Charles wrote: >It would be difficult to prove which culture and tradition definitely has the best practice regarding living and using the earth in North America and elsewhere in the long run of the future. But overall, in the historical larger picture, the methods of the indigenous peoples are closer to modes and means of production that have DEFINITELY not destroyed the human habitability and rehabitability of the earth for 200,000 years and more. Harvey comes from a culture and tradition that has invented in the last 500 years nuclear waste and weaponry and other means of production (fossil fuel industry) and destruction that are impacting the earth in new orders of magnitude. We have probable cause to believe (that is ,a lot of preliminary evidence) and to take pause to consider that this is more destructive than the life ways of the original inhabitants of this continent. Anecdotal evidence of how some Indian here or there may have had a practice that European-ecologists-come-lately think might be "dangerous" does not rebut the prima facie case against the dystopic nature of the capitalist mode and means of production relative to the indigenous. < I'm repeating myself from old pen-l discussions, but here goes. Maybe some clarity will arise. >>> Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 05/26/99 12:21PM >>> (1) It's important not to generalize too much from a single group of Indians. What applies to the Sioux doesn't automatically apply to the Aztecs, for example. The Aztecs had a very class-oriented society, for example. Charles: It is well known that there were some classes in Mexico and Peru indignenously. Most of North America, (all depending on whether "Meso America" is included in the North) did not have classes. In general, in ethnology, the area "North America" is not used to refer to Mexico. So, the above generalization is pretty good. (((((((((((((((99 Also, it's possible that if one plains tribe had permanently conquered another (and they had a good enough technology and/or social organization to allow the production of a large surplus-product), a class system could have arisen even North of the Rio Grande (sort of the way the caste system arose in India when the Aryans conquered the indigenous population). Charles; Of course, this is speculation. The fact is that classes were significantly absent in North America. ((((((((((((( (2) The ways of life that the Indians practiced for many centuries (in what are now the United States and Canada) didn't lead to environmental destruction as far as my reading indicates. The problem was with the migration of (what became) the Indians from Siberia to the Americas. This may have led to the extinction of several major species of animals, which had not adapted to human presence. This wouldn't surprise me, since they most likely came over from Siberia in search of game. (3) It's my reading of how the (US and Canadian) Indian economy worked is that after the initial extinctions that may have occurred, their tribes, bands, and communities reached a rough equilibrium with their natural environment, so that they stopped being destructive of that environment. Since their "primitive tribal" economy was oriented toward the production of use-values rather than exchange values, there were clear limits to the expansion of their economies, so that they typically did not expand in an effort to conquer all of the natural environment. In addition, they produced little of a surplus-product that could be used for such conquest. Social institutions such as the Kwakiutl potlatch also developed that not only preserve social solidarity but prevented expansionism. Capitalism, on the other hand, involves the endless expansionist drive of producing commodities (exchange-values) to make a profit to accumulate power in a competitive battle, and so expands to destroy the natural environment like the fire ants wiping out other creatures in the Southeastern US. (4) David Harvey criticizes one Sioux spokesman for claiming to own the plains. I don't see why we have to endorse such claims, but it is very common for leftists to tolerate with BS from people we like or support because we see that _on balance_ what they say makes sense. For example, Jesse Jackson has often spouted a lot of BS, but until recently a big chunk of the Left backed his presidential ambitions. I am sure that people on pen-l can name one or two participants in the list that they tolerate despite their sometimes-obnoxious behavior. (Of course, who they choose depends on who they are.) (((((((((((((((((( Charles: Who does own the plains and how did they gain title to them ? Charles Brown
