1. Hm. Hard to say, really, since a bit more than half a millenium has gone by since Columbus and the indigenous people might have advanced in the interval. Then again, there are examples of cultures remaining basically static for thousands of years, e.g. ancient Egypt, with minimal technological change.
   .
   Interesting to think about, in any event.

   1. The more centralistic/bureaucratic a society was the more static it remained in its developments.

      1. Perhaps that’s one reason China – either deliberately or “intuitively” on the part of the bureaucracy viewed as an entity – developed innovations and then turned away from them throughout much of its history. It strikes me this is at least partly a chicken-or-egg question; and also, whether it’s even possible to maintain a stable social order in the face of massive technological disruption over a few-generations timescale.

   2. Well, supposedly we all came from africa originally, and where is africa now? Any different than, say, 5,000 years ago? Doesn’t seem to have advanced at all, to me.

2. Dinesh D’souza makes a good point in his book America: Imagine a World Without Her.
   Basically, the idea of a noble savage is a construct of the 20th Century, the natives of the “new world” benefitted greatly from european colonization, and all of these claims that land was stolen are based on present value of the land, not what it was worth when the “invaders” obtained it via trade, treaty, or invasion. One example he uses is Manhattan Island. It was worthless real estate to the indians in the area when the Dutch bought it for $24 worth of beads, etc… The indians laughed their way to the bank after the transaction, knowing they ripped off the stupid Dutch.
   .
   Now, all of a sudden, in the 21st century, this land should be delivered back to the indians, all improvements intact, etc…?

   1. Yep, let’s bend them over and deliver it a piece at a time up their asses.

Comments are closed.