The Coward of Caledonia?

[DogOnPorch]

There is new evidence that they did not do such things. The Thule for example, are thought to have eliminated a neighboring culture, the Dorset. There are other similar examples. There is also evidence in the NWT of Buffalo jumps with crude fences extending for hundreds of kilometers (learned that in early Canada history last year) possible allowing the killing of thousands of animals. Native peoples did not necessarily live in peace and harmony with nature anymore than any other culture.

Yes...thus my "lol...good one". Around these here parts, the Haida and Nootka were rather feared by the other 'lesser tribes'. The poor ol' Carriers in particular were taken for slaves by these 'peaceful and harmonious' fellow Native Indians.

---------------------------------------

This was the first day of our beginning to take up plants: we had much pleasure in collecting them for the natives offered their assistance and perfectly understood the method of taking them up and pruning them.

---Captain William Bligh

[gullyfourmyle]

First, let me say, good post, gullyfourmyle.

I agree the horse is one of the great strides forward in any culture. However, you have a bit of a logical fallacy in that only Western Culture has advanced past the agrarian level. Any other industrial civilization today is riding the coat-tails of the Western Industrial Revolution rather than evolving independently.

I have to disagree with you, there. Things like refrigeration changed our civilization profoundly. Perhaps you've seen James Burke's various shows/books outlining how one thing leads to another. If not, I'd give it a watch/read.

Rather subjective...don't you think? How long was the average Stone-Age life span? Not very long. As well, Native Indians pretty much had to live in "peace and harmony" (lol...good one) as they didn't have other options...that is, until Western Civilization 'arrived'.

Certainly refrigeration changed how we moderns live. But there was no refrigeration when Europeans began to settle North America. Refrigeration is very recent and not at all vital to survival.

All modern cultures including China's are "riding" on developments that were brought about by Europeans.

China had some things first for sure, but since they isolated themselves, their culture didn't have the impact on human development it should have had. India was sort of in the same boat.

It doesn't matter how long the average life was. What matters is how long life can continue at all. European technological advances are bringing about the end of all things fairly soon.

The native Indians didn't live in peace and harmony. Far from it. They were just as aggressive and bloodthirsty as any other human culture. We are all people. We all are motivated by similar desires within the context of circumstances.

The Aboriginal spirituality and ideology was not something that evolved by divine guidance. It's something that evolved in a technological vacuum. As such, having evolved as it did, it represented the opportunity I mentioned in a previous post. That was the opportunity to learn from each other.

Instead of learning from each other, Europeans set about annihilating Aboriginal cultures wherever they found them. In Canada, the Beothuks of Newfoundland stand as the best example of a race of people who were essentially hunted down and exterminated for no good reason.

The Spaniards did the same in Central and South America to various cultures there including the Aztecs and Incas.

[AngusThermopyle]

Wrongo.

The horse came before the alphabet.

Did I ever say it didn't? You must not have understood what I was saying.

What I said was that no culture has advanced to any great degree without the Alphabet. Those cultures that never developed a written form of speech never made great strides and instead stagnated. It was written language that gave us a real and meaningfull manner in which to pass on or store ideas. Word of mouth is fine to a degree however it is not and never has been a satisfactory method when the concepts become complex.

Many ancient African cultures never knew the horse yet they advanced and reached hights above any before them in those regions. The one thing such cultures invariably had in common was a written form of language.

Why anyone would argue the importance of the Alphabet is quite frankly beyond me as its generally acknowledged that written language is key to the advancement of various civilizations.

So Europeans had horses for approximately five thousand two hundred years before North American Aboriginals. That is one hell of a physical advantage.

Now its my turn to say wrongo.

Horses used to be indigenous to the North American continent. As to why they went extinct in North America, well that is still open to debate however one of the most credible theories is that they were over hunted as a food source. I'll try to dig up the article I was reading as I forget the date of the Horse die off. It certainly was after North America was inhabited however.

Edited September 8, 2008 by AngusThermopyle

[DogOnPorch]

Certainly refrigeration changed how we moderns live. But there was no refrigeration when Europeans began to settle North America. Refrigeration is very recent and not at all vital to survival.

It is very vital to our survival. Along with advances in medicine, communications, engineering, et al. Without refrigeration, for example, our various population sizes wouldn't be measured in tens or hundreds of millions, but rather hundreds or thousands of individuals.

Western Civilization holds both the key to our future as well as the possible seeds of our destruction. This I can accept.

-------------------------------------

I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people.

---Isaac Newton

[AngusThermopyle]

Western Civilization holds both the key to our future as well as the possible seeds of our destruction. This I can accept.

Good point, its one that simply can not be refuted by any rational standard.

[gullyfourmyle]

It is very vital to our survival. Along with advances in medicine, communications, engineering, et al. Without refrigeration, for example, our various population sizes wouldn't be measured in tens or hundreds of millions, but rather hundreds or thousands of individuals.

Western Civilization holds both the key to our future as well as the possible seeds of our destruction. This I can accept.

-------------------------------------

I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people.

---Isaac Newton

If you go back and check my original post on this aspect of the subject, I said the horse and the development of metallurgy were the two key differences between the rapid development of European culture and other cultures. By COMPARISON, other developments are not nearly so important since they all rely on the domestication of the horse. The next major thing was the evolution of metallurgy. Neither of these two achievements required a written language or anything else mentioned so far. BUT EVERYTHING ELSE REQUIRED THEM FIRST.

There is no doubt that our current sophistication has relied on written language. But before it relied on written language it first relied on horses and metal implements that took us out of the stone age. How is that a difficult concept to get your heads around?

As far back as we have been able to trace our association with horses, you have to understand that the evidence does not likely date from the very first interaction between people and horses. There had to have been a relationship there much earlier. It takes a long time even in this day and age for a new habit to gain social acceptance, so just imagine how long it took for primitive cultures to fully accept that horses were worth more than the next meal.

Metal use is easier to track.

Written language use is in the same category as horse use. The first written words were probably written in mud or sand. They would not have survived. Even so, the written word for its widespread use, depended on metal and the printing press.

Medicines and so on were around long before civilization and their use is not confined to humans. Animals of all sorts have learned to use certain herbs and other plants for healing purposes. So medicinal use doesn't even separate us from other animals.

[AngusThermopyle]

Animals of all sorts have learned to use certain herbs and other plants for healing purposes. So medicinal use doesn't even separate us from other animals.

This is a logical fallacy. Although true some animals are known to seek out certain plants in order to consume them for the therapeutic and beneficial properties they contain they do this instinctivelly. In no way have they learned except in the broadest sense of the word. The trait of using these substances is one far more evolutionary in nature than it is the result of learning in the accepted sense. Being evolutionary in nature without the advantage of reasoned though and all the benefits that acrue with such thought it will always remain instinctive.

This instinctive knowledge is confined to rudimentary substances found in nature. Although mans medical knowledge may have started in the same fashion it is far from that point now and is continually growing and evolving. No longer is it instinctive and rudimentary. It is the cumulative result of aeons of discovery and reasoned thought. Even so the pace of development was slow until recent times. Now the accrued knowledge of mankind has reached a point where the growth of such knowledge has increased with dramatic swiftness.

On the other hand animals use of medicinal substances will remain instinctive and will not evolve any further, a number of factors ensure this. Animals are not about to start performing open hart surgery on each other. In contrast man is now delving into the building blocks of life and applying the knowledge garnered to the lives of everyone on the planet.

Given the above factors I'm sure you can see why I believe your statement to be without the benefit of reasoned thought.

Edited September 10, 2008 by AngusThermopyle

[Rue]

Smallc you stated;

"I gave you the definition of a civilization. Most native cultures - did not - talking on an objective view, meet that criteria. "

But the point is and remains your definition or criteria you use for defining civilization is not objective but subjective and so any opinions you express based on such subjective criteria are just that subjective opinions and assumptions based on subjective criteria.

You stated;

"You seem to be fixated on religion and you seem to think that I'm some kind of bible thumper."

No I do not assume you are anything other then for the purpose of my debate with you I am arguing are using culturally bias assumptions that render again in my opinion your pronouncements on who is and who is not civilized as subjective and therefore not necessarily valid unless everyone subsribes to the exact same subjective cultural values and assumptions you do.

My comments go to the fact that Western society makes a habit of assuming its civilized based on many cultural assumptions which is precisely which leads to the absurd situations where people in the name of Christianity and civilization engage in genocide quoting the words of Christ as their justification or how some of us arrive at the conclusion being able to kill people more efficiently is a sign of civility or superior civil development.

My point is that many of the things you may think make as advanced others could equally as argue make us less civilized.

You state;

"I am not, I am a Liberal by most accounts. "

You have no obligation to defend yourself to me. We have an honest disagreement as to the value systems that should be used to define civilization, no more no less. I make no presumptions as to your motives or anything else.

You stated;

"I do believe in God, but I have no place for religion because it is just another thing that divides people. People can disagree with your point and at the same time not be an ultra right wind conservative."

I appreciate your above comments. I do not think you are evil or a religious fundamentalist or anything else just someone with a different opinion then me. No more. No less. I also absolutely agree with the last sentence above. In fact you make a good arguement why I try temper classic Liberalism with classic Conservatism (Bentham, Burke) because I think classic Liberalism has a tendency to assume more quickly then classic Conservatism that there are universal standards all should be compared to which lends itself to the kind of nationalism and state nationalism at that which has people in one state assuming their vision should be imposed on others.

My point remains that I am more comfortable with the approach of anthropologists when discussing and comparing civilizations and remaininb neutral and not assuming there are necessarily universal or objective standards that can be used for comparing all societies.

For me personally I am loath to define such universal standards. If a have to for memy subjective standards of civility would come from looking at the amount of war and violence within a society, whether it abuses its children or vulnerable and whether it pollutes the environment it lives within. Those are my measurements and so I believe Western and for that matter Eastern cultures have failed miserably in that regard.

It is hard for me to look at an aboriginal with a straight face and claim to be more civilized given the lifestyle I live. I am just trying to be candid about it. I live a lifestyle that pollutes, engages in war and violence and determines value by what material own can buy and possess.

Excuse me if I do not consider such things or being able to make weapons grade plutonium or disposable diapers signs of civility.

I am a baboon and I make no bones about that. The fact that I am managing to spend less and less time walking on my knuckles and have lost some fur does not change that fact.

Edited September 10, 2008 by Rue

[Smallc]

It is hard for me to look at an aboriginal with a straight face and claim to be more civilized given the lifestyle I live. I am just trying to be candid about it. I live a lifestyle that pollutes, engages in war and violence and determines value by what material own can buy and possess.

They live the same lifestyle now though. They are part of Western Civilization. The comparison I am making is not in terms of today, but rather the past.

[gullyfourmyle]

This is a logical fallacy. Although true some animals are known to seek out certain plants in order to consume them for the therapeutic and beneficial properties they contain they do this instinctively. In no way have they learned except in the broadest sense of the word. The trait of using these substances is one far more evolutionary in nature than it is the result of learning in the accepted sense. Being evolutionary in nature without the advantage of reasoned though and all the benefits that acrue with such thought it will always remain instinctive.

This instinctive knowledge is confined to rudimentary substances found in nature. Although mans medical knowledge may have started in the same fashion it is far from that point now and is continually growing and evolving. No longer is it instinctive and rudimentary. It is the cumulative result of aeons of discovery and reasoned thought. Even so the pace of development was slow until recent times. Now the accrued knowledge of mankind has reached a point where the growth of such knowledge has increased with dramatic swiftness.

On the other hand animals use of medicinal substances will remain instinctive and will not evolve any further, a number of factors ensure this. Animals are not about to start performing open hart surgery on each other. In contrast man is now delving into the building blocks of life and applying the knowledge garnered to the lives of everyone on the planet.

Given the above factors I'm sure you can see why I believe your statement to be without the benefit of reasoned thought.

Actually Thermopyle your view point is out of date and old. It is well known scientific fact now that animals reason in much the same way we do given the context of their lives.

Instinct plays a role but much more minor than previously thought. You might want to read Susan McCarthy's book "Becoming a Tiger" or "When Elephants Weep".

In those books you'll see how intensively young animals are trained by their parent(s) to be the animals they are supposed to be. Those that don't learn get eaten by something else. So the motivation is high.

Even single celled animals have been filmed in scientific experiments making decisions in order to avoid meeting other cells they can sense but not "see" due to physical obstructions.

Insects have a pretty high IQ threshold as well. It has been demonstrated that insects have distinct languages and that some insects are multilingual between species. It all depends what you need to know to survive. If you don't learn and figure things out, you die. It takes quite a bit of reasoning power to survive in the animal world. Just because animals don't think like we do is no reason to think they don't think. They think in thought patterns that are relevant to their survival. It's a brutal world with no time to contemplate religion as far as I know, but lots of species have a good sense of humour. If you think about it, you will no doubt agree. Your Blackfeet friends will tell you the same thing.

Grizzly Bears use exactly the same willow bark lining for tooth aches we do. Only we call it asprin. Instinct does not teach a bear to pack an abscess with willow bark lining.

I believe when you start reading modern work on the subject you are going to be pleasantly surprised to learn that the gap between human intellect and animal intellect has narrowed substantially in the last ten years.

The difference in our ability to apply and develop our medicine and that of animals is complex. The written word has a lot to do with it. Technology has too. Our ability to experiment on other animals instead of eating them counts for something too. But if we go extinct, you can't say another species won't come along and evolve to our point or beyond it. We don't own intellectual advancement. Other species may just need more time.

Recent mental experiments with Chimps have shown that in certain memory exercises, we can't compete with their photographic memories. That is brain power. But brain power that is channelled to complement other survival skills. But since they can learn to use computers, you can't say they acquire those skills by instinct. So animals are capable of learning things that are completely foreign to their natural way of life.

Having a tiger jump through a flaming hoop is unnatural. It doesn't take a huge intellect but the tiger still has to understand that in the absence of a direct and immediate food reward, there can be a reason to risk fire. Instinct doesn't cut it. Have fun reading the books. They will lead to others. It's a fun subject.

Edited September 10, 2008 by gullyfourmyle

[Ontario Loyalist]

It is hard for me to look at an aboriginal with a straight face and claim to be more civilized given the lifestyle I live. I am just trying to be candid about it. I live a lifestyle that pollutes, engages in war and violence and determines value by what material own can buy and possess.

Oh, that's right, Indians never engaged in warfare or had warriors and such uncivilized nonsense. It's not like they eagerly traded with Europeans to get access to guns, knives, and metal in order to fashion weapons...

Edited September 11, 2008 by Ontario Loyalist

[tango]

Oh, that's right, Indians never engaged in warfare or had warriors and such uncivilized nonsense. It's not like they eagerly traded with Europeans to get access to guns, knives, and metal in order to fashion weapons...

I think rue's point was that they took care of the land rather than destroying it. I agree.

We are on a path of such destruction it is mind boggling: 16 lakes are to become toxic dumps, for example.

These are not accidents. This is on purpose.

[Wild Bill]

I think rue's point was that they took care of the land rather than destroying it. I agree.

We are on a path of such destruction it is mind boggling: 16 lakes are to become toxic dumps, for example.

These are not accidents. This is on purpose.

The only reason they appear to have "taken care" of the land is because they had a relatively small population! Do you really believe that primitive tribes understood eco-science and conservation?

I think the historical record would show that when they hunted, farmed or fished out a given area they simply picked up and moved on to a fresh one. After a few generations the area they left behind would have recovered. Give them a few more hundred years of increasing their numbers and the situation would likely have become a lot less positive.

[tango]

The only reason they appear to have "taken care" of the land is because they had a relatively small population! Do you really believe that primitive tribes understood eco-science and conservation?

I think the historical record would show that when they hunted, farmed or fished out a given area they simply picked up and moved on to a fresh one. After a few generations the area they left behind would have recovered. Give them a few more hundred years of increasing their numbers and the situation would likely have become a lot less positive.

Difficult to speculate, but the fact is that preservation of the Earth is central to their spiritual beliefs.

[charter.rights]

The only reason they appear to have "taken care" of the land is because they had a relatively small population! Do you really believe that primitive tribes understood eco-science and conservation?

I think the historical record would show that when they hunted, farmed or fished out a given area they simply picked up and moved on to a fresh one. After a few generations the area they left behind would have recovered. Give them a few more hundred years of increasing their numbers and the situation would likely have become a lot less positive.

Wrong again my pithy friend. The Iroquois had an extensive understanding of the land, conservation practices and relationships between weather and soil productivity. Even the "no-till" method of farming was used by them and only today have scientists and farmers found the tremendous benefit. They were also the ones to introduce companion planting to the settlers and the use of organic fertilizers (such as carp) were common place long before the first poor cabbage farmers arrived. Check out "Indian Givers: How the Indians of the Americas Transformed the World", Jack Weatherford.

Different communities spent generations between two primary village sites, letting the land rest for 20 or 30 years between sowings of corn. Anyone who understands farming also understands how much nutrient corn takes from the soil. Even though the Iroquois did compost and enrich the soils on a regular basis, the corn crops become less productive over time. As far as the fishing and hunting goes, no the Iroquois did not deplete the animals or fish. Rather, deer and other small game were semi domesticated (by clearing large tracts for occupation, the understorey was allowed to grow up and this attracted game to an area to feed). Hunting was mostly going out to the back 40 and picking off what you felt like eating. As well fish and meat only made up about 15% of the Iroquois diets with the rest of the food coming from a broad array of cultivated vegetables and fruit, beyond your wildest imagination.

Corn was not only a staple but it was a valuable trade item.

Pre-contact populations of Iroquois (based on anthropological calculation derived from first contact records) suggest in excess of 5 million people, extending as far north as the Ottawa River and as far south as Florida. After 100 years these populations were reduced nearly 80% by succumbing to diseases that were brought by the filthy Europeans. Native people had little resistance to things like cholera, black plague and small pox.

[Wild Bill]

Difficult to speculate, but the fact is that preservation of the Earth is central to their spiritual beliefs.

ALL of them? Besides, it's been my experience that nitrogen depletion has got nothing to do with spiritual beliefs. The soil has nutrients or it doesn't. A plant gets enough water or it doesn't.

The natives either knew the science or they didn't. A plant doesn't care how you feel about its spirit, if it has one.

Edited September 13, 2008 by Wild Bill

[charter.rights]

ALL of them? Besides, it's been my experience that nitrogen depletion has got nothing to do with spiritual beliefs. The soil has nutrients or it doesn't. A plant gets enough water or it doesn't.

The natives either knew the science or they didn't. A plant doesn't care how you feel about its spirit, if it has one.

Of course they knew the science. That is why they moved every 20 to 30 years. If they stayed they would have had to put something more harmful into the ground to replenish the nitrogen...

Today our farmers just throw chemical fertilizers at the ground with little care where the run-off will go. And of course all that nutrient rich water in our creeks and rivers has nothing to do with the algae blooms that contaminate our drinking water and choke out smaller lakes and rivers....now does it....

[Smallc]

Of course they knew the science.

[jbg]

I think rue's point was that they took care of the land rather than destroying it. I agree.

We are on a path of such destruction it is mind boggling: 16 lakes are to become toxic dumps, for example.

These are not accidents. This is on purpose.

In Mann's very good book 1491 the native's practice of regularly burning forests to kee them open enough for walking, and to attract game to freshly burned areas was highlighted. Taking "care of the land"? Really?

[charter.rights]

In Mann's very good book 1491 the native's practice of regularly burning forests to kee them open enough for walking, and to attract game to freshly burned areas was highlighted. Taking "care of the land"? Really?

As opposed to say clear-cutting forests for profit, leaving the slash behind to catch fire and burn out towns and villages?

And do you suppose Mann was there? Or is he speculating based on a narrow interpretation of the practice? The fact is that yes tracts of land were cleared in order to farm the land and to encourage small game but this is no less harmful than a farmer doing the same thing after his tillable land gets gobbled up by greedy developers cashing in cheap farm land.

[DogOnPorch]

Humans are just intelligent apes. North/South Americans, European, African, Asian...we all treat the planet the same way...poorly. That includes so-called "First Nations" (such a racist term). Imagine any other group of people calling themselves 'First'...

-------------------------------------

Deutschland, Deutschland uber alles,

Uber alles in der Welt,

Wenn es stets zu Schutz und Trutze

Bruderlich zusammenhalt.

[charter.rights]

Humans are just intelligent apes. North/South Americans, European, African, Asian...we all treat the planet the same way...poorly. That includes so-called "First Nations" (such a racist term). Imagine any other group of people calling themselves 'First'...

Imagine the putzes that called them "Indians" and those who through institutional racism still try to control them through the "Indian" Act. Most of the my friends prefer to be called Onkwe'hon:we or Anishinabe and they call us o'serron:ni.

[tango]

I read an account of scientists learning about bugs from Indigenous people. They had 10 different names for what the scientists thought were all the same bug. However, when they investigated further, they found they were, in fact, 10 subspecies. The scientists now support efforts to maintain Indigenous languages because of the wealth of scientific information they contain.

[DogOnPorch]

Imagine the putzes that called them "Indians" and those who through institutional racism still try to control them through the "Indian" Act. Most of the my friends prefer to be called Onkwe'hon:we or Anishinabe and they call us o'serron:ni.

Anything is better than "First Nations". Sounds fascist.

-------------------------------------

Die Fahne hoch! Die Reihen fest geschlossen!

S. A. marschiert mit mutig-festem Schritt.

Kameraden, die Rotfront und Reaktion erschossen,

Marschieren im Geist in unseren Reihen mit.

[charter.rights]

I read an account of scientists learning about bugs from Indigenous people. They had 10 different names for what the scientists thought were all the same bug. However, when they investigated further, they found they were, in fact, 10 subspecies. The scientists now support efforts to maintain Indigenous languages because of the wealth of scientific information they contain.

Physicists and astrologists are also consulting with the Navajo. Seems the Navajo have an advanced understanding of the universe AND the physical world that the scientists believe will help them bridge some barriers they have encountered. Terrible isn't it, how some ancient oral history can exceed the understanding of modern scientists?