16 year old visits Iraq alone for personal interest...what!?

[John Uskglass]

Other than that, there were also the Incas, with technological and social advances far before their European counterparts.

Too bad about the total lack of industry, metalworking skills and their fucked up Pagan religion, eh? They might have gone on to....maybe...last a few years against the Spaniards.

 

[Ozrat]

"total lack of industry"
You make it sound like not having to work 40 hours a week in dangerous working environments and still having an advanced society at the same time is bad thing or sth.

"metalworking skills"
They were able to accomplish all of their advances without them, which says a lot.

"fucked up Pagan religion"
How was it fucked up? Their awareness of natural processes gave them extremely precise calendars and other advances, how is that a waste?

Being backstabbed by the Spaniards does nothing to dispute their civilization.

 

[John Uskglass]

You make it sound like not having to work 40 hours a week in dangerous working environments and still having an advanced society at the same time is bad thing or sth.

Every non-hippie in the world would rather work forty hours a week in a civilized nation making steel then scrap for food every day and give whatever remains to support insane public works and temples.

Are you arguing that industrialization is never enviable for any people or just not for darkies, Ozrat?

They were able to accomplish all of their advances without them, which says a lot.

About their state of mind, maybe, about the state of their technology it speaks horribly. They would never have gone anywhere past where they where without metal.

How was it fucked up? Their awareness of natural processes gave them extremely precise calendars and other advances, how is that a waste?

Both the Inca and especially the Chimu practiced mass human and most often child sacrifice. Get your head out of that shitty vinyl copy of Aoxomoxoa and look at Incan society for what it was: demented, perverse and primitive even by the standards of the Spanish.

 

[Ozrat]

Are you arguing that industrialization is never enviable for any people or just not for darkies, Ozrat?

I am arguing neither. Not that I expected you to see that.

Until you do, it is pointless to 'debate' with you. Have fun learning about the world around you the hard way.

 

[John Uskglass]

Thank's for not addressing my other points by the way, chickenshit. The Incans where about as advanced at that time as the Bhutanese are right now, thus your definition of them as an 'advanced society' is bullshit, and your brining up Industrialization as a negative was slightly silly anyway as the only thing I pointed out was that it was impossible for the Inca to industrialize, thus at some point they would have been dominated and killed.

 

[Jebus]

You make it sound like not having to work 40 hours a week in dangerous working environments and still having an advanced society at the same time is bad thing or sth.

Every non-hippie in the world would rather work forty hours a week in a civilized nation making steel then scrap for food every day and give whatever remains to support insane public works and temples.

Are you arguing that industrialization is never enviable for any people or just not for darkies, Ozrat?

They were able to accomplish all of their advances without them, which says a lot.

About their state of mind, maybe, about the state of their technology it speaks horribly. They would never have gone anywhere past where they where without metal.

How was it fucked up? Their awareness of natural processes gave them extremely precise calendars and other advances, how is that a waste?

Both the Inca and especially the Chimu practiced mass human and most often child sacrifice. Get your head out of that shitty vinyl copy of Aoxomoxoa and look at Incan society for what it was: demented, perverse and primitive even by the standards of the Spanish.

Stop being such an ass, CCR. Considering the Inca and Aztec only had about, oh, 10 000 years to build up their society from the point humans arrived in South America compared to the 500 000 years European society had been developing, they were actually doing darn well better than we did. Especially considering the fact that they were almost completely isolated from other continents (the brief visits of Vikings in northern Canada around 900 AD not really counting) - while European society borrowed plenty from the Islam and Chinese civilizations. And *especially* considering that just about the *only* plant they could domesticate was corn, which only gives about a fourth of the calory count of wheat. Calling them 'demented' again shows your ability to learn from nothing but official age-old propaganda, and utter failure to comprehend or think through anything that hasn't been written down or spelled out for you.

 

[Ozrat]

CCR, just because I did not directly quote every ignorant word you said does not mean that I did not reply to them; I did.

Take this into consideration; the Inca acknoledged the presence of a new culture in the area and attempted to coexist with them, the Spanish took advantage of that for their own greed. Who were the ignorant savages? Also, if the Inca had no metal working skills, then why did the Spanish overtake them for their metal products?

And Jebus, you mean well and are correct for the most part but your numbers are wrong. You are also wrong about how many crops they domesticated.

Wiki[/url]]It is estimated that the Inca cultivated around seventy crop species. The main crops were potatoes, sweet potatoes, maize, chili peppers, cotton, tomatoes, peanuts, an edible root called oca, and grains known as quinoa and amaranth. The many important crops developed by the Inca and preceding cultures makes South America one of the historic centers of crop diversity (along with the Middle East, India, Mesoamerica, Ethiopia, and the Far East). Many of these crops were widely distributed by the Spanish and are now important crops worldwide.

I should know, I grew quite a few of them myself, including quinoa and amaranth.

And then take into consideration all of the plants that they used without needing to domesticate them. That's something that our 'advanced' society is still struggling to do for medical and other purposes.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

Ah, Ozrat, you have no idea how glad I am to see you back at NMA and participating in discussions again. It brings back fond memories of the good old days.

Um, carry on.

 

[John Uskglass]

Considering the Inca and Aztec only had about, oh, 10 000 years to build up their society from the point humans arrived in South America compared to the 500 000 years European society had been developing, they were actually doing darn well better than we did.

I don't really see how this matters. Pre-agricultural populations reach their peak pretty quickly, thus what matters is at what point they develop agriculture, IIRC around 600 BC. And yes, it's true that they did have less time to develop, and they did develop impressively considering their situation, but they did not have some of the major banes to civilization in Eurasia, such as highly mobile nomadic barbarian populations that can basically strike anywhere thanks to domesticated horses.

And I don't really see how this matters in any case. Complexity of a civilization is never a relative comparison between certain areas, but rather a global comparison. The Spanish where more advanced, and the Azteks where hated and despised by the populations they subjected and slaughtered by the thousands.

Calling them 'demented' again shows your ability to learn from nothing but official age-old propaganda,

Heh. Are you going to start arguing that sacrificing thousands of slaves a year to keep the sun in the sky every year is somehow not demented, or perverse?

Or hell, the Chimu sacrificing children by the thousands, or the Incas sacrificing children in times of famine: is this civilized?

, and utter failure to comprehend or think through anything that hasn't been written down or spelled out for you.

Heh. How much have this have you read about this, Jebus? I have barley read anything, I'm going to admit.

Who were the ignorant savages?

The Incas. Advanced civilizations dominate, nonadvanced civilizatons are dominated.

I'm not even a fan of the Spanish, but for all their temples and public works and roads, they still lost out to a pretty small force of Spanish soldiers.

And disease.

Also, if the Inca had no metal working skills, then why did the Spanish overtake them for their metal products?

See, there's a difference between folding gold with you bare hands like this

and Spanish blast furnaces making this

I'm not what this argument is about anymore though. Are either of you really going to argue that the Incas where more civilized then the Spanish, or are we just going through a regular pissing contest?

 

[Wooz]

I believe the point at hand is that they were more civilized than 'common knowledge' statements, not a direct comparison to Sixteen-century Spain.

FYI, criminals' executions and Auto-da-fe's were common practices in "civilized" civilizations, whenever a major earthquake hit, something flooded and the like. To drive the divine wrath away from us, miserable sinners. Ritual sacrifice is hardly the issue here.

It might be that. Or the quantum repercussions of the fact that this thread started as a rant about some dumb kid's stunt, then morphed into a debate on mesoamerican civilizations' HDI.

 

[Jebus]

And Jebus, you mean well and are correct for the most part but your numbers are wrong.

Am I? I dunno. I'm looking at two different sources right now; one says that Clovis-hunters crossed into Alaska about 12000 BC and reached the southern part of South america around 10000 BC, and the second source has about the same dates, 'round 1000 years later. I thought checking two sources would be enough :-/

You are also wrong about how many crops they domesticated.

I forgot the potatoes! Damn me.
Still, most of those plants would yield less calories per square mile than wheat would.
And heck - plants is not really what's most important. I guess the thing that made the most difference was South America's lack of big, domesticeable animals - the only such animal they had was, if I am not mistaken, the llama. And animal far less usefull than cows, pigs, sheep or horses - and especially the latter one.

I don't really see how this matters. Pre-agricultural populations reach their peak pretty quickly, thus what matters is at what point they develop agriculture, IIRC around 600 BC. And yes, it's true that they did have less time to develop, and they did develop impressively considering their situation, but they did not have some of the major banes to civilization in Eurasia, such as highly mobile nomadic barbarian populations that can basically strike anywhere thanks to domesticated horses.

2500 BC. Which means they developed agriculture 494 000 years faster than the Middle-Easterners did (who did so at 8500 BC), which is already pretty impressive. And which also means that they had 6000 years less to develop as a sedentary civilization - compare the Aztec empire of 1500 with Europe in 4500 BC, and they've done everything far faster than Europe did.

Also, 'banes' like nomads and plagues have very, very, very limited effect on long-term development of civilizations as a whole. The mongols did not set back or slow growth in China or Europe, and the Black Death actually made Europe boom. 't Sucks for the people involved, though.

Also, I don't get

Pre-agricultural populations reach their peak pretty quickly

Do pre-agricultural populations peak? Peak into what?

And I don't really see how this matters in any case. Complexity of a civilization is never a relative comparison between certain areas, but rather a global comparison.

It IS relative when a cilization has been isolated from all other civilization during its entire existance. Calling a civilization "demented, perverse and primitive" because they did not carry the technological and moral qualities of a civilization they knew absolutely nothing about seems rather unfair.

The Spanish where more advanced, and the Azteks where hated and despised by the populations they subjected and slaughtered by the thousands.

What, more hated than the Spanish were by the populations they subjected and slaughtered by the millions? Or does the fact that they were technologically more advanced excuse that in some way?

Heh. Are you going to start arguing that sacrificing thousands of slaves a year to keep the sun in the sky every year is somehow not demented, or perverse?


Or hell, the Chimu sacrificing children by the thousands, or the Incas sacrificing children in times of famine: is this civilized?

It's certainly no more perverse or uncivilized than slaughtering millions of slaves to mine gold or grow sugar.

And it is also certainly no more perverse or uncivilized than what European cilizations did at that point of their development - slaughtering thousands of slaves in arenas for *amusement* is in my humble opinion even far, far worse.

The Incas. Advanced civilizations dominate, nonadvanced civilizatons are dominated.

I guess the mongols annexing the Chinese empire does not compute with you logic.

I'm not even a fan of the Spanish, but for all their temples and public works and roads, they still lost out to a pretty small force of Spanish soldiers.

Three words: horses, cannons and steel swords. There were no horses in south america, they did not have the Chinese or Islamic to learn the secret of gunpowder from, and they didn't have the time to develop metal weaponry of any kind. I fail to see how they can be called 'demented, perverse and primitive' for that.

And disease.

And I REALLY don't see how that could be held against them.

 

[DirtyDreamDesigner]

2500 BC. Which means they developed agriculture 494 000 years faster than the Middle-Easterners did (who did so at 8500 BC)

What?

Also, 'banes' like nomads and plagues have very, very, very limited effect on long-term development of civilizations as a whole.

Yeah, except for the little thing called the Great Migration.

Do pre-agricultural populations peak? Peak into what?

I think he meant population peak. As in "not baby boom". 'Tis debatable.

It IS relative when a cilization has been isolated from all other civilization during its entire existance. Calling a civilization "demented, perverse and primitive" because they did not carry the technological and moral qualities of a civilization they knew absolutely nothing about seems rather unfair.

True.

 

[Jebus]

2500 BC. Which means they developed agriculture 494 000 years faster than the Middle-Easterners did (who did so at 8500 BC)

What?

Homo Sapiens arrived in Europe in 500 000 BC; and in South America in 11000-10000 BC. Considering the Clovis-hunters did not carry any agricultural technologies, this makes the speed at which the Southern American indians developed agriculture impressive. Same thing can be said for the Papoea-new-guineans (more impressive perhaps, even - they formed an agricultural civilization in a jungle highland that wasn't even 'discovered' by other civilizations in the 20th century -but that's OT).

Also, 'banes' like nomads and plagues have very, very, very limited effect on long-term development of civilizations as a whole.

Yeah, except for the little thing called the Great Migration.

I shudder to think how Europe would look right now if the Roman empire hadn't fallen. Also - since it only took about 500-600 years to reach a comparable level in most regions, I would consider that relatively short compared to the millennia we're talking about here.

Do pre-agricultural populations peak? Peak into what?

I think he meant population peak. As in "not baby boom". 'Tis debatable.

AFAIK, pre-agricultural populations have a pretty hard time peaking, or even reaching a noticeable level of growth if all land has been 'occupied' by gatherers-hunters. Look at the mongols, for example: they burst out of their homeland when their numbers had increased only relatively slightly.

 

[DirtyDreamDesigner]

Homo Sapiens arrived in Europe in 500 000 BC; and in South America in 11000-10000 BC. Considering the Clovis-hunters did not carry any agricultural technologies, this makes the speed at which the Southern American indians developed agriculture impressive. Same thing can be said for the Papoea-new-guineans (more impressive perhaps, even - they formed an agricultural civilization in a jungle highland that wasn't even 'discovered' by other civilizations in the 20th century -but that's OT).

That still doesn't mean they developed agriculture 494 000 years "faster"...

I shudder to think how Europe would look right now if the Roman empire hadn't fallen. Also - since it only took about 500-600 years to reach a comparable level in most regions, I would consider that relatively short compared to the millennia we're talking about here.

Yes but the impact it had is comparable to other events which lasted for millennia.

AFAIK, pre-agricultural populations have a pretty hard time peaking, or even reaching a noticeable level of growth if all land has been 'occupied' by gatherers-hunters. Look at the mongols, for example: they burst out of their homeland when their numbers had increased only relatively slightly.

I agree.