More Spin off... Survival of The Fittest

[phee]

Lions and Gazells are a poor comparrison, but I am not sure what is a good one either. Perhaps Cro-magnon man and Neanderthals. Native Americans are genetically different than Europeans.

Native Americans were a stone age people. With a few exceptions they did not use metals for more than ornaments. Their tools were made of bone and stone. They were also very war like. It's down played a lot now days, but they did fight and kill each other on a regular basis. The farther west one went, the more violent these people got. There was even a tribe that were cannibals, though the extent of the cannabalism is unknown at this time.

The peoples that came across the pond were more advanced. They had technologys that the natives had never even dreamed of. They had horses and guns. (Horses are not native to the Americas) They worked metal into fantastic tools. They had Steel. The had building techniques like the natives had never seen.

For a while, the two peoples coexisted. Just like the Neanderthals and the Cro-magnon man. After a while the pale faces grew in number and it was obvious they were not going to leave. The Natives tried to adopt some of the new ways, but mostly clung to thier traditions. People just dont like change. The two peoples started to fight. We all know how that turned out.

Was it racists? Yeah.

Was it nature doing it's thing? I think so.

Personally, I think what happened was a horrible blight on the history of the human race. Does that change anything? No. Do I feel guilty over it? Hell No.

It'd done. It's over. Except for reperations and special priviladges given to the natives.

Intelligent response

[Guest Game of Chance]

Survival of the fittest is a part of nature this is true...

But we are not talking about nature... we are talking about a group of people

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Talking about a group of people (in another word: society) is talking about nature. Last time I checked, human beings are also part of the global eco-system.

[Guest Game of Chance]

Nature is specieist... Not racist

You are comparing cultures of humans with different species... gazelle don't eat other gazelle... and to my knowlege lions don't eat other lions... so in essence you are saying that simply the fact that the race of native americans didn't have small pox ammunity and fire power comperable to europe... that they are somehow like a different species (gazelle/prey) to europe (lion/predator)... A lion cannot help being a lion, and a gazelle can't help being a gazelle...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Neither can a human help being a human. There are many species that attack each other, by the way. Lobsters are a great example. Ever wonder why they have those rubber bands around their claws when you see them in tanks?

so you are saying that Native Americans are naturally prey to Europe dispite both being human...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No...I'm saying that their culture had not advanced as far as the European culture at the time of their unfortunate demise.

[phee]

Talking about a group of people (in another word: society) is talking about nature.  Last time I checked, human beings are also part of the global eco-system.

Culture and nature are usually considered a bit different....

[Guest Game of Chance]

Lions and Gazells are a poor comparrison, but I am not sure what is a good one either. Perhaps Cro-magnon man and Neanderthals. Native Americans are genetically different than Europeans.

Native Americans were a stone age people. With a few exceptions they did not use metals for more than ornaments. Their tools were made of bone and stone. They were also very war like. It's down played a lot now days, but they did fight and kill each other on a regular basis. The farther west one went, the more violent these people got. There was even a tribe that were cannibals, though the extent of the cannabalism is unknown at this time.

The peoples that came across the pond were more advanced. They had technologys that the natives had never even dreamed of. They had horses and guns. (Horses are not native to the Americas) They worked metal into fantastic tools. They had Steel. The had building techniques like the natives had never seen.

For a while, the two peoples coexisted. Just like the Neanderthals and the Cro-magnon man. After a while the pale faces grew in number and it was obvious they were not going to leave. The Natives tried to adopt some of the new ways, but mostly clung to thier traditions. People just dont like change. The two peoples started to fight. We all know how that turned out.

Was it racists? Yeah.

Was it nature doing it's thing? I think so.

Personally, I think what happened was a horrible blight on the history of the human race. Does that change anything? No. Do I feel guilty over it? Hell No.

It'd done. It's over. Except for reperations and special priviladges given to the natives.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes...nice post.

[n0Mad]

The europeons (spelled wrong on purpose)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I get it. That's funny. :laughing (Seriously.)

[phee]

Some of the discussion on this thread reminds me of the late 19th/early 20th century concept called "Eugenics" very interesting history in this... you guys ever heard of it?

[paradox]

i had a long reply ready that touched on alot of stuff...

and then my computer ate it. :(

apparently it wasnt fit enough! :laughing

it boils down to this: yes, disease, not technology killed off about 90% (or about 55 million) of the native american by the early 19th century.

if you want to call being dirty and diseased "superior", by all means, go right ahead.

as to deliberate transmission of diseases, the initial contacts had no idea what was happening. once this was realized, it was used aggressively, but generally only in isolated incidents. spreading "diseased blankets" wasnt a regular practice, though it did happen.

as far as bubonic plague in europe, i highly doubt its spread was deliberate, the dark, unless i misread what you wrote.

[phee]

i had a long reply ready that touched on alot of stuff...

and then my computer ate it. :(

apparently it wasnt fit enough! :laughing

it boils down to this: yes, disease, not technology killed off about 90% (or about 55 million) of the native american by the early 19th century.

if you want to call being dirty and diseased "superior", by all means, go right ahead.

as to deliberate transmission of diseases, the initial contacts had no idea what was happening. once this was realized, it was used aggressively, but generally only in isolated incidents.  spreading "diseased blankets" wasnt a regular practice, though it did happen.

as far as bubonic plague in europe, i highly doubt its spread was deliberate, the dark, unless i misread what you wrote.

Yup... it seems that some of the statements in this thread lean towards the Eugenics ideals of the turn of the century...

[paradox]

a few notes

Native Americans are genetically different than Europeans.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

no more so than they are from any other person on this planet. in fact, there is greater genetic variation within ethnic (note, not racial, race is a fallecy) groups than between them. there is only one race of people on this planet--homo sapien sapiens.

Native Americans were a stone age people.

no.

there were a number of advanced cultures in the americas. they had incredibly advanced social systems, intracte calanders, and a writing system at least as advanced as the europeans. the initial contacts encountered only a few unscathed native cultures before disease became a rampant threat. we know of the mound builders in the central US, but we never encountered them. this is likly because disease wiped out most of the people before we ever reached the interior. this is mainly because they were probably sedentary and agricultural based, which made them more susecptible to disease, as they lived in one place, in close proxcimity and in larger numbers than nomadic peoples. the survivors (what was left) probably merged with peoples who had lived on the fringes of their empire or formed mobile groups of their own. any technological advancements they would have had would be lost with the rapid fragmenting of their society and death of great numbers of adults in their productive years. the indians that the settlers met as they pushed west were the remanents of a once great culture.

additionally, as you have acknowledged yourself, they worked metals. its is also well-known that her in michigan, the natives mined copper prior to the settlers discovering the mines. metal working technology automatically discredits the appelation of "stone age". failure to employ it to kill others doesnt equal technological inferiority.

They were also very war like.

and the europeans werent?! :laughing :laughing :laughing

seriously man...

humankind is war like. period. though id say that the europeans were far more blood thristy. they took little or no prisoners. native warfare often took many prisoners and functioned far differently from the Western approach.

also, cannibalism doesnt = warlike. its a cultural aspect that is still found in some societies today and is a practice of magic (in the anthropological sense of the term), not warfare.

The peoples that came across the pond were more advanced.

technologically, yes, in general.

Horses are not native to the Americas

this is not entirely true. there were native breeds of horses in the americas, but they had been extict for some hundreds (or thousands, i cant recall the specific timeframe off hand) of years prior to european contact.

For a while, the two peoples coexisted. Just like the Neanderthals and the Cro-magnon man. After a while the pale faces grew in number and it was obvious they were not going to leave. The Natives tried to adopt some of the new ways, but mostly clung to thier traditions. People just dont like change. The two peoples started to fight. We all know how that turned out.

this is also untrue.

the europeans came in great numbers while disease raveged native societies, forcing great changes throughout the peoples of the interior. the fight started almost from 1st contact. cortez in what? 1520 or so? the natives adapted as best they could. in the north, they swiftly incorporated horse and later guns into their cultures very successfully. the europeans brought these things, but natives were quite often considered better marksmen and riders by the europeans themselves!

what happend was 90% of the native population died of to disease within a few hundred years, a process which fractured their societies and left them reeling. they adapted as best they could to their rapidly chnaging world.

the euopeans mopped up small pockets of resistance that were left.

i wonder if you would think the same, were china to introduce bird flu and other diseases to which europeans have no immunity into europe, then conquer it.

[phee]

Thankyou Paradox... very well thought out

[pharoh]

Thank you Paradox, I am glad to see some intelligent responses on this matter.

[The_Dark]

They did have advanced social systems, calenders and writings.. but they still used stone and bone for thier tools. Metals were ornamental except in the most advanced of thier cultures. They were not truly stone age.. but they weren't much beyond it.

If thier cultures were as advanced as you say.. there would be archiological evidence.. there isn't any.

Horses went extinct in the Americas about 11,000 years ago. When they wre alive.. they were slightly larger than a sheep.

I only mentioned that the Natives were warlike because there is a wildly held beleif that they were all tree hugging hippies that would not hurt a fly. Which is complete bullshit. I mentioned canabalism for the same reason.

[phee]

They did have advanced social systems, calenders and writings.. but they still used stone and bone for thier tools. Metals were ornamental except in the most advanced of thier cultures. They were not truly stone age.. but they weren't much beyond it.

If thier cultures were as advanced as you say.. there would be archiological evidence.. there isn't any.

Horses went extinct in the Americas about 11,000 years ago. When they wre alive.. they were slightly larger than a sheep.

I only mentioned that the Natives were warlike because there is a wildly held beleif that they were all tree hugging hippies that would not hurt a fly. Which is complete bullshit. I mentioned canabalism for the same reason.

This is true... some groups were quite violent and warlike (Apache for example) but they never tried exterminations and conquering on the mass scale of Europe... but make no mistake they did do awful things to each other

[pharoh]

But Phee that goes in any culture lol

[phee]

But Phee that goes in any culture lol

Exactly!

The point being that mass genocide did not....

[The_Dark]

Genocides have really only ever been attempted by the Euros and Japs.

[phee]

Genocides have really only ever been attempted by the Euros and Japs.

And the Arabs and Euros seem to keep trying it over and over again... and let's not forget Nigeria....

[The_Dark]

but noone has ever really touched on the numbers that the Euros and Japs did... just ask the 35million chinese civilians the Japs killed during WWII

[phee]

but noone has ever really touched on the numbers that the Euros and Japs did... just ask the 35million chinese civilians the Japs killed during WWII

True indeed... although "Japs" is a bit a "politically incorrect" term don't you think :fear

[The_Dark]

Not when we are talking about them slaughtering 35million women, children and elderly.

[phee]

Not when we are talking about them slaughtering 35million women, children and elderly.

:whistling

[ZhukovCodeslinger]

35million chinese is on the extreme low end of the guesses... if you include starvation and disease due to japanese occupation and conflict the numbers reach 100million