Army Corps declines to close Chicago shipping locks

[lostfan]

It would have been a really interesting history here if it wasn't for smallpox. There is no way that we get the foothold here that we got if there was a significant amount of people around to offer some real resistance.

Absolutely. Prior to that the population numbers were pretty comparable. I wouldn't even be sure that the colonies would've actually taken hold.

[southsider2k5]

Absolutely. Prior to that the population numbers were pretty comparable. I wouldn't even be sure that the colonies would've actually taken hold.

 

We would have had to go on shore D-Day style to make something happen. And even then we would have gotten no native cooperation, unlike with the mass dyings, where the natives had no choice but to help as there was no where else to go.

 

yeah, I can't wait to get through this book.

[NorthSideSox72]

We would have had to go on shore D-Day style to make something happen. And even then we would have gotten no native cooperation, unlike with the mass dyings, where the natives had no choice but to help as there was no where else to go.

 

yeah, I can't wait to get through this book.

This particular aspect of history - European interaction with the AmerInd, and the American march west - has always been a favorite of mine. I've read a ton of books, wrote papers in college. The history children are taught about that time is laughable.

 

In this space, I recommend the book Blood and Thunder, if I had to pick just one. Though that one doesn't cover the early stages of encounter - its more in the 19th century, primarily.

 

I also added this book you guys have been talking about to my Amazon list, I'll have to pick that up soon.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Well to be fair, the federal government's response in both this and the gulf has been the same... cover their eyes and act like it doesn't exist.

I don't agree, on the carp thing. They are spending a metric f*** ton of money and time and study on this, for a fish that will likely have a lot less negative impact than the many waves of stupid interventions already done in recent decades in the Great Lakes.

 

[southsider2k5]

This particular aspect of history - European interaction with the AmerInd, and the American march west - has always been a favorite of mine. I've read a ton of books, wrote papers in college. The history children are taught about that time is laughable.

 

In this space, I recommend the book Blood and Thunder, if I had to pick just one. Though that one doesn't cover the early stages of encounter - its more in the 19th century, primarily.

 

I also added this book you guys have been talking about to my Amazon list, I'll have to pick that up soon.

 

I will check that out. I love unique looks at history.

[lostfan]

NSS, make sure you get the most recent edition (2008 I think), he's updated it several times.

[NorthSideSox72]

I will check that out. I love unique looks at history.

 

Its one of my my fave history books.

 

NSS, make sure you get the most recent edition (2008 I think), he's updated it several times.

 

Will do.

 

[lostfan]

This particular aspect of history - European interaction with the AmerInd, and the American march west - has always been a favorite of mine. I've read a ton of books, wrote papers in college. The history children are taught about that time is laughable.

 

In this space, I recommend the book Blood and Thunder, if I had to pick just one. Though that one doesn't cover the early stages of encounter - its more in the 19th century, primarily.

 

I also added this book you guys have been talking about to my Amazon list, I'll have to pick that up soon.

Probably the most unfortunate outcome of teaching history that way, where the Indians are marginalized to just an inconvenient obstacle and slavery and oppression of blacks is treated like just another thing that happened a long time ago, is that it builds this illusion of white supremacy (for lack of a better phrase to use). I don't mean white hood and robe and skinhead type of white supremacy, I mean the idea that white Europeans are just naturally better, intelligent, and move advanced than other societies, and always have been, and that explains their position in the world today. In reality, Europeans spent a bunch of time screwing around fighting with each other, oppressing others through religion, being in the Dark Ages, etc. but otherwise weren't any different than other societies. Africans for example had already done some of the sailing accomplishments that the Europeans had centuries ago (going around the Cape of Good Hope, probably finding the New World too). But in history books everything is Euro-centric so it's the Portugese and Spanish that are given credit with all of the discoveries, then it wasn't until the New World made all the colonial powers rich that Europeans really started dominating the world.

[southsider2k5]

Probably the most unfortunate outcome of teaching history that way, where the Indians are marginalized to just an inconvenient obstacle and slavery and oppression of blacks is treated like just another thing that happened a long time ago, is that it builds this illusion of white supremacy (for lack of a better phrase to use). I don't mean white hood and robe and skinhead type of white supremacy, I mean the idea that white Europeans are just naturally better, intelligent, and move advanced than other societies, and always have been, and that explains their position in the world today. In reality, Europeans spent a bunch of time screwing around fighting with each other, oppressing others through religion, being in the Dark Ages, etc. but otherwise weren't any different than other societies. Africans for example had already done some of the sailing accomplishments that the Europeans had centuries ago (going around the Cape of Good Hope, probably finding the New World too). But in history books everything is Euro-centric so it's the Portugese and Spanish that are given credit with all of the discoveries, then it wasn't until the New World made all the colonial powers rich that Europeans really started dominating the world.

 

One of my most interesting college classes was taking some world history with a prof who actually studied in India and Russia. The guy actually edited textbooks he was so knowledgeable about the areas he studied. That was the first class that really opened my eyes. After that is when I started reading lots of what is called "alternative" history.

[lostfan]

One of my most interesting college classes was taking some world history with a prof who actually studied in India and Russia. The guy actually edited textbooks he was so knowledgeable about the areas he studied. That was the first class that really opened my eyes. After that is when I started reading lots of what is called "alternative" history.

Speaking of Russia, my co-worker was telling me about how he used to work with a lot of Russian immigrants in VA before he joined the Army. The Russian and some other guy, I guess an American, got into an animated discussion about WWII, and the Russian at one point said "we" (the Russians/Soviets) liberated France by invading Normandy Beach. lol. He said everyone got quiet and started staring at him.

[NorthSideSox72]

Probably the most unfortunate outcome of teaching history that way, where the Indians are marginalized to just an inconvenient obstacle and slavery and oppression of blacks is treated like just another thing that happened a long time ago, is that it builds this illusion of white supremacy (for lack of a better phrase to use). I don't mean white hood and robe and skinhead type of white supremacy, I mean the idea that white Europeans are just naturally better, intelligent, and move advanced than other societies, and always have been, and that explains their position in the world today. In reality, Europeans spent a bunch of time screwing around fighting with each other, oppressing others through religion, being in the Dark Ages, etc. but otherwise weren't any different than other societies. Africans for example had already done some of the sailing accomplishments that the Europeans had centuries ago (going around the Cape of Good Hope, probably finding the New World too). But in history books everything is Euro-centric so it's the Portugese and Spanish that are given credit with all of the discoveries, then it wasn't until the New World made all the colonial powers rich that Europeans really started dominating the world.

Thing about most societies, including European ones, during the last two millenia, is that they ALL went through waves of technological and societal success, and troughs of near anarchy. In the case of the Americas, people know vaguely of the Incans, Mayans and Aztecs, though often don't know that during those periods, those civilizations were in some ways far more advanced than their European counterparts.

 

But even less well known, is that another wave had started later than those in what is now the American southwest, with the Anasazi and Chaco Cultures. By ~1200 AD, they had a sophisticated and regionally planned road system, complex workings with multiple metals, and agriculture well beyond what most of Europe understood. Then, oddly, around 1250-1300, those cultures basically collapsed. This caused a massive shift of native cultures and tribes between 1300 and 1500 AD, all over the continent, so when Europeans started arriving, many of the tribes they encountered were themselves new to those regions. No one really knows exactly what caused the collapse and shift wave, though drought is considered at least a major factor.

 

Point is, cultures have not tended to be linear in progression for more than a few centuries - they more typically ebb and flow in waves, and a major reason why one conquers another is really just a matter of timing.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

By the way, I may have some of the years wrong, I didn't look them up to remind myself. Just giving a general idea of timeframe.

 

[lostfan]

Thing about most societies, including European ones, during the last two millenia, is that they ALL went through waves of technological and societal success, and troughs of near anarchy. In the case of the Americas, people know vaguely of the Incans, Mayans and Aztecs, though often don't know that during those periods, those civilizations were in some ways far more advanced than their European counterparts.

 

But even less well known, is that another wave had started later than those in what is now the American southwest, with the Anasazi and Chaco Cultures. By ~1200 AD, they had a sophisticated and regionally planned road system, complex workings with multiple metals, and agriculture well beyond what most of Europe understood. Then, oddly, around 1250-1300, those cultures basically collapsed. This caused a massive shift of native cultures and tribes between 1300 and 1500 AD, all over the continent, so when Europeans started arriving, many of the tribes they encountered were themselves new to those regions. No one really knows exactly what caused the collapse and shift wave, though drought is considered at least a major factor.

 

Point is, cultures have not tended to be linear in progression for more than a few centuries - they more typically ebb and flow in waves, and a major reason why one conquers another is really just a matter of timing.

The Indians the first European settlers encountered were the equivalent of backwoods hicks, but yeah, what you're saying sounds about right. The Indians had advanced societies and major cities but when people hear "Indian" I'd guess they usually think about teepees, bows and arrows, and muscular shirtless warriors (like Indians were really running around in Massachusetts in November with nothing but loincloths and tribal decorations on).

 

However, I do think that talk about how the Europeans arriving here destroyed the Indian culture or how the Indians should "return" to some other way of live is kind of overblown. Besides the wars of conquest, and smallpox and plagues (which weren't nothing by any stretch, but aren't what I'm talking about), the colonists didn't ruin anything just by being here. The settlers took some things from the Indian culture and the Indians took some things from the settlers' culture. Also it's been like 400 years and it's kind of silly to suggest that Indians should be living exactly how they were in 1721 or whatever. They'd be using guns, electricity, driving cars, have running water, and so on, just like we do now.

[Balta1701]

Also it's been like 400 years and it's kind of silly to suggest that Indians should be living exactly how they were in 1721 or whatever. They'd be using guns, electricity, driving cars, have running water, and so on, just like we do now.

Not trying to be too arrogant as a European, but do you really think that every culture has been on an inexorable technological climb, such that this is really the case?

[lostfan]

Not trying to be too arrogant as a European, but do you really think that every culture has been on an inexorable technological climb, such that this is really the case?

I'm saying that hypothetically, had there been some kind of gradual assimilation or co-existence instead of being wiped out by diseases and war, the Indians would've traded with the Europeans, adopted their technology, gone to universities, etc. and wouldn't have just frozen in time like the other statement I was making would suggest.

[Balta1701]

I'm saying that hypothetically, had there been some kind of gradual assimilation or co-existence instead of being wiped out by diseases and war, the Indians would've traded with the Europeans, adopted their technology, gone to universities, etc. and wouldn't have just frozen in time like the other statement I was making would suggest.

This is about as far into the hypothetical realm as possible, but I wonder how much the imperialism and control and wealth of the European powers wound up being key to the technological revolutions of the 1600's through 1800's, just along the lines of the old "you have to have enough food for everyone before you can sit around and think about how gravity works" setup.

[lostfan]

This is about as far into the hypothetical realm as possible, but I wonder how much the imperialism and control and wealth of the European powers wound up being key to the technological revolutions of the 1600's through 1800's, just along the lines of the old "you have to have enough food for everyone before you can sit around and think about how gravity works" setup.

Well it did seem to coincide with the discovery of the Western Hemisphere. I don't know that it was necessarily the cause, but I'd have to assume it mattered at least.

[NorthSideSox72]

The Indians the first European settlers encountered were the equivalent of backwoods hicks, but yeah, what you're saying sounds about right. The Indians had advanced societies and major cities but when people hear "Indian" I'd guess they usually think about teepees, bows and arrows, and muscular shirtless warriors (like Indians were really running around in Massachusetts in November with nothing but loincloths and tribal decorations on).

 

However, I do think that talk about how the Europeans arriving here destroyed the Indian culture or how the Indians should "return" to some other way of live is kind of overblown. Besides the wars of conquest, and smallpox and plagues (which weren't nothing by any stretch, but aren't what I'm talking about), the colonists didn't ruin anything just by being here. The settlers took some things from the Indian culture and the Indians took some things from the settlers' culture. Also it's been like 400 years and it's kind of silly to suggest that Indians should be living exactly how they were in 1721 or whatever. They'd be using guns, electricity, driving cars, have running water, and so on, just like we do now.

The longest paper I wrote in undergrad, which was for a grad level Poli Sci course on Federalism and Federation, covered the Dawes Act, the Reservation System and its effect on the modern AmerInd. Harsh as it may be, at this point, my conclusion was that the best thing we could do is get rid of the Reservation System and the BIA entirely, over a period of time.

 

They got screwed and hard, but the current situation does no one any good.