History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedIndian Books gone wrong......

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 5678>
Author
Mixcoatl View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Points: 4581
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mixcoatl Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-May-2009 at 15:05
Oh, and talking about Savage people, the United Kingdom still discriminates against them:
"Some argue that atheism partly stems from a failure to fairly and judiciously consider the facts"
"Atheists deny the existence of Satan, while simultaneously doing his work."

- Conservapedia
Back to Top
Jams View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 06-Sep-2006
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 352
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jams Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-May-2009 at 16:27
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

[
I thought I have shown you that you are ABSOLUTELY wrong in analysing that video. And I believed you understood that was a perfect example of MISUNDERSTANDING of cultures, when seen from the outside, which is your case with that video.
 
You didn't reply my arguments there, and now you came back with the idea you have a "proof".
 
I don't get it. Do I write so badly in english you couldn't get it? Or you just preffered to ignore the oppinion of a "savage" (insider) LOL
 
Possibly a good example of what I wrote about earlier.
Infonor homepage: http://infonor.dk/ RAIPON homepage: http://www.raipon.org/
Back to Top
Seko View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
Superfluous Enabler of Sekostan

Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8681
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Seko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-May-2009 at 16:48
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:


It shows the Indians were classed as savages. It doesn't show that 'savage' means 'Indian'. The Indians referred to were classed as savages because they lived outside the pattern called 'civilised' - i.e. focussed around towns. They were referred to as merciless becaus it was alleged (rightly or wrongly) that they behaved without mercy. But the 'merciless' doesn't follow from the 'savage' or vice versa: they are independent judgements. The Polynesians of Tonga were also called savages - at the same time that their country was called the 'Friendly Islands'.  (They might have been less friendly later, but the point is that savages could be seen as friendly by the same people at the same time. In the 18th century by the by.)


.....True. The words quite obvously have opposed roots - 'civilised' from 'civilis' and 'savage' from 'silva'. Civilised people live in cities (by extension towns and townships), savages live in the forest (by extension in wild country). Those are quite objective criteria.


I had a long post vanish into thin air by the press of one wrong button. So here I post again. Going back to what I wrote, how we use the term makes a difference. Certainly the context in use makes a difference as well. I assert that the savage I used is according to the online etymology that edge provided, of modern definitions and fits the descriptions of Indians by the links I previously provided:

savage (adj.) Look up savage at Dictionary.com
c.1300, "wild, undomesticated, untamed" (of animals and places), from O.Fr. sauvage, salvage "wild, savage, untamed," from L.L. salvaticus, alteration of silvaticus "wild," lit. "of the woods," from silva "forest, grove." Of persons, the meaning "reckless, ungovernable" is attested from c.1400l earlier in sense "indomitable, valiant" (c.1300). Implications of ferocity are attested from 1579, earlier of animals (1407). The noun meaning "wild person" is from 1588; the verb meaning "to tear with the teeth, maul" is from 1880.

savage according to the Oxford dictionary

  • adjective 1 fierce, violent, and uncontrolled. 2 cruel and vicious. 3 primitive; uncivilized. 4 (of a place) wild; uncultivated.

  • noun 1 a member of a people regarded as primitive and uncivilized. 2 a brutal or vicious person.

  • verb 1 (especially of a dog) attack ferociously. 2 criticize brutally.

  — DERIVATIVES savagely adverb savagery noun.

  — ORIGIN Old French sauvage ‘wild’, from Latin silvaticus ‘of the woods’.

Savage, as forest dwellers, doesn't fit our description simply because Indians lived in far more diverse geography than the woods. Are we to believe that the fathers and writers of the 1800's on up to the present day meant only one particular etymological definition and not the  more obvious usage as pertaining to numerous bodies of work? So the Indians from the deserts of Arizona and Texas, and the mountains of Colorado were better known as Indian forest dwellers? Hardly so! They may be uncivilized but they certainly were savages that did not live in the forest. This is also quite objective criteria.

BTW, which forest dwellers were noble and which ones were ignoble? Were the Apache forest dwellers ignoble? I'll forewarn you in case you chose to answer that this is a trick question.Wink

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

That you can call civilised people 'savages' shows immediately that you are using 'savage' in a different way: otherwise it's a contradiction in terms.


That is why it's best to take the whole body of work and deduce from there. Otherwise there should be very little contradiction and no need to assume something that is not evident. Words like wild, merciless, destructive, fierce, and uncivilized all point to one particular direction. Forest dweller points to another different direction. Given that information we still can be wrong. Maybe savage means both types all the time. Most likely it doesn't. No, according to the literature describing Indians, savage happens to be something that 'white man' feared, even if that savage lived in a village or town.

Getting back to civilized savages, certainly its more than a possibility. Fierce, violent and uncontrolled savages from NYC and the streets of inner city Detroit! Haven't seen too many forest dwellers there.

























Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:


Incidentally, science fiction has explored the concept of technological development leading to a return to living outside civilised environments. Azimov deals with it in Caves of Steel and particularly The Naked Sun. In them it is the Spacers - who live outside cities - who look down on the humans left living in the cities of Earth.
 
Equally incidentally, London's Savage Club is so-called because the members take pride in their history of 'drunken merriment', not because they pride themselves on their ferocity or mercilessness.

Irrelevant and misleading. Not particular to savage Indians in this discussion (unless one mate from the London Savage Club placed his bets on the losing cricket team. Then that would be grounds for true savagery).

Take care and look forward to reading your latest.Smile

In sum we can make a big diversion from the general discussion of what Savage Indian means or we can nit pick hoping that something, somewhere fits our bill. We can choose isolated roots of a word which are not supported in most of the literature or we can place faith in the meanings of the most obvious and abundant works. Both interpretations have room for error. Both can have a proper meaning dependant on the times and place. One carries more certainty though. A certainty that keeps cropping up far above the other in regards to the discussion at hand.



I did learn something while debating with you though. Words can have multiple meanings and it's best to know which meaning we have in mind and use it in an appropriate fashion that best fits the topic.


 


 

 



Edited by Seko - 06-May-2009 at 19:50
Copyright 2004 Seko
Back to Top
Seko View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
Superfluous Enabler of Sekostan

Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8681
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Seko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-May-2009 at 16:49
Originally posted by Mixcoatl Mixcoatl wrote:

Oh, and talking about Savage people, the United Kingdom still discriminates against them:
 
Eaglecap will be distressed!
Copyright 2004 Seko
Back to Top
eaglecap View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 15-Feb-2005
Location: DesertSouthwest
Status: Offline
Points: 3264
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote eaglecap Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-May-2009 at 17:16
Originally posted by Seko Seko wrote:

Originally posted by Mixcoatl Mixcoatl wrote:

Oh, and talking about Savage people, the United Kingdom still discriminates against them:


 

Eaglecap will be distressed!


distressed not really but that is really for another thread and anyone can start it.

No comments on "War of a Thousand Deserts" or maybe it is desserts _LOL

I will look some more but I thought this thread was about bias in Native American history.
Well then, brothers and fellow citizens and soldiers, remember this in order that your memorial, your fame and freedom will be eternal.
Back to Top
eaglecap View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 15-Feb-2005
Location: DesertSouthwest
Status: Offline
Points: 3264
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote eaglecap Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-May-2009 at 17:30
Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

Yes, that is why I said the natives would largely be classed as cultures rather than civilisations, there are certainly exceptions.Another indicator of civilisation is widespread practice of agriculture. Like the construction of permanent settlements, this also varied from one people to the next.


Yes, many of the sedentary tribes were generally peaceful but they had to contend with semi-nomadic and nomadic tribes like the Apache. I wonder if the Hopi, Zuni, or Pueblo had their own term for these more war-like tribes that had the same definition as barbarian or savage.

"Ishi" is the story about the last wild Native Californian Indian. His village had been wiped out by American settlers and he was the last of, I think, the Yani tribe but it has been a while since I read it. Some anthropologist took him under thier wings and learned, from him, about his lost culture. In one account Ishi tells them about the tribes in the Sacramento Valley and the tribes in the foothills of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. The lowland tribes lived off of the Salmon and were wealthy by their standards but they thought the Indians in the hills were barbarians. Whereas, the tribes in the hills thought the low-land tribes were fat and lazy.

People really don't change-

I think we are all thilly savages-
Well then, brothers and fellow citizens and soldiers, remember this in order that your memorial, your fame and freedom will be eternal.
Back to Top
edgewaters View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 2396
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote edgewaters Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-May-2009 at 18:13

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

The words quite obvously have opposed roots - 'civilised' from 'civilis' and 'savage' from 'silva'.

And if it were ancient Romans or even, perhaps, speakers of Middle English who had dubbed the Indians thus, it wouldn't have meant the same thing as it did in the 1600s on (right up to its continued use in several books from 2007 that were mentioned). Your etymology is correct, but it has little to do with the intent of English speakers of a far later period who named natives savages.

By that time, it had acquired a different meaning. Words change their meaning over time. 

For example, "weird" used to mean fate or destiny. But you cannot presume that anyone who uses the term means that anymore. Same with "savage". Someone using it in the 1700s meant not only a person who lived outside of 'civilization', but also a person who was like an animal and given to animal-like .. savagery. 

It's even used as a verb ... to savage ... which does not mean to make sylvan!

Back to Top
edgewaters View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 2396
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote edgewaters Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-May-2009 at 18:20

Originally posted by eaglecap eaglecap wrote:

Yes, many of the sedentary tribes were generally peaceful but they had to contend with semi-nomadic and nomadic tribes like the Apache. I wonder if the Hopi, Zuni, or Pueblo had their own term for these more war-like tribes that had the same definition as barbarian or savage.

Some. Most of the agrarian groups tended to be among the most warlike. There's the obvious example of the Inca, Aztec, and Maya. But also the Hopewell groups, the Mississipians, who were intensely warlike. Same with the Iroqouis - they terrorized their non-agrarian neighbours, the Algonkian and Abenaki groups. The Anasazi were an agrarian group who also became intensely warlike, to the degree that their society broke down and they were forced to retreat to cliffside strongholds.

Back to Top
eaglecap View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 15-Feb-2005
Location: DesertSouthwest
Status: Offline
Points: 3264
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote eaglecap Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-May-2009 at 19:35
Originally posted by edgewaters edgewaters wrote:


Originally posted by eaglecap eaglecap wrote:

Yes, many of the sedentary tribes were generally peaceful but they had to contend with semi-nomadic and nomadic tribes like the Apache. I wonder if the Hopi, Zuni, or Pueblo had their own term for these more war-like tribes that had the same definition as barbarian or savage.

Some. Most of the agrarian groups tended to be among the most warlike. There's the obvious example of the Inca, Aztec, and Maya. But also the Hopewell groups, the Mississipians, who were intensely warlike. Same with the Iroqouis - they terrorized their non-agrarian neighbours, the Algonkian and Abenaki groups. The Anasazi were an agrarian group who also became intensely warlike, to the degree that their society broke down and they were forced to retreat to cliffside strongholds.



Yes, that is true and that is why I named the tribes. The Celts were agriculturalist and quite war-like so I understand this. I know the tribes I named did not seek war but they were not afraid of exacting revenge for a raid on their village. In Col. Cremony's account with the southwest tribes he talks about this. "Living with the Apache." I had always thought the Apache were semi nomadic but some had learned agriculture from tribes like the Pueblo or Hopi but they were still war-like. According to Cremony's account these Apache tended to more peaceful than their more nomadic brethren. Modern or ancient man tends to be war-like period and under the right circumstances we would all become savages, all of us!!

The Anasazi were an agrarian group who also became intensely warlike, to the degree that their society broke down and they were forced to retreat to cliffside strongholds.

The Anasazi are the ancestors of the Hopi and Pueblo but from what I recall their culture did not really break down until drought hit the southwest. The lectures at the Amerind Museum talked about this and between certain dates we find signs of violence but I will ask the curator the next time I am at the museum. I recall it was a combination of famine, invading nomadic tribes and disease which forced them to immigrate to other regions and compete with other tribes for food and water resources. This competition led to more violence and destruction.

Edited by eaglecap - 06-May-2009 at 22:43
Well then, brothers and fellow citizens and soldiers, remember this in order that your memorial, your fame and freedom will be eternal.
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 15-May-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 609
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-May-2009 at 22:02
Originally posted by edgewaters edgewaters wrote:

Some. Most of the agrarian groups tended to be among the most warlike. There's the obvious example of the Inca, Aztec, and Maya. But also the Hopewell groups, the Mississipians, who were intensely warlike. Same with the Iroqouis - they terrorized their non-agrarian neighbours, the Algonkian and Abenaki groups. The Anasazi were an agrarian group who also became intensely warlike, to the degree that their society broke down and they were forced to retreat to cliffside strongholds.
Terminology is apparently fogging the topic. All societies at their roots germinate chauvinism. Recall anthropological study? Elementary social groups usually recognize only themselves as "people" and everyone else is "other" and not necessarily human either. After all, the Hellenes acknowledged only their kin groups all else was barbaros. Likewise, in utilizing the term savage today as a noun rather than an adjective, one is but suffering cultural myopea. The current game in semantics is generating claptrap given that if one measures the level of violence in public entertainment today one could conclude the Romans and their games were pikers. As it is, at its base the rejection of the "other" as alien to arbitrary common understandings becomes self-defeating and in terms of culture illusory. Recall the history of all those Mesopotamian "cities" and the fate of their neighbors be they pastoralists or urbanized agrarians. One need only demonize the opponent to strip away any element of humanity. Has anyone taken a really close look at Trajan's column of late and the fate of those dastardly Dacians?

Edited by drgonzaga - 06-May-2009 at 22:19
Back to Top
es_bih View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Beglerbeg

Joined: 20-Dec-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3426
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote es_bih Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-May-2009 at 00:42
Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

I also think the term civil would be inappropriate to describe the Natives of the USA. If my Latin is not failing me, we get the word (and civilisation) from the Latin civitas, which means city. Plainly it would be wrong to apply such a word to hunter-gatherer societies.

On the other hand, I would have no qualms about applying such a term to such peoples as the Aztecs and Inca.

The traditional people of the USA would largely fit into the mould of cultures rather than civilisations.

Having studied various Native American populations within N. America, I find that statement to be faulty. There were numerous tribes that you would call "civil." I think you have a wrong idea there on Native tribes, stemming moreso from popular culture rather than actual tribal groups. True a lot of migratory groups, but a lot of complex and stationary groups, too.  

Back to Top
es_bih View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Beglerbeg

Joined: 20-Dec-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3426
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote es_bih Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-May-2009 at 00:44
Originally posted by Mixcoatl Mixcoatl wrote:

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

I thought I have shown you that you are ABSOLUTELY wrong in analysing that video. And I believed you understood that was a perfect example of MISUNDERSTANDING of cultures, when seen from the outside, which is your case with that video.
 
Pinguin is right, Hugo. I know it's difficult for you since you are so Anglosaxon, but couldn't you at least try to look at it like a Mexican would?

LOL

Back to Top
Constantine XI View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Lord of Hut River Province Principality

Joined: 01-May-2005
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 5711
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Constantine XI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-May-2009 at 02:15
Originally posted by es_bih es_bih wrote:

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

I also think the term civil would be inappropriate to describe the Natives of the USA. If my Latin is not failing me, we get the word (and civilisation) from the Latin civitas, which means city. Plainly it would be wrong to apply such a word to hunter-gatherer societies.

On the other hand, I would have no qualms about applying such a term to such peoples as the Aztecs and Inca.

The traditional people of the USA would largely fit into the mould of cultures rather than civilisations.

Having studied various Native American populations within N. America, I find that statement to be faulty. There were numerous tribes that you would call "civil." I think you have a wrong idea there on Native tribes, stemming moreso from popular culture rather than actual tribal groups. True a lot of migratory groups, but a lot of complex and stationary groups, too.  


Would it be correct to say a majority were stationary in permanent settlements that continued to exist for generation after generation?

If so, then we must ask if the next feature historians commonly attribute to civilisations, agriculture, was the mainstay of their food production.

On both counts I can definitely see the Aztec and Inca empires as civilisations. Do you consider that a majority of Natives in today's USA also qualify under this criteria?

I have no doubt some do, but a majority?
It is not the challenges a people face which define who they are, but rather the way in which they respond to those challenges.

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-May-2009 at 11:33
Originally posted by Seko Seko wrote:


savage (adj.) Look up savage at Dictionary.com
c.1300, "wild, undomesticated, untamed" (of animals and places), from O.Fr. sauvage, salvage "wild, savage, untamed," from L.L. salvaticus, alteration of silvaticus "wild," lit. "of the woods," from silva "forest, grove." Of persons, the meaning "reckless, ungovernable" is attested from c.1400l earlier in sense "indomitable, valiant" (c.1300). Implications of ferocity are attested from 1579, earlier of animals (1407). The noun meaning "wild person" is from 1588; the verb meaning "to tear with the teeth, maul" is from 1880.

Well, that's the quote I gave.

Quote
savage according to the Oxford dictionary

  • adjective 1 fierce, violent, and uncontrolled. 2 cruel and vicious. 3 primitive; uncivilized. 4 (of a place) wild; uncultivated.

  • noun 1 a member of a people regarded as primitive and uncivilized. 2 a brutal or vicious person.

  • verb 1 (especially of a dog) attack ferociously. 2 criticize brutally.

  — DERIVATIVES savagely adverb savagery noun.

  — ORIGIN Old French sauvage ‘wild’, from Latin silvaticus ‘of the woods’.

Check meaning noun 1. 'Primitive' and 'uncivilised' is the primary meaning. Now IF you consider 'primitive' and 'uncivilised' to be derogatory, then you would consider 'savage' derogatory. But (a)  it still has nothing to do with being ferocious or merciless or whatever and (b) thee are a lot of people around and have been throughout history who do not/did not consider being 'civilised' to be an improvement.
 
Go as far back as Gilgamesh and you find that mankind (as allegorised by Enkidu) weakens through living in cities.
Quote
Savage, as forest dwellers, doesn't fit our description simply because Indians lived in far more diverse geography than the woods.
I pointed out that by extension 'living in the forest' simply means living in the wild, i.e. outside settled territory. The New Forest in Britain doesn't only consist of wooded areas, it includes, for instance, moorland. It so happens that in Europe most wild country was in fact wooded. 
Quote
Are we to believe that the fathers and writers of the 1800's on up to the present day meant only one particular etymological definition and not the  more obvious usage as pertaining to numerous bodies of work? So the Indians from the deserts of Arizona and Texas, and the mountains of Colorado were better known as Indian forest dwellers? Hardly so! They may be uncivilized but they certainly were savages that did not live in the forest. This is also quite objective criteria.
And that's a pointless paragraph, since I was saying that 'forest' was only a term for 'unsettled country'. Similarly - as I also pointed out - 'civilised' doesn't mean exclusively living in cities rather than towns or suburbs.
Quote BTW, which forest dwellers were noble and which ones were ignoble?
Wrong question. The same people could be seen as noble and ignoble by different observers. Which actually is the case with the North American rtribes.
 
Quote
Were the Apache forest dwellers ignoble? I'll forewarn you in case you chose to answer that this is a trick question.Wink
As far as I know the Apache didn't live in forested areas. They just didn't live in settled areas. They weren't, to give it another etymological twist, 'citizens'.
Quote
 
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

That you can call civilised people 'savages' shows immediately that you are using 'savage' in a different way: otherwise it's a contradiction in terms.


That is why it's best to take the whole body of work and deduce from there.
That was my original point. Just assuming from the use of 'savage' in a book title that the book is derogatory about Indians is unjustified. You need to read the book to tell.
Quote
Otherwise there should be very little contradiction and no need to assume something that is not evident. Words like wild, merciless, destructive, fierce, and uncivilized all point to one particular direction.
You're still making essentially the unjustified leap from assuming that because someone would refer to one group of savages as merciless, they would refer to all savages are merciless. Some might, but it isn't a necessary implication.
Quote
 Forest dweller points to another different direction. Given that information we still can be wrong. Maybe savage means both types all the time.
What 'savage' means when a person uses it depends entirely on the person. Context is everything here.
Quote
Most likely it doesn't. No, according to the literature describing Indians, savage happens to be something that 'white man' feared, even if that savage lived in a village or town.
What 'savages' lived in towns?
Quote
Getting back to civilized savages, certainly its more than a possibility. Fierce, violent and uncontrolled savages from NYC and the streets of inner city Detroit! Haven't seen too many forest dwellers there.
My point was that you are switching between different meanings of 'savage'. The point still applies.
Quote
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:


Incidentally, science fiction has explored the concept of technological development leading to a return to living outside civilised environments. Azimov deals with it in Caves of Steel and particularly The Naked Sun. In them it is the Spacers - who live outside cities - who look down on the humans left living in the cities of Earth.
 
Equally incidentally, London's Savage Club is so-called because the members take pride in their history of 'drunken merriment', not because they pride themselves on their ferocity or mercilessness.

Irrelevant and misleading.
Well I said it was incidental. I was just strengthening the point that savages (uncivilised) people can (a) be seen as superior or (b) merely eccentric.
Quote
 
 
Not particular to savage Indians in this discussion (unless one mate from the London Savage Club placed his bets on the losing cricket team. Then that would be grounds for true savagery).

Take care and look forward to reading your latest.Smile

In sum we can make a big diversion from the general discussion of what Savage Indian means or we can nit pick hoping that something, somewhere fits our bill. We can choose isolated roots of a word which are not supported in most of the literature or we can place faith in the meanings of the most obvious and abundant works. Both interpretations have room for error. Both can have a proper meaning dependant on the times and place. One carries more certainty though. A certainty that keeps cropping up far above the other in regards to the discussion at hand.



I did learn something while debating with you though. Words can have multiple meanings and it's best to know which meaning we have in mind and use it in an appropriate fashion that best fits the topic.

My point in the first place.

 


 

 

[/QUOTE]
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
Jams View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 06-Sep-2006
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 352
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jams Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-May-2009 at 13:35
Originally posted by The Canadian Guy The Canadian Guy wrote:

I can't just write a book, the ceremonies are not to be told outside of the sacred grounds. For example; There are male ceremonies just for men and same as go for females. We cannot know of each others ceremonies. I wish I could write a book, but it is disrespect for my ancestors.
 
How about videos like this, is this considered disrespectful, or is it ok?
 
 
Infonor homepage: http://infonor.dk/ RAIPON homepage: http://www.raipon.org/
Back to Top
Seko View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
Superfluous Enabler of Sekostan

Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8681
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Seko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-May-2009 at 14:29
gcle2003, since we now agree in most of our points in question I believe that the civil thing to do would be to put the savages to rest. Smile However, you did notice that switching between certain variations of savagery is faulty. I totally agree. A Savage is a savage is a savage, whether in NYC, Detroit, Mesa or the the Adirondacks. Uncivil, fierce and merciless people. The founding fathers new that and so did the colonizers of the West. 
Copyright 2004 Seko
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-May-2009 at 14:48
Ye whose hearts are fresh and simple,
Who have faith in God and Nature,
Who believe that in all ages
Every human heart is human,
That in even savage bosoms
There are longings, yearnings, strivings
For the good they comprehend not,
That the feeble hands and helpless,
Groping blindly in the darkness,
Touch God's right hand in that darkness
And are lifted up and strengthened;--
Listen to this simple story,
To this Song of Hiawatha!
 
Not that I have room to quote it all.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
Seko View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
Superfluous Enabler of Sekostan

Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8681
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Seko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-May-2009 at 15:05
For all, with our progression made regarding descriptive terminology and going back to the original spirit of this thread, the Indians had faced animosity regarding their lifestyle, styles of warfare and being. Though at times justified, the lasting impact of negatively categorizing them has possibly resulted biased stereotyping. How strongly or weakly this is justified is food for thought. It certainly has had lasting implications for the the Indians themselves and those who try to undertand their history.
Copyright 2004 Seko
Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 26-Mar-2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 137
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-May-2009 at 16:32
Originally posted by Seko Seko wrote:

... the Indians had faced animosity regarding their lifestyle, styles of warfare and being... at times justified...The lasting impact of negatively categorizing them has possibly resulted (in) biased stereotyping.


Whatever it might have been in the past, the modern American view of "Indians" may be stereotypical, but it is hardly negative. Inevitably, it leans to the "noble Savage" views of Rousseau, Engels, and Kevin Costner. When you do find populations with a noticeable level of anti-Indian bias, they generally live near major reservations and interact with Indians more than the population at large. Living so close, they observe the same anti-social behaviour common to many inner city areas, Black, White, or Hispanic. High unemployment, low educational levels, serious drug and alcohol problems, high birthrates among "single" women, inter-family violence, little respect for private property, etc.. But, as such adjacent "White" (or Hispanic) populations tend to be either rural or small town, their view is a that of a very small minority.

Indians living on most reservations suffer the same economic hardships as other American groups living outside the main centers of commerce, and the corridors running between them. That lack of economic opportunity creates the very poverty that is the basis of their underdevelopment.  The obvious answer is to get up and move, but that creates a challenge in itself. You can be a Navajo attorney or CPA, and do quite well in Albuquerque or Gallup, where you can stay in touch with your culture. But in Boston you will likely lose the hat and jewelry if you are interviewing for a starting position within one of that City's large firms, and you will be in a land totally alien to your culture.  That was true for the French Canadiens, The Italians, the Portuguese, the Greeks, and even for the Irish who wished to step out of South Boston, everyone among them who wished to chase economic opportunity. You have to go where the jobs are, and your best chance of landing a decent paying job is to fit in, or be one of those rare geniuses like Steve Jobs (or An Wang) who create their own jobs.

Staying back on "the Res" is no different than staying "down South", "Country", in the Appalachians, "chez nous" in La Louisianne, or in the "barrio". The surroundings will be more familiar, but economic opportunity will be more limited.
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
Seko View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
Superfluous Enabler of Sekostan

Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8681
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Seko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-May-2009 at 17:50
Hello lirelou,

In daily living current generations certainly have less reason to maintain previously held negative bias towards American Indians. Now, going back to the highlighted sentence - "The lasting impact of negatively categorizing them has possibly resulted in biased stereotyping"; it now appears that the remaining debate is over stigmatizing effects from history books both modern and old.
Copyright 2004 Seko
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 5678>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.098 seconds.