Guest TrueMetis Posted October 17, 2009 Report Share Posted October 17, 2009 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. Wow. Shitty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted October 17, 2009 Report Share Posted October 17, 2009 Wow. Shitty. Indeed. One needed to be useful in Central American civilizations...or they found a use for you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Codex_Ma...41_cropped).jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kodeks_tudela_21.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tzompantli_Tovar.jpeg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted October 17, 2009 Report Share Posted October 17, 2009 Indeed. One needed to be useful in Central American civilizations...or they found a use for you.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Codex_Ma...41_cropped).jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kodeks_tudela_21.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tzompantli_Tovar.jpeg Well that's one way to deal with overpopulation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griz Posted October 17, 2009 Report Share Posted October 17, 2009 Wikis as a source? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 17, 2009 Report Share Posted October 17, 2009 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? I said nothing about their agriculture. However, they are not vegetarians. They required meat. Cities require not only crops but farms with domesticated animals in order to grow and still sustain the numbers of people who will live there (and not be involved in food production). Wandering herds of bison won't cut it. As a city grows they will all get hunted out. That's assuming they don't simply wander off on their own, as herds tend to move. none of the domesticated animals you cite were domesticated in Europe,Relevence? And are you ignoring how I showed that the Bison could have became a domesticated animal? Yes, because it was silly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted October 17, 2009 Report Share Posted October 17, 2009 Wikis as a source? So are you saying those images from Central American culture are false? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted October 17, 2009 Report Share Posted October 17, 2009 I said nothing about their agriculture. However, they are not vegetarians. They required meat. Cities require not only crops but farms with domesticated animals in order to grow and still sustain the numbers of people who will live there (and not be involved in food production). Wandering herds of bison won't cut it. As a city grows they will all get hunted out. That's assuming they don't simply wander off on their own, as herds tend to move. Except there were Native cities in North America. The Formative period, beginning at various times between 3,000 - 5,000 years ago, witnessed a flowering of native societies. Archaic period trends became dominant themes during the formative. In some geographical regions, people engaged in full-time agriculture, lived in cities of 10,000+ people, and elevated their leaders both architecturally and socially http://www.cabrillo.edu/~crsmith/anth7_hist1.html Yes, because it was silly. Bet there was people saying that when they tried to domesticate the Aurochs. That worked and so would Domesticating a Bison. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted October 17, 2009 Report Share Posted October 17, 2009 Well that's one way to deal with overpopulation. Apocalypto gives it a pretty good go if you haven't seen it yet. I was surprised by how good this particular Mel Gibson project was...after Passion, that is. Trailer... Sacrifice scene... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whowhere Posted October 17, 2009 Report Share Posted October 17, 2009 Anybody that would send an 18 year old boy or girl to die for a cause that only lines the pockets of a few parasistes is a parasite not fit to influence society let alone rule it. It's a disgrace to hold human life so cheaply that killing for fun and profit though warfare is eccepted as normal...I don't care how long this crap has being going on ---- it is simply wrong...and YES Canada has to grow up and become the protective father it was meant to be - If a person from any nation is going to be abuse by the rich and cruel that is their status quo...THEN we as a mature and protective nation should offer sanctuary to any human being being disrespected or coerced to serve evil. ahhhh, no!! http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/1774 The estimated population of the American colonies is 2,780,369 including 575,420 black slaves. The US started off with a slave population which lasted for another 100 years to 1876. Through this time the US. Hmmm, who brought those slaves over? At this time US was a british colony. I suggest you recheck who the sovereign of Canada is, the British Monarch. Just because the Monarch doesn't impose itself on Canada, that does not mean it does not have a "legal" right to start to doing so. Canada is not built on the history you are espousing. Canada is built on Catholicism and Protestantism. Canada's history is tied to Europe which is tied to Rome. Rome operated by taking countries by the sword, extracting their wealth, and enslaving the people for the benefit of Roman Citizens. Today, the US operates by allowing people to work in the US under visa and after twenty years they qualify to apply for citizenship. The US also operates by exploiting illegal mexicans who work and pay taxes towards government programs they will never qualify for. The conservatives and Liberals have abused Canada with their slack immigration practices and ultimately I will have to believe God/Nature or whatever life force governing the trajectory of western civilization will get even with them for what they have done to Canada and want to do to Canada. After a recent trip to tenesse I was a amazed how I was surrounded by a high Proportion of White Americans. It felt like I was back in Canada in the eighties. In the nineties I began to be surrounded by immigrants who barely spoke english and had all kinds of religious beliefs. After the year 2000 I see many immigrants who now speak very good English, but they are rude and arrogant as f'uck. To me, these immigrants have to be losers as they couldn't cut it whereve they came from. To add insult here, these immigrants get automatic citizenship and voting. Also what's remarkable is these immigrants also qualify for mortgages with no credit history or down payment to buy houses. All this has done is inflate real estate to feather the corrupt boomers and their parents pockets. In looking at what Canada has done via immigration and inflicting these people on Canada's populace is on par to Canada playing God. If anyone knows the story of Noahs Arc. After Noahs arc, the people wanted to show their gratitude to God, so they attempted to build a tower to heaven. God didn't like that so he scattered the people around the world speaking many languages. He did this so they wouldn't understand each other and I guess not continue building a tower to heaven. So, Really, Because the Conservatives are bringing in Immigrants who lack reasoning intelligence and they don't speak english that well is really no different than what God Did in the story of Noah. So what we have is the Conservative Gods. In furtherance God began leading the Children of Isreal. In this, it included wiping out lands of people and animals. Think about that, that is western religion. So if European History includes wiping people, it's the Roman Way, and the way of the Judeo Christian Doctrine. I can cite history, religion, and what the US and many European Countries are doing to show Canada is to stop what it is doing and start deporting immigrants and cancelling work permits now. OUT, OUT, OUT, with the Immigrants. Go back to wherever they came from and live in their mud huts. The can stop congesting the roads and abusing Canada's health care system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whowhere Posted October 17, 2009 Report Share Posted October 17, 2009 It would be short sighted to change policy because of a recession that is already over. Stopping immigration now would put as at a disadvantage in terms of skilled workers later. Dress lite when the grip reaper comes for you. You are certainly looking out for your interests and not what is in the interest of Canada's real culture, and real heritage. We are not a multicultural country and its time Canada stops the insanity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted October 17, 2009 Report Share Posted October 17, 2009 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 I posted earlier that's wrong...hunter gatherers as were many Canadians spent little time gathering food about 2 hrs per day...when food is plentiful there is no need for permanent settlements...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.Aztecs...Incas had singular sacrifices...Celts also did group sacrifices...Romans, Franks Chinese would slaughter thousands at a time as well...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.nope Mayans were very advanced in irrigation techniques...Pueblo Indians were very advanced in desert farming not so the europeans....europeans never invented the wheel that was something they aquired and even in the 20th century farmers still plowed their fields without the help of the wheel...natives of the central americas were a 1000 yrs in advance of europeans in mathematics and astronomy...the Maya were able to calculate the length of the year to be 365.242 days (the modern value is 365.242198 days)...Mayan calculated 29.5308 days as the length of the lunar month. The modern value is 29.53059 days...along with the arabs conceptualized the number "zero" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted October 17, 2009 Report Share Posted October 17, 2009 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. see post above for advances in mathematics... 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. native trade went on through out N America and trade routes extended thousands of miles...europeans never figured out the benefits of the wheel until someone gave it to them...as posted before none of those cultures need to take a backseat in agricultural techniques to the europeans, they were all very advanced...Construction as well, while northern europeans were still living in wattle and dub(mud huts) shacks many native cultures were already well past them... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted October 17, 2009 Report Share Posted October 17, 2009 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.80,000...even if that number is accurate they weren't Aztec's...Aztec's got their sacrifices from neighbouring tribes as tribute...and they didn't drink themselves dry Tenochtitlan (Mexico city) was built in the middle of a large lake, water was never in short supply... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted October 18, 2009 Report Share Posted October 18, 2009 Except there were Native cities in North America.there wereBet there was people saying that when they tried to domesticate the Aurochs. That worked and so would Domesticating a Bison.absolutely but there was no need...when an animal is found in such abundance as the Bison were in N America there was no need to expend the energy to domesticate it, it's like living in a grocery store where the shelves automatically stock themselves...when food resources are scarce then there is a need to control the limited supply, at that time farming and animal husbandry become options... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battletoads Posted October 18, 2009 Report Share Posted October 18, 2009 One doesn't need complex formulas and Igtnatieff-Harvard words and concepts to understand a basic format.The less people you have to fill positions makes those few people much more valuable. In being so valuable the employer must pay higher wages in order to entice the worker to them. As it is now there is an overabundance of unskilled labour, the companies pay rock bottom wages and pocket record profits. This is wrong. and the people in lower paying jobs make more money. They then spend more money. Demand increases. Price increases. In the end it works out to a pretty much zero net gain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted October 18, 2009 Report Share Posted October 18, 2009 80,000...even if that number is accurate they weren't Aztec's...Aztec's got their sacrifices from neighbouring tribes as tribute...and they didn't drink themselves dry Tenochtitlan (Mexico city) was built in the middle of a large lake, water was never in short supply... I agree the number is probably pretty high for that temple dedication (Tenochtitlan). None-the-less, tens of thousands were sacrificed. One skull rack did contain 60,000 skulls to commemorate some pre-Colombian event. But 80,000 in four days would require some dedicated butchery. Babi Yar in modern times managed 36,000 in a 24hr period...which was apparently very tiring even with guns. I'm aware most sacrifices were captured from the neighbouring tribes...they even had what were called Flower Wars for that very purpose. Aztec culture relied heavily on slaves like Rome did eventually which is a sure sign of a declining empire...kinda like ours in the way we outsource...lol. A population explosion among the actual Aztecs might call for the removal of 'excess' slaves just to keep a balance. That plus there were apparently various religious cycles that called for x-amount of sacrifice anyways. Re: drinking themselves dry...not so much your Aztecs who faced a different fate, but I recall that being one of the main theories as to how the Mayan collapse. But it is only one of several theories. The Olmecs were also suspected to have faced a ecological crunch of some sort either natural or of their own making. While all human sacrifice can be considered as a spectator sport, I don't believe the Romans had any particular religious reason for sending folks to the Arena. Re: The wheel. It really doesn't matter who 'invented it'...more what one did with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted October 18, 2009 Report Share Posted October 18, 2009 I agree the number is probably pretty high for that temple dedication (Tenochtitlan). None-the-less, tens of thousands were sacrificed. One skull rack did contain 60,000 skulls to commemorate some pre-Colombian event. But 80,000 in four days would require some dedicated butchery. Babi Yar in modern times managed 36,000 in a 24hr period...which was apparently very tiring even with guns.I'm aware most sacrifices were captured from the neighbouring tribes...they even had what were called Flower Wars for that very purpose. Aztec culture relied heavily on slaves like Rome did eventually which is a sure sign of a declining empire...kinda like ours in the way we outsource...lol. A population explosion among the actual Aztecs might call for the removal of 'excess' slaves just to keep a balance. That plus there were apparently various religious cycles that called for x-amount of sacrifice anyways. Re: drinking themselves dry...not so much your Aztecs who faced a different fate, but I recall that being one of the main theories as to how the Mayan collapse. But it is only one of several theories. The Olmecs were also suspected to have faced a ecological crunch of some sort either natural or of their own making. While all human sacrifice can be considered as a spectator sport, I don't believe the Romans had any particular religious reason for sending folks to the Arena. Re: The wheel. It really doesn't matter who 'invented it'...more what one did with it. romans were very open to new religions but had a problem with those that interfered with there life choices, christians were a favourite entertainment...slaughter for show or sacrifice is not very different, they both entertain the crowds... wheel...true enough but the insinuation by argus is that american natives weren't smart enough to invent it and the europeans were isn't honest, as the europeans did not invent it either...Mayan's actually did invent the wheel independently but there is no evidence they used it other than on childrens toys, (wood does not preserve well in the jungle) and even if they didn't make use of it, it certainly didn't hurt their building ability.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 wheel...true enough but the insinuation by argus is that american natives weren't smart enough to invent it and the europeans were isn't honest, as the europeans did not invent it either...Mayan's actually did invent the wheel independently but there is no evidence they used it other than on childrens toys, (wood does not preserve well in the jungle) and even if they didn't make use of it, it certainly didn't hurt their building ability.... I insinuated nothing. I stated that the wheel was in use in Mesopotamia 5,000 years before the Europeans discovered the Americas and there was no sign the aboriginals had figured out the usefulness of such a device at that time. That puts the aboriginals thousands of years behind the rest of the world in terms of technology. In other words, the suggestion that if left alone they'd have built their own technological civilization is simply nonsense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 I insinuated nothing. I stated that the wheel was in use in Mesopotamia 5,000 years before the Europeans discovered the Americas and there was no sign the aboriginals had figured out the usefulness of such a device at that time. That puts the aboriginals thousands of years behind the rest of the world in terms of technology. In other words, the suggestion that if left alone they'd have built their own technological civilization is simply nonsense. I find your opponents' arguments rather strange, Argus. They seem to be saying that Europeans deserve no credit for the accomplishments of their culture because they were "lucky" about their geography or whatever. Meanwhile, other cultures that had stayed essentially static in their development for centuries should get a gold star for inventing things like the wheel that they never bothered to use! Very strange, indeed! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 This thread is now fully drifted. Perhaps Mr. Canada can change the title to 'Immigration and Ancient Civilizations" or somesuch ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 (edited) I insinuated nothing. I stated that the wheel was in use in Mesopotamia 5,000 years before the Europeans discovered the Americas and there was no sign the aboriginals had figured out the usefulness of such a device at that time. That puts the aboriginals thousands of years behind the rest of the world in terms of technology. In other words, the suggestion that if left alone they'd have built their own technological civilization is simply nonsense. You still haven't proved it's nonsense. Especially considering some of the feats of the Mayans and Aztecs were much more impressive then anything the Europeans did who's to say that wouldn't spread? Civilizations, like evolution, don't always develop at the same rate or at the same time but your suggestion that they wouldn't develop in the Americas is a crock of shit. Edited October 19, 2009 by TrueMetis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 I find your opponents' arguments rather strange, Argus. They seem to be saying that Europeans deserve no credit for the accomplishments of their culture because they were "lucky" about their geography or whatever.Meanwhile, other cultures that had stayed essentially static in their development for centuries should get a gold star for inventing things like the wheel that they never bothered to use! Very strange, indeed! because the terrain in region where the Maya lived the wheel was useless without beast of burden, no cattle, oxen, horses, donkies...they moved much of their produce by water...referrals to their lack of agricultural ability, these are the people who developed corn, tomatoes and chocolate...and the Inca's developed the potato... again Mayan astronomical and mathematical abilities were a thousand years ahead of the Europeans...they were anything but static... this insinuation that native americans were not as intelligent as europeans is based on racsim and not on the facts... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 This thread is now fully drifted.Perhaps Mr. Canada can change the title to 'Immigration and Ancient Civilizations" or somesuch ? drift? slightly... the apparent drift comes from insinuations that our aboriginal populations aren't capable citizens... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 You still haven't proved it's nonsense. Especially considering some of the feats of the Mayans and Aztecs were much more impressive then anything the Europeans did who's to say that wouldn't spread? Civilizations, like evolution, don't always develop at the same rate or at the same time but your suggestion that they wouldn't develop in the Americas is a crock of shit. They. Did. Not. Have. The. Tools. I don't know how much simpler I can put it. If we'd put a giant bubble around them five hundred years ago, and checked back today, we'd probably see them living pretty much the same lifestyle they were back then, with the same level of technology. Small nations might have risen since then - and fallen again, as they did in the south. But without the kinds of farm animals to supply large cities with meat (and clothing), and the transport to spread out and to carry that food, any civilization in the western hemisphere was inevitably going to be either very small or fail. The Mayans, Incans and Aztecs developed local civilizations which were limited by their lack of transportation, draft and meat animals, and which enevitably succumbed to those limits. What did the mayans accomplish which was so much better than what the Europeans accomplished - which were lasting civilizations which continue to this day to develop and prosper? As for the northern aborigines. They didn't even develop a civilization to speak of. One small city which collapsed and failed due to the reasons given above notwithstanding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 this insinuation that native americans were not as intelligent as europeans is based on racsim and not on the facts... Perhaps you'd like to quote for us just who insinuated any such thing? Or is it just more interesting to argue against ideas you yourself have put forward? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.