RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

Dakota Access Pipieline
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/29/17 11:27 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

KatValeska wrote:

I'm trusting what I've learned from Russell Means here. You could not kill a buffalo - a ton of meat - out in the Plains and transport it back to your home.



I'm curious how far you believe Plains natives traveled to hunt buffalo during the hundreds of years before the Spanish reintroduced horses to North America?

Hunters have butchered their prey (whether buffalo, elk, moose, bear, muskox, or other large game) in the field and transported it home all over the world since time immemorial.


KatValeska



Joined: 04 Oct 2004
Posts: 1830
Location: Colorado


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/29/17 12:47 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

The last three times I attempted to hit the quote function I was redirected to the index, so I tried reply and it worked.

"That leads back into the problem of domestication. With cattle, you didn't have to do that. You could take the cow home first, then slaughter it. You can't do that with a buffalo.

In any event, what I was getting at was that whatever advantages European culture had were strictly based on geography. They wandered into the right place at the right time."

I appreciate your clarity.

Unless I come up with a solution to the pipeline, this will be my last contribution to this thread.

This is a three minute video titled Ojibwe Chant and Prayer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bsd9hv4wqPU


Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15691
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/29/17 9:30 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

This thread is almost becoming humorous, in the way some of you are not getting The Bigger Point.

Euro domination of American lands and cultures isn't about bison or cows. It's all about transportation and weaponry: Euros could get from point A to point B faster and more efficiently with horses and ships, and with metal weapons and gunpowder they could subjugate more thoroughly.

As far as a moral high ground, that's nebulous, too: was the subjugation of natives by Euros any more or less palatable than the action of one native tribe that would eradicate or enslave another tribe? Natives enslaved each other frequently, and human sacrifices were even ritualized. While the Incas were, arguably, possessed of more scientific insight (in certain fields, at least) than Columbus himself, they (and the Aztecs) created empires by way of subjugating others, too.

Biggest, Baddest Dog wins. And while the treatment of Native Americans was abominable, it's no more or less so than what has been ever-present wherever different cultures clashed. Ask the Romans how they treated the Vandals and the Visogoths, and just how that all came back to bite 'em in the ass. Shocked



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66773
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/29/17 10:15 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
Euro domination of American lands and cultures isn't about bison or cows. It's all about transportation and weaponry: Euros could get from point A to point B faster and more efficiently with horses and ships, and with metal weapons and gunpowder they could subjugate more thoroughly.


It still ties together. Iron mining in the pre-industrial age was difficult to do without large domesticated pack animals, which the Native Americans didn't have. Thus, the Europeans had plenty of iron weapons while the Native Americans had only the occasional small iron knife to supplement their bronze weapons.

As for cows, the Europeans' long contact with a wide variety of domesticated farm and pack animals was a big part of what made their immune systems more robust than those of the Natives. That's why the European diseases devastated the Natives while the Native diseases did little to the Europeans.



_________________
Let us not deceive ourselves. Our educational institutions have proven to be no bastions of democracy.
Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15691
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/30/17 11:30 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
As for cows, the Europeans' long contact with a wide variety of domesticated farm and pack animals was a big part of what made their immune systems more robust than those of the Natives. That's why the European diseases devastated the Natives while the Native diseases did little to the Europeans.

Hmm. Interesting theory. I'd think a superior Euro immunity might actually be more a function of their much higher/more prolonged exposure to various populations over the centuries.
Silk Road exposure, ships from Asia, Mediterranean trade, and Viking expansion made for scenarios like The Plagues, which decimated populations whose survivors grew more disease resistant over the centuries. I still can't see exposure to domesticated animals as that big a factor, given the minimal level of zoonotic diseases that exist, especially in food animals.



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/30/17 11:57 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
pilight wrote:
As for cows, the Europeans' long contact with a wide variety of domesticated farm and pack animals was a big part of what made their immune systems more robust than those of the Natives. That's why the European diseases devastated the Natives while the Native diseases did little to the Europeans.

Hmm. Interesting theory. I'd think a superior Euro immunity might actually be more a function of their much higher/more prolonged exposure to various populations over the centuries.
Silk Road exposure, ships from Asia, Mediterranean trade, and Viking expansion made for scenarios like The Plagues, which decimated populations whose survivors grew more disease resistant over the centuries. I still can't see exposure to domesticated animals as that big a factor, given the minimal level of zoonotic diseases that exist, especially in food animals.

It all ties together. Though it is not the zoonotic factor, so much as the conditions that come from domesticated animals. The domestication of animals actually helped give rise to the city. No longer did human beings need to move with the migrations of game, while beasts of burden allowed for more efficient agriculture. This allowed humans to settle in one heavily populated location, and to do so in great numbers (without being dependent upon slave labor). The cities themselves were not bastions of sanitation, which led to stronger immune systems in those that didn't die of plague, cholera, typhoid, or the like. You factor in the long range trade and the such that cities helped facilitate, and the immune systems were strengthened even more. The other factor cities played was that less time and labor was necessary to feed the population, which freed up people to focus on other trades. This gave rise to the guild system which was a huge boon to technological advancement. Without cities there would be no guilds and without domesticated animals there would not be the cities.



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66773
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/30/17 12:09 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
pilight wrote:
As for cows, the Europeans' long contact with a wide variety of domesticated farm and pack animals was a big part of what made their immune systems more robust than those of the Natives. That's why the European diseases devastated the Natives while the Native diseases did little to the Europeans.

Hmm. Interesting theory. I'd think a superior Euro immunity might actually be more a function of their much higher/more prolonged exposure to various populations over the centuries.
Silk Road exposure, ships from Asia, Mediterranean trade, and Viking expansion made for scenarios like The Plagues, which decimated populations whose survivors grew more disease resistant over the centuries. I still can't see exposure to domesticated animals as that big a factor, given the minimal level of zoonotic diseases that exist, especially in food animals.


I'm sure that contributed as well. Also the greater population density borne from having superior food sources.

There may not be many zoonotic diseases, but some of them are especially deadly. Smallpox, influenza, tuberculosis, and the like were worse than most of the other infectious diseases.



_________________
Let us not deceive ourselves. Our educational institutions have proven to be no bastions of democracy.
Force10rulz



Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Posts: 1966
Location: Puget Sound


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/15/17 10:33 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

In a victory for the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, the Court finds that approval of Dakota Access Pipeline violated the law.


http://earthjustice.org/features/faq-standing-rock-litigation

Of course they won't shut off the pipeline. Two leaks already and they are trying to blame the water protectors.



_________________
Seattle Storm 3 times Champions
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/15/17 11:32 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
pilight wrote:
As for cows, the Europeans' long contact with a wide variety of domesticated farm and pack animals was a big part of what made their immune systems more robust than those of the Natives. That's why the European diseases devastated the Natives while the Native diseases did little to the Europeans.

Hmm. Interesting theory. I'd think a superior Euro immunity might actually be more a function of their much higher/more prolonged exposure to various populations over the centuries.
Silk Road exposure, ships from Asia, Mediterranean trade, and Viking expansion made for scenarios like The Plagues, which decimated populations whose survivors grew more disease resistant over the centuries. I still can't see exposure to domesticated animals as that big a factor, given the minimal level of zoonotic diseases that exist, especially in food animals.


It's certainly not "minimal".

[url]https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/explainer-animals’-role-human-disease[/url]

Quote:
Nearly 75 percent of new, or emerging, infectious diseases in people were first spread by animals. Indeed, half of all germs known to cause human disease come from other animals.


https://www.livescience.com/21426-global-zoonoses-diseases-hotspots.html

Quote:
About 60 percent of all human diseases and 75 percent of all emerging infectious diseases are zoonotic, according to the researchers. Most human infections with zoonoses come from livestock, including pigs, chickens, cattle, goats, sheep and camels.


Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51 All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Page 4 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin