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