Looking for Pre-Colombian Southern Californian His

Wow this thread really took off.  I didn't get a chance to read all the posts and will come back to them later, but for now I'd like to throw in my two cents.  First off, in a historic sense I am completely ignorant and my interest in the Native Americans comes more from an environmental perspective.  Rather than speculate on what historically happened [since many arguments can be drawn from that process (as is shown in this thread) without any conclusive knowledge being gained.  " They can be turned on their head with the next discovery, or evidence that a previously accepted theory was filtered through some politically correct lens to avoid contradicting well established theories." - lirelou], I want to learn about the native peoples' traditions since that is how much cultural knowledge is passed on.  That's why I feel sources from Native Americans themselves or people who have had close relationships with them are particularly valuable (thanks for your suggestions eaglecap).  One very good point brought up was that Native Americans had no perception of personal ownership of the land, which is what I believe allowed them to survive for so long.  I too believe that it isn't worth figuring out who's fault is who's, but I do know that Native Americans (and many cultures around the world) have been able to live sustainably off the land for thousands of years, but in the span of a few hundreds years of Western influence many resources have become scarce and much of the local flora and fauna have been devastated.  That's what I intially meant by "lost heritage" and I'm trying to get some of that precious commodity back. 

Applebuilder, in re: "One very good point brought up was that Native Americans had no perception of personal ownership of the land, which is what I believe allowed them to survive for so long."

That must be qualified. They certainly had a clear concept of private property, i.e. horses, weapons, tools, clothing, ceremonial regalia, etc.  They also had clear concepts of communal property, both clan and tribal. They also had concepts of shared areas between clans and tribes, such as hunting grounds that some could use, and others could not.  So "no perception of personal ownership of the land" in only correct in the individual private ownership sense.

As to:  "but once the fighting commenced the natives began to yell "No more!" in reaction to the European brutality because the idea of genocide was so alien to them." You may be reading too much into that. Tribes did fight wars of annihilation against weak neighbors. Look at the history of the Delaware tribe, who came close to annihilation at the hands of their enemies.

 

Edited by lirelou - 16-Jun-2009 at 19:00

lirelou:   Pinguino, always the same old drum beat. The Europeans had as much right to immigrate to America as the pre-historic North Asians/Siberians did. Or, do you have a copy of "Adam's Will" containing a clause that says otherwise?

Balooney.

pinguin:

Originally posted by pinguin Originally posted by drgonzaga ...  Anyway if you are so guilt struck about it, why not take a Mapuche out to dinner? ....   No matter most of my relatives and ancestors are of Iberian origins, I do have Mapuche friends, co-workers and students. Some of my in-laws are of that origin as well. Even more, I am studying Mapudungun.  So, please, restrain yourself of using such a bad taste sense of humor. OK?

Originally posted by pinguin Exactly. While living under the military regime of Pinochet I discover how important the right adjectives are. You know, the gorillas didn't like to talk about a military coup (golpe). They preffered to call it a "military declaration"  (pronunciamiento militar). Well, while they were in power, nobody spoke about "coups" in Chile. It was just a "declaration". When democracy return and the criminals started to be sent to jail, people finally named it like it was: A COUP.   I know centuries could pass., but finally the world and the official historians will use the right terms to talk about the INVASION of the Americas and the Robbery of the lands.

Whatever one want to call it, evaluation or judgement it was still an invasion from the Europeans into the lands of the Native Americans. If it was not an invasion then we must rename all other invasions in history to. Maybe Hitlers invasion of the Soviet was just an exploratory expedition?

Originally posted by drgonzaga [ ...That you remain at war with near contemporary events is clear from your reach for the "right adjectives", but then for every gorilla there was a countebalancing communist dog; yet, despite all of this colorful verbiage the fact remains that "the nature of the Chilean military as an institution is deeply rooted in Chile's tradition and history". And here a read of the full context of the above quoted passage is in order:   http://www.geocities.com/ajhrhodes/doc-two.htm   as well as an analysis of the near past in terms of "political science":   http://lasa.international.pitt.edu/LASA98/CFuentes.pdf   It is of historical interest that rather than employing the classic terminology of the "golpe de estado" (the Napoleonic coup d'etat), the Chilean military turned to early revolutionary Spain and the Grito de Riego, which coined the term Pronunciamiento Militar, whose intent was to shape government as a projection of the national will through the support of political forces and public opinion [no matter how hard one tries it is hard to escape the mind set of 19th century Liberalism within the Chilean military as an institution]. Such certainly brings forth a reason as to why the 1980 Constitution continued to haunt Chile.   An amplification through the earlier citation is in order:   http://www.geocities.com/ajhrhodes/doc-three.htm   The Pronunciamiento did not materialize out of thin air, however, and can be viewed as the formal response of the military as an institution to the call for the restoration of order made by the Chilean Chamber of Deputies on 22 August 1973 to the military ministers of the government to secure "la orden constitucional"!   To blame all on Pinochet is to turn a blind eye to the actual historical and social forces in tension within Chile and its institutions. Similarly, to call the advent of the European onto the Western Hemisphere, an invasion and an act of robbery, says nothing of the forces and institution at play nor can explain the true roots of American hemispheric identity. It may make some fell good but such verbiage carries nothing of relevance, specially if one wishes to understand the distinct differences in the societies that now constitute the Americas.