For God's sake, you yourself said it was meaningless:
And can you understand the context? Heliocentric theory was meaningless for defence of country, there were more important issues.
Same for natives, their relligion, architecture or callendars were meaningless for defending their lands, simple as that.
Keep in mind the context in which we are talking. First, you claimed (wrongly) that Native Americans "had no science". After I proved you wrong, you claimed (again wrongly) that "it didn't help them". Then you claimed that Native American science was useless because it didn't prevent them from being conquered (which is a ridiculous argument, since it means all science that is not related to military development is "useless"). But by the same token, the contribution of Copernicus was also useless (as you apparently agreed), because it did not prevent Poland from being partitioned and wiped off the world map. Thus, as per your own argument, if the Native Americans "had no science" because it didn't save them, then neither did the Poles, since it didn't save them either. So your argument that Native Americans are "primitive" for being conquered by Europeans is flawed, since the same arguments can also be applied to Poland. But once someone uses your same arguments against you, you throw a tantrum and accuse them of being "white-hating racists".
The problem is that you have problems with understanding the context of simple text.
How many times I need to say that natives were not primitive in intelectual way, but in civilization progress, which means they were vurnable to any more advanced civiliation which was better organized, armed, industralized etc.
Comparing natives to commonwealth is just flawed, even by scale, the wars we needed to fight on 3 fronts (or even 4 fronts) and how long we were able to hold on any agression on our borders to the point where economy was incapable to fund our army and we were forced to abandone further funding our most successfull formations the winged hussars who were responsible for all military victories we had.
As I said we had the best cavalry in Europe, this was our strenght and weakness. Winged Hussars were incredibly expensive units, simply because they were not funded by state, but each hussar funded his horse and equipment from his own pocket, when economy started to collapse, this rich elite of our society started to disappear, when they disappear, we lost that single element that was capable to complete any task given by commanders, and win every fight.
And natives? Natives neither had economy, neither army, they had really nothing to even try to fight with colonists and their army's.
A superpower is a state which possesses sufficient hard and soft power to influence political events on a global scale. This means that the state possesses a powerful military capable of projecting power over large distances, as well as a culture/ideology which is influential throughout the world. There were only three states in human history that can be called "superpowers": the British Empire in the 19th and early 20th century, the Soviet Union in the 20th century, and the United States.
Poland was not fighting against any "superpowers" in the 17th or 18th century, because none existed.
Eh... as you wish, then they were European powers, Prussia, Sweden, Austro-Hungary and Russian Empire, try to fight for decades or even centuries on 4 fronts, I wonder how well you will fight back.
Translation: I have been proven wrong, and I no longer have an argument.
Funny, as you proved nothing besides your ignorance.
And I proved you wrong, by showing that they were NOT primitive from a "civilization progress" [sic] point of view. Read my previous posts again, especially when I compared the Aztec Empire to the Kingdom of Poland.
I read your posts and I see biased, frustrated person, who don't like Europeans.
Yes natives were primitive from civilization progress point of view.
Building piramides don't show how advanced you are.
Your country WAS wiped off the world map, in the late 18th century, by Russia, Prussia, and Austria, and it was again wiped off the map in 1939. The modern Polish nation-state is the result of the Soviet victory in WWII.
If you would understand moron the very obvious history, Poland was not wpided out from map, because even Nazis did not included whole our territory in to their. There was a part that was included, and the second part which was still Poland but occupied. Not to mention that our nation during both periods, was still fighting. What's more in both periods, we have form of underground state, especially during WWII we had whole underground state administration, army, goverment etc. Show me any other occupied nation which was capable to do the same?
And no, the modern Polish state is not a result of Soviet actions, it was PRL, today we live in a 3rd republic which was created by nation overtrhowing soviet puppets. Are you even capable to comprehend this?
Tough I know, we were never respected by most people on this planet, and I don't expect this to be changed quickly. But then again, you are the very proof of what is said about India's citizens around the world, which is pity, I expected something more.