US Veterans of Foreign Wars Stamp

I have seen by chance in Scott the stamp 1525, issued March 11th, 1974, and
dedicated to the 75th anniversary of the Veterans of Foreign Wars
organization.

Quite interesting, because the only non-foreign US American war that I can
remember was the Civil (Secession, Rebellion) War, one that happened about
150 years ago. Even if it looks as a long time ago, actually this war was
not so old for an organization that was probably created in 1899.

Victor Manta

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philatelic Webmasters Organization: http://pwmo.org
Art on Stamps: http://values.ch
Romania Shown by Its Stamps: http://marci-postale.com
Communism on Stamps: http://www.values.ch/Communism/
Spanish Africa: http://www.values.ch/sna-site/
Remove "um" from the e-mail address to reply
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the category of "foreign wars" they define any military action,
occupation or service outside of the United States territory. Perhaps the
first "foreign war" of the United States was the war with the Barbary
pirates in 1805. Marines took part in this miltary action which today is
evident in the "to the shores of Tripoli" line in the Marine Corps hymn. So
the United States' first "foreign war" was 74 years before the founding of
the VFW.
The VFW was probably founded as an organization for the veterans of the
then recently concluded Spanish-American War where units served in
Philippines, Guam and Cuba.
Dave

"Victor Manta" wrote in message
...
I have seen by chance in Scott the stamp 1525, issued March 11th, 1974,
and
dedicated to the 75th anniversary of the Veterans of Foreign Wars
organization.

Quite interesting, because the only non-foreign US American war that I can
remember was the Civil (Secession, Rebellion) War, one that happened about
150 years ago. Even if it looks as a long time ago, actually this war was
not so old for an organization that was probably created in 1899.

Victor Manta

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Philatelic Webmasters Organization: http://pwmo.org
Art on Stamps: http://values.ch
Romania Shown by Its Stamps: http://marci-postale.com
Communism on Stamps: http://www.values.ch/Communism/
Spanish Africa: http://www.values.ch/sna-site/
Remove "um" from the e-mail address to reply
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-

Dave wrote:
In the category of "foreign wars" they define any military action,
occupation or service outside of the United States territory. Perhaps the
first "foreign war" of the United States was the war with the Barbary
pirates in 1805. Marines took part in this miltary action which today is
evident in the "to the shores of Tripoli" line in the Marine Corps hymn. So
the United States' first "foreign war" was 74 years before the founding of
the VFW.
The VFW was probably founded as an organization for the veterans of the
then recently concluded Spanish-American War where units served in
Philippines, Guam and Cuba.

Yup. See http://www.vfw.org/index.cfm?fa=news.leveld&did=224

I would think that the only veteran's associations at the time were for
those who fought in the Civil War, such as the Grand Army Of The
Republic and the United Confederate Veterans Association who were
commemorated by Scott nos. 985 (Aug 29, 1949) and 998 (May 30, 1951).

"Victor Manta" wrote in message
...

I have seen by chance in Scott the stamp 1525, issued March 11th, 1974, and
dedicated to the 75th anniversary of the Veterans of Foreign Wars
organization.

Quite interesting, because the only non-foreign US American war that I can
remember was the Civil (Secession, Rebellion) War, one that happened about
150 years ago. Even if it looks as a long time ago, actually this war was
not so old for an organization that was probably created in 1899.

"Victor Manta" wrote in message
...
I have seen by chance in Scott the stamp 1525, issued March 11th, 1974,
and
dedicated to the 75th anniversary of the Veterans of Foreign Wars
organization.

Quite interesting, because the only non-foreign US American war that I can
remember was the Civil (Secession, Rebellion) War, one that happened about
150 years ago. Even if it looks as a long time ago, actually this war was
not so old for an organization that was probably created in 1899.

Victor Manta

In the category of "foreign wars" they define any military action,
occupation or service outside of the United States territory. Perhaps the
first "foreign war" of the United States was the war with the Barbary
pirates in 1805. Marines took part in this miltary action which today is
evident in the "to the shores of Tripoli" line in the Marine Corps hymn. So
the United States' first "foreign war" was 74 years before the founding of
the VFW.
The VFW was probably founded as an organization for the veterans of the
then recently concluded Spanish-American War where units served in
Philippines, Guam and Cuba.
Dave

Stretching the point somewhat, and not very much if you happen to be a
native American, the U.S. Army engaged in "foreign wars" when it set about
exterminating several Indian tribes on land that the Indians "owned" in the
sense they had always had full freedom of movement upon it, notwithstanding
the ongoing conflicts between various Indian tribes.

In signing treaties with Indians, the American government certainly appeared
to acknowledge the existence of aboriginal nations. But of course, most of
the treaties were resulted from shameful pretense, and the Indians were
doomed from the start, despite Custer's Last Stand. (I visited the site of
the Battle of the Little Bighorn a few years ago. It's an incredibly moving
place. It's not too hard to imagine yourself there on that sunny morning,
with death a near certainty for the U.S. troopers. Small markers point out
the exact spots where many individual Indians and soldiers died. Altogether
it's a quiet, beautiful, and eerie place.)

I recently watched a documentary about the last of the Indian resistance and
was reminded that it seemed very much like a preview of the Second World War
when the Germans were exterminating Jews in Eastern Europe. There's not much
difference between Lidice, where Germans destroyed an entire Czech
community, and the "Battle" of Wounded Knee, where Americans virtually
murdered hundreds of natives, most of them women and children who were ill
and trying to seek aid from the soldiers.

Dave mentioned the Spanish American War. I learned only a couple of years
ago that I grew up and often played near the grave of an ancestor who served
in the Philippines, and died as a resut of disease contracted there. I have
recently published a web page which mentions this, as well as the Indian
Wars, and a chocolate soda. Curious? Go to
http://www.ingraham.ca/bob/fortbayard.html.

There was a sobering precursor to My Lai Massacre of the Vietnam War during
the Spanish American War. From *The First Casualty* by Phillip Knightly:
"Wholesale and indiscriminate killing by American troops had depopulated
large sections of the country. There were complaints that the troops had on
one occasion been ordered to 'kill everything over ten years old' and that
the Twentieth Kansas had swept through a town of 17,000 inhabitants leaving
not one native alive." At the time, William Randolph Hearst's *New York
Journal* editorialized: "The weak must go to the wall and stay there...
We'll rule in Asia as we rule at home. We shall establish in Asia a branch
agent of the true American movement towards liberty."

Bob Ingraham

Bravo! for that piece Bob,
This behaviour was consistent around the globe,
South Africa, Australia, Tasmania
I believe I recently read where the US was the first country to ever use
chemical weapons when US soldiers handed beef
to the starving Indians that was infected purposefully with cholera.



| Stretching the point somewhat, and not very much if you happen to be a
| native American, the U.S. Army engaged in "foreign wars" when it set about
| exterminating several Indian tribes on land that the Indians "owned" in the
| sense they had always had full freedom of movement upon it, notwithstanding
| the ongoing conflicts between various Indian tribes.
|
| In signing treaties with Indians, the American government certainly appeared
| to acknowledge the existence of aboriginal nations. But of course, most of
| the treaties were resulted from shameful pretense, and the Indians were
| doomed from the start, despite Custer's Last Stand. (I visited the site of
| the Battle of the Little Bighorn a few years ago. It's an incredibly moving
| place. It's not too hard to imagine yourself there on that sunny morning,
| with death a near certainty for the U.S. troopers. Small markers point out
| the exact spots where many individual Indians and soldiers died. Altogether
| it's a quiet, beautiful, and eerie place.)
|
| I recently watched a documentary about the last of the Indian resistance and
| was reminded that it seemed very much like a preview of the Second World War
| when the Germans were exterminating Jews in Eastern Europe. There's not much
| difference between Lidice, where Germans destroyed an entire Czech
| community, and the "Battle" of Wounded Knee, where Americans virtually
| murdered hundreds of natives, most of them women and children who were ill
| and trying to seek aid from the soldiers.

"Rodney" wrote in message
...
snipped I believe I recently read where the US was the first country to
ever use
chemical weapons when US soldiers handed beef
to the starving Indians that was infected purposefully with cholera.
If I may correct, cholera infected meat would be biological weapon, not
chemical. If the Indians cooked the meat (as they were prone to do) the
Cholera bacteria would have been destroyed and no problem. Whoever came up
with that story, didn't do any research. It would not have been effective.
Another correction, Mongols catapulted dead bodies over walls of towns
they were beseiging. These were their own Mongol troops that died of the
plague. This was purposeful to create fear and panic in the towns, but
wether they realized the potential for spreading the disease is not
provable. Biological weapons (even if inadvertant) probably goes back even
further in history.
Chemical weapons are of ancient origin as well with the ancient Greeks
and Romans using an incindiary substance known as "Greek Fire".
Only nuclear weapons are the modern one of the "weapons of mass
destruction" tirad.
Dave --- was advanced trained in Chemical/Biological/Nuclear Warfare
defence by the Navy and amature student of ancient history

| If I may correct, cholera infected meat would be biological weapon, not
| chemical.

.....whatever.
I think you get the drift.

I love this country, America, because we allow people to say what they feel
even to the point of putting a hateful spin on the truth. If anyone needs
some examples as to why we love and respect the United States there is no
better place than with the long list of US commeratives starting with the
Colombian Issue of 1893. One must truly live in an alternative reality not
to find something in there to like.

-a



"Rodney" wrote in message
...

Bravo! for that piece Bob,
This behaviour was consistent around the globe,
South Africa, Australia, Tasmania
I believe I recently read where the US was the first country to ever use
chemical weapons when US soldiers handed beef
to the starving Indians that was infected purposefully with cholera.



| Stretching the point somewhat, and not very much if you happen to be a
| native American, the U.S. Army engaged in "foreign wars" when it set
about
| exterminating several Indian tribes on land that the Indians "owned" in
the
| sense they had always had full freedom of movement upon it,
notwithstanding
| the ongoing conflicts between various Indian tribes.
|
| In signing treaties with Indians, the American government certainly
appeared
| to acknowledge the existence of aboriginal nations. But of course, most
of
| the treaties were resulted from shameful pretense, and the Indians were
| doomed from the start, despite Custer's Last Stand. (I visited the site
of
| the Battle of the Little Bighorn a few years ago. It's an incredibly
moving
| place. It's not too hard to imagine yourself there on that sunny
morning,
| with death a near certainty for the U.S. troopers. Small markers point
out
| the exact spots where many individual Indians and soldiers died.
Altogether
| it's a quiet, beautiful, and eerie place.)
|
| I recently watched a documentary about the last of the Indian resistance
and
| was reminded that it seemed very much like a preview of the Second World
War
| when the Germans were exterminating Jews in Eastern Europe. There's not
much
| difference between Lidice, where Germans destroyed an entire Czech
| community, and the "Battle" of Wounded Knee, where Americans virtually
| murdered hundreds of natives, most of them women and children who were
ill
| and trying to seek aid from the soldiers.

"Bob Ingraham" wrote in message
...

Stretching the point somewhat, and not very much if you happen to be a
native American, the U.S. Army engaged in "foreign wars" when it set about
exterminating several Indian tribes on land that the Indians "owned" in
the
sense they had always had full freedom of movement upon it,
notwithstanding
the ongoing conflicts between various Indian tribes.

snip

I recently watched a documentary about the last of the Indian resistance
and
was reminded that it seemed very much like a preview of the Second World
War
when the Germans were exterminating Jews in Eastern Europe.

snip

Bob Ingraham

Indian tribes owned nothing, for the simple reason that they didn't
recognize the individual rights, i.e. the right to life and liberty (and the
resulting one, to property) not only for the non-Indians, but also for
themselves, as individuals. Their history, like any tribal one, is a history
of continuous and bloody struggles ones against others, the total submission
of the members of the tribes to the community (represented by their chiefs),
extreme cruelty and the exploitation of women.

For these reasons they had no rights. Their armed conflicts with the
European colonists and their descendants (who have attained the point of
recognizing and implementing the inviolability of fundamental individual
rights later -- but this isn't relevant in this context) cannot be judged
just by taking into consideration Native Americans tragic fate. Should the
Native Americans be militarily more powerful, they had exterminated the
colonists (and scalped most of them, alive, what they haven't hesitated to
make when they were given the opportunity).

"Stretching the point somewhat, and not very much if you happen to be a
native American" can mean that the truth of falsity of some of basic ideas
depend on the ethnicity of the persons who hold them, which is a rather
racist idea.

There is *no* parallel between the Native Americans, and the Jews from
Central and Eastern Europe who were exterminated by the Nazi Germany. In a
certain sense, one can make a parallel between the Native Americans of the
distant past and the Nazi Germany, the philosophy of both being based on
different variants of the same socialist line of thinking.

Victor Manta

PS. My considerations are mainly based on the Declaration of Independence:

"... We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of
Happiness...."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philatelic Webmasters Organization: http://pwmo.org
Art on Stamps: http://values.ch
Romania Shown by Its Stamps: http://marci-postale.com
Communism on Stamps: http://www.values.ch/Communism/
Spanish Africa: http://www.values.ch/sna-site/
Remove "um" from the e-mail address to reply
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

To go back to the alleged use of poisoned meat. I too find that
difficult to swallow ( if you will forgive the pun ). While I would
agree that the treatment of native Americans was less than perfect I
would doubt that even at that time,when humanitarian issues such as
the abolition of slavery was on the agenda of every civilized nation -
even if not achieved by many, the public at large would not have
tolerated any officially authorised incident of such barbarity without
at least some quite highly placed heads rolling.
I think we should all understand that many people who promulgate such
statements do so with a particular political axe to grind and while no
doubt not Lying, present the truth in such a way that the reader or
listener draws the conclusion intended. You only have to look at the
"news" printed by the organs of a certain Australian press magnate to
know what I am talking about - and this is true of all parts of the
political spectrum. In questions like this there is never black or
white-only shades of gray.
The other thing which I think we all should beware of is judging the
actions of the 19th century in terms of 21st century morality, rather
than in terms of the mores of the time - certainly when it comes to
the personality of individuals.
To give an example one of my heroes Baden-Powell the founder of the
scout movement. Judged by todays standards a colonialist upholder of
priviledge judged to be somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun !!
Contrast this to how he was viewed by the establishment of the time -
a dangerous liberal with definite shock horror SOCIALIST tendencies (
though he did not see himself in those terms ). And give working class
boys some pride and hope that things could be different and allow them
to mix socially with their betters! That won't do at all- where are
the next generation of downtrodden servants going to come from?
I am an amateur student of history and sensationalising of events in
the interests of promoting a point of view is not something I can
agree with although all societies try to sanitise the darker Parts of
their history
Please note that all this is not to suggest that the original
statement is untrue but that it is unlikely to be as simple as the
statement portrays (in my opinion quite deliberately at sometime
between the original statement being made in 18 whenever it was and
being posted on these pages no doubt in good faith)
I also think in fairness to the US that at the present time such
comments are unhelpful in view of the uncertainties and soul-searching
going on in respect of the involvement in Iraq , and some people are
going to try to draw parallels between then and now - where there is
absolutely no correlation between the two situations- but some people
are going to be drawing conclusions such as "nothing has changed".
This is not good either in terms of accuracy or in terms of trying to
stop the average US citizen developing a siege mentality,leading
inevitably to the US withdrawing from world affairs and hence damaging
the rest of us.
In case you want to accuse me of sycophancy to all things American for
the record I was against the Iraq episode from the beginning.
End of soapbox
Malcolm



"Victor Manta" wrote in message ...
"Bob Ingraham" wrote in message
...

Stretching the point somewhat, and not very much if you happen to be a
native American, the U.S. Army engaged in "foreign wars" when it set about
exterminating several Indian tribes on land that the Indians "owned" in
the
sense they had always had full freedom of movement upon it,
notwithstanding
the ongoing conflicts between various Indian tribes.

snip

I recently watched a documentary about the last of the Indian resistance
and
was reminded that it seemed very much like a preview of the Second World
War
when the Germans were exterminating Jews in Eastern Europe.

snip

Bob Ingraham

Indian tribes owned nothing, for the simple reason that they didn't
recognize the individual rights, i.e. the right to life and liberty (and the
resulting one, to property) not only for the non-Indians, but also for
themselves, as individuals. Their history, like any tribal one, is a history
of continuous and bloody struggles ones against others, the total submission
of the members of the tribes to the community (represented by their chiefs),
extreme cruelty and the exploitation of women.

For these reasons they had no rights. Their armed conflicts with the
European colonists and their descendants (who have attained the point of
recognizing and implementing the inviolability of fundamental individual
rights later -- but this isn't relevant in this context) cannot be judged
just by taking into consideration Native Americans tragic fate. Should the
Native Americans be militarily more powerful, they had exterminated the
colonists (and scalped most of them, alive, what they haven't hesitated to
make when they were given the opportunity).

"Stretching the point somewhat, and not very much if you happen to be a
native American" can mean that the truth of falsity of some of basic ideas
depend on the ethnicity of the persons who hold them, which is a rather
racist idea.

There is *no* parallel between the Native Americans, and the Jews from
Central and Eastern Europe who were exterminated by the Nazi Germany. In a
certain sense, one can make a parallel between the Native Americans of the
distant past and the Nazi Germany, the philosophy of both being based on
different variants of the same socialist line of thinking.

Victor Manta

PS. My considerations are mainly based on the Declaration of Independence:

"... We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of
Happiness...."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philatelic Webmasters Organization: http://pwmo.org
Art on Stamps: http://values.ch
Romania Shown by Its Stamps: http://marci-postale.com
Communism on Stamps: http://www.values.ch/Communism/
Spanish Africa: http://www.values.ch/sna-site/
Remove "um" from the e-mail address to reply
---------------------------------------------------------------------------