| exnihilo
|
| 258688. Mon Jan 14, 2008 5:51 pm |
 |
|
| General Woundwort, I don't think you can really make the claim that the Plains Indians would have hunted the bison more had they the means, their method of hunting was largely about killing what was needed and using every part. As for the value of bison, that was true in the beginning, but towards the end of their slaughter the market had collapsed and their corpses were simply left to rot, even their skins fetched next to nothing. Bounties were paid for their killing however, which does rather look like a deliberate policy. |
|
|
|
 |
| Arcane
|
| 258762. Mon Jan 14, 2008 10:22 pm |
|
|
GWW re the tasmanian devils: i think what you're referring to is something called "facial tumour disease"
i've provided a link below:
http://www.dpiw.tas.gov.au/inter.nsf/WebPages/LBUN-5QF86G
nasty thing, poor devils. they get cancerous tumours on their face, and it eventually kills them.
and the problem is GWW with australian species, they are unique. we are also geographically isolated, so the animals here have evolved with very little natural immunity and may also live in a highly specialised habitat. once a foreign species invades, the indigenous population may have their habitat destroyed or taken over. the species that once inhabited it may have nowhere else to go. once upon a time, indigenous australian animals were viewed with derision being "inferior" to european animals, and the good ole' folk who settled here in oz decided they missed a bit of the good old english sport. hence the wascally wabbit. they have taken over and destroyed the habitat of unique australian species such as bilbys. the bilbys are hanging on by a thread. the same happened with pigs, horses, goats, foxes, camels (yes!), and is now happening with cats and dogs.
here's a link regarding feral rabbits:
http://www.csiro.au/communication/rabbits/qa2.htm
photo of giant feral pig. some think it's a fake because it's so huge. it ain't a fake!
-----------------------------------------
bilby. usurped by the rabbit. far cuter than a rabby, i think.
____________________________________________________
feral dog seen not far from suburbs in brisbane. possible domestic dog/dingo hybrid. |
|
|
|
|
| Southpaw
|
| 258836. Tue Jan 15, 2008 5:56 am |
|
|
| Quote: | | photo of giant feral pig. some think it's a fake because it's so huge. it ain't a fake! |
You sure? There are distinct signs of Photoshop 'clone brushing' around the middle of the animal and the chain. |
|
|
|
|
| General_Woundwort
|
| 258869. Tue Jan 15, 2008 6:51 am |
|
|
| exnihilo wrote: | | Bounties were paid for their killing however, which does rather look like a deliberate policy. |
It could have been gross stupidity and irresponsibleness, you know. Not every effect is intentional. The passenger pigeon hardly played a role in Indian culture, but went a similar way due to - as then - not understood population dynamics. The buffalo... yes, I know, but I'm sticking with it... hunts were *fun*, as many diaries of the time attest.
My point is not to deny the appropriation of Indian lands in the 19th Century or mistreatment of the inhabitants: in my original post I referred to this. My point is to question the easy accusations of genocide which are bandied about like sweets. Genocide is about more than killing a lot of people in a short period of time, but it has been adopted in an age of relativism which sees this act in terms of the Jewish Holocaust and wishes to cast the net to whomever is out of political favour, just as the existence of genocide is not needed for condemnation. This becomes both a block to sensible debate and an offence to the memory of real genocide.
Unequivocal claims of such deliberate extermination policies, or of concerted genocide are promoted by the likes of Ward Churchill or David Stanard who, putting it bluntly, have been accused of, at best, misrepresentation or, at worst, plain academic fraud.
| Quote: | | General Woundwort, I don't think you can really make the claim that the Plains Indians would have hunted the bison more had they the means, their method of hunting was largely about killing what was needed and using every part. |
Smaller native species such as deer or antelope had already been hunted into practical extinction, a common event found across non-European societies. Buffalo were big buggers and, clearly, more difficult to kill. *Had* *the* *Indians* *had* *the* *means*, there is no reason to suggest that they would not have done what all humans do, and hunted more: either for the thrill of the hunt, to prove their virility, or to hold potlatch ceremonies with the products.
There is a report from a Chicago journalist, John F. Finerty, who during the Sioux Wars saw Ute allies killing buffalo left, right and centre... just as you highlight when Americans did so. They were reproached by *American* officers, to respond, better no-one has them than the Sioux.
And that's my point. There would have been a vague awareness that implementing an extermination programme would frustrate the Indians, but primarily it was to protect railroads or open up farmland. In other words, to protect their 'tribe'. On the ground, however, inter-tribal conflicts which predated European contact, there was a dog-in-the-manger attitude which also, no doubt, extended to the nearby American tribal members. But we're talking about a "deliberate" government policy.
There are currently approximately six millions Indians, of various descent, in the USA. Many of their children are doing quite well in American society. Quickly after the conclusion of the 19th Century Indian Wars, they were granted rights such as tax or casinos. There had always been a romanticism of Indian life which *never* existed in the real genocide the term takes its name from.
Little William Sherman was named Tecumseh in honour for a defeated warrior: try to imagine Goebels calling one of his children Israel. For over a century, darker skinned Americans often claimed Cherokee descent rather than African descent: again, try to imagine the estimated 200,000 Germans in the Nazi military who would have failed race-laws admitting to this. Yes, this points to another racism, but I'd like to see anyone claim evidence of an attempt of genocide against black Americans.
That there were unpleasant population wars are givens. Frankly, though, the tendancy to focus on "genocide" speaks more about the speakers' priorities than their pursiut of truth. It's the same with the debate about the dodo which is going on elsewhere. First it is claimed they were hunted, then when it transpires it was likely the indirect effect of deforestation, the speaker says, well, okay, but it doesn't disprove my central point about the thuggishness and selfishness of European explorers... find a conclusion, work backwards.
Not allowed, I'm afraid. |
|
|
|
|
| Captain Caveman
|
| 259066. Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:52 am |
|
|
| Some good points General. I especially like the point about the romanticism of native life. The maoris in New Zealand hunted to extinction the giants moas, 3m high flightless birds, and the idea of native peoples living in a romantic eden like balance with nature is thought absurd to many scientists. |
|
|
|
|
| Tas
|
| 259089. Tue Jan 15, 2008 10:14 am |
|
|
| Quote: | | You sure? There are distinct signs of Photoshop 'clone brushing' around the middle of the animal and the chain. |
Having seen the Nat Geo 'Hogzilla' program, that wild pig looks about the right size. In the right conditions, wild boar and pigs can become huge. In Hogzilla's case:
"The animal's remains were exhumed in early 2005 and studied by scientists from the National Geographic Society for a documentary. In March 2005, these scientists confirmed that Hogzilla actually weighed 800 pounds (360 kg) and was between 7.5 and 8 feet (2.25 and 2.4 meters) long."
The farmer that shot the beast originally claimed it was some 12' long, and weighed 1000 lbs (or 3.6m and 450kg in new money).
As quoted from Wiki (which has the facts pretty much right in this case.
A "DNA testing was performed, revealing that Hogzilla was a hybrid of wild boar and domestic swine. Hogzilla was part domestic (Hampshire breed) and part wild boar. However, compared to most wild boars and domestics, Hogzilla is still quite a large and extraordinary specimen.
According to the examiners, Hogzilla's tusks measured nearly 18 inches (46 cm), and nearly 16 inches (41 cm), which was a new record for North America."
It's extraordinary size was thought to be due to the animal raiding local fish food pellet storage. The pellets are very high in protein content, allowing for rapid growth.
:-)
Tas |
|
|
|
|
| Southpaw
|
| 259093. Tue Jan 15, 2008 10:16 am |
|
|
| Quote: | | It's extraordinary size was thought to be due to the animal raiding local fish food pellet storage. The pellets are very high in protein content, allowing for rapid growth. |
In which case, holy crap. |
|
|
|
|
| Tas
|
| 259095. Tue Jan 15, 2008 10:19 am |
|
|
Indeed. And the amount of damage it (and the other wild boar/pigs in the area) they had done foraging was likewise extraordinary. Pretty much entire swathes of land had been rooted through, and looked like they had be ploughed over (albeit in patches about 10 yards by 10).
:-)
Tas |
|
|
|
|
| Arcane
|
| 259105. Tue Jan 15, 2008 10:27 am |
|
|
yes, i saw the articles on hogzilla.... YIKES!
the photo i put up was of a feral pig from the outback in australia somewhere. the outback is so vast, and well, pigs will be pigs, and with no natural predators, these things can get huge...
anyone seen Razorback*??
*aussie movie directed by russell mulcahy, about a really big feral pig that goes on a rampage. famous (in oz at least) for spawning the one liner: "wakey wakey hand off snakey" |
|
|
|
|
| exnihilo
|
| 259699. Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:13 am |
|
|
| General_Woundwort wrote: | | exnihilo wrote: | | Bounties were paid for their killing however, which does rather look like a deliberate policy. |
It could have been gross stupidity and irresponsibleness, you know. Not every effect is intentional. The passenger pigeon hardly played a role in Indian culture, but went a similar way due to - as then - not understood population dynamics. The buffalo... yes, I know, but I'm sticking with it... hunts were *fun*, as many diaries of the time attest.
My point is not to deny the appropriation of Indian lands in the 19th Century or mistreatment of the inhabitants: in my original post I referred to this. My point is to question the easy accusations of genocide which are bandied about like sweets. Genocide is about more than killing a lot of people in a short period of time, but it has been adopted in an age of relativism which sees this act in terms of the Jewish Holocaust and wishes to cast the net to whomever is out of political favour, just as the existence of genocide is not needed for condemnation. This becomes both a block to sensible debate and an offence to the memory of real genocide.
Unequivocal claims of such deliberate extermination policies, or of concerted genocide are promoted by the likes of Ward Churchill or David Stanard who, putting it bluntly, have been accused of, at best, misrepresentation or, at worst, plain academic fraud.
| Quote: | | General Woundwort, I don't think you can really make the claim that the Plains Indians would have hunted the bison more had they the means, their method of hunting was largely about killing what was needed and using every part. |
Smaller native species such as deer or antelope had already been hunted into practical extinction, a common event found across non-European societies. Buffalo were big buggers and, clearly, more difficult to kill. *Had* *the* *Indians* *had* *the* *means*, there is no reason to suggest that they would not have done what all humans do, and hunted more: either for the thrill of the hunt, to prove their virility, or to hold potlatch ceremonies with the products.
There is a report from a Chicago journalist, John F. Finerty, who during the Sioux Wars saw Ute allies killing buffalo left, right and centre... just as you highlight when Americans did so. They were reproached by *American* officers, to respond, better no-one has them than the Sioux.
And that's my point. There would have been a vague awareness that implementing an extermination programme would frustrate the Indians, but primarily it was to protect railroads or open up farmland. In other words, to protect their 'tribe'. On the ground, however, inter-tribal conflicts which predated European contact, there was a dog-in-the-manger attitude which also, no doubt, extended to the nearby American tribal members. But we're talking about a "deliberate" government policy.
There are currently approximately six millions Indians, of various descent, in the USA. Many of their children are doing quite well in American society. Quickly after the conclusion of the 19th Century Indian Wars, they were granted rights such as tax or casinos. There had always been a romanticism of Indian life which *never* existed in the real genocide the term takes its name from.
Little William Sherman was named Tecumseh in honour for a defeated warrior: try to imagine Goebels calling one of his children Israel. For over a century, darker skinned Americans often claimed Cherokee descent rather than African descent: again, try to imagine the estimated 200,000 Germans in the Nazi military who would have failed race-laws admitting to this. Yes, this points to another racism, but I'd like to see anyone claim evidence of an attempt of genocide against black Americans.
That there were unpleasant population wars are givens. Frankly, though, the tendancy to focus on "genocide" speaks more about the speakers' priorities than their pursiut of truth. It's the same with the debate about the dodo which is going on elsewhere. First it is claimed they were hunted, then when it transpires it was likely the indirect effect of deforestation, the speaker says, well, okay, but it doesn't disprove my central point about the thuggishness and selfishness of European explorers... find a conclusion, work backwards.
Not allowed, I'm afraid. |
I honestly don't know where to start, you've conflated so many different issues into one post.
Starting at the top - if it was "fun" to kill them (which is, frankly, historically illiterate pap) then there would have been no need of bounties on their heads. As I've already said, it wasn't done for the meat or the skin, it was done for the bounty paid. The bounty was paid as a part of an active policy. Your passenger pigeon analogy is irrelevant.
I can assure you I am viewing nothing in terms of the Holocaust, nor am I casting "genocide" about like sweets - even if I knew how, I wouldn't - and nor am I engaging in relativism. What I am doing is saying there was a deliberate policy of slaughtering bison and a deliberate policy of reducing the native lands of the Plains Indians by cutting them off from vital food supplies, herding them on to poor reservations and outright killing them.
There is no evidence to suggest that the Plains Indians would have hunted bison into extinction - no matter how many asterisks you employ in your post. The incident you cite relates to a time when tribes were forced into competition for the same land and the same herds by being pushed from their ancestral lands. I offer no moral judgement on the people pushing them - merely the historical fact of their having been pushed. In that instance the bison become a weapon in a bitter struggle between opposing tribes and the comment makes a lot more sense viewed in the context.
If you think that those of Indian descent in the USA are doing well, I encourage you to read a lot more. You'll struggle to find a study that doesn't have them as one of, if not actually, the most marginalised groups in the nation - notwithstanding the relative success of a handful. As for granting "rights like tax or casinos" I don't even know what you mean. Unless you're suggesting that the US government has engaged in some act of vast benevolence in allowing these deliberately isolated and marginalised peoples some control over their own lands, which are now so worthless that about the only way a tribe can make money and attempt to preserve any of their way of life is by fleecing tourists.
Finally - the Goebbels analogy doesn't even merit a response, but I shall make one. The Plains Indians were romanticised as you rightly say, the Jews of Europe were very much not and the point is so disanalagous as to beggar belief. |
|
|
|
|
| dr.bob
|
| 259715. Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:28 am |
|
|
| exnihilo wrote: | if it was "fun" to kill them (which is, frankly, historically illiterate pap) then there would have been no need of bounties on their heads. As I've already said, it wasn't done for the meat or the skin, it was done for the bounty paid. The bounty was paid as a part of an active policy.
<snip>
What I am doing is saying there was a deliberate policy of slaughtering bison and a deliberate policy of reducing the native lands of the Plains Indians by cutting them off from vital food supplies, herding them on to poor reservations and outright killing them. |
Are you sure the deliberate policy of paying a bounty for killing Bison was specifically aimed at marginalising the Plains Indians and not, as General_Woundwort suggested, simply to open up farmlands and protect railroads (with the marginalising of the Plains Indians simply a "happy" by-product of this policy)?
That's a genuine question, by the way. I'm not picking a fight here, as I don't know enough about the subject to know which one of you is speaking the truth. I can't help think that a few references to back up arguments would be a good way to establish the facts.
| exnihilo wrote: | | The incident you cite relates to a time when tribes were forced into competition for the same land and the same herds by being pushed from their ancestral lands. I offer no moral judgement on the people pushing them - merely the historical fact of their having been pushed. In that instance the bison become a weapon in a bitter struggle between opposing tribes and the comment makes a lot more sense viewed in the context. |
That's an interesting point, but are you seriously suggesting that, before the pressure of the European settlers, all the different Indian tribes coexisted in peaceful harmony? Given that they were human beings, I find that a bit difficult to believe.
| exnihilo wrote: | | The Plains Indians were romanticised as you rightly say |
This is what makes the subject difficult for an interested ignoramus like me. The appalling treatment of the native peoples of North America has lead to this backlash of overly-sentimental romanticism which gets in the way of finding out what they were really like, so I'd be interested if anyone can cut through the fug and post some nuggets of truth hereabouts. I seriously doubt they were all just peaceful hippies smoking peace pipes and making dream catchers all day. |
|
|
|
|
| exnihilo
|
| 259804. Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:02 pm |
|
|
No, I'm suggesting nothing of the sort. They engaged frequently in "wars" and conflict with one another. But never more so than when their land was taken and whole populations forcibly moved onto land another tribe consider to belong to them.
The farmland thing is inaccurate, do you know how much of the USA is to this day unsuitable and unused for farming (and not just because of cattle herds) and the railways needed some protecting, certainly, but they take up surprisingly little land and tend to run between white settlements and not wildly criss-cross the grazing lands of the bison so very much.
References, I shall certainly locate - the ones I want are in my office presently and I'm not*.
(*And, yes, I know I said that on another thread too - but I really am nowhere near my office and many of my most referred to books really are locked in there.) |
|
|
|
|
| General_Woundwort
|
| 260055. Wed Jan 16, 2008 7:25 pm |
|
|
| Dr Bob wrote: | | The appalling treatment of the native peoples of North America has lead to this backlash of overly-sentimental romanticism which gets in the way of finding out what they were really like, |
That is a good point. For the dreadful treatment there *is* a sense of shame for it, which has doubtless translated into an eagerness to conduct some form of penitence. However, this romanticism existed before as well. Works such as the Song of Hiawatha or Last of the Mohicans were written before the great Westward expansion began. The latter, especially in the glorious failure of Michael Mann's film, portrayed bad Indians. Not corrupted by the Paleskin, but bad for their own sake. And sympathetic Indians who were merely living alongside another tribe.
However, lingering guilt over the mistreatment of other groups - Chechens in Russia, to a much lesser extent Jews in Europe (re Israel)- could be said to have translated as harsher and more criticial treatment. Although, the Indian tribes were thoroughly subdued so we don't know how popular perception would have developed.
| Exnilo wrote: | | (which is, frankly, historically illiterate pap) |
Why? It's based on the diaries of men at the time who reporting the thrill of the hunt, and the lust to hunt more and more. History is not merely dusty government documents found in national archives. It's the stories and impressions and opinions of the people who actually experienced it.
| Quote: | | The bounty was paid as a part of an active policy. Your passenger pigeon analogy is irrelevant. |
No, you may think it was not a relative consideration, but it is relevant. Unless you're suggesting the buffalo (I'll stop using that just as soon as everyone else stops referring to one country in the Americas as the standard, or calling hatred of gays homophobia) did not have a minimal breeding threshold to sustain the population.
| Quote: | | The farmland thing is inaccurate, do you know how much of the USA is to this day unsuitable and unused for farming |
Ah, you missed the "and so on" hidden in the micro-dot on the i.
| Quote: | | There is no evidence to suggest that the Plains Indians would have hunted bison into extinction |
I've given you some. The destruction of smaller mammels, their attempts to kill as many as possible with their limited means, the local equivalents of potlatch ceremonies, the willingness of the Ute, the possibility of an unappreciated minimum breeding level. Again, you may not think it relative or the over-riding factor, but saying such evidence does not exist is untenable.
| Quote: | | I can assure you I am viewing nothing in terms of the Holocaust |
The academic discipline, if it can be called that, that you quote from and the popular books on the subject use precisely that lexicon. Books such as the American Holocaust, coinages like democide, references to the "greatest genocide ever known". If you disagree with the tenor of these claims, good. However, borrow from this literature it becomes your responsibility to distance yourself from it, not others to give you the benefit of the doubt.
| Quote: | | The incident you cite relates to a time when tribes were forced into competition for the same land and the same herds by being pushed from their ancestral lands. I offer no moral judgement on the people pushing them - merely the historical fact of their having been pushed. |
But you do morally judge the Paleskin. Why? Do you expect a lower moral standard from the Indian or a higher standard from the Paleskin? Is the passage across the North Atlantic to be considered a graver move compared to a few bickering tribes moving up from Texas and displacing the Dakota? How far back do we go? Are the descendents of likely north-west Europeans wayfayrers in New England and Newfoundland centuries before the Vikings still being considered settlers?
To the Kennewick Man? How far does this racial purity go?
Is only the Paleskin to be thought to have any moral agency whilst the Indian tribes are merely being buffetted by the prevailing wind? Are Paleskins who may have been forced from *their* homes in Europe during the various wars of the 19th Century not to be allowed this excuse, or should they have stayed at home and evicted the Italians?
Stupid questions you may say, but so is the path you're going down.
| Quote: | | If you think that those of Indian descent in the USA are doing well, I encourage you to read a lot more. |
Hook, link, sinker and copy of Angling Times. In my experience, asking large gatherings of Americans (more than four generations, say) if any have Indian ancestory yields a aye of about 1 in 10. Here's a hardly exhaustive list of those in just one area, screen actors:
| Quote: | * Irene Bedard
* Moses Brings Plenty {Lakota}
* Kevin Costner
* Rodney A. Grant
* Michael Greyeyes
* Angie Harmon:"It would be shaping my eyebrows. Being half Greek and half American Indian, I have the unibrow. So once I started working on them, I really did see a change. You create another kind of beauty."
* Michael Horse
* Larry Hovis
{Yakima}
* Angelina Jolie (Iroquois)
* James Earl Jones
* Swil Kanim
* Val Kilmer
* Ashton Kutcher
* Crystle Leah Lightning (Actress) (Plains Cree)
* Gavin MacLeod
* Zahn McClarnon
* Russell Means
* Demi Moore
* Wayne Newton
* Lou Diamond Phillips
* Burt Reynolds
* Branscombe Richmond
* Will Sampson
* Larry Sellers
* Wes Studi
* Jay Tavare
* Jim Thorpe {actor} {Sac and Fox}
* Rikki Lee Travolta
* Floyd Red Crow Westerman
* Michael Spears
* Jonathan Winters |
Cherokee ancestry alone include:
| Quote: | | Carmen Electra, vice-president John Nance Garner, Jimi Hendrix, Eartha Kitt, Chuck Norris, pinup queen Bettie Page, Dolly Parton, Della Reese, Ava Gardner, Burt Reynolds, TV preacher Oral Roberts, Will Rogers, Director Quentin Tarantino, Producer Jon Peters, Dennis Weaver, Clu Gulager, Entertainer Will Rogers, Tommy Lee Jones, Admiral Joseph James Clark, Stepfanie Kramer, Elvis Presley, Loretta Lynn, James Garner, Crystal Gayle, Kim Bassinger, Johnny Depp, Cher |
Or does their Paleskin ancestory crowd out any pure Indian blood? Do the Afro-American ones get special dispensation? Does everything have to be judged on the basis of racial purity?
What an odd sort of anti-racist you are. |
|
|
|
|
| Sadurian Mike
|
| 260079. Wed Jan 16, 2008 8:58 pm |
|
|
| djgordy wrote: | | Why wasn't Buffalo Bill called Bison Bill then? |
He used a jug and bowl. Having a washbison was only possibly with plumbing.
*ahem*
Okay, deliberate extinctions. The Chinese almost wiped out all the sparrows in the cities by organising huge crowds to keep scaring the birds that tried to settle, and eventually killing them through exhaustion.
The Chinese Sparrow War of 1958
Though the report says the sparrows were almost driven to extinction, this is probably hyperbole as I'm sure many rural areas would have had enough sparrows to keep going.
I find the photos somewhat distressing, which probably means I'm a wimp. |
|
|
|
|
| exnihilo
|
| 260242. Thu Jan 17, 2008 6:28 am |
|
|
| You're a peculiarly muddled person, General, and as you have now resorted no name-calling I think I shall bow out, as there seems little point in continuing to argue with someone who apparently cannot distinguish between what I said and what he wants me to have said. |
|
|
|
|
