Category Archives: civilization

Golubac Fortress, Serbia

2025 Cruise up the Danube River, civilization, Fortress, History, Serbia

 

After lunch on the boat, we travelled by bus to the Golubac Fortress, which was built on the south (Serbian) side of the Danube River. The fortress was built during the 14th century by the Medieval State of Serbia at the time when firearms advanced significantly and fortresses had to be changed. Like so much in the Balkans it had a tumultuous history.

 

Before it was built it was the site of a Roman settlement which was frequently fought over in the Middle Ages. In particular, the Ottoman Empire of the Turks frequently fought for control of the area with the Kingdom of Hungary. What were they fighting over?  The right to levy taxes on the Danube River traffic. It was passed between Turks, Bulgarians, Hungarians, Serbs, and Austrians until 1867 when it was turned over to the Serbs. Now, of course, it is the site of popular tourist attractions such as the fortress, but during its long history it successfully repelled 120 attacks.  That number tells a big story. European civilization was so often a place of wars. Wars over politics or religion or both. I remember years ago, when we visited New Zealand and one of the fellow guests at the place we stayed opined how lucky the locals were to have Europeans to bring civilization to the natives. Is that really civilization?

The name of the fortress and the modern town in its vicinity can be translated as the “Pigeon city” or the “Dove city” (golub, “pigeon”).  Some claim the name refers to the towers of the fortress that aim for the skies, like pigeons. Others say it was named after a beautiful girl Golubana who was fought over by a local Turkish pasha and a young Serbian man.

 

Fire arms were used from the first half of the 14th century but they had only a modest killing power so were used mainly to frighten the inexperienced. They were used to make a lot of noise in the hopes of eliciting panic and confusion in the ranks of the enemies. Of course, improvements made them more effective as well. Technological advances are always critical to military success in battle.

 

A big change came with advances to cannons in the 15th century. The architecture of fortresses had to change to make the walls more secure and add hole to use cannons against aggressors. Cannon towers were built as could be seen at the fortress here. Numerous cannonballs were found in the fortress. Fragments of barrels of cannons were also discovered.

Changes in firepower meant changes to the castle defences were required.

The western side of the castle was the most exposed to attack so a moat was built around the castle. But it never contained alligators. In the 15th century it had to be strengthened to be able to repeal modern, at the time, cannonballs. The towers were all walled for that purpose. Of course, they also had to make cannon holes in the walls so that cannonballs could be fired from inside the fortress upon the hapless invaders.

 

The position of the fortress made it very difficult to attack and allowed food to be brought in from the Danube River. It could really only be attacked from the west side and the river both of which exposed the attackers to weapons from inside the castle like bows and arrows, crossbows, catapults, or cannonballs.

 

Heavily armoured horsemen were the most powerful military force in the Middle Ages. A variety of other weapons were used to attack horsemen including maces, battle axes, swords hammers, clubs, battle scythes, and hooks. Because they were so heavy and bulky the mace could only be used by very powerful warriors. Lances and long spears were used for close combat. The infantry and cavalry used lances and long spears when attacking the horsemen. After breaking through the enemy’s line, the strategy was to toss the lances and spears and fight with swords.

The sword was the leading Medieval cold weapon and they kept getting “better” and more effective.  Better at killing in other words. Sort of like Modern nuclear weapons are even better than ancient cannonballs. In the late Middle Ages, the long and heavy swords were the weapon of choice and the swords could be double edged with extended handles that allowed them to be used with both hands to maximize the damage.  Maximizing the damage was always the goal. Armour was also important and kept having to be constantly improved to keep up with improvements to the swords. The Middle Ages had arms races just like modern armies.

That’s what civilization is all about.

 

Robinson Treaties

2024 Trip to Eastern Canada, civilization, Colonialism, Indigenous People After Contact, Indigenous Treaties

 

Treaties are very important for relations between Indigenous People and first the British government and then the emerging country of Canada, as it came to be called.  One of the most important or significant of those treaties was entered into before 1867 when Canada became an partially independent country. This was actually a series of treaties referred to as the Robinson Treaties or the Robinson-Huron and Robinson-Superior Treaties. The story of these treaties is one of the most fascinating stories in Canadian history and helps to explain that relationship between these nations.

 

Much of this region we drove through from Thunder Bay to Ottawa was part of the land that was subject to the Robinson Superior Treaty that was signed in 1850 in Sault Ste. Marie. That treaty has become very controversial in Canadian law at least until a landmark decision was made by the Supreme Court of Canada this year, 2024.

 

The Robinson Treaties, saw Canada secure almost all of northwest Ontario for settlement and resource development. That is what Canada and Ontario wanted. New in these agreements were provisions made for reserves based on sites chosen by Indigenous leaders. These Robinson Treaties of 1850 are credited with laying the foundation for what later became known as Western Canada’s Numbered Treaties that were entered into between Canada, after Confederation in 1867, and various First Nations. Treaty making during this period was not just confined to the eastern and central areas of what would become Canada.

 

These treaties were very important for both the indigenous people who were confronting an avalanche of immigrants from Europe, and elsewhere, and of course they were very important to those immigrants who had created a new national entity—Canada.  We are all treaty people. Those treaties are very important. Canada realized that it would never be able to develop the country without being able to grant secure title to land that these newcomers would want in order to come here. Canada did not want to follow the mistakes the Americans were making to our south. Americans were spending 25% of their entire federal budget on fighting Indian wars.  The country to the south had many more people and much more money than us Canadians to the north.  So much money was a burden even on them.  Canadian officials realized that such expenses would bankrupt their country just as it was, in their view, getting off the ground.  Canada decided, rightly in my view, that it would be much better for all to come to an agreement. An amicable agreement. Canada chose to negotiate treaties with the inhabitants.

 

The Robinson Treaties were made before Confederation in 1867 and the Robinson Treaties of 1850 were the template for the numbered treaties that followed after 1867. It laid the groundwork for the later treaties and development of the country and unfortunately, that foundation was not as solid as the people had hoped.  I should mention that there were also peace and friendship treaties that had been made with indigenous people on the east coast that also preceded the numbered treaties and I will deal with them when this journey gets to that part of Canada.

 

There had been a lot of conflicts with indigenous people on the east  coast that hindered development of the country that the arrivals from Europe yearned for. As a result, in light of those conflicts and the changing political, social, and economic dynamics, the years between 1764 and 1836 saw the newly created colonies of Upper and Lower Canada negotiate roughly twenty-seven (27) land purchases to secure the lands falling within their newly defined territories.

 

This also coincided with the post-1812 shift in colonial policy away from military alliance, and towards demands that Indigenous people abandon their traditional life ways and adapt an agrarian and sedentary lifestyle. The Europeans saw these plans for “civilization,” as they called them,  as a shift from cash payment and trade relationships, in favour of annuity payments used to develop permanent agricultural communities. As non-Indigenous settlement moved west and conflict over land and its resources escalated, colonial officials sought to speed up land secession agreements around the areas of Lake Huron and Superior. Officials’ laissez-faire approach in making treaties with Indigenous communities, whose territories they were moving into, resulted in an armed insurrection at Mica Bay on Lake Superior in 1849.

 

Of course, now we know that the ideas of the European settlers contained many elements, such as harmful ideas of white supremacy, that are entirely inimical to civilization. In many respects, the development by Europeans of Canada result in the destruction of civilization and the imposition on Indigenous People of what might with more justification be called barbarism.

 

This was not a good start. But it got even worse.

Fundamental Misunderstandings Lead to Fundamental Grief

2024 Trip to Eastern Canada, civilization, Colonialism, Indigenous People After Contact, Indigenous Religion and Philosophy

 

As I have been saying many of the problems between Indigenous Canadians and non-Indigenous Canadians are the result of misunderstandings in the past, and misunderstanding that have continued.

 

As a result of all of these misunderstandings, when many years later the Europeans approached the Indigenous people to make treaties, it was very difficult for their differing world views not to influence what they thought they were agreeing to. For example, Indigenous People thought they were agreeing to share the land while the newcomers thought the indigenous people were agreeing to cede or give up the land to the newcomers.  That very fundamental differing point of view has seriously disturbed relations between them ever since.

According to Barbara Huck,

“Though decision-making was by consensus, most North American cultures put great stock in individuals and lauded efforts on behalf of the community. Status was achieved not by owning property but by giving it away.  Religion permeated every aspect of their lives and was based on respect for the Earth and all living things.”

 

That did not mean all relations between Indigenous groups were peaches and cream. There were conflicts between groups. And those conflicts were real and sometimes vicious. Europeans did not have a monopoly on violence. Disputes between indigenous groups often turned violent and often escalated after that. Yet the overall attitudes of newcomers were radically different.

The world views of the Europeans were very different from that of Indigenous peoples.

As Huck said,

“The newcomers from Europe had a very different world view. Theirs was a class society, governed in an authoritarian way by men who viewed land and its resources as objects to be exploited. They greatly admired the accumulation of personal wealth and assigned positions of power to those who were particularly successful at amassing goods and money. Generosity was viewed as philanthropy, an act of charity, not necessity.”

 

Some of us may be surprised to find that Indigenous people were more democratic than the new comers.

There was another very important difference between the two groups. The Indigenous People saw themselves as part of the natural world, particularly identified with the land in which they lived. They had a deeply spiritual relationship to that natural world as a result. The Europeans saw the natural world as something to own individually and exploit.  Barbara Huck explained the European attitudes this way:

“Their primary allegiance was to the concept of the nation-state and national identity was closely tied to language, religion, and race. They believed implicitly in European superiority and felt compelled to try persuade other cultures to embrace their world view. Yet with few exceptions, Europeans proved woefully unprepared for survival in North America. The first 250 years of European contact were fraught with disorientation, disaster, and privation. Native North Americans provided guiding services, information, interpretation, clothing, medicine and food., as well as wives and extended families. All this was in addition to the furs that were the primary objects of early French and later British interest. And time after time, they rescued the newcomers from starvation. Yet Europeans never did comprehend that this spontaneous, culturally entrenched generosity required  reciprocity. Instead, native North Americans in need were termed beggars.”

 

To the natives of North America, reciprocity was not just a cardinal virtue, it was a religious principle. The newcomers did not catch on. They were prepared to accept gifts from the natives, but often failed to reciprocate when the opportunity arose.  Who is the more civilized? These differing attitudes prepared the ground for misunderstandings and eventually conflicts.  As Huck said in her book on the fur trade of North America,

“This climate of misunderstanding colored the fur trade and the progress of Europeans across the continent. From the 16th century St. Lawrence Valley to the Pacific Coast 300 years later, the pattern was repeated again and again. Recognizing it is fundamental to appreciating the profound changes that took place in North America, between 1550 and 1860, and perhaps just as important in understanding today’s attempts to rectify some of the mistakes of the past.”

 

This is where learning comes in. To learn from our mistakes is important. But to do that our mistakes must be honestly confronted. How else can we get better? Unfortunately, people are often reluctant to admit mistakes, and that makes matters worse. Not better.

 

European Savages

2024 Trip to Eastern Canada, civilization, Colonialism, History, Indigenous People After Contact, Indigenous Religion and Philosophy

On our trip across eastern Canada I had many opportunities to consider Canadian history.

The Indigenous people encountered by Europeans were definitely not savages.  They were members of sophisticated societies that all too often the Europeans did not well understand. Many of the Europeans were blinded by prejudice thinking that they could bring civilization and God to the barbarians and heathens. This was nonsense that the Europeans believed and passed on to their descendants and was largely responsible for the creation of white male supremacy favoured by their clans, but clearly absurd.  The indigenous people were civilized people and had a lot to teach the European newcomers while they were prepared to learn a lot from them as well. That is a wise attitude isn’t it?

It certainly was not true, as many Europeans thought, that this new land was empty of people. England, for example adopted the concept of terra nullius, a Latin phrase meaning “nobody’s land,” to justify their bloody claims. According to this theory, terra nullius included territory without a European recognized sovereign, where no one who counted lived.  Again, this was nonsense.

Contrary to such barbaric unfounded prejudices there were people all over the entire western hemisphere when Europeans arrived and these people mattered just as much as the visitors. The Europeans had no monopoly on civilization. In fact, often they revealed a startling lack of civilization. As Barbara Huck said in her book,

“Parts of North and Central America were among the most densely populated places on Earth. Some anthropologists have estimated the total population of the continent 500 years ago, including Mexico and Central America, at between 112 and 140 million. Mexico, the spectacular Aztec capital, was one of the three largest cities in the world when the Spaniards first laid eyes on it.

Much of Canada and the United States was considerably less populated than that—estimates put the total population of both between nine and 12 million—but North America was not, as some have imagined it, terra nullius, a land without people. And many societies, such as the Iroquoians, were healthier, more prosperous and less class-bound than their European counterparts of the same period.”

 

If first contact was indeed a case of civilization meeting barbarity, it is likely that the Europeans were the barbarians!  

It is also noteworthy, the Indigenous people who first encountered these Europeans in many ways did not share European attitudes and values. As Huck said,

“…the Americas were literally a world apart and North American values and beliefs were very different –in some ways almost directly contrary to the perspectives of the strangers who began to arrive on their shores in the early 1500s, the beginning of the contact period.”

 

For example, I have pointed out elsewhere that indigenous people of North American had views that were by no means all the same. They had many diverse views, just like Europeans.  The spiritual beliefs of indigenous people, for example, were very different from the newcomers, and in my view often preferable. We are of course, each entitled to our own views on that and I intend to continue commenting on those differences.

 

They also had very different views about how societies should be organized and how they should be governed and how wealth should be produced and shared. I find the differences profoundly interesting.  Barbara Huck in her book also commented on them:

 

“Indeed, it’s hard to imagine two more conflicting world views. Whether farmers or hunters, the vast majority of the people of what are now Canada and the United States lived communally in groups of varying sizes. The territories they inhabited were not owned, as we recognize land ownership, but rather commonly acknowledged  to be theirs to use. They governed by consensus, valued generosity and self-reliance, and loathed acquisitiveness and coercion. Stinginess and miserly behavior were strongly condemned. Almost everywhere it was considered immoral to allow anyone to go hungry if food was available.”

 

Not a bad way to live. Maybe the Europeans were the savages.

 

North American Farmers: Not What you Think

2024 Trip to Eastern Canada, civilization, Colonialism, Indigenous People After Contact, Indigenous People before Contact

 

Speaking about the east coast and central regions of Canada which we visited on this wonderful trip we could try to answer Barbara Huck’s challenge to her challenge  to imagine a land where people just 500 years ago lived in towns and villages that were very different than we previously believed.  The people were not savages, as some of the Europeans erroneously believed. They were members of a thriving civilization.   As Huck explained,

“They tilled the soil and grew a remarkable array of crops—corn, squash, melons, beans, and tobacco. Not far away, the lakes and rivers were full of fish and the forests abounded with game. The women of this land did much of the fishing and farming; the men, for the most part, had other interests. While their wives and sisters and mothers planted and tilled the soil and cared for the children, the men travelled far from home, trading north and south, hunting, and as often as not, fighting. Theirs was a powerful nation, with many allies and intentions of expanding across a great river at the edge of their land.”

 

 

This all reminded me of what our guides taught us on our trip through the Africa;  often the women carry water and other vital goods on their heads, while the men sat around under trees and discussed important matters.

But who were these farmers Huck described in her book?  They were not Europeans as we might have thought. They were wholly indigenous. This is how she described them:

“The farmers were Iroquoian—the Seneca, Cayuga, Onondaga, Oneida, and Mohawk—who by 1500 occupied a large territory south of the St. Lawrence River and would soon unite to become the Five Nations Iroquois. To the north were Innu and their Algonquian speaking allies, from the Mi’Kmaq of the Atlantic Shores to eh Anishinabe of the Upper Great Lakes.

These cultures differed from one another as much as Scots differ from Spaniards today, or Finns from French. Some North American societies were settled and agrarian, others were seasonably mobile; some turned to the sea for their livelihood, others lived off the bounty of the inland plains.

As in Europe today, the societies of 15th century and 16th century North America spoke dozens of different languages. And like their modern counterparts most of these languages could be traced to a handful of common language groups.”

These Iroquois nations got together and created a democratic system of government that the framers of the American constitution were inspired by when they created what is often called the world’s first constitutional democracy. These Indigenous People y were certainly not savages.

A Fundamental Misunderstanding

2024 Trip to Eastern Canada, civilization, Indigenous People After Contact, Indigenous Religion and Philosophy

 

When Europeans arrived in what they called, wrongly, “The New World,” they quickly encountered the people who already lived here. In fact, they had lived here for thousands of years and had done rather well at that.

The  indigenous people were shocked at how these newcomers from Europe were not as healthy as the people who lived here. The Europeans were shorter than the North Americans and much less healthy lives.  Added to that, the Indigenous People were shocked at the great inequality between the different newcomers. There were classes of people that did extremely  poorly while the elite lived extravagantly well.  The Indigenous people did not understand this. They thought this meant the newcomers were not really civilized. I think they were right.

The Indigenous People realized the newcomers had some good ideas. They had amazing technologies.  Guns, big ships, and horses to name a few. But the Europeans also had a lot to learn from the inhabitants.  They were not able to survive here without help from the native North Americans. At first, they learned quickly and well. In time the Europeans forgot how they needed help.

The indigenous people of North America knew how to live well in North America. Even though the continent had incredibly variable environments and circumstances, from freezing northern terrains, to lush forests, great plains, amazing deserts, and everything in between, the inhabitants new how to thrive. Not just survive. But thrive!

Barbara Huck in her wonderful book, Exploring the Fur Trade Routes of North America, which I have been reading on this trip described it this way:

“Europeans adopted a number of North American technologies such as snowshoes…toboggans, birchbark canoes, and pemmican, but largely misunderstood the continent’s cultures.”

 

And that misunderstanding has made all the difference. It has wreaked havoc. It has destroyed lives, including the lives of many young and vulnerable children. But, in my view at least, it is not too late to do better. We can do better. We must do better.

Indigenous People are talking a lot about land-based education. I like that idea. The land can teach us a lot. But only if we listen and learn. We must pay attention.

To know the future you must know the past

civilization, Freedom to Read, Truth Seeking

 

Both libraries and archives have an inevitable leaning towards the future. They preserve the past for the benefit of the future. As Richard Ovenden said,

“Every collection, every library is actually about the future. Every archival institution is about the future. How can we know where we are going unless we know where we are from. How can we chart a path to the future without thinking of where we are from?”

 

We need the knowledge of the past in order to look at the past societies with fresh eyes and new ideas and to inspire the future and protect the path to the best future.

As John Stuart Mill so wisely told us, we cannot hold a valid opinion unless we allow it to be challenged. We must permit all ideas to be challenged. Even our most sacred beliefs must be challenged or those beliefs will wither. This is for our benefit and for the benefit of the future. We must consider  and reflect on opposing views. We must not hide them in closets. We do our children no favours if we protect them from contrary views. Their own views will become stunted and weak without challenge. Coddling them from uncomfortable views as so many conservatives, like those in Florida, now want to do, is doing a great disservice to the next generation. Few things help us challenge our own views better than reading the strongest of the challenges to those views.

Where better to go for that than a library?

 

A Champion for Freedom

civilization, Freedom to Read, Truth Seeking

 

John Stuart Mill was the author of On Liberty and a champion, perhaps the greatest champion, of freedom of thought and expression. Richard Ovenden in his lecture at the Toronto Library took note of one of his famous ideas: namely John Stuart Mill’s insistence in On Liberty, that only through the diversity of opinion is there in the existing state of human intellect the chance of fair play to all sides of the truth.”  Often this seems hopelessly optimistic in this day of increasing polarization and decreasing tolerance for a diversity of ideas, but it is still the main hope for lovers of freedom of thought and expression.  Frankly, I have found no better idea.

Societies have a hard time achieving this goal. How can libraries then do it too? Richard Ovenden thought they could be up to that task. He pointed out that it is a fundamental aspect of their role. Libraries work in collaboration with each other and work within networks with each other. They have allies in their momentous task. They can do it! Often if you need to read something they don’t have in their own collection they are quite willing to help you to find it elsewhere and bring it to you.

Libraries take very seriously their job of serving their communities, Ovenden said. And I know this from my own decade of serving on a local library board. The people their love to serve the needs of their reading public. And they are darn good at it.

As Ovenden said,

“What gives us pleasure at the end of the day is thinking that they have helped someone solve a problem or better understanding of some issue. That task is entirely possible and we need to support those institutions and the individuals who work in them and give them the freedom to do that job.”

And they are darn good at it. They can do it if we just give them a chance. And it is one of the most important jobs there is.