Display:
As I mentioned in my post, Shorto also provides a fascinating discussion about how the European colonists and the native Americans, and I presume indigenous peoples in other parts of the world as well, viewed such land sales. From the perspective of the native Americans, one did not possess land in that way. What the Europeans interpreted as a sale, the Americans interpreted as an exchange, really a treaty, an ongoing relationship. It meant promised protection against other groups. It meant friendship, an alliance, and they could still enter the property, even live on it, after the "sale" was made. Shorto also shows that the native Americans played a role, and were part of, that first European colony that developed around the Hudson River area.
by Panhu from Wuling on Wed May 9th, 2007 at 07:48:42 PM EST
Native Americans had much richer experience of "tribe clashes". Amicable encouters were probably much more common than violent clashes that we Westerners assume "natural". With more violent relations, the continent would have fallen under control of a few empires fast.

In particular, the Noorse Vikings could not stay in the North America because of too much projection of own aggressive experience onto the encountered tribes. They did not really try to get along - after the first spontaneous fight, they just assumed they had no chance to establish a colony in small numbers. (Also on Greenland, Noorse cooperation with the Inuit was hardly thought of. I am pretty sure the Inuit were not violent - otherwise they would not be hanging around in the Nothenr lattitudes for long centuries.)

The Indians also knew a lot about environment degradation, society collapses (Maia, Anasazi), hence presumably, they knew something about sustainability as well.

by das monde on Thu May 10th, 2007 at 12:36:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series