6 ms·

Any of them. They were all steam rolled by us. >Some were cruel to their captives and in times of war; others were not. What bearing does this have on anythi

by ytinas 17y ago

Any of them. They were all steam rolled by us. >Some were cruel to their captives and in times of war; others were not. What bearing does this have on anything? Most of the bad things we hear about were learned from someone else (e.g. scalping from the French). >Some wanted to expand their territory and conquer lands and other tribes, There was in-fighting between certain groups, but obviously none had the same appetite we did. >If you have any love at all for history, stop referring to all those pre-colonial nations under a single name and title. You seem to have an axe to grind. In normal usage, one provides as much detail as is relevant. If I were talking about people of earth in relation to some other alien race I would most likely say "humans" unless there was a real reason to be more specific.

thaumaturgy 17y ago
So, if some alien race conquered our planet, destroyed nearly all of human culture -- and thus human history -- if not our species altogether, and then other members of that alien race said things like: It's such a shame. Humans were so peaceful, so quaint. We could have learned so much from them, because all humans lived in great harmony with each-other and with their environment... ...Your reaction would be, "Well, that's about as much detail as is relevant, sure"? Mine would be, "You're completely ignorant of human history, and that should change." Scalping is a popular subject to bring up, because it's so simple, so easy to understand. It's not like all of the other varied forms of torture, which have to be described and require a certain amount of attention to discuss; instead, you just say, "...scalping...", and everybody goes, "Ohhhh yeah, that horrible thing that whites taught the innocent natives." ...but then, what were the French doing in South Dakota in 1350? [1] Yes, I certainly do have an axe to grind, and it is this: history is rich, and amazing, and valuable, and I wish it to be taught and revered, and not swept under the Rug Of Oversimplification with statements like, "the Roman Empire was grand", and "native Americans were beautiful". [1]: http://www.uiowa.edu/~anthro/paleopathology/crowcreek/vignette.html http://www.uiowa.edu/~anthro/paleopathology/crowcreek/vignet...
- ytinas 17y ago
  >It's such a shame. Humans were so peaceful, so quaint. We could have learned so much from them, because all humans lived in great harmony with each-other and with their environment... >...Your reaction would be, "Well, that's about as much detail as is relevant, sure"? No. In that case, they are making a blanket statement that all humans were peaceful, etc. In this case I was suggestion that the native Americans who were here before us were not necessarily inferior or incompetent. I think that statement stands for most any specific native American group, if not all. >Yes, I certainly do have an axe to grind, and it is this: history is rich, and amazing, and valuable, and I wish it to be taught and revered, and not swept under the Rug Of Oversimplification with statements like, "the Roman Empire was grand", and "native Americans were beautiful". Fair enough, but comments get long enough on their own without having to completely qualify every part of every point ever made.
kls 17y ago
The romanticized Indians where the victims bent, is a little old. The fact of the matter is the Indians (all distinctive cultures) where the looser in a bitter battle between two cultures. Both where right and both where wrong. Both committed atrocities that are appealing by today's standards. The white apologist thing is just neo-trendy but true history does not support your conclusion. The fact of the matter is, for better or worse European and Asian cultures with the help at times from middle eastern cultures have bettered the human condition and history clearly supports that conclusion. The grandparent post is right, society has congealed into functional and dysfunctional land masses. I would go so far as to state that it is a gradient, where land masses like the middle east are somewhere in between. Now we can stick our head and the sand and say it is not true and continue with the standard kumbaya, everybody is a winner, Disney movie observations, that it is not the case or we can accept that either culturally, geographically, racially, nutritionally or via some other unknown, there are regions that are prone to violence, rampant corruption, less innovation and political abuse / instability. We will be none the better, until we come to that acceptance and formulate real solutions that address the real issue and not just band-aiding it with aid and dictator coddling. That just furthers the problem.
- lief79 17y ago
  > "Appealing" by today's standards. Amusing slip, but the sad thing is some people would agree with this statement.
  - kls 17y ago
    yes that was supposed to be appalling. I will leave it as is so that your comment stands.
- ytinas 17y ago
  >The white apologist thing is just neo-trendy but true history does not support your conclusion. History doesn't support my conclusion? We invaded some else's land and nearly wiped them out. Now what remains are spread out on reservations, little crops of land that had no value to us. You assertion that "Both where right and both were wrong" is nonsense. If some other country invaded the US today and started having that kind of "success" would you feel the same? American citizens would just be the losers in a bitter battle between two cultures? Somehow I don't think so. >The grandparent post is right, society has congealed into functional and dysfunctional land masses. No, you and the GGP both confuse what we have now for success. We don't have "functional and dysfunctional land masses", we have the land of the empires who were always conquering and the land of those who weren't as aggressive. As is usually the case; the first one to strike wins. That doesn't mean he is better or has more potential, just that he won. We can't know what would have happened otherwise. Perhaps we've ended up in the best situation we could have, or perhaps we could have reached a much higher level of enlightenment. There is no way to know, but I find the framing of what happened as the best possible outcome (and by extension, everything that was done was correct) arrogant.

by ytinas 17y ago

thaumaturgy 17y ago

So, if some alien race conquered our planet, destroyed nearly all of human culture -- and thus human history -- if not our species altogether, and then other members of that alien race said things like: It's such a shame. Humans were so peaceful, so quaint. We could have learned so much from them, because all humans lived in great harmony with each-other and with their environment... ...Your reaction would be, "Well, that's about as much detail as is relevant, sure"? Mine would be, "You're completely ignorant of human history, and that should change." Scalping is a popular subject to bring up, because it's so simple, so easy to understand. It's not like all of the other varied forms of torture, which have to be described and require a certain amount of attention to discuss; instead, you just say, "...scalping...", and everybody goes, "Ohhhh yeah, that horrible thing that whites taught the innocent natives." ...but then, what were the French doing in South Dakota in 1350? [1] Yes, I certainly do have an axe to grind, and it is this: history is rich, and amazing, and valuable, and I wish it to be taught and revered, and not swept under the Rug Of Oversimplification with statements like, "the Roman Empire was grand", and "native Americans were beautiful". [1]: http://www.uiowa.edu/~anthro/paleopathology/crowcreek/vignette.html http://www.uiowa.edu/~anthro/paleopathology/crowcreek/vignet...

ytinas 17y ago
>It's such a shame. Humans were so peaceful, so quaint. We could have learned so much from them, because all humans lived in great harmony with each-other and with their environment... >...Your reaction would be, "Well, that's about as much detail as is relevant, sure"? No. In that case, they are making a blanket statement that all humans were peaceful, etc. In this case I was suggestion that the native Americans who were here before us were not necessarily inferior or incompetent. I think that statement stands for most any specific native American group, if not all. >Yes, I certainly do have an axe to grind, and it is this: history is rich, and amazing, and valuable, and I wish it to be taught and revered, and not swept under the Rug Of Oversimplification with statements like, "the Roman Empire was grand", and "native Americans were beautiful". Fair enough, but comments get long enough on their own without having to completely qualify every part of every point ever made.

kls 17y ago

The romanticized Indians where the victims bent, is a little old. The fact of the matter is the Indians (all distinctive cultures) where the looser in a bitter battle between two cultures. Both where right and both where wrong. Both committed atrocities that are appealing by today's standards. The white apologist thing is just neo-trendy but true history does not support your conclusion. The fact of the matter is, for better or worse European and Asian cultures with the help at times from middle eastern cultures have bettered the human condition and history clearly supports that conclusion. The grandparent post is right, society has congealed into functional and dysfunctional land masses. I would go so far as to state that it is a gradient, where land masses like the middle east are somewhere in between. Now we can stick our head and the sand and say it is not true and continue with the standard kumbaya, everybody is a winner, Disney movie observations, that it is not the case or we can accept that either culturally, geographically, racially, nutritionally or via some other unknown, there are regions that are prone to violence, rampant corruption, less innovation and political abuse / instability. We will be none the better, until we come to that acceptance and formulate real solutions that address the real issue and not just band-aiding it with aid and dictator coddling. That just furthers the problem.

lief79 17y ago
> "Appealing" by today's standards. Amusing slip, but the sad thing is some people would agree with this statement.
- kls 17y ago
  yes that was supposed to be appalling. I will leave it as is so that your comment stands.
ytinas 17y ago
>The white apologist thing is just neo-trendy but true history does not support your conclusion. History doesn't support my conclusion? We invaded some else's land and nearly wiped them out. Now what remains are spread out on reservations, little crops of land that had no value to us. You assertion that "Both where right and both were wrong" is nonsense. If some other country invaded the US today and started having that kind of "success" would you feel the same? American citizens would just be the losers in a bitter battle between two cultures? Somehow I don't think so. >The grandparent post is right, society has congealed into functional and dysfunctional land masses. No, you and the GGP both confuse what we have now for success. We don't have "functional and dysfunctional land masses", we have the land of the empires who were always conquering and the land of those who weren't as aggressive. As is usually the case; the first one to strike wins. That doesn't mean he is better or has more potential, just that he won. We can't know what would have happened otherwise. Perhaps we've ended up in the best situation we could have, or perhaps we could have reached a much higher level of enlightenment. There is no way to know, but I find the framing of what happened as the best possible outcome (and by extension, everything that was done was correct) arrogant.