In The World We Used to Live In, Vine Deloria Jr. explains spirituality and religion concerning both Native Americans and non-Native American perceptions. Deloria begins by explaining how Indian spirituality is heavily commercialized and appropriated. Deloria even explains that “the mystery is largely gone” and these rituals are just that, only rituals without any real meaning that was invested behind these rituals before they became known to the public. We have turned into a consumerism society where we value “accumulating goods” which forces us to set aside Native Americans' values because they don’t match with the dominant society. Deloria notes that only “the south-western tribes are to be congratulated for their protection of sacred ceremonies.” He states that they don’t let strangers into their ceremonies that might exploit them and use their rituals to gain any kind of profit. Deloria implies that in Native American culture there is a huge difference between exploitation and education but these two completely different issues seem to get blurred together at times. In the attempt to educate non-Native Americans, they open up their rituals and cultural activities to the public and in turn these sacred activities become exploited and commercialized.
This is largely due to the fact that non-Native Americans don’t value the spiritual; they only value what is visible. This is most evident when Deloria states that, “believing in nothing, we have preempted the role of the higher spiritual forces by acknowledging no greater good than what we can feel and touch.” This idea that there is value only in the material is reiterated in Ishmael and its comments on the “taker” society. Since most of the time there is no concrete material benefit in believing in spirituality, “takers” tend to degrade spiritual activities and rituals because there is an absence of physical proof.
Deloria also quotes Thomas Lewis in The Medicine Man stating “it would be helpful to return to the old religions in a new form.” Like in Ishmael, you can’t go back completely to the past. As a society we are not in the position to return to hunter-gatherers. Likewise, Deloria illustrates how Native Americans cannot return to the past. For instance, the Ghost Dance did not work because there is an inability to return completely to the past. We cannot ignore the present. Instead, both Deloria and Quinn illustrate how it is the idea of re-incorporating the past into the present that recreates a new (and perhaps better) form of religion and spirituality. Part of this incorporation of the past and the present that both Deloria and Quinn stress is achieved by having a relationship with nature. For instance, Deloria states that “being keen observers of the natural world, the people could quickly tell when something was amiss from the response of birds and animals to disturbances or the sudden changes of weather patterns.” Deloria notes how important it is to recognize the power of nature and it signs, behaviors and patterns. I definitely agree with this idea that nature is very telling and it can help us foresee what is ahead. For instance, in Zora Neale Hurston’s Their Eyes Were Watching God, Hurston explains how first the animals moved out of the everglades followed by the Native Americans because they knew that a hurricane was coming. Hurston states that “the next day, more Indians moved east, unhurried but steady. Still a blue sky and fair weather. Beans running fine and prices good, so the Indian could be must be, wrong. You couldn’t have a hurricane when you’re making seven and eight dollars a day picking beans. Indians are dumb anyhow, always were” (155). Hurston’s words reiterate Deloria’s ideas in this article. Native Americans seem to be more in tune to nature and its systems and non-Native Americans or “takers” are more in tune to consumerism and capitalism where money runs life. If the characters in the novel were making money it couldn’t possible mean that Mother Nature would ruin their luck. There seems to be this imbedded belief by “takers” that since the material is present there is no need to listen to the immaterial or listen to nature.
Also, the fact that “leavers” (Native Americans) have a deep connection with nature while most “takers” do not is indicative of the fact that most “takers” do not value or really listen to our planet or the environment. Deloria states that “Indians were tuned in to the almost indiscernible rhythms of nature.” They have a deeply enriched connection with nature. However, “takers” instead of achieving this kind of connection, buy audio tapes of nature sounds. Instead of changing our lifestyle or attitudes we attempt to achieve the sounds of nature through recorded audio in order to feel connected in the unnatural or “concrete jungle” of the city. This type of action and thinking does not establish any kind of deep connection and I believe that it also reinforces this false belief that we do not need to change to survive.
Deloria also talks a lot about dreams and the power of dreams for Native Americans. He states that the power of dreams and the dangers of dreams are prevalent in the Native American culture. Deloria indicates that the Sioux believe that naps during the day will make them more vulnerable to bad and mischievous spirits. I believe that even in the dominant “taker” society there is always a fascination of dreams and their meaning. We have dreams books that analyze our dreams and their meanings. We have horoscopes that explain our behaviors and we have fortune tellers that predict our future. And although many of these things are seen with skepticism, people still are influenced by them. For instance, if you ask people, “what is your horoscope sign?” the majority of people will know what sign they are even if they don’t believe in the implications of horoscopes. And personally, although I don't take horoscopes very seriously, I take my dreams very seriously. The dreams that I remember upon waking usually foreshadow the future or something that is preoccupying my mind at the moment. It allows me to see my truest intentions and feelings.
Overall, the connection between Deloria and Quinn is very strong. Even though Deloria’s article deals with the specificity of Native American culture, both pieces of literature proclaim our need to have a greater relationship with nature. Both illustrate this immediate need and desire to work in harmony with the environment and nature. Progress and our quest for civilization and advancement has erased our connection with the environment and it has led us to degrade Native Americans’ close relationship with the environment. “Takers” do not see this interconnection as beneficial because it has no seemingly material value or reward. But in reality, Deloria illustrates that having a connection and a respect for the environment is highly beneficial because it helps us to “fit into the physical world in the most constructive manner” and it will have positive outcomes in the long run.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Ishmael
In Ishmael; An Adventure of the Mind and Spirit, Daniel Quinn vividly depicts the interconnection between the past, present, and future. Quinn not only pinpoints the source of the problems associated with humans’ views of progress but also attempts to rectify the problem and set a foundation for the solution to the problem.
Danniel Quinn immediately dispels the reader’s traditional way of thinking by having the protagonist, Alex Lomax, as the student and his teacher as a gorilla. When a teacher comes to mind the traditional association is a person of reverence who has greater wisdom and knowledge. Alex states that, “I thought there had to be someone out there with an unknown wisdom who could dispel my disillusionment and bewilderment: a teacher” only to find that the teacher is not a “someone” but a gorilla (5). This animal, although associated with intelligence, is not usually perceived as having greater intellect than a human. However, reflecting back on the novel and its content, it seems entirely appropriate that Ishmael is a gorilla and the only teacher who knows how to save the human race, and subsequently the entire world. Ishmael is a “Leaver” and understands what changes are necessary of the human population. This untraditional power structure between the gorilla and the human immediately dismantles the traditional way of thinking. It further establishes the need to set aside our perceived superiority and dominance and see that we need to listen and learn from everything and everyone. I also believe that this relationship illuminates that fact that sometimes an impartial viewer who is not part of the problem is the only one who is able to clearly see the problem.
The problem, Ishmael notes is that the “Takers” or the non-indigenous humans are egotistical in their thinking and ideology. He explains how the premise of the “Taker” story is “the world was made for man.” I agree that the majority of people wholeheartedly believe that the world was made for humans and it belongs to us. This is most evident by the fact that we buy and sell land and animals as though we have the ability and right to possess these things. I read an article in the Press Democrat a week ago about how two undersea cables were broken in the Mediterranean Sea which caused reduced internet services in India and Europe and hindered many U.S. businesses that rely on communication overseas (Pressdemo.com). The article’s entirety consisted of the consequences of this break in technology. I was shocked that there was no mention of the impact that this broken cable had on the environment anywhere in the article. Moreover, before I read the article I had no idea there were even cables under the sea. This article and my naivety about the topic further solidifies that fact that our pursuit for technology and technological advancement is extremely narrow minded. Humans are hailed intelligent for these great advancements and as a consumer I use these resources for their ease and efficiency without even considering the impact it causes on everything else. This instance further illuminated that fact that humans are destroying the world with little concern or caution.
Ishmael explains this disillusionment of humans through the analogy of man taking flight on the “Taker Thunderbolt.” Initially everything looks like a success and even when the ground begins to rise up, “Takers” have the false sense of security that everything is going well. However, conditions become worse. Ishmael contributes this degenerated condition through the paradox that states that “intensification of production to feed an increased population leads to a still greater increase in population” (109). At first I was confused when Ishmael explained that increased food production for the starving people in the Third World would not ensure population stability. My immediate reaction was that it was unjust to allow individuals to starve to death just to keep the population down. However, upon more careful consideration, I realized that was not what the book was trying to convey. Instead, it is society that wants individuals in developed countries to feel pity of those in their deprived situation. It unjustly illustrates that we are doing people a favor by aiding and providing food to underdeveloped countries. But in reality, developed countries control of food production creates this unequal distribution of resources and food and instigates this unbalanced power. Ultimately, it is this control of resources and the ideology that there is a need and a right to control resources that is problematic and ensures the novel’s claim that society will not continue forever this way.
Daniel Quinn also illustrates how the dominant society’s cultural values are in desperate need of revision and improvement. In the novel, Ishmael explains how most dominant cultures “esteem the values and traditions of wiser, nobler ancestors and deplore their disappearance, but they have no interest in living the way those wiser, nobler ancestors lived. In short, ancient customs are nice for institutions, ceremonies, and holidays, but Takers don’t want to adopt them for everyday living” (202). This statement incorporates the idea that technological progress and cultural advancements take precedence over historical traditions. Typically, dominant cultures only take what is wanted and what is thought as useful to include in the present. It is a very tunnel-vision mentality where the past and the future are mostly forgotten, while the present is valued as supremely important. Therefore, it seems that our reverence to our ancestors is only partial. Furthermore, our concern for the future is only partial as well. There is knowledge that the icecaps are melting and species are disappearing and there is a general consensus that something needs to be changed. And small changes have been occurring. For example, San Francisco City Board of Supervisors passed a law that banned plastic bags in large supermarkets due to environmental concerns that are associated with these plastic bags (SFGate.com). These are positive steps; however the novel’s environmental concerns are much greater than these small steps. One of the novel’s grand claims is that creation has stopped. This is most evident when Ishmael concludes that “those who live in the hands of gods evolve and those who don’t cease to evolve” (237). The implication being that the human race will eventually be destroyed if we continue this way.
But what to do? The novel suggests that awareness and education of the masses through publication and print is the first step to changing the current system (248). It also dispels the idea that we need to revert back to hunter-gatherers to be a successful culture (250). Furthermore, it reiterates the prevalent idea that control and power needs to be redistributed out of the hands of white males (253). All these suggestions are valid and make complete sense. As a reader I was in awe of Quinn’s capability to understandably illustrate the falsehood of history and the past and convincingly show how the present is in desperate need of change. I also was moved by the idea that change must occur with a change in the foundation of the “Taker” ideology (that we are only a part of the world, not owners of the world). But when Alex asks Ishmael what can be done, Ishmael’s only response is to “invent.” (250). As a reader, I wanted a suggestion for change – a suggestion for an invention because it is difficult to fully comprehend and imagine a system that is different from the present. I was left wondering what this change that Ishmael advocates would look like. How would the invention “save the world” as it states in the ad in the beginning of the novel? I longed for some tangible solution that I could hold on to. But again, after I digested the novel I realized that Ishmael had left me with many questions answered and those questions that were unanswerable were for me to ponder for myself. Essentially, Ishmael illustrated through the past, present, and the future the genuine necessity that change must occur.
Danniel Quinn immediately dispels the reader’s traditional way of thinking by having the protagonist, Alex Lomax, as the student and his teacher as a gorilla. When a teacher comes to mind the traditional association is a person of reverence who has greater wisdom and knowledge. Alex states that, “I thought there had to be someone out there with an unknown wisdom who could dispel my disillusionment and bewilderment: a teacher” only to find that the teacher is not a “someone” but a gorilla (5). This animal, although associated with intelligence, is not usually perceived as having greater intellect than a human. However, reflecting back on the novel and its content, it seems entirely appropriate that Ishmael is a gorilla and the only teacher who knows how to save the human race, and subsequently the entire world. Ishmael is a “Leaver” and understands what changes are necessary of the human population. This untraditional power structure between the gorilla and the human immediately dismantles the traditional way of thinking. It further establishes the need to set aside our perceived superiority and dominance and see that we need to listen and learn from everything and everyone. I also believe that this relationship illuminates that fact that sometimes an impartial viewer who is not part of the problem is the only one who is able to clearly see the problem.
The problem, Ishmael notes is that the “Takers” or the non-indigenous humans are egotistical in their thinking and ideology. He explains how the premise of the “Taker” story is “the world was made for man.” I agree that the majority of people wholeheartedly believe that the world was made for humans and it belongs to us. This is most evident by the fact that we buy and sell land and animals as though we have the ability and right to possess these things. I read an article in the Press Democrat a week ago about how two undersea cables were broken in the Mediterranean Sea which caused reduced internet services in India and Europe and hindered many U.S. businesses that rely on communication overseas (Pressdemo.com). The article’s entirety consisted of the consequences of this break in technology. I was shocked that there was no mention of the impact that this broken cable had on the environment anywhere in the article. Moreover, before I read the article I had no idea there were even cables under the sea. This article and my naivety about the topic further solidifies that fact that our pursuit for technology and technological advancement is extremely narrow minded. Humans are hailed intelligent for these great advancements and as a consumer I use these resources for their ease and efficiency without even considering the impact it causes on everything else. This instance further illuminated that fact that humans are destroying the world with little concern or caution.
Ishmael explains this disillusionment of humans through the analogy of man taking flight on the “Taker Thunderbolt.” Initially everything looks like a success and even when the ground begins to rise up, “Takers” have the false sense of security that everything is going well. However, conditions become worse. Ishmael contributes this degenerated condition through the paradox that states that “intensification of production to feed an increased population leads to a still greater increase in population” (109). At first I was confused when Ishmael explained that increased food production for the starving people in the Third World would not ensure population stability. My immediate reaction was that it was unjust to allow individuals to starve to death just to keep the population down. However, upon more careful consideration, I realized that was not what the book was trying to convey. Instead, it is society that wants individuals in developed countries to feel pity of those in their deprived situation. It unjustly illustrates that we are doing people a favor by aiding and providing food to underdeveloped countries. But in reality, developed countries control of food production creates this unequal distribution of resources and food and instigates this unbalanced power. Ultimately, it is this control of resources and the ideology that there is a need and a right to control resources that is problematic and ensures the novel’s claim that society will not continue forever this way.
Daniel Quinn also illustrates how the dominant society’s cultural values are in desperate need of revision and improvement. In the novel, Ishmael explains how most dominant cultures “esteem the values and traditions of wiser, nobler ancestors and deplore their disappearance, but they have no interest in living the way those wiser, nobler ancestors lived. In short, ancient customs are nice for institutions, ceremonies, and holidays, but Takers don’t want to adopt them for everyday living” (202). This statement incorporates the idea that technological progress and cultural advancements take precedence over historical traditions. Typically, dominant cultures only take what is wanted and what is thought as useful to include in the present. It is a very tunnel-vision mentality where the past and the future are mostly forgotten, while the present is valued as supremely important. Therefore, it seems that our reverence to our ancestors is only partial. Furthermore, our concern for the future is only partial as well. There is knowledge that the icecaps are melting and species are disappearing and there is a general consensus that something needs to be changed. And small changes have been occurring. For example, San Francisco City Board of Supervisors passed a law that banned plastic bags in large supermarkets due to environmental concerns that are associated with these plastic bags (SFGate.com). These are positive steps; however the novel’s environmental concerns are much greater than these small steps. One of the novel’s grand claims is that creation has stopped. This is most evident when Ishmael concludes that “those who live in the hands of gods evolve and those who don’t cease to evolve” (237). The implication being that the human race will eventually be destroyed if we continue this way.
But what to do? The novel suggests that awareness and education of the masses through publication and print is the first step to changing the current system (248). It also dispels the idea that we need to revert back to hunter-gatherers to be a successful culture (250). Furthermore, it reiterates the prevalent idea that control and power needs to be redistributed out of the hands of white males (253). All these suggestions are valid and make complete sense. As a reader I was in awe of Quinn’s capability to understandably illustrate the falsehood of history and the past and convincingly show how the present is in desperate need of change. I also was moved by the idea that change must occur with a change in the foundation of the “Taker” ideology (that we are only a part of the world, not owners of the world). But when Alex asks Ishmael what can be done, Ishmael’s only response is to “invent.” (250). As a reader, I wanted a suggestion for change – a suggestion for an invention because it is difficult to fully comprehend and imagine a system that is different from the present. I was left wondering what this change that Ishmael advocates would look like. How would the invention “save the world” as it states in the ad in the beginning of the novel? I longed for some tangible solution that I could hold on to. But again, after I digested the novel I realized that Ishmael had left me with many questions answered and those questions that were unanswerable were for me to ponder for myself. Essentially, Ishmael illustrated through the past, present, and the future the genuine necessity that change must occur.
Introduction
My name is Stacy Nojima. I am an AMCS and English major. I am taking this class because I think it would be informative for me to learn about spirituality and religion and I thought it might influence some self-discovery in the process. As I stated in class, I am not very religious. Growing up, my life and my actions weren’t heavily influenced by religion. Both my parents were raised religiously; however, they did not establish any sort of religion in the home. As a result, I haven't really been educated regarding religion or spirituality so this class will be an eye opener and I am positive that I will be learning a lot during the semester.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)