The image on the left is one of Vancouver's more noted landmarks. It's the representation of stone monuments that the Inuits built in the arctic. It's called an inukshuk. There's a craze/fetish for these things and Vancouver used it on their official logo for the 2010 Olympics.Not to be cynical or a snob, but Europeans were building St. Peter's 400 years ago and native cultures of North America were piling up some rocks that look like a wobbly stickman. The inukshuk is cool in a way, but why do we glorify it? Is it not a wee bit embarrassing?
In related news, International Olympic Committee Chairman Dick Pound was quoted recently:
“We must not forget that 400 years ago, Canada was a land of savages, with scarcely 10,000 inhabitants of European origin, while in China, we’re talking about a 5,000-year-old civilization.” (Story)
A poor choice of words that have people up in arms. He's been called a racist and the IOC has been petitioned to sanction him. This gave Margaret Wente an idea for a column, and now she's getting the same heat at the Globe and Mail.
North American native peoples had a neolithic culture based on subsistence living and small kinship groups. They had not developed broader laws or institutions, a written language, evidence-based science, mathematics or advanced technologies. The kinship groups in which they lived were very small, simply organized and not very productive. Other kinship groups were regarded as enemies, and the homicide rate was probably rather high. Until about 30 years ago, the anthropological term for this developmental stage was “savagery.” (see full column)
What do you think? Were native cultures of the 1600's as advanced as European or Chinese?
