NationStates Jolt Archive

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.
I don't know. Who does live under constant fear of violence?

It's not a hard and fast rule, but more primitive societies tend to be more violent. This article deals with the subject.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/HG04Aa02.html

It's still the environment. Make that clearer next time. Because you lob in environment and weather in the same sentence, then address disease later.

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. And you are going to tell me that massive weather changes are not going to kill millions of people in today's world? What are you...blind?

AIDS can be moderated by modern medicine, which aboriginals cannot invent. Modern medicine...funny that. Modern medicine is turning more and more to ancient medicine for help. Aboriginal people have had natural medicine for tens of thousands of years...and worked just fine. And what is the point of living a lifestyle that gives you cancer, when even your modern medicine only has a chance of saving you from it? What 'modern medicines' did we need? AIDS can be moderated by modern medicine, but at this point, not cured. And it isn't being moderated for the majority of people suffering from it, so excuse me if I'm unimpressed.

In any case, you avoided my point. You seem to want to pretend that modern medicine = immunity.

They have no ability to fertilize, prevent crop damage from locusts, etc. Um...h/g societies weren't growing crops in the first place...have you forgotten that?

At the mercy of the environment. Wait, which definition are you using now? Environment or 'disease carrying Europeans'?:rolleyes:

At the very least, crop yields for agrarian primitives are highly variable, and can plummet to starvation levels without warning. And yet they usually didn't starve. I wonder why that is? Perhaps because they hadn't totally disassociated themselves from their environment (not disease carrying Europeans)? And the variety of crops grown generally meant that even if pests or disease hit one crop, the others survived.

I don't know. Who does live under constant fear of violence?

It's not a hard and fast rule, but more primitive societies tend to be more violent. This article deals with the subject.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/HG04Aa02.html
Oh give me a break...back to the idea that the Europeans saved us from exterminating ourselves. Jesus.

And as for 'who lives under constant fear of violence'...are you crazy? Look at Africa, look at the Middle East...look at any poor neighbourhood in any country.

If the United States of America is the Christian nation par excellence - as I have argued on numerous occasions - then the predicament of an American ex-Christian is especially miserable. Americans do not have close at hand the Saints Days of Italian villages incorporating heathen practice predating Rome, or the Elf-ridden forest of the German north celebrated in Romantic poetry. They have suburban housing developments and strip malls, urban forests of steel and glass, Hollywood and Graceland, but nothing "authentic".

An overpowering nostalgia afflicts the American post-Christian, for whom the American journey has neither goal nor purpose. He seeks authenticity in nature and in the dead customs of peoples who were subject to nature, that is, peoples who never learned from the Book of Genesis that the heavenly bodies were lamps and clocks hung in the sky for the benefit of man. Even more: in their mortality, the post-Christian senses his own mortality, for without the Kingdom of God as a goal, American life offers only addictive diversions interrupted by ever-sharper episodes of anxiety.

Yes, there are many fruit-cakes who idolise our cultures from a stance of complete and utter ignorance. I have about as much respect for them as I do for those who demonise us.

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.

the main problem is that it isn't really the small-scale gardeners that encounter much harder work, crashing life expectancies, disease, and famine. it takes a number of generations worth of population growth to get there. by that point, nobody remembers living any other way and the problems seem like just another fact of life. and it wouldn't really work to have a large agricultural population rapidly shift to foraging anyway - they've cleared the forests and killed or chased off many of the animals, undermining the food sources available for foraging - which wouldn't have been enough to support a population that size in the first place.

as good a reason for banning guns as any i've heard.
And as good a reason for owning one.:)

I don't understand why these types of threads seem to go on for so long. What's done is done. Arguing about the nature of one culture to either justify or vilify the actions of another culture, keeping in mind that all those involved in the actions are dead, is pointless unless you're going to, at some point, address the present consequences of those actions in a reasonable manner.

Oh give me a break...back to the idea that the Europeans saved us from exterminating ourselves. Jesus.

And as for 'who lives under constant fear of violence'...are you crazy? Look at Africa, look at the Middle East...look at any poor neighbourhood in any country.



Yes, there are many fruit-cakes who idolise our cultures from a stance of complete and utter ignorance. I have about as much respect for them as I do for those who demonise us.
I'm not trying to push the idea that Europeans and christianity "saved you from exterminating yourselves", just pointing out that primitive societies tend to have more deaths from violence than modern ones. Even counting the death toll from two world wars, the rate of violent death is lower in modern societies.

Sub-saharan Africa, and the Middle East aren't modern societies. They're still kind of primitive in my opinion. Africa is full of kings who use the title president and serfs that work the land in hopes of not starving. The Middle East is stuck in the same mentality it had in the 1500s. Oh, and poor neighborhoods do have higher rates of violence than rich ones, but I spend plenty of time hanging out with friends who live in them and I feel perfectly safe.

Here is a resource to look further into...this is just the abstract:
http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/eras/edition_7/suelzlereview.htm

It would be fair to suggest that the adoption of agriculture by Neolithic Europeans did not act as a calming factor in disputes between, or within, various farming communities.

There is no 'calming factor' that as one goes from a h/g society to an agrarian one that means violence suddenly plummets. Also, mobility was an excellent conflict resolution strategy.

I have seen some pretty lame 'sources' claming that aboriginal peoples were so peaceful and happy and la la la...so I understand if you reject that notion. You should. But don't flip over to the other side and believe that we would have killed one another off without intervention.

Here is some specific information about types of violence within a broad range of aboriginal societies (from h/g to agrarian):

http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/8/4/11.html

I'm not trying to push the idea that Europeans and christianity "saved you from exterminating yourselves", just pointing out that primitive societies tend to have more deaths from violence than modern ones. Even counting the death toll from two world wars, the rate of violent death is lower in modern societies. I know you're not pushing that agenda, DC, but I have to address it anyway, because it is still in full swing at at work here and elsewhere to justify all sorts of terrible policies towards aboriginal people.

Sub-saharan Africa, and the Middle East aren't modern societies. They're still kind of primitive in my opinion. Africa is full of kings who use the title president and serfs that work the land in hopes of not starving. The Middle East is stuck in the same mentality it had in the 1500s. Oh, and poor neighborhoods do have higher rates of violence than rich ones, but I spend plenty of time hanging out with friends who live in them and I feel perfectly safe.
Feeling safe is an entirely subjective thing. I doubt my ancestors walked around in constant fear.

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".

even in the more violent ones, it was not a war of each against all. they did live in groups where they didn't all kill each other after all, and groups were often associated with larger groups where they also didn't all kill each other. outside of the group they had friends, and they had enemies, and they had groups and people of undefined status. but they could regularly conduct trade over long distances, even with enemy groups, so even there it wasn't all death and violence.

And as good a reason for owning one.:)

I don't understand why these types of threads seem to go on for so long. What's done is done. Arguing about the nature of one culture to either justify or vilify the actions of another culture, keeping in mind that all those involved in the actions are dead, is pointless unless you're going to, at some point, address the present consequences of those actions in a reasonable manner.
Neo, the reason I'm continuing this discussion is because despite 'those involved in the actions being dead', my people are still judged/villified/glorified what have you, and that directly impacts present day policies. For example, the Indian Act is still in place, a paternalistic, colonial piece of legislation that treats Indians like stupid children. You see, we haven't fully 'civilised' and because we were such 'savages', perhaps we CAN'T be civilised. This is a thought that drives many policies...hell, it is even expressed by judges and politicians from time to time. So it's not a done deal, an issue that is over...it directly impacts the present.

Here is a resource to look further into...this is just the abstract:
http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/eras/edition_7/suelzlereview.htm



There is no 'calming factor' that as one goes from a h/g society to an agrarian one that means violence suddenly plummets. Also, mobility was an excellent conflict resolution strategy.

I have seen some pretty lame 'sources' claming that aboriginal peoples were so peaceful and happy and la la la...so I understand if you reject that notion. You should. But don't flip over to the other side and believe that we would have killed one another off without intervention.

Here is some specific information about types of violence within a broad range of aboriginal societies (from h/g to agrarian):

http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/8/4/11.html
I'm certainly not saying you would have killed each other off. I've just seen evidence that most primitive cultures had higher rates of violence. And you're right, I am in part reacting to the old "research" done by people with an agenda to promote the essential goodness and generosity of man who tried to prove the myth of the noble savage, but I'm also trying not to go to an extreme in the other direction.

even in the more violent ones, it was not a war of each against all. they did live in groups where they didn't all kill each other after all, and groups were often associated with larger groups where they also didn't all kill each other. outside of the group they had friends, and they had enemies, and they had groups and people of undefined status. but they could regularly conduct trade over long distances, even with enemy groups, so even there it wasn't all death and violence.
And we had laws and rules of conduct. The Nisga'a for example had a rule that if someone killed another person, the family was allowed two deaths in return. They could also choose not to do this. That was within their society, not without it. Other cultures were into more restitutive justice...a man who kills another man must now support the widow and the children. Other cultures had Warrior Societies that acted as a kind of police force. It varies so much.

Neo, the reason I'm continuing this discussion is because despite 'those involved in the actions being dead', my people are still judged/villified/glorified what have you, and that directly impacts present day policies. For example, the Indian Act is still in place, a paternalistic, colonial piece of legislation that treats Indians like stupid children. You see, we haven't fully 'civilised' and because we were such 'savages', perhaps we CAN'T be civilised. This is a thought that drives many policies...hell, it is even expressed by judges and politicians from time to time. So it's not a done deal, an issue that is over...it directly impacts the present.

Maybe I should have made my point clearer:

1. Both hunter/gatherer and agrarian societies are in my eyes, "primitive" - in terms of their ability to react to and modify the environment at will in order to survive, rather than sacrificing people in order to survive.
2. The environment is the entire environment - including the germs and the other humans.
3. Modern industrial scientific society holds the promise of being able to survive by modifying the environment - if we learn how, and aren't stupid with nuclear weapons, etc.
4. The future of human evolution will lie in direct genetic manipulation, and that is a good thing.
5. Just because you grew up living in a more primitive technological lifestyle does not mean you can't learn to do things differently. My classic example is Japan.
6. If you prefer a more primitive lifestyle, that's your prerogative - just don't tell us to stop being technological (it's ok to tell us to be more considerate and more careful).

even in the more violent ones, it was not a war of each against all. they did live in groups where they didn't all kill each other after all, and groups were often associated with larger groups where they also didn't all kill each other. outside of the group they had friends, and they had enemies, and they had groups and people of undefined status. but they could regularly conduct trade over long distances, even with enemy groups, so even there it wasn't all death and violence.
I was just paraphrasing Hobbes because the post I was responding to quoted him. I understand that they didn't just go around all day killing each other and that trade and cooperation occured.

I'm certainly not saying you would have killed each other off. I've just seen evidence that most primitive cultures had higher rates of violence. And you're right, I am in part reacting to the old "research" done by people with an agenda to promote the essential goodness and generosity of man who tried to prove the myth of the noble savage, but I'm also trying not to go to an extreme in the other direction.
Well and comparing violence is a bit difficult. Like I said, it varies widely. Overall it's safe to say that interpersonal violence was likely higher, for sure. But other types of violence were not as common, and deaths from disease (pre-Contact) were not as common, and starvation was not as common, etc etc (as agricultural societies). So overall...the total death rate...what is the difference? Hmmmm...I'll have to nose around...

Neo, the reason I'm continuing this discussion is because despite 'those involved in the actions being dead', my people are still judged/villified/glorified what have you, and that directly impacts present day policies. For example, the Indian Act is still in place, a paternalistic, colonial piece of legislation that treats Indians like stupid children. You see, we haven't fully 'civilised' and because we were such 'savages', perhaps we CAN'T be civilised. This is a thought that drives many policies...hell, it is even expressed by judges and politicians from time to time. So it's not a done deal, an issue that is over...it directly impacts the present.
And those are the people I was talking about.
I'll never understand the way some people think. There are current problems with Aboriginal populations in the US, Canada, and other countries, mostly poverty as I’m undoubtedly sure you are more than aware of. What happened in the past and the ancestry of those involved really should have no bearing on dealing with those issues.

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

and no Sinu is not an adhesive

I am sorry, the multiple posting was not intentional. There was some kind of a server snafu. Again, I apologize it was not intentional.

6. If you prefer a more primitive lifestyle, that's your prerogative - just don't tell us to stop being technological (it's ok to tell us to be more considerate and more careful).
DK, no one wants to go back to the old days. I mean really, not even the elders. We aren't stupid, we aren't totally against change. We are against oppression and cultural extermination.

We can maintain our culture, and adapt to the 21st century just fine...as long as the pressure against us doesn't prevent it. We still want to maintain our connection with the environment, but in order to do so, we have to ensure environmental stability, and in that case, yes, we need to ask you to be more considerate. More and more, we are regaining the power to ENSURE that you are more considerate. Many of our medicines, and much of our food still comes from our territories, and frankly, that is something that should be encouraged. It keeps us more self-sufficient (like more people having gardens instead of relying on all food to come from Ecuador, etc).

We don't dress in buckskin all the time, we don't hunt with bows and arrows...we don't shun the internet:). WE aren't the ones harking back to the days before colonialism...that's usually some dread-locked whitey. But when we attempt to retain our spiritual beliefs, our language, our kinship systems etc...and then are told that we can't because such things are hallmark of SAVAGERY, then we need to resist. These societies we live in haven't given us a perfect way either. So we don't die in intertribal warfare...but we have soaring rates of death from chronic disease, issues with substance abuse, with interpersonal abuse...

We believe that we can exist in this age with our customs and beliefs intact, adapted to the technology that exists, but also in tune with our environment.
Those that want to prevent us from doing this, almost always turn to studies that can smear us as being unworthy, childish, savage, primitive and what have you...so that someone else can continue to dictate our futures to us.

We say, 'enough'.

I was just paraphrasing Hobbes because the post I was responding to quoted him. I understand that they didn't just go around all day killing each other and that trade and cooperation occured.
You're forgetting the sex. And the dancing. And the music. And the pranking...and the...well anyway:)

I am sorry, the multiple posting was not intentional. There was some kind of a server snafu. Again, I apologize it was not intentional.
Did you go back and delete the copies? That would be much appreciated.

But when we attempt to retain our spiritual beliefs, our language, our kinship systems etc...and then are told that we can't because such things are hallmark of SAVAGERY, then we need to resist.

Not one to say that aboriginals are "savages", unless the aboriginals in question are in the process of giving me the Rockefeller treatment.

I bet I can make you speak Indian.

Not one to say that aboriginals are "savages", unless the aboriginals in question are in the process of giving me the Rockefeller treatment.
I don't get the reference...but I'll accept that it's probably about something unpleasant.

I bet I can make you speak Indian.
Hon, even the Indians from India don't speak Indian.

Kîwê, moniyaw.

I don't get the reference...but I'll accept that it's probably about something unpleasant.
Rumor has it that Michael Rockefeller was eaten by cannibals in 1961 in New Guinea.

I bet I can make you speak Indian.

In what manner would you accomplish that?

*Yes I saw past your 'clever' scheme. Let's just ignore the blatant stereotype, the fact that 'Indian' would be the language spoken in 'India' (Edit) apparentally not), and the fact that not all (what's the PC term these days? Native Americans? Amerindians? Whatever,) shared a common language.*

Rumor has it that Michael Rockefeller was eaten by cannibals in 1961 in New Guinea.
Ah.

Rumor has it that Michael Rockefeller was eaten by cannibals in 1961 in New Guinea.
Yeah, but he was Michael Rockefeller, a notorious anthropological pest. There's a chance that the only reason he was killed and eaten by New Guineans was because they were the first to succeed in getting the drop on him.

The best way to avoid ending up like Michael Rockefeller is not to start out like him -- i.e., try not to be an asshole.

Yeah, but he was Michael Rockefeller, a notorious anthropological pest. There's a chance that the only reason he was killed and eaten by New Guineans was because they were the first to succeed in getting the drop on him.

The best way to avoid ending up like Michael Rockefeller is not to start out like him -- i.e., try not to be an asshole.
What kind of assholery was he up to?

What kind of assholery was he up to?

The kind that justifies being eaten by cannibals :confused:

The kind that justifies being eaten by cannibals :confused:
What, like when Jesussaves went to New Guinea to convert the heathen tribes?

What, like when Jesussaves went to New Guinea to convert the heathen tribes?

Naw. Like when secularists went to Amazonia trying to tell the natives to stop being superstitious...

What, like when Jesussaves went to New Guinea to convert the heathen tribes?
:eek: :eek: :eek: JESUSSAVES IS DEAD!!!!:eek:

NNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

I'm not trying to push the idea that Europeans and christianity "saved you from exterminating yourselves", just pointing out that primitive societies tend to have more deaths from violence than modern ones. Even counting the death toll from two world wars, the rate of violent death is lower in modern societies.

Sub-saharan Africa, and the Middle East aren't modern societies. They're still kind of primitive in my opinion. Africa is full of kings who use the title president and serfs that work the land in hopes of not starving. The Middle East is stuck in the same mentality it had in the 1500s. Oh, and poor neighborhoods do have higher rates of violence than rich ones, but I spend plenty of time hanging out with friends who live in them and I feel perfectly safe.
Words like "modern," "primitive," "savage," "barbaric" (used by many in this thread; I'm just picking up your post as the latest on this theme to reply to) are culturally meaningless, except to express cultural bias. "Modern" is properly applicable only when placing something on a timeline -- new/now versus old/then. "Primitive" is only valid in describing the design of an object or practical system -- i.e. "primitive/simple" versus "advanced/complex," so a water clock would be a primitive device compared to an atomic clock. There is no such thing as a primitive human being, and when you really study them, you realize there is no such thing as a primitive culture. All cultures are complex. As Sinuhue has pointed out, "savage" and "barbaric" only have real descriptive meaning when applied to the actions of individuals. All of these descriptors become subjective and pejorative when they are applied to cultures as a whole because they automatically carry the implied accusation that the people you are talking about are somehow different in a negative way from the group you belong to, as if your group does not do what you criticize the other group for.

For instance, to say that the cultural mentality of one group of people is stuck at an older stage is to imply that another group is not so stuck. So, if the Middle East is stuck in the 1500s with, I presume, their religiosity, their warmongering, their violent treatment of women, minorities, dissenters, how then would you account for the millions of Americans and Europeans who hold the same superstitious, self-righteous attitudes, the same tendency towards violence and intolerance? Is one group's bad behavior "primitive" or "savage" or "barbaric," while the other group's bad behavior is somehow "modern"?

Anything that exists in modern times is "modern." The cultures of Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East that exist now are the modern incarnations of those ancient cultures. The Native North American cultures that speak multiple languages, use the internet, make millions in the gambling and tourism industries, support established artists, lawyers, politicians, etc, are modern incarnations of those ancient cultures. The Native South American cultures that are fighting for political justice and cultural/linguistic survival under corrupt governments, taking up issues of land reform and election reform, and putting politicians like Bolivia's Evo Morales in office, are modern incarnations of those ancient cultures. The big cities and industrial agricultural centers of Europe, with their nuclear plants, wind farms, high speed trains, etc, are modern incarnations of those ancient cultures that did not always have those things.

The only constant is change, but that doesn't mean you get to dictate the rate of change or the form of changes cultures will undergo. It is the people within the culture who decide that, based on their immediate needs and desires, good, bad or indifferent. They are under no obligation to judge themselves by our cultural standards, nor are they obligated to retain their older ways as a price for retaining their cultural identity. Ancient cultures can become whatever they like and still call themselves by their own name. And the persistance of ancient ways -- good or bad -- does not give anyone else the right to declare a culture "primitive." There are plenty of ancient ways being carried on in European-based cultures, too, and not all of them are pretty, either.

Originally Posted by Drunk commies deleted
What kind of assholery was he up to?
Originally Posted by Pyotr
The kind that justifies being eaten by cannibals
What, like when Jesussaves went to New Guinea to convert the heathen tribes?
Just so.

Though, in Mr. Rockefeller's case, I was being facetious. I believe the actual story is that he, in the process of stumbling around in places he knew little about, trying to study cultures and plants and things, entered a region of New Guinea where the native people were in the midst of a war against the British colonial government agencies that were pushing hard to destroy the indigenous cultures by outright banning not only their traditional methods of warfare but also their languages, religions, arts, and clothing styles. Apparently, quite a number of British government types had disappeared in that region at that time. I don't know whether Rockefeller's party was warned to stay out or not, but it apparently was a case of wrong place/wrong time for young Master R.

EDIT: There is no evidence that he was killed and eaten, by the way. We only know for certain that he was last seen boating up a river into the danger zone. There were reports later that some people claimed to have killed a white man matching his description during that war, and that those particular tribes were known to engage in ritual, war-related cannibalism. These reports were made by anthropologists who somehow managed to talk to those same tribes without getting killed and eaten.

Just so.

Though, in Mr. Rockefeller's case, I was being facetious. I believe the actual story is that he, in the process of stumbling around in places he knew little about, trying to study cultures and plants and things, entered a region of New Guinea where the native people were in the midst of a war against the British colonial government agencies that were pushing hard to destroy the indigenous cultures by outright banning not only their traditional methods of warfare but also their languages, religions, arts, and clothing styles. Apparently, quite a number of British government types had disappeared in that region at that time. I don't know whether Rockefeller's party was warned to stay out or not, but it apparently was a case of wrong place/wrong time for young Master R.

Doesn't justify canabalism then.

Doesn't justify canabalism then.
Kindly see my edit regarding the lack of evidence that any of this actually happened to Michael Rockefeller.

As for justifying cannibalism. From one point of view, nothing justifies cannibalism, and from another point of view cannibalism does not need justification.

Let us not open up the cannibalism can of worms in this thread. I will just point out that the issue is extremely controversial among social scientists for several reasons, including:

1) There are far more accusations that other people are cannibals than there are people actually claiming to be cannibals. Even among cultures that do claim to engage in cannibalism, no persons say that they themselves have done it, many say that it is an old practice that nobody does anymore, and no researchers have ever witnessed such rituals. This leads some prominent social scientists to conclude that it is a cultural myth, although other social scientists disagree with them (see below).

2) There is some evidence that there may have been ritual cannibalism in ancient cultures (including European cultures, btw), but very little of that. Also, lacking any real proof that the dead were actually eaten, the mere existence of human bones that appear to have marks similar to marks on animals that were typically eaten is not itself proof that humans were eaten, only that the bodies were cut.

3) Even in cases where there is evidence of cannibalism, it is never of the kind described so pejoratively. The most common form of cannibalism seems to be eating the dead for survival -- such as when stranded by a plane crash or ship wreck, or when trapped in an area of extreme starvation (as happened during Stalin's attempted genocide of the Ukrainians by starvation). When I say "most common," note that it is still extremely rare, so the other forms are even rarer and more problematic. The only other form of cannibalism for which there is definite proof is in the individual actions of violent psychotics or psychopaths, such as Jeffrey Dahmer. The only form of ritual cannibalism for which there is any firm evidence at all is funerary cannibalism in which the mourners are expected to eat some portion of their dead loved one in order to help them live on in their descendants. Even among the most openly documented culture in which this is supposed to happen, the Dayak tribe, no anthropologist has ever witnessed it happening, and interviews with Dayaks follow the pattern of describing it as something past generations did more of and that it is gross and nowadays people just fake it or use substitutes. Be that as it may, if such a ritual exists, it would clearly not be a violent or hostile action and, therefore, would need no justification.

:eek: :eek: :eek: JESUSSAVES IS DEAD!!!!:eek:

NNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!
Yep. Eaten by a family of starving cannibal pygmies who were on vacation to New Guinea.

Actually, Muravyets, that was the Dutch, not the British, in that little halfwit peccadillo with the tribes in New Guinea.

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.
If they fail to adapt and become victims of weather changes, then it is the weather that kills millions, not the culture. Or are you trying to claim that they attempted to adapt by killing millions? The Europeans during the Little Ice Age -- which lasted several centuries, btw -- did no such thing. As for the Maya, I just watched a whole hour about them on the History Channel last night, which reminded me that we still have no information at all about what led to the abandonment of the first great Mayan cities, that agricultural problems is just one theory of several, and that their culture did not disappear, but rather resurged in a second era of city building a couple of generations later. As for that entirely speculative agricultural theory -- it has to do with mismanagement of resources, not climate change. And it is pure speculation.

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.
I like the way you try to connect two ideas that are not only not related to each other but also not related to your argument.

First of all, many North American cultures were not agrarian, so crop management was not an issue for them. Second, where are these great waves of locusts that were starving the poor "primitives" right and left? I know of nothing in history that would suggest that North American native peoples had any more difficulty with the environment than anyone else, anywhere else. Third, what makes you think North American agrarian cultures had "no ability to fertilize, prevent crop damage"? According to my readings in cultural anthropology, Native North Americans were well versed in use of fertilizers. Hell, one organic gardening company even names a fish oil fertilizer product after the famous Squanto. (I bought it once. Stank like hell, but the tomatoes liked it.) Remember Squanto? He was the guy who taught the supposedly advanced Europeans how to fertilize their crops so's they shouldn't all starve to death in the New World. He should have kept his mouth shut; advanced folks like them should have been able to figure it out for themselves. As for crop damage from the general course of nature, it is a well known fact that crop species that are native to a region and still close to their wild varieties are more bug and blight resistant than hybridized species (hence the superiority of heirloom vegetables), so, since the older the time period, the closer to wild the crop species are, such things would not have been a bigger issue for North Americans than they were for Europeans.

As for locusts, nothing protects against them. That's why they are listed as a divine plague in the Bible.

Then there's that rather offensive disease comment. Aboriginals cannot invent modern medicine? Why? Because they're too stupid? Are you aware that "modern medicine" was invented by aboriginals? Aboriginal Europeans, that is. Are you further aware that so-called "modern medicine" is in fact, quite ancient, still rather frighteningly improvisational and speculative (considering its own claims otherwise), and swipes heavily from the medical practices (especially plant-derived medicines) of other cultures and/or earlier times?

So, why is it that "aboriginals" can't invent medicine? Please answer in the context of a history that shows that, in many ways, they kinda did invent it.

Also, AIDS is an environmental factor? How does that work? Are you under the (dangerous to you) impression that AIDS is floating about in the environment like malaria or athlete's foot fungus? Do you believe that one can catch AIDS by using public bathrooms? Tell me, in what environment does AIDS not flourish? I'd like to move there.

At the very least, crop yields for agrarian primitives are highly variable, and can plummet to starvation levels without warning.
They can for agrarian non-"primitives," too. American dust bowl, anyone? If we had not had the cash and political connections to import sufficient food, more people would have starved right here in the US in the 20th century. As it was, there was no obesity epidemic in the US during the 1930s.

Actually, Muravyets, that was the Dutch, not the British, in that little halfwit peccadillo with the tribes in New Guinea.
Whatever. They all look alike. ;)

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.
Chagnon's research on the Yanomamo is so controversial that many leading academic sources outright dismiss it as invalid due to extreme bias. Here's a link to the google page of listing articles about the controversy:

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Yanomamo+controversy&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

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.
The ignorance of this comment is breathtaking. You're claiming that a culture is "primitive" or somehow inferior because people died of a disease they were being exposed to for the first time? Are you crazy?

Well, let's put it this way: The Europeans had no way to adapt to the Black Plague without losing 50-75% of their population. Clearly, an inferior culture. The entire world so far has shown no ability to adapt to AIDS without losing tens of millions of human lives. Clearly, we're all a bunch of backward savages with inferior cultures.

I swear, DK, remarks like that make me want to drink heavily, just so I'll have empty glasses to hurl at your head.

I swear, DK, remarks like that make me want to drink heavily, just so I'll have empty glasses to hurl at your head.
Don't worry, DK is simply using his political beliefs to shape his argument...foremost among those political beliefs being "win by any means". If you are deceived, he has won, hence all the misdirection and other oddness.

The ignorance of this comment is breathtaking. You're claiming that a culture is "primitive" or somehow inferior because people died of a disease they were being exposed to for the first time? Are you crazy?

Well, let's put it this way: The Europeans had no way to adapt to the Black Plague without losing 50-75% of their population. Clearly, an inferior culture. The entire world so far has shown no ability to adapt to AIDS without losing tens of millions of human lives. Clearly, we're all a bunch of backward savages with inferior cultures.

I swear, DK, remarks like that make me want to drink heavily, just so I'll have empty glasses to hurl at your head.

I mentioned the Black Plague, and early European agrarian society being unable to stop it.

We're doing better against AIDS than an earlier, more primitive society would do. We at least have some people who aren't going to die of it anytime soon, because there are drugs.

Chagnon's research on the Yanomamo is so controversial that many leading academic sources outright dismiss it as invalid due to extreme bias. Here's a link to the google page of listing articles about the controversy:

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Yanomamo+controversy&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
The criticism comes from a "radical anthropoligist" named Neel, who's criticisms have been well and thoroughly debunked. Neel doesn't do science, he picks and chooses facts, sometimes makes them up, to support his ideology. He's alot more like a Kent Hovind creationist, but with a radical agenda than he is like a real scientist.

The criticism comes from a "radical anthropoligist" named Neel, who's criticisms have been well and thoroughly debunked. Neel doesn't do science, he picks and chooses facts, sometimes makes them up, to support his ideology. He's alot more like a Kent Hovind creationist, but with a radical agenda than he is like a real scientist.
I'm aware of the initial source of the criticism. Interestingly, Neel makes those same accusations against Chagnon. I linked to my general google search about the controversy to show the range of parties wrangling over it. The fact is that many experts have taken exception to both Chagnon and Neel, to such an extent that some claim we know nothing for certain about the Yanomamo at all because of bad research techniques. The case is consistently cited as an example of how not to conduct field research.

The fact is that violence is common among Amazonian native tribes, but I fail to see how this makes them significantly different from the Europeans who complain of it. Chagnon and Neel could argue all they liked about whether the Yanomamo were more likely to kill each other than not, but that says nothing at all about the relative level of violence among so-called advanced Europeans. How many Yanomamos kill each other each year? How many Americans kill each other each year? How much has war shaped Yanomamo culture? How much has war shaped European culture? How many people have the Yanomamo's killed in their history? How many have the Europeans killed? How unhappy are the Yanomamos because of the violence in their culture? How unhappy are the Americans and Europeans living in gang-dominated inner city slums, struggling with violence in their personal lives, or living under the threat of war and terrorism and related fear-mongering by their leaders? As far as I can see, the difference is only one of scale.

I mentioned the Black Plague, and early European agrarian society being unable to stop it.
"Early." You are being exceptionally idiotic today, DK. Tell me where "early" begins and ends for cultures that have been in place and in business for over 20,000 years. The Black Plague took place during the 14th century. That was within the "modern" period by the standard reckoning of historians. By that time, the cultures of Europe were already ancient and advanced. Also by that time, the methods of "modern medicine" and science as we know them today were already beginning to take shape -- or rather, to reshape themselves after the interruption caused by the fall of the Roman Empire. Before and during the Roman period, medicine was even more advanced -- and those were "ancient" times. During the Black Plague, doctors worked tirelessly to find treatments or a cure and some recorded successes in saving patient's lives. Their documents exist to this day and are studied by modern epidemiologists.

We're doing better against AIDS than an earlier, more primitive society would do. We at least have some people who aren't going to die of it anytime soon, because there are drugs.
Really? You're psychic powers tell you what would happen in scenarios other than the one that actually did happen? Or are you just blindly assuming?

You have absolutely no idea how infectious diseases work, do you? AIDS, bubonic plague, smallpox, tuberculosis, malaria, etc, all when initially introduced into a population, are devastating because the people have no immunity to them. You get immunity to a disease by being exposed to it without dying -- not by having an "advanced" culture. There is no cultural protection against death by disease. Diseases have lives of their own -- life cycles; destinies, if you will -- they emerge, become virulent, and slowly, eventually, recede. Whether anyone in a given area survives the initial outbreak is a game of numbers and chance, not cultural superiority. "Modern medicine" plays catch-up. If we are careful and quick and lucky, we can prevent outbreaks, but if we fail to prevent, then there is no way to halt the initial spread of a virulent disease through a population that has no pre-existing immunity to it. It takes time to develop medicines, so by the time a cure, or even just a treatment, comes along, millions will already be dead.

For instance, these AIDS drugs you claim as a sign of our cultural superiority -- they do not save people's lives, they merely prolong them. Nobody gets better from AIDS, the drugs of modern medicine notwithstanding. There is no cure for it. I hope you were not under any impression otherwise.

Don't worry, DK is simply using his political beliefs to shape his argument...foremost among those political beliefs being "win by any means". If you are deceived, he has won, hence all the misdirection and other oddness.
The joke's on him, of course, as he obviously can't keep track of his own "arguments." This is the difference between a liar and bullshitter. The liar has to know what he's talking about in order to lead us away from the truth of it. The bullshitter just has to run his mouth endlessly until people run away from him. DK is no liar.

*snip*
1) What is the thing against cannibalism?
2) I did a speech on cannabalism, there are multiple tribes, mostly middle of nowhere New Guinea or South American tribes that are or were known to practice cannibalism.

Eating the dead for survival may be the most common form among cultures where eating other people is already frowned upon. Cannibalism was more often related to mortuary rituals.
Not to mention a handful of Discovery shows where they interviewed tribes or cultures that had or do practice cannibalism and managed to find some person who had participated in the practice. I believe there was on tribe on Going Tribal.

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.
Looks like I joined this conversation way too late. Suffice it to say that whatever the historical faults of Western civilization, I find it far superior to any other civilization that has ever existed. Since only a few native tribes could be considered to have a civilization (and nothing compared to liberal democracies), this also extends to the conditions the natives lived in.

I'm aware of the initial source of the criticism. Interestingly, Neel makes those same accusations against Chagnon. I linked to my general google search about the controversy to show the range of parties wrangling over it. The fact is that many experts have taken exception to both Chagnon and Neel, to such an extent that some claim we know nothing for certain about the Yanomamo at all because of bad research techniques. The case is consistently cited as an example of how not to conduct field research.

The fact is that violence is common among Amazonian native tribes, but I fail to see how this makes them significantly different from the Europeans who complain of it. Chagnon and Neel could argue all they liked about whether the Yanomamo were more likely to kill each other than not, but that says nothing at all about the relative level of violence among so-called advanced Europeans. How many Yanomamos kill each other each year? How many Americans kill each other each year? How much has war shaped Yanomamo culture? How much has war shaped European culture? How many people have the Yanomamo's killed in their history? How many have the Europeans killed? How unhappy are the Yanomamos because of the violence in their culture? How unhappy are the Americans and Europeans living in gang-dominated inner city slums, struggling with violence in their personal lives, or living under the threat of war and terrorism and related fear-mongering by their leaders? As far as I can see, the difference is only one of scale.
It's not about how many kill each other every year, it's about what percentage kill each other. In primitive cultures the percentage is much higher than in modern, western cultures. As for happiness, the USA was rated the 26th happiest nation on earth according to a recent study. Denmark came in first, IIRC. I don't know if anyone's ever done a study about how happy people living in primitive conditions are.

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 ... <snip>
Sorry to keep harping on you, DCD, but this right here is the problem with your argument about so-called "primitive" cultures, as well as the arguments of others in this thread.

If A were like B, then A would be like B. No shit. That tells us nothing about A, though, does it?

If the North Americans are like the South Americans, then they'd be X way. How about if the North American natives were like the European colonialists? What would they be like then? Or how about if they were like the Japanese? Or how about if they were like the people of Atlantis?

The fact that you can't even talk about one culture without casting it in the mold of a different culture shows that (A) you don't know anything about the culture under discussion, and (B) there is no identifiable form of culture that is "primitive" or "savage" or "barbaric." There is no monolith of "modern culture" to be contrasted against a monolith of "primitive culture." All these cultures are different from each other. The North Americans are no more like the South Americans than they are like the Koreans or the Hutus or the Arabs or the Irish or anyone else you care to name. Even within the continent, the eastern tribes, southern tribes, plains tribes, pueblo tribes, northwestern tribes -- they are all different from each other. You simply cannot paint them all with one brush.

The bottom line is, the characteristics you claim for South American natives (about which I have caveats) cannot be applied to North American tribes without proof that the North Americans actually have those characteristics. Without such proof -- and you will never get such proof, because the cultures are different from each other -- then all you have really said is, "I don't have an answer to your points about North Americans, so let's talk about South Americans instead and just pretend they're the same."

It's not about how many kill each other every year, it's about what percentage kill each other. In primitive cultures the percentage is much higher than in modern, western cultures. As for happiness, the USA was rated the 26th happiest nation on earth according to a recent study. Denmark came in first, IIRC. I don't know if anyone's ever done a study about how happy people living in primitive conditions are.
Well, then, it hardly seems valid to make judgments or comparisons about people's lifestyles and quality of life, if there is no data on which to base such judgments or comparisons.

I would like to see some statistics comparing these violence rates, but I put it to you that the percentage/rate of violence does not matter in the slightest, if the people are happy living that way. Are the Yanomamo happy or unhappy? Oh, that's right -- nobody knows, despite all the so-called research that was done about them.

But let's say the Yanomamo are unhappy. How are they different from the victims of violence in so-called advanced cultures?

Or let's say the Yanomamo are happy killing each other willy-nilly. Why shouldn't they be happy? Who are you to declare that their happiness is primitive and therefore bad?

My point is that violence in and of itself is not a measure of the "primitiveness" of a culture. You cannot legitimately deny the violence of so-called advanced, modern cultures, or the massive destruction of human life and human happiness that has and does result from that violence. Yet, I presume you do not consider us to be "primitive" since you are holding us up as the example to prove the Yanomamo are "primitive" by comparison.

It does matter how violent the Yanomamo are, or whether they are happy or sad being that way. A member of a violent culture (you) cannot point to their violence as proof of their primitiveness. It would be like trying to prove they are primitive by the fact that they walk on their feet, unlike people in modern, advanced cultures ... oh, wait.

I need to thank you, Muravyets...you've managed to express what I have been unable to. I haven't been able to hone my arguments on this very well, perhaps because it's such an emotional one for me? When I do try to argue, people then jump to the conlusion that I am declaring superiority, when in fact, I am simply questioning THEIR claims of superiority.

None of these labels being used are objective, but that is how people present them, as though their opinions, based on cultural beliefs, are objective fact. So it's not racism, it's not ethnocentrism, it just IS, and if I take offense, I'm taking offense to FACT and in denial. No. That isn't true.

"Early." You are being exceptionally idiotic today, DK. Tell me where "early" begins and ends for cultures that have been in place and in business for over 20,000 years. The Black Plague took place during the 14th century. That was within the "modern" period by the standard reckoning of historians.

AIDS is a technical problem which will be amenable to a technological solution (one day).

I count the modern world from the time that modern science began to have an effect on our longevity (a positive one). But, if I was asked to point to a date, it would be when we mastered things like penicillin and atomic energy.

AIDS is a technical problem which will be amenable to a technological solution (one day). So AIDS was created by technology and will be solved by technology? What???

So AIDS was created by technology and will be solved by technology? What???
No.

It is a problem amenable to technical solution.

It's not going to be long before advances in science and genetics make it possible to not only eliminate AIDS, but to engineer the human body to any degree we wish.

Something not possible with a non-technological society.

Of course, we face the possibility of blowing ourselves up with thermonuclear weapons, or exterminating ourselves with a lab accident, but those are the breaks.

No.

It is a problem amenable to technical solution.

It's not going to be long before advances in science and genetics make it possible to not only eliminate AIDS, but to engineer the human body to any degree we wish.

Something not possible with a non-technological society.

Of course, we face the possibility of blowing ourselves up with thermonuclear weapons, or exterminating ourselves with a lab accident, but those are the breaks.
Now you're just getting all science fictiony on me...let's stick to what exists, shall we?

Now you're just getting all science fictiony on me...let's stick to what exists, shall we?
Point of fact:

Modern technological society, albeit with its concomitant risks, has the ability to prolong life and cure disease (given enough research). This has been proven again and again.

Nothing of the sort is possible with a society that is not based on rapidly improving technology. They are at the whim of whatever disease happens.

That doesn't make modern technological society "superior" or make non-technological societies "savages" - it's just a major advantage.

Wow, now I really get why Sinuhue started this thread. What a breezy and bravura demonstration of dismissive bigotry!

Looks like I joined this conversation way too late. Suffice it to say that whatever the historical faults of Western civilization, I find it far superior to any other civilization that has ever existed.
Suffice it to say that nobody on the planet needs to give a rat's ass about your personal preferences. Your preferences for your own tribe says nothing at all about anything but yourself. It says nothing about the people you don't like, and it says nothing about the people you do like, either.

Since only a few native tribes could be considered to have a civilization (and nothing compared to liberal democracies), this also extends to the conditions the natives lived in.
Two questions: Do any swarthy people live in liberal democracies? Do any blonds live in liberal democracies?

I'm just trying to figure out the divide between "native tribes" and "civilization/liberal democracy." Were the Nazis civilized? If not, then I guess Aryan blonds and all members of Germanic tribes are out. Were the Algonkin tribes of North America civilized? They were swarthy, but they had a democratic form of social organization and social attitudes that today would be called liberal.

Are Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Russia, Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, Bulgaria, Romania (quick, somebody name some more) civilized nations? They are all founded and populated by "native tribes." What about the British Isles and Western Europe, the homelands of native Celtic tribes? No civilization there at all? No art work or music, or forms of housing or fortifications, no languages or religions, no governments for the Romans to war against?

Honestly, it amazes me how some people just throw labels around. You don't even have someone to slap this "native tribes" label on. You just hang it out there and hope someone will run into it. You can't even tell us who you think is uncivilized. Really, I wish you would show us any civilization that does not involve tribes and any tribe that is not part of a civilization.

You do know what a civilization is, right? It doesn't begin and end with highway interchanges and the internet, you know.

AIDS is a technical problem which will be amenable to a technological solution (one day).

I count the modern world from the time that modern science began to have an effect on our longevity (a positive one). But, if I was asked to point to a date, it would be when we mastered things like penicillin and atomic energy.
Like I said earlier -- you are a pure bullshitter, and this, my little pasture friend, is the purest bullshit I have seen you spew to date. A small nugget, but pure.

(A) The only thing you've clarified for us here is that you, in fact, do not know the first thing about infectious diseases. You should wear a t-shirt warning everyone you meet to wash up after shaking hands with you.

(B) Trying to redefine terms is a classic bullshitter maneuver. You don't get to decide when the modern age began. Professional, accredited historians have already done that and have established a long-standing standard that the whole world uses by common consent. Dem's da rules. If you don't want to play by them, go play in another schoolyard.

(C) We can conclude from this that you have nothing of interest to add to this debate. I declare you to be trolling. Go swoon over a Mel Gibson torture movie while we adults continue our conversation. I'm done with you.

*snip*
Marry me.

One simple question though, if the Native Americans were in fact not inferior, how is it then that they are still teetering for the most part on the brink of extinction as an entity, many tribes vanquished, others slowly wasting away?

Also there is a political correctness issue at play here as well, now a days many things despite having some legitimacy are decried for fear of being politically incorrect. Some things have legitimacy, such as condemning slavery and racist actions, however to some degree they are getting carried away.

Back to the main point, historically, up to fifty years ago, General Custer was seen as an all-american hero fighting valiantly to his last stand against the hordes of savages, with his young brave company. A bit distorted truth no doubt, but today many claim the exact opposite calling him a war criminal, a monster, and very racist. I believe the truth as in all things lies somewhere in the middle. The whole "oh my that historical figure was racist", by today's standards anyone alive before the 1960's was racist, in essence. One cannot compare a different world to another, perhaps in two hundred years from now all white people will be considered inferior, or it may just revert back to the black inferiority mantra, either bad no doubt, but as I said different times, different agendas.

However ironically enough the Japanese also view the native americans as inferior, as they have repeatedly stated, and they were very harsh and insultive about any blood comparison to what they considered savage people void of higher learning and understanding. It is pretty infamous, such as it was even brought up in the movie "The Last Samurai". But then again the Japanese are notoriously infamous for being racistic against most peoples, in particular blacks and other non-whites. For white people they make a rule of exception, giving them a respect of not being inferior, or nowhere as inferior by far as the other races. More to be read about this at:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4671687.stm (note racism against ndigenous tribes.)

Defintion: savage.
1. n, someone who will not conform to the opressive demands of a foreign conqueror.

Definition: civilized
1. adj, quality describing the hegemonizing, oppressive capitalistic ideals of white people who are, coincidently, easier to sneak up on than a "savage."

Looks like I joined this conversation way too late. Suffice it to say that whatever the historical faults of Western civilization, I find it far superior to any other civilization that has ever existed. Since only a few native tribes could be considered to have a civilization (and nothing compared to liberal democracies), this also extends to the conditions the natives lived in.

I would have much rather lived in an indian tribe than live in 19th century America, thank you very much. I happen to find that native american culture was far superior to anything whites have come up with before the late 20th century. If you want a reason why, read the first chapter of A People's History of the United States, by Howard Zinn.

I would have much rather lived in an indian tribe than live in 19th century America, thank you very much. I happen to find that native american culture was far superior to anything whites have come up with before the late 20th century. If you want a reason why, read the first chapter of A People's History of the United States, by Howard Zinn.
I've never read Zinn. Is People's history any good?

I need to thank you, Muravyets...you've managed to express what I have been unable to. I haven't been able to hone my arguments on this very well, perhaps because it's such an emotional one for me? When I do try to argue, people then jump to the conlusion that I am declaring superiority, when in fact, I am simply questioning THEIR claims of superiority.
Anytime. This is one of my favorite kinds of argument. :)

I can only imagine what it is like to be on the receiving end of officially sanctioned bigotry, as the various native people's have been. My people came over from Europe after the period of expansion and genocidal war were ended, and we were lucky/smart enough to settle in the wilds of New York City where if you spout shit like some people here do, you'll get shot and your attacker will have a valid defense.

I remember I once visited Santa Fe, New Mexico. In the center of that city is the Palace of the Governors, which the Spanish colonialists put there because it had already been the site of an inter-tribal market place for hundreds of years. To this day, native tribes hold the exclusive right to run businesses on the street around the Palace, as they have for centuries. It is THE place to buy jewelry direct from the artists who make it. So I was shopping for some silver, and I overheard some white, Nieman-Marcus-dressed, Texas-accented BITCH say, very loudly, in the midst of everyone, and I quote 'cause I'll never forget it, "This is all very quaint, but they cheapen it by bringing in all these Indians."

I started to turn around, and suddenly, my mother grabbed my elbow and dragged me out of there, because she knew that a fight was about to break out, starting with "What the hell is that supposed to mean?" and ending who knows where, and she was afraid of causing trouble for the license-holders trying to do business there.

I'm afraid her fears were justified, because this was just the most egregious example of open bigotry that we witnessed during our visits there, including the way the state exploits pueblo culture for tourist money while severely restricting the right of pueblo residents to enrich themselves by those same tourists. Seriously, they treat those people like African governments treat herds of gnu.

To this day, I carry on about how I would love to see that woman run her mouth like that on a street corner in Harlem. She wouldn't, of course, not because she respects black people, but because she's not confident that they're afraid to talk back to her. (The Civil War really shook some people down here in the States.)

So, because I detest bigots with every fiber of my being, you have my constant sympathy. And if I can empathize with your experiences, it may be because I'm a woman and have been targeted by sex descrimination, and I'm a polytheist and have been targeted by religious bigotry.

None of these labels being used are objective, but that is how people present them, as though their opinions, based on cultural beliefs, are objective fact. So it's not racism, it's not ethnocentrism, it just IS, and if I take offense, I'm taking offense to FACT and in denial. No. That isn't true.
That's because they're bigots. See, they are right because they say so and they have the right color and religion and language and ethnic background, none of which you have because you're backward, as evidenced by the fact that you're not in charge at the moment. Everybody knows this, and you would know better than to disagree with them if you weren't one of those uppity little savages who doesn't know her place.

Ye gods, how I loathe such people!

I've never read Zinn. Is People's history any good?

I think that People's History is probably the best history book on American history because it contains a revolutionary concept...

The Truth!

It writes about american history from the perspective of the average person, and it details all of the abuses that are glossed over by other history sources.

In what manner would you accomplish that?

*Yes I saw past your 'clever' scheme. Let's just ignore the blatant stereotype, the fact that 'Indian' would be the language spoken in 'India' (Edit) apparentally not), and the fact that not all (what's the PC term these days? Native Americans? Amerindians? Whatever,) shared a common language.*


Lets just give the gorram troll it's racist joke alreadry.

Ahem . . .

How?

One simple question though, if the Native Americans were in fact not inferior, how is it then that they are still teetering for the most part on the brink of extinction as an entity, many tribes vanquished, others slowly wasting away?

The fact that many of us still DO exist, and in fact have hit bottom and are on the way back up should tell you something about the resilience of aboriginal people. From out and out massacre and decimation because of disease, to concerted government efforts to completely annhiliate us and our culture...we have weathered it all. Some of us have disappeared, but many remain. Imagine if the European powers had fallen on one of their own they way they fell on us...would that culture have faired any better than ours? Who is to say?

If you can honestly look at all that history of conflict and of disease, and blame it on our CULTURE...then you need to rethink, because in essence, you are saying that our culture caused these things to happen to us.

I've never read Zinn. Is People's history any good?

Assessments vary. I liked it.

It's a decent book, but one that should be read carefully, and with the understanding that he has an agenda - something about which he is very open.

One simple question though, if the Native Americans were in fact not inferior, how is it then that they are still teetering for the most part on the brink of extinction as an entity, many tribes vanquished, others slowly wasting away?
That would be called the lasting effect of a deliberate governmental policy of genocide against them.

Also there is a political correctness issue at play here as well, now a days many things despite having some legitimacy are decried for fear of being politically incorrect. Some things have legitimacy, such as condemning slavery and racist actions, however to some degree they are getting carried away.

Back to the main point, historically, up to fifty years ago, General Custer was seen as an all-american hero fighting valiantly to his last stand against the hordes of savages, with his young brave company. A bit distorted truth no doubt, but today many claim the exact opposite calling him a war criminal, a monster, and very racist. I believe the truth as in all things lies somewhere in the middle. The whole "oh my that historical figure was racist", by today's standards anyone alive before the 1960's was racist, in essence. One cannot compare a different world to another, perhaps in two hundred years from now all white people will be considered inferior, or it may just revert back to the black inferiority mantra, either bad no doubt, but as I said different times, different agendas.

However ironically enough the Japanese also view the native americans as inferior, as they have repeatedly stated, and they were very harsh and insultive about any blood comparison to what they considered savage people void of higher learning and understanding. It is pretty infamous, such as it was even brought up in the movie "The Last Samurai". But then again the Japanese are notoriously infamous for being racistic against most peoples, in particular blacks and other non-whites. For white people they make a rule of exception, giving them a respect of not being inferior, or nowhere as inferior by far as the other races. More to be read about this at:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4671687.stm (note racism against ndigenous tribes.)
You're getting your understanding of cultural history from a Tom Cruise movie? Are you aware he used to dance in his underwear -- until, that is, he became a vampire and had to hide from invading Martians. :rolleyes:

Anytime. This is one of my favorite kinds of argument. :)

I can only imagine what it is like to be on the receiving end of officially sanctioned bigotry, as the various native people's have been.I imagine it just shocks some people to see me so up in arms about this topic...I know I've developed a reputation for being 'extreme' because of it. And yet, the same kinds of things that have been espoused in this thread are woven into official policies that directly affect me, and my family. This isn't some sort of cerebral exercise on my part, this is reality. Not everyone can be educated about aboriginal people, or have experience with us, or understand our issues, I get that. But when lack of understanding leads to oversimplifications, and tacit agreement with racist arguments, THEN it impacts me, in a very real way. I have to hear about my people all the time, bigotry expressed as truth. We are drunks, we are lazy, we were savage and primitive and inferior, we have it easy, we have it tough, we should fit in, we can't fit in, we are rich, we are poor...everyone has an opinion about us. I think anyone gets frustrated by being told who they are and what they are about, based on the other person's perceptions.

When I question the attacks disguised as 'facts', I am accused of attacking. Immediately, there is an assumption that I want reparations, or I want all non-aboriginals off 'my' land. How ridiculous.

I'm a half-breed. Because I did not marry a full-status indian or another half-breed like myself, my children have no status. In two generations, my line has been 'bred out' according to the government. You have 50% blood quantum in Canada, or you are not status Indian, period. People seem to believe you can have 1/36 native blood in you and 'get all the great things indians get'.

And yet, my children are being raised Cree. They are accepted as Cree. Culture is about so much more than blood...and this issue is about so much more than who is better than whom.

Assessments vary. I liked it.

It's a decent book, but one that should be read carefully, and with the understanding that he has an agenda - something about which he is very open.
Thanks. I might check it out.

I think that People's History is probably the best history book on American history because it contains a revolutionary concept...

The Truth!

It writes about american history from the perspective of the average person, and it details all of the abuses that are glossed over by other history sources.
Ok, thanks.

Ok, thanks.
hahahaha..."THE TRUTH" in huge letters no less! Always makes me wary...

I like this quote from Zinn:

"My point is not that we must, in telling history, accuse, judge, condemn Columbus in absentia. It is too late for that; it would be a useless scholarly exercise in morality. But the easy acceptance of atrocities as a deplorable but necessary price to pay for progress (Hiroshima and Vietnam, to save Western civilization; Kronstadt and Hungary, to save socialism; nuclear proliferation, to save us all)--that is still with us. One reason these atrocities are still with us is that we have learned to bury them in a mass of other facts, as radioactive wastes are buried in containers in the earth."

That is one argument that I hate above all, "it was terrible, but it was necessary/the best thing to do at the time". You can justify almost anything that way.

That would be called the lasting effect of a deliberate governmental policy of genocide against them.


You're getting your understanding of cultural history from a Tom Cruise movie? Are you aware he used to dance in his underwear -- until, that is, he became a vampire and had to hide from invading Martians. :rolleyes:
Don't forget the time he spent as a US Navy fighter pilot.

hahahaha..."THE TRUTH" in huge letters no less! Always makes me wary...
Yeah. That's why I rarely use "THE TRUTH" in large print in my posts, despite the fact that many of them deserve that label.

Yeah. That's why I rarely use "THE TRUTH" in large print in my posts, despite the fact that many of them deserve that label.
*snorts*

I imagine it just shocks some people to see me so up in arms about this topic...I know I've developed a reputation for being 'extreme' because of it. And yet, the same kinds of things that have been espoused in this thread are woven into official policies that directly affect me, and my family. This isn't some sort of cerebral exercise on my part, this is reality. Not everyone can be educated about aboriginal people, or have experience with us, or understand our issues, I get that. But when lack of understanding leads to oversimplifications, and tacit agreement with racist arguments, THEN it impacts me, in a very real way. I have to hear about my people all the time, bigotry expressed as truth. We are drunks, we are lazy, we were savage and primitive and inferior, we have it easy, we have it tough, we should fit in, we can't fit in, we are rich, we are poor...everyone has an opinion about us. I think anyone gets frustrated by being told who they are and what they are about, based on the other person's perceptions.

When I question the attacks disguised as 'facts', I am accused of attacking. Immediately, there is an assumption that I want reparations, or I want all non-aboriginals off 'my' land. How ridiculous.
It's been my experience that people don't like negative labels. Those who are not themselves bigots but hold bigoted beliefs out of ignorance will often be shocked by the label into educating themselves and changing their ways, because they don't want to be bigots. True bigots just blame the truthteller, because they don't want to be called bigots.

I'm a half-breed. Because I did not marry a full-status indian or another half-breed like myself, my children have no status. In two generations, my line has been 'bred out' according to the government. You have 50% blood quantum in Canada, or you are not status Indian, period. People seem to believe you can have 1/36 native blood in you and 'get all the great things indians get'.

And yet, my children are being raised Cree. They are accepted as Cree. Culture is about so much more than blood...and this issue is about so much more than who is better than whom.
For crying out loud. Way to go, Canada, for setting up a supposedly beneficial system (:rolleyes:) that already sucks shit, and then doing their best to block people from accessing even that much. Let's add insult to that injury, why don't we?

Here in the States, our good old racist traditions work the other way. That 1/36th Indian is enough to make you Not White, and that's good enough to get that casino license and take Whitey's money, which he doesn't deserve anyway, if he thinks playing slots is a good use of his time.

But the point is true -- culture is not about blood or genetics or any of that racist nonsense. It's about identity, and it cannot be forced into some cubbyhole by some government agency, and even if it is pushed to so-called brink of extinction, it can be brought back by the will of those who feel it within themselves. The hell with all bigots. They are out of touch with reality, and I, for one, decline to allow my life to be dictated by delusional fools.

Hon, even the Indians from India don't speak Indian.

Kîwê, moniyaw.

I thought all you guys said was "How!"

:p

"Cannibalism, torture, scalping, mutilation, adultery, incest, sodomy, rape, filth, dunkenness--such a catalogue of accusations against a people is an indication not so much of their depravity as that their land is up for grabs." - Peter Farb, "Indian Corn"

Stories and labels of Indian "savagery" are mostly falsified, at the time to defend the consistant pushing into Indian land, and now to defend the men we hold in high regard from our nation's inception who committed atrocities against the natives of "our" land.

"Cannibalism, torture, scalping, mutilation, adultery, incest, sodomy, rape, filth, dunkenness--such a catalogue of accusations against a people is an indication not so much of their depravity as that their land is up for grabs." - Peter Farb, "Indian Corn"


When were the European lands ever up for grabs?

I think they prefer to be called Aborigines now

: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.

You clearly did say they look the same, and you just said it again. And it's a ridiculous thing to say.

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. The stages of development you are referring to are the stages that European civilization went through. That does not mean that any and all societies will or should go through the same stages. Agricultural societies did not invent the things you mentioned. Industrial society did. And it remains to be seen whether most of them constitute progress, or a quicker path to extinction.

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.

It was advantageous to the ruling elites. And worse for everyone else. Guess who won that contest.

The stages of development you are referring to are the stages that European civilization went through. That does not mean that any and all societies will or should go through the same stages. Agricultural societies did not invent the things you mentioned. Industrial society did. And it remains to be seen whether most of them constitute progress, or a quicker path to extinction.

If the world keeps up the way that is, I'm banking on the "quicker path to extinction."

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.

Now you are comparing modern industrial society to hunter gatherer society. Try comparing aboriginal society at the time of contact to European society at the time of contact, and determine which is more desirable. I would suggest you would opt for the one with the better life expectancy and the higher amount of leisure time, which would be aboriginal society.


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.

Plagues and many other diseases are a product of people living in close quarters with each other and with animals. Such diseases were virtually unkknown in hunter-gatherer societies. Hence why indigenous peoples were almost never immune to the diseases brought by Europeans, which wiped out large numbers of them.

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

REad the book "Against the Grain" by Richard Manning. It contains the relevant sources.

REad the book "Against the Grain" by Richard Manning. It contains the relevant sources.

What does he base his info on? There are few "true" hunter/gatherer societies left.

I imagine it just shocks some people to see me so up in arms about this topic...I know I've developed a reputation for being 'extreme'

In all fairness, you come across that way regardless of what you're talking about. :p

I'm a half-breed. Because I did not marry a full-status indian or another half-breed like myself, my children have no status. In two generations, my line has been 'bred out' according to the government. You have 50% blood quantum in Canada, or you are not status Indian, period. People seem to believe you can have 1/36 native blood in you and 'get all the great things indians get'.

To be honest with you, I was one of those people. I had no idea about the 50% blood quantum, I thought it held out for at least 3 generations. Just shows my ignorance I guess.

Although, I've never been one to be proud of 'culture'. To me, culture is what you and your family do everyday, regardless of what the governement says of it, and I applaud you to raise your children Cree regardless of what the gov. says. (For what it's worth, which may not be much.)

What does he base his info on? There are few "true" hunter/gatherer societies left.

There have been studies done on the bone structures and other remains of people from both pre-contact aboriginal societies and Eurasian agricultural societies. They showed that the aboriginal people were taller, had stronger bones, were less stooped, etc. All of which were indications of better nutrition and health generally. There were other studies but I don't remember the specifics. I think some of Brian Fagan's books reference this as well.

Indians were savage simply because they were cruel. Yes I know that they were technologically inferior to whitey, but this is not so bad it is merely the result of limited cultural intercourse and perhaps there was not that much of a need to innovate. The true test of savagery is not whether they have stone age or industrial age technology, it lies instead in their tolerance for cruel behavior by their community.

I said it before and I will say it again, whitey did the world a favor when he conquered the American Indian. However, a new day has dawned on the American Indian and it is time for him to be returned more land and autonomy. We owe him this and much more that we can never fully repay for our broken treaties.

Indians were savage simply because they were cruel. Yes I know that they were technologically inferior to whitey, but this is not so bad it is merely the result of limited cultural intercourse and perhaps there was not that much of a need to innovate. The true test of savagery is not whether they have stone age or industrial age technology, it lies instead in their tolerance for cruel behavior by their community.

I said it before and I will say it again, whitey did the world a favor when he conquered the American Indian. However, a new day has dawned on the American Indian and it is time for him to be returned more land and autonomy. We owe him this and much more that we can never fully repay for our broken treaties.

By your definition of savagery, Western culture in 19th century ranks as the most savage in the world, and American Indians ranked as the least savage in the world. Incase you didn't realize, Whites spread plagues of small pox among Indians that killed millions of them. THe US army slaughtered entire villages, and then forced the unfortunate survivors onto worthless land, all to satisfy the endless greed of the white capitalist.

Indian society was known for being the most egalitarian society in the world-- modern democracy has its roots not in Greek oligarcy but in the communal Iroqouis society, where the individual had their own liberties and was an intricate part of the decision making process. What ever "savagery" the Indians ever commited on Whites was only provoked by whites, and the savagery that Whites brought to indians was a hundred times worse than anything Indians ever did to whites.

You clearly did say they look the same, and you just said it again. And it's a ridiculous thing to say.

Alike doesnt mean same, it means similar....And it's ridiculous that you find this ridiculous. There; same brown skin, same black hair, similar looks. To me, they could be indians or anywhere from south east asia, maybe chineese...

http://www.tribalconnections.org/photos/indianwomen200.jpg

Alike doesnt mean same, it means similar....And it's ridiculous that you find this ridiculous. There; same brown skin, same black hair, similar looks. To me, they could be indians or anywhere from south east asia, maybe chineese...

http://www.tribalconnections.org/photos/indianwomen200.jpg
They don't look Chinese in the slightest. Even I can tell that. Even Kahta could tell that.

The stages of development you are referring to are the stages that European civilization went through. That does not mean that any and all societies will or should go through the same stages. Agricultural societies did not invent the things you mentioned. Industrial society did. And it remains to be seen whether most of them constitute progress, or a quicker path to extinction.

Do you think people in industrial societies are hunter and gatherers instead of agricultural societies? Besides while those "agricultural societies" developed into industrial ones, hunter and gatherers got wiped out. And while industrial societies pose a danger, primitive bronze age native american societies pose an even bigger danger. An astroid hit Earth and wiped out dinasaurs. An astroid of that size may hit again in future. Only an industrial society might have the power to avoid such catastrophies or spread humans in stars.
And you are right. While European civilizations developed, native Americans stayed in a antic times...

They don't look Chinese in the slightest. Even I can tell that. Even Kahta could tell that.

No, if anything they look similar to the Altaic or Nanai peoples of the far eastern and northern parts of Siberia. Their ethnic relation to the Chinese is probably as close as the ethnic relation between the (Mediterranean) Italians and the Arabs.

They don't look Chinese in the slightest. Even I can tell that. Even Kahta could tell that.

The right one doesnt but the left one?

Another...He can be totally indian, except the outfit and hair...

http://www.fotosearch.com/comp/csk/CSK246/KS16113.jpg

Nord, do you hold a calipers up to the screen?

In all fairness, you come across that way regardless of what you're talking about. :p Only because you don't know real extremism.

Indians were savage simply because they were cruel. As opposed to Europeans who tortured, brutalised, raped and ravaged...all in a non-cruel fashion?:rolleyes:

As opposed to Europeans who tortured, brutalised, raped and ravaged...all in a non-cruel fashion?:rolleyes:
Yeah, but our god is the right one. So he'll understand.

No, if anything they look similar to the Altaic or Nanai peoples of the far eastern and northern parts of Siberia. Their ethnic relation to the Chinese is probably as close as the ethnic relation between the (Mediterranean) Italians and the Arabs.

Well, both Italians and Arabs are kinda dark-skinned, so by the logic displayed so far ... they must look alike!

Do you think people in industrial societies are hunter and gatherers instead of agricultural societies? Besides while those "agricultural societies" developed into industrial ones, hunter and gatherers got wiped out. And while industrial societies pose a danger, primitive bronze age native american societies pose an even bigger danger. An astroid hit Earth and wiped out dinasaurs. An astroid of that size may hit again in future. Only an industrial society might have the power to avoid such catastrophies or spread humans in stars.
And you are right. While European civilizations developed, native Americans stayed in a antic times...

News flash ... industrial society is not going to survive an asteroid strike any better than the dinosaurs did. There are so many asteroids out there that we don't even realize that any given one is coming anywhere close to earth until is has passed us. If one is going to hit us, the first we will probably know of it is when it starts burning up as it enters the atmosphere, about 2 seconds before it impacts with the surface and leads to a series of events that will wipe us all out.

And industrial society has significantly raised the risks of humans being wiped out due to our own stupidity ... nuclear war, environmental catastrophe, etc. So if anything, industrial society is at a significantly higher risk of causing our complete extinction as a species than hunter-gatherer socity was.

Some people in industrial societies come from agricultural societies, some are from hunter-gatherer societies ... because no, they weren't wiped out ... in spite of our best efforts.

Europeans moved on to agriculture because that was a viable option: they had access to a large number of domesticable plants and animals. And it enabled them to support wealthy elites, so obviously it was to the benefit of those wealthy elites, even if it was not to the benefit of most. You are still assuming the move to agirculture was "progress" in spite of evidence to the contrary.

Native American societies did not have access to domesticable animals and only some had access to a limited number of domesticable plants. As such some of them used agriculture on only a limited scale. In other words, they used the level of social organization that was appropriate for their environment.

I'm a half-breed. Because I did not marry a full-status indian or another half-breed like myself, my children have no status. In two generations, my line has been 'bred out' according to the government. You have 50% blood quantum in Canada, or you are not status Indian, period. People seem to believe you can have 1/36 native blood in you and 'get all the great things indians get'.

And yet, my children are being raised Cree. They are accepted as Cree. Culture is about so much more than blood...and this issue is about so much more than who is better than whom.
to me, this is the most important issue facing native americans. if you cant decide who is and who isnt a member of your tribe, what do you have? canada (and the US) are forcing a policy that lowers tribal membership.

a sovereign nation should have the freedom to decide its own membership on its own terms. each seperate indian nation or band should have its own rules as to who is and who is not a member.

a sovereign nation should have the freedom to decide its own membership on its own terms. each seperate indian nation or band should have its own rules as to who is and who is not a member.

And in all likelihood it would not be based on blood quantum, because that is not the way that most First Nations look at citizenship.

And in all likelihood it would not be based on blood quantum, because that is not the way that most First Nations look at citizenship.
in most cases probably not, but as long as it is their decision, it doesnt matter to me what their basis is.

That would be called the lasting effect of a deliberate governmental policy of genocide against them.


You're getting your understanding of cultural history from a Tom Cruise movie? Are you aware he used to dance in his underwear -- until, that is, he became a vampire and had to hide from invading Martians. :rolleyes:


Indeed, however that was not my question. Please do go back and take the time to read it if you wish to answer the question in its correct correlation.

Getting my facts from a Tom Cruise movie? Now where did I ever state that, do tell please I must admit I am intrigued at your ability to overlook obvious sentence structures and meanings? But because today I woke up in a sunny mood, I will spare you the time, I merely stated that; it is so known to common pop culture and other "circles" that it even deserved mention in a hollywood blockbuster. Now how does that fit with your rather peculiar answer about martians and undergarments?

However ironically enough the Japanese also view the native americans as inferior, as they have repeatedly stated, and they were very harsh and insultive about any blood comparison to what they considered savage people void of higher learning and understanding. It is pretty infamous, such as it was even brought up in the movie "The Last Samurai". But then again the Japanese are notoriously infamous for being racistic against most peoples, in particular blacks and other non-whites. For white people they make a rule of exception, giving them a respect of not being inferior, or nowhere as inferior by far as the other races. More to be read about this at:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4671687.stm (note racism against ndigenous tribes.)

So the fact that the Japanese are racist makes everyone else's racism OK?

how does that fit with your rather peculiar answer about martians and undergarments?
In the case of the undergarments - snugly, one would hope.

in most cases probably not, but as long as it is their decision, it doesnt matter to me what their basis is.

Agreed. My only concern would be with who is making the decision about what the membership rules would be ... will it be everyone who is legally entitled to according to the traditions of the nation in question, or will it be those who are entitled according to the government's definition of who is an "Indian" (and who may have a vested interested in keeping things the way they are) or under membership codes that reflect white, not aboriginal, values.

For example, my partner is not eligible to vote in the First Nation she is a member of, because she is half-white. Yet that aproach to membership is totally inconsistent with the traditions of her nation. But attempts to reform the membership code have failed because those who benefit from the code want to keep things the way they are (i.e. only their kids will retain membership).

So the fact that the Japanese are racist makes everyone else's racism OK?


I am afraid you miss the point entirely. My, my I am starting to believe this forum is mostly made of illiterates or lackwits. Is it is so hard to read a sentence and understand it in its proper context?

I stated that even though seen as related the Japanese refused to be associated in anyway to these "savages" which shows that it was not a pure white-european phenomenom. As I also stated this is well known, known enough to warrant mention in a film. And not to make the point poleimic and overly point of view I also stated that the Japanese have a long history of racism even up to this day. Not just a single case such as strong condemnation about any blood relation to the native americans back in the eighteenth century.

Native American + Handheld nuclear weapons = dead army of dinosaurs

What's left to debate?

Indeed, however that was not my question. Please do go back and take the time to read it if you wish to answer the question in its correct correlation.
I did read it and that is all the answer I thought it deserved.

Saying that a culture is inferior because its people lost a war against a technologically superior invading force and died in great numbers due to the starvation, diseases, and other privations inflicted upon them by those invaders is not only unfair to those people, it is, frankly, offensive.

I suppose by your reckoning the Japanese have an inferior culture because they weren't immune to the radiation of the atomic bombs. Or maybe you think the poor deserve to starve in the streets because, if they weren't inferior, they'd be rich. Or perhaps murder victims deserve to be killed because they were inferior to start with, and maybe it was a mistake to end slavery because only inferior cultures would end up having members sold or kidnapped into slavery, so what else could be done with such people?

By saying that Native American cultures are inferior because they could not withstand the racist, genocidal, land-grabbing policies of invading people and governments that had more weapons and more people, is essentially the same as saying that you (as a member of the supposedly superior culture (a distinction you claim for your own people) have a right to oppress or even kill such people because if they weren't inferior, you wouldn't have been able to.

So tell me, how is such a dog-eat-dog, might-makes-right, do-whatever-you-can-get-away-with, superiority-is-in-the-body-count attitude NOT itself savage?

BTW, I can't speak for Canadian history, but I do not know of any important stand-up battle in the US Indian Wars, fighters vs fighters, in which the Native Americans were defeated by US army forces. The US defeated the native people by massacres of women and children, lies, deceit, and treachery. If you consider a willingness to cheat and murder to be a sign of superiority, then you and I use very different dictionaries.

Getting my facts from a Tom Cruise movie? Now where did I ever state that, do tell please I must admit I am intrigued at your ability to overlook obvious sentence structures and meanings? But because today I woke up in a sunny mood, I will spare you the time, I merely stated that; it is so known to common pop culture and other "circles" that it even deserved mention in a hollywood blockbuster. Now how does that fit with your rather peculiar answer about martians and undergarments?
That was the part of my dismissive answer in which I was making fun of you and your apparent lack of real information about this subject.

Well, both Italians and Arabs are kinda dark-skinned, so by the logic displayed so far ... they must look alike!

Yeah, not like they're totally different in appearance, culture, and language or anything...

I am afraid you miss the point entirely. My, my I am starting to believe this forum is mostly made of illiterates or lackwits. Is it is so hard to read a sentence and understand it in its proper context?

I stated that even though seen as related the Japanese refused to be associated in anyway to these "savages" which shows that it was not a pure white-european phenomenom. As I also stated this is well known, known enough to warrant mention in a film. And not to make the point poleimic and overly point of view I also stated that the Japanese have a long history of racism even up to this day. Not just a single case such as strong condemnation about any blood relation to the native americans back in the eighteenth century.
Belief in murderers returning from the dead to wreak havoc on over-sexed teenagers is also so much a part of popular culture that it warrants mention in several ongoing series of films. Same with alien abductions, Bigfoot, and alligators breeding in sewers. Are they all true, too, because they are big parts of popular culture and have had movies made about them? Is Godzilla real? He's a movie star, after all.

Native American + Handheld nuclear weapons = dead army of dinosaurs

What's left to debate?

Downright racist and almost immflammatory. Hey Sinhue, I am also Canadian as well (live in Vancouver) and personally you and Mura did a damn good job supporting your points. Man the aftereffects of Deceisive action and his band of White Power Swatiska flying friends really done a number here on NS.

Downright racist and almost immflammatory. Hey Sinhue, I am also Canadian as well (live in Vancouver) and personally you and Mura did a damn good job supporting your points. Man the aftereffects of Deceisive action and his band of White Power Swatiska flying friends really done a number here on NS.

Didn't know Turok was considered to be racist and inflammatory. Got any articles about that?

Well, both Italians and Arabs are kinda dark-skinned, so by the logic displayed so far ... they must look alike!

Now this is what is called ridiculous, in this case aka stupid ignorancy. A very small minority of real italians who are dark might have a skin colour same as a very small minority of "light" arabs, but that's that. Go to Italy, especially northern parts. They are nothing like arabs...

sinuhue.

the native americans / aboriginals were savages/barbarians because they were different. Women did not curtsy, men did not shake hands. You clothes were made out of skins instead of whatever.

Different culture = barbarian

As i understand chinese has 4 words for foreigner.
norther barbarian
southern barbarian
eastern barbarian
western barbarian

Its cultural arrogance.

hell at least you guys were NOBLE savages. ;)

I did read it and that is all the answer I thought it deserved.

Saying that a culture is inferior because its people lost a war against a technologically superior invading force and died in great numbers due to the starvation, diseases, and other privations inflicted upon them by those invaders is not only unfair to those people, it is, frankly, offensive.

I suppose by your reckoning the Japanese have an inferior culture because they weren't immune to the radiation of the atomic bombs. Or maybe you think the poor deserve to starve in the streets because, if they weren't inferior, they'd be rich. Or perhaps murder victims deserve to be killed because they were inferior to start with, and maybe it was a mistake to end slavery because only inferior cultures would end up having members sold or kidnapped into slavery, so what else could be done with such people?

By saying that Native American cultures are inferior because they could not withstand the racist, genocidal, land-grabbing policies of invading people and governments that had more weapons and more people, is essentially the same as saying that you (as a member of the supposedly superior culture (a distinction you claim for your own people) have a right to oppress or even kill such people because if they weren't inferior, you wouldn't have been able to.

So tell me, how is such a dog-eat-dog, might-makes-right, do-whatever-you-can-get-away-with, superiority-is-in-the-body-count attitude NOT itself savage?

BTW, I can't speak for Canadian history, but I do not know of any important stand-up battle in the US Indian Wars, fighters vs fighters, in which the Native Americans were defeated by US army forces. The US defeated the native people by massacres of women and children, lies, deceit, and treachery. If you consider a willingness to cheat and murder to be a sign of superiority, then you and I use very different dictionaries.


I'd like someone to reply to this post. Cards on the table here. There is a difference between claiming technological superiority, and then going on to claim that technological superiority alone makes a culture suprerior. If that we the case, we'd all bow down in submission to the most violent and brutal among us instead of constantly trying to find ways to reign these types of people in.

You can't have it both ways...glorifying murder, deceit, and treachery in one breath, and then decrying it in the next.

sinuhue.

the native americans / aboriginals were savages/barbarians because they were different. Women did not curtsy, men did not shake hands. You clothes were made out of skins instead of whatever.

Different culture = barbarian

As i understand chinese has 4 words for foreigner.
norther barbarian
southern barbarian
eastern barbarian
western barbarian

Its cultural arrogance.

hell at least you guys were NOBLE savages. ;)

The Chinese, and the West Europeans, and the Japanese and even the Americans do the naming, and the rest of the lot merely have to lap it up.

( Since an Inuit calling a Japanese a barbarian does not result in charging him with racism, but merely with a good laugh - at the Inuit's expense. )

Case closed. Barbarians are behind-out.

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 comparison with European culture is the key point. Let's forget about savage meaning brutal or vicious and try to imagine what the Europeans thought when they saw a bunch of oddly clad people living in the woods. Political correctness wasn't in fashion then, and I'm sure that some of these explorers wanted to embellish their adventures to make it worth the money they were paid.

Savage was just a name applied to a bunch of people that didn't fit the European idea of civilized. What's the beef?

Only because you don't know real extremism.

That's not true. I had Mountain Dew once.

The comparison with European culture is the key point. Let's forget about savage meaning brutal or vicious and try to imagine what the Europeans thought when they saw a bunch of oddly clad people living in the woods. Political correctness wasn't in fashion then, and I'm sure that some of these explorers wanted to embellish their adventures to make it worth the money they were paid.

Savage was just a name applied to a bunch of people that didn't fit the European idea of civilized. What's the beef?
I think you mean "Where's the Beef (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Where's_the_beef%3F)?"

The label is still being applied.

That's not true. I had Mountain Dew once.
You're so hardcore!

You're so hardcore!

I know, I know.

The 'establishment' better watch out. Too much caffeine, and I'll pace a hole in government property somewhere.

Grrrrr.......

The comparison with European culture is the key point. Let's forget about savage meaning brutal or vicious and try to imagine what the Europeans thought when they saw a bunch of oddly clad people living in the woods. Political correctness wasn't in fashion then, and I'm sure that some of these explorers wanted to embellish their adventures to make it worth the money they were paid.

Savage was just a name applied to a bunch of people that didn't fit the European idea of civilized. What's the beef?
Are you kidding? You don't see a problem with slapping derogatory, insulting labels on a group of people only because they happen to be different from you? You want us to just forget about the common meaning and usage of everyday language just so white folks can claim the privilege to keep using it without getting challenged or blamed for it? Guess what? I don't think we're going to do that.

Is it your assertion that, since it's only natural for Europeans to hate people who are different from them, Native Americans shouldn't mind being talked about and talked to with such language? That is insulting to both Native Americans and Europeans. How would you like it if I went about callling you a filthy bigoted know-nothing who is doomed to extinction because your backward thinking is so primitive and savage it cannot hope to survive in a modern world, and since you're inferior, you deserve to swept out of the way in favor of my way of doing things which is obviously so much better? After all, everybody knows that people like you are inferior, brutal, violent, cruel, incapable of modern thinking or adapting to change, so clearly you are destined to be weeded out. Would that make you feel just wonderful about yourself? And if you objected to such egregious flaming, how would you respond if I acted like you had no reason to be offended?

NOTE: The above is just a list of the phrases that have been used against Native Americans in this thread, turned about to apply to someone I disagree with. Turnabout is fair play, after all. Doesn't feel good, does it?

The beef is in the insult, and your "just get over it" attitude does nothing to resolve that.

The Chinese, and the West Europeans, and the Japanese and even the Americans do the naming, and the rest of the lot merely have to lap it up.

( Since an Inuit calling a Japanese a barbarian does not result in charging him with racism, but merely with a good laugh - at the Inuit's expense. )

Case closed. Barbarians are behind-out.
What scumbaggery. You claim that money and political power gives some people (i.e. you) -- what? The privilege to insult and denigrate others? You are more wrong than you (especially you) can know. How so? I'll sum it up for you with an old saying: What goes around, comes around. The folks back in the Middle Ages had it right -- fortune is a wheel that never stops turning; today you're on the way up; tomorrow, you could be on the way down; a king one week and a slave the next. Alive and a pain in the ass today; dead and forgotten tomorrow. The person you ridicule today could have power over you in the future. The insults you heap on others today, will be heaped on you by someone else tomorrow.

I suppose you think this is the natural way of things - a pecking order of privilege and insult. But the problem with that is that all who participate in a pecking order, at all levels, are really all the same - a bunch of clucking, bird-brained chickens pointless pecking away at each other for no reason and with no result. You waste all your time with these stupid status games rather than developing your mind, skills, or otherwise making yourself useful to the world. It is my opinion that people who are obsessed with social status or cultural superiority are wastes of food, water and oxygen.

The bottom line is that your relative wealth or the modernity of the culture you were lucky enough to be born into are not the measure of your worth as a human being. They do not make you better or worse than any other person of any other culture in the entire world. You are either worth a damn as a person or you're not, and if you come to me and brag about your money or your ipod or the cultural accomplishments of people other than yourself (as if being born in the same culture as Thomas Edison somehow lets you take credit for his genius), guess what list I will put you in?

I am afraid you miss the point entirely. My, my I am starting to believe this forum is mostly made of illiterates or lackwits.

And I've noticed this forum contains quite a few people who cannot write a coherent, well-supported and relevant argument, but like to think that the problem is other people's lack of reading comprehension.


I stated that even though seen as related the Japanese refused to be associated in anyway to these "savages" which shows that it was not a pure white-european phenomenom. As I also stated this is well known, known enough to warrant mention in a film. And not to make the point poleimic and overly point of view I also stated that the Japanese have a long history of racism even up to this day. Not just a single case such as strong condemnation about any blood relation to the native americans back in the eighteenth century.

Yes ... you've made your point. Japanese people can be racist as well. But it was not the Japanese that set up a regime designed to eradicate native cultures and assimilate them into "mainstream" (read: White European) society. And that was hardly only an 18th century phenomenon. It remains a pretty widespread attitude to this very day.

Now this is what is called ridiculous, in this case aka stupid ignorancy. A very small minority of real italians who are dark might have a skin colour same as a very small minority of "light" arabs, but that's that. Go to Italy, especially northern parts. They are nothing like arabs...

You are absolutely right. It is ridiculous. That was the point.