Tumblelog by Soup.io
Newer posts are loading.
You are at the newest post.
Click here to check if anything new just came in.
First things first: it baffles me how the Indians could build such sophisticated and wide-spanning empires without having inventend the wheel or having domesticated any animal besides the fucking llama. 
Steel wasn't exactly needed, at least for the Middle American peoples, as obsidian provides a sufficient substitute for most of steel's purposes (i.e. killing people efficiently).
Secondly, I'm at least a bit inclined to follow your narrative of scholars blowing up numbers to emphasise the havoc the Europeans appearently wreaked amongst the Native Americans. We all know that in the US the humanities are prone to be ideologised, a trend which, unfortunately, seems to slowly be embraced by western Europe as well. I certainly don't know.
But please don't forget, that, even at the absolute peak of its power, the Egyptian Empire only contained the Northern part of the Nile valley and Palestine, plus a few vassals left and right. In America, Tenochtitlan, the Aztec capital, was among the biggest cities in the world, with some estimates going as high as >1.000.000 inhabitants in Tenochtitlan alone. And mind you: Tenochtitlan was only one of the three Aztec capitals; the Aztec, while were at that, might have been the dominant power in the region (and had only taken power from the crumbling Maya Empire shortly before the Europeans arrived), but were far from being the only power in the region. Here's a short list of the more powerful Middle American Empires that come to my mind just now:
Mixtecs Zapotecs Totonacs Toltecs Tarascs Maya Caribes Chichimecs Yuma etc.
>"The involved parties love the myth of a pure, innocent culture before the evil white men, wich destroyed all those great empires and euthanized every one of them"
Is that true for the Northern American Indians? I'm inclined to believe you here, at least. The romantization of these is a process that has been going on for literal centuries, and nowadays, where every minority gets to claim whatever the fuck they like, it's certainly not going to stop.

But concerning Middle Americans? Ridiculous. Be honest. Have you ever seen a positive depiction of the Aztecs literally anywhere? I'm genuinely curious. The Nahuatl religion dominating these parts was a bloodthirsty, barbarian institution which led to ritual "flower wars" which's only goal was to capture as many enemies as possible to have them sacrificed to the gods - you know the whole shtick. Add to that a ridiculously oppressive society and rampant slavery and you have literally nothing positive left to say about the mesoamerican tribes except probably "they build nice cities" and I've never ever heard someone being particularly sad about the fall of the Aztec Empire, even if it happened because of evil Iuropeens.
@naich @mangoe @Ubik
Reposted fromcracknigger cracknigger
1606 b628 500
Reposted fromBananaRama BananaRama viarobints robints
5598 1cb1 500
by Kasia Babis
Reposted fromzvr zvr viatonietak tonietak
8692 0e97
Reposted fromidiod idiod viaantproof antproof
Reposted fromtfu tfu viatonietak tonietak
3444 83aa 500
Reposted fromkelu kelu viaqkukier qkukier
Reposted fromSardion Sardion viaqkukier qkukier
2484 9bfe 500
Reposted fromLukasYork LukasYork viap168 p168
9783 e904 500
Reposted fromRevv Revv viawaco6 waco6
5098 253d 500
Dr. Who
Reposted fromantproof antproof
I'm studying anglistics and history, I hope that's enough :D
@mangoe is mostly right with his "disappearance-of-the-native-americans-wasn't-really-a-genocide"-shtick, although I don't really know where he got his numbers from. Even the highest estimates set the NA population of the US at a mere 18 million at the advent of the Europeans - which is a lot, considering the 54 million in the Roman Empire, which had a size comparable to the US, but was lacking the vast deserts and mountain ranges of the central and western US, and also higher developed. Considering that only the East Coast Indians lived in agricultural societies, whereas the Great Plains Indians were nomads and the West Coast Indians hunter-gatherers, albeit non-vagrant ones, the five-to-seven million estimate others have made seems a lot more realistic. But we do know, for a fact, that by 1800, only 600,000 were left, and 250,000 in 1890. Thus: speaking of anything more than 10 million Indians who died due to contact with European settlers would be a ridiculous overstatement. 
mangoe is also right when he says that there was no organized genocide on the NAs. Most of them died from European diseases, which were also not transmitted on purpose, except for the famous example of the blankets infected with smallpox; but no one can really say whether that attempt was actually successful. And I once heard or read somewhere - I can't remember where exactly, but I'm fairly sure it was in a lecture about British Northern America which I visited last semester at the University of Bamberg (this lecture's virtual campus cannot be accessed anymore due to a dispute the lecturer had with a student magazine, long story) - that most coastal regions in the East were widely depopulated due to an unknown disease that had ravaged the Indian lands shortly before the Europeans arrived. What followed were a lot of petty conflicts and a few minor colonial wars such as King Philip's War, some of which were won by the Indians, but most weren't. The King of England and later of Great Britain regarded the Indians as his subjects and protected them more or less as much as he protected the Englishmen settling in America. This explains why all the big massacres you know about happened after the War of Independence, when the King couldn't protect any Indians in the US anymore, and this also explains why in the War of 1812 the Indians were on the British side rather than on the US'. 
But there was nothing comparable to the few real genocides, like the holocaust and the Armenian genocide, because you need a lot of admnistration and governmental structures to organize anything resembling a genocide, which is something Americans have always been and still are opposed to. 
Like really, how many large-scale genocides that happened before 1930 do you actually know about? I have vague knowledge about some in China, which was always known for its wide system of clerks that had an overview of most aspects of public life in the provinces. But beside that?
Also, concerning the holocaust numbers: I know that both @naich and @mangoe went to school in German-speaking countries, as did I. I'm 22 now and went to school in Franconia, and, as far as I'm concerned - and I have seen older history books as well, because I'm about to become a teacher - I've never heard a number other than the infamous six million. I have no idea where you heard about this two million thing, but at least in Bavaria, six million has been the standard for ages. 
Reposted fromcracknigger cracknigger vianaich naich
1878 9242 500
Reposted fromtichga tichga vianaich naich
Well... The universe doesn't have a fixed point of reference. If we set it to a place where the time machine stands, we can move through time within the same spatial frame. Besides, if we were able to build a time machine, we can safely assume that we're also able to extrapolate the space-time landing point from the current location, right?
Reposted fromJapko Japko
0290 4ddb 500
Reposted fromxanth xanth viaqkukier qkukier
9121 6a68
Reposted fromtokhal tokhal viamangoe mangoe
1054 e99a 500
Reposted fromseriouslox seriouslox viamangoe mangoe
1041 a765 500
Reposted fromseriouslox seriouslox viamangoe mangoe
It is. I wanted to give it a fair chance and I have read a dozen of strips - it's worst piece of shitty propaganda sine Billy the heretic.
Older posts are this way If this message doesn't go away, click anywhere on the page to continue loading posts.
Could not load more posts
Maybe Soup is currently being updated? I'll try again automatically in a few seconds...
Just a second, loading more posts...
You've reached the end.

Don't be the product, buy the product!