Quote from: SHARK on March 12, 2021, 08:06:53 PM
So, I'm not buying the idea that the Americas didn't have the key natural resources to advance and grow civilization. The Americas had plentiful and staggering supply of natural resources, far beyond anything the Europeans ever dreamed of. The Native American tribes certainly did not have certain particular technological innovations--like the wheel, or gunpowder, nor did they have the same variety of domesticated animals, such as the noted horse, and pig. The Americas however, possessed a huge variety and vast supply of natural resources. Huge urban civilizations and empires didn't develop much in the Americas, but such failed to develop over the Americas as a whole for several reasons--but lack of natural resources, food, and such provision isn't one of them.

Quote from: SHARK on March 12, 2021, 08:06:53 PM
Some scholars have maintained that from the time of Columbus to 1650 or so, 90% of the Native tribal populations had been wiped out by disease. I remember reading the commentary of a Spanish explorer that traveled from Florida to Mexico, traveling through entre Native villages, where hundreds and more people were all dead--from plagues that had already reached the tribes living in the interior and along his travel route, that had become exposed from Native traders and such that had already had contact with the Spanish, and unknowingly, going back to their tribal areas, or trekking off to bring the incredible news of strange visitors to other neighboring tribes.

SHARK, at points you acknowledge the diversity within the Americas, but this is a complete crock. The Americas are just as diverse with varying natural resources as Eurasia. Parts of the Americas are very inhospitable and it is a huge struggle to survive. Parts of them are rich in wildlife and edibles. But the same is true in Eurasia. England is an extremely fertile island. It used to be teeming with wildlife. It was only after the rise of civilization there as population grew so large that it became harder to hunt and gather.

The primary reason why the Americas seemed so full of wildlife and resources to the Europeans was precisely because of the second quoted part. If 90% of Europe were killed off, then a person who came there would be in awe of how many resources there were just sitting around unused.

Quote from: SHARK on March 12, 2021, 09:16:39 PM
The Natives were not all "Kum By Yah" peaceful, and stupid, but they did not have the same kind of materialistic based culture that the whites possessed. Natives essentially were equal, with very basic social hierarchies based on skill, knowledge, spirituality, or tradition, though not really based on materialistic conditions or dynamics. You basically had the chieftain, a group of elders, a group of shamans, and then everyone else. The degrees of difference within the social strata amongst Native cultures were not as vast as the differences and distinctions within European social structures. These cultural differences also would have profound and deep influence on relations between white Europeans and Natives, because such concepts form the "furniture" of their cultural reference, of how they view and define reality. Huge differences, unfortunately, and they could not be overcome easily or quickly.

I think you're drawing generalizations from a stereotype of the Northeast Woodlands, but it doesn't really fit more broadly. The Sapa Inca in his palace of gold in a city of tens of thousands was not "essentially equal" to his subjects, nor was he interested in a simple life without materialism. He was an immortal king who ruled an empire of millions.

Even within the Northeast, there was a lot of variation. Some were indeed simple folk who lived peacefully and equally -- but that's not different than going to a simple rural fishing village in Europe, where the people have lived out simple lives for generations. But that wasn't everyone. King Powhatan who allied with the Jamestown English was an aspiring ruler who made war on surrounding peoples to expand his territory by five times over his lifetime. The Haudenosaunee had been expanding eastward in wars over generations, ever since founding their confederacy circa 1400.

Maybe you didn't intend to imply this -- but there's a common stereotype that Native Americans were simple and static, always living the same way for centuries in peace until the Europeans came along. And that's completely wrong. There were empires rising and falling, and sweeping changes that happened over the centuries. Among other things, just as the Europeans were arriving, most nations were going through an enormous apocalypse as they were ravaged by disease - causing huge social upheaval. Many characterizations of Native Americans are like characterizing Europeans based on Mad Max. What the Europeans saw was often not the norm - it was a post-apocalyptic breakdown of society.

Quote from: jhkim on March 12, 2021, 11:03:11 PM

Quote from: SHARK on March 12, 2021, 08:06:53 PM
So, I'm not buying the idea that the Americas didn't have the key natural resources to advance and grow civilization. The Americas had plentiful and staggering supply of natural resources, far beyond anything the Europeans ever dreamed of. The Native American tribes certainly did not have certain particular technological innovations--like the wheel, or gunpowder, nor did they have the same variety of domesticated animals, such as the noted horse, and pig. The Americas however, possessed a huge variety and vast supply of natural resources. Huge urban civilizations and empires didn't develop much in the Americas, but such failed to develop over the Americas as a whole for several reasons--but lack of natural resources, food, and such provision isn't one of them.

Quote from: SHARK on March 12, 2021, 08:06:53 PM
Some scholars have maintained that from the time of Columbus to 1650 or so, 90% of the Native tribal populations had been wiped out by disease. I remember reading the commentary of a Spanish explorer that traveled from Florida to Mexico, traveling through entre Native villages, where hundreds and more people were all dead--from plagues that had already reached the tribes living in the interior and along his travel route, that had become exposed from Native traders and such that had already had contact with the Spanish, and unknowingly, going back to their tribal areas, or trekking off to bring the incredible news of strange visitors to other neighboring tribes.

SHARK, at points you acknowledge the diversity within the Americas, but this is a complete crock. The Americas are just as diverse with varying natural resources as Eurasia. Parts of the Americas are very inhospitable and it is a huge struggle to survive. Parts of them are rich in wildlife and edibles. But the same is true in Eurasia. England is an extremely fertile island. It used to be teeming with wildlife. It was only after the rise of civilization there as population grew so large that it became harder to hunt and gather.

The primary reason why the Americas seemed so full of wildlife and resources to the Europeans was precisely because of the second quoted part. If 90% of Europe were killed off, then a person who came there would be in awe of how many resources there were just sitting around unused.

Quote from: SHARK on March 12, 2021, 09:16:39 PM
The Natives were not all "Kum By Yah" peaceful, and stupid, but they did not have the same kind of materialistic based culture that the whites possessed. Natives essentially were equal, with very basic social hierarchies based on skill, knowledge, spirituality, or tradition, though not really based on materialistic conditions or dynamics. You basically had the chieftain, a group of elders, a group of shamans, and then everyone else. The degrees of difference within the social strata amongst Native cultures were not as vast as the differences and distinctions within European social structures. These cultural differences also would have profound and deep influence on relations between white Europeans and Natives, because such concepts form the "furniture" of their cultural reference, of how they view and define reality. Huge differences, unfortunately, and they could not be overcome easily or quickly.

I think you're drawing generalizations from a stereotype of the Northeast Woodlands, but it doesn't really fit more broadly. The Sapa Inca in his palace of gold in a city of tens of thousands was not "essentially equal" to his subjects, nor was he interested in a simple life without materialism. He was an immortal king who ruled an empire of millions.

Even within the Northeast, there was a lot of variation. Some were indeed simple folk who lived peacefully and equally -- but that's not different than going to a simple rural fishing village in Europe, where the people have lived out simple lives for generations. But that wasn't everyone. King Powhatan who allied with the Jamestown English was an aspiring ruler who made war on surrounding peoples to expand his territory by five times over his lifetime. The Haudenosaunee had been expanding eastward in wars over generations, ever since founding their confederacy circa 1400.

Maybe you didn't intend to imply this -- but there's a common stereotype that Native Americans were simple and static, always living the same way for centuries in peace until the Europeans came along. And that's completely wrong. There were empires rising and falling, and sweeping changes that happened over the centuries. Among other things, just as the Europeans were arriving, most nations were going through an enormous apocalypse as they were ravaged by disease - causing huge social upheaval. Many characterizations of Native Americans are like characterizing Europeans based on Mad Max. What the Europeans saw was often not the norm - it was a post-apocalyptic breakdown of society.

Greetings!

WTF, Jhkim? No, Europe had *depleted* many of it's resources by the time the colonies were established in North America. Read more. Everything I spoke about is accurate, regarding the timber, fish, birds, and so on. Crock my ass.

And while the Natives suffered enormous casualties from disease--the point still remains that America possessed enormous and abundant natural resources. I'm not going to hunt down the quotes analyzing and describing the rivers full of fish, and how the huge stock of Cod off the Eastern coasts possessed fish and Cod and whales in unimaginable numbers which significantly impacted Europe. Same thing with timber, animals, the buffalo, and the fur industry.

I also never said that there *wasn't* any inhospitable land in North America. I did discuss the enormous abundance, fertility, and richness. You don't like it? Too bad. Read some primary sources like I have describing the wealth and animals and resources.

And again, I'm not "over generalizing'--I specifically said South fucking America was different.

And no, I'm not over simplifying North Eastern Woodland tribes, either. The Cherokee, the Nez Pierce, many tribes throughout the Pacific North West, among many others, were similar in their social and tribal structure. Beyond that, for some sake of brevity, I simplified, because I don't feel the need to have a huge detailed discussion of the social and political tribal structure of three or six different tribes.

And, I discussed the impact of European introduced diseases upon the Native tribes, in general.

What the fuck are you trying to create a debate on? You are fucking weak, and coming off as needlessly snarky and belligerent.

For some light reading, take a read of https://www.amazon.com/Stolen-Continents-World-Through-Indian/dp/0395659752
By Ronald Wright.

And no, I don't think I implied that Native Americans were "Static". The sources I have read though--many of them Primary Sources, describe a very different culture, a very different mind set towards people, government, economics, land management, and materialism in general. Somehow thinking that the Native Americans were just the same as the Europeans or Asians or whoever in their priorities, culture, and philosophy, is a crock of bullshit though. The Native Americans were distinctly different, that seems quite clear to me, even if such isn't clear for you, Jhkim. My commentary and discussion was aimed at highlighting some aspects of these differences, again, based on not something I just fucking made up or pulled out of my ass, but based on primary sources, as well as commentary by noted scholars that have expertise in the field.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Pat on March 12, 2021, 05:47:57 PM

Quote from: jhkim on March 12, 2021, 11:53:37 AM
I largely agree. The interchange between civilizations is vital to developing innovations.

I also agree with Ghostmaker that draft animals were vital because they were labor multipliers. That could be worked around, sure, but it made it a lot harder. Same with crops. The various features of potatoes that TLS describes would make large empires harder to maintain, since the only crop in the Americas that had a high calorie density and was easy to tax collectors to find was corn, and when exactly did corn grow to reasonable size? Because it started as thumb-sized cobs that were useless for intensive agriculture. Eurasia by comparison had many grains, and they were domesticated and turned into useful forms much earlier. Ghostmaker's theory of several factors is essentially the Anna Karenina principle, named from Tolstoy's famous line: "All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." The basic idea is that, for certain things, success requires a whole host of factors to go right, and if even one is missing the endeavor is doomed to failure. It may not be a perfect analogy to the development of civilization, but it's a good one. Afroeurasia had everything going for it, while the Americas lacked many. And while it didn't completely forestall the emergence of civilization, it definitely slowed it down.

Bolding above is mine. I don't think we're disagreeing here. I had said that draft animals were not vital - but that doesn't mean that they didn't slow things down.

And I think it's a good point about how long corn had been domesticated. Corn had technically been domesticated for 9000 years, but it wasn't until 4000 years ago that it was fully domesticated. It took a long time to reach its current state, which isn't surprising given the original wild plant teosinte is so hugely different. Wheat was fully domesticated 10,000 years ago -- plus there was barley and some others. So in that sense, Eurasian culture had a 6000 year head start on the Americas.

I think some things really are *necessary* for advancement. We can see based on how some people are still in the hunter-gatherer stage even in 2021 (like the Sentinelese), that advancement doesn't always happen. But Native Americans were advancing. There were large empires with social and technological advancements. But the grain argument implies that the Aztecs were parallel to maybe the ancient Egyptians, and if they had been left alone, it would take six millenia for them to reach Eurasian levels of advancement.

Then again, if they got psychic superpowers from a purple alien asteroid strike, that could be sped up by a lot. 

Quote from: SHARK on March 12, 2021, 11:30:28 PM
WTF, Jhkim? No, Europe had *depleted* many of it's resources by the time the colonies were established in North America. Read more. Everything I spoke about is accurate, regarding the timber, fish, birds, and so on. Crock my ass.

And while the Natives suffered enormous casualties from disease--the point still remains that America possessed enormous and abundant natural resources. I'm not going to hunt down the quotes analyzing and describing the rivers full of fish, and how the huge stock of Cod off the Eastern coasts possessed fish and Cod and whales in unimaginable numbers which significantly impacted Europe. Same thing with timber, animals, the buffalo, and the fur industry.

I also never said that there *wasn't* any inhospitable land in North America. I did discuss the enormous abundance, fertility, and richness. You don't like it? Too bad. Read some primary sources like I have describing the wealth and animals and resources.

Sorry if that came across as hostile. I'll try to summarize my view.

1. Ten thousand years ago, both Eurasia and the Americas had rich natural resources such as fish, wild animals, and timber. Eurasia saw innovations like writing long before they depleted those natural resources. The depletion only happened late as populations rose in the settled fertile areas.

2. Therefore, I do not believe that the abundance of fish, wild animals, and timber are responsible for the slower pace of civilization building in the Americas.

3. Much of the abundance of fish, wild animals, and timber in North America during European colonization was because of the 90% die-off of Native Americans. If 90% of Europeans died off, then similar would have happened there. Much of the depleted fish, animals, and timber in Europe would replenish within a few generations, and a visitor would find European rivers rich in fish and plentiful animals.

4. What *was* different between the Americas and Eurasia ten thousand years ago was different flora and fauna available to utilize. Eurasia had wild ancestors of the dog, horse, cow, pig, and chicken - as well as wheat, barley, and other plants. The Americas had wild dogs and llamas, and the ancestors of maize and the potato. Maize was much more difficult to domesticate than wheat.

5. Further, the Americas also had a sharp north-south axis. While Eurasians quickly developed east-west trade along the Silk Road, the Americas had almost no trade between regions, and it took much longer for agriculture to spread because the crops had to adapt to a different latitude.

Quote from: SHARK on March 12, 2021, 11:30:28 PM
For some light reading, take a read of https://www.amazon.com/Stolen-Continents-World-Through-Indian/dp/0395659752
By Ronald Wright.

And no, I don't think I implied that Native Americans were "Static". The sources I have read though--many of them Primary Sources, describe a very different culture, a very different mind set towards people, government, economics, land management, and materialism in general. Somehow thinking that the Native Americans were just the same as the Europeans or Asians or whoever in their priorities, culture, and philosophy, is a crock of bullshit though. The Native Americans were distinctly different, that seems quite clear to me, even if such isn't clear for you, Jhkim. My commentary and discussion was aimed at highlighting some aspects of these differences, again, based on not something I just fucking made up or pulled out of my ass, but based on primary sources, as well as commentary by noted scholars that have expertise in the field.

Thank you for the reading material. I agree that there was a great difference in culture and philosophy. What I disagree about is the *reason* for that difference. As I said, I don't think it comes from abundant fish, wild animals, and timber.

I feel there would be relatively little difference in culture and philosophy between, for example, pre-Roman Picts from 200BC Britain and the Cherokee of 1500 -- this despite that the Picts had iron and the Cherokee did not. The change in European mindset came because of the exchanges going on for thousands of years along the Mediterranean, Middle East, and Asia.

Quote from: jhkim on March 13, 2021, 02:10:27 AM
4. What *was* different between the Americas and Eurasia ten thousand years ago was different flora and fauna available to utilize. Eurasia had wild ancestors of the dog, horse, cow, pig, and chicken - as well as wheat, barley, and other plants. The Americas had wild dogs and llamas, and the ancestors of maize and the potato. Maize was much more difficult to domesticate than wheat.

There were horses in the Americas when people arrived. They got eaten.

So why didn't the horses of Eurasia all get eaten? Palaeolithic vegans?

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on March 13, 2021, 03:56:57 AM
So why didn't the horses of Eurasia all get eaten? Palaeolithic vegans?

Probably because they evolved with humanity.  The megafauna of the new world would have had no experience of or instinctive response to humans.

So I clicked the link to the MegaFatty RPG....wow, that's D6 SAN I'm not getting back.

As for the Alt-History Injuuuuuuuns in Spaaaaace RPG, I would have been more charitable about it 20 years when settings were created just because the authors thought the concept was cool. Two decades ago, this wouldn't have stank to the Happy Hunting Grounds of race grifters on parade. Of course, its 2021 so there's no question its a SJW jerk circle sold to usual cadre of self-hating virtue signalers. It's MYFAROG for the Woke Vargs.

Whatever. Hope they have fun scalping aliens.

As to why some civilizations rise, I have no idea which theory is correct. My focus is on why they fall...a topic I've been reading about for absolutely no reason at all.

Quote from: Spinachcat on March 15, 2021, 12:06:42 AM
As to why some civilizations rise, I have no idea which theory is correct. My focus is on why they fall...a topic I've been reading about for absolutely no reason at all.

If you live in the Western world, why read about it?  Just look out your window and watch...

Quote from: Eirikrautha on March 12, 2021, 06:58:47 AM

Quote from: Brigman on March 12, 2021, 04:50:38 AM
Free speech doesn't mean tolerating or advocating hate speech

You don't know what that term means, apparently.  That's exactly what free speech means.  It's Pundit's place, so he can ban whoever he wants.  I certainly won't miss either of the two that were banned.  But free speech means defeating speech you don't like with more speech, not less.  But this is an RPG forum, so I can understand why he doesn't want racialist BS here, just because beating it back would take focus away from the purpose of this forum.  But, by definition, free speech means tolerating all speech.  So you are just wrong.

You're right.

This thread has veered off RPGs quite a bit, so just throwing this out there to maybe get it back on track: what are the actual requirements for considering a game an RPG? I don't think referee-less games qualify, not these fat-acceptance sorts of things, but I also have run dungeons crawls for myself using the tables in the DMG and that was playing an RPG as much as anything else. Is this one of those "I'll know it when I see it" sorts of classifications, or can we give some definitive requirements?

I'm fairly easy on this. "Fat Self Care" is definitely an rpg. It's just a shitty rpg.

I mean, it almost seems like a parody.  It may well be an RPG, but it isn't one that interests me.

In its decadent self-indulgence, it is at least cheerier than previous attempts at woke storygames, like We All Had Names. The obese fucker may have back and knee pain, sexual dysfunction, diabetes, heart disease, bowel cancer, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and indeterminate gender, but at least they're happy.

Quote from: Spinachcat on March 15, 2021, 12:06:42 AM
So I clicked the link to the MegaFatty RPG....wow, that's D6 SAN I'm not getting back.

As for the Alt-History Injuuuuuuuns in Spaaaaace RPG, I would have been more charitable about it 20 years when settings were created just because the authors thought the concept was cool. Two decades ago, this wouldn't have stank to the Happy Hunting Grounds of race grifters on parade. Of course, its 2021 so there's no question its a SJW jerk circle sold to usual cadre of self-hating virtue signalers. It's MYFAROG for the Woke Vargs.

That's how I feel about a lot of things now. I see a "BIPOC" or "LGBTQIAWTF" person in media (including and especially RPGs) and I'm like "What woke garbage is going to be preached at me today?"