Gosh, I'm sorry I came across this excellent thread so late. I thoroughly enjoyed the posts by Red Devil and Oxygen!
Before I contribute to this thread, I'd better disclose my own background; Human, male, nearly genetically identical to the American Indian, the Englishman, and the Californian…save the very few Germanic genes in the mix, resulting in my light skin and blue eyes.
Strangely, the PC culture of today treats my ancestors as though they appeared out of a test tube in the 17th century, lacking the rich spiritual heritage claimed by the native peoples. In fact, no arbitrary group has a valid claim that their ancestors had a more "spiritual", or "natural" way of life than did mine. My direct ancestors performed elaborate ceremonies, they drew odd depictions of animals in caves, they hunted some animals to extinction, stole land and women, freely murdering each other in the process: A behavioral history nearly identical to that of ancestral Native Americans.
A book titled;
The Origins Of Virtue, by the superb British author, Matthew Ridley, challenges the modern myth of the noble savage. Our genetic heritage (ala Richard Dawkins), as well as our responses to the common problems of survival, have predisposed us to share patterns of moral behavior. These general patterns have been observed in the primates, indigenous peoples, as well as men of European descent.
For example, Ridley reports that where geographically possible, the American Plains Indians routinely drove entire herds of bison over cliffs. They did so with a prior knowledge that it would be possible to butcher only the few which landed on the top of the heap. The rest were left to rot. How does this practice square with PC image of the Native American as environmentally benign? The film
Dances With Wolves comes to mind. In a scene from this film, the Indians are depicted as confused as they watched Europeans slaughter an entire herd of bison, while making use of only a small proportion of the massacre. My point is that both tall cliffs and guns may produce an equal morbidity among a herd of bison. It's true that the bison was driven to near extinction soon after the arrival of Europeans on the Plains. However, Ridley also reports that in the Americas, the great mammoth was driven to extinction shortly after the arrival of the indigenous peoples from Asia.
Remember also, that the American Indian did not discover war as a response to the European invader. Indian tribes routinely made war upon their neighbor. Theft of land and women was common. Violence was as much a way of their life as it was in Europe.
The vast tangled history of human conquest and thievery is by now, impossible to sort out, save for the very most recent cases (Bosnia, etc.). Imagine the problem should I return my "own" land to the local Abernaki Indians. I would then return to Germany and inform Juergen and Brigetta that I'm back to reclaim their land, that which my ancestors left behind. Moreover, the Abernaki's likely stole "my" land from another tribe. How might I decide which tribe has a proper moral claim to the land? Look where such ancient historical claims of ownership have gotten the Israeli's and the Palestinians!
The current PC bias wrongly concludes that my ancestors were morally and spiritually inferior to those of the indigenous peoples. Isn't it shameful to teach a child of European descent, that his or her ancestors were somehow unique among humans in their immoral behavior? In fact, there was not a single crime or act of virtue that my European ancestors did not commit. Roughly the same may be said of the ancestors of all human cultures. It is absolutely false to believe that; "Some (ancestral) pigs are more equal than others"!
Genetic and cultural diversity notwithstanding: I find it sad that today's PC culture stresses
diversity above
brotherhood. My own investigations point instead to our singular human origin and eventual common destiny. I feel a shame for the near universal human atrocities of the past, as I feel pride for our past glories.
As I consider the topic of ancestral bones, I feel again like a kid sitting at Mass, trying not to sniggle as Sister Dellarosa glares at me in disapproval. The Indian community wants us to share their solemn view that these thousand year old bits of calcium are uniquely sacred. As much as I'd like to accommodate them out of respect for their beliefs, I can't bring myself to do it.
Here's why;
The elements that make up my body have been recycled many times from other life, very likely other human life. The common limestone I put on my garden contains the bones of past life. I was thinking of this idea some days ago as I shoveled snow. Every shovel full of snow contains water molecules which have passed though nearly every distant ancestor of both yours and mine, back to Lucy, our common mother, and beyond. The simple statistical verification of this idea appears in a number of secondary school chemistry and physics books. I found this same question on the web, given as a first problem (the answer is given as well) of a chemistry test;
http://courses.chem.psu.edu/Chem402/Problem_Sets/probset_1_Solns.pdf
They consider the probability of how many molecules of your next breath were contained in the dying breath of Julius Caesar rather than water molecules of snow, but the idea is the same.
You literally can't shake a stick on this planet without pointing at the abundant remains of past life. With this understanding,
everything is sacred! Perhaps I should complain to the Indians of my indignation at their disrespect to my ancestors, whose bodily constituents reside in the water they pour into the radiator of their pickup trucks, or the carbon which makes up their tires? It would be arbitrary to accept their claim that some bits of calcium are uniquely sacred, while not accepting my claim that the water or carbon molecules are equally sacred. Never mind that they base their belief on myth, while I base mine on science.
My own "less than scientific" belief is that human remains are merely compost. Or stated more respectfully; Raw material for future life. If my belief steps on your belief, then we need to sit down and work it out. But no group has the right to claim an advantage over my beliefs, or a more advanced "sprituality" because they dance about wearing feathers and a loincloth. The US government should be ashamed of itself for cowering to such intimidation by a few of its citizens. (Wow, that ought to ruffle some feathers!)
We have a duty to treat other's beliefs with a measure of respect, but not at the cost of our own reason. If a man tells me I may not swim in his sacred lake, I expect we might strike a reasonable (such a loaded word!) compromise in which I would agree to treat the lake with respect, but I'd still swim in it. Otherwise, a man might one day appear to inform me that my dwelling upon this, his sacred planet, constitutes an act of desecration.
Thanks,
Michael
