Way to go, France

#26
#26
therealUT said:
I am suggesting that the manner in which humans have cruelly subjugated and exterminated fellow humans in the pursuit of resources, throughout history, is patently evil.

With this view, one must assume humans are patently evil.

Native American history during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries was far less brutal and violent than European history during the same period. "Society" and "Civilization" do not equate, under historical examination, to less brutality and bloodshed.

I don't recall Sixteenth century Europeans commiting thousands of human sacrices when crops weren't fairing well.

However, I am actually arguing against forced assimilation. The Europeans that reached the Americans should have done what they could to work with the locals. If the locals did not want to work with them, then the Europeans could have left; instead, they opted to resort to violent coercive measures.

Again, not limited to Europeans in the Americas. I just finished Book1 of Heroditus' Histories and subjugation seems to have been the norm for at leat the last 5,000 years, not including pre-historical times.

Precedent in no way equates to righteousness.
Click to expand...

Did not mention righteousness as part of the discussion. I simply won't carry guilt for the settlement of the Americas 400 years ago.
 
#27
#27
Well i'm seeing more and more of that here these days. Go to Wal-mart and you might think you're in the middle east somewhere on one day , then go to Wal-mart the next day and you might think you're in Mexico City. Isn't America great? Come one come all milk us dry and let our stupid government give you everything but the shirts off our backs.

I like the rule, you're in a different country. If you want to wear your shower curtain around on your head go back to sand flea land.
 
#28
#28
CSVol said:
I don't recall Sixteenth century Europeans commiting thousands of human sacrices when crops weren't fairing well.
Click to expand...

No, instead they were busy "colonizing" the world; this was a peacefully serene practice.

The reformation, the counter-reformation, and the thirty years war were also very peaceful and highly diplomatic.
 
#29
#29
Cartervol said:
Well i'm seeing more and more of that here these days. Go to Wal-mart and you might think you're in the middle east somewhere on one day , then go to Wal-mart the next day and you might think you're in Mexico City. Isn't America great? Come one come all milk us dry and let our stupid government give you everything but the shirts off our backs.

I like the rule, you're in a different country. If you want to wear your shower curtain around on your head go back to sand flea land.
Click to expand...

You represent the epitome of American greatness.
 
#31
#31
Cartervol said:
Glad you think so. Being liberal and ignorant is more than likely your greatness.:eek:k:
Click to expand...

I don't imagine that following up your earlier post about by calling someone ignorant is the most prudent course of action. However, as long as you are trying to distance yourself from my manner of thought, I'm all for it.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#32
#32
DefenseisDesire said:
No obviously it was a good thing as the Indians were a heathen tribe of people with low technology that were on a mass of natural resources needing harvest. However, America is not.
Click to expand...

The "technology" gap actually didn't exist. This has been debunked by the serious scholoarship on the subject. Bows and arrows were by far more accurate and lethal than the firearms of the era, just for a start.

The Americas were home to the world's greatest cities at the time replete with significant (although different) cultural and scientific achievements. I believe the Americas possessed the two largest cities in world civilization ca 1500.

What they did have was a "biological" gap. There were simply few domesticates in the New World. This led to two problems. First, the horse was the greatest weapon of war up until the Polish cavalry charged the German armored divisions. The New World just didn't have any. Second, domesticates and squallid living in Europe (unknown in the New World) helped evolve smallpox and other nasty diseases which wiped out 90% of the New World population of ~ 15M souls. These people had the unfortunate luck to be living clean, in conditions unsuited for the evolution of massive plagues, and did not co-evolve with these deadly germs for a few hundred years.

Without germs, the descendants of the Iroquois, the Incas, and the Aztecs would still be ruling these continents. What that would mean to world history :dunno:
 
#33
#33
utgibbs said:
The "technology" gap actually didn't exist.
Click to expand...

Yes it did. Teotihuacan being bigger than London doesn't mean the technology was up to par. Native Americans weren't as primitive as some think, but Europeans were ahead of them technologically.
 
#34
#34
kptvol said:
Yes it did. Teotihuacan being bigger than London doesn't mean the technology was up to par. Native Americans weren't as primitive as some think, but Europeans were ahead of them technologically.
Click to expand...

No, there wasn't a significant technological gap as almost all of the scholarship in the last 20 years has demonstrated. Certainly, there were different technologies, but there was no significant gap. And this difference in technological styles marks how indelibly linked to culture technology is, actually.

The telling gap was the biological gap I discussed. Horses were huge, but germs (ironically) were much much bigger.
 
#35
#35
utgibbs said:
No, there wasn't a significant technological gap as almost all of the scholarship in the last 20 years has demonstrated. Certainly, there were different technologies, but there was no significant gap. And this difference in technological styles marks how indelibly linked to culture technology is, actually.

The telling gap was the biological gap I discussed. Horses were huge, but germs (ironically) were much much bigger.
Click to expand...

And your evidence of this is the bow and arrow. Good thing Europeans never had that. Building vessels capable of carrying large crews of people across continents probably shouldn't count for much.
 
#36
#36
kptvol said:
And your evidence of this is the bow and arrow. Good thing Europeans never had that. Building vessels capable of carrying large crews of people across continents probably shouldn't count for much.
Click to expand...

They weren't very large crews actually.

And people were on Australia 40,000 years ago.... I can't say I remember all the scholarship, but I do believe there was evidence of the Incas trading with Easter Islanders. But even here, Marco Polo walked to Asia from Europe. The Americas were well aware of the North-South peoples, but the notions of going East-West would naturally seem alien and rather foolish to their cultures. Greed and knowledge of the "long march" motivated Columbus.

Since the debate seemed directed towards war technology, it seemed the most appropriate starting point. Bows and arrows were far more effective than the firearms of the age. There are numerous examples of other technological innovations on par with or superior to any found in the Old World at the time.

However, the horse was and would remain the single most effective weapon of war until WWI. The lack of horses in the New World was critical, but I'm not sure you could describe that as a technological gap. But we see how the Native Americans quickly adapted to horses once they were introduced.
 
#37
#37
utgibbs said:
The "technology" gap actually didn't exist. This has been debunked by the serious scholoarship on the subject. Bows and arrows were by far more accurate and lethal than the firearms of the era, just for a start.

The Americas were home to the world's greatest cities at the time replete with significant (although different) cultural and scientific achievements. I believe the Americas possessed the two largest cities in world civilization ca 1500.

What they did have was a "biological" gap. There were simply few domesticates in the New World. This led to two problems. First, the horse was the greatest weapon of war up until the Polish cavalry charged the German armored divisions. The New World just didn't have any. Second, domesticates and squallid living in Europe (unknown in the New World) helped evolve smallpox and other nasty diseases which wiped out 90% of the New World population of ~ 15M souls. These people had the unfortunate luck to be living clean, in conditions unsuited for the evolution of massive plagues, and did not co-evolve with these deadly germs for a few hundred years.

Without germs, the descendants of the Iroquois, the Incas, and the Aztecs would still be ruling these continents. What that would mean to world history :dunno:
Click to expand...

Doubtful. If it's true that white European technology was inferior, they still had organization. A mob of 5000 can wipe out 100's of thousands if they are scattered in groups of of a few hundred here and there.
 
#38
#38
nbakerld said:
Doubtful. If it's true that white European technology was inferior, they still had organization. A mob of 5000 can wipe out 100's of thousands if they are scattered in groups of of a few hundred here and there.
Click to expand...

Mao, Che, Ho Chi Minh, and scores of persons in Iraq and Afghanistan would beg to differ.
 
#39
#39
nbakerld said:
Doubtful. If it's true that white European technology was inferior, they still had organization. A mob of 5000 can wipe out 100's of thousands if they are scattered in groups of of a few hundred here and there.
Click to expand...

European technology wasn't "inferior" per se. It was different. They, of course, had biological weapons that peoples of the Americas didn't have.

However, the peoples of the Americas were not scattered. They had the largest cities in world civilization. However, once smallpox decimated their populations, of course that's what happened.
 
#40
#40
utgibbs said:
Since the debate seemed directed towards war technology, it seemed the most appropriate starting point. Bows and arrows were far more effective than the firearms of the age. There are numerous examples of other technological innovations on par with or superior to any found in the Old World at the time.
Click to expand...

Yet you choose to cite a technology that Europeans had been using for hundreds of years by the time Columbus sailed across the pond.
 
#43
#43
utgibbs said:
European technology wasn't "inferior" per se. It was different. They, of course, had biological weapons that peoples of the Americas didn't have.

However, the peoples of the Americas were not scattered. They had the largest cities in world civilization. However, once smallpox decimated their populations, of course that's what happened.
Click to expand...

Like smallpox blankets?

I'm not saying they didn't have a few large cities, but the large majority were still scattered and unorganized. For instance, at the time if you invaded England all of the naval and ground forces on the entire island would be quickly in action to defend all Englishmen. If colonials were killing Indians in New England, it's not like the Cherokee were rising up, organizing, and coming to the rescue. If they had worked together they would have had numbers, but for the most part it was every tribe on their own, until it was too late.

btw, that kind of organization is considered technology.
 
Last edited:
#44
#44
kptvol said:
Yet you choose to cite a technology that Europeans had been using for hundreds of years by the time Columbus sailed across the pond.
Click to expand...

And you cite a technology peoples have been using for trans-oceanic voyages at least 40,000 years.

There was no war technology gap. Bow and arrows were far more lethal and accurate than the firearms of the times.

But the horse and sword were still the MI-Abrahams of the time.
 
#45
#45
nbakerld said:
Like smallpox blankets?

I'm not saying they didn't have a few large cities, but the large majority were still scattered and unorganized. For instance, at the time if you invaded England all of the naval and ground forces on the entire island would be quickly in action to defend all Englishmen. If colonials were killing Indians in New England, it's not like the Cherokee were rising up, organizing, and coming to the rescue. If they had worked together they would have had numbers, but for the most part it was every tribe on their own, until it was too late.

btw, that kind of organization is considered technology.
Click to expand...

The distance the Cherokees would have to come was larger than the distance the Spanairds had to travel! And it didn't matter because within two generations 90% of the continent had been depopulated!

:facepalm:
 
#46
#46
If you have a problem with France not allowing you to wear your burqa, guess what? Don't move there. I applaud them.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#47
#47
San Diego Vol said:
If you have a problem with France not allowing you to wear your burqa, guess what? Don't move there. I applaud them.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

so you're fine with a gov't stripping the rights of its citizens? Good to know
 
#48
#48
If I choose to move to a Middle Eastern country, I would not expect them to accept my Christianity with open arms. So, I would never move there.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#49
#49
utgibbs said:
The distance the Cherokees would have to come was larger than the distance the Spanairds had to travel! And it didn't matter because within two generations 90% of the continent had been depopulated!

:facepalm:
Click to expand...

Yes, the distance between tribes is another factor. They were unorganized. They would have been conquered no matter what.
 
#50
#50
San Diego Vol said:
If I choose to move to a Middle Eastern country, I would not expect them to accept my Christianity with open arms. So, I would never move there.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

not really the point. Would you be ok with having the same law in the US?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top