Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Poly familiesFollow

#127 Jan 24 2012 at 8:12 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Needs more robotic ocelots.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#128gbaji, Posted: Jan 24 2012 at 3:09 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Yeah. Nice stable and advanced civilization you got there. The Aztec's were on the verge of civil war and collapse when Cortez showed up. They were brutally harsh on the subject tribes. It took just some folks showing up and shaking things up a bit to get them to revolt. And in all likelihood it would have happened within the next 50 years whether Cortez showed up or not.
#129 Jan 24 2012 at 3:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
For one particular culture to collapse to a neighboring culture doesn't mean the local civilization itself collapsed. You may as well say European civilization stopped existing during WWII because the French government collapsed under German attack. Do you think everyone was just going to cover Tenochtitlan under a big pile of dirt and go off to sit in a mud hole and eat mice somewhere?

Quote:
The Aztec's were on the verge of civil war and collapse when Cortez showed up

So the United States stopped being a "civilization" around 1860?

Edited, Jan 24th 2012 3:33pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#130 Jan 24 2012 at 3:49 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,024 posts
What Joph said. Plus,

Quote:
And in all likelihood it would have happened within the next 50 years whether Cortez showed up or not.


Smiley: lol

Was the civilization in a period of decline? Yes. But every civilization in human history has cycled through ages of prosperity and darker ages. Christendom was, by far, the worst Dark Age of any civilization in recorded human history--no other every fell so far or lost so much. It also happens to be the longest Dark Age.

If you are going to argue that the Aztec Empire can't be considered a great civilization because it was on a period of decline, then you also can't argue that Christendom was a great society, because they were only starting to figure out how to leave the Dark Ages behind them, and wouldn't become a top competitor in the world until the dawn of the Modern period, 200-300 years later.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#131 Jan 24 2012 at 5:58 PM Rating: Good
Now look what you did Digg, now I want to go watch my DVD of the History Channel's special on The Dark Ages, from when they actually had historically educational shows.

There is actually quite a bit of debate over when the Dark Ages started. Some say it started as early as the fall of the Roman Empire in the 500's. I forget the exact year.
#132 Jan 24 2012 at 7:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,024 posts
Most historians don't bother themselves with the dates, because there's no magic day when people looked around and were like, "Damn. We're in the Dark Ages now..."

But, generally, the Dark Ages are considered as starting when the seat of the Roman Empire moved from Rome to Constantinople (modern-day Istanbul). Within 100-150 years of that move, literacy in the West and monetary systems had disappeared. There was no standing army remaining, Germanic tribes were the only groups with centralized power, cities were completely depopulated, etc.

When the Dark Ages end is a harder question. But most historians arbitrarily place it at the onset of the Italian Renaissance. Though there are plenty of Medieval scholars who hold that it doesn't end until the Modern period (and they have some very good arguments for why). Feudalism, for instance, persists until the 19th century.

The actual term "Dark Ages" was actually coined by Italian scholars during the Renaissance though.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#133 Jan 24 2012 at 8:06 PM Rating: Good
Well from what I remember from that DVD (not that I claim the History Channel was ever 100% accurate), the Roman Empire was split in two at one point, into the Western half and the Eastern half. It wasn't that the seat was moved from Rome to Constantinople, it was more that once the Western half fell, the Eastern half became more prominent.

Although again, this is what I remember from the DVD, I'm not sure how accurate it actually is.
#134 Jan 24 2012 at 8:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,024 posts
They are both true. At its height, the Roman Empire stretched around the entire Mediteranean (which was, essentially, it's center). The capital of the Empire was Rome, with major cities in the Middle East and in Northern Africa.

But as the empire declined (largely due to a strong Roman indifference to military service, many insane emperors, and an economy based on slave labor), they lost their ability to really control these areas due to their military being stretched far too thin. By the 4th century, the Roman Empire was paying Germanic tribes to BE their army against other Germanic tribes. Not really all that effective.

After Constantine converted to Christianity, he remade Byzantium into the capital of the Eastern Empire (think state capitals) and intended to make it into a purely Christian city. But 6 years later, he moved the capital of the Empire there, due to the increasing risk of the West from Germanic threats. Those same tribes actually sacked Rome later.

But when Constantine moved to the East, so did all the wealthy. And they took all the wealth with them. Many scholars have concluded that, at the time of this move, there was more wealth concentrated in that one city than in the rest of the known world put together.

The Western half of the Empire was essentially abandoned. The Byzantine kings still claimed authority over it, but they had literally no power there--there was no infrastructure for them to use to enforce their will, and the Germanic kings now in place were often at odds with them (for instance, Germanic Christianity wasn't the same form as Byzantine Christianity). You had some Germanic kings (like Charlemagne's forefathers) who tried to make the Byzantine emperors happy, but they never really took orders from them. And while some of the kings married Byzantine princesses, the Eastern empire never increased their hold over the West.

And a significant part of that was that they didn't really want the West. At all. Europe had pretty much nothing to offer Constantinople--its lands weren't fertile and all the natural resources it had could be more economically gained closer to Turkey. It was a backwater land of illiterate, uncivilized peasants. Byzantium had the massive libraries, bath houses and academies worthy of the New Rome.

In the 8th century, Charlemagne created the Holy Roman Empire by conquering areas of what is now France, Germany and Italy. THINK about that for a second. He essentially reconquered it from the other germanic tribes that had settled there. And he was "emperor," crowned such by the pope who was directly trying to mirror the Byzantine empire. Charlemagne's biography, for instance, was written in the style of Augustus (and would be complete plagiarism by today's standards).

The Dark Ages continued from here. Europe grew slowly over time, but they just continued to establish feudal systems and 95-97% of people lived in squalor, tied to the land and barely surviving. There were a few Renaissances, but you didn't see any significant change until the Italian Renaissance. The Modern period, brought on partially by the Enlightenment, are the first time you ever see any signficant change in the way people organize themselves. While Europe certainly got better in those 300 years, the experiences of the common man (still 90+%) remained largely unchanged.

And one of the leading causes of the French Revolution was that the position of the peasants became quite a bit worse.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#135 Jan 24 2012 at 9:41 PM Rating: Decent
*****
12,846 posts
I only know of one poly couple with children and he's a very healthy, happy, sweet little boy. The family consists of a man, a nongenetic man and a female. (the males do not sexually interact, however the female interacts with each.)

I don't see how it would be so bad for a child to have three people who adore them, spend time with them and are encouraging them. *shrug*
#136 Jan 24 2012 at 9:53 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
For one particular culture to collapse to a neighboring culture doesn't mean the local civilization itself collapsed. You may as well say European civilization stopped existing during WWII because the French government collapsed under German attack.


Sure. But when someone is arguing that a civilization is "advanced" (one of the three most advanced in the world, in fact), pointing out that said civilization was conquered with the modern equivalent of a dozen national guardsmen who got lost on their way to the store to buy beer kinda *is* relevant. Pointing out that the specific culture representing said civilization at the time of said conquest was just the current "top dog", but was still so rife with social and governing problems that it was relatively trivial to topple them is also relevant.

I would also perhaps point out that hinging your claim that a given practice (polygamy in this case) is perfectly normal because it was practiced by of "one of the three most advanced civilizations in the world" by highlighting a specific culture/state/whatever within that civilization, which was brutal, had huge problems, and was near collapse, pretty much entirely because they happened to have one really big agrarian city is also somewhat silly. Clearly that *wasn't* such a huge thing, was it?

Quote:
Do you think everyone was just going to cover Tenochtitlan under a big pile of dirt and go off to sit in a mud hole and eat mice somewhere?


Possibly. Lots of other impressive looking ruins were present in South America and had been abandoned since long before the Spanish arrived. But even if the next guys had kept it going, so what? They'd have had the same problems the Aztecs had for pretty much the same reasons. The only way to maintain such a large city with such limited technology was to brutalize every tribe for several hundred miles around and work them to death just to produce and transport enough food and goods to keep it from collapsing.

The Spanish were mostly in awe of the city, not because it was some paragon of design, or engineering, or represented anything that they couldn't have done if they'd wanted to. They were in awe over the fact that people with such limited tools would actually expend the massive effort to build and maintain it. It's the same sort of awe people have when looking at the pyramids in Egypt. It's not like we couldn't build such structures if we wanted to. We're just impressed that they did with what they had at the time.

Quote:
Quote:
The Aztec's were on the verge of civil war and collapse when Cortez showed up

So the United States stopped being a "civilization" around 1860?


If said civil war allowed some other culture to so completely conquer them *and* anyone else who might normally have risen in their place in the same area, then yeah it was certainly a contributing factor. The idea that the Aztecs specifically would have just continued on thriving if only the Spanish hadn't arrived is absurd. Now if you want to expand that from the Aztecs specifically to "Central American civilization" as a whole, then absolutely someone would have filled the void.

But they'd have been just as lacking in advancement, right? And if we're to look even more broadly at the pattern of civilization in Central and South America you can absolutely say that relatively speaking the Maya were significantly more advanced than either the Aztecs or the Incas. So the whole was clearly in decline and had been for centuries before the Spanish arrived.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#137 Jan 24 2012 at 10:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
But when someone is arguing that a civilization is "advanced" (one of the three most advanced in the world, in fact), pointing out that said civilization was conquered with the modern equivalent of a dozen national guardsmen who got lost on their way to the store to buy beer kinda *is* relevant.

So you want to claim that the Aztec defeat at "a dozen national guardsmen" proves how unadvanced they were... and also, the fact said said guardsmen used tens of thousands of other warriors ALSO proves how unadvanced they were Smiley: laugh
Quote:
Possibly. Lots of other impressive looking ruins were present in South America and had been abandoned since long before the Spanish arrived.

I wouldn't say "lots". Most significantly, you had Mayan ruins (who were in the finishing stages of being assimilated into the Aztec culture) and Olmec artifacts from the civilization that led into the Veracruz culture. Key point here being that both groups were succeeded by more advanced groups. Funny how that works, huh?
Quote:
If said civil war allowed some other culture to so completely conquer them *and* anyone else who might normally have risen in their place in the same area, then yeah it was certainly a contributing factor.

Which, of course, you have no idea about. The groups allied with Cortes weren't pulled out of a bag, they were under the umbrella of Aztec culture and the idea that they would have taken Tenochtitlan and that would be the end of the Aztec civilization is just... stupid.
Quote:
you can absolutely say that relatively speaking the Maya were significantly more advanced than either the Aztecs or the Incas.

First off, I have to laugh at your phrase "absolutely say that relatively speaking". Much like good ole Gingrich and "fundamentally", I can always tell when you're getting desperate and outgunned -- you start sprinkling in the "absolutely"s and pray to God that we'll just accept your (almost always erroneous) authoritative stance as gospel. "Absolutely relatively"? Are you serious? Smiley: laugh

Secondly, "absolutely relatively" speaking aside, no. The Mayans were not "significantly more advanced".
Quote:
But they'd have been just as lacking in advancement, right?

The Aztecs were picking up bronze working at the time (other smaller tribes had learned it and the Aztecs were absorbing the knowledge through their expansion). It's been suggested that the Spanish conquest came just as the Aztec bronze age was about to begin. The Inca were already working with bronze (pins, small tools, pry bars, etc) but had yet to nail down the ratio of tin to make weapons. So, again, no. You're not right.

Seriously, maybe you should have tried learning past 5th grade. You might have even gotten an award for knowing something!

Edited, Jan 24th 2012 11:07pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#138 Jan 25 2012 at 1:04 AM Rating: Excellent
Citizen's Arrest!
******
29,527 posts
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
History Channel... when they actually had historically educational shows.
That was far back enough that pretty soon History Channel will be doing stories about that bygone era, as soon as they can tie it to aliens or pawn shops.
#139 Jan 25 2012 at 1:59 AM Rating: Good
Seriously. I mean hell, even when most of their shows were about Hitler or the *****, they still had the occasional interesting program. Now it's terrible. History Channel used to be one of my favorites, but now I haven't watched it in years.
#140 Jan 25 2012 at 6:31 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
It's no longer a channel about history, it's about buying or selling or having delusions about history.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#141 Jan 25 2012 at 7:33 AM Rating: Good
*****
15,952 posts
So where Gbaji et al get their Justified True Beliefs?
#142 Jan 25 2012 at 9:03 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Given his whining about "revisionist history", I'm guessing he got them from a textbook c.1978 or so.

The funny part is that no one would debate that the Europeans were more technologically advanced. I bet most would agree that they had a more advanced civilization in general terms. But Gbaji's precious Eurocentrism is so easily threatened that he'll go to lengths to insist that, for instance, a wheel isn't a wheel. Because -- God forbid -- if he agrees that they HAD invented the wheel but just hadn't really utilized it yet instead of "Haha, dorks never even invented the wheel", we might not think they were all proto-human troglodytes and how are we supposed to feel superior then?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#143 Jan 25 2012 at 9:15 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
I never need a reason to feel superior.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#144 Jan 25 2012 at 9:19 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Strong words from a scrimshaw carver in an igloo.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#145 Jan 30 2012 at 9:15 AM Rating: Good
*****
15,512 posts
The One and Only Poldaran wrote:
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
History Channel... when they actually had historically educational shows.
That was far back enough that pretty soon History Channel will be doing stories about that bygone era, as soon as they can tie it to aliens or pawn shops.
Youre really hurting Hitler's feelings right now...
#146 Jan 30 2012 at 3:45 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
The funny part is that no one would debate that the Europeans were more technologically advanced. I bet most would agree that they had a more advanced civilization in general terms.


What "general terms" though? This is kinda where the argument started, isn't it? Someone insisted that the Aztecs were among the three most advanced civilizations in the world (ok, a subset of a region claimed to be so), yet aside from "they built a really big city", there was no justification for the claim. I'm honestly curious in what areas we're ascribing advancement to the Aztecs. Cultural? There was nothing particularly special about them. Ethical? They were a brutal regime by all historical accounts. Philosophical? That's questionable and incredibly subjective. Religious? By modern accounts, their religious practices make everything ever done by Christianity look like a day at the beach.

Can't you acknowledge maybe just a tiny bit that maybe the reason people today have a desire to attribute some sort of cultural advancement to them is part guilt over them getting wiped out, and partly to attempt to ascribe some sort of innate balance to the concept of "advanced" in the first place? There's a tendency by many people to assume that equal achievement must be present, so if a culture is less advanced technologically, well they must have been more advanced in some other way. Unfortunately, the real world doesn't work like that.


Quote:
But Gbaji's precious Eurocentrism is so easily threatened that he'll go to lengths to insist that, for instance, a wheel isn't a wheel. Because -- God forbid -- if he agrees that they HAD invented the wheel but just hadn't really utilized it yet instead of "Haha, dorks never even invented the wheel", we might not think they were all proto-human troglodytes and how are we supposed to feel superior then?


You're projecting. I listed a set of things which pre-columbian American civilizations had not yet achieved relative to old world civilizations. You zeroed in on one example (the wheel) and insisted that somehow because they'd made round pieces of wood and affixed them to toys that this meant that they were just as advanced! Bit of a stretch, right?

The "invention" of the wheel somewhat does involve learning how to construct wheels sufficiently strong and large that you can use them as a tool for moving objects while expending less energy. Anyone can realize that sliding things is easier than carrying them, and that rolling things is easier still, and that round objects roll better than other shapes. This requires no special inventiveness. We can bicker over exactly what "inventing the wheel" means, but can we at least agree that the native Americans at the time were certainly less advanced in this area (and all areas of engineering) than the Europeans of the day?


And isn't that all that really matters here?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#147 Jan 30 2012 at 4:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
You're projecting.

I'm aware that once again you need to revert to the mental state of a 5th grader, put your fingers in your ears and scream "I'm rubber and you're glue!!" over and over again but, no. Which is cute that you're reply to charges that you were acting childlike by acting even MORE childlike Smiley: laugh

Quote:
Can't you acknowledge maybe just a tiny bit that maybe the reason people today have a desire to attribute some sort of cultural advancement to them is part guilt over them getting wiped out

Were you about to admit that your clinging insistence to dismiss anything about Meso- & South American indigenous culture comes from a fear of admitting maybe they weren't the near-cavemen you learned about in 5th grade and never looked into since then and the Europeans may not have been the mighty supermen as you were taught?

Quote:
You zeroed in on one example (the wheel) and insisted that somehow because they'd made round pieces of wood and affixed them to toys that this meant that they were just as advanced!

Or you can just run to your precious strawman arguments where me pointing out that they had invented wheels means I was saying they were "just as advanced!"

Quote:
We can bicker over exactly what "inventing the wheel" means

I don't need to bicker. I can point to bona fide examples of a wheel and axle being used and watch you throw temper tantrums about how they don't count because, next on the Gbaji fallacy hit parade is the cherished "No True Scotsman" argument.

Ah, classic Gbaji. And, no, I have no interest in trying to convince you anything about their culture when you're so tightly invested in denying it. But maybe you can cry "projection!" some more. Worked when you were in 5th grade learning about Cortes so it'll work now, right?

Edited, Jan 30th 2012 4:29pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#148 Jan 30 2012 at 4:38 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,024 posts
No, we can't. That's the point. You are using a Eurocentric value system to criticize a different culture with completely different needs.

Guess what! Aztecs had very little use for wheels. Wheels in the European world at this time were used primarily for two things--transport of goods and people (if wealthy) and for farming equipment.

Aztecs lived in any area of the world that is, in many areas, mountainous. And it is almost universally covered in Jungle. It's also even more split by rivers and streams than Europe is.

In that context, the wheel is absolutely useless for transporting goods between urban centers. Your roads are built according to the terrain (which is universally true of the time, and remains largely true today). Wheeled transports, be they wagons or carriages, cannot function in this environment. That renders the wheel useless in its most important capacity.

Cities of the time utilized complex urban planning that European cities were only starting to utilize. They placed their buildings according to the land's resources and structure, and actively changed the terrain where needed. The result was that boats were more than sufficient for transporting goods around the largest cities. And because they included farmable land in this equation, they never had to transport agriculture too far (And, again, the wagon would have been useless in doing so anyway).

Their urban planning was so sophisticated that they turned mountains into extremely efficient agricultural systems by implementing terraces, simultaneously allowing for easy irrigation. They CREATED farmland in ways Europeans had never done. At this time, Europeans are only a few centuries past the Agricultural Revolution (and had not innovated much beyond it). Their ingenious new systems (heavy plow, horse-shoes/harnesses, and the three-field system) were more than 10 times more inefficient than the Aztec's system. They were subject to the lay of the land, and the typical peasant was forced to work multiple patches that were often an hour's walk from each other.

Finally, we come to wheeled farm equipment. Let me first note that the vast majority of ploughs in this period were still wheel-less, despite the wheeled plow having been introduced 500 years earlier. Because it wasn't widely available, and required a team of farm animals to use (which very, VERY few farmers could afford).

Guess what? Would have been completely useless in the Aztec's empire. For one, the wheeled plow was only an advancement because of northern European soil. The Roman Empire's farming methods, a millennium earlier, were more efficient than the current European methods. Yet they used wheel-less light plows. The wheeled plow was only an advancement because Northern European soil was tough.

And we come back to a previous statement. The Aztecs created their farmland. They didn't need a wheeled plow, because their own tools were more than sufficient because they controlled the land itself. Furthermore, a great deal of their farms didn't need our idea of a plow at all, as they built islands in lakes. Plows would have been USELESS here. And that farming technique alone was one of the most efficient in the world, requiring vastly less work and producing a great deal more food.

Wheelbarrows were only JUST starting to become less rare in Europe. And they still wouldn't have had much of a place in Aztec society for previously mentioned reasons. A small boon to urban life, but that's it. And since they weren't even being used in Europe for those purposes yet, it's not fair to condemn them for that.

So, no. The wheel wouldn't have, in any way, "Advanced" Aztec society. It would have been nearly useless. And inventing useless objects is never a sign of an "advanced" civilization.
#149gbaji, Posted: Jan 30 2012 at 6:09 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Um... You keep saying that the wheel would have been useless (actually several people have said this), but that's a circular (pardon the pun) argument. Had they invented the wheel (and frankly better metallurgy), they'd have implemented them in ways which then made them useful and efficient. And those things would have led to the development of more advanced technologies.
#150 Jan 30 2012 at 6:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Can we at least agree that...

Were you going to admit to your fear of losing your Eurocentric sense of superiority yet? Smiley: laugh
Quote:
Terraced farming was practiced in many locations in Europe, Asia, and the middle east thousands of years before the 15th century

Not to shine a spotlight on your tunnel-vision here but the Inca didn't decide to start terraced farming in 1525 AD either.

Edited, Jan 30th 2012 6:22pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#151 Jan 30 2012 at 7:05 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Can we at least agree that...

Were you going to admit to your fear of losing your Eurocentric sense of superiority yet? Smiley: laugh


Ah... Projection again. I get that for *you* there are psychological imperatives behind the need to try to equate the accomplishments of pre-columbian America with those of other civilizations in the old world at the time. But for me, it's about stating facts. pre-columbian America was absolutely less advanced in nearly every single way than most old world civilizations at the time. What's bizarre is the need of some people to try to find some way to argue otherwise in the face of hard facts.


Quote:
Quote:
Terraced farming was practiced in many locations in Europe, Asia, and the middle east thousands of years before the 15th century

Not to shine a spotlight on your tunnel-vision here but the Inca didn't decide to start terraced farming in 1525 AD either.


*cough* Which should make it a poor example of the greatest advancements in the area. You just phoned that one in, didn't you?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 321 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (321)