🚀 go-pugleaf

"RoyBoy" <aphycho@usa.net> wrote in message 
news:<%paQ7.8682$Vz.164805@read1.cgocable.net>...

>> Stop for a minute to think through this old claim: It depends
>> on the assumption that stone-age hunter-gatherers had populations
>> running into the tens of millions surviving out in the American
>> prairies without engaging in the intense agriculture that makes
>> ththose numbers possible:

> North America had the luxury of huge herds
> of meat walking around, of which they used
> efficiently.  Pound for pound, the nutritional
> content of meat far outweighs agriculture.

Dear sir, for your information: The plains indians
only became efficient at killing buffalos AFTER the
introduction of the horse into North America by the
Spanish--before then the only way they could hunt
such a huge animal was by prayer (they got lucky if
a herd happen to pass where they could stage an ambush
--a practice which survived in some of their cultures
long after the pony had made it irrelevant): Try to
imagine a bunch of stone-age "indians" running after
a herd of buffalo on foot... and then come back and
tell me about how they relied on the buffalo for food
with the same degree of confidence a farmer relies on
his non-legged crops!!!! The reason why you see the
substantial indian "empires" of latin America is because
they were agricultural societies--And EVERYWHERE you
find populations in some numbers you find evidence of
how they managed to sustain themselves to their numbers
by agriculture: 

You're talking about populations whose historical camp
sites any high-school archaeologist-wannabe can find to
this day ANY a lot of them are even used by the same
indians to this day. These populations are pretty well 
documented (and, baby, Geronimo at times led a band of a 
dozen or fewer insurgents, but when we see a movie about 
him he's got a couple of hundred extras behind him). It's
just the way popular myths and legends work. Abd then
there's science.
 
> Couple this with the fact that North America is
> positively huge in comparison to other regions,
> but then again...a lot of it is cold and a good
> portion is perma-frosted.
> 
> Also calling them "stone-age" is inaccurate,
> and borderline racist.  But I'll assume it was just
> something you added to support your argument.

Nope: By every definition you'd care to use they were
neither bronze-age nor iron-age (the reason Cortez and
his 300 soldiers were able to "cut-through" many hundreds
of their enemies "like a knife through butter" was because 
they had armor and the indians only had stone-head arrows).
I've read of several isolated instances of metallurgy in
pre-Columbian North America, but it's always controversial 
as to whether it's a true case or a misreading of the dates.

I am a racist. But this is an acknowledgment essential for
anyone who is trying his/her best to be less of a racist: We
are all racists, and I have never come across bigger racists
than those who claim the loudest that they are NOT racists:
How the Hell could anyone who already claims to not be one
ever be expected to make the slightest effort to stop being one!?!

>> The only reports of substantial "indian"
>> populations all come from around the Mississippi, where some of
>> the first European explorers write of large cultural centers and
>> extensive populations which had been settled long enough to have
>> constructed the famous "mound cultures" there.

> It stands to reason, that if Indians did come across the
> Bering Strait, or even just from the west...that there were
> even larger, more established populations to the west...
> of course the Mississippi probably provided much in
> the way of opportunities for the Indians to thrive...
> so the assumption I just stated could be wrong.

And it stands by your reasoning (above) that the largest indian 
populations of all would be in Alaska near the North Pole. God!

>> It remains a fact that the movement for the abolition of slavery in
>> the North was primarily (almost entirely) carried out by the Churches
>> there. And to this day Lincoln is celebrated not only as America's
>> Second Pater Patria (to George Washington) but as her greatest martyr
>> and liberator...

> As I understand it, that movement gained widespread support
> for economic reasons.

This pretty much jibes with the rest of your understanding: NO.
The "movement" for freeing the slaves NEVER had any mass popularity
amongst the whites PRECISELY because of economic considerations!!!!
In fact there was such opposition in the North to any thought of
freeing hundreds of thousands of slaves (to compete for jobs
against the white laborers there) that Lincoln and others didn't 
dare to make the liberation of slaves a war-goal until nearly its 
conclusion... and only then as a selling point to the recruitment
blacks into the Army.

Read a f*k* book, sir! There's dozens of them across the country!

S D Rodrian
poems.sdrodrian.com
physics.sdrodrian.com