🚀 go-pugleaf

"Mapanari" <Mapi@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:oTdv7.36246$pN2.11697491@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
>
> "Everett Hickey" <lithium@ev1.net> wrote in message
> news:3bbc6bd5$1_2@newsa.ev1.net...
> | "Mapanari" <Mapi@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
> | news:xINu7.18248$Kp2.10696034@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
> | >
> | > | Ummm... none of those things are specific to the west.  Cleanliness
is
> | > | something that most of the west gets low scores on, compared to many
> | eastern
> | > | cultures where cleanliness is held in much higher regard.
> | >
> | > Cleanliness is the hallmark of civiliazation, which is why the
European,
> | > Japanese
> | > and other cultures that ascribe to those values are superiour in just
> | about
> | > every
> | > way to others that don't.
> | > Camel jockey's are not very clean.  Just ask one to eat with both
hands.
> |
> | You don't know much about their culture, do you?  On average, when they
have
> | access to it, they bathe more than once a day - being clean is part of
their
> | religion, instead of just a 20th century fad like in the west.  It took
a
> | major marketing campaign by plumbing manufacturers just to get us to
bathe
> | once a day.  Sounds a lot like people who called native americans
"filthy",
> | because they lived outside - even though they took more care of
themselves
> | than the people who called them that.
>
> You yourself are displaying your ignorance for other religions and other
> cultures.  Arabs traditionally only wash their feet, hands and face before
> praying.
> In many countries this is the only bathing they do for weeks.
>
> And native americans were so dirty and filthy that immigrants could smell
them
> in the night and from miles away.
> There are immigrant reports of the stench of villages included rotting
flesh,
> dead
> animal parts, feces and more permeating the area where immigrants would
have to
> vear aside to avoid the smells.
> Most plains indians would foul the water, chop down all the trees, kill
all the
> animals
> and then have to move on to do the same.  This is typical of most nomadic
> primitive
> peoples.
> I know you've seen a lot of Hollywood movies and it's really politically
correct
> to love
> your native american injuns and ascribe to them all sorts of wonderful
cultural
> and lovely
> sayings ( If I hear "the great spirit" and "The trickster" one more time
I'm
> going to scream!)
> and to actually believe the re-writing of factual and anthropological
history,
> but saying
> it was so doesn't mean it was so.
> Take the plain's indians hunting practices...which many scientists believe
is
> the reason why
> many game species in America became extinct like the Wooly Mammoth; they'd
> encircle a
> whole herd of whatever and then drive them off the cliff killing the whole
herd.
> Then down into the valley to take tongues and other choice parts and
leaving the
> rotting carcasses
> by the 10's of thousands to stink up the sky.
> The buffalo hunters on the plains were never as bad as the indian
themselves.
> Shear numbers of
> white, black and indian buffalo hunters almost made the buffalo extinct.
And by
> the way, it
> was through the good graces of a few white men that you even have any
buffalo
> left to see; not
> one indian was involved in saving the last buffalo.
>
> I could go on, but you'd just put your hands over your eyes and start
chanting
> " I'm not listening!
> Blah blah blah blah blah!"
>
> You want me to tell you the quaint indian custom of how to soften seeds to
be
> eaten?  Or the many tribes that practised canniblism?  Or ritual murder
and
> sacrifice?
> There was a reason why the average settler in 1800's wanted nothing better
than
> to exterminate them.  Like the Denver Militia yelled as they hacked up the
women
> and children at Sand Creek " Nits make lice!".
> We're a little bit more advanced now, but, re-writing history is something
your
> liberal social teachers love to do to fit their own PC agenda.
>
>
> snip
> |
> | The Greeks brought much of it in (though cataloging of data came to
Athens
> | through Persia, as did many other organizational skills).  However, the
> | Greeks and Romans couldn't hold onto it when their civilizations
collapsed -
> | it was arabs who not only maintained everything they could (the loss of
The
> | Library was a harsh strike against that), but continued on - pushing
further
> | into mathematics and the sciences (Euclid brought us geometry, but most
> | arithmetic, algebra, trigonometry, and some of the earliest stirrings of
> | what would lead to calculus, came from the middle east during the Pax
> | Islamica).
>
> The libraries in Damascas and in Spain and Morocco survived throughout the
> years.
> It's really something that not even 1/2 of all the ancient texts and stuff
> written pre
> 1300's has been translated.
> Civilizations ebb and flow, knowledge goes here and there.  The dirty
Xtian
> crusaders destroyed the second biggest resorviour of knowledge in the
whole
> world, and I still maintain that it was bigger than Alexandria, the
collected
> works
> of the whole world in Constantinople when they sacked that city and killed
over
> 100,000 people ( about 90% of it's population) on their way to a great
glory of
> fighting the infidel for God.  Later on the "infidel", Tyrians, and
others,
> learned the
> mercy of the Christian god when by lying the Crusaders were let into Tyre
and
> then
> proceeded to take every inhabitant up on the walls, behead them in front
of El
> Saladin's
> army and push their corpses of the walls, all women, children and old men,
the
> whole
> city.
> See, the arabs remember stuff like this when they're taught history, their
> history.
> |
> | That region fell on hard times later, and all that changed - but history
is
> | irrelevant.  My point is the things you originally mentioned as an
attack
> | are not very well grounded.  The fact that the only part of that you
really
> | responded to was historical doesn't prove your point much.  The closest
you
> | came was treatment of women (they're way way behind in that area), and
> | education (they go futher into it than we do in some areas, but they
dont'
> | exactly have any major universities with a global draw).
>
> I'm a cultural anthropologist and that's the way I see things.  Some
cultures
> are
> just superiour to others.
> We can debate all day long, but in the end, we're on the moon, eating Big
Macs
> and our women have birth control and can wear thongs on the beach, except
in
> Florida.
>
> |
> | > It's nice to read parts of history, and whatever pc professor taught
you
> | last,
> | > usually to denigrate "Dead white men history", but it doesn't make it
so.
> |
> | I've torn through a pretty good number of history books, particularly
ones
> | that try not to hold any viewpoint at all.  I also like access to direct
> | archaeological data instead of other's interpretations of it.  I have no
> | intention of denigrating western culture - but I get a strong feeling
that
> | you're either very highly biased towards it, are bigoted against
particular
> | groups, or simply have a number of gaps in your history.  You aparently
know
> | a lot, but you also sound like you're missing a lot - especially recent
> | history in that region.
> |
> Recent to ancient, whatever.  I study all of it.
> There are gaps just like everyone; I can't nor can anyone read everything
there
> is
> to be read.  I concentrated on the middle ages when I got my history
degree and
> with side trips to Russian, Polish, Chinese and Persian/middle eastern
history
> to
> see the broad picture.
> I was more interested in the money  and trade routes, commerce and
politics
> angle
> of the times.
> But, I had to learn about how weapons were made, the history of sailing
ships,
> defensive
> fort building, military tactics, weather data and tons more stuff to get a
> fairly clear
> picture of the times.  Sure there are gaps, but not many.  I think I
skipped the
> development
> of musical instruments, most of the pottery except as pertains to middle
eastern
> language and communications devices, hierogyphics, reed binding, and epic
poems
> and
> literature.  Not enough hours in a lifetime.

Sometimes it's hard to tell if you're joking or not.

Don't go by what any historian says.  Go by what people of the time said...
in letters home, military reports, reports to government officials,
newspapers, journals, etc.  One good thing about the 19th century is there's
so much of it that was recorded by everyday people.

Early settlers reported that the plains were "choked" with buffalos.
Massive herds thundering around.  Indians were around for thousands of
years, and for all their hunting they didn't seem to dent the population.
Within a half century we'd reduced their populations to something that
needed saving.  Indians had no real involvement in efforts to save the
buffalo - all they wanted was for us to cut down our large-scale hunting.

And yes, movies and books try to portray native americans (I use the two
terms interchangably) as incredibly noble, brave... the best of humanity.
In some places this seems to have been true, to an extent - but in the end
they were simply people.  For the most part, they were efficient and their
culture had evolved around the ecology rather than over it.  But they were
often brutaly savage, many tribes were guilty of genocide (against both
white settlers and other tribes).  Many thrived strictly on warfare, and
were only too happy to find a new foreign enemy to slaughter.  Overall their
cultures varied from the relatively peaceful east (where there were plenty
of resources) to the harsher west (where the land was about as harsh as they
were), down to the central-american and south-american indians, who could be
civilized one minute, monsterous the next.