Western Magic
-
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
-
93,
Alrah, I know exactly what domestication brought with it. I don't know if you were trying to backhandedly call me ignorant, but I would say I'm far from it.
Your example is flawed, however, as it isn't really taking into consideration the climatological reasons for doing so [Again, why not share ALL the data as opposed to cherry picking results?]. Was it smart to live in the same proximity? No [Well, in the crucible of history, it was, but at the time, not so much]. Was it better than the lack of those populations? Well, success is my proof.
To bring it even further, what about all the other societies in the East that domesticated? What was the excuse in the West? Even the Bedouins did cattle domestication, and even advanced beyond the Natives, despite having a far less forgiving environment. Notice a commonality?
However, I don't really think it's relevant- I'm not sure why you brought it up- having a chicken doesn't protect you from the diseases brought by other populations. My point was that by being able to fend off the Europeans, there would be no foothold for disease [Which is a side effect, not the reason, mind you. Disease was not really understood. The actual reason possible at the time would have been to prevent these new invaders from doing what they made clear they wanted to do.]
"Malnarcissist, you use the mostly sweeping terms and false logic I've heard in awhile. Just sayin'."
Er, that's because those sweeping terms apply. If you think saying humans tend to have two legs is too general, I am sorry, but that is not a problem I am qualified to help with.
I'm also not using logic [Indeed, logic is not really suitable for this, a I'm not trying to give proofs to an argument]- I am simply conveying observations. If you don't like it that the American Indian got was it was asking for, then I'm sorry- but the simple fact is instead of TRYING they gave up. So far as I can tell, I am the only one who has used real world examples outside of "Grr. People were mean, so I need to scapegoat a feature"
Look, as far as I can tell you know more about The Early American Culture, and that's fine. However, historically, ethically, and even in a strange sense 'morally' [I do not like that word, take it to mean what you want, I'm explaining] wrong. The only reason you've contained to reply is because you are outraged that I am saying it wasn't that big of a loss. If you care to show me what the Native People gained from deciding to never step out of the bronze age, then do so.
"... and perhaps you're not aware that the European practices of yesterday (in the name of advancement?) has us in an environmental crisis? I know some people don't see it, but that would require looking."
Facepalm Read something that doesn't have a Moon Crescent, or involve the words "The strength of American Indian Culture." Today we know that the Native Americans [And other Tribal groups outside of the Americas, even, but that is irrelevant] don't really care about the environment beyond how it lets them continue to exist. Look to South america and specifically at what the larger groups had written about. The only place you can really claim pastoralism is in the South West of North america, but oftentimes that was the bloodiest area.
Beyond that, so what if the environment is ruined? Part of growing up is taking responsibility for the actions you commit. If one of those actions is ruining the ecology [Which won't happen. Frankly, the fear is over blown. And no, I am not saying it isn't happening, rather I am calling it a side effect of rapid industrialization] permanently, then so be it. We have every chance of stopping it, and if we don't, we can apply the same sentiment I am expressing about the American Indians to the Modern World. I'm not doing this because I have some kind of animosity, but rather I'd blame any one who decides that they can try to ignore a problem.
93 93/93
