Tour of Ray's computer setup
Hate to break it to you but the indians were nomadic because they couldn't sustain themselves in a single area because of destructive hunting tactics (among many things). While I don't argue that the founding fathers walked all over indian culture, the indians were not sweet happy little green friendly people. The human race has a pretty bad record so far when it comes to managing resources.ynot wrote:I want it back,paleface.We had it made before you showed up.The women did all the work.We hunted and fished and fought all day.We didnt destroy mother Earth,digging in the ground,polluting her waterways,and running amuck.
Bp_968
By "indians" I assume you are talking about North American Indigenous Peoples, as opposed to Indians, people from India. (Personally I don't care if native 'americans' WANT to be called 'indians'. I know a lot more people from India, and I'm sick of having to clarify which one I'm talking about. India got to the word first - too bad.)bp_968 wrote:Hate to break it to you but the indians were nomadic because they couldn't sustain themselves in a single area because of destructive hunting tactics (among many things). While I don't argue that the founding fathers walked all over indian culture, the indians were not sweet happy little green friendly people. The human race has a pretty bad record so far when it comes to managing resources.ynot wrote:I want it back,paleface.We had it made before you showed up.The women did all the work.We hunted and fished and fought all day.We didnt destroy mother Earth,digging in the ground,polluting her waterways,and running amuck.
Bp_968
But my real point is that your comment about destructive hunting tactics being the underlying cause for "the indians" (implying ALL 'indians') being 'nomadic' is crap. First of all, many NAIPs weren't nomadic. The Mississippi mound building civilization sure wasn't nomadic. (It's a bit hard to build huge structures and cities larger than London (at that time) when you're wandering around). I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that some tribes/nations had to relocate (as opposed to being 'nomadic'*) because of over-hunting. They were people after all, and we all screw up.
* There are many cultures who are 'nomadic' in the sense that they move among various climate zones (such as high and low elevation areas) from season to season. That's totally different from having to flee an area because of damage to the local eco-system.
None of that changes my point. White men showed up thinking they knew better than native americans and look what they did to the place.Native americans lived here for thousands of years without polluting and eroding. Look around after just 500 years since the english showed up here.
"Everyone should have a plan for the zombie apocolipse" Courtney
Well, turn off your computer, throw away your synthetic equipment and clothes, grab some leather for a loincloth and rejoin nature. I on the otherhand am a wuss, and will keep my computer, my climate controlled living conditions, abundent and easy supply of food, and my fast moving vehicles. I'm quite happy to be living in the current period in time, and in this country. As for polluting and eroding, take a look at some third world countries and the damage they have done to the enviroment. Its more a problem with too many people in one spot, then any technological advancements. In fact, the technologies have allowed us to support more people on less land. Some smaller african countries have so many people in such a small spot they have all but exausted their natural resourses and are begging for aid. I do have to agree that while things might have not been as comfortable, or as safe as it is now, I'm sure they were simplier.
Ben
Ben
Not to back up bp's exaggerations, but you're buying into the same foolishness on the part of the Europeans (speaking broadly) that led to the ethnic cleansing of the indegenous populations in the Western Hemisphere. When the 'pioneers' headed west they were ignorant of how the local populations were interacting with the landscape. They called it "wilderness" and assumed that it was unmodified. From their perspective, land that had not been adapted to European-style farming was wasted. (Also, it appeared to be 'out of control' of 'man' and was thus frightening) In fact, may local populations were modifying the landscape for their needs, its just that the new (nomadic?) ethnically European populations weren't familiar with what they were doing.ynot wrote:None of that changes my point. White men showed up thinking they knew better than native americans and look what they did to the place.Native americans lived here for thousands of years without polluting and eroding. Look around after just 500 years since the english showed up here.
Aren't all those arrowheads that kids find a form of 'pollution'? Don't be overly simplistic. If nothing else, it's insulting to these people by imagining that they were somehow apart from the reality of what it is to be human. (a.k.a. "the noble savage" fantasy) In some local areas, they did screw things up (e.g. erosion, over hunting, etc)
Also, don't just blame the English - there were French, Spanish, Russians, etc. colonizing the western hemisphere.