Native neolithic culture vs western culture

[White Doors]

Is it Racist to call one culture superior to another?

What about this article is not true?

The truth is different. North American native peoples had a neolithic culture based on subsistence living and small kinship groups. They had not developed broader laws or institutions, a written language, evidence-based science, mathematics or advanced technologies. The kinship groups in which they lived were very small, simply organized and not very productive. Other kinship groups were regarded as enemies, and the homicide rate was probably rather high.

Why is it today we are not allowed to say that Western Culture is more advanced and better than the neolithic cultures encountered at first contact? Are we not to say that 1900's French culture is superior to that of Ancient Egyptian Culture? Is that racist too?

"Never in history has the cultural gap between two peoples coming into contact with each other been wider," Ms. Widdowson says.

Today, however, it is simply not permissible to say that aboriginal culture was less evolved than European culture or Chinese culture - even though it's true. Ms. Widdowson argues that the most important explanation for aboriginal problems today is not Western colonialism but the vast gulf between a relatively simple neolithic kinship-based culture and a vastly complex late-industrial capitalist culture. "It doesn't mean that they are stupid or inferior," says Ms. Widdowson. "We all passed through the stage of neolithic culture."

Why do we insist as a society to place political Correctness above truth?

Does Political Correctness over ride the scientific Method?

The fact that North American cultures never evolved further can be explained, as American evolutionary biologist Jared Diamond showed, by geography, climate and a host of other material factors. But today, it's not acceptable to argue that some cultures are more highly developed than others, or that cultural development is a force for good. Instead, our policies are based on the belief that aboriginal culture is equal but separate, and that the answer to aboriginal social problems is to revive and preserve indigenous culture on a "separate but equal" parallel track.

This belief has produced a sizable industry of academics, consultants, lawyers, social workers and bureaucrats, to say nothing of lucrative sinecures for many aboriginals themselves. Ms. Widdowson once belonged to this industry, as a government policy analyst in the North. She soon became disillusioned and switched to an academic career, where she has been a lonely voice in a world where native spirituality and "traditional knowledge" are held to be just as valid as Western science.

Today, "traditional knowledge," which generally resides among the elders, is sought after by governments, studied in universities around the world, and recognized in environmental assessment processes. But Ms. Widdowson says most of it is useless - a heap of vague beliefs and opinions that can't be verified or tested. Why have the muskoxen drifted west? Because, according to the elders, the animals were "following the people because they missed them and wanted their company."

We have romanticized indigenous culture so much that it is often described (especially in native studies courses) as morally superior. Historically, aboriginal people were more spiritual, more egalitarian, more peaceable, less greedy and more ecologically minded than the rest of us. (To which Ms. Widdowson responds, "It's hard to damage the environment with a stone axe.") People are reluctant to challenge these assumptions. And they're not inclined to challenge indigenous spiritual beliefs, no matter how absurd. For example, anyone who questions the widespread belief that aboriginals originated in North America (rather than Africa, like the rest of us) is bound to be accused of disrespect and cultural insensitivity.

Claims about aboriginal contributions to civilization are also vastly overstated. Did the Iroquois Confederacy really influence the Declaration of Independence? Sorry, no. Do native medicinal herbs play an important role in modern drugs? No. Yet, some leading intellectuals try to argue otherwise. The thesis of John Ralston Saul's new bestseller is that we are at root a Métis civilization, even though he has no evidence to prove it. What is a Métis civilization? That's not too clear, either. But it's a good thing.

Does this myopic, naive Political Correctness harm or help today's decendants of the Natives?

Much of our romanticism, of course, is fuelled by guilt. We robbed and mistreated aboriginal people for a very long time, and most of us feel terrible about it. Yet, Ms. Widdowson believes this denial of reality is extremely damaging. It dooms hundreds of thousands of native Canadians and their descendants to lives that remain isolated from the modern world, without the skills and aptitudes they need to make their way in an increasingly complex society. The message they get is that they need not, and should not, change.

But a neolithic culture cannot possibly give them a future. And it's time for us to face that. "The existing policy direction is so harmful," she says. "Aboriginal people are people like everyone else. They deserve to interact with the modern world like everyone else."

Needless to say, Ms. Widdowson, who currently teaches at Calgary's Mount Royal College, has been accused of hating aboriginals, and much else. "It doesn't mean that you're a racist or a colonialist if you recognize that there's a culture gap," she says. "But to say that aboriginal people were just as sophisticated as the Europeans - that's just nonsense."

Link: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...Comment/?query=

Discuss

Edited October 28, 2008 by White Doors

[Sir Bandelot]

My view is, it depends on what yardstick you use to measure success. In terms of technological progress western culture is more advanced. That is obvious. But it does not meet all the needs of all people. Western culture has a de-humanizing effect in making people workers who create products or services that have nothing to do with their lives, other than a means of earning wages. When we make machines, we add workers to them and they become part of the machine. Idustrialization creates many chemicals, industrial farming has been known to poison ground water systems. Western culture allows us to have a much larger population because of industrialization, but that is not necessarly a good thing. If in the end a culture dies out because of its way of life, by that I mean exterminates itself, and another different culture would remain sustainable for much longer time, for whatever combination of reasons, which one is then superior?

[M.Dancer]

What is there to discuss? The fear of saying that stone age culture is not as advanced as say...iron age or bronze age? Or the romantisization of stone age culture from Black Elk to Grey Owl, from Little Big Man to Dances with Wolves or any Jean Auel novel...

Stone age cultures were transformed or replaced almost everywhere for the same reason. As Humans we have a tendancy to embrace things which make our lives better. Whether it is the plow suplanting the digging stick or herding goats being more reliable than waiting and hoping for the auroxen to migrate....

That is not to say that stone age culture is devoid of merit. It did afterall produce us.

[White Doors]

What is there to discuss? The fear of saying that stone age culture is not as advanced as say...iron age or bronze age? Or the romantisization of stone age culture from Black Elk to Grey Owl, from Little Big Man to Dances with Wolves or any Jean Auel novel...

Stone age cultures were transformed or replaced almost everywhere for the same reason. As Humans we have a tendancy to embrace things which make our lives better. Whether it is the plow suplanting the digging stick or herding goats being more reliable than waiting and hoping for the auroxen to migrate....

That is not to say that stone age culture is devoid of merit. It did afterall produce us.

What is to discuss is the preponderence of PC speak that likes to say that the stone age culture of the Natives was merely 'different' than the Western culture that made contact with it. In alot of circles it is 'racist' to say otherwise.

[White Doors]

My view is, it depends on what yardstick you use to measure success. In terms of technological progress western culture is more advanced. That is obvious. But it does not meet all the needs of all people. Western culture has a de-humanizing effect in making people workers who create products or services that have nothing to do with their lives, other than a means of earning wages. When we make machines, we add workers to them and they become part of the machine. Idustrialization creates many chemicals, industrial farming has been known to poison ground water systems. Western culture allows us to have a much larger population because of industrialization, but that is not necessarly a good thing. If in the end a culture dies out because of its way of life, by that I mean exterminates itself, and another different culture would remain sustainable for much longer time, for whatever combination of reasons, which one is then superior?

Ok, by what yardstick would the stone age culture of the natives be better than that of western culture?

[M.Dancer]

My view is, it depends on what yardstick you use to measure success. In terms of technological progress western culture is more advanced.

I think the advances made by modern culture are measurably superior by every yardstick.

How long can you expect to live?

How many of your children do you expect to bury?

How often is famine faced?

Western culture has a de-humanizing effect in making people workers who create products or services that have nothing to do with their lives, other than a means of earning wages.

I've heard this before but I have never net a de-human. I'm not sure if spending every waking hour gathering seeds to stave off winter hunger is more or less uplifting than working 8 hours in a factory, but at least the factory worker has the option of flying to Cuba to stave off winter.

Idustrialization creates many chemicals, industrial farming has been known to poison ground water systems.

And stone age slash and burn has a tendancy to to reduce proto civilizations to dust. See Mezo American for examples...the difference between modern and Aztec or mayan society is wwestern society and culture learns from mistakes.

[Peter F]

Why is it today we are not allowed to say that Western Culture is more advanced and better than the neolithic cultures encountered at first contact? Are we not to say that 1900's French culture is superior to that of Ancient Egyptian Culture? Is that racist too?

First off, it is allowed. People say it all the time.

I don't think anyone has disputed that culture A can be more 'advanced' than culture B. Though I would expect one to point out where that advancement is. North American native cultures were neolithic at contact while the contacting European cultures were coming out of the Late middle ages and entering the Rennaisance. European cultures were far more technically advanced compared to native American cultures. I don't think anyone can dispute that.

However, the idea that culture A is 'better' than culture B because of its many advancements is bunk. I often wonder what is the point of saying 'my culture is better than yours'.

I am reminded of the more technically advanced Europeans sailing confidently into the Arctic and dying to a man of starvation and exposure, while the technically inferior Inuit carried on with thier 'not better' culture for year after year after year.

I think the claiming of culture A being 'better' than culture B is intended solely to indicate the claimants superiority. It may not be racist but is certainly bigotted.

[eyeball]

Is it Racist to call one culture superior to another?

Not technically I suppose but since it usually only serves to piss people off when you do, why bother?

What about this article is not true?

Why is it today we are not allowed to say that Western Culture is more advanced and better than the neolithic cultures encountered at first contact?

Are we not to say that 1900's French culture is superior to that of Ancient Egyptian Culture? Is that racist too?

Why do we insist as a society to place political Correctness above truth?

Because truth is usually a very subjective thing in the eye of the beholder.

"Never in history has the cultural gap between two peoples coming into contact with each other been wider," Ms. Widdowson says.

Compared to what, the gap between conservatives and liberals, atheists and theists, rich and poor or even men and women? Our culture and society is filled with gaps of all types.

Does Political Correctness over ride the scientific Method?

Politics certainly seems to all on its own, so it should be no surprise that PC does too.

Does this myopic, naive Political Correctness harm or help today's decendants of the Natives?

Link: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...Comment/?query=

Discuss

I'd say doing anything in a myopic naive manner towards anyone would be less than beneficial to them.

As for the question "what about this article is not true?" I don't know but the truest thing I read was, "It's hard to damage the environment with a stone axe."

I think the most useful thing non-native people could get out of this article is;

Much of our romanticism, of course, is fuelled by guilt. We robbed and mistreated aboriginal people for a very long time, and most of us feel terrible about it. Yet, Ms. Widdowson believes this denial of reality is extremely damaging. It dooms hundreds of thousands of native Canadians and their descendants to lives that remain isolated from the modern world, without the skills and aptitudes they need to make their way in an increasingly complex society. The message they get is that they need not, and should not, change.

Our romanticism has impaired our ability to find our way in an increasingly ethical society. Our guilt is actually what will lead us out of this ethical wilderness we're lost in. Speaking of the real wilderness though I notice our so-called vastly complex late-industrial capitalist culture is wiping much of it out. There may be a lot more to the neolithic worldview that meets the eye. If native culture can imbue ours with a greater sense of respect for the natural world then I think we'll all be better off. That doesn't mean we have to actually become neolithic but Albert Einstein's prediction that the 4th world war will be fought with sticks and stones does come to mind. How civilized is a civilization that deliberately builds the means of its own destruction?

I think this whole process of reconciling two vastly different cultural worldviews is still a works in process and will be for at least a few more generations and I think non-natives are expecting too much if they think a few conferences and treaties will fix everything. We're talking about a process on a scale that almost borders on evolution. The Dick Pound's and Margaret Wente's of the world are just a few amongst many little potholes on that long road.

[M.Dancer]

As for the question "what about this article is not true?" I don't know but the truest thing I read was, "It's hard to damage the environment with a stone axe."

Yet with stone tools we drove the lions from Europe, pushed the mammoth and masterdon to the edge of extinction...cut down widfe swaths of primeval forests...irragated the plains, flooded the lowlands....

The idea that stone age cultures didn't impact and change their environemnts is one of the romantic myths that should be shelved. They did and did so frequently, sometimes in the case of the Mezo Americans, to the point of exterminating themselves.

[eyeball]

Yet with stone tools we drove the lions from Europe, pushed the mammoth and masterdon to the edge of extinction...cut down widfe swaths of primeval forests...irragated the plains, flooded the lowlands....

The idea that stone age cultures didn't impact and change their environemnts is one of the romantic myths that should be shelved. They did and did so frequently, sometimes in the case of the Mezo Americans, to the point of exterminating themselves.

Its human nature to change our environment to suit our needs, simply covering yourself with an animal skin or a suit from Tip Top Tailors does that. So does moving into the micro-climate of an igloo or a mansion. Changing the Earth's climate is a different story.

As for causing extinctions with stone age tools that's just part of evolution and up until the last few hundred years I wouldn't be surprised if just as many or more species benefitted from the ecological niches our presence opened up. Other species have caused both extinctions and niches in areas they move into but to do any real lasting damage such as disrupting the process of evolution itself you'd need a complex late-industrial capitalist culture. Stone age tools just don't compare to something like a nuclear stockpile or the 6 to 1 ratio of micro-scopic bits of plastic to plankton found in the mid-north Pacific Ocean. Stone age tools would also never do things like turn the world's oceans into acid or melt the polar regions.

Edited October 28, 2008 by eyeball

[Oleg Bach]

I don't see the difference between a stone axe and our ever so proud of nuclear pile of foolishness. It is evident that we have progressed as far as stuff - but the mind and spirit are probably less in touch with the physics and the nature of the earth - we are now less than cave men - we eat our young - and our old - they did not.

[M.Dancer]

Other species have caused both extinctions and niches in areas they move into but to do any real lasting damage such as disrupting the process of evolution itself ....

You cannot disrupt the process of evolution. It either happens or it doesn't. If it doesn't that is still the process of evolution. It is a common fallacy that evolution produces a more succesful life form or that the process is linear. The record proves otherwise.

Changing the Earth's climate is a different story.

Yes. Lets leave speculative science fiction for another thread.

Stone age tools just don't compare to something like a nuclear stockpile

Correct. Nuclear weapons have never come close to the genocide and extirpation of entire peoples like what has been wrought with stone tools.

Edited October 28, 2008 by M.Dancer

[Oleg Bach]

You cannot disrupt the process of evolution. It either happens or it doesn't. If it doesn't that is still the process of evolution. It is a common fallacy that evolution produces a more succesful life form or that the process is linear. The record proves otherwise.

Yes. Lets leave speculative science fiction for another thread.

Correct. Nuclear weapons have never come close to the genocide and extirpation of entire peoples like what has been wrought be stone tools.

More have died from being hit with a rock axe in the head than have been killed by nuclear weapons.. Odd but that is true - We as humans are basically good - if we were not we would be vapour by now

[Kitch]

What is to discuss is the preponderence of PC speak that likes to say that the stone age culture of the Natives was merely 'different' than the Western culture that made contact with it. In alot of circles it is 'racist' to say otherwise.

I don't think it's racist to say so (I suppose I'm not in one of those circles). I don't think it's PC to say that those cultures are merely 'different' either. They are different. The idea of which is better is a matter of perspective. Some people like condos, some houses. Some like urban areas, others rural. Some like living on the streets, many don't. It's not that it's wrong to say that one culture is 'superior', it's just that the person making such a claim hopefully understands that this is their opinion and not an absolute. Maybe some people are overly sensitive and maybe some are not sensitive enough.

And if somebody wants to say that life expectancy and the rest of the list of parameters are things that point to western culture superiority... did you ever consider that maybe somebody doesn't want to live that long?

[JB Globe]

The idea that natives don't live in the modern world might make sense if most natives didn't live in cities.

And really - what is the point of this post other than plain-old bigoted - "I'm better than you, scumbag!"

After all, it's not as if any of the "superiors" here have anything other than animosity towards native folks.

[White Doors]

I like natives perfectly well. What I don't like is our racist provisions in our constitution where it says everyone is equal followed with a bunch of asterics after it exempting natives. What I dislike is having a different set of rules for some people in our society entirely because of their DNA. What I also dislike is having a mythology built up around this trying to perpetuate ad infinitum the aforementioned racism.

The Indian act has done more to promote racism in this country than anything else. People's refusal to see this is merely a form a self delusion so that they can sleep comfortably at night pretending they are fighting the good fight when in fact they couldn't give a crap about the natives or native issues.

This line of thinking is especially apparent when they attempt to curtail discussion of this important issue with words like 'bigot' and 'racist' as per above.

Edited October 29, 2008 by White Doors

[White Doors]

did you ever consider that maybe somebody doesn't want to live that long?

Perhaps not, but did you not consider it would be nice if they had the choice?

[charter.rights]

Hayden King spells it out nicely.....

Indigenous cultures rivalled those of civilizations around the globe

[White Doors]

They lived in cities larger than those in contemporary Europe, had greater populations, taller buildings, sophisticated governance structures, varied art forms, tested scientific knowledge and on, and on. What is truly savage is the perpetuation of a false representation of first nations, Métis and Inuit peoples, particularly when they've worked so hard to overcome racism and stereotypes. But perhaps Jefferson was right all along, we shouldn't expect much from newspapers anyway.

Yet never thought of the wheel.. Had not thought of a boat with sails... Had no scientific method, had no standard agricultural practices, no central government... They DID have ritualistic himan sacrifice.

Really, if you can't see that people living in pre-contact North America were not nearly advanced as the Europeans at that time then you are just being wilfully blind to the facts. Simple as that.

Edited October 29, 2008 by White Doors

[M.Dancer]

Hayden King spells it out nicely.....

Indigenous cultures rivalled those of civilizations around the globe

Perhaps most impressive among their findings is that indigenous peoples were adept farmers, originally cultivating and harvesting two-thirds of the foodstuffs the world consumes today. These include the tomato, peanut, potato, chili peppers and corn. In fact, at the time of contact, and long before Gregor Mendel's experiments with pea plants, the Huron in Ontario had genetically engineered 17 different varieties of corn. Not quite the Stone Age hunter-gatherers of Ms. Wente's column.

Hayden King teaches indigenous studies at McMaster University

There is a big difference between "studies" and science...obviously he isn't up on his science.

While Christians were burning "heretics" at the stake for suggesting the Earth wasn't the centre of the universe, the Mayans were charting the movement of the stars, creating a calendar within seconds of modern-day atomic clocks. The Wet'suwet'en practised a matriarchal society, while on the other side of the Atlantic, women were the property of men.

While we were burning heretics (how many? not many really) The Aztecs and other of the area were sacrifice by the 1000s regulary. As well the much vaunted aztec calender is not anywhere as precise as atomic clocks...mainly because it doesn't tell time in seconds, it tells time in months, something babylonians were doing 1000s of years before the south americans....

I would very like to see the peer reviewed papers of the Huron, how they went about selecting and engineering etc etc....more likely is after a few 1000 years of various isolated crops that the variations arose on their own....much like how the original peoples who crossed into the Americas became the 1000 of tribes and 100s of languages.

This fellow has a vested interest in romantisizing stone age culture...more power to him, but it doesn't stand up to scutiny.

[charter.rights]

Yet never thought of the wheel.. Had not thought of a boat with sails... Had no scientific method, had no standard agricultural practices, no central government... They DID have ritualistic himan sacrifice.

Really, if you can't see that people living in pre-contact North America were not nearly advanced as the Europeans at that time then you are just being wilfully blind to the facts. Simple as that.

Still countering fact with your myths, I see......

The wheel was not an important invention in Native cultural epic. It had to be fashioned out of durable materials and was prone to broken axles an hubs that record days and sometimes weeks to repair. The canoe on the other hand was well suited to North American travel. It was easy to make. It was made out of materials found almost everywhere one needed to travel. It was disposable and recyclable and could be carried over terrain that would destroy most wheels. Even when the first settlers first arrived the wheel was a most useless tool.

You should also remember that the wheel was not an European invention. It was like most of Europe's tools - stolen from more advanced cultures. Compared to other indigenous cultures around the world, the Europeans where no better than the Feregni in Star Trek - thieves of wealth and culture.

Pre-contact North America was a highly advanced civilization. The reason you can't see that is that you are so stuck in mythology that your thinking mind can only relate to the myths you have been told. When you start stating the facts, I'll let you know......

[White Doors]

The wheel was not an important invention

Compared to other indigenous cultures around the world, the Europeans where no better than the Feregni in Star Trek - thieves of wealth and culture.

Maybe if you read more and watched Star trek less you would not be so blindingly mis-informed.

Edited October 29, 2008 by White Doors

[M.Dancer]

The wheel was not an important invention in Native cultural epic. It had to be fashioned out of durable materials and was prone to broken axles an hubs that record days and sometimes weeks to repair. The canoe on the other hand was well suited to North American travel.

Not only is the wheel not an important invention in native culture, it is not an invention, period.

We have wheels and they seem to be extremely well suited to North American travel...of course we are the product of an advanced civilization.

People think "the wheel" and the naturally think of...well...wheels, just like charter did. The wheel is one of the fundemental tools of civilization. No culture can be called advanced until it discovers the wheel. It allows people to do the work of 100s....whther it is the plow or the wheel barrow...it's most spectacular usage is shown in the block and tackle. Stone age peoples of the old world invented it...but it never came here until the Europeans brought it.

Now on the otherhand, indians did have some very nice stone clubs.

[Peter F]

...

The Indian act has done more to promote racism in this country than anything else. People's refusal to see this is merely a form a self delusion so that they can sleep comfortably at night pretending they are fighting the good fight when in fact they couldn't give a crap about the natives or native issues.

This line of thinking is especially apparent when they attempt to curtail discussion of this important issue with words like 'bigot' and 'racist' as per above.

Sorry. I thought the important issue outlined in your original post was about wether one culture is superior or better to another and why we can/cannot discuss that.

If your intent was to discuss the indian act then how does the original post relate to it?

[charter.rights]

Not only is the wheel not an important invention in native culture, it is not an invention, period.

We have wheels and they seem to be extremely well suited to North American travel...of course we are the product of an advanced civilization.

People think "the wheel" and the naturally think of...well...wheels, just like charter did. The wheel is one of the fundemental tools of civilization. No culture can be called advanced until it discovers the wheel. It allows people to do the work of 100s....whther it is the plow or the wheel barrow...it's most spectacular usage is shown in the block and tackle. Stone age peoples of the old world invented it...but it never came here until the Europeans brought it.

Now on the otherhand, indians did have some very nice stone clubs.

No. We are a product of an evolved civilization - one that includes native people. At the time of contact we were no better suited to this country than native people would have been to our stinking and septic European cities.

One can easily argue that the development of this land that came as a result of the use of the wheel was a devolution to the advancement of the human race. In reality one does not need the wheel to farm and hunt. The wheel has become necessary only because people are too lazy to harvest their own food.

And in the early days of post contact there was little need for commerce. Our dependence on commercial enterprise could very well be the end of our civilization as we know it. The recent problems in the stock market may be the beginning of that end.....

Native people also did some very nice metal and ceramic work as well.