🚀 go-pugleaf

(viewpoints A, B and C--me)

> >You seem to think that nothing else is viable or can even get started. 
> >I am getting the feeling that your motivations in this, are like that of 
> >many others, a social and political agenda. 
> > 
> >
> 
> No, I feel just as hopeless at this point about political or social 
> agendas. I truely think we're screwed and at best we can try to navigate 
> the mess on a small scale.
> 
> There's not enough solar energy for us to capture to keep human 
> civilization in it's current mode. And certainly not enough to fuel 
> growth, and we're using up the fossil forms of energy.
> 
> The only thing that could put off the crisis past our lifetimes, is some 
> sort of Star Trek solution. Something that doesn't exist for us yet.

The only Star Trek solution I see is to get aboard a spaceship and get
the hell out of here--fast. Other than that there may be a revolution
of some sort to bring back evolution back into place. The dinosaurs
don't want to evolve but we have to push them a little bit...

Do you see Star Trek in this picture? It's one of those dots...

http://pub36.bravenet.com/forum/302...7/fetch/330301/

> 
> >>A modern turkey factory needs electricity, natrual gas, trucked in food, 
> >>antibiotics, a medical station, offices, shipping and receiving docks, a 
> >>processing area, full time verterinarians, a steady supply of food and 
> >>water, maintenance and materials, a parking lot for employees.... All of 
> >>these produced or powered by fossil fuels. Once the oil and natural gas 
> >>are gone, centralized factory farms will be too expensive to operate.
> >> 
> >>
> >
> >You know what is also dependent on fossil fuels? Oil rigs, coal mines, 
> >oil tankers, pumps for pipe lines, refineries, etc. Yet, even though they 
> >run on the fuels they produce, they still work. Agricultural waste based 
> >fuel could fuel the agriculture in the same manner that a oil tanker has 
> >diesel fuel powered engines to get the oil from A to B. 
> >
> >
> > 
> >
> They sure are. In fact pretty much everything we know is powered by 
> fossil fuels. If it weren't for fossil fuels, we wouldn't have this 
> discussion and I wouldn't be enjoying a cold beer brewed hundreds of 
> miles away.
> 
> If I thought there was a solution, I'd be promoting it. I'm to the point 
> now were I don't see anything but regression as the path we'll be forced 
> to take. And I know we won't take it willingly. We'll fight that path 
> with guns, knives, clubs, nukes, disease,... you name it. We'll kill 
> each other for the last scraps all the way down. Because at heart, we 
> are fighters and scrappers. It's the reason we chose to take the oil in 
> Iraq as revenge for what a Saudi is said to have done to us. Soon we'll 
> be at war with Iran, then we'll have troops in Libya. Saudi Arabia will 
> see unrest and our troops will be there... We'll bring back the draft 
> and the only value the US will have for the world is the value a 
> mercenary force can provide.
> 
> There's a reason the US Industrial base is being shipped to Asia. It's 
> because the energy is cheaper there than in the US. And the folks making 
> their fortunes on manufacturing know it. And they don't care where their 
> employees are. They live anywhere in the world they want. They have no 
> national affiliations and they know it's time to abandon the US.
> 
> Have a nice day.
> 
> Jack Dingler

Welcome to a brave new world, the world of the jungle... 

http://committed.to/justiceforpeace

(viewpoints A, B and C--me)

> >You seem to think that nothing else is viable or can even get started. 
> >I am getting the feeling that your motivations in this, are like that of 
> >many others, a social and political agenda. 
> > 
> No, I feel just as hopeless at this point about political or social 
> agendas. I truely think we're screwed and at best we can try to navigate 
> the mess on a small scale.
> 
> There's not enough solar energy for us to capture to keep human 
> civilization in it's current mode. And certainly not enough to fuel 
> growth, and we're using up the fossil forms of energy.
> 
> The only thing that could put off the crisis past our lifetimes, is some 
> sort of Star Trek solution. Something that doesn't exist for us yet.

The only Star Trek solution I see is to get aboard a spaceship and get
the hell out of here--fast. Other than that there may be a revolution
of some sort to bring back evolution back into place. The dinosaurs
don't want to evolve but we have to push them a little bit...

Do you see Star Trek in this picture? It's one of those dots...

http://pub36.bravenet.com/forum/302...7/fetch/330301/

> 
> >>A modern turkey factory needs electricity, natrual gas, trucked in food, 
> >>antibiotics, a medical station, offices, shipping and receiving docks, a 
> >>processing area, full time verterinarians, a steady supply of food and 
> >>water, maintenance and materials, a parking lot for employees.... All of 
> >>these produced or powered by fossil fuels. Once the oil and natural gas 
> >>are gone, centralized factory farms will be too expensive to operate.
> >> 

> >You know what is also dependent on fossil fuels? Oil rigs, coal mines, 
> >oil tankers, pumps for pipe lines, refineries, etc. Yet, even though they 
> >run on the fuels they produce, they still work. Agricultural waste based 
> >fuel could fuel the agriculture in the same manner that a oil tanker has 
> >diesel fuel powered engines to get the oil from A to B. 
> >
> They sure are. In fact pretty much everything we know is powered by 
> fossil fuels. If it weren't for fossil fuels, we wouldn't have this 
> discussion and I wouldn't be enjoying a cold beer brewed hundreds of 
> miles away.
> 
> If I thought there was a solution, I'd be promoting it. I'm to the point 
> now were I don't see anything but regression as the path we'll be forced 
> to take. And I know we won't take it willingly. We'll fight that path 
> with guns, knives, clubs, nukes, disease,... you name it. We'll kill 
> each other for the last scraps all the way down. Because at heart, we 
> are fighters and scrappers. It's the reason we chose to take the oil in 
> Iraq as revenge for what a Saudi is said to have done to us. Soon we'll 
> be at war with Iran, then we'll have troops in Libya. Saudi Arabia will 
> see unrest and our troops will be there... We'll bring back the draft 
> and the only value the US will have for the world is the value a 
> mercenary force can provide.
> 
> There's a reason the US Industrial base is being shipped to Asia. It's 
> because the energy is cheaper there than in the US. And the folks making 
> their fortunes on manufacturing know it. And they don't care where their 
> employees are. They live anywhere in the world they want. They have no 
> national affiliations and they know it's time to abandon the US.
> 
> Have a nice day.
> 
> Jack Dingler

Welcome to a brave new world, the world of the jungle...

THE LAW OF THE JUNGLE 

Once upon a time, in the deep jungle, lived a Lion and a Monkey... One
day the Monkey, tired of the Lion always taking the LION'S SHARE, and
seeing that such injustice represented a danger to all the species of
the jungle, demanded JUSTICE... The Lion, yawning and stretching,
said, "You would have to have paws and sharp teeth..." Then the
Monkey, who was very clever, devised a plan: He would go to the
costume store, and look like a lion...

When the Lion saw him, noticing that the new lion wasn't a match for
him, and fearing COMPETITION, killed him on the spot --before the
indifferent look of the little animals of the jungle... And that's how
the Law of the Jungle was re-established one more time...

NOTE: Other monkeys survived him... 

THE LAW OF THE JUNGLE II 

After killing the monkey dressed as a lion, the Lion gathered all the
little animals of the jungle and announced: "Today we have
successfully eradicated one of the major threats to the peace and
order of our jungle... Yes, a new lion, probably envious of us,
attacked without warning... Luckily --because you know how good is
suffering for the spirit-- your sacrifice gave me strong paws and
teeth... And yes, these mighty weapons were so useful to me that I
finished him off without a sweat... Anyhow, now it turns out that some
other of his accomplices are roaming around and trying to attack us...
So get ready for more suffering and restrictions, if not for a
catastrophe... But, of course, there's a place for you in heaven..."

Meanwhile, one of the little animals --who had been grazing all
along-- asked another, "What did he say?" "I think he said something
about a new lion," answered the other. To which the first animal
replied, "Another one!?"

Moral: We don't need lions or violent monkeys that become lions. No
Lion No Problem!

http://committed.to/justiceforpeace

> > The Indians knew how to live with the land, and we beat them, and then
> > beat Nature, and finally we will beat ourselves to death. Hey,
> > hallelujah!!!
> >
>   Actually they were very hard on the land.  Slash and burn agriculture is
> not sustainable.

They may have been ignorant, but not stupid the way we are, that,
knowingly, shit where we sleep. Even cats and dogs are not that
stupid.

Hey, but you have to "survive" somehow in the jungle, and also keeping
up with the Joneses is no small matter, right?

http://committed.to/justiceforpeace

nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com (DonQuijote1954) wrote in message news:<4e4a3f58.0409221037.78a9be41@posting.google.com>...
> > > The Indians knew how to live with the land, and we beat them, and then
> > > beat Nature, and finally we will beat ourselves to death. Hey,
> > > hallelujah!!!
> > >
> >   Actually they were very hard on the land.  Slash and burn agriculture is
> > not sustainable.
> 
> They may have been ignorant, but not stupid the way we are, that,
> knowingly, shit where we sleep. Even cats and dogs are not that
> stupid.
> 
> Hey, but you have to "survive" somehow in the jungle, and also keeping
> up with the Joneses is no small matter, right?
> 
> http://committed.to/justiceforpeace

They weren't stupid, they just didn't need technology.

On 22 Sep 2004 23:36:38 -0700, christocbd@aol.com (fencingsax) wrote:

>nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com (DonQuijote1954) wrote in message news:<4e4a3f58.0409221037.78a9be41@posting.google.com>...
>> > > The Indians knew how to live with the land, and we beat them, and then
>> > > beat Nature, and finally we will beat ourselves to death. Hey,
>> > > hallelujah!!!
>> > >
>> >   Actually they were very hard on the land.  Slash and burn agriculture is
>> > not sustainable.
>> 
>> They may have been ignorant, but not stupid the way we are, that,
>> knowingly, shit where we sleep. Even cats and dogs are not that
>> stupid.
>> 
>> Hey, but you have to "survive" somehow in the jungle, and also keeping
>> up with the Joneses is no small matter, right?
>> 
>> http://committed.to/justiceforpeace
>
>They weren't stupid, they just didn't need technology.

Even without "technology" they managed to hunt several species to
extinction. And contrary to the belief that  they just lived in peace
and harmony... They also fought amongst themselves quite a bit. In
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.

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.

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.

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.  

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.  
 
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

Gatos Loco <gatosloco@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<dnr9l0dpgt1njio2bj2ir5ddbto5mumqnr@4ax.com>...
> >They weren't stupid, they just didn't need technology.
> 
> Even without "technology" they managed to hunt several species to
> extinction. And contrary to the belief that  they just lived in peace
> and harmony... They also fought amongst themselves quite a bit. In
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.  
> 
> 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.  
>  
> 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

OK, allow my to recycle this post to the same point. So I guess we are
following in the footprints, not of most American Indians or New
Guinea natives, but of Easter Islanders. They spent their time and
resources in statue sculpting, warring each other, while ignoring the
issue of environmental degradation. Deja vu?


>  Actually they were very hard on the land.  Slash and burn agriculture is
>not sustainable.
>
>  
>

Depends on which indian tribes we are discussing. You are both right 
depending on whom you pick. The natives of New Guinea were probably
the
closest to having a sustaining society, of any group of people in the
world.

This article may though describe the model that best fits us.

Easter's End 
by Jared Diamond 
Published in Discover Magazine on 08/01/95

In just a few centuries, the people of Easter Island wiped out their
forest, drove their plants and animals to extinction, and saw their
complex society spiral into chaos and cannibalism. Are we about to
follow their lead?

Among the most riveting mysteries of human history are those posed by
vanished civilizations. Everyone who has seen the abandoned buildings
of the Khmer, the Maya, or the Anasazi is immediately moved to ask the
same question: Why did the societies that erected those structures
disappear?

Their vanishing touches us as the disappearance of other animals, even
the dinosaurs, never can. No matter how exotic those lost
civilizations seem, their framers were humans like us. Who is to say
we won't succumb to the same fate? Perhaps someday New York's
skyscrapers will stand derelict and overgrown with vegetation, like
the temples at Angkor Wat and Tikal.

(snip)

It would be easy to close our eyes or to give up in despair. If mere
thousands of Easter Islanders with only stone tools and their own
muscle power sufficed to destroy their society, how can billions of
people with metal tools and machine power fail to do worse? But there
is one crucial difference. The Easter Islanders had no books and no
histories of other doomed societies. Unlike the Easter Islanders, we
have histories of the past--information that can save us. My main hope
for my sons' generation is that we may now choose to learn from the
fates of societies like Easter's.

http://dieoff.com/page145.htm

Jack Dingler

Gatos Loco <gatosloco@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<dnr9l0dpgt1njio2bj2ir5ddbto5mumqnr@4ax.com>...
> On 22 Sep 2004 23:36:38 -0700, christocbd@aol.com (fencingsax) wrote:
> 
> >nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com (DonQuijote1954) wrote in message news:<4e4a3f58.0409221037.78a9be41@posting.google.com>...
> >> > > The Indians knew how to live with the land, and we beat them, and then
> >> > > beat Nature, and finally we will beat ourselves to death. Hey,
> >> > > hallelujah!!!
> >> > >
> >> >   Actually they were very hard on the land.  Slash and burn agriculture is
> >> > not sustainable.
> >> 
> >> They may have been ignorant, but not stupid the way we are, that,
> >> knowingly, shit where we sleep. Even cats and dogs are not that
> >> stupid.
> >> 
> >> Hey, but you have to "survive" somehow in the jungle, and also keeping
> >> up with the Joneses is no small matter, right?
> >> 
> >> http://committed.to/justiceforpeace
> >
> >They weren't stupid, they just didn't need technology.
> 
> Even without "technology" they managed to hunt several species to
> extinction. And contrary to the belief that  they just lived in peace
> and harmony... They also fought amongst themselves quite a bit. In
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.  
> 
> 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.  
>  
> 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.

Gatos Loco <gatosloco@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<dnr9l0dpgt1njio2bj2ir5ddbto5mumqnr@4ax.com>...
> On 22 Sep 2004 23:36:38 -0700, christocbd@aol.com (fencingsax) wrote:
> 
> >nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com (DonQuijote1954) wrote in message news:<4e4a3f58.0409221037.78a9be41@posting.google.com>...
> >> > > The Indians knew how to live with the land, and we beat them, and then
> >> > > beat Nature, and finally we will beat ourselves to death. Hey,
> >> > > hallelujah!!!
> >> > >
> >> >   Actually they were very hard on the land.  Slash and burn agriculture is
> >> > not sustainable.
> >> 
> >> They may have been ignorant, but not stupid the way we are, that,
> >> knowingly, shit where we sleep. Even cats and dogs are not that
> >> stupid.
> >> 
> >> Hey, but you have to "survive" somehow in the jungle, and also keeping
> >> up with the Joneses is no small matter, right?
> >> 
> >> http://committed.to/justiceforpeace
> >
> >They weren't stupid, they just didn't need technology.
> 
> Even without "technology" they managed to hunt several species to
> extinction. And contrary to the belief that  they just lived in peace
> and harmony... They also fought amongst themselves quite a bit. In
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.  
> 
> 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.  
>  
> 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

     Is technology going to go away?

On 25 Sep 2004 08:55:04 -0700, blsepe@yahoo.com (Laurie) wrote:

>Gatos Loco <gatosloco@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<dnr9l0dpgt1njio2bj2ir5ddbto5mumqnr@4ax.com>...
>> On 22 Sep 2004 23:36:38 -0700, christocbd@aol.com (fencingsax) wrote:
>> 
>> >nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com (DonQuijote1954) wrote in message news:<4e4a3f58.0409221037.78a9be41@posting.google.com>...
>> >> > > The Indians knew how to live with the land, and we beat them, and then
>> >> > > beat Nature, and finally we will beat ourselves to death. Hey,
>> >> > > hallelujah!!!
>> >> > >
>> >> >   Actually they were very hard on the land.  Slash and burn agriculture is
>> >> > not sustainable.
>> >> 
>> >> They may have been ignorant, but not stupid the way we are, that,
>> >> knowingly, shit where we sleep. Even cats and dogs are not that
>> >> stupid.
>> >> 
>> >> Hey, but you have to "survive" somehow in the jungle, and also keeping
>> >> up with the Joneses is no small matter, right?
>> >> 
>> >> http://committed.to/justiceforpeace
>> >
>> >They weren't stupid, they just didn't need technology.
>> 
>> Even without "technology" they managed to hunt several species to
>> extinction. And contrary to the belief that  they just lived in peace
>> and harmony... They also fought amongst themselves quite a bit. In
>> 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.
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> 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.  
>> 
>> 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.  
>>  
>> 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 

cheers
Gato Loco

On 25 Sep 2004 18:55:09 -0700, picard23@yahoo.com (Dustin Lambert)
wrote:

>Gatos Loco <gatosloco@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<dnr9l0dpgt1njio2bj2ir5ddbto5mumqnr@4ax.com>...
>> On 22 Sep 2004 23:36:38 -0700, christocbd@aol.com (fencingsax) wrote:
>> 
>> >nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com (DonQuijote1954) wrote in message news:<4e4a3f58.0409221037.78a9be41@posting.google.com>...
>> >> > > The Indians knew how to live with the land, and we beat them, and then
>> >> > > beat Nature, and finally we will beat ourselves to death. Hey,
>> >> > > hallelujah!!!
>> >> > >
>> >> >   Actually they were very hard on the land.  Slash and burn agriculture is
>> >> > not sustainable.
>> >> 
>> >> They may have been ignorant, but not stupid the way we are, that,
>> >> knowingly, shit where we sleep. Even cats and dogs are not that
>> >> stupid.
>> >> 
>> >> Hey, but you have to "survive" somehow in the jungle, and also keeping
>> >> up with the Joneses is no small matter, right?
>> >> 
>> >> http://committed.to/justiceforpeace
>> >
>> >They weren't stupid, they just didn't need technology.
>> 
>> Even without "technology" they managed to hunt several species to
>> extinction. And contrary to the belief that  they just lived in peace
>> and harmony... They also fought amongst themselves quite a bit. In
>> 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.
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> 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.  
>> 
>> 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.  
>>  
>> 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
>
>     Is technology going to go away?

Maybe it will be diminished if we destroy enough with it. In turn
destroying sociatal infrastructure and thus the means of creating it.
So to some extent I suppose it would be possible.

GL

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).

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).

>>> 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.

>>> 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.

>>> 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.

>>> 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.

>>> 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.

>>> 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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

picard23@yahoo.com (Dustin Lambert) wrote in message news:<b6aa29d.0409251755.3ea6d1d0@posting.google.com>...
> > 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
> 
>      Is technology going to go away?

"Technology is high, common sense is low."

<If you think Earth is a mess, consider the turmoil in the
constellation Hydra, where astronomers have spotted two monster
galactic clusters slamming together in one of the biggest collisions
ever recorded.

The cosmic smash-up poses no danger to Earth -- it is located about
800 million light-years away and the galaxies involved tend to speed
by each other without crashing -- but our own Milky Way could be on a
similar collision course in a few billion years.

Astronomers who observed the violent merger said on Thursday it could
be likened to the clash of two particularly strong weather fronts on
Earth.

[url]http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=753&e=1&u=/ap/20040927/ap_on_sc/st__helens_quakes[/url]

Spaghetti lovers, unfortunately,  are not  interested in space
events.:)>

People need to have a full stomach and peace on Earth before they can
relax looking at the stars. That's why we need a revolution, the
Spaghetti Revolution...(see below)

While the jungle is ignored, 99.9% of the scientific community is
looking at the sky. Needless to say, the latter profession is so much
safer. But big money is going up in the sky, perhaps the ultimate
Puppet Show...

You too like looking at the sky?;)

The Banana Revolution?
http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote40

"Gatos Loco"

Is that Indian name?

By the way, why Columbus and the Conquistadores didn't see beauty but
Gold? Were they the first capitalists this side of the ocean? ;)

On 27 Sep 2004 12:48:30 -0700, nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com
(DonQuijote1954) wrote:

>"Gatos Loco"
>
>Is that Indian name?
>
>By the way, why Columbus and the Conquistadores didn't see beauty but
>Gold? Were they the first capitalists this side of the ocean? ;)

Interestingly enough the name indian comes from In dio or with god.
Columbus thought that he had discovered the garden of eden.  It isn't
from an association with India, as is often accepted. There is
certainly a lot of evidence of extensive trade prior to spanish
conquest. 

Actually I got my name from stamps that came out a some years back. It
was a cartoon character from the 20's or 30's.

cheers
Gato Loco

Gatos Loco <gatosloco@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 00:02:24 -0800, floyd@barrow.com (Floyd L.
>Davidson) wrote:
>>>
>>>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.

So the evidence is that an animal went extinct, and there were
humans in North America at the same time.

That is no evidence at all.

In fact, I doubt there is any real evidence that said animal was
even hunted by humans!  The one and only large animal from that
period that we can be somewhat (but perhaps not very) certain
was hunted is the mammoth.  They've actually found one or two of
them with spear points embedded in them.  The others are purely
speculation...  (And when that speculation gets to the point of
claiming something was hunted to extinction it is much closer to
fabrication.)

Finding bones of an animal carved up in a cave does *not* equate
to proof that the animal was hunted and killed by humans.  It
merely proves that a dead specimen was carved up.

When relatively newer middens are excavated it is pretty easy to
determine what percentage of the diet certain animals provided.
Hence on Greenland 4000 years ago we know that Eskimos ate a lot
of seals, but not so many whales; and that in more recent times
they increased the number of whales taken.

But when looking at artifacts from 7 to 15 thousand years ago,
they are lucky to find a mere few identifiable bones, and it
generally does not present sufficient information to make the
same determinations.

As I said, there simply is no evidence that actually supports
a claim that Native Americans hunted even one single animal to
extinction.

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

Gatos Loco <gatosloco@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<7trgl0hvrgsupit332leagvfkksoafmtl6@4ax.com>...
> On 27 Sep 2004 12:48:30 -0700, nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com
> (DonQuijote1954) wrote:
> 
> >"Gatos Loco"
> >
> >Is that Indian name?
> >
> >By the way, why Columbus and the Conquistadores didn't see beauty but
> >Gold? Were they the first capitalists this side of the ocean? ;)
> 
> Interestingly enough the name indian comes from In dio or with god.
> Columbus thought that he had discovered the garden of eden.  It isn't
> from an association with India, as is often accepted. There is
> certainly a lot of evidence of extensive trade prior to spanish
> conquest. 

But Columbus came looking for something else besides trade. He came
looking to get rich. While the Indians traded before, I'd doubt their
most sophisticated merchants came close to the GREED in the Europeans.
Is it not?

Gatos Loco wrote:
> Maybe it will be diminished if we destroy enough with it. In turn
> destroying sociatal infrastructure and thus the means of creating it.
> So to some extent I suppose it would be possible.
Maybe. Why if primitive tribes were violent, would we not be if reduced 
to their level.

Anthropology, zoology, psychology, and archaeology are converging on the 
  phenomena of the Alpha male, so named from field studies of primates. We
have the video of alpha male chimps organizing a gang to go out and find 
a foraging couple in an adjacent territory. They murder him and any 
progeny she has, then gang rape her while they kidnap her and add her to 
their own harem. Chimps have wars with neighboring groups, and the alpha 
males commit what we call 'domestic abuse' within their own group.

Alphaism is handed down on the Y Chromosome. Behaviorism does not work. 
the assumption that Skinnerian techniques in the schools to prevent 
violence and produce humane adults are insufficient.

But then, we have the example of the Bonobo; the chimp groups are run by 
a streetgang; the bonobo groups are run by an elder sisterhood. Bonobos 
dont kill and eat other monkeys, they dont war with other groups, and 
nobody gets raped. There's no 'domestic abuse' and no violent struggle 
among alpha males for dominance.

The problem is not the religion or the politics or the customs; if the 
alpha males rule, they will engage in violence. If the sisterhood does, 
as we've seen in the Chalcolithic matriarchies, there is peace. Bonobos 
have sex a dozen times a day. There are two forces to control the action 
of men: sex or violence. Pick one; the negative re-inforcement of 
violence, or the positive re-inforcement of sex. Sex changes the brain 
chemistry; guys that get laid more when women are in charge, dont want 
to change the system.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Why do you want our society to be like the society of India or Native
Americans?
"Day Brown" <daybrown@hypertech.net> wrote in message
news:4168a89a$1_2@127.0.0.1...
> Gatos Loco wrote:
> > Maybe it will be diminished if we destroy enough with it. In turn
> > destroying sociatal infrastructure and thus the means of creating it.
> > So to some extent I suppose it would be possible.
> Maybe. Why if primitive tribes were violent, would we not be if reduced
> to their level.
>
> Anthropology, zoology, psychology, and archaeology are converging on the
>   phenomena of the Alpha male, so named from field studies of primates. We
> have the video of alpha male chimps organizing a gang to go out and find
> a foraging couple in an adjacent territory. They murder him and any
> progeny she has, then gang rape her while they kidnap her and add her to
> their own harem. Chimps have wars with neighboring groups, and the alpha
> males commit what we call 'domestic abuse' within their own group.
>
> Alphaism is handed down on the Y Chromosome. Behaviorism does not work.
> the assumption that Skinnerian techniques in the schools to prevent
> violence and produce humane adults are insufficient.
>
> But then, we have the example of the Bonobo; the chimp groups are run by
> a streetgang; the bonobo groups are run by an elder sisterhood. Bonobos
> dont kill and eat other monkeys, they dont war with other groups, and
> nobody gets raped. There's no 'domestic abuse' and no violent struggle
> among alpha males for dominance.
>
> The problem is not the religion or the politics or the customs; if the
> alpha males rule, they will engage in violence. If the sisterhood does,
> as we've seen in the Chalcolithic matriarchies, there is peace. Bonobos
> have sex a dozen times a day. There are two forces to control the action
> of men: sex or violence. Pick one; the negative re-inforcement of
> violence, or the positive re-inforcement of sex. Sex changes the brain
> chemistry; guys that get laid more when women are in charge, dont want
> to change the system.
>
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
Newsgroups
> ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

Day Brown <daybrown@hypertech.net> wrote in message news:<4168a89a$1_2@127.0.0.1>...
> Gatos Loco wrote:
> > Maybe it will be diminished if we destroy enough with it. In turn
> > destroying sociatal infrastructure and thus the means of creating it.
> > So to some extent I suppose it would be possible.
> Maybe. Why if primitive tribes were violent, would we not be if reduced 
> to their level.
> 
> Anthropology, zoology, psychology, and archaeology are converging on the 
>   phenomena of the Alpha male, so named from field studies of primates. We
> have the video of alpha male chimps organizing a gang to go out and find 
> a foraging couple in an adjacent territory. They murder him and any 
> progeny she has, then gang rape her while they kidnap her and add her to 
> their own harem. Chimps have wars with neighboring groups, and the alpha 
> males commit what we call 'domestic abuse' within their own group.
> 
> Alphaism is handed down on the Y Chromosome. Behaviorism does not work. 
> the assumption that Skinnerian techniques in the schools to prevent 
> violence and produce humane adults are insufficient.
> 
> But then, we have the example of the Bonobo; the chimp groups are run by 
> a streetgang; the bonobo groups are run by an elder sisterhood. Bonobos 
> dont kill and eat other monkeys, they dont war with other groups, and 
> nobody gets raped. There's no 'domestic abuse' and no violent struggle 
> among alpha males for dominance.
> 
> The problem is not the religion or the politics or the customs; if the 
> alpha males rule, they will engage in violence. If the sisterhood does, 
> as we've seen in the Chalcolithic matriarchies, there is peace. Bonobos 
> have sex a dozen times a day. There are two forces to control the action 
> of men: sex or violence. Pick one; the negative re-inforcement of 
> violence, or the positive re-inforcement of sex. Sex changes the brain 
> chemistry; guys that get laid more when women are in charge, dont want 
> to change the system.
> 

Wait a minute, what you are saying is that humans need bananas, I mean
Banana Revolution? Well, maybe that's the way to go, no? ;)

(The alpha male in this case is the King of the Jungle)

"If I can't dance, I don't want to join your revolution" 
-Emma Goldman (1869-1940) 

What if instead of using something totally abstract for national
identity--the flag, the anthem--or something which makes you different
in a suspicious way--religion, politics--we used something real that
everybody liked? Suppose that the symbol of national identity was
'food' and suppose that we spiced it up (what good food isn't
spiced?), wouldn't people prefer it?

Of course, people love it! My first writing over 11 years ago was the
"Guarapo Revolution" (denouncing scarcity in Cuba) and, after its huge
success, I came up with the Jalapeno (Mexico), Arepa (Venezuela),
Banana revolutions...

While other activists struggle to convince an overwhelmingly skeptical
public, I just say "Banana Revolution," and people take the literature
with a smile. In fact, it is *very* popular by that name. And along
with it they get the deeper stories of the jungle with the solution
being proposed...

Most of all, they want the party, the promised "Banana Party"! So all
we got to do is, not fight anyone, but throw the party. That's what
the people want. At least that's my experience among the Latin
American people...

There many more arguments for a funny food name though: 

-Nationalistic symbols--flag, anthem--divide and lead to conflict;
food differentiates yet unites. (These nationalistic symbols have been
used by the lions to control the little people)/ The easiest way to
get people involved is to throw a party. And we need people, lots of
people/ The leaflets are passed on, not wasted/ The names really
stick, which is good for the cause... These names become a 'protest
vote' against corrupt politics, against the foxes. Make fun of
something to destroy it/ It signals that the happiness of people is
more important than politics/ It emphasizes food and things real (not
risk the famines or scarcities some revolutions--USSR, China,
Cuba--are known for). Hungry revolutions feed the lion/ It challenges
junk food, that's low in nutrition and makes us fat. Junk food is also
an instrument of globalization/ It constitutes a 'back to basics'
movement/ It keeps the lion away, since love and laughter are not part
of his aggressive language/ People have something better to think
other than the afterlife. The people need to live 'here and now'/ If
we have a problem with the BANANA REPUBLIC, then the logic solution
would be a BANANA REVOLUTION, no?

We got some very spicy surveys though some don't mean the same in
English. They ask important questions about the party...

BANANA SURVEY 

In preparation for the VICTORY PARTY, we are doing the following
survey so nothing's missing:

Do you like "Chiquita Banana" or "Grande Banana"? 

__ I like Chiquita Banana (Banana Republic) 

__ I like Grande Banana (Banana Revolution) 

The answer is obvious, but HAVING OPTIONS is at the core of our
solution...

Make love, not war? 

"Make love, not war," was not just a protest against the indifference
and lack of humaneness in Vietnam; it was also a positive statement
that love between parent and child, teacher and pupil, fiance and
fiancee, and husband and wife is an activity we should try to pursue
in the house when work is not necessary. It is the one real source of
truth, beauty, and salvation in a community where deceit, corruption,
and impersonality seem to be rampant.
-Jerome Kagan 

*** 

Another argument for a Banana Revolution is as follows... 

The monkey knows that the lion is a dangerous animal, and knows from
past experiences not to dress like a lion, so he decides to be funny,
that being his natural gift. And he also realizes that the lion--a
beautiful lioness--is lacking in love, which is known to cause
aggressiveness. So he offers his banana to the lion who, moved by that
act of kindness, and checking the banana, falls madly in love with
him. And it is said they lived happily ever after...

Moral: Love is more powerful than violence. 

Well, if the above doesn't work then try this... 

The ABC of handling a lion... 
-DO NOT FEED THE LION (you feed the lion, you feed the problem) 
-VOTE WITH YOUR FEET (don't buy from predators, move elsewhere) 
-NONVIOLENCE IS BETTER (the lion wants you to dress as a lion for him
to play the victim)
-CRY LION! (The lion relies on camouflage, so your voice is needed by
others)
-NO LION NO PROBLEM! (do not accept the beast in your life) 

*** 

A Revolution for the Young? 

Sorry guys, but this revolution is aimed at the young--or at least to
the young at heart.

Perhaps it's natural for a young idealist to turn into a greedy
hypocrite later in life, given that the harsh reality of the jungle is
"eat or be eaten."

Then we need to reach the younger generations who like to love and
dance--and WHO WANT TO LIVE. What do the older voters who put
war-mongering, environment-hater Bush in power care about the future?
Well, not enough, and they are likely to vote for him again. I have
approached the young many times though and they agree with the
statement JUSTICE FOR PEACE, since, you know, it makes sense, and
since they haven't developed yet vested interests. So, YES, there's a
generation gap, and we need a change of generations.

And how do we reach them? Say through music, say through throwing a
party? Perhaps we need to give them a chance, no?

SEE YOU AT THE BANANA PARTY!!! 

http://committed.to/justiceforpeace

"Matt Dillon" <johnmunch@qwest.net> wrote in message news:<vZ1ad.47$%j.70540@news.uswest.net>...
> Why do you want our society to be like the society of India or Native
> Americans?

That's precisely what our "legendary guerrilla leader" has in mind. Or
what did he have in mind? ;)

Q: What solution do you offer? 
A: We offer the best of what we had back in 1492. 

(In reality, I think we can combine the best of both worlds, taking
from them whatever appreciation they had for Nature. Our love of gold
must be re-examined if are to stop the conquest of paradise, which
still is going on.)


NOTE: When words are used to mislead, we need things real. And I
couldn't think of anything better that our delicious national dishes.
So the guarapo, arepa, jalapeno, banana revolutions were born...
Anyway, what counts is not the name, but the content...

*guarapo: sugar-cane juice. I'll leave it up to your imagination why
it's so important...

COMING SOON: 

THE GUARAPO REVOLUTION 
(WITHOUT COCA-COLA, BUT WITH GUARAPO!) 
"FREEDOM MOVEMENT" 

The following is an interview with our legendary guerrilla leader,
Liborio, published by The New York Times on September 31:

Question: Mr. Liborio, what is this fuss about? 
Answer: Que dice el comemierda este? (What is this asshole saying?) 
(AN INTERPRETER IS RUSHED IN.) 
Q: What is this fuss about? 
A: This means that the only mistake made by Communism in Cuba was not
to have eliminated Coca-Cola, but also to have taken away even
guarapo. Many people, all over the world, blame the external embargo
for our humiliating condition, ignoring that it was the "Cuban
Revolution" itself the one which took away everything ours.
Q: What solution do you offer? 
A: We offer the best of what we had back in 1492. 
Q: You wouldn't be referring to nudism and all that, do you? 
A: I've never thought about that. But, on second thought, it wouldn't
be a bad idea that our MULATAS could show the... Shit! you make wander
from the subject!
Q: What punishment do you propose for the Communists? 
A: Well, it's going to be drastic: 1,000 lines saying: "I will never
support another foreign doctrine again"; and send them to the world...
Q: What can be done inside the island? 
A: The "Guarapo Plebiscite": by writing "guarapo" or "G" on every
wall.
Q: And what can be done outside? 
A: A humanitarian caravan to Cuba. We will take sugar cane, so as to
break the internal blockade that the dictatorship imposes on the
people.
Q: And when we are free? 
A: A bottle of rum for every Cuban, to drown the sorrows. And then we
are going to throw the big party where we are going to mix guarapo and
rum...
Q: Any slogan? 
A: Yeah, SHAKE IT BABY! (If you don't, the sugar settles at the
bottom.)

Matt Dillon wrote:
> Why do you want our society to be like the society of India or Native
> Americans?
I'm not talking about what I *want*; I'm just the messenger. Lotsa guys 
dont
wanna hear the news, but the women, man, are paying attention, and as 
they become more entrenched in the Transnational boardrooms, and from 
thence into government (the time honored method), *they* will pick up on 
the data from the social evolution of the Hominids.

Perhaps there's still a copy of "The Naked Ape" still around, which 
metaphorically tacked the hides of all the apes on the barn doors, and 
then compared the hairless one with all the others. They have 90% or 
more of the same DNA, and ever since Maslow's monkey, everyone has seen 
how we still carry many of the same instincts. People are still afraid 
of snakes. Snakes are not big enough to eat the modern hominids, but its 
only been a few million years since they were eating our kin, and we 
still remember.

We see how many different kinds of really complex behavior are encoded 
in the sheepdog, the coon hound, the rat terrior, and so on; we've all 
seen how pubescent white girls are gaga over horses, and now the 
archaeology shows that they were the first people on Earth to ride the 
horse, because as we see in gymnastics, they were coordinated enuf, yet 
light enuf, to ride the small breed they began with (137 cm at the 
withers). Put an alpha male on such a small horse, an he'll run it into 
the ground within a mile, and even so is too heavy for such a pony to 
run as fast as that carrying an Amazon. And on foot, he cant catch her 
either. Soooo... it didnt matter how big and strong he was, he could not 
control her, and that freedom is still instinctive with the mtDNA line 
that learned to ride.

Neurologist Ramachandran talks about the differences in structure which 
result in artistry. *Structure* is largely a genetic trait. The FMRI 
brain scans are revealing how our brains are wired up, and as Steven 
Pinker shows in 'The Blank Slate', far more is genetic than the social 
scientists with their behavioral theories want to admit. Jews really are 
genetically smarter.[period]

The liberal idea that equal opportunity will have equal results will be 
shown to be fantasy. The Transnationals, who look for talent wherever 
they can find it, wont ignore any in ghettos or barrios, but they know 
that is not the most likely source, and they wont attribute talent where 
it does not exist, or waste resources trying to develop inadequate 
mental faculties.

We already see dykes selecting sperm donors; they dont much care for the 
alpha males cause they want a kid who is less challenging and will have 
a better relationship with the mother later on. Eugenics will be, as we 
see with professional athletes, practiced no matter what the Liberals 
say. Women will look for male lines that dont exhibit schizophrenia, 
substance abuse, domestic abuse, depression, autism, and what not, but 
which do have successful careers. And whatever we may think of the 
racism, the fact is that white men have the best documented geneaology 
with the most accessable database to identify Y chromosome problems or 
advantages. And unfortunately for a lotta guys who dont like this, the 
ones with the most machismo will be out of the gene pool.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---