[2012-Feb-19] We're sorry for taking this awesome land

[topher]

Pretty sure the native American infrastructure is no worse than it was before the evil Europeans invaded.

So are you saying European colonization merely kept aboriginal societies at the level of infrastructure that it was 500 years ago?*

*I'm aware this is probably not what you were trying to say. I'm just being snide

That actually is sort of what I was trying to say. Actually I was thinking about the sort of virtues that people project onto aboriginal societies. Like living in harmony with nature, having little or no population growth, little or no technological industrial development.... These things would seem to limit the development of infrastructure.
Seems to me that there are two main hypotheses about what would have happened to native americans in the absense of European influence. 1) They would have stuck to the status quo, meaning living semi-normadic existances, sleeping in temporary shelters, warring with rival tribes and treating illness with herbs and rituals. Or 2) They would have developed along their own technological route, creating more efficient farming/hunting methods, inventing better weapons to wipe out their rivals and ultimately ending up somewhere close to where we are now (probably with the dominant tribe feeling a nagging sense of guilt about having exterminated the other tribes).

[GUTCHUCKER]

Or somebody else would have wiped them out.

[Sahan]

I think you're forgetting one important thing though, topher, and that is quality of life. Prior to European settlement, they had their own lands, that were fertile and able to support them. They lived in a society where they did not need to make money to afford the basic essentials, and so could live as they did and do so as healthy, proud people with an awareness of how to live sustainably. Being forced off their most productive lands and living in a society where goods and services require money has caused these people greater hardship than they would have experienced without settlement, and losing their sense of ownership to the land has taken away their pride and sense of worth. That's something that would undoubtedly have been different under your perception of stagnant development without European invasion. I also find your implied view that these people are inferior because of their differing attitude towards to technological development a little naive and also quite disturbing, to be honest.

[GUTCHUCKER]

Sucks to be them, I guess.

[Kaharz]

That actually is sort of what I was trying to say. Actually I was thinking about the sort of virtues that people project onto aboriginal societies. Like living in harmony with nature, having little or no population growth, little or no technological industrial development.... These things would seem to limit the development of infrastructure.

These are all more or less myths, at least when it comes to the western hemisphere. I don't know much about other areas, so I won't comment on that. The harmony with nature is almost total BS. Woodlands were heavily managed, there was a lot of agriculture and there were cities and towns. There was also technological and industrial development. Maybe not the same tech and industry as in Europe during the pre-industrial era, but there were roads, resource management practices, construction technologies, etc.

Seems to me that there are two main hypotheses about what would have happened to native americans in the absense of European influence. 1) They would have stuck to the status quo, meaning living semi-normadic existances, sleeping in temporary shelters, warring with rival tribes and treating illness with herbs and rituals.

By the time of European contact, most aboriginal societies were not the least bit nomadic. The popular "wandering plains Indian" stereotype of the western US did not really come about until after European contact.* Most of the societies lived in or near towns and cities with permanent dwellings. As far as treating illness with herbs and rituals, Europeans were doing pretty much exactly the same thing. Their herbs may have been different and their rituals may have been Christian, but it was more or less the same.

It wasn't until the last two decades or so that serious revisions began to be made when it came to pre-Columbian history of the western hemisphere. Some archeologists and anthropologists now estimate that populations had been reduced by up to 90% in the phase between European contact and the establishment of permanent European colonies. There is of course still a lot of controversy over those numbers, but there is some pretty solid evidence that there were many more people in the western hemisphere before European colonization then previously thought and that their societies were far more advanced.

*A big hint is they portrayal always involves horses, a European introduction. Domesticated horses made that nomad lifestyle possible and the displacement of people by Europeans made it necessary.

[DonRetrasado]

Yeah, the whole idea that aboriginals were wandering the land in search of edible dirt is sort of, ya know, racist. The reason people don't just pack up and move back to Europe or wherever is because a substantial number of European-Americans were not born in Europe, and an en-masse migration would be just as nonsensical. It's not really practical to give up all the land anymore unfortunately. What shouldn't be too much to ask for is a fair settlement and access to resources and proper infrastructure, as well as honouring the existing agreements that western nations have frequently ignored; something that, by and large, has been repressed by our governments to avoid paying out what they (legally speaking) owe.

[Gest1]

I'm with GUTCHUCKER on this.

[smiley_cow]

Hi smiley, my second point was directed straight at the comic itself, not at any of the discussion about it. i.e. The comic says to me that the collective ancestral guilt felt by the modern day inhabitants of the Americas is pointless unless they're going to do something about it. So is Zach suggesting that the white people of North America and the Hispanics of South and central America should drop it and move on? Or that control and ownership of the Americas should be handed over to the remaining tribes?

Ah, honestly I think all Zach was saying was just as you say: guilt is useless unless you actually do something with it. But he wasn't offering any solutions and I suspect that whatever solutions he would have (assuming he had any at all) would probably be between those two extremes. It's not an all or nothing game. It's a really complicated situation.

Honestly, if you're wondering about what non-Aborginal people should do about Aboriginal issues, the first thing would be stop thinking about it as being about non-Aboriginal people. This is the issue I took with the comic. For some weird reason whenever I hear about Aboriginal issues it's always framed as being about white people. How should white people feel about this? What should white people be telling other white people*? etc. I hear people talk much more about white guilt than I ever do about the conditions of some of the reserves in this country, and frankly I'm a lot more concerned about the latter than I am about the former.

Secondly, I'd suggest listening to what Aboriginals are saying about Aboriginal issues. They live it, they understand it and they're likely the only ones who have to deal with any consequences of any kind of policy directed at them. They're also the main group talking about and proposing solutions to the issues they face. So supporting them makes a lot more sense than sitting around with a group of non-Aboriginal people trying to figure out what is the appropriate level of guilt.

*Specifically I'm thinking about discussions I've been in on, or listened to about how history should be taught here. Usually ignoring the fact that this curriculum is also taught to Aboriginal students.

[DonRetrasado]

I'm pretty concerned about white guilt.

[Eisbreaker]

White guilt keeps us all awake at night.

[GUTCHUCKER]

It doesn't keep me awake at night. I don't feel pity or remorse or fear and will not stop until you are dead.

[Eisbreaker]

Does that mean you will pity me when I die?

[Guesty the Guest]

Yeah, uh, "aboriginals" don't call themselves aboriginals. I'm not sure where that term came from! They are called "First Nations", at least here in Canadia. But carry on your stupid arguments about why I should feel guilty about a laughably easy military and cultural conquest three hundred years ago. Oh but but diseases yeah well they were still getting the shit kicked out of them two hundred years after they survived smallpox (which Europeans were still getting killed by pretty frequently) so what's your excuse there, eh?

[DonRetrasado]

They are called "First Nations", at least here in Canadia.

Everything else about what you said is problematic but in the first place, "First Nations" is not the correct term for "Canadian aboriginal" because it excludes Metis and Inuit people. It is also not the correct term for anyone from any other nation. Also, no one calls themselves "First Nations" either because most people would actually identify what nation they're from.

EDIT: First Nations is not a bad name for the people from the First Nations but in general it'd be better just to use whatever word people want. There are still people who like to be called Eskimos and Indians, and that's okay. No one I've met though.

EDIT 2: On a more positive note, does anyone else have any experience with aboriginal languages? I studied Inuktitut for two semesters and it was quite enjoyable. I got to meet Zacharias Kunuk too which was exceptionally cool. I still need to see The Fast Runner.

[Oldrac the Chitinous]

Yeah, uh, "aboriginals" don't call themselves aboriginals. I'm not sure where that term came from!

Latin.