Our Marginalized Relations discussion
This topic is about
The True Story of Pocahontas
The True Story of Pocahontas
>
Measure of Civilization
date
newest »
newest »
In 1848 the Choctaw people had been in Oklahoma only twenty years; having been ousted from their native lands in Mississippi. When they received the news that six million Irish were only eight weeks away from death by starvation they were moved to help.They raised $170, which was a lot of money back then, especially for people who were very poor themselves; and sent it to an organization that was getting food to the Irish people. This act of generosity and friendship for a people who they saw being marginalized like themselves is an example to all humanity. We should all be this civilized.
Holly wrote: "In 1848 the Choctaw people had been in Oklahoma only twenty years; having been ousted from their native lands in Mississippi. When they received the news that six million Irish were only eight week..."This soon after the Trail of Years, too. This is one the stories that bring years to my eye. The Irish built a monument in their honor called Kindred Spirits. It's beautiful if you haven't seen it. I love how fragil and thin it is, but its placement evokes a sense of solidarity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kindred...
Mod
Then with Terra Nullius and Manifest Destiny, who is really the more civilized one? Because I say it's not the Europeans?
Ah but to argue the other side...According to Maslow one of the primary needs for humanity is security. Take care of that function and a few others like shelter and food and you can start going up the ladder to other needs like self actulization.
The Powhatans had found security for themselves in their current group, but not when faced against a far advanced scientific society. A society that for the past sixteen hundred years since Christ and 2000 years before that have been living on top of others in a crucible of thoughts and ideas. Of people looking and speaking a lot differently. Of having to defend yourself and your property from those that would take it from you.
The Europeans have literally been taught if you don't defend yourself, someone will come and claim you. So they developed weapons (the mother of invention afterall). The Greeks, Persians, Romans, Italians, Mongolians, the Muslims, the Chinese.
A lesson eagerly employed by the Plains Indians when it comes to using horses. Horses, of you weren't aware, didn't come to the Americas until the Spanish came. They are a European import. But boy did they change of the rules of the battlefield for plains Indians like the Apache and Comanche. These tribes were able to expand their territory because the horse availed them to travel much further and longer than their fastest runners. Also allowed them an advantage on buffalo hunts. ( More meat, less people starved, potentially more babies, potentially bigger population that required different means of protection and needs).
But going back to Maslow, the Europeans /Asian/ Middle Eastern, were able to create and self actualize in ways the Powhatan society didn't. With more permanent housing that they could bring about the likes of Michangelo or Da Vinci. With basic needs meet they could begin to think and invent and be taken care of: Cai-Lun, Al-Khwarizmi, Copernicus, Gutenberg, etc.
Going back to the original discussion what is considered advanced: Does Peace make you more advanced than war? Does War lead to new inventions that helps provide advancement in the scientific community? Does Might make Right long term?
Keith wrote: "Does Might make Right long term? - For those who are, or have been, on the wrong side of ‘Might’, the answer is likely only ever to be ‘No’. "And yet, some of the greatest achievements attributed to human kind have come from cultures that wared with others that led to a defensible land and population. Might lead to something great.
That is true.But I think we also need to reiterate the need for a standing army. The Germans are a perfect example of this.
Just like Wahunsenca, the European nations attempted to appease evil...and letting it get stronger because they didn't take a stand. And if it wasn't for the Brits and others standing up and possessing a military that could withhold, encumber, and later defeat them, the Nazis could have gone a lot further than they did.
Wahunsenca's priests, according to the book, were not as peace loving as their chief. They saw the threat when Pocahontas was kidnapped and they wanted to respond with force AND they did once Wahunsenca's successor was named. The successor was the War Chief
So this people also knew the importance of defending yourself against tyranny. So might was an attempt to get back to right
I think it all comes back to you earlier point about might being used for defence.A weapon, any weapon, can be used in defense of something (a bigger threat like a bear attack) or in subjection of others (terrorism or in your example with the massacre). The difference is on the weilder. Same is true with nations with armies.
Cannons, for example, "The Last Argument of Kings." All other roads should be considered before using them.
I created this thread before finishing the book. So I don't think that it stands anymore.As mentioned, (view spoiler)
So their society may have been able to create and build a lasting peace with their neighbors AND they valued it enough to attempt to seek peace with the English. But they were no strangers to war or warriors.
We could easily cherry pick other moments in time that show other cultures doing the same thing. Pax Romana, Ceaser Agustus, riding on the tailes of Julius Ceaser's conquests and after defeating Marcus Antony was able to create peace within the empire. There was peace.
Pax Tartar: or the time of stability after Ghangis Khan.
The Muslim Golden Age...
Etc.
I have been trying to find this post I found a while back that helped "settle" this argument for me. But I cannot find it. Lost now on my Pinterest somewhere... Anyways - major paraphrasing- a female professor was flunking her students when they would come up with this same argument I have listed above. I,e, Europe was great in the sense that it was able to put together all of these scientific and artistic achievements.
She states that no one seemed to grasp the concept that Europe at the time of Columbus and later with Smith and Rolf was that Europe was corrupt, bankrupt, dirty, diseased, and desperate. It had all the signs of a failing nation.
No matter how great it's achievements were. No matter how good they would become, it had failed as a society. It couldn't last, the way of doing things - wars, conquest, etc. only lasts as long as you can conquer. Once that is over, you have to deal with your population and your food production and etc. etc, etc.
The First Nations figured this out. They understood sustainability. They understand population needs.
To the professor, this meant that they were the more successful civilizations.
Mod
Anyways - major paraphrasing- a fe..."
So many of the things we use today, or techniques we use today, were invented in what we now call the Americas...
From sun glasses to agricultural techniques to baby-slings...
This to me is a fascinating role reversal of what puts the civil in civilization. And not just then, but now.
Does Might make Right?