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.
You most certainly have argued that. From your first post through several other following ones.
They had positive qualities you purposefully ignore as some justification.
They, like the subcontinent Indians, took much better care of their land/forestry than we are, and there is much to learn from it. Furthermore the chieftains had no hierarchical power creating a more egalitarian structure.
Even their farming methods were more advanced. Also read about the Eskimos.
Bison kept the grass fields healthy and offered Natives food and building material. The savage Americans slaughtered them for market demand and the evil American consumer took it all for their high living standards.
Damn them all.
Wasn't that done under President Lincoln's administration? I like that man less and less.
Wasn't that done under President Lincoln's administration? I like that man less and less.
Grant mostly through Hayes. By Garfield (1881) it was mostly just mopping up. Lincoln did have the Homestead Act passed during The Recent Unpleasantness, either 1863 or 1864. Also began serious planning for the Transcontinental Railroad.
Habitation requires rejuvenation, the wolves for example controlled the elk population, and changed their behavior allowing for shrubbery and trees to grow breeding more animal life.
Human agriculture erodes the soil and wipes out the arbor life. Little to their knowledge indigenous methods grow food not as large crop fields, but through permaculture which mixes shrubbery, trees, and plant food to model the natural ecosystem. This model is rejected by modernist because it is not efficient enough, but actually it could feed everyone.
Just make local control of land and production and formulate good behavior rather than rewarding endless profit and greed.
They had positive qualities you purposefully ignore as some justification.
You've placed the Indians on a pedestal from the first post, and argued with everyone who pointed out that they had negative qualities. Yes, they had good qualities as well, but you've spent this entire thread trying to pretend their good qualities were their only qualities and arguing with those of us who tried to introduce some semblance of reality to your fantasy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
They, like the subcontinent Indians, took much better care of their land/forestry than we are, and there is much to learn from it. Furthermore the chieftains had no hierarchical power creating a more egalitarian structure.
No, they didn't actually. Modern land management is much better than anything the Indians even attempted in most cases. Indians hunted many species to extinction, far more than Americans did. When the game died out, they moved and started the cycle again. The majority of Indians, especially those in the Great Plains region, were hunter/gatherers. It's a nomadic lifestyle, and has little to do with "land management". It's a lifestyle of stripping the land bare of game and forage then moving on to a new area.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
Even their farming methods were more advanced. Also read about the Eskimos.
When it comes to farming, the difference between Indians and Europeans/Americans is that the Indians were able to move when the fields went bad. When you only have 40 acres and you're trying to raise enough crops to feed your family with some extra to sell, that isn't an option. If the Indians had been stuck in one place, their fields would have gone sour rather quickly - as they did when the Indians were moved to reservations.
Tribes along the Eastern coast were more sedentary and did actually farm, but even they would move when their crops drained the land of nutrients.
Your entire view of American Indians is more skewed than a 1950s western, and has zero basis in reality or history.
Also, why do you keep bringing up Eskimos when talking about farming? For that matter, why are you calling them Eskimos instead of Inuits? Until recently, Inuits were not farmers. They were a hunter/gatherer culture.
You've placed the Indians on a pedestal from the first post, and argued with everyone who pointed out that they had negative qualities. Yes, they had good qualities as well, but you've spent this entire thread trying to pretend their good qualities were their only qualities and arguing with those of us who tried to introduce some semblance of reality to your fantasy.
No, they didn't actually. Modern land management is much better than anything the Indians even attempted in most cases. Indians hunted many species to extinction, far more than Americans did. When the game died out, they moved and started the cycle again. The majority of Indians, especially those in the Great Plains region, were hunter/gatherers. It's a nomadic lifestyle, and has little to do with "land management". It's a lifestyle of stripping the land bare of game and forage then moving on to a new area.
When it comes to farming, the difference between Indians and Europeans/Americans is that the Indians were able to move when the fields went bad. When you only have 40 acres and you're trying to raise enough crops to feed your family with some extra to sell, that isn't an option. If the Indians had been stuck in one place, their fields would have gone sour rather quickly - as they did when the Indians were moved to reservations.
Tribes along the Eastern coast were more sedentary and did actually farm, but even they would move when their crops drained the land of nutrients.
Your entire view of American Indians is more skewed than a 1950s western, and has zero basis in reality or history.
Also, why do you keep bringing up Eskimos when talking about farming? For that matter, why are you calling them Eskimos instead of Inuits? Until recently, Inuits were not farmers. They were a hunter/gatherer culture.
1. Their good qualities are all that matter as subject to the discussion. The fact that they fought eachother means nothing.
Even the American natives, not just the popularized ones, but say in South America practiced indigenous farming methods that were not the same as the crop field method we have today.
3. I call them Eskimos for ease of reference, and I bring them up (like I did before on this thread) because they were not an agricultural society to show a society with little natural resources can thrive culturally and politically without the enormity of wealth land development has brought.
There were just two herds, one private and Yellowstone which was federally protected. From these two seed herds, they have gone from just 300 to more than 500,000 today. They were saved from the brink of extinction.
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.
