Civilization

Almost as if they were human, doing human things

Yeah, in a big way. The European colonists committing genocide on the Native Americans does not have to have the Native Americans as inhuman angels to be a massive atrocity and grievous wrong, and trying to take the position that the Native American societies were is nothing more than a xenophilic form of cultural conservatism and chauvinism.

Native American peoples were people, like any other, with human problems common to any society, unlike what this quote implies. They do not have a 'magic' history for outsiders to aspire to become 'as good as', they do not have the secrets to the elimination of the dastardly social ills of 'civilization'. They're people. They're people who deserved better than the atrocious treatment that they got, but the 'Noble Savage' stereotype is no more humanizing or acceptable than the 'Ecological Indian' stereotype.

Ok. An unsourced meme is not historical fact. It’s disturbing that it’s even taken as valid with no corroborating information, you arguing as if it were true, and using opinion to manufacture “proof” such a “different tribes” and “lifestyles”. There’s plenty of made up bullshit floating around on the internet in pic/text format, why is this one granted any more believability? Do you have a legitimate source indicating any such “utopias” or do you just want to keep making things up?

My point being that other recorded experiences with native americans do not invalidate this rosy reminiscence.

I'd actually point to the excepts from Columbus's own journals, catalogued in Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States" to identify a number of native tribes he initially encountered who were practically childlike in their innocence.

The Caribbean island peoples were documented in sharp contrast to more imperial mainlanders as extraordinarily passive, initially quite friendly, and devoid of the more rigid hierarchies and institutions common in those more technologically advanced societies.

The only bit that doesn't really fit is the horses, which hadn't arrived from Europe yet

There were no horses in America, there were evolutionary ancestors of horses that would not be able to fulfill any horse role.

Just like zebras are not horses and wolves not dogs. They would obviously not be owned by Native Americans nor would the Native Americans have a remarkable body of knowledge about them (like they developed with actual horses).

Horses were bred to be big and strong enough in Central Asia.

We also learned about horses in America from the book of Mormon. They were also around approximately 2 - 3,000 years ago before all the good light skinned believers died out. Along with their horses...

Weird less fun non fact addendum to the weird fun addendum fact.

As the other comment pointed out, horses used to be found in the America's, but had since gone extinct before Europeans reintroduced them.

You can start by getting a passport and looking into emigrating away from the United States.

Edit: well, I guess people don't like it when I'm flippant, and do like it when db0 condescends to a minority. Good show.

This is a logical fallacy called "ad hominem", you're attempting to tear me down as a human being rather than address the salient parts of my argument, and that's because you don't actually have a good answer to my argument so you're just being a dick head.

In this case, me being a native American indicates at least some small portion of the native American viewpoint on a topic that was brought up about native Americans.

Had it not been relevant I would not have mentioned it.

good for you oh savior

If you plot out any number divided by x, as x approaches 0 the answer goes towards Infinity, yes.

When it reaches zero it ceases to be a number.

Every number divided by 0 is "undefined", and it is not undefined because we can't describe it, it is undefined because it does not exist, because you cannot divide things by 0.

No. The standard field (that is, a ring where both operations are abelian groups) on the complex numbers doesn't have a multiplicative inverse of 0; rings can't have a multiplicative inverse for the additive identity. You can create an algebra with a ring as a sub-algebra with such, but it will no longer be a ring. My preferred method is to impose such an algebra on the one-point compactification of the Complex Numbers, where the single added point is denoted as "Ω".

I started this project when I was 12, and when I could show that the results were self-consistent this was what I had settled on:

let z be a complex number that is not otherwise specified by the following equations. Note: the complex numbers contain the Real numbers, and so the following equations apply to the them as well.

0Ω=Ω0=1

z+Ω=Ω+z=zΩ=Ωz=Ω=ΩΩ

Ω-Ω=0. Ω-Ω=Ω+(-Ω)=Ω+(-1Ω)=Ω+Ω=0

The algebra described above is not associative. That is to say, (AB)C does not always equal A(BC).

It was a knee-jerk reaction. I looked up the quote, and it was made by John Fire Lame Deer. The reason it sounds "noble savage" to me is because, as you say, it's highlighting only the good points of his peoples' history. They fought and killed one another just like all people have. On the other hand, it's not his responsibility to describe every good and bad thing in said history and there's no doubt they had a way of life that was working that the colonialists destroyed. I guess one very cold comfort is that the colonialists have continued their destructive way of life to the point that they will be destroyed as well.

Thanks