written language transcends most racial groups. in fact in the era it begins curiously it spawns at a very similar time all over the globe among different race people who had zero contact with each other.

so racial superiority is more like arab, white, chinese, mayan superiority.

I absolutely agree. The written word is the key catalyst for civilizational development, which was independently achieved across the various cradles of civilization that never contacted each other. The crude form of the written word, pictograms/cuneiform/hieroglyphics, were used by the South American natives and thus allowed them to develop far beyond what the Northern natives had ever achieved.

So it's basically intellectual superiority of using symbols to communicate, be it through little pictures carved into rock or the more advanced form of an alphabet & words. One could make the argument that the spark of imagination for the development of using symbols to communicate is racially determined, which there is a lot of strong evidence for and isn't really falsifiable. Which would basically mean the races of civilizational genesis - white, arab, east asian, mayan like you mentioned & others (Mesopotamians, Egyptians)

This post was edited by El1te on Oct 30 2024 10:44am

All kind of seems a red herring when we're applying it to a discussion of ethics for America and how the settlers interacted with natives.
Again, these pre-columbian societies fell apart before we encountered them. Cortez rampaged through mesoamerica where they actually had reasonably advanced civilizations, but what does it matter to a nascent north america?
The mississippian culture fell apart in the 15th century. Europeans moved into the south and west in the early 18th century and America didn't make the Lousiana purchase and start its westward claims until the 19th century.
The heyday of mississippian culture was further away chronologically from America being founded than we are today


The objective metrics I'm pointing to like mortality rates and life expectency are those from the 19th century when Americans and Indians were clashing in earnest, when boarding schools started up as a federal program, when all these moral conundrums were actually being debated in congress. Because when we look at subjective metrics of civilization, I can sure say that having an elected congress with representatives capable of making the moral and legal debates over policies like this, compared favorably to the Indian powpows and informal patriarchal systems. But for those objective metrics, it wasn't even close. No writing, no agriculture, no metallurgy, short life expectancy, little medicine, extremely high rates of violence, repression of women, etc etc.

just sounds like white knights to me, who ironically did these people what they thought was a great service as recompense for the scenario they were in which was partially caused by the same US govt that is now apologizing, which you disagree with.

so we can set up a bunch of schools as a way to apologize to a native group that we know is in dire straights partially because of our actions, but decades later if a president says the words im sorry out loud that's beyond the pale?

i maintain the same position, its faux-chauvinism behavior from people who are triggered by anything they consider to be an attack on masculinity. we now live in an era where even simple apologies are getting a "BETA TAG" like its an andrew tate live stream. all while on a micro scale consistently denying fault on the US govt side, or dialing back the white settlers side. i've read a lot of these and its always the same "indians were mean too you know". yeah, duh. but one side lost 99% of their population inside of a century and now lives on mostly uninhabitable swamp by govt decree due to treaties they had to sign or face annihilation. the other side got, well checks notes, the entire country. but sure, saying sorry is just a bridge too far given that, as is saying these schools were bad because their implicit goal was cultural genocide, because well they were doing it for nice reasons and they even had a debate.

Egyptian superiority maybe. African superiority. Korean superiority.
Every race except native north americans and aborigines?

The cradles of civilization developed these foundational elements thousands of years ago, and various civilizations peaked at different epochs with written language, philosophers, technology, economies, bureaucracies, etc.
In the year 1200, the nave and flying buttresses of the notre dame were completed
In the year 1200, the twentieth monarch of the goryeo dynasty ruled in korea. Bureaucrats were still picked using national service exams developed 250 years prior as a means for the peasantry to break into entrenched civil society
In the year 1200, the Almohad Caliphate ruled the Iberian coasts . Miramamolin received envoys from King John, grovelling for help against the French and Pope, even offering to convert to Islam and cede England as a muslim nation. Miramamolin was disgusted and spurned the offer
In the year 1200, the shores of lake superior in the northwest were sparsely populated by disorganized pre-civilization tribes and we have no idea if they were even active in these periods or had died our and been replaced, because until 500 years later nobody documented anything
perhaps the mississippian culture branched off into the dakota and ojibwe. We don't even know. They didn't write any of it down.

These people who got the ''whole country'' turned this nation into the most powerful nation on Earth. I believe it was a fair trade. Now the whole planet belong to the nation you're talking bout. For howe long? Good question, we'll prob eventually lose everything because we're teaching men to use pronouns in their bio and we also teach them to dress like women. We also make sure most of our future generations get their source of information from corporate owned news network. Men also love to divide themselves with all social fabrics used as bait to divide them. Men rather play video games nowadays than help their communities or learn multiple crafts that could benefit their household or communities. I'm one of the rare person around who took Plumber/Electrician certification to help people in need in my family. I can also do mechanic to save on cost and more. I'm a do it all kind of man because that's what a real man should be doing instead of watching anime and playing video games .

This post was edited by iLoveMyUsername on Oct 30 2024 11:29am

i think i can devise a very simple test to find out if someone is overly concerned with being manly and masculine.

i bring up the test subject and 1 other person.

i say there are two boxes on the table, test subject please pick one. each box has a check inside of it, one is for 10$, and the other is for 10,000$.

the test subject always gets the big check.

if they look at the other fake contestant and offer condolences they're an actual good person. if they laugh and refuse they're a dirtbag who gets ideas of what it takes to be a man from tv and movies.

Would you agree that masculinity is going downhill? That men know less and less skills that could be beneficial for their communities? Heck i use the word community but i'm well aware most people don't know their own neighbors . I feel lucky to be part of a small city where most people know each other and help each other. We help our homeless and help people in need. We often help each others with our different skills set to reduce expanses.

Wrong. North America has terrible geography for building early civilizations.

From your argument I would guess you aren't even familiar with the work of Victor Davis Hanson. I believe he's correct in so far as he goes, but he starts with the ancient greeks. He fails to provide any theory that contradicts geographical luck for how ancient greece(and much earlier eurasian civilizations) came to be in the first place. Of course ancient greece had massive intellectual advancements, that's not up for debate. The reason for this, though, is not racial superiority. Ancient Greece had an aristocracy. The only way to have an aristocratic class is for common citizens to raise domesticable plants and animals efficiently enough to fill more than their personal needs, so that they can also fill the needs of that aristocracy. This same principle applies doubly to a professional military class. North America did not have this luxury, they simply did not have the plants and animals required to do so. If you feel the need to disagree, feel free to try to google a list of crops and domesticable animals available to native north americans, make sure to check how far north and south they are suitable for and how many months a year had a suitable climate. Compare that to those available across eurasia. I'll help you out in case you want a shortcut: Eurasia had far more of every type of useful crop, and because it stretches east-west instead of north-south, agricultural practices could be applied much more successfully across the continent once developed in one place.

Jared Diamond and Victor Hanson both only provide part of a solution to the problem. As I said in the post you quoted, geograpical luck also needs allowances for human agency.



North America had no large domesticable animals whereas south america had one very useful one, the llama. Again, because of geographical luck, the llama could not spread north due to mountains. North America only really had dogs.

Eurasia, by contrast, and because of geographical luck, had many types of cattle, pigs, sheep, ducks, chickens, horses, and several others.

interestingly, without any of the technology of their worldwide peers, without math, without writing, and without even a common language that extends more than maybe 50 miles, they managed to have the same life expectancy of peasants living in the shadow of a large castle, with a cow and chickens, growing crops in a field, and paved roads.

sites like poverty points from 1700 bc or so aren't that dissimmilar to even 1400 ad Mississippian cities. so the culture stagnated for about 3,000 years. likely because they didnt need to advance given the landscape, it was easy living in most places especially south of the mason dixon line.



yes, and like most cases people fear a trend and overreact.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Oct 30 2024 11:39am