Archaeologica.org

Cogs: Ah, I see. So we can define civilisation after all. Are you thereby inferring that Native Americans did not possess humility?

R/S: If the holocaust theory holds, I do . . .

Hmm, so let me see if I understand your logic correctly: Native Americans are not civilised if their ancestors eradicated those Caucasian types who may have entered the Americas first. By extension, does that mean that I am a bigot if my ancestors enslaved Black Americans prior to 1863? Do the sins of the past cast upon our current generation?

damn, this admission of humility is a setback.

Looks as though the definition is moving closer to mine.
RS listed one attribute of civilisation as warfare, which of course then infers that uncivilised people don't engage in warfare.
I think the word 'civilisation' is one of those words that we all understand, until we have to define it.
An additional problem is that a civilised society will also have a number of individuals who behave in a most uncivilised manner, and they can easily become the defining image of that society.
An example is Nazi Germany, not all Germans were Nazis and not all Nazis were Germans, yet we still describe that period of history as Nazi Germany.

When examining the "civility" of the AmerIndians, it is wise to consider that the invading white-man made his judgements mainly on religious grounds. The natives were considered uncivilized because they did not dress modestly, they practised pagan religions, they slept on the ground, etc. They were considered savages because they did not fight according to the "civilized" methods of lining up in columns, using "strategic" movements, displaying proper handling of the dead or wounded enemy, etc.

On the otherhand, other judgements of their civility may be had without respect to any religious criteria, by examining their relative primitiveness with respect to technologies such as building, weapons, tools, writing, etc.

Which standards are being applied in this thread?

Your comments about buildings, tools, etc Monk leads me to this point.
Everything you commented on was good enough for its designated task, it seems that we are the only ones who keep seeking more efficient means of exterminating each other.

"Civilization" is what your side has and the other side does not.

The Romans considered the Germanic tribes to be barbarians. But the Barbarians put a stop to gladiatorial games.

Granted Min, but they didn't do it for altruistic reasons.

Digit wrote:Your comments about buildings, tools, etc Monk leads me to this point.
Everything you commented on was good enough for its designated task, it seems that we are the only ones who keep seeking more efficient means of exterminating each other.

That's just one aspect of technology, Digit. Besides extermination, it is used to make lives easier. One is able to accomplish more work with less effort; one achieves more recreational time; it contributes to longevity and health.

Digit wrote:Granted Min, but they didn't do it for altruistic reasons.

The Romans weren't staging them for altruistic reasons, either.

Granted Min, but they didn't do it for altruistic reasons.

Digit, you understand that most civilisations have not been altruistic towards foreigners or, in many cases, their own kind.

I confess to agreeing with all those comments gentlemen, and to the extent of taking Monk's comments further.
Not too much practice is required to produce a servicable flint arrow head Monk.
So someone comes along and offers you a metal one, probably not as sharp as your flint one.
Now, how do you obtain it?
You either have to learn to make it it, a lot more work than your flint one, or you have to trade for it.
Is it worth the effort? Particularly if the Bison runs off with the darn thing!
How much easier to sit in the sun and produce your old fashioned flint ones, the Native Americans seemed to trade for what they wanted upto a point, but no further.

Howdy R/S. You've been making your case for 8 pages that the Native Americans were not civilized. And all the time you've posed the question - why?

It doesn't seem to me that anyone is agreeing with you. How about going ahead and answering the question. Why do you think they had no civilization?

This could be interesting.

Howdy R/S. You've been making your case for 8 pages that the Native Americans were not civilized. And all the time you've posed the question - why?

It doesn't seem to me that anyone is agreeing with you. How about going ahead and answering the question. Why do you think they had no civilization?

This could be interesting.

Beags, in many cases they were more civilized than those who conquered them. Read through the book 1491 by Charles Mann. He states that the population of the Americas when Columbus landed was 100 million while Europe was 70 million. Diseases decimated 90-95 percent of the natives. Before then, their empires were quite phenomenal.

Beagle wrote:
Howdy R/S. You've been making your case for 8 pages that the Native Americans were not civilized. And all the time you've posed the question - why?

It doesn't seem to me that anyone is agreeing with you. How about going ahead and answering the question. Why do you think they had no civilization?

I don't know about you, Beagle, but I have this strange habit of asking a question when I don't know the answer. Sofar, I haven't seen it, though.

RS, sorry that doen't make sense, you have said that certain peoples are not civilised, in your opinion, therefore you must have a reason for that opinion.