More Spin off... Survival of The Fittest

[phee]

From the discussion of the post... we got on the subject of Native Americans...

This quote:

Really? Shocked to hear those comments from a Darwinist? The reality is...if they were better armed, they probably would have held the invading U.S. Army off. Also, if their bodies had more of the right antibodies, they wouldn't have died from the many illnesses that the Europeans brought over. Like it or not, the society that was more fit for survival (at the time) won out.

In nature, when animals become sick or injured, what happens to them?

Last I checked those animals are killed and eaten by their predators.

But this is completely off-topic and could be spun into an entirely new thread.

Sounds a bit like a justification for racism to me... or at the very least cultural superiority... kind of like saying that weapons (both biological and physical) determine if a culture is worth existing....

Thoughts?

[n0Mad]

One word: Zulu. The British had them out-gunned (considering all the Zulus had were spears, bows, and arrows), but they couldn't get their ammo cases open so the hundreds of Zulus swarmed the few score of British and defeated them. Technology won't win a war when you can't use it.

Another word: small pox blankets. Okay, so that's three words, and I can't remember if it was small pox or not. But the movie "Patriot" mentioned it, as did the video game "Neverwinter Nights". Colonials gave blankets to Natives as a "friendly gesture" that were infected with small pox to kill them off. So are the Natives a weaker race because they couldn't fight the disease? Hell no. The plague nearly wiped out Europe so we turned around and used it as a weapon knowing its effectiveness.

[phee]

One word:  Zulu.  The British had them out-gunned (considering all the Zulus had were spears, bows, and arrows), but they couldn't get their ammo cases open so the hundreds of Zulus swarmed the few score of British and defeated them.  Technology won't win a war when you can't use it.

Another word:  small pox blankets.  Okay, so that's three words, and I can't remember if it was small pox or not.  But the movie "Patriot" mentioned it, as did the video game "Neverwinter Nights".  Colonials gave blankets to Natives as a "friendly gesture" that were infected with small pox to kill them off.  So are the Natives a weaker race because they couldn't fight the disease?  Hell no.  The plague nearly wiped out Europe so we turned around and used it as a weapon knowing its effectiveness.

Very interesting

[n0Mad]

"Zulu" is a movie by the way about the aforementioned Zulu war. It's actually quite good. I wasn't fond of the sequel "Zulu Dawn" however, or the TV series "Shaka Zulu". (All of which are true stories, and all of which my dad has on VHS. He's weird that way.)

[phee]

Do you think that the above quoted statement at the beginning of the thread is racist?

[The_Dark]

We learned that trick from the Arabs. See, the Black Plague hit all of Europe at almost the exact same time. it spread outward from ports of call... ports of call for Arab trading ships. Historical records have been found over the years that hve proven that the black plauge was brought to Europe by the Arab invaders to kill off the locals.

That doesn't make any of it right.. jsut saying.

Anyway... is Survival of the fittest racism? I don't know. Evolution is survival of the fittest.. it's just how nature works. or so Darwinist and Evolutionists claim. It just doesn't jive with thier social sensabilitys too well.

[n0Mad]

If it's not, then the speaker would have to agree that if a group of other raced people came up to him with guns and forced him to do stuff, then he'd have to comply because they are better fit for survival than he.

If that situation did occur and he disagreed that he'd have to comply based upon his logic, then I suppose the statement would be racist.

If any of that makes any sense. It's two hours past my bedtime and I'm getting drowsy so my brain may have already shut off.

[Guest Game of Chance]

Its kinda like saying that I must be a gazelle-racist because I know that Lions eat them.

[Guest Game of Chance]

If it's not, then the speaker would have to agree that if a group of other raced people came up to him with guns and forced him to do stuff, then he'd have to comply because they are better fit for survival than he.

If that situation did occur and he disagreed that he'd have to comply based upon his logic, then I suppose the statement would be racist.

If any of that makes any sense.  It's two hours past my bedtime and I'm getting drowsy so my brain may have already shut off.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would definitely (not happily agree). Unless I could, through clever and cunning (also survival skills), overcome my oppressors.

[phee]

Its kinda like saying that I must be a gazelle-racist because I know that Lions eat them.

That would be like saying that Native Americans are a different species?

[Guest Game of Chance]

lol...how about a dinosaur racist because they are extinct?

[Guest Game of Chance]

That would be like saying that Native Americans are a different species?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They were about as suited for combat against the invading U.S. Army and the foreign diseases brought by the Europeans as a gazelle would be against a lion.

[phee]

They were about as suited for combat against the invading U.S. Army and the foreign diseases brought by the Europeans as a gazelle would be against a lion.

So you are saying that they are "Like" a different species

[Onyx]

"Like it or not, the society that was more fit for survival (at the time) won out. "

I expect a higher standard in humans than lower animals. We usually don't eat our own young or kill each other for food, and at least have some control of our sexuality and reproduction.

The Native Americans at the time generally showed more civilized behavior than the invading white races (with some notable exceptions, but generally).

I don't consider behaving like animals and nearly wiping out another race an admirable thing or that they were deserving of "victory". Reminds me of another few genocidal groups across the waters.

Sometimes I can not believe the incredible cruelty the human race can be capable of.

[Guest Game of Chance]

No I'm saying that their society had not evolved at the same pace as the invading army. Whether its racist or not...who knows? Nature is racist?

[Guest Game of Chance]

"Like it or not, the society that was more fit for survival (at the time) won out. "

I expect a higher standard in humans than lower animals.  We usually don't eat our own young or kill each other for food, and at least have some control of our sexuality and reproduction. 

The Native Americans at the time generally showed more civilized behavior than the invading white races (with some notable exceptions, but generally).

I don't consider behaving like animals and nearly wiping out another race an admirable thing or that they were deserving of "victory".  Reminds me of another few genocidal groups across the waters.

Sometimes I can not believe the incredible cruelty the human race can be capable of.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't remember anything about eating our own young in the post. Is it possible that Nature decided that it was time for a population reduction? These things do happen from time to time. Man's greatest predator is himself.

Also, their were/are entire societies whose entire economy is war-based. Increased food and materials production is a direct result of preparation for war. The Apaches were a great example of this. Some of the modern-day Afghan warlords would equally qualify. I would also argue that the present U.S. Administration is no different. Whether this is right or wrong...who is to say? It is what it is.

[Onyx]

No I'm saying that their society had not evolved at the same pace as the invading army.  Whether its racist or not...who knows?  Nature is racist?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, this is true that they had not evolved technologically at the same pace, but who were the real savages?

I expect more than animalistic behavior from sentient beings (and of course I am usually disappointed).

Argh - I don't have enough caffeine running through my veins to be contemplating man's inhumanity to man.

[Guest Game of Chance]

Yes, this is true that they had not evolved technologically at the same pace, but who were the real savages? 

I expect more than animalistic behavior from sentient beings (and of course I am usually disappointed).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nature is the way it is. Also, are you so sure that other animals besides humans are not sentient?

[Onyx]

Nature is the way it is.  Also, are you so sure that other animals besides humans are not sentient?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

ERrrr... Ouch! My brain.

OK, I give up :grin

Where's my coffeeeeee!!!

[Guest Game of Chance]

ERrrr...  Ouch!  My brain.

OK, I give up  :grin

Where's my coffeeeeee!!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

lol...

I guess its not really a question of ethics...simply the way of the Universe. If that makes sense.

[phee]

No I'm saying that their society had not evolved at the same pace as the invading army.  Whether its racist or not...who knows?  Nature is racist?

Nature is specieist... Not racist

You are comparing cultures of humans with different species... gazelle don't eat other gazelle... and to my knowlege lions don't eat other lions... so in essence you are saying that simply the fact that the race of native americans didn't have small pox ammunity and fire power comperable to europe... that they are somehow like a different species (gazelle/prey) to europe (lion/predator)... A lion cannot help being a lion, and a gazelle can't help being a gazelle... so you are saying that Native Americans are naturally prey to Europe dispite both being human... that is racist... saying that one race "naturally" is inclined to destroy and dominate another...

[Guest Game of Chance]

Nature is specieist... Not racist...

saying that one race "naturally" is inclined to destroy and dominate another...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not necessarily race...but the level of advancement of the society determined which would become the oppressor and which would be the oppressed.

Again...its not an ethical thing at all, its just how it worked out. Someday another society may rise and dominate the current ruling (Western) empire. Or...we might just all die off and another species will come in our place.

[pharoh]

Being one who follows native american spirituality, and also living in Custers home town, I really don't have anything positive to say about this issue. Custer was an butcher and a walking contridiction. The europeons (spelled wrong on purpose) were wrong in what they did, and whatever the case may be, survival of the fittest is a bunch of crap.

[phee]

Survival of the fittest is a part of nature this is true...

But we are not talking about nature... we are talking about a group of people and the argument has been made that Europian culture had no choice but to destroy Native American culture because it was somehow "better/fitter/stronger" and that to me does sound like a question of ethics... The metaphore was brought up between lions and gazelles... I don't think that this is accurate, this is saying comparing a biological imperative for lions to seek food, to a culture of humans destoying another culture of humans... if the metaphore stands then it is saying that Europians are naturally disposed to destroy Native Americans... this is Racist

[The_Dark]

Lions and Gazells are a poor comparrison, but I am not sure what is a good one either. Perhaps Cro-magnon man and Neanderthals. Native Americans are genetically different than Europeans.

Native Americans were a stone age people. With a few exceptions they did not use metals for more than ornaments. Their tools were made of bone and stone. They were also very war like. It's down played a lot now days, but they did fight and kill each other on a regular basis. The farther west one went, the more violent these people got. There was even a tribe that were cannibals, though the extent of the cannabalism is unknown at this time.

The peoples that came across the pond were more advanced. They had technologys that the natives had never even dreamed of. They had horses and guns. (Horses are not native to the Americas) They worked metal into fantastic tools. They had Steel. The had building techniques like the natives had never seen.

For a while, the two peoples coexisted. Just like the Neanderthals and the Cro-magnon man. After a while the pale faces grew in number and it was obvious they were not going to leave. The Natives tried to adopt some of the new ways, but mostly clung to thier traditions. People just dont like change. The two peoples started to fight. We all know how that turned out.

Was it racists? Yeah.

Was it nature doing it's thing? I think so.

Personally, I think what happened was a horrible blight on the history of the human race. Does that change anything? No. Do I feel guilty over it? Hell No.

It'd done. It's over. Except for reperations and special priviladges given to the natives.