free forum make a forum for free message boards free forum hosting free phpbb forum phpbb create free forum

Mfischhoff · Joined: 14 Sep 2009 Posts: 51

Please actively read pp. 65-78 and 92-93 in your Jake Page books.

Then post a response on the forum. Please make it your goal to include one QUESTION for other folks to build on and respond to. You may want to get started by thinking about the following questions: What does it mean to be "civilized"? How do pre-Columbian Native Americans fit or not fit into this definition? orHow did the enviroment play a role on the development of different Native American socieities?

Free Forum

zmammalton · Joined: 14 Oct 2009 Posts: 31

I realize now that American Indians fit far more into the Columbus/European idea of "civilized". I love the parts that we read because it opened my eyes to how ignorant I have been, thinking the whole time, oh they are sooooo nice and just walk around living of nature. In my own accidental way discrediting them for what they have done. American Indians fit far more into the "civilized" idea in the way that they were largely agrarian people and had cities or villages that I had only associated with the mayans, incan, the aztecs and such down in South America. They American Indians of the North filled my Southern expectations which I find really odd that I always associated it with South America and that here we have never heard that it was very similar.

In 92-93 Page talked about "crowding" which I had heard little about previously, and had never really thought that to be a problem in pre-European America, what role do people think crowding played in the advancement of agriculture and cultural similarities, as well as differences we saw in this chapter?

gaubin · Joined: 10 Feb 2010 Posts: 17

I thought it was interesting that Page brought up the issue that people believed the Native Americans to be uncivilized and that some still do. But I would have liked Page to say what he thought about the Native Americans. If he thought they were uncivilized or not. For most of what we have read Page usually tells the facts and then expresses his opinions but this time he did not and I feel like he was just going for the easy way out but that might just be me. I think it is really hard to define the word civilized. I think the definition of civilized changes depending on what society you are in. I think that civilized in Europe is different than what pre-Columbian Native Americans if they had the word civilized would have thought it to be. So my definition of civilized changes depending on the group it is referring to. If someone is uncivilized in a society it usually means they are an outsider and do something against the norm. For example today in the U.S. if someone were to sacrifice a person because of religious reasons that would be considered uncivilized but some Native American tribes did sacrifice humans and that was considered normal in their society and civilized. Maybe Native Americans would have thought it to be uncivilized if someone in their tribe thought it was morally wrong to sacrifice someone for their gods. It all depends on the societies viewpoint. The Native Americans in general seemed to adjust very well to the climate changes. In general when there was a shortage of animals they started to farm more and when there was an abundance of animals they started to hunt more again. They were very smart and used whatever was available to them depending on the time of year and the current climate.
Do you think that if no white people settled in the U.S. and the climate had not changed would the Native Americans as a whole still be thriving today? Without white people in this country would they have reached the level of "technological advancement" that we have today?

cooper · Joined: 12 Feb 2010 Posts: 11

This reading didn’t have a story or tale or whatever it may be called connected to it and the style of writing was different than usual. He didn’t focus on as many specifics as he usually does. He talked briefly about the mounds and what those meant and he talked a lot about the irrigation system which was very interesting and extremely impressive but not the way he usually does with little things like the oven or what not. I suppose im sort of contradicting myself but whatever. O look into Zach’s question briefly I think it is a new concept for most of us probably to imagine a pre Columbus world being even moderately close to crowding or some minor form of over population. It seems weird to imagine people feling crowded in the u.s. or even in new England when there is less than a million people living there. I suppose that says something about what the lifestyle for native Americans was though. People didn’t have lots of gadets and hobbies and jobs that didn’t require uch space. People had to trave a lot to hunt or gather or repair some part of their village. It doesn’t seem like they would need that much space but maybe they were more nomadic that us even after there very nomadic state I don’t know?

There was a lot of discussion about adobe structures and even two story buildings. Do you think tht it’s possible that some of todays current architecture is relsted to those structures/ if not it’s interesting that people across the world were building the same buildings without the same materials or ven having any knowledge of anyone else doing that.

CelinaFernandezAyala · Joined: 17 Nov 2009 Posts: 37

To me, "civilized" always had something to do with the complexity of a people. With this definition in mind, the Native Americans were (and still are) complex people, therefore "civilized". This is demonstarted through:

-architectural developments: the mounds, the racherías, the hamlets, ball courts
-agricultural developments: the ovens, the irrigation canals
-hygenic developments: the elongated pits for human waste
-social developments/culture: government (#1. spiritual leader #2. Chief #3. War Leader), social hierarchy (seen through goverment and what people were buried with), sports, organization of the village (usually centered around a central plaza where everyone could/would come together), religion and religious practices
-technological developments: tools for irrigation, tools to carves/etch designs into jewelry and in the earth, weaponry (spears, arrows, etc)
-economic developments: trading

These are just a few examples. Even with the limited amount, it's very clear that pre-Colombian Native Americans were very complex in every way imaginable, and absolutely were "civilized". All these developments allowed for such rich variations in each group's life- this was their civilization.

To address Zach's question, "crowding" plays a large role in agricultural developments. Land can provide for only so many people. When there are too many people, there's less to go around, leaving barely any room for agricultural developments to be made. I sort of pictured "crowding" to be like the fall of Rome. Aside from agriculture, "crowding" could also cause governmental chaos and seriously mess with the social heirarchies and family lineages. I think "crowding" impacted different groups in similar ways, but I'm not sure if it created similaries with in the groups.

CelinaFernandezAyala · Joined: 17 Nov 2009 Posts: 37

Oops! I forgot to include my question in my provious post.

Do you see any similarities between pre-colombian Native Americans and European settlers? What are they? Did (or do you think) those similarities existed prior to contact, or did they happen as a result of the Columbian Exchange?

MaxRoll · Joined: 10 Feb 2010 Posts: 12

this reading reminded me a lot of the different things we read in environmental history again. there was a segment in environmental history where we talked about national parks and the idea of "wilderness" and the idea of a "garden." basically settlers designated the areas we call national parks as an area of preserved wilderness that we think mirrors the way the entire country was before settlers got here and "civilized" it. the truth is that much of the area we call the wilderness and think of as untamed was heavily farmed (the hohokam people set up complicated systems of irrigation and their society lived in one area for 1000 years!) and influenced by humans for a long time before settlers came.
to answer celinas question, i do see similarities. in fact i think that these two societies are essentially one in the same. when it comes down to it the native americans and the european settlers are both sophisticated groups of people looking for the next "perfect place." both groups come from a long line of ancestors who have discovered different methods of adapting and coinciding with their respective environments and neighbors, it just so happens that their environments and neighbors are drastically different leading them to different societal conclusions.
why do you think that the hohokam people designated their "landfills" as religious centers?

asilver · Joined: 20 Nov 2009 Posts: 28

I was amazed by the extent that cultural exchange took place in America. The tropical parrots found in Missisipi burial mounds seemed the most interesting. I am not sure how easy it is to transport a parrot, having never done it, but i suspect that carrying one by foot that far is an incredible feat.
What I don't understand is the prevalence of mounds across different cultures, I found it strange that none of the tribes we read about had a different sort of shine, like a building or a pit or something else.
Last of all, the reading breafly mentions that some people were buried with copper bells, I was unaware that any native americans had the technology to produce copper, and i would love to hear how they did it.
My question is, do you think that these tribes used exclusively mounds to signify areas of importantce, or were the the only structures to have lasted this long in time.

pgui · Joined: 17 Nov 2009 Posts: 36

I too was surprised at how much engineering and agricultural technology the natives had. I had no idea that the natives in the modern day United States had such advanced culture. I liked what Zach wrote about how we only associate such culture with south American natives. But i do wonder why ruins are not nearly as talked about or seen or still in existence in the north. Gigi I think that it is true that he did not directly state his opinion. However I found his opinions about the to be clear. He was very selective in what he put into his writing and what he left out. He used a large segment of the chapter to marvel at the advances the natives had made in agriculture and architectural aspects of the society and briefly touched upon aspects such as sacrifice. A subject that people today in this country believe is bad. If one of pages goals was to present the Natives in a positive light i would have preferred that he question whether these things really are inherently bad instead of brushing past them.
How did others feel about the way he presented these things?

fsadovnikoff · Joined: 10 Feb 2010 Posts: 12

hi there.
so i was also interested by the fact that the Native Americans garbage heaps became sacred spots. I cannot imagine something like that happening today. I've got to say that i find the organization of this book pretty confusing. Page will be talking about ball courts and canal systems in the same paragraph. The quick transitions throw me off a lot. It was said that the buildings discussed were more often associated with southern Native American tribes. I always associate the courts discussed with southern tribes as well.
My question is about the about the seashells, do you think that the Hohokam specifically chose their settlement spot because there were seashells there? that was the impression that i got from the book and that seems a little odd to me.

reginabell · Joined: 10 Feb 2010 Posts: 13

Hiiiii everyone Smile

So I totally missed out last week and didn't get to post, and now I'm regretting it. You guys have said some super awesome things and I love reading it all. I'm going to try to touch on a little bit of what a LOT of you have been saying so far..

Gigi said, " I think it is really hard to define the word civilized. I think the definition of civilized changes depending on what society you are in." I agree with that completely. That's something that I've been super frustrated with throughout this whole section. I just looked up "civilized" in the dictionary/thesaurus and it says stuff like, "well-mannered/polite/sophisticated" and "social, cultural, and moral development that is considered to be more advanced." I find that such a one-sided definition. If I were to stick to that definition, I wouldn't say that the Native Americans were civilized. But I think they were, is the problem. Like Celina said, there is so much to prove that they had developed lives, cultures, and systems. The way they did things was SO civilized... but I can't define what that "civilized" means. GAH.

Also, I think Cooper brought up a really good point. He said, "It seems weird to imagine people feeling crowded in the u.s. or even in new England when there is less than a million people living there. I suppose that says something about what the lifestyle for native Americans was though." And like Max, I keep thinking about stuff we talked about in Environmental History, about the land and the way it used to be used. Before any of our consumerism bullshit and all that, I think the idea of land usage was COMPLETELY different. It's interesting to think about how much land one person or family would "need." I don't know if that makes any sense... I wonder exactly HOW MUCH I would need to get by in life if I didn't have a grocery store, clothing store, etc. I would need a lot of land to use those resources, meaning that it would seem overpopulated much faster or whatever. If the Native Americans had the resources we have now, of course it wouldn't be overpopulated in their minds! Does that make sense?

I guess I'm done. I have a bazillion half-thoughts, but I don't think they'd make any sense if I tried to verbalize them.

GarceDrinkwater · Joined: 12 Feb 2010 Posts: 10

-I thought it was interesting how the chapter started out by saying that the Europeans didn't believe that Native Americans could have built any of these structures, then went on to explain pretty complex buildings.
-One part I thought was kind of strange was on the last page of our reading, when it was talking about knowledge. "They were just as smart as people today-and no smarter. They simply had different things to be smart about." This sentence (to me) seemed like he didn't really mean what he was saying, the "and no smarter" part seemed very condescending almost like he thought there was no possible way anyone back then could have been smarter then the geniuses of today. To be honest, I think they could actually be "smarter" then us in many ways. If you took a bunch of people from today, and put them on an island with nothing, I don't think they would do so well. Look at the show survivor.
-It seems in many places higher up ground, buildings, chairs, mountains, cities and such symbolize power and something of importance. Do you think that their mounds became important because they became so tall? And why do you think higher up things symbolize something of importance?

wdaube · Joined: 10 Feb 2010 Posts: 13

To me, “civilized” seems to imply a sense of order, community, and cleanliness. A certain level of knowledge and sophistication\ is also needed to consider a group civilized. Moving their trash away from the living areas, more in-depth forms of “governance” and leaderships, and all the developed techniques regarding agriculture, point toward a pretty together and skilled group of people.

The environment greatly affected the lifestyle of the Native Americans in the Southeast, the Hohokam. Drought forced them to find ways to adapt and put their knowledge of the land to use. Living by rivers and streams, wells, and irrigation systems by use of canals helped to obtain and preserve water but still further solutions were necessary. Dry washing and other techniques helped promote their agricultural power which largely supplemented the hunting and gathering done. Changes in the environment were powerful too, for example, “a change in the patterns of snowmelt, which led to large-scale and highly destructive flooding (77-78 Page)”. They typically resulted in a subsequent population change.

I also wanted to know more about the mounds. I was just curious what others thought of them and their significance beyond what they reading told us.

IsaacRynowecer · Joined: 17 Nov 2009 Posts: 26

Like everyone else mentioned, I think civilized is a description of the organization and sophistication of a society runs itself. But another important factor is if and how they conform to the “standards” of civilization set by the other societies viewing them. And while the settlers clearly did not consider the Native Americans civilized I think they were equally as civilized as the European settlers. They had villages and societies that were setup very similarly to the Europeans.

I was also curious about the repetitions of structures throughout different Native American cultures. While not necessarily plausible, the Ancient Astronaut theory is an at least interesting theory behind it, (although early on in the reading, Page basically says it is full of crap) “though the myth is equally strong and equally condescending among those silly cultists who persist in believing that visitors from elsewhere in the universe built such sophisticated structures as the pyramids of Egypt and etched the enormous figures called the Nazca Lines on the desert coast of South America” (page 65)

athornton · Joined: 18 Nov 2009 Posts: 23

I think that the definition of “civilized” is basically what everyone else has been saying. I think that it means that the people have organization and that they can successfully manage their lives. I really liked what Isaac said about conforming to standards of other societies. I think this is a big part of how we define the word. I think that while a group of people may not look it, they still can be civilized. I feel like this happens a lot in history. A “civilized” group of people show up to the new world and find a group of natives who they deem “uncivilized”. Then they try to change their habits and culture to resemble what they think is “civilized”.
I also think Grace brought up a good question about the importance of things that are high above the ground. I believe that things that are high up do represent power and importance. It takes a lot of work to build something that is high off of the ground. I think throughout history leaders have tried to build big structures to show off their power. I also think that they build these structures for religious purposes. We see many temples and even churches with their steeples that are very high in the air, possibly to be closer to the sky.
My question is do you think that when a “civilized” group comes in contact with an indigenous people that they automatically try to force their culture onto the natives? Do they think that their culture is the only “civilized” culture?

Free Forum