This is exactly what I’m getting at. If these groups of humans were placed in the same scenarios that Europeans or other westerners were placed in, would they not be susceptible to the same greed that motivated them?
I do not deny that many native societies appear to live in more harmony with the environment than your average westerner. There is certainly a lot to learn there, and I believe we would do better if we emulated some of those characteristics. However, I think that we’re all susceptible to the same flaws, as we are all human.
Ultimately what I’m saying is I don’t think that natives have some superpower where they have figured out how to escape the flaws that have plagued humanity for thousands of years.
So, there were indigenous societies that were highly class stratified, or did bad things to the environment. No one is denying that.
But generally speaking, indigenous peoples in say, the Americas, developed methods of agriculture and other forms of production that were more ecologically sustainable for their respective continent, than the European methods that settlers brought, and then revised to be more extractive.
The dust bowl, for example, didn’t just happen. It was a product of Colonialism. A region which was relatively recently colonized, had its forests and grasslands ripped up, in favor of shallow rooted monocultures that couldn’t sustain drought conditions.
There weren’t dustbowls for the millennia prior to colonization, but a sudden shift in the mode of production, to a highly extractive one, artificially produced an ecological disaster
I mean, the main sustainable feature of indigenous food systems is their small population size relative to the environment’s carrying capacity. Trying to feed a large city on hunted game would be far less sustainable than modern agriculture…
Sure, in some instances that was the case, but it’s wrong to assume that indigenous north Americans didn’t have cities or large scale agriculture.
Agricultural practices in Cahokia for instance, wasn’t a European style monocrop. Rather, “Farming at Cahokia was biologically diverse and, as such, less prone to risk than was maize-dominated agriculture” ^(see link above)^
And Cahokia was, for a time, the political and economic center of much of indigenous north American, with the city itself being of comparable size to many European cities in the same period.
While I agree that people are fundamentally the same the cultural values can alter their behavior. A culture that says Human are separate and above nature who should submit to it’s will acts differently than one who thinks humans are the youngest sibling to plants and animals who have lots to teach us. So by understanding cultural values, mindsets and techniques we can alter how we interact with the rest of the world.
This is exactly what I’m getting at. If these groups of humans were placed in the same scenarios that Europeans or other westerners were placed in, would they not be susceptible to the same greed that motivated them?
I do not deny that many native societies appear to live in more harmony with the environment than your average westerner. There is certainly a lot to learn there, and I believe we would do better if we emulated some of those characteristics. However, I think that we’re all susceptible to the same flaws, as we are all human.
Ultimately what I’m saying is I don’t think that natives have some superpower where they have figured out how to escape the flaws that have plagued humanity for thousands of years.
So, there were indigenous societies that were highly class stratified, or did bad things to the environment. No one is denying that.
But generally speaking, indigenous peoples in say, the Americas, developed methods of agriculture and other forms of production that were more ecologically sustainable for their respective continent, than the European methods that settlers brought, and then revised to be more extractive.
The dust bowl, for example, didn’t just happen. It was a product of Colonialism. A region which was relatively recently colonized, had its forests and grasslands ripped up, in favor of shallow rooted monocultures that couldn’t sustain drought conditions.
There weren’t dustbowls for the millennia prior to colonization, but a sudden shift in the mode of production, to a highly extractive one, artificially produced an ecological disaster
I mean, the main sustainable feature of indigenous food systems is their small population size relative to the environment’s carrying capacity. Trying to feed a large city on hunted game would be far less sustainable than modern agriculture…
Sure, in some instances that was the case, but it’s wrong to assume that indigenous north Americans didn’t have cities or large scale agriculture.
Agricultural practices in Cahokia for instance, wasn’t a European style monocrop. Rather, “Farming at Cahokia was biologically diverse and, as such, less prone to risk than was maize-dominated agriculture” ^(see link above)^
And Cahokia was, for a time, the political and economic center of much of indigenous north American, with the city itself being of comparable size to many European cities in the same period.
While I agree that people are fundamentally the same the cultural values can alter their behavior. A culture that says Human are separate and above nature who should submit to it’s will acts differently than one who thinks humans are the youngest sibling to plants and animals who have lots to teach us. So by understanding cultural values, mindsets and techniques we can alter how we interact with the rest of the world.