Great post! I loved Pocahontas so much - the “Colours of the Wind” strikes a chord because at a very primal level we all want to be connected to both nature and our fundamental nature. But even a basic understanding of history (and reality) means I can recognise the Disney story for what it is - a (pretty biased) fairy tale. The problem is that the idea of the noble savage became such a pet view of the “cultured elite” that so many people now believe it as truth. It never was. Your analysis is spot on. Thank you.
Very informed and detailed account that does much to de-Hollywood affected conceptualisations of preliterate cultures. Once native American tribes had horses it wasn’t surprising it was so much easier to raid farmers’ crops than opt for a settled existence farming for themselves.
Fantastic. Wide-ranging and yet nuanced. Tragic, yet pragmatic.
Here's an essay from a literary rag I used to subscribe to, which illustrates the Machiavellian reality of native American tribes; not only more familiar to our strategic sensibilities than the Disneyfied version, but perhaps explains why the success of casino tribes doesn't "trickle down" to the rest.
There is also a perennial debate between the "strongman" view of politics and the "coalition" view, but both can be true simultaneously. The fate of the Bone Indians begs the question of why such gratuitous violence was ever considered strategically useful. It certainly hasn't resulted in durable prosperity and stability in the Islamic world, nor for the Mongols, nor for the Assyrians.
I don't think humanity can make significant progress toward the types of civilizations science fiction writers imagine until we can be honest about ourselves about why we tolerate certain behaviors which are short-term advantageous but long-term ruinous. This can be seen today in the glaring discrepancies between cultures which can make this distinction and those which cannot.
And yet, those which have become successful through cultivation of "coalition" ethics over barbaric "strongman" tactics are now unraveling because [my provisional thesis] too much success leads to individual flourishing -> reversion from coalition focus to self-maximizing -> then virtue-signaling meant to conceal self-maximizing -> then the emergence of sociopaths to "facilitate" virtue-signaling under the guise of utopian reformation -> reversion to strongman totalitarian feudalism -> then the cycle completes with a period of painful struggle just to re-establish coalition societies and begin again.
As you document so eloquently in this post, and as described in the article above, Machiavellian collaboration with invading armies is not germane to Europeans. It is often seen as a mutually beneficial pact between disparate coalition societies to eradicate regional strongman societies, who have abundant enemies. Sometimes the partnership works as both parties hope; often it does not; but the real calculus is whether the weaker party is likely to be truly worse off after deposing the well-despised villains. Similar to the question of whether subjects of the British empire were better or worse off for having been colonized. There is no monotonic answer.
The strongman has function but no balance, as you pointed out. The tribes, overall, rarely united, with the Iroquois Confederacy being an abnormality, not a common theme.
I also totally agree that, until we can face the shadow, Sci-Fi utopia is a fiction.
Although I have read quite a bit of science fiction, I cannot offhand think of science fiction which I would regard as utopian. I would appreciate it if you would please name a few science fiction novels or stories that you view as utopian. Thank you.
The early days of sci-fi were typified by postwar utopianism; you can also see various stages of this thinking in the architecture of World Fair buildings. There was a pre-WWI vision of multicultural utopia [1893 Columbian Expo, 1900 Paris Expo], and there was a post-WWII vision of technocratic utopia [many examples].
Perhaps the best one I can think of, and the most influential, is how Star Trek shaped the views of several generations of Americans. The United Nations, which was held in high regard by Gene Roddenberry, inspired his Starfleet Federation. It's based on a wishful fantasy of human nature: "I know I'm deeply flawed, and every adult I know is deeply flawed; but surely there exist morally righteous adults SOMEWHERE; and surely they find each other somehow and collaborate to form impartial and benevolent governing bodies that use the power of technology to supersede the petty rivalries of nations."
For a long time, because of the postwar American prosperity, such fantasies were the norm; just as dystopian cataclysm has become the norm in recent decades, which is also based on a lowbrow premise: humanity is corrupt and wicked, and we should be cynical of aspirations to grand civilizations, because we are fundamentally flawed. Neither tells the whole complex story, which is HOW humans choose cooperation or selfishness in different social contexts, and WHY we seem to prioritize some kinds of environmental management over others that seem equally important. If we cannot consider dispassionately what sort of incentive structures result in building useful institutions--and maintaining them after the founders have perished, then we're stuck with competing narratives that are not particularly enlightening.
The best kind of sci-fi is that which makes us question ALL our assumptions; not only about our political systems, but our essential nature, the nature of consciousness, and the operation of the physical world itself.
It had occurred to me that Star Trek could be viewed as utopian, but I thought perhaps there was an entire corpus of utopian science fiction that I had missed.
I wholeheartedly agree that "The best kind of sci-fi is that which makes us question ALL our assumptions; not only about our political systems, but our essential nature, the nature of consciousness, and the operation of the physical world itself."
Ursula Le Guin's many short stories and novels do this.
I have always found it interesting that her parents, Alfred and Theodora Kroeber, were cultural anthropologists, so Le Guin surely was raised to understand how malleable and variable human customs, values & behavior are, enabling her to readily imagine other-world anthropomorphic "species" with very different behavioral traits than earthly humans.
I did not know that, but you make a good point about the influence on her ethos. Then again, when I read one of Frans de Waal's books on primate social behavior, I knew early in the book that he was a liberal. A sociologist, human or otherwise, should not reveal their politics so transparently. It definitely compromised his objectivity on primates, just as it did with Jane Goodall. In many ways, the human fascination with animal sociology can be an attempt to validate our own priors about human politics. Both Goodall and de Waal did a disservice to anthropology by whitewashing the violence of the primates they studied, preferring to focus on their pro-social strategies. Just as Roddenberry chose the mission statement of the UN over its unappetizing track record in real life. Sounds like Ursula Le Guin's parents might have been superior in the pursuit of objective anthropological research [forever curious], and instilled in her a similarly imaginative curiosity about what lies beyond our world.
Outstanding article, Michael! I wish I could have found this new (for me anyway) information about the extent of Native North/South American violence. I could find hardly anything new when I wrote my piece on Indigenous land acknowledgements a few months ago, and even when I turned to AI, it couldn't find much either, although I was asking about specifically Canadian violence, so maybe that made a difference. It's practically against the law to say anything truthful about Canadian Indigenous violence here.
Great post! I loved Pocahontas so much - the “Colours of the Wind” strikes a chord because at a very primal level we all want to be connected to both nature and our fundamental nature. But even a basic understanding of history (and reality) means I can recognise the Disney story for what it is - a (pretty biased) fairy tale. The problem is that the idea of the noble savage became such a pet view of the “cultured elite” that so many people now believe it as truth. It never was. Your analysis is spot on. Thank you.
Thanks! I still love the song and listened to it somewhat regulalrly. It’s a great aspiration to slow down and appreciate nature.
Solid work. Rousseau probably could have used a choke slam or two here, though.
Lol. Good point!
Voltaire laughed at him plenty ;)
Very informed and detailed account that does much to de-Hollywood affected conceptualisations of preliterate cultures. Once native American tribes had horses it wasn’t surprising it was so much easier to raid farmers’ crops than opt for a settled existence farming for themselves.
That was one of the Schisms that caused the Comanche. They became expert horsemen and saw that as more romantic than their mother tribe.
Great article !
"Comanches" The History of a People, by Fehrenbach.
Thanks!
Thanks!
I read a historical book about the Comanche some time ago. It was very enlightening. I forget the title. I have it somewhere I think.
Empire of the Summer Moon?
No that wasn’t it. I will find it…
Fantastic. Wide-ranging and yet nuanced. Tragic, yet pragmatic.
Here's an essay from a literary rag I used to subscribe to, which illustrates the Machiavellian reality of native American tribes; not only more familiar to our strategic sensibilities than the Disneyfied version, but perhaps explains why the success of casino tribes doesn't "trickle down" to the rest.
https://www.thesunmagazine.org/articles/27153-our-fellow-americans
There is also a perennial debate between the "strongman" view of politics and the "coalition" view, but both can be true simultaneously. The fate of the Bone Indians begs the question of why such gratuitous violence was ever considered strategically useful. It certainly hasn't resulted in durable prosperity and stability in the Islamic world, nor for the Mongols, nor for the Assyrians.
I don't think humanity can make significant progress toward the types of civilizations science fiction writers imagine until we can be honest about ourselves about why we tolerate certain behaviors which are short-term advantageous but long-term ruinous. This can be seen today in the glaring discrepancies between cultures which can make this distinction and those which cannot.
And yet, those which have become successful through cultivation of "coalition" ethics over barbaric "strongman" tactics are now unraveling because [my provisional thesis] too much success leads to individual flourishing -> reversion from coalition focus to self-maximizing -> then virtue-signaling meant to conceal self-maximizing -> then the emergence of sociopaths to "facilitate" virtue-signaling under the guise of utopian reformation -> reversion to strongman totalitarian feudalism -> then the cycle completes with a period of painful struggle just to re-establish coalition societies and begin again.
As you document so eloquently in this post, and as described in the article above, Machiavellian collaboration with invading armies is not germane to Europeans. It is often seen as a mutually beneficial pact between disparate coalition societies to eradicate regional strongman societies, who have abundant enemies. Sometimes the partnership works as both parties hope; often it does not; but the real calculus is whether the weaker party is likely to be truly worse off after deposing the well-despised villains. Similar to the question of whether subjects of the British empire were better or worse off for having been colonized. There is no monotonic answer.
The strongman has function but no balance, as you pointed out. The tribes, overall, rarely united, with the Iroquois Confederacy being an abnormality, not a common theme.
I also totally agree that, until we can face the shadow, Sci-Fi utopia is a fiction.
Although I have read quite a bit of science fiction, I cannot offhand think of science fiction which I would regard as utopian. I would appreciate it if you would please name a few science fiction novels or stories that you view as utopian. Thank you.
Star Trek. Both confederation and Spock's world Vulcan
The early days of sci-fi were typified by postwar utopianism; you can also see various stages of this thinking in the architecture of World Fair buildings. There was a pre-WWI vision of multicultural utopia [1893 Columbian Expo, 1900 Paris Expo], and there was a post-WWII vision of technocratic utopia [many examples].
Perhaps the best one I can think of, and the most influential, is how Star Trek shaped the views of several generations of Americans. The United Nations, which was held in high regard by Gene Roddenberry, inspired his Starfleet Federation. It's based on a wishful fantasy of human nature: "I know I'm deeply flawed, and every adult I know is deeply flawed; but surely there exist morally righteous adults SOMEWHERE; and surely they find each other somehow and collaborate to form impartial and benevolent governing bodies that use the power of technology to supersede the petty rivalries of nations."
For a long time, because of the postwar American prosperity, such fantasies were the norm; just as dystopian cataclysm has become the norm in recent decades, which is also based on a lowbrow premise: humanity is corrupt and wicked, and we should be cynical of aspirations to grand civilizations, because we are fundamentally flawed. Neither tells the whole complex story, which is HOW humans choose cooperation or selfishness in different social contexts, and WHY we seem to prioritize some kinds of environmental management over others that seem equally important. If we cannot consider dispassionately what sort of incentive structures result in building useful institutions--and maintaining them after the founders have perished, then we're stuck with competing narratives that are not particularly enlightening.
The best kind of sci-fi is that which makes us question ALL our assumptions; not only about our political systems, but our essential nature, the nature of consciousness, and the operation of the physical world itself.
Thank you!
It had occurred to me that Star Trek could be viewed as utopian, but I thought perhaps there was an entire corpus of utopian science fiction that I had missed.
I wholeheartedly agree that "The best kind of sci-fi is that which makes us question ALL our assumptions; not only about our political systems, but our essential nature, the nature of consciousness, and the operation of the physical world itself."
Ursula Le Guin's many short stories and novels do this.
I have always found it interesting that her parents, Alfred and Theodora Kroeber, were cultural anthropologists, so Le Guin surely was raised to understand how malleable and variable human customs, values & behavior are, enabling her to readily imagine other-world anthropomorphic "species" with very different behavioral traits than earthly humans.
I did not know that, but you make a good point about the influence on her ethos. Then again, when I read one of Frans de Waal's books on primate social behavior, I knew early in the book that he was a liberal. A sociologist, human or otherwise, should not reveal their politics so transparently. It definitely compromised his objectivity on primates, just as it did with Jane Goodall. In many ways, the human fascination with animal sociology can be an attempt to validate our own priors about human politics. Both Goodall and de Waal did a disservice to anthropology by whitewashing the violence of the primates they studied, preferring to focus on their pro-social strategies. Just as Roddenberry chose the mission statement of the UN over its unappetizing track record in real life. Sounds like Ursula Le Guin's parents might have been superior in the pursuit of objective anthropological research [forever curious], and instilled in her a similarly imaginative curiosity about what lies beyond our world.
Outstanding article, Michael! I wish I could have found this new (for me anyway) information about the extent of Native North/South American violence. I could find hardly anything new when I wrote my piece on Indigenous land acknowledgements a few months ago, and even when I turned to AI, it couldn't find much either, although I was asking about specifically Canadian violence, so maybe that made a difference. It's practically against the law to say anything truthful about Canadian Indigenous violence here.
Putting these books on my Christmas list!
Awesome to hear and, I wish I had more space because I wanted to build off your land acknowlegement one as well because they’re such a flex.
“I acknowlege this land that we conqured from you and, no, I have zero intent to give it back.”
My feeling is that EVERYONE should give a land acknowledgement or NO ONE should.