"Is there a way to achieve settlement that is in accord with the law that we've been following since the beginning of time?"
A poignant question, first thought of (unconsciously) by the Leavers. That is to say, hunter and gatherer societies. However, upon seeing this question brought up within the text of the novel. A thought immediately popped into my head. That thought was, of course, "Oh God, he's going to bring up Native Americans isn't he." And so he did.
Native Americans. The Noble Savage. The people who lived in accord with nature as best they could. Never could have the Americas held the basis for civilization, no, only savages equipped with knowledge of their environment. People who saw themselves as part of the environment, not apart from it. Ever heard about the myth of the Noble Savage? No? Not surprising if you haven't. In fact, it's unlikely you would unless the native peoples of the Americas interest you. A failure among many within the American school system, Native Americans. Students are taught to recognize Native Americans only as a sob story and as a hurdle too low to impede the might of Europe. Never are they discussed aside from their role during that three hundred years or so where their societies came into conflict with ours. They lived in wood shacks, handled stone age weaponry, and were entirely too trusting of the devilish Europeans. Exploited without even knowing so until the very end, oh the tragedy! I could delve into the history and explain the inaccuracies of so much of what is said about Native Americans, but I'll spare you the lesson. Simply know this, Daniel Quinn doesn't know what he's talking about. But, of course, why should he? He's a philosopher for God's sake! What does a philosopher need to understand history for? Ishmael says that Native Americans lived peaceably and rarely resorted to violence. Based on what knowledge? The knowledge of the noble savages who caught turkey and feasted with each other as brothers at the end of the harvest? A feast to which the European settlers were so cordially invited to but the great Indian Squanto? That knowledge that one learns in the fourth grade? Humans are a bloody and vicious bunch, to think that living in a greater harmony with nature than your fellows across the pond changes that is downright preposterous. The whole of the Americas is stained in Native blood. No less so than Europe or Asia or Africa or Oceania.
For a man writing a book about questioning the society you live in, you would think he would at least question the knowledge of Native Americans he was spoon fed before he could do simple multiplication. Perhaps not a glaring flaw to those who might not have the same background knowledge and interest as I, but a flaw it is. One that annoys me and causes his credibility to crumble.
RIP Daniel Quinn.
ReplyDeleteI agree, there is some revisionist writing in this novel. What did you think about the whole Bwana section, Bwana? I don't remember if that was supposed to be Native Americans or Africans, but do you think that was also full of holes?
Colin, do you see Quinn's discussion of Native Americans as focused on more of their agricultural system or their interactions with each other? Certainly Native American tribes were violent, so I wonder if the focus is more specificly focused on their interaction with the animal and plant world, which in some ways seems more of his argument from what you've previously written. I guess what I'm asking is the context in which they are brought up and used in his argumentation.
ReplyDeleteThe overall argument that Quinn presents is that our current society has put itself at odds with the rest of the world. His point with Native Americans is that they coexisted peacefully with their environment and to some extent each other. Or at least far more peacefully than Western civilization. In that sense his point does revolve around both those topics (agriculture/nature and conflict) because his argument is broader than preserving the environment. Preserving the environment is tied into his overall argument which is that humans are at war with the rest of creation essentially. Or, to word a bit better perhaps, that current society sees itself as owning the planet rather than coexisting on it. So, I think his idea of bringing up Native Americans was to showcase their desire and ability to coexist with each other and nature, if that makes any sense.
DeleteColin, I very clearly see your point and the answer to the novels question was very detailed. Your use of quotes to help answer the question is great and your attention to detail and description is greatly explained.
ReplyDelete