the question that haunts me

[Stosh]

A place to start... 

 

I came across this dude when I was doing archaeology in the Mohawk valley , an amazing story

 

St. Isaac Jogues, S.J. (January 10, 1607 – October 18, 1646) was a Jesuit priest, missionary and martyr who traveled and worked among the Iroquois, Huron, and other Native populations in North America. He was the first European to name Lake George, calling it Lac du Saint Sacrement (Lake of the Blessed Sacrament). In 1646, Jogues was martyred by the Mohawk at their village of Ossernenon, south of the Mohawk River.

 

 

http://everything2.com/title/Iroquois+torture

 

 

https://www.na.fs.fed.us/fire_poster/nativeamer.htm

 

Dont mistake this however for being anti anybody, its just that they , like everyone else , had a destructive and violent side as well as the Europeans. They modified the land , had wars , made peace , grew crops, killed things  and so forth, ,, it was a Whole culture , not a fake fantasy one,, and I think it could be seen as a disrespect !  even,, to pretend they were all peaceful gatherers of berries.

Edited October 20, 2016 by Stosh

[Brian]

I already claimed that it was likely an inaccuracy and have since edited the post.

No worries, Karl!

 

Talking in generalities about "Native Americans" (or whatever term people prefer) is almost always doomed because of the tremendous variations to be found among a population spread across two continents over a period of thousands of years -- it would be like talking about "Eurasian culture" in a monolithic fashion. Painting the Cherokee and the Comanche with the same brush as the Inuit and Aztec is, frankly, silly and ignorant, but it is not uncommon (typically seen resulting from agenda-driven "research") and is convenient for those who don't really care about the accuracy of details but seek instead to support a position. The result, unfortunately, is that people too often end up choosing between caricatures. The idea of the romanticized "noble savage" is just as nonsensical as the notion of ignorant primitives "sitting around in a grass hut in the cold, dark depths of winter eating dried elk meat" but we are really talking about rich, complex and diverse cultures.

[Nungali]

I agree on our relative softness and dimwittedness, and that ancient humans were unconcerned about 'protecting' the environment, but not the rest. Ancient humans had neither a need to protect, nor any conception of what 'protecting the environment' is.

 

 

That depends on what you mean by ancient humans , in any case , how could you possibly know that  ?    In my experience, in direct relationship with one of the oldest surviving cultures on earth ( not that their behavior  indicates what ancient   humans did , but it seems the closest indicator we have )  certainly do have a need to protect and a very clear concept of what protecting the environment is  .... so do many other  indigenous cultures around the world that are at latter stages of technological development . 

 

Even some of the earliest scripture of 'ancient humans'  ( Avestas )  outline laws for environmental protection. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They did not threaten their habitats, or global habitats, with destruction; they were not single-handedly gradually forcing other species into extinction; they were not making their own air more difficult to breath; they were not cutting down forests thousands of acres at a time; they were not pouring millions of gallons of poisonous waste into the oceans; etc.

 

The only way we, the current strain of humankind, will allow our children or grandchildren to successfully raise their own children is if we stop doing all that nasty shit. Our ancient, quick-witted ancestors would have no problems: they'd see what needed to be done and get on with it.

[Nungali]

They were destroying the environment if you want to put it that. Nomad tribes essentially hunt an area until it can't sustain, then they move on. There are schools of thought that say ancient man caused the extinction of the woolly mammoth and, if that's true, we can infer they extincted many species that depended on that animal.

 

It is not true to say man is 'single handedly' that's not an argument when the facts show that species are constantly going extinct and always have been. The dinosaurs were not killed by man. Infact, we should note that man is farming animals and should he expand that farming and ownership to a wider span of animal life, then the species booms.

 

Our ancestors would keep on killing, chopping, digging and burning. They knew that their survival depended on it. Raw nature is benevolent, but pastry doesn't fall from the sky, rocks don't run with milk and coffee, wishing does not create a thing. Our current romance with this new age mysticism is a direct attack on reason, and hence mans freedom to survive and therefore his life. We are only a few meals, a couple of fires or a few jugs of water away from disaster. You should understand this on a deep level, make no mistake, if the modern capitalist system collapses then we will be reduced to living on the edge of existence. Anti-capitalism in all its numerous forms like the green movement are anti-human life. If capitalism falters and I think there is a good chance that our current philosophy will take us to that point, I think man is finished, it is stark, we are writing our own suicide notes if we carry on with anti-capitalism.

 

 

Your funny !      I dont know who your ancestors were (Vikings  ? )  ... but you assume we all have the same ones.

 

 'Ancestors ' here in Oz  behaved nothing like you claim !   Indigenous people behave nothing like you state ,  they manage environment ... intricately !   With greater understanding, in some cases, than modern science  ( I cite the consultations going in in NE South America between a scientific environmental research team { the instigators }  and indigenous elders  { the consultants } as one example  ) . 

 

In any case , you outline this type of behavior as you describe it - reckless and destroying the environment - yet tag the green movement and environmentalism  as anti human life and lift up capitalism, which has been behind more environmental destruction, on a mass scale,  than any other human activity ! 

 

R i i i g h t  !   

[Nungali]

This talk makes me sick. Really, this is filth.

 

Back up your claims. You are as bad as anyone else on here you accuse of having unfounded beliefs. When it comes down to it, you never back it up. I have continuously provided evidence, in every topically similar discussion, and I don't recall seeing any evidence to the contrary, or any evidence suggesting that I or others like me are "anti-capitalist" or that my apparent "anti-capitalism" is going to make us all die.

 

 

he just makes stuff up ... like  ;     'our ancestors destroyed the environment ... hence .......  ' 

 

- no people will survive when the system collapses - 

 

and an all time Karl classic - whilst dissing  the human skills of survival throughout massive environmental change and challenge , with this brilliant all time statement "If you dropped me off anywhere in the world, in nature, I would be dead after a few days "

 

Well, sure  you   would         

[blue eyed snake]

That depends on what you mean by ancient humans , in any case , how could you possibly know that  ?    In my experience, in direct relationship with one of the oldest surviving cultures on earth ( not that their behavior  indicates what ancient   humans did , but it seems the closest indicator we have )  certainly do have a need to protect and a very clear concept of what protecting the environment is  .... so do many other  indigenous cultures around the world that are at latter stages of technological development . 

 

 

thanks Nungali,

I was hoping you'd bring that up, living there you can put it much better than i can

[Nungali]

It's superior how ? No one develops beyond the stage of the basic division of labour. Where is the enlightenment in toiling all day just to have enough to eat ?

 

This is rubbish, you make stuff up or select special examples to demonstrate your points  - like cultures in crisis. 

 

For example, on this point alone, the indigenous here, living a natural lifestyle, and also living this lifestyle before European intervention ;  in good country and good season, 2 - 3 hours 'work' a day is needed for 'labor' ... how does that compare with your modern capitalist worker ?  

 

 

Where are the great works of music,

 

Its sad that you never heard it live ,  or are you complaining that the music of oral cultures never got recorded ? 

 

the concertos, the beautiful paintings,

 

 

 

 

sculpture, architecture. Where are the great writers

 

In oral cultures   ????      

 

 

 

and infinite variety of abundant foods and medicines ? primitive cultures cling to life

 

 

 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1640943/cancer-drug-extracted-from-rainforest-berries-destroys-womans-tumour-in-days/

 

just one example 

 

 

 

Everytime you say 'greedy' you reveal your hand. Like all champagne socialists you want your cake and eat it. You live in a capitalist world with all the benefits and opportunities that brings, then you condemn it for what you believe is greed. You make no effort to go and live the life you praise so much whilst enjoying capitalism. It's completely phoney. You are worse because you praise sacrifice whilst refusing to comitt to it, then you condemn life whilst accepting all it brings. You a sham and a fraud. It is people like you that are destroying capitalism like a disease, eating it from the inside like a parasite that refuses to leave.

 

Now you sound like some capitalist  Old testament profit      ( deliberate sic   ) 

[Nungali]

thank you, I'dd like to add some.

 

both the Inuit and the Sanpeople were, of old, known as the happiest people of the world. I'm well aware that that is not so anymore, but that happened after the invasion of western people.

 

happiness does not consist only of material wealth, yes, just as all animals we need food , drink and a safe house to live in. Without romanticizing, there were probably a lot of less nice things too

 

the big difference i see is in the way they were able to have enduring attachments to each other, deep friendships, real connections, both with the people of their tribe and with the nature that was their home. It's this ability to connect that we have lost in the west, it's this ability that my teacher tries to wake up in his students.

 

to be truly human means to be able to connect, to have friends, to love, to laugh and to cry bitterly, together.

In our material wealth we have lost that ability to really connect

 

---

 

And these tribes of old were in general careful with their environment, 

 

It was not the Inuit that killed of such large amounts of seal and whales, it were (in part) my kinsman the Dutch

 

think of the bison, it was not the redmen that killed off those enormous herds of bison, it was the white man who killed them off, for sport....

 

 

 

there are many examples like this, it was the western men that corrupted tribes that had lived in balance in their habitat, it was western man that destroyed those habitats, that brought illnesses and bad food.

 

In their arrogance, deeming those people primitive, without being able to recognize the strength of their ways of living.

 

 

and the consciousness behind all that is what Karl is championing here  .... thats why he disses the indigenous so much and fears a world without his modern safety net . 

[Nungali]

Actually the bison were deliberately hunted down in order to end the savage attacks of the Comanche Indians (think I've got the right tribe there, but can't check just now). The Government offered good money for every buffalo hide and the hunters set to work with merry abandon.

 

The Indians did not respect property rights which makes it difficult to try and negotiate with them.

 

W T F   ? !  

 

Oh dear oh dear  .....    

 

 

[Nungali]

So, if it's such a great lifestyle why are you sitting around moaning about capitalism ? There are some tribes left as it has been pointed out, please go join them. Let's see how much leisure time you have. Sitting around in a grass hut in the cold, dark depths of winter eating dried elk meat .....mmmmmm lovely.

 

sitting around in a a tiny concrete box ( luxury apartment )   with your ac on eating McDonalds and watching   tv  .... mmmmm lovely !  

[LAOLONG]

Karl you convinced me. You found a heretic tribe in the virtual world , and with all your might you are trying to convert them. From now on i will worship your gospel .

[Karl]

Karl you convinced me. You found a heretic tribe in the virtual world , and with all your might you are trying to convert them. From now on i will worship your gospel .

Err no I'm the heretic here and the tribe want me tied to an anthill whilst covered in honey.

[Brian]

I'd say more like the self-appointed/self-anointed missionary, righteous in the absolute conviction of his religious belief, preaching with Book in one hand and sword in the other. Your zeal and fervor are impressive, though!

[Nungali]

Err no I'm the heretic here and the tribe want me tied to an anthill whilst covered in honey.

 

 

[Nungali]

I'd say more like the self-appointed/self-anointed missionary, righteous in the absolute conviction of his religious belief, preaching with Book in one hand and sword in the other. Your zeal and fervor are impressive, though!

 

 

[silent thunder]

willful, projective ignorance to me, seems the ugliest form of that element...

[Karl]

I'd say more like the self-appointed/self-anointed missionary, righteous in the absolute conviction of his religious belief, preaching with Book in one hand and sword in the other. Your zeal and fervor are impressive, though!

As you don't accept reason as a human absolute, that leaves you with faith and therefore the religious label. :-)

[Brian]

Ummm...

 

"A human absolute"? You honestly have no idea how ridiculous you sound, do you?

 

<sigh>

 

Keep trying, though! You still might find your way through this someday.

[Karl]

Ummm..."A human absolute"? You honestly have no idea how ridiculous you sound, do you?<sigh>Keep trying, though! You still might find your way through this someday.

Priceless LOL

 

"Forgive him o'lord for he knows not what he says" :-)

Edited October 21, 2016 by Karl

[Taoway]

I've been listening to this electrical engineer Dan winter lately. And he speaks about how we're meant to graduate/ grow up and project through the sun/star.

[dust]

 

I agree on our relative softness and dimwittedness, and that ancient humans were unconcerned about 'protecting' the environment, but not the rest. Ancient humans had neither a need to protect, nor any conception of what 'protecting the environment' is.

 

That depends on what you mean by ancient humans , in any case , how could you possibly know that  ?    In my experience, in direct relationship with one of the oldest surviving cultures on earth ( not that their behavior  indicates what ancient   humans did , but it seems the closest indicator we have )  certainly do have a need to protect and a very clear concept of what protecting the environment is  .... so do many other  indigenous cultures around the world that are at latter stages of technological development . 

 

Even some of the earliest scripture of 'ancient humans'  ( Avestas )  outline laws for environmental protection.

 

As I see it, ancient humans had no need to protect the environment the way we talk about protecting the environment because they caused little of the various kinds of damage we cause (massive deforestation, industrial waste, plastic in the oceans, etc etc) and on a much smaller scale.

 

It might seem like nitpicking, but I was only drawing the distinction, for Karl's sake, between what's happening now and what happened in the past. Currently there are global human-caused environmental problems, but a few thousand or tens of thousands of years ago the human-caused problems could only have existed on a smaller habitat scale.

 

So, yes, they had the concept of environmental protection, but calling it that seems a bit strong when I consider how we think about environmental protection these days.

 

I certainly did not mean that ancient cultures did not respect and care for their habitats...

Edited October 22, 2016 by dustybeijing

[Karl]

Dream on: Britain was deforested rapidly once Bronze Age axes became available. Fires were used extensively and often got out of hand, destroying hundreds of acres and the animals that inhabited those woodlands. Scientists have concluded that it was man that hunted the Mammoth to extinction and it was the American Indians that began the destruction of the Bison. Ancient man had midden heaps which would pollute water courses and kill off the life in the waterways for many miles.

 

Man has always polluted, because man must utilise raw nature and convert it into products.

[Nungali]

Priceless LOL

 

"Forgive him o'lord for he knows not what he says" :-)

Even an atheist can act like one with religious convictions !

 

saying priceless and laughing ... really ?  is that all you got ? 

[Nungali]

Dream on: Britain was deforested rapidly once Bronze Age axes became available. Fires were used extensively and often got out of hand, destroying hundreds of acres and the animals that inhabited those woodlands. Scientists have concluded that it was man that hunted the Mammoth to extinction and it was the American Indians that began the destruction of the Bison. Ancient man had midden heaps which would pollute water courses and kill off the life in the waterways for many miles.

 

Man has always polluted, because man must utilise raw nature and convert it into products.

 

Typical Karl ploy !  He cites the mammoth, yet with no valid ref. Not only that, this issue has been in contention for years, he just chose one side of the views to support his lame ideas, 

 

(  However, as research goes on : 

 

" The conclusion is that the mammoth steppe was much more dominated by herbs than grass during the last ice age. This may have had an impact on large mammals. A herb-dominated diet is far more nutritious than a grass-dominated one. The study also shows that when the last ice age ended and the much more humid interglacial period began, the plant composition on the Arctic tundra changed.

"The herbs then became less dominant, and grass took over", says Per Möller.

The researchers believe the less nutritious food may have led to fewer animals surviving in the area. According to Per Möller it is conceivable that this process has been a major contributing factor to why many of the large mammals became extinct about 10,000 years ago.

So far, the scientific community has believed that the mammoth steppe was completely grass -dominated, an idea that was based on analyses of pollen in soil samples. However, the vegetation composition as shown by preserved DNA in the frozen soil gives quite a different picture; the new ability to analyse the plants' DNA residue is thus highly interesting to researchers, including Per Möller. "

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-02-dna-reveals-clues-mammoths-die.html#jCp  ) 

 

..... and then  ignores the other valid points bought to light by posts here .     

[Nungali]

The same thing happened here ... many people rushed to support the idea that the Australian Aboriginals hunted out our past megafauna ... gobbled them all up they did !  Those irresponsible savages ! 

 

 

"  In recent years this has begun to change. Humans arrived sometime around 50-45 thousand years ago, but it is increasingly clear that many or most of the megafauna had disappeared before humans arrived. Times of peak cold are known as glacial maxima (times of peak cold and aridity), but of the 90 or so extinct species of megafauna around 50 are not known from fossil deposits younger than the Penultimate Glacial Maximum (approximately 130 thousand years ago). Other species disappeared about 50 thousand years later, but still long before the arrival of the first Aborigines.

At most 14 and as few as eight species of now extinct megafauna clearly overlapped in time with humans. At localised levels, too, there is mounting evidence from specific sites that a staggered, stepwise extinction was well established long before humans made an appearance. There has never been any direct evidence of humans preying on any now extinct megafauna anywhere in Sahul – or even evidence of a tool-kit typical of big-game hunting hunter-gatherers. "

http://theconversation.com/climate-change-wiped-out-australias-megafauna-13966