List of Films used:

Yojimbo (1961)
Secret of the Incas (1954)
Casablanca (1942)
Zorro Rides Again (1937)
Stagecoach (1939)
Zorro’s Fighting Legion (1939)
Lawrence of Arabia (1962)
Foolish Wives (1922)
Kiss Me Deadly (1955)
Citizen Kane (1941)

Thank you for the promote. You may have sealed my Silver. In either case,
thank you very much.

In reply to this comment by thegrimsleeper:
*promote

When I hiked the Inca Trail to Machu Picchu a couple of years ago, we had to shit in similar conditions. Totally worth it though.

Because Choggie is also MY pet ALL OF YOU ARE MY PETS.... including Inca, my collie, Laura my chicka, five finches, two hamsters , seven fish, and many plants (which I sometimes suspect I am the pet of...).

late to the party here, but oooo oooo I wanna play!
Displayed at the moment is Inca, my uber-spoiled collie princess. (That's not because I spoil her, either...that's her attitude! ha!)
edit: I also share my home with five finches, two hamsters (safely separated in different cages ), seven fish, and since I have a "black thumb" my hubby keeps many plants alive which could also be considered pets!

Inca did it too

Good points, and largely in agreement.
Whereas individuals have restraint by rule of law (where it applies), sovereign states have none. The United Nations is not going to pull you over, put you in handcuffs and take you to jail if you are a misbehaving country.
Whether it's the Tasmanians, Australian Aborigines, Incas, Aztecs, or Native American Indians, it's the same story. Imperialist expansion doomed them all. Was it inevitable? History would seem to suggest that when competing civilizations collide, the weaker gets assimilated or consumed. Still it's a stain on humanity that these "indigenous" peoples were almost uniformly demoted to "sub-human" status so that displacement or extermination could be rationalized or justified.

I wish I could say it was different today. The recent genocides (although not in the eyes of the UN) in Rwanda and the Sudan suggest otherwise. Rwanda interests me in particular. It's one of the poorest nations on earth. Christian influence there is helping to heal the scars of that tragedy. I'm no saint, I'm just fortunate enough to have the opportunity, but I have provided medical equipment and supplies to the remote villages of Rwanda. My wife has worked in jungle clinics there, seeing children suffering from malaria, typhoid, and parasitic infections. It's frustrating not to be able to do more, but you do what you can do.

I got off the subject here, but my point is this....There is a huge amount of international charity work being done world-wide by Christian organizations. Let's not drag them thru the mud because some nuts are trying to convert people in a war zone.

The conflict in the Middle East in not about religion, you are absolutely right about that. It's about globalization. It's about the resultant loss of cultural identity and respect. From the US standpoint, it's also about oil, that should be evident to everyone.

Globalization is not going to stop because some want it to. We have to be realists about that. This is what makes the modern day situation so different from the past. Citing precedent, (in prior international conflicts) loses much in translation to the modern day situation. Communication, transportation, and world trade are making the earth smaller by the day. Intolerant and inflexible societies are at risk in this new paradigm, not so much from the outside but from the inside, as the new generation adopts the global (western if you want to call it that), ways. People say we should appeal to the "moderates" in these countries. The problem is, many of the moderates, with the means to do so, have left and are now living in the US or Europe. That's the "brain-drain" we've heard so much about. Most of the moderates were professionals, university professors, etc. So, the remaining are the most hard-line and fundamentalist. That makes it tough.

Tragically, the weakest societies are at risk of just getting run over completely. As you pointed out, it happened in our own backyard with the American Indian.

I really lament the homogenization of the US I've seen in my lifetime. Standing on any corner, of any street, in any town you see the same McDonalds, Pizza Huts, Walmarts, etc. Is that the fate of the world? God, let's hope not.

Horrible!!!!!
But it happens, you know? In a LOT of places.
Cows are sacred in India, and here they are bio burger manufacturers.
Get over it, huh?
Just stay away from my "Inca" (collie. I love her.)

upvote for the aparent quality~ I just don't wanna watch it right now because I don't feel like crying...sure I will soon though
Update: okay, I watched it and I love it. Reminds me of my doggie Inca
http://blog.videosift.com/laura/My-Other-daughter

Harry Potter FTW!
No, the last one I read was Inca Gold by Clive Cussler. Mystery/action novel. Pretty good.

You are wrong.. The Egyptians had it right. No wait. The Greek pantheon was right. No wait.. the Romans had it right. No.. wait.. the Sumerian gods were right. No wait.. the Babylonians had it right. No wait.. the Norse gods were right. No wait.. the Mayans were right. No.. wait .. the Inca were right. No.. wait.. the Neanderthal concept of ancestor worship was right. No.. wait.. the native American concept of nature spirits were right. No.. wait .. the Druidic concept of natural spirits had it right. No... wait.. the Muslim concept is right. No.. wait... the Christian concept God and the invisible magic-man had it right.

So... who is right? Did the Christians finally 'get it right' after millenia of cultures/societies ALL getting it absolutely wrong? Now.. that truly must be an "Evolution" of religion. For so many people to be so absolutely wrong, and to FINALLY, find the Truth(tm). Whatever that means.

Also, National Geographic Channel has just revealed from their programming: the first gunshot in Americas, that Spanish vs Native American battles weren't always what Spanish chronicles claimed.

They were ALWAYS accompanied by Inca's former enemy states. And the siege of Lima (Puruchuco) in particular reveals that most of the fighting was done between Native Americans and the battle won by Native Americans, not by some sheer overwhelming power of horses and muskets.

So politics plays a very critical role in human history than just purely on physical geographic location, critical though it may be.

I'm also bit miffed at what Diamond said when he gave ancient Greeks as evidence of 'cultivation civilization'.

From what I know, Greek cities (Peloponnese) did have large population with heavy population density, but they weren't too big on farming, mainly because the Greek land is not the most ideal place for farming because it's full of jagged rocks and salty coastlines. They had a big animal herding tradition with goats and sheeps, and probably had a big fishing tradition going on, but not to the extent to feed big cities. Plus, that's not really a diverse diet.

There survived mainly as active traders, who got lot of their material needs from other parts of the world by setting up colonies and establishing trade relations (Mycenae, Asia Minor, Egypt, and Dorians later on). They especially had a very close relation with Egyptians, perhaps because they were the largest providers of wheat at the time. They give them fish and sheep skin, Egyptians give them surplus of wheat.

Anyways overall, Diamond comes up with definitely interesting fresh theories, but also comments on some things that are directly against historic evidence. Like how conquistador's guns and swords were such a large factor, enough to compensate their lack of numbers (which he later corrects as germs), how Greeks flourished because of cultivation or that Sumerian writings had influenced Chinese characters... etc etc.

Like, Huh?

And I also couldn't find anything about smallpox and black plague originating from farm animals. As far as evidence goes, some say bubonic plague started from Ethiopia, where Diamond claim domestication of animals didn't take place... that 13 of 14 farm animals all originated from Middle East, which is another point of doubt (he also contradicts himself from 1st part to 3rd part.. what's going on here).

Oh! and why Europeans happened to be the ones to keep colonizing the world, when Ming and Qing China had plenty of capability to do the same, but never did so?

Oh! and how was conquistadors survive in the tropics? or early American pioneers who were dying by hundreds?

This is why this guy is a biologist, and not a Historian. Stay in your own profession old man!

Stick with the original theory of geographic effect in human history. Discard the rest.

The colonists were originally friends with the Indians here. Then it turned bad.

Classic. And Noah put dinosaurs and the Ark with all the other animals. Let me guess, you made a pilgrim hat and construction paper turkey every November. Yep, the colonist were friends. Just like the Spanish were friends to the Incas. Just like Southern Plantation owners (and US Presidents) were friends with African slaves. Sure, put it in a coloring book and it must be true. I'm glad to see what kind of simplistic Moran you are.

(I thought he had things bad with QM, but at least he stuck to approved wingnut talking points, this guy is going off his own script...)