NationStates Jolt Archive

A while back, RocktheCasbah made some comments about the brutality and savagery of 'Indians', but I wasn't able to reply to those comments at the time.

It's an opinion many people hold, and I'd like to refute it, but first I need to know what you actually think....in what way were we 'savages' or 'barbaric', and what measure of savagery and barbarism are you using? Because you KNOW I'm going to drag European culture into this as a comparison.

So? Bring it on.

I told him to lay off this subject. *sigh* poor Rockthecasbah

sav·age ( P ) Pronunciation Key (svj)
adj.
Not domesticated or cultivated; wild: savage beasts of the jungle.
Not civilized; barbaric: a savage people.
Ferocious; fierce: in a savage temper.
Vicious or merciless; brutal: a savage attack on a political rival. See Synonyms at cruel.
Lacking polish or manners; rude.

All of the bolded apply to early aboriginals.

Oh, and here are the posts I'm referring to:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11457523&postcount=64
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11457550&postcount=68
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11457603&postcount=74
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11457617&postcount=75

Unfortunately it seems he's offline at the moment, but I'm sure others will 'fill in'.

Using the term "savage" or "barbarian" to describe an entire group of people denotes a complete misunderstanding of another's culture, and also shows an innate fear.

One must also know that in every culture there are "savages", but not in the way you would think. Every culture has its rapists, murderers, and sadists.

The term "savage", or "evil", or "whatever", can never be applied to an entire group or organization, but can only be given to individuals who have "earned" it, through their ill-driven actions.

It's just blatant ethnocentrism believing that your culture is the standard to judge all others. "they don't wear pants ROFL they must be inferior"

and as far as barbarity webster's defines it as any "cruel or savage act" wouldn't the spanish inquesition, and the Conquestidors be barbarians?

Because you KNOW I'm going to drag European culture into this as a comparison.
There is no inconsistency. Indiginous peoples were characterised as savages only by the social elites of European societies. They viewed their own brutish masses with equal disdain, and greater fear. Little respect was given to the great majority of Europeans who lived short nasty lives in squalor, with neither sanitation nor literacy, nor numeracy.

If it was a race thing abroad, it was a class thing at home, and it was every bit as strong.

The reason we have this perception of European cultural arrogance is that we never hear anything about the 95% of Europeans whose lot in life was no better, and who did not have the opportunity to contribute to the records of the time.

Using the term "savage" or "barbarian" denotes a complete misunderstanding of another's culture, and also shows an innate fear.

One must also know that in every culture there are "savages", but not in the way you would think. Every culture has its rapists, murderers, and sadists.

The term "savage", or "evil", or "whatever", can never be applied to an entire group or organization, but can only be given to individuals who have "earned" it, through their ill-driven actions.

That depends how you define savage, i never regarded the term savage as always a bad thing.

It's just blatant ethnocentrism believing that your culture is the standard to judge all others. "they don't wear pants ROFL they must be inferior"

and as far as barbarity webster's defines it as any "cruel or savage act" wouldn't the spainish inquesition, and the Conquestidors be barbarians?

Precisely.

All of the bolded apply to early aboriginals.
Hahahaha, we weren't domesticated? Um, we aren't cattle, sheep, pigs or goats, so yeah, I would say that doesn't apply. Sorry...are YOU domesticated? Since that generally has a negative connotation when used to refer to humans, I'm going to guess that you'll pass on the title.

Savage beasts of the jungle! Well, since this is in the same sentence as the 'domesticated' line, I am going to make the stunning leap of logic and say this is referring to animals. So. Are you saying we were 'animals'? Because you know that's not going to hold water.

Not civilised. Well, this is really the crux of it, and here's is where I think we'll end up focusing. 'Savage' versus 'civilised'. So, how are you defining these two terms, civilisation in particular? Because most people are working from a very ethnocentric belief that they are civilised, and others are not. I'll wait for your definition.

Lacking in polish and manners! Aha! According to whom? Again, this is an extremely ethnocentric viewpoint. What passes for 'polish and manners' in one culture may not in another...need I give you examples?

Using the term "savage" or "barbarian" to describe an entire group of people denotes a complete misunderstanding of another's culture, and also shows an innate fear.

One must also know that in every culture there are "savages", but not in the way you would think. Every culture has its rapists, murderers, and sadists.

The term "savage", or "evil", or "whatever", can never be applied to an entire group or organization, but can only be given to individuals who have "earned" it, through their ill-driven actions.

*clap clap clap*

you know rome was dead because it was corrupt ,not because they learn the huns how to settle.

All of the bolded apply to early aboriginals.
Too bad all of those are subjective opninions.

Too bad all of those are subjective opninions.
Subjective opinions work if you're the one with the firepower.

He stated north American Indians, not the Central , Southern American ones,such as the Aztecs, Mayans, Olmec and Inca form my recollection, but to sum it down to a few points.


North American Indians:

1) ran around half nude

2) fought with sticks and stones literally

3) had no complex written language

3) lived often in tent structures, as did the europeans too I admit, but only Europeans got past that aspect of life about 8,000 years ago


Europeans:

1) created majestic cities, full of marble buildings, and architectual wonders.

2) Muskets, cannons, firearms.

3) ships capable of crossing long expanses such as the atlantic, as opposed to canoes

4) complex written languages, such as french, german, english, russian to name a few, which could be used in very complex discussions about philosphy, also poetry, and diplomatic writings.

5) clothing, in fact uniforms, armor, literally tons of different types of clothing, and suits for gentlemen and aristocrats.

6) Complex innovative writings about philosophical standpoints, such as Nietzsche, or Voltaire.

7) classical music, Bach, Beethoven, Wagner, Strauss.

8) Great written works, Dante, Shakespeare, Goethe.

9) Industry, factories producing loads of goods.




Yes, I think I can see why anyone would say that the North American Indians seem savages and left behind people compared to the Europeans. That is of course not mentioning any moral aspects, as to who is the greater monster or more guilty of atrocious crimes is another matter entirely.

But quite frankly yes, the Europeans were superior in almost ever way culturally, militarily, and socially to the North America Indians, or the impolitically incorrect way of saying it "red savages".

There is no inconsistency. Indiginous peoples were characterised as savages only by the social elites of European societies. They viewed their own brutish masses with equal disdain, and greater fear. Little respect was given to the great majority of Europeans who lived short nasty lives in squalor, with neither sanitation nor literacy, nor numeracy.

If it was a race thing abroad, it was a class thing at home, and it was every bit as strong.

The reason we have this perception of European cultural arrogance is that we never hear anything about the 95% of Europeans whose lot in life was no better, and who did not have the opportunity to contribute to the records of the time.
Nonetheless, TG, it's not as if the people who hold these ideas of 'savagery and barbarism' in relation to my people take ANY of that into account. Nor are they likely to apply that label to themselves. The perception of cultural inferiority based on 'a lack of civilisation' is incredibly important. We've even had court cases where the judge used that as grounds to throw out aboriginal claims, saying since we 'had no hallmarks of civilisation' no rights could exist.

Hahahaha, we weren't domesticated? Um, we aren't cattle, sheep, pigs or goats, so yeah, I would say that doesn't apply. Sorry...are YOU domesticated? Since that generally has a negative connotation when used to refer to humans, I'm going to guess that you'll pass on the title.

Savage beasts of the jungle! Well, since this is in the same sentence as the 'domesticated' line, I am going to make the stunning leap of logic and say this is referring to animals. So. Are you saying we were 'animals'? Because you know that's not going to hold water.

Not civilised. Well, this is really the crux of it, and here's is where I think we'll end up focusing. 'Savage' versus 'civilised'. So, how are you defining these two terms, civilisation in particular? Because most people are working from a very ethnocentric belief that they are civilised, and others are not. I'll wait for your definition.

Lacking in polish and manners! Aha! According to whom? Again, this is an extremely ethnocentric viewpoint. What passes for 'polish and manners' in one culture may not in another...need I give you examples?

Ok by aboriginal i was talking about ancient australian aborigonals. I wasn't talking about native americans.

I have studied a great deal about native indians and I also agree that they are cultured and can be civalised. They had great respect for nature, people ,traditions, buffalo etc... They wern't domesticated though (they were constantly on the move, following the buffalo).

Some of their acts can be considered savage however (for example scalping)

That depends how you define savage, i never regarded the term savage as always a bad thing.
It's how it is used, and the intent behind the label.

A while back, RocktheCasbah made some comments about the brutality and savagery of 'Indians', but I wasn't able to reply to those comments at the time.

It's an opinion many people hold, and I'd like to refute it, but first I need to know what you actually think....in what way were we 'savages' or 'barbaric', and what measure of savagery and barbarism are you using? Because you KNOW I'm going to drag European culture into this as a comparison.

So? Bring it on.

I refer you to the excellent film "The Proposition".

In addition my ancestors were still living in tribes not 500 years ago, and you can be fucking sure so were his at some stage.

All of the bolded apply to early aboriginals.

They only apply if you say that Western civilization and manners are the only type. I would hardly state that aboriginal cultures were not civilized or that they didn't have manners. They simply had a different type of civilization - and a different set of acceptable (and unacceptable) behaviors.

If your average American (especially a left-handed one) were to go to Indonesia, the people there would probably consider them to be lacking polish or manners, not because they have none, but because they don't follow the cultural norms of Indonesia.

Given the strictest interpretation of the word 'barbarian' the native americans do indeed fit the mold. Of course so does everyone else, for the simple fact that no one speaks ancient Greek as their first language. Even Alexander the Great met this criteria for barbarian!

That depends how you define savage, i never regarded the term savage as always a bad thing.

You just did by saying they were uncivilized and had no manners as compared them to animals.

All of which can be attributed to people in any society, don't youa gree?

Some of their acts can be considered savage however (for example scalping)

The way I understand the history, scalping was actually begun by the Europeans. In order to encourage inter-tribal fighting, the Europeans would ask for scalps as proof of kills.

Nonetheless, TG, it's not as if the people who hold these ideas of 'savagery and barbarism' in relation to my people take ANY of that into account. Nor are they likely to apply that label to themselves. The perception of cultural inferiority based on 'a lack of civilisation' is incredibly important. We've even had court cases where the judge used that as grounds to throw out aboriginal claims, saying since we 'had no hallmarks of civilisation' no rights could exist.
True, I wish more people knew the story on the other side of the coin. Part of the problem is that an actual description of western civilisation and its domestic characteristics, is never offered at school. Education systems either tend to fail on this score, or are accused of 'liberal bias' for their trouble.

The way I understand the history, scalping was actually begun by the Europeans. In order to encourage inter-tribal fighting, the Europeans would ask for scalps as proof of kills.


proof?

The way I understand the history, scalping was actually begun by the Europeans. In order to encourage inter-tribal fighting, the Europeans would ask for scalps as proof of kills.

Haha lol, that is bad history. Scalping was used to prevent the persons "spirit" from reaching the native afterlife which was called the "happy hunting ground".

He stated north American Indians, not the Central , Southern American ones,such as the Aztecs, Mayans, Olmec and Inca form my recollection, but to sum it down to a few points.


North American Indians:

1) ran around half nude All the time? Really? Even in winter? And all of us did this? Wow.

Alright, let me be the first to inform you that 'North American Indians', even if you completely exclude those living in what is now Mexico and 'Central America' (since you've excluded the Olmec, Aztecs and Mayan...) are not one homogenous group, nor have we ever been. Let's look for example at the Inuit. Running around half nude? I hardly think so. And as for any other group that might have been 'half nude' in the hot summers...this is different than the Scotts, the Irish, and a host of other Europeans who also did not dress up toe to crown just to be 'modest' how?



2) fought with sticks and stones literally Riiiiight. Bows and arrows are just glorified sticks and stones...well, using that logic, your guns are just glorified pieces of ore.

3) had no complex written language So we must have been running around grunting at one another, hmmmm? Our languages are complex, diverse, and certainly not linguistically inferior in any way to yours. So you're hung up on writing? *shrugs* That's your thing then, it certainly didn't mean we lacked the means to communicate eloquently, or pass down our histories.

3) lived often in tent structures, as did the europeans too I admit, but only Europeans got past that aspect of life about 8,000 years ago Those of us who were nomadic certainly did...we were hunters and gatherers, not stationary farmers. Then again...some of us WERE stationary farmers. Among the various tribes you run the gamut from teepees, to log houses, to stone houses...whatever made sense for that particular people.


Europeans:

1) created majestic cities, full of marble buildings, and architectual wonders.

2) Muskets, cannons, firearms.

3) ships capable of crossing long expanses such as the atlantic, as opposed to canoes

4) complex written languages, such as french, german, english, russian to name a few, which could be used in very complex discussions about philosphy, also poetry, and diplomatic writings. On this language thing...sorry, but 'writing' doesn't make a language complex. The language is complex in and of itself...the writing is simply a symbolic way of recording the sounds or concepts. So 'writing', once again, doesn't make a language superior to an unwritten language.

5) clothing, in fact uniforms, armor, literally tons of different types of clothing, and suits for gentlemen and aristocrats.

6) Complex innovative writings about philosophical standpoints, such as Nietzsche, or Voltaire.

7) classical music, Bach, Beethoven, Wagner, Strauss.

8) Great written works, Dante, Shakespeare, Goethe.

9) Industry, factories producing loads of goods.

Let me sum this up. You're mightily impressed by European accomplishments, and you judge us according to them...so if we didn't have 'classical music', our music is inferior. If we didn't have the same TYPE of clothing as Europeans, the huge variety and complexity of our clothing is inferior. If we didn't have great written works, our oral histories, legends, stories, philosophies...all of that is inferior.

See, it seems to me that you are comparing something you understand, to something you know next to nothing about. How can you possibly make that kind of comparison?

See, it seems to me that you are comparing something you understand, to something you know next to nothing about. How can you possibly make that kind of comparison?

European colonists at the time easily made the comparison because they were the ones with firearms.

Haha lol, that is bad history. Scalping was used to prevent the persons "spirit" from reaching the native afterlife which was called the "happy hunting ground".

Do you have documented proof of this? Because there's more anecdotal evidence pointing to scalping as a White Man's Bad Habit, just like alcohol.

It's just blatant ethnocentrism believing that your culture is the standard to judge all others. "they don't wear pants ROFL they must be inferior"

and as far as barbarity webster's defines it as any "cruel or savage act" wouldn't the spanish inquesition, and the Conquestidors be barbarians?
I do judge some contemporary cultures inferior to western and westernized cultures. I don't feel comfortable judging cultures of the past because of the difference in progress between then and now. Still, one can objectively judge which cultures are better or worse by looking at how well they serve the needs of humans. One way to measure how well they meet our needs is to see which cultures are growing through immigration and which ones are experiencing a loss of citizens through emigration. Western and westernized nations are a destination for people from all over the world. We get refugees looking for freedom, and paupers looking for work (the way the economy is run is a reflection of the values of the culture).

proof?
According to historian James Axtell, there is no evidence that the early European explorers and settlers in the Americas were familiar with this practice of the Scythians, or that they ever taught scalping to Native Americans. There is clear evidence, says Axtell, that the practice of scalping existed long before Europeans arrived, primarily in North America. The theory that Native Americans learned the practice of scalping from Europeans first appeared in the 1690s and is still professed by some writers and activists, but this belief is not supported by most academic scholars.

It is believed that contact with Europeans widened the practice of scalping among Native Americans, since some Euro-American governments encouraged the practice among their Native American allies during times of war. For example, in the American Revolutionary War, Henry Hamilton, the British Lieutenant-Governor of Canada, was known by American Patriots as the "hair-buyer general" because it was believed he encouraged and paid his Native American allies to scalp American settlers. When Hamilton was captured in the war by the Americans, he was treated as a war criminal instead of a prisoner of war because of this. However, both Native Americans and American frontiersmen frequently scalped their victims in this era.

Wiki? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalping) Proof of not being introduced by Europeans but certainly expanded.

Compared to modern society, both Europeans and Amerindians of that time period were savages. I don't take sides, and despite having ancestry from both, I don’t identify with either.

Ok by aboriginal i was talking about ancient australian aborigonals. I wasn't talking about native americans.

I have studied a great deal about native indians and I also agree that they are cultured and can be civalised. By this, do you mean 'made to become more like me'? You still haven't told me what 'civilised' means to you.


They had great respect for nature, people ,traditions, buffalo etc... They wern't domesticated though (they were constantly on the move, following the buffalo). Okay, so by domesticated, you are using a definition different than the one you supplied...you mean 'settled'. Not all natives followed the buffalo...that would be the Plains cultures. Coastal cultures were the most 'settled', in permanent villages, since fish were their main source of food. Other peoples WERE farmers, the Iroquois for example. So some of us were nomadic, and others were not. Does being 'settled' automatically mean you are 'civilised'? Because then you need to start deciding which of our nations were 'civilised' or not.

Some of their acts can be considered savage however (for example scalping) Yes, well I would consider any number of European practices savage as well...burning at the stake...drawing and quartering, etc etc etc. We certainly didn't have the market cornered on horrible ways to make other people be in pain.

See what bothers me the most is we are either depicted as a 'noble savage', innocent, but living in sin, who finally were 'shown the way' by the Europeans...(or simply seen as ignorant victims of a fate that just overcame our undeveloped cultures)...or we are depicted as brutal, bloodthirsty and completely warlike..as though without European intervention, we would have killed each other off completely.

Neither view is correct.

I do judge some contemporary cultures inferior to western and westernized cultures. I don't feel comfortable judging cultures of the past because of the difference in progress between then and now. Still, one can objectively judge which cultures are better or worse by looking at how well they serve the needs of humans. One way to measure how well they meet our needs is to see which cultures are growing through immigration and which ones are experiencing a loss of citizens through emigration. Western and westernized nations are a destination for people from all over the world. We get refugees looking for freedom, and paupers looking for work (the way the economy is run is a reflection of the values of the culture).

We might conclude for example, that a culture that shoots women in the head for listening to taped music, or one that executes raped women for the crime of "adultery", or shoots men who play tennis in shorts, is "backwards" at the very least.

I always thought that there were lots of different distinct groups, not one homogenous culture in the americas.

I'm also sure some of them, like the mexica, were pretty fuking savage. By the same token I'm sure some were not. (Or no more than than the global average I doubt anyone would want to live in the sixteenth or seventeenth century. It sucked).

I do remember learning at school a society has to have developed mathematics before it can be considered civilized though. (Which would make the mexica civilized).

We might conclude for example, that a culture that shoots women in the head for listening to taped music, or one that executes raped women for the crime of "adultery", or shoots men who play tennis in shorts, is "backwards" at the very least.
Yep. That's why I refer to them as savages and barbarians. I only hope we can get some civilization into them before they force us to do something the history books will see as an atrocity.

Do you have documented proof of this? Because there's more anecdotal evidence pointing to scalping as a White Man's Bad Habit, just like alcohol.

According to wikipedia (the most reliable source I can get my hands on at this point), scalping was most likely not unknown to Native Americans before Europeans arrived. However, the practice was most likely increased by European settlers - both through encouragement and the fact that frontiersmen used it as well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalping#North_America

It was also found in Europe prior to colonization.

Interestingly enough, there is no mention made here about "happy hunting grounds" which honestly sounds like something out of an old movie.

True, I wish more people knew the story on the other side of the coin. Part of the problem is that an actual description of western civilisation and its domestic characteristics, is never offered at school. Education systems either tend to fail on this score, or are accused of 'liberal bias' for their trouble.
When anything that was 'wrong' is introduced, people complain that schools are pushing self-hatred and anti-white-male propaganda.

I think EVERY culture should be aware of its failures and successes...too often, the 'bad' is simply justified as 'it was appropriate at the time'. That doesn't mean you can't look at it now and say, 'that was terrible'. Pretending it wasn't is silly.

Haha lol, that is bad history. Scalping was used to prevent the persons "spirit" from reaching the native afterlife which was called the "happy hunting ground".
:rolleyes:

Proof?

Native afterlife...happy hunting ground...what the heck tribe are you talking about?

European colonists at the time easily made the comparison because they were the ones with firearms.
I thought we were past colonisation?

Or not...

I thought we were past colonisation?

Or not...

Well, some of us live in the 21st century, and others are still as far back as the 10th, the last time I read the news.

:rolleyes:

Proof?

Native afterlife...happy hunting ground...what the heck tribe are you talking about?

I thought that white settlers used it as a means of receipt. That is, when using natives as allies, the natives would bring scalps as proof that they had killed the enemy.

I know that the Sioux used to use them as decorations on spears - but that may have been more decorative than anything else.

I doubt that natives took scalps as a universal thing, even when prompted to by colonists or tribes that actually scalped people.

:rolleyes:

Proof?

Native afterlife...happy hunting ground...what the heck tribe are you talking about?

http://www.pantheon.org/articles/h/happy_hunting_ground.html

I can't be bothered to search for any articles so i thought i would find the most basic definition. The happy hunting ground was one of the most commen afterlifes for native american indians.

We might conclude for example, that a culture that shoots women in the head for listening to taped music, or one that executes raped women for the crime of "adultery", or shoots men who play tennis in shorts, is "backwards" at the very least.
I have this opinion that cultures who rape the environment and 'shit where they eat' are also backwards...but hey, that's just 'tree-hugging liberal bullshit'.

I have this opinion that cultures who rape the environment and 'shit where they eat' are also backwards...but hey, that's just 'tree-hugging liberal bullshit'.

Ah, but we're the culture with all the firepower. See?

Somewhat related to this topic - I heard an interesting story today.

It seems that a teacher out in the Midwest somewhere wanted to teach Creationism (Christian) in her class. The schoolboard, knowing that it was a predominantly Christian area, decided not to officially do anything - to look the other way, as it were.

As the teacher began to talk about Creationism, a Native American (unfortunately, the person telling me the story did not know what tribe) student interjected and told her that the Biblical story was not how the world was created at all. In fact, Mother Earth gave birth to the animals, and they built the world. After the teacher corrected the student, the students parents paid a visit to the school, making it clear that their child should not be corrected on matters of religion. The school board decided to go ahead and make it clear that Creationism wouldn't be taught after that. =)

I do judge some contemporary cultures inferior to western and westernized cultures. I don't feel comfortable judging cultures of the past because of the difference in progress between then and now. Still, one can objectively judge which cultures are better or worse by looking at how well they serve the needs of humans. One way to measure how well they meet our needs is to see which cultures are growing through immigration and which ones are experiencing a loss of citizens through emigration. Western and westernized nations are a destination for people from all over the world. We get refugees looking for freedom, and paupers looking for work (the way the economy is run is a reflection of the values of the culture).

I don't Necessarily(sp?) agree with the economy mirroring the culture because the economy can be negatively affected by forces completely out of the control of anyone, I mean for the past decade the Japenese economy has been in the septic tank but does that make the japanese the most inferior culture on the planet? No it just means their economy sucks

I have this opinion that cultures who rape the environment and 'shit where they eat' are also backwards...but hey, that's just 'tree-hugging liberal bullshit'.
Well that makes everybody backwards. Australian and American natives hunted numerous species to extinction. So has every population of humans on earth. It's just that as technology progresses the ammount of environmental harm done increases. Now, however, we're starting to get a handle on our pollution and environmental excesses. The process will ever so slowly start to reverse itself and we will, in time, have progressively less and less of a negative impact on our environment. Or maybe I'm being overly optimistic.

All of the bolded apply to early aboriginals.

Nice, now define civalized in a way that doesn't make you sound as much like a racist bastard as the post I'm replying to does.

I don't Necessarily(sp?) agree with the economy mirroring the culture because the economy can be negatively affected by forces completely out of the control of anyone, I mean for the past decade the Japenese economy has been in the septic tank but does that make the japanese the most inferior culture on the planet? No it just means their economy sucks
That's because their economy went into a recession, not because they necessarily had a horrible economic structure. Japan is still a technologically advanced nation with an economy that is better than many many other countries.

Well that makes everybody backwards. Australian and American natives hunted numerous species to extinction. So has every population of humans on earth. It's just that as technology progresses the ammount of environmental harm done increases. Now, however, we're starting to get a handle on our pollution and environmental excesses. The process will ever so slowly start to reverse itself and we will, in time, have progressively less and less of a negative impact on our environment. Or maybe I'm being overly optimistic.

if everyones backwards wouldn't that make the forward facing ones, Backward? oh god

CURSE MY OPEN MIND!

Nice, now define civalized in a way that doesn't make you sound as much like a racist bastard as the post I'm replying to does.

Who said there is anything wrong with not beling civalized. I was in no way criticizing their way of life. I was also only refering to Australian Aboriginals.

That's because their economy went into a recession, not because they necessarily had a horrible economic structure. Japan is still a technologically advanced nation with an economy that is better than many many other countries.

Exactly just because the economy goes into a recession doesn't mean the culture becomes less...refined or whatever does it?

did all americans become savages during the great depression?

I don't Necessarily(sp?) agree with the economy mirroring the culture because the economy can be negatively affected by forces completely out of the control of anyone, I mean for the past decade the Japenese economy has been in the septic tank but does that make the japanese the most inferior culture on the planet? No it just means their economy sucks
Look at it on a bigger timescale. Since the 1940s East Asia has experienced an economic boom. The middle east hasn't done much at all. Why? Resources? Nope. The middle east holds the lion's share of the world's oil. East Asia, Japan in particular, has few natural resources. Yet Asian nations have invented new products and technologies, built a disciplined and educated workforce, and prospered (in the case of S. Korea and Japan by adopting western style capitalism).

The middle east, with all their oil wealth, have a culture that encourages their young people to graduate with more degrees in religious studies than in science or engineering. That region patents few new products. Their economies are held back because bribes and kickbacks and no-show jobs for powerfull government officials and their families are the norm (paying tribute to the powerfull, like they did hundreds of years ago) and when the oil runs out they will be destitute. Why? Because they cling to their old, failed cultural values.

I have this opinion that cultures who rape the environment and 'shit where they eat' are also backwards...but hey, that's just 'tree-hugging liberal bullshit'.

Like the pueblo peoples?

Exactly just because the economy goes into a recession doesn't mean the culture becomes less...refined or whatever does it?

did all americans become savages during the great depression?
Dude, picking one small period in history to say that culture has no effect on economics is like picking a cold winter's day as evidence that there is no global warming. Look at long term trends.

I always thought that there were lots of different distinct groups, not one homogenous culture in the americas.

I'm also sure some of them, like the mexica, were pretty fuking savage. By the same token I'm sure some were not. (Or no more than than the global average I doubt anyone would want to live in the sixteenth or seventeenth century. It sucked).

I do remember learning at school a society has to have developed mathematics before it can be considered civilized though. (Which would make the mexica civilized).
Again, what do you mean by 'savage'? Warlike? Cruel to enemies?

Who said there is anything wrong with not beling civalized. I was in no way criticizing their way of life.

Bullshit.

I was also only refering to Australian Aboriginals.

This makes you less of a racist bastard how?

Exactly just because the economy goes into a recession doesn't mean the culture becomes less...refined or whatever does it?

did all americans become savages during the great depression?
No, but the thing is that primitive people are not in a recession. They have a bad economy all of the time. Every great country has recessions but that isn't the whole picture and to show a temporary problem to be the same as a permanent one is stupid.

Ah, but we're the culture with all the firepower. See?
Might makes right? Sure.

Might makes right? Sure.
I'm not saying who is right. I'm saying who gets their way.

Bullshit.



This makes you less of a racist bastard how?

Omg i really have never seen anything so ignorant. Firstly you need to go to school and learn some basic stuff. I am not talking about any sort of race, so i can't be racist. Also, saying that one type of culture is a savage culture doesn't mean i'm criticizing their way of life. I could say it is good that they free and close to nature not being forced to live a certain way.

Well that makes everybody backwards. Australian and American natives hunted numerous species to extinction. Numerous? Really? Can I get a list?

Not all hunting methods were conservationist (buffalo jumps for one), but they were ecologically sound based on the ratio of human to animal...had our population been as large as what now exists in our territories, it never could have been sustainable. However, since we got our food, our clothing, our medicines etc from our environment, we had a very real reason not to destroy that environment. Now, when your food and clothes comes from other countries, and your medicines are synthesised, there isn't such a need to maintain environmental integrity. I see that as dangerous for humans in general, and particularly harmful to those of us who still rely on our environment for many things.
So has every population of humans on earth. It's just that as technology progresses the ammount of environmental harm done increases. Now, however, we're starting to get a handle on our pollution and environmental excesses. The process will ever so slowly start to reverse itself and we will, in time, have progressively less and less of a negative impact on our environment. Or maybe I'm being overly optimistic.
Technology as the problem AND the answer? I don't think it's happening soon enough. We've already crossed the 'its too late' point with too many species.

Who said there is anything wrong with not beling civalized. I was in no way criticizing their way of life. I was also only refering to Australian Aboriginals.
Explain to me then how those bolded words apply to them. Australian aboriginees are no more 'savage' than any other aboriginal group.

Like the pueblo peoples?
Provide some examples of what you are referring to, please.

i can remember a film,named "the gods did fall on their heads"( "les dieux sont tombe sur la tete"),it really was one of a kind,bushemen fighting each other for a bottle of coke...
And the rest

Was it relevant?

Explain to me then how those bolded words apply to them. Australian aboriginees are no more 'savage' than any other aboriginal group.

Are they domesticated? No.

Are they civalized? No. Not compared to developed cultures today.

So, aboriginals were 'savages'...compared to what?

Space Jews

No, but the thing is that primitive people are not in a recession. They have a bad economy all of the time. Every great country has recessions but that isn't the whole picture and to show a temporary problem to be the same as a permanent one is stupid.
Bad economy...good economy...DC earlier said that you can judge the level of civilisation by how well a people are taken care of. In many ways, my people were much more taken care of than they are in contemporary culture...step forward, step back...you need to define your priorities and also outline what aspects of a culture you find to be 'primitive'.

I'm not saying who is right. I'm saying who gets their way.
That's exactly what 'might makes right' means.

Are they domesticated? No.

Are they civalized? No. Not compared to developed cultures today.
What...the ones still living in the bush, or the ones 'integrated' into Australian society? Or do you mean their pre-contact culture?

So you've stopped calling North American natives savage, but somehow you cling to the idea that Australian aboriginees are savage? Please, you need to explain this.

Look at it on a bigger timescale. Since the 1940s East Asia has experienced an economic boom. The middle east hasn't done much at all. Why? Resources? Nope. The middle east holds the lion's share of the world's oil. East Asia, Japan in particular, has few natural resources. Yet Asian nations have invented new products and technologies, built a disciplined and educated workforce, and prospered (in the case of S. Korea and Japan by adopting western style capitalism).

The middle east, with all their oil wealth, have a culture that encourages their young people to graduate with more degrees in religious studies than in science or engineering. That region patents few new products. Their economies are held back because bribes and kickbacks and no-show jobs for powerfull government officials and their families are the norm (paying tribute to the powerfull, like they did hundreds of years ago) and when the oil runs out they will be destitute. Why? Because they cling to their old, failed cultural values.

The Middle East used to be(around the 800s to the 1100s, Abbasid Caliphate) the most advanced region in the world both technoligically(sp?) and economically fueled by the silk road and scientific discoveries like astrolabes and triangular side facing sails allowing ships to sail even when the wind wasn't coming from behind the ship. Their culture has changed little then an yet their economy is horrible.

Bad economy...good economy...DC earlier said that you can judge the level of civilisation by how well a people are taken care of. In many ways, my people were much more taken care of than they are in contemporary culture...step forward, step back...you need to define your priorities and also outline what aspects of a culture you find to be 'primitive'.
What? Are you saying that they had a more advanced way of life? Please, they lacked many technological developments and would not get them in any forseeable time, frankly, I judge a level of civilization by how much it kicks ass, and they don't kick very much ass now do they?

Numerous? Really? Can I get a list? Look up Australian Megafauna. Several big Australian and New Zealand animals went extinct shortly after the first humans got there. It doesn't coincide with climate change, only with the appearance of people with bows and spears. Also one example of a species which may have been (and I believe was) hunted to extinction in N. America is the mastodon. Just after 14,000 years ago human migrants from Asia entered the New World. They may have been the first people to set foot in North America. They are known as the Clovis people. Their sites and artifacts, including distinctive projectile points, are found over much of North America.

These people hunted and gathered wild animals and plants. The animals they hunted included many that became extinct. However, they also hunted numerous animals that survived.

Many scientists think that these people caused the extinction in North America at the end of the Pleistocene. Researchers who support this view generally favor one of two explanations. The first is that human over-hunting directly caused the extinction. The second is that over-hunting eliminated a "keystone species" (usually the mammoths or mastodon) and this led to environmental collapse and a more general extinction.
http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/larson/lp_extinction.html

Not all hunting methods were conservationist (buffalo jumps for one), but they were ecologically sound based on the ratio of human to animal...had our population been as large as what now exists in our territories, it never could have been sustainable. However, since we got our food, our clothing, our medicines etc from our environment, we had a very real reason not to destroy that environment. Now, when your food and clothes comes from other countries, and your medicines are synthesised, there isn't such a need to maintain environmental integrity. I see that as dangerous for humans in general, and particularly harmful to those of us who still rely on our environment for many things.

Technology as the problem AND the answer? I don't think it's happening soon enough. We've already crossed the 'its too late' point with too many species. Yeah, Things are going to get worse before they get better, but they will get better. In Europe and N. America people are buying into greener lifestyles and companies in those places and in Asia are working on environmentally sustainable products and processes. As progress is made and the rest of the world catches up things will start to turn around. Nature is one tough bitch. We'll have plenty of biodiversity on this planet, even if it doesn't happen until we as a species are extinct. Hopefully it won't come to that.

All the time? Really? Even in winter? And all of us did this? Wow.

Alright, let me be the first to inform you that 'North American Indians', even if you completely exclude those living in what is now Mexico and 'Central America' (since you've excluded the Olmec, Aztecs and Mayan...) are not one homogenous group, nor have we ever been. Let's look for example at the Inuit. Running around half nude? I hardly think so. And as for any other group that might have been 'half nude' in the hot summers...this is different than the Scotts, the Irish, and a host of other Europeans who also did not dress up toe to crown just to be 'modest' how?


Riiiiight. Bows and arrows are just glorified sticks and stones...well, using that logic, your guns are just glorified pieces of ore.

So we must have been running around grunting at one another, hmmmm? Our languages are complex, diverse, and certainly not linguistically inferior in any way to yours. So you're hung up on writing? *shrugs* That's your thing then, it certainly didn't mean we lacked the means to communicate eloquently, or pass down our histories.

Those of us who were nomadic certainly did...we were hunters and gatherers, not stationary farmers. Then again...some of us WERE stationary farmers. Among the various tribes you run the gamut from teepees, to log houses, to stone houses...whatever made sense for that particular people.


On this language thing...sorry, but 'writing' doesn't make a language complex. The language is complex in and of itself...the writing is simply a symbolic way of recording the sounds or concepts. So 'writing', once again, doesn't make a language superior to an unwritten language.



Let me sum this up. You're mightily impressed by European accomplishments, and you judge us according to them...so if we didn't have 'classical music', our music is inferior. If we didn't have the same TYPE of clothing as Europeans, the huge variety and complexity of our clothing is inferior. If we didn't have great written works, our oral histories, legends, stories, philosophies...all of that is inferior.

See, it seems to me that you are comparing something you understand, to something you know next to nothing about. How can you possibly make that kind of comparison?

to answer accordingly,

1) ok perhaps that not then, how about not possessing industrially manufactured clothing.

2) yes bows and arrows were made of wood and stones if I remember right? At least the European ones had metal tips,....

3) Strawman, I stated "written" language, repeat written, nowhere did I state anything about your oral language being inferior so I do not get your comment in the slightest , the notion of an oral aspect of a language being inferior is hypocrisy. So I stated written as you also admitted is inferior with your hanging up comment, because you said well if you hang up to those sorts of things.

4) Hmmm, perhaps it is more difficult making a full organ with all its intricate pieces then what the Native Americans made? Maybe that is why I am more impressed by it? Also the sheer complexity of a written piece.

5) why yes darling that is what culture means. Superiority in those aspects. And savage means to have an inferior culture and bearing, thank you for at least understanding what I mean.

6) Well at least the European powers proved their own Darwin right, the theory of evolution, the superior one drives out the inferior one, after all we are all just animals right? And last time I checked it was European people who lived predominatly in the US and Canada. Sort of implies superiority doesn't it?

The Middle East used to be(around the 800s to the 1100s, Abbasid Caliphate) the most advanced region in the world both technoligically(sp?) and economically fueled by the silk road and scientific discoveries like astrolabes and triangular side facing sails allowing ships to sail even when the wind wasn't coming from behind the ship. Their culture has changed little then an yet their economy is horrible.
You are right, in the time frame they were the superior culture, they were rich, technologically advanced, etc. However, what happened was the Europeans had their big cultural comeback and surpassed them. What happened was that they didn't change and the world did, the same thing happened with East Asia, however, they are now modernizing and synthesizing making themselves better in the process.

Again, what do you mean by 'savage'? Warlike? Cruel to enemies?

I mean defined by their brutality. The mexica were significantly more brutal than the spanish. Eliminating them was an improvement for anyone who lived next to them.

What? Are you saying that they had a more advanced way of life? Please, they lacked many technological developments and would not get them in any forseeable time, frankly, I judge a level of civilization by how much it kicks ass, and they don't kick very much ass now do they?
So you define a civilisation by the amount of ass they can kick? As in how warlike they are? Seriously? So, the terrorists kicking ass right now...they must be one civilised culture...

Priorities.

People now work their asses off just to provide themselves and their families with the necessities of life. Hunters and gatherers spent the bulk of their time in leisure activities...hunting and gathering, while sometimes dangerous, was by no means a 9-5 occupation.

Technological advancements...you seem to believe that these would automatically provide a better class of living. Why? Shitting in an indoor toilet is civilisation? Hunter and gatherers didn't suffer from the same kinds of stress and diet-related diseases as people do now, not to mention the environmentally-triggered illnesses. So technology for dealing with heart and liver disease, allergies and so on would have been pointless for my people back then. If you look around you today, and see people living in poverty and say, hey, they are grubbing a living and in terrible circumstances...maybe that's how aboriginal people lived, how horrible...you are very, very wrong.

The Middle East used to be(around the 800s to the 1100s, Abbasid Caliphate) the most advanced region in the world both technoligically(sp?) and economically fueled by the silk road and scientific discoveries like astrolabes and triangular side facing sails allowing ships to sail even when the wind wasn't coming from behind the ship. Their culture has changed little then an yet their economy is horrible.
That's why their economy is horrible. They've failed to progress culturally. This includes failing to embrace western-style economic practices. In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king, but when everyone else grows two eyes his vision sucks by comparison.

6) Well at least the European powers proved their own Darwin right, the theory of evolution, the superior one drives out the inferior one, after all we are all just animals right? And last time I checked it was European people who lived predominatly in the US and Canada. Sort of implies superiority doesn't it?
Hahahahaa...so when the balance swings towards latinos in the US, that will mean European inferiority?

Please...what you are talking about is not cultural superiority/inferiority...you are talking about your personal preferences, and judging by 'who seems to have won' or 'who outpopulates who'.

The Europeans are not predominantly in the majority of their former colonies...does that mean that sometimes they are inferior?

I mean defined by their brutality. The mexica were significantly more brutal than the spanish. Eliminating them was an improvement for anyone who lived next to them.
You'll have to excuse me while I chuckle a bit.

Wait for it.

Ok, there I'm done.

More brutal than the Spanish? You really are going to have to draw up a comparison/contrast list for me on this one, considering the divine tortures dreamed up by religiously-inspired Spaniards...

6) Well at least the European powers proved their own Darwin right, the theory of evolution, the superior one drives out the inferior one, after all we are all just animals right? And last time I checked it was European people who lived predominatly in the US and Canada. Sort of implies superiority doesn't it?
You would be right if the Natives lacked the necessary brain power to understand how to make steel or sailing vessels, but they don't. They're not so different genetically from any other humans. Read Guns Germs and Steel. I've got some issues with it, like when the author describes prion diseases as being caused by viruses and fails to trace Smallpox's history back to an African orthopox virus of rodents, but I think his analysis of why some cultures developed technology faster than others is pretty good.

You'll have to excuse me while I chuckle a bit.

Wait for it.

Ok, there I'm done.

I'm still on the floor about the "happy hunting ground" thing...

That's why their economy is horrible. They've failed to progress culturally. This includes failing to embrace western-style economic practices. In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king, but when everyone else grows two eyes his vision sucks by comparison.
Exactly
I know I'm gonna get my skin flamed off my body were i stand but i Believe this is due to a number of things
#1 the crusades, the three disastrous wars that sapped all the wealth in th middle-east and shifted the focus from progress to taking jerusalem back
#2 The mongolians Raping and ransacking Damascus and Baghdad
#3 Just when the Mid-east was getting back on its feet: The Ottoman Empire Collapsed like a badly mixed Saufle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasion_of_Syria_%281299%29


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Baghdad_%281258%29

You'll have to excuse me while I chuckle a bit.

Wait for it.

Ok, there I'm done.

More brutal than the Spanish? You really are going to have to draw up a comparison/contrast list for me on this one, considering the divine tortures dreamed up by religiously-inspired Spaniards...

Maybe we should talk about the atrocities committed by, for instance, Christopher Columbus in the name of the Spaniards? A man who entered a tribal society and demanded a specified (and completely ridiculous) amount of gold from each person - and cut off their hands if they did not meet the quota?

There is some historical evidence that many natives helped Cortez in hopes of overturning the brutal government under which they lived. The same sources, however, point out that things didn't actually get any better once the Spaniards took over...

So you define a civilisation by the amount of ass they can kick? As in how warlike they are? Seriously? So, the terrorists kicking ass right now...they must be one civilised culture...

Priorities.

People now work their asses off just to provide themselves and their families with the necessities of life. Hunters and gatherers spent the bulk of their time in leisure activities...hunting and gathering, while sometimes dangerous, was by no means a 9-5 occupation.

Technological advancements...you seem to believe that these would automatically provide a better class of living. Why? Shitting in an indoor toilet is civilisation? Hunter and gatherers didn't suffer from the same kinds of stress and diet-related diseases as people do now, not to mention the environmentally-triggered illnesses. So technology for dealing with heart and liver disease, allergies and so on would have been pointless for my people back then. If you look around you today, and see people living in poverty and say, hey, they are grubbing a living and in terrible circumstances...maybe that's how aboriginal people lived, how horrible...you are very, very wrong.
Kicking ass means more than being warlike. It means the strength to defend oneself and relates to the developments of a culture both technological, and strategic. Terrorists don't really kick ass, they suck, they cannot successfully defend their way of life against superior forces, that is not kick ass is it? Now, I used the term more for the fact that I like the sound of "kick ass" more than what it really means.

People work today to get themselves things to support what they want from their lives. This means televisions, computers and cars. Now of course, they could decide to not do any of that, the Amish don't participate in this way of life, however, people today have in many ways greater control over their environment, greater understanding, and better conditions now than in the past.

Yeah yeah yeah, if that way of life is so superior just throw your computer away and get back to it. I am sure that a world without Nationstates and the internet is so superior. Frankly, your people lost, they are technologically backwards, they had little way to defend themselves from more developed peoples(and yes, being able to defend one's way of life is a part of having a developed culture), they had very little progress comparatively on the grand scale of a civilization. Our diet related illnesses and etc, are because today we have an abundance of food and most of that food tastes pretty darn nice. I can agree that it is a bad thing for our culture about our eating habits, however to mistake developmentally backwards for forwards is like mistaking a horse's mouth for its ass.

You'll have to excuse me while I chuckle a bit.

Wait for it.

Ok, there I'm done.

More brutal than the Spanish? You really are going to have to draw up a comparison/contrast list for me on this one, considering the divine tortures dreamed up by religiously-inspired Spaniards...

Yes, which is why Tlaxcala eagerly joined the spanish to wipe them out. Mostly to end the flowery wars that the Mexica inflicted upon everyone else from time to time for religious reason. (I think it was to keep the sun going or some kind of bullshit).

The spanish never dug the living hearts out of twenty thousand plus people a day during the dedication of new buildings after all.

I'm still on the floor about the "happy hunting ground" thing...
Is that the one with the 72 virgins? Or did I get that from somewhere else?:D

I'm still on the floor about the "happy hunting ground" thing...

Why do you refuse to believe that one of the native american afterlifes were the "happy hunting grounds".

Yeah yeah yeah, if that way of life is so superior YOU are the one claiming superiority, not me. I am simply denying you the right to label my people with 'inferior' because you prefer one way of living to another, and demand that we do as well.


just throw your computer away and get back to it. I am sure that a world without Nationstates and the internet is so superior. Frankly, your people lost,
My people helped yours, and we voluntarily signed treaties. We made agreements, we did not 'lose'. Any losses have been born of deception. You could never have gotten a foot hold here without us, and that was more than recognised at the time.


they are technologically backwards, they had little way to defend themselves from more developed peoples(and yes, being able to defend one's way of life is a part of having a developed culture), Ah, so a more developed culture is defined by having higher immunity to diseases! I finally see!

If we were busy forming agreements and signing treaties, and not actually waging wholesale warfare on Europeans in order to drive them out...then this is a bad thing and marks inferiority? Wow. Stupid us. We should've killed every one of your honkey asses before you took two steps onto the sand. Boy, that'd show you!:rolleyes:


they had very little progress comparatively on the grand scale of a civilization. Our diet related illnesses and etc, are because today we have an abundance of food and most of that food tastes pretty darn nice. I can agree that it is a bad thing for our culture about our eating habits, however to mistake developmentally backwards for forwards is like mistaking a horse's mouth for its ass.
Don't worry...I know an ass when I see one.:D

See...it really is you claiming superiority...and anything I say to point out faults is deemed an attack on your superiority. It must be terrible to be so fragile of ego.

Sinuhue, what is your idea of a savage?

Yes, which is why Tlaxcala eagerly joined the spanish to wipe them out. Mostly to end the flowery wars that the Mexica inflicted upon everyone else from time to time for religious reason. (I think it was to keep the sun going or some kind of bullshit).

The spanish never dug the living hearts out of twenty thousand plus people a day during the dedication of new buildings after all.
So the atrocities committed by the Spanish upon the Mexica were okay, because they were conquering at barbaric people?

What I object to is your assertation that one was worse than the other. The human sacrifice practiced by the Mexica had solid religious and political aims. I don't see that as all that different than, oh say...the Crusades (which were about religion AND getting armed young lords away from home and possibly causing strife in conflict over diminishing land resources). In fact, the kind of political manouvering of the Mexica was VERY similiar to the kind of political manouvering going on in Europe.

Sinuhue, what is your idea of a savage?
My idea of a savage spans cultures and time periods. It would refer to anyone who intentionally inflicts pain upon other humans for pleasure or gain. I don't see savagery as inherent in any one culture. I think it's a human trait that societies all try to repress.

Why do you refuse to believe that one of the native american afterlifes were the "happy hunting grounds".
Hahahhaa, because you haven't told us what tribe believes this so we can verify it. I'll tell you...I've never heard of 'happy hunting grounds'.

My idea of a savage spans cultures and time periods. It would refer to anyone who intentionally inflicts pain upon other humans for pleasure or gain. I don't see savagery as inherent in any one culture. I think it's a human trait that societies all try to repress.

So you are arguing that the majority of societies were savages or had savages at one point correct? If so then how does this stop nomadic tribes from being savage?

what measure of savagery and barbarism are you using?

relative europeanness

Hahahhaa, because you haven't told us what tribe believes this so we can verify it. I'll tell you...I've never heard of 'happy hunting grounds'.

I'm not sure which, but it was quite a few. I'm pretty sure the sioux believed in it.

So you are arguing that the majority of societies were savages or had savages at one point correct? If so then how does this stop nomadic tribes from being savage?
It means you can't label an entire people as savage simply because there are savages among them.

My idea of a savage spans cultures and time periods. It would refer to anyone who intentionally inflicts pain upon other humans for pleasure or gain. I don't see savagery as inherent in any one culture. I think it's a human trait that societies all try to repress.
Savage doesn't necessarily have to be a bad thing.
There is, for example, the "primitivism" viewpoint, in which noble savages are good humans uncorrupted by the influence of civilization.

It means you can't label an entire people as savage simply because there are savages among them.

Ok, i see now. However you're idea of savage is not held by everyone.

Savage doesn't necessarily have to be a bad thing. It is used as a bad thing when it is meant to be a hallmark of cultural 'inferiority', almost always with an additional motive, such as taking land etc.
There is, for example, the "primitivism" viewpoint, in which noble savages are good humans uncorrupted by the influence of civilization.
Also a point of view I reject and vehemently disagree with. The 'noble savage' viewpoint is just as idiotic as the plain old 'savage' viewpoint.

I'm not sure which, but it was quite a few. I'm pretty sure the sioux believed in it.
I think you've been reading too much James Fenimore Cooper.

I think you've been reading too much James Fenimore Cooper.

Why don't you google it. You will see that every page that comes up will say it is an american Indian afterlife.

I'm not sure which, but it was quite a few. I'm pretty sure the sioux believed in it.
Really? Which Sioux? You should have no trouble tracking this down somewhere on the internet and providing us with a source.

It means you can't label an entire people as savage simply because there are savages among them.

Thank you! *clap clap clap*

YOU are the one claiming superiority, not me. I am simply denying you the right to label my people with 'inferior' because you prefer one way of living to another, and demand that we do as well.Your claiming that primitivism is equal to modern society. I claim that such is a false statement, not all cultures are equal and primitive culture is by far behind modern cultures. Heck, even some currently existing cultures are inferior to others. After all, few people are arguing that Kansas rednecks are culturally equal and that their way of life should be respected. We all deride them for being so damn stupid and not accepting modern scientific progress and I would say that we do so quite rightfully.


My people helped yours, and we voluntarily signed treaties. We made agreements, we did not 'lose'. Any losses have been born of deception. You could never have gotten a foot hold here without us, and that was more than recognised at the time.We probably could have gotten a foothold but it would have been more difficult. The issue is a matter of trust, your people trusted a strange white-skinned group from across the sea and got screwed. Now, that could be a lesson to be more suspicious, after all, good policy leads to good results.

Ah, so a more developed culture is defined by having higher immunity to diseases! I finally see! That isn't the only thing that happened and you know it. It definitely hurt your people more than anything else but as time went on eventually subjugation would have likely occurred if only due to the ruthlessness of the Spaniards.

If we were busy forming agreements and signing treaties, and not actually waging wholesale warfare on Europeans in order to drive them out...then this is a bad thing and marks inferiority? Wow. Stupid us. We should've killed every one of your honkey asses before you took two steps onto the sand. Boy, that'd show you!:rolleyes: Frankly, I can't disagree, you probably would have been better off to do that. However, given the nature of the society at the time I think that eventually either our culture would win, or your culture would progress. It would have slowed things down to be certain though, and cultural synthesis and progress is making a better world. South America still has some aspects of the old culture that was there and some European influence and eventually they will develope and progress to become stronger and better nations.


Don't worry...I know an ass when I see one.:D I ain't so open minded that my brain falls out and flops on the pavement.

See...it really is you claiming superiority...and anything I say to point out faults is deemed an attack on your superiority. It must be terrible to be so fragile of ego.
What, am I going to state that there are no flaws in our culture. No, however, I will state that our culture is better than that which existed in the past. Now, of course, one could argue that American culture is inferior to European or vice-versa or to modern Asian culture etc. Such discussion goes on all of the time, however,

Why don't you google it. You will see that every page that comes up will say it is an american Indian afterlife.
Ah, so that makes it true?

I can Google quite a few things that are complete crap.

Also a point of view I reject and vehemently disagree with. The 'noble savage' viewpoint is just as idiotic as the plain old 'savage' viewpoint.
So this basically another "I hate everyone" thread? Great, we really needed another one...

Ok, i see now. However you're idea of savage is not held by everyone.
I never pretended it was. I am simply arguing that you can't define my people as savages, and your own as 'not savages'.

Why don't you google it. You will see that every page that comes up will say it is an american Indian afterlife.

no they don't

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mhappyhunting.html

no they don't

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mhappyhunting.html

Like I said, reading too much James Fenimore Cooper...

On to happy hunting grounds. The phrase is first found in the last chapter of James Fenimore Cooper's most famous novel, The Last of the Mohicans, published in 1826. Cooper has his title character Chingachgook say (after the death of his son Uncas),

Why do my brothers mourn? why do my daughters weep? that a young man has gone to the happy hunting-grounds; that a chief has filled his time with honor?

Cooper was a novelist, and not above stretching the truth to tell a story.

I googled sioux happy hunting ground and found this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/sosteacher/history/75493.shtml

Ok it's a rubbish source, but a historian who works for the BBC must be well informed.

Your claiming that primitivism is equal to modern society.
No, I'm not. I'm 'claiming' that my people's culture is not in any way unworthy of existance, nor should we be labelled as 'savages' and it left just at that. Most people who discuss us do some from a position of extreme ignorance. I'm sure it annoys you to no end when others do the same about YOUR people.

As for the aboriginal cultures in Latin America becoming more integrated...I beg to differ. Just as is happening in Canada and the US, Latin American aboriginals are asserting their right to sovereignty. We are not foolish, we adapt...we were happy to integrate horses, rifles, new technologies, and will continue to do so. We were not locked in a state of happy backwardness, when advances came, we wanted them. But we want to choose how they are applied, not have them simply forced upon us.

It comes down to worldview. How we lived, our technology or lack thereof is one thing, but where the real clash was, was in worldview, and our worldview still exists. I think that you believe if we adopt your worldview, we will be better for it, and I challenge this. It's not just about technology, it's about how we think we fit into the world. Your people have one belief, and we have another. Calling us savages, inferior, and what have you, is simply a way for you to say, 'our worldview is right because we have this and you don't'. I challenge that. We can have the same things, and still not see the world the same way. So?

So this basically another "I hate everyone" thread? Great, we really needed another one...
Where do you get that from? She just said that she rejects the noble savage idea (which is idiotic if you look at how S. American Indians still hunting and gathering in the jungle actually live) and the pejorative connotation of savage. I think she's saying that they're just people, like everyone else. Capable of the same good and evil as everyone else.

So this basically another "I hate everyone" thread? Great, we really needed another one...
The 'noble savage' belief has been extremely harmful to my people, so yes, I reject it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_savage

For one, it denies us civilisation, as though we somehow lived in the absence of any civilisation. It has been used to describe us as 'children', justifying the still-existing paternalistic policies that control us.

I googled sioux happy hunting ground and found this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/sosteacher/history/75493.shtml

Ok it's a rubbish source, but a historian who works for the BBC must be well informed.

I believe he is misinformed.

Lakota belief pages I've looked at don't mention "happy hunting ground".

One mentions "The Spirit World".

I googled sioux happy hunting ground and found this:


Mmkay .... guess I'll chime in here ...

While I am skeptical on the whole happy hunting grounds thing, it isn't unusual for several tribes to share a religion. For example, my people (the Caddo) shared a mound building religion with the Creek, the Chickasaw, and the Muscogeans.

It isn't unheard of ... if French, German, and Spanish people can all be Christian and build churches, so too can many tribes have shared the same religion.

Not much stock was put in where we went when we died by the Caddo. We were fire worshippers and had some local animal legends. We believed the Sun created the earth and that all living things were born of fire.

We also had the Twins, who we believed lived at the Davis Mound in Texas and were watched over by the priests. They carried our prayers to the heavens for us.

We were farmers. We didn't sacrifice animals or people. We didn't have a written language, but we had a spoken one (The word "Texas" is Caddo). Also, one of the cities we built in Texas is still in existence today. Nacogdoches. Cabeza de Vaca came around in the 1520s and mapped a lot of it out and we welcomed him and his people and showed them how to farm and whatnot and then about 180 years later, DeLeon decided to colonize, educate, and convert us.

Ok history lesson over.

A while back, RocktheCasbah made some comments about the brutality and savagery of 'Indians', but I wasn't able to reply to those comments at the time.

It's an opinion many people hold, and I'd like to refute it, but first I need to know what you actually think....in what way were we 'savages' or 'barbaric', and what measure of savagery and barbarism are you using? Because you KNOW I'm going to drag European culture into this as a comparison.

So? Bring it on.
I don't see how anyone could credibly portray the natives as savage. They had stable and long-lived cultures, and didn't exhibit any of the xenophobia one would expect from savages. Natives were generally happy to meet and trade with Europeans.

I still stand by my assertion that many natives lived in stone age societies, but they were hardly savages.

I don't see how anyone could credibly portray the natives as savage. They had stable and long-lived cultures, and didn't exhibit any of the xenophobia one would expect from savages. Natives were generally happy to meet and trade with Europeans.


Well if we didn't like you, we never would have allowed you to marry our women.

Well if we didn't like you, we never would have allowed you to marry our women.

Yup I seem to recall Casbah stating that the N. American Aboriginies Viciously attacked the "Immigrants" to the new world and someone stating the obvious that they weren't Imigrants they were conquerors/colonizers

Well for starters the aztecs and other Central American Indians welcomed the blood-sucking conquestidors as gods, Two none of the Indians attacked the colonialists until they started getting herded into "reservations"

Yup I seem to recall Casbah stating that the N. American Aboriginies Viciously attacked the "Immigrants" to the new world and someone stating the obvious that they weren't Imigrants they were conquerors/colonizers

Well for starters the aztecs and other Central American Indians welcomed the blood-sucking conquestidors as gods, Two none of the Indians attacked the colonialists until they started getting herded into "reservations"
Well would you attack people who've got guns, steel, and can travel across oceans when you've only got wood, antler and stone to work with?

Well would you attack people who've got guns, steel, and can travel across oceans when you've only got wood, antler and stone to work with?

Exactly and anyone calling Christopher Columbus and the Conquestidors "Immigrants" is mind-bogglingly ignorant

Good point but anyone calling Christopher Columbus and the Conquestidors "Immigrants" is mind-bogglingly ignorant
They're immigrants like the 9/11 hijackers were immigrants.

A while back, RocktheCasbah made some comments about the brutality and savagery of 'Indians', but I wasn't able to reply to those comments at the time.

It's an opinion many people hold, and I'd like to refute it, but first I need to know what you actually think....in what way were we 'savages' or 'barbaric', and what measure of savagery and barbarism are you using? Because you KNOW I'm going to drag European culture into this as a comparison.

So? Bring it on.

The Native Americans were totally savages. How can anyone say otherwise? Are you glue or something? I am soooooo glad we put a stop to their savagery. They fought wars between each other all the time which is not so bad in and of itself. The thing that is soooo bad is how they would torture their war prisoners. Man, if you are a fan of prisoner torture, you are one sick puppy. Go ahead and talk all you want about what a bunch of sickos Europeans were and that is fine because they were. Europeans have always been a bit goofy ya know? From everything from the Spanish Inquisition to the support of Saddam Hussein instead of your American Liberators they have been well off. I thin kall the good ones came to America because the nuts were oppressing them in Europe.

Now that we have tamed the red man it is all good. In fact now that the red man has shown that he can be non psychotic I think we should do better by him.

A while back, RocktheCasbah made some comments about the brutality and savagery of 'Indians', but I wasn't able to reply to those comments at the time.

It's an opinion many people hold, and I'd like to refute it, but first I need to know what you actually think....in what way were we 'savages' or 'barbaric', and what measure of savagery and barbarism are you using? Because you KNOW I'm going to drag European culture into this as a comparison.

So? Bring it on.

The Native Americans were totally savages. How can anyone say otherwise? Are you glue or something? I am soooooo glad we put a stop to their savagery. They fought wars between each other all the time which is not so bad in and of itself. The thing that is soooo bad is how they would torture their war prisoners. Man, if you are a fan of prisoner torture, you are one sick puppy. Go ahead and talk all you want about what a bunch of sickos Europeans were and that is fine because they were. Europeans have always been a bit goofy ya know? From everything from the Spanish Inquisition to the support of Saddam Hussein instead of your American Liberators they have been well off. I thin kall the good ones came to America because the nuts were oppressing them in Europe.

Now that we have tamed the red man it is all good. In fact now that the red man has shown that he can be non psychotic I think we should do better by him.

A while back, RocktheCasbah made some comments about the brutality and savagery of 'Indians', but I wasn't able to reply to those comments at the time.

It's an opinion many people hold, and I'd like to refute it, but first I need to know what you actually think....in what way were we 'savages' or 'barbaric', and what measure of savagery and barbarism are you using? Because you KNOW I'm going to drag European culture into this as a comparison.

So? Bring it on.

The Native Americans were totally savages. How can anyone say otherwise? Are you glue or something? I am soooooo glad we put a stop to their savagery. They fought wars between each other all the time which is not so bad in and of itself. The thing that is soooo bad is how they would torture their war prisoners. Man, if you are a fan of prisoner torture, you are one sick puppy. Go ahead and talk all you want about what a bunch of sickos Europeans were and that is fine because they were. Europeans have always been a bit goofy ya know? From everything from the Spanish Inquisition to the support of Saddam Hussein instead of your American Liberators they have been well off. I thin kall the good ones came to America because the nuts were oppressing them in Europe.

Now that we have tamed the red man it is all good. In fact now that the red man has shown that he can be non psychotic I think we should do better by him.

A while back, RocktheCasbah made some comments about the brutality and savagery of 'Indians', but I wasn't able to reply to those comments at the time.

It's an opinion many people hold, and I'd like to refute it, but first I need to know what you actually think....in what way were we 'savages' or 'barbaric', and what measure of savagery and barbarism are you using? Because you KNOW I'm going to drag European culture into this as a comparison.

So? Bring it on.

The Native Americans were totally savages. How can anyone say otherwise? Are you glue or something? I am soooooo glad we put a stop to their savagery. They fought wars between each other all the time which is not so bad in and of itself. The thing that is soooo bad is how they would torture their war prisoners. Man, if you are a fan of prisoner torture, you are one sick puppy. Go ahead and talk all you want about what a bunch of sickos Europeans were and that is fine because they were. Europeans have always been a bit goofy ya know? From everything from the Spanish Inquisition to the support of Saddam Hussein instead of your American Liberators they have been well off. I thin kall the good ones came to America because the nuts were oppressing them in Europe.

Now that we have tamed the red man it is all good. In fact now that the red man has shown that he can be non psychotic I think we should do better by him.

A while back, RocktheCasbah made some comments about the brutality and savagery of 'Indians', but I wasn't able to reply to those comments at the time.

It's an opinion many people hold, and I'd like to refute it, but first I need to know what you actually think....in what way were we 'savages' or 'barbaric', and what measure of savagery and barbarism are you using? Because you KNOW I'm going to drag European culture into this as a comparison.

So? Bring it on.

The Native Americans were totally savages. How can anyone say otherwise? Are you glue or something? I am soooooo glad we put a stop to their savagery. They fought wars between each other all the time which is not so bad in and of itself. The thing that is soooo bad is how they would torture their war prisoners. Man, if you are a fan of prisoner torture, you are one sick puppy. Go ahead and talk all you want about what a bunch of sickos Europeans were and that is fine because they were. Europeans have always been a bit goofy ya know? From everything from the Spanish Inquisition to the support of Saddam Hussein instead of your American Liberators they have been well off. I thin kall the good ones came to America because the nuts were oppressing them in Europe.

Now that we have tamed the red man it is all good. In fact now that the red man has shown that he can be non psychotic I think we should do better by him.

A while back, RocktheCasbah made some comments about the brutality and savagery of 'Indians', but I wasn't able to reply to those comments at the time.

It's an opinion many people hold, and I'd like to refute it, but first I need to know what you actually think....in what way were we 'savages' or 'barbaric', and what measure of savagery and barbarism are you using? Because you KNOW I'm going to drag European culture into this as a comparison.

So? Bring it on.

The Native Americans were totally savages. How can anyone say otherwise? Are you glue or something? I am soooooo glad we put a stop to their savagery. They fought wars between each other all the time which is not so bad in and of itself. The thing that is soooo bad is how they would torture their war prisoners. Man, if you are a fan of prisoner torture, you are one sick puppy. Go ahead and talk all you want about what a bunch of sickos Europeans were and that is fine because they were. Europeans have always been a bit goofy ya know? From everything from the Spanish Inquisition to the support of Saddam Hussein instead of your American Liberators they have been well off. I thin kall the good ones came to America because the nuts were oppressing them in Europe.

Now that we have tamed the red man it is all good. In fact now that the red man has shown that he can be non psychotic I think we should do better by him.

A while back, RocktheCasbah made some comments about the brutality and savagery of 'Indians', but I wasn't able to reply to those comments at the time.

It's an opinion many people hold, and I'd like to refute it, but first I need to know what you actually think....in what way were we 'savages' or 'barbaric', and what measure of savagery and barbarism are you using? Because you KNOW I'm going to drag European culture into this as a comparison.

So? Bring it on.

The Native Americans were totally savages. How can anyone say otherwise? Are you glue or something? I am soooooo glad we put a stop to their savagery. They fought wars between each other all the time which is not so bad in and of itself. The thing that is soooo bad is how they would torture their war prisoners. Man, if you are a fan of prisoner torture, you are one sick puppy. Go ahead and talk all you want about what a bunch of sickos Europeans were and that is fine because they were. Europeans have always been a bit goofy ya know? From everything from the Spanish Inquisition to the support of Saddam Hussein instead of your American Liberators they have been well off. I thin kall the good ones came to America because the nuts were oppressing them in Europe.

Now that we have tamed the red man it is all good. In fact now that the red man has shown that he can be non psychotic I think we should do better by him.

A while back, RocktheCasbah made some comments about the brutality and savagery of 'Indians', but I wasn't able to reply to those comments at the time.

It's an opinion many people hold, and I'd like to refute it, but first I need to know what you actually think....in what way were we 'savages' or 'barbaric', and what measure of savagery and barbarism are you using? Because you KNOW I'm going to drag European culture into this as a comparison.

So? Bring it on.

The Native Americans were totally savages. How can anyone say otherwise? Are you glue or something? I am soooooo glad we put a stop to their savagery. They fought wars between each other all the time which is not so bad in and of itself. The thing that is soooo bad is how they would torture their war prisoners. Man, if you are a fan of prisoner torture, you are one sick puppy. Go ahead and talk all you want about what a bunch of sickos Europeans were and that is fine because they were. Europeans have always been a bit goofy ya know? From everything from the Spanish Inquisition to the support of Saddam Hussein instead of your American Liberators they have been well off. I thin kall the good ones came to America because the nuts were oppressing them in Europe.

Now that we have tamed the red man it is all good. In fact now that the red man has shown that he can be non psychotic I think we should do better by him.

A while back, RocktheCasbah made some comments about the brutality and savagery of 'Indians', but I wasn't able to reply to those comments at the time.

It's an opinion many people hold, and I'd like to refute it, but first I need to know what you actually think....in what way were we 'savages' or 'barbaric', and what measure of savagery and barbarism are you using? Because you KNOW I'm going to drag European culture into this as a comparison.

So? Bring it on.

The Native Americans were totally savages. How can anyone say otherwise? Are you glue or something? I am soooooo glad we put a stop to their savagery. They fought wars between each other all the time which is not so bad in and of itself. The thing that is soooo bad is how they would torture their war prisoners. Man, if you are a fan of prisoner torture, you are one sick puppy. Go ahead and talk all you want about what a bunch of sickos Europeans were and that is fine because they were. Europeans have always been a bit goofy ya know? From everything from the Spanish Inquisition to the support of Saddam Hussein instead of your American Liberators they have been well off. I thin kall the good ones came to America because the nuts were oppressing them in Europe.

Now that we have tamed the red man it is all good. In fact now that the red man has shown that he can be non psychotic I think we should do better by him.

A while back, RocktheCasbah made some comments about the brutality and savagery of 'Indians', but I wasn't able to reply to those comments at the time.

It's an opinion many people hold, and I'd like to refute it, but first I need to know what you actually think....in what way were we 'savages' or 'barbaric', and what measure of savagery and barbarism are you using? Because you KNOW I'm going to drag European culture into this as a comparison.

So? Bring it on.

The Native Americans were totally savages. How can anyone say otherwise? Are you glue or something? I am soooooo glad we put a stop to their savagery. They fought wars between each other all the time which is not so bad in and of itself. The thing that is soooo bad is how they would torture their war prisoners. Man, if you are a fan of prisoner torture, you are one sick puppy. Go ahead and talk all you want about what a bunch of sickos Europeans were and that is fine because they were. Europeans have always been a bit goofy ya know? From everything from the Spanish Inquisition to the support of Saddam Hussein instead of your American Liberators they have been well off. I thin kall the good ones came to America because the nuts were oppressing them in Europe.

Now that we have tamed the red man it is all good. In fact now that the red man has shown that he can be non psychotic I think we should do better by him.

A while back, RocktheCasbah made some comments about the brutality and savagery of 'Indians', but I wasn't able to reply to those comments at the time.

It's an opinion many people hold, and I'd like to refute it, but first I need to know what you actually think....in what way were we 'savages' or 'barbaric', and what measure of savagery and barbarism are you using? Because you KNOW I'm going to drag European culture into this as a comparison.

So? Bring it on.

The Native Americans were totally savages. How can anyone say otherwise? Are you glue or something? I am soooooo glad we put a stop to their savagery. They fought wars between each other all the time which is not so bad in and of itself. The thing that is soooo bad is how they would torture their war prisoners. Man, if you are a fan of prisoner torture, you are one sick puppy. Go ahead and talk all you want about what a bunch of sickos Europeans were and that is fine because they were. Europeans have always been a bit goofy ya know? From everything from the Spanish Inquisition to the support of Saddam Hussein instead of your American Liberators they have been well off. I think all the good ones came to America because the nuts were oppressing them in Europe.

Now that we have tamed the red man it is all good. In fact now that the red man has shown that he can be non psychotic I think we should do better by him.

A while back, RocktheCasbah made some comments about the brutality and savagery of 'Indians', but I wasn't able to reply to those comments at the time.

It's an opinion many people hold, and I'd like to refute it, but first I need to know what you actually think....in what way were we 'savages' or 'barbaric', and what measure of savagery and barbarism are you using? Because you KNOW I'm going to drag European culture into this as a comparison.

So? Bring it on.

The Native Americans were totally savages. How can anyone say otherwise? Are you glue or something? I am soooooo glad we put a stop to their savagery. They fought wars between each other all the time which is not so bad in and of itself. The thing that is soooo bad is how they would torture their war prisoners. Man, if you are a fan of prisoner torture, you are one sick puppy. Go ahead and talk all you want about what a bunch of sickos Europeans were and that is fine because they were. Europeans have always been a bit goofy ya know? From everything from the Spanish Inquisition to the support of Saddam Hussein instead of your American Liberators they have been well off. I think all the good ones came to America because the nuts were oppressing them in Europe.

Now that we have tamed the red man it is all good. In fact now that the red man has shown that he can be non psychotic I think we should do better by him.

A while back, RocktheCasbah made some comments about the brutality and savagery of 'Indians', but I wasn't able to reply to those comments at the time.

It's an opinion many people hold, and I'd like to refute it, but first I need to know what you actually think....in what way were we 'savages' or 'barbaric', and what measure of savagery and barbarism are you using? Because you KNOW I'm going to drag European culture into this as a comparison.

So? Bring it on.

The Native Americans were totally savages. How can anyone say otherwise? Are you glue or something? I am soooooo glad we put a stop to their savagery. They fought wars between each other all the time which is not so bad in and of itself. The thing that is soooo bad is how they would torture their war prisoners. Man, if you are a fan of prisoner torture, you are one sick puppy. Go ahead and talk all you want about what a bunch of sickos Europeans were and that is fine because they were. Europeans have always been a bit goofy ya know? From everything from the Spanish Inquisition to the support of Saddam Hussein instead of your American Liberators they have been well off. I think all the good ones came to America because the nuts were oppressing them in Europe.

Now that we have tamed the red man it is all good. In fact now that the red man has shown that he can be non psychotic I think we should do better by him.

A while back, RocktheCasbah made some comments about the brutality and savagery of 'Indians', but I wasn't able to reply to those comments at the time.

It's an opinion many people hold, and I'd like to refute it, but first I need to know what you actually think....in what way were we 'savages' or 'barbaric', and what measure of savagery and barbarism are you using? Because you KNOW I'm going to drag European culture into this as a comparison.

So? Bring it on.

The Native Americans were totally savages. How can anyone say otherwise? Are you glue or something? I am soooooo glad we put a stop to their savagery. They fought wars between each other all the time which is not so bad in and of itself. The thing that is soooo bad is how they would torture their war prisoners. Man, if you are a fan of prisoner torture, you are one sick puppy. Go ahead and talk all you want about what a bunch of sickos Europeans were and that is fine because they were. Europeans have always been a bit goofy ya know? From everything from the Spanish Inquisition to the support of Saddam Hussein instead of your American Liberators they have been well off. I think all the good ones came to America because the nuts were oppressing them in Europe.

Now that we have tamed the red man it is all good. In fact now that the red man has shown that he can be non psychotic I think we should do better by him.

A while back, RocktheCasbah made some comments about the brutality and savagery of 'Indians', but I wasn't able to reply to those comments at the time.

It's an opinion many people hold, and I'd like to refute it, but first I need to know what you actually think....in what way were we 'savages' or 'barbaric', and what measure of savagery and barbarism are you using? Because you KNOW I'm going to drag European culture into this as a comparison.

So? Bring it on.

The Native Americans were totally savages. How can anyone say otherwise? Are you glue or something? I am soooooo glad we put a stop to their savagery. They fought wars between each other all the time which is not so bad in and of itself. The thing that is soooo bad is how they would torture their war prisoners. Man, if you are a fan of prisoner torture, you are one sick puppy. Go ahead and talk all you want about what a bunch of sickos Europeans were and that is fine because they were. Europeans have always been a bit goofy ya know? From everything from the Spanish Inquisition to the support of Saddam Hussein instead of your American Liberators they have been well off. I think all the good ones came to America because the nuts were oppressing them in Europe.

Now that we have tamed the red man it is all good. In fact now that the red man has shown that he can be non psychotic I think we should do better by him.

A while back, RocktheCasbah made some comments about the brutality and savagery of 'Indians', but I wasn't able to reply to those comments at the time.

It's an opinion many people hold, and I'd like to refute it, but first I need to know what you actually think....in what way were we 'savages' or 'barbaric', and what measure of savagery and barbarism are you using? Because you KNOW I'm going to drag European culture into this as a comparison.

So? Bring it on.

The Native Americans were totally savages. How can anyone say otherwise? Are you glue or something? I am soooooo glad we put a stop to their savagery. They fought wars between each other all the time which is not so bad in and of itself. The thing that is soooo bad is how they would torture their war prisoners. Man, if you are a fan of prisoner torture, you are one sick puppy. Go ahead and talk all you want about what a bunch of sickos Europeans were and that is fine because they were. Europeans have always been a bit goofy ya know? From everything from the Spanish Inquisition to the support of Saddam Hussein instead of your American Liberators they have been well off. I think all the good ones came to America because the nuts were oppressing them in Europe.

Now that we have tamed the red man it is all good. In fact now that the red man has shown that he can be non psychotic I think we should do better by him.

A while back, RocktheCasbah made some comments about the brutality and savagery of 'Indians', but I wasn't able to reply to those comments at the time.

It's an opinion many people hold, and I'd like to refute it, but first I need to know what you actually think....in what way were we 'savages' or 'barbaric', and what measure of savagery and barbarism are you using? Because you KNOW I'm going to drag European culture into this as a comparison.

So? Bring it on.

The Native Americans were totally savages. How can anyone say otherwise? Are you glue or something? I am soooooo glad we put a stop to their savagery. They fought wars between each other all the time which is not so bad in and of itself. The thing that is soooo bad is how they would torture their war prisoners. Man, if you are a fan of prisoner torture, you are one sick puppy. Go ahead and talk all you want about what a bunch of sickos Europeans were and that is fine because they were. Europeans have always been a bit goofy ya know? From everything from the Spanish Inquisition to the support of Saddam Hussein instead of your American Liberators they have been well off. I think all the good ones came to America because the nuts were oppressing them in Europe.

Now that we have tamed the red man it is all good. In fact now that the red man has shown that he can be non psychotic I think we should do better by him.

A while back, RocktheCasbah made some comments about the brutality and savagery of 'Indians', but I wasn't able to reply to those comments at the time.

It's an opinion many people hold, and I'd like to refute it, but first I need to know what you actually think....in what way were we 'savages' or 'barbaric', and what measure of savagery and barbarism are you using? Because you KNOW I'm going to drag European culture into this as a comparison.

So? Bring it on.

The Native Americans were totally savages. How can anyone say otherwise? Are you glue or something? I am soooooo glad we put a stop to their savagery. They fought wars between each other all the time which is not so bad in and of itself. The thing that is soooo bad is how they would torture their war prisoners. Man, if you are a fan of prisoner torture, you are one sick puppy. Go ahead and talk all you want about what a bunch of sickos Europeans were and that is fine because they were. Europeans have always been a bit goofy ya know? From everything from the Spanish Inquisition to the support of Saddam Hussein instead of your American Liberators they have been well off. I think all the good ones came to America because the nuts were oppressing them in Europe.

Now that we have tamed the red man it is all good. In fact now that the red man has shown that he can be non psychotic I think we should do better by him.

A while back, RocktheCasbah made some comments about the brutality and savagery of 'Indians', but I wasn't able to reply to those comments at the time.

It's an opinion many people hold, and I'd like to refute it, but first I need to know what you actually think....in what way were we 'savages' or 'barbaric', and what measure of savagery and barbarism are you using? Because you KNOW I'm going to drag European culture into this as a comparison.

So? Bring it on.

The Native Americans were totally savages. How can anyone say otherwise? Are you glue or something? I am soooooo glad we put a stop to their savagery. They fought wars between each other all the time which is not so bad in and of itself. The thing that is soooo bad is how they would torture their war prisoners. Man, if you are a fan of prisoner torture, you are one sick puppy. Go ahead and talk all you want about what a bunch of sickos Europeans were and that is fine because they were. Europeans have always been a bit goofy ya know? From everything from the Spanish Inquisition to the support of Saddam Hussein instead of your American Liberators they have been well off. I think all the good ones came to America because the nuts were oppressing them in Europe.

Now that we have tamed the red man it is all good. In fact now that the red man has shown that he can be non psychotic I think we should do better by him.

Well for starters the aztecs and other Central American Indians welcomed the blood-sucking conquestidors as gods, Two none of the Indians attacked the colonialists until they started getting herded into "reservations"

This actually isn't true. Some tribes were more warlike than others - and not all welcomed the newcomers with open arms. On top of that, different European countries made alliance with different tribes - encouraging the tribe they allied with to attack settlers from other European countries.

whoa, 20-tuple

The Native Americans were totally savages. How can anyone say otherwise? Are you glue or something? I am soooooo glad we put a stop to their savagery. They fought wars between each other all the time which is not so bad in and of itself. The thing that is soooo bad is how they would torture their war prisoners. Man, if you are a fan of prisoner torture, you are one sick puppy. Go ahead and talk all you want about what a bunch of sickos Europeans were and that is fine because they were. Europeans have always been a bit goofy ya know? From everything from the Spanish Inquisition to the support of Saddam Hussein instead of your American Liberators they have been well off. I think all the good ones came to America because the nuts were oppressing them in Europe.

Now that we have tamed the red man it is all good. In fact now that the red man has shown that he can be non psychotic I think we should do better by him.

Holy crap, waita clog the thread with your post thats like a sixteendruple post

and no Sinu is not an adhesive

Well would you attack people who've got guns, steel, and can travel across oceans when you've only got wood, antler and stone to work with?

The Duke of Wellington was reputed to have frequently lamented the fact he didn't have longbow men instead of musket men during the Napoleonic wars. New and shiney doesn't always equal better.

Well if we didn't like you, we never would have allowed you to marry our women.
So we should blame you for Louis Riel?

Actually, I'm a big fan of his. The first western separatist.


edit: I count 19 posts up there. Wow.

The Duke of Wellington was reputed to have frequently lamented the fact he didn't have longbow men instead of musket men during the Napoleonic wars. New and shiney doesn't always equal better.
It does if the enemy runs in small bands, which means you don't have to keep reloading alot, and are terrified by the new weapons.

The Native Americans were totally savages. How can anyone say otherwise? Are you glue or something? I am soooooo glad we put a stop to their savagery. They fought wars between each other all the time which is not so bad in and of itself. The thing that is soooo bad is how they would torture their war prisoners. Man, if you are a fan of prisoner torture, you are one sick puppy. Go ahead and talk all you want about what a bunch of sickos Europeans were and that is fine because they were. Europeans have always been a bit goofy ya know? From everything from the Spanish Inquisition to the support of Saddam Hussein instead of your American Liberators they have been well off. I think all the good ones came to America because the nuts were oppressing them in Europe.

Now that we have tamed the red man it is all good. In fact now that the red man has shown that he can be non psychotic I think we should do better by him.
If something isn't happening fast enough on your computer, keep clicking on something until it moves its ass.

Now that we have tamed the red man it is all good. In fact now that the red man has shown that he can be non psychotic I think we should do better by him.

Well *someone* sure needed a post count boost.

Anyway, you didn't "tame" us. My people were never savages and, as a matter of fact, had peace treaties with every tribe around us.

It does if the enemy runs in small bands, which means you don't have to keep reloading alot, and are terrified by the new weapons.

No it doesn't, from a purely technological point of view the guns used until about 150 years ago were inferior in pretty much every way to a long bow with a well trained user.

Shorter range, less accurate, more liable to break due to being more complex, slower rate of fire.

No it doesn't, from a purely technological point of view the guns used until about 150 years ago were inferior in pretty much every way to a long bow with a well trained user.

Shorter range, less accurate, more liable to break due to being more complex, slower rate of fire.
Yeah, but terrifying to someone who isn't familiar with gunpowder.

"If a man comes among you and posteth more than a dozen times in a row your people must drag this man to the gates of the city and must stone him to death, you must purge the evil from you.-Leviticus 16:10

Yeah, but terrifying to someone who isn't familiar with gunpowder.


Never to forget the Conquistadors and many european troops still had armor capable of stopping the bows of Indians. Remember even though Longbows were capable of piercing armor, I doubt the Indian ones could.

Also closed lines of artillery fire, a broadside by a flagship, yea I think most native americans were intimidated a lot. I would be.

Compared to a mythological perception of how humans should behave. We're all savages.

Yeah, but terrifying to someone who isn't familiar with gunpowder.

Until they pick one up and go 'shit...so that's how it works.'

Never to forget the Conquistadors and many european troops still had armor capable of stopping the bows of Indians. Remember even though Longbows were capable of piercing armor, I doubt the Indian ones could.

Also closed lines of artillery fire, a broadside by a flagship, yea I think most native americans were intimidated a lot. I would be.

Dude, I'm pointing out that because a technology is new, it doesn't always mean it is better.

Until they pick one up and go 'shit...so that's how it works.'
Meh, by then the smallpox has done it's job.

Meh, by then the smallpox has done it's job.

Can we please take the war discussion to a bows vs. guns thread?

Can we please take the war discussion to a bows vs. guns thread?
I'm done with the subject.

Can we please take the war discussion to a bows vs. guns thread?

Was merely trying to point out that the idea that western cultures were more technologically advanced because they had guns was a little suspect.

Was merely trying to point out that the idea that western cultures were more technologically advanced because they had guns was a little suspect.

Bah who needs guns? what have they ever done for us? if the israel-hezbollah conflict was fought with medieval style weapons there'd be less civilian casualties and it'd be more entertaining

Was merely trying to point out that the idea that western cultures were more technologically advanced because they had guns was a little suspect.

True. I'd put an Apache bowman against a Spaniard with a musket any day.

It's why the war didn't really get nasty until the 1800s. The Winchester repeater spelled the end for most Native peoples.

Bah who needs guns? what have they ever done for us? if the israel-hezbollah conflict was fought with medieval style weapons there'd be less civilian casualties and it'd be more entertaining
What makes you think there would be less civilian casualties? Wholesale slaughter of the civilian population did occur back in the day. Hell, didn't the crusaders kill the shit out of the Jews in Jerusalem?

What makes you think there would be less civilian casualties? Wholesale slaughter of the civilian population did occur back in the day. Hell, didn't the crusaders kill the shit out of the Jews in Jerusalem?

It's harder to destroy a building full of civilians with a sword.

It's harder to destroy a building full of civilians with a sword.
Kick in the door, drag out the men and slaughter them in the streets, relax by raping the women afterward. Then make a profit by selling the kids into slavery. That's how it was done in the old days, no?

Kick in the door, drag out the men and slaughter them in the streets, relax by raping the women afterward. Then make a profit by selling the kids into slavery. That's how it was done in the old days, no?

Too true, but unless my reading comprehension is completely buggered up, I'm sure Pytor said medieval weapons not medieval methods.;)

I think its impossible to come up with a rule to judge one culture against another. A lot of different methods have come up in this thread, Economic systems, the ability to wage war, and the frequency in which war is waged. I can't really, truthfully say I agree with any of these and have come up with the conclusion that its totally impossible to weigh and measure another culture.

What makes you think there would be less civilian casualties? Wholesale slaughter of the civilian population did occur back in the day. Hell, didn't the crusaders kill the shit out of the Jews in Jerusalem?

True, and the muslims and some christians even. I think one account said that blood ran up to the horses knees in the street.

yeah, it all depends on what the individual making the comparison values.

So we should blame you for Louis Riel?

Actually, I'm a big fan of his. The first western separatist.


Please do, he had the right idea.

I think its impossible to come up with a rule to judge one culture against another. A lot of different methods have come up in this thread, Economic systems, the ability to wage war, and the frequency in which war is waged. I can't really, truthfully say I agree with any of these and have come up with the conclusion that its totally impossible to weigh and measure another culture.Immigration, dude. What cultures do people like so much that they're willing to pack up and move out of their country for. Western and westernized cultures win out by that measure, and it's an honest measure. It shows which cultures meet the needs and desires of people best.

Too true, but unless my reading comprehension is completely buggered up, I'm sure Pytor said medieval weapons not medieval methods.;)
If you use the weapons you've got to adopt the methods or face defeat.

Well *someone* sure needed a post count boost.

Anyway, you didn't "tame" us. My people were never savages and, as a matter of fact, had peace treaties with every tribe around us.
Exactly. The Cree were allied with the Dene, with the Stoney...hated the Blackfoot, but we weren't constantly at war. And then you have the Iroquois Confederacy, and the various peaces among many nationsl. Alliances shifted, for sure...just like they did in Europe...and as for treatment of prisoners? Do we really want to start claiming that anyone was clean in that regard?

Yeah, but terrifying to someone who isn't familiar with gunpowder.
The terror factor wears off. Then it's like, 'hmmm, get me some of those!'. But we still had the bows when the damn muskets didn't fire.

Too true, but unless my reading comprehension is completely buggered up, I'm sure Pytor said medieval weapons not medieval methods.;)
Look at the various conflicts around the world right now, and you'll find that those methods didn't stay in the Middle Ages.

Immigration, dude. What cultures do people like so much that they're willing to pack up and move out of their country for. Western and westernized cultures win out by that measure, and it's an honest measure. It shows which cultures meet the needs and desires of people best.
Hahahahahaa, then we bloody well win! You guys loved our cultures so damn much, you packed up and moved here!

Hahahahahaa, then we bloody well win! You guys loved our cultures so damn much, you packed up and moved here!

pwnt

Hahahahahaa, then we bloody well win! You guys loved our cultures so damn much, you packed up and moved here!
Yay!

Hahahaha, we weren't domesticated? Um, we aren't cattle, sheep, pigs or goats, so yeah, I would say that doesn't apply.

If you aren't animals, and therefore not domesticated, you are therefore savage by this definition :-P. And so is the rest of mankind, of course.

Lacking in polish and manners!
I think aboriginals are lacking in Polish manners. I mean, who of them had ever visited Poland back then?

*snip*We get refugees looking for freedom, and paupers looking for work (the way the economy is run is a reflection of the values of the culture).

Of course, by this metric Europeans were rather backwards compared to the inhabitants of America, as the number of Europeans settling over to America looking for freedom/an end of starvation was bigger than vice virsa. (Note how I had to *snip* of the part about not using this metric with past cultures to make this argument work).

Hahahahaa...so when the balance swings towards latinos in the US, that will mean European inferiority?

I'd like to point out that latinos are Europeans.

_
Mhm, the number of quotes makes it seem I prefer making fun of Sinuhue. No purpose there.

Indiginous peoples were characterised as savages only by the social elites of European societies. They viewed their own brutish masses with equal disdain, and greater fear. Little respect was given to the great majority of Europeans who lived short nasty lives in squalor, with neither sanitation nor literacy, nor numeracy.


Was it Hobbes that described life in the "New World" as "nasty, brutish and short"? That always struck me as a better description of a life of a Manchester factory worker during the industrial revolution than the life of an indigenous person pre-contact.

Exactly. The Cree were allied with the Dene, with the Stoney...hated the Blackfoot, but we weren't constantly at war. And then you have the Iroquois Confederacy, and the various peaces among many nationsl. Alliances shifted, for sure...just like they did in Europe...and as for treatment of prisoners? Do we really want to start claiming that anyone was clean in that regard?
Don't forget the Wabenaki Confederacy ... everyone always forgets about them.

Until they pick one up and go 'shit...so that's how it works.'
Hahaha ... my girlfriend was telling me yesterday about how the British belatedly sent out orders to stop loading the guns in front of the Indians ... because they were figuring out how to use them. It was too late by that point.

So we should blame you for Louis Riel?

Actually, I'm a big fan of his. The first western separatist.




Riel wasn't a seperatist ... he just wanted favourable terms for his people within Canada.

It's harder to destroy a building full of civilians with a sword.

Or at least it's harder to claim accident =)

Riel wasn't a seperatist ... he just wanted favourable terms for his people within Canada.
He wanted self-government for the Red River colony, which wasn't just populated with Métis.

Ok by aboriginal i was talking about ancient australian aborigonals.

Australian aboriginals have the longest continually practiced culture in the entire world. They lived in one of the harshest climates in the world for 40-60,000 years and survived. They developed oceangoing watercraft technology before any other human society is known to have. What is so savage about that?

He wanted self-government for the Red River colony, which wasn't just populated with Métis.

Fair enough. But I believe he was seeking said self-government within Canada, not outside it.

Was it Hobbes that described life in the "New World" as "nasty, brutish and short"?

he was talking about the actual people - bunch of angry dwarves

I'd like to point out that latinos are Europeans.

No they aren't. They are a mix of black, European and aboriginal. A new people, a new culture...one that will slowly and superiorarily conquer the US! MUAHHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!

Don't forget the Wabenaki Confederacy ... everyone always forgets about them.
No no no, it's not that anyone forgets them, no one EXPECTS them! You know that famous line..."No one expects the Wabenaki Confederacy!"

Or something along those lines...

They were savages because, besides their ugly looks, their technology and knowledge of science were very backwards. They were also socially not sophisticated, living in tents and stuff. While Europeans were going to theatre, they were running around the fire.
Also europeans back then saw non-christians as savages as well, I think....

If you aren't animals, and therefore not domesticated, you are therefore savage by this definition :-P. And so is the rest of mankind, of course.

I think aboriginals are lacking in Polish manners. I mean, who of them had ever visited Poland back then?



Of course, by this metric Europeans were rather backwards compared to the inhabitants of America, as the number of Europeans settling over to America looking for freedom/an end of starvation was bigger than vice virsa. (Note how I had to *snip* of the part about not using this metric with past cultures to make this argument work).



I'd like to point out that latinos are Europeans.

_
Mhm, the number of quotes makes it seem I prefer making fun of Sinuhue. No purpose there.

In the modern sense, latinos usually mean North and South Americans below USA and Canada, not iberians and spanish.

They were savages because, besides their ugly looks, their technology and knowledge of science were very backwards. They were also socially not sophisticated, living in tents and stuff. While Europeans were going to theatre, they were running around the fire.
Also europeans back then saw non-christians as savages as well, I think....

You don't think indian girls are hot? you are a strange little man.

A while back, RocktheCasbah made some comments about the brutality and savagery of 'Indians', but I wasn't able to reply to those comments at the time.

It's an opinion many people hold, and I'd like to refute it, but first I need to know what you actually think....in what way were we 'savages' or 'barbaric', and what measure of savagery and barbarism are you using? Because you KNOW I'm going to drag European culture into this as a comparison.

So? Bring it on.
It means that you didn't live up to British imperialist "values" like slavery, genocide, expulsion and exploitation.

You don't think indian girls are hot? you are a strange little man.

Which indian? Even when the Raj Something (sp?), the blue eyed indian was elected as miss world (or universe?), I didnt find her hot. She was ok though. About native Americans, the only ones I saw were in American movies and I dont remember finding any of them hot.

There is no inconsistency. Indiginous peoples were characterised as savages only by the social elites of European societies. They viewed their own brutish masses with equal disdain, and greater fear. Little respect was given to the great majority of Europeans who lived short nasty lives in squalor, with neither sanitation nor literacy, nor numeracy.

If it was a race thing abroad, it was a class thing at home, and it was every bit as strong.
What I'm amazed by is that it wasn't until the 20th century that the majority began to try to correct this injustice.

Subjective opinions work if you're the one with the firepower.
As the imperialists were, and they were doing the judging.

We might conclude for example, that a culture that shoots women in the head for listening to taped music, or one that executes raped women for the crime of "adultery", or shoots men who play tennis in shorts, is "backwards" at the very least.
Damned American Native scum...

Well, some of us live in the 21st century, and others are still as far back as the 10th, the last time I read the news.
And then there's the group still living in the mid-20th century.

I have this opinion that cultures who rape the environment and 'shit where they eat' are also backwards...but hey, that's just 'tree-hugging liberal bullshit'.
Why bring this up? Can't you be against both pollution and killing women gratuitously?

In many ways, my people were much more taken care of than they are in contemporary culture.
Truly, Sinu, we must be living in the worst culture on earth, if western culture is worse than aboriginal cultures and worse than militantly Islamic culture. :(

I judge a level of civilization by how much it kicks ass
Why?

This would surely make militant Islamists more sophisticated than Quakers? I mean, they're killing more people.

Now, I used the term more for the fact that I like the sound of "kick ass" more than what it really means.
How old are you, 14?

Compared to a mythological perception of how humans should behave. We're all savages.
Not you and me!

Which indian? Even when the Raj Something (sp?), the blue eyed indian was elected as miss world (or universe?), I didnt find her hot. She was ok though. About native Americans, the only ones I saw were in American movies and I dont remember finding any of them hot.

I'm pc to a point but i still call native americans indians.

I'm pc to a point but i still call native americans indians.

Although they look alike, it's confusing with the real indians.

the american indians were savage because they were in approximately the same state of development that the Mediterranean cultures were going through 3-4000 years earlier. But since they had such expanses to work with, they did not develop culturally or technologically at the rate that European/Asian cultures did. The Aztecs, Maya, and Inca all developed in much smaller confines, and were more advanced, but without the pressure of other major civilizations developing alongside, they did not develop as quickly as Europeans either. The same in Africa.

Also, i would think they could be considered savage because from the religious point of view, earth- and nature-worship is the first idea of religion to be developed, before more abstract ideas develop, when humans are dissociated from nature by cities.

Although they look alike, it's confusing with the real indians.

I think you're on yuor own with that one mate. I've never known the phrase 'they all look alike' to go down well with any minority.

I think you're on yuor own with that one mate. I've never known the phrase 'they all look alike' to go down well with any minority.

yeah, thats a red flag for the pc police

I'm pc to a point but i still call native americans indians.
i think during the famous USian debates I was told that that is what indians call themselves too. american indians anyways.

I think you're on yuor own with that one mate. I've never known the phrase 'they all look alike' to go down well with any minority.
or with a majority, since all asians look alike to white folk, and all whites look alike to asian folk. and doubtless other folk too.

i think during the famous USian debates I was told that that is what indians call themselves too. american indians anyways.

Yeah isn't Native Americans not pc enough now? because they crossed the bering sea land bridge?

Amerindians right?

or with a majority, since all asians look alike to white folk, and all whites look alike to asian folk. and doubtless other folk too.

Yes, with slanted eyes and flat faces, asians do look like whites :rolleyes:

If you really want to see some savagery, look at the Germanic and Aztec civilizations. And the Viking.

or with a majority, since all asians look alike to white folk, and all whites look alike to asian folk. and doubtless other folk too.
I never understood that as a kid i think asians can and do look very different from other asians

or with a majority, since all asians look alike to white folk, and all whites look alike to asian folk. and doubtless other folk too.

Dude, it's not a lie. Show me one asian guy and 10 minutes later ask me to pick that same guy out from a crowd. I can't do it.

Yes, with slanted eyes and flat faces, asians do look like whites :rolleyes:
I am reminded of one of the Pratchett books where he discusses life in a city full of different species. Something to the effect of race being irrelevant, where white, black, and blue usually gang up on dwarf. or something like this.

Dude, it's not a lie. Show me one asian guy and 10 minutes later ask me to pick that same guy out from a crowd. I can't do it.
me neither mate, me neither. it's a sad fact, and one i admit to any asian acquaintance more than 11 minutes old :)

Dude, it's not a lie. Show me one asian guy and 10 minutes later ask me to pick that same guy out from a crowd. I can't do it.

and that means that ALL americans can't pick one asian out of a crowd:rolleyes:

A while back, RocktheCasbah made some comments about the brutality and savagery of 'Indians', but I wasn't able to reply to those comments at the time.

It's an opinion many people hold, and I'd like to refute it, but first I need to know what you actually think....in what way were we 'savages' or 'barbaric', and what measure of savagery and barbarism are you using? Because you KNOW I'm going to drag European culture into this as a comparison.

So? Bring it on.

To be brutally honest, it goes like this.

You weren't white Christians. Therefore you were savages. Therefore, children were taught that you were savages, and it perpetuated itself.

and that means that ALL americans can't pick one asian out of a crowd:rolleyes:
dude you're referring to a country that canadians had a field day with in "Talking to Americans". Half the people on the street probably couldn't tell you more about Chinese people than they all know karate and own corner stores.
since we're on a stereotype thread already

To be brutally honest, it goes like this.

You weren't white Christians. Therefore you were savages. Therefore, children were taught that you were savages, and it perpetuated itself.
and on a similar note, by definition, barbarians are folk who aren't greek. so i suppose it's a bit of a moot point whether or not they're savages, since greeks are the only one with culture :D
our time will come again

and on a similar note, by definition, barbarians are folk who aren't greek. so i suppose it's a bit of a moot point whether or not they're savages, since greeks are the only one with culture :D
our time will come again

People that don't speak Greek I think...

dude you're referring to a country that canadians had a field day with in "Talking to Americans". Half the people on the street probably couldn't tell you more about Chinese people than they all know karate and own corner stores.
since we're on a stereotype thread already

I love that show someone mistook new zealand for North Korea

yeah, thats a red flag for the pc police

No, it's a red flag for the IQ police. Seriously, how ignorant do you have to be to think Indians and Native Americans look the same?

the american indians were savage because they were in approximately the same state of development that the Mediterranean cultures were going through 3-4000 years earlier. But since they had such expanses to work with, they did not develop culturally or technologically at the rate that European/Asian cultures did. The Aztecs, Maya, and Inca all developed in much smaller confines, and were more advanced, but without the pressure of other major civilizations developing alongside, they did not develop as quickly as Europeans either. The same in Africa.

First of all, you are assuming there is such a thing as "stages of development" and that it represents some kind of progress, when in fact the evidence suggests that from a quality of life standpoint, hunter gatherer socieites are actually better off than agricultural ones (healthier, longer lives, more leisure time). the only thing agricultural society was good for was making more people and creating wealthy elites.

Your whole "other societies developing alongside" argument is bunk. Eurasian societies developed differently because they had access to a lagrer number of domesticable grains and animals.


Also, i would think they could be considered savage because from the religious point of view, earth- and nature-worship is the first idea of religion to be developed, before more abstract ideas develop, when humans are dissociated from nature by cities.

First of all, it ain't nature and earth worship. It is called respect. And what makes that so much more "primitive" than getting moral guidance from a book written by a tribe of semi-literate sheperds in a completely different land thousands of years ago?

Yes, I love the idea that our spiritual beliefs are primitive and will eventually develop into something more 'complex'...especially in this day and age where people from 'more complex' religious backgrounds are desperately trying to learn our ways in order to fill a spiritual hole their 'more complex' religions can't seem to.

No, it's a red flag for the IQ police. Seriously, how ignorant do you have to be to think Indians and Native Americans look the same?

Calm down now I'm not saying that they look the same physically but their names look the same Indians from america or indians from India the confusion was started because columbus actually thought he was in India.

But all thats been cleared by the Native American or Amerindian thing

A while back, RocktheCasbah made some comments about the brutality and savagery of 'Indians', but I wasn't able to reply to those comments at the time.

It's an opinion many people hold, and I'd like to refute it, but first I need to know what you actually think....in what way were we 'savages' or 'barbaric', and what measure of savagery and barbarism are you using? Because you KNOW I'm going to drag European culture into this as a comparison.

So? Bring it on.

Nah they weren't savages!

Tonto was a pretty cool guy.

No, it's a red flag for the IQ police. Seriously, how ignorant do you have to be to think Indians and Native Americans look the same?

:rolleyes:
Nobody said same. Maybe your lack of reading comprehension requires the presence of IQ police as well.
Oh and Yes, native Americans do look alike with indians and other Asians.

A while back, RocktheCasbah made some comments about the brutality and savagery of 'Indians', but I wasn't able to reply to those comments at the time.

It's an opinion many people hold, and I'd like to refute it, but first I need to know what you actually think....in what way were we 'savages' or 'barbaric', and what measure of savagery and barbarism are you using? Because you KNOW I'm going to drag European culture into this as a comparison.

So? Bring it on.


Whatever does not speak a proper European tongue is barbarian.

The 'barbar'-thing, as the Greeks defined it some 3000 years ago.

Hoi men de Hellenes eisin agathoi, hoi men de barbaroi kakoi.

First of all, you are assuming there is such a thing as "stages of development" and that it represents some kind of progress, when in fact the evidence suggests that from a quality of life standpoint, hunter gatherer socieites are actually better off than agricultural ones (healthier, longer lives, more leisure time). the only thing agricultural society was good for was making more people and creating wealthy elites.

Your whole "other societies developing alongside" argument is bunk. Eurasian societies developed differently because they had access to a lagrer number of domesticable grains and animals.

<snip>


There are stages of development, even in todays world. Similarly there have been stages of development back then. Oh and those agricultural societies eventually developed things like space travel, genome project, vaccines, planes and many other things which are progress, especially compared to running around fire.

Was it Hobbes that described life in the "New World" as "nasty, brutish and short"? That always struck me as a better description of a life of a Manchester factory worker during the industrial revolution than the life of an indigenous person pre-contact.
Oh, I don't know about that. If N. American Indian tribes were anything like those found in the Amazon jungle or in New Guinea they were living under constant threat of violent death, engaged in "a war of every man against every man". In primitive tribes that haven't had extensive contact with more modern societies the leading killer of men is other men. Raids to steal women are common. Doesn't seem really pleasant to me.

No they aren't. They are a mix of black, European and aboriginal. A new people, a new culture...one that will slowly and superiorarily conquer the US! MUAHHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!
Fine by me. I like Mexican food and tequila. They can keep their beer though. Makes American beer seem tasty by comparison.

First of all, you are assuming there is such a thing as "stages of development" and that it represents some kind of progress, when in fact the evidence suggests that from a quality of life standpoint, hunter gatherer socieites are actually better off than agricultural ones (healthier, longer lives, more leisure time). the only thing agricultural society was good for was making more people and creating wealthy elites.

Your whole "other societies developing alongside" argument is bunk. Eurasian societies developed differently because they had access to a lagrer number of domesticable grains and animals.



First of all, it ain't nature and earth worship. It is called respect. And what makes that so much more "primitive" than getting moral guidance from a book written by a tribe of semi-literate sheperds in a completely different land thousands of years ago?I'd like to see some evidence supporting the idea that hunter/gatherers live longer and are more healthy than agricultural societies.

I'd like to see some evidence supporting the idea that hunter/gatherers live longer and are more healthy than agricultural societies.

Any culture that is pre-industrial doesn't have much in the way of advanced medicine. And both hunter/gatherer and primitive agricultural societies are at the mercy of the environment and weather as to whether they live or starve.

Thus, their life expectancy can be assumed to be far shorter than modern civilization, and their daily workload is probably higher on average. Competition for immediate local resources is probably more desperate and more violent in the primitive cultures.

The first plague that comes through is likely to kill a staggering number of people - just like the Black Plague in Europe and Asia, or measles and smallpox in the New World.

Oh, I don't know about that. If N. American Indian tribes were anything like those found in the Amazon jungle or in New Guinea they were living under constant threat of violent death, engaged in "a war of every man against every man". In primitive tribes that haven't had extensive contact with more modern societies the leading killer of men is other men. Raids to steal women are common. Doesn't seem really pleasant to me.

I'd like to see a source on that please.

Any culture that is pre-industrial doesn't have much in the way of advanced medicine. And both hunter/gatherer and primitive agricultural societies are at the mercy of the environment and weather as to whether they live or starve.

Thus, their life expectancy can be assumed to be far shorter than modern civilization, and their daily workload is probably higher on average. Competition for immediate local resources is probably more desperate and more violent in the primitive cultures.

The first plague that comes through is likely to kill a staggering number of people - just like the Black Plague in Europe and Asia, or measles and smallpox in the New World.
Good point, but if it really was worse than hunting and gathering I can't imagine anyone would stick with it. Why didn't everyone who experimented with agriculture go back to hunting and gathering? It couldn't have just been more hard work for a shorter lifespan. it must have had some advantages.

I'd like to see a source on that please.
Read Napoleon Chagnon's book Yanomamo. Also check out Steven Pinker's book, The Blank Slate. It has a chart comparing various Amazon tribes and showing what percentage of their men die violent deaths. It's staggering among the Jivaro, but it's still amazingly high among two groups of Yanomamo that are listed in the chart.

Oh, I don't know about that. If N. American Indian tribes were anything like those found in the Amazon jungle or in New Guinea they were living under constant threat of violent death, engaged in "a war of every man against every man". In primitive tribes that haven't had extensive contact with more modern societies the leading killer of men is other men. Raids to steal women are common. Doesn't seem really pleasant to me.
Sorry, DC...this is different than anywhere else are anytime else in the world how?

Europe was engaged in constant warfare. We were too...overall. That doesn't mean that our lives were spent in constant battles or skirmishes. The 'leading cause of death'? What are the leading causes of death in this society? Traffic accidents? Diseases? What? Death isn't pleasant no matter which way you look at it.

This belief that we existed in a constant stage of warfare is ridiculous, especially considering your people's history. We had treaties with other tribes, and we had long lasting peace (it helped that we weren't all squished into something the size of Alberta). And frankly, throwing in 'raids to steal women were common' needs to be addressed. Among the Dene, these 'raids' were extremely ceremonial. If you couldn't wrest the woman you wanted away from her family, it was because she didn't want you in return. Many of the tribes had very strict rules about marriage...marrying into specific clans only, for example, (usually to prevent inbreeding), or making alliances with other nations and intermarrying with them, according to a blend of customs. Raids were a very common part of this...but not all of them were the bloodthirsty, kill 'em all variety.

Raids were a very common part of this...but not all of them were the bloodthirsty, kill 'em all variety.

I guess you missed reading about the Aztecs and the Mayans.

Sorry, DC...this is different than anywhere else are anytime else in the world how?

Europe was engaged in constant warfare. We were too...overall. That doesn't mean that our lives were spent in constant battles or skirmishes. The 'leading cause of death'? What are the leading causes of death in this society? Traffic accidents? Diseases? What? Death isn't pleasant no matter which way you look at it.

This belief that we existed in a constant stage of warfare is ridiculous, especially considering your people's history. We had treaties with other tribes, and we had long lasting peace (it helped that we weren't all squished into something the size of Alberta). And frankly, throwing in 'raids to steal women were common' needs to be addressed. Among the Dene, these 'raids' were extremely ceremonial. If you couldn't wrest the woman you wanted away from her family, it was because she didn't want you in return. Many of the tribes had very strict rules about marriage...marrying into specific clans only, for example, (usually to prevent inbreeding), or making alliances with other nations and intermarrying with them, according to a blend of customs. Raids were a very common part of this...but not all of them were the bloodthirsty, kill 'em all variety.
Please note that I said "if N. American Indians were anything like those found in the Amazon jungle". I haven't read anything about North American natives unless you count Tony Hillerman novels. What I have read about the Jivaro and Yanomamo indicates that they do live under constant fear of violence and they do raid for women.

I'd like to see some evidence supporting the idea that hunter/gatherers live longer and are more healthy than agricultural societies.
Not necessarily longer...but absolutely healthier:

http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-8b.shtml

Malnutrition and starvation. Dunn [1968], a paper on health and disease in hunter-gatherers, makes a number of relevant points. Dunn (p. 233) reports "patent (and perhaps even borderline) malnutrition [in hunter-gatherers] is rare." Dunn also reports that hunter-gatherers are often better nourished than nearby agriculturalists or urban residents.

Dunn also notes (p. 223), "Starvation occurs infrequently." Agriculturalists who depend on a few crops for the bulk of their diet are more susceptible to starvation (e.g., caused by crop failure from climatic variation, insect attack, plant diseases) than hunter-gatherers who have a wider dietary base.

Note that accidental deaths, and what they call 'social mortality' rates (warfare etc) are generally higher in h/g societies, but chronic diseases are much rarer...cancer for example having been found only very infrequently by medical anthropologists.

Some people claim that we should be able to return to hunter-gatherer lifestyles, but it isn't possible for everyone. There are just too many of us. Many aboriginal people however still maintain a large chunk of that h/g lifestyle, with the added benefit of a lack of intertribal warfare. Now if only we could stop the various governments around the world for stepping into that gap and killing us off anyway....

Any culture that is pre-industrial doesn't have much in the way of advanced medicine. And both hunter/gatherer and primitive agricultural societies are at the mercy of the environment and weather as to whether they live or starve.

Thus, their life expectancy can be assumed to be far shorter than modern civilization, and their daily workload is probably higher on average. Competition for immediate local resources is probably more desperate and more violent in the primitive cultures.

The first plague that comes through is likely to kill a staggering number of people - just like the Black Plague in Europe and Asia, or measles and smallpox in the New World.
"At the mercy of the environment" suggests that we had no way of adapting to the environment, which is patently false. The types of homes we constructed were absolutely suited the environment in which we lived. There have been studies done on the R factor of various types of housing, and it has been shown again and again that aboriginal structures meet, or beat the R factor of contemporary buildings in the same environment.

If we were unsuited to the environment, and 'at its mercy' we would not have survived for the tens of thousands of years that we have.

Agricultural societies were much more prone to starvation caused by extreme weather than were hunter/gatherers, and if you consider this, it makes sense. A harsh, early winter does not mean that the h/g food supply is gone. It may be reduced, absolutely, but the large variety of food we accessed assured our survival. Those relying almost wholly on the crops they could grow themselves, were much more at the mercy of the weather, more so because they were stationary, and at some point would deplete the readily available wild stock of game. That the nomadic among us were able to roam more widely meant that depletion was less of an issue.

As for our daily workload being much higher, no research supports this....geez, why do you think our stories lasted days? Because we had a lot of time to kill. Certain seasons were busy, and others were extremely languid. You prepare for the winter (if you live in a climate that has a harsh one), and there isn't much more you need to do for the rest of the season. Nor is a single foray for food a very time-consuming thing.

http://www.greenuniversity.net/Green_Economics/wealth.htm

Omg i really have never seen anything so ignorant. Firstly you need to go to school and learn some basic stuff. I am not talking about any sort of race, so i can't be racist.

This of course depends on how loosly one applys the entirly artificial lable of race . . . the Australian aborigianals are in most circles a clearly different "race" than the "civilized" Europeans.

<edit: If you still object to the lable racist then lets just replace the statement with "How does the fact that you're only talking about Australian Aborigionals and not Native Americans makes you any less of an asshole?>

Also, saying that one type of culture is a savage culture doesn't mean i'm criticizing their way of life. I could say it is good that they free and close to nature not being forced to live a certain way.

Which is vastly different than the slurs "savage" or "barbaric".

"At the mercy of the environment" suggests that we had no way of adapting to the environment, which is patently false.

No way to adapt to measles. No way to adapt to smallpox. No way to adapt to those things without losing 80 percent of the population.

Which certainly happened when the Europeans merely showed up.

i can remember a film,named "the gods did fall on their heads"( "les dieux sont tombe sur la tete"),it really was one of a kind,bushemen fighting each other for a bottle of coke...
And the rest

Was it relevant?

In America I beleive it was called "The gods must be crazy".

I guess you missed reading about the Aztecs and the Mayans.So now you're going to define my people by them?

The problem is the oversimplification and generalisation of literally hundreds of different cultures as being the 'same' because we were all 'primitive'. The social/cultural dynamics among the Mexica and the surrounding nations were very different than what you see in what is now Canada or the US...different than what you see in the empire held by the Inca, different than what you see in Australia, Indonesia etc etc etc.

So now you're going to define my people by them?

The problem is the oversimplification and generalisation of literally hundreds of different cultures as being the 'same' because we were all 'primitive'. The social/cultural dynamics among the Mexica and the surrounding nations were very different than what you see in what is now Canada or the US...different than what you see in the empire held by the Inca, different than what you see in Australia, Indonesia etc etc etc.

No, but you're defining ALL aboriginal people by your culture.

Specious, to say the least. We should examine all of them to come to a conclusion - worldwide.

Good point, but if it really was worse than hunting and gathering I can't imagine anyone would stick with it. Why didn't everyone who experimented with agriculture go back to hunting and gathering? It couldn't have just been more hard work for a shorter lifespan. it must have had some advantages.
Agrarian societies are more efficient, and produce more wealth. But it's about priorities too. When material things become the main priority, h/g society just isn't going to be able to provide as much as you want.

Please note that I said "if N. American Indians were anything like those found in the Amazon jungle". I haven't read anything about North American natives unless you count Tony Hillerman novels. What I have read about the Jivaro and Yanomamo indicates that they do live under constant fear of violence and they do raid for women.
True, you did qualify at least:)

Hmmmm...who in industrial societies live under constant fear of violence...it's on the tip of my tongue...

Point being, the type of society doesn't necessarily tell you how much violence will be present.

No way to adapt to measles. No way to adapt to smallpox. No way to adapt to those things without losing 80 percent of the population.

Which certainly happened when the Europeans merely showed up.
Sorry...you're saying that disease is a part of the environment? Let's not mix this up, shall we? Environment and weather...one thing. Interaction with disease-bearing humans...another thing.

This issue of adaptation to disease is not about hunter/gatherer societies, but rather about lack of resistence to diseases not previously encountered. Period. Rather like, there being no substantial immunity to AIDS is not about industrialisation, but rather about lack of immunity, period.

If you use the weapons you've got to adopt the methods or face defeat.

So you're saying that since we use bombs we need to adopt the method of the terrorists and start blowing up crowded streets full of civilians?

No, but you're defining ALL aboriginal people by your culture. No I'm not, I'm providing counter examples to your overgeneralisations.

Specious, to say the least. We should examine all of them to come to a conclusion - worldwide.
A conclusion about what? Studies have been done on diet, on lifespan, etc...but you are now delving into culture, and you seriously expect that examining the cultures of hundreds, if not thousands, of DIFFERENT cultures is going to give you some sort of cultural generalisation of any use? How ridiculous.

Even studies of various religious and spiritual beliefs among the aboriginal peoples of the world gives you very little to go by. You have everthing from animism to shamanism to polytheism to monotheism. So what generalisation can you glean from that about spirituality among aboriginal people?

Seriously.

[QUOTE=Sinuhue]Sorry...you're saying that disease is a part of the environment? Let's not mix this up, shall we? Environment and weather...one thing. Interaction with disease-bearing humans...another thing./QUOTE]

It's still the environment.

And agrarian societies (such as the fall of the Maya, or the Little Ice Age in Europe - the year with no summer) can't adapt to massive weather changes - not without killing millions of people.

AIDS can be moderated by modern medicine, which aboriginals cannot invent. They have no ability to fertilize, prevent crop damage from locusts, etc.

At the mercy of the environment.

At the very least, crop yields for agrarian primitives are highly variable, and can plummet to starvation levels without warning.

Subjective opinions work if you're the one with the firepower.
as good a reason for banning guns as any i've heard.

sorry for being off topic.

There is no inconsistency. Indiginous peoples were characterised as savages only by the social elites of European societies. They viewed their own brutish masses with equal disdain, and greater fear. Little respect was given to the great majority of Europeans who lived short nasty lives in squalor, with neither sanitation nor literacy, nor numeracy.

If it was a race thing abroad, it was a class thing at home, and it was every bit as strong.

The reason we have this perception of European cultural arrogance is that we never hear anything about the 95% of Europeans whose lot in life was no better, and who did not have the opportunity to contribute to the records of the time.
and this is also what i think so i not going to bother reading through the whole thread to see if i can add anything.

So you're saying that since we use bombs we need to adopt the method of the terrorists and start blowing up crowded streets full of civilians?
No, I'm saying if you use spears and swords you'd better eliminate most of the men of fighting age in the population you conquer and demoralize the rest or they'll just regroup and kick the shit out of you. When you've got guns and the population you conquer doesn't and you can call in airstrikes you need not kill as large a portion of the population to maintain control. Then again, the situation in Iraq might prove me wrong.