This is the “noble savage myth” dressed up for modern times as the “ecologically noble savage myth”.
Colonialism is bad, yes.
But indigenous people didn’t “live in balance with nature”. Consider e.g. the massive ecological changes wrought by indigenous Australians, Easter Island, NZ Maori, etc. Megafauna extinction, massive deforestation, etc.
Human beings are human beings, regardless of their level of technological progress.
But indigenous people didn’t “live in balance with nature”.
They didn’t “live in balance” in a way that was significantly different from the Spanish, French, or English colonists or the Africans imported via the slave trade. Or the various plethora of native species they co-habitated with.
But there was a pre-colonial ecological balance. Native agricultural practices were largely sustainable, as evidenced by the centuries of farming and herding that colonial settlers initially discovered and exploited. The Plymouth Rock and Jamestown settlers had no idea how to survive in Massachusetts or Virginia early on, relying heavily on trade until they could figure out the effective farming and fishing practices that would become common. European colonies regularly failed right next door to native communities that flourished.
What “upset the balance” was three-fold
Sudden, rapid emigration of colonial settlers fleeing the Thirty Years War. Overwhelmingly composed of younger men (the surplus males of the Old World) with poor health and a mandate to work themselves to death for the benefit of others, these early settlers weren’t trying to build a sustainable community. They were often sent over to work as soldiers, miners, or fur harvesters, with the intention of returning or retiring once they’d “made their fortune”.
The Columbian Exchange of non-native species and diseases, which resulted in mass die-offs of native flora and fauna alike. The arrival of European diseases in America are estimated to have killed between 80% and 95% of native populations, often wiping out entire communities before a single European arrived.
Industrialization, particularly in the wake of the Civil War, which introduced petrochemicals and air pollutants responsible for the mass die-off of entire biomes.
All of these can - directly or indirectly - be blamed on European settlement.
Isn’t it, though? Would any of the technological - and often scientific - breakthroughs of the 20th and 21st centuries have been possible without industrialisation?
Okay, but we can say with confidence that they all did require prior industrialisation in the way they panned out, and also, have never happened in any preindustrial society. That’s at least a solid hint.
This is the “noble savage myth” dressed up for modern times as the “ecologically noble savage myth”.
Colonialism is bad, yes.
But indigenous people didn’t “live in balance with nature”. Consider e.g. the massive ecological changes wrought by indigenous Australians, Easter Island, NZ Maori, etc. Megafauna extinction, massive deforestation, etc.
Human beings are human beings, regardless of their level of technological progress.
It’s just racism someone dressed up real pretty so they can pat themselves on the back for how enlightened they are.
They didn’t “live in balance” in a way that was significantly different from the Spanish, French, or English colonists or the Africans imported via the slave trade. Or the various plethora of native species they co-habitated with.
But there was a pre-colonial ecological balance. Native agricultural practices were largely sustainable, as evidenced by the centuries of farming and herding that colonial settlers initially discovered and exploited. The Plymouth Rock and Jamestown settlers had no idea how to survive in Massachusetts or Virginia early on, relying heavily on trade until they could figure out the effective farming and fishing practices that would become common. European colonies regularly failed right next door to native communities that flourished.
What “upset the balance” was three-fold
Sudden, rapid emigration of colonial settlers fleeing the Thirty Years War. Overwhelmingly composed of younger men (the surplus males of the Old World) with poor health and a mandate to work themselves to death for the benefit of others, these early settlers weren’t trying to build a sustainable community. They were often sent over to work as soldiers, miners, or fur harvesters, with the intention of returning or retiring once they’d “made their fortune”.
The Columbian Exchange of non-native species and diseases, which resulted in mass die-offs of native flora and fauna alike. The arrival of European diseases in America are estimated to have killed between 80% and 95% of native populations, often wiping out entire communities before a single European arrived.
Industrialization, particularly in the wake of the Civil War, which introduced petrochemicals and air pollutants responsible for the mass die-off of entire biomes.
All of these can - directly or indirectly - be blamed on European settlement.
Yes, agreed. But that’s not how I meant “balance” in that case and neither, I believe, did the OP.
equating industrialization with techological process is pretty fuckin eurocentric of you.
Isn’t it, though? Would any of the technological - and often scientific - breakthroughs of the 20th and 21st centuries have been possible without industrialisation?
since a counterfactual can’t be proven, we will probably never know
Okay, but we can say with confidence that they all did require prior industrialisation in the way they panned out, and also, have never happened in any preindustrial society. That’s at least a solid hint.
we can only say that they happened after, not that industrialization was necessary
In every single case, with no counterexamples.
How would you bet $100 on this?
when can I collect?
First non industrialised society to send a person into orbit themselves, and fetch them back alive?