Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Native Americans Thread (merged)

A forum for discussion of regional topics including oil depletion but also government, society, and the future.

Would the Native Americans have screwed up as royally?

Yes
16
No votes
No
18
No votes
America wasn't screwed up
4
No votes
 
Total votes : 38

Re: Would the Native Americans have screwed up as royally?

Unread postby IslandCrow » Wed 01 Feb 2006, 11:04:12

I do not know enough about the Native Americans to give an overall view, but in searching for information on Easter Island and the collapse of that society I came across the following with a section (about half way down) about the Anasazi and how they destroyed their environment. Their location was "in our south west, in the four corners area of Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Utah".

Why Societies collapse

I just guess that people are much the same everywhere. We are all, and not just the Native Americans, are 'noble savages'. :roll: But I also agree with the postings that having more technology allows one to make the mess at a faster pace, as the saying goes (from my programming days) 'to err is human, but to totally mess it up you need a computer'. :P
User avatar
IslandCrow
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1272
Joined: Mon 12 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Finland

Re: Would the Native Americans have screwed up as royally?

Unread postby gnm » Wed 01 Feb 2006, 11:24:05

BO, I never said they were violent brutal savages nor do I think of them that way at all. They are just people. And people have always done what the Europeans did once they gained the tools to exploit thier surroundings and oppress other groups. Your rose colored view of early American Indian society just didn't happen. They were always struggling to improve their live s and took whatever advantages they could up to and including exceeding carrying capacity in various regions. Slash and burn agriculture in the Mayan culture reached critical mass at one point and their food output collapsed as the farmland was denuded.

Oh and yes the US government did terrible things to the american Indians.

The Aztecs did terrible things to smaller and weaker tribes around them as they expanded their empire.

Oh and yes the European/now americans were mostly responsible for wiping out the buffalo. Although it may have happened with the Plains Indians as well had they had rifles. It just would have happened slower I think since their population would have to grow as they used the "resource" whereas the "whites" (and black soldiers took part as well) were given financial incentives to rape and pillage buffalo pelts and ship them back east. Very lucrative.

I apologize for calling you a Pollyanna. I just think you have a very unrealistic view of early Indian cultures.

Oh and besides the fact that "race" is a subjective term the american Indians couldn't wipe out any other "races" since they were essentially homogenous throughoutt the americas. Although there is some evidence that ther americas were originally colonized by people of australian aborigine /pacific islander descent who were then subsequently wiped out by groups of asian descent moving in from the north.

-G
gnm
 

Re: Would the Native Americans have screwed up as royally?

Unread postby TommyJefferson » Wed 01 Feb 2006, 11:52:58

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BO', 'i')f having a favorable opinion about a lost race which white people wiped out in the biggest mass genocide the human race has ever witnesed, is "romantic wishful thinking", than I guess I am a romantic wishful thinker.


When you single out "white people" as being extra-ordinarily evil, I take exception.

Like gnm said, Native Americans were just people. People, like every other organism on this planet, consume all available resources until they reach stasis with their environment. Europeans just happened to be better at it, at that time.

If you wish to compare numbers of "percentages killed" by various ethnic groups, we can play that game all day. Just pick your favorite group.

Your rose-colored view of Native American society is romantic and disingenuous. We just want you to be more open-minded and honest by not promoting the idea that "white people", as you call us, are uniquely evil.
Conform . Consume . Obey .
User avatar
TommyJefferson
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1757
Joined: Thu 19 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Texas and Los Angeles

Re: Would the Native Americans have screwed up as royally?

Unread postby BO » Wed 01 Feb 2006, 13:04:57

Great!

I understand and respect your opinion, and I am sure you have much more knowledge than I do about individual cultures that existed in the Americas. However, I don't think I clarified my point, I admit I have limited understanding of the written history of Native Americans, but I was kind of focusing on the tribes that lived in the original 13 colonies, Canada, and perhaps midwest. It seems that much of the violent behavior happened in Maya, Aztec, Anasazi, etc., you even linked to eskimos. The atrocities commited by white settlers I have read about, mostly happened in the areas of the Northeast, where the first colonies were set up. I read the Wiki link about the Jamestown massacre, but come on, can you imagine the horror that ensued after the first Virginia settlement, when the settlers started going hungry? or in Massachusettes, when the setters/conquerors passed out smallpox infested blankets? What would you have done, if invaders came into your neighborhood, and did those things. I mean, how do we know what really went on? Historians are only now discovering some of the events that took place, that were never before acknowledged.:
http://www.slate.com/id/2130677/

I would be very interested in any links or info regarding the behavior of the early North and Southeastern Native Americans. It just seems to me that the accepted history is way off the mark, since it was mostly written by the conquerors.

And thanks for the honest debate gnm.

TommyJefferson wrote:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'L')ike gnm said, Native Americans were just people. People, like every other organism on this planet, consume all available resources until they reach stasis with their environment. Europeans just happened to be better at it, at that time.

If you wish to compare numbers of "percentages killed" by various ethnic groups, we can play that game all day. Just pick your favorite group.

Your rose-colored view of Native American society is romantic and disingenuous. We just want you to be more open-minded and honest by not promoting the idea that "white people", as you call us, are uniquely evil.


My view is neither dishonest nor disingenuous, and I also take exception to the assertion that "white people" are uniquely evil". I did not say that, and certainly did not mean to imply it either.

I am only using "white people" as an example in this case. If you remember, I said European and Eurasian EMPIRES, using them as an example here. I also said that this behavior was rampant in many South American EMPIRES like the Aztecs, and Mayans. For a great book (and it is free online) read "Final Empire" by W H Kotke. Here is the link:

http://www.rainbowbody.net/Finalempire/

Howard Zinn, in "Passionate Declarations" talks about this. He says that both Freud, psychologist, and I forget the biologists name, both say that Humans have a "violent" nature. Yet, neither can provide any physiological, or psychological reason for it, it is just not in our genetic makeup. Yet they both say that humans do, simply because of our 10,000 years of written history. Zinn then says this is a falacy because this history has been continually marked by "Hierarchal Society" Our written history is that of slave and slave master, and war, and violence has ALWAYS benefitted the slave masters, and the slaves have always paid the price, and always been blamed for there violence.

Its time to reject the concept that the stupid little humans are to blame, and start rejecting the oppresvie institutions that force us into this paradigm.

Lots is being said about Jared Diamonds fantastic book "Collapse", but notice it is about how "Complex Societies" collapse, not about how smaller scale simpler societies collapse. There are small forager societies that exist today, like the !Kung of the Kalahari, and the Kogi of Columbia, that have prevailed over thousands of years.

And let me reiterate, I did not say that white people are "uniquely evil", I said the EMPIRE is uniquely evil. I also am saying that the worst atrocities have been committed by Asian, Eurasian, and European races.

By telling me I need to be honest and open minded, while at the same time completely closing your mind, and being dishonest about what I am saying, is quite the paradox.

Also, I thought we were talking about Native Americans, which is why I am focusing on the destructive nature of white Europeans. I will leave you with this opening segment of Howard Zinn's "Peoples history of the US"

Take your own advice TommyJefferson, and be honest, and try to look at things from the perspective of the slave, instead of the dominant slavemaster dogma.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')rawak men and women, naked, tawny, and full of wonder, emerged from their villages onto the island’s beaches and swam out to get a closer look at the strange big boat. When Columbus and his sailors came ashore, carrying swords, speaking oddly, the Arawaks ran to greet them, brought them food, water, gifts. He later wrote of this in his log:

They…brought us parrots and balls of cotton and spears and many other things,
Which they exchanged for the glass beads and hawks’ bells. They willingly traded
Everything they owned….They were well-built, with good bodies and handsome
Features…They do not bear arms, and do not know them, for I showed them a
Sword, they took it by the edge and cut themselves out of ignorance.
They have no
Iron. Their spears are made of cane…They would make fine servants…With fifty
Men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want.

These Arawaks of the Bahama Islands were much like Indians on the mainland, who were remarkable (European observers were to say again and again) for their hospitality, their belief in sharing. These traits did not stand out in the Europe of the Renaissance, dominated as it was by the religion of popes, the government of kings, the frenzy for money that marked Western civilization and its first messenger to the Americas, Christopher Columbus.
Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.
-Edward Abbey

http://permanentlyindignant.wordpress.com/
User avatar
BO
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri 02 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Would the Native Americans have screwed up as royally?

Unread postby gnm » Wed 01 Feb 2006, 13:21:29

Well there have been studies which tend to point to a maximum of about 200-400 for a functioning "tribe" of humans. The tribes along the NE/SE were more widely spread out and smaller bands than a lot of the mesoamerican/SW groups (Anasazi were SW) and ( I think) the NW tended to be about that size for any one group although I am sure some areas exceeded that. The !Kung are interesting in that any single group tends to be about that as well. When they exceed that population you generally get migration of some members to another tribe or splinter groups which eventually end up being their own tribe. Given sufficent land/resources a number of small tribes could coexist peacfully or not even see each other except for trade or possibly trading of members (which happened and had the benifit of ensuring more genetic diversity).

Fierce competition for resources (SW in particular is harsh) or development of taxes/written language/ample food to sustain soldiery (Aztec/Mayan/Inca) probably contributed to the empire building and general complexity/violence of the mesoamerican and SW Indian groups.

Now if you go back far enough I think you will find similar factors existed in early Europe as well. Peaceful coexistence before competition/complexity.

My argument is that you are incorrect in stating that somehow Europeans have this loot,plunder enslave and conquer doctrine that did not exist in american Indians. I would argue that its related to competition and complexity of the given society and not endemic to any one group/"race".

-G
gnm
 

Re: Would the Native Americans have screwed up as royally?

Unread postby TheTurtle » Wed 01 Feb 2006, 14:02:27

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gnm', '
')Now if you go back far enough I think you will find similar factors existed in early Europe as well. Peaceful coexistence before competition/complexity.

My argument is that you are incorrect in stating that somehow Europeans have this loot,plunder enslave and conquer doctrine that did not exist in american Indians. I would argue that its related to competition and complexity of the given society and not endemic to any one group/"race".


Excellent point. My hunter-gather ancestors ... the indigenous natives of northern Europe ... were raped and killed and had their culture destroyed by the same agriculturist empire builders who eventually made their way across the Atlantic to continue their nasty ways.

And speaking of nasty, I find your avatar extremely disturbing, G. :P
“Humankind has not woven the web of life. We are but one thread within it. Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves.” (Ted Perry)
User avatar
TheTurtle
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1905
Joined: Sat 14 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Along the banks of the muddy Mississippi

Re: Would the Native Americans have screwed up as royally?

Unread postby TorrKing » Wed 01 Feb 2006, 14:31:09

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheTurtle', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Torjus', '
')
White innovations accelerated the process. The horse and gun accelerated the depletion of the buffalo already before the white man arrived.



Uh, there were no guns and horses among American aboriginals before the white man arrived.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Torjus', '
')
But white man of course is to blame for most of it.



In the early 1800s, Lewis and Clark reported that the multitudes of buffalo darkened the whole plains. The estimates are that there were between 35 and 75 million at that time. There were essentially none at that time east of the Mississippi River, since European settlers had killed them off to protect their own livestock and farmlands.

Buffalo were "hunted" almost to extinction from the windows of trains during the late 1800s. It turns out that buffalo hides were useful as belts in the machinery of the Industrial Revolution and so their hides were hunted (while the meat was left to rot). There is also documented evidence that the buffalo were hunted to deprive the natives on the plains of their primary food source.

White man was to blame for ALL of that.


The indians aquired horses and guns through trade long before they actually encountered any white people themselves.

The bison was already in decline, but it was the white man who finished them off. That was my point.

Advanced technology is bad for the long term survival of our species. (Well, that is not entirely true. If we don't spread out of this solar system we will be destroyed someday. But that will have to be the works of another civilisation. Because this one is doomed!!!!!)

Torjus Gaaren
User avatar
TorrKing
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 717
Joined: Thu 24 Nov 2005, 04:00:00
Location: The ever shrinking wilds of Norway
Top

Re: Would the Native Americans have screwed up as royally?

Unread postby BO » Wed 01 Feb 2006, 15:48:36

gnm wrote:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')y argument is that you are incorrect in stating that somehow Europeans have this loot,plunder enslave and conquer doctrine that did not exist in american Indians. I would argue that its related to competition and complexity of the given society and not endemic to any one group/"race".


You are absolutely correct. In my earlier post, I got a little over-zealous with my defense of Native Americans, and did alot of generalization. There is certainly a corelation between complexity and violence. The methods of Empire are the same whether they are Sino, European, Incan, Mayan, whatever, I should have been more clear, I was only using whites because we are talking about North America. I would bet that you could isolate sustainable societies in any race, based on population (I have also heard of the studies regarding 200-400 humans) and complexity.

Perhaps the more stable and sustainable NE/SE Native American tribes, were the result of both a virtually inexhaustable resource base for the population scale, and also a spiritual connection to those resources, (Native Americans blessing and thanking the animal they killed for its sacrifice), that allowed SOME societies to live in harmony with there surroundings.

Of course the Incan, Mayan, Aztecs had huge resource bases, and still Empire culture emerged, and collapsed. I think we can pretty clearly see why complex societies fail, perhaps the question should be, why do they begin?

It is also fairly clear that the Chinese basically invented resource depletion, and environmental destruction. This from Final Empire:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he environmental crisis began thousands of years ago, when the Han Chinese began to destroy the vast forests of China and when the Indo-Europeans began to overgraze the vegetation and exhaust the soils of central Asia. For two to three million years humans lived on the planet in a stable condition; then suddenly with the cultural inversion to civilization, the earth began to die. Civilization is the environmental crisis and the loss of topsoil is our measure of the etiology of the disease.


Regarding Europeans, while we certainly are not "uniquely evil" I would argue that, with the creation of enough nuclear weopons to wipe out the earth a thousand times over, we qualify as the "Most Evil"
Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.
-Edward Abbey

http://permanentlyindignant.wordpress.com/
User avatar
BO
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri 02 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Top

Re: Would the Native Americans have screwed up as royally?

Unread postby Ludi » Wed 01 Feb 2006, 21:20:35

Mostly, no. Some were civilized and their civilizations collapsed, as civilizations tend to do. The others weren't civilized and had no apparent need or desire to become so. In fact, some decided not to be settled and turned from farming to hunting buffalo after the introduction of horses by the Spaniards, because being nomadic/semi-nomadic hunters was easier than farming.

Civilization is based on a whole different set of cultural ideals, it's not "the destiny of mankind" or any such crap. It's just a particular kind of culture that tends to overrun its resources. Which HG and horticulture doesn't,by its very nature.
Ludi
 

Re: Would the Native Americans have screwed up as royally?

Unread postby Ludi » Wed 01 Feb 2006, 21:33:38

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BO', 'P')erhaps the more stable and sustainable NE/SE Native American tribes, were the result of both a virtually inexhaustable resource base for the population scale, and also a spiritual connection to those resources, (Native Americans blessing and thanking the animal they killed for its sacrifice), that allowed SOME societies to live in harmony with there surroundings.


Sort of yes, sort of no. They may or may not have had a "spiritual connection" to their resources but more likely they had a very pragmatic connection to them. That they lived "sustainably" had to do with at least a couple key aspects of their cultures:

1. Similar technological level to their neighbors

2. Finite territories

Keep in mind most tribes fought on and off most of the time, though some groups developed non-fighting, or mock fighting strategies. Tribes need to fight all the time to demarcate territorial boundaries. Similar technological levels means its very difficult and unlikely they will actually wipe out their competitors, this is very similar to other large predators - they establish territorial boundaries and avoid serious all out conflict because such conflicts can be lethal. So there's always a low level of conflict over these borders, which would rarely erupt into fullscale slaughter. Also, because HG cultures don't have standing armies, fighting takes too much time and resources away from making a living, for both sides.

Finite territories means the folks were very aware of how much of the resources they were using up, and limited their populations accordingly, because they couldn't just expand into the next valley - other folks were already living there. Contrary to European concepts, North America was full of people prior to colonization (400- 500 different cultures) and they lived pretty much all over. Some even had overlapping territories (such as the Lippan Apache and the Comanche in my neck of the woods).
Ludi
 
Top

Re: Would the Native Americans have screwed up as royally?

Unread postby gnm » Wed 01 Feb 2006, 22:49:56

Well said Ludi! You wouldn't be an anthropologist by trade would you?

-G
gnm
 

Re: Would the Native Americans have screwed up as royally?

Unread postby cheRand » Thu 02 Feb 2006, 00:34:09

I'm with Bo.

In my culture, there remains enough tradition and practice to say that we (Cherokees) highly valued cooperation. It was (is) the underlying premise of our social norms.

We didn't have Aristotle to laud excellence. We did have walled cities akin to the European fortresses of the dark ages (in this hemisphere). People belonged or were outcast. There was natural selection for cooperation thru the clan system of justice.

Diamond, and to some extent, Mann, have it wrong. They deduce it all from a Hobbsian perspective. I think Rousseau was closer to the mark.
Yes, there were aberrations and critical responses to crises such as famine. There were border defenses, and you can call it war.

But the religion and practices reinforced communal risk diversification, systems thinking, holistic worldview. The tough weakeness of such a culture is that it is inclusive and made way for the duality of individualism--- frontierism, pioneers, settlers, colonists, and hegemonic intruders who used stockpiling to overtake the balance. There was a cowbird in the nest.

If there had not been a cultural clash with Eurocentric stockpiling, tribes would not have been overrun and displaced, and the culture, which still works so well at managing within its reproductive limits, would be intact (well, evolved) and living within their means.
User avatar
cheRand
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 59
Joined: Mon 29 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Oklahoma

Re: Would the Native Americans have screwed up as royally?

Unread postby Ludi » Thu 02 Feb 2006, 08:52:39

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gnm', 'W')ell said Ludi! You wouldn't be an anthropologist by trade would you?

-G


Thank you! I wish! No, I'm just very interested in other cultures and how they "work." I think we can learn a lot form them if we can overcome our prejudices, many of which have been trained into us over our entire lives, we're engrained with our own cultural mythology, part of which includes mythology about other cultures. I think it's vital to try to learn how these other cultures actually function/functioned, and see if there are aspects we can apply to our own society for our own benefit.

I see value in looking at spiritual differences in cultures; the spirituality of a group is formed and supported by that group's way of life. Cultural ideals (memes) and ways of living can't be separated, you lose one you lose the other. Our civilization is based on memes which cause us to behave in certain ways. But we can't just paste a different spirituality over our current way of life and think all will be well, it just doesn't happen that easily. We can't, for instance, arbitrarily adopt some aspects of Native American spirituality such as sweat lodges and think we're somehow getting "closer to nature" or some such nonsense. To do so is to make a mockery of that spirituality. We need to look beyond the superficial practices of the spirituality to the way of life which supports and is supported by that spirituality - how is it different from ours? Why does/did it "work" in ways ours doesn't? What cultural memes are we operating under which cause us to behave the way we do and how can we change? I see this change needing to occur on two levels - cognitively (adopting new memes) and behaviorally (acting in a way consonant with those memes). This doesn't require "evolving to the next spiritual plane" or anything of the kind, it just means thinking and behaving in a consistent way, not thinking one thing and doing another.

CheRand is correct when she says Native Americans valued cooperation. It was the keystone of their society, a tribal society. Tribal life involves mutual support, or "give support - get support." It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with liking the people you're living with or being more generous; it is purely pragmatic. Because these groups depended on each other utterly to live within and protect their finite territories, cooperation was vital. You simply couldn't live without it. You couldn't just go off and live somewhere else by yourself, there was no "somewhere else" to go - somebody already lived there and they sure as hell didn't want you horning in on their territory. Our culture's ideal of expansion doesn't fit into this model. In our way of life, there's always somewhere else to go because you can just conquer the other guy and move into his territory. We've always done this, for some 8000 years. Talk about an engrained meme!

One bit of cultural mythology I'd like people to get over is the "noble savage" ideal of the Native Americans. They weren't/aren't "better people" or "in harmony with nature" or whatnot. They were just folks, like us but with different cultural memes. Above all they were pragmatic, they had to be. And I'd really like people to also get over the idea if one says something positive about tribal peoples, one isn't claiming they are "noble savages." Like us, they have their good and bad points. Just folks. This isn't to say some weren't very different from us, some cultures were, some were almost entirely peaceful, had no word or concept for rape, or concept for personal property, etc. And of course others were pretty darn horrible with cannibalism, etc. But the thing to remember is, the horrible behavior was extremely local, because there were so many different cultures, horrible or even stupid behaviors wouldn't affect more than a local area. But in our situation, we've nearly wiped out all other cultures and imposed our own culture on the whole planet, a culture which operates under some faulty memes, unpractical memes, and so we're crapping up the whole place rather than keeping our mistakes local. This is a very poor strategy for survival. Humans survived for tens of thousands, one hundred thousand years because of their cultural diversity.

Well, I'm sure verbose this morning....
Ludi
 
Top

Re: Would the Native Americans have screwed up as royally?

Unread postby BO » Thu 02 Feb 2006, 11:44:23

Great posts Ludi, and CheRand. Thank you for articulating what I failed to articulate.

Does anyone know much about the Kogi's in Columbia, There was a BBC documentary made in 1990 about them, apparatly they sought after this particular journalist; to give the world a message, They believe the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta mountain is the heart of the world, and that the "Younger Brother" us, are destroying the earth by digging out the heart of the planet, by sucking out oil, spoiling its natural water, and mining its minerals. Website here:

www.taironatrust.org

Here is a summary:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he Kogi Indians of South America, have a similar historical scenario in their creation story, told as part of theBBC film made by Alan Ereira and called Message from the Heart of the World: the Elder Brother's Warning. According to the Kogi, the Great Mother Aluna is the primeval waters and the source of all creation. Even before creating worlds, she lived through all possibilities for all worlds and all times through great mental anguish. For this she is known as Memory and Possibility. The eight worlds she created previous to this one were not peopled, but in this ninth world she put humans, including Elder and Younger Brothers. From the beginning, Younger Brother caused so much trouble that eventually he was given knowledge of technology and sent far, far away across the waters. Five hundred years ago, the Kogi say, he found his way back across the waters and he has been causing trouble ever since. If he does not listen to the Kogi, who see themselves as Elder Brother, and stop destroying the Mother, stop digging out her heart with his mining and cutting up her liver with his deforestation, he will bring this world to an end.

From the Hopi and Kogi perspectives, we see that present human existence is dominated by the "white brother" or "younger brother" of their ancient stories. He is industrial man as we have seen him in earlier chapters, creating a technological society founded on a mechanical worldview and scientific discovery. We have seen that his technological way of life, for all its benefits, has brought us to the brink of disaster. In this chapter we will see that it stands in sharp contrast to many indigenous and traditional peoples' worldviews, value systems and lifestyles which are only now beginning to be recognized as valid in their own right and possibly critical for our very survival as a species.


Link: http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~sai/Saht_indig_way.html

White people ARE inferior to many indigenous tribes, it has been drilled into us since childhood that we are superior, this is the only way to justify the atrocities we have committed, and still are commiting.

I don't know why it is so hard for us to see, I mean look at what the drooling idiot and his lackeys are now doing to the Kogi, exterminating them:

http://www.taironatrust.org/


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')pen Letter to the President of the United States George W. Bush


COLOMBIA
About fumigations in the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta


I work for a French NGO , "Tchendukua" whose goal is to recuperate land
for the Kogi Indians living in the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta in
Colombia.

In 2000 we bought, La Luna, a land, with access to the sea, It was the
first time since the Spanish invasion, the Kogis had a low land. They
where so happy, full of hope.
At the end of June 2004, La Luna became an " Indigenous Reserve" , a
protected area...
The Sierra is also one of the UNESCO's "Biosphere Reserves".
Fifteen days later, on July 17th, a plane from Dyncorp passed only once
to fumigate La Luna. That was enough to provoke a complete disaster.
Some days ago, I saw the rushes of a second movie we have made on the
Kogis.
Now, La Luna is like some places in Asia after the tsunami... I could
not believe it.

The Kogis took five years to regenerate the soil, now they will have to
wait, at least, five more years to replant. Everything is contaminated
and the streams are dry because there are no more trees to retain water.
What are they going to eat? What are they going to drink? Where to go?
Tchendukua's director in Santa Marta organized some time ago with the
Kogis and the farmers around, the eradication of coca by hand. There was
no coca in La Luna.
It is impossible that your sophisticated planes are unable to detect
Indians villages.

In the movie there is a scene with a Kogi shaman sitting in front of his
house, in the middle of the devastation. He is crying.
This image is unbearable and it will remain in my memory forever.
Yes, Mr. Bush, an image can turn people really angry.
Remember the picture of Nick Ut showing a little girl naked, burned by
Napalm, running on a road in Vietnam. This image had an incredible
impact in America.

Condolezza Rice wants Colombia to change its laws and spray in National
Parks such as La Macarena, El Catatumbo, La Sierra Nevada de Santa
Marta, etc...
To achieve that dirty job, a new aerial base for fumigation planes will
be build, $125 million.


The fumigation of La Luna on July 17th 2004 was completely illegal.

In the Sierra, Kogis, Arsarios-Wiwas, Kankuamos and Arhuacos are
starting to have health problems , especially children (see notes-page
14).

In Vietnam, after 45 years, Agent Orange is still active.
The new poisoned cocktail is called Agent Green. If you take the
ingredients one by one, it doesn't seem so dangerous. If you mix them,
highly concentrated, it is a terrible weapon. The mixture is made with
Monsanto Round Up Ultra, Cosmoflux 411F (illegal in the US), POEA and
the fungus fusarium oxysporum EN-4.

Dr David Sands, an American scientist who made some researches on EN-4
admits
( interview with the BBC-2000) that you can call it a Green Warfare or a
Biological Warfare.
When you had a few cases of Anthrax in your country it was immediately
called a terrorist biological attack...

The Dutch government donated 500.000 euros for the eradication of coca
by hand in the Amazonas and the Sierra. A part of this donation is
dedicated for substitution cultures and social development.
The Netherlands asked the parks director, Julia Miranda, to confirm
whether the decision to fumigate on the protected aeras was definitive,
because if it were so, "it could be motive to request the suspension of
activities financed by his Embassy".

Mr. Bush, you and your government, you will be responsible for the
genocide or ethnocide (see notes-page 10)) of the most ancient and
sophisticated precolombian cultures in Colombia.

The proper name for this worthless so-called drugwar is < BIOLOGICAL and
CHEMICAL WARFARE <.

Before writing this, I've asked to a Dr in Molecular Biology if I could
use those words, the answer was yes.

Mr. Bush, will you dare to say that you are doing this "In the Name of
God"?

Where are the courageous American scientists who helped to stop the
fumigations with Agent Orange in Vietnam in 1971?


The fact that this sort of thing goes on, and we don't even know about it, is disgusting, and it proves my point.
Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.
-Edward Abbey

http://permanentlyindignant.wordpress.com/
User avatar
BO
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri 02 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Top

Re: Would the Native Americans have screwed up as royally?

Unread postby gnm » Thu 02 Feb 2006, 12:22:03

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cheRand', '
')If there had not been a cultural clash with Eurocentric stockpiling, tribes would not have been overrun and displaced, and the culture, which still works so well at managing within its reproductive limits, would be intact (well, evolved) and living within their means.


I don't think you can say that with any certainty. What would have stopped a later and more successful mesoamerican empire from displacing and wiping out the Cherokee? The reproductive limits that worked so well were known as disease and starvation. Which is why the Mayans for instance ate and reproduced themselves into overshoot once they perfected agriculture.

And BO, I really can't believe you are saying that Europeans are somehow fundamentally inferior. GEEZ I thought we covered that.

Whats the difference between small indigenous american tribes and early european tribes at the same period of technological development? The early european tribes also followed various forms of animism/paganism with a deep respect for the earth and their place in it..

-G
gnm
 
Top

Re: Would the Native Americans have screwed up as royally?

Unread postby TommyJefferson » Thu 02 Feb 2006, 12:30:37

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'W')ell, I'm sure verbose this morning....


Interesting reading nonetheless. I appreciate it.
Conform . Consume . Obey .
User avatar
TommyJefferson
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1757
Joined: Thu 19 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Texas and Los Angeles
Top

Re: Would the Native Americans have screwed up as royally?

Unread postby Ludi » Thu 02 Feb 2006, 13:53:57

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gnm', ' ')The reproductive limits that worked so well were known as disease and starvation.


Well, no, actually. Tribal peoples tend to use population control methods, such as abortion and infanticide, and sexual taboos. Starvation to death is not common in HG cultures.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')Which is why the Mayans for instance ate and reproduced themselves into overshoot once they perfected agriculture.


Famine is more common in agriculture than HG, and agriculture is more vulnerable to hard times. It promotes a population which outstrips its resources, which HG doesn't do.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hats the difference between small indigenous american tribes and early european tribes at the same period of technological development? The early european tribes also followed various forms of animism/paganism with a deep respect for the earth and their place in it..



No difference. Prior to conquest by the Romans, the indigenous people of Europe were tribal, HG or small scale agriculture/horticulture. They behaved like any other tribes.
Ludi
 
Top

Re: Would the Native Americans have screwed up as royally?

Unread postby BO » Thu 02 Feb 2006, 15:21:34

gnm wrote:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')nd BO, I really can't believe you are saying that Europeans are somehow fundamentally inferior. GEEZ I thought we covered that.


Hey, I just disagree, to me, superior races live in harmony with their enviroment, control their populations, and don't destroy others in order to expand a complex system. I am not saying that ALL people of European descent are inferior, nor am I saying that these actions are uniquely European. Just taken as a whole, white European societies have reaped the most destruction upon the earth and humanity, than any other. If capitalism, globalism, empire, or whatever you want to call it, is a race to the bottom, than the white man wins.

For example,regarding the Kogi:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')uch like other ancient tribal civilizations, that still exist on the planet, they believe themselves to be the custodians of the planet Earth here to keep things in balance. They achieve this through meditation wherein they communicate with all living things on the planet - humans, animals, plants, rock, etc.

They live in Aluna, an inner world of thought and potential. From Aluna they astral travel or remote view to places both on and off the physical planet.

Their sacred lands are perceived as a metaphysical symbol of cosmic forces within the whole world - an oracle of the natural balance and health of the planet. ...They survived as a culture because the Kogi focus all their energy on the life of the mind as opposed to the life of a body or an individual.


To focus all of ones energy on the life of the mind, IMO, is superior, than say, focusing all of ones energy on accumulating wealth, which, IMO, is an inferior act.

Furthermore, ancient cultures were rewarded for their superiority as evidenced by John Zerzan in Future Primitive:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ') The Andaman Islanders, west of Thailand, have no leaders, no idea of symbolic representation, and no domesticated animals. There is also an absence of aggression, violence, and disease; wounds heal surprisingly quickly, and their sight and hearing are particularly acute. They are said to have declined since European intrusion in the mid-19th century, but exhibit other such remarkable physical traits as a natural immunity to malaria, skin with sufficient elasticity to rule out post-childbirth stretch marks and the wrinkling we associate with ageing, and an `unbelievable' strength of teeth: Cipriani reported seeing children of 10 to 15 years crush nails with them. He also testified to the Andamese practice of collecting honey with no protective clothing at all; "yet they are never stung, and watching them one felt in the presence of some age-old mystery, lost by the civilized world."

DeVries has cited a wide range of contrasts by which the superior health of gatherer-hunters can be established, including an absence of degenerative diseases and mental disabilities, and childbirth without difficulty or pain. He also points out that this begins to erode from the moment of contact with civilization.

Relatedly, there is a great deal of evidence not only for physical and emotional vigor among primitives but also concerning their heightened sensory abilities. Darwin described people at the southernmost tip of South America who went about almost naked in frigid conditions, while Peasley observed Aborigines who were renowned for their ability to live through bitterly cold desert nights "without any form of clothing." Levi-Strauss was astounded to learn of a particular [South American] tribe which was able to "see the planet Venus in full daylight," a feat comparable to that of the North African Dogon who consider Sirius B the most important star; somehow aware, without instruments, of a star that can only be found with the most powerful of telescopes. In this vein, Boyden recounted the Bushman ability to see four of the moons of Jupiter with the naked eye.


I can't do any of those things, and will probably never be able to, because I, as a white person, am inferior to the ancient cultures where this was, and is prevalent. This inferiority may have been bred into us, as these abilities may have been bred out of us. We may even be able to reverse this process, but the fact remains, currently, we are inferior.

Another example of our inferiority is Monsanto's Terminator technology, which is designed to genetically switch off a plant's ability to germinate a second time.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ') "A half-century after the Bengal famine [where, during British colonial rule, most of the food grown was exported for trade and for UK, instead of feeding hungry local people], a new and clever system has been put in place which is once again making the theft of the harvest a right and the keeping of harvest a crime. Hidden behind complex free-trade treaties are innovative ways to steal nature's harvest, the harvest of the seed, and the harvest of nutrition."

-- Vandana Shiva, Stolen Harvest (South End Press, 2000), p.6


In a world already facing global meltdown, especially in its food supply, this is just another example of the murderous, destructive nature of WHITE people. I mean, what kind of a mind comes up with something like this?

While some people, like many of us here, protest and raise awareness of these issues, the vast majority just go along with it. It is the same with Peak Oil, we, as a society, will do nothing, until it is too late.
Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.
-Edward Abbey

http://permanentlyindignant.wordpress.com/
User avatar
BO
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri 02 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Top

Re: Would the Native Americans have screwed up as royally?

Unread postby gnm » Thu 02 Feb 2006, 17:24:54

You are right Ludi. I was being overdramatic. Starvation is of course much more common in agricultural societies. Disease and injury I think gets all however. And you are correct about the other methods of population control as well.

Well I think this is the last I'm going to post on this thread since I am apparently talking to a wall as far as the lets all hate ourselves if we look "white" crowd goes. But I'll leave with this.

BO, while you're busy "race" bashing perhps you could define just what strange little subjective definition you use for "race" - Like do I have to "look" white or is there some sort of percentage? Like if I'm 1/8 "red", 1/8 "yellow", 1/4 "black" and the rest "white" but I "look white" then what am I? And so if by your definition I "look white" then I need to go an flog myself and generally live my life in shame because some distant unrelated ancestor who "looked white" did nasty things people who were slightly more tan or somesuch? Does that about cover it?

over and out..

-G
gnm
 

Re: Would the Native Americans have screwed up as royally?

Unread postby Ludi » Thu 02 Feb 2006, 17:36:42

Thanks, gnm. I wish you weren't leaving this thread. I think some others are having trouble seeing the difference between "race" and "culture." They should probably be criticising our culture rather than our race. I'm not big on the idea of race, myself, I prefer to think of regional differences, differences that developed over a long time in reaction to the environment. Which doesn't have a whole lot to do with where we find ourselves today with our culture. Mesopotamians probably wouldn't look especially "white" to most folks, but they started this particular mess we find ourselves in as a culture.

Regarding disease - it's likely nomadic and semi-nomadic peoples were slightly less prone to it than civilized peoples, because disease tends to build up in a crowded, settled population. Cities have typically been some of the least healthy places for people. Also, the civilized diet is less healthy than the HG diet, in general. Some peoples, such as the aforementioned Cherokee, had a vast knowledge of medicinal herbs. Most of our knowledge of North American medicinal herbs comes from the Cherokee, who used several hundred kinds (this with no written herbals, of course).
Ludi
 

PreviousNext

Return to North America Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest