Hantlers explains why things are the way they are on reservations

[moevillini]

Practices like the potlatch tell me otherwise, in addition to the general mistakes of treating hundreds of tribes as a single cultural group.

the basic premise behind the potlatch is to share the wealth. What's your point?

 

[VINYLONE]

the basic premise behind the potlatch is to share the wealth. What's your point?

Are you having a bad day, Moe?

 

[Hantlers]

You should look into cuckolding. Some men don't have a problem with their significant others sleeping with another man. It's actually a turn on.

I'm aware of what it is, but I wouldn't consider it common. I wouldn't say that it follows basic human nature.

 

[moevillini]

Are you having a bad day, Moe?

No, not particularly. Are you?

 

[One Brow]

I was asking a question.

I took it as a question with a point.

You're the one stereotyping every culture as having the same inherent desires. Why do you believe that Native Americans would not have differing motivations than the Western culture which you're trying to typecast everyone as?

From what I can tell, the desire for status, tasty food, etc. are not just universal to humans, but to all primates and many other types of mammals. It's possible some cultures downplay this tendency. I've said a few times that I don't know enough to say with certainty. If you have example of actual cultural dynamics at play in certain tribes/regions, as opposed to generic statements, I'm open to hear them.

One of things we Europeans do is romanticize other cultures as being "more spiritual" or "more connect to the earth". This is part of the Noble Savage stereotype. So, when I see or think of a certain group as being more noble or less interested in material things, I remind myself to question if that particular thought process is in play.

 

[One Brow]

Basic human nature tells me that as a man, I wouldn't want my significant other (soon to be wife) to be sleeping with another man. Yet somehow this idea made sense to you. For all I know, it made you happy that your wife was sleeping with another man.

That's why your basic human nature argument is stupid. People aren't always going to follow 'basic human nature'.

Some primates are more monogamous, some are more polyamorous. This varies by both species and individual. There's no particular reason to think humans would only be one way or the other.

 

[One Brow]

the basic premise behind the potlatch is to share the wealth. What's your point?

No, the basic premise is to humiliate your guests by giving them much more than they could give you in return, and it is oftentimes accompanied by additional destruction of what you can't give away; the more ostentatiously, the better. Sharing the wealth is one reason some people think it developed/persisted, but it's not the primary cultural force behind potlatch.

 

[moevillini]

You should look into cuckolding. Some men don't have a problem with their significant others sleeping with another man. It's actually a turn on.

and from what I understand (NOT from personal experience btw) men (unless they're gay) don't have a problem with their significant other fooling around with another woman - it's quite a turn on. Or so it seems from popular culture.

What the hell is this topic about? And why did One Brow start a thread telling us what Hantlers thinks? Perplexing.

 

[moevillini]

No, the basic premise is to humiliate your guests by giving them much more than they could give you in return, and it is oftentimes accompanied by additional destruction of what you can't give away; the more ostentatiously, the better. Sharing the wealth is one reason some people think it developed/persisted, but it's not the primary cultural force behind potlatch.

that's not the way I understand it; you may have a different interpretation of the practice.

 

[Stoked]

and from what I understand (NOT from personal experience btw) men (unless they're gay) don't have a problem with their significant other fooling around with another woman - it's quite a turn on. Or so it seems from popular culture.

What the hell is this topic about? And why did One Brow start a thread telling us what Hantlers thinks? Perplexing.

It comes from another thread where Hantlers made a reference to his dealings with Native Americans.

This started as One Brow's attempt at a "gotcha" thread.

 

[One Brow]

And why did One Brow start a thread telling us what Hantlers thinks? Perplexing.

I promised to separate this conversation from the Bundy thread so I started this one. Hantlers claimed that Native Americans on reservations were demotivated from success by too many government handouts, and I wanted to see if he could explain that, given that all those handouts means they are still living in poverty. So far, no explanation.

 

[One Brow]

that's not the way I understand it; you may have a different interpretation of the practice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potlatch

Dorothy Johansen describes the dynamic: "In the potlatch, the host in effect challenged a guest chieftain to exceed him in his 'power' to give away or to destroy goods. If the guest did not return 100 percent on the gifts received and destroy even more wealth in a bigger and better bonfire, he and his people lost face and so his 'power' was diminished." Hierarchical relations within and between clans, villages, and nations, were observed and reinforced through the distribution or sometimes destruction of wealth, dance performances, and other ceremonies. The status of any given family is raised not by who has the most resources, but by who distributes the most resources. The hosts demonstrate their wealth and prominence through giving away goods.

Of course, it also says:

It is important to keep this variation in mind as most of our detailed knowledge of the potlatch was acquired from the Kwakwaka'wakw around Fort Rupert on Vancouver Island in the period 1849 to 1925, a period of great social transition in which many features became exaggerated in reaction to British colonialism.

So, if you have a few sources which describe the potlatch as primarily communal, rather than primarily for status, I would certainly be willing to adjust my opinion.