Savagery and Civilization - Term Paper Example

? Savagery and Civilization Fredrick Jackson Turner described the advance of the American Frontier westwards as the outer edge of the wave – the meeting point between savagery and civilization. Charles Darwin meanwhile insinuates that savages have a lower reproductive capacity than civilized people, since they face more natural calamities and are vulnerable to many pestilences. This begs the question, what is savagery and what is civilization. According to the primary sources savagery is the free exercise of the innate human desire to live without rules and order in a system of utter chaos. Civilization on the other hand is to live with rules and laws that ensure order in the conduct of human affairs (Darwin 45). The American civilization for example, was a combination of European immigrant new technology in terms of superior weaponry farming and international trade technology. It therefore easily overpowered that native technology of bows, arrows and constant migration of Native American tribes. This paper sets out to distinguish between the concepts of savagery and civilization with reference to the contribution of a number of primary sources who have tackled this topic in the past. Perspectives of Primary Sources on Savagery and Civilization In the Descent of man, Darwin describes as native the communities that were to be found in the Western Frontier during the expansion of American rule. He makes the assertion that reproductive power is lower in barbarons or savages than in civilized people (Darwin 45). This was an attempt to compare a purely biological process [reproduction] in people who had attained different levels of civilization. It is clear from the argument in the paper that Darwin is actually talking about mortality rate or reproductive rate. This is because he goes further to argue that because of the poor living conditions, the barbarons have a lower rate of survival. However he goes further to allege that savages appear to be “less prolific that civilized people” (Darwin, 46). Among the reasons given for the low population levels among the savages are wars with neighbors, a tendency to wander from place to place that endangers the lives of infants, diseases, famine and lack of water. Darwin also states that infanticide is a major cause of depopulation since the savages would rather kill children, especially girls, in an attempt to keep down the population levels (Darwin, 46). Another great blight of colonialism was slavery. Arguments that some cultures were superior to others and civilized persons were much more superior to native savages fuelled the slave trade. This trade ensured that some people were subhuman as they had not undergone the full extent of development in the process of natural selection. According to Darwin certain humans were a sub species of the human species (Darwin 175). Humans therefore shamelessly traded in other humans like commodities. They owned them, made them work and then sold them up to other owners. However, Darwin’s allegations have since been challenged by later day scholars who termed some of Darwin’s assertions as inadequate, presumptive and not supported by irrefutable evidence. Among the scholars who disagree is Fredrick Jackson Turner who refers to the civilization of America as meeting of minds between the European settlers and the American native life (Turner, 3). He goes further to describe how the European had to adjust to the American life by planting corn, using the birch canoe to travel and even adopting the native Indian war cry in order to survive. He acknowledges that the European brought with him some superior technology including the gun and train, but these alone were not enough for his survival as the environment proved too tough unless he adjusted (Turner, 4). According to him, therefore, it is the combination of cultures that brings about civilization rather than a single purist culture (Turner, 4). The contribution of these arguments towards colonialism was that colonists always argued that they were bringing forth a new civilization to their colonies. They had a point to the extent that humanity has always developed by borrowing from the culture of others. Indeed, human history is replete with instances of one group of people always trying to impose their culture others through force, trade or religious persuasion. In fact, even the natives who occupied the lands that were later colonized were always in constant conflict with each other for dominance, since they were not homogeneous groups, just as alleged by Darwin (Turner 61). Turner describes colonialism as the institution, safeguarding, attainment and development of occupied territory [colony] by a group from another territory [colonists]. In the process sovereignty is claimed by the metropole over the occupied territory. The government and economy is changed by the colonists in the interest of the metropole and dominance is established over the people in the occupied colony and its indigenous population (Turner 96). The argument of the colonial scholars also bore credence to the extent that a superior dispensation always took over from a lesser civilization, so long as superior dispensation meant better fighting weapons to ensure compliance to the new order (Turner 62). Further, Turner states that the trading frontier, which consisted of French European newcomers who carried out trade with the native Indians in America, steadily undermined Indian power by making the natives dependent on whites, but inadvertently empowered them by selling to them guns. These guns helped them to resist the English farmers taking over their land (Turner 94). In this way they new European forces occupying America contributed both to the destruction of the social systems of the native Indians and to their economy as well. They introduced new goods that changed the value system of the natives and changed their lifestyles by indiscriminately introducing agriculture. They also used the new frontiers as an extensions of their European rivalries. Each side sought the natives as their allies with the French claiming to preserve the forests for hunting while the Englishmen simply destroyed them for agriculture (Turner 95). One of the most devastating outcomes of colonialism was the spread of diseases from one area to another that nearly wiped out the people from either side of the colonial divide. Natives of the Americas, Asia and Africa who were colonized had to contend with new diseases that they knew nothing about. Such diseases as small pox to which the European colonists had developed immunity were unknown to places like Mexico where 150, 000 natives were killed by the new ailment. The colonists also came face to face with malaria and syphilis which they knew nothing about and paid heavily with their lives. This devastation made nonsense of the claims that certain peoples were superior to others simply because they were more civilized. In fact they justified the assertions by Turner that even the newcomers needed the counsel of the locals in order to survive (Turner 7). Even those natives who were not directly enslaved were used as farm hands in their own countries to work on farms that had been captured from them by the colonists. This was justified by the fact that they knew nothing about agriculture during the industrial revolution and could thud not use the land effectively. The modern agriculture being introduced did not take into cognizance the fact that the colonized peoples had long practiced agriculture and were actually living on it. So they were shown how to take care of farms and animals. In some cases the colonists actually learned of certain crops from the natives, like corn farming in which came from the natives in Mexico and the native frontier in America (Turner 14). Naturally, no garden hand was allowed to imagine that they could apply their own knowledge of agriculture since they were supposed to know nothing. Foreign ways of producing crops were put into practice whether they fitted well in the immediate environment or not. As a result many experiments failed in the new environments simply because the colonists believed their knowledge was superior to that of the unschooled natives (Turner 20). A further justification for this argument was the view advanced that the natives were in constant war and chaos and so could not be expected to preside over any orderly government or economic activity. This argument completely ignored that fact that the natives actually had government, justice, religious and social order systems. The only factor here was that those preexisting systems were different from those advanced by the colonists who either looked down upon them or ignored them (Turner 34). In the history of the wars that laid the foundation for the modern United States, individuals like Theodore Roosevelt felt that the wars that displaced the natives were well justified based purely on Darwinian theory (Sharp 48). According to Sharp (52) the arguments by Darwin and other like minded scholars are the basis for the brutal struggle that defined the expansion of white settlement into native territory in the west of the United States during the 19th century. The aim was to show that certain people were superior to others and were thus justified in oppressing others simply based on their supposed advancement of civilization. This made it quite OK for them to lord it over others (Sharp 52). Arguments like those by Darwin contributed to a great extent towards the advancement of racism, slavery and ultimately colonialism (Sharp 4). Sharp (8) argues that the triumph of American civilization predated the onset of Darwinism. The European immigrants took full advantage of their advanced technology to impose their will and power over the natives (Sharp 9). The new overlords allocated for themselves large tracts of land for agricultural exploitation and mining at the expense of the natives. So the onset of colonialism and slavery was well on its way long before Darwin’s theories came into the picture (Sharp 12). In aid of this domination was Darwin’s analysis of man as the toolmaker (Sharp 34). According to Darwin those who manufactured superior tools had a distinct advantage over others. Darwin asserted that some races were superior to others because they had advanced in technology. He attributed this to such races being at a higher level of evolution than the others who were still closer to the ape (Sharp 35). These arguments came in handy for the whites who believed that they were the more advanced race. They therefore felt that that their conquest and domination of the natives was justified. In the same vein, they strongly believed that they had a right to capture and keep slaves to serve them in their farms and homes (Sharp 36). Even after the end of slavery, the whites still maintained a system of discrimination against other races that was not to be defeated until the mid 20th century (Sharp 54). The assertion that the colonists were simply advancing the civilization of humanity came in handy in justifying what was basically an aggrandizement of economic and political power (Sharp 54). Individuals who had no other interest but to get new areas to practice their agriculture, trade [including slave trade] and leadership experiments, found these arguments handy in furthering their inhuman causes (Sharp 55). The fact that the civilized nations of the time such as France, England and Germany themselves had a bloody history of wars did not seem to count in this equation. The chaos and bloodletting they wrought in the name of introducing colonialism, killing natives by the thousands and capturing others for slavery also did not count in the Darwinian equation of chaos. So all the violence was readily justifiable with the argument that it was the advancement of civilization to emancipate savages from their slumber and introduce light to their dark lives (Sharp 56). This scenario is well captured in science fiction by writer Edgar Burroughs who describes how the main character John Carter is pursued by native Indians with their poisoned arrows in the height of the American wars. Carter is an adventurous war veteran who refers to himself as an experienced Indian fighter. He feels that every battle he has been in is inevitable. He says, “I do not believe that I am made of the stuff which constitutes heroes, because, in all of the hundreds of instances that my voluntary acts have placed me face to face with death, I cannot recall a single one where any alternative step to that I took occurred to me until many hours later” (Burroughs ch 1). Carter goes on to lead several wars on planet Mars that bear great resemblance to the wars with the Indians that he was involved in on earth before being taken by aliens to mars. The wars depict one native tribe taking over another through violent conflict. This is itself reminiscent of colonialism which takes place on earth. On one such occasion he rescues princess Dejah Thoris who has been captured by the Tharks in a violent attack (Burroughs ch 12). Conclusion There is no doubt that scholars such as Darwin and Turner made their contribution in the study of human development and history. Some of their findings still remain useful today and have been the subjects of further research, debate and study. However, developments in human history and further research into his findings have tended to punch holes into the once widely accepted views of Darwin and have put his theories in serious doubt. It is also quite unfortunate that in the height of their supremacy, his views came in handy for such miscreants as colonists and slave drivers to justify what could be termed at present times as grave crimes against humanity. As for Turner, History has come to justify most of his arguments analyzing the history of the advancement of the American frontier. Nevertheless, neither point of view can be completely ignored by modern day traders. Works Cited Darwin Charles, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex.2nd ed. 1874 New York: D. Appleton, 1896. Print. Burroughs, Edgar Rice. The Princess of Mars, Dover Publications: New York, 2005. Print. Sharp, Patrick B., Savage perils: racial frontiers and nuclear apocalypse in American culture, Norman: U of Oklahoma P, 2007. Print Read More