Does anyone have any theories on why the Native Americans in North America were so much less advanced than the Natives...

My guess is it had to do with agriculture, particularly calories-per-acre concerns.

Shut the fuck up Pablo.

Yeah, but you'd be hard pressed to say that the Mississippian culture was as "advanced" (a nebulous term) as say, the Maya or Inca.

This. Otherwise it wouldn't be called NAFTA.

No they weren't but as I understand they were blooming late, as agriculture moved south to north.Compared to their neighbors in Mesoamerica and South America (Andes and Amazon) who had agriculture thousands of years before. I think given time they could have caught up. At least the moundbuilders and pueblos had potential.

Less population with less connectivity.

The geomagnetic filed over north America is thiner than anywhere else on earth. Increased cosmic radiation leads to the slow destruction of the genome, copy errors are more frequent, more retarded and semi retarded babies are born and slowly the gene pool of the population degenerates until you basically have a race of criminal morons.
For reference look at what happened to the white people that emigrated into north America, they are less intelligent and more prone to violence than the control group in Europe who is unaffected by the radiation.

It's mesoamerica. and nothing north of mexico became as advanced as the Civilizations in Central America and the Andes

A G R I C U L T U R E

Truthfully, most native americans in modern US territory never developed large scale agriculture, they could thrive off hunter/gatherer, and in the case of Pacific NW tribes, they could literally just fish all day that's how much salmon there was

There are a couple """advanced""" native groups, the Anasazi/Pueblos, the Mississippi Moundbuilders, thats all I can think of.

What about Iroquois and Virginian indians?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cahokia

Yeah they had agriculture, but nothing as intensive or productive as others

Why post your opinion if you don't have one?

pic for reference, so you can see the problem more clearly. Intelligent life is simply not possible on the north American continent.

There had been advanced societies up there when the Medieval warm period meant agriculture was possible at an intensive level. By the time the European contact occurred the climate was cooling and most of it had fractured. The last remaining civilization (the Mississipian culture) was destroyed due to disease introduced by a Spanish exploration.

>most native americans in modern US territory never developed large scale agriculture
That statement is a pretty good idea that you don't know what you're talking about. Most groups in the US practiced agriculture and used it as their main source of subsistence. The only real exceptions are the Plains and Great Basin area (because they were sparsely populated and had shit resources), and the PNW (because agriculture wasn't needed). Everywhere else practiced intensive agriculture. Most of the time more intensive than the Anasazi and Pueblo groups who would occasionally abandon agriculture during droughts.

Ive heard theyve been 'unearthing' spanish forts in north america in states that today hold english ancestry stemming to the 1600-1700s. Ofcourse they dont find walls but theyve been unearthing foundations. More north than you think. The english are self hating, depricating hedonist society. They usually destroy/bury cultural and artistic revelant objects. Then they say they invented it. And then they feel sorry. And then they give back. And then they take back. Theyre couldve been a big native civilization in the north. Legend says the whole american cordillera was an empire.

Less of a monopoly on the corn trade.

The eternal Inca.

Theocracy, they never got into the point, where science and religion could live side by side, but maintain their own views.

Christianity in it's base allowed other views to function, despite fundamentalism that hold back Europe for centuries. Inquisitions have gotten far too much fame, despite the fact that scientists like Galileo were still allowed to continue their work. Only clearly religious movements were put down by force.

Lack of horses, lack of established trade with dozens of other civilizations.

The mesoamericans and andean's didn't have horses either.

>Lack of trade

pic related. We also know that there was some indirect trade going on between north american and mesoamerican, and mesoamerican and andean groups.

Why does California have a fuckton of crossroads and local inter-tribal trade hubs but no primary or significant secondary trade centers?

Beats me, I into mesoamerica, not north america

The issue was the overabundance of highly fertile land, causing communities to just spread out rather than form larger communities on top of each other and the lack of a model empire for them to imitate. There were some very large tribes, such as Powhatan's tribes in Virginia where England landed. Similarly, the Iroquis inspired a portion of Ben Franklins musings on government due to the unique structure of their confederation.

I'm half indian and was taught we did have things like pyramids and ancient ruins in north america but they were deliberately buried and by the early settlers and wrote out of the history because it threw a wrench into their 'manifest destiny'

I do have an opinion, I'm saying that for something to happen(such as advancing a civilization) someone has to make it happen, someone has to use the resources provided and make it happen.

What most people are saying is there were no resources available, what I am saying is there were resources but no one thought to use them

Why go with the assumption that societies HAVE to advance as if it's a law?

>societies have to advance
They will, if they overcome struggle. Problems make people try to overcome them.

10000 years of humanity on America have been full of seasonal devastating floods and hostile territories.

The constant floods were solved by a few civilizations, the first one we know of was Caral. They managed to avoid the danger of the floods on the coast. They lived in 2600BCE.

>the first one we know of
On America*

They did though on the coasts. Not all northern natives were plains nomads that carried their shelter with them

South American natives were very primitive, into human sacrifice and stuff like that. Unlike those in the north.

Yea people have been destroying and bulldozing many mounds for a while now.

Human sacrifice was practiced in just about every continent by all races.

I dont know much of central and north America.
But in South America Tupi Guarani natives lived in a huge area from northern Brazil to central Argentina, and the Incas had an Empire from Southern Colombia to Central Chile.
You could walk around most of South America knowing just Tupi-Guarani and Quechua when the Europeans arrived.

There were other languages in the Inca Empire, like Aymara which still has millions of speakers, and the same goes for the Amazones with countless languages, both Quechua and Guarani were very widespread, and both still have over 8 million speakers.

The Guarani natives of Paraguay knew enough of the Andes to tell the Spaniards they should go in the direction of what is now Bolivia if they wanted to find silver, and the natives of Panama also knew enough of the Andes to tell the Spaniards they should go in that direction to find more Gold they could ever dream of.

it seem like mobility was pretty big in the andes