Religious nut is killed by remote tribe

[Estebonrober]

Please. Your primary sources are anecdotes from the pundits of their day and current anthropologists trying to gin up this romantic notion of primalism. Nothing I’ve read that you have posted thus far has convinced me otherwise yet. Please keep doing so if you have more. I love reading. I have found that most women had no respect for native living whatsoever. Though those stories are about as anecdotal as yours are.

I knew using the word inferior would get people worked up I just couldn’t come up with a better word in this situation. Obviously Jews being a fundamentally important part of “western culture” were not “inferior” to Nazis in any way. I do understand that disease had far more to do with the massive decline in North American population. Why didn’t that happen as severely in South America? No matter in both places native ways of thinking were primarily obliterated. Their culture destroyed almost completely. There is some trace with in south and Central America, generally religious in nature but not much else.

The most superior culture in my mind is the one who looks to appreciate the universe it’s been born into the most. By witnessing its beauty, trying to understand its marvels, and respecting it for what it is. That’s completely subjective but of course cultural discussions are completely subjective so. It’s just so happens that by learning about the universe and it’s physical laws one produces vast possibilities in weapons, violence, and oppression.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

This doesn't follow because people with one foot in either camp, so to speak, were still a small proportion of the total population on either side. The primary sources from that time period are quite clear on what went on: when Europeans were introduced to Indian society they almost universally chose to remain inside that society. Indians who were introduced to European society almost universally chose to return to Indian society.

You find this difficult to accept because, as @Hygro noted earlier in the thread, it creates serious cognitive dissonance with your apparently deeply-held idea of linear historical progress.



They were destroyed mostly because they lacked immunity to diseases common in Eurasia. Which, incidentally, is worth remembering in the context of the Sentinelese.



This has nothing to do with what I said. The observation that people who experienced both overwhelmingly preferred Indian society to colonial/European society in 17th and 18th century North America is not "romantic primalism", it is sober historical fact grounded in primary sources.

Do such primary sources include statistical data? Because it could be a case of selective historical memory based in few notable anecdotes. I mean, there is much more appeal and make a much better movie Dances with the Wolves, than These Guys are Bloody Savages, Lets Return Home...

 

[Lexicus]

Please. Your primary sources are anecdotes from the pundits of their day and current anthropologists trying to gin up this romantic notion of primalism.

Benjamin Franklin is a "pundit of [his] day"? To quote you..."please".

Incidentally, this sounds a lot like a "romantic notion of primalism" (text quoted from MW's link):

These raids were probably the most disturbing part of the book. On the one hand, okay, the white people were trying to steal the Comanches' land and they had every right to be angry. On the other hand, the way the Comanches expressed that anger was to occasionally ride in, find a white village or farm or homestead, surround it, and then spend hours or days torturing everyone they found there in the most horrific possible ways before killing the men and enslaving the women and children. Sometimes people were scalped alive. The women would usually be gang-raped dozens of times, and then enslaved, carried off to Comanche territory, and gang-raped some more. Children were forced to watch as their parents were raped and tortured and killed, or vice versa.

Please, in turn. You are obviously so emotionally committed to the idea of linear progress that you are incapable of dealing in an intellectually honest manner with information that challenges that...uh..."romantic" notion.

 

[Estebonrober]

Benjamin Franklin is a "pundit of [his] day"? To quote you..."please".

Incidentally, this sounds a lot like a "romantic notion of primalism" (text quoted from MW's link):



Please, in turn. You are obviously so emotionally committed to the idea of linear progress that you are incapable of dealing in an intellectually honest manner with information that challenges that...uh..."romantic" notion.

Yea I wouldn’t call it emotionally comitted. I would call it rationally comitted but you aren’t likely to agree with me on that.



Ben Franklin was the bloody quintessential pundit of his day.

 

[Lexicus]

If you were rationally committed to the idea you wouldn't need to resort to dishonesty in defending it. But it's alright, the idea of linear progress is impossible to defend rationally without resorting to circular argument as philosophers figured out a long time ago, so no particular blame to you except for lack of self-awareness/not knowing the meta.

 

[Estebonrober]

If you were rationally committed to the idea you wouldn't need to resort to dishonesty in defending it. But it's alright, the idea of linear progress is impossible to defend rationally without resorting to circular argument as philosophers figured out a long time ago, so no particular blame to you except for lack of self-awareness/not knowing the meta.

Meh I’m not concerned with the meta when it comes to reality and actually living with it.

I am concerned where I was dishonest about anything? I didn’t catch that part.

 

[Lexicus]

Meh I’m not concerned with the meta when it comes to reality and actually living with it.

Er, what? You're unconcerned with, like, the history of ideas? You're unconcerned with the larger context in which ideas appear, are argued for, pass out of fashion, are revived, and so on?

I am concerned where I was dishonest about anything?

Intellectually dishonest. As when you characterized MW's link as "romantic primalism" evidently without having read a word of it.

 

[Estebonrober]

Er, what? You're unconcerned with, like, the history of ideas? You're unconcerned with the larger context in which ideas appear, are argued for, pass out of fashion, are revived, and so on?



Intellectually dishonest. As when you characterized MW's link as "romantic primalism" evidently without having read a word of it.

No I thought of your comment as more of a meta in the metaphysical way of using the word (like do I actually exist). I think you were talking over me I guess. I don’t know. Please start another thread and we can discuss linear progress and political philosophy.

I read the whole article a few days ago, it seemed like classic romantics about a bygone lost culture throughout about 80+% of the article.

It’s very typical in that line of writing. Which isn’t bad. It’s good to note what you see as a bad things in writing an article about bringing together historical facts. It’s just that it doesn’t change the general narrative of the article.

Anyways start that other thread, that seems like it would be more enlightening for me. I’m always one to learn. Show me how my belief in a linear progression to human existence is so flawed as to be dribble in your mind.

 

[Lexicus]

No I thought of your comment as more of a meta in the metaphysical way of using the word (like do I actually exist). I think you were talking over me I guess. I don’t know.

It was not meant to be short for metaphysics. Think more like metagame (of ideas). Basically, what I was saying is that you appear to be mostly ignorant of the history of the idea of linear progress.

Please start another thread and we can discuss linear progress and political philosophy.

No, I think linear progress is a perfect topic for this thread actually. Because it is certainly tied up in the ethics of this question of what should be done about this missionary who decided to go to Sentinel Island to save the souls of the inhabitants.

If the Indian government were to adopt your position on linear progress Sentinel Island would not exist as it does now, for example. The "inferior" (to use your term) culture of the inhabitants would have been annihilated many decades ago, and probably replaced with a vacation resort or something: progress.

I read the whole article a few days ago, it seemed like classic romantics about a bygone lost culture throughout about 80+% of the article.

There is no way to interpret any part of the article as a "romantic about a bygone lost culture" through honest engagement with what it says.

 

[Estebonrober]

It was not meant to be short for metaphysics. Think more like metagame (of ideas). Basically, what I was saying is that you appear to be mostly ignorant of the history of the idea of linear progress.



No, I think linear progress is a perfect topic for this thread actually. Because it is certainly tied up in the ethics of this question of what should be done about this missionary who decided to go to Sentinel Island to save the souls of the inhabitants.

If the Indian government were to adopt your position on linear progress Sentinel Island would not exist as it does now, for example. The "inferior" (to use your term) culture of the inhabitants would have been annihilated many decades ago, and probably replaced with a vacation resort or something: progress.



There is no way to interpret any part of the article as a "romantic about a bygone lost culture" through honest engagement with what it says.

Yea I don’t think this island will continue to exist much longer in its current state. I’m more concerned with killing off 80% of all vertebrates then I am with this particular culture. Yes progress. How does the terrible tragedies of progress make linear progress defunct? You are a much wiser man than me I guess.

You are right I haven’t done a bunch of reading on the idea of the idea of history as linear progression. I guess you could link something for me. We might be talking past each other a bit here but you’d have to elaborate a bit for me. History is obviously linear (chronologically) although it’s progress definitely goes in fits and starts from the point of view of technology and such. I’m not sure what’s to argue here.

 

[Lexicus]

I guess you could link something for me.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/progress/
A good overview with some discussion of the issues involved.

How does the terrible tragedies of progress make linear progress defunct?

It seems to me that the answer to this question is contained within the phrase "terrible tragedies of progress."

I’m not sure what’s to argue here.

I will say that if you read on until Part 5 (Criticisms of the Doctrine of Progress) my objections mostly fall into the "skeptical grounds" category rather than the "straightforward denials of the claim that the human condition is improving" category.

As a vaguely Hegelian leftist of some kind I don't even know what I actually think about progress; I do certainly take issue with uncritical believers in the notion, though, particularly when they start to say things that seem to amount to justification/apologism for the wholesale extermination of societies considered "primitive" or, I suppose, in your words, whose "inferior culture eventually failed them completely"...

 

[Estebonrober]

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/progress/
A good overview with some discussion of the issues involved.



It seems to me that the answer to this question is contained within the phrase "terrible tragedies of progress."



I will say that if you read on until Part 5 (Criticisms of the Doctrine of Progress) my objections mostly fall into the "skeptical grounds" category rather than the "straightforward denials of the claim that the human condition is improving" category.

As a vaguely Hegelian leftist of some kind I don't even know what I actually think about progress; I do certainly take issue with uncritical believers in the notion, though, particularly when they start to say things that seem to amount to justification/apologism for the wholesale extermination of societies considered "primitive" or, I suppose, in your words, whose "inferior culture eventually failed them completely"...

Ok I’ll read up a bit and get back to you. My background is pretty limited in philosophy so I’ll have to go with you about this.

I understand the antipathy towards the idea of wreckless progress. I’ll get back to this when I have some more time.

 

[Estebonrober]

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/progress/




I will say that if you read on until Part 5 (Criticisms of the Doctrine of Progress) my objections mostly fall into the "skeptical grounds" category rather than the "straightforward denials of the claim that the human condition is improving" category.

As a vaguely Hegelian leftist of some kind I don't even know what I actually think about progress; I do certainly take issue with uncritical believers in the notion, though, particularly when they start to say things that seem to amount to justification/apologism for the wholesale extermination of societies considered "primitive" or, I suppose, in your words, whose "inferior culture eventually failed them completely"...

Ok after having reviewed that I had read bits and pieces of almost every philosopher discussed in the overview. I have to say that yea, I took a historical progressive viewpoint in this particular post because the romanticism in native american life I find particularly dishonest intellectually. It discounts all the terrible things of what we actually know about (this is important to note because with very limited writing on the topic especially before European interaction it is hard to know for certain) native life. The lack of the rule of law, the lack of technological progress, the lack of individual freedom seems pretty dominant across the native landscape. I find even the idea that they were "in balance with nature" hard to justify. We don't know that in any real measure since we have no idea what their population numbers were like before European arrival and subsequent at least halving (current theories go as high as a loss of 90% of the native population). It could have been much more agrarian or much more chaotic up and down as local fauna rose and fell.

Anyways my personal view on progress as a historical narrative is that if progress is linear then you must be looking at it from really far away. Yes generally the human condition has improved over time, but that line is a pretty dramatic roller coaster on many charts, flat on others, and exponential on technological measures. I believe that trend will continue but it will be hard to get past the next 100-150 years without a dramatic collapse. I've always thought Star Trek had a part of this right, there will be a massive war in the near future. Then maybe we can come together and get past this point, maybe we erase ourselves. Fermi's Paradox comes to mind now which isn't very reassuring. Regardless the arc is undeniable, which in this religious nutjob case is part of my point. I'm fine with there being laws preventing people messing with untouched indigenous peoples but that is a temporary thing and eventually it will wear away and all will be incorporated into human culture.

Which is my final point right now. While I do agree there are many flavors of human culture around the world and there likely will always be a spattering of different traditions and customs that make certain areas different. Generally human culture has become more and more one unit. Trade almost necessarily guarantees that outcome.

 

[Yeekim]

ah, I get it. the most superior culture is the most violent, oppressive, weaponized.

That is a hyperbole.
However, the people of Andamans - in both physical sense and as a distinct culture - exist completely at our mercy.
Such is the unfortunate reality that we could even wipe them out unintentionally, by accident. Neither of us might even see it coming and they would have zero chances of resisting effectively.
Considering that in most value systems, "existing" tends to have value over "not existing", this seems to suggest their culture is indeed inferior to ours. (NB! That does not mean worthless!).

It would be very interesting if we applied that kind of logic to some other situations. "The jews of Europe were destroyed because their culture was inferior" is a position I would just love to see someone defend....

To the contrary: the Jews have, time and again, persevered despite great adversity. One might say they're doing pretty well for themselves, actually.

 

[Lexicus]

To the contrary: the Jews have, time and again, persevered despite great adversity. One might say they're doing pretty well for themselves, actually.

so much success, I wonder whether they're tired of winning yet?

 

[Yeekim]

so much success, I wonder whether they're tired of winning yet?

That map omits Israel for some reason.
Also, they sure as hell are winning compared to Babylonians and Philistines.
Or Romans even.

 

[Lexicus]

That map omits Israel for some reason.

Israel is not part of Europe.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Now I'm curious as to why so many Jews moved/lived in Russia and Poland prior to WW 2.

 

[Lexicus]

Now I'm curious as to why so many Jews moved/lived in Russia and Poland prior to WW 2.

I'm not sure about Russia but in the case of Poland it was because Poland was (at least in law) tolerant and Jews shunned from other parts of Europe accumulated there over many centuries, including essentially the entirety of the High Middle Ages.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I'm not sure about Russia but in the case of Poland it was because Poland was (at least in law) tolerant and Jews shunned from other parts of Europe accumulated there over many centuries, including essentially the entirety of the High Middle Ages.

It's not really fair to blame Europe for Jewish preference to move to Israel in totality. There are obvious reasons the population is less in some countries, but it's not clear that religion/associated culture is doing worse as a whole now than before in terms of world population/prevalence. I think Yeekim's point that they have persevered despite adversity is fair; there aren't too many similar examples in recent history.