Native neolithic culture vs western culture

charter.rights · October 30, 2008

...and again...the train...the car...the aircraft all use wheels. Not ponies or canoes.
-----------------------------

See my thumb?

---Animal House

And natives use cars, trains and aircraft. So what's your point? These things did not exist at contact and without treaties with First Nations and foreign labour it is unlikely any of the roads, tracks and airports would exist here. My point is that natives are part of this society and civilization and have equally contribbuted to its advancement since contact.

DogOnPorch · October 30, 2008

And natives use cars, trains and aircraft. So what's your point? These things did not exist at contact and without treaties with First Nations and foreign labour it is unlikely any of the roads, tracks and airports would exist here. My point is that natives are part of this society and civilization and have equally contribbuted to its advancement since contact.

lol...the Europeans were coming with or without your permission. Sort of like the Gauls re: the Romans. Europeans had the wheel for many hundreds of years at the point of 'contact'.

Native Indians are set apart from the rest of society partly by their own victim mentality. They have contributed barely anything of worth other than new legal terms, but many do seem to enjoy booze, drugs and gambling to a fault. I have numerous examples in my city alone.

--------------------------------------------

...and that's the way it is.

---Walter Cronkite

AngusThermopyle · October 30, 2008

And no, the wood did not have to be cured. It was fashioned green and then dried out with fire and any number of woods such as ash, oak, maple, hickory or even spruce would hold up when needed.

Once again your ignorance is showing, what do you think curing wood means? There are different methods of curing but they all return roughly the same results. Oak as bow material, you must be drinking or something. Hard woods are pretty much useless as bow material as they are too brittle when cured, the best wood for a bow is Yew, always has been and always would be if we hadn't figured out composites.

NA Native bows were crude affairs with little range or power, once again they failed to fully develop the art t its high point. Compare the NA Native bow to the British Long Bow and you will see marked differences in the technology utilized between the two. this subject is of particular interest to me as I used to be passionately into Archery when I was younger, I've made my own bow in the past, a real bow, not some stick with a string tied to it. I used yew (of course) and laminated it with fiberglass, when i was done I had a nice little double recurve with a pull around 55lbs.

Just soaking and steaming the Yew so it would conform to the double recurve design took a considerable amount of time, with the benefit of modern tech to help out. Perhaps instead of taking any bullshit thrown at you as gospel you should actually try experiencing things instead.

As for your feeble comment about survivalism, well thats on par with all the other unfounded unproven crap you post. All I can say is that in survival terms, knowing how to properly fashion a bow most likely places me head and shoulders above you. Not to mention the fact that I'm a proponent of the minimalist aproach to Woodsmanship, e.g. purify your own water, provide your own food through fishing and hunting or gathering edible plants. One of my favourite things to do out here is take off into the mountains alone, I know, you're not supposed to do that but I enjoy it. I do take a rifle with me though, minimalism just doesn't cut it when you run into a Bear or Cougar (fortunately I haven't encountered a Cougar yet, just some Bears).

You really shouldn't make bold statements of superiority when you know nothing about the person you are attempting to denigrate.

Oh yes, in all fairness I feel I should mention that I bought the Bow string, I didn't make it. Also, my Father turned out some really nice shafts from Aluminum for me, his hobby was making muzzle loading weapons from scratch, he was a Machinist amongst other things.

Now, you want to discuss the Mongolian Bow? I'll be nice and tell you why even though it was roughly the same dimensions as the NA bow it had many times the power and range, if you want,

heres a clue, it was a double recurve.

Edited to add: Why am I even bothering with you, its obvious that your usual style is still predominant. That is, making outlandish statements then when refuted claiming the other person doesn't know what they are talking about while denying anything said.

Edited October 30, 2008 by AngusThermopyle

M.Dancer · October 30, 2008

Now, you want to discuss the Mongolian Bow? I'll be nice and tell you why even though it was roughly the same dimensions as the NA bow it had many times the power and range, if you want,
heres a clue, it was a double recurve.

And wasn't also a composite bow? Made from bone, horn and wood laminated and glued together to give it incredible strength?

I'm sure it only took a few hours to make... :lol:

AngusThermopyle · October 30, 2008

And wasn't also a composite bow? Made from bone, horn and wood laminated and glued together to give it incredible strength?
I'm sure it only took a few hours to make...

Yes, it was a composite, an amazing weapon really considering its small size, ideal for Horse back use and accredited with being a major factor in the expansion and dominance of the Mongols. Now we've gone and given the answer away, double recurve, composite.

Now I should point out something Dancer brought to my attention. It appears that some Oaks can be used for Bows, I stand corrected. He showed me a nice example of an English long bow fashioned from Red Oak. It only has about a 35lb draw but is still a nice little bow. The English Long Bow is another fascinating subject. The largest had pulls up to 175lbs to 200lbs, it took a strong man to draw and fire these bows. Skeletal remains show the growth of bone spurs on Long Bow archers in order to support the extra muscle mass these guys developed. It was also law that every Englishman possess a bow and practise regularly with it, they even introduced a Yew tax to ensure the supply of Yew to make them.

I recently read a study comparing both the potential and kinetic energy of a shaft fired from a long bow to that of a high powered sporting rifle round, you'd be surprised by the results.

M.Dancer · October 30, 2008

Skeletal remains show the growth of bone spurs on Long Bow archers in order to support the extra muscle mass these guys developed. It was also law that every Englishman possess a bow and practise regularly with it, they even introduced a Yew tax to ensure the supply of Yew to make them.

This is one of the reasons why the musket, even with it's erratic accuracy and slow rate of fire supplanted massed archers in short order.

It takes years to train good archers and their weapons if the bow breaks, can never be repaired and the components are heavily affected by the weather.

Musketeers on the otherhand could be trained in months and if a piece broke other than the barrel or breach, it could be replaced quickly and easily.

charter.rights · October 30, 2008

Once again your ignorance is showing, what do you think curing wood means? There are different methods of curing but they all return roughly the same results. Oak as bow material, you must be drinking or something. Hard woods are pretty much useless as bow material as they are too brittle when cured, the best wood for a bow is Yew, always has been and always would be if we hadn't figured out composites.
NA Native bows were crude affairs with little range or power, once again they failed to fully develop the art t its high point. Compare the NA Native bow to the British Long Bow and you will see marked differences in the technology utilized between the two. this subject is of particular interest to me as I used to be passionately into Archery when I was younger, I've made my own bow in the past, a real bow, not some stick with a string tied to it. I used yew (of course) and laminated it with fiberglass, when i was done I had a nice little double recurve with a pull around 55lbs.

Just soaking and steaming the Yew so it would conform to the double recurve design took a considerable amount of time, with the benefit of modern tech to help out. Perhaps instead of taking any bullshit thrown at you as gospel you should actually try experiencing things instead.

As for your feeble comment about survivalism, well thats on par with all the other unfounded unproven crap you post. All I can say is that in survival terms, knowing how to properly fashion a bow most likely places me head and shoulders above you. Not to mention the fact that I'm a proponent of the minimalist aproach to Woodsmanship, e.g. purify your own water, provide your own food through fishing and hunting or gathering edible plants. One of my favourite things to do out here is take off into the mountains alone, I know, you're not supposed to do that but I enjoy it. I do take a rifle with me though, minimalism just doesn't cut it when you run into a Bear or Cougar (fortunately I haven't encountered a Cougar yet, just some Bears).

You really shouldn't make bold statements of superiority when you know nothing about the person you are attempting to denigrate.

Oh yes, in all fairness I feel I should mention that I bought the Bow string, I didn't make it. Also, my Father turned out some really nice shafts from Aluminum for me, his hobby was making muzzle loading weapons from scratch, he was a Machinist amongst other things.

Now, you want to discuss the Mongolian Bow? I'll be nice and tell you why even though it was roughly the same dimensions as the NA bow it had many times the power and range, if you want,

heres a clue, it was a double recurve.

Edited to add: Why am I even bothering with you, its obvious that your usual style is still predominant. That is, making outlandish statements then when refuted claiming the other person doesn't know what they are talking about while denying anything said.

Wrong again my ignorant fellow. Oak and ash were always split along the grain and that gave them flexibility and strength. They were the two favourites of North American natives although others would do in a pinch.

You are all talk and no substance as usual. Good thing! Go away and bother someone elsesince you only came in here fishing anyway.

White Doors · October 30, 2008

What stick do they carry? They have a little bit of political power? Is that what you mean by 'stick'?

The stick? Constitutional DNA distinctiveness. That is one BIG stick wether you agree or not.

Take note that in order to make that fat offer there is no requirement to first determine whose culture is superior to whose

I hold it to be self evident the quality of life enjoyed by those natives who join main steam society as being wholly superior to those who choose to remain on the reserve living in squalor.

Insults ignored in the interests of continuing this debate.

charter.rights · October 30, 2008

The stick? Constitutional DNA distinctiveness. That is one BIG stick wether you agree or not.
I hold it to be self evident the quality of life enjoyed by those natives who join main steam society as being wholly superior to those who choose to remain on the reserve living in squalor.

Insults ignored in the interests of continuing this debate.

The majority of natives live in cities too and carry their aboriginal rights with them. Kinda shoots down that theory eh?

White Doors · October 30, 2008

The majority of natives live in cities too and carry their aboriginal rights with them. Kinda shoots down that theory eh?

No, because once they are off the reserve they have to pay taxes and work for a living.

And for your information, you are not one to be talking about having 'theories shot down' as pretty much everything you post is torn up by facts.

DogOnPorch · October 30, 2008

The Welsh/English longbow with the heavy bodkin arrow could knock a French knight out of his saddle at 300 yards. More if there was a tailwind. Not until the rifled musket (the Springfield, for example) was the longbow truely replaced. It took quite a lot of training to shoot with effect. First used against the Scots in great numbers. Bannockburn (1314 AD) in particular.

----------------------------------------------------------

Man is the only animal that can be skinned more than once.

---Jimmy Durante

charter.rights · October 30, 2008

No, because once they are off the reserve they have to pay taxes and work for a living.
And for your information, you are not one to be talking about having 'theories shot down' as pretty much everything you post is torn up by facts.

Wrong again Bud. Natives who live in cities and work on reserve are still income tax free and they can still purchase all their goods on reserve by having them delivered there. Besides, being tax -free has nothing to do with the Charter. It has to do with the agreements the First Nations have with Canada. First Nations do not charge taxes in most cases and the government cannot charge taxes on foreign soil.

Most natives "work for a living" silly. It is only those multi-generational white city slickers that live on welfare.

You are still losing.

AngusThermopyle · October 30, 2008

The Welsh/English longbow with the heavy bodkin arrow could knock a French knight out of his saddle at 300 yards.

It really was an amazing and revolutionary weapon. As you said, it wasn't until the rifled barrel that it was truly replaced. They actually considered using it at Waterloo as a trained archer could fire much faster than a man with a musket, not to mention that it had more hitting power. The musket was primarily chosen because of ease of use, it took a long time to train a profficient archer and at that time there weren't too many left.

the report I read stated that a Long Bow Broadhead arrow has more potential and kinetic energy than a modern sporting rifle within it's effective range (I believe that was about 500 yards, not sure though). At first this seems preposterous but when you think about it it does make sense. A rifle bullet is not very large so it would have less potential energy than the steel tipped arrow which would have far greater mass thus far greater potential, and upon striking, kinetic energy. Even the bullets higher velocity is not enough to overcome this mass deficit. It was interesting, I'll see if I can find it again, given the mass and velocity of both objects its a very simple calculation to make, very basic physics.

Okay, this is really strange, the words "that it" and "kinetic energy" are linked to some commercial sites or something. How did that happen? I didn't link to anything in the post.

Edited October 30, 2008 by AngusThermopyle

M.Dancer · October 31, 2008

Wrong again Bud. Natives who live in cities and work on reserve are still income tax free ......

Interesting...Canadians who live in Canada but have offshore incomes have to pay income tax.....why do you think Idians other than than ethnicity and some crafty accountanting/fraud could do something like that?

DogOnPorch · October 31, 2008

The typical longbow arrow's shaft was over 3 feet in length. That adds up to quite a bit of kinetic energy indeed. It worked best enmasse, fired in a high plunging arc rather than by direct fire.

Another clever weapon of the past was the Roman pilum. Hard steel tip with soft iron upper shaft and wooden lower shaft. Enough force to punch through a heavy shield...the soft iron shaft would then bend making both the shield and pilum useless (during the battle). No throwing it back...lol. The Romans of Marius's time usually were equipped with two of these...a light and a heavy. Both were thrown just before close combat with horrible effect on enemy organization. Slaughter would generally then ensue. After the battle, the Romans would then gather them all back-up and straighten them out. Such thrift-meisters, the Romans.

The Romans, had they found North America, would have easily taken it from the neolithic Native Indians...and built the Trans-Canada Highway 1500 years ahead of time.

:lol:

------------------------------

Laws speaks too softly to be heard amidst the din of arms.

---Marius

charter.rights · October 31, 2008

Interesting...Canadians who live in Canada but have offshore incomes have to pay income tax.....why do you think Idians other than than ethnicity and some crafty accountanting/fraud could do something like that?

'

Money earned on reserve isn't income. It is "property". Don't forget that most of Canada still legally belongs to natives so living in the cities is really just living in another part of their territory.

"why do you think Idians other than than ethnicity...could do something like that?"

Had a few to many tonight?

But the answer lies in the legal relationship Native people have with the Crown. Their legal status hierarchy is par with the Canadian government, as a third and equal level with the federal government. At that level, the federal government has no power over them and the Crown sees them as sovereign peoples, just like they want to be recognized as Canada's sovereign.

Check out the Two Row Wampum and the Covenant Chain as examples of the kind of agreement that is understood. The simple fact is that Canada has no jurisdiction, except by treaty (and not much was ever given there ) or by agreement. That is why the government fills our heads with so much myth. If they can convince you and me that Natives are Canadians and if they can convince Natives they are Canadian, then they don't have to obey the wishes of the Crown. Its smoke and mirrors...only I never fell for it, having read the laws and followed the history extensively.

Of course you are free to believe what you want. You'll never get the answers because you keep asking the wrong questions.

charter.rights · October 31, 2008

The Romans, had they found North America, would have easily taken it from the neolithic Native Indians...and built the Trans-Canada Highway 1500 years ahead of time.

Not likely since the British and the French with the greatest force in the modern empire couldn't do it. Not that they didn't try. While the Romans overpowered peasants and farmers they did it in organized fashion that made them predictable and vulnerable. The kind of warfare the Natives taught was guerrilla style - hit and run - that made it hard to mount an organized attack. It is still working today in modern warfare.

I would still put forth that simple technology is more powerful than high technology. With all the laser-guide bombs, satellite surveillance systems and long range missiles the US - being the most technologically advanced armed forces in the world, can't beat the Taliban who can climb like mountain goats and travel the countryside with very little worry of being found out. The US army's Achilles heel is that they fight according to rules and are often defeated by them.

AngusThermopyle · October 31, 2008

I would still put forth that simple technology is more powerful than high technology. With all the laser-guide bombs, satellite surveillance systems and long range missiles

Of course you would say that, what else could you say? After all you have no real knowledge or experience of such things, all you have is your imagination and opinion based upon eronious "facts". You've never watched a fight of 3 Cobras come in and obliterate an entire city block in about 60 seconds. You've never witnessed a low level bombing run that obliterates all in its path.

It appears that you believe a bunch of wahoo's hiding in the bush can overcome a Leopard Mk2, it just isn't so. As was pointed out, if the Romans had discovered NA it would have been subjugated and ruled as was every place the Romans went. You may want to ignore reality and delude yourself into believing Native Americans could have withstood the might of the Roman Empire but you'll be in a very lonely club of the deluded if you do so.

The simple fact is that primitive stone age technology does not in any way compare to modern technology developed by use of the scientific method, either in efficiency or desired result.

By the way. I'm still wating for you to aknowledge the truth, that being that a Bow and Arrows could not be made in an hour to an hour and a half as you claimed earlier. C'mon, quit being a pussy and admit that you just made that up with no basis on actual reality. You might as well admit it no intelligent person would believe that crap anyway.

All that you accomplish by dodging and denying is prove that you have no credibility as an honest poster so you might as well turn over a new leaf and discover how good it feels to be honest.

Edited October 31, 2008 by AngusThermopyle

DogOnPorch · October 31, 2008

Not likely since the British and the French with the greatest force in the modern empire couldn't do it. Not that they didn't try. While the Romans overpowered peasants and farmers they did it in organized fashion that made them predictable and vulnerable. The kind of warfare the Natives taught was guerrilla style - hit and run - that made it hard to mount an organized attack. It is still working today in modern warfare.
I would still put forth that simple technology is more powerful than high technology. With all the laser-guide bombs, satellite surveillance systems and long range missiles the US - being the most technologically advanced armed forces in the world, can't beat the Taliban who can climb like mountain goats and travel the countryside with very little worry of being found out. The US army's Achilles heel is that they fight according to rules and are often defeated by them.

Romans were adept at fighting many styles of warfare including partisan tactics. Not that they didn't have their troubles vs certain foes at the fringes of the Roman world. But, I'd check out Boudica's Revolt to see what a legion or two could do to put down an uprising in the outback. Eighty thousand dead British. That would really put a dent into the ol' tribe's population curve.

:blink:

The Romans were thousands of times more dynamic and progressive than anything in North America. Had Rome never 'fallen' who knows how more advance the world would be today? Our trains still cross their old bridges. North American Indians didn't even have stone masonry.

The French and British "did"...btw. Pick up that penny. Look on the back. Who's there? That's right! QE2 or some older family member. Not Chief Dan George.

:lol:

The Americans and Allies including Canada have barely a corp sized formation in Afghanistan all put together. That's really peanuts. If it was WW2 scale commitment of troops to the region, there'd be nuthin' left of the Taliban or anyone else who opposed them. Much like the Romans...

------------------------------------------------------

Veni, vedi, vici.

---Julius Caesar

Edited October 31, 2008 by DogOnPorch

White Doors · October 31, 2008

Wrong again Bud. Natives who live in cities and work on reserve are still income tax free and they can still purchase all their goods on reserve by having them delivered there. Besides, being tax -free has nothing to do with the Charter. It has to do with the agreements the First Nations have with Canada. First Nations do not charge taxes in most cases and the government cannot charge taxes on foreign soil.
Most natives "work for a living" silly. It is only those multi-generational white city slickers that live on welfare.

You are still losing.

Obviously I was referring to Natives living in cities that work OFF reserve. They can't all live in Winnipeg and Regine you know.

charter.rights · October 31, 2008

Obviously I was referring to Natives living in cities that work OFF reserve. They can't all live in Winnipeg and Regine you know.

80 to 90 % of natives live off reserve -mostly in cities. The majority of native people who live on reserve also hold full time jobs, or a number of part-time jobs to make up for. Your derogatory remark that natives do not work, is both wrong and offensive.

charter.rights · October 31, 2008

By the way. I'm still wating for you to aknowledge the truth, that being that a Bow and Arrows could not be made in an hour to an hour and a half as you claimed earlier. C'mon, quit being a pussy and admit that you just made that up with no basis on actual reality. You might as well admit it no intelligent person would believe that crap anyway.

Why would I admit something that is not true. I have made a bow in less than an hour and half using a knife only. I did however use imitation sinew for the string. But I have harvested Joe Pye weed and it takes no more than about 10 minutes to pound, strip and braid cordage from it.

Since you are a pussy for not being able to do it, I would suggest that what you think is intelligence is no more than thinking within the box. In a survival situation that is the kind of thing that will kill ya.

Edited October 31, 2008 by charter.rights

M.Dancer · October 31, 2008

Not likely since the British and the French with the greatest force in the modern empire couldn't do it. Not that they didn't try.

They didn't try..at least they didn't try like Romans.

When the Romans met an opposition that would not surrender, they simply committed genocide. They would have burned the forests, poisoned the streams and rivers and simply killed everyone.

Then they would have made roads...

charter.rights · October 31, 2008

They didn't try..at least they didn't try like Romans.
When the Romans met an opposition that would not surrender, they simply committed genocide. They would have burned the forests, poisoned the streams and rivers and simply killed everyone.

Then they would have made roads...

Nah. The British tried genocide too, but it didn't work.

And maybe -just maybe - if you studied a bit more about Canadian history you would find what I have - that the majority of "roads" in Canada follow well established pathways and routes that were establish and carved out of the wilderness by native people long before first contact. Of course native people were much more sensitive to making trails than we ever were. Being mostly foot paths, there was no need to contaminate the air, soil and water with asphalt, oil wastes and exhausts just to satisfy someone`s greed.

M.Dancer · October 31, 2008

Nah. The British tried genocide too, but it didn't work.
And maybe -just maybe - if you studied a bit more about Canadian history you would find what I have - that the majority of "roads" in Canada follow well established pathways ...

Pathways aren't roads...they're.....pathways.