Re: Survival of the Fittest

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: John McCreery: "anthropology, prediction, evolution, etc."
• Previous message: Ruby Rohrlich: "Re: Survival of the Fittest"

Ruby,

> The Native Americans, who now prefer, I am told, to be called American

This is getting confusing. <g>

> Indians, handled contact with many more "foreigners" than ever Europeans
> did, and for the most part, had friendly relations with them. I don't

Hmm... I'm not sure about that. I mean, I know what you're saying, and it is
true that various tribes were quite different from one another, but there's
something still to be said for the general similarity between the tribes.
There were some things which they all -- for the most part -- held in common
with one another, in terms of general world-view, etc... Europeans had dealt
already with the Chinese, the Mongols, the Africans, and the Arabs -- four
persepectives and mind-sets very different from their own. I'm not sure the
American Indians had any contact with such exteremely different groups from
themselves.

I also want to re-qualify my point here -- I think the Europeans were, to a
large degree, a bunch of jerks. Their attitude towards the "foreigners" they
met was, on the whole, pretty terrible -- but one way of dealing with
something, sadly, is to destroy it . . .

I'm also not certain that the American Indians really dealt with each other as
well as you're saying. I may be wrong on this, I admit, but there were an
awful lot of a) hostilities, and b) isolationist activities.

But, remember, I was throwing something out for comment, not preaching a
view-point. <g>

Nick---

--

Nick Corduan                 "...there is as much dignity in tilling

     at                       a field as in writing a poem."

(nickc@iquest.net)                           --Booker T. Washington

• Next message: John McCreery: "anthropology, prediction, evolution, etc."
• Previous message: Ruby Rohrlich: "Re: Survival of the Fittest"