This is getting a bit far afield. "Decimation" was, indeed, a policy,
well-documented, of the Roman Imperial military. It was also practiced on
the army itself for failure in the line of duty. Conscription always has its
consequences. Nevertheless, none of this speaks to the issue of who made
what. I have seen "Incaic" salt-glazed 17th century ware in Peru --
presumably made by Indians for the conquistadors and their ilk. Let's get
back on point, please.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lyle E. Browning" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2004 12:23 PM
Subject: Re: Colono label & the extinction of the Chumash


> On Jun 12, 2004, at 10:17 AM, Jim Bowles wrote:
>
> > Hello Ron and all,
> >
> > By what ever label one wishes to use .. the extinction of the native
> > Chumash {one of the peoples
> > from S.W. California} was nothing less than brutal.
> >
> > But I think the decimation
>
> Terminology creep just drives me up a wall. Decimation is taking one of
> ten. "To encourage the others" was the common French phrase. But folks
> use it to mean extermination, extinction, annihilation, obliteration.
> They're not synonyms.
>
> The electronic Merriam-Webster dictionary has as a third meaning to
> drastically reduce in number. The earlier Webster's New International
> Dictionary has a third meaning of "considerably reduce in number"
> referring to epidemic disease reduction.
>
> Terminology creep has gone from the original tenth to an undefined
> considerably reduce (?ca. 25%) to a further undefined drastically
> reduce (?50%) to a popular exterminate (?90-100%).
>
> Might we all be a bit more precise, please?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Lyle Browning