Native American Empire

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by mindseye

From the initial post:

Or if the US had stayed east of the Mississippi, could the remaining Native Americans have ever really compeated with the US?

Selective quoting. Also from the initial post:

In keeping in tradition with speculation about history. Could the Native Americans have produced a nation to rival European ones if left alone?

Please notice that your highly selective out of context quote says OR not and. I and others are dealing with the first part.

The second part cuts off the most advanced Amerind tribes though. Those west of the Mississippi had changed but not in ways that would quickly lead to major technological change. They bought arms and iron they didn't make it themselves.

Now if you want to assume NO Spanish PLUS the US stopping at the Mississippi thats something else. Still I don't see how disease wouldn't have reached the large civilizations in Central and South America if there was US. There would still be attempts at trade and surely the US would not have existed without the Carribean also being colonized. It was the Carribean that paid for all that shipping. Sooner or later small pox and cholera would have hit the New World. The Incas were allready being struck down by Small Pox when Pizzaro went there. He didn't bring it with him it had come from Central America.

[Jack the Bodiless]

There is a problem with estimates of how many years behind Europe the American civilizations were. We don't actually know just how long it would take to develop certain technologies. The spread of technology in Europe was both accelerated and retarded by many factors.

For instance, the technological superority of Europeans over many of those they encountered was due to to the many uses of one particular technology: iron. European ships were made of planks cut with iron tools and held together with iron nails. European soldiers wore steel armor and fought with steel weapons until steel guns became dominant.

The Polynesians were great seafarers, but could not match the Europeans in exploration because they lacked the tools to build true ships. Europeans could also produce buildings easily because they had iron tools for stone-cutting. Iron even boosted population (the iron plowshare in agriculture). Of course, much of this could also be accomplished with bronze: but not with stone.

Suppose one Amerind civilization discovered iron-smelting and then made a determined effort to exploit this new technology in as many different ways as possible. Imagine a positive-feedback effect in which the advantages of iron-based technologies cause inventors to be revered, leading to a ruling caste of engineer-priests constantly developing new uses for iron and experimenting with alloys and smelting techniques. The civilization might fast-forward to near-parity with fifteenth-century Europe within decades.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Llamas are not suited for draft animals Slowhand. Pulling kids around in a little cart does not equate to plowing fields or pulling heavy wagons.

Try to think along with your sputtering.

I guess the number of llamas required equals the size of the load.
According to your presentation, only Clydesdales are suitable.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Sikander

The Americas were already at enough of a disadvantage by being situated mostly north to south rather than east to west, where plants and animals domesticated in one Cultural Area (like Meso-America) were not suitable for and could not make the journey to another Cultural Area (like the Andes). Eurasians thus had a number of advantages accruing from their east-west orientation, with both crops and animals moving in both directions. Trade is another critical means of spreading disease, and the Americans traded very little from one region to the next.

All of this stuff is right out of Guns, Germs and Steel, an interesting book. I don't have the same respect for Diamond when he strays from his own area of expertise (biology, natural history) and into History, Archeology, Sociology etc., as he has the typical "white man's guilt" common amongst the masochistic liberals, but critically read the book makes many good points.

Hey, thanks for backing up my last post, Sikander.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Ethelred


No. The results are fuzzy. The charge was clear.

http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no95.htm

http://wind.prohosting.com/rlanwood/trial.htm

Your sources are 2 anti-mormon websites? That is some deep research.

The charge isn't very clear, furthermore, if this is on the books in New York, wouldn't the results of the case be available also?

I've seen websites that say that Proctor and Gamble forward their profits to the Church of Satan, doesn't mean it's true.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Tuberski


Your sources are 2 anti-mormon websites? That is some deep research.

The facts are real. I can't help if only Mormons care one way or the other these days. Joseph Smith was clearly involved in some very dubious stuff. Even before he made up the BOM which is a blatant fraud. Not so blatant then because not as much was known about Pre-Columbian America but its been quite clear for a very long time.

In the 1800's people could believe at least some of that stuff without needing to deny facts. Now its a requirement. Suddenly chariots and horses in the BOM aren't really horses or chariots but something else carefully undefined and the Mormons are left with the chant "Only in so far as it was translated correctly" to try of obfuscate the clarity of the failure of the BOM to reflect reality.

The charge isn't very clear, furthermore, if this is on the books in New York, wouldn't the results of the case be available also?

No. You didn't read it all. The case was run by a Justice of the Peace and those were often held informally. There was that article however. The question for a long time was the article fraudulent but the bill from the Justice of the Peace backs it up. Try and find documents from the most famous Justice of the Peace ever, Judge Roy Bean.

I've seen websites that say that Proctor and Gamble forward their profits to the Church of Satan, doesn't mean it's true.

They don't have a shred of evidence. Kind of like the BOM on that. There is FAR more evidence that Smith was conning people then there is for the BOM being real. Of course even one piece of evidence is more than none.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Ethelred
They don't have a shred of evidence. Kind of like the BOM on that. There is FAR more evidence that Smith was conning people then there is for the BOM being real. Of course even one piece of evidence is more than none.

True, man I like a good argument! To bad I suck so bad at it now.



I think that Joseph Smith may be a prophet, but at least I ain't a scientologist!

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Tuberski
but at least I ain't a scientologist!

Scientology - A religion with only one apparent religious belief:

L. Ron Hubbard shalt not pay taxes.

Now the L. Ron is dead (for second and, so far, final time) what reason is there for the continued claim that Scientology is a religion?

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Ethelred


Scientology - A religion with only one apparent religious belief:

L. Ron Hubbard shalt not pay taxes.

Now the L. Ron is dead (for second and, so far, final time) what reason is there for the continued claim that Scientology is a religion?

Because, from your point of view, enough people still believe it is a religion.

[Ethelred]

Whats my point of view have to do with it?

I am not the one pretending that its a religion. Generaly and in fact by every definition I have seen all religions have at a least some kind of belief about a god or a creating force. As far as I can tell Scientology has no such beliefs.


Round about the brain we go
In the poisoned ingrams throw

[Ramo]

I never said otherwise. However it would have been a LONG time for Canada from what I can see. There was no civilization there. As in cities. Cultures yes, civilizations no. Without cities as trade and cultural centers it would hard for technology to improve beyond the stone age.

That's irrelevant... The question is whether Amerindians would have caught up were they "left alone." Farming was relatively widespread among Amerindians in North America by the time of European colonization. It wouldn't taken THAT much longer for certain areas of Canada to farm as well (if they hadn't to some extent already).

Iron is extremely complex to make.

Nonetheless, it's not particularly unlikely that they would have discoverd the metallurgical processes necessary to make iron. They would've started with poorer processes (like wrought iron), figuring out it's better than stone, and over time refine them. The Eurasians were able to get it done; I don't see why the Amerindians wouldn't be able to do so as well given time.

[mactbone]

Interesting theory about the relatively disease free Amerinds I read about. The trek from Asia to the Americas was through the Bering Straight and the areas surrounding it, which are very cold. Bacteria don't live long in the cold, and because of that all the migrants basically went through a natural "delousing".

[Ramo]

Well, at the time humans migrated into America they really hadn't been introduced to that many diseases (compared to afterwards). The lack of diseases among Amerindians (also) could be primarily attributed to the lack of large domesticatable animals.

[Ethelred]

I simply said a LONG TIME not never and I don't see how that isn't relevant. The Amerinds in Canada and most of America were at a level that was many thousands of years behind the Europeans and the Asians. In fact much of Africa was at the same level except they had iron working, probably came from Europe.

Wrought iron IS EXTREMELY complex to make unless you know more modern methods. I wasn't talking about blast furnaces. Iron takes many steps even in the most primitive techniques.

Link

http://myron.sjsu.edu/romeweb/glossary/timeln/t10.htm

[Ramo]

I simply said a LONG TIME not never and I don't see how that isn't relevant.

The premise was that Europeans would leave them alone. Assuming that, they would eventually learn metallurgical techniques and take advantage of the less advantageously-distributed metal deposits had they domesticatable animsls. While gaining domesticatable animals (which is a vital element of the progession of civilization) is not guaranteed if they had more metal deposits.

The Amerinds in Canada and most of America were at a level that was many thousands of years behind the Europeans and the Asians. In fact much of Africa was at the same level except they had iron working, probably came from Europe.

Wrought iron IS EXTREMELY complex to make unless you know more modern methods. I wasn't talking about blast furnaces. Iron takes many steps even in the most primitive techniques.

Iron was first produced in Eurasia by ~2500 BC, and became common by ~1000 BC. It obviously is not that difficult to produce else it wouldn't have happened in the first place...