7 ms·
Aren't all civilizations far older and more complex than history can account for? We don't really know how the pyramids arrived, or a detailed history of Engla
by tux1968 8y ago
Aren't all civilizations far older and more complex than history can account for? We don't really know how the pyramids arrived, or a detailed history of England back very far -- who created Stonehenge?
It's interesting that the migration out of Africa and over to the Americas happened so much longer ago than previously thought, but it doesn't change what happened when the European settlers arrived. The author seems to be asserting that this gives the Native Americans more claim than they would otherwise have.
But I don't understand that logic; human history, known and unknown, is littered with people suffering under the hands of conquerors. The story is the same in Asia and Europe as it is in the Americas. The Natives themselves weren't always peaceful and conquered and claimed land from each other. Hopefully we can do better than this going forward, but the past is what it is, a harsh existence for victors and even more so for the vanquished.
- garmaine 8y ago> We don't really know how the pyramids arrived, or a detailed history of England back very far -- who created Stonehenge? We actually know answers to both of those questions fairly well now. Archeology has advanced, and what questions remain are mostly a matter of details.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- DiabloD3 8y agoIt doesn't seem likely Khufu had actually built the pyramids, but modified them into his own vision. We still don't know what the pyramids were originally designed for, but it seems unlikely the previous owner had intended it to be a tomb.
- garmaine 8y agoAFAIK that’s a YouTube myth. The burial chamber is built into the structure of the pyramid, not mined out of it; there is no evidence of retrofitting. We’ve uncovered and dated work sites and living areas for the people who constructed it, which coincide with known old kingdom chronology. That theory also doesn’t explain why there happens to be exactly three major pyramids at that site with minor pyramids in numbers that coincide with three generations of pharaohs and their consorts. It also doesn’t explain the clear progression of pyramid building leading up to the Great pyramids at Giza.
- DiabloD3 8y agoIf that is a myth, it is older than Youtube. Unfortunately, unless we invent time travel or discover an important find, it is anyone's guess as if what you wrote (the established history as written by British archeologists) is correct.... it merely is the most popular theory at the moment.
- garmaine 8y agoNot British archeologists, although I’m not sure why that’s relevant. We don’t need time machines when we have radio-carbon dating of fires and refuse at work sites, scattered graffiti (e.g. “Khufu’s ____” as the name of a work gang stamped into the surface of an inner stone), and the later written chronologies.
- thanksDr 8y agoWe have some clues that weren't destroyed - The pulse pump chamber, the waveguides. With enough advanced study, it may be possible to reconstruct a working model.
- ZenPsycho 8y agoThe justification frequently used for western colonialism/conquest is the principle of “Terra Nullius”, in short, the native peoples with their primative technology are not fully utilising the land, and we’re doing them a favor by conquering them. it turns out after the fact that in many respects, particularly with regards to agriculture, land management, diplomacy, and some areas of engineering, the native people were more advanced, and the permanent loss of that knowledge is a tragedy for the world.
- tux1968 8y agoFor sure. But there are countless other examples of people being conquered too, all over the world, and not just by Europeans. There is no justification needed, other than that's what humans did back then. It was a much more primitive and brutal example of survival of the fittest. And as much as it offends our sensibilities now, it is the very path that leads us to where we find ourselves today. We can struggle to be more just and compassionate with each other today, but our ancestors lived in a very different and harsh reality. It's not pretty, but it was a reality for a lot longer than this brief period we're living in now.
- cmurf 8y agoBack then? Hawaii was made a state in 1959. There was still quite a lot of colonization related conflict happening in the 20th century.
- soperj 8y agoThe people of Hawaii actively campaigned for statehood in 1959. Not quite understanding the context of your argument here.
- eropple 8y agoThey did, yes. Have you ever looked into how they got there? The Republic of Hawaii, founded at the very end of the 19th century led to annexation by the United States (one since admitted to and apologized for, as it happens) and it wasn't until the fifties that largely non-native plantation owners were sufficiently pushed back to have those little things like "democracy" actually mean much of anything. Outside of this specific example, the Scramble for Africa is generally not considered to have ended until 1914, with the results of it and similar Middle Eastern colonial efforts not really shaking out until after the Second World War.
- rocoso 8y agoNatives where peaceful. Land belongs to the great spirit. They were conquered by the invaders..
- Kalium 8y agoIt might just be me, but those seem like very broad generalizations over a large number of unique cultures.
- kingkawn 8y agoIn order to move forward from this cycle of history it is meaningful to look at how the spoils of the conquerors continue to accrue for their descendants in unequal measure. The history you are eager to dismiss as the past is well alive, history in name only.