buddha

entertain us.

i'm not sure youre completely versed in the facts. "climate change" is the cause celebre at the moment, but even if the aztecs wete feeling more challenged because of population decrease, they still outnumbered cortez by thousands. more important to cortez were the tribes who were NOT aztecs, who allied with cortex because they all hated the aztecs because the (peaceful, brown) aztecs spent their time brutally killing and massacering their fellow local americans. by aligning with them cortez was able to use them to help him defeat a divided aztec empire. the incas were another example of this. so were the english colonists in america. again, tech plays a role, but the more important role was disease and luck. the aztecs, incas, american indians took our tech amd mastered it quickly. what they couldnt overcome was their own internal politics which splintered their ability to combat the new threat, and their inability to fight off smallpox.

when cortez arrived in mexico disease had yet to inflict its toll. but even after smallpox began to do so, cortex was outnumbered by thousands. how could he still win? they had a marginal tech advantage, but they were still outnunbered by thousands to one. so what happened? luck, hutzpah, and luck. not tech. not superior morals (or inferior morals), but luck and cortez having the balls the size or sevilla. that should be noted and appreciated, not listed down to "you had guns and they didnt." that explanation reduces the achievements of cortez and the other conquistadores to an inevitability seen from 21st century eyes rather than seeing their achievements through a more proper 15th-16th century one (not to mention the monumental effects it had on world history).

agreed. one could argue that it was only after the european led "enlightenment" and emphasis on human rights - however imperfect - that the movement away from slavery and conquest because of moral reasons truly began in earnest.

if by "our" nature, you mean "human" nature, then i agree. to say this impulse implicates one particular "race" or culture over others is a problem, imo. it was a problem when it was suggested that native cultures lost to superior moral europeans and it is a problem to say europeans were less moral because of the results of their conquests.

pick one: seager: 10 years 320 million correa: 10 years 300 million semien: 5 years 148 million story: 7 years 204 million beaz: 6 years 172 million i'll take correa. i think he's a star.

youre placing way too much emphasis on technology as to what actually happened. disease and luck and internal political disputes mattered more, especially in the beginning. by the end, demography had taken over.

the conquest of the americas (and really, the world) is an accomplishment of the west. painting it as a MORAL conquest is as flase as painting it as a moral failure. the conquest of the americas by europeans is a series of events that happened that should be viewed as such, not as a moral failure or a triumph or moral or righteous superiority based on ethnic makeup. nuance.

none of which was exclusive to columbus or europeans.

but that's always been the case (more or less, i would quibble that technology is brought into it and maybe too much. disease is just as important and not discussed as much. luck too). in fact, i would argue that the native people in many respects adapted to european technology fairly quickly and in some cases, brilliantly. what the problem was was disease and internal squabbling/fighting that prevented them from defeating their enemies. and not necessarily knowing they were enemies. my comment is that the tone has shifted from one of celebration of the "wests" victories to making them out to be genocidal maniacs bent only on destruction. and IMMORAL destruction. that the people they conquered were somehow passive victims with no agency who were put to the sword by bloodthirsty european monsters. that is a sea change in how the history of the world is seen. that europe and america no longer see their greatest accomplishments as accomplishments.

there are people all over the map who are going to believe in conspiracies and all sorts of stuff. but again, that doesnt mean you stop trying to teach them the best way you know how. i'm not sure how this is remotely controversial.

i suspect rodgers and the packers will both be fined and the pack will lose a low round draft pick. the same fines they handed out last year. maybe a little worse.

yeah, sure. people think crazy things, that doesnt mean you stop trying to teach their kids in the best, most effective way you know how.

no.

i believe this is most likely how almost everyone learns about columbus. i find it interesting that people now seem to see any sort of conquest in human history as necessarily "bad" or immoral, and the losers in that conquest to be heroic martyrs. especially if the winners were europeans. its an interesting shift.

i think you can teach nuance with anyone. whether they learn it is up to them. but how you teach it is up to you. i prefer to teach it with a fair amount of nuance.

teaching that columbus was a "thug rapist and murderer" is as accurate as teaching that he was a heroic european explorer who was one of a handful of people who set off one of the greatest world turning events in human history. you can teach them both, i think.

i'm pretty sure most folks here might take issue with the idea of me getting any respect from my peers...

how long ago? and part of this is a correction. you have people - black people - who were locked out of the educational system for the most part. now those people's voices are being heard and - unsurprisingly - they have a different take on american history. its a good thing that those voices are being heard. but that doesnt mean it should go completely the other way either. how far you view that correction is up to you. ymmv. honestly, when i was going to school in detroit there was a lot of focus on civil rights and slavery. and hey, as the only white kid, i got to play abraham lincoln every year in the school play!

i would argue that george washington is more important, but i understand your point. i mean, we can argue that the civil rights act is basically a new us constitution...lol.

where our kids go its all about civil rights. its all they learn about. every book my 5th grader read was about a "person of color" written by a person of color. every book is about overcoming racism in some form. my kid didnt learn about presidents, she learned about martin luther king and ruby bridges and rosa parks. she doesnt learn about the declaration of independence, she learns about the civil rights act. washington isnt the first president, he's a slaveholder. all of which are true. and its a different perspective from which to view american history. do they teach "crt"? no, but they do the bastardized version of it for grade school kids: "black and brown kids are constantly discriminated against by white people." "crt" is a theory about societal discrimination that requires thoughtful debate, you get the HR friendly simplistic stuff fallout from that in grade school and middle school. i think there are plusses to teaching it that way and minuses. like everything else. but it certainly "exists" in schools, even if it doesnt exist to the extent tucker carlson would have you believe.

but what youre saying is kind of like what fox news is saying, just from the opposite side. republicans have blown it up to be something its not, but so does the "what are we supposed to do, ignore slavery and apartheid in america" yelling does the same thing. reasoned people dont want to do either. There should be a fair degree of nuance involved and as we all know, nuance gets thrown out the door when it comes to social media trying to get clicks ("lincoln cancelled!" "republicans dont want to teach slavery!"). its perfectly fair to teach that america has a racial based social system that has brutalized black americans for centuries, while also teaching that america is the great social experiment with democracy and is one of the most open and successful countries for its citizens the world has ever seen.

its not made up. its exaggerated to the point of ridiculousness, but its not made up. as someone who has kids in chicago public schools, i can tell you first hand that it isnt made up.

he's second in the league in goals. he having a monster season.

so you would equate it more to the virginia result?