🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 00:02:24 -0800, floyd@barrow.com (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

>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...

Which is not European in origin. And I still think that you would be
hard pressed to find any of these conflicts that didn't use some sort
of animal for at least carrying food and supplies, or being the food.
The Mongolian campaigns would not have succeeded without the support
of animals. Here the concept of domestication of animals comes into
play. Which on it's won has many implications including the origins of
mauch disease that was spread unto the new world.
>
>>>>>> 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.
>
Reading the above says "nothing like the Europeans."  I would agree
that as far as widespread organized conquering American Indians were
certainly less prone to try and subdue and rule large number of
people. However tribal conflicts did exist and were often quite
violent and bloody.


>>>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.
>

I would say that comparing the Aztecs to Europeans as a
"culture-centric" remark.

Having known many American Indians I would say that one of the
historic ideals that they hold dear are the strength of there
"warriors." The root word being war here. I think the idea is clear
enough. Certainly on the large scale that you are talking about the
Europeans excelled at that. But the whole warrior concept
demomonstrates "desire." IMO

I think a difference here is that Europe is exposed to other cultures
of a much greater difference in origin than American Indians. Take the
Romans for instance prior to the expanse of the Roman Empire. The
Europeans generally kept to themselves.  And, yes there were barbaric
groups even then but it was the indoctrination of the
"Judeo-Christian" ideal that lead to the desire to spread the word as
it may.

Nothing like a friendly scalping to bring people together. Indians are
just as capable of violence as a sigle goded people.

>>>>>> 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.
>
Again, no. To many states in Europe have vied for power for there to
be some great unifying ideal. Short of christianity, and even that did
not stop them. The Spanish, English and French all vied to be the top
imperialistic power. With Belgium and Scandanavians thrown in there
for some lesser competition.

And the viking traded white slaves to the mores, and the term "Black
Irish" is the result of Moorish invasion into Ireland. 


>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.)
>
Certainly modern Europe has had a key role in the conquering of many
people. I'm not arguing against that ideal. I do also agree that it is
a cultural versus a genetic difference. There is just so much
romanticising that all the indians did was live in peace and harmony.
Sure many did, but much like any culture including the vikings there
are periods were they lived more harmoniously and periods of a more
warring nature.

>>>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.
>
Many slaves were actually captured by these huge tribal states and
traded/sold to Arabs and Jews and then eventually to white traders.

>>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.

Europeans were sold as slaves in the middle east that far and farther
back than that.

>>>"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.)
>
Here again look at the competition between between Spain and England
to be the leader in imperialist expansion. Certainly not a unified
ideal.

>>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 Romans had multiple gods, and I think it would be hard for any one
to call the romans peacefull. Egypt also has many gods and they
enslaved people. And, most Native American cultures I have been
exposed to have a "great Spirit" a main "god" and then a lot of
subordinate sprits.

>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.
>
Certainly true it is often rewritten in order to fit the needs of what
ever ruler desires it to say in order to perpetuate the rule.

>>>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.)
>
Point taken, however I would certainly not say that was the case with
my parent. However I have been exposed to evidence which which often
goes against popular modern revisionist historical ideals. The new
moral  and value systemic reasoning.

I myself am not an Anthropologist, I wen't into environmental sudies
untill an unintended exposure to pesticides sidelined that.  However
the experience gave me an experience with many different American
Indian cultures. In a non Anthropologic way. And the idea of trying to
put all American indian culture under a single umbrella of ideals is
pretty silly indeed. tribal ideals can vary greatly.


>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.
>
I think that you would find that true of any particular group, or
subgroup. Each having there own particular view or ideal of the world
and origins.

>>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.
>
Huh?

>>>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".
>
I have seen the incorporation of the natural world into religious
practices. I have been a part of many different American Indian
ceremonies. And I'm not talking about a new age weekend retreat.  


>>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!
>
We seem to agree on many of these points. 

As it were many of the Black people that worked as servants in the
early colonies were actually indentured servants and not slaves.
However things being what they were, they ended up getting treated the
same. 


>>>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.)
>
The norse cultures have a real swing between being aggressive and
peacefull. 

>>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!

There was a sloth like creature, and I can't remember it's name, that
inhabited the plains  along the eastern slop of the Seirra that was
hunted to extinction.

Your earlie clovis remarks are well placed however you will recognize
the significance of a clovis point being a big game tool as oppsed to
say a bird point made for hunting small animals. However climate
surely ushered the demise of many cretures.

Cheers
Gato Loco