Who had a more civilized approach to life: The Native Americans who lived in harmony with nature?

(until the advent of the gun and horse), and modern man(and woman) who is rapidly outstripping the Earth's natural resources, and perhaps changing the climate forever?Who had a more civilized approach to life: The Native Americans who lived in harmony with nature?
Part of the problem here is that we aren't sure what the word ';civilized'; means in this question. If we took an anthropological/historical approach to this word, a ';civilization'; is simply a culture that is concentrated in cities (latin: civis). However, given the assumption in the question that Native Americans lived in harmony with nature, I think the questioner is taking more of a moral stance rather than a classificatory one.





This issue has everything to do with how WE perceive Native Americans rather than anything to do with how ';civilized'; people are. In the past, many people have either disparaged or romanticized Native Americans cultures. These are the easy options. Objectivity is much more difficult. When ';westerners'; first came across American Indians, not only were American Indian cultures looked down upon, they were often not even considered human. For 500 years, they were brutalized, destroyed and missionized. One common result of the decimation of indigenous people, the world over, is that the decimators come to romanticize the decimated! This is what is called the ';Noble Savage'; syndrome. It is a common irony of the cycle of colonization which occurs not only in this case but in other cases as well.





It is true, as some answerers have pointed out, that Native Americans did over-exploit their environment. The first people to occupy North American in fact wiped out many species that were unused to this clever new predator who showed up with weapons, fire, intelligence, and incredible adaptability. But it is also true that hunting and gathering people in general, not just the indigenous peoples of the Americas, take very, very good care of their environment. Why is this? Sure, their are the oft-cited religious reasons to live in ';harmony'; with nature, but there are also very pragmatic reasons. If you over-hunt and over-fish, your children will not have any food. It's cultural suicide. So, as is always the case, the religious beliefs bolster a culture's economic and political systems. In our newly found ';romantic'; assessment of indigenous peoples everywhere, and in our increasingly over-polluted world, we have come to admire these religious beliefs.





One classic argument that makes the case that people were better in societies with simpler technology is the chapter ';The Original Affluent Society'; in Marshall Sahlins' book ';Stone Age Economics'; (1972). In that piece, Sahlins points to the fact, discovered from the archaeological record as well as from ethnographic studies, that people who live in hunting-and-gathering societies often have better health, better diets, and are less prone to disease and starvation than people who farm and live in settled towns. The reason, he claims, is that farmers depend on fewer crops which are also genetically homogenized. As a result, they are more prone to drought and blight, and since farmers exploit only a few species compared to hunter-gatherers, they are much more affected by it. Hunter-gatherers, on the other hand, can simply move on to a new area and/or exploit different species. Furthermore, the close proximity to animal and human waste products (garbage, feces, and carcasses) in settled towns produces higher rates of epidemic disease, which of course spread faster because people are settled and living in very close proximity to one another. One might conclude that this is a ';better'; way to live as Sahlins seemed to do.





Things are different today for sure, and we can never ';go back';. When humans lived only by hunting and gathering, the world probably had a population of 1-5% of the current population (this is really just a rough guess though). We live in huge complex societies that have made a huge negative impact on the environment and on each other. Does this mean there is no hope to be better? Absolutely not. We can consume less, we can slow population growth, and we can find truly sustainable energy sources. And there ARE some very good things about our society as well, let's not forget. Disparaging ourselves is another simplified trap to fall into.





Finally, let us not oversimplify what we mean when we say ';Native Americans'; either! There was a whole diverse continent of cultures here in 1492. Not all indigenous people of the Americas were hunters and gatherers. Far from it. There were in fact ';civilizations'; (in the technical sense of the term) in the Americas as well. Think of the ancient Maya, the Aztec, the Incas. And the Mayans are a classic case study in how to over exploit the environment.Who had a more civilized approach to life: The Native Americans who lived in harmony with nature?
The Native Americans did it up right, as far as I'm concerned.
The problem is that we think in terms of out-fighting our environment. Becoming on top. Native Americans didn't think like that. They took whatever in necessary and left the rest be. That is one of the major differences probably. This ';approach'; right now may seem as the New Agist, however others might say that this is the only way to survive in the present condition - venerate the Earth, the Sky, and their creations. Look at us as an intertwined part of it all rather then some kind of heterogeneous artificial creations that have no relation to everthing but just use it to achieve its own selfish ends.
Did they do that out of choice or out of necessity? What were their other options???





These were also people that scalped each other, fought regularly with other tribes, practiced slavery, human sacrifice, and in some cases canibalism.





What you're talking about is the industrial revolution and not ';white man'; and indian relations.





There are many indian tribes who have nuclear storage facilities and dumps on their land for stuff that no one else wants.





People are, at the core, greedy. It was indians best interest NOT to kill excess buffalo because there would be fewer of them later. Early industrialists poluted because it cost them more money not too. Both were greedy and it shows from their actions.
Your a fool if you actually believe the nonsense you're spewing. Native Americans were savage - they didn't live in ';one'; with nature. Was that while they were slaughtering both animals and each other or after they started smoking pipes to ';enlighten'; (aka get stoned) themselves.





Your definition of living ';one with nature'; simply outlines the beginnings of all humans, all races, all ethnicities, before they become advanced. Europeans used to be like the native Americans many years ago, so did the Asians. The ';Natives'; (Mongolians actually) weren't the environmental peaceful hippies that you make them out to be.
The idea of the noble savage has no place in anthropology and should be relegated to mythology
Are you speaking about the American Indians that drove the herds of Buffalo over cliffs to get what they wanted, the ones that drove others of their kind off the lands they lived on, slaughtered them without mercy to gain their lands.


We, or they, don't speak about these acts, only what the Whites did to them. Of course their not going to take blame for any sins they committed, are they?





Well, check your history my friend, not just the one in the books, it's a cover up and always has been. I'm not biased, my relatives are American Indian.


So, why blame the whites, most weren't here when they were driven from their lands, they just lost, like the ones that walked before them did.





What would have eventually happen when their own tribes became overcrowded? and were starving for food, disease would have eventually captured them and they would have died off without modern medicine.


Where ever you go whether it's in the Amazon jungle, the deserts of South Africa, the Western Deserts of China and etc. these peoples are slowly dying out, they're becoming extinct due to simply coming to an end, they've gone as far as they can without going any further. They've come to a stand still in time, the Whites have over came them with their knowledge and skills, their modern machinery and tools, we've accepted them but, they've fought mechanization and the future. They lost.
The Native Americans _had_ to live in harmony with nature, just like all other hunter/gatherer and subsistence farming groups. If they didn't, well... Easter Island used to have trees, and the pueblos weren't originally built in the middle of a desert. The only differences between our culture and those earlier cultures that died off are technology and population. Intensive agriculture, like we practise, allows more people to live on less land. Europe also had a lot of technological advances, particularly in warfare. Thanks to those, our culture was able to take over the hunter/gatherers next door when we started to need more land and resources, where your average native tribe couldn't count on that.





Those guys do give us a very clear, scary lesson of what, exactly, is in store for us if we don't learn to live more lightly on this planet.
Define civilized?
civilize- to raise from a primitive state to an advanced and ordered stage of cultural development.





Despite all the technological advances and different culture, it seems that the Native Americans have been forced into a more primitive state. There was method to their madness. They knew where they were from, who they were, and where they were heading. They lived in a close-knit society, although they had their squabbles, fights and divisions within. They still functioned as a whole. They had their own judicial systems, economy, politics, etc. They had respect for the planet and were thankful for whatever they got. They used what the land offered, yet there was usualy no shortage.





Now, with the forced assimilation, there is societal and family dysfunction (alcohol, drug, abuse, etc.).





The greatest thing the Native American got from foreigners, I believe, is the gospel of Jesus Christ. Although it was brought about in the wrong way by some missionaries and educators, the Word itself offers hope for all.
It is up to personal belief of what makes a civilized society. I personally believe that the Native Americans had it right. They were changed b/c Europeans didn't understand that the Native Americans believed in the same God as them...





The Native Americans not only believed in God and cherishing what was free on the Earth like food, water and the world itself, but they strived to live in peace with eachother. By the time that the Europeans came here there weren't savage wars between the tribes.





I am a Christian of European decent married to a Christian of very long line of Cherokee indians, my husband's grandmother was married off the reservation in NC. There were customs like thanking the animal that provided the food on your table and thanking God for the animal.





When you understand the natural world around you, you start to unlock things like world peace. Look at how the animals live together and only kill for food. Even when trying to find the one that is in charge, they maime, but they don't kill.





I also believe that we lost a lot of medication by killing their culture. Look at the homeopathic remedies that are now surfacing that they knew about hundreds of years ago...
The native americans lacked technology. If they had the technology we have, do you think they wouldn't be abusing the earth too? Maybe not, but I think they would. That's just human nature. We all know it's wrong, but we just can't give up our luxuries.
i think the native Americans did . they respected the land %26amp; animals didn't abuse ether. they didn't kill for sport butt for survival,and they thanked %26amp; gave prise to their god %26amp; the animals spirit for giving them life.they took only what they needed for survival. most tribes were nomadic %26amp; lived %26amp; traveled in small bands of usually less than 100 men women %26amp; children to keep from over hunting %26amp; using the land. yes they did drive herds of buffalo %26amp; other large game off cliffs. butt small herds. could you see a hand handful of men %26amp; women running a1000 buffalo off a cliff. and it wasn't something they did everyday. a hundred or so buffalo if they were lucky would probably git them thru the winter. and they wasted nothing, every part was used for something, food, clothing, tools, even the enturnale organs. being over populated wasn't a problem, the elemants,sickness,starvation %26amp; war with rival tribes took care of that.and yes some tribe hated other tribes, just like the musliams hate the Jews, the Zulu's hate the matsui's, some texsons hate Mexicans %26amp; so on %26amp; so on. it;s been that way since the beginning of time and I'm soory to say will be till the end. it's just the nature of mankind. were they savage? the Webster defines savage as to be harsh or uncivilized. they were when they had to be.they lived a harsh environment and harsh times. if you got caught taking something of another mans you died hard.hay if i catch you taking something of mine or trying to kidnap my wife and kid I'm gonna bust ya head in or bust a cap on ya. oh i should be civilized [ oh!!!! officer that arapahoe just snatch my kid.please please hurry and git them back. butt don't hurt him he may just be mentally disturbed] they laughed,played,loved their families and respected their elders.they had their own tribal government as did each band.they had a head man, or chife,elders,police and warrior society or army. sounds pretty civilized to me. butt hey I'm just a dumb halfbreed country boy so what do i know.