Chestiunea precolumbiana

Despre cercetarile legate de popularea precolumbiana in Amazonia:

Now a new study, published online today in Science, suggests that large ancient populations never cleared and tamed the western Amazon. By analyzing soil samples from 55 locations in central and western Amazonia, a team of American and Brazilian researchers led by paleoecologist Crystal McMichael, who is now at the of the University of New Hampshire in Durham,have found that pre-Columbian bands ranged in small numbers over the region and gathered food without slashing, burning, or cultivating large tracts of the Amazon. "Most of the forest we sampled has never been intensively disturbed," McMichael says.
McMichael and her colleagues journeyed by riverboat, small aircraft, and four-wheel-drive trucks across an area measuring 3 million square kilometers, taking soil cores from river bluffs close to known archaeological sites and from inland sites such as randomized localities along a transect from Porto Velho, Brazil, to Manaus, Brazil. Back in the lab, McMichael analyzed each of the 247 cores to determine the abundance of charcoal, an indicator that humans set the forest ablaze to clear trees and enrich soils for crops, since natural fires are rare in Amazonia. In addition, archaeobotanist Dolores Piperno of the Smithsonian Institution National Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C., extracted and identified phytoliths -- characteristic microscopic silica fossils that are produced by many plant species and that trap minute amounts of carbon. Then the investigators sent samples of the charcoal and phytoliths out for radiocarbon dating.
The results took the team by surprise. In the river-bluff cores, they found bits of charcoal, phytoliths of burned grasses, and phytoliths of herbaceous plants often found in disturbed areas—but no phytoliths of common Amazon crops. This suggested that humans had cleared and disturbed some parts of the forest there, but there was little evidence of farming. And in the inland cores, the team detected relatively few traces of charcoal and little to no sign of burned phytoliths, disturbance-related phytoliths, or crop phytoliths. "If humans were in those areas, they didn't stay very long, and they didn't farm," says Piperno.
Moreover, this picture of small groups of hunters and gatherers in the western Amazon seems to fit with some data concerning ancient agriculture in the region. Before the arrival of Europeans, Amazonia's inhabitants had only stone axes at their disposal, and clearing large rainforest tracts with such tools would have been enormously time-consuming. A study conducted in the 1970s, for example, showed that a worker equipped with a stone ax needed 115 hours to cut down just one tree. So it is possible that slash-and-burn agriculture arose in the western Amazon only after Europeans arrived with metal tools.
The team's findings are bound to stir controversy and debate, however. [...]But Deborah Pearsall, an archaeologist at the University of Missouri in Columbia, sees little to criticize in the study, calling it "really solid."

Kokoshmare, on 09 septembrie 2013 - 11:28, said:

...si cum solurile acide de jungla distrug cam tot ce-i organic, si nu numai...

Mai plauzibila pare ipoteza migratiei preistorice din Europa in America de-a lungul calotei glaciare in timpul ultimei glaciatiuni.

http://en.m.wikipedi...rean_hypothesis

Nu cred c-au fost vreodata majoritari albii in Americi, pana in era moderna.
Dar cu siguranta au existat si-au fost influenti, in multe regiuni si culturi.

Referitor la Amazonia, cum se impaca descoperirile alea cu jungla putin atinsa de om cu relatarile conchistadorilor legat de popularea ei densa?
Pai foarte simplu:
Ei au fost pe Amazon in jos.
Satele indiene erau si ele preponderent pe Amazon si marile fluvii-afluent.
Dar in jungla era foarte putina lume.
Ceea ce era si logic.
Mai bine faci infanticid sau razboi - sau homosex, era foarte frecvent - decat sa dai nastere unor oameni carora nu le mai ajunge cutare resursa usor de folosit si-s obligati sa plece in locuri mult mai rele. Unde mai pui ca poate nu vor sa plece, poate zic sa pleci tu, si se lasa cu razboi civil.
Io zic asa: in Brazilia de azi, cel mai probabil erau la 0,5 milioane pe coasta, 0,5 pe Amazon si tributarii mari, si 0,5 pe tot restul teritoriului adica pe 90% din intindere. 1,5 in total. Hai 2 milioane, treaca de la mine.

Incasii.
Conform cercetarii prin satelit a terenurilor cultivate prin preajma asezarilor lor, se ajunge la 3 milioane ha.
Un ha de cartofi sau porumb, in zona tropicala, hraneste 3 oameni daca e cultivat cu sapaliga si-n dulcele stil antic.
Oricum e de 3 ori si ceva mai bine decat graul in zona temperata cultivat cu brazdar de fier si asolament trienal.
Insa... ne referim la coasta Peru-Ecuador, adica zona muntoasa cu clima extrem de instabila si capricioasa, cum e clima de vale de munte, mai ales inalt, ca sa nu mai vorbim de El Nino.
Mare lucru daca iesea 60% din cat se semana, in medie.
Sigur, mai erau pasunatul lama-elor, plus pescuitul oceanic. Si vanatul. Dar astea nu contribuiau cu mai mult de 15-20% la alimentatie.
Deci ajungem la vreo 7 milioane pentru incasi.

Cam cum stateau alte populatii?
Pai, cei mai multi evaluatori zic ca erau vreo 3 milioane in Antilele mari si mici. Zic eu ca-i verosimil, sunt pamanturi foarte bune si ferite, cu clima iarasi aproape ideala. Am vorbit in Franta cu o negresa din Guadelupa si era foarte nemultumita de clima din sudul Frantei, era prea mare dubalaraie pentru gustul ei. Zicea ca-n insule e exact cum e mai bine.
In zona Istmului si a litoralului caraib al Columbiei, Venezuelei si Guyanelor cel mai probabil vreo 2 milioane. Era totusi o zona cu pesti si moluste din belsug.
Jungla acestor tari am pus-o la Brazilia.

Mayasii?
Pai, foarte posibil sa fi fost intr-adevar 20 sau poate chiar 50 milioane la 900AD, remarcabil. Arheologii confirma ca sunt ruine cat vezi cu ochii, toata jungla e plina de ele.
Insa prabusirea lor a fost incredibila, stranie de-a dreptul.
S-au gasit mese intinse cu oalele neatinse de la ultimul ospatz. Ca intr-un film din ala cu disparitii bruste.
Ma rog, eu prefer sa cred ca preotii or fi organizat un ultim ospatz ritualic apoi au plecat si nimeni n-a mai venit ca orasul era socotit blestemat iar apoi jungla l-a facut uitat.
De fapt, suprapopularea o fi distrus solurile si apoi prima seceta o fi adus foamete si Cocolitztl si alte uraciuni si asta o fi fost.
Oricum la momentul sosirii spaniolilor nu mai erau mai mult de vreo 20-30 orase-stat mayase, totalizand 1-2 milioane.
Zonele andine nesupuse de Incasi, probabil la 1 milion.
Zona Beni din Bolivia pare c-a avut o cultura importanta, chiar daca nu monumentala, dar semnificativa. Sa fi fost la 1 milion si acolo.
Zona de la sud de incasi si brazilieni nu era prea populata, era cam ca Preriile nord-americane, chiar mai instabila climatic ca emisfera sudica in general e mai instabila. Sa fi fost la 0,5- 1 milion.

Posted on September 17, 2013 How Did Blonde Whites Arrive in Peru Before Columbus?
Ulli Kulke, Die Welt, August 5, 2013
[Editor's Note: The following is a translation from the original German.]
Those in search of the legacy of the Celts naturally travel to sites in Germany, France, and other countries of Western Europe to find the remnants of settlements, burial grounds, and fortifications. They can now go to South America, to the eastern edge of the Andes, to admire buildings and other cultural achievements of that early European people and their descendants—all from a time many centuries before the first crossing by Christopher Columbus. Celts, in fact, arrived long before Columbus in the New World, together with Carthaginians.
That is the claim now being made by cultural scientist and documentary filmmaker Hans Giffhorn. In his view, there is reliable evidence that the Chachapoya mountain people who were living in eastern Peru at the time of the arrival of the Spaniards in the 16th century, and whose numerous descendants still live there, were closely related to the Celts.
Ever since the first conquistadors, the Chachapoya, because of their appearance—white, red-haired and some with freckles—as well as their lifestyle, have been a big mystery for anthropologists. Now Giffhorn, in his book Was America Discovered in Antiquity? Carthaginians, Celts and the Mystery of the Chachapoya (“Wurde Amerika in der Antike entdeckt? Karthager, Kelten und das Rätsel der Chachapoya”), has come closer to providing an answer, particularly because he is supported by genetic analysis that traces hereditary relationships.
Celts came from Mallorca
The audacious thesis of the book is this: At the beginning of the second century BC, after the destruction of their capital, a large number of Carthaginians feared that the Romans wanted to finish them off. They escaped, deliberately seeking a new home in another part of the world, as far as possible from their enemies. To this end, they allied themselves with the Celts, probably from Mallorca, who had often served them as mercenaries.
Various books on pre-Columbian transatlantic contacts now fill entire book shelves. Sculptures with negroid features are cited as evidence, as are world maps that include South America from a time before the area was discovered; reports from the Middle Ages of trips to large, exotic islands and lands in the far west of the Atlantic; very old archaeological discoveries of metals that do not exist in America; ten-thousand-year-old skulls with features that do not correspond to those of Native Americans; and apparently ancient stone buildings built in a European-Romanesque style.
Giffhorn once considered all this implausible. He notes that his original interest in this research was to refute all these theories, and disprove early crossings—but then he encountered the Chachapoya.
On one point Giffhorn’s theory is supported by other theorists of early connections: The crossing was not impossible in ancient times, at least not for the Carthaginians, who were a Phoenician sea-going people. Long before Christ, Phoenicians reached the Gulf of Guinea, and in all probability circumnavigated the Dark Continent 500 years before Chris—at least as reported by the Greek historian Herodotus.
Peruvians call them “Gringuitos”
Then as now, when ships venture too far off the West African coast—as Giffhorn thinks the Carthaginians did for fear of the Romans—currents and winds drive them almost inevitably toward South America. Some narrations of journeys from the early days of discovery confirm this.
According to Giffhorn it was at first by chance—he was a documentary filmmaker in search of a species of extinct Hummingbird—that he encountered the descendants of the Chachapoya in Peru, and after many discussions with archaeologists and other historians there, learned the history of this nation. Today, Peruvians call the Chachapoya descendants “Gringuitos.”
The Chachapoya culture—characterized by its stately stone buildings—developed approximately between 100 and 400 AD, according to scientific dating methods, long before the Inca made similar achievements. Nowhere, however, is there, as one would normally expect, remnants of preceding cultures. It seems as if the Chachapoya appeared from nowhere. Around this time in history, in the area north and south of the mouth of the Amazon, there suddenly emerged a previously unexplained culture. Ceramics give evidence for this, as does evidence of cremation, which was unknown in all of Latin America, but known in Europe.
For Giffhorn, the most likely explanation is this: In the second century BC, a large fleet of hundreds of Carthaginians and Celts drifted to the area around the mouth of the Amazon. There, they found no area to settle suitable to their accustomed manner of living. For example, there were no rocks to build their usual homes. Also, having found the Amazon River, they probably hoped to find a more suitable climate further upstream.
Round stone buildings, holes in skulls
Gradually, probably over a period of several hundred years, they migrated 5,000 kilometers up the Amazon, to the subsequent settlement area of the Chachapoya. Nowhere along the way were they able to settle for long, because—as the first Spaniards were told—the migrants always came into conflict with belligerent, hostile Amazonian peoples.
A number of parallels presented themselves to Giffhorn during his research. The massive stone rotundas, built without cement, resemble the buildings of the Celts on Mallorca. The type of slingshots they used, as described by the Spanish chroniclers of the conquistador era, resemble weapons that were once used on that Mediterranean island.
The practice of “trepanation,” and the arrangement of holes drilled in the skull by the Chachapoya for brain surgery are unknown to medical historians in the rest of Latin America, but arguably were known by the Celts in Europe. Their manner of mummification in turn showed significant similarities to that of the Phoenicians.
The most important evidence was found by genetic analysis of Chachapoya descendants. A molecular genetic research laboratory in Rotterdam reported that European blood is clearly detectable in this Andean nation. It appears that male Europeans bred with Indian women a long time ago.
The great fear of the Old World
What is not clearly verifiable is when the European line arrived. However, the very specific “variability of mitochondrial DNA,” considered in light of the life and migrations of the Chachapoya during the last 400 years, most likely suggests to Giffhorn, “that the encounters between Indian women and European immigrants, the male Gringuito-ancestors, took place in pre-Columbian times.”
Giffhorn complains that his research—as well as that of all others who pursue pre-Columbian contacts—is met with great resistance in Latin America. There are significant fears in scientific and cultural circles that Europeans want to attribute ancient American civilizations to roots in the Old World. This is a threat to the national identities of various Latin Americans, who were emancipated through liberation struggles in the early 19th century.
These reservations are shared by many historians in Europe, who therefore criticize his book, most without having read it. Nevertheless, Giffhorn is ready with his next project: a film about the Chachapoya for the Franco-German television channel Arte.

Nu e chiar precolumbiana, dar e pre-europeana:

Gary Anderson, The Conquest of Texas: Ethnic Cleansing in The Promised Land, 1820—1875, University of Oklahoma Press, 2005
By contract, Gary Clayton Anderson, a professor of history at the University of Oklahoma, is a decent writer and a competent historian. He has done solid work in the past, including The Indian Southwest 1580-1830, which sheds new light on the origins of early Texas and Southwest Indian groups.
But the purpose of his 2005, The Conquest of Texas: Ethnic Cleansing in the Promised Land, 1820—1875, is virtually identical to that of Exodus from the Alamo (see Part I). Prof. Anderson maintains that the central event of 19th-century Texas is the “ethnic cleansing” of Indians, a term Prof. Anderson prefers over the more usual “genocide.” He argues that whites had no right to expand westward:
Texas was not a wilderness open for the taking. American Indians lived in Texas, and they wished to preserve their claim to this land for the benefit of their progeny. To be sure, the Texas tribes had experienced many evolutionary changes. The initial, indigenous inhabitants—Jumanos, Coahuiltecans, Tonkawas, Karankawas, Apaches, and Caddos—had faced decline and, in some cases, near extinction.
Texas actually was a wilderness “open for the taking,” but the people doing the taking—until the arrival of Anglo settlers in the 1820s—were the Comanches. It was Comanches who pushed out the groups Prof. Anderson identifies above. Starting in the second half of the 18th century, they invaded Texas from the northwest. In exceptionally brutal fighting, they defeated the tribes already living there, absorbing some, exterminating others, and driving still others—such as the Apaches—into deserts and other marginal areas.
The Comanches also wiped out several Spanish outposts, raiding so aggressively that the Hispanic population of Texas—only 3,000 to begin with—dropped by one-fourth by the beginning of the 19th century. As Pekka Hamalainen points out in Comanche Empire, the Comanches were so powerful they reduced the Spanish provinces of New Mexico and Texas to tributary status. In other words, by the time white Americans entered Texas, the dominant Indians in the region were themselves conquering newcomers.

Cu toate ca tipul asta e foarte corect politic, nu crede c-au fost vreodata peste 200.000 indieni in Sud-Vestul SUA adica Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Oklahoma si ceva in jur.

Edited by searcher-star, 18 September 2013 - 16:35.

Nu e precolumbiana dar mi s-a parut interesant:
S-a facut un studiu cati francezi au stat la baza populatiei francofone nord-americane de azi.
De venit au venit multi, mai ales soldati in vremuri de razboi, dar putini au ramas.
Si mai putini au puit.
Per total, francofonii nord-americani sunt cam 80% descendenti ai colonistilor veniti inainte de 1760, si doar vreo 20% se trag din cei veniti dupa aia. De altfel, intre 1760 si 1960 n-a venit mai nimeni, sau daca a venit a venit in SUA si s-a americanizat.
Ca sa n-o lungim, 80% din francofoni adica la 6,5 milioane de oameni se trag din 6.500 de colonisti, din care mai putin de 1.500 femei.
Ca origine, sunt aproape toti bretoni si normanzi, si din sudul Vendeei.
Interesant e ca cei din urma s-au instalat mai mult in Noua Scotie de unde englezii i-au deportat in Louisiana si Carolina de sud dupa victoria din 1760. Deci francofonii canadieni sunt exclusiv bretono-normanzi, pe cand Cajunii din Louisiana sunt din vest-sud-vest.
Doar 5% din femei erau prostituate si doar 5% din barbati erau borfasi.
Populatia a ajuns la 55.000 oameni la 1760, 50.000 la 1765, si 600.000 la 1860 - cu vreo 100.000 plecati definitiv in SUA, in Vermont si Maine - si 5 milioane la 1960. O crestere incredibila.
Interesant ca anglofonii erau porniti pe a-i depasi numeric, ajunsesera la vreo 40% din populatie in 1880-1900 sau asa. Insa dupa aia, natalitatea francofona ramasa mai mare si-a spus cuvantul, plus ca presiunea sa-i zicem nationalista i-a facut pe multi anglofoni sa plece incet-incet, si au inceput sa vina si francezi odata cu cresterea nivelului de trai, si azi sunt 88% francofoni in Quebec.

Edited by searcher-star, 26 September 2013 - 12:04.

Am postat mai sus despre rolul posibil hotarator al unei boli LOCALE, Cocolitztli, in depopularea Americilor, si am zis ca amerindienii au multe legende despre vechi culturi distruse de boli infernale, mult inainte de spanioli.
Am postat si despre tulburarile climartice si demografice si epidemice ale Eurasiei anilor 1580-1650, pe Civilizatie Comparata.
Buna parte din ele se datoreaza El Nino-urilor.
Oare nu au avut astea un rol si-n dezastrul amerindian?
Sigur, asta nu anuleaza rolul colonizarii spaniole, dar il diminueaza cu siguranta.

Un thread plin de speculatii si corectitudine politica aplicata la albi. Albii n-au facut niciodata nici un rau nimanui si atunci cand au facut-o au avut intentii bune de fapt, vroiau sa-i "civilizeze" pe  necivilizati.

Realitatea precolumbiana nu o stim prea bine. Putinele izvoare istorice consacrate pe care le avem pun europenii intr-o lumina extrem de proasta. Ma refer la Bartolme de las Casas si cartile scrise de el in secolul 16.

Realitatea este urmatoarea: Bolile ca bolile, alea nu poti spune ca le-au transmis intentionat, dar pe unde au ajuns europenii 80-90% din populatia locala a murit. Boli, sclavie, oprimare, furt, ocupatie samd. Mai lasati  mortii sa se odihneasca. Amerindienii aveau rute comerciale pe tot continentul, bolile s-au transmis si s-au raspandit mult inainte de a avea efectiv contact fizic cu europenii. Unii au supravietuit, cei mai multi nu.

Stiti de ce au colonizat continentul? Pentru ca nu mai era prea multa lume pe el si au putut sa o faca.  De ce au adus negri? Pai ca au murit toti amerindienii si nu mai avea cine sa munceasca pamantul.

Exemplu: http://en.wikipedia...._and_Ta.C3.ADno

Quote

Quote

Dupa ce au fost decimati de boli asta i-a ucis: http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Encomienda

Forumul asta devine o platforma de propagare a unor idei cel putin discutabile, si a unor dezinformari si manipulari de un prost gust iesit din comun.

Edited by emil_sv, 03 October 2013 - 00:59.

emil_sv, on 03 octombrie 2013 - 00:55, said:

1Macar ai citit materialul din link? Pe Hansen te-ai uitat?
Nu, desigur, toata lumea stie ca primitivii is ingeri si-s miliarde, apoi vin cateva sute de albi capcauni si-i termina pe toti.
2Mai termina cu plansul de caprioara stangista ranita.
Voi balacariti istoria de 10 ori pe atat.

Edited by searcher-star, 03 October 2013 - 11:10.

emil_sv, on 03 octombrie 2013 - 00:55, said:

Un om logic ar spune: Bullshit! Ar mai spune: Lies! De ce? Pt ca se stie argumentat ca au fost exterminati de catre colonistii europeni cam 98% din nativii Lumii Noi.
Ca sa spui ceea ce ai spus, ori dai dovada de naivitate, ori esti tendentios.

MIZRAHIND, on 03 octombrie 2013 - 15:16, said:

Un om care a citit ceva pe domeniul ăsta și știe cu adevărat care a fost situația post-columbiană ar zice că bați câmpii și propagi mituri foarte bine răspândite printre oamenii cu cultură generală puțină.
Nativii nu au fost exterminați în masă aproape nicăieri. Spania, de exemplu, nu avea niciun interes să facă un genocid pentru că singura resursă de care avea nevoie în momentul ăla era cea umană. Adică populația nativă a Americilor era exact de ce au nevoie: populație cu o cultură ușor asimilabilă, tehnologie primitivă și un sistem politic ușor de dărâmat. Spre deosebire de europeni care-și aruncau rahatul pe geam, dormeau cu el sub pat, aveau casele băgate jumate în pământ, se spălau odată la cinci ani, iar orașele europene puțeau ca un WC public, nativii americani se spălau de două-trei ori pe zi, Tenochtitlan-ul era împânzit de băi publice, saune și altele. Deci imaginează-ți cât de bine au rezistat aztecii și ceilalți precolumbieni obișnuiți cu o igienă ireproșabilă (la nivelul anilor 1450-1500) la bolile europenilor care erau obișnuiți să stea cu căcatul în case cu săptămânile. Când a dat variola în ei s-au volatilizat. În America Britanică și franceză lucrurile au stat puțin altfel: era mult mai slab populată, iar de foarte multe ori nativii au fost foarte ostili, până când au realizat că nu se pot măsura cu europenii și atunci au încercat să rezolve problemele în plan diplomatic. Din păcate, societatea americană formase deja o puternică atitudine rasistă față de populația non-WASP, iar nativii au ajuns să fie mutați de pe pământurile lor în statele din fosta Louisiană franceză (așa-zisul Trail of Tears).

MIZRAHIND, on 03 octombrie 2013 - 15:16, said:

Unde e stangistul vine si musulmanul, normal.
Vezi, Emile, ma intrebi ce au a face musulmanii?
Uite ce au.
Sunteti buni colegi de balacareala anti-europeana.
Sa-mi bag... picioarele-n tavan.

Punishing, on 03 octombrie 2013 - 15:39, said:

Altul.
Ai inceput bine, si ai continuat exact in stilul ''bați câmpii și propagi mituri foarte bine răspândite printre oamenii cu cultură generală puțină'' pe care-l condamni.
De n-as fi postat tone de informatie pe topicul Civilizatie Europeana...
Dar voi le stiti pe toate.
Cu cat is mai debile informatiile, cu atat sunteti mai siguri ca nu pot fi chestionate, se pare.

Edited by searcher-star, 03 October 2013 - 15:57.

searcher-star, on 03 octombrie 2013 - 15:50, said:

Dar te rog, o, maestre în ale istoriei care a postat tone de informații pe topicul cu Civilizația europeană (de parcă aș avea eu vreo datorie să-ți citesc tonele de informații), luminează-mă în legătură cu acele informații debile pe care nu le chestionez eu. Adică mă acuzi pe mine că mă dau atoateștiutor iar apoi ne zici că "vai, dar am postat tone de informații, eu le știu sigur bine de tot!". Infatuare maximă, argumente 0.

Punishing, on 03 octombrie 2013 - 16:27, said:

Ce argumente zero, mah?
Du-te pe topic, e la 2-3 clicuri. Argumentul meu e topicul. Ma uit acuma ce pagina.
Si scuza-ma, cand zici o chestie, mai ales una extrema, o verifici intai, n-o iei de buna din principiu.
Daca io aud undeva c-au dat martienii, ma apuc sa urlu pe strazi, sau verific?

...

Poftim.
L-am si ridicat sa-l vezi bine.
Pagina 6, postul 95.

Edited by searcher-star, 03 October 2013 - 16:38.

searcher-star, on 03 octombrie 2013 - 16:30, said:

Mă bucur c-ai binevoit să-mi spui care-ți era obiecția la postul meu. Și, apropos, nu mă trimiți pe mine la un topic de 60 de pagini și-mi zici "uite dășteptule acolo ce de argumente" că nu mă faci decât să cred că trollezi fin.

Dar revenind, care e chestia extremă? Variola, sifilisul și dizenteria răspândite peste tot în orașele europene? Mizeria generalizată pe străzi și în case? Te rog, spune-le asta nativilor care au murit pe capete la contactul cu europenii. Spune-le că populația orașelor medievale credea în "puterea tămăduitoare a băii" așa cum spune tipul pe care l-ai citat în celălat topic. Până una alta uite ce zice Edward III al Angliei în anii 1340-1350 despre Londra, capitală europeană medievală:

"Cause the human faeces and other filth lying in the streets and lanes in the city to be removed with all speed to places far distant, so that no greater cause of mortality may arise from such smells."

Marțienii ăia ce mai zic?

Punishing, on 03 octombrie 2013 - 17:29, said:

1Pai ti-am indicat exact pagina, nu?
3Nu contest ideea de mizerie in societatile vechi, contest monopolul pe care-l vad unii cum ca l-ar avea europenii in domeniu.
Curatenia nu era perfecta nicaieri, in societatile premoderne. Nu doar din lipsa de cunostinte sau pretentii ci si din lipsa de resurse logistice, pur si simplu.
Asa vorbesti de parca toata lumea se spala ca acuma, numa' noi ne ungeam cu cacatul in loc sa-l aruncam.
Stii ca chinezii n-au dezvoltat bai cu apa calda pana-n secolul 19? S-a introdus ceva in timpul turanicilor Tang, dar s-a terminat repede.
Sau iti pot spune ce viermi care-ti manca creierul poti lua din orezarii.
Sau iti pot spune ca Ciuma a facut cam tot atatea victime peste tot, comme quoi nu era chiar asa ''cer si pamant" la capitolul igiena & shit.
Asa ca nu erau ele lucrurile in alte parti asa perfecte, si nu eram noi singura pata de cacat pe suprafata planetei, cum le place tuturor, inclusiv unei bune parti din europeni, sa creada.
2Sifilisul vine din America, you genius!
Este ca vrei neaparat sa fie stramosii nostri laboratorul de cultura al tuturor bacteriilor de pe planeta?
4Zic ca specia umana ii dispera.