|
|
Re: diseases and immunity
Philip Deitiker (pdeitik@bcm.tmc.edu)
Mon, 01 Jul 1996 01:18:26 GMT
mbwillia@ix.netcom.com(Mary Beth Williams) wrote:
>The problem here is that Americanists have their own temporal/material
>cultural designations, and trying to fit Eurasian typologies onto a
>completely different line of cultural development is like sticking a
>round peg in a square hole. While most North American regions
>experienced a *PaleIndian* period, after that, there are numerous
>different branched of development, each according to climate,
>resources, etc. In the East and Midwest, the general chronology
>follows a PaleoIndian --> Archaic (Early, Middle, Late and perhaps
>Terminial) ----> Woodland (Early, Middle and Late) ---->
>Mississippian/Owasco/Final Woodland (depending on region). In the
>other areas around North and South America, completely different
>chronologies have been developed, namely because cultures developed
>differently. Trying to somehow *rank* these against each other as well
>as against Eurasian cultures (as Philip has done in previous posts) is
>a grave disservice to archaeology.
You speak as though you were alive in these periods, I'de be willing
to bet that present an future finds show some these descriptors to be
inaccurate. Secondarly the focus of the argument was on verifyable
lifestyle and disease not the 14 positions of the kamasutra. I make
the argument that mesoamerican culture was in form (and of all the
american cultures) most comparable to european culture and since the
discusion was native american immunity to european diseases the over
elucidation of the approximated prehistory of a minsicule portion of
america is impertinent and does a disservice to the discussion.
It may have some utility in comparing why one group versus another
was more or less susceptible if it was more broadly focused on as many
discerable genetic groups as possible (but seems like everyone has a
lack of memory concerning the genetic/language linakges found in the
new world as a result of multiple waves of settlement and geographic
barriers which would be pertenint in a real evolutionary discussion),
but again I seem to have been the only one here who has focused on
these areguments and not on whether my little amerind group was as hot
stuff as any other group. Fortunately, I ain't got no group to call my
own being of good Hz57 stock and my call from the documented evidence
is that I've seen nothing in the new world had anything like
mesoamerican development, period. Of the old world cultures the
semetic/medeteranian and later european developments despite the
basturdation of history by selfindulgent individuals of those cultures
is now and has been a pinnicle of world civilizations, and I say this
stipulating that they barely deserve credit seeing that these
circustances have all of afro-eurasia as assistents in the process,
but the fact is they critically developed transglobal trade and
shipping and documented albeit inconsistantly what they did, which I
would say were the pinnicle of these societies and is testimony to
their dominance. Again it wasn't chinese who first laid anchor in
europe or native ameicans who conquered europe or ended up pretty much
deciding whre transnational boudries of the current age would be. This
much you must accept to fairly compare history of interactions of
culture. You can place any nametag you want to any group you want and
define it any way you wan't but that will not change one second of the
history which lead to the world present today all it is is a form of
neo-nationalism. In any other time it might have been the
north-easterns sweeping down out of scandanavia negotitating with the
romans and pulling the centers of powers northward and evenetually
dictating what most of the world does, but in this real universe, just
so happens that europeans managed to snatch the whole bag of marbles
for a while and got a chance to call the shots at everyones expense,
accept it.
Philip
|