5 ms·

>Indigenous survival methods have persisted, like their keepers, for hundreds of years against invasion, disease, and ecological catastrophe. Colonizers could l

>Indigenous survival methods have persisted, like their keepers, for hundreds of years against invasion, disease, and ecological catastrophe. Colonizers could learn a great deal from Indigenous resilience... I find interpretations like this strange. Sure, there's lots to learn from cultures of all kinds, and it's particularly relevant to hear from Natives of NA if we're talking about North American agriculture. But there's an implication that the European colonizers bumbled their way through history, as if they didn't face and overcome their own issues with starving populations. I think it's objective fact that Europeans have been quite resilient themselves, being as how they managed to settle most of the planet.

tchalla 4y ago
> I think it's objective fact that Europeans have been quite resilient themselves, being as how they managed to settle most of the planet. I am sure you would notice the difference of resilience pointed out by the article in comparison to the European world wide "settling" resilience.
bergenty 4y ago
This is a straw man that you proposed and then go on to refute. No one is implying Europeans didn’t face challenges and “bumbled through history”. Saying colonizers could learn a lot is sort of what ended up happening anyways, especially in the early days of colonization where plenty of skills to survive in a brand new continent came from the natives.
- kennend3 4y ago
  I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion this is a "straw man"? Did you read the article? his comment was directly copied from it : "Colonizers could learn a great deal from Indigenous resilience, as we all confront a twenty-first century that feels hauntingly like the seventeenth: beset by violence, disease, hatred." By stating they could learn a great deal does imply they "bumbled along". It also isn't very accurate as there was a lot of technology sharing at the start of things. The FN shared a great deal with the newcomers on how to survive here.
yakak 4y ago
The earliest settlers were really quite elite and many probably never had to feed themselves in adverse circumstances in Europe. The later larger waves of migration were big scale and financed such that they were recruiting people who didn't have a lot of capital and would know how to feed themselves in adverse circumstances.
- vorpalhex 4y ago
  The earliest settlers were poor religious folks, criminals and some business people, along with trappers and hunters. Not exactly "elite".
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    A lot of them also came as indentured servants, meaning they had nothing and had to work for several years to pay off the debt of the transport. The rest were pretty much poor people who had little prospects in the old country, looking for a fresh start.
    - yakak 4y ago
      Elite might not be the right word (though in terms of percentages and poverty at the time..) The travel of these people was very expensive so they had a form of social capital attached to them that implies city or at least town connections, not living on the very peripherals of society where supplementing your food is the more critical skill. I.e. I think they chose debt over uncertainty as a house servant or collectively as a town and a sect. The two Irish famines are very telling. In 1740 almost no one emigrated across the Atlantic, business men didn't swoop on a chance to go indenture every able bodied Irishman, after 1840 parts of Canada became half Irish. The children of Irish share croppers were Europeans who could at least partially feed themselves without civil infrastructure.
tomjakubowski 4y ago
Even if one group is more robust than another, they may still exchange novel strategies that strengthen both.
- rory 4y ago
  Exactly, and it's clear that cultural exchange has already been quite strong in the European->Indigenous American direction, so it's interesting to see what we could learn in the other direction. The article isn't helping itself with some its quasi-historical editorializations, though. "Indigenous Americans knew how to avoid starvation. Colonists were too hungry to notice" isn't exactly a balanced view of the history.
chasil 4y ago
Resilient, but a bit wasteful. Acorns can be ground into flour and used if food, if the tannins are removed. We have never collected this resource in the U.S. in my living memory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acorn#Culinary_use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acorn#Culinary_use I saw a video recently where a woman prepared a feast described in a 200-year-old cookbook. One of the recipes called for fruit set in horse hoof jelly. She said that she used regular gelatin, as the recipe would otherwise have a strong taste of beef. I think that many unconventional foods sustained our ancestors, and we have forgotten them for a variety of reasons.
- vorpalhex 4y ago
  Eating acorns can also kill you if not prepared properly - and it's hard to know if they are prepared properly. Tannins will make you shit blood and mess up your digestion. Even if you do get rid of them, you are left with a pretty bitter nut.
- nradov 4y ago
  The traditional European approach was to let pigs eat the acorns, then eat the pigs. Pork tastes better and has a superior nutritional profile compared to bread made from acorn flour.
- Volundr 4y ago
  > I think that many unconventional foods sustained our ancestors, and we have forgotten them for a variety of reasons. Insects is the most notable example of this. Pretty much every culture availed themselves insects as a ready source of protein, but now many would be utterly shocked by the suggestion.
- riffraff 4y ago
  Acorns taste bad according to all accounts, which is why people don't generally eat them, until famine arrives.
  - Baeocystin 4y ago
    I've had some safely-prepared acorn flour* bread. It has a distinctive flavor. Earthy, kind of like a walnut. But it isn't bitter. I could see it being a staple without complaint. *I don't know which species of Oak. Common ones in the Bay Area, I know that much.
nineplay 4y ago
It feels a bit patronizing frankly, like it defies otherwise low expectations of indigenous Americans to find out that they know how to feed themselves under difficult circumstances. The comparison to the colonizers boils down to "people who have lived somewhere for a long time know more about it than recent arrivals".
onetimeusename 4y ago
I've read different accounts of the alleged Thanksgiving dinner that Americans celebrate. Popularly we are told that it was a dinner to celebrate the Native Americans who came to help Pilgrims who arrived to survive a harsh winter and grow food. However, other accounts suggest that the dinner was celebrated as an alliance between the Pilgrims and the Wampanoag who were at war with other tribes such as the Narragansett. I mention this because I have read accounts that the Pilgrims knew how to do agriculture fairly well and that disease was the culprit of many deaths. I think it is somewhat strange to assume that any colonists who arrived did not know anything about agriculture. Especially because English colonies had already been set up further to the north than Plymouth Colony prior to the arrival of the Mayflower. I am not an expert in this topic though. But it feels like this is an extremely contentious topic that has been heavily politicized.
- kurupt213 4y ago
  this other account sounds like the american way
- ricksunny 4y ago
  I don't think 'knowing how to do agriculture fairly well' was the distinguishing factor in growing enough to survive first winter in a new land. I'd like to hear firsthand agriculturalists / agronomists on this. But heading into your first winter in a new climate with an unfamiliar crop (maize would like to say hello) , unfamiliar soil, make the likelihood of growing enough foodstuffs to store to last the winter a proposition fraught with risk indeed.
- notlukesky 4y ago
  Here is an account that is taught at the college level at many schools in America: https://tlio.org.uk/1637-pequot-massacre-%E2%80%8Bthe-real-story-of-thanksgiving/ https://tlio.org.uk/1637-pequot-massacre-%E2%80%8Bthe-real-s...
gwbas1c 4y ago
> But there's an implication that the European colonizers bumbled their way through history, as if they didn't face and overcome their own issues with starving populations. I think it's objective fact that Europeans have been quite resilient themselves, being as how they managed to settle most of the planet. At least when it comes to the Americas, the reason why the Europeans became dominant was mostly luck and genetics: American Indians (and the Siberians they descended from) don't have the genetics to fight European disease. Where European death rates from Smallpox are around 1/3rd, for American Indians it's at 90%. Otherwise, compared to Europe, American Indians typically had a better diet and better hygiene.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- mongrelion 4y ago
  Two things: 1. I think a much appropriate term to use here is Native American instead of American Indians. 2. I disagree with your statement "the reason why the Europeans became dominant was mostly luck and genetics". I do agree that the disease brought by the Europeans played a very important role in the whole colonization effort but mostly it was violence the main driver. Saying otherwise is just downplaying the genocide.
  - gwbas1c 4y ago
    I'm repeating well established historical fact: 1491 (Second Edition): New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000JMKVE4/ref=cm_sw_r_apan_FAD53KQSMXG141WVRJ44 https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000JMKVE4/ref=cm_sw_r_apan_FAD53K... I'm also following the book's terms. Native American is a confusing term, and the author includes an appendix explaining it
    - mongrelion 4y ago
      I understand where the confusion is coming from: that Columbus thought that he had arrived in India and so named the natives "Indians" but it's been long established that this was a terrible mistake and that the peoples from the Americas were, in fact, not Indians but rather Native Americas. They were not brought from India. They were already established here. So it's incorrect to call them American Indians. It's just plain offensive these days to call them so. Don't take my word for it, though. Just ask any "American Indian" which term they prefer and you'll find your answer quickly.

tchalla 4y ago

> I think it's objective fact that Europeans have been quite resilient themselves, being as how they managed to settle most of the planet. I am sure you would notice the difference of resilience pointed out by the article in comparison to the European world wide "settling" resilience.

bergenty 4y ago

This is a straw man that you proposed and then go on to refute. No one is implying Europeans didn’t face challenges and “bumbled through history”. Saying colonizers could learn a lot is sort of what ended up happening anyways, especially in the early days of colonization where plenty of skills to survive in a brand new continent came from the natives.

kennend3 4y ago
I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion this is a "straw man"? Did you read the article? his comment was directly copied from it : "Colonizers could learn a great deal from Indigenous resilience, as we all confront a twenty-first century that feels hauntingly like the seventeenth: beset by violence, disease, hatred." By stating they could learn a great deal does imply they "bumbled along". It also isn't very accurate as there was a lot of technology sharing at the start of things. The FN shared a great deal with the newcomers on how to survive here.

yakak 4y ago

The earliest settlers were really quite elite and many probably never had to feed themselves in adverse circumstances in Europe. The later larger waves of migration were big scale and financed such that they were recruiting people who didn't have a lot of capital and would know how to feed themselves in adverse circumstances.

vorpalhex 4y ago
The earliest settlers were poor religious folks, criminals and some business people, along with trappers and hunters. Not exactly "elite".
- WalterBright 4y ago
  A lot of them also came as indentured servants, meaning they had nothing and had to work for several years to pay off the debt of the transport. The rest were pretty much poor people who had little prospects in the old country, looking for a fresh start.
  - yakak 4y ago
    Elite might not be the right word (though in terms of percentages and poverty at the time..) The travel of these people was very expensive so they had a form of social capital attached to them that implies city or at least town connections, not living on the very peripherals of society where supplementing your food is the more critical skill. I.e. I think they chose debt over uncertainty as a house servant or collectively as a town and a sect. The two Irish famines are very telling. In 1740 almost no one emigrated across the Atlantic, business men didn't swoop on a chance to go indenture every able bodied Irishman, after 1840 parts of Canada became half Irish. The children of Irish share croppers were Europeans who could at least partially feed themselves without civil infrastructure.

tomjakubowski 4y ago

Even if one group is more robust than another, they may still exchange novel strategies that strengthen both.

rory 4y ago
Exactly, and it's clear that cultural exchange has already been quite strong in the European->Indigenous American direction, so it's interesting to see what we could learn in the other direction. The article isn't helping itself with some its quasi-historical editorializations, though. "Indigenous Americans knew how to avoid starvation. Colonists were too hungry to notice" isn't exactly a balanced view of the history.

chasil 4y ago

Resilient, but a bit wasteful. Acorns can be ground into flour and used if food, if the tannins are removed. We have never collected this resource in the U.S. in my living memory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acorn#Culinary_use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acorn#Culinary_use I saw a video recently where a woman prepared a feast described in a 200-year-old cookbook. One of the recipes called for fruit set in horse hoof jelly. She said that she used regular gelatin, as the recipe would otherwise have a strong taste of beef. I think that many unconventional foods sustained our ancestors, and we have forgotten them for a variety of reasons.

vorpalhex 4y ago
Eating acorns can also kill you if not prepared properly - and it's hard to know if they are prepared properly. Tannins will make you shit blood and mess up your digestion. Even if you do get rid of them, you are left with a pretty bitter nut.
nradov 4y ago
The traditional European approach was to let pigs eat the acorns, then eat the pigs. Pork tastes better and has a superior nutritional profile compared to bread made from acorn flour.
Volundr 4y ago
> I think that many unconventional foods sustained our ancestors, and we have forgotten them for a variety of reasons. Insects is the most notable example of this. Pretty much every culture availed themselves insects as a ready source of protein, but now many would be utterly shocked by the suggestion.
riffraff 4y ago
Acorns taste bad according to all accounts, which is why people don't generally eat them, until famine arrives.
- Baeocystin 4y ago
  I've had some safely-prepared acorn flour* bread. It has a distinctive flavor. Earthy, kind of like a walnut. But it isn't bitter. I could see it being a staple without complaint. *I don't know which species of Oak. Common ones in the Bay Area, I know that much.

nineplay 4y ago

It feels a bit patronizing frankly, like it defies otherwise low expectations of indigenous Americans to find out that they know how to feed themselves under difficult circumstances. The comparison to the colonizers boils down to "people who have lived somewhere for a long time know more about it than recent arrivals".

onetimeusename 4y ago

I've read different accounts of the alleged Thanksgiving dinner that Americans celebrate. Popularly we are told that it was a dinner to celebrate the Native Americans who came to help Pilgrims who arrived to survive a harsh winter and grow food. However, other accounts suggest that the dinner was celebrated as an alliance between the Pilgrims and the Wampanoag who were at war with other tribes such as the Narragansett. I mention this because I have read accounts that the Pilgrims knew how to do agriculture fairly well and that disease was the culprit of many deaths. I think it is somewhat strange to assume that any colonists who arrived did not know anything about agriculture. Especially because English colonies had already been set up further to the north than Plymouth Colony prior to the arrival of the Mayflower. I am not an expert in this topic though. But it feels like this is an extremely contentious topic that has been heavily politicized.

kurupt213 4y ago
this other account sounds like the american way
ricksunny 4y ago
I don't think 'knowing how to do agriculture fairly well' was the distinguishing factor in growing enough to survive first winter in a new land. I'd like to hear firsthand agriculturalists / agronomists on this. But heading into your first winter in a new climate with an unfamiliar crop (maize would like to say hello) , unfamiliar soil, make the likelihood of growing enough foodstuffs to store to last the winter a proposition fraught with risk indeed.
notlukesky 4y ago
Here is an account that is taught at the college level at many schools in America: https://tlio.org.uk/1637-pequot-massacre-%E2%80%8Bthe-real-story-of-thanksgiving/ https://tlio.org.uk/1637-pequot-massacre-%E2%80%8Bthe-real-s...

gwbas1c 4y ago

> But there's an implication that the European colonizers bumbled their way through history, as if they didn't face and overcome their own issues with starving populations. I think it's objective fact that Europeans have been quite resilient themselves, being as how they managed to settle most of the planet. At least when it comes to the Americas, the reason why the Europeans became dominant was mostly luck and genetics: American Indians (and the Siberians they descended from) don't have the genetics to fight European disease. Where European death rates from Smallpox are around 1/3rd, for American Indians it's at 90%. Otherwise, compared to Europe, American Indians typically had a better diet and better hygiene.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
mongrelion 4y ago
Two things: 1. I think a much appropriate term to use here is Native American instead of American Indians. 2. I disagree with your statement "the reason why the Europeans became dominant was mostly luck and genetics". I do agree that the disease brought by the Europeans played a very important role in the whole colonization effort but mostly it was violence the main driver. Saying otherwise is just downplaying the genocide.
- gwbas1c 4y ago
  I'm repeating well established historical fact: 1491 (Second Edition): New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000JMKVE4/ref=cm_sw_r_apan_FAD53KQSMXG141WVRJ44 https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000JMKVE4/ref=cm_sw_r_apan_FAD53K... I'm also following the book's terms. Native American is a confusing term, and the author includes an appendix explaining it
  - mongrelion 4y ago
    I understand where the confusion is coming from: that Columbus thought that he had arrived in India and so named the natives "Indians" but it's been long established that this was a terrible mistake and that the peoples from the Americas were, in fact, not Indians but rather Native Americas. They were not brought from India. They were already established here. So it's incorrect to call them American Indians. It's just plain offensive these days to call them so. Don't take my word for it, though. Just ask any "American Indian" which term they prefer and you'll find your answer quickly.