Approves.

/hot

Weaver95: that information is gonna get a couple activists in a snit.

That information is racist and will not be taught in history books.

Living in the desert makes people assholes is my working hypothesis.

/ASU grad

RevCarter: Killing 15,000 ethnically distinct people in the space of just a few weeks sure sounds like genocide to me. (genocide is a very convenient way to seize territory)

15,000 bone fragments != 15,000 people. If these were complete skeletons that would only be ~75 people (200 bones/person). Not saying that killing 100 people is no big deal, but it's no where near the same as 15k (probably well above the population of the entire region at the time).

alcoholic,unemployed and moody?
add surefooted cause when they do work, they tend to do great in hi rise construction jobs. walking the girders and such, as it is.

I dont understand the surprise here.

Anyone who has ever seen an old episode of The Lone Ranger know they are godless savages that kill indescriminately.

Tonto...that still cracks me up.

Tiberius Gracchus: RevCarter: Killing 15,000 ethnically distinct people in the space of just a few weeks sure sounds like genocide to me. (genocide is a very convenient way to seize territory)

15,000 bone fragments != 15,000 people. If these were complete skeletons that would only be ~75 people (200 bones/person). Not saying that killing 100 people is no big deal, but it's no where near the same as 15k (probably well above the population of the entire region at the time).

According to comments fragments belong to 33 people

On a somewhat related note, if any of you haven't been to Mesa Verde National Park, you need to. The buildings there are a tribute to man's ability to produce structure anywhere with almost no tooling. The fact they are ruins are a tribute to man's ability to migrate as needed. The dead and farked up bodies in TFA are a tribute to man's inhumanity toward man.

LewDux: Tiberius Gracchus: RevCarter: Killing 15,000 ethnically distinct people in the space of just a few weeks sure sounds like genocide to me. (genocide is a very convenient way to seize territory)

15,000 bone fragments != 15,000 people. If these were complete skeletons that would only be ~75 people (200 bones/person). Not saying that killing 100 people is no big deal, but it's no where near the same as 15k (probably well above the population of the entire region at the time).

According to comments fragments belong to 33 people

Awesome thanks. I was wondering about that. I picked 100, just as an outside "I know this is too big" number, to be sure to cover however many there were. I guess I should read those comments too...

Well that's just great. This is obviously the mass extermination of the Nephites by the Lamanites described by Moroni prior to burying the gold plates. I guess that makes the book of mormon true. Mom will be calling soon with this new supporting evidence.

/Lapsed Mormon, obviously.
//As my father once so eloquently put it to my pious mother, "I'd rather spend an eternity in hell than 3 hours in church every week."

Tiberius Gracchus: RevCarter: Killing 15,000 ethnically distinct people in the space of just a few weeks sure sounds like genocide to me. (genocide is a very convenient way to seize territory)

15,000 bone fragments != 15,000 people. If these were complete skeletons that would only be ~75 people (200 bones/person). Not saying that killing 100 people is no big deal, but it's no where near the same as 15k (probably well above the population of the entire region at the time).

i'm pretty sure the people who counted these bones understand that, you're not going to find 200 femurs in one person

anyways, maybe this means Avatar 2 gets some navi genocide goin' on

Weaver95: that information is gonna get a couple activists in a snit.

1/10

That information is gonna get a couple right wing bigots in a tizzy.

Here in Canada when there is any hint of showing natives any respect or taking their feelings in to consideration on some subject . a Conservative will trot out that article buy Johna Goldberg or some one else about some Arizona Indians practicing cannibalism 3000 years ago and try to paint them all as that ---
They seem to love to bring it up with glee ---

Tiberius Gracchus: amaranthe: A massive deposit of mutilated and processed human remains has been found in the American Southwest.

When I read that, my first thought was that processed=cannibalism, but the article seems to say no to that. What does it mean, then? Because disembowling and removing the limbs would seem to be covered by 'mutilated'...

Processed is probably used to discuss the "ritual" nature of the events. Removal of hands, heads, etc. for trophies is more than just mutilation, there's some sort of cultural process at work, moving beyond simple rage/mutilation. Processed provides a context, that there was a logical, prescribed, procession of these events that mutilated doesn't imply. When you consider the connotation of mutilated (brutal/savage/crazed/etc), it doesn't describe a multi-day process of removing hands, feet, heads, etc. that occurred here. It's also a less "judgmental" description of what happened, sidestepping connotations of certain words, with more specific and technical ones.


I haven't read the whole thread so maybe it was pointed out, but didn't many tribes mutilate the bodies of their enemies so that they couldn't came back and attack them in the afterlife? I'm pretty sure I watched a documentary on the History Channel that made this claim. Removing the eyes, teeth, ears and hands, as well as crushing all the limbs was commonplace. So I'm led to believe.

woo woo woo woooo
woo woo woo woooo

Rashnu: Living in the desert makes people assholes is my working hypothesis.

What about living in a dessert?

How would THAT change things?

t3knomanser: pippi longstocking: Really, quite a primitive, destructive, stupid species, the world is better off without us

You're objections are hardly unique to humans; that's pretty much true of any species. The only real difference is that humans have been very successful and removed most of the pressures that keep their population in check. You want to see ecological devastation? Watch what happens when the deer population undergoes a boom. Forests are decimated. And let's not even get started on locusts.

Exactly my point. Yet we think that we're somehow better and nothing bad can possibly go wrong. See comment about cognitive dissonance.

Rashnu: Living in the desert makes people assholes is my working hypothesis.

/ASU grad

And you are right.

TFA: Proof people are assholes to each other, no matter what culture they're from. People come in and fark up and take other people's stuff and land. It happens. Anglo-Saxons v. Celts. Visigoths v. Romans. Muslims v. early Eastern Christians. Mongols v. everyone in central Asia. Aztecs v. smaller tribes in Mexico. Spanish v. Aztecs. You either fight harder and/or smarter and survive, or don't. Losing doesn't mean your culture is necessarily inferior, but it does mean you might not be following the same traditions a few decades later. Harsh fact of cultural change.

phlegmmo: How.

Fried.

Ah, another blow to the myth of the "noble savage." I'm not gonna get into the politics of the Europeans taking the land of the Natives, nor of their breaking treaties. But, c'mon, Native Americans were just as violent as any other tribal people. The truth is, despite all our violence and war, the 20th century was one of the most peaceful periods in world history. That's right, including the World Wars. Statistically, it was way safer to be living in France during the Nazi invasion than it was to be living in a forest or jungle tribe a hundred years before, in terms of what your chances of being murdered were. The MOST peaceful period in world history? Now.

Don't believe me? Check out this TED talk by Steven Pinker on "The Myth of Violence." (new window)

Psycoholic_Slag: I haven't read the whole thread so maybe it was pointed out, but didn't many tribes mutilate the bodies of their enemies so that they couldn't came back and attack them in the afterlife? I'm pretty sure I watched a documentary on the History Channel that made this claim. Removing the eyes, teeth, ears and hands, as well as crushing all the limbs was commonplace. So I'm led to believe.

Yeah, that's a common practice among many people to be sure (but of course it's always dangerous to assume that there's a 1:1 correlation between any two groups separated by space/time). I'd argue those trophies/charms go beyond "mutilation" into "ritual" behavior. Processing covers that possibility without assuming they were following the behavior of he Iroquois (or whomever).

Kelvis: Well that's just great. This is obviously the mass extermination of the Nephites by the Lamanites described by Moroni prior to burying the gold plates. I guess that makes the book of mormon true. Mom will be calling soon with this new supporting evidence.

/Lapsed Mormon, obviously.
//As my father once so eloquently put it to my pious mother, "I'd rather spend an eternity in hell than 3 hours in church every week."

*that's racist.jpg*

Genocide against one of the lost tribes of Israel? Native Americans were obviously antisemitic.

Clete Orris: You know who else committed genocide?

the Turks?

Turns out that Native Americans are just the same as the rest of humanity

That's a blanket statement

but who was smoke signal??

Der, why do you think the white man called them savages?

The current narrative is what happens when you equate "lost" with purity. You then set up the narrative that to be pure is to be weak. Unintended consequences. God Bless America

EmployeeOfTheMinute: I have reservations about this

Well isn't that just a feather in your cap?

It's been proven that some Native Americans were actually cannibals or at least didn't mind resorting to it.

pippi longstocking: It's been proven that some Native Americans were actually cannibals or at least didn't mind resorting to it.

I think that movie was called Alive

I guess we gotta revise the history books to make sure that Columbus arrives before 800 AD so we can blame whitey for this one also.

pippi longstocking: It's been proven that some Native Americans were actually cannibals or at least didn't mind resorting to it.

True of Europeans as well.

"Reports of cannibalism were also recorded during the First Crusade, as Crusaders fed on the bodies of their dead opponents following the Siege of Ma'arrat al-Numan. It is also possible that the Crusaders staged such incidents as part of psychological warfare. Amin Maalouf also discusses further cannibalism incidents on the march to Jerusalem, and to the efforts made to delete mention of these from western history. The inhabitants of Hungary (which the Crusader marched through to reach the Holy Land ) were also reported to be cannibals, as the Hungarians had only converted from paganism to Christianity in the 10th century. In fact, the French word for Hungarian, 'hongre, may be the source of the English word ogre.[66] During Europe's Great Famine of 1315-1317 there were many reports of cannibalism among the starving populations. In North Africa, as in Europe, there are references to cannibalism as a last resort in times of famine."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibalism

Red meat?

White people will tell themselves anything.

Yeah, because all the wars and treaties that we're still breaking even today and the Trail of Tears alone, not to mention all the "keep 'em in line" type killings after...yeah, none of that had anything to do with the mass deaths of Native Americans.

*sigh*

Weaver95: Generation_D: Because no tribe in Europe ever got that kind of a deal in a similar context, you were taken over or you were killed. Why do the "First Nations" get special rights for losing wars?

they don't get a free pass on the whole genocide thing. some of those tribal socities were (obviously) violent and brutal. in other words, they were human beings just like the rest of us.

That said, the US government signed valid treaties with several tribes, and then screwed 'em over first chance they got. Hell, in some cases the ink wasn't even dry and Fedgov was already breaking the deal. it's about as clear cut as you can get - our government owes them a ton of money. And quite possibly some highly valuable land.


Treaties like Universal Health Care and Social Security?

Toshiro Mifune's Letter Opener: Rashnu: Living in the desert makes people assholes is my working hypothesis.

What about living in a dessert?

How would THAT change things?

I'd show you, but for the life of me I can't find that comic. So, I'm now forced to resort to commenting that you sound fat.

/you sound fat

Rashnu: I'd show you, but for the life of me I can't find that comic. So, I'm now forced to resort to commenting that you sound fat.

/you sound fat

I think I know exactly what you're talking about.

Also: I AM 130 POUNDS OF TWISTED STEEL AND SEX APPEAL


L33t Squirrel: A mere trifle, my friend. A piece of cake, even!

/not sure how I was able to fudge that one

You're on a roll, L33t!

Wait...

:-/

pippi longstocking: t3knomanser: pippi longstocking: Really, quite a primitive, destructive, stupid species, the world is better off without us

You're objections are hardly unique to humans; that's pretty much true of any species. The only real difference is that humans have been very successful and removed most of the pressures that keep their population in check. You want to see ecological devastation? Watch what happens when the deer population undergoes a boom. Forests are decimated. And let's not even get started on locusts.

Exactly my point. Yet we think that we're somehow better and nothing bad can possibly go wrong. See comment about cognitive dissonance.

You are very very wrong. Killing their own kind is a very rare event in the animal kingdom. Genocide apart from the humans is only observed in the behavior of a few (AFAIK two) primates. In the case of territorial animals and also those animals that have an alpha in their groups the fights end when it becomes clear who is the winner of the fight. When you see these fights they look brutal but their point is to find out who is stronger without killing the other one, and the weaker in most cases leaves the field alive.

jehovahs witness protection: So vote Navajo.

Well played sir!

sseye: Somacandra: FTFA: "It was entirely an inside job," Chuipka, an archaeologist with Woods Canyon Archaeological Consultants, told Discovery News.

Do you know what else was an inside job?

/how could it not be an "inside job?" space aliens?

Also, since they speculate it may have been a different ethnic group who were victims of genocide, it wasn't an inside job at all. If by "inside job" they mean it was native-on-native vs Europeans on native - well, 800 AD in the southwest. Durrr....

Sloppy thinking is sloppy.

Seriously. Inside job? If one group committed genocide against another group, how is that an "inside job"?

NOOOO!!! The White Man ruined everything!!1 NOOOOoO!!!!

you can take our dances with wolves, but youll never take our field of dreams.

HobGadling: Ah, another blow to the myth of the "noble savage." I'm not gonna get into the politics of the Europeans taking the land of the Natives, nor of their breaking treaties. But, c'mon, Native Americans were just as violent as any other tribal people. The truth is, despite all our violence and war, the 20th century was one of the most peaceful periods in world history. That's right, including the World Wars. Statistically, it was way safer to be living in France during the Nazi invasion than it was to be living in a forest or jungle tribe a hundred years before, in terms of what your chances of being murdered were. The MOST peaceful period in world history? Now.

Don't believe me? Check out this TED talk by Steven Pinker on "The Myth of Violence." (new window)

The "broken treaties" part is all I care about.

In before fighting terrorism since 1492

/all this has happened before
//all this will happen again
///hot
//// slashies

The Hopi had a famous snit with the folks at Awatovi village.

The Spaniards built a church on top of a kiva and, eventually, after some uprisings and capitulations, the Hopi from the other mesas gave the Awatovi Hopi an ultimatum: Cast off the Catholics or face the music. The Awatovi Hopi stayed Catholic.

So the men from the other mesas raided Awatovi when most of the folks were in church, and killed everyone who lived there... gassed them with burning peppers (in the church) and killed them as they came out. 800+ men, women and children.

Wikipedia tells a different version, claiming the women and children were scattered among the other villages, but Hopi in the know say it didn't go down that way.

It was genocide. Also an inside job.

ghare: The "broken treaties" part is all I care about.

That certainly went both ways. Many of the Indian tribes had no concept of property, so you could "buy" some land from them, and they still came and killed who was sitting on it, for teh lulz.