Re: [Zen] Re: Sharing religions

2010-09-23 Thread Kristy McClain
 
*chuckles*
 
Thanks Audrey:)
 
I must agree-- This rent-a-kid aunt business is the way to go!  All the 
perks--none of the pains;)  k


--- On Wed, 9/22/10, audreydc1983 audreydc1...@yahoo.com wrote:


From: audreydc1983 audreydc1...@yahoo.com
Subject: [Zen] Re: Sharing religions
To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, September 22, 2010, 2:41 PM


  



That's a terrific story, Kristy! It made me smile. :)
I love to give gifts to children, as I will have none of my own (due to 
choice). My cousins are having kids left and right, a friend's sister is having 
a baby boy, and there are many of my friends who already have terrific children 
(my brother-in-law and sister-in-law just had a daughter, too!). Sometimes, I 
feel that I'll never stop crocheting baby afghans! LOL!
The awesome aunts and uncles in this world are a blessing to parents - often 
with time and money to spare (often, not always), they can nurture and teach 
children in ways that parents can't (or are unable to).
The joy on a child's face is a hard thing to match - perhaps later, you can 
teach him about service to others, and about being humble. For now, he gets to 
be a kid! :D

~Audrey

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Kristy McClain healthypl...@... wrote:

 I must whole-heartedly agree~~
  
 While I do not have children-- I spoil my 4-yo nephew endlessly.  He is  a 
 true sports-nut;)  His current passions are golf, basketball, and 
 football.  I recently sent him a box of surprises.  
  
 An official college football jersey... official golf-ball set of that team, 
 along with a huge box of matching tees .  Plus a golf towel, glove, 
 Golf-Aid first-aid kit to carry in his bag.
  
 To make matters worse.. thinking to myself that its time he starts learning 
 about $$ now that he is officially in pre-school, I sent a digital football 
 piggy-bank, along with rolls of coins to deposit, and  practice his counting 
 skills.  (Someday he'll realizes  that those  jerseys cost  anywhere 
 from $30- $50--thats a lot of coins).  
  
 Yes~  those funds could  have been spent on service to others.
  
 He was  very excited when he opened his goodies, and immediately put on 
 the  jersey to go to a football game with his parents.
  
 It made my day.. k









  

[Zen] Re: Sharing religions

2010-09-22 Thread audreydc1983
That's a terrific story, Kristy! It made me smile.  :)
I love to give gifts to children, as I will have none of my own (due to 
choice). My cousins are having kids left and right, a friend's sister is having 
a baby boy, and there are many of my friends who already have terrific children 
(my brother-in-law and sister-in-law just had a daughter, too!). Sometimes, I 
feel that I'll never stop crocheting baby afghans! LOL!
The awesome aunts and uncles in this world are a blessing to parents - often 
with time and money to spare (often, not always), they can nurture and teach 
children in ways that parents can't (or are unable to).
The joy on a child's face is a hard thing to match - perhaps later, you can 
teach him about service to others, and about being humble. For now, he gets to 
be a kid!  :D

~Audrey


--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Kristy McClain healthypl...@... wrote:

 I must whole-heartedly agree~~
  
 While I do not have children-- I spoil my 4-yo nephew endlessly.  He is  a 
 true sports-nut;)  His current passions are golf, basketball, and 
 football.  I recently sent him a box of surprises.  
  
 An official college football jersey... official golf-ball set of that team, 
 along with a huge box of matching tees .  Plus a golf towel, glove, 
 Golf-Aid first-aid kit to carry in his bag.
  
 To make matters worse.. thinking to myself that its time he starts learning 
 about $$ now that he is officially in pre-school, I sent a digital football 
 piggy-bank, along with rolls of coins to deposit, and  practice his counting 
 skills.  (Someday he'll realizes  that those  jerseys cost  anywhere 
 from $30- $50--thats a lot of coins).  
  
 Yes~  those funds could  have been spent on service to others.
  
 He was  very excited when he opened his goodies, and immediately put on 
 the  jersey to go to a football game with his parents.
  
 It made my day.. k






Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

* Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

* To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

* To change settings via email:
zen_forum-dig...@yahoogroups.com 
zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
zen_forum-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



Re: [Zen] Re: Sharing religions

2010-09-21 Thread Chris Austin-Lane
Ahh, every culture has repellent bits. Just the other morning I caught
myself spending so much time ianswering email on my smart phone that I did
not wake my daughter up until 7 am, depriving her of a promised early
morning read aloud time from Journey to the West from her father.  Getting
caught up in the smart-phone stimulation of my system at the expense of
reading to our children is I'm sure going to be widely condemned in the
future.

I'm certainly not going to go and classify some arbitrary list of cultures
into Good and Bad  What would the wisdom of that be?

On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at *6:53 AM*, ED seacrofter...@yahoo.com wrote:

At the present time, which cultures do you regard as 'repellent' and which
 not?


What is it they say, regard one thing as repellent and you are a thousand
light years from heaven?

You have been posting lots of historical things that we certainly all
consider to be repellent.  Perhaps I was hasty to use the word, my point was
I would not myself claim to be better than people in the past who
experienced various conditions that I don't.

--Chris


Re: [Zen] Re: Sharing religions

2010-09-21 Thread Kristy McClain
I must whole-heartedly agree~~
 
While I do not have children-- I spoil my 4-yo nephew endlessly.  He is  a true 
sports-nut;)  His current passions are golf, basketball, and football.  I 
recently sent him a box of surprises.  
 
An official college football jersey... official golf-ball set of that team, 
along with a huge box of matching tees .  Plus a golf towel, glove, Golf-Aid 
first-aid kit to carry in his bag.
 
To make matters worse.. thinking to myself that its time he starts learning 
about $$ now that he is officially in pre-school, I sent a digital football 
piggy-bank, along with rolls of coins to deposit, and  practice his counting 
skills.  (Someday he'll realizes  that those  jerseys cost  anywhere from $30- 
$50--thats a lot of coins).  
 
Yes~  those funds could  have been spent on service to others.
 
He was  very excited when he opened his goodies, and immediately put on the  
jersey to go to a football game with his parents.
 
It made my day.. k


--- On Tue, 9/21/10, Chris Austin-Lane ch...@austin-lane.net wrote:


From: Chris Austin-Lane ch...@austin-lane.net
Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Sharing religions
To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, September 21, 2010, 7:40 PM


  



Ahh, every culture has repellent bits. Just the other morning I caught myself 
spending so much time ianswering email on my smart phone that I did not wake my 
daughter up until 7 am, depriving her of a promised early morning read aloud 
time from Journey to the West from her father.  Getting caught up in the 
smart-phone stimulation of my system at the expense of reading to our children 
is I'm sure going to be widely condemned in the future.  


I'm certainly not going to go and classify some arbitrary list of cultures into 
Good and Bad  What would the wisdom of that be?



On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 6:53 AM, ED seacrofter...@yahoo.com wrote:


At the present time, which cultures do you regard as 'repellent' and which not?

What is it they say, regard one thing as repellent and you are a thousand light 
years from heaven?  


You have been posting lots of historical things that we certainly all consider 
to be repellent.  Perhaps I was hasty to use the word, my point was I would not 
myself claim to be better than people in the past who experienced various 
conditions that I don't.  


--Chris







  

[Zen] Re: Sharing religions

2010-09-20 Thread roloro1557
Hi Mayka-


On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 1:16 AM, Maria Lopez flordel...@... wrote:

The expression of  less develop nations is no more than a very ignorant 
idea invading countries have over other countries to excuse themselves for the 
destruction and imposition of their own culture over other cultures.  But most 
of it to exploit them, stealing and slavery them in many ways. Â My view about 
the human race is that the bad people are always the winers and the ones who 
promote real civilization based are always the losers.  Undevelop or Develop 
countries is just a wrong perception we all have about different cultures based 
in our own wrong perceptions.
--End of quote

I don't think you're being cynical at all. I think you are being honest and 
seeing reality quite clearly.

The idea that people are just products of their genes, their geographical and 
atmospheric conditions etc is obvious nonsense and is a very transparent 
attempt to use science to justify genocide and slavery (among other 
atrocities). It would be laughable if we weren't talking about genocide, 
kidnapping people to enslave them, and theft of the entire continents that were 
once peoples homelands. 

People are more than bundles of genes acted on by geographical and atmospheric 
conditions! People have consciousness. And deep down whether they want to admit 
it or not, people know the difference between right and wrong.

Science has simply replaced religion as the justification in this form of a 
very old argument. Well, it's evolution don't you see? Survival of the fittest 
you know. . .  BS! The Native Americans were (and still are) correct, most 
white people are greedy and will stop at nothing to get what they want.

===The definition of Manifest Destiny from Wikipedia:==
The term combined a belief in expansionism with other popular ideas of the era, 
including American exceptionalism, Romantic nationalism, and a belief in the 
natural superiority of what was then called the Anglo-Saxon race. It is based 
on 3 ideas: 1)The virtue of the American people and their institutions; 2)The 
mission to spread these institutions, thereby redeeming and remaking the world 
in the image of the U.S.; and 3)The destiny under God to accomplish this work.
End of quote=

Note number 3. Now instead of using god to justify the genocide and other 
heinous actions they are trying to use science. Yeah. Same old sh*t, different 
era. Dressing it up in scientific clothes doesn't change what is actually is. 
First it was God says we must do this. Now it's We can't help it, our genes 
made us do it. 

Don't let these science-spouting white boys get you down, Mayka.

Artie :-)


DISCLAIMER: I am an American white woman of Irish extraction.













Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

* Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

* To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

* To change settings via email:
zen_forum-dig...@yahoogroups.com 
zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
zen_forum-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



Re: [Zen] Re: Sharing religions

2010-09-20 Thread Maria Lopez
Thanks Chris:
 
Your sincerity is appreciated. I quite like is someone disagrees or if someone 
has said something that was understood in a way that that person was affected 
to say so rather than keep it to oneslef.  I can assure you that my comment 
wasn't superficial but based in my personal general experience with life and 
the human race in general.  And believe that I would love to say that the good 
people are the winers.  But that would only be a lie.  Though occasionaly may 
happen some exception.  
 
Kind of visual exemple:
Immagine that there are two big wash bowls.  One is filled with black painting 
and the other is filled with white painting.  If you woud take a little bit of 
white painting from the white wash bowl and put into the black wash bowl. 
The  the black color from the black wash bowl won't be much alter.  But if you 
would put the same amount of black into the white wash bowl,  it would be 
noticeable that the white would be altered.  
 
Note: I choose black and white because they're neutral and not for any other 
different reason
 
Thanks for writing 
Mayka

--- On Mon, 20/9/10, Chris Austin-Lane ch...@austin-lane.net wrote:


From: Chris Austin-Lane ch...@austin-lane.net
Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Sharing religions
To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, 20 September, 2010, 4:27


  



The sentence I was disagreeing with is: 


On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Maria Lopez flordel...@btinternet.com wrote:

My view about the human race is that the bad people are always the winers and 
the ones who promote real civilization based are always the losers.  

It certainly doesn't offend me that you believe this!  If I believed that 
myself, I'd be sadder than I am, but reasonable people disagree as they say.  


:-)


--Chris






Re: [Zen] Re: Sharing religions

2010-09-20 Thread Maria Lopez
Thank you Artie for the kindnest of your post.  You must be also amongst those 
ones who sees the nonsense of the world but can't do much about it except from 
practicing to swim in its dirt waters without being affected by it.  As it one 
was in the lotus pond dirty waters growing as a white lotus flower.  And this 
is not an exotic say even when It may look like but a very profound insight I 
had during a long retreat in which I used at night to sit down on a bench in 
front of the lotus pond at the Plum Village Monastery in France.  It was spring 
many, many lotus started to sprout out alone my retreat.  They were not still 
flowers at my arrival.  I saw them coming out slowly slowly with growing of the 
full moon.  And at my return from the retreat I kept painting the same white 
lotus flower over and over and over.  
 
Anyway, Your say goes into similar conversation lines but in a different land 
as Europe.  We were a group of people this last summer and we all reached to 
conclussion that it may be an evil force that has overtaking the power in the 
world.  As you say there is a change of clothing but not inside.  The European 
Union made Spain to cut off hundreds of olive trees that were more than a 
hundred years old.  It also made kill thousands of healthy cows to keep the 
economy running.  Now wants to destroy hectareas and hectareas of vynards 
plants that have been there for years and years producing grapes and very nice 
wine.  And yet when you try to eat fruit in the UK it cost you a fortune!!!.  
It's all nonsense.  It's actually very frightening what is happening in the 
whole world.  In each area of the world with its own nonsense going on.  We can 
only do one thing and that is to practice in a way that all that dirt won't 
destroy the best in us.  
 
Losing or wining, does it matter while we keep enjoying the dancing?
Mayka
 
 
 
 
 
--- On Mon, 20/9/10, roloro1557 roloro1...@yahoo.com wrote:


From: roloro1557 roloro1...@yahoo.com
Subject: [Zen] Re: Sharing religions
To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, 20 September, 2010, 8:34


  



Hi Mayka-

--
On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 1:16 AM, Maria Lopez flordel...@... wrote:

The expression of  less develop nations is no more than a very ignorant 
idea invading countries have over other countries to excuse themselves for the 
destruction and imposition of their own culture over other cultures. But most 
of it to exploit them, stealing and slavery them in many ways. Â My view about 
the human race is that the bad people are always the winers and the ones who 
promote real civilization based are always the losers. Undevelop or Develop 
countries is just a wrong perception we all have about different cultures based 
in our own wrong perceptions.
--End of quote 

I don't think you're being cynical at all. I think you are being honest and 
seeing reality quite clearly.

The idea that people are just products of their genes, their geographical and 
atmospheric conditions etc is obvious nonsense and is a very transparent 
attempt to use science to justify genocide and slavery (among other 
atrocities). It would be laughable if we weren't talking about genocide, 
kidnapping people to enslave them, and theft of the entire continents that were 
once peoples homelands. 

People are more than bundles of genes acted on by geographical and atmospheric 
conditions! People have consciousness. And deep down whether they want to admit 
it or not, people know the difference between right and wrong.

Science has simply replaced religion as the justification in this form of a 
very old argument. Well, it's evolution don't you see? Survival of the fittest 
you know. . .  BS! The Native Americans were (and still are) correct, most 
white people are greedy and will stop at nothing to get what they want.

===The definition of Manifest Destiny from Wikipedia:==
The term combined a belief in expansionism with other popular ideas of the era, 
including American exceptionalism, Romantic nationalism, and a belief in the 
natural superiority of what was then called the Anglo-Saxon race. It is based 
on 3 ideas: 1)The virtue of the American people and their institutions; 2)The 
mission to spread these institutions, thereby redeeming and remaking the world 
in the image of the U.S.; and 3)The destiny under God to accomplish this work.
End of quote=

Note number 3. Now instead of using god to justify the genocide and other 
heinous actions they are trying to use science. Yeah. Same old sh*t, different 
era. Dressing it up in scientific clothes doesn't change what is actually is. 
First it was God says we must do this. Now it's We can't help it, our genes 
made us do it. 

Don't let these science-spouting white boys get you down, Mayka.

Artie :-)

DISCLAIMER: I am an American white woman

[Zen] Re: Sharing religions

2010-09-20 Thread roloro1557
Hi Mayka :-)

You are most welcome :-)

Yes. Also, I do try to speak out about the nonsense, as I did in my last post 
on this subject. If I can do nothing else, I can at least do this much.

I think you are one of the lovely lotuses too. :-)

Artie



--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Maria Lopez flordel...@... wrote:

 Thank you Artie for the kindnest of your post.  You must be also amongst 
 those ones who sees the nonsense of the world but can't do much about it 
 except from practicing to swim in its dirt waters without being affected by 
 it.  As it one was in the lotus pond dirty waters growing as a white lotus 
 flower.  And this is not an exotic say even when It may look like but a very 
 profound insight I had during a long retreat in which I used at night to sit 
 down on a bench in front of the lotus pond at the Plum Village Monastery in 
 France.  It was spring many, many lotus started to sprout out alone my 
 retreat.  They were not still flowers at my arrival.  I saw them coming out 
 slowly slowly with growing of the full moon.  And at my return from the 
 retreat I kept painting the same white lotus flower over and over and over.  
  
 Anyway, Your say goes into similar conversation lines but in a different land 
 as Europe.  We were a group of people this last summer and we all reached to 
 conclussion that it may be an evil force that has overtaking the power in the 
 world.  As you say there is a change of clothing but not inside.  The 
 European Union made Spain to cut off hundreds of olive trees that were more 
 than a hundred years old.  It also made kill thousands of healthy cows to 
 keep the economy running.  Now wants to destroy hectareas and hectareas of 
 vynards plants that have been there for years and years producing grapes and 
 very nice wine.  And yet when you try to eat fruit in the UK it cost you a 
 fortune!!!.  It's all nonsense.  It's actually very frightening what is 
 happening in the whole world.  In each area of the world with its own 
 nonsense going on.  We can only do one thing and that is to practice in a way 
 that all that dirt won't destroy the best in us.  
  
 Losing or wining, does it matter while we keep enjoying the dancing?
 Mayka






Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

* Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

* To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

* To change settings via email:
zen_forum-dig...@yahoogroups.com 
zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
zen_forum-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



[Zen] Re: Sharing religions

2010-09-20 Thread ED


Chris, any comment or disagreement on the other three points?   (See
below.)

--ED



--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Chris Austin-Lane ch...@... wrote:

Well, the interesting thing in Guns, Germs and Steel is that the
conditions of power arose from other more picayune conditions to do with
the distribution of seed sizes and domesticable animals and the
orientation of continents. Â It really wasn't an innate lust for
power either, just a simple randomness as to which group of humans would
develop technology first, assuming all the groups are pretty similar in
intelligence and motivations and behavior. Â

--Chris

   On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 11:03 AM, ED seacrofter...@...
/group/Zen_Forum/post?postID=DsnjaQVd3ANtq93NYTmSoJtT1uVKPZBw720f0SRHJF\
RAUQ8gijWqCQT7xdIPafaiGQKRz4QkJIWKfpnNtZqytQ  wrote:
 People are people; look to the conditions to explain the differences.
--Chris   Yes, and the primary condition is: Which groups have the most
power.  --ED
 The West has caused so much havoc over other cultures because of the
conditions they found themselves in, not because of some enduring
badness in them. No there is no enduring goodness or badness in
*any* ethnic, racial, religious, cultural or national group.   The
conditions the West found itself in was one of military and economic
superiority, and they used that power to exploit other groups - which is
what powerful groups historically have done, driven by Darwinian
imperatives.
 If the native cultures had had access to the more powerful technology
that the West randomly had access to, the odds are that mistakes would
have been make.   No 'mistakes' were made by the West. No 'mistakes'
would have been  made by the natives. Power does not corrupt, it is used
to the advantage of those who possess it.  People are people; look
to the conditions to explain the differences.  --Chris   Yes, and the
primary condition is: Which groups have the most power.   --ED
 


[Zen] Re: Sharing religions

2010-09-20 Thread ED


Chris,

The first line of the Tibetan version of the Dhammapada states:

All things are of the nature of mind.See below.

--ED



President George Washington The immediate objectives are the total
destruction and devastation of their settlements. It will be essential
to ruin their crops in the ground and prevent their planting more.

Benjamin Franklin If it be the Design of Providence to Extirpate these
Savages in order to make room for Cultivators of the Earth, it seems not
improbable that Rum may be the appointed means.

President Thomas Jefferson This unfortunate race, whom we had been
taking so much pains to save and civilize, have by their unexpected
desertion and ferocious barbarities justified extermination and now
await our decision on their fate.

President John Quincy Adams What is the right of the huntsman to the
forest of a thousand miles over which he has accidentally ranged in
quest of prey?

President James Monroe The hunter or savage state requires a greater
extent of territory to sustain it, than is compatible with the progress
and just claims of civilized live . . . and must yield to it.

President Andrew Jackson They have neither the intelligence, the
industry, the moral habits, nor the desire of improvement which are
essential to any favorable change in their condition. Established in the
midst of another and a superior race, and without appreciating the
causes of their inferiority or seeking to control them, they must
necessarily yield to the force of circumstances and ere long disappear.

Chief Justice John Marshall The tribes of Indians inhabiting this
country were savages, whose occupation was war, and whose subsistence
was drawn from the forest. . . That law which regulates, and ought to
regulate in general, the relations between the conqueror and conquered
was incapable of application to a people under such circumstances.
Discovery {of America by Europeans} gave an exclusive right to
extinguish the Indian title of occupancy, either by purchase or by
conquest.

President William Henry Harrison Is one of the fairest portions of the
globe to remain in a state of nature, the haunt of a few wretched
savages, when it seems destined by the Creator to give support to a
large population and to be the seat of civilization?

President Theodore Roosevelt The settler and pioneer have at bottom had
justice on their side; this great continent could not have been kept as
nothing but a game preserve for squalid savages.

General Philip Sheridan The only good Indians I ever saw were dead.

Source:  The Third Chimpanzee by Jared Diamond

ht http://everything2.com/title/Indian+policies+of+famous+Americans
tp://everything2.com/title/Indian+policies+of+famous+Americans





--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Chris Austin-Lane ch...@... wrote:

Well, the interesting thing in Guns, Germs and Steel is that the
conditions of power arose from other more picayune conditions to do with
the distribution of seed sizes and domesticable animals and the
orientation of continents.  It really wasn't an innate lust for power
either, just a simple randomness as to which group of humans would
develop technology first, assuming all the groups are pretty similar in
intelligence and motivations and behavior.

--Chris

   On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 11:03 AM, ED seacrofter...@...
/group/Zen_Forum/post?postID=xTtIgCt44RBXeLsz3B9MdLeAYDJGGvePo3S3Qyc7_8\
LOK1NvVZZWFECX11s9rwsgaleIznkldMZFcxioeljLGA  wrote:
 People are people; look to the conditions to explain the differences.
--Chris   Yes, and the primary condition is: Which groups have the most
power.  --ED




Re: [Zen] Re: Sharing religions

2010-09-20 Thread ChrisAustinLane
Comments within. 

Thanks,
Chris Austin-Lane
Sent from a cell phone

On Sep 20, 2010, at 5:53, ED seacrofter...@yahoo.com wrote:

  
 No there is no enduring goodness or badness in *any* ethnic, racial, 
 religious, cultural or national group.
  

Not even any essential reality to any ethnic racial religious cultural or 
national group. Like so many apparently differentiated things, these things all 
flow together at the boundaries. 


 The conditions the West found itself in was one of military and economic 
 superiority, and they used that power to exploit other groups - which is what 
 powerful groups historically have done, driven by Darwinian imperatives.

I am personally uncomfortable with applying the idea of reproductive success 
leading to the origin of species to social phenomena. However humans unarguably 
have a poor record when given power over others. I have no trouble seeing why 
this is when I look at myself. 

But that condition of power has interesting roots in the distribution of wild 
plants, wild animals and so on. 


   If the native cultures had had access to the more powerful technology that 
 the West randomly had access to, the odds are that mistakes would have been 
 make.
  
 No 'mistakes' were made by the West. No 'mistakes' would have been  made by 
 the natives.
 Power does not corrupt, it is used to the advantage of those who possess it.
  

Speaking for myself, I find that I am rather easily corrupted, and just as 
troubling, blinded, by power. 

I don't mean the sort of natural
power that aging gives me, more knowledge of how things work, more clarity to 
see what is up in other people, and confidence to do he necessary. I mean the 
sort of power that allows one to cut off debate and ignore the people affected 
by a given change. But that too is just a concept. 

Thanks for asking,

--Chris


  
  People are people; look to the conditions to explain the differences.  
  --Chris
  
 Yes, and the primary condition is: Which groups have the most power.   --ED


Re: [Zen] Re: Sharing religions

2010-09-20 Thread ChrisAustinLane
The contents of writing arises quite naturally from  culture.  I have little 
doubt I would have had repellent beliefs if brought up in a repellent culture. 

Did you read the Third Chimpanzee? 

Thanks,
Chris Austin-Lane
Sent from a cell phone

On Sep 20, 2010, at 6:17, ED seacrofter...@yahoo.com wrote:

 
 
 
 Chris,
 
 The first line of the Tibetan version of the Dhammapada states:
 
 All things are of the nature of mind.See below.
 
 --ED
 
  
 
 President George Washington The immediate objectives are the total 
 destruction and devastation of their settlements. It will be essential to 
 ruin their crops in the ground and prevent their planting more.
 
 Benjamin Franklin If it be the Design of Providence to Extirpate these 
 Savages in order to make room for Cultivators of the Earth, it seems not 
 improbable that Rum may be the appointed means.
 
 President Thomas Jefferson This unfortunate race, whom we had been taking so 
 much pains to save and civilize, have by their unexpected desertion and 
 ferocious barbarities justified extermination and now await our decision on 
 their fate.
 
 President John Quincy Adams What is the right of the huntsman to the forest 
 of a thousand miles over which he has accidentally ranged in quest of prey?
 
 President James Monroe The hunter or savage state requires a greater extent 
 of territory to sustain it, than is compatible with the progress and just 
 claims of civilized live . . . and must yield to it.
 
 President Andrew Jackson They have neither the intelligence, the industry, 
 the moral habits, nor the desire of improvement which are essential to any 
 favorable change in their condition. Established in the midst of another and 
 a superior race, and without appreciating the causes of their inferiority or 
 seeking to control them, they must necessarily yield to the force of 
 circumstances and ere long disappear.
 
 Chief Justice John Marshall The tribes of Indians inhabiting this country 
 were savages, whose occupation was war, and whose subsistence was drawn from 
 the forest. . . That law which regulates, and ought to regulate in general, 
 the relations between the conqueror and conquered was incapable of 
 application to a people under such circumstances. Discovery {of America by 
 Europeans} gave an exclusive right to extinguish the Indian title of 
 occupancy, either by purchase or by conquest.
 
 President William Henry Harrison Is one of the fairest portions of the globe 
 to remain in a state of nature, the haunt of a few wretched savages, when it 
 seems destined by the Creator to give support to a large population and to be 
 the seat of civilization?
 
 President Theodore Roosevelt The settler and pioneer have at bottom had 
 justice on their side; this great continent could not have been kept as 
 nothing but a game preserve for squalid savages.
 
 General Philip Sheridan The only good Indians I ever saw were dead.
 
 Source:  The Third Chimpanzee by Jared Diamond
 
 http://everything2.com/title/Indian+policies+of+famous+Americans
 
  
 
  
 
 --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Chris Austin-Lane ch...@... wrote:
 
 Well, the interesting thing in Guns, Germs and Steel is that the conditions 
 of power arose from other more picayune conditions to do with the 
 distribution of seed sizes and domesticable animals and the orientation of 
 continents.  It really wasn't an innate lust for power either, just a simple 
 randomness as to which group of humans would develop technology first, 
 assuming all the groups are pretty similar in intelligence and motivations 
 and behavior.  
 
 
 --Chris
 
 
  
 On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 11:03 AM, ED seacrofter...@... wrote:
  People are people; look to the conditions to explain the differences. 
  --Chris
  
 Yes, and the primary condition is: Which groups have the most power.  --ED
 
 
 
 
 


[Zen] Re: Sharing religions

2010-09-20 Thread ED


At the present time, which cultures do you regard as 'repellent' and
which not?

--ED



--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, ChrisAustinLane ch...@... wrote:


The contents of writing arises quite naturally from  culture.  I have
little doubt I would have had repellent beliefs if brought up in a
repellent culture.
Did you read the Third Chimpanzee?
Thanks,  Chris Austin-Lane Sent from a cell phone
On Sep 20, 2010, at 6:17, ED seacrofter...@...
/group/Zen_Forum/post?postID=22LSPvUA-Qn0_X6WXI78BY0-z2j4bKa5j6JFvmPNts\
hjFd1l0CIROdoxUiWJjIq6A-EuGQtaH8JKmI-2RIrO24qE  wrote:



Chris,

The first line of the Tibetan version of the Dhammapada states:

All things are of the nature of mind.See below.

--ED



President George Washington The immediate objectives are the total
destruction and devastation of their settlements. It will be essential
to ruin their crops in the ground and prevent their planting more.

Benjamin Franklin If it be the Design of Providence to Extirpate these
Savages in order to make room for Cultivators of the Earth, it seems not
improbable that Rum may be the appointed means.

President Thomas Jefferson This unfortunate race, whom we had been
taking so much pains to save and civilize, have by their unexpected
desertion and ferocious barbarities justified extermination and now
await our decision on their fate.

President John Quincy Adams What is the right of the huntsman to the
forest of a thousand miles over which he has accidentally ranged in
quest of prey?

President James Monroe The hunter or savage state requires a greater
extent of territory to sustain it, than is compatible with the progress
and just claims of civilized live . . . and must yield to it.

President Andrew Jackson They have neither the intelligence, the
industry, the moral habits, nor the desire of improvement which are
essential to any favorable change in their condition. Established in the
midst of another and a superior race, and without appreciating the
causes of their inferiority or seeking to control them, they must
necessarily yield to the force of circumstances and ere long disappear.

Chief Justice John Marshall The tribes of Indians inhabiting this
country were savages, whose occupation was war, and whose subsistence
was drawn from the forest. . . That law which regulates, and ought to
regulate in general, the relations between the conqueror and conquered
was incapable of application to a people under such circumstances.
Discovery {of America by Europeans} gave an exclusive right to
extinguish the Indian title of occupancy, either by purchase or by
conquest.

President William Henry Harrison Is one of the fairest portions of the
globe to remain in a state of nature, the haunt of a few wretched
savages, when it seems destined by the Creator to give support to a
large population and to be the seat of civilization?

President Theodore Roosevelt The settler and pioneer have at bottom had
justice on their side; this great continent could not have been kept as
nothing but a game preserve for squalid savages.

General Philip Sheridan The only good Indians I ever saw were dead.

Source:  The Third Chimpanzee by Jared Diamond

  http://everything2.com/title/Indian+policies+of+famous+Americans 
http://everything2.com/title/Indian+policies+of+famous+Americans 
http://everything2.com/title/Indian+policies+of+famous+Americans 
http://everything2.com/title/Indian+policies+of+famous+Americans 
http://everything2.com/title/Indian+policies+of+famous+Americans ht
http://everything2.com/title/Indian+policies+of+famous+Americans 
http://everything2.com/title/Indian+policies+of+famous+Americans 
http://everything2.com/title/Indian+policies+of+famous+Americans
tp://everything2.com/title/Indian+policies+of+famous+Americans





--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
/group/Zen_Forum/post?postID=Nub3niR5EYB47SgO1GMPGV8zaPSfnRJMuyguaCeFll\
JF6rq5qMENfkNVe6CJz7Pj9ArAJeWMJbNQJD5TBofdxMMm , Chris Austin-Lane
ch...@... wrote:

Well, the interesting thing in Guns, Germs and Steel is that the
conditions of power arose from other more picayune conditions to do with
the distribution of seed sizes and domesticable animals and the
orientation of continents.  It really wasn't an innate lust for power
either, just a simple randomness as to which group of humans would
develop technology first, assuming all the groups are pretty similar in
intelligence and motivations and behavior.

--Chris

   On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 11:03 AM, ED seacrofter...@...
/group/Zen_Forum/post?postID=xTtIgCt44RBXeLsz3B9MdLeAYDJGGvePo3S3Qyc7_8\
LOK1NvVZZWFECX11s9rwsgaleIznkldMZFcxioeljLGA  wrote:
 People are people; look to the conditions to explain the differences.
--Chris   Yes, and the primary condition is: Which groups have the most
power.  --ED




[Zen] Re: Sharing religions

2010-09-20 Thread ED



Chris,

My POV, which I believe to be the Buddha's perspective, is that
'conditions' may help or hinder, but compassionate or harmful behaviors
have their origins in intentions and motivations in the human mind.

The Darwinian perspective asserts that humans and human groups seek to
enhance their own survivability and prosperity - at the expense of other
persons and groups if necessary.

See below.

--ED


http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2005/dec/27/eu.turkey
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2005/dec/27/eu.turkey
The Turks haven't learned the British way of denying past atrocities
It is not illegal to discuss the millions who were killed under our
empire. So why do so few people know about them?

...  the EU have found a more effective means of suppression. Without
legal coercion, without the use of baying mobs to drive writers from
their homes, we have developed an almost infinite capacity to forget our
own atrocities.

Atrocities? Which atrocities? When a Turkish writer uses that word,
everyone in Turkey knows what he is talking about, even if they deny it
vehemently. But most British people will stare at you blankly. So let me
give you two examples, both of which are as well documented as the
Armenian genocide.

In his book Late Victorian Holocausts, published in 2001, Mike Davis
tells the story of famines that killed between 12 and 29 million
Indians.

These people were, he demonstrates, murdered by British state policy.
When an El Niño drought destituted the farmers of the Deccan plateau
in 1876 there was a net surplus of rice and wheat in India.

But the viceroy, Lord Lytton, insisted that nothing should prevent its
export to England. In 1877 and 1878, at the height of the famine, grain
merchants exported a record 6.4m hundredweight of wheat.

As the peasants began to starve, officials were ordered to discourage
relief works in every possible way. The Anti-Charitable Contributions
Act of 1877 prohibited at the pain of imprisonment private relief
donations that potentially interfered with the market fixing of grain
prices.

The only relief permitted in most districts was hard labour, from which
anyone in an advanced state of starvation was turned away. In the labour
camps, the workers were given less food than inmates of Buchenwald. In
1877, monthly mortality in the camps equated to an annual death rate of
94%.

As millions died, the imperial government launched a militarised
campaign to collect the tax arrears accumulated during the drought.

The money, which ruined those who might otherwise have survived the
famine, was used by Lytton to fund his war in Afghanistan.

Even in places that had produced a crop surplus, the government's export
policies, like Stalin's in Ukraine, manufactured hunger. In the
north-western provinces, Oud and the Punjab, which had brought in record
harvests in the preceeding three years, at least 1.25m died.

snip



--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Chris Austin-Lane ch...@... wrote:

 Well, the interesting thing in Guns, Germs and Steel is that the
conditions
 of power arose from other more picayune conditions to do with the
 distribution of seed sizes and domesticable animals and the
orientation of
 continents. It really wasn't an innate lust for power either, just a
simple
 randomness as to which group of humans would develop technology first,
 assuming all the groups are pretty similar in intelligence and
motivations
 and behavior.

 --Chris





Re: [Zen] Re: Sharing religions

2010-09-20 Thread Chris Austin-Lane
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 6:47 AM, ED seacrofter...@yahoo.com wrote:

 My POV, which I believe to be the Buddha's perspective, is that
 'conditions' may help or hinder, but compassionate or harmful behaviors have
 their origins in intentions and motivations in the human mind.

My take is that conditions and the mind aren't two.   Clearly, at each
moment we may go along with what life needs or we may try to grab onto
something for security, and acting against our minds nature will have
effects.  But

 The Darwinian perspective asserts that humans and human groups seek to
 enhance their own survivability and prosperity - at the expense of other
 persons and groups if necessary.

Darwin asserted that species arise by the gradual increase variation from
random variations of inheritable traits being differently selected for by
differing rates of reproductive success.  Turning that into an equation
about how power and social interactions should be arranged seems like
excessive thoughts taking their toll on our clarity of mind.  Certainly
Darwin didn't cause this preference of humanity for violence and excitement.


If you are interested in genocides, Jared Diamond has a whole chapter on the
various numbers of genocides throughout modern history, and an interesting
chapter on a rather bloody band of non-human primates.  I personally feel
rather ashamed of our record on that score, but I know we are fascinated by
violence as a group.

--Chris


Re: [Zen] Re: Sharing religions

2010-09-19 Thread Maria Lopez
Audrey Wrote:
I asked myself, about a year ago, WHY our ancestors had better technology (and 
therefore an advantage in conquering less developed nations. 
---
The expression of  less develop nations is no more than a very ignorant idea 
invading countries have over other countries to excuse themselves for the 
destruction and imposition of their own culture over other cultures.  But most 
of it to exploit them, stealing and slavery them in many ways.  My view about 
the human race is that the bad people are always the winers and the ones who 
promote real civilization based are always the losers.  Undevelop or Develop 
countries is just a wrong perception we all have about different cultures based 
in our own wrong perceptions.
 
Mayka

--- On Sat, 18/9/10, audreydc1983 audreydc1...@yahoo.com wrote:


From: audreydc1983 audreydc1...@yahoo.com
Subject: [Zen] Re: Sharing religions
To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, 18 September, 2010, 23:02


  



Yep, I agree with you - the situation in Australia is a whole different 
(although somewhat similar) can of worms.
But - honestly - couldn't John Howard have just issued a statement to the 
Aboriginal people acknowledging the mistakes of the past? If I were 
Australian, I would BALK at him apologizing for me, or white people in 
general for what happened then.
The sad truth is that the Aboriginals (like the Native Americans, and countless 
other peoples) were overcome by force: better technology and firepower. That 
can't be changed - especially by a sorry from one white politician.
I asked myself, about a year ago, WHY our ancestors had better technology (and 
therefore an advantage in conquering less developed nations)in the first place 
- and with luck, I stumbled upon this book, called 'Guns, Germs, and Steel' in 
my local library:
http://www.amazon.com/Guns-Germs-Steel-Fates-Societies/dp/0393317552
It's a fascinating read. We already know the how of it happening, but here's 
an interesting theory as to the why of it all. 

It's good chatting with you all!

~Aud

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, mike brown uerusub...@... wrote:

 Hi Audry and Artie,
 
 It's quite a different situation in Australia regarding Aboriginal people. 
 When 
 the conservative leader John Howard was in power he refused to say  'sorry' 
 to 
 the indigenous people despite being called upon to do so for a number of 
 years. 
 His argument was similar to both yours: that he wasn't personally 
 responsible 
 for the crimes committed by people of a different generation. The Aborigines 
 point, however, was that policies enacted by a different government still 
 affects Aborigines today (for example, taking 'half-blood' Aboriginal kids 
 from 
 their mothers and putting them into foster care or Christian missions - just 
 because they had white blood in them). Furthermore, people living in 
 Australia 
 today live on the land that was traditionally Aboriginal land and was taken 
 without payment. Does kinda make a point that white people living on land 
 taken 
 from the native people (nearly always by force) do share responsibility with 
 those people from a different generation. To say, Sorry is to recognise 
 that 
 there is no 'break' from the past (how convenient for whte landowners, eh?) 
 and 
 that we continue to enjoy what was once somebody elses without due 
 recognition. 
 
 
 Mike
 
 ps Audrey, I used to be in the British infantry and have great respect for 
 the 
 US Marines (not as good as the Brit Army, but still damn good!)  : 








[Zen] Re: Sharing religions

2010-09-19 Thread ED


--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, audreydc1983 audreydc1...@...
wrote:

 Yep, I agree with you - the situation in Australia is a whole
different (although somewhat similar) can of worms.


 But - honestly - couldn't John Howard have just issued a statement to
the Aboriginal people acknowledging the mistakes of the past? If I
were Australian, I would BALK at him apologizing for me, or white
people in general for what happened then.

Anyone can apologize for anyone to anyone if one interprets
apologize to mean that one is aware of and feels compassion (or wants
to develop empathy and caring) for all those native peoples who were
killed off, robbed of their lands, enslaved and degraded.

In inter-group relations usually one does not *feel* much compassion for
persons outside one's national, racial, ethnic, religious, genetic,
friendship or kinship group.


 The sad truth is that the Aboriginals (like the Native Americans, and
countless other peoples) were overcome by force: better technology and
firepower. That can't be changed - especially by a sorry from one
white politician.

The sorry means that we recognize and empathize with the pain and
suffering of all humans - and that can help establish our connection
with all humans.


 I asked myself, about a year ago, WHY our ancestors had better
technology (and therefore an advantage in conquering less developed
nations)in the first place - and with luck, I stumbled upon this book,
called 'Guns, Germs, and Steel' in my local library:

 http://www.amazon.com/Guns-Germs-Steel-Fates-Societies/dp/0393317552
http://www.amazon.com/Guns-Germs-Steel-Fates-Societies/dp/0393317552


 It's a fascinating read. We already know the how of it happening,
but here's an interesting theory as to the why of it all.

 It's good chatting with you all! ~Aud

I think it attempts to underscore the 'how'; the 'why' lies in human
motivation and intentions. As Buddhism reminds us, all that we think,
feel and do is driven by our motivations and intentions, conscious and
unconscious. Guns and steel are quite harmless without the human tribal
tendency to profit at the expense of those outside one's group.

It's good chatting with you too, Aud.  ~ED








Re: [Zen] Re: Sharing religions

2010-09-19 Thread mike brown
ED and Aud,

I think a sorry here is the same as when we say I'm sorry when we hear of 
someone else's misfortune. It shows empathy and neither indicates blame nor 
guilt.

Mike





From: ED seacrofter...@yahoo.com
To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, 19 September, 2010 22:28:18
Subject: [Zen] Re: Sharing religions

  

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, audreydc1983 audreydc1...@... wrote:

 Yep, I agree with you - the situation in Australia is a whole different 
(although somewhat similar) can of worms.
 But - honestly - couldn't John Howard have just issued a statement to the 
Aboriginal people acknowledging the mistakes of the past? If I were 
Australian, I would BALK at him apologizing for me, or white people in 
general 
for what happened then.
Anyone can apologize for anyone to anyone if one interprets apologize to 
mean that one is aware of and feels compassion (or wants to develop empathy and 
caring) for all those native peoples who were killed off, robbed of their 
lands, 
enslaved and degraded.
In inter-group relations usually one does not *feel* much compassion for 
persons 
outside one's national, racial, ethnic, religious, genetic, friendship or 
kinship group.

 The sad truth is that the Aboriginals (like the Native Americans, and 
 countless 
other peoples) were overcome by force: better technology and firepower. That 
can't be changed - especially by a sorry from one white politician.
The sorry means that we recognize and empathize with the pain and suffering 
of 
all humans - and that can help establish our connection with all humans.

 I asked myself, about a year ago, WHY our ancestors had better technology 
 (and 
therefore an advantage in conquering less developed nations)in the first place 
- 
and with luck, I stumbled upon this book, called 'Guns, Germs, and Steel' in 
my 
local library:
 http://www.amazon.com/Guns-Germs-Steel-Fates-Societies/dp/0393317552

 It's a fascinating read. We already know the how of it happening, but 
 here's 
an interesting theory as to the why of it all. 

 It's good chatting with you all! ~Aud
I think it attempts to underscore the 'how'; the 'why' lies in human motivation 
and intentions. As Buddhism reminds us, all that we think, feel and do is 
driven 
by our motivations and intentions, conscious and unconscious. Guns and steel 
are 
quite harmless without the human tribal tendency to profit at the expense of 
those outside one's group.
It's good chatting with you too, Aud.  ~ED
 
 



  

Re: [Zen] Re: Sharing religions

2010-09-19 Thread Chris Austin-Lane
Mayka;

I almost never disagree with anything you right, but I think you are being
excessively cynical here.  The West has caused so much havoc over other
cultures because of the conditions they found themselves in, not because of
some enduring badness in them.  The Guns, Germs  Steel book is a very
interesting look at the conditions that differentiated the Western countries
from the rest of the world - as far as developing modern technology, the
West really got very lucky, even down to tiny details like the size of grass
seeds of the wild grasses in different areas and the orientation
(horizontal) of the landmass which allowed agricultural innovations to be
shared, where as in the Americas crops that grow in Mexico can't grow so
well in Brazil or New York.

If the native cultures had had access to the more powerful technology that
the West randomly had access to, the odds are that mistakes would have been
make.  The native american cultures did hunt to extinction almost all of the
large mammals that were here when they got here.  People are people; look to
the conditions to explain the differences.

--Chris




On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 1:16 AM, Maria Lopez flordel...@btinternet.comwrote:



 *Audrey Wrote:*
 *I asked myself, about a year ago, WHY our ancestors had better
 technology (and therefore an advantage in conquering less developed
 nations. *
 *---*
 *The expression of  less develop nations is no more than a very ignorant
 idea invading countries have over other countries to excuse themselves for
 the destruction and imposition of their own culture over other cultures.
 But most of it to exploit them, stealing and slavery them in many ways.  My
 view about the human race is that the bad people are always the winers and
 the ones who promote real civilization based are always the losers.
 Undevelop or Develop countries is just a wrong perception we all have about
 different cultures based in our own wrong perceptions.*
 **
 *Mayka*

 --- On *Sat, 18/9/10, audreydc1983 audreydc1...@yahoo.com* wrote:


 From: audreydc1983 audreydc1...@yahoo.com

 Subject: [Zen] Re: Sharing religions
 To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
 Date: Saturday, 18 September, 2010, 23:02



 Yep, I agree with you - the situation in Australia is a whole different
 (although somewhat similar) can of worms.
 But - honestly - couldn't John Howard have just issued a statement to the
 Aboriginal people acknowledging the mistakes of the past? If I were
 Australian, I would BALK at him apologizing for me, or white people in
 general for what happened then.
 The sad truth is that the Aboriginals (like the Native Americans, and
 countless other peoples) were overcome by force: better technology and
 firepower. That can't be changed - especially by a sorry from one white
 politician.
 I asked myself, about a year ago, WHY our ancestors had better technology
 (and therefore an advantage in conquering less developed nations)in the
 first place - and with luck, I stumbled upon this book, called 'Guns, Germs,
 and Steel' in my local library:
 http://www.amazon.com/Guns-Germs-Steel-Fates-Societies/dp/0393317552
 It's a fascinating read. We already know the how of it happening, but
 here's an interesting theory as to the why of it all.

 It's good chatting with you all!

 ~Aud

 --- In 
 Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.comhttp://uk.mc862.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com,
 mike brown uerusub...@... wrote:
 
  Hi Audry and Artie,
 
  It's quite a different situation in Australia regarding Aboriginal
 people. When
  the conservative leader John Howard was in power he refused to sayÂ
 'sorry' to
  the indigenous people despite being called upon to do so for a number of
 years.
  His argument was similar to both yours: that he wasn't personally
 responsible
  for the crimes committed by people of a different generation. The
 Aborigines
  point, however, was that policies enacted by a different government
 still
  affects Aborigines today (for example, taking 'half-blood' Aboriginal
 kids from
  their mothers and putting them into foster care or Christian missions -
 just
  because they had white blood in them). Furthermore, people living in
 Australia
  today live on the land that was traditionally Aboriginal land and was
 taken
  without payment. Does kinda make a point that white people living on land
 taken
  from the native people (nearly always by force) do share responsibility
 with
  those people from a different generation. To say, Sorry is to recognise
 that
  there is no 'break' from the past (how convenient for whte landowners,
 eh?) and
  that we continue to enjoy what was once somebody elses without due
 recognition.
 
 
  Mike
 
  ps Audrey, I used to be in the British infantry and have great respect
 for the
  US Marines (not as good as the Brit Army, but still damn good!) Â :



 


[Zen] Re: Sharing religions

2010-09-19 Thread ED

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Chris Austin-Lane ch...@... wrote:


 The West has caused so much havoc over other cultures because of the
conditions they found themselves in, not because of some enduring
badness in them. No there is no enduring goodness or badness in
*any* ethnic, racial, religious, cultural or national group.   The
conditions the West found itself in was one of military and economic
superiority, and they used that power to exploit other groups - which is
what powerful groups historically have done, driven by Darwinian
imperatives.
 If the native cultures had had access to the more powerful technology
that the West randomly had access to, the odds are that mistakes would
have been make.   No 'mistakes' were made by the West. No 'mistakes'
would have been  made by the natives. Power does not corrupt, it is used
to the advantage of those who possess it.  People are people; look
to the conditions to explain the differences.  --Chris   Yes, and the
primary condition is: Which groups have the most power.   --ED
   


Re: [Zen] Re: Sharing religions

2010-09-19 Thread Maria Lopez
 
Hello Chris:
 
Have I been excessively cynical???.  In which way?.  I don't understand.  I'm 
surprise of your feedback. ,  Howevr, I stick to what I wrote because this is 
the way I see it..  Sorry if that sound as an offense to you.
 
Mayka.

--- On Sun, 19/9/10, Chris Austin-Lane ch...@austin-lane.net wrote:


From: Chris Austin-Lane ch...@austin-lane.net
Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Sharing religions
To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, 19 September, 2010, 18:16


  



Mayka;


I almost never disagree with anything you right, but I think you are being 
excessively cynical here.  The West has caused so much havoc over other 
cultures because of the conditions they found themselves in, not because of 
some enduring badness in them.  The Guns, Germs  Steel book is a very 
interesting look at the conditions that differentiated the Western countries 
from the rest of the world - as far as developing modern technology, the West 
really got very lucky, even down to tiny details like the size of grass seeds 
of the wild grasses in different areas and the orientation (horizontal) of the 
landmass which allowed agricultural innovations to be shared, where as in the 
Americas crops that grow in Mexico can't grow so well in Brazil or New York.  


If the native cultures had had access to the more powerful technology that the 
West randomly had access to, the odds are that mistakes would have been make.  
The native american cultures did hunt to extinction almost all of the large 
mammals that were here when they got here.  People are people; look to the 
conditions to explain the differences.  



--Chris







On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 1:16 AM, Maria Lopez flordel...@btinternet.com wrote:









Audrey Wrote:
I asked myself, about a year ago, WHY our ancestors had better technology (and 
therefore an advantage in conquering less developed nations. 
---
The expression of  less develop nations is no more than a very ignorant idea 
invading countries have over other countries to excuse themselves for the 
destruction and imposition of their own culture over other cultures.  But most 
of it to exploit them, stealing and slavery them in many ways.  My view about 
the human race is that the bad people are always the winers and the ones who 
promote real civilization based are always the losers.  Undevelop or Develop 
countries is just a wrong perception we all have about different cultures based 
in our own wrong perceptions.
 
Mayka

--- On Sat, 18/9/10, audreydc1983 audreydc1...@yahoo.com wrote:


From: audreydc1983 audreydc1...@yahoo.com

Subject: [Zen] Re: Sharing religions

To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, 18 September, 2010, 23:02





  

Yep, I agree with you - the situation in Australia is a whole different 
(although somewhat similar) can of worms.
But - honestly - couldn't John Howard have just issued a statement to the 
Aboriginal people acknowledging the mistakes of the past? If I were 
Australian, I would BALK at him apologizing for me, or white people in 
general for what happened then.
The sad truth is that the Aboriginals (like the Native Americans, and countless 
other peoples) were overcome by force: better technology and firepower. That 
can't be changed - especially by a sorry from one white politician.
I asked myself, about a year ago, WHY our ancestors had better technology (and 
therefore an advantage in conquering less developed nations)in the first place 
- and with luck, I stumbled upon this book, called 'Guns, Germs, and Steel' in 
my local library:
http://www.amazon.com/Guns-Germs-Steel-Fates-Societies/dp/0393317552
It's a fascinating read. We already know the how of it happening, but here's 
an interesting theory as to the why of it all. 

It's good chatting with you all!

~Aud

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, mike brown uerusub...@... wrote:

 Hi Audry and Artie,
 
 It's quite a different situation in Australia regarding Aboriginal people. 
 When 
 the conservative leader John Howard was in power he refused to say  'sorry' 
 to 
 the indigenous people despite being called upon to do so for a number of 
 years. 
 His argument was similar to both yours: that he wasn't personally 
 responsible 
 for the crimes committed by people of a different generation. The Aborigines 
 point, however, was that policies enacted by a different government still 
 affects Aborigines today (for example, taking 'half-blood' Aboriginal kids 
 from 
 their mothers and putting them into foster care or Christian missions - just 
 because they had white blood in them). Furthermore, people living in 
 Australia 
 today live on the land that was traditionally Aboriginal land and was taken 
 without payment. Does kinda make a point that white people living on land 
 taken 
 from the native people (nearly always by force) do share responsibility with 
 those people from a different generation. To say, Sorry is to recognise

Re: [Zen] Re: Sharing religions

2010-09-19 Thread Chris Austin-Lane
The sentence I was disagreeing with is:

On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Maria Lopez flordel...@btinternet.comwrote:

 My view about the human race is that the bad people are always the winers
 and the ones who promote real civilization based are always the losers.


It certainly doesn't offend me that you believe this!  If I believed that
myself, I'd be sadder than I am, but reasonable people disagree as they say.


:-)

--Chris


Re: [Zen] Re: Sharing religions

2010-09-19 Thread Chris Austin-Lane
Well, the interesting thing in Guns, Germs and Steel is that the conditions
of power arose from other more picayune conditions to do with the
distribution of seed sizes and domesticable animals and the orientation of
continents.  It really wasn't an innate lust for power either, just a simple
randomness as to which group of humans would develop technology first,
assuming all the groups are pretty similar in intelligence and motivations
and behavior.

--Chris

On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 11:03 AM, ED seacrofter...@yahoo.com wrote:

  People are people; look to the conditions to explain the differences.
 --Chris

 Yes, and the primary condition is: Which groups have the most power.
 --ED



[Zen] Re: Sharing religions

2010-09-18 Thread audreydc1983
When I see a white person attempt to connect (to the land, or deity) in a 
Native American path (or one that just mimics a native american path), I 
usually wonder about what hole they're trying to fill. Most of them are 
blissfully unaware that their own ancestors had a similar tradition of 
ancestor/land/god worship - but the NA traditions are more accessible, call it 
a choice governed by proximity. 
I think, ultimately, that the commercialization and commoditization of Native 
American culture feeds itself. Ever buy a book on NA spirituality? Ever buy a 
dream catcher, or get one as a gift? Yes, they bring awareness of NA culture - 
but at a HUGE price - it cheapens it, and turns culture into commerce.
And now for a personal anecdote, that I think is somewhat relevant: My maiden 
name is Custer, and I've caught some flak for it - from WHITE PEOPLE. While I 
was in the Marine Corps, I worked side by side with a Native American. We had a 
long talk one day, and he told me that he understood that it was George A. 
Custer's JOB to do what he did. He was in the Army, and it didn't matter if he 
liked it or not - he didn't have a choice in the matter. After all...if it 
wasn't him, it would've been someone else. We parted good friends, with a hug - 
before he went to Iraq with my husband's old unit.
The only people that made a big deal out of it were the white people that 
worked with us. They would make jokes like : we better not leave them alone 
together; someone might get scalped, etc. Both of us were extremely 
uncomfortable, and asked them to stop, on several occasions. 
I will not apologize for what my ancestors did. It was not my choice to be born 
here, live here (and ultimately, die here). Their choices are not MY choices. I 
wish that the NA peoples didn't have to go through what they did, but SORRY 
will not bring anyone back. It will not reverse the damage to North America. It 
will not reverse government trickery and ignorance of treaties. It will not 
stop the shameless commercialization of their culture. Sorry is empty - 
especially when it isn't your apology to give. 
In retrospect, I think that white people who insist that other white people 
apologize for their ancestors' actions are suffering from what I call The 
Great White Guilt. They think sorry means something; just because it makes 
them feel better, they think that the apology acceptor should feel better too.
So, in respect to the NA culture, I do not practice it. I acknowledge and 
accept it for what it is. 

~Aud
 

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, roloro1557 roloro1...@... wrote:

 Jody-
 
 I would ask that you remember what Maria so wisely wrote:
 
 --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Maria Lopez flordeloto@ wrote:
  
  Things hardly ever are as they appear to be under the eyes of the
  ones who are not from that culture.
 
 What my Native American friends objected to was the commercialization and 
 commoditization of what they consider some of their most sacred traditions by 
 greedy, materialistic white people, looking to turn a profit from the greed 
 and spiritual bankruptcy of other white people. I agree with them most 
 whole-heartedly. Not everything should be for sale no matter what this 
 capitalist culture says. It is a kind of rape and certainly a theft. It 
 speaks directly of the sense of entitlement many white Americans have that 
 Kristy mentioned. It simply disgusts and sickens me. 
 
 White people have already stolen their homeland, their language, etc and etc, 
 and decimated their population. It is nothing less than genocide what 
 European whites did to Native Americans. All this was of course approved and 
 ordained by the christian god of those European white people, so it was all 
 ok. Apparently still not satisfied, and under the guise of cultural sharing 
 and understanding some whites see nothing wrong with cashing in on Native 
 American spirituality. My Native American friends simply recognize the 
 reality of this, I think they see the situation plenty clearly.
 
 I do think cultural sharing is wonderful - IF THE CULTURE IN QUESTION *WANTS* 
 TO SHARE. Clearly the Native Americans don't want to share. As these are 
 THEIR traditions, THEY get to choose. Not white people.
 
 Sorry but I think your post below romanticizes the issue, is very naive, and 
 completely lacks empathy for Native Americans.
 
 Artie
 







Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

* Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

* To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

* To change settings via email:
zen_forum-dig...@yahoogroups.com 
zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

[Zen] Re: Sharing religions

2010-09-18 Thread roloro1557
Hello Audry :-)

I very much agree with your post.

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, audreydc1983 audreydc1...@... wrote:

 When I see a white person attempt to connect (to the land, or deity) in a 
 Native American path (or one that just mimics a native american path), I 
 usually wonder about what hole they're trying to fill. Most of them are 
 blissfully unaware that their own ancestors had a similar tradition of 
 ancestor/land/god worship - but the NA traditions are more accessible, call 
 it a choice governed by proximity. 

Yes, exactly- the hole you speak of is what I meant when I said they are 
spiritually bankrupt. 

Indeed, we all come from aboriginal people with rich traditions- and ultimately 
I don't think nature cares what name(s) are used.

 I think, ultimately, that the commercialization and commoditization of Native 
 American culture feeds itself. Ever buy a book on NA spirituality? Ever buy a 
 dream catcher, or get one as a gift? Yes, they bring awareness of NA culture 
 - but at a HUGE price - it cheapens it, and turns culture into commerce.

I used to work in a bookstore, that's how I knew so many books were being 
written about it by white people. My son's father was Native American, so (as 
if you couldn't tell by my previous posts) I have strong feelings about this 
issue. I agree with you completely about the huge price and the cheapening, and 
the turning culture into commerce! Not to mention that most native Americans 
themselves do not agree wit it. These are not kids playing cowboys and 
indians, these are real people whose culture and spiritual traditions have 
deep meanings for them. That should be respected - and not just with Native 
Americans, but with people everywhere.

 I will not apologize for what my ancestors did. It was not my choice to be 
 born here, live here (and ultimately, die here). Their choices are not MY 
 choices. I wish that the NA peoples didn't have to go through what they did, 
 but SORRY will not bring anyone back. It will not reverse the damage to 
 North America. It will not reverse government trickery and ignorance of 
 treaties. It will not stop the shameless commercialization of their culture. 
 Sorry is empty - especially when it isn't your apology to give. 
 In retrospect, I think that white people who insist that other white people 
 apologize for their ancestors' actions are suffering from what I call The 
 Great White Guilt. They think sorry means something; just because it makes 
 them feel better, they think that the apology acceptor should feel better too.
 So, in respect to the NA culture, I do not practice it. I acknowledge and 
 accept it for what it is. 
 

The Native Americans I know (friends of 30+ years) do not want whites to 
apologize for what their ancestors did, they know it won't change what 
happened, as you said. They want what people everywhere want- to live in peace 
according to their traditions, they want respect in the present. 

It's good talking with you Audrey :-)

Artie











Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

* Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

* To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

* To change settings via email:
zen_forum-dig...@yahoogroups.com 
zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
zen_forum-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



Re: [Zen] Re: Sharing religions

2010-09-18 Thread mike brown
Hi Audry and Artie,

It's quite a different situation in Australia regarding Aboriginal people. When 
the conservative leader John Howard was in power he refused to say  'sorry' to 
the indigenous people despite being called upon to do so for a number of years. 
His argument was similar to both yours: that he wasn't personally responsible 
for the crimes committed by people of a different generation. The Aborigines 
point, however, was that policies enacted by a different government still 
affects Aborigines today (for example, taking 'half-blood' Aboriginal kids from 
their mothers and putting them into foster care or Christian missions - just 
because they had white blood in them). Furthermore, people living in Australia 
today live on the land that was traditionally Aboriginal land and was taken 
without payment. Does kinda make a point that white people living on land taken 
from the native people (nearly always by force) do share responsibility with 
those people from a different generation. To say, Sorry is to recognise that 
there is no 'break' from the past (how convenient for whte landowners, eh?) and 
that we continue to enjoy what was once somebody elses without due recognition. 


Mike

ps Audrey, I used to be in the British infantry and have great respect for the 
US Marines (not as good as the Brit Army, but still damn good!)  : )


 




From: roloro1557 roloro1...@yahoo.com
To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, 18 September, 2010 18:40:26
Subject: [Zen] Re: Sharing religions

  
Hello Audry :-)

I very much agree with your post.

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, audreydc1983 audreydc1...@... wrote:

 When I see a white person attempt to connect (to the land, or deity) in a 
Native American path (or one that just mimics a native american path), I 
usually 
wonder about what hole they're trying to fill. Most of them are blissfully 
unaware that their own ancestors had a similar tradition of ancestor/land/god 
worship - but the NA traditions are more accessible, call it a choice governed 
by proximity. 


Yes, exactly- the hole you speak of is what I meant when I said they are 
spiritually bankrupt. 


Indeed, we all come from aboriginal people with rich traditions- and ultimately 
I don't think nature cares what name(s) are used.

 I think, ultimately, that the commercialization and commoditization of Native 
American culture feeds itself. Ever buy a book on NA spirituality? Ever buy a 
dream catcher, or get one as a gift? Yes, they bring awareness of NA culture - 
but at a HUGE price - it cheapens it, and turns culture into commerce.

I used to work in a bookstore, that's how I knew so many books were being 
written about it by white people. My son's father was Native American, so (as 
if 
you couldn't tell by my previous posts) I have strong feelings about this 
issue. 
I agree with you completely about the huge price and the cheapening, and the 
turning culture into commerce! Not to mention that most native Americans 
themselves do not agree wit it. These are not kids playing cowboys and 
indians, these are real people whose culture and spiritual traditions have 
deep 
meanings for them. That should be respected - and not just with Native 
Americans, but with people everywhere.

 I will not apologize for what my ancestors did. It was not my choice to be 
 born 
here, live here (and ultimately, die here). Their choices are not MY choices. 
I 
wish that the NA peoples didn't have to go through what they did, but SORRY 
will not bring anyone back. It will not reverse the damage to North America. 
It 
will not reverse government trickery and ignorance of treaties. It will not 
stop 
the shameless commercialization of their culture. Sorry is empty - 
especially 
when it isn't your apology to give. 

 In retrospect, I think that white people who insist that other white people 
apologize for their ancestors' actions are suffering from what I call The 
Great 
White Guilt. They think sorry means something; just because it makes them 
feel better, they think that the apology acceptor should feel better too.
 So, in respect to the NA culture, I do not practice it. I acknowledge and 
accept it for what it is. 

 

The Native Americans I know (friends of 30+ years) do not want whites to 
apologize for what their ancestors did, they know it won't change what 
happened, 
as you said. They want what people everywhere want- to live in peace according 
to their traditions, they want respect in the present. 


It's good talking with you Audrey :-)

Artie





  

[Zen] Re: Sharing religions

2010-09-18 Thread ED




Howver, his psyche did balance itself out by brown-nosing the Israelis
and the Australian Jewish lobby.   --ED



--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, mike brown uerusub...@... wrote:


Hi Audry and Artie,   It's quite a different situation in Australia
regarding Aboriginal people. When the conservative leader John Howard
was in power he refused to say  'sorry' to the indigenous people despite
being called upon to do so for a number of years. His argument was
similar to both yours: that he wasn't personally responsible for the
crimes committed by people of a different generation.The Aborigines
point, however, was that policies enacted by a different government
still affects Aborigines today (for example, taking 'half-blood'
Aboriginal kids from their mothers and putting them into foster care or
Christian missions - just because they had white blood in them).
Furthermore, people living in Australia today live on the land that was
traditionally Aboriginal land and was taken without payment. Does kinda
make a point that white people living on land taken from the native
people (nearly always by force) do share responsibility with those
people from a different generation. To say, Sorry is to recognise that
there is no 'break' from the past (how convenient for whte landowners,
eh?) and that we continue to enjoy what was once somebody elses without
due recognition.Mike 


[Zen] Re: Sharing religions

2010-09-18 Thread ED



--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, mike brown uerusub...@... wrote:

 ps Audrey, I used to be in the British infantry and have great respect
for the US Marines (not as good as the Brit Army, but still damn good!) 
: )


ED posts:  MIT historian examines path of war in new book
September 15th, 2010 in Other Sciences / Other
  [MIT historian examines path of war in new book] Professor John Dower.
Photo: Graham G. Ramsay

Japanese psychology, wrote Joseph Grew, the United States ambassador
to Japan at the outset of World War II, is fundamentally unlike that of
any Western nation. The Japanese mentality cannot be measured by our
own standards of logic, he added.

More than 60 years later, Paul Bremer, viceroy in U.S.-occupied Iraq,
assessed one of that country's political leaders. Ayatollah Sistani
operated on a different rational plane than we Westerners, Bremer wrote
in his memoir.





To MIT historian John Dower, these two comments, made in two very
different settings, are nonetheless part of one historical thread: a
long-running American insistence that Western civilization has a
purchase on true rationality which other nations and societies do not.

After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, says Dower, an expert on
Japan and modern warfare, the Bush administration, even more than was
commonly recognized, derived its descriptions of America's new enemies
from the older ideas and language of World War II. In a speech President
George W. Bush gave on Aug. 30, 2005, roughly marking the 60th
anniversary of the Allies' victory in Japan, Dower notes, Bush
emphasized how the United States' ongoing struggle in Iraq was, like the
struggle against the Japanese, a fight against kamikaze pilots on
suicidal missions and commanders animated by a fanatical belief in
their own cause.

One can almost picture White House speechwriters working from a crib on
World War II highlighted with a magic marker, Dower writes in his new
book, Cultures of War: Pearl Harbor / Hiroshima / 9-11 / Iraq, published
this month by W.W. Norton and the New Press.

The book is partly a critique of American foreign policy of the last
decade, and partly an argument against the notion that America's wars in
Afghanistan and Iraq reflect a newly emerging clash of civilizations
primarily driven by cultural or religious conflict, an idea popularized
by the late political scientist Samuel Huntington, among others.

If it were a new clash, Dower believes, American leaders would not have
been recycling such familiar tropes. Moreover, asserts Dower, in
launching war in Iraq, America became enveloped in the same irrational
culture of war as its past enemies. Whereas the 20th-century historian
Samuel Eliot Morison once derided Japan's strategic imbecility in
attacking Pearl Harbor in December 1941, Dower thinks the United States
displayed the same quality by attacking Iraq.

We propagate this whole notion of westerners being rational and
scrupulously moral, says Dower, now a professor emeritus. It's part of
the mythmaking we do. But the whole `clash of civilizations' notion
doesn't hold water. That doesn't mean we're all the same. But when you
place things in comparative perspective and think about war itself as a
culture, there are many things we can learn about ourselves as well as
others. Morison said the world had never seen such strategic imbecility.
Well, now we have again.

`We so sanitize our history'

Dower agrees that America suffered a trauma in the form of the 2001
terrorist attacks. What the terrorists did on Sept. 11 was an
atrocity, says Dower. Those were crimes against humanity. His book
began as what he expected to be a short study of the similarities and
differences between Pearl Harbor and Al Qaeda's attack 60 years later.

Yet the occupation of Iraq in 2003 moved the book in a more critical
direction, as he began to think America was roughly recreating imperial
Japan's blunders of the 1930s and 1940s. To be sure, Dower acknowledges,
at first glance it seems outlandish to make this comparison. And yet,
as he asserts, top-level policymakers in both cases underestimated the
psychology and resourcefulness of their adversary and plunged into a
conflict they could not control, and tended to view disagreement as
dysfunction, a habit of groupthink that Dower argues characterized
both Operation Iraqi Freedom and Japan's war policies.

In the latter case, Dower notes, incompatible army and navy priorities
were buried under a need for the appearance of consensus within the
government. Like Japan's rulers before them, high-ranking American
officials, Dower concludes, became unwilling to take positions unpopular
with their colleagues and superiors. As Emperor Hirohito's advisers
hesitated to tell the sovereign that his holy war had become a debacle,
Dower writes, Bush's advisers entered a state of denial about the
troubles in Iraq.

Dower also explores additional broad characteristics of the culture of
war. He places contemporary 

[Zen] Re: Sharing religions

2010-09-18 Thread ED


White, black, brown, olive-complected or yellow, humans to a great
extent are reflexive products of their culture, and cannot see the hole
they are in, (as seen by persons from other cultures.)

For instance, see: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/message/19993
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/message/19993

--ED



--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, audreydc1983 audreydc1...@...
wrote:

 When I see a white person attempt to connect (to the land, or deity)
in a Native American path (or one that just mimics a native american
path), I usually wonder about what hole they're trying to fill. Most
of them are blissfully unaware that their own ancestors had a similar
tradition of ancestor/land/god worship - but the NA traditions are more
accessible, call it a choice governed by proximity.


 I think, ultimately, that the commercialization and commoditization of
Native American culture feeds itself. Ever buy a book on NA
spirituality? Ever buy a dream catcher, or get one as a gift? Yes, they
bring awareness of NA culture - but at a HUGE price - it cheapens it,
and turns culture into commerce.


 And now for a personal anecdote, that I think is somewhat relevant: My
maiden name is Custer, and I've caught some flak for it - from WHITE
PEOPLE. While I was in the Marine Corps, I worked side by side with a
Native American. We had a long talk one day, and he told me that he
understood that it was George A. Custer's JOB to do what he did. He was
in the Army, and it didn't matter if he liked it or not - he didn't have
a choice in the matter. After all...if it wasn't him, it would've been
someone else. We parted good friends, with a hug - before he went to
Iraq with my husband's old unit.


 The only people that made a big deal out of it were the white people
that worked with us. They would make jokes like : we better not leave
them alone together; someone might get scalped, etc. Both of us were
extremely uncomfortable, and asked them to stop, on several occasions.


 I will not apologize for what my ancestors did. It was not my choice
to be born here, live here (and ultimately, die here). Their choices are
not MY choices. I wish that the NA peoples didn't have to go through
what they did, but SORRY will not bring anyone back. It will not
reverse the damage to North America. It will not reverse government
trickery and ignorance of treaties. It will not stop the shameless
commercialization of their culture. Sorry is empty - especially when
it isn't your apology to give.


 In retrospect, I think that white people who insist that other white
people apologize for their ancestors' actions are suffering from what I
call The Great White Guilt. They think sorry means something; just
because it makes them feel better, they think that the apology acceptor
should feel better too.


 So, in respect to the NA culture, I do not practice it. I acknowledge
and accept it for what it is.

 ~Aud





Re: [Zen] Re: Sharing religions

2010-09-18 Thread Maria Lopez
Thanks Mike for your thoughful post.
Mayka
 
 


--- On Sat, 18/9/10, mike brown uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:


From: mike brown uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk
Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Sharing religions
To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, 18 September, 2010, 12:51


  





Hi Audry and Artie,
 
It's quite a different situation in Australia regarding Aboriginal people. When 
the conservative leader John Howard was in power he refused to say  'sorry' to 
the indigenous people despite being called upon to do so for a number of years. 
His argument was similar to both yours: that he wasn't personally responsible 
for the crimes committed by people of a different generation. The Aborigines 
point, however, was that policies enacted by a different government still 
affects Aborigines today (for example, taking 'half-blood' Aboriginal kids from 
their mothers and putting them into foster care or Christian missions - just 
because they had white blood in them). Furthermore, people living in Australia 
today live on the land that was traditionally Aboriginal land and was taken 
without payment. Does kinda make a point that white people living on land taken 
from the native people (nearly always by force) do share responsibility with 
those people from a
 different generation. To say, Sorry is to recognise that there is no 'break' 
from the past (how convenient for whte landowners, eh?) and that we continue to 
enjoy what was once somebody elses without due recognition. 
 
Mike
 
ps Audrey, I used to be in the British infantry and have great respect for the 
US Marines (not as good as the Brit Army, but still damn good!)  : )
 

 




From: roloro1557 roloro1...@yahoo.com
To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, 18 September, 2010 18:40:26
Subject: [Zen] Re: Sharing religions

  

Hello Audry :-)

I very much agree with your post.

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, audreydc1983 audreydc1...@... wrote:

 When I see a white person attempt to connect (to the land, or deity) in a 
 Native American path (or one that just mimics a native american path), I 
 usually wonder about what hole they're trying to fill. Most of them are 
 blissfully unaware that their own ancestors had a similar tradition of 
 ancestor/land/god worship - but the NA traditions are more accessible, call 
 it a choice governed by proximity. 

Yes, exactly- the hole you speak of is what I meant when I said they are 
spiritually bankrupt. 

Indeed, we all come from aboriginal people with rich traditions- and ultimately 
I don't think nature cares what name(s) are used.

 I think, ultimately, that the commercialization and commoditization of Native 
 American culture feeds itself. Ever buy a book on NA spirituality? Ever buy a 
 dream catcher, or get one as a gift? Yes, they bring awareness of NA culture 
 - but at a HUGE price - it cheapens it, and turns culture into commerce.

I used to work in a bookstore, that's how I knew so many books were being 
written about it by white people. My son's father was Native American, so (as 
if you couldn't tell by my previous posts) I have strong feelings about this 
issue. I agree with you completely about the huge price and the cheapening, and 
the turning culture into commerce! Not to mention that most native Americans 
themselves do not agree wit it. These are not kids playing cowboys and 
indians, these are real people whose culture and spiritual traditions have 
deep meanings for them. That should be respected - and not just with Native 
Americans, but with people everywhere.

 I will not apologize for what my ancestors did. It was not my choice to be 
 born here, live here (and ultimately, die here). Their choices are not MY 
 choices. I wish that the NA peoples didn't have to go through what they did, 
 but SORRY will not bring anyone back. It will not reverse the damage to 
 North America. It will not reverse government trickery and ignorance of 
 treaties. It will not stop the shameless commercialization of their culture. 
 Sorry is empty - especially when it isn't your apology to give. 
 In retrospect, I think that white people who insist that other white people 
 apologize for their ancestors' actions are suffering from what I call The 
 Great White Guilt. They think sorry means something; just because it makes 
 them feel better, they think that the apology acceptor should feel better too.
 So, in respect to the NA culture, I do not practice it. I acknowledge and 
 accept it for what it is. 
 

The Native Americans I know (friends of 30+ years) do not want whites to 
apologize for what their ancestors did, they know it won't change what 
happened, as you said. They want what people everywhere want- to live in peace 
according to their traditions, they want respect in the present. 

It's good talking with you Audrey :-)

Artie









[Zen] Re: Sharing religions

2010-09-18 Thread audreydc1983
Yep, I agree with you - the situation in Australia is a whole different 
(although somewhat similar) can of worms.
But - honestly - couldn't John Howard have just issued a statement to the 
Aboriginal people acknowledging the mistakes of the past? If I were 
Australian, I would BALK at him apologizing for me, or white people in 
general for what happened then.
The sad truth is that the Aboriginals (like the Native Americans, and countless 
other peoples) were overcome by force: better technology and firepower. That 
can't be changed - especially by a sorry from one white politician.
I asked myself, about a year ago, WHY our ancestors had better technology (and 
therefore an advantage in conquering less developed nations)in the first place 
- and with luck, I stumbled upon this book, called 'Guns, Germs, and Steel' in 
my local library:
http://www.amazon.com/Guns-Germs-Steel-Fates-Societies/dp/0393317552
It's a fascinating read. We already know the how of it happening, but here's 
an interesting theory as to the why of it all. 

It's good chatting with you all!

~Aud




--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, mike brown uerusub...@... wrote:

 Hi Audry and Artie,
 
 It's quite a different situation in Australia regarding Aboriginal people. 
 When 
 the conservative leader John Howard was in power he refused to say  'sorry' 
 to 
 the indigenous people despite being called upon to do so for a number of 
 years. 
 His argument was similar to both yours: that he wasn't personally 
 responsible 
 for the crimes committed by people of a different generation. The Aborigines 
 point, however, was that policies enacted by a different government still 
 affects Aborigines today (for example, taking 'half-blood' Aboriginal kids 
 from 
 their mothers and putting them into foster care or Christian missions - just 
 because they had white blood in them). Furthermore, people living in 
 Australia 
 today live on the land that was traditionally Aboriginal land and was taken 
 without payment. Does kinda make a point that white people living on land 
 taken 
 from the native people (nearly always by force) do share responsibility with 
 those people from a different generation. To say, Sorry is to recognise 
 that 
 there is no 'break' from the past (how convenient for whte landowners, eh?) 
 and 
 that we continue to enjoy what was once somebody elses without due 
 recognition. 
 
 
 Mike
 
 ps Audrey, I used to be in the British infantry and have great respect for 
 the 
 US Marines (not as good as the Brit Army, but still damn good!)  : 






Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

* Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

* To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

* To change settings via email:
zen_forum-dig...@yahoogroups.com 
zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
zen_forum-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



[Zen] Re: Sharing religions

2010-09-17 Thread roloro1557
Jody- 

If you will look into it, you will see that Native American spiritual tradition 
has no evangelical component, no equivalent to go forth and spread the 
word, no go forth and teach others etc as the traditions you mention below 
do. Native Americans have never wanted to convert others to their way, it's 
not part of their mindset. And in fact, there are many other traditions that 
have no evangelical component as well. 

Artie


--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Jody W. Ianuzzi j...@... wrote:

 
 What if Buddhism had never left India?  What if Christianity, Judaism and
 Islam had never left the Middle East?  









Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

* Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

* To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

* To change settings via email:
zen_forum-dig...@yahoogroups.com 
zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
zen_forum-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



[Zen] Re: Sharing religions

2010-09-17 Thread tintok2

 
I don't believe it's all commercialism; I believe that people want to be a 
part of some other culture or the art of a particular religion.  Having the 
artifact brings the thought back to the mind.  Curiosity is manufactured by 
'purchasing' reminders of another culture.  It might be an artifact that a 
person has no knowledge of whatsoever and that one material piece gives a 
searching person something to look for and might change their entire life's 
path.

If someone sells art or artifacts; it might mean much to someone else; possibly 
to someone who has no other means of finding a researchable culture or world.






Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

* Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

* To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

* To change settings via email:
zen_forum-dig...@yahoogroups.com 
zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
zen_forum-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



RE: [Zen] Re: Sharing religions

2010-09-17 Thread Jody W. Ianuzzi


Hello Artie,

You wrote: White people have already stolen their homeland, their language,
etc and etc, and decimated their population. It is nothing less than
genocide what European whites did to Native Americans. e the situation
plenty clearly.

Oh I agree completely!  I think that all of this is true not to mention 95%
of Native Americans died from European diseases because they had no immunity
to them.  

Then you hd Andrew Jackson's Trail of Tears and his total disregard for
Congress and the Supreme Court telling him NOT to do what he did to the
Native Americans.  

I just wish the Native Americans could realize that there are a lot of white
people who are not materialistic and that they do appreciate and respect the
native American cultures and that not everyone wants to exploit them.  Then
maybe we could share.

I do understand that many ways are not evangelical  they don't want to
spread their word.  It is our loss.

I just think it is a shame that sharing is limited to genetics.  

JODY





Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

* Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

* To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

* To change settings via email:
zen_forum-dig...@yahoogroups.com 
zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
zen_forum-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



[Zen] Re: Sharing religions

2010-09-17 Thread roloro1557
Hi Jody-

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Jody W. Ianuzzi j...@... wrote:


 
 I just wish the Native Americans could realize that there are a lot of white
 people who are not materialistic and that they do appreciate and respect the
 native American cultures and that not everyone wants to exploit them.  Then
 maybe we could share.

Yes. Also, considering the history though, you can hardly blame them for being 
suspicious and extra cautious.

I'm also sure that if it weren't Native Americans, it would be some other 
group, as we have several similar situations going on now in other parts of the 
world.

Artie :-)







Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

* Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

* To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

* To change settings via email:
zen_forum-dig...@yahoogroups.com 
zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
zen_forum-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



[Zen] Re: Sharing religions

2010-09-16 Thread roloro1557
Jody-

I would ask that you remember what Maria so wisely wrote:

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Maria Lopez flordel...@... wrote:
 
 Things hardly ever are as they appear to be under the eyes of the
 ones who are not from that culture.

What my Native American friends objected to was the commercialization and 
commoditization of what they consider some of their most sacred traditions by 
greedy, materialistic white people, looking to turn a profit from the greed and 
spiritual bankruptcy of other white people. I agree with them most 
whole-heartedly. Not everything should be for sale no matter what this 
capitalist culture says. It is a kind of rape and certainly a theft. It speaks 
directly of the sense of entitlement many white Americans have that Kristy 
mentioned. It simply disgusts and sickens me. 

White people have already stolen their homeland, their language, etc and etc, 
and decimated their population. It is nothing less than genocide what European 
whites did to Native Americans. All this was of course approved and ordained by 
the christian god of those European white people, so it was all ok. 
Apparently still not satisfied, and under the guise of cultural sharing and 
understanding some whites see nothing wrong with cashing in on Native 
American spirituality. My Native American friends simply recognize the reality 
of this, I think they see the situation plenty clearly.

I do think cultural sharing is wonderful - IF THE CULTURE IN QUESTION *WANTS* 
TO SHARE. Clearly the Native Americans don't want to share. As these are 
THEIR traditions, THEY get to choose. Not white people.

Sorry but I think your post below romanticizes the issue, is very naive, and 
completely lacks empathy for Native Americans.

Artie

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Jody W. Ianuzzi j...@... wrote:

 A few days ago someone (I think it was Artie) commented that they 
 knew three Native American friends who felt that when non-Native 
 Americans tried to practice NA ways it took away from their culture.
 
 I have been thinking about this for a few days now and I think your  Native 
 American friends are not seeing the situation clearly.  When  people share 
 an idea they are not taking away they are expanding.   It is like lighting a 
 candle from another candle you are not 
 putting out the light of the first candle you are making it 
 brighter.
 
 What if Buddhism had never left India?  What if Christianity, 
 Judaism and Islam had never left the Middle East?  As ideas are 
 shared from one person to another they get stronger not weaker.  
 You are adding to, not subtracting.
 
 Just an idea,
 
 JODY







Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

* Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

* To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

* To change settings via email:
zen_forum-dig...@yahoogroups.com 
zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
zen_forum-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/