In a way a lot of the "noble savage" mythology is insulting to them. I think a lot of tribes considered themselves pretty fearsome warriors and others considered them formidable foes. Probably not that different than tribes in stone age Europe really when you think about it. Accounts are that my Viking ancestors found the pre-colonization (1000-ish AD) natives in what is now NE US and SE Canada to be too hostile to colonize further than Greenland. And the Vikings were well known to be savage and war mongering. Ask the Scots, Irish, English, French, etc.
The Norse were definitely outnumbered by the Skraelings, which is why they pulled back to Greenland, which was green at the time. Last Norse settlement on Greenland was wiped out by ice in the 1300's, and no relief could get to them because the seas around Greenland froze.
It's worth noting that Greenland was warmer for a few hundred years between 800-ish and 1300-ish, then got cold again. One notable thing that the Vikings didn't report there was a lot of Polar Bears, because you know if they were there they would have hunted them extensively and exported the furs back to Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, etc. So all the libtard crying about the Polar Bear losing their habitat... Well, it happened before, well before man started burning fossil fuels in any major way (yeah, maybe a little coal, but Europe wasn't pumping oil out of the ground). There are repors that the Vikinds encountered Polar Bears but mostly from what I've read, when exploring the mainland in what is now Canada. Global warming and global cooling happens. Climate changes, it isn't always caused by man. Some changes like the previous and upcoming ice ages are cyclical and there probably isn't a whole hell of a lot that humans can do to stop them or alter their schedules in ways significant by geological time and scale. Even if we burn all the fossil fuels maybe we might delay the coming ice age by a few thousand years, which pretty near insignificant. A few tens of thousands of years from now a large portion of North America and Europe will probably be covered by glaciers again. Tens of thousands of years is a blink of an eye, the planet has been around a few billion and will be around a few more billion before it will inevitably be burnt to a cinder or flung probably out of our solar system when the sun goes nova (not super nova, our sun is too puny to do that). No matter what mankind does, the earth will eventually be destroyed and if we don't find a way off this rock, we'll be extinct. Assuming something else doesn't get us before then... maybe an extiction level meteor impact, maybe massive nuclear war. Or maybe humans will survive temporarily but be put back to the stone age... Who knows. Well, certainly not the ecomoron chicken littles. Most of them can't understand the big picture. Like really big. Many of them want to force austerity on everyone to put us back to the stone age. -swj
As one who studied a bit of history, I'd certainly agree... Also of course having spent a LONG time at the University of Illinois (Student then employee) where we lost the ability to have the Chief as our symbol due to the fact that there were no living Illini to grant that permission. Of course, the assumption that they were killed by the French, English or American colonists. Factually incorrect as they were wiped out in inter-tribal warfare. Of course, seeing the business side of this sort of naming at my current University as we might become that specific "X" warriors since they have a nice casino just over the border and want to "raise awareness" of that... I'm just the IT guy and I find it amusing.
The peaceful Northwest Native Americans had a thriving slave trade all up and down their coastal area, and extending as far as the deserts on the east of the mountains.
The Inuit? The reason they live in frozen hell for a good portion of the year is the previous tribes who made it into better lands 'wouldn't let them come down.' In other words, the peaceful tribes that were there first fought tooth and nail to hold onto prime land, and the Inuit and Eskimos and other ice tribes lost bigly.
Thus is the way of hunter-gatherer cultures, well, pretty much all cultures, but hunter-gatherers to a greater extent. When control of huge swaths of land are required to feed one tribe, the tribe must go to war, or die off.
The real shame, historically of course, is when the hunter-gatherers killed off the more advanced agricultural tribes for their prosperous lands, only to have the lands return to desert or unproductive prairie.
But we aren't allowed by our betters and elites to say the truth about any of this.
You are a guest here when you comment. This is my soapbox, not yours. Be polite. Inappropriate comments will be deleted without mention. Amnesty period is expired.
Do not go off on a tangent, stay with the topic of the post. If I can't tell what your point is in the first couple of sentences I'm flushing it.
If you're trying to comment anonymously: You can't. Log into your Google account.
If you can't comprehend this, don't comment; because I'm going to moderate and mock you for wasting your time.
Posts
In a way a lot of the "noble savage" mythology is insulting to them. I think a lot of tribes considered themselves pretty fearsome warriors and others considered them formidable foes. Probably not that different than tribes in stone age Europe really when you think about it. Accounts are that my Viking ancestors found the pre-colonization (1000-ish AD) natives in what is now NE US and SE Canada to be too hostile to colonize further than Greenland. And the Vikings were well known to be savage and war mongering. Ask the Scots, Irish, English, French, etc.
ReplyDeleteThe Norse were definitely outnumbered by the Skraelings, which is why they pulled back to Greenland, which was green at the time. Last Norse settlement on Greenland was wiped out by ice in the 1300's, and no relief could get to them because the seas around Greenland froze.
DeleteIt's worth noting that Greenland was warmer for a few hundred years between 800-ish and 1300-ish, then got cold again. One notable thing that the Vikings didn't report there was a lot of Polar Bears, because you know if they were there they would have hunted them extensively and exported the furs back to Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, etc. So all the libtard crying about the Polar Bear losing their habitat... Well, it happened before, well before man started burning fossil fuels in any major way (yeah, maybe a little coal, but Europe wasn't pumping oil out of the ground). There are repors that the Vikinds encountered Polar Bears but mostly from what I've read, when exploring the mainland in what is now Canada. Global warming and global cooling happens. Climate changes, it isn't always caused by man. Some changes like the previous and upcoming ice ages are cyclical and there probably isn't a whole hell of a lot that humans can do to stop them or alter their schedules in ways significant by geological time and scale. Even if we burn all the fossil fuels maybe we might delay the coming ice age by a few thousand years, which pretty near insignificant. A few tens of thousands of years from now a large portion of North America and Europe will probably be covered by glaciers again. Tens of thousands of years is a blink of an eye, the planet has been around a few billion and will be around a few more billion before it will inevitably be burnt to a cinder or flung probably out of our solar system when the sun goes nova (not super nova, our sun is too puny to do that). No matter what mankind does, the earth will eventually be destroyed and if we don't find a way off this rock, we'll be extinct. Assuming something else doesn't get us before then... maybe an extiction level meteor impact, maybe massive nuclear war. Or maybe humans will survive temporarily but be put back to the stone age... Who knows. Well, certainly not the ecomoron chicken littles. Most of them can't understand the big picture. Like really big. Many of them want to force austerity on everyone to put us back to the stone age.
Delete-swj
Oh damn... Me again.
ReplyDelete-swj
As one who studied a bit of history, I'd certainly agree... Also of course having spent a LONG time at the University of Illinois (Student then employee) where we lost the ability to have the Chief as our symbol due to the fact that there were no living Illini to grant that permission. Of course, the assumption that they were killed by the French, English or American colonists. Factually incorrect as they were wiped out in inter-tribal warfare. Of course, seeing the business side of this sort of naming at my current University as we might become that specific "X" warriors since they have a nice casino just over the border and want to "raise awareness" of that... I'm just the IT guy and I find it amusing.
ReplyDeleteYup.
ReplyDeleteThe peaceful Northwest Native Americans had a thriving slave trade all up and down their coastal area, and extending as far as the deserts on the east of the mountains.
The Inuit? The reason they live in frozen hell for a good portion of the year is the previous tribes who made it into better lands 'wouldn't let them come down.' In other words, the peaceful tribes that were there first fought tooth and nail to hold onto prime land, and the Inuit and Eskimos and other ice tribes lost bigly.
Thus is the way of hunter-gatherer cultures, well, pretty much all cultures, but hunter-gatherers to a greater extent. When control of huge swaths of land are required to feed one tribe, the tribe must go to war, or die off.
The real shame, historically of course, is when the hunter-gatherers killed off the more advanced agricultural tribes for their prosperous lands, only to have the lands return to desert or unproductive prairie.
But we aren't allowed by our betters and elites to say the truth about any of this.
No reputable scholarship in the past 50 years subscribes to the noble savage theory. This one a non-issue. -JKing
ReplyDelete