Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sergarr]

Yes, but what if it gets confirmed later on by a non-bullshit news site?

EDIT: Or maybe not. Fucking hell, I knew I've seen his name before, why did I fail to remember him being a complete crank?

[Neonivek]

Man do you guys remember back when America was great?

[Imic]

Yes, back when the Europeans kept out of the native's affairs.

[martinuzz]

Yes, back when the Europeans kept out of the native's affairs.

* martinuzz fondly remembers the human sacrifices

[Starver]

By the way, the promises to promote American Russian manufacturing above that of other countries are going ahead, as planned.

(There are subtleties to that article that, from a Steel background in Britain, I could go into. But the real take-home point I have is "[it] had many loopholes, would not be easily enforceable, and could violate international trade law" should be contrasted with the travel ban, far too inflexible, all too easily disruptive and violates national and human rights laws as well. The pattern being that both are badly (or 'badly'?) written.)

[redwallzyl]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/06/us/politics/travel-ban-muslim-trump.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

so the new ban is here. slightly not worse then the old one.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

Yes, back when the Europeans kept out of the native's affairs.

* martinuzz fondly remembers the human sacrifices

Nuance is a good thing, people. The natives weren't, like, these super meditating gurus that could literally hear nature, but most of them didn't sacrifice other human beings.

Additionally, "the natives" aren't a homogeneous bunch. So perhaps Native Group A was pretty good, better than what we've got except minus the tech, and Native Group B went around killing everybody.

(And one could argue that increased technology tends to lead to a decrease in overall happiness; a more impersonal world, less connection to one's peers, and whatnot, which would remove the racial aspect of this entirely.)

But there's another aspect to this - Imic also appears to be saying that less interference between countries is better, especially when one country doesn't agree to it, and in the case that the interfered-with country is not committing any crimes against its citizens. Surely you agree.

[birdy51]

I would wonder what would happen should the European powers had been delayed in the development by a few hundred years. Would the America's have developed a stronger culture, or would they remained in their tribal groups without unification in any real, tangible manner that lasted?

Edoot: Arguably, the Aztecs were the most far along. But they also had latent internal issues that might have kept them from developing for a longer period of time.

Second doot: Arguably speaking further, the Native American population crashed hard as soon as European illnesses got thrown into the mix. Recovering from that, then attempting to form their own respective nations again would have been a monumental task.

[scriver]

Yes, back when the Europeans kept out of the native's affairs.

* martinuzz fondly remembers the human sacrifices

Nuance is a good thing, people. The natives weren't, like, these super meditating gurus that could literally hear nature, but most of them didn't sacrifice other human beings.

Additionally, "the natives" aren't a homogeneous bunch. So perhaps Native Group A was pretty good, better than what we've got except minus the tech, and Native Group B went around killing everybody.

(And one could argue that increased technology tends to lead to a decrease in overall happiness; a more impersonal world, less connection to one's peers, and whatnot, which would remove the racial aspect of this entirely.)

But there's another aspect to this - Imic also appears to be saying that less interference between countries is better, especially when one country doesn't agree to it, and in the case that the interfered-with country is not committing any crimes against its citizens. Surely you agree.

No, I'm also fondly remembering the human sacrifices of the natives before the Europeans butted in on our business.

* scriver hoists Dozebum up in a tree and sacrifices them during the Midwinter Blot

I would wonder what would happen should the European powers had been delayed in the development by a few hundred years. Would the America's have developed a stronger culture, or would they remained in their tribal groups without unification in any real, tangible manner that lasted?

Edoot: Arguably, the Aztecs were the most far along. But they also had latent internal issues that might have kept them from developing for a longer period of time.

The "strength" of a culture (however that is measured, I'm not 100 on what you mean?) is irrelevant when the Europeans carry with them society-destabilizing-grade germs. 500 years later would mean another 500 years worth of disease mutation inflicted on the American populace.

[birdy51]

Meh. I'm just sort of idly musing. I agree with you in that it might have not made a difference in the end.

Strength of culture though might measured in how many people consider themselves to be a part of a 'state'. The Aztecs had the strongest culture when the Europeans came, having controlled an exceptionally large portion of Mexico and a burgeoning beaucratic center. At the time, no one that I know of really matched the intensity and size of their nation.

[PTTG??]

Welcome to 1800s anthroplogy, where society starts with hunter-gatherers and goes linearly to European, or else stays still.

[TempAcc]

It was rife with political turmoil tho, to the point cortez didn't have much of an issue getting several local allies to fight the core of the aztecs. Also I'm not sure I'd measure the strenght of a culture by how much people feel like they're a part of a state. I'd measure it by its ability to withstand the tide of change and contact with other cultures, specially those with greater military power or money. The roma, for example, still have their own culture and habits despite never having a state of their own, and the jews kept their cultural and spiritual identity strong for centuries despite not having an actual state of their own until recent times.

The sikh don't have a state of their own either (or even appear to have ambitions for one), but one can hardly deny how strong their cultural identity is.

[ChairmanPoo]

The aztecs didnt have a stable society at all, just a confederacy of lesser tribes that hated their guts.  Thats how what amounted basically to a  few rogue mercs were able to bring them down.  Maybe a couple of centuries would have changed that, but the centuries prior clearly hadn't.
The Incas were arguably more organized though. Maybe with more forewarning they could have performed better.  But then again the tech edge would have remained, and , like scriver said, it wouldn't have spared them from European plagues. .

[Rolepgeek]

Another 500 years could also mean greatly increased population density and disease outbreaks naturally, which in turn means greater resistance to pathogens within the populace and ability to adapt to new diseases. It could also mean a change in philosophy and governing style within europe, as well as greater knowledge of medicine. Hell, five hundred years could mean native Americans taking the reverse Viking route to Europe.

[misko27]

CK2 is not a positive influence on the world.

Meh. I'm just sort of idly musing. I agree with you in that it might have not made a difference in the end.

Strength of culture though might measured in how many people consider themselves to be a part of a 'state'. The Aztecs had the strongest culture when the Europeans came, having controlled an exceptionally large portion of Mexico and a burgeoning beaucratic center. At the time, no one that I know of really matched the intensity and size of their nation.

Careful there laddo, don't be confusing culture and states. Otherwise, you'd be making all sorts of assumptions where the defeat of one state by another is a sign of the weakness or underdevelopment of it's "culture", rather than other factors (like guns! And boats! and gunboats!). Military conquest is military conquest first-and-foremost, after all, not a statement on the relative "cultural" development of one over the other (for examples: see Mongols, or the Liao Dynasty in China).

It was rife with political turmoil tho, to the point cortez didn't have much of an issue getting several local allies to fight the core of the aztecs. Also I'm not sure I'd measure the strenght of a culture by how much people feel like they're a part of a state. I'd measure it by its ability to withstand the tide of change and contact with other cultures, specially those with greater military power or money. The roma, for example, still have their own culture and habits despite never having a state of their own, and the jews kept their cultural and spiritual identity strong for centuries despite not having an actual state of their own until recent times.

I feel the need to note here that measuring the "strength" of a culture by its cohesiveness was one of the major contributers for the rise of anti-Semitism in late 19th century Germany, since Jews were "strong" and thus threatening to the unity and strength of the German nation (and "Germanness"). The Irony being that it's not nearly so clear-cut, as the existence of Yiddish should illustrate. By contrast, I might point to Greek: it's widely considered to be incredibly important and influential by most of the region around and near them, and yet they are clearly influenced by their surroundings as much as they influenced them (including, of course, Rome; with the Greeks carrying the torch of Rome long after Rome itself ceased to do so).