[quote]DiggersNick21 wrote:
But they were savage, thats the point. I would call them savage with no prejudice against them, but how else would you describe a culture that routinely practised in cannibalism, sacrificed humans on the regular and were in a never ending state of war.[/quote]
You refer primarily to the Central American cultures, and particularly the Aztecs here.
The Aztecs are not the entirety of Native Americans.
[quote]
Why do you think all the tribes called the Navajo’s the Navajo, it means enemy![/quote]
…
[quote]
North America was so savage and brutal that massive amounts of Natives sided with Cortez, who massacred millions, as the lesser of two evils, compared to the Aztecs.[/quote]
You show absolutely no understanding of politics here.
First…
They had no horses.
Second they only had corn and the original thumb sized thing they had took millenia to breed into corn.
Jared Diamond, “Guns, Germs and Steel” and so further and so on.
[quote]DiggersNick21 wrote:
Im not saying they were too stupid to domesticate horses dude, I am saying they did not have domesticated horses. Savage is not meant as a slur, its describing their conditions, their social constructs and their level of violence.
The natives were savages compared to the Europeans who were very well developed by comparison. Just as my people were savages by comparison to Baghdad and China at that point in history. I am not coming at this from a racist point of view at all. But to deny that the Native Americans were a savage people is rather silly. [/quote]
So you’re using the word “savage” in the way the Europeans used it in the 16th-20th century. O.k.
You’re still wrong.
I dislike name-dropping books, but I suggest you read 1491. It’s a nice way to update yourself on more recent developments of research on the Americas.
[quote]DiggersNick21 wrote:
Im not saying they were too stupid to domesticate horses dude, I am saying they did not have domesticated horses. Savage is not meant as a slur, its describing their conditions, their social constructs and their level of violence.
The natives were savages compared to the Europeans who were very well developed by comparison. Just as my people were savages by comparison to Baghdad and China at that point in history. I am not coming at this from a racist point of view at all. But to deny that the Native Americans were a savage people is rather silly. [/quote]
So you’re using the word “savage” in the way the Europeans used it in the 16th-20th century. O.k.
You’re still wrong.
I dislike name-dropping books, but I suggest you read 1491. It’s a nice way to update yourself on more recent developments of research on the Americas.[/quote]
Sure I will take a look. But to act like the natives had developed to anywhere near European standards does just not hold up at all.
Also to the above poster, again I’m not saying they were savage because they were too dumb to figure stuff out, they had conditions that forced savagery upon them, much like the mongols, German tribes, Outer African tribes etc
What European standards? The average European lived in poverty, filth, and generally bad conditions up until the 19th century, when the advent of the Industrial Revolution and all the “wonders” that followed.
Then they just got themselves shoved into giant housing complexes and wage labor(slavery).
We wouldn’t know of any Mesoamerican written works, because the Spaniards burned virtually all of them. Based on the one or two works that are still surviving, we know that they had poetry and fiction.
But that’s about it. There’s literally nothing to look at.
It’s silly to make judgments of an erased culture, based upon whatever is left behind.
What European standards? The average European lived in poverty, filth, and generally bad conditions up until the 19th century, when the advent of the Industrial Revolution and all the “wonders” that followed.
Then they just got themselves shoved into giant housing complexes and wage labor(slavery).
We wouldn’t know of any Mesoamerican written works, because the Spaniards burned virtually all of them. Based on the one or two works that are still surviving, we know that they had poetry and fiction.
But that’s about it. There’s literally nothing to look at.
It’s silly to make judgments of an erased culture, based upon whatever is left behind. [/quote]
Are you a Marxist in the classical libertarian sense?
And the capitalist mode of production is an epoch far more advanced than feudal/nomadic society
As Marx would say, the capitalist revolution in the productive forces cast the old unproductive modes asunder.
They are assaulting random strangers without any motive other than entertainment while others do not condemn the behavior. Very disturbing. [/quote]
I wouldn’t say there’s absolutely no motive. A lot of these kids look to be around what? 16? That’s old enough to want to be “manly,” but they still have no money, respect, or power in any facet of their lives (this is true for pretty much any 16 year old kid). Girls their age will probably go for older guys, their friends look up to older guys, and they’re perverts if they go for younger girls. In a way, it’s almost saying “try and ignore THIS!” They feel [mistakenly] more like a man because they think they did something tough, they got attention, they got esteem from their peers both by providing a source of humor and by showing how crazy they are (and, hence, not to be messed with), and they got to let out some aggression on those who, rightly or wrongly, they feel are to blame for their situation. I’m not excusing the acts at all, but just saying it’s not without motive.
As far as condemnation… lots of crap goes on in poor areas. Folks are trying to get by and starting beefs doesn’t help that.
They did a study a while back (of course, I can’t cite anything), and they found that teenagers just have less empathy and have a harder time discerning emotions based on facial expressions than adults. It’s interesting to ponder what sort of evolutionary advantage there is in this delayed development (or maybe adults just have more practice).[/quote]
They are assaulting random strangers without any motive other than entertainment while others do not condemn the behavior. Very disturbing. [/quote]
I wouldn’t say there’s absolutely no motive. A lot of these kids look to be around what? 16? That’s old enough to want to be “manly,” but they still have no money, respect, or power in any facet of their lives (this is true for pretty much any 16 year old kid). Girls their age will probably go for older guys, their friends look up to older guys, and they’re perverts if they go for younger girls. In a way, it’s almost saying “try and ignore THIS!” They feel [mistakenly] more like a man because they think they did something tough, they got attention, they got esteem from their peers both by providing a source of humor and by showing how crazy they are (and, hence, not to be messed with), and they got to let out some aggression on those who, rightly or wrongly, they feel are to blame for their situation. I’m not excusing the acts at all, but just saying it’s not without motive.
As far as condemnation… lots of crap goes on in poor areas. Folks are trying to get by and starting beefs doesn’t help that.
They did a study a while back (of course, I can’t cite anything), and they found that teenagers just have less empathy and have a harder time discerning emotions based on facial expressions than adults. It’s interesting to ponder what sort of evolutionary advantage there is in this delayed development (or maybe adults just have more practice).[/quote]
Good post.[/quote]
Still belong in a fucking Zoo!!
[quote]DiggersNick21 wrote:
Are you a Marxist in the classical libertarian sense?[/quote]
No.
But I consider anyone who thinks what the capitalist system of the late 19th century in Europe and the U.S. to be anything but wage slavery (given how the businesses gamed everything for their own advantage and to keep people locked into it with absolutely no way of escaping) overly “enthusiastic”
Sure. If the only metric is production and generation of “wealth”/material goods and the growth of the economy at large.
[quote]DiggersNick21 wrote:
Are you a Marxist in the classical libertarian sense?[/quote]
No.
But I consider anyone who thinks what the capitalist system of the late 19th century in Europe and the U.S. to be anything but wage slavery (given how the businesses gamed everything for their own advantage and to keep people locked into it with absolutely no way of escaping) overly “enthusiastic”
Sure. If the only metric is production and generation of “wealth”/material goods and the growth of the economy at large.
But that’s not the only metric.[/quote]
Are you claiming Native American society was as advanced culturally, militarily, or even materially from the masses of those nations point of views?
I think you are being romantic, do you think the people at the bottom of a tribe were any less slaves than the European proletariat?
Dancing with wolves was cute, but let’s stick to historical facts.
[quote]DiggersNick21 wrote:
Are you a Marxist in the classical libertarian sense?[/quote]
No.
But I consider anyone who thinks what the capitalist system of the late 19th century in Europe and the U.S. to be anything but wage slavery (given how the businesses gamed everything for their own advantage and to keep people locked into it with absolutely no way of escaping) overly “enthusiastic”
Sure. If the only metric is production and generation of “wealth”/material goods and the growth of the economy at large.
But that’s not the only metric.[/quote]
Yes it is, your criteria is not held by any reputable historian.
[quote]DiggersNick21 wrote:
Are you a Marxist in the classical libertarian sense?[/quote]
No.
But I consider anyone who thinks what the capitalist system of the late 19th century in Europe and the U.S. to be anything but wage slavery (given how the businesses gamed everything for their own advantage and to keep people locked into it with absolutely no way of escaping) overly “enthusiastic”
[/quote]
What was the alternative?
People flocked to the cities, those cities with factories in them quadrupled in a few decades.
Your idea of “inhumane” or whatever treatment was highly desired.
The people who had seen the alternatives first hand voted with their feet en masse.
Not to intervene, but different metrics do change perspective. I also hate to generalize, as there are 100s of tribes (there used to be a lot more) and everything in the past is kind of being lumped together… it’s like comparing industrial brits, ancient greeks, and the ottoman empire… doesn’t really make much sense.
But to mention some of the other metrics:
medicinally: use of herbs and other natural materials were the basis for many, even modern day, medicines (aspirin)
politically: the US concept of democracy was modeled largely from the Iroquois’ big brother/little brother system… Even Ben Franklin bitched about the “savages” being able to master democracy when the US was struggling to conceive itself
agriculturally: It wasn’t all foraging. Notably, “the three sisters” of corn, beans, and squash were a standard in many tribes.
Etc. Etc.
It wasn’t all dances with wolves… some tribes were nomadic, others subsisted mostly on trade, some more on war, others lived in major cities that evolved to become today’s major cities, some had slavery, some assimilated POWs and let them marry.
I understand a lot of hippies like to have distorted views of living in perfect harmony in nature, but it wasn’t a bunch of caveman surviving w/ no culture or sophistication either.
People flocked to the cities, those cities with factories in them quadrupled in a few decades.
Your idea of “inhumane” or whatever treatment was highly desired.
The people who had seen the alternatives first hand voted with their feet en masse. [/quote]
There is no alternative. I know that the capitalist system that began since the late 19th century is the most profitable and best for economic growth that we know thus far.
People flocked to cities because there were no jobs. That doesn’t really mean that it’s the better alternative… There is no alternative when there is no choice.
But that didn’t mean people gained a better standard of living. That only came in the very early 20th century when the European states caved into fears of commies and union pressures to regulate working hours and other things that we take for granted now.
What I mean to say is this- I don’t like an unregulated capitalist system. Having read about what happened when there was no regulation whatsoever, I can’t imagine why anyone would want to go back to that.
And apparently there are people who do. But they tend to be the rich people who wouldn’t be working 16-18hr to begin with.
People flocked to the cities, those cities with factories in them quadrupled in a few decades.
Your idea of “inhumane” or whatever treatment was highly desired.
The people who had seen the alternatives first hand voted with their feet en masse. [/quote]
There is no alternative. I know that the capitalist system that began since the late 19th century is the most profitable and best for economic growth that we know thus far.
People flocked to cities because there were no jobs. That doesn’t really mean that it’s the better alternative… There is no alternative when there is no choice.
But that didn’t mean people gained a better standard of living. That only came in the very early 20th century when the European states caved into fears of commies and union pressures to regulate working hours and other things that we take for granted now.
What I mean to say is this- I don’t like an unregulated capitalist system. Having read about what happened when there was no regulation whatsoever, I can’t imagine why anyone would want to go back to that.
And apparently there are people who do. But they tend to be the rich people who wouldn’t be working 16-18hr to begin with.[/quote]
That is not true, in the early 19th century some economists started to wonder why some goods had become inelastic.
Meaning, they had become so dirt cheap that their price no longer mattered.
People flocked to the cities, those cities with factories in them quadrupled in a few decades.
Your idea of “inhumane” or whatever treatment was highly desired.
The people who had seen the alternatives first hand voted with their feet en masse. [/quote]
There is no alternative. I know that the capitalist system that began since the late 19th century is the most profitable and best for economic growth that we know thus far.
People flocked to cities because there were no jobs. That doesn’t really mean that it’s the better alternative… There is no alternative when there is no choice.
But that didn’t mean people gained a better standard of living. That only came in the very early 20th century when the European states caved into fears of commies and union pressures to regulate working hours and other things that we take for granted now.
What I mean to say is this- I don’t like an unregulated capitalist system. Having read about what happened when there was no regulation whatsoever, I can’t imagine why anyone would want to go back to that.
And apparently there are people who do. But they tend to be the rich people who wouldn’t be working 16-18hr to begin with.[/quote]
That is not true, in the early 19th century some economists started to wonder why some goods had become inelastic.
Meaning, they had become so dirt cheap that their price no longer mattered. [/quote]
?
What relevance does the price of goods in the early 19th century have anything to do with the late 19th and early 20th?
People flocked to the cities, those cities with factories in them quadrupled in a few decades.
Your idea of “inhumane” or whatever treatment was highly desired.
The people who had seen the alternatives first hand voted with their feet en masse. [/quote]
There is no alternative. I know that the capitalist system that began since the late 19th century is the most profitable and best for economic growth that we know thus far.
People flocked to cities because there were no jobs. That doesn’t really mean that it’s the better alternative… There is no alternative when there is no choice.
But that didn’t mean people gained a better standard of living. That only came in the very early 20th century when the European states caved into fears of commies and union pressures to regulate working hours and other things that we take for granted now.
What I mean to say is this- I don’t like an unregulated capitalist system. Having read about what happened when there was no regulation whatsoever, I can’t imagine why anyone would want to go back to that.
And apparently there are people who do. But they tend to be the rich people who wouldn’t be working 16-18hr to begin with.[/quote]
That is not true, in the early 19th century some economists started to wonder why some goods had become inelastic.
Meaning, they had become so dirt cheap that their price no longer mattered. [/quote]
?
What relevance does the price of goods in the early 19th century have anything to do with the late 19th and early 20th?
[/quote]
Well you claimed that the benefits of the mighty C only kicked in later, but if goods started to become a taken for granted staple much sooner…
[quote]orion wrote:
Well you claimed that the benefits of the mighty C only kicked in later, but if goods started to become a taken for granted staple much sooner…[/quote]
It really depends on what the goods you’re referring to are.