Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
With no beasts of burden? With no roads?
And I am unquestionably against all that "Noble Indian" nonsense, as should be obvious. But with nomads traveling in small sizes that is actually common globally. One group forces another group to move. They do not slaughter them and wipe them out, they just push them out. Hell, why in the hell do you think so many groups of "Barbarians" were slamming into the Roman Empire?
Farther to the East, groups of nomads were slamming into other groups of nomads, forcing them to move. The Goths, the Visigoths, the Franks, they all originated elsewhere. Ultimately all pushed out by the Huns, who themselves were likely being pushed out by the Mongols. Like billiard balls on a table, one group pushes another. But none of those groups were particularly bloodthirsty, in fact the Franks and Goths were actually in the early phases of agriculture (as in settling in a single location instead of moving on after a generation or two when the land was used up) when they were pushed out of their original territory.
And killing each other? You mean, like street gangs in the US today? Yes, they killed each other, but in fairly small numbers, the killing not the goal but getting a group to move on.
And yes, enslavement. Another thing common in almost all cultures. However, they also had no concept of "slavery" as Europeans thought of it. Those enslaved actually were part of the tribe, and it was not a permanent position they were reduced to. And many anthropologists now believe that was typical of primitive peoples globally as a way to add genetic diversity to prevent inbreeding. As there was no real use for slaves in a nomadic culture otherwise. One common use of "slaves" were warriors of another tribe captured in battle being forced to serve the mother or widow of another warrior killed in battle. In essence, replacing one who had been killed.
As far as torture, that is indeed true and you will never hear me say otherwise. I have talked multiple times about how common human sacrifice was in the Americas. With the Pawnee even practicing their Morning Star ritual into the middle of the 1850s, and some claiming it happened more recently in secret. Do I think that was evil and brutal, hell yes. But it was also areligious and singular annual tradition and not the assembly line technique like the Mesoamerican tribes performed.
But do I think that kidnapping a 14 year old girl from another tribe, then gang raping her before killing her is brutal and torture? You will never hear me saying otherwise. And many other tribes also did similar things. Of course, so did the Celts, and a huge number of tribes around the world that were even more advanced than the Indians were.
This is why you keep failing. The things you keep bringing out were not unique at all to the Indians. Many were being practiced in Europe in the last 2,000 years.
The indians had horses that were left behind by the spaniards what do you think the indians used to drag their travois around?
Who did Lakooktas people kill and drive off the land before they occupied it?
they would have developed roads to facilitate the use thereof
The mound builders could certainly have made use of them. Cahokia could have been built much faster, and much higher.
Because if I were a nomadic person; I could see near limitless uses for a wheel.
Sure, about 150-200 years after the Europeans arrived. So are we talking about Pre-Columbian Indians that were here when they arrived, or much more modern ones?
Please, remain consistent and do not try to bounce back and forth.
Just stop.
The Comanches were the last indians to be be defeated in the US.
And what in the hell does that have to do in response to what I said?
I might as well have been talking about computer theory, and you just up and respond with "Just stop, oranges are not a natural fruit".
You're missing the point. Their "nomadic" lifestyle, is the default condition of their lack of advancement, and civilization building. Roaming, hunting, and grazing like animals, specifically because they failed to develop technologies, and practices that could allow them to stay put. It goes way beyond just the wheel.Without a beast of burden to pull it. And without roads.
Tell me, have you ever tried to travel long distances in that kind of terrain?
Well log rollers, are a crude precursor to the "wheel" proper. And it is surmised that, that method is what was used to move massive stones over great distances. So, "no"; they were not technologically on par with the builders of Stonehenge, or the ancient Chinese. The complexity of the finished products speak to that.OK, fine.
Remember, technologically they might be on par with say the builders of Stonehenge (5 kya). Or First Dynasty Egypt (also 5 kya).
Tell me, did any of them develop the wheelbarrow? How about the Chinese?
I'm willing to bet NOBODY read your OP. NOBODYSome very interesting Native American history. What do you think?
And did you look at what that brings up?
At the very top is a map, which shows it starting at Guatemala.
So thank you for proving my point. God, I love it when people do not even look at their own damned references, and prove me correct.
So, "no"; they were not technologically on par with the builders of Stonehenge, or the ancient Chinese. The complexity of the finished products speak to that.
No. It's rather impressive actually. But its builders aren't whom we were talking about...Oh yes, because this is so primitive compared to anything those cultures built at the same point in development.
It also says that Mexico has been considered regionally as part of Central America
- The non-official United Nations geoscheme for the Americas defines Central America as all states of mainland North America south of the United States, hence grouping Mexico as part of Central America for statistics purposes, but historically Mexico is considered North America.
No. It's rather impressive actually. But its builders aren't whom we were talking about
Most of those are English characters.
