A Sand Creek

{1} Bill Moyers: “You've said on other occasions that there has to be a spiritual change if we are going to face these environmental issues. What kind of spiritual change?”

Chief Oren Lyons: “We don't preach here in this, our country. You know, we don't proselytize. As a matter of fact, we try to protect what we have from intrusion. And yet at a meeting that was held in Hopi back in 1969 when we sat there with many Indian leaders from around the country, spiritual leaders, they talked about these young people who were sitting on our doorsteps every day when we got up. They had come from all over the country, and they had come to learn something about us. And we said this is a very strange phenomenon, you know, that our white brothers' children are now coming to our doorstep, and wanting to be part of us. What do we do with this?

“So one of the Hopi elders said, 'Well, we have a prophecy about that. It said that there would come a time that they're going to come and ask direction. Maybe this is what's happening.' So it came under discussion by the elders, and it was agreed upon that perhaps this may be true. And if it is, maybe we should be more responsive to the questions. We should maybe try to see what we can do, to pass on whatever we can, however we can. How much it can be imparted is hard to say. But the 'isms' of the world – communism, capitalism, all of these 'isms' – are really quite bereft of a spiritual side.”
--On Faith & Reason; PBS; 1991

Two weeks ago, in response to my “I Ate a Hippie” OP, my Good Friend “zeemike” spoke about the influence of Native American cultures on the youth movement in the 1960s and '70s. I agreed with his suggestion that this dynamic would be worthy of an OP/thread. I've been giving it thought, while helping my sons to complete their book on the Indian history of our region. Having finally finished with my contribution – the editing and lay-out shouldn't take them long – I thought that today might be a good time to attempt this.

It can be difficult to communicate accurately on such issues. The mass media, for example, rarely reports issues involving current events in Indian Country. Certainly, movies like “Dances With Wolves” are superior to the old John Wayne flicks. And “Thunderheart” even attempted to deal with more current events. But even attempts to discuss some Indian topics is difficult: for example, even on this forum, a couple recent OP/threads regarding Iroquois' passports were moved to the sports forum, because it involved the Iroquois Nationals lacrosse team. (I'm not questioning or complaining about the threads being moved. I suppose that because the game's actual name translates to “the Creator's Game,” those threads could have been moved to the “religion & spirituality” forum. However, the actual issue involving the passports was political: it is about sovereignty. I mention this simply to illustrate some of the difficulties involved in discussing these issues.)

Because the Iroquois have not attempted to force their religion upon others, it does not present some of the other difficulties that are at times associated with topics that connect spirituality with political and social activities. A person can hold a wide range of scientific, political, or religious views, and still agree with the concept that clean water is the first law of life on earth. This does not mean that they subscribe to the creation myth of the Iroquois, or any other related tribal mythology – from anywhere around the planet Earth.

However, in reviewing the relationship between the young people in the 1960s and the traditional Native American cultures they encountered, it is important to appreciate that for many of the youth, the 2,000-year old symbols of a Middle Eastern religion were failing to address the realities of American life. They questioned things ranging from the Rev. Billy Graham's blessing the weapons that were to be unleased upon brown-skinned tribal people half way around the world, to the patriarchal structure of the majority of churches in the USA.

It wasn't that the majority of young people were questioning the peaceful teachings of Jesus; quite the opposite, they saw an “adult” world that was structured in such a way that it excluded an affirmation of life itself. Science was being abused by the military-industrial complex, and the general population were viewed by the youth as being stripped of their individuality, and becoming cogs in an unconscious machine.

Race relations – another sometimes delicate topic on DU – were causing some friction within proper society. Historically, blacks were consider by white society to be domesticated draft animals, capable of hard work under the proper direction; Indians were considered wild and unpredictable animals that needed to be safely penned into reservations. (Other minorities were “held” in equally demeaning images and positions on Uncle Sam's plantation.) When black citizens attempted access to the American dream, the white society fought hard to keep them outside the mainstream. When Indians attempted to survive as sovereign people, the white society fought equally hard to force them into the mainstream of US society.

The younger generation of that time were indeed students – although they may not have been enrolled in a high school or university. Among the more popular books in that era was John Neihardt's “Black Elk Speaks.” Originally published in 1932, the book had been largely ignored in the United States. In the early 1960s, it was republished and became rather popular in Europe; within a decade, it became something of a cult classic among rebellious youth in America. Part of that popularity was certainly because much of the imagery of the Oglala medicine man's internal journey sounded like an LSD trip. But more important was the fact that these young students were discovering that they had been lied to about Indians. Indians were not the savages from those John Wayne flicks after all – they were Real People, who viewed life very differently than did most Americans.

For a generation searching for an alternative reality, it was an awakening.


{2} “I can tell you right now, there are no secrets. There's no mystery. There's only common sense.”
--Chief Oren Lyons

Common sense had a heck of a hard time in the hippie era. There was the contest between images and anti-images. What would Gomer Pyle have done at My Lai? General Westmoreland, who congratulated William Calley's unit for doing an “outstanding job,” spoke of a light at the end of the tunnel. On the album Revolver, Lennon advocated searching for an internal light, because Tomorrow Never Knows. And Jimi Hendrix, one-quarter Cherokee, connected Vietnam with the Indian wars.

The ghosts of the Indian past was haunting the United States, Luther Standing Bear wrote in his 1933 book “Land of the Spotted Eagle.” Popular among the hippies, the book identified the cultural problems that were destined to become the crises of the '60s and '70s. But, “the Indians can save America,” Standing Bear noted, explaining the power of celebrating life. Young people across the country understood this, and from the east coast to the west coast, they began a series of life-affirming festivals. Indeed, even at the 1968 Democratic National Convention, the “image vs anti-image” was the Hippies & Yippies Festival of Life vs the Chicago Machine's Festival of Death.

Long hair, beads, hats, feathers, colorful clothing, and beautiful posters that used the images of some of the true heroes of the American past were among the artifacts of the youth who were not simply rebelling against adult authority, but who were searching for a better way to live. A more meaningful existence. A way to deal with the insanity of America.

Many of the artifacts from those days may seem rather silly to young folk today. The Billy Jack movies, which have been released in a DVD package, are more likely to be watched by people my age than my children's friends. And even those my age are more likely to still have Carlos Castaneda's first three “Don Juan” books, than the nonsense that followed. Yet these types of things reflect a time when a generation of American youth were not so much intent upon saying that their great-grandmother was an Indian Princess, as finding a path where all people could connect with the Festival of Life and create new ceremonies in a living, colorful melody.

Other images retain their power. President Kennedy spoke of Indian issues in noble terms, but his actions continued the theft of tribal lands, and damaged the environment. His younger brother, Senator Robert Kennedy, would spend time with tribal leaders, and become fully aware of the problems that their communities faced. I remember speaking to his son, the environmental attorney, in 1991; he told me that his father recognized that “Indian issues” were “environmental issues” that threatened all Americans. That hasn't changed.


{3} “There's no mercy in nature. And there's very much something that people should understand: that you suffer in direct ratio to your transgressions against the natural world. The natural world will prevail.” – Chief Oren Lyons

In the late 1790's, a Seneca man man named Handsome Lake drank himself into a near-death state. While in a coma, he had a vision, in which he saw the future. A person need not have religious or spiritual beliefs to find his vision remarkable.

In the 1790s, the water in Seneca territory was cool, clean, and fresh. Yet, in his vision, Handsome Lake saw a time when the water on North America would heat up, become oily, and be unfit for consumption.

At a time when Iroquois people spoke of the sun as “uncle,” he saw a future where the sun's light would become a danger to people's health. There were no sun screens in 1798.

By nature, trees die from the bottom branches up; Handsome Lake saw a time when trees would die from the top branches down. This, of course, is a description of acid rain.

He saw a time when the gardens that provide food for human beings would fail, because of severe damage to the soil. “Then what is the use?” he asked his vision guides. “What is the hope?”

The answer is that you do not allow that to happen in your generation. You use your turn to fight the Good Fight, as best as you can. That was true in 1798; it was true in 1968 and 1972; it was true in 2004 and 2008.

Common sense would suggest that it is true today.

Peace,
H2O Man

Yes, common sense but yet, being made rare today by those political forces with an agenda. Recommended.

are very slick in promoting their agenda. But they allow greed to trump common sense. And they are just fine with others suffering the consequences.

to enter the enivironmental field. And we need more to in order to counter those agendas.

who has me come in every year to his students, approached me the other evening. His son had recently got his university degree in environmental sciences. He had told his father that he was tempted to work for what the father calls -- accurately -- the "bad guys." That's where the big bucks are. The father wants me to talk to the son about some options to work for the "good guys," as there are some I can connect him with. It's good that young people like your sons have the proper perspective.

Very eye opening (in a good way - we have much to learn from the natives of North America).

This is lovely, H20 Man and I thank you so much. I've just completed 4 years working in Indian Country - am frankly devastated that there is no more grant money to continue my legal services work there. I had always had an attraction (I don't know what else to call it?) to working with indigenous societies, and this work fulfilled a lifelong interest and drive. As a white woman, I have struggled to articulate the draw for me to the experience and cultures, without it sounding demeaning, objectifying, condescending, or trivial. Your post here goes a long way to helping me. I only know what is in my heart. I learned more from the people I met in the tribal communities about living with spirit here on earth - with all its tragedy, pain, loss, AND most of all humor and heart - than I ever had a right to expect! Although the end of my job was tragic for ME (and I believe a loss to the communities), no one can EVER take away the experiences I had, and they will stay with me till my dying day! I only wish I could figure how to return in a way that honors the spirit and culture of the people; gives, rather than extracts, as has been their experience since first encounter with Europeans; and is authentic.

Thank you, again, so much!

about this, before responding ....because it's worth far more than a simple, "when one door closes, another opens" answer ....even though that is true.

All human beings alive on this Earth today have tribal roots. In fact, rather than view people in terms of "race," it is more accurate and more interesting to view peoples in terms of the Black, Brown, Red, Yellow, and White tribes. Within each, there have been examples of tribal peoples becoming "nation/state" peoples, with common experiences (although the technologies are distinct, the outcome is the same).

Some people are in touch with that part of themselves. Others, as one friend in this thread so perfectly illustrates, are not -- and those who are not almost always strongly resent those who are. At Onondaga, it is understood -- and has been long before the psychiatric sciences -- that people are a combination of good and bad. We all have a good and bad potential. It's what we choose to focus on -- every single day of our lives.

Tribal society, like individuals, does have good and bad potentials. It experiences the most stress when in contact with the negative side of nation/states. There are people like our friend, the clown, who despise all things tribal -- especially human beings who challenge their weak attempts to feel superior.

Our job -- your's, mine, and everyone who wants to change our society for the better, no matter what tribe they are from -- is to be aware of those other doors that open. For small doors often open into large rooms. And that is what you, my wonderful friend, will soon find.

what your post means to me, on so many levels, kind gentleperson. Thank you.

Being of Native American descent, I feel like we get ignored for the contributions we have made, and that we have been culturally pillaged and plundered.
:cry:

This is an interesting thread, is it not? We witness both the good and informed, and the badly misinformed individual.

maintain this nation and their people over thousands of years?

How did European arrival and conquest lead to the vast degradation of this nation and its resources in only a few hundred years?

You get flamed if you try to say that tribal societies knew more than we do. Having studied American pre-conquest history, I understand that these "savages" were quite savvy. They traded, they farmed, they did not just grovel for worms under logs. They had technology but most had something we DON'T have- empathy for every member of their tribe and egalitarian systems to insure all were fed and housed..



Quoting again one of the books I'm using for research, Anthropology and Contemporary Human Problems by John H. Bodley:



"When cultural systems, institutions, economies and societies grow too large, they create human

problems that can quickly become unmanageable. The good news is that scale theory also shows that

too much growth is neither a natural nor an inevitable outcome of cultural development. The present

world with all of its problems is not the only possible world. It did not just happen but was

created by the decisions of relatively few people who took advantage of historical opportunities in

their own self-interest. Thus, if most people do nothing, growth will naturally continue to be an

elite-directed process, and elites will continue to make ever more colossal mistakes......



...In the absence of strong democratic countermeasures, elites will "naturally" continue to direct

the growth process for their own benefit by default. Tribal societies avoided the problems of

runaway growth because they maintained close community control over their leaders and recalled them

instantly if they made bad, self-serving or aggrandizing decisions. It is time for the majority to

find cultural solutions that work for all communities and households and that do not rely on

perpetual growth in scale. It is possible to imagine a very different, just, humane and sustainable

world constructed from the ground up by democratic decsion makers living in human-scale

communities."




The way I see it, the idea of "progress" has come to mean "more, bigger, faster." Yet this has not meant "progress" for most people. Only for the few. Yet we trust those few to tell us what our societies should be like and they always envision society with lots of poor and hungry people.

But we still hang on to the notion that "more makes us happy."

The happiest societies in the world often have little in the way of "material" goods we would consider necessary to happiness. Why?

What I have learned, living in Appalachia, is that human connection is the key to happiness. Not the big house with many rooms you never use, not the shiny new car you're afraid to drive because it might "get a scratch on it," not the newest shoes or the most tender steak.

But affluent Americans cling to their "stuff" not seeming to care what it costs others, and they remain isolated in their homes with all their security systems and their "stuff." Not only are they contributing to our collapse, they aren't even happy while they're reaping the benefits!

This is why the kids started migrating to the Native American cultures for direction in the 60's and 70's. They saw how miserable their parents were, despite all their domestic acquisitions.

Great thread, H2O Man, as always.

K&R

No they didn't.

Tribal societies were a lot more violent and bloody than modern society.

Please do not feed the clowns.

and subscribe to the whole "noble savage" stereotype.

You, on the other hand, subscribe to clown.

"Tribal society" was like modern afghanistan.

No code of laws, total corruption, widespread illiteracy, systemic violence, total anarchy. Throw slave ownership into the mix and you've just about got it.

Since you are a willing sacrifice on the alter of misinformation/disinformation, I'll play. I've got to run a couple of errands, which should take me about one hour. In that time, perhaps you can provide evidence to back up your silly claims here.

Hint: please consider the definitions of the words that you use. And, please, take your best shot(s). We'll have a little fun!

I'm not going to do your homework for you, nor debunk racial stereotypes.

you to. I had requested that you provide a giggle for us, and appreciate your willingness to do so. Thanks!

All mouth and trousers, until you ask for particulars.

He's not capable of carrying on a meaningful discussion on this topic.

know where he's going. He doesn't now who he is."

I like that.

My offer still stands, of course: I'd be pleased to debate him on issues involving violence, length of life, and the connections between diet and health. I'd expect him to produce serious documentation to back up his claims. I can easily do so, in a manner that would convince any serious person reading our little exchange. Because I'm very familiar with the "proof" that his type rely on, and can easily expose the shallowness of his thinking, I do not expect any serious response from him. Still, I appreciate his providing us with another episode of clown theater on this thread.

Please do not hide behind the wall of attack and retreat.

The OP stated his opinions and you found fault with them. The least you could do is explain in more detail the areas you have a problem with.

This is far from the first time. Think of a tiny, trembling chihuahua growling at an image on a television screen. That's our friend.

I know whose relatives were handing out the blankets infected with small pox.

That one is mired in the filth of today's "progress."

Some people will never see the light that could make them better people.

A reason why the rest of us who do "get it" must be the ones to make positive change happen for a better world.

:hug:

It beats being mired in the filth of historical illiteracy.

But don't let thet stop you from the agenda you have.

DeSoto and all who followed showed what "bloody and violent" meant.

The fact that whites couldn't stay on the vast lands they were allotted, but instead insisted on settling on federally designated tribal lands - thus resulting in much war and conflict - shows that WHO were the anarchists?

And isn't it anarchy to try to kill every last buffalo, to cut down every tall tree, to massacre and steal land from people merely for gold, copper, coal?

We live anarchy today, courtesy of the corporations you adore and esteem. They're environmentally illiterate, as are you. They are socially illiterate, in the way they treat human beings for their own profit. They practice economic anarchy by making the market a free-for-all where the ones with the most bucks can do whatever evil, violent thing they wish.

Illiteracy, anarchy, bloodshed, enslavement. Look at your own culture for evidence of these.

If you're referring to the conquistador, sure he was violent. Your problem is, you think Native Americans weren't also violent, which is why I had to bring up historical illiteracy.

"shows that WHO were the anarchists?"

Implying that Native Americans didn't regularly go to war with each other and wipe each other out.

"And isn't it anarchy to try to kill every last buffalo"

Implying also that large fauna didn't get driven into extinction before white men showed up. The buffalo were saved. Thanks to protections. Guess who created the protections.

"We live anarchy today, courtesy of the corporations you adore and esteem."

You keep using this word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

If you want to go on these loony anti-corporate rants, fine. Just don't rewrite history or promote phony ethnic stereotypes to do it.

How woo-woo of you. Is this some gift you have or did you learn it at school?

Of course Native Americans could be violent. But they were in NO WAY as violent as the Europeans who conquered them. Native Americans tended to begin relationships with Europeans as cordial hosts, teaching and feeding and protecting the Whites.

Even DeSoto was treated well until he began slaughtering people.

And to say Natives "wiped out fauna" prior to white man's arrival, what a bunch of Caucasian bunk. That's merely a latter-day White man's way of excusing his own environmental destruction of the planet. It's such an ignorant thing to claim, you should truly be ashamed.

If they wiped out fauna, what the hell were those carcasses of thousands of thousands of buffalo doing rotting on the plains in the nineteenth century, slaughtered en masse by white soldiers so the Indians would starve? Did whitey bring those with him from France or Spain?

Anarchy: according to Webster's: general disorder due to lack of government. I would say that applies to our corporate world very well. They are governed by no rules except the ones they make themselves.

Like the one BP made concerning Coreexit. What is it if not anarchy when a government says "Stop using it" and the Corporation known as BP continues to use it? Is that not anarchy? Doing what one wants regardless of law or order?

Your probelm is you've only read what Whities have had to say about non-Whities and their history. It's common and so prejudiced to only see culture through the narrow lens of what another just like you tells you is true.

A little more reading might show you that Native tribes had very non-anarchist views on how to run their communities. They had strict rules, laws, etc. I believe YOUR definition of anarchy is John Bircherish. "Anyone who doesn't live a lifestyle of which I approve is an anarchist."


You are so clueless it's almost hilarious. I though outdated ideas such as yours were filed today under the "Embarassing claims we once made in our xenophobic, racist days but now know are ludicrous."


Instead, you remain mired in 1890, writing drivel about the savages. It's sad but it's really your loss. And it also might explain why you seem to be one of the unhappiest, most miserable clowns on this board.

The "mythical Pleistocene Hit Man" who wiped out the North American megafauna is a theory that simply did not hold up to even the slightest examination. Only two species continue to spout it: those who are without any knowledge whatsoever, and those who promote the anti-Indian message in hopes of benefit from others' ignorance. It's sad that anyone on DU would mention it as anything other than a joke.

as I do when someone says tax cuts for the rich will solve all our economic woes today.

It's so ridiculous on its face I can't believe any educated person would spout it!

As if there aren't reams of documents from Europeans describing the abundance of fish, fowl and mammals in the New World. The historical record speaks for itself there.

How can any intelligent person buy the Pleistocene Hit Man crap?

Oh, well....

The Bible warns that "the sins of the fathers are visited on the sons", but that's a warning regarding a common failing of human nature, not a statement of policy.

Don't worry about whether prehistoric proto-Indians killed off anything, it's simply not relevant to anyone but paleontologists and anthropologists.



ETA: responded to your post because I can't respond to ignored. ;)

I'm deconstructing the myth that some other race of people coexisted with nature any better than any other sort of human being.

"But they were in NO WAY as violent as the Europeans who conquered them."

Well then all hail our racially superior Native American ubermensch.

"Native Americans tended to begin relationships with Europeans as cordial hosts"

LOL. Some did. Some didn't. Some Europeans treated Native Americans peacefully, some didn't.

"teaching and feeding and protecting the Whites."

Ah, given your level of understanding on the issues, I have to assume you're just referring to the Pilgrims. The first thanksgiving and all that jazz, when Squanto and the Wampanoag taught the pilgrims to catch fish and grow corn. A fine example of what you're talking about. Also an example of the Europeans being cordial.

You know, that wasn't technically the first thanksgiving. There was one a few years earlier in a colony a little ways away. A couple of years before a massive indian attack killed a few hundred of them.

Of course, that limits the conversation to Indian on European violence. As if various Indian tribes weren't constantly at war with each other.

"Did whitey bring those with him from France or Spain?"

No, whitey brought horses. Indians used to have horses before that, before they wiped them out. As for the fields of dead buffalo, are you distinguishing the ones the white man wiped out with his superior firepower? Or the ones plains indians would drive off of cliffs in vast herds? Because I don't see a whole lot of difference.

"Anarchy: according to Webster's: general disorder due to lack of government. I would say that applies to our corporate world very well. They are governed by no rules except the ones they make themselves."

That's a real stretch you've got there.

"A little more reading might show you that Native tribes had very non-anarchist views on how to run their communities. They had strict rules, laws, etc. I believe YOUR definition of anarchy is John Bircherish. "Anyone who doesn't live a lifestyle of which I approve is an anarchist."

Well, sure, they had "laws." They were hardly codified laws, there was no due process, there were no proper courts. It was basically depotism. Might made right. Like the source was talking about earlier, if certain members of the tribe didn't like what was going on, there'd be a quick coup.


"You are so clueless it's almost hilarious. I though outdated ideas such as yours were filed today under the "Embarassing claims we once made in our xenophobic, racist days but now know are ludicrous."


Instead, you remain mired in 1890, writing drivel about the savages. It's sad but it's really your loss. And it also might explain why you seem to be one of the unhappiest, most miserable clowns on this board."

Your problem, kid, is your white and black thinking.

You hate modern society, because of nebulous paranoid fears about "corporations" and whatnot.

So, since modern society is bad (you certainly aren't rejecting it), therefore native american society must have been some kind of magical mystical paradise, like in James Cameron's Avatar documentary.

Conversely, if anybody (and the historical record) disagrees with that, then they must therefore think that all native americans were evil, and all of western civilization is good.

And as for outdated, racist 19th century opinions of Native Americans, I ain't the guilty party here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_savage

Just walked in to your delightful post.

I understand your limitations as a student of history. What you don't know is so vast, the little you do know you hold on to like a security blanket.

To say that because some macro fauna died out eons before (which they did in Europe as well) that natives "killed off their horses" is quite the scientific stretch.

And Pilgrims. I'll just leave you right there in your world.

The same arguments you make dehumanizing Native Americans have been categorized - by some notable social scientists and historians - as the same dehumanizing attitudes Repukes hold toward Iraqis.

The "Indian Wars" - the "pure Caucasian" fighting the "savages" - have never really stopped for us as a people, have they?

So tell me, is Iraq better off now that we've "civilized" them, too?

This isn't a discussion about going back to tribal life as it was practiced Pre-Conquest. This is about examining where we are going as a society in the future if we do not change our course. Can you honestly tell me that we can continue on this same course for very much longer without catastrophe?

if you think so, then I can't help you. But if, like most thinking humans in 2010, you believe we have to examine other models of community in order to find our place, then why not look back to what made those societies in the past sustainable.

The natives thought whitey was smelly and filthy. Why? because the Europeans rarely bathed in those days, while Native Americans bathed every day in some cases.

Later, when Indian kids were forced into boarding schools, they were forbidden to bathe.

Now who knew more? In this case, the Native knew that for whatever reason, bathing kept him healthier and happier. Whites were clueless about hygiene.

This is just one instance where they had it right, Europeans had it wrong. There are many others.

We need to downsize our production to what we need, to those things that do not further degrade our environment. We need to care about the weak, the young, the aged.

You love the Corporations. They feed you, no doubt, at the expense of the rest of us.

So, thanks for playing but I don't think your ignorance is doing this discussion much good.

Actually, it's supported by plenty of scientific evidence. Your preconceived notions are clouding your judgement.

"So tell me, is Iraq better off now that we've "civilized" them, too?"

If Iraq weren't civilized before and they were now, maybe you'd have a point.

Civilization is better than, well, being uncivilized.

Literacy, laws, abolition of slavery, justice, medicine, education, etc. are all good things.

Not that it doesn't make war, theft, and so on good things. But civilization's an all around good. There's your problem with black and white thinking again.

"Later, when Indian kids were forced into boarding schools, they were forbidden to bathe."

Yeah, it's terrible. Sometimes indian kids were kidnapped and forced into slavery and/or marriage by other indians. Also bad.

"You love the Corporations"

Is that an organically grown communal computer you're typing on? Are you actually consuming less? Or are you just blabbing away?

Giving you specific strawmen to utilize rather than adding to a discussion?

You go way off the deep end, Friend.

If i give an answer proving what you say is wrong, rather than admit it respectfully you have to come up with some off-the-wall insult having no bearing on anything I've said.

Back to what the OP was talking about: Kids interest in the Native Americans in the 60's and 70's.

You have attempted to hijack this thread - as I knew you would if I posted my thoughts on it - as if you are some needy child who needs to go potty and keeps tugging at his mother's skirt.

We are all aware of how you feel about Native American culture.

To sum up your personal view (which you claim is supported by the facts):

Since the myth of the Noble savage was wrong and silly, I, Mr. Caucasian have no need to find anything of value in Mr. Indian's culture. It stunk. They were dumb, mean and they destroyed America before we even got here.

And they had no civilization, unlike us, (who aren't still raiding other Tribes somehow :shrug: )

And anyone who ever finds any value in their culture is a poopy head. And wants to live in a tipi and eat clay.

Does that about sum it up?


But see, if you had some true intellect, you would understand that every culture is more complex than what you allow yourself to see. Many people see value in certain aspects of tribal culture.

You do not.

You want to dog me and hijack this thread so that no one can discuss different ways of looking at community.

If you were as educated and civilized as you want us all to think, you would now back off and let the other members here discuss the topic of the OP.

The archeological record shows that human health actually declined with the switch from broad spectrum food collection to intensive agriculture (which is the universal historical antecedent of civilization), due to the lack of nutritional variety that stemmed from depending on a few staple crops. Generally speaking, agriculturalists were and are more vulnerable to food shortages than food collectors and small-scale horticulturalists, and they must work much harder to obtain the same amount of calories.

It's true that intensive agriculture can result in a storable surplus to protect against lean times, but historically, the most significant byproduct of accumulated surplus has been social stratification that mostly benefited a powerful few. Until recently, slavery and subjugation have usually been byproducts of increasing social complexity; food-collecting societies are far more egalitarian and far more likely to provide for all the members of the community. Social pressure induces most able-bodied adults to work, but no one is forced to. While there is always some division of labor based on sex, women typically hold a much higher status in simpler societies than in more complex ones.

Perhaps the most significant lesson to draw from history and the archeological record is that most (if not all) large scale civilizations eventually decline. The reasons for collapse vary, but generally are tied to crop failures, resulting from both the decrease in nutrients in the soil due to over-exploitation, and the increase in toxic minerals and salts in the soil due to irrigation. That salinity doesn't just go away; to this day, lands that were intensively irrigated in ancient times are barren due to excessive salinity.

Certainly, simpler societies are capable of over-exploiting their resources, but many are known to practice conservation, for example by controlling access to foraging or hunting grounds, and limiting individual food collection to what can be consumed in a single day. If a resource is over-exploited, food collectors can quickly change their tactics, taking advantage of what is abundant and giving the resource in question time to rebound. Incidentally, hunting by humans probably had a significant effect on the decline of the Pleistocene megafauna, but rapid, drastic climate change probably also cramped the mammoth's style in a big way.

Further, the dichotomy between Indian culture and European civilization is a false one on both fronts. To our knowledge Indians have never been savages, noble or otherwise; they have displayed several levels of cultural complexity and technological advancement, including full-fledged civilizations complete with agriculture, art and science, central government, and the attending evil of social stratification. Notable examples of Indian civilizations are the Peruvian Inca, the Mesoamerican Maya (who had a writing system), and the Midwestern Indians who inhabited Cahokia. Among the simpler groups, as among simpler societies worldwide, there may be no officially codified "laws," but the social understandings and the systems that govern behavior, both formal and informal, are sufficient for maintaining a stable society with some degree of understood rights. On a small-scale, a kinship system is as effective at policing behavior as a judicial system is on a larger scale.

I'm not arguing that we should abandon civilization and intensive agriculture (population size forbids this), or even that they are on the whole disadvantageous. But at this point they appear decidedly, catastrophically unsustainable, in a way that existing simpler social arrangements and food-getting strategies do not. In America alone, looking at the rapid depletion of the Midwest's Great Basin Aquifer, the nitrogen pollution accumulating in the Mississippi Delta and the surrounding Gulf waters, and the ever-increasing demands made on the soil of the midwest, I wonder what's going to happen when these resources inevitably give out. That's not even taking into account global climate change, population growth, the depletion of fossil fuels as our primary energy source, and dramatically increasing stratification, combined with the dispossession and exploitation of workers resulting from the global economy. No one knows exactly what the future holds, but archeology and history don't paint a pretty picture.

The unavoidable reality is that the tactics of the civilized must change substantially, and very quickly, if we are to prevent the massive suffering that will result from our current course. There are valuable aspects to complex civilization, and these should not be entirely cast aside, nor can they be. But there are valuable aspects to simpler societies as well, many of which may not have been discovered or understood at this time. It is absolutely worthwhile to listen to the perspectives of other cultures, to understand their cultural world and examine their survival strategies, and to figure out what can and should be incorporated into modern society.

Then why did the lifespan sky rocket? Why did agriculture almost universally replace hunting and gathering?

"Notable examples of Indian civilizations are the Peruvian Inca, the Mesoamerican Maya (who had a writing system)"

We weren't discussing Mesoamerican civilizations. We were discussing the myth that Native Americans (of the continental U.S.) were some sort of ubermensch who had these wonderful pacifistic mystical ideas and higher consciousnesses. New age shit.

"I'm not arguing that we should abandon civilization and intensive agriculture"

Oh, of course not. People always complain about how bad modern society is, while enjoying all of its benefits. Like the people who bitch about corporations, but keep buying its products.

Based on analysis of human remains found at archeological sites, health declined and the lifespan slightly decreased. Look up any current anthropology or archeology textbook for back up on this if you don't believe me. Population did increase dramatically, probably because closely spaced births don't create as much of a burden on a woman in a permanent settlement as they do on a nomadic woman (also because breastfeeding, which decreases fertility, could be replaced with soft cereals and dairy products) and because children are valuable workers in agricultural societies, as opposed to food collecting ones. However, taking a look at the modern world I wouldn't tie population growth to an increase in the general health or quality of life.

The truth is no one knows for sure why agriculture has largely replaced broad spectrum food collection (though not nearly universally, at least until the advent of the global economy in the last century or so); possibly population growth pushed people into areas of diminished abundance which they tried to increase through intentional cultivation of wild plant species; possibly climate change that had caused increasing extremes in weather made the predictable harvest of a surplus during the growing season more desirable; possibly the even more dramatic population growth in agricultural societies, and the resulting concentration of power at the top of the social system, both enabled and forced those societies to conquer smaller neighboring groups that continued to rely on food collection.


"We weren't discussing Mesoamerican civilizations. We were discussing the myth that Native Americans (of the continental U.S.) were some sort of ubermensch who had these wonderful pacifistic mystical ideas and higher consciousnesses. New age shit."

Cahokia was the capital city of an Indian civilization in the Continental U.S. And the wampum of the Iroquois were highly symbolic pictorial contracts that would likely have developed into a writing system independently. I haven't seen a single person on this thread put forth the idea that Indians were innately peaceful and superior beings worthy of our worship; what I've seen is the belief that there are valuable aspects of their culture and their experience that are worth understanding, and perhaps replicating where practical.


"People always complain about how bad modern society is, while enjoying all of its benefits. Like the people who bitch about corporations, but keep buying its products."

I'm not complaining, and for the most part I didn't critique modern society, so much as juxtapose the typical experience of the intensive agriculturalist vs. the food collector. I'm pointing out our adherence to historical trend and advocating an effort to prevent that trend for our own survival. I don't know where you get your information, but I can tell you that to the best of my ability I make sure mine is current, reliable, and from unbiased, accredited sources, and based on that information I'm convinced that our society and the global economy are not sustainable and we must do better. Yes, everyone on this board is a member and to an extent a beneficiary of that system. that doesn't mean that their perspectives of its flaws are meaningless or inherently hypocritical. If anything they require a great-deal of self-awareness, an admission of culpability, and a desire to find effective, practical alternatives.

And if it makes you feel any better I'm writing this from the comfort of a solar-powered home in a land trust protecting one of the most ecologically diverse regions of the continental United States, owned by a female entreupreneur who runs a restaurant that recycles and composts and sources locally produced eggs, bread, meat, and produce to the maximum possible extent.

Those familiar with North American archaeology (clearly you are, and our friend isn't) know that the human remains show significant changes in dental health where agriculture became the primary source of food production. Good teeth are essential for good health.

No doubt a waste of time for that soul, but I appreciate you supporting the rest of us with the facts.

I didn't address so many issues in that exchange. The main one being:

Each culture in time has had its weaknesses and strengths, successes and failures. And each culture has a unique view of what is of "value."

Every time you open your mouth, you humiliate yourself in people's eyes. Why the masochism?

Note. I'm not arguing with you. Just pointing out your intellectual bankruptcy, and asking why anyone would want to display it so recklessly.

of a soul that you have.
And I don't have one strong enough for that....but I wanted to kick this anyway so I thought I would say something.

I win.

When someone has mud on their face and you tell them about it you are committing an act of kindness.
I have read many books going back some 50 years...do you think I could impart that which I have learned to you?

I don't think you know anything that I don't already know, but you can try if you want to.

Why don't you start with telling me where I'm wrong?

HiFructosePronSyrup, if you're still here, might I rec a book that may alter your POV?
It's a large book with lots of pictures and a NA's description of life in his world.
Kinda expensive but is carried by the library system.
You may have to extend the checkout time.

It's entitled "Seven Arrows". Author: Hyemeyohsts Storm ISBN# 0345329015

http://www.amazon.com/review/R29ZE99GF7FVVC

The difference seems to confuse a lot of people around here.

You seems to be confused about historical facts with propaganda of oppressive conquerors and colonists. Please study more about what actually happened in this country and those facts can be found in libraries, not on TVs.

http://www.zmag.org/zvideo/3322
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zUS_oh4XeU

Three Holy Wars
by Howard Zinn

<snip>
Who actually gained from that victory over England? There were people who gained, no question about that. But it is very important to ask, especially if you are considering a war or evaluating a war, who gained what and differentiate between the different parts of the population about who benefited from a certain policy. That's one thing we're not accustomed to doing in this country because we don't think in class terms. We think we all have the same interests. We all have the same interests in independence from England. We did not all have the same interests.

Do you think the Indians cared about independence from England? No. In fact, the Indians were unhappy that we won independence from England because England had set a line - the Proclamation of 1763 - had set a line and said you cannot go westward into Indian territory beyond this line. They didn't do it because they loved the Indians. They didn't want trouble, right? When England was defeated in the Revolutionary War that line was eliminated. Now, the way was opened for the colonists to move westward across the continent, which they did for the next 100 years, committing massacres and making sure that they destroyed Indian civilization. So, you can say, when you look at the American Revolution, you can say, hey, there's a fact you have to take into consideration.
Indians, no, didn't benefit.

Europeans bad, therefore Indians good.

I'm not saying, for example, all natives were bad while the Europeans were good.

One always has to generalise to some extent, in order to make sense of the world, you hapless mutt.

Did you really think you could get away with that sort infantile claptrap? On further reflection, I don't think you are in the least bit aware of your seemingly fathomless stupidity.

I think.

Hunter-gather societies are incredibly well regulated, and violence is not anarchic (as in Western societies, in particular, the US and UK, for example). Inter-tribal violence, as in the West, is organised. Unlike in the West, in hunter-gatherer societies, everyone in civil society is valued, contributing, as they do, to the aggregate size of the tribe and its viability on different levels, including against the event of inter-tribal war.

The ignorance of elementary anthropology of Syrupoffigs defies belief.

A wonderful post. Thank you.

Cool that your OP was discussed on the radio show yesterday. Well done!

It was more honorable to touch a living enemy than a dead one. They understood what life was. I'm not saying they didn't kill when necessary, but it wasn't practiced the way you say it was.

Ho
sage

they understood that their natural "home" fed them, clothed them and sustained them. They gave thanks for that and were always mindful of it. They considered themselves part of nature, and were managers rather than overlords of it.

An example: today's caucasian ginseng hunters destroy the entire plant when they harvest.

The native hunters always waited til the proper time and planted the seeds of the plants they were harvesting to insure a future crop.

As a result of modern take and no give back harvesting, native beds of ginseng are harder and harder to find in these hills.

Our current global unsustainability is a result of our "forgetting" the simple concepts of not destroying your own home.

Witness the oil spills, the mass depletion of fish, the hunger and poverty worldwide because places that used to be able to sustain a local crop have been destroyed by greed.

Yeah, they knew a whole lot more than we do about keeping a sane, clean earth.

which is impossible and can only lead to our collective undoing.

We need to insist that these corporations respect and work with nature. Cease poisoning us, our land and every other life form that we share the planet with. No more GMOs, no more toxic additives. Push for clean green energy development, chose to adopt instead of procreating, work for women's rights globally (which reduces birthrates), insist on accurate labeling of ever consumer good. Recycling, riding a bike, bringing your own bag, even going veg isn't enough. We need to demand better policies NOW.

as Don Juan would have said.

Thank you.

I haven't read all the remarks beyond this point, but I am praying that by the time I reach the end of the thread, a certain poster either see's the light, and error of their thinking, or I find a TOMBSTONE! Love and peace to you and all peacekeepers!

Thank you.

And wonderfully written, as always. :thumbsup:

Hope things are going well, Waterman. :hi: Keep fighting the good fight.

as well. I appreciate everyone's participation on it.

In a few days, I go to once again visit my Indian friends, and be there for their Feast Days. It is considered rude to ask them questions, and I wouldn't dream of doing so.

They consider anyone who observes the dances to be participants in their prayers, and that is what happens, from my experience. I don't have to know what it "means".... I just have to be there and be open.

Their welcoming me back every year, inviting me to participate in their hospitality in their homes, and just treating me as a valued human being teaches me much more than words could do.

Their lives are their teaching, and I am so grateful for their loving sharing. It is open to all who wish it.

with your friends. That's what it's all about!

It's profound truths could not be more beautifully expressed, either.

'They consider anyone who observes the dances to be participants in their prayers, and that is what happens, from my experience. I don't have to know what it "means".... I just have to be there and be open.'

There is an old Roman Catholic saying, 'to work is to pray' (laborare est orare), obviously, assuming the proper disposition of the heart, which is to glorify God in all we do. How much more would this apply to 'dance', especially when accompanied by the people singing. Praise is considered the highest form of worship, and 'song', it's highest expression.

In your reference to 'absorbing', you implicitly reiterate the truth Aldous Huxley addressed in such a fascinating manner in his essay on comparative religion, The Perennial Philosophy, namely, that spiritual truth is not accessed by the worldly intelligence, associated with the brain. And that, in a remarkably ingnorant 'scientismificist' way.

http://science-spirituality.blogspot.com/search/label/Mysticism

Wisdom has always been considered the province of the heart, and that, for a very good reason. The deepest truths are all together too abstruse, complex and dynamic to be perceived by the conscious processes of the brain, but are, to borrow your word, 'absorbed', and synthesised to form the basis of our assumptions. Some individuals plainly prefer falsehood and reject them in favour of their own fairy-tales, such as those cherished by our scientismificist friend*; but, in the same way, it is the heart that makes the choice. The human soul consists of the memory, the will and the understanding.

On the level of our assumptions, we believe what we want to believe. We are all, in a sense, 'wishful thinkers'. It just happens that God had made and sustains the world in accordance with the way his own flock, his own 'wishful thinkers' would have it. Not a random juxtaposition of molecules, but a place in which our trials, be they never so hideous, are correspondingly rewarded, often, to some extent, in this life, and then more than fully, in the next; in which the Sermon on the Mount and the Beatitudes, not pre-Macondo gusher, BP's, annual report, are held and cherished as the most sublime conceivable text. I don't believe any true martyr, even in such ante-chambers to hell, as Abu Ghraib, will have died without some theophany of God's love in this life and the next. Just as Christ's transfiguration and his miracles (the most spectacular, mostly reserved for witness by only his closest followers) were accorded to them, to prepare them for his imminent, atrocious torture and crucufixion.

The philosophical school linking our knowledge with our volition is apparenty called, 'voluntarism'. It is the basis of all Christ's Gospel teachings - and how could it not be? We shall, after all be judged not on what we know with our wordly intelligence, but on the habitual disposition of our hearts. Otherwise, our current cruel and rapacious elites would triumph yet again in the next life, and we are told in one of the New Testament Epistles that God chooses the poor to be rich in faith.

And with this faith, we return to the abstruse nature of wisdom. It has much more to do with commitment to a selfless love of God, as imperatively expressed through love of our neighbour, than with our conscious 'belief', 'credence', still less 'credulity'. Again, as St James, I think, tells us, 'The devil believes in God and trembles.' The so-called, theological virtues, Faith, Hope and Love, are really a continuum - though the same could be said of all the virtues, in respect of which Love is the indispensable 'active ingredient'.

*Scientismificists, and doubtless not a few high-flyers in the scientific field, are so pedantic and limited in their world-view, that, as some genuinely eminent scientist/thinker, possibly Einstein, pointed out, before a new paradigm becomes understood and accepted, it takes the emergence of a new generation, who grew up with it! Hence the living epistemological fossils, with their 18th century - even 17th century beliefs, such as highfructosesugar.

Beautiful and thought-provoking.

Thanks for the thread, H2O Man.:thumbsup:

Thanks for another great post.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts and perspective. O8)

Peace.

I think you have a unique view of being part of more than one world. I think we are in flux, but time for many people just includes their own lifetimes.

in the margins of society.But there are times when it's frustrating. This may sound totally unrelated -- anywhere but in my head -- but today I've been trying to get the local county "machine" to assist a young man who grew up in the margins, and who will be homeless on Saturday. I just got off the phone with a bureaucratic department head who suggested that I take responsibility for him.

I may do that .... I'm on the phone now .... but it will not be in the way the system anticipates.

Thank you for writing that....

K&R

If it is nature to have "no mercy" it is arguable that it is human nature to have "no mercy" since we are part of nature. But i note the actual quote in question, by predicating the response of "no mercy" on violations of nature's laws (i presume including the one to be in harmony with nature on a non-extinction basis) essentially provides for a kind of karmic backlash, or, if you will, an antibody or infection-fighting response by Nature to those that violate Nature-al laws. In that case, "no mercy" is shown by nature because it is merely rejecting and returning, as it were, the "no mercy" shown by the one violating laws of Nature.

On another topic, an important distinction, or "dance", is that between NOT proselytizing and forcing religion (for example) on others, and yet still being quite willing to share, demand, and advocate as necessary.

The key to distinguishing bad oppressive dominion of proselytizing (and such) and the good assertiveness and advocacy is the Respect one has for the Other. Respecting all as intelligent and assumed of good will, we rightfully assume they want to know about all important things and ideas and we share them if a good chance arises. But the underlying respect also allows a dialogue and the possibility of change of opinion (usually later on, and not immediately) based on such respectful change of views. This respect of others is usually grounded in a spiritual awareness that all are made in the image of God, or alternatively in a more secular form (still shared by all religions) of the Golden Rule, which is the foundation of ethical life.

Exercising the Golden rule, a reasonable person would not wish that no one would speak to them politically for that would make them a non-person in the life of the community, someone who's opinion or thought is of no consequence. Instead, it's on the fear of a bad reaction that causes people to avoid political discussion, thus the attitude of treating others in a respectful or even in a "sacred other" way is powerful in increasing total political communication both on the macro community level, as well as within given individuals who are trying to avoid being overbearing or proselytizing while not silencing themselves from speaking to others about what's important to them...

Thanks for an interesting OP.

NOT proselytizing and forcing religion (for example) on others, and yet still being quite willing to share, demand, and advocate as necessary.'


Bobbolink epitomised those words, Paul, in that ancient, beautiful, spiritual truth, that 'their lives are their teaching.' Saint Augustine expressly referred to the same truth in one of his sermons, although it is, of course, together with the requirement to show selfless love to others, the basic religious axiom.

Thanks, H2O Man.

Not much mention of that word lately. It always sounds good to me.

peace H2O Man

bhn

Peace and love.

-Steve

ps --- Handsome Lake must have been a smart fellow.

We need more of that.

When I see Julian Assange, I feel he must have been moved by something noble yet subtle. Same as Bradley Manning. Just like Ellsberg. They must have been sensitive and receptive to this kind of inner sign. They have acted on it wholeheartedly like a warrior. May we also listen to such subtle movement within us called Conscience.

And it was.
But I am always surprised to see the dark spirited ones that show up....I should not be by now but I still am.
Peace.

their duty to speak for their side. But that's a good thing. As Malcolm said, when their dirty glass of water is set next to our clean glass, the contrast is stark.

And it stands clear in this thread.
But I would mention and old movie that shows why the hippies turned to Native American culture...at least in part.
It was called Gasss and it was about a time when the military industrial complex accidentally released a gas that killed everyone over 25.
It would seem corny today and was a low budget flick, but in the end they wound up at Acoma pueblo where they learned to live together in peace.
But it shows why they turned to Native American spirituality....the desire for peace and finding a way to live with nature.
I think it is worth watching if you have the chance.

My Father always had a strong interest in Indian culture. Perhaps that is where my own fascination comes from. In any case, I was a young child in the 1960's. During that time, on the wall of our living room hung two portraits -- one of my Grandfather on my Mother's side and one of a (Cherokee?) Indian Chief by the name of Peskelachaco. The portrait of my Grandfather was the more dominating picture in the room, so when my friends would come over, they would ask who he was. "My Grandfather on my Mom's side." I would reply. Then they would look at the portrait of Peskelachaco and ask me who he was. "My Grandfather on my Dad's side." In reality, I never met either of my Grandfathers since they both died a couple of decades before I was born, or I most certainly would never have told such a wild tale. But I wanted so badly to an Indian. I wanted it so, so much.

There were woods in the back of my house and I would practice running through them without making a sound, because my older brother had told me that Indians could do that...I also practiced camouflaging myself in the woods because he told me they could do that too. And when I read the stories of Pocahontas and Sacagewea, I yearned to know them.

Years later, when I was a young adult living far, far from home in a foreign land, I fell into a deep and dark depression. It was horrible. I was flirting with thoughts of suicide. I just wanted the pain to end. One night, I fell asleep thinking of suicide, and to my surprise I experienced a most spiritual dream -- it was the catalyst in my recovery. My physical state was such that I could hear sounds around me and my brain was "awake", but I could not move a muscle, nor open my eyes. Suddenly a "dream" began in which I saw a large conference room. It had no walls, just blue sky and white clouds for floors. There were Greek pillars on edges of the room and white folding chairs in rows -- it almost looked like a really tacky movie set. My Grandmother, deceased, but with whom I was very close when she was alive, was sitting in the front of the room on a stage at a conference table. She was flanked by other women at the table -- including my other Grandmother, who was also deceased. Then I noticed how women from all periods of time dressed in the garb of their time, came into the room and took a seat. (The Elizabethan one was spectacular!!!!)I saw an Indian woman also join them, dressed in a beautiful soft leather dress adorned with blue and white beads and feathers. Some of them were in finer clothes than others, but they were all beautiful to me.

They greeted each other warmly and hugged and laughed cordially, until my Grandmother called order to the meeting. She then began to speak. "As you all know, my dear Granddaughter - and a granddaughter to each of you -- is experiencing a serious depression. She is contemplating suicide. We have tried to send her signs to help her through this, but she is in such a dark place that she does not see them. I have called all of her fore-mothers here today so that we can send her our love, our support and our strength." Many women spoke. One joked that they remembered having such a meeting for my Grandmother once when she was young(and in fact I found out years later that she had been briefly institutionalized.) The Elizabethan one noted my presence in the room. These were my fore-mothers. They were strong and beautiful and all there for me...and in the crowd, there was an Indian. I felt their power coursing through me.

When the dream was over, I had full function of my body. I opened my eyes and just lay there.

Today, when the Toothfairy comes to see my children, they get a dollar coin under their pillow -- Sacagewea.

Recently, my father, who is very old now, gave my son an arrowhead he found when he was a young boy walking through the woods. It is large and perfect and beautiful. He let his mind wander, who made it? Did they hunt with it? Did a young boy like him hold it in his hands one day long, long ago?

Thank you, H2O Man. Thank you so much for your post.

:hug:

It deserves to be an OP in itself. We need all the hope we can get, from wherever we find it. And your story gives me hope.

I love threads like this. It's a wonderful break from all the doom and gloom.
:pals:

with our Good Friend Raksha. Your post was not only the material for a great OP, but it is equally important in the sense of breaking that "doom and gloom" that brings DU down.

I hope you got to see some of it. The President presented the award.

for a most wonderful thread. These are the types of conversations that are so dearly needed if our species hopes to save itself. Thank you H20man.

Peace

Greatly appreciated by this old hippie.

who is a couple of years older than I, and I were teenagers in the early sixties, and he was one of the many of whom you speak.

He embarked on a journey that changed his life (and mine). He sought out tribal Elders, studied, embraced the culture and spiritual life, participated in Sweat Lodge Ceremonies, and was fortunate enough to be able to study with several Medicine Men.

The experience literally saved his life. On a camping trip to a National Park, he was visited, not once, but twice one night by a large bear. Defenseless, he and his companion had no choice but to remain motionless in their sleeping bags, while the bear explored their campsite. On the second visit, the bear actually brushed up against my nephew as it walked by the small tent he was in.

At first light, they packed up camp and made their way back to the ranger station as fast as possible, prepared to tell the staff about their close encounter with the bear. They were surprised to greeted by a ranger who, running to meet them, was visibly relieved to find them not only alive, but unscathed. Before they could relate their experience, the ranger told them the staff was just about to launch a search party to find them because a large bear had mauled a couple to death at another campsite.

Knowing about his spiritual path, I asked him what he though the significance of the bear's appearance meant, and how it affected him. I was floored by his answer.

His life,he said, was a mess. He was estranged from his only child, his second marriage was disintegrating, his wife, who was supposed to accompany him on the camping trip, had chosen to spend her vacation with another man, and his companion was a woman with whom he was having a retaliatory "fling". He was depressed and basically, just "lost".

He believed (and still does) that the bear was a spirit guide, appearing in animal form, who had come to him with a message that he needed to get himself straightened out, that life was short and not to be lived selfishly or taken for granted.

After that experience, he changed profoundly. Although the second marriage couldn't be saved, he met and married his soul mate, went back to school, became a family therapist. He has reconciled with his son, who is about to present him with his first grandchild(a boy), has retired to Mexico, and is happier than I have ever seen him. The transformation is astonishing.

He credits his encounter with the bear and his deeply held spiritual quest with saving his life, and I agree.

Thanks, H20Man, this is a beautiful post. You are a powerful writer and have much you can teach the rest of us, at least those of us ready and willing to learn. I look forward to more of your posts, and would appreciate any literature you could recommend. Again, thank you so very much.

And one more common than we can know....thanks
to kick.

I'm so grateful his life was spared and that he was open to receive the message and got the chance to turn his life around.

Thanks H2O Man.

K & R

I thought we weren't able to determine what a generation is and what they have accomplished/not accomplished. I thought a generation could not be blamed as that would be too broad a brush to use.

I learned this idea when people defend criticism of the baby boomers.

'It will look like water, but it will not be water . . .'

I think life is inherently disintegrating. It's a given now that the manner in which we've used the environment to further our survival or enrich us has hastened the disintegration of those earthly things which sustain us. The world and the country looked vast and endless at the beginning of the last century and at the dawn of industrialization. Now, with the population exploded, and our ability to reach all parts of the globe in our frenetic efforts to survive or gain, there is the new realization (by some) that these environmental resources are dwindling and evaporating along with other species and species habitats.

We should all take account of these changes and adjust our own individual actions to help retain what's left and, hopefully, build and develop new and sustainable methods to facilitate our survival or gain. Without a clear direction or collective understanding to that sustainable path there's now a view of the future which is more threatening than it is promising. There's almost a sense of panic (from some) to grab up all of what's left to feather their present existence and damn whoever is left to scramble for the remains. It will take some courage and care from further generations to help provide for the needs of the folks who will follow them in this life. I appreciate any and all expressions and initiatives toward a concern for the sustainable future of life on Earth. It begins, as you so eloquently suggest H2O Man, with caring for each other in some form or fashion. It's always good and productive to recognize and promote that caring. Thanks for this reminder.

:kick:

and amusing: I put the asshat here on ignore, so, reading through the posts and trying to follow the conversation...allows for some fun and interesting imaginings!

should understand: that you suffer in direct ratio to your transgressions against the natural world. The natural world will prevail.” – Chief Oren Lyons

Why is it that the deepest, most ironical truths, when uttered matter-of-factly, can convulse us with laughter. I mean, what Chief Oren Lyons said made me laugh louder than I've laughed in months. And yet, it's basically a matter of life and death on the global scale. But, you know... personifying nature's want of mercy like that!

As a matter of fact, James Howard Kunstler speaks in a very similar vein, though I think his black sense of humour is more like mine, than like H2O Man's, Chief Lyons' - or Christ's, whose own sense of humour seemed to have been every bit as bitter as the truths he articulated were serious. Like my late uncle Bill's, who'd get very upset if you laughed.

Now, I'm going to read Chief Lyons' next insights, with just that little bit of frivolousness that makes me hope it's as darkly humorous as the first.

of the Great Plains. Very interesting and full of information about the tribe that dominated the American midwest for hundreds of years. It's called Empire of the Summer Moon by S.C. Gwynne.

Enjoy.