1993 issue 9 - his story - gods providence, the indian as egalitarian - counsel of chalcedon

Upload: chalcedon-presbyterian-church

Post on 03-Jun-2018

218 views

Category:

Documents


1 download

TRANSCRIPT

  • 8/12/2019 1993 Issue 9 - His Story - Gods Providence, The Indian as Egalitarian - Counsel of Chalcedon

    1/4

    THE

    INDIAN

    AS EGALITARIAN

    According to John Greenway,

    historians write about the Indian

    because the Indian in the Amelican

    mind is as imaginary as Sandburg's

    Lincoln, a creation of fantasy, guilt and

    ignorance, on which everyone

    is

    his

    own authority: Such is the altogether

    sad and dangerous situati.on in which

    we presently find ourselves. Barewith

    me, dearreader, as Ionce more attempt

    to expose a few more myths about the

    Indian.

    One of he more enduring fantasies

    of native American culture is that it

    was an egalitarian paradise. Women

    were

    respected

    as equals; male

    chauvinism was nonexistent; children

    were adored; all dwelt together with

    mutual respect and unfailing love.

    This,

    of

    all the dreamy dreams of the

    left, is perhaps the most mystifying to

    explain. Whereas, onecan understand

    why the radical environmentalists

    think they have historical allies in the

    Indians; how femin ists and their fellow

    egalitarians

    can

    interpret

    native

    American society as an Egalitarian

    Nirvanais beyond me. We once again

    have an illustration either of utter

    ignorance of the facts or a brazen

    dishonesty in the use of them.

    INDIAN FEMINISM

    The Indians, they say, respected

    women. It was nuly a non-sexist

    society. True? Bernal Diazdel Castillo

    (the historian who traveled with

    Cortes) reports that the Mexican

    Indians

    gave

    batches of young women

    (some of them nieces and daughters of

    Indian leaders)

    to

    the conquistadorsas

    gifts. The Caribs made a practice of

    capturing

    women

    from the

    neighboring Arawak uibes to use as

    concubines. Younger women were

    kept and used to reproduce babies

    which were considered a rare delicacy

    at special celebrations. (Remember, it

    is

    from

    the name Ca rib thatwe delive

    our word cannibal. )

    Erik Elikson has obselved in his

    book Childhood and Society, that

    Sioux girls had to be taught to tie their

    thighs together at night in order

    t

    prevent being raped by the boys, it

    was considered proper for a youth to

    rape any maiden whom he caught

    outside the areas defined for decent

    girls: a girl who did not know

    her

    place' was his legitimate prey, and he

    could boast

    of

    the deed. (quoted in

    Family Matters, Why Homeschooling

    Makes Sense, by David Guterson).

    Was there sexism ? Indian women

    did most

    of the heavy work while the

    men

    hunt

    e

    d.

    They were allowed

    to

    eat

    only after the

    men

    had eaten their fill.

    Until the anival of

    th

    e horse, the

    women canied the family belongings

    when the tribe migrated (who needs a

    pack mule when you have a good

    woman?). Robelt Royal points out

    that the Calibs' own wo

    men

    were kept

    segregated from the men to such an

    exten t that

    the

    two sexes

    spoke

    separate languages. Only the

    men

    spoke Calib; the women, even Carib

    women, spoke Arawak because of the

    large

    numbers

    of captive Arawak

    women among them: (1492 And All

    That, p . lOS) Therealityi

    sthatwomen

    were treated and viewedbymost tribes

    as nothing more than property t be

    used as the

    men

    pleased. They were,

    for all practical

    purposes,

    slaves.

    (Where is Betty Friedan when y

    ou

    need her?)

    TheMuskogean Natchez of he U.s.

    southeast regularly killed the wives

    of

    up pe r-caste males

    when

    their

    husbands died. The Tahltans of

    western

    Canada,

    killed

    the

    male

    prisoners and enslaved the women

    of

    their enemies. The Pawnee observed

    an annualMorning Stanitual in which

    a captive maiden was saclificed and

    her heart cut

    out

    (and

    th

    is practice

    continued t the 19th century).

    Robert Royal concludes, Indeed,

    the pOsition of women in the Americas

    prior .to European co ntacts was

    generally worse than it was in the

    so-called European patriarchies. I

    dare say, a couple

    of

    weeks in a typical

    uibe would have even Bella Abzug

    begging for a

    return

    to twentieth

    century oppression:

    November, 1993 THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon l3

  • 8/12/2019 1993 Issue 9 - His Story - Gods Providence, The Indian as Egalitarian - Counsel of Chalcedon

    2/4

    INDIAN

    ELITISM

    Every pagan culture exalts itself

    and despises all others. Racism is

    inherent

    in

    sinful man.

    this

    was true

    of

    Indians as well. Most Indian tribes

    regarded

    themselves as the only

    humans

    and

    all other tribesasbeasts.

    The Iroquois viewed themselves as the

    wisest of

    men

    and all other tribes as

    barbarians. The Algonquians

    meanwhile, called the Iroquois the

    Nation

    of

    Snakes. This hatred of

    outsidersis one reason foIthe difficulty

    in

    learning the actual names of certain

    Indian groups. They are

    so COnsistently

    referred

    to in

    pejorative terms, that it is

    almost impossible to lmow their true

    names. This race-basedanimosity was

    viciously displayed when outsiders

    were captured. The tortures endured

    by

    foreigners

    at

    the handsof the peace

    loving humans

    make

    horrifying

    reading.

    This self-important disdain for

    others also extended

    to

    the whiteman.

    Many have portrayed the Indians as

    overawed by White Supremacy. This

    is true only in regard to the technology

    (and

    fire

    power) the

    EUJopeans

    displayed. Beyond that, the Indian

    had

    nothing

    but

    disdain for the whites

    withwhom they-came in contact. They

    ridiculed white ignorance

    0

    f the land

    and

    its ways.

    It is true that many tribes would

    adopt captured members of other

    tribes (and even whites) to replace

    their own members who had been

    killed in battle. But this fact does not

    contradict

    the

    racial

    bias that

    dominated. The outsiders were

    accepted only

    in

    as

    far

    as theyaccepted

    and.participated in the culture of the

    tribe. Cultural pluralism, which

    modem multi-culturalists

    so

    much

    adore, was

    unknown

    among any of he

    Indians --

    it

    simply did not exist.

    Elitism was also found even within

    tribes. The Tainos

    had

    three social

    castes. According to their faith, human

    beings sprung from two caves on the

    mountain Cauta. The one (the cave

    of

    the jagua Tree),

    gave

    birth to rulers.

    The other named Amayauna, was the

    place of the people without merit,

    and sent forth the commoners. These

    sortS

    0

    f social disrinctions were not

    unusual. The members of the lower

    classesalong with the weak were made

    the regular victims of discrimination.

    Belonging

    to

    the upper class did not

    guarantee respect once you became

    aged or infirm. The sick and elderly

    were often killed so they would not

    inconvenience the tribe during a

    migration. .

    Often, infra-tribal

    jealousies

    prevented the development of

    any

    sort

    of tribal political structure. john

    Greenway has noted that most tribes

    had

    no

    concept of a chief until the

    coming of the white man. The white

    man

    naturally looked

    for

    a formal

    political structure with a leader or

    chief,

    but

    when such inquiries were

    initially made, they drew only a blank

    stare or complete puzzlement

    from

    .

    the Indians. [Tlhe nearest any Indian

    tribe got

    to

    a chiefwas somebody who

    could persuade a

    few

    young braves to

    accompany him

    in

    a sneak. aid on the

    neighbors' horses. Thus, whoever

    was the strongest (or the most brutal)

    became chief, ruled autocratically,

    and, consequently, got the privilege of

    dealing with the paleface authorities.

    Greenwaynotes ruefully,

    Several

    such

    expeditions [raids against whites or

    other Indians] would authorize a

    warrior

    to

    sign treaties with the whites

    and eventually visit Washington

    fOJ

    ,a .

    real raid. ( Will the Indian Get

    Whitey, National Review, March

    1969)

    INDIAN PLURALISM

    There persists the idea that the

    Indians of North America actually

    constituted nations

    in

    a primitive,

    constitutional sense. Some have

    suggested

    that

    these early, native

    14 THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon November, 1993

    Americanconfederationswere the true

    model for the American republic.

    David

    Van

    Every's Disinherited is a

    nOtoriolls example of this. Van Every

    not

    only

    asserts the existenceof twenty

    great Indian nations but

    goeS

    on

    to

    praise the

    pure

    democracy that

    flOUrished

    within these nations. Van

    Every

    confidently assertS the Indian's

    instinctivesympathy with the Negro

    and their abhorrence of slaveryas an

    institution. Alas, however,

    his own

    book contradicts these assertions (he

    gives the

    censusof he CherokeeNation

    in

    1825,wherein isnoted the existence

    of 1,277 Negro slaves. These slaves

    were, by the way, prohibited from

    owning cattle, voting, or marrying

    Indians.)

    The idea, however, that there was

    some sort of pan-tribal unity (a native

    American exampleo e pluribusunum)

    is an illusion.

    john

    Greenway notes

    that the very concept

    of

    tribe was

    introduced by white men,

    The

    real

    Indian was only mOSt tenuously a

    member of atribe. His

    ecolOgical

    unit

    was the nomadic

    band,

    either

    hunting-gathering or primitive

    agricultural, with little cohesion

    beyondanapproximation

    to

    acommon

    language and some weak psychological

    unity. These marauding

    social

    fragments cohered

    only

    when

    profitableraiding [oracommon enemy

    --

    jsw] was visible.

    Again,

    to

    quote Robert Royal,

    Tribal systems, almost by definition,

    exist by sharply delineating those

    within

    from

    those outside the kinship

    system, though kinship among most

    Native

    AmericanS is

    a primarily social

    rather than' biological, concept. . . .

    The

    lroqu'ois tribes stopped

    perpetrating cannibalism

    on

    one

    another after

    forming their

    confederation,but continuedit, along

    with torture, against ' captives '

    Tom

    othertribes. Those who find modem '

    m a i n s t r e a m A m e r i c i h o r r i b l y e x c I U s i v ~

    and its treatmetit of variOUs groups'

  • 8/12/2019 1993 Issue 9 - His Story - Gods Providence, The Indian as Egalitarian - Counsel of Chalcedon

    3/4

    outrageouslyinequitablemight benefit

    from some exposure to comparative

    ethnology."

    Enslavement, cannibalism, and

    torture of

    other

    Indians were

    commonplace throughout the native

    American cultures of North and South

    America.

    Tribes

    that

    accepted

    Christianity

    and

    relented

    in

    their

    cruelty toward others,

    as

    the Huron,

    were simply wiped out by more ruthless

    tribes like the Iroquois. The early

    French explorers (who were not exactly

    strangers to torture and

    brutality) were often

    shocked speechless by

    the cruelty manifested by

    Indians to their captives.

    Inter-tribal warfare

    was nearly constant in pre

    and post-Columbian

    America.

    Both

    the

    Algonquian and

    Iroquoian

    cultures

    sanctioned corporate

    revenge on neighboring

    tribes.

    Of

    course, such

    revenge provoked

    retaliation from

    the

    injured

    party

    so

    that

    many tribes lived in a state

    of continual warfare. One reason the

    Tainos were so fiiendlywith Columbus

    and his

    men

    was that they saw them

    as

    potential allies against the merdless

    Caribs. Thus occurred the first in

    what was to become a long selies of

    wars where Europeans were drawn

    into disputes which had begun long

    years before.

    The

    modem

    view of the Indian

    as

    the Great Pacifist is pure moonshine.

    Royal makes this observation, We

    grow apprehensive over the violence

    between gangsin ourinner cities today.

    But for

    cenfUries raids of one group on

    another were

    pan

    of evelyday life in

    most of pre-Columbian Amelica."

    (Columbus

    On

    Trial, p. 35) John

    Greenway points out how integral

    warfare was to native Amelican

    life,

    "they [the Indians] fought for the

    fighting. Without war and raiding and

    scalping and rape and pillage and

    slavetaking, the Indian was as aimless

    as a chiropractor without a spine."

    ("Will the Indians

    Get

    Whitey?")

    The

    histOlY

    of Indian migrations

    on this continent is illustrative. There

    was nothing that remotely resembled

    fixed

    boundaries among these nibes.

    BoundalY

    lines, such

    as

    they were,

    were constantly redrawn as one nibe

    gained ascendance over another and

    drove their enemies

    from

    the territory.

    To

    say then that the Europeans "stole"

    the land

    from

    the "original owners" is

    to assume a condition that did not

    exist. There were no "owners."

    Most

    tribes lived a nomadic existence

    moving from one piece of ground

    to

    another. In the face of this, the

    European concern

    to

    purchase the land

    from

    the Indians was quite comical

    -

    to the Indians. They stood in amused

    incredulity over the naivete exhibited

    by these Chlistian Europeans who

    felt

    obligated to pay them

    for

    land

    This points to the highly selective

    indignation that afflicts those who seek

    "justice" for the Indian. Let us not ny

    to justify any dirty-dealing by wicked

    white men,

    but

    the plain fact is, the

    Indians have

    no

    grounds for strong

    complaint. Consider the case of the

    Sioux. It is generally acknowledged

    that among all the tribes, the claims of

    the Sioux to the Black Hills area of

    South Dakota and Wyoming have the

    most legitimacy. The Sioux have

    complained that the white

    man

    took

    the land illegally, by force. Yet no one

    bothers

    inquiring how

    the

    Sioux

    obtained the land

    in

    the first place.

    Ah,

    well, since you asked:

    The Sioux came into

    possession of the Black

    Hills

    in the mid-17th

    century by driving out (by

    force)

    the

    Kiowa and

    Cheyenne tribes this

    occurred,

    inCidentally,

    after the Sioux

    had

    been

    forCibly driven

    from

    Minnesota

    and

    southern

    Ontalio

    by

    he Ojibways).

    You

    say, "Well let's

    give it

    to

    the Kiowa and

    Cheyenne " Not so

    fast.

    The

    Kiowas

    and

    Cheyennes drove out the

    Crows who apparently

    had driven out

    the

    Arapaho who

    had

    lived there 1,000

    years previously. We have no certain

    information on the people who

    inhabited the land before the Arapaho.

    Paul Valentine observes, "One thing is

    certain: No single group lived

    in

    the

    Black Hills pennanently from the mists

    of time. Rather, tribe after llibe, all

    culturally disparate, spealdng different

    languages, praying to different gods,

    squabbled over the land. The only

    difference is that some of the later

    tribesmen had

    white

    faces.'"

    ("Hollywood's Noble Indians:

    Are

    We

    Dancing With Myths?" Washington

    Post, 3/31/9

    I

    We could

    go

    on, but you get the

    drift. The

    modem

    view of the Indian

    is a tad distorted. Keep these realities

    November 1993 TH COUNSEL

    o

    Chalcedon l' 15

  • 8/12/2019 1993 Issue 9 - His Story - Gods Providence, The Indian as Egalitarian - Counsel of Chalcedon

    4/4

    in mind

    when you

    hear

    Kirkpatrick

    Sale pontificate, "There is only one

    way to live

    in

    America, and there can

    be only one way,

    and that is as

    Americans -- the original Americans

    --

    for

    thal is what the

    earth

    of

    the

    Americas demands. We have tried

    for five

    centuri

    es to resist

    that

    simple

    truth:

    I don t

    know

    about you, but

    I am

    glad

    to let Mr. Sale have all he

    wants

    of

    native

    American culture

    (and

    many

    converted "native Americans"

    would say "Amen").

    None

    of this should be

    taken to

    imply

    that every

    Indian

    tribe was full

    of

    unmitigated evil.

    There

    were

    differences among

    the

    Indians just as

    there are within any race or culture.

    Not all were equally degraded or evil.

    There are

    examples

    of nobility,

    courage, loyalty, and love among the

    Indians just as there are among all

    men.

    The

    point of this article is to

    demonstrate

    how many

    historians are

    dealing with history.

    Whatwe have

    in

    the historyof the

    Indians is

    true of

    the history

    of many

    other

    peoples;

    it

    is

    history

    as

    propaganda. One is driven to ask:

    Why are

    the

    same

    standards

    not

    applied to native American cultures

    that are readily applied to Western

    culture? Why are the Indians excused

    for

    doing that

    for

    which

    the white

    man is excoriated? Why

    is

    the West

    condemned

    for itspriestsand religion

    while theshamanismandsuperstition

    of pagan cultures is defended? Why

    is the one intolerably offensive and

    the other indescribably beautiful? I

    he

    First 35

    Years

    hope

    by

    now,

    the answers to these

    questiOns are obvious.

    When you

    read most modem

    history, you are merely reading the

    bigotries of men

    who

    hate God and

    the society

    produced

    by His Word

    and grace. Their writings are

    one

    longexercise

    in

    seeking "to break His

    bonds

    in pieces and cast away

    His

    cords" (Psalm 2:3). Most of modem

    historiography is marked by a

    profound

    hatred of Christendom and

    thus, anything

    (no matter

    how

    revolting it may be

    in

    truth) is

    better

    (after some careful editing) than Christ

    and Hisculture. This tragic

    blindness

    should

    cause

    you both

    to

    read

    wali y

    and to

    weep.n

    For

    over

    100years Americans have been subjected to historical misin

    formation. We have been given lies for

    truth

    and myths for facts.

    Modern, unbelieving historians have hidden

    the truth

    of ournation's

    history from us. America:1 heFirst35QYears notonlycorrects the lies,

    but

    also

    points

    out

    things

    "overlooked" by modern historians.

    t

    interprets American history from a Christian perspective so thatyou

    hearnotonlywhathappened, bywhyithappened- and

    whatitmeans

    to

    us

    today. 32 lectures on 16-90 minute cassettes, 200 page note

    book,

    16

    page

    study goide, lecture outlines, index bibliography.

    special

    rate

    for ounsel of halcedon readers-

    lvlERICA: The First 350 Years-$64.95 x _

    Louisiana residents

    add

    7 sales tax

    ( JJ,;):

    SHIPPING AND HANDLING: Add 10 (15 UPS) =

    (Check or Money Order) Total Enclosed

    (name)

    (Street Address o r P.O. Box)

    (Oty)

    (State)

    (Zip)

    PLEASE ALLOW 4-6 WEEKS FOR DELIVERY

    Send self-addressed stamped envelope to receive more informatio.n

    . . - . - . _

    .

    16 THE COUNSEL

    of

    Chalcedon November, 1993