Two Are Stronger Than One

What are you, as a white American proud of?

Y'know, normally I hate it when people scream "BAIT!! BAIT YOU MORONS!" at every third fucking thread, but ... you really should've tried harder with this one, dude.

Two might be stronger than one, but I'd rather have one small pox blanket than two.

Gastropod mollusks have territory
Decapod crustaceans have territory
Fish have territory
Humans have territory.
It is not something they possess, it what is possessing them, their life is a property of the system they emerged from, and that property is also the only thing they can call their own, and that is what they look out for. Ones that know where their life comes from also protect the system that allows it to exist. Then come along these European dudes that didn't emerge from a sociology-ecological system emerged from ships, claimed the land in the system that gave them life as property of their own, and shaped their new world in there own image. They grew and prospered from this until they had all they can take, then they started taking what they could from other places and leaving concrete and poverty in place of natural prosperity, which was promptly, sold for enough money to make 10 more, given to be sold at goodwill for just twice the cost of production, half-eaten and disposed of. Then it supported microbial life for a while soaking in grease In a dumpster before it was burned washed into a river, making frogs GAY, god damn globalist CONTROL FREAKS.

So yeah the colonialists were invasives and now are missing tradional ecological knowlege which is threatening us with extinction now.
Check out this, we are just like panda example, but we are an ecological-(etho-socio-economic) mismatch.
journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fevo.2017.00003/full

The only hope is in the small number of people with enough experiential and/or scientific knowlege of life to know what is going on and know what needs to be done

>What if the whites' genocide over Indigenous Americans never happened, and both cultures developed hand in hand?
You do realize that for this to happen, the Europeans would have had to discover the New World + realize that the new worlders have weaker immunity systems + have developed vaccines and then send out men in hazmat suits to vaccinate every single native american AND THEN made contact?

There's no old worlds meets new world scenario where a large chunk of the native americans don't die out of disease, outside of science fiction.

>whites' genocide over Indigenous Americans

cringe

>thus white-American pride/racism would've had much more trouble manifesting across the majority of people

This is a bad thing?

yes, since we also brought them culture and civilization.
Also, the environmental Indian is a modern meme. The Indians pillaged nature like any of us, they just lacked the methods the Europeans had

>
Wrong.

familiarize yourself with the socio-ecological systems model and living systems theory, and the way higher-ordered living systems evolve from the transcendental convergence of lower-ordered living systems, for example organismal living systems like human social-systems and the ecosystems they are a part of, converging into socio-ecological systems (Read: multiplex), then learn about biosemiotics and incorporate that into this model.
Then ready this and lick my asshole

FPBP

>socio

dropped

I cant even make sense of what it is trying to say it's just so stupid it's hard to understand what was even conceptualized and translated with that post. I gave it my best and left a TLDR reply. I get what they are trying to talk about but I can't rationally detirimine wtf they are saying and I don't get what could possibly be irony

>Bawww muh white nationalism

You're only looking at one small aspect of what was a greater division of society according to many supposedly arbitrary classifications that actually had a realistic basis.

Every fresh wave of immigrants from the Irish, German, Chinese, etc. were met with a fair amount of hate and discrimination as they were starting off at the bottom of the barrel and hadn't earned the nation's respect, much in the same way a new kid on the football team would get hazed.

It isn't necessarily an all around bad thing as it is a crazy impetus to push people to work for success and merit the respect that established Americans were afforded.

Now we've taken the other extreme and are expected to "respect" and be nice to everyone simply for living, breathing, eating, and shitting.

Retard

Agriculture beats hunter-gatherer. Peace was never an option.

...

>this autism
jfc

This post is so devoid of any historical knowledge of native American cultures that I don't even know where to start but I will say that you should maybe start with current research on Bison populations before you start bringing them into any conversation about native Americans. Hint: they were vastly higher than the ecosystem could have managed when whites started market hunting them.

Also, maybe a little research into native large fauna and how the US and Canada are one of the few places left that have almost all of theirs at viable populations.

When will the "natives were peaceful and environmentalists" meme end?

Good bait though.

Peru.

Also Bolivia.

Not really, it's just hard to understand because property ownership is nonsensical. I understand what he is saying but cannot rationalize the concept in a way that allows me to get the irony.
How can something be your own if it exists independently of you? How can maintaining your place in what you are a part of equate to ownership? and so reductive.
It's 2+2= 3 and 3= Irony.

The only natural reduction we can conclude from human history is that land only belongs to who will control it. There are those who can't and those who don't care to.

Don't mind us, we're just here being dead.

Property ownership really just refers to a person or group's ability and willingness to restrict access to a physical object (laptop, house, land). One of the main reasons we have governments is for this protection so we don't have to swordfight everyone that tries to pop in our front door.

When it's put this way I don't really get how that's hard to understand.

No.
There are countless reductions that can be made.
Property ownership is one of them.
Has can be pragmatically determined it does not represent the truth.
How can the property be somethings own if that property was acquired from outside its own being and exists independently of it.
people can possess properties of land, by being possessed through interaction with it. if you are dependent to something for survival, and it exists independent of you. It does not belong to you, you belong to it.
Property ownership is a complete delusion that has been held in place by the ominpotent propaganda it is , if a concept revolves around your life and that concept and it is essential to the way your life is lived, why would you ever question its existence? How could you ever see anything different?
of course someone thinks that territoriality and ownership are the same thing when they have been taught to take that assumption for granted their entire life.
It's like cultures that have a layered color classification that includes texture, you don't get it.
This shit is what the matrix is about.

Because property ownership is much more than that. It is the metaphysical assumption that your possessions are you're own.
Like I explain hereYou are possessed by your possessions.
This leads to behavioral-ecological mismatch, where the system functions to meet the needs of its parts and the part adapts to this malfunctioning system.
Leading to happenings like pic related where a new system pops up that is completely dependent to the system it emerged from but is adapting to itself, causing a rapid breakdown of boundary conditions that release the systems working entropy to chaos.

You're not though. Unless you want to argue some sort of symbiotic relationship between you affecting your property and your property affecting you.

In practice, it is nothing more than the ability to defend specific access.

Making it any more complicated than that may be fun to think about, but it has no basis in reality.

>your property
That's the fucking thing
You can have the property of land
But land cannot be your property.
Because the land does not exist in you.
You=screen
land=projector
Property= Projected image
And we live in a delusional world that where screens try to make projectors, project the screens reflection.
Leading to less light being projected until only the reflection can be seen in the lens of the projector as the theater fades to black.

>That picture
Sounds like a salty prairie nigger
>"N-no one owns anything muhfugga :(((("
Yeah YOU don't, cause you couldn't stand up to actual weapons with your stone-age tools LOL

You do realize there's more than one definition of property right? Using the definition that makes your mental jerkoff more interesting to you doesn't make anything you're saying relevant to this conversation or deep.

>unless you want to argue some sort of symbiotic realationship
That's the fucking thing, assuming that your delusional definitions of property are true. and not symbiotic but I know what you are trying to say, duh.
PEOPLE ARE INTERDEPENDENTLY INTERCONNECTED IN THEIR ENVIRONMENT
PARTS CANNOT EXIST OUTSIDE OF THE WHOLE
EVERYTHING YOU HAVE IS DEPENDENT ON SYSTEMS EXTERNAL TO YOU
WHAT HAPPENS ON "your land" HAPPENS TO EVERYTHING IT IS A PART OF
PROPERTY EXISTS ON NO PHYSICAL DIMIENSION AND WHAT PROPERTY IS METAPHYSICALLY IS MISUNDERSTOOD AND THE DELUSIONAL ASSUMPTION OF OWNERSHIP IS TAKEN FOR GRANTED

No one was taught that. It's instinctual. You see territorial dispute at every level of life. Land and space are life, so we must control as much of it as possible in order to maximize our own life potential, and might makes right.

A picture with the Pope saying some insightful shit about peace would be even more ironic considering how violent and barbaric wh*te people have been throughout history.

>try to take my property
>punch you in face
>property just existed in a physical dimension

A picture with the dalai llama saying some insightful shit about peace would be even more ironic considering how violent and barbaric asian people have been throughout history.

Sad.

Read this in entirety
plato.stanford.edu/entries/pragmatics/#Lev

Flase, plenty of humans like native Americans and other animal species like limpets have territory and do not suffer from the delusion that it belongs to them.
The idea that territory is owned is not instinctual it is learned from experience.
Self intrest is instinctual, and thus is territory. The concept of property must be abstracted from experience, you are not born with knowlege.
Some have reached a backwards abstraction and have gone on to teach that abstraction to others.

>plato.stanford.edu/entries/pragmatics/#Lev
Nope. I'm sure it's interesting but I'm also sure it doesn't apply to this conversation. You're like a feminist arguing that we can't talk about history til we address that it's called "his story".

Your definition is again interesting at some level to discuss, but that does not mean it applies to this conversation and your skewed view of native cultures.

Whether they spoke like they "owned" the land, if you think for one second that they didn't get assblasted when another tribe rolled by to kill some bison in their territory you're sorely mistaken. Just because the land was somehow "sacred" to them doesn't mean they didn't, in practice rather than theory, act like they owned it.

I hate it when people thik "sacred" means the same in every culture.
The rivers are sacred to the natives
Churches are sacred for christians.
Try taking a piss on a chuch and see the reaction you get.

>wordplay
>semantics

>How can the property be somethings own if that property was acquired from outside its own being and exists independently of it
> It does not belong to you, you belong to it.

How can I belong to it if I exist independently of it?

stop bumping this shit thread you fucking retards

>and being proud of being part of a people that raped, murdered & enslaved entire civilizations without batting an eye.

Are you talking about African people, Asian people or other genocidal races besides those two?

> tries to tell other people what to do instead of just hiding the thread

youre some new special kind of stupid aren't you

Socio anything, on top of being a very stretched definition of science, has an abysmal replication rate. Their opinions are pretty much meaningless.

Since they seem to think Europeans killed more than even 1% of the pre-Columbian native population, that should have been your warning.

>a people that raped, murdered & enslaved entire civilizations without batting an eye

Oh, you mean literally every group of people in the history of humanity?

Fucking idiot.

>is sure about things he is ignorant of
Wew, I'm not sure how I can even bother with you, I can't because you are too stupid and dumb to be taught.

And you are right, in your ethnocentrism you are akin to a closed minded androcentrist who naively assumes their point of veiw to represent the truth.
Which leads back to the article I tried to help you with, you do not understand the pragmatic approach to value. Hence is why you assume a word to only mean it's definition and take the context, all the assumptions that definition depends on and the implications of what is being defined for granted. You lack the ability to objectively evaluate the world, because you are using subjective values to do it.

It has nothing to do with how they spoke, you should have atleast learned that.
They did not belive the land was theirs.
Many male african cichlids get pissed and highly aggressive when their breeding territory is encroached on. You would be delusional to think that they are pissed because they see it as their property that they own, and do not want trespassers. No, they just want to protect their own interests, ownership has not been conceptualized here in the slightest.
property is more than just territory, it is territory that is believed to be owned.
You belive in this bizzaro reality where the systems we came from are our properties because you have learned nothing but cultural dogma from the feudalist times when properity ownership was first imposed on people in order to exploit them and the systems they belong to and that trend has spread and reinforced itself to this very day.

I happen to hold life and its environment sacred and so does everyone else who understands ecology by traditional/experiential/scientific means.

You don't. That's what the native Americans knew that colonists didn't.

>Thinks semantics is word play
>thinks pragmatics is semantics
>thinks pragmatics is about word play

Stop regurgitating memes that you don't have a rational basis for believing in you contrarian idiot. This isn't even sociology in the first place Are you so stupid that you think anything using the root socio is sociology?
The socio-ecological model is theoretical/empirical ecology that studies the way social systems emerge from and interact with ecological systems to form a meta-system known as a socio-ecological system.

To clarify you do not exist independently of the ecological systems that provide to you, literally everything you have.
You suffer from delusion that comes with growing up in a delusional world that thinks it owns the things on it depends on for survival and thinks it's life comes from the market it was bought at

>if the Natives had a voice from the beginning, the values of gratefulness & kindness to the earth would have been stressed to no end

In reality, Native Americans were quite detrimental to the land, especially the forests. Their preferred form of slash and burn agriculture was so widespread and destructive that natural forests actually increased as a result of European settlement. The irony being that the practice of regularly burning down massive tracts of forest and grasslands to create barrens made the land that much easier to eventually settle.

The first European settlers found Virginia to be a savanna. Their written accounts report that "had [they] not snatched the fagot from the Indian’s hand, Virginia would have become one vast pasture land or desert."

Yes but I am not dependant of any one specific ecosystem ( wich does not exist by itself

> "You can't own things
>but I exerce exclusive rights to use it at my will against all others
> "Yes but that's not owning cause owning is something I define a priori as impossible"

So many points. ...

The difference wasn't environmental impact.
And if you want to talk about impact look at how it worked out for the colonist now a days. USA can not sustain itself without leaching life from ecological systems in the """""developing""""" world with its parasitic international banks, propaganda, trade deals, free markets and military force.
It's "heartland" doesn't even have the soil to grow anything without synthetic fertilizers and hormones that leach out in to the watershed destroying ecological systems and MAKING FROGS GAY!

Funny thing is that slash and burn practices were quick to be incorporated by into ecological adaptive-renewal cycles, changing the complexity of ecosystems, they did not over exploit the limits of what is proving from them, they knew they were a part of the system.
Then you have this society come in who thinks they it own the place and prospers off of aggressive expansionism reguardless of sustianibility
Virginia doesn't have too many ecosystems at all these days

Sorry man I can't help you with that

Everything you believe in is bullshit.

The native Americas routinely burned forests to the ground to create savannah and the only reason America was covered in forest was because most died of smallpox.

>globalist
Globalism is a meme invented to scold people for no reason, pic related.
>CONTROL FREAKS
Logically explain what is wrong with controlling something. It is good or bad depending on the situation.

>journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fevo.2017.00003/full
Veeky Forums doesn't seem to have a high opinion of "Organic Nonoptimal Constrained Evolution"

>missing tradional ecological knowlege
The idea of not wasting something is pretty simple, the idea it is completely absent from our society is absurd. Even the harbringer of capitalism, Adam Smith, criticized the tragedy of the commons and proposed that resources be privately owned and bought and sold in capital markets where their long term value will be maximized, a highly intelligent and effective solution. What changed is the industrial revolution, and traditional knowledge isn't going to help there, it is not special or sacred in any way, in fact it is a form of waste itself to treat it like a special snowflake. Knowledge should stand on its merits.

The same mechanism that allows you to transcend ecology is the same method that locked all ecosystems into the same fate. They were all connected before but after commercialization socio-ecological networks are nearly homogenous and completely connected.

And need I say interdependent.

See For info on "globalists" I use that term ironically, And Native American slash and burn techniques and probably some other shit related to your post like the rest of the thread you should read because I don't have the time to explain to stupid people the proper way think.
>control freaks
That's pure meme
>sci
I made that thread and forgot about it thanks for reminder.
>sci opinion
Facts should stand on there own
>tragedy of the commons.
The hypothetical tragedy with no evidence for causal relationships?
Facts should stand on there own.
The tragedy of the commons is explaining common ownership in a market economy, which is a symptom of an underlying problem, markets in hierarchal societies. Used to justify feudalism and selfish exploitation and carries on. We've seen were privatize ownership has got us, that's supported by empircal facts that should stand on their own unlike of the uninformed philosophies of inbreed aristocrats.
You no nothing smugs, dammit, leave me alone

>the thread is archived and not replied to.
That's what I expected to happen when I asked that from a bunch of autistic high school seniors looking to become the worlds next top smart guy.

The pope is a spic, you racist

>that stupid fucking image

Prairie niggers fought and killed each other over resources the same way that everybody else did on the planet, they just did it worse, and with rocks and sticks and shit, because they were too stupid to learn how to mine and forge bronze, iron, or steel for tools and weapons.

They were technologically 5000 years, or more, behind Europe, most of Asia, and north Africa, and they paid for it the way every primitive culture does when confronted by superior technology.

Read the thread dumbo

So you believe in noble savages? Go back to your novels

>The same mechanism that allows you to transcend ecology is the same method that locked all ecosystems into the same fate.

Are you having a stroke or something?

>defending the concept of a savage
The fedora removed from its lofty pearch betop my head with great elegance to signify my respect and comradery to be bestowed to its righfightul throne after the message is conveyed. GOOD SHOW!

I wish.
Networks are like ogres
You get it? They both have layers.

Oh you're just a troll, never mind.

I once grew a cannabis plant with some shitty Walgreens soil. The plant grew to look pretty respectable. Turns out there were gnats in that batch of soil and unfortunately they eventually manifested themselves. For the life of me I couldn't get rid of them when they showed up. They were relentless in attacking my plant until it was reduced to nothing and I had to throw it away. Kinda reminded of the way the wasi'chu operate as it relates to destroying the land and its natural resources in the name of greed and profit.

The Earth still doesn't require a fee, but all the cool shit built on top of it does.

ARGENTINA IS WHITE

>socio-ecological
>"Science" that only arose in the 1970s

Yeah, dropped.

You ever tried to buy property with no house on it?

Sage

Kys

>white pride
Only happens because Americans can't trace their family tree, like how Europeans can, if they stayed loyal to the English then it would have developed fine like in Australia

Take it from me, you don't need to do that. This thread is awful, and all involved should feel bad (I certainly do)

>don´t believe in private property
>no one owns the land
>get mad when someone builds a pipeline through "your" land
wew lad

Not him but
>claim land belongs to everyone
>complain and protest when a planned pipeline that will help thousands MIGHT go through land your ancestors were buried in

>16730384_1105004392955162(...).jpg
Indian tribes did fight for tribe land, therefore this words are hypocritical

If someone destoryed the place you live would you be mad that they hurt your property?
No, you would be mad that they fucked your life up.
Territorial space has nothing to do with the abstract concept of property ownership.
You are so heavily indoctornated into this post-feudalist land Barron culture that you can't even imagine what it is like to live in a place that nobody owns.

For a people and protest that so loved the land they sure did scatter a lot a fucking garbage everywhere
Perhaps it's symbolic, creating a literal garbage mountain pile as a byproduct of your environmental protest

It's really just tragic that the land that "used" to provide "them" with everything as been rendered dumb by the same kind of powers that they are there protesting. And now they are forced to work so they can afford to by its products wrapped in plastic that are provided by the earth for free. Property is theft and it always has been. The kind of thinking you are doing is the kind of thinking that keeps the serfs in line. Good boy.
Everybody thought the way the native Americans thought until exploitive institutions came about that can deny an animal its most basic function living freely as a part in world it came from. You have been cucked out of life from the start and you don't even realize it's going on.

>this whole thread

Fun fact is that pipeline doesn't even cross Injun lands.

Fun fact land is not property.
Wanting to protect your home does not mean you belive your home is your property.
If you want to prove this to yourself just leave the basement and ask your dad who owns your house

>ask your dad who owns your house
He said it was Mr. Blattenstein from the local bank until the mortgage is paid in 30 years.

There you've proven it. Property is an abstract conception of ownership and
(((Usury))) is behind the Native American genocide.

>You are so heavily indoctornated into this post-feudalist land Barron culture that you can't even imagine what it is like to live in a place that nobody owns.

That's the dumbest, most childish fucking post in this thread.

If you want an example of what it's like living somewhere that "nobody owns", just go to any given housing project in any major metro area. Ghetto people don't give a fuck about the ghetto because it belongs to the "gubmint", and not to them.

When you won something, you tend to actually give a shit about it...most of the time.

>When you won something,

*own

Intercity AAs don't get their needs fufilled from the ghetto, the ghetto is not a socio-ecological system,
go to the DRC and ask some pigmies how they feel about the forest.
Go to any national park and ask a backpacker what they think about the park they own.
Come to the land I "own" legally and see how I take care of what I don't believe is my property.
I feel sorry that you haven't experienced a connection with what makes your yourself, you can't even imagine the place you came from.