>Pat Crowe and I have different impressions of Native North America.
>[...]
>
>The paleolithic and neolithic peoples of America were a lot like
>the peoples of similar cultures elsewhere in the world.
[...]
>Finding food and shelter, making clothes and staying alive were the
>main priorities.
[...]
> In the Southwest there were
>some severe droughts and some wars did result. But such times were
>the exception rather than the rule.
[...]
> The Arctic and Sub-Artic people
>were peaceful and still are. So were the people of the Columbia
>Plateau. [...]
>
>The Great Basin was a rather barren desert and people there were
>hungry and irritable, but there were not wars, [...]
>
>Along the Northwest Coast was a culture unique in the world. The
>society was not as egalitarian as other places and women were
>somewhat subjugated. While there were undoubtedly some slave
>raids, they probably didn't compare to European wars. The people
>were fabulously wealthy and had rituals for shaming one another.
>Perhaps the ritual shaming was a replacement for more violent
>pursuits.
I have chopped out an awful lot, and do hope not to take anything
out of context. I see a basic contradiction running through
Krista's explanation, and I'm interested in what she, and others
think of my thoughts on it. Be aware that I am not well educated
on this subject and make no pretense at any *real* knowledge of
it on a broad or academic scale.
In more than one place Krista indicates that hard times cause
warlike attitudes among people. Yet in another place she points
out that people very busy with just staying alive are not warlike.
There are only two of the many civilizations Krista discussed that
I have any background in, the Arctic/Sub-Arctic and the Pacific
Northwest. I'm in total agreement that Arctic/Sub-Arctic people
tended to be peaceful. My thoughts on that are basically they
didn't have time to make war because staying alive was a full time
activity (it still is!). My understanding of the Pacific
Northwest is that is was just the opposite. As Krista says, they
were very wealthy and spent very little time tending to the
necessities of staying alive. They were also very much into war
for the sake of war. Raiding other villages was common practice,
though slaves, not killing, was the purpose. The culture was
based on it. This type of culture extended from Oregon right
up through the Alaskan panhandle. Many of the first European
explorers were not met with a thanksgiving greating as were
those on the Atlantic coast! There seemed to be a divison
where the more warlike Indian tribes, and the more peaceful
Aleut and Yupik peoples geographically met, in the relative
area of Cook Inlet, where Anchorage is now.
My personal conclusions from all this is that aboriginal people
in North America are just about exactly like people from every
where else. Human beings tend to be warlike when times make
them strong and healthy, and peaceful when they are weak and
hungry. Some cultures grew and developed around peace, and
some around war.
I don't think the difference had much at all to do with what
people they were, or which gene pool they came from, but more
like if it was necessary or useful for survival.
>Conclusion: Native Americans north of Mexico tended to be
> peaceful most of the time. European invasion and
> expansion severely changed their lives and cultures.
I think "Native Americans north of Mexico" is just too broad a
group to generalize about in terms of how peaceful or warlike
they were. They were both as far as I know.
My experience is a bit limited though. Last month I was
discussing this very subject with a fellow who is Quinalt Indian
from the West coast. A relatively peaceful guy, who said his
ancestors were not. I can personally vouch for the peaceful
culture of Eskimo people in Alaska...
Floyd