is akin to saying that they lived
without touching anything, that they were a people without history.
Indians often manipulated their local environments, and while they
usually had far less impact on their environments than European
colonists would, the idea of 'preserving' land in some kind of
wilderness state would have struck them as impractical and absurd.
More often than not, Indians profoundly shaped the ecosystemsaround them."
Just my way of annoying all the right people on a Monday morning.
Speaking of annoying, oh, this is REALLY gonna do it:
70 members of the French youth group Génération Identitaire occupied the Poiters mosque on Saturday to protest against the influence of Islam in France. The youths climbed to the roof and unfurled a banner with the name of their movement.
The youth activists displayed a number of banners including one that read, “Charles Martel beat the Arabs at Poitiers in 732,” in reference to a battle credited with stopping the advance of Islam into western Europe. That was 1300 years ago.
And yeah, they're using the lambda as their symbol, as promised.
2 comments:
Just look at the Cahokia Mounds and all the mounds around central Missouri and Illinois to see how the Indians affected their environment. There are the Pueblo Indians, the Anasazi, the Nazca, Heck in the East archeologists found the remains of Iroquois villages that were larger than 1600 London dating back to the 1300's. People who claim otherwise are either idiots, trying to sell something or both.
It's that all-pervasive Jean Jacque Rousseau nonsense about the Noble Savage.
gfa
Post a Comment