Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
American Indians were primitive Stone Age people.
They didn't OWN land, they hunted and foraged upon it.
They had no agriculture, no permanent towns, no domesticated animals ...they didn't even have a wheel!
They had no alphabet, no written history, no numbers and no metal for tools.
They did not mark time except in the most imprecise way.
They lived in tents or caves, or holes in the ground in the desert.
Indigenous people of North America were pretty much cave men.
Europeans were immigrants and the native peoples were the first anti-immigrants.
But they were disparate, disorganised and .. uh, primitive, .. so they resorted to killing settlers.
Were they really surprised when the cavalry came .. and they were @#$%% ??
American Indians were primitive Stone Age people.
They didn't OWN land, they hunted and foraged upon it.
They didn't "own" land in a legal sense, but they certainly claimed territory as their own. If you approach a den of wolves, you might learn about "ownership" in a natural sense - the biological roots of what we think of as legal ownership today.
Quote:
Europeans were immigrants and the native peoples were the first anti-immigrants.
"Immigration" is a pointless anachronism in that setting. You don't "immigrate" onto the territory of a native species of plant or animal. You simply take the land. The crucial difference here is that the "native species" in this case were clans of human beings who had a history of going to war with each other over various things, including territorial wars. If you invade the territory of a territorial species, you are likely to get attacked. It's a very natural aspect of natural history. The whole business played out a bit like a Greek tragedy. The natives simply did what it was in their nature (our own biological nature) to do. They weren't "anti-immigrants" any more than they were anti-establishmentarians.
American Indians were primitive Stone Age people.
1 They had no agriculture, no permanent towns, no domesticated animals
2 They had no alphabet, no written history, no numbers
3 They did not mark time except in the most imprecise way.
4 They lived in tents or caves, or holes in the ground in the desert.
5 Indigenous people of North America were pretty much cave men.
Wow, you are showing your ignorance of Indians!
1 They definitely had agriculture, and were experts in the "Three Sisters" of three plants that grow exceedingly well together. They definitely had permanent settlements and areas where they connected with the particular land they lived on. They had domesticated animals, including horses (which they rode extensively) and dogs.
2 They had their own languages, oral history, and used stone and wood extensively for tools. So what about numbers? They weren't damn accountants! That's utterly stupid to fault them for something that would be completely trivial and unnecessary to them. That would be calling us idiots for not knowing how to put together igloos.
3 They marked time by landmarks, the sun, and the stars. They could mark time this way better than any average American could do these days.
4 So what? So did many early and poor Americans. That they didn't have houses and castles means no less of them. It was perfectly comfortable to them, and they had no need luxury; all of which made them superior to our flimsy and feeble selves.
5 According to your myths and ignorance, but not according to them, and what researchers know. They know well that many of the Indian tribes had advanced cultures and histories. But your statements are along the narrow and judgmental lines of those who promoted and sustained slavery. Shame on you!
Last edited by Thoreau424; 08-09-2018 at 11:02 AM..
1 They definitely had agriculture, and were experts in the "Three Sisters" of three plants that grow exceedingly well together. They definitely had permanent settlements and areas where they connected with the particular land they lived on. They had domesticated animals, including horses (which they rode extensively) and dogs.
2 They had their own languages, oral history, and used stone and wood extensively for tools. So what about numbers? They weren't damn accountants! That's utterly stupid to fault them for something that would be completely trivial and unnecessary to them. That would be calling us idiots for not knowing how to put together igloos.
3 They marked time by landmarks, the sun, and the stars. They could mark time this way better than any average American could do these days.
4 So what? So did many early and poor Americans. That they didn't have houses and castles means no less of them. It was perfectly comfortable to them, and they had no need luxury; all of which made them superior to our flimsy and feeble selves.
5 According to your myths and ignorance, but not according to them, and what researchers know. They know well that many of the Indian tribes had advanced cultures and histories. But your statements are along the narrow and judgmental lines of those who promoted and sustained slavery. Shame on you!
WOW, you are showing YOUR ignorance of history.
Planting a few seeds is NOT agriculture on a scale that can support a permanent town .. it's a garden.
Using stone and wood for tools = STONE AGE TOOLS. Thanks for making my point.
Horses were brought over by the Spaniards and were NOT NATIVE to the America's!
One of the hallmarks of civilization is the development of writing, the act or art of forming visible letters or characters to articulate ideas; New World Indians had neither.
A five year old can mark time .. one Mississippi, two Mississippi... but to tell time you need a stable unit of time measurement from minutes to years.. you need a CALENDAR.
I could go on, but this is a waste of my time.
Last edited by PamelaIamela; 08-09-2018 at 12:15 PM..
^ Their blood was red like ours. They valued food, shelter, and often clothing (hides, feathers, etc.) They nurtured their families. They valued their lands. They had culture and histories. They felt pain. They lived, breathed, and dreamed, to say only a few characteristics. Some would go further too, that they had (and have) a soul, which connects them to the Great Spirit (i.e. God).
They were no less than any one of us. To say otherwise is to exhibit the worst of humanity: a cold, dark, narrow, and racist mentality; the same exact mentality that devalued the African race. That foul pugnacity, along with intrusion and meddling, was the perfect reason and justification for them to defend themselves and even attack. That's another respectable attribute of theirs; the willingness to counter injustice. They were no passive, brainless dummies. They defended their children, elders, communities, and land as we would in the same situation.
Last edited by Thoreau424; 08-09-2018 at 01:15 PM..
1 They definitely had agriculture, and were experts in the "Three Sisters" of three plants that grow exceedingly well together. They definitely had permanent settlements and areas where they connected with the particular land they lived on. They had domesticated animals, including horses (which they rode extensively) and dogs.
2 They had their own languages, oral history, and used stone and wood extensively for tools. So what about numbers? They weren't damn accountants! That's utterly stupid to fault them for something that would be completely trivial and unnecessary to them. That would be calling us idiots for not knowing how to put together igloos.
3 They marked time by landmarks, the sun, and the stars. They could mark time this way better than any average American could do these days.
4 So what? So did many early and poor Americans. That they didn't have houses and castles means no less of them. It was perfectly comfortable to them, and they had no need luxury; all of which made them superior to our flimsy and feeble selves.
5 According to your myths and ignorance, but not according to them, and what researchers know. They know well that many of the Indian tribes had advanced cultures and histories. But your statements are along the narrow and judgmental lines of those who promoted and sustained slavery. Shame on you!
Perhaps they had "advanced" cultures, but it would seem that they were not advanced enough. They had their wonders, but they hadn't come up with the wheel or metallurgy yet. The question which might be asked is "Why wasn't it the western inhabitants showing up in boats to take over Europe?" There is probably a way to discuss that limiting oneself to the actual facts available, without trying to argue superiority/inferiority, but whenever the issue is race or ethnic oriented, things tend to cross over into anger and agendas.
Perhaps they had "advanced" cultures, but it would seem that they were not advanced enough. They had their wonders, but they hadn't come up with the wheel or metallurgy yet. The question which might be asked is "Why wasn't it the western inhabitants showing up in boats to take over Europe?"There is probably a way to discuss that limiting oneself to the actual facts available, without trying to argue superiority/inferiority, but whenever the issue is race or ethnic oriented, things tend to cross over into anger and agendas.
It wasn't used for transport because there were no draft animals to pull something with wheels as there were for Europeans.
True, but you do not need a draft animal to make use of a wheelbarrow.
I encountered an enormous amount of praise for "Guns, Germs and Steel" before I got around to reading it. As I progressed into it however, I kept wondering....when does the author move past his defense of geographic determinism and present some new thesis? Well, he never did. I'm down with geographic determinism as one of the great shapers of history, but still haven't figured out why Professor Diamond was being so heavily saluted for recycling an existing idea.
True, but you do not need a draft animal to make use of a wheelbarrow.
No.
But the wheelbarrow appears in the historical record millennia after use with draft animals. Culture after culture was exposed to the benefits of the wheel for thousands of years before thinking to apply it to human-borne vehicles. Thus, it seems odd to be mystified that the Mesoamericans, who never had the benefit of seeing the wheel at work, generation after countless generation, didn't think up the wheelbarrow.
The wheelbarrow is clearly a secondary technology in the historical record.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
