NationStates Jolt Archive

Sure, you can join a religion. You can become a Muslim, a Christian, and Buddhist, whatever...but you can't unilaterally join a culture. Seems obvious, doesn't it? Then why do so many people think that they can practice 'native spirituality'? Because they don't understand that our spirituality is not a religion. It's a communal aspect of our culture, and you don't just get to run off with it and become a tribe of one.

So sorry Miss Rainbow Woman and Mister Chief Smiling Moon. When we call you disgusting fakes, it's because we don't accept you. And to those poor fools who buy your 'real Indian spirituality in only three sessions'...*sigh*

Sure, you can join a religion. You can become a Muslim, a Christian, and Buddhist, whatever...but you can't unilaterally join a culture. Seems obvious, doesn't it? Then why do so many people think that they can practice 'native spirituality'? Because they don't understand that our spirituality is not a religion. It's a communal aspect of our culture, and you don't just get to run off with it and become a tribe of one.

So sorry Miss Rainbow Woman and Mister Chief Smiling Moon. When we call you disgusting fakes, it's because we don't accept you. And to those poor fools who buy your 'real Indian spirituality in only three sessions'...*sigh*
WTF brought THAT on, pray tell?? :eek:

Wait! I changed my mind! I now declare myself to be a member of the Bai (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bai) culture! I don't speak my traditional language, but I will now speak for all Bai people! Yahoo!

WTF brought THAT on, pray tell?? :eek:I concur. I'm equally confuzzled...:confused:

Someone doing that would kind of strike me as insulting to the group he or she was copying.

did something happen to set you off?

people who wouldnt DREAM of stealing something from ...say catholicism..they wouldnt put on a cassock and say they are a priest...think nothing of grabbing a bit of native spirituality, mostly utterly wrong, and running with it.

WTF brought THAT on, pray tell?? :eek:
A while back, a guy claiming to be the inherent traditional chief of the Ashinabe Nation sent out press releases...read about the fraud here (http://users.pandora.be/gohiyuhi/frauds/frd0087.htm).

Some other interesting info on 'fake Indians' here (http://users.pandora.be/gohiyuhi/nafps/articles/index.htm#TopOfType1).

It comes up fairly often that someone publishes a book or sets up a web-page and claims to be native. It's a rather dangeous practice...I'll get into that in a bit.

A while back, a guy claiming to be the inherent traditional chief of the Ashinabe Nation sent out press releases...read about the fraud here (http://users.pandora.be/gohiyuhi/frauds/frd0087.htm).

Some other interesting info on 'fake Indians' here (http://users.pandora.be/gohiyuhi/nafps/articles/index.htm#TopOfType1).

It comes up fairly often that someone publishes a book or sets up a web-page and claims to be native. It's a rather dangeous practice...I'll get into that in a bit.I think I can relate to how you feel. It irks me to no end seeing American White Power folks jabbing on about their German or Prussian roots and then massacrating Folksongs such as Grün, grün, grün sind alle meine Kleider or selling BAVARIAN clothes on their sites, claiming they're traditional GERMAN clothes :rolleyes:

I agree. It's stupid. It's like when people come to America and think they can just learn the language and take a test and all of a sudden they get to be Americans. :mad:

did something happen to set you off?
Someone sent me a copy of a book. That book ( http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/1879181770/102-0471735-5700164) is an example of something I find very offensive. It is by a woman claiming to be a member of a non-existent tribe, making all sorts of false claims, and getting away with it. At least admit that your book is a fiction. Here is a bit of background ( http://users.pandora.be/gohiyuhi/nafps/articles/art17.htm) on the fraud. It's a total piece of crap, and yet it's being touted by all sorts of intellectuals...WHITE intellectuals mind you, as a stunning piece of cultural work. Frick off.

Sure, you can join a religion. You can become a Muslim, a Christian, and Buddhist, whatever...but you can't unilaterally join a culture. Seems obvious, doesn't it? Then why do so many people think that they can practice 'native spirituality'? Because they don't understand that our spirituality is not a religion. It's a communal aspect of our culture, and you don't just get to run off with it and become a tribe of one.

So sorry Miss Rainbow Woman and Mister Chief Smiling Moon. When we call you disgusting fakes, it's because we don't accept you. And to those poor fools who buy your 'real Indian spirituality in only three sessions'...*sigh*


I hate several replies to mock your hysteria, but then decided this seems important to you.

Sorry to see you upset. Point me toward the offender-We'll see who he appeals to in his last moments.

thats the true measure of what people believe-the actual moment of truth.



And Sin-take a deep breath.

Someone doing that would kind of strike me as insulting to the group he or she was copying.

What if it is done out of admiration and the belief that it is truly a better way of life.

I smell ethnocentrism in this thread.

I agree. It's stupid. It's like when people come to America and think they can just learn the language and take a test and all of a sudden they get to be Americans. :mad:I know you're joking, but I feel compelled to say this.
America is an exception. We're a culture built on incorporating elements of other cultures which were brought here by immigrants.

What if it is done out of admiration and the belief that it is truly a better way of life.

I smell ethnocentrism in this thread.
If you admire a culture don't take a shortcut to mimic it. Get to know people in it and let them show you. In the long run it will keep you from looking like a fool.

Someone sent me a copy of a book. That book ( http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/1879181770/102-0471735-5700164) is an example of something I find very offensive. It is by a woman claiming to be a member of a non-existent tribe, making all sorts of false claims, and getting away with it. At least admit that your book is a fiction. Here is a bit of background ( http://users.pandora.be/gohiyuhi/nafps/articles/art17.htm) on the fraud. It's a total piece of crap, and yet it's being touted by all sorts of intellectuals...WHITE intellectuals mind you, as a stunning piece of cultural work. Frick off.


Dont make this a WHITE vs.INDIAN issue just because of a few shitheads.

A while back, a thread about saunas, spas and sweat lodges kind of irked me, because a sweat lodge is something particularly important to native people. It is not just a 'quaint sauna'. But there are people out there who market 'sweats' to tourists. So what? Well, it can actually be very dangerous if not done properly. In our mind, it can be dangerous spiritually too, but I'll focus on the physical danger. Specific rocks are needed...if you don't use the right ones, when you pour the water on them to create the steam, you can cause the rocks to explode into deadly little fragments. There are many cases of people dying in fake sweat lodges, from overheating, dehydration, heart attacks, etc. As well, there have been numerous cases of 'shamans' telling women that they need to go into the sweat naked...and then using this opportunity to sexually assault them.

you can't unilaterally join a culture

...except for the low introductory price of $1500. supplies won't last, so come in today!

What if it is done out of admiration and the belief that it is truly a better way of life.

I smell ethnocentrism in this thread.
Smell it all you want. My point is that in order to become part of a culture, you must be accepted by that culture. Not unanimously...that's impossible. But you can't just decide all by yourself to join, and *poof* it becomes so. If you truly admire a culture, and want to join it, you need to learn about it. Particularly in the case of native cultures, you can't just pick up a book and figure it out. You have to come meet us, and learn with us. Few if ANY of these frauds have done that. They make shit up, based on stupid stereotypes about us. Our spirituality is not for sale. No real native healer would charge for his or her services.

Dont make this a WHITE vs.INDIAN issue just because of a few shitheads.
It isn't a white versus indian issue...it's a shithead issue. My point in saying White in that context was that a bunch of people validating another bunch of people don't make a truth. All these PhDs singing this woman's praises have no idea what they are talking about.

...but you can't unilaterally join a culture.
I smell Herder musk.
Anyhow, I'll keep trying to join Nordic culture, as soon as everyone gets over my cheesey habits.

Someone sent me a copy of a book. That book ( http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/1879181770/102-0471735-5700164) is an example of something I find very offensive. It is by a woman claiming to be a member of a non-existent tribe, making all sorts of false claims, and getting away with it. At least admit that your book is a fiction. Here is a bit of background ( http://users.pandora.be/gohiyuhi/nafps/articles/art17.htm) on the fraud. It's a total piece of crap, and yet it's being touted by all sorts of intellectuals...WHITE intellectuals mind you, as a stunning piece of cultural work. Frick off.
she has a long list of "experts" who praise her book. i wonder if they are all frauds also or if they just didnt read it and are being "polite"

i hope the white mountain apaches sue her ass for fraud.

...except for the low introductory price of $1500. supplies won't last, so come in today!
Hehehehe...and there are many scams that will give you a 'real indian name', and even 'adopt you into the tribe'!

*shudders*

what i want to know is exactly how dumb are all these new agers? and why?

she has a long list of "experts" who praise her book. i wonder if they are all frauds also or if they just didnt read it and are being "polite"

i hope the white mountain apaches sue her ass for fraud.

Maria Yracébûrû is a Quero Apache Tlish Diyan 'tsanti--a storyteller, healer, ceremonial facilitator, and teacher of the Snake Clan knowledge and philosophy. As a 'tsant' trained since birth by her grandfather Ten Bears, she is the guardian of ancient and mysterious knowledge that has been passed down through countless generations. A healer and teacher for over 25 years, Maria's articles have been translated into 20 different languages. She lives in San Diego, California.

Would someone get away with claiming to be a part of any other culture like that? I mean, if she claimed to be a Tibetan healer, trained by the Dalai Lama...wait...she might actually get a following that way. I know it doesn't happen just to us...but yuck! Maybe she also moonlights as a Pictish Princess

Smell it all you want. My point is that in order to become part of a culture, you must be accepted by that culture. Not unanimously...that's impossible. You can't just decide to join. If you truly admire a culture, and want to join it, you need to learn about it. Particularly in the case of native cultures, you can't just pick up a book and figure it out. You have to come meet us, and learn with us. Few if ANY of these frauds have done that. They make shit up, based on stupid stereotypes about us. Our spirituality is not for sale. No real native healer would charge for his or her services.

You seem to think that you have a monopoly on that culture. But culture is not something you own, and it certainly not a social club that requires a secret handshake.

If people want to take on the better aspects of a culture for their own, then so be it, they will likely be better for it. I think it takes a ridiculous amount of pride to look down on someone for it.

what i want to know is exactly how dumb are all these new agers? and why?
I think it's because they don't value their own culture and have been conditioned to assume that aboriginal cultures are superior spiritually or environmentally or whatever, so they try to copy them.

Would someone get away with claiming to be a part of any other culture like that? I mean, if she claimed to be a Tibetan healer, trained by the Dalai Lama...wait...she might actually get a following that way. I know it doesn't happen just to us...but yuck! Maybe she also moonlights as a Pictish Princess

Lobsang 'Tuesday' Rampa did so sucessfully for many years.

Plenty of people ponce around pretending to be druids also.

You seem to think that you have a monopoly on that culture. But culture is not something you own, and it certainly not a social club that requires a secret handshake.

If people want to take on the better aspects of a culture for their own, then so be it, they will likely be better for it. I think it takes a ridiculous amount of pride to look down on someone for it.You're missing the point. People here aren't taking "aspects" of the culture, they're claiming it as their own heritage when this isn't the case.

Well, I suppose a lot of it stems from the fact that much of Western culture is quite poor. It's all mass-produced and fake, and there's an allure of something more "real" and "closer to nature". That doesn't make it right, of course, but I can see why someone would find "native spirituality" attractive.

Would someone get away with claiming to be a part of any other culture like that? I mean, if she claimed to be a Tibetan healer, trained by the Dalai Lama...wait...she might actually get a following that way. I know it doesn't happen just to us...but yuck! Maybe she also moonlights as a Pictish Princess

I will agree with you that the author of this book seems to ape every spiritual belief in the book just to sell her own books, and that is reprehensible.

what i want to know is exactly how dumb are all these new agers? and why?
It really does seem to be a new Age phenomena...and I thought that movement was over and in its grave (but I also thought Christian religious fundamentalism was on the decline, so what do I know?). But lately, all these 'Medicine Wheel Reiki therapy' and 'Ancient Toltec tantric sex workshops' are popping up again. Many of these sites get shut down once native groups find out and start pestering them, so that's good. But I just don't understand how people can be sucked into it. Then again, we live in a society of cultural appropriation. But the issue of fraud is a serious one. Invent your own new age 'spirituality', but don't try to speak for real people.

You're missing the point. People here aren't taking "aspects" of the culture, they're claiming it as their own heritage when this isn't the case.

Sinuhue made no mention of heritage, she pretty much stated if you weren't born native, you can't live like a native.

That bears a lot of resemblence to the people who say if you aren't born American, you can't live like an American, and it is simply untrue.

You seem to think that you have a monopoly on that culture. But culture is not something you own, and it certainly not a social club that requires a secret handshake. But it absolutely requires acceptance. How could you possibly claim to be a Cree healer when you are neither Cree, accepted by the Cree, or trained as a Cree healer?

If people want to take on the better aspects of a culture for their own, then so be it, they will likely be better for it. I think it takes a ridiculous amount of pride to look down on someone for it.
The problem is that people in this case are NOT taking on aspects of real culture. That's what you don't seem to understand. Most of these fakes haven't the slightest clue about the cultures they are claiming to be a part of. They make up rituals, and legends, and carve pipes based on pictures, without the littlest understanding of the culture they wish to speak for. I'm talking about fraud, not real interest. And I absolutely look down upon, and feel contempt for someone who decides that they are suddenly the reincarnation of Sitting Bull, and for $70 will pass down 'traditional native teaching from the elders themselves'. It's fraudulent. It's misleading, and it's insulting.

Sinuhue made no mention of heritage, she pretty much stated if you weren't born native, you can't live like a native. No I didn't. I said you can't unilaterally join our culture. Don't make up my argument for me.

Invent your own new age 'spirituality', but don't try to speak for real people.

indeed - if you're just making stuff up anyways, and new agers will believe anything, why not just say that you 'had a vision' and start from scratch? it's not like the new agers demand 'credibility' or a long tradition to believe other things. so why even pretend?

Sinuhue made no mention of heritage, she pretty much stated if you weren't born native, you can't live like a native.

That bears a lot of resemblence to the people who say if you aren't born American, you can't live like an American, and it is simply untrue.Not really. She was saying you need to be accepted by the culture (and she made sure to say not unanimously).

But maybe I should stop arguing other people's points :p

I think it's because they don't value their own culture and have been conditioned to assume that aboriginal cultures are superior spiritually or environmentally or whatever, so they try to copy them.
Which is weird, considering that our cultures were held in contempt for so long. But the 'noble savage' image is as damaging as the 'just savage' one.

What if it is done out of admiration and the belief that it is truly a better way of life.

I smell ethnocentrism in this thread.

That's funny. I had the same thought. ;)

Would someone get away with claiming to be a part of any other culture like that? I mean, if she claimed to be a Tibetan healer, trained by the Dalai Lama...wait...she might actually get a following that way. I know it doesn't happen just to us...but yuck! Maybe she also moonlights as a Pictish Princess

now i dont know alot of apaches. i live in new mexico so ive met a few in my time

but what apache brought up in the traditional ways, taking the years necessary to become a healer, moves to san diego to set up shop selling "healings" to white people?

anyone that knowlegeable about their own culture knows it doesnt work on nonbelievers.

shes not a wannabe shes a scam artist.

That's funny. I had the same thought. ;)
I think you're simply on the defensive. Read further.

sin, have you ever seen this film (http://www.der.org/films/incidents-of-travel.html)?

Yeah? Says who? What is a "culture" anyway? It's a vaguely defined and informal grouping of people. There's no law to it. It's not a nation or a club. You don't have to pass a written test or application.

If I say I'm turning Japanese, I think I'm turning Japanese, I really think so, then by god I AM!

Hehehehe...and there are many scams that will give you a 'real indian name', and even 'adopt you into the tribe'!

*shudders*
Can we say Chief Chickenshit of Colorado and his Loonie Left Followers?

I knew we could. I grew up next to the Arapaho Reservation in Wyoming. Self hating (usually) Liberal USian Whites have found it chic to play "Indian" in their quest for spiritual naval gazing and rabble rousing.

Personally I would like to see how they could handle living on the 'Rez in substandard housing for a few years.

I'm totally with you on this one Sin.

If I say I'm turning Japanese, I think I'm turning Japanese, I really think so, then by god I AM!
Amen and halleluja!

I found this amusing, from a native site ( http://users.pandora.be/gohiyuhi/frauds/index.htm) that looks into newage 'indian' frauds:

I've recieved numerous emails from people wanting to know where to go for 'authentic native teachings.' And even a few accusing me of hiding teachings from them because they're white. I am going to post a list of native authors that I can reccomend to people looking to find out about native people. But none of them are going to be about 'native american spirituality,' at least - not about the kind that people are looking for. I get email after email from people looking to live well with 'Mother Earth.' The only 'native wisdom' kind of thing I ever heard from anyone in my family was this : Don't shit where you want to get a drink. That's such a simple idea, even my ferret understands it. Apply that to all areas of your life and you'll be just fine. Don't pollute, keep yourself clean, don't go out of your way to fight with people. So PLEASE stop emailing me to ask how to get back to living in peace with the earth. I just told you what I know.

If you really want to learn, find the right resources. The best resources out there are the people themselves...but leave your preconceptions about our culture at the door.

But it absolutely requires acceptance. How could you possibly claim to be a Cree healer when you are neither Cree, accepted by the Cree, or trained as a Cree healer?

Certainly I would not claim that one can call themselves Cree just from reading a book or even studying the culture. There has to be some immersion. But there is nothing stopping someone from adopting a culture for their own and living their life as if they were Cree.

The problem is that people in this case are NOT taking on aspects of real culture. That's what you don't seem to understand. Most of these fakes haven't the slightest clue about the cultures they are claiming to be a part of. They make up rituals, and legends, and carve pipes based on pictures, without the littlest understanding of the culture they wish to speak for. I'm talking about fraud, not real interest. And I absolutely look down upon, and feel contempt for someone who decides that they are suddenly the reincarnation of Sitting Bull, and for $70 will pass down 'traditional native teaching from the elders themselves'. It's fraudulent. It's misleading, and it's insulting.

You should have related the details of the book in the original post. In the original post, at least to me, it seemed that you were ranting about anyone who wanted to adopt a native culture, rather than ranting about people who were exploiting native culture.

sin, have you ever seen this film (http://www.der.org/films/incidents-of-travel.html)?
No, I haven't...but the description is very telling:

This original ethnographic video depicts how New Agers, the Mexican state, tourists, and 1920s archaeologists all contend to "clear" the site of the antique Maya city of Chichen Itza in order to produce their own idealized and unobstructed visions of "Maya" while the local Maya themselves struggle to occupy the site as vendors and artisans.

People ask...where did the Maya go? Here's a clue. Go to México and Guatemala. Look around. You'll find them, still very much alive.

Yeah? Says who? What is a "culture" anyway? It's a vaguely defined and informal grouping of people. There's no law to it. It's not a nation or a club. You don't have to pass a written test or application.

If I say I'm turning Japanese, I think I'm turning Japanese, I really think so, then by god I AM!
Alright then. But when Japanese people point and laugh, and call you whitey, just remember that your inner-japanese will sustain you:)

No I didn't. I said you can't unilaterally join our culture. Don't make up my argument for me.

"Then why do so many people think that they can practice 'native spirituality'? Because they don't understand that our spirituality is not a religion. It's a communal aspect of our culture, and you don't just get to run off with it and become a tribe of one."

In other words, you cannot take on the culture unless you are a member of the people who make up the culture.

Sure you aren't saying that you don't have to be born native, but you are saying that the society has to accept you before you can accept the culture.

Yeah? Says who? What is a "culture" anyway? It's a vaguely defined and informal grouping of people. There's no law to it. It's not a nation or a club. You don't have to pass a written test or application.

If I say I'm turning Japanese, I think I'm turning Japanese, I really think so, then by god I AM!
and the only people who would agree with you are those who know nothing about japan and japanese culture

Alright then. But when Japanese people point and laugh, and call you whitey, just remember that your inner-japanese will sustain you:)

And shame on those Japanese for making judgements on how I think I should live my life.

Alright then. But when Japanese people point and laugh, and call you whitey, just remember that your inner-japanese will sustain you
NEWSWEEK had a report a few months on how Japanese are no longer really Japanese, and that people much like the person you quoted are the only people keeping Japanese culture going. Japanese respect these people that have chosen Japan as their culture, and commend thier efforts, and go about thier lives as normal (as in, not Japanese at all, according the foreigners). Japan has obviously decided that one must not be born into Japan to be Japanese, its only a state of mind, something that most of Old Europe and other cultures are still contemplating.

and the only people who would agree with you are those who know nothing about japan and japanese culture

Never listened to DEVO eh?

Certainly I would not claim that one can call themselves Cree just from reading a book or even studying the culture. There has to be some immersion. But there is nothing stopping someone from adopting a culture for their own and living their life as if they were Cree.There IS something that can stop a person from adopting a culture as their own and living their life as if they were Cree. Rejection. You don't learn culture in a vacuum. You can't pick up a book on 'how to become a Cree'. If we don't accept you, you won't be taught. Period. You will not be Cree. Not legally, not culturally, not in anything but your imagination.

You should have related the details of the book in the original post. In the original post, at least to me, it seemed that you were ranting about anyone who wanted to adopt a native culture, rather than ranting about people who were exploiting native culture.
I felt the distinction was clear enough. You can not unilaterally join a culture. Whether that is a native culture, or not. You can ape it. But not join it without actual contact with that culture. Though that is clearly up for debate.

Alright then. But when Japanese people point and laugh, and call you whitey, just remember that your inner-japanese will sustain you:)

I wouldn't be called whitey, I'd be gaijin.

But in my heart yes, my inner Japanese sustains me.

And when I say Japanese, I really mean tentacle rape porn. But whatever.

Never listened to DEVO eh?
no i surely havent. was that a quote from a devo song

I agree. It's stupid. It's like when people come to America and think they can just learn the language and take a test and all of a sudden they get to be Americans. :mad:

Forgive me, but there are legal channels to become an American, or an Afghan, or a German, or any blooming place you care to name. It's called "becoming a citizen".It will not make a person intrinsically of a culture, but does infer large portions of the national identity on them.

And if people want to join a new culture or country, let them, it's part of the fundamental human right to self determination.

People ask...where did the Maya go? Here's a clue. Go to México and Guatemala. Look around. You'll find them, still very much alive.

not according to the new ager sitting in a temple at the top of one of the pyramids in the video. while he takes a break from playing his didgeridoo as part of a 'mayan ceremony', he expounds on the fact that the maya were some sort of god-like alien master race. he may even have mentioned the fact that he was a reincarnated mayan king, so he would know.

Sure, you can join a religion. You can become a Muslim, a Christian, and Buddhist, whatever...but you can't unilaterally join a culture. Seems obvious, doesn't it? Then why do so many people think that they can practice 'native spirituality'? Because they don't understand that our spirituality is not a religion. It's a communal aspect of our culture, and you don't just get to run off with it and become a tribe of one.
Read the complete quote, thanks.


In other words, you cannot take on the culture unless you are a member of the people who make up the culture. That's right. And culture is not defined by ethnicity. Clearly, you can not be part of a culture...if you aren't PART OF A CULTURE.

Sure you aren't saying that you don't have to be born native, but you are saying that the society has to accept you before you can accept the culture. Yes. That is what I'm saying. Society as a whole does not have to accept you, but some part of that culture does. Culture is a social thing, not something that happens in complete isolation.

The distinction between a religion, and a cultural aspect like our spirituality is important. You CAN join a religion all on your own. Because of this, people think they can join 'our religions'. But they aren't religions. They are cultural practices, specific to the different tribes. Being a Muslim doesn't mean you're part of the Saudi culture. But in order to practice 'native spirituality', you have to be part of native culture, because our spirituality is not independent of our specific culture.

And shame on those Japanese for making judgements on how I think I should live my life.
Shame on you for thinking you should automatically have acceptance simply because you as an individual tried to reinvent yourself in isolation.

not according to the new ager sitting in a temple at the top of one of the pyramids in the video. while he takes a break from playing his didgeridoo as part of a 'mayan ceremony', he expounds on the fact that the maya were some sort of god-like alien master race. he may even have mentioned that that he was a reincarnated mayan king, so he would know.
A didgeridoo as part of a Mayan ritual? That's got me thinking. I'm going to make myself Jewish and use bacon wrapped scallops in my personal Jew rituals. Anyone care to join me? Just $10,000. Now where did I put that book on Kaballah?

There IS something that can stop a person from adopting a culture as their own and living their life as if they were Cree. Rejection. You don't learn culture in a vacuum. You can't pick up a book on 'how to become a Cree'. If we don't accept you, you won't be taught. Period. You will not be Cree. Not legally, not culturally, not in anything but your imagination.

I think I understand where you are coming from now. The Cree are a society, and much of their culture is innerwoven with the make up of their society. So you cannot take on the Cree culture without understanding the make up of the Cree society.

However, I still feel that culture is not something that belongs to a certain group of people, and I certainly disagree that a group of people have the ability to bestow culture upon someone.

I felt the distinction was clear enough. You can not unilaterally join a culture. Whether that is a native culture, or not. You can ape it. But not join it without actual contact with that culture. Though that is clearly up for debate.

People don't join culture, culture joins people, so to speak.

NEWSWEEK had a report a few months on how Japanese are no longer really Japanese, and that people much like the person you quoted are the only people keeping Japanese culture going. Japanese respect these people that have chosen Japan as their culture, and commend thier efforts, and go about thier lives as normal (as in, not Japanese at all, according the foreigners). Japan has obviously decided that one must not be born into Japan to be Japanese, its only a state of mind, something that most of Old Europe and other cultures are still contemplating.
Well, it's an interesting phenomena that immigrant cultures are often more 'Greek than the Greeks':) They tend to hold on to the traditional aspects of their culture, while the people in their home country are evolving.

They tend to hold on to the traditional aspects of their culture, while the people in their home country are evolving.
A little harsh, but true. Someday a sterotypical Iranian immigrant is going to defend the virtues of the bagpipe. :)

Read the complete quote, thanks.

The bolded part is open to interpretation. The rest of it explains what you meant in saying it. Or is the bolded part all you wanted to say, with the rest being irrelevant.

That's right. And culture is not defined by ethnicity. Clearly, you can not be part of a culture...if you aren't PART OF A CULTURE.

So I didn't need to read the complete quote, I was correct in my interpretation.

But as I said in my previous post, culture is not something that one can join. You can join a society, but you cannot join a culture. You are trying to say that culture and society are one in the same.

I think I understand where you are coming from now. The Cree are a society, and much of their culture is innerwoven with the make up of their society. So you cannot take on the Cree culture without understanding the make up of the Cree society. YES! Thank you.

However, I still feel that culture is not something that belongs to a certain group of people, and I certainly disagree that a group of people have the ability to bestow culture upon someone.

What do you mean by culture? Everyone already has culture. But the way that culture is expressed varies. Cree culture is not Mohawk culture is not Tibetan culture is not Maori culture. If culture does not belong to the group that lives it, then to whom does it belong? And I do not speak of ownership in the sense of intellectual property (though cultural property applies, quite clearly in the legal sense as well as the general sense). I disagree that an individual can bestow culture upon themself...culture in the sense of specific communal culture. You bestow upon yourself a personal culture, but you can not bestoy upon yourself a communal culture without a community.

People don't join culture, culture joins people, so to speak.Culture is made up of people passing culture along. It's a two-way street, never a one-way. For example, if a bunch of Cree people decide to make you a Cree simply by declaring it so (unbeknownst to you)...would you be Cree? What culture would you share with us? It doesn't make sense.

A while back, a thread about saunas, spas and sweat lodges kind of irked me, because a sweat lodge is something particularly important to native people. It is not just a 'quaint sauna'. But there are people out there who market 'sweats' to tourists.
Here in the North too? I thought it was more a Mesoamerican thing. And they're also marketed to tourists in health spas and such. There are a few genuine ones that you can recognize because they're not trying to push miracle natural pills on you and you can't just call and get an appointment. You have to look for this guy in the middle of the jungle and then, if the date is good, maybe.

It's a shame what they're doing with native culture in Mexico. On Spring day thousands upon thousands of people go to the pyramids to get "recharged" with solar energy. It doesn't really matter if the natives look at them funny or if anthropologists are quoted saying that they never did that. Problem is that some places are being destroyed much faster than usual.

Well, it's an interesting phenomena that immigrant cultures are often more 'Greek than the Greeks':) They tend to hold on to the traditional aspects of their culture, while the people in their home country are evolving.
Yeah, some people here in Canada have recriminated because I'm not Mexican enough. They say "why don't you follow your traditions" and I say "I never did in Mexico, why should I here?"

Well, it's an interesting phenomena that immigrant cultures are often more 'Greek than the Greeks':) They tend to hold on to the traditional aspects of their culture, while the people in their home country are evolving.

Ah, that's one of the most fascinating aspects of cultural identity. I've been working this year on the concept of Britishness in colonial New Zealand, and how settlers tried to maintain aspects of what they saw as a British way of life.


But as I said in my previous post, culture is not something that one can join. You can join a society, but you cannot join a culture. You are trying to say that culture and society are one in the same.

The definition of "culture" is elusive, but one way of seeing it would be as a shared sense of belonging, tradition and identity. In that sense, you are only a part of a culture once you've been accepted into a certain society and way of life. If culture is feeling or realising you have something in common with a certain group, then it seems necessary for some members at least of that group to recognise that you have indeed got something in common with them.

Also, an interest in a culture is not enough to be accepted. You'd have to gain an understanding of the way its members view their own culture, rather than viewing it in your own Western terms.

What do you mean by culture? Everyone already has culture. But the way that culture is expressed varies. Cree culture is not Mohawk culture is not Tibetan culture is not Maori culture. If culture does not belong to the group that lives it, then to whom does it belong? And I do not speak of ownership in the sense of intellectual property (though cultural property applies, quite clearly in the legal sense as well as the general sense). I disagree that an individual can bestow culture upon themself...culture in the sense of specific communal culture. You bestow upon yourself a personal culture, but you can not bestoy upon yourself a communal culture without a community.

For the first bolded part: I agree with you completely, a culture belongs to those who live it. But "living it" is not qualified by who you live it with.

Certainly a person cannot live a communal culture on his own, but what if a whole community adopts it, or a family? What if he adopts the culture in dictating how he lives amongst his present community.

Culture is made up of people passing culture along. It's a two-way street, never a one-way. For example, if a bunch of Cree people decide to make you a Cree simply by declaring it so (unbeknownst to you)...would you be Cree? What culture would you share with us? It doesn't make sense.

Certainly culture must be passed on, but living within a particular society is not necessary for learning their culture.

The bolded part is open to interpretation. The rest of it explains what you meant in saying it. Or is the bolded part all you wanted to say, with the rest being irrelevant. It was the topic sentence.

So I didn't need to read the complete quote, I was correct in my interpretation. If I could figure out what that interpretation is...we're going in circles it seems.

But as I said in my previous post, culture is not something that one can join. You can join a society, but you cannot join a culture. That's not what I read you saying. You said you couldn't join the culture without understanding the society. I agreed. But you absolutely can join the culture...as long as a the level of interaction is there. You can't just invent the culture yourself.

You are trying to say that culture and society are one in the same.No, I'm not. Linked, yes.

I know you're joking, but I feel compelled to say this.
America is an exception. We're a culture built on incorporating elements of other cultures which were brought here by immigrants.

Not *entirely* true.
The National Origins Immigration Quota System is most definitely an example that American culture is not built on incorporating other cultures. Given, that's changed, a little, but.... that's why I say not *entirely* true.

For the first bolded part: I agree with you completely, a culture belongs to those who live it. But "living it" is not qualified by who you live it with. Of course not, or I'd no longer be Cree. Yet had I not been raised by Cree people, I'd never have learned Cree culture.

Certainly a person cannot live a communal culture on his own, but what if a whole community adopts it, or a family? What if he adopts the culture in dictating how he lives amongst his present community. If that person had no actual understanding of the original culture in the first place, then invented one, and lived with a whole bunch of other people living this invented culture, the culture would be real...but should not be called 'Cree culture'. (I'm just using Cree as an example here).

Cultural variations are valid. Cree people are broken up into many groups, and we are not all the same. Inventing a culture can even be valid...but it should never masquerade as another culture.


Certainly culture must be passed on, but living within a particular society is not necessary for learning their culture.
You have to learn it some how. In the case of native people, there is not some resource you can learn from that will teach you all about living like us. Perhaps you could pick up a book and learn all about being an Urdu...and you could live 'as an Urdu'...but would that make you Urdu?

Dont make this a WHITE vs.INDIAN issue just because of a few shitheads.

Recent genetic results have shown conclusively that the North American continent was settled by European Whites ten to fifteen thousand years before the Asians arrived along the Bering Strait.

They settled and developed far greater land than the Asians and intermingled and interbred to produce the current populace. Natives of South and central America do not possess these genes, making North America White dominated for over 30 thousand years.

So, there can't be a White vs Native American thing, they are whites.

Recent genetic results have shown conclusively that the North American continent was settled by European Whites ten to fifteen thousand years before the Asians arrived along the Bering Strait.

They settled and developed far greater land than the Asians and intermingled and interbred to produce the current populace. Natives of South and central America do not possess these genes, making North America White dominated for over 30 thousand years.

So, there can't be a White vs Native American thing, they are whites.
:rolleyes:
Sources.

Actually, the white skin colour is just a genetic mutation, and anyway we all originated in Africa, so we're all really black. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Recent genetic results have shown conclusively that the North American continent was settled by European Whites ten to fifteen thousand years before the Asians arrived along the Bering Strait.

They settled and developed far greater land than the Asians and intermingled and interbred to produce the current populace. Natives of South and central America do not possess these genes, making North America White dominated for over 30 thousand years.

So, there can't be a White vs Native American thing, they are whites.

onwards aryan brother!

:rolleyes:
Sources. The book of Mormon, Book of Nephi IIRC, as "tested and proven" by Mormon Clerical Scientists in a cave beneath Salt Lake City... :rolleyes:

Actually, the white skin colour is just a genetic mutation, and anyway we all originated in Africa, so we're all really black. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Will it get me High, or are you just offering me a "peice"? ;) :D

Will it get me High, or are you just offering me a "peice"? ;) :D
Kehehe...actually, I'm preparing you for the inevitable world take over by the 'original people', the blackest of black Africans. Their land claims will span the globe and the rest of us will be relegated to satellites circling the earth:)

It's a shame what they're doing with native culture in Mexico. On Spring day thousands upon thousands of people go to the pyramids to get "recharged" with solar energy. It doesn't really matter if the natives look at them funny or if anthropologists are quoted saying that they never did that. Problem is that some places are being destroyed much faster than usual.
But they are destroying it in a "Caring and Gaia Friendly Way". Much better than destroying it with oil derricks. :rolleyes:

Kehehe...actually, I'm preparing you for the inevitable world take over by the 'original people', the blackest of black Africans. Their land claims will span the globe and the rest of us will be relegated to satellites circling the earth:)
Ole' Aztlan! :rolleyes:

Recent genetic results have shown conclusively that the North American continent was settled by European Whites ten to fifteen thousand years before the Asians arrived along the Bering Strait.

They settled and developed far greater land than the Asians and intermingled and interbred to produce the current populace. Natives of South and central America do not possess these genes, making North America White dominated for over 30 thousand years.

So, there can't be a White vs Native American thing, they are whites.

That's the stupidest thing I've read all day.

Recent genetic results have shown conclusively that the North American continent was settled by European Whites ten to fifteen thousand years before the Asians arrived along the Bering Strait.

Genetic studies have shown that all people outside of Africa share a common ancestry of a handful of people who left Africa around 50,000 years ago, but it doesn't show that Europeans were first in America.

There is the possibility that Europeans and Africans could have emigrated to America following the Atlantic route, but except for the few Viking settlements around 1000 a.C., there's nothing definitive.

That's the stupidest thing I've read all day.

There's the genetic evidence, there's the physical evidence in tools and evidence of settlements.

Upstate New York has settlements predating the Asians that no one has ever explained.


http://odinpatrick.gnn.tv/blogs/13453/First_Americans_were_European

http://www.ancientworlds.net/aw/Post/729730

http://www.livescience.com/history/topper_hearth_041118.html

I'm not going to do your homework for you Barbara but get your ignorance off somewhere else. The world is not flat, dinosaurs were not slow and europeans beat the Asians here by a long shot.

:rolleyes:
Sources.

Actually, the white skin colour is just a genetic mutation, and anyway we all originated in Africa, so we're all really black. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
That would explain my problems with cops.

There's the genetic evidence, there's the physical evidence in tools and evidence of settlements.

Upstate New York has settlements predating the Asians that no one has ever explained.


http://odinpatrick.gnn.tv/blogs/13453/First_Americans_were_European

http://www.ancientworlds.net/aw/Post/729730

http://www.livescience.com/history/topper_hearth_041118.html

I'm not going to do your homework for you Barbara but get your ignorance off somewhere else. The world is not flat, dinosaurs were not slow and europeans beat the Asians here by a long shot.
All you've got is two BLOGS and an article that talks about firepits, not genetics.

Sorry. You lose.

People ask...where did the Maya go? Here's a clue. Go to México and Guatemala. Look around. You'll find them, still very much alive.
Intelligent people ask: What caused the major decline and disappearance of mayan civilization as a great power?

Actually, the white skin colour is just a genetic mutation, and anyway we all originated in Africa, so we're all really black. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

ROTFL! Somehow, it's hard to think of my blonde, blue-eyed, very light-skinned mom as "black". :D

There's the genetic evidence, there's the physical evidence in tools and evidence of settlements.
None of that conclusive. Your first two sources refer to an exposition of an hypothesis, that no one denies is possible, but unlikely. The third is about a "possible" fire pit 50,000 years old, which would mean human presence in the continent *if* it was indeed a fire pit. So far discoveries like this one have proven to be either younger than thought or not human related after more research. But even if it was a human made fire pit 50,000 years old that doesn't mean it was made by Europeans.

However, there have been discoveries of sites that predate Clovis, both in Chile and Mexico. So far scientist hadn't had evidence of pre-Clovis migrations, although they suspected it. Now it looks more likely that humans migrated to America a few thousand years before previously thought. But this doesn't mean they came from Europe.

There are artifacts in Brasil, Venezuela, Panama, and Mexico that could be evidence of an African migration, but nothing conclusive at all. They just look like they could be from there.

We're getting off track. All of that is plenty to fill another thread.

There's the genetic evidence, there's the physical evidence in tools and evidence of settlements.

Upstate New York has settlements predating the Asians that no one has ever explained.


http://odinpatrick.gnn.tv/blogs/13453/First_Americans_were_European

http://www.ancientworlds.net/aw/Post/729730

http://www.livescience.com/history/topper_hearth_041118.html

I'm not going to do your homework for you Barbara but get your ignorance off somewhere else. The world is not flat, dinosaurs were not slow and europeans beat the Asians here by a long shot.

Sorry but that is only speculation. You need more proof.

We're getting off track. All of that is plenty to fill another thread.
So what can we do?

The modern Hippies and '60s Throwbacks don't want to give up their beads, headbands, feathers and drums - and they are immune to criticisim and embarassment, branding all who oppose them as reactionaries and "culturally insensitive :confused: ".

I wish I had a good answer.

Intelligent people ask: What caused the major decline and disappearance of mayan civilization as a great power?

;)

Not even these people she mentioned can explain that......

So what can we do?

The modern Hippies and '60s Throwbacks don't want to give up their beads, headbands, feathers and drums - and they are immune to criticisim and embarassment, branding all who oppose them as reactionaries and "culturally insensitive :confused: ".

I wish I had a good answer.

Why even care?

I'm not really concerned about newagers getting sucked in. I think they want to be. I am concerned that mainstream society might begin to buy into some of the myths about cultures. I would simply ask that you be skeptical of anyone claiming to know any sort of 'ancient healing methods' or 'spiritual practice', regardless of the supposed cultural background. You don't have to dismiss them out of hand...but do some checking up on them before buying what they're selling. That includes books that claim to reveal 'hidden' cultural practices of existing cultures.

I'm not really concerned about newagers getting sucked in. I think they want to be. I am concerned that mainstream society might begin to buy into some of the myths about cultures. I would simply ask that you be skeptical of anyone claiming to know any sort of 'ancient healing methods' or 'spiritual practice', regardless of the supposed cultural background. You don't have to dismiss them out of hand...but do some checking up on them before buying what they're selling. That includes books that claim to reveal 'hidden' cultural practices of existing cultures.

Myths and culture go hand in hand. It usually labeled ignorance.

Ahh the cureall pedalers. We have had those claims for years. We used to call such people snake oil salesmen.

Tangent: ever hear of the mouth wash called Listerine? If you look back at some ads from the 1800s; they mentioned it was guaranteed to grow hair! ;)

Even the tribes don't always fully understand their past. A friend is an anthropologist and he has worked with a few to try and help answer some questions to things that were forgotten.

Even he commented on not talking about the "noble savage" when somebody asked how to do work for them. ;)

Tangent: ever hear of the mouth wash called Listerine? If you look back at some ads from the 1800s; they mentioned it was guaranteed to grow hair! ;)
<snip>

In your mouth?

Plenty of native people have to rediscover their culture as adults, and they do so by contacting community members or elders. So clearly, culture isn't something you must be raised in from birth in order to claim as your own. But a native person who wanted to reclaim their culture could not do so in isolation either. A native person making up cultural practices, and saying they belong to a certain tribe, is just as foolish as someone else doing it.

In your mouth?

That's why they decided to drop that claim. ;)

They claimed the stuff did just about everything. You dumped it on your head and eventually hair would appear.

That's why they decided to drop that claim. ;)

They claimed the stuff did just about everything. You dumped it on your head and eventually hair would appear.
Good decision. If it worked a whole bunch of hairy-throated people would have sued the crap out of them.

That's not what I read you saying. You said you couldn't join the culture without understanding the society. I agreed. But you absolutely can join the culture...as long as a the level of interaction is there. You can't just invent the culture yourself.

My point is that culture is internal, it is a belief, behavior, etc. Society is the external component. One can become part of a society, but one cannot become a part of a culture, the culture becomes part of the person.

We both agree on this it would seem, I think the difference is that you say that one can only understand the culture through direct teaching of a member of the culture. I would say that one can learn a culture through any documentation of that culture.

My point is that culture is internal, it is a belief, behavior, etc. Society is the external component. One can become part of a society, but one cannot become a part of a culture, the culture becomes part of the person.

We both agree on this it would seem, I think the difference is that you say that one can only understand the culture through direct teaching of a member of the culture. I would say that one can learn a culture through any documentation of that culture.Which is the crowning point of my argument when it comes to native people. The documentation doesn't really exist. What documentation is out there is almost completely false.

Which is the crowning point of my argument when it comes to native people. The documentation doesn't really exist. What documentation is out there is almost completely false.

I certainly don't know enough to debate that point, perhaps we can agree that your original declaration is a little too general?

Sure, you can join a religion. You can become a Muslim, a Christian, and Buddhist, whatever...but you can't unilaterally join a culture. Seems obvious, doesn't it? Then why do so many people think that they can practice 'native spirituality'? Because they don't understand that our spirituality is not a religion. It's a communal aspect of our culture, and you don't just get to run off with it and become a tribe of one.

So sorry Miss Rainbow Woman and Mister Chief Smiling Moon. When we call you disgusting fakes, it's because we don't accept you. And to those poor fools who buy your 'real Indian spirituality in only three sessions'...*sigh*
So, are you native American or something? or would that be native Canadian? Lol. Anyway, personally, I've never been into the whole spiritually thang. I guess you could say I started losing it when I was 12, and got kicked out of my Catholic church for laughing repeatedly at...nothing. You know how kids are.

I love traditional chinese and japanese culture. If I were given the chance to live in that time, I probably would - I'd be lost, not knowing the language or most of the customs, and I'd probably be labeled a demon or something for looking different.

I'd learn the language and customs, wear a mask and enjoy myself. "Olol another fanboy of asian tradition" - no, I'm serious. Don't take me seriously if you want, but I'm telling you it's my favorite time period. I'm nigh-obsessed with it. "But there were lots of wars and killing back then!" I know, I'd want to be part of that. There's just something drawing about the whole thing that makes me want to be a part of it all.

This doesn't mean I'm insulting the culture in any way, or that I'm a poser (though many would call me one anyway), but that I truly respect this culture and would do anything to become part of it.

That being said, these "fake indians" are assholes, claiming to know as much as they do, using fake tribes, etc. They're not humble in their respect, if it even is respect. That's the difference between respect and insult - being humble about it.

Which is the crowning point of my argument when it comes to native people. The documentation doesn't really exist. What documentation is out there is almost completely false.

That depends heavily on which culture you are talking about. If you wanted to join the culture of the ancient Greeks or the Romans, then there is plenty of reliable documentation available. The same applies for the hippy movements of the 1960s.
What you are effectively claiming here Sin is that there are cultures that do not wish to allow others to adopt their practices, they are exclusionary cultures. You can only truly become part of their culture if you happen to be born of parents who have some claim to belonging to the culture. Whether these parents practised the culture, whether they upheld the ethos and morals of that culture are irrelevant.
So we have the situation where someone who has studied a culture, has understood a lot about the culture and feels that the culture is appropriate for them can not adopt t, whereas another person who does not give a shit about the history, tradition etc. will be accepted simply due to some genetic happen stance.

If you belong to a culture that rejects those that are not of the correct bloodline, you should be ashamed of yourself as being part of a racist exclusionary group.

I certainly don't know enough to debate that point, perhaps we can agree that your original declaration is a little too general?
No, we can't agree on that:) I still don't believe, regardless of the amount or non-existence of documentation out there that a person, all by themselves, with no other living human to help, can join a culture. (or have that culture 'join them' as you put it)

Sorry. I just can't bend on that point.

So, are you native American or something? or would that be native Canadian? Lol.
I'm half Cree, half Irish.

That being said, these "fake indians" are assholes, claiming to know as much as they do, using fake tribes, etc. They're not humble in their respect, if it even is respect. That's the difference between respect and insult - being humble about it.
Respect is vital...but so is actual knowledge. I mean, really...if Santa Barbara seriously wanted to join Japanese culture, it's absolutely possible, even if some Japanese people rejected him, likely others would accept him. But it takes effort to learn about the culture. He couldn't just sing that addictive song over and over and then make it so...respect, and learning...bah. I don't know. He'd make a better Viking anyway.

No, we can't agree on that:) I still don't believe, regardless of the amount or non-existence of documentation out there that a person, all by themselves, with no other living human to help, can join a culture. (or have that culture 'join them' as you put it)

Sorry. I just can't bend on that point.

Then I cannot help but think that you are confusing society and culture.

I can't think of any other way to put it so:

My point is that culture is internal, it is a belief, behavior, etc. Society is the external component. One can become part of a society, but one cannot become a part of a culture, the culture becomes part of the person.

I'm half Cree, half Irish.
And you've lived with the Cree all or part of your life?

That depends heavily on which culture you are talking about. If you wanted to join the culture of the ancient Greeks or the Romans, then there is plenty of reliable documentation available. The same applies for the hippy movements of the 1960s. Yet I wasn't talking about them. I specifically mentioned native people.

Which is the crowning point of my argument when it comes to native people. The documentation doesn't really exist. What documentation is out there is almost completely false.

What you are effectively claiming here Sin is that there are cultures that do not wish to allow others to adopt their practices, they are exclusionary cultures. Nope. Not even close. That's what you are claiming I'm claiming. I've said over and over that you can not join a culture all on your own...a certain level of acceptance by people of that culture is necessary. In terms of aboriginal people, it is especially important, as there is no other way to LEARN about the culture. That doesn't mean that every single person suddenly wanting to know all about a culture should be allowed access to every nook and cranny. If you consider that exclusionary, that's fine with me.


You can only truly become part of their culture if you happen to be born of parents who have some claim to belonging to the culture. Whether these parents practised the culture, whether they upheld the ethos and morals of that culture are irrelevant. Nope, sorry. Once again, this is nothing at all close to what I've said.

So we have the situation where someone who has studied a culture, has understood a lot about the culture and feels that the culture is appropriate for them can not adopt it They can if they have been accepted in some way. I'm waffling a bit on whether someone with access to huge amounts of cultural information could actually claim legitimately to be part of that culture. I'm leaning against it, because culture is more than just the expression of culture...it's also in the sharing of that culture...and I don't think all of that sharing can be done at a distance (in video, books, etc). What parts would HAVE to be done face to face, I don't know. I'll have to consider it.

But especially in cases where information is not readily available (real info, not newage made up crap), then the only way to really become part of the culture is to learn it from the people themselves. If you are refused, for whatever reason, you can't learn it...and you can't join it. But people don't let that stop them. They pretend they learned, and the pretend to be a part of it.

whereas another person who does not give a shit about the history, tradition etc. will be accepted simply due to some genetic happen stance. They might have it easier if and when they decide to rediscover their culture...in terms of natives who never grew up with their culture, they still probably have familial ties to fall back on in order to learn. Someone born outside will not find it as easy...but if they really want it, it's certainly possible.

If you belong to a culture that rejects those that are not of the correct bloodline, you should be ashamed of yourself as being part of a racist exclusionary group. Never once have I mentioned bloodline. I come from a culture that rejects allowing people to pretend they are one of us when they are not, and who pretend to hold traditional knowledge of ours that doesn't actually exist. We reject cultural fraud.

Then I cannot help but think that you are confusing society and culture.Can you blame me? Culture is about a vague a term as exists...you could write an entire book just defining it. Which one of our definitions is the 'right one'? Neither. I understand your definition though, but it isn't quite the same as mine...as you said earlier, I think we are agreeing on a fundamental level, but it's in the details we may diverge.

And you've lived with the Cree all or part of your life?
On a Reserve? Or as a Cree?

Not on a Reserve. With Cree people, all my life. As a Cree person, all my life. Exclusively with Cree, never.

Okay Vitt, an outside example sprung to mind to help me work through what you are saying about culture and society. Consider the Amish. Alright. They have a certain culture, the outward manifestations of which constitute their specific society. An Amish person who chooses to live away from the society is still culturally Amish, by your standards, because the culture is internal, and not wholly dependant on the societal manifestations of it.

Let me think about that. You can't deny this person is still culturally Amish (though their personal culture will evolve as they become influence by other cultures via societal manifestations).

Now...a person who simply studies the Amish, knows pretty much everything about them that they could possibly know, and decides to become culturally Amish. They never join the Amish society, and never receive acceptance from a single Amish person. Are they culturally Amish?

That's bloody weird. Hmmm. Is the information enough? I can't work through that.

Yet I wasn't talking about them. I specifically mentioned native people.
The Romans and the Greeks are natives too. I find it abominable that only the indigenous peoples of the new world can be described as natives.

Nope. Not even close. That's what you are claiming I'm claiming. I've said over and over that you can not join a culture all on your own...a certain level of acceptance by people of that culture is necessary.
In your opinion. It being your opinion does not necessarily make it true for others, only for yourself. What I am effectively challenging here, although I did not make it very clear, is what are the conditions for someone to be a member of the 'people of that culture'. You are implying, but not being explicit about this, that there exists some group that holds the inalienable right to be the representatives of the culture, that have the right to decide if someone else is to be considered part of the culture or not. This smacks of secret societies and gentlemen's clubs - with their membership committees and black ball procedures etc. I can not believe that this is what you want to push as your idea, but it is what you are implying. It wasa to this implication of some group with special status to admit or exclude others from the culture that I was reacting.

In terms of aboriginal people, it is especially important, as there is no other way to LEARN about the culture. That doesn't mean that every single person suddenly wanting to know all about a culture should be allowed access to every nook and cranny. If you consider that exclusionary, that's fine with me.
If those that have a genuine interest in learning about the culture are prevented from doing so simply and purely because they are not 'of the culture' then that is not only exclusionary, it is outright racism. That is unless you are going to claim that being 'of the culture' does not depend at all on the bloodlines of the people involved. Which you know wouyld be an untenable position.

They can if they have been accepted in some way. I'm waffling a bit on whether someone with access to huge amounts of cultural information could actually claim legitimately to be part of that culture. I'm leaning against it, because culture is more than just the expression of culture...it's also in the sharing of that culture...and I don't think all of that sharing can be done at a distance (in video, books, etc). What parts would HAVE to be done face to face, I don't know. I'll have to consider it.
You mean that they can become part of the culture if, and only if, they have been 'adopted' into the culture. (I want to stick with the family/clan analogy here). There are keyholders, people who can get you through the door into the exclusive club. Is that what you want to say? As to the second part; culture is something that can be known, and something that can be practiced. There is no requirement for this to be done socially in either case, Culture, in practice, is the following of certain behaviour patterns, the adoption of a set of beliefs, the exhibition of certain types of responses to input. This can be done alone, or are you going to argue that the last remaining member of some indigenous tribe no longer has any access to their culture because there is no one to practice it with. What is questionable is whether it is possible to know sufficient about a culture that you do not live in or were raised in to be able to practice it. That will depend upon how secretive and exclusionary the culture is. The western european culture can certainly be practiced just on the basis of book knowledge. The limiting factor is the detail available in mediatic form.

But especially in cases where information is not readily available (real info, not newage made up crap), then the only way to really become part of the culture is to learn it from the people themselves. If you are refused, for whatever reason, you can't learn it...and you can't join it. But people don't let that stop them. They pretend they learned, and the pretend to be a part of it.
True, but the cause of this is the very secretiveness of the bearers of this type of restricted culture. their xenophobic and jealous retention of 'secret knowledge', and not the nature of culture itself.

They might have it easier if and when they decide to rediscover their culture...in terms of natives who never grew up with their culture, they still probably have familial ties to fall back on in order to learn. Someone born outside will not find it as easy...but if they really want it, it's certainly possible.
But only if they are accepted into the culture you are saying. Which is very rare in the 'native' cultures if they are not family.

Never once have I mentioned bloodline.
You just said, in the paragraph above "they still probably have familial ties to fall back on in order to learn". No, you did not use the word explicitly, but it is there in your arguments from the start.

Okay Vitt, an outside example sprung to mind to help me work through what you are saying about culture and society. Consider the Amish. Alright. They have a certain culture, the outward manifestations of which constitute their specific society. An Amish person who chooses to live away from the society is still culturally Amish, by your standards, because the culture is internal, and not wholly dependant on the societal manifestations of it.

Let me think about that. You can't deny this person is still culturally Amish (though their personal culture will evolve as they become influence by other cultures via societal manifestations).

Now...a person who simply studies the Amish, knows pretty much everything about them that they could possibly know, and decides to become culturally Amish. They never join the Amish society, and never receive acceptance from a single Amish person. Are they culturally Amish?

That's bloody weird. Hmmm. Is the information enough? I can't work through that.

Hmmmm? I would say it's more of a lifestyle of simplicity and dicipleship.

You have to convert and convince them to join. It seldom happens. But it has happened.

You live among them to demonstrate a genuine conversion experience and faith that results in a changed lifestyle.

Probably what kills most people is that it's extremely difficult for anyone who has not been raised without electricity, automobiles, and other modern conveniences to adjust to their austere lifestyle.

Finally, you would need to learn the Amish dialect in order to be a true part of the Amish community.

I used to be a Japanese Language and Culture major at Bennington College. All of the people in the major with me knew that they weren't going to magically become Japanese and, like me, were wanting to learn Japanese to go over there and teach English in Japanese schools.

I left Bennington and came to Wittenberg University as an East Asian Studies major. Immediately I came to realise that every other person in the major thinks that they're going to go over to Japan, become a Japanese citizen, and become truly Japanese. Unfortunately, all of these people base their assumptions of Japanese life on animé, and after talking to the Japanese (nationality) students on campus, I've found that they can't stand these people and enjoy talking to the ones that are like me. I love Japanese culture, but have the politeness and social awareness to know how to behave about it.

It all really got to me, so I dropped the major and am now a History major with a French minor. I hope to live in Francophone Africa, but you'll never see me pretending I'm Senegalese or something. Just because you live somewhere and appreciate the culture doesn't make you part of it. The people will be more appreciative if you just understand their way of life rather than adopting it.

And about an earlier post, I also get really fed up with white supremacists who sell Bavarian clothes and the such, talking about their fabulous German heritage. My grandmother is a first-generation American and her parents were born in Schleswig-Holstein and Bayern, but during the Second World War, they didn't decide to support the Nazis or anything. They were proud to be Americans. Even though I'm 3/4 German, when I visit Germany or Austria, I don't pretend to be German or Austrian, even when I'm visiting family. I didn't grow up in the culture, even if we do have some specifically German things that we do, so I don't have the right to call myself "German."

Also, you can bet that you won't find many people in modern-day Germany and Austria who will find any of those outdated Nazi notions to be part of their national identity or something that they can be proud of in any way. Things like the fact that the KISS symbol was changed in Germany because the last two letters look like the Schutzstaffel (SS) symbol should alert people to that fact. Additionally, I'm moderately certain that when I was last in the country in summer 2004, I read in the declaration forms that the importation and exportation of Nazi goods is banned. And yet these people are so up on their German heritage...?

But yes. Pieces of a culture can be adopted, but a person can never fully be integrated into the society. I felt guilty about adopting Buddhism as my religion, for example, because every single person in my family is Protestant, but considering that I'm not planning to adopt a Tibetan name or start referring to myself solely as a Buddhist, I don't worry about it as much anymore. I don't think that I'm stepping too hard on people's toes...

The Romans and the Greeks are natives too. I find it abominable that only the indigenous peoples of the new world can be described as natives. Well, it's certainly your right to be offended. As long as you realise that when I use the term native, I am referring to the people variously known as aboriginal, First Nations/Inuit/Métis, American Indian, or just Indian, and not to every single person born in every single place in every single year throughout human existence.


In your opinion. It being your opinion does not necessarily make it true for others, only for yourself. What I am effectively challenging here, although I did not make it very clear, is what are the conditions for someone to be a member of the 'people of that culture'. You are implying, but not being explicit about this, that there exists some group that holds the inalienable right to be the representatives of the culture, that have the right to decide if someone else is to be considered part of the culture or not. This smacks of secret societies and gentlemen's clubs - with their membership committees and black ball procedures etc. I can not believe that this is what you want to push as your idea, but it is what you are implying. It wasa to this implication of some group with special status to admit or exclude others from the culture that I was reacting. Well let me be explicit. I do not believe there is some special group that can confer a culture on someone. HOWEVER...there are specific people who are the only ones qualified to teach specific aspects of a culture. Just because I'm Cree, doesn't mean I can teach you to be a healer...because I haven't learned how to be one myself.

I believe that a people have the right to determine their own membership. Especially aboriginal people, where external rules of membership have been used in attempts to 'breed us out'. Some tribes embrace blood quantum, and to an even stricter degree than that laid down by the government. I think it's a damn shame...but that should be up to them. Some tribal clans are matrilineal. You don't have a clan if your mother is not of the tribe. That's not our way, but it is theirs.

It's a murky area...rules about membership...and it has a lot to do with identity, political power, and money. But overall, I do not believe an individual can simply join a culture without the consent of at least some people within that culture.


If those that have a genuine interest in learning about the culture are prevented from doing so simply and purely because they are not 'of the culture' then that is not only exclusionary, it is outright racism. People who are excluded are excluded for good reasons. Very few actually seek to learn about our culture in a respectful or authentic way...those that simply wish to claim to be something they are not are generally those who don't approach us in the first place...it's much easier to make up a history than to actually do any learning. We are suspicious of those who want to study us, and 'learn' about us...because we have a long history of dealing with these kinds of studies. Studies which are based in the firm belief in a western superiority, and that uses knowledge about us in order to justify actions taken against us. You will not wander into a Reserve and find yourself immediately welcome, or ushered into the presence of elders so that you can learn all about us. You will not find that kind of reception in ANY culture. Most often, people DEMAND, they do not ask. And they are refused. There is also information that will never be shared with you, unless we actually feel you have joined us.


That is unless you are going to claim that being 'of the culture' does not depend at all on the bloodlines of the people involved. Which you know wouyld be an untenable position. To you perhaps. You're the one talking bloodlines. Bloodlines count, of course...and family ties in my culture are paramount. But that doesn't mean you absolutely have to be native in order to be part of our culture. Nor does it mean that a native person has native culture, somehow branded into their genes.


You mean that they can become part of the culture if, and only if, they have been 'adopted' into the culture. (I want to stick with the family/clan analogy here). There are keyholders, people who can get you through the door into the exclusive club. Is that what you want to say? Well, you have to learn from someone. Are there specific people who grant you culturehood? Not really...again unless you're talking about specific skills that have to be passed on by specific people. In our case, generally you become part of our culture when you intermarry with us, or are adopted, or simply work with us over a long period of time and are respectful. We open up to these people (though some will never open up to outsiders), but it takes time.


As to the second part; culture is something that can be known, and something that can be practiced. There is no requirement for this to be done socially in either case, Culture, in practice, is the following of certain behaviour patterns, the adoption of a set of beliefs, the exhibition of certain types of responses to input. Alright...but would you consider someone who has studied all there is to know about ancient Romans, and who in as many aspects as possible, tries to live as they do...to be cultural Roman?


This can be done alone, or are you going to argue that the last remaining member of some indigenous tribe no longer has any access to their culture because there is no one to practice it with. Assuming that they had learned it in the first place, if they intend to pass it along, the culture remains.

What is questionable is whether it is possible to know sufficient about a culture that you do not live in or were raised in to be able to practice it. That will depend upon how secretive and exclusionary the culture is. The western european culture can certainly be practiced just on the basis of book knowledge. The limiting factor is the detail available in mediatic form.


True, but the cause of this is the very secretiveness of the bearers of this type of restricted culture. their xenophobic and jealous retention of 'secret knowledge', and not the nature of culture itself. I have to restrain my natural response to this with one question. Are you deliberately ignoring the reasons that many aboriginal people no longer wish to share their culture with westerners? What seems like 'ancient history' to you is not to us. We've been screwed around by people who claimed to be interested in our culture enough to have learned not to open up so easily. Call it xenophobic...I call it survival after hundreds of years of attempted cultural genocide.


But only if they are accepted into the culture you are saying. Which is very rare in the 'native' cultures if they are not family. Of course it is. It's only been in the last few decades that anyone would WANT to be considered native that wasn't one already. The romanticism of native culture is by no means universal. Racism and prejudice against natives is by far the prevalent attitude. Why would you ever seek to become that which you hold in contempt? Many people are adopted into the tribes with little fanfare...via marriages or adoptions. What is rare is someone who simply wishes to live on a Reservation with us and learn about our culture for the sake of becoming one of us.


You just said, in the paragraph above "they still probably have familial ties to fall back on in order to learn". No, you did not use the word explicitly, but it is there in your arguments from the start.
Oh bullshit. You use bloodline to accuse me of saying that only people with native blood can blah blah blah. I bring up the obvious...native people who have not been raised in their culture most likely have some family members that WERE raised in that culture. Our culture is communal, and family plays a large role in a way I don't intend to spend paragraph upon paragraph explaining. A native person with no inkling of their native culture can access even an unknown family member for cultural information. A non-native person doesn't have that tie, and may have to look a bit harder to find someone that will share with them.

But only if they are accepted into the culture you are saying. Which is very rare in the 'native' cultures if they are not family.


You just said, in the paragraph above "they still probably have familial ties to fall back on in order to learn". No, you did not use the word explicitly, but it is there in your arguments from the start.
By the way, I think you are not understanding something very fundamental here about aboriginal people, specifically in Canada.

Individual bands are made up of family groups. Any member of a band can find a familial relationship to any other member of the band, no matter how distant that relationship is, and our ties can extend to numerous other bands as well. Our family ties are extremely complicated, and much more extensive than western concepts of family. I literally can not conceive of someone being a member of a band, who is not in some way related to another member of that band. That doesn't mean relation by blood only. Adoption and marriage is just as valid.

For this little bit of cultural information, I expect payment in the amount of $55 Canadian dollars. I accept Visa and MasterCard, but sorry, no American Express.

I agree with Sinuhue on this one (provided I've understood what she's trying to say, that is).

Suppose that there were no books, articles, studies, etc. on the culture of the Philippines, and that I've never been to the Philippines, am not related to any Filipino people, and don't even know any Filipino people. Essentially, pretend I have no way of learning about Filipino culture. I can't then just make up a bunch of rituals or beliefs and call it Filipino culture, because obviously, it's not (unless by some bizarre coincidence I happen to make something up that actually is part of that culture). I can make up my own name for this culture I've created, but I can't call it Filipino culture, or any other name for already existing cultures. Makes sense, no?

I agree with Sinuhue on this one (provided I've understood what she's trying to say, that is).

Suppose that there were no books, articles, studies, etc. on the culture of the Philippines, and that I've never been to the Philippines, am not related to any Filipino people, and don't even know any Filipino people. Essentially, pretend I have no way of learning about Filipino culture. I can't then just make up a bunch of rituals or beliefs and call it Filipino culture, because obviously, it's not (unless by some bizarre coincidence I happen to make something up that actually is part of that culture). I can make up my own name for this culture I've created, but I can't call it Filipino culture, or any other name for already existing cultures. Makes sense, no?


Alright, so that applies to many native groups (where incomplete, or erroneous information is available). So now what about another group that has an overwhelming amount of cultural information readily available? Would all that study make you one of them (if such was your intent)?

An odd question:
Could you extensively study the culture of chimpanzees, and be a practising member of their culture?

I disagree in part with your position, Sinhue.

Yes, the examples you give are of obvious fakes and terrible messups. Still, I think that if a person is dedicated enough, one can switch cultures. It requires total immersion and an effective break with one's past, and may be immoral to those who value the place of ancestors, but it is possible. If you up and moved to become a Bai, switched your language and devoted yourself to catch-up learning the cultural history, it could be done. Someone mentioned in my ages-past linguistics course (Rousseau maybe?) pointed out that if a French baby is transported to China and raised there, he effectively becomes Chinese. Just think of those who are born in one country (Say Canada) and never learn the language of their ancestors (Say Ukraine). That person has, albeit against her/his will, switched familial cultures.

Realistically, almost no adult actually does change cultures entirely, though. So on a practical level, I think you are essentially right.

On a Reserve? Or as a Cree?

Not on a Reserve. With Cree people, all my life. As a Cree person, all my life. Exclusively with Cree, never.
Must be pretty cool to have that kind of heritage. That's really something to be proud of, methinks. Personally, I was born in the Soviet Union:mp5: , which isn't even a country anymore, so not much to boast about there, if you know what I mean.

Okay Vitt, an outside example sprung to mind to help me work through what you are saying about culture and society. Consider the Amish. Alright. They have a certain culture, the outward manifestations of which constitute their specific society. An Amish person who chooses to live away from the society is still culturally Amish, by your standards, because the culture is internal, and not wholly dependant on the societal manifestations of it.

Let me think about that. You can't deny this person is still culturally Amish (though their personal culture will evolve as they become influence by other cultures via societal manifestations).

Now...a person who simply studies the Amish, knows pretty much everything about them that they could possibly know, and decides to become culturally Amish. They never join the Amish society, and never receive acceptance from a single Amish person. Are they culturally Amish?

That's bloody weird. Hmmm. Is the information enough? I can't work through that.

Yes, I would say, since culture is more of a state of mind to the person rather than a state of being in the community, that culture is possible with simply the understanding. Of course it would be difficult for a person to live out an amish life away from an amish society, but that doesn't mean that they can't uphold amish culture.

Like you said, an Amish person can take their culture with them to another society, so why couldn't someone who develops a sufficient understanding of the culture also maintain it outside of Amish society.

You do have a point, though, in that many cultures are largely based in the social roles of the people involved, and without the fulfillment of that social role, maybe they cannot truly engage in the culture. Take, for example, barn raising, although I don't know how integral it is to Amish culture, it is prominent to outside (at least my) perception of it. It would be hard for a person outside of an Amish society to take on this portion of the culture.

I would say that maybe some cultures are inseparable from the societies that they exist within, but it is not an inherent trait of society.

Well, it's certainly your right to be offended. As long as you realise that when I use the term native, I am referring to the people variously known as aboriginal, First Nations/Inuit/Métis, American Indian, or just Indian, and not to every single person born in every single place in every single year throughout human existence.
Yes I know you are using it in its narrow and restricted sense. I was wanting to point out to all and sundry though, that culture is something that we all have, regardless of our ethnicity. Some cultures are considered native - i.e. they are not those of the latest wave of invaders. (The Cree are not true natives of North America, they are colonists themselves from Asia). The term native is too often used to carry some kind of ethical message, some kind of criticism of the descendents of the European colonists for what their ancestors did (which was no different to what the ancestors of the 'natives' did anyway). I am denying you this moral high ground by generalising the term native to include virtually all of us. (I notice later on in your post that you do start on the old - "what the white man did" soap box. The Cree are not whiter than white, so you are as guilty as the rest of us.)


Well let me be explicit. I do not believe there is some special group that can confer a culture on someone. HOWEVER...there are specific people who are the only ones qualified to teach specific aspects of a culture. Just because I'm Cree, doesn't mean I can teach you to be a healer...because I haven't learned how to be one myself.
So. Just because I am a white european does not mean I can teach you how to be a doctor. This has nothing to do with culture, this is just pure knowledge. That is unless you are going to claim that only somone 'imbued' with Cree culture could learn to be a healer, i.e that being a Cree is a prerequisite of being a healer. Otherwise all you are saying is that if you want to learn a skill, go to someone who has that skill: or to some other reliable teaching resource. Remember that you used to (maybe still do) teach Spanish, despite not being Spanish. Huh, how does that stack up with your argument here. Or is there some kind of special case when it comes to "native" skills.

I believe that a people have the right to determine their own membership. Especially aboriginal people, where external rules of membership have been used in attempts to 'breed us out'.
Now you have slipped from "culture" to "people". Certainly you can not become a member of a people by studying. But I think that is what you have been trying to say all along. I see a clear difference existing between being one of a people and having a culture. I have a Brazilian culture, but I am not Brazilian. I could teach others about te Brazilian way of life, about the beliefs, the behaviour, etc. What I can not do is teach them how to be a member of the Brazilian people. To achieve that they would have to intermarry, be adopted etc.

Some tribes embrace blood quantum, and to an even stricter degree than that laid down by the government. I think it's a damn shame...but that should be up to them. Some tribal clans are matrilineal. You don't have a clan if your mother is not of the tribe. That's not our way, but it is theirs.
But they are all based on bloodlines (you hate the term, but it is ever present in your arguments).

It's a murky area...rules about membership...and it has a lot to do with identity, political power, and money. But overall, I do not believe an individual can simply join a culture without the consent of at least some people within that culture.
Membership of a people is murky. Membership of a cultural group is not. It depends purely and simply on your behaviour and beliefs. It does not depend upon your acceptance by that group. Using your example to VO - the Amish - anyone who acts and behaves according to the principles of their belief structure belongs to their culture. Anyone who does not do this is not a part of their culture. Thus someone from Santa Monica that decided tat they realy wanted to live a simply self-reliant protestant belief holding life is effectively a member of the Amish culture, (but he or she is not Amish - the people). On the converse a teenager that decides to leave the Amish community and become a computer programmer for a rock video producer is no longer culturally Amish (despite still being a member of the Amish people).

What is becoming clear here is a confusion of the culture with the people. In the same way that Judaism gets confused with being Jewish. Adopting a native culture des not make you a member of the native peoples. This latter CAN only be done by the native people themselves, not by you. However that does not prevent anyone from adopting their culture, unless they simply will not reveal their beleif systems and ways of living to those that are not of the people. Hence the accustation - justified - of racism.


People who are excluded are excluded for good reasons. Very few actually seek to learn about our culture in a respectful or authentic way...those that simply wish to claim to be something they are not are generally those who don't approach us in the first place...it's much easier to make up a history than to actually do any learning. We are suspicious of those who want to study us, and 'learn' about us...because we have a long history of dealing with these kinds of studies. Studies which are based in the firm belief in a western superiority, and that uses knowledge about us in order to justify actions taken against us. You will not wander into a Reserve and find yourself immediately welcome, or ushered into the presence of elders so that you can learn all about us. You will not find that kind of reception in ANY culture. Most often, people DEMAND, they do not ask. And they are refused. There is also information that will never be shared with you, unless we actually feel you have joined us.
Get off your holier than thou high horse Sinahue! None of the "native" peoples are innocent of the occasional act of genocide, and saying that it was part of the culture does not excuse it. All cultures try to impose themselves on their neighbours, it is part of what a culture is. The losing culture always argues that it has been abused, correctly, it has, but it is no innocent pacific culture that never did the same thing itself.
Those that demand get the response they deserve I hope. However when those that ask respectfully and with genuine interest are treated in the same way as those that demand then the people that react this way to enquiries about their way of life deserve to be outcasts.

Well, you have to learn from someone. Are there specific people who grant you culturehood? Not really...again unless you're talking about specific skills that have to be passed on by specific people. In our case, generally you become part of our culture when you intermarry with us, or are adopted, or simply work with us over a long period of time and are respectful. We open up to these people (though some will never open up to outsiders), but it takes time.

Correction : 'In our case, generally you become part of our people when you intermarry with us. . ." unless there is some miraculous transfer of beliefs and behaviour patterns.


Alright...but would you consider someone who has studied all there is to know about ancient Romans, and who in as many aspects as possible, tries to live as they do...to be cultural Roman?
Yes. She would not be of the Roman people, but she would be of the Roman culture.


I have to restrain my natural response to this with one question. Are you deliberately ignoring the reasons that many aboriginal people no longer wish to share their culture with westerners? What seems like 'ancient history' to you is not to us. We've been screwed around by people who claimed to be interested in our culture enough to have learned not to open up so easily. Call it xenophobic...I call it survival after hundreds of years of attempted cultural genocide.
I call that over reaction and playing the 'race' card in a totally invalid way. We have all been screwed around by people who claimed to be interested in us. All of us - without exception. This is not a justification to brand all outsiders as evil and untrustworthy; it is just a justification for being cautious when dealing with any person (of whatever etnicity) that you do not know.


Of course it is. It's only been in the last few decades that anyone would WANT to be considered native that wasn't one already. The romanticism of native culture is by no means universal. Racism and prejudice against natives is by far the prevalent attitude. Why would you ever seek to become that which you hold in contempt? Many people are adopted into the tribes with little fanfare...via marriages or adoptions. What is rare is someone who simply wishes to live on a Reservation with us and learn about our culture for the sake of becoming one of us.
Your initial enquiry was about the adoption of a culture that was not your original one. That has been going on for at least 5,000 years. That it is only recently that non 'native' people have decided that the 'native' culture is interesting is no cause for contempt. Racism and prejudice - full stop - not against any particular group, but against anyone that is different in any way is the prevalent attitude across humanity. The Cree are as contemptuous of the Europeans and the Sioux as the Europeans and the Sioux are contemptuous of them. Stop trying to claim a moral advantage here. You do not have one.
It is rare for anyone to want to change their culture - to whatever other culture. But just because it is rare does not mean that it can not be done.

I disagree in part with your position, Sinhue.

Yes, the examples you give are of obvious fakes and terrible messups. Still, I think that if a person is dedicated enough, one can switch cultures. It requires total immersion and an effective break with one's past, and may be immoral to those who value the place of ancestors, but it is possible. If you up and moved to become a Bai, switched your language and devoted yourself to catch-up learning the cultural history, it could be done. Someone mentioned in my ages-past linguistics course (Rousseau maybe?) pointed out that if a French baby is transported to China and raised there, he effectively becomes Chinese. Just think of those who are born in one country (Say Canada) and never learn the language of their ancestors (Say Ukraine). That person has, albeit against her/his will, switched familial cultures.

Realistically, almost no adult actually does change cultures entirely, though. So on a practical level, I think you are essentially right.
But there are two different scenarios here. Being raise in a culture, or living among people who practice a culture...and simply studying a culture. In the former case, I believe you can become a part of the culture. In the latter, I'm not so sure. Speaking Bai, and learning traditional Bai culture, but never meeting an actual Bai person...would I really be Bai?

Well I'm bi.

But not bai.:p

Must be pretty cool to have that kind of heritage. That's really something to be proud of, methinks. Personally, I was born in the Soviet Union , which isn't even a country anymore, so not much to boast about there, if you know what I mean.

My thoughts exactly. I really don't have any clear heritage and what I do have is boring as hell. American culture is also really dull if you ask me.

My thoughts exactly. I really don't have any clear heritage and what I do have is boring as hell. American culture is also really dull if you ask me.

I grew up on a rural American farm, and while it certainly seems dull to me, I bet if you actually took a scientific study of the minutia of the culture, you would find it to be very rich.

I grew up on a rural American farm, and while it certainly seems dull to me, I bet if you actually took a scientific study of the minutia of the culture, you would find it to be very rich.

You must have grown up on a different kind of rural American farm than I did because on mine, the culture consisted of drinking beer and listening to country music.

You must have grown up on a different kind of rural American farm than I did because on mine, the culture consisted of drinking beer and listening to country music.

I doubt they are very different.

However, when one examines the day in day out activities in a Cree society, they are probably not that glamorous either.

I agree with Sinuhue on this one (provided I've understood what she's trying to say, that is).

Suppose that there were no books, articles, studies, etc. on the culture of the Philippines, and that I've never been to the Philippines, am not related to any Filipino people, and don't even know any Filipino people. Essentially, pretend I have no way of learning about Filipino culture. I can't then just make up a bunch of rituals or beliefs and call it Filipino culture, because obviously, it's not (unless by some bizarre coincidence I happen to make something up that actually is part of that culture). I can make up my own name for this culture I've created, but I can't call it Filipino culture, or any other name for already existing cultures. Makes sense, no?
its sort of like a girl who goes to the bookstore and buys a book about wicca, maybe even attends a wiccan service one, who decides that shes a "witch" and claims a sisterhood with those celtic pagans that were wiped out by the christianity.

if she were miraculously plopped down in a "wiccan village" in 800ad (and could understand and be understood) they would not recognize her as being ANYTHING like them. her dress would be wrong, her attitude would be wrong, her practice would be wrong, her morals would be wrong, her relationship to the gods would be wrong.

claiming it doesnt make it true.

Alright, so that applies to many native groups (where incomplete, or erroneous information is available). So now what about another group that has an overwhelming amount of cultural information readily available? Would all that study make you one of them (if such was your intent)?

My first instinct is to say no if the study doesn't involve some form of personal contact with the culture in question. I'll have to think about it some more though, and try to formulate coherent thoughts (as opposed to the collection of random junk floating around in my head right now).

Yes I know you are using it in its narrow and restricted sense. I was wanting to point out to all and sundry though, that culture is something that we all have, regardless of our ethnicity. Some cultures are considered native - i.e. they are not those of the latest wave of invaders. (The Cree are not true natives of North America, they are colonists themselves from Asia). The term native is too often used to carry some kind of ethical message, some kind of criticism of the descendents of the European colonists for what their ancestors did (which was no different to what the ancestors of the 'natives' did anyway). I am denying you this moral high ground by generalising the term native to include virtually all of us. You can't deny me an moral high ground, because I'm not up on any. High ground. Cripes. By using the word native? It's a word that is used to describe us. I don't care what kind of ethical message you think it has. I'm sure you object to aboriginal as well, but I'm not about to list every tribal name for you just so you aren't offended. Suffice it to say that my use of the term 'native' is in no way reflecting the prejudices you have toward that word. I find it easier to use 'native' than 'Indian' so I don't have to constantly explain which Indians I'm referring to.


(I notice later on in your post that you do start on the old - "what the white man did" soap box. The Cree are not whiter than white, so you are as guilty as the rest of us.) The Cree are as guilty of persecuting native people as the rest of you? Fascinating. I'm sorry that mentioning historical fact so seriously offends your sensibilities. And whiter than white? What on earth are you talking about?

Oh, and if you're going to go on a rant about how the white man saved the Indians from exterminating one another in genocidal war...educate yourself better.

So. Just because I am a white european does not mean I can teach you how to be a doctor. This has nothing to do with culture, this is just pure knowledge. That is unless you are going to claim that only somone 'imbued' with Cree culture could learn to be a healer, i.e that being a Cree is a prerequisite of being a healer.
Only someone who is a Cree healer can teach someone to be a Cree healer. Not hard to understand, is it? Only someone who is a Mohawk healer can teach someone to be a Mohawk healer. Quit taking my specific examples and trying to generalise them. And no, Alien Born, unless you are a doctor, you can not teach me to be a doctor. Knowledge is exactly what I was talking about. The issue was this: are there 'gatekeepers' to a culture. No, I said there are not. But there are gatekeepers to specific knowledge. I'm Cree. But I'm not a healer. Therefore, I could not teach you to be a healer.


Otherwise all you are saying is that if you want to learn a skill, go to someone who has that skill: or to some other reliable teaching resource. Remember that you used to (maybe still do) teach Spanish, despite not being Spanish. Huh, how does that stack up with your argument here. Or is there some kind of special case when it comes to "native" skills. Another case of 'what the hell are you talking about, Alien Born?" For once you seem to understand. Yes, if you want to learn a specific skill, go to someone who has that skill. In our case, the only reliable teaching resource is someone with that skill. But among us, specific skills include spiritual aspects, and cultural practices that you cannot understand or use in isolation.


Now you have slipped from "culture" to "people". Certainly you can not become a member of a people by studying. But I think that is what you have been trying to say all along. I see a clear difference existing between being one of a people and having a culture. I have a Brazilian culture, but I am not Brazilian. I could teach others about te Brazilian way of life, about the beliefs, the behaviour, etc. What I can not do is teach them how to be a member of the Brazilian people. To achieve that they would have to intermarry, be adopted etc. But culture is very much tied into a people. (yes, we all have culture, what I'm referring to is specific cultures.) In your example, as in mine, you can become a part of a people...but culture alone won't get you there.



Membership of a people is murky. Membership of a cultural group is not. It depends purely and simply on your behaviour and beliefs. It does not depend upon your acceptance by that group. Using your example to VO - the Amish - anyone who acts and behaves according to the principles of their belief structure belongs to their culture. Anyone who does not do this is not a part of their culture. Thus someone from Santa Monica that decided tat they realy wanted to live a simply self-reliant protestant belief holding life is effectively a member of the Amish culture, (but he or she is not Amish - the people). On the converse a teenager that decides to leave the Amish community and become a computer programmer for a rock video producer is no longer culturally Amish (despite still being a member of the Amish people).

What is becoming clear here is a confusion of the culture with the people. In the same way that Judaism gets confused with being Jewish. Adopting a native culture des not make you a member of the native peoples. This latter CAN only be done by the native people themselves, not by you. However that does not prevent anyone from adopting their culture, unless they simply will not reveal their beleif systems and ways of living to those that are not of the people. Hence the accustation - justified - of racism. Well, know I know your opinion, and you know mine. I don't think we have any responsibility to share a single shred of our culture with you, or anyone else, unless we...NOT YOU...choose that to happen.



Get off your holier than thou high horse Sinahue! None of the "native" peoples are innocent of the occasional act of genocide, and saying that it was part of the culture does not excuse it. All cultures try to impose themselves on their neighbours, it is part of what a culture is. The losing culture always argues that it has been abused, correctly, it has, but it is no innocent pacific culture that never did the same thing itself. Nor did I say it was. That is YOUR kneejerk reaction to my giving you a reason aboriginal people are suspicious, and less than open with our culture.
Those that demand get the response they deserve I hope. However when those that ask respectfully and with genuine interest are treated in the same way as those that demand then the people that react this way to enquiries about their way of life deserve to be outcasts. Well, you're speaking of hypothetical situations now. I don't know of any cases of someone asking respectfully being rebuffed the same way someone making demands is. If there is something you aren't going to be told yet, that's explained to you. You may learn it later. You may not. That's our choice...not yours.


Correction : 'In our case, generally you become part of our people when you intermarry with us. . ." unless there is some miraculous transfer of beliefs and behaviour patterns. In a certain way...yes. Not in all ways...until we develop some sort of chip to install in the brains of those who join us...

Yet you can not fully separate being one of our people with being part of our culture.
Take for example a non-aboriginal man who marries a Cree woman. He becomes one of our family members. The culture surrounding interactions with family members will not suddenly be transferred into this man's brain...he may not understand for a long while, if ever, why his mother-in-law won't speak directly to him, or why he suddenly has 'children' through his wife's sisters. But the community knows these things, and will relate to him in that manner.

Because of our family ties, you can not have 'native culture' without having ties to native people. You can ape whatever little ceremonies you have managed to read about...but unless you get a real explanaition of what you are doing, you're not going to understand it. And no, sorry...learning how to smudge does not imbue you with the whole of native culture.


Yes. She would not be of the Roman people, but she would be of the Roman culture.
Hmmm. I don't believe you can resurrect a culture like that. But anyway.


I call that over reaction and playing the 'race' card in a totally invalid way. We have all been screwed around by people who claimed to be interested in us. All of us - without exception. This is not a justification to brand all outsiders as evil and untrustworthy; it is just a justification for being cautious when dealing with any person (of whatever etnicity) that you do not know. And who is branding all outsiders as evil and untrustworthy? That is what you keep accusing me of, and yet I have not. We are extremely cautious with outsiders claiming to want our knowledge. We want to make sure that what we do pass on is treated respectfully. I stated, "WE DO NOT OPEN UP TO PEOPLE EASILY". Some people among us do not want to share at all...and I don't think their reasons are invalid. I don't agree that we should totally shut others out, but I do respect that certain things should never be shared with outsiders. Not until those outsiders become insiders.

Your initial enquiry was about the adoption of a culture that was not your original one. That has been going on for at least 5,000 years. That it is only recently that non 'native' people have decided that the 'native' culture is interesting is no cause for contempt. Racism and prejudice - full stop - not against any particular group, but against anyone that is different in any way is the prevalent attitude across humanity. The Cree are as contemptuous of the Europeans and the Sioux as the Europeans and the Sioux are contemptuous of them. Stop trying to claim a moral advantage here. You do not have one. Stop trying to claim that I'm claming a moral high ground. Never have I said racism doesn't exist among the tribes. You pulled that out of your own head. YOU are the one who keeps turning this into a racial issue, by claiming it is racism that we don't accept fakes who claim to have traditional knowledge (which they generally have just made up), and because we don't fall all over ourselves to share every intimate detail of our lives with you. Our elders tell us that we were more than willing to share our culture with the settlers...we learned caution slowly. We don't exclude all non-aboriginals (or clearly I wouldn't be able to call myself Cree because of my white father)...but neither to we accept that you have a 'right' to appropriate any aspect of our culture that you feel like.

So how about you get off your little soapbox, and stop thinking you have some inherent right to all cultures, all the time. You don't. You can ask, but you can not force.

Sure, you can join a religion. You can become a Muslim, a Christian, and Buddhist, whatever...but you can't unilaterally join a culture. Seems obvious, doesn't it? Then why do so many people think that they can practice 'native spirituality'? Because they don't understand that our spirituality is not a religion. It's a communal aspect of our culture, and you don't just get to run off with it and become a tribe of one.

So sorry Miss Rainbow Woman and Mister Chief Smiling Moon. When we call you disgusting fakes, it's because we don't accept you. And to those poor fools who buy your 'real Indian spirituality in only three sessions'...*sigh*

While it's true that you can't just decide that you're a member of a culture any more than you can decide to become a family (it's up to the group to accept the individual not the other way around) is that what people are doing when they try to adopt a piece of your culture's spiritual practices to suit their own lives?

Most religions have evolved by people doing that very thing bit by bit. Not just how Catholicism is full of pagan stuff, though that would be a million examples right there. But things like how there's a tribe in Africa whose cosmological folktale says that the world was created when God had sex with a Coke bottle. Clearly they had Coke bottles longer than they had writing, but it's also pretty clear that someone in that tribe got the idea to incorporate the existence of Coke bottles into their spiritual tradition.

Christianity, Islam, Confusianism, Daoism, almost all the big religions came from one guy who decided that the traditions of those around him had some pretty good stuff, so he put them together, threw out what he didn't like, and started a religion that changed the known world. I'm sure that there were a million other prophets who did the same thing but no one paid any attention.

I wouldn't take it as a slight against your culture or people that people think that they can just become it. All it means is that instead of incorporating a piece of your culture into their own, they don't have a sense of one at all, so anything that they adopt from yours replaces what they've got. It's one shakey step on what could be a courageous spiritual journey if they keep going. Think of it like a 3 year-old who tries to paint your portrait. Sure they drew you with a 30-foot spherical head and a body the size of a desktop tower, but it's not because they think you're a hideous distorted freak. It's because their art hasn't matured yet. Probably won't for years. Just pat them on the head, tell them how deep they are, and try not to laugh until they're out of earshot.

My thoughts exactly. I really don't have any clear heritage and what I do have is boring as hell. American culture is also really dull if you ask me.
Right, well there's a difference between heritage and culture. You could be 100% Native American, and that would be a heritage that you could really be proud of because so few people are like that, and you would be the ancestor of the people who first owned this land. I suppose the culture too would be rich, but there are many other types of cultures you can experience without being part of the heritage where it came from. As for American culture being dull, well, all I can say is, if you know where to look, you will find some good stuff. In other words, MTV, Top 40 radio stations, and those mindless Hollywood action thrillers where the "good" guy shoots up all the "bad" guys are what I would consider a dull part of the American culture. However, there's a lot of good stuff underground, all you gotta do is look for it. Bottom line is, there's enough to keep me entertained.

In other words, MTV, Top 40 radio stations, and those mindless Hollywood action thrillers where the "good" guy shoots up all the "bad" guys are what I would consider a dull part of the American culture. However, there's a lot of good stuff underground, all you gotta do is look for it. Bottom line is, there's enough to keep me entertained.

Well, I certainly haven't seen any evidence for its existence.

One part at a time, as it is getting to be too long.

You can't deny me an moral high ground, because I'm not up on any. High ground. Cripes. By using the word native? It's a word that is used to describe us. I don't care what kind of ethical message you think it has. I'm sure you object to aboriginal as well, but I'm not about to list every tribal name for you just so you aren't offended. Suffice it to say that my use of the term 'native' is in no way reflecting the prejudices you have toward that word. I find it easier to use 'native' than 'Indian' so I don't have to constantly explain which Indians I'm referring to.
Fine. You have made it clear that the label is just a label for a collection of peoples and cultures that you call native. No ethical implications involved. Until you make that clear, describing people as native or indigenous (of which the Cree are historically neither) confers a position of original land holders. This necessarily confers a title of invader on any other co-resident groups, whether you intend this or not.

The Cree are as guilty of persecuting native people as the rest of you? Fascinating. I'm sorry that mentioning historical fact so seriously offends your sensibilities. And whiter than white? What on earth are you talking about?
Did I say 'native' people? No. I said that they are as innocent of genocidse as any other people in the world.

Oh, and if you're going to go on a rant about how the white man saved the Indians from exterminating one another in genocidal war...educate yourself better.
I am better educated than that, and so I believe you to be in the history of your own people. The Cree, as you well know, are colonists themselves. I am refering to 10,000 years ago (give or take) when the peoples that are now described as indigenous arrived in the Americas, eliminating or driving out the peoples that were there before them.

However this is a side argument about the connotations of certain terms, and the use, deliberate or otherwise of these connotations.

My next post will go back to the culture/people argument.

this reminds me of a quote by the Duke of Wellington "just because one is born in a stable doesnt make him a horse"

All you've got is two BLOGS and an article that talks about firepits, not genetics.

Sorry. You lose.

The Asian land bridge didn't exist when the firepits were dug and used, so someone was here before them. The ruins upstate in New York can be looked up to, I didn't post a link because said I wasn't doing the homework for the ignorant.

The Mormons looked at the genes of Native Americans trying to say the pre-history Americans were hebrew but the genes said no but they did say there were European genes that had been in the mix far longer than anyone ever thought or could explain.

So, yes, there were people, non-Asians, non-Hebrew, not previously credited. You do have genetic markers which can't be explained any other way. So if someone wants to refute the facts, fine but if you want to express an outdated opinion as fact and pretend this is a contest, grow up.

Let's see, I said I wouldn't do someone else's homework and I didn't. I win.

Someone was daft enough to read the blogs and not do their homework, we have found the loser.

Once again, the genes don't lie. The Native Americans are a mix of Polynesian, Asian, and European genetic lines going back to pre-history. Anything you think was done to Indians was done to their own kind. We can swap blood, organs, skin and hair around between us, it's not apples and oranges. Just like the other guy said, we all have African genes, so claiming racism is a little weak in all cases.

Man is already cruel to man without regard to race. Nothing happening globally doesn't also happen locally

People who choose one side over the other are lost. People who read my stuff and thought it took a side are beyond recovery.

Breaking the posts up...good idea. I'm starting to forget what the heck I'm discussing. Especially when you keep making mountains into molehills. Seriously. 'Native'. Unreal.

I'll be back tomorrow!

Well, I certainly haven't seen any evidence for its existence.
Well, take that country music you so hate. Country originated in the US, and even though you may not like it, it is enjoyed by many people. Same with gospel, rap, rock, all of them originated in the US. Then, there are all the great literary works, and whatnot, and my point is you shouldn't be so pessimistic.

Did I say 'native' people? No. I said that they are as innocent of genocidse as any other people in the world. No you didn't. You made some obscure comment about being not being whiter than white. I expect better of someone who expects everyone else to be completely explicit, while reading so much into every single statement.

One part at a time, as it is getting to be too long.


Fine. You have made it clear that the label is just a label for a collection of peoples and cultures that you call native. No ethical implications involved. Until you make that clear, describing people as native or indigenous (of which the Cree are historically neither) confers a position of original land holders. This necessarily confers a title of invader on any other co-resident groups, whether you intend this or not.


Did I say 'native' people? No. I said that they are as innocent of genocidse as any other people in the world.


I am better educated than that, and so I believe you to be in the history of your own people. The Cree, as you well know, are colonists themselves. I am refering to 10,000 years ago (give or take) when the peoples that are now described as indigenous arrived in the Americas, eliminating or driving out the peoples that were there before them.

However this is a side argument about the connotations of certain terms, and the use, deliberate or otherwise of these connotations.

My next post will go back to the culture/people argument.

I think you're taking this whole thing out of context fella. For starters, I don't think there's any evidence of 'genocide' being practiced by the aboriginal peoples of North America. A migration that may have taken place '10,000' years ago by semi-nomadic peoples hardly qualify as 'land-owners'. The whole land-ownership concept is alien to the culture. Did they displace previous peoples? Or did they intermingle with them? Were their other peoples here to begin with?

The essential message that Sinuhue is posting, that you can't assume the mantle of a communal culture in the absence of the community only makes sense.

I differ a little however, on the idea that the spirituality practiced by her people isn't a 'religion'. I guess that just comes down to textbook definition. I find most religions are communal at any rate, but many of them are about 'personal' relationships with God, etc., so I see her point.

Yeah, some people here in Canada have recriminated because I'm not Mexican enough. They say "why don't you follow your traditions" and I say "I never did in Mexico, why should I here?"

I hate it when people do that. I wish they would leave me alone so that I can help my culture evolve the way my life demands. I don't need some 'sensitive' person tell me how to live up to their idea as to what my should be.

No you didn't. You made some obscure comment about being not being whiter than white. I expect better of someone who expects everyone else to be completely explicit, while reading so much into every single statement.

Selective reading? To quote myself

The term native is too often used to carry some kind of ethical message, some kind of criticism of the descendents of the European colonists for what their ancestors did (which was no different to what the ancestors of the 'natives' did anyway).

So the comment that came immediately after this was not obscure. It had a clear referent.

But on to the meat of the matter.

Only someone who is a Cree healer can teach someone to be a Cree healer. Not hard to understand, is it? Only someone who is a Mohawk healer can teach someone to be a Mohawk healer. Quit taking my specific examples and trying to generalise them. And no, Alien Born, unless you are a doctor, you can not teach me to be a doctor. Knowledge is exactly what I was talking about. The issue was this: are there 'gatekeepers' to a culture. No, I said there are not. But there are gatekeepers to specific knowledge. I'm Cree. But I'm not a healer. Therefore, I could not teach you to be a healer.

Yes it is hard to understand. Why does someone have to be a Cree to teach me to heal using the techniques developped by the Cree? Do you have to be French to learn about bacteria? Anyone that knows the techniques can teach them. Unless there is something about being a Cree healer that requires you to be a member of the Cree people. In that case no one, not even a Cree healer, can teach me, unless I become a Cree.
It appears you are talking about a little more than knowledge. It appears that you are arguing that only a member of a specific people can transmit the knowledge developed by that people. Any non member of the people that has learnt the matter in question is in some mysterious and inexplained way debarred from teaching it to others.

Another case of 'what the hell are you talking about, Alien Born?" For once you seem to understand. Yes, if you want to learn a specific skill, go to someone who has that skill. In our case, the only reliable teaching resource is someone with that skill. But among us, specific skills include spiritual aspects, and cultural practices that you cannot understand or use in isolation.

So in your case there are religious aspects? But you are arguing that there are not in other posts, so that can not be what you mean.
What do you mean by spiritual aspects to knowledge and skills. Knowledge and skills can be taught, we agree on that. They can be taught in many ways, and their transmission does not depend upon the 'culture' of the recipient. Except that it now appears that it does depend on this, for you, when we are talking about the knowledge and skills of the 'native' peoples.
No one is asking anyone to understand things in isolation. You can not understand how the kidneys work in isolation. It requires a great deal of general knowledge and awareness of concepts for us to understand anything. However to work with these concepts, to practice a different way of thinking does not depend upon the acceptance of others, it depends on the individual's willingness to discard their preconceptions and look at things from a different perspective. So if your argument is that this skill or that knowledge can not be learened or understood in isolation, then this is true. If the argument is that this skill or that knowledge require you to be adopted culturally by the bearers of the culture concerned, then you have not presented any coherent reasoning for this. Just a bald, unsupported assertion that it is so.

Enough for now.

@Mikesberg - Sin and I are old opponents (and sometimes allies). What I was arguing there is something that has its roots a couple of years ago and is based on my interpretation of Sinahue's general position on such matters.

Selective reading? To quote myself

So the comment that came immediately after this was not obscure. It had a clear referent. I'm still not getting the whiter than white reference. But whatever.


Yes it is hard to understand. Why does someone have to be a Cree to teach me to heal using the techniques developped by the Cree? Do you have to be French to learn about bacteria? Anyone that knows the techniques can teach them. Unless there is something about being a Cree healer that requires you to be a member of the Cree people. In that case no one, not even a Cree healer, can teach me, unless I become a Cree. See, here is the misunderstanding. I said Cree healer, because you generalised and said 'healer', and then made a comparison to a doctor. A Cree healer is a healer using Cree techniques, not just a Cree person.
It appears you are talking about a little more than knowledge. It appears that you are arguing that only a member of a specific people can transmit the knowledge developed by that people. Any non member of the people that has learnt the matter in question is in some mysterious and inexplained way debarred from teaching it to others.
No. That's your interpretation of what I said. I hope it becomes clear. My point in bringing up healing was to point out that being a member of a people or a culture does not bring with it specific knowledge...which is what many of these frauds claim. Go back to the original quote.
Well let me be explicit. I do not believe there is some special group that can confer a culture on someone. HOWEVER...there are specific people who are the only ones qualified to teach specific aspects of a culture. Just because I'm Cree, doesn't mean I can teach you to be a healer...because I haven't learned how to be one myself.
So no specific group says you are Cree or not...but specific people say you are a healer or not, or qualified to hold sweat lodges, or whatever. THOSE people are the 'gatekeepers' into specific skills. I brought it up so you wouldn't, and wave it in front of me whilst hopping around chanting, 'you said there were no gatekeepers, but here are some gatekeepers...' Forgive me for anticipating your arguments.

And no, these skills can not be taught separate from our culture, for the reasons I'll list in a second. They are aspects of our culture...not just skills alone.


So in your case there are religious aspects? But you are arguing that there are not in other posts, so that can not be what you mean. I said spiritual, not religious, oh Splitter-of-Linguistic-Hairs...as in dealing with the spirit world. Western beliefs don't include these things...ours do. A 'how to book' is not going to be able to convince you of the existance of spirits. You have to accept our worldview in order to practice our healing. Are we speaking the same language? I often feel we are not. I expect payment in the amount of $150 Canadian dollars for that real life Indian naming ceremony by the way.

What do you mean by spiritual aspects to knowledge and skills. Knowledge and skills can be taught, we agree on that. They can be taught in many ways, and their transmission does not depend upon the 'culture' of the recipient. Except that it now appears that it does depend on this, for you, when we are talking about the knowledge and skills of the 'native' peoples. Of course it does. If your culture sees things one way, and can not accept the view of my culture, we are in conflict, and what you learn will not the be the totality of our actual teachings.

No one is asking anyone to understand things in isolation. You can not understand how the kidneys work in isolation. It requires a great deal of general knowledge and awareness of concepts for us to understand anything. However to work with these concepts, to practice a different way of thinking does not depend upon the acceptance of others, it depends on the individual's willingness to discard their preconceptions and look at things from a different perspective. So if your argument is that this skill or that knowledge can not be learened or understood in isolation, then this is true. If the argument is that this skill or that knowledge require you to be adopted culturally by the bearers of the culture concerned, then you have not presented any coherent reasoning for this. Just a bald, unsupported assertion that it is so. Nope, it's a perfectly valid assertation, because you can not become a Cree healer until you've been taught by a Cree healer. That explicitly means you have acceptance. Sorry. No other way to do it.


@Mikesberg - Sin and I are old opponents (and sometimes allies). What I was arguing there is something that has its roots a couple of years ago and is based on my interpretation of Sinahue's general position on such matters.
Well I wish you wouldn't interpret. A lot of what had me on edge here is you tossing in little things about my supposed belief in my racial/cultural superiority and so forth...which are not beliefs I hold. So I spend my time defending myself against you, instead of better explaining my original points. Though I'm happy I finally have a thread that has me typing like mad again, after many days of disinterest with NS, I really don't appreciate being accused of racism or cultural elitism when what I am trying to talk about it unfounded cultural appropriation...while explaining certain aspects of my culture so that you can understand WHY certain things just don't make sense.

Stop assuming. Ask. I'll answer. If the answer is unclear, I'll try to clarify. But you and I constantly argue about semantics, working from different interpretations as to what a word means. Perhaps we should begin each argument with a glossary of terms and how we intend to use them...and include all the possible connotations we want to include, and those we intend to exclude?

I'd rather not though.

I have been in multiple discussions with Sinuhue, but I don't where she stands on much of anything.

I have been in multiple discussions with Sinuhue, but I don't where she stands on much of anything.
Good. At least you're not telling me what my stand is.

And if you were interested, all you would ever have to do is ask.

You do have a point, though, in that many cultures are largely based in the social roles of the people involved, and without the fulfillment of that social role, maybe they cannot truly engage in the culture. Take, for example, barn raising, although I don't know how integral it is to Amish culture, it is prominent to outside (at least my) perception of it. It would be hard for a person outside of an Amish society to take on this portion of the culture.

I would say that maybe some cultures are inseparable from the societies that they exist within, but it is not an inherent trait of society.
I can agree with this. I don't know that I could categorise WHICH cultures would be inseparable from the society they exist within, but in communal cultures, culture is hard to practice individually in isolation.

And I don't think you could really 'join' a culture that is communal if you don't adopt many of those communal cultural aspects.

Nor could parts of my culture remain the same if I forever left my territory. Much of it is specific to the plants, animals and landforms of the region.

The Asian land bridge didn't exist when the firepits were dug and used, so someone was here before them.

And this is verified how?

The ruins upstate in New York can be looked up to, I didn't post a link because said I wasn't doing the homework for the ignorant.

Ahhh well if you make a claim you have to back it up with something. Not our job(here at least) to validate your claims.

The Mormons looked at the genes of Native Americans trying to say the pre-history Americans were hebrew but the genes said no but they did say there were European genes that had been in the mix far longer than anyone ever thought or could explain.


Ahhh the old lost tribe claims.

Again where is your proof.

So, yes, there were people, non-Asians, non-Hebrew, not previously credited. You do have genetic markers which can't be explained any other way. So if someone wants to refute the facts, fine but if you want to express an outdated opinion as fact and pretend this is a contest, grow up.

Let's see, I said I wouldn't do someone else's homework and I didn't. I win.


Actually sweety. You need to grow up as you need better data rather then yelling we are all ignorant childish and lazy for not researching your claims. Every claim in any scientific, anthropological, historical always submits references.

Someone was daft enough to read the blogs and not do their homework, we have found the loser.
How old are you?

Once again, the genes don't lie. The Native Americans are a mix of Polynesian, Asian, and European genetic lines going back to pre-history. Anything you think was done to Indians was done to their own kind. We can swap blood, organs, skin and hair around between us, it's not apples and oranges. Just like the other guy said, we all have African genes, so claiming racism is a little weak in all cases.

The european link is questionable as all that you suggest is that the Europeans that made it over hear have interbred.

Why isn't there are predominanace of blond blue eyed members of the tribes.

Guess what the basic hair and eye color tended to be mentioned in the writings of the times and for that matter still today.....


Man is already cruel to man without regard to race. Nothing happening globally doesn't also happen locally

People who choose one side over the other are lost. People who read my stuff and thought it took a side are beyond recovery.

How old are you?

Alright, so that applies to many native groups (where incomplete, or erroneous information is available). So now what about another group that has an overwhelming amount of cultural information readily available? Would all that study make you one of them (if such was your intent)?

I still don't know if all that study would make you one of them, for one reason: I don't know if you can be part of a culture that doesn't accept you as such. If you study everything there is to know about a group, adopt all of their beliefs, culture, and way of life, and discard all of your old beliefs, I think you can at least claim to be culturally a part of that group. However, I also think that in order to learn all of these things well enough to emulate them, you would have to have been in very close contact with the group. It would be much more difficult for it to happen if you were in isolation from the group, at least in my opinion, because book learning is no substitute for the real thing.

A little bit about my background, so you can understand a bit about where these opinions come from. I was born in the United States, but raised in various different countries abroad. The first time I actually lived in the U.S. was when I came back for university. I got to college, and according to my passport, I was "home". But everyone I met placed me as belonging somewhere else. None of my friends consider me to be culturally American. None. Most of them think I'm culturally European (whatever that means). However, if I were to go back to Europe, I guarantee you they would all say I was culturally American. What do I say? I don't really have a culture. I'm a mutt. :p

Anyway, that's my two cents.

I still don't know if all that study would make you one of them, for one reason: I don't know if you can be part of a culture that doesn't accept you as such. If you study everything there is to know about a group, adopt all of their beliefs, culture, and way of life, and discard all of your old beliefs, I think you can at least claim to be culturally a part of that group. However, I also think that in order to learn all of these things well enough to emulate them, you would have to have been in very close contact with the group. It would be much more difficult for it to happen if you were in isolation from the group, at least in my opinion, because book learning is no substitute for the real thing. This is how I feel about it as well.

Also, many emulations are culturally insensitive, or based on false conceptions of that particular culture. Like placing a tipi and a totem pole together. These things from two separate cultures. Putting feathers in your hair to 'look Indian' is stupid. One...you have no idea what feathers represent to us and two...we don't all wear feathers in our hair anyway. We do so for specific reasons...if a person doesn't understand those reasons, what they are doing is not authentically native. It's some made-up shit they attribute to our culture.

Worse is when you get people eschewing tradition and showing up at pow-wows or other gatherings and thinking they should be allowed to participate. They need to sign up like everyone else. Some things they will only be allowed to do if they have some sort of tie to the community. That tie can not be invented. Oh, well, it can...but no one but the ignorant will give that imaginary tie any creedence.

Also, many emulations are culturally insensitive, or based on false conceptions of that particular culture. Like placing a tipi and a totem pole together. These things from two separate cultures. Putting feathers in your hair to 'look Indian' is stupid. One...you have no idea what feathers represent to us and two...we don't all wear feathers in our hair anyway. We do so for specific reasons...if a person doesn't understand those reasons, what they are doing is not authentically native. It's some made-up shit they attribute to our culture.
So? Its people's right to look stupid and annoy those around them. Nothing is sacred, and so pissing on Native cultures is no bigger a deal then pissing on European culture.
Worse is when you get people eschewing tradition and showing up at pow-wows or other gatherings and thinking they should be allowed to participate. They need to sign up like everyone else. Some things they will only be allowed to do if they have some sort of tie to the community. That tie can not be invented. Oh, well, it can...but no one but the ignorant will give that imaginary tie any creedence.
Nyeh. Get a few bouncers like every other social club that wants to avoid undesirables.

Also, many emulations are culturally insensitive, or based on false conceptions of that particular culture. Like placing a tipi and a totem pole together. These things from two separate cultures. Putting feathers in your hair to 'look Indian' is stupid. One...you have no idea what feathers represent to us and two...we don't all wear feathers in our hair anyway. We do so for specific reasons...if a person doesn't understand those reasons, what they are doing is not authentically native. It's some made-up shit they attribute to our culture.

Ahh. I was going to post something about having to actually research the culture, and not just base your emulations on hearsay or what the kook next door says. I was also going to add something about having to understand the meanings behind their actions. But you took care of that nicely.

I said spiritual, not religious, oh Splitter-of-Linguistic-Hairs...as in dealing with the spirit world. Western beliefs don't include these things...ours do.
I have to take issue with this, because there are Western beliefs that most certainly do include dealings with the spirit world, they just happen to be rarely in practice in this day and age. Neo-Platonic natural theology distinguishes between the material (physis or phenomenal) and the ideal (eidon or noetic) worlds with a divided line that separate them but that communion is possible between them by the aid of a daimon, which can be good or bad depending in part upon the formation of the recipient's psyche. That is in practice to some extent even today in part thanks to Christianity of all things, which adopted some of its termonology even as it reinterpreted it. But if you went back further you will find the Delphic Oracle communing with the wind spirits (volcanic gasses in actuality) that rose up from inside their cave, and this is all just from Attic and Doric Greeks and not counting many other cultures.

Of course I will freely agree that their notions of spirituality will differ with that of your own tribe's, but please do not think for a moment that the West has no spirituality in any of its cultural histories or practices.

I also have a problem with your prejudging the motives of outside seekers of knowledge based on the past actions of some wrongdoers, which stems from the problem I have with tribalism and closed cultures in general. It's good to guard one's knowledge from thieves and charlatants certainly, but not all people outside the tribe are motivated by crass self-interest. I would also suggest that insularity breeds stagnation while the activity of openness and free exchange serves to fight off that kind of cultural and intellectual atrophy as well as for the increase of knowledge.

Actually, the white skin colour is just a genetic mutation, and anyway we all originated in Africa, so we're all really black. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Was not, at this point, present-day "racial" differentiation (whatever one's determination of the term) nonexistant? Besides, to rephrase a flawed maxim, contemporary character should not be viewed as recapitulating any particular segment of phylogeny - otherwise, we're all really proto-cells.

*snipped*

Hey, I am an Indian. Can I join your culture? :D

Hey, I am an Indian. Can I join your culture? :D

Depends. Are you Northern or Southern? ;)

I also have a problem with your prejudging the motives of outside seekers of knowledge based on the past actions of some wrongdoers, which stems from the problem I have with tribalism and closed cultures in general. It's good to guard one's knowledge from thieves and charlatants certainly, but not all people outside the tribe are motivated by crass self-interest. I would also suggest that insularity breeds stagnation while the activity of openness and free exchange serves to fight off that kind of cultural and intellectual atrophy as well as for the increase of knowledge.
Yeah, that's nice. We still reserve the right to throw you off our reserve, without any sacred teachings. And no free 'sacred pipe'. You can pick up a cheesy dreamcatcher though...

Was not, at this point, present-day "racial" differentiation (whatever one's determination of the term) nonexistant? Besides, to rephrase a flawed maxim, contemporary character should not be viewed as recapitulating any particular segment of phylogeny - otherwise, we're all really proto-cells.
I hope you realise I was being absurd on purpose...but I like how you took it further:) The next time someone tries to invalidate our present day landclaims by saying, 'you were actually Europeans/Asians/Africans like us' I'll refer them to the fact that we were actually all proto-cells:)

Hey, I am an Indian. Can I join your culture? :D
If you really, really want to, and take the time to get to know us, and learn about our culture, and treat us with respect, and don't ask us for magic mushrooms, it's certainly a possibility.


Oh, and Tabriza, one thing you have to understand, is that many people want to learn about us for, what we deem to be unsuitable reasons...they want to be ordained practicioners of 'native spirituality' so they can start up weird new-age churches, or pass their art off as 'authentic native art'. They rarely come right out and say this at the beginning...but when all the questions are about, 'so...what are the secret rituals' or 'how does one commune with the spirits' and other such hokey shit, you figure out quickly what they're after. And sometimes we lead them on for a long time with bullshit...because if anything, we have a sense of humour.

one thing you have to understand, is that many people want to learn about us for, what we deem to be unsuitable reasons
Yes I realize that, hence what I wrote about charlatans and thieves. I'm sure there are plenty of jackasses who have come calling. But there is something to be said of dissemination of information, no? If not for fostering mutual understanding at least for the sake of compiling a record of varied forms of human knowledge so that they don't vanish one day with the people who held them, which was always the problem with ancient cultures.

Yeah, that's nice. We still reserve the right to throw you off our reserve, without any sacred teachings. And no free 'sacred pipe'. You can pick up a cheesy dreamcatcher though...
:rolleyes:

It's your game, doesn't mean I have to play. Enjoy your solitaire.

See, here is the misunderstanding. I said Cree healer, because you generalised and said 'healer', and then made a comparison to a doctor. A Cree healer is a healer using Cree techniques, not just a Cree person.
OK, so you are saying that a Cree healer does not have to be Cree. They could be Japanese ethnically. In that case what does all this have to do with your argument that the culture has to be granted, that it can not be independantly acquired. If I go to this Japanese Cree healer and dedicate myself, I too can become a Cree healer. The same applies to all other aspects of Cree culture. Yes, some of them depend on religious constructions (I am using religion to mean an organised set of faith basewd activities and beliefs - you can cal it spirituality if you wish), but nothing prevents me from adopting the credo that is required. So if I can learn all aspects of the culture, either as an interdependent belief structure or as a skill set, then in what way have I not acquired the culture. The only approval required here is that someone or group of people agree to teach me, or provide me with the materials so that I can learn. As I said, this would not make me a Cree, but it would mean that I could, if I so chose and believed, adpt the Cree culture with no requirement for the direct participation of anyone already fully within the culture.

So no specific group says you are Cree or not...but specific people say you are a healer or not, or qualified to hold sweat lodges, or whatever. THOSE people are the 'gatekeepers' into specific skills. I brought it up so you wouldn't, and wave it in front of me whilst hopping around chanting, 'you said there were no gatekeepers, but here are some gatekeepers...' Forgive me for anticipating your arguments.
Are these people part of the Cree culture or are they part of the USA legal system (excuse my ignorance on this point), or are they both? Since when did the Cree culture require that a healer be regarded as 'qualified' to do something. This strikes me as being more of an AMA ruling. That aside, the question about gatekeepers was not one connected to skill providers. It was one of cultural acceptance or not. I was trying to indicatre that it appears that you want a person only to be allowed to claim to live by these cultures if the originators of these cultures approve their claim. Unfortunately for your case there is no arbitrator of culture in that sense. You are of the culture that others see you as being. (You should know that from personal experience) I am seen by the Brazilians here as being very British, but I am seen by the Brits here as having gone native. My culture is what the other labels me as. Now if someone tries to adopt a 'native' culture, and others around that person view them as having done so, then to all intents and purposes they have adopted that culture. A person brought up in that culture may well come along and say that they are only 'playing' at having that culture, but the final decision lies with the general public, not with the expert.

And no, these skills can not be taught separate from our culture, for the reasons I'll list in a second. They are aspects of our culture...not just skills alone.

I said spiritual, not religious, oh Splitter-of-Linguistic-Hairs...as in dealing with the spirit world.
Who is splitting hairs. Remember I live in a country where the leading religion in terms of active practitioners is Kardacian Spiritism! This deals with the spirit world and is clearly a religion. I genuinely do not see a difference. Do you need me to list other religions that refer to the spirit world. (I did not say Christian OK) But if you want to use the word spiritual, fine.

Western beliefs don't include these things...ours do.
Plain wrong. Western Christianity (the least spiritual of all Western religions) spent most of its first 1500 years dealing with spirits. Just because they like to pretend that they are all 'enlightened and rational' now, des not mean that we have forgotten our primevil awareness of other levels of existence. (I am not claiming anything about the ontology of these, just that we have not forgotten about them)

A 'how to book' is not going to be able to convince you of the existance of spirits. You have to accept our worldview in order to practice our healing.
Yes we are, but to adopt that world view is much easier than you seem to be willing to accept. How many people believe in extra sensory phenomena of one kind or another. It is something that seems to be innate to us as humans, (not as members of a native people) and as such all that we really need to be able to accept your world view is an explanation of it. Now that can be provided through media other than the traditional spoken word.

Of course it does. If your culture sees things one way, and can not accept the view of my culture, we are in conflict, and what you learn will not the be the totality of our actual teachings.
You are assuming that I would want to layer your culture over mine and retain mine. People do not act that way. Those who wish to adopt a new or different culture want to do so because the one they have fails them in some way. As such they wish to rid of the culture they have, they wish to replace it, not add to it. Now if you are referring just to cultural tourists, who want to sample the 'interesting' bits of an alien culture, then of course they can not acquire that culture, and they are highly unlikely to gain any kind of insight into the culture at all. However ther are people who wish to genuinely and completely abandon the culture they have and adopt a new world view. These people do not need the approval of the holders or bearers of the culture that they wish to acquire, they simply need access to the skill set and belief structures involved.

Nope, it's a perfectly valid assertation, because you can not become a Cree healer until you've been taught by a Cree healer. That explicitly means you have acceptance. Sorry. No other way to do it.
I still do not understand if by, Cree Healer, you mean a person who heals using Cree techniques or a member of the Cree people who heals using Cree techniques. The former I agree, the latter I see no reason for the ethnic prerequisite.



Stop assuming. Ask. I'll answer.
I'll try if you promise to try as well. ;)

Now I want to challenge these particular statements:

Yes I know you are using it in its narrow and restricted sense. I was wanting to point out to all and sundry though, that culture is something that we all have, regardless of our ethnicity. Some cultures are considered native - i.e. they are not those of the latest wave of invaders. (The Cree are not true natives of North America, they are colonists themselves from Asia). Are you one of these people who believe that there were people in the Americas before the people known as 'natives'? We are made up of many groups, but nothing supports this idea that we were colonisers, ousting the 'true natives'. We were the first people here...we as a whole, anywhere back to 40,000 years ago. The tribes diverged, wandered, spread, intermarried, intermingled. To say that the Cree are not true natives of North America is as ridiculous as saying no one is a true native of the land they now occupy except certain people in Africa. We absolutely are one of the groups of true natives, indigenous people, aboriginals of this land. We were not invaders, we are the First Nations.


The term native is too often used to carry some kind of ethical message, some kind of criticism of the descendents of the European colonists for what their ancestors did (which was no different to what the ancestors of the 'natives' did anyway). Let me repeat what you've just said: WHAT THE EUROPEAN COLONISTS DID IS NO DIFFERENT THAN WHAT THE ANCESTORS OF THE ABORIGINAL PEOPLE DID.

So what are we talking about here? Later on you out and out accuse native people of genocide. Genocide against the 'true original people'. Wow. Show me the evidence. Show me the evidence of this genocide, perpetrated by native people.

The evidence against the European colonists is damning, and extensive. You like to say, 'everyone is equally bad'. Sorry, but there are degrees. I'd like you to present some evidence to compare my people to the European colonists. Show me how 'equal' their crimes were.

I've encountered these arguments before in the context of attempting to somehow invalidate land claims, or to somehow erase some deep-seated guilt, and they are generally full of factual errors. Par for the course. Time and time again we are forced to go back to oral history, or to dig up grave sites in order to prove our presence in areas that the governments wish to lay claim to. Finally the laws are recongising the treaties, and paying attention to the evidence we have. So what some people are trying to do is create a history in which we are in fact NOT the original inhabitants of this land (where are they, pray tell?) and that because of this, we have no claim to it. There are others who want to paint us as warlike and genocidal, and claim that we are JUST LIKE THEM, invaders.

What to some may be an interesting intellectual enterprise, is for us, something deadly serious. Our survival is IN SPITE of the colonists. Our cultural survival is IN SPITE of the many official policies that intended to wipe it out. It is in many ways due to secrecy that we have maintained anything of our old ways...since what was unknown could not be banned. Banned like any outward displays of native culture until forty to fifty years ago. Not ancient history. Living memory tells us to be wary. It tells us that people 'study' us in order to create new ways to marginalise us. Not paranoia...proven fact again, and again. Nor are we convinced that these times are gone. And we are accused of racism because we intend to survive, and are fighting tooth and nail to hold onto what little we have left. The hypocrisy in that outlook frankly boggles me.

We will welcome others into our culture when we decide to do so, as we have all along, throughout our thousands upon thousands of years of history here. But considering the damage that has been done when others choose to speak for us, and when others make decisions regarding what is best for us, forgive us if we aren't clamouring for outside participation in our culture.

These people do not need the approval of the holders or bearers of the culture that they wish to acquire, they simply need access to the skill set and belief structures involved.

I'm sorry, I just don't agree. Just as I do not agree that the person who faithfully studies ancient Roman culture can adopt it, even with the distinction that they are not a member of the ancient Roman people.

I'm sorry, I just don't agree. Just as I do not agree that the person who faithfully studies ancient Roman culture can adopt it, even with the distinction that they are not a member of the ancient Roman people.

Sinuhue, culture, like I have said before is internal (you seemed to be coming around to the idea). If it is internal, it is not contingent on acceptance from outsiders, it is only contingent on the beliefs and behaviors of the individual.

Are you one of these people who believe that there were people in the Americas before the people known as 'natives'?
Yes I am. Unfortunately for me at the moment I do not have to hand any reference materials concerning why I formed this opinion. I do know that it was formed on the basis of good anthropological evidence, on the basis of the genetic differences and similarities between the various native groups in the Americas. It is also based on some of the 'native' legends and stories of some South American Indian groups. I will dig out the evidence that convinced me over the next day or so.

We are made up of many groups, but nothing supports this idea that we were colonisers, ousting the 'true natives'. We were the first people here...we as a whole, anywhere back to 40,000 years ago. The tribes diverged, wandered, spread, intermarried, intermingled. To say that the Cree are not true natives of North America is as ridiculous as saying no one is a true native of the land they now occupy except certain people in Africa. We absolutely are one of the groups of true natives, indigenous people, aboriginals of this land. We were not invaders, we are the First Nations.
Unfortunately that is an unsubstantiated claim and one that anthropological data refutes. As I said, I will have to dig to gather together the evidence. So I am simply going to say that I disagree with your claim, and I will justify my disagreement in the near future.

Let me repeat what you've just said: WHAT THE EUROPEAN COLONISTS DID IS NO DIFFERENT THAN WHAT THE ANCESTORS OF THE ABORIGINAL PEOPLE DID.

So what are we talking about here? Later on you out and out accuse native people of genocide (a term you really need to look up in the dictionary). Genocide against the 'true original people'. Wow. Show me the evidence. Show me the evidence of this genocide, perpetrated by native people.
I do not need to look up the term. It means the elimination of an ethnic group by others because of their ethnicity. The evidence for this is in the skull shapes and sizes found in pre historic American sites. These bear witness to an ethnic group that pre dated and then briefly co-existed with the North American Indian nations, but that was ethnically separate, and that was wiped out. (No living members of that culture surviving today). The two most famous examples of this are the Fremont culture and the Anasazi peoples.

Fremont Culture (http://www.cpluhna.nau.edu/People/fremont.htm)
Anasazi peoples (http://www.cpluhna.nau.edu/People/anasazi.htm)

The evidence against the European colonists is damning, and extensive. You like to say, 'everyone is equally bad'. Sorry, but there are degrees. I'd like you to present some evidence to compare my people to the European colonists. Show me how 'equal' their crimes were.
People are people is the fundamental point. The Cree, like the rest of us are essentially concerned with the well-being of themselves and their family (In the case of the Cree I understand this to mean pretty much the entire Cree nation in one way or another.) The crimes of the Europeans are well documented, that is the price that is paid for introducing the notion of records and attempts (no matter how doomed to failure) at producing non subjective history. No group that depends upon a purely oral tradition describes itself as ever having done anything wrong. Why would it, there is and can be no evidence that they did. Rome was sacked by barbarians and civilization was destroyed. That is how we see it because the Romans kept records and the Visigoths did not. I can not show you specifically the crimes of the Cree, but there is plenty of evidence for genocide having been practiced by the First Nations as a whole.

These attempts to somehow invalidate land claims, or to somehow erase some deep-seated guilt are offensive, and full of factual errors.
I actually couldn't give a damn about the land claims. They are based on prior possession and as such are valid regardless of my position here. The issue of digging up grave sites is a more difficult one. If the grave site is one that contains the remains of Cree, then the Cree have every right to object to any excavation. However if the grave site contains the remains of an unrelated people, then it can not be genuinely sacred to the Cree.

Par for the course. Time and time again we are forced to go back to oral history, or to dig up grave sites in order to prove our presence in areas that the governments wish to lay claim to. Finally the laws are recognising the treaties, and paying attention to the evidence we have. So what some people are trying to do is create a history in which we are in fact NOT the original inhabitants of this land (where are they, pray tell?) and that because of this, we have no claim to it.
I am not disputing the claim to the land. (I didn't think that the 'native' cultures included land ownership anyway, but that is another issue). For me prior and sustained possession, however obtained, is enough. (No land claim can be based on more, other than a religious claim.)

Oral tradition is no evidence, and you know it. It is part of your culture, but the fact that this story or that story has been passed down through the centuries is unprovable by any standard. Thus the need to resort to forensic evidence. And it is there, in addition to the peoples referred to above, that proof has been found of peoples prior to the First Nations. (This is the issue that will take me some time to dig out, as I saw a documentary about it, not a web site)

There are others who want to paint us as warlike and genocidal, and claim that we are JUST LIKE THEM, invaders.
All I am claiming is that you are just like the rest of us, human.

What to you may be an interesting intellectual enterprise, is for us, something deadly serious. Our survival is IN SPITE of the colonists. Our cultural survival is IN SPITE of the many official policies that intended to wipe it out. It is in many ways due to secrecy that we have maintained anything of our old ways...since what was unknown could not be banned. Banned like any outward displays of native culture until forty to fifty years ago. Not ancient history. Living memory tells us to be wary. It tells us that people 'study' us in order to create new ways to marginalise us. Not paranoia...proven fact again, and again. Nor are we convinced that these times are gone. And we are accused of racism because we intend to survive, and are fighting tooth and nail to hold onto what little we have left. The hypocrisy in that outlook frankly boggles me.
Living memory tells all of us not to trust the other as I said before. We are all demanded of to adopt the culture of the power groups, be it European laws, or creationism, be it Catholicism or Islam. Living memory tells us all that we are studied in order to be controlled. However this does not drive us all to a situation where we say that no one who is not of the 'in group' is to trusted. The argument that the other is not to be trusted now because they hurt us in the past, because they are deceivers, because they mean to destroy us, is the root of xenophobic racism. You may not like having the term turned back on you, but in arguing that the other, the non 'native' is persecuting you, you are being racist. You are judging the other by their ethnicity, and not by their humanity. There is no hypocrisy in my point of view. I am not talking to you as a native, or as a woman, or as a mother, I am talking to you as a person. As such I can point out, without any harmful intent, the implicit racism in the position you are taking. It is there, like it or not.

We will welcome others into our culture when we decide to do so, as we have all along, throughout our thousands upon thousands of years of history here. But considering the damage that has been done when others choose to speak for us, and when others make decisions regarding what is best for us, forgive us if we aren't clamouring for your participation in our culture.

No one is asking you to 'clamour' for participation. All I was pointing out is that if a culture guards its activities and beliefs from the outsider then no outsider can adopt the culture. As such the failure of non natives to adopt native culture could be caused by the reticence of the native peoples to disclose their activities and belief structures.

Goodnight. It is nearly 03:00 here and my son has swimming in the morning. :rolleyes:

If you really, really want to, and take the time to get to know us, and learn about our culture, and treat us with respect, and don't ask us for magic mushrooms, it's certainly a possibility.

No, I won't ask for magic mushrooms whatever the hell that is. I am really sympathetic and interested in native American people and culture....something to do with me being born and brought up in an agro-tribal community in deep south India. We are also pretty close to nature...we do nature worship, communal living etc...it is not that much nowadays what with the exodus to cities and modern things making inroads to villages and all...

Dont make this a WHITE vs.INDIAN issue just because of a few shitheads.

I hate white vs. indian fights, I always get stuck beating myself up. :(

Never listened to DEVO eh?

That's The Vapors, not Devo. :rolleyes:

Sinuhue, culture, like I have said before is internal (you seemed to be coming around to the idea). If it is internal, it is not contingent on acceptance from outsiders, it is only contingent on the beliefs and behaviors of the individual.
Mmmm, but what I can't come around to is that culture is PURELY internal.

Yes I am. Unfortunately for me at the moment I do not have to hand any reference materials concerning why I formed this opinion. I do know that it was formed on the basis of good anthropological evidence, on the basis of the genetic differences and similarities between the various native groups in the Americas. It is also based on some of the 'native' legends and stories of some South American Indian groups. I will dig out the evidence that convinced me over the next day or so.

I'll provide a few articles which follow in line with what you are talking about:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2538323.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2844287.stm

There is evidence that there were some people in the Americas that were genetically different than us. But what you are assuming from this is that we invaded and stole their territories...a very western perspective based perhaps on your own history. Considering the vast size of the Americas, and the relatively small numbers of 'immigrants' (if in fact the Bering Strait theory holds true) it is more than likely that most of my people never once encountered others. Your version (unsubstantiated) holds that we drove them before us, in a mad land grab. Wow. We must have developed the concept of private property thousands of years ago and what...discarded it? Please.

I do not need to look up the term. It means the elimination of an ethnic group by others because of their ethnicity. The evidence for this is in the skull shapes and sizes found in pre historic American sites. These bear witness to an ethnic group that pre dated and then briefly co-existed with the North American Indian nations, but that was ethnically separate, and that was wiped out. (No living members of that culture surviving today). The two most famous examples of this are the Fremont culture and the Anasazi peoples.
What there is evidence for, Alien Born, is that there were possibly people that pre-dated, or were contemporary with my first ancestors. What there is NOT evidence for is that we perpetrated any sort of genocide. You are accusing us of their elimination without a shred of anthropological fact to back you up. Why is that exactly? Genocide is a pretty heavy word to toss around like that...and again, you've provided no evidence that any such thing occurred. Your suppositions on this point are no more worthwhile than those who believe we should be speaking Hebrew.


People are people is the fundamental point. The Cree, like the rest of us are essentially concerned with the well-being of themselves and their family (In the case of the Cree I understand this to mean pretty much the entire Cree nation in one way or another.) The crimes of the Europeans are well documented, that is the price that is paid for introducing the notion of records and attempts (no matter how doomed to failure) at producing non subjective history. No group that depends upon a purely oral tradition describes itself as ever having done anything wrong. Why would it, there is and can be no evidence that they did. Rome was sacked by barbarians and civilization was destroyed. That is how we see it because the Romans kept records and the Visigoths did not. I can not show you specifically the crimes of the Cree, but there is plenty of evidence for genocide having been practiced by the First Nations as a whole. I'm still waiting for this plentiful evidence.

Oh, and by the way, the crimes of the Europeans are well documented in our oral histories as well...there are many things your 'historians' did not include.

You also show a stunning ignorance about oral traditions, period. How do you have the slightest clue whether or not our history speaks of any wrong doing on our part or not? You are assuming that because you haven't read of such accounts, they do not exist. You are wrong.

I actually couldn't give a damn about the land claims. They are based on prior possession and as such are valid regardless of my position here. The issue of digging up grave sites is a more difficult one. If the grave site is one that contains the remains of Cree, then the Cree have every right to object to any excavation. However if the grave site contains the remains of an unrelated people, then it can not be genuinely sacred to the Cree. Because they may not have been our specific ancestors? And how do you know that for sure? How do you know that we did not intermarry with these people? Or would that not count until further on down the line? We are not about to take these theories as fact and let anthropologists start digging up grave sites.


I am not disputing the claim to the land. (I didn't think that the 'native' cultures included land ownership anyway, but that is another issue). No, they don't include land ownership. What we fight for is not ownership of the land, but rather access to it. The only way to ensure this access is to have these lands reserved.


For me prior and sustained possession, however obtained, is enough. (No land claim can be based on more, other than a religious claim.)

Oral tradition is no evidence, and you know it.
Perhaps not in Brazil, but it absolutely is in Canada, in a very legal sense. Oral traditions have been used to prove many land claims, the biggest recent case of which was Delgamuukw v. British Columbia [1997]. http://www.hrcr.org/safrica/property/delgamuukw_bc.html

Oral history is not invalid...it is a different way of recording history.
http://www.cle.bc.ca/Cle/Practice+Desk/Practice+Articles/Collection/02-app-oralhistoryevidence
Oral history evidence is admissible in aboriginal rights and title cases, and the Supreme Court of Canada has held that it should be treated equally with other forms of evidence and given due weight. The Supreme Court has also held that ordinary rules of evidence must be adapted, due to the evidentiary difficulties inherent in adjudicating aboriginal claims.




All I am claiming is that you are just like the rest of us, human.It is nice to finally be accepted as such...but that does not mean there is some universal human standard of behaviour you can now judge us by. Invariably, you will judge us by yourselves.

Living memory tells all of us not to trust the other as I said before. We are all demanded of to adopt the culture of the power groups, be it European laws, or creationism, be it Catholicism or Islam. Living memory tells us all that we are studied in order to be controlled. However this does not drive us all to a situation where we say that no one who is not of the 'in group' is to trusted.
That is because not all of us are near cultural extinction. Do not generalise and pretend that what applies to some, applies to all. It's pretty rich for a European to tell me not to worry about losing my culture and to just open up, things will be alright.

We share a lot of our traditions, our language, our culture quite freely. If you really want to know about us, there are many ways you can avoid actually interacting with a native person in order to learn. But what you can't learn in books is the reality of our perception, of our interactions with one another...you can't find every transcript of every oral history because we simply don't record much of it. Only in the past century did we begin writing anything down...so the lack of cultural information to be shared is still small. You attribute that lack to racism, while conveniently discarding any of the reasons behind it...mistrust...lost history...lack of technology at times in order to record certain traditions etc.

As well, the information you'll find about us is filtered through the western viewpoint. As it will always be when you approach our culture as an outsider. You say that people will not layer their culture onto theirs...well of course they will! They can't learn our worldview from a book written by a western scholar! They have to hear it from us...and at this time, there are few people who have written from our perspective. We are too busy trying to reclaim the lost generations separated from their culture by Residential schools to worry about getting you the real information you would need to become 'culturally native without ever having to meet a native person'. And if someone really thinks so little of a people that they would rather learn about their culture in complete isolation, I have very little respect for them...because it shows us so little respect. I don't think anyone, who truly wishes to adopt a culture, would do that.


The argument that the other is not to be trusted now because they hurt us in the past, because they are deceivers, because they mean to destroy us, is the root of xenophobic racism.
So now, native people who no longer wish to freely open up to people who...time and time again have attempted to strip us of our culture...are xenophobic and racist.

You may not like having the term turned back on you, but in arguing that the other, the non 'native' is persecuting you, you are being racist.
Right...because it isn't true. We should just forget about the White Paper, about involuntary enfranchisement, about Residential Schools...why...because the last Residential School closed in 1994 and that is ancient history, get over it? How lost in time are you?

You are judging the other by their ethnicity, and not by their humanity. There is no hypocrisy in my point of view. I am not talking to you as a native, or as a woman, or as a mother, I am talking to you as a person. As such I can point out, without any harmful intent, the implicit racism in the position you are taking. It is there, like it or not. We are all people, but our customs are different, and don't for a second pretend that all humans are treated equally. Our reaction to what has been done to us is not based on racism, it is based on a need for survival. I think the only thing you would be content with is if we were to break up the bands, intermarry completely and let our culture die. That isn't going to happen. We keep our culture alive by practicing it...not by recording it. Our efforts are better spent in maintaining and growing with what we have left...not by making sure there are complete cultural archives for people to access. We intermarry, we adopt, and we expand...what the hell more do you want? Every cultural secret laid bare out on the table for the public to poke and prod at? You seem to have not the slightest understanding of what a monstrous lack of respect that would be. So, in order to appease you, and to not be labelled racists, we must go AGAINST OUR CULTURAL TRADITIONS in order to expose those traditions to you. Absolutely not.

You can do it our way. Come to us with respect. Make the offerings. Learn with us. If you show us disrespect, that is when you will get the boot. That's not racist...that's a sense of self-worth that does not allow us to prostitute ourselves to cultural johns.


No one is asking you to 'clamour' for participation. All I was pointing out is that if a culture guards its activities and beliefs from the outsider then no outsider can adopt the culture. And you are right. Because no person who practices our culture would be considered an outsider. Our culture is who we are, and how we interact with one another...you can not do it in isolation, all on your own. You don't want to accept that according to your definition of culture, but there it is. Maybe it makes sense to you that someone could become culturally Japanese and be an 'outsider'...but it makes no sense to me. If they are culturally Japanese, they are Japanese, the same as would be a non-Japanese person adopted into the culture. Not an outsider practising the culture.


As such the failure of non natives to adopt native culture could be caused by the reticence of the native peoples to disclose their activities and belief structures.Yeah, it's our fault. Oh no. All these non-natives really, really want to be like us. They're just knocking down our doors.

Please. The cultural tourists, as you called them, are the only ones being closed out. Look anywhere in any tribe and you will find plenty of non-native people practising our culture. So what exactly is your point? You want a quota system? Find me a handful of people who actually want to live our way of life. Just a handful.

its sort of like a girl who goes to the bookstore and buys a book about wicca, maybe even attends a wiccan service one, who decides that shes a "witch" and claims a sisterhood with those celtic pagans that were wiped out by the christianity.

if she were miraculously plopped down in a "wiccan village" in 800ad (and could understand and be understood) they would not recognize her as being ANYTHING like them. her dress would be wrong, her attitude would be wrong, her practice would be wrong, her morals would be wrong, her relationship to the gods would be wrong.

claiming it doesnt make it true.
Perfect analogy.

AFAIC, there are only 2 ways (which is really only one way) of "joining" a Culture.


#1 Live with, study with, work with, participate in a Culture, and be accepted as an equal by those with whom you live, work, study, participate.
#2 Marry into it. (but you still have to do #1, it's just a little easier)

That's why the Jewish "Conversion" process is so difficult and the Rabbi's expend great effort trying to talk youout of it. It's all about dedication to the Real Thing, not just the trappings.

That's The Vapors, not Devo. :rolleyes:

Damn it. Oh well.....

It boils down to what a culture is. Depending on where you place that its possible or not. Is western civilisation a culture, is UK citizen one, is being scottish, is urbanite, is sport fan a culture, is Rangers supporter and what about hool from Govanhill? Does culture stem from ethnicity alone? From religion? Both combined?
What about so called sub-cultures, having their own laws, rituals, symbols etc.?

It boils down to what a culture is. Depending on where you place that its possible or not. Is western civilisation a culture, is UK citizen one, is being scottish, is urbanite, is sport fan a culture, is Rangers supporter and what about hool from Govanhill? Does culture stem from ethnicity alone? From religion? Both combined?
What about so called sub-cultures, having their own laws, rituals, symbols etc.?Could you join an exclusive golf club without them accepting you?

It boils down to what a culture is. Depending on where you place that its possible or not. Is western civilisation a culture, is UK citizen one, is being scottish, is urbanite, is sport fan a culture, is Rangers supporter and what about hool from Govanhill? Does culture stem from ethnicity alone? From religion? Both combined?
What about so called sub-cultures, having their own laws, rituals, symbols etc.?
That's part of the problem...everyone is talking about culture like they have the definitions cornered, with the assumption that we're all working from the same definition. So according to how Vitt views culture, then adopting it on your own is somewhat possible (taking into account that some aspects may be tied up into society). Alien Born feels that you can learn a culture and adopt it in isolation. How others see it will affect their ideas on the matter as well.

I'll provide a few articles which follow in line with what you are talking about:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2538323.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2844287.stm


Nice articles but not related to what I am talking about (particularly the second one which is about footprints in Italy! Methinks something went wrong there somewhere.)

There is evidence that there were some people in the Americas that were genetically different than us. But what you are assuming from this is that we invaded and stole their territories.
I am not assuming anything. I am following the archeological evidence which demonstrates that something of the sort happened. This is not a cultural perspective, it is what the evidence shows, to anyone, of any culture. However why are you getting so upset about this? I did not accuse the 'native' people of making a land grab - that is your intepretation. All I said is that there is evidence that there existed ethnic groups in North America that were wiped out with the arrival of the 'native' Americans. Why this happened, for what reasons, I can not know, nor would I presume to guess.

What there is evidence for, Alien Born, is that there were possibly people that pre-dated, or were contemporary with my first ancestors. What there is NOT evidence for is that we perpetrated any sort of genocide.
Go back and read the link on the Fremont people Sin. Read it. There is evidence that one ethnic group vanished coincidently when the First Nations people arrived in the area. That is forensic evidence of genocide. This may have been unintentional, but it happened.

I'm still waiting for this plentiful evidence.
Until you actually look at the evidence so far presented, I can see no possible benefit in digging up more for you to ignore. Drop the bias and actually consider the facts.

Oh, and by the way, the crimes of the Europeans are well documented in our oral histories as well...there are many things your 'historians' did not include. Undoubtedly. I am not the one caiming innocence here though, am I.

You also show a stunning ignorance about oral traditions, period. How do you have the slightest clue whether or not our history speaks of any wrong doing on our part or not? You are assuming that because you haven't read of such accounts, they do not exist. You are wrong.
So tell me an example where your oral tradition describes your people, as a whole, as being wrong in their actions. Yes, oral traditions normally have plenty of stories with moral content where one individual or one small group act contrary to the norms of the society, but that is not what we are discussing here, is it. We are discussing whether the established norms of behaviour have at any time produced wrong doing. I am not as ignorant of oral traditions as you would like to think, or do you really believe that only the 'native' peoples have such traditions, and the Europeans do not?

No, they don't include land ownership. What we fight for is not ownership of the land, but rather access to it. The only way to ensure this access is to have these lands reserved.
That is what I understood to be the case.



Perhaps not in Brazil, but it absolutely is in Canada, in a very legal sense. Oral traditions have been used to prove many land claims, the biggest recent case of which was Delgamuukw v. British Columbia [1997]. http://www.hrcr.org/safrica/property/delgamuukw_bc.html

Oral history is not invalid...it is a different way of recording history.
http://www.cle.bc.ca/Cle/Practice+Desk/Practice+Articles/Collection/02-app-oralhistoryevidence

I was not referring to legal decisions, I was referring to standards of proof. A legal system can decide for itself what it will accept as evidence, however a legal system independent proof requires more than what is effectively hearsay.

It is nice to finally be accepted as such...but that does not mean there is some universal human standard of behaviour you can now judge us by. Invariably, you will judge us by yourselves.
I disagree. We are driven by our human needs, desires and wants. These lead to sets of codes of conduct that are mutually agreed, based on these needs etc. Are you going to tell me that some groups have different needs to others and as such they judge differently. Yes it does require that I step outside of my personal perspective, I disregard my position in the game, my standing in the society. But that I can do, as can anyone else that tries to. The only real challenge is in desiring to be fair on this humanity wide level to start with. The challenge is in accepting that all people are fundamentally the same. If you can do that, then you can judge by yourself as a human and only as a human. (I can not judge you as a Cree, I am not one, It is not fair to judge you as a European as you are not one, so I have to judge by the highest level of specification that we have in common - in this case it is as humans that speak English.)


That is because not all of us are near cultural extinction. Do not generalise and pretend that what applies to some, applies to all. It's pretty rich for a European to tell me not to worry about losing my culture and to just open up, things will be alright.
Such prejudice! Why, in opening up, will your culture be removed? How does that work? Is it something physical that can be taken from you - no. Is it a material thing that can be destroyed - no. I really do not understand your argument here.

Additionally why do you think that the English are not threatened with cultural extinction. We are required to change our behaviour, our beliefs, our habits etc. by the impositions of the EU and the overall globalization of behaviour. There is little left that is truly English. The culture is very nearly extinct, much more nearly so that the Cree culture.

We share a lot of our traditions, our language, our culture quite freely. If you really want to know about us, there are many ways you can avoid actually interacting with a native person in order to learn. But what you can't learn in books is the reality of our perception, of our interactions with one another...you can't find every transcript of every oral history because we simply don't record much of it. Only in the past century did we begin writing anything down...so the lack of cultural information to be shared is still small. You attribute that lack to racism, while conveniently discarding any of the reasons behind it...mistrust...lost history...lack of technology at times in order to record certain traditions etc.

The lack of technology I could accept if it were not for the fact that the technology has been available to you, and you have chosen not to use it. Your choice I know, but don't try to use it as an excuse. Mistrust is racism when it is based purely on the race of the people concerned. Why can you not understand this? My accusation of the culture being racist is based on this very point, one that you then provide to say that the position is not racist. If your evaluation of the trustworthyness of a person is dependent upon the race of the person, regardless of the historical motives for this being the case, it is racism. The best you can do is to describe it as justified racism.

As well, the information you'll find about us is filtered through the western viewpoint. As it will always be when you approach our culture as an outsider. You say that people will not layer their culture onto theirs...well of course they will!
There is no of course about it. That is what you want to think. They may well simply replace viewpoints as they go. Yes they will start from their own initial cultural position. (We all have to.) The question is what they do on a personal level when they are presented with an alternative perspective. They have three basic options: ignore it (treat it as being of purely academic interes), integrate it (add it to their existing culture), or substitute it (replace their previous viewpoint with the new one). Neither the first not the last are layering one culture on another. Only the hardest one, the integration of what are often confliction views, could constitute layering of cultures.

They can't learn our worldview from a book written by a western scholar! They have to hear it from us...and at this time, there are few people who have written from our perspective.
Why? A scholar can have written the work from your perspective and not from a western one. Are ther no native scholars? As such one does not have to 'hear it from you'. That there are few people who have written from your perspective des not prevent me, for example, from reading the work of those few does it?

We are too busy trying to reclaim the lost generations separated from their culture by Residential schools to worry about getting you the real information you would need to become 'culturally native without ever having to meet a native person'. And if someone really thinks so little of a people that they would rather learn about their culture in complete isolation, I have very little respect for them...because it shows us so little respect. I don't think anyone, who truly wishes to adopt a culture, would do that.
I agree that the best way of learning and adopting a culture is by living with that culture. What I am arguing is that it is not the only way. That a person may wish to adopt your culture but is unable to live with your people for any number of reasons is possible - is it not? What you were arguing is that even this well intentioned person can not adopt the culture. I am arguing that if they can not it is because your people have chosen that to be the case by not making the culture available.



So now, native people who no longer wish to freely open up to people who...time and time again have attempted to strip us of our culture...are xenophobic and racist.
If that judgement is based purely on race, then yes. That is what racism is - judging the other by their race.


Right...because it isn't true. We should just forget about the White Paper, about involuntary enfranchisement, about Residential Schools...why...because the last Residential School closed in 1994 and that is ancient history, get over it? How lost in time are you?
You missed it again, didn't you. It is irrelevant what has been done to your people. If you judge by race and race alone, then that is racism.

An analogy: Being violent is wrong - agreed (except in self defence).
So man A assaults man B. Man A is violent. Now man B hits man A at a later time. Is man B wrong? Yes. He too is being violent. The violence of one does not justify the violence of the other.

I am not denying that your people have been treated in what can be seen as a racist manner. All I am saying is that your people are treating outsiders in an equally racist manner. This you may think is justified (and I am making no judgement hewre as I do not know the history and facts) but it is still racism. (In the same way that feminists are sexist. )

We are all people, but our customs are different, and don't for a second pretend that all humans are treated equally. Our reaction to what has been done to us is not based on racism, it is based on a need for survival.
How does treating me differently because I am a white European help your survival? It does not. It may not be based on a supremecist ethos (and I never said that it was), but it is racism. Please do not make the mistake of confusing racist supremicism with all forms of racism. You refer over and over to the Europeans, as a group, that did this, that you should not trust etc. That is judging them (us) by our skins is it not.

I think the only thing you would be content with is if we were to break up the bands, intermarry completely and let our culture die. That isn't going to happen.
Way off mark. I have no desire for your culture to cease in any way. I just do not see why you have to be so defensive of it. Why it has to be considered 'secret' knowledge. Yes I know that there are idiots who want to learn the 'mysticism' of the native peoples for highly ignoble reasons - so take them for the ride they deserve. However those of us that are just genuinely curious about how you view the world, that have no ulterior motive, no harmful intent, why are we bracketed with the power mongers and money grabbers?

We keep our culture alive by practicing it...not by recording it. Our efforts are better spent in maintaining and growing with what we have left...not by making sure there are complete cultural archives for people to access. We intermarry, we adopt, and we expand...what the hell more do you want? Every cultural secret laid bare out on the table for the public to poke and prod at? You seem to have not the slightest understanding of what a monstrous lack of respect that would be. So, in order to appease you, and to not be labelled racists, we must go AGAINST OUR CULTURAL TRADITIONS in order to expose those traditions to you. Absolutely not.

While you view the world as a system of us and them with the them being inherently less trustworthy than the us, then you will be seen as racist (by me at least). Xenophobia, the fear of the other, is no problem. You do not have to expose your knowledge if you do not wish to. But if you do not, then when you claim that culture in general can not be learnt without the support of the guardians of this secret knowlewdge, you are transcribing onto other cultures your own system, which may or may not apply. Remember I started this discussion with examples of cultures that did not hold secret knowledge in this way, and which I consider can be learnt. I then attributed the impossibility of learning the 'native' cultures to this secretiveness. For some reason, which is still very unclear, you seem to think that this secretiveness is necessary to preserve your culture. I think it is a belief that you have, and an unquestioned one at that.

You can do it our way. Come to us with respect. Make the offerings. Learn with us. If you show us disrespect, that is when you will get the boot. That's not racist...that's a sense of self-worth that does not allow us to prostitute ourselves to cultural johns.[/qute]
If a Cree (racial not cultural now) failed to show this level of respect would they get the boot? If not then it is racial, and I suspect very strongly that they would not.


[QUOTE=Sinuhue]And you are right. Because no person who practices our culture would be considered an outsider. Our culture is who we are, and how we interact with one another...you can not do it in isolation, all on your own. You don't want to accept that according to your definition of culture, but there it is. Maybe it makes sense to you that someone could become culturally Japanese and be an 'outsider'...but it makes no sense to me. If they are culturally Japanese, they are Japanese, the same as would be a non-Japanese person adopted into the culture. Not an outsider practising the culture.
So a person you have never met, and no member of the Cree culture has ever met, that practices the Cree culture - and you can do it in isolation or a Cree could never leave the band without losing their identity - is automaticaly recognised and considered an insider. A little far fetched. Your position can be to do with your apparent identification of culture with family. The two are not the same and nor is membership odf one required for membership of the other. Culture is an individual thing, it is a persons set of behaviour and beliefs. It is not the set of behaviour and beliefs of all the members of a family (these nearly always conflict when the family has more than 1 member). However if you consider culture to be the interaction between many individuals, you are using the term culture to describe society. I agree that no one can become a member of the Cree society in isolation. That would be contradictory.


Please. The cultural tourists, as you called them, are the only ones being closed out. Look anywhere in any tribe and you will find plenty of non-native people practising our culture. So what exactly is your point? You want a quota system? Find me a handful of people who actually want to live our way of life. Just a handful.
Nice removal of my original emphases, to change the meaning. o back and reread - taking notice of the emphases.
Whether there are people that want to live your way of life or not is not the issue. The issue is 'if one wanted to adopt a 'native' culture would this be possible without the acceptance of the people of that culture?'

My answer to that is that it would be possible. I do not recommend it as the way to adopt a different culture; in fact I support personally your position that it is best done within the new culture. Neverthelees, I still claim that it would be possible to adopt a culture in isolaton from direct contact with that culture.

Ok, before I read your lastest post and go off on a rampage, I just wanted to let you know that I'm really glad you're back on NS:)

Alright. *rolls up sleeves*

Ok, before I read your lastest post and go off on a rampage, I just wanted to let you know that I'm really glad you're back on NS:)

Alright. *rolls up sleeves*

You always wanted someone to make you work huh :p

Alright, now I'll break this up a bit.

Oops about the footprints link...I meant to give you this one: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4650307.stm


Go back and read the link on the Fremont people Sin. Read it. There is evidence that one ethnic group vanished coincidently when the First Nations people arrived in the area. That is forensic evidence of genocide. This may have been unintentional, but it happened. Unintentional genocide? The very definition you gave me before does not allow for uninentionality:

It means the elimination of an ethnic group by others because of their ethnicity.

Sorry, the 'disappearance' of a people (which in anthropological terms only means a lack of evidence...five years from now we could find something to disprove the THEORY that they disappeared) around the time my people arrived does not automatically equal genocide. You have NOT presented any evidence of genocide...just suppositions and theories based on sketchy forensic evidence. I am supposed to accept these theories at face value? Anthropological theories are constantly changing as new evidence arises.

Undoubtedly. I am not the one claiming innocence here though, am I.No, just accusing my people of genocide.

Mmmm, but what I can't come around to is that culture is PURELY internal.

That I don't know if we could ever come to an agreement on that.

Maybe if we got some sort of Platonic Dialogue going, we could establish a definition for "culture", and then we could proceed from that starting point.

is there any peoples on earth with a pure Culture one that hasn't had asborded parts of other culture in it. peopels change and so does their culture , it is hard for people to stop form others asborbing parts of their culture the other culture it always happened and will carry on till perhaps there is no one left

So tell me an example where your oral tradition describes your people, as a whole, as being wrong in their actions. Yes, oral traditions normally have plenty of stories with moral content where one individual or one small group act contrary to the norms of the society, but that is not what we are discussing here, is it. We are discussing whether the established norms of behaviour have at any time produced wrong doing. I am not as ignorant of oral traditions as you would like to think, or do you really believe that only the 'native' peoples have such traditions, and the Europeans do not?

I could care less about your oral traditions, and so could you...you who dismiss them completely as not-history. There are many stories about our interactions with other tribes, of conflicts, and of changes that we had to make. Of course these involve established norms of behaviour at the time...our culture was never static. When certain things we as a whole did became problematic, we were forced to change those behaviours. But no, I won't 'share' with you. Go ask an elder, and exchange tobacco.

I was not referring to legal decisions, I was referring to standards of proof. A legal system can decide for itself what it will accept as evidence, however a legal system independent proof requires more than what is effectively hearsay.
Hearsay to you. How easily you dismiss what the 'legal system' has decided is valid proof. Our 'hearsay' is no more hearsay that any of your history. Everyone puts a 'spin' on things...or are some people above that? Thanks for clarifying that you were specifically referring to...standards of proof...

Oral tradition is no evidence, and you know it.
...because it certainly is accepted evidence. Generally the 'independent proof' is corroborated by digs.

Such prejudice! Why, in opening up, will your culture be removed? How does that work? Is it something physical that can be taken from you - no. Is it a material thing that can be destroyed - no. I really do not understand your argument here. That is abundantly clear.

It is abundantly clear that you don't understand, and won't ever understand. I really see no point in trying to convince you. I was going to reply to each little point, but we are at an impasse. You can not possibly understand why certain things about your culture will not be shared with you freely, unless you become enough a part of our culture that we consider you to have sufficient ties to us. I can not, nor do I care to, make you understand that.

If a Cree (racial not cultural now) failed to show this level of respect would they get the boot? If not then it is racial, and I suspect very strongly that they would not. And of course a Cree person failing to show respect would be given the boot. There is no ethnic 'pass' on respect. Christ. Suspect all you want. My point here, my reason for 'giving up' on this argument is based on something fundamental. I can speak for us only up to a point. Your accusations of genocide, of racism, of elitism and so on and so forth...I would really like you to present them to a wider range of my people, so we could respond to them together. But at a certain point, we shake our heads and shrug...who cares what you think in the end. You blame the misunderstanding entirely on us...we have tried for centuries to get your people to understand...so it's certainly not for lack of trying on our part. Now you can do the work. Come to us. I'm certainly done, in this instance, coming to you.

OK I will reply to the second first.

I could care less about your oral traditions, and so could you...you who dismiss them completely as not-history. There are many stories about our interactions with other tribes, of conflicts, and of changes that we had to make. Of course these involve established norms of behaviour at the time...our culture was never static. When certain things we as a whole did became problematic, we were forced to change those behaviours. But no, I won't 'share' with you. Go ask an elder, and exchange tobacco.
Ah, so you claim they exist but refuse to reveal what they are. Do you know just how credible you sound. Highly reminiscent of the sort of secret society/illuminati/Knights templar type urban myths. I doubt that there are stories that paint your people in a bad light as a whole.

As to my dismissing them - as history true. I dismiss them. As cultural artifacts that play a significant role in creating the identity of the people in that culture I do not dismiss tem. They are valuable and essential, but by no means accurat historically. I am sure you know some of the English oral tradition tales as these have been made into famous books and written legends. There will be others that you have probably never heard. I suggest you look up, say, the legend of Blanche Heriot. (Try here (http://whisker.f2s.com/StPeters/bells/heriot.htm)). What I don't get is why I have to smoke a pipe with one of your tribe elders to hear of the tales. That is not respect, it is imposing subservience. I can respect the elder, for who he is, for what he knows, for his experience and wisdom, but that is an independent factor to learning of your oral tradition.
Then I wish you would make clear a distinction between the legend of the people and the history of the people. That is unless you wish to support a solipsistic position on history. (i.e what happened in the past just is what we believe to have happened. Our beliefs are the facts of the matter.)
Once again the 'secrecy' in which you deliberately shroud your culture is a problem. It does nothing to protect it, it simply attracts the crackpots and weirdos. The very people that you are objecting to. Yes there are a few weirdos that attach themselves to the Arthurian legends, or the tales of Gog and Magog, or even the more erudite to the Mabignogion, but there is nothing like the number of people trying to make a quick buck out of the oral European traditions. Just because anyone can have access to these cultural artifacts.


Hearsay to you. How easily you dismiss what the 'legal system' has decided is valid proof. Our 'hearsay' is no more hearsay that any of your history. Everyone puts a 'spin' on things...or are some people above that? Thanks for clarifying that you were specifically referring to...standards of proof...
That everyone puts a spin on things is why hearsay is not normally admitted as evidence. And no, western culture does not allow written history to enter as evidence. It requires physical evidence that the jurors can interpret for themselves in most cases. That an exception has been granted to this for the hearsay of the native people is a travesty of y form of justice. Either hearsay is acceptable in all cases or it is acceptable in none. Making it evidence if and only if it meets certain racial conditions is very probably unconstitutional at least. By standards of proof I mean those that are accepted in any court of law, from any source. Hearsay does not meat this test as being a standard.


It is abundantly clear that you don't understand, and won't ever understand. I really see no point in trying to convince you. I was going to reply to each little point, but we are at an impasse. You can not possibly understand why certain things about your culture will not be shared with you freely, unless you become enough a part of our culture that we consider you to have sufficient ties to us. I can not, nor do I care to, make you understand that.
I am not asking to understand that, given that I believe that I do understand it. I also believe it to be an unjustifiable practice. It is saying that you - the other - just for not being one of us, are not worthy of this knowledge. That is the point I am making, and you have just confirmed it.

And of course a Cree person failing to show respect would be given the boot. There is no ethnic 'pass' on respect. Christ. Suspect all you want. My point here, my reason for 'giving up' on this argument is based on something fundamental. I can speak for us only up to a point. Your accusations of genocide, of racism, of elitism and so on and so forth...I would really like you to present them to a wider range of my people, so we could respond to them together. But at a certain point, we shake our heads and shrug...who cares what you think in the end.
At a certain point, when it has been shown to you that your delusion is just that, a delusion. That you are treating others on the basis of their race, and not on the basis of who they individually are, then you shake your heads and give up. That is cowardice in the extreme. You are not willing to hold your head up and say that you are who you are, you are proud of being that and if that means having to accept that part of what you are is being something that you would prefer not to be, then you will accept blame for that, apologize for it and try to overcome the probem. Is that it?
Oh it is so easy to say - look what they are doing to us. Try saying look what we are doing to them. That is where the true character lies. Yes, we Europeans did despicable things to the 'native' peoples. Probably more so here in South America than there in the North, but in both cases the actions were wrong and unjustifiable. Now I can say I am European, I am part of the culture that did these things and I am incredibly ashamed of what my peple did. I can also say that I will try not to repeat their mistakes, I will try to adjust my culture to prevent such things. However until we, as Europeans recognised theat we were doing wrong we could not correct it. If you, as 'natives' do not recognise that you are acting in a way that is wrong by your own standards, then you can not correct it. Like it or not, that is the situation you are in at the moment. The culture has been poisoned by the desire for vengence, understandable, but not justifiable. As I understand the culture of the native peoples vengence is a personal matter. It is between one person and whomsoever offended them. It is not a matter between nations, between races, between cultures. There the basis of action is to live and let live. (Of course I may be wrong, and if I am you will not correct me as that would be to reveal some cultural secret. )


You blame the misunderstanding entirely on us...we have tried for centuries to get your people to understand...so it's certainly not for lack of trying on our part. Now you can do the work. Come to us. I'm certainly done, in this instance, coming to you.
I do not. I blame the European settlers (my people) for a lot of resistance to your points of view. However if the two points of view are incompatible, then only through an HONEST and OPEN discussion can any progress be made in creating conditions of peaceful co-existance. The Europeans may not always have been honest (in fact they rarely were) but they have been open. The native peoples have never been open, so honesty can not even be considered. Do you see my point here?

The native peoples have never been open, so honesty can not even be considered. Do you see my point here?
No. Where is that even coming from that we have never been open? Your failure to understand us is not our fault. We absolutely have been open from the start...the gradual decline in trust has been since then, but the avenues are not closed. Yes you have to talk to an elder to get the stories. That is the fundamental nature of our oral tradition....unless of course you happen to come across a recording (I hope you have several days to watch or listen to it). Why should we suddenly adapt to your standards, and write everything down for you in the way you request it? And you call US lazy? You want our culture in a nice little package organised according to your format so what...you can order it from anywhere in the world for those who want to 'become' on of 'us'? YOUR culture demands that culture be made available in specific ways. Ours does not, but you continuously use your particular view as the standard, and say we do not meet it. How ethnocentric can you get? I am telling you, again and again, that despite your western...yes, it is western, and yes, you fail to see our point of view...viewpoint on this, you can not access the sum total of our culture without getting to know at least some of us on a personal level. Period. If that daunts you...seek elsewhere. You have no fundamental right to sit back on your ass and surf the internet for information instead of getting it from the people themselves.

The Europeans may not always have been honest (in fact they rarely were) but they have been open.
And what the hell value does dishonest openess have anyway?

Honest and open dialogue.

"Oh, I shouldn't have to follow your traditions in order to learn about them...or respect your customs in order to learn about them...that's subservient, cowardly, racist and xenophobic..."

Christ, say what you mean.


Dialogue on YOUR terms, in the manner of YOUR choosing.

And this is what you seem not to understand...we ARE the vessels of our culture. Yours is in your books, and your histories and your movies...but for us, it is still the people themselves who are the media you must access in order to learn about our culture. What I'm most object to is your declaration that this is somehow racist or xenophobic. I am telling you that your insistance that we 'do it your way' is the racist viewpoint.

Our culture is ours. Parts of it are private. Just like I would not share with a stranger the intimate details of my life, whereas I would with someone close to me, we do not share with strangers the intimate detail of our lives...our culture. Even within our culture, some of us are not qualified (no, not in your narrow sense of legal qualifications) to learn certain things...what you call skills that should, according to you, be taught in isolation...things like healing and so on...to us are much more than just skills. They are areas of cultural transmission, and people study for years to learn these skills, and these aspects of culture. Should you, upon request, get to learn all that how, and when you want to? I'm sure you believe so...that it is racist not to give you more importance than people even within our culture.

Should you be allowed to see an orthodox Muslim man's wife's face, simply because you request it? Because not allowing you this extreme lack of respect is a form of racism? Because requiring that you be a member of his family first is xenophobic?

Bulls in china shops. Give me total access to your culture or else.