The native tribes mostly did have gunpowder by that point, they were very motivated to trade for rifles and ammunition and the US government sold them rifles and ammunition through the Indian Agency.
It was a the death of 90% of the population to small pox within one generation that allowed colonization. The Europeans were dirty and diseased, untrained peasants. Their firearms at that time were inaccurate single shot rifles, that took minutes to reload. Analysis of indigenous bow techniques showed the common capability to accurately shoot multiple arrows in rapid succession.
And it goes beyond war: Indigenous people didn’t farm as Europeans did, we instead cultivated forests with eidble plant species that complimented each other to kept the soil healthy. The forests across the Americas were thousands of years into a cycle of land management that kept grown food naturally abundant and plentiful, without having to clear the land. Indigenous peoples were expert and managing the population of the animals of their areas as well. We understood which members of an animal population should be hunted, and which should be kept for the health of the species. We then knew how to fully utilize every part of the animals hunted. The core of most indigenous cultures rotated around ethical and efficient management of the land’s resources. What did the Europeans do? Accidentally gave an entire continent a super virus, then stripped the forests clear to plant shitty crops not made for this climate, and hunted countless animal species to extinction. Europeans were not technologically advanced at all. They were just diseased. That’s it.
Rest assured that without smallpox, the Americas would not have been colonized. Population density and technological differences would have made it too dangerous and expensive an undertaking.
The main advantage of early guns wasn’t that they were more powerful, it’s that they were easy to use. You can train someone to fire a gun in a day, while it takes months of training just to get an archer strong enough to draw a bow.
Also the whole “the Europeans were dirty diseased peasants” thing isn’t accurate, and I have to say that IMO the right response to racist depictions of indigenous people as unwashed savages isn’t to just turn around and say “actually the stereotypes are correct it’s just that it’s about the Europeans this time”.
And Indigenous people had more advanced technoglogy than many give them credit for but "The Europeans were technologically behind indigenous people in nearly every way. " is just blatantly wrong.
I do think you’re right though that without smallpox and other diseases the Europeans wouldn’t have colonised the Americas, though there were several other major factors in it.
Europeans were not any more “dirty” or “clean” than any other group, also Native Americans adopted the use of fire arms from the Europeans and would generally trade foodstuffs for firearms, in the end you are only repeating the Noble Savage
To add more: the last chatel slave in the US was freed in 1942. During WWII.
Why? Not because it was the right thing to do, but because the optics of having slaves looked bad and the Japanese Empire (of all institutions) was calling the US out.
People living and running the country to this day fought tooth and nail against the civil rights movement. Slavery is not ancient history, it’s part of what’s allowed a small portion of the current world population to lead a privileged life.
The only issue with this adaptation of a great comic is that it infers the Confederacy was a well built structure that depended on that one small thing. The Confederacy didn't exist that long, it even didn't have a single flag version for longer than a year or so. Change it to the southern states' economy and it makes more sense.
It's certainly a chaotic mess, but perhaps knowing the original subject of the comic tarnishes my take on it being used for other things in the same way. Analogies are often tricky.
I think it’s pretty ironic that this meme is trying to make a statement about the confederacy not acknowledging the work/contribution of slavery and having trouble doing so because it’s an uncredited “”adaption”” of someone else’s meme.
Fun fact, related to this: learned and learnt are also both correct. I always assumed learnt was a redneck thing (I’m from the south), but it turns out the Brits use it too. Who knew?
I’ve heard it used in a sentence like “When I was a boy, my daddy done learnt me a thing or two about fishin’”. Which is why it’s associated with southern slang, I think. That’s my hypothesis anyway.
Folks in west verginnie use words and phrases carried over from the old days when talkin like brits and Frenchmen was considered fancy, and it’s devolved into hill folk lingo. Yes, it’s technically a dialect but it’s not proper grammar in American English just because some hillfolk and southern drawl says it.
Right, I get that it’s not grammatically correct in that context, but the word itself is valid. I had always thought “learnt” was akin to “ain’t”, but that’s not the case. Both “learned” and “learnt” are correct, but the latter is less commonly used in the US.
Most modern linguists consider “should have” to be a completely valid variation of should’ve / should have.
Yes, it does contradict what your english teachers in school taught you, and according to that world view “if we don’t have those rules then we wouldn’t be able to understand each other”. But the hundreds to thousands of languages where those rules don’t even exist and people understand missing/“incorrect” meaning from context, as well as the fact that you can proudly stand on your “i know what’s right” soapbox and say that “should of” is wrong, only serve to prove that these rules aren’t actually rules or part of the english language and are more like the linguistic equivalent of fashion.
Again, you understood exactly the meaning OP meant, enough that you could confidently barge in and tell them they’re “wrong”, and tell them what they should have used instead to fit your fashion rules.
Basically, absolutely nobody saw this meme, saw “should have” instead of “should have”, and thought “hmm, i don’t know what’s supposed to be being said in this case.” You dislike “should have” because you were told you were supposed to, and that if you didn’t stick to these rules nobody would respect you or understand what you’re saying. Now, you do the same thing and lose respect for people who didn’t (while also understanding what they are saying exactly). That has nothing to do with the language, and is, again, more akin to “you wore white after labor day” or “you wore socks with sandals” or whatever other fashion faux pas you committed — none of which are related to actual linguistics or the natural way through which languages evolve (or whether or not your outfit looks good on you on any given day)
Your phone auto correct has a preference as well it seems.
I mean sure, linguistic descriptivism is relevant for the evolution of language. However, why study language at all if that’s the sum-total of your perspective on language? We could all just speak however we want as long as we are understood… except then we end up with an uncountable number of dialects and creoles a la mainland china. This is also how you end up with linguistic rules that are basically impossible to teach I suspect.
Speaking is sort of a different animal. “Should of” is a malapropism that is a homophone for “should’ve”. There is no transformation of language from that, it’s just an error. If you accept an alternate written version though, you’re creating an alternate conjugation for the conditional perfect tense. There’s no reason for this at all: it’s accommodating failings of literacy by adding complexity to language rules for one, and creating a new (and faulty) evolution point for two.
It’s like saying “oh, the speed limit is 55, but everyone drives 60, so let’s make the law so the police can’t ticket you unless you go over 60 since 55 or 60 is correct”. What does it mean when you see a sign that says 25 now? You can accept that people break the rules, but that doesn’t mean we should change the rules to describe the situation in every circumstance.
Speed limits are a not a good analogy to language rules, partly because they are generally intentionally designed rather than a product of an evolutionary pattern, partly because there is a clear and accepted authority that sets and enforces them with actual penalty, and partly because the consequences for not having them are often deadly.
By contrast, there is no clear authority that “owns” a language and can enforce it’s rules. Some government or academic body might in some cases declare that it has that authority, but they don’t really have any ability to set more than guidelines for how people working for them or producing documents on their behalf must write. Unlike speed limits, which simply would stop existing in a meaningful sense if governments stopped existing, languages existed before any such “authorities” did and would continue to exist if those organizations ceased. As such, I’d argue that linguistic rules aren’t really rules at all in the normal sense, there’s no-one with actual accepted authority to create, repeal, impose or enforce them, they’re just guidelines, loose ones at that, that one should follow if one’s intent is to be understood by someone else using the same or sufficiently similar guidelines. If you understand what someone is saying, which in cases like “should of”, people calling it against the rules clearly do, then they have succeeded in that goal, so it cannot really be a failure at being literate.
I reject any notion that this will eventually overcomplicate language to the point of it being too difficult to learn or use, because ultimately, people are not born knowing it, they must all learn, so any language too complex to learn wont be learned and therefore won’t be used, and similarly, any language too complicated and unclear to be used to communicate, can’t be used, and so won’t be. The complexity of language is inherently self-limiting at a level that prevents it from becoming useless.
Or for a TLDR: we don’t have to change the rules to accommodate people breaking them, because there aren’t really any rules at all.
What you say is true for passed down spoken language because errors like the ones we are talking about are transparent. Once you can write it down, the rules are evident and persistent. Nobody has to own them to say that as we transcribe language X these are the rules for conjugation, pluralization, etc. you can break them if you want, but as you say nobody owns the language: you need not be accommodated in your mistakes. Spoken language can change and the rules can follow, but being shit at writing (even if lots of people have the same problem) isn’t something written language must accommodate.
To understand it, and how and why it evolves over time, just like any other study. There’s no such thing as prescriptivist physics, or math, or biology, or etc etc. We don’t get to tell the world how it works, and pretty much no science is focused on that assumption other than historical linguistics.
we could all just speak however we want as long as we understood
We do speak however we want, and we do understand, because we pick up new trends in language on an unconscious level and this is the way languages have always worked and evolved.
then we end up with an uncountable number of dialects and creoles
We’ve already ended up there, and that’s nothing new. Sure, new languages/dialects/creoles creep into the world, but that’s how all languages evolve — instead, the lines between “what’s a language”, “what’s a dialect”, and “what’s a creole” get grayed and more blurry and fuzzy.
The thing is, humans developed language a very very long time ago, and those languages evolve and split off due to large-scale trends in the lives of humans speaking those languages, for a multitude of reasons that interact and make the process essentially random.
Here’s one way to look at it: it’s the opposite of the “jurassic park” problem, instead of “your scientists were preoccupied with whether or not they could, they never stopped to ask whether they should”, linguists spent so much time arguing over prescriptivist/descriptivist arguments, and never asked whether prescriptivism actually can control the evolution of a language.
Anybody, even some random teen in some random neighborhood in any english speaking country, can come up with a new word, and it can catch on and eventually become a new accepted and widely-used word. That’s because it’s a “you can use this if you want” situation, whereas the prescriptivist version is “if you use ___ you are wrong, if you want to be right use ___ only”.
It should be obvious why telling someone they can do something is an easier argument than that they can’t, and this is why prescriptivism has failed. especially because, again, nobody saw “should of” in this post and thought “oh god i don’t know what this is supposed to mean”; instead people either understood and said nothing, or they understood but jumped in to tell people they’re wrong for making them understand in a way that contradicts what their own english teachers in school said they SHOULD be able to understand.
I mean, sort of, I guess. I also read “Frindle” in school.
There is nothing wrong with a descriptive approach to spoken language, but what I see you arguing is that written language should be treated the same way. This increases complexity in written language for no reason other than to protect mistakes in literacy.
There’s real value in preserving spelling (it often contains etymologically relevant information to the current or past meaning of the word) and also grammatical structure. If the sound of two samples is indistinguishable, why make it harder to teach or to infer meaning from by accepting spurious representations as correct?
When you write it down, you gotta follow the rules, yo.
Most modern linguists wouldn’t take a position on this at all, and would tell you that you’re conflating Language and spelling. Most linguists don’t study writing systems, because they are a different thing from Language. Language is an evolving system that is always changing, and people develop the ability just by being around other people as they grow up, whether someone is teaching it to them or not. It just happens naturally. Reading/writing is more formalized, has to be taught, and many people in the world never master it. Many languages don’t even have an official written form. It’s not the same sort of thing.
To be fair, they couldn’t industrialise before they split off. Their industries wouldn’t have been competitive with the well-established ones already existing in the north. Only ways they could become competitive were (a) secede and put up tariffs, or (b) get a huge aid package from the federal government so they can run things at a loss for a few years. And the northern states would not have been happy with (b), so …
Add comment