Sie sind auf Seite 1von 4

THE INDIAN AS EGALITARIAN

According to John Greenway,


historians "write about the Indian
because the Indian in the Amelican
mind is as imaginary as Sandburg's
Lincoln, a creation of fantasy, guilt and
ignorance, on which everyone is his
own authority: Such is the altogether
sad and dangerous situati.on in which
we presently find ourselves. Barewith
me, dearreader, as I once more attempt
to expose a few more myths about the
Indian.
One of the more enduring fantasies
of "native American" culture is that it
was an egalitarian paradise. Women
were respected as equals; male
chauvinism was nonexistent; children
were adored; all dwelt together with
mutual respect and unfailing love.
This, of all the dreamy dreams of the
left, is perhaps the most mystifying to
explain. Whereas, one can understand
why the radical environmentalists
think they have historical allies in the
Indians; how feminists and their fellow
egalitarians can interpret native
American society as an Egalitarian
Nirvana is beyond me. We once again
have an illustration either of utter
ignorance of the facts or a brazen
dishonesty in the use of them.
INDIAN FEMINISM
The Indians, they say, respected
women. It was nuly a "non-sexist"
society. True? Bernal Diazdel Castillo
(the historian who traveled with
Cortes) reports that the Mexican
Indians gave batches of young women
(some of them nieces and daughters of
Indian leaders) to the conquistadors as
gifts. The Caribs made a practice of
capturing women from the
neighboring Arawak uibes to use as
concubines. Younger women were
kept and used to reproduce babies
which were considered a rare delicacy
at special celebrations. (Remember, it
is from the name "Carib" that we delive
our word "cannibal. ")
Erik Elikson has obselved in his
book Childhood and Society, that
Sioux girls had to be taught to tie their
thighs together at night in order to
prevent being raped by the boys, "it
was considered proper for a youth to
rape any maiden whom he caught
outside the areas defined for decent
girls: a girl who did not know 'her
place' was his legitimate prey, and he
could boast of the deed." (quoted in
Family Matters, Why Homeschooling
Makes Sense, by David Guterson).
Was there "sexism"? Indian women
did most of the heavy work while the
men hunted. They were allowed to eat
only after the men had eaten their fill.
Until the anival of the horse, the
women canied the family belongings
when the tribe migrated (who needs a
pack mule when you have a good
woman?). Robelt Royal points out
that the Calibs' own women were kept
segregated from the men to such an
extent "that the two sexes spoke
separate languages. Only the men
spoke Calib; the women, even Carib
women, spoke Arawak because of the
large numbers of captive Arawak
women among them: (1492 And All
That, p. lOS) Therealityisthatwomen
were treated and viewed bymost tribes
as nothing more than property to be
used as the men pleased. They were,
for all practical purposes, slaves.
(Where is Betty Friedan when you
need her?)
The Muskogean Natchez of the U.s.
southeast regularly killed the wives of
uppe r-caste males when their
husbands died. The Tahltans of
western Canada, killed the male
prisoners and enslaved the women of
their enemies. The Pawnee observed
an annual Morning Stanitual in which
a captive maiden was saclificed and
her heart cut out (and this practice
continued to the 19th century).
Robert Royal concludes, "Indeed,
the pOsition of women in the Americas
prior .to European contacts was
generally worse than it was in the
so-called European patriarchies." I
dare say, a couple of weeks in a typical
uibe would have even Bella Abzug
begging for a return to twentieth
century "oppression:
November, 1993 THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon t l3
INDIAN ELITISM
Every pagan culture exalts itself
and despises all others. Racism is
inherent in sinful man. this was true
of Indians as well. Most Indian tribes
regarded themselves as the only
"humans" and all other tribes as beasts.
The Iroquois viewed themselves as the
wisest of men and all other tribes as
"barbarians." The Algonquians
meanwhile, called the Iroquois "the
Nation of Snakes." This hatred of
outsiders is one reason foIthe difficulty
in learning the actual names of certain
Indian groups. They are so COnsistently
referred to in pejorative terms, that it is
almost impossible to lmow their true
names. This race-based animosity was
viciously displayed when outsiders
were captured. The tortures endured
by foreigners at the hands of the "peace
loving humans" make horrifying
reading.
This self-important disdain for
others also extended to the whiteman.
Many have portrayed the Indians as
overawed by White Supremacy. This
is true only in regard to the technology
(and fire power) the EUJopeans
displayed. Beyond that, the Indian
had nothing but disdain for the whites
with whom they-came in contact. They
ridiculed white ignorance 0 f the land
and its ways.
It is true that many tribes would
"adopt" captured members of other
tribes (and even whites) to replace
their own members who had been
killed in battle. But this fact does not
contradict the racial bias that
dominated. The outsiders were
accepted only in as far as they accepted
and. participated in the culture of the
tribe. Cultural pluralism, which
modem multi-culturalists so much
adore, was unknown among any of the
Indians -- it simply did not exist.
Elitism was also found even within
tribes. The Tainos had three social
castes. According to their faith, human
beings sprung from two caves on the
mountain Cauta. The one (the cave of
the jagua Tree), gave birth to rulers.
The other named Amayauna, was the
"place of the people without merit,"
and sent forth the commoners. These
sortS 0 f social disrinctions were not
unusual. The members of the lower
classes along with the weak were made
the regular victims of discrimination.
Belonging to the upper class did not
guarantee respect once you became
aged or infirm. The sick and elderly
were often killed so they would not
inconvenience the tribe during a
migration. .
Often, infra-tribal jealousies
prevented the development of any sort
of tribal political structure. john
Greenway has noted that most tribes
had no concept of a "chief" until the
coming of the white man. The white
man naturally looked for a formal
political structure with a leader or
chief, but when such inquiries were
initially made, they drew only a blank
stare or complete puzzlement from .
the Indians. " [Tlhe nearest any Indian
tribe got to a chief was somebody who
could persuade a few young braves to
accompany him in a sneak. raid on the
neighbors' horses." Thus, whoever
was the strongest (or the most brutal)
became "chief," ruled autocratically,
and, consequently, got the privilege of
dealing with the paleface authorities.
Greenwaynotes ruefully, "Several such
expeditions [raids against whites or
other Indians] would authorize a
warrior to sign treaties with the whites
and eventually visit Washington fOJ, a .
real raid." ("Will the Indian Get
Whitey," National Review, March 11, '
1969)
INDIAN PLURALISM
There persists the idea that the
Indians of North America actually
constituted nations in a primitive,
constitutional sense. Some have
suggested that these early, native
14 THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon November, 1993
American confederations were the true
model for the American republic.
David Van Every's Disinherited, is a
nOtoriolls example of this. Van Every
not only asserts the existence of "twenty
great Indian nations" but goeS on to
praise the pure democracy that
"flOUrished" within these nations. Van
Every confidently assertS the Indian's
"instinctive sympathy" with the Negro
and their "abhorrence" of slavery as an
institution. Alas, however, his own
book contradicts these assertions (he
gives the census of the Cherokee Nation
in 1825, wherein isnoted the existence
of 1,277 Negro slaves. These slaves
were, by the way, prohibited from
owning cattle, voting, or marrying
Indians.)
The idea, however, that there was
some sort of pan-tribal unity (a native
American example of e pluribusunum)
is an illusion. john Greenway notes
that the very concept of "tribe" was
introduced by white men, "The real
Indian was only mOSt tenuously a
member of a tribe. His ecolOgical unit
was the nomadic band, either
hunting-gathering or primitive
agricultural, with little cohesion
beyondanapproximation to a common
language and some weak psychological
unity. These marauding social
fragments cohered only when
profitable raiding [or a common enemy
-- jsw] was visible."
Again, to quote Robert Royal,
"Tribal systems, almost by definition,
exist by sharply delineating those
within from those outside the kinship
system, though kinship among most
Native AmericanS is a primarily social
rather than' biological, concept. . . .
The lroqu'ois tribes stopped
perpetrating cannibalism on one
another after forming their
confederation, but continuedit, along
with torture, against ' captives '!Tom
othertribes. Those who find modem'

and its treatmetit of ' variOUs groups'
outrageouslyinequitablemight benefit
from some exposure to comparative
ethnology."
Enslavement, cannibalism, and
torture of other Indians were
commonplace throughout the native
American cultures of North and South
America. Tribes that accepted
Christianity and relented in their
cruelty toward others, as the Huron,
were simply wiped out by more ruthless
tribes like the Iroquois. The early
French explorers (who were not exactly
strangers to torture and
brutality) were often
shocked speechless by
the cruelty manifested by
Indians to their captives.
Inter-tribal warfare
was nearly constant in pre
and post-Columbian
America. Both the
Algonquian and
Iroquoian cultures
sanctioned corporate
revenge on neighboring
tribes. Of course, such
revenge provoked
retaliation from the
injured party so that
many tribes lived in a state
of continual warfare. One reason the
Tainos were so fiiendlywith Columbus
and his men was that they saw them as
potential allies against the merdless
Caribs. Thus occurred the first in
what was to become a long selies of
wars where Europeans were drawn
into disputes which had begun long
years before.
The modem view of the Indian as
the Great Pacifist is pure moonshine.
Royal makes this observation, "We
grow apprehensive over the violence
between gangs in ourinner cities today.
But for cenfUries raids of one group on
another were pan of evelyday life in
most of pre-Columbian Amelica."
(Columbus On Trial, p. 35) John
Greenway points out how integral
warfare was to native Amelican life,
"they [the Indians] fought for the
fighting. Without war and raiding and
scalping and rape and pillage and
slavetaking, the Indian was as aimless
as a chiropractor without a spine."
("Will the Indians Get Whitey?")
The histOlY of Indian migrations
on this continent is illustrative. There
was nothing that remotely resembled
fixed boundaries among these nibes.
BoundalY lines, such as they were,
were constantly redrawn as one nibe
gained ascendance over another and
drove their enemies from the territory.
To say then that the Europeans "stole"
the land from the "original owners" is
to assume a condition that did not
exist. There were no "owners." Most
tribes lived a nomadic existence
moving from one piece of ground to
another. In the face of this, the
European concern to purchase the land
from the Indians was quite comical --
to the Indians. They stood in amused
incredulity over the naivete exhibited
by these Chlistian Europeans who felt
obligated to pay them for land!
This points to the highly selective
indignation that afflicts those who seek
"justice" for the Indian. Let us not ny
to justify any dirty-dealing by wicked
white men, but the plain fact is, the
Indians have no grounds for strong
complaint. Consider the case of the
Sioux. It is generally acknowledged
that among all the tribes, the claims of
the Sioux to the Black Hills area of
South Dakota and Wyoming have the
most legitimacy. The Sioux have
complained that the white man took
the land illegally, by force. Yet no one
bothers inquiring how the Sioux
obtained the land in the first place.
Ah, well, since you asked:
The Sioux came into
possession of the Black
Hills in the mid-17th
century by driving out (by
force) the Kiowa and
Cheyenne tribes (this
occurred, inCidentally,
after the Sioux had been
forCibly driven from
Minnesota and southern
Ontalio by the Ojibways).
You say, "Well let's give it
to the Kiowa and
Cheyenne!" Not so fast.
The Kiowas and
Cheyennes drove out the
Crows who apparently
had driven out the
Arapaho who had lived there 1,000
years previously. We have no certain
information on the people who
inhabited the land before the Arapaho.
Paul Valentine observes, "One thing is
certain: No single group lived in the
Black Hills pennanently from the mists
of time. Rather, tribe after llibe, all
culturally disparate, spealdng different
languages, praying to different gods,
squabbled over the land. The only
difference is that some of the later
tribesmen had white faces.'"
("Hollywood's Noble Indians: Are We
Dancing With Myths?" Washington
Post, 3/31/9 I)
We could go on, but you get the
drift. The modem view of the Indian
is a tad distorted. Keep these realities
November, 1993 THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon l' 15
in mind when you hear Kirkpatrick
Sale pontificate, "There is only one
way to live in America, and there can
be only one way, and that is as
Americans -- the original Americans
-- for thal is what the earth of the
Americas demands. We have tried
for five centuries to resist that simple
truth: I don't know about you, but
I am glad to let Mr. Sale have all he
wants of native American culture (and
many converted "native Americans"
would say "Amen").
None of this should be taken to
imply that every Indian tribe was full
of unmitigated evil. There were
differences among the Indians just as
there are within any race or culture.
Not all were equally degraded or evil.
There are examples of nobility,
courage, loyalty, and love among the
Indians just as there are among all
men. The point of this article is to
demonstrate how many historians are
dealing with history.
Whatwe have in the history of the
Indians is true of the history of many
other peoples; it is history as
propaganda. One is driven to ask:
Why are the same standards not
applied to native American cultures
that are readily applied to Western
culture? Why are the Indians excused
for doing that for which the white
man is excoriated? Why is the West
condemned for its priests and religion
while the shamanism and superstition
of pagan cultures is defended? Why
is the one intolerably offensive and
the other indescribably beautiful? I
he First 350 Years
hope by now, the answers to these
questiOns are obvious.
When you read most modem
history, you are merely reading the
bigotries of men who hate God and
the society produced by His Word
and grace. Their writings are one
long exercise in seeking "to break His
bonds in pieces and cast away His
cords" (Psalm 2:3). Most of modem
historiography is marked by a
profound hatred of Christendom and
thus, anything (no matter how
revolting it may be in truth) is better
(after some careful editing) than Christ
and His culture. This tragic blindness
should cause you both to read wali!y
and to weep.n
For over 100 years Americans have been subjected to historical misin-
formation. We have been given lies for truth and myths for facts.
Modern, unbelieving historians have hidden the truth of our nation's
history from us. America:1'heFirst 35Q Years not only corrects the lies,
but also points out things "overlooked" by modern historians. It
interprets American history from a Christian perspective so that you
hearnotonlywhathappened, bywhyithappened-and whatitmeans
to us today. 32 lectures on 16-90 minute cassettes, 200 page note-
book, 16 page study goide, lecture outlines, index & bibliography.
special rate for Counsel of Chalcedon readers-
~ ~
AlvlERICA: The First 350 Years-$64.95 x __ _
Louisiana residents add 7% sales tax (!JJ,;):
SHIPPING AND HANDLING: Add 10% (15% UPS) =
(Check or Money Order) Total Enclosed
(name)
(Street Address or P.O. Box)
(Oty) (State) (Zip)
PLEASE ALLOW 4-6 WEEKS FOR DELIVERY
Send self-addressed stamped envelope to receive more informati.o.n
. . .. - . - .. . _ ... ,.
16 ~ THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon ~ November, 1993

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen