Columbus. Good or bad?

Columus was …


  • Total voters
    23
I want to see the numbers before making any comments on them, if there are actually any hard numbers out there.

Between no record keeping by the natives and shoddy recordkeeping by the colonists, I doubt any number is reliable.
They didn't keep numbers themselves, and of course the whitey haters thinks that means they get to make up their own. Best estimates that there were maybe 5 million north of the Rio Grande max, and there are about that many now or close. Most leave the reservations and assimilate, inter-marry with other ethnic groups, like my grandmother and her brothers and sisters. Also some of the eastern tribes took in whites with little or no genetic links to natives. Chief John Ross of the Cherokees was mostly Scottish, for instance.
 
Incorrect. Mayans for example. Spanish burned their codexes.


Alpaca, dogs.

Copper, gold, silver. They did not have steel technology.

You've never eaten good mexican food.


no domestic animals.


The pyramid of the Sun and Moon would like a word.


At least they didn't have leaches.


Maya, Toltec, Aztec, Inca would like a word.


Like...the Romans.
So, they were several thousand years behind in development?
 
If one considers civilization to be superior to barbarism, we will need to give Columbus some credit.

My sympathy for the American Indians is moderated by the awareness that they tortured male prisoners of war to death and mutilated the bodies of those they killed in their frequent wars.

I feel sympathy for American Indians that I do not feel for American Negroes. American Negroes are better off because their ancestors were brought here as slaves. Whites, on the other hand, are worse off. It cannot be said that American Indians benefited from being displaced by whites.

If humans had become extinct everywhere but in North and South America, descendants of American Indians would have eventually landed on the moon. American Indians were evolving in the same direction whites and Orientals were evolving, but they were evolving more slowly.
 
If one considers civilization to be superior to barbarism, we will need to give Columbus some credit.

My sympathy for the American Indians is moderated by the awareness that they tortured male prisoners of war to death and mutilated the bodies of those they killed in their frequent wars.

Okay, white people introduced scalping to them to get them to kill each other... so that's not a good example.

I feel sympathy for American Indians that I do not feel for American Negroes. American Negroes are better off because their ancestors were brought here as slaves. Whites, on the other hand, are worse off. It cannot be said that American Indians benefited from being displaced by whites.

Can we get Jamal to apologize for stuffing Hector the Cockroach into that locker? Seems like he's been scarred for life.

If humans had become extinct everywhere but in North and South America, descendants of American Indians would have eventually landed on the moon. American Indians were evolving in the same direction whites and Orientals were evolving, but they were evolving more slowly.

Well, no, not really.

You see, what you call "advancement", I call just being lucky.

Let's take the Horse. The Horse had profound effects on the ability of Europeans and Asians to advance technologically.

Heck, we even measure things in "Horsepower" today.

But sub-Saharan Afrcia, the Americas, and Australia didn't have a horse to domesticate. Is that because whites/Asians were truly smarter, or just luckier?
 
but sub-Saharan Afrcia, the Americas, and Australia didn't have a horse to domesticate. Is that because whites/Asians were truly smarter, or just luckier?
The Incas had domesticated the lamas. These were used for transportation they ways horses are used.

Once civilization begins in a population it begins to select genetically for intelligence and obedience to the law.

Intelligent men tend to be prosperous. Until recently they tended to have more children who survived to adulthood.

Until recently in civilized countries criminals were killed at the scene of the crime, they died in custody, or they were executed. There was no effort at rehabilitation. It is rarely effective.
 
The Incas had domesticated the lamas. These were used for transportation they ways horses are used.

A Llama doesn't have anywhere near the utility of a horse.



Once civilization begins in a population it begins to select genetically for intelligence and obedience to the law.

Bullshit. If anything, civilization is anti-Natural Selection. The weak and sickly are preserved rather than being picked off.

Intelligent men tend to be prosperous. Until recently they tended to have more children who survived to adulthood.

Except why don't you have generations of geniuses? I know you have some fantasies that you can get all the pussy because you are smart, but women are probably creeped out by you.
 
A Llama doesn't have anywhere near the utility of a horse.


American Indians would have gotten along without horses. Mayan mathematicians were using the concept of zero before European mathematicians. The Incas were beginning to experiment with bronze.
 
Back
Top Bottom