[Freakinoldguy]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

$1:

Native Americans: Stone Age People

Native Americans, even the great civilizations of Meso-America and the Andes, were stone age people. This is not to denigrate these people and their achievements, it is simply a statement of fact. This made their phenomenal achievements even more remrarkable. The stone age is usually defined as the era of human developent in which stone tools and weapons were used. Many advances could be made during the stone age, including achievements in fields often associated with more technologically advanced eras. The key technological development leasing to more advanced periods is metalurgy. And here the technological advance was the ability to generate high temperatures. The first step ws the Bronze Age nd finally the Iron age. Native american peoples had begun to nake some achievenents in metlurgy, but primarily work in precious metals like gold nd silver, metals with low melting points. They were on the cusp of the Bronze Age, but never made this vital transition. This is astonishing because the agricultural societies of the Old World had all energed from the Stone age by 2000 BC
.
Stress on Achievements
Academicians tend to stress the achievements of Native Americans, especially because its fits the modern ideological docrtines of cultural relativity and resistance to recognizing the achievements of the West. As a result, we find people taking offense atwhen we point out that that Native Americans were stone age people, even the most advanced Native americans had a stone age cilture. Here is a good example, "That's ignorant, and based on information about 50 years out of date. No respectable historians or most other scholars would make the "Stone Age" claim. Especially since the Aztecs, Incans, and Mayans had superior astronomy and mathematics to Europeans. Especially since they were more advances in medicine. Especially since Natives as a whole over both continents were far superior in their agriculture to Europeans. That's why 60% of the world's food supply was hybridized or domesticated by Native cultures. And finally, Natives were superior in their political theory and social organization in mostly being radically democratic at the time Europe was still in the dark ages politically by relying on absolute monarchy. The only two areas Europeans had superior technology in was shipbuilding and weapons." [Carrol] Our respnse was, "Very rude and poorly informed response. I must complement you, however, with how perfectly you have expressed PC thought. Now I suggest you actually read a little. The Native Americans were stone-age people as any scholar or historian would tell you if you bothered to read a little history. rather than spout off PC cultural relativity ideology. Do you even know what the Stone Age was? Wiki tells us, 'The Stone Age is a broad prehistoric period during which stone was widely used to make implements with a sharp edge, a point, or a percussion surface. The period lasted roughly 3.4 million years, and ended between 6000 BCE and 2000 BCE [meaning the Old World] with the advent of metalworking.' More than 3 millennia after the Old World entered the Bronze Age and Iron Age, Native Americans, including the most advanced civilizations, were still using stone tools Native Americans never entered the Bronze Age, although when the Spanish arrived, thy were on the cusp of it. This failure is one of the reasons a handful of Spanish defeated massive Native American armies. Even the advanced Native American people used stone tools. The magnificent Inca and Meso-American structures (many of which I have visited probably before you were born and before it was easy to get many sites) including the monumental buildings were done with stone tools. They also used stone and wood for their military Campinas--with the addition of obsidian tipped weapons. Native Americans had begun to work with metals, but mostly in precious metals for decorative / religious purposes. The accomplishments you mentioned were true, although I would take issue with the claim that agriculture was more advanced than in the Old World. They did develop the potato and corn which are central to modern agriculture. Now I never said that Native Americans were not very impressive people with enormous accomplishments . And I accept the examples you give. But that does not mean that they were not a stone-age people. And with all their accomplishment they had not even invented the wheel--something you fail to mention--did you even know it. Nor do you note along with impressive mathematical achievement, unlike the Europeans they did very little with it except for religious ceremonies and agricultural planning. And by the way for your PC proclivities it is you who has shown shocking disrespect for other people by assuming that Stone Age means primitive people without any real accomplishment. Tsk. Tsk." And I might add, I spent 2 years in the Peace Corps teaching children in Ecuador, most with Native American origins.

Overlooking Weaknesses
And thus the failures of Nativive Amrican civilization such the continued use of crude stone tools, limited metalurgical technology, failure to develop the wheel, lack of a fully developed written language, and absence of any movement toward scientific discipline. This is important, especially when viewed with their mny accomplishments. Academicians, especially ideologicaly oriented authors, commonly overlook or down play these weaknesses.

Important Question
Rather than trying to make the cultural relativity case, the question that should be asked and the really interesting question was why Native Americans were so far behind the Old world (both the West and China). We suspect that the reason so many scholars fail to ask this question is that it leads to answers that do not ideological conform to the desire to undermine the great achievements of the West. And part of this answer is isolation.

http://histclo.com/chron/na/stone/na-stone.html


We've done some pretty horrible things to the natives over the centuries but that doesn't mean we should be changing history to suit a political agenda. It's time to stop portraying their culture as anything more than what it really was. Stone Age because it doesn't benefit anyone and only creates more animosity.

OK, first off your entire argument rests on discounting the technological achievements of South American indigenous peoples. "They were the exception" is a cop-out.

Secondly, much of the technology you ascribe to European culture, never came from European culture, such as writing, metallurgy, agriculture--all of which date back to the middle east.

Thirdly, I think European culture produced wonderful things. Wonderful philosophers, and scientists and artists. But it seems to piss you folks off that the natives of the Americas refuse to recognize your "natural superiority." In fact, that makes sense, since much of the European incursion into the Americas tried to eradicate indigenous peoples or their cultures.

I will never discount the accomplishments and achievements of the South American indigenous people. They built monuments to last. Although I do have an issue with them. Why is it okay for certain people to aggrandize a monument that served as a barbaric alter to human sacrifice but, then get offended by the statue of a person who was instrumental in creating a country and demand it be removed?

As for my "natural superiority" once again you're projecting your liberal guilt on to other people. To be honest I don't feel superior to anyone or any culture and admire all their accomplishments but I do take exception when a culture that couldn't figure out how to build metal tools or a wheel demands that we remove our monuments because it makes them uncomfortable because, no matter how much of our history they try and erase it still won't change or improve theirs.

So until they tear down the monuments to people like Louis Real and the Aztec's Incas and Mayans blood lust I'll remain skeptical that serious about achieving truth and reconciliation and not just payback.

[martin14]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

no matter how much of our history they try and erase it still won't change or improve theirs.

^^ +5 if I could.

[Coach85]

Tricks Tricks:

They did build things. They build some pretty significant things.

Let's discuss the Natives in Canada. What significant things have they built?

As this discussion is about Natives in Canada, making references to things Natives built 1/2 a world away is irrelevant.

Tricks Tricks:

You're asking something of a people that didn't need to do such things. Places that developed these things largely did it because of population density. There is no reason to build a road, or railroads, or businesses when your small group of 50 people is the only one around for 20 miles and you can get everything you want or need from the land.

Then tell me something, why can't they do it now?

They have the need. They have the population. They have a reason. And yet, they continue to live in 3rd world conditions waiting for someone else do fix these problems for them.

Tricks Tricks:

I don't agree with the taking down of the Statue, I think that's ridiculous, but to attack natives as savages when they hadn't had the catalysts that fostered development that europeans had is fucking stupid.

No need to resort to name-calling.

I'm not saying Natives are savages but history has told us and continues to remind us that the Natives in Canada have the European settlers to thank for what Canada has turned into. That's not anti-Native or racist, that's just factual.

[herbie]

Well sorry to spoil the show but this "erasing history" is entire bullshit made up by people who simply don't want to include anyone else in their reality. If that kind of thinking isn't racism, God knows what is.
Yesterday the plaque that explained why the statue was removed while they decide it's fate was defaced. Obviously by someone who doesn't want native issues included in "their version of history".
No one on Earth is 'erasing' what John A did for Canada, they're just wanting to add some parts to it. Almost the same as the Confederate memorial issue in the USA, glorifying military accomplishments of men and specifically ignoring that they fought to keep human slaves.
And you all know damn well what I'm talking about, they never mentioned once to us in school that some natives smelted copper and gold, had extensive trade routes rivaling the Caravans, or had political alliances with each other. But they sure as hell told us "they didn't even discover the wheel" without mentioning they obviously did and it was useless in the forests, on the rivers and lakes and without horses to pull it.

[BartSimpson]

NOTICE:

The personal insults (all of them) in this thread will cease after this post or the thread will be locked and warnings handed out appropriately.

[martin14]

herbie herbie:

"erasing history"

$1:

the statue was removed

$1:

No one on Earth is 'erasing' what John A did

Yeah, OK

$1:

Almost the same as the Confederate memorial issue in the USA, glorifying military accomplishments of men and specifically ignoring that they fought to keep human slaves.

Well thank you for at least putting the same groups of batshit leftists
together where they belong.

[Zipperfish]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

I will never discount the accomplishments and achievements of the South American indigenous people. They built monuments to last. Although I do have an issue with them. Why is it okay for certain people to aggrandize a monument that served as a barbaric alter to human sacrifice but, then get offended by the statue of a person who was instrumental in creating a country and demand it be removed?

As for my "natural superiority" once again you're projecting your liberal guilt on to other people. To be honest I don't feel superior to anyone or any culture and admire all their accomplishments but I do take exception when a culture that couldn't figure out how to build metal tools or a wheel demands that we remove our monuments because it makes them uncomfortable because, no matter how much of our history they try and erase it still won't change or improve theirs.

So until they tear down the monuments to people like Louis Real and the Aztec's Incas and Mayans blood lust I'll remain skeptical that serious about achieving truth and reconciliation and not just payback.

Well earlier you were saying that the indigenous peoples didn't build permanent structures so you did, indeed, discount them.

[Tricks]

Coach85 Coach85:

Tricks Tricks:

They did build things. They build some pretty significant things.

Let's discuss the Natives in Canada. What significant things have they built?

As this discussion is about Natives in Canada, making references to things Natives built 1/2 a world away is irrelevant.

My answer to this is in your next quote. Asking a civilization that was spread out more than most in history to construct grand levels of infrastructure is silly.

$1:

Then tell me something, why can't they do it now?

They have the need. They have the population. They have a reason. And yet, they continue to live in 3rd world conditions waiting for someone else do fix these problems for them.

We keep moving the goal posts here. First it was natives never built anything. Then it was only Canadian Natives. Then it had to be infrastructure, and now it's modern natives.

I assume you're talking specifically about reserves. About half the native population don't live on reserves and likely live like the rest of Canada.

For the reserves, there are over 3000 reserves. Sure we hear about a handful of reserves in derelict conditions, often created by corrupt reserve leadership, but I don't think we can even say that's the norm, but the exception. With over 3000 reserves and hearing about bad things from even 100 of them does not represent the norm. Obviously I'm not going to go through every reserve and band to find actual numbers, but as an example the Osoyoos Indian Band has prospered wonderfully.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report- ... e18913980/

$1:

No need to resort to name-calling.

That was a general fucking stupid, not directed at you. I'm sorry I should have made that more clear. You're one of the few people I can have a reasoned discussion with on this forum.

$1:

I'm not saying Natives are savages but history has told us and continues to remind us that the Natives in Canada have the European settlers to thank for what Canada has turned into. That's not anti-Native or racist, that's just factual.

You may not have, but others in this thread have. That's what I was referring to. And I agree with you, Canada would look nothing like what it is now if it were not for European settlers. But again, denigrating the first nations people because they weren't as developed as those settlers is silly. Not that you have, but again, others in this thread have. Who have conveniently ignored my questioning of their statements that are demonstrably false.

[Tricks]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

NOTICE:

The personal insults (all of them) in this thread will cease after this post or the thread will be locked and warnings handed out appropriately.

Thanks Bartman

[Zipperfish]

Coach85 Coach85:

Let's discuss the Natives in Canada. What significant things have they built?

As this discussion is about Natives in Canada, making references to things Natives built 1/2 a world away is irrelevant.

Why is it so important to you that they built something "significant"? And what would be the point? You guys have already been presented with evidence that indigenous peoples built permanent structures. Faced with that you redirect--oh well what about these Indians, what did they build? I could point out structures that the nations of the Pacific Northwest built. but what would be the point? You've already made up your mind that they were savages swinging from the trees and they should be eternally grateful the white man showed up to give them money.

$1:

Then tell me something, why can't they do it now?

Because it requires land, not reserves.

$1:

They have the need. They have the population. They have a reason. And yet, they continue to live in 3rd world conditions waiting for someone else do fix these problems for them.

They don't have land though. And that's what the nations in BC are after--aboriginal right sand title. And they've been successful. And it's working in terms of the lives of the First Nations peoples here.

$1:

I'm not saying Natives are savages but history has told us and continues to remind us that the Natives in Canada have the European settlers to thank for what Canada has turned into. That's not anti-Native or racist, that's just factual.

So, out of interest, do the black people of the US owe the Americans a debt of gratitude for slavery too? Same argument really.

[llama66]

Europeans would have come eventually, conflict was always going to happen. I'd encourage everyone to read Guns, Germs and Steel, by Jared Diamond. He lays out a pretty intelligent argument as to why world history has played out thus far.

[Coach85]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Why is it so important to you that they built something "significant"? And what would be the point? You guys have already been presented with evidence that indigenous peoples built permanent structures. Faced with that you redirect--oh well what about these Indians, what did they build? ?

My 'what about these Indians' comment was about those in Canada which is what the topic is about.

It's not important to me whether or not they've built anything. It was said that they built something then referenced something half way around the world. Let's talk about those in Canada. What have they built to contribute to Canada as we know it today?

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Because it requires land, not reserves.

They don't have land though. And that's what the nations in BC are after--aboriginal right sand title. And they've been successful. And it's working in terms of the lives of the First Nations peoples here.

That's nonsense.

They have the land. They have the space to build and develop. Instead, they sit and wait for housing to be built for them and then when the housing is provided, free of charge, they let it fall into disrepair.

Nothing with respect to title will change that mentality.

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

So, out of interest, do the black people of the US owe the Americans a debt of gratitude for slavery too? Same argument really.

Same argument? Natives weren't slaves.

It's like saying apples and oranges are the same because they're a similar shape.

[Zipperfish]

Coach85 Coach85:

That's nonsense.

They have the land. They have the space to build and develop. Instead, they sit and wait for housing to be built for them and then when the housing is provided, free of charge, they let it fall into disrepair.

Nothing with respect to title will change that mentality.

They have the land? Do tell. I thought they had reserves, little parcels of land that are tiny slivers of the land they used to live, hunt and fish on. I think the natives would have rather the land than the houses.

What's happening in BC now is, at the demand of the courts, governments are recognizing aboriginal right and title so that First Nations can join as a government partner in having a say over what happens on their traditional territories. They, like other levels of governments, will also reap royalties, and have a say in regulation. I'd say it's making a difference here.

Coach Coach:

Same argument? Natives weren't slaves.

It's like saying apples and oranges are the same because they're a similar shape.

Basically, the natives were overrun and dispossessed of their land by Europeans, they were forced onto reserves, their children were taken from them, they were denied basic human rights time and again, and to this day they have to put up with this kind of racism from Canadians--that they're just a bunch of lazy ingrates. And they're supposed to say thank you? Give your head a shake. There's a reason Canada apologized to the First Nations people, and not the other way around.

With regards to the slaves, it was commonly held in the slaving era that Europeans/Americans were doing the indigenous peoples of Africa a huge favour by civilizing them, which is kind of what you're saying to.

[Coach85]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

They have the land? Do tell. I thought they had reserves, little parcels of land that are tiny slivers of the land they used to live, hunt and fish on. I think the natives would have rather the land than the houses.

So you want to play semantics?

They'd rather have the land? How do they intend to build houses on the land if they aren't able or willing to maintain the free ones they've been given?

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

What's happening in BC now is, at the demand of the courts, governments are recognizing aboriginal right and title so that First Nations can join as a government partner in having a say over what happens on their traditional territories. They, like other levels of governments, will also reap royalties, and have a say in regulation. I'd say it's making a difference here.

What's changed? How has it made a difference? Have they become more personally accountable and self-sufficient? Has there been a drop in alcohol and drug abuse? Has there been a decline in those using social assistance?

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Basically, the natives were overrun and dispossessed of their land by Europeans, they were forced onto reserves, their children were taken from them, they were denied basic human rights time and again, and to this day they have to put up with this kind of racism from Canadians--that they're just a bunch of lazy ingrates. And they're supposed to say thank you? Give your head a shake. There's a reason Canada apologized to the First Nations people, and not the other way around.

Where did I ever say they need to thank me or Canada? You've put words in my mouth.

There is a large portion of our First Nations population that are lazy ingrates. That's not racist, that's just true.

The longer people like you keep blaming all of the shortcomings of our FN people today on things that happened long ago, the longer they'll remain in this current state.

All of the problems within FN communities are not the fault of the white man. It's time for you and our FN communities to take some personal responsibility.

[llama66]

There is logic to what Coach is saying. Are some of the acts perpetrated by some Europeans egregious and destructive to your culture? Yes. Absolutely. However, at some point, we need to move past the past and look to the future.

It's true, we are trying to "make up" for some of the wrongs done, but the only people that can raise the FN's up from the pit they seemingly are in, is the FN community. At some point a conscious decision to move past these "past transgressions" and focus on a future where the FN community is seen as a positive segment of the Canadian community. I think the first step not blaming the Euros/White Man for every short coming. There needs to be responsibility accepted on both sides.


Just my take.