Anonymous A started this discussion 2 years ago#113,673
They weren't nations in any sense. Typically, the people insisting on this terminology are the people that place great emphasis on revering and practically worshiping these cultures. Yet casting them into European-centric political structures that they did not have and, in many cases, violently rejected is itself an extreme act of disrespect.
First Nations, indigenous peoples, Native Americans, Inuit, Eskimos, Indians. The euphemism treadmill on these topics is ridiculous.
It's almost like the terms we used for colored people people of color.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 9 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,258,681
@previous (B)
Good point. And the animals stole it from the plants. And the plants stole it from the prokaryotes. And the prokaryotes stole it from the mRNA.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 6 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,258,714
@1,258,709 (Meta !Sober//iZs) > fuckin faggots had to WALK to America they didnt even have ships π
I doubt you actually care about any of this lol, but there is a possibility that some of them did come from a coastal route. Although genetic evidence does point to most of them probably traveling on land.
Some arriving via a coastal route would explain why there are so many early coastal human settlements far from the Bering strait. Also, humans have been living on remote islands across the entire Pacific ocean since ancient times, so it's not unbelievable that some of them could've made it to the Americas.
One hypothesis even suggests some "natives" were actually European! The genetic evidence certainly doesn't suggest so, but it's possible their early genetic contributions have been washed out if their populations never grew to any significant size and eventually merged with the others.
Which is singular and which is plural is also surprisingly not always clear based on the usage in the literature. Probably adding to this is the fact that there arguably wasn't actually a singular "Mayan culture" or "Maya culture". They never considered themselves as belonging to any larger cohesive group.
Anonymous D replied with this 2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,258,731
@1,258,728 (A)
I actually know Maya scholars at UT Austin, which is one of the world's premier Maya institutions. I was going to get a PhD in Anthropology there but decided against it. I can promise you that I know more about the Maya than anyone at Minichan.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 11 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,258,733
@previous (D)
Which Mayan children's toy had wheels? Post all your evidence right here.
@1,258,731 (D)
Bullshit. My dad is a professor at Universidad AutΓ³noma de YucatΓ‘n, which is the world's leading institute (or shall I say instituto) for not only Mayan but all Mesoamerican studies.
> Also the Maya got their shit pushed in by illiterate Injuns so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here, exactly.
Did they? I don't think anyone really knows why the empire collapsed. May've been changing weather patterns. May've been a drought or something wrong with the crops. They could've just said "fuck it" and just headed back to the rainforest because maybe it's easier than building cities and pyramids and all that crap they were doing.
> They spent all their time on faggy stuff like inventing "two spirit" instead of building anything of consequence.
I suspect the two spirit stuff is probably nearly entirely a white Anglo Canadian invention. And the extent that it's not, I wonder how much the average person really bought into all that.
It's kind of like how today we have people in our society saying things we disagree with and find quite stupid. There's no reason to believe they were any less diverse amongst themselves in their views.