The Noble Savage is French Toast

The American Thinker ^ | January 30, 2007 | James Lewis

[Tolik]

Nicholas Wade is a science writer for the New York Times, who used to be as Politically Correct as anyone in that mob on 42nd Street. No longer. Wade has discovered the new anthropology, now informed by a radically improved understanding of the human genome. The new evidence is clearly explained in his recent book, Before the Dawn: Recovering the lost history of our ancestors. It looks at the deep human past --- tens to hundreds of thousands of years --- combining written records, archeology, anthropology and the human genome. The result is spectacular. If this book is any indication, Politically Correct history is a goner. Rousseau's Noble Savage is French toast.

Wade presents compelling evidence that humans appear to be genetically predisposed to warfare. Among ancient hunter-gatherers, "incessant warfare" was the norm, just as it is today among the Stone Age tribes of New Guinea and South America. Humans have a long history of cannibalism, so much that we carry genes to guard against the toxic consequences of eating human flesh (similar to Mad Cow prion disease).   Modern humans are less aggressive than our ancestors were. The very fact that we can live in mass societies at reasonable peace with each other is an extraordinary advance.

Anthropologists have long tried to close their minds to the plentiful evidence for murderous tribal warfare. When they encountered tribal wars, they pointed out that not many people seemed to get killed in any fight --- forgetting that raiding one's neighbors is often a weekly sporting event, like Monday Night Football. So war death rates go to thirty percent over a lifetime, not counting injuries, rapes and ethnic cleansings. And it turns out that even the "peaceful" peoples, like Bushmen, boast of their human kills. They justify killing by explaining that they just get really mad.

Anthropologists have become famous by writing that cannibalism was just a slanderous lie invented by the West. It all fit the neo-racist myth of the White Man's Guilt --- as at Duke University. Such people peddle the myths of the peaceful Hopis and Bushmen, the Gandhi-esque Hindus, Buddhists and Sufis, and all the morally superior non-White cultures. (They somehow forget that Gandhi's independence movement led straight to four million ethnic killings during the Partition of 1948).

Politically Correct history is nonsense, as ordinary people have known for a long time. But it is important to set the record straight.  Understanding the human proclivity to violence places American history, for example, in a more accurate context. Maybe the Indian Wars against white settlers were not really so one-sided. Maybe the population pressures that drove Europeans to come to America made perfectly good sense, given widespread misery and persecution in the Old World. Maybe the Mayans and Aztecs were not exactly peace-loving.  Maybe American civilization even stopped warlike indigenous tribes from continuing to kill each other and from raping the women of conquered tribes.

Acknowledging human violence is not the same as excusing it. Just the opposite --- precisely because we have the capacity to destroy, we must be taught to act morally. That is the basic view of Western Civilization going back to the Code of Hammurabi. Civilized armed forces like the United States insist on high levels of restraint in their warfighters, even in the face of direct personal danger. But the civilized world is constantly faced with aggressive enemies willing to kill and die for some bizarre cause, from the heavenly glory of the Emperor to some Mullah's weird obsession with hanging sixteen year old girls who fall in love. Not to mention yet another Marxist scam to create a perfectly egalitarian paradise on earth, as is underway in Venezuela today.

Weird, aggressive regimes are hardly unusual in history. Germany and Japan were merciless, power hungry nations seven decades ago. Their soldiers were ordered to suppress any feelings of sympathy while killing innocent civilians. Those nations engaged in unprovoked genocides and endless cruelties, just as jihadis do today. It is vital to understand that, and to grasp that the democratic Anglo-American response was truly defensive, as it is today. We represent civilization against primitive savagery. Pacifists only talk about being civilized; nations that defend against primitive savages actually do something about it. That makes all the difference.

One of the oddities of the Left is its constant sabotage of defensive warfare, even when the facts are as plain as the assault on the Twin Towers on 9/11. Today Europe is going through yet another revisionist version of its own bloody history, trying to deny the undeniable facts of the 20th century. Big German media like Stern and Der Spiegel loudly equate the American overthrow of Saddam Hussein with the war against Hitler.  That version of history involves not just one but two Big Lies -- One, that Saddam was an innocent victim of American aggression; and Two, that Hitler was, too.  It's too weird for words. Let's hope they get over it - because if they don't, they could be setting the stage for yet another imperial adventure.

Telling the truth about human nature, about the need for rational defense, the crying need for courage and honesty in the face of lies and propaganda, is therefore very, very important. In this book, a famously leftist New York Times staffer is telling it like it is. For Nicholas Wade, the Noble Savage of socialist fantasy has been exposed as a delusion.

It is a sufficiently rare event to celebrate.

James Lewis is the nom de plume of an academic scientist. He blogs at www.dangeroustimes.wordpress.com, when time permits.

[Tolik]

James Lewis:

...Politically Correct history is nonsense, as ordinary people have known for a long time. But it is important to set the record straight.  Understanding the human proclivity to violence places American history ... in a more accurate context. ...

...Acknowledging human violence is not the same as excusing it. Just the opposite --- precisely because we have the capacity to destroy, we must be taught to act morally. That is the basic view of Western Civilization going back to the Code of Hammurabi. Civilized armed forces like the United States insist on high levels of restraint in their warfighters, even in the face of direct personal danger. But the civilized world is constantly faced with aggressive enemies willing to kill and die for some bizarre cause, from the heavenly glory of the Emperor to some Mullah's weird obsession with hanging sixteen year old girls who fall in love. Not to mention yet another Marxist scam to create a perfectly egalitarian paradise on earth, as is underway in Venezuela today.

Weird, aggressive regimes are hardly unusual in history. Germany and Japan were merciless, power hungry nations seven decades ago. Their soldiers were ordered to suppress any feelings of sympathy while killing innocent civilians. Those nations engaged in unprovoked genocides and endless cruelties, just as jihadis do today. It is vital to understand that, and to grasp that the democratic Anglo-American response was truly defensive, as it is today. We represent civilization against primitive savagery. Pacifists only talk about being civilized; nations that defend against primitive savages actually do something about it. That makes all the difference.

One of the oddities of the Left is its constant sabotage of defensive warfare, even when the facts are as plain as the assault on the Twin Towers on 9/11 ...

...Telling the truth about human nature, about the need for rational defense, the crying need for courage and honesty in the face of lies and propaganda, is therefore very, very important. In this book, a famously leftist New York Times staffer is telling it like it is. For Nicholas Wade, the Noble Savage of socialist fantasy has been exposed as a delusion.

It is a sufficiently rare event to celebrate.

Nailed It!

This ping list is not author-specific for articles I'd like to share. Some for the perfect moral clarity, some for provocative thoughts; or simply interesting articles I'd hate to miss myself. (I don't have to agree with the author all 100% to feel the need to share an article.) I will try not to abuse the ping list and not to annoy you too much, but on some days there is more of the good stuff that is worthy of attention. You can see the list of articles I pinged to lately  on  my page.
You are welcome in or out, just freepmail me (and note which PING list you are talking about). Besides this one, I keep 2 separate PING lists for my favorite authors Victor Davis Hanson and Orson Scott Card.  

[Tanniker Smith]

I have to recommend Orson Scott Card's "Pastwatch" at this point, if only for the observation within that human slavery, while distasteful, was actually better than what it replaced: human sacrifice. Somewhere, sometime along the way in history, someone figured out that it was a waste to kill all the prisoners and captives of war with other tribes and states. They could be useful if alive.

It's interesting to note that the Americas had no slavery before the Europeans and Africans came over. Before that, they just killed everyone.

[yoe]

One of the oddities of the Left is its constant sabotage of defensive warfare, even when the facts are as plain as the assault on the Twin Towers on 9/11 ...

Peace protesters come to mind - wouldn't it be wonderful to see these nits protesting terrorists for a change.....................

[NonValueAdded]

"Let's hope [Germany] get[s] over it - because if they don't, they could be setting the stage for yet another imperial adventure."

Well, if they do have another adventure, I say they can have France this time. But then they have to stop. And hands off Poland, or else.

[Michael.SF.]

From the headlline, the first thing I thought of was that this guy had gone off the air (not that that would be a bad thing):

[Louis Foxwell]

There is not one leftist, socialist or liberal regime that has been peaceful. They have, ever one, been marauding, malevolent and murderous. They appeal to cowardice, racism and hatred. Witness the anti war crowd here in the US.
The greatest threat to civilization is liberalism. It is the wellspring of our basest instincts.

[Red Badger]

...the Americas had no slavery before the Europeans and Africans came over...

The Native American Indians didn't enslave others?.........or did they just kill the men?........

[freedomfiter2]

It's interesting to note that the Americas had no slavery before the Europeans and Africans came over. Before that, they just killed everyone.


I believe at least one tribe in the Pacific NW kept slaves.

[period end of story]

He's got 2-3 years left in him.

Then you can woo hoo it up all you want.

[Tolik]

I hope he did not patent the name . I listen him on the radio once in a while (when driving and can't catch anything else). But even when I agree with the gist of the message, his style is alien to me. He has a good number of fans, but not me.

[altura]

ping for later read.

[Tanniker Smith]

The Native American Indians didn't enslave others?.........or did they just kill the men?........

I could be wrong but I really haven't researched it extensively, but for what I've read (and not just in works of fiction, whether based in fact or not), they killed them all the men. Actually, I don't know for certain what they did with women and children, if they were enslaved or assimilated in the new society, so I won't make any more such pronouncements on the subject.

[Mr. Jeeves]

...the Gandhi-esque Hindus, Buddhists and Sufis...

Such people did exist - the Left's mistake is in assuming that because the Book in question advocates a peaceful philosophy, all people who lived under its laws were paragons of pacifism. Most humans aren't very spiritual and thus let their egos and minds drive their decision-making, so it's no shock to see nominal Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, or even Christians butchering each other, no matter what their Books call for.

[RebelBanker]

Excellent article as well as recommending an excellent book. Wade's Before the Dawn represents a giant leap forward in understanding prehistoric Man. It shows what can be learned when different scientific disciplines talk to one another, in this case anthropology and genetics. Of course the YECers dismiss it out of hand, but the genetic part of the synthesis supports significant portions of the Old Testament in terms of bloodlines.

[Red Badger]

We know what the Aztec, Maya and Incas did.........

[Mamzelle]

One of the reasons the Cherokee nation was so large, powerful and growing was their habit of subsuming other tribes. Captured Creeks became Cherokee or died--same with Lumbee and many smaller and weaker tribes. It was a kind of ethnic cleansing or forced conversion--

[Red Badger]

Genesis 6:11
The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.

Genesis 6:13
And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

[Polybius]

It's interesting to note that the Americas had no slavery before the Europeans and Africans came over.

Aztec - Slavery....... Slaves or tlacotin (distinct from war captives) also constituted an important class. This slavery was very different from what Europeans of the same period were to establish in their colonies, although it had much in common with the slaves of classical antiquity. (Sahagún doubts the appropriateness even of the term "slavery" for this Aztec institution.) First, slavery was personal, not hereditary: a slave's children were free. A slave could have possessions and even own other slaves. Slaves could buy their liberty, and slaves could be set free if they were able to show they had been mistreated or if they had children with or were married to their masters....... Typically, upon the death of the master, slaves who had performed outstanding services were freed. The rest of the slaves were passed on as part of an inheritance....... Another rather remarkable method for a slave to recover liberty was described by Manuel Orozco y Berra in La civilización azteca (1860): if, at the tianquiztli (marketplace; the word has survived into modern-day Spanish as "tianguis"), a slave could escape the vigilance of his or her master, run outside the walls of the market and step on a piece of human excrement, he could then present his case to the judges, who would free him. He or she would then be washed, provided with new clothes (so that he or she would not be wearing clothes belonging to the master), and declared free. Because, in stark contrast to the European colonies, a person could be declared a slave if he or she attempted to prevent the escape of a slave (unless that person were a relative of the master), others would not typically help the master in preventing the slave's escape........ Orozco y Berra also reports that a master could not sell a slave without the slave's consent, unless the slave had been classified as incorrigible by an authority. (Incorrigibility could be determined on the basis of repeated laziness, attempts to run away, or general bad conduct.) Incorrigible slaves were made to wear a wooden collar, affixed by rings at the back. The collar was not merely a symbol of bad conduct: it was designed to make it harder to run away through a crowd or through narrow spaces. ....... When buying a collared slave, one was informed of how many times that slave had been sold. A slave who was sold four times as incorrigible could be sold to be sacrificed; those slaves commanded a premium in price........ However, if a collared slave managed to present him- or herself in the royal palace or in a temple, he or she would regain liberty........ An Aztec could become a slave as a punishment. A murderer sentenced to death could instead, upon the request of the wife of his victim, be given to her as a slave. A father could sell his son into slavery if the son was declared incorrigible by an authority. Those who did not pay their debts could also be sold as slaves........ People could sell themselves as slaves. They could stay free long enough to enjoy the price of their liberty, about twenty blankets, usually enough for a year; after that time they went to their new master. Usually this was the destiny of gamblers and of old ahuini (courtesans or prostitutes). ....... Motolinía reports that some captives, future victims of sacrifice, were treated as slaves with all the rights of an Aztec slave until the time of their sacrifice, but it is not clear how they were kept from running away.

[Socratic]

We know what the Aztec, Maya and Incas did.........

When they said, "Have a heart," they meant it!