Two Saturday videos

A little Christmas season reality



H/T Siamang

United States of Jesus



H/T Kristie

Thanking god for genocide

So this really gets to me in a new way this year. The story about Thanksgiving with which I grew is more or less summarized in this Chuck Colson commentary from today. Chuck tells this story about the "pilgrims":

In April of 1623—three years after the first Pilgrims landed—the transplanted Englishmen and women planted corn and other crops. A good harvest was essential to their survival. But in the weeks following the planting, it became clear that a dry spell was turning into a drought.

Pilgrim father Edward Winslow recorded their distress in his diary. “It pleased God, for our further chastisement,” he wrote, “to send a great drought; insomuch as in six weeks . . . there scarce fell any rain.” The crops began to shrivel up “as though they had been scorched before the fire . . . God,” Winslow wrote, “which hitherto had been our only shield and supporter, now seemed in His anger to arm Himself against us. And who can withstand the fierceness of His wrath?”

The Pilgrims decided the only solution was to humble themselves before God in fasting and in prayer. They appointed a day of prayer and set aside all other employments.

Winslow describes what happened next. “In the morning,” he wrote, “when we assembled together, the heavens were as clear, and the drought as like to continue as it ever was.” But by late afternoon—after eight or nine hours of prayer—“the weather was overcast, the clouds gathered on all sides,” Winslow wrote. The next morning brought “soft, sweet and moderate shows of rain, continuing some fourteen days.” The needed rain was “mixed with such seasonable weather,” he wrote, “as it was hard to say whether our withered corn or drooping affections were most quickened or revived, such was the bounty and goodness of our God.”

This dramatic answer to prayer was a witness to the local Indians. As Winslow notes, “The Indians . . . took notice . . . all of them admired the goodness of our God towards us, that wrought so great a change in so short of time, showing the difference between their conjuration and our invocation on the name of God for rain.”

The harvest that fall was abundant—and the Pilgrims survived yet another year.

Today is Thanksgiving—the day on which we recall the three-day celebration in 1621 in which the Pilgrims invited local Indians to join them in thanking God for His blessings on them—not, as some school children are taught today in class, giving thanks to Indians.

Ok, this bothers me on various levels, but the worst is this line

The Indians . . . took notice . . . all of them admired the goodness of our God towards us, that wrought so great a change in so short of time, showing the difference between their conjuration and our invocation on the name of God for rain.

There is such an astoundingly high level of condescension, superiority, and empire behind Mr. Wilson's sentence. And beyond that, It's ... barbarian. I mean I think the people back in the day--the time of Homer, had a better clue than we do about the real nature of the gods. When it comes down to it, we europeans had more powerful, and more evil, gods than the indians did. they were right to be impressed. But they missed the boat if they weren't terrified. Estimates vary, but there were probably at at least 50 million indigenous people in the U.S. Pre-Columbus. Today there are nearly 3 million. Some people have referred to this as "democide", others as "genocide". Call it what you may, If you were a Native American in the 1600s, you had every reason to be impressed and terrified by the Europeans and their gods.

At Off the Map Live earlier this month, Richard Twiss responded to a question about descendants of immigrants seeking reconciliation with native peoples thusly: "Well, think about it like this. What if twenty years ago, you stole my car. And now twenty years later, you come to me and say "You know, I stole your car all those years ago, and I feel really terrible about it. And I'd like to ask your forgiveness and seek reconciliation in our relationship." And I said "Well, that sounds great. But can I have the car back?" And you said "Well, that doesn't seem reasonable. I've had the car all these years. I've maintained it. I've driven it. It's like part of my family now. I can't see giving the car back"

So the response from the predominately white audience was laughter. But the laughter was hiding a certain discomfort, wasn't it?

How can people who claim to be followers of Jesus celebrate the Thanksgiving holiday every year with the lie of a story they tell? Chuck Colson's commentary is heard on 1000 radio stations in the United States. There are a *huge* number of Americans of European descent in this country who will get together today and retell this story, and the vast majority of them won't give a shit that on an "Indian reservation" not too far from them, the last remains of the Indigenous peoples will continue to suffer from extremely high suicide rates, High rates of substance dependence, and other difficulties. Because the White European god won. And they will give this shockingly pathetic thanks to that god. It will involve gratitude for "nice" things. None of them will be saying things like "thankyou that you helped us win, so that we can be the 20% who consume 80% of the worlds resources. Thankyou for helping us win so we can bomb civilians in other countries, rather than them bombing us. Thankyou for helping us win, so we can wrap ourselves in this shell of materialism and denial, and eat enormous amounts of food while 30,000 children in the third world starve to death today."

I think we should start a new tradition for Thanksgiving. I think every American ought to (there, I should'd on you. Consider yourself warned) read this speech by Chief Seattle, given as evening drew down for the indigenous peoples of this country. Here's an excerpt.

"But can this ever be? Your God loves your people and hates mine; he folds his strong arms lovingly around the white man and leads him as a father leads his infant son, but he has forsaken his red children; he makes your people wax strong every day, and soon they will fill the land; while my people are ebbing away like a fast-receding tide, that will never flow again. The white man's God cannot love his red children or he would protect them. They seem to be orphans and can look nowhere for help. How then can we become brothers? How can your father become our father and bring us prosperity and awaken in us dreams of returning greatness?"

"Your God seems to us to be partial. He came to the white man. We never saw Hirn; never even heard His voice; He gave the white man laws but He had no word for His red children whose teeming millions filled this vast continent as the stars fill the firmament. No, we are two distinct races and must ever remain so. There is little in common between us. The ashes of our ancestors are sacred and their final resting place is hallowed ground, while you wander away from the tombs of your fathers seemingly without regret."

"Your religion was written on tables of stone by the iron finger of an angry God, lest you might forget it, The red man could never remember nor comprehend it."

"Our religion is the traditions of our ancestors, the dream of our old men, given them by the great Spirit, and the visions of our sachems, and is written in the hearts of our people."

"Your dead cease to love you and the homes of their nativity as soon as they pass the portals of the tomb. They wander far off beyond the stars, are soon forgotten, and never return. Our dead never forget the beautiful world that gave them being. They still love its winding rivers, its great mountains and its sequestered vales, and they ever yearn in tenderest affection over the lonely hearted living and often return to visit and comfort them."

"Day and night cannot dwell together. The red man has ever fled the approach of the white man, as the changing mists on the mountainside flee before the blazing morning sun."

"However, your proposition seems a just one, and I think my folks will accept it and will retire to the reservation you offer them, and we will dwell apart and in peace, for the words of the great white chief seem to be the voice of nature speaking to my people out of the thick darkness that is fast gathering around them like a dense fog floating inward from a midnight sea."

"It matters but little where we pass the remainder of our days. They are not many."

"The Indian's night promises to be dark. No bright star hovers about the horizon. Sad-voiced winds moan in the distance. Some grim Nemesis of our race is on the red man's trail, and wherever he goes he will still hear the sure approaching footsteps of the fell destroyer and prepare to meet his doom, as does the wounded doe that hears the approaching footsteps of the hunter. A few more moons, a few more winters, and not one of all the mighty hosts that once filled this broad land or that now roam in fragmentary bands through these vast solitudes will remain to weep over the tombs of a people once as powerful and as hopeful as your own."

"But why should be repine? Why should I murmur at the fate of my people? Tribes are made up of individuals and are no better than they. Men come and go like the waves of the sea. A tear, a tamanawus, a dirge, and they are gone from our longing eyes forever. Even the white man, whose God walked and talked with him, as friend to friend, is not exempt from the common destiny. We may be brothers after all. We shall see."

"We will ponder your proposition, and when we have decided we will tell you. But should we accept it, I here and now make this the first condition: That we will not be denied the privilege, without molestation, of visiting at will the graves of our ancestors and friends. Every part of this country is sacred to my people. Every hillside, every valley, every plain and grove has been hallowed by some fond memory or some sad experience of my tribe."

"Even the rocks that seem to lie dumb as they swelter in the sun along the silent seashore in solemn grandeur thrill with memories of past events connected with the fate of my people, and the very dust under your feet responds more lovingly to our footsteps than to yours, because it is the ashes of our ancestors, and our bare feet are conscious of the sympathetic touch, for the soil is rich with the life of our kindred."

"The sable braves, and fond mothers, and glad-hearted maidens, and the little children who lived and rejoiced here, and whose very names are now forgotten, still love these solitudes, and their deep fastness at eventide grow shadowy with the presence of dusky spirits. And when the last red man shall have perished from the earth and his memory among white men shall have become a myth, these shores shall swarm with the invisible dead of my tribe, and when your children's children shall think themselves alone in the field, the store, the shop, upon the highway or in the silence of the woods, they will not be alone. In all the earth there is no place dedicated to solitude. At night, when the streets of your cities and villages shall be silent, and you think them deserted, they will throng with the returning hosts that once filled and still love this beautiful land. The white man will never be alone. Let him be just and deal kindly with my people, for the dead are not altogether powerless."

Do you still think we're the good guys?

Jose Padilla
and here

Happy 4th of July

Today we celebrate the 231st anniversary of the Declaration of the Independence of the United States. I've made the habit over the last 7 years of reading this document out loud on this day (You can read it by clicking on the link above). It's an educational thing. There's some fascinating language in there. For instance

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

which, if it were to reflect current reality, would read something like

Governments long established should not be changed unless the United States decides they should, for whatever causes the United states deems necessary, or chooses to make up or believe in.

There is a long list of the crimes of King George III of England, including the following:

• For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
• For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
• For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
• For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
• He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
• He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
• He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

Now what nation and head of state has, over the last 4 years, been carrying out amazingly *similar* actions in the world? Hmmmmmm ....

People are almost always surprised, when I read this aloud at July 4th events I find myself at, over the "merciless Indian savages" language. And this is intriguing, because of course we now know that the signing of this document 231 years ago spelled DOOM to the native Americans--the beginning of the almost total destruction of their population and culture. Moreover, this "known rule of warfare: an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions" has become in many cases our own rule of warfare.

So today I'm not doing any celebrating of this document. It seems to have led to more bad than good, if for nothing more than it created the only nation which has ever dropped nuclear weapons against their enemies.

Why?--I'm confused, again.

Today this story from BBC about a seven day old armed conflict between the government of Lebanon and and "Islamic militants" who have taken control of a Palestinian refugee camp in Lebanon. I have lots of questions about this. Why did "Islamic militants" take over a refugee camp? How is "sending in the army" going to help de-escalate/improve the situation? And most ... strangely to me:

Why is the United States delivering military equipment to the Lebanese army as assistance for this situation?

I just don't get it. Is it kind of like we want to make sure we want to get our own whatever sized piece of the culpability for whatever innocent people die? Confused, again.

I said to Megsie "Okay, I thing I figured it out. There are lots of people in this country who are okay with accepting culpability for the death of the innocent in the name of the grand end goal of MTWABP". and she said "Oh, so the end justifies the means? Is that kind of like how the terrorists think?".

She went on to say "I think it's more understandable if you are able to realize that this is just another greedy country which is jumping into the fray. But there is this powerful myth in this country that America is somehow God's country and with good pure motives, so that kind of confuses things, because they are not behaving in a way that is consistent with that. People think they are, but then it works out to not be good for the other countries, and that's why it's confusing."

That was helpful

It was nice to see that

For once my government is taking a reasonable, internationally acceptable position on something.

a truly brutal force

Results from the Pentagon's latest assessment of the mental health of U.S. combat forces in Iraq have hit the news in the last 24 hours. These statistics are generalizable to the entire 155,000 strong U.S. combat troop presence in Iraq. For instance, on these charts, if you see 10%, that means approximatley 15,500 U.S. troops in iraq believe or have done that category.


Can someone, one of the pro bush, pro war people, perhaps, Please explain to me how this leaves the iraqi populace better off than under saddam?

Justice and Compassion.com

Rachel and I are hosting a newly launched blog over at Off the Map called Justiceandcompassion.com. It's already quite an interesting conversation. I'd love for you to join us over there. Today's post is about the good news in Liberia--long awaited good news!

Yesterday the U.S. State Department released their 2006 Report on Human Rights, detailing human rights violations in 193 countries.

So can anybody explain to me why the United States isn't one of the countries reported on? I just don't get that.

huh?

The site of the bombing in Kapisa Province, northeast of Kabul.s


two headlines from today's new york times:

1.U.S. Airstrike Kills 9 in Afghan Family
2.Bush Approves Aid Programs for Latin America

From the first story:

Nine members of a family were killed in an American airstrike in central Afghanistan, including five women and three children during a battle with militants, Afghan officials said today. The United States military acknowledged it had dropped two 2,000 pound bombs on a compound Sunday night. ... United States forces would work with the Afghan authorities to “investigate and identify those responsible,” the statement (from the U.S. military) said.

From the second story:

''The United States of America is committed to helping people rise out of poverty,'' the president said. ... ''In an age of growing prosperity and abundance, this is a scandal and it is a challenge,'' Bush said.

I'm confused.

correction on Firestone, and the Pledge of Allegiance

Two posts ago, I suggested not buying firestone tires as a response to firestone's abuse of their employees in Liberia. Upon further reflections, this may not be the best course of action.

Perhaps not buying the tires will deprive these worker's of even the infinitesimally meager wages they earn. Perhaps the better thing is, buy whatever tyres you would otherwise buy, and *if* they are bridgestone firestone--be aware of this issue, and be vocal about it to the company as one of the their valued customers. That way we don't deprive the worker's in Liberia of their wages by driving Firestone out of business. Maybe there is hope for change from the inside. Hmmmm....

Today the American Pledge of Allegiance was mentioned in a CNN report (which I saw on YouTube) on atheists in America. One religious journal editor claimed that atheists are partly to blame for their bad image in this country, because of things they do like ... suing to have the words "One nation under God" removed from the pledge of allegiance.
For those not from this country, my understanding is that most schoolchildren in this country are led in 'the pledge of allegiance to the american flag' every school day. I certainly said it regularly in school as a child.
I now find this very very strange. Why are children being taught to ritualistically pledge their allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands? I don't get that. I don't want my daughters making such a pledge. It seems eminently un Christian and jingoistic and insular and a bit scary. And yet it is seen as so normal to so many americans. Even at the preschool classes at a really big mainstream eastside church called Westminster Chapel in bellevue, the children were putting their little hands over their hearts and saying this pledge. I don't get that.
For Americans: Does the pledge seem normal to you? If you are a Christian, does it seem reconcilable with Christianity? why or why not?
For non, half, or some other proportion Americans: Is there something like this in other countries? How does it strike you?

Quiz results

My Results from the "Do You Want the Terrorists to Win" Quiz

Your 'Do You Want the Terrorists to Win' Score: 100%

You are a terrorist-loving, Bush-bashing, "blame America first"-crowd traitor. You are in league with evil-doers who hate our freedoms. By all counts you are a liberal, and as such cleary desire the terrorists to succeed and impose their harsh theocratic restrictions on us all. You are fit to be hung for treason! Luckily George Bush is tapping your internet connection and is now aware of your thought-crime. Have a nice day.... in Guantanamo!

Do You Want the Terrorists to Win?
Quiz Created on GoToQuiz

And here's the quiz results based on me answering the questions using my best guesses for the answers of a fictional character who is a sort of amalgamation of my extended family (I mean my FOO etc.--not Megan's family). Yet another reason to boycott Christmas, and it's ... associated gatherings of extended family.

Your 'Do You Want the Terrorists to Win' Score: 0%

Congratulations, Patriot! Wave your flag proudly, stand tall, and bask in the glory of George Bush's America. The terrorists will never win so long as there is a sufficient number of people like you out there. Never question, never doubt. You are on the right side. America's side. God's side. Rush Limbaugh has told you so. Rah rah, go Bush!!

Do You Want the Terrorists to Win?
Quiz Created on GoToQuiz

46 Percent of Americans believe that...

The universe was created on or about today's date, October 23, in the year 4004 B.C. (6010 years ago today)

Some caveats:

1. This is according to the gallup poll
2. This is according to Usher's chronology.

I'm terribly curious, so here's a little poll for you: do you:

A. Believe the earth is approximately 6000 years.
B. Believe the earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old.
C. Believe the earth is some other age--and if so, what age?
D. Have no idea what age the earth is.
E. Have no idea what age the earth is, and not really care anyway.

And 2. Do you believe Adam had a belly button?

Aussie and U.S. Citizenship oaths

Somehow the differences in these two oaths talk about the differences in the nations.

1. Australia:

Officially called the "Pledge of Commitment":
From this time forward, under God,
I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people,
whose democratic beliefs I share,
whose rights and liberties I respect, and
whose laws I will uphold and obey.
All new citizens have the choice of making the pledge with or without the words 'under God'.

2. United States:

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.

Which country is more afraid? Why?

To see other citizenship oaths, check out wikipedia's citizenship oaths page.