little attention, maybe why we don't like to think about it that much.  It's a word whose emotional connotations are similar to the idea of "to capitalize" which I've shown before, has mainly two meanings (not including capitalizing letters) that relate to the understanding of ourselves. My argument is that Americans have altered their definition of "capitalize" not due to changing trends in society but, because we need to see it differently than what we know it to be.  We still think of it as "to take advantage."  Most of us, I think, still regard "to capitalize" as "to take advantage" in our heads.  That was my own first impression, anyway.  However, our dictionaries reveal a different definition, reflective of our national economic need.  Understand that these American dictionaries show this relationship whereas, British dictionaries still carry "to take advantage" as the primary definition:

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.

and, now, our views:

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.
 
These are definitions carried by everybody's favorite Wikipedia (by the way, Jimmy Wales, the founder is asking for donations to keep it running during these hard times... give if you can.  Information should be free to all.)  I was told to never cite Wikipedia in my work... because the entries can evolve and change and what you cited my have changed since.  That is not to imply that historans don't use Wikipedia... we love bibliographies and Wikipedia is one of the best sources for those!  It also provides good and easily available insights that get us started.

I've looked up "to capitalize" in American dictionaries and English dictionaries... that's what started me on this line of thought.  I found the same thing.  It would make sense if most of us agreed with the change from British (our mother country) to American but, I don't believe that's the case. Something other than mutual agreement likely changed those dictionary entries.

You may relate this national psychological relationship to the term "manifest destiny."  Philosophers called this a "reification," or a tendency to treat a set of ideas as a definite thing. A very real sense of "manifest destiny" has guided America to its position of hegemony over the world.  As Wallerstein intuits, this pinnicle of power is the final stage in capitalistic societies.  The Dutch were the perfect example, he states.  And Dutch hegemony did not last.  Still, the Dutch remain.

 This excerpt reminded me of John Perkins (Economic Hit Man) interview:


... to take advantage of this productive superiority, such a state must be strong enough to prevent or minimize the erection of internal and external political barriers to the free flow of the factors of production
 
The United States' corporations do this now... ignoring all domestic and foreign environmental and moral laws (internal and external barriers both) and beliefs to gain a profit in foreign countries that they know will destroy the economy of that country... in fact, they feed off of it...  Iceland was devastated most recently.  United States hegemony has reached its destructive capitalistic pinnacle.

This is history.  It is useful in avoiding past mistakes - not always a prediction for the future.  Admittedly, America faces a different future than what it has known in the past.  That is what's inevitable here.  Change can be a wonderful thing, though.  Certainly, a system based on "taking advantage" is not really the best one.  That's kind of like throwing a snickers bar into a crowd of hungry kids.  They could share that bar but, will they?  I've seen too many bruised faces in my youth to believe otherwise.  Well, we'd like to think that our own kids would... or would we?  

What about us?  Are we still behaving like kids in the schoolyard?  Have the dictionaries of America (and of course, the media) restructured/simplified/debased our thinking that much yet?  I ask myself, what have we learned ourselves?  History has not always been popular in schools.  Some say that's because of our boring and inaccurate textbooks.  I agree.  James Loewen agrees (check out books online).  Textbooks are the first things our kids see in regards to history and we're not inspiring them to find out about their past.  Are we ashamed of it that much?  Would our kids see us as the bullies that grabbed and horded that candy bar?  What are we teaching them?  

What do you think?  Do these impressions need changing?  Who promotes ideas like these?  Do political leaders help to promote or hinder these ideas?  Are they representative of what you want your kids to learn?

 

Click this link for the video:
What impressions did these girls learn?  Who did they learn it from?
Was the media fully to blame for this?  Or might we take some responsibility, too?

Let the Games Begin!

 Books reviewed:

Garrett Mattingly, The Armada (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1959).
 
Colin Martin and Geoffrey Parker, The Spanish Armada, rev. ed. (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2002).

  
Garrett Mattingly’s The Armada thoroughly covers many aspects of the events of 1587-1588 in which Phillip II of Spain, with papal support, invaded the heretic kingdom of Elizabeth I of England.  A greater appreciation for each historical character develops through the attractive words of Mattingly.  Like a Sunday afternoon conversation with a learned scholar, Mattingly’s comfortable and patient style gives greater ambiance to the romance of early European history than the mere facts.  For him, the soldiers, sailors, and monarchs of both Spain and England were human beings with human frailties.  These human frailties showed all too well in difficult times like war.  England played the part of the insecure bully while Spain, the part of the inflexible elder who simply and confidently reacted.  This happened occasionally to their displeasure.  England’s new “toys,” ships of greater fire power and maneuverability would signal a dramatic change in naval warfare while Spain’s overconfidence and rigidity would weaken their national momentum.  The Columbia professor knew his material and he crafted a remarkable and rich tale.

Complimenting Mattingly, Colin Martin and Geoffrey Parker’s The Spanish Armada utilizes recent archaeological discoveries just prior to the fourth centenary of the epic battle in 1988.  Eight sites have been discovered since 1967.  The Irish site at Streedagh Strand had only just been found in 1985 and had not been worked beyond preliminary surveys.  Still, the authors were able to borrow from the unpublished studies for the first edition of this publication.  A similar source derives from the middle-range archaeological approach of reconstructed gun mountings to understand how they were used in 1588.  Notably enriched data since the first hastily-conceived version in 1988 gives this 1999 version much more clarity.  Charts and maps give it a modern, scientific quality.  While constructed in a scholarly fashion, it appears no more erudite than Mattingly’s version.  These two books have very different styles and are both enjoyable and informative.  The introduction of The Spanish Armada regards its subject as a “good yarn” that has “provided generations of historians with an abundance of fine material from which to spin it” (Martin and Parker, 2).  Martin and Parker obviously read Mattingly.  These authors step into modern light and attempt to dispel myths, both old and new, understanding that even good historians play a game or two.

Indeed, these books support each other and The Spanish Armada simply completes the tale as told by Mattingly who spent the first two hundred and fifty pages on the prelude to July 29, 1588 (new calendar) when the Armada first reached England.  Historical background interested Martin and Parker, but only about half as much.  Presumably, as archaeologists, they were eager to discuss the events that produced the wreckage.  Moreover, as scientist/historians, they provided excellent timelines, graphs, charts, and maps that help in understanding older events from a foreign land.  Regretfully, Mattingly did not.  Still, Mattingly, Martin, and Parker equally enjoyed the games in the English Channel in 1588.

Mattingly tells that English commanders worried about the menacing Spanish Armada, the threat that so large a power as Spain could muster and the religious fervor that propelled it.  He attributes the timely readiness of Elizabeth’s navy to the building efforts of John Hawkins.  Still, to England, the combined forces of France, Spain, and the “radical fanatics of the Holy League” had the authority of civilization and Pope Sixtus V, leader of the dominant religious faith of the western world (Mattingly, 148).  England’s paranoia (or Phillip’s intrigue) had already killed Mary, Queen of Scots (a Catholic and only reasonable heir to the English throne).  From Spain’s perspective, Elizabeth’s cousin, Mary’s accession to the English throne would have redeemed the protestant country in God’s eyes.  Now, the criminal heretics, Satan’s forces, had destroyed God’s plan.  The English were not unaware of Spain’s feelings in this regard.  They played a deadly game with an experienced Old World foe.  That Elizabeth lost any sleep may have been for a genuine fear of the Pope and his power rather than love for her dead cousin, regardless of her portrayal in popular films.  Martin and Parker assert that the English worried primarily due to Spain’s reputation and previous victories at sea. 

Regardless, England’s Protestants and Protestants of other nations took full advantage of this reputation after defeating the Armada.  Protestant propaganda inflated the Armada and, with it, Phillip’s apparent greed.  No doubt Phillip’s reputed greed stemmed from the well-known Catholic penchant for gold or wealth.  Protestant’s played on this avaricious reputation.  The size of Spanish galleons became more legendary than real.  In reality, many of these vessels were not built to fight, but to function as transports. These larger converted Spanish transports once carried war materiel in bulk and suddenly became bulky, clumsy fighters.  Spanish and English formulae for tonnage also varied, with Spanish calculations being higher in value than English.

Another ludicrous suggestion involved the high mounting of cannon on towering castles that fired over their intended targets.  This view of Spanish ships, while rejected late in the nineteenth century, still persists on occasion.  Martin and Parker’s appendix list Martin Frobisher’s Triumph at 1,100 tons, while the San Martin figures at 1,000 (probably an overestimation).  Mattingly suggests that Frobisher’s had higher castles, more bulk, and was less concerned about Spanish boarding parties.

Also, documents at Simanca show that the total effective firepower of the Spanish, once overestimated at one-third greater than the English counterpart, actually was more realistically half of that.  The result being that the English had the advantage.  An analysis of English cannon shows them to be more efficient and easier to reload than Spanish cannon of comparable caliber, with shorter barrels, smaller carriage wheels, and able to be reloaded while under cover from enemy fire.  All of these factors gave the illusion that the power of the Spanish Armada was invincible.  Spanish authorities may have fooled themselves into believing in their superiority at the outset of the 1588 battle or they simply hoped for England to back down in fear.  Their gambles had worked for them until 1588, at any rate.

Games played by a weakling nation like England in 1588 can be the most serious in consequence.  In many ways, Elizabeth I plays the role of mother to a nation that functions as her family, suggesting that English subjects behaved in a fashion rather like children.  Indeed, new ideas gave rise to the technology that defeated the Armada, ideas that are often born of impetuous material, nurtured in adversity.  Whether perceived as weakness or strength depends on the point of view.  Sir Francis Drake demonstrates his impetuosity superbly in his impulsive piratical behavior, not just in the West Indies and around the world, but most especially in his defense of his family closest to home.  His pre-invasion assault on Cadiz was viewed as a terrorist raid by an angry civilized Spain, steeped in Old World traditions of honor to which Drake had not been privy as a farmer’s son.  Spanish citizens, quietly performing their daily tasks, recoiled in horror to discover that the dread pirate, El Draque had arrived to lay waste to their world.  Mattingly, even in 1959, stresses the same apprehensions that Americans felt in 2001, when Al Quada intentionally crashed planes into skyscrapers in New York City.  Drake knew well his psychological effect and used it to his advantage.

At the same time, Mattingly takes the role of psychiatrist and delves into Drake’s puritan past to explain his strong repulsion to Catholicism.  Still, his actions appeared irresponsible to anyone of modern times while the reactions of Spain’s Phillip II seem relatively understandable.  Phillip II refuses breaches of honor such as his orders to Medina Sidonia not to invade England herself, but to proceed with the plan to siege London and attack the head of the government.  Phillip II displays noteworthy civilized behavior.  Further, three long years of preparations for the 1588 attack took patient administrative ability, as compared to England’s ad hoc, ill-prepared response.  Drake and his fellow “Sea Dogs” never seem to follow such rules, nor do they have the patience.  Phillip II suggests with his orders that Elizabeth I is the leader of a rogue nation, not capable of rational decision.  Whether this resulted from gender-specific sixteenth-century perceptions of Elizabeth I or her heretic Protestant religion remains a mystery.  Mattingly asserts both in a psycho-analytical approach.

Understandably, political nuances cannot be summed up easily.  Mattingly explains the events in such detail and with such superb source material that little question remains.  Martin and Parker take this cavalier English behavior a step further and state that a close parallel came in 1940 when Britain once again demonstrated an inability to resist invasion.  Somehow, they mustered the strength.  Interestingly, none of these authors expound on a geographical contribution to this psychological behavior.  After all, England sat isolated in the North Sea and, as Mattingly stated, English patriotism depended on zenophobia.

Mattingly, Martin, and Parker all explain the historical setup well.  By the time the narrative comes to the Armada making its way to the Isle of Wight in the English Channel, with the “Sea Dogs” tenaciously pursuing, the pedantically piratical actions of Drake became expected.  Most would regard snuffing the lantern after dark to chase treasure rather than guide your flotilla on its highly important mission as irresponsible.  Still, almost three hundred pages of Mattingly’s biographical setup had long revealed Drake’s character.  It took a complete day to regroup and reorganize the fleet after that cavalier maneuver.  Furthermore, a more experienced Lord Admiral Charles Howard of Effingham plundered a helpless Spanish vessel on the French coast, after eight fireships scattered the Armada anchorless to the mercy of the wind.  Bravado carried the day.  To be fair, in a later moment of desperation, Medina Sidonia acted in kind when civilization and God failed him.  

Piratical games were mostly an English characteristic, however.  The French governor of Calais, Monsieur Gourdan, claimed the San Lorenzo as his property, allowing the English to take the loot, understanding that they shared in the spoils.  Still, the English greedily attempted to take it all.  French guns persuaded them to take what they could and rejoin their Admiral, impatient to enter the battle, growing ever distant to leeward.  Mattingly, in a fatherly way, tries unconvincingly to understand their behavior in this incident as well.  He says that the San Lorenzo, being a large class, continued to represent a danger and needed to be broken completely to ensure that it could not return to bother them.  Mattingly already stated that she was rudderless and limping along the French shore until she grounded and leaned on her side.  M. Gourdan then claimed the vessel, taking the burden off of the English.  There was little reason to assume that San Lorenzo would return to annoy them.  Interestingly, Martin and Parker describe it with deference to English material desires and surprisingly admonish the French for their interference.

Tried and true tactics of the civilized “old way” severely limited Spanish possibilities while facing what the Pope viewed as an unconventional national bully.  Don Pedro de Valdés, commander of the Andalusian squadron, took a strong interest in his guns when he prepared for this mission.  Martin and Parker show that he attempted to match English firepower, swapping larger guns for more numerous smaller ones yet, he still adhered to the “close and board” school of battle, a trait then becoming obsolete.  Mattingly described a typical Spanish maneuver in which Medina Sidonia had allowed for Admiral Howard to board and fight hand to hand.  Instead, the cautious English admiral kept his distance while pouring a broadside into the Spanish vessel.  So did the next English ship in line, as the next and the next.  To other Spanish ships, helplessly downwind, the more maneuverable English ships swarmed the San Martin, battering her little by little.  An allusion to Gulliver’s Travels may have been in order.

For the English, a semblance of honorable behavior only materialized after the Spanish threat was nearly neutralized and the battle turned in their favor.  The Duke of Medina Sidonia, not being an experienced sailor, was still an honorable gentleman.  Twice, he used the San Martin, already battered and beaten herself, to defend a helpless Spanish vessel under attack.  One gallant Englishman offered a Spanish vessel terms after witnessing their heroism, only to be shot at by a musketeer.  They then pounded the vessel into the waves.  Righteous motivations may have prompted the Spanish musketeer to behave in this manner or he simply felt honor-bound to fight until the end.

Calais and Gravelines most certainly signaled the end for the forces of Phillip II.  They drifted northward, into the stormy cold.  Martin and Parker mentioned Medina Sidonia marveling at the Northern lights, which must have seemed rather surreal in the religious atmosphere of 1588 and immediately following the beating that he had taken.  Afterthoughts on these games in the English Channel grew melancholic.  Many men still alive at this point would not be in a few hours.  Movement through the bitter cold North Sea and around the ragged coast of Ireland finished off what remained of an already starving Armada.  Few washed-up survivors made it past the rocks.  Those that had not drowned after wrecking on the Irish coast had their heads clubbed as they lay helpless.

The English, regardless of their tactics, beat the Spanish because of technology, not simply piratical actions alone.  Martin and Parker describe the details of this technology.  They diagram and chart it well.  The Spanish Armada could be used as a training manual for gunners and shipbuilders.  Shot size, type of cannon, carriage, weights, and ranges provide excellent instruction.  An appendix contains charts with known ships, class, tonnage, and number of guns.  They used the archaeology reports on Spanish vessels and, with Spanish records more complete, their interests naturally focused on them.

The books each have distinct differences that allow for the other to compliment the first.  Footnoting Armada’s text may have required another four hundred pages and so, Mattingly provides curt bibliographical references instead.  Still, the detail in the narrative appears realistic and sensible.  The lack of illustrations in this edition disappoints while The Spanish Armada fulfills this desire well.  The appendices contain numerous data and a good comparison between English and Spanish guns.  With technology being a crucial factor in the outcome of the attack, the details enhance the narrative well.  For the narrative, few authors compare to Garrett Mattingly.

The events of 1588 offer a great opportunity to observe human behavior in action.  Spain, a great and powerful Old World nation with tremendous wealth inspired the envy of all nations.  England, the weak nation-state, the underdog, grew steadily annoyed by what they believed was arrogance and superiority.  They contented themselves with piracy until Spain grew annoyed as well.  Again, this was a deadly game in which arrogance battled arrogance.   Sir Francis Drake personified England’s required prescription and played the game for his Queen.  A perfect parallel and suggestion lay for every presumptive nation in this tale.  The powerful and arrogant Spain lost in 1588, only to be continually suppressed in their political and military affairs by the underdogs.

Mattingly with his fatherly approach and Martin and Parker with their historical scientific methods, reveal the blatant puerile behavior of the English and the clumsy, self-importance of the Spanish.  In both respects, they play games with each other and with their lives.  In the end, the greatest sea power ever known upon the earth was born.  These two books, The Armada and The Spanish Armada should always be paired on the bookshelf for one alone does not tell the tale by itself.  

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>