FA+
Shop
204
Views
Views
0
Favorites
Favorites
Category
All / Comics
Species Rabbit / Hare
Size 942 x 1186
File Size 326.2 kB
Report this content
More from ElConejo
The first two pages of a comic series I decided to do. It'll probably be about 4-6 pages long in total.
Just a native tribesman, making observations about a new village's lack of survival skill. He worries for them, but doesn't know if he can trust them enough to offer help. So, he confides in a friend.
Graphite on paper. I didn't ink this one because I don't have any proper pens on me and I did not want to fuck these drawings up. As such, it may be a little straining on the eyes to read some of it. I tried to compensate by making each panel a full-page drawing.
Also, while we're on the subject...
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/6912227/
Check that out.
Unless you've already seen it.
In which case, check it out again!
Just a native tribesman, making observations about a new village's lack of survival skill. He worries for them, but doesn't know if he can trust them enough to offer help. So, he confides in a friend.
Graphite on paper. I didn't ink this one because I don't have any proper pens on me and I did not want to fuck these drawings up. As such, it may be a little straining on the eyes to read some of it. I tried to compensate by making each panel a full-page drawing.
Also, while we're on the subject...
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/6912227/
Check that out.
Unless you've already seen it.
In which case, check it out again!
Category All / Comics
Species Rabbit / Hare
Size 942 x 1186px
File Size 326.2 kB
interesting.
I learned recently that from a modern standpoint this isn't even an ironic viewpoint. Our current historical understanding points to First Nation Americans being technological equals of the immigrating Europeans (and their technology was more adapted to their surroundings). Gunpowder alone does not a major technology-gap make, and the indigenous locals had at least equally effective weapons. Theirs just took more skill to use and were harder to mass-produce quickly.
In everything besides weapons, the two groups' comparative technology worked out to about neutral (textiles, farming/ranching, architecture, etc). With the natives' tech being so much better suited to their environment than the set-in-their-ways immigrants, this is pretty much exactly how the Europeans must have looked to the people watching them move in.
I learned recently that from a modern standpoint this isn't even an ironic viewpoint. Our current historical understanding points to First Nation Americans being technological equals of the immigrating Europeans (and their technology was more adapted to their surroundings). Gunpowder alone does not a major technology-gap make, and the indigenous locals had at least equally effective weapons. Theirs just took more skill to use and were harder to mass-produce quickly.
In everything besides weapons, the two groups' comparative technology worked out to about neutral (textiles, farming/ranching, architecture, etc). With the natives' tech being so much better suited to their environment than the set-in-their-ways immigrants, this is pretty much exactly how the Europeans must have looked to the people watching them move in.
Exactly. The native people managed to form a quite advanced society among themselves, using very intricate "stone-age" technology. The thing is, they had figured out how to live a wonderfully comfortable life off of the land.
The only manner in which the European settlers were "More advanced" was metallurgy. However, in nearly every other respect, (hunting, agriculture, art, music, poetry, medicine, war tactics... The list goes on,) the natives were arguably -more- advanced than the European settlers. And yet, they were looked down on as "savage, barbaric, half-men."
Ridiculous.
Interesting side note, speaking of gunpowder: European powder weapons still weren't standardized at that point. So, even the ability to mass-produce weaponry didn't do much good. If your buddy got killed, you couldn't use his shot, unless it was buckshot. The first standardized European musket was the British Land Pattern Musket, which came about in the 1720s. On the other hand, it's not much of a big deal to use the same arrow in pretty much any given bow. (As long as you weren't trying to put a 3 foot longbow shaft on a shortbow)
The only manner in which the European settlers were "More advanced" was metallurgy. However, in nearly every other respect, (hunting, agriculture, art, music, poetry, medicine, war tactics... The list goes on,) the natives were arguably -more- advanced than the European settlers. And yet, they were looked down on as "savage, barbaric, half-men."
Ridiculous.
Interesting side note, speaking of gunpowder: European powder weapons still weren't standardized at that point. So, even the ability to mass-produce weaponry didn't do much good. If your buddy got killed, you couldn't use his shot, unless it was buckshot. The first standardized European musket was the British Land Pattern Musket, which came about in the 1720s. On the other hand, it's not much of a big deal to use the same arrow in pretty much any given bow. (As long as you weren't trying to put a 3 foot longbow shaft on a shortbow)
well, they had deeper insight in some areas, and the Europeans had advantages in others (in each of the areas you mentioned - though it seems a bit unfair to compare any two cultures' artistic achievements - they're so unique). From what I was learning, it was basically not downplaying or downgrading the European technologies, merely throwing into question the assumptions of categories like "stone age" vs. "iron age" and arguing that metallurgy and such things, by themselves, make stupid linchpins for judging an entire society. Comfort, complexity, philosophy, practicality, education, etc were much more comparable between the two sides than many previous assumptions would lead people to believe.
Well, you're correct, in that the European settlers certainly weren't far behind, if at all, in any given area other than survivalism. They had a disturbing lack of knowledge when it came to living in wild land, and that was only exaggerated when they ended up on an entirely different continent. All of a sudden, what little practical knowledge they had was all but useless.
The part that really amuses me is their agriculture. Note the little comment in the comic about "They plant crops that do not grow here."
Fun Fact: Wheat will not grow on rocky, coastal land. Even if you can find a proper piece of dirt for the stuff, the soil will have the wrong nutrients, and, most likely, a little too much salt. You need flat, open, inland areas with loose, fertile topsoil. However, for some odd reason, the Europeans did not seem to grasp this concept very easily. Instead, they would spend weeks, if not months, praying for the growth of a crop that was never even going to sprout. The result was that they almost starved to death. Without the help of the native people, most of the European settlers would have never survived their first winter.
Meanwhile, over in the native villages, life was rather comfortable. One had to work hard and pull his own weight in the tribe, but there was always plenty of food to go around, stories and music by the fire, and a warm place to sleep.
Honestly, at times, I pine for that way of living.
The part that really amuses me is their agriculture. Note the little comment in the comic about "They plant crops that do not grow here."
Fun Fact: Wheat will not grow on rocky, coastal land. Even if you can find a proper piece of dirt for the stuff, the soil will have the wrong nutrients, and, most likely, a little too much salt. You need flat, open, inland areas with loose, fertile topsoil. However, for some odd reason, the Europeans did not seem to grasp this concept very easily. Instead, they would spend weeks, if not months, praying for the growth of a crop that was never even going to sprout. The result was that they almost starved to death. Without the help of the native people, most of the European settlers would have never survived their first winter.
Meanwhile, over in the native villages, life was rather comfortable. One had to work hard and pull his own weight in the tribe, but there was always plenty of food to go around, stories and music by the fire, and a warm place to sleep.
Honestly, at times, I pine for that way of living.
Yes, tribal living is very human. I think we're more suited to it. Did you know that in an average well-functioning tribe (world wide), people worked less than 100 days out of the year? They worked hard when they worked, but they had TONS of time for stories and crafts and internal self-care of various kinds.
Of course, even English serfs in the 1300s had it better than we have it now, when it comes to work. When they worked, they worked their asses off, long days, for weeks at a time without much in the way of rest. However, they only did that for about 14 weeks out of the 52 weeks in a year. The rest of the time (yes, 38 weeks a year) they had to spend with loved ones, make non-essential home improvements, and invent new musical instruments (etc).
The modern work ethic (started by the same psychotic religious settlers that would starve rather than learn new farming practices) is not merely insane, but I think evil. Certainly, it's unnatural.
And yeah, you're right about some settlements. Others were saner. Depended mostly on how well-organized they were. Leadership makes a big difference in how well a people's technologies are implemented (not to mention their ability to adapt). The religious groups were generally a bit crazier and more insular than the more trade-oriented settlements, but there was a lot of variety. Hard to generalize in any direction. Lots of the early settlements traded and learned from the locals quite rationally. But the stories of the crazy people are certainly more disturbing/entertaining.
Just remember that a lot of the crazy ones were only on this continent because they were crazy enough to make themselves totally unwelcome at home. Small wonder they didn't act very rational in their new home either.
As a general rule though, folk are folk. We're clever and stupid, rational and crazy, compassionate and cruel, and everything else that folk are. Many, over the centuries, believed the Europeans had higher technology, and they have now been proven basically incorrect by a closer examination of the historical record. The two groups were effectively comparable. The "conquest" happened mostly due to plagues, which led to the Europeans eventually having superior numbers. People make much of evil later acts of deliberate germ warfare, but that was only much, much later. Most of the plagues that ravaged the native tribes, at least as badly as the Black Death ravaged Europe, were totally accidental in introduction, and happened during the very earliest contacts.
Sometimes whole European settlements would succumb to accidentally-induced plagues from the other side as well, but in that one way, the settlers' insular tendencies served them well, and their plagues rarely spread quite as far outside a single settlement. Or maybe the lessons of the Black Death were useful in containment. Still, the majority of the earliest settlements failed miserably and ended in death and tears, or at best (if they were rational enough to accept it), total integration with a local tribe. The settlements were badly planned, unfunded, and rarely included the experts needed for the venture being attempted.
In retaliation for former unjust assumptions about technological inequalities, some have tried to say that the Europeans had lesser technology, which is natural to say, but if you grabbed a handful of unprepared men and MAYBE one woman from some random American tribe of the time, dropped them in same-era Siberia and told them, "the locals are barbarians - you can't allow yourself to be contaminated by their evil ways - now stay alive without their help." They'd be hard-pressed. Also, city folk are inherently disadvantaged at farming (until they learn the ropes, with time and experience). City folk crazy enough not to realize that are going to look pretty stupid when they try farming as a way of life. This still happens.
Take a sane English fisher and trapper from that era, wilderness born and raised, send him to pretty much anywhere in the world and say, "the locals are wise and clever - what you can't figure out yourself, ask them" and he'll have no advantages or disadvantages over any sane tribal person. City technologies and skills are not always useful in the wilderness. Doesn't reflect on the culture as a whole.
But I don't think mere city-life was the biggest culprit in the weird behavior of some of the early European settlers on this continent. Religious fundamentalism is kind of a disease, I think. I'm very religious, but I think closed-minded fundamentalists are mentally ill. It's like a paranoia.
Of course, even English serfs in the 1300s had it better than we have it now, when it comes to work. When they worked, they worked their asses off, long days, for weeks at a time without much in the way of rest. However, they only did that for about 14 weeks out of the 52 weeks in a year. The rest of the time (yes, 38 weeks a year) they had to spend with loved ones, make non-essential home improvements, and invent new musical instruments (etc).
The modern work ethic (started by the same psychotic religious settlers that would starve rather than learn new farming practices) is not merely insane, but I think evil. Certainly, it's unnatural.
And yeah, you're right about some settlements. Others were saner. Depended mostly on how well-organized they were. Leadership makes a big difference in how well a people's technologies are implemented (not to mention their ability to adapt). The religious groups were generally a bit crazier and more insular than the more trade-oriented settlements, but there was a lot of variety. Hard to generalize in any direction. Lots of the early settlements traded and learned from the locals quite rationally. But the stories of the crazy people are certainly more disturbing/entertaining.
Just remember that a lot of the crazy ones were only on this continent because they were crazy enough to make themselves totally unwelcome at home. Small wonder they didn't act very rational in their new home either.
As a general rule though, folk are folk. We're clever and stupid, rational and crazy, compassionate and cruel, and everything else that folk are. Many, over the centuries, believed the Europeans had higher technology, and they have now been proven basically incorrect by a closer examination of the historical record. The two groups were effectively comparable. The "conquest" happened mostly due to plagues, which led to the Europeans eventually having superior numbers. People make much of evil later acts of deliberate germ warfare, but that was only much, much later. Most of the plagues that ravaged the native tribes, at least as badly as the Black Death ravaged Europe, were totally accidental in introduction, and happened during the very earliest contacts.
Sometimes whole European settlements would succumb to accidentally-induced plagues from the other side as well, but in that one way, the settlers' insular tendencies served them well, and their plagues rarely spread quite as far outside a single settlement. Or maybe the lessons of the Black Death were useful in containment. Still, the majority of the earliest settlements failed miserably and ended in death and tears, or at best (if they were rational enough to accept it), total integration with a local tribe. The settlements were badly planned, unfunded, and rarely included the experts needed for the venture being attempted.
In retaliation for former unjust assumptions about technological inequalities, some have tried to say that the Europeans had lesser technology, which is natural to say, but if you grabbed a handful of unprepared men and MAYBE one woman from some random American tribe of the time, dropped them in same-era Siberia and told them, "the locals are barbarians - you can't allow yourself to be contaminated by their evil ways - now stay alive without their help." They'd be hard-pressed. Also, city folk are inherently disadvantaged at farming (until they learn the ropes, with time and experience). City folk crazy enough not to realize that are going to look pretty stupid when they try farming as a way of life. This still happens.
Take a sane English fisher and trapper from that era, wilderness born and raised, send him to pretty much anywhere in the world and say, "the locals are wise and clever - what you can't figure out yourself, ask them" and he'll have no advantages or disadvantages over any sane tribal person. City technologies and skills are not always useful in the wilderness. Doesn't reflect on the culture as a whole.
But I don't think mere city-life was the biggest culprit in the weird behavior of some of the early European settlers on this continent. Religious fundamentalism is kind of a disease, I think. I'm very religious, but I think closed-minded fundamentalists are mentally ill. It's like a paranoia.
Actually, yes, religion did play a significant role in the failure of many of the settlements. Well, not the religion itself, but the arbitrary, unrelenting adherence thereof that certain settlements displayed. Settlements that were trade oriented, as you said, did much better. It really makes a difference. On the one side, you have a group of people who, as you said, were so extremist in there ways that even their own countrymen no longer welcomed them, a group who are so dead-set in their ways and beliefs that they consider anyone with a different enough culture to be evil. On the other end, you have a group of people who simply want to live on the land, trap fur, and trade goods with the natives. This group is willing, nay, eager, to learn everything they can in order to make their own business ventures more fruitful, and their lives easier.
The latter are the ones who survived. The "Take a sane English fisher and trapper" concept is pretty much exactly what happened. As a rule, these settlers realized that, through good relations with the native tribes, they could live fruitful lives in their new homes.
Honestly, culture has little to do with it. It's not a detriment in any way, shape, or form to have a foreign culture, as long as you are willing to learn new ways of thinking. Doesn't mean one has to abandon their culture, it simply means that they have to adapt it accordingly. French settlers, incidentally, had a pretty good track record for being willing to do so. (Usually. New Orleans is a perfect example of the converse. The natives told them that they should not build there, because it gets wet. The French shrugged it off, built anyway, and then wondered why they had to find ways to hold the ocean back.) As such, they did very well in North America (Again, usually). Trading and diplomacy with the natives was something they took very, very seriously, and it shows.
Problems only really arise when you don't have a clue what you're doing, and don't have good relations with the people that do, "Because they're different, and, therefore, evil."
Or when you plant crops that won't grow just because "Well it grew just fine on the other side of the friggin' ocean!"
Most likely a combination of both.
Even Sun Tzu stressed the importance of being able to adapt.
The latter are the ones who survived. The "Take a sane English fisher and trapper" concept is pretty much exactly what happened. As a rule, these settlers realized that, through good relations with the native tribes, they could live fruitful lives in their new homes.
Honestly, culture has little to do with it. It's not a detriment in any way, shape, or form to have a foreign culture, as long as you are willing to learn new ways of thinking. Doesn't mean one has to abandon their culture, it simply means that they have to adapt it accordingly. French settlers, incidentally, had a pretty good track record for being willing to do so. (Usually. New Orleans is a perfect example of the converse. The natives told them that they should not build there, because it gets wet. The French shrugged it off, built anyway, and then wondered why they had to find ways to hold the ocean back.) As such, they did very well in North America (Again, usually). Trading and diplomacy with the natives was something they took very, very seriously, and it shows.
Problems only really arise when you don't have a clue what you're doing, and don't have good relations with the people that do, "Because they're different, and, therefore, evil."
Or when you plant crops that won't grow just because "Well it grew just fine on the other side of the friggin' ocean!"
Most likely a combination of both.
Even Sun Tzu stressed the importance of being able to adapt.
Totally, and yeah, the French and the Dutch were there more about profit and trade (beneficial to both side because of the similarity in levels of tech and "civilization"). Their settlements were planned, funded, and some of the Dutch especially ended up being quite open-mindedly cosmopolitan. The English settlers were mostly not there for profit, but to rid England of their presence. These expeditions were less well planned and likelier to behave like morons. And then there's the Spanish who planned well, but were huge jerks. *rolls eyes*
And if it hadn't been for the massive die-offs that left the locals reeling and vulnerable, with far more food than they needed and villages full of the dead and dying, things would likely have turned out quite differently. They might have been less tolerant and generous with the stupid and/or closed-minded settlers, having more mouths of their own still to feed and less internal existential crisis, as massive plagues generally inspire. They'd likely have still traded peacefully with the sane settlements, to everyone's benefit, and when anyone tried to push harder than was respectful, they'd have simply defended their home and nothing much the Europeans could have done about it. What an interesting alternative history that would have been.
Studying history is so weird sometimes. Probably even weirder since I've been writing time-travel fiction all day.
And if it hadn't been for the massive die-offs that left the locals reeling and vulnerable, with far more food than they needed and villages full of the dead and dying, things would likely have turned out quite differently. They might have been less tolerant and generous with the stupid and/or closed-minded settlers, having more mouths of their own still to feed and less internal existential crisis, as massive plagues generally inspire. They'd likely have still traded peacefully with the sane settlements, to everyone's benefit, and when anyone tried to push harder than was respectful, they'd have simply defended their home and nothing much the Europeans could have done about it. What an interesting alternative history that would have been.
Studying history is so weird sometimes. Probably even weirder since I've been writing time-travel fiction all day.
Comments