How then, do we move backwards? How does a society, with most of the people having no clue of future events, move from being dependent on a vast and intertwined network of goods and services produced by the indigenous people of whereever, to a local resource and renewable energy based society, and do so in the timeframe available (20-30 years using the most liberal extimates, 10-20 with resonable estimates, 5-10 with worst case scenarios), all the while prices on everything increasing, world politics getting more militaristic, governments continuously reducing civil liberties, shortages of goods on the market and weather patterns resembling bad Hollywood movies?
Would the Native Americans have screwed up as royally?
Yes
40%
[ 15 ]
No
48%
[ 18 ]
America wasn't screwed up
10%
[ 4 ]
Total Votes : 37
Author
Message
holmes Fission
Joined: Oct 12, 2004 Posts: 2377
Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 12:22 pm Post subject: Re: American/Indian History
they had awhole differnt way of doing things. My pawneed aunt as an example. they grew their crops by throwing a whole variety of seed into and area and let it grow alongside with the wild edible plants. europeans have to control nature. they let it work for them. thus the europeans thought them lazy. They like to minimize "work". a pristine healthy environment does alot of work for the people. a denuded monoculture requires lots of work and input.
They mainly let nature be. and to think about that is only natural. why stress oneself out controlling when they had many more things to worry about along with down time. europeans have major control problems. The indians just let things "be" for the most part. sure some tribes used more than they needed. The grains and corn they cultivated was the best and hardiest. This was due to letting it grow "wild" with the wild plants. our crops cnanot compare. they need oil and massive ammounts of enrgy in times of normalcy. In times of stress even more. and the freedom they had pre contact was as close to pure freedom as anyone can get. They grew and killed all their food. had clean cheap water. lets see we keep paying more and more each year.....
no race is perfect obviously.
Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 1:21 pm Post subject: Re: American/Indian History
PenultimateManStanding wrote:
sounds like a reserved optimist, here. Are you hopeful for this "how to go right" to go right or is this rhetoric and you are really a doomer?
Well...I think that is definitional. I think that human society in general is unlikely to get it's act together without getting smacked very hard upside the head. It seems to me that smack is coming in one form or another pretty soon. We are lead by people that are going to try to push us into responding to said smack using the same failed paradigm we have been working off for several hundred years now. Until those power structures disintigrate, I don't think people as a whole are likely to start working in healthy productive directions.
That being said, I don't think that struggling in the right direction and being unsuccesful is necessarily a failure. I think that it is important for someone to start talking about how humans should be living and working in that direction. If nothing else, it will give people 100 years from now something to look at and say, "Ya know, these weird people back in 2000, they were on to something. Lets try that." I think the most tragic moment in all of cinema is the ending of Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome, when the kids all leave their functioning tribal society and return to the burned out hulk of a city and are like "We'll rebuild it". That is the ultimate tragedy. Destroying your world and learning nothing from it.
So it depends on your definition of doom I guess. If the collapse of McWorld and return to tribal society seems like doom to you, then I guess I'm a doomer. Personally I see it as our salvation, so I would call myself an optomist. I think that for humans under 60, the outlook is a period of significant upheaval and privation. Maybe by 2040 or 2050 we'll have our act together and being living in a more sane way. In the words of Kafka, "There is hope, but not for us."
Joined: Nov 28, 2004 Posts: 11774 Location: Neither Here Nor There
Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 1:43 pm Post subject: Re: American/Indian History
smallpoxgirl wrote:
the collapse of McWorld
The McHouse/McMansion thing has now morphed into the metaphorical big-times. Civilazation is a grinning maniacal clown to be washed away in the post peak deluge.
Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:33 pm Post subject: Re: American/Indian History
ALBY wrote:
Indians were not deep environmentalists. They were few in number and did not have the technology to degrade their environment at a fast pace. That is why their environmental footprint was so small.
Keeping your numbers small and abrogating destructive technology is pretty much the heart and soul of deep environmentalism.
Joined: Nov 09, 2004 Posts: 1216 Location: Big Rock Candy Mountain
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 4:00 pm Post subject: Re: American/Indian History
Have you heard?
Wolf has stolen Coyote's hide. Wolf said to himself; "This will make a fine cape!" Wolf's brothers said: "You must be crazy, the Wolf is the smartest of Father's children, why would you want to pass yourself off as that clown Coyote?" Wolf replied; "I was told to do this by Raven, and everyone knows that Wolf is smart but Raven is wise." That is the story of how Crazy Wolf came into existence.
Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 9:06 am Post subject: THE Native Americans Thread
Do you think that given their ancient culture that they would have eventually created what the European settlers did? What we see today. Given all of the resources we had. Or was it because our culture was so inventing itself and new that we went this unsustainable route? It was probably inevitable that what happened to people of that lifestyle happen to them. But I think maybe they would have done things different, even if they did eventually develop a civilization. They were doing some agriculture. That would probably be the only way for them to be left alone. Really, is it the culture or the overarching forces of hierarchy that directs the steering wheel of a society would create the the same America, only with people of a differet race? Sure, they have casinoes, but only because they have nothing else.
Joined: Aug 19, 2004 Posts: 1657 Location: Republic of Texas
Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 10:30 am Post subject: Re: Would the Native Americans have screwed up as royally?
Let's see. Crete; Etruscans; Classical Greece; Alexander; Roman Empire; Byzantine; Teutons; Lombard; Davinci; Newton; Tsars; Napoleon; Great Britain.
I'd say the Native Americans had a long way to go before they could have as successfully exploited their environment as Europeans did.
They had already reached their environmental capacity when we got here. _________________ Conform . Consume . Obey .
Joined: Nov 24, 2005 Posts: 743 Location: The ever shrinking wilds of Norway
Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 11:02 am Post subject: Re: Would the Native Americans have screwed up as royally?
TommyJefferson wrote:
Let's see. Crete; Etruscans; Classical Greece; Alexander; Roman Empire; Byzantine; Teutons; Lombard; Davinci; Newton; Tsars; Napoleon; Great Britain.
I'd say the Native Americans had a long way to go before they could have as successfully exploited their environment as Europeans did.
They had already reached their environmental capacity when we got here.
They were in process of screwing it up a little more. The agriculture was spreading by the time of white man. But it would as you say have taken a lot of time.
White innovations accelerated the process. The horse and gun accelerated the depletion of the buffalo already before the white man arrived.
But white man of course is to blame for most of it.
Joined: Nov 24, 2005 Posts: 743 Location: The ever shrinking wilds of Norway
Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 11:33 am Post subject: Re: Would the Native Americans have screwed up as royally?
Most aboriginal (Australian) tribes did not allow technological invention from what I have heard. They destroyed their lands once and found a new balance with it. Balance is impossible with constant innovations.
They kept the balance for at least 20000 years. Not bad for a human being.
Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 11:52 am Post subject: Re: Would the Native Americans have screwed up as royally?
20,000 years? I don't think so. Its not like it was one continuous culture. There were several cycles of collapse and rebirth in the Americas as well. And some of those are directly linked to misuse of resources and or bad agricultural practices with occasional outright warfare. Mayan and Anasazi come to mind. and later the Pueblo and Navajo were at war for over a hundred years. Trust me they didn't build on the side of cliffs for the view...
-G _________________ All right, you primitive screw-heads, listen up!
Joined: Sep 02, 2005 Posts: 113 Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 1:42 pm Post subject: Re: Would the Native Americans have screwed up as royally?
Don't make the mistake of believing the Eurocentric idea that Native Americans were war mongering savages, who were inferior to Europeans, in fact nothing could be further from the truth. While they did war with other tribes, it was nothing compared to European warfare. Women, children, and the elderly were NEVER involved, and they had remarkably low casualties. The balance was disrupted about 10,000 years ago with the introduction of agriculture, and subsequently hierarchal society, and Empire culture, begining in Eurasia, and spreading to Europe. Empire culutre has dominated ever since, along with environmental destruction, suffering, disease, slavery, etc.
An Iroquois law, which is the mantra of the Seventh Generation company says:
"In our every deliberation, we must consider the impact of our decisions on the next seven generations"
-from the great law of the Iroquois confederacy
Ben Franklin wrote extensively on Native Americans, he often said that while it was quite common for European settlers to join the Native American culture, he didn't know of any Native Americans who wanted to join the European culture. Here is an example:
Quote:
The following is an excerpt from a longer piece written by Benjamin Franklin about 1784. Franklin clearly does not regard Native Americans as "savages": he is using the term for ironic effect. The "savages" are, in fact, as civilized or more civilized than the Whites: it is the Whites who must rely upon force, punishment, and prisons to enforce good behavior.
The representatives of the Six Nations (Haudenosaunee or Iroquois) are offered full scholarships at William and Mary for six of their young men. Out of politeness, the Iroquois wait until the following day to reply. The Iroquois then turn the offer down and present a generous counter offer.
—JMU Editor
Remarks Concerning the Savages of North America:
Savages we call them, because their Manners differ from ours, which we think the Perfection of Civility; they think the same of theirs.
Perhaps, if we could examine the Manners of different nations with Impartiality, we should find no People so rude, as to be without any Rules of Politeness; nor any so polite, as not to have some Remains of Rudeness.
The Indian men, when young, are Hunters and Warriors; when old, Counsellors; for all their Government is by Counsel of the Sages; there is no Force, there are no Prisons, no Officers to compel Obedience, or inflict Punishment. Hence they generally study Oratory, the best Speaker having the most Influence. The Indian Women till the Ground, dress the Food, nurse and bring up the Children, and preserve and hand down to Posterity the Memory of public Transactions. These Employments of men and Women are accounted natural and honourable. Having few artificial Wants, they have abundance of Leisure for Improvement by Conversation. Our laborious Manner of Life, compared with theirs, they esteem slavish and base; and the Learning, on which we value ourselves, they regard as frivolous and useless. An Instance of this occurred at the Treaty of Lancaster, in Pennsylvania, anno 1744, between the Government of Virginia, and the Six Nations. After the principal Business was settled, the Commissioners from Virginia acquainted the Indians by a Speech, that there was at Williamsburg a College, with a Fund for Educating Indian youth; and that, if the Six Nations would send down half a dozen of their young lads to that College, the Government would take care that they should be well provided for, and instructed in all the Learning of the White People. It is one of the Indian Rules of Politeness not to answer a public Proposition the same day that it is made; they think it would be treating it as a light matter, and that they show it Respect by taking time to consider it, as of a Matter important. They therefore deferr'd their Answer till the Day following; when their Speaker began, by expressing their deep Sense of the kindness of the Virginia Government, in making them that Offer; "for we know," says he, "that you highly esteem the kind of Learning taught in those Colleges, and that the Maintenance of our young Men, while with you, would be very expensive to you. We are convinc'd, therefore, that you mean to do us Good by your Proposal; and we thank you heartily. But you, who are wise, must know that different nations have different Conceptions of things; and you will therefore not take it amiss, if our Ideas of this kind of Education happen not to be the same with yours. We have had some Experience of it; Several of our young People were formerly brought up at the Colleges of the Northern Provinces; they were instructed in all your Sciences; but, when they came back to us, they were bad Runners, ignorant of every means of living in the Woods, unable to bear either Cold or Hunger, knew neither how to build a Cabin, take a Deer, or kill an Enemy, spoke our Language imperfectly, were therefore neither fit for Hunters, Warriors, nor Counsellors; they were totally good for nothing. We are however not the less oblig'd by your kind Offer, tho' we decline accepting it; and, to show our grateful Sense of it, if the Gentlemen of Virginia will send us a Dozen of their Sons, we will take great Care of their Education, instruct them in all we know, and make Men of them."
No prisons, no police, no mental instituions, no disease, no pollution, yeah they were well on there way to wiping themselves out. NOT.
Joined: Oct 18, 2004 Posts: 1715 Location: kiwibush
Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 1:48 pm Post subject: Re: Would the Native Americans have screwed up as royally?
TommyJefferson wrote:
Let's see. Crete; Etruscans; Classical Greece; Alexander; Roman Empire; Byzantine; Teutons; Lombard; Davinci; Newton; Tsars; Napoleon; Great Britain.
I'd say the Native Americans had a long way to go before they could have as successfully exploited their environment as Europeans did.
They had already reached their environmental capacity when we got here.
Evolution is merely a dialectic process to find the most comfortable and rewarding systemic arrangement....nothing cultural or metaphysical about it. It just so happens that the arrangement that emerged from Europe is especially resilient and resource intensive being based as it is on the accumulation of private capital as well as on functional forms that enable the accumulaion process to flourish unhampered to a large degree.
In its exported state to India, China, Japan and Asia generally, we will see it refined to the nth degree in terms of its resource depletion capacity......no one's to blame yet all of us are......for by our lack of political acumen, we unwittingly conspired to bring about the demise of our one and only planetary home. _________________ Bugger me, I hear oil's runnin out mate!
Joined: Nov 24, 2005 Posts: 743 Location: The ever shrinking wilds of Norway
Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 2:01 pm Post subject: Re: Would the Native Americans have screwed up as royally?
gnm wrote:
20,000 years? I don't think so. Its not like it was one continuous culture. There were several cycles of collapse and rebirth in the Americas as well. And some of those are directly linked to misuse of resources and or bad agricultural practices with occasional outright warfare. Mayan and Anasazi come to mind. and later the Pueblo and Navajo were at war for over a hundred years. Trust me they didn't build on the side of cliffs for the view...-G
Australian aboriginies I meant. There may have been cultures rising and collapsing there as well, but not to my knowledge.
Culture will enevitably change a little, but the change may be slowed by cultural systems itself.
Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 2:14 pm Post subject: Re: Would the Native Americans have screwed up as royally?
BO wrote:
Don't make the mistake of believing the Eurocentric idea that Native Americans were war mongering savages, who were inferior to Europeans, in fact nothing could be further from the truth. While they did war with other tribes, it was nothing compared to European warfare. Women, children, and the elderly were NEVER involved, and they had remarkably low casualties.
Women, children, and elderly never involved? Puh-lease.
LATER European warfare had more causulties because we had better weapons. Primitive European warfare was pretty similar.
Really...? I suppose you think there was no evidence of cannibalism, horrendous torture or human sacrifice either then? Oh and you can apply those to early Euro cultures too. I don't take sides..
Perhaps you should do some research on the "Moche" - they were so brutal in thier torture executions of captives in war that defeated enemies would suicide to avoid capture.
Torjus - Oh, I see... Yes Australian aboriginal groups could probably be considered a continuous culture. Interesting point. I am not well studied on them. Anyone care to weigh in?
-G _________________ All right, you primitive screw-heads, listen up!
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
