[Tainari88]

@One Degree the truth is you don't want to deal with culture issues. How much time have you personally dedicated to dealing with and educating yourself about people not of your group?

Be honest with yourself One Degree, if you don't care about studying other human cultures? Admit ignorance. You then make decisions that you hold views about other cultures out of lack of knowledge. Once you do so you are aware of the action. It is a great way to be conscious of your limitations and keeps you from reactive emotions with zero rational justifications involved.

I read a lot. I read your parents were police officers. I read a lot about you. Why? I think one has to know who you are debating with. You give up very easily when challenged. Do you know international socialism and what those political organizations believe in?

If you disagree politically with someone make sure you come from a place of knowledge and not ignorance. Know exactly why you disagree and support it with evidence, stats, researched documents that are authorities in that field.

Be clear about your accusations. Example: 'Tainari88 you are in contradiction because international socialism states that globalism is a threat to (fill in the blank). Don't run out of not thinking you know enough about it and are afraid to admit it. Hell I don't know a lot about a bunch of stuff others know. You come here to learn too. We all do.

Self awareness is the first remedy for change and self improvement. I use it all the time.

[One Degree]

@One Degree the truth is you don't want to deal with culture issues. How much time have you personally dedicated to dealing with and educating yourself about people not of your group?

58 years

I read a lot. I read your parents were police officers. I read a lot about you. Why? I think one has to know who you are debating with. You give up very easily when challenged. Do you know international socialism and what those political organizations believe in?

As far as I recall, I have never left a debate because I was challenged. It is easy to tell when a debate is no longer productive. That is when I end it. The simplest way to end a debate is to let the other person have the final post. If that makes them believe I ran, I don’t care. The arguments are there for all to see. My purpose is to express my view, not win anything.

If you disagree politically with someone make sure you come from a place of knowledge and not ignorance. Know exactly why you disagree and support it with evidence, stats, researched documents that are authorities in that field.

I am the expert in my political view. Curious that you left logic or reason out of your list.

Be clear about your accusations. Example: 'Tainari88 you are in contradiction because international socialism states that globalism is a threat to (fill in the blank). Don't run out of not thinking you know enough about it and are afraid to admit it. He'll I don't know a lot about a bunch of stuff others know. You come here to learn too. We all do.

I believe in local autonomy. Any philosophy pretending world application is in conflict with my philosophy. I probably know a lot more about the different political philosophies than you imagine.

[Steve_American]

DrLee,
To a certain extent you are right. However, not with the final conclusion.

1st, I'm using a universal definition of 'to steal'. How the 2 cultures [American & Native] legally defined theft doesn't matter.
2nd, yes it was inevitable that the Native cultures would be much reduced and lastly changed. They would be reduced because of disease and changed because new crops and domestic animals [like the horse] would open up new opportunities. Also, because it would not matter what European nation claimed their land. If a benine one [say Sweden] had claimed a big chunk of land they would not be profiting from it much if they left the natives alone, so along would come another nation to take their land claim away so they could exploit the natives more harshly. This is because they didn't have nuclear weapons and therefore played a different game with different rules that we should be today. Imagine trying to play "Risk" with a "Nuclear holocaust" rule which lets any player at any time set the board and pieces on fire with a cup of lighter fluid and a match.
3rd, P-o-g asked wouldn't the Natives have eventually invented civilization on their own, if they were never discovered by Europe? No, they would not have. They lacked certain key 'natural resources'. In this case animals that they could domesticate and use as horses, cows, and sheep. Read Guns, Germs, and Steal to get the whole argument. It won the Pulitzed Prize so it must be accurate and not BS.
4th, if they were discovered by Europe 2 things would certainly happen just as they did in the 1500s, over 100 years before the English arrived at Jamestown. a] The pig and the horse were introduced. The pig from shipwrecks in Florida and the horse in New Mexico. And, b] several disease germs were introduced. These killed over 90% of the Aztecs over a 50 year period. Other germs [measles and smallpox, etc.] devastated Native populations for the next 300 years. This on going holocaust would have kept the Native cultures from developing much until a natural immunity had been developed.

5th, In conclusion: In 1939, it seems to me that, Germany was trying to steel Poland from the Poles; move the Poles further east and move Germans onto the land. That is the sense I mean we Americans stole the US from the Natives. All the above points don't matter. And neither does the fact that the horse allowed different tribes to rise and fall in the Great Plains and surrounding areas. This showed that the Natives were perfectly willing to use a tech advantage [the horse and other things] to steal land from other tribes and even wipe them out in the process. This doesn't change what the Americans did, it can only 'justify' it a little.

[Tainari88]

DrLee,
To a certain extent you are right. However, not with the final conclusion.

1st, I'm using a universal definition of 'to steal'. How the 2 cultures [American & Native] legally defined theft doesn't matter.
2nd, yes it was inevitable that the Native cultures would be much reduced and lastly changed. They would be reduced because of disease and changed because new crops and domestic animals [like the horse] would open up new opportunities. Also, because it would not matter what European nation claimed their land. If a benine one [say Sweden] had claimed a big chunk of land they would not be profiting from it much if they left the natives alone, so along would come another nation to take their land claim away so they could exploit the natives more harshly. This is because they didn't have nuclear weapons and therefore played a different game with different rules that we should be today. Imagine trying to play "Risk" with a "Nuclear holocaust" rule which lets any player at any time set the board and pieces on fire with a cup of lighter fluid and a match.
3rd, P-o-g asked wouldn't the Natives have eventually invented civilization on their own, if they were never discovered by Europe? No, they would not have. They lacked certain key 'natural resources'. In this case animals that they could domesticate and use as horses, cows, and sheep. Read Guns, Germs, and Steal to get the whole argument. It won the Pulitzed Prize so it must be accurate and not BS.
4th, if they were discovered by Europe 2 things would certainly happen just as they did in the 1500s, over 100 years before the English arrived at Jamestown. a] The pig and the horse were introduced. The pig from shipwrecks in Florida and the horse in New Mexico. And, b] several disease germs were introduced. These killed over 90% of the Aztecs over a 50 year period. Other germs [measles and smallpox, etc.] devastated Native populations for the next 300 years. This on going holocaust would have kept the Native cultures from developing much until a natural immunity had been developed.

5th, In conclusion: In 1939, it seems to me that, Germany was trying to steel Poland from the Poles; move the Poles further east and move Germans onto the land. That is the sense I mean we Americans stole the US from the Natives. All the above points don't matter. And neither does the fact that the horse allowed different tribes to rise and fall in the Great Plains and surrounding areas. This showed that the Natives were perfectly willing to use a tech advantage [the horse and other things] to steal land from other tribes and even wipe them out in the process. This doesn't change what the Americans did, it can only 'justify' it a little.

Steve_American I think it is useful for you to bring two different terms that I have used a lot when talking about different cultures coming into close contact all the time. The words are acculturation and assimilation. Let us get the precise context and definitions clearly explained.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-diffe ... similation

One of them is necessary and often beneficial to both cultures. The other is detrimental since it presupposes that the dominant culture sort of 'kills' off the other one. Or absorbs the other culture. Usually through some traumatic event like conquest or slavery or war.

Let us imagine that Steve some foreign power comes into the USA and conquers your neighborhood, state and nation. The purpose is to take all the wealth and exploit. You are then taught that speaking English is shameful, inferior and for the low class people in the new society. You are taught that American customs and traditions are trash and to be shed as soon as possible. Your family is seen as uneducated from the lower classes and basically barbarous or unworthy of respect. The history of the American republic is not taught in schools, or anywhere. You are simply 'forgotten' in the history.

After all, your culture is worthless. This kind of crap goes on all the time in many nations and with the conquered people Steve. It is hard as hell to stop the assimilation because it is backed up by military might, legal precedent, arms, government, and most of all a majority culture that is powerful as hell and is interested in making sure the conquered have NOTHING left of their identity to rely on. Their children don't speak American English anymore. Their traditions are shamed and they have to adapt to the new culture, language and ways or not be able to make a living or even progress in life.

That is what it is like. Do you like that shit? I don't. But that is imperialism. It is cultural hegemony and it is what many 'conquered' cultures got to deal with. Then the ones who are part of that violent stuff come up with....it is ok. It is not something hard to deal with.

It has to do with stripping people of their right to feel dignity, self respect and a sense of roots for themselves and their children. You take that away from people? Might as well kill them. Truly.

[Tainari88]

58 years
As far as I recall, I have never left a debate because I was challenged. It is easy to tell when a debate is no longer productive. That is when I end it. The simplest way to end a debate is to let the other person have the final post. If that makes them believe I ran, I don’t care. The arguments are there for all to see. My purpose is to express my view, not win anything.

I am the expert in my political view. Curious that you left logic or reason out of your list.


I believe in local autonomy. Any philosophy pretending world application is in conflict with my philosophy. I probably know a lot more about the different political philosophies than you imagine.

No specifics One Degree. I wish you would be more specific. But you aren't. What is illogical or not reason based about my political philosophy?

You are not specific. That says a lot. Thank you for the debate One Degree. I have to conclude you are not interested in learning.

If you are 58 years old you are my husband's age. And not too old for many things.
Debates become unproductive when someone doesn't like respecting the other party. Without respect there is very little to talk about.

I don't hide anything One Degree. For me? I am too old for hiding about anything anymore. Trying to fake things for ego reasons is not my trip. Not in this life.

Never in this life.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Steve_American

Please note that indigenous people in the Americas had already invented civilisation. The Aztecs had cities, large scale engineering projects, sewage, writing, metallurgy, specialised professions, agriculture, astronomy, and many of the other elememts of civilisation.

[Steve_American]

@Steve_American

Please note that indigenous people in the Americas had already invented civilisation. The Aztecs had cities, large scale engineering projects, sewage, writing, metallurgy, specialised professions, agriculture, astronomy, and many of the other elememts of civilisation.

Pants, this is one area where I have studied it for decades. Your definitions are in some cases wrong.
cities, yes
large scale engineering projects, yes
sewage, not that I know of [their capital was built like Venice with canals, dumping . . . . . . shit into them is not sewage systems]
writing, yes, but still in its infantacy
metallurgy, no; a 1st big one; the Inca did but Aztecs, no [Working with gold does not count.
. . . . . It comes out of the ground already pure and isn't useful for
. . . . . tools or weapons. It also doesn't lead you on to other metals.]
specialised professions, maybe
agriculture, no; this is the big one. Agriculture by definition involves plowing, without oxen the Aztecs had to 'garden'
astronomy, yes; not that this is worth much.
you left off Aztecs had
Armies with soldiers and generals
an Empire
they ate people very often because their domestic food animal was turkeys which eat human food [corn]
therefore they were easy to conquer because their vassals HATED THEM.

The Aztecs were just in one part of Mexico centered on what is now Mexico City.

But it all didn't matter over 90% of the Aztec population died out in the valley of Mexico around 1560 =/- 20 years from diseases alone.
. . . . The Spanish wanted workers/serfs they didn't want them dead but they all died anyway. The Spanish had to import Black slaves. Then Indians trickled back into the valley of Mexico.

Read Guns, germs and Steel.

But I'm noticing a pattern to your posts.
You very often just ask questions or point to supposed holes in others posts.
But you NEVER reply to the other's good points.
The other site I used would call you a troll and ban you.

[Drlee]

@POD et all.

I get that there were smatterings of technology about in the Western Hemisphere. Some monumental building construction from stone. The fact remains that the Europeans were technologically far more advanced than those who were here.

The notion that the Native Americans (NA) and Europeans would not meet is absurd. So the meeting and the inevitable holocaust of disease in the American continent and the (some would say payback) of Syphilis in Europe could not be avoided.

I get the outrage that several of you want to forward. I have been accused of not understanding the relationship between European settlers and NA. I maintain that it is the corporate you who are not thinking through this history. My question would be "what would you expect to happen under those circumstances?"

Looking for a moment at the Central American "conquest" of the continent. With what were the Christians presented when they got there. Not a pretty picture I am sure. It was the classic clash of cultures. From the Christian standpoint they were saving not only souls but lives. The fact that they got enriched in exchange is the most human of justifications. You have to admit that it would not take too many hearts being ripped out to get people today to act too. Or at least use it for a super justification for a war of acquisition.

This discussion "blames" Europeans for the way NA were treated. There is much for which to answer I am sure. The thing though is to try to understand how remarkable it is that NA culture even exists today. Indeed if the larger efforts to establish a nation in the US had been commanded by people less concerned (the Mongol hoards for example, there would be no remaining NA culture.

The process is not over either. We have large NA populations in the US. I live within a couple of miles of a very large tribe and reservation and visit the reservation frequently. We are, as a nation, still taking extraordinary care to facilitate the survival of these remnants of pre-contact societies. We, and the generations before us invested our time and treasure to recognizing and preserving those cultures. And frankly, if the US government had wanted to eliminate these entities it was more than within their power to do it. They could have done what they are doing now with immigrants and simply absorbed the survivors, however many that may be. They could have easily, and some would say logically, just destroyed NA culture by eliminating the tribal recognition and simply put them all in the same general category. Short of fighting, there is nothing they could have done about it.

Given the beliefs of the day it is remarkable how much of Native American culture still survives. Certainly it looks next to nothing like it did pre-contact but it is at least still recognized and valued.

In this regard I suppose it is an excellent platform on which to discuss the question before us. I would say that while enormous tragedies and mistakes were made by the more powerful of the two groups, by and large it worked out better than could have been reasonably hoped.

We have a really bad habit these days of applying some sort of cosmic "good" on those of earlier generations. We are to "hate" Washington and Jefferson because they were slaveholders ignoring the fact that they laid down the basis for its eventual destruction. They were men of their time. The age of enlightenment. They did not spring whole cloth modern democrats from their mother's womb. The movement that the people of the time started is not yet finished. We still struggle for enlightenment. There is more work to be done. Someday a group of mind-linked humans will ponder what we are doing and point to our wars and human rights tragedies and paint us with the same brush all the while taking upon themselves credit for what we ARE doing.

The fact that almost modern all societies today are multi-cultural it would be a better exercise to point out the ones that aren't. And recognize that if multiculturalism is a good thing to be striven for then we had better get some idea of what that means and what it looks like.

An example. It is one thing to have "barrios" within our large cities where Mexican and Central American culture coexists, to the extent possible, with American culture and quite another to preserve range and limit contact so that African tribal distinction may continue. There is a difference between allowing Native American tribal culture to be preserved and quite another to expect the inhabitants to accept the barbecue of dogs in their neighbors front yard. The reason this thread is so difficult is that we dismiss that there is value to the prevalent culture and focus on the minorities. It is that focus on minority value at all that gives me hope that we are almost over the hump.

I certainly do not value those aspects of American culture that gives us the far right wing racism we are seeing today. Nor do I value the aspects of our culture that allows others to pump violent and misogynist music into the ears of our children. We have to own that too. We ARE a multicultural society even if you take immigrants out of the equation.

[Tainari88]

Pants, this is one area where I have studied it for decades. Your definitions are in some cases wrong.
cities, yes
large scale engineering projects, yes
sewage, not that I know of [their capital was built like Venice with canals, dumping . . . . . . shit into them is not sewage systems]
writing, yes, but still in its infantacy
metallurgy, no; a 1st big one; the Inca did but Aztecs, no [Working with gold does not count.
. . . . . It comes out of the ground already pure and isn't useful for
. . . . . tools or weapons. It also doesn't lead you on to other metals.]
specialised professions, maybe
agriculture, no; this is the big one. Agriculture by definition involves plowing, without oxen the Aztecs had to 'garden'
astronomy, yes; not that this is worth much.
you left off Aztecs had
Armies with soldiers and generals
an Empire
they ate people very often because their domestic food animal was turkeys which eat human food [corn]
therefore they were easy to conquer because their vassals HATED THEM.

The Aztecs were just in one part of Mexico centered on what is now Mexico City.

But it all didn't matter over 90% of the Aztec population died out in the valley of Mexico around 1560 =/- 20 years from diseases alone.
. . . . The Spanish wanted workers/serfs they didn't want them dead but they all died anyway. The Spanish had to import Black slaves. Then Indians trickled back into the valley of Mexico.

Read Guns, germs and Steel.

But I'm noticing a pattern to your posts.
You very often just ask questions or point to supposed holes in others posts.
But you NEVER reply to the other's good points.
The other site I used would call you a troll and ban you.

Steve, I do have to challenge you on the chinampa system of agriculture for the Valley of Mexico. The way the Mayans grew corn, beans and squash was not some primitive gardening. It was a system that worked extremely efficiently for many hundreds of years. You really should study Mesoamerican agricultural practices much more closely. What you said about the agricultural development is way off.

I do agree with you about why the Aztecs were hated. Empires usually are. You are 100% right about that one.

[Pants-of-dog]

Pants, this is one area where I have studied it for decades. Your definitions are in some cases wrong.
cities, yes
large scale engineering projects, yes
sewage, not that I know of [their capital was built like Venice with canals, dumping . . . . . . shit into them is not sewage systems]

Yes, they had sewage in terms of piping to get rid of waste. From what I understand, the nobles and royaly had actual toilets in their house, while the common folk used a system of public latrines. Feces was sent to the chinampas, while urine was collected for use in tanning. Dumping sewage into the canals was considered a crime. Perhaps you are confusing Tenochtitlan with London.

writing, yes, but still in its infancy

Why do you say it was still in its infancy?

metallurgy, no; a 1st big one; the Inca did but Aztecs, no [Working with gold does not count.
. . . . . It comes out of the ground already pure and isn't useful for
. . . . . tools or weapons. It also doesn't lead you on to other metals.]

The Aztecs used tin, lead, copper, and gold.

specialised professions, maybe

Why maybe?

agriculture, no; this is the big one. Agriculture by definition involves plowing, without oxen the Aztecs had to 'garden'

You do know that humans can also pull plows, right? Not just oxen?

Anyway: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinampa

astronomy, yes; not that this is worth much.
you left off Aztecs had
Armies with soldiers and generals
an Empire

Yes, they also had a large and organised military.

they ate people very often because their domestic food animal was turkeys which eat human food [corn]
therefore they were easy to conquer because their vassals HATED THEM.

Domestic food animals included turkeys, dogs, insects (you can buy grilled crickets in the streets in Oaxaca), fish, waterfowl, gophers, iguanas, salamanders, and eggs.

While there was some ritual cannibalism, the amount of protein from human meat would have been negligible. Also, most of this ritual cannibalism occurred when there was already a lot of food, such as during the harvest time.

So no. They did not need to eat people in order to not starve.

[Steve_American]

Pants, OK, maybe the Aztecs were were close to 'civilized'.

However, people can't pull plows. The same number of people with tools can dig faster than they can pull a plow. Digging is more a efficient use of human labor than pulling plows. This is the major block that keeps the Aztecs from making it to civilized. To me the definition has to include a requirement that it be able to easily expand. Plowing allows this, chinampas gardening doesn't allow this.

I am 99% sure that the Aztecs didn't smelt metals. So, I doubt your claim they had tin and copper. With tin and copper they could have made bronze, did they? If people only work native metals, like the Mound Builders worked native copper, we don't call that metallurgy.

I didn't say the Aztecs ate people to avoid starving. My source said they are people to get more meat in their diet. They sacrificed 10,000 people a day for several days when they finished a temple. When they did that they would have had a huge body disposal problem. Cortez's men wrote that they ate the bodies of those victims. This is very a touchy claim in Mexico, though.

My source said that this was THE reason their vassals HATED them and joined with Cortez by the hundreds of thousands.

[Pants-of-dog]

Pants, OK, maybe the Aztecs were were close to 'civilized'.

Please define “civilsed”. Thanks.

However, people can't pull plows. The same number of people with tools can dig faster than they can pull a plow. Digging is more a efficient use of human labor than pulling plows. This is the major block that keeps the Aztecs from making it to civilized. To me the definition has to include a requirement that it be able to easily expand. Plowing allows this, chinampas gardening doesn't allow this.

They grew enough crops to feed a city. This seems like civilisation to me no matter what plowing method they did or did not use.

I am 99% sure that the Aztecs didn't smelt metals. So, I doubt your claim they had tin and copper. With tin and copper they could have made bronze, did they? If people only work native metals, like the Mound Builders worked native copper, we don't call that metallurgy.

Google is your friend.

http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10. ... 41962-e-12

Aztec artisans produced a spectacular, sophisticated, and technically versatile metallurgy. Although they had integrated certain materials and techniques from contemporaneous and earlier Mesoamerican societies, Aztec artisans created astonishing and original gold and copper-gold castings for public display—particularly of flora and fauna from the natural and supernatural worlds. They placed these castings in their pleasure parks. They also cast hundreds of bells from tin and arsenic bronze and other copper-based alloys for dedicatory offerings at the Templo Mayor in Tenochtitlan. The ore sources (copper, gold, tin, lead) lay outside of the Basin of Mexico but within Aztec tribute provinces; the metal itself was worked or cast in Tenochtitlan workshops.

So, you were incorrect there.

I didn't say the Aztecs ate people to avoid starving. My source said they ate people to get more meat in their diet. They sacrificed 10,000 people a day for several days when they finished a temple. When they did that they would have had a huge body disposal problem. Cortez's men wrote that they ate the bodies of those victims. This is very a touchy claim in Mexico, though.

Perhaps your source is wrong, or you misread it. What is your source?

My source said that this was THE reason their vassals HATED them and joined with Cortez by the hundreds of thousands.

Again, what is your source?

[Steve_American]

Pants, I did google it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallurg ... esoamerica
This article in Wikipedia titled "Metallurgy_in_pre-Columbian_Mesoamerica" never uses the word 'smelting'.
Smelting *always* leaves behind big piles of poisonous slag and other stuff. Nobody hides the piles, it is too much work.
Without smelting you are not going to have enough metal to be considered 'civilized'.
What seems to have happened is they made metal tools and status objects, then remelted many of the tools to make more status objects. They needed status objects more than the few tools they could make with their limited supplies of 'native' metal. Native metal is found in the ground already as metal not as an oxide or sulfide. This is obviously pretty rare but seems to have been more common in Michigan and western Mexico. Still rare but more common than other places on earth.

The definition of civilized may have changed. It was a society with --- large domestic animals [esp.cows and horses], writing, cities, large scale use of metals, and agriculture with plows. Domestic animals must be provable in the evidence from the sites. This requires that their bones be enough different that an expert can say they are not from wild animals. Raising fish in ponds is not having large domestic animals because they are still wild and you can't pull plows with them.

But, Pants, you will never agree that you are wrong and will keep posting until I (or whoever) give up, so you can claim victory. That is trolling. So, I'm about done here.

[Pants-of-dog]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but smelting was known in Bolivia, Peru, and Chile about 2000 years ago.

Traders from what is now Ecuador brought the knowledge up to the Aztecs.

[Tainari88]

Pants, OK, maybe the Aztecs were were close to 'civilized'.

However, people can't pull plows. The same number of people with tools can dig faster than they can pull a plow. Digging is more a efficient use of human labor than pulling plows. This is the major block that keeps the Aztecs from making it to civilized. To me the definition has to include a requirement that it be able to easily expand. Plowing allows this, chinampas gardening doesn't allow this.

I am 99% sure that the Aztecs didn't smelt metals. So, I doubt your claim they had tin and copper. With tin and copper they could have made bronze, did they? If people only work native metals, like the Mound Builders worked native copper, we don't call that metallurgy.

I didn't say the Aztecs ate people to avoid starving. My source said they are people to get more meat in their diet. They sacrificed 10,000 people a day for several days when they finished a temple. When they did that they would have had a huge body disposal problem. Cortez's men wrote that they ate the bodies of those victims. This is very a touchy claim in Mexico, though.

My source said that this was THE reason their vassals HATED them and joined with Cortez by the hundreds of thousands.

Steve, have you considered that in order for a civilization to sustain itself one of its requirements is to be able to fulfill its dietary requirements of its leisure class. They need to have a steady and reliable supply of food that doesn't require modern refridgeration. The Egyptians had huge grain silohs. Grape, grain and etc for Egypt. Ancient grains like millet and amaranth and teff for Africa, etc It has to be a carb, protein and vitamin c combo that sustains many workers, and people all living in urban settings. Corn by itself for the Aztecs is low in nutrition. It only creates a perfect protein/carb chain where the complete set of amino acids are present when corn and beans are eaten together. You then have squash and chiles. To add the vitamin c. Perfect. No need for meat. Though guajalotes (turkeys) were consumed. Chocolate if done the ancient way is a very high antioxidant that is filled with rare minerals. It was prepared in drinks for the wealthiest of nobles.

You are right that the Aztecs were hated. They built empires and as such they established military and religious hiarchichal structures. But there is no denial that Tenotchitlan was a civilization Steve. It had all the attributes of a human civilization.

Empires in history are mostly hated by the conquered people who pay the price of the ambition of the elites in those societies. The USA is not much different.

In fact Tenotchitlan (Mexico City), at the time of the arrival of the Spaniards have direct documents of what the Spaniards observed. They stated the citizens were healthy and well fed. There were all the protocols of royalty. There were artisans and artists, priesthood and workers and sport, there was written language and many written documents were deliberately burned by the Spanish. The Valley of Mexico had the right set of circumstances to have nearly a quarter of a million residents in the 16th century--it had more residents than Venice, and many European cities of the same era.

It had strict laws and courts. No public displays of drunkeness and no stealing in market places. Currency in terms of cacao beans and other forms of trade. Translators. Tribute (taxes), borders on certain territories. Markings of time, and advanced concepts of mathematics.

Nahuatl had singers and poets writing poetry. Everything.

The issue of eating flesh. I already replied to Kaiserscharrm about the bias about eating flesh, sacrificing and torturing human beings in public rituals. It is not uniquely Aztec. It existed in many cultures.

I find you somewhat biased Steve about Mesoamerican cultural histories.

[Tainari88]

@POD et all.

I get that there were smatterings of technology about in the Western Hemisphere. Some monumental building construction from stone. The fact remains that the Europeans were technologically far more advanced than those who were here.

The notion that the Native Americans (NA) and Europeans would not meet is absurd. So the meeting and the inevitable holocaust of disease in the American continent and the (some would say payback) of Syphilis in Europe could not be avoided.

I get the outrage that several of you want to forward. I have been accused of not understanding the relationship between European settlers and NA. I maintain that it is the corporate you who are not thinking through this history. My question would be "what would you expect to happen under those circumstances?"

Looking for a moment at the Central American "conquest" of the continent. With what were the Christians presented when they got there. Not a pretty picture I am sure. It was the classic clash of cultures. From the Christian standpoint they were saving not only souls but lives. The fact that they got enriched in exchange is the most human of justifications. You have to admit that it would not take too many hearts being ripped out to get people today to act too. Or at least use it for a super justification for a war of acquisition.

This discussion "blames" Europeans for the way NA were treated. There is much for which to answer I am sure. The thing though is to try to understand how remarkable it is that NA culture even exists today. Indeed if the larger efforts to establish a nation in the US had been commanded by people less concerned (the Mongol hoards for example, there would be no remaining NA culture.

The process is not over either. We have large NA populations in the US. I live within a couple of miles of a very large tribe and reservation and visit the reservation frequently. We are, as a nation, still taking extraordinary care to facilitate the survival of these remnants of pre-contact societies. We, and the generations before us invested our time and treasure to recognizing and preserving those cultures. And frankly, if the US government had wanted to eliminate these entities it was more than within their power to do it. They could have done what they are doing now with immigrants and simply absorbed the survivors, however many that may be. They could have easily, and some would say logically, just destroyed NA culture by eliminating the tribal recognition and simply put them all in the same general category. Short of fighting, there is nothing they could have done about it.

Given the beliefs of the day it is remarkable how much of Native American culture still survives. Certainly it looks next to nothing like it did pre-contact but it is at least still recognized and valued.

In this regard I suppose it is an excellent platform on which to discuss the question before us. I would say that while enormous tragedies and mistakes were made by the more powerful of the two groups, by and large it worked out better than could have been reasonably hoped.

We have a really bad habit these days of applying some sort of cosmic "good" on those of earlier generations. We are to "hate" Washington and Jefferson because they were slaveholders ignoring the fact that they laid down the basis for its eventual destruction. They were men of their time. The age of enlightenment. They did not spring whole cloth modern democrats from their mother's womb. The movement that the people of the time started is not yet finished. We still struggle for enlightenment. There is more work to be done. Someday a group of mind-linked humans will ponder what we are doing and point to our wars and human rights tragedies and paint us with the same brush all the while taking upon themselves credit for what we ARE doing.

The fact that almost modern all societies today are multi-cultural it would be a better exercise to point out the ones that aren't. And recognize that if multiculturalism is a good thing to be striven for then we had better get some idea of what that means and what it looks like.

An example. It is one thing to have "barrios" within our large cities where Mexican and Central American culture coexists, to the extent possible, with American culture and quite another to preserve range and limit contact so that African tribal distinction may continue. There is a difference between allowing Native American tribal culture to be preserved and quite another to expect the inhabitants to accept the barbecue of dogs in their neighbors front yard. The reason this thread is so difficult is that we dismiss that there is value to the prevalent culture and focus on the minorities. It is that focus on minority value at all that gives me hope that we are almost over the hump.

I certainly do not value those aspects of American culture that gives us the far right wing racism we are seeing today. Nor do I value the aspects of our culture that allows others to pump violent and misogynist music into the ears of our children. We have to own that too. We ARE a multicultural society even if you take immigrants out of the equation.

You are in a lot of ignorance DrLee. I am sorry my mother spent her whole career dealing with Native Americans and a huge variety of them. I am afraid your version of it all is a washed version seen through the eyes of a Republican older generation white man from Arizona. Without any sense of what assimilation means for Native Americans. The entire globe has seen a huge loss in Native cultures. Australia, Canada, the USA, Latin America, African countries and so on and so forth. Many tribes are gone forever. And are not coming back.

The clash is inevitable so you say? The truth is disease did kill off a great percentage. It still doesn't justify predatory conquest. What is predatory conquest? What the Nazis did to the Jews in Europe in the second world war.

I am not a woman who believes in simplistic crap. Never have. All I ask of people is to realize that people are human beings. There are benevolent people in every culture as well as people with bad intentions and bad spirits. There is variation and it includes very intelligent and not so intelligent. Everything.

What is wrong is to use violence, and deliberately set out to not allow another culture to live or go about its world without some kind of powerful threat that is about some useless thing that should be negotiated and talked through and not about some wholesale lack of respect.

I can't stand the idea of 'we are more civilized and we are better." That is all racist people, class conscious people, imperialistic minded people, and arrogant 'hubris' filled people do....looking for shit excuses of 'we have a right to this because we are better." No you are not better Drlee.

Civilization for me has to do with humility and respecting all people. All people. Respect them as total equals. If you can't because you really believe in your superiority as a person with bigger bank account, or lighter skin or you own a penis, or you are of European descent?

You are not civilized. You are another person contributing to conflict and eventual some bloody violence down the road because if you can't see yourself in the people not from your group as equals? You are failing to connect and what use it if you can't connect to get people to respond to you as a fellow human?

A total failure is the answer.

Good night.

[Steve_American]

You are in a lot of ignorance DrLee. I am sorry my mother spent her whole career dealing with Native Americans and a huge variety of them. I am afraid your version of it all is a washed version seen through the eyes of a Republican older generation white man from Arizona. Without any sense of what assimilation means for Native Americans. The entire globe has seen a huge loss in Native cultures. Australia, Canada, the USA, Latin America, African countries and so on and so forth. Many tribes are gone forever. And are not coming back.

The clash is inevitable so you say? The truth is disease did kill off a great percentage. It still doesn't justify predatory conquest. What is predatory conquest? What the Nazis did to the Jews in Europe in the second world war.

I am not a woman who believes in simplistic crap. Never have. All I ask of people is to realize that people are human beings. There are benevolent people in every culture as well as people with bad intentions and bad spirits. There is variation and it includes very intelligent and not so intelligent. Everything.

What is wrong is to use violence, and deliberately set out to not allow another culture to live or go about its world without some kind of powerful threat that is about some useless thing that should be negotiated and talked through and not about some wholesale lack of respect.

I can't stand the idea of 'we are more civilized and we are better." That is all racist people, class conscious people, imperialistic minded people, and arrogant 'hubris' filled people do....looking for shit excuses of 'we have a right to this because we are better." No you are not better Drlee.

Civilization for me has to do with humility and respecting all people. All people. Respect them as total equals. If you can't because you really believe in your superiority as a person with bigger bank account, or lighter skin or you own a penis, or you are of European descent?

You are not civilized. You are another person contributing to conflict and eventual some bloody violence down the road because if you can't see yourself in the people not from your group as equals? You are failing to connect and what use it if you can't connect to get people to respond to you as a fellow human?

A total failure is the answer.

Good night.

And then you slam the door and stomp out in the pure light of day.

However, you just explained that the Aztecs were civilized because they had the required tech.

Now you slam DrLee because the European settlers were not civilized because they didn't respect the Native Cultures.

But, you surely know that the Aztecs were not civilized in the nice definition way. At least you just said as much in your attack on me.

It is bad form to change the definitions in the middle of a thread and stomp out.

The Romans were hardly nice to the people they conquered. Were they civilized? Most people use the word to include them.

I do understand 'civilized' has 2 very different meanings. But, you really need to choose 1 for each thread. Jumping back a forth just looks bad.

As long as you behave like this you can't insult me and I don't think you can insult DrLee either. We do not accept as valid, insults from people who act like you did here.

The question I was responding to was "Would the Natives have developed a continent wide civilization?" It wasn't were the Aztecs nice to their neighbors. It wasn't were the Europeans nice to the Natives?
. . . My response was related to tech, not niceness. In my opinion the lack of cows and horses would have blocked them. Given enough time they might have spread smelting far and wide. However, they ran out of time. The Egyptians had copper tools in 2500 BC. The Middle East Bronze Age *ended* in about 1200 BC. The Spanish reached Mexico in 1520 AD. From 2500 BC to 1500 AD is 4000 years. The Native Americans wasted 4000 years. They ran out of time.

Do you think the Romans would have been nice if the new world had been discovered in [say] 300 AD? I don't. Or the Spartans, or the Persians, or the Hittites, etc.
. . . If history says anything about human nature and civilized behavior toward massively *less* technologically advanced people who live near by --- it is that in the above situation, conquest happens every single time until WWI.

So, try harder to be insulting. Your last attempt failed.

[Potemkin]

And then you slam the door and stomp out in the pure light of day.

However, you just explained that the Aztecs were civilized because they had the required tech.

Now you slam DrLee because the European settlers were not civilized because they didn't respect the Native Cultures.

But, you surely know that the Aztecs were not civilized in the nice definition way. At least you just said as much in your attack on me.

It is bad form to change the definitions in the middle of a thread and stomp out.

The Romans were hardly nice to the people they conquered. Were they civilized? Most people use the word to include them.

I do understand 'civilized' has 2 very different meanings. But, you really need to choose 1 for each thread. Jumping back a forth just looks bad.

The point I think Tainari is making is that, as Walter Benjamin put it, "Every document of civilisation is simultaneously a document of barbarism." What he meant by that was that every great achievement of civilisation is also a great crime against humanity. The Pyramids were a great achievement of the ancient Egyptian civilisation, but they were built using slave labour. The Roman Colosseum was a great architectural and technical marvel, yet it was used to throw Christians to the lions and display gladiatorial combats to the death. The British Raj built the railway system in India, yet it also caused millions of deaths through famine and economic exploitation. Every document of civilisation is simultaneously a document of barbarism. Why should the Aztecs be any different? More to the point, why should our civilisation be any different?

. . . My response was related to tech, not niceness. In my opinion the lack of cows and horses would have blocked them. Given enough time they might have spread smelting far and wide. However, they ran out of time. The Egyptians had copper tools in 2500 BC. The Middle East Bronze Age *ended* in about 1200 BC. The Spanish reached Mexico in 1520 AD. From 2500 BC to 1500 AD is 4000 years. The Native Americans wasted 4000 years. They ran out of time.

Europe was inhabited by modern humans more than 40,000 years ago. The Americas were only colonised by modern humans less than 20,000 years ago. It was the last continent (excepting Antarctica) to be settled by humans. I think they did pretty well, all things considered.

Do you think the Romans would have been nice if the new world had been discovered in [say] 300 AD? I don't. Or the Spartans, or the Persians, or the Hittites, etc.
. . . If history says anything about human nature and civilized behavior toward massively *less* technologically advanced people who live near by --- it is that in the above situation, conquest happens every single time until WWI.

She wasn't disputing this. Instead, she was pointing out the hypocrisy of modern Western civilisation, which claims to be 'Christian' and claims to be bringing 'freedom' and 'enlightenment' to the 'savages', when in fact they have acted and are acting no differently from every other empire in human history. The Aztecs were brutal conquerors and imperialists, but they never pretended otherwise. Their stated beliefs were consistent with their actions. Our stated beliefs are not consistent with our actions.

So, try harder to be insulting. Your last attempt failed.

She doesn't have to try to insult you. You are insulting yourself.

[Tainari88]

@Potemkin you know I think you know how I think better than I do at times. De verdad.

[Steve_American]

The point I think Tainari is making is that, as Walter Benjamin put it, "Every document of civilisation is simultaneously a document of barbarism." What he meant by that was that every great achievement of civilisation is also a great crime against humanity. The Pyramids were a great achievement of the ancient Egyptian civilisation, but they were built using slave labour. The Roman Colosseum was a great architectural and technical marvel, yet it was used to throw Christians to the lions and display gladiatorial combats to the death. The British Raj built the railway system in India, yet it also caused millions of deaths through famine and economic exploitation. Every document of civilisation is simultaneously a document of barbarism. Why should the Aztecs be any different? More to the point, why should our civilisation be any different?

Europe was inhabited by modern humans more than 40,000 years ago. The Americas were only colonised by modern humans less than 20,000 years ago. It was the last continent (excepting Antarctica) to be settled by humans. I think they did pretty well, all things considered.

She wasn't disputing this. Instead, she was pointing out the hypocrisy of modern Western civilisation, which claims to be 'Christian' and claims to be bringing 'freedom' and 'enlightenment' to the 'savages', when in fact they have acted and are acting no differently from every other empire in human history. The Aztecs were brutal conquerors and imperialists, but they never pretended otherwise. Their stated beliefs were consistent with their actions. Our stated beliefs are not consistent with our actions.

She doesn't have to try to insult you. You are insulting yourself.

The Ice Age ended about 12,000 years BP. It ended everywhere a the same time. So, the race started everywhere at about the same time. BTW modern humans arrived in the Middle East aka Fertile Crescent over 10,000 years before they arrived in Europe and that is where Civilization 1st appeared.
Read Guns, Germs and Steel. Jared Diamond's main thesis is that it was lack of biological raw material [large seeded grasses and domesticatable large animals that held back humans that were not in the favored places. It was not because they were different in any way. Environmentalism. Also, if time in that location was the determining factor then humans were in Africa 130,000 years longer than anywhere else. So, civilization should have started there, it didn't.

BTW --- I thought of another reason why no cows and horses is such a handicap. Much of the plant growth in many regions is grass leaves. Humans can't eat grass, cows can. This more than doubles the amount of captured sun energy that the society can use, but only if it has cows, sheep, goats, and or horses. And as modern industrial society shows it is all about the amount of energy you control.

Again BTW --- the Egyptian Pyramids were not built by slaves. Any Egyptologist will confirm this.