Project Reason is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society. The foundation draws on the talents of prominent and creative thinkers in a wide range of disciplines to encourage critical thinking and erode the influence of dogmatism, superstition, and bigotry in our world.
I decided to move my response from the thread that Martin started because it was derailing the excellent line of thought there.
can zen - 04 February 2012 09:02 PM
saralynn - 04 February 2012 05:38 PM
Answerer: Too bad anybody came over. Native American Indians were doing just fine, and I’d be in Sicily right now. God forbid I’d be a Catholic ... probably an Atheist Mafioso.
Imo, Native Americans have been way-over romanticized. Some of them were wonderful, but some of them were awful and killed and enslaved thousands, esp. those vicious heart-eating Aztecs.
Here’s the concluding paragraph from the article by John Horgan in the URL above:
The Arawak and Wampanoag were kind to us—and by us I mean people of European descent. We showed our thanks by sickening, subjugating and slaughtering them. And we have the gall to call them more savage than us.
There is no doubt that the native Americans were warriors and certainly killed one another before the Europeans arrived. And of course the Mayans, the Incas, and the Aztecs had their own cruel and immoral traditions, but as the book “1491” clearly states, in the early 1500s the natives of Europe were far, far more cruel, vicious, and war-like than their “brothers” in the Western hemisphere. In the 16th century there are historical proofs of many cities and towns in Europe where the total populations were massacred in the name of the Holy Roman Empire. And this was not just eating the still beating heart of a sacrificial youth at an annual ritual to the great spirits, but the most atrocious killings: like live persons being pulled apart by their limbs (drawn & quartered) by horses, people by the thousands burned at the stake, people skinned alive, tongues cut off, limbs chopped off, heads beaten to a pulp . . . I mean, think of the worst and most horrific ways to die? Eyes gouged out, ears bled by daggers, genitals evicerated, this is the actual history of 16th century christian Europe! But oh those American Indians - they were savage beasts!
And this might sound like a romanticised notion, but the influence of the Arawak and the Wampanoag reached France and England when in the 17th century some of the chiefs toured the European capitals and visited with the elite and the educated in those nations. And they passed on the principles of their societies and their political systems, their morality and their humanity to the emerging French Philosophes (think of Voltaire, Diderot, etc.). And the American founding fathers were also greatly influenced by the new and egalitarian notions of the Native American cultures. Some of the “great new ideas” in the American constitution are directly borrowed from the structure of human life on this continent before the arrival of the bloodthirsty theists from across the Atlantic. (Whoa, what a rant!)
Oh, are you just cleaning house? I’ll copy my response over here then.
Answerer - 04 February 2012 09:14 PM
Not a rant. Thanks for the history lesson, zen. saralynn’s romanticism would be charming if she adopted her relative’s (Walt Whitman) acceptance of everything as good (except that of a “mean man”) instead of vascillation and nullification.
Likewise in the words of John Winthrop, first governor of Massachusetts Bay Colony: “justifieinge the undertakeres of the intended Plantation in New England ... to carry the Gospell into those parts of the world, ... and to raise a Bulworke against the kingdome of the Ante-Christ.” [SH235]
In average two thirds of the native population were killed by colonist- imported smallpox before violence began. This was a great sign of “the marvelous goodness and providence of God” to the Christians of course, e.g. the Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony wrote in 1634, as “for the natives, they are near all dead of the smallpox, so as the Lord hath cleared our title to what we possess.” [SH109,238]
On Hispaniola alone, on Columbus visits, the native population (Arawak), a rather harmless and happy people living on an island of abundant natural resources, a literal paradise, soon mourned 50,000 dead. [SH204]
The surviving Indians fell victim to rape, murder, enslavement and spanish raids.
As one of the culprits wrote: “So many Indians died that they could not be counted, all through the land the Indians lay dead everywhere. The stench was very great and pestiferous.” [SH69]
The indian chief Hatuey fled with his people but was captured and burned alive. As “they were tying him to the stake a Franciscan friar urged him to take Jesus to his heart so that his soul might go to heaven, rather than descend into hell. Hatuey replied that if heaven was where the Christians went, he would rather go to hell.” [SH70]
What happened to his people was described by an eyewitness: “The Spaniards found pleasure in inventing all kinds of odd cruelties ... They built a long gibbet, long enough for the toes to touch the ground to prevent strangling, and hanged thirteen [natives] at a time in honor of Christ Our Saviour and the twelve Apostles… then, straw was wrapped around their torn bodies and they were burned alive.” [SH72]
Or, on another occasion:
“The Spaniards cut off the arm of one, the leg or hip of another, and from some their heads at one stroke, like butchers cutting up beef and mutton for market. Six hundred, including the cacique, were thus slain like brute beasts…Vasco [de Balboa] ordered forty of them to be torn to pieces by dogs.” [SH83]
The “island’s population of about eight million people at the time of Columbus’s arrival in 1492 already had declined by a third to a half before the year 1496 was out.” Eventually all the island’s natives were exterminated, so the Spaniards were “forced” to import slaves from other caribbean islands, who soon suffered the same fate. Thus “the Caribbean’s millions of native people [were] thereby effectively liquidated in barely a quarter of a century”. [SH72-73] “In less than the normal lifetime of a single human being, an entire culture of millions of people, thousands of years resident in their homeland, had been exterminated.” [SH75]
“And then the Spanish turned their attention to the mainland of Mexico and Central America. The slaughter had barely begun. The exquisite city of Tenochtitl n [Mexico city] was next.” [SH75]
Cortez, Pizarro, De Soto and hundreds of other spanish conquistadors likewise sacked southern and mesoamerican civilizations in the name of Christ (De Soto also sacked Florida).
“When the 16th century ended, some 200,000 Spaniards had moved to the Americas. By that time probably more than 60,000,000 natives were dead.” [SH95]
Of course no different were the founders of what today is the US of Amerikkka.
Although none of the settlers would have survived winter without native help, they soon set out to expel and exterminate the Indians. Warfare among (north American) Indians was rather harmless, in comparison to European standards, and was meant to avenge insults rather than conquer land. In the words of some of the pilgrim fathers: “Their Warres are farre less bloudy…”, so that there usually was “no great slawter of nether side”. Indeed, “they might fight seven yeares and not kill seven men.” What is more, the Indians usually spared women and children. [SH111]
In the spring of 1612 some English colonists found life among the (generally friendly and generous) natives attractive enough to leave Jamestown - “being idell ... did runne away unto the Indyans,” - to live among them (that probably solved a sex problem).
“Governor Thomas Dale had them hunted down and executed: ‘Some he apointed (sic) to be hanged Some burned Some to be broken upon wheles, others to be staked and some shott to deathe’.” [SH105]
Of course these elegant measures were restricted for fellow englishmen: “This was the treatment for those who wished to act like Indians. For those who had no choice in the matter, because they were the native people of Virginia” methods were different: “when an Indian was accused by an Englishman of stealing a cup and failing to return it, the English response was to attack the natives in force, burning the entire community” down. [SH105]
On the territory that is now Massachusetts the founding fathers of the colonies were committing genocide, in what has become known as the “Peqout War”. The killers were New England Puritan Christians, refugees from persecution in their own home country England.
When however, a dead colonist was found, apparently killed by Narragansett Indians, the Puritan colonists wanted revenge. Despite the Indian chief’s pledge they attacked. Somehow they seem to have lost the idea of what they were after, because when they were greeted by Pequot Indians (long-time foes of the Narragansetts) the troops nevertheless made war on the Pequots and burned their villages.
The puritan commander-in-charge John Mason after one massacre wrote: “And indeed such a dreadful Terror did the Almighty let fall upon their Spirits, that they would fly from us and run into the very Flames, where many of them perished ... God was above them, who laughed his Enemies and the Enemies of his People to Scorn, making them as a fiery Oven ... Thus did the Lord judge among the Heathen, filling the Place with dead Bodies”: men, women, children. [SH113-114]
So “the Lord was pleased to smite our Enemies in the hinder Parts, and to give us their land for an inheritance”. [SH111].
Because of his readers’ assumed knowledge of Deuteronomy, there was no need for Mason to quote the words that immediately follow: “Thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth. But thou shalt utterly destroy them…” (Deut 20)
Mason’s comrade Underhill recalled how “great and doleful was the bloody sight to the view of the young soldiers” yet reassured his readers that “sometimes the Scripture declareth women and children must perish with their parents”. [SH114]
Other Indians were killed in successful plots of poisoning. The colonists even had dogs especially trained to kill Indians and to devour children from their mothers breasts, in the colonists’ own words: “blood Hounds to draw after them, and Mastives to seaze them.” (This was inspired by spanish methods of the time) In this way they continued until the extermination of the Pequots was near. [SH107-119]
The surviving handful of Indians “were parceled out to live in servitude. John Endicott and his pastor wrote to the governor asking for ‘a share’ of the captives, specifically ‘a young woman or girle and a boy if you thinke good’.” [SH115]
Other tribes were to follow the same path.
Comment the Christian exterminators: “God’s Will, which will at last give us cause to say: How Great is His Goodness! and How Great is his Beauty!”
“Thus doth the Lord Jesus make them to bow before him, and to lick the Dust!” [TA]
Like today, lying was OK to Christians then. “Peace treaties were signed with every intention to violate them: when the Indians ‘grow secure uppon (sic) the treatie’, advised the Council of State in Virginia, ‘we shall have the better Advantage both to surprise them, & cutt downe theire Corne’.” [SH106]
In 1624 sixty heavily armed Englishmen cut down 800 defenseless Indian men, women and children. [SH107]
In a single massacre in “King Philip’s War” of 1675 and 1676 some “600 Indians were destroyed. A delighted Cotton Mather, revered pastor of the Second Church in Boston, later referred to the slaughter as a ‘barbeque’.” [SH115]
To summarize: Before the arrival of the English, the western Abenaki people in New Hampshire and Vermont had numbered 12,000. Less than half a century later about 250 remained alive - a destruction rate of 98%. The Pocumtuck people had numbered more than 18,000, fifty years later they were down to 920 - 95% destroyed. The Quiripi-Unquachog people had numbered about 30,000, fifty years later they were down to 1500 - 95% destroyed.
The Massachusetts people had numbered at least 44,000, fifty years later barely 6000 were alive - 81% destroyed. [SH118]
These are only a few examples of the multitude of tribes living before Christian colonists set their foot on the New World. All this was before the smallpox epidemics of 1677 and 1678 had occurred. And the carnage was not over then.
All the above was only the beginning of the European colonization, it was before the frontier age actually had begun.
A total of maybe more than 150 million Indians (of both Americas) were destroyed in the period of 1500 to 1900, as an average two thirds by smallpox and other epidemics, that leaves some 50 million killed directly by violence, bad treatment and slavery.
In many countries, such as Brazil, and Guatemala, this continues even today.
It is one of the most amazing of discussions. Are we Hobbesian nasty brutes or Rousseauish noble savages? Obviously we are both, but why and when do we act out in such manners?
can zen: There is no doubt that the native Americans were warriors and certainly killed one another before the Europeans arrived. And of course the Mayans, the Incas, and the Aztecs had their own cruel and immoral traditions.
To say the least!
Sacrifices were taken to the tops of the Aztec pyramids and laid upon a flat stone. There, their chests were cut open and their hearts were ripped out. The bodies were then thrown down the steps of the pyramid. The Spaniards who witnessed this violence were horrified.
More than blood lust prompted these ritual sacrifices. The Aztecs believed in a concept of “tonalli” or the “animating spirit”. Tonalli was believed to be carried in the blood, and since blood flowed from the heart, this was the organ that was offered up to sate the god’s appetite. It was believed that without these sacrifices, all motion would stop including the movement of the sun. The Aztecs’ human sacrifices were intended to keep the sun from halting its orbit.
Also, the Aztecs did not have livestock. They practiced cannibalism on their captives. After the sacrifices tumbled down the stairs, the Aztec priests removed the limbs and cooked them. The hands and thighs were delicacies.
Estimates suggest 20,000 people a year were sacrificed by the Aztec royalty. This royalty was made up of a priest class. The priests directly served the Chosen Speaker. In Tenochtitlan, the Aztec capital city (with between 150,000 and 300,00 inhabitants it was one of the biggest metropolises in the world at the time) there were five thousand priests.
The priests painted their bodies black in order to symbolize religion and war. Their hair was matted with blood from human sacrifices. They filed their teeth to sharp points.
C’mon, can zen, I am fully aware of all the atrocities committed in the name of Christ and I think the treatment of indigenous tribes by the Europeans was horrible. However, this type of aggression was the norm throughout history.
There was an excellent book written about this subject: “War Before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage” by Lawrence Keely. After years of research, he concluded:
“If Westerners have belatedly recognized that they are not the crown of creation and rightful lords of the earth, their now common view of themselves as humanity’s nadir is equally absurd.” He continues: “The myths of either primitive or civilized superiority deny the intellectual, psychological and physiological equality of humankind. In fact, the proponents of the pacified past disclaim the idea that all peoples share a common human nature by denying that all societies are capable of using violence to advance their interests.”
Human beings seem inclined to see events, objects or ideas as either bad OR good, which, of course, is seldom the case. I’m teased on PR for being inconsistent or vacillating, but, the fact is, everything is rather complex and perhaps I appreciate that complexity more than others. Yes, the Native Americans were treated unjustly. Yes, if the situation were reversed and they had colonized a new land, the Native Americans would have most likely done the same damn thing as the Europeans. Don’t you see that human beings are all alike? Blood is a turn-on.
C’mon, can zen, I am fully aware of all the atrocities committed in the name of Christ and I think the treatment of indigenous tribes by the Europeans was horrible. However, this type of aggression was the norm throughout history.
Agree. Nothing inherently “noble” about “savages.” Europeans were more efficient in their aggression, with soldiers not warriors, guns not spears, etc., but it is the human race as a whole that harbors both nobility and an inclination to whack some offending person.
C’mon, can zen, I am fully aware of all the atrocities committed in the name of Christ and I think the treatment of indigenous tribes by the Europeans was horrible. However, this type of aggression was the norm throughout history.
Agree. Nothing inherently “noble” about “savages.” Europeans were more efficient in their aggression, with soldiers not warriors, guns not spears, etc., but it is the human race as a whole that harbors both nobility and an inclination to whack some offending person.
No one is disputing the aggressive nature of man throughout history that I can see, history would have to be denied to do that. But there is a big difference that is being noted in comparison. saralynn is referring to barbaric and atrocious religious rituals within their own culture with limited and systematic acts of individual aggression (sacrifices) to appease the gods, while the counter example of aggression is referring to the invasion of lands and mass slaughter of other cultures, even peaceful altruistic ones that didn’t practice religious barbarism, for the sole purpose of greed using dehumanization and the Judeo-Christian religious texts to justify it. All in all, regardless of warring disputes between native tribes, efficiency of death, IMO, is not an appropriate or encompassing way to describe the intent and methods. I think nobility definitely favors the savages over the Christians.
On Hispaniola alone, on Columbus visits, the native population (Arawak), a rather harmless and happy people living on an island of abundant natural resources, a literal paradise, soon mourned 50,000 dead. [SH204]
Although none of the settlers would have survived winter without native help, they soon set out to expel and exterminate the Indians. Warfare among (north American) Indians was rather harmless, in comparison to European standards, and was meant to avenge insults rather than conquer land. In the words of some of the pilgrim fathers: “Their Warres are farre less bloudy…”, so that there usually was “no great slawter of nether side”. Indeed, “they might fight seven yeares and not kill seven men.” What is more, the Indians usually spared women and children. [SH111]
ANSWERER ....even peaceful altruistic ones that didn’t practice religious barbarism, for the sole purpose of greed using dehumanization and the Judeo-Christian religious texts to justify it. All in all, regardless of warring disputes between native tribes, efficiency of death, IMO, is not an appropriate or encompassing way to describe the intent and methods. I think nobility definitely favors the savages over the Christians.
So Christians are the only and the worst people to be greedy and justify their brutish behavior in the name of religion? The world is large and history is long. Peaceful people have always gotten raped, killed and pillaged. That’s why they tend to be in the minority. You are biased because you have issues with Christianity and emphasize it’s atrocities compared to others. How about the Spartans….the Mongols…The Assyrians? Those crazy Celts used to decorate their homes with the heads of their victims.
No one is disputing the aggressive nature of man throughout history that I can see, history would have to be denied to do that. But there is a big difference that is being noted in comparison. saralynn is referring to barbaric and atrocious religious rituals within their own culture with limited and systematic acts of individual aggression (sacrifices) to appease the gods, while the counter example of aggression is referring to the invasion of lands and mass slaughter of other cultures, even peaceful altruistic ones that didn’t practice religious barbarism, for the sole purpose of greed using dehumanization and the Judeo-Christian religious texts to justify it. All in all, regardless of warring disputes between native tribes, efficiency of death, IMO, is not an appropriate or encompassing way to describe the intent and methods. I think nobility definitely favors the savages over the Christians.
Exactly what I was trying to point out. I was dismayed that the ‘nobility’ of the American natives was put into dispute as being romanticized out of all proportion in the statement from saralynn. The very idea of nobility seems to me essentially a product of the ideas that people possess, it’s like a measure of one’s “moral landscape” - to quote Harris. The problem here is that we hardly know about how the concepts of society and humanity actually played out in the political organisation of the pre-Columbian cultures in North America. Maybe what Rousseau and Voltaire saw as more noble than what was politically practiced in Europe from the 16th to the 18th centuries was clearly evident to them when hearing about the ways that human communities operated in the Americas prior to 1500?
The major difference in the European view vs the indigenous American view about social structure was the concept of individual ownership. In Europe a man could own land and he could own labourers (other men), he also owned his wife and his children, his livestock and his constructed properties. In the native American view there existed no such concept. Many tribes were matrilineal in organization, especially those in the northeastern quarter of the continent. We need not get into comparing the different technologies and inventiveness of these peoples in order to get a measure of their nobility, but we should compare their moral perspectives.
An interesting note is that where gods (as supernatural beings) enter the picture there is a definite and sometimes drastic decline in moral sensibility. Look at how often those writings (posted here by Amswerer) from 16th century New England invoke god as a source of the decimation of native populations or as justification for human atrocities. This same thing holds true in the actions of the Aztec and the Inca, when appeasement of the gods is at stake human beings become less than animals and the very idea of ‘nobility,’ in a moral sense, completely disappears.
Even more complex questions then arise . . is it more noble to give women the right to vote and the right to own property, than it is to completely denigrate as intrinsically immoral a right to own any other thing apart from the direct efforts of each individual’s actions? What is the most “noble” idea, ultimately?
Sacrifices were taken to the tops of the Aztec pyramids and laid upon a flat stone. There, their chests were cut open and their hearts were ripped out. The bodies were then thrown down the steps of the pyramid. The Spaniards who witnessed this violence were horrified.
More than blood lust prompted these ritual sacrifices. The Aztecs believed in a concept of “tonalli” or the “animating spirit”. Tonalli was believed to be carried in the blood, and since blood flowed from the heart, this was the organ that was offered up to sate the god’s appetite. It was believed that without these sacrifices, all motion would stop including the movement of the sun. The Aztecs’ human sacrifices were intended to keep the sun from halting its orbit.
(Andrew): See…I’m tellin’ ya. All religions cause harm.
Don’t forget that the Spaniards witnessing the treatment of the Azrec sacrifices were on a mission from God: Convert the heathen and steal their land, or destroy the heathen and steal their land.
Also, the Aztecs did not have livestock. They practiced cannibalism on their captives. After the sacrifices tumbled down the stairs, the Aztec priests removed the limbs and cooked them. The hands and thighs were delicacies.
(Andrew): Unless it’s done to avoid hunger, cannibals believe that by consuming part of another human, they gain some of that human’s essence. A great warrior, for instance, or the enemy captives of a fierce battle well fought, would impart strength and courage. That sort of thing.
When the early Christians indulged in the Eucharist, it was with the expressed hope that by eating some of Christ, even symbolically, they would gain the most important part of his essence…“eternal life” (John 6:54).
Not a lot of difference as to motive, in my view.
(Andrew): Unless it’s done to avoid hunger, cannibals believe that by consuming part of another human, they gain some of that human’s essence. A great warrior, for instance, or the enemy captives of a fierce battle well fought, would impart strength and courage. That sort of thing.
When the early Christians indulged in the Eucharist, it was with the expressed hope that by eating some of Christ, even symbolically, they would gain the most important part of his essence…“eternal life” (John 6:54).
Not a lot of difference as to motive, in my view.
That’s a very interesting comparison I had not heard before, but it sure makes some sense.
(Andrew): See…I’m tellin’ ya. All religions cause harm.
Don’t forget that the Spaniards witnessing the treatment of the Azrec sacrifices were on a mission from God: Convert the heathen and steal their land, or destroy the heathen and steal their land.
Considering that some 70+% of the human race espouses some form of theism or another, it seems only logical that acts of violence between humans of whatever brand will be more than likely to involve some religion. Could it be that it isn’t religion as much as the nasty critters who express that violence, with religion being perhaps just another belief system? People have visited horrible injuries on each other with no religion being broadcast, as Communists did to millions, as well as the 3rd Reich. Yea, the 3rd Reich had some religious trappings, but it was never my impression that religion was a driving force in that movement as much as it was racism and political power.
ANSWERER ....even peaceful altruistic ones that didn’t practice religious barbarism, for the sole purpose of greed using dehumanization and the Judeo-Christian religious texts to justify it. All in all, regardless of warring disputes between native tribes, efficiency of death, IMO, is not an appropriate or encompassing way to describe the intent and methods. I think nobility definitely favors the savages over the Christians.
So Christians are the only and the worst people to be greedy and justify their brutish behavior in the name of religion? The world is large and history is long. Peaceful people have always gotten raped, killed and pillaged. That’s why they tend to be in the minority. You are biased because you have issues with Christianity and emphasize it’s atrocities compared to others. How about the Spartans….the Mongols…The Assyrians? Those crazy Celts used to decorate their homes with the heads of their victims.
You’re wrong, saralynn. I’m not biased against Christianity. You’re biased in your assessment that I’m biased. You’re also biased in your defense of religion and view of religion, which I think is showing through here. You’re doing the same thing as BM in trying to excuse Christianity/Religion by citing examples of other cultures/religions/non-religiousness and of all of human history as a net result, while attributing good to religion and bad to people though they are affiliated and just as much Christian and just as much motivated by it and conceptually justified for it. My argument here and on the “do good” thread is that religion doesn’t do anything, people do. These actions must be judged on their own merits. With regard to religion, at least Judeo-Christian-Muslim, not all the ones that have existed throughout time, the hypocrisy that religion is good or does good is emphasized by not only what they do bad, but how and why they do it.
With regard to the situation of the North American Indians and invader Christian settlers, Spanish and Puritans, which is what I had in mind originally until you went south to Mexico to the Aztec, there is no question when you consider all the facts as to the “bad” done by Christianity (people in the name of it or as justification for it) it is all the more intensified and made more shameful and outrageous when you consider the noble nature of the natives (ie, they had their own spirituality and social norms of conducting themselves, their own land, were not the aggressors, etc) that was far superior than the actions of the Christians. Whether the Christians were actually conducting themselves in the spirit of Christ’s message is another debate that exists to this day. It is the “noble savage”, the modern day Atheist, that also seems to know better the message of Christ that Christians practice precisely because we are unbiased (not Christians) and have reached the correct conclusions.
ANSWERER ....even peaceful altruistic ones that didn’t practice religious barbarism, for the sole purpose of greed using dehumanization and the Judeo-Christian religious texts to justify it. All in all, regardless of warring disputes between native tribes, efficiency of death, IMO, is not an appropriate or encompassing way to describe the intent and methods. I think nobility definitely favors the savages over the Christians.
That sure reads like an anti-christian bias to me. I tend to be anti-theism, period, but more than that perhaps “Anti” the many traits of humans that give rise to these violent group acts, and suspect that religion is more of a frosting on the cake than the cake.
can zen: The major difference in the European view vs the indigenous American view about social structure was the concept of individual ownership.
There are two squirrels who live in a tree outside my window who own the land on my property. Our cats feel the same way. And the birds. If any foreign squirrels, cats, or birds trespass on their property, they will rip their heads off.
Native Americans in the US didn’t own land for cultural reasons, but also because there was so much of it. However, I don’t think any tribe would have docilely accepted another tribe repeatedly encroaching on their territory.
You guys are such romantics when it comes to the Native Americans. Human beings have more similarities than differences. One of those similarities is aggression, delineation of distinct territories, and….usually…..the domination of the female by the male. Matrilinear is quite different than matiarchal. Some anthropologists and authors hold that there are no known societies that are unambiguously matriarchal, although many are matrilinear, which is quite different. The Iroquois are a notable exception because the women did assume moral and some political authority, but that was rare and not the norm for other indigenous cultures.
In the old days in the Wild West, Native Americans were viewed as savage and cruel. Today, they are stereotyped as being innocent, just, and peaceful. The fact is they were both and neither, just like every other group of human beings who has ever existed.
Please don’t think I am unsympathetic to how the Native Americans were treated by the Europeans. It is very sad. I read Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee and almost threw up because I cried so hard. I just insist that this sort of behavior is not unusual, either among the religiously inclined or otherwise. I wish it were so, but it isn’t.
I’m afraid the OP is donkey bollocks with horseshit mashed in. There’s a clear record of a gradual decline in violence and progressive sophistiication in civilization from the Dark Ages till the present day. Get the statistics from Steven Pinker if you want them. Aztec civilization was nowhere near as old or as big as European civilization, and it wasn’t as advanced either.
The amount of people the Aztecs sacrificed within a few years is comparable to the total number of witch-burnings in Europe over several hundreds of years. So don’t talk about witch burnings. As for people getting chopped to pieces: welcome to human anthropology. Doesn’t matter if the Europeans were monsters; the fact is that the Aztecs were worse monsters.
How do you think the Europeans managed to develop all this technology, art, architecture, etc. if they were such monsters compared with everyone else? It’s not easy to create things if you’re worrying about getting your head cracked open.
can zen: The major difference in the European view vs the indigenous American view about social structure was the concept of individual ownership.
There are two squirrels who live in a tree outside my window who own the land on my property. Our cats feel the same way. And the birds. If any foreign squirrels, cats, or birds trespass on their property, they will rip their heads off.
Native Americans in the US didn’t own land for cultural reasons, but also because there was so much of it. However, I don’t think any tribe would have docilely accepted another tribe repeatedly encroaching on their territory.
You guys are such romantics when it comes to the Native Americans. Human beings have more similarities than differences. One of those similarities is aggression, delineation of distinct territories, and….usually…..the domination of the female by the male. Matrilinear is quite different than matiarchal. Some anthropologists and authors hold that there are no known societies that are unambiguously matriarchal, although many are matrilinear, which is quite different. The Iroquois are a notable exception because the women did assume moral and some political authority, but that was rare and not the norm for other indigenous cultures.
In the old days in the Wild West, Native Americans were viewed as savage and cruel. Today, they are stereotyped as being innocent, just, and peaceful. The fact is they were both and neither, just like every other group of human beings who has ever existed.
Please don’t think I am unsympathetic to how the Native Americans were treated by the Europeans. It is very sad. I read Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee and almost threw up because I cried so hard. I just insist that this sort of behavior is not unusual, either among the religiously inclined or otherwise. I wish it were so, but it isn’t.
Good post, Sara, said it better than I’ve been trying to do.
ANSWERER ....even peaceful altruistic ones that didn’t practice religious barbarism, for the sole purpose of greed using dehumanization and the Judeo-Christian religious texts to justify it. All in all, regardless of warring disputes between native tribes, efficiency of death, IMO, is not an appropriate or encompassing way to describe the intent and methods. I think nobility definitely favors the savages over the Christians.
That sure reads like an anti-christian bias to me. I tend to be anti-theism, period, but more than that perhaps “Anti” the many traits of humans that give rise to these violent group acts, and suspect that religion is more of a frosting on the cake than the cake.
In assessing the interaction between the invaders (Christians) and the North American Indians, are you saying you can’t make a determination of right and wrong based on the facts? That since I do, I am biased?
Answerer: You’re wrong, saralynn. I’m not biased against Christianity. You’re biased in your assessment that I’m biased. You’re also biased in your defense of religion and view of religion, which I think is showing through here. You’re doing the same thing as BM in trying to excuse Christianity/Religion by citing examples of other cultures/religions/non-religiousness and of all of human history as a net result, while attributing good to religion and bad to people though they are affiliated and just as much Christian and just as much motivated by it and conceptually justified for it.
I think you are biased in your assessment of me being biased in my assessment of you being biased.
I’m definitely not defending the behavior of Christians throughout history. How could I? I am quite democratic in my criticisms. I think all groups of people from all places and during all epochs have acted and do act viciously. It is something we can rely on. They even start beating each other up when their stupid soccer team loses.
I also am pleased that human beings also have the capacity for love, kindness, and even self-sacrifice. I don’t exclude anyone…Christian, Aztec, soldiers, sailors, or candlestick makers.
As for comparing me to Brother Mario…That’s a personal attack I shall not accept! If I were in your presence I would slap your face with my glove and challenge you to….well, not a duel, but I might run head-first into your gut. The only way I am like him is that I go against the “conventional wisdom” expressed on this site. I defend theists for the same reason I criticize Native Americans. Humanity is corrupt, not all the stupid things they believe in…including atheism.
In the old days in the Wild West, Native Americans were viewed as savage and cruel. Today, they are stereotyped as being innocent, just, and peaceful. The fact is they were both and neither, just like every other group of human beings who has ever existed.
Now that that is out of the way, it’s a good starting point to assess the facts of the matter.
I am quite democratic in my criticisms. I think all groups of people from all places and during all epochs have acted and do act viciously. It is something we can rely on.
I think the actual bias that shows up here is the unwillingness to assess a right or a wrong and squarely attribute it to the offending party. On the “Do do good” thread, it would simply be chalked-up on the side of religion doing bad (without bias). Here, it is those white people who came over on their boats while the label of Christian is deemed bias. Remember, this whole topic took on the religious context in response to:
saralynn - 04 February 2012 01:16 PM
Later in the day, I realized that I am reluctant to face the ugly truth about suffering, which is that it is often senseless and destructive. I wonder if a hunger for optimism is a particularly “American” trait. I think it is….influenced by the youth of our nation, our affluence, and…yup… our Protestant heritage. Yes, there are crucifixtions….but there is always the Resurrection and Heaven! I wish a few Buddhists had immigrated here instead of all those Puritans & Pilgrims. The “LIfe is Suffering” concept is much more realistic than the “every cloud has a silver lining” stuff, even though that is implicit in Buddhism, I suppose.
Answerer - 04 February 2012 03:58 PM
Too bad anybody came over. Native American Indians were doing just fine, and I’d be in Sicily right now. God forbid I’d be a Catholic ... probably an Atheist Mafioso.
Meaning: Look what Protestant optimism got them. You are arguing against your very point ... and mine, then back again. Hence, vacillation. Are Protestants not Christians? Your objection was that North American Native Indians weren’t “doing just fine” without them. Your pessimism of the human race, thus gravitation to religious hopefulness, then pessimism of religious hopefulness is distorting the facts. You simply can’t stand anywhere where you’re comfortable. Don’t take it out on me. At least you have qualified professional support in Dennis.
Nobility is a social class which possesses more acknowledged privileges or eminence than members of most other classes in a society, membership therein typically being hereditary. The privileges associated with nobility may constitute substantial advantages over or relative to non-nobles, or may be largely honorary (e.g. precedence), and vary from country to country and era to era. Traditionally membership in the nobility has been regulated or acknowledged by the government. There is often a variety of ranks within the noble class. Legal recognition of nobility is more common in monarchies, but nobility also existed in such republics as the Dutch Provinces, Genoa and Venice, and remains part of the legal social structure of some non-hereditary regimes, e.g. San Marino and Vatican City in Europe. Hereditary titles often distinguish nobles from non-nobles, although in many nations most of the nobility have been un-titled, and a hereditary title need not indicate nobility.
Just cited the top definition from Wiki. Otherwise, to me, “nobility” implies some sort of intrinsic goodness or superiority on some ill-defined moral plane, and that leaves me puzzled re primitive human societies.
Just cited the top definition from Wiki. Otherwise, to me, “nobility” implies some sort of intrinsic goodness or superiority on some ill-defined moral plane, and that leaves me puzzled re primitive human societies.
One thing about primitive peoples is that they don’t have the perspective to develop real cruelty, although they do well enough with what they’ve got. But when your life is dependent on so many natural factors and your means of response are so limited you don’t really have time to channel your fears and terrors into a dogmatic religion that institutionalizes the murder of dissidents.
