The Last Florida Indians Will Now Die: The Westward Plight of the Apalachee | Hacker News Reader

The Last Florida Indians Will Now Die: The Westward Plight of the Apalachee

oxfordamerican.org

57 pointssamclemens72 comments

I've always been upset at how those of us in the indigenous communities cling to Christianity as some absolving attribute. Land stolen, dignity stolen, labor stolen, and for some reason we seek refuge in a religion that was largely imposed on us.

It's not just you; happens the world over. Phillipines, Africa ... nearly all colonized peoples - if not in "religion", then in culture and language.

Prickling at Western formal-wear or music makes sense. They are aesthetic and mostly arbitrary choices. Lamenting the loss of language makes sense to me too.

But there are questions whose answers are not affected by history, choices, or even atrocities. Is a God? What his character? I don't understand why one would reject god to spite a people group, culture, or what-have-you.

On the contrary, my ancestors include a Native American that married a preacher. She clearly had a different perspective on at least that man, his beliefs, and his god.

Shame that this is what usually happens when you gets conquered. You're literally at the mercy of your conquerors.

Why don't conquerors ever treat the people they conquered with respect, and work hard to make their life better? Why do conquerors always make life harder and worst for the people they conquered?

Any perspectives on post WWII Germany and the Marshall Plan? American textbooks teach that honorable conquest was the exact goal of that initiative. Is Germany worse off now? Or Japan? Or South Korea?

Interesting. I am surprised that this was not widely taught in schools where I am from. They tend to focus on the negative aspects of America only.

Native Americans ..not Indians.

FYI - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_name_controv...

Both terms are fine unless someone personally asks you to stop.

As an Asian Indian, it confused me for a few seconds.

This really hit home for me though I don't particularly care for the retelling of history as if it was a movie. I understand the need to give perspective in order to understand the effect that Europe had on Native Americans both in north and south america. I always relate it to an invasive species that out matches the an ecosystem and doesnt curb its hunger because there is no reason to.

I find it particularly poetic how the Chief said with pride "We were the first Christian tribe". Christianity originating from the middle east with the new testimate being under European rule. Has been used countless times in europe to excuse genocide and invasion. Was brought by europeans under a guise of peace mission whom eventually went on to completely ravage two continents. Christianity even today is used to excuse persecution and oppress. Yet despite all of this, knowing it is not native gods and being on the brink of extinction and erasure from memory. He takes pride in the lasting faith in the tribe. And imagining him say those words I think of dedication and love.

Im sensitive about this because I feel like I would be consudered a necessary sacrifice or even entertaining to dominate/exploit. This particular board tends to attract alpha mentalities in the startup industry So Im curious on your thoughts

Christianity, like Islam, and Secular Humanism is fundamentally internationalist, holding itself to be the universal ideal of correctness. Christianity and Islam both came out of, effectively the Roman Empire (in fact both the Mosque and Cathedral were built based on the plans of the same classes of Roman buildings). Secular Humanism is effectively a reinterpretation of Calvinism along atheistic lines.

As far as I can see, however, Orthodox Christianity didn't have the same history in this regard as Western Christianity did. Part of this was that the Eastern Empire lasted a lot longer, and part was that the spread occurred to Kiev and Novogorod under very different circumstances than it did to Denmark or the Franks. But in the West, the promise offered was that the Church (Roman) would help kings solidify power in return for conversion. It was from that promise that eventually the kings secured their independence by means of the reformation. And secular humanism is effectively an effort to banish competition to the state from the public square in this regard so it too is a further development of the same mistake.

That is a very astute observation. Those of us who've seen secular humanist tenets of "rights", being cynically used for all sorts of geopolitical ends, will realize how easy it is to excite folk with such talking points.

People don't realize the dangers of such universalist notions.

And of course there is no cross-cultural empistemology that allows us to know which rights are universal, so they always become an excuse to power.

Indeed. Worse yet, those alien to this sphere, are not even aware of this lack of understanding - which is probably why it is so destructive, culturally, for colonized peoples.

I would've hoped those in "social sciences" would work to rectify such issues, but in their new garb of post-modernism, they've yet more become the new priesthood.

Indeed. The only reason I can see the other side to this is that I have been married to a woman from a Indonesia for over a decade now. It has been a long process to understand the cultural differences. And I have enjoyed studying anthropology quite a lot.

The one thing that does save things a little bit is that Westerners are usually so out of touch that there really isn't much room for us to do much that doesn't just effectively turn into disengagement. But even that poses real problems. I do my best to help engage in dialog on both sides of very culturally bound issues in order to try to foster some room for dialog through disagreement but getting Westerners in general (and Americans in particular) to accept that an issue like abortion or same-sex marriage is dependent on culture and other cultural institutions (such as how family relates to the economic order) is virtually impossible.

That also gets to what is wrong with multiculturalism in the US, namely that it is being pushed by people who hate culture generally.

> That also gets to what is wrong with multiculturalism in the US, namely that it is being pushed by people who hate culture generally.

I couldn't agree more; this'd have been okay had US not been so powerful geopolitically, but alas. You'll probably enjoy the tapestry around L. Carroll's "The Walrus and the Carpenter" given in "God and Gold".

(http://www.cfr.org/religion/god-gold/p13990)

Looks fascinating. The abstract dovetails on Hilaire Belloc's "The Servile State" in interesting ways. Belloc argued that the key to the success of the industrial revolution in the UK was the confiscation of Catholic church lands under Henry VIII because this created destitute masses that could be exploited in the factories. So to Belloc, Protestantism as a political system was the key to understanding the economic problems of Capitalism.

Thinking about Belloc's thesis a bit more, you have a parallel to the Confiscation of the monasteries in the US, and that was the liberation of the slaves. One can think about slave-based agriculture in the Antebellum South as increasingly industrialized (and even increasingly exploitative as a result). And the civil war not only empowered corporations with large military contracts but also in its resolution provided them with destitute masses pushed into the wage labor system. As I usually say, all racial oppression in the US has been economic in both ends and means.

But in both cases, the religious landscape evolved to match the economic landscape. And the ideological landscape quickly followed. In some rural parts of the US it is still possible to have a discussion about common good, even with people one politically disagrees with. But in the cities, it is all about individualism and rights and any questioning of the in-group orthodoxy gets one labeled as "the enemy."

It took me actually living in Indonesia for a number of years to grasp the depth of difference there. And one of the things that is worth repeating often is that when third worlders speak of first world problems, they don't regard these as trivialities. Indonesians and Malaysians don't want to become like Americans and grow old alone. To those in the third world[1], they have already rejected what Americans and British hold to be (paraphrasing Thatcher) without alternative. I now count myself in the same category.

[1] using the term in the original sense, namely countries which reject both Anglo-American capitalism and Soviet/Chinese Communism. I sometimes refer to Sweden as third world for this reason also, though it is far more Capitalist than others.

I reply to this just to say thank you! (and to save the comment for future reference)

> Secular Humanism is effectively a reinterpretation of Calvinism along atheistic lines.

Considering that predestination is a central theme of Calvinism, I have a hard time understanding this thought. Removing God from Calvinism doesn't leave one with much at all.

Without a mechanistic view of things, predestination is impossible. So without God, Calvinism gives us a sense of the universe as a great machine.

Other cultures may see the universe as a great mountain or a great tree.....

A mechanicistic view is only necessary if God is mostly "hands off". Alternatively, God could be regularly be tweaking things to make sure his plan happens.

And yet Calvin himself rejected such a tweaking view regarding predestination. His argument for predestination was simply that some people are good enough and others aren't, and God knows who is good enough and who isn't.

It's also worth noting that both Thomas Hobbes and JJ Rousseau came from Calvinist circles. So I don't think it is an exaggeration to say that the Hobbes/Rousseau (and those closely influenced by them, such as those of Locke) are effectively Calvinism as applied to society and clothed in secular rhetoric.

> Christianity even today is used to excuse persecution and oppress.

I guess that is totally fair as long as we also keep in mind that most of the biggest crimes against humanity were committed by proclaimed atheists.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12194834 and marked it off-topic.

Still, none of those were committed in the doctrine of atheism. Atheism has no doctrine yet you can point to many people who kill today and many in the past who point to their holy texts after they've cut people's heads off, drowned "witches" and otherwise stole life and land in the name of their gods.

Splitting hairs?

A number of atrocities has been made in effort to rid the world of the plague of religion. Call it ateism or what, point is they made a point out of being non-religious and they were extremely cruel and effective.

Now, listen up. I'm not here to attack atheists or non-believers. I only do when they start by proclaiming how religion is the root of all evil.

You are right to partially dismiss this, because the Indians weren't oppressed because of religion. The sense of supremacy responsible, racism and narcissism etc., are rooted way deeper.

However, the points you argue weren't stated as absolute as you make them (using exaggeration as literary device?). On the one hand, "holding itself to be the universal ideal of correctness" is a correct characterization of religions. On the other, your view is partial in favor of religion, while religions as well state that atheism or any other religion is the root of all evil.

Except, of course, the genocide of Native Americans - which was done by self proclaimed Christians.

Absolutely. Abuse of a name that anyone can claim will often attract ambitious people with intentions that dont coincide with what was intended. Jesus is particularly interesting because he practiced love and forgiveness yet people still use his name to justify actions.

Atheism is perhaps the scariest form of this as it often intends to supplant hope with the desires of the state or a leader. When looking at christianity it fractured from Roman Catholic and took forms in what usually best fit fir their specific regions. But the message remained the same and a church likely can be considered a safe haven despite alternative interpretations. With atheism there is no code of ethics abd as a result there is no way to predict their behaviour except with they are likeky to be elitest and insistant.

Who are you talking about?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com