• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

White students to no longer be majority at school[W:62]

The differences in colonial systems between the various European powers that colonized the Americas

How do you explain these differences?

How did one country come to dominate the world while others lagged behind?
 
I do love the assumption of non-whites as a monolithic group, opposing whites. "Oh no, our pure white culture is doomed, the culture of the brown people will take its place". :lol:

But you guys rounded up your brown people and forced assimilation!

j/k mods...

I agree that the fear that "brown people will take over" is unfounded. As long as they respect the values of the nation I am fine with my great grandkids being browner...
 
I have already posted a link which shows that most of them do not live in the Southwestern states. As far as "a lot" goes, it's vague to the point of meaningless. Idaho has about 30K of them, and it could be argued that 30K is "a lot" of people. I would also point that the northeastern states and western states that have a lot of them too.

Beyond this I'm pretty much done with your dishonesty.

I just wanted to let you know that just for fun I did the math for the rest of the US based on your graph. Not counting what I have already shown you the rest of the continental US had 6,963,400 illegals spread out. That is from Oregon and Washington State to the East coast and all states in between. Again, just so we're clear, that does not count the southwestern states that I already showed you. If I took out just 3 states, yes..just 3, All the rest of the states do not make up in total what it takes just 7 states to make. Again, just to be clear: 40 states does not make up what it takes 7 states to accomplish. In order to surpass it you need at least 2 out of those left over 3 states.

So yeah, relatively speaking, that is one hell of a concentration of illegals in those south western states compared to the rest of the US.
 
Beyond this I'm pretty much done with your dishonesty.

I just wanted to let you know that just for fun I did the math for the rest of the US based on your graph. Not counting what I have already shown you the rest of the continental US had 6,963,400 illegals spread out. That is from Oregon and Washington State to the East coast and all states in between. Again, just so we're clear, that does not count the southwestern states that I already showed you. If I took out just 3 states, yes..just 3, All the rest of the states do not make up in total what it takes just 7 states to make. Again, just to be clear: 40 states does not make up what it takes 7 states to accomplish. In order to surpass it you need at least 2 out of those left over 3 states.

So yeah, relatively speaking, that is one hell of a concentration of illegals in those south western states compared to the rest of the US.

I have no idea what you're talking about. I don't know which 3 states you're referring to, nor do I know what you mean by " Not counting what I have already shown you" because you haven't shown me anything but dishonest claims

However, the total of undocumented immigrants for the top 3 southwestern states (TX, NV, AZ) is 2,240,000

CA alone beats that with 2,550,000

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2011/02/01/appendix-a-additional-figures-and-tables/
 
The differences in colonial systems between the various European powers that colonized the Americas

And military power, which Native Americans had not as extensively developed as the Europeans because of the wealth of natural resources and lack of geographical features to separate them into nations (see Aaron Diamond)

Do you mean Jarod Diamond?

...and he is correct up to a point. The Native Americans had the same time and opportunity's to advance as the Asians and Europeans and they didn't. They lived as stone age hunter gatherers instead. They had maize, squash and beans. They had horses until the killed them all that could have been domesticated. They could have domesticated turkeys, deer, wolves, rabbits or bison. They had all of the metals and time that Europeans had to cultivate crops, advanced culture, husband animals, etc.
 
Do you mean Jarod Diamond?

...and he is correct up to a point. The Native Americans had the same time and opportunity's to advance as the Asians and Europeans and they didn't. They lived as stone age hunter gatherers instead. They had maize, squash and beans. They had horses until the killed them all that could have been domesticated. They could have domesticated turkeys, deer, wolves, rabbits or bison. They had all of the metals and time that Europeans had to cultivate crops, advanced culture, husband animals, etc.

They didn't even have horses until the Spanish brought them over.
 
Do you mean Jarod Diamond?

...and he is correct up to a point. The Native Americans had the same time and opportunity's to advance as the Asians and Europeans and they didn't. They lived as stone age hunter gatherers instead. They had maize, squash and beans. They had horses until the killed them all that could have been domesticated. They could have domesticated turkeys, deer, wolves, rabbits or bison. They had all of the metals and time that Europeans had to cultivate crops, advanced culture, husband animals, etc.

Yes, that's who I meant. I'm bad with names

And since you sound familiar with his work, you should know that time is not the only factor he promotes as contributing towards societal dominance
 
They didn't even have horses until the Spanish brought them over.

Horses (Equus)continued to evolve and develop for another six million years after Pliohippus and became very successful, spreading throughout North America. At some point some of them crossed into the Old World via the Arctic-Asia land bridge. Then, suddenly, no one is absolutely certain why, between 10,000 and 8,000 years ago, Equus disappeared from North and South America. Various theories have been advanced including destruction by drought, disease, or extinction as a result of hunting by growing human populations. At any rate, the horse was gone from the western hemiphere. The submergence of the Bering land bridge prevented any return migration from the Old World or Asia, and the horse was not seen again on its native continent until the Spanish explorers brought horses by ship in the sixteenth century.

Horse in North America
 
Yes, that's who I meant. I'm bad with names

And since you sound familiar with his work, you should know that time is not the only factor he promotes as contributing towards societal dominance

I thought you meant him... I use his Guns Germs and Steel episode to show the Conquistador conquest of the Incan Empire for world history...

I agree... time is certainly not the only factor. Competition is the biggest factor, IMO, and the NNA's were spread out and had less competition, to a degree. If they had done what the Europeans had done with the examples I provided they would have had larger populations, more defined urban centers and been more competitive with each other just as the first city states or Mesopotamia and later Greece and China were.
 
Still being dishonest in what others post I see. Nowhere did I say that I was "terrified" about anything. My op was more a comment on open borders and multiculturalism than anything else. Get it straight or don't address me with your lies.

Your OP was dishonest spin on the source article, which not only did not support your claim, it actually stated the opposite. Unfortunately or you, some people do read source articles and you got caught in your lie.
 
Horses (Equus)continued to evolve and develop for another six million years after Pliohippus and became very successful, spreading throughout North America. At some point some of them crossed into the Old World via the Arctic-Asia land bridge. Then, suddenly, no one is absolutely certain why, between 10,000 and 8,000 years ago, Equus disappeared from North and South America. Various theories have been advanced including destruction by drought, disease, or extinction as a result of hunting by growing human populations. At any rate, the horse was gone from the western hemiphere. The submergence of the Bering land bridge prevented any return migration from the Old World or Asia, and the horse was not seen again on its native continent until the Spanish explorers brought horses by ship in the sixteenth century.

Horse in North America

There is debate about when horses disappeared in North America, just as there is debate as to why - contradicting your earlier claim that Indians hunted them to extinction on the continent. However, the important point here is that by the time anyone had domesticated horses (ie about 3000 BC) they were no longer on the continent.
 
I thought you meant him... I use his Guns Germs and Steel episode to show the Conquistador conquest of the Incan Empire for world history...

I agree... time is certainly not the only factor. Competition is the biggest factor, IMO, and the NNA's were spread out and had less competition, to a degree. If they had done what the Europeans had done with the examples I provided they would have had larger populations, more defined urban centers and been more competitive with each other just as the first city states or Mesopotamia and later Greece and China were.

Yes, they had more resources (per capita) particularly land which meant there was not as much competition. That meant, they didn't need armies, which meant they didn't need agriculture and the attendant divisions of labor upon which a modern economy is built.
 
There is debate about when horses disappeared in North America, just as there is debate as to why - contradicting your earlier claim that Indians hunted them to extinction on the continent. However, the important point here is that by the time anyone had domesticated horses (ie about 3000 BC) they were no longer on the continent.

From my readings I believe that they hunted then to extinction with a combination of other factors contributing, perhaps disease or drought.

That said, as you aptly pointed our, time is but a factor. Just because it took the Old World until 4,000 BCE to domesticate horses does not mean that it could not have happened in 8,000 BCE in North America. They had a resource and did not capitalize on it... nor did they capitalize on other resources that I pointed out which indicates a fundamental shift in culture. domesticating deer or turkeys would have been simple enough but they didn't do it. Why? Seems an terrible mistake that cost them when Europeans arrived.
 
Yes, they had more resources (per capita) particularly land which meant there was not as much competition. That meant, they didn't need armies, which meant they didn't need agriculture and the attendant divisions of labor upon which a modern economy is built.

Either did the smaller communities that initially developed cultivation or domestication in the Old World. It was these advancements that lead to larger population and competition. That is the point.
 
From my readings I believe that they hunted then to extinction with a combination of other factors contributing, perhaps disease or drought.

That sounds a lot different than saying simply "they hunted them to extinction on the continent"

That said, as you aptly pointed our, time is but a factor. Just because it took the Old World until 4,000 BCE to domesticate horses does not mean that it could not have happened in 8,000 BCE in North America. They had a resource and did not capitalize on it... nor did they capitalize on other resources that I pointed out which indicates a fundamental shift in culture. domesticating deer or turkeys would have been simple enough but they didn't do it. Why? Seems an terrible mistake that cost them when Europeans arrived.

Horses were in the Old World for longer than they were in the New, so why would you expect Native Americans to domesticate them so much quicker than anywhere else, particularly when they didn't have the competitive pressures that were present in the Old World?

Domestication, like agriculture, is the result of the need to support an army. In order to have an army, someone has to produce a surplus of food to feed them while they train for war, and go off to fight them. Hunting and gathering won't support an army. Hence, the need for agriculture.
 
Last edited:
Either did the smaller communities that initially developed cultivation or domestication in the Old World. It was these advancements that lead to larger population and competition. That is the point.

Actually, they did. The rise of agriculture led directly to the rise of govts (and armies)

And there were larger populations and competition for resources before agriculture. That's why some people migrated away from the Fertile Crescent.

And then there was a changing climate. Ever notice that the Fertile Crescent ain't so fertile anymore?
 
That sounds a lot different than saying simply "they hunted them to extinction on the continent"

Once you see your food source or a resource dwindle... you protect it. If the horses were dying off and they kept hunting them for food until they were gone then they hunted them to extinction.

Horses were in the Old World for longer than they were in the New, so why would you expect Native Americans to domesticate them so much quicker than anywhere else, particularly when they didn't have the competitive pressures that were present in the Old World?

Domestication, like agriculture, is the result of the need to support an army. In order to have an army, someone has to produce a surplus of food to feed them while they train for war, and go off to fight them. Hunting and gathering won't support an army. Hence, the need for agriculture.

My post in #311 stated that the horse developed in North America for 6 million plus years and at some point crossed to Asia. That is why expect Native Americans to domesticate them so much quicker than anywhere else.

Domestication and agriculture lead to specialization from the ability to have food stores. This leads to more people being able to have more children and more children to fall into specialization from art to war advances. Your interpretation is almost opposite of how it works.
 
Just another sign that the "open borders" quasi policy is on a path to overburden our systems...What say you?

Link

I suppose in some way or another that will benefit progressives... They'll either be more happy or will have someone to blame.....

I'm so done with them....
 
Once you see your food source or a resource dwindle... you protect it. If the horses were dying off and they kept hunting them for food until they were gone then they hunted them to extinction.

Not if you're a hunter-gatherer. Managing the natural resources is an agricultural practice

They hunted horses for many years without horses going extinct. All things remaining equal, they could have continued. But all things didn't remain equal. Something changed...the environment. Which accounts for both the drought and disease (animals weakened by drought are more susceptible to disease)

My post in #311 stated that the horse developed in North America for 6 million plus years and at some point crossed to Asia. That is why expect Native Americans to domesticate them so much quicker than anywhere else.

6 million years ago was before there were any native americans. You can't expect them to domesticate animals that were there if *they* weren't there yet.

Domestication and agriculture lead to specialization from the ability to have food stores. This leads to more people being able to have more children and more children to fall into specialization from art to war advances. Your interpretation is almost opposite of how it works.

Huh? You just said the same thing as I did:
The rise of agriculture led directly to the rise of govts (and armies)
 
1. Actually, they did. The rise of agriculture led directly to the rise of govts (and armies)

2. And there were larger populations and competition for resources before agriculture. That's why some people migrated away from the Fertile Crescent.

3. And then there was a changing climate. Ever notice that the Fertile Crescent ain't so fertile anymore?

3. Evidence suggests that the Fertile Crescent was abused. It is a delicate soil that was not cared for properly and had nothing to do with Climate Change.

2. some larger but not substantially so like we see after domestication and husbandry...

1. That is what I was indicating...
 
Not if you're a hunter-gatherer. Managing the natural resources is an agricultural practice

They hunted horses for many years without horses going extinct. All things remaining equal, they could have continued. But all things didn't remain equal. Something changed...the environment. Which accounts for both the drought and disease (animals weakened by drought are more susceptible to disease)



6 million years ago was before there were any native americans. You can't expect them to domesticate animals that were there if *they* weren't there yet.



Huh? You just said the same thing as I did:

More recent evidence of hunter gatherer sites in Southern Chili indicate that immigration occurred two ice ages ago around 60,000 years ago and that is plenty of time to domesticate a horse.

... and as they notice herds diminishing they could/should have wondered why and planned for the future. Not a new concept.
 
3. Evidence suggests that the Fertile Crescent was abused. It is a delicate soil that was not cared for properly and had nothing to do with Climate Change.

I haven't heard that one before but it sounds like you're saying agriculture is the cause for the loss of fertility

2. some larger but not substantially so like we see after domestication and husbandry...

Well yeah, of course. I'm not disputing that agriculture and domestication leads to larger increases in population and the size and diversity of an economy.

1. That is what I was indicating...

do you have any links for that? I would be interested in reading about it. AFAIK, the changes in the region were caused by climate and possibly aggravated by agricultural practices which used up the fertility. I have never heard of a theory that left climate changes out of it.

PS - I also wonder if part of the reason for so little domestication of animals in the New World might be due to a shortage of domesticable animals on the continent.
 
Back
Top Bottom