Why NOT in America?

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Thu May 24, 2007 7:55 am

And yet RS the Bushmen for example want nothing to do with that version of civilisation.
Iraq claims the heritage of a long 'civilisation' and look how people are treated there. Give me Bushmen's ideas everytime.
With aboslutely no intention to offend I would point out that the Nazis meet your definition of civilised.

Rokcet Scientist · Post by **Rokcet Scientist** » Thu May 24, 2007 8:41 am

Digit wrote:
And yet RS the Bushmen for example want nothing to do with that version of civilisation.

Since Bushmen, Aboriginals, and other H/G's represent less than 0,001% of current HSS world population, it seems to me their way is not the way to the future.

With aboslutely no intention to offend I would point out that the Nazis meet your definition of civilised.

No offense taken. You're absolutely right of course. Civilisation has many dark sides.

Post by **Minimalist** » Thu May 24, 2007 8:59 am

"Civilization" advanced in europe/asia much more quickly and spread more rapidly than it did in the western hemisphere.

A case could be made....and I think it has been made....that "civilization" is not such a wonderful thing for humanity in the long run.

Civilization leads to food surpluses and larger populations. But it also lead to social stratification, organized religion, chronic warfare, disease, property rights and court systems and the ice capades.

Maybe that's why the Indians fought so hard against it?

Rokcet Scientist · Post by **Rokcet Scientist** » Thu May 24, 2007 9:17 am

Minimalist wrote:
A case could be made....and I think it has been made....that "civilization" is not such a wonderful thing for humanity in the long run.

It isn't? How do you know? Are we already at the end of that long run then?
Civilisation – in itself – isn't good or bad. It's just a phase. And, yes, it does have side effects of course. Some we like, some we don't. Comes with the territory. But civilisation is not to blame for them. People are!

Forum Monk · Post by **Forum Monk** » Thu May 24, 2007 9:50 am

Minimalist wrote:Civilization leads to food surpluses and larger populations. But it also lead to social stratification, organized religion, chronic warfare, disease, property rights and court systems and the ice capades.

And that's just the U.S.

Maybe that's why the Indians fought so hard against it?

Or maybe that big land grab was upsetting them.

Post by **Minimalist** » Thu May 24, 2007 10:35 am

I'm sure you're right, Monk. The land grab was a major part of it.

Mayonaze · Post by **Mayonaze** » Thu May 24, 2007 11:01 am

Digit wrote:Mind you Forum, I still think you're dodging my question about Aboriginies and Bushmen being or not being civilised.
Come on, somebody take up the challenge!
Personally I do not believe that civilisation requires any material structures, only an agreed code of laws and their enforcement.

By this definition, a wolf pack would be "civilized" ... or any group of cats living in a confined space (ugh!). My dictionary says a system of writing is necessary.

Mayonaze · Post by **Mayonaze** » Thu May 24, 2007 11:07 am

Minimalist wrote:I'm sure you're right, Monk. The land grab was a major part of it.

I'm splitting hairs, but it wasn't the land grab per se. The Natives didn't feel they "owned" the land, they just used what it offered. The problem was the competition for scarce subsistance resources. Remember the slaughter of the buffalo? Same general thing continues in Alaska today. Many Native villages don't want to be on the road system because then non-locals could access their berry picking sites, catch their fish, ....

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Thu May 24, 2007 11:30 am

Sorry May, I specified a system of laws and their enforcement, I don't think Wolves qualify.

Forum Monk · Post by **Forum Monk** » Thu May 24, 2007 11:49 am

Maybe he's speaking of the law of the jungle.
It's definitately enforced by claw and tooth.

Mayonaze · Post by **Mayonaze** » Thu May 24, 2007 12:14 pm

Digit wrote:Sorry May, I specified a system of laws and their enforcement, I don't think Wolves qualify.

Digit;

Ever see a wolf pack operate? They have their own "laws" and enforcement.

Rokcet Scientist · Post by **Rokcet Scientist** » Thu May 24, 2007 12:19 pm

Mayonaze wrote:
The Natives didn't feel they "owned" the land

They didn't/don't?

I'm sorry, but that don't jive with

Mayonaze wrote:
their berry picking sites, catch their fish, ....

You may want to rethink that.

Post by **Minimalist** » Thu May 24, 2007 1:12 pm

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.

Barracuda · Post by **Barracuda** » Thu May 24, 2007 1:29 pm

Even if we concede, for the sake of argument, that Native American culture "lagged behind" European culture by several thousands years, its still just a blink in the big scheme of the history of mankind.

Like being half a stride behind in a mile long race. Basicly still neck and neck.

The exponentially of the development of technology amazes, and frightens, me sometimes....

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Thu May 24, 2007 1:53 pm

The Native Americans had a stable society that spanned many thousands of years, I can't see that they lagged behind anybody.
The Japanese, when they came up against the West in the 19C, adopted many western ideas, the NAs took one look and didn't want to know, they had a choice and preferred what they had.
Left to their own devices their society could have run side by side with ours, and they would probably have been much happier.