Was knocked on my butt last week with chest pains and shortness of breath.  When I got home from picking up a few groceries on Wednesday evening at 7:30, I sat down to check my mail like I usually do, when I suddenly felt sharp pain in [...]]]> My apologies, peeps:  I’ve been rogue lately.

Was knocked on my butt last week with chest pains and shortness of breath.  When I got home from picking up a few groceries on Wednesday evening at 7:30, I sat down to check my mail like I usually do, when I suddenly felt sharp pain in bands across my back and I was having noticeable trouble breathing.  My breath was coming in short gasps.  My roommate gave me a couple of muscle relaxers, as I thought it might be from my Fibromyalgia, but after thirty minutes I had no relief, and so she decided to take me to hospital.

I HATE going to hospitals.  If you’re not clearly dying or decapitated, then they make you sit in the ER forever; although, I’ve known a few who lost limbs and still weren’t considered “trauma”.  My minimum that night was 2 hours before being seen by a doctor, and another 2 once I had been seen to await my test results.

The highlight of the evening had to come when they needed to do a CT scan for blood clots or tears in the aorta, but they couldn’t get a vein for the IV.  Finally, after yet another chest x-ray and blood work, they sent me home.

Fast-forward to the next night, and I’m still having pain and trouble breathing.  The very handsome doctor whom I saw that night said the only choice left, was to get the IV and do the CT scan.  I think I’ve had gynecological exams that were more pleasant.  My veins run deep and they roll, so it’s nearly impossible to get a good IV on me at anytime.  Tonight was no exception.  I think I stopped counting at twelve times for how many times they had to poke me, and they still ended up doing an EJ (external jugular), and that one they had to try for three different times.  They were tenacious, I’ll give ‘em that.

But, as soon as they got the pain meds in, I didn’t give a flip what they wanted to do after that.

A few hours later, and the handsome doctor returned with the verdict that I had a good case of pleurisy, which is an inflammation of the lining of the lungs.  He sent me home with Percocet and orders to follow-up with an off-site doctor.

Here I am a week later, and having just as much pain and breathing trouble, but with no insurance, there is not going to be a doctor on the planet who will see me.  So, it’s either make another coma-inducing trip to the ER, or sit in agony, as I’ve done now for the last two days since running out of my medication.  It burns me up when people begin bitching about health care, who truly have no real need for it.  However, my Systemic Lupus precludes me from the requisite bitching about socialised health care.

Just sorta ootzy that way.

And now after a nice, long break from writing, I’m back, working through the pain.  Think I’ll take a break–my back is starting to hurt.

by Lloyd Lofthouse

Atrocities abound in the history books concerning treatment of Native American Indians during the sixteenth to nineteenth centuries. The Spanish destroyed the Aztec and Inca [...]]]> China vs. America
Compare and Contrast Native Minority Treatment
Part One
(a four part series)This post will focus on the United States with some historical background. 

by Lloyd Lofthouse

Atrocities abound in the history books concerning treatment of Native American Indians during the sixteenth to nineteenth centuries. The Spanish destroyed the Aztec and Inca civilizations with disease and warfare. The Catholic mission system in California enslaved American Indians. After the Civil War, the United States military was sent west and drove North American Indians from the land they had lived on for thousands of years and slaughtered men, women and children—millions died.

The American government went on to grab Hawaii from the native Hawaiian people against their will. (There’s a native Hawaiian nonviolent separatist movement asking for freedom from America.)

There’s also a chapter in the history of the Philippines. After the Spanish American War, America took possession of the Philippine islands and waged war against the native people killing more than two hundred thousand people. This went on until World War II.

 In fact, the treatment of American Indians hasn’t changed much.  The United States government might not wage brutal war against Native American Indians today as they did in the past, but in recent times billions of dollars slated to support Native American Indian tribes on reservations went missing, and no one seems to know where all that money went or care, except the Indians. It would appear that the era of lies and broken treaties has not ended.

If you want to learn more about American Indians, I suggest you read what the New York Times said about the work written by Vine Deloria Jr., and check out Native American Literature worth reading. It’s best to stay away from Hollywood if you want to get closer to the truth.

Next: Part Two about China 

Lloyd Lofthouse is the author of ‘My Splendid Concubine’. He earned a BA in journalism after fighting in Vietnam as a U. S. Marine. He then taught English and journalism in the public schools by day and for a time worked as a maitre d’ in a multimillion-dollar nightclub by night. He now lives near San Francisco with his wife, and they have a second home in Shanghai, China. His first novel, ‘My Splendid Concubine’, won an honorable mention in fiction from the 2008 London Book Festival; another honorable mention in general fiction from the 2009 San Francisco Book Festival and a third honorable mention in fiction at the 2009 Hollywood Book Festival. His short story, ‘A Night at the Well of Purity’, was a finalist for the 2007 Chicago Literary Awards.

It’s soccer season and suddenly the circle has come round and my wife and I are re-creating our lives from the early 1980′s. Instead of five children, it’s three children and five grandchildren. But times have changed and where we originally had to scrape and scurry to come up with money to sign [...]]]>

It’s soccer season and suddenly the circle has come round and my wife and I are re-creating our lives from the early 1980′s. Instead of five children, it’s three children and five grandchildren. But times have changed and where we originally had to scrape and scurry to come up with money to sign them up and buy shin-guards, this year we faced higher signup costs, uniform and cleat costs, shin-guards as well as being asked to buy four balls—one for each child—and all mandatory for participation. The total cost approached $400.00 and we haven’t paid for pictures yet (or the balls). None of our grandchildren could have participated without our support.
It got me thinking. Last year I was amazed at how many times during the year our granchildren came home from school saying they had to have two, three or five dollars for this or that. Field trips required a contribution. Class photos and participation in book-buying or candy sales, fund-raisers and pledge drives all required that we pitch in financially. After all, no one wants their child to be the only one in class with no signatures on the pledge form and who doesn’t purchase a class picture or individual photo? Of course, I don’t want to forget the holidays and events throughout the year–the County Fair, Halloween, Thanksgiving, Christmas, Easter, birthdays, other kid’s birthdays, school plays, costs to attend High School sporting events, etc. etc. For parents living way below the poverty line, who can’t rely on grandparents support, these costs can be overwhelming. We can provide anecdotal evidence that some families use monies originally earmarked for rent, utilities, clothing or food to cover these costs to protect themselves and their children from embarassment, ridicule or denial of particpation. I know what many of you are thinking–sticks and stones and all that. Rent comes before food, food before entertainment, and to all these superfluous expenditures one should “just-say-no”. After all, aren’t home budgets about deciding on priorities and shouldn’t those who are unable to stick to solid economics be deserving of ruin? That’s representative of the traditionally conservative economic line most of my generation grew up with– “if you can’t afford it, don’t spend it!”
While the previously stated point of view was appropriate for my generation, times began changing even as our children began to grow. We lived significantly below the poverty line until a number of years past the point our children were grown but we almost always paid our bills and managed to provide the basic necessities. While they were growing up our standard of living did not provide for enough income beyond our basic expenses to allow them to participate without depending on the offer of credit. Our children suffered ridicule, embarassment and taunting because their tennis shoes and clothing didn’t come from the right stores. Although we counseled them not to pay attention and quoted platitudes about “money not buying happiness” and “wealth not being an indicator of success”, it was difficult to compete with the endless barrage of consumeristic exhortations coming from TV and their peers. We were unaware until much later how great an effect those taunts and slights had on their perspective and self-esteem.
The most recent economic calamity is a direct result of the change in the socio-economic paradigm. Where we lived through periods without running water, utilities and sewer, eating rice and beans for dinner, believing that possessions were secondary in importance to cultural enrichment and family, subsequent generations have been educated by the corporate media and encouraged by their peers and society around them to participate wholeheartedly in a consumer frenzy. Thirty-something and younger adults grew up with feelings that they were entitled to a standard of living far beyond their means. It was no longer about keeping up with the Jones’s” (as it was in our time) but in sharing in the entitlement of the American Dream with the “if you work hard and sacrifice” removed from the equation. After all, they saw it on TV every night– everyone should have a new car, a new house, new clothes, a new body, the latest toy, a well-paying job, a Superbowl party, a well-heeled Christmas, store bought Halloween costumes, Easter candy, and all the rest.
Point 1–During most of my life loan sharks were prosecuted for charging greater than 10 percent interest on credit—but today corporate credit organizations can charge 18, 25 even 30 % interest without blinking. Recent health insurance corporation documents show that their industry would like to have 35 cents on the dollar. For many years now, young people have been encouraged to rely on credit if their income was not compatible with their desired standard of living. Many of them simply cannot imagine making do; they have to have the latest phone or techno gadget to make them feel like they are a part of everything.
Point 2—Despite an older generation’s perspective that it’s just common sense to stay within your means economically, that comes from a different time. I won’t open the discussion of why it was a different time, just emphasize my point of view that social and individual priorities, both nationally and individually have changed. For the sake of argument and this article, let me make that assertion.
My generation was big about not caring what others thought. We tried, and failed, to engender that belief in our children. The last two generations (with a few exceptions) care very deeply about what others think. In fact, I would go so far to say that with many of them it is of paramount importance that others view them positively. They desperately want to fit in and be viewed as successful. They want, as most people do, to have their children have what they did not, or what they are told they should have today. And so they constantly overextend themselves financially to make that happen and are on the brink of economic disaster at every turn. But that’s only part of what I am writing about.
Consumerism has indeed created a monster; demanding through seasonal media blitzes that everyone participate in the holidays and events that drive the retail machine. Children have expectations, built by television and movies, that everyone is entitled to a bountiful thanksgiving and a blitz of presents at Christmas and birthdays, candy at Halloween and Easter, participation in sports and events at school, etc. etc. The commonly held belief is that these are choices that people can make about whether or not to participate in these events and holidays relating to their economic stability. But many of our young people are no longer setting priorities or making those judgements based on what they can afford. Why? We have simply misunderstood the dynamics of social pressure and peer influence combined with corporate greed.
Native people have a closer understanding of what has happened. Indigenous peoples seldom codified their lives into laws and ordinances. That doesn’t mean we didn’t have rules and regulations, values and mores. It simply means we enforced them differently. We used, for the most part, public opinion and social pressures to enforce our precepts and manage our governments. Why was social pressure so effective? Because in Native society people wanted to be a part of the whole. We cared what our neighbors and relatives thought and only occasssionally did people stray from the norm. In those cases we didn’t ostracize those who sought a different path, we built special roles and recognition for them within our societies, everybody had a value and a place. We understood how important and how powerful social pressure was when people wanted to belong and their self image depended on how they were percieved within the whole.
For reasons I won’t go into here, much of the American populace under forty has embraced similar values of caring and wanting to belong and be included. Unfortunately it is not values and culture that is at the center of what they want to belong to and share, rather it is that specific promise of entitlement to a wealthier standard of living that they have grown up expecting to be a part of. They have grown up feeling assured it is their right to share in the wealth, whether they earn it or not. They rationalize that they must insure their children can participate in every way and their self-esteem is defined by that participation—-for themselves and their families. That perception is reinforced by their peers and children’s schoolmates in the form of ridicule and ostracism if they don’t live up to contemporary standards. Many children blame their parents for not being able to provide what others have and think less of them—-diminishing the respect and family bonds that used to buffer families against the inequities of lack of wealth and economic status. They simply must have everything and how they get there (or future consequences), is less important than the momentary feeling of belonging and sharing in the success of the whole. So they overspend at every holiday, birthday and social event and participate in every school function to make sure their child isn’t the only one left home during the field trip, or the only one without a signature on the pledge form—even if they have to overdraw their bank account to make it happen.
Go ahead and criticize them all you want, but we have a generation or two living like that today. The power of social pressure and the mis-education that consumerism is the end-all, be-all of the American Dream has co-opted their values. It’s more important to fit in, and to participate now, than to worry about the consequences tomorrow. So we are enduring the resulting economic crisis, caused by those that encouraged default and those that embraced it. It doesn’t do us a whole lot of good to bemoan our circumstances, we all share the responsibility for letting it happen and Native people are suffering the same problems on the wealthier reservations and rancherias. The old story about the fiddling grasshopper ignoring the turning of fall and failing to prepare for winter is a perfect allegory to describe our present situation. So many important issues directly related to our future standard of living, even our survival, are being ignored in favor of selfish, petty, or philosophical fanaticism and a tendency to ignore the mainstream for the fringe.
What can we do? We can talk about openly curtailing our habits and returning to responsible economic practices. We can start by asking government to do less but do more and more as private citiziens and social or spiritual groups to repair the streets or care for our hungry, homeless, sick and deprived. We can limit our consumerism and encourage our children and grandchildren to be satsified with one present at a birthday rather than purposely inviting ten other poor kids (all expected to bring a present) to the party so afterward we can experience a glut of things and feel rich (teaching our children the wrong lesson). We can emphasize free music, and art, and sport without overhead, pot lucks and dances, poetry and prose events, social bonding and responsibility above buying and selling. If we can do that we’ll have a chance—-if not we’ll have to wait until the standard of living falls so far that the void between those that have and those that don’t create the forces that demand change and upheaval. It’s not rocket science—it’s history and sociology.
But in this case I’m not going to throw any stones ’cause I’m just as guilty as the rest. I’m hoping others, more disciplined and capable, will lead the way.

The unthinkable has happened in America. Joe the Plumber, that picture postcard image of middle class, predominately protestant, intensely patriotic Anglo-Saxon Americans–perceiving himself as moral, responsible, and even righteously destined by God to continue in the footprints of his ancestors as a Soldier for God and for the Nation (vigorously defending all its [...]]]>

The unthinkable has happened in America. Joe the Plumber, that picture postcard image of middle class, predominately protestant, intensely patriotic Anglo-Saxon Americans–perceiving himself as moral, responsible, and even righteously destined by God to continue in the footprints of his ancestors as a Soldier for God and for the Nation (vigorously defending all its symbols, prejudices, myths and carryover madness), is being forced to come to grips with the necessity of his own assimilation.

And boy does that scare him and piss him off!

He is faced with daily evidence that the world of his forefathers has passed. He is now represented by a Black President, by a Latino female Supreme Court Justice, by ten states with Medical Marijuana laws, by a rapidly changing climate conspiracy, by a depletion of natural resources and reduction in the american standard of living, by an economic refutation of laissez-faire capitalism and the collapse of corporate banking and finance, by a rejection of the American Martial spirit and a turn toward revitalizing diplomacy, by the survival of Rowe VS Wade, by an increasing acceptance of Gay, Lesbian, and transgender lifestyles and by a burgeoning legion of non-white immigrants bent on realizing the American Dream.

Their American Dream has become his nightmare!

The white canvas on which the Nation’s portrait was painted has gained color over time resulting in a hue that can never again be described as white.  The generations of Anglo Americans who reveled in their supremacy, in their power and in their control of the hurtling roller-coaster of american technology and politics and who now are facing a period in which their values, ideals and aspirations seem to be in the minority– are going slightly mad.

Witness the organized efforts of corporate america to capitalize on their fears and anger at their loss of stature and control, encouraging them to stymie the public discourse about health care and health insurance reform at town hall meetings.  Even in the Congress, conservatively fundamental white men are forming secret brotherhoods, adopting and encouraging tactics of intimidation and a distortion of facts in the best Third Reich traditions.  The Neocons of the last administration never revealed that most of their tactics for influencing public opinion were engineered by Goebbels and his henchmen.  Now, those tactics are being employed by the Republican Party and Corporate Giants in collusion to conspire to move the country toward revolution, insurrection, and rebellion.  Talk individually to the legions that adhere to the Limbaugh Litany and you hear those words again and again.

They did it to themselves.  They encouraged the discussions of how morally superior the american promise was, how anyone could benefit and how all were eligible.  They could have spoken with their real voice– that America, founded by whites for whites, didn’t really mean it when they said “melting pot”.  In their hearts they never believed it.  It was a useful tool to enhance their moral feelings of superiority and racial supremacy, but they never dreamed it might become a reality in their time. The core of white america is losing its control and being forced to assimilate into a society full of values and perceptions utterly at odds and foreign to its long-established world view and self-esteem.  They are victims of their own propaganda; the myth-becoming-real that America represents a land of new beginnings, welcoming all-comers; a new haven for all the world.

Yes, the American Dream is moving toward being realized in the countless bloodlines of immigrating peoples, coming here–just as Anglo founding fathers did–to share in a promise of freedom and equality, seldom realized but always at the forefront of the conversation.  Their sheer numbers and the technological changes in communications and awareness have changed the equation.

White America is being forced to follow in the footsteps of the Native Americans they themselves dispossessed, confronting alien attitudes, values, social organization, political policies, even language.

How far will their madness go?  Given their proclivity (even outright glorification) of the use of violence, when adequately rationalized, I fully expect to see this fear and anger at losing individual power and status take more overtly racial overtones, and move further and further toward the fringe belief that only a revolution will “save our america” .  Unfortunately, though they perceive the barn burning, the horses have all bolted and there isn’t enough water in the world to put out the fire that is consuming the Anglo Saxon vision of what the United States was, is, and should be.

It is up to their fellow Anglo compatriots to confront them and help them understand that the genie is out of the bottle and will not be put back.  As Native peoples are told daily–get over it and move on.  I fear they’ll want to sink the ship rather than row together toward some beautiful shore.

A recent local newspaper reader’s opinion that the contemplation of prosecuting torturers and their superiors for utilizing the fanciful scribbling of a few morally bankrupt lawyers to justify their outrages is a fools errand demonstrates how far down the path toward psychopathic one segment of the American population has traveled. In an examination [...]]]>

A recent local newspaper reader’s opinion that the contemplation of prosecuting torturers and their superiors for utilizing the fanciful scribbling of a few morally bankrupt lawyers to justify their outrages is a fools errand demonstrates how far down the path toward psychopathic one segment of the American population has traveled. In an examination of the historical record we find this point of view re-occurring time and time again throughout the American experiment always with a record book asterisk that it represents an unacceptable premise and that the American Dream is above that type of behavior—even in wartime. To be fair, the American government has prosecuted—on occasion—its soldiers for war crimes and has certainly encouraged or participated in the prosecution of foreign nationals for war crimes against American military or civilian personnel. Historically, water-boarding was common in Europe during the Middle Ages and the Inquisition utilized it frequently. The Dutch East India Company used it as did 19th century prisons. During the Spanish American War, a U.S. military officer was court-martialed for using it and President Roosevelt publicly called for efforts to “prevent the occurrence of all such acts in the future.” It was a favorite tactic of both the Gestapo and the Japanese during World War Two and a Japanese military officer was prosecuted for water-boarding an American Captain in 1946. Vietnam era U.S. soldiers frequently used the process until a collective group of American Generals opposed the tactic and at least one soldier was court-martialed. Of course, this moral ambivalence in some areas of our populace is understandable. With the Inquisition and Middle Age Europe approving such behaviors it’s predictable that it should loom large over the shoulder of descendant Christianity. It’s also predictable that non-military, fanatic, nationals might resort to the tactics of previously despised enemies to achieve the selfsame goals, albeit with ineffective and counterproductive results. Despite Chaney’s vehement assertions to the contrary, no experienced interrogator has ever testified to any kind of torture being effective at gathering usable intelligence from hardened military personnel. The reason civilians, a la Chaney, think water-boarding is an effective tool is more because they know that in their own soft and cushy lives—with none of their own families ever serving in combat—these processes would definitely be effective against them! New information released in the last week shows that much of the intelligence gleaned from the prominent terrorists was revealed well before any “torture techniques” were utilized, leading to questions as to why they were necessary at all. Armchair warriors like Bush and Chaney ignored the protestations of Generals and interrogators in their own military hierarchy to continue down this path of idiocy. Now they all should be held accountable. It fascinates me that our society scrunches up our moral noses in disgust at visible sexuality yet sits placidly by while our children are exposed to endless hours of watching human beings killing each other. Americans have a choice these days—to continue being the country that talks out of both sides of its mouth when it comes to ethics and morality—or to choose to elevate itself to practicing what is right and not what is—in the end—simply a flashy pretense of toughness devoid of any effective results.

Author’s Note:  Much of the information here was researched and organized by other authors, particularly Bruce Johansen. I am presenting it as an educational tool and not as an entirely original essay.  J BlueWolf

Benjamin Franklin And Native Values Colonial interest in Six Nation treaty accounts was high enough by 1736 for a [...]]]>

Author’s Note:  Much of the information here was researched and organized by other authors, particularly Bruce Johansen. I am presenting it as an educational tool and not as an entirely original essay.  J BlueWolf

Benjamin Franklin And Native Values
Colonial interest in Six Nation treaty accounts was high enough by 1736 for a Philadelphia printer, Benjamin Franklin, to begin publication and distribution of them. The tone of the treaty councils was that of a peer relationship. During the next twenty-six years, Franklin’s press produced thirteen treaty accounts. By the early 1750s, Franklin was not only printing treaties, but representing Pennsylvania as an Indian commissioner as well. It was his first diplomatic assignment. Franklin’s attention to Indian affairs grew in tandem with his advocacy of a federal union of the colonies, an idea that was advanced by Canassatego and other Iroquois chiefs in treaty accounts published by Franklin’s press as early as 1744. Franklin’s writings indicate that as he became more deeply involved with the Iroquois and other Indian peoples, he picked up ideas from them concerning not only federalism, but concepts of natural rights, the nature of society and man’s place in it, the role of property in society, and other intellectual constructs that would be called into service by Franklin as he and other American revolutionaries shaped an official ideology for the new United States.
In 1775, Franklin wrote: “Having few artificial Wants, they [Indians] have abundance of Leisure for Improvement by Conversation. Our laborious Manner of Life, compared with theirs, they esteem slavish and base; and the Learning, on which we value ourselves, they regard as frivolous and useless. Having frequent Occasion to hold public Councils, they have acquired great Order and Decency in conducting them… The women …are the Records of the Council…who take exact notice of what passes and imprint it in their
Memories, to communicate it to their Children.” “They preserve traditions of Stipulations in Treaties 100 Years back; which, when we compare with our writings, we always find exact.”

Native Oratory
Bruce Johansen writes, “Another matter that surprised many contemporary observers was the Iroquois’ sophisticated use of oratory. Their excellence with the spoken word, among other attributes, often caused Colden and others to compare the Iroquois to the Romans and Greeks. The French use of the term Iroquois to describe the Confederacy was itself related to this oral tradition; it came from the practice of ending their orations with the two words hiro and kone. The first meant “I say” or “I have said” and the second was an exclamation of joy or sorrow according to the circumstances of the speech. The two words, joined and made subject to French pronunciation, became Iroquois. The English were often exposed to the Iroquois’ oratorical skills at eighteenth-century treaty councils. Wynn R. Reynolds in 1957 examined 258 speeches by Iroquois at treaty councils between 1678 and 1776 and found that 63 the speakers resembled the ancient Greeks in their primary emphasis on ethical proof. Reynolds suggested that the rich oratorical tradition may have been further strengthened by the exposure of children at an early age to a life in which oratory was prized and often heard.” Franklin observed, “To interrupt another, even in common Conversation, is reckon’d highly indecent. How different this is to the conduct of a polite British House of Commons, where scarce a day passes without some Confusion that makes the Speaker hoarse in calling to Order. All their Government is by Counsel of the Sages; there is no Force, there are no Prisons, no officers to compel Obedience, or inflict Punishment. The proneness of human Nature to a life of ease, of freedom from care and labor appear strongly in the heretofore little success that has attended every attempt to civilize our American Indians…They visit us frequently and see the advantages that Arts, Science and compact Society procure us; they are not deficient in natural understanding and yet they have never shewn any inclination to change their manner of life for ours, or to learn any of our Arts. When an Indian child has been brought up among us, taught our language, and habituated to our customs, yet if he goes to see his relations and makes one Indian Ramble with them, there is no perswading him ever to return. And that this is not natural [only to Indians], but as men, is plain from this, that when white persons of either sex have been taken prisoners young by the Indians, and lived awhile among them, tho’ ransomed by their Friends, and treated with all imaginable tenderness to prevail with them to stay among the English, yet within a Short time they become disgusted with our manner of Life, and the care and pains that arenecessary to support it, and take the first good Opportunity of escaping again into the Woods, from whence there is no reclaiming them. The Care and Labour of providing for Artificial and fashionable Wants, the sight of so many Rich wallowing in superfluous plenty, whereby so many are kept poor and distress’d for Want, the Insolence of Office . . . the restraints of Custom, all contrive to disgust them with what we call civil Society.” Franklin’s observations of the role of leaders in Native society caused him to have firm opinions about leadership for profit. He wrote: “In a democratic state there ought to be no offices of profit. It may be imagined by some that this is a Utopian idea, and that we can never find Men to serve in the Executive Department without paying them well for their Services. I conceive this to be a mistake.”

Forming A Union—A Native Suggestion
In 1740, fully fourteen years before Ben Franklin’s Albany Plan Of Union, the Iroquois entreated the bickering English colonies to form a union similar to their own. When Franklin introduced the Albany Plan he commented, “It would be a strange thing if six nations of ignorant savages should be capable of forming a scheme for such a Union and be able to execute it in such a manner as it has existed ages and appears insoluble; and yet that a like union should be impractical for ten or a dozen English colonies.” At the Treaty of 1744, On the English Colonial side of the table (or the council fire) sat such notables as Benjamin Franklin, his son William, William Johnson, Conrad Weiser, and Colden. The Iroquois’ most eloquent sachems often spoke for the Six Nations, men such as Canassatego, Hendrick, and Shickallemy. These, and other lesser-known chiefs, were impressive speakers and adroit negotiators. Canassatego was praised for his dignity and forcefulness of speech and his uncanny understanding of the whites. At the 1744 treaty council, Canassatego reportedly carried off “All honors in oratory, logical argument, and adroit negotiation,” according to Witham Marshe, who observed the treaty council. Marshe wrote afterward, “Ye Indians seem superior to ye commissioners in point of sense and argument.” Thirty-one years later, the 1775 Colonial Commissioners to the
Iroquois Confederacy remembered Canassatego’s words. “Our business with you, besides rekindling the ancient council-fire, and renewing the covenant, and brightening up every link of the chain is, in the first place, to inform you of the advice that was given about thirty years ago, by your wise forefathers, in a great council which was held at Lancaster, in Pennsylvania, when Canassatego spoke to us, the white people, in these very words. ”
The commissioners then repeated, almost word for word, Canassatego’s advice that the colonies form a federal union like that of the Iroquois, as it had appeared in the treaty account published by Franklin’s press. The commissioners continued their speech: “These were the words of Canassatego. Brothers, Our forefathers rejoiced to hear Canassatego speak these words. They sunk deep into our hearts. The advice was good. It was kind. They said to one another: “The Six Nations are a wise people, Let us hearken to them, and take their counsel, and teach our children to follow it.” Our old men have done so. They have frequently taken a single arrow and said, Children, see how easily it is broken. Then they have taken and tied twelve arrows together with a strong string or cord and our strongest men could not break them. See, said they, this is what the Six Nations mean. Divided, a single man may destroy you; united, you are a match for the whole world. We thank the great God that we are all united; that we have a strong confederacy, composed of twelve provinces… These provinces have lighted a great council fire at Philadelphia and sent sixty-five counsellors to speak and act in the name of the whole, and to consult for the common good of the people…” Both the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention frequently mentioned Iroquois precepts and imagery. In 1775, a Congressional Speech to the Confederacy signed by John Hancock quoted Iroquois advice and admitted, “The Six Nations are a wise people, let us hearken to their council and teach our children to follow it.”

Of all the words that Traditional People favor, Respect is the one used the most. It implies many things: values, morality, character, compassion, commitment, relationship, and more that is unspoken, but understood. We think it is the foundation of Traditional Life. It begins with family and extended family, blossoming from an understanding of [...]]]>

Of all the words that Traditional People favor, Respect is the one used the most. It implies many things: values, morality, character, compassion, commitment, relationship, and more that is unspoken, but understood. We think it is the foundation of Traditional Life.
It begins with family and extended family, blossoming from an understanding of the importance of each generation’s contribution to the Peoples needs—physical, mental, and spiritual. By acknowledging the importance of each relationship—elder to child, child to provider, provider to elder, etc.—the balance of relatives maintain a civil and structured harmony.
The role each age group plays in the People’s life, with all its complex and interactive relationships and responsibilities, demands there be a formal process of recognizing, approaching, and acknowledging the contributions of each age group and relative. Indians speak in terms of those relationships. Personal names were seldom used, and even today the words which identify relationship within the family structure–aunt, uncle, cousin, brother, sister, grandmother, grandfather, husband, wife—are often used in place of common names. This is a measure of respect descended from the days when personal names were often unspoken, having greater meaning than the simple identification tags Europeans placed upon themselves. A name had Power. To respect that power and the individual who utilized it, our words for expressing relationship were used instead.
Respect extends into relationships in other ways: One does not touch another person or their belongings without invitation. One does not walk in the space between someone and the fire without acknowledgement. One offers only a clean Pipe to another to smoke. One knows that sometimes it is appropriate to be silent and sometimes it is appropriate to speak. One knows when a gift is necessary to accompany a request.
These are simple examples of how respect allows for compassion, civility, authority, and relationship to maintain order and balance in our lives. Though specific forms may be distinct and individual to each Nation, the concepts are universal. Respect comes from the value we place upon each other’s gifts, contributions, and place in our lives. It comes from our gratitude for each other and from our love and desire for harmony.
Native communities have often been derided for being so accepting of their dysfunctional members. But traditional Native communities—founded on strict policies of personal independence, autonomous decision-making within families, and truly democratic leadership—depended on cooperation, compromise, and consensus for their very survival. Indeed, during the holocaust period we find numerous examples where hardheaded societies or individuals bucked the carefully nurtured system of conventions that required consensus, only to hamstring the decision–making abilities of the people at large, resulting in terrible tragedies to them all. The glue that holds Native people together is respect—and respect is not to be earned, as in western society, but is to be given freely. The community will provide shelter and sanctuary for all but the most dangerous and violent of its members. Western society has always dolled out its respect to members according to their wealth, importance, productivity, and appearance—but that acceptance is always temporary and conditional. Any misstep and you’re out! Western tradition asserts that one’s effort determines results. All shortcomings and failures are blamed on the individual. Native communities are more compassionate. They still believe they need every member, no matter what problems they might have, to remain a strong community. This is the radical difference that still exists between tribal communities and the isolated individuals of western society. Western society does not need the individual. The individual is expendable. Tribal communities may subtly criticize, they may even talk behind one’s back—but in the end, they cherish and give respect to every member.
Respect is learned by example. Many of our young People do not even know what it means. It has a much broader and more encompassing meaning than that of the one used by Americans today. See how some of us yell at one another—adult to child, teenager to adult, employer to employee, teacher to student, adult to elder, and on and on? Rudeness has become the rule.
The cliché says that respect must be earned. We believe respect must be given. These ideals are as far apart as the oceans that touch our eastern and western shores. Rude and divisive behavior threatens to drown our attempts at building the fire of harmony.
Respect is the Power that keeps the circle of the family from splintering into individuals, weak and alone.

We often hear American politicians talking about families and family values, but they have constructed a society that does its best to splinter and alienate families from one another. Glorifying individuality in service to its own needs, as opposed to those of a People, demands that families pursue separate and unconnected goals. While some ethnic groups still manage to hold on to the supportive structures of extended families, by and large, the American Nation has lost its relationship, purpose, and compassion for each other.
The circle of the family is the essence of tribal life, necessary in times where survival is a day-to-day business, and procuring the necessities of life requires the cooperation of every individual to insure success. The modern circle of the family carries even a more expansive responsibility—as important as ever in these more convenient times.
Human beings acquire experience, perspective, wisdom, and Power if they age in a balanced and harmonious manner. Elders carry history, spirituality, ritual, custom, tradition, language, and a natural desire to pass these on. They live to perpetuate what they have come to love to the children. The children and teen-agers provide curiosity, entertainment, energy, innocence, and eagerness for life. Our older providers give us stability, protection, procreation, comfort, culture, and activity in our lives. Babies are to love, hold, and cherish. These four parts of the circle together give our lives meaning.
To break the circle and deprive the family of any one of these quarters diminishes the family in every way. Together, the family benefits from every experience, and every activity. Each shared moment adds to its strength.
When anthropologists finally ask why Indians survived the holocaust here in America, the answer will be simple. The greater tribal family is a powerful and tenacious force from which parts can be killed, separated, and isolated—but when tied to the land and centuries of Tradition, it does not die. This is especially true for a culture that considers all life related and familial. Our families extend beyond this world—backward, forward, and beyond.
Today we are in danger of finally losing those relationships as the combined forces of time and circumstance force us to choose paths that conflict with our connections to our lands and tribal relationships. Many of our people have lost compassion for each other, even within individual families. It is the result of so many years of suffering, so much lost with so little taken in replacement. Dependency has turned our minds inward and we still prefer not to venture out beyond the protective borders of our isolation.
Every Indian still feels, and is aware of, these relationships. We talk about valuing our Elders and we still love our children. We are not so far away from our past. For those relationships to be restored we have only to find excuses to gather and share. It will not be easy, and it will require a little imagination. Perhaps some adoption between tribes will be necessary so that groups divided may still find circles where they can be accepted. Indians don’t like to think outside their tribal affiliation and in many places it won’t be necessary—but for Tribes who are broken beyond repair, someone must choose to gather them in—if not their own, then someone outside. New blood never hurt any tribe, and common ground between Indians is easy to find.
The real challenge is to keep our families together. We have to resist putting away our Elders, like so many modern and civilized people do, and farming out our children. Home schooling or Indian run schools will help. A greater dependency on each other is fundamental to our success. If we rebuild our trust in true tribal relationships, our family circles will strengthen on their own. Our Nations depend on it.

Once, the oldest grandparent down to the smallest child on this continent were filled with Spirit. They saw magic and mystery everywhere in the natural world. They demonstrated their reverence for life in every act they performed, and in every word they said. Spirituality was not a religious activity limited to attending church services or reading from a book. It permeated their life, guiding their every decision and action. Every moment they were aware of their spiritual responsibility to the Earth, to each other, and to themselves. With awe and wonder they lived their life, full of the awareness that the Powers were observing every thing they said, thought, and did. In many locations, it is impossible to find distinctions between social and spiritual interaction. All singing, music, and dance were expressions of the Sacred. Some Tribes did develop some separation between the two, but reverence was a pervasive spirit encompassing the Nations.
Today, much of that sense of magic and mystery has been lost. Institutional Christianity, for the most part, has failed to adequately fill the spiritual void left by the loss of our old beliefs. The bible story does not view the world in the same way. Its limits magic to only those events it recognizes as part of its own doctrine, and by conforming only to its institutionally accepted translations—dogmatizes the mystery of life. For all the discussions and finite assertions we have presented here on politics, social issues, dependency, preservation of culture, economic progress, unity, etc., the only real solution we have faith in is the renewal of true spirituality in our lives.
Anglo-Saxon Puritan Christianity has often failed to provide comfort for our People. For those who have fully embraced it, that approach to God seems to emphasizes only an individual relationship with the Creator. We perceive original Indigenous spirituality to be community based, emphasizing a continual expression of gratitude and wonder for the mystery of life. It does not focus on sin and punishment, but on beauty and renewal. We are immersed in it. It is not a once a week affair. Appreciating the Earth and celebrating our relationships together make up a large part of the earthly responsibility we share. It binds us and gives us a unified purpose. Without that sharing, the word “Tribe” loses its meaning and we only pick at the bones of these other issues.
The one identifying characteristic, other than our racial and ethnic identity, that sets us apart from the modern and civilized Peoples of the world is that, from generation to generation, we share binding ties in the passing of spiritual life and responsibility within the circle of our families. Those “ties” imply a group spirituality that provides an opportunity to share love, hope, faith, sacrifice, and commitment for each and every member of the Tribe. These ties are the cornerstones of a Nation. They include all the moral and ethical teachings and values we cherish.
The Hopi prophecy may express it best. Do we choose the road of the Creator or the road that leads into the whirlwind? It is our opinion that there is a purpose to life greater than gathering wealth, power, fame, or glory. It is in the life of the People–in praying and fulfilling ceremonial obligations that teach children or grandchildren our cherished beliefs. No matter what religion we profess, first and foremost among our Nations there must be a continuous expression of gratitude. The world is a beautiful but dangerous place. Our environment is always changing. No civilization is guaranteed forever. A genuine and comforting belief in the Powers and the Creator can give us a rock to cling to when the world shakes and we are afraid. But to remain hopeful, to appreciate this gift of life, and to be ever thankful—that is our family Tradition.

Morality relates not only to the actions of human beings toward other humans but toward the entire planet. In the Indigenous world, the earth is a living being. Every physical form upon it is comprised of the same elements moving and interacting. Earth, fire, air, water, rocks, trees, animals, and human beings are built from the same blocks. All these forms share this inner life for differing purposes in our global family. The rock does not speak because that is not its purpose. Indigenous people do not ascribe to humanity any superiority or greater value than our environment—because we could not sustain our lives separate from it. If we depend on it, how can we be superior to it? To be very frank, some of our Elders predicted these circumstances a century ago because they recognized the selfish belief that considers humanity to be the preferred species of the earth rather than as an integral equal part of the whole.
We are asked to possess three characteristics: respect for Creation, responsibility to act in the best interests of Creation, and gratitude for that Creation. Indigenous people revere Creation. It is all Sacred. We view death as a natural process. Just as we eat, so we are eaten—and give back our spirits to Creation. We know that the basic elements of creation are everlasting and cannot die. No guilt—no blame. As the volcano pours its lava into the villages below, we are assured that someday flowers will sprout in the enriched soil of that destruction. That is what separates natural violence from the violence of men. Natural violence will always result in new creation. However, the horrors men put upon each other do not guarantee that from those horrors new flowers of great beauty will sprout. There is a difference between the mysterious order and purpose of natural destruction in Creation and the willful and calculated violence of human beings purposely destroying the very relationships that should give their life meaning, purpose, and joy. Amoshi says that it is the fear of death, the fear of judgment, the fear of loss, and the very selfish fear of personal extinction that leads men to evil.
In our family, we think that it is part of man’s purpose to search for a balance between fate and choice. Those who have chosen war and conflict will not be convinced or changed. My Pomo friend, Clayton Duncan, says an Elder once told him that Americans are—“the people of ruin, everything they touch they ruin—that has become their purpose.” In America, one would expect that people would be overwhelmed with gratitude for our many blessings and overflow with compassion. For our leaders to act with attitudes of arrogance, superiority, and a willingness to exercise a violent spirit can only lead to our losing these blessings. We cannot expect to move away from revenge and violence toward morality and gratitude until we acknowledge the absence of the sacred in this modern path—until; once again, we revere Creation.

Relationship is another key to Tribal survival. Some Elders have likened it to the glue that holds the Universe together. The philosophy of maintaining balance in a world filled with difficulty and pain is based on recognizing and being responsible to the interconnected reliance between all life, and our Earth, as well as the spirit world, and Our Creator. Relationship is more than just emotional attachment; it is an understanding of the dependencies we share.
Deciduous trees do not drop leaves just before winter simply because their genetic code calls for it. They drop them to lay down a protective covering mulch for the more fragile plants beneath them, and to provide enrichment for the soil in the spring. Little birds sit on the backs of rhinos, whispering warnings and eating their pests. Acacia trees use the wind to tell their neighbors of leaf-eaters on the way.  There is a plant growing on our western shores that exhibits the same characteristics of relationship as our family does.  If you put the immediate descendants of a single plant in a pot together, they will suppress root growth and share the growing space making for greater greenery and flowering.  If you put unrelated plants of the same species in a pot, they will compete for space and crowd each other out.  Carnivores and herbivores take life in order to survive, whether green-growing or blood-being. These sacrifices to each other, animal to human, plant to animal, plant to human, must all be viewed within the context of interconnected Nations supporting each other in the quest for life. Death is a natural occurrence, a termination of physical presence only. It does not imply the loss of any spirit or energy other than a transformation from one form to another. The Creator, in maintaining the balance of this world, gives human beings a special status. By being gifted the ability to perceive beauty and harmony we are obligated to be grateful, to recognize the sacrifices of those who give their lives for our well-being, and to care take our Grandmother Earth, who is the source of everything physical in our lives.
Just as the tree does not consider why it drops its leaves, conservation, and balance was never an ideal that was consciously discussed or perceived by Tribal Peoples. It was ingrained in our way of life. Our Old Ones shared a sense of belonging to their world. They had an affection for rocks, trees, plants, animals, earth, water, rain and Spirit that went far beyond a conscious spoken affinity or altruistic New Age babble about relationship or communication with other forms of life.
Phrases of our generation like “loving the land” and “being one with the earth” imply an intellectual understanding of the natural principles of balance and harmony, but are often more romantic yearnings than a true subjective emotional attachment.
Relationship implies kinship, support, responsibility, and commitment. It would be incorrect to imply that every tribal member from our past was a sterling example of intellectual purity and pristine ecological practice. We were human beings, and like any other Peoples, we had our faults and imperfections. But it is also true that we shared a common view of ourselves as an integral part of our surroundings, neither inferior, nor superior to the Earth and all the other forms of life we share her with.
The power of that philosophy sustained our relatives through the loss of their world. It is only in the last few generations that our Peoples have begun to lose their direct tie to the land, and see our balance erode farther and farther away. One attribute of that philosophy is the ability to sense our relationship with the Universe and its Powers, and to feel a true sense of belonging in our world. It is a feeling of relationship that goes beyond “human”, to encompass all life, and to extend the definition of life beyond animate objects. When one has a solid grip on that balance, one is never alone in the world.
No matter what problems human beings have between each other, our relationships with our “other” relatives can provide strength, comfort, and consolation. Communication with these relatives does not imply a form of direct conversation. A simple knowledge of their attributes, characteristics, and properties contributes to a bond of relationship that transcends speech.
In our constant quest for inner and outer harmony, the Earth, and our other non-human relations provide consistent lessons in how life should be pursued and lived. We strive to be as fulfilled as the rock or the tree, accepting what we are given without complaint and relentlessly holding to what we are, pursuing our lives until we pass on to the next reality.

Because our minds grasp these concepts and we can communicate them to our young through action and language, we have a responsibility to uphold the position of leadership we have enjoyed for many thousands of years as the dominant species. We define dominant as having the power to disrupt or destroy the natural order, and do not imply a superior spiritual, intellectual, or physical importance. Whether or not the Creator Mystery intends that we should continue this “leadership” is unknown, but what is certain is that many human beings have lost their connection to stewardship of the land and emotional attachment to the natural world. Many of our children do not even know that such a relationship is supposed to exist. They have no “feeling” for the land, or their relatives. It is dead to them. Today, many of us do not even have common affection for our human relatives!
It is not a condition easily changed. Change begins with consistent vocal and public demonstrations of gratitude, and with education to the real underlying powers of our ancestors. History, heritage, culture, and ceremony, infused with the attributes of gratitude and recognized relationship, can gift back to our children their natural ability to find peace, balance, and harmony in a tragic and difficult world.
Once we did not have to speak of our relationships to each other and our Earth. We did not need to speak for ecology and frugality, or of waste and pollution. We did not need to speak for our relatives, the trees, plants, animals, rocks, or for the purity of water and air. We did not have to voice our affection for all our relatives because it was a natural feeling. But the world has changed, and perhaps it is time that we speak openly of such things, to retake our place as a protector of these lands.
The abrogation of our responsibility toward maintaining the balance of our world has led humankind to the door of destruction. Prophecy is real, carved in rock, protected by original caretakers. Though yearly Dances of Renewal continue, human beings must choose the path of balance, harmony, peace, relationship, and gratitude—or continue toward the Whirlwind.
We fear that the majority of us are choosing poorly.

Questions To Ponder

If we are to develop courage and strength of character–
must we not live in an environment of hardship and disappointment?
If we are to serve life and each other–
must we not encounter inequalities, both in humankind and in nature?
If we are to have hope–
must we not also be confronted with insecurity and uncertainty?
If we are to have faith–
must not our minds seem to know less than we can believe?
If we are to love truth–
must not error and falsehood also be possible?
If we are to have ideals–
must we not struggle in a world of inconsistent beauty and goodness, so that we are forced to search for what is better and more beautiful?
If we are to be loyal–
must there not be the possibility of betrayal and desertion?
If we are to be unselfish–
must we not forego the personal temptation to be honored and recognized?
If we are to embrace good–
must we not resist the temptation to choose gratification above conscience?
If we are to be content–
must there not exist also the possibility of pain and suffering?

Our Old Ones reassured us that there is a next world, and that some form of our life continues after death. Since we owe all that we have to their wisdom, we trust that their Vision is truthful. They braved the ending of a world, and did not give up. If for no other reason than to honor their sacrifices, we should fight to live.
Be comforted.

This essay adds to my previous discussion of leadership and government while addressing an issue that could be described as dated but still alive & kicking in Indin Country.  We begin just after the Native “occupation” of Alcatraz  ended and the Red Power Movement continued in full swing, circa 1970-72.     

After Alcatraz, the buzz [...]]]>

This essay adds to my previous discussion of leadership and government while addressing an issue that could be described as dated but still alive & kicking in Indin Country.  We begin just after the Native “occupation” of Alcatraz  ended and the Red Power Movement continued in full swing, circa 1970-72.     

After Alcatraz, the buzz of the “Movement” polarized communities.  The labels Traditional and Progressive were coined.  To understand what these two terms represent we need to understand, in a general way, the processes of original tribal leadership and government. 

            Traditional leadership was often based on service and the inherent qualities, talents, and character of those who most effectively provided that service.   So the best hunters were often followed or depended on to lead the hunt.  The most daring and resourceful warriors were given the opportunity, by the power of their ability, to lead during battle.  The most visionary and spiritually oriented people were expected to oversee the spiritual welfare and ceremonial life of the Peoples.  The most proven and effective healers were expected to provide their Power and skills to care for the sick and injured.  Native abilities, talents, and superior character rewarded and encouraged. 

            As always, with human beings, the intricacy of social politics sometimes puts the wrong person in charge at the wrong time, but by and large, many true democracies existed in the pre-Columbus Americas.  An example of these might be the Councils that enforced the Great Law of the Six Nations, guided the Choctaw Confederacy, or sustained the Mississippian Civilization during its 5000 years.  Felix Cohen wrote, “It is out of a rich Indian democratic tradition that the distinctive political ideals of American life emerged.  Politically, there was nothing in the Empires and Kingdoms of Europe in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries to parallel the democratic constitution of the Iroquois Confederacy, with its provisions for initiative, referendum and recall, and its suffrage for women as well as for men.”

           One of the unique characteristics common to many different Nations was the right of an individual to follow the leader of choice based on a “what have you done for me lately” approach to service.  Though leaders did have a certain status among the people–that status was never guaranteed to last.  Even though respect might endure, should a better and more effective leader demonstrate his or her abilities, the People could “change horses” at will. 

Often decisions were made by groups of leaders reaching consensus, rather than by one individual making a solitary choice.  This confused Europeans, who were used to appointing, electing, or being forced to accept one man as their spokesman or leader.   Most of the unintentional misunderstandings that occurred during treaty making happened because Americans were looking in vain for one “Chief” when; in fact, the power resided in the hands of a group of leaders directly responsible to their People.  Of course as time went on the U.S. Government became aware of this and used it as a tool against the Peoples to illegally obtain treaty signatures to steal lands and resources they knew would never be given up intentionally by the Nations.

            After George Washington declared the first policy of “assimilating” Indians into the mainstream society through an inter-breeding of the races, the job of pushing assimilation was taken over by missionaries and organized religion. Nevertheless it was the reaction to the corruption of the Department of the Army’s individual Indian Agencies that pushed for a reorganizing of the “savages” into more malleable political entities—that could be watched over (and controlled) more effectively.  In the early 1900’s, the American Government began looking for a way to introduce their own brand of “democracy” to the Tribes.

            Though some Tribes received the outlines of the American plan in 1927, it was the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 that provided for the formation of tribal constitution—with governments comprised of general councils of the enrolled tribal memberships, along with quorums, parliamentary procedures, tribal chairmen, secretaries, treasurers, organized meetings, elections and voting. 

The push to enroll tribal members came with the Reorganization Act, ostensibly to establish official membership lists for voting purposes. During all of these registration attempts some people were left off these lists intentionally, some refused to register out of fear or as a sign of continuing resistance; nevertheless these lists became the basis of official tribal membership.  Knowing that the diehard Traditional peoples (and much of the common membership) would shun or ignore this foreign approach to governing themselves, the Federal Government sought to establish governing bodies more sympathetic to assimilation and Progressive thinking.  Smaller Tribal Councils came into being. We have come to see clearly, in the last few decades, how government employees and unscrupulous leaders would eventually misuse this formula for tribal re-organization. 

           As decades passed, some Indians were drawn to the Council positions offered by the BIA (Bureau of Indian Affairs).  It was gainful employment, close to home, and it had advantages beyond a paycheck.  These “leaders” often involved themselves for the same reasons many American political figures do, not because they have innate talents or special abilities to serve the People, but simply to gain influence, power, economic profit, or special status for themselves and their families. 

            To be fair, those early Tribal Council pioneers probably did not enter into their positions with these questionable goals in mind, but to attempt to help their families out of poverty.  Perhaps some of the old-time values for serving the people remained.  Nevertheless, the 1934 Reorganization Act precipitated numerous intra-tribal conflicts, though it was still to be decades before the right conditions would exist for significant economic exploitation of the Tribes through these new “governments.”   In fact, it was   the 1950 and 1960’s Tribal Councils that were often comprised of members or descendants of the lost generation. Lacking the values of a Traditional upbringing, these   fully assimilated Natives were completely taken with the consumer ethic of mainstream America.  Primarily interested in success and security, Progressives lacked any commitment to Traditional values and even considered those values ignorant and outdated.  Thoroughly convinced that they should assimilate and share in the American dream, they took advantage of the Traditionals reluctance to become involved, and through tribal “elections”—became the federally recognized representatives of their Tribes.  This served the interests of the BIA perfectly.  As Tribal Chairmen, Councils, or Chiefs—they were in perfect position to commit Tribes to relationships with non-Indian lawyers and the large corporations that were discovering vast quantities of valuable resources on heretofore “worthless” Indian lands.  The Tribal leaders often received under-the-table payoffs or “kickbacks” for successfully negotiated agreements.  These assimilated American’s, as important tribal leaders, despised the Traditionals for holding onto what they (the leaders) regarded as obsolete social, spiritual and cultural practices. They relished their new power to be a VIP.

            Rather than creating true democratic representation for Tribes, to replace their traditional consensual democracies, the 1934 tribal government Constitutions saddled them with a system that depended on government social and economic programs.

If the general memberships of the Tribes had fully understood the principles of the Indian Reorganization Act, and had immersed themselves in the process of General Council decision-making from the outset, the form might have been effective, but culturally the Tribes were not ready for an American kind of government. Traditional suspicion and lack of participation (plus the missing checks and balances that attempt to make the American process equitable) accomplished a contradictory result.  Rather than encouraging tribal members to participate in the General Council process, it caused them to shun or ignore it, leaving the government-to-government interaction and decision-making solely to the small Tribal Councils, Chiefs, or Tribal Chairmen. 

           The U.S. Government and Corporations finally had those single “chiefs” they’d always been looking for with the recognized authority (at least by the BIA), to push and approve any program and proposal regarding tribal lands and resources.  With so much money involved—fraud, corruption, graft, and nepotism within the Tribes was bound to occur.  The pie-in-the-sky promises of corporations like Peabody Coal sounded wonderful on paper.  Strip-mine Black Mesa in the Four Corners area, powder the coal, pump up water from the aquifers, and send it all through a pipeline to make electricity for the west. The Tribes would make big bucks.  Traditionals foresaw that a future water and energy crisis might severely tax not only their precious resources, but their unity—causing them enormous inner turmoil and political strain.  However, with the usual shortsightedness of American Progress, Progressive leaders, with generations of poverty under their belts, were easy targets.

            In the late 1960’s, and particularly after Alcatraz, Traditional protests of proposed land leases and concessions to mineral and resource mega-corporations publicized one of the fundamental differences between the Progressives and the Traditionals.

           Traditionals believed the land to be Sacred.   Traditionals were for protecting their resources, not exploiting them.  They were for preserving language, ceremony, and tradition—not discarding them.  Also, since they refused to involve themselves in the “puppet” governments they despised, they had no real power to effect change except through public demonstration, civil disobedience, protest, and media publicity. 

           Progressives wanted “economic progress.”   Their ideas about what they did, or did not believe were obscured by their adamant acceptance of Government programs and “economic” issues.  Since the Government (i.e. BIA federal law enforcement) stood behind the “recognized” Tribal Councils, bitter and often violent confrontations between Traditionals and Progressive tribal police and Federal Agents occurred.

          These conflicts led to deep divisions between the two groups.  Political and vindictive murder, rape, and assault were commonplace in the 1970’s—especially where morally bankrupt federally recognized “leaders” held total power over their Nations and their lands.  Even the 1973 occupation of Wounded Knee in South Dakota, which centered on the alleged misconduct of a tribal chairmen and his Progressive government did not solve the poor system of government most Indian Nations endure, though quite a few people lost their lives in the effort.  

          Many Tribes today are still in the grip of criminals or carpetbaggers who manipulate these obsolete and ineffective systems for their own gain.  A few Nations have managed, with educated and responsible leadership, to benefit their Peoples.  Other Tribes are ignorantly racing to diminish the power of their general memberships by rewriting their constitutions and placing that power in the hands of fewer and fewer, often unqualified, “leaders.”

           The Dream that was born innocent at Alcatraz, came into its adulthood during these times.  The Movement suffered the death, loss, and imprisonment of many of our brothers and sisters.  The repercussions of the killing of the two FBI Agents, Williams and Coler, at the Jumping Bull’s compound on the Pine Ridge Reservation in 1975, echo around the Nation even now, more than three decades later.  Leonard Peltier, though almost universally recognized as innocent of the charges he was convicted of, still sits in prison as of this writing; a victim of a corrupt law enforcement agency (the FBI), and the war that existed in those times.  (This same agency of misfits and low-lifes has only recently been given broad powers to undermine the Constitution and infringe on the rights of citizens again.)    

           The U. S. Government and the American people have never accepted that the various local conflicts of the 1970’s were simply a continuation of the Indian Wars against the United States and not just isolated events perpetrated by activists and dissidents.  As evidenced by solemn Treaty agreements, we have never stopped believing in the Sovereignty of our Nations.

           At Pine Ridge, hostility and fear ran high.  Those who talk about how the Agents were executed, forget that the FBI had previously, and callously, ignored the violence on the Rez.  No warfare conventions had ever applied to Federal/Indian conflicts of the past and none existed there.  Armed Federal Agents entered a Sovereign Nation, knowing that there was a similarly armed group of Indians near there (as well as a camp full of Elders, women, and children), purportedly to pursue an unknown person, in an unconfirmed vehicle, who had stolen a pair of cowboy boots! It was an ill-advised, if not foolhardy act to begin with.  The Feds were well aware of the fear they evoked in the people of this area.  Few remember that an Indian, Joe Stuntz, was also killed in the gunfire that followed, and that these Agents were not the only Federal Law Enforcement Agents on the reservation at the time.  Fifteen minutes after the firefight the area was literally swarming with agents, including helicopters.  Fear and violence were directing the actions of both sides. Eventually, even though his two “accomplices” were exonerated of any crime, and despite proven Government tampering and intimidation, Leonard was chosen to be the “sacrificial goat” to fulfill the FBI need for someone (guilty or not), to pay for the murders of their two comrades.   But no one was ever held accountable for the killing of Joe Stuntz.

           Similarly, though emotions regarding the American Indian Movement occupation of Wounded Knee still run deep and divided in the local Lakota population, Indians definitely sacrificed a greater number of lives in the conflict and no one has ever been prosecuted for those murders.

           The lines between Progressive and Traditional have blurred over time.  Many Nations still labor under the yoke of unresponsive or unrepresentative leadership.  Tribes continue to have their resources exploited and their trust monies unaccounted for. Whistleblower Dave Henry’s revealing book, “Stealing From Indians,” details his firing by the BIA after his discovery of a multitude of accounting errors and questionable practices resulting in billions of missing Indian trust fund dollars–a result of government mismanagement, fraud, and corruption involving both Tribal and Federal government employees.  Legal action to force the Secretary of the Interior and the Chief of the BIA to admit the mismanagement, if not the outright theft of billions of dollars of Indian trust monies continues today. (Google Cobell to find out the latest info on the web.)

For a while, the government was “losing”, contaminating, or destroying boxes of evidence and being threatened with contempt by the Federal Judge appointed to the case.  All this is a direct result of the Reorganization Act and the consolidating power of Progressive tribal councils who failed to demand accurate BIA accounting of funds because they were ignorant dupes, or active participants, in the theft.  Today the Government acknowledges the exact amounts missing may never be known, and a settlement offer is in the wind.

           Most of those who were once committed to Traditional ideals still hold to that commitment.  AIM is still around, as are many of the Warrior Societies, but the focus and unity of the Traditional Movement has diminished nationally.  Fortunately, the awareness of the importance of what is being lost culturally within individual Nations has increased.  Even Progressives are spouting Traditional rhetoric.  Meanwhile some Traditionals, at least superficially, approve of the meager economic benefits being experienced by gaming Tribes. The viciousness of the struggle between Traditional values and Progressive economics has lessened, and in some places, there is even a spirit of cooperation toward both ideals.  However, as time counts forward, there has been a lessening of the cooperative spirit, a jaded satisfaction with the trappings of newly found wealth, and a loss of the feeling of imperative necessity that the Nations continue to push for treaty recognitions, land claims, and real sovereignty.  Ultimately we must ask whether the Spirits of the missing in action, the murdered, and the imprisoned who paid with their lives or freedom will be respected and remembered as they should.  Because we loved them, we hope a new generation of Red Power Children will emerge to follow in their tracks.  

“(Indigenous) Power…means prestige translated into action…no one ordered anyone else around. Issues were argued to consensus, and if agreement was not reached, the matter was dropped. Even when the chiefs attained “one mind,” an appeal was made to the people to comply. Those who disagreed simple went their own way.” William N. Fenton

This post is in response to a request from Bob Ellal

“The Iroquois had long done things in common, and having reached one mind, they act. It was abandoning this principle of unanimity, Wright thought, which led directly to the loss of their lands. Scattered on reservations, they were dealt with separately and [...]]]>

This post is in response to a request from Bob Ellal

“The Iroquois had long done things in common, and having reached one mind, they act. It was abandoning this principle of unanimity, Wright thought, which led directly to the loss of their lands. Scattered on reservations, they were dealt with separately and were forced to act independently of each other… Life on the reservation was a new ball game with new rules.”
(Reverend Asher Wright) according to William Fenton

“The (Seneca) ability to speak with “one voice, one mind, one heart,” was what contributed to the power of the confederacy—and it was not “until their councils were divided by bribery and Whiskey… and they adopted majority rule, that their power declined.”
Asher Wright, according to William Fenton

The U.S. Government has always needed specific representatives of Indian Tribes, i.e. “Chiefs”, to act as formal representatives of our Peoples. If they could not find someone who seemed to fit that bill, they just picked someone who seemed to have some status or recognition. In the early decades of the last century, when it became apparent that at least some of the Tribes would survive, and sensing that they would soon have to be made citizens, the government began looking at other methods of centralizing Indian political organization.
In the late 1920’s, in order to further “civilize the savages”, a sample constitution was drafted and present to Tribes. It featured a General Council (the People), an elected tribal chairman as spokesperson, and a tribal secretary for keeping track of meetings and decisions. Suggestions for determining who was eligible for membership, and what the guidelines for voting might be, were included. Thirty percent of the eligible voters became the original guideline for a Council quorum for decision-making. Suggestions for frequency of council meetings, elections, and other procedures were detailed.

After the IRA (Indian Reorganization Act), was enacted in 1934, these sample constitutions were accepted by virtually every Tribe recognized by the Federal Government. In their simplistic form, these constitutions were as close to approximating Traditional governments as European thinking could get. The People, or general council, retained almost complete autonomy and nowhere was the tribal chairman given any more than a spokesman-like position. With the People in close proximity to each other, or in almost daily contact, the thirty percent figure for conducting business seemed reasonable.
Though most of the Nations adopted these constitutions, the structure was still too formal and foreign for the Nations to accept. Besides, what power could any kind of government have when every economic, political, and social aspect of tribal life was still under the direct scrutiny (and control) of the Dept of the Interior, the BIA, or the Army? Remember that at no time have the Nations had control of their decision-making processes or monies without the review and approval of one of those agencies until recently.
When it was determined that reservation lands and allotments held billions of dollars of mineral, water, and grazing rights, getting hands on those rights became a big business as the BIA and corrupt tribal governments schemed on how to enrich their own interests at the expense of the Nations. The BIA had already found that the magic thirty-percent quorum for business decisions could be manipulated or even ignored to get decisions favorable to the government.

It was at this time that some Traditionals began to question how a U.S. government agency—loyal first to the U.S. government—could be given the responsibility to act as the representative of the interests of the Tribes without generating a conflict of interest.
The Supreme Court has never adequately resolved this legal question. Many times the United States has pretended to represent the interests of the Tribes against itself, but seldom has it upheld its obligation. One of the more famous examples is where the U.S. offered the Nevada Temoak Shoshone a monetary settlement for their lands. When the Shoshone refused, the Government declared that since it was also representing the Tribe it could accept the money on their behalf and closed the case. Recently, the Shoshones have filed suit again to regain their lands.
A vital revision of tribal constitutions, instituting the safeguards that provide checks and balances to the power of Councils and Chairmen, was (and still is), desperately needed, but ignored, in Washington. In some places constitutions are ignored, meetings are held and conducted illegally—ignoring designated quorums and procedures. Tribal membership voting rolls are manipulated, and illegal decisions enforced. Even convicted criminals have held powerful tribal positions. Members who buck the system within these types of governments are assaulted, intimidated, coerced, bought-off, even stripped of their tribal memberships, while Councils and Chairmen get fat off the new Mecca of gaming monies. Additionally, tribal members are often offered money to attend and vote at important meetings, especially where constitutions are being rewritten—to legitimize, and enforce this system of tribal council invulnerability. Councils are declaring vital economic tribal records confidential, disallowing public view of enrollment lists, and protecting their interests by copying the Federal example of operating under the guise of tribal “security” or “confidentiality”. The final and most controversial effect of Tribal Sovereignty is the new practice of dis-enrolling members. Though not all of these practices may be suspect, there are clear examples of tribal councils taking this to extreme and dis-enrolling members for less than ethical reasons.
The catchword of the 1990’s, “sovereignty”, is now being used to keep government agencies from interfering in tribal corruption. The government byword for this practice is termed “self-determination”. On an American Indian Reservation or Rancheria the Bill Of Rights does not exist unless enforced by a Tribal Justice system. Few Tribes have these systems in place. Individuals are simultaneously powerless and without protection as the BIA and Department of the Interior decline to involve themselves in intra-tribal squabbles, and prefer to overlook local problems and disturbances.
Though we hate to see sovereignty used this way, this policy of non-interference is probably for the best and looking to the American government for solutions is problematic and undesirable given there history of genocide, interference and manipulation. Since in the few places where the Government has been forced to intervene, the contradictory and convoluted status of Federal Indian Law almost always causes the BIA to support the criminal governments to the bitter end, denying Traditional constituents any proper or legal standing within the Nations.
There are places where the system works, due to a selfless or powerful leadership, cooperation, or greater tribal involvement, but the potential for abuse is still there. Hopefully, these Nations will continue to make the process work, even within these limited and outdated forms. There are also a few places where Tribes have successfully replaced their systems with more traditional forms, or at the very least, new representative constitutions. Whether or not they will achieve balance has yet to be seen.
We do not mean to take issue with the need for a real and legally defined sovereignty; however we believe that the Federal Government must also allow Tribes to reorganize their governments to provide safeguards against corruption and criminal behavior. Finding new ways to involve everyone that wants a say in representative government is also important. Of course, it has always been a conflict of interest for the U.S. On the one hand, they have envisioned themselves our guardian, at the same time representing the huge corporate interests that wish to profit from our resources or otherwise benefit from our special status.
We all believe that sovereignty should not be used as a weapon, but a solution will not come from outside interference or regulation. Only by breaking down these outdated tribal council systems and utilizing more traditional forms and methods for decision-making can the Nations protect the rights of their members and benefit from a more traditional, and functional, representation. The other solution would be to model the governments more closely to the American system with equal but separate councils to balance and uphold the equitable distribution of power or to create an American Indian Supreme Court to mediate all approved appeals to mediate internal tribal issues. Yeah right! Like the Tribal governments would ever agree to that! In the meantime many natives continue to live without equal protection under the law, yet are subject to all the penalties and transgressions of both the American government and their own. It will be left to our children and grandchildren to figure out a solution.

My father was in education for fifty years as a teacher, counselor, psychologist, and administrator. Today he is fond of saying that today’s education systems are obsolete, irrelevant, impractical, and socially dysfunctional. Three of my younger children were labeled as having “disabilities”–and all graduated with minimal reading, writing, and math skills. This, despite [...]]]>

My father was in education for fifty years as a teacher, counselor, psychologist, and administrator. Today he is fond of saying that today’s education systems are obsolete, irrelevant, impractical, and socially dysfunctional.
Three of my younger children were labeled as having “disabilities”–and all graduated with minimal reading, writing, and math skills. This, despite the fact I read to them, gave them books, and presented an example of reading (and writing) constantly in their presence. Still, they never developed a “love” for reading. The girls didn’t suffer too much, but for my son, public education was devastating. The system was always demanding that he curtail his natural energy, always waiting for him to “change”, for him to get “serious”. By the time he reached that point, at twenty-three, all the negatives of his educational years had left his esteem in shreds. He eventually got his diploma, but has read only one book, cover to cover, his entire life. (My wife has also read only one book, cover to cover, in her life.  My daughters have read more but neither read for pleasure.) And although my son’s lack of reading skills have not curtailed his ability to make a living (he makes more money than I do), in his daily life, all those essential and mundane details that require reading comprehension are beyond him.
In Native families, we expect our kids to grow up fast. In Native society, a nine-year-old girl is perfectly able to feed and take care of her brothers and sisters responsibly. If you don’t believe me you need to take a few trips into the Third World where real life still exists. Americans want to keep their young people “children” far past the age necessary. Just look at the films of the forties and fifties and you see college age kids being treated the way we treat our early high schoolers today. Native teens resent being looked down on by adults who actually believe the myth that what happens in a student’s late teen years has some large effect on their later lives. Native people know that what is important occurs much earlier in life–from 2 to 13, and more probably from 2-5.
Native people also treat our boys differently than our girls. Our system of education recognizes that boys must be allowed to be freely active much longer than girls. Aunties and Grandmas are able to teach our daughters to handle complicated crafts and family responsibilities many years before the boys can be expected to follow their Uncles and Grandfathers. It is in the temperament of most boys to need constant activity until the age of eleven or twelve. My older sons never attended any educational facility until sixth grade, age twelve. By ninth grade they were “caught up”! By giving them those extra years of freedom, they progressed at an astonishing rate.
Putting boys and girls together in school is one of the worst things we do in today’s social environment. Both sexes suffer terribly from this misguided “mixing”. Many of the boys ability to progress is virtually destroyed by the fifth grade, and the girls progress is impeded by the distraction, time, and effort each teacher must take to discipline and control the boys. Just poll your local fifth grade teachers and ask them to discuss this issue—those who are honest will report the truth. Many boys are left completely behind during this time, while the girls are ready to explode ahead.
We need to ask what the goal of education is. It can no longer be a simple acculturation or right of passage. Education must be more than a vehicle of academic achievement toward social or economic success. Education should be defined by how well we prepare students to be able to educate themselves. We need to balance old-time survival skills with new-age information technology. We need students to learn where to search for and find needed information and how to process that information for their immediate benefit rather than focusing on retaining bundles of irrelevant facts. Students need the tools to educate themselves, find tutors, and experience a real-time gathering and processing of information to function in today’s society. We need honest assessments throughout their school years to identify their strengths and weakness, attitudes, interests and motivations. These assessments should drive their programs and this tracking should occur until they self-identify with a vocational or academic future. Some of our present facilities only focus their energy, and support, on those taking the academic track—the others are left guidance-less.
American Indians have based our ideals of educational technique on oral language skills, visual learning, social motivation, and acceptance of all levels of skill. It mirrors the values of our Peoples and supports the traditional social structures of the family and Tribe.
For our children to be successful we need new environments, fresh perspectives and revamped concepts of curriculum and educational organization to carry our children and grandchildren into a safe and secure future. To do this we should be creative and fearless, examining any educational alternative; no matter how far from the mainstream it may seem.

Once, the oldest grandparent down to the smallest child on this continent was filled with Spirit. They saw magic and mystery everywhere in the natural world. They demonstrated their reverence for life in every act they performed, and in every word they said. Spirituality was not a religious activity limited to attending church [...]]]>

Once, the oldest grandparent down to the smallest child on this continent was filled with Spirit. They saw magic and mystery everywhere in the natural world. They demonstrated their reverence for life in every act they performed, and in every word they said. Spirituality was not a religious activity limited to attending church services or reading from a book. It permeated their life, guiding their every decision and action. Every moment they were aware of their spiritual responsibility to the Earth, to each other, and to themselves. With awe and wonder they lived their life, full of the awareness that the Powers were observing every thing they said, thought, and did. All hunting, planting, gathering, building, singing, music and dance were expressions of the Sacred. Reverence was a pervasive spirit encompassing the Nations.
Today, much of that sense of magic and mystery has been lost. In the modern world it is almost impossible to find any connectivity between our mercantile, political, and social processes and our spiritual interaction. Institutional Christianity, for the most part, has failed to adequately fill the spiritual void left by the loss of our old beliefs. The bible story does not view the world in the same way. Its limits magic to only those events it recognizes as part of its own doctrine, and by conforming only to its institutionally accepted translations—dogmatizes the mystery of life. For all our discussions on politics, social issues, dependency, preservation of culture, economic progress, unity, etc., the only real solution we have faith in is the renewal of true spirituality in our lives.
Anglo-Saxon Puritan Christianity has often failed to provide comfort for our People. For those who have fully embraced it, that approach to God seems to emphasize only an individual relationship with the Creator. We perceive original Indigenous spirituality to be community based, emphasizing a continual unified community expression of gratitude and wonder for the mystery of life. It does not focus on sin and punishment, but on beauty and renewal. We are immersed in it. It is not a once a week affair. Appreciating the Earth and celebrating our relationships together make up a large part of the earthly responsibility we share. It binds us and gives us a unified purpose. Without that sharing, the word “Tribe” loses its meaning and we only pick at the bones of these other issues.
The one identifying characteristic, other than our racial and ethnic identity, that sets Indigenous Peoples apart from the modern and civilized Peoples of the world is that, from generation to generation, we share a continuity of binding ties in the events and experiences related to the passing of our spiritual life together and the shared responsibility we embrace within the circle of our families. Those “ties” imply a group spirituality that provides an opportunity to share love, hope, faith, sacrifice, and commitment for each and every member of the Tribe. These ties are the cornerstones of a Nation. They include all the moral and ethical teachings and values we cherish.
The Hopi Prophecy puts forward our obligation clearly. Do we choose the road of mystery, of the sacred quality that envelops us,  or the road that leads us inevitably into the whirlwind? It is our opinion that there is a purpose to life greater than gathering wealth, power, fame, or glory. It is in the life of the People–in praying and fulfilling ceremonial obligations that teach children or grandchildren our cherished beliefs. No matter what religion we profess, first and foremost among our Nations there must be a continuous expression of gratitude. The world is a beautiful but dangerous place. Our environment is always changing. No civilization is guaranteed forever. A genuine and comforting belief in the sacred and mysterious power that creates and sustains life can give us a rock to cling to when the world shakes and we are afraid. But to remain hopeful, to appreciate this gift of life, and to be ever thankful—that is our family tradition.

I do a lot of criticizing modern western civilization and its time that I began to write a little bit beyond the doom and gloom. Yes, I believe the civilization is headed for crisis beyond our present comprehension, and yes, I also believe that the suicidal adherents to nationalism will eventually cause the [...]]]>

I do a lot of criticizing modern western civilization and its time that I began to write a little bit beyond the doom and gloom. Yes, I believe the civilization is headed for crisis beyond our present comprehension, and yes, I also believe that the suicidal adherents to nationalism will eventually cause the US to either become rabidly facist–resulting in a revolution of some kind–or lose its position as a world power and become a militant threat to global survival as it goes down swinging. But I also take the long view that most of that is relatively unimportant, except as it relates to the quality of life our children and generations ahead will experience. There are already those who have, and will continue, to challenge the powers that be publicly on national and global issues. I’ve written my fair share on those issues as well. But the power of the people resides most effectively at the local level, and that is where I believe change must begin and solutions originate.

It has become more apparent with each passing decade that the global economy is serving the interests of an international non-aligned corporate minority hell bent exporting consumer capitalism to the world. Their internal philosophy promotes the pursuit of individual wealth over community balance and supports a policy based on projections of endless growth and technological progress without any examination of the consequences of unsupported growth or recognition of finite resources. The resultant glut of consumerism has now shown itself to be incredibly fragile as a supporting economic foundation and unrealistic Main Street American economic expectations are being forced into a redefinition of what our future standard of living will be and of what services can be reasonably provided by federal, state and local governments.
On a national level, the average citizen has come to expect the central government to rally to every cause, provide every service, and uphold the present standard of middle class life despite the inability of any government– capitalist, communist, or socialist to meet these expectations indefinitely. As the population becomes more and more diverse and the values and priorities of each political and social splinter group force the gap of common goals and purpose to widen, the central government will be less and less able to provide expected services without passing the cost on to the populace. The present difference between contemporary liberal and conservative economic principles revolves around those expectations, and whether or not it is the responsibility of the central government to meet them.  I could go off on a tangent here discussing the relative merits of each philosophy but I’ll forego that pleasure and continue with a series of proposals put forward originally by the patriot, Gore Vidal.
I believe the monster has gotten too large to serve either ideal. The failure of representative government to provide for the welfare of the people, on the scale we demand of it, is becoming more and more evident. The central government will never be able to meet all the needs of all the people all the time. Neither can faith-based groups, volunteers in the community, and reliance on charity organizations put food in the mouths of the needy, a roof over their heads, or give them access to medical care, not to mention education and opportunity without a profound change in our community infrastructures and communal philosophies. Our central government has simply become too bogged down with bureaucratic mismanagement, pork barrel spending, and entrenched political institutions to withstand the influence of amoral corporate power in its decisions and legislation.
It’s time to forge a new alliance. Washington should be downsized to a
Ceremonial Center. The United States should become a loose Confederacy of Regions that taxes(or not), their own, fully utilizing any taxes to fulfill the service expectations of their citizenry. Those regions should treat with the central government for the amount of capital necessary to fulfill Washington’s responsibilities to the Confederacy. Those responsibilities should include; the maintenance of a modern capable defensive military, the production and maintenance of a national currency, the keeping of a well-balanced budget, and the appointment of a judicial branch whose sole purpose is: to see that the literal Bill Of Rights is upheld throughout the Nation and that commerce proceeds without one region holding unreasonable control over trade, natural resources, etc., common to all.
Local regions would choose to govern themselves democratically utilizing whatever system of economics suited ½ to 2/3 of the populace of that Region. The goal of each region would be to accomplish economic self- sufficiency supplemented by domestic and foreign trade.

The period of transition would be hard. People’s ideals of what they deserve from government and what their responsibilities to their neighbors might be would be challenged. The vampire of consumerism might be vanquished. Media might serve local interests again. Local capitalism might reclaim its dignity, its ethics, its morality and its accountability to its citizens. Economies might flourish as previously centralized systems of producing and providing necessities would return to local community control. All the tax monies that presently go to the central government might be retained in the Regions and local communities. Each region might be free to establish its common interests again, and develop meaningful and sustainable local policies.

Does this sound like starting again from scratch? Certainly! Would it be less painful than letting the present system’s disintegration run its course? Certainly! The re-engineering of America must begin soon. The minds and the intellects are there to make it happen. But can the American mind give up its pride, its ego, and its maniacal belief that it, and only it, is the savior, the policeman, and the market mechanic of the world? Can the head of manifest destiny be severed once and for all? Or will the colonial traditions of old Europe continue to drive us to arrogantly believe in our superiority and our present system and direction, at all costs?

The discipline of children is a controversial topic today. I recently saw an article describing the negative effects of corporal punishment on children– likening it to child abuse. It said that it teaches violence, destroys self esteem, and generally demeans both parent and child. This is just another example of the twisted values [...]]]>

The discipline of children is a controversial topic today. I recently saw an article describing the negative effects of corporal punishment on children– likening it to child abuse. It said that it teaches violence, destroys self esteem, and generally demeans both parent and child. This is just another example of the twisted values of today’s generation of misled theoreticians. To support this point of view I’d like to quote an article written by a psychologist and forty year veteran of our educational system, Mr. Don Henthorn, entitled—“There’s Research And Then There’s Research.”
“I’ve been a psychologist for almost 40 years, also a teacher, guidance counselor, and administrator. In my opinion, the research (relied upon today) is patently false. The research designs are seriously flawed. Using similar methods I could produce studies proving that corporal punishment inflicted by loving parents takes far less time and is far more effective. In social studies today, little valid information comes from research because examination of all the variables is politically incorrect. Many present day researchers have never passed Methods of Research 101, let alone advanced classes. They start with the flawed presumption that children have an advanced capacity to understand the need to behave similar to adults. Children see it quite differently. They view these methods as a sign of weakness. They feel in control with no fear of consequences. Today, drugs are often used as last-resort correctives.
The phrases “authoritative discipline” and “positive behavior intervention” are too fuzzy and nebulous to get hold of. Parents and principals will tell you they get zero results with children who need discipline the most. With both parent(s) working, time outs, withholding of rewards, serious talks, etc., can not be utilized consistently because parents simply aren’t there when they need to be!
Proponents of these “theories” fail to make a distinction between abuse and loving punishment because they have a skewed perspective as to what constitutes violence. When spanking was common, experiential data shows there was far less abuse of children and women. Communities took an active role in disciplining abusers, and physically corrected children had love and respect for their parents. We need town meetings to examine public opinion and historical perspective rather than relying on questionable experts. Also police and protective services should not give credence to theories based on dubious research.”

Many Indin Tribes were able to enforce discipline through social pressure, but only because they shared similar values and lifestyles.  Today, we don’t have any social pressures to speak of.  There is no greater family and few of us care what our neighbors think. Native people’s never struck their children. Our society did without such punishments because the tribal communities’ social pressures were significantly more powerful in controlling and directing acceptable behavior than the splintered and unsupported American family of today.  Many Native people’s did have Warrior Societies that occasionally disciplined adults corporally to insure their compliance, but the most dominant method of force was the threat of humiliation or ostracism. Today, our citizens share so many different moral and ethical codes that, despite a certain nostalgia and belief in a moral majority, no common morality or value guidelines exist. Without powerful social pressure to encourage citizens to live by a common code, and without the threat or fear of corporal consequence to take its place, there remains only the weak and vacillating exhortation to “behave’, “grow-up”, “come to task”, etc. These gobbledy-gook encouragements are part of the poorly theorized, improperly studied precepts of educators, sociologists and parents catering to the whims of undisciplined “experts”.
Looking to nature, every species has to discipline its youth as they push the envelope of willful behavior. This is a natural process toward maturity, but first attempts begin long before the individual has reached a level of intellectual maturity to find a motivation for correct behavior. Animals are quick and decisive in dealing with this “testing” by their young. Fear of pain is their most effective teaching tool. The quickest way for a child to learn not to touch a hot stove is for them to burn their fingers. The consequences of one’s actions are learned behavior starting with a young child’s first attempts at self reliance. From those early falls is born a sense of caution; from burned fingers comes a respect for fire. Obviously there is the potential for injury, even fatality, from experimentation–and parents are forced to take more drastic measures to insure children will not take unknown risks simply because they are not yet familiar with the consequences.
When it comes to survival, discipline is fairly easy to accomplish, but social discipline is more difficult. The reasons to “behave” and the benefits of appropriate behavior are not as clear-cut. As children, most of the baby boom generation was subjected to the “rod” theory, and looking back now, it was pretty effective. We understood that this “discipline” was not from anger and knew that our parents and other adults had our best interests in mind. Since we were also shown sufficient affection, understanding, and praise by these same individuals, it was neither demeaning or destructive to our self-esteem. We observed it in nature, and knew it to be a natural occurrence.
Fifty years ago, with corporal punishment a regular form of consequence for undesirable behavior in children and even young adults, it was safe to walk down any street, leave your car and house doors unlocked, and trust your children to do exactly as they were asked–most of the time. Though we had this closet type of violence in every home, Society itself was relatively violence free and, if it occurred at all, it was dealt with immediately and harshly. Today in our more “enlightened” society, where any kind of corporal punishment or spanking is deemed a first cousin of child abuse, and where even verbal correction can be termed a form of abuse, violence is at an all time high.   Society demands it for entertainment and in many places the common citizen no longer feels safe in their own home.
Family temperament, volatility, and atmosphere create different personalities and a need for different types of discipline. One solution does not fit every child. But the concept that one can appeal to a disturbed young person’s “good sense” to “behave” denies the basic nature of all species to indulge themselves in selfish behavior and test the limits of social control. Only a few species have the social constructs to successfully discipline without corporal adjustment and the only ones successful on this continent were determined to be ignorant savages!
What can be done with young people who, for whatever reason, are simply too willful to be controlled with words or threats that do not have physical pain lurking around to back them up? While their parent(s) may be abusive, disinterested, or just afraid the neighbors will call protective services, these youths (usually male) are used to all the disciplinary measures currently in favor and are unfazed by their application. It only takes only one or two of these “fearless” children to infect a classroom or group with disruptive behavior.
Anyone who has children knows that the timeline for effectively teaching discipline is short indeed. If we miss our opportunity during early development, we allow unbalanced children to develop an unnatural acceptance of misfortune in their lives. The result? They have little fear of consequences and even “fear of pain” becomes an ineffective technique. They have “formed” and there is no going back. We think of today as the age of reason. Many people have the misguided expectation that children will respect and accept verbal direction if it is put to them in a quiet and instructively respectful manner. This is no more true for children than it is for adults. Take the law for example. If the law did not have teeth in its consequences, even reasonable people would begin to take liberties with it, finding ways of rationalizing their actions to explain their disdain of its observance—like stopping at a stop sign. Everyone knows these signs are put there to direct traffic in a safe manner to protect all drivers. Everyone also knows that even when we can see that there is no clear and present danger, we are a still asked to obey– with the consequence of a punishment if we do not. If there were no consequence, individual drivers would begin to bend the law and rationalize their behavior to their own opinions regarding danger.
To find a balance between effective discipline and affection is the test of parenting. We would like to believe that the human animal is evolving into a more enlightened creature–but the state of the world suggests otherwise. Despite paying lip-service to grander concepts, the spectacles of sex and death that were rampant in declining Roman society are beginning, once again, to dominate as forms of entertainment for the masses–a sure sign of civilization in decline.  The implication that previous generations disciplined with corporal punishment were somehow damaged, demeaned, or improperly treated, is ludicrous. Consider the statistics measuring the levels of violence and depression in youth and you will find increases since the advent of these New” concepts of discipline. Talk to anyone born before 1970 and you will find few who consider reasonable corporal punishment to have been damaging to their development, psyche or self-esteem. To say that corporal punishment has no place in the rearing of children in a dangerous world is, in itself, a dangerous theory. The only real argument against corporal punishment today is that today’s parents are so imbalanced themselves that they would not administer such punishments in prudent and reasonable ways. But that is a discussion for another day.
Fear forces us to learn many lessons related to facing the inherent dangers found in the natural world. Fear of consequence causes human adaptation. Much of this learned adaptation results directly from pain experienced when we make mistakes that threaten our balance or direction in that world. Corporal punishment, reasonably applied, is one of the more useful tools individuals have for insisting that their experience and wisdom is demonstrated to their children in a way that is certain to guarantee, if not their compliance, their attention and/or survival.
Today’s violence is gratuitous and self-serving. Its insidious acceptance into our mediums of entertainment and daily lives affects our children in a much more profound manner than any momentary pain and humiliation they might face enduring a five second spanking. Lack of guidance, self-discipline and success does a lot more to damage the self-esteem of our youth than corporal punishment ever would.

Appearances And Assimilation

The majority of Europeans who came to our shores were folk predisposed to judging things at face value. Obsessed with image and appearance, and convinced absolutely of their moral, social, cultural, and spiritual superiority, they could not see beyond their perceptions of primitivism and savagery they [...]]]>

Appearances And Assimilation

The majority of Europeans who came to our shores were folk predisposed to judging things at face value. Obsessed with image and appearance, and convinced absolutely of their moral, social, cultural, and spiritual superiority, they could not see beyond their perceptions of primitivism and savagery they imagined must be the attributes of people who lived so simply and close to nature.
Modesty is a good example. While Indian Nations had their own precepts of what comprised modesty, Europeans had specificly Christianized principles when it came to exhibition of the body and its form. They had no interest in examining our cultures further to see if our worldview might portray the value of modesty in a different way. They simply assumed that modesty did not exist among us. Foregoing a closer examination, their racist and arrogant examination found little virtue in such a repugnant civilization.
There were exceptions to this. Some Europeans, not bound so intently to their bigoted views, were able to discern the wonder, beauty, and integrity of our world and wrote on it extensively.
George Catlin, though still holding fast to European perceptions, acknowledged this when he wrote, “I am fully convinced, from a long familiarity with these people, that the Indian’s misfortune has consisted chiefly in our ignorance of their true native character and disposition, which has always caused us to hold them at a distrustful distance, inducing us to look upon them in no other light than that of a hostile foe….”
For the most part, Europeans ignored Catlin and his views as romantic yearnings to escape the consequence of being a European in the New World, with its entire attendant Puritanism and narrow ideals.
The Native concept of time has always given Europeans fits. As Historian William Fenton observes, British, French, Dutch and Colonial Officials “suffered the delays of Indian delegations arriving for meetings on their own time, and they chafed at the deliberateness with which Indians conducted affairs. Indians were never in a hurry. They would arrive “in so many moons,” “when the corn is knee high,” “when bark is ready to peel for canoes”,” “when the leaves turn,” or “when we get done hunting”—concepts that were important to them but too vague and uncertain for gentlemen attuned to a calendar.” It was a foregone conclusion that treaty making could not be accomplished during hunting seasons, or ceremonial times. Even in contemporary times, Native people have a difficult time adjusting their schedules to the clock.
The concept of Termination, brought to fruition in 1959, was California’s legislated attempt to assimilate Indians into mainstream America. It, along with every other plan, was doomed to failure from the outset. If Indians were going to forget the past and join the American dream, it would have occurred decades ago. But most Americans still do not realize the extent to which Indians have maintained their separate values and unified resistance to joining the descendants of their destroyers. Neither do they understand that while we have lived alongside our American neighbors for generations, little of that outside culture, except for its hard surface veneer, has crept in to fill the empty spaces where Traditional and cultural forms once conveyed the vital ideals of the Nations.
Until gaming thrust Tribes into a continual spotlight, the American people still preferred to picture Indians as celluloid caricatures. It is only recently that Americans have shown any interest in how Indians live today. They have preferred to look upon our garbage-strewn reservations with the self-satisfaction at having been right in their perceptions of us as filthy and lazy savages.  Of course they cannot comprehend the Native perception that simply relocating garbage to its own “reservation” does not make it magically disappear and spending money that could otherwise be spent on essentials places that relocation at a low priority. 

With gaming, and the entrance of Nations into the economic reality of the American political marketplace, the populace has begun to stand up and take notice of Indians and their condition. Since the average non-Indian mistakenly holds the view that the government subsidizes our every endeavor with taxpayer’s monies, or that Casinos provide every Tribe or Band with unlimited capital, they are outraged that their newly noticed “neighbors” should continue to have piles of garbage around their houses while participating in the American Democratic process by making multi-million dollar contributions to politicians and propositions that favor us! We are now labeled as “special interest” groups, despite our “Government to Government” relationships with the United States. Americans still don’t understand that we are separate nations and governments inside their borders.
All morals, values, and perspectives are learned, and passed from generation to generation. Natives cannot fathom that it might be a perversion of the democratic processes to attempt to influence government with capital contributions, especially since we’ve seen so much money thrown at decisions that have conflicted with our best interests in the past. It may turn out to be the ultimate irony, that the powers who subjugated and despised us for so long may have given us the tools and the experiential knowledge to become major powers in state and federal government.
While one culture may view a behavior as repugnant, and see that perception as merely exhibiting common sense, another, with completely different worldviews, may have a different perspective. Again, we turn to Catlin (looking beyond his obviously stereotypical European attitudes).
“In the Indian communities, where there is no law of the land or custom denominating it a vice to drink whiskey and to get drunk; where the poor Indian meets whiskey tendered to him by white men, to whom he has come to consider wiser than himself, by nature of superior wealth, weapons and numbers, and to whom he naturally looks for example; he thinks it no harm to drink to excess, and will lie drunk as long as he can raise the means to pay for it.”
Here’s another example. Drop a large amount of money on any poor people and you will seldom find them doing anything with it but spending it as fast as they can. The handling of money is a skill that must be learned and adapted to the values and priorities a people deem important. So if these skills have not been learned, and the Indian order of values and priorities differ from those Americans possess, how can Americans expect that the results will approximate what they themselves would prefer?
Indians are socially, culturally, and spiritually in a time of great transition and development. Among many Tribes, the loss of oral tradition (as a transmitter of morals and values), has resulted in a number of generations having lost basic teachings. Tribes and leaders are struggling to find methods to restore Traditional values.  It is a difficult task, especially given the fact that the surrounding society has few commonly practiced values, other than accumulating material objects, and even fewer ideals generated from spiritual beliefs.

Our other difficulty stems from the purposely disfunctional tribal government systems we were forced to adopt.  Though they originally held some semblence to the traditional “council” authority–true power was given over to an elected few with little or no checks and balances to protect individual, and even commonly held, tribal rights–as in the Bill Of Rights. Today, on many reservations or rancherias, the Bill of Rights–for American Indians–does not exist.  There is no neutral higher authority empowered to deliberate cases or enforce the guarantee of rights.  Originally, this was a purposeful government policy intended to place decision-making power square in the hands of those who could be bought or manipulated into supporting land and mineral rights leasing to secure raw materials and resources deemed valuable by the Federal Government.  For decades, the opportunity for fraud, corruption, theft and abuse of power has been ever present in Native communities.  One contemporary tragedy has been the dis-enrollment of traditionally recognized Native peoples from their Tribes–either under the pretense of purifying the Tribal rolls of non-Native members or to simply reduce the number of Tribal members to increase their per capita, gaming monies or other financial accounts.  The Federal government, who never allowed us the right of self-determination previously–now understands that by now adhereing to a policy of recently recognized limited “sovereignty”, they can recuse themselves from “interfereing” in Tribal disputes–guaranteeing that Native peoples will be at the mercy of whichever family or group can get itself elected, through hook, crook, payoff, bribe or threat of violence.   The Feds know that with us being at each other’s throats, our power is diminshed and our purposes divided.  It’s an old and effective ploy.  Though materialistic individual pursuits were once in direct conflict with Traditional Indian values and ideals, which held spiritual responsibility as a priority not an afterthought, today’s progressive Native people are looking to embrace the Dream denied to them for so long–a chance to share in the American Pie.  

But though we may have lost, or forgotten, many of our original forms—there still exists an unspoken bond with recognizable values and perspectives which many families still hold to and cherish. Our world includes the world of  Spirit—unseen Power—and that perception  requires a greater commitment to understanding our relationship and responsibility for more than our apparently simple physical reality. Though there are many of us who are no longer cognizant of this reality, Indigenous perspective has taken on a larger and more important global significance.  We face an urgent and genuine need for healing and preserving our world for future generations as well as a flexible tenacious commitment to survival no matter what challenges and changes lie ahead. The reasons for our continued separatism, our search for identity, and our demand for sovereignty is not simply a calculated drive to reap monetary benefits free of taxation, etc., but is a deeper and more meaningful desire to “hold-our-horses” on further assimilation until we can redefine who we are, what we believe, and in what direction we desire our future to proceed.  We have been told to withhold our allegiance to the modern system of providing for our needs until we have a better grasp of its longevity and ultimate dependability.  We were cautioned to “prepare for a whirlwind”.  That caution is still in some of our minds.
It bothers many Americans that to some degree, many of us have not yet come to accept ourselves as simply part of them. They still ascribe to their original belief that their way is superior, and their principle validation of that belief is in their violent dominantion of our Nations. They are just as misinformed (or uninformed) about our People’s values,  perspectives, and modern desires, as were their grandparents or great-grandparents.
We pray that we can restore the morals, values, and ideals of our Tribes to reflect at least a balance of traditional and modern perspective. We may be citizens, but we have dual citizenship. America is deeply in need of new ideals and imaginative solutions. If only our fellow Americans were to give in to that reality and allow us to heal, educate, and restore ourselves, the union of our cultures and ideals would be much stronger than our simple assimilation into the mainstream.
As for Native’s, we are assured that our wounds, though deep, will heal. We believe that that is what our ancestors and relatives have suffered and sacrificed for–to give us a template for our own survival. Their world was lost but not in vain–we survived.  And though we will certainly be different than we were before–whatever we become, we will remain intent on sharing the fifth world, as it emerges, together–and still Indigenous.

In the summer of O8, after numerous years of discussion over Mascot issues and general problems between Native and non-Native communities locally, I wrote this article.  Reading it now, it seems a little disjointed,  but it is a way I can familiarize readers with my general philosophies so I don’t have to rely on [...]]]>   

In the summer of O8, after numerous years of discussion over Mascot issues and general problems between Native and non-Native communities locally, I wrote this article.  Reading it now, it seems a little disjointed,  but it is a way I can familiarize readers with my general philosophies so I don’t have to rely on repetition in regular posts.  I do intend to write on more contemporary issues but am in the middle of deadlines, so.
Recently, articles relating to death and disability from stress, depression, and related health issues in the U.S. have made headlines.  They run counter to the idea that Americans are the happiest people in the world—a point of view which, if you believe American pundits, should be the case. After all, many of us have grown up being assured we have the best political system, the best economic system, the best educational system, the best science and technology, the best geography and resources, the best religion (Christianity), the best workers, the best morality of any Nation in the world.  So why wouldn’t we be the happiest and most contented Nation as well?  Instead we read that Americans are some of the worst educated, least healthy, violent, depressed and discontented peoples on the face of the earth.

Some of us believe that the reason is to be found in our reluctance to change—to accept new paradigms and to embrace new directions.  That reluctance, if sustained,  will almost certainly relegate us to a second or third rate national status in coming generations.  It is in the essence of the identity that Americans have assumed that we find the flaw–particularly with immigrants who cast off their former identity to assume the personna of “American”. 

 The difficulty  arises in the dichotomy of what we say we believe in and what we truly believe and practice in our daily lives and institutions.

For many Americans, their primary personal identity is found, not in their family or ethnic identity, but in their alma matter— high school or college. That is why the mascot issue is such a hot button item in many communities.  Those four to eight years of their life seem to provide the only symbols by which many people can identify a personal identity—other than being “American”. That is why the emotional attachment is so strong—because the American social fabric is woven of such thin and transparent cloth. The experience of four years identifying with a mascot symbol is compared equally in importance, without any sense of shame, to the real identity of cultures formed over 1000’s of years. In our communities—people who went to high school and identified with mascots that utilize symbols for “Indians—braves, redskins, etc” continue to draw on that identity—comparing it, without blinking, to the emotional reservoirs of families who can trace their roots (locally) back 10,000 years.

I have consistently expressed the controversial view that the real success of the U.S. as a Nation is predominantly based on the unique and substantial resources of the land and its varying geology, geography, topography, and climate—rather than the actions of men. At this time, I would like to add that I believe the inherent spirit and social balance exhibited by the Native Nations that resided here for millennia provided a buffer of spiritual power that enabled America not only to survive the last five centuries but to maintain a relatively free and easy life. Keep in mind that as Indigenous Nations, we were long denied our religious, social and political freedoms, even while Americans were formulating the myth that the guarantee of those rights is what America stands for. Generations after our peoples posed any threat to the American Nation or peoples, those freedoms continued to be denied to us. Our peoples still struggle with the post traumatic stress and the moral, social and spiritual disabilities of having been stripped and denied our right to assemble, celebrate and worship as we believed.
The basic philosophy of the American Experiment has been a blend of Merchant-Roman-Christian ideology. What does that mean? Think of it as a three-tiered effigy. At its base, the underlying fundamental principle of America is its mercantilism and entrepreneurial spirit—essentially the potential to get rich and consistently increase one’s individual stand of living. That is the bedrock of what draws immigrants to the U.S. And let’s be frank, America has always needed that influx. Let’s digress for a moment and ask “Why?”
Anytime one takes unrelated groups with varying ethnic, cultural and religious backgrounds and attempts to meld them together into any purpose—the first thing that needs to be established is a common identity and goal. The goal in this case is easily defined as “the freedom to pursue economic independence and wealth, and to practice one’s culture and religion without persecution.” That is the stated, albeit often unrealized, expression of the American Dream. The identity for the Founding Citizens of this country was easily formed. They were all castaways from the systems of Europe, sincerely grateful to have conquered a new paradise. They carried forward with that sense of new purpose and freedom for a number of generations before they began to run out of steam. However, after awhile the novelty of that wore off and older divisive forces began to fester in the infancy of America. What brought the Republic out of the doldrums and reinforced its identity was another wave of immigrants in the early 1800’s. Newly immigrant Americans have always been the most enthusiastic patriots and believers in the promise of this Nation.
The institution of Democracy, completely plagiarized from two centuries of discussions about American Native institutions of government and social organization in Europe and America, resulted in a government that was capable of allowing a modicrum of individual freedom for almost all its citizens except those it purposely disenfranchised along the way. Additionally, and perhaps most important, the length, breadth and rich resources of the land provided every opportunity for that Dream to be realized.
Keeping unrelated and cultural diverse peoples united requires a common identity. That identity was concocted from a series of myths and outright lies to form the basis of the conceptualization of what America stands for. There is no dispute that for many immigrants the freedom to worship and strive for economic improvement is a dream come true, whether the facts of their identity are constructed from wisps of fantasy or not. Each time that the country has faced a period where its unrelated nature began to dissolve the bonds that held it together, a new group of immigrants has arrived to bolster its mythological premise and support it patriotic nationalism. America needs immigrants to infuse its blood supply with new and energetic support, and to continue the myth of its premise that it was founded for all. End digression.
Now let’s return to the discussion at hand. We have identified freedom from political totalitarianism as one of the elements that allows free enterprise to flourish. Though there are other forms of totalitarianism (including corporate economic power), the second tier of the American effigy is to be discovered in its similarity to Rome. Particularly in today’s circumstances—the symbols of the Emperor, the Senate, and the Coliseum are highly similar to what moves and shakes America. The former two are evident as the primary combatants in our political system (the President & Congress), and the Coliseum represents entertainment and becomes a significant part of the cultural reality of our Age. Sports, media, movies, holidays, commercials, music, even eating establishments become the fabric of American culture replacing a true ethnic and cultural identify as a kind of pseudo-culture, totally devoid of common mores or values unless recognized as part of the game.
The final piece of the effigy, our Christian heritage, is an integral part of the American Myth. It revolves around a Divine Human and asks that we be like him, while at the same time assuring us, that because of our deviant natures, we can never be like him. Additionally it approaches it from the predominantly Roman Christian, rather than Hebrew-Aramaic point of view. The Romans imported the Christian story and ideals in much the same perspective we do today—fitting it in where it has a place, and disposing of it or ignoring it when it conflicts with the lower two tiers of the effigy—politics / the Nation, and economics /mercantilism. This belief provides a convenient form of social control. On the one hand it asserts: “Your Savior was tolerant, peaceful, and energetic in his criticism of the status quo; of the mainstream; of the staid and conservative point of view. He tore off his clothes and jumped up and down on them to make a point with his nakedness. He associated with the lower strata of society in his daily life and threw off what he considered contrived social norms. He publicly berated the political and religious powerbrokers of his time.” Then, we are told—“But wait, he could do this because he was the Son Of Deity. No matter how hard you strive to be like him, you will never achieve it—and if you try, watch out!”
The result of this is a duality in our spiritual consciousness. On the one hand we exalt the Nazarene carpenter for his virtues, but since we are told we can never achieve his perfection—we don’t even attempt it. We accept his beneficent forgiveness, and turn around and do the most unseemly things to others and to the world. We have taken his human characteristics and put them on an unreachable pedestal to be admired but never truly adopted into our social reality. We assume the mantel of the Pharisees of his time, ignoring his message and example, tentatively worshipping his unreachable perfection—and then attending to the business of the day. Because the only accepted study guide is a conglomeration of books that form a story more like a screen-play than a historical narrative, we have plenty of drama to distract us from the few real examples of his behavior—and conveniently ignore His politics and social consciousness.
This fits perfectly with the merchant-Roman descendant civilization we exalt. We can look to the top of our effigy when we want to identify with our highest principles, yet we can also ignore it on a daily basis to pursue our Roman mercantilism—where the bottom line always reflects the power of economy and nationalism over morality, meaning, or social responsibility.

But immigrants may not always be there to re-infuse the American Dream with new blood. Somewhere, the necessity for common purpose and commitment must arise. Common values are a necessary part of the survival of any human social organism. Christianity is not shared by enough Americans in common to provide guidance. Having been forcibly driven from our spiritual roots, American Indians still have enough understanding of the necessary elements that bind peoples together for survival to provide significant guidance for this Nation. Our people were far from perfect, yet we lasted far longer as communities and Nations than any of the more “permanent” civilizations that have since fallen into ruin.
Better to be a third rate country with a contented and moral populace than the militant, puffed up, and pretentious leader of the world. With our children suffering declining health, education, morality, and hope from stress, suicide, substance abuse, violence and malaise, we need to do more than point fingers at those we think responsible. And as Native People are often told—“we can’t go back to the old days”. This is just as true for the Americans of today. We cannot recapture the past no matter how grand we perceive its glory. We have to take what’s real—the smiles and future of our grandchildren—and serve their interests. Americans need to formulate a new common identity to sustain us as this new and changing world reshapes itself. There are guides to this process, if enough eyes and ears are opened.
President Obama has an opportunity to begin this reshaping process. However, it may be that his roots are not different enough from the common source of American identity to be willing to consider the radical yet essential elements necessary to change the course of our bloated, self-indulgent, and generally arrogant National direction. It starts with expecting less from government and more from ourselves. Local communities will create the change—state and federal government has to get out of the way for it to happen.

I’d like to start my blogging with a few pieces to let you know who I am and why I think what I think. I have lived an unusual usual life. I have lived through periods when I literally did not know what year it was, what was popular on the radio [...]]]>

I’d like to start my blogging with a few pieces to let you know who I am and why I think what I think. I have lived an unusual usual life. I have lived through periods when I literally did not know what year it was, what was popular on the radio or television—but knew the exact time the sun would rise and set, could smell a storm coming, and experienced freedom in a way I only dream of today. I am blogging to give you a sense of Seeing Red. I am not a spokesman for Native people, nor any Tribe or Nation. My opinions are my own and for them I make no apology. So I start with the topic of “What We Know”.

Recently I submitted an article about genetic engineering to my local paper and the paper balked at publishing it, (nicely) insisting that I insert a paragraph assuring readers that my article represented the result of extensive research or was my own opinion. The concern was that the readers might be too easily swayed by the definitive way I express myself. Now I’ve been subjecting the local public to my opinions for more than a decade and I’ve always considered readers to be intelligent enough to understand that anything in print should be subject to skepticism and rebuttal. So what is it that has changed? Why is it that nationally, our publishers and editors seem consumed with vetting articles and information that is, in essence, unverifiable?

Our society has been overrun with “experts”—the word parts ex and pert meaning “a drip under pressure”. Every part of our world, once large and mysterious, has been brought closer by faster and faster communications and travel. Unfortunately, it is still too large for each of us to have personal contact with all its parts on a daily basis, except by relying on media, bloggers or internet communications. And rather than clarifying, in distinct and observable ways, the different realities that drive the issues of our time—we are now faced with wading through the high tide of mass communications toward any shore of understanding. Truthfully, we have actually moved further far from being able to verify the veracity of the information with which we are inundated than ever before—and our objectivity, once determined primarily through our own personal experiences and perceptions—“what we know”—are now based on the reporting of others.

In the Eastern Pomo language of California, pre 1850, there was literally no way to tell a lie. The language was constructed with a series of checks and balances based on “knowing” that something was true. This truth was obtained through personal and collectively shared observation. Second hand info was never admissible. Imagine how many social and political problems were eliminated by this simple construct of language. Today, we are bombarded with information we are forced to blindly accept—opinions, conjectures, statistical studies, scientific studies, news reports, etc. etc. Science has strayed so far from pure unbiased studies that even Nobel Prize winners have complained that most of today’s science is agenda driven toward verifying pre-determined results. Journalism has strayed even further from impartial and objective news, being purposely designed to lead us toward pre-determined conclusions. What we really know is easily defined as what we personally experience in our immediate relationships and environment. Beyond that, we are primarily forced to accept a myriad of perceptions, opinions, and ideas regarding history and current events with relatively little assurance in our facts or conclusions. What may appear to be true today may be exposed as a hoax, misunderstanding or outright lie tomorrow. Science is constantly rearranging its facts and theories, and accepted history is often shown to be a concoction of fantasy, myth, and mass delusion.

Some people insist that we must “trust” experts whether they be authors, reporters, journalists, scientists and the like to gain a faithful perspective of the facts that surround us. But which of our sources do we consider innately trustworthy? I know the Holocaust happened not because I read it in a book or saw a documentary but because of anecdotal evidence (despised by scientists and historians), from people who were there, and a father that was one of the first Americans to enter Dachau after the Germans fled. To pretend that any of us have an undeniable grasp of what is happening far from our own reality is innately foolhardy and ultimately—dangerous.

Those that would insist otherwise are either a part of the manipulated masses or are themselves a part of the machine that attempts to keep us distracted from what we truly “know”, replacing our true knowledge with manufactured perceptions of ourselves and the world around us. They want us to believe, inundating us with a glut of seemingly unrelated information, entertainment, and distraction, that our civilization is moving forward in an orderly, progressive fashion toward a wonderful and more perfectly controlled future.

To insure a free and responsible dialogue we should not be arbitrarily pretending any authority in the opinions presented in books, newspapers and media, yet neither should anyone offering an opinion be required to be an “expert” in what they speak of. That concept of simple acceptance of expertise is inherently more dangerous than the admission of ignorance. It is the responsibility of the public, and all readers, to vigilantly compare anything we see, hear, read, or watch, to our own reality—our own experiences—our own histories.

The advent of writing, hailed by some as the great preserver of knowledge and intellect is also the great preserver of myth, falsehood and deception. The abandonment of constantly vetted oral histories reflects a feeble attempt to assure ourselves that the written word is always faithful to the truth when we know otherwise. The attempts of humanity to assure ourselves that what we think we know, we know, and that what we believe is incontrovertible fact, is further proof of the immaturity of our species.

Take the thoughts and assertions of the prognosticators and prophets that have attempted to define and clarify, through writing, the attributes, intentions, and desires of our deities. Have the results of those attempts manifested themselves in a more peaceful, prosperous, and humane world? Disagreements between men regarding the interpretation and veracity of those documents have been the underlying source of countless tragedies, wars, and strife worldwide since they were first composed. Indeed, our world aligns itself socially, politically and even racially within the separate and divisive influences of these supposed “spiritually illuminating” documents.

Adult humans and their beliefs are like petulant children, demanding the pretense of knowing the unknowable, arrogantly pointing to a page to justify our competence and existence. As John Trudell said, in his incisive and illuminating work, “Descendant Now Ancestor”, he distrusts the use of the word believe because there is a “lie” in its middle. He goes on to say he would be much more comfortable with the phrase, “I think”. If we were to ask, in all that we are so vehemently concerned with today, what will be important and remain important in ten thousand years?—we will not have an answer. The earth and our natural world will prune, cull, and quantify our experience in ways we cannot predict, so that all these so-called matters of import may be rendered meaningless. For this civilization, the pretense of knowing appears to be more important than the actuality of being. Educated readers aren’t stupid—they do not need assurances to remind them of the fanciful nature of words—the primary element of the universe is still mystery—to pretend otherwise is simple arrogance.