h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

In all the years that I've been drawing breath I never knew that Mnt Rushmore was sacred ground to the native peoples of North America. The fact that the US saw fit to carve the faces of their presidents on it is pretty typical of the nation's history of making monumentally ill-advised moves on a domestic and international level.

As for the treatment of the natives by the western settlers, you have to remember that the same treatment was dished out to other native peoples as far and wide as Africa and Australia. The western mindset of the time revolved around the arrogant assumption that civilisation as they knew and practised was the only truely righteous way of life in the eyes of their Christian god. If you had a flag and were Christian (even better if you had an Empire) then you could join their gentleman's club. If not you were simply inferior.

In colonial times many whites subscribed to the view that blacks and other peoples of different skin colour to their own were a totally different species to themselves and they used this as licence to treat them like dirt, deny them basic human rights and take their land out from under them.

I'm not sure the western civilization (if there is such a thing) has already evolved beyond the notion of born "superiority". "We" (far too general, I know) still try to impose our will on other civilizations.

On the other hand, I guess it would be natural for many cultures to regard itself as superior to others. I think the deciding factor in this has been that western civilization has always had the economic and military means to carry out their "quest for domination".

If you look at other civilizations now emerging and going strong you see the same mechanisms. We are probably a long way from a "global" civilization in which each is regarded as different but equal.

I always had the creeping suspicion that the western stance of ruthless oppression and exploitation had quite a bit to do with our realtive technological and military advancement rather than some ingrained genetic predisposition towards such behaviour. The Aztecs and some of the Amerindian tribes behaved very badly towards their neighbours before the white man ever showed up.

I didn't know it either til a few months ago. I met a Southern Ute woman on line and she and I became good friends. Through her I met some members of the Teton. I was really amazed all the things they knew about the history of our country that I did not. And of course they are pretty bitter about dominant cultures and stuff like that. I can't say I blame them, I'm sure I would be too if I were not a part of this one. The thing is though I believe it is human nature to take what ever you can if you are big enough to manage it. An individual might try to resist that urge, but a large group, an organized group, with very focused goals, well I believe they can find justification for what ever they have to do to reach their goals. There has to be enough individuals in that group to counteract the natural tendancy to take what ever we want. And of course like you said all groups do it. Even the Native Americans took lands from other Native Americans, they fought bitter wars and probably wiped out whole tribes. Maybe the major difference is what the white people have done with their spoils. The Indians would have lived on the land they got in conquest, and worship it and respect it's tremendous worth. Or at least that is the philosophy I have been told. The white people though don't seem to worship anything except God and themselves. They don't even see the connection between the land and the creator. Of course I am generalizing there, since I am a white person myself, not all white people fail to see the connection with God and the land. I wouldn't see it though if it weren't for my Indian friends. I've always been one of those people who hate to get dirt under my nails. But the more I think about it lately, the more dangerous I think that is, to lose touch with that thing that makes your existence possible. The dominant culture, the ones making the choices, they are not even looking at what is being done to the land they inhabit. They have left it in the hands of people whose only concern is more and more money and power. Money, power, all the desirable things in the world will be of zero worth to us when we have destroyed our land. I want to walk on grass and eat real vegatables. I want the earth to be roamed by real unmutated animals because I believe it is vital to the earth itself. Since the beginning of the history of man we have slowly but surely eliminated all things but ourselves. Once we manage that, the land, the earth we live on, will be unable to renew herself. We will either die or be reduced to a mutation of life dependant on genetically engineered plants and animals for substance. The whole big picture is about war with the Indians I know, and war is war no matter where it is played out or when. It's not intended to be fair. There were wars way back then, the Indians lost, we won, that's just how it went. But now, as advanced as we like to feel ourselves to be, why can't we know see that what the Indians are trying to tell us is true. We need to give the land back to them, all we can, cause we need somebody to take care of it so we will continue to draw our life source from it. Seriously it scares me to death that not many other people feel the urgency in this like I do. I guess they don't read all the reports about diminishing rain forrest, mountains of factory farm waste from unhealthy animals, huge water sources that are either put off their course by man intervention, or hopelessly contaminated with his by-products. If we don't stop all this somehow, well I guess everybody has heard that, but I wonder if they realize that the Indians might be the way to stop a big part of it?

Amen to that.

That's correct, Nylarthotep, however, the whites were still able to teach even the Aztecs a thing or two about the coarse arts brutality and oppression. It's not all technology. When the Spaniards arrived with Cortez, their military technology wasn't very far advanced over what they faced, but their shear brutality, duplicity, and greed were significantly advanced. The English, who whipped the Spaniards on the high seas and elsewhere, "improved" on their record substantially.

It's possible the EuroAmericans may be remembered in history, if at all, chiefly as a force of destruction not unlike the Mongols. That rememberance will probably be just as biased as the view of the Mongols, but just as enduring nevertheless, perhaps more so because of the more severe environmental impact that has accompanied EuroAmerican expansion in the world.

We are at this moment in the middle of a "great dying" on a scale not seen in the fossil record since the close of Mesozoic. That ought to give somebody pause to reconsider the issues of relative technological and military advancement in the context of moral and ethical conduct relating to deliberate choice. In other words, technological advancement ought to be measured by responsible stewardship as much as technical sophistication, don't you think?

Yup, human history reads like one giant excuse at times: "we did it because we could." I doubt that there are many societies in history that have failed to take advantage of a weak neighbour when the oppertunity arose.

Flaubert once described the industrial age as an image of Christ driving a steam engine through virgin forest at breakneck speed, an image that demonstrates great potential with no guiding force or true purpose beyond the gratification of the egotistical desires of mankind.

The problem is that we separate technological advancement from the moral and ethical side of human advancement wholesale. Mankind fancies itself omnipotent because he can create the atomic bomb, but never takes into account the fact that it is riddled with moral degeneracy and ethnic hatred.

We live in a society that finds itself chasing along behind as science experiments with our lives. Take GM crops, in the UK we have government ministers taking the stance that they will evaluate the impact the modified genetics has on the food-chain when they see the evidence (we'll see how dangerous this gun is as soon as we shoot you in the head with it).

And if you want a prime example of the disparity between technological advancement and moral conduct just watch the progress of the wonderous Mr Bush in the next few months...

This post has been removed.

He's the guy with his finger on the button...aren't you glad that he's stated that if the UN won't take the actions that he advocates towards certain "rogue states" then he'll take it for them?

Yes, that's very considerate of him indeed. Let's not let anything as futile as democracy get in the way of the President of the Free World.

BTW, strange that almost all incidents currently taking place (bombing on Bali for instance) are somehow thought to be connected with Al Qaeda all of a sudden. Never heard of 'em a year ago, now they're everywhere. Wonder why that is...

The question always at the back of my head is :"Suppose my country was as powerful as the US, would we behave the same way?"

I really don't know, I would hope not, but I'm not so sure.

JAIB

My gawd! Did you see someone "moderated" me? One is not allowed to disparage a public person here apparently. Ah, the burdens of oblige noblisse! Let that be a lesson to me, eh?

I think it's rather transparent. If one has studied the career Adolph Hitler, one sees rather disturbing parallels in the way the pretexts are developed for taking unilateral, aggressive action both in Hitler's context and the current one.

As an aside, did you notice that George W. Bush apparently cannot articulate a comprehensible thought in his native tongue? I wonder what sort of disability would account for that?

Well my question was rather rhetorical but I agree there are similiarities between the two. Mind you, a German minister was recently fired for allegedly making this connection - which she denied.

I did notice Dubya's verbal inadequacies, to be honest I don't know how I could have missed them. Unfortunately, ridiculing the guy doesn't make him less dangerous.

Although your question was undoubtedly rhetorical as well, the disability capable of causing this kind of behaviour is called aphasia, which is the inability to articulate ideas or comprehend spoken language, mostly caused by brain damage and/or dementia.

I guess I got off easy, so far, compared to the German. There must be quite an organized effort at the highest levels to insure nobody makes the obvious connections. I wonder why that is?

Regarding my rhetorical question, you're very insightful. Since there is no known instance of trauma to account for it, the damage or dementia would probably have resulted from chemical exposure, either cocaine or alcohol or both, take your pick, and I'll rest my case before I get thrown out of court again.

His nieces seem to have picked up the hellraiser lifestyle from somewhere...and they do say that children learn from example...

Not only that but the infamous choking pretzel incident among other things suggests he might still have a rather serious substance abuse problem. I'm not quite certain why so many seem to think it's a good idea to be covering for him.

I heard one loyal follower try to explain that Bush is a straight forward type that really doesn't like or have time for intellectuals...so what kind of thinkers would he populate positions of power with?

Of course he doesn't like intellectuals. He can't articulate a comprehensible thought as previously noted. What after all could they talk about?

He has to be straightforward (Or should we say pushy?) because that's how drunks operate. All bluster and put on. And he has no other way of communicating because he doesn't know sign language.

I've lived around enough drunks to know one when I see one, but I'm wondering how "normal people" cannot at least discern that something is seriously wrong with the guy, some impairment that makes him unfit to fill the office he's assumed or any position of trust where human lives at stake.

There was just recently a huge flap over airline pilots, recovering alcoholics, being rehired, even though they are compelled to take urinalysis tests to prove they're sober before flying a plane.

Bush is flying something more than a airliner right now and it's sort of ironic that the incidents with the airliners being crashed into the WTC and Pentagon conveniently rescued him from political bankruptsy early in his administration. He's about to crash a whole nation into the rest of the world and people act like it's no big deal. Maybe they ought to check the fine print on their tickets, what do you think?

I think that there were a few US poiticians that made good milage out of 09/11. Rudy Gulliani was the hard-nosed right-winger behind the zero tolerance strategy that cleaned up NYC on the one hand and massivly oppressed anyone who was poor or from an enthnic minority, but in the light of his actions after the event (and he did little more than any decent human being would have done under the circumstances) he's now a hero travelling the western world to accept plaudits from America's allies.

The fact that the US government has been comming out with statements such as "If you're not with us, then you're against us" when it comes to their stance on international terrorism smacks of tyranny and Bush in particular seems to be at the head of this farcical attitude. The leader of the opposition in the states recently urged the president to deal with domestic matters rather than leading a rally to war and was branded as using such matters to his own ends, as opposed to Bush who simply used the threat of terrorism to distract attention from his poor domestic peformance. And his daddy did the same in his time too.

I think that Bush needs to understand that he's the president of the US and that the title "leader of the free world" is just an invented term and not part of the job description.

I think it more pertinent for Bush to admit he isn't even president. He is suffering from a classic case of delusions of grandeur for which the best remedy would be a healthy dose of humility.

Unfortunately, until he gets sober, such delusions will plague him and convince him that his opposition is being unreasonable or actively trying to destroy him in a fit of envy. Such paranoia will accelerate the process of perceptual distortion until even the powers that support him will be unable to alter reality sufficiently to comform to his preconceptions. At that point, like Hitler, he will probably conclude that his people are unworthy of his talents and deserve to be destroyed in a gotterdammerung befitting his glorious divinity.

In short, Bush's problem, like Yahweh's, lies principly in assuming the role of God for which he, least of all humans, is capable.