View Topic

I'm sorry, roughly equal footing in relation to what? I'm going to need a citation for that one.

Fuck, that's what I get from quoting from my APUSH textbook. It's actually a fairly good textbook, but like most of them it sucks at citations. Plus, I think they might be overly biasing their revisionism in favor of Amerindians to counter incorrect traditional narratives of European dominance and superiority. However, the text does make note of European expeditions/colonies ending or nearly ending in failure due to resistance by preexisting nations (often caused by breakdown of diplomatic relations after both sides demanded tribute from each other), Indians often gaining diplomatic superiority (eg: playing the British against the French by maintaining neutrality and securing alliances with both parties), natives' quick adaptation to and adoption of European technology such as firearms, etc.

On a slightly different note, I think this 9-part series on /r/badhistory might interest you.

The main things that bothered me were Cin'ciri's statements of "fairly primitive tools" (natives had fairly elaborate technology and quickly adapted to utilize) and statements that "they may be convinced to worship any god that comes to them first as well" (which seems to paint them almost as gullible). I apologize if I misread those statements.

I'm sorry, roughly equal footing in relation to what? I'm going to need a citation for that one.

Fuck, that's what I get from quoting from my APUSH textbook. It's actually a fairly good textbook, but like most of them it sucks at citations. Plus, I think they might be overly biasing their revisionism in favor of Amerindians to counter incorrect traditional narratives of European dominance and superiority. However, the text does make note of European expeditions/colonies ending or nearly ending in failure due to resistance by preexisting nations (often caused by breakdown of diplomatic relations after both sides demanded tribute from each other), Indians often gaining diplomatic superiority (eg: playing the British against the French), natives' quick adaptation to and adoption of European technology such as firearms, etc.

On a slightly different note, I think this 9-part series on /r/badhistory might interest you.

The main things that bothered me were Cin'ciri's statements of "fairly primitive tools" (natives had fairly elaborate technology and quickly adapted to utilize) and statements that "they may be convinced to worship any god that comes to them first as well" (which paints them almost as gullible). I apologize if I misread those statements.

I see, and I see what you were getting at! The native tribes have had a bad rap in a lot of history when in actuality they were very smart and ingenious people, sadly just sorta unlucky.

Thanks for the link, however I have been directed to that series of posts before, though I do still greatly appreciate the thought. In my personal experience and based on my limited knowledge I find that many aspects of the whole situation are very amero-centric, often only mentioning the mess Europe, Asia, the Middle East and North Africa were getting themselves into in passing, and especially the type of people that agreed to head to the "New World". It was a real sorry time in history (not that any part of history is particularly jolly )

Anyway, that's not for here, not just now, but I would like to have a discussion about all that. Through I don't want to sideline this topic anymore, maybe in the The Hall of Great Discussions?

Anyway I've been really enjoying this RP thing so far, so I'll get back to that

(sorry for continuing the discussion, if we do choose to continue this mods feel free to move these posts over to a new thread)

One thing I really liked about the American history textbook my school uses is that it actually devotes equal time in discussing pre-Columbian Americas, Africa, and Europe. It's an US history textbook, so it's naturally Amerocentric, but at least it focused on the broader context.

It's really interesting to look into the macro-scale and see how different societies were affecting each other at the time. For example, the Ming Dynasty was in decline until European trade led to economic prosperity and the Columbian Exchange brought an agricultural boom before a final decline caused the Qing conquest of China.

(sorry for continuing the discussion, if we do choose to continue this mods feel free to move these posts over to a new thread)

One thing I really liked about the American history textbook my school uses is that it actually devotes equal time in discussing pre-Columbian Americas, Africa, and Europe. It's an US history textbook, so it's naturally Amerocentric, but at least it focused on the broader context.

It's really interesting to look into the macro-scale and see how different societies were affecting each other at the time. For example, the Ming Dynasty was in decline until European trade led to economic prosperity and the Columbian Exchange brought an agricultural boom before a final decline caused the Qing conquest of China.

Ah that's great I never studied history academically only did the basics for a UK education in HS, but I have read a lot about it in my personal time, though my areas of expertise would especially be 1800s -> 1950s as that's where I've done most my reading.

The interconnectivity and globalisation of the world in the colonial age and before was very impressive, if it wasn't for the trade routes to China, the dynasties wouldn't have been able to maintain their constant arms race with their neighbours, which is what led to the development of the firearm. And if it hadn't have been for those same trade routes, especially along the so called "silk road" then that development might not have arrived in the Middle East as it did, and the black powder allowed the ottomans to develop their bombards and cannons, to compete against their own enemies in Africa and the middle East... And then the Maritime republics picked up on it, and the Europeans that fought the Ottomans, everyone wanted one and all that added up to the firearm having spread from one coast of Eurasia to the other in 50 years!

Theres so much more detail to it, and I could go on for ages, but just to give an idea, and because its in my mind just now.

A big interest of mine is mathematical ideas and how thsy spread and moved around, and especially how modern historians can tell what concepts moved where from records and accounts, but also the architecture and engineering that cultures showed. I find it very interesting indeed.

When you think of Latvichka, think a cross of Native Americans, and Mongols. Mongol lifestyle and religious ideals (shamanism) but with fairly primitive tools (note that I am NOT referring to modern day Native Americans, but instead referring to tools they utilized pre-American colonization). That said, they might be able to be converted, though they will still worship spirits and nature, they may be convinced to worship any god that comes to them first as well

Uh... Amerindians created complex civilizations throughout the Americas. On first contact, the Native Americans and the Europeans were on roughly equal footing, and it was only later that this balance of power shifted toward the whites committing genocide.

Civilizations yes, but note I was not referring to civilizations, instead referring to tools used before the Europeans arrived in 1620 (North America specifically, reference the Kanien'kéha and Lakota people) such as tomahawks (though the blade differs in shape from the original) and lack of firearms. Instead they take pride in archery skills and make a wide range of bow types for different uses. Also note that as a history buff so I actually do know what I am talking about. When I say fairly primitive I am not at all saying a lack of beautiful craftsmanship or useful technology, which have existed for thousands of years. What I mean by primitive is no power tools, no factories or special tool making facilities. Each person makes their own tools. I also would like to state that the "they may be convinced to worship any god that comes to them first as well" was in reference to the Ancient Mongolian religion of Tengrism, which was a shamanic religion that part of it's core beliefs was that there is no single way to worship god. This was not in reference to the Native peoples of the Americas at all, whom I have a great respect for. Possession of technology in my eyes does not specifically make something primitive, for example we now a days refer to some phones as primitive, or computers as primitive. What I believe defines true primitiveness in tools or objects is how advanced they are in comparing with tools of other nations at that time, OR how they are made compared to typical production methods. If you were to develop say a very finely crafted and complex weapon such as, for the sake of imagination and example, a spring opening sword (first thing that popped into my head), but you made it of scrap metal and some other parts you found lying around and built it yourself. This would be something that I would call primitive, because it might lack any power tools used to make it, it wouldn't have any purchased pre made parts specifically for it, and is might be great in a survival situation but it might not look amazing (then again it might, looking nice doesn't mean it isn't primitive to me) So that is my attempt at clarification, I am happy to answer any questions that might have not been answered in this.

My factbooks only have 2 reads and one of them is me

In other news I may be insecure and whiney

I kinda want to write a factbook about the development of Quaylian Potatoeism (main difference being whether or not to spell Potatoe with an e).

Question: Are we going to do our factbooks on NS, or on the forums?

Porque no los dos?

I would assume on the forums, as it'd be neater and easier to follow, but I suppose we could do both...

Question: Are we going to do our factbooks on NS, or on the forums?

Porque no los dos?

I would assume on the forums, as it'd be neater and easier to follow, but I suppose we could do both...

I actually agree. The forums make more sense, I just had some free time so I thought I'd write some for my nation on NS. Also I'd probably post any I write here on NS and vice-versa.

However if there is a main place to put them it should be the forums.

Why are my defense forces dropping?? What the fuck?!

What issue did you choose?

Why are my defense forces dropping?? What the fuck?!

Because Science clearly deserves to have the best military.

I know I'm waaaaaay late, but Morning Gold would like to officially announce its neutral stance in the debate for or against tuber.

Why are my defense forces dropping?? What the fuck?!

Because Science clearly deserves to have the best military.

I've brought it back up to about 90 under you.