Author Topic: Indigenous Technological Advancement Re: Indigenous fire management 'ancient wisdom' (Australian bus  (Read 442 times)

Harry Black and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline John Albert

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 7601
  • Coincidence theorist
If you cared to pay attention to what you're replying to, you'd see that Rai's initial "3 battles" claim referred to the article you quoted about Cortez and the Aztecs. More recently I specifically enumerated those battles in reference to another article that Quetzalcoatl posted.

This is what happens when the goalposts keep getting shifted. In my post I was referring to the Spanish conquests in general, and Rai replied by merely repeating something irrelevant that he'd said in response to an earlier point.


Also you keep claiming that you're supporting the consensus, but have yet to provide any evidence for that claim. Likewise your claim that the three-age system is uncontroversially appropriate across all cultures, with the same lack of evidence.

I didn't say it was "uncontroversially appropriate." I said it was applicable to other cultures. And I provided links to back that up.

I also specified that I was talking about the technological level of their toolmaking.


Quote
It is less advanced, from a technological perspective. That's not to say the people are less advanced, only that their technology is.

There's still no unambiguous linear "technological perspective" on advancement

That doesn't mean that two technologies cannot be compared in terms of which is more advanced.


you still haven't explained what other sense of "less advanced" there might be other than a technological one.

I don't need to clarify any other sense of "less advanced," because that's not the point I'm arguing. I don't believe any races of humans are intrinsically "less advanced" than others.

Toward that end, it was you who uttered the words "lesser evolved," prompting me to explain to you that evolution doesn't work that way.

It might be helpful to ruminate on why it's inappropriate to judge humans solely according to the technologies they've developed. Cultures can be compared that way, but those discrepancies do not reveal anything meaningful about the intrinsic biology or mental sophistication of the individuals.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2020, 07:00:37 PM by John Albert »

Online gmalivuk

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3106
If anyone moved the goalposts it was you.

The statement about three battles was in clear response to your quote about Cortez and the Aztecs. If you got the impression that Rai was claiming there were only three battles in the entire Spanish colonial period, then that was your misunderstanding and if you'd just said so instead of getting pissy about Rai's tone we could have corrected you ages ago.
The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better...is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.

Online gmalivuk

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3106
Also, I know how evolution works. That's why I brought it up in that analogy. It wasn't meant to be a perfect analogy, it was simply meant to illustrate that advancement, like evolution, isn't a linear process across a whole culture's technology.

The Spanish had more advanced metallurgy, and some American peoples had more advanced textiles. So who had the more advanced materials? The Spanish had better ocean-going ships and Native Americans had more maneuverable small boats, so who had more advanced watercraft? The Spanish knew how to farm more animals and some indigenous groups knew how to farm more plants, so who had more advanced agriculture?

By being attached to a Eurocentric reckoning of stages of development, you're evidently less able to acknowledge that different cultures develop technology in very different ways and a single concept of stages of advancement can't be used to order them simply.

(Your links didn't back up the claim that the system is generally applicable, they just backed up your dates for when different places started to use bronze.)
« Last Edit: January 17, 2020, 08:52:07 PM by gmalivuk »
The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better...is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.

Offline John Albert

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 7601
  • Coincidence theorist
If anyone moved the goalposts it was you.

Bullshit. You and Rai have been moving goalposts all over the place. 


Also, I know how evolution works. That's why I brought it up in that analogy. It wasn't meant to be a perfect analogy

I remember what you said. Anybody who cares can go back a couple pages and read it. It wasn't just an imperfect analogy for technological progress. It betrayed a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution.


some American peoples had more advanced textiles.

Did they? Let's see your evidence for that claim.

Ever since the Middle Ages the Spanish have had some pretty fine textile tech, brought to them via the Moors. By the 16th century they'd even mastered silk, a technology that originated in China and came to them via the Arabs.


By being attached to a Eurocentric reckoning of stages of development

I'm not attached to a Eurocentric anything. I was talking about the sophistication of the Europeans' tools. I've corrected you on that numerous times.

By this point it's obvious that you're just dishonest.
« Last Edit: Today at 02:07:43 AM by John Albert »

Online gmalivuk

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3106
Okay okay fine, "Eurocentric reckoning of the stages of development of tools", if you prefer. The criticism is of the three-age system in general, yes even when you're just talking about tools.

What I said about evolution was
I wouldn't go so far as to say you can never compare contemporaneous cultures and say one is more advanced than another, but I definitely would say that in some ways and some cases, "more advanced" is akin to "more evolved". We're not more evolved than chimpanzees, because humans and chimps have both had the same amount of time to evolve, even though to modern humans chimps look a lot more similar to our common ancestor than we do.
The point was that sometimes "more advanced" is like "more evolved" in the sense that you can't accurately compare groups that way. But apparently you were so attached to your understanding of "advancement" that you assumed I must be saying the exact opposite of what I actually said about evolution, rather than see what I said about advancement.

If anyone moved the goalposts it was you.
Bullshit. You and Rai have been moving goalposts all over the place. 

A miscommunication between you and Rai is not moved goalposts.

Quote
some American peoples had more advanced textiles.

Did they? Let's see your evidence for that claim.

Ever since the Middle Ages the Spanish have had some pretty fine textile tech, brought to them via the Moors. By the 16th century they'd even mastered silk, a technology that originated in China and came to them via the Arabs.
The Inca had thread counts as high as 500/inch, which even today is quite high. (Wikipedia says that was unsurpassed until the Industrial Revolution, but doesn't seem to give a source for that.)

If the Spanish had really already "mastered" silk, why was it such a significant part of what they bought from China in exchange for American silver?

(Also is silk exceptionally hard to weave, or was it more a matter of not having silkworms?)
The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better...is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.

 

personate-rain