As expected I have received a number of nasty grams from folks who are claiming that we colonizers are engaged in empty rationalization. In any event, I want to applaud those folks for running down the prior inhabitants of their existing dwelling to hand over their possessions to their descendants. Be sure to explain to them how the pool heater works before you leave.
The Aztec themselves were, by all current metrics, “colonizers”. They were foreign invaders to the tribes who lived around lake Texcoco, subjugating and slaughtering as their influence and power grew.
Good article, I’ve often wondered if people making the indigenous argument consider the logical conclusion of their thinking. It’s like can justice be served by 1) DNA testing all humans 2) cross referencing the results with archaeological data and 3) putting everyone back where they belong? It’s totally impossible and ridiculous to contemplate. As far as I’m concerned I’m indigenous to New York City and that’s good enough for me.
My take is the claim that indigenous peoples are above all is simply human egocentrism. When people claim entire mountains or regions as their "sacred" lands, it's their perspective the land, nature, Earth is subject to their gods or what have you. Everest should not be seen as a possession of tribes who inhabited the area for a blink of time in Earth's existence.
Are you certain your guide’s professorial title is “honorary?” I say this because I am an academic surrounded by actual professors who say much the same things he does and, in all honesty, in not much more sophisticated ways.
Anyway, I very much enjoyed your essay! Arguments about indigeneity are ultimately silly, irrelevant, and counter-productive, in almost all cases, to peaceful and just solutions to current problems.
One observation I would make though is that political legitimacy comes only through force. There have been plenty of societies, wholly unconcerned with individual liberty and property rights, which maintained political legitimacy for millennia. In fact, the majority of them have been like that.
Perhaps what we’re talking about is relative degrees of political “success” in the Darwinian sense. Those uniquely Western values you highlight seem competitive when competing directly with societies that don’t possess them. Anyway, just a thought.
It does. I’m a historian and no expert on prehistory, but anthropologists like Jared Diamond have pointed out that socially organized violence and coercion (but also cooperation) are endemic to the human condition. Hierarchies were always there, but then were enhanced greatly with the advent of farming and the need to defend static food-producing territory from marauders.
Political legitimacy comes only through force. Rings so true.
As I understand it, the reason human society came into being is because our remote ancestors banded together in small groups to protect themselves from other (the “other” which causes so much consternation these days) competing groups. Over time the strongest group able to exert the most force would dominate and grow. The leaders of these groups would probably be male being the strongest, hence the birth of patriarchy.
Not being a social scientist, does that make sense?
Thank you for this, excellent peace. I am in no way a champion of Westernism just for the sake of it. But I had conversation with one of my wife’s cousins last year that went along basically the same lines you’re making but much more eloquently than I did, and was basically called a white supremacist in not so direct words. Which is unequivocally not the truth. And I finished that conversation in much the same way you did with your comment; Asking her if she intended to turn her home over to the Iroquois or the Alleghewii Indians, from whom the Iroquois took the land that we love on. How far back did she intend to go? And when was she planning to sign the deed over? Or is the point just to feel bad? None of it was ever answered of course..
Well said for the most part. History is a bloody mess, and what matters is who governs well. Those who were there first whose communities flourished through right action and ahimsa — wherever there is — are worthy of honor and respect. I have lived in SMA the last three years. Stories to tell.
Very good piece - except for the outrageous dig at the magnificent game of cricket
Seriously though, cricket is one of colonialisms (UK) finest legacies. It not only promotes fitness, etiquette and standards of behaviour - it brings nations together.
Keep in mind that cricket has played a key role in preventing open warfare between India and Pakistan. The two nations regularly play each other (recently in Dubai) in Test matches and one day internationals. No other sport is able to bring these two adversaries together.
As expected I have received a number of nasty grams from folks who are claiming that we colonizers are engaged in empty rationalization. In any event, I want to applaud those folks for running down the prior inhabitants of their existing dwelling to hand over their possessions to their descendants. Be sure to explain to them how the pool heater works before you leave.
The Aztec themselves were, by all current metrics, “colonizers”. They were foreign invaders to the tribes who lived around lake Texcoco, subjugating and slaughtering as their influence and power grew.
Yep...its almost like they were humans
Personal responsibility can be a bitter pill to swallow. Far better to claim that your miserable conditions are someone else's fault.
Victimhood is a full time occupation for many
Thank you Michael. All the best
Thank you Diane. Feel free to pass on.
Lol...the Philz Coffee snark was a bullseye
Good article, I’ve often wondered if people making the indigenous argument consider the logical conclusion of their thinking. It’s like can justice be served by 1) DNA testing all humans 2) cross referencing the results with archaeological data and 3) putting everyone back where they belong? It’s totally impossible and ridiculous to contemplate. As far as I’m concerned I’m indigenous to New York City and that’s good enough for me.
My take is the claim that indigenous peoples are above all is simply human egocentrism. When people claim entire mountains or regions as their "sacred" lands, it's their perspective the land, nature, Earth is subject to their gods or what have you. Everest should not be seen as a possession of tribes who inhabited the area for a blink of time in Earth's existence.
Beautifully written. Thank you. 🙏🏽
Are you certain your guide’s professorial title is “honorary?” I say this because I am an academic surrounded by actual professors who say much the same things he does and, in all honesty, in not much more sophisticated ways.
Anyway, I very much enjoyed your essay! Arguments about indigeneity are ultimately silly, irrelevant, and counter-productive, in almost all cases, to peaceful and just solutions to current problems.
One observation I would make though is that political legitimacy comes only through force. There have been plenty of societies, wholly unconcerned with individual liberty and property rights, which maintained political legitimacy for millennia. In fact, the majority of them have been like that.
Perhaps what we’re talking about is relative degrees of political “success” in the Darwinian sense. Those uniquely Western values you highlight seem competitive when competing directly with societies that don’t possess them. Anyway, just a thought.
It does. I’m a historian and no expert on prehistory, but anthropologists like Jared Diamond have pointed out that socially organized violence and coercion (but also cooperation) are endemic to the human condition. Hierarchies were always there, but then were enhanced greatly with the advent of farming and the need to defend static food-producing territory from marauders.
Political legitimacy comes only through force. Rings so true.
As I understand it, the reason human society came into being is because our remote ancestors banded together in small groups to protect themselves from other (the “other” which causes so much consternation these days) competing groups. Over time the strongest group able to exert the most force would dominate and grow. The leaders of these groups would probably be male being the strongest, hence the birth of patriarchy.
Not being a social scientist, does that make sense?
Thank you for this, excellent peace. I am in no way a champion of Westernism just for the sake of it. But I had conversation with one of my wife’s cousins last year that went along basically the same lines you’re making but much more eloquently than I did, and was basically called a white supremacist in not so direct words. Which is unequivocally not the truth. And I finished that conversation in much the same way you did with your comment; Asking her if she intended to turn her home over to the Iroquois or the Alleghewii Indians, from whom the Iroquois took the land that we love on. How far back did she intend to go? And when was she planning to sign the deed over? Or is the point just to feel bad? None of it was ever answered of course..
Coloniality is nothing more than a social economics framework.
Well said for the most part. History is a bloody mess, and what matters is who governs well. Those who were there first whose communities flourished through right action and ahimsa — wherever there is — are worthy of honor and respect. I have lived in SMA the last three years. Stories to tell.
Good article but bad map; Namibia was a German colony - not British, Somalia was Italian
Great catch! Map was more of an illustration, but you know those Brits - always taking things that don’t belong to them :)
but they had been quite successful with it
This is exactly what I’ve been thinking about!
https://michaelmcquate841365.substack.com/p/then-iran-iran-so-far-away-part-two?r=fcyvs&utm_medium=ios
Very good piece - except for the outrageous dig at the magnificent game of cricket
Seriously though, cricket is one of colonialisms (UK) finest legacies. It not only promotes fitness, etiquette and standards of behaviour - it brings nations together.
Keep in mind that cricket has played a key role in preventing open warfare between India and Pakistan. The two nations regularly play each other (recently in Dubai) in Test matches and one day internationals. No other sport is able to bring these two adversaries together.