#five nations

These Questions are the result of suggestions a the previous iteration.This category may include suggestions made too late to fall into the correct earlier time grouping. In some cases a culture lasted a really long time and I grouped them by whether it was likely the later or earlier grouping made the most sense with the information I had. (Invention ofs tend to fall in an earlier grouping if it's still open. Ones that imply height of or just before something tend to get grouped later, but not always. Sometimes I'll split two different things from the same culture into different polls because they involve separate research goals or the like).

At our front porch

In late summer, the fish of Lake Huron migrate closer to shore to spawn in the shallows, or in the streams and rivers that feed the lake.

And the commercial Native anglers follow them, setting their nets closer and closer to shore. I took these phots from the deck of our cottage. The nets are closer than I've ever seen them.

The Natives' right to fish with nets goes all the way back to an 1836 treaty between five Native nations and the federal government. Despite friction between the Tribal guys and us sports anglers, the treaty has been consistently reaffirmed in the courts.

On February 15th 1986 Scotland scored their biggest ever win against England in a rugby international.

They won the game by 33-6 at Murrayfield, with Gavin Hastings scoring 21 points in the match. Let's hope we can produce something like it a week on Saturday.

Here is a short report on that match, and below are video highlights, commentary of course by the late great Bill McLaren.

The first half was a dour affair, played on the kind of pitch that would earn you a sanction in the championship today. Gavin Hastings kicked four penalties in the half, Rob Andrew two and at the break there was little suggestion either side would run away with it. This near-as-damn-it parity would not last long, as Scotland produced 40 of the most scintillating Five Nations minutes.

And it is difficult to think of a better try by any team at Murrayfield than Scott Hastings’ try that afternoon. Five minutes into injury-time England mauled forward from the Scottish 10-metre line, only for the ball to squirt loose. Roger Baird, the left-wing, picked up and danced at pace 50 metres down the touchline, drawing England defenders towards him before looping a pass back over his own head to John Beattie. Beattie offloaded to Finlay Calder, who went into contact and recycled it back to the No8. On he went, through a gap down the middle, giving it right to John Jeffrey, into the 22 and on to Rutherford, with England chasing ghosts. The inside-centre Hastings was up in support and took the final pass to go under the posts with no Englishman able to lay a hand on the Scot.

Ultimately, this proved a bittersweet victory for Scotland. They were the best side in that year’s competition but lost the title on points difference to France.

“It is now more than three years since Peace was made between the King of Great Britain and you, but we the Indians, were disappointed finding ourselves not included in that Peace . . . “ 

The United Indian Nations to the Confederation Congress, 12/18/1786

File Unit: Letters from Major General Henry Knox, Secretary at War, 4/1785 - 7/1788

Series: Papers of the Continental Congress, 1774 - 1789

Record Group 360: Records of the Continental and Confederation Congresses and the Constitutional Convention, 1765 - 1821

Transcription:

The nations of Earth are widely varied in history, environment, and people, giving us a rich landscape of human society to view across the world. There is no one nation unimportant, and the goal of a world federation is to support and protect all of them. However, the development of recent world history in the wake of the World Wars has led to five nations in particular becoming prominent world superpowers, as evidenced by their position as permanent members of the United Nations Security Council — the People’s Republic of China, the Russian Federation, the French Republic (and, for purposes of this discussion, the rest of the European Union), the United Kingdom, and the United States of America. These are not the world’s only superpowers, but their position as founders and shapers of the post-WW2 world is undeniable.

Each of the UNSC Permanent Members is noteworthy among superpowers — the United Kingdom once ruled an empire that stretched across the world, and their influence has been left behind in language and culture (as evidenced by my writing in English). One of its offspring, the United States, grew from colonies to a major world power, and invented the nuclear bomb that set off an international arms race. The European Union is a potential model for stable world federation, and its members have all spread their ideas, languages, culture, and inventions around the world. The Russian Federation pioneered one of the largest and most well known examples of socialism in the 20th century, and is the largest nation in the world. The People’s Republic of China is one of the oldest lasting nations in the world, dating back to the dawn of civilization, and not only is it the most populous nation in the world, but it has emerged as an economic giant among the international economy.

For their participation in the Second World War (Russia, the US, and the UK fought to liberate France in Europe, China and the US pushed against Japan in the Pacific), each of these nations was granted access to the United Nations Security Council, a section of the UN dedicated to maintaining international peace. While regular members are rotated out to allow other nations to serve for two year terms, each of these nations has remained on the UNSC since its inception, only changing due to changes in the respective national governments for the members. They also receive the power to veto adoption of policy and elections of Secretary-General, an authority that has been exercised hundreds of times.

For these reasons, I believe that among the nations of the world, these five superpowers (counting the EU in lieu of France) are the keys to the foundation of eco-socialist federation, both economically and politically. The error in previous attempts to make an international alliance was the lack of coerciveness, the lack of participation. In both the League of Nations and the modern United Nations, there is little incentive for nations to cooperate for the greater good of peace, environmental security, and preservation of human rights. If, through democratic push or through the means of revolution, these five nations were to establish a precedent for the principles of eco-socialist federalism, to be the founders of a United World Federation and use their position in the world as leaders to open membership up to the entirety of the world, a greater chance could be secured of its establishment than done otherwise.

In order to create a strong and moral world federation, a constitution and set of guidelines for each nation must be laid out, rules that a nation must follow for membership, rather than allowing nations to operate within it that don’t abide by fundamental moral principles. In the United Nations, having as many nations as possible as members takes precedence over withholding the moral standards that the UN stands for; there is compromise and accommodation where there should not be. This makes for an easily formed but ineffective federation where oppressive nations hold the advantage, as they can simply disagree and overturn attempts at reform, since their peers have little way to force them without risk of conflict. There needs to be a point at which we put our foot down, at which we prioritize the protection of the people over the interests of the government. There needs to be a minimum set of legal qualifications for entry into the world federation; standards are worth the difficulty.

To back up this constitution and the subsequent protections of human rights and freedoms that it entails, as well as the willingness to put economic interests aside for the greater good, we must have founding nations that can act as the first examples of these guidelines, the first members of a federation that can demonstrate principles not just on paper but in action. These first nations need to be powerful, to show that the federation can stand even despite the costs it must undertake, and that the enemies that could conspire against it shall not easily destroy such a partnership of nations. If we start the federation off with morally uncompromising nations that are powerful to run a federation by themselves, it will demonstrate the strength and the worthwhileness to the world of membership, the value of the cost of moral and legal reform.

The Five Nations I have listed are some of the most powerful and influential in the world, acting as longstanding centers of culture, development, and economy. To sway them from their current political paths, and to get them all to commit to the foundation of a world federation would be difficult, for various reasons — opposition to socialist economics, current violation of civil rights, historical divides and grudges. However, I believe that if it were done another way, and if we were to try to form federation and gain their support afterwards, they would prove even more of a challenge as an adversary, opposing entry through the theatres of diplomacy or war. A fledging federation would already face enough difficulty trying to establish itself to come up at odds with major world powers in the way other socialist nations throughout history have. On the other hand, their resources and reputation would automatically make a young federation a considerable world power, and by that image alone could serve to sway many more nations to our side.

Democracy and diplomacy are always the first option, but to some degree, each of these nations would require some sort of reform, a preparation phase to move each into the proper position for entry into a world federation. While I have ideas, I know that I can only reliably speak for my own nation — the United States is plagued by discrimination and a propaganda-fueled hatred for socialist and internationalist principles. We have an idea of how to advance, but decades-old paranoia of social change and a widespread contentedness with the shallow victories of moderate liberalism keep us moving at a snail’s pace. Simply put, we have no time to wait years for the old and the wealthy to come around to diversity and livable salaries while people and the environment are suffering. Fear of public backlash from outdated ideologies keeps us in political gridlock, and we must be bold and not cautious in our time of need.

Other nations in the Five run along the same general trends, having not reached a level of societal development where the equality of gender, sexuality, race, religion, etc. are guaranteed, or where the social freedoms granted to citizens either restrict the ability to live a fulfilling live (i.e. violations of a citizen’s free speech) or put citizens needlessly in harm’s way (i.e. open and unrestricted use of firearms). As with my feelings about my own nation, I simply don’t have the patience for the slow crawl of politics when any delay harms others, and I don’t believe that anyone should have patience for it. It is not in the nature of citizens to restrict and disadvantage themselves, and it is often more in the interest of government. Government is meant to serve its people, and if it cannot evolve with the times, it is in need of an upgrade.

Should the need arise where these nations refuse to change and to meet the conditions necessary for a functioning eco-socialist federalist society, the option arises of simultaneous and coordinated revolution, at varying levels, of the five major superpowers. Once again, this proves no easy task, but the difficulty of this task does not diminish its worth. The first step is to spread the word, to make the concepts and principles of eco-socialist federation known, and when the people see that there is a way beyond war, pollution, and hatred of our fellow humans, they will rise up in support of it. It is the choice of their respective governments if they will heed the demands of the people, or if they will face the consequences for holding us back.

Through whatever means, to have the citizens of each of the Five Nations move to prepare their nations for entry into a federation designed to benefit all of humanity and all future generations will be the next step in securing eco-socialist federation. At some point or another, an eco-socialist federation will require the agreement of all nations to democratic structure, socialist economics, and environmentally friendly policy, and if we are to start with any nation, a coordinated turn of these five nations, whose position in the world is exemplified by their position as permanent members of the UNSC, would be the most advantageous and strongest start to a future world federation.

On April 11th 1999 Scotland won the final Five Nations Championship.

Scotland became champions when Wales beat England 32-31 at Wembley. If England had won the last game of the championship they would have been the champions. Both teams had won the same number of games, but Scotland won the title on points scored. The last time they won the championship was in 1990. The following season, Five nations became Six when Italy joined the competition.

On 21st March 1925 Murrayfield Stadium, the home of Scottish Rugby was opened.

Read the details of that first match which included an English team with a New York born player and a pack that included a Gaelic speaker!

  The first international match was held at Raeburn Place on the cricket field of the Edinburgh Academy in 1871 until the first rugby ground was built in Inverleith in 1879.

It was not until 1922, following debate about moving the game to Hampden and the lease expiry at Inverleith, that a deal was accepted for the 19 acres of land belonging to the Edinburgh Polo Club.

  Murrayfield officially opened its gates on March 21, 1925, with a match against England.

Fans came to the new ground in unprecedented numbers. "The public were badly 'packed': the gates were closed, thousands were turned away; many hundreds ran round the great embankment unable to gain even a glimpse of the pitch

It wasn't just the new stadium that attracted them. It is possible that the first match ever staged by Murrayfield was also the greatest. It matched arguably the best - and almost certainly the most exciting - Scotland XV with an England team whose sustained excellence matched any team in Five/Six Nations history. Scotland had scored 16 tries, including eight from wing Ian Smith, in their previous three matches. England had not lost to Scotland since 1912, and very little to anyone else. That entire period of seven seasons - five more had been lost to the war - had produced five Grand Slams and only two defeats, remarkable hammerings inflicted by Wales at Swansea in 1920 and Cardiff in 1922. 

England were unbeaten in their last 13 championship matches, and another win would give them an unprecedented hat-trick of outright titles.

It was to be a titanic struggle, played out, according to Jock Wemyss, writing in The Times, "on beautiful turf which had never been torn by a swinging maul or cut up by players' studs". William Luddington of England claimed the first points with a penalty goal, but the first try was scored by Scottish scrum-half Jimmy Nelson, who formed a Glasgow Academical half-back pairing with partner Herbert Waddell which attracted less attention than the Scots' all-Oxford three-quarter line, but was no less important. Full-back Dan Drysdale converted and Scotland led, but not for long.

The rumbustious Tom Voyce drove for the Scottish line and created space for pacy wing Richard Hamilton-Wickes to cross. Luddington's conversion made it 8-5 at half-time. That lead was extended not long after half-time when England captain Wavell Wakefield crossed, but the conversion failed under strange circumstances - there was a brief misunderstanding between Luddington and the England player placing the ball, then a required element in every kick at goal, and Scottish forward David McMyn raced from behind the goal-line to kick it away.

Inspired by the let off, and the fear of seeing a great season fizzle out, the Scots attacked and wing Johnny Wallace was sent careering down the touchline for a score which made him the first man to cross in every match in a season. No.8 Sandy Gillies converted and the gap was down to a point.

Scotland continued to attack. With a few minutes to go Waddell narrowly missed with a drop-kick, but was presented with a similar opportunity within little more than a minute and this time hit the target for a score then worth four points, and Scotland led 14-11.

With five minutes to go England attacked furiously. Their New York-born outside-half Edward Myers (typical of a cosmopolitan contest in which three of the Scottish threequarters were antipodean-born and England's pack included Roderick MacLennan, a Gaelic-speaking Scot whom the harrumphing EHD Sewell would say many years later "had no more qualification for England than Goebbels has to bat for Yorkshire") was halted at the line, centre Len Corbett broke through and fell through sheer exhaustion and, after a brutal melee in which Drysdale was kicked in the head, England full-back 'Tosh' Holliday was inches wide with a last-minute drop-goal attempt which would have won the match by a single point.

At the end, Wemyss remembered: "There was the astonishing sight of nearly half of the England team lying on the pitch for almost a minute in a state of exhaustion."

An exultant Glasgow Herald warned that 'It will be the duty of Scotland sides in future years to confirm the Murrayfield precedent'. But it took some confirming. It would be 59 years before Scotland added a second Grand Slam to the one won on their first day at Murrayfield.

In 1927, just two years after opening, the Scottish Rugby Union purchased additional land creating extra pitches and two stands alongside aiding transport with two bridges and a car park.

Due to the Scottish weather posing a threat to matches, in 1959 an electric blanket style cover was laid on the grounds to protect the soil from extreme weather conditions. This lasted for over 30 years but due to recurring maintenance problems was removed in 1991.

This heating method was replaced by a new gas-heated system with hot water pipes under the soil.