3 ms·

I know the article isn’t attempting to portray the Jesuits as good actors, but from a basic human context, the indigenous Guarani didn’t care about being Wester

I know the article isn’t attempting to portray the Jesuits as good actors, but from a basic human context, the indigenous Guarani didn’t care about being Western-educated or earning high incomes or need these things before their subjugation by the Spaniards. Their original way of life was destroyed and they were forced to comply with the Jesuits or any other conquest-seeking organization. This is like one society(A) conquering a perfectly functioning desert dwelling culture(B) that was previously unconcerned with A and teaching B how to swim the butterfly stroke because being a good butterfly swimmer leads to prosperity in society A’s socioeconomic system. This now valuable training was passed on through the generations of B and today they are good swimmers and more prosperous in the new society then those who historically didn’t get the lesson. And we look at this correlation to say that investments in swimming is a good thing and pat ourselves on the back. Ok.

zw123456 8y ago
I know you are getting down voted but I think there is a valid point to be taken into consideration here. It seems like the evaluation of how these groups of people are doing today is being see through the lens of our own biased ideals of what "better" is. Sometimes I wonder about some of the indigenousness peoples that have been effectively wiped out around the world what if we had a "prime directive" and let them develop on their own? Could they have founded a civilization that perhaps is "better" in other ways. Maybe one that lives more harmoniously with the environment rather than cooking the planet? Just something to think about.
- nebulous1 8y ago
  > through the lens of our own biased ideals of what "better" is I agree that thinking about ideas like that is important, but I have to point out that it's not like the entire planet was conquered by a single culture, only large parts of it were conquered by the European powers. Civilizations were founded in many different places, and the rare existing cultures who eschewed trade and weren't conquered haven't developed in a long time. There is actually a question as to whether they live a generally more fulfilling life than we do, but that wouldn't be because they developed a better way, instead it's that they didn't develop at all.
  - zw123456 8y ago
    Yes, I see both sides of the argument, but it is intriguing to think about, say for example if the Inca empire had continued to develop? I was reading about their system of communication that involved the Quipu which used a series of knots on strands of twine. Runners would carry them between cities, sort of a human pony express but the medium was knots on twine. What if that technology had continued to evolve replacing the knots eventually with more sophisticated coding methods and so on. The Quipunet :) Just fun sometimes to ponder.

zw123456 8y ago

I know you are getting down voted but I think there is a valid point to be taken into consideration here. It seems like the evaluation of how these groups of people are doing today is being see through the lens of our own biased ideals of what "better" is. Sometimes I wonder about some of the indigenousness peoples that have been effectively wiped out around the world what if we had a "prime directive" and let them develop on their own? Could they have founded a civilization that perhaps is "better" in other ways. Maybe one that lives more harmoniously with the environment rather than cooking the planet? Just something to think about.

nebulous1 8y ago
> through the lens of our own biased ideals of what "better" is I agree that thinking about ideas like that is important, but I have to point out that it's not like the entire planet was conquered by a single culture, only large parts of it were conquered by the European powers. Civilizations were founded in many different places, and the rare existing cultures who eschewed trade and weren't conquered haven't developed in a long time. There is actually a question as to whether they live a generally more fulfilling life than we do, but that wouldn't be because they developed a better way, instead it's that they didn't develop at all.
- zw123456 8y ago
  Yes, I see both sides of the argument, but it is intriguing to think about, say for example if the Inca empire had continued to develop? I was reading about their system of communication that involved the Quipu which used a series of knots on strands of twine. Runners would carry them between cities, sort of a human pony express but the medium was knots on twine. What if that technology had continued to evolve replacing the knots eventually with more sophisticated coding methods and so on. The Quipunet :) Just fun sometimes to ponder.