This is the “noble savage myth” dressed up for modern times as the “ecologically noble savage myth”.
Colonialism is bad, yes.
But indigenous people didn’t “live in balance with nature”. Consider e.g. the massive ecological changes wrought by indigenous Australians, Easter Island, NZ Maori, etc. Megafauna extinction, massive deforestation, etc.
Human beings are human beings, regardless of their level of technological progress.
It’s just racism someone dressed up real pretty so they can pat themselves on the back for how enlightened they are.
But indigenous people didn’t “live in balance with nature”.
They didn’t “live in balance” in a way that was significantly different from the Spanish, French, or English colonists or the Africans imported via the slave trade. Or the various plethora of native species they co-habitated with.
But there was a pre-colonial ecological balance. Native agricultural practices were largely sustainable, as evidenced by the centuries of farming and herding that colonial settlers initially discovered and exploited. The Plymouth Rock and Jamestown settlers had no idea how to survive in Massachusetts or Virginia early on, relying heavily on trade until they could figure out the effective farming and fishing practices that would become common. European colonies regularly failed right next door to native communities that flourished.
What “upset the balance” was three-fold
-
Sudden, rapid emigration of colonial settlers fleeing the Thirty Years War. Overwhelmingly composed of younger men (the surplus males of the Old World) with poor health and a mandate to work themselves to death for the benefit of others, these early settlers weren’t trying to build a sustainable community. They were often sent over to work as soldiers, miners, or fur harvesters, with the intention of returning or retiring once they’d “made their fortune”.
-
The Columbian Exchange of non-native species and diseases, which resulted in mass die-offs of native flora and fauna alike. The arrival of European diseases in America are estimated to have killed between 80% and 95% of native populations, often wiping out entire communities before a single European arrived.
-
Industrialization, particularly in the wake of the Civil War, which introduced petrochemicals and air pollutants responsible for the mass die-off of entire biomes.
All of these can - directly or indirectly - be blamed on European settlement.
Yes, agreed. But that’s not how I meant “balance” in that case and neither, I believe, did the OP.
-
equating industrialization with techological process is pretty fuckin eurocentric of you.
Isn’t it, though? Would any of the technological - and often scientific - breakthroughs of the 20th and 21st centuries have been possible without industrialisation?
since a counterfactual can’t be proven, we will probably never know
Okay, but we can say with confidence that they all did require prior industrialisation in the way they panned out, and also, have never happened in any preindustrial society. That’s at least a solid hint.
I do take issue with this. Indigenous hunting practices are not really all that sustainable, they’re just done in smaller amounts so the waste is less visible. We have the opportunity to use technology to live more sustainably in our environment; corpos just don’t want to invest in that.
Not to mention that “indigenous” hunting practices was the cause of extinction of numerous species like the mammoth and similar big mammals.
It is idealisation of primitivism, which is not the answer to our problems in any way.
It may not solve our problems, but have you considered the benefits of feeling smug as hell?
not to mention there was a TON of variety in hunting practices as indigenous populations vary widely.
here is an interesting book about the subject (on my to read list) https://archive.org/details/ecologicalindian0000krec
This is so condescending
It’s also bullshit. There are plenty of examples of indigenous people destroying ecosystems
It’s humans.
All humans.
Honestly, it’s life in general. When trees first evolved, they were essentially an invasive species; nothing at the time could break through the lignin that makes them so tough, and so nothing could eat them for millions of years. They would grow, absorb CO2, die, and just lie there until they got buried, then more would grow in their place and absorb more CO2 over and over until the global levels dipped and the planet got colder, causing an ice age.
Devastation happens every time a species ends up in an environment without any natural predators or other mitigating factors. Life doesn’t have a point where it looks around, says “yeah, that’s enough” and stops growing - it needs something to keep it in check. Humans just change way faster than any other life ever has, so the problematic traits become more and more problematic, and the natural checks and balances of the world are way too outpaced to do anything about it.
Not here to argue, but I would like those examples. That’s not something that comes up often.
Indigenous Australians hunting megafauna to extinction is one that immediately comes to mind
The Maori wiped out huge numbers of species in New Zealand when they settled there about a thousand years ago
Australian megafauna died out due to climate change. Humans did not help, but they were already on the way out due to food shortages.
Mounting evidence points to the loss of most species before the peopling of Sahul (circa 50–45 ka) and a significant role for climate change in the disappearance of the continent’s megafauna.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1302698110
A study of the fossil teeth of megafauna from Cuddie Springs in NSW suggests that climate change had a significant impact on the diets of these giant animals and may well have been a primary factor in their extinction.
Easter island is a popular example.
Is that what happened to all the egg laying rabbits?
I know one is Easter Island. Dudes destroyed the ecosystem of the island and, predictably, starved to death.
When people spread across the globe, we hunted or out-competed so much shit to extinction. Mammoths, giant sloths, wooly rhinos, American cheetahs, American Lions, etc. IIRC the average is forty percent of all land animals above 100 pounds went extinct when we showed up someplace new.
Also, a lot of archeologists will tell you most of the work is sifting through trash, like ancient people’s actual trash.
deleted by creator
Terrible take on many levels, this assumes those indigenous populations would never have undergone their own industrial revolutions.
For reasons ranging from ‘noble savage’ to racist implications that they couldn’t if they tried.
from ‘noble savage’ to racist implications that they couldn’t if they tried
They’re the same picture.
To accuse the first nations led Lakota Law Project of racism against themselves is a an actual terrible take.
deleted by creator
This is such a gross misreading of the post lol
It literally says “Indigenous people have shown” and not something about them having some innate characteristics that result in their living in balance with the earth. It should be obvious that their idologiy and culture is meant by the post, as it is exactly that what other can actually learn from many indigenous peoples and it is alao exactly what colonialism is actively destroying
Absolutely not, without colonialism and given enough time Indigenous peoples will always industrialise to the greatest extent possible given the circumstances.
Industrialisation is in direct opposition to this idealised ‘harmonious’ living with the land.
You’re falling afoul of the noble savage fallacy in assuming that these people would not have changed their culture over time, given enough time, and have industrialised themselves.
You really like to misunderstand the point , dont you? Like of course ideology and culture can change, that was my whole point…
Just because I support the statement “Indigenous people have shown that is possible to live in balance with nature”, I dont think this is / was true for every group of indigenous people and that it would stay always like that. Its litetally just a statement that show cases an example of a way of living that humans can have a different role in nature, one that actually strives to keep the balance on earth.
And me believeing that has nothing to do with the idea of the noble savage, its just an assesment of a way of living that can be studied and maybe even emulated.
You can rephrase it as many times as you want, I understood what you said and I’ve already replied to it.
I’m not an expert on this, but I have a theory that the English are the dark souls style try hards of history.
English has a cold and dreary environment that’s relatively hostile prior to literally terraforming it, every single edible plant in the isles comes from somewhere else, there are centuries worth of plagues that came out of the squalid living conditions, it’s history is a revolving door of groups coming in to kill and pillage, and don’t even get me started on the wolves.
It’s basically centuries of playing on maximum hard mode. Then when you look at the people they colonized, India and the Americas were halcyonic in comparison. We’re finding out that all the “wasted land” the colonials knocked over for fields in the US were massive, curated foraging gardens that could feed thousands for generations. They didn’t realize they were knocking over the native equivalent to a free grocery store because they only ever used tree for murdering each other.
Now everyone is miserable because we let the guy that only plays regionally ranked mortal combat decide the rules we all have to play by when literally everyone else in the building wants to play animal crossing.
I say this as someone who has logged hundreds of hours in several games.
Please widen you sources of information, and, please, you need to go outside more.
Actually I game very little these days, but games are an excellent amalog for looking at complex behaviors in small, easy to digest ways.
I’d love some wider sources though! I’m no where near an expert on this matter and I’d love to learn more regardless of where it leads.
This is incredibly dismissive of not only native cultures that wiped themselves out (or at least wiped out large animal species) but also of the other European and Asian cultures that had their own imperialist expansion, some nearly to the same degree as the English.
I suppose I should say Anglo-Saxon Europe instead of England, though when of comes to the people behind the empire we’re still talking about one and the same. It’s been 40 people ruining it for everyone else for ages now.
I don’t see how this is at all dismissive of your examples though. The Aztec practivced eugenics on a continental scale before Europe even knew the Americas existed. The Mongol empire was second only to the british in land and beat them out by 8% of the global population at their height. That’s not even touching on all the countless cultures that died at the hand of their neighbor.
None of those things quite come close to the impact that Europeans have had on the world. We’re not having this conversation in the Manchu of the Qing dynasty, Olmec, or Mongolian. Our grocery stores are not offering maze or horse as staple foods. If you go to a tailor for a traditional formal dress, you will not recieve a rubakha of Russian lineage.
I’m not saying that any of them didn’t matter, I’m saying that my state of Kansas bases it’s identity off of wheat, a plant not native to this content. The people from which the name was taken exist as generic echos. The land on which my house sits was once a marsh before it was terraformed by settlers for crop. The entire Aztec empire was 85,000 sq miles to Kansas’s 82,300 sq miles and European’s didn’t just do Kansas. That’s simply not an equitable scale. Europe specced hard to violence and power and everyone now lives with the result of that.
This made too much sense to me.
I don’t care for it. I wish to go back to my previous levels of understanding.
This is a very fun but also anglocentric and supremacist story.
I would say it’s the opposite. A nation of plague riddled, pale, orges who understood nothing but violence in all things overran countless far more adapt and elegant societies. Had they ever stopped to listen to those they destroyed they’d have found a far better way of living, but instead the killed the people, killed the cultures, killed the land they tread upon, and look back to wonder how these “savages” ever managed to do anything with all the bathing and lack of fields.
Billionaires are the virus.
Shoutout for the snapback. Sick and tired of people quoting fucking Dwight Schrute as if a piece of shit sitcom character were an ancient Greek philosopher and calling humans a disease were insightful.
In fairness thinking Dwight was right is like thinking Palpatine is a democracy loving guy because the Senate voted for him.
https://ruthlesscriticism.com/environmentalism.htm is a banger article that talks about this, you can bet that whoever says “humanity is responsible for environmental destruction!!” without any care in the world for the existence of classes and their relations as being a secret hitlerite deep in the narratives
Also, to say how tribal primitive societies and its inhabitants were actually “ones with nature” is unhelpful. Not only is the idea veering dangerously close to racism/eugenics, implication being that indigenous were somehow genetically natural and primitive/backwards while peoples of the civilization are naturally cultural, civilized but destructive (in reality it being just a matter of current mode of production and historical development), but there’s also evidence to the contrary given their lack in knowledge and/or limits in their actual interests of preservation.
Didn’t indigenous people fight over land and attack each other to take land?
Yes? What’s your point? Was the land irreversibly damaged by their fighting over land? Surely you can’t be trying to compare the ecological impacts tribal warfare to modern industry?
The argument is not that they chose not to harm the land, but that they simply couldn’t significantly harm the land, and there usually wasn’t any incentive to, because they couldn’t get at anything under the land anyway.
About the only option was intentionally setting first/grass fires, and that happened plenty.
Tell that to the mammoths…
Part of reconciliation ought to be us begging for help restoring balance to nature, and letting indigenous people benefit the most financially from green energy/ecological initiatives.
It’s extra good because the begging part will infuriate the far right, and the watching non whites get rich off green energy will probably just explode their heads. It’s a win-win-win.
We need to do away with the financial part entirely, it’s what is killing us.
Removed by mod
Mhmm tell that to the first nations led Lakota Law Project.
Everybody’s digging it, the indigenous are digging it too. Plenty of money to be dug up.
a ‘unicorn event’ in mining
‘a treasure chest of all sorts of critical minerals,’
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/norway-house-magnesium-mining-9.6985096













