Western Magic
-
93,
"genocide isn’t sleezy, you should bump that up a few degrees, it was genocide. And still is. I’m not a bleeding hear but am for justice. We’re not all gone and it’s all good. Nay. Indeed conquering in that way is old aeon crap. If you look at who is still doing it, they sit in that seat. Not I.
"You're right. For the most part, though, I wouldn't call it a genocide any more than I would call accidental species transplants genocide. The fact is many of the events that decimated the population were not done maliciously- the Europeans were told by rival tribes about how bad other tribes were, and killed them believing these things. Later gifts they were given led to contamination, which was most definitely not on purpose. Were bad things done beyond that? Yes. Once the wheels began moving, the Natives lost their land [As is fit. They had plenty of time to advance. Rustic living is no excuse for weakness in the political scheme], whether they want to try to rationalize it with the whole 'the land is ours,' spiel doesn't change the fact that they sure acted like they owned it with each other.
"Oh, I blame Christianity (or as the adage goes, Jesus, save me from your followers. I don't think those people were doing it right. But I'm coming from a gnostic stance. "
Why, though? How about I blame it on Native American religion that they got killed? Just because a religion, or any other thing is involved doesn't mean it is the issue. I see you have not derided the nice form of housing you get to live in that the Natives were not cognizant enough to develop, why not? It isn't like the survivors benefited, and I can't be the only one who sees that as worth the loss of life for a group not willing to pull it's self into the changing world. Harsh, but relevant.
"huh?"
You blame Christianity as f it has any direction it could take. You're dealing with so many disparate groups at the time that this is as broad an accusation as hating people with access to horses, because they did it, too.
"huh?"
Next part reads fine to me. It's not anything that needs explained, any way.
"huh? Who said they didn’t want progress? Or don’t? They were as progressive as it gets. Examples please."
Do you know anything by and large about the archery styles in North America? By and large [With some exceptions] they were crap [Add to that a lack of quality mining techniques,etc.]- they did not develop at nearly the rate you should expect a society to develop.
"so you are saying slaughtering millions of people is a good idea? It wasn’t, but it did happen, my heart isn’t bleeding, but I’m not going down like that. Don’t have to, I’m 93. We now have peace treaties and the U.N working on humanitarian rights, just as ol Crow wrote it. Indians were already working OZ."
Why do you keep invoking Crowley as if I care about the man's leanings? Beyond that, I'd say you are off on how the man felt. Very frequently he made it clear that a lot of people where going to lose humanitarian rights. At least, that's what I took out of some of his essays in front of the Centennial Liber L [I am not sure their publication names, atm].
But no, I didn't say it was a good idea. However, I did say that if millions of people don't want to be slaughtered on certain stages, then they need to be able to resist. In the Natives case they were generally too busy squabbling over old disputes, and basically let the Europeans do the rest. It's really a logical progression, and I can't really blame them- if I saw a bunch of people who had decided it a good idea to avoid constantly improving as a society, not using a lot of land to any effect, I might do the same [As a settler, any way]
"what are native forms? "
Religions that developed in the Pre-European Americas.
"Untrue. Science today is looking to indigenous practices to assist in some major repair work done by colonizers whose children are now suffering the consequences. Indians look ahead, Americans are mostly "me, now". Indians aren't looking backwards. 7 generations in front is the motto. We’re still here, I’m not from 1850. Theres more to it than you seem to understand. I'm good with that, I hope you can articulate the points where I say "huh?""
What? That has nothing to do with anything I said.Make sure you are paying attention to the topic you posted, as that's what I'm talking about- the corps of their works has been invalidated by the industrialization of the land. As soon as that started to happen the Animistic aspects stopped being relevant on as a profound level [As in, imagery while developing] as others. That isn't to say it is to all people, but it is just not universal.
"as a kid, what could you have possibly gained? I’m skeptical you accessed any systems. Sweat lodge is akin to a banishing ritual (ie) and drum circles are social. This has little to nothing to do with what I’m talking about. Ceremonial magic isn't really where kids are asked to be unless they are being initiated intentionally because they hold some sort of power that is obvious by council."
Again, when I type what I type, it means exactly what I typed. I did not claim to have done any advancement- the systems aesthetics did not appeal to me. That is all a system can really offer to draw someone in. This type did not for me.
"This I find true yet you replied!!"
Generally I ask people to clairify if I don't think I know what they mean. What do you do?
"Not quite like that, but do what thou wilt. If you can’t find the common thread, just ask. Forced oppression and Christianity is the key to both problems. Thelema is a solution, of which I will divulge into more as things progress. I’m not new at this stuff exactly, but somewhat ready to step things up."
Fine. What is the common thread other than you needing a scape goat? Do you make sure to blame Mexico, too, as they stem from an intermixing of the Spanish settlers? If not, why not? It is a more relevant quality than the religion they happened to possess.
"huh? The constitution is drawn from the Iroquios Confederacy. You must have read it wrong. Sustainability is the only focus of Native Americans. It’s only become unsustainable since contact, and this is a global issue. Indians are scientists and magicians, so the method of science and aim of religion was already occurring all over the planet already."
Ah, the myth of Native American pastoralism. Protip- native peoples all around the world in abundant lands tend to be very rough with their environments. As the populations get larger, more issues arise.
"What part unsettles you? Or how can I clarify? I'm not sure I'm being quoted properly."
That it sounds like you said the only reason indigenous cultures become more Euro-centric in outlook is because of low self esteem.
"That they are."
What a wonderfully vague statement full of useless nothing. Everyone realizes that they are something. How is this special?
"Some tribes war. Many don’t. The warring tribes can be environmentally akin to over population and other things, but they weren’t causing genocide in the name of the Lord. They are magical, that means there are things going on being the scenes that they were aware of. The Xtians who came intended ill will. They were pompass greedy and many of them criminals abandoning their own lands. Anyone who is right with their Lord would not behave the way these demons did. Only a few tribes were warring and it’s the stereotype that offers you your opinion. No tribes are at war at this time. They began alliances (1700’s) when they found that the new people intended on wiping out all of them as fast as possible. A task not completed.
"Demonstrably false. The first tribe the Puritans met convinced them to use their powder weapons against a nearby tribe. That is a matter of fact, and seems to get echoed very frequently. Beyond that, what gives you such moral authority to chastise the Europeans? You seem like it bothers you that people you will never meet were killed, resulting in a higher quality of life. Or are you being held captive?
"it is a part of prophecy, all of it is."
Then call me when you have a prophecy that isn't too vague as to be bloody obvious.
"did I say that? You may have vague prophecies, ours are right on time."
Ah, the good old "My faith delivers prophecy," tactic. I seem to remember that from a pretty influential Middle Eastern religion.
"I’m certain you are not reading me right and are confirmed in your convictions. I’m not sure how Thelema works for you with this, it probably doesn’t. But it’s early."
Generally, I just use the words you're trying to convey.
/edit: Ignorant? Maybe, but I'd rather be ignorant than wrong.
93 93/93
-
Whose fault is it when someone gets beat up?
If you hate being weak, then it's probably best to blame the weak for their weakness.
If you hate being an asshole, then it's probably best to blame the asshole for their holiness
In the end, both end up being kind of true.Technological evolution and spiritual evolution are two very different aspects of civilization. Technology usually wins battles regardless of degree of spiritual evolution. That part's not my favorite.
Alrah - during a point in my life where everything came crashing down at once, theology was discarded as useless, and I had to move back home with the Mom and Pop to begin again... There in that dark and wordless time, so many consolations came from hawk and deer messengers.
Once, I was walking down the road, trying to resolve disparate beliefs, and I came to this realization about my former Christian beliefs about salvation. At that very moment, a hawk dove out of the sky and snatched a snake from a bush about 5 meters away and flew off. It was... you know... just one of those moments... It was beautiful. Never forget it.
Hawks, eagles, falcons... probably depends on where the tribe was.
But absolutely the bird of prey, yes. And in my own region, the hawk, which I absolutely love. It's an incredibly beautiful and majestic animal.
-
I'm not gonna argue with the nayers, I've outgrown it and doesn't feel like the Law I Love. People are confusing the past with the present and it's not really workable art. I know what I know because I experience it first hand so it leaves you guys with just nitpicking about things you are little aware of. I'm used to it and it' an old hat. However, Christianity in this regard is a political movement, hidden in religulous clothing, hiding behind the genius, not the genius. There is a lot to be said about that and those who defend it. And just for education purposes, the entire continent was ful of people. The tendency to glump all Indians as one nations is juvenile and uneducated. I have no idea about the eastern Indians. I am from the west, the left coast. So your applications to what I am saying don't apply to what I know in the least since. California was decimated in a short time, on purpose. By missionaries in the name of the Lord. We lived in Utopia and not that long ago.
It makes me wonder what kind of world you would like to live in, but you come of as a hater, so I guess I don't want to know.
Do what thou wilt!
Now back to the program-- In indigenous mythos, the Eagle is the highest flyer. This is significant in lore it means he is closest to the Creator or Transformer, however you call it way up there. He can see the furtherest of any flyer. Mythos says he can see back and forth 7 generation. This is to do with the structure and survival of family clans. Remembering that indigenous people do not use the patriarchal stance on family (we do today, but we use other values as well, hence the motto, "we are all related" "it's all relative" and they mate for life, this pertains to their relationships and strength. Overall, they can see the big picture always. Hawks are pretty much little brother to eagle. In my experience, at every funeral I've been to here have been hawks circling the area. We always see them as protectors and visionaries. But the entire animal kingdom has a job to do that's vital to us all. That's why our stories about creation always have animals taking their places and establishing their works.
-
Alrah-- I've seen that before too. I can only speculate form my experience that they must be drawn to that state. I have been at funerals outdoors and they show up and circle about for long periods of time, it's like they want to be seen, but who knows, I always look up and there they are. Not just at funerals, but it seems like any well intended formal meditation or ceremony. It does offer a sense of reverence.
and pardon my typos, it's been a time of ordeals and i'm just not on top of things like that, but it matters to me! lol!
-
@anistara said
"I'm not gonna argue with the nayers, I've outgrown it and doesn't feel like the Law I Love. People are confusing the past with the present and it's not really workable art. I know what I know because I experience it first hand so it leaves you guys with just nitpicking about things you are little aware of. I'm used to it and it' an old hat. However, Christianity in this regard is a political movement, hidden in religulous clothing, hiding behind the genius, not the genius. There is a lot to be said about that and those who defend it. And just for education purposes, the entire continent was ful of people. The tendency to glump all Indians as one nations is juvenile and uneducated. I have no idea about the eastern Indians. I am from the west, the left coast. So your applications to what I am saying don't apply to what I know in the least since. California was decimated in a short time, on purpose. By missionaries in the name of the Lord. We lived in Utopia and not that long ago.
It makes me wonder what kind of world you would like to live in, but you come of as a hater, so I guess I don't want to know.
Do what thou wilt!
Now back to the program-- In indigenous mythos, the Eagle is the highest flyer. This is significant in lore it means he is closest to the Creator or Transformer, however you call it way up there. He can see the furtherest of any flyer. Mythos says he can see back and forth 7 generation. This is to do with the structure and survival of family clans. Remembering that indigenous people do not use the patriarchal stance on family (we do today, but we use other values as well, hence the motto, "we are all related" "it's all relative" and they mate for life, this pertains to their relationships and strength. Overall, they can see the big picture always. Hawks are pretty much little brother to eagle. In my experience, at every funeral I've been to here have been hawks circling the area. We always see them as protectors and visionaries. But the entire animal kingdom has a job to do that's vital to us all. That's why our stories about creation always have animals taking their places and establishing their works."
93,
Again, you can just say 'Fuck off. If you want to call me a naysayer, fine. However I would trust my opinion far more than yous considering I have no sentimental inclination towards the actions.
93 93/93
-
"
If you hate being weak, then it's probably best to blame the weak for their weakness.
If you hate being an {***hole}, then it's probably best to blame the {***hole} for their holiness
In the end, both end up being kind of true. "I'm not blaming anything, except possibly political retardation. They had plenty of time to act like real people and advance on their own. They did not, so somebody did it for them
93 93/93
-
@malnarcissis said
"
"
If you hate being weak, then it's probably best to blame the weak for their weakness.
If you hate being an {***hole}, then it's probably best to blame the {***hole} for their holiness
In the end, both end up being kind of true. "I'm not blaming anything, except possibly political retardation. They had plenty of time to act like real people and advance on their own. They did not, so somebody did it for them
93 93/93"
I was thinking more technological than political.
"...act like real people..." ?
Perhaps you are more emotionally invested than you realize.
-
93,
Nah. It's a phrase I've taken up. When people don't show any desire to go forward in life, they might as well not be called "Real," people. It's as insulting as it needs to be. I don't think any Tribal based society should be allowed a free pass just because they never wanted to advance in the world stage. XD, though, I guess that sentiment applies to Tibet.
I'll never understand why people need to assume just because I'm not nice I'm trying to say something else.
93 93/93
-
93,
The Native Americans, while they had a wondeful knowledge of the American Conntinent lacked some pretty normal conventions much of the world could develop on it's own. For one, the entire practical system was far too simple. Tribal environments work wonderfully [And yes, I am aware that Nations formed, however those are far from the norm, and generally more of an alliance] for those in a constant struggle to survive. Frankly with the abundance in this continent, they could easily have devoted their energies to making life better [I'd say civilized, but that is too loaded a word, and denies that they were a type of civilization].
To put it in perspective, even in Arabia, a good portion of the Bedouins had begun to settle in areas. While a migratory life style is good for somethings it tends to not advance ceertain aspects fast enough. To make things better, the Americans would hold rivalries with tribes when they had more than enough to simply share. While I am not saying that is an Eastern speciality [Far from it], but there was just too many opportunities for them to advance culturally.
I can't comment too much on technology until AFTER the Europeans arrived, as I am not really aware of what could be developed here that could not in the East and vice versa.
After the Europeans appeared, there was no excuse to not have adapted to the standards brought with the Europeans [Note, I am not saying norms, but rather increasing the quality of life for each other], especially in weaponry, as it was very obvious that the new people arriving were not always friendly.
By real I mean showing those drives which cause humans to seek more. You're free to disagree with that definition, as I am aware of the possible racial connotations, but rest assured, I am not using it in the genetic sense.
Retarded means not having developed properly. If you can deny this, good luck, as I would hardly call the default organization of humans advanced compared to methods developing over in Europe at the time [Not that the Natives should have had a functional democracy, that is asking too much in such a large area for the time]
That's nice, I really don't care what Bush or Obama do. I never once denied that he modern descendants were being treated improperly at times, but I don't really care. The reaction was to claiming that the evils of Christianity are to blame. I disagree, as blaming a religion for actions is just silly. I blame it on superiority on the cultural and technical and political level, as are those are the things that lead to this, historically.
I would honestly say it was Christianity that led to the remaining pieces of Native culture here in the US. As antithetical as it sounds, without the Missions the Europeans probably would have done what they normally do with groups they felt were not fully humans.
93 93/93
-
@Iaomai said
"Disdain* is *an emotion, er... "sentimental inclination." That's all I was trying to say."
93,
I wouldn't even call it disdain, honestly, any more than I would call losing a game due to ineptitude on my part disdain. It's just a simple fact, if you don't move as fast as the rest of the world, it will swallow you up.
But I do understand what you would mean. If I had any real care of how anything turns out, then I'd say it's sentimentalism, rather it's just an observation.
93 93/93 -
If it's
(a) simply a nihilistic statement that one culture is "superior" simply because their culture won out over another, then there's no reason to imply moralist value to it after the fact. What's the basis for using statement implying value, like "normal" "proper" "superior" "better" "real human", if it's simply an amoral game of survival of the fittest?
If it's
(b) an evaluation of the "rules" that cultures A and B play by, using the values of culture A as a rubric... then it's circular logic isn't it?
It seems to me that you're trying to play it both ways. No giving tribal people a free pass because they refuse to adopt the rules of the invaders, but giving the invading culture a free pass simply because they succeeded. Either it's a nihilistic game with no moral "better" or "worse", or it's not.
-
@AvshalomBinyamin said
"If it's
(a) simply a nihilistic statement that one culture is "superior" simply because their culture won out over another, then there's no reason to imply moralist value to it after the fact. What's the basis for using statement implying value, like "normal" "proper" "superior" "better" "real human", if it's simply an amoral game of survival of the fittest?
If it's
(b) an evaluation of the "rules" that cultures A and B play by, using the values of culture A as a rubric... then it's circular logic isn't it?
It seems to me that you're trying to play it both ways. No giving tribal people a free pass because they refuse to adopt the rules of the invaders, but giving the invading culture a free pass simply because they succeeded. Either it's a nihilistic game with no moral "better" or "worse", or it's not."
I would agree, if that is what I was saying. I'm sorry if I'm being too literal with my words, but again, she blamed it on Christianity- it wasn't. Christianity does not come on boats to settle lands, it comes in the people, and what they have done.
Also, I'm not comparing values at all- do cultures that do not advance in various arenas tend to get wiped out, or at the very least impaired by a larger group. This was even true in the Americas- they just did not escalate the concepts fast enough.
The value in using those words is that they imply the meaning I would like in these contexts. The Europeans were more advanced, as they had passed through many of the stages of Native American culture. They were superior in so much as they could bring more to bear, and real human is my own phrase. Apparently I need to just not speak like I normally do.
At the end of the day, it is not survival of the fittest. It's survival of "He-who-can-avoid." That is all.
93 93/93
-
"but again, she blamed it on Christianity- it wasn't."
Your emphasis on this is interesting. I never used the term "blame" since I don't really operate in those terms. That brand of religion gave permission for the colonizers to act as they did. It's documented history and common knowledge. It's still being used today as a platform to control the populace whenever possible. As a Thelemite, I would gather you understand what's being said here in relation to Crowleys experience of religion. I resonate with his view due to my own from a cultural standpoint. You don't get that?
-
@anistara said
""but again, she blamed it on Christianity- it wasn't."
Your emphasis on this is interesting. I never used the term "blame" since I don't really operate in those terms. That brand of religion gave permission for the colonizers to act as they did. It's documented history and common knowledge. It's still being used today as a platform to control the populace whenever possible. As a Thelemite, I would gather you understand what's being said here in relation to Crowleys experience of religion. I resonate with his view due to my own from a cultural standpoint. You don't get that?"
93,
I never said I agree with Crowley in regards to the standing of any religion beyond that of Thelema
That would put me at a huge disadvantage You don't need to use the term blame any more than I need to announce "I am running," when I run. You said this: "I will admit that it bothers me that people love Xianity even though it decimated, raped, stole and is a stink on this beautiful land we call home." If you didn't mean to blame it then why did you say they did things? I prefer to blame Christianity for things it has done- give rise to silly forms of Modern American Christianity [Like Joel Olsteen, and co.] and so forth, but I can't really blame it for the actions of political actions during the time of the American 'Discovery.'
You can resonate with his view. From about 16-21, I was very similar in blaming the religion, but as I read more and more, I am very happy the religion was there to intercede for groups of people.
"That brand of religion gave permission for the colonizers to act as they did"
And the Native religions didn't? You seem to forget that it is a normal event- if Buddhism was the primary religion of the Settlers, we'd be talking about the oppressiveness of Buddhists. The simple fact is, is that I take my ancestry seriously enough to take the sacrifice in stride, and enjoy the fruits of what had happened, but without trying to cling to a past paradise. If that means I need to have an unpopular viewpoint, then so be it.
93 93/93
-
You make some valid points. Any technologically advanced culture coming in would have ultimately done the same. It's just the way of things.
At the same time, I don't think moral outrage is out of place. The moral authority they claimed through their quoting of Hebrew scriptures about the conquest of Canaan to support their ideas of "manifest destiny" was completely blind to the teachings of Christ and absolutely self-interested. Whether or not this is simply the way of things has no bearing on the legitimate cries of falsehood and injustice, especially argued from their own Christian dogma.
There were Christian preachers, John Wesley for example, who preached against what was happening in the Americas in the name of Christ.
So, Christian, non-Christian, there were events that occurred that are worthy of outrage. I can see value in the step backward from those emotions so that they don't completely blind one. But I think that the opposite, suppression of legitimate outrage, is also unhealthy.
-
@Alrah said
"
@Iaomai said
"You make some valid points. Any technologically advanced culture coming in would have ultimately done the same. It's just the way of things."I'm not sure why you both think technological advancement is the issue...?
In the old world, there had been several plagues that swept through Europe as a direct consequence of domesticating cattle and fowl. The Europeans developed resistance to disease from cattle. Meanwhile - the Native Americans didn't domesticate animals and so didn't suffer plagues (smart people). However - when the settlers came to America they spread the plagues and it was these diseases that killed off 90% if the Native population.
Keeping chickens is hardly a technological advancement.
After that, the superstitous settlers (ignorant about medicine) saw the Indians dying and said "God wants us to have this land!" - which provided the impudous to persecute the 10% of the remaining Native people.
Chickens and diseases gotten from domesticated animals won the west for the settlers - not techno advancement. America was ultimately won... by the power of a sick chicken! I think you should put one on the flag.
Added: I almost forgot the other factor...beards of course! Facial hair won South America.
"93,
Alrah, I consider that advancement the key, because neither group knew how plagues spread. The thing I'm advocating is doing what they did when the Vikings came that one time- not let them stay [Well, except for a few groups, but it's hard to get rid of adopted family].
Beyond that, though, non-domestication is the opposite of smart. Well, that isn't to say there were no domesticated animals, but comparatively [The Americas had a few animals like this]. I'm not saying it would even have protected them from disease [After all, the groups were separated by quite a bit. Any resistances the Natives had would have been useless- putting us back where we are now.] , rather it would have just been the foundations of a more viable long-term society.
The disease issue sucks, yes, but it was bound to happen. The Europeans and the Natives were both clueless about the nature of illness, so you can't really blame either group for it. But, that being said, looking at it historically, Europe NEEDED those plagues. Pay attention to the economy during plagues. The sudden and rapid deaths of large numbers of people spurred economic development closer to the modern. I could hardly call it a bad, or dumb, thing- rather a tragedy that made things better. Except Beak Doctors. Nope.
XD. Basically, I'm arguing for the Natives should having had the desire to grow beyond the Tribal structure [Well, the whole nomadic/land liver thing that it was in most places]. It obviously didn't happen too late, and that's a shame- but I'm not willing to give them a pity card for losing a conflict that for the most part they signed up to do. If I really need to spell it out, what would earn the pity card is what happened very early into the contact- when the Europeans made it very clear they were not friendly. After that, any down fall is about on par with them not forcing their problem away.
XD, in summation- Had the Natives advanced in certain directions, they could have conceivably not had lost so much to plague, resulting in an increased ability to fend off the Europeans.
I agree Iaomai. Moral outrage has it's place. I just happen to feel this is not it, citing how much better I like living with air conditioning and medicine than I do longhouses and herbalism.
93 93/93
