Trump Enslavement Syndrome - Orange man good. /r/The_Donald and any public demonstration of rabid pro-Trump enthusiasm in spite of all reason.

[proteus4994]

I’m gonna be completely honest. For the longest time, I actually did assume they were a bunch of primitive tribes. These pictures kinda make me want to read up on them a bit. Thanks man.

They were primitive in comparison to Europe, but yeah, a lot of people thinking they were at the “banging rocks together to make fire” stage when in reality they were only like maybe 150 years behind Europe

Edit: Jesus fuck my post, the post above mine is way more informative.

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

The Turks will take care of that.

Erdogan has no problems with ISIS. He's a total piece of shit

 

[⠠⠠⠅⠑⠋⠋⠁⠇⠎ ⠠⠠⠊⠎ ⠠⠠⠁ ⠠⠠⠋⠁⠛]

Totally rational reactions by the MAGAmongs to the stunning revelation that CNN employees don't particularly like Trump, and their boss Jeff Zucker (not one of the cool Zuckers from the Naked Gun films) is particularly angry that he stirred up the kulaks before putting them back to sleep:

https://archive.li/zsiN1

 

[Pointless Pedant]

They were primitive in comparison to Europe, but yeah, a lot of people thinking they were at the “banging rocks together to make fire” stage when in reality they were only like maybe 150 years behind Europe

Edit: Jesus fuck my post, the post above mine is way more informative.

You can't really describe technology as being so many years behind. That's a video game view of history that doesn't fit with how scientific discoveries actually work. You either have gunpowder or you don't, and there's no way to know how long it would have taken the Native Americans to invent it. That said, they got destroyed because of lack of gunpowder and diseases, not because they were exceptional subhumans; the downfalls of the Aztecs and Incas were dependent on internal strife and the Spanish got extremely lucky to invade when they did. Ancient European civilisations wouldn't have fared any better in similar circumstances; the Irish tribes got conquered by England for somewhat similar reasons, minus the diseases.

Regarding Syria, it's obviously a gross betrayal but I would note that Turkey already invaded and occupied areas of northern Syria in Operation Euphrates Shield during the Obama administration and the USA didn't stop them then either. I get the impression this is one of the cases where a Democrat and Republican do something similarly bad but receive very differing degrees of criticism for it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Euphrates_Shield

 

[KimCoppolaAficionado]

You can't really describe technology as being so many years behind. That's a video game view of history that doesn't fit with how scientific discoveries actually work. You either have gunpowder or you don't, and there's no way to know how long it would have taken the Native Americans to invent it. That said, they got destroyed because of lack of gunpowder and diseases, not because they were exceptional subhumans; the downfalls of the Aztecs and Incas were dependent on internal strife and the Spanish got extremely lucky to invade when they did. Ancient European civilisations wouldn't have fared any better in similar circumstances; the Irish tribes got conquered by England for somewhat similar reasons, minus the diseases.

Regarding Syria, it's obviously a gross betrayal but I would note that Turkey already invaded and occupied areas of northern Syria in Operation Euphrates Shield during the Obama administration and the USA didn't stop them then either. I get the impression this is one of the cases where a Democrat and Republican do something similarly bad but receive very differing degrees of criticism for it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Euphrates_Shield

It is worth noting that many tribes adapted well to the use of firearms when the Europeans introduced them; the Cherokee and Creek even developed early rifling techniques that made their guns more accurate than their European counterparts.

 

[proteus4994]

You can't really describe technology as being so many years behind. That's a video game view of history that doesn't fit with how scientific discoveries actually work. You either have gunpowder or you don't, and there's no way to know how long it would have taken the Native Americans to invent it. That said, they got destroyed because of lack of gunpowder and diseases, not because they were exceptional subhumans; the downfalls of the Aztecs and Incas were dependent on internal strife and the Spanish got extremely lucky to invade when they did. Ancient European civilisations wouldn't have fared any better in similar circumstances; the Irish tribes got conquered by England for somewhat similar reasons, minus the diseases.

I’m not saying they needed to research pottery and mathematics, but their technology level was roughly 150 years behind where Europe was at the time with regards to war technology (which is usually the general measurement). That is a valid way of comparing two cultures‘ technology level. You obviously can’t say where the Native Americans would be 150 years later, but you can say where Europe was 150 years previously.

With different cultures, motivations, etc, you can’t make a real apples to apples comparison, which is a fair criticism, and in fact the Natives were ahead of the Europeans in some things like farming techniques

 

[Pointless Pedant]

I’m not saying they needed to research pottery and mathematics, but their technology level was roughly 150 years behind where Europe was at the time with regards to war technology (which is usually the general measurement). That is a valid way of comparing two cultures‘ technology level. You obviously can’t say where the Native Americans would be 150 years later, but you can say where Europe was 150 years previously.

With different cultures, motivations, etc, you can’t make a real apples to apples comparison, which is a fair criticism, and in fact the Natives were ahead of the Europeans in some things like farming techniques

That's not even remotely true. 14th century Europe had cavalry, steel weapons and armour, and early gunpowder and primitive cannon. Native Americans were largely still in the stone age in military terms, though obsidian weapons were devastating against lightly armoured opponents. In purely military terms even a Roman army was more capable, not that military technology is the only kind that matters. The Aztec Triple Alliance had a large, literate civilisation despite their lack of horses and iron working.

It is worth noting that many tribes adapted well to the use of firearms when the Europeans introduced them; the Cherokee and Creek even developed early rifling techniques that made their guns more accurate than their European counterparts.

Definitely; Custer's Last Stand happened because the natives were adept in the use of modern firearms. A similar thing happened with Africans using firearms and modern guerilla tactics to drive out colonisers in the Cold War bush wars, or even the Battle of Adwa for an earlier example.

 

[KimCoppolaAficionado]

I’m not saying they needed to research pottery and mathematics, but their technology level was roughly 150 years behind where Europe was at the time. That is a valid way of comparing two cultures‘ technology level. You obviously can’t say where the Native Americans would be 150 years later, but you can say where Europe was 150 years previously.

Well, that's not quite true: Native American metallurgy was fairly primitive in many nations (mostly due to a lack of easily-accessed surface or near-surface iron) and they completely lacked gunpowder weaponry. However, some aspects of their technology, especially in the field of agriculture, were arguably more advanced than their European counterparts: the Azteca practiced an early form of hydroponics, for example, and the basic principles of companion cultivation were used throughout Native American settlements.

 

[AnOminous]

That said, they got destroyed because of lack of gunpowder and diseases, not because they were exceptional subhumans; the downfalls of the Aztecs and Incas were dependent on internal strife and the Spanish got extremely lucky to invade when they did.

It didn't help that in both cases, the locals were more interested in fighting each other than uniting against the invaders and, in the case of the U.S., often made the error of choosing sides between fighting invaders and choosing the losing side, i.e. French, Spanish, English. When they could maintain a unified front, they generally fared better, and at the very least, could have obtained a more favorable peace had they been less disunited.

 

[Caesare]

Tell that to the Algonquin, Iroquois, Cherokee, Azteca, Tlingit, Apache, Souix, Mohawk...

Two things. Columbus didn't have contact with those groups, unless I'm forgetting someone. I am drawing on knowledge I haven't considered since high school so I could be forgetting someone.

Also, some tribes had halfway organized settlements so maybe stone age is selling them little short in some ways, but not in others, for instance, no iron or gunpowder.

 

[Vivec]

I don't think it was claimed. The original inhabitants of the Americas were so primitive that they didn't have concepts like land ownership or nationality. They were essentially in the stone age.

t. 5th grade history teacher

 

[Caesare]

t. 5th grade history teacher

A communist college prof actually said the stone age thing. He was really a socialist but he was still a nice guy. I used to bum cigarettes from him when I'd see him outside class.

 

[Vivec]

A communist college prof actually said the stone age thing. He was really a socialist but he was still a nice guy. I used to bum cigarettes from him when I'd see him outside class.

I can't say I'm surprised that a communist didn't place very high value on agrarian technology.

 

[KimCoppolaAficionado]

Two things. Columbus didn't have contact with those groups, unless I'm forgetting someone. I am drawing on knowledge I haven't considered since high school so I could be forgetting someone.

Also, some tribes had halfway organized settlements so maybe stone age is selling them little short in some ways, but not in others, for instance, no iron or gunpowder.

I'm going to assume that you're suffering from some ignorance on Amerindian culture. I personally know a lot about the Cherokee, so I'll use their national land as an example again:

The Cherokee nation occupied a stretch of land considerably larger than most European nations. It had provincial divisions and regional capitals (called "Mother Towns" by the Cherokee), and local, provincial, and a federal government. In addition, Columbus had nothing to do with your original post:

I don't think it was claimed. The original inhabitants of the Americas were so primitive that they didn't have concepts like land ownership or nationality. They were essentially in the stone age.

Your argument was essentially that Native Americans were so primitive that they had no concept of property or nationality. Now, while most NA peoples didn't have a system of personal land ownership divorced from the government (mostly because such ideas were pretty useless without the highly-complex international trade systems that led to the rise of the merchant class), they certainly had a sense of collective land ownership; namely, that this land is ours and you settlers can fuck right off with thinking that you can build your farms on our hunting territory or grab our villages.
As for nationality: calling them Native American Nations isn't forcing a colonial concept on the natives. Get a Cherokee, a Miami, and a Creek in one room back then, and tell them they're all the same, you'd get bloodshed. Namely, they'd all stab you for comparing them to their enemies, before stabbing each other.

Your gommie professor probably didn't think this would happen because the dialectical materialist view of history holds that national affiliations emerged as the result of the feudal system and that history is a deterministic straight line, so he saw the word "tribe", thought "tribal hunting gathering ->Feudalism ->Rise of the Merchant Class ->Industrialism -> Late-Stage Capitalism ->Socialism ->Communism" and then stopped thinking.

 

[A Logging Company]

Clearly you've just internalized white supremacist ideas, stop being such a bigot/uncle tom and accept Native (or should I say REAL) Americans were peaceful people who lived without the concept of land and property before evil Europeans taught them things like "property" "currency" "war" and "gender."

 

[The golden neckbeard]

A communist college prof actually said the stone age thing. He was really a socialist but he was still a nice guy. I used to bum cigarettes from him when I'd see him outside class.

I could be wrong but i dont think the wheel was ever invented in the new world.

Calling those neo americans civililizations (not counting Aztecs/Mayans) Stone age would be adequate. Many civilizations came that put up stone foundations, built mounds and dug canals Pre-white guy.

But they always fell for whatever reason and were abandoned. Native americans never had a concept of land property because they never really needed it...a ridiculous amount of land and plentiful food existed for them (which i suspect stunted technological development..same with niggers. Only asians and whites had land and climate challenges and forced planning)

 

[NoblyUnsavage]

I'm going to assume that you're suffering from some ignorance on Amerindian culture. I personally know a lot about the Cherokee, so I'll use their national land as an example again:

The Cherokee nation occupied a stretch of land considerably larger than most European nations. It had provincial divisions and regional capitals (called "Mother Towns" by the Cherokee), and local, provincial, and a federal government. In addition, Columbus had nothing to do with your original post:


Your argument was essentially that Native Americans were so primitive that they had no concept of property or nationality. Now, while most NA peoples didn't have a system of personal land ownership divorced from the government (mostly because such ideas were pretty useless without the highly-complex international trade systems that led to the rise of the merchant class), they certainly had a sense of collective land ownership; namely, that this land is ours and you settlers can fuck right off with thinking that you can build your farms on our hunting territory or grab our villages.
As for nationality: calling them Native American Nations isn't forcing a colonial concept on the natives. Get a Cherokee, a Miami, and a Creek in one room back then, and tell them they're all the same, you'd get bloodshed. Namely, they'd all stab you for comparing them to their enemies, before stabbing each other.

Your gommie professor probably didn't think this would happen because the dialectical materialist view of history holds that national affiliations emerged as the result of the feudal system and that history is a deterministic straight line, so he saw the word "tribe", thought "tribal hunting gathering ->Feudalism ->Rise of the Merchant Class ->Industrialism -> Late-Stage Capitalism ->Socialism ->Communism" and then stopped thinking.

Hey, thanks for uh... Trying I guess. I don't know what I'd do without all the well meaning white saviors threatening people on my behalf.

No, actually, put a Cherokee, a Miami, and a Creek in one room, and you'll get polite civilized discussion. And believe it or not, one Cherokee might actually have a different opinion from another. Shocking, I know, we're not actually interchangeable. And no, we won't react to minor slights or misunderstandings with violence.

I'm glad my people's history and suffering were useful to you in being a condescending asshole though. I'll look forward to none of your support in the future, since people like you like to use minorities as a tool, but the moment we're not useful you forget about us.

Please don't make threats on behalf of me or my people. We've been called savages by your people for as long as we've known each other, we don't need your "help".

 

[KimCoppolaAficionado]

Hey, thanks for uh... Trying I guess. I don't know what I'd do without all the well meaning white saviors threatening people on my behalf.

No, actually, put a Cherokee, a Miami, and a Creek in one room, and you'll get polite civilized discussion. And believe it or not, one Cherokee might actually have a different opinion from another. Shocking, I know, we're not actually interchangeable. And no, we won't react to minor slights or misunderstandings with violence.

I'm glad my people's history and suffering were useful to you in being a condescending asshole though. I'll look forward to none of your support in the future, since people like you like to use minorities as a tool, but the moment we're not useful you forget about us.

Please don't make threats on behalf of me or my people. We've been called savages by your people for as long as we've known each other, we don't need your "help".

1. ...Did you even read what I posted? There was a key phrase there, namely "back then". Given that the Cherokee, Miami, and Creek had a long history of war (or more specifically, the Cherokee repeatedly expanded their territory into traditional Creek and Miami areas), I think you would get the same general reaction as telling the English, French, and Belgians during the 13th century that they're "all basically the same". Namely, stabbings, which, since you don't seem to understand casual language, are being used here as a hyperbolic representation of vehement disagreement based on long-standing international tensions.
2. On a meta-level, I was arguing the opposite of the "noble (or ignoble) savage" myth; I was suggesting that the NAN had sophisticated civilizations with complex international relations between each other, and weren't just a bunch of Stone-Age hippies or demi-human thugs. I'm glad you signed up to score a hot shot of self-righteous anger, though.
3. Yeah, me attending the Eastern Band's protest in Asheville over Standing Rock, helping my friends in the Tribe repair the chief's ceremonial cape and talking with them about the fine differences between the American and Cherokee political systems, promoting deeper understanding of First Nation history in this very thread: I'm such a fake-woke ally using the First Nations for tokenism. Fuck on outta here with that shit, Mr. #1 Woke Brother.

 

[NoblyUnsavage]

1. ...Did you even read what I posted? There was a key phrase there, namely "back then". Given that the Cherokee, Miami, and Creek had a long history of war (or more specifically, the Cherokee repeatedly expanded their territory into traditional Creek and Miami areas), I think you would get the same general reaction as telling the English, French, and Belgians during the 13th century that they're "all basically the same". Namely, stabbings, which, since you don't seem to understand casual language, are being used here as a hyperbolic representation of vehement disagreement based on long-standing international tensions.
2. On a meta-level, I was arguing the opposite of the "noble (or ignoble) savage" myth; I was suggesting that the NAN had sophisticated civilizations with complex international relations between each other, and weren't just a bunch of Stone-Age hippies or demi-human thugs. I'm glad you signed up to score a hot shot of self-righteous anger, though.
3. Yeah, me attending the Eastern Band's protest in Asheville over Standing Rock, helping my friends in the Tribe repair the chief's ceremonial cape and talking with them about the fine differences between the American and Cherokee political systems, promoting deeper understanding of First Nation history in this very thread: I'm such a fake-woke ally using the First Nations for tokenism. Fuck on outta here with that shit, Mr. #1 Woke Brother.

Ah, doubling down. Some of your best friends are Indians!

Thanks so much for defending us from... What exactly? White college students not having another sanctioned "protest"? Columbus is long dead, the problems we face have nothing to do with him, and meaningless feel good protests don't help at all with the ongoing problems we face.

Your theme park understanding of some history, which I'm sure you know is passed down orally by tradition, is worse than the "noble Savage" myth. At least people with that level of knowledge are open to education, unlike someone like you who thinks they know it all.

But I do appreciate that you openly say "shut up 'native person' a white man is speaking, look at my credentials". We are not your prop, you are harming us by using us as a political tool in your meaningless "culture war". You people would cheer on the destruction of me and my people if we were perceived as supporting the wrong politics.

You are not my ally. Attending a meeting doesn't grant you the right to speak for us. You are harming us with your defense. Stop.

 

[proteus4994]

Alright, fair enough, it wasn’t 150 years, you’re all right. The general point was just that they weren’t entirely drooling savages or even THAT far behind Europe, but yeah I pulled 150 out of my ass.