Time to cut down immigration?

[dre]

Preposterous nonsense. Had we left them alone they would still be living in mud huts and hide tents, freezing in the dark and dying young while worshipping the sun god.

There are certain elements required for the development and sustenance of a real and lasting civilization which were not present in pre-Columbus America. One of those elements is a proper labour assisting animal. Another is a proper food animal which can be domesticated. Those were not present in the Americas. Without them, people had to work hard, all day, every day, just to feed, clothe and shelter themselves. That sort of society leaves precious little time for dreamers, no time for experimenters, no time to develop sciences and technology. Every hand must work all the time. That is why no advances of any sort were made in America. The natives of the seventeenth century lived the same as they did in the tenth century, the same as they did in the sixth century, the same as they did in all the years prior to that.

Preposterous nonsense. Had we left them alone they would still be living in mud huts and hide tents, freezing in the dark and dying young while worshipping the sun god.

Its reasonable to suggest Natives would not have progressed technologically and socially at the rate Europeans did, but your suggestion that they wouldnt have progressed at all is just silly.

Look at the diferences between the Archaic and Formative periods in pre-European native culture. They went from gatherers to people that engaged in full time agriculture. They went from small nomadic groups to people that lived in cities with thousands of people. The Anasazi built multi level apartment complexes, built roads between cities, and engaged in long distance trading with natives in Mesoamerica.

Your post is so ignorant I cant believe I wasted time replying to it.

Edited October 15, 2009 by dre

[justme]

Time to cut down immigration?

If you mean people from third world countries that refuse to speak english, lack the work ethic that previous immigrants had, and often have views on life that are antithetical to western values, absolutely.

[justme]

...but we can't limit immigration numbers in any big way. We need the population to maintain our workforce and our growth whether or not you think so or like it.

Saying so doesn't make it so.

[Michael Hardner]

justme,

If you mean people from third world countries that refuse to speak english, lack the work ethic that previous immigrants had, and often have views on life that are antithetical to western values, absolutely.

Absolutely, and this could be achieved with a simple question on the immigration form:

Do you refuse to speak english, lack the work ethic that previous immigrants had, and often have views on life that are antithetical to western values ?

Answering 'yes' would have dire consequences for your application

[Michael Hardner]

And FORGET about the French speakers !

[Argus]

Its reasonable to suggest Natives would not have progressed technologically and socially at the rate Europeans did, but your suggestion that they wouldnt have progressed at all is just silly.

Why? There are still people living in mud huts in Africa today. Have they progressed much over the last few centuries?

Look at the diferences between the Archaic and Formative periods in pre-European native culture. They went from gatherers to people that engaged in full time agriculture.

In isolated areas, but none of these lasted (mayans excepted) - and were barbarous as well, practicing human sacrifices adn canibalism - and the challenge of the weather in north America made even that problematic. There never was anything remotely simliar to the Aztecs or Mayans in North America. Nor can anyone say that their level of technological progress changed overmuch in the several centuries prior to the arrival of the Europeans.

[Argus]

By leave them alone, I did not mean isolationism but rather international relations on an equal footing, whereby they would have maintained self-governance and traded with Europe. They certainly would have been thirsty for our knowledge, but woudl have adapted it to their culture.

In that era, there never was anything remotely like "relations on an equal footing" between militarily strong peoples and militarily weak peoples. Anywhere. Even with our modern sensibilities I don't think anyone would suggest that a relationship between the US and say, Botswana are on an equal footing.

[ToadBrother]

In isolated areas, but none of these lasted (mayans excepted) - and were barbarous as well, practicing human sacrifices adn canibalism - and the challenge of the weather in north America made even that problematic. There never was anything remotely simliar to the Aztecs or Mayans in North America. Nor can anyone say that their level of technological progress changed overmuch in the several centuries prior to the arrival of the Europeans.

The Europeans were lucky. They had advanced civilizations they could borrow all the good ideas from. All the core technologies of civilization; agriculture, metallurgy, animal husbandry, writing and urbanization were developed elsewhere.

As to human sacrifice, at least some Celtic tribes were practicing that well into the Common Era.

But what do you mean by technological progress. Many Indians in Eastern North America were at least taking the first steps to urbanization. They had fairly advanced agricultural techniques.

[dre]

Nor can anyone say that their level of technological progress changed overmuch in the several centuries prior to the arrival of the Europeans.

That statement as I pointed out before is just flat out false. Even a basic elementary read of pre-european history in North America would dispell your arrogant, and fraudulent claims... but as everyone reading your posts can immediately see you simply have not done one iota of research on the matter.

Like I said... you could reasonably make the claim that they were progressing slowly. But claiming they were not progressing at all, is nothing more than pure, unmitigated, uneducated, ignorance.

Edited October 15, 2009 by dre

[M.Dancer]

Like I said... you could reasonably make the claim that they were progressing slowly. But claiming they were not progressing at all, is nothing more than pure, unmitigated, uneducated, ignorance.

Argus didn't say it was static...just that they hadn't changed over much.

So what technological advances did the make in the 1000 years before Columbus?

[Guest TrueMetis]

Argus didn't say it was static...just that they hadn't changed over much.

So what technological advances did the make in the 1000 years before Columbus?

They created their own agriculture, completely independently, unlike Europe and like I showed they had everything they needed to advance.

Edited October 15, 2009 by TrueMetis

[wyly]

technological innovation depends on need and conditions...if food supply for is adequate there is little need to develop agriculture

hunter gather societies can survive on two hours labour per day, there is little need to develop further...

a fishing culture also has little reason to develop agriculture...North America was teaming with wildlife there was little need for agriculture to develop...where it did it did so out of necessity, population increase, poor resources...it had little to do with ability...the agricultural technology/knowledge to survive in the southern deserts and jungles was considerable and equal to any elsewhere on the planet...

Mississippian culture...Illinois, cities, temples agriculture, metallurgy...disappeared after contact with the French and Spanish possibly due to small pox...

[Griz]

The Europeans were lucky. They had advanced civilizations they could borrow all the good ideas from. All the core technologies of civilization; agriculture, metallurgy, animal husbandry, writing and urbanization were developed elsewhere.

As to human sacrifice, at least some Celtic tribes were practicing that well into the Common Era.

But what do you mean by technological progress. Many Indians in Eastern North America were at least taking the first steps to urbanization. They had fairly advanced agricultural techniques.

At least you make some reasonable opinions--not that of some bone head high on vodka and mad at the indians because they have nice long hair while the vodka drinker is a cranky-bald-headed miserable old fart

[Guest TrueMetis]

At least you make some reasonable opinions--not that of some bone head high on vodka and mad at the indians because they have nice long hair while the vodka drinker is a cranky-bald-headed miserable old fart

Griz, seriously, shut the fuck up.

Edited October 17, 2009 by TrueMetis

[Griz]

Why? There are still people living in mud huts in Africa today. Have they progressed much over the last few centuries?

In isolated areas, but none of these lasted (mayans excepted) - and were barbarous as well, practicing human sacrifices adn canibalism - and the challenge of the weather in north America made even that problematic. There never was anything remotely simliar to the Aztecs or Mayans in North America. Nor can anyone say that their level of technological progress changed overmuch in the several centuries prior to the arrival of the Europeans.

Maybe they're happy living in their existence unlike some cranky old bald headed miserable fart with warped opnions

[Guest TrueMetis]

Why? There are still people living in mud huts in Africa today. Have they progressed much over the last few centuries?

In isolated areas, but none of these lasted (mayans excepted) - and were barbarous as well, practicing human sacrifices adn canibalism - and the challenge of the weather in north America made even that problematic. There never was anything remotely simliar to the Aztecs or Mayans in North America. Nor can anyone say that their level of technological progress changed overmuch in the several centuries prior to the arrival of the Europeans.

So what if they didn't develop that much. That just means they were happy the way they lived. If your content you don't change things a lot. (Ignoring that there was Natives in North America that developed enough to create cities)

In that era, there never was anything remotely like "relations on an equal footing" between militarily strong peoples and militarily weak peoples. Anywhere. Even with our modern sensibilities I don't think anyone would suggest that a relationship between the US and say, Botswana are on an equal footing.

During the Fur trade they were on equal footing. In fact the Native probably had the advantage, if they didn't like the prices they recieved the would sell inferior pelts and what the hell would the Europeans do? Not like they could hunt for the furs themselves.

[Griz]

Griz, seriously, shut the fuck up.

Ahhmmm Im telling on you! Hey are you assimilated now? Assimilated into the cranky ole miserable old bat culture called rightwingism?

[Argus]

The Europeans were lucky.

Yes, I've said as much.

They had advanced civilizations they could borrow all the good ideas from

Who were also lucky. As I said, development of civilization depends on the right mix of animals and local crops which can be easily cultivated in large amounts to sustain a population. That is what frees up people from the grinding need of filling the cookpot every day. If you have to go hunting every day you don't have time for much else. And if you have to follow the herds you certainly aren't going to put down roots and built up great cities.

As to human sacrifice, at least some Celtic tribes were practicing that well into the Common Era.

Occasionally but not in anything like the same numbers. I recall a story about either the Incas or the Azteks who wrote of sacrificing 80,000 people to santifiy a new temple.

But what do you mean by technological progress. Many Indians in Eastern North America were at least taking the first steps to urbanization. They had fairly advanced agricultural techniques.

What do you consider to be advanced agricultural techniques? I think the term technological progress speaks for itself. Something as simple as a lever or a winch, or as complex as a block and tackle - or a wheel. Given the native population, had not yet discovered the wheel, I feel safe in saying they were fairly primitive in terms of technological achievements. Remember that elsewhere in the world, other peoples were using wheeled carts thousands of years before Christ. That shows just how far behind the natives were lagging here.

[Argus]

That statement as I pointed out before is just flat out false. Even a basic elementary read of pre-european history in North America would dispell your arrogant, and fraudulent claims... but as everyone reading your posts can immediately see you simply have not done one iota of research on the matter.

Like I said... you could reasonably make the claim that they were progressing slowly. But claiming they were not progressing at all, is nothing more than pure, unmitigated, uneducated, ignorance.

Well, they were about four thousand years behind the Mesopotamians in developing the wheel, and I don't recall reading about any great inter-tribal projects to try and bring that into existence in north America. But no doubt you will enlighten me on all the great works of technology the natives had under way, oh learned one.

Why didn't the natives develop the wheel? Well, they had no roads, for one thing. Why didn't they develop roads? Well, they had not developed to the degree where the widely spread tribes could trade with each other since they didn't have anything much to trade. Further south, the south/central empires of the Incans/Azteks/Mayans did develop roads and trading systems, but they still hadn't figured out the benefits of the wheel. If someone down there had ever developed the wheelbarrow it would have revolutionized agriculture, construction, trade, and everyday life.

[Argus]

They created their own agriculture, completely independently, unlike Europe and like I showed they had everything they needed to advance.

Uhm, no, you haven't shown that. They had some useful crops, but they did not have the appropriate domesticatable animals for use as labour and food. One wonders, though, what the Mayans would have done if they'd had horses, sheep, oxen, cattle, pigs and chickens.

[Griz]

Uhm, no, you haven't shown that. They had some useful crops, but they did not have the appropriate domesticatable animals for use as labour and food. One wonders, though, what the Mayans would have done if they'd had horses, sheep, oxen, cattle, pigs and chickens.

Argus is an example of where the education system failed miserably Man get a life! Don't you have anything better to do other provide all your verbal diahrea?

[Guest TrueMetis]

Uhm, no, you haven't shown that. They had some useful crops, but they did not have the appropriate domesticatable animals for use as labour and food. One wonders, though, what the Mayans would have done if they'd had horses, sheep, oxen, cattle, pigs and chickens.

Many cultures in North America were growing crops as their principle source of food and they sure as hell didn't learn it from anyone in europe or asia. So how is that not creating Argiculture independantly?

And in South America they domesticated the Guinea pig, Lama, and Alpaca.

Also looking at the list of Domesticated animal on Wiki Here none of the domesticated animals you cite were domesticated in Europe, but fear not they were responsible for the domestication of the Ferret, European Rabbit, and Mute Swan. How could we have lived without those animals?

And are you ignoring how I showed that the Bison could have became a domesticated animal?

Edited October 17, 2009 by TrueMetis

[DogOnPorch]

Llamas can't be hooked to a plow. You can try, though. Wear a hardhat.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Llamas can't be hooked to a plow. You can try, though. Wear a hardhat.

But they can be used for meat, milk, and clothing and it kicks the shit out of anything the Europeans were able to domesticate. Also Even without a plow animal the Mayans had a huge civilization. What does the say about the "need" for a beast of burden.

ETA Llama's were, and still are, used as pack animals. Llama

The height of a full-grown, full-size llama is between 1.7 meters (5.5 ft) and 1.8 meters (6 ft) tall at the top of the head. They can weigh between approximately 130 kilograms (280 lb) and 200 kilograms (450 lb). At birth, a baby llama (called a cria) can weigh between 9.1 kilograms (20 lb) and 14 kilograms (30 lb). Llamas are very social animals and like to live with other llamas as a herd. Overall, the fiber produced by a llama is very soft and is naturally lanolin free. Llamas are intelligent and can learn simple tasks after a few repetitions. When using a pack, llamas can carry about 25% to 30% of their body weight for several miles.

That's actually pretty good.

Edited October 17, 2009 by TrueMetis

[DogOnPorch]

But they can be used for meat, milk, and clothing and it kicks the shit out of anything the Europeans were able to domesticate. Also Even without a plow animal the Mayans had a huge civilization. What does the say about the "need" for a beast of burden.

No major rivers in the area...these societies literally drank themselves dry. You could kill 80,000 people to dedicate a temple because there were already too many people to feed.