I don’t think there’s any evidence for genocide, but my pet peeve for this is how the indigenous people of the Americas are held up purely as victims, as if the concept of violence didn’t exist until Columbus arrived. When the Europeans first arrived in North America, the tribal villages they encountered were surrounded by fortified wooden palisades. Those weren’t just there as decorations. Everyone sucks.
I have yet to encounter this explicitly where someone would say that Native Americans were “purely victims”. At best, they aggregate and dehistoricize all tribes into a conglomerate term, “Native Americans”. I’m sure there are some who cling to the “noble savage” trope, but I don’t see it these days.
What ever intertribal conflicts happened, they never reached the level of disease spread, displacement, and systematic violence aimed at cultural erasure. The unprecedented scale of violence unleashed by colonialism, which led to devastating consequences for these communities is important and to flatten the intertribal violence along side the colonial conquest is narrow minded. They may have sucked, but some far more than others.
What ever intertribal conflicts happened, they never reached the level of disease spread, displacement, and systematic violence aimed at cultural erasure
Not because they were noble savages though, just because they lacked the ability to do that to their enemies.
“I’ve never seen someone cling to the noble savage trope.”
“Intertribal conflicts between Native American polities were less brutal because of material constraints, not any fundamental cultural restraint on the behavior of human beings, which is largely consistent across recorded history regardless of region and culture.”
“I don’t accept that.”
???
Do you legitimately not understand how that is the noble savage trope?
The frame I’m rejecting is the idea that, given the same material conditions, all people and cultures throughout history would react in the same way. This view oversimplifies and dehistoricizes the diverse experiences of Native Americans, as I mentioned in my first comment.
Culture and material conditions are interconnected; they shape and influence one another. If culture only emerged from material conditions, then people would merely be reacting mechanistically to their environments, lacking the richness of creativity, belief systems, and individual agency that shape societies in diverse and meaningful ways. Recognizing this complexity does not mean I’m relying on the noble savage trope.
The way you dismissed my response was uncalled for. I’ve take time and care to craft my response to be honest and considerate. I’m not interested in a discussion that is otherwise.
The frame I’m rejecting is the idea that, given the same material conditions, all people and cultures throughout history would react in the same way.
Broadly speaking, they do. People are people. I didn’t realize we were entering into an argument where cultural chauvinism is the very foundation.
This view oversimplifies and dehistoricizes the diverse experiences of Native Americans, as I mentioned in my first comment.
How the fuck so? When Native Americans have, even just during the time period of European record-keeping, have been observed engaging in displacement and systemic violence aimed at cultural erasure?
Or are we laying it all on some strange notion of an especial-but-unproven cultural immunity to the development of novel diseases?
Culture and material conditions are interconnected; they shape and influence one another. If culture only emerged from material conditions, then people would merely be reacting mechanistically to their environments, lacking the richness of creativity, belief systems, and individual agency that shape societies in diverse and meaningful ways.
No culture yet seen has been observed to prevent human beings from acting in according with their own interests; our interests are determined overwhelmingly by material conditions.
The way you dismissed my response was uncalled for. I’ve take time and care to craft my response to be honest and considerate. I’m not interested in a discussion that is otherwise.
The entire point of the Noble Savage trope is exactly the line of argument you laid down. I’m sorry that you feel being called out is being ‘dismissed’, but perhaps before denying using a trope you should at least check what it means first?
This conversation has become repetitive, and it feels like my arguments are being mischaracterized as arguments I am not making. I reject the notion that people act solely based on material conditions, and I’ve articulated my view in full. Your insistence on framing my position as cultural chauvinism or invoking the noble savage trope is not only unproductive but also dismissive of the complexity I’m trying to convey.
You’ve called out a strawman and I am not interested in continuing this discussion.
This conversation has become repetitive, and it feels like my arguments are being mischaracterized as arguments I am not making.
Repetitive because… I point out that Native Americans have engaged in displacement and systemic violence aimed at cultural erasure, unlike what you claimed?
I reject the notion that people act solely based on material conditions, and I’ve articulated my view in full.
I’m sorry you don’t believe that all humankind shares a basic biological-neurological foundation which drives our behavior, both as individuals and societies?
Your insistence on framing my position as cultural chauvinism or invoking the noble savage trope is not only unproductive but also dismissive of the complexity I’m trying to convey.
No, you’re simply uncomfortable with acknowledging the reality that you are advocating a culturally chauvinist position. Fuck, in what way could you possibly see this argument otherwise? “It’s not cultural chauvinism because it’s not my culture I’m championing”?
I’m sorry that you refuse to acknowledge that your position is fucking spot-on for the noble savage trope, wherein the reality of a fetishized culture is ignored in favor of stripping it of moral agency so that it can be displayed as a didactic counterexample to a ‘decadent’ modernity.
You can harp on about how complex your position supposedly is, but all that’s been presented here is a denial of the common behavior of human societies in preference for a saccharine and sanitized view of Native American peoples wherein they are, by the virtue and purity of their culture (and, of course, it is just ‘Native American’ culture, not any actual specific culture of the Americas that might pin you down to real-world evidence), incapable of the evils of ethnic cleansing, genocide, and “disease spread.”
Back up, there may not be evidence for a single, concerted policy of genocide, but there are many verifiable genocides of Native American peoples by colonial polities and societies.
I think they meant there isn’t evidence of Native Americans committing any genocides per se, but there is evidence of violence between them before colonists showed up
Regardless, they were still victims of colonial genocide, they didn’t have to be pillars of esoteric religious morality for that to be wrong. Considering how many wars between england and literally every other kind of person they could identify not being english, it’s hardly a stone to be thrown in this context.
I don’t think there’s any evidence for genocide, but my pet peeve for this is how the indigenous people of the Americas are held up purely as victims, as if the concept of violence didn’t exist until Columbus arrived. When the Europeans first arrived in North America, the tribal villages they encountered were surrounded by fortified wooden palisades. Those weren’t just there as decorations. Everyone sucks.
I have yet to encounter this explicitly where someone would say that Native Americans were “purely victims”. At best, they aggregate and dehistoricize all tribes into a conglomerate term, “Native Americans”. I’m sure there are some who cling to the “noble savage” trope, but I don’t see it these days.
What ever intertribal conflicts happened, they never reached the level of disease spread, displacement, and systematic violence aimed at cultural erasure. The unprecedented scale of violence unleashed by colonialism, which led to devastating consequences for these communities is important and to flatten the intertribal violence along side the colonial conquest is narrow minded. They may have sucked, but some far more than others.
Not because they were noble savages though, just because they lacked the ability to do that to their enemies.
That’s a huge statement. Do you have equally damning evidence to support that statement?
Do I have damning evidence that humans are humans and behave the way humans always do?
I don’t accept your framing. Its defeatist and rooted in modern projects.
K
“I’ve never seen someone cling to the noble savage trope.”
“Intertribal conflicts between Native American polities were less brutal because of material constraints, not any fundamental cultural restraint on the behavior of human beings, which is largely consistent across recorded history regardless of region and culture.”
“I don’t accept that.”
???
Do you legitimately not understand how that is the noble savage trope?
The frame I’m rejecting is the idea that, given the same material conditions, all people and cultures throughout history would react in the same way. This view oversimplifies and dehistoricizes the diverse experiences of Native Americans, as I mentioned in my first comment.
Culture and material conditions are interconnected; they shape and influence one another. If culture only emerged from material conditions, then people would merely be reacting mechanistically to their environments, lacking the richness of creativity, belief systems, and individual agency that shape societies in diverse and meaningful ways. Recognizing this complexity does not mean I’m relying on the noble savage trope.
The way you dismissed my response was uncalled for. I’ve take time and care to craft my response to be honest and considerate. I’m not interested in a discussion that is otherwise.
Broadly speaking, they do. People are people. I didn’t realize we were entering into an argument where cultural chauvinism is the very foundation.
How the fuck so? When Native Americans have, even just during the time period of European record-keeping, have been observed engaging in displacement and systemic violence aimed at cultural erasure?
Or are we laying it all on some strange notion of an especial-but-unproven cultural immunity to the development of novel diseases?
No culture yet seen has been observed to prevent human beings from acting in according with their own interests; our interests are determined overwhelmingly by material conditions.
The entire point of the Noble Savage trope is exactly the line of argument you laid down. I’m sorry that you feel being called out is being ‘dismissed’, but perhaps before denying using a trope you should at least check what it means first?
This conversation has become repetitive, and it feels like my arguments are being mischaracterized as arguments I am not making. I reject the notion that people act solely based on material conditions, and I’ve articulated my view in full. Your insistence on framing my position as cultural chauvinism or invoking the noble savage trope is not only unproductive but also dismissive of the complexity I’m trying to convey.
You’ve called out a strawman and I am not interested in continuing this discussion.
Repetitive because… I point out that Native Americans have engaged in displacement and systemic violence aimed at cultural erasure, unlike what you claimed?
I’m sorry you don’t believe that all humankind shares a basic biological-neurological foundation which drives our behavior, both as individuals and societies?
No, you’re simply uncomfortable with acknowledging the reality that you are advocating a culturally chauvinist position. Fuck, in what way could you possibly see this argument otherwise? “It’s not cultural chauvinism because it’s not my culture I’m championing”?
I’m sorry that you refuse to acknowledge that your position is fucking spot-on for the noble savage trope, wherein the reality of a fetishized culture is ignored in favor of stripping it of moral agency so that it can be displayed as a didactic counterexample to a ‘decadent’ modernity.
You can harp on about how complex your position supposedly is, but all that’s been presented here is a denial of the common behavior of human societies in preference for a saccharine and sanitized view of Native American peoples wherein they are, by the virtue and purity of their culture (and, of course, it is just ‘Native American’ culture, not any actual specific culture of the Americas that might pin you down to real-world evidence), incapable of the evils of ethnic cleansing, genocide, and “disease spread.”
Back up, there may not be evidence for a single, concerted policy of genocide, but there are many verifiable genocides of Native American peoples by colonial polities and societies.
I think they meant there isn’t evidence of Native Americans committing any genocides per se, but there is evidence of violence between them before colonists showed up
Ah, I misread it in that case.
What I mean is genocide by one native group of another native group prior to the arrival of Europeans.
My apologies, I definitely misread it then.
Regardless, they were still victims of colonial genocide, they didn’t have to be pillars of esoteric religious morality for that to be wrong. Considering how many wars between england and literally every other kind of person they could identify not being english, it’s hardly a stone to be thrown in this context.