The talk over the Dakota Access Pipeline had me think about a college course I had taken on American history, specifically Native American history. My professor at the time had a stated goal of dispensing with the myth of the noble savage, with much of the course being centered around just how goddamn violent and barbaric some of the tribes that inhabited the present day Western US were. Specifically the Comanche, Apache, and Sioux. These guys butchered and raped their way across the plains and desert long before any white settlers turned up. They were vilified by other indigenous tribes, who were regularly enslaved, conquered, and subjugated by them.
It just struck me as ironic that some of these people protesting in North Dakota right now as supposed victims of white imperialism are in fact descended from people who were no better themselves. They decry the evils of westward expansion, and claim they stand on sacred Sioux land, when in fact that land belonged to others long before the Sioux moved in and took it for themselves. At what point is a culture like that even worth preserving? If at all?
I don't see the point in preserving cultures, considering they evolve and change. Rather I think people should let go of "muh tradition" and move on with what they want to do, not what their cultures expect them to
Jaxson Torres
That sounds like a cool course OP, I'm jealous. Did he recommend any good books on the subject of Injun violence?
Grayson Wright
>It just struck me as ironic that some of these people protesting in North Dakota right now as supposed victims of white imperialism are in fact descended from people who were no better themselves.
The original route was supposed to pass through Bismarck, but that's a white people city.
This. Dakota pipeline isn't a fuck white people thing, it's about defending their home from being destroyed. Idk how the Sioux's history matters here, besides dumb racists like op trying to use it as justification for being a dick
Lincoln White
How many tribes do you think the United States went to war with?
Jose Evans
>My professor at the time had a stated goal of dispensing with the myth of the noble savage What myth? I don't think anybody's taken the "noble savage" idea seriously for decades.
Yes, I'm sure you can find a handful of activists on Tumblr who still believe in it -- not exactly representative -- or a few people who have no interest in anthropology or history at all and mumble "Sure, whatever," when you ask them "Were Native Americans peaceful before the white man came?" There are thousands of people who believe the moon landings were faked, too. Nobody listens to them either.
I don't see what a long-since discredited myth has to do with the fact that a community of thoroughly modern people who've never conquered or enslaved anybody would really rather not have their sink piss out oil when they go to pour themselves a glass of water.
>At what point is a culture like that even worth preserving? Name a culture that was in a position to do conquer its neighbors and literally never did it. I'll save you the suspense, you can't.
Christopher Allen
Because they know that those pipelines fuck up areas they go across especially if bad shit happen to them.
Kills property value and it's KNOWN that they try to dump the pipelines into rural or minority areas instead of taking other routes most of which are shorter but goes through NIMBY land.
The water being able to get ignited and start a sustaining fire thing was a great thing for many folk because it's just so fucking blatant that you can't just push it asides with "people being bitches of complaining too much"
One area in Canada a reserve has so much neighboring pollution from near by areas a crisis is occurring. Also it warped the sex ratio of all births in that reserve 66% female 33% male and is the first place in all of Earth to have a fucked up birth sex ratio without any human policy or abortions being a thing.
Thomas Barnes
That's crazy, did not know that the effects could be that bad. I thought it was just poisoning their water. Standing rock's image is getting ruined by douchey liberals who support it for the image, but what's happening is actually a tragedy
Asher Edwards
>For the purpose of determining what is history, please do not start threads about events taking place less than 25 years ago. Historical discussions should be focused on past events, and not their contemporary consequences. Discussion of modern politics, current events, popular culture, or other non-historical topics should be posted elsewhere.
James Perry
>Indians back then were dicks >Ergo today indians can't defend themselves from dicks >Southerners were either slave owners or defended slavery >Ergo all southerners are still bad, racist, bigoted people.
Daniel Russell
Reddit as fuck
Ryder Mitchell
Because dumping/forcing pollutive areas/thing stuff into rural/minority areas has been a thing for decades and decades.
Landon Thomas
I think the fact that they were pretty barbaric isn't in the public conscience as much as it should be.
Caleb Adams
he is applying what happened in historical knowledge and tying it to public perception which is ok imo
William Butler
I'm going to have to call bullshit. I had to suffer through probably a dozen Native American studies courses in my time and I've never once had a NA Studies professor even approach such opinions of pre-contact Native American cultures.
'The Pristine Myth' is widely and openly acknowledged and often pushed back against. We know they didn't live in harmony with the land, their primary method of agriculture was of the "slash and burn" variety, and that the great American forests were actually a result of European settlement and not a victim of it. We have colonial records that attest to colonists having to essentially stop the Indians from burning down the Eastern woodlands to create range land and barrens and of course conflict stemming from colonization, but the idea that the Native American cultures were exceptionally violent pre-contact was sloppily inferred from one or two archaeological finds in the plains of bones displaying marks of mutilation and combat. It's a massive assumption on cultures we knew (and still know) very little about that has been used more than once by authors (not historians) to sell books.
I've heard some pretty sad stories of more recent native studies that focus instead on "indigenous erasure", pic related is a philosophy course at the University of Oklahoma, but I've never seen a syllabus like you describe, just books.
Lincoln Jones
>how dare you not be an alt-right corporate shill! /pol/ as fuck
Jace King
>Did he recommend any good books on the subject of Injun violence?
Pic related is what I think OP is actually referring to, but this is all "history" as sourced by the diaries, letters, and memoirs of white settlers, not a history of pre-settlement Indian warfare. It's also written by Thomas Goodrich, a white nationalist better known for his books defending Nazi Germany. That's not to say the sources aren't genuine but it's not objective history or something that would be included in a college curriculum.
>At what point is a culture like that even worth preserving? If at all?
so you're saying they're the same as whites in regards to their treatment of others but their culture shouldn't be preserved? do you not also think there is no point preserving white culture?
Ryan Watson
I wonder what philosophy course that could be. Looks more like anthropology.
Leo Bell
There's the case of Rachel Mayburry (spelling? It's been a while) which serves as more or less a first hand account of a girl's experiences with the Comanche after her family is wiped out by them. Remember reading how they tortured her grandfather and repeatedly raped her grandmother.
There's also Blood Meridian. Not exactly a historical novel (although it is centered around a band of scalp hunters that actually existed) but is a fantastic novel nonetheless.
