Discussion Forums

Complete Assimilation ?
Page 3 of 3

Author:  LaxXsinDjihl [ Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:39 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Complete Assimilation ?

The Avoidance of defeat, is in itself, a victory.

Author:  orriorbridgesbetween [ Wed Oct 03, 2012 2:37 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Complete Assimilation ?

Pellethie wrote:
With the exception of the Mississippian’s attempt at civilization, before the coming of Europeans, most tribes in what is now America lived pretty much as they did for thousands of years. Agriculture, pottery, the bow and more sturdy dwellings being the only domestic advancements. Aside from small scale tribal warfare, or raiding, petty greed, lust and any other aspects of human nature, Indians pretty much lived in balance with nature, a lifestyle which served them well enough to survive their migration onto this continent up until first contact with the Europeans.

Of course with the Europeans came changes and now we survive by adapting to these changes in ever changing times. Regardless of assumptions that all Indians would eventually die out, be completely absorbed, or assimilated into American mainstream society, we still remain.

Still there are those who would carry on such attempts to have us absorbed, or assimilated, or else become their concept of what we should be. Reinvented into someone else’s image if you will.

Have we not assimilated enough and continue to adapt in our own way to the changes that others bring about ?

What will those who strive to have us submerged in the melting pot gain and what will we lose by obliging ?

Perhaps we can speak of this in a good and unrepressed way.

My thinking on this is that, beyond all the high f'lutin' word games, it all boils down to "misery loves company".

Author:  orriorbridgesbetween [ Wed Oct 03, 2012 2:48 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Complete Assimilation ?

Pellethie wrote:
This assimilation process still goes on, but in a more clever manner. One of my cousins blames a part of this on what she calls 'Uncle Tomahawks', Indians who want to assimilate into white American mainstream society, or else cater to it's wishes. I imagine there are those who do not want Indians to receive annuities or be allowed huge tracts of reservation land to live upon when such a land hunger still exists among those who see the land as private property to be sold, bought and owned like some commodity. That is what remains after the Dawes General Allotment Act of 1887. A terrible policy that took over 90 million acres of reservation land and meant to assimilate Indians turning them into imitation white rural small farmers.

Some would profit from complete Indian assimilation, government officials who could put annuity funds into something else and real estate tycoons who have other ideas for reservation land.

If i were you, i'd be more careful about jumping on those who seem to want to assimilate. Part of the game is to "divide and conquer" after all. But you do have a point. After all, in the u.s.a. the b.i.a. has been dividing NDNZ up for decades, if not centuries (under other names).

Methinks that the story of White Buffalo Calf Woman should be expanded upon, and turned into a ceremony that lasts a few days. And teach the starry-eyed NDNZ (who're likely getting their desires from TV-land) about Sister Whirlwind. (Don't know if that's the actual name, but I'm referring to the metaphor)

Or at least thinking along those lines. Because, judging each other, without hearing each other out, seems to me only begets "gang warfare" types of reactions.

Author:  orriorbridgesbetween [ Wed Oct 03, 2012 2:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Complete Assimilation ?

Ashashane wrote:
Pellethie wrote:
What is attempted to be taken away and what we still retain. do you suppose the drive to assimilate Indians has something to do with vast tracts of reservation land and those still having a desire to expand thus taking that land away ?

Yes, I do.
The mentality to secure resources has been passed down generation to generation.
One side believes it should be used now.
One side says it should be protected.
Now there are two sides and they fight, using dishonorable tactics and whatever else it takes for their side to "win".
Neither side understands the other. Neither side bothers to try to understand, because they think they are right, and nobody likes to be wrong about something they believed in their whole life. It hurts to find out you've been lied to.
That's what saddens me.

Let's also not forget that COINTEL-style covert action works to exploit people's differences. I'm sure i didn't need to "remind" you, but thought i'd mention it anyway.

The Native Youth Movement's guidelines for approaching hearsay and rumors is also instructive.

Author:  orriorbridgesbetween [ Wed Oct 03, 2012 2:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Complete Assimilation ?

Pellethie wrote:
I can imagine some Lenape, Odawa, Catawba, Cherokee or even a Shawnee of 1750 appreciating such colonial goods and pondering deeply upon a universal great spirit, comparable with the white man’s god, who bestowed the wisdom to these Europeans, thus allowing them to invent such wonderful effective items,

I'd just like to point out that a lot of those inventions did not come from Europeans as much as many other places, i.e. china.

Author:  LaxXsinDjihl [ Wed Apr 03, 2013 11:08 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Complete Assimilation ?

First of all, the term "Uncle Tomahawks", that's freakin hilarious! :lol: I've never heard that one before!

When Chief Justice McEachern handed down the first Delgamuukw decision in 1987, out of the dozens of pages of "legalese" he basically made two points;

1) Before European contact, life for Aboriginal people was "Nasty, brutish, and short". ie, we should be bowing down in grattitude each day that the White man came and improved our lives so much!

2) Because we drive vehicles, watch TV, eat with forks, etc. we are no longer Aboriginal. Apparently these actions eliminate our status as citizens of our respective Nations.

It's that second declaration that's tricky. McEachern's decision, has since been replaced by the existing Supreme Court of Canada's ruling, but the issue of 21st century Natives still haunts everyone.

Personally, I think that using an iPhone, or driving a pickup, or hunting with remington hunting rifle does not make us any less Aboriginal. Who we are, runs deeper than the mechanics of our daily lives. As we learn of the historical injustices visited on our people, it only cements our determination to maintain our identity, and contribute to the well being of our people. Our ties to our respective territories sets us apart from other minorities. People who come to North America from Asia, Africa, or any other non-american continent let go of their traditions within a couple of generations of arriving here because they are so far away from their respective cultural hearths. Despite the social pressure to conform, along with a concentrated and deliberate effort to assimilate us, Aboriginal people continue to hang on to our ways, and maintain our distinct identities.

That being said, I agree that there is definitely such a thing as the old "Uncle Tomahawk" and it's really sad that the saying is true, that "one rotten apple spoils the bunch"

Author:  orriorbridgesbetween [ Thu Feb 23, 2017 5:35 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Complete Assimilation ?

Pellethie wrote:
Some would profit from complete Indian assimilation, government officials who could put annuity funds into something else and real estate tycoons who have other ideas for reservation land.

i feel moved to speak on this one. The idea of "profit" and the trajectory of that idea. People who have lots of money tend to find its emptiness. I think of "the critical mass" of "decision makers" and those whom would seek to Lord Over Everyone having the trajectory of beliefs that have been COERCED into them and their mindsets.

This coercion appears to begin, at least most momentously (because all of settler cult-ure seems to be a program of integrating masses of people into one reduction of citizenship), in the compulsory education situation. For those called "elites", theirs is just as compulsory as with the "lower" classes.

They get all kinds of "Examples Made" of others, they get all kinds of threats (i.e. "Do It or I will banish you from My Will/The Family.") They are just as wheedled and manipulated into uncritically accepting The Way Things Are Done (in settler society), it seems to me.

They get older and they cannot ignore the truth, so we see all of these Jimmy Carters running around trying to make some sort of 'good' out of the insanity they helped perpetuate, i think. So that they'll get into "Heaven" and that sort of stuff. You know?

So i think the reality is that there is this Chain-Of-Command Belief System that is keeping everyone (EVERYONE) suppressing who they really are, all while they believe they are powerless to even imagine (much less practice for) something different.

What do y'all think?

Author:  orriorbridgesbetween [ Thu Feb 23, 2017 5:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Complete Assimilation ?

two things jump out at me from your powerful truths, and i thank you for this.

One, that settlers largely, i think, are forced subordinates/victims (who do things to Survive in the context of their/our realities being confined so deeply). They are victims of "their own" (not really) organizational realities. I.e. the propaganda system and how that has "developed".

So When Things Are Done and groups are chosen to be sacrificed (there's a twist, huh), they go along because they know no other way. Some go nuts and are sometimes given leeway, but most Go Along and Play Along. (And they do find some semblance of "community" in Going Along, it's just extremely watered down, generally; because the only "community" that is allowed to Exist meaningfully are those subordinated to settler imperatives.

Privately they think much differently. But they believe They Must Keep Up Appearances. Or they will be Cast Out into the ultimate Fear of the Unknown (recalling Russ Means on this last part).

A few fools (like myself?) try their best to inspire a critical mass into trying to change/evolve the situation, but to outsiders it seems as settler folk act as one.

i think this distinction is crucial to make. Just to promote under/side-standing if nothing more.

Two, while it is true that many peoples are forgetting ancient evolutionary consciousness and the beauties that come with such, many are also remembering (i count myself amongst those). Except that that remembering is socially normalized to be viewed as "crazy" and "mental illness" and lots of other ways to silence that, at least amongst settlers who are sick and tired of Only One Way of Doing Things, forever.

Certainly, the neocolonialism of the social sciences (i.e. psychiatry) is seeking to intervene on Indigenous peoples this way, but i'm not sure they've had much success.

Or have they?

Pellethie wrote:
More than likely those early days of first contact and attempt to cohabitate with tribes along the Atlantic coast were as not as negatively bias as most modern people assume. Instead of blood thirsty savages, the early English settlers perceived Indians as very efficient farmers, hunters and food gatherers, but on the same note, thought they should be washed up, dressed in a more prudent manner, taught English, educated, and accept Christianity as their religion. The English assumed that Indians would welcome such a lifestyle change and be thankful for deliverance from their primitive childlike ignorance that Satan tends to preys upon.

Aside from a few shallow written accounts of a culture and spirituality, they really didn’t understand, most of the early colonist saw the Indians as god’s wayward children, that had yet to know god’s word.

Indians did not think much of English colonial social values and many did not want to understand as they were disgusted with the greed associated with capitalism and the plight of the colonial poor who often came begging food from neighboring tribes, some going native themselves. Many tribes who were still in a position of power, refused conversion to Christianity as it would compromise their long existing traditions and humanly pursuits.

As the colonial populations grew, so did their need for more land and resources. The colonists began looking at their Indian neighbors in a different perspective, especially the ones who had not adopted colonial culture or converted to Christianity. Now they were viewed as savage devil worshippers who were undeserving of anything but removal, containment or death unless they willingly cede their homelands away, be resettled upon small, less desirable locations and accept the Christian god as their own.

Those tribes who resisted were violently set upon, along the Atlantic coast as well as the ever expanding frontier, tribe after tribe were defeated. Those not killed outright, or fled were enslaved, many sent to the West Indies to work on plantations. Only those tribes who submitted and converted were allowed to survive in a poor condition.

Ravaged by disease and war, desperate to survive, it’s not all that surprising many Indians gave up their animistic beliefs and began to imagine concepts of a supreme master of life, single great spirit, or the Christian god. Of course beliefs were blended as well.

Trade had a lot to do with both cultural and spiritual change amongst the tribes. With the introduction of European goods into an advanced stone age culture came aspects of the European mindset. Stone knapping became almost forgotten in favor of steel tools, weapons and lead rifle balls. People were now wearing articles of clothing made from colonial cloth. They used metal utensils, tools and farming implements, hunting and making war with trade rifles. I can imagine some Lenape, Odawa, Catawba, Cherokee or even a Shawnee of 1750 appreciating such colonial goods and pondering deeply upon a universal great spirit, comparable with the white man’s god, who bestowed the wisdom to these Europeans, thus allowing them to invent such wonderful effective items, but on the same note, entertaining thoughts of these colonials as having been swayed from ’the great spirit’s path into the sin they often preached against. By the mid 18th century many tribes whose cultures had been impacted by the colonists begin speaking more in terms of a master of life or great spirit as a deity. This concept would spread across the Mississippi onto the plains and beyond after the American Revolution and during Manifest Destiny.

Beliefs changed from various forms of primitive animism into pantheons of lesser spirits ruled by a supreme male 'great spirit' or lumped together as a single deity or else they were blended with or completely substituted by Christianity.

No matter the new way we went, those forks in our paths took us away from lifestyles that had served us well for thousands of years before the first European contact and mention of god.

No we can’t expect to stay as we were 12000 years ago as paths often stretch long and fork off, but some of us do not want to be upon seemingly good paths that eventually lead to bad places.

Author:  orriorbridgesbetween [ Thu Feb 23, 2017 6:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Complete Assimilation ?

rezrazed wrote:
For me, All that I know of my history culture and belief is exactly what biblical Christianity is. Although there are those who preach the gospel or love and mercy and exude hate, those are the ones that seem to have all the attention and give Christianity a bad name, kind of like the Native who goes out and feeds some new ager a load of dung just so he can mess with their minds and get their $$$ that they so willingly throw at them just to have their "knowledge"

I think it's crucial to point out the trajectory of christianity, as with ALL statecraft-subordinated religions. The history is replete with war. Of crushing The Others In the Name of so-called "Love" and all that that mobilizes masses.

Seems to me, Pellethie makes sense in ascribing all christians into this negative monolith, even tho i agree with you, that some (privileged) christians are radically conscious (ie. have you heard of www.jesusradicals.com?).

While i don't like the idea that all of any group can or should be reduced into monolithicly-negative status, i can see where Pellethie is coming from. And why critical thinkers would want to make such distinctions.

Okay, who's going to Jump Down My Throat on this one?

Page 3 of 3 All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group