This is not a pitting of Bosda. (He lives too near me for that.)
But he’s got some ‘splainin’ to do!
I read a couple of comments in another thread that seemed to be out of context. So Bosda’s quotes may be in reference to another discussion that I haven’t read. But they did leave me curious.
The quotes are from Post #34 in this thread:
Surely your comments must be an inside joke.
I had forgotten about Chaco, yes.
But, so what?
It was abandoned long before Colombus’s arrival in the New World, wasn’t it?
And we weren’t greeted by representatives of the Chaco civilization when we landed at Plymoth rock, now were we?
The Hunter-gatherer societies we met in North America in Pioneer days were not similar to the Chaco people in any way.
Still a wilderness. <shrug>
Hunter-gather isn’t really an accurate term, either. The Native Americans that the colonists met way back when were at least partiallly (possibly mostly) agrarian. They’d been so for around 3000 years (before any contact with the Mesoamericans). They’d also been making pottery for a similar lenth of time. They weren’t exactly the primitive savages that are so often depicted.
So, you really weren’t kidding? The people who lived in Chaco Canyon were advanced in ways that are mind-bending.
Thanks for your response and no offense was intended. But I guess the “so what” was that you were mistaken. So what? 
Bosda. This is as good a place as any for me to ask “What the Fuck is Up?”
I’m asking this as a poster, not a mod.
You’ve degenerated this year into such cynical dialogue, that I seriously think you have a problem.
If I’m misreading things, then defend yourself. But I don’t think I’m alone here.
Uh…just what are you talking about?
Seriously, I have no clue.
What about the Aztecs?
They had metal working, agriculture, writing, paved roads and cities.
Imagine some explorers from a fictitious version of America, 2000 years ago, heading off to explore the unknown lands of Europe. They end up in Ireland. They encounter a tribal people, with little overall structure, no great technological achievements (none to compare with sailing across the Atlantic, anyway), etc. Should they conclude that all of Europe is the same?
Well, he did say NORTH America in his original post. Not that I’m endorsing the exact phrasing he used or anythig…
Mexico is in North America.
Yes.
But Mexico culturally part of South America.
Their Aztecs had far more in common with peoples further south than from the North.
In any case, the original question dealt with the condition of that part of North America that the early pioneers explored, during the Colonial era & after.
Chaco Canyon was abandoned long before then.
GorillaMan --PC much? None of those things happened. Fairy tale stuff.
Nothing of what you posted had anything to do with the initial thread.
And it doesn’t relate to any argument I made either.
You been hittin’ the ketchup bottle too hard.
My bad, For some reason I was thinking Inca, not Aztec, even though you obvioulsy wrote Aztec.
Why? 'Cause they all speak Spanish? :dubious: You do realize that this wasn’t the case before Columbus, right?
And this is significant why? Does this make them somehow less “native American”?
So, the most accurate yardstick for comparing civilizations is the type of building materials that were used? News to me. I guess I live in the wilderness, too, as my house is mostly made of wood, as are the rest of the houses in my suburb. Or does sheetrock count as “stone”?
What does either of these sentances have to do with my posts?
Read the damn link, you fucking goofball! :mad:
But people in your community know how to build lasting structures in stone or brick. And I’m certain your home is far more advanced than a bark hut.
All right, but aside from that, what have the Aztecs ever done for us?
[runs away]
Well, it’s also more advanced than a thatched cottage, so that doesn’t really prove much of anything, does it?
Your argument seems to be that, because some Indians in an arbtrarily designated area chose wood and hide as their primary building material, this makes them “less advanced” than people who built out of stone (which, again, includes a vast number of Indians). My argument is that permanence of structures is entirely irrelevant to cultural advancement. There is not, so far as I know, any particular abundance of stone quarries in the Great Plains. For the Plains Indians, building out of stone was simply not an option. Instead, they invested a great deal of skill and craftsmanship into building homes out of buffalo hide. Similarly, in California and New England, while there was plenty of available rock, there was even more available timber, and cutting down trees is a lot easier than hewing stone blocks. Since wood served their needs just as well as stone, and wood was easier to work with, why should they bother to develop advanced masonry skills?
The bottom line is, the availability of natural resources does not determine the level of advancement of a culture: it is how they make use of the resources at hand that is important.
And if you think making a bark hut is easy, let’s see you build one.
So sorry to hear that you’ve lost your frickin mind. I’ll help you look for it. Marble-sized and puce in color, yes? I’ll check in the sofa cushions.
Every single resource needed to build a stone building, or even a spilt level duplex with attached garage & hot tub, can be found in the US.
But the Indians lacked both the tech knowledge and the social organization to build them.
This thread is infested with people who confuse “political correctness” with fact .
Was the US a wilderness at the dawn of the Colonial Era? Yes.
Okay, exactly what did I say to you that deserved a personal insult?
Yes, all those resources are available when you consider the entire continent of North America. There was no one tribe in North America that had access to all of North America. They had to make do with what was at hand.
They didn’t need the tech knowledge. What advantages would stone houses provide that they housing they used did not already provide?
Again, an uncalled for ad hominem. Looks like samclem might’ve had a point. Has anyone in this thread said anything insulting to you, at all? You’re acting like a dick in this thread, and with no provocation that I can see. I usually make a point to read your posts, and this does seem very much unlike you.
Much of it was, yes. North America is gigantic, and the native populations were relatively small, especially when compared to over-populated Europe. But that has nothing to do with the construction materials of the Indians. As has been pointed out, most of the North American tribes had permanent structures and reasonably advanced agrarian practices. Paved roads and masonry walls are not the bare minimum requirement for civilization.