Where I live, I have to have this conversation way too often with people. Early Modern Period (~1600 AD) Medieval Period (~1000 AD) (thelemmy.club)
 

top 90 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 120 points 6 months ago (32 children)

But... none of those things actually contradict "stone age". It might be better to point out that an advanced civilization isn't necessarily defined by metalworking.

  • source
  • hideshow 32 child comments
  • [–] 45 points 6 months ago (9 children)

    So many things are just ideas. It's really fascinating how some ideas can snowball and give incredible power to those in possession of them, while others can be very advanced, yet have minimal effect in the culture's spread or influence.

    Austronesian peoples discovered the fire piston - a very useful tool that necessarily utilizes concepts of air pressure and localized temperature - nearly three thousand years ahead of Europeans. Yet some Austronesian peoples who used this tool were quite literally in the stone age, not working metal.

    Ideas are incredibly arbitrary things.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (3 children)

    Europeans were using roman numerals and an abacus for accounting until the 1200s. In fact, the number zero was initially banned out of concern for fraud. The Medici Bank was an early adopter of the IndoArab numeral system we use today and it helped them become one of the wealthiest families in Europe.

    From the 600s to 1400s we can draw a fairly clear line from Aryabhata, Brahmagupta, Fibonacci, Pierro della Franchesca to Leonardo da Vinci.

    In the old world it could take centuries for ideas to travel, even if they're foundational to modern mathematics, physics etc.

    A similar story can be told of sugar which was first refined in South Asia, the engineering process travelled through and was further developed in the Arab world during the Islamic golden age and then went to Europe.

    Italian merchant republics—primarily Venice—began managing sugar production in Mediterranean colonies like Cyprus, Crete, and Sicily. However, sugar is a land-hungry and wood-hungry crop. By the 1400s, the Mediterranean was running out of timber (needed to fuel the massive boiling vats) and space.

    Christopher Columbus lived in Portugal and married the daughter of a sugar estate owner. When he sailed for the Americas, he brought sugarcane stalks from the Canary Islands on his very first voyage, knowing the Caribbean climate was a perfect match for the "white gold."

    The Caribbean offered vast land, tropical rain, and timber. Because the process of cutting, hauling, and boiling cane is so physically punishing and dangerous, European powers scaled up the enslaved labor system to a level never before seen in the Mediterranean, turning the islands into "sugar factories" to meet the soaring demand in Europe.

    The profits from sugar were unlike anything seen before. At its peak, a successful sugar plantation could see annual returns of 20% to 50%, far outstripping traditional agriculture or local trade. This led to the founding of institutions like the Bank of England, Barclays and Lloyds. Sugar also provided a cheap source or energy and made caffeine based beverages more palatable to maximize the productivity of human capital in operation of early machinery during the industrial revolution.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    "Also, you can just make sugar out of beets."

    Europe, having spent the past ~300 years importing sugar cane as a specialized tropical crop: 😬

    Ideas are worth more than gold!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 child)

    Absolutely. Napolean and trade barriers had an important role in that evolution

    During the Napoleonic Wars, the British Royal Navy blockaded France, cutting off all Caribbean cane sugar. The price of sugar loaf skyrocketed. Facing a riotous, sugar-deprived public, Napoleon poured state funding into beet research. ​He ordered thousands of acres to be planted and offered massive prizes to scientists who could refine the process. By the time the blockade lifted, the industry was advanced enough to compete with cane on a price-per-pound basis.

    It's remarkable how much of human history (if not all of it) is adapting to the circumstances around us.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    Yeah, they invented typesetting in China long before Europe, but they had to prepare characters for each run because of amount of possible characters, the letters were pottery, and it didn't seem like very useful thing so it was abandoned after the inventor's death.

    At least that's what I heard, it might be a retcon for PR purposes

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    Not a retcon at all! Though use of moveable type in China did continue past its inventor's death, it didn't acquire the same prominence or revolutionize printing the way that it did when invented in Europe.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Well, TIL, still I think it really highlights that some ideas need specific circumstances to create an impact

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago

    This reminds me how setting prints letter-by-letter was time consuming, so the printers had common words or even whole phrases ready too. It was called stereotype.

    In France they called it cliché...

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 34 points 6 months ago (21 children)

    They also had metalworking, it just wasn’t iron and in many cases it made no sense to use metal instead of naturally occurring materials with many of the same properties, like obsidian (you can actually make it sharper than a scalpel). It has disadvantages of course, but so does iron; it rusts and requires a ton of energy to create.

    The idea that metalworking is somehow a ‘peak’ of civilization was derived from 1800s anthropology trying to divide societies according to how ‘advanced’ (read: similar to European technological development) they were. In many ways some Indigenous American technologies surpassed European ones: ex, land management. When Europeans were destroying every old growth forest they had, some Indigenous American nations were so adept at land management they managed to have settled hunter-gatherers (coastal PNW). As in, these hunter-gatherers didn’t need to move constantly about the landscape to hunt because they maintained it to be bountiful, and still managed to have population centers of similar size as many European ones.

    You’ve also got terra preta in South America, which transformed poor quality soil into soil that made horticulture possible. And as long as we’re in Central and South America, one of the first nanotechnologies is believed to be a paint made by the Maya called Maya blue.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago (19 children)

    Build me a musket out of obsidian.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 6 months ago (14 children)

    Grow a garden that can feed an extended family in nutrient poor soil with a musket. You’re looking at it the wrong way if you’re viewing one as better than the other and not just different technologies.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (13 children)

    Okay, build me a diesel powered tractor with tiller attachment out of obsidian.

    The other answer:

    Okay. points musket at brown people Start tilling.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago (11 children)

    I'm extremely confused by the thesis of your argument here. What is the point you're trying to make?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (10 children)

    That your hippy dippy "different technologies" take is kind of naive. You sound like a kindergarten teacher handing out participation trophies.

    These two peoples with these two "different technologies" fought. Who won?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    Technology alone doesn't win wars. Hernan Cortez only subdued the Aztecs thanks to managing to get several other native groups to join in on an assault against Tenochtitlan. Diseases that were new to the Americas also killed many natives, way more than any direct confrontations. On an funny note, the Australian army technically lost a war against emus, which are large, flightless birds.

    Keep in mind that colonial powers always used local groups to keep things "in order". This was no different to how they did it in African and Asian colonies: find a group that you can bully or buy and ensure they stay in power, for a price.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    I'll grant...just about all of that. Though my understanding of the "emu war" was like three dudes in a truck with a box of bullets.

    Let me ask you this though: Why isn't that what would have happened if they landed in ancient Egypt? Indulge the sci-fi scenario a little bit, 11 ships carrying 600 16th century CE Spanish Conquistadors land in the Levant circa 2600 BCE. Why would it go any different for Khufu than it did for Montezuma? Would Cortes not win some early victories against some small coastal tribes, capture him a woman that speaks a couple local languages, learn who the major power in the region is, start gathering allies among the locals who've lived under Egypt's thumb and would like to get a piece of that highfalutin pharaoh, and then march his combined army on Memphis? All the while the natives are dying of all the diseases that the 15th century has that the -25th doesn't?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago* (2 children)

    Would Cortes not win some early victories against some small coastal tribes, capture him a woman that speaks a couple local languages, learn who the major power in the region is,

    Yes

    start gathering allies among the locals who’ve lived under Egypt’s thumb and would like to get a piece of that highfalutin pharaoh,

    This is where things break. Do you know enough about the different people living under the Pharaoh's rule in the era you're talking about? I don't. Thus, I cannot say whether Cortez would manage to find enough support to march to the capital, be hailed as the incarnation of some god, or whether the translator would try to warn everyone that the conquistadors are a bunch of pillaging pirates that should be killed, with them being none the wiser. When you're a stranger in someone else's land and everyone absolutely hates you above all else, you can't even breathe without fear of being ambushed. Sure, they have these frightening tools that are louder than thunder, create foul smoke and kill people from a distance, but those things won't protect your back from being shanked

    Or, let's throw a more recent perspective: USA vs. Taliban, 2001-2021. One side has drones, aerial supremacy, satellite imagery, smart missiles, aircraft carriers. The other has mostly just small arms, weapons that at most, need to be mounted on a pickup truck, no tanks, no planes, it was a bunch of fanatics using guerilla tactics. USA never managed to fully beat the Taliban and, after the end of the withdrawal, it didn't take 2 weeks before they seized power.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (1 child)

    Was the United States trying to kill all the Afghanis, raise the Stars and Stripes over Afghanistan and start mining and farming the place for goods to ship back home? Not sure it's a fair comparison given the differing goals. I'm pretty sure we were using Afghanistan as the Military Industrial Complex's cum dumpster.

    Sure, they have these frightening tools that are louder than thunder, create foul smoke and kill people from a distance, but those things won’t protect your back from being shanked

    No, that's what a quirass is for. That's why they wore those.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

    I'm sure they spent 24/7 with a cuirass in the Central American heat. Also, not every Spaniard in those expeditions had the money to buy one for themselves.

    EDIT:

    Was the United States trying to kill all the Afghanis,

    No, neither was Spain in America, since the natives could be captured as slaves

    raise the Stars and Stripes over Afghanistan and start mining and farming the place for goods to ship back home?

    Pretty sure that ended up being one of the things during the occupation, yes.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    That your hippy dippy “different technologies” take is kind of naive

    Don’t sit here and act like you don’t live as the beneficiary of thousands of years of selective breeding of Mesoamerican staple crops, not even to touch on the medications you take that come from the Americas. I’m talking about them as different technologies because they are, and recreating things like terra preta is an active area of research for current day use. Because, guess what, our current technology that you’re jacking off about sucks ass and relies on dumping a metric fuckton of nitrogen and phosphorous in the form of fertilizer runoff into waterways, creating enormous dead zones.

    ‘Who can kill the most people with it’ is a very American way of understanding the past or technology in general. You can’t kill anyone with a telescope, that doesn’t mean it’s not a technology.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    Might be possible with bronze, since some cannons were made of bronze

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 6 months ago* (2 children)

    Interestingly enough, I just finished watching The Lost Metallurgy of the Ancient Americas video, and not only were some cannons made of bronze, but apparently the Conquistadors did actually have some Mesoamerican Natives make some artillery for them using native metallurgy techniques and the locally mined copper/bronze the Natives were already making.^1^

    ^1^ Copper alloyed with arsenic forms a sort of bronze, and copper-tin alloys were also used for the bronze best known nowadays.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago

    Wow, that's a really interesting find!

    Even Spain at that time had not produced the metal domestically for centuries, relying on imports from central Europe.

    Ironic. I wouldn't be surprised if more parts of their technological superiority also relied on imports

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 45 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    Even if. How does a different state of technological developement justifies colonialis, conquering and genocide?

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    It doesn't, unless you're a colonizing nation, then any justification will do.

    There are two significant papal bulls around the time that "allowed" European nations to go and conquer the world to spread Christianity and created the Doctrine of Discovery, meaning that non-Christian civilisations were not actually civilized and should be civilized by force for their own good.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    Yeah, but are the people OP is talking nowadays part of a nation currently colonizing native american peoples and do these people need a justification?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 35 points 6 months ago* (12 children)

    All of the above are true, right? They had advanced astronomy, agriculture, ceramics, economics, and systems of government while living in the Stone Age. Their tools and weapons were made of wood and stone, right? Not bronze?

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 6 months ago* (2 children)

    Actually, many weapons were made from copper (and wood, but even modern firearms nowadays and military firearms up to round about the 1960s are partially made of wood).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 6 months ago (8 children)

    As the person below mentioned, they very much had access to copper. We find quite a lot of copper artworks. We find surprisingly few copper tools. This makes sense. Pure copper kinda blows for tool making. Stone is harder and easier to get. And the problem lies with the purity. Other civilizations had to accidentally discover early metalworking and eventually stumbled upon bronze, being more durable than anything else at the time. North America, up near the great lakes actually has fairly pure raw copper deposits on the surface. A theory is that it led to the native people finding a "new" type of rock, but other than being distinct looking, it proved to be kinda useless.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 6 months ago (7 children)

    Fun fact: The ancient Egyptian pyramids were built with copper tools, not bronze. Bronze hadn't been invented yet; the Egyptians hadn't established the international trade required to get tin.

    They found that copper with arsenic impurities was harder and held its shape better than pure copper, so arsenical copper was cast into basic chisel shape and the edges were cold hammered to work harden them into something that will just about cut limestone for awhile I guess. They also used tube drills and flat saws. They would scatter a slurry of quartz sand and water on the stone to be cut, and then they would work a flat plate of copper back and forth over the sand or rotate a hollow cylinder of copper in place to make a straight cut or drill a hole respectively. In that way they could cut material as hard as granite.

    Now as a woodworking tool, even copper is vastly superior to stone in one key way: Ease of repair. You make the bit of an axe out of stone, it's considerably harder than copper, but it's brittle. It's easy to just break, and if you do that you'll never get it back to the same shape because to re-sharpen that bit means napping more of the edge away. A copper axe bit might dull easily, but it can be honed in a minute or so. It bends, rather than breaks.

    "Stumbling upon" bronze requires access to tin and knowledge of forging and casting technology. Tin and copper are seldom found near each other, and even if you've got tin it needs to have occurred to you to try melting copper. If you only ever cold work copper, you're not going to figure out bronze.

    Hernan Cortes landed on the Yucatan, riding a horse wearing an iron breastplate and carrying a steel sword, and found the Maya and Aztecs living in societies not dissimilar to the Old Kingdom Egyptians. A dude on foot wearing a jaguar skin swinging a wooden club studded with bits of sharp obsidian is scary. A dude on horseback with a matchlock musket and a steel saber is scarier. Imagine a galleon full of 16th century Spaniards dropped anchor at the mouth of the Nile in 2600 BCE and rode into Khufu's Memphis. That's pretty much exactly what went down in what is now Mexico City.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 6 months ago (6 children)

    Imagine a galleon full of 16th century Spaniards dropped anchor at the mouth of the Nile in 2600 BCE and rode into Khufu’s Memphis. That’s pretty much exactly what went down in what is now Mexico City.

    This bears so little resemblance to what happened that it’s essentially 1500s Spanish propaganda. Archaeological remains from first contact show mass civil uprisings of peoples who had been conquered by the Aztecs prior to Spanish contact, not OP European kill bots plowing through thousands of Native zombies. You fire that musket once and then what are you doing for the next 30 seconds while the other 5000 screaming warriors are still headed over to kill you? That’s why they had to flee Tenochtitlan until the plague they brought with them did the work for them. Even then it still took them 3 months to retake the city; pretty poor performance all things considered.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    any books or whatever you'd recommend to read up the the subject?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago

    Conquistadors and Aztecs by Stefan Rinke and When Montezuma Met Cortez by Matthew Restall are good reads. And if you feel like waiting until tomorrow I can access my school stuff and tell you the name of a good documentary on it, but for the life of me I can’t remember or find the title right now.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago

    Brain fart, the documentary I was thinking of was actually about the Incas! But it’s the same time period, it’s PBS Nova: The Great Incan Rebellion if you can find it anywhere. Unfortunately PBS doesn’t seem to host it online anymore.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    Archaeological remains from first contact show mass civil uprisings of peoples who had been conquered by the Aztecs prior to Spanish contact, not OP European kill bots plowing through thousands of Native zombies.

    Yes to the first; Spanish conquest would have been impossible under Cortes without the alliance with anti-Aztec native polities. But to the second, the Spaniards were OP killbots - just not enough to take on the entirety of Mesoamerica with an expeditionary force, as is sometimes imagined. At the Battle of Centla, some ~500 Spanish troops under a man with no military experience successfully held off and forced the surrender of several thousand native troops.

    Steel, guns, and cavalry are massive advantages.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (1 child)

    Both aztecs and their rivals were decimated by disease, that was the key. Given time, they would have been able to master horse riding, armor and more modern weapons, as they actually did in one of the last battles in Xochimilco just a year after the fall of Tenochtitlan, but too few remained to make a difference.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago

    Both aztecs and their rivals were decimated by disease, that was the key.

    In the long-run, in terms of why there wasn't a resurgence of native polities, sure. In the short-term, the ability of a small expeditionary force of Europeans to exercise disproportionate force (making them a desirable ally for the Aztecs' enemies) was the key element of the overthrow of the Aztec polity, not disease.

    Given time, they would have been able to master horse riding, armor and more modern weapons, as they actually did in one of the last battles in Xochimilco just a year after the fall of Tenochtitlan, but too few remained to make a difference.

    I'm unfamiliar with that particular battle, but I'm familiar with later examples. Those weapons also need to be produced in large enough quantities to make a difference, as well as proficiency with them developed. Horse riding is a notoriously difficult skill to master, and metallurgy itself is far from simple. Being able to use captured equipment at a basic level is not nearly the same as being proficient with it, or being able to equip an entire cohesive military unit with it. Disease does not explain battlefield imbalances, which is what I'm referencing.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 33 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    I don't think tech levels even matter in the discussion about whether the native american genocide was justified.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    Though on the technological question, I'm curious how the conflict with europe would have gone if they didn't have to deal with the slew of epidemics that resulted from first contact and killed off the majority of people there before the europeans even started looking at the mainland instead of just colonizing the Caribbean islands.

    The Inca were figuring out tactics to use against the Spanish and were able to halt their advance several times, but didn't have the numbers to really push back, plus were just on the tail end of civil war that could have been caused in part by the sickness destabilizing things before the spainish even realized there was an empire there (that wasn't just their wild goose chase for a city of gold).

    Not sure if the Aztecs would have turned out differently, though it probably would have been a longer war and perhaps would have gone hot before they made it to their capital and took their leader hostage. But they did awe him to the point that he thought appeasement would be a better strategy, not realizing they had no intention of leaving.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    I'm honestly convinced that the Americas would have eventually repelled the European invaders if the introduced (and intentionally spread) diseases weren't so devastating. Guns and metal armor are pretty good in warfare and all, but the size of the army required to subjugate millions of people across varied terrain where the invaders are wildly unfamiliar with the land and how to live in it while the defenders have been present for thousands of years, are very familiar with the land, have established warfare traditions, quickly adapt to introduced technologies, and have allied with historic enemies to repel invaders? Does not tend to go well for the invaders.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (1 child)

    That wouldn't surprise me, though there's both supporting and opposing historic examples for that.

    Like the colonization of Africa. While some areas like Ethiopia held out longer than others, Europe took most of Africa without disease. India was also subjugated, as well as Malaysia. I'm not really sure what the story was for Australia, though suspect it might have been more like the Americas.

    Or there's China and Japan where Europe had the upper hand in dealings but weren't able to essentially make China or Japan colonies under their control.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago

    There were definitely long term colonies in a lot of places, but most of those places are no longer under settler control. The damage to be repaired is huge, and there's still economic control from a distance going on, but it's miles different from what happened in the Americas, especially North America, I'd say.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 24 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (3 children)

    Also the Old Copper Culture of the Great Lakes area! The area has a lot of natural workable copper deposits that are pure enough to be shaped with campfire level heat and stone, not requiring the intensive smelting techniques that were required for metalworking in much of the rest of the metalworking world.

    NORTH 02 on YouTube has some great videos about the metallurgy of the pre-Columbian Americas; I literally just watched the one on the Old Copper Culture today, and have his video on the larger metallurgical traditions of the Americas saved to watch.

    The Old Copper Culture: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=L0E0ueRnBLw

    The Lost Metallurgy of the Ancient Americas: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tfwjM4e42cE

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    But I think non-bronze copper is not all that practical for tools?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 6 months ago*

    Speaking only of that which I learned from the video I linked, my understanding is that cold-hammered copper actually hardens a fair amount. There's a demo using an axe with a cold hammered replica copper blade where he cuts down a tree, for example, and some tests using copper tipped spears. Also, cold hammered copper fishing hooks, which had advantages over bone fishing hooks inreparability and flexibility and would have been useful for fishing in the Great Lakes area. There are still tradeoffs, though, and stone tools were still in widespread use for things they were better for, but there was still a lot of utility in cold hammered copper.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 24 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    Reading "The Dawn of Everything" really opened my eyes to how much our understanding of Native American culture is entirely driven by White colonial narratives. It wasn't just everything in this meme, its the consequences of them. These weren't "tribals" waiting for civilization to come to them, there was a sophisticated and advanced ecosystem of nations here, not always peaceful but rooted in an entirely different world view and systems of interaction than Europe.

    To the extent that when NA ambassadors traveled to Europe, they would report back with what barberous and disgusting people the Europeans were, for all the reasons that would sound familiar today: abandoning the sick, old, and poor to die; worshipping wealth and commodities over people and community; pollution; environmental destruction; exploitation; religious hypocrisy; and more.

    The "Native Critique of European Culture" is devastating, as further evidenced by how many early colonies "failed" (including the famous "missing" Roanoke colony) because the indentured servants, prisoners, and other folks who made up early colonists much preferred to "go native" than be forced into exploitative labor relationships with the foreign power.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 6 months ago

    That book is fucking amazing and one of my favorite reads by far. It opened my eyes too and got me super curious about the first jesuit encounters with the Brazilian natives in the early 1500s. History as taught in schools is also very "white man brought civilization" and every single one of the natives' struggles is swept under the rug. Finding these first records is hard for me. I might need to hit up university professors.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago*

    Yeah, it was wild to see how much of what I had been taught was European ideals and ideas were just Iriqouian critiques that Europeans were convinced of. Then later when he gets to talking about how some of these ideas seem to come from the rejection of Cahokia blew my mind again.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 24 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

    I mean, it is literally the stone age for North America. Even if you want to count Chalcolithic societies in Mesoamerica as out of the stone age, most of North America is still in the neolithic at the time of European discovery. Hell, one of the core features of the neolithic stone age is agriculture and plant domestication.

  • source
  • [–] 22 points 6 months ago (10 children)

    These are the 3 main reasons I think native americans were considered primitives: lack of metal tools (some groups had access to copper and bronze, but none had iron), lack of any sort of writing (writing didn't extend much beyond central America) and, especially in the warmer places, wearing little to no clothing.

    Still, no one in their right mind would ever look at the huge temples and cities built without animal traction and think "Yeah, only a group of primitives would do that". I mean, when you look at the megaliths of Sacsayhuaman, you immediately think "How the fuck did they do it?"

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 6 months ago (8 children)

    some groups had access to copper and bronze, but none had iron

    There were a group on the Washington coast that work with iron that washed up from old japanense shipwrecks before any contact of Europeans.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago (6 children)

    Isn't Washington coast on the east side of the continent?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Washington state is on the West Coast. Washington DC, the capital city, is on the East Coast.

    It's... not intuitive.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago

    When I was a kid, Washington the state, Washington DC, and the whitehouse all blurred together, and then we learned that the whitehouse burned and was rebuilt, and for the longest time I thought it was relocated... to the state... of Washington... and I believed that for years. I think I figured it out before high school, but it was definitely 7th or 8th grade before I could point on a map where the president sat.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago

    There's a 4th: absolution. If you see their societies as having equal right to exist then what was done was a horrific atrocity that specific people are guilty of, often including one's ancestors. It's the same with a lot of anti black racism.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 22 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    It's the problem of using an skewed system to make Europe the advanced civilization.

    I read once that the first sign of civilization wasn't a weapon. It was a cured broken femur because that means someone took care of the person with the broken leg. So maybe that should be the guide to follow: medicine and healthcare.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 18 points 6 months ago

    It's interesting reading Cabeza de Vaca's account of living in Texas for a decade. All the natives living on the Texas coast weren't even hunter-gatherers. They were just gatherers and lived in lean-tos. Meanwhile, 1000 miles south of them was Tenochtitlan, and a bunch of other cities that Bernal Castillo described as grander than those in Europe.

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 6 months ago* (7 children)

    There was no Mayan empire. The Mayas were divided among city-states.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago (6 children)
  • [–] 12 points 6 months ago (5 children)

    OP definitely could have used the Inca empire. Its size far surpassed that of any bronze age state in the Old world.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    It was also the largest empire by continuous latitude coverage

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (2 children)

    Aren't they one of only two empires that was formed into a narrow line north to south? I'm not saying they aren't impressive, just that they were only competing with Egypt there.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 child)

    I did this in True Size Of:

    I didn't include a few northern regions for New Kingdom Egypt, because they were a pain to move with my phone, but I also included all of Egypt which covers a lot of desertic area that probably wasn't under any strong state control.

    Couldn't find La Paz in Bolivia with the website.

    But it should give a pretty good idea.

    EDIT:

    Ok even better:

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 15 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

    Overwhelming percentage of your modern diet is due to precolumbian agricultural science.

  • source
  • [–] 14 points 6 months ago* (2 children)

    They did all of that, without steel or cattle.

    Stone Age, my left ass cheek. They were more advanced than the Europeans, Europe just got a lucky spawn.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›