Re: [Zen] Re: Sharing religions
*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
Re: [Zen] Re: Sharing religions
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
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
Re: [Zen] Re: Sharing religions
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
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.  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
Re: [Zen] Re: Sharing religions
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
Re: [Zen] Re: Sharing religions
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
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 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!)  :
Re: [Zen] Re: Sharing religions
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
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
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
Re: [Zen] Re: Sharing religions
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
Re: [Zen] Re: Sharing religions
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
RE: [Zen] Re: Sharing religions
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/
