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.
In some of these countries, racial, national and cultural features get inter-mixed. For example, in Denmark, the top of the "racial" ladder is composed of "ethnic danes" and this is followed by immigrants from the west and finally by immigrants from non-western countries (although this doesn't seem to apply to Japanese or Chinese immigrants, who probably fall in the second category).
The last label sticks for the second- and third- generations, raised entirely in Denmark.
Hunter-gatherers are not efficient users of the land.
According to the Department of the Interior, a hunter / gatherer, such as a tribal Indian, needed 10 sq. mi. per person to sustain themselves. (This was for sizing reservations) (Think of a circle with a radius of 1.78 miles - for each person)
Based on continental USA 3,794,101 sq. mi., that’s only enough for a population of 379,410 indigenous people living a primitive lifestyle.
In the end, the sad fate of America's Indians represents not a crime but a tragedy, involving an irreconcilable collision of cultures and values. Despite the efforts of well-meaning people in both camps, there existed no good solution to this clash. The Indians were not prepared to give up the nomadic life of the hunter for the sedentary life of the farmer. The new Americans, convinced of their cultural and racial superiority, were unwilling to grant the original inhabitants of the continent the VAST PRESERVE of land required by the Indians’ way of life. The consequence was a conflict in which there were few heroes, but which was far from a simple tale of hapless victims and merciless aggressors. To fling the charge of genocide at an entire society serves neither the interests of the Indians nor those of history.
The BOTTOM LINE is survival of the most.
The culture that can produce, support, and expand the most will inherit the future.
Those that do not, go extinct.
Don't really want to get into this immigration/racial stuff but most native Americans were not hunter gatherers, or at least not in the traditional sense. They were farmers growing crops such as corn, beans, sunflowers, Jerusalem artichokes, squash etc. What they lacked were domesticated animals which they went and hunted for, but it wasn't as primitive either, they managed the land and created pastures in the forests by use of fire to increase animal density. There were also many relatively advanced societies prior to European plagues wiping them out. the most notable was the Mississippian culture.
Don't really want to get into this immigration/racial stuff but most native Americans were not hunter gatherers, or at least not in the traditional sense. They were farmers growing crops such as corn, beans, sunflowers, Jerusalem artichokes, squash etc. What they lacked were domesticated animals which they went and hunted for, but it wasn't as primitive either, they managed the land and created pastures in the forests by use of fire to increase animal density. There were also many relatively advanced societies prior to European plagues wiping them out. the most notable was the Mississippian culture.
Sweeping generalities notwithstanding, the various climate zones do not support the claim that "most" were farmers. The NE woodlands were anything but farmland. The dry prairie and deserts were also not well suited to agricultural settlements. And the scope of farming was inconsequential when compared to the Europeans' higher yield agriculture, which included such long term improvements such as orchards.
Lacking a written history, pre-Columbian estimates of the various cultures is open to conjecture.
Sweeping generalities notwithstanding, the various climate zones do not support the claim that "most" were farmers. The NE woodlands were anything but farmland. The dry prairie and deserts were also not well suited to agricultural settlements. And the scope of farming was inconsequential when compared to the Europeans' higher yield agriculture, which included such long term improvements such as orchards.
Lacking a written history, pre-Columbian estimates of the various cultures is open to conjecture.
perhaps you are correct that the majority of the land in the US did not contain farming societies, but I would assume those that did had much higher population densities so it's not outlandish to say that most (>50%) were farmers. But perhaps most cultures were hunter gatherers, but again they would have small populations.
And if the north east was unsuitable for farming how did the native Americans teach the pilgrims in Plymouth how to grow corn? If it wasn't for the generosity shown by the native Americans they would've all starved to death that winter.
First of all, for a European country to be below 95% white is impressive, so I call that diverse! Honestly...
Im using White Non-Hispanic as most do not classify Mestizos as purely European... I dont really know what percent of Latin Americans are purely European so I just stick to White-Non Hispanic.
In 1990 America was 73% White, then 67% White in 2000, and now 63% White... so projections by UN put America at 59% White by 2020 and 55% White by 2030... whites will further drop to 51% by 2040, and 47% by 2050...
However no one questions the "Europeannes" of America, it's DA RUSSIANS who are not "European enough"))) ROTFLMAO
perhaps you are correct that the majority of the land in the US did not contain farming societies, but I would assume those that did had much higher population densities so it's not outlandish to say that most (>50%) were farmers. But perhaps most cultures were hunter gatherers, but again they would have small populations.
And if the north east was unsuitable for farming how did the native Americans teach the pilgrims in Plymouth how to grow corn? If it wasn't for the generosity shown by the native Americans they would've all starved to death that winter.
There was no large scale agriculture, I think is what is being said here. The indigenous people of the Northeast practiced a mixed food economy with very localized horticulture (growing the "three sisters", corn, beans, and squash), heavily supplemented by hunting and gathering, which supported only small itinerant populations that would grow small plots during the growing season, but follow other resources semi-nomadicaly during the hunting season.
On the other hand, in the fertile Mississippi Valley, a wider application of advanced agricultural practices, allowed a larger scale agriculture resulting in staple grain surpluses that allowed major sedentary population centers and nascent urbanization to develop as seen at sites like Cahokia in Illinois.
Hunter-gatherers are not efficient users of the land.
According to the Department of the Interior, a hunter / gatherer, such as a tribal Indian, needed 10 sq. mi. per person to sustain themselves. (This was for sizing reservations) (Think of a circle with a radius of 1.78 miles - for each person)
Based on continental USA 3,794,101 sq. mi., that’s only enough for a population of 379,410 indigenous people living a primitive lifestyle.
In the end, the sad fate of America's Indians represents not a crime but a tragedy, involving an irreconcilable collision of cultures and values. Despite the efforts of well-meaning people in both camps, there existed no good solution to this clash. The Indians were not prepared to give up the nomadic life of the hunter for the sedentary life of the farmer. The new Americans, convinced of their cultural and racial superiority, were unwilling to grant the original inhabitants of the continent the VAST PRESERVE of land required by the Indians’ way of life. The consequence was a conflict in which there were few heroes, but which was far from a simple tale of hapless victims and merciless aggressors. To fling the charge of genocide at an entire society serves neither the interests of the Indians nor those of history.
The BOTTOM LINE is survival of the most.
The culture that can produce, support, and expand the most will inherit the future.
Those that do not, go extinct.
Have you heard of the five civilized tribes? They were the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek (Muscogee), and Seminole who adopted western values and were largly considered as "civilized" by white Americans, they even owned black slaves. But then Andrew Jackson shipped them all to Oklahoma because there were rumors that the Cherokee lived on land ladened with gold.
Have you heard of the five civilized tribes? They were the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek (Muscogee), and Seminole who adopted western values and were largly considered as "civilized" by white Americans, they even owned black slaves. But then Andrew Jackson shipped them all to Oklahoma because there were rumors that the Cherokee lived on land ladened with gold.
That is one extremely simplistic way to look at it.
Have you heard of the five civilized tribes? They were the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek (Muscogee), and Seminole who adopted western values and were largly considered as "civilized" by white Americans, they even owned black slaves. But then Andrew Jackson shipped them all to Oklahoma because there were rumors that the Cherokee lived on land ladened with gold.
If that's not a sign of being 'civilized' then I don't know what is!
I don't see diversity the same way some other people do. They see diversity within a country as a good thing, i see diversity throughout the world as a good thing. When i travel to Germany i want to see Germans as well as the land and when i travel to Japan i want to see Japanese as well as the land. If every country were to be racially diverse within, it would destroy this true diverse experience for me.
So far white countries are the main countries pushing this diversity thing within the country, most Asian countries aren't racially diverse and i don't see people trying to say diversity in Asia is a good thing nor do i see Asians saying they need diversity. White countries across Europe should have racial unity rather than racial diversity like a lot of other countries do. This diversity thing is retarded to me because the world already has much diversity, you don't need diversity all in one area of the world.
Some countries in Asia that i've looked into like having racial unity and if you just tried to push this racial diversity thing on them like is being done in European countries they would think you're crazy and they wouldn't accept it (at least at first). I think European governments and some European people are being too accepting. Based on my experience i love the unity in Asian countries. I love visiting Asian countries and seeing a huge majority of Asian people. If i visited a European country i would want to see a huge majority of European people and diversity destroys this for me.
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.
