How much native american influence you think america had as a democracy and culture?

[Taxi]

Originally Posted by Thrynn [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Oh Bull fucking shit!

What are you a fuckin Jehovah's Witness? always putting off the end of the world due to miscalculations and misinterpretations?

You are going to sit here and look me in the eye and tell me that 2012 and the Mayans has nothing to do with the end of the world, and that every History Channel Show and Discovery Channel show isnt brainwashing millions of Art Bell listeners and Alex Jones Disciples that the end is near and the THE MAYANS TOLD US SO!

Puhleeze.... I knew that as 2012 approached peopel would just try to come up with excuses and bullshit just like they did for Y2K.

So fucking what? Some christians beleive Jesus is going to come down from the sky and leave the sinners to get killed in masse during rapture. What does it have to do with native americans having contributed nothing to civilization?

[Taxi]

Originally Posted by Thrynn [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

LOL, you want to talk about zero credibility.... you just hit the bullseye

Right, cuz nazis didnt in fact persecute the mentally ill and disabled... they put em in nursing homes and tried to rehabilitate them slowly into society, and taking care of the rest that were too far gone to be able to be re-introduced in society. Its just a white evil men myth that nazis persecuted the mentally ill and disabled, just like the beothuks, they never existed, its hippie liberal propaganda.

[Itchybottom]

Originally Posted by Thrynn [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Again, I ask, why are Mayan in a discussion of the political development in North America during the 1600's until the Constitution was ratified?

All civilization, even proto-Sumeria had influence from people before it. It's important to trace the etymology of values, to discern a better picture. My educational background is specific to socio-anthropology, and unfortunately it was specific to near-eastern society.

Originally Posted by Thrynn

Oh Bull fucking shit!

What are you a fuckin Jehovah's Witness? always putting off the end of the world due to miscalculations and misinterpretations?

Puhleeze.... I knew that as 2012 approached peopel would just try to come up with excuses and bullshit just like they did for Y2K.

No and there isn't an end to the world coming in 2012; I did not say such a thing. I said that the long count calendar simply stopped. So yes, 2012 has absolutely nothing to do with the end of the world. It has nothing to do with that silly planet Nibiru (which is just bad science, where's the increased solar wobble? the disturbance in the local system? we'd see it incoming by now, etc) and it's moon full of lizard people so many people on the Internet cling to. 2036 is far more important for an end of the world scenario, since that will be the nearest apophis will come to our planet.

I don't want to derail the thread any further, so I'm going to wait for a post to re-rail us.

[Gukag]

I think it's pretty much a given you know next to nothing about Meso American civilizations. The clue was when you started talking the so called end of the world scenario as "predicted" by the Mayan calendar.
This is the type of faux history bullshit that people randomely pick up from crappy TV shows where people with tonorous voices dispense an endless barrage of bullshit, "may be's" and "perhaps" and "it has been speculated" and "here is random expert number 64, we're using special sound effects and images and fancy titles in order to convince you he's an authority on the subject, let's hear the bullshit he has to say".
Basically, go open a fucking book. I think Taxi is a bleeding heart liberal, probably very young, idealistic, etc...I wouldn't say I'd agree with him on any subject political, but at least he interprets data and has some semblance of background knowledge, unlike people who just won't shut the fuck up even though they have zero knowledge on the subject.

TL;DR: go read a fucking book.

[Gukag]

Basically on the subject of the Aztec civilization, they were a bloodthirsty, expansionistic feudal empire. Give it another century or two and the Aztecs would have consolidated their hold on central America and would have abosrbed or come into conflict with the southern cities (i doubt they would have expanded north, as there was nothing but nomadic tribes up there).They were no better or worse morally than any Carthaginian city that sacrificed people to Bel Marduk, or Celtic druids sacrificing young maidens, or an Indian untouchable being ostracized, or a Japanese warrior commiting suicide, or any of the other hundreds of instances of sacrifice for religion/culture recorded in history.

[Gukag]

damn no edit button, but anyways, the war the Aztecs did were as much for religion as the frigging Crusades were. i.e: an excuse.Do you really think the Aztecs did not prize jade, jewels, gold, animal skins, cloth, agricultural goods, etc? Most of their wealth came for tribute...tribute they had won through wars. The sacrifices were but a convenient way for rulers to mantain that tribute, by fear. How is that any worse than razing down a village to the ground, raping the women, spitting babies on spears, because they refused to pay taxes to their rightfull liege?

[Noleafclover]

Yay, eqdruid caught my reference.

I'm pretty sure I had the right answer too.

*pseudo-scientific description of why the Native Americans had exactly threeve influence on American culture*


P.S. I glanced through, someone was like "well America's democratic, some natives had democracy yay!" ....Greeks..... . . . . . . . similarity DNE influence.

[Polyphemous]

You are making a massive leap of causality. Perhaps some of the progressive things you list existed in some Indian cultures; but did those specific cultures pass those traits on to the European settlers?

You also seem to assume that if you can find 1 tribe that has a particular progressive trait that all Indian tribes had that trait. For every tribe that had some element of women's rights, there were 100 that beat the shit out of their women and made them do most of the work. Some of the earliest settlers were shocked to see Indian women made to do all the back breaking field work while the men lazed around at home smoking tobacco.

[Jimes]

Because women's rights were so stellar in western societies at the time, right? It almost sounds like some of you are defending absolute barbarity that the native people of this continent suffered at the hands of Europeans, and continue to deal with today. So quick to judge other cultures... sad.

[Noleafclover]

Originally Posted by Jimes [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Because women's rights were so stellar in western societies at the time, right? It almost sounds like some of you are defending absolute barbarity that the native people of this continent suffered at the hands of Europeans, and continue to deal with today. So quick to judge other cultures... sad.

OK I peeked back to see if anyone had anything to say to me, and i'll bite...

So women's rights in america changed after women's rights abroad by 10-20 years because of native americans, not because of all the western cultures in europe... mebe native americans influenced europe too?

Really hard to prove that. Nor were they, afaik, the first culture to have rights for women in history. Show some causality...

As for the last two sentences, IDK the guy you're talking to, but disagreeing with you re: causality DNE vendetta against native americans, so please don't accuse me of the same [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Causality vs. correlation. LEARN IT PEOPLES.