|
Post by Kukul-Kan on Mar 9, 2004 14:52:48 GMT -5
“The Noble Savage”, by Charles Dickens.To come to the point at once, I beg to say that I have not the least belief in the Noble Savage. I consider him a prodigious nuisance, and an enormous superstition. His calling rum fire- water, and me a pale face, wholly fail to reconcile me to him. I don't care what he calls me. I call him a savage, and I call a savage a something highly desirable to be civilised off the face of the earth. I think a mere gent (which I take to be the lowest form of civilisation) better than a howling, whistling, clucking, stamping, jumping, tearing savage. …<br> It is not the miserable nature of the noble savage that is the new thing; it is the whimpering over him with maudlin admiration, and the affecting to regret him, and the drawing of any comparison of advantage between the blemishes of civilisation and the tenor of his swinish life. There may have been a change now and then in those diseased absurdities, but there is none in him. …. To conclude as I began. My position is, that if we have anything to learn from the Noble Savage, it is what to avoid. His virtues are a fable; his happiness is a delusion; his nobility, nonsense. The complete reading: www.readbookonline.net/readOnLine/2529/Ultimately the “Noble Savage” myth is an European invention product of Rousseau and the encyclopedists. “Il Barone Rampante(The baron in the trees)” by Italo Calvino makes a pretty good allegory and criticism of this myth by taking it to the extreme.
|
|
Scoob
Full Member
Posts: 157
|
Post by Scoob on Mar 9, 2004 19:54:37 GMT -5
Scoob >>Robert Graves wrote quite a bit relating African religion to European paganism. It's in his book "The Greek Myths." I was thinking about Mr.Graves all the time when read the Yoruba site. The man was a genius!! He was totally right! Don`t haste to travel back in time to see how pagan Europeans were like, most of pagan inheritance I think has survived to this very day. Have you visited my site? Graves' work is considered highly speculative. I'm not sure how right he was about many things he said - but I find his concept of mythical substrata very interesting. His method is very un-scientific, and that is why he ignored by the academic community.
|
|
|
Post by Tecumseh on Mar 9, 2004 20:14:42 GMT -5
Oops, that was over my head... Before my time ;D
Either way, you seem like a good dude, level-headed, seeing as how you were the only one who didn't respond out of anger.
|
|
|
Post by Tecumseh on Mar 9, 2004 20:26:18 GMT -5
ROFL! So, please Tecumshe, tell us what do you want the white people to do, so that you will stop whinning? You have it all wrong, we're having a discussion on racism, I'm just participating. In real life, I have a few white friends, I try to respect everyone equally. hmmmm Do we get per capita? ;D
|
|
|
Post by Tecumseh on Mar 9, 2004 20:31:54 GMT -5
“The Noble Savage”, by Charles Dickens.To come to the point at once, I beg to say that I have not the least belief in the Noble Savage. I consider him a prodigious nuisance, and an enormous superstition. His calling rum fire- water, and me a pale face, wholly fail to reconcile me to him. I don't care what he calls me. I call him a savage, and I call a savage a something highly desirable to be civilised off the face of the earth. I think a mere gent (which I take to be the lowest form of civilisation) better than a howling, whistling, clucking, stamping, jumping, tearing savage. …<br> It is not the miserable nature of the noble savage that is the new thing; it is the whimpering over him with maudlin admiration, and the affecting to regret him, and the drawing of any comparison of advantage between the blemishes of civilisation and the tenor of his swinish life. There may have been a change now and then in those diseased absurdities, but there is none in him. …. To conclude as I began. My position is, that if we have anything to learn from the Noble Savage, it is what to avoid. His virtues are a fable; his happiness is a delusion; his nobility, nonsense. The complete reading: www.readbookonline.net/readOnLine/2529/Ultimately the “Noble Savage” myth is an European invention product of Rousseau and the encyclopedists. “Il Barone Rampante(The baron in the trees)” by Italo Calvino makes a pretty good allegory and criticism of this myth by taking it to the extreme. What a racist piece of fiction. I suggest you pay Mr Dickens no mind, I am peaceful, and I ask god to forgive you, and your ancestors. We are the future of the Americas, it is inevitable.
|
|
|
Post by Tecumseh on Mar 9, 2004 20:53:40 GMT -5
Yes, as we are all well aware John Wayne portrayed "Indians" as noble beings. Wrong. We have always gotten the shaft in Hollywood. Did you happen to catch the American Grammy's? There is a petition going around with about 20,000+ signatures, boycotting OutKast because of Andre 3000's stereotypical portrayal of Native Americans. We don't like that image, either. We are and always have been a peaceful people, it has been exagerated by your people, who often like to romanticize history. Such is the case with the American holiday; Thanksgiving. The Wampanoags assited the Pilgrims, and in return the Pilgrims (like other Euros) killed them. Of course, Anglo-Saxons claim this as a day of peace, a day of gratitude, even though the origins of the celebration sing a different tune... Besides, "The only good Indian is a dead Indian," or so the media says...
Exactly! It's not like Nahuatl is a dead language, however, there is much we will never know about the Mexica, because of the destruction your people brought!
|
|
|
Post by Kukul-Kan on Mar 10, 2004 7:25:15 GMT -5
Don’t be so dense this is a message board not a war. I’m sure God’s more busy attending real problems than paying attention to me. Fortunately Indians here are much less politicized than in the US. They don’t whine that much. As for Dickens and Twain they were men of their time not racists. It’s like the idiots who ban “Huck Finn” from the libraries because the book is supposedly racist. Imagine if Twain or Hemmingway saw that.
Some tribes were peaceful some weren’t. Mesoamericans as whole weren’t particularly inclined to peace. The only notable exception were the Toltecs who had a mercantile empire based on commerce not on war, and when they had to go to war they did it with wooden swords so they didn’t hurt the enemies. As I said they were the exception not the rule.
By the way neither White Americans nor Europeans are my people.
Classic Náhuatl is mostly spoken by White and Mestizo scholars because they are the ones who actually study the ancient Aztec culture. Modern Nahuas, the descendants of the Aztecs and nahuatlized peoples, speak vulgar Náhuatl. By the way we will never know the wisdom of tribes like the Coluacans because the Aztecs destroyed their codexes. It was a war of conquest, and the Aztecs practiced before the Spaniards even arrived.
By the way I believe you’re responsible for your own actions not for your ancestors’. The Conquistadors and their Indian allies were warriors who fought other warriors. There’s no excuse to that. War is part of the human nature and the Aztecs who were once conquerors happened to be conquered that time.
|
|
|
Post by Tecumseh on Mar 10, 2004 12:53:18 GMT -5
Don’t be so dense this is a message board not a war. I’m sure God’s more busy attending real problems than paying attention to me. If that's the case: Why did you post it to begin with? It's not like I haven't heard similar rhetoric in person, it's empty and baseless. Huckleberry Finn is a work of fiction, this is no different. It shows how ignorant even educated men of that era were. That would be like me writing an essay, proclaiming all white men to be pale, pink, ghost-like people; I've observed this with my eyes -- ignorance is a two way street. Native Americans can be distinguished not only physically, but also by our distinctly different cultures. Is that so? You said differently, here: Nahuatl is all over Mexico, an estimated 35% of the Spanish you speak has Nahuatl origins, e.g., "zacate" "mitote" "mecate" "elote" "tocayo" "popote" "guajolote" etc.
|
|
|
Post by Kukul-Kan on Mar 10, 2004 18:06:03 GMT -5
Because by coming to these forums you have the chance to discuss topics you rarely do in real life like anthropology, genetics, history etc. You’re the one who has passed from unfounded argument to unfounded argument. First the Mesoamericans not having mass slavery, then Indians’ being peaceful, the supposed Black Conquistador who was nothing but a slave, and your continues complaining about the Spanish Conquest. It was a war between soldiers so there’s not excuse to it. The ones who started the “tradition” of burning other peoples’ codexes were the Aztecs to begin with. After they had conquered Xochimilco, Chalco and Azcapotzalco they burnt all these city-states codexes and even their own because in them the Aztecs were depicted as a barbaric tribe of little importance who arrived to the already civilized valley of Mexico. That happened one century before the Spaniards came to America. Mark Twain was in touch with rural southern Blacks in his youth so I don’t see how writing about them and the language everybody used before American political correctness could be racist. Not even smart Blacks think it’s racist: The great black novelist Ralph Ellison, too, noted how Twain allows Jim " dignity and human capacity" to emerge in the novel.
"Huckleberry Finn knew, as did Mark Twain [Ellison wrote], that Jim was not only a slave but a human being [and] a symbol of humanity . . . and in freeing Jim, Huck makes a bid to free himself of the conventionalized evil taken for civilization by the town" -- in other words, of the abomination of slavery itself.salwen.com/mtrace.htmlHmm that’s my ancestry not my Nation or my ethnic/cultural affiliation, which is Mexican. My Great grandpa was German and Germans were his people not mine. I was born in Mexico and raised within a Mexican cultural environment. The Latin American approach to race, ethnicity, ancestry and nation is rather different from Americans’. Náhuatl is ultimately in most western languages if you want to get extreme (Chocolate, tomato, avocado, coyote, cocoa etc). Plus in Yucatán Náhuatl has hardly the same influence it has in central Mexico. Mayan derived words such as tuch(bellybutton), zoch(owl), tauch(purple), kan (serpent) etc are by far more common there. Moreover, once again you’re pulling information out of nowhere and dismissing the real points.
|
|
|
Post by Tecumseh on Mar 10, 2004 22:51:52 GMT -5
Because by coming to these forums you have the chance to discuss topics you rarely do in real life like anthropology, genetics, history etc. You’re the one who has passed from unfounded argument to unfounded argument. That explains the Mark Twain ho-hum (not really). I would hardly call Aztec slavery massive in comparison to Euro-American slavery; sorry, 10,000 doesn't compare to 10's of millions. Actually, he was free. Despite your attempt to get technical; Juan Garrido was a black conquistador, and is described as such in the history books. www.viaccess.net/~crucian/caron.htmwww.elboricua.com/AfroBorinquen_Culture.htmlNative Americans (for the most part) were peaceful, you have yet to refute this; your little Mark Twain piece does not negate this. However, you've beaten the Mesoamerican topic to death. That's one branch, besides, I already conceded that point. Right, so the Spaniards followed an Aztec ritual? I wasn't addressing the usage of, "nigger" throughout the novel, I wasspeaking on the, Noble Savage bit -- I'm still not sure why you posted it in the first place. It merely perpetuates stereotypes, not to mention it's from a NOVEL! Smart blacks? I guess most blacks are anything but smart to you? [/i][/quote] I could really care-less, as I have no objection to Mark Twain's constant usage ofthe word ("nigger") ; it was how people spoke, then. Stop trying to separate the U.S. and Mexico, I'm no patriot. Technically, you're Euro-Mexican. The Mexican approach may be differ from elsewhere, but you're internationally known as Caucasian. Um, there wasn't a point.
|
|
|
Post by Tecumseh on Mar 11, 2004 0:38:57 GMT -5
All bs aside, I have hand it to you: You know Mexican history -- much more so than I do.
|
|
|
Post by Kukul-Kan on Mar 11, 2004 9:09:28 GMT -5
Those were only sacrificial Slaves for one festivity. They didn’t perform manual labor because they were captured warriors. Other slaves were by far more common and used in a massive scale by all Mesoamericans because as I said because they didn’t have animals.
No he was a Slave and described as such in the complete list of all the men and women(aprox. 20 women came with Cortés and Narváez.I don't remember the exact number.) that took part in the Spanish Conquest. He’s in the slave list. Plus, how do you explain he had time to seed and take care of the wheat if he had been a soldier whose job was to make guards, fight and get prepared? I won't take two lost sites, one of them afropuertorican, over the original Spanish list and description.
Plain Indians were in constant war with each other before the American cavalry seized them. But if you want to say most were peace loving people so be it.
If you want to put in those words yes. The Aztecs had burnt others’ books before the Spaniards did.
I separate them because they as different as two bordering countries can get. Something is my race, and something else is my ethnicity and nationality. By the way Euro-Mexicans as you call them were the creators of Mexico and even a man who was mixed and considered a National hero like Morelos acknowledged that. He literally wrote that White men should have the historical primacy in this new American (Mexican) nation because they had been the ones to start the war for independence nad the ones who created the intelectual idea of Mexico.
When it comes to race and pretty much other stuff like politics, religion etc the US is an exception and not a rule on the World, even though Americans tend to believe the opposite.
|
|
|
Post by Mouguias on Mar 21, 2004 8:05:58 GMT -5
The following is an enlightening report on whites enslaved by Africans during the XVI-XVIII centuries. Algerian pirates raided the coasts of Italy, Spain, France and the British Isles. www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1166720,00.html Here it comes a fragment of it: "According to one estimate, 7,000 English people were abducted between 1622-1644, many of them ships' crews and passengers. But the corsairs also landed on unguarded beaches, often at night, to snatch the unwary. Almost all the inhabitants of the village of Baltimore, in Ireland, were captured in 1631, and there were other raids in Devon and Cornwall. Reverend Devereux Spratt recorded being captured by "Algerines" while crossing the Irish sea from Cork to England in April 1641 and in 1661 Samuel Pepys wrote about two men, Captain Mootham and Mr Dawes, who were also abducted. Last year it was announced that one of the richest treasure wrecks found off the coast of Devon was a 16th-century Barbary ship en route to catch English slaves. Although the black Africans enslaved and shipped to North and South America over four centuries outnumbered Prof Davis's estimates of white European taken to Africa by 12-1, it is probable they shared the same grim conditions. "One of the things that both the public and many scholars have tended to take as given is that slavery was always racial in nature - that only blacks have been slaves. But that is not true," said the author. In comments which may stoke controversy, he said that white slavery had been minimised or ignored because academics preferred to treat Europeans as evil colonialists rather than as victims."
|
|
|
Post by Graeme on Mar 21, 2004 9:34:00 GMT -5
It is true about the Barbary pirates abducting Irish and English people for slavery. They were sold in the slave markets at Sale. What is not known is a lot of the Barbary captains were actually European, Dutchmen or Swedes working for Moorish gold.
|
|