Why is it Amerindians or other tribal maymays usually get the "one with nature" treatment in media when in actually it...

Honestly this doesn't change OP's point. Still you have the "one with nature" motif being used on abos and Amerindians when most animals were domesticated in Europe, China, Egypt or India.

And the cow. You forgot the cow.

Because it triggers the envy and hatred of non aryan aka shit-mud people. Look at this thread for vivid example.

Nope

They were domesticated in stone age Turkey and Pakistan

>Anyone is jealous of street shitters and boyfuckers

>makes a claim
>gets claim completely contradicted
>concedes he is wrong, claims "this doesn't change the point [of the claim]"
Are you actually this retarded

>when in actually it was Indo-Europeans who domesticated most animals and established a mutually symbiotic relationship with them?
You have a weird definition of what it means to be "one with nature" though. Forcing every animal to abandon their natural instincts to serve as a figurative pack mule isn't what I would call that. Not to say that the stereotype of Native tribes is generally correct, but neither is what you're trying to do here.

...

Horses were domesticated ~10,000BC in Siberia, long before anything called an Indo European existed.

I disagree. I think humans are a part of nature and our domestication of animals is part of natures form.

False.

Whatever your definition of nature, if it includes this it's probably a bad definition

Nice false equivalency. Domestication of chickens is not the same as mass chicken farming.

I'm sure that the people who did the same to human beings wouldn't have a problem doing it with chickens

>I'm sure that the people who did the same to human beings wouldn't have a problem doing it with chickens
Can you elaborate this statement?

But you've made a false demarcation of "natural" chicken farming and mass chicken farming.
So 1 chicken is natural but 1500 isn't. Where is the line?

I get what your saying that farming and domestication and tool making are perfectly natural advancements for humans. But by defining it all as part of nature you've just made it a worthless word.

>when in actually it was Indo-Europeans who domesticated most animals

Amerishart education

>But you've made a false demarcation of "natural" chicken farming and mass chicken farming.
>So 1 chicken is natural but 1500 isn't. Where is the line?
Not exactly. The chicken should be able to graze, be in sunlight, walk, ect. In return humans use it for it's meat and eggs. I don't think the it's the number of chickens but how you treat them.

Also, I do think that is part of nature. It's just that it's disingenuous to treat all domestication and symbiotic realtionships with animals as if it's the same as pic related. Obviously if you have 1500 free roaming chickens whom humans take care of by hand it's different than if you have 1500 chickens stuffed in a crowded metal warehouse going on a factory line having their feathers mechanically removed by a machine. Hence it being a false equivalency.

So it's natural because people are kind and caring to the chickens? Nature is pretty brutal, doesn't make much sense desu

I think any interaction between man and animals is nature. I'm just saying that not all of these interactions are equal, nor should they be treated as such by anyone smart enough to see the world beyond a dichotomy.

Amerindians are "closer to nature" because they are savage and primitive, just like animals.

Most domesticated animals were domesticated in the Middle East and Asia. Europe, despite having the meme animal itself (aurochs), didn't domesticate animals by themselves until Middle Eastern farmers brought them over (and BLEACHED/TANNED the local dark European population), save the horse (although some say it was in Central Asia) and reindeer. I would include rabbits but no one cares about them.

Nope, Europeans ate/killed their aurochs, all of them. Even Africans had their own domesticated subspecies of auroch.

He's talking about chattel slavery in the Americas and Middle East.

t. José Hernandez

Return to your Spanish classes.

>Cows, Horses, rabbits, reindeer
>Major animals
HURR DURR BUT CHINK LAND GOT DA PANDA

>mongolia
>Aryan Asia
No
phys.org/news/2017-04-precision-chronology-mongolia-nomadic-horse.html

the only animal indo-europeans domesticated was the horse. domesticated cows, sheep and goats, which they also kept, were introduced from the middle east.

the "one with nature" cliche comes from nomadic north american hunter-gatherers relying much more on their natural environment in their economies than sedentary industrialized european societies. it's a dumb cliche of course and not true. the same things are also said about african hunter-gatherer societies and central asian nomads from time to time.
it's because in industrialized societies the majority of the population lives a lifestyle far removed from the production of food and traditional knowledge about things like plants etc. has mostly been lost because it isn't needed any more.

if proto-indo-europeans lived today they would probably be romanticized/exoticized in a similar way.

Did I say they were important, faggot? Besides, the oldest evidence of domesticated horses are in Kazakhstan.

Thats not true though the natives developed a system where they shaped the environment to suit their needs. Look at the east coast of the US and the Amazon rainforest. They were practically giant managed gardens.

Domestication doesn't mean being one with nature. If anything, it basically is molding nature to your needs.

Bruh take a sec to read what he said. What he was trying to say was that it might not have been indoeuropeans but most animals were still bred in around these regions, so why do we still give credit to Amerindians?

Why does anyone even give a shit? Aside from liberal whining, Native American society is frequently discarded as having been savage, then and now. I don't see the point in trying to win over petty bullshit, if they're being depicted in any positive way at least let them have their thing.

Honestly its kind of a philosophical question. On one side you could argue being one with nature is understanding how it operates and respecting it (if thats the right way to put it). On the other side you could say that being one with nature is about understanding how it operates and working with it to your advantage.

Well its a pretty harmless question and questioning the importance of a question is usually a good sign that you really don't have anything to contribute so GTFO.

I'm just wondering what your motivation is. Native Americans underwent a lot of bad publicity from the point of colonization to the present day. Even the higher points of civilization in the Americas get the label of "savage" tacked onto it. We all know who won the cultural war in that. No reason to keep beating a corpse.

Well, to put it simply its curiosity. OP posed a question and people have been giving answers to the best of their ability. It seems like you think people here are trying to take something away from Amerindians and that we shouldn't. Why not?

Let's take for example the movie avatar. The Space Amerindians are portrayed as being in symbiotic relationships with nature, plugging their hair into the flying horses and using the animals to their advantage.

In reality, it was people civilization builders in Europe, India, China, Egypt and fertile crescent which were using nature to their advantage while savage primitives in sub-Saharan Africa, the Americas and Oceania pretty much killed animals for food and that was it.

First of all: oceania (Hawaiian kingdom, Tu'i Tonga empire, Rapa Nui) , subsaharan africa (Benin, Nok, Ghana kingdom, Songhai, Mali, Congo, Zanzibar) and the americas (Aztec Triple Alliance, Maya kingdoms and city-states, Zapotec empire and kingdoms, Mixtec empire and city-states, Olmec, Teotihuacan empire, Tarascan empire, Tahue kingdom, Colima city-state, Huastec city-states, Nicarao kingdoms, Pipil kingdoms, Hopewell, Ancient Puebloans/Anazasi, Tlingit, Haudenosaunee Confederacy, Cahokia, Caddoan, Plaquemine, Adena, Inca empire, Mochica, Muisca confederacy, Quitu, Nazca, Wari, Tiwanaku empire, Kuhikugu, Marajo) all had civilizations.

Secondly: They did not exactly live symbiotically with nature. In most cases they shaped nature to suit their needs as is the case with controlling the populations of certain birds, the movements of bison through intense forest clearing, clearing forests to utilize them as large orchards and gardens, basically on their way to terraforming the amazon rainforest, irrigations to control floods, canals and aqueducts to move water directions, practicing various forms of agriculture from terrace farming, to chinampas, and milpa systems etc. As for domesticated animals, they already had the dog, turkeys and the Maya semi domesticated the deer.

I would argue that's more like making nature "one with you" than it is you guys being "one with nature"