Ishi, the last of the American stone-age Indians (the wild, winter, homestead)

[ChrisC]

Originally Posted by Wilson513

Most Indians died from starvation or at the hands of other Indians. They were poor providers and practiced no conservation of any kind. All over the west are large mammal carcasses with one leg missing. There is a reason that they were called savages. They engaged in cannibalism at the same time as Europeans were writing the Constitution. The modern day fantasy of successful, orderly Indian life is just that. A fantasy.

This seems a little illogical to me. How do you explain that these people who had no idea how to survive survived for tens of thousands of years on this continent without any help from the mighty Europeans? How do you explain the huge empires in Central and South America? Empires are not administered by starving, disease-ridden, walking corpses.

The earliest colonizers from England wouldn't have survived without the help of the natives. That comes from their own diaries. So who was it that couldn't handle it? Until the colonizers were established, they were the ones who were starving.

There has to be a loser when civilizations clash. There is no need to attempt a whitewash by saying, "they wouldn't have survived anyway." Fact is, they would have survived just fine, the same way they had been doing for tens of thousands of years. It might not be surviving in the manner that you approve of, but they would have survived. As it turned out, they didn't. We won. Simple. Let's just call it as it is. No excuses needed.

Originally Posted by Wilson513

All over the west are large mammal carcasses with one leg missing.

Do you really want to go there? Really? I've seen early photos of piles of buffalo carcasses and skeletons as tall as small mountains... with nothing missing. Guess who did that?


It's really a shame that we're so quick to create categorical, binary demons. It's the tired old "all those folks wear black hats and we wear the white hats" thing. That's just as bad as the other side of the isle who declares, "we wear black hats, damn us, and they all wear white hats." One attitude is the sign of a genocidal civilization, the other of a suicidal civilization. Truth is, there is good and bad in all.

[Wilson513]

Originally Posted by ChrisC

This seems a little illogical to me. How do you explain that these people who had no idea how to survive survived for tens of thousands of years on this continent without any help from the mighty Europeans? How do you explain the huge empires in Central and South America? Empires are not administered by starving, disease-ridden, walking corpses.

The earliest colonizers from England wouldn't have survived without the help of the natives. That comes from their own diaries. So who was it that couldn't handle it? Until the colonizers were established, they were the ones who were starving.

Nonsense. 16th century colonists came from all over Europe where farming, hunting and husbandry was not only universal, it was universally successful. The savages they encountered here may have known which direction the river was or what local berries would kill you if you ate them, but they had utterly failed to prosper in the most lush, natural resource rich environment in the world. They were migrant bands of hunters and gatherers equivalent to Europe's society of 5000 years earlier and they had not progressed much since their entry onto the continent. The romantic notion that the Colonists were like a stumbling band of stranded tourists whose bus broke down unfortuitously and left them ill prepared for the wilds they encountered is politically correct pablum for grade school children. The Colonial children had more knowledge of farming and husbandry than the smartest Indian on the continent when they arrived.

As for starvation of Colonists in the early days, a lot of people starved in 1600. And, starting over after a 3 month journey with not much fresh food would put one at a slight disadvantage. I'd venture that a lot more Indians starved every year than Colonists. People starved in downtown Dublin in 1600. So what.

[Woof]

Originally Posted by SCGranny

I think that people have a tendency to romanticize things with which they have never had any contact. When we were growing up, the Westerns were all about the hero cowboys who saved the women from the vicious scalping Indians. As the genre improved, we saw people like John Wayne who spoke for and befriended the Indians, even respected their "honored enemies". Both interpretations were just that - interpretations. The current attitude that "all Indians were innocent, good, and wonderful people whom the invaders corrupted" is just as incorrect as the old attitude that all Indians were mean, vicious, cruel, and unforgiving enemies. When we try to put people of the past, with all of their different lifestyles and challenges for survival, into our own and current context, we not only are being simplistic but actually do harm to the truth. The truth is far more complicated and intricate, with many more sides, than the fantasies.

Originally Posted by ChrisC

This seems a little illogical to me. How do you explain that these people who had no idea how to survive survived for tens of thousands of years on this continent without any help from the mighty Europeans? How do you explain the huge empires in Central and South America? Empires are not administered by starving, disease-ridden, walking corpses.

The earliest colonizers from England wouldn't have survived without the help of the natives. That comes from their own diaries. So who was it that couldn't handle it? Until the colonizers were established, they were the ones who were starving.

There has to be a loser when civilizations clash. There is no need to attempt a whitewash by saying, "they wouldn't have survived anyway." Fact is, they would have survived just fine, the same way they had been doing for tens of thousands of years. It might not be surviving in the manner that you approve of, but they would have survived. As it turned out, they didn't. We won. Simple. Let's just call it as it is. No excuses needed.

They were surviving very well in the Northeast until their civilizations mostly died (up to 90%), even entire villages wiped out entirely, by the diseases brought by the earliest European explorers. The Europeans lived in a densely populated area that was prone to many epidemics - they carried some nasty diseases, especially smallpox, that they were mainly immune to. Indians didn't live closely enough to get as many plagues and thus develop the killer immune systems of Europeans.

However by the written accounts of early settlers, the Natives bore all the hallmarks of superior nutrition and health before the epidemics felled them. They were taller, more attractive, had great endurance, clear skin, etc. This was in the Northeast, not all through the current US - the Southwest Natives did starve a fair amount and were short and unhealthy, due to a high corn/low-protein diet.

Do you really want to go there? Really? I've seen early photos of piles of buffalo carcasses and skeletons as tall as small mountains... with nothing missing. Guess who did that?

I guess this refers to massacres by whites, but earlier on archaeological evidence shows that the natives in the wide open, hilly areas of the West used to stampede herds off cliffs, then feast until the carcasses rotted, leaving most of the animals untouched with not evidence of attempts at meat preservation. They definitely weren't interested in living lightly on the land! Of course that wasn't done in the more highly civilized nations of the Northeast, but even they were known to pollute the air with massive brush fires every autumn to fertilize the soil, kill off biting insects for the next year, and to clear out the undergrowth so enemies couldn't sneak up on them. More than one captain's diary noted the smoke haze extending far out into the ocean.

Originally Posted by Wilson513

Nonsense. 16th century colonists came from all over Europe where farming, hunting and husbandry was not only universal, it was universally successful.

..... People starved in downtown Dublin in 1600. So what.

Contradictory statements - Europeans starved every bit as much as Injuns, and as noted had inferior nutrition on average (probably from a high-grain diet, while Indians subsisted largely on meat, seafood, and a variety of wild plants in addition to a small amount of corn). You'd think that famine and plagues would have kept their numbers down but apparently that was offset by their enthusiastic breeding ..... plus in between the famines, they had an overabundance of calories (not necessarily other nutrients) from fat and grain foods which led to increased fertility.

[ChrisC]

Originally Posted by Wilson513

Nonsense. 16th century colonists came from all over Europe where farming, hunting and husbandry was not only universal, it was universally successful. The savages they encountered here may have known which direction the river was or what local berries would kill you if you ate them, but they had utterly failed to prosper in the most lush, natural resource rich environment in the world. They were migrant bands of hunters and gatherers equivalent to Europe's society of 5000 years earlier and they had not progressed much since their entry onto the continent. The romantic notion that the Colonists were like a stumbling band of stranded tourists whose bus broke down unfortuitously and left them ill prepared for the wilds they encountered is politically correct pablum for grade school children. The Colonial children had more knowledge of farming and husbandry than the smartest Indian on the continent when they arrived.

As for starvation of Colonists in the early days, a lot of people starved in 1600. And, starting over after a 3 month journey with not much fresh food would put one at a slight disadvantage. I'd venture that a lot more Indians starved every year than Colonists. People starved in downtown Dublin in 1600. So what.

Not sure where you are getting this history, but you need a more complete picture here. You are taking perhaps 10% of the native American lifestyle and assuming all of them lived this way. They DID have agriculture in parts of North America. In south America the agricultural techniques were, in many cases, superior to European agricultural techniques.

What you are doing here would be very similar to comparing all European culture to the Vikings or the Visigoths or the Vandals. You are taking a small percentage and generalizing it to the whole. Like saying that South Central LA is representative of "American Culture." The fact that there were savage Native Americans does not imply that all Native americans were savages. use some logic here. There are/were savages in all civilizations and areas of the world. We have more than enough of them in our culture.

[Wilson513]

Originally Posted by ChrisC

Not sure where you are getting this history, but you need a more complete picture here. You are taking perhaps 10% of the native American lifestyle and assuming all of them lived this way. They DID have agriculture in parts of North America. In south America the agricultural techniques were, in many cases, superior to European agricultural techniques.

What you are doing here would be very similar to comparing all European culture to the Vikings or the Visigoths or the Vandals. You are taking a small percentage and generalizing it to the whole. Like saying that South Central LA is representative of "American Culture." The fact that there were savage Native Americans does not imply that all Native americans were savages. use some logic here. There are/were savages in all civilizations and areas of the world. We have more than enough of them in our culture.

Well, OK, name a few east coast villages and towns that were founded and populated by native americans before the Colonists came. Where were their farms located? We are talking about east coast of North America circa 1600, right? So, please don't confuse this discussion about what was going on in Peru.

Just name some stable native american communities that show that the Indians who the Colonists encountered had an agrarian or partly agrarian society. I said they were hunters and gatherers and you want to believe the grade school version that they showed the Colonists how to grow crops. Hahahaha. I don't think so. And, they didn't teach them chemistry or philosophy. They were a bunch of barely communicative savages that killed most anything that moved and then ate it, including other natives.

[Bulldogdad]

Originally Posted by alexxiz

That's how it feels to immigrate here.

Completely different situation and circumstances. Feelings of isolation could be the same however immigration is a choice. Ishi's people were wiped out on their ancestral lands. Adapt, conquer or die. That is the usual way of Nature.

[Bulldogdad]

Originally Posted by Wilson513

Well, OK, name a few east coast villages and towns that were founded and populated by native americans before the Colonists came. Where were their farms located? We are talking about east coast of North America circa 1600, right? So, please don't confuse this discussion about what was going on in Peru.

Just name some stable native american communities that show that the Indians who the Colonists encountered had an agrarian or partly agrarian society. I said they were hunters and gatherers and you want to believe the grade school version that they showed the Colonists how to grow crops. Hahahaha. I don't think so. And, they didn't teach them chemistry or philosophy. They were a bunch of barely communicative savages that killed most anything that moved and then ate it, including other natives.

You are in desperate need of some really good reading material regarding the subject about which you write.

[Wilson513]

Originally Posted by Bulldogdad

You are in desperate need of some really good reading material regarding the subject about which you write.

Hahaha! Well, I minored in American History in college, but, it was the 1970's and I can't really even remember the buildings much less the course work, so if you have a suggestion, let me know. I particularly like accounts of cannibalism between warring indian tribes of the midwest. I remember reading a first person account of an Iroquois band that killed the men young enough to fight, blinded the elders, raped the squaws and took the children to eat on the trip home.

[arctichomesteader]

Originally Posted by Wilson513

Nonsense. 16th century colonists came from all over Europe where farming, hunting and husbandry was not only universal, it was universally successful. The savages they encountered here may have known which direction the river was or what local berries would kill you if you ate them, but they had utterly failed to prosper in the most lush, natural resource rich environment in the world. They were migrant bands of hunters and gatherers equivalent to Europe's society of 5000 years earlier and they had not progressed much since their entry onto the continent. The romantic notion that the Colonists were like a stumbling band of stranded tourists whose bus broke down unfortuitously and left them ill prepared for the wilds they encountered is politically correct pablum for grade school children. The Colonial children had more knowledge of farming and husbandry than the smartest Indian on the continent when they arrived.

As for starvation of Colonists in the early days, a lot of people starved in 1600. And, starting over after a 3 month journey with not much fresh food would put one at a slight disadvantage. I'd venture that a lot more Indians starved every year than Colonists. People starved in downtown Dublin in 1600. So what.

And Americans and Europeans have polluted the land, wiped out entire species and are living a lifestyle entirely dependant upon a non-renewable resource. This modern civilization won't last a fraction as long as the Natives did.

And you know nothing about the history of early New England and Virginia either. There were years most of the colonists died and had to be replaced. They were utterly ill prepared for the climate here. They also planned so poorly they arrived shortly before Winter in some cases.

[Woof]

Originally Posted by Wilson513

Hahaha! Well, I minored in American History in college, but, it was the 1970's and I can't really even remember the buildings much less the course work, so if you have a suggestion, let me know. I particularly like accounts of cannibalism between warring indian tribes of the midwest. I remember reading a first person account of an Iroquois band that killed the men young enough to fight, blinded the elders, raped the squaws and took the children to eat on the trip home.

Uh huh ..... you do know that the Iroquois had a fairly large civilization of stable villages and agriculture, don't you? You do know that the Europeans invaded their land after they had been almost wiped out by European diseases, don't you? You do know that the Europeans used tactics every bit as vile, as has been done up to the present time?

That crap about eating (or raping) children is standard propaganda for any nation at war. Ever read the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, with Jews eating Christian infants for Passover? How about the claims more recently that the mullahs in Afghanistan regularly raped little 5 yo kids to the point where their rectums were permanently damaged, then moved on to the next?

You ought to actually study some history instead of just claiming to have done it.

Here's a good start: Native Intelligence | History & Archaeology | Smithsonian Magazine