Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Indigenous civilizations are far older and more complex than history suggests

lithub.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 82 posts

Re: Indigenous civilizations are far older and more complex than history suggests

#61

Post by mirimir »

paradoxparalax wrote: post #57
mirimir wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Were the Americas really that idyllic?

good point. Thanks for noting. So probably or surely there are other factors too. Europe , for what I saw in Asterix comics, at least, looked pretty nice too. And was probably wonderful and beautiful and not that hostile, in real life. But necessity is strong, very strong, in many situations. There is the old Sufi tale ( if I recall, it is sufi ) "The old man came and killed the only cow the poor family relied to sur…

Yeah, I totally agree. I mean, 20-30 kyr of ~stability is amazing. And here we are, after maybe 10 kyr of technology, pushing atmospheric CO2 to arguably dire levels. And the anthropgenic extinction event. Not to mention those hypersonic gliders. Although they are damn cool, you gotta admit.

And so is the Internet :)

"Live fast, die young.", as they say.

Re: Indigenous civilizations are far older and more complex than history suggests

#62

Post by paradoxparalax »

mirimir wrote: post #61
paradoxparalax wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

good point. Thanks for noting. So probably or surely there are other factors too. Europe , for what I saw in Asterix comics, at least, looked pretty nice too. And was probably wonderful and beautiful and not that hostile, in real life. But necessity is strong, very strong, in many situations. There is the old Sufi tale ( if I recall, it is sufi ) "The old man came and killed the only cow the poor family relied to sur…

Yeah, I totally agree. I mean, 20-30 kyr of ~stability is amazing. And here we are, after maybe 10 kyr of technology, pushing atmospheric CO2 to arguably dire levels. And the anthropgenic extinction event. Not to mention those hypersonic gliders. Although they are damn cool, you gotta admit. And so is the Internet :) "Live fast, die young.", as they say.

I confess I feel guilty to admit that Proton rockets and Avangarde devices are indeed cool. But far from me, like the snow. I like the snow in movies.

Re: Indigenous civilizations are far older and more complex than history suggests

#63

Post by hutzlibu »

dmix wrote: post #38
staplers wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

our ancestors lived in a very different and harsh reality You are justifying colonialism through "the world sucks get over it". First Nations have been attacked and their land stolen within the LAST DECADE. The Tar Sands battle is a recent popular example. You couldn't be more ignorant to the facts.

Debating the world as it was in 1492-1800s is hardly relevant to colonization in the 'modern world'. Even the mindset of World War 1 where 70k French or German people would die in a single day vs even the 1960s with Vietnam war (where The ideological parties who are obsessed with viewing history through the lenses of these power dynamics as the only defining metric are inherently irrational and intentionally ignorant…

" vs even the 1960s with Vietnam war (where Kind of a US-centric view, as there were also some dead Vietnamese as well as civilian casualties as well.

So if you take those numbers: WW1, 9.7 million dead soldiers, 10 million dead civilian and compare it to 1.3 million dead soldiers and 3-5 million civilians - then WW1 was actually much more civil, as the ratio of dead civillians vs. soldier was around 1:1 vs 2 or three dead civilians for every dead soldier in vietnam.

Might have to do with the fact, that the US dropped more bombs on Vietnam than in whole WW2 together (plus poisening with agent orange etc.)

But yes, also 60000 us boys died. The only real tragedy here.

Re: Indigenous civilizations are far older and more complex than history suggests

#64

Post by pseudolus »

ZenPsycho wrote: post #14
tux1968 wrote: post #4

Aren't all civilizations far older and more complex than history can account for? We don't really know how the pyramids arrived, or a detailed history of England back very far -- who created Stonehenge? It's interesting that the migration out of Africa and over to the Americas happened so much longer ago than previously thought, but it doesn't change what happened when the European settlers arrived. The author seems…

The justification frequently used for western colonialism/conquest is the principle of “Terra Nullius”, in short, the native peoples with their primative technology are not fully utilising the land, and we’re doing them a favor by conquering them. it turns out after the fact that in many respects, particularly with regards to agriculture, land management, diplomacy, and some areas of engineering, the native people we…

I believe "Terra Nullius" was used primarily with respect to aboriginal lands in Australia. Relative to North America and New Zealand the pattern was usually to maintain the pretext of legality by signing treaties and then violating them to the point where they became meaningless.

Coursera is offering a course on "Indigenous Canada" that starts on January 23 and offers a great overview on the history of the relationship between First Nations/Metis and Canada [0].

[0] https://www.coursera.org/learn/indigenous-canada

Re: Indigenous civilizations are far older and more complex than history suggests

#65

Post by [deleted] »

mirimir wrote: post #53

OK, so indigenous civilizations in the Americas go back at least 20-30 kyr before European invasion. And it seems that they had more or less reached equilibrium with their environment. Sure, they used fire to modify the environment. In the Midwest, for example, they pushed the prairie-forest boundary several hundred miles north. And in the East, they burned to keep down forest undergrowth. And sure, mammoths disappea…

[deleted]

Re: Indigenous civilizations are far older and more complex than history suggests

#66

Post by saalweachter »

mirimir wrote: post #53

OK, so indigenous civilizations in the Americas go back at least 20-30 kyr before European invasion. And it seems that they had more or less reached equilibrium with their environment. Sure, they used fire to modify the environment. In the Midwest, for example, they pushed the prairie-forest boundary several hundred miles north. And in the East, they burned to keep down forest undergrowth. And sure, mammoths disappea…

Why do you find the lack of domesticatable animals an unsatisfactory explanation? You don't need an oxcart without an ox.

Re: Indigenous civilizations are far older and more complex than history suggests

#67

Post by AvocadoPanic »

staplers wrote: post #49
dmix wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Debating the world as it was in 1492-1800s is hardly relevant to colonization in the 'modern world'. Even the mindset of World War 1 where 70k French or German people would die in a single day vs even the 1960s with Vietnam war (where The ideological parties who are obsessed with viewing history through the lenses of these power dynamics as the only defining metric are inherently irrational and intentionally ignorant…

weren't much different at a far smaller scale You are literally saying the exact thing this article is arguing against. There were nearly 100 million people living in the Americas before Europeans arrived. It was in the direct orders and manifesto of the invading parties to conquer and enslave these lands and NOT integrate peacefully. It applies to the modern world because this forced coercion still exists today. Sad…

How exactly would you have peacefully integrated the indigenous people (some / many that were essentially still living a Neolithic existence) with what were some of the most powerful and advanced civilizations at the time?

Re: Indigenous civilizations are far older and more complex than history suggests

#68

Post by ZenPsycho »

AvocadoPanic wrote: post #67
staplers wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

weren't much different at a far smaller scale You are literally saying the exact thing this article is arguing against. There were nearly 100 million people living in the Americas before Europeans arrived. It was in the direct orders and manifesto of the invading parties to conquer and enslave these lands and NOT integrate peacefully. It applies to the modern world because this forced coercion still exists today. Sad…

How exactly would you have peacefully integrated the indigenous people (some / many that were essentially still living a Neolithic existence) with what were some of the most powerful and advanced civilizations at the time?

the aztecs had an empire, a civilization, with pyramids, systems of agriculture, public schools, museums full of massive detailed gold statues, and organised sport. they invented basketball and chocolate. there were many kther advanced civilizations that we will only ever know the tiniest amount of, because they all died of smallpox. the only groups to survive were the nomads, cherokee, lakota, apache, etc. because they could avoid the spread of disease.

the view that they were cavemen is part of the whole terra nullius argument, trying to cast them as essentially fauna.

Re: Indigenous civilizations are far older and more complex than history suggests

#69

Post by Yetanfou »

ZenPsycho wrote: post #68
AvocadoPanic wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How exactly would you have peacefully integrated the indigenous people (some / many that were essentially still living a Neolithic existence) with what were some of the most powerful and advanced civilizations at the time?

the aztecs had an empire, a civilization, with pyramids, systems of agriculture, public schools, museums full of massive detailed gold statues, and organised sport. they invented basketball and chocolate. there were many kther advanced civilizations that we will only ever know the tiniest amount of, because they all died of smallpox. the only groups to survive were the nomads, cherokee, lakota, apache, etc. because t…

You forgot the bit which told of how the Aztecs [1] became to be the power they were back in the day: by a combination of military conquest and, to a lesser extent, trade. Before the Aztecs became the power they were there were the Toltecs, another militaristic culture which lost steam and got overrun by Chichimec tribes. It was from those tribes that the Aztecs rose, seemingly out of a group of a few thousand Chichimecs which had been forced out to a group of islands after sacrificing a princess from a neighbouring tribe. They gradually rose in power after conquering a few cities on the mainland and forming alliances with other tribes. First under Montezuma I and later under his successor they 'evolved an ideology of themselves as a chosen people destined to conquer' according to [2]. This ideology served them well and lead them to become the dominant power in what is now Mexico until they came into contact with another group of people who saw themselves as conquerors, better known in their own language as conquistadores [3].

In other words, those Aztecs with their pyramids and systems of agriculture were just like those who came before them and those who came after them. All they lacked was the firepower of those who conquered them and immunity to - to them - exotic diseases, otherwise the world would look different from what it looks like today.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztecs

[2] https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/daily/military-history/the...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquistador

Re: Indigenous civilizations are far older and more complex than history suggests

#70

Post by Yetanfou »

lsiebert wrote: post #44
tux1968 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For sure. But there are countless other examples of people being conquered too, all over the world, and not just by Europeans. There is no justification needed, other than that's what humans did back then. It was a much more primitive and brutal example of survival of the fittest. And as much as it offends our sensibilities now, it is the very path that leads us to where we find ourselves today. We can struggle to be…

"But there are countless other examples of people being conquered too, all over the world, and not just by Europeans." An example of the relatively rare Tu Quoque logical fallacy in the wild! Or maybe you weren't arguing that it was okay because non Europeans did it, in which case it's more of a red herring. "There is no justification needed, other than that's what humans did back then. It was a much more primitive a…

History is rife with debate on the morality of conquest, this probably goes back to the dawn of civilisation. If there is one thing which can be learned from history it is that homo sapiens is a querulous and aggressive species which is more than eager to use might to force its will on others, whether they be other humans or other species. As to whether a given group, tribe, people or nation ends up in the history books as conquerors or conquered depends amongst others on where those moral discussions took them. Those who saw themselves as conquerors ended up conquering others until they themselves were defeated, conquered and sometimes annihilated by other conquerors.

One thing is clear though: when two people meet and one of them has a club or sword or gun and is willing to use it that person gets to force his - or possibly her - will on the other. This goes for individuals just as much as it goes for groups, tribes, people or nations. This is a simple statement of fact, not a defence of the ideologies which leads some to pick up arms to conquer. It is also the reason why the history books are full of conquest and why some cultures which are generally seen as 'advanced' succumbed to 'less advanced' cultures.

Post reply on HN