Aesopo - 11 September 2007 01:34 PM

Nationalism is tribalism of a kind, only bigger.  And even before the Europeans came to the Americas, all manner of “nationalistic” social structures were in evidence at some point somewhere in the Americas: tribalism, city states, kingdoms, Empire et al.

are you referring to the Haudenosaunee?

What I don’t get in this is the idea that the “white man” was one big homogeneous entity.  There were massive cultural differences between Europeans at that time.

*Hitler liked westerns, therefore that verifies there were no territorial borders in the Americas until the Europeans arrived

I am not even going to read the rest of the post because that is too stupid to respond to.

truthaddict - 11 September 2007 02:23 PM

are you referring to the Haudenosaunee?

No, but thank you for offering an excellent example.  They formed a Union of Nations and constitutional pact that weren’t the result but the inspiration to European colonists.

Real history seldom conforms itself so cleanly to those cute and catchy bumperstickers.

well the influence they had on europeans is suspect. even the declaration of independence refers to the indians as “savages.”

also, the similarities in ideals and structure were pretty different.

but thats not my point of bringing them up. the point was that there were social structures but they were hardly as rigid or authoritarian as those of the Europeans.

truthaddict - 12 September 2007 11:18 AM

well the influence they had on europeans is suspect. even the declaration of independence refers to the indians as “savages.”

Yes.  I think history should be viewed with a similar understanding we apply in the present.  Linoleum can come in nice clean squares, the black and the white distinct and will never mix.  But not life.  I gather that the Iroquois were fairly widely admired in the colonies for many years.  Probably few believed they were their equals, but the colonialists were impressed by them.  A few writers of the time wrote fairly widely read accounts in which the Iroquois were praised for the bits like “consent of the governed” and “absence of class distinctions”, and balance of power (the founders were preoccupied with preserving the sovereignty of states while forming a union) while at the same time expressing shock and exception to their brutal treatment of captives.  Double standard, no doubt.  The colonialists were certainly in self-denial that Europeans in the Americas were in any way equally or more so brutal to anyone except when exaggerating the crimes of the British troops and king against the colonialists. 

but thats not my point of bringing them up. the point was that there were social structures but they were hardly as rigid or authoritarian as those of the Europeans.

In what respect?  Do you mean in terms of nationalism or territory?

The Aztec empire was actually very authoritarian and class-based.

Alon - 12 September 2007 11:29 PM

The Aztec empire was actually very authoritarian and class-based.

Touche.

The Europeans peoples can’t be accurately defined with cookie-cutters.  Neither can the all Native American peoples, whose unique groups are no less different in their ways and histories than those in Europe or Asia or anywhere else.  Take the Navajo and Hopi who are as distinctive of one another as the Palestinians and Israelis; backyard neighbors with different languages, heritages, religions, social identity, territorial disputes, etc.

European objectivity is not to be questioned.

They are the only intelligent people on the planet.

I take it that is a joke of course. If it isn’t you sound bias. Who gave you the authority to say Europeans are the only intelligent people on the planet? If they are so intelligent how come they did not stay over there and come here instead? And if they are so smart why did most of them embrace religion or believe in a god?

If they are so smart why do they get in so many wars and oppress so many people?

Smart huh? Yeah pretty smart. That has to be a joke.

Aesopo - 12 September 2007 11:19 PM

In what respect?  Do you mean in terms of nationalism or territory?

In general structures. Compare Mediæval Europe with what we know about the Americas and you see alot more rigidity and authoritarianism in structure. Even the Aztecs barely reach their level in terms of centralized authority and barbarity. Slavery in the Aztec Empire was a form of punishment for severe crimes whereas slavery in Europe was a means of exploitation for a higher class.

Europe as a land mass is much smaller than the two American continents. Nothing like the Haudenosaunee existed anywhere in Europe at that time, and likewise, nothing like Mediæval Europe existed anywhere in the America’s. Even the Inca’s had some form of separation of powers that were not present in Europe.

Again, the closest that anyone can show were the Aztecs, but there were differences. You can definitely check the credibility of wikipedia for this source, I personally already have previously, but here are some of the differences they noted:

“Like most European empires, it was ethnically very diverse, but unlike most European empires, it was more a system of tribute than a single system of government.”

“Due to the steady surveillance, even women could travel alone, a fact that amazed the Spaniards, as that was not at all possible in Europe since the time of the Romans.”

truthaddict - 13 September 2007 09:38 AM

Slavery in the Aztec Empire was a form of punishment for severe crimes whereas slavery in Europe was a means of exploitation for a higher class.

Aztec flower wars were fought between neighboring tribes with the express intent of capturing masses of troops alive. These were not common criminals, but warriors captured and enslaved for the purpose of ritual murder. The Maya practiced similar tactics in warfare.

Holely Goat - 13 September 2007 02:47 AM

European objectivity is not to be questioned.

They are the only intelligent people on the planet.

I take it that is a joke of course. If it isn’t you sound bias.

Smart huh? Yeah pretty smart. That has to be a joke.

I am biased but that is my style of facetious exaggeration.

But I think Europeans engage in enough bizarre behavior to justify some of it.  It can be very funny when you notice it but it makes you wonder how deeply this psychology goes.

Have you noticed that dictionaries are in alphabetical order.   Look up the word continent in various dictionaries some time.  Find any dictionaries that list the continents and have Europe first in the list?  But don’t Africa, Antarctica and Australia come before Europe in alphabetical order?  How can people who make a book that is notorious for being in alphabetical order not list the continents that way?  ROFL

And that doesn’t bring up the minor detail of Europe not even being a continent since it isn’t separate from Asia.    

It is really more a matter of a lot of these palefaces confusing their egos with their intellects.

I confess that I actually get annoyed with myself sometimes for actually finding it funny that so many of them can believe a 200 ton airliner can level a 500,000 ton building in less than 2 hours.

http://www.fknnewz.com/911facts.html

There is also the matter of economists with PhDs from Harvard and the University of Chicago who don’t mention the planned obsolescence of automobiles 38 years after the moon landing and haven’t said anything about it even though Galbraith mentioned it 10 years before the moon landing.  Have you heard them say anything about what we lose on depreciation of that junk every year?  I estimate it is about the value of 10 World Trade Centers and that includes 2.5 million dollars for each person that died.

psik

doug,

that was not slavery, that was a form of POW. isntead of killing as many as they could on the battlefield like the European method of warfare they captured as many as they could to be killed later for ritual sacrifice.

slavery, where people are forced to do labor was present in the Aztec culture but as a form of punishment for severe crimes and even then the slaves had rights. slavery, where people are forced to do labor in the European sense was not done for punishment, but exploitation. that was the difference I was referring to.

sure, some of the barbaric warring methods (conquest, expansion, etc) were similar despite one groups preference to kill them later rather than on the battlefield.

truthaddict - 13 September 2007 10:59 AM

that was not slavery, that was a form of POW. isntead of killing as many as they could on the battlefield like the European method of warfare they captured as many as they could to be killed later for ritual sacrifice.

I don’t really see the difference. Most early societies gained slaves the same way: through warfare. And until very recently even european warfare wasn’t aimed to kill as many as possible. In the Revolutionary War, to take one example, captured soldiers were often told just to go home and not fight again.

what I dont see the difference in is whether they are killed on the battlefield or later at a ritual because the end result of their warfare is the same: to kill their enemy.

what I do see a difference in is whether forced labor/slavery is a means of punishment for those who commit severe crimes or a means of accumulating excessive wealth for a minority class by forcing others into servitude.