Religion has caused more

IndianSummer

and your article didnt even mention the state sponsored policy of rendering native women infertile. not uncommon before the 1960's.

Byrnzie

IndianSummer wrote:

i rest my case. sometimes i wonder if usa deserves all the 9/11's it gets.

O.k, but as far as assuming that "...their languages are dead, their culture is dead, their mythology is dead (surving only in history books), their religion is dead." That is bollocks. In fact, not only is it bollocks, but it is blatant ignorance, bordering on racism.
Out of curiosity, do you know if your above views about the native Americans are common among most Americans? I'd be interested to know. I find it quite alarming that someone can harbour such opinions. And in case you're at all interested in the facts, then a good place to start, unless any of those web addresses I pasted above took your fancy, is Peter Matthiessen's book 'In the Spirit of Crazy Horse' which details the plight of Leonard Peltier and the American Indian movement. This is not history. This is the present.
Your obviously quite angry about a lot of things. Unfortunately, your not always right about a lot of things either. Sorry if this post sounds offensive to you. Some things tend to rub my fur the wrong way. Your comments in bold above fall into that category.

angelica

IndianSummer wrote:

right so how do you like it that the few remaining natives in canada have today no clue of their religious beliefs, cultural traditions, perhaps even their language and have taken to a faith which has nothing whats so ever to do with them.

Are you asking me how I like what they were born into? I was born into a family with mental illness. I developed numerous serious mental illnesses. I had to make my own choices, given the circumstances of my life. Like anyone else, the native person or myself, or you for that matter, we have our life circumstances, and we have our choices on what to do with our lives.

To say a native person has taken to a faith which has nothing what so ever to do with them is a view that ignores key information. Most importantly: if a person practises a religion and chooses to continue that day in and out, I think it is a form a blindness that causes one on the outside to not notice that as a free choice in each moment. Do you assume such individuals have been rendered mindless and cannot choose with the same dignity that you make your choices with?

I have compassion for people who are highly challenged, or challenged, period. I have compassion for people who have been marginalised, or peoples who have been historically taken advantage of. I support humans in making positive, life affirming choices in their lives. And I believe in comforting them if they feel pain. I don't feel I know nearly enough about life and all it's inner workings or about the philosophical purposes to why each person experiences what they do, in order to be able to judge whether someone's life is "right" or "wrong" or "evil".

Due to my experiences as "the mentally ill", I also have compassion for those who are stigmatised--such as native people or even missionaries. I know that personal human experience is one thing. I also know that how others on the outside look at the situation, especially when it's with eyes that see one as "the victim" or lacking in base human dignity--this is about stigmatising and it's about the person judging, not about the Truth of the situation.

Human abuse remains human abuse. If you want to see all missionaries as evil, you will. If you want to see people as victims you will. I personally prefer to see realistically. All people have good qualities and bad qualities. Some people have a false sense of power. Others have a false sense of not having power. Others are balanced and see themselves and others on an even playing field.

Again, it is human arrogance that leads one to believe that they have a good life, but that also assumes that a native Canadian lives a "bad" life--and that the native Canadian does not have the basic ability to choose their very own personal religious beliefs or philosophies in each moment. It is human arrogance that leads a person to believe their religion is right to the point that they will entitle themselves to use control and abuse, it is not the act of proselytising or religion itself.

same story applies all over the new world and parts of asia. heck it even applies to europe - all the ancient european beliefs and religions have died down and today live only vicariously through christianity (eg - christmas = asatru/germanic festival of "the feast of the invincible sun", celebrated on 25th of december, cause Mitras - Mitraism was very popular in rome - was born on the 25th of december. similarly solstice = festival for germanic dawn cum fertility godess Eostra.)

angelica

Byrnzie wrote:

Some things tend to rub my fur the wrong way. Your comments in bold above fall into that category.

I agree that to assume "...their languages are dead, their culture is dead, their mythology is dead (surving only in history books), their religion is dead." is to indulge one's own ideas, rather than to see with an even eye. I know numerous people who have studied native culture. I consider myself a shaman of sorts, and I've studied native philosphies, myself. I'm not native, and if I can find the information, it's ludicrous to believe a native person is so crippled in understanding their own heritage.

IndianSummer, do you understand what message you send when you believe native people are unable to learn about their base lives and history? When you talk about how they don't choose their religions at all, do you realise you downgrade their very choices to uphold their religion of choice in each day?

IndianSummer

angelica wrote:

I agree that to assume "...their languages are dead, their culture is dead, their mythology is dead (surving only in history books), their religion is dead." is to indulge one's own ideas, rather than to see with an even eye. I know numerous people who have studied native culture. I consider myself a shaman of sorts, and I've studied native philosphies, myself. I'm not native, and if I can find the information, it's ludicrous to believe a native person is so crippled in understanding their own heritage.

IndianSummer, do you understand what message you send when you believe native people are unable to learn about their base lives and history? When you talk about how they don't choose their religions at all, do you realise you downgrade their very choices to uphold their religion of choice in each day?

i didnt say they are unable to study their "base" lives (i hope there was no pun intended on base) and history.

i said they are almost nearly religio-culturally and linguistically extinct, and thats after being physically extinct.

and yes i maintain they dont choose christianity or any other religion over their onw - they are induced/hogwashed to do so.

and i dont indulge in my own ideas - for example a quick look at the cia fact book about most new world countries would tell you just how "thriving" native cauture, language, beliefs are.



missionaries and all other people who proselytise are evil. period. the church has been behing the deaths of more people than nazis.

know1

IndianSummer wrote:

i rest my case. sometimes i wonder if usa deserves all the 9/11's it gets.

What a childish, immature and hateful thing to say. I'm sure the people who died on 9/11 didn't have very much to do with the horrible injustices committed against the people who inhabited this continent when Europe arrived here.

IndianSummer

know1 wrote:

What a childish, immature and hateful thing to say. I'm sure the people who died on 9/11 didn't have very much to do with the horrible injustices committed against the people who inhabited this continent when Europe arrived here.

i know i know.

but this denial of the plight of the natives and acting as if nothign happened, really pisses me off.

angelica

IndianSummer wrote:

and yes i maintain they dont choose christianity or any other religion over their onw - they are induced/hogwashed to do so.

Are they hogwashed in the same manner you've been hogwashed into accepting your own philosophical or religious beliefs?

i didnt say they are unable to study their "base" lives (i hope there was no pun intended on base) and history.

i said they are almost nearly religio-culturally and linguistically extinct, and thats after being physically extinct.

and i dont indulge in my own ideas - for example a quick look at the cia fact book about most new world countries would tell you just how "thriving" native cauture, language, beliefs are.

Life happens, independent of our opinions of it.

If people are not choosing specific religious beliefs and such beliefs fall into a fringe view, it is what it is.

As I said, I'm not native, and I've adopted native spiritual practises. I think the key is that humans at this time accept the outer practises of religion--the symbols and the dogma, and they overlook the inner spiritual connections with spirit, in general. Therefore the truly spiritual practises are maintained by a minority on the fringes. Again, if I can find the inner spirit ways of native practices, practise them, and connect with spirit in such a way, others could do so if they were so disposed.

missionaries and all other people who proselytise are evil. period. the church has been behing the deaths of more people than nazis.

You are passionate about your opinion. What happens is what it is, outside of how we choose to look at it.

IndianSummer

angelica wrote:

Are they hogwashed in the same manner you've been hogwashed into accepting your own philosophical or religious beliefs?

i have not been approached by missionaries. i was born into my religious and philosophical beliefs. so no hogwashing.

in contrast with the situation with native indians, who are induced to giving up their own values, culture, religion and traditions and accept whatever brand of christianity (catholic, baptist, mormon etc) the missionary shoves down his throwt, albeit with carrots not with the stick.


so no, not the same manner.

angelica

IndianSummer wrote:

i have not been approached by missionaries. i was born into my religious and philosophical beliefs. so no hogwashing.

When you were born as a blank slate, people told you what to believe, and you accepted it. How is that less hogwashed than others who accept what beliefs they are fed? Your family, I assume, controlled all of your survival needs. Therefore, to not accept their ideas and beliefs could equal death to a child's mind. Life and familial acceptance is a pretty massive carrot to a developing child's mind.

in contrast with the situation with native indians, who are induced to giving up their own values, culture, religion and traditions and accept whatever brand of christianity (catholic, baptist, mormon etc) the missionary shoves down his throwt, albeit with carrots not with the stick.


so no, not the same manner.

This is different than shoving ideas down an innocent baby's throat?

Byrnzie

IndianSummer wrote:

i didnt say they are unable to study their "base" lives (i hope there was no pun intended on base) and history.

i said they are almost nearly religio-culturally and linguistically extinct, and thats after being physically extinct.

and yes i maintain they dont choose christianity or any other religion over their onw - they are induced/hogwashed to do so.

missionaries and all other people who proselytise are evil. period. the church has been behing the deaths of more people than nazis.

You use the word 'they' a lot. As Know1 pointed out on an earlier post, you paint with a broad brush. You need to think about that.

The native peoples of the America's indeed suffered enormous devastation at the hands of the Europeans, and in the case of the North American Indians, right up until the massacre at Wounded Knee in 1890. It is estimated that the loss of native peoples throughout the America's reached somewhere in the region of 25 - 30 million.
However, the North American indians were not made physically extinct, and a large majority of Native Americans struggled throughout the 20th century to maintain their heritage, language and religious beliefs. In fact, there was a massive resurgence of interest in the Native American way of life and beliefs beginning in the 1960's and this continues to the present, as people seek an alternative to the curent era of futile materialism. Again, I urge you to read Peter Matthiesson's book 'In the Spirit of Crazy Horse', as this describes the struggle up to the present, and also happens to be one of the best books I've ever read.

IndianSummer

angelica wrote:

This is different than shoving ideas down an innocent baby's throat?

ofcourse !!!!!

my parents taught me values, beliefs, traditions, languages that are mine, that have been practiced by my family line for 1000s of years, that are organically connected to me, and are the ones i was born into. i keep the flame alive.


the native who is poached by the missionary with all sorts of carrots is taught to chuck his own beliefs, traditions, values and adopt one with which he has nothing whatsoever to do. ie. they are taught to keep the vatican's flame alive.


you know thats like elephants teaching a girraf to become an elephant.

its perfect when a girraf born to girrafs, is taught by his parents and grows up to become a girraf and keeps the flame alive.

IndianSummer

Byrnzie wrote:

Again, I urge you to read Peter Matthiesson's book 'In the Spirit of Crazy Horse', as this describes the struggle up to the present, and also happens to be one of the best books I've ever read.

you could meanwhile read "bury my heart at wounded knee" and "gone the dreams and dancing".

Byrnzie

IndianSummer wrote:

you could meanwhile read "bury my heart at wounded knee" and "gone the dreams and dancing".

I've read the first one. I'll check out the 2nd.

angelica

IndianSummer wrote:

ofcourse !!!!!

my parents taught me values, beliefs, traditions, languages that are mine, that have been practiced by my family line for 1000s of years, that are organically connected to me, and are the ones i was born into. i keep the flame alive.


the native who is poached by the missionary with all sorts of carrots is taught to chuck his own beliefs, traditions, values and adopt one with which he has nothing whatsoever to do. ie. they are taught to keep the vatican's flame alive.


you know thats like elephants teaching a girraf to become an elephant.

its perfect when a girraf born to girrafs, is taught by his parents and grows up to become a girraf and keeps the flame alive.

It is interesting to me is how you frame your background with value, integrity and meaning, while you take the meaning and value out of the lives and actions of others and portray them as evil or as victims. It's too one-dimensional and caricaturish to be realistic.

Are you familiar with the "rescuer/victim/persecutor" triangle? It is a premise whereupon when we see through either of the three views--for example, we see ourself as rescuer of the poor and downtrodden, we end up cycling through all imbalanced views. We are trying to rescue those "poor natives" at least in theory, then we find we've become the victim, ourselves because others won't listen to us championing the poor natives. Then we take on the persecutor role, giving our own selves permission to hate and blame, after all, others are "evil" and we are so good. Each position represents a lack of realism or of seeing the whole as it is.

The position of health and balance is when we see ourselves and others as equals. We don't look down on "poor victims" and we don't look up to heroes. We recognise we're all the same at heart, with the potential to do good, as well as to do bad. We recognise that we all have life challenges, and we all do the best we can with what we've got. In other words, we see realistically.

IndianSummer

angelica wrote:

It is interesting to me is how you frame your background with value, integrity and meaning, while you take the meaning and value out of the lives and actions of others and portray them as evil or as victims. It's too one-dimensional and caricaturish to be realistic.

Are you familiar with the "rescuer/victim/persecutor" triangle? It is a premise whereupon when we see through either of the three views--for example, we see ourself as rescuer of the poor and downtrodden, we end up cycling through all imbalanced views. We are trying to rescue those "poor natives" at least in theory, then we find we've become the victim, ourselves because others won't listen to us championing the poor natives. Then we take on the persecutor role, giving our own selves permission to hate and blame, after all, others are "evil" and we are so good. Each position represents a lack of realism or of seeing the whole as it is.

The position of health and balance is when we see ourselves and others as equals. We don't look down on "poor victims" and we don't look up to heroes. We recognise we're all the same at heart, with the potential to do good, as well as to do bad. We recognise that we all have life challenges, and we all do the best we can with what we've got. In other words, we see realistically.

does that obtuse answer mean that you are for or against people of marginalised beliefs systems being made to abandon their beliefs and traditions in favour of alien values, instead of being encouraged to try and keep the flame of their culture and values alive??

Byrnzie

IndianSummer wrote:

you could meanwhile read "bury my heart at wounded knee" and "gone the dreams and dancing".

I can see why you hold a view of the American Indian as based squarely in the arena of history, as both of these books deal with the history of the American Indian. One is written by an indian who detailed the battles of the American indian in the 19th century, and the different tribes and heroes who arose in their struggle against the white man. The other appears to be a novel written by a white man which tells the story of "...a former Confederate army man [who befriends]...the Commanche tribe and its intelligent, perceptive chief, who are struggling to adapt to the world of the white man and the disappearance of their world in just a few decades.."

angelica

IndianSummer wrote:

does that obtuse answer mean that you are for or against people of marginalised beliefs systems being made to abandon their beliefs and traditions in favour of alien values, instead of being encouraged to try and keep the flame of their culture and values alive??

Does this "response" devoid of actual response to my points mean you are glossing over said points while focussing on your own agenda?

IndianSummer

angelica wrote:

Does this "response" devoid of actual response to my points mean you are glossing over said points while focussing on your own agenda?

no i am not glossing over.

i want the answer in a simple yes or no - "are for or against people of marginalised beliefs systems being made to abandon their beliefs and traditions in favour of alien values, instead of being encouraged to try and keep the flame of their culture and values alive??"

IndianSummer

IndianSummer wrote:

i want the answer in a simple yes or no

or in the case of the previous post, for or against.