View Full Version : Best. Painting. Ever.
Strike For The South
11-20-2009, 06:22
http://www.mcnaughtonart.com/artwork/view_zoom/?artpiece_id=353
Oh my. It looks like basic history escapes this man.
A Very Super Market
11-20-2009, 06:32
I shall win this thread
https://i.imgur.com/r4e2C.jpg
-Bit gory. NSFW, I'd say. Hide your children too.
Sasaki Kojiro
11-20-2009, 06:36
I shall win this thread
https://i.imgur.com/r4e2C.jpg
What does the union soldier bleeding from his eyesockets represent?
Kadagar_AV
11-20-2009, 06:38
A Very Super Market won this thread.
Sasaki Kojiro
11-20-2009, 07:13
I really like the original painting...
Fifty Stars--Represents the fifty states of the Union. Some stars shine brighter than others.
:laugh4:
Mr Hollywood--He represents the entertainment business in America. It is very apparant that there is a liberal slant with Hollywood. He looks down at the judge and pregnant woman with ridicule and amusement.
CountArach
11-20-2009, 07:20
That is truly briliant art.
Major Robert Dump
11-20-2009, 08:06
SAUSAGEFEST
Azathoth
11-20-2009, 08:40
I shall win this thread
https://i.imgur.com/r4e2C.jpg
This pleases me.
Banquo's Ghost
11-20-2009, 09:10
Some awesome irony in the mouseover notes. The very best being:
Immigrant
Why does he have his hand up like that? There are many good people in America, they are not all Christian. I wanted him to have a look of shock when he realizes where the source of America's greatness comes from as he sees Christ holding the Constitution. We live in a country were (sic) we are free to worship as we please.
In a way, it's a pity he felt it necessary to explain the painting. Whilst not exactly first rank art, it ought to stand or fall by itself.
http://www.mcnaughtonart.com/artwork/view_zoom/?artpiece_id=353
Oh my. It looks like basic history escapes this man.
And basic constitutional law. I'm not even American, and I can point out the many inaccuracies.
I shall win this thread
https://i.imgur.com/r4e2C.jpg
-Bit gory. NSFW, I'd say. Hide your children too.
:2thumbsup::2thumbsup::2thumbsup:
Looks like something from BPRD!
Hosakawa Tito
11-20-2009, 11:56
What? No Harry Truman? Start over.
Louis VI the Fat
11-20-2009, 12:13
Genius painting. Thanks for sharing, that was a half hour well spend. :2thumbsup:
Rhyfelwyr
11-20-2009, 12:19
I must cleanse my eyes with carbolic soap after seeing such an outburst of idolatry. :drama2:
ICantSpellDawg
11-20-2009, 13:12
I love it. My favorite is Stephen Breyer holding his head in shame
Kadagar_AV
11-20-2009, 14:08
Genius painting. Thanks for sharing, that was a half hour well spend. :2thumbsup:
Just curious, what made it take half a hour?
Just curious, what made it take half a hour?
Reading all the little bits.
I like the Cthulu version best.
Aemilius Paulus
11-20-2009, 14:42
Hmm, Jesus was from Gondor? I SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT! Also, except for two individuals, all the black people are far in the back. How unsurprisingly racist... Plus, the black college student looks awkward. Very few college students are black if one looks at statistics, and anyway, the stereotype of a college student is more like a hippy, left-wing, radical, sex-crazed, unruly... you know, on and on.... The college student should have been with the other "sinners"On the other hand, a black American Soldier is just right. Despite being only 12% of he US population, blacks make up a disproportionately large part of the American Armed Forces (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2751/is_n48/ai_19657030/).
Louis VI the Fat
11-20-2009, 15:04
Just curious, what made it take half a hour?Reading all the little commentaries. Reading up on some. Trying to find out what the artist's ideas are, how widely spread they are. Fascinating.
Do you know that this is LDS art? (Some would argue, LSD) It is both subculture and mainstream.
The 'liberal news reporter', along with the professor clutching Darwin's Origin Of Species and the judge weeping over Roe vs. Wade, all huddled next to Satan, turning their backs to Jesus and the constitution.
That's the beauty about art, eh? One painting says as much as a thousand page study.
Edit: The artist does work from a template. Check this:
http://www.mcnaughtonart.com/artwork/view_zoom/?artpiece_id=319
Edit 2: I am still fascinated. That's another half hour wasted. The 'art of reassurance'. Fantasy/new age, religious art, landscape/pastoral, assuring cityscapes.
Peculiar, is that McNaughton does not feature persons in his re-assurance works. Only in his policital and religious art. But they feature dead people* only. He is that disappointed in the modern world, that he does not even paint living persons. 'Grandma's rocking chair':
http://www.mcnaughtonart.com/artwork/view_zoom/?artpiece_id=165
*Then again, Moromons have some rather idiosyncratic ideas about the link between the death and the living.
InsaneApache
11-20-2009, 15:38
The Thomas Paine inclusion is hilarious.
Hmm, Jesus was from Gondor? I SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT![/URL].
Why am I not surprised...
Do you know that this is LDS art?.
.
o.o
(Some would argue, LSD)
:2thumbsup:
Wait, is that Cthulhu?
That is not dead which can eternal lie. And with strange aeons even death may die.
In a way, it's a pity he felt it necessary to explain the painting. Whilst not exactly first rank art, it ought to stand or fall by itself.
I have to agree. Rather than looking at the painting itself, I'm simply reading the explanations for everything he chose to include. It nearly ruins the point, though the art itself is still very good. I wish i was half that talented with a brush.
Rhyfelwyr
11-20-2009, 18:39
Why does he complain about criticisms of the idea of "One Nation under God", then go on to blame socialism for this (when a socialist coined the term)?
ajaxfetish
11-21-2009, 20:45
Do you know that this is LDS art? (Some would argue, LSD) It is both subculture and mainstream.
Yep. I could tell by a bunch of the guy's commentary. He used a very Mormon vocabulary, plus the work as a whole shows a fairly Mormon perspective on the state of the world and country. Then, we are very accomplished as a people at creating tacky art.
If you want to see some great art by a Mormon (though it's far from the mold of standard Mormon art subject material) look up James Christensen.
Ajax
Louis VI the Fat
11-21-2009, 21:31
Yep. I could tell by a bunch of the guy's commentary. He used a very Mormon vocabulary, plus the work as a whole shows a fairly Mormon perspective on the state of the world and country. Then, we are very accomplished as a people at creating tacky art.
If you want to see some great art by a Mormon (though it's far from the mold of standard Mormon art subject material) look up James Christensen.
AjaxDefinately a better artist. Still not really my style, but clearly several steps up from McNaughton.
Yet, for all the tackyness of McNaughton's art, there is a consistent worldview behind his work, and he manages to express it in his work.
It took me a long while to discover that the OP's painting was not merely conservative and Christian fundamentalist, but a bit 'off' too. Mormon.
Strange that the LDS and 'mainstream' fundamentalist America should've grown towards each other so much. One can barely tell the difference anymore.
Have the evangelicals radicalised, or have the Mormons been assimilated? Important question, because at the current rate of demographics, in a few more decades, the Mormons and Catholic Latinos will own America. At least, the entire Southwest/West.
Also:
Bugger. :embarassed:
https://img525.imageshack.us/img525/8885/mormonvy.jpg (https://img525.imageshack.us/i/mormonvy.jpg/)
Evil_Maniac From Mars
11-21-2009, 22:52
Why does he complain about criticisms of the idea of "One Nation under God", then go on to blame socialism for this (when a socialist coined the term)?
A socialist did not coin the term. The "One Nation under God" was added to the pledge later.
Aemilius Paulus
11-21-2009, 23:07
A socialist did not coin the term. The "One Nation under God" was added to the pledge later.
Yeah, which is only supports the fact we should remove it. If it was a tradition, I would leave it alone. But it is not. The pledge was tampered with in 1954. BTW, does anyone still remember how the people would do the 'Nazi salute' when reciting the pledge or the national anthem (called Bellamy Salute I believe)? Fun times...
https://i560.photobucket.com/albums/ss49/Aemilius_Paulus/Album%202%20-%20Misc/Pledge_salue.jpg
oh teh lulz :tongue:
Meneldil
11-21-2009, 23:10
This somehow reminds me of this Onion article (http://www.theonion.com/content/news/area_man_passionate_defender_of).
Tellos Athenaios
11-21-2009, 23:18
What does the union soldier bleeding from his eyesockets represent?
My guess is what is left of historical veracity after the original painter has had its way with it.
Anyways this is just...
Many of these men and women gave their lives so we could have the liberties we enjoy. We are now at a time when these liberties are in peril. Our government has grown so big and powerful that the rights of the individual are at risk. This is what the Constitution was about—to limit the size of government.
... (a) he actually believes that to such an extent; and (b) he does include Roosevelt among those ‘who had a positive effect’ on what you view as your liberties now in peril? Meh. That takes bent over backwards a bit far, doesn't it?
I like the Cthulu version best.
Same here, having the kid writing in blood over the Constitution is pretty funny. Gotta get this to one of my buddies with a similarly warped sense of humor.
Azathoth
11-22-2009, 01:59
Yeah, which is only supports the fact we should remove it. If it was a tradition, I would leave it alone. But it is not. The pledge was tampered with in 1954. BTW, does anyone still remember how the people would do the 'Nazi salute' when reciting the pledge or the national anthem (called Bellamy Salute I believe)? Fun times...
Wow, good thing we don't pledge like that anymore.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
11-22-2009, 02:01
Wow, good thing we don't pledge like that anymore.
The extended arm salute had nothing to do with the Nazis, they hijacked it like they did with everything (in this case, from the Romans).
The extended arm salute had nothing to do with the Nazis, they hijacked it like they did with everything (in this case, from the Romans).
Indeed.
http://www.ict.mic.ul.ie/websites/2002/Aisling_OMahony/SWASTIKA.gif
Louis VI the Fat
11-22-2009, 02:25
The extended arm salute had nothing to do with the Nazis, they hijacked it like they did with everything (in this case, from the Romans).Indeed, so much Nazi symbolism predates the Nazis, and is now tainted forever - the salute, the fasces, the swastika (I went to the Carlsberg Glyptothek in Copenhagen once. The Swastika was all over the building. It was...weird.)
(Poor me, surrounded by huge blond Scandinavians half a meter taller than me, leading me into their swastika emblazoned headquarters, where no doubt some evil Germanic scientist with paintings of Thor and other Teutonic Gods on his wall would await me, eager to perform some God knows what sort of wicked experiment on me while my screams would be smothered by Wagner's Die Valkyrie.
Freightening :sweatdrop:)
I've always thought it funny how nobody has a Hitler moustache anymore. They were not all that uncommon. I am always shocked to see men of the period have that moustache.
The striking thing about the picture is not the symbol, but that it had pretty much the same meaning as it did in Germany. That of subjugation of the individual under the nation.
The Nazis did not operate in a cultural vacuum. I think that in a thousand years, the nazis will stand out not as something singular anymore, but at best as the most archetypical variant of a civilization at large.
The modernist urge to create society afresh, the racial fixation, the nationalism, the authoritarianism, the militarism - all of that was pretty common. A person from the year 2133 will be hard pressed to tell the differences between America in 1933 or Germany in 1933. The way we are not immediately aware of which monarchy in Europe was the most absolute 300 years ago.
Like the Hitler moustache, the example set tainted it forever, and ended it. An end was made to imperialism, racial fixation, nationalism. Without Hitler, we'd still be in Algeria oppressing the inferior race in a quest for Lebensraum.
Azathoth
11-22-2009, 03:13
The extended arm salute had nothing to do with the Nazis, they hijacked it like they did with everything (in this case, from the Romans).
Still, context.
Rhyfelwyr
11-22-2009, 13:48
A socialist did not coin the term. The "One Nation under God" was added to the pledge later.
*fades away*
Tellos Athenaios
11-22-2009, 18:22
A person from the year 2133 will be hard pressed to tell the differences between America in 1933 or Germany in 1933. The way we are not immediately aware of which monarchy in Europe was the most absolute 300 years ago.
I still doubt that. Not because the political/sociological views of Nazi Germany were so radically different of New Deal USA; but because of the way Nazi Germany stands out in a way much like the Louis XIV or Louis XVI stand out. Exemplary of an era, so to speak.
Meneldil
11-22-2009, 23:16
Would have to agree with Athenaois. The Nazi ideology was pure evil, as far as we can use such a term to describe a political system.
Auschwitz is so far a singular event in mankind's history, and even if something like that happens again (which is all in all likely), the Nazis will have set the standard, probably for as long as we'll remind what they have done.
Some events in stand out, even though they're not that different from others, simply because they set up a new, probably unbelievable standard.
None will remember the Armenian genocide in 150 years, except maybe some Armenian and Turk nationalists (if these two nations still exist). But the Holocaust? That's probably one of the most important event of modern history.
Edit: And the Cthulhu version made me laugh hard.
Papewaio
11-23-2009, 01:03
Like the Hitler moustache, the example set tainted it forever, and ended it. An end was made to imperialism, racial fixation, nationalism. Without Hitler, we'd still be in Algeria oppressing the inferior race in a quest for Lebensraum.
WWII did not gouge that out of France. The retreat from Vietnam happened long after WWII. The reason France is out of Algeria is that it was too costly. France has not forgotten how to oppress as anyone in the Pacific can testify for... Rainbow Warrior, Nuclear weapon testing in atolls, New Caledonia (Operation Victor). The list goes on.
Imperialism didn't end, it just picked easier opponents. All that France and Europe learnt was that to keep picking on smaller nations and not go head to head with another first world nation. Also the biggest reason that Europe didn't fight another conventional war was the very real chance that it would involve USA vs USSR using the EU as a nuclear testing ground... something a European power will only ever allow in another part of the world.
Louis VI the Fat
11-23-2009, 01:57
It didn't end May 8th, 1945. It ended in the decades following, when the moral implications of WWII sank in. None of the colonial wars was lost because European nations couldn't afford them They were unwinnable because the brutality of colonial wars was deemed unacceptable. In 1900, it was alright to genocide troublesome areas. In 1960, no longer.
Then there was 1968. And all the other changes in society after that.
As for the rest of your post, I am in a combative mood, since tomorrow morning is Monday morning and I'll have to get up early for work, so:
Pft.
Twenty-five million white British settlers genocide an area the size of Europe in the Pacific, and then spend the rest of eternity mewling about one hundred thousand Frenchmen living on three tiny Pacific rocks, who unlike the Ozzies didn't murder the natives nor had a 'Whites Only' policy until two weeks ago, and who therefore experience occassional etnic tensions.
Speaking of State terrorism: when will Australia and New Zealand do something about the abominable living standards of what's left of the Aboriginals?
Papewaio
11-23-2009, 02:29
:2thumbsup: I was hoping that there was some Gaelic combativeness still left. You bite to easy, I will have to introduce you to my family farm on which we have Truffles and Maine Anjou cattle for the real feeling of France in the Pacific.
Now that I have your attention. Who do you think will win on the 29th at Marseille? I would like to see France beat the All Blacks (I know heresy) in a close match based on a passing game... no more kicking. A win such as this would annoy both England and Wales for the cost of a single loss.
Aemilius Paulus
11-23-2009, 02:59
Speaking of State terrorism: when will Australia and New Zealand do something about the abominable living standards of what's left of the Aboriginals?
When will France do something about the abominable standards of the African immigrants? Worry about your own problems, Louis. :S
When will France do something about the abominable standards of the African immigrants? Worry about your own problems, Louis. :S
Ooooh BURN
Louis VI the Fat
11-23-2009, 12:11
Who do you think will win on the 29th at Marseille? I would like to see France beat the All Blacks (I know heresy) in a close match based on a passing game... no more kicking. A win such as this would annoy both England and Wales for the cost of a single loss.I predict we'll butch up your anthem first, presenting a singer who cant even reme'mber the lyrics*. Then we'll be completely outplayed and outclassed. Then twenty minutes before time, Marconnet will commit an embarassing foul that will see us pull ahead.
Or such seems to be the standard of French sports at the moment. :shame:
*See: France -South Africa last week.
When will France do something about the abominable standards of the African immigrants? Worry about your own problems, Louis. :S Yes, AP, but that was my very point. To not only look at the splinter in your brother's eye, but also notice the beam which is in your own eye.
I laughed like a maniac at the description of the Professor.
Meneldil
11-23-2009, 18:29
When will France do something about the abominable standards of the African immigrants? Worry about your own problems, Louis. :S
When you know, they'll stop complaining about racism and actually try to do something with their hands other than burning cars.
Aemilius Paulus
11-24-2009, 01:29
When you know, they'll stop complaining about racism and actually try to do something with their hands other than burning cars.
Lol, I am actually closer to your position, but I just had to try sting Louis :tongue:, when I saw a perceived blunder in logic.
That said, I am still divided over this issue. France is certainly not moving towards the immigrants, but at the same time, the immigrants are not making much effort themselves. Such as not culturally naturalising, as any immigrant should (I am an immigrant in US myself, before you scream bloody murder and call me a racist).
Meneldil
11-24-2009, 07:58
Lol, I am actually closer to your position, but I just had to try sting Louis :tongue:, when I saw a perceived blunder in logic.
That said, I am still divided over this issue. France is certainly not moving towards the immigrants, but at the same time, the immigrants are not making much effort themselves. Such as not culturally naturalising, as any immigrant should (I am an immigrant in US myself, before you scream bloody murder and call me a racist).
France succesfully assimilated thousands of italians, poles, germans, spanish, armenians and jews. Most of those nowadays consider themselves more french than I do. I don't think there's any other European country that had to deal with that many immigrants, except for Great Britain maybe.
Sure, mistakes were made by the State regarding African immigrants, but they're not treated worse than poles were when they arrived (Poles were mostly sent to work in coil mines in the late 19th).
African immigrants who trully want to do something with their life manage to get jobs, fund their own company and what not.Not surprisingly, these ones are often quite critical toward the dumb lazy sobs that spend their time complaining, bitching and burning cars.
I really enjoyed that :laugh4:
Weren't the constitution writers all avowed atheists, deists and freemasons?
Megas Methuselah
11-25-2009, 10:24
Speaking of State terrorism: when will Australia and New Zealand do something about the abominable living standards of what's left of the Aboriginals?
Man, why does everyone ******* forget about Canada?! :laugh4: :dizzy2: :sad:
When will France do something about the abominable standards of the African immigrants? Worry about your own problems, Louis. :S
:laugh4: :shame: :no:
That said, I am still divided over this issue. France is certainly not moving towards the immigrants, but at the same time, the immigrants are not making much effort themselves. Such as not culturally naturalising, as any immigrant should (I am an immigrant in US myself, before you scream bloody murder and call me a racist).
It's rather difficult for a visible, dark-skinned minority group to assimilate in a racist, white society.
Not surprisingly, these ones are often quite critical toward the dumb lazy sobs that spend their time complaining, bitching and burning cars.
I think you are speaking in jest. Yes. Yes, you are.
Seamus Fermanagh
11-25-2009, 18:22
A socialist did not coin the term. The "One Nation under God" was added to the pledge later.
Quite correct. The pledge was added in 1954 following a lobbying effort by the Knights of Columbus (notably the Sir Knights of the 4th degree of our order). It is an acknowledgement of the divine, but purposefully phrased ecumenically so that no sect or faith would feel excluded.
Linkee (http://www.homeofheroes.com/hallofheroes/1st_floor/flag/1bfc_pledge.html)
That phrase has been under more or less constant legal challenge since 1955.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
11-25-2009, 21:57
It's rather difficult for a visible, dark-skinned minority group to assimilate in a racist, white society.
Hence all the people who actually try and succeed. You know, the Ayaan Hirsi Ali's of the world. I would recommend you read her books, especially where she levels criticism against those who came from similar situations to her and instead of working hard did nothing and simply had a sense of entitlement or were lazy.
Sasaki Kojiro
11-25-2009, 22:00
It's rather difficult for a visible, dark-skinned minority group to assimilate in a racist, white society.
Tell that to obama :bounce:
Tell that to obama :bounce:
I take it you haven't noticed the backlash? Even our Dave is calling him an African Muslim.
Crazed Rabbit
11-25-2009, 22:08
I take it you haven't noticed the backlash? Even our Dave is calling him an African Muslim.
Backlash? Dave is one guy out of many Americans in the backroom, and that's about the ratio for the whole US population; a small minority.
CR
Louis VI the Fat
11-25-2009, 22:20
A hundred years ago there were racist attacks against Italians in France, sometimes deadly. 'Swarthy, poor, and religious fundamentalists', or such was the thought.
(Then again, there are racist attacks against Italians in Italy. For the same reasons)
None of which really stopped until full cultural and even genetic assimilation. Both forms of assimilation are simply much harder for populations that are visibly different from a majory.
Ah well, for better or for worse, one day we'll all look like Brazilians. The fastest growing group in France is 'mixed'. A whopping thirthy percent of Algerians marry to Frenchmen*, a level of exogamy that equals that between Frenchmen and Spanish, Portuguese and Italians in earlier decades.
*Racist terminology, which serves to illuminate inherent racism. Frenchman is the term for 'white' Frenchman. Who incidentally most often are not of French stock at all, but have an estimated 25-40% of non-French blood from immigration of the past two centuries alone.
Strike For The South
11-25-2009, 22:56
A hundred years ago there were racist attacks against Italians in France, sometimes deadly. 'Swarthy, poor, and religious fundamentalists', or such was the thought.
(Then again, there are racist attacks against Italians in Italy. For the same reasons)
None of which really stopped until full cultural and even genetic assimilation. Both forms of assimilation are simply much harder for populations that are visibly different from a majory.
Ah well, for better or for worse, one day we'll all look like Brazilians. The fastest growing group in France is 'mixed'. A whopping thirthy percent of Algerians marry to Frenchmen*, a level of exogamy that equals that between Frenchmen and Spanish, Portuguese and Italians in earlier decades.
*Racist terminology, which serves to illuminate inherent racism. Frenchman is the term for 'white' Frenchman. Who incidentally most often are not of French stock at all, but have an estimated 25-40% of non-French blood from immigration of the past two centuries alone.
*yawn* I don't even know where my family came from
Louis VI the Fat
11-25-2009, 23:37
*yawn* I don't even know where my family came fromWell, your mother married your uncle, who was the brother of your grandpa, whose cousin married your
Papewaio
11-25-2009, 23:52
Quite correct. The pledge was added in 1954 following a lobbying effort by the Knights of Columbus (notably the Sir Knights of the 4th degree of our order). It is an acknowledgement of the divine, but purposefully phrased ecumenically so that no sect or faith would feel excluded.
It only serves those of a monotheistic faith. It purposefully excludes those who believe in nature spirits, more then one god or those who don't believe in a divine being. I would say it is crossing the line of separation of powers.
Unless of course one thinks that the belief systems of Native Americans is insignificant and that it is okay to blanket out there causes. Or to regulate atheists to the status of non citizen in a discriminatory manner.
Put the shoes on in another manner. God with a capital G normally refers to the Chrisitian (and coincidentally Jewish and Islamic) religiousness Deity. Would you feel excluded if the phrase was:
"One Nation under No God" Atheist Premise
"One Nation under the Greek Pantheon" Ancient Greek
"One Nation under the Spaghetti Monster" atheist with a sense of humour.
"One Nation under Ra"
"One Nation under the Force"
"One Nation under Nature"
etc
I'm sure if one or more of these was used in the pledge you would feel it as an attack on your belief system. As I'm sure others do feel about having to recite a pledge of another's belief system to show their loyalty to the nation. It certainly is mixing church and state when one has to acknowledge a religious belief to show allegiance to a nation.
Azathoth
11-26-2009, 00:03
Irish in New York City?
This picture is disturbing me.
Louis VI the Fat
11-26-2009, 03:58
Linkee (http://www.homeofheroes.com/hallofheroes/1st_floor/flag/1bfc_pledge.html)
That phrase has been under more or less constant legal challenge since 1955.As well it should be under challenge. It is an insult to the constitution, an obscenity. It excludes from the nation all non-believers in a monotheistic divinity. It is a totalitarian residue from the fifties. An instrument of theocracy that has no place in a free nation.
https://i560.photobucket.com/albums/ss49/Aemilius_Paulus/Album%202%20-%20Misc/Pledge_salue.jpg
Catholic minorities. If you can't make everybody worship the pope, at least make 'em idolate a flag, or some such. Anything to teach children the value of submission. No free thought for Catholic children. [/anti-papism]
Evil_Maniac From Mars
11-26-2009, 04:23
Catholic minorities. If you can't make everybody worship the pope, at least make 'em idolate a flag, or some such. Anything to teach children the value of submission. No free thought for Catholic children. [/anti-papism]
:inquisitive:
That doesn't really relate to Catholicism at all.
Megas Methuselah
11-26-2009, 08:19
Hence all the people who actually try and succeed. You know, the Ayaan Hirsi Ali's of the world. I would recommend you read her books, especially where she levels criticism against those who came from similar situations to her and instead of working hard did nothing and simply had a sense of entitlement or were lazy.
Don't preach at me, German. I'm one of the few people in my family that actually managed to graduate high school. I'm studyin' at university, and I have great plans for my future in a time when the Aboriginal people are multiplying in numbers and re-claiming their rightful place in Canadian society. I can understand more than anyone, especially the likes of you, as to why many of my people can't get out of this pit of poverty, desolation, and sheer hopelessness. You can never comprehend the challenges I have faced to get to where I am right now; the opportunities and loving support I have enjoyed throughout my life, which are by a far margin unavailable to many members of the poverty-stricken and scarred Aboriginal population, are the only reasons as to why I am not drowning in some poor ghetto shack, drinkin' goose and stickin' needles in my arm.
Strike For The South
11-26-2009, 18:24
Don't preach at me, German. I'm one of the few people in my family that actually managed to graduate high school. I'm studyin' at university, and I have great plans for my future in a time when the Aboriginal people are multiplying in numbers and re-claiming their rightful place in Canadian society. I can understand more than anyone, especially the likes of you, as to why many of my people can't get out of this pit of poverty, desolation, and sheer hopelessness. You can never comprehend the challenges I have faced to get to where I am right now; the opportunities and loving support I have enjoyed throughout my life, which are by a far margin unavailable to many members of the poverty-stricken and scarred Aboriginal population, are the only reasons as to why I am not drowning in some poor ghetto shack, drinkin' goose and stickin' needles in my arm.
So impovershied you're drinking top shelf vodka?
If you're going to go coal miners duaghter on us you could at least make it belivable.
Megas Methuselah
11-26-2009, 19:14
So impovershied you're drinking top shelf vodka?
:laugh4: I always used the term synonymously with any alcoholic beverage, but I never fully understood the American ghetto slang in all those rap songs.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
11-26-2009, 20:20
Don't preach at me, German. I'm one of the few people in my family that actually managed to graduate high school. I'm studyin' at university, and I have great plans for my future in a time when the Aboriginal people are multiplying in numbers and re-claiming their rightful place in Canadian society. I can understand more than anyone, especially the likes of you, as to why many of my people can't get out of this pit of poverty, desolation, and sheer hopelessness. You can never comprehend the challenges I have faced to get to where I am right now; the opportunities and loving support I have enjoyed throughout my life, which are by a far margin unavailable to many members of the poverty-stricken and scarred Aboriginal population, are the only reasons as to why I am not drowning in some poor ghetto shack, drinkin' goose and stickin' needles in my arm.
EDIT: Never mind, there's no point in going here just yet.
The Stranger
11-27-2009, 00:11
That is not dead which can eternal lie. And with strange aeons even death may die.
great line of poetry.
I like to add
And taken by light in her arms at long and dear last. I may without fail. Suffer the first vision that set fire to the stars.
The Stranger
11-27-2009, 00:18
Would have to agree with Athenaois. The Nazi ideology was pure evil, as far as we can use such a term to describe a political system.
Auschwitz is so far a singular event in mankind's history, and even if something like that happens again (which is all in all likely), the Nazis will have set the standard, probably for as long as we'll remind what they have done.
Some events in stand out, even though they're not that different from others, simply because they set up a new, probably unbelievable standard.
None will remember the Armenian genocide in 150 years, except maybe some Armenian and Turk nationalists (if these two nations still exist). But the Holocaust? That's probably one of the most important event of modern history.
Edit: And the Cthulhu version made me laugh hard.
no one will remember its not just the germans to blaim. the holocaust as an excuse has had its best time.
WWII as the entire event is probably the most important yes, but not just the holocaust. Its not just the jews that suffered, Asia suffered, Russia suffered, Non-Jewish Europe suffered. People tend to forget WWII had 50 million casualties, not just 6 million.
The Stranger
11-27-2009, 00:31
Hence all the people who actually try and succeed. You know, the Ayaan Hirsi Ali's of the world. I would recommend you read her books, especially where she levels criticism against those who came from similar situations to her and instead of working hard did nothing and simply had a sense of entitlement or were lazy.
Hence all the people who try and fail and whose stories are never told. It's not as black and white as many people want to believe, on either side of the argument.
Whatever you do there will always be that little voice in the heads of people, even if they dont know it yet or refuse to listen to it, that divide people in to us and them. You can make friends with "white" people as a "black" person but there will always be hesitation about telling some joke or about calling names or talking about certain issues. And the same happens the other way around. Its a two edged sword and it will probably never lose sharpness.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
11-27-2009, 01:02
Hence all the people who try and fail and whose stories are never told. It's not as black and white as many people want to believe, on either side of the argument.
Indeed. My point was precisely this, that people can succeed. Not that they will, though if you try you have a much better chance of success.
The Stranger
11-27-2009, 01:23
Indeed. My point was precisely this, that people can succeed. Not that they will, though if you try you have a much better chance of success.
oh yes true. but there is a whole lot of hypocricy on one side, a whole lot of selfsorrow (? basically they feel sorry for themselves) on the other and a whole lot of ignorance on both sides that makes it harder than needs be.
besides the point, in terms of integration the west is the poorest example ever because everywhere they came they imposed their way of life, and it still happens.
besides the point, in terms of integration the west is the poorest example ever because everywhere they came they imposed their way of life, and it still happens.
It's not our fault that our way of life is superior. :sweatdrop:
Megas Methuselah
11-27-2009, 02:42
It's not our fault that our way of life is superior. :sweatdrop:
*burns down your house*
The Stranger
11-27-2009, 04:36
It's not our fault that our way of life is superior. :sweatdrop:
to quote Megas Metusaleh
I think you are speaking in jest. Yes. Yes, you are.
to quote Megas Metusaleh
It's pretty simple, had the Ottomans had machine guns in 16xx, they had probably conquered all of Europe, just like a bunch of Europeans conquered all of Africa using guns the Africans didn't have.
If that's not it then we're just Übermenschen I guess. But then it would be even less our fault, but people conquering others and imposing this or that on them is not exactly something Europeans invented, maybe we were just good at it and it drove us to invent new things all the time.
Had the Africans sunk our ships with their coastal guns, we wouldn't have conquered it, it wasn't our fault tat the natives were a bunch of primitive weaklings. That the strong beat the weak wasn't something we invented specifically to genocide them, it was something that was just a heck of a lot easier to do to them than to the heavily armed baron and his army who were your neighbour in
Europe. The Mongols and Huns didn't ask us whether we could counter their awesome weapons and tactics either.
It's right that we shouldn't discriminate against people if they want to become contributing members of our society but if I knew that Megas Methuselah was ultimately out to reclaim his rightful place under the sun I wouldn't hire him either because the last guy who said something like that was largely responsible for WW1. There, take that.:whip:
Megas Methuselah
11-27-2009, 15:54
It's pretty simple, had the Ottomans had machine guns in 16xx, they had probably conquered all of Europe, just like a bunch of Europeans conquered all of Africa using guns the Africans didn't have.
If that's not it then we're just Übermenschen I guess. But then it would be even less our fault, but people conquering others and imposing this or that on them is not exactly something Europeans invented, maybe we were just good at it and it drove us to invent new things all the time.
Had the Africans sunk our ships with their coastal guns, we wouldn't have conquered it, it wasn't our fault tat the natives were a bunch of primitive weaklings. That the strong beat the weak wasn't something we invented specifically to genocide them, it was something that was just a heck of a lot easier to do to them than to the heavily armed baron and his army who were your neighbour in
Europe. The Mongols and Huns didn't ask us whether we could counter their awesome weapons and tactics either.
It's right that we shouldn't discriminate against people if they want to become contributing members of our society but if I knew that Megas Methuselah was ultimately out to reclaim his rightful place under the sun I wouldn't hire him either because the last guy who said something like that was largely responsible for WW1. There, take that.:whip:
*makes mental note*
I will get back at ya.
Seamus Fermanagh
11-27-2009, 20:14
As well it should be under challenge. It is an insult to the constitution, an obscenity. It excludes from the nation all non-believers in a monotheistic divinity. It is a totalitarian residue from the fifties. An instrument of theocracy that has no place in a free nation.
...Catholic minorities. If you can't make everybody worship the pope, at least make 'em idolate a flag, or some such. Anything to teach children the value of submission. No free thought for Catholic children. [/anti-papism]
The Constitution is rather specific in prohibiting the establisment of a "state religion." It also clearly enshrines the right of each individual to worship as they please (save for harming another). At no point in the Constitution or Bill of Rights does it say that all of our government MUST eschew religion, religious references, and/or references to the divine. In this we are different from France, where I believe you have recounted that such a specific prohibition DOES exist.
Yes, part of the motivation of those voting for the resolution in 1954 was their belief that "Godlessness" was one of the attributes of Communism, a political system viewed in the USA as antithetical to freedom. Some of them actually thought this would "catch out" commies who would refuse to say the words "under God." Simplistic, I agree.
@Husar
You didn't say that though. You said
It's not our fault that our way of life is superior.
Implying that not just technologically, but socially, culturally, economically that white people are superior to Native Americans. Maybe you didn't mean that, but that's what you said.
Had the Africans sunk our ships with their coastal guns, we wouldn't have conquered it, it wasn't our fault tat the natives were a bunch of primitive weaklings.
lol, try telling that to Shaka when he shoves an iklwa into your chest.
Louis VI the Fat
11-27-2009, 21:54
Yes, part of the motivation of those voting for the resolution in 1954 was their belief that "Godlessness" was one of the attributes of Communism, a political system viewed in the USA as antithetical to freedom. Some of them actually thought this would "catch out" commies who would refuse to say the words "under God." Simplistic, I agree.With the commie threat having subsided*, would now be an opportune time to remove the phrase from the pledge?
*but watch out for that Marxist Manchurian candidate!
The Constitution is rather specific in prohibiting the establisment of a "state religion." It also clearly enshrines the right of each individual to worship as they please (save for harming another). At no point in the Constitution or Bill of Rights does it say that all of our government MUST eschew religion, religious references, and/or references to the divine. In this we are different from France, where I believe you have recounted that such a specific prohibition DOES exist.I consider the notion of 'Freedom of Religion' a Protestant heritage. Freedom of Religion came about to allow different Protestant faiths unhindered worship.
In America, a sacrosant heritage owing to the history of Protestant dissenters settling its shores.
The Catholic tradition is that of 'Separation of state and religion'. (Which was won in France. And won nominally in Italy, but was lost there for all intent and purposes in its practical execution.) It never ceases to amaze the (post)Catholic that to this very day, Scandinavian countries should have a State Church, that the British head of state should be the head of church.
What I found striking in your post, is that it should've been Catholics who brought about the introduction of the phrase 'one nation under God'. This is Catholic unfreedom. Un-separation of Church and State. I would've expected a Catholic minority to strive for separation of Church and state.
Mutual acculturation then, I guess. The Catholic minority in the US found freedom under the 'freedom of religion', as an equal faith together with Protestant denominations. And learned to appreciate it as a means of emancipation, of freedom. Catholics in America are all semi-Protestants. They take themselves far too seriously in their individual expression of faith. (Every Latin Catholic knows that there are rules, and that there is real life). Yet they do not take Catholicism serious where it concerns authority, the pope, hierarchy. I bet you read the Bible yourselves and all that sort of heresy-inducing insolence.
Protestants for their part accepted the Catholic notion of deseparation of state and religion. The US tradition is one of altogether less state neutrality, abstainment from the state, in matters of religion than it is nowadays. I content that at the same time Catholics in Europe separated State and Church, in the US the Catholic minority was the reason for the increasing Christianisation of the State - in a breach of the older traditions of the more overwhelmingly Protestant US.
Edit: surely you could not expect to post that the KoC were behind the phrase and not count on me to use it for a good old-fashioned anti-popery rant? :beam:
I am exploring it some more in a less confrontational style in this post. It is interesting.
The Stranger
11-27-2009, 22:14
It's pretty simple, had the Ottomans had machine guns in 16xx, they had probably conquered all of Europe, just like a bunch of Europeans conquered all of Africa using guns the Africans didn't have.
If that's not it then we're just Übermenschen I guess. But then it would be even less our fault, but people conquering others and imposing this or that on them is not exactly something Europeans invented, maybe we were just good at it and it drove us to invent new things all the time.
Had the Africans sunk our ships with their coastal guns, we wouldn't have conquered it, it wasn't our fault tat the natives were a bunch of primitive weaklings. That the strong beat the weak wasn't something we invented specifically to genocide them, it was something that was just a heck of a lot easier to do to them than to the heavily armed baron and his army who were your neighbour in
Europe. The Mongols and Huns didn't ask us whether we could counter their awesome weapons and tactics either.
It's right that we shouldn't discriminate against people if they want to become contributing members of our society but if I knew that Megas Methuselah was ultimately out to reclaim his rightful place under the sun I wouldn't hire him either because the last guy who said something like that was largely responsible for WW1. There, take that.:whip:
do you actually believe what u say? i have to know that in order to gave a proper response. im not joking, its a serious question.
Louis VI the Fat
11-27-2009, 22:35
I thought Husar's post was a complete blast. Witty and clever.
Not racist/superiorist garbage.
Megas Methuselah
11-27-2009, 23:00
I thought Husar's post was a complete blast. Witty and clever.
Not racist/superiorist garbage.
Yep. All the more funny considerin' he's a brutish German.
That the strong beat the weak wasn't something we invented specifically to genocide them
:uhoh: Now he's gonna try excusing the Holocaust!!!
it was something that was just a heck of a lot easier to do to them than to the heavily armed baron and his army who were your neighbour in
Europe
European savagery. All you people were/are ever good at is breedin' like rats and killin' each other. You used these uncanny skills to grab your colonial empires, whose only purpose was to aid in the struggle in killin' your other European foes. I don't know why you people are so obsessed with endin' each others' lives; must be a cultural thing. If so, it only proves how inferior your barbaric way of life is.
if I knew that Megas Methuselah was ultimately out to reclaim his rightful place under the sun I wouldn't hire him either because the last guy who said something like that was largely responsible for WW1.
That's right, bro, that's right! But I ain't white, eh? I don't need to start massive world wars and devastating genocides simply to get what I need in my spoiled life, oh no I don't!
@Husar
You didn't say that though. You said
Implying that not just technologically, but socially, culturally, economically that white people are superior to Native Americans. Maybe you didn't mean that, but that's what you said.
Well, way of life is a broad term, Europe has seen a whole lot of wars during it's history, we've had warrior clans, warrior societies, warrior this, warrior that and all of them tried to invent new ways to kill others, then at some point we established national identities and used our newfangled ways to kill people outside our nations, once we discovered that there were people on this globe who were far less developed at least technologically (maybe their culture was against inventions or whatever, quite frankly I have no idea why the Indians and Africans didn't invent this or that, Asia wasn't that far behind us anyway, the middle east was ahead for some time, then fell behind)
do you actually believe what u say? i have to know that in order to gave a proper response. im not joking, its a serious question.
Well, let's just assume I do.
:uhoh: Now he's gonna try excusing the Holocaust!!!
I'm not excusing anything, I'm just saying life is the opposite of death, your body kills hundreds of viruses and bacteria who try to kill you just to stay alive. We humans invented morals (and religions, or maybe not, depending on what one believes) trying to keep some urges in check but we keep killing eachother anyway, for millions of different reasons. Only in the past 100 years or so have we started to look down on that behaviour in general, while I too think that this is a good development, I do realise that people 400 years ago may have had very different views, it's just the way it is.
European savagery. All you people were/are ever good at is breedin' like rats and killin' each other. You used these uncanny skills to grab your colonial empires, whose only purpose was to aid in the struggle in killin' your other European foes. I don't know why you people are so obsessed with endin' each others' lives; must be a cultural thing. If so, it only proves how inferior your barbaric way of life is.
That must be why we "rule" the planet now while others live in reservations...
We're not the ones whining about how our lives are bad, if you think living in a tent, hunting animals is the superior way of life then why don't you go and do that instead of trying to achieve something in "our" barbaric world? :inquisitive:
That's right, bro, that's right! But I ain't white, eh? I don't need to start massive world wars and devastating genocides simply to get what I need in my spoiled life, oh no I don't!
So you mean I should assume from your skin colour that you are different?
I thought that was called racism... :inquisitive:
I'll let Meth answer his own points; he'd be far more entertaining than I ever could be.
Well, way of life is a broad term, Europe has seen a whole lot of wars during it's history, we've had warrior clans, warrior societies, warrior this, warrior that and all of them tried to invent new ways to kill others,
Native American life was vicious. The Aztecs are the obvious example, and although my knowledge of Pre-Columbian America is limited, I know that violence was endemic among Native Americans in the modern USA and Canada.
then at some point we established national identities and used our newfangled ways to kill people outside our nations
Wrong way round. National identities provided people with an excuse to kill other people they had already wanted to kill.
once we discovered that there were people on this globe who were far less developed at least technologically
Well, technologically, of course Africa was behind Europe in the 19th Century, and America was in the 16th. But that doesn't mean their way of life was.
Indians
India did; it had a thriving cotton industry until the British exploited the various warring factions and took the cotton back to Lancashire. India only sucks today because we sucked all it's wealth out from it over 200 years, like a vampire with steam engines.
Africans didn't invent this or that
I'm not sure about that tbh. I need to no more.
, Asia wasn't that far behind us anyway,
Haha, the Qi'ing Dynasty had it's head so far up it's ass it couldn't see that maintaining the technological status quo for 200 years and expecting to remain the foremost millitary and economic power is not smart.
Middle East
That was our fault, again. The Crusades instilled a sense of fear and suspicion of the West into the eyes of many Muslims, so great was the horror and turmoil recked by those two hundred years. Essentially, that meant that everything that the West developed was worthless (Although Desert isn't as good as providing coal as Wales is as well, to be fair)
Banquo's Ghost
11-28-2009, 08:57
The temperature is rising somewhat. Whist using rhetorical devices, please ensure that you take account of member's sensibilities.
Thank you kindly.
:bow:
Strike For The South
11-28-2009, 09:08
Wait....
I thought Europeans were Godless communist nancy boys.
Not savage warmongering destroyers of culture.
:help:
Wait....
I thought Europeans were Godless communist nancy boys.
Not savage warmongering destroyers of culture.
:help:
They are, but they have yet to accept that fact.
I'll let Meth answer his own points; he'd be far more entertaining than I ever could be.
I'll be interested to see how he justifies insinuating that only whites can be mass murderers.
Native American life was vicious. The Aztecs are the obvious example, and although my knowledge of Pre-Columbian America is limited, I know that violence was endemic among Native Americans in the modern USA and Canada.
Oh look, you just ruined his argument. :rolleyes:
Somehow their conflicts didn't lead to an ever-improving technology for war, ours did, now I didn't claim to have an answer for that, I just think it might be cultural, like the catholic churches' ban on condoms is holding back the war on AIDS.
Wrong way round. National identities provided people with an excuse to kill other people they had already wanted to kill.
What difference does it make? According to your last statement, Native Americans were the same, just less effective due to lower technological levels. Yes, they could make nice calendars but calendars don't kill people so that wasn't of much use against the outside invaders.
Well, technologically, of course Africa was behind Europe in the 19th Century, and America was in the 16th. But that doesn't mean their way of life was.
Tell me in what way their way of life was superior then? You just said they had as much murder and bloodshed as Europe did. Or do you claim they were all exactly the same no matter the result? If that's the way it is then why is Megas Methuselah so desperate to succeed in a very European-influenced way of life? Like I said he's free to go and live any other of the equal lifestyles, yet he is here complaining that he has trouble getzing into this particular one and at the same time he bashes it. That's rather hypocritical, isn't it?
India did; it had a thriving cotton industry until the British exploited the various warring factions and took the cotton back to Lancashire. India only sucks today because we sucked all it's wealth out from it over 200 years, like a vampire with steam engines.
I meant Amerindianatives, we just call them Indians here, most likely because when Columbus arrived there he thought he was in India, somehow the name stuck.
I'm not sure about that tbh. I need to no more.
Well, apparently they didn't invent Capitalism, steam engines, Otto engines etc. nor anything that would have helped them keep the Europeans out when they came, the Europeans invented a lot that allowed them to go to Africa and conquer it though. Why Africans invented less things I still don't know, but there has to be some reason for it.
Haha, the Qi'ing Dynasty had it's head so far up it's ass it couldn't see that maintaining the technological status quo for 200 years and expecting to remain the foremost millitary and economic power is not smart.
But the Chinese invented gunpowder, so at the very least at some point they were ahead of Europe in some way.
That was our fault, again. The Crusades instilled a sense of fear and suspicion of the West into the eyes of many Muslims, so great was the horror and turmoil recked by those two hundred years. Essentially, that meant that everything that the West developed was worthless (Although Desert isn't as good as providing coal as Wales is as well, to be fair)
It was their fault, the crusades were a response to their locking the European pilgrims out of our shared holy places.
That our armour was useless is debatable, when you get yourself exhausted it it, but as long as you're standing and they can hardly get through it, I wouldn't say it is useless. That's not to say that the medieval muslim world was technologically behind us though, because it really wasn't, in many sectors it was ahead, they lost that advantage in the long run though.
The Stranger
11-28-2009, 13:03
I thought Husar's post was a complete blast. Witty and clever.
Not racist/superiorist garbage.
it was a good post, thats why i want to give a proper response if he means it. he didnt say anything wrong or bad, i just dont agree with somethings he said.
ill get back at it, asap. I'm going to start a different thread on it though.
which is just did, Husar you can reply there if you want.
The Stranger
11-28-2009, 15:29
once we discovered that there were people on this globe who were far less developed at least technologically (maybe their culture was against inventions or whatever, quite frankly I have no idea why the Indians and Africans didn't invent this or that, Asia wasn't that far behind us anyway, the middle east was ahead for some time, then fell behind)
not every way of life, every culture is technology orientated. Discoveries and improvents were made, but they were made in different areas, areas that now in the Age of Science have been deemed barbaric, backward etc. But thousands of years ago those people already knew more about Nature and the Universe than anyone in Europe did. They didn't explained it or taught it in the (scientific) way which we are use to now, they had their own ways. Ways which (sadly) were mostly oral or in another way more temporary than books and stuff (but also more direct). But hey, then they shouldnt have killed the people who possesed the knowledge when they subdued the country.
Husar a question for you, do you believe that humans still rule Technology or do you believe its the other way around.
not every way of life, every culture is technology orientated. Discoveries and improvents were made, but they were made in different areas, areas that now in the Age of Science have been deemed barbaric, backward etc. But thousands of years ago those people already knew more about Nature and the Universe than anyone in Europe did. They didn't explained it or taught it in the (scientific) way which we are use to now, they had their own ways. Ways which (sadly) were mostly oral or in another way more temporary than books and stuff (but also more direct). But hey, then they shouldnt have killed the people who possesed the knowledge when they subdued the country.
That's all fine but do you go to a medicine man or witchdoctor when you are sick because they know so much about nature?
Of course they made observations, but so did europeans. Darwin for example observed what he called evolution. Others observed that the world was round etc. Some tribes in America might have found that out long before anyone in Europe did but then they didn't invent big ships to look what is on the other side, they just sat there with that knowledge while europeans discovered it as well and invented hundreds of other things as well. I'm not saying they were dumb, but apparently they had less drive or something. Maybe they were just happy with things as they were. In a way it led to their demise though and that is what I meant wit inferior.
Husar a question for you, do you believe that humans still rule Technology or do you believe its the other way around.
We still rule technology.
The Stranger
11-28-2009, 22:31
That's all fine but do you go to a medicine man or witchdoctor when you are sick because they know so much about nature?
no doubt on my mind these men know certain stuff about healing that is lost to mainstream medicine. alot of it doesnt work, or only works when you believe in it... but faith is a great cure.
Of course they made observations, but so did europeans. Darwin for example observed what he called evolution. Others observed that the world was round etc. Some tribes in America might have found that out long before anyone in Europe did but then they didn't invent big ships to look what is on the other side, they just sat there with that knowledge while europeans discovered it as well and invented hundreds of other things as well. I'm not saying they were dumb, but apparently they had less drive or something. Maybe they were just happy with things as they were. In a way it led to their demise though and that is what I meant wit inferior.
in a way of conquerer and vanquished point of view yes they were inferior, they no longer exist. in that way every culture that perishes is inferior to the succeeding one, which would mean that the culture of the romans was inferior to that of the barbarians that overthrew it. many people will not agree. But assuming that it is true, what about cultures that still exist? Would you claim chinese culture lesser than european culture? Why so? Same goes for African cultures. And what about European vs American?
We still rule technology.
If it was all stripped away from you right now (lets say for the sake of it you were allowed the knowledge of how to make basic tools), would you survive longer than a month? A week even?
no doubt on my mind these men know certain stuff about healing that is lost to mainstream medicine. alot of it doesnt work, or only works when you believe in it... but faith is a great cure.
So would you go to them or not?
in a way of conquerer and vanquished point of view yes they were inferior, they no longer exist. in that way every culture that perishes is inferior to the succeeding one, which would mean that the culture of the romans was inferior to that of the barbarians that overthrew it. many people will not agree. But assuming that it is true, what about cultures that still exist? Would you claim chinese culture lesser than european culture? Why so? Same goes for African cultures. And what about European vs American?
The roman culture was inferior towards the end of the Empire in a way as they had a whole lot of internal trouble, then again I never claimed that culture was the only factor deciding wars, neither is roman culture dead, we still learn their language in school, many of our words are based on theirs, our city names are derived from the names the romans gave them etc. They certainly left a mark and so did the native Americans in some ways, think of Comanche, Apache, Kiowa etc.
They did however not "infect" their enemies with their own culture as much as the romans did.
If it was all stripped away from you right now (lets say for the sake of it you were allowed the knowledge of how to make basic tools), would you survive longer than a month? A week even?
Well, whoever took that technology away would rule me, the technology would just rule me if it could take itself away which it can't.
But why not? I could even imagine growing crops with just a shovel to be easier than to do it with some fancy modern tractor but either way I don't grow crops, with or without technology, so stripping me of farmers would be worse even if you left the technology there. I doubt every greek philosopher or roman nobelman would have made a great farmer or survival expert just because they had less technology.
The Stranger
11-28-2009, 23:38
So would you go to them or not?
I actually dislike any medicine, but sofar I havent had any real reason to go to the doctors.. Im never sick. Considering the lack of people of who I think do posses the knowledge, in my country i would go to a regural doctor. I would however like to visit a african or aboriginal doctor... or a druid if they were still there. Ofcourse it also depends on the nature of my illness.
The roman culture was inferior towards the end of the Empire in a way as they had a whole lot of internal trouble, then again I never claimed that culture was the only factor deciding wars, neither is roman culture dead, we still learn their language in school, many of our words are based on theirs, our city names are derived from the names the romans gave them etc. They certainly left a mark and so did the native Americans in some ways, think of Comanche, Apache, Kiowa etc.
They did however not "infect" their enemies with their own culture as much as the romans did.
I agree partially, they were military and technologically inferior maybe... but not cultural. the demise of the roman empire was the demise of a nation, an institution rather than the demise of a culture. ofcourse certain things died with it, but not all, hence its influence still remains nowadays. But the reason the romans "infected" their enemies with their culture was more because of the victors build their own on the remnants of the roman one. And ofcourse all various reasons including geography and time.
Well, whoever took that technology away would rule me, the technology would just rule me if it could take itself away which it can't.
But why not? I could even imagine growing crops with just a shovel to be easier than to do it with some fancy modern tractor but either way I don't grow crops, with or without technology, so stripping me of farmers would be worse even if you left the technology there. I doubt every greek philosopher or roman nobelman would have made a great farmer or survival expert just because they had less technology.
i wasnt yet entirely sure where i was going with that... you have a point, ill leave it at that for now.
Kralizec
11-28-2009, 23:49
The Catholic tradition is that of 'Separation of state and religion'. (Which was won in France. And won nominally in Italy, but was lost there for all intent and purposes in its practical execution.) It never ceases to amaze the (post)Catholic that to this very day, Scandinavian countries should have a State Church, that the British head of state should be the head of church.
I don't see what's catholic about it.
France: okay for this one
Spain: was under the rule of a fascist dictator who promoted catholicism until the 70'ies
Portugal: ditto
Italy: also true until 1945, nowadays it's a nominally secular state that uses tax money to fund the vatican.
It shouldn't be surprising that catholic countries don't have and never had state churches. In the Netherlands the state church was never reinstated after the French occupation and AFAIK in the scandinavian countries they're irrelevant relics.
Samurai Waki
11-28-2009, 23:59
They did however not "infect" their enemies with their own culture as much as the romans did.
This is patently false. Many names of towns, lingo, and given names of Americans are borrowed from Native Languages; not to mention military and cultural traditions in most places in the US, Canada, and Mexico.
I agree partially, they were military and technologically inferior maybe... but not cultural. the demise of the roman empire was the demise of a nation, an institution rather than the demise of a culture. ofcourse certain things died with it, but not all, hence its influence still remains nowadays. But the reason the romans "infected" their enemies with their culture was more because of the victors build their own on the remnants of the roman one. And ofcourse all various reasons including geography and time.
Uhm, the roman culture brought about their fall in a way, they became a bunch of fat lazy backstabbers (I may be overstating here) and it got even worse in the eastern part where they almost changed (incompetent) leaders like underwear. If the government and the bahaviour of people isn't part of a culture then what is? :inquisitive:
That the victors built their empires on the remnants of the romans was also a cultural thing because roman culture built brick buildings and not tents. ~;)
Romans also wrote things down while indians didn't, that's why more knowledge of the romans than of the amerindians lasted, it's another cultural/technological advantage, creating heritage/knowledge that actually lasts.
This is patently false. Many names of towns, lingo, and given names of Americans are borrowed from Native Languages; not to mention military and cultural traditions in most places in the US, Canada, and Mexico.
They certainly left a mark and so did the native Americans in some ways, think of Comanche, Apache, Kiowa etc.
Well, I should have written AH-64 Apache, RAH-66 Comanche and [whatever, 58?]Kiowa warrior. ~;)
I just think the romans had a lot more influence on their successors, not just names but also architecture etc.
Sasaki Kojiro
11-29-2009, 06:38
Well, I should have written AH-64 Apache, RAH-66 Comanche and [whatever]Kiowa warrior. ~;)
I just think the romans had a lot more influence on their successors, not just names but also architecture etc.
Architecture, roads, government, justice system, philosophy. Some other stuff too.
The indians gave us some farming tips and possible guerrilla fighting tactics. At least that's how it was in "last of the mohicans".
Samurai Waki
11-29-2009, 06:48
Well, I should have written AH-64 Apache, RAH-66 Comanche and [whatever, 58?]Kiowa warrior. ~;)
I just think the romans had a lot more influence on their successors, not just names but also architecture etc.
I take it you've never been within a thousand miles of a Reservation??
Oh, well... such as it is.
The Stranger
11-29-2009, 12:48
Uhm, the roman culture brought about their fall in a way, they became a bunch of fat lazy backstabbers (I may be overstating here) and it got even worse in the eastern part where they almost changed (incompetent) leaders like underwear. If the government and the bahaviour of people isn't part of a culture then what is? :inquisitive:
That the victors built their empires on the remnants of the romans was also a cultural thing because roman culture built brick buildings and not tents. ~;)
Romans also wrote things down while indians didn't, that's why more knowledge of the romans than of the amerindians lasted, it's another cultural/technological advantage, creating heritage/knowledge that actually lasts.
well if the conquerers wouldnt have killed the people that possesed the knowledge, nothing would have been lost.
the other things you name are answered by those who know more about it than me... but it seems you are not entirely right.
Architecture, roads, government, justice system, philosophy. Some other stuff too.
The indians gave us some farming tips and possible guerrilla fighting tactics. At least that's how it was in "last of the mohicans".
Well, I was trying not to take movies into account, though you might be right there, about the roads, architecture and government I'm not sceptical though, could you expand on that a bit?
(hey, this is your chance to not let me go away as dumb as I may be in this respect :sweatdrop: )
I take it you've never been within a thousand miles of a Reservation??
Oh, well... such as it is.
No, I haven't, not a Reservation for people anyway, which I find to be a rather weird idea in the first place.
well if the conquerers wouldnt have killed the people that possesed the knowledge, nothing would have been lost.
That is why clever people have backups. :sweatdrop:
the other things you name are answered by those who know more about it than me... but it seems you are not entirely right.
That may be true indeed, I was hoping if I pretend to be entirely serious I might get some interesting answers instead of "oh well, you were just kidding anyway...", looks as though people just say "oh well, you're just dumb anyway..." :shrug:
a completely inoffensive name
11-29-2009, 16:53
This thread is tl;dr but I support whatever Meth said.
The Stranger
11-29-2009, 22:06
That is why clever people have backups. :sweatdrop:
maybe. but still can you say that someone who is smart is a better person than someone who is less smart?
That may be true indeed, I was hoping if I pretend to be entirely serious I might get some interesting answers instead of "oh well, you were just kidding anyway...", looks as though people just say "oh well, you're just dumb anyway..." :shrug:
I wouldnt say that, youre quite smart, i enjoy skirmishing with you :P
maybe. but still can you say that someone who is smart is a better person than someone who is less smart?
How did we get from better cultures to better people? :inquisitive:
The Stranger
11-29-2009, 23:09
How did we get from better cultures to better people? :inquisitive:
well if you cant say that one person is better than the other? how can you than say that a multitude of people is better than the other? or the behaviour of this multitude of people.
Sasaki Kojiro
11-29-2009, 23:53
well if you cant say that one person is better than the other? how can you than say that a multitude of people is better than the other? or the behaviour of this multitude of people.
Is all else equal?
in a way of conquerer and vanquished point of view yes they were inferior, they no longer exist. in that way every culture that perishes is inferior to the succeeding one, which would mean that the culture of the romans was inferior to that of the barbarians that overthrew it. many people will not agree. But assuming that it is true, what about cultures that still exist? Would you claim chinese culture lesser than european culture? Why so? Same goes for African cultures. And what about European vs American?
Native American cultures aren't extinct, they have either been blended with European cultures (especially in Latin America), or are very much alive in remote areas.
Samurai Waki
11-30-2009, 06:53
Native American cultures aren't extinct, they have either been blended with European cultures (especially in Latin America), or are very much alive in remote areas.
Mmm. Exactly the point I was trying to get across, and even in these remote areas the culture does reverberate quite far outside of the last vestige's of it's people. Being from Montana, most people can claim some heritage from Natives, me not included (family didn't move here until the 60's) but the way people act outside of the reservations is almost the same as inside the reservations, whether it's from the White Man moving in on their culture, or them moving in on White Culture, is hard to tell; Montana culture is still very much white and American, but the native culture reverberates with more subtlety and far more deeply than I think most outsiders can understand.
ajaxfetish
11-30-2009, 07:00
Montana culture is still very much white and American, but the native culture reverberates with more subtlety and far more deeply than I think most outsiders can understand.
I don't doubt you on the lasting life of Indian culture, but I don't think Indian culture has had as much impact on European/white American culture as Roman culture had on that of their conquerors. Place names is a pretty low level of borrowing, and we have overall a limited linguistic, technological, or social heritage from native Americans. We've definitely inherited something of a mythos, but I don't think it can compare to the influence cultures like the Hellenic and Roman worlds had on their invaders.
Ajax
Samurai Waki
11-30-2009, 07:40
I don't doubt you on the lasting life of Indian culture, but I don't think Indian culture has had as much impact on European/white American culture as Roman culture had on that of their conquerors. Place names is a pretty low level of borrowing, and we have overall a limited linguistic, technological, or social heritage from native Americans. We've definitely inherited something of a mythos, but I don't think it can compare to the influence cultures like the Hellenic and Roman worlds had on their invaders.
Ajax
I agree, the Barbarians took a lot from Romans and Greeks, because quite frankly they had, even at the time of conquering a lot more to take than they already had. Whereas with the Natives, they had relatively nothing that we hadn't already had at one point or another. So, borrowing wasn't really necessary, however, unlike the Barbarians, Native Culture wasn't snuffed into extinction, as hard as they might have tried, and now that in many places Native Cultures are finding themselves again, it's allowed us to take a second look; which I think is unprecedented in History. Native American culture will never have as significant an impact on our society in laws, technology, or linguistics as the Great European powers have, since the time for reconciliation has long past; but I do think on a regional level, it has most certainly had an impact on the way certain groups of people think, and perceive the world around them. Which I know mine is markedly different than someone who has lived in a city all his life, where tribes and native cultures were just names on books, I, like most people where I live, experience Native Kutenai Culture on an almost daily level, so I couldn't say with a straight face that I haven't been influenced in many ways by the Natives, but this is definitely not true of most places in the US that you travel to. In other places, its just names, or "lingo", or some such thing that the natives in the past used to say or do that was picked up by settlers, but the relationship here is far more complex, since the majority of Natives Living in the US, also happen to live here.
The Stranger
11-30-2009, 10:10
Is all else equal?
how do you mean?
The Stranger
11-30-2009, 10:13
I agree, the Barbarians took a lot from Romans and Greeks, because quite frankly they had, even at the time of conquering a lot more to take than they already had. Whereas with the Natives, they had relatively nothing that we hadn't already had at one point or another. So, borrowing wasn't really necessary, however, unlike the Barbarians, Native Culture wasn't snuffed into extinction, as hard as they might have tried, and now that in many places Native Cultures are finding themselves again, it's allowed us to take a second look; which I think is unprecedented in History. Native American culture will never have as significant an impact on our society in laws, technology, or linguistics as the Great European powers have, since the time for reconciliation has long past; but I do think on a regional level, it has most certainly had an impact on the way certain groups of people think, and perceive the world around them. Which I know mine is markedly different than someone who has lived in a city all his life, where tribes and native cultures were just names on books, I, like most people where I live, experience Native Kutenai Culture on an almost daily level, so I couldn't say with a straight face that I haven't been influenced in many ways by the Natives, but this is definitely not true of most places in the US that you travel to. In other places, its just names, or "lingo", or some such thing that the natives in the past used to say or do that was picked up by settlers, but the relationship here is far more complex, since the majority of Natives Living in the US, also happen to live here.
i doubt that's true, those europeans than already had their heads so far up their asses they refused to see and learn. and in the process destroyed so much valuable information. do you know how much they couldve learned from the mayas and the aztecs. from the apaches and other tribes...
Do the natives still wear their traditional clothing or have they switched to jeans and t-shirts? are clothes part of a culture?
Do they use cars and do they live in tipis or in houses? did they have houses before the europeans came(I know some of them did, although maybe more like huts than houses)?
The Stranger
11-30-2009, 10:42
Do the natives still wear their traditional clothing or have they switched to jeans and t-shirts? are clothes part of a culture?
Do they use cars and do they live in tipis or in houses? did they have houses before the europeans came(I know some of them did, although maybe more like huts than houses)?
clothes are part of a culture, but als part of a certain time... do europeans still run around in bearfur? do they still live in cottages? why is it better living in a house than a hut?
look the reason they changed from huts to houses is because their initial way of life, the nomad life has been made impossible. they had to adept... it has nothing to do with one way being better than the other. it has to do with one way being more dominant than the other. just because one gene is more dominant than the other doesnt mean its better. or because one bully is more dominent than the people he bullies he isnt neccesarily the better man.
but why dont you answer my question?
and on the written vs oral. what about the mayas, they didnt leave behind much writing, but they were one of the most advanced civilisations at that time.
Meneldil
11-30-2009, 11:49
Don't preach at me, German. I'm one of the few people in my family that actually managed to graduate high school. I'm studyin' at university, and I have great plans for my future in a time when the Aboriginal people are multiplying in numbers and re-claiming their rightful place in Canadian society. I can understand more than anyone, especially the likes of you, as to why many of my people can't get out of this pit of poverty, desolation, and sheer hopelessness. You can never comprehend the challenges I have faced to get to where I am right now; the opportunities and loving support I have enjoyed throughout my life, which are by a far margin unavailable to many members of the poverty-stricken and scarred Aboriginal population, are the only reasons as to why I am not drowning in some poor ghetto shack, drinkin' goose and stickin' needles in my arm.
Oddly, my girlfriend, who happens to be a native, keeps telling me that maybe, just maybe, her "brothers" should stop blaming the Evil White Man and pull their fingers out of their *** someday. And she works at Chiefs of Ontario.
She recently went to a first nations meeting in Kenora, and told me the people there kept blaming the White Man for everything that happened to them. To the few white people that were there - some of whom worked for NGO's who happen to support natives' rights in Canada - they only had reproaches. Some girl started to cry in the middle of a meeting, saying she felt terrible because she went to the "white man's school" rather than listening to the Elders' teachings. That's all cool and dandy, but if she goes that way, she has absolutely no right to complain.
Edit : And she's 25 and makes more money than I ever will as a journalist. There were a lot of natives at the university I studied to, and they all did fairly good, and hoped to have a successful life. The fact that your community is sinking into alcoholism and drugs and obesity isn't my fault, nor is it that of the average Canadian dude.
Edit2: And the same goes for the african population here. I have absolutely no issues with people of foreign origins as long as they you know, try to do something. My girl best friends are respectively of Tunisian descent (and likely going to work in the French ambassy in Washington) and Tahitian. And both of them have little respect for the average worthless scums who blame their own stupidity on racism.
There are two africans in my class this year (one from Senegal and one from Gabon), and both of them (who, despite being black and foreigners, found jobs here) are absolutely puzzled by the way african people behave in France. Every time I discuss about it with them, they tell me those people wouldn't ever dare to act like that in Africa, cause they'd instantly would be kicked off the community. Here not only we let them behave like that, but we also blame ourselves for it.
Samurai Waki
11-30-2009, 12:12
It's a problem, that I think most cultures have with at least one other culture. When, or how do you stop pointing the finger and get down to brass tacks. It's a sense of entitlement, both sides share, and that one culture has over the other, I know I didn't put the Natives on a Reservation, and yet somehow the White Man is still a convenient target, it's convenient because it's there, but even if every white man somehow left, it wouldn't solve the social malaise that was inflicted on them a century ago, I don't think the tribes could jump back on their horses, and retake the plains, it wouldn't be the same, they've lost so much important knowledge on how to survive and who they were, the convenience's of modern culture are by and large provided by the very people they want to leave, and the very nature of the plains itself would not instantly revert back to the state it in which it was found.
It's a pipe dream, but its been fueled by generations of feeling inferior, but unlike say, the Palestinians, it's a situation they can (and are) trying to solve. Not by rejecting everything western, but incorporating what works for them, and how they can work their culture around it. and it's been maybe only in the last thirty years that the Tribes weren't getting everything western shoved down their throats to point that they couldn't function anymore. I would hazard to guess, that within my lifetime, many of the tribes will be revitalized to a far better state than they were forty or fifty years ago, but that doesn't mean that they will ever get what they had back, at the very least, however they'll get the respect they deserve. Which, is something I don't think many Montanans (and Americans) were willing to give all that long ago.
clothes are part of a culture, but als part of a certain time... do europeans still run around in bearfur? do they still live in cottages? why is it better living in a house than a hut?
A house provides more protection. Well, maybe not the wooden ones they often build in the US, but the real houses, the better ones. ~;)
look the reason they changed from huts to houses is because their initial way of life, the nomad life has been made impossible. they had to adept... it has nothing to do with one way being better than the other.
They could have adapted by just putting their tipis where they would stay now and leave it like that, why did they spend money and time on building houses if tipis are equal to houses and they already had tipis? :inquisitive:
it has to do with one way being more dominant than the other. just because one gene is more dominant than the other doesnt mean its better. or because one bully is more dominent than the people he bullies he isnt neccesarily the better man.
So why is a house dominant over a tipi? And how do bullies get into the picture(?), I already said I'm not using better in a moral sense...
but why dont you answer my question?
Which one?
and on the written vs oral. what about the mayas, they didnt leave behind much writing, but they were one of the most advanced civilisations at that time.
At that time, but they didn't last very long beyond that time and a lot of their knowledge was lost because they never wrote it down.
IIRC they also killed eachother frequently.
Megas Methuselah
11-30-2009, 20:52
Oh, man. All this replying and debating is goin' to be a pain. :sad:
it was a good post, thats why i want to give a proper response if he means it. he didnt say anything wrong or bad, i just dont agree with somethings he said.
ill get back at it, asap. I'm going to start a different thread on it though.
which is just did, Husar you can reply there if you want.
I thought he was trollin, so I put on the same mask and danced around the fire with the guy. :shrug:
Why was I the one who got banned??
No, I haven't, not a Reservation for people anyway, which I find to be a rather weird idea in the first place.
Reserves are the last remnants of the First Nation sovoreign states. Look at the Niga'a people in British Columbia, for example, who have been recently given full ownership of their land (as in, their land is no longer considered Canadian soil ~ crown land; this was a heavy dispute, and though my knowledge of the situation is limited, I think it was made possible through a screw-up in the old Royal Proclamation of 1763). The First Nations, through their various treaties in Canada, have never, ever, ever surrendered their sovoreignty. Reserves, then, is something of a misleading term that understates the situation.
Native American cultures aren't extinct, they have either been blended with European cultures (especially in Latin America), or are very much alive in remote areas.
Do the natives still wear their traditional clothing or have they switched to jeans and t-shirts? are clothes part of a culture?
I'm hesitant to answer on the whole "Is First Nation culture still alive?" thing, because I don't exactly know when a culture isn't a culture. Many languages are still alive (I, for example, will be learning Saulteaux soon), even if only as a 2nd language for most people. Moreover, traditional celebrations and practices including music and dancing go strong in Canada.
Do they use cars and do they live in tipis or in houses? did they have houses before the europeans came(I know some of them did, although maybe more like huts than houses)?
I guess you've never heard of a longhouse before, huh? They'll put your little peasant shacks to shame.
and on the written vs oral. what about the mayas, they didnt leave behind much writing, but they were one of the most advanced civilisations at that time.
Probably would have left more had their books not been burned out of fear for heresy and so forth. :rolleyes:
Oddly, my girlfriend, who happens to be a native, keeps telling me that maybe, just maybe, her "brothers" should stop blaming the Evil White Man and pull their fingers out of their *** someday. And she works at Chiefs of Ontario.
Edit : And she's 25 and makes more money than I ever will as a journalist. There were a lot of natives at the university I studied to, and they all did fairly good, and hoped to have a successful life. The fact that your community is sinking into alcoholism and drugs and obesity isn't my fault, nor is it that of the average Canadian dude.
Not all families share equal sufferings of the inter-generational residential school effects, though.
EDIT: more comin'.
Well, I was trying not to take movies into account, though you might be right there, about the roads, architecture and government I'm not sceptical though, could you expand on that a bit?
Well, I do know for a fact that the USA, in their early days, took a lot of inspiration in the formation of their government from the Iroquois Confederacy.
So why is a house dominant over a tipi?
They could have adapted by just putting their tipis where they would stay now and leave it like that, why did they spend money and time on building houses if tipis are equal to houses and they already had tipis?
Why do you guys keep talkin about tipis? I mean, common: tipis were used by the nomadic plains tribes that roamed what is now called the Great Plains. We're talkin about a people scattered across two entire continents here. If you think that all Native Americans were nomadic, and used tipis, well... I guess it sure says a lot about your level of intelligence.
At that time, but they didn't last very long beyond that time and a lot of their knowledge was lost because they never wrote it down.
Guy, these are the Mayas. Do you honestly imagine they weren't literate?
Wait....
I thought Europeans were Godless communist nancy boys.
Not savage warmongering destroyers of culture.
:inquisitive: You're European, you should know.
Somehow their conflicts didn't lead to an ever-improving technology for war, ours did, now I didn't claim to have an answer for that, I just think it might be cultural
The Aztecs were sort of like the Roman Empire, in that they were the most extensive and powerful state in their area. Why did they need to advance their military technologies? They were dominant over their various minor enemies. Besides, the Aztec Empire was still a very young state and, far from declining, was still rising in power when 'ole Cortez came snoopin around.
The Incas were the same, basically. Not enough fierce competition around their vast empire that would influence them to race for technology, as was the case in Europe.
As for the Mayas, they were already in steep decline by this point, so... :shrug:
The Stranger
11-30-2009, 23:00
A house provides more protection. Well, maybe not the wooden ones they often build in the US, but the real houses, the better ones. ~;)
well you have to stay in the real timeline though, at the time the indians lived in cottages and tipis, the people in europe also lived in huts/cottages or other squallied conditions... (most of them though)
They could have adapted by just putting their tipis where they would stay now and leave it like that, why did they spend money and time on building houses if tipis are equal to houses and they already had tipis? :inquisitive:
its not like they did do that from the one point to another, but you know as i do that they couldnt stay where they were because they were forced into reservations where the government decided their faith... so they didnt have much options did they now.
So why is a house dominant over a tipi? And how do bullies get into the picture(?), I already said I'm not using better in a moral sense...
a bully is a dominant figure, but is he therefore better than the people he bullies? i doubt you'll say yes, so follow this then, if he is not better than the people he bullies, how than can you say that a culture which is more dominant than the other, is neccesarily better than the other cultures it is dominant about.
Which one?
this one. Do you believe that all people are of equal worth (so not the same, but equal). If you say yes, which ill asume you will. It means that you cannot say that one person is better or worth more than the other just because he is smarter/prettier/faster/stronger/wittier/inventive/more dominant/etc than the other person. If you cannot claim that about one person, than you cannot claim that about a group of people. Lets say that a culture is the sum of the most common types of behavior of a group of people (ergo they all live in houses, they have a culture of houses, they all eat cheese, they have culture of cheese, etc.) If you cannot claim that one person is better/more worth than they other because of how he behaves, you cannot say that about a group of people. how than can you claim that one culture is better/more worth than another one?
Reserves are the last remnants of the First Nation sovoreign states. Look at the Niga'a people in British Columbia, for example, who have been recently given full ownership of their land (as in, their land is no longer considered Canadian soil ~ crown land; this was a heavy dispute, and though my knowledge of the situation is limited, I think it was made possible through a screw-up in the old Royal Proclamation of 1763). The First Nations, through their various treaties in Canada, have never, ever, ever surrendered their sovoreignty. Reserves, then, is something of a misleading term that understates the situation.
Troy was a sovereign state, too, it's completely gone now. Was kinda unfair to do that over some hurt pride and a love affair. Haven't seen anyone talk about giving them Trojans their state back
At best this proves that the europeans didn't genocide the indians because AFAIK genocide means to exterminate people completely or at least attempt that, leaving people alive and giving them land to live on runs somewhat counter to that idea IMO.
Or to give a popular example, Hitler didn't want to give the jews a reservation in the end.
I guess you've never heard of a longhouse before, huh? They'll put your little peasant shacks to shame.
You must have missed the part where I said some of them did, yes I have heard of longhouses before. Modern houses however, are not based on longhouses though afaik. So one could say there was no modernisation going on or it stopped when they adopted the more european houses.
Well, I do know for a fact that the USA, in their early days, took a lot of inspiration in the formation of their government from the Iroquois Confederacy.
So did the iroquois have a president and a senate and parliament then or was it about something else?
Why do you guys keep talkin about tipis? I mean, common: tipis were used by the nomadic plains tribes that roamed what is now called the Great Plains. We're talkin about a people scattered across two entire continents here. If you think that all Native Americans were nomadic, and used tipis, well... I guess it sure says a lot about your level of intelligence.
Well, I wasn't talking about people scattered across two continents there or i hadn't mentioned tipis.
And besides, I would have shown a lack of knowledge, not intelligence, there's a difference, you know. ~;)
Comments like that might also explain why you got banned while I got a warning, since you asked that earlier.
Guy, these are the Mayas. Do you honestly imagine they weren't literate?
I didn't imagine anything, IIRC someone else mentioned they gave their knowledge on orally, I just went with that.That they were literate doesn't necessarily mean that they wrote everything down either.
The Aztecs were sort of like the Roman Empire, in that they were the most extensive and powerful state in their area. Why did they need to advance their military technologies? They were dominant over their various minor enemies. Besides, the Aztec Empire was still a very young state and, far from declining, was still rising in power when 'ole Cortez came snoopin around.
The Incas were the same, basically. Not enough fierce competition around their vast empire that would influence them to race for technology, as was the case in Europe.
As for the Mayas, they were already in steep decline by this point, so... :shrug:
They all weren't really prepared for that snoopin Cortez guy though, why that was is the question here.
well you have to stay in the real timeline though, at the time the indians lived in cottages and tipis, the people in europe also lived in huts/cottages or other squallied conditions... (most of them though)
Yes, but they also built churches and castles, the huts were mainly about people being poor and oppressed, not about a lack of knowledge about how to build something better.
its not like they did do that from the one point to another, but you know as i do that they couldnt stay where they were because they were forced into reservations where the government decided their faith... so they didnt have much options did they now.
They could've taken those tipis to the reservations, them being mobile homes was the whole idea after all. I'm not even saying tipis are bad, but european style houses are more comfortable in the long run.
a bully is a dominant figure, but is he therefore better than the people he bullies? i doubt you'll say yes, so follow this then, if he is not better than the people he bullies, how than can you say that a culture which is more dominant than the other, is neccesarily better than the other cultures it is dominant about.
If the guy was better than the bully, he'd find a way to fight back, so yes, the bully is better, he's also an *** but in that confrontation he is better (until the other guy snaps and shoots him but that is for other threads).
this one. Do you believe that all people are of equal worth (so not the same, but equal). If you say yes, which ill asume you will. It means that you cannot say that one person is better or worth more than the other just because he is smarter/prettier/faster/stronger/wittier/inventive/more dominant/etc than the other person. If you cannot claim that about one person, than you cannot claim that about a group of people. Lets say that a culture is the sum of the most common types of behavior of a group of people (ergo they all live in houses, they have a culture of houses, they all eat cheese, they have culture of cheese, etc.) If you cannot claim that one person is better/more worth than they other because of how he behaves, you cannot say that about a group of people. how than can you claim that one culture is better/more worth than another one?
I've never said anyone was worth more than the other, why do you keep trying to put some moral views into my posts? What I said was some people were better and they killed the other people, they were all of equal worth but the victors hardly cared about that.
Strike For The South
12-01-2009, 00:33
Why does everyone put so much stock in cultural achievments? Someone did something Teh awessum and he happened to live close by or share the same skin pigement. Does that really do it for you?
Unless of course we're talking about football, then all bets are off.
The Stranger
12-01-2009, 00:45
They could've taken those tipis to the reservations, them being mobile homes was the whole idea after all. I'm not even saying tipis are bad, but european style houses are more comfortable in the long run.
omg are you really that stubborn? how can they continue their nomad life and all the thinks they wouldve needed to maintain it when they were transported to the most barren places the americans could think of... they only had what they were given...
I've never said anyone was worth more than the other, why do you keep trying to put some moral views into my posts? What I said was some people were better and they killed the other people, they were all of equal worth but the victors hardly cared about that.
so how will you catogorise your judgement then? when you say one culture is better than the other, in which way do you mean it when not moral.
The Stranger
12-01-2009, 00:46
Why does everyone put so much stock in cultural achievments? Someone did something Teh awessum and he happened to live close by or share the same skin pigement. Does that really do it for you?
Unless of course we're talking about football, then all bets are off.
i dont understand a wurd of wut ur sain... :P
anyhow if i think it means what it means, than yes, i agree with you. they are individual efforts. though there are people who like to make it seem that these efforts achieved by individuals couldnt be achieved by other people merely for being of a different "race" (NOTE: I'm not saying that Husar says so)
Strike For The South
12-01-2009, 00:47
omg are you really that stubborn? how can they continue their nomad life and all the thinks they wouldve needed to maintain it when they were transported to the most barren places the americans could think of... they only had what they were given...
.
I would like to point out that barren place is Oklahoma. :yes:
Louis VI the Fat
12-01-2009, 00:49
Why does everyone put so much stock in cultural achievments? Someone did something Teh awessum and he happened to live close by or share the same skin pigement. Does that really do it for you? I was abducted by aliens last Saturday. They tortured me anally, because they needed me to confess to being an inferior species so they could invade.
Then I told them that I shared a planet with Texas, and they backed off in fright.
So yes, one can claim achievements one had no direct part in, simply by belonging to the same group. :book:
Strike For The South
12-01-2009, 00:54
i dont understand a wurd of wut ur sain... :P
The greatest goal in a mans life should be the betterment of himself. All this talk of "my people" or "those people" is bascially moot. Anyone who puts so much stock into his culture or hertiage that he can not see past it to collobarate or comprimise with someone from a different background should be shot.
Likewise for anyone who thinks his "culture" is truley taking something back. The Indian culture of today represents very little of Indian culture 150 years ago and even less of the same culture 300 years ago.
The plains Indians are the best example of this but there are many others.
A man should rise and fall based on his own achivmenets and not be aided or hindered by some precived precondition.
Kralizec
12-01-2009, 00:55
There were no Indian casionos 300 years ago? :inquisitive:
The Stranger
12-01-2009, 00:56
The greatest goal in a mans life should be the betterment of himself. All this talk of "my people" or "those people" is bascially moot. Anyone who puts so much stock into his culture or hertiage that he can not see past it to collobarate or comprimise with someone from a different background should be shot.
Likewise for anyone who thinks his "culture" is truley taking something back. The Indian culture of today represents very little of Indian culture 150 years ago and even less of the same culture 300 years ago.
The plains Indians are the best example of this but there are many others.
A man should rise and fall based on his own achivmenets and not be aided or hindered by some precived precondition.
i agree. and I think this can be achieved by accepting that all cultures are equal.
Strike For The South
12-01-2009, 01:07
I was abducted by aliens last Saturday. They tortured me anally, because they needed me to confess to being an inferior species so they could invade.
Then I told them that I shared a planet with Texas, and they backed off in fright.
So yes, one can claim achievements one had no direct part in, simply by belonging to the same group. :book:
I knew this would come up.
I would simply tell you Texas is the exception but I really feel I should back up this thread with a sound arguement. Not something I am fond of.
First off anyone can be a Texan. Race, religon, ETC don't matter. I know at the org we like to veil our racial or religous insecurities with the word "culture" but all to often the are interconnected.
Also being a Texan is a state of mind. One need not dress or conform to any thing other than standing with a straight back and general badasserary.
I like to toot Texas' horn around here because I'm a Jokester. However if I truly beilived that Texans were better because of our "culture" (which I've pointed out we don't really have one) I would be a giant tool, becuase the weak minded take refuge in the achivements of the culture (the group)
Anyone who has ever stood on there own two feet and had themselves tested knows that a mans true test is what he does on his own.
I'll leave my "culture" to 6 year olds in matching boots and hats and college girls who want to dress up like whores cowgirls
Edit: Once again all bets are off when it comes to football.
Edit 2: No one can violate you anally like I can (and do!)
Edit 3: What I'm saying is people like there "culture" to conform to them. No one is 100% French or 100% Texan and it scares people because when change comes they feel they will lose there culture (ie what is normal to them). I could tell you if Texas was gone tmrw and simply absorbed by the surronding areas I would still be a Texan because that's how I feel. Just like all the minnaretes in the world can't destroy Europe and no goverment can take away Meths bond with his family.
Sasaki Kojiro
12-01-2009, 02:15
i agree. and I think this can be achieved by accepting that all cultures are equal.
But don't people naturally take pride in their own culture?
Besides, all cultures are clearly not equal. Hypothetically, if there was a culture that was exactly the same as US culture except that people were more responsible about drinking and driving, resulting in 10% fewer deaths from accidents, wouldn't it be a better culture?
If you accept that all cultures are equal then why would you ever try and improve your own? That would be illogical.
The Stranger
12-01-2009, 02:39
it would if you would think of fewer death casualties as a noteworthy thing. but that is subjective truth. to say one culture is better than the other is mere oppinion. its not objective truth.
why then try to improve your own culture, i doubt many people actually try to do so. many people try to improve themself yes, and the side effect of that is that they benefit the people around them, thus their own culture if they have enough influence. i think its safe enough to say that is in our global culture, our world culture to think of all humans as equal. than why would you then still try to excell? i dont know, why do we live? why do we even try? like camus said, the most important question is: "why shouldnt we just kill ourself?"
when i try to make myself better than i am now, i do so not to be better than my neighbour (whom i consider my equal) but to become the best i can be. when you agree that all cultures are equal, but not the same, you can still try to make the culture the best it can be. there is no reason why you should, i mean there is no real reason for inventing medicine if you look at it that way... there is no reason for anything. its just a way of looking at the world, and i do not claim that it is true, but i think it is the road to a lot less trouble.
SwordsMaster
12-01-2009, 06:28
"You hate America, don't you?" she said.
"That would be as silly as loving it," I said. "It's impossible for me to get emotional about it, because real estate doesn't interest me. It's no doubt a great flaw in my personality, but I can't think in terms of boundaries. Those imaginary lines are as unreal to me as elves and pixies. I can't believe that they mark the end or the beginning of anything of real concern to the human soul. Virtues and vices, pleasures and pains cross boundaries at will."
Pretty much my thoughts.
Megas Methuselah
12-01-2009, 08:21
Troy was a sovereign state, too, it's completely gone now. Was kinda unfair to do that over some hurt pride and a love affair. Haven't seen anyone talk about giving them Trojans their state back
The First Nations states never dissapeared, guy. And they certainly aren't things that exist only as myths. The First Nations are still represented by an elected chief and council, as well as the Assembly of First Nations.
Besides, First Nation nationalism in Canada isn't about secession from Canada. It's about getting proper recognition as nations within a larger state. Canada isn't yet a multinational-functioning state, despite it's multinational roots, constant Aboriginal and Franco-Canadian protest, and the call for many political theorists for Canada to reform its system of government.
At best this proves that the europeans didn't genocide the indians because AFAIK genocide means to exterminate people completely or at least attempt that, leaving people alive and giving them land to live on runs somewhat counter to that idea IMO.
Cultural genocide still qualifies as genocide, though I haven't ever brought up the argument of genocide in this thread, German.
Or to give a popular example, Hitler didn't want to give the jews a reservation in the end.
...
You must have missed the part where I said some of them did, yes I have heard of longhouses before. Modern houses however, are not based on longhouses though afaik. So one could say there was no modernisation going on or it stopped when they adopted the more european houses.
It sure beats your arguments that, from what I can tell, are based on some presumption where the majority of First Nation people lived in tipis.
So did the iroquois have a president and a senate and parliament then or was it about something else?
The Grand Council, presided by the tadodaho? The Five Nations had different numbers of representation in the council. IIRC, I also think the Great Laws of Peace were mentioned by America's founding fathers, though I do not know too much on the matter. :shrug:
I think it was something like, "if these savages can do something as complex as this, so can we."
Well, I wasn't talking about people scattered across two continents there or i hadn't mentioned tipis.
And besides, I would have shown a lack of knowledge, not intelligence, there's a difference, you know. ~;)
No, it's simply sheer stupidity to presume two continents of people are nomadic and live in tipis. :inquisitive:
I didn't imagine anything, IIRC someone else mentioned they gave their knowledge on orally, I just went with that.
The Maya? Are you that ignorant?
That they were literate doesn't necessarily mean that they wrote everything down either.
How can you possibly know that, considering the Spanish burnt most Mayan literary works?
They all weren't really prepared for that snoopin Cortez guy though, why that was is the question here.
I can write a lengthy explanation as to why the Spaniards were able to bring the Aztecs to their knees (my knowledge on the Incan case is much less considerable, though).
omg are you really that stubborn? how can they continue their nomad life and all the thinks they wouldve needed to maintain it when they were transported to the most barren places the americans could think of... they only had what they were given...
Not to mention that, in spite of the promises of international treaty, First Nation reserve land was continually shrunken in size. Apartheid-like laws prevented the First Nations from bringing the whole matter into court. Using the law to defend themselves was... illegal.
And why are you still talkin about nomads?
@SFTS: ?? You're a Texan. You simply cannot understand. :clown:
omg are you really that stubborn? how can they continue their nomad life and all the thinks they wouldve needed to maintain it when they were transported to the most barren places the americans could think of... they only had what they were given...
So you 're saying the reservations were missing the soap they used to wash their tipis so they had to abandon them and build houses?
so how will you catogorise your judgement then? when you say one culture is better than the other, in which way do you mean it when not moral.
What judgement? I just said it's a darwinistic world sometimes and it's hardly my fault just because I'm white. The whole point of the culture debate was to explain, kind of statistically, how some people invented better means of warfare than others. In games, when you invest more money into research, you get a technological advantage, in reality when more people think a lot about how to improve things, it's more likely that one will come up with a good idea. When this is about warfare technology, then it often ends with one going down, in this case the indians, having some advanced peace treaties among themselves obviously didn't help them repel the european invaders.
Whether this european expansionism was a good or a bad thing from a moral point of view I never really said, in fact I said I generally prefer peace.
The First Nations states never dissapeared, guy. And they certainly aren't things that exist only as myths. The First Nations are still represented by an elected chief and council, as well as the Assembly of First Nations.
That's fine, so they weren't wiped out in a huge genocide, isn't that a relief?
Cultural genocide still qualifies as genocide, though I haven't ever brought up the argument of genocide in this thread, German.
Cultural genocide? :inquisitive:
It sure beats your arguments that, from what I can tell, are based on some presumption where the majority of First Nation people lived in tipis.
Tipis sure beat your assumption that all natives deal with Canadian politicians. :dizzy2:
[QUOTE=Megas Methuselah;2389225]The Grand Council, presided by the tadodaho? The Five Nations had different numbers of representation in the council. IIRC, I also think the Great Laws of Peace were mentioned by America's founding fathers, though I do not know too much on the matter. :shrug:
I think it was something like, "if these savages can do something as complex as this, so can we."
Well, now that was interesting, although from a darwinistic point of view the great laws of peace didn't stop the europeans from killing a lot of natives which was my original point. that's not to say that slaughtering innocents is a moral thing to do, but it happened anyway.
No, it's simply sheer stupidity to presume two continents of people are nomadic and live in tipis. :inquisitive:
It's not my fault that the mayas and aztecs were nomadic tipi dwellers and I know very well about the apachean stone fortresses. I do however think you're not reading my posts correctly so you can call me stupid. That's not very nice either.
The Maya? Are you that ignorant?
I haven't read any books by the Mayas, maybe if they had stored their books in mobile tipis, they could have saved them. Now calm down please.
How can you possibly know that, considering the Spanish burnt most Mayan literary works?
I didn't know that, it was just a general statement.
I can write a lengthy explanation as to why the Spaniards were able to bring the Aztecs to their knees (my knowledge on the Incan case is much less considerable, though).
You could give us a short overview.
The Stranger
12-01-2009, 10:34
first thing Megas, stop trolling... stop calling people stupid and ignorant and german for no good reason...
if you do not follow the discussion between me and husar correctly do not blame him if you misunderstood. i was just giving an example when discussing tipis. we were never talking about just two continents but about culture in general. to think the world ends in the americas, well... that would be naive at least... huh... but thats not the game were playing here. if you cant come up with an argument thats supportive than dont talk at all...
and you know some stuff, so it would be a waste if you got banned. again.
ps about the maya's. i meant the incas. and i know they had a form of writing, and books even iirc. i made a mistake. but that doesnt change the heart of the question.
The Stranger
12-01-2009, 10:38
So you 're saying the reservations were missing the soap they used to wash their tipis so they had to abandon them and build houses?
gah... :whip:
What judgement? I just said it's a darwinistic world sometimes and it's hardly my fault just because I'm white. The whole point of the culture debate was to explain, kind of statistically, how some people invented better means of warfare than others. In games, when you invest more money into research, you get a technological advantage, in reality when more people think a lot about how to improve things, it's more likely that one will come up with a good idea. When this is about warfare technology, then it often ends with one going down, in this case the indians, having some advanced peace treaties among themselves obviously didn't help them repel the european invaders.
Whether this european expansionism was a good or a bad thing from a moral point of view I never really said, in fact I said I generally prefer peace.
so why are discussing culture than... when its a technological thing...?
ps i never really said anything about european expansionism being good or bad either :P just saying that cultures are equal. a painting of renaissance europe is worth as much as an african statue, chinese vase etc. you might prefer one to another, but thats a personal matter. in my point of view actually, good and bad are eliminated because the cultures are both equal. so than be good or bad, doesnt matter, because the relation between the two no longer exists, so the comparison ends. it becomes neutral.
first thing Megas, stop trolling... stop calling people stupid and ignorant and german for no good reason...
I thought there was a very good reason to call me german, actually.
The rest I obviously agree with and maintain that knowledge and intelligence are different anyway.
so why are discussing culture than... when its a technological thing...?
Because my thesis (not a scientific one, mind you) was that culture and other circumstances affect technology a lot. European culture was apparently all about how to keep others down and raid your neighbors while indian culture was about how to elect a president and make peace treaties. when they crossed those peace treaties with our cold steel, they lost, thus our culture won the upper hand and thus it's better in a way. Of course their culture might be better for world peace but then someone would probably bring up the constant warfare and infighting in south America which didn't help them a lot either IIRC, especially when they kept doing it when the europeans came. When europe faced the Ottomans for example, Europe united and fought them together, austrian people, polish hussars and other europeans IIRC. When the spanish wanted to drive back the moors, other europeans came to fight with them etc., then you have the crusades where people all over europe united for a common goal (even if some of them were greedy murderers) and the muslim world did the same to drive them back out. IIRC the indian tribes hardly ever united to drive out their common foe, there were some attempts but IIRC they mostly failed until it was too late. culture IMO isn't just arts, it's a bit of a behaviour pattern that also governs a lot of behaviour, politics etc.
ps i never really said anything about european expansionism being good or bad either :P just saying that cultures are equal. a painting of renaissance europe is worth as much as an african statue, chinese vase etc. you might prefer one to another, but thats a personal matter. in my point of view actually, good and bad are eliminated because the cultures are both equal. so than be good or bad, doesnt matter, because the relation between the two no longer exists, so the comparison ends. it becomes neutral.
A chinese vase is actually worth the most because you can drink from it, or would you rather take a painting to the desert? :mellow:
I took good and bad in the context of usefulness, our culture was better in that given situation because it made us develop in a way to win that war, if we had been equals to the indians in all terms then why did their nations almost vanish while we colonised their land? Just being a really bad genociding murderer doesn't automatically make you win a war, and neither does technology alone, an emphasis on training helps a lot, sitting around all day looking at that laser cannon doesn't make you good at using it.
The spartans weren't feared as warriors because they had a culture of peace and laziness.
Samurai Waki
12-01-2009, 13:02
Because my thesis (not a scientific one, mind you) was that culture and other circumstances affect technology a lot. European culture was apparently all about how to keep others down and raid your neighbors while indian culture was about how to elect a president and make peace treaties. when they crossed those peace treaties with our cold steel, they lost, thus our culture won the upper hand and thus it's better in a way.
Truth be told, the natives were quite fond of warfare, not any less so than Europeans during the medieval era. They did of course have a Code of Honor system, but it was pretty simplistic even when compared to the Codes of Chivalry, which was fine, since they understood that war was about settling vendettas and not picking up a rose for your lady fair. They had their "campaigning seasons" and their "raiding seasons", and actually many of those old rivalries still exist today. The Crow are still disliked by the Sioux, Cheyenne, and Blackfoot for various reasons (namely acting as Scouts for the Union Army) but they too are still adamant in their defense that they weren't really all that loved anyways, so what difference would it have made? If you can't beat em' join em' type of thinking.
I can't say much for Mexico, and South America but I do know the Cherokee (oh, and a few in the Pacific Northwest) were really one of the only tribes that accepted the Europeans weren't going anywhere. And for awhile they benefited from it, although their major fault was thinking that as long as they shared the land, that they'd be left alone. Disastrous mistake.
Honestly, the Union Army would never have been able to make a dent in the Western Tribes (Sioux, Cheyenne, and Blackfoot) or in the Southern Tribes (Apache, Comanche, Navajo) if it were not for disease. They were adequately equipped with Western Arms, knew how to use them...well, and for awhile had enough men that they could have held them off indefinitely. The sad irony, is that it wasn't the European's technology that destroyed the natives, it was their lack of technology to fight disease. By the time The Pioneers had started to make tracks west, Native numbers were already down to a trickle, and Europeans kept coming in larger and more unmanageable levels, eventually they saw the Natives as being an inconvenience; since Americans have such a fondness for "real estate", and the rest is history.
Megas Methuselah
12-01-2009, 20:03
Because my thesis (not a scientific one, mind you) was that culture and other circumstances affect technology a lot. European culture was apparently all about how to keep others down and raid your neighbors while indian culture was about how to elect a president and make peace treaties.
Of course their culture might be better for world peace
:dizzy2: Where are you gettin your information from??? Pocahontas (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114148/)?
I can't say much for Mexico, and South America but I do know the Cherokee (oh, and a few in the Pacific Northwest) were really one of the only tribes that accepted the Europeans weren't going anywhere.
If the Chrokee were one of the "only tribes," then I might have to ask what all the numbered treaties the various tribes had with Canada was all about...
it was their lack of technology to fight disease.
I would argue it was more of a lack of immunity to foreign diseases rather than a lack of technology, but yeah sure. Estimates include a drop in the overall Native American population from 60 to 90% in the 150 years followin Columbus' first voyage.
Guys, if you're going to try debatin a comparison about European and Native American cultures, read a few books first. Your ignorance and generalizations (especially you, Husar, though you're probably trollin) is astounding.
Megas Methuselah
12-01-2009, 20:46
You could give us a short overview.
Alright, it's been a while since I've studied it, but I'll try.
First off, steel, in the form of weapons and armour, combined with ingenious tercio tactics, allowed a small force of Spanish swordsmen, pikemen, crossbowmen, etc. to hold off larger forces of hostile natives in battle. This is all good and everything, but when you have less than a thousand adventurers fighting against thousands of natives, it doesn't quite work in the long run. This combination, though, lasted the Spaniards long enough until they could find themselves some allies.
Native allies were no doubt the key to victory in the whole situation. After all, the Spaniards, as I said before, numbered less than a thousand men (in most cases?), whilst natives on both sides of the conflict could raise armies numbering in the tens of thousands (at the siege of Tenochtitlan, the Spanish native allies numbered at least 24,000 men). Anyways, to the point: the Aztec Empire was a young state, having only risen in power in the early 1400's. Much of its conquests weren't beyond memory, so many Aztec vassals still resented it. Moreover, the Aztec Empire wasn't exactly a centralized empire (unlike the Incan Empire), but more of a league of autonomous city-states that was dominated by the Aztec triple-alliance, which in turn was dominated by the Tenocha Mexica (the Aztecs of Tenochtitlan). On top of this, the taxes levied by the Aztecs, especially the human tax for sacrifice, was unpopular with many of the vassal states; these factors led to a significant number of Aztec vassals defecting to the Spaniards. On a related note, some enemy states, most notably Tlaxcala (which was sorrounded by Aztec territory), existed solely to provide prisoners of war for sacrifice. This warefare for live prisoners, the "flowery wars," had the obvious effect of making deadly enemies, people who severely hated the Aztecs and who, through constant warefare, developed deadly armies. These combination of factors led to the Spanish easily attaining allies, through bitter Aztec vassals (such as the people of Cempoala) or through even more bitter Aztec flowery enemies (such as the Tlaxcalans).
In spite of this, the Aztecs were still able to put up a tough fight, and had actually driven the Spanish-led force away from Tenochtitlan on one occasion. But, this is where disease comes in. Although it affected natives of both sides of the conflict, Tenochtitlan itself suffered a particularly brutal outbreak of plague. We're talking exceedingly high mortality rates here, so they were weakened terribly. Moreover, the Aztecs (and sorrounding natives) had a system to fight wars, which included formal declarations of war, rituals/augurs that say when to attack, peace/diplomatic talks before an open battle, etc. This left them to the mercy of the Spaniards, who would almost always have the first move, wouldn't bother with timely rituals, and would take advantage of any Aztec leaders attempting to communicate honourably before a battle (they would kill the nobles, etc.).
Lastly, I'd like to point out the ineffectiveness of gunpower weapons. Contrary to popular belief, firearms were very ineffective at this time. A conquistador would be lucky to fire one shot before being drawn into a melee, so cumbersome and slow to load were the weapons. It shouldn't serve as much of a surprise, then, as to why there were so little firearms used by the conquistadors, who preferred more dependable weapons (gunpower was particularly vulnerable in tropical climates). As for horses, they were expensive status symbols that few of the conquistadors could afford (if you were rich enough to buy a horse, why were you adventuring for gold???); horsemen were a rare sight (at times, there were only 13 Spanish horsemen), and were thus extremely limited in their effectiveness. Although cannons were more useful than firearms, they were still exceedingly limited in numbers. Firearms, horses, and cannons were therefore rather ineffective except for something of a very limited amount of morale shock.
Conclusively, I think it is safe to say that disease, the young age and decentralization of the Aztec state (made available a large amount of native allies), as well as its flowery wars (more embittered native allies, experienced in warefare) played the primary roles in the Spanish conquest. Spanish steel and tercio tactics played a limited role, but only before allies were found. Essentially, the fall of the Aztec Empire could be seen as a situation of mass revolt and foreign invasion, sparked to occur together by the Spaniards.
:dizzy2: Where are you gettin your information from??? Pocahontas (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114148/)?
You mention in the next post how the Aztec overlords demanded sacrifices that made their vassals desert, is that not a cultural thing?
If the Chrokee were one of the "only tribes," then I might have to ask what all the numbered treaties the various tribes had with Canada was all about...
If the tribes were as ruthless and fought among themselves just like the europeans then why are you making the europeans look like the bad guys? Sounds like a fight between similar people but one side was unlucky that the others brought the worse diseases.
Strike For The South
12-01-2009, 22:14
You mention in the next post how the Aztec overlords demanded sacrifices that made their vassals desert, is that not a cultural thing?
If the Chrokee were one of the "only tribes," then I might have to ask what all the numbered treaties the various tribes had with Canada was all about...
If the tribes were as ruthless and fought among themselves just like the europeans then why are you making the europeans look like the bad guys? Sounds like a fight between similar people but one side was unlucky that the others brought the worse diseases.
I would agree that the natives simply lost early on, however how the were treated was reprehensible, no one should have to live in Oklahoma.
The only reasons the Indians were able to resist so long in the plains was because of the horse and European arms, which they got through early trading. So in reality the Europeans helped them in a sick sort of way.
It's kind of funny, the plains indian is a result of Europe.
Louis VI the Fat
12-01-2009, 22:57
It's kind of funny, the plains indian is a result of Europe.Aye, funny how history works. The archetypical Indian - to European eyes - did not exist prior to the European invasion.
I won't confuse you with ramblings about my alien abduction again - though the questions remains how the aliens knew I carry all this information about the CIA with me!
Me and the CIA have a deal. I don't run to my contacts at the media, and they leave me be. Suits us both. Or so I thought...
But they must've been the one who directed the abductors to me. so this means I will no longer keep my mouth shut. Serves the CIA right. [/teh bollox]
Anyway, how did the Celts come to be a fringe group? Because they enjoy clinging on to rugged Atlantic coasts? No. There is a Celtic fringe nowadays because the Italics and Germanics stole their land and drove the Celts to infertile reservations. With the majority of Celts simply interbreeding with the invaders, taking over their language, customs an laws.
That would be me then. Not very different from the fate of Native Americans. I preceed them by a millenium or so, but the principle is the same.
Yet, I don't hang around in a miserably rainy surrounding, drinking lots of alcohol all the time and blaming everybody else for my misery.
Well I do that too sometimes. In fact, most of the time. Actually, it pretty much sums me up.
*Blames the evil invading Germanics and Husar in particular*
But it is the principle that matters.
These things happen. The point is that we (try to) not do this anymore.
Strike For The South
12-01-2009, 23:08
Aye, funny how history works. The archetypical Indian - to European eyes - did not exist prior to the European invasion.
I won't confuse you with ramblings about my alien abduction again - though the questions remains how the aliens knew I carry all this information about the CIA with me!
Me and the CIA have a deal. I don't run to my contacts at the media, and they leave me be. Suits us both. Or so I thought...
But they must've been the one who directed the abductors to me. so this means I will no longer keep my mouth shut. Serves the CIA right. [/teh bollox]
Anyway, how did the Celts come to be a fringe group? Because they enjoy clinging on to rugged Atlantic coasts? No. There is a Celtic fringe nowadays because the Italics and Germanics stole their land and drove the Celts to infertile reservations. With the majority of Celts simply interbreeding with the invaders, taking over their language, customs an laws.
That would be me then. Not very different from the fate of Native Americans. I preceed them by a millenium or so, but the principle is the same.
Yet, I don't hang around in a miserably rainy surrounding, drinking lots of alcohol all the time and blaming everybody else for my misery.
Well I do that too sometimes. In fact, most of the time. Actually, it pretty much sums me up.
*Blames the evil invading Germanics and Husar in particular*
But it is the principle that matters.
These things happen. The point is that we (try to) not do this anymore.
I see your point but the key there is you're talking mellinia were you could still get money in Texas for an Indian scalp until WWII.
Not to mention the Celts Itals and Germanics are farily similar looking (I can't tell the difference and probably have a few genes from all 3 in me), this was a massive change with radicaly different looking people.
OTOH
Indian compliants fall on deaf ears with me simply because when we give them what they want, they tend to be just as greedy as the white man (look at where casino profits go), or try to petition stupid things, like changing the Redskins name.
We've given them so much more than any of the other groups we've wrogned (Blacks, Irish, Catholics, Italians, Slavs, Japanese, Jews, various shades of brown people who I call Mexicans) and yet they are the worst off.
I would agree that the natives simply lost early on, however how the were treated was reprehensible, no one should have to live in Oklahoma.
As a native to Tulsa, Oklahoma; I agree with this statement.
Samurai Waki
12-01-2009, 23:13
If the Chrokee were one of the "only tribes," then I might have to ask what all the numbered treaties the various tribes had with Canada was all about...
I'm not sure, all I know is that US Government was quite fond of breaking them, the ones that fought always seemed to get a better deal.
I would argue it was more of a lack of immunity to foreign diseases rather than a lack of technology, but yeah sure. Estimates include a drop in the overall Native American population from 60 to 90% in the 150 years followin Columbus' first voyage.[/QUOTE]
No, I meant it was the European's inability to recognize a bar of soap goes a long way. For as technologically advanced as they were in comparison to the people they were fighting, I'm surprised it took all the way into the 1950s before people started recognizing that you should probably take a shower more than a once a month.
The Stranger
12-01-2009, 23:54
Aye, funny how history works. The archetypical Indian - to European eyes - did not exist prior to the European invasion.
I won't confuse you with ramblings about my alien abduction again - though the questions remains how the aliens knew I carry all this information about the CIA with me!
Me and the CIA have a deal. I don't run to my contacts at the media, and they leave me be. Suits us both. Or so I thought...
But they must've been the one who directed the abductors to me. so this means I will no longer keep my mouth shut. Serves the CIA right. [/teh bollox]
Anyway, how did the Celts come to be a fringe group? Because they enjoy clinging on to rugged Atlantic coasts? No. There is a Celtic fringe nowadays because the Italics and Germanics stole their land and drove the Celts to infertile reservations. With the majority of Celts simply interbreeding with the invaders, taking over their language, customs an laws.
That would be me then. Not very different from the fate of Native Americans. I preceed them by a millenium or so, but the principle is the same.
Yet, I don't hang around in a miserably rainy surrounding, drinking lots of alcohol all the time and blaming everybody else for my misery.
Well I do that too sometimes. In fact, most of the time. Actually, it pretty much sums me up.
*Blames the evil invading Germanics and Husar in particular*
But it is the principle that matters.
These things happen. The point is that we (try to) not do this anymore.
but you dont live in that situation anymore... do you now... i think your forefather complained alot about those dirty germanic bastards :P
The Stranger
12-01-2009, 23:56
I see your point but the key there is you're talking mellinia were you could still get money in Texas for an Indian scalp until WWII.
Not to mention the Celts Itals and Germanics are farily similar looking (I can't tell the difference and probably have a few genes from all 3 in me), this was a massive change with radicaly different looking people.
OTOH
Indian compliants fall on deaf ears with me simply because when we give them what they want, they tend to be just as greedy as the white man (look at where casino profits go), or try to petition stupid things, like changing the Redskins name.
We've given them so much more than any of the other groups we've wrogned (Blacks, Irish, Catholics, Italians, Slavs, Japanese, Jews, various shades of brown people who I call Mexicans) and yet they are the worst off.
you texas have wronged quite some people :P lets make a movie about it. T for Tendetta or something like it...
Megas Methuselah
12-02-2009, 03:31
It's kind of funny, the plains indian is a result of Europe.
The twist gets even crazier, mane. Take the Dakota, for example. Before they had ever gotten ahold of firearms or horses, they were a woodland people residing primarily in what is now Wisconsin and Minnesota. The Ojibway, a populous tribe who originially resided on the northern shore of Lake Superior and inland, began expanding once the furs in their area began declining; after all, they came to rely on the iron goods the French offered in trade. Anyways, they beat back the Iroquois in the east and, on their western borders, hungrily eyed the various lakes that were under Dakota control. The Ojibway used their numerous firearms to devastating effects; aside from mass morale shock in battle against a people that never encountered such weapons, gunpowder was brutally effective in burning down the walled Dakota settlements and driving the inhabitants into the open.
In the end, the Dakota were driven west into the Great Plains to live the nomadic life there by the Ojibway, who themselves were aiming to capture the various lakes rich in furs to satisfy their demand for European goods. This doesn't mean that there wasn't shifts in the balance of power before the arrival of the Europeans, though, but it still reinforces your point on the plains First Nations.
The archetypical Indian - to European eyes - did not exist prior to the European invasion.
You mean the Amerindian that loves nature, preaches peace, and gets high with the hippies?
I'm not sure, all I know is that US Government was quite fond of breaking them, the ones that fought always seemed to get a better deal.
Canada broke their treaties on a regular basis, too. I can't say it for the First Nations in the USA, but in Canada, if you fought and lost, you get worse off.
That would be me then. Not very different from the fate of Native Americans. I preceed them by a millenium or so, but the principle is the same.
Yet, I don't hang around in a miserably rainy surrounding, drinking lots of alcohol all the time and blaming everybody else for my misery.
My grandparents were forcibly taken from their parents (who were taken from theirs, and so on) to endure the residential schools which, for generations, took little kids and drove many of them to the very brink of madness. Abuse was rampant, kids died, kids vanished, kids were raped, kids were beaten senseless. Kids who didn't get any parenting or love were turned loose at age fifteen with the most minor of educations in a world which discriminated against them and denied them employment. When they had kids they had no idea at all how to parent, which was only made worse since this was a time when the First Nation population expanded tenfold.
Even though the last residential school was finally shut down in the 80's or 90's, the abuse continues in a cycle known as the inter-generational residential school effect. Many First Nation families are completely dysfunctional and screwed up, drowning hopelessly in alcoholism, drugs, and abuse (physical, sexual, mental) that will continue for God-knows-how-many generations to come.
But it is the principle that matters.
These things happen. The point is that we (try to) not do this anymore.
Exactly. They happened all the time throughout history, but they're not suppose to happen in western society anymore. Aboriginal people in Canada only got enfranchised and the right to be lawfully employed in 1960. By then, we were already a scarred and broken people.
My point is that you may think this is all over and it's only a page in history now. But we're still suffering deeply from it, and don't show any signs of catching up to the average Canadian anytime soon. With our population continuing to multiply, this problem will only get worse and worse for Canada as a whole.
But as a Frenchman, it ain't your problem. Stay in Europe, ok? :laugh4:
EDIT: When I'm an old man, writing my memoirs and telling stories to my great-grandchildren, we'll probably be the majority ethnicity in the province of Saskatchewan. With this problem, it will be a bittersweet triumph.
Strike For The South
12-02-2009, 03:50
My point is that you may think this is all over and it's only a page in history now. But we're still suffering deeply from it, and don't show any signs of catching up to the average Canadian anytime soon. With our population continuing to multiply, this problem will only get worse and worse for Canada as a whole.
But as a Frenchman, it ain't your problem. Stay in Europe, ok? :laugh4:
EDIT: When I'm an old man, writing my memoirs and telling stories to my great-grandchildren, we'll probably be the majority ethnicity in the province of Saskatchewan. With this problem, it will be a bittersweet triumph.
Well there's the problem sweetie pie. My family was kicked out of Europe 400 years ago, me and 1/3 of the Americas pretty much come for just European stock (not even including the mestizos)
What are you going to do with us? Kick us out? :laugh4:
That and simply because you will be the majority means nothing, espacilly if the current rate of alcoholism and single parents keep up.
I realize you are getting extremly excited about yalls ability to breed but lets not put the wagon before the horses
This continent is as much mine as it is yours and you can either realize that or be in for a life of dissapointment. Because I sure as hell aint going anywhere.
Sasaki Kojiro
12-02-2009, 03:55
While I agree with husar that we can't hold the european settlers to a higher standard than the indians, megas has a point that the recent history is still relevant.
Megas Methuselah
12-02-2009, 03:56
Well there's the problem sweetie pie. My family was kicked out of Europe 400 years ago, me and 1/3 of the Americas pretty much come for just European stock (not even including the mestizos)
What are you going to do with us? Kick us out? :laugh4:
That and simply because you will be the majority means nothing, espacilly if the current rate of alcoholism and single parents keep up.
I realize you are getting extremly excited about yalls ability to breed but lets not put the wagon before the horses
This continent is as much mine as it is yours and you can either realize that or be in for a life of dissapointment. Because I sure as hell aint going anywhere.
:laugh4: "If we can't drive em out, we'll breed em out." So, bro: you got a sister, by any chance?
Strike For The South
12-02-2009, 04:01
:laugh4: "If we can't drive em out, we'll breed em out." So, bro: you got a sister, by any chance?
I do, but she likes men who can grow facial hair.
And even if you somehow had relations with my sister that would make the child a halfsie and that would be bloody pointless for your whole shtick wouldn't it?
Megas Methuselah
12-02-2009, 04:08
I do, but she likes men who can grow facial hair.
When she goes red, she'll never leave my bed.
And even if you somehow had relations with my sister that would make the child a halfsie and that would be bloody pointless for your whole shtick wouldn't it?
Actually, it would bind us closer together as a citizens of a multinational state. Besides, even one drop of native blood is enough to make a superior being out of ya. :snobby:
Strike For The South
12-02-2009, 04:16
When she goes red, she'll never leave my bed.
4/10
Actually, it would bind us closer together as a citizens of a multinational state. Besides, even one drop of native blood is enough to make a superior being out of ya. :snobby:
Exactly, make everything in this thread pointless.
A superior being? :laugh4:
That's the one thing I will never understand for all the talk of peoples races or cultures being superior that all goes out the window when one can score some strange.
Megas Methuselah
12-02-2009, 04:19
4/10
You're just jealous.
A superior being? :laugh4:
That's the one thing I will never understand for all the talk of peoples races or cultures being superior that all goes out the window when one can score some strange.
I'm joking, of course. :rolleyes:
Strike For The South
12-02-2009, 04:23
You're just jealous.
:yes:
I'm joking, of course. :rolleyes:
Whats a joke?
Megas Methuselah
12-02-2009, 04:29
I think that concludes the thread. Imma go get me a white woman.
In the end, the Dakota were driven west into the Great Plains to live the nomadic life there by the Ojibway, who themselves were aiming to capture the various lakes rich in furs to satisfy their demand for European goods.
You already noticed it yourself, didn't you?
Otherwise yeah, good luck, and why don't you just get a woman?
Megas Methuselah
12-02-2009, 09:07
You already noticed it yourself, didn't you?
Sheeesh. What are you arguing for again? European cultural superiority? I'm too unqualified to argue for or against it. And, judging from your ridiculously limited amount of knowledge on Native American history, so are you.
The only reason why I actually entered this messy debate with you was to troll you and later, horrified by your lack of knowledge, to enlighten you.
Otherwise yeah, good luck, and why don't you just get a woman?
Hmm? I'll spew your own words at you, German:
Now calm down please.
:laugh4:
Sheeesh. What are you arguing for again? European cultural superiority? I'm too unqualified to argue for or against it. And, judging from your ridiculously limited amount of knowledge on Native American history, so are you.
In that particular case I was hinting at your point that the native americans apparently wanted a lot of the things the europeans had to offer.
And by the way, a theory is true in a scientific sense until it has been shown to be wrong, you just admitted your inability to prove it wrong, thus I am still right. ~;) :mellow:
(I know it was a broad statement and it has some holes, ok, now calm down :sweatdrop: )
Hmm? I'll spew your own words at you, German:
Well, I was just curious why it is important that she is white?
Louis VI the Fat
12-02-2009, 14:05
My grandparents You are quite right. The Amerindians were badly mistreated long after what could be considered 'events belonging to history'.
Europeans are nothing but mongrels made up of the various waves of invaders and conquered. Like Mexico, all Europoeans are all a mix of foreign languages, foreign religions, foreign blood, and 'indigenous' traces.
Only a few decades before the Spanish plundered Tenochtitlán and turned it into Mexico City, the Turks plundered, destroyed and turned Constantinople - which for a thousand years had been the greatest centre of European civilization - into a new capital, with a new mixed population, new language and new religion, and a new name.
However, there is an arbitrary academism to the statement 'peoples get overrun, let bygone's be bygone's', that too easily brushes aside the shameful treatment of Amerindians in the recent and not too distant past, and that borders on the disrespectful.
The Stranger
12-02-2009, 18:54
thank you megas...
Megas Methuselah
12-02-2009, 20:14
Well, I was just curious why it is important that she is white?
It was a joke aimed at SFTS.
It was a joke aimed at SFTS.
Not funny.
~;)
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.