|
Grex > Agora41 > #112: Why Americans ,in general, are so dumb in geography? | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 360 responses total. |
keesan
|
|
response 175 of 360:
| 
May 11 16:57 UTC 2002 |
From what I have read, a hunting and gathering lifestyle, at least in an area
that is not overpopulated, is much less time consuming than agriculture.
Hunter gatherers spend a couple of hours a day finding and preparing food.
The switch to agriculture was forced by overpopulation.
|
bru
|
|
response 176 of 360:
|
May 11 18:29 UTC 2002 |
depends on how good you are at it, time of year, size of family group...
|
mdw
|
|
response 177 of 360:
|
May 12 04:48 UTC 2002 |
Plenty of north american indian populations practiced mixed
hunting/gathering and farming, the ratio depending on the particular
tribe, time, and location. We also know they practiced war. The two
societies on earth that we know don't seem to have practiced war are the
australian aborigines, and the eskimoes. In each case, they're living
in an extremely harsh environment, where there is little room for
mistakes or wasted energy.
|
i
|
|
response 178 of 360:
|
May 12 12:29 UTC 2002 |
Also very low population densities. Last i heard, the sociology of war
just can't get it going without decent population densities. Ditto very
low complexity societies - no kings to declare war by fiat. On top of
that, no big local concentrations of anything desirable (whether gold &
jewels, a strategically-located oasis, or whatever) to be a good pay-off
for winning a war.
|
keesan
|
|
response 179 of 360:
|
May 12 13:17 UTC 2002 |
The Australians were periodically decimated by climatic changes (droughts)
so their population was kept low enough not to run out of food. I read tha
the Eskimos did practice war. Probably not after the Europeans arrived, as
imported diseases kept their population way down after that. War is waged
for territory, not necessarily possessions. Chimpanzees do it.
Were there many wars in Europe in the 1400s, after the Black Plague?
|
scg
|
|
response 180 of 360:
|
May 13 00:15 UTC 2002 |
Wouldn't "no big local concentrations of anything desirable (whether gold &
jewels, a strategically-located oasis, or whatever) to be a good pay-off
for winning a war," pretty much describe Afghanistan?
|
i
|
|
response 181 of 360:
|
May 13 00:36 UTC 2002 |
Re: #180
Not really. The heroin-producing regions are worth a great deal. I
understand that good farmland in general is rather scarce & valuable
(take a perhaps-excessive-to-begin-with population, then allow for all
the farmland lost to current drought patterns, land mines, and the
destroy-all-the-irrigation-infrastructure ethnic clean-ups of the old
Taliban). Cities and strategic roads were being fought over the last
that i heard.
|
gull
|
|
response 182 of 360:
|
May 13 15:49 UTC 2002 |
I think Afghanistan, historically, was valuable not so much for what was
inside it as for what was on the *other* side of it. It was an important
trade route, as I recall.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 183 of 360:
|
May 13 17:56 UTC 2002 |
Still could be.
|
slynne
|
|
response 184 of 360:
|
May 14 14:43 UTC 2002 |
Think oil pipline.
|
bulloc
|
|
response 185 of 360:
|
May 14 16:35 UTC 2002 |
I'm really confused I thought this item started with some Geography or
something like that, but when i reached the last item i'm totally lost. Well
anyways you guys have discussed pretty much everything.
and what is this thing a bout Afghanistan?
|
gelinas
|
|
response 186 of 360:
|
May 15 01:07 UTC 2002 |
Geography. Why is Afghanistan important? Because of its location on major
(land) trade-routes between Eastern and Western Asia (and then on to Europe).
|
sarkhel
|
|
response 187 of 360:
|
May 16 16:01 UTC 2002 |
re185. you need not to be confused. They are not comfortable with Geography
so they have to distract themselves according to their convenience.
Who is more dangerous the heroin producer or heroin consumer.Aborigins of US
can sell heroins in certain areas,thro kiosk. However I am not sure of it.
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 188 of 360:
|
May 16 18:24 UTC 2002 |
Little Sarkhel seems to be getting too big for his britches. Are you
even typing from a place that I would *care* to locate on a map? I
would posit that we're more comfortable with geography than you are with
spelling.
Re#185 . . . that's how it tends to work around here, in any item you go
to. Unless those that contribute to the item make a concerted effort to
keep the topic centered on the original idea or question, the item tends
to drift off into spectacular tangents. I don't think we'd have it any
other way, quite frankly. Otherwise, how would you get such interesting
conversations? Don't worry, if you stick around and participate long
enough, you'll get the hang of it in no time. :)
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 189 of 360:
|
May 16 20:58 UTC 2002 |
Re #187: Say, Sarkhel, could you translate those last two sentences? It
sounded like you were claiming that Native Americans can legally
sell heroin, but only a complete lunatic would say that, so I must
be wrong.
|
gull
|
|
response 190 of 360:
|
May 16 22:52 UTC 2002 |
Does that mean we can accuse *him* of being ignorant, now? ;)
|
bru
|
|
response 191 of 360:
|
May 17 05:03 UTC 2002 |
Unless he is telling s that where he is from, they believe Amerinds are
allowed to sell heroin.
No, Sahel. They are not.
|
aruba
|
|
response 192 of 360:
|
May 17 14:05 UTC 2002 |
I suspect sarkhel is confusing heroin with peyote, which is a drug used by
certain native American tribes in traditional rituals. Last I heard, they
were permitted to use it for their ceremonies, but it was otherwise
illegal.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 193 of 360:
|
May 17 14:15 UTC 2002 |
Do you think he's actually well-informed enough to make that particular
mistake?
|
aruba
|
|
response 194 of 360:
|
May 17 14:19 UTC 2002 |
I am giving him the benefit of the doubt.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 195 of 360:
|
May 17 14:29 UTC 2002 |
I can't imagine why. Have you ben, um, shopping at the reservation? ;-)
|
nageshk
|
|
response 196 of 360:
|
May 17 15:46 UTC 2002 |
let us NOT shy away from the truth, leave aside the natives my dear US friends
are the biggest consumer of all these..... And the money goes to satisfying
political and apolitical establishments.... like in anyother country , so many
nations to name and who shlould hang their headsin shame. ALAS where r
we....!!!!!!
|
sarkhel
|
|
response 197 of 360:
|
May 17 16:06 UTC 2002 |
re188 What is the "tan delta" here?
re 196, dear Mr.Nagesh you should have mentioned the truth that the amount
of foods are being wasted in US , can kill the hunger of millions in African
and Latin American countries.
|
gull
|
|
response 198 of 360:
|
May 17 16:08 UTC 2002 |
On the other hand, if we shipped it there it'd kill the economies of said
nations by putting all their farmers out of business. It's happened
before. Catch 22.
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 199 of 360:
|
May 17 17:16 UTC 2002 |
Dear Sarkhel, among the ones that aren't starving or dying of AIDS are
corrupt polititians exploiting the people in petty wars and coups,
forcing those that can't defend themselves to fight, mismanaging funds,
fixing elections, doing little to combat the AIDS problem among their
own people, and generally getting rich off of the backs of the
countrymen and the foreign aid they syphon from the economy and give
jobs to family and friends. They are helping to exacerbate the
problem. It's not merely the supposed inaction of the American
ecomomy.
The US has its own problems to deal with, and while the government may
have one policy in mind, many here believe that we ought to help each
other just as much as we help those less fortunate overseas. When
people stop treating "untouchables" like dirt, stop performing genital
mutilation on women and girls, stop terrorizing those who would oppose
being controlled by drug cartels, then you can come to me and say that
we aren't doing enough.
|