Rooves, you are unable to support your uneducated opinion of the peoples you besmirch by saying they are not as advanced as cultures that, unless I am dearly mistaken, still were in the habit of having members of the same family/ies marry and reproduce because they believed it would keep the blood pure. Evidently they didn’t sense that all the inbreeding was causing not pure blood but … well, nothing worth keeping around for very long.
Educate yourself on this matter which you wholeheartedly admit you know nothing about. THEN come back and say what you think and back it up with something slightly more substantial than “because I think so.” Because while that might be good enough for a book report, it does not hold sway here.
see, here’s the problem. It’s true that one is ‘allowed’ (in the sense of there’s no law against it, etc.) to have their own opinions. However, some one who seems to proud of the fact that they come up with their opinion based on “never having studied the subject at hand”, and “making sweeping generalizations based on that lack of knowledge”, might think of alternatives:
A. Refraining from asserting an opinion until one has some amount of data/knowledge of the subject.
B. ask questions about the subject, vs. asserting an uninformed opinion.
C. not comment about the subject at all, since there is a lack of critical information in order to offer up an informed opinion.
seems you’ve opted for :
D. assert not only the uninformed opinion, based on sweeping generalizations and a lack of critical information, but loudly proclaiming their ‘entitlement’ to hold said uninformed opinion, even in the face of some information presented that suggests that their essential assumptions were groundless.
Now, I agree that merely tossing insults your way isn’t the solution, either.
But, placing your virtual fingers in your ears chanting na na na boo boo, isn’t a good start either.
You’ve suggested that some day you may change your opinion. I suggest that perhaps you should look into at least having an informed one, or refrain from loudly and proudly proclaiming an uniformed one.
Yes, don’t forget that this whole thing was started because I said Unga bunga. Then some creep creates a thread in my honor. It’s not like I decided to jam my opinion down someones throat in a thread concerning native americans.
I simply stated (in the thread dedicated to fucking with me) that I was sick of hearing certain things, especially because it was one of these types that misinterpreted what I said in the first place.
Unga bunga was a reference to cavemen perhaps staring at a giant cliffside and deciding what to name their land.
Everything else was said just to be contrarian because most of you have snooty, shitty attitudes with a tinge of superiority complex. This whole thing got started because one persons ass was so tight, they couldn’t take a joke.
How many threads have I created in order to put someone in his place? Zero. This place is filled with board policemen and apparently thought policemen who tell me what I should or shouldn’t be discussing.
When you’re working with certain subjects, sweeping generalizations might be the way to go.
Also, If indains were riding around in canoes and europeans were crossing oceans in ships then I have every right to consider one more sophisticated than the other without taking a college course on it.
I’ll try to be civil and see whether it gets us anywhere. You’ve extrapolated a general conclusion from a particular fact. It didn’t take the Europeans long to realize that if they didn’t adopt the far more sophisticated fighting tactics of the Indians, they would need their ships to live on. Most of the millions of Indians who were wiped out died not from war, but from disease. If you’ll recall, Vespucci was criticizing the Indians for doing their blood letting on the legs rather than the arms. You’re measuring sophistication by a very short and narrow stick, and that’s what is wrong with your position.
Actually, it doesn’t. There’s more than one way to be either sophisticated or complex.
You should probably avail yoursel of The First Rule of Holes.
So, Rooves, how many of the above did not exist in the Americas at all prior to the arrival of Europeans? For “horseback riding,” let’s go ahead and substitute “animal husbandry.”
Well, I’ll just note for your own edification that half your list is incorrect.
Map making ( limited, but it existed ), writing and literacy ( 1,000 year pre-Colombian tradition in Mesoamerica ), bronze working, and certainly long-distance trade networks ( everywhere in the Americas ) and associated economies, were all found in the New World. Andean gold and silver-working, by the way, was probably at least the equal if not superior to any equivalent Old World work at the time.
As Monty obliquely points out, no horses=no horseback riding. But llamas and alpacas ( also, apparently, vicunas, which are no longer domestic ) were domesticated in the Andes, the first mostly for meat, the second mostly for a wool ( and apparently with a variety of distinct types for different textures and qualities ).
University is somewhat equivocal, insomuch as intellectual discourse, including metphysical examinations, certainly proceeded in different arenas.
Local navigation by currents and stars, for example by the Carib, was pretty darn good, but granted not as sophisticated technically as that of the Europeans.
Gunpowder and iron-working are your two unequivocal points.But then nobody has argued that the Americas was as technologically adept as the Old World.
In point of fact it is certainly arguable that European societies were a bit more complex than the societies of the Americas in some respects ( and not necessarily for any reasons having to do with technological superiority, which is almost a side issue ). However the relative gulf in complexity may not be as yawning as you seem to believe.
But it seems your main motivation for engaging in this argument seems to be exasperation with ‘hearing Americans whine about how white men stole the land from Indians and how sophisticated indians actually were’. That’s not a very good excuse for making a rather unfunny and potentially insulting joke in an only tangentially related thread, especially since your own knowledge base on the topic is admittedly poor. Next time instead of taking the easy cheap shot, which you apparently aren’t really well-equipped to defend, just swallow the urge to vent your frustrations and take wring’s option c) - just zip it.
If you want to learn or argue whether Amerindians were more or less complex or sophisticated than Europeans, there are better ways to do it than getting flamed in the Pit.
Oh and by the way - self-righteous polemicizers often exaggerate or make-up points to bolster their arguments. But that doesn’t mean that’s always the case. Somebody lecturing you might well be a jerk - but they also might be right. Instead of knee-jerking on little knowledge ( “I know Indians were less technologically advanced in some ways, not sure what ways, but somehow - therefore they were less sophisticated - therefore that’s how the lost their land” ), try reading up on the topic so you can authoritatively prove the said jerk wrong. And if they turn out to be right, accept it and just learn to shrug off the occasional over-eager beaver or find some other way of neutralizing them.
Tamerlane, I respect what you’re saying and thanks for taking the time to type it out.
It doesn’t take away from the fact that Libertarian (among others)is a pompous ass and if he can waste his precious time trying to argue with a dead stump then that is all that matters to me. If I’m an idiot, what does that make him?
That is a pretty silly concept . I hafta agree with ya there . The Europeans shoulda stayed with the sophisticated habit of ripping the hearts from prisoners of war and even voluteers to keep the Sun God happy . Human sacrifice has always been held in high regard in my book . I have a hard time believing north america was just a big happy place until whitey came along . There is no Utopia when you have more than one person there .
The point I’m trying to make is that EVERY culture since the dawn of time surely has customs or beliefs that can be argued to be either great or terribly stupid . Every culture probably has an arguement as to why its better then another . Is it really worth debating ? Who gives a shit ?
This thread makes me think of the fun loving people of the Inquisition " Kill the heretic ! " Love your neighbor huh ?
iampuhna, was that for me?, because if you like I can make a nice essay about the thread, it´s participants and their positions.
By the way, I DID read the OP AND what followed, my opinion is based on the whole thing.