Remember me
▼ Content

Human Poop Reveals That Climate Change Caused The Fall Of Cahokia, A Medieval Native American City


Human Poop Reveals That Climate Change Caused The Fall Of Cahokia, A Medieval Native American City02-03-2019 01:37
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1061)
https://www.forbes.com/sites/priyashukla/2019/02/28/human-poop-reveals-that-climate-change-caused-the-fall-of-cahokia-a-medieval-native-american-city/#20d7baf40bef
02-03-2019 17:57
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/priyashukla/2019/02/28/human-poop-reveals-that-climate-change-caused-the-fall-of-cahokia-a-medieval-native-american-city/#20d7baf40bef


The timing of that is suspicious. This was the time of the midieval warm period. Whether or not that caused droughts is questionable since the warming weather would also have modified wind patterns.

Remember that this is a doctoral thesis from the looks of it. The Dust Bowl did not occur during a warm period but rather 70 years or so after the end of the Little Ice Age.
02-03-2019 18:43
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9224)
Yet another stupid 'scientist' that uses conjecture and guessing to describe in detail an unobserved event. Like the others, she can't even DEFINE 'climate change'.

Most native people in both North and South America tended to wander somewhat. They would build a city, live there awhile, then move on. For many, it was actually part of their religion to do so, yet a few would sometimes stay. Some still practice this religion, but are hemmed in by reservation lands. Whether this particular tribe behaved this way, or were driven out by one of the many clan wars, or whether the weather caused a drought or flood that year and drove them out, is completely unknown.

I agree with Wake here. This thesis has more shit in it than the amounts being studied.
02-03-2019 22:11
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1171)
I think most Native Americans moved around, to follow the seasons and the food supply. You can't stay in one place, and not expect to deplete the resources. They didn't have Walmart stores, before the europeans invaded, so they needed food to get them by daily, and they had to prepare for the lean winter months. They also weren't like the whites, who would strip the land of every useful thing, then move on. They took only what they needed, so there would be something left to replenish, for the following years. Traveling took time, usually on foot, and they needed to reach certain places, at certain times during the year, usually returning to the place they started, before winter sets in. Of course, travel plans don't always work out, and they did pretty good finding alternatives, to survive.
02-03-2019 22:58
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
HarveyH55 wrote:
I think most Native Americans moved around, to follow the seasons and the food supply. You can't stay in one place, and not expect to deplete the resources. They didn't have Walmart stores, before the europeans invaded, so they needed food to get them by daily, and they had to prepare for the lean winter months. They also weren't like the whites, who would strip the land of every useful thing, then move on. They took only what they needed, so there would be something left to replenish, for the following years. Traveling took time, usually on foot, and they needed to reach certain places, at certain times during the year, usually returning to the place they started, before winter sets in. Of course, travel plans don't always work out, and they did pretty good finding alternatives, to survive.

In most of these cultures the population tended to meet the level of resources and hold pretty steady. But mounds like that are rather odd and I wonder whether it was for defense of natural flooding.

While these people were not educated they were not stupid and there was a purpose behind that much community cooperation.
03-03-2019 02:48
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1171)
Wake wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
I think most Native Americans moved around, to follow the seasons and the food supply. You can't stay in one place, and not expect to deplete the resources. They didn't have Walmart stores, before the europeans invaded, so they needed food to get them by daily, and they had to prepare for the lean winter months. They also weren't like the whites, who would strip the land of every useful thing, then move on. They took only what they needed, so there would be something left to replenish, for the following years. Traveling took time, usually on foot, and they needed to reach certain places, at certain times during the year, usually returning to the place they started, before winter sets in. Of course, travel plans don't always work out, and they did pretty good finding alternatives, to survive.

In most of these cultures the population tended to meet the level of resources and hold pretty steady. But mounds like that are rather odd and I wonder whether it was for defense of natural flooding.

While these people were not educated they were not stupid and there was a purpose behind that much community cooperation.


Depends on how you define education. They were very well educated, and a long history, past on through song and story, and dance. Least, until the whites started slaughtering them. They didn't have entertainment, like we do, they used there time to learn, and re-learn, so they could pass the knowledge down to their children
03-03-2019 05:41
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1392)
Into the Night wrote:
.....This thesis has more shit in it than the amounts being studied.


Perfect!

...funny how they turned human shit into bullshit.
03-03-2019 18:55
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
.....This thesis has more shit in it than the amounts being studied.


Perfect!

...funny how they turned human shit into bullshit.

Exactly - and how Harvey is willing to invent entire cultures to make some sort of point.

How did the "white man" kill Cohokians when the entire population disappeared circa 1,300? In 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue but Harvey has Englishmen murdering Cohokians a century before that.
03-03-2019 20:50
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Harvey - I made those comments so that you would learn to be more skeptical of the crap that they teach you in schools these days. Divisiveness is the fuel that drive politics these days and half of the stuff you hear is untrue.

Only 10% of the people in the south owned slaves and of that only 10% of those owned multiple slaves bought into plantation systems. Most slaves were nothing more than farm hands and often ate at the same tables and slept in the same shacks as their farmer. White farm hands were the same and didn't draw any wages either. Slaves were REALLY expensive.

The Confederacy did NOT form because of the fear of ending slavery because a large segment of the southern population had never gone more than 10 miles from their homes and had never even seen a slave. What they DID see was that the government imposed taxes on farm produce that they did not on industrial goods. This effected the south's ability to sell farm produce This is what people were up in arms about and they just followed the lead of the plantation owners crying that Lincoln intended to end slavery. Lincoln said, "If I could prevent the separation of states without freeing a single slave I would." There is absolutely nothing good about slavery but it was destined to fail in the end anyway when automation made slaves far too expensive to maintain. The largest blow to the idea that slavery was a necessary evil was the Cotton Gin.

Ask yourself why African immigrants have an entirely different view of whites than American blacks with a lineage from slavery times. This is because while all of the other slave races - the Slavs (from where the word "slave" comes from) the Irish, who were sold off on auction blocks just like the blacks, and other have simply forgotten it and forgiven it because people today were not responsible for actions of their predecessors or everyone would be at every other person's throat.

So NEVER believe for one second that everyone was evil. Didn't 660,000 mostly white men give their lives to free the blacks from slavery? While the Confederacy was formed because of unfair taxation the North fought the war because a large percentage of the population was Irish and in their own personal memories remembered their own grandparents being slaves. People like Robert E. Lee disapproved of slavery and never owned any slaves - he hired free blacks to work his property. So why do they tear down statues to him? Because his honor compelled him to support the State in which he was born and raised?

There is the same problem with the Indians. When General Custer made his last stand what did the US Government do about it? In fact, very little. After thousands attacked Custer, only some 200 were caught up with and defeated. Not slaughtered. The US Government said that if the Sioux and Cheyanne were to cede the Black Hills to US control that they would supply food to the reservations. The Eastern Seaboard Indian Tribes which were MUCH more civilized were not bothered by the settlers much and essentially sold land for their settlements and then actually took up the white men's way of life as farmers rather than hunters. The overwhelming majority of Indians in this country were in California with some 200 tribes in continuous war with each other. The Spanish Missions had very few soldiers but brought the European way of life to them. They were so hated that after the Spanish Missions more or less pulled out that they didn't take their tribal way of life at all but took on tribal names of the names of the Missions and became more American than a great deal of Americans. This is not to say that reservation Indians do not exist and are not poor. But that they do not have to be.

Today you have a US whose sole purpose seems to be power by one party or the other. While Republicans have logical and reasonable ideas for this country you can see that Ocasio-Cortez has brought her idea of the Green New Deal to the forefront of her party and every single person running for the Democrat ticket has APPROVED of this. The very LEAST cost of this would be $100,000 for every man, woman and child. And I have never observed a government agency even get close to their initial approximations. I spent four 10 hour days in the DMV just to get my license renewed. I watched one man sit around for about a half hour, call a man waiting, take over 30 minutes to help him sign a single form, and then sit there for another 20 minutes and go to lunch. Returning from lunch he took over a half hour to get ready and call another person waiting. Imagine the Green New Deal managed in such a manner.
03-03-2019 23:18
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9224)
Wake wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
I think most Native Americans moved around, to follow the seasons and the food supply. You can't stay in one place, and not expect to deplete the resources. They didn't have Walmart stores, before the europeans invaded, so they needed food to get them by daily, and they had to prepare for the lean winter months. They also weren't like the whites, who would strip the land of every useful thing, then move on. They took only what they needed, so there would be something left to replenish, for the following years. Traveling took time, usually on foot, and they needed to reach certain places, at certain times during the year, usually returning to the place they started, before winter sets in. Of course, travel plans don't always work out, and they did pretty good finding alternatives, to survive.

In most of these cultures the population tended to meet the level of resources and hold pretty steady. But mounds like that are rather odd and I wonder whether it was for defense of natural flooding.

Nah. Just defense. A hill like that is defensible.
Wake wrote:
While these people were not educated
Yes they were, Wake. Just not in the way you normally consider 'education'.
Wake wrote:
they were not stupid
They were also not stupid.
Wake wrote:
and there was a purpose behind that much community cooperation.

There is. Defense. People tend to put a lot of effort to create a defensible position. The will to survive is strong.

Warring tribes, hostile animals, etc. are all better defended against using a hill, even if that hill is man-made. The thing was probably a fort of some kind, as well as a city. Not with walls perhaps, but a fort all the same.


The Parrot Killer
03-03-2019 23:26
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9224)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Wake wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
I think most Native Americans moved around, to follow the seasons and the food supply. You can't stay in one place, and not expect to deplete the resources. They didn't have Walmart stores, before the europeans invaded, so they needed food to get them by daily, and they had to prepare for the lean winter months. They also weren't like the whites, who would strip the land of every useful thing, then move on. They took only what they needed, so there would be something left to replenish, for the following years. Traveling took time, usually on foot, and they needed to reach certain places, at certain times during the year, usually returning to the place they started, before winter sets in. Of course, travel plans don't always work out, and they did pretty good finding alternatives, to survive.

In most of these cultures the population tended to meet the level of resources and hold pretty steady. But mounds like that are rather odd and I wonder whether it was for defense of natural flooding.

While these people were not educated they were not stupid and there was a purpose behind that much community cooperation.


Depends on how you define education. They were very well educated, and a long history, past on through song and story, and dance. Least, until the whites started slaughtering them. They didn't have entertainment, like we do, they used there time to learn, and re-learn, so they could pass the knowledge down to their children


Their entertainment included musical instruments, various games children would invent and play and somewhat expanded on into adulthood, storytelling, dancing, costumes, and of course nature and the wonders of the world itself.

Remarkably like us in some ways. We just use film and TV for the storytelling, and even for the games that we invent. We dance on man-made ice as well as in community gatherings, we take trips in our cars and airplanes to explore nature and the wonders of the world itself.

We also use our time to learn (well, some of us do), and pass what we learn on to our children.


The Parrot Killer
03-03-2019 23:29
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9224)
Wake wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
.....This thesis has more shit in it than the amounts being studied.


Perfect!

...funny how they turned human shit into bullshit.

Exactly - and how Harvey is willing to invent entire cultures to make some sort of point.

How did the "white man" kill Cohokians when the entire population disappeared circa 1,300? In 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue but Harvey has Englishmen murdering Cohokians a century before that.


The tribes warred with each other. They were already killing each other off with clan warfare.

When Europeans arrived, they brought with them their diseases. Wherever they travelled, the tribes were exposed to these diseases, and they had no immunity for them. It was clan warfare and disease that decimated a once great people, not our mistreatment of them. Whole clans were lost to disease and clan warfare once Europeans came here.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 03-03-2019 23:30
03-03-2019 23:50
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1171)
I don't figure on getting into a history debate, but I have more faith in what the native americans teach. Columbus wasn't the first white man to visit america, he was just first to claim the discovery, and cash in on it. Native Americans were friendly, didn't have time for war, they focused on survival, and basic needs. Mostly, they just learned the bad behaviors of the white men. The early settlers got along fine, until they started claiming land, putting up fences, and shooting trespassers. The Native Americans wouldn't have sold any land, they don't consider it a possession. They had to learn the white ways, to survive, something they were very good at. Unfortunately, the white ways, really conflicted with their own ways, but they learned, and adapted.

Not sure about the slavery thing, but 10% is just a number that doesn't mean much. There were a lot of slaves though, and many were housed in little shacks off to the side, still see some standing to this day. Slaves weren't just a southern thing, the north just used them differently. You are right, the civil war had almost nothing to do with slavery. The only reason that slavery is still an issue, is some people believe there could be reparations paid out, which will never happen, too many generations have passed.
04-03-2019 01:02
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9224)
HarveyH55 wrote:
I don't figure on getting into a history debate, but I have more faith in what the native americans teach. Columbus wasn't the first white man to visit america, he was just first to claim the discovery, and cash in on it. Native Americans were friendly, didn't have time for war, they focused on survival, and basic needs. Mostly, they just learned the bad behaviors of the white men. The early settlers got along fine, until they started claiming land, putting up fences, and shooting trespassers. The Native Americans wouldn't have sold any land, they don't consider it a possession. They had to learn the white ways, to survive, something they were very good at. Unfortunately, the white ways, really conflicted with their own ways, but they learned, and adapted.

Not sure about the slavery thing, but 10% is just a number that doesn't mean much. There were a lot of slaves though, and many were housed in little shacks off to the side, still see some standing to this day. Slaves weren't just a southern thing, the north just used them differently. You are right, the civil war had almost nothing to do with slavery. The only reason that slavery is still an issue, is some people believe there could be reparations paid out, which will never happen, too many generations have passed.


Some tribes were peaceful. Others were conquerers. Clan warfare existed long before Europeans came here and it was sometimes quite devastating to whole tribes. We know this from the artifacts left behind and from the what the existing tribal elders today describe. There are other sources, including some written records (yes, several tribes had a written language).

The civil war started over a crisis of the 4th amendment of the Constitution. Lincoln wanted to free the slaves, but not compensate their owners. One by one the southern States left the Union to form their own confederacy that respected private property (slaves are property). The federal government, instead of vacating the new nation, attempted to reinforce its troops there (Fort Sumpter). Those were the opening shots of the 'civil war', which was really a War of Secession, not a civil war at all. The United States has never had a civil war (various factions seeking power in the same nation). The War of Secession was fought not because the southern States were seeking power, but because they wanted to leave the Union completely and form their own confederacy.


The Parrot Killer




Join the debate Human Poop Reveals That Climate Change Caused The Fall Of Cahokia, A Medieval Native American City:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Understanding aspects of human induced climate changes through belief823-08-2019 16:33
Avoiding human extinction1628-07-2019 10:21
Global warming back to medieval warm period will increase Russia population 4 fold128-05-2019 19:30
Climate change hysteria in the middle of the biggest Cold War in human history129-04-2019 21:23
Thousands march for action on climate change in Montreal as city braces for flooding028-04-2019 15:55
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact