> Wings of the Morning wrote:
> >
> > Brian D Williams wrote:
> >
> > > "A country that wants to
> > > be unarmed and free
> > > wants what never has
> > > been, and never will be."
> > >
> > > Thomas Jefferson
> >
> > Native Americans. Aborigines. Oh wait. Sorry we already killed
> > most of them with our guns. Oops, my bad. :)
>
> The poem said nothing about guns. It said unarmed. THis means whatever
> present state of weapons technology. COntrary to your naive and ignorant
> ideas about native americans and aborigines, they were not peaceful
> (only in the exception), nor were they unarmed. Despite an early numbers
> superiority, they lost out to higher technology in terms of fighting
> tactics and strategy, as well as simply industrial vs. hunter gatherer
> societies, not because they weren't armed. Almost as soon as we got off
> the boat, they were stealing, killing, or trading for our horses and
> guns, and when they couldn't they were highly efficient at using what
> was considered extremely primitive weapons technology to fight, kill,
> and massacre people. Before we arrived on these shores, the different
> indian nations were almost constantly at each other's throats due to
> their cultural traditions of honor and counting coup. There is a limit
> as to how many people can live on the land in a hunter gatherer society,
> and that number is far far less than that possible in an agrarian
> society. They were always fighting over resources that, to a
> hunter'gatherer were in constant scarce supply.
>
> The native americans also knew well the principle of "live free or die".
> That is why they died in such numbers, because to them, living by our
> ways was not freedom. Fighting and dying opposing the growth of our ways
> was the only honorable thing for most to do.
My naive and ignorant ideas? I'm sorry my friend but how bout yours?
Aborigines are actually an extremely peaceful culture. Obviously these
cultures _were_ armed. Of course, that's not my point. They respected
their weaponry. Used primarily for hunting. And yes Native Americans would
constantly fight between tribes, but on a whole, most tribes were a very
peaceful people who respected life, and nature, unlike the European
cultures.
As far as aborigines being violent. White men came and take their land,
and kill them. When they got right off the boat, you say, they were almost
imeadiatly fighting and killing? Perhaps because they were smart enough to
know what was going to happen to them. When someone invades your homeland,
first reaction usually isn't to let the invaders walk right in and push you
out. Of course they fought. Before white men came Aborigines flourished on
the coastlines, but were forced to move to the intrerior. You speak of
massacres by the Aborigines, but you conveniently happen to leave out the
fact that the same was happening to their people. People look down on
"primative" societies, but I for one actually will give them more credit
than what we call "civilization". Aborigines can trace back their own
history a good 40,000 years. Under the same system of living, they managed
to be around for that long, in peace with nature. Here we come, in just a
few short thousands years, and manage to cut down mass amounts of trees, use
up mass amounts of resources, create nuclear weaponry capable of destroying
the earth several times over, cause global warming, etc., and we consider
our society superior?
And I beg to differ on your views about agrarian societies vs. hunter
gatherer societies. Nature sets limits, nature sets balances. When you
offset these balances bad things tend to happen. Of course the limit of how
many people can live on the land in an agrarian society is much greater, but
is this a good thing? Whoopy so we've mastered agriculture, and other
various technologies that allow us to prosper. With a hunting and gathering
society, they live at the mercy of the land, and the population is kept in
balance accordingly. These cultures had developed a system of living that
worked for them, they generally weren't discontent. Our society is
flourishing, sure, population on the rise. That's exactly it, population on
the rise. Because of our technologies we can avoid the balances set forth
by nature and our population will sky rocket. And sky rocket. Did I
mention it will sky rocket. What happens when the earth is so populated
that our agrarian limit has been reached? The ability to come up with a
system of living that works along side with nature, and that can last tested
agaisnt time for thousands upon thousands of years, is bar far just as great
as many of the technological discoveries we've achieved. Perhaps they had
the right idea, but thanks to what we've come to be taught and know, we're
the ones who consider them primative.
When I made that retort to your poem, I understood well that these
cultures weren't unarmed. I was hoping you'd be open minded enough to see
my point wasn't that they were unarmed, but that they respected their
weaponry, used it mostly for hunting, and only when needed as a
defensive/offensive tool, yet remained to stay peaceful, to an extent native
americans, more so aborigines. The position you took was so classic, right
out of white men's history books. Have you ever read any books written by
people who have actually gotten to spend time with aborigines, who have
closely studied their culture? If you have you'd find that the aborigines
are actually a very peaceful, intelligent, and wise people. May I suggest
Mutant Message Down Under by Marlo Morgan. Could prove to be interesting
reading. Your answers were of course vary logical, and yes I accept what
you say about losing out to higher technologies, that's selfevident. But
they were also very onesided. I've spent a deal of time studying cultures
such as native americans and aborigines and I think your conceptions of them
are actually fairly off, mostly factual, and facts you pulled out of a white
man's text book. Did you know that know a majority of aborigines have
willingly stopped reproducing because they know their time on this earth is
over, and have been pushed out by our agrarian society. That is something
very respectable in my opinion, in our culture you know we would never be
able to do something like that, basicallly because people lack that kind of
selfcontrol and respect for nature. My main point out of any of this, is
that there HAVE been many "primative" societies who have prospered and
enjoyed life, with the use of minimal weapons, and with primative weapons at
that. The primary use for their weapons being to hunt food, not to kill or
defend from another human being, although yes they were used for that.
Think about how many gun owners today own guns to hunt soley for food.
Think of how many gun owners live in cities. And perhaps Jefferson was
correct when he made that assumption, because if ever a culture tried to
live peacefuly without being armed, they would probably end up all being
killed off by some agrarian society trying to take their land and resources
from them, because their population has become to great to be surficed with
what they already have.
-Mike Everett