Indians are destroying the environment

[Spoke]

Crown Prince of Irony-

Do you have any evidence that the Native Americans doing the gill netting are “starving,” or are you just channelling?

Seems to me like you are making an awful lot of generalizations about the condition of Native Americans. They’re INDIVIDUALS, remember? So unless you have some information about the situation of these INDIVIDUAL gill-netters, aren’t you disqualified from discussing the matter? Or does that street only go one way?

Also, you seem awfully certain that Native Americans only conducted buffalo runs when they were starving. How do you know? (Channelling again?) Maybe they did it that way because it was simply easier to run the buffalo off a cliff than to expend the time and energy needed to track and kill them individually.

I initially tried to make some allowances for you (and indeed conceded that I had made some over-generalizations), but it turns out you are just a PC party-line-toeing buffoon. Don’t have facts to back up your arguments? No problem! Just make some up! When asked for a source, just say that Native Americans didn’t keep written records (as if that proves your version of how they lived).

I’ve said it half a dozen times before in this thread, and I’ll say it again. Native Americans are no better or worse than anybody else. It is not racist to say so. It is not racist to puncture a myth by saying that they are neither spiritually superior to everyone else nor inherently more environmentally conscious than everyone else.

[Johnny_Angel]

Crown Prince of Irony wrote:

So please pardon the Native Americans for not writing down their hunting methods in plain English, for the benefit of this debate; how rude of the ignorant savages.

You present spurious guesses as a facts, get busted, and I’m the asshole?

And regarding the eyewitness accounts of early European settlers, it’s a widely accepted fact that many reports on native behavior by early explorers and settlers (not just in North America, but around the world) were wild hyperbole, and to be taken with a grain of salt.

Sure, historians usually just throw out all those primary sources and rely solely on your sage speculations.

Let me put this way. I can say, right now, “I wouldn’t want to be the direct cause of the extinction of an entire species,” and mean it. But if my family were starving, and I was given the choice of watching them slowly waste away, or feeding them with the last spotted owl in the world, you can be damn skippy that I’d think to myself “fuck the bird, I want to save my wife and daughter.”

But you see, there’s a better way. It’s called Organized Crime. It’s clean and efficient (environmentally speaking) and just look what it did for the Irish.

[Mr.Zambezi]

Oh, it is so much easier to make shit up and scream racism when contradicted than to actually think things out.

I think I shall call it the Sharpton Strategy.

And if you don’t like it, well, **YOU ARE A BIG FUCKING RACIST! **

[Crown_Prince_of_Irony]

Open Letter to Johnny Angel, Mr.Zambezi, spoke- and any one else following this thread:

I realize I said I would respond no further to this thread, but I have had all weekend to stew over this, and feel I need to clear a few things up.

First of all, I have read some of Johnny’s, Mr.Z’s and spoke’s posts, and it is clear to me you all are intelligent people. I realize that, having as few posts as I do, I may have looked like a troll just posting to be a contentious prick. I jumped right into a pretty heated debate, without thinking of how my remarks would be received. For that I am sorry.

I do take umbrage to the replies stating that I am “making this shit up.” I came upon my conclusion about the possible need for mass killings of buffalo by a logical process. I am not making up the fact that many examples exist of Native American art and artifacts depicting hunting methods, and I personally have not seen any examples depicting mass killings of prey. I, along with many other people, believe these artifacts to be representative of Native American history, and, based upon that personal belief, concluded that since so few artifacts exist (that I have seen) depicting mass killings, then mass killings did not occur on a regular basis. From that conclusion, I deduced that the impetus for such infrequent mass killings must be climactic in nature, rather than due to random occurence. My mistake was in imposing my personal experience and beliefs upon this discussion. So while I used a logical process to come to the conclusion I arrived at, some of the factors used in that logical process are purely subjective in nature.

Also, when I used the example of seeing my family starving, I was not implying that Native Americans are physically starving. I wouldn’t claim that because it’s not true. It was meant as a metaphor for the cultural “starvation” of the Native Amaericans, to show that when you face a drastic eventuality, then your priorities go out the window. Again, a purely subjective point of view. Some may belive the Native Americans are not facing as drastic a crisis as I believe, and some believe that even if they were, that there is no excuse for negative environmental impact.

I was merely trying to show how subjective the matter can be. I, personally, believe that to truly debate the morality of Mr.Zambezi’s OP, “Indians are destroying the Environment,” then one must take into account the

[Crown_Prince_of_Irony]

D’oh!! Clicked on “submit” accidentally, the first time. (Can I have seconds of that crow? It’s tasty!!):o

Open Letter to Johnny Angel, Mr.Zambezi, spoke- and any one else following this thread (subtitled “In Which Crown Prince of Irony Eats Crow”):

I realize I said I would respond no further to this thread, but I have had all weekend to stew over this, and feel I need to clear a few things up.

First of all, I have read some of Johnny’s, Mr.Z’s and spoke’s posts, and it is clear to me you all are intelligent, rational people. (Not ass-kissing, just my point of view.) I realize that, having as few posts as I do, I may have looked like a troll just posting to be a contentious prick. I jumped right into a pretty heated debate, without thinking of how my remarks would be received. For that I am sorry.

I do take umbrage to the replies stating that I am “making this shit up.” I came upon my conclusion about the possible need for mass killings of buffalo by a logical process. I am not making up the fact that many examples exist of Native American art and artifacts depicting hunting methods, and I personally have not seen any examples depicting mass killings of prey. I, along with many other people, believe these artifacts to be representative of Native American history. Based upon that personal belief, I concluded that since so few artifacts exist (that I have seen) depicting mass killings, then mass killings must have occurred only in response to special circumstances. From that conclusion, I deduced that the impetus for such infrequent mass killings must be climactic in nature (i.e. famine), rather than due to random occurence. My mistake was in imposing my personal experience and beliefs upon this discussion. So while I used a logical process to come to the conclusion I arrived at, some of the factors used in that logical process are purely subjective in nature. That said, I still don’t like being painted as a liar.

Also, when I used the example of seeing my family starving, I was not implying that Native Americans are physically starving. I wouldn’t claim that, because it’s not true. It was meant as a metaphor for the cultural “starvation” of the Native Amaericans, to show that when you face a drastic eventuality, then your priorities go out the window. Again, a purely subjective point of view. Some may believe the Native Americans are not facing as drastic a crisis as I believe, and some believe that even if they were, that there is no excuse for negative environmental impact.

I was merely trying to show how subjective the matter can be. My original point should have been, “I, personally, don’t believe you can condemn someone for an action without understanding the situation that precipitated their actions.” Better yet, maybe I should have stayed the hell out of it. My feelings on the Native Americans’ problems run quite deep, and I didn’t bring objectivity to the table when I jumped into the fray. For this, I apologize to all who participated in this thread. I did not behave as befits one of the Teeming Millions.

I look forward to more civil discussion and debate in the future, and from now on, I will try to keep my subjective views restricted to more abstract issues.

Yours very humbly,
Crown Prince of Irony

[Spoke]

Crown Prince of Irony-

I have no problem with heated debate, and I understand that emotions can run deep on some topics. (See my own overly-defensive posts in the “southernern slurs” thread.)

I do advise some caution in your use of the word “racist.” No one likes having that label attached to their name. That was the main burr in my hide with respect to your posts in this thread.

You are obviously an intelligent, well-read poster. No need to apologize for strong feelings on the subject at hand. Just mind the name-calling, please.

[Johnny_Angel]

Crown Prince of Irony wrote:

I do take umbrage to the replies stating that I am “making this shit up.”

This accusation arises because you made a claim that requires support as though your saying it angrily was support enough.

I came upon my conclusion about the possible need for mass killings of buffalo by a logical process. I am not making up the fact that many examples exist of Native American art and artifacts depicting hunting methods, and I personally have not seen any examples depicting mass killings of prey.

This is what is known to historians as the argument from silence. A claim like, “The Indians only run buffalo off the cliffs when they were starving” requires proof, and the fact that nothing you have seen directly disproves it doesn’t make it so. The strongest claim you can make with the argument from silence is that the theory that the Indians only performed buffalo runs when in dire straits is consistent with available data – and you’ll notice that that’s a very weak claim.

My mistake was in imposing my personal experience and beliefs upon this discussion… That said, I still don’t like being painted as a liar.

You said:

…those hunts typically only occurred during times of famine, as after unusually cold winters, and thus served their intended purpose, which was simply to minimize effort while maximizing return.

Which statement is impossible to prove, since there isn’t enough data available to say what was, in your words, “typical.” It’s a very strong statement of a opinion for which you couldn’t possibly have such strong evidence, and when I asked for your source, you jumped salty and I gave you the haircut about it. I have not accused you of lying. You are, however, wrong.

The point still stands that the buffalo run sites stand as evidence against the myth that we’ve all heard for years that Indians were proto-ecologists who took only what they needed from the land, and used every part of the buffalo.

[Crown_Prince_of_Irony]

Johnny Angel said:
This accusation arises because you made a claim that requires support as though your saying it angrily was support enough…

The strongest claim you can make with the argument from silence is that the theory that the Indians only performed buffalo runs when in dire straits is consistent with available data – and you’ll notice that that’s a very weak claim.

It may be a very weak claim, but it’s a very strong personal belief. I have already stated that it was wrong for me to present what I believe to be true as fact, with no more support than subjective experience. If you feel the need to clarify this further with academic terms, then feel free to do so.

However, if you are trying to convince me that my believing that to be fact is wrong, well you might as well go over to the Great Debates board and convince the atheists that God exists, or convince the Christians that God doesn’t exist, because that’s how deep-seated my belief is. Personal beliefs cannot always be based upon logic and hard evidence, or we’d have a very dull world. Conversely, personal beliefs should not be presented as hard evidence, and that is where my mistake was made. It doesn’t change what I believe, or what you believe, it just means that I will refrain from making that mistake again.

I’m still learning proper debating etiquette; I’m used to debating things like this with my dad, who, bless his heart, is a little thick in the head.

To summarize:
I am sorry!!! I was wrong in my actions!!! But not my beliefs!!! And my dad is a little slow!!! But he’s a great guy!!!

Now can we drop this? I’m getting a little sick of all this crow I’m eating, it’s starting to taste kind of gamey.

[Mr.Zambezi]

Johhny, Spoken like a gentleman. I for one am dropping the issue.