Thomas,
I don't disagree with most of what you have written below. But the matter
of the effects of direct confrontation between invaders and indigenous
people is really only confusing the issue. The real influence is that of
trade and the availability of new goods. This is the moment when customs
start to change. This moment is when goods actually cross into the market
places of indigenous peoples and can often be years (or decades) before
they ever meet new settlers or are directly affected by them. (Steel blades
made in Birmingham and Sheffield reached the tribes of central New Guinea
more than a century before these tribes were "discovered" by white man.)
Earlier still, look at the speed at which the atlatl (and, later, its
development as the bow-and-arrow) was accepted by the *whole* of mankind as
it was then (circa 15,000BC) -- because it instantly raised hunting
productivity many many times over. This totally transformed the customs and
social structures of pre-atlatl hunter-gatherers. Probably, only a trace
of their oral history survived the transition. Would we really want to
preserve their customs, too? (The atlatl and the bow-and-arrow wiped out
most of the big game species that were alive then. Before that time, many
of their customs and folklore would have included these animals in their
pantheon. How could their pre-bow-and-arrow customs have continued in a
realistic way when the objects of their veneration had become extinct?)
You say you respect the culture of North American Indians. This implies
that I don't respect them. Of course I do. All I am saying is that large
chunks of their culture (such as languages) have disappeared because
they're irrelevant in modern-day practice and that no amount of artificial
encouragement (unless it be for the tourist trade) will save it. New
customs will arise in due course, and those will be respected, too.
Keith
At 09:27 25/07/99 +0000, you wrote:
>
>
>----------
>>From: Keith Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
>
>> I'm not so sure about all this. I used to think the same as Ed. I think,
>> now, that this point of view romanticises our ancestors. I rather think
>> that if their society had been as natural/stable/satisfying as is often
>> implied then it would have been a great deal more robust when faced with
>> modern society.
>
>Thomas:
>
>It is not that their society was not robust. It was, in my opinion, that
>disease knocked the robustness out of their society. I think we often skim
>over the effects of what might happen to a culture when %30 - %90 die.
>There was no way to fight the disease's of white culture - they mysteriously
>came, decimated families, tribal groups, specialized skills and left the
>remainder in a state of shock and forced to survive at the most primitive
>level.
>
>At the same time, a culture that valued land through ownership,
>disenfranchised their tradional ways, isolated them to reservations, made
>promise they did not keep and exploited them shamelessly.
>
>And finally, there was gunpowder.
>
>Keith wrote:
>
>True, in many places, indigenous society and modern
>> settlers both needed the same land and couldn't possibly co-exist, but in
>> many other places the original culture could have survived more or less
>> intact if they'd wanted it to. Instead, when faced with all the gewgaws
>> and temptations (including strong liquor) that modern man had to offer,
>> then most indigenous societies folded up quite quickly -- voluntarily, as
>> it were.
>
>Thomas:
>
>I find this most patronizing. Settlers did not "need" the land, they wanted
>the land to create wealth. The Indians, in many cases were willing to share
>but the white man wanted exclusive ownership. As to their susceptability
>to temptations, look in our own back yard at alcholism, drug abuse - not
>only among the poor, but among our professional classes as well, cocaine is
>not a poor man's drug.
>
>As to folding up, as you put it, I would choose to say overwhelmed by sheer
>numbers. Just as parts of England have been overwhelmed by immigration from
>previous colonial peoples.
>
>What I would say is that they often survived despite these crippling
>situations and in many cases have competed with us and succeeded. The
>culture of the Native North American Indians is growing, adapting, changing
>the ways of European immigrants today. I respect them immensely.
>
>Respectfully,
>
>Thomas Lunde
>
>> ________________________________________________________________________
>>
>> Keith Hudson, General Editor, Handlo Music, http://www.handlo.com
>> 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England
>> Tel: +44 1225 312622; Fax: +44 1225 447727; mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> ________________________________________________________________________
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
Keith Hudson, General Editor, Handlo Music, http://www.handlo.com
6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England
Tel: +44 1225 312622; Fax: +44 1225 447727; mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
________________________________________________________________________
