Yeah, nice theory.

Doesn't hold up. You have two major groups active at the time Europeans arrived... the Aztecs and the Incas, both of which made empires in their respective areas.

So yeah. Seriously, man. Take off the rose colored glasses.

People play the same power games. And when the time came, it turns out that European technology and organization trumped American Indian. The same story is told over and over the world over.

It doesn't make it right or wrong, but this is how the world works(ed). And putting a group of people on an unwarranted pedestal isn't going to help anything.

Also, please give me an example of a group of people that best exemplifies the ideal you're holding up.

"Yeah, nice theory.

Doesn't hold up. You have two major groups active at the time Europeans arrived... the Aztecs and the Incas, both of which made empires in their respective areas."

That doesn't conflict with my theory. I know they're not all good. I know a load of them are bad. But their system allows good people to be good. That's freedom. The current system on the same continent allows rich people to be good. They allow the poor ones to die or join the bad guys. I remain thinking that Native Americans were better than the colonists when it comes to ideologies.

"Also, please give me an example of a group of people that best exemplifies the ideal you're holding up."

Not a clue. One guess would be Inuit, but again, not a clue. Again I think that's irrelevant. It's like giving the example of a good state in America to prove America is good. Pointless. I'm talking about the system. The system is not corrupt, the system preserves the earth and the system doesn't require exterminating everyone else. You can't say the same counts for the current system in the same continent.

Hey steephie, Rousseau would have loved you.

'The noble savage' was his baby. Modern anthropology kind of blows it out of the water.

Steephie - "My point is that they [native americans] don't want everything."

In this hyperthetical example can you rank the heroes to villians on a 1 (Villian) to 11 Hero scale. You must use every gradation.

Man A wants cheese which he takes from Boy B. Boy B is upset (he had only just stolen the cheese and hadn't had time to eat it) Man A kills Boy B as he tries to fight back. Boy B's Family (C) form lynch mob and hang Man A from a tree. Police (D) are called and beat to death 4 members of family (C) which happen to be a different colour. Race riots ensue and gang (E) attack police station and burn it down killing 30 Police Officers (D). Community is appalled and the majority from the peace loving religion Fozy (F) defend their community and kill 100 gang (E) members in the process. The army (G) who happen to be from the peace loving Zofy religion that split from the Fozies centuries ago now have to enforce order and kill over 1000 Fozies who are marching for equal rights. The neighbouring country (H) launch a gas attack to end the bloodshed and kill thousands, estimates vary but its between 5-10,000. Whilst the UN is still debating its response the coalition of the willing (I) consisting of the number 1 superpower and luxamberg, invade killing close on 70,000 men women and children. They overthrow the government promising elections within 10 years. They also take some oil and mistreat a few prisoners. One brave sole (J) raises his head above the parapit and assasinates President K, the number 1 superpower's democratically elected leader.

Jeez, lot to digest, but I'll try my best...
So if I understand correctly, Boy B stole cheese which Man A stole and Boy B fights Man A to get the cheese back? I must say you did leave a lot of relevant information out everywhere, but let's see:

If Man A is defending himself from Boy B and accidently kills Boy B, and Police D accidently kill 4 members of family,

I say: A10, B9, C8, D11, E6, F7, G4, H3, I1, J5 and K2.

This does confuse me though, so I might have made some mistakes along. Other than that, there's a lot unclear obviously. Is president K the warmonger that caused the war? If so, he's on the right spot. What's the point of this if I may ask?

Come on, steephie22. Your argument is all special pleading. American Indians did not live in any more harmony with the land than any other pre-industrial peoples. The ones who were nomads lived like any other nomads, the ones who farmed lived like any other farmers. Ever wonder why so many places in the eastern half of the country are called Deerfield? It's because European settlers found big clearings in the forest where Indian communities had once lived. There were no Indians when the areas were found so they just moved right in and took advantage of pre-tilled ground. Sometimes they had died off because of plague (it outpaced the European colonization) but sometimes it was just because the community practiced slash-and-burn and moved on to another area.

Just admitting that American Indians were humans like any other doesn't mean you approve of what happened during the colonization of the New World. Our image of the Indian shedding a tear as he looks out on a ruined land is a romantic invention of white guilt.

Wasn't this about Gibraltar?

"they killed animals with respect, and used everything the animals had."

Sorry, this pissed me off the most. Every culture uses every part of the animal. That's what you HAVE to do if you're a subsistence farmer or hunter-gatherer. The idea of not wasting any part of an animal is only remarkable to us chicken-breast-eating Westerners who have the privilege of having access to any food we want, thanks to our modern economy.

Massive +1 Invictus

Ditto that

"I remain thinking that Native Americans were better than the colonists when it comes to ideologies"

They had less concentrated power, that is smaller population centers for learning and technological development (which also leads to slower spread of disease, and resulted in weaker immunity to European disease which had evolved super-fast in urban areas, lets call them super-diseases)

Now The diseases of the Europeans didn't have a different ideology from the ones in the Native Americans, but they had a massively different history and this lead them to wiping out a huge percentage of the Native Americans, while leaving the Europeans largely untouched (ok, Cholera was pretty new to Europeans, and so still killed a lot of them, but that one deserves special pleading)

So the massive number of deaths (which contributed to the collapse of the Incan and Aztec societies, along with devastation of tribal societies in north america) had nothing to do with Ideology of the diseases, it was just the natural progress of viruses/bacteria which liked infecting hosts.

I hope i've made my point.

"Sorry, this pissed me off the most. Every culture uses every part of the animal. That's what you HAVE to do if you're a subsistence farmer or hunter-gatherer. The idea of not wasting any part of an animal is only remarkable to us chicken-breast-eating Westerners who have the privilege of having access to any food we want, thanks to our modern economy."

I'm only arguing that the North American continent was better off without the colonists, and the colonists shot loads of game just for fun or as strategic warfare, either way it's cruel. I think the continent was better off with nomads.

"They had less concentrated power, that is smaller population centers for learning and technological development (which also leads to slower spread of disease, and resulted in weaker immunity to European disease which had evolved super-fast in urban areas, lets call them super-diseases)

Now The diseases of the Europeans didn't have a different ideology from the ones in the Native Americans, but they had a massively different history and this lead them to wiping out a huge percentage of the Native Americans, while leaving the Europeans largely untouched (ok, Cholera was pretty new to Europeans, and so still killed a lot of them, but that one deserves special pleading)

So the massive number of deaths (which contributed to the collapse of the Incan and Aztec societies, along with devastation of tribal societies in north america) had nothing to do with Ideology of the diseases, it was just the natural progress of viruses/bacteria which liked infecting hosts.

I hope i've made my point."

Actually, I don't see the point. Yes, the colonists brought nasty diseases as well, so? Does that make them better in any way? It just made their fight much easier, right?

"Come on, steephie22. Your argument is all special pleading. American Indians did not live in any more harmony with the land than any other pre-industrial peoples. The ones who were nomads lived like any other nomads, the ones who farmed lived like any other farmers. Ever wonder why so many places in the eastern half of the country are called Deerfield? It's because European settlers found big clearings in the forest where Indian communities had once lived. There were no Indians when the areas were found so they just moved right in and took advantage of pre-tilled ground. Sometimes they had died off because of plague (it outpaced the European colonization) but sometimes it was just because the community practiced slash-and-burn and moved on to another area.

Just admitting that American Indians were humans like any other doesn't mean you approve of what happened during the colonization of the New World. Our image of the Indian shedding a tear as he looks out on a ruined land is a romantic invention of white guilt."

I admit that, that isn't my point. I think the colonists destroyed a beautiful culture on a beautiful continent.

''Yes, the colonists brought nasty diseases as well, so?'' - the diseases became so nasty because cities allowed the spread among European populations, in effect it made them more powerful because they had a bigger concentration of hosts; The same could be said for the technology of the colonists, or their warfare, or the cultural ideas they brought with them regarding their own superiority.

All things which depended on their history - and largely allowed the defeat because cities allowed the spread of ideas, the development of standing armies, the technology required to combat other people's standing armies.... Tribal American natives didn't have the same urban culture, which is how they were wiped out.

So steephie22 is just Sicarius without the vocabulary. Gotcha. Safe to ignore.

Hehe, before you assume I'm something I'm not, although I do think the colonists were bad and wrong and the natives were better, I am playing a bit of devil's advocate here.

orathaic: so your point is that the natives didn't stand a chance? Well thanks for clearing that up :) If that's not your point I don't think I see what point you are trying to make, except that colonists were superior in technology, immunity and knowledge. Which I know.

Also remember that the vast majority of cultures don't exist anymore.

Do you equally weep for the Etruscans, the Hittites, or Pharonic Egypt?

All have been destroyed by "outsiders"

I don't weep for them but I think it's a shame, yes.

(Not weeping for Native Americans either btw, again, I just think it's a shame.) Also, any special reason you name these three? Because most people don't give a crap about them? Can I just note that, for example, Etruscans aren't as different from Romans? That they all had armies which they didn't mind using, which can hardly be said from Native Americans? What I mean is that Etruscans were sort of a threat, Native Americans not IMO.

... are you seriously making the claim that Native Americans didn't have organized forces capable of inflicting violence (which is what an army is).

Rose colored glasses. C'mon, man. This is wooly thinking that is holding up an ideal that doesn't actually exist (the noble savage)

it seems to me that people are very keen to portray the Native Americans as in some sense a threat to the colonies because otherwise they may have to confront the fact that the USA is founded on the genocide of one race and the enslavement of another.

"except that colonists were superior in technology,
immunity and knowledge. Which I know."

I very specifically did NOT say superior - more concentrated urban centres, long man-hours spent thinking about tech, more exposure to disease - you are the one who said superior.

I'm not making any value judgement; a measure of the actual impact of urbanisation on european culture is comparable to a measure of non-urbanisation in native american culture. I'm not saying on is better.

My point was always to compare directly with disease - it spreads, opportunistically where-ever it finds a host, if it kills it's host it then loses it's habitat. Jus like human colonies and the land (as a host) in america. No better no worse, and if this culture kills of the land it is fucked;

Mendax: Not even a little bit.

The sad reality is that you'd struggle to find an area where the current residents of a piece of land didn't drive out or butcher the previous inhabitants in some manner.

It doesn't make it right, but I'm strongly against anybody idealizing any particular group. The Native Americans practiced the same type of warfare: You take what you can from your neighbors because you are stronger. Or you get taken from because you're weaker. The game is the same, and it seems odd to try to place exclusive blame on white colonists just because they had superior firepower.

Again, it doesn't make it right, but it also doesn't make the native Americans some kind of ideal, noble culture that the wicked colonists exterminated for kicks.

You guys know I'm just saying it's a shame that any culture gets exterminated, including nomads, including Native Americans? If we go exterminate the US all of the sudden that's a shame too.

"... are you seriously making the claim that Native Americans didn't have organized forces capable of inflicting violence (which is what an army is)."

I'm saying not all of them did. And I'm saying there's nothing threatening the colonists. It wasn't 'to be or not to be', it was to share or not to share (or go back to where you belong). We could disagree on that, I don't care. Yes, I know there were armed forces under the Native Americans.

*

'or go back to where you belong'

Where do we belong? considering we're all from Africa; we're the most invasive species on the planet at the moment; damaging 'natural' ecosystems, wiping out local flora and fauna...

I meant Europe. I think that's where the colonists belong, even though their far ancestors are most likely from Africa.

Haven't we given it back yet, the red tape around these things can take absolutely ages.

^What?