Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When the Conquistadores first floated down the Amazon they saw villages on both sides of the river for long stretches. When they returned a few decades later the river side were mostly empty. There's a chapter about this in 1491 I believe.
That was in 1491 indeed. The other part of that was that the Native Americans in that area had built up the land so it wasn't continually flooded.
Hmm, the only ones I know of close to insinuating that the pre-1492 Aboriginals were angelic, virginal creatures are those into the so-called "spiritualists" (though those cats seem more interested in getting high ), perhaps the OP is confusing mystical, proselyting literature with historical, academic publications.
You're missing the point. Regardless of how the native Americans lived, the European colonists essentially were a hostile invading force. Is that ever a good thing?
Good thing, bad thing? It's history...and it's the way of the world, in those times especially. Judging people outside of the context of their times is futile..and usually does nothing but show what axe the people doing the judging have to grind.
I've seldom found, in my reading and studying, a narrative that supports peaceful co-existence and the supplanting of one culture by another without violence, and forced subjugation.
I've never really supported making too many ethical judgements about historical events. When industrialized meets agrarian...agrarian loses. Is this right? Is this wrong? I believe that this is just the dynamic that takes place..for a lot of reasons. Placing some sort of blame..and somehow passing that blame down the years, seems foolish, to me.
Good thing, bad thing? It's history...and it's the way of the world, in those times especially. Judging people outside of the context of their times is futile..and usually does nothing but show what axe the people doing the judging have to grind.
I've seldom found, in my reading and studying, a narrative that supports peaceful co-existence and the supplanting of one culture by another without violence, and forced subjugation.
I've never really supported making too many ethical judgements about historical events. When industrialized meets agrarian...agrarian loses. Is this right? Is this wrong? I believe that this is just the dynamic that takes place..for a lot of reasons. Placing some sort of blame..and somehow passing that blame down the years, seems foolish, to me.
First of all, industrialized countries didn't 'meet' agrarian countries, they invaded and exploited them. It may be the 'way of the world', but that doesn't mean we can't call it for what it is. You're correct that this took place for a lot of reasons, but the majority of those reasons were based on racism and greed. Most people don't consider those reasons as being good, unless of course you're a conservative who like Ivan Boesky, thinks that "You can be greedy and still feel good about yourself”.
But I agree about your last point, passing blame or shame down the over the years for the sins of our forefathers is as foolish as taking pride in their accomplishments...
First of all, industrialized countries didn't 'meet' agrarian countries, they invaded and exploited them. It may be the 'way of the world', but that doesn't mean we can't call it for what it is. You're correct that this took place for a lot of reasons, but the majority of those reasons were based on racism and greed.
So when a large chunk of the human race left the Great Rift Valley of Africa that was motivated by racism (against Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon Man) and greed? Until the concept of the nation-state came into being it was simply movement. And the more advanced people generally, though not always, won. Ask the Romans how they fared against the Barbarians, for example. People and for that matter animal species move opportunistically.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sd-bound
Most people don't consider those reasons as being good, unless of course you're a conservative who like Ivan Boesky, thinks that "You can be greedy and still feel good about yourself”.
Most people don't think about the reasons that, say, their ancestors moved from Central Europe or Czarist Russia to the United States except in the rare occasion that the issue comes up. Or on City-data.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sd-bound
But I agree about your last point, passing blame or shame down the over the years for the sins of our forefathers is as foolish as taking pride in their accomplishments...
I see no reason to feel blame or shame...for the sins of our forefathers." I see no reason not to take pride in the accomplishments of the group of whom I happen to be a member, the Jewish people.
First of all, industrialized countries didn't 'meet' agrarian countries, they invaded and exploited them. It may be the 'way of the world', but that doesn't mean we can't call it for what it is. You're correct that this took place for a lot of reasons, but the majority of those reasons were based on racism and greed. Most people don't consider those reasons as being good, unless of course you're a conservative who like Ivan Boesky, thinks that "You can be greedy and still feel good about yourself”.
But I agree about your last point, passing blame or shame down the over the years for the sins of our forefathers is as foolish as taking pride in their accomplishments...
Hmmm..some pretty semantically loaded terms you're using. Invaded..exploited---sure, that's how it works. You are ascribing your own motives to what is, essentially, historical movement and imperative.
Racism? No, racism is how a culture demonizes another...if usually comes well after the meeting of two cultures and is not inevitable.
Greed?
Again, that's your take...even a cursory reading of history will show you that the rising and falling of cultures is cyclical and inevitable. In fact, I doubt that the personal motives of the people involved even matter all that much. Larger picture issues such as climate, food supply and natural disaster played their roles as well. Population pressure impelled a lot of expansion.
Once again, I believe that ascribing ethical judgements to people 100's, if not 1,000's, of years in the past, speaks more to present day motives than anything else.
Maybe it stems from the Noble Savage myth. An Indian chief in America might not live as well as a beggar in London but he had qualities that the beggar didn't.
He despised death, took from nature what he needed, lived without regard to other men. Those qualities were surrendered for civilization, which imposed a cost on civilized man's nature that diminished him. In comparison to civilized man the Indian chief had a transcendent nobility, which came to be incorporated and idealized in Romantic thought and literature.
Maybe it's idealization today is an echo of the Romantics' vision of old.
Hmmm..some pretty semantically loaded terms you're using. Invaded..exploited---sure, that's how it works. You are ascribing your own motives to what is, essentially, historical movement and imperative.
You're welcome to paper over what took place by using the word 'met', but I like to use terms that more actually describe the events that took place. And imperative for who exactly, our native Americans?!?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilEyeFleegle
Racism? No, racism is how a culture demonizes another...if usually comes well after the meeting of two cultures and is not inevitable.
No one's claiming that the exploitation of a country by another country, is or was inevitable. But if you're seriously trying to claim that racism and exploitation wasn't a major factor in our westward expansion or the colonization of Africa and Asia by Europeans, you need to hit your history books again.
The roots of European racism lie in the slave trade, colonialism – and Edward Long
Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilEyeFleegle
Greed?
Again, that's your take...even a cursory reading of history will show you that the rising and falling of cultures is cyclical and inevitable. In fact, I doubt that the personal motives of the people involved even matter all that much. Larger picture issues such as climate, food supply and natural disaster played their roles as well. Population pressure impelled a lot of expansion.
Using expansion as an excuse to invade and exploit neighboring countries and cultures is as old as dirt and is still used today. Of course the personal motives of the people involved matters, you don't think that the personal motives of Hitler had anything to do with his invasions of his neighbors?!? You don't think that the personal motives of Putin has anything to do with Russia's takeover of Ukraine?!?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilEyeFleegle
Once again, I believe that ascribing ethical judgements to people 100's, if not 1,000's, of years in the past, speaks more to present day motives than anything else.
On this we agree somewhat, I believe that ignoring the racism and exploitation that motivated our westward expansion speaks more to present day motives than anything else too. Conservatives always downplay the role that racism and greed has had on our history, let alone in our time...
The idea of a pre-contact utopia certainly exist, but it is by no means dominant. It hardly is the only idea.
I live in Minnesota. The pre-settlement history of the Native Americans here is one of continual war between the Chippewa and the Dakota. And this history is everywhere here, in our schools and our historic landmarks.
Senicide? There's this idea that it was common among the Inuit. It never was. It did happen, yes, but not with the ubiquitous frequency that has crept into modern assumption. There was also senicide - also rare - in the classical world. But I don't recall that being covered in any history classes. Where's your annoyance over that? Note: I'm not annoyed by it as it seems to have been sufficiently rare that it hardly needed to be a part of high school curriculum, but the same is true of the practice among Native Americans.
Ever read War Before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage, by Lawrence Keeley? It was published in 1996 - over 20 years ago. It was warmly received by no less a mainstream publication than the New York Times. It was a finalist for the Booker Prize.
Information about intertribal warfare? It's abundant at American universities.
The massive work Handbook of North American Indians by the Smithsonian Institute (dating back to the 1970s) certainly covers it.
The Encyclopedia Britannica (can you get any more mainstream?) makes mention that 'a period of exceptional conflict occurred in the 14th century'. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Plains-Indian
As for more cultural (less scholarly) attitudes, ever hear of Dances With Wolves? Sure, the U.S. Army treats the Natives Americans brutally. But the film also depicts brutal intertribal warfare. And that's not just some unknown film. It won Best Picture.
As I said, the cartoonish Disney-esque view of pre-contact Native Americans exists. But there's a similar cartoonish Disney-esque view of knights and chivalry in Medieval Europe that is all about courtly manners and jousting and rescuing princesses (and not so much about slaughtering as many of the peasants of your lord's rival lords as possible). Johnny Depp and the various Pirates of the Caribbean films are hardly the reality of piracy. But none of these are massive conspiracies to conceal the truth, but just the way all history is turned by some into fantasy.
Now let's go back to what you wrote: "The narrative is cemented in place: native Americans lived wonderfully until the western powers settled America, took their land, and did terrible things to the natives."
No. It's not. You're raging against a monolithic view that doesn't exist. In fact - as I've demonstrated - there is a far more widespread nuanced view.
We have only the archaelogical record to understand the Americas pre-contact. That is a limited record on which to make the sweeping judgments implied by the OP.
It is also silly to imagine that post-contact & pre-reservation native civilizations were the same as pre-contact civilizations in the Americas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by silibran
You might read the book 1491, by Charles C. Mann.
The fact is whether or not native Americans lived peacefully for centuries before whites came and took their land, whites did indeed do this. And whites did practice what was in effect ethnic cleansing. It was all about Manifest Destiny, at least to many.
The Indians were simply in the way of people who wanted land for themselves. Or who wanted to find gold. Or who wanted to run stagecoaches and railroads and cattle.
I don't know how anyone could sugar coat this. And a major factor in all of this was the spread of disease among them--smallpox, measles and diptheria. Indians did not have any resistance to those European diseases.
Did you know that in colonial times, whites would abandon civilization and go live the Indians? It happened frequently, apparently.
Manifest Destiny and intentional ethnic cleansing came later. What 1491 makes clear is that disease--brought accidentally to the Americas by the Europeans with the livestock that was their food store--destroyed civilizations from the arctic to Patagonia. We have limited evidence as to what life was like here before contact because of that devastation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klassyhk
I'd say because we have no credible narratives of these stories. Even if these stories exist but were written by Caucasian, there is a credibility issue. Mainly because Caucasians have historically disparaged all cultures extremely harshly who were non-White, European-culture based people. This is especially true for those cultures that lived very traditional, in harmony with nature and natural surroundings and were non-technological progressive people: Africans and Indigenous/Native people. If credible stories that were written by Native authors or co-written by Native people existed in which they've stated what you have, people may possibly think differently.
Second reason and this may be eve more relevant. As it stand, Natives were defeated by all types of warfare, lies, deceit, trickery, schemes, theft and genocidal tactics committed against them by Whites. Since Natives are the unquestionably defeated victims in their encounter with Whites any story that shows these victims in less than honorable light in our day and age, won't be accepted by mainstream media and hence not by the public. It's like they've lost basiclly everything (at least 98%) over the past 200 years so what point is there in bringing up their failures about how badly they treated each other when it pales greatly in comparison to how badly White systematic racist structures have treated them.
The peoples of the Americas were not noble savages. They used fire to shape their landscape, attract desirable game, and ward off undesirable species. Like everywhere else humans have touched, the environment was a built one.
Americans were defeated by disease almost 500 years ago. European expeditionary forces mopped up the remains in the ensuing centuries.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klassyhk
Stories have come to light over the past few years that it wasn't just diseases that popped up and killed the Native Americans. There was a strategy in place in which some Whites in power practiced to eliminate the Natives. The Natives were given infected blankets and that along with NO medical care while being dislocated from their homes (being exposed to the elements, fatigue, etc) and relocated by having to WALK hundreds, if not thousands of miles, to some far outpost of barren land that no White person had decided they wanted for themselves yet.
Atrocities were indeed committed in the colonization era. But disease was the Prime Mover.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilEyeFleegle
Good thing, bad thing? It's history...and it's the way of the world, in those times especially. Judging people outside of the context of their times is futile..and usually does nothing but show what axe the people doing the judging have to grind.
I've seldom found, in my reading and studying, a narrative that supports peaceful co-existence and the supplanting of one culture by another without violence, and forced subjugation.
I've never really supported making too many ethical judgements about historical events. When industrialized meets agrarian...agrarian loses. Is this right? Is this wrong? I believe that this is just the dynamic that takes place..for a lot of reasons. Placing some sort of blame..and somehow passing that blame down the years, seems foolish, to me.
Your reading and studying must have ended at WWII. Imperfect though it is, the post-modern era is unprecedented in coexistence and cooperation.
This is an important point of emphasis: industrialized did not meet agrarian. Feudal met civilizations that we are scarcely able to describe because of the limits of the historical record. Feudal brought with it a potent cocktail of diseases unknown to the Americas, and the results were catastrophic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sd-bound
First of all, industrialized countries didn't 'meet' agrarian countries, they invaded and exploited them. It may be the 'way of the world', but that doesn't mean we can't call it for what it is. You're correct that this took place for a lot of reasons, but the majority of those reasons were based on racism and greed. Most people don't consider those reasons as being good, unless of course you're a conservative who like Ivan Boesky, thinks that "You can be greedy and still feel good about yourself”.
But I agree about your last point, passing blame or shame down the over the years for the sins of our forefathers is as foolish as taking pride in their accomplishments...
Again, the Europeans that arrived in the Americas were not industrialized. The destruction came from diseases brought be feudal explorers in the form of their livestock.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilEyeFleegle
Hmmm..some pretty semantically loaded terms you're using. Invaded..exploited---sure, that's how it works. You are ascribing your own motives to what is, essentially, historical movement and imperative.
Racism? No, racism is how a culture demonizes another...if usually comes well after the meeting of two cultures and is not inevitable.
Greed?
Again, that's your take...even a cursory reading of history will show you that the rising and falling of cultures is cyclical and inevitable. In fact, I doubt that the personal motives of the people involved even matter all that much. Larger picture issues such as climate, food supply and natural disaster played their roles as well. Population pressure impelled a lot of expansion.
Once again, I believe that ascribing ethical judgements to people 100's, if not 1,000's, of years in the past, speaks more to present day motives than anything else.
It is quite well documented that the European Age of Exploration was motivated by the desires to establish trade routes, to acquire land, and to "civilize" the world's "barbarians." There was ample racism within that 3rd motivation.
Your milquetoast description of history serves only to sanitize the conduct of the people of a particular continent.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
), perhaps the OP is confusing mystical, proselyting literature with historical, academic publications.
