The Pre-Columbian Exchange: Time to Rewrite the History Books

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

...and when people sing me a song of the noble savage, I gently remind them that they were also often of a mind to eat each other...

The practice of eating the flesh of others was only practiced within certain tribes and it was ritualistic. One of the purposes was that they believed they gained an enemies strength by partaking of them. Another purpose was they believed the spirit could not enter the land of the ancestors if they ate the flesh of the individual. The eating of the flesh of another was not done because it was appetizing, but for the aforementioned ritualistic purposes.

There were also warrior sects as well as simple farmers and hunters. There is no one description that fits all indigenous people of the Americas.

Also must be noted that the settlers can not be all grouped into one type either. However for the indigenous peoples they all seemed to be of the same traits. Some of the IP (indigenous people) that were living near where the settlers landed at first where willing to welcome these outsiders, but that was before they brought diseases a plagues that they had not previously been exposed to thus killing off many of them. These settlers also put up fences keeping them away from land they had freely been able to step foot on for centuries, and were shot at when attempting to scale these fences.

Some of the settlements may seem to have been away from the IP populations, unfortunately there were nomadic as well as stationary tribes. The nomadic ones were seasonal and followed the herds of dear or what have you, that they hunted and just because they were not in the are when the settlers originally set up their settlements does not mean that they did not use the area later in the season, thus more animosity between the IP and the settlers began to brew.

Many tribes, who were not warrior tribes, took up arms and some of the IP populations that once did not get along started to band together over a common enemy. It must be stated that not all did, but just as many IP’s thought that all settlers where the same, the settlers thought that all IP’s were the same as well.

Early racial profiling, who knew?

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


Sorry, but I have actually bothered to read some of this history, have you?

The tribes could not roam freely, because they had to be weary of invading the territory of their neighbors. These Indian nations fought wars between them for territory. The land they occupied was the land they held by the strength of their arms. Their situation was very similar to Europe, in that they constantly fought wars for domination. The native American tribes immediately turned their superior weapons technology they gained from Europeans on their rival Native American enemies. Many tribes turned to the colonist to protect them from being wiped out by their native American enemies.

In fact, the settlement of the Americas, and the development of colonies around the world was more of a competition between European countries for control of their own destinies more than anything. Remember, the Pope, drew a line around the world dividing it between Portugal and Spain. Do you think the rest of the European countries should have gone along with that? Spain took over Holland for over a century, and wanted to take over Britain.

The Spanish were far more brutal in South America than the British in North America. If Britain hadn't colonized North America, than Spain certainly would have. You can't stop progress.

Yeah, the colonists fenced off the land, but they also built far more permanent buildings and settlements, made far more efficient use of the land, established justice and and a style of government that established a concept of the rights of man, which was a huge step forward for humanity. A great many native Americans succeeded in joining European society and prospering in a nation where most of the rest of the world dreams of living. They certainly got a much better situation than those in South America.

This is off track from the subject, but maybe this does have some relevance as to what happened to ancient civilizations. Competition between tribes has probably always been a huge guiding factor in humanities development.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

 

Sorry, but I have actually bothered to read some of this history, have you?

Yes, in fact I have. Did we not acknowledge that history is written by the victor? I would suggest that you look at the (European) exploration and settlement of North America in economic terms. Look especially at the methods of interaction between the Indians and the newcomers.

But please...pissy language is unbecoming.

An edit to include the following as an adjunct to this conversation...don't know if it changes anything but it speaks to the lifeways of ancient Brits

Cannibalism theory over bone-find A human bone found in Devon with tool-cuts thought to have been made during a ritual ceremony 9,000 years ago may be evidence of cannibalism.news.bbc.co.uk...

[edit on 7-8-2009 by JohnnyCanuck]

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


Come on Johnny, The claim that history is written by the victors is over done, because people remember, and record what has happened, and the victors are not always of one mind.

I know that the novel, "The Last of the Mohicans", was a work of fiction, but do you really think it was written to discredit Native Americans? Do you recognize that there still is a great deal of respect for Native Americans in the U.S.?

Exactly where is my historical points off? Spain did not rule Holland for over a hundred years, Spain didn't send its armada against Britain? The nations of the Native Americans didn't fight wars against each other?

I might add, are you also going to tell me there was no Spanish inquisition?

If survival and freedom are also about economics, then colonization was all about economics, but then, everything would be.

From what I have read, the Aryans also practiced cannibalism.

If you want some more information about this, you should read the book Finger Prints of the Gods.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

 

Come on Johnny, The claim that history is written by the victors is over done, because people remember, and record what has happened, and the victors are not always of one mind.

I know that the novel, "The Last of the Mohicans", was a work of fiction, but do you really think it was written to discredit Native Americans? Do you recognize that there still is a great deal of respect for Native Americans in the U.S.?...If survival and freedom are also about economics, then colonization was all about economics, but then, everything would be.

Here's the deal in a Canadian context, and the process here was a lot kinder than farther south...The lifeways of the Aborigines could not withstand the contact with the French. The natives were at a fundamental disadvantage in their dealings with the European market economy. Delage cites several major implications of the trade upon Aboriginal culture, summed up as follows:

• Two distinctly different economies - market and reciprocity, were placed in direct contact.

• As trade developed, the aborigines gained more knowledge about the product and were less likely to be duped.

• The fur trade brought about greater specialisation of labour, bringing about imperialistic and hierarchic relations both among and within tribes.

• The more that trade developed, the deeper the penetration of trade goods, increasing the Native dependency on European goods.

• Aboriginal society changed from one of autonomy to that of an economic periphery of Europe, resulting in a change of assets to the centre.

• Trade links resulted in a technological transfer, and the natives tried to appropriate the technological and production techniques of the centre.

• The permanent transfer of wealth resulted in the spiraling exploitation of resources and a shift of balance between man and nature.
(Delage 1993 81-82)

The resulting scarcity of resources heightened competition and increased war amongst the natives. The collective impoverishment of the peoples of the periphery in relation to the enrichment of the central powers posed a threat, insofar as it might provoke a total overthrow of the system of domination. The army was therefore an important component of such domination. And that is why I dispute your central thesis of the 'benevolent' settlement process...the economics tell the tale, even where the history fudges it. And that, mon frere, is why the Indian is so pissed.

As to the pre-Columbian exchange, there is a lot of hooey out there but the most interesting and reasonable theorising I have seen of late is Farley Mowatt's "Farfarers" or "Alban Quest". Worth reading.

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


No one claimed that the rapid transitions from stone age hunter gatherers to the iron age industrial era, essentially upon the first encounter with Europeans was easy, or that no exploitation took place. I am just pointing out that it was a lot more complicated than economics. Nothing you have posted here demonstrates that the motives of Europeans were purely, or primarily, economic. Many, many people came to the new world with very idealistic dreams about creating utopian societies.

As far as the colonization of North America being beneficial, Native Americans who have joined mainstream life in the U.S. are participants in the world's most prosperous economy, and there were a great many native Americans who succeeded in joining modern society. They sure aren't about to give up their plasma flatscreens and 4 wheel drives to go back to living as hunter gathers. Yes, there are many Native Americans on reservations who are not prospering, but no one is forcing them to stay on the reservation. In addition, they have been given special privileges such as ownership of gambling casinos.

Do a comparison of the lives that Native Americans of North America are able to live, as opposed to Native Africans in Africa.

Lets add in the fact that there are no guarantees in life. People of all ethnic groups have had to struggle to survive for most of the history of mankind. Currently we are undergoing the biggest economic downturn since the great depression, and all people have to struggle to keep a roof over their head. This is not due to a lack of supply of goods and services, or resources, we literally have a surplus of goods and services. The saddest fact that this whole downturn has been created by corruption and greed in the highest levels of the rich and powerful PTB. This is an old story, probably going back long before recorded history.

While you claim economic exploitation, the reality is that most European immigrants were just trying to survive, and hopefully find a way to prosper in this world God has given us.

Slightly off topic but it goes with the present discussion

Interesting read for those who have not read it or seen the documentary.

Guns, Germs, and Steel

According to the author, an alternative title would be A short history about everyone for the last 13,000 years.[1] But the book is not merely an account of the past; it attempts to explain why Eurasian civilizations, as a whole, have survived and conquered others, while attempting to refute the belief that Eurasian hegemony is due to any form of Eurasian intellectual, moral, or inherent genetic superiority.

Diamond argues that the gaps in power and technology between human societies originate in environmental differences, which are amplified by various positive feedback loops, and that even when cultural or genetic differences have favored Eurasians (for example Chinese centralized government, or improved disease resistance among Eurasians), these advantages were only created due to the influence of geography and are not inherent in the Eurasian genome.

[edit on 8-8-2009 by SLAYER69]

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

 

Nothing you have posted here demonstrates that the motives of Europeans were purely, or primarily, economic. Many, many people came to the new world with very idealistic dreams about creating utopian societies.

While you claim economic exploitation, the reality is that most European immigrants were just trying to survive, and hopefully find a way to prosper in this world God has given us.

And all I am saying is that this prosperity was garnered at the expense of the 'savages', and that the Indians were demonized and run down by the forces of settlement. This is especially the case in the States, where the settlers outpaced law and order. Canada was different in that the law...generally the North West Mounted Police, was in place before Western settlement occurred. This, incidentally, has a lot to do with why Canada has lees of a gun culture.

Stories like The Last of the Mohicans were nothing more than 19th century Romanticism and didn't reflect upon how the Indians were treated...they were storybooks. Fact is, they were regarded as an impediment to progress and often simply slaughtered for standing up against it.

Certainly, First Nations are today a twenty-first century people along with the rest of us. I maintain, though, that by and large their cultural progress has been made in spite of the treatment they received from the forces of European expansion, not thanks to it.

And while it would be helpful to get some Aboriginal perspective, I think that you and I can agree to disagree at this point.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Yeah, I agree that environment forced people in harsher environments to be more creative, and therefore led to greater technological development. I don't think that Europeans have some genetic superiority, but they had a cultural advantage, which is that their societies have been democratically based for far longer than historians have wanted to give credit. While most civilizations formed very strong social classes, strict hierarchies, with extremely powerful kings and emperors, European kings did not enjoy that level of power until Catholicism got its grips on European society. It is the rigid class systems that resulted in a civilizations stagnation more than anything.

If you ask me, it there is any reason why the PTB would want to hide the truth about ancient civilizations, this would be the reason.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

 

While you claim economic exploitation, the reality is that most European immigrants were just trying to survive, and hopefully find a way to prosper in this world God has given us.

As a fitting close to this sidebar we have been debating, I'd like to submit the following quote from the Toronto Star, from a discussion - of all things - the Manson murders:

"The first thing to recognize is that the past and history are different," says John Storey, a cultural historian in the U.K. and the author of Cultural Theory and Popular Culture. "The struggle over the meaning of the '60s, for example, changes on whether we highlight Woodstock or Manson. This, in simplified form, could be said to be the difference between those who view the '60s and its legacy as positive or negative." www.thestar.com...

Which is to say that, to a degree, we are both right.

Originally posted by poet1b
If you ask me, it there is any reason why the PTB would want to hide the truth about ancient civilizations, this would be the reason.

Actually, they can't.

There are enough archaeologists out there who come from many backgrounds (a number of Native Americans, for example) who would completely ignore any attempt at a coverup.

Digs are HUGE enterprises (she says, having been a part of one for the past several months.) There is no way you can just walk in, remove everything in a week and sneak off with it to some covert lab in the remote areas of a well secured military base (unless, of course, you're doing it wrong and don't mind destroying the evidence of what you're looking for.)

In addition to the lead and the crew chiefs, you will also have up to 300 people working a site in shifts (at the field schools, we get up to 800 people working on one site.) It's not just "some guy and his buddies."

Material has to be dealt with at the site (sometimes it's treated with glues while it is in the ground (if we think it's going to fall apart the minute we lift it), and it has to be transported to a facility to be prepped, cleaned, and analyzed and then tagged and documented and moved to storage. The people who do prepping and analysis are not the same people in the field doing the dig. The storage and archival folks aren't the same ones who dig it up and who clean and prep it.

So, for any find, you could have as many as 500 people involved in some phase of it. These folks aren't stupid -- if you're involved in the dig at all, then you're someone to whom a bone isn't "just another bone". You look at the material with educated eyes and quickly learn to tell rock from (say) crocodile scutes.

Furthermore, people involved in these digs like to talk to others about them.

I was involved in a dig where we did have some secrecy issues -- the Arlington crocodile, where we had treasure hunters invading the site on a nightly basis, trying to get our bones before we got them. We did an intense dig for one week (day and evening) with up to 100 people in rotating shifts and managed to get that one skeleton (25 square foot area) cleaned and out of the ground before the treasure hunters got to it.

But everyone knew about it (including the treasure hunters) and the university where it went to be prepped knew all about it, as did the students in a dozen classes and all of us shovel bums.

Heck, I even blogged about it and tweeted about it. Others did, too.

So these things really can't be kept a secret.

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

And all I am saying is that this prosperity was garnered at the expense of the 'savages', and that the Indians were demonized and run down by the forces of settlement.

It seems that according to you, the settlers deserve no credit for any prosperity that was created. Not all people demonized the native Americans. Stories like "Last of the Mohicans" also contain a great deal of historical truth, and once again, clearly, the story does not demonize the Nations of the native Americans, but paints them in a far more realistic light, as human beings.

I have never denied that there was not exploitation and atrocities committed, but am only pointing out that it was not all exploitation and mistreatment. Not only was it not all exploitation and mistreatment, it was not all one side committing misdeeds, both sides not only abused, but were abused.

I have been trying to put some balance to your version from the beginning.

reply to post by Byrd


Aren't the troops on the ground always trying to fight the good fight?

Unfortunately, it is the people up in the ranks who get to call the shots, determine what version gets made public.

Originally posted by El Davicho

Aymara legend speaks of ancient kings that were giants, upon approaching the coast of Terra Del Fuego in Patagonia Magellan recorded sightings of tribes of giants on the coast. A respected explorer all around, yet this one account is dismissed (a lot like Plato and Atlantis, they're geniuses until they say something crazy...then it's just allegory). The elongated skulls are found primarily (not solely) in the Andes.

Looking forward to your post. You might want to link the info in this thread (Govt. coverup of the remains of giants) when you get round to it,

www.abovetopsecret.com...