541
Daily reminder that ALL atrocities are bad. Yes, even of your favorite polity General or meta (media.piefed.social)
submitted 8 months ago by to c/historymemes@piefed.social
64 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 6 points 8 months ago (9 children)

What ever intertribal conflicts happened, they never reached the level of disease spread, displacement, and systematic violence aimed at cultural erasure

Not because they were noble savages though, just because they lacked the ability to do that to their enemies.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (8 children)

    That's a huge statement. Do you have equally damning evidence to support that statement?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    Do I have damning evidence that humans are humans and behave the way humans always do?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (4 children)

    "I've never seen someone cling to the noble savage trope."

    "Intertribal conflicts between Native American polities were less brutal because of material constraints, not any fundamental cultural restraint on the behavior of human beings, which is largely consistent across recorded history regardless of region and culture."

    "I don't accept that."

    ?????

    Do you legitimately not understand how that is the noble savage trope?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (3 children)

    The frame I'm rejecting is the idea that, given the same material conditions, all people and cultures throughout history would react in the same way. This view oversimplifies and dehistoricizes the diverse experiences of Native Americans, as I mentioned in my first comment.

    Culture and material conditions are interconnected; they shape and influence one another. If culture only emerged from material conditions, then people would merely be reacting mechanistically to their environments, lacking the richness of creativity, belief systems, and individual agency that shape societies in diverse and meaningful ways. Recognizing this complexity does not mean I'm relying on the noble savage trope.

    The way you dismissed my response was uncalled for. I've take time and care to craft my response to be honest and considerate. I'm not interested in a discussion that is otherwise.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 8 months ago (2 children)

    The frame I’m rejecting is the idea that, given the same material conditions, all people and cultures throughout history would react in the same way.

    Broadly speaking, they do. People are people. I didn't realize we were entering into an argument where cultural chauvinism is the very foundation.

    This view oversimplifies and dehistoricizes the diverse experiences of Native Americans, as I mentioned in my first comment.

    How the fuck so? When Native Americans have, even just during the time period of European record-keeping, have been observed engaging in displacement and systemic violence aimed at cultural erasure?

    Or are we laying it all on some strange notion of an especial-but-unproven cultural immunity to the development of novel diseases?

    Culture and material conditions are interconnected; they shape and influence one another. If culture only emerged from material conditions, then people would merely be reacting mechanistically to their environments, lacking the richness of creativity, belief systems, and individual agency that shape societies in diverse and meaningful ways.

    No culture yet seen has been observed to prevent human beings from acting in according with their own interests; our interests are determined overwhelmingly by material conditions.

    The way you dismissed my response was uncalled for. I’ve take time and care to craft my response to be honest and considerate. I’m not interested in a discussion that is otherwise.

    The entire point of the Noble Savage trope is exactly the line of argument you laid down. I'm sorry that you feel being called out is being 'dismissed', but perhaps before denying using a trope you should at least check what it means first?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    This conversation has become repetitive, and it feels like my arguments are being mischaracterized as arguments I am not making. I reject the notion that people act solely based on material conditions, and I've articulated my view in full. Your insistence on framing my position as cultural chauvinism or invoking the noble savage trope is not only unproductive but also dismissive of the complexity I'm trying to convey.

    You've called out a strawman and I am not interested in continuing this discussion.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 8 months ago*

    This conversation has become repetitive, and it feels like my arguments are being mischaracterized as arguments I am not making.

    Repetitive because... I point out that Native Americans have engaged in displacement and systemic violence aimed at cultural erasure, unlike what you claimed?

    I reject the notion that people act solely based on material conditions, and I’ve articulated my view in full.

    I'm sorry you don't believe that all humankind shares a basic biological-neurological foundation which drives our behavior, both as individuals and societies?

    Your insistence on framing my position as cultural chauvinism or invoking the noble savage trope is not only unproductive but also dismissive of the complexity I’m trying to convey.

    No, you're simply uncomfortable with acknowledging the reality that you are advocating a culturally chauvinist position. Fuck, in what way could you possibly see this argument otherwise? "It's not cultural chauvinism because it's not my culture I'm championing"?

    I'm sorry that you refuse to acknowledge that your position is fucking spot-on for the noble savage trope, wherein the reality of a fetishized culture is ignored in favor of stripping it of moral agency so that it can be displayed as a didactic counterexample to a 'decadent' modernity.

    You can harp on about how complex your position supposedly is, but all that's been presented here is a denial of the common behavior of human societies in preference for a saccharine and sanitized view of Native American peoples wherein they are, by the virtue and purity of their culture (and, of course, it is just 'Native American' culture, not any actual specific culture of the Americas that might pin you down to real-world evidence), incapable of the evils of ethnic cleansing, genocide, and "disease spread."

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent