Re: [A-List] On the Role of Gold

["Anne Williamson" <annewilliamson@xxxxxxx>]

Louis,

My argument applies to all men, no matter where they are born or the culture
that was created by those peoples living in the territory of the man's
birth.  I
am making no statement as to whether or not a N.A. Indian's mode of living
is/was
or is/was not superior to a Westerner's.  Nonetheless, I certainly enjoyed
the
examples of the Indians' astonishment at Western habits you set out.
Thanks.

Anne
----- Original Message -----
From: Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <a-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 4:50 PM
Subject: Re: [A-List] On the Role of Gold


>I repeat - poverty is the natural state of mankind.  A man born into nature
>is poor, he must forage for food, shelter, and a covering of some sort lest
>he burn from the sun, or freeze in the cold.  The structures the most
>primitive family could provide must still be maintained, even if they are
not improved
>upon. Wealth - as in infrastructure and the ability to produce - must be
created,
>and man has succeeded in doing so.  It matters not whether he was born
into France
>in the 16th century, or Ecuador just last year - his natural state is
poverty,
>and only through the wealth created earlier did any creature ever escape
being
>born impoverished. Maybe the real question is whether or not man, whose
natural
>state is poverty, is doomed to die in poverty? If not, why not?
>
>Anne

I asked seven anthropologists, archaeologists, and historians if they would
rather have been a typical Indian or a typical European in 1491. None was
delighted by the question, because it required judging the past by the
standards of today-a fallacy disparaged as "presentism" by social
scientists. But every one chose to be an Indian. Some early colonists gave
the same answer. Horrifying the leaders of Jamestown and Plymouth, scores
of English ran off to live with the Indians. My ancestor shared their
desire, which is what led to the trumped-up murder charges against him-or
that's what my grandfather told me, anyway.

As for the Indians, evidence suggests that they often viewed Europeans with
disdain. The Hurons, a chagrined missionary reported, thought the French
possessed "little intelligence in comparison to themselves." Europeans,
Indians said, were physically weak, sexually untrustworthy, atrociously
ugly, and just plain dirty. (Spaniards, who seldom if ever bathed, were
amazed by the Aztec desire for personal cleanliness.) A Jesuit reported
that the "Savages" were disgusted by handkerchiefs: "They say, we place
what is unclean in a fine white piece of linen, and put it away in our
pockets as something very precious, while they throw it upon the ground."
The Micmac scoffed at the notion of French superiority. If Christian
civilization was so wonderful, why were its inhabitants leaving?

Full: http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/03/mann.htm

Louis Proyect
Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org