Got a new cat, PIX!

[Gaffer]

You're referring to the deliberate transmission of smallpox. While that probably did occur, far more prevalent was the unintentional transmission of the disease. And it certainly occurred long before 1700; Aztec and Inca cities were ravaged by the disease shortly after Hispanic settlement.

So you condemn the white man for an unintentional transmission of small pox when people of the time didn't even know what a germ was? It could be expected that the same could have happened in reverse. And the whites were no safer from the smallpox themselves.

That is not true. While much of Mayan civilization was abandoned before European invasion, the Maya survived and continue to survive to this day. If you've not heard of the troubles that the Tzotzil have given the Mexican government, I'd recommend that you study up.

The Mayan civilization vanished. There are lots of theories and speculation but no concrete eveidence as to why or what happened. Perhaps disease. Perhaps the, so called, Mayan survivors were not Mayan at all. I don't really feel like studying up. Granted I did most of my reading on these bits of history a number of years ago. So I may occasionally be off on a few facts and not up to date on the latest opinion.

The Spanish literally conquered South America and Mexico with a handful of soldiers. While the British and french were colonizing North America the Spanish were only interested in gold. It was high tech verses low tech and low tech lost. If your outraged by what happened in the past I suggest you build a time machine and go back and change it.

[Agnapostate]

So you condemn the white man for an unintentional transmission of small pox when people of the time didn't even know what a germ was? It could be expected that the same could have happened in reverse. And the whites were no safer from the smallpox themselves.

No. I condemned those who deliberately transmitted smallpox for the unethical nature of such an act, and stated that the unintentional transmission of smallpox and other infectious disease was the primary factor behind the "defeat" of Native American societies.

The Mayan civilization vanished. There are lots of theories and speculation but no concrete eveidence as to why or what happened. Perhaps disease. Perhaps the, so called, Mayan survivors were not Mayan at all. I don't really feel like studying up. Granted I did most of my reading on these bits of history a number of years ago. So I may occasionally be off on a few facts and not up to date on the latest opinion.

The Maya did not "disappear." There was a collapse and abandonment of settlements that was likely the result of drought. There are still a high number of Mayan Indians in southern Mexico and Central American.

The Spanish literally conquered South America and Mexico with a handful of soldiers. While the British and french were colonizing North America the Spanish were only interested in gold. It was high tech verses low tech and low tech lost. If your outraged by what happened in the past I suggest you build a time machine and go back and change it.

That your perspective is riddled with misconceptions is evidenced by your reference to "South America and Mexico." Has Central America (which is within North America) ceased to exist? It's a common error to mistakenly believe that Mexico is in Central America, and that both are separate from North America, but Mexico and Central America are both in North America, with the former north of the latter. The reason I bring it up is because it challenges your belief that you know something about the topic. This specific claim was already rebutted by my earlier comment, and is also specifically addressed in my link:

Chapter 3 deals with what Restall calls "the Myth of the White Conquistador" — the belief that the Spanish conquest was accomplished by a small number of white Spaniards. Restall claims that much of the actual military operations was undertaken by the indigenous allies of the Conquistadors, outnumbering the actual Spanish forces by many hundreds to one. He also shows that there were several conquistadors of African and Moorish descent — dispelling the idea of the conquest as a victory of the "white Europeans" over the "red Indians".

The Aztecs, for example, were not defeated by the Spanish, but by the Tlaxcalteca, who were the chief forces behind the conquest.

[glockmail]

....
As far as I can tell, yes. Why bother taking pride in their accomplishments when you had no impact on them?....

Again, the irony. With regards to the remainder, try Google.

[Agnapostate]

Again, the irony.

There's no irony. I've taken a consistent stance in regard to unearned pride. Remember my national pride thread?

With regards to the remainder, try Google.

I'm sure you used Google yourself, but try entering accurate search terms this time.

[SassyLady]

Mr. Prostate, you still have the mind set of the old Indian ways. The Indians lost there wars because they couldn't adapt to technology and they fought as individuals, not as a cohesive unit. The war chiefs led their warriors, but didn't direct them. Counting cue was more important than killing the enemy. They didn't invent or create any technology, they just used what they could get from the white man. You have the same mind set with your anarchy. You are getting an education because of the white man. Your using technology and have all the benefits of modern man because of the white man.

If you really hate whites that much I suggest you move to a reservation and experience the real Indian culture. Most of the Indians of Mexico and south were enslaved by the Spanish and by the French in the case of Mexico.

"You must spread rep"...........

[SassyLady]

Aggie.............please tell me again why you think you are a victim?

[Agnapostate]

Aggie.............please tell me again why you think you are a victim?

Didn't mention it. I said that Native Americans as a whole endured unjust dispossession and genocide, with repercussions still affecting their descendants today to some extent. I personally have no cultural connection to Indian life and haven't been affected myself. I simply don't think that my anecdotal experiences are any kind of basis for the formation of sound conclusions.

[SassyLady]

Didn't mention it. I said that Native Americans as a whole endured unjust dispossession and genocide, with repercussions still affecting their descendants today to some extent. I personally have no cultural connection to Indian life and haven't been affected myself. I simply don't think that my anecdotal experiences are any kind of basis for the formation of sound conclusions.

OK - got it............unjust dispossession and genocide. Do you know of any other group of people with similar experiences? Can you argue their case as eloquently even though you have "no cultural connection"?

Truthfully, I am even more confused about what you've been trying to tell us regarding this topic.......especially now when you say you have no cultural connection and that your experiences are not a basis for sound conclusions. If not, then what are you basing your conclusions on?

Most people on this site are able to formulate their opinions based upon personal life experiences. Perhaps we cannot "argue" them as eloquently as you do, however, at least our arguments are ours personally and not those from a textbook or some professor's opinion.

[Agnapostate]

OK - got it............unjust dispossession and genocide. Do you know of any other group of people with similar experiences? Can you argue their case as eloquently even though you have "no cultural connection"?

There are various racial, ethnic, and national groups that have been subjected to varying degrees of oppression, massacre, and outright genocide. Native Americans simply endured the longest-lasting genocide in history, the one with the highest death toll, and the one that resulted in the seizure of an entire hemisphere through unjust acquisition. You might want to consult American Holocaust: The Conquest of the New World, for example.

Truthfully, I am even more confused about what you've been trying to tell us regarding this topic.......especially now when you say you have no cultural connection and that your experiences are not a basis for sound conclusions. If not, then what are you basing your conclusions on?

Empirical evidence. Logic. Moral reasoning.

Most people on this site are able to formulate their opinions based upon personal life experiences. Perhaps we cannot "argue" them as eloquently as you do, however, at least our arguments are ours personally and not those from a textbook or some professor's opinion.

Are they? For one thing, I have the most unique perspective on the site simply by virtue of having the most extreme political outlook. Most of the people on the forum, conversely, simply regurgitate rightist talking points that could be found on many other Internet sites. But beyond that, I've been pretty clear on why I'll be dubious of anecdotal experiences. The spectrum of human experiences is so expansive in its range and nature that cherrypicking individual anecdotes does very little. When you have two people that profess to have undergone the same experience but came away from it with utterly opposite impressions, who "wins"? This heterogeneity is the reason that we must consider full-scale empirical analysis of large data sets, and make sure that we're dealing with rules rather than exceptions to them.

[SassyLady]

There are various racial, ethnic, and national groups that have been subjected to varying degrees of oppression, massacre, and outright genocide. Native Americans simply endured the longest-lasting genocide in history, the one with the highest death toll, and the one that resulted in the seizure of an entire hemisphere through unjust acquisition. You might want to consult American Holocaust: The Conquest of the New World, for example.

What would be a "just" acquisition Aggie?

Empirical evidence. Logic. Moral reasoning.

And how does any of this trump personal experience? This type of basis sounds elist to me......sitting in an ivory tower reading what has been written, analyzing it and then subjecting it to philosophical thought. People like that will continue to argue a point in the face of reality because they have no visceral experience of the subject. They have no passion for the subject other than the passion conveyed in the passage they've read, which is second-hand.

Are they? For one thing, I have the most unique perspective on the site simply by virtue of having the most extreme political outlook. Most of the people on the forum, conversely, simply regurgitate rightist talking points that could be found on many other Internet sites.

Good thing I'm not one of those! I didn't think you would waste your time reading what is found on those sites, however, I guess you would have to read them in order to be able to make a statement like that with any integrity. Could you please point me to one of those sites so I can tell the difference between the rightist talking points and points that are just common sense?

But beyond that, I've been pretty clear on why I'll be dubious of anecdotal experiences. The spectrum of human experiences is so expansive in its range and nature that cherrypicking individual anecdotes does very little. When you have two people that profess to have undergone the same experience but came away from it with utterly opposite impressions, who "wins"?

They are both right. Surely an educated individual such as yourself should know this. Quantum physics (observing something actually influences the physical processes taking place - observable reality). I know that you want to view the world in absolutes, however, science is beginning to prove that nothing is really absolute.

This heterogeneity is the reason that we must consider full-scale empirical analysis of large data sets, and make sure that we're dealing with rules rather than exceptions to them.

Not so. Most "empirical analysis" can be redefined if looked at with different parameters. Anyone who does not "deal" with exceptions to rules has narrowed their ability to see the truth.

[Agnapostate]

What would be a "just" acquisition Aggie?

One gained through voluntary, consensual exchange, one free of force, coercion, fraud, or some other means of manipulative persuasion.

And how does any of this trump personal experience? This type of basis sounds elist to me......sitting in an ivory tower reading what has been written, analyzing it and then subjecting it to philosophical thought. People like that will continue to argue a point in the face of reality because they have no visceral experience of the subject. They have no passion for the subject other than the passion conveyed in the passage they've read, which is second-hand.

If our knowledge came only from our own personal experiences, we would be rather ignorant indeed. The only reason that personal experience is even a trump card in your book is because those with it possess the ability to transmit knowledge of it to others, which means that those who receive this knowledge will also be issuing "second-hand" knowledge if they convey it to anyone else. An aggregate is merely a collection of individuals; empirical analysis is only consideration of the experiences of an amalgamation of individuals rather than an anecdotal report.

Good thing I'm not one of those! I didn't think you would waste your time reading what is found on those sites, however, I guess you would have to read them in order to be able to make a statement like that with any integrity. Could you please point me to one of those sites so I can tell the difference between the rightist talking points and points that are just common sense?

Here are a few examples of rightist websites that effectively generate a legion of spambots that regurgitate their talking points. The first is an example of a socially rightist website, the second is an example of an economically rightist website, and the third is an example of a socially and economically rightist website, with their party line being plastered on many rightist sections of the Internet, this forum being one of them:

http://www.wnd.com/
http://mises.org/
http://www.heritage.org/

They are both right. Surely an educated individual such as yourself should know this. Quantum physics (observing something actually influences the physical processes taking place - observable reality). I know that you want to view the world in absolutes, however, science is beginning to prove that nothing is really absolute.

There are plenty of situations where utterly opposing perceptions are literally incompatible. If I spoke to a person from Cuba who claimed that the country was a democratic country of proletarian empowerment and another who claimed that it was an authoritarian country of political oppression, we must acknowledge that one of these people has been unduly biased by his or her own subjective perceptions. That's the basis for analysis of large data sets.

Not so. Most "empirical analysis" can be redefined if looked at with different parameters. Anyone who does not "deal" with exceptions to rules has narrowed their ability to see the truth.

Can you give me an example? That sounds like a somewhat more complex way of saying, "A study can be twisted to say anything researchers want," a tired cliche that has become a basis for the intellectually lazy to reject the entire empirical process if it yields conclusions that they dislike.

[SassyLady]

tired cliche [/B]that has become a basis for the intellectually lazy to reject the entire empirical process if it yields conclusions that they dislike.

Well, that is one way to look at it. And I am very tired right now...........been camping for the last week and drove 8 hrs to get home and now I've been here catching up for the last few hours.

Let's say I asked you to study the frogs in my pond and record all information you observe. You wrote down everything.......you even recorded the decibels of their croaks. And you gave that information to a stranger and asked them to determine if the frogs were loud based upon the empircal evidence you provided. The parameter of determining what is "loud" may be different for that person than you or me.

I will try to get back in here tomorrow night and address the rest of your post, but I didn't want to seem intellectually lazy.

Nite.

[Agnapostate]

Let's say I asked you to study the frogs in my pond and record all information you observe. You wrote down everything.......you even recorded the decibels of their croaks. And you gave that information to a stranger and asked them to determine if the frogs were loud based upon the empircal evidence you provided. The parameter of determining what is "loud" may be different for that person than you or me.

Yes, but contrary to belief among some, empirical analysis is not ruled by subjective perceptions. Since the desire for objectivity is itself a subjective one, subjective perception will always play a role in even the most "objective" analysis, but sometimes there really is a sharp difference between the cold, hard facts and an easily disputable opinion.

[SassyLady]

Yes, but contrary to belief among some, empirical analysis is not ruled by subjective perceptions. Since the desire for objectivity is itself a subjective one, subjective perception will always play a role in even the most "objective" analysis, but sometimes there really is a sharp difference between the cold, hard facts and an easily disputable opinion.

Exactly - sometimes. You might have an opinion about what decibel level is loud that is 100 times less than what I think is loud............where are the cold, hard facts in regard to something like this...........or does it just come down to your opinion of loud vs. mine? After all, the decibel level (empirical evidence) has not changed.....just the parameters defining loud. If I get 20 people to agree with my assessment of loud and only one agrees with you.........does that mean you are right or I am?

In my humble opinion..........we are both right. What you determine to be loud is your subjective observation as is mine.