Scottish Independence: Quebec Edition

[viper37]

No, here in Canada at least, that most certainly was not the case. Not that the British Empire/Canada was nice and perfect in its relations to native Canadians, but they did not, by any reasonable description, "kill or ethnically cleanse" the existing Native American population (which very much still exists today). 

Because it's a thread about Scotland's possible independance and because Mongers ask that we cease that, I'm going to let that pass.  But I don't agree with this revision of history.

[viper37]

What happened between the Iroquois and the Huron could, without exageration, be described as a "war of extermination". Certainly, thousands were killed or captured, not just "a brave or two". These were major wars with tens of thousands of combatants in which whole peoples were destroyed or driven off of their lands.

You are heavily romanticizing native north americans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaver_Wars

You're making this hard on me, aren't you?  You want me to keep going off topic?
Fine.  Look at the date: post-European colonization.  Look at the name.  Why was this animal so precious now?

[viper37]

The Queen , so to speak, wades out of the debate:

Scottish independence: Monarch 'above politics', Buckingham Palace says

Any suggestion that the Queen would wish to influence the Scottish referendum campaign is "categorically wrong", Buckingham Palace has said.

The statement follows press reports that Her Majesty was concerned about the prospect of Scottish independence.

It also follows comments from First Minister Alex Salmond, who said the Queen "will be proud" to be the monarch of an independent Scotland.

The Palace insisted the referendum was "a matter for the people of Scotland".

A spokesman said: "The sovereign's constitutional impartiality is an established principle of our democracy and one which the Queen has demonstrated throughout her reign.

"As such the monarch is above politics and those in political office have a duty to ensure that this remains the case.

"Any suggestion that the Queen would wish to influence the outcome of the current referendum campaign is categorically wrong.

"Her Majesty is firmly of the view that this is a matter for the people of Scotland."
....

Full article here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29136149

Funny.  I don't remember such reservations from 1995.  From the same Queen.  For Canada.  And Quebec.

[viper37]

There was nothing about their culture that was any different from other cultures around the world in that particular stage of social evolution.

They were nomads and semi-nomads.  That makes it easier on the land than permanent settlement.
They also had a bigger territory for less people, compared to say, the Middle East at the time of ancient Egypt and the Hittite Empire.
They did not have wheels nor horses, wich made construction of stone roads not widely popular in North America.
The climate being what it is for many part of our countries, it's likely they would have waged war in winter.  Compared to countries with barely no winter, that means less frequent wars.

The accurate portrayal of north american indian is about halfway between the myth of the noble savage and the bloodthirsty barabarians you and Malthus are trying to portray.  Denying that European arrival had any effect on their society is silly. Both groups learned a lot from each other, for better or for worst.

What has changed, as evidenced by the beaver wars, was territorial domination for economic resources, instead of food&settlement.  And land trading by the Iroquois, English style, in the name of their "allies" and conquered tribes.  Individual possession of land was unknown to them, pre-european contact.

[Razgovory]

There was nothing about their culture that was any different from other cultures around the world in that particular stage of social evolution.

They were nomads and semi-nomads.  That makes it easier on the land than permanent settlement.
They also had a bigger territory for less people, compared to say, the Middle East at the time of ancient Egypt and the Hittite Empire.
They did not have wheels nor horses, wich made construction of stone roads not widely popular in North America.
The climate being what it is for many part of our countries, it's likely they would have waged war in winter.  Compared to countries with barely no winter, that means less frequent wars.

The accurate portrayal of north american indian is about halfway between the myth of the noble savage and the bloodthirsty barabarians you and Malthus are trying to portray.  Denying that European arrival had any effect on their society is silly. Both groups learned a lot from each other, for better or for worst.

What has changed, as evidenced by the beaver wars, was territorial domination for economic resources, instead of food&settlement.  And land trading by the Iroquois, English style, in the name of their "allies" and conquered tribes.  Individual possession of land was unknown to them, pre-european contact.

Is there any actual evidence of Indians not having a concept of private property?

[Tonitrus]

The hunter-gatherers probably didn't worry about private property when it came to land (at least on an individual basis).  I am sure most tribes thought certain lands were "theirs".

Probably everybody had "stuff" that they believed was "theirs".

[Razgovory]

The hunter-gatherers probably didn't worry about private property when it came to land (at least on an individual basis).  I am sure most tribes thought certain lands were "theirs".

Probably everybody had "stuff" that they believed was "theirs".

Well a lot of Indians in North America were not hunter-gatherers.  I imagine that some people had responsibility for some fields and were the primary beneficiaries of the fruits of these fields.  It's hard to say with hunter-gatherers, since they were almost always illiterate.  Fisherman are in a sense hunter-gatherers, and they typically have an concept of private property.

[viper37]

There was nothing about their culture that was any different from other cultures around the world in that particular stage of social evolution.

They were nomads and semi-nomads.  That makes it easier on the land than permanent settlement.
They also had a bigger territory for less people, compared to say, the Middle East at the time of ancient Egypt and the Hittite Empire.
They did not have wheels nor horses, wich made construction of stone roads not widely popular in North America.
The climate being what it is for many part of our countries, it's likely they would have waged war in winter.  Compared to countries with barely no winter, that means less frequent wars.

The accurate portrayal of north american indian is about halfway between the myth of the noble savage and the bloodthirsty barabarians you and Malthus are trying to portray.  Denying that European arrival had any effect on their society is silly. Both groups learned a lot from each other, for better or for worst.

What has changed, as evidenced by the beaver wars, was territorial domination for economic resources, instead of food&settlement.  And land trading by the Iroquois, English style, in the name of their "allies" and conquered tribes.  Individual possession of land was unknown to them, pre-european contact.

Is there any actual evidence of Indians not having a concept of private property?

private property of the land was non existant.  Land belonged to the tribe, prior to european's arrival.  Most indians were either nomadics or semi-nomadics. 

Did you find some archelogical evidence attesting to land property like a form of deeds?  Something similar to what Europeans used?  If so, please share it, it'll be an interesting read.

[Razgovory]

private property of the land was non existant.  Land belonged to the tribe, prior to european's arrival.  Most indians were either nomadics or semi-nomadics. 

Did you find some archelogical evidence attesting to land property like a form of deeds?  Something similar to what Europeans used?  If so, please share it, it'll be an interesting read.

Do you actually have any proof for this contention?  It seems rather unlikely.  I sincerely doubt that "most Indians were nomadic", since nomadic cultures don't have large populations and would be quickly dwarfed by those dwelling in villages or cities. We do know that many peoples were sedentary and lived in houses.  Presumably some houses were owned by individuals or families.  It seems unlikely that any person in the tribe could live in any house at any given time.

But as a matter of fact I do have a link purporting evidence of people owning property prior to the Europeans.  http://tarlton.law.utexas.edu/exhibits/aztec/aztec_property.html

[Admiral Yi]

Do you not see he's talking specifically about land ownership?

[Tamas]

According to you there is nothing for them to be concerned about. If 51% of the Donetsk region wants to join Russia, they should be allowed. Why is that a concern if self-determination is all that matters? If then 51% of some smaller portion wants to be part of the Ukraine, then THAT should be ok as well. And if 51%  of some subset of THAT group wants to go back to Russia, no problem. Repeat over and over until you cannot get your magic number larger than a county size.

If Donetsk, or Crimea, or wherever wants to join Russia, they absolutely should be allowed (note I never endorsed 50%+1).

But, of course, it has to be done democratically.  Which means a free and fair debate and exchange of views.  It means international observers.  It means an election free of violence and intimidation.

Precisely none of which took place during the Crimea "referendum" - hell the status quo wasn't even on the ballot!

I have to jump in here despite several pages unread.

Crimea and such are tip of the iceberg, even if we just concentrate on Russian minorities living en-block in other countries. If you really start to apply the noble idea of national self-determination across Europe, you would quickly find that it is a farce. Why? Because it supposed to define the borders we have today, but if you started applying it in earnest, few current borders would remain as where they are now.

The Balkan political borders cut into ethnicity borders left and right.

Also there are still much more than a million Hungarians on the other side of the Hungarian border, that is more than 10% of the world's Hungarian population as a whole. Heck, there is like a 300 000 - 400 000 (IIRC) enclave of them deep in today's Romania, with practically zero percent Romanian population in their area.

Nationstates are a joke. These states have borders where their expansions and wars drew them, and then they proceeded to declare these borders as ethnically/nationally correct, AFTER other organising factors like God-given rights of sovereigns stopped having tractions. Some of them managed to assimilate and/or drive away/massacre the other ethnicities but a lot hasn't.

It is just tribalism. It has no deeper roots than the human instinct to belong to a tribe and to define yourself against something. It is by no means a more stable or righteous organising principle of states than religion or sovereignty was. In fact while does still had their meaning, ethnicity was largely irrelevant.

Not to mention that I am getting the feeling that most Scottish yes votes are eyeing the hopeful bigger welfare checks out of the grabbed North Sea oil money.

[mongers]

According to you there is nothing for them to be concerned about. If 51% of the Donetsk region wants to join Russia, they should be allowed. Why is that a concern if self-determination is all that matters? If then 51% of some smaller portion wants to be part of the Ukraine, then THAT should be ok as well. And if 51%  of some subset of THAT group wants to go back to Russia, no problem. Repeat over and over until you cannot get your magic number larger than a county size.

If Donetsk, or Crimea, or wherever wants to join Russia, they absolutely should be allowed (note I never endorsed 50%+1).

But, of course, it has to be done democratically.  Which means a free and fair debate and exchange of views.  It means international observers.  It means an election free of violence and intimidation.

Precisely none of which took place during the Crimea "referendum" - hell the status quo wasn't even on the ballot!

I have to jump in here despite several pages unread.

Crimea and such are tip of the iceberg, even if we just concentrate on Russian minorities living en-block in other countries. If you really start to apply the noble idea of national self-determination across Europe, you would quickly find that it is a farce. Why? Because it supposed to define the borders we have today, but if you started applying it in earnest, few current borders would remain as where they are now.

The Balkan political borders cut into ethnicity borders left and right.

Also there are still much more than a million Hungarians on the other side of the Hungarian border, that is more than 10% of the world's Hungarian population as a whole. Heck, there is like a 300 000 - 400 000 (IIRC) enclave of them deep in today's Romania, with practically zero percent Romanian population in their area.

Nationstates are a joke. These states have borders where their expansions and wars drew them, and then they proceeded to declare these borders as ethnically/nationally correct, AFTER other organising factors like God-given rights of sovereigns stopped having tractions. Some of them managed to assimilate and/or drive away/massacre the other ethnicities but a lot hasn't.

It is just tribalism. It has no deeper roots than the human instinct to belong to a tribe and to define yourself against something. It is by no means a more stable or righteous organising principle of states than religion or sovereignty was. In fact while does still had their meaning, ethnicity was largely irrelevant.

Not to mention that I am getting the feeling that most Scottish yes votes are eyeing the hopeful bigger welfare checks out of the grabbed North Sea oil money.

Ironic that you criticize the notion of nation states and yet finish off with a gross stereotype of another people, that sort of thing helps to set peoples apart from each other too.

[Tamas]

Well yes that was completely beside my main point, although I don't see how stereotypes are an argument for the significance of nation states. If you want to fight stereotypes, dividing the continent into nation states is the worst fuckin' idea.

And I am merely referencing the earlier quoted Scottish Labour argument that people should vote yes to drive low taxes and low welfare out and back to England.

[Malthus]

What happened between the Iroquois and the Huron could, without exageration, be described as a "war of extermination". Certainly, thousands were killed or captured, not just "a brave or two". These were major wars with tens of thousands of combatants in which whole peoples were destroyed or driven off of their lands.

You are heavily romanticizing native north americans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaver_Wars

You're making this hard on me, aren't you?  You want me to keep going off topic?
Fine.  Look at the date: post-European colonization.  Look at the name.  Why was this animal so precious now?

The available evidence shows that the situation was no different pre-colonial contact.

Within the last decade, a "mega village" was discovered north of Toronto, known (today) as "Mantle". The reason for this massive village's existence?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/10/mantle-site-ancient-new-york-canada-lake-ontario_n_1661911.html

"Historically, we know that the Huron and the Iroquois were not only at odds, they were mortal enemies," Williamson said in the documentary.


In the period before Mantle there is evidence of widespread warfare throughout southern Ontario and New York as well as parts of Michigan and Quebec, a period known as "the dark times." Human remains from that period show evidence of scalping and torture.


Mantle, with its large size and palisade defense, may have discouraged this type of warfare, making an attack risky. Other settlements in southwest Ontario were getting larger and sites in New York were clustering together, suggesting that they too were becoming harder to attack.


Birch compares the situation at Mantle and other sites to what happened after World War II, with the formation of the United Nations and NATO, institutions that discouraged warfare, allowing for trade and cultural interaction.


Williamson noted that, sadly, with the arrival of Europeans, this peace did not last, with warfare intensifying in the 17th century. "When Europeans arrive the whole thing is re-fired over economic reasons related to the fur trade," he said in the interview.

In summary, the known history of this region is as follows:

(1) a purely pre-Columbian period of anarchic, widespread warfare known to acheologists as the  "the dark times." in which "Human remains from that period show evidence of scalping and torture". Note: this was pre-Columbian. Europeans had fuck-all to do with it.

(2) The formation, in response, of 'mega-villages' like "Mantle". Warfare dies down, Indian polities get much larger.

(3) This brief period of peace is disrupted by European arrival and new economic and political pressures, leading to the Beaver Wars.

See the difference having some actual, you know, knowledge of the history and archeology makes? 

[Malthus]

There was nothing about their culture that was any different from other cultures around the world in that particular stage of social evolution.

They were nomads and semi-nomads.  That makes it easier on the land than permanent settlement.
They also had a bigger territory for less people, compared to say, the Middle East at the time of ancient Egypt and the Hittite Empire.
They did not have wheels nor horses, wich made construction of stone roads not widely popular in North America.
The climate being what it is for many part of our countries, it's likely they would have waged war in winter.  Compared to countries with barely no winter, that means less frequent wars.

The accurate portrayal of north american indian is about halfway between the myth of the noble savage and the bloodthirsty barabarians you and Malthus are trying to portray.  Denying that European arrival had any effect on their society is silly. Both groups learned a lot from each other, for better or for worst.

What has changed, as evidenced by the beaver wars, was territorial domination for economic resources, instead of food&settlement.  And land trading by the Iroquois, English style, in the name of their "allies" and conquered tribes.  Individual possession of land was unknown to them, pre-european contact.

There is exactly zero evidence of this.

No-one is denying that European contact had no effect on their society. But your portrait of that society is not accurate.

The vast majority of Native Americans were not "nomads", but village-dwelling agriculturalists. Villages did move locations when immediate local resources played out, but were not by any stretch of the imagination "nomadic or semi-nomadic". They had defined territories, and warfare over territory was common. How individual Natives felt about private property is not known with any certainly, but if later examples are any guide, they certainly did not lack any notion of property. 

Far from portraying them as "bloodthirsty savages", I'm portraying them as similar to other tribal, agricultiural peoples worldwide - pretty well all of whom engage in warfare over territory. The claims that the native Americans were somehow totally different, in the face of all the copious evidence to the contrary, is the product of decades of myth-making and romanticism.