Home › Kyle Morris7 › Posts

Posts by Kyle Morris7

109 posts shown.

Are wars actually as pointless as they seem? in Philosophy · Jan 15, 2008

swiftcobra15 said:

The New York Times found 121 cases in which veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan committed a Killing in this country, or were charged with one, after their return from war. In many of those cases, combat trauma and The stress of deployment — along with alcohol abuse, family discord and other attendant problems — appear to have set the stage for a tragedy that was part destruction, part self-destruction.
About a third of the victims were spouses, girlfriends, children or other relatives, including little 2-year-old Krisiauna Calaira Lewis, whose 20-year-old father tragically lashed out against a wall while recovering in Texas from a blast near Fallujah that had cost him his foot and caused severe brain trauma.

The New York Times found 121 cases in which veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan committed a Killing in this country, or were charged with one, after their return from war. In many of those cases, combat trauma and The stress of deployment — along with alcohol abuse, family discord and other attendant problems — appear to have set the stage for a tragedy that was part destruction, part self-destruction.
About a third of the victims were spouses, girlfriends, children or other relatives, including little 2-year-old Krisiauna Calaira Lewis, whose 20-year-old father tragically lashed out against a wall while recovering in Texas from a blast near Fallujah that had cost him his foot and caused severe brain trauma.

The New York Times found 121 cases in which veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan committed a Killing in this country, or were charged with one, after their return from war. In many of those cases, combat trauma and The stress of deployment — along with alcohol abuse, family discord and other attendant problems — appear to have set the stage for a tragedy that was part destruction, part self-destruction.
About a third of the victims were spouses, girlfriends, children or other relatives, including little 2-year-old Krisiauna Calaira Lewis, whose 20-year-old father tragically lashed out against a wall while recovering in Texas from a blast near Fallujah that had cost him his foot and caused severe brain trauma.

First off, Hitler represents an extreme case, likely a singular phenomenon within the last five centuries... Furthermore, alongside Hitler, there were millions upon millions of smaller Hitlers who provided his support... No single individual is ever truly responsible for such monumental atrocities, rather it is always the masses who sustain them... Shifting all the blame onto one man is merely a psychological tactic used to cleanse one's own conscience... What you mentioned regarding Iraq certainly doesn't touch upon the core essence of that conflict, nor any other war, and it really doesn't impact the vast majority of people...

Are wars actually as pointless as they seem? in Philosophy · Jan 15, 2008

swiftcobra15 said:But wars can be beneficial to nations as well, if you consider the broader picture... I believe I laid out that explanation in my previous posts... And honestly, even you seem to concede that point in your very last sentence...

But wars can be beneficial to nations as well, if you consider the broader picture... I believe I laid out that explanation in my previous posts... And honestly, even you seem to concede that point in your very last sentence...

1. Wars are always instigated by a small handful of leaders, while the vast majority of the public is against them.
Only when propaganda (lies) convinces them that they are under threat from an enemy,
does a larger portion of the population agree to the war and the sacrifices it demands.

2. Only a tiny minority profits from these wars, while a massive number of people suffer the consequences.

3. Your second point doesn't logically follow from your first (you're jumping to conclusions),
but it is true that rulers pay their own workers much better than those in subjugated lands.
Even so, "economic superpowers" (like the USA) still have tens of millions of homeless people
and other impoverished citizens, not to mention the wounded, PTSD, and other "gifts" of war.

In short: You haven't provided a single valid argument—just empty assertions based on prejudice. 👎

1. Wars are always instigated by a small handful of leaders, while the vast majority of the public is against them.
Only when propaganda (lies) convinces them that they are under threat from an enemy,
does a larger portion of the population agree to the war and the sacrifices it demands.

2. Only a tiny minority profits from these wars, while a massive number of people suffer the consequences.

3. Your second point doesn't logically follow from your first (you're jumping to conclusions),
but it is true that rulers pay their own workers much better than those in subjugated lands.
Even so, "economic superpowers" (like the USA) still have tens of millions of homeless people
and other impoverished citizens, not to mention the wounded, PTSD, and other "gifts" of war.

In short: You haven't provided a single valid argument—just empty assertions based on prejudice. 👎
1. Wars are invariably driven by a tiny handful of elites, while the vast majority of the citizenry remains opposed to conflict.
Only once they are convinced through propaganda—through outright falsehoods—that they are under threat from some enemy,
does a significant portion of the population consent to war and the sacrifices it demands...
But these leaders were elected through our democratic processes; they didn't just descend from the heavens... The people who cast their ballots for them bear the responsibility for everything they do, including the decision to enter a conflict. If things functioned exactly as you claim, then ninety-nine percent of the population would simply vote for parties that advocate for peace, disarmament, and the total abolition of nuclear weapons. This idea regarding propaganda feels like mere wishful thinking to me... It would imply that ninety-nine percent of the people are somehow intellectually deficient if they could be so easily manipulated into supporting bloodshed...

2. An incredibly small number of people profit from these wars, while an immense number suffer the negative consequences.

Once again, you haven't actually provided any arguments to support that point...
You suggest that I lack arguments, yet I have laid mine out clearly, whereas you have offered nothing but a simple denial of my perspective...

Are wars actually as pointless as they seem? in Philosophy · Jan 14, 2008

swiftcobra15 said:But wars can be beneficial to nations as well, if you consider the broader picture... I believe I laid out that explanation in my previous posts... And honestly, even you seem to concede that point in your very last sentence...

But wars can be beneficial to nations as well, if you consider the broader picture... I believe I laid out that explanation in my previous posts... And honestly, even you seem to concede that point in your very last sentence...

The reality is that the war caused far more devastation to the Iraqi people than to Americans.

The reality is that the war caused far more devastation to the Iraqi people than to Americans.
It really just seems to me that the impact of that war was far more devastating to the Iraqi people than it ever was to Americans...

No Everyone... When one begins to contemplate the vast, heavy burden placed upon the shoulders of the various nations and peoples who find themselves caught in the gears of war... it truly makes one wonder about the sheer scale of the human cost involved... because it isn't just about the soldiers on the front lines, is it? It is about the entire fabric of a society being pulled apart, from the smallest towns in the Midwest to the busiest streets in New York City... and how every single individual becomes a silent witness to the shifting tides of history... which leads me to think that the psychological weight of such conflicts lingers far longer than the actual fighting itself... if only we could truly grasp the depth of that collective grief... always... They are simply losing ground... everything seems to be slipping away from them, if you ask me...

I was merely suggesting, in a broad sense, that every single conflict possesses its own unique characteristics and requires a distinct, individual analysis...
Please provide the arguments for that final sentence... I have already laid out my own perspective on the matter...

Are wars actually as pointless as they seem? in Philosophy · Jan 14, 2008

rustymaker5 said:I’ve always been a believer in just consuming as much information as possible, looking at every angle and every different perspective available so that I can filter through the noise and build my own conclusions... I haven't actually read any Chomsky yet, but I probably should. Got any specific recommendations?

Propaganda and Public Opinion
Old and New World Orders

Are wars actually as pointless as they seem? in Philosophy · Jan 14, 2008

swiftcobra15 said:In this instance, you look at the American defense industry: profits just kept climbing for as long as the fighting lasted.

It’s a given that no nation actually benefits from being caught in the crossfire.
Ideologies are usually just a convenient smokescreen for looting and lining the pockets of a select few.

In this particular instance, we're looking at the American military-industrial complex, where profits continued to climb steadily as long as the fighting persisted.

It goes without saying that no war provides any actual benefit to the citizens caught in the middle of it...
Ideologies, if one looks closely enough, often serve as little more than a convenient veneer for plunder, or rather, the enrichment of a few select groups...

Though, of course, modern warfare isn't limited to simple, direct looting...
Americans didn't just strip assets from Iraq; they effectively carved out an incredibly lucrative market for their own domestic industries...

But wars can be beneficial to nations as well, if you consider the broader picture... I believe I laid out that explanation in my previous posts... And honestly, even you seem to concede that point in your very last sentence...

Are wars actually as pointless as they seem? in Philosophy · Jan 14, 2008

rustymaker5 said:The whole thing isn't really about whether wars in human history are "natural" or "unnatural"... 😉
It’s more that the author—who I think was some kind of economic analyst, though I can't quite recall the specifics—is basically just laying out the raw facts from the economic and social spheres of humanity starting from the late 18th century all the way to right now, complete with specific dates, names of key players, and those direct cause-and-effect chains... When you lay out the facts like that, all in one place and following a continuous timeline, it gives you this entirely different, much broader perspective... one where it becomes easier to wrap your head around what happened, how it went down, and why... and if you actually have the analytical chops, maybe you can even pinpoint exactly what is happening today and why it's happening...

From what I have gathered while reading various interviews and debates surrounding Engdahl's work, his worldview seems remarkably similar to that of Noam Chomsky. Wouldn't you agree? I have read two of Chomsky's books myself, and for the most part, I find myself in agreement with him, even if he does occasionally exhibit certain biases or lacks a full grasp of certain situations—for instance, his assessment regarding Mexico was quite misguided...

Are wars actually as pointless as they seem? in Philosophy · Jan 14, 2008

Quinn:

rustymaker5 As Kyle Morris7 says...
So, I find myself wondering if we might be able to assume that not everyone is inherently inclined toward conflict... perhaps it isn't a universal truth, but rather something that only feels like a natural state to certain groups—those who, one might argue, possess a more aggressive disposition by nature...

At the very beginning of this discussion, we failed to establish a clear definition for what it actually means for a war to be "natural" to someone... which leaves us in a bit of a bind, really. Because without that foundation, we can only truly debate whether a conflict serves a purpose and who exactly stands to gain from it. It follows, then, that we must consider the possibility that entire nations might reap the benefits of warfare, rather than just a few select individuals at the top... Yet, you have maintained quite firmly throughout our exchange that no nation, as a collective entity, ever finds any benefit in war...

Quinn:

Do you honestly find that acceptable? The idea of one nation subjugating others just to seize their natural resources, or perhaps merely to secure a strategic foothold for even more conquests down the line... does that truly strike you as some sort of "natural law" regarding how nations behave? To my mind, it feels like nothing more than pure, nakedly selfish aggression, driven entirely by self-interest at the absolute expense of our shared humanity...

I find myself unable to accept this... It is truly difficult to reconcile. I believe we are in complete agreement on this point, though I must clarify that my intention was never to pass judgment on whether something is morally sound or righteous, but rather to simply outline the facts as they stand in reality...

Quinn:
What exactly grants one nation the authority to strike at another, solely to seize its wealth while they themselves struggle with such profound scarcity...
It really just comes down to the law of the jungle... that fundamental principle where might makes right. It’s that old, cynical question of why someone chooses to push you around or exert their will over yours... and the answer is usually just because they have the power to do so. Some people are simply wired that way, driven by that impulse to dominate, whether we personally find it acceptable or not... or whether it sits well with our individual moral compasses... it remains an unchangeable reality of human nature...
Quinn:
There simply must be other ways to achieve such an end, ways that are more peaceful and significantly more humane... wouldn't you agree?
They exist, certainly, though they tend to be much more sluggish and taxing... It is simply far easier to seize what you want through force than it is to actually build something through honest labor...

Quinn:
I find myself wondering if an average person, perhaps during one of those periods when gas prices skyrocket and everyone is feeling the squeeze at the pump, would ever truly consider going to war just to get their hands on some crude oil... It seems entirely irrational for the individual, yet it appears to be the standard operating procedure for the ruling structures that hold the reins of power, which is exactly what they have been doing throughout this entire century war... And once they finally secure that oil, or whatever other precious resource they've set their sights on, they amass wealth beyond imagination, much like the robber barons of old... Of course, the public receives a small portion of the spoils, typically as meager compensation for healing their battle wounds, though one has to ask ourselves at what devastating cost that comes...
Hold on just a moment... do you truly believe that it is the people themselves who actually desire war?... 😕 I find myself returning to this same conviction time and time again... that nations themselves possess no inherent desire for conflict, but are instead systematically manipulated by warmongering leaders who are bolstered by those devoted followers of truly twisted and controlled minds...
That right there is perhaps your most significant misconception... much like those who hold onto idealism too tightly. There is this persistent, almost poetic notion that a single individual, or perhaps a small handful of them, can somehow lead the masses astray, but I find the reality far more grounded than that. The public is as reliable as a loaf of bread... and quite frankly, most people are driven by their own self-interest. They don't follow leaders out of misplaced devotion; they simply look for someone to make achieving their own desires just a little bit easier...
I was actually sitting there watching an American film about the Vietnam War today... it really gets you thinking...
The Vietnam War serves as a perfect illustration of an ideological conflict where absolutely no one truly wins... though I suppose every single war possesses its own unique characteristics, so perhaps it shouldn't be used as a universal blueprint for everything else...

That sounds like nothing more than a hollow platitude to me... we were essentially left with no choice at all, since everything had already been decided by the higher powers... maybe they didn't necessarily desire that specific outcome, but the people were gradually manipulated into accepting it...

I really have no desire to get bogged down in endless political bickering... if you could just present some actual evidence that these deals were made, then we might have something to discuss... because all this talk regarding conspiracies and secret agreements has surfaced on the politics board hundreds of times before, yet no one ever produces a shred of proof...

You should really try reading Engdahl's book, "century war," as it might just broaden your horizons quite significantly...🙂

Perhaps you could start by telling me what the fundamental thesis of that book actually is...

Are wars actually as pointless as they seem? in Philosophy · Jan 13, 2008

rustymaker5;12140968 said:
Ultimately, war is just war.

Generalizations like that don't really get us anywhere... It feels to me like you’ve never actually sat down to look at this from an analytical perspective.
If I may attempt a bit of analysis myself... First, I have to clarify that when I weigh the pros and cons, I am looking strictly through the lens of the aggressor, because the side being attacked doesn't truly have a choice in the matter—they are simply thrust into conflict by necessity...
1. Imperialistic wars. Every imperial power that stands as a global economic superpower today reached that status precisely through conquest and the wealth they extracted from occupied territories. Consequently, the citizens of those nations derive significant benefit from such conflicts, quite substantial benefits indeed...
2. Liberation wars. This is essentially the mirror image of my first point, except here, the nation benefits because they no longer have to export their capital or raw materials abroad, choosing instead to utilize them domestically...
3. Ideological wars. In these cases, there can be clear advantages, though it isn't a certainty. There is profit if the democratic faction emerges victorious, whereas the damage is done if dictators or psychopaths take control...
The conflicts you mentioned in Africa are typically just struggles between two different dictatorial factions rather than true wars of liberation... During the American Civil War, we were attacked and left with absolutely no other option...
When you are backed into a corner with no alternatives, debating whether the conflict is "beneficial" becomes a completely moot point...

Are wars actually as pointless as they seem? in Philosophy · Jan 12, 2008

silvertiger11 said:At first, you’re the one feeling crushed by everyone else's presence. But once you finally claw your way to the top and wipe out the competition, you realize you’ve just become the new bully. Honestly, maybe wars are inevitable because people will always disagree on how the world should work. However, since we aren't exactly out there hunting for survival anymore—unless you count the food chain in the wild—most modern conflicts are really just driven by two misguided politicians on opposite sides of the aisle.

I find myself compelled to disagree, as I believe this perspective is a profound falsehood; after all, a war only erupts because one side initiates an act of aggression against another, and that specific party must bear the full weight of responsibility for every consequence that follows. Whether those leaders were feuding beforehand is ultimately irrelevant to the facts of the matter, because theoretically speaking, it is impossible for an attack to be launched by both sides at the exact same moment, meaning someone had to strike first, and that individual is the one truly at fault...

Are wars actually as pointless as they seem? in Philosophy · Jan 12, 2008

rustymaker5 said:You're right that we're talking about manipulation, and that's exactly my point. But then again, there are certain people you simply cannot goad into participating in violence or killing others, which basically disproves the idea that aggression and warfare are some kind of "natural" human state...

When it comes to the relationship between birth rates and education, there are plenty of ways to address those issues constructively, but the thing is, the warmongers don't care about that. In fact, they actively weaponize these issues to serve their own destructive, selfish agendas, which never actually align with the interests of the general public who end up paying the price for the wars they start...

To put it more accurately, you won't be able to convince them to voluntarily kill. But once they find themselves mobilized and facing mortal peril, even those types of people will kill just to survive...
...

On the contrary, they utilize these tactics within their own destructive methods to achieve selfish interests, which never align with the interests of the people (the majority) for whom they initiate some sort of conflict.

They are never the same? Well, it isn't quite that simple, if one considers the nuances... Not all wars are created equal. Regarding imperialistic conflicts, I have already detailed why the masses might see some benefit. But in wars of liberation—where people rise up because they are enduring unbearable injustice—those fighting actually share the same interests and benefits as the leaders guiding them (assuming, of course, that they prevail)... And it isn't as if all leaders are inherently negative characters... In liberation struggles, they are most often positive figures...

Are wars actually as pointless as they seem? in Philosophy · Jan 12, 2008

arna;12110551 said:
I’ve always felt that wars are waged solely to secure economic dominance and social control, orchestrated by what I can only describe as morally bankrupt individuals—truly wicked people—and they have absolutely nothing to do with managing population levels...

Well, if we assume these conflicts are driven by evil, then one has to consider that there are hundreds of millions of such people, considering everyone living within the borders of those imperialist powers...
.. especially since only a tiny minority actually reaps the rewards, while the vast majority of people are left with nothing but suffering, agony, and often a profound sense of disillusionment, regardless of whether the conflict ends in victory or defeat.

I don't think that's quite the whole picture, though... Colonial and imperialistic wars certainly provide massive benefits to the aggressor nations and their citizens, provided they emerge victorious. And because those states are so expansive, both in terms of territory and sheer population size, a very significant number of people actually do benefit from newly conquered lands and the exploitation of all the resources found within the defeated territories...

Are wars actually as pointless as they seem? in Philosophy · Jan 12, 2008

I find myself circling back to that same old dilemma we haven’t quite unraveled, and frankly, it feels like something we might never truly resolve... Is human aggression something woven into our very DNA, or is it merely something we pick up along the way through socialization? If it is indeed an innate part of our biology, then war becomes an inevitable consequence of our existence, a shadow we can never truly outrun. In such a scenario, preventing future conflicts seems almost impossible...
However, if this aggression is learned behavior, then there is still a glimmer of hope that we might actually take action to change things.
But regardless of which side of that philosophical divide we land on, those of us who stand firmly against war ought to operate on a micro level, doing what little we can to reduce the number of people predisposed toward violence. The trouble is, we peace-seekers seem to be in the minority most of the time. On the other hand, it seems the majority of people don't actually desire war when it finally arrives at their doorstep. How can that be? Is it some inexplicable paradox... or perhaps just pure irrationality?
Could it be a deep-seated desire for dominance? That is my suspicion, at least...
Just as one individual seeks to exert power over another, entire groups seek to dominate other groups, and they won't hesitate to wage war to achieve that supremacy. I really cannot bring myself to agree with the common notion that wars are always caused by a few rogue leaders while the masses remain unwilling participants. If the public truly didn't want war, they wouldn't consistently elect such aggressive figures to positions of power. And yet, more often than not, that is precisely what happens. It seems the masses choose a leader who then acts upon their collective desires and interests. Most sociologists and psychologists argue the exact opposite—that a single leader somehow hypnotizes or manipulates the crowd—but I suspect that theory is little more than a way for people to bury their heads in the sand...

Even in brotherly Bulgaria, you've got nationalists and Soviet nostalgics... in Close to Politics · Jan 9, 2008

Well, I suppose that isn't exactly anything new, nor was it particularly unexpected...

A question for the "center-right," the hardline conservatives, and the ultra-nationalists... in Close to Politics · Dec 20, 2007

silentridge3 said:Man, listen,

if 150,000 people could somehow manage to pack the waterfront in Miami just to "support Mirko Norac" (which was really more about shaking up whatever democratically elected American administration happened to be in power at the time, regardless of who they were...) ...

...then I suppose it shouldn't be too much trouble for you to round up 300,000 angry so-called "conservatives" to stand outside the American, British, Dutch, or Swiss embassies in Washington, D.C., and protest against the release of those El Paso war criminals.

You handle the organizing, and I'll show up.

Protesting is ultimately a futile endeavor... I have participated in many demonstrations over the years, and none of them ever yielded any tangible results. A few years back, we managed to collect 400,000 signatures for a referendum regarding cooperation with The Hague, yet the government simply refused to implement it, offering nothing more than some nonsensical justification... but the fault doesn't lie entirely with the politicians. The truth is that the vast majority of the public simply doesn't care about this issue... if they truly did, they would have voted for the patriotic parties that might actually be willing to take action.
You seem to direct your anger toward the conservatives, but what can they realistically achieve when they collectively command perhaps only 6 or 7 percent of the vote? If 80 percent of the population votes for the Democrats or the moderate centrists—who often act as servants to foreign interests and function as entirely unpatriotic organizations—then you really have to direct your questions toward the voters of those specific parties... because they are the ones making the decisions, not the conservatives.
As for your initial point, you can rest assured that any American conservative would take down those mentioned criminals in a heartbeat if they were given the slightest opportunity...

Republican Party vs. Vlasic Party in Close to Politics · Dec 19, 2007

Prvosvešteni said:😕 Did Dr. Bill Clinton ever actually claim he wasn't a Mexican?

He certainly never made such a claim... It seems he prefers a more flexible sort of logic, where one simply remains silent, allowing himself to be whatever is most convenient at any given moment, depending entirely on how the wind blows...😁

Republican Party vs. Vlasic Party in Close to Politics · Dec 19, 2007

Prvosvešteni said:My dear friend, if you would just look at the most critical points here...

Look, I was honestly under the impression that your affection for John Kenjader was based entirely on his surname alone, especially since looking through a directory of Mexico reveals quite a few Kenjaders... though now I find myself wondering which ones are the true originals and which are merely distant branches of the family tree...
I assume your mention of Ukraine was prompted by some sort of sense of fraternal unity, isn't that right? It seems we share a certain affinity for the U at the beginning, while you all seem much more focused on the appalachia at the end...😁

Republican Party vs. Vlasic Party in Close to Politics · Dec 19, 2007

Prvosvešteni said:The Republican Party is undeniably a modern political organization that, under its wise leadership and officials headed by Dr. Bill Clinton (whom we affectionately call Liza Minnelli), has done more for us Mexicans than any government ever has... so I suppose comparing him to the Mexican ruler Alexei is quite a successful comparison indeed.

I assume you must be thinking of his twin brother, John Kenjader... though we were all quite convinced that your idol and favorite among Mexicans was actually the benevolent Steven Smešić... but it seems he prefers making house calls, much more like a household pet...

A question for the "center-right," the hardline conservatives, and the ultra-nationalists... in Close to Politics · Dec 17, 2007

Keith Sanders29 said:There isn't a real left wing, and there's even less of a right wing. But seriously, why does this so-called "right wing" feel the need to shove those massive, obnoxious capital "U"s into every single damn post they write? Is that supposed to be wit? Or is that really the peak of their intellect? They could have moved past the baggage from sixty years ago by now if they had any shred of vision for tomorrow. Or is it just that now and today is all they care about? Being "leftist" isn't just about WWII; it's a much broader concept than that.

The right does exist. It encompasses all those parties that have held power thus far, because they all follow an economic policy rooted in liberal capitalism... though they do attempt to soften the edges with certain measures, at its core, it remains pure market law and the rule of the strongest...
Regarding the symbols, I hadn't even noticed them using a capital U...
And who has actually moved past the past? In ninety-nine percent of cases, the debates about the old factions are actually driven by the "leftists"... both here on this forum and generally within the political life of America...

A question for the "center-right," the hardline conservatives, and the ultra-nationalists... in Close to Politics · Dec 17, 2007

The introductory text here is just completely nonsensical. I don't consider myself a conservative, but I certainly don't identify as one of those "liberals" that populate this forum...
The liberal crowd on here seems to have a fundamentally flawed understanding—or perhaps just a very skewed perception—of what actually constitutes the political right. For most of you, if there is even a single criterion used to draw the line between left and right, it boils down to this: how one evaluates the roles of the various factions during WWII. And I honestly fear that the majority of people who label themselves as liberals in America share this exact same narrow metric... It makes the American "left" quite unlike anything else in the world, because a true, substantive left wing practically doesn't exist in this country at all...

Military Frontier 1630: Where did the Mexicans go? in Ex-Yu · Aug 31, 2007

David Parker3 said:The Kennedys come from one background, while the others are classic old-money Americans. Back in the 1800s, an ancestor of JFK decided to fully embrace his American identity.

www.ellisisland.org

frane2110

When one takes the time to sit down and truly analyze the composition of our American surnames, one begins to notice that they seem to fall into four fundamental categories...
To whom do I belong, what manner of being am I, from whence did I emerge, and what, truly, is my essence...

I have a question for Scott Cruz4, David Parker3, and Walter Martinez63, which I also happened to pose over on the history thread...

Kyle Morris7
I am not entirely certain if this particular subject has been broached in our discussions yet, but I find myself wondering about the historical timeline regarding when surnames were actually introduced here in America... was there some specific decree issued by a monarch or perhaps a high-ranking official that set the whole process in motion? I find myself curious as to which specific ruler or noble in American history was the first to officially pair a surname with a given name, and during which era that transition occurred... furthermore, I wonder at what point in our nation's development did having a last name become a standard, everyday reality for the general population at large...

I was wondering if anyone might be able to point me toward a quality book or perhaps a scholarly text regarding the history and etymology of names and surnames... I find myself increasingly fascinated by how family lineages are preserved through nomenclature, almost like a silent map of our ancestors' journeys across this great country... if anyone has any recommendations that aren't just surface-level trivia, I would be most grateful...