Unthinking Majority wrote:You can believe what you wish. Regardless, it was significantly less advanced than Eurasia. For indigenous of the Americas to compete in a globalized economic and political world they would have to reach similar levels of literacy and education in 2024. Illiterate societies becoming as educated and technologically and economically as advanced and thus powerful as the West within 500 years is virtually impossible. There's a reason why the only societies in the world that can compete on par with the West economically are located in parts of Asia. It's the same reason why many of these parts of Asia weren't colonized by Europe.
No, Indigenous people are not inherently less capable of reading than white people.and so 509 years would be more than enough time to “catch up”.
At this point, you are not only deliberately ignoring colonialism but also making up racist myths in order to sidestep it.
No the discussion is on survivability, adaptability, and Darwinisn when it comes to humans. Technology is a key tool humans use to adapt to their environment to increase surivability. Natural immunity to "germs" is also important.
Back to education and economics:
How exactly were Europeans more “ahead” on your video game ladder of Civilization in 5ese two fields?
Yes they had trade. Regardless, they were far poorer than Eurasia due to "guns, germs, steel" theory.
No. The wealth was simply used in a different manner.
The wealth of the USA came from resources, geography, climate, country-wide political stability, education, technology. Since NA indigenous communities were significantly less advanced in the latter categories than the British and later immigrant groups it's unreasonable to assume they would be comparatively wealthy today.
No, it is perfect reasonable since your assumptions are based on some weird video game theory of civilization.
NA Indigenous communities were significantly more “advanced” than Europe when it came to policing stability, for example. The history of the UK during this time was one civil war after another. Meanwhile, the Haudenosaunee were establishing peace treaties.
Strawman, I never said that. What I said is that all human societies are violent, and indigenous NA are no exception. Especially when they're in competition with each other for the same resources and there's no central government to enforce laws/contracts, and thus peaceful rules-based relations between humans and groups. This was a goal of organizations like the UN and WTO, which have unfortunately have had serious problems with enforcing their laws/rules/contracts because there's no strong central enforcement mechanism to adequately punish cheaters. Since this didn't exist in NA before colonialism, war between indigenous groups would have continued as it always had but been even more deadly with the addition of guns and other technology that can be used in war. Yes i'm aware that alliances between some groups existed, but alliances also existed in Europe right before WW1 and WW2.
Actually I think you believe, like some others on the left, in the racist "noble savage" myth/fantasy that whites are uniquely violent while indigenous societies aren't or were/are less so.
Then show evidence that NA Indigenous communities were at war at the same rate as Europe at the time,
Or we can skip ahead to the part where you admit you have no evidence for this belief. Whichever.