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.
So hundreds of years ago tribes in the arctic could describe a desert even though they'd never seen one or known anyone who had?
I dont think so. You make it sound like the arctic was as crowded as the Bronx in the 50s and a kid from middle school A had to beware of kids from middle school B and which streets he crossed.
They were primitive people. They did not know what existed hundreds and hundreds of miles in any direction. So they
And even if they did, walking from the arctic to some nice gulf of Mexico waterfront property was not going to happen in a summer.
The problem for the Eskimos (that is not a derogatory term) is that they encountered hostile people right at the edge of the boreal forest. Getting past that was a problem.
The problem for the Eskimos (that is not a derogatory term) is that they encountered hostile people right at the edge of the boreal forest. Getting past that was a problem.
That's neither here nor there. They didn't know what was in present day USA. Caribou and bird migration didn't tell them that.
They could not describe the Pacific northwest, or how it turns into desert if you keep going south. They'd have known only what they knew; everywhere we go is cold and the seasons are the same. They absolutely did not know "exactly " what was to the south. That's ridiculous to suggest.
That's neither here nor there. They didn't know what was in present day USA. Caribou and bird migration didn't tell them that.
They could not describe the Pacific northwest, or how it turns into desert if you keep going south. They'd have known only what they knew; everywhere we go is cold and the seasons are the same. They absolutely did not know "exactly " what was to the south. That's ridiculous to suggest.
They knew enough to know that trees grew to the south and they would encounter hostile First Nations (or Native Americans in modern-day Alaska).
They knew enough to know that trees grew to the south and they would encounter hostile First Nations (or Native Americans in modern-day Alaska).
Would you go back and read post #35 and look at the comment I was responding to.
Everything you've been saying since you quoted my response to that has been nuts.
They had never known a single human being who had seen anything other than the climate they lived in. They would not have had the slightest inclination that anything other than the arctic existed.
Trees grew to the south? So what? They somehow knew about Florida because trees grew to the south? Literally makes zero sense.
It is my understanding that the colony of New Amsterdam wasn't founded until 1623.
It is also my understanding that the Pilgrims were establishing their colony under the auspices of the Plymouth Company and that they were headed to the mouth of the Hudson River, but stopped at Cape Cod because they were low on supplies and their ship was in need of repair.
Caribou migrate for different reasons including food, weather, predator and insect avoidance. And not all caribou migrate. They dont go south "because its warmer".
Part of their movement is based on insect avoidance where they go to harsher areas.
Animals going from where it's cold as hell to somewhere else where it's cold as hell doesn't mean primitive people knew it was more moderate thousands of miles to the south.
It's not like they could have drawn any kind of world map and color coded it to show various climates. They knew only what they had lived. Just because people migrated thousands of miles over thousands of years doesn't mean specific individuals at any given time understood that history or the distances travelled.
Ok, now tell me how important storytelling was to the culture and I'll ask if you've ever played the game telephone.
Would you go back and read post #35 and look at the comment I was responding to.**********
Trees grew to the south? So what? They somehow knew about Florida because trees grew to the south? Literally makes zero sense.
Neither Post 35 nor the post to which you responded are perfect. I really wish that you would take the personal edge off your posts. People who had multiple words for snow were certainly somewhat knowledgeable about weather even if cacti and palm trees were unknown to them.
Neither Post 35 nor the post to which you responded are perfect. I really wish that you would take the personal edge off your posts. People who had multiple words for snow were certainly somewhat knowledgeable about weather even if cacti and palm trees were unknown to them.
Personal edge? Please.
Someone asked a question that we've all probably wondered about at some point. I responded. From there you made absolutely ridiculous claims and I responded to those ridiculous claims.
I never claimed they knew nothing of weather. They would have had to have been somewhat knowledgeable about THEIR weather to survive. They would have had no knowledge about other lands far away. "They", speaking broadly about arctic peoples hundreds of years ago and much, much further back, didn't have a way to know those lands even existed.
Multiple words for snow or anything else proves nothing beyond the fact that they had language. You're trying really hard to put square pegs in circular holes. Especially since there are multiple types of snow. Yes, they had language.
I live in Massachusetts and it was 30 degrees today. I was out at the wood pile and thought about the energy/work it took to cut up the wood. I do like chopping wood and we burn it in our woodstove everyday to help offset heating costs and to be cozy.
Back in the day when the Pilgrims first arrived why did they stay here? If they had moved South they would not have had to live a harder life by farming in season, chopping wood to keep warm and to cook and simply deal with freezing temps. As the decades went on Boston and New York City became the hubs of the new world. Why? if the citizens had moved South to find and found other port cities they would have had an easier life.
Today we have our retired heading South so they don't need to deal with the cold and snow. It is much easier to get food and keep from freezing to death but back in the day it was a daily struggle.
The south is super humid. I wonder how the colonials dealt with that while having no air conditioning.
The south is super humid. I wonder how the colonials dealt with that while having no air conditioning.
They got acclimatized to their environment.
In a book I read regarding the Constitutional Convention, there was a passing statement about how New England delegates found summer in Philadelphia to be hot and humid, while the Southern delegates found it to be cold and clammy.
There are many reasons why New York City wasn't selected for the US Capitol District - the fact that the Southerners couldn't stand the cold weather was one of those reasons.
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.
