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
Ludi Expert
Joined: Dec 27, 2004 Posts: 11857 Location: zombie horde wonderland
Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2006 7:33 pm Post subject: Re: Would the Native Americans have screwed up as royally?
BO wrote:
Perhaps the more stable and sustainable NE/SE Native American tribes, were the result of both a virtually inexhaustable resource base for the population scale, and also a spiritual connection to those resources, (Native Americans blessing and thanking the animal they killed for its sacrifice), that allowed SOME societies to live in harmony with there surroundings.
Sort of yes, sort of no. They may or may not have had a "spiritual connection" to their resources but more likely they had a very pragmatic connection to them. That they lived "sustainably" had to do with at least a couple key aspects of their cultures:
1. Similar technological level to their neighbors
2. Finite territories
Keep in mind most tribes fought on and off most of the time, though some groups developed non-fighting, or mock fighting strategies. Tribes need to fight all the time to demarcate territorial boundaries. Similar technological levels means its very difficult and unlikely they will actually wipe out their competitors, this is very similar to other large predators - they establish territorial boundaries and avoid serious all out conflict because such conflicts can be lethal. So there's always a low level of conflict over these borders, which would rarely erupt into fullscale slaughter. Also, because HG cultures don't have standing armies, fighting takes too much time and resources away from making a living, for both sides.
Finite territories means the folks were very aware of how much of the resources they were using up, and limited their populations accordingly, because they couldn't just expand into the next valley - other folks were already living there. Contrary to European concepts, North America was full of people prior to colonization (400- 500 different cultures) and they lived pretty much all over. Some even had overlapping territories (such as the Lippan Apache and the Comanche in my neck of the woods). _________________ "...powerdown so soft and fluffy you'll think you're living in a pillow..." - jboogy
Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2006 10:34 pm Post subject: Re: Would the Native Americans have screwed up as royally?
I'm with Bo.
In my culture, there remains enough tradition and practice to say that we (Cherokees) highly valued cooperation. It was (is) the underlying premise of our social norms.
We didn't have Aristotle to laud excellence. We did have walled cities akin to the European fortresses of the dark ages (in this hemisphere). People belonged or were outcast. There was natural selection for cooperation thru the clan system of justice.
Diamond, and to some extent, Mann, have it wrong. They deduce it all from a Hobbsian perspective. I think Rousseau was closer to the mark.
Yes, there were aberrations and critical responses to crises such as famine. There were border defenses, and you can call it war.
But the religion and practices reinforced communal risk diversification, systems thinking, holistic worldview. The tough weakeness of such a culture is that it is inclusive and made way for the duality of individualism--- frontierism, pioneers, settlers, colonists, and hegemonic intruders who used stockpiling to overtake the balance. There was a cowbird in the nest.
If there had not been a cultural clash with Eurocentric stockpiling, tribes would not have been overrun and displaced, and the culture, which still works so well at managing within its reproductive limits, would be intact (well, evolved) and living within their means.
Joined: Dec 27, 2004 Posts: 11857 Location: zombie horde wonderland
Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2006 6:52 am Post subject: Re: Would the Native Americans have screwed up as royally?
gnm wrote:
Well said Ludi! You wouldn't be an anthropologist by trade would you?
-G
Thank you! I wish! No, I'm just very interested in other cultures and how they "work." I think we can learn a lot form them if we can overcome our prejudices, many of which have been trained into us over our entire lives, we're engrained with our own cultural mythology, part of which includes mythology about other cultures. I think it's vital to try to learn how these other cultures actually function/functioned, and see if there are aspects we can apply to our own society for our own benefit.
I see value in looking at spiritual differences in cultures; the spirituality of a group is formed and supported by that group's way of life. Cultural ideals (memes) and ways of living can't be separated, you lose one you lose the other. Our civilization is based on memes which cause us to behave in certain ways. But we can't just paste a different spirituality over our current way of life and think all will be well, it just doesn't happen that easily. We can't, for instance, arbitrarily adopt some aspects of Native American spirituality such as sweat lodges and think we're somehow getting "closer to nature" or some such nonsense. To do so is to make a mockery of that spirituality. We need to look beyond the superficial practices of the spirituality to the way of life which supports and is supported by that spirituality - how is it different from ours? Why does/did it "work" in ways ours doesn't? What cultural memes are we operating under which cause us to behave the way we do and how can we change? I see this change needing to occur on two levels - cognitively (adopting new memes) and behaviorally (acting in a way consonant with those memes). This doesn't require "evolving to the next spiritual plane" or anything of the kind, it just means thinking and behaving in a consistent way, not thinking one thing and doing another.
CheRand is correct when she says Native Americans valued cooperation. It was the keystone of their society, a tribal society. Tribal life involves mutual support, or "give support - get support." It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with liking the people you're living with or being more generous; it is purely pragmatic. Because these groups depended on each other utterly to live within and protect their finite territories, cooperation was vital. You simply couldn't live without it. You couldn't just go off and live somewhere else by yourself, there was no "somewhere else" to go - somebody already lived there and they sure as hell didn't want you horning in on their territory. Our culture's ideal of expansion doesn't fit into this model. In our way of life, there's always somewhere else to go because you can just conquer the other guy and move into his territory. We've always done this, for some 8000 years. Talk about an engrained meme!
One bit of cultural mythology I'd like people to get over is the "noble savage" ideal of the Native Americans. They weren't/aren't "better people" or "in harmony with nature" or whatnot. They were just folks, like us but with different cultural memes. Above all they were pragmatic, they had to be. And I'd really like people to also get over the idea if one says something positive about tribal peoples, one isn't claiming they are "noble savages." Like us, they have their good and bad points. Just folks. This isn't to say some weren't very different from us, some cultures were, some were almost entirely peaceful, had no word or concept for rape, or concept for personal property, etc. And of course others were pretty darn horrible with cannibalism, etc. But the thing to remember is, the horrible behavior was extremely local, because there were so many different cultures, horrible or even stupid behaviors wouldn't affect more than a local area. But in our situation, we've nearly wiped out all other cultures and imposed our own culture on the whole planet, a culture which operates under some faulty memes, unpractical memes, and so we're crapping up the whole place rather than keeping our mistakes local. This is a very poor strategy for survival. Humans survived for tens of thousands, one hundred thousand years because of their cultural diversity.
Well, I'm sure verbose this morning.... _________________ "...powerdown so soft and fluffy you'll think you're living in a pillow..." - jboogy
Joined: Sep 02, 2005 Posts: 113 Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2006 9:44 am Post subject: Re: Would the Native Americans have screwed up as royally?
Great posts Ludi, and CheRand. Thank you for articulating what I failed to articulate.
Does anyone know much about the Kogi's in Columbia, There was a BBC documentary made in 1990 about them, apparatly they sought after this particular journalist; to give the world a message, They believe the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta mountain is the heart of the world, and that the "Younger Brother" us, are destroying the earth by digging out the heart of the planet, by sucking out oil, spoiling its natural water, and mining its minerals. Website here:
The Kogi Indians of South America, have a similar historical scenario in their creation story, told as part of theBBC film made by Alan Ereira and called Message from the Heart of the World: the Elder Brother's Warning. According to the Kogi, the Great Mother Aluna is the primeval waters and the source of all creation. Even before creating worlds, she lived through all possibilities for all worlds and all times through great mental anguish. For this she is known as Memory and Possibility. The eight worlds she created previous to this one were not peopled, but in this ninth world she put humans, including Elder and Younger Brothers. From the beginning, Younger Brother caused so much trouble that eventually he was given knowledge of technology and sent far, far away across the waters. Five hundred years ago, the Kogi say, he found his way back across the waters and he has been causing trouble ever since. If he does not listen to the Kogi, who see themselves as Elder Brother, and stop destroying the Mother, stop digging out her heart with his mining and cutting up her liver with his deforestation, he will bring this world to an end.
From the Hopi and Kogi perspectives, we see that present human existence is dominated by the "white brother" or "younger brother" of their ancient stories. He is industrial man as we have seen him in earlier chapters, creating a technological society founded on a mechanical worldview and scientific discovery. We have seen that his technological way of life, for all its benefits, has brought us to the brink of disaster. In this chapter we will see that it stands in sharp contrast to many indigenous and traditional peoples' worldviews, value systems and lifestyles which are only now beginning to be recognized as valid in their own right and possibly critical for our very survival as a species.
White people ARE inferior to many indigenous tribes, it has been drilled into us since childhood that we are superior, this is the only way to justify the atrocities we have committed, and still are commiting.
I don't know why it is so hard for us to see, I mean look at what the drooling idiot and his lackeys are now doing to the Kogi, exterminating them:
Open Letter to the President of the United States George W. Bush
COLOMBIA
About fumigations in the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta
I work for a French NGO , "Tchendukua" whose goal is to recuperate land
for the Kogi Indians living in the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta in
Colombia.
In 2000 we bought, La Luna, a land, with access to the sea, It was the
first time since the Spanish invasion, the Kogis had a low land. They
where so happy, full of hope.
At the end of June 2004, La Luna became an " Indigenous Reserve" , a
protected area...
The Sierra is also one of the UNESCO's "Biosphere Reserves".
Fifteen days later, on July 17th, a plane from Dyncorp passed only once
to fumigate La Luna. That was enough to provoke a complete disaster.
Some days ago, I saw the rushes of a second movie we have made on the
Kogis.
Now, La Luna is like some places in Asia after the tsunami... I could
not believe it.
The Kogis took five years to regenerate the soil, now they will have to
wait, at least, five more years to replant. Everything is contaminated
and the streams are dry because there are no more trees to retain water.
What are they going to eat? What are they going to drink? Where to go?
Tchendukua's director in Santa Marta organized some time ago with the
Kogis and the farmers around, the eradication of coca by hand. There was
no coca in La Luna.
It is impossible that your sophisticated planes are unable to detect
Indians villages.
In the movie there is a scene with a Kogi shaman sitting in front of his
house, in the middle of the devastation. He is crying.
This image is unbearable and it will remain in my memory forever.
Yes, Mr. Bush, an image can turn people really angry.
Remember the picture of Nick Ut showing a little girl naked, burned by
Napalm, running on a road in Vietnam. This image had an incredible
impact in America.
Condolezza Rice wants Colombia to change its laws and spray in National
Parks such as La Macarena, El Catatumbo, La Sierra Nevada de Santa
Marta, etc...
To achieve that dirty job, a new aerial base for fumigation planes will
be build, $125 million.
The fumigation of La Luna on July 17th 2004 was completely illegal.
In the Sierra, Kogis, Arsarios-Wiwas, Kankuamos and Arhuacos are
starting to have health problems , especially children (see notes-page
14).
In Vietnam, after 45 years, Agent Orange is still active.
The new poisoned cocktail is called Agent Green. If you take the
ingredients one by one, it doesn't seem so dangerous. If you mix them,
highly concentrated, it is a terrible weapon. The mixture is made with
Monsanto Round Up Ultra, Cosmoflux 411F (illegal in the US), POEA and
the fungus fusarium oxysporum EN-4.
Dr David Sands, an American scientist who made some researches on EN-4
admits
( interview with the BBC-2000) that you can call it a Green Warfare or a
Biological Warfare.
When you had a few cases of Anthrax in your country it was immediately
called a terrorist biological attack...
The Dutch government donated 500.000 euros for the eradication of coca
by hand in the Amazonas and the Sierra. A part of this donation is
dedicated for substitution cultures and social development.
The Netherlands asked the parks director, Julia Miranda, to confirm
whether the decision to fumigate on the protected aeras was definitive,
because if it were so, "it could be motive to request the suspension of
activities financed by his Embassy".
Mr. Bush, you and your government, you will be responsible for the
genocide or ethnocide (see notes-page 10)) of the most ancient and
sophisticated precolombian cultures in Colombia.
The proper name for this worthless so-called drugwar is < BIOLOGICAL and
CHEMICAL WARFARE <.
Before writing this, I've asked to a Dr in Molecular Biology if I could
use those words, the answer was yes.
Mr. Bush, will you dare to say that you are doing this "In the Name of
God"?
Where are the courageous American scientists who helped to stop the
fumigations with Agent Orange in Vietnam in 1971?
The fact that this sort of thing goes on, and we don't even know about it, is disgusting, and it proves my point. _________________ Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.
-Edward Abbey
Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:22 am Post subject: Re: Would the Native Americans have screwed up as royally?
cheRand wrote:
If there had not been a cultural clash with Eurocentric stockpiling, tribes would not have been overrun and displaced, and the culture, which still works so well at managing within its reproductive limits, would be intact (well, evolved) and living within their means.
I don't think you can say that with any certainty. What would have stopped a later and more successful mesoamerican empire from displacing and wiping out the Cherokee? The reproductive limits that worked so well were known as disease and starvation. Which is why the Mayans for instance ate and reproduced themselves into overshoot once they perfected agriculture.
And BO, I really can't believe you are saying that Europeans are somehow fundamentally inferior. GEEZ I thought we covered that.
Whats the difference between small indigenous american tribes and early european tribes at the same period of technological development? The early european tribes also followed various forms of animism/paganism with a deep respect for the earth and their place in it..
-G _________________ All right, you primitive screw-heads, listen up!
Joined: Dec 27, 2004 Posts: 11857 Location: zombie horde wonderland
Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2006 11:53 am Post subject: Re: Would the Native Americans have screwed up as royally?
gnm wrote:
The reproductive limits that worked so well were known as disease and starvation.
Well, no, actually. Tribal peoples tend to use population control methods, such as abortion and infanticide, and sexual taboos. Starvation to death is not common in HG cultures.
Quote:
Which is why the Mayans for instance ate and reproduced themselves into overshoot once they perfected agriculture.
Famine is more common in agriculture than HG, and agriculture is more vulnerable to hard times. It promotes a population which outstrips its resources, which HG doesn't do.
Quote:
Whats the difference between small indigenous american tribes and early european tribes at the same period of technological development? The early european tribes also followed various forms of animism/paganism with a deep respect for the earth and their place in it..
No difference. Prior to conquest by the Romans, the indigenous people of Europe were tribal, HG or small scale agriculture/horticulture. They behaved like any other tribes. _________________ "...powerdown so soft and fluffy you'll think you're living in a pillow..." - jboogy
Joined: Sep 02, 2005 Posts: 113 Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2006 1:21 pm Post subject: Re: Would the Native Americans have screwed up as royally?
gnm wrote:
Quote:
And BO, I really can't believe you are saying that Europeans are somehow fundamentally inferior. GEEZ I thought we covered that.
Hey, I just disagree, to me, superior races live in harmony with their enviroment, control their populations, and don't destroy others in order to expand a complex system. I am not saying that ALL people of European descent are inferior, nor am I saying that these actions are uniquely European. Just taken as a whole, white European societies have reaped the most destruction upon the earth and humanity, than any other. If capitalism, globalism, empire, or whatever you want to call it, is a race to the bottom, than the white man wins.
For example,regarding the Kogi:
Quote:
Much like other ancient tribal civilizations, that still exist on the planet, they believe themselves to be the custodians of the planet Earth here to keep things in balance. They achieve this through meditation wherein they communicate with all living things on the planet - humans, animals, plants, rock, etc.
They live in Aluna, an inner world of thought and potential. From Aluna they astral travel or remote view to places both on and off the physical planet.
Their sacred lands are perceived as a metaphysical symbol of cosmic forces within the whole world - an oracle of the natural balance and health of the planet. ...They survived as a culture because the Kogi focus all their energy on the life of the mind as opposed to the life of a body or an individual.
To focus all of ones energy on the life of the mind, IMO, is superior, than say, focusing all of ones energy on accumulating wealth, which, IMO, is an inferior act.
Furthermore, ancient cultures were rewarded for their superiority as evidenced by John Zerzan in Future Primitive:
Quote:
The Andaman Islanders, west of Thailand, have no leaders, no idea of symbolic representation, and no domesticated animals. There is also an absence of aggression, violence, and disease; wounds heal surprisingly quickly, and their sight and hearing are particularly acute. They are said to have declined since European intrusion in the mid-19th century, but exhibit other such remarkable physical traits as a natural immunity to malaria, skin with sufficient elasticity to rule out post-childbirth stretch marks and the wrinkling we associate with ageing, and an `unbelievable' strength of teeth: Cipriani reported seeing children of 10 to 15 years crush nails with them. He also testified to the Andamese practice of collecting honey with no protective clothing at all; "yet they are never stung, and watching them one felt in the presence of some age-old mystery, lost by the civilized world."
DeVries has cited a wide range of contrasts by which the superior health of gatherer-hunters can be established, including an absence of degenerative diseases and mental disabilities, and childbirth without difficulty or pain. He also points out that this begins to erode from the moment of contact with civilization.
Relatedly, there is a great deal of evidence not only for physical and emotional vigor among primitives but also concerning their heightened sensory abilities. Darwin described people at the southernmost tip of South America who went about almost naked in frigid conditions, while Peasley observed Aborigines who were renowned for their ability to live through bitterly cold desert nights "without any form of clothing." Levi-Strauss was astounded to learn of a particular [South American] tribe which was able to "see the planet Venus in full daylight," a feat comparable to that of the North African Dogon who consider Sirius B the most important star; somehow aware, without instruments, of a star that can only be found with the most powerful of telescopes. In this vein, Boyden recounted the Bushman ability to see four of the moons of Jupiter with the naked eye.
I can't do any of those things, and will probably never be able to, because I, as a white person, am inferior to the ancient cultures where this was, and is prevalent. This inferiority may have been bred into us, as these abilities may have been bred out of us. We may even be able to reverse this process, but the fact remains, currently, we are inferior.
Another example of our inferiority is Monsanto's Terminator technology, which is designed to genetically switch off a plant's ability to germinate a second time.
Quote:
"A half-century after the Bengal famine [where, during British colonial rule, most of the food grown was exported for trade and for UK, instead of feeding hungry local people], a new and clever system has been put in place which is once again making the theft of the harvest a right and the keeping of harvest a crime. Hidden behind complex free-trade treaties are innovative ways to steal nature's harvest, the harvest of the seed, and the harvest of nutrition."
-- Vandana Shiva, Stolen Harvest (South End Press, 2000), p.6
In a world already facing global meltdown, especially in its food supply, this is just another example of the murderous, destructive nature of WHITE people. I mean, what kind of a mind comes up with something like this?
While some people, like many of us here, protest and raise awareness of these issues, the vast majority just go along with it. It is the same with Peak Oil, we, as a society, will do nothing, until it is too late. _________________ Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.
-Edward Abbey
Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2006 3:24 pm Post subject: Re: Would the Native Americans have screwed up as royally?
You are right Ludi. I was being overdramatic. Starvation is of course much more common in agricultural societies. Disease and injury I think gets all however. And you are correct about the other methods of population control as well.
Well I think this is the last I'm going to post on this thread since I am apparently talking to a wall as far as the lets all hate ourselves if we look "white" crowd goes. But I'll leave with this.
BO, while you're busy "race" bashing perhps you could define just what strange little subjective definition you use for "race" - Like do I have to "look" white or is there some sort of percentage? Like if I'm 1/8 "red", 1/8 "yellow", 1/4 "black" and the rest "white" but I "look white" then what am I? And so if by your definition I "look white" then I need to go an flog myself and generally live my life in shame because some distant unrelated ancestor who "looked white" did nasty things people who were slightly more tan or somesuch? Does that about cover it?
over and out..
-G _________________ All right, you primitive screw-heads, listen up!
Joined: Dec 27, 2004 Posts: 11857 Location: zombie horde wonderland
Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2006 3:36 pm Post subject: Re: Would the Native Americans have screwed up as royally?
Thanks, gnm. I wish you weren't leaving this thread. I think some others are having trouble seeing the difference between "race" and "culture." They should probably be criticising our culture rather than our race. I'm not big on the idea of race, myself, I prefer to think of regional differences, differences that developed over a long time in reaction to the environment. Which doesn't have a whole lot to do with where we find ourselves today with our culture. Mesopotamians probably wouldn't look especially "white" to most folks, but they started this particular mess we find ourselves in as a culture.
Regarding disease - it's likely nomadic and semi-nomadic peoples were slightly less prone to it than civilized peoples, because disease tends to build up in a crowded, settled population. Cities have typically been some of the least healthy places for people. Also, the civilized diet is less healthy than the HG diet, in general. Some peoples, such as the aforementioned Cherokee, had a vast knowledge of medicinal herbs. Most of our knowledge of North American medicinal herbs comes from the Cherokee, who used several hundred kinds (this with no written herbals, of course). _________________ "...powerdown so soft and fluffy you'll think you're living in a pillow..." - jboogy
Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2006 4:12 pm Post subject: Re: Would the Native Americans have screwed up as royally?
Ludi you sucked me back in but only to agree with you on your last post. It really is a cultural problem (possibly endemic to any sufficently complex culture). Any time people are so insulated from close social bonds, food production, crafts, etc they turn to the myopic search for entertainment, stuff, conquest etc... I also agree that "race" is merely a subjective interpretation of regional variations. Some people can't stand that because then they wouldn't be "special" or " oppressed" but just people. And some can't stand it because they are supremicists of some sort or the other and feel some overriding need to prove that whatever group they are in is obviously the most advanced/smartest/etc etc etc...
Oh yeah true about the disease thing too... HG generally have a more varied diet and thus better nutrition. Also less crowding (no cities etc) so fewer plagues/hygiene related problems.
-G _________________ All right, you primitive screw-heads, listen up!
Joined: May 14, 2005 Posts: 2125 Location: Along the banks of the muddy Mississippi
Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2006 4:48 pm Post subject: Re: Would the Native Americans have screwed up as royally?
gnm wrote:
Oh yeah true about the disease thing too... HG generally have a more varied diet and thus better nutrition. Also less crowding (no cities etc) so fewer plagues/hygiene related problems.
Also a great many particularly virulent diseases came about from raising animals for food (smallpox, VD, influenza,rabies, Mad Cow, etc).
By the way, while I generally agree in principle with BO's assertions, as a white guy with normally high self esteem, I would like to also go on record that being white makes me neither evil nor inferior.
It is the dominant culture of exploitation and destruction that is "evil". Many different races make up that culture ... some white, some black, some yellow, some brown, some red. _________________ “Humankind has not woven the web of life. We are but one thread within it. Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves.” (Ted Perry)
Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 2:32 pm Post subject: Re: Native Americans & Early California: A Killing Field
true. However the closer to the sw and mexico the more exploitative the humans were. The smaller bodies have higher breeding rates than larger bodied species in nature. The piute indians however did not fit into your assumptions on this one. My pal lives in their summer hunting grounds. they had summer and winter hunting grounds and kept them sustaianble and managed them for thousands of years. they drove out the usurpers and the exploiters and overbreeders. tha comanches the same. the ones that sustaianed an ecological paradigm were the ones who brutally smashed the overextenders.
also the NW tribes, plains tribes and ne tribes were generally depended on the land so destroying it meant killing themselves. this is obviously not the case they were around a long time. However u are right in saying that they did exloit there resources. In those days it always came back the next season.
but I agree to say that all the tribes were sustainable is fantasy. as I said the sw, southern and mexican tribes continually overshot and migrated. utah has a brutal history. been to chaco canyon? The anazazi? they are finding that there was brutal canabalizing mass exodus north from the mexico and sw invading the sustaianble tribes to the north. also check out chacos petroglyphs. full of wild turkeys, goats, deer, etc.. nothing is there now. the drought and there overuse has rendered that area infertile. they consumed the resources and moved north. california is included in this sw paradigm. the way of the plains indian was to clear out an area of game move to the winter grounds and then come back to that spot the next season when the game reproduced. It was a ecological pradigm in that instance as well. tom brown has some good books.
Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 2:55 pm Post subject: Re: Native Americans & Early California: A Killing Field
and On a nutritional anthropology note (family Nut. Anthro prof at UO) the predominately corn based nutrition of the southern and sw and mexico popualtions is not conducive to full brain development. they basically cleaned out the wild proteins, were more "civilization" and ended up on a corn and squash diet. need those large spectrum proteins. the nw, ne and plains tribes brains were much more advanced. those buffalo and salmon were brain food. what a loss on that one. this can be seen in the iroquois constitution and cheif seattle speeches. and crazy horse and red cloud. and the sitting bull. advanced brains. those tribes did not overbreed. overbreeding destroys the protein and mineral base of the land then the brain degrades.
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
