🚀 go-pugleaf

Gatos Loco <gatosloco@hotmail.com> wrote:
>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.

No clarification is needed.  Clearly the person you responded to
made that statement.

>>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.

I don't see that as significant.  Prior to widespread use of
horses people in Europe and the Middle East were engaging in
massive conflicts employing foot soldiers.

It's part of the Judeo-Christian culture...

>>>>> 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...

Exactly.  And note that I said nothing which limited it to
Europeans.  The point is, there *are* groups of people who did
not do that.  Native Americans might be the largest group that
didn't.

>>As noted, they had no *desire* to engage in that kind of
>>warfare.
>>
>
>I would say that is speculation at best.

Sure, but you have been engaging in culture-centric
descriptions, hence what you say is perhaps unremarkable.  The
point is, they didn't and others did.  That isn't deniable.

>>>>> 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.

Indeed.  They pretty much have!  Initially I was intending to stay
away from discussing that since it involves so much that is purely
opinion and gets more into religion than anything else.  That makes
it a topic that usually does little other than polarize a discussion.

However, after reading your article I see that we are apparently
pretty much in agreement in that particular area!  (I guess we are
already polarized...  just in the same direction.)

>>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

I'd agree on all of the above.

>matter. Huge tribal states waged war in Africa. Europeans happen to be

I am not much up on African history, so I'd have to take your
word on that.  I've never heard of that being the case.

>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.

But they are indeed at the top of the dog list.  And they've
been that way for nearly 2000 years, with roots going back much
farther than that in the Middle East.

>>"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.

Whether intentional or not is hardly the point.  DeSoto spread
disease far and wide in North America, and was quite aware that
he was doing so.  His return route was chosen mostly to avoid
inhabited areas previously visited simply because he fully
expected to be met by angry people who would try to extract
retribution if he returned to any place where enough people
survived to put up a fight.  (In fact though, even by that time
the effects were sufficient to have eliminated most concern.
Dead people don't fight.)

>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.

We seem to be in total agreement on that.

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

Exactly.  I don't think this is genetic, it seems to be cultural.
It is also not limited (as the Middle East today demonstrates) to
Christianity either.

Personally I think it is brought on by two characteristics.  One
is a religion that believes in one single creator/god figure.
The other attribute happens when the theology is derived from
written documents.  (Strange set of characteristics, eh?)

The problem with having one god (especially a "loving god" who
will forgive), is that *everyone* knows that one god is on their
side, and that they will be forgiven for *anything* they do.
That makes it very easy to use religion to agitate for violence
rather than to restrict it.

Cultures with religions that accept multiple gods cannot so
easily base actions on being forgiven, but must find ways to
avoid conflict with the gods.  The animistic religions of most
Native Americans fit so well with this that it seems clearly to
be one reason they spent less time engaged in organized social
violence.  The act of contrition to be absolved by one god is
reasonable, but a person has to really think twice about
offending the nearest 10,000 gods...

The problem with written theology is that, as is so obviously
done with Christianity, the written words change meaning over
time and allow for interpretations that follow the changes in
word meanings rather retaining only the original intent.
Christian theology can be just about anything one wants it to
be, for example, as long as some interpretation of the exact
wording used.  On the other hand, an oral tradition does not
allow that.  Instead the words used can be whatever the teller
and the listener can understand, but it is the *meaning* that
has to be exact.

>>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.

That doesn't sound promising... ;-) The worst offenders in
culture centric perceptions are anthropologists and
archaeologists.  They are the ones telling everyone else what it
all supposedly meant, and historically have done so incorrectly
based on invalid moral and value system comparison.  (My
appologies for the inference about your parents.  It was not
specifically *their* fault, but rather the culture and the
discipline they lived with that is at fault.)

And it *is* difficult.  I've lived virtually all of my adult
life within a Native family.  My own (adult) children are
recognized as experts in their mother's (Yup'ik) culture.  Yet
here I am, after nearly 40 years of exposure, and I'm still
learning things that Yup'ik children all grow up knowing.

>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.

That's why I consistently refer to cultures in the plural; both
for Native cultures and for non-Native cultures.  Just about the
only time I don't do that is when I say something like "my
culture" or "our culture", and rarely "American culture" (which
I commonly preface with "typical").

>>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.

But the comment that I was referencing is indeed one that you
made.

>>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.

I don't know that that exposes one to *any* amount of "early
american(indian) cultures".

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

Exactly!

>>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.

Human nature is human nature.  I don't think there is something
genetically different about Europeans.  The problems are in the
*culture*, not the genes.  And to whatever degree others engage
in the same types of cultural practices, they end up with very
similar results.  Aztecs being one very good example, but
slavery amongst a number of Native cultures is indeed another
good example.  The Pacific Northwest tribes had cultures very
much based on slavery, and while it wasn't the same as that
practiced by the Colonies or the early USA, it wasn't exactly a
high point in the cultural evolution of mankind either!

>>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.

I've not heard that to have been a particular problem.  The
Norse settlements in Greenland were there for hundreds of years
without significant conflict.  I don't know of any record of
conflict between Vikings and people on the mainland of North
America.  But...  even if there was, you do have to consider
just exactly what the Vikings were!  Pirates.  Look at the
leaders of the Iceland and Greenland exploration and
colonization!  These were guys that were booted out of their
home towns because they were convicted of violent crimes.

(Not, perhaps, indicative of all Norse people, but certainly
they were the norm for Vikings that left for first Iceland and
then Greenland.)

>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.

So name just one single animal that was hunted to extinction by
Native people.  Just one!

-- 
FloydL. Davidson           <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)                         floyd@barrow.com