And this is what I woke up to this morning...

IB, Not every fact is appropriate. Nor complete. Nor in context. One can clearly mislead and distort with "truths". And YOU know THAT.

Seriously Yussup, you don't know??? Perhaps if you looked it up -- you could get some dates. On the other hand, perhaps not. Originally Posted by Austin Ellen

Dear Ellen,

Since you chose to make this personal, please kindly allow me to respecfully retort.

I have never had a problem getting “dates” at all in this community. In fact I’ve got more approved reviews than most every poster in this forum.

Guess whose name isn’t among those whom I’ve reviewed on ECCIE or any of the other boards on which I’ve actively participated over the decades?

Enjoy your In-N-Out burger. I love ‘em.

Who could forget how Native Americans bayoneted Yankee settlers fighting to free themselves from the dictatorial rule of Santa Anna bayoneted many Yankee settlers after they surrendered. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I'm not sure what you are talking about when you say "Yankee settlers" and "Santa Anna"? You should probably find and read this:



I have an original (first) hardback issue copy with the paper cover on it when it was first printed from the translation to English. It might surprise you. I also worked with a descendant of the Caucasian family to have the first female born in the the area now known as Texas. And are you familiar with the "source" of naming wandering cattle "mavericks"?

From the surname of Texas lawyer and politician Samuel Maverick (1803–1870), who refused to brand his cattle.

The family claimed all unbranded cattle.

My point is ... calling the Texan "resistance" to be "Yankees" is disingenuous, as well as factually incorrect. Pena related and documented in his diary the assistance provided to Santa Anna with food and horses in his ill-fated trek to the Mexican territory to the North ("Texas) included allow his troops to remain on the land of the Caucasians who were helping him, since he had waited too long to make the journey to Texas (somewhat like the Germans did when invading Russia decades later the only difference being rain in Texas vs. snow in Russia). They were Caucasian Mexicans ... just like today there are fair skinned, blonde, and redheaded Mexicans. Many of the "famous" names associated with the Alamo revisionist history were in effect mercenaries and "foreigners" who came to fight. I'd have to do an inventory, but I am doubting many were from "Yankee" states.

I'm not sure what you are talking about when you say "Yankee settlers" and "Santa Anna"? You should probably find and read this:



I have an original (first) hardback issue copy with the paper cover on it when it was first printed from the translation to English. It might surprise you. I also worked with a descendant of the Caucasian family to have the first female born in the the area now known as Texas. And are you familiar with the "source" of naming wandering cattle "mavericks"?



The family claimed all unbranded cattle.

My point is ... calling the Texan "resistance" to be "Yankees" is disingenuous, as well as factually incorrect. Pena related and documented in his diary the assistance provided to Santa Anna with food and horses in his ill-fated trek to the Mexican territory to the North ("Texas) included allow his troops to remain on the land of the Caucasians who were helping him, since he had waited too long to make the journey to Texas (somewhat like the Germans did when invading Russia decades later the only difference being rain in Texas vs. snow in Russia). They were Caucasian Mexicans ... just like today there are fair skinned, blonde, and redheaded Mexicans. Many of the "famous" names associated with the Alamo revisionist history were in effect mercenaries and "foreigners" who came to fight. I'd have to do an inventory, but I am doubting many were from "Yankee" states.

Originally Posted by LexusLover

The Texians that settled Texas with Austin were "Yankees" in the sense they were Americans outside the United States. Likewise, Bowie, Travis and Crockett were also "Yankees" as they also were Americans outside the United States. Here's three other good books on the subject:

Yankee

The term Yankee (or its contracted form, Yank) means a person from either the United States generally or northern part of the country specifically. Outside the United States, Yankee informally means any American. (Wiki)

P.S. there is the added bonus of using the term "Yankee" in that it irritates some parties (not you, btw) who view the world through lib-retard lenses. So, I delight in placing the occasional cocklebur under their lib-retard cinches when I can.

Well I didn't see were you edited the post so I assume its ok to call the women in here whores

post number 30 by SC Originally Posted by Hotrod511

As always, members here are free to assume anything they want...that assumption, however, isn’t always going to be correct...

The Texians that settled Texas with Austin were "Yankees" in the sense they were Americans outside the United States. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The flaw in your "assumptions" is that prior to the Texas Revolution there were no "Texians," they were Mexican subjects or citizens, and many were not interested in any Revolution to "free" themselves from the "bonds" of the Mexican government, and the majority of them were landowners who were interested in living their lives without the disruption of a war.

Much like the agrarian people of S.E. Asia, who did not want their rice paddies used as killing fields with their villages being burned, sacked, and plundered ... not necessarily in that order.

I prefer my perspective on the topic to be a diary of a grunt who was on the ground with the Mexican troops, when I recognize that the outsiders want to claim some title as being the "freedom fighters" seeking to save mankind from those "mean Mexicans."

I'm reminded of a "conversation" I had years ago with a couple (the husband was just transferred from Minnesota/Michigan ... I've forgotten which one ... to a base in San Antonio. It was August and hotter than shit (as compared to M/M) and I was curious how they were "transitioning" the temp differential ... so I asked them vaguely how they liked it down "here" so far .... the wife abruptly responded ... "We like it, but there are a lot of "Mexicans" down here"!!! I asked if they had ever heard of the Alamo. In my mind I likened it to Russians complaining about all the Germans in "East Germany"!

Just a "clarification" ... "Americans" includes any one who lives in South, Central, and/or North "America" ... just ask them! That's "our" central, self-centered adopted label.

The title of the book you cited is "telling" with respect to that topic:



Here's the proof:

Think whatever you wish. I have never claimed any preferential treatment here because of my ethnicity. Nor have I claimed any of my arguments are more correct because of my ethnicity.

So why do you care what it is? Originally Posted by Old-T

I don't. Just making a little joke, Old-T. Heh. Heh. Heh. Laughter is good for you.

Now have a hot dog.

The flaw in your "assumptions" is that prior to the Texas Revolution there were no "Texians," they were Mexican subjects or citizens, and many were not interested in any Revolution to "free" themselves from the "bonds" of the Mexican government, and the majority of them were landowners who were interested in living their lives without the disruption of a war.

Much like the agrarian people of S.E. Asia, who did not want their rice paddies used as killing fields with their villages being burned, sacked, and plundered ... not necessarily in that order.

I prefer my perspective on the topic to be a diary of a grunt who was on the ground with the Mexican troops, when I recognize that the outsiders want to claim some title as being the "freedom fighters" seeking to save mankind from those "mean Mexicans." Originally Posted by LexusLover

There is no "flaw", and it's not my "assumption". It's a historical fact reported by many venerated historians that most of the Anglos who followed Austin into Texas were Americans, and as such, the term "Yankee" can be, is and was ascribed to them.

"In 1829 President Guerrero abolished slavery in Mexico's territories as a way of discouraging 'Yankee' migration." (Mexico, the US and War)

Not to get back to tooic or anything, but how do YOU take your In-N-Out?

I take it Animal Style.

Are you boycotting ‘em? I’m not, though technically, they are Yankees, too!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

The liberals are really trying to make America socialist - the last time I heard you can donate money to any political party. It's a free country now but God help us if the libs get in there. SMH


People are threatening to boycott In-N-Out after large donation to Republican party https://www.yahoo.com/news/people-th...wer&soc_trk=ma Originally Posted by Austin Ellen

" In the end we will not remember the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends"- MLK Jr

Hellsinki, John McCain, etc, etc etc

There is no "flaw", and it's not my "assumption". It's a historical fact reported by many venerated historians that most of the Anglos who followed Austin into Texas were Americans, and as such, the term "Yankee" can be, is and was ascribed to them. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

It's flawed. I can understand why you don't want to acknowledge it, just like I realize whey the anti/never Trumpers won't acknowledge HillariousNoMore lost the election in 2016 "fair and square"! It doesn't fit the narrative.

I suppose your quote is to imply that the President of Mexico referred to them as "Yankees" ....

.. Posiblimente el Presidente dice "bolio" quando habla de las personas de los estados unidos, verdad?

There will be many "venerated historians" who will repeat the assertions of the "Russian collusion" as having been the cause of the results of the 2016 election as well, based upon the "overwhelming" media reports of its existence and the "investigation" into the participants and benefactors, also.

When one critical explores the "origins" of the word "Yankee" (attributed to the Brits and some report derived from Dutch words) it seems highly unlikely that it was "adopted" by the Mexicans, particularly when the original usage in the late 1700's and early 1800's applied to persons from the New England (original 13 colonies) area which would be about the time that these many "venerated historians" (as you say) attributed the word to the Mexicans!

Folks from the areas of Kentucky and Tennessee are rarely, if ever, referred to as "Yankees"! But if you prefer you revision of etymology and history, humor yourself.

But before you go too far down that road you might want to review the identified list of those killed at the Alamo as a guide at the time, since roughly speaking most were from one of the "Southern" states and as many if not more came Europe than those who were identified as being from one of the "Yankee" states as identified at the time.

It's flawed. I can understand why you don't want to acknowledge it, just like I realize whey the anti/never Trumpers won't acknowledge HillariousNoMore lost the election in 2016 "fair and square"! It doesn't fit the narrative.

I suppose your quote is to imply that the President of Mexico referred to them as "Yankees" ....

.. Posiblimente el Presidente dice "bolio" quando habla de las personas de los estados unidos, verdad?

There will be many "venerated historians" who will repeat the assertions of the "Russian collusion" as having been the cause of the results of the 2016 election as well, based upon the "overwhelming" media reports of its existence and the "investigation" into the participants and benefactors, also.

When one critical explores the "origins" of the word "Yankee" (attributed to the Brits and some report derived from Dutch words) it seems highly unlikely that it was "adopted" by the Mexicans, particularly when the original usage in the late 1700's and early 1800's applied to persons from the New England (original 13 colonies) area which would be about the time that these many "venerated historians" (as you say) attributed the word to the Mexicans!

Folks from the areas of Kentucky and Tennessee are rarely, if ever, referred to as "Yankees"! But if you prefer you revision of etymology and history, humor yourself.

But before you go too far down that road you might want to review the identified list of those killed at the Alamo as a guide at the time, since roughly speaking most were from one of the "Southern" states and as many if not more came Europe than those who were identified as being from one of the "Yankee" states as identified at the time. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Americans in general have been referred to as Yankees since long before you were born. So, your opinion won't change that historical fact try as you might. Listen to the old WWI song "Over There" wherein "The Yanks are coming" until it sinks in.

Americans in general have been referred to as Yankees since long before you were born. So, your opinion won't change that historical fact try as you might. Listen to the old WWI song "Over There" wherein "The Yanks are coming" until it sinks in. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You unwittingly just made my point. These many "venerated historians" you rely upon were asserting their opinions that the "Yankees" fought the Revolution against the Mexican dictatorship, but that is false by the use of the term at the time. In point of fact very few were "Yankees" as defined at the time (coming from one of the New England states), and there were as many Europeans as there were New Englanders. I suspect a more common term in those days for the "white" folks was "Anglo"!

You unwittingly just made my point. These many "venerated historians" you rely upon were asserting their opinions that the "Yankees" fought the Revolution against the Mexican dictatorship, but that is false by the use of the term at the time. In point of fact very few were "Yankees" as defined at the time (coming from one of the New England states), and there were as many Europeans as there were New Englanders. Originally Posted by LexusLover

All Americans were referred to as Yankees, not just those from New England states; hence, the phrase, "the Yanks are coming" in the WWI song "Over There." And listen to the Andrews Sisters sing about "the Yankee dollar" in "Rum and Coca-Cola" -- they ain't singing about just guys from New England -- they're singing about any Yankee from the United States with a Yankee dollar.

I think the term anglos make much more sense if spoken from a mexican point of view.


the term yanks applying to all americans didn't come into common usage until after 1865.