How did the native americans not learn to use the lands rich mineral resources...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ötzi

It does though.

Wars within the last couple centuries result in contracts and funding being given out for any crackpot with a halfway plausible idea, some of which turn out to be great.

It drains funding and people away from other things.

No jewry so no "great accomplishments" like mountain removal or epic cribz

15000 years of offset.

K dude, it seems like all the info u have on natives comes from other anons on Veeky Forums. Everytime natives are brought up on this site, some asshole white dudes who probably only seen 2 or 3 natives TOPS in their life claim to be experts and say this and that. Yes, like every other culture, natives had warriors and went to battle, but they NEVER went to the extant that Europeans did and wiped out entire tribes. Heck, a few scattered tribes all around north america were actually relatively peaceful and didn't make enemies! As for the wasted resources nonsense its really a matter of culture. For the past 5 centuries or so, capitalism and money has really been the culture of white people. To you, the continent is dollar signs. To the natives, their many different and diverse cultures all tend to be based around actual biology (what really matters). They (in most tribes) believed that everything we need is already provided by the earth (which is true). If everyone still lived like that, there would be no environmental problems. They had no rich or poor either, everyone in their societies was equal for the most part. However, like I said earlier, we are talking about hundreds of diverse tribes who spoke unrelated languages.

I hope to god this is a copypasta

populations in which every person is need so food production (ie hunter gathers and early agricultural societies) don't have the intensive to go on genocidal campaigns because every person who dies on your side is some you NEED to be making or finding food. Latter developments in agricultural that aloud for large warrior casts are what made more destructive war possible. That is why only Central and South Americans (for the most part) had large scale military campaigns beyond raiding and looting. They still fought a lot like everyone else but just not with as much training (as none was a professional solider save for in central and south america or after European contact) mean complex tactics are impossible. Also again you are need to find food, looting from others and stealing there people is good and all but if your technology does not let you have a surplus massive slave farms don't make economic sense as the slaves are only make enough food to feed themselves and perhaps a couple children or elderly, thus capturing slaves in not really worth it unless you want a wife or a child. TL;DR they for the most part did not have the technology necessary to make large scale war like the ancients in the old world possible.

See

I think northern dudes just hit agriculture revolution the second jamestown landed

why did the white man have to ruin everything for us?

t. part native

Because they were dumb, they hadn't even figured out bronze when the Europeans btfo useless pagan arses.

There's practically no tin ore in North America.

t. dumb dumb

Actually the opposite as their development rate was superior to europeans'.

Because they had no desire to? What's your fucking problem?
>abloobloo need muh di-mundz muhfugga
Fucking industrialist scum

What absolute retardation. Barbarians DO have social hierarchies, even absent any noticeable wealth. They also wage genocidal wars, in fact ALL wars fought by such people are genocidal in nature, since they lack the ability to "annex" defeated tribes and they can't just "beat them in the field" and leave it at that, because the children of the men they beat will come for revenge. So the standard practice, not only among Amerindian barbarians but among barbarians everywhere, was to kill ALL the men, and take the women as "wives". There is plenty of evidence for this happening more or less non-stop among Indian tribes, hell we even witnessed it happening directly during the Iroquois-Huron wars.

I think a better question is why they, meaning all native peoples bordering on US territory, weren't capable of forming a coalition or something approaching a modern state with the goal of halting white encroachment. Their lifestyles had already been more westernized quite a few decades before American independence

Same reason the people bordering Mongol territory weren't capable of uniting into an anti-Mongol state.

It does in the form of weaponized Keynesianism. Spending in heavy industry filters down to the workers making the armaments.

The problem, of course, is that a huge military doesn't pay out economic dividends unless you're willing to put it to good use, otherwise your economy overheats

T. Cuck fetishist
Amerindian warfare was heavily ritualized for the precise reason that they wanted to avoid mass casualties, for the fact that if their tribe took heavy damage fighting one tribe, they'd be militarily crippled for a generation and ripe for the pickings from some other tribe who were sensible enough not to squander their warriors senselessly. It's not at all that dissimilar from warfare in Ancient Greece, who fought wars in a very genteel fashion, overseen by heralds, because they would rather be ransoming back hoplites instead of losing them and being at the mercy of more powerful city states until the next generation of hoplites came of age.

>HURR thinking Amerindians are just like every other human group on Earth makes you a cuck!

I'd reply to your post but fuck you, dimwit.

You obviously don't know shit about the Amerindians or the way that they waged war, and all you are doing is inserting fantasies about men being defeated and cucked.

The overwhelming majority of warfare at the tribal level is heavily ritualized with relatively minor casualties. Only a small minority of tribal societies can be so warlike that they're losing the majority of their men in combat, and these are tribes in isolated areas which didn't have to worry about some other tribe taking advantage of their weakness after a costly campaign.

The only societies which could have this total war attitude of "we must utterly crush our enemy at all costs" are societies which can easily replace battlefield losses.

Now go back to watching BLACKED.com videos and leave history for people with a genuine interest in it.

>HUR muh snowflake people were nothing like you evildumb whites!

Amerindians re humans, not angels. Get over yourself you dickless subfaggot.

Did any native americans have forges?

Muh heritage yank faggot please die

>Amerindians re humans, not angels.
Now you're just making shit up. I never once said that they were angels, in fact I would point out that their societies varied hugely, from peaceful tribes which solved their differences with dialog, to warlike ones, to cosmopolitan ones which formed federations with other tribes. Trying to lump all Amerindians together into a single label is how brainlets visualize history

>The overwhelming majority of warfare at the tribal level is heavily ritualized with relatively minor casualties.

There are physical anthropological/archaeological studies of rates of violent death per studies of burial grounds. More people died violent deaths in nomadic tribal societies than agricultural ones. Read Pinker.

You talk about this "heavily ritualized" approach to warfare that was "aimed to minimize casualties", but show me a single primary source that attests to this.

Spoiler: Secondary ones, obviously, don't count.

>HURR dey was good boys dey dindu nufin!

Fuck off leftypol faggot, your precious Amerindians behaved the same way all humans do. Yes, even evildumb FUCKING WHITE MALES.

No need to get emotional with him. He's making a material assertion about the way the Plains Indians behaved and why they behaved in this way (for a very specific reason).

Ask him to put his money where his mouth is, provide primary sources. It's the exact same with shitters who repeat the "African slavery was more humane than Trans-Atlantic Slavery!" lie. Some idiot mentioned it in a secondary source with no substantiation and the rest of the idiots just ran with it - that's what passes for "scholarship".

>but show me a single primary source that attests to this.
How about actual research?
uapress.arizona.edu/Books/bid1872.htm
digitalcommons.trinity.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1092&context=tipiti
Right here in the wiki page about Endemic warfare it talks about how most warfare is low-stakes, with only a few conflicts escalating to full out genocide
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endemic_warfare

Jesus, /pol/tard, put your victim complex back in your pants. Just because I pointed out how varied Amerindian cultures were doesn't mean that I want to kill whitey. Fucking spaz

>How about actual research?

Yes. What primary sources is this research drawing upon?

>Right here in the wiki page about Endemic warfare it talks about how most warfare is low-stakes, with only a few conflicts escalating to full out genocide

Ok, but is this by design - as you said (i.e. they're so civilized that they don't wage warfare on the same scale because they choose not to) or is it because they simply do not have the productive capacity or technology to project force in the way non-nomads do?

>Yes. What primary sources is this research drawing upon?
What are you, Edward Gibbon? Read them, they're based off of studies of actual tribes and archeology.

>they're so civilized that they don't wage warfare on the same scale because they choose not to
That's not at all what I said.

Ritualized warfare doesn't mean "civilized" warfare. Violence is violence, true civilized behavior is realizing cooperative behavior makes more sense.

It's a statement of hard, practical realities about war between tribes. What happens to your tribe if you're surrounded by hostile neighbors, and you lose most of your warriors in a vicious struggle against one of the other tribes?

The other tribes will start smelling weakness, that's what happens. So you don't squander your warriors in costly battles just to have a few days of enjoying their womenfolk when another tribe who is still at full strength can bring Damocles' sword down on your head.

Ritual warfare was more about showing off and gaining social prestige than it was about taking the other tribe's stuff. It's about gaining the upper hand without having to take losses.

>What are you, Edward Gibbon?

I'm someone interested in what possible primary source(s) could establish such a wide-ranging assertion about Plains Indians, a people with virtually no record-keeping of any note, with any certainty. Are you not curious at all?

>That's not at all what I said.

Here's what you said:

>The overwhelming majority of warfare at the tribal level is heavily ritualized with relatively minor casualties. Only a small minority of tribal societies can be so warlike that they're losing the majority of their men in combat

The problem is you're describing two things here, one is "heavy ritualization", the second is a pragmatic consideration of not depleting your available manpower through attrition, which any commander has, be it of a tribe, or a nation. Yes, even during total war scenarios like those of the early French Republic (mass conscription etc).

If that's what you're describing then it's not substantially different from any other group.

>I'm someone interested in what possible primary source(s) could establish such a wide-ranging assertion about Plains Indians, a people with virtually no record-keeping of any note, with any certainty. Are you not curious at all?
On one hand, you're asking for primary sources, on the other hand, you're admitting that they kept virtually no records. So the only actual primary sources we would have would come from outsiders well after Amerindian culture was in decline.

So when there's a dearth of written records, we extrapolate based on the behavior of tribes from around the world, as well as from what we can find in the archeological record.

>If that's what you're describing then it's not substantially different from any other group.
The point is that they heavily ritualized it FOR pragmatic purposes, they're one in the same. special cases like the warlike, expansionary Sioux waged war at a different scale, same as the Mongols.

>If that's what you're describing then it's not substantially different from any other group.
We have to examine context. Not every tribe was nomadic, not every tribe built large towns, not every tribe was obsessed with waging war.

>On one hand, you're asking for primary sources, on the other hand, you're admitting that they kept virtually no records

Right, so how are you establishing these broad conclusions in the first place, in lieu of primary sources?

>we extrapolate based on the behavior of tribes from around the world

Which ones, from what period, and what specific behavior?

>they're one in the same

I'm glad we agree.

You can't build civilization without draft animals.

They tried twice. In most cases the tribes hated each other more than they hated the US, and some liked to play the whites against their enemies.

Can we talk for a minute about how the girl in the OP's pic has violent rape fantasies and needs to be raped hard by all of us?

>Right, so how are you establishing these broad conclusions in the first place, in lieu of primary sources?
By studying the conclusions of academic research. The noble savage meme is pop pseudohistory, no professional researcher of indigenous cultures argues that they were all peaceful hippies frolicking freely in the forest without clothes until big bad whitey came along and taught them the hard way how to be greedy and warlike..Nor were they all miserable, bloodthirsty savages flinging themselves at each other in a continuous chimp-like rage.

Academic research draws conclusions not just from the historiographical record, but also from archeology, and from observed behaviors of tribes who still live lifestyles akin to what the Amerindians lived. The same way that nobody wrote down what the economic conditions were of, say, the Roman empire during the reign of Nero, but we can extrapolate based on the study of numismatics.

>Which ones, from what period, and what specific behavior?
The Iroquois confederacy, for example, exhibited very different behavior from the Great Sioux Nation

Sounds like white culture just ruined your mom

Differing tribes really, really, really hate each other. Even as the white man began to push westwards Native Americans didn't see them as the primary threat until it was too late

Disease that lead to severely depressed population is the answer you are looking for

Who would you rather try bargaining with: the fuckers who you've been enemies with as long as anyone can remember, or a strange people with weird customs who focus on pointless shit and fiddle faf around to your east?

millions of Buffalo and thousands of years to utilize them

The Plains Indians literally used every single part of that damn bison.

Who is this _____ _____

>we use every part of the automobile, but don't drive it or haul anything with it

You realize that not all species are easily domesticated right?