[PLUG-TALK] Re: [PLUG] Sounds good to me ;)

Jeme A Brelin jeme at brelin.net
Wed Jun 19 00:14:26 UTC 2002


On Tue, 18 Jun 2002, J Henshaw wrote:
> > And not to stir up any more trouble but... ya know they WERE here first.
> :)
> 
> I think that they made it plain that they claimed not the land.
> I believe they said no one can own land.
> I also believe they were Pagan, and these so-called murdering white
> men came to share a cultural value called "love your brother" and were
> scalped instead.

Wow.

It is true that they generally believed that no man can own land.  This
belief stemmed from the essential doctrine that all living things are put
upon the Earth to use it to their benefit while not disturbing the use of
the same land by other living things unduly.  Also, it was understood that
generations would come later that should not be deprived of land merely
because the current generation found it convenient to divide it for some
selfish, short-sighted use.  So, you're right there.  Many held such a
belief.  And I don't see why this belief is in any way invalid or harmful.  
All I see is that the invading Europeans failed to respect the local
customs and traditions and culture and imposed their invading culture upon
the natives to the point of cultural and near biological genocide.

You believe they were Pagan.  Well, what's your definition?

I'll turn to Webster, if you don't mind:

  1 : HEATHEN 1; especially : a follower of a polytheistic religion (as in
  ancient Rome)

I've also got "heathen" defined as "one who is not a Christian, Muslim, or
Jew".  Well, that certainly applies.  They were geographically isolated
from the people who developed those religions.

And, well, there were some polytheistic tribes, by some definitions.  (I
think it's very hard to use terms designed to explain Eastern and European
religions in describing Native American religion.  They were very
different.)

So, ok, maybe some tribes could be called Pagan by definition 1.

  2 : one who has little or no religion and who delights in sensual
  pleasures and material goods : an irreligious or hedonistic person

This surely doesn't apply at all.

But what's the point?  So they practiced a different kind of religion than
the Europeans.  Does that mean they should not be treated with respect?

And fellow, I don't know what kind of history texts you've been reading,
but "love thy neighbor" was hardly the overriding policy in
European/Native American relations at any point in history.  Mostly, it
was a policy of slavery and slaughter.

J.
--
   -----------------
     Jeme A Brelin
    jeme at brelin.net
   -----------------
 [cc] counter-copyright
 http://www.openlaw.org





More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list