What is Digg?Sponsored by newegg
Ready. Set. Shop view!
newegg.com - Newegg.com Black Friday Sale starting 11/25 3PM PST. No Lines, No Crowds, Click and Save.
100 Comments
- diggydougie, on 11/08/2009, -12/+70The natives could have been riding around in flying saucers and the Europeans would still have thought of them as godless savages because they didn't follow Christ.
- inactive, on 11/07/2009, -11/+64Yeah really. I was always under the impression that the Mayans and Aztecs were stupid, what with their respect for nature, highly accurate cosmological and astronomical observations and architecture.
This continent was truly devoid of class and culture until it became "modern" when populated by poorly educated obese diabetes encumbered office-cubicle dwellers. Thanks for setting us straight.
Huzzah for progress! - BabyWookie, on 11/08/2009, -2/+37Dugg for using the word "salubrious" in the description.
- aderek, on 11/08/2009, -1/+33Europeans picked a perfect time to find the new world. The Inca empire was having a civil war, the Aztec triple alliance was at war with most of its neighbors, and well established trade routes had finally firmly connected north and south American, allowing for the rapid spread of small pox to nearly all corners of the new world. If all three of these points weren't lining up at the perfect time, history would have been different.
- AraleNorimaki, on 11/07/2009, -4/+34wtf
(March 7, 2002)
- durruticolumn, on 11/08/2009, -6/+26
A friend of mine wrote this in regards to the Iroquois Confederation. We have to get rid of the idea that we have where indigenous people are "stuck in time", when in reality, they had very complex social and political systems that managed to solve a lot of social problems and inequality that we're still trying to fix today. They also had dense populations, and were nowhere near as nomadic as our history books teach, and were almost as settled into cities as Europe was.
"Where License Reigns With All Impunity"
An Anarchist Study of the Rotinonshón:ni Polity
http://www.ainfos.ca/07/oct/ainfos00207.html - DeadSkinMask, on 11/08/2009, -2/+21what? no love for the Incas?
- DeadSkinMask, on 11/08/2009, -6/+23"false gods"?
These people worshiped the sun, which brought them warmth, beauty and made their crops grow.
Christianity is based on a "god", which brings them....uh.....hmmm......I'll get back to you on that one. - the8thbit, on 11/08/2009, -4/+20All gods are false, silly-billy!
- SomeCallMeBruce, on 11/08/2009, -4/+20And the Aztecs danced beneath the cotton candy sky, under the gumdrop mountain and shared goblets of chocolate as they played games with the severed heads of they Mayans and other rival tribes. Yep, those were the days, before that dick Cortez came along and ruined the party. And don't even get me started on that savage beast, Columbus.....
- protodon, on 11/08/2009, -1/+17The fact of the matter is Ancient Civilizations would have been much less amazing if you actually lived in that time.
- BerateBirthers, on 11/07/2009, -9/+24Everyone know this. The problem was the evils of Europe spread here.
Starting with diseases like smallpox. - Disgod, on 11/07/2009, -2/+16But I thought those were friendship blankets!
- beloitpiper, on 11/08/2009, -0/+14Yeah, but Americans got back at them with Syphilis.
- rushover, on 11/08/2009, -3/+14Too bad nothing runs on magic anymore.
- beloitpiper, on 11/08/2009, -1/+11Don't forget the most advanced irrigation systems in the world.
- Oldie, on 11/08/2009, -1/+11Let's not forget the human sacrifice. I know a few people I wouldn't mind sticking on an alter for losing a ball game.
- durruticolumn, on 11/08/2009, -1/+10
The Iroquois Confederation was a matrilineal society where women basically controlled the living situation, and were fully participatory in the political system. While there were definitely patriarchal tribes, member tribes of the Rotinonshón:ni were not allowed to operate that way.
Did you read the article I linked? - nextekcarl, on 11/08/2009, -2/+10I'm pretty sure our economy is built on magic.
- kaosethema, on 11/08/2009, -2/+10in retrospect, people of an advanced mindset were always subject to being conquered.
usually because an advanced culture did not see the need to make or prepare for war.
sad - ryebread6790, on 11/08/2009, -2/+10i don't know how many people actually read the whole thing, it's long as hell, and i'm only halfway through--but it's amazing. More people in the new world then in europe pre 1492.
what i found fascinating is that we have such a hard time to conceptualize that Indian societies could be complex, simply because their structures were so different than the old world construct that has taken over. i don't know, i knew a lot of this already, but the article is so well-written and there's so much history about not only indian societies, but also the development of scholarly thought about indian societies.
A+++++++++ would recommend great article!!! - xxyglx, on 11/08/2009, -1/+9Unusually great article!
- tacotacotaco, on 11/08/2009, -0/+7I agree. History is so fascinating it's remarkable that so many teachers can effectively suck the life out of it.
As for the criticism by some that this article is from 2002, of all the duplicates and retread articles Digg serves repeatedly, this one is definitely worthy of being seen by many. Nice find. - limabone, on 11/08/2009, -1/+7There were lots of Indians, way more than what people generally think, because most of the stuff we learned in school were from people who visited the continent AFTER all the natives had been wiped out.
The Indians all had similar immune systems and as a result were all vulnerable to the same diseases and got ravaged by a multitude of pathogens from Europe all at roughly the same time. Their immune systems were possibly less developed because they were mostly lactose intolerant and thus didn't have a need to domesticate animals for their milk so didn't live amongst animals passing diseases back and forth and building up immunities. - Peekman, on 11/08/2009, -0/+6you only got through the first section didn't you???
- Marrach, on 11/08/2009, -4/+10That was the most educationally engrossing read I have ever experienced to date over the Internet.
And I HATED sitting in a classroom or being stuck in a Lecture. Wow! - viejomiguel, on 11/08/2009, -0/+6Through out history we see the human population exploiting it's environment to the maximum possible with the technology current for the time. We filled all possible ecological niches available, expanding the population to the limits imposed by technology, not environment. For example, ancient Egypt, in the largest desert in the world, was the 'bread basket' for thousands of years. Mesopotamia in considered the cradle of civilization, again in the middle of a desert. Faced with 'impossible' situations, human kind has repeatedly risen to the challenge, and triumphed. If we can do it in desserts, why not in rain forests? In other words, the question isn't did it happen, but rather, what technology enabled a large and diverse population. After all, why would humans in the Americas been inherently different than humans elsewhere?
- Leo21k, on 11/08/2009, -3/+9I'm sure they would have upgraded from mud huts by now if they were still around.
- notmark, on 11/08/2009, -1/+5Just because he is saying one culture was actually quite advanced does not necessarily mean that he hates his own culture. Also, the Chinese invented movable type approximately 500 years before "Western Civilization," and I'm sure they'd hook us up so we wouldn't have to use a quill pen.
- simbait, on 11/08/2009, -0/+4In more recent news, the author (Charles C. Mann) wrote a book "1491" in 2005:
http://www.amazon.com/1491-Revelations-Americas-Be ...
Quite an interesting read. - notmark, on 11/08/2009, -2/+6A significant number of tribes in the Americas were matriarchal. Women actually had better roles in those societies than in any European society at the time.
- jinif, on 11/09/2009, -0/+4Did you read the article? It hardly makes that point, only that disease emptied the continent right before the Europeans came.
Nowhere does it claim that Indians in the New World lived in wonderful civilizations, only that they likely had more civilizations than we give them credit for. - durruticolumn, on 11/08/2009, -1/+5
What exactly are you asking? - simbait, on 11/08/2009, -0/+3In more recent news, the author (Charles C. Mann) wrote a book "1491" in 2005:
http://www.amazon.com/1491-Revelations-Americas-Be ...
Quite an interesting read. - copypastry, on 11/08/2009, -0/+3it's a perfectly cromulent word.
- farboo, on 11/08/2009, -2/+5Actually that book is a pack of lies and misunderstandings. Fortunately for its author, he doesn't know any Chinese, otherwise he wouldn't be able to say the things he does.
- bluearrow, on 11/08/2009, -2/+5If your interested in this subject you should read "Guns, Germs, and Steel". PBS link http://www.pbs.org/gunsgermssteel/
- Frisbinator, on 11/08/2009, -1/+4We like to differentiate between peoples as if one set were the bad guys and one set were the good guys. The truth is, is that whenever a more advanced culture encounters a less advanced culture, primarily displayed throughout human history with hunter gatherers encountering agriculturists, the less advanced culture always is overtaken in some manner. Some of the reasons the Americas were overwhelmed by Europeans, as outlined in the book "Guns Germs and Steel" are the following:
Few domesticable work animals in the Americas, not a wide variety of high caloric yielding crops in America compared with Eurasia (only corn and a few others), Geological barriers disallowing civilizations to trade/share ideas with one another, primarily North-South axis of the continent making commerce of crops difficult due to the change in climate, lack of a writing system, disgust with those in power who would sacrifice a very large percentage of the population (primarily in the Aztec empire), no advanced system of writing to record historical events, lack of resistance to the European diseases (some estimates claim up to 95% of the indiginous population were wiped out).
The trend in human history, regardless of what continent you look at, is that the more advanced civilizations conquer the weak. Both the Europeans and the native American peoples had things about their civilizations worthy of criticism, but it really isn't fair to criticize the Europeans because Lord knows the Americans would have colonized Europe just as fast given the opportunity, - Ajzzz, on 11/08/2009, -0/+3It would be rather strange if the Americans hadn't developed a few viruses of their own. They traded their great pox for European's small pox.
- Atario, on 11/08/2009, -0/+3Ball game, nothing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sacrifice_in_pr ...
Just a taste:
"According to Bernardino de Sahagún, the Aztecs believed that, if sacrifices were not given to Tlaloc, the rain would not come and their crops would not grow. Tlaloc required the tears of the young so their tears would wet the earth. As a result, priests made children cry before the infanticidal ritual sacrifice, sometimes by tearing off their nails." - dsuse15, on 11/08/2009, -1/+4What an informative, well-written article. Definitely worth the read.
- deity, on 11/08/2009, -1/+3@Marrach
"That was the most educationally engrossing read I have ever experienced to date over the Internet."
Obviously you stay on Digg way to much. - jinif, on 11/09/2009, -0/+2Apparently these are the cliff notes to a longer book
- nextekcarl, on 11/08/2009, -1/+3The winners were the ones who were sacrificed, IIRC.
- Jovian84, on 11/08/2009, -0/+2yeah......that'll show em
- Jovian84, on 11/09/2009, -0/+2its like traveling to a new culture of course its amazing.
- Jovian84, on 11/09/2009, -0/+2ok to all who's reading this they're not blaming the europeans for destroying eutopia. they're just saying the natives who lived here had a whole world full of civlizations that were all active in changing their environment. when whites showed up they unknowingly spread a bunch of desieses that killed an increadible amount of people. then they moved in.
- sarahlee, on 11/11/2009, -0/+2Depends on the tribe. As durruticolumn points out, the Iraquis were matrilineal. The Navajo and Hopi tribes are also so women had and still have a lot of control.
Even in the pretty patriarchal Lakota tribes, the women owned and controlled the home and had the right to kick the man out if he misbehaved.
I don't think that the treatment of women was "harsh" in any of them. - deity, on 11/08/2009, -3/+5Respect for nature? From the article much of what is now rain forest was at one time cultivated land.
I love how the self haters believe everything good they hear about the native Americans and apply that to every group that was here, but ignore anything uncivilized. The aztec and the Incas had a ruling class that ruled ruthlessly.
Loath western civilization all you want but do it on parchment with a quill pen because without western civilization you wouldn't be using the computer you read this article from. Hypocrite. - dsmx, on 11/08/2009, -6/+8Or anywhere in the south to see what happens when you don't educate people properly.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 102 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is