Big Tribes & Bigger Tribes with Bigger Weapons

[Lon]

From a historical viewpoint, I have always been interested in the integration or displacement of various groups of people by the invasion of new settlers. The American Indian and the different Polynesian peoples for example. White people have oft times been maligned for STEALING the Red Man's land and in some cases, literally killing off whole tribes. Here in New Zealand, the local indigenous people (Maori) have all pretty much been displaced by Enlish, Irish & Scottish settlers of the early 19th century. There are very few (if any) full blooded Maori's today. The Maori's by the way, originally came from Hawaiii and displaced the very original indigenous people living there. In fact, they killed them off and ate them. Hawaii, Tahiti and all the South Pacific Islands have been at one time or another taken over by Bigger Tribes with Bigger Weapons.
While I am in total sympathy with the American Indian who got screwed on so many of the treaties that were made with the white man. And I certainly do not condone wanton killing of any of the Indian peoples. I feel no guilt however, about living on land that might once have been so callled Indian Lands. Is it not a fact that ALL the different Indian & Polynesian peoples warred with one another, over land, food, females etc. The bigger tribes with the best weapons and most people always seem to have won and taken over. The white man just happened to have more people and better weapons. This doesn't make it right, but that is what has happened historically all over the world. Sometimes it is even referred to as "Advancing Civiliization. What would the world be like today if Rome had stayed home?

[gmc]

posted by lon
Here in New Zealand, the local indigenous people (Maori) have all pretty much been displaced by Enlish, Irish & Scottish settlers of the early 19th century.

I've always thought it ironic that having been displaced themselves they then do the same to others, twas ever so.

[Bill Sikes]

Originally Posted by Lon

From a historical viewpoint, I have always been interested in the integration or displacement of various groups of people by the invasion of new settlers. The American Indian and the different Polynesian peoples for example.

(snip)

The bigger tribes with the best weapons and most people always seem to have won and taken over. The white man just happened to have more people and better weapons.

I was under the impression that imported disease and displacement/starvation killed far and away more people that did battles.

[capt_buzzard]

Very true Bill.

[Hawke]

With the exceptions of some Chinese and African groups, no culture can claim to have a truly "native" land. The history of civilization can be viewed as a series of cultural integration and separation. For example:
Native Americans are tied through mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA) and dental evidence to SE Asian cultures.
Modern Britons are an amalgamation of Norman, Anglo, Saxon and other cultures.
Scandinavians are tied to earlier Finno-Ugric cultures.
Several Far East cultures are tied to ancient Iranic Horse Pastoralists.
Heck, most of Europe is tied to the Celtic (Keltoi) culture, which is tied to the Proto-Indo European culture, and so on.

Obviously, hardly any of us are 'native'. In addition, it's fun to trace back culture histories. Yay anthropology!

[gmc]

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~magd1368/arch...f1/history.htm

Week Five: The Materialist Interpretation of History


Ten years ago, in a book about German discussions of the Nazi past, Harvard history professor Charles Maier compared and contrasted two major historical museums, the Smithsonian museum of American history and its East German counterpart in East Berlin.

"[T]he Museum of American History has one feature in common with the more disciplined but far less opulent DDR museum... Their intentions may be opposed, but the collections on the Mall and on Unter den Linden both presuppose that material and technological forces underlie historical change. These impulses are conflictual, sometimes constraining, ultimately collective in the East Berlin version; energetic, liberal, compatible with small-town values according to the Washington exhibits -- but in each case progressive".

[Charles S. Maier, The Unmasterable Past, Harvard, 1988, p.126]

In a sense, the thought that material forces drive history in an ultimately progressive manner is is the central claim of historical materialism, which is a common name for the Marxian theory of history. The American capitalists and the East German communists may disagree over the details, but the structure of their presentations is identical, and impeccably Marxist. So what kind of a theory is historical materialism, and what can its revolutionary potential possibly be if a version of it is presented up to the American public by its state museum as the most official kind of American history that there is?

So where do you stand in the great debate about the forces of history? Personally i have an eclectic approach as all have their merits. Coming up with one theory that answers all the equations is impossible.

Consider for instance what would have been the case of their had been a comparable draught animal in the americas to the horse? How differently things might have turned out, maybe they would have invaded us. Climate change plays a major part as well.

I started getting interested in history when a child and was fascinated by warfare. especially in napoleonic times, what would make men walk in a line to within a hundred yards of each other stand and fire again and again until the other line broke or they did or they were killed. Such insanity cannot be explained by materialism there is much more to it. Same with the first world war, it's inconceivable that we would ever fight like that again, or is it?

On the other hand i take great delight when some one of tory leanings (right wing conservative) opines that all history can be explained by economics of saying aha! you hold to a marxist viewpoint. Typically they get upset and insist they have never read marx.

Actually you tend to find that most left wingers haven't either they like to pretend they have when spouting from the last pamphlet they read.

http://www.economist.co.uk/world/na/...ory_id=1988940

One of the things I think you learn studying history is that there are usually more than one side to any question and things and events often turn on the most apparently insignificant thing,

[yoshman]

Originally Posted by Bill Sikes

I was under the impression that imported disease and displacement/starvation killed far and away more people that did battles.

Partially true! Mostly in the south americas. The us govornment adopted a policy of "manifest destiny" which in practice amounted to condoned genocide for the last hold outs of the people.

Yes, I am native american. Half

[gmc]

posted by yoshman
Yes, I am native american. Half

I can safely claim to be a celt though probably with a viking from norway somewhere along the line. The British are a truly mongrel nation and arguably all the better for it. If you keep your eyes open you can see different tribal types in different parts of the country although as time goes on that becomes less and less so as people intermingle more and more. Be interesting how it all pans out.

What tribe? if you will pardon my curiosity

[yoshman]

GMC,
Agreed.....
My mother was Oglala Lakotah, my father passed away early in life so all i know of his ancestry is that he was European of some mix

[Raven]

half seminole here. with the rest english, irish, french and dutch. kinda reminds you that there was once just one land mass called PANGEA.