If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Cracked)   Remember how the White folks stole all of the land from the Indians? Yeah, well about that   (cracked.com) divider line 165
    More: Interesting, Indians, East St. Louis, eastern seaboard, Mayflower, environmental scientist, Westerns, Plymouth Rock  
•       •       •

25796 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 May 2012 at 12:20 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



165 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-16 02:58:11 PM
So we can stop the payments?
 
2012-05-16 03:00:11 PM
Some of my best friends are palefaces.

Now, where de white wimmen at?
 
2012-05-16 03:00:21 PM

malaktaus: We have first nations people who live in abject poverty in the middle of no where, but, at the same time refuse to join the 21st century and instead are lazy ass drunks who'd rather collect welfare than restart their lives


I don't even know what 'join the 21st century' means. Go to college? Move to a city? Farm locally? Live off the grid? Declare war on some nation on the other side of the world?

I love the Native cultures here in Arizona. I wish I knew more of their cultures, history and ability to adapt to the lands they lived in. In this, I think they have a lot to offer everyone- no matter your color, race, creed, blah blah.

The US spent the 20th century learning to forget nature. Perhaps the 21st century is meant to be learning to remember nature. Perhaps these Natives can teach that and have purpose again.

The Heard Museum here in Phoenix has a good exhibit on the Indian Schools and what they did to the culture of the tribes- by way of their children. Awful. Do I feel guilty about it? No. Should I? No. Do I have a little better understanding of those people who are lazy drunks on the rez? A little.
 
2012-05-16 03:00:53 PM

malaktaus: It happens to other cultures, but most of those other cultures don't have to contemplate dissolving themselves in order to join the very culture that destroyed them.


Actually, I believe that historically to be the norm. The conquered see their culture and its artifacts destroyed or subsumed by the conqueror.

I think that makes a real difference, and furthermore I don't think you understand their priorities.

I don't believe in cultural group-think. It's as unhealthy as any kind of group-think. People should be exposed to many different cultures and ideas and develop their own identities. Too many people are hung up on the truly pointless ways we group human beings and the false pride of belonging to one of these arbitrary divisions.

Material success can be gained or lost, but once culture is lost it's gone forever.

Culture is not a static. It evolves and develops and this is not a bad thing. If you're German, go live amongst the Amish if you want a taste of old style German culture. I bet you'll be back.

I'm sure Indians would love to be in a better place economically, but they aren't willing to give up their identities permanently (and insult and betray all of their ancestors, effectively, by joining the people who raped their culture) in order to gain a temporary advantage.

Yeah, yeah, I'm Irish. Cry me a river about lost culture and dominance from outsiders. At some point my ancestors overcame their drunken stubbornness and clinging to the good old days that never were and got their asses out of the shiathole that was Ireland. Thank God they did for my sake.

I think they're right. Reservations don't have to remain poverty-stricken forever. There doesn't seem to be any immediate hope of improve ...

I think they're wrong. I speak English. I wasn't raised a Druid, don't believe in blood sacrifices and can't step dance worth crap. I play the guitar instead of the uilleann pipes. I didn't marry a woman of Irish descent. And ya know what - I don't think I'm really missing anything nor do I think I "owe" my ancestors anything. To the contrary, I find a lot of their notions quaint, racist and hateful. One example: My next door neighbor is also of Irish descent. His family was from the north and protestant while mine was from the south and Catholic. If we lived in the old country we'd be expected to distrust each other and I'd be labeled a traitor if I went over to his house to drink beer, which I do. Load of rubbish, I say.
 
2012-05-16 03:01:11 PM

optimus_grime: this thread made me way more racist against white people.


Welcome to Fark.
 
2012-05-16 03:03:59 PM

FloydA: The article correctly notes that many Native American societies were quite "complex" in terms of social organization.

That does not imply that they were "more advanced/sophisticated" than Europeans.


The article does exactly that throughout! Who would you consider the protagonist in this article? If you can answer that question and it's a history lesson then it is not objective writing.

The article opens with the term "conscientious white people". Tell me, what does it mean to be a "conscientious white person?" Are there "conscientious black people?" "Conscientious yellow and red people?" What does this term that the author uses mean exactly. I am deeply offended and although I am native-American (born in Ohio) I prefer the term "European American" when someone is describing my race.

As for the implications that these 17th century (I'll use the author's preferred term for describing race) "red people" were some golden mecca of sophisticated culture (or technology) it is found throughout.

You mentioned that they were "complex in terms of social organization?" In what way? Compared to whom? They had social structures with leaders, tribes, religious beliefs etc that most would consider more primitive than almost every other culture in the world at the time. There's nothing about them that distinguishes their culture in any way from what would have been considered (even back then) as primitive.

At least the red people got to "sit back and laugh" as the primitive white people of Jamestown died. What LOSERS, right?! I mean, what were they thinking trying to map, explore and colonize the globe with their giant wooden sailing ships. LOSERS!!

PS what a 17th century "white people" boat might look like:
image.absoluteastronomy.com
What a 17th century red people boat might look like:
t3.gstatic.com
.

Clearly without that plague coming along the white people would have been screwed!
 
2012-05-16 03:05:49 PM
Imagine what the American Natives would have accomplished if they had the horse from the beginning ...
 
2012-05-16 03:05:50 PM

optimus_grime: this thread made me way more racist against white people.


In that case you should probably stay off of the Politics tab.
 
2012-05-16 03:08:54 PM
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-05-16 03:09:21 PM

malaktaus: FloydA:
The article correctly notes that many Native American societies were quite "complex" in terms of social organization.

That does not imply that they were "more advanced/sophisticated" than Europeans. The article does not make the argument that Minus 1 was critiquing. Minus 1 was arguing against a figment of his imagination.

It is quite accurate to say "the Indians were not primitive." That statement does not make any comparison to Europeans at all.

Now if you want to actually discuss the relative social complexity of various contemporaneous societies of the 15th century, I'm happy to do so. But if the motivation is simply to whine about the author's "white guilt," I'm not interested.


Bullshiat. The author was arguing against a strawman; no one thinks Indians were completely primitive savages, I'm pretty sure that attitude died with the 1950s. Also, did you not notice where he went on and on about how much cleaner and more attractive the Natives were than the colonists? Or how about this little gem: "Missionaries met Indians who thought Europeans were "physically weak, sexually untrustworthy, atrociously ugly" and "possessed little intelligence in comparison to themselves."" He treats these statements like they possess some kind of objective truth, and the Indians could hardly have harbored racial biases of their own. I mean, come the fark on. You honestly don't think those statements imply that Indians were, in fact, more advanced than Europeans?


I think you're going to have a hard time defining "primitive" and "advanced" in ways that are not entirely ethnocentric. Anthropologists tried to do so for over a century and most of them eventually gave up. "Primitive" and "advanced" are both value judgements and matters of personal opinion, not objective descriptions.

And once again, I am not talking about the author's arguments (it's Cracked- I don't tend to rely on humor websites for accurate historical information). I am talking about Minus 1's comment. The author noted that the Indians were not "knuckle-dragging savages" but this does not imply that he thinks they were "more superior/advanced" than Europeans.

As an analogy, if I say my Chevy is not as slow as a horse and buggy, that does not mean I think it's faster than your Lamborghini.

But frankly, many Europeans seem physically week, sexually untrustworthy, atrociously ugly, and possess little intelligence to me today. It seems to me that, by presenting that quote, the author is pointing out that the Indians were prejudiced against the Europeans. The author is not trying to hide that fact (or if he is, he's doing a piss poor job of it by including that quote). The discovery that the Indians were just as prejudiced as the Europeans does not, in my opinion, imply that either the Indians or the Europeans were "more advanced/sophisticated," and therefore arguing against that claim is simply knocking down a straw man. There were dickheads and assholes on both sides of the Atlantic; this does not come as a surprise to me.

Did the Indians think that their own culture was superior? Of course they did. The Europeans also thought that their own culture was superior to the Indians. I think the US in the 21st century is superior to both. Everybody thinks their own culture is the best.

And the concept of "white guilt" is complete nonsense. Like "political correctness" or saying someone is "playing the race card," it is almost always used as a dodge and an attempt to dismiss, rather than understand, an argument. I have never met a serious academic who thinks that people should feel guilt about having European ancestors. That's simply a bogeyman that only exists in people's imaginations.
 
2012-05-16 03:10:05 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: links136: ScouserDuck: I still don't get why Europeans are made to be villains when some Native populations were doing the very same thing.

Natives war with Natives and take their stuff...It's okay.

Europeans war with Natives and take their stuff....Horrible injustice.

I DO understand various aspects, especially later in history (wounded knee, trail of tears), that were horrendous actions taken by our country to finish the conquring of this country. But I DON'T get how Europeans comming here in the first place is so absolutely terrible.

I think not counting the whole disease thing, it started with when europeans came over and were starving, natives helped them out to survive, and in return had their food supply in the buffalo extinct and thus their way of life, as well as putting them in concentration camps where they still reside today and making it illegal for them to even sell or own anything. There are many natives today that don't even have running water.

They didn't have running water before the Europeans came either. If they want to retain their culture of not having running water, that's fine. But you shouldn't feel guilty about it.


They also weren't in concentration camps. I mean where do you think the nazi's got the idea from?
 
2012-05-16 03:23:14 PM

Minus 1 Charisma: Clearly without that plague coming along the white people would have been screwed!


They would have been "screwed" once they reached land by the natives' knowledge of the local environment, and their overwhelming numerical superiority.

The Europeans had neither the supplies nor the weaponry to engage in any kind of protracted combat.
 
2012-05-16 03:23:50 PM
Yay, another "let me prove how progressively liberal but riddled in white guilt" thread. Blah blah, I hate Zimmerman and wear a keffiyeh out of solidarity with some terrorist Aholes in the mid east.

Same old bullshiat as always.
 
2012-05-16 03:24:52 PM

FloydA: And the concept of "white guilt" is complete nonsense. Like "political correctness" or saying someone is "playing the race card," it is almost always used as a dodge and an attempt to dismiss, rather than understand, an argument. I have never met a serious academic who thinks that people should feel guilt about having European ancestors. That's simply a bogeyman that only exists in people's imaginations.


All of your arguments are simply bogey-men that exists in your own imagination imagination. And don't you dare attempt to dodge or dismiss my argument.
 
2012-05-16 03:25:04 PM

links136: They also weren't in concentration camps. I mean where do you think the nazi's got the idea from?


Orange Juice companies?
 
2012-05-16 03:25:31 PM

Minus 1 Charisma: Clearly without that plague coming along the white people would have been screwed!

The Fuzzy Wuzzy Fallacy is a name for a wargaming theory coined by Richard Hamblen in the September 1976 edition of Avalon Hill's "The General Magazine", loosely based on historical records of battles between the British and the Sudanese Mahdi.

The Fuzzy Wuzzy Fallacy states that a single soldier with 2X firepower or attack strength is not equal to two soldiers with 1X firepower or attack strength. Instead, the soldier with 2X firepower is actually worth the square root of the 1X soldier, if either soldier can be killed in a single hit. This is another form of Lanchester's law.

As a result, tactics and strategy designed around this theory emphasize greater numbers and time, which the speed and mobility of the units in action can effect.


If the Indians (I'm part Native American, so I can use that word and the rest of you can't) hadn't been decimated, they would've had the numbers to simply swarm attack Europeans before they could establish a beachhead colony. Europeans would've also had to import every niggling thing they needed to survive from iron to saltpeter to salt pork.

Think Avatar.
 
2012-05-16 03:27:50 PM

timujin: Minus 1 Charisma: Clearly without that plague coming along the white people would have been screwed!

They would have been "screwed" once they reached land by the natives' knowledge of the local environment, and their overwhelming numerical superiority.

The Europeans had neither the supplies nor the weaponry to engage in any kind of protracted combat.


What launched Columbus west across the Atlantic? The final conquest of the muslims in the Iberian Peninsula. How long did that take? Centuries. And that's just a tiny spot of land that the people came to know intimately.

There is no way the Europeans could have conquered NA and SA if the natives hadn't lost so much to disease. Even with their horses. Hell, Cortes barely won the final battle- and the Aztecs were in the middle of an epidemic.
 
2012-05-16 03:28:06 PM

Minus 1 Charisma: FloydA: The article correctly notes that many Native American societies were quite "complex" in terms of social organization.

That does not imply that they were "more advanced/sophisticated" than Europeans.

The article does exactly that throughout! Who would you consider the protagonist in this article? If you can answer that question and it's a history lesson then it is not objective writing.

The article opens with the term "conscientious white people". Tell me, what does it mean to be a "conscientious white person?" Are there "conscientious black people?" "Conscientious yellow and red people?" What does this term that the author uses mean exactly. I am deeply offended and although I am native-American (born in Ohio) I prefer the term "European American" when someone is describing my race.

As for the implications that these 17th century (I'll use the author's preferred term for describing race) "red people" were some golden mecca of sophisticated culture (or technology) it is found throughout.

You mentioned that they were "complex in terms of social organization?" In what way? Compared to whom? They had social structures with leaders, tribes, religious beliefs etc that most would consider more primitive than almost every other culture in the world at the time. There's nothing about them that distinguishes their culture in any way from what would have been considered (even back then) as primitive.

At least the red people got to "sit back and laugh" as the primitive white people of Jamestown died. What LOSERS, right?! I mean, what were they thinking trying to map, explore and colonize the globe with their giant wooden sailing ships. LOSERS!!

PS what a 17th century "white people" boat might look like:
[image.absoluteastronomy.com image 300x256]
What a 17th century red people boat might look like:
[t3.gstatic.com image 259x194]
.

Clearly without that plague coming along the white people would have been screwed!


Sure they didn't have fancy technology, (they had no other country to trade with until the europeans came), but they didn't really have poor or starving people, and everyone lived within a community where they took care of each other, foreign concept, i know. Not only that, there were way more women than men due to the dangers of hunting and war, so each native warrior had multiple wives to keep population up. Monogamy was a european thing. Also, in the league of the Iroquois, the women elected the men to positions, and no tribe could vote for matters affecting their own.

Also, part of being native is to do what you need, and nothing more. Although the southern tribes were kinda batshiat insane(the heat seems to do that). I guess it really comes down to a material society and a spiritual society for which the natives were very mystical.

To summarize, they took care of their own and had their needs met. How many people are poor and starving today? Of course its not a society for everyone, all a matter of taste.
 
2012-05-16 03:29:30 PM

Coelacanth: Think Avatar.


Or even the Soviets vs the Germans in WW2.
 
2012-05-16 03:30:02 PM
Sounds about like what happened to the Hawaiian people, they were not conquered by outside military forces but about 95% of the population got wiped out over a period of about 100 years as wave after wave of outside diseases came in and killed people who had no natural immunity.

/Eventually King Kalakaua wound up going to other countries and asking people to come and settle in Hawaii because the poplation was so low and he wanted people to work on the sugar and pineapple plantations.

//Germs they are a big deal and have shaped a lot of human history
 
2012-05-16 03:30:33 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: They didn't have running water before the Europeans came either.


Yes they did. Chief Running Water. He had two daughters, Hot and Cold, and a son named Luke.
 
2012-05-16 03:32:04 PM

links136: Also, part of being native is to do what you need, and nothing more. Although the southern tribes were kinda batshiat insane(the heat seems to do that). I guess it really comes down to a material society and a spiritual society for which the natives were very mystical.


Ah, so they are noble savages, not ignorant savages.
 
2012-05-16 03:36:34 PM

links136: Sure they didn't have fancy technology, (they had no other country to trade with until the europeans came), but they didn't really have poor or starving people, and everyone lived within a community where they took care of each other, foreign concept, i know.


Yes, they did have starving people. In fact, the area I live in (or more properly, near) derives it's name for a derisive term used by Mohawks for starving Algonquins.
 
2012-05-16 03:37:57 PM

dittybopper: Debeo Summa Credo: They didn't have running water before the Europeans came either.

Yes they did. Chief Running Water. He had two daughters, Hot and Cold, and a son named Luke.


The Hohokam used canals to route water to farms and communities, out here in the SouthWest.

So ... some had running water.
 
2012-05-16 03:42:00 PM

RanDomino: You're still benefiting from unearned advantages. fark 'white guilt' but acknowledge your privilege.


Lesson #213 in life: Nobody gives a crap about whether or not someone "earned" something.
 
2012-05-16 03:45:46 PM

Man On Pink Corner: RanDomino: You're still benefiting from unearned advantages. fark 'white guilt' but acknowledge your privilege.

Lesson #213 in life: Nobody gives a crap about whether or not someone "earned" something.


Did you pay the gold price or the iron price.
 
2012-05-16 03:51:23 PM

ScouserDuck: Man On Pink Corner: RanDomino: You're still benefiting from unearned advantages. fark 'white guilt' but acknowledge your privilege.

Lesson #213 in life: Nobody gives a crap about whether or not someone "earned" something.

Did you pay the gold price or the iron price.


We do not sow
 
2012-05-16 03:56:14 PM
Pity the Frisians, the Etruscans, the Carthaginians, all tribes that had the decency to no linger exist so no one could feel bad.
 
2012-05-16 04:12:56 PM

Nadie_AZ: Coelacanth: Think Avatar.

Or even the Soviets vs the Germans in WW2.


/+1 Babushka for you
 
2012-05-16 04:15:50 PM

dittybopper: Yes, they did have starving people. In fact, the area I live in (or more properly, near) derives it's name for a derisive term used by Mohawks for starving Algonquins.


You live in Vegantown?
 
2012-05-16 04:36:00 PM

Gasconne: jso2897: The whole argument is a false dichotomy. i can acknowledge that I was born on third base without feeling "guilty" about it. I might feel motivated to give back to the society that has conferred these privileges upon me - but that is not guilt, and requires no acknowledgement of any wrongdoing.

Pretty much this. "White guilt" is a pseudo-liberal emotion that's fueled by racism. Pitying people of color is nearly as bad as hating them, and the only reason for the guilt is pity. Getting past that kind of emotion and actually seeing that you can help the people born at home plate or the like without being a self-important jerk or whiny douchebag is the key point.

(Side note to someone else: helping isn't badgering someone to "get off the rez.")


Guilt may be useful in motivating someone not to do something bad again, but it isn't always useful when it comes to making things better. Indeed, over time, guilt tends to turn into resentment of the object of one's guilt.
When confronted with the premise "something bad has been done", my Weeners is "how can this be made better?", not "who is to blame?".
Of course, when the premise is "something bad is being done right now", it becomes an entirely different dialogue.
 
2012-05-16 04:40:57 PM

Fano: Pity the Frisians, the Etruscans, the Carthaginians, all tribes that had the decency to no linger exist so no one could feel bad.


And the Greenland Norse. The Inuit people have to be sick with guilt over the theft of Norse land.
 
2012-05-16 05:04:11 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: They didn't have running water before the Europeans came either. If they want to retain their culture of not having running water, that's fine. But you shouldn't feel guilty about it.



Sounds awfully like the argument that blacks should be thankful they were brought over as slaves instead of living in Africa.
 
2012-05-16 05:15:48 PM
Man, do I love me some facts.

Hadn't heard about hemorrhagic (or haemorrhagic) fever plague. That right there is freaking scary shiat.
 
2012-05-16 05:25:29 PM

malaktaus: Bullshiat. The author was arguing against a strawman; no one thinks Indians were completely primitive savages, I'm pretty sure that attitude died with the 1950s. Also, did you not notice where he went on and on about how much cleaner and more attractive the Natives were than the colonists? Or how about this little gem: "Missionaries met Indians who thought Europeans were "physically weak, sexually untrustworthy, atrociously ugly" and "possessed little intelligence in comparison to themselves."" He treats these statements like they possess some kind of objective truth, and the Indians could hardly have harbored racial biases of their own. I mean, come the fark on. You honestly don't think those statements imply that Indians were, in fact, more advanced than Europeans?


no, those imply the indians were physically more healthy than the europeans. because they were.
 
2012-05-16 05:27:20 PM
Subby is right. The Indians gave it to us because we were so awesome.

/idiot.
 
2012-05-16 05:54:28 PM

2wolves: Let's look into the U.S.'s history of treaties shall we?


Here is a good place to start.
 
2012-05-16 06:04:06 PM

FloydA: And the concept of "white guilt" is complete nonsense. Like "political correctness" or saying someone is "playing the race card," it is almost always used as a dodge and an attempt to dismiss, rather than understand, an argument. I have never met a serious academic who thinks that people should feel guilt about having European ancestors. That's simply a bogeyman that only exists in people's imaginations.


What about "white d'oh!"?
 
2012-05-16 06:04:48 PM

Minus 1 Charisma:
All of your arguments are simply bogey-men that exists in your own imagination imagination. And don't you dare attempt to dodge or dismiss my argument.


You contrasted an ocean-going vessel with a lake and river transport vessel as an example of something other than a difference of function. I therefore concluded that you were not serious and your posts did not merit being treated as such.

Was I mistaken? Were you actually sincere in suggesting that canoes and galleons served the same purpose, and that the difference lies in the abilities of the shipwrights? Because that's a rather strange thing to claim. By that standard, the Mississippian culture is "superior" to the modern US because Monks' Mound is larger than a pitcher's mound at a baseball field. It's a silly thing to say.
 
2012-05-16 06:06:51 PM

Coelacanth: FloydA: And the concept of "white guilt" is complete nonsense. Like "political correctness" or saying someone is "playing the race card," it is almost always used as a dodge and an attempt to dismiss, rather than understand, an argument. I have never met a serious academic who thinks that people should feel guilt about having European ancestors. That's simply a bogeyman that only exists in people's imaginations.

What about "white d'oh!"?


It's fine for cake, but I prefer whole wheat d'oh or sour d'oh bread.
 
2012-05-16 06:30:53 PM

FloydA: You contrasted an ocean-going vessel with a lake and river transport vessel as an example of something other than a difference of function. I therefore concluded that you were not serious and your posts did not merit being treated as such.


Good grief you sound like an insufferable douche. Yes we're all so very impressed at how articulate you are, but I'd much prefer a coherent argument.

The "sea-faring vessels" or whatever you call them in super-nerd speak was meant to illustrate the height of ocean-faring technology (or technology in general) for each culture/civ/country/whatever. It seems like a perfectly appropriate comparison to me.
 
2012-05-16 06:34:51 PM

links136: Sure they didn't have fancy technology, (they had no other country to trade with until the europeans came), but they didn't really have poor or starving people, and everyone lived within a community where they took care of each other, foreign concept, i know. Not only that, there were way more women than men due to the dangers of hunting and war, so each native warrior had multiple wives to keep population up. Monogamy was a european thing. Also, in the league of the Iroquois, the women elected the men to positions, and no tribe could vote for matters affecting their own.

Also, part of being native is to do what you need, and nothing more. Although the southern tribes were kinda batshiat insane(the heat seems to do that). I guess it really comes down to a material society and a spiritual society for which the natives were very mystical.

To summarize, they took care of their own and had their needs met. How many people are poor and starving today? Of course its not a society for everyone, all a matter of taste.


Be careful not to "romanticize" Indian cultures. Pre-Columbian Americans were just as human as their European contemporaries. There were rich and poor people, and in some places, there was even institutionalized slavery. There were also practices that look incredibly "wasteful" to us. At the Olsen-Chubbuck site in Colorado, for instance, nearly 200 bison were deliberately stampeded off a cliff, and Joe Ben Wheat found that only the "prime cuts" of meat were taken from most of the skeletons, and the rest left to rot.

The idea that Indians were "at one with nature" and "trod lightly upon the earth" is really more of a 19th century "Romanticist" idea than an accurate historic description. Many Indian societies had "low impact" technology at the time of contact, mainly because they found that it worked well and was sustainable in their environments (e.g. the "Puebloan" cultures of the southwest). But it's probably more accurate to explain this as a rational response to ecological constraints than to attribute it to some "spiritual purity" or anything like that.

Also be wary of any attempt to define "The" Indian way. Native Americans are just as diverse as any other population, and there is at least as much cultural difference between a Mayan and an Iroquois as there is between a Norwegian and a Saudi. The Indians are not now, and never really were a homogeneous group.

It's useful to be aware of the admirable traits of other societies, as you have done, but it's just as misleading to assume that they were "without sin" as it is to assume that they were "brutal savages." Both are two-dimensional caricatures that minimize and distort the true complexity of the people.
 
2012-05-16 06:40:05 PM

Minus 1 Charisma: FloydA: You contrasted an ocean-going vessel with a lake and river transport vessel as an example of something other than a difference of function. I therefore concluded that you were not serious and your posts did not merit being treated as such.


Good grief you sound like an insufferable douche. Yes we're all so very impressed at how articulate you are, but I'd much prefer a coherent argument.

The "sea-faring vessels" or whatever you call them in super-nerd speak was meant to illustrate the height of ocean-faring technology (or technology in general) for each culture/civ/country/whatever. It seems like a perfectly appropriate comparison to me.


So you're saying that you really can't tell the difference between a river and an ocean? You'd try to sail a galleon up the Delaware River?

OK. Your comments have been noted. Thanks for sharing.
 
2012-05-16 06:42:22 PM

FloydA: Minus 1 Charisma: FloydA: You contrasted an ocean-going vessel with a lake and river transport vessel as an example of something other than a difference of function. I therefore concluded that you were not serious and your posts did not merit being treated as such.


Good grief you sound like an insufferable douche. Yes we're all so very impressed at how articulate you are, but I'd much prefer a coherent argument.

The "sea-faring vessels" or whatever you call them in super-nerd speak was meant to illustrate the height of ocean-faring technology (or technology in general) for each culture/civ/country/whatever. It seems like a perfectly appropriate comparison to me.

So you're saying that you really can't tell the difference between a river and an ocean? You'd try to sail a galleon up the Delaware River?

OK. Your comments have been noted. Thanks for sharing.


I think he's trying to say that the (American) Indians couldn't or didn't make vessels capable of ocean voyages. There's obviously some question as to whether or not the South American Indian population could, but I don't recall any in the northern part of the continent.
 
2012-05-16 07:36:48 PM
Cherokee Creek Choctaw Chickasaw and Navajo are the largest American Indian nations. Do you know why? Because they saw the foolishness of trying to stay native right away. The Indians on the trail of tears were not living the simple life. They were slave owning plantation running people.
 
2012-05-16 07:37:43 PM

Coelacanth: Sgygus: Interesting read. The pre-Plymouth plague I've heard about, but what actually was the disease?

Wikipedia suggests: The Aztecs called it cocoliztli, a hemorrhagic fever native to the Americas.

I wonder if this was what inspired "cooties"?


Actually, cooties come from World War I.

/"cooties" = "lice"
 
2012-05-16 07:42:57 PM

redmid17: FloydA: Minus 1 Charisma: FloydA: You contrasted an ocean-going vessel with a lake and river transport vessel as an example of something other than a difference of function. I therefore concluded that you were not serious and your posts did not merit being treated as such.


Good grief you sound like an insufferable douche. Yes we're all so very impressed at how articulate you are, but I'd much prefer a coherent argument.

The "sea-faring vessels" or whatever you call them in super-nerd speak was meant to illustrate the height of ocean-faring technology (or technology in general) for each culture/civ/country/whatever. It seems like a perfectly appropriate comparison to me.

So you're saying that you really can't tell the difference between a river and an ocean? You'd try to sail a galleon up the Delaware River?

OK. Your comments have been noted. Thanks for sharing.

I think he's trying to say that the (American) Indians couldn't or didn't make vessels capable of ocean voyages. There's obviously some question as to whether or not the South American Indian population could, but I don't recall any in the northern part of the continent.


The article does mention that there's evidence a couple of North American natives made it to Holland c. 60 BC. Granted, that's going back to 60 BC, so not the best evidence.
 
2012-05-16 08:17:56 PM

xanadian: FloydA: There was a lot of communication and trade between early contact era Indian communities, so there was lots of opportunity for a virus to spread from one settlement to the next, moving faster than the European explorers. Even if the epidemic itself was not particularly virulent, it still had over a century to spread.

If only President Iroquois would've SHUT. DOWN. EVERYTHING, we probably wouldn't be here today.



I lol'd at work. Dick.
 
2012-05-16 08:50:19 PM

redmid17:

I think he's trying to say that the (American) Indians couldn't or didn't make vessels capable of ocean voyages. There's obviously some question as to whether or not the South American Indian population could, but I don't recall any in the northern part of the continent.


Oh yeah, no worries, I know exactly what he's trying to say. I'm just trying to sniff out if he's who I think he is. He smells familiar. Know what I mean? I think I have seen him before, under a different name.
 
2012-05-16 08:53:14 PM

Shadowen: redmid17: FloydA: Minus 1 Charisma: FloydA: You contrasted an ocean-going vessel with a lake and river transport vessel as an example of something other than a difference of function. I therefore concluded that you were not serious and your posts did not merit being treated as such.


Good grief you sound like an insufferable douche. Yes we're all so very impressed at how articulate you are, but I'd much prefer a coherent argument.

The "sea-faring vessels" or whatever you call them in super-nerd speak was meant to illustrate the height of ocean-faring technology (or technology in general) for each culture/civ/country/whatever. It seems like a perfectly appropriate comparison to me.

So you're saying that you really can't tell the difference between a river and an ocean? You'd try to sail a galleon up the Delaware River?

OK. Your comments have been noted. Thanks for sharing.

I think he's trying to say that the (American) Indians couldn't or didn't make vessels capable of ocean voyages. There's obviously some question as to whether or not the South American Indian population could, but I don't recall any in the northern part of the continent.

The article does mention that there's evidence a couple of North American natives made it to Holland c. 60 BC. Granted, that's going back to 60 BC, so not the best evidence.


The article mentions a 4th hand account of Indians in Holland included in a book that's not regarded as scholarly material (aka not properly vetted or verified). While people have proven that native populations in south america could have reached polynesia (harder than going to europe), they used a ship design of wood unavailable in north america and one that hasn't been seen outside of that same region. Considering that Iceland was uninhabited when the Vikings and Irish monks got there and that there's no real history of Inuit contact with Iceland, Ireland, or surrounding islands makes me a bit skeptical. Inuits were very accomplished sailors with boats larger than some variation of canoe. Indians on the eastern seaboard would have had to island hop to make it to europe (no evidence of that at all), otherwise they'd have died of hunger/thirst long before they reached the closest land.

Considering that Europeans, who had the advantage of a written language, the rudder, boat structures strengthened by keels, and multiple sails, made repeated and continuous efforts to colonize the new world where there is plenty of evidence of pre-Columbian contact, I have a difficult time believing that particular assertion. Iceland is more habitable than Greenland yet remained empty until the 9th century, well after this alleged shipwrecking. There's evidence of Greenland being used, even temporarily as far back as 5,000 years ago. There's nothing similar in iceland.
 
Displayed 50 of 165 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report