PDA

View Full Version : A Contemplation on the Indigenous Peoples


Michael
7th February 2010, 05:59 PM
I promised Schrodinger I’d get back to him on this.

The subject of the Lakota came up in the thread, The Nazi Won WW2. Schrodinger pointed out that the Lakota have the shortest life expectancy of any group in the US. He went on to say that much of this was due to their lifestyle, with 80% alcoholism and he further observed that they weren't doing much to help themselves. All of which is quite true.

The Lakota is only one of the many indigenous cultures worldwide which have been destroyed, and are being destroyed, by their encounter with Western culture in its various manifestations.

In the last 200 years many hundreds of such peoples have vanished from the face of the earth together with their belief systems, traditions, art, crafts, spiritual and psychological understandings, songs, languages and their knowledge of their environment, its ecology, plants and animals.

While there is a great deal of attention given to the extinction of animals, scant attention is paid to the extinction of these human species. The loss to collective human knowledge and consciousness is vast and, I believe, will not ultimately be without consequence.

I raise the issue not to blame, but to tap into TBV contributors and guests, hopefully for positive suggestions and views on how it might be possible to positively accommodate these peoples in our world.

I believe that such accommodation could prove to be of great benefit to the world in time to come. Such accommodation is actually quite natural to us – 90% of the cells in our bodies, by number, are not ‘us’ but comprise an ecosystem of some 1000 microbial species!

When one culture meets another there is always initial incomprehension. The two classic examples are China and Japan. Of course both these cultures were powerful, centralised, had written histories and were used to meeting other cultures. Furthermore, both were wise enough and strong enough to limit initial exposure to Western influences during the early phases of contact, thus giving themselves time to set in motion the many conscious and unconscious adaptations necessary to deal with the impact of such an encounter. This introductory phase also gave the West time to reflect, to recognise there was much to be gained by means of trade and very little by the brutal aggressions displayed when meeting weaker cultures. Further, the logistics of attacking these cultures were overwhelmingly prohibitive.

The indigenous peoples of the Americas and Australia did not have the cushions of power, written history, or for the most part, the centralisation and logistical advantage which served to protect Eastern cultures from the depredations of the West.

For the majority of indigenous, or rather aborigional peoples, family, clan, tribe, their patterns of hunting and gathering, the land upon which they live, the animals and plants upon which they survive, the sun, moon and stars, their oral, musical and design traditions, their spiritual beliefs, their physical and metaphysical medicines are all integrated into a complex, multidimensional reality. It is virtually impossible for the Western mind to comprehend how these threads interwove to create not just a social fabric but the worlds of the different peoples, each world unique with its own ecosystem, grammar and reality.

Western man encountered these worlds and in every case where their interests were involved, set about methodically destroying them. Missionaries mocked, pillaried and outlawed their spiritual beliefs and practises while settlers stole their land and the white males diluted their stock by impregnating their women. Crimes against them included biological warfare in the form of smallpox. In many cases their children were taken away from them and given to white parents, their children were also sent to orphanages and forced to speak the language of the whites. They were forced to attend schools to learn the ways of Western man and Western thought. The invasion of vast numbers of whites into their lands destroyed their traditional methods of hunting and gathering and they became dependent on the whites for survival. The whites forced laws upon them that they didn’t understand and set up tribal councils that had no relationship with the authority structures that were in place previously. The destruction of tribal structure and culture took away the authority of the elders, the medicine men, the chiefs. Disease, for the most part introduced by the whites accidentally, caused further massive devastation.

These peoples were left without viable land, culture, government, spirituality, authority, traditions and in many cases not even their language. The blunt force trauma of their encounter with Western Civilisation was massive and devastating. Hundreds of tribes were destroyed, vanished from the face of the earth, never to share their knowledge, their understanding, their wisdom with us, for there is no one left to of speak of what they knew. The more resilient, in some cases the luckier or the more astute, tribes stagger on today, trying in what is for them a profoundly decontextualised world, to somehow bring the pieces back together into some form that makes some kind of sense to them.

The tiger pacing in his cage, tirelessly back and forth, back and forth, does so for a reason. This repeat activity releases endomorphines into the system. Endmorphines sit into the same synaptic centres as morphine, which is a derivative of heroine. The animal, decontextualised, is numbing itself against the intolerable and inescapable reality of its confinement in an alien environment.

Aboriginal peoples, the world over exhibit the same symptoms, excessive use of alcohol, high levels of domestic violence, teen suicide, low self esteem, with resultant abuse of the body in terms of diet, drugs and alcohol, and behaviours which are both unacceptable in terms of tribal tradition and western thinking. Alcohol for them was and is a highly toxic substance, genetically these people were totally unprepared for it and therefore lack the means we have to deal with it, yet even in our society it is a major force it the destruction of individuals many of whom would be otherwise highly valued, constructive and contributing members of society. There may be some exceptions, some tribes which have not fallen into such abuses and if there are I would very much like to hear about them.

It is easy to dismiss the aboriginal peoples by pointing out the alcoholism and the other social problems that are so prevalent amongst them. But the commonality of such behaviour across the world should at least give us pause for thought. Such commonality points to something which is at work in the collective rather than the individual.

Westerners conveniently overlook the fact that alcohol was and is used as a tool to suppress indigenous peoples. This in turn allows us to despise them which in turn allows us to avoid actually facing the reality of how we have and do behave towards them.

My first proposal towards reaching an accommodation with indigenious peoples would be that we attempt to objectively contemplate the history and the present reality of our relationship with them. We might begin by considering those among them who have overcome problems of alcohol and drug abuse and in doing so have demonstrated an extraordinary power of character
given their social context and physiological disadvantage.

On a personal note I would like to record that among the Lakota, poor, alcoholic, sick and troubled as they were, I was met with a grace, kindness and open-heartedness that I found profoundly humbling, being of the people who brought about the abject condition of their people.

sonrisa
18th February 2010, 01:07 AM
this is a very nice essay Michael.

I do question this however:

Michael--When one culture meets another there is always initial incomprehension. The two classic examples are China and Japan. Of course both these cultures were powerful, centralised, had written histories and were used to meeting other cultures. Furthermore, both were wise enough and strong enough to limit initial exposure to Western influences during the early phases of contact, thus giving themselves time to set in motion the many conscious and unconscious adaptations necessary to deal with the impact of such an encounter.

--well not this part

but....

Michael-- This introductory phase also gave the West time to reflect, to recognise there was much to be gained by means of trade and very little by the brutal aggressions displayed when meeting weaker cultures. Further, the logistics of attacking these cultures were overwhelmingly prohibitive.

-- do you know that Congress got the Shoguns to open Japan up to the rest of the world by sending Commodore Perry & the 3rd Fleet to "negotiate" with them? Story is that the Shoguns were shocked by the size of the guns on the ships- not to mention their numbers- & decided they would much rather not experience the business ends of those suckers. A treaty was drawn up in a matter of weeks.

Michael
18th February 2010, 03:47 AM
Thank you, Sonrisa, for your reply. Of the 90 people who have read this very inadaquate post, yours is the first.

I am saddened, however, that you should chose to address historical detail in a very large picture rather than the overall and profound moral issues which I have presented for your consideration.

I have been confounded and disappointed in the lack of response to this thread. I have consulted with others and thier opinion has concurred with my own, and it is that the readers are not prepared to respond to the issues of morality and responsibility which this asks them to address.

In much the same way the ordinary people of Nazi Germany were unprepared to address the moral issues presented to them by the Nazi regime.

Ideology at its most effective is not overt but implicit, by which means we are implicated, which was the actual thrust of my posts in the thread, The Nazis Won WW2. Sadly, tragically, dispairingly, your collective response bodes grave ill for our collective future.

sonrisa
18th February 2010, 10:52 PM
Michael. You totally missed my point.

but first, let me compliment you on a very thoughtful, well written & far from inadequate essay. You articulated my opinion on the subject far more eloquently than I ever could. You want a response from me on your essay as a whole? Then it would have to be, what he said. Anything more would be redundant.

that one small detail is the only thing I take issue with. You say, in the case of opening up Japan the West had time to reflect on the benefits of trade & realized that the logistics of attacking the cultures was overwhelmingly prohibitive. I'm saying I don't think that was the case. Perry's idea of negotiation was to threaten to bomb the hell out of Tokyo if the Shogunate didn't cop to a treaty. When the Shoguns saw the guns on the ships they knew they would be toast, so they agreed to a treaty- an unequal one, btw, that did not favor Japan.

my point is that Perry's threatening to bomb Tokyo was no diffrent than 0bombya actually bombing Afghani weddings, or dubya's you're either wid us or agin us, nonsense. Infact I would argue that it set the precedent for such crap.

ps, speaking of Nazis & Japanese, who did the Air Force drop the A-bomb on? (hint- not the white folx)

Michael
19th February 2010, 12:30 AM
Yes, I did pick you up wrong, Sonrisa, my apologies.

And no, I'm most definitely not seeking comment on the quality of the 'essay', but rather on the subject, its moral ramifications, our responsibilities when faced with such awful knowledge and people's general response to it and the conditions described. I wish to the get the subject into awareness, into discussion.

I think hard information would also help to open things further and extend people's understanding . Thanks for bringing up Perry.

Life of Luxury
20th February 2010, 07:52 AM
Where'd you learn to write like that?

I agree wholeheartedly.

I'm trying to articulate my thoughts but the loud music in my apartment is proving too distracting. I will get back to you on this one.

sonrisa
21st February 2010, 04:05 AM
I believe Life of Luxury has offered a reason why people are slow to respond to your thread, Michael. You have presented to us a deep subject- your title even includes the word contemplation. I think the folx here are needing some time to let this sink in & marinate on their brains before they offer up a decent response.

I have done some contemplating myself, since posting in this thread. While the North American Indians lived in small communities, nations further south, notably the Aztec & the Inca, had the large cities & a societial structure similar to the Japanese. In some respects, their cultures were more advanced than the Spaniards who conquered them. Their cities had irrigation & plumbing, for instance. When Cuzco, Ecuador suffered an earthquake in the 1950's the modern buildings & the older Spanish built buildings collapsed, but the buildings built on the still older Inca foundations did not fall. In the medicinal area the Indian nations as a whole- both north & south- knew their botanicals & had better medicene than the West.

so who's to say which culture is superior & which as inferior. The major difference as far as I can see, in both examples you gave & the one I just gave- as well as a number of others I can think of but won't post for brevity's sake- is that one side had guns & the other didn't. I think that anybody who thinks they & their culture/society (whatever) is superior won't think twice about using force on a culture/society they deem inferior. If the culture is "inferior" than it follows that the people who comprise that culture are also "inferior". And we all know what results from that sort of "thinking".

Jared Diamond writes about this stuff, & interestingly enough, one of his books is called Guns, Germs, & Steel. You might want to check it out if you haven't already.

Michael
22nd February 2010, 09:13 PM
I think that anybody who thinks they & their culture/society (whatever) is superior won't think twice about using force on a culture/society they deem inferior. If the culture is "inferior" than it follows that the people who comprise that culture are also "inferior". And we all know what results from that sort of "thinking".



I think there are interesting exceptions to this. For the Hopi people, now in Arizona, who traditionally regard themselves as 'The First People', it is shameful to make war on others. In the North there was the Iroquois League, or the 5 nations. In their words theirs was a 'League of Peace and Power.' At least part of the US Constitution is reputed to have been based on the articles of this league.

Our treatment of the indigenous peoples has been nothing less than genocidal, and this genocide continues today in the rain forests of South America. The vast majority of us remain silent on the matter.

We can pick over the detail of history and cause and effect but actually it is not a question of history, it is a question of our moral responsiility now. And I have to confess that I am as much speakng to myself as to you.

There are spiritual issues here also, not simply moral issues. I shall do a bit of contemplation myself and get back to the forum with them.

In the meantime, anyone else got anything to offer or to throw?

blakeh
23rd February 2010, 01:31 AM
The genocide you describe in your article is only made possible by society's attachment to "convenience", and our willingness to acquire it no matter what the cost.

If you look at any society throughout history that has exploited a "weaker" one, it's main goal for the exploitation was to acquire the resources necessary to maintain lives of comfort. Central and South American cultures were destroyed simply for the availability of gold and other precious stones. North American cultures were destroyed for access to their fertile, and seemingly endless, land. These are just a few examples, and I'm sure that many more exist outside of my limited knowledge.

Such treatment only becomes possible when the gap between the comfort and how it was acquired is rather large. This rather sizable gap is created by the consumer economies of "advanced" civilizations. It is very easy to support genocide when you don't realize the amount of human life that is sacrificed in order to acquire your wife's engagement ring.

It seems to me that the reason that such treatment is ignored is because it allows us to live our rich lives without guilt. Perhaps the mistreatment of indigenous peoples is merely a manifestation of our drug-like attachment to material well being.

Michael
2nd March 2010, 10:26 PM
It seems to me that the reason that such treatment is ignored is because it allows us to live our rich lives without guilt. Perhaps the mistreatment of indigenous peoples is merely a manifestation of our drug-like attachment to material well being.

Passing through America I found every place I went was haunted by, and lamented for, its indigenous peoples. There is no escaping the guilt of what has and is being done to those peoples.

I find the correspondences between the belligerence, self-regard, arrogance and social behaviour of significant and critical portions of the American and Australian societies quite striking. I attribute these behaviours to the acting out of the guilt denied in regard to the indigenous peoples of both countries.

I suspect that this mindset of denial will quite shortly lead to major international conflict, the consequences of which will bring our collective guilt and the true fruits of our indulgence home to us.

You Americans, go and listen to what the land of that great continent has to say. You see, I'm not presenting you with a subject for abstract contemplation, but an issue that has profound consequences for each of us individually and for the world at large.

You'll have to forgive me for being so portentious, but there it is.

Michael
3rd March 2010, 05:41 AM
Reading back on what I have written, I realize I haven't made clear the psycholoigical dynamic behind guilt denial.

When guilt is denied it becomes internalised and unconscious and is then expressed, firstly in negative perception and consequently in negative behaviour. This can occur at both the individual and collective levels. In the case of a country such as America, with its vast power, resources and influence, the unconscius forces have the potential to bring about global catastophe.