"Brit-Am Now"-954
Contents:
1. New York Times Article on
Amerigo
Vespucci
2. Captain Ian McRae: "Britain" not just "England" is the correct term!
3. Brit-Am Reply to Mistaken Charge of Anti-Semitism on Germanic-L
####################################################
1. New York Times
Article on Amerigo
Vespucci
The name "Amerigo" is a Latinised form of "Ha-Machiri"
[see our article:
"MACHIR AND AMERICA"
http://britam.org/america.html
(ha-Machiri means "Belonging to Machir").
Machir was the first-born son of Manasseh.
Amerigo Vespucci is important to us since because of him
"America" received its name which testifies to a link with
Manasseh.
A recent New York Times Article on Amerigo Vespucci brings up some interesting
points:
Extracts:
God Bless Amerigo
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/books/review/Philbrick-t.html
By NATHANIEL PHILBRICK
Published: August 12, 2007
Extracts:
<<...The continent that was supposedly discovered by Christopher Columbus is
named for a decidedly second-rate Johnny-come-lately of an explorer named
Amerigo Vespucci. Like Columbus, Vespucci was an Italian who sailed on occasion
under the flag of Spain... As it turns out, America ? this nation of notorious
hucksters, dreamers and spin doctors ? was named for just the right guy.
AMERIGO
The Man Who Gave His Name to America.
By Felipe Fernandez-Armesto.
231 pp. Random House. $24.95.
<<?Amerigo: The Man Who Gave His Name to America? is much more than an
occasional throwaway. Using the bare bones of what is known about Vespucci to
expatiate on subjects as diverse as the brutal world of Renaissance Italy, the
importance of trade winds to world history and the poetics of travel writing,
Fernandez-Armesto has written a provocative primer on how navigators like
Columbus and Vespucci set loose the cultural storm that eventually created the
world we live in today.
<<Vespucci (1454-1512) grew up in the turbulent orbit of the Medici family in
Florence...
It was business that brought Vespucci to Seville just around the time that
Columbus was mounting his famous voyage across the Atlantic...
Vespucci earned what reputation he has as an explorer by participating in two
trans-Atlantic voyages between 1499 and 1502. It was during the second voyage,
this time under the Portuguese flag, that Vespucci ventured to the coast of
modern-day Brazil and claimed to have discovered a new continent ? what he
called the New World. ...In claiming that South America was a continent,
Vespucci was only confirming what his mentor and role model Columbus had already
established. Vespucci, it turns out, was also not the first to use the phrase
?New World? ? that distinction goes to Peter Martyr, who had coined the term
three years earlier.
<<Even more important than his actual accomplishments were the accounts of his
voyages...
It was in 1507, with the publication of a large cut-out map suitable for
creating a do-it-yourself globe, that Vespucci?s first name, if not Vespucci
himself, achieved lasting renown. On this map, published in the intellectual
backwater of St. Di in Lorraine, the designation ?America? (the feminine of
Amerigo) was chosen for the portion of the hemisphere where Vespucci claimed to
have landed during his second voyage. In 1538, the noted mapmaker Mercator,
apparently referring to the earlier map from St. Di , chose to use the name
America to mark not just the southern but also the northern portion of the
continent. The rest, as they say, is history. ?The tradition was secure,? Fern
ndez-Armesto writes, ?the decision irreversible.? And so, because of Mercator
and assorted others, more than 350 million of us now call ourselves Americans.
.<<..Thanks to the ephemerality of Amerigo Vespucci?s reputation as an explorer,
America was given an enduring name.
####################################################
2. Captain Ian
McRae: "Britain" not just "England" is the correct term!
Subject: Re: "Brit-Am Now"-950
#3. English Royal Family of Irish Milesian origin
Hello Yair,
Can I correct a misconception in the article, "3. English Royal Family of Irish
Milesian origin"
It is a common misconception that the terms "England" and "English" are
synonymous with "Britain" and "British". British people find this quite
annoying. It seems to be a mistake very common in the United States where one
often hears the term, "Elizabeth Queen of England" or the "English
government". This is also evident where some writers, who are short of a
little on facts, discuss the war, when "England" is spoken of as going to war
with Germany. Let's be clear about this. Since 1606 England has fought no
wars at all ! These are not "English" troops helping out in Afghanistan and
Iraq. They are British.
This misconception seems to be due to people not understanding the geography of
Britain.
Prior to 1606, there were kings and queens of England. But when Elizabeth the
first died childless, it was actually a Scot who took over her throne. James the
sixth of Scotland also became James the first of England. Since the Union Of
The Crowns in 1606, when king James united England and Scotland, there have been
no kings or queens of England. They have been monarchs of Great Britain or the
United Kingdom since that date. To talk of the "English Royal Family" is
totally false today, as there is no such thing.
Our nation of Great Britain is made up of three nations. Wales, Scotland and
England. England is just one of these nations. They don't run the whole show
! Collectively these three nations are known as Great Britain. Our fourth
nation is Northern Ireland, but because it is not on the mainland but part of
the island of Ireland, it is dealt with separately and the four nations are
known as the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" England
is just one part of that group of four, and has no special part in the British
nation. There is not "English" royal family. They are British. There was no
"English" Empire, it was the British Empire and there is no "English army, air
force or navy. They are British.
Anyone who uses the term "English" when they should use "British" immediately
loses credibility with anyone from this nation, as they plainly lack the basic
knowledge to discuss anything to do with our heritage.
England does exist as a nation, but it has no monarchy or armed forces of its
own, and it is nothing more than an equal partner in the United Kingdom along
with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Writers who understand this difference, and refer to our royal family, or our
armed forces, as "British" or "United Kingdom" will be taken seriously. Others,
sadly, show their basic lack of knowledge and will not have any credibility.
Best Wishes,
Ian
####################################################
3. Brit-Am Reply
to Mistaken Charge of Anti-Semitism
Point of Interest:
A recent posting on Germanic-L (a Yahoo Discussion group on ancient
North European History) appeared to link our beliefs to those of Arthur
Koestler
and anti-Semites who have adopted the work of Koestler.
The point came up during a discussion of
"Scandinavian Secrets. The Hebrew Code of the Runes"
by Orjan Svensson
http://britam.org/orjanbook.html
Here is our reply:
Shalom,
Re: Aramaic Runes in Sweden
A misconception appears to have taken place:
Koestler committed suicide some time ago and as far as I know never ever
mentioned any possibility that any Western People were Israelites.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Koestler
The views of Koestler concerning the Khazars however have been
popularized by anti-Semites including "Identity" queers.
The Khazars were of Israelite descent.
http://britam.org/khazars.html
The belief that some Western Peoples are of Hebrew origin
is not intrinsically anti-Semitic though it has been
exploited in recent times to promote a racist agenda.
Basically, however the belief says that the Jews are descended from
the Tribes of Judah, Benjamin, Levi, and part of the others.
The remainder of Israelites were exiled and lost their identity.
Based on Biblical and Historical evidence these "Lost Israelites"
are traced to the west.
You can dismiss such a claim out of hand if you so wish but at
the least it should not be misrepresented.
Our understanding of the belief actually obligates us
to be pro-Jewish and support the State of Israel and not the opposite.