Page 7 of 10
Posted: Thu May 24, 2007 3:32 pm
by Rokcet Scientist
Minimalist wrote:
All generalizations are wrong, even this one, but generally the Indians did not think of land as something to be owned in the White Man's sense.
They may call it what they like. Probably in beautiful flowery poetic language. But it boils down to the same thing: they claim first rights to the land*. Let's call a spade a spade (we're on Archaeo
logica.org for gossakes!), and not confuse the issue with semantics. I submit that's better left to other type fora.
* imo rightfully so, BTW!
Posted: Thu May 24, 2007 3:37 pm
by Minimalist
http://www.sagehistory.net/colonial/topics/nativeam.htm
Probably the greatest misunderstanding between Europeans Indians was their differing concepts of land, or land ownership. The European believed that you could drive four stakes in the ground, parcel off a square of land and claim ownership of that piece of ground. Such individual ownership of a section of land was completely alien to the Indian way of thinking. Certainly Indian tribes fought over the use of land on which to hunt or fish or even practice agriculture, though the agricultural tribes tended to be less warlike than hunting tribes. But the idea of “ownership” of land was something they did not understand. For some Indians the land itself was sacred, held as a mother goddess. For many Indians the idea of plowing soil to plant crops was as good as blasphemy, and many aspects of nature—rivers, ponds, even rocks—performed similar functions as the saints and Christian cultures. Even after they had made deals with the Europeans for the purchase of land, the meaning of what they had done was often unclear and led to further conflict.
Posted: Thu May 24, 2007 3:58 pm
by Rokcet Scientist
Of course. The classical clash of cultures. Sad, but reality. We know they are unavoidable eventually. And we know that the greater the cultural differences, the greater the damage of the clash will be. Knowing that, we, collectively, have a responsibility to see to it that the, unavoidable, damage is minimized and mitigated. Tragically, policies to actively avoid contact with H/G groups, to 'leave them in peace', however well-intentioned, only serve to widen the cultural gap even further (we keep progressing while they keep 'standing still'), with much greater damage later as a result.
Tell me how that is beneficial to the underdog?
Posted: Thu May 24, 2007 4:52 pm
by Minimalist
First I'd like you to name me one place ( N America, S. America, Australia, Siberia, Africa, etc) where anyone gave a rat's ass about the underdog?
Imperialism creates underdogs....it does not help them.
Posted: Thu May 24, 2007 5:02 pm
by Rokcet Scientist
The Papua highlanders are actively being "left in peace". The Aboriginals are actively being "left in peace". The Pygmies are actively being "left in peace". The Bushmen are actively being "left in peace". Quite a few Amazonian basin tribes are actively being "left in peace". Scores of Inuit H/G groups are actively being "left in peace".
I'm sure you could identify a few others?
I submit we're not doing them any favors, however well-intentioned. It only looks like that, in the short term. In fact, the long-term effects are quite contrary. We increase the damage multi-fold eventually.
Posted: Thu May 24, 2007 6:32 pm
by Minimalist
Not now.
In the 18th and 19th centuries when all the damage was done.
Posted: Thu May 24, 2007 6:52 pm
by Rokcet Scientist
So let's learn from that and do a better job this time around with the above-mentioned.
Posted: Thu May 24, 2007 8:45 pm
by Minimalist
The damage done during the Colonial Era effectively means that we are left caring for a few zoo specimens.
By all means, let's not kill them too but also let's not pretend that we did no damage.
Posted: Thu May 24, 2007 10:00 pm
by Charlie Hatchett
My apologies for the outburst, RS. I've been a grumpy sum bitch lately. My wife will confirm.
A more proper response would have been: "I don't feel like arguing the nuances of what a civilization are". And I still don't.
Again, my apologies. I'll go back back and delete my rude references.
Sincerely,
Charlie
Posted: Fri May 25, 2007 4:24 am
by Rokcet Scientist
No prob, Charlie.
I have an off-day too, occassionaly.
Charlie
Posted: Fri May 25, 2007 6:12 am
by Cognito
My apologies for the outburst, RS. I've been a grumpy sum bitch lately. My wife will confirm.
Jesus F. Christ, Charlie. You were on a roll and now this! I thought either R/S was going to stick those medals where the sun don't shine or there was going to be a mud wrestling contest or something ... damn, this admission of humility is a setback.
Re: Charlie
Posted: Fri May 25, 2007 6:48 am
by Rokcet Scientist
Cognito wrote:
this admission of humility is a setback.
No, Cog, it is civilisation . . .
land owwnership
Posted: Fri May 25, 2007 7:53 am
by kbs2244
On the concept of land "ownership"
I am not so sure all Europeans held to that concept.
Wasn't that one of the factors in the English Civil War? The Royalty taking "ownership" of what had been considered "common ground"
Even in Boston there was the "Commons" meant far any and everybody to pasture their cow, graze their sheep, and whatever.
Humility
Posted: Fri May 25, 2007 10:37 am
by Cognito
No, Cog, it is civilisation . . .
Ah, I see. So we can define civilisation after all. Are you thereby inferring that Native Americans did not possess humility?
(please don't thank me for the rhetorical question)
Re: Humility
Posted: Fri May 25, 2007 10:59 am
by Rokcet Scientist
Cognito wrote:
Ah, I see. So we can define civilisation after all. Are you thereby inferring that Native Americans did not possess humility?
If the holocaust theory holds, I do . . .