The nationality "American" is defined by a large, continuous influx of new and different peoples. Supposing you don't consider this "colonization," one then wonders what this hypothetical is supposed to refer to. Alien invasion?
Isn't the identity of the colonised conferred by the colonisers? I was making a distinction between the adaptability of the coloniser vs the colonisee. Do native American children play cowboys and injuns?
More or less as the Chinese would, in similar circumstances. You can read the history books and find out, or stroll through the Hispanic neighborhoods of LA and Miami. They could have treated them with the same respect - including the same wariness, the same appreciation for benefits and advances, the same political sophistication in alliance and adaptation, the same willingness to do battle, the same holistic viewpoint - with which they treated each other. Do you think the Cherokee and Iroquois had not been invading each other, routinely, over the millenia? Do you think the distribution of the Tribes in North America was somehow fixed by stellar dispensation? The same larger view you demand of the "invaders" - camped on the beach, trading inland to mutual (large) profit, for a hundred and fifty years - as a moral imperative. Now you're catching on. And you shouldn't - as the Iroquois and others tended to, to their own misfortune undeserved but probably not unpreventable - lump all the White groups in together just because a few of them seemed like contemptible, incompetent squalor dwellers and incomprehensible religious fanatics, good for a few blankets when the wives wanted to spruce up the longhouse. If - just to speculate a bit - the Iroquois had recognized and allied themselves with the incoming Scotch Irish (who had about as much choice in their invasion as the incoming African "settlers and missionaries") against their mutual enemies in London, Amsterdam, and Paris, if the Iroquois had approached the new culture with the sort of "holistic" viewpoint you demand of the English, an appreciation of the strengths and contributions available from a people in many ways superbly equipped and prepared for doing exactly what the Iroquois were going to need to do in the near future, as their last chance to modify or head off the looming disaster - tell the English king where the boundaries of his realm lay - the entire course of American history might have pivoted on that moment of wisdom and taken an entirely different course. But they had, as so many, tunnel vision. Since they were Westerners, do we call this Western Thought tunnel vision?
Like the Inuit did? The Aborigines? How did they benefit? Where else has this happened before? I'm trying to think of how India's colonial rule came about. Did we treat the English as inferiors too?
They didn't, either. But they had much less opportunity. And the French and the Dutch and the Spanish and the Scots and the Danes and the Germans and so forth, all lumped together? I don't know. The Japanese did, and the Chinese to a degree. In the Japanese case the racial factor was prominent, among the Chinese I get a different impression but haven't checked.
icearura, look at what happened to the gallina and anasazi. http://anthropology.net/2007/07/16/...5-ad-massacred-gallina-and-vanishing-anasazi/ granted it was a long time ago but how do you explain this?
What's wrong with the explanation in the article? Is there some mystery that I would know anything about? AFAIK you define "colonizer" as a mistreater - otherwise, you'd just have "immigrant", no? But if you are changing your approach, how about the Islamic colonizers of various regions, as preliminary candidates? Or the more recent Cuban colonizers of Miami?
So what did the colonised people do differently in these places? What did the colonisers do different? I define colonisation as imposing an immigrant governance on native populations.
And you define that as mistreatment. So you have answered your own question, and we can return to the thread.
My question to you was, where do you get the idea that it wasn't mistreatment or that things could have been different if only the colonised had been more accomodating? How was the reaction of the Inuit for example, different from that of the Iroquois? What should teh Inuit have done differently? What should the aboriginals?
Every culture is a uniqueness in the shape of the collective tunnel vision. Of course the west suffers from tunnel vision but so does the East. But the West and the East don't really mean much because the subcategories within the West and East are unique. As far as the barbarity of colonialism goes and all the lies and tunnel vision needed to justify that colonialist barbarity without justifying all barbarity; The East and the victims of colonization and humans everywhere as observed throughout history have been generally as capable of being as barbaric and dishonest as the West has been during it's turn as the dominant power. You could look at Indonesia and Timur or look at Japan and the rape of Nanking or look at what native Americans did to each other or look at the violence during the partition of India and Pakistan. Humans are violent and they take what they want. Chimpanzees are more violent than humans so I guess culture is a net gain in decreasing human violence despite the fact that culture can also cause violence. As for Nisbett's Geography of Thought and his observation that the West is more individualistic; I think he is sort of correct. Germany and France are not as individualistic as the USA which is probably the peak of individualism. Despite the USA's relative individualism Americans are pack animals just like everybody else are. We idolize individualism and pat ourselves on the back with pride for being individualistic but we are only slightly more individualistic than other peoples. We cave in to peer pressure. We modify our beliefs to make them more similar to the other people's beliefs. We too are essentially sheep. Americans don't let their parents and siblings and spouses run their lives to quite the same degree that people do in other places. We don't feel as responsible for other people or as entitled to run our children's lives or other peoples lives as people in other place do. But it is just a slight variation. Basically Indians and Americans are the same. I think the origin of America's being slightly more individualistic than other places has more to do with being a nation of immigrants than it has to do with being part of the West. People who would leave their homelands to never again see their parents and cousins are unusually individualistic. I can see why it might seem like individualism equates to not caring about others and therefore would be more likely to enable colonial barbarity but the evidence does not support this theory. Members of groups who are loyal to the group and consider the group to be of the highest value are also enabled to do any sort of barbarism to people who are not part of the group. If you look at Western Colonialism or any barbarity done by groups you will see that it is the fetishizing of the group that allows the individuals within the group to not apply their morality or empathy to people who are not part of the group. Once you withhold the application of your morality and empathy towards somebody it will become easy to justify doing anything you want to that person. If you see the person as a individual it will not be as easy to refuse to grant them the protection of your morality and empathy. Individualism does not creates barbarity.
We're not talking about barbarism here. We're talking more about the inability to see common trends in societies vs focusing on differences. Would you care to comment on that?
that is true. in my link: http://anthropology.net/2007/07/16/...5-ad-massacred-gallina-and-vanishing-anasazi/ i showed that ancient people were war like. this was acceptable behavior. even cannibalism, and lets face it- how do you live with a cannibal? BUT that was a long time ago and we all come from the same stew. some just takes a little longer to join civilization.
