[Tainari88]

@Potemkin Pinker.

About language.

Language is part of culture and it is a window into human nature.

[Pants-of-dog]

You can believe what you wish. Regardless, it was significantly less advanced than Eurasia. For indigenous of the Americas to compete in a globalized economic and political world they would have to reach similar levels of literacy and education in 2024. Illiterate societies becoming as educated and technologically and economically as advanced and thus powerful as the West within 500 years is virtually impossible. There's a reason why the only societies in the world that can compete on par with the West economically are located in parts of Asia. It's the same reason why many of these parts of Asia weren't colonized by Europe.

No, Indigenous people are not inherently less capable of reading than white people.and so 509 years would be more than enough time to “catch up”.

At this point, you are not only deliberately ignoring colonialism but also making up racist myths in order to sidestep it.

No the discussion is on survivability, adaptability, and Darwinisn when it comes to humans. Technology is a key tool humans use to adapt to their environment to increase surivability. Natural immunity to "germs" is also important.

Back to education and economics:

How exactly were Europeans more “ahead” on your video game ladder of Civilization in 5ese two fields?

Yes they had trade. Regardless, they were far poorer than Eurasia due to "guns, germs, steel" theory.

No. The wealth was simply used in a different manner.

The wealth of the USA came from resources, geography, climate, country-wide political stability, education, technology. Since NA indigenous communities were significantly less advanced in the latter categories than the British and later immigrant groups it's unreasonable to assume they would be comparatively wealthy today.

No, it is perfect reasonable since your assumptions are based on some weird video game theory of civilization.

NA Indigenous communities were significantly more “advanced” than Europe when it came to policing stability, for example. The history of the UK during this time was one civil war after another. Meanwhile, the Haudenosaunee were establishing peace treaties.

Strawman, I never said that. What I said is that all human societies are violent, and indigenous NA are no exception. Especially when they're in competition with each other for the same resources and there's no central government to enforce laws/contracts, and thus peaceful rules-based relations between humans and groups. This was a goal of organizations like the UN and WTO, which have unfortunately have had serious problems with enforcing their laws/rules/contracts because there's no strong central enforcement mechanism to adequately punish cheaters. Since this didn't exist in NA before colonialism, war between indigenous groups would have continued as it always had but been even more deadly with the addition of guns and other technology that can be used in war. Yes i'm aware that alliances between some groups existed, but alliances also existed in Europe right before WW1 and WW2.

Actually I think you believe, like some others on the left, in the racist "noble savage" myth/fantasy that whites are uniquely violent while indigenous societies aren't or were/are less so.

Then show evidence that NA Indigenous communities were at war at the same rate as Europe at the time,

Or we can skip ahead to the part where you admit you have no evidence for this belief. Whichever.

[wat0n]

Hold on.

Can we know with much precision how often did Native Americans war each other?

Are they all the same in this regard?

[Unthinking Majority]

No, Indigenous people are not inherently less capable of reading than white people.and so 509 years would be more than enough time to “catch up”.

At this point, you are not only deliberately ignoring colonialism but also making up racist myths in order to sidestep it.

This has nothing to do with race. Literally nothing. It has to do with things like geography, climate, available flora and fauna (i.e. animals that can and can't be domesticated, like horses, which weren't present in NA). Guns, germs, steel theory.

No. The wealth was simply used in a different manner.

Not by choice. If they had the chance to use the resources around them differently to increase their chances of survival they would have taken it. The Aztecs and Mayans had different adaptations than other indigenous groups because they could, not because they had different beliefs. Animals naturally do whatever they can to help themselves survive. This is how the natural world works. The ones within a species that do will survive and procreate and the ones that don't will not.

NA Indigenous communities were significantly more “advanced” than Europe when it came to policing stability, for example. The history of the UK during this time was one civil war after another. Meanwhile, the Haudenosaunee were establishing peace treaties.

Yes human societies have treaties and go to war with each other. Treaties are an adaptation technique, not unique to the Haudenosaunee.

What other "noble savage" myths do you believe? It's pretty racist to believe that Europeans or any other society is naturally more violent than another. Do you believe indigenous peoples are inherently more noble and peace-loving, less greedy and cruel etc? There's no evidence for this. They're the same mammals from the same species.

[QatzelOk]

And Africa became known as “the white man’s graveyard” because of their lack of immunity to African diseases. What’s your point?

My point was that long-term survival of our species is about a combination of genetics (luck) and our ability to not damage our life-support systems (culture).

Without technology - without toolmaking and changing our environment to suit our needs - the human race would not have [b]survived beyond our Homo Habilis stage.[/b]

You use "survived" here when you actually mean "advanced."

Mankind has advanced by leaps and bounds since then, but this in no way increases our species' odds of long-term survival. I mean, right now, we seem to be advancing to Pharma-lockdowns and nuclear wars with China-Russia. Advancing is what humanity has pursued RATHER THAN surviving long-term.

[Potemkin]

My point was that long-term survival of our species is about a combination of genetics (luck) and our ability to not damage our life-support systems (culture).

Agreed.

You use "survived" here when you actually mean "advanced."

No, I mean survived. Homo habilis was not a very successful species, and was in serious danger of going extinct. It was Dinofelis’ favourite snack. Homo habilis grew a bigger brain, made more advanced stone tools, and became homo erectus, a much more successful hominin.

Mankind has advanced by leaps and bounds since then, but this in no way increases our species' odds of long-term survival. I mean, right now, we seem to be advancing to Pharma-lockdowns and nuclear wars with China-Russia. Advancing is what humanity has pursued RATHER THAN surviving long-term.

Advancing is no guarantee of long-term survival, but it certainly helps. Would I rather be a modern human or homo habilis? A modern human, no question. And our long-term prospects right now are still much better than homo habilis’s long-term prospects ever were.

[FiveofSwords]

Agreed.


No, I mean survived. Homo habilis was not a very successful species, and was in serious danger of going extinct. It was Dinofelis’ favourite snack. Homo habilis grew a bigger brain, made more advanced stone tools, and became homo erectus, a much more successful hominin.


Advancing is no guarantee of long-term survival, but it certainly helps. Would I rather be a modern human or homo habilis? A modern human, no question. And our long-term prospects right now are still much better than homo habilis’s long-term prospects ever were.

I find it shocking how racist you are against homo habilis

[Potemkin]

I find it shocking how racist you are against homo habilis

As Ernest Hemingway once said, it is not glorious to be better than others, but it is glorious to be better than one’s former self. Homo habilis is our former self, it’s where we all came from.

[Pants-of-dog]

This has nothing to do with race. Literally nothing. It has to do with things like geography, climate, available flora and fauna (i.e. animals that can and can't be domesticated, like horses, which weren't present in NA). Guns, germs, steel theory.

Then explain how Diamond uses geography to explain how Indigenous people cannot catch up to white people in terms of reading.

Not by choice. If they had the chance to use the resources around them differently to increase their chances of survival they would have taken it. The Aztecs and Mayans had different adaptations than other indigenous groups because they could, not because they had different beliefs. Animals naturally do whatever they can to help themselves survive. This is how the natural world works. The ones within a species that do will survive and procreate and the ones that don't will not.

What is this “choice” meme?

Do you think Europeans chose mercantilism and gold based currency and whatnot?

Yes human societies have treaties and go to war with each other. Treaties are an adaptation technique, not unique to the Haudenosaunee.

You completely ignored my point.

So we can safely say that European societies were “behind” Indigenous societies when it came to political stable, and that this contradicts your claim.

[Unthinking Majority]

So we can safely say that European societies were “behind” Indigenous societies when it came to political stable, and that this contradicts your claim.

One treaty doesn't prove that. There was a lot of violence amongst indigenous peoples, including imperialism, slavery, war, theft, rape etc, even human sacrifice. Why would they behave differently than Europeans, Africans, Asians etc?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_a ... _Americans

[QatzelOk]

Advancing is no guarantee of long-term survival, but it certainly helps.

No, I don't believe Darwin's theory confirms this at all. "Advancing" is socially constructed, like progress is.

No, I mean survived. Homo habilis was not a very successful species, and was in serious danger of going extinct. It was Dinofelis’ favourite snack. Homo habilis grew a bigger brain, made more advanced stone tools, and became homo erectus, a much more successful hominin.

Yes, an earlier model was less advanced, and a newer model advanced to a big-brained tool-maker who is poised to go extinct by way of these tools and by using his "big brain." Super-smart tool-makers fell into a survival-threatening "progress trap."

If the big-brained human hadn't appeared, it is possible that Homo habilis (or another version of humanoid) might be in no danger of going extinct. "Advancing" has brought us to where we are today, and it sure doesn't look very survival-oriented.

Perhaps it's more accurate to say that humanity is a failed species that will hopefully go extinct before bringing too many other species down with him? Because the way we have "advanced" is exactly what brought us to the precipice of extinction. Failure via big-brain tool-making.

[Pants-of-dog]

One treaty doesn't prove that. There was a lot of violence amongst indigenous peoples, including imperialism, slavery, war, theft, rape etc, even human sacrifice. Why would they behave differently than Europeans, Africans, Asians etc?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_a ... _Americans

And since you bring up slavery, the Europeans were doing way way way way more slavery.

They were definitely more advanced in slavery.

Tell me, does enslaving people create political stability? Did the UK enjoy peace and calm in Jamaica or did they need a constant military presence to keep their slaves in line?

Slavery itself became a way to steal the wealth and technological advances of others. The UK would never have been capable of the industrial revolution without stealing ideas from their non-European slaves.

[FiveofSwords]

And since you bring up slavery, the Europeans were doing way way way way more slavery.

They were definitely more advanced in slavery.

Tell me, does enslaving people create political stability? Did the UK enjoy peace and calm in Jamaica or did they need a constant military presence to keep their slaves in line?

Slavery itself became a way to steal the wealth and technological advances of others. The UK would never have been capable of the industrial revolution without stealing ideas from their non-European slaves.

Europeans were the only people in history to end slavery. And actually slaves were materially far better off than the modern minimum wage worker...so I don't see why people are so offended by it.

[Pants-of-dog]

Europeans were the only people in history to end slavery.

This is almost certainly not true.

And actually slaves were materially far better off than the modern minimum wage worker...so

This is almost certainly not true.

I don't see why people are so offended by it.

Your lack of imagination, empathy, historical knowledge, et cetera is not the topic.

[Unthinking Majority]

And since you bring up slavery, the Europeans were doing way way way way more slavery.

They were definitely more advanced in slavery.

Tell me, does enslaving people create political stability? Did the UK enjoy peace and calm in Jamaica or did they need a constant military presence to keep their slaves in line?

Slavery itself became a way to steal the wealth and technological advances of others. The UK would never have been capable of the industrial revolution without stealing ideas from their non-European slaves.

"Stealing ideas"?

Yes they were more advanced in slavery. They were also the first society to be morally repulsed by slavery to the point of banning it forever. They're also the most advanced in human rights like female & gender issues, LGBT issues, anti-racism, legal due process, and most other human rights. Feel free to continue your racist feelings that Europeans are uniquely evil though. H8ers gonna h8.

[Pants-of-dog]

"Stealing ideas"?

Yes.

Stealing ideas.

Yes they were more advanced in slavery. They were also the first society to be morally repulsed by slavery to the point of banning it forever.

Many societies banned slavery before the British Empire.

They're also the most advanced in human rights like female & gender issues, LGBT issues, anti-racism, legal due process, and most other human rights. Feel free to continue your racist feelings that Europeans are uniquely evil though. H8ers gonna h8.

It is mostly western and European countries supporting the Israeli government and the IDF in their current genocide and the supposedly less “advanced” countries supporting the South Africa case against the Israeli government in the ICJ.

Or if we want to discuss a more topical and local example, it is Indigenous people who are pushing the ongoing investigation into Canadian genocide of Indigenous people.

[FiveofSwords]

Yes.

Stealing ideas.



Many societies banned slavery before the British Empire.



It is mostly western and European countries supporting the Israeli government and the IDF in their current genocide and the supposedly less “advanced” countries supporting the South Africa case against the Israeli government in the ICJ.

Or if we want to discuss a more topical and local example, it is Indigenous people who are pushing the ongoing investigation into Canadian genocide of Indigenous people.

If Canadians are going to be guilty of genociding natives, I think they might as well go ahead and do it. There are still natives in canada after all...and if Canadians took their homes it might reduce housing costs a bit. Plus, they could get some nice lampshades.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Unthinking Majority

Please note that @FiveofSwords is providing a clear example of the supposed moral superiority of Europeans.

[Unthinking Majority]

Yes.

Stealing ideas.

LOL. That's like saying indigenous people who use modern refrigerators are stealing western ideas.

Many societies banned slavery before the British Empire.

Who banned slavery before western Europe over moral outrage?

It is mostly western and European countries supporting the Israeli government and the IDF in their current genocide and the supposedly less “advanced” countries supporting the South Africa case against the Israeli government in the ICJ.

Or if we want to discuss a more topical and local example, it is Indigenous people who are pushing the ongoing investigation into Canadian genocide of Indigenous people.

What specific western countries are supporting a genocide by Israel and how? Helping a state avoid genocidal annihilation from aggressive neighbours is different than supporting a genocide. What states are supporting Hamas in their genocidal actions against Israelis? Like the Oct 7 attack and its victims that you said you didn't care about.

[Unthinking Majority]

@Unthinking Majority

Please note that @FiveofSwords is providing a clear example of the supposed moral superiority of Europeans.

FiveofSwords doesn't speak for all Europeans/caucasians or the western world.