Tradition

There are some indigenous traditions and values that contemporary Indigenous Americans no longer exercise by choice, and for good reason. The Traditional Indigenous American Values that I present on this blog are generally ones that can be applied to contemporary life.

The following is from The Nizkor Project :

Fallacy: Appeal to Tradition

Also Known as: Appeal to the Old, Old Ways are Best, Fallacious Appeal to the Past, Appeal to Age
Description of Appeal to Tradition

Appeal to Tradition is a fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that something is better or correct simply because it is older, traditional, or "always has been done." This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. X is old or traditional
2. Therefore X is correct or better.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because the age of something does not automatically make it correct or better than something newer. This is made quite obvious by the following example: The theory that witches and demons cause disease is far older than the theory that microrganisms cause diseases. Therefore, the theory about witches and demons must be true.

This sort of "reasoning" is appealing for a variety of reasons. First, people often prefer to stick with what is older or traditional. This is a fairly common psychological characteristic of people which may stem from the fact that people feel more comfortable about what has been around longer. Second, sticking with things that are older or traditional is often easier than testing new things. Hence, people often prefer older and traditional things out of laziness. Hence, Appeal to Tradition is a somewhat common fallacy.

It should not be assumed that new things must be better than old things (see the fallacy Appeal to Novelty) any more than it should be assumed that old things are better than new things. The age of something does not, in general, have any bearing on its quality or correctness (in this context). In the case of tradition, assuming that something is correct just because it is considered a tradition is poor reasoning. For example, if the belief that 1+1 = 56 were a tradition of a group of people it would hardly follow that it is true.

Obviously, age does have a bearing in some contexts. For example, if a person concluded that aged wine would be better than brand new wine, he would not be committing an Appeal to Tradition. This is because, in such cases the age of the thing is relevant to its quality. Thus, the fallacy is committed only when the age is not, in and of itself, relevant to the claim.

One final issue that must be considered is the "test of time." In some cases people might be assuming that because something has lasted as a tradition or has been around a long time that it is true because it has "passed the test of time." If a person assumes that something must be correct or true simply because it has persisted a long time, then he has committed an Appeal to Tradition. After all, as history has shown people can persist in accepting false claims for centuries.

However, if a person argues that the claim or thing in question has successfully stood up to challenges and tests for a long period of time then they would not be committing a fallacy. In such cases the claim would be backed by evidence. As an example, the theory that matter is made of subatomic particles has survived numerous tests and challenges over the years so there is a weight of evidence in its favor. The claim is reasonable to accept because of the weight of this evidence and not because the claim is old. Thus, a claim's surviving legitimate challenges and passing valid tests for a long period of time can justify the acceptance of a claim. But mere age or persistance does not warrant accepting a claim.

Examples of Appeal to Tradition

1. Sure I believe in God. People have believed in God for thousands of years so it seems clear that God must exist. After all, why else would the belief last so long?

2. Gunthar is the father of Connan. They live on a small island and in their culture women are treated as property to be exchanged at will by men.

Connan: "You know father, when I was going to school in the United States I saw that American women are not treated as property. In fact, I read a book by this person named Mill in which he argued for women's rights."
Gunthar: "So, what is your point son?"
Connan: "Well, I think that it might be wrong to trade my sisters for cattle. They are human beings and should have a right to be masters of their own fate."
Gunthar: "What a strange and new-fangled notion you picked up in America. That country must be even more barbaric then I imagined. Now think about this son. We have been trading women for cattle for as long as our people have lived on this island. It is a tradition that goes back into the mists of time. "
Connan: "But I still think there is something wrong with it."
Gunthar: "Nonsense my boy. A tradition this old must be endorsed by the gods and must be right."

3. Of course this mode of government is the best. We have had this government for over 200 years and no one has talked about changing it in all that time. So, it has got to be good.

4. A reporter is interviewing the head of a family that has been involved with a feud with another family.

Reporter: "Mr. Hatfield, why are you still fighting it out with the Mcoys?"
Hatfield: "Well you see young man, my father feuded with the Mcoys and his father feuded with them and so did my great grandfather."
Reporter: "But why? What started all this?"
Hatfield: "I don't rightly know. I'm sure it was the Mcoys who started it all, though."
Reporter: "If you don't know why you're fighting, why don't you just stop?"
Hatfield: "Stop? What are you crazy? This feud has been going on for generations so I'm sure there is a darn good reason why it started. So I aim to keep it going. It has got to be the right thing to do. Hand me my shooting iron boy, I see one of those Mcoy skunks sneaking in the cornfield."

Corruptors of Indigenous American spirituality

Speaking out on the theft and abuse of spirituality

by:
Shadi Rahimi

Indian Country Today

July 20, 2007








SAN FRANCISCO - It was a strange sight, at least in East Los Angeles.

While walking her dogs recently at Arroyo Seco Park, Marisol Crisostomo-Romo, 26, said she spotted a van with a tipi on it. Into it piled a group of white children clutching bows and arrows.

They were members of the five-week-long Camp Shi'ini, ''a Native American-themed summer camp'' that is named after ''a Native American word meaning 'Summer People,''' according to its Web site.

The 60-year-old camp divides children into nine ''tribes'' and offers activities ranging from horseback riding (in the tradition of the Navajo, Comanche and Eskimo, its Web site stated) and archery (Mohawk, Seminole and Blackfoot) to fishing (Zuni, Iroquois and Apache).

Crisostomo-Romo, who is Pascua Yaqui, immediately wrote the camp a letter and e-mailed 422 people to do the same, beseeching all those ''offended and disgusted by cultural exploitation and mainstream society's self-entitlement.''

Her anger is echoed across the country by Natives who continue to be frustrated with what they view as misappropriation and abuse of spiritual and cultural practices.

Similar Native-themed camps, nonprofits, centers, programs, workshops, retreats and seminars offered mostly by non-Natives thrive across the country. And the number of non-Native people operating as medicine men and shaman - and often charging for their services - has only grown despite opposition from traditional elders, groups and Native activists.

''We don't charge for ceremonies. People with real sicknesses actually go to these people; we've heard of these people even taking advantage of women,'' said Charlie Sitting Bull, 54. ''That's the danger in people being misinformed. We battle it all the time.''

Sitting Bull is a traditional Oglala Lakota from South Dakota who said he is a direct descendant of Chief Sitting Bull. He began noticing the misuse of Native culture as a teenager, when he first saw a Boy Scout troup ''dressed as Indians,'' he said.

Since then, he has confronted Native and non-Native people falsely claiming to be descendants of Chief Sitting Bull and has worked to stop non-Native people from charging for spiritual teachings. Most recently, Sitting Bull said he prevented a white man from charging to teach Sun Dance songs at a Washington state bookstore, which the man had learned from a legitimate medicine man.

Responding to a request from the medicine man himself, Sitting Bull confronted the white man, telling him he could not hold the workshop, and asking for a written apology. The man was arrogant, but eventually obliged, he said.

A non-Native person practicing Native spirituality presents a similar danger to all Natives as a Native person who practices but ''isn't clean'' - taking drugs or not ''living a good life,'' - Sitting Bull said.

''They actually infect us like a sickness,'' he said, referring to both scenarios.

In 1993, a decree passed at an international gathering of 500 representatives from 40 different tribes and bands of the Lakota, titled the ''Declaration of War Against Exploiters of Lakota Spirituality,'' stated that immediate action be taken to defend Lakota spirituality from ''further contamination, desecration and abuse.''

It detailed what it described as the destruction of sacred traditions, reminding Natives of their highest duty - ''to preserve the purity of our precious traditions for our future generations, so that our children and our children's children will survive and prosper in the sacred manner intended for each of our respective peoples by our Creator.''

Among the ''disgraceful expropriation'' that even then had ''reached epidemic proportions in urban areas throughout the country,'' according to the leaders, were corporations that charge money for sweat lodges and vision quest programs; Sun dances for non-Natives conducted by charlatans; and cult leaders and new age people who imitate Lakota ceremonial ways and mix in non-Native occult practices.

The decree urged traditional people, tribal leaders and governing councils of all other Indian nations to join ''in calling for an immediate end to this rampant exploitation of our respective American Indian sacred traditions.''

The decree was published in a newsletter, in controversial author Ward Churchill's 1994 book ''Indians Are Us? Culture and Genocide in Native North America,'' and online.

Since then, an active stand has been taken by medicine men and traditional practitioners even against ''Native healers that are out of line,'' Sitting Bull said.

Responses to the decree from non-Native people on various Web sites explain why they engage in Native spiritual practices.

''I understand the importance of the statement and feel money is being made by the stealing of the traditionalists,'' Mark Montalban wrote. ''I also feel that ghosts and spirits can enter your life and give purpose and direction.''

But many Native people disagree, arguing that the appropriation of spirituality is not only disrespectful, but also dangerous if practiced incorrectly and by non-Natives.

''One can study Native culture all they want, but if it's not Native blood flowing through their veins then they'll never truly understand those ways and how to use them,'' said Anthony Thosh Collins, 25, of the Pima, Osage and Seneca-Cayuga tribes. ''I support the use of our Native culture to help heal this world, but only through the guidance of one of our own qualified elders.''

The movement against non-Natives appropriating and sometimes selling Native spirituality is growing, with younger Natives joining the forefront.

In her letter to Camp Shi'ini, Crisostomo-Romo explained the sacred nature of the face paint and war bonnets displayed on its Web site, saying, ''Non-Natives don't have business messing with these things.''

She suggested the camp instead teach children about modern issues faced by Native people, including the desecration of sacred sites, poverty and substance abuse.

It is important for non-Natives to understand that Natives do not exist only in museums or in Western movies: ''We are a people who have a future and who want the best for our children,'' Crisostomo-Romo said.

''The very notion of trying to recreate a lifestyle of a people that are still in vibrant existence is purely ridiculous,'' she said. ''Native people are not just about bows and arrows, feathers and dream catchers. The depth and beauty of our cultures can never be captured in a summer camp.''

Link to the article
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Indioheathen's response: I agree with the editorial.

Traditional Indigenous American religions are collectively among the few in the Americas that are just the opposite of evangelical religions. If you ever come across an alleged Indigenous American "medicine man," "holy man," or "shaman" that charges a fee or "minimum donation" for his or her services, he or she is either a fraud or a genuine indigenous black sheep who is selling out his or her inherited sacred spirituality.

Traditional indigenous medicine people do not advertise or charge for our services. Unsolicited stipends of any amount or material donations are sometimes accepted, but not requested or mandated.

One of the purposes of this blog is to address issues from an Indigenous American perspective without necessarily disseminating sacred knowledge and teachings from any one Indigenous American spiritual tradition.

Christianity and Indigenous American sovereignty

Christianity and sovereignty can co-exist

Posted: June 21, 2007

by: Editors Report / Indian Country Today






During the 1950s and '60s, when tribal leaders and activists were pressing for alternative policies to termination, there were calls for the Christian churches to join in the struggle for tribal sovereignty and more accommodating policies. Some activists solicited the churches in both U.S. and Canada, and held a variety of meetings through the '60s and '70s. The Civil Rights movement was strengthened and supported by Christian churches from many denominations. Indian leaders and intellectuals, many of them Christians, believed the churches would play a significant role in the struggle for American Indian self-determination. However, the churches did not play a significant supportive role in the self-determination movement. Why not?

In the black community, and in the Civil Rights Movement, churches were often the main way in which black people were organized into communities. Furthermore, the Civil Rights Movement was aimed at individual political and economic inclusion into American society. The Civil Rights Movement upheld central American values, goals and law. The problem was the United States was not implementing its own values and law in ways that were consistent with the Constitution or the values it expressed. Disadvantaged minority groups wanted inclusion, acceptance and entry into full U.S. citizenship. Generally, the Christian churches were supportive of the goals and values of the Civil Rights Movement and the changes in U.S. society and law that resulted.

The movement toward American Indian self-determination, however, gained less support from the churches. While many American Indians have converted to Christianity, most tribal communities and governments are not organized around Christian belief. When American Indians convert to Christianity, they often do not give up their identity as Indians, or ties to their community or government. In some communities, the introduction of Christianity created cultural and often political breaks with non-converts. Christianity, ultimately, demands a cultural transformation of the individual with internalization of Christian values and lifeways. Converts are often asked to give up traditional values, ceremonies and traditional ways of living; which also translate into preferences for Western or U.S.-style community and political organization. In some communities, Christianity introduced cultural and political conflict over future directions. Nevertheless, many Indian communities found ways to reconcile the inclusion of Christian groups. In some communities, Christianity is seen as one of several paths to the sacred. In these nations, some spiritual leaders practice a Christian religion, often Catholicism, as well as the Native American Church, and participate in the Sun Dance. One is only enjoined not to mix the doctrines of the various religions. Other communities respect the decisions of individuals and villages to take on Christianity or to practice the traditional spiritual path and ceremonies.

When self-determination activists started to look to reservation communities for spiritual guidance, they started to view the Christian churches and their views as assimilationist. The churches and church activists withdrew from the movement, in part because of the religious revival and veneration for the traditional religions, and because the churches never seemed quite comfortable supporting American Indian political and cultural autonomy. In recent comments, Pope Benedict suggests that renewal of indigenous culture and beliefs are a step backward.

Nevertheless, there are many prominent Christian Indian leaders who are devoted to American Indian issues and future welfare. Despite the official positions of the Christian churches, most American Indian Christians are strong defenders of tribal sovereignty. The churches should listen more carefully to the spiritual and worldly needs of their Indian members, and develop a rationale for the Christian defense of indigenous rights. Christianity and tribal sovereignty are reconcilable for many Indian people. In practice, tribal sovereignty does not exclude Christian beliefs or members. Christian belief should not exclude the rights and values of indigenous peoples.

Link to the article

Indioheathen's response: "Christian Indian" is an oxymoron because many ancient Middle Eastern/Judeo-Christian theological moral codes and values conflict with many peaceful Indigenous American traditions and values, and the Middle East is not the spiritual womb of Grandmother Earth as much as many followers of religions that were born out of that region of the world like to believe.

Mescalito

Court, father at odds before over kids' alleged peyote use

Michigan, USA

The mother of a 7-year-old girl whose urine tested positive for mescaline claims the girl's father is giving her hallucinogenic peyote as part of sacred Native American rituals – and the mother wants it to stop.

"Peyote has nothing to do with the traditions of any Woodland Indian tribe," said the mother, a member of the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians.

"People have tried before to stop him (the girl’s father) from giving children peyote," the mother said, "but he's still at it."

Indeed, the father – also a member of the Grand Traverse Band (GTB) – was ordered in 2003 by a Newaygo County Family Court Judge to stop giving peyote to his then 4-year-old son after the mother of that child complained to officials.

The father, as well as the mother whose daughter tested positive for mescaline – plus the mother of three other children who are alleged to have been given peyote – were all at the Leelanau County Courthouse on Friday along with their attorneys.

Over the coming months, Family Court Judge Joseph E. Deegan will attempt to sort through which of the five children might actually have been given peyote and by whom – and what the law has to say about such practices.

During a pre-trial hearing on Friday, an attorney representing the mother of the three other children asked Deegan to close court proceedings to the public and the press. The judge denied that request, however.

Nonetheless, the Leelanau Enterprise has opted to cover the story without using the names of the mother and the father accused of giving their children peyote – the "respondents" in Family Court parlance. Their names are being omitted to protect the identities of the five minor children involved in the case.

Although the two respondents, some of the other parents and all of the children involved the case are believed to be members of the GTB, tribal officials have apparently opted to play no role in either defending or prosecuting the case. Leelanau County prosecutor Joseph Hubbell declined to speculate why. The GTB tribal prosecutor did not return a reporter’s phone call.

"Basically, the judge on Friday just ordered the attorneys to file their pre-trial motions and then the case can be scheduled for civil trial," Hubbell explained.

The respondent mother is being represented by attorney Angela K. Sherigan of Warren who specializes in cases involving Native American rights. One of the respondent father’s attorneys is Thomas R. Myers of Michigan Indian Legal Services based in Lansing.

The father told the Enterprise that the mother of the child who tested positive for mescaline "is suspected of giving it to her" as a way of getting back at the father. Court records reveal that the former couple have tangled before in Family Court over child support and custody issues.

"None of these kids but one was tested positive for mescaline in their system," the father said. "She (the mother) has no credibility whatsoever," he said.

The father cited the American Indian Religious Freedom Act and a 1996 federal law signed by President Bill Clinton specifically declaring legal the "traditional Indian religious use of the peyote sacrament."

"Because the states do not cooperate with the federal government on these issues, it has created hardship for our people," the father said.

The use of peyote by certain Native American groups has been traced back thousands of years to tribes in the American southwest and northern Mexico. Peyote is a form of cactus indigenous to those areas.

By the 1880s the use of peyote as a means of gaining spiritual insight had spread to some Native American groups in Oklahoma. Leaders of those groups helped established the Native American Church which was officially incorporated in 1918.

The church is now believed to have more than 250,000 members in the U.S., Mexico and Canada. The respondent mother and father in the current Leelanau County court case are members of the Native American Church of the Morning Star based in the Petoskey area which includes a number of GTB members as well members of other Michigan Indian tribes.

"It's not from Arizona or some other place," the father said. "It's an inter-tribal church that's all over the U.S. And it's not like we're restricted to what the Grand Traverse Band worships," he said.

"They better take that (Indian Mission) Methodist Church and that Kateri Church back to Europe," the father said, "because that’s the kind of narrow thinking you’ve got going on."

Federal law states that "the use, possession or transportation of peyote by an Indian for bonafide traditional ceremonial purposes in connection with the practice of a traditional Indian religion is lawful, and shall not be prohibited by the United States or any State. No Indian shall be penalized or discriminated against on the basis of such use…"

The father asserted that the phrase "No Indian" includes Indian children. Although the law specifies “reasonable limitations” on peyote use by Indians working as law enforcement officers and in some other occupations, the 1996 law cited by the father does not address the use of peyote by Indian children.

"That means it’s permitted," the father asserted. "And right now – based on the judge's ruling back in 2003 in Newaygo County – my son is the only Indian in America who has been prohibited by a court order from practicing his religion.

"And that's going to change," the father vowed.

Link to the article

Indioheathen's response: In most traditional indigenous Mesoamerican societies that mescalito (peyote) is native to (including the Mesoamerican Church), it is not introduced to youth in the way of ingestion prior to them receiving the rite of puberty and comprehensive spiritual teachings.

The Church of the Conquista

Holy disaster: Pope alienates indigenous peoples

by: Editors Report / Indian Country Today







''Arrogant.'' ''Disrespectful.'' ''Poorly advised.'' These harsh words were not aimed at an unpopular president; not this time. They are the criticisms by Indian leaders in Latin America of Pope Benedict XVI, who again made headlines for culturally insensitive and historically inaccurate remarks.

About this time last year the pope stirred international controversy when he characterizing the Prophet Mohammed as having spread Islam by the sword in an ''evil and inhuman'' manner. On May 15 he declared that the Roman Catholic Church had not imposed itself on the indigenous peoples of the Americas. Pope Benedict continues to stir up controversy wherever in the world he lands. But this particular papal idiom cannot be attributed to or excused as simple ignorance. There is an element of intent in the pope's recent remarks that should anger, and mobilize, indigenous people throughout the world.

In a speech at the Conference of the Latin American and Caribbean Episcopate, the pope characterized pre-contact Indians as ''silently longing'' for Christianity and stated that ''the proclamation of Jesus and of his Gospel did not at any point involve an alienation of the pre-Columbus cultures, nor was it the imposition of a foreign culture.'' It may be the most blatantly erroneous statement about the Christian legacy on indigenous cultures ever uttered.

Not only did the pope's comments exhibit an ever-increasing general arrogance that aims to deny the rights of indigenous peoples around the world but, in this rare case, they came straight from the source. Millions of tribal people died as a result of the institution of the 15th century Inter Caetera papal bulls that provided legal justification for European colonization of the Native people of the Americas (including Brazil where Benedict spoke) and Africa. Then, Indians were slaughtered, enslaved or exposed to deadly diseases. Now, Native survivors of Christian colonization efforts suffer its traumatic generational effects: a diminished ability to relate to and practice traditional life ways, social exclusion and learned sexual abuse. If this does not qualify as an ''imposition'' on the culture of indigenous peoples, what does?

Last year's controversy was sparked by the pope's suggestion at the University of Regensburg in Germany that Islam was spread through violence and that it was ''contrary to God's plan.'' It seemed fair at the time to give him the benefit of the doubt for misspeaking. ''He could clarify that the inherent rationality to which he referred ... is a property of all humanity, not solely of Europeans,'' we stated. ''We have no doubt that this was the true intent of his remarkable lecture. But if he is through apologizing to Muslims, perhaps he could now explain himself to the indigenous peoples of the world.'' It is certain that our charitable view of that situation did not serve the legions of indigenous people who are now offended by suggestions that cultural decimation is considered ''purification'' by the Church and its most revered leader.

The Vatican has for years largely ignored the valid request by indigenous peoples and their representatives to rescind the papal bulls and the ''doctrine of discovery'' they inspired. And just days before his visit to Brazil, the country's Indians appealed to Pope Benedict to express solidarity with them and acknowledge their struggle against the government's encroachment upon their territories. They referred to a ''process of genocide,'' which no doubt began with the arrival of European Christian crusaders. It is agreed then that the pope is fully aware of the indigenous position on the lasting legacy of Christianity as a colonizing force. Ignorance is no excuse. The comments were more an indication that the Church's knowledge of indigenous cultures has not evolved much since the days when Natives were thought by Catholic monarchs to be heathens empty of a guiding spiritual force, in need of enlightenment.

It may be futile to demand an apology from the Church's highest leader, but it is imperative that the indigenous voices continue to rise in protest after the controversy dies down. The public display of outrage (and credible threats of violence) by the Muslim world last year garnered a mea culpa by the pope, who said he was ''deeply sorry.'' It is now time the Vatican, as a religious authority and political nation-state, acknowledges the cost of Christianity on the indigenous people of the world. Perhaps a statement from Pope Benedict recognizing the inherent sovereignty of Indian tribal peoples as reiteration of this theological tradition would be a good, first step toward making amends.

Link to the article

Pope acknowledges colonial injustice in Americas

By Phil Stewart

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Pope Benedict, under fire in Latin America for saying the Catholic Church had purified Indians, acknowledged on Wednesday that "unjustifiable crimes" were committed during the colonisation of the Americas.

But he stopped short of apologising as demanded by some leaders, including Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez.

Pope Benedict XVI waves as he arrives in Saint Peter's square at the Vatican to lead his weekly general audience May 23, 2007. Pope Benedict, under fire in Latin America for saying the Catholic Church had purified Indians, acknowledged on Wednesday that "unjustifiable crimes" were committed during the colonisation of the Americas. (REUTERS/Max Rossi)
"The memories of a glorious past cannot ignore the shadows that accompanied the process of evangelisation of the Latin American continent," the Pope said.

"It is, in fact, not possible to forget the suffering, injustices inflicted by the colonisers against the indigenous population, whose human and fundamental rights have often been trampled," said the Pontiff, whose spoken message in Italian was stronger than a previously released text in English.

In a speech to bishops at the end of a visit to Brazil earlier this month, the Pope said the Church had not imposed itself on the indigenous peoples of the Americas.

He said they had welcomed the arrival of European priests at the time of the conquest as they were "silently longing" for Christianity. Embracing it purified them, the Pope said.

Chavez has accused the Pope of ignoring the "holocaust" that followed Christopher Columbus's landing in the Americas in 1492. Indian leaders in Brazil have said they were offended by the Pope's "arrogant and disrespectful" comments.

Millions of tribal Indians are believed to have died as a result of European colonisation backed by the Church, through slaughter, disease or enslavement.

It was not the first time the German-born Pontiff's comments sparked controversy.

Benedict infuriated Muslims worldwide in September with a lecture that seemed to depict Islam as an irrational religion tainted with violence.

He later expressed regret at the pain his comments caused and defused tensions during a trip to Turkey, where he prayed at a mosque and called Islam a peaceful faith.

The Pope, speaking on Wednesday to pilgrims gathered in St. Peter's Square, noted that the crimes against Indians in the Americas were at the time already denounced by missionaries.

He also said remembering those crimes should not detract from the accomplishments of Christianity in Latin America.

"Mentioning this must not prevent us from acknowledging with gratitude the marvellous work accomplished by the divine grace among these people in the course of these centuries," he said.

Link to the article

Admite Papa injusticias en evangelización de América

CIUDAD EL VATICANO(AP)

El papa Benedicto XVI admitió el miércoles que la colonización y evangelización de América provocó sufrimiento e injusticias a las poblaciones indígenas.

En su la audiencia pública de los miércoles, el pontífice señaló que no se pueden ignorar los sufrimientos y las injusticias cometidas por los colonizadores a las poblaciones indígenas, cuyos derechos fueron a menudo violados.

El Papa aclaró de esta manera su intervención en Aparecida, Brasil, sobre la colonización de América, que había suscitado críticas de comunidades indígenas y de sectores políticos, en particular de los presidentes de Venezuela, Hugo Chávez, y de Bolivia, Evo Morales.

En su discurso inaugural de la Conferencia Episcopal Latinoamericana, el 13 de mayo, Benedicto XVI había dicho que la llegada del cristianismo en el continente latinoamericano no había sido una imposición de una cultura extranjera, ni había significado una alienación de las culturas precolombinas.

Expresó que el camino glorioso de la fe cristiana, que se ha hecho historia vivida de América Latina, no se puede ignorar la sombra de la obra de evangelización.

"No es posible olvidar los sufrimientos y las injusticias de los colonizadores a las poblaciones indígenas", afirmó.

El Papa recordó los derechos violados de las poblaciones locales, pero sobre esas injusticias, la Iglesia ha hecho ya una autocrítica y no se debe dejar de lado lo que Dios ha hecho en el continente latinoamericano.

El presidente venezolano le había exigido que pidiera disculpas a los pueblos indígenas por afirmar que la Iglesia había purificado a los indios.

"Como jefe de Estado le ruego a Su Santidad que se disculpe. No entiendo cómo puede afirmar que la evangelización no fue impuesta, si llegaron aquí con arcabuces y entraron a sangre, plomo y fuego", afirmó Chávez.

Time to end failed war on drugs

Christ: Time to end failed war on drugs

Indian Country Today

Posted: May 04, 2007

by: Peter Christ

The Shinnecock Indian Nation recently was the target of a multi-agency raid in which drugs, weapons and cash resulted in the arrest of 13 people on the eastern Long Island reservation and in other local communities. Since Richard Nixon's declaration of a war on drugs more than three decades ago, our nation is still awash in drugs which are more abundant and cheaper now then they were then. We have tried to arrest our way out of our drug abuse problems and we have only netted more abuse, more violence and more corruption ... in other words, we have failed.

I am a retired police officer, with a 20-year career that saw me reach the rank of captain. In my years of policing, there was a common theme that kept appearing. In spite of all our arrests, in spite of our detailed investigations and locking up plenty of drug dealers, we never really won. Each arrest only created a job opening which was soon filled. This is a story constantly played out across our nation.

The drug war - or to be more clear, Prohibition II - is a failure of policy that has wreaked havoc upon our communities, whether it be the Shinnecock Nation or any American town or city. This prohibition exhibits all the failures of our earlier 20th century prohibition of alcohol. We have corruption running rampant in law enforcement, from the smallest community police forces to the former commander of our military forces in Colombia.

Rather than stymie the production or distribution of illegal drugs, prohibition actually places control of illegal drugs directly into the hands of criminal organizations. Criminals have no codes or regulations that stop them from selling to children or from marketing drugs cut with often toxic impurities.

It must be understood that in denouncing prohibition and calling for its end, we do not advocate for drug use - just the opposite. Drug abuse is not something punishment will ever end. People are human beings with all the failures, all the moles and warts that come with being human. So we must find another way. And it is my belief and a belief held by many other criminal justice professionals that we need to legalize and thus regulate and control all drugs.

Being a police officer carries a great responsibility. We are entrusted with the duty of ensuring community safety and of being examples to

our communities. Prohibition however, damages the implied integrity of wearing the badge because the cash, the power, the drugs themselves too often prove too large a temptation to ignore. Good cops are in the overwhelming majority of our police forces but there are enough that fall prey to the lure of easy bucks to tarnish every officer's badge.

So do we continue down the same path? Should we continue locking up more of our young people, watching more families devastated by the problems of rampant drugs and the subsequent drug abuse? Or should we change directions? Should we do what was done when the failures of alcohol prohibition finally forced us into ending that disaster?

I believe we must change direction. We must find a different path. That is why we are so enthused about Law Enforcement Against Prohibition.

LEAP is an organization only five years old but now consisting of more than 8,000 members, many of whom are former criminal justice professionals, representing the spectrum of law enforcement. Judges, cops, prosecutors, Customs and Border Protection, corrections and others are joining us because their professional experience, often as frontline warriors in the drug war, has led them to the same conclusions.

Only by ending prohibition will we ever remove criminals from the equation. By ending the drug war we can redistribute the $70 billion or so the federal government wastes each year in its failed war on drugs. We know that programs utilizing truthful education are more effective than policies using half-truths and hubris as their cornerstones. For example, education has been very effective in reducing tobacco consumption.

Drug abuse is bad. But the war on drugs fails to curb abuse. It is time for a change. Prohibition failed once and we ended it. It has failed again and it is time to end it again.

Peter Christ is a retired police captain and a member of the Police Conference of New York, the Western New York Association of Retired Police Officers and the Police Captains and Lieutenants Association of Erie County. He is a founder of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition.

Link to the article

María Sabina

Kill the Indian and save the child

Tim Giago: Kill the Indian and save the child
Monday, April 9, 2007
Filed Under: Opinion

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, speaking about the religious convictions of President George W. Bush said, “I worked for two presidents who were men of faith and they did not make their religious views part of American policy.”

She also said that when Bush speaks of his war commitment he says, “God is on our side. President Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War said, “We are on the side of God.” I would think that the people of Islam would object to the comments of Dubya and the people of the Confederacy would certainly take exception to the comments of Lincoln.

Since this is Holy Week in the Christian world one can find its reflection even in The Invasion of Europe.the Sunday comics, or “Funny Pages” as we old timers used to say. Sunday’s comic pages had strips from The Family Circus, Hi and Lois, For Better or Worse and all the way to B.C. containing references to the Bible and to Jesus Christ.

Radio and television commentator Bill O’Reilly is notorious for saying that “We are a Christian Nation,” and he means this unequivocally to the near exclusion of all other faiths.

For those who are not Christians the two holidays that makes them feel like strangers in America are Easter and Christmas.

Nearly all-traditional Native Americans are at odds with the cultural and spiritual imperialism brought to this country from Europe that made their own religious convictions inferior and unacceptable to the devout Christian Pilgrims and the other Christian denominations that settled this land.

Christianity brought into play the concept of Manifest Destiny. This was the policy adopted by the new government of the United States that looked west for expansion and used the doctrine of Manifest Destiny as a weapon of growth for a young, Christian nation. According to Webster, manifest destiny is an ostensibly benevolent or necessary policy of imperialistic expansion.

In other words, the founders believed that it was decreed by God that they move west by whatever means even if it meant crushing and destroying the thousands of indigenous people already residing on the lands they coveted.

France planted flags in the territory that would be known as the Louisiana Purchase and claimed it as their own. They did not consult with the people of the many Indian nations already living on those lands since time immemorial. And then France turned around and in 1803 sold the land they did not own to the United States under the auspices of Thomas Jefferson. We often joke in Indian country that perhaps we should now plant the flags of our sovereign Indian nations upon the lands stolen from us and reclaim it for our own. Of course, we also often joke about our lax immigration policy that allowed so many illegal immigrants to enter our country in the first place.

But jokes aside, it took a powerful religious bent starting with the Papal Bulls to Manifest Destiny to all but destroy the indigenous people of the Western Hemisphere.

During this Easter Week I think all Native Americans should go back to their roots and examine the costly programs of this Christian Nation that took away nearly all of their freedoms.

The thing most Americans fear is to have another nation impose its religious beliefs upon them or worse, to have one religion become so dominant that it can displace all of their religious convictions with its own set of beliefs.

Most Native Americans had no choice when it came to religion. The United States government divided the Indian reservations up like so many pieces of pie and different religious groups were given land to build churches and schools in order to indoctrinate through education. Children were oftentimes taken from their homes in the middle of the night and hauled away to these religious and state-run boarding schools. The policy of “Kill the Indian; Save the Child” was the pogrom intended to acculturate and assimilate those people the United States could not otherwise conquer.

Some portions of the program of cultural imperialism, particularly that portion handed over to the different church denominations, did work and as happened throughout the Americas under the Spanish invasion, thousands of Indians capitulated and became Christians. The Spaniards had a more liberal interpretation of “kill the Indian, save the child.” They literally killed those standing in the way.

But always making a mockery of total success for the American government and the Church were those hardcore traditionalists who refused to be indoctrinated. Many of these so-called non-believers were considered to be “off the reservation” and were hunted down and killed. Those not killed outright were imprisoned. They were labeled as “renegade Indians” and outlaws.

Isn’t it enlightening what a nation of Christians can do for the good of mankind?

Undeterred, these “renegades” took their traditional religious beliefs underground. Because of the relative isolation of Indian reservations, they found the sanctity to practice their beliefs away from the unforgiving and prying eyes of the federal government and its minions in the different church groups.

One should never forget that by making religion a part of its policy the United States forced its will and its religion upon the indigenous people of this continent. Although extremely spiritual in their own beliefs, the Indian people never said, not once, that, “We are on the side of God.” Those Indians labeled as renegades by the government survived and are now bringing back the traditional spirituality to the Native people. And those who turned their backs on the traditionalists are now scampering, while still clinging to their Christian beliefs, to include this “old” indigenous spirituality into their own Christian beliefs. Well, they can’t have it both ways.

Link to the article.

English: America’s sacred cow language

I always get a kick out of the Academy Awards "Best foreign language film" category, just from the name. Why is it called that instead of, "Best non-English language film"? Answer: Because the Academy is based in the United States where English is the dominant language of the land, and almost all motion pictures up for nomination thus have to have English as the primary tongue spoken in the film in order to qualify for the various categories of nominations.

A Canadian-produced film can qualify for all Academy Award nominations if the dialogue is mainly in Canada's official language of English, but not if the dialogue is primarily in its other official language of French.

A film produced in the United Kingdom can qualify for all Academy Award nominations if the dialogue is mainly in the U.K.’s official language of English, but not if the dialogue is primarily in one of the U.K.'s living, native Gaelic dialects.

Never mind that there are over 300 living Indigenous American languages spoken within the United States alone. If Mel Gibson's Apocalypto would have been about the Cherokee Nation instead of the Maya, and most of the film's dialogue was mostly in Tsalagi, it would have still been categorized as a "foreign language" film and only eligible for the "Best foreign language film" nomination, even though the Cherokee language and the Cherokee people are not “foreign.”

What has prompted me to comment on this topic is a more important related issue that has been floating around the U.S. for a number of years, and has taken effect in a number of individual U.S. states already. That is the "English-only" and "English as the official language" movement. The most recent one to take place is in the State of Oklahoma where Indigenous American tribes there are up in arms about it.

Most “English-only/English-as-the-official language ” advocates are the same morally conservative, politically right wing, neo-Cavalry Amerikaner nativist-types who regard undocumented Mesoamerican Indian-blooded migrants from Mexico and Central America to the United States as “invaders” and “illegal aliens.” I have compared these nativists in previous commentaries as the American version of pro-apartheid era Afrikaners who live under the illusion that they are just as indigenous to the Americas as we Indigenous American-blooded peoples are.

Like the Yankee flag, the bastard English language is right wing America’s sacred cow. I call it “bastard” because all the mostly non-grammatically phonetic modern English language basically consists of is a mixture of Latin, Greek, French, Gaelic, and Saxon German, and has more words in its lexicon than any other language.

After the American colonies gained independence from Great Britain, most of the Europeans and their spawns living in the thirteen colonies were of English, German, French, Scottish, Welsh, and Cornish origin. The “founding fathers” took a vote as to whether English, German, or French should be the language of the new government to conduct business in. (Gaelic was not included because most people of Celtic stock back then spoke English as well, plus there are dialects of Gaelic that are not intelligible with one another). German lost out to English by only one vote, and French came in a not-to-distant third. However, for those of you who have U.S. passports, you will note that it includes information in French as well as English.

Not being content that English is already the official language to conduct local, state, and federal government business in, these language apartheid Amerikaners want to make English the official language of the entire United States and prohibit the use of “foreign languages” in government print. What their campaign all boils down to is their hatred for the gradual re-browning of America by Spanish-speaking Latin American Indian-blooded migrants and immigrants.

Now I don't mean to downplay the importance of English in relation to its practicality. It has ended up the most widely-spoken language globally, and is thus important in that respect, and non-English-speaking people who move to the U.S. ought to attempt to learn to become at least functional in the language so they can function communications-wise that much more effectively. However, because of all the living Indigenous American languages within the United States, no language should be declared the official language of the land. To do so is just another symbolic slap in the face to Indigenous Americans. The French-speaking Cajuns of Louisiana faced similar discrimination in the past.

On the other hand, for those who still insist on such a wide-scale, across-the-board “official language,” then Spanish ought to made an official language as well as English, due to the southwestern United States having been under the domination of two Spanish-speaking nations previously (Spain and Mexico), and due to the millions of Spanish-speaking peoples in the United States, which includes the County of Los Angeles, which is the second-largest Spanish-speaking region in the world. Also, many Indigenous American peoples from tribes in the Southwest are tri-lingual, and many of them have Spanish surnames. (Spanish is already the official language of the U.S. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico).

Wikipedia: English-only movement.

Rain is not "bad" weather

With the left hand I cleanse and nourish.
With the right hand I damage and destroy.
The drought-ridden farmer welcomes me,
While the carwash owner curses me.
I am the God of Rain.




Indigenous peoples around the world associate deities with the forces of nature, such as rain. Among the Aztec peoples and their present-day descendants the Nahuas, rain god Tláloc is symbolized as illustrated above at the top.

The Mayan rain god is Toc, illustrated above, offering a mortal his bestowal, which the mortal ignores and thus does not receive.

The Yaqui rain deity, Kakaliwa is just symbolized by two black rain drops as illustrated above.

Modern meteorology's symbol above needs no explanation.

The word "hurricane" is derived from Hurucán, the Carribean Taino Indian name for the deity associated with that category of storm.

Most modern day, non-indigenous urbanites in particular dislike rain more than they appreciate it, simply because it causes them inconveniences and even mishaps. Because of that, rainy weather is often referred to as "bad" or "ugly" weather.

Indigenous people appreciate rain. We hold the view that even the damage and destruction that heavy, prolonged rainstorms can bring will result in the long run necessary changes. Even for those who don't hold that view, it's often the case that mishap, damage, death, and destruction from rain storms are the result of human error and judgement in the way of building in, living in, traveling in, or exercising a living in a high-risk flood zone.

Last but not least and needless-to-say, there would hardly be any life on Grandmother Earth's terrain if "the rain deity" didn't shed his "teardrops" often enough.

So the next time you're inconvenienced by or "fall victim" to rain or snow, remember that like the sun, rain brings about more benefits to the world in the long run than it does negative effects.

The Indigenous American invasion of Europe

Geronimo (top photo) and Sitting Bull (bottom photo), just to name a few famous Indigenous American heroes, fought the real illegal aliens.
Nevertheless, ignorant Euro-invader spawns accuse Mesoamerican Indian-blooded people from south of the United States of Amerikaners southern boundary of being "invaders" when we go to live and work up there undocumented.

Most Indigenous Americans wonder and fantasize at one time or another what it would be like today if five-hundred or so years ago, we really were invaders of the white man's actual land if, for example, the Incan Empire, the Mayan Empire, the Aztec Empire, and Iroquois Confederation had developed vaccines to make themselves immune from foreign diseases; developed superior weaponry and sailing ships to that of Europeans, and then used those ships and weaponry to invade and conquer Europe, which they would also refer to as "the New World."

The racially foreign invaders would create rogue, artificial nation states on the European continent in the name of the Incan, Mayan, Aztecan, and Iroquoian empires; create "reservations" for the option of indigenous European ethnic "tribes" to reside on in autonomy with their own tribal governments, but not in full sovereignty; create government boarding schools for the purpose of acculturating and assimilating indigenous European children into the Indigenous Americanized "European" way of life, and by the 20th Century, create government border patrol policing agencies to prevent, for example, southern ethnic Italians of the Aztec States of Europe from freely migrating to the adjacent Iroquois States of Europe to the north, (in what is actually northern Italy).

Also within the Iroquois States of Europe, vigilante groups primarily made up of "Europeans" of Indigenous American origin would organize themselves as the Minutemorons and label those undocumented, migrating southern ethnic Italians from the Aztec States of Europe as "invaders," even though indigenous Italianos had been migrating around Mesoitalia for centuries prior to the Indigenous American invasion of Europe, and primarily fill jobs that most citizens who were born in the Iroquois States of Europe don't want, and contribute more to the Euro-Iroquoian economy than they take from it in public services.

The Iroquois States of Europe would also end up being the world's foremost economic and military superpower, and citizens of that nation would just refer to themselves as "Europeans." That nation would be one of the few major democracies to have only two major political parties instead of more, and accuse those citizens who oppose their instrusive, hypocritical, and corrupt domestic and globalist policies of being "un-patriotic," and foreign entities who criticize their policies as being "anti-European."

Last but not least, the chief maritime navigator of the original invasion of Europe we'll say was an Aztec named Cuahuatemoc, who pondered in his memoirs whether or not the European savages were fully human or not, and who centuries later would be recognized by Europeans of Indigenous American origin for having "discovered" Europe, and celebrated on "Cuahuatemoc Day" in Cuahuatemoc Day parades organized by Aztec-Europeans.

The following links are detailed scenarios by others of what it might have been like had the shoe been on the other foot five-hundred plus years ago.

The Invasion of Europe.

Revisionist history with an acute vision.

Eduardo Villacis Smoking Mirror art exhibit website.

Eduardo Villacis Smoking Mirror exhibit art pieces.

Anti-Indian rhetoric in the 21st century

I, Indioheathen, have never accused or criticised the United States as a whole of this, that, or the other thing. On the other hand, a lot of politicians, political scientists, political commentators, journalists, writers, and others often just refer to U.S. laws and policies as just " the government" instead of identifying and specifying more the source of those laws and policies, which I refer to as "Demopublican" policy, and which I symbolize with the picture above.

"Demopublicanism" is the predominant law and culture of the (U.S.) land.

Just to name a few,

It is specifically bi-partisan Demopublican policy that exercises a world policeman foreign policy.*

It is Democrat and Republican immigration policy that exercises neo-Cavalry enforcement against the ancient, natural tradition of Mesoamerican migration across the artificial U.S./Mexico boundary.

It is also Democrat and Republican Party politicians who exercise a colonial master attitude American Indian policy. Indian reservation autonomy tolerated--sovereignty prohibited.**

Indioheathen is not anti-American--just anti-"Demosocialist" and anti-"Theopublican"; a.k.a. "Demopublican."

The following commentary published in Indian Country Today is a further example of what stems from the Demopublican-controlled government's American Indian policy.
_________________________________________________

Anti-Indian rhetoric in the 21st century

by: Steven Newcomb / Indigenous Law Institute

Posted: February 02, 2007

Every area of Indian country seems to have its own version of the anti-Indian movement. It is a movement that crafts messages by using some of the deepest political concepts and core values of the dominant American society. It is a movement that tries to appeal to an unconscious fear of the ''disintegrating'' influence of ''the other.'' This approach may be particularly effective these days when an ''us vs. them'' mentality and the use of terms like ''terror'' and ''national security'' are so prevalent in public discourse.

The categories and metaphors used in anti-Indian rhetoric are wrapped in language that reflects a number of values shared by millions of Americans. Terms and phrases such as ''One Nation,'' ''equal rights,'' ''liberty,'' ''justice,'' ''equal justice under law'' and so forth seem quite normal to the average person in the United States.

To a non-Indian audience, arguments that are put together through the use of such terms and phrases may seem to merely reflect common sense. Thus, one challenge we face as Indian people is how to formulate meaningful responses to anti-Indian messages without seeming to defy mainstream ''common sense'' and deeply held American values. In times such as these, we are in need of nuance of language and subtlety of insight.

This need for insightful nuance is connected to a more general challenge we face. When we as Indian people use the English language, we often find ourselves in the paradoxical predicament of attempting to express indigenous cultural and political understandings by means of concepts and categories that carry the baggage of a European cultural mentality, cultural context and values. A dominant-society audience will automatically interpret our messages within their own mental framework using their own cognitive and cultural background.

Another key challenge is the way that the anti-Indian movement is able to exploit the fact that the American public is uninformed when it comes to the subject of American Indians nations. An example of how the anti-Indian crowd exploits such ignorance is the way it frames its arguments in terms of what it claims is appropriate in the ''American democracy'' while not acknowledging the role that the Haudenosaunee Confederacy played in the formation of the model of democracy eventually adopted by the United States.

The anti-Indian movement avoids discussing the argument that our original free Indian nations and peoples have the right to continue to exist because the existence of our nations far predates that of the United States. Anti-Indian activists unconsciously use what we might call container-structured arguments to sidestep the original free and independent existence of our Native nations.

The cognitive background of a ''container'' argument views the country of the United States as a type of container or box, the boundaries of which correspond to the borders of the United States. The United States is also viewed as an ''object.'' Container and object ways of thinking and speaking are reflected in the ridiculous, fear-based argument that the existence of sovereign Indian nations is threatening to dismantle the United States. One aspect of the mental model of a nation is that of a container or bounded region of space. This image is an essential structural feature of the ''One Nation'' slogan used by anti-Indian organizations.

The anti-Indian thought process assumes that everyone and everything inside the container-country called ''the United States of America'' (including Indian nations) is subject to the laws and political authority of the U.S. governmental system, which is, of course, made up of the federal, state, and local governments. This way of thinking places Indian nations and Indian governments in an ''anomalous'' or unusual situation in relation to the political structuring of the United States. It leads to the question of where and how Indian nations fit ''within'' the U.S. political framework.

Those who created the United States as a political entity used surveyors and mapmakers to conceptualize and build national and state boundaries that were thought of as encircling and engulfing Indian nation lands.

Once U.S. boundary lines were established on maps and institutionalized in social and political practice, this created the ridiculous perception that the United States is politically and legally first on the continent, despite the obvious fact that with regard to Indian nations this is completely and chronologically false. The anti-Indian movement attempts to exploit this sense that the United States is more fundamentally rooted in the continent than Indian nations.

The anti-Indian movement also employs a deep-level political/legal metaphor: ''inside of is under the jurisdiction of.'' This metaphor reflects and reinforces a popular assumption: ''Indian nations that exist 'inside' or 'within' the boundaries of the United States are subject to the political and legal authority of the United States'' (otherwise known as ''plenary power'').

Some anti-Indian activists argue that the way to ''free'' Indians from federal claims of plenary power is to get rid of Indian nations in the name of civil rights and ''equal justice for all.'' In any case, the presumption of plenary power does not take into account that Indian nations were here on the continent first and possess a sacred birthright of original independence. Nor does it account for the fact that Indian nations have made hundreds of treaties with the United States that, from a Native perspective, are supposed to safeguard the political existence and lands of Indian nations as ''supreme law'' in the United States.

As first indigenous nations, one collective challenge we share is to find the most effective means of responding to the anti-Indian movement in the 21st century. As a start, it bears repeating that we were placed on this continent by the Creator, with our own respective lands, languages, cultures, spiritual traditions and values. We are still here. The United States was constituted on our indigenous lands ''in'' and ''within'' a pre-existing ''Turtle Island'' (North America). Our respective sovereign nations have the right to continue to exist for the simple reason that we do exist, thanks to our ancestors.

Steven Newcomb is the Indigenous Law Research Coordinator at the Sycuan Education Department on the Sycuan Indian Reservation, in San Diego County, California. He is the co-founder and co-director of the Indigenous Law Institute, and a columnist for Indian Country Today.

Link to the article.

* Reaction from a former Soviet imperialist and now semi-fascist dictator.

** A recent example of Demopublican anti-Indian sovereignty policy.

Sociopathy and Sado-Authoritarianism

There are law enforcement officers, prosecutors, judges, and those in other professions of public legal authority who abuse their power and others for the goal of personal gain, and for the emotional satisfaction of bullying and persecuting other people to varying degrees. No profession, no form of public office, or public institution just to name a few is devoid of sociopaths.

Sociopathy is chronic anti-social behaviour that victimizes others. Sociopathy expresses itself in varying degrees. Adolf Hitler, for instance, was known to be kind to white (and probably Japanese) gentile children he was not at war with, and also towards animals. However, he needless-to-say had a disposition to be psychopathic towards others whom he deemed as enemies. Psychopathy is the violent extreme of sociopathy. (The link at the bottom of this commentary has further links that discuss sociopathy and psychopathy).

Some forms of sociopathy, such as racism, can just be a learned attitude that can be overcome with life experience and education.

Sociopathic attitudes and behaviours can also be the result of a psychological trauma that can eventually be overcome with psychotherapy.

Other forms of sociopathy are biological, rooted in that part of the brain known as the prefrontal cortex, which provides us the ability to form and act out our morality and differentiate between right and wrong.

Some sociopaths are born with a deformed or damaged prefrontal cortex, or suffer such pathology during the course of their lifetime as a result of injury or disease.

Excessive white matter about the prefrontal cortex aggravates sociopathic attitudes and behaviors as well. Most humans have an excessive amount of white matter about the prefrontal cortex during adolescence, which is why teenagers are most prone to lying without giving it a second thought and taking greater negative risks than the average matured adult.

It is hypothesized by many psychologists, psychiatrists, and neurologists that those physically mature adults who chronically act out anti-social adolescent-like behaviour, which I refer to as Adult-Adolescent Syndrome, do so as a result of excessive white matter about the prefrontal cortex, which for pathologic biological reasons does not gradually diminish after adolescence. Further anatomical studies on that part of brain are necessary to substantiate that hypothesis.

Understanding the root causes and nature of sociopathy of course does not mean that individuals and society should be more tolerant of sociopaths who victimize the innocent. On the contrary, they need to be removed from society and delt with accordingly in relation to the severity of their violation of others rights.