What can you do to stop racism?

[charter.rights]

Finally, someone with some balls, thanks for that Dancer.

Now, TrueMetis and Canadien, using he examples that Mr. Dancer has so willingly given, please explain how this invalidates the notion of 'Noble Savage' that was assigned to C.R

Like I said earlier "they were push and shove conflicts" and mostly precipitated by the colonists. Those articles provide that proof.

However, they do not convey that there was warfare or extermination to the degree of the Crusades, or the Inquisition, or even the slaughter of the Aztecs by the Spanish. No, is far history shows the Europeans far more sinister and genocidal than any of the history I have studied on native people...and those written by European types....

[DogOnPorch]

The "noble savage" is a romantic european term...

I am as free as nature first made man,

Ere the base laws of servitude began,

When wild in woods the noble savage ran.

Romance.

[Sir Bandelot]

Yeah they were not nice, even to each other. I saw it on "Dances with Wolves"...

[Guest TrueMetis]

Like I said earlier "they were push and shove conflicts" and mostly precipitated by the colonists. Those articles provide that proof.

However, they do not convey that there was warfare or extermination to the degree of the Crusades, or the Inquisition, or even the slaughter of the Aztecs by the Spanish. No, is far history shows the Europeans far more sinister and genocidal than any of the history I have studied on native people...and those written by European types....

Tell that to the thousands of people the Aztecs sacrificed. you don't have a "push and shove conflict" to gather up tens of thousands of people to sacrifice, That's wipe out a neighboring tribe territory.

[Who's Doing What?]

How about you bring some citations to the table here for some examination?

Well the Mayans or maybe it was the Aztecs had a tradition of human sacrifice. So hard to keep them all straight. Aztec, Mayan, Olmec...

Maybe you should learn about other cultures?

Edited November 15, 2010 by Who's Doing What?

[Guest TrueMetis]

Well the Mayans or maybe it was the Aztecs had a tradition of human sacrifice. So hard to keep them all straight. Aztec, Mayan, Olmec...

They both did, but the Aztecs did it on a much larger scale.

[The_Squid]

You mean like Topper, North America's oldest human occupation evidence?

"Three radiocarbon dates were obtained from deep in the terrace at Topper with two dates of 50,300 and 51,700 on burnt plant remains. One modern date related to an intrusion," Stafford says. "The two 50,000 dates indicate that they are at least 50,300 years. The absolute age is not known."

and from the same journal,

"Topper is the oldest radiocarbon dated site in North America," Goodyear says. "However, other early sites in Brazil and Chile, as well as a site in Oklahoma also suggest that humans were in the Western Hemisphere as early as 30,000 years ago to perhaps 60,000."

Again you make statement without any source or backing. Your opinion has no credibility because you never back it up.

Up until 20 years ago archaeologists didn't believe that humans existed in the Americas before the last ice age. But since a number of discoveries have establish that it is highly likely they did (and it competes with the "out of Africa" time-line they have been more earnest in looking for evidence beyond the typical post-glacial geological strata.

The most widely accepted theory now is that humans were in N. America about 14,300 years ago. This is from evidence in the Paisley Caves in Oregon. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080403-first-americans.html

The Topper site evidence is flimsy at best.

[ToadBrother]

Like I said earlier "they were push and shove conflicts" and mostly precipitated by the colonists. Those articles provide that proof.

However, they do not convey that there was warfare or extermination to the degree of the Crusades, or the Inquisition, or even the slaughter of the Aztecs by the Spanish. No, is far history shows the Europeans far more sinister and genocidal than any of the history I have studied on native people...and those written by European types....

As much as the Europeans could be nasty, I'm not sure anything approaches the bloodthirstiness of the Aztecs. Remember, neighboring Indians helped the Spanish out simply because they were afraid of the Aztecs, too. Apparently the captured Indians who were having their hearts cut out to please and appease the Aztec deities weren't very keen on the whole idea, and when someone came along who looked capable of taking the Aztecs down, a number offered their help.

The fact of the matter is that there was no lack of ill conduct between various indigenous peoples. Even Kennewick Man was found with a spear point embedded in his pelvis, which hardly suggests a peaceful existence.

There are two reasons, I suspect, that we don't see as much evidence of warfare in the Pre-Columbian phase. The first is the most obvious, that there were not the population densities in most areas of the New World that would have produced the level of resource competition found in many regions of the Old World. The second is that more primitive forms of warfare (ie. tribal warfare) don't leave nearly as much physical evidence. Where you don't have an advanced large scale material culture churning out weapons and the like, the physical evidence becomes a good deal more sparse. We know from indigenous peoples who we have observed for several centuries that this sort of warfare does go on, and there's no reason at all to think that this would not have applied to the various pre-Columbian populations in the Americas, and along with that would be all the cruelties and horrors that go along with any type of warfare.

I'm not defending the nature of the European conquest. There were horrific acts, in particular the Spanish seizure of the Inca Empire was a horrifyingly savage event.

Edited November 16, 2010 by ToadBrother

[CANADIEN]

Gimme a break, more shallow bullshit from someone who ought to know better. Thanks for proving it right here.

Good description of your writings, indeed,

But before you get into another tamtrum...

Human sacrifice was an aspect of historical Aztec culture, although the extent of the practice is debated by scholars. The Spaniards who first met the Aztecs explicitly stated in their writings that human sacrifice was widely practiced in Mesoamerica. For example, Bernal Díaz's The Conquest of New Spain includes eye-witness accounts of the remains of sacrificial victims. In addition, there are a number of second-hand accounts of human sacrifices written by Spanish friars, told to them by native eye-witnesses.

Currently, scholars largely accept that human sacrifice was practiced in the Aztec Empire as well as throughout pre-Columbian Mesoamerica. Since the late 1970s, excavations of the offerings in the Great Pyramid of Tenochtitlan, Teotihuacán's Pyramid of the Moon and other archaeological sites have provided physical evidence of human sacrifice among the Mesoamerican peoples.

Now, I fully expect to counter "but the Spaniards". Go ahead. I am not engaging into a contest about "who os the better and who is the worst". The point is, and you KNOW I haven't said otherwise, that pre-contact First Nations were humans, nothing more nothing less, and not the quasi-perfect beings that CR wants us to believe they were.

[CANADIEN]

Like I said earlier "they were push and shove conflicts" and mostly precipitated by the colonists. Those articles provide that proof.

War is war, no matter how you put it. And thank you oh so much for blaming all again on "whitey". Like we are supposed to believe that everything was just fine and perfect until the morning of October 12, 1492. Give your head a shake.

[CANADIEN]

The most widely accepted theory now is that humans were in N. America about 14,300 years ago. This is from evidence in the Paisley Caves in Oregon. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080403-first-americans.html

The Topper site evidence is flimsy at best.

Shall we mention that the carbondating procedure used at Topper has been questioned, and that the findings are controversial amongst archeologists?

link

Edited November 16, 2010 by CANADIEN

[kimmy]

So I gather that any attempts at discussing "white privilege" have been canceled in favor of watching Canadien and charter.whut re-enact the French And Indian War?

-k

[Bonam]

So I gather that any attempts at discussing "white privilege" have been canceled in favor of watching Canadien and charter.whut re-enact the French And Indian War?

Not like there was anything to discuss. "White privilege" is an idiotic racist concept to begin with.

[wyly]

They both did, but the Aztecs did it on a much larger scale.

scale was the only difference, the indigenous peoples were every bit as brutal with other tribes as european invaders, the europeans just had a more efficient war machine.... Edited November 16, 2010 by wyly

[wyly]

Shall we mention that the carbondating procedure used at Topper has been questioned, and that the findings are controversial amongst archeologists?

link

topper is all speculation...

[Shwa]

Tell that to the thousands of people the Aztecs sacrificed. you don't have a "push and shove conflict" to gather up tens of thousands of people to sacrifice, That's wipe out a neighboring tribe territory.

How about the hundreds of thousands of women the Catholics sacrificed in the Middle Ages?How about the millions the Romans sacrificed in their colliseums? Or the billions the Greeks sacrificed to their Gods in earlier times?

Hey, look at me everybody, I can make shit up just like TrueMetis.

[Shwa]

Well the Mayans or maybe it was the Aztecs had a tradition of human sacrifice. So hard to keep them all straight. Aztec, Mayan, Olmec...

Maybe you should learn about other cultures?

Maybe...maybe it was the Germans in WWII you are thinking about? Or the Russians in the Ukraine? Or maybe it was the Turks in Armenia? Or how about Christians everywhere who symbolically drink blood and eat of the body, that sounds like ritual cannibalism to me. So hard to keep them all straight.

Maybe you should learn about the Popol Vuh.

[Shwa]

Now, I fully expect to counter "but the Spaniards". Go ahead. I am not engaging into a contest about "who os the better and who is the worst". The point is, and you KNOW I haven't said otherwise, that pre-contact First Nations were humans, nothing more nothing less, and not the quasi-perfect beings that CR wants us to believe they were.

Naw, you misread my intentions son, but I didn't misread yours.

Now you go and point out in this thread where C.R implies that "First Nations" were "quasi-perfect beings" please.

[Guest TrueMetis]

How about the hundreds of thousands of women the Catholics sacrificed in the Middle Ages?How about the millions the Romans sacrificed in their colliseums? Or the billions the Greeks sacrificed to their Gods in earlier times?

Hey, look at me everybody, I can make shit up just like TrueMetis.

This isn't disputed, except by you and charter and forgive me If I don't find you two all that reliable. We have physical evidence of these sacrifices, the only dispute is exactly how many were sacrificed.

Edited November 16, 2010 by TrueMetis

[charter.rights]

This isn't disputed, except by you and charter and forgive me If I don't find you two all that reliable. We have physical evidence of these sacrifices, the only dispute is exactly how many were sacrificed.

I don't dispute that the Catholics and Romans killed hundreds of thousands of people in mass genocide and campaigns intended to wipe out entire races. There is lots of historical reference for this happening. The crux of the dispute is that native peoples did not go on mass campaigns, nor did they engage in total annihilation of different tribes. Rather their conflicts were limited to push and shove conflicts....and that would include the Aztecs.

[Guest TrueMetis]

I don't dispute that the Catholics and Romans killed hundreds of thousands of people in mass genocide and campaigns intended to wipe out entire races. There is lots of historical reference for this happening. The crux of the dispute is that native peoples did not go on mass campaigns, nor did they engage in total annihilation of different tribes. Rather their conflicts were limited to push and shove conflicts....and that would include the Aztecs.

Yes yes keep living in your delusion that natives never tried to wipe each other out, just ignore the written Maya texst, the Aztecs pictographs, and the first hand accounts of both natives and settlers.

[charter.rights]

So I gather that any attempts at discussing "white privilege" have been canceled in favor of watching Canadien and charter.whut re-enact the French And Indian War?

-k

No Canadien's thread drift was ego based and is part of the issue with the white privilege in my mind, in that his feelings of superiority are threatened, and so he feels a need to defend it.

[charter.rights]

Yes yes keep living in your delusion that natives never tried to wipe each other out, just ignore the written Maya texst, the Aztecs pictographs, and the first hand accounts of both natives and settlers.

You do know who wrote those accounts, and when they were written, right?

They are filled with transference and speculation based on some structures they found in the bush. Maybe instead of citing Wikipedia, you should actually get out a bit more and look at some real books on the subject.

[Guest TrueMetis]

You do know who wrote those accounts, and when they were written, right?

They are filled with transference and speculation based on some structures they found in the bush. Maybe instead of citing Wikipedia, you should actually get out a bit more and look at some real books on the subject.

The Maya would have written the Maya texts, the Aztecs drew their pictographs and the accounts where first hand accounts of what the Natives and settlers saw. Even if you discount the settlers account and ignore the Natives account out of some deluded fear that the settlers altered them how do you explain the Maya text and the Aztecs pictographs? Both of which have samples from before Europeans ever arrived?

[M.Dancer]

You do know who wrote those accounts, and when they were written, right?

They are filled with transference and speculation based on some structures they found in the bush.

Could you bring up the evidence of the 60,000 years of occupation again?