Ed,
Thanks for your reply.
I'm well aware of genetic isolationism and the subsequent devastating
effect of disease upon an indigenous population. I'm also aware of the
various nasty ways by which indigenous peoples are deprived of their land
-- as is still happening in South America.
My point was a different one -- that we shouldn't romanticise the customs
of the past. Record them, enjoy them in hindsight, investigate why they
arose -- but don't accord them any special sanctity. They were merely
decorations that grew around the basic technology of the time.
You (or Ray Harrell) mustn't imagine that, because I'm English, that I
regard the sufferings of American and Canadian aboriginals as being of
little importance, historically or ethically. But we went through exactly
the same process in this country two or three centuries ago -- except that
it was a case of indigenous people in their millions being swept away from
their land, occupations and customs and into terrible deprivation, not by
invaders, but by other indigenous people who happened to live just down the
road.
Keith
At 17:34 24/07/99 -0400, you wrote:
> In response to my posting about cultural loss, Keith Hudson said:
>>
>> I think,
>>now, that this point of view romanticises our ancestors. I rather think
>>that if their society had been as natural/stable/satisfying as is often
>>implied then it would have been a great deal more robust when faced with
>>modern society. True, in many places, indigenous society and modern
>>settlers both needed the same land and couldn't possibly co-exist, but in
>>many other places the original culture could have survived more or less
>> Instead, when faced with all the gewgaws
>>and temptations (including strong liquor) that modern man had to offer,
>>then most indigenous societies folded up quite quickly -- voluntarily, as
>>it were.
> "" Massimo Livi-Bacci, in his Concise History of World Population ""
>With a loss of population this large, or even half this large, very little
>robustness in dealing with advancing European society would have been
>possible. The following is a quotation from that study:
>>
>
>>
>>> " " ""
>
>
>>
>>> """" ""
>
>
>> """" Several references to 1888 - 1890 period indicate a scarcity
>>of fish and game, with people sick and starving in the vicinity of
>>both Rapid River and at Pelican Narrows.
>
>> There is no way of knowing what the respective roles of disease and
>> famine were in the situations described. We cannot know, for example,
>> whether game resources periodically failed because of natural cycles
>>or the pressures of the fur trade, or whether the hunters were
>>simply too sick to hunt because of diseases introduced through
>>contacts with non-aboriginals. That significant numbers of people
>>died every few years is likely, however.
>
>>Given such circumstances, it is not surprising that aboriginal
>>people signed treaties. From the perspective of white society, the
>>treaties represented an important step in bringing a backward region
>>and its peoples into the growing nation state. The fur trade was
>>becoming anachronistic, and aboriginal people who had provided the
>>muscle and backbone of the trade were rapidly becoming irrelevant to
>>the new economic staples, large-scale agriculture and major resource
>>development. The aboriginal people were in a state of desperation,
>>and those who were not yet under treaty were anxious to sign in the
>>hope of obtaining badly needed relief.
> They have rebounded since, and currently about a million Canadians
>identify themselves as aboriginal. Ed Weick
________________________________________________________________________
Keith Hudson, General Editor, Handlo Music, http://www.handlo.com
6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England
Tel: +44 1225 312622; Fax: +44 1225 447727; mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
________________________________________________________________________
