🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 14:59:12 -0800, floyd@barrow.com (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

>Gatos Loco <gatosloco@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On 25 Sep 2004 08:55:04 -0700, blsepe@yahoo.com (Laurie) wrote:
>>>Gatos Loco <gatosloco@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >They weren't stupid, they just didn't need technology.
>
>I have no idea where anyone would get the idea that Native
>Americans didn't need, or have, technology.  That is naive
>beyond description (or... more likely just a bit of culture
>centric hyperbole).
>

Clarification I did not say that American Indians did not have or need
technology.

>The difference is *what kind* of technology they developed, as
>compared to what kind Europeans developed.  What they didn't
>need was technology for mass destruction of their neighbors,
>which clearly was the highest priority for virtually all
>European cultures (those who didn't, were the victims of those
>who did).
>
They had weapons and fought amongst each other. I will say agaqin that
they did not have beasts of burden, which were a major part of
sustained military campaigns of Europe and Asia. The mongols
udoubtedley would not have had the long driving success they had
without the support of Animals.

>>>> Even without "technology" they managed to hunt several species to
>>>> extinction. And contrary to the belief that  they just lived in peace
>
>There is no evidence that Native cultures in the Western
>Hemisphere hunted *any* species to extinction.
>
>Not that a few people haven't tried pretty hard to manufacture a
>case for that, but it requires a set of blinders that is rather
>large!
>
>For example, the usual case made is a claim that with the
>development of Clovis technology the megafauna in North America
>was hunted to extinction.  A nice set of circumstantial evidence
>can be assembled to make that appear somewhat likely; and there
>are only a few holes in the theory too.
>
>Of course, the holes are *large*.  E.g., no Clovis technology in
>Asia, yet the megafauna there disappeared at exactly the same
>time as the megafauna in North America.  Clearly Clovis
>technology, or Native Americans for that matter, had *nothing*
>to do with the extinction of megafauna, either in America or in
>Asia.
>
>>>> and harmony... They also fought amongst themselves quite a bit. In
>
>Sure, but not anything like the way Europeans did.  They had no
>driving ambition to develop technology to commit genocide as a
>regular part of international relations.
>
Yes those surly EWuroppeans are the source of all the worlds evils.
You forgot the Mongols, Ottomans, Egyptians...Etc...

>>>> fact many of these tribal disputes continue today, now they take the
>>>> form of land disputes and such.  Which then makes a convinient excuse
>>>> for the gov to settle such disputes by land confiscation.
>
>True.  Now, if only the whole world were as lacking in
>aggression!
>
>>>> Probably did less damage because they didn't have any real beasts of
>>>> burden until horses were introduced. Whith the exception of lamas of
>>>> course. And there weapons were simple. Military campaigns aren't as
>>>> easy when you have to walk and carry all of your goods with you.
>
>As noted, they had no *desire* to engage in that kind of
>warfare.
>

I would say that is speculation at best.


>>>> The Aztecs enslaved many members of small tribes. Which then prompted
>>>> many of these tribes to fight alongside the spanish when they
>>>> destroyed there empire.
>
>The Aztecs were the most European like of all cultures in the
>Americas.  One needs to realize first and foremost that they
>were not typical.  Citing the Aztecs as an example is to demonstrate
>the exception which proves the rule.  In general, Native cultures
>in North America were *not* similar to Europeans.
>
Sort of. You act as if Europe has always been ruled  by some unified
ideal. 


>>>> When you look at the fact the most of the rest of humanity on the
>>>> globe was exposed to each other for such a long time the transfer of
>>>> technology between these people was vast. Mostly the chinese invented
>>>> everything and then a lot of europeans took credit for inventing it.
>
>But in fact what the Europeans did was to put so many
>technologies to use... in violent ways.  Other cultures just
>didn't have that need to be so violent.
>

Again Mongols, Ottomans, and Egyptians. Certainly European reign
coincided with a culmination of technologies that advanced the ability
for mayhem. I suppose you could lump the Romans in with "Europeans" if
you wanted to stretch the idea. Or Alexander the great for that
matter. Huge tribal states waged war in Africa. Europeans happen to be
the latest greatest villans. Ones that we can see today as being
responsible for shaping the world in its current form. But there
desire to be the top dog is not solitary in the world.

>>>> Indians had a lot of calender technology. As well as other means of
>>>> survival. Saying they were ignorant is kind of pointless though.
>>>> Unfamiliar with EuroAsian cultures perhaps. But they managed to create
>>>> somewhat complex societies.
>
>"Somewhat complex", eh?
>
>They had *larger* cities, that were vastly cleaner and healthier
>than those of Europe.  Of course, the first 30 years of exposure
>to the diseases that Europe had bred virtually wiped out Native
>civilization in North America.
>
Except for the intentional innocualtion of blankets at wounded knee I
don't see this as intentional. I'm not arguing that Europe was a
sanitaqry place. 

It should be noted that Eurpe was not the world wide wrecking ball it
became until christianity was introduced. And that in fact resulted in
the wholesale murder of many people who were probably a lot closer to
the simpler lifestyles of the American Indians. Christianity saw the
death of up to 5 million so called witches in 100 years. Called
witches for doing such things as using herbal preperations.

It should also be noted that christianity DID NOT originate from
Europe. It was introduced. 

>>>> They werent just innocent peaceful beings though.
>>>> But if you feel better believing it was all a peace and harmony thing,
>>>> and that prompts you to live more peacefully don't let me stop you.
>>>> You are probably better off that way.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>> Gato Loco
>>>
>>>The Indians were far from ignorant.  We may look at their society as
>>>being complex but that's just because we're spoiled.
>>
>>I wasn't saying they were ignorant. I was saying they were unfamiliar
>>with AEuroAsian socieities.... So I don't know if you were talking
>>about what I said or the person before me.
>>
>>Just clarifying.
>>
>>Ignorance is relative only to a specific idea of what intellegence is.
>>There are plenty of people who claim to be civilized that could be
>>considered completely ignorant to natural process. IMO
>
>Quite frankly it sounds, from what you have written, as if you
>haven't got the foggiest notion what Native cultures actually
>were prior to contact, or for that matter what they are today.
>
Well I do have some what of a foggy notion, since I did grow up with
an Archaeologist parent. Ande in fact spent much of my child hood
growing up with many early American(indian) friends. The fact is you
can't call whites a culture any more than you can call indians a
culture. There are so many sub cultures of each that vary greatly in
method of societies. Each having more and less violent portions that
also vary on time frame.

>The trivialization of concepts, such as your comment about
>"peace and harmony" and the idea that we can see their societies
>as "complex but that's just because we're spoiled" is just
>abjectly ignorant.
>
I didn't make the spoiled comment. Someone was responding to what I
said.

>The basic differences are that "environmentalism" is raised to
>the level of metaphysic by Native cultures.  They absolutely
>_require_ harmony with the environment.  They also rule by
>consensus, not by force and not by a tyranny of the majority
>(aka democracy).
>

In fact I also walked across the United States in support of Indian
Religious freedom in 1978. So I think it is fair to say I have had a
fair amount of exposure to early american(indian)  cultures and a
grasp of of pre exposure.

And again pre European christianity there were more cultures that
followed this model. 

>Compare that to the European/American cultures, where we view
>the environment as an enemy that must be conquered by the use of
>better engineering and higher technology.  Our form of rule
>literally has to make an exception for each and every specific
>minority that is to be protected, because by default we simply
>destroy minorities.
>
Well the great civilized tribes of OKlaahoma did not see a problems in
being slave owners. In fact I have known indians from there that are
fearcely racist against black people. 

>One way of viewing that comparison, is not to call one or the
>other more or less complex, because obviously they are both
>*very* complex.  The fact is though, one set of cultures is
>highly sophisticated and the other is not.  The sophisticated
>cultures do not require the use of technology to sustain
>themselves through force, while the others are sophisticated
>*only* in the area of using violence to survive.  Which is _not_
>to deny that technology (developed for violence or not) also
>contributes to a higher standard of living for any culture.  It
>clearly does.  Of course the difference is in the distribution
>of the benefits, not the value of those benefits.

I did say that both had there own methods of existance. I agree. I
don't happen to think that Europeans are the pinacle of sophistication
of culture.  However I do disagree that europeans are driven by need
for destruction while Indians are not. Certainly issues of habitat
inclusion are involved here but thats a whole other discussion.

In fact many early viking expeditions that made it to the Americas
were often driven off by the "savage" (not my term) inhabitants.
Suggesting that violence existed here before permanent european
settlement was established.

Manitou springs Colarado for instance is a place were tribes would
often meet and was also a neutral zone were tribal disputes would not
be resolved. i.e. No kill zone.

AND...As far as hunting animals to extinction. I have seen evidence to
support the facts. There is some evidence presented at the state
historic museum in carson city Nevada. 

Cheers
Gato Loco