Submitted by Magister_Xehanort t3_11la3lm in history
SassyShorts t1_jbc8i6g wrote
Reply to comment by ubzrvnT in Humans Started Riding Horses 5,000 Years Ago, New Evidence Suggests by Magister_Xehanort
Look at American history. They didn't have horse-like or oxen-like animals to domesticate. The best they had was Llamas as far as I know.
rathat t1_jbcwxrk wrote
When they first saw them, the Aztecs are on record calling horses giant deer and the Incans thought they were a type of llama
StekenDeluxe t1_jbdpxzo wrote
The Mesopotamians first referred to horses as "fast-donkeys" or "mountain-donkeys."
mymeatpuppets t1_jbcvf1m wrote
You haven't considered moose.
HermanCainsGhost t1_jbd4kc7 wrote
Moose were never used or domesticated that way. It's not impossible they could have been, but being such northerly animals, human populations tended to be smaller near moose populations
sunberrygeri t1_jbd7e4m wrote
Many mammals are incredibly hard to tame, let alone domesticate (intentionally and successfully breeding for useful traits over a very long period of time). Sub-saharan Africa had a similar problem.
War_Hymn t1_jbfqice wrote
Doesn't adult height in a demographics usually has to do with nutritional factors?
HermanCainsGhost t1_jbfrnqu wrote
By “populations were smaller”, I meant there were less people, not that they were of shorter stature, sorry for the confusion
[deleted] t1_jbhbv6j wrote
[removed]
BigDoinks710 t1_jbd4mdw wrote
The moose has, and they want none if it.
pug_grama2 t1_jbdfco1 wrote
Runonlaulaja t1_jbeotbq wrote
Reindeer...
Those have been used for a long time in the far North
Mickey2Shoe t1_jbe2cfg wrote
There were definitely horses in America. They died out around 10k years ago but were reintroduced by the Spanish in the 1400s.
DaddyCatALSO t1_jbd0v2j wrote
thsoe thta didn;t die form climate change got barbecued, including native horses, North American llamas, camelopines, temperate zone musk ox relatives, ground sloths, glyptodonts, Mexican giant tortoises pronghorn relatives (moonhorn, fanhorn spikehorn fourhorn) etc
Mekisteus t1_jbdji5q wrote
Sled dogs as well, though of limited geographical use.
pug_grama2 t1_jbdez1k wrote
They had bison. Which were probably no fiercer than Aurochs
ubzrvnT t1_jbdu525 wrote
Americans had llamas?! What? Was George Washington leading a fight with some llamas?
ocasas t1_jbeuoqs wrote
There where lots of civilizations prior to the europeans arriving to America.
ubzrvnT t1_jbf41o7 wrote
Yeah I understand that. The dude said "American history." When someone says "American history" in any context, do you immediately include and think of all North American history? No.
ocasas t1_jbfdwec wrote
Yeah, I do. That's how I was taught: Historia de América Do you think America just spontaneously happened when discovered?
This is what happens when the people from USA co-opt the name of the whole continent just for their country. What comes to your mind when I say European history?
ubzrvnT t1_jbfhkxc wrote
All of Europe comes to mind because Europe is a specific continent. I was taught there are seven continents. Are you only taught there are six? When you say "America, or American history" you're including South America in all that context?
ocasas t1_jbfx83d wrote
Yeah, that's how it is taught in most romance language speaking countries: Six continents one of those being America.
And yes, when we say "American history", we include North, Central and South America there. Hence why when you say 'americans had llamas?' I don't think of the US founding fathers, but of the Incas.
Don't you think it is weird to have your country co-opt the name of it's continent? America inside North America? Imagine calling someone from Louisiana 'south american', you have to get by using 'southern'.
The only other country I can't think of of this happening is South Africa, but they always use 'South' so there is no mistaking it for anything else.
ubzrvnT t1_jbgbzsf wrote
Pretty simple. You and I were taught two different continental systems. What do you call someone from the United States?
ubzrvnT t1_jbggjmp wrote
Also, I wouldn't call someone from Louisiana "South American" because I was taught South America was a different continent. I would be more inclined to think you might call a Canadian or a Brazilian an "American" since all Americas are one giant continent in romance language education.
ocasas t1_jbgprnd wrote
Canadians, Brazilians, Argentinians, Mexicans, etc. are all Americans, since they all are from 'America'.
The bit about Louisiana, what I'm trying to say is since the USA co-opted the name 'America' for the country, you can't call the south of your country 'south America' or the north 'north America'. It's confusing!! So you just go by 'The South' because 'America's South' or 'American South' is confusing as well!
ocasas t1_jbgns5k wrote
-
In spanish: Estadounidense. [Royal Spanish Academy on the subject] (https://www.rae.es/dpd/Estados%20Unidos) <- see number 4: "It souldn't be forgotten that America is the name of the whole continent and every inhabitant is american." The Royal Spanish Academy has final say on everything concerning the spanish language.
-
In english, it's a bit tricky: 'American' is the accepted demonym, but Merriam-Webster, Cambridge, Oxford Learner's and dictionary.com list 'American' as an inhabitant of the continent, but also an inhabitant of the USA. So 'american', as a demonym for someone from the USA, is not very useful. Hence our problem with 'American history': USA history? or the continent history? Although Merriam-Webster does list United Statesian as a native from the USA.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments