What do you think was going through the mind of the first Indians who met the first settlers? It must have been crazy only ever knowing people to be red and wear basic clothing then coming across white people who wear shiny metal clothing and holding guns coming off a boat that had crossed the entire sea. For thousands of years they would have thought themselves and their lands were all there was out there
>lel these white devils are going to starve to death
You're thinking of "Indians" are one giant hivemind people. The interior people hadn't even seen the sea before and probably had no idea when the Europeans even landed on the continent.
The most interesting part to me is how a stone age society can so quickly adapt and adopt then modern technology like guns.
>>323245
Probably thought they were gods, it's not a meme some natives actually had pale people in their myths.
>my country is your country
>we welcome religious refugees with open arms
>#notallchristians
>end the redskin patriarchal terrorism
>>323255
You picked the least interesting part desu
>>323255
>how a stone age society can so quickly adapt
to put it bluntly, a child can explain what a computer does but not how it does it
I don't mean this in a racist way but how did the redskins with their abundance of resources never flourish like white Europeans did?
What's interesting is they invented bows, clothing and riding horses with no outside help but never invented anything past that
>>323283
This has been on the tip of my brain for weeks now, and I've been lurking /his/ for a general rebuke of the beliefs that a longstanding time on /pol/ has drilled into me.
The closest I've come is people mentioning the book "Guns, Germs & Steel" and a few select concepts like the process of communication between various groups in both economic and scientific progress, and the development of agriculture to free up society for inventors and thinkers.
>>323245
>>323255
Also, the horse in that image is not native.
A lot of people don't know this, but there were no horses in America before Europeans got there (well there was, but the natives wiped them out 10,000 years ago and never domesticated them, eventually forgetting they existed). So if a native is riding a horse, it's long enough after contact with Europeans.
>>323283
>>323300
Down in Florida they had civilisation going, they also did in Mexico, and south America. The plains natives didn't have much hope though, how can you build civilisation in an endless grassland?
>>323283
>I don't mean this in a racist way
never thought i'd ever see someone say that on 4chan of all places
>>323331
they had more than just bows, clothing and horses f@m. They had dark ages technology which is more advanced than natives and africans.
>>323331
Mesopotamians were caucasian
>>323336
Not in 2000BC
My point was the entire question the guy asked is pointless because civilisation doesn't occur globally at the same time, and if anything being a few thousand years apart is absolutely insignificant given humanity spent 100,000 years in the stone age.
>>323245
I think it would have been less startling than you're imagining.
They wouldn't have had the concept of 'crossing the ocean' since they wouldn't have any idea how large the ocean is. And they would have been aware that there were people around them who wore different clothes and spoke different languages, etc. these white people were just some more of those.
>>323322
You'll have to excuse me but how do vast plains prohibit civilisation? Lack of building materials?
And what constitutes native civilisation?
I imagine it would be like aliens visiting us now
>>323346
For civilisation to begin you generally need an extremely fertile area for easy agriculture to take off, such as along the Nile banks, Mesopotamia (the fertile cresent), the indus valley (another river), and so forth. Even areas which seem fertile to us, Europe, North America, are still not fertile enough that shit will just easily grow in large numbers if you plant it, not without existing agricultural knowledge.
I mean civilisation in the Americans independent of European influence.
>>323346
>And what constitutes native civilisation?
Does this count?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_civilization
>>323283
>What's interesting is they invented bows, clothing and riding horses with no outside help
no they didn't. bow came from asia, horse from europe and clothes they already had before even crossing the bering strait.
>>323283
Some people are inferior to others
It's not just to be mean, it's the truth
Just look at the people of Africa, the most fertile continent on Earth.
>>323322
yup. a major factor in Spain's wars in the New World. Cortes held an army of 80,000 natives at bay with just a few hundred men in one battle. Heavy cavalry basically smashed through native infantry with impunity.
>>323640
>with impunity
Shouldn't it be without impunity?
>>323245
I doubt the event depicted in that image ever took place. Native Americans never hunted from horseback unless they were using muskets and even then they probably owuld have ambushed herds at bluff sites.
>>323645
No
How did the Americas get so quickly populated with Europeans?
>>323245
Native americans had boats and established maritime trade links which is why Europeans were met by whole communities literally on the shores. The situation was the same for Europeans if not even more alien because they thought they were aware of the entire world and didn't expect more.
>>323640
>few hundred Spanish
But that's wrong, you fucking retard. They had support from thousands of natives.
>>323283
If I remember correctly the more civilized societies of the Americas didn't have any accessible iron/tin source, so they could never invent complex metalworking which implies a whole lot of stuff. I mean copper was kinda worthless, when even obsidian was stronger and no one is going to bother setting up costly expeditions to the great lakes to find iron deposits when you don't even know what the Great Lakes or Iron even are in the first place.
The Iroquois and Blackfeet were pretty good at adapting the European lifestyle though (unlike the Cherokees, fukken savages man), so if NA wasn't drowned in a wave of immigrants I'm pretty sure those tribes would set up functioning modern societies in the long run.
>>323346
the Great plains are extremely unfertile for agriculture buddy. I read that the European farmers had an extremely bad time taming the great plains. Not much water, impoverished and undeveloped terrain, etc, etc
>>323422
Africa is that way because of the lackof rideable animals. It is a HUGE continent (Europe is ridiculously tiny compared to it), and without comunication there is litle commerce, and little development. Also, the European imposition of their frontiers and the colonization helped to fuck up the continent
>>323828
lmao
>>323245
>crazy
>knowing
>metal
these are old world concepts, the size of your native brain was actually pea size. they were not capable of processing these abstract ideas, and so it would have not been psychologically troubling at all, just different but easily assimilable with their savage mentality that accepts all sorts of abominable animisms and spirit deities.
>>323283
yes i know it's cracked but it's a good read
http://www.cracked.com/article_19864_6-ridiculous-lies-you-believe-about-founding-america.html
They were not fucking retarded savages. They did diplomacy with the settlers then fought a raid war with them one generation later, the son of the man who columbus had thanksgiving with killed 20% of all english setllers in the war.
Since england didnt support the settlers, they felt more independqnt from britain.
>>323670
Living in an unforgiving wildland where you could claim land was a better deal than be a peasant asswipe in Europe.
>>323841
>le we tamed zebras meme
You can't mount a zebra dipshit, it's back would break. Same story if you try to harness them to transport more than an obese Jewish banker. Their backs break, they're not strong enough
zebras =/= horses with fancy colour schemes
Our fathers already heard rumors of pink spirits venturing from the ocean riding wooden birds.
We DID talk to other tribes after all.
>>323967
there is nothing wrong with zebra's backs, they're not tameable because they're not naturally hierarchical pack animals
>>323993
Also it's hard to tell how many zebras you actually have, you think you have 4 yoked to a cart and it turns out it was 50.
>>323993
They are tamable, and they would have been if human with two digit IQ had been around them for long enough (like it happened for horses)
>>324003
kek
>>324007
no. you can get it used to humans, but you can't really tame it.
>>324029
Are you retarded?
It took centuries to tame horses
Same could be done with zebras, but since real non-monkey humans have been near them only from 1850 to 1960, it never happened
>>323993
they are tameable and, given time, domesticable.
people are doing so as we speak.
however, it took about 30 generations for the arctic foxes in russia to exhibit domestic traits, so it's likely that zebras will take at least as long.
also: zebras have a mean streak, like donkeys, so effectively you'd have yourself a stripey, stubborn horse. a mule that breeds, in other words. the only reason to reinvent this particular wheel is for the stripey coat.
besides, north and central africans were well aware of the horse and the donkey, and the sotho ride nags all the time nowadays, since lesotho is pretty mountainous and SUV's are hella expensive.
>>324070
>besides, north and central africans were well aware of the horse and the donkey
That's where donkeys originate from and where domesticated, in fact.
Looking East from Indian Country is about this. Tells the story of the first expeditions and settlers but from the POV of the natives.
>>323283
They actually had some pretty large scale societies in both North and South America. After the Spanish showed up a series of plagues wiped 90% of them off the map. The natives we interacted with were the post-apocalyptic remnants of what once were reasonable advanced peoples.
You have to dig a bit to find the evidence for it because they didn't have a lot of what we typically think of as architecture. It's important to understand that societies evolve much like animals do. If they can get by for 10,000 years in large-ish communities made of wooden thatched roofed houses then they will never really bother with huge stone structures we typically associate with large civilizations. Our societies just had more competition and resource scarcity.
Read pic related.
>>323338
So all Caucasians are the same right?
>>324079
Yes, hence the name Nubian Wild Ass.
Why do people conveniently forget that donkeys were domesticated over there?
>>323817
There's not even any wood, so you have to build "sod" houses, which are basically glorified mud huts, or tipis.
>>324229
Plagues don't spread that quick especially in pre industrial times, it must have taken a good few decades to wipe them out.
Also i do constantly hear that 90% were wiped out but id really like to see some evidence for it. I'm not denying it, i've just never seen evidence, and it sounds really high. Surely it was more like 40%.
>>324229
>it must have taken a good few decades to wipe them out
Between the conquest of the Maya to Plymouth colony was a period of 200 years.
I just posted the evidence. Read the book, nigga
>>324549
I only trust primary sources.
>>324562
>what are citations
It's a very well sourced book. I'm not going to waste my time hunting down sources for a 4chan autist who won't bother reading them anyway.
>>323422
It's exactly that fertility that gave Africans no incentive to develop. Unlike Mesopotamia, they did not need to advance in order to harness the fertility of the area. Both Mesopotania and Egypt had notable rivers but needed a way to extend the localized fertility, so they developed irrigation and other shit for example.
As is commonly said, necessity is the mother of invention.
Didn't the Aztecs predict their doom? I remember reading that in the last 50 or so years of their existence they saw weird shit like fires rising from the Atlantic which led them to believe the end (or their end) was nigh.
>>323967
But Indians tamed Elephants.
I honestly don't buy the "Africa had no tameable animals" meme.
You could say the same thing about Europe 100,000 years ago with its wild galloping horses and vicious wolves.
Seriously if you've got tens of thousands of years and literally fuck all else to do, you can tame anything. They just weren't trying hard enough.
>>323300
Europe had active trade very early, shared technology with the mesopotamian civilization, with the arabs, later on with the chinese. That's the biggest factor for me.
>>324602
And evolution being what it is, people who lived in necessity ended up genetically superior to Africans after genertions of intellectual developpement
>>324571
I just asked you to provide a primary source for the 90% killed not telling me to read an entire book.
If you're gonna debate then debate properly, and i wasn't even disagreeing with you.
I once read that by the time Euros showed up to the shores of what would become Canada and the USA, the Natives had already had a massive plague that wiped out a large portion of their population so it was easy for the settlers to win out over the Natives early on in the settlement of North America. Apparently merchant shipping had seen tons of smoke rise over the trees at the shores of North America, implying massive native communities.
Any truth to this?
>>324666
AFAIK elephants have never been bred in captivity for work in numbers anyway: even today work elephants are captured in the wild.
Also, have African elephants ever been used for work?
>>323331
Europe was hell before terraforming. I know my country was a gigantic swamp as late as 500BC, before 1000BC, it was a frozen swamp. Overall, Yurop is very poor in terms of natural resources. If anything, the Greeks considered it one reason for their superiority to Orientals because "Hard land breeds hard men".
Mesopotamian and Egyptian lands are comparatively much easier to cultivate.
>>324532
90% were wiped out though.
How do you imagine the European colonisation of North America? Do you think some Spanish just beelined it straight to Mexico?
It took many many decades of just peeking to see what was going on before actual colonisation started. During that time the natives were being destroyed by plague.
>>323828
>colonization fucked Africa
Sure thing.
>>324687
Because they had animals that fufilled the roles required already.
Seriously give me 10,000 years and I could tame a Zebra myself, and breed it so it can support a rider.
They either didn't give a shit or just didn't think hard enough but saying it didn't happen because it's not possible is complete horseshit.
some natives had contact with nordics and some with polynesians
>>324688
Exactly, Europe would have never independently developed civilisation. It did so because people with civilisation moved there.
>>324701
I just want to see sources for this. Shouldn't there be giant grave sites.
>>324719
Africans had horses, they didn't need to domesticate the Zebra. Africans further south were still not developed enough to need a horse.
There's no such thing as they just didn't give a shit. Human behaviour is mostly due to the influence of their lives and surroundings.
>>323245
Depends which Natives, which period of time, and which settlers.
Frenchmen were considered bros so if anything, wood trackers would have to be weary of being raped by females natives.
>>324775
>tfw will never be an 18th century French wood tracker
>>324745
There's minor linguistic evidence that the progenitors of the Japanese, or the Japanese people themselves ended up on the shores of western North America if I recall correctly.
Although, I heard this on the history channel (albeit before it became the hurr durr channel)
>>323865
Very interesting. I wonder how much of it is true.
>>324931
I'm serious, some natives literally threw themselves at them.
Apparently the females were fond of them to the point some enslaved themselves to a French master. The males didn't care much because many tribes had loose definitions of family.
>>325147
That's hot
>>323841
IT would be the slowest zebra, (the zebra that get killed by a Lion)
They had white people living among them.
>>323322
>
A lot of people don't know this, but there were no horses in America before Europeans got there (well there was, but the natives wiped them out 10,000 years ago and never domesticated them, eventually forgetting they existed). So if a native is riding a horse, it's long enough after contact with Europeans.
This is actually one of the most interesting things about Native American development: It's a big 'fuck you' to 19th century notions of linear progress of civilization.
The American midwest WAS populated by limited settlements of Agricultural and horticultural tribes. And then they got horses, and abandoned that for a nomadic lifestyle chasing buffalo.
>>326762
>And then they got horses, and abandoned that for a nomadic lifestyle chasing buffalo.
Personally I find it fascinating that the Steppe tribes and people like the Sioux became horse archers mostly independently of each other once they acquired horses.
DESIGNATED
SHITTING
GROUNDS
>>326795
I've actually seen the term "American Steppe" used to describe the region.
>>324481
Till religion and culture divides them.
>>327529
Sound kinda /pol/ish
>>323967
>You can't mount a zebra dipshit
>>328322
You and the other retard don't seem to understand the difference between taming an individual and domesticating a species. you can tame a lion or bear, doesn't mean it's possible to domesticate the species
>>324666
>>324685
They tried it in my country, then they realized they needed Indian specialists and finally they realized even with them it wasn't worth it.
>For many years the Belgian government has maintained a training station for elephants at Wanda [, Belgian Congo]. From the wild herds that roam in the surrounding forests, they capture young animals and these are brought to the post for a course in discipline. They are then sold to plantations or to the missions. The African animal is quite different from the Indian species, a much harder beast to domesticate, never becoming entirely docile. Until the Belgians undertook this work, it was thought impossible to train the African elephant. They have succeeded to a certain extent, but the results obtained are small considering the amount effort and time expended, and it is not likely that this animal will ever become a great aid to mankind, comparable to his Indian cousin.
Pros vs Cons it wasn't worth it
>>324719
We domesticated the donkey instead of the zebra
>>324764
>developed enough
What do you mean, the horse was always extremely important. They just died from tsetse.
>>328402
>Katanga
I am squeeling like a schoolgirl here.
>>323283
Europe had the silk road/trade with the far east to help them, plus just being part of the old world in general.
New world civilizations would've had to have come up with everything the old world invented in less time by themselves.
>>328335
>understand the difference between taming an individual and domesticating a species.
Isn't taming an individual the beginning of taming a species? What am I missing here? Cows started out as Aurochs, and were domesticated. I'd much rather tame a Zebra than an Auroch tbqh my familial.
>>328467
Thats the benefit of hindsight, Aurochs may seem an unlikely candidate for successful domestication, but obviously were.
This >>328402 would be one example
>Until the Belgians undertook this work, it was thought impossible to train the African elephant. They have succeeded to a certain extent, but the results obtained are small considering the amount effort and time expended, and it is not likely that this animal will ever become a great aid to mankind, comparable to his Indian cousin.
also see http://www.livescience.com/33870-domesticated-animals-criteria.html
>>323245
Musket balls
>>328543
>Thats the benefit of hindsight, Aurochs may seem an unlikely candidate for successful domestication, but obviously were.
Right, but the point is that they made the effort and were rewarded thusly. It seems like Africans never even tried, the great domestic animals of the Western world didn't happen easily or overnight anon.
>>328467
>Isn't taming an individual the beginning of taming a species?
No. It's perhaps a neccesary first step, but domesticating a species isn't the same thing as just scaling upwards.
Note, it's not just Africans that failed to domesticate the Zebra. Europeans REALLY wanted to domesticate them. Remember, during the age of colonialism horses were still REALLY important to European power. Cavalry was still everywhere, logistics depended on horses and there was basically no infrastructure to support what motor vehicles they did have.
But fucking Tetse flies destroyed horses. If they had Tetse fly proof horses, that would have been great, increased their military power, and reduced the cost of administration. It probably would have made them more economically productive as well.
Plus, Zebras just looking pimping, which is why Baron Rothschild there is trying to train them there.
And the way he did it basically is by the trick that he still has not gotten the Zebras to listen to him. He realized that Zebras, unlike horses and Aurochs, have a strict order of precedence in nature. If a zebra tries to pass a more dominant zebra, they get the shit kicked out of them.
He lined up the zebras in dominance and then just tried to control one of them, so the rest followed. That rich motherfucker throwing his resources into it couldn't get a team of Zebra to respect him enough to pull a carriage for him.
Also
>>328322
>Everyone weighs as much as a teenage girl
>If I can get on somethings back, that means it's suitable to support a rider.
>>328601
>It seems like Africans never even tried,
Have you watched a lot of African domestication efforts?
>>328601
Did you read the link, the general points were:
>First, domestic animals cannot be picky eaters
>Second, only animals that reach maturity quickly relative to the human life span are worth considering
>Third, domesticated species must be willing to breed in captivity. Creatures that are territorial when breeding, such as antelope, cannot be kept in crowded enclosures. And though the ancient Egyptians prized pet cheetahs, the large cats won't breed without elaborate courtship rituals (including running together over long distances), and so they never achieved domestication.
>Fourth, domesticated animals must be docile by nature. For example, the cow and sheep are generally easygoing, but the African buffalo and American bison are both unpredictable and highly dangerous to humans, so the former two species have achieved widespread domestication while the latter pair have not. Similarly, the zebra, though closely related to the horse, is typically much more aggressive, and this may explain why zebras have been tamed only in rare instances.
>Fifth, domestic animals cannot have a strong tendency to panic and flee when startled. This rules out most species of deer and gazelles, which have flighty temperaments and a powerful leap that enables them to escape over high fences. Sheep, though they're panicky, also have a flocking instinct, which causes them to stay close together when nervous. This means they can be herded.
>Lastly, with the exception of the cat, all the major domesticated animals conform to a social hierarchy dominated by strong leadership.
Very few species which were not domesticate in ancient time have been domesticated even with the use of modern techniques and understandings, which would seem to suggest that the majority of species with the potential to be domesticated have
>>328614
Good points, thank you.
>>328616
>Have you watched a lot of African domestication efforts?
I was paying attention to the lack of success in that arena.
>>Second, only animals that reach maturity quickly relative to the human life span are worth considering
Anything is worth considering when you have nothing.
>>Third, domesticated species must be willing to breed in captivity.
Can you breed Zebras in captivity though? That's the animal we are talking about, why are you bringing up other animals if we are talking about Zebras?
>>Fifth, domestic animals cannot have a strong tendency to panic and flee when startled.
Have you ever seen a scared horse anon? That's exactly what they do.
>>Lastly, with the exception of the cat, all the major domesticated animals conform to a social hierarchy dominated by strong leadership.
Well, good news, according to >>328614
>Zebras, unlike horses and Aurochs, have a strict order of precedence in nature. If a zebra tries to pass a more dominant zebra, they get the shit kicked out of them.
So they do have an inate hierachy.
>>328671
>I was paying attention to the lack of success in that arena.
OK. But you said "It seems like Africans never even tried". Now, what evidence would you expect to see of a failed attempt at domestication?
>>328671
>Can you breed Zebras in captivity though?
No, not selectively. If two Zebras don't like each other, or they do anything wrong, they kick each other to death.
>So they do have an inate hierachy.
The problem is that this hierachy is strictly based on order of birth, and from whom.
Unless you can crawl out of a zebra's vagina, they're not going to accept you as the top of the hierarchy.
>>328671
>why are you bringing up other animals if we are talking about Zebras?
I was replying partly to the mention of cows and aurochs, and mentioned more general themes related to domestication of species in general rather than just the zebra, obviously some of the points are less relevant for that particular species
>>328682
>Now, what evidence would you expect to see of a failed attempt at domestication?
Oh, I see, fair point. I suppose it doesn't necessarily follow that just because something wasn't successful doesn't mean it was never tried.
>>328689
It seems like the Zebra would be a poor candidate, but I still have to say that a poor candidate is better than none at all(ala North/South America), and I think if you had thousands and thousands of years you could form a better candidate, even if it was harder. The horse wasn't born overnight.
>>323865
>Historians estimate that before the plague, America's population was anywhere between 20 and 100 million (Europe's at the time was 70 million).
bullshit
If the majority of these Indians died why aren't we finding corpses everywhere?
>>328467
>Isn't taming an individual the beginning of taming a species?
No.
We've been taming elephants and lions for centuries. They are no closer to being domesticated.
There has to be the potential for domestication in a species in order to domesticate it.
What people don't understand is THE NEOLITHIC WAS A VERY SHORT PERIOD, humans didn't fucking cause whole new genomes to appear in a few millenia. With selective breeding, you can only select genes that are already there.
Also, some species refuse to reproduce when tamed, so good fucking luck doing any selective breeding then.
>>328702
>better than none at all
There were domesticated animal species in Africa, just less than in the near east and not the goddam zebra. It seems silly to claim that Africans just "didn't try hard enough" when they domesticated other species.
>>328702
Two points:
First:
>and I think if you had thousands and thousands of years you could form a better candidate, even if it was harder.
This ignores the central problem that you can't selectively breed Zebra. You enclose two Zebra together and they kick each other to death, instead of breeding. Every generation you have to start training them over again.
Second, the Horse was was basically functional 'overnight'.
If there are any 'laws' of history, the most important one is formulated by Keynes as 'in the long run, we're all dead.'
Let's assume you were a neolithic African tribesman on the Serengeti. You're imbued with all the knowledge we have, about the heritability of traits, and limitless mutability of species, the knowledge of what a horse is, and the sort of labor it can do, and how important this is.
So, you resolve to, after laboring all day to take care of your needs, also engage in a Zebra breeding experiment. This is going to take insane dedication. You have to construct a massive enclosure, where you can start putting Zebras in and they won't kick them to death. You have to enclose them because even if you tame one, you can't ride them without breaking the thing's back.
This takes up basically all your free time, but you have decided to do it. And I'll grant you, yes, you manage to pull this off that you are a stone age person with a small zebra farm. OK, whatever.
Now, you have to convince your son to take care of the farm. And he has to convince his son. And so on, and so forth for thousands and thousands of years.
If your line ever encounters a famine, or gets conquered in war, the farm is destroyed and you must start again.
And if anyone, ever, in a single generation says "fuck this" and decides he doesn't want to invest all his spare time into an attempt to domesticate the Zebra, especially since he can just BUY A DONKEY, the whole experiment is for nothing.
Does anyone want to dedicate their lives to such a project?
>>328709
...Anon, you know the majority of everyone in history died, don't you?
>>328765
Now that's a post.
>>324532
For your evidence of it, read the Jesuit Relations, particularly the ones in the 1630s-1650s in the Huron region. The Jesuits themselves recorded evidence of huge depopulation, probably not 90% death rate, but very close to that if I'm remembering correctly.
>>324562
Again, see my comment about the JR. They are primary sources. Hope that helps
>>328859
Also, there's archaeological evidence now of large urban centers in the interior of the Americas, and by the time Europeans arrived, they were just GONE.
The Amazon rainforest particularly has a lot of these that we are just now discovering, because eat a dick, jungle.
These we actually have reports of from European explorers.
“There was one town that stretched for 15 miles without any space from house to house, which was a marvellous thing to behold,”
These early Europeans also reported, among other things NO JUNGLE.
This was dismissed as tall tales, until modern archaelogy has revealed buried earthworks throughout the amazon basin.
So just think about that. The entire amazon basin used to be "as fertile and as normal in appearance as our Spain.”
That whole population fucking died.
>>324676
>I just asked you to provide a primary source for the 90% killed
That sort of record keeping simply did not exist. Any estimate on the numbers killed would have to be an analysis from a later period.
>>324764
>Exactly, Europe would have never independently developed civilisation.
NEWGRANGE
E
>>328896
Very interesting. Would have been quite horrific to experience that as a Native let alone a settler.
But I also read of a fairly large, almost urban-hub, along the Mississippi Valley - Cahokia. Apparently it didn't last past 1100s. Scholars are still arguing why.
>>328925
Yeah. The mound builder cultures along the Mississipi Valley were definitely urban.
They constructed a mound in Missouri bigger than the Pyramids of Giza.
I visited it, and climbed it. The only people who were there that day were fucking joggers who just wanted to use all the steps.
I cried angry tears.
>>328896
Feels fucking bad man. Wish we could know more about these people.
>>328944
Here's the weirdest feels bad here.
That image you posted? We used to talk about them as some pristine, untouched tribe from the Paleolithic.
But only 500 years ago they lived in dense urban centers. The Yanomami are more like something out of Mad Max.
They're a response to the collapse of agricultural society, formed by survivors who fled into the highlands.
>>328322
>You can't mount a tortoise, dipshit
>>328940
Wow. I would too... Only mounds I got near were in Florida on a hovercraft swamp tour. The guide didn't even take us near them. Although, by now, I doubt you'd be able to tell they were burial mounds at all. Still irked me a bit however
>>328944
It is a damn shame they did not have a written language
A real damn shame anon
>>324562
By the way, you should feel comfortable trusting most RECENT published scholarly works. Sometimes it can be dangerous trusting primary sources at face value, and also, you'd be missing out on a lot of great analyses/interpretations of history if you ignored secondary sources
Just my $00.02
>>328896
The Amazon was already there, they just modified parts of it. Do you seriously think all these animals and plants evolved in 500 years?
>>328944
Also a lot of Amazon was populated by hunter-gatherers, horticulturalists and other similar peoples, it wasn't WHOLE non-complex though.
>>323283
>I don't mean this in a racist way
>redskins
>>323283
Mineral exploration is really hard. Europeans didn't do it until Middle Eastern migrants brought the practice with them.
It's impressive that Central Americas made use of the metal that they did. I wouldn't be surprised if iron and tin would have been used in Mexico after a couple centuries, if the kingdoms that hadn't been destroyed.
>>323422
Bruh SSA is cut off from the rest of the world by the largest desert on the planet.
Even then, African peoples independently developed iron-working and agriculture, something Europeans never did.
>>328958
There's something just slightly horrifying about that.
>>324683
That's very correct. Native societies (especially in the Mississippi River Basin, the Amazon basin, and the greater Antilles) were much larger and more complex than anything encountered by Europeans after 1600.
For instance, the Taino and Arawak peoples of the Caribbean were long assumed to have been disorganised hunter-gatherers, based on the scant evidence by Columbus and his men. But archaeology revealed their societies to be vastly more complex, and not dissimilar to contemporary Mexico.
At the time of Columbus' arrival, Puerto Rico was full of large towns with tens of thousands of permanent residents, as well as stone plazas, ball courts, and large communal buildings. The Tainos lived very similarly to the Anglo Saxons in 700, but managed to build these large settlements and forts without metalworking.
Because Puerto Rico (and the rest of the Antilles) were densely packed islands, disease spread like a wildfire. Recently, attention has been brought to the interpersonal cruelty of Columbus and his men. While it's definitely important to recognise that historical heroes are not always good people, it would be more productive to learn about the devastating effects of disease in those communities.
What would happen if alien diseases came to Earth? Would we suffer the same fate as the Taino and the Mississippians?
>>330672
lel
>>330801
>native societies (especially in the Mississippi River Basin, the Amazon basin, and the greater Antilles) were much larger and more complex than anything encountered by Europeans after 1600.
I really doubt they were more complex than China or India or even SEA.
>What would happen if alien diseases came to Earth? Would we suffer the same fate as the Taino and the Mississippians?
That depends if its even compatible with us. If it is, our diseases would likely wipe them out too.
>>328944
>Tfw no chel gf
>>331546
That doesn't make them any less magnificent.
>>330672
>calling someone who has red skin a redskin is racist
>>328765
Then how the fuck did people domesticate horses.
>>332974
Probably as cattle first, then pets, and then for labour.
Point is, the genome of pre-domestication wild horses isn't so different from modern horses, so really there wasn't a lot of work to do. Humans didn't create a whole new genome.
>>323670
Industrial revolution, before it was sparsely populated.
>muh noble savage
When will this meme end?
>>331546
>I really doubt they were more complex than China or India or even SEA.
Yeah no shit.
>>335627
nomads leave a much smaller footprint on the enviroment.
>>323283
>>323300
The Material Conditions of the New World were almost entirely different to the old world. they couldn't follow the european model because it wasn't physically possible.
>>324626
If you are still here take a look
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_conquest_of_the_Aztec_Empire#Aztec_omens_for_the_conquest
>>324701
>Do you think some Spanish just beelined it straight to Mexico?
but that's exactly what happened in the case of Cortés, in about two years, as a matter of fact his indian allies were much more of an asset to the conquest than the spreading of smallpox, as it only really quickened the final siege of Tenochtitlan, which still held for three months despite the hunger and the plague
>>335653
le asian model meme
>>323354
>Even areas which seem fertile to us, Europe, North America, are still not fertile enough that shit will just easily grow in large numbers if you plant it, not without existing agricultural knowledge.
That's absolute bullshit
>>328322
It's about the method and how it is developed. Asian, Europe and the Americas had the communal infrastructure to develop communications of ideas through common language and economics. In Africa there is a greater divide because of the tribal societies that never got to resolve into a bigger society due to the hardship of the land and colonialism.
>>323283
I am more amazed at the fact that such isolated civilizations could archive functional societies with even more modern aspects than their european counterparts, while at the same time being stuck in the stone age.
>>323828
Many places in Eurasia developed agriculture before the introduction of horses.
>>335832
>In Africa there is a greater divide because of the tribal societies that never got to resolve into a bigger society due to the hardship of the land and colonialism.
Why is colonialism relevant?
>>335858
Because, colonizers came in as a bigger stronger tribe, so to speak, and hindered resolve of the divided native populace (tribes) . Notice how only after colonialism parts of Africa there is a democratic collective community (even if this was borrowed from the west). Anyways, aside from the Zebra there was already a developing tradition of husbandry with goats, calf and such. It was just a matter of time until harder to tame beasts were domesticated. I believe all that was needed was the community so that the ideas and methods could develop within a shared incentive.
>>323346
Buffalo were so stinking easy to hunt before they were driven to extinction. Literally just chuck a spear and you have everything you need. At that point you don't need to build anything more complex than a campfire, hence no need for complex civilization to develop.
>>323245
Probably this
>>328467
Rip Auroch. You were gone too soon.
>>323255
They bought guns from white people and learned how to use them, like all the European peasants did when they first held a gun.
That's fascinating to you?
>>324764
That's not what he said at all. "People with civilization" didn't move there, europeans came out on top because they lived in a tough land, they had to adapt. Egypt is the opposite. This is a pretty basic pattern.
>>336160
Yes, it's a large technological leap.
People talk about alt history shit, like giving the Romans M16s. Then everyone says it would never work they would blow their own heads off. Clearly its bullshit, if Indians could adapt to muskets so quickly then Romans with M16s would probably result in world domination in a few years.
>>323331
>abundance of resources
>ice age
>implying Europe never flourish
Stone henge? You forgot agriculture. You also seem to have forgotten Greece.
>>336207
But anon, it is 2000BC.
>>324944
>hurr durr channel
I wonder why they chose that path
>>323283
I think there are a bunch of factors and I'm not going to go Jared Diamond on you. But I think your question presupposes that agriculture is inherently "better" or "more advanced" - agriculture is really what you do when there's nothing left to hunt. In the case of the plains natives, why settle down and grow food when you could just hunt bison? on the coast, same thing but with salmon
