Native neolithic culture vs western culture

[Michael Hardner]

It strikes me that this discussion is about the nature of 'progress'. We use the word to describe forward motion, but also the changes (technological, social) that have happened to 'western' society over time. As such, the Europeans believed that they were more progressed - they themselves to be superior to the native cultures and that arrogance stays with us today.

But we have seen that 'progress' doesn't mean that EVERY aspect of an industrial society is better than that of a hunter gather society. And, in fact, there may be elements of post-industrial society (such as is emerging now) that are more similar to tribal society than industrial society. So 'progress' doesn't mean that we move away from the past - sometimes it means re-adopting old ways. But it does mean that there's no turning back the clock

I think if we recognize these facts, and realize that we're all born into a world that was created by our ancestors then it will help our cultures come to terms with our current situations, and will promote dialogue that makes our collective progress easier.

[Oleg Bach]

Moving forward in time does not neccesarily indicate progress or evolution in the quality of human existance. Neolithic cultures may have had better quality progress than we do in some instances. If respect is the transfer of power and the root of mutural co-operation that ensures survival - then the ancient ones who respected nature were more evolved that we who attempt to destoy nature in the spirit of technically generating an impoved version of the natural world that sustains us.. we failed...they did not. So who is superiour? Those that blended with the land or us who alter the land.?

[DogOnPorch]

Wrong!

NA native peoples had a vast network between the high Arctic, Central and South America, Europe (Scandinavia) and even Asia via the Bering Strait long before Columbus ever bumped into the Caribbean. That would indicate a broader connection to world peoples than the British ever had....unless we include the number of times that Britain was conquered and squashed by invading forces....

We're talking Earth, here.

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

The nations not so blest as thee,

Shall in their turns to tyrants fall;

While thou shalt flourish great and free,

The dread and envy of them all.

[Donaill]

Well actually they did have vast tade networks and very large communities throughtout North America. Not all peoples in the world strived to create large cities but still had very prosperous communities and cultures.

[DogOnPorch]

The native indians of my area barely knew what was for dinner let alone what was happening in Texas. Neolithic culture is neolithic culture. You died young....very young. Romance about it if you wish.

Not all peoples in the world strived to create large cities but still had very prosperous communities and cultures.

Really? So, in your view, the NA native indian remained in the Late Stone Age on purpose? I think that would be a little hard to prove.

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

That's one small step for...man...a giant leap for mankind.

---Neil Armstrong

[charter.rights]

The native indians of my area barely knew what was for dinner let alone what was happening in Texas. Neolithic culture is neolithic culture. You died young....very young. Romance about it if you wish.

Really? So, in your view, the NA native indian remained in the Late Stone Age on purpose? I think that would be a little hard to prove.

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

That's one small step for...man...a giant leap for mankind.

---Neil Armstrong

So you are admitting to over generalizing based on a very isolated small sample?

Advancement was less important to most native societies than ensuring that their communities were peaceful and prosperous. The3 mark of a good Indian was how much he gave away, not how much he hoarded.

[DogOnPorch]

So you are admitting to over generalizing based on a very isolated small sample?

Nope. They are all the same out here. Neolithic. Your Mohawk chums are more civilized due to longer contact with Europeans.

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

Action may not always bring happiness; but there is no happiness without action.

---Benjamin Disraeli

[charter.rights]

Nope. They are all the same out here. Neolithic. Your Mohawk chums are more civilized due to longer contact with Europeans.

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

Action may not always bring happiness; but there is no happiness without action.

---Benjamin Disraeli

Ha ha ha ha....talk about ignorance is bliss.

My Mohawk "chums" are more civilized because they hold the longest surviving participatory democracy on earth - The Haudenosuanee Confederacy at over 1000 years old. Their measures of equality still surpass anything we have today anywhere in the world.

The Incas, Aztecs and Mayan were also civilized societies and not so far from Texas (which is really their territory). So I think that your contact is so limited and your opinions of First Nations are so myopic that it is easy to conclude, you don't know what the fucque you are talking about. But I do appreciate that you have revealed this since it explains a lot about your past comments. They really have no meaning, Dude. You can go now.

[White Doors]

The Incas, Aztecs and Mayan were also civilized societies

Regular ritualized human sacrifice is considered civilized now? cool!

[DogOnPorch]

Ha ha ha ha....talk about ignorance is bliss.

My Mohawk "chums" are more civilized because they hold the longest surviving participatory democracy on earth - The Haudenosuanee Confederacy at over 1000 years old. Their measures of equality still surpass anything we have today anywhere in the world.

The Incas, Aztecs and Mayan were also civilized societies and not so far from Texas (which is really their territory). So I think that your contact is so limited and your opinions of First Nations are so myopic that it is easy to conclude, you don't know what the fucque you are talking about. But I do appreciate that you have revealed this since it explains a lot about your past comments. They really have no meaning, Dude. You can go now.

Oh, yawn...spare me. I live here, too. Save the revised 'history' for the tourists who might fall for it. Many Canadians are well aware as to the nature of many of Canada's 'native' indians. They have much in common with Palestinians. If they ever did get 'their way', that'd be the end of the gravy train. So best to be the eternal victim who's injuries will never heal...blah, blah, blah. The hand-outs keep coming that way.

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

Is it not worthy of tears that, when the number of worlds is infinite, we have not yet become lords of a single one?

---Alexander the Great

[WIP]

Regular ritualized human sacrifice is considered civilized now? cool!

You started this thread 10 pages ago by asking the rhetorical question: "Is it Racist to call one culture superior to another?"

The answer should have been obvious! But another problem of reviving notions of European superiority is that other cultures are going to go into denial and act defensively about aspects of their cultural history that are out of step with our modern sensibilities. The Aztecs didn't sacrifice people because they were morally inferior, they did it because their vengeful god demanded more than the mere animal sacrifices offered up by the Israelites and Jewish priests. Maybe they started out with animal sacrifices to the gods, and after prolonged hardship, some priest declared that a bigger sacrifice was needed. If the weather improved, confirmation bias alone would inform them that they needed to continue sacrificing humans to appease the gods.

But, looking at the big picture now, our "superior" culture is heading towards economic disaster. The planet is becoming increasingly crowded and polluted, species of plants and animals are becoming extinct at an alarming rate, and most of the people who want to proclaim our cultural superiority are opposed to science and progress! They are against birth control, environmental regulations and alternative energy sources that need to be developed so that our "superior culture" doesn't end up being the last one as the human race marches down the road to extinction!

Pardon me if I'm not feeling superior lately!

[charter.rights]

Regular ritualized human sacrifice is considered civilized now? cool!

Since it happened around the time that Jesus lovers were drinking his blood and eating his body, stretching women on torture wheels and burning witches at the stake, well....yes in comparison I would that is pretty civilized....

[Donaill]

Civilisation has hads its ups and downs. Several cultures could have been said to have been "superior" to others at differing periods of history. Women of the Celtic society could own land, be rulers, and had rights far beyond the Roman and Breek counterparts, who still did not see themselves as one people when the Celts were making their mark on Europe. The Arabs and people of the Indian subcontinant could arguably have been called superior to the Europeans at other points in history. This sense of superiority is a false sense since there have been many points in history that point to a inferior mind set. Such mind sets have resulted in the genocides of WW2 and in Serbia and Turkey.

People will use the term European as meaning a single people, with a common language and culture. This in itself is incorrect and ignores the history of the people of Europe.

The First Nations are in the position they are in more so by design than by their own cultural attitudes. I have heard employers say point blank that they do not want to hire blacks, indians or French and that if any come in that we do not have work available.

First nations were kept to the side for the last 200 years. WE have moved them from one spot to another as we would cattle. We have settled them in communities far from our own, on false promises. We have used residential schools to beat any culture or language out of them. Up until the 1950s the only way Natives could be seen as Canadian Citizens was to have fought in a war. Circa 1960 they gained the right to vote. So if people want to talk hand outs and such as a way to describe them as inferior then they should keep in mind these numbers.

Province or Territory March 31, 1994 March 31, 1995 Increase or Decrease

Newfoundland 67,400 71,300 5.8%

Prince Edward Island 13,100 12,400 -5.3%

Nova Scotia 104,000 104,000 0.0%

New Brunswick 73,500 67,400 -8.3%

Quebec 787,200 802,200 1.9%

Ontario 1,379,300 1,344,600 -2.5%

Manitoba 89,300 85,200 -4.6%

Saskatchewan 81,000 82,200 1.5%

Alberta 138,500 113,200 -18.3%

British Columbia 353,500 374,300 5.9%

Yukon 2,400 2,100 -12.5%

Northwest Territories 11,000 12,000 9.1%

Canada 3,100,200 3,070,900 -0.9%

Now those numbers are a bit old and they are no doubt higher now.

Now for the Native numbers.

Just over 1.3 million people reported having at least some Aboriginal ancestry in 2001, representing 4.4 % of the total population. In 1996, people with Aboriginal ancestry represented 3.8 % of the total population

Hardly a comparison of costs.

[charter.rights]

Civilisation has hads its ups and downs. Several cultures could have been said to have been "superior" to others at differing periods of history. Women of the Celtic society could own land, be rulers, and had rights far beyond the Roman and Breek counterparts, who still did not see themselves as one people when the Celts were making their mark on Europe. The Arabs and people of the Indian subcontinant could arguably have been called superior to the Europeans at other points in history. This sense of superiority is a false sense since there have been many points in history that point to a inferior mind set. Such mind sets have resulted in the genocides of WW2 and in Serbia and Turkey.

People will use the term European as meaning a single people, with a common language and culture. This in itself is incorrect and ignores the history of the people of Europe.

The First Nations are in the position they are in more so by design than by their own cultural attitudes. I have heard employers say point blank that they do not want to hire blacks, indians or French and that if any come in that we do not have work available.

First nations were kept to the side for the last 200 years. WE have moved them from one spot to another as we would cattle. We have settled them in communities far from our own, on false promises. We have used residential schools to beat any culture or language out of them. Up until the 1950s the only way Natives could be seen as Canadian Citizens was to have fought in a war. Circa 1960 they gained the right to vote. So if people want to talk hand outs and such as a way to describe them as inferior then they should keep in mind these numbers.

Province or Territory March 31, 1994 March 31, 1995 Increase or Decrease

Newfoundland 67,400 71,300 5.8%

Prince Edward Island 13,100 12,400 -5.3%

Nova Scotia 104,000 104,000 0.0%

New Brunswick 73,500 67,400 -8.3%

Quebec 787,200 802,200 1.9%

Ontario 1,379,300 1,344,600 -2.5%

Manitoba 89,300 85,200 -4.6%

Saskatchewan 81,000 82,200 1.5%

Alberta 138,500 113,200 -18.3%

British Columbia 353,500 374,300 5.9%

Yukon 2,400 2,100 -12.5%

Northwest Territories 11,000 12,000 9.1%

Canada 3,100,200 3,070,900 -0.9%

Now those numbers are a bit old and they are no doubt higher now.

Now for the Native numbers.

Just over 1.3 million people reported having at least some Aboriginal ancestry in 2001, representing 4.4 % of the total population. In 1996, people with Aboriginal ancestry represented 3.8 % of the total population

Hardly a comparison of costs.

I'll stop generalizing and referring to Europeans as a single entity when others (and yes that would include your general reference above) stop generalizing about "First Nations" as being the same people and culture. There is as a distinctive difference between any of the 500+ North American first nations as their are between the English, German and French. It would be common decency to speak on a particular nation in either case, however I don't expect that from most of the posters here.

[Donaill]

Generally speaking, we all make genralizations about general society. It is these generalities that allow us to make general assumptions. Generally speaking that is.

[charter.rights]

Generally speaking, we all make genralizations about general society. It is these generalities that allow us to make general assumptions. Generally speaking that is.

Ah so it is ok for you to ignore your own contradictions?

Generally speaking Europeans were inferior people at first contact. In fact we have made a practice of pissing and shitting in our drinking water to this day. Native people had much better hygene then that.

[DogOnPorch]

Ah so it is ok for you to ignore your own contradictions?

Generally speaking Europeans were inferior people at first contact. In fact we have made a practice of pissing and shitting in our drinking water to this day. Native people had much better hygene then that.

The natives were going to the loo where again? Or didn't they? Sanitation certainly wasn't a native indian invention. It was sanitation methods which allowed Europe its large population which came and colonized North America. Your cart seems to be before the horse...as usual.

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

All mankind is divided into three classes: those that are immovable, those that are movable, and those that move.

---Benjamin Franklin

[Donaill]

Ah so it is ok for you to ignore your own contradictions?

Generally speaking Europeans were inferior people at first contact. In fact we have made a practice of pissing and shitting in our drinking water to this day. Native people had much better hygene then that.

Who said I was ignoring my own contradictions? History is one contradiction after another. I merely state historic facts, with the occasional round of numbers thrown in. It was mention that Europeans tended to shiet where they ate and that Natives were superior in hygene. Since I haven't studied much about early North American sanitary practices I can't say very much. However, the Romans did have vast networks of closed in networks for waste water. Unfortunately much of it went into local water routs. It did keep the city more hospitable, compared to 1700's London (for example) with its vast network of sewage encrusted sidewalks. AS I said before, progress can also work in reverse. There are many examples of things that we once knew how to do but forgot along the way. The Egyptians did have the first battery known to man.

[charter.rights]

Who said I was ignoring my own contradictions? History is one contradiction after another. I merely state historic facts, with the occasional round of numbers thrown in. It was mention that Europeans tended to shiet where they ate and that Natives were superior in hygene. Since I haven't studied much about early North American sanitary practices I can't say very much. However, the Romans did have vast networks of closed in networks for waste water. Unfortunately much of it went into local water routs. It did keep the city more hospitable, compared to 1700's London (for example) with its vast network of sewage encrusted sidewalks. AS I said before, progress can also work in reverse. There are many examples of things that we once knew how to do but forgot along the way. The Egyptians did have the first battery known to man.

Thanks for making my point.

Native people generally excreted away from their villages, far away from water and food sources and in an area that allowed for the rapid composting of human waste. At the time of contact the Haudenosaunee bathed daily and participated in cleansing steam baths once or twice a week (not unlike a "sweat lodge"but without the ceremony). In comparison (and generally speaking) The British crapped anywhere they felt like it, including close to their drinking water sources and amongst their crops, as well as only bathing once or twice a year.

Yes. The Haudenosaunee were superior in hygiene at the time of contact and continued to be long after, until European sanitation laws made them start crapping close to their homes and drinking water. Today those laws are pretty much unchanged and our systems put much of our wastes into our food sources and into our drinking water. I though it does save us the cost of birth control and antibiotics medications since it never gets treated or filtered out of our drinking water.....

[White Doors]

But, looking at the big picture now, our "superior" culture is heading towards economic disaster. The planet is becoming increasingly crowded and polluted, species of plants and animals are becoming extinct at an alarming rate, and most of the people who want to proclaim our cultural superiority are opposed to science and progress! They are against birth control, environmental regulations and alternative energy sources that need to be developed so that our "superior culture" doesn't end up being the last one as the human race marches down the road to extinction!

Well, chicken little ranting aside, western inductrialized societies would have shrinking populations were it not for immigration. Yes, that's correct. Having countries come into the 21st century would act to limit population growth - it's already happening. Demographers are already predicting world wide population growth to be history by mid century. A by-product of globalization and development.

I'm not sure what luddites you are referring to, but it sounds like you are desriibing your own personal bogey man more than any inkling to reality that I am aware of.

On another note, the areas facing the most critical environmental threats are the poorest countries.

Deforestation is not an issue in modern capitalistic democracies. I'm also not seeing a whole lot of wind farms being set up in Bangledesh or Ethiopia, you?

I also don't see many environmental regulations in Surinam or Botswana either.

We do however, have our share of people that still feel the need to speak before they think however.

=

[White Doors]

Ah so it is ok for you to ignore your own contradictions?

Generally speaking Europeans were inferior people at first contact. In fact we have made a practice of pissing and shitting in our drinking water to this day. Native people had much better hygene then that.

If that is true, why weren't the First Nations the one's making first contact in Europe?

[charter.rights]

If that is true, why weren't the First Nations the one's making first contact in Europe?

They had no need to expand their territories since wealth was not a matter of greed or hoarding but of social status. Europeans (and now Canadians and Americans) have to over-produce to make more and more money. The over-production requires them to find more and bigger markets for their goods and in turn find more ways (like cost-cutting) to make their shareholder bigger profits. In an egalitarian society like the Haudenosaunee there is no need for those kinds of profits and where there were profits to be made they were aimed at a community benefit so that no one person held power over another.

The Western and European expansion was ( and is) totally about imperialism - the expansion of corporatism to serve the benefit of the 5% cadre holding 95% of the wealth. In day to day life none of us need the kinds of over-production that we are enslaved to produce since our needs can be met close to home.

[M.Dancer]

They had no need to expand their territories since wealth was not a matter of greed or hoarding but of social status.

You speak like the aboriginals were a momolithic people. Of course various Amerindian peoples strove to expand their territories and to amass wealth...and they did so at the expense of other amerindians peoples......they no doubt would have loved to expand into Spain or italy....had they been cuturally advanced enough...

[charter.rights]

You speak like the aboriginals were a momolithic people. Of course various Amerindian peoples strove to expand their territories and to amass wealth...and they did so at the expense of other amerindians peoples......they no doubt would have loved to expand into Spain or italy....had they been cuturally advanced enough...

By no means. Native people expanded their territories out of necessity - especially after contact since settlers were prone to disrespecting the land and resources for their own profit. But when there was conflict it was not the kinds of continental wars that Europeans engaged in. They were disagreements and skirmishes over who was going to eat that winter. But still the emphasis was always about the community and not about individual profits.

Aboriginal cultural superiority stemmed from the fact that they had no reason to invade Spain or Italy for profit since the risk of entering into territories where people were killing themselves off at plague rates because of poor hygiene would have outweighed any community benefit they would have gained. BUT when the colonials did show up here the Haudenosaunee were some of their first trading partners - not because of similar idealogies but because the Haudenosaunee had been trading in the north, south, east and west for hundreds of years and had well establish and protected trade routes.

[DogOnPorch]

More sweeping statements from charter-rights sans any method to support such claims. Next-up: the native indians' conquest of space pre-Elizabeth I....

As mentioned...had the Roman found North America...

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

Do you like your quasi-futuristic clothes Mr. Powers? I designed them myself.

---Dr Evil