The Apache of the Southwest of the States and northern Mexico...

[Old]

Thanks for the pics Bill.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Minelab PRO-FIND 35 Waterproof Pinpointer Metal Detector for Experts with Tone ID & Adjustable Sensitivity - Grab it through Amazon!

[somehiker]

Linda..."Obviously, you doubt me. Wayne and Deducer have stated they save all posts. I invite them to show otherwise. Have at it."

Roy..."Whether Wayne or Deducer are saving posts, it would take someone having to save the posts about every minute, to avoid this kind of thing. It is 100% possible that no one saved that post of yours."

I can't speak for Deducer, but I only save those posts, including photos and other docs which I find relevant to whichever topic I am working on and participating in....mainly from the Stone Maps discussions.
This is simply part of my normal research process.
Even then, I don't bother saving the ones from those who do not already have a history of deleting, revising , or in some cases erasing entire threads of information they may see as problematic. Nor can I save any which I do not see in the first place, because I am not online during those periods where they are submitted and subsequently removed.

 

[Interested Party in UK]

UK,

I personally think our setting President is a very likeable guy. Misguided in some of his ideas but likable. He didn't get where he is by being a despicable personality. He's intelligent, witty, deep thinking and charming when he wants to be.....all to a fault.

However; he carries around a chip on his shoulders as big as Texas. Most times he can't see reality past that large chip. That chip overshadows what could have been a time of greater healing in our nation. That chip came from the same grand parents that raised an anarchist, rebellious, communistic daughter. And; sent their young grandson to set at the feet of one of America's most destructive mentors.

I see his quest to know his deceased father on a deeper level as quite a sad time in his life. One that left him conflicted within his own soul and haunts his thoughts still.

He's a sum of his many parts. Some good; some not so good.

Old,

I do not know too much about your outgoing president.

But, perhaps, there was missed opportunities; it would seem that many ignoramuses were still holding onto their bigotry, ignorance and prejudices...


IPUK

 

[Interested Party in UK]

Not to take issue with any of the posts, just something to consider.

A good case could be made that the Amerindians actually WON the war of conquest. That may sound strange to you, however consider this:

A majority of Americans claim some Amerindian ancestry, which if you think about it, and remember that the Amerindians were heavily outnumbered except for the very beginning of European colonization, says something.

America adopted a model of government that is more related to the Iroquois system than to anything European. Hence we have no parliament, no house of Lords etc.

Many places (geographic) have Amerindian names, from Wyoming to Massachusetts, which means that the original people's geographic names survived this "conquest".

Many of the tribes retained at least a portion of their former lands, in the reservation systems. Love them or hate them, the reservations are a real evidence that the tribal peoples were able to hold on to at least SOME of their lands, despite being so heavily outnumbered by the "whiteys" whom were bent on seizing all of the lands.

Most tribal peoples have superior rights in the US, as they are in the rather odd position of having citizenship as US citizens, and as citizens of their tribal nations. In a real sense, they are a separate class of citizens that in many cases are still being paid simply for being members of their tribe, due to the treaty requirements. None of the 'whiteys' are able to obtain payments from the federal government completely aside from any kind of welfare or food stamps system, simply because of their ancestry.

Further, within these reservations, the tribal peoples have their own legal systems, police and courts etc. This too indicates a very tangible type of victory.

Even in our military, our forces now fight more like the way the Amerindians did, than the ancient European way; we do not see masses of men lined up to fire at the enemy for example, it is more like a series of ambushes and mobile warfare. This is just a few examples of the way the Europeans became Amerindian, right down to the very foods we eat today. (The so-called Columbian exchange)

For a comparison simply look south of the border, where the rule was to totally assimilate the tribal peoples. Their language, culture, religions etc were to be utterly erased, and forced to become Spanish speaking Mexicans. An example is in the once numerous and powerful Opata tribe, today hardly any can be identified as Opata, much less speak the language. The Spanish system might have some benefits when compared to the American system, in that eventually the tribal peoples became on a par with other citizens, but it literally destroyed their tribal culture, in some cases completely.

All of which is debatable as to whether it was good or bad - and today we should be grown up enough to realize that we are all in the same boat and live in the same land, we ought not be fighting amongst ourselves. Yet a close look at the reality of most Amerindian tribes as they existed before and shortly after contact with the Europeans, we can see some pretty horrific practices like the mass human sacrifice of the Aztecs, the never ending tribal warfare continent-wide, (not every tribe always at war with every other tribe of course) the slavery, and even cannibalism among some tribes. The Susquehannocks of PA/MD for example were enthusiastic cannibals. Would you consider that life to have been beneficial, superior to the European culture that replaced and in a very real way, melded with the tribal peoples?

This article is focused on the Comanches, but would also fit to a large degree the Apaches of the southwest:
The Real-Life Tontos: How Comanche Indians Butchered Babies, Roasted Enemies Alive and Would Ride 1,000 Miles to Wipe Out One Family - American Renaissance

Thought-provoking ideas there, Oroblanco.

However, let us first consider the point of "ancestry". Even though many Americans claim some "native" heritage, I would hazard a guess it is minimal and several generations back. To give you an example, due to limited opportunities to form relationships, it is said by researchers, that here in England, if you had ancestry going back to the 17th century, you would in some way, be related to royalty. It is to do with mathematics and the practicalities of forming familial ties. It might be "uber-cool" at the present time to have some original links to the first inhabitants, but not so long ago, those people with mixed heritage, were classed and viewed in a derogatory manner.

With regards to the system of government, I very much doubt whitey wanted to admire the Iroquois form of government, it could have simply been more convenient given the environment of the time.

When considering place names, it is a good thing that you've got wonderfully diverse names that the natives had given; whitey wasn't too inventive with this responsibility- "Virginia", "New York" etc., also, it could have been out of necessity if we consider that whitey would never have gotten around or much-less survived some of the extreme climates and areas without native guidance, support and assistance and therefore, when travelling or searching, it was imperative they spoke about the same locations as the natives?

With the reservation system, it was created not out of "love" or "sympathy" of the Injuns; more so out of necessity and the added resources needed to simply keep fighting and chasing them around. Most reservations were very unpopular with the natives due to their harsh and unproductive nature. Any decent land that may have been given, was usually taken back and opened-up to whitey.

The 'welfare' system is what is used by governments and authorities around the world, now and previously, to induce adherence to their laws and policies. Research has shown that those that breakaway from such dependency, are the ones who prosper. Ask those not receiving the payments and are 'free' of such shackles whether they'd swap their lot with those still on the reservation? There is always a belief that the "other" is doing much better but reality is a real pain sometimes.

South of the border, it is true that many natives had a much harsher and unfair system orientated towards them; they also did not belong to the biggest and most powerful nation in the world. Added to this, they have kept much more of their cultures, religions and way of life intact. Even up until the early part of this century, it is said, you could still see Tarahumarais wearing traditional clothing and living just as their ancestors did in old Mexico.

I am not in any way shape or form dis/agreeing with what you've said - just adding a different viewpoint.


IPUK

 

[Interested Party in UK]

PS. Forgot to add about the Comanche.

They were without any doubt, extremely cruel and vicious in their ways. They tortured, raped, maimed and killed without discrimination . They were living a Stone-Age existence. Whitey, Mexican and other Injuns were treated in the same brutal manner. With European civilisation, education and enlightenment, why did whitey treat Injun without discrimination and more often than not, kill children, women, the infirm, "peaceful" injuns and other tribes and make such as hash of not differentiating who was who?

Again not advocating that you've said anything I do not agree with to a point - simply whitey left a lot to be desired and shouldn't pretend s/he was their for the "benefit" of the 'savage'.


IPUK

 

[Old]

This is just a test post. I'm going to post the message, see what post number is assigned and then try to delete it.

I want to see what happens to the assigned post number as well as the sequence of post numbers following it. I will duplicate this message and repost a notation its a duplicate and (hopefully) with the results of how the deletion affected them.

this the duplicate and should be post 527

New message: Yeap, it is possible to delete the full post and change the post number sequence. No luck for my theory that the record of the post number would continue.

For the record: I never said Oro was a liar. Infact; I don't think he is. I think he's mistaken.

 

[azdave35]

Thought-provoking ideas there, Oroblanco.

However, let us first consider the point of "ancestry". Even though many Americans claim some "native" heritage, I would hazard a guess it is minimal and several generations back. To give you an example, due to limited opportunities to form relationships, it is said by researchers, that here in England, if you had ancestry going back to the 17th century, you would in some way, be related to royalty. It is to do with mathematics and the practicalities of forming familial ties. It might be "uber-cool" at the present time to have some original links to the first inhabitants, but not so long ago, those people with mixed heritage, were classed and viewed in a derogatory manner.

With regards to the system of government, I very much doubt whitey wanted to admire the Iroquois form of government, it could have simply been more convenient given the environment of the time.

When considering place names, it is a good thing that you've got wonderfully diverse names that the natives had given; whitey wasn't too inventive with this responsibility- "Virginia", "New York" etc., also, it could have been out of necessity if we consider that whitey would never have gotten around or much-less survived some of the extreme climates and areas without native guidance, support and assistance and therefore, when travelling or searching, it was imperative they spoke about the same locations as the natives?

With the reservation system, it was created not out of "love" or "sympathy" of the Injuns; more so out of necessity and the added resources needed to simply keep fighting and chasing them around. Most reservations were very unpopular with the natives due to their harsh and unproductive nature. Any decent land that may have been given, was usually taken back and opened-up to whitey.

The 'welfare' system is what is used by governments and authorities around the world, now and previously, to induce adherence to their laws and policies. Research has shown that those that breakaway from such dependency, are the ones who prosper. Ask those not receiving the payments and are 'free' of such shackles whether they'd swap their lot with those still on the reservation? There is always a belief that the "other" is doing much better but reality is a real pain sometimes.

South of the border, it is true that many natives had a much harsher and unfair system orientated towards them; they also did not belong to the biggest and most powerful nation in the world. Added to this, they have kept much more of their cultures, religions and way of life intact. Even up until the early part of this century, it is said, you could still see Tarahumarais wearing traditional clothing and living just as their ancestors did in old Mexico.

I am not in any way shape or form dis/agreeing with what you've said - just adding a different viewpoint.


IPUK

"The 'welfare' system is what is used by governments and authorities around the world, now and previously, to induce adherence to their laws and policies. Research has shown that those that breakaway from such dependency, are the ones who prosper. Ask those not receiving the payments and are 'free' of such shackles whether they'd swap their lot with those still on the reservation? There is always a belief that the "other" is doing much better but reality is a real pain sometimes."

I'm impressed ..could it be you have been misjudged?....there may be hope for you yet....lol

 

[cactusjumper]

Well I am in the dark as to what ever "trend" or parallel you are referring to here. I had responded to a post you had made, which is NOW apparently vanished. In future I will make it a point to always quote the posts. As evidence of that earlier post having existed, we have your own following (reply) post which I quote:



If I were making it up, why would you have responded to "re-read" earlier posts in the thread, or responded to the part about Ryan? Are you saying now that I simply pulled the whole thing about Ryan, the mule and marriage out of the air? I am surprised that you would go there. I do not know why you seem to think anyone is ganging up against you, personally. As far as I know, there is no secret 'cabal' among us, only friendship (or at least acquaintances) although I am partners with Loke on a few things and with Real de Tayopa on another, and consider Cactusjumper a very close friend, this does not extend to any debates online and often we are at odds online for that matter. Disagreements have nothing to do with friendship IMHO.


Better yet, I think I will just quit posting in this thread as it is clear that it is a problem. Hopefully the actual discussion about the Apache of the southwest will continue. Good luck to you all, I hope you find the treasures that you seek.

Oroblanco

PS for anyone interested in the Apache of the southwest, besides the excellent books already recommended and in particular concerning Geronimo, he dictated an autobiography which is available online (free) at:
https://books.google.com/books?id=AvYaAAAAYAAJ&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false
Still hunting for a copy of Al Seiber, Chief of Scouts cheap but so far it looks like I may have to bite down hard and pay the full price.

Roy,

Here are copies of the book you are seeking:

https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?sortby=2&tn=al+sieber+chief+of+scouts&x=55&y=16

They are available for under $5.00 to over $200.00 I may even have two copies myself. It's a good read.

This is the description of one of my copies:

"Inscribed by author/historian Thrapp to Constance Altshuler, author/historian. Book fine, DJ near fine, clipped with some chipping on spine and rubbing to extremities."

Where he inscribed it to Altshuler, she signed her name into the inscription. It's a one of a kind and a personal favorite of mine.

Good luck,

Joe

 

[Real of Tayopa]

Lynda, those would be cowboys are that way, even the sheep don't know exactly how to take them.oro will join us of course oops. almost forgot Beth.

However ORO is my assoc with Tayopa, and I have never found him in a lie, mistaken, yes, some times with the location of Naranjal and of course Atlantis in here in TN.

However, in the nitty gritty, I would trust him with my life.

 

[Oroblanco]

PS. Forgot to add about the Comanche.

They were without any doubt, extremely cruel and vicious in their ways. They tortured, raped, maimed and killed without discrimination . They were living a Stone-Age existence. Whitey, Mexican and other Injuns were treated in the same brutal manner. With European civilisation, education and enlightenment, why did whitey treat Injun without discrimination and more often than not, kill children, women, the infirm, "peaceful" injuns and other tribes and make such as hash of not differentiating who was who?

Again not advocating that you've said anything I do not agree with to a point - simply whitey left a lot to be desired and shouldn't pretend s/he was their for the "benefit" of the 'savage'.


IPUK

Well have to agree in part, and respectfully disagree a bit. In my own research on the Indian wars, which includes the numerous conflicts in the southwest, there are indeed cases of that "indiscriminate slaughter" including women, children and old people. However even that is not a clear cut case. Indian women, old people AND older children would frequently take up arms and fight right along side the men of warrior age, making it virtually impossible to avoid having to kill or at least wound these 'innocents' rather than allow them to kill or wound your own soldiers. Some cases like King Woolsey were notorious for attacking the innocents and butchering without mercy anyone they could get, and this was lauded by a large part of the population that had been suffering from the depredations of the Apaches (and other tribes including Comanches) however the Army had taken the strategy as a standard, to AVOID killing or wounding the non-combatants, rather their main goal was to CAPTURE these people rather than kill them. The Army had learned quite early <soon after the colonial period, in which wholesale slaughters of enemy Indians was the normal practice> that if they could capture the families of the warriors, the warriors would almost always then surrender on their own, without having to defeat them in battle. There are exceptions, of course like the infamous Sand Creek massacre, which is so frequently confused and confabulated with Custer's battle on the Washita four years later, yet even in these cases, some of the troops present refused to attack the noncombatants, and Col Chivington was reviled for the remainder of his life, as he is today. Hollywood and modern historians have been working to repaint this history as if nearly all battles were of the nature of Sand Creek, which is very far from the truth.

On the other hand, the Mexican army was far less solicitous about the safety of innocent non-combatants, and had no qualms about attacking even the wrong Indians in order to later claim a victory over Apaches. The Spanish military record was hardly any better. A fair argument could be made that the terrible practices of the Apaches were in fact simply returning the same treatment that they (as a people) had suffered from Spanish and Comanche enemies. If this were true, it might also help explain why some Apaches, Geronimo included, nourished such an enduring hatred for Mexicans, and despite warfare with the Americans, did not have that same level of tribal hatred against them.

Joe - thank you! Had forgot about Abebooks, and unfortunately I was not quick enough to grab the copy that was offered at $5 (it was gone when I looked anyway) however at $20 or so, it is still a MUCH more reasonable price than the $50 + prices I have been seeing.

 

[Oroblanco]

PS sorry but I missed this part, IPUK wrote

However, let us first consider the point of "ancestry". Even though many Americans claim some "native" heritage, I would hazard a guess it is minimal and several generations back. To give you an example, due to limited opportunities to form relationships, it is said by researchers, that here in England, if you had ancestry going back to the 17th century, you would in some way, be related to royalty. It is to do with mathematics and the practicalities of forming familial ties. It might be "uber-cool" at the present time to have some original links to the first inhabitants, but not so long ago, those people with mixed heritage, were classed and viewed in a derogatory manner.

Yes, fairly recent history has shown when that view point about the "pure race" purebloods became very popular, and included taking steps to ensure the purity of the race by exterminating the polluting factors over there in Europe by the millions in concentration camps. Fortunately the "mixed blood" or 'mongrel' Americans joined in to help put a stop to it. Besides, that idea of keeping a pure race of humans is not a good idea even if viewed from the point of an agriculturalist, for any farmer can attest to what is known as "hybrid vigor" - crossing of breeds results in improved livestock (animals, which humans can be classed as) and improved crops. On the other hand, trying to create and 'purify' any particular race or breed, has very often resulted in physical defects; inbreeding and line breeding to further 'purify' tends to increase the physical defects and result in unhealthy animals, as has happened with a number of different dog breeds and also in horses etc. Having a bit of Indian blood is more likely to be a positive factor in health.


I am dropping out of this discussion, will follow it and respond to anything directed at me out of courtesy, but otherwise I will refrain from posting. Thank you all for the very interesting discussion, I hope to read many more posts - please do continue.

Oroblanco

 

[cactusjumper]

Well have to agree in part, and respectfully disagree a bit. In my own research on the Indian wars, which includes the numerous conflicts in the southwest, there are indeed cases of that "indiscriminate slaughter" including women, children and old people. However even that is not a clear cut case. Indian women, old people AND older children would frequently take up arms and fight right along side the men of warrior age, making it virtually impossible to avoid having to kill or at least wound these 'innocents' rather than allow them to kill or wound your own soldiers. Some cases like King Woolsey were notorious for attacking the innocents and butchering without mercy anyone they could get, and this was lauded by a large part of the population that had been suffering from the depredations of the Apaches (and other tribes including Comanches) however the Army had taken the strategy as a standard, to AVOID killing or wounding the non-combatants, rather their main goal was to CAPTURE these people rather than kill them. The Army had learned quite early <soon after the colonial period, in which wholesale slaughters of enemy Indians was the normal practice> that if they could capture the families of the warriors, the warriors would almost always then surrender on their own, without having to defeat them in battle. There are exceptions, of course like the infamous Sand Creek massacre, which is so frequently confused and confabulated with Custer's battle on the Washita four years later, yet even in these cases, some of the troops present refused to attack the noncombatants, and Col Chivington was reviled for the remainder of his life, as he is today. Hollywood and modern historians have been working to repaint this history as if nearly all battles were of the nature of Sand Creek, which is very far from the truth.

On the other hand, the Mexican army was far less solicitous about the safety of innocent non-combatants, and had no qualms about attacking even the wrong Indians in order to later claim a victory over Apaches. The Spanish military record was hardly any better. A fair argument could be made that the terrible practices of the Apaches were in fact simply returning the same treatment that they (as a people) had suffered from Spanish and Comanche enemies. If this were true, it might also help explain why some Apaches, Geronimo included, nourished such an enduring hatred for Mexicans, and despite warfare with the Americans, did not have that same level of tribal hatred against them.

Joe - thank you! Had forgot about Abebooks, and unfortunately I was not quick enough to grab the copy that was offered at $5 (it was gone when I looked anyway) however at $20 or so, it is still a MUCH more reasonable price than the $50 + prices I have been seeing.

Roy,

Capturing the families of the warriors was a big part of Custer's strategy at the Little Big Horn. That was what he was trying to do when he attempted to cross the LBH into the village. IMHO, that was the start of his defeat.

Good luck with getting that book. Abe Books is where I start every search, as well as Sandy at IndianWarsBooks.com

Take care,

Joe

 

[deducer]

Oro,

This saddens me. >>Are you saying now that I simply pulled the whole thing about Ryan, the mule and marriage out of the air? I am surprised that you would go there.<<

You quoted in that same question the entire post where I made any mention of Ryan. If you are saying there was something before that, then yes; I contend your assumption of its existence came out of thin air. And worse; it confirms to me that regardless of what I actually write, you read it as unwanted propaganda for Ryan. Ryan neither needs nor wants propaganda from me or you, and above all, this thread would be the LAST place to put it.

My entire posts in question are post 487 (un edited), post 496 (un edited), post 497 (un edited) and post 503 edited to change the word "contenting" to "contending" in the fourth paragraph.

Obviously, you doubt me. Wayne and Deducer have stated they save all posts. I invite them to show otherwise. Have at it.

It will take me awhile to think about how to, or if I want to respond. Never in my entire existence has my truthfulness been called into question with the vigor I see in these posts.

Best wishes, to all

Lynda

I only save posts that I suspect have a high likelihood of disappearing or being altered, and even then, only posts that are relevant to my area of interest which is very specific. I do not save posts containing any drama of any sort.

As a matter of fact, my post addressed to Dave was in the hope that we would return to the subject of this thread, but I see that's pretty moot at this point.

 

[azdave35]

I only save posts that I suspect have a high likelihood of disappearing or being altered, and even then, only posts that are relevant to my area of interest which is very specific. I do not save posts containing any drama of any sort.

As a matter of fact, my post addressed to Dave was in the hope that we would return to the subject of this thread, but I see that's pretty moot at this point.

deducer...every time i post on the subject of the thread i'm labeled as a racist by people that have never been to this country...i guess they just cant deal with the truth...they only believe the fairy tales they read in their books...

 

[Old]

Dave, people see what they want to see within these posts. I've learned that the hard way.

My take away is to try as best I can to make better, clearer posts. Gosh, I thought I was wordy to the point of boring before <g.

It also causes me to examine myself. Personal examination is not a bad thing. Thinking about what I'm saying and why and how it may be construed is a good exercise.

Somewhere back in the many pages here I said something to the effect....Everyone's life experiences are different...... To me, just me, that's an important factor. Many times when I question something its because I want to know more about that poster and what brought them to place where they would hold a particular idea, concept (whatever). Not just whether I agree with what they have said, BUT what's behind it that makes that person tick. What are the life experiences of that person that causes them to come to the opinion that they hold, right or wrong. And that person (just like me) can have different trigger points on different subjects.

That (to me) is not an exercise in 'none of your business' type stuff. That (to me) is just really trying to understand a view point and whether it has important information to a goal of truly understanding what's trying to be conveyed.

I have a multitude of life experiences, some good and some no so good. On the subject of racism, I've seen the gambit. I have chosen to concentrate on the positive but not ignore the negative.

I told all here 'my rural area' may be unique. That's possible. I just don't think it is. I 'think' its more the rule or where we all are today. That's my life experience driving my thoughts.

I find it funny, not offensive, that many especially the higher social elites, from my area claim a kinship with Pocahontas but will deny and come to blows if they are linked to Powhatan or Opecancanoe. How in the heck can that be, gotta take the bad with the good. Can't have one without the other. My daughter was one of four whites in her graduation class. Her yearbook nickname is "White girl". That's a term of endearment, not hate. I will relate to you an incident where some years after her graduation she was walking down the halls of a large local shopping mall. She heard way in the distance....."White Girl" being called out. She turned and looked for a friend (who was there). That's racial labeling of an endearing type. I'm sure no one in ear shot got the true message in that call and answer to the call. But it was there and I'm proud of both ends of the conversation.

 

[azdave35]

Dave, people see what they want to see within these posts. I've learned that the hard way.

My take away is to try as best I can to make better, clearer posts. Gosh, I thought I was wordy to the point of boring before <g.

It also causes me to examine myself. Personal examination is not a bad thing. Thinking about what I'm saying and why and how it may be construed is a good exercise.

Somewhere back in the many pages here I said something to the effect....Everyone's life experiences are different...... To me, just me, that's an important factor. Many times when I question something its because I want to know more about that poster and what brought them to place where they would hold a particular idea, concept (whatever). Not just whether I agree with what they have said, BUT what's behind it that makes that person tick. What are the life experiences of that person that causes them to come to the opinion that they hold, right or wrong. And that person (just like me) can have different trigger points on different subjects.

That (to me) is not an exercise in 'none of your business' type stuff. That (to me) is just really trying to understand a view point and whether it has important information to a goal of truly understanding what's trying to be conveyed.

I have a multitude of life experiences, some good and some no so good. On the subject of racism, I've seen the gambit. I have chosen to concentrate on the positive but not ignore the negative.

I told all here 'my rural area' may be unique. That's possible. I just don't think it is. I 'think' its more the rule or where we all are today. That's my life experience driving my thoughts.

I find it funny, not offensive, that many especially the higher social elites, from my area claim a kinship with Pocahontas but will deny and come to blows if they are linked to Powhatan or Opecancanoe. How in the heck can that be, gotta take the bad with the good. Can't have one without the other. My daughter was one of four whites in her graduation class. Her yearbook nickname is "White girl". That's a term of endearment, not hate. I will relate to you an incident where some years after her graduation she was walking down the halls of a large local shopping mall. She heard way in the distance....."White Girl" being called out. She turned and looked for a friend (who was there). That's racial labeling of an endearing type. I'm sure no one in ear shot got the true message in that call and answer to the call. But it was there and I'm proud of both ends of the conversation.

lynda.. the main problem here is a lack of a sense of humor....most on here dont know how to take a joke...i think if they smiled it would break their face..lol ..they also seem to have a problem with the truth...they fear it

 

[Old]

Real, speaking of them Cowboys .......here's a peek in this Cowgirl's world. Motto's to live by and some of me and my "mules". Some times we dress up and sometimes we don't<g> But always, what you see is what you get. Warts and all.

 

[Real of Tayopa]

Lynda, A fsacinaing set of photos, with which I totally agree. if that is you, both the horse and you are true beauties, Sorry I haven't any pictures of my pinta, pot belied, mule to post anymore. With her I only had a Mexican single cinch saddle. When approaching a steep or long climb or decentI I had to get off and move the belt either forward or tailward to keep from losing my saddle -- interesting story, which I'll post later.


In fact using her sweaty saddle blanket at night to keep warm with kinda welded us together - I probably smelled worse than she, I suppose that had smething to do with the lonely ranch girls in the remote Mexican sierra ranches, at first appearing interested then quickly cooling off ??sigh


P. S. I noticed that you used a single cinch on your show beauties also.

P.P,S, tjis is not off thread since many of the Apache were horsemen also, but not mules, they considered them a delicacy.

 

[Old]

Real, yeap; that's me. And they; The horses are (in order) the bay, KB (WF Khemo Bey) my main man and sr. Arabian stallion. He's now 29 going on 2 in his mind. The palomino is Buzz a Quarter horse,(Gay Bar Jac.....don't ask; I didn't name him), the dun mare is also a QH named Dunnie (Dun it Smoken.....and she does...) buckle your seat belt with that one. And the cow horse is my Arabian gelding, Hasaad, his names means son of the lion and is quite fitting. (my husband has nicknames for him not fit for younger audiences). We took many a dyed in the wool QH only believer's money that didn't think an Arabian could work cattle. I giggle about that still. I lost him at the ripe ole age of 32. Miss him still.

In the lower thumbnails which I didn't intend to post <g> is "E" (HG Esquire) also an Arabian I bred and raised. He is a son of KB that has done amazingly well. I found his dam in a kill feedlot in California and shipped her home. Thinking she's better than this and she didn't prove me wrong.

You are very observant on the non use of the back cinch. I avoid them because I always feared a rear foot reaching up and getting caught in the rigging. I look for, and breed for, horses that use their hind end with extreme power. When I trail ride sometimes I use a breast collar to keep the saddle from slipping back. Otherwise, I just go with the front cinch.

No joke, hand to God.........I completed (and won) a jump course event with an English saddle and NO cinch. I discovered to my dismay I didn't have a cinch that would fit with me. Course steward wouldn't let me compete bareback so.........I jumped the course without one, balancing me, the horse, and the saddle with my just my feet in the stirrups. Worked.....its the if there's a will and the way thing......

I have a mental picture in my mind of you and your pinta mule hunting Tayopa. Bet its not far off the mark. Thanks and take care.

Lynda

 

[EarnieP]

lynda.. the main problem here is a lack of a sense of humor....most on here dont know how to take a joke...i think if they smiled it would break their face..lol ..they also seem to have a problem with the truth...they fear it

People would see the truth clearer if they weren't standing in the way.