kengs333

But you're not denying that North American Indian cultures practiced cannibalism, and that this practice stopped once Christian Europeans encouraged them to do so. What we're talking about here is simply historical fact. If people like "charter.rights" want to bring up issues about how Indians were (supposedly) treated by ("Christian") Europeans, it's only fair that the less impressive aspects of Indians cultures can be discussed as well. That's all there is to it. Nothing "anti-Native" or "foolish and self-humiliating" about it.

Organic farming and gardening is hardly something that started with the Indians--this is the way it always used to be, everywhere where crops are grown. Unfortunately, despite the idealized manner in which organics are talked about nowadays, it is not as great as it seems. Growing foods organically is inefficient and labour intensive; crops grown without some sort of chemical in the form of fungicide, herbicide, pesticide are more prone to failure, and crop failure leads to shortages and higher prices. In the olden days there was something called famine, whereby people starved and sometimes died because they did not have enough food to eat because of widespread crop failures. Indians were certainly not immune to this, and often starved through winter because the "three sisters" came nowhere near providing enough to live off of. Personally, I don't like chemicals on my food, and I do buy organics when it's practicable, but this is often not the case. Keep in mind, raw fish and raw manure are not the same thing. The use of raw manure as in animal waste is never a good idea since it can contain harmful bacteria, which is why the use of raw animal waste is strictly regulated. The fact of the matter is that this women still decided to dab some on her finger and then eat it. That's ignorant and irresponsible in my opinion.

When you think about it, though, many people who are productive, hardworking Canadians have ancestors who came to this country expecting to pick up where they left off in the Old World but were forced to assimilate into English-Canadian society. I'm not sure that this was a bad thing considering that there are several examples in history in which large nations/kingdom/empires fragmented due to cultural and ethnic differences, and these fragmentations usually resulted in much hardship and dispair for those who had to live through them. The vision that was Canada was a good idea; to have a large, unified landmass NOT divided by strife and petty differences contributing to the betterment of the world is a noble thing. Sadly, this vision appears to be rapidly dying. If you look at first-hand accounts from the 18th and 19th century, there were many people who felt that the Indians could be fully included in this Canada, but it eventually became apparent that many stubbornly clung to their old ways and were thus keeping themselves down. This "forced assimilation" through "residential schools" only came about well after it was realized that the Indians were not going to doing anything for themselves. The fact that you can often deal with Indians in a rational and civilized manner is because they were "assimilated". My guess is that were you to be able to go back in time and interact with pre-assimilated Indians, you wouldn't be all that impressed by them.

This is really kind of pathetic, don't you think? Suggesting that North America has been scarred by modern warfare because a few Japanese "balloon bombs" happened to (just) reach the West Coast and blow up a few people really makes one wonder about the American educational system (even more).

I'm a little skeptical about her reference to "us Christians" and I question what "her" true intent is with this letter.

Ignorant in what respect? Human sacrifices were performed by Indian societies--or for that matter, many pagan cultures. Is this really a matter of debate? http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/38374.html

Where did "3" go???? Seriously? Birds tend not to live in marshes, rather by, near or on them.

The "bold" line is a grievous misrepresentation of Christianity. Nor is Christianity a "crutch".

The Conservatives proved themselves to be hypocrites long ago... Nobody buys it anymore.

A complete misrepresentation. You obviously don't know what you're talking about. Asking for forgiveness from sin is not a ploy to legitimize sinning. Are you actually claiming that Christ being crucified is an act of violence on the part of Christianity? I don't think we've met and I'm very skeptical about your claim about the people you've met. I'm under the impression that this is yet another veiled slur specifically against me, and so I'm asking you to refrain from this kind of conduct in the future--whether or not it's against me.

I'll admit that the Indians may have been a little more limited by external factors than some other racial minorities in Canada, but in the end, I don't think that this is an exuse for the problems that they have (or have had). This kind of attitude tends to perpetuate these problems, because it tends to foster in these people a sense of fatalism that keeps them from actively seeking solutions to their problems or mitigating them as best they can. I know people who have lived under brutal conditions in Russia, forced to relocate to desolate regions and live under harsh conditions, but they are because of their faith temperate people--they neither smoke, drink to excess, do drugs, or engage in any other self-destructive/anti-social behaviour--and they are not governed by hostility and a need for revenge. There are so many people like them in this country and throughout the world, and the world is a better place for it. They are like this, as I've said, because of their faith, and it only stands to reaon that people who are not like this are the way they are because of their lack of faith. Any way you look at it, "traditional" Indian spirituality is not suited for guarding people against the vices that afflict modern society--anyone who suggests otherwise is either naive or wilfully being deceptive; whatever the case, trying to restore Indians to their forgone spirituality is, in my opinion, wrong--it's destructive to the individual, as well as to society.

So I'm "dead wrong" for making a factual statement, am I? Says much about open to the truth you are. As I stated, contemporary accounts of Iroquoian societies indicate that women were treated poorly, that they were expected to remain around the longhouse watching the children, tending the crops, and harvesting and processing said crops. The comment about the male warriors was taken from the Jesuit Relations, and I can only assume that is accurate. Why wouldn't it be? Don;t you think that male warriors would feel themselves privileged by their status since warfare was an integral aspect of their society as well. Also, does it not seem interesting to you that observers from a supposedly sexist European society would find that women are treated poorly? All I'm doing is stating facts about Indian culture to counter the attempted whitewashing of the truth. Modern day Indian activists don't really seem all that concerned about being racist when they point out (supposed) injustices perpetrated by Europeans against them. The thing is, their ancestors, the supposed victims of European injustice, weren't exactly stellar humanitarians themselves, and all I'm doing is simply illustrating this point in order to add some perspective to the discussion. Personally, I don't think anyone has the moral authority in this matter, and the only way current problems can be solved is if people stop dredging up the past in order to instigate present day political actions. Using your logical, wouldn't factual statements about the Holocaust be "deliberate" attempts to "incite hatred" towards Germans? I never claimed to be an expert. Ask anyone who works in the field about this issue and they'll tell you that the rate is higher among Indians. Nothing in all of your ranting has suggested you have any understanding of the concept of humility. Just stating the facts, that's all. How many times are you going to be allowed to label people as racist just because they present facts that shatter your naive beliefs? Needless to say your fantastical comment about Indian marriages is not supported by the facts. Nice try, though. Indian societies were matrilineal, not matriarchal. Men still ruled, and men still felt themselves to be superior to women. That's simply the way it was. I can think of one group of Indians that valued women based on how much weight they could carry. Yawn... So what? I'm aware of an Ojibway story in which beings from the moon came to Earth on a large bowl made from white brich bark--does that mean UFOs exist(ed)? So what? These "mystical traditions" are not legitimate, in my opinion, and are part of the problem. (the rest has been deleted because it bores and tires me.)

Actually, I believe that the purpose of many of those pasages was to exclude certain women who were more inclined to incorporate their still deeply-felt pagan beliefs into the respective Christian communities. Understanding the epistles requires an understanding of Mediterranean cultures and religions of the time. Studies of the early church make for interesting reading, and I doubt that cybercoma has ever taken the opportunity to do so.

Let's not forget you have "a history of [being hostile towards me and Christianity in general] on this forum" so naturally you are going to paint me in this light. Sorry, but if you consider my not wanting women to live in sin, not engage in self-destructive sexual behaviour, then it would appear to me that you may have some issues you need to resolve. Labelling someone as a misogynist is a classic feminist tactic to exclude men from certain discussions, and it's quite sad that you would have to resort to such a thing.

That's just complete nonsense. It's really getting to the point where I think you just keep going too far in you hyper quest to disrespect Christianity. Simply listing passages from the Bible without, apparently, any real understanding of what is meant by them or the context in which they were written and pounding out hysterical diatribes about what you think it means and using this as pretext for indirectly attacking Christianity in general, is pretty ignorant. Needless to say, this only seems to confirm for some what people like you are bent on doing when it comes to Christians and Christianity. That's the typical feminist attitude towards domestic violence, but the problem is a little more complex, and at it's core is the prevelance of sinfulness in our society that allows for such things to happen; Christ taught non-violence, and non-violent behaviour means not striking or abusing a wife, child, or anyone for that matter. Violent behaviour is rooted in sin, and like I said sin is widespread in our society, and the reason for this is because many people prefer to live in sin and be sinners. Seeing that you would, apparently, prefer that people not be Christian, I would suggest that in a very small way you yourself--as many people do--have some responsibility in this matter, as well. Which begs the question what really motivates you in being so hostile towards Christianity...

What am I supposed to do, list every issue that I have with how other people misinterpret the Bible in a lengthy preamble before I make a comment about Indian "spirituality"? I was posting in response to a specific topic. When you brought up the issue of personal finances and football, I posted a relevant answer. I suppose I should have covered myself by also stating that I also have issues with practice by some primitive tribes of shrinking heads or the fact that some people don't like mustard on their hotdogs, lest someone comes along and thinks that I "did not see fit to single them out for ridicule" either... You should, too. Yes, there is a clear distinction between me and her, Christians and pagans (or however you would like to classify her "spirituality")... Anyone who would suggest that there isn't is either ignorant of Christianity, or is willfully being malicious. In both respects that only reflects poorly on you and really doesn't bother me, if that's what you're trying to accomplish.

Speaking of "backward country and simplistic"... Cannibalism among Indians is not "just 'stories'" rather is documented archeologically using the same archeological methods that have revealed other aspects of Indian culture that Indian activists use to reconstruct a culture that they can identify with. Again, I would argue that you don't really understand Christianity if you decide to make such assertions about Jeffrey Dalmer being Christian. First of all, as your link suggests, Dalmer was a homosexual; homosexuality is a sin by Christian standards, and this really disqualifies him as being a Christian. The fact that he would then become a cannibal because he supposedly was resentful of the fact that he was a sinner is not an excuse; there is never any justification for becoming like that, and resorting to such evil is the result of being evil--not being Christian. Needless to say, the fact that you can make such assertions about Christianity just reveals what darkness you yourself harbour.

There's nothing wrong with women taking care of the children; ideally that's the way it should be, since children need a solid foundation. Only someone who has a devalued opinion about children can make such a hostile remark as you did. Do you think that children are not worthy of the love and nurture of their biological mother? Of course the situation sometimes dictates the need for additional income, and there's no reason that a woman can't go out and work; but one aspect of traditional Christian society was the social role that women have played in maintaining links between members of the community/parish/congregation. This is one of the reasons why feminists brainwash women into believing that in order to be "equal" they have to enter the workforce without question.

People seek refuge in churches for a reason, and the fact that this mob would not respect the sanctity of the church denotes persecution in my books. Needless to say, your opinion on the tragedy wouldn't be so flippant had it been some other religious building, a gay bar or some other den of iniquity...

Sorry, what exactly is "anti-Native" about my post. I'm just stating what was in that episode, that's all. I know that all Indians don't think like that, that there are Indians who are good, decent Christians who understand the truth and don't subscribe to such nonsense.

Personally, I don't pray for victory or help with finances because I know that if I have faith in God, that's all I need; if things don't go the way they ideally should in my vain, mortal way of thinking, then that's just the way it is. I personally don't agree with people who pray for victory in football, war, court, etc. It's complex, though, because people assume all sorts of things about God and Jesus, and this largely stems from being misled or not reading the Bible properly, if at all--I'm guessing one of the latter two applies to you. I'd rather "[eat] magically incarnated flesh and drink his blood"--as you put it--than literally drink blood and eat human flesh as has been the case with many pagan societies, including Indians.

That's kind of ignorant, don't you think?--"fundamentalist" Christians take their lessons from the NT, and if they take what is written so literally, then that would mean that they are non-violent because Jesus taught non-violence. There's nothing in the NT that states that a man has the right to strike a woman; or vice verse.

Sadly, here's another one: at least 50 people were killed when a church they were seeking refuge in was set on fire... http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/01/01/kenya-violence.html

Funny you should make such an assertion... I was watching "Fish Out of Water" the other day on APTN and the host stopped by Six Nations where visited a Six Nations elder who was tending to her "three sisters garden". This woman made some really strange remarks about having "helpers" in the form of six or seven "sisters" in the form of spirits and mythical "little people" who tend to the garden. She said this with quite a straight face, I might add. She also dresses her squash with raw manure, and even dabbed some with her finger and tasted it (she also coaxed the host into doing it). So this is basically the state of reality on Six Nations: elders believe that mythical spirits grow their gardens and they go around literally eating s--t--no wonder their children and grandchildren can't deal properly with modern society.

The guy was an Indian from New York. "Albert Douglas, 30, of Ohsweken, Ont., faces charges of attempted murder, theft of a motor vehicle, dangerous driving, assaulting a police officer, forcible confinement, robbery and two counts of breaching his bail" (ctv.ca)