War Before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage

Some time ago, I read through ''War Before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage".

His book consisted of what was in my opinion, a very valid counter against the various noble savage myths that have been around for some time.

In particular, he pointed out the case of a massacre of villagers at Crow Creek, which apparently occurred before Columbus made his great voyage. And the massacre was pretty obviously done by a attacking force of another tribe.

Nice book, in my opinion.

Of course the natives of the Americas engaged in warfare, only an idiot would believe otherwise.

Oh, and a little gem of a comment I absolutely love on this topic

Before Columbus landed, didn't the Native Americans have warriors and weapons for fighting and killing each other at times? Or were they living in utopian paradise?

What's wrong with that comment?

Got a book to get for Christmas, then. Thanks OP.

Originally Posted by The Don

Some time ago, I read through ''War Before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage".

His book consisted of what was in my opinion, a very valid counter against the various noble savage myths that have been around for some time.

In particular, he pointed out the case of a massacre of villagers at Crow Creek, which apparently occurred before Columbus made his great voyage. And the massacre was pretty obviously done by a attacking force of another tribe.

Nice book, in my opinion.

Noble doesn't have to mean peaceful.

Who the hell is stupid enough to think that the Native Americans lived in peace prior to the arrival of Europeans? It's not like conflict was invented in the Old World.

Originally Posted by Ruire

Who the hell is stupid enough to think that the Native Americans lived in peace prior to the arrival of Europeans? It's not like conflict was invented in the Old World.

hollywood?

Originally Posted by Teutonic Joe

hollywood?

Apocalypto and The New World certainly didn't see things that way.

Originally Posted by Ruire

Apocalypto and The New World certainly didn't see things that way.

the people protesting the film and showing as much hatred for mel gibson for the film say otherwise

as for new world...never saw it

Originally Posted by Teutonic Joe

the people protesting the film and showing as much hatred for mel gibson for the film say otherwise

But, as you say, they have as much hatred for Gibson (everyone's favourite anti-Semite) as for the film. It may not all be down to the film's content, as the man himself. I still have enough faith in humanity to disbelief the assertion that there are people who really believe Native Americans to have been living in a utopian society.

Savage meant "wild". The term basically amounted to "noble wild man". It typically isn't meant literally, it was also used derogatorily in the Primitivism versus enlightenment arguments during the 1700's.

But anyway, the book seems to me to use the term as a basis for an argument of western superiority. There were powerful and sophisticated civilizations in the Americas, I don't see the point of the book as anything other than what I said. Tenochtitlan was the most populated city in the world before it's fall.

If you want a good book about the pre-Columbian Americas, read "1491".

Utopian compared to the , filthy societies in Europe? Sure.

Originally Posted by Shabby_Ronin

Utopian compared to the , filthy societies in Europe? Sure.

Yes, because human sacrifice is oh-so much more utopian than European moral values.

I don't recall the Spaniards using biological weapons, so it's not entirely fair to blame them for the disease. It's not as though they intentionally gave them the plague. However, pretty much everything else is their fault.

considering that i view the overglorification of certain civilization as nothing more as a way to make one look better as time passes....i think apocalypto was pretty accurate in depicting the decline of mayan civilization during the time

How is it an accurate depiction of the decline of a civilization when its basically just a narrative placed in a pseudo Mayan setting? It's some trees, temples and a story about a man escaping death to get back to his pregnant wife who is stuck in a hole.

It's a good action movie, that's about it.

Originally Posted by Shabby_Ronin

How is it an accurate depiction of the decline of a civilization when its basically just a narrative placed in a pseudo Mayan setting? It's some trees, temples and a story about a man escaping death to get back to his pregnant wife who is stuck in a hole.

It's a good action movie, that's about it.

Umm, it's also about how openly disgusting and grotesque Mayan civilization was, despite a few advances which still didn't save it from being savage.

Originally Posted by SigniferOne

Umm, it's also about how openly disgusting and grotesque Mayan civilization was, despite a few advances which still didn't save it from being savage.

May you care to explain for the disgusting and grotesque parts?

Originally Posted by JerichoOnlyFan

May you care to explain for the disgusting and grotesque parts?

you see, to sigone, if it wasn't Greek or Roman, it was a horrible and despicable civilization that's not worth mentioning.

Originally Posted by The Don

I read Jared Diamond's book expecting it to be decent.

Instead, it wasn't very good.

what was so bad about it? I'm only a quarter way through, and yes, it can be a bit dry, but overall, I find it to be pretty interesting.

Originally Posted by Last Roman

what was so bad about it? I'm only a quarter way through, and yes, it can be a bit dry, but overall, I find it to be pretty interesting.

Uhmm, everything? It removes choice from the sphere of measurable, laudable human activity, and attempts to trace all cultural success and failure from external material forces?

Originally Posted by Ramashan

One thing we need to figure out is what do we define civilization as? Art? Health? Science? Medicine? Technology? Government? Religion?

I'm sure we could do a chart to compare and contrast Spain from the Aztec. But we also have to take into account that Spanish civilization had all the benefits of Islam brought in during the conquest and then had all the benefits of Europe post conquest over a period of perhaps 700 years.

This is true enough. However this is not a 'best effort' measure. This is an absolute comparison measure. Regardless of whether the Natives had to try hard with what they had, and if or how much culture the Spaniards got from others, the point is that at the moment of interaction between the two they were by far the more advanced civilization.

And where it counts more importantly, this means that the conquest brought civilization to the Americas.

Perhaps this is the reason why sacrifice was so huge in the Aztec society. There was no one else around to really stop it.

Well, the Spaniards stopped it.

That's what we mean when we say they brought a higher level of society to the Natives, even to the Mesoamericans more advanced than other natives around them.

if i recall, the films background is the decline of mayan civilization since i have read pieces of interviews in which mel is talkin bout how the mayan culture's decline was the most shocking event..and so on...etc etc