History To History....Just For The Heck Of It

[PoliticalChic]

I never get too worked up about how the hatred of the Left has them frothing at the mouth over silly things.....and yesterday was a case in point.

BIDEN JR., President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim October 10, 2022, as Indigenous Peoples' Day. I call upon the people of the United States to observe this day with appropriate ceremonies and activities.4 days ago
A Proclamation on Indigenous Peoples' Day, 2022
https://www.whitehouse.gov › Presidential Actions
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing...e,with appropriate ceremonies and activities.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing...e,with appropriate ceremonies and activities.
This is the result of their unbridled hatred of of everything Western.....especially Western Civilization, as symbolized by America.
It is their desire to return to their pagan roots.
Pagan.....the opposite of the Judeo-Christian beliefs.


And the way-too inaccurate "Native American" thing, not native to this continent at all....one more of the lies the Left promotes.


Let's compare native American art and literature...of which there is none....to European.
And culture, and engineering and architecture and science and medicine and religion ......radio host Chris Plante brought up the point and he is spot on.

See those pictures of Indian tribes moving from one place to another........see any wheels????
That simplest of ‘tools’???? The wheel.

“The invention of the wheel falls into the late Neolithic, and may be seen in conjunction with other technological advances that gave rise to the early Bronze Age. This implies the passage of several wheel-less millennia even after the invention of agriculture and of pottery, dtheuring the Aceramic Neolithic.

Two types of early Neolithic European wheel and axle are known; a circumalpine type of wagon construction (the wheel and axle rotate together, as in Ljubljana Marshes Wheel), and that of the Baden culture in Hungary (axle does not rotate). They both are dated to c. 3200–3000 BCE.””
Wheel - Wikipedia

Those 'indiginous peoples' were three millennia behind the settlers, the colonists, or Founders.
And Christopher Columbus.

 

[rightwinger]

I guess that is your justification for slaughtering them

They didn’t have the wheel

 

[Concerned American]

I never get too worked up about how the hatred of the Left has them frothing at the mouth over silly things.....and yesterday was a case in point.

BIDEN JR., President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim October 10, 2022, as Indigenous Peoples' Day. I call upon the people of the United States to observe this day with appropriate ceremonies and activities.4 days ago
A Proclamation on Indigenous Peoples' Day, 2022
https://www.whitehouse.gov › Presidential Actions
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2022/10/07/a-proclamation-on-indigenous-peoples-day-2022/#:~:text=BIDEN JR., President of the,with appropriate ceremonies and activities.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2022/10/07/a-proclamation-on-indigenous-peoples-day-2022/#:~:text=BIDEN JR., President of the,with appropriate ceremonies and activities.
This is the result of their unbridled hatred of of everything Western.....especially Western Civilization, as symbolized by America.
It is their desire to return to their pagan roots.
Pagan.....the opposite of the Judeo-Christian beliefs.


And the way-too inaccurate "Native American" thing, not native to this continent at all....one more of the lies the Left promotes.


Let's compare native American art and literature...of which there is none....to European.
And culture, and engineering and architecture and science and medicine and religion ......radio host Chris Plante brought up the point and he is spot on.

See those pictures of Indian tribes moving from one place to another........see any wheels????
That simplest of ‘tools’???? The wheel.

“The invention of the wheel falls into the late Neolithic, and may be seen in conjunction with other technological advances that gave rise to the early Bronze Age. This implies the passage of several wheel-less millennia even after the invention of agriculture and of pottery, dtheuring the Aceramic Neolithic.

Two types of early Neolithic European wheel and axle are known; a circumalpine type of wagon construction (the wheel and axle rotate together, as in Ljubljana Marshes Wheel), and that of the Baden culture in Hungary (axle does not rotate). They both are dated to c. 3200–3000 BCE.””
Wheel - Wikipedia

Those 'indiginous peoples' were three millennia behind the settlers, the colonists, or Founders.
And Christopher Columbus.

Let us not forget that the beasts of burden that you show those indigenous peoples riding, were introduced to them by ---------- Europeans.

 

[Mushroom]

 

[Mushroom]

I guess that is your justification for slaughtering them

Indians had been slaughtering each other long before Europeans arrived. But at least they put an end to the wholesale human sacrifice that many tribes practiced.

And for almost every single "slaughter" of Indians, it started with a slaughter by them of Europeans.

Many talk about the Bear River Massacre of 1863. But for some reason, they never talk about the multiple massacres by the Shoshone going back years prior to that. Like the slaughter of all 19 travelers on the Oregon Trail. Even dismembering a 5 year old girl and forcing her to try to walk on her severed legs before she died. Or another immigrant party a year later, killing 22 and taking the 4 surviving children as hostages. There were over a dozen attacks and massacres by the Shoshone before the Army finally moved in retaliation.

But the funny thing is, after the Bear River Massacre, the Shoshone pretty much stopped their attacks on the Europeans. And have largely lived peacefully with them ever since.

I always laugh when people tend to completely ignore the actions of the tribes that they claim were "massacred". They were simply acting as they had always done before that, and attacking any that came close to them as that was how life was for the nomadic tribes. Attack, or be attacked.

 

[Bezukhov]

Indians had been slaughtering each other long before Europeans arrived. But at least they put an end to the wholesale human sacrifice that many tribes practiced.

And for almost every single "slaughter" of Indians, it started with a slaughter by them of Europeans.

Many talk about the Bear River Massacre of 1863. But for some reason, they never talk about the multiple massacres by the Shoshone going back years prior to that. Like the slaughter of all 19 travelers on the Oregon Trail. Even dismembering a 5 year old girl and forcing her to try to walk on her severed legs before she died. Or another immigrant party a year later, killing 22 and taking the 4 surviving children as hostages. There were over a dozen attacks and massacres by the Shoshone before the Army finally moved in retaliation.

But the funny thing is, after the Bear River Massacre, the Shoshone pretty much stopped their attacks on the Europeans. And have largely lived peacefully with them ever since.

I always laugh when people tend to completely ignore the actions of the tribes that they claim were "massacred". They were simply acting as they had always done before that, and attacking any that came close to them as that was how life was for the nomadic tribes. Attack, or be attacked.

And if the Indians were slaughtering each other, it stands to reason that it was Moral, Good and Jesus Approved that White, European Christians come over here to slaughter them as well.

 

[Mushroom]

And if the Indians were slaughtering each other, it stands to reason that it was Moral, Good and Jesus Approved that White, European Christians come over here to slaughter them as well.

It has nothing to do with that, the Indians did not practice war the same way Europeans did.

Largely it was symbolic, and sometimes did not even involve deaths. But they also saw nothing wrong with enslaving members of other tribes. Their concepts were more about themselves as a tribe, and did not have much room in it for outsiders. They also had no real concept of "ownership", thinking that a group resided in an area of land if they were powerful enough to hold onto it.

Europeans came in with a completely different mindset, and their interactions showed it. And they had few issues with the more "civilized" tribes along the coasts, that had not been part of the Mississippian Culture. Most of the problems were with the tribes that had fled the breakup of that civilization, and were hostile to almost all outsiders they came across.

Compare say their relations with the Lakota and Seminole, and compare it to the relations with the Iroquois and Anishinaabe. The first two were hostile to anybody that was not of their tribe, while the other two were largely peaceful and they welcomed trade with outsiders. And realize the first two were from the Mississippian Culture which had started to implode even before Columbus arrived. And the other two only had limited contact with the Mississippians and were not part of it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Indians had been slaughtering each other long before Europeans arrived. But at least they put an end to the wholesale human sacrifice that many tribes practiced.

And for almost every single "slaughter" of Indians, it started with a slaughter by them of Europeans.

Many talk about the Bear River Massacre of 1863. But for some reason, they never talk about the multiple massacres by the Shoshone going back years prior to that. Like the slaughter of all 19 travelers on the Oregon Trail. Even dismembering a 5 year old girl and forcing her to try to walk on her severed legs before she died. Or another immigrant party a year later, killing 22 and taking the 4 surviving children as hostages. There were over a dozen attacks and massacres by the Shoshone before the Army finally moved in retaliation.

But the funny thing is, after the Bear River Massacre, the Shoshone pretty much stopped their attacks on the Europeans. And have largely lived peacefully with them ever since.

I always laugh when people tend to completely ignore the actions of the tribes that they claim were "massacred". They were simply acting as they had always done before that, and attacking any that came close to them as that was how life was for the nomadic tribes. Attack, or be attacked.

"And for almost every single "slaughter" of Indians, it started with a slaughter by them of Europeans."


No it didn't.

It was fear of the homicidal attacks by the stone age savages.

Get a copy before you erroneously post again.

 

[Bezukhov]

"And for almost every single "slaughter" of Indians, it started with a slaughter by them of Europeans."


No it didn't.

It was fear of the homicidal attacks by the stone age savages.


View attachment 708986



Get a copy before you erroneously post again.

Are stone age savages somehow worse than industrial age savages?

 

[Silent Warrior]

It is ironic when you consider that those referred to as indigenous were not and, as some scientists believe, slaughtered peoples that had preceded them to North America.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Are stone age savages somehow worse than industrial age savages?

Is that how you describe yourself?

Definition of savage​

(Entry 1 of 3)
1a: not domesticated or under human control : UNTAMEDsavage beasts
b: lacking the restraints normal to civilized human beings : FIERCE, FEROCIOUSa savage criminal
2: WILD, UNCULTIVATEDseldom have I seen such savage scenery— Douglas Carruthers
3a: BOORISH, RUDEthe savage bad manners of most motorists— M. P. O'Connor
b: MALICIOUS
4old-fashioned + offensive : lacking complex or advanced culture : UNCIVILIZED

Definition of SAVAGE

not domesticated or under human control : untamed; lacking the restraints normal to civilized human beings : fierce, ferocious; wild, uncultivated… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

 

[Mushroom]

"And for almost every single "slaughter" of Indians, it started with a slaughter by them of Europeans."


No it didn't.

It was fear of the homicidal attacks by the stone age savages.

Did you not read down my breakdown of what led up to the Bear River Massacre?

And that is hardly unique. We have seen this going all the way back to the 1700s. Europeans would move in, and 2/3 of the tribes had no problem with that at all. But the 1/3 that did were tribes that were antagonistic towards any outsiders, European or other Indians.

And now excuse me, as I call you a completely bigoted and racist idiot. I find it sad that in the 21st century, some still try to either portray Indians as either some tribal hippie, or barbarians who slaughter and rape just because they can. And you amazingly seem to cover both of those.

I bet you would not even know an Indian if they came up and smacked you in the head with a teepee.

And nobody uses "stone age" any more, the actual term is Neolithic. Because the tribes of the Americas were already passing the Chalcolithic and starting to enter an early Bronze Age when the Europeans arrived. Many were Chalcolithic, and entering an Early Bronze Age, specifically in the areas of Mexico and Michigan.

"Stone Age" is Paleolithic. And we know that the tribes were more advanced than that because of their ability to work metals.

But thank you, because at least you help prove to me that the "Far Right" can be as idiotic as the "Far Left".

 

[PoliticalChic]

Did you not read down my breakdown of what led up to the Bear River Massacre?

And that is hardly unique. We have seen this going all the way back to the 1700s. Europeans would move in, and 2/3 of the tribes had no problem with that at all. But the 1/3 that did were tribes that were antagonistic towards any outsiders, European or other Indians.

And now excuse me, as I call you a completely bigoted and racist idiot. I find it sad that in the 21st century, some still try to either portray Indians as either some tribal hippie, or barbarians who slaughter and rape just because they can. And you amazingly seem to cover both of those.

I bet you would not even know an Indian if they came up and smacked you in the head with a teepee.

And nobody uses "stone age" any more, the actual term is Neolithic. Because the tribes of the Americas were already passing the Chalcolithic and starting to enter an early Bronze Age when the Europeans arrived. Many were Chalcolithic, and entering an Early Bronze Age, specifically in the areas of Mexico and Michigan.

"Stone Age" is Paleolithic. And we know that the tribes were more advanced than that fof theoir ability to work metals.

But thank you, because at least you help prove to me that the "Far Right" can be as idiotic as the "Far Left".

First of all, you dunce.....there is no Far Right in this country.



Watch me force you to admit it by your silence:

The is no Far Right in this nation....but there certainly is a Far Left.

The thesis is based on the definitions involved:



To be "far," one's positions must be radical relative to that center.
American traditions, values, and history represent that center.


The premise here is that, if I can show that the values called 'Far Right' are actually at the center of American traditions, values, and history represent that center, well then, they cannot be correctly awarded the modifier "Far."


"Radical" is important to the discussion. It means "especially of change or action relating to or affecting the fundamental nature of something; far-reaching or thorough" (see Google.)



It's what the radical Obama was getting at when he said “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” — Barack Obama, October 30, 2008. “

Transforming from the positions that America was built on.







So far, I've given these examples of traditionally American positions...the 'center' against which to compare the positions.



Radical positions as opposed to traditional ones identify "Far" Left

“Singer Macy Gray Says American Flag Should Be Abolished” Singer Macy Gray Says American Flag Should Be Abolished | The Daily Wire​

“Transgender Athlete Chelsea Wolfe Says Goal Is To 'Burn a US Flag' at Olympic Podium”

Transgender Athlete Says Goal Is To 'Burn A US Flag' at Olympics

Wolfe, who identifies as a transgender female, spoke to Fox News on Monday to explain her deleted post from March and said, "Anyone who thinks that I don't care about the United States is sorely mistaken."

www.newsweek.com

1. ... traditional marriage, that involves one man and one woman, and compare that with homosexual marriage.. Which one is radical?

2. Another of those positions under regular discussion is 'prayer' in the public arena....Congress opens each year with prayer. Opposing prayer is radical....religiosity is traditional in America.



3. Is 'free speech' embraced by one side, and opposed by the other? You betcha! Obama's Supreme Court nominee says it would be be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government.



Starting to see a pattern?



4. While we were founded on the biblical idea that all men are created equal,



LBJ advanced a two-class nation based on skin color.
....this radical view was advanced: affirmative action. Hence, Democrats....the Far Left.

5. Here's one more radical position by the Left....fighting to elect a sexual pervert and admitted liar and disbarred lawyer to the White House: Bill Clinton
Relative to American traditions, values, and history ...championing a man of such low character is a radical position.
Hence, Far Left..



6. Franklin Roosevelt threw the United States Constitution under the bus, and used the public fisc for all sorts of endeavors not authorized in Article 1, section 8.



A radical and Progressive position.



He was the ultimate "Far Leftist."



7. Under Franklin Roosevlet the federal government was transformed from one of limited & enumerated powers only to the Frankensteinian monster it is today. ....the regulatory welfare state where the federal government regulates business and commerce, natural resources, human resources, ...
Under the Progressives, the federal government was no longer limited by the enumerated powers delegated in the Constitution; ...



Radical to the utmost....hence Far Left.



8. Under Roosevelt's NRA, most manufacturing industries were suddenly forced into government-mandated cartels. Codes that regulated prices and terms of sale briefly transformed much of the American economy into a fascist-style arrangement,

"... into a fascist-style arrangement,..."
"A New Jersey tailor named Jacob Maged was arrested and sent to jail for the “crime” of pressing a suit of clothes for 35 cents rather than the NRA-inspired “Tailor’s Code” of 40 cents."
No surprise here: FDR's New Deal was a copy of Mussolini's economic program.



Could anything short of setting up concentration camps for our citizens, be more radical???



Oh...wait....he did build concentration camps for innocent civilians....his own citizens.



9. How about The Far Left's Gender-Agenda., versus the Right's stand for tradition and reality: "Republicans Battle to Roll Back Washington's New Transgender Bathroom Rules"



Really....could there be a more pertinent example of the radical, insane Far Left's corruption of tradition and history???



Could there?



10. The corruption of the press by the Far Left: the JournoList Scandal: hundreds of Leftist journalists plotted to minimize negative publicity surrounding Obama’s radical ties. They plotted to smear the other side with lies. Peter Zenger....spinnning in his grave.

A clear affront to the honor bestowed on the press by the first amendment.

And don't forget this winner......men can menstruate and have babies and women can become men.

And you vote for this.







And several times, I've presented this challenge: If you have used the fallacy "Far Right," or never considered its usage, see if you can come up with any radical positions by conservatives, the right wing.







Still waiting.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Did you not read down my breakdown of what led up to the Bear River Massacre?

And that is hardly unique. We have seen this going all the way back to the 1700s. Europeans would move in, and 2/3 of the tribes had no problem with that at all. But the 1/3 that did were tribes that were antagonistic towards any outsiders, European or other Indians.

And now excuse me, as I call you a completely bigoted and racist idiot. I find it sad that in the 21st century, some still try to either portray Indians as either some tribal hippie, or barbarians who slaughter and rape just because they can. And you amazingly seem to cover both of those.

I bet you would not even know an Indian if they came up and smacked you in the head with a teepee.

And nobody uses "stone age" any more, the actual term is Neolithic. Because the tribes of the Americas were already passing the Chalcolithic and starting to enter an early Bronze Age when the Europeans arrived. Many were Chalcolithic, and entering an Early Bronze Age, specifically in the areas of Mexico and Michigan.

"Stone Age" is Paleolithic. And we know that the tribes were more advanced than that because of their ability to work metals.

But thank you, because at least you help prove to me that the "Far Right" can be as idiotic as the "Far Left".

Now here is your education lesson for today:

Our Savage Neighbors: How Indian War Transformed Early America[Paperback]​

Peter Silver

1. This book is about how fear and horror can remake whole societies and their political landscapes. These events, between Europeans and Indians, surprisingly ran towards a) a democratic revolution and the dignifying of ordinary people; a commitment to toleration, or at least a deep hostility to bigotry between Europeans; and, in time, most of the American republic’s institutional beginning.
   1. When the experience of Indian war engulfed the mid-Atlantic, especially Pennsylvania, some of the many dissatisfactions that European colonists had felt toward one another would be trumped.
   2. Despite the use of words land phrases like “Indian” and “white people,” modern racial thinking played no part in most groups’ views of each other…until the end of the American Revolution… [when] new rhetoric for decrying Indians was genuinely worth calling racist. p.xxi
   3. [W]hite people in this period were nearly always depicted as suffering at Indians’ hands rather than triumphing over them, and if Europeans did not identify with, and move to mitigate this suffering, then they did not deserve to rule them: this served as a test first of Quaker’s, and then British rule in the middle colonies. This was an important source of the fundamental revolutionary idea of a sovereign people.
   4. Quakers during the Seven Years’ War, and Loyalists and British people during the Revolution, would bear the brunt of accusations of caring too much for the Indians.
2. 
   
3. Attacks by French-allied Indians hit Pennsylvania in October 1755. Sixty to one hundred arrived beyond the settlements, and divided into smaller groups, which went into different valleys to reconnoiter. Each spy ”lay[ing] about a House some days & nights, watching like a wolf” to see ”the situation of the Houses, the number of people at Each House, the places the People most frequent, & to observe at each House where there is most men, or women.” The individual farmsteads they chose a targets were at last attacked in parallel by still smaller groups, each only big enough to kill or capture the number of people it was likely to meet. Col. James Burd, “Pennsylvania Archives,” 199-104
   1. The brunt of these attacks fell on people who were outside doing field work. The attacks were manufactured to instill paralyzing fear- and they did.
   2. In 1756,William Fleming gave an unrivaled account of life in one of these little attack groups. Delawares stormed the house of Fleming’s neighbor, a farmer named Hicks, and took one of the Hicks boys as prisoner. The Indians then went on to instill fear by having Fleming witness the Hicks boys’ murder: they bludgeoned the boy to the ground with a tomahawk, split open his head- pausing at this point, in “Sport…to imitate his expiring Agonies” – and scalped him, and continued “all over besmared with [Hicks’s] blood.”
   3. Fleming wrote of watching while a youth from a neighboring family was taken by Indians while inside were “numerous Family of able young Men” and despite his “scream[ing] in a most piteous Manner for help,” his brothers made no attempt to help. A narrative of the sufferings and surprizing deliverances of William and Elizabeth Fleming [electron... | National Library of Australia
   4. Northampton County, Pennsylvania, 1778. Four men, two with wives and eight children, were attacked by Indians. [T]his occaion’d our men to flee as fast as they could,…before they were out of sight of the wagon they saw the Indians attacking the women & Children with their Tomahawks.” The net day, the three men came back to the scene for the corpses, which include the stabbed and scalped bodies of Smith’s wife, and of “a Little girl kill’d & sclped, [and] a boy the same.” Pa. Arch. 1:6:591
4. The essential fact about Indian-European warfare in the middle colonies was that the Europeans almost always did very badly. Though the American Revolution brought about a glorified, misleading view of frontier fighters and riflemen, during the eighteenth century country people practically never managed to mount even faintly convincing defenses against Indian attacks….The only thing that worked was leaving. (p.53)
5. Although the original diversity to the European colonies was the cause of much abrasive relationships, once public debate centered on the suffering of ordinary country people who had been dismissed in the cities as worse than Indians were reshaped into grander figures, defined by their hardships more than their religion, their nationality, or any of their own troublesome actions. And, increasingly, they made useful symbols for the country as a whole.
   1. Scalped and mutilated bodies were regularly brought into towns to document Indian barbarity. One strain of the rhetoric simply displayed abuses to the human body before and after death, especially scalping, as well as incineration, nonburial, and dismemberment.
6. It is more than interesting to consider the impressions of Capt. Joseph Shippen, of the Pennsylvania regiment, in 1755, considering frontier calamities: “To me, such tragical Scenes re sometime truly pleasing. Not that I rejoice…my Heart melts within me with Pity & Compassion for the unhappy Object….Yet as the softer passions of the Breast inflame the Soul with a Disposition, to do its utmost Efforts for its relief, I enjoy in that Respect a secret pleasure…”
   1. To make sense of this, we must begin with the aesthetics of the sublime. The pre-Romantic literature of sensibility , which rose during the 18th century to dominate poetry, drama, and especially the new genre of the novel, was the first body of writing in English to exploit the aesthetic value of emotion. At the heart of this was the fascination with sublime sensation: the felling of being awed, struck with wonder-or horror- at something outside oneself.
   2. The discourse on the sublime was shifting from “an ethico-aesthetic enquiry into a psychology of the individual” at about the time the mid-Atlantics scenes of Indian war became available. DeBolla, “The Discourse of the Sublime: Readings in History, Aesthetics and the Subject,”p.42 This writing of the ‘pathetic sublime’ overwhelmed the reader with emotion at the sight of the suffering.
   3. Edmund Burke (in “A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful” in 1757) was the first to observe that terror and horror were the sublime emotions par excellence. The Beautiful, according to Burke, is what is well-formed and aesthetically pleasing, whereas the Sublime is what has the power to compel and destroy us. The preference for the Sublime over the Beautiful was to mark the transition from the Neoclassical to the Romantic era. Thus, the sight of physical pain and suffering was the wellspring of the strongest emotions we could feel. [p.84]

 

[Mushroom]

It is ironic when you consider that those referred to as indigenous were not and, as some scientists believe, slaughtered peoples that had preceded them to North America.

Well, yes and no.

During that era, most groups were antagonistic to outsiders. And that is global, does not even matter what area of the world that happened in. It is not until a culture advanced into a neolithic lifestyle that things like trade and trade networks could really be established.

At the time of the first migrations to North America, everybody was like that. Everybody was seen as a threat, unless they were family.

 

[Mushroom]

First of all, you dunce.....there is no Far Right in this country.

Look in a mirror, and you will see it.

When your only response is to insult everybody that does not agree and attack them, you are indeed "Far-Right".

And I do not deal with idiots and racists.

 

[bodecea]

I guess that is your justification for slaughtering them

They didn’t have the wheel

They did have the wheel, they just didn't think it was valuable when there were no roads....kids had toys with wheels on them....they understood the concept.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Look in a mirror, and you will see it.

When your only response is to insult everybody that does not agree and attack them, you are indeed "Far-Right".

And I do not deal with idiots and racists.

Put your foot in your big mouth, didn't you, you moron.

 

[Mushroom]

They did have the wheel, they just didn't think it was valuable when there were no roads....kids had toys with wheels on them....they understood the concept.

Which was common for most cultures. In Eurasia they were using them for working clay long before anybody thought to use them to build any kind of cart on. We know the Potters Wheel was around since at least 5000 BCE. during the Chalcolithic era. But wheeled transportation came about 1,000 years later.

Modern paleontologists are now starting to look more closely at the Pre-Columbian Americas, as it is a fascinating snapshot of what Eurasia was like about 6-7,000 years earlier. Even the human migrations, different cultures developing at different speeds, and even what appears to be a recreation of the "Bronze Age Collapse" in the Mississippian Culture. And the groups that broke away when that culture imploded do indeed seem similar to the Hyksos and the other "Sea Peoples" that plagued that area of the world.

It is not that they did not have roads, but what use is a wheel when you have nothing to take anywhere? Trade was generally of high value and small bulk rare items, like obsidian or shells. A person could carry that themselves, or with a travois. Mostly, there were simply no beasts of burden to hook such a device up to. The death of almost all megafauna in the Americas left nothing like the horse, cattle-ox, or camel in the Americas to hook such a device up to. And the most any of the groups had was the llama, which was smaller than their camel cousins and lived in a relatively small area of the continent.

The "cart" in Eurasia really only took off when it was realized it could be pulled by horses. The Americas had no horses, so what use was it? The Plains tribes actually used dogs as beasts of burden. And a dog could not pull much more weight in a cart than they could a travois. But with a travois they could pull weight over almost any terrain, unlike a cart. And those in the far north used dogs and sleds. But given long enough, they might have eventually advanced to domesticating the elk or caribou, and developed a culture like the Laplanders.

 

[Mushroom]

Put your foot in your big mouth, didn't you, you moron.

Whatever you say, pigeon.