Children stand on the surrounding wall at Tabira Gate, the entrance to Assur, first capital of the Assyrian empire in present day Shirqat, Iraq. Smithsonian.
After a grinder of a work day, nothing sounded finer than to hit the gym (the actual gym; I did a smoker of a Frontier Partisan Biathlon on Saturday) fire up a podcast and just go. My companion on the trail was Dan Carlin. I love Carlin’s Hardcore History podcast; it was his deep dive into the Great War, Blueprint For Armageddon, that inspired me to launch the Frontier Partisans Podcast.
This time around it was a short (for Carlin), deliberately discursive trek through the long arc of human history.
Carlin revels in the long, consistent human history of conflict and migration, in the deserted ruins of Assyrian cities and the like… The Howardians among us eat this stuff up. (I don’t think I’ve heard Carlin mention Robert E. Howard; he’s a big Tolkien guy, though).
Several things jumped out that have relevance here. Carlin noted that 19th and 20th Century concepts of racial “purity” were hogwash, because they failed to account for mankind’s proclivity for migration and … mingling. As part of that discourse, he noted that he is trying to jettison the use of the term “indigenous peoples” because, really, nobody is actually “indigenous” to any place, though their ancestors may have been there a long, long time. He prefers the Canadian designation for its tribal peoples as “First Nations,” as in the first peoples to form socially complex structures.
Craig Rullman and I have had conversations about this, and came to a similar conclusion. It ain’t perfect, but I think it works (I don’t have an aversion to using the term “Indian” in context). What do you all think?
*
Since we’re joining Carlin in being discursive, I will note here the coolness of this story:
LAKE WACCAMAW, N.C. (WECT, CNN NEWSOURCE) — A piece of Native American history has been unearthed in North Carolina after two teenagers discovered it two years ago.
The Waccamaw Indian dug-out canoe pulled from Lake Waccamaw Wednesday is a symbol of nearly 1,000 years of Native American culture in southeastern North Carolina.
Waccamaw Siouan Chief Michael Jacobs said it”s rare to find pieces of history like this one.
“That canoe at 28 feet long would have carried many a brave. We feel like in our heart, it’s a history that we’re still exploring and understanding because this is the first time we’ve had access,” Jacobs said.
*
In speaking of the historical Cimmerians (told you it was discursive), Carlin pronounced that people’s name with a hard C. Kimmerian. Dammit, he’s right. Like Celt, it derives from the Ancient Greek (Kimmerioi). Nobody pronounces the homeland of Conan with a hard C, and I don’t suppose it matters — but now I can’t un-hear it. That’s 45 years of habit to break.
*
Anthropology has gone through phases and fads, as any discipline is prone to. For a while, the common wisdom was that “primitive” societies were mostly peaceful and conflict arose as societies became more complex. Recent work suggest that humans are hard-wired for violence (eg. Neanderthal genocide). Carlin notes that we’ve also always been hard on our environment, that the myth of the Noble Savage living in harmony with nature is mostly a myth (eg. buffalo jump). It’s just that our footprint was lighter when we could move on and let a stretch of land rehabilitate — before plastics and forever chemicals, and a planet where we’ve run out of frontiers to run to.
Carlin casts a skeptical eye on the supposed Haudenosaunee principle of governance that decisions should be made with the seventh generation in mind. That flies in the face of all human experience. It’s a noble sentiment, and I don’t doubt that it was a kind of ideal for the Haudenosaunee, but in practice… well, you’d be hard-pressed to find an imperial people more committed to exploiting a resource than the Five Nations (eg. Beaver Wars). I’m having a flashback right now to UC Santa Cruz, where it was often explained to me that the First Nations’ avid exploition of natural resources — at the expense of other First Nations people — was caused by distortions introduced by Europeans. That’s kinda true, in part (especially the introduction of alcohol) but my rejoinder was always that assuming that the First Nations people lived in an innocent state of nature infantalized Indians and robbed them of agency in their own history. That, in itself, is a European conceit. I was as popular as a fart in church in my Native American History classes. Fun times.
Carlin recognizes that, given humans tendency to do what humans have always done, it’s going to be virtually impossible to evade the consequences of environmental degradation facilitated by advanced technology. The temptation is, of course, to seek a way to invent our way out of the consequences of our inventiveness. AI and our robot overlords might be able to make decisions that would improve outcomes for the seventh generation — but the price is probably not one we want to pay (eg. a DEEP culling).
I’m tellin’ ya… Skynet is self-aware. Keep that plasma rifle fresh-primed.
A Series T-800 Robot in Terminator Genisys.
Craig Rullman says
There is an awful lot here. AI can be accurately seen as iron pots and steel knives. Trading for them comes with real consequences.
Matthew says
I always thought First Nations was the best descriptor we had.
I’m skeptical about doom and gloom environmentalism. Don’t misunderstand. I do believe there could be a responsible environmentalism that helps both the earth and people. It’s just so extreme in some people.
The idea of the First Nations of America being noble savages dates back awhile. Probably started with Montaigne’s essay “On Cannibals” where the French soldier spoke well of the cannibals he that visited the French court from America. Thing is Montaigne was cynical because of what he saw in the French Wars of Religion. (Which really were horrible. I finished 12 Children of Paris recently by the way.) He probably meant the essay as somewhat satirical on European presumptions of superiority after what he seen.
David Wrolson says
Craig Rullman>>>”There is an awful lot here. AI can be accurately seen as iron pots and steel knives. Trading for them comes with real consequences.”<<<<
Well said-I would add that the real problem is that those making the AI decisions and software and such don't often see it that way.
I think they are in such a race to develop it that any safeguards will be ignored.
"Just because we can do something, does not mean we should do it" are not words that the AI powers that be will live by.
Mike says
Setting aside questions of faith, when it comes to thinking about the nature of humans and violence, it probably says something that the first story in the Old Testament following the creation and the fall is literally Cain and Abel.
JimC says
X-ring.
lane batot says
The “indigenous” peoples thing……I really don’t get that now, even “indigenous” is becoming a naughty word! “First Nations” is to be preferred? Did the people that decided on this not look up the basic definition of “indigenous”? THAT’S(basically) WHAT INDIGENOUS MEANS! Geez! And yes, there ARE “indigenous” peoples, as regarding the first–or at least earliest KNOWN people to have lived in and adapted(naturally) to the area in question. To me, “indigenous” also conjures up a notion that the indigenous people of any area are the NATURAL inhabitants, that lived more in harmony with their natural environment than the more artificial transformation of said environment than the more modern technological folk who came after. And yes, although many “natives” don’t always live by the ideals of their cultures, neither do those who are judging them! That does not lessen those ideals or “nobility” one whit, in my opinion. There ARE natives who are noble. There are interloping invaders that are noble, too. There are MANY wise and highly moral and advanced philosophical ideas that originated with indigenous peoples, that those in the uppity modern world would be the better to learn and emulate!
JimC says
I don’t think Carlin is trying to retire the term from his lexicon because it’s “naughty.” Certainly that’s not where I’m coming from. It’s an attempt to be more accurate and descriptive and not treating pre-contact or the era around contract as static. Think of it this way: We think of England as an “Anglo-Saxon” nation, yet they were invaders, who were in turn invaded by the Danes, and Normans, etc. The Lakota, despite their myths of being born out of the Black Hills, were NOT indigenous to their 19th Century range. They came out of the forests of the western Great Lakes. The Comanche were not indigenous to the southern plains. They migrated there, and pushed others out in establishing their imperium.
lane batot says
There are obviously many layers to the term “indigenous”. But somewhere back wherever humans have lived, SOME group had to be indigenous! Even though the Lakota displaced other Native Americans(ditto for the Comanches), you could still say they were MORE indigenous than the Europeans! And who knows but that there were Siouan or Comanche ancestors displaced previously by the tribes that they eventually RE-displaced! But Anthropologically speaking, Native Americans, however they migrated or displaced one group or another, are the indigenous peoples of North And South America. Ditto for Native African tribes/peoples in Africa. The same for the many Australian Aboriginal tribes(some consider the term “Aborigine” as a bad word now, too, when it just basically means the First People in a geographical area). Again the same for the various tribes/societies in Europe. Just as Neanderthals are indigenous to Northern Europe, but not North America. Coyotes were indigenous to the Plains and Deserts of the Southwest, when the Europeans arrived, but are considered “invasives” here in the East–UNLESS, you look at the fossil record. Coyotes were ALL OVER North America at one time, East and West, in the Pleistocene. At a very basic descriptive level, you can say coyotes are indigenous to North America, since they were found nowhere else in the world(so far……) So, for me, “indigenous” is a simple, descriptive term that needs no revision or replacement. Replacing it with “First Nations”(in my view, at least), is like replacing “humans” with “people”. I’m sure there are nuances that can be pointed out between those two, but they are more a matter of perspective than one needing to replace the other. Semantics, I says!
lane batot says
…..And another thing about what constitutes “indigenous”. Perzackly HOW LONG before a population of humans–or animals–is considered indigenous, and not “invasive”? A hundred years. A thousand? Ten thousand? The Australian Dingo comes to mind–believed(by fossil evidence) to have arrived in Australia anywhere between three and ten thousand years ago(depending on yer sources). Some people consider the non-marsupial Dingoes to be “invasive”, brought over by early humans from Asia, but many think of the Dingo as Australia’s Native Dog! Several thousand years is certainly enough for me to consider something being “indigenous”. But perhaps the Dingoes would prefer the term “First Canine Nation”? Well, no, actually. The Dingoes just want to be left the hell alone…….
lane batot says
…..And as for the term “Indians”, or “American Indians” utilized for Native Americans–if one of the founders of AIM(American Indian Movement), Russel Means said in his autobiography(“Where White Men Fear To Tread”), that HE was fine with the term “American Indian”, then it sure won’t bother me to use it sometimes! I also use the European boo-boos “buffalo” for bison, and “panther” for puma/cougar/mountain lions, without a bit of guilt. I see these(and other names for things) as beloved parts of our Frontier vernacular!