Re: Survival of the Specious ;)

Nick Corduan (nickc@IQUEST.NET)
Thu, 14 Sep 1995 16:08:13 -0500

James,

> A problem emerges in this analysis. One that I'm sure I won't find
> a lot of support for because this list is filled with *archaeologists*,
> whom, in general, don't know a hell of a lot about Native Americans.

And you accused *me* of operating under stereotypes. <g>

> Nick, your operating under a lot of *stereotypes* about what constitutes
> an "Indian". The thing that is useful to remember is that there is no

I resent this accusation, actually. There *are* similarities, general
samenesses between the American Indians that they did not share with the
Europeans. I also said that there were exceptions to this, and spoke in
terms of "in general" but you seem to have missed that part.

> When Cortes landed in Mexico there were 600 different languages
> flourishing with inumerable different lifeways *in Mexico alone*! These
> were all different kinds of PEOPLE engaging in different modes of
> production, and thinking in many different ways. Sure, there were also

I never disputed this. However, there is more in common between the mind of a
Pueblo and the mind of an Iroqouis than there is between the mind of either
of those and a European. It *is* an overgeneralization, but certainly not a
non-truth.

> similarities, thats what we call the "commonality of man", but not
> any more so than in other areas and with other peoples. (In fact,
> there were probably more differences in America than in Europe since
> Europeans were engaging in far fewer modes of production (feudalism).

I do not recall mentioning any great diversity in Europe. I would agree that
there was probably less -- and there should be, for their racial stocks were
closer together in a closer chronological time, and they had more frequent
contact with one another (due to horses, etc...), resulting in a general
similarity in terms of politics and religion. I would say, though, that you
are perhaps overgeneralizing just as badly as I when you make that statement.

> As regards to the ranking of the most "fittest", I don't know how to
> answer that. Certainly, there is no non-subjective way to rank
> cultures. The fact that we had a greater technology, were more blood-
> thirsty, etc. who knows? BTW, a good source for beginning to see

I was just throwing out an idea for comment, as I have said many times. I was
in no way advocating the view. It should be kept in mind, though, that
biological "fittest" isn't always the "best" in the sense of most pleasing
(to us, to God, whatever); nor should any comment about the "fitness" of a
culture be taken to be judging it the "best."

Nick---

--

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

     at                       a field as in writing a poem."

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