What Makes Aboriginal Sacred Sites?

[jackolover]

In your opening post you question the relevancy of Aboriginal sacred sites, wondering why their values still exist and haven't been overtaken by the economic needs of the present day, and state that the Aboriginal claims to sacredness are insignificant.

Maybe it's semantics, but you're going about your arguments the wrong way then, throwing out a lexicon that casts the Aboriginal people in a negative shade. I get what you're saying, I understand the point of this thread, but the way you have been describing both past and present Aborigine beliefs and how they fit into twenty-first century ways of living and appreciating value systems has not been overtly denigrating but rather subtler digs. If you're not aware of it, my apologies.

Hey, don't apologies. My forms of argument do fluctuate. If my arguments appear to make digs at Aboriginal beliefs, that's not my intention.

[GOD]

Hey Jackolover check out this Tedtalk.



Wade Davis makes a comment at 10:10 that I think addresses the question of What Makes Aboriginal Scared Sites.

[jackolover]

Yes, thanks for that National Geographics lecture by TED.

One of the things I am doing here is lamenting the poison of the Modern culture as it impacts on the diversity of the Indigenous cultures. TED gives the example of the Japanese strip foresting in Borneo, and the Gold mining destroying the peoples of those regions because we, the Modern Industrial World, celebrate Ethnocide, instead of protect cultures. I am aware of the loss of the ability in the Modern Industrial World (MIW) of appreciating the connection between the cultures of the Indigenous peoples and their environment.

What I am trying to distinguish is the state of the MIW, and why it became that way? It's almost like empathy has been corturized out of our abilities, and we are taught from an early age by our fathers that exploitation is the culture that we have now. It's this exploitation that is a negative, to the positive of empathy. I don't think it began at the Industrial Revolution. It began way before that, in the beginnings of the Empires as far back as the Egyptians and Sumerians with the culture of seed and the priesthood as TED suggests, 10,000 years ago. Once that culture of exploitation arose, it ran on the conquest of other peoples, absorbing them into the machine that was this killing culture. And we are still doing it today.

I'd just like to know what will break that cycle that is 10,000 years worth of exploitation? You look at society in the MIW and we are dependent upon the system of Technology, from the time we are born, like a slavery to which we are each chained. Maybe this is the Ultimate survival skill? Maybe Technology is the most efficient way to cope with the expansion of population? Maybe the loss of the Ethnosphere is the price to pay for this?

I just wonder if the current version of the MIW has been a cycle that has repeated itself in eras gone past. I hear stories of other fantastic civilizations that may have existed before, being ruined by catastrophies and wonder is history repeating itself? Will this civilization of Technology also reach a critical point where it outreaches it's resources and our mobile phones won't be able to save us, when food disappears from the super markets? You have to wonder where modern exploitive cultures are heading when the level of dependence becomes so fragile, that we simply die because we have lost the ability for independent survival? You watch these Survival programs on TV and wonder if this isn't foretelling the moment when it's every man for himself? There is a morbid fascination about thinking there is a section of the community anticipating the eventual downfall of civilization?

I liked what TED exampled about the connection between the Indigenous peoples and their environment, especially the one where the plants talked to them on a full moon. It's nice to hear those stories, but I am unable to participate in those experiences in the same way as those that have done this since they were born, and their fathers taught them. Most of us in the MIW don't come into contact with Indigenous cultures until after we have been indoctrinated in our schools and in our factories. Later, on our travels, we are introduced to Indigenous peoples, and now we are incapable of identifying with that level of Intuition. It has been burned out of us, because, as our supervisors tell us, work or die. Now that may be a harsh approach to modern MIW living, but as a poet, I like to break it down to less softer interpretations.

[GOD]

I understand why your asking these questions and thinking these thoughts. It's a part of being attached to a group that takes all the best stuff for themselves and has to create a justification for why they should take what others have.

For the most part we are talking about European imperialism and colonialism. So for some of your answers you just have to look at your history but from an outside perspective because Europeans make a habit of not telling the whole truth of why they did stuff so they can save face.

I don't watch any of those survivor shows so I can tell what people's fascination with them are. To me it just seems like a poor attempt to show mostly white people living in the wild.

My whole take on this subject is that it's not your business what people do on their own land. You just shouldn't meddle but lust for material wealth exceeds respect of other people's land. Most of what you are taught is the false justification of thief that's why you have so many questions. Flowery language to hide the fact that you are stealing other people's shit. "Oh these people aren't civilized or advanced enough to exploit the resources of the land they inhabit" or "god said these people don't have souls so its ok to take their shit cause they're not human anyway".

It be nice if people can just be left alone to do their own thing. But for the people of the "first world" to have others must go without. Shit we couldn't have cell phone if we didn't get Coltan from Congo for dirt cheap which is basically stealing and exploiting that region. Shit the people of Congo should be balling hard considering the wealth they have beneath their feet. Or really they should be able to define their own destiny and determine what is valuable to them. Beguine really turned that place to hell.

[jackolover]

I understand why your asking these questions and thinking these thoughts. It's a part of being attached to a group that takes all the best stuff for themselves and has to create a justification for why they should take what others have.

For the most part we are talking about European imperialism and colonialism. So for some of your answers you just have to look at your history but from an outside perspective because Europeans make a habit of not telling the whole truth of why they did stuff so they can save face.

I don't watch any of those survivor shows so I can tell what people's fascination with them are. To me it just seems like a poor attempt to show mostly white people living in the wild.

My whole take on this subject is that it's not your business what people do on their own land. You just shouldn't meddle but lust for material wealth exceeds respect of other people's land. Most of what you are taught is the false justification of thief that's why you have so many questions. Flowery language to hide the fact that you are stealing other people's shit. "Oh these people aren't civilized or advanced enough to exploit the resources of the land they inhabit" or "god said these people don't have souls so its ok to take their shit cause they're not human anyway".

It be nice if people can just be left alone to do their own thing. But for the people of the "first world" to have others must go without. Shit we couldn't have cell phone if we didn't get Coltan from Congo for dirt cheap which is basically stealing and exploiting that region. Shit the people of Congo should be balling hard considering the wealth they have beneath their feet. Or really they should be able to define their own destiny and determine what is valuable to them. Beguine really turned that place to hell.

It is a bit like this, that history is distorted by the victor, and reading it like God says these people are inferior. But even conquerors like the Roman Emporer and Napolean didn't worry about that even, and just overran 'First World' countries on a whim. There appears to be a gene, or something, in the European wing of humanity, that has the empathy turned off, and maybe that's just conditioning. Whatever it is they ride roughshod over human history like its their own play ground. There is no denying that lies have been perpetrated over the rendition of how exploitation has been justified. We look back on our heritage and wonder how we get so powerful and what we do with that power? I'm sure the Monguls and the Turks all thought the same thing when they ravaged the countryside as well, and never gave it a second thought. The Europeans mainly came out on top of that tree of domination, and it was for a reason. They are the most tenacious at it.

[Ambient_Malice]

The key hypocrisy which often goes unmentioned is that the oh-so-poor native peoples often came to their respective lands and proceeded to kill/displace the earlier native inhabitants. The New Zealand Maoris are a particularly vicious example.

[Suawaka]

The key hypocrisy which often goes unmentioned is that the oh-so-poor native peoples often came to their respective lands and proceeded to kill/displace the earlier native inhabitants. The New Zealand Maoris are a particularly vicious example.

Ans how do you know it? You learn it from the maori history? Or better yet, the earlier native inhabitants history?

[GOD]

It is a bit like this, that history is distorted by the victor, and reading it like God says these people are inferior. But even conquerors like the Roman Emporer and Napolean didn't worry about that even, and just overran 'First World' countries on a whim. There appears to be a gene, or something, in the European wing of humanity, that has the empathy turned off, and maybe that's just conditioning. Whatever it is they ride roughshod over human history like its their own play ground. There is no denying that lies have been perpetrated over the rendition of how exploitation has been justified. We look back on our heritage and wonder how we get so powerful and what we do with that power? I'm sure the Monguls and the Turks all thought the same thing when they ravaged the countryside as well, and never gave it a second thought. The Europeans mainly came out on top of that tree of domination, and it was for a reason. They are the most tenacious at it.

I like to term it Manufacturing Consent and Mass Induced Delusion when talking about how westerners came to justify their colonialism and land grabbing. I think most people would kill themselves if they really had to shoulder the responsibility of what is being done in their name.

And don't be so proud of all that power and modern society as all nations will be losing their sovereignty to banking institutions and only a very few families will own anything. The same people who signed off on the slaughter of native people's for their land will be receiving the same kind of high civilized colonizing form their debt reaping overlords.

[GOD]

The key hypocrisy which often goes unmentioned is that the oh-so-poor native peoples often came to their respective lands and proceeded to kill/displace the earlier native inhabitants. The New Zealand Maoris are a particularly vicious example.

Ans how do you know it? You learn it from the maori history? Or better yet, the earlier native inhabitants history?

Thank you Swawaka. Welcome to the hood (CBR).

I always tell people look at who is doing the storytelling and what their int is when telling it. Eugenist had a very focused goal of proving European are a separate and superior stock to the rest of humanity only for their research to prove them wrong. Yet they still told people what they wanted the to know.

[SuperCooper]

The key hypocrisy which often goes unmentioned is that the oh-so-poor native peoples often came to their respective lands and proceeded to kill/displace the earlier native inhabitants. The New Zealand Maoris are a particularly vicious example.

The Polynesian travelers who would become the Maori were the first people to step foot on New Zealand. There's no credible evidence scientifically, biologically or anthropologically to suggest otherwise.

[Kees_L]

One of the things I am doing here is lamenting the poison of the Modern culture as it impacts on the diversity of the Indigenous cultures. TED gives the example of the Japanese strip foresting in Borneo, and the Gold mining destroying the peoples of those regions because we, the Modern Industrial World, celebrate Ethnocide, instead of protect cultures. I am aware of the loss of the ability in the Modern Industrial World (MIW) of appreciating the connection between the cultures of the Indigenous peoples and their environment.

What I am trying to distinguish is the state of the MIW, and why it became that way?

I'd say that neither time or culture(s) would have to be anything singular or binary or irreversible in any way (or only in case of utter extinction).
As I'd say that not any people need to be or feel alike necessarily or automatically (because like people might also cultures prove fallible or forgetful).
And I'd say that at the same time all people(s) would (have to) be sharing similar needs perfectly, whether they'd be aware of it or not.

For example ask yourself this:
- do you perceive your own accomplished person a total reflection or cardboard copy of your culture, of your modern time, of your demographical traits and characteristics, without anything else but such?

- Would you have the perfectly same wants, needs and ways of like your parents and next of kin, but in no way of folk from other cultures or races or peoples?

- Would your own person or your own views on anything really never be able to matter?

Any battle or competition between individuals / families / groups / regions / peoples / "races" for the sake of survival or just riches or for lack of connection happens for all of them, no matter the color or make or whatever - although:

any individual / family / andsoforth can make any kind of a difference as by listening to their conscience or empathy or value system or whatever,
thanks to or either despite their culture,
at any given moment in time. Depending on factors besides time and culture, besides kin or demographics, or either not.

I mean, no atrociousness or destruction or exploitation happened "just because everybody else did it"? Or did it? And if so why do some people still live, why didn't some fearmongering elite just kill off everybody already?

Slavery or warmongering and racism or exploitation happens on account of peoples and races from all colors and varieties I'd say. So it couldn't be merely a direct result from cultures or times.

The only thing I can think of as seemingly to matter greatly would be informedness and education onto awareness. Because people couldn't love or hate what they wouldn't be aware of. It's all I got, pretty much.

[Suawaka]

Thank you Swawaka. Welcome to the hood (CBR).

I always tell people look at who is doing the storytelling and what their int is when telling it. Eugenist had a very focused goal of proving European are a separate and superior stock to the rest of humanity only for their research to prove them wrong. Yet they still told people what they wanted the to know.

Thank you.

There´s an essay by Eduardo Galeano talking about the history of America. I will translate it to you and remark some key concepts. Those concepts prove your point about who´s doing the storytelling:

Cristopher Columbus discovered America at 1492? Or vikings disvored it befote him? The ones that live there, didn´t existed?

Official history tells that Vasco Núñez de Balboa was the first man that saw, from the top of a mountain in Panama, both oceans. The ones living there, where blind?

Who put their first names to corn, potato, tomatoes, chocolate and to the mountains and Rivers in America? Hernan Cortes, Francisco Pizarro? The ones that lived there, were mute?

They´ve been telling to us, and they keep telling us, that Mayflower´s pilgrims went to populate America. Was America empty?

Since Columbus didn´t understand what they were saying, he belive that they didn´t know how to speak.

Since they ere naked, were meek and give everything in Exchange for nothing, he belived that they weren´t intelligent.

And since he belived he enter to the East by the back door, he belived that they were indians from India…
After that, Turing his second journey, the admiral issued a report that Estbaliz that Cuba was part of Asia.

The document signed on June 14 1494 recorded that the crew of the three ships recognized that way; and who deny it will be lashed a hundred times, it will have to pay ten thousand maravadies and his tounge will be cut.

The notary, Hernan Perez de Luna, testified.

And then it signed the Martins that know how to sign.

The conquerors demanded that America was what it wasn´t. They didn´t saw what they saw, but what they wanted to see: the fountain of youth, the city of gold, the emerald kingdom, the cinnamon country. And they pictured the Americans just as they imagined the East pagans.

Cristopher Columbus saw at cubans shores sirens with men faces and rooster feathers, and he know that, not far from there, men and women had scuts.

At Guayana, according sir Walter Raleigh, they were people with eyes on the shoulders and the mouth ant the chest.

At Venezuela, according to fray Pedro Simon, were indians with ears so big that dragged the soil.

At the Amazons river, according to Crsitobal de Acuña, natives had the feet inverted, with the heels in front and toes behind, and acording to Martin de Angleria, women mutilate a brest in order to improve their arrow shoots.

Angleria, who wrote the first history of America, but he never was there, assured that at the New World were people with scuts, just as Columbus told, and those scuts were so long that they could only sit at seats with holes.

There´s more of the essay, but I think this would work for now.

My point is: yes, pre-columbian America wasn´t an utopia. Yes, incan and aztec were cruels, yes, they practice human sacrifices... however, with all of this stupidity being told for centuries, how do we know which is the truth and which is only propaganda? Spaniards told that Tenochtitlan was builded in an island made of skulls in the middle of a lake of blood (And no: it was builded in an island made of rocks in the middle of a lake of water), but they needed propaganda to justify the conquest. And for centuries they mantain those things as the truth. Do you think spaniards were the only ones who did that? And that America was the only place in the world were it happen? Of course not. Propaganda is not a new thing. Neither use the propaganda as the truth

[jackolover]

I'd say that neither time or culture(s) would have to be anything singular or binary or irreversible in any way (or only in case of utter extinction).
As I'd say that not any people need to be or feel alike necessarily or automatically (because like people might also cultures prove fallible or forgetful).
And I'd say that at the same time all people(s) would (have to) be sharing similar needs perfectly, whether they'd be aware of it or not.

For example ask yourself this:
- do you perceive your own accomplished person a total reflection or cardboard copy of your culture, of your modern time, of your demographical traits and characteristics, without anything else but such?

- Would you have the perfectly same wants, needs and ways of like your parents and next of kin, but in no way of folk from other cultures or races or peoples?

- Would your own person or your own views on anything really never be able to matter?

Any battle or competition between individuals / families / groups / regions / peoples / "races" for the sake of survival or just riches or for lack of connection happens for all of them, no matter the color or make or whatever - although:

any individual / family / andsoforth can make any kind of a difference as by listening to their conscience or empathy or value system or whatever,
thanks to or either despite their culture,
at any given moment in time. Depending on factors besides time and culture, besides kin or demographics, or either not.

I mean, no atrociousness or destruction or exploitation happened "just because everybody else did it"? Or did it? And if so why do some people still live, why didn't some fearmongering elite just kill off everybody already?

Slavery or warmongering and racism or exploitation happens on account of peoples and races from all colors and varieties I'd say. So it couldn't be merely a direct result from cultures or times.

The only thing I can think of as seemingly to matter greatly would be informedness and education onto awareness. Because people couldn't love or hate what they wouldn't be aware of. It's all I got, pretty much.

Actually, you make me feel a little better about my condition as a descendant of this warmongering culture. however, to answer some of your questions:

I don't see my self as a cardboard copy of the culture that taught me my values, per se.

I have to say I would hold the same values and wants as my parents, as I look back and compare myself to them. I hate it, but I seem to have followed in the same mistakes.

I never see the results of whether my views really matter. I think I have a blind spot.

I was interested in why we survived a fearmongering elites murderous ways, and I have to conclude that despite for example, lions killing their prey all around them, family is very important to fearmongering murderers too. Even a nest of hornets cooperate amongst themselves. And that is why I think we weren't all murdered, because there is a recognizable affinity between the family/race. And I do think that the rape and pillaging was done by all our forefathers, not just a few.

Just concluding, I do wonder how much of our culture is dependent on justifying ourselves for our history. Maybe we were a broken people's, whose actions to usurp from Indigenous peoples was just a symptom of how we were dominated by someone before? But maybe we don't need to continue to justify ourselves by perpetuating the injustice done to Indigenous people's, and release them from the domination we ourselves were subjected to in our heritage? I don't know. Maybe we are free enough not to be threatened by the stigma we have lived with all those generations, and are comfortable enough to protect Indigenous peoples and their land, now?

[Nick Soapdish]

The Polynesian travelers who would become the Maori were the first people to step foot on New Zealand. There's no credible evidence scientifically, biologically or anthropologically to suggest otherwise.

I'm guessing that it's confusion about the Moriori who were attacked by the Maori - with guns. Or maybe he's thinking of the wildlife like the moa, but we're still outdoing those extinctions which were just the largest animals.