Why are the aboriginal peoples of Australia and New Zealand so different? Were there interactions between the two prior to the arrival of Europeans?
The Aboriginal people of Australia have been here about 65000 years, and perhaps (it is controversial) even twice that. They were perfectly adapted to this arid continent, which requires a high degree of connection to the land to live well. They were nomadic to varying degrees, and although they did fight each other sometimes they were not a warlike race, and because of their culture did not have unifying national leaders. They are now about 2.7% of the Aust population, and continue to be disadvantaged in every way.The Maori are estimated to have arrived in NZ sometime about 700 years ago, from Polynesia. They formed tribal groups, horticulture (as the land was much more permissive), and a warrior culture emerged. The whites signed the Treaty of Waitangi with Maori leaders in 1840 (although conflict arose later), which guaranteed at least some peaceful co-existence. The Maori were quick to adapt to the use of firearms, and with their warrior culture were formidable, and could not be overrun, displaced, and reduced as happened in Aust. They are now about 15% of the NZ population.The Deputy PM and Minister for Foreign Affairs in NZ is Maori, a situation which is very desirable in Aust., but sadly a very long way off yet.The 2 peoples are not known to have had any interaction before the white man came.
Why did the Europeans force Native Americans to convert to Christianity?
cadisney ever civilization and every group of people hasnt lived peacefully- wars have been going on since the very beginning- killing is apart of human life- i didnt just blame the europeans- i am asking why did they feel the need to force christianity on native americans- that's the question- not your long ran out rant-
Why couldn't settlers from Europe and Native Americans resolve their situation with peace?
Original Question: I mean , Europeans could have asked for land through mutual understanding and cooperation, explaining why they fled from their countries. Both the groups could have taken time to learn about each other's culture and could have helped to educate/support each other, couldn't they?They actually did. All the time.Your concept of the situation is completely wrong.There is no “both groups”. There was no European group, and there was no Native American group. That’s how you think about it today, because they do a piss-poor job of teaching history.There were dozens of independent colonies and separate European governments fighting or negotiating with hundreds of native nations. They had nothing to do with each other. AT ALL. They fought and murdered each other all the time. They were all in competition.Those colonies and those native nations fought among themselves more than anyone else. They would often make treaties or alliances with the colonists or the natives to help them with their own rivalries.European immigration along with European food production and medicine allowed Europeans to out-breed native populations at an insane rate, which quickly made them obscenely dominant on the continent, at which point the newly minted US government mostly lost interest in cooperating with them, and simply ignored their own treaties and obligations, and just took control.They then crushed native cultures, not by war or direct violence, so much as state organized ethnic cleansing through child abduction and brain washing.Worst of all, it is still going on in some US states TODAY: Native Foster Care: Lost Children, Shattered Families
Are ethiopians/east africans pure black by race?
In forensic anthropology, "Caucasoid" [is] a pattern of skull measurements and other phenotypical characteristics typical of populations in Europe, Central and South Asia, West Asia, North Africa, and Northeast Africa, Ethopia, and Somalia." This is according to cranio-facial types as well as phylogeography, "the science of identifying and tracking major long-distance migrations that bands of humans undertook, especially in prehistoric times." http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Craniofacial_Anthropometry Therefore, Ethopians and (north)east Africans are built the same as Caucasoid peoples, not Congoid (Central black Africans).
Why are there no "Caucasian" indigenous tribal people like those of The Amazon, Africa, Asia, etc?
Because the Caucasian societies became de-tribalised over the course of the last two millennia. To understand why, you need to understand something from anthropology, from history, and from economics. The reason humans form societies is because work in isolation is less productive than work in co-operation. The more people are joined into co-operating with each other, the greater the division of labour, the more productive society is, the better off everyone is. But people will only engage in an extended division of labour if they *realise* its benefits. However people, starting from small-scale societies, only gradually come to realise it. The starting point is small-scale societies, in which co-operation is only extended to those most closely genetically related - tribalism. Everyone outside the small circle of the tribe is considered "other", enemy. The warrior ethos, the spirit of conquest reigns: we get wealth from others by conquering them and taking their property. The Roman Empire tended to de-tribalise the societies it came in contact with. On the fall of the Roman empire, the great agricultural slave estates of ancient Rome were converted into feudal holdings, in which the peasant could keep the surplus over what he owed his lord, not because the lord cared about liberty, but because free labour is more productive than slave labour. The feudal system in time gave way to the capitalist system, in which the ordinary workers, instead of working for benefits *in kind*, such as grain, wool, etc. sold their labour for *money*. Money enables a *much greater* division of labour, and therefore productivity, and therefore level of wealth. That's why the Caucasian societies became de-tribalised and wealthier. The other societies retained their warrior ethos, the spirit of conquest, while the western societies developed the ethos of exchange, of free trade, of association by contract for mutual benefit, rather than of association by conquest for one side to benefit at the expense of the other.
How did people migrate to america's in prehistoric times?
People started to move from Africa about 100,000 years ago. There are several theories about how they migrated to the americas. The most prominent one is the land migration bridge. During the last ice age, about 10,000 years ago, the build-up of the ice on the continents caused the sea level to drop. This opened a land bridge between northwest Russia and Alaska. Once people hit North America, they continued the migration southwards into South America following the migration of animals and the seasons. There are other theories though. For example, its been shown that the Vikings sailed to Canada well before Columbus. So maybe the people pre-Viking sailed same route through iceland and greenland. It has also been theorized that the Australian aborigine show similar characteristics of the people of South America. Maybe they sales across the ocean. Some migrations could have been accidents. If a boat got caught in a storm or in a strong ocean current, they were in for a ride.