|
Grex > Agora41 > #112: Why Americans ,in general, are so dumb in geography? | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 360 responses total. |
void
|
|
response 125 of 360:
| 
May 3 18:33 UTC 2002 |
Well, you know, India and Pakistan could just back off and let Kashmir
become an independent state. There'd be a lot less trouble that way.
|
jazz
|
|
response 126 of 360:
|
May 3 19:00 UTC 2002 |
What I've read of the situation leads me to believe that most of the
Kashmiris would prefer that solution, anyways.
|
oval
|
|
response 127 of 360:
|
May 3 20:31 UTC 2002 |
the people i know from kashmir feel that way.
|
sarkhel
|
|
response 128 of 360:
|
May 4 08:25 UTC 2002 |
Kashmir was an integral part , it is an integral part and it will always be
an integral part of INDIA. so you need not have to worry about Kashmir. Its
an Indian state, the people of Kashmir always participate in their democratic
rights. You please donot forget the position of India which is being
surrounded by all non democratic forces (countries controlled by non
democratic forces). Whom do you want to believe ? A democratic country or a
non democratic one? Whom do you like to strengthen, a democratic country or
a dictator? What ever may be your choice, but our choice is always for
democracy.And NO ONE in this world can be happy if they are NOT in a
democratic country.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 129 of 360:
|
May 4 13:31 UTC 2002 |
I CALL BULLSHIT!
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 130 of 360:
|
May 4 14:41 UTC 2002 |
Me too. I bet the Shiv Sena people would be delighted if they had a non-
democratic government they controlled. They could burn all the Moslems then,
and abolish Valentine's Day.
|
keesan
|
|
response 131 of 360:
|
May 4 15:36 UTC 2002 |
From what I have read, there was no 'India' until the British took over a lot
of independent states, many or most of which would have preferred to stay
independent of each other. What was the status of Kashmir before the British?
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 132 of 360:
|
May 4 19:11 UTC 2002 |
Ooh. That's better than mine.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 133 of 360:
|
May 4 21:44 UTC 2002 |
it's pretty good!
|
sarkhel
|
|
response 134 of 360:
|
May 5 02:46 UTC 2002 |
Re131 What you have read is a partial truth. India was very well there even
during the period when the people of Europe, America was at primitive state,
when they were eating raw meats and staying at Caves. India was therelong long
before of the arrival of Amerigo Vesputchi
|
jazz
|
|
response 135 of 360:
|
May 5 02:57 UTC 2002 |
What a wonderful summation of native American culture.
The India he's talking about didn't exist before a handfull of Indus
valley states were conquered by a nomadic horse-riding people. But what does
that matter? Where does the conquered territory of one people or another
become holy writ?
|
sarkhel
|
|
response 136 of 360:
|
May 5 03:30 UTC 2002 |
you will be surprised to know that till today at the southern part of India,
people follow the customs, traditions and even the language of non aryans
(Dravirian). So its a bullshit idea that India never exists prior to the
arrival of Aryans (horse riding people) or British. Please read two epics
"Ramayana" and "Mahabharata".
I am requesting Avin to add "History"too alongwith Geography in the list of
dumb.
Conquering of others territory might have stopped after Vietnam, however I
am not sure of it. Or is it "South Africa"?
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 137 of 360:
|
May 5 03:37 UTC 2002 |
I think the suggestion was that what we now call "India" was a collection of
smaller states that weren't all that closely linked.
|
bru
|
|
response 138 of 360:
|
May 5 05:18 UTC 2002 |
You would be pretty hard pressed to prove the statement about us still living
in caves and eaating raw meat when india had a culture.
You might even be hard pressed to prove the oldest culture began in India.
#While we have long believed the oldeat cities were inthe indus valley, there
are new theories and discoveries that threaten that.
But i will accept that the india was composed of many independent states at
teh time the british moved in and took over and tried to unify it under
the english monarchy. The Pax Britannica.
But there are some structures here in the new world that may be as old as
anything in india.
|
jazz
|
|
response 139 of 360:
|
May 5 14:52 UTC 2002 |
There's also compelling evidence for older Babylonian and Egyptian
civilizations, and some argument for earlier Thai (Bucky Fuller, oddly
enough) and Celt cities.
|
avin
|
|
response 140 of 360:
|
May 6 08:43 UTC 2002 |
Sarkhel, right on. History y should have been included too. I don;t understand
why is there is doubt with the audience here? Harappa and Mohenjodaro are
at least about 5500 years old....older than Maya or Thai or Celt for that
matter. This is an established fact. period.
|
gull
|
|
response 141 of 360:
|
May 6 13:18 UTC 2002 |
(Translation: My country is older than yours! That makes us superior!
Nyahh!)
|
slynne
|
|
response 142 of 360:
|
May 6 19:16 UTC 2002 |
Which, of course, is silly.
|
void
|
|
response 143 of 360:
|
May 6 19:50 UTC 2002 |
Hmmm. Pakistan and Bangladesh were once "integral parts of India" but
become independent states. What's the problem with allowing Kashmir to
do the same?
|
bru
|
|
response 144 of 360:
|
May 7 03:14 UTC 2002 |
Everything seems to have popped around 3500 B.C. And we are not talking about
the Maya, Thai, or Celts. 3200 B.C. you have wheeled vehicles in Europe,
adn someone is building these giant standing stone megalith structures. The
first walled cities in egypt. Urban civilization in Sumer and Uruk.
Earlier, you had domestication of animals and grains in many areas of the
world around 6000 B.C.
Europe was probably delayed to some extent by the ice age. Even so, tou are
going to have to come up with some specific measure of what you want to refere
to as civilization. Domestication of pack animals? Domestication of grasses?
Farming communities? Recognized Burial practices? Stone structures?
Writing?
There is no one single thing that every culture needs to be a culture, so no
one thing we can point to and say: Hey! They got a culture and a
civilization!
|
gelinas
|
|
response 145 of 360:
|
May 7 03:27 UTC 2002 |
IIRC, *writing* in Mesopotamia goes back 5000 years.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 146 of 360:
|
May 7 03:38 UTC 2002 |
Five thousand years ago,
they laid down the law,
in Mesopotamia!
|
mdw
|
|
response 147 of 360:
|
May 7 06:23 UTC 2002 |
5000 years ago is only 3000 bc. The chronology of the bible, as best as
people can figure it out, goes to about 4000 bc.
The first "anatomically modern" man were probably ca. 200K years ago.
From DNA evidence, there was an "origin" point for the various
population branches of modern man, at about 140K-290K years ago, and the
initial population probably consisted of only 500 - 10K individuals,
somewhere in east africa. There were other branches of humans around,
such as neanderthal man in europe. Modern man met them in europe
between about 100K and 40K years ago, and by 10K years ago, only modern
man was left. One theory holds that modern man co-existed quite
peacefully with neanderthal man for a period of time, then one day
modern man went on a crusade and killed all the neanderthals. It may
not have been that sudden (or at least not that complete); neanderthal
apparently becomes rare more recently than 30K years ago, but doesn't
actually disappear until 10K years ago. Of course, the ice age that
happened in the middle of this was plenty disruptive on its own.
Neanderthal man actually had a larger brain, but was shorter and
stockier, probably as a cold adaption. Across most of his existance,
75,000 years to 10,000 years ago, his tools changed but little, but the
last of the lot had fancier stuff like the up & coming modern man -
whether copied or acquired by trade. Presumably, on his own,
neanderthal was not as bright, or at least not as inventive as his
competition.
The first villages appeared about 9000 years ago, about the same time as
farming was invented. Pottery came after that, about 7000 years ago.
|
jazz
|
|
response 148 of 360:
|
May 7 18:42 UTC 2002 |
Fuller's argument is that bronze age civilization probably started in
Thailand, due to the relative scarcity of copper and tin occuring together
in a colonized area, or in areas that traded with one another. It's a
reasonable hypothesis, though difficult to conclusively prove.
The Celtic hypothesis I'm a bit more sketchy on, though there have been
some arguments that Celts had cities earliest.
|
oval
|
|
response 149 of 360:
|
May 7 18:55 UTC 2002 |
let's give the lands back to the apes.
|