It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Native Americans knew something that is blind to society.

page: 9
83
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 12:23 PM
link   
Smallpox and other sickness is the reason for the rapid decline in population, zero immunity.


As for the premise of the noble advanced nature of the native americans of this thread,


Human sacrifice was an integral part of the Aztec religion—as it was for many other societies in the New World, including the Maya. One of the central beliefs of the Aztec world was that Huitzilopochtli, the god of the sun, needed constant nourishment in the form of human blood—seen as the sacred life force—in order to keep the sun moving from east to west across the sky


Source

there is some discrepancy as to whether they killed 20,000 at a time or 20 but it is still human sacrifice, one of the lowest forms of societal practice associated with the uncivilized world. Quite the opposite of comparing them to a society that produced the ten commandments which include thou shalt not kill.

The list in the opening post is hooey make believe phooey.




posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Hefficide

Of course I am.
Revisionist history.... the idea that evil Europeans just came and slaughtered Indians wholesale because they are just mean spirited instead of the traditional historian view that colonists were sometimes involved in territorial skirmishes with Indians and that eventually it turned into full scale warring.
Please see my references to specific revisionist history as noted by National Review Online. It's not something I just made up.
Revisionist history also makes it's mark in other areas. I especially would like to refer you to the late Prof Antony Sutton, who remarked in his writing that the American Historical Society has been rife with writing history as the elites wanted people to see things.
To illustrate how the Elites manage education and history to produce their desired outcomes(which can change season to season), Prof Suttion gives us a background of the American Historical Society....


During the past one hundred years any theory of history or historical evidence that falls outside a pattern established by the American Historical Association and the major foundations "with their grantmaking power has
been attacked or rejected - not on the basis of any evidence presented, but on the basis of the acceptability of
the argument to the so-called Eastern Liberal Establishment and its official historical line.

The Official Establishment History



There is an Establishment history, an official history, which dominates history textbooks, trade publishing,
the media and library shelves. The official line always assumes that events such as "wars, revolutions, scandals,
assassinations, are more or less random unconnected events.




Woe betide any book or author that falls outside the official guidelines. Foundation support is not there. Publishers get cold feet. Distribution is hit and miss, or non-existent.

Just to ensure the official line dominates, in 1946 the Rockefeller Foundation allotted $139, 000 for an
official history of World War Two. This to avoid a repeat of debunking history books "which embarrassed the
Establishment after World War One. The reader "will be interested to know that The Order we are about to
investigate had great foresight, back in the 1880s, to create both the American Historical Association and the
American Economic Association (most economists "were then more historians than analysts) under their terms,
"with their people and their objectives. Andrew Dickson White "was a member of The Order and the first
President of the American Historical Association.



archive.org...

Now, what Sutton was really talking about here was the Elite version of history of WWII which did not include such things as members of Skull and Bones(more specifically Harrimans and Prescott Bush among others) who funded the Nazis. But if you take this same principle and apply it to today's agenda, what do we end up with? Today's Progressives want so badly to destroy America as we know it with all their "hope and change" for the greater common good that they are willing to skew history to show that the Founding Fathers were selfish people with unprincipled ideas of colonialism, and doesn't this fit perfectly with Dinesh DSouza's expose on the current admin's views on America as a predatory colonialist empire? It sure does to me. Combine that with the Rothschild's desire to ruin American strength and Soro's desire to destroy American power worldwide, it sure makes sense to me.
Please note my original post on revised history www.nationalreview.com...
as well as my post on how Agenda 21 enviromentalists and society planners target indigenous populations to control the land with ideas of "sustainable development" www.unep.org...

and now maybe you will understand where I am coming from. Now let's look at revisionist history again from the current thread. The NRO describes history from the viewpoint of people who have disparaging ideas about our Founding Fathers and our country as it has evolved from that point, but also concurring is another article from Newsweek with the exact same agenda

“As I read through the document, I saw a consistently negative view of American history that highlights oppressors and exploiters,” Krieger said on a conference call sponsored by two conservative groups fighting the new APUSH framework. He read quotes from the framework to illustrate his point: “Instead of striving to build a city on a hill, according to the Framework our nation’s Founders are portrayed as bigots who ‘developed a belief in white superiority’—that’s a quote—that was in turn derived from ‘a strong belief in British racial and cultural superiority’ and that of course led to ‘the creation of a rigid racial hierarchy.”
www.newsweek.com...
Do you see the pattern emerging now? The Elites using revisionist history to skew young people's understanding of our country combined with a desire to control land and resources worldwide and targeting indigenous populations with ideas of sustainability....
So yes, as lovely as those commandments of Amerindians sound, they sound as lovely as the new ten commandments as stated on the Georgia Guidestones which represents the elites new ideas on controlling resources and depopulation.
edit on 6-10-2014 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 01:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: LDragonFire

So you would admit that the colonists needed forts to keep attacking Indians at bay... certainly that is consistent with pre-revisionist history.



I admit the US army built forts along the roads we built.

Why is it relevant that the Native Americans fought for there lands and villages?

Do you admit that US Soldiers conducted massacres? Do you admit corrupt government agencies led to mismanagement and starvation, that resulted in the Sioux War and the Nez Perce War?



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 01:30 PM
link   
a reply to: TinfoilTP



Celts
Romans
Gauls
Carthaginians
Minoans
Aztecs

Are other civilizations that also conducted human sacrifice.... So what? Its a ugly part of humanities past. Whats your point?



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 01:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: LDragonFire
a reply to: TinfoilTP



Celts
Romans
Gauls
Carthaginians
Minoans
Aztecs

Are other civilizations that also conducted human sacrifice.... So what? Its a ugly part of humanities past. Whats your point?


You made my point thnx, which is the title of the thread "Native Americans knew something that is blind to society" should read ....Native Americans knew nothing different and especially not anything that is blind to society



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 04:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: diggindirt

I think you are confused about the definition of conquest. Does it matter what the size of the conquest? Perhaps you are buying into some revisionist history.

www.nationalreview.com...



Why would you think that when I asked you for one link to one scientific paper that upholds your views? I'm still waiting for the link that shows definitive evidence of your assertions.
"Revising" history from new discoveries gained from scientific studies is what science does. Science has taken us from believing that the earth was flat to today's belief that the earth is round. I'm sure that the flat-earth people called the round-earth people "revisionists" back in those days.
New technologies produce new ways of looking at things. There was a time that the "spontaneous generation" theory of insects held sway in the scientific community. The invention of the microscope put that theory in the dust bin.
Attacking me by questioning my education isn't a valid argument. Just provide the links showing the proof of your assertion and I'll be glad to consider and discuss it. I'm always glad to have my ignorance remedied.
Where in the Americas were wars of conquest conducted prior to European contact?
Not a sensationalized newspaper report, not a government-hired ethnological report but a scientific study of the evidence as found in the bones of the murdered victims.



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 04:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Hefficide

No, he used an averages from multiple sources. Some of his sources say 114 million, which would not have been possible.

If I use 10 fake source and 10 real sources to come up with an average, does that make my average correct?



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 04:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: LDragonFire

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: LDragonFire

So you would admit that the colonists needed forts to keep attacking Indians at bay... certainly that is consistent with pre-revisionist history.



I admit the US army built forts along the roads we built.

Why is it relevant that the Native Americans fought for there lands and villages?

Do you admit that US Soldiers conducted massacres? Do you admit corrupt government agencies led to mismanagement and starvation, that resulted in the Sioux War and the Nez Perce War?


Just so we understand one another...I have never claimed the American Army didn't kill Indians. But some here have been stating that the Amerindians did not have weaponry to fight against other humans before Europeans came, thus indicating the belief that Europeans alone are responsible for the warring that occurred. There seems to be a lie perpetuated here that Europeans came and just took land and property from the Indians because of course there just wasn't enough land for everybody................................. and that the Indians were all nicey nice and Utopian and all perfectly in tune with nature and never hurt anybody. You cannot at once claim the Indians had no sense of property and yet fought valiantly for their territories because the evil Europeans took it from them.
Which is it to be? The Collectivists who just everyone to be happy and have all property equally divided are in lala land. Pete Seeger the communist says this land is your land this land is my land....etc he wants to be able to go wherever he wants and not have someone say you are on my private property....because that is the philosophy of communists. All the land belong to the State actually in that sense of it, and guess what, the State is taking the land from the people. How long before the land they "give back to the Indians from the evil white people who stole it" is taken as government land not to be used by humans at all like the rest of the wetlands and wildlands declared to be the habitat of animals and plants only? You see from what I have read, I don't believe the Elites are doing it to help Indians....I believe they are using Indians to control the land themselves.


"Land...cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. Public control of land use is therefore indispensable...." (Item #10 in the UN agenda at the 1976 Habitat I. American delegates supported this policy)

www.crossroad.to...
Do you hear that? The Elites say private property contributes to social injustice.... so they promote the idea they are returning all these lands to the Indians....and reeducating us wayward people with European roots as to the reality that our ancestors just murdered and pillaged the innocents out of hateful violence and imperialist agendas. Why else would they be telling us that Indians who supposedly were already in tune with nature and the environment before European control need now to be given an entire planned agenda for sustainable development to direct their activities on land being "returned" to them? Think about that for a while.
Here, this is what I mean...EPA regulations of Indian lands right here in writing...

This page discusses the federal regulations that may apply to tribal government operations. The purpose of this section is to highlight and briefly describe the applicable federal requirements and to provide citations. This page also discusses EPA's role in directly implementing and enforcing federal environmental laws in Indian country and the process through which tribal governments can assume responsibility for implementing certain federal environmental programs.
www.epa.gov...

edit on 6-10-2014 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: boncho
Your replies gave me some good chuckles. I'm sure my colleagues would have a good chuckle too if they knew someone was calling me "politically correct" since most consider me just the opposite.
Please show me where I claimed that native people in the Americas never committed violence against each other. I've repeatedly said there was violence. But there is a vast difference between incidents of personalized violence, ritual violence and wars of conquest.
My assertions are based on my 30 years of study of the culture of what anthropologists have called the Mississippian culture group. That culture embraced ritualized violence---of that there is no doubt. But that is not war.
My studies of this subject came about because when I was in school in the '60s and '70s I was taught that our region was devoid of human occupation until the Europeans arrived. In my history books, Kentucky was called "the dark and bloody ground" and was never occupied by Indians. Yet, I knew that there were village sites all along the rivers----what's up with that? When I determined to leave the medical profession and went back to school, I fell into studying archaeology almost by chance. I needed night classes because I was working a full time job and one of the night classes that interested me was Intro to Arch. When I realized I had the opportunity to study such a site and actually advance the knowledge of that culture group, I was hooked.
Thirty years later I'm still hooked and I'm still learning.
And yes, I'm quite proud of the accomplishments of the past 30 years. The profession has gone from displaying human remains like a circus exhibit to respectful burials of the remains after careful scientific study have been conducted. Our profession has learned that our knowledge is expanded when we actually consult with and pay heed to the oral traditions of the native community. My association with the site on which I worked have provided me contacts within at least 17 of the recognized "tribes" during the process of getting the human remains on the site prepared for reburial and for the ceremonies that accompanied that reburial.
My work at the Slack Farm site convinced me that stronger laws on grave desecration were necessary. Archaeologists and Indians banded together for the first time to lobby the Kentucky legislature to get such laws passed. Those laws were the starting point for the Native American Graves Protection Act passed by the US Congress. During that process I met people who called themselves Native Americans, people who called themselves First Nations people and people who call themselves American Indians. I found that no matter what they called themselves, they were willing to work with anyone who would take the time and effort to listen to their complaints and suggestions and work with them to find solutions to the issues.
I've visited reservations all over the US at the invitation of the inhabitants, from the Eastern Cherokee in NC to Pine Ridge to the Navaho Nation. My quest has been for knowledge---knowledge of the great-grandmothers I never knew, knowledge of how one of those grandmothers was dropped off in western Tennessee on the Trail Where They Cried. How did a Choctaw woman get caught up in a round-up of Cherokees? How did one of my Irish/Scots great-grandfathers find and marry a Chinese woman in western Tennessee in the mid-19th century?
Get back to me when you can distinguish between pre-Columbian culture and post-contact culture.
Get back to me when you can distinguish between scientific evidence as shown by the actual injuries on bones of the deceased and fantastical newspaper reports.
Get back to me when you can distinguish between ritualized violence, personal episodes of violence and war.
Mostly, stop putting words in my posts---I never claimed that violence didn't exist in pre-Columbian culture.
I'm still waiting for that explanation of how you distinguish between weapons used to kill humans and weapons to kill wildlife. Just one link to a scientific examination of weapons will do it for me because I'm eager to learn. I've never heard that claim before.



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 05:05 PM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt

So the American Indians never employed the help of the French in a war of conquest against American settlers?



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 05:35 PM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt

What views are you referring to? I was suggesting it doesn't have to be all out war for it to be a point of conquest. You seem to be suggesting that Indians were never involved in any wars of conquest until the Europeans arrived. That may or may not be so, but how many people have to be involved for it to be a war of conquest? This is relative nonsense you are engaging in.

Why promoting the concept that Indians were in tune with nature and completely peaceful and Europeans evil warmongers and slavers? This concept fits right into the Progressive stereotype and mindset.

edit on 6-10-2014 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 06:12 PM
link   
a reply to: boncho
More chuckles with this post as well. I have discussed some of these issues with some of those folks. Lots of the older anthros are mired in the 19th century view, some for personal reasons, some for political reasons. Some have come around over the past 20 years or so, others have simply retired and taken their old views with them.
Perhaps you can show me the way to the time machine that lets you know how wildlife reacted to humans 500 years ago when food supplies for them became scarce during the Little Ice Age. You say you depend on logic. Is it not logical to assume that the people living in those villages wished to protect themselves and their food supplies from hungry wildlife and that the best way to do it was to build a wall around the village? A moose, elk or even a white-tailed deer could easily demolish those newly-built grain storage structures once the people abandoned the traditional underground storage pits. When corn agriculture was introduced and villages grew up around agriculturally productive sites, the traditional in-ground storage pits were not adequate for the bulky corn crops. Scientific studies of the bones of the residents of these villages can show when that change in culture occurred. It happens with the hard science portion of archaeology---seeing the changes in the chemical make-up of the bones when people begin to use corn as a staple of nutrition.
Likewise, it's the hard science of archaeology that I'm asking you to produce to prove your claims---


Umm... You might wanna bone up on American Indian history, where they used to kill each other in pretty large numbers. Tribe vs. tribe, young warrior vs one that wants to prove himself. They were pretty apt with knives, tomahawk and bow.





Again, you're missing it, they had weapons for hunting, but they also had weapons for killing. Weapons used in warfare are not always the same as the ones used in hunting, in principal they are similar but they aren't the same, sorry.


Again, out of all the excavations done of pre-Columbian site burials in the US, can you cite one scientific study that concludes that the mass graves are the result of one group making systematic war on another group? Can you back up your claim of weapons designed only to kill humans in war?
I'll be the first to admit that it is hard to give up long-cherished belief systems, especially when we've been fed information all our lives that seems to support those beliefs. But when the evidence proves otherwise, we need to deny the ignorance and supposition of those who were misinformed.
Apparently the first step in your education would be to distinguish between the cultures of the pre-Columbian people and that of the post-contact people. The evidence is there and as technology progresses we learn more and more from those advances in science.
You can hang your hat on the "they were savages... cut marks on bones prove cannibalism and war" hat-rack if you wish but the hard science of archaeology has moved beyond that 19th century view due to the evidence. That evidence shows that whole swaths of the North American continent lived in peace with their neighbors for centuries, farming their lands, playing sports and trading with other groups in distant locales. Again, let me emphasize, since some seem to be misinterpreting what I am saying, I am not saying that violence did not happen between individuals or even clans. In addition there was a tradition of ritualized violence then as there is today but there is simply no evidence that one culture group went and systematically killed other culture groups in wars.
Hope that clears things up for you.



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 06:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: diggindirt

What views are you referring to? I was suggesting it doesn't have to be all out war for it to be a point of conquest. You seem to be suggesting that Indians were never involved in any wars of conquest until the Europeans arrived. That may or may not be so, but how many people have to be involved for it to be a war of conquest? This is relative nonsense you are engaging in.
Why promoting the concept that Indians were in tune with nature and completely peaceful and Europeans evil warmongers and slavers? This concept fits right into the Progressive stereotype and mindset.


Excuse me but Europeans in earnest invaded another hemisphere without provocation. They then occupied it and declared the indigenous culture their inferior, then began a process who's intent. Was to undermine and wipe out
as much of that indigenous culture as possible.

Look when it comes to Christianity and Buddhism there are inherent differences. So in relation to what is known as possible?

Western Hemispheric indigenous cultures relate to issues that Christians and Buddhist do not relate to in respect to spirituality?

Why would that be difficult to understand?

I mean it is irrational to consider otherwise and I am more than willing to elaborate....

Any thoughts?

edit on 6-10-2014 by Kashai because: Content edit



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 06:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: diggindirt

I think you are confused about the definition of conquest. Does it matter what the size of the conquest? Perhaps you are buying into some revisionist history.

www.nationalreview.com...


Nope, I'm not of that group. I'm from the time in academia that completely ignored the native inhabitants of the continent or portrayed them as savages needing to be removed from the face of the earth. Finding out from blood tests that my heritage included those "savages" got me wondering a long time before I embarked on the studies I've been doing for the past 30 years. So, no, I'm not a New-Ager wanting to discount the accomplishments of the Founding Fathers. Far from it. I do know that the founders studied the native peoples' cultural customs, their political systems if you will, as well as the great European philosophers and that our country's founding documents are a result of the melding of lots of varied philosophies. There is ample evidence that Franklin and Jefferson made extensive studies of the political systems in place among the native inhabitants at the time of the American revolution and borrowed from them as well as from the European ideas of the era. They apparently were open-minded enough to learn from "ignorant savages" about what worked to build a successful society. They weren't however, open-minded enough to adopt the equality of sexes practiced in the Americas. Please keep in mind however, that the culture Franklin and his buddies were studying was almost three centuries removed from pre-Columbian culture. In those three centuries horses, hard liquor and guns had been added to that culture, making for a lot of rapid changes.



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 06:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hefficide

I find the fact that the word "savages" keeps popping up to be exceptionally troubling and an indication that prejudice is still an acceptable practice - provided the target group not have a loud enough voice to silence it.

To the Romans Europeans were savages. To the Persians and Chinese all westerners were savages, and were thought of exactly in the same way in reverse.

"Savage" is a term used by people who do not know or understand.

Aboriginal Americans, from both North and South America were not the simple Tarzanesque characters that John Wayne films showed. At a time when London was a small, muddy village - there were vast empires in South America to rival anything else in the world.

One could assert that Philip of Spain was a horrible savage when he cut down every single tree in his country to complete his infamous Spanish Armada. That seems like a legitimate act of barbarism to me. Nevermind that Rome provided murder for entertainment, or that the Church, throughout history, loved their little murder sprees.... Or that Europe stayed at war as much as any American tribes might have.

People are people and all races, ethnicities, creeds, and religions have their skeletons in their respective closets and those periods of time that they would like to forget. The Natives of this nation included.



Bravo and well said. I would give you a sky full of stars if I could. It is always a fine thing to see people use critical thinking skills.



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 07:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Smallpox and other sickness is the reason for the rapid decline in population, zero immunity.


As for the premise of the noble advanced nature of the native americans of this thread,


Human sacrifice was an integral part of the Aztec religion—as it was for many other societies in the New World, including the Maya. One of the central beliefs of the Aztec world was that Huitzilopochtli, the god of the sun, needed constant nourishment in the form of human blood—seen as the sacred life force—in order to keep the sun moving from east to west across the sky


Source

there is some discrepancy as to whether they killed 20,000 at a time or 20 but it is still human sacrifice, one of the lowest forms of societal practice associated with the uncivilized world. Quite the opposite of comparing them to a society that produced the ten commandments which include thou shalt not kill.

The list in the opening post is hooey make believe phooey.



Evidence of ritualized violence is present in every society and continues to be part of every known culture to this day. I haven't seen anyone denying that ritualized violence was practiced in some segments of all cultural groups. Same with cannibalism. Same with slavery. Same with belief in a higher power of some sort. These practices are what the social sciences call "universals" in society/culture. In other words, it is the normal way to behave until something comes along and replaces it.
The large "urban" population centers in North America have ample, undeniable evidence of these practices. But widespread warfare? I'm still looking for the links to papers showing evidence of wars of conquest prior to contact with Europeans.
You do understand, don't you, that we still practice ritualized violence in the US on regular basis and that people pay lots of money to watch it?



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 07:10 PM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt


Please show me where I claimed that native people in the Americas never committed violence against each other. I've repeatedly said there was violence. But there is a vast difference between incidents of personalized violence, ritual violence and wars of conquest.


That's exactly what started our conversation was your pompous attitude and the fact that you claim there were not violent peoples.



a reply to: diggindirt
Perhaps it is you who need to bone up on American Indian history and culture. Like a lot of us, you were probably raised on "cowboys and Indians" flicks and the idea that the native inhabitants of North and South America were just murdering savages. That is the picture painted by European invaders for a few centuries.


Your position when you stop acting like a 10 year old trying to measure his manhood in the locker room is not that far off from what I am saying, I didn't say the natives lives revolved around war, this conversations started when I was countering the original post the one with the view that you don't even really agree with seeing the rest of your posts, but you had to act like a know it all.




Please show me where I claimed that native people in the Americas never committed violence against each other. I've repeatedly said there was violence. But there is a vast difference between incidents of personalized violence, ritual violence and wars of conquest.


This was my post:


Umm... You might wanna bone up on American Indian history, where they used to kill each other in pretty large numbers. Tribe vs. tribe, young warrior vs one that wants to prove himself. They were pretty apt with knives, tomahawk and bow.
In any case, respect for the land, animals, and simply being content with what they had, at least that part is true.

I didn't say they were blood thirsty savages, I didn't say they only lived to kill, I said they were pretty apt with weapons used in battles, the rest is all verifiable in your own texts and in the old ones and new ones and you know it. You never intended to have a debate because there was nothing to debate, simply your own attempts at self satisfaction by delivering pages and pages of pretentious off topic vomit across all of our screens.

To the OP, not to you. I was interjecting and commenting on a fairy tale representation that was incorrect. Are you saying you agree with the OP? No, you don't. But you spent 9 pages blabbering on about complete bollocks, and giving us your personal life history because you want to feel important on the internet. Congratulations, Im sure someone reading might think you are special somewhere.

You have absolutely no argument, as you have started one with no intent to actually argue, or debate, but simply spread verbal diarrhoea all over the thread to boast about every accomplishment you have ever done. I feel sorry for your colleagues if this is you behaviour in every day life.




Why would you think that when I asked you for one link to one scientific paper that upholds your views? I'm still waiting for the link that shows definitive evidence of your assertions.


You already stated that your field of work is a soft science and that most of the scientific literature is garbage as all the previous work until now needs to be revised. Please, find me a paper where you gravity stops working the way it has been since it was first discovered. You can't. Welcome to a hard science.

I am done with the non-debate. Final post in the thread. Good day.

Fool. (Myself for not seeing it immediately).
edit on 6-10-2014 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 07:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: diggindirt

So the American Indians never employed the help of the French in a war of conquest against American settlers?



Please, this thread concerns pre-Columbian culture groups in North America. I can cite you dozens and dozens of examples of conquest in the post-contact period, after the introduction of metal weapons, guns, horses and liquor. What you and several other posters seem unable to grasp is the dramatic changes those introductions made to the aboriginal culture groups, "tribes" if you accept that designation for groups of people sharing cultural practices.
An easy way to think about the dramatic changes in society as a result of the introduction of a new technology is to observe the changes in the US when the automobile was introduced and made widely available to the population. Or the personal computer.... Those introductions produced wide-spread and rapid changes in the society. Why is it so hard to grasp that similar changes occurred in native societies when completely new technology was introduced?
Flint knappers were mostly out of business when metal became available for knives, spear points and arrowheads. Same with ceramic cooking pots when metal replaced the pottery forms that were traditional. These are the material changes to cultural patterns that we can see from the evidence left in the ground. The political and social changes are not so obvious in the cultural remains.
What is obvious----from the physical evidence of the remains of the people buried in cemeteries across the continent is that widespread warfare was not the social or cultural norm of the inhabitants of the North American continent. Comparisons of burial populations in Europe using current technology shows that the practice of widespread warfare was the cultural norm in that area. Historical accounts back up that evidence in Europe. In North America there are no historical records of the pre-Columbian period so we must depend on the evidence found in burials of the inhabitants. That evidence does not show widespread, systematic wars on other cultural groups until after the Europeans arrived. That is the knowledge I have from reading most everything I could acquire in my search for understanding. If you have new or better evidence, I'll be glad to consider it.



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 07:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: diggindirt

What views are you referring to? I was suggesting it doesn't have to be all out war for it to be a point of conquest. You seem to be suggesting that Indians were never involved in any wars of conquest until the Europeans arrived. That may or may not be so, but how many people have to be involved for it to be a war of conquest? This is relative nonsense you are engaging in.

Why promoting the concept that Indians were in tune with nature and completely peaceful and Europeans evil warmongers and slavers? This concept fits right into the Progressive stereotype and mindset.


Just provide me one link to a scientific paper that shows that one cultural group conducted a systematic war of conquest on another cultural group in the North American heartland in the pre-Columbian period.
I'd also like to see a post of mine calling Europeans "evil warmongers and slavers"?
Now, there you go again, calling me names like "Progressive"! If there is one thing my colleagues, friends and former students would get a big laugh from it would be your attempts to paint me as something like a Progressive.
Using your logic, I could call you a "flat-earther" because you appear not to want to accept the evidence produced by advances in science and technology that disprove earlier theories. But I don't use that sort of logic and I don't wish to "revise" history or denigrate the founders of the country. I just want to attempt to see an accurate picture and the only way to do that is to use all possible sources---including the science and technology that put the old "flat earth theory" to rest.
Was it a "Progressive" initiative to get prehistoric burials treated with the same respect as historic burials?
Was it a "Progressive" initiative to remove the erroneous signage at museums describing the mortuary custom of de-fleshing corpses as evidence of massacres?
Was it a "Progressive" initiative to require museums and universities to rebury the peoples' bones in a respectful manner after studies of those remains had been completed?
What I have learned in my years of studying this subject---from the scientific point of view---the hard science of archaeology---is that there was a large swath of the inhabitants of the North American continent that lived in peace, tending their crops, raising their children, playing sports, building mounds, creating all sorts of art and conducting a widespread trade network. They did this without any physical signs of warfare in the bones of the people who lived in these villages for up to three centuries.
So, yeah, I get a bit miffed when I see people constantly repeating the myths of the 18th and 19th centuries as absolute truth so I do what I am able to deny ignorance on the subject---from the myths that a lost tribe of Israel were the Mound Builders to the myth that the Mound Builders were actually space aliens or another race of white folks that were abducted by aliens.



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 08:03 PM
link   
a reply to: boncho
When rational argument fails and you have no science to back up your assertions---attack the messenger and run away fast. It makes for interesting reading sometimes but it does nothing to deny ignorance.



new topics

top topics



 
83
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join