Government

Various forms of government have sprang about throughout the world over the centuries as a means of bringing greater order among large communities of people. True anarchy only exists in remote primitive communities where at most a tribal chieftan and/or group of elders typically serve as advisors and mediators in time of conflict.

Centuries ago the large indigenous civiliations of the Americas, namely the Olmec, Toltec, Aztec, Maya, and Inca nations, including the Iroquois Confederation, exercised forms of government resembling those classical governments of Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. The Aztecs, Mayans, and Incas even had some emperors that implemented collectivist societies that resemble those that were born out of Marxist philosophy.

However, most traditional Indigenous American societies have always exercised a form of laissez-faire social order in which leadership is entrusted by the community to certain individuals to maintain order and to exercise justice. Or, as the 19th century Ojibwa chief George Copyway pointed out:

"Among the Indians there have been no written laws. Customs handed down from generation to generation have been the only laws to guide them. Everyone might act different from what was considered right did he choose to do so, but such acts would bring upon him the censure of the Nation...This fear of the Nation's censure acted as a mighty band, binding all in one social, honorable compact."

As societies become more organized and complex, the more government they require to provide essential goods and services that individuals and sub-groups within a society are unable to provide at either a reasonable cost, as efficiently, or not at all. In modern terminology, "individuals" and "sub-groups" means the private sector.

Some non-Indigenous American people who adhere to the various socialisms that were born out of Marxist philosophy believe that most Indigenous American tribes and nations have always practiced a form of primitive socialism. However, what they fail to distinguish is essentially the difference between indigenous voluntary communitarianism verses coercive Euro-centric-rooted collectivism, redistribution of income, and fairness and equality by force.

Indigenous Americans have always recognized outright individual ownership of certain personal posessions. Although traditional Indgenous American tribes and nations of old never recognized the concept of land ownership with written contracts and titles, they did recognize and exercise domain over territory, and individuals and families within those tribes and nations exercised domain over plots of land for living on and growing food. This has always been particularly true of non-nomadic tribes; i.e., those that did not move from one territory to the other season-to-season.

Today, many "tribal governments" have become rife with inefficieny, hypocrisy, corruption, and abuse of authority just like most major political parties that run non-Indian governments throughout the Americas have. Some tribal governments even describe their type of government as being "socialist," even though tribal members are actually allowed to keep what they earn and attain without having to redistribute some of it to other tribal members or to the tribal government against their will. "Indian socialism" is thus, in most cases, just voluntary sharing and communitarianism as already described. Distribution of wealth on reservations within the United States and Canada in particular is basically limited to equal allocation of gaming profits to each person who is an enrolled member of a reservation with a casino. Prior to reservation gaming and on reservations without gaming, "soicalism" consists of equal allocations of federal subsidies from the dominant non-Indian government.

Contrary to what Mexico's socialist Subcomandante Marcos (who was born of Spanish immigrant parents) and the National Zapatista Liberation Army (EZLN) say and propose, the exercise of capitalism by individuals and tribal governments is not taboo among most Indigenous American traditionalists, being that most traditional Indigenous American societies have always exercised forms of free trade and individual profit.

Indigenous Americans have no moral or emotional obligation to be patriotic towards yori (non-Indigenous American) governments run by politicians and bureaucrats from political parties that only allow indigenous communities and reservations a certain amount of autonomy as opposed to the option of true sovereignty and independence. Government-wise, an Indigenous American traditionalist's first allegiance is to the indigenous tribes or nations he or she is a descendant of if they are not tyrannical, followed by the other indigenous nations of the Americas that his or her own nations are at peace and harmony with. The individual option of calculated acts of civil disobediance and defensive measures is in order in relation to those laws and policies of yori governments that conflict with or intrude upon peaceful and harmless Indigenous American ways and traditions.

Taking part in the political and electoral process of yori governments is appropriate by supporting and voting for only those candidates who have passed the test of being in favor of true Indigenous American sovereignty, low taxes, and non-intrusive limited government, even if they are a member of a political party that is not likely to win, or a non-partisian who is not likely to win. Supporting and voting for the lesser-of-two evils is a compromise of traditional Indigenous American principles, because one ought not to support any kind of evil period, however great or small. Support of yori government legislation and ballot initiatives that are in harmony with traditional Indigenous American values is also in order.

The following traditional Indigenous American teachings are great traditional Indigenous American values when it comes to the subjects of government, individual liberty, and Indigenous American sovereignty:

"The earth is the mother of all people, and all people should have equal rights upon it. You might as well expect the rivers to run backward as that any man who was born a free man should be contented when penned up and denied liberty to go where he pleases. -- Hinmaton Yalatkit. More commonly known as Chief Joseph of the Nez Percé. (1830-1904).

"All birds, even those of the same species, are not alike, and it is the same with animals and with human beings. The reason Wakantanka does not make two birds, or animals, or human beings exactly alike is because each is placed here by Wakantanka to be an independent individuality and to rely upon itself." -- Shooter, late 19th century Teton Lakota Sioux.

Homosexuality & Transgenderism

Homosexual acts and full-time cross-dressing are not taboo in traditional Indigenous American societies. Male and female homosexuals and transvestites are referred to by many Indigenous American societies in their own tongues as "two spirit" people. Not only are two spirit people just tolerated--they are respected for their orientation, which is regarded as a perfect balance between masculine and feminine energies. They are also regarded as being exceptionally spiritually gifted, which is why many of them serve as shamans and healers. Effeminate males often live and dress as women, and women with masculine traits often serve as hunters and warriors along with men.

Bisexuality is also very common, including among many heterosexually married men and women. In polygamous marriages, it is not uncommon for a man with a bisexual orientation to have a "he/she" (male transvestite) as one of his spouses. It is reported that the great Lakota foreign invader resistance fighter Sitting Bull had a winkte as one of his "wives."

Pictured above is the cover of a book about one of the most celebrated two spirit he/she Indigenous Americans of all time, Wewah, who was a respected member of the Zuni nation in New Mexico, circa late 1800's.

There were a few Indigenous American societies where two spirit people held no special status, but at the same time were not treated as outcasts. The ancient Aztecs used to include two spirit people in their human sacrifices to their perceived blood-thirsty gods, but did not condemn them to death for their homosexuality in and of itself.

From a biological standpoint, tradtional Indigenous American medicine people have always known in their own "primitive" understanding and terminologies that individual psycho-gender identity and sexual and romantic gender preference is the result of one's biological makeup, and how and to what extent sexual orientation is expressed is influenced by one's cultural and sociological environment.

Most Indigneous American traditionalists observe and respect the two spirits tradition.

Two Spirit website: Native Out in the Links section of this blog.

Brain structure and sexual gender preference.

Books on this subject.

"Secret Cowboys" music video with Willie Nelson and Burt Reynolds

Marriage, Fidelity, and Divorce

There is no institution of marriage in the Western sense in traditional Indigenous American societies. Indians that fall in love with one another and decide to live together in a romantic relationship in the same domestic dwelling are considered partners in marriage. Some indigenous societies hold a simple ceremony for such unions that are officiated and blessed by a shaman or tribal elder, while other indigenous societies hold no type of ceremony at all.

In many Indigenous American societies, it is customary for a man who is going to marry a young woman to give the woman's father or mother a form of a dowery in exchange for their daughter. My own paternal indigenous grandparents were an example of this. When my then 20-year-old grandfather asked my then 14-year old grandmother for her hand in marriage, he paid her father a dowry for his blessing of the union. (My great-grandmother had died when my grandmother was only 3 years old).

It is not uncommon in small traditional Indigenous American villages and communities for marriages to just consist of two people. Shamans and chieftans often have more than one spouse. In larger indigenous tribes and nations, polygamous and plural unions are more common among the people. In some traditional societies it is customary for a man or woman to not have more than four spouses, while others have no customary limit, particularly shamans and chieftans.

Same-sex unions between two two spirit men or women are also customary in most traditional Indigenous American societies. Bisexual male shamans and chieftans often have two or three female spouses and one, two spirit he/she (effeminate male transvestite) spouse, as did the great Lakota foreign invader resistance fighter Sitting Bull.

Spousal jealousy is not part of the psyche in most traditional Indigenous American societies. Therefore, one-on-one extramarital sexual liaisons are not taboo as long as they do not turn into romantic relationships.

Sex orgies are also not taboo in most traditional Indigenous American societies, including the two of which I come from. (Participation has always been optional). Indigenous American traditionalists believe that sex is meant for pleasure as well as procreation.

Divorce is neither taboo or uncommon in traditional Indigenous American societies. No life-long 'Til death do us part commitments are made. Irreconcilable personality conflicts can manifest that result in a spouse leaving the relationship, whether it be a couple relationship or part of a plural marriage. Shamans, tribal elders, and two spirit he/she's often take on the role of marital conflict counselors and mediators.

Indigenous American traditionalists applaud states, nations, and other jurisdictions where same-sex and plural marriages are legally recognized in addition to heterosexual couple marriages.

Sexual Taboos

The only sexual taboos that exist in most traditional Indigenous American societies are the following:

- Rape (forced sexual intercourse).

- Incest between immediate blood relatives (first cousins and beyond excluded).

- Sexual contact on the part of adults and adolescents with pre-pubescent children (generally under the age of 12).

- Sexual activity on the part of a woman during her menstrual cycle.

The menstrual cycle issue is a personal matter of conscious on the part of the woman and her traditional tribal teachings on the subject. Indigenous American traditionalists do uphold the other taboos for reasons that are obvious and practical.

Rape is a violent, non-consensual act. In the old days, heterosexual and homosexual rape of defeated/captured aggressors and battle captives took place as a form of punishment and humiliation on the part of some Indigenous Americans.

Incest – Indigenous American traditionalists have always known that sexual relations between parental figures and offspring can be psychologically damaging to the latter, and that babies that are the product of immediate blood relation incest are often born with birth defects.

Pedophilia -- Traditional Indigenous American societies have always recognized that sexual relationships with pre-pubescent children are not healthy because most of them have orifices not large enough to accommodate adult penetration, including those children that begin puberty pre-maturely. Pre-pubescent children are generally not emotionally fit to enjoy sexual contact, particularly intercourse with an adult or adolescent.

The following are not taboo in most traditional Indigenous American societies:

Asexuality is not considered an abnormality in traditional Indigenous American cultures. Indigenous Americans have always recognized that there are some people who go through much or all of their life without a sex drive and are perfectly content to be that way.

Celibacy on a seasonal basis is exercised by many Indigenous American shamans due to the belief that conserving sexual energy for a season increases spiritual powers and awareness.

Homosexuality is not taboo, and is addressed in detail separately in the February 2006 posts of this blog.

Masturbation is considered a healthy and safe form of sexual relief. Modern science has even indicated that it is a natural biological process in the way of replicating genes.

Pederasty is a European-rooted term in reference to full-grown adults that have a sexual attraction towards pubescent adolescents.

Consensual sexual and romantic relationships between adults and post-pubescent adolescents is not taboo in traditional Indigenous American societies, nor is it taboo or illegal in most European countries today. Most jurisdictions in the Americas have the legal age set at 18 because they hold the view that most adolescents are not emotionally mature enough to engage in sex, especially with an older person, even though Mother Nature says otherwise by the much younger, average age of the onset of puberty.

Indigenous Americans and contemporary Europeans tend look upon adolescence as the first stage of adulthood as opposed to the last stage of childhood, and thus prepare their children for the responsibilities of adulthood at an earlier age than do most non-Indians of the Americas, even though most teens consensually lose their virginity before 18, and many of them are naturally attracted to adults of varying ages.

Pornography is just a form of erotic art. Many Indigenous American cultures have always created various forms of erotic art and fetishes because most types of consensual sexual acts among indigenous adults and adolescents are not considered obscene, shameful, or "dirty." Eroticism depicted in art form is thus included among other forms of indigneous human actions that are depicted in indigenous paintings, carvings, etc.

Most people today who enjoy viewing sexually explicit acts and images depicted in still photos and motion pictures consist of adult and adolescent males who use such images to enhance their masturbatory fantasies. Indigenous American traditionalists reject the argument that porn encourages some people to commit rape, or to sexually molest children. On the contrary, it helps deter such acts through masturbatory fantasies as an alternative.

Indigneous American traditionalists do not condone pre-teen, pre-pubescent children being used for pornographic purposes because they do not have a developed enough maturity level to decide for themselves to engage their bodies in that fashion for the sexual gratification of others, or for commerical profit.

Prostitution among consenting adults and adolescents has never been taboo in most traditional Indigenous American societies. In "primitive" societies in particular, it is not uncommon for an older person to barter an item with a younger, attractive person for a sexual favor.

The taboo and legal prohibition against commercial sex was born out of "Western" societies that incorperated into secular law the traditional Judeo-Christian moral code against sexual lust, fornication, and extramarital sex. The only major country in the western hemisphere where prostitution remains illegal today is the United States, save for most counties in the state of Nevada. Most Indian reservations forbid it as well due to the strong, ongoing influences of Judeo-Christian moral codes planted there by missionaries as part of the greater colonization, assimilationist pogram.

Public nudity is not taboo in traditional Indigenous American societies because the human body is not considered shameful. The taboo against public nudity was born out of ancient Middle Eastern cultures that incorporated it into their religious beliefs, supposedly due to a divine mandate by the MIddle Eastern god that men are to keep their genitals and buttocks covered, particuarly in the presence other females who are not their wife, and that women are to keep their genitals, buttocks, and breasts covered in the presence of men who are not their husband. This custom came to be spread almost universally by European Christianity.

The original reason behind the taboo of public nudity was to deter males in particular from becoming too "arroused" in public by the nudity of others. Displays of sexual arrousal in most ancient MIddle Eastern cultures was restricted to the privacy of one's own home or a brothel.

Atheists & Indigenous American Heathens

Guest article from the Malcolm Laguache website:

GOING A LITTLE TOO FAR

I am an atheist and I neither hide the fact nor am I ashamed. My nonbelief comes from much research, thinking, and experiences in life. I have no mental problems about my atheism and I feel no emptiness inside, despite reading numerous articles from religionists saying we have no morals and we are bitter people.
A couple of years ago, a weekly publication in San Diego interviewed me about my opposition to a 43-foot Christian cross that has been paid for by public money since 1954. The magazine also interviewed a few Christians on the subject.
Each Christian denigrated atheists and said we are just bitter human beings. When it came to the part about me, the writer said, "Many Christians think atheists are constantly serious and bitter because of their nonbelief. Not so with Malcom Lagauche, however." He then went on to write about my sense of humor and encompassing philosophy.
My writing about religion sticks up for itself. I have questioned certain dubious historical points that religion seems to ignore or twist to their own advantage. I have criticized certain individuals for using Christianity as a reason for attacking Iraq. And, I have criticized many non-Muslims for their lack of knowledge of Islam and how they portray it as a "terrorist" religion.
Just recently, for the first time in my 10-year tenure as president of the Atheist Coalition of San Diego, I told a person he was not welcome and I would not allow him to attend meetings. First, he has never forked over the 20 bucks it costs for membership and second, I don’t believe he is an atheist because he constantly spoke in a positive manner about the Christians taking on the "dirty Muslims."
Last week, a repair man was working in my house when he started telling how all Muslims should be killed. Within a minute, he was gone and I called his company to complain. The telephone conversation was fruitless because his boss agreed that Muslims should all disappear.
In the past few years, I have lost acquaintances who were anti-Muslim when I challenged their assessment of Islam. In other words, I have been one of Islam’s best friends in discussing and writing about religious subjects.
However, I now have to state that certain Muslims have gone too far in disagreeing with those who would denigrate Islam. According to an article in Al-Jazeera news of January 29, 2006, called "UN Urged to Ban Attack on Religion,":
The Muslim world’s two main political bodies say they are seeking a UN resolution, backed by possible sanctions, to protect religions after the publication in Scandinavia of cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad.
Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, secretary-general of Organization of the Islamic Conference, said in Cairo on Sunday that the international body would "ask the UN general assembly to pass a resolution banning attacks on religious beliefs."
The deputy secretary-general of the Arab League, Ahmed Ben Helli, confirmed that contacts were under way for such a proposal to be made to the UN.
Twelve cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad, published in Denmark’s Jyllands-Posten daily last September and reprinted in a Norwegian magazine earlier this month, sparked uproar in the Muslim world where images of the prophet are considered blasphemous.
The cartoons include portrayal of the prophet wearing a time-bomb-shaped turban and show him as a wild-eyed, knife-wielding bedouin flanked by two women shrouded in black.
First of all, blasphemy can only apply to a believer. If a Muslim drew the cartoons, it would constitute blasphemy. However, if a non-Muslim drew them, it is definitely in poor taste and lack of knowledge of Islam, not blasphemy. I explain this constantly to my Christian friends. How can I blaspheme something in which I do not believe? In addition, to an atheist, blasphemy does not exist: criticism, vile portrayals, stupidity, ignorance, etc. apply, but not blasphemy. Only a believer in a certain religion can blaspheme that religion.
A Qatari cooperative society, Al Meera, has the right idea: boycott Danish and Norwegian goods. Already, some Scandinavian companies have said they are feeling the strength of the boycott.
Boycott the offending companies until the go out of business. Criticize the cartoonist so he looks like dog feces in his industry. But, don’t go to the UN and have a resolution banning religious criticism. If a government openly denigrates a religion, then some form of sanctions should apply, but not for newspapers, writers or cartoonists.
I have heard many Muslims denigrate Christianity. So, if a resolution is passed, then they will be just as guilty as the nitwits who demonize Islam.
In the U.S., many Native American religious rituals are criticized by Christians. So are Hinduism and Buddhism. Many stupid cartoons have been published depicting non-Christians as mindless barbarians who believe in outlandish myths. Who calls the shots on placing an embargo on a country for religious bigotry?
A few months prior to 9-11, my group, the Atheist Coalition of San Diego, invited a Muslim to speak to us about the perception of Muslims in the U.S. He took a few weeks and researched data bases of newspapers and came up with some outstanding conclusions and proof of anti-Islamic reporting. He then added, "Before I was asked to speak, I knew little about atheists or atheism, so I researched the perception of atheists in the U.S. as well as Muslims. You guys are worse off than we are." Everybody laughed, but we knew he was right.
In the U.S., every day is a struggle for atheists. Despite 93% of the membership of the National Academy of Science being atheist and numerous great actors, philosophers, artists and writers also, we are looked down upon by most U.S. citizens, many of whom are miniscule compared to us in the area of intellect.
The cartoon at the beginning of this article is popular in the U.S., especially on automobile bumper stickers. To me, this is just as offensive as the depictions of the prophet by the Scandinavian magazine. We can not avoid such illustrations and statements. They abound in the U.S.
However, I would find it quite ridiculous and futile to take the case to the UN. It shows the blatant ignorance of those who think in such a manner. But, maybe it would be a good idea. Just think if the UN placed sanctions on the U.S. for bigotry against atheists (and there is much at all levels of society, including elected officials), the rest of the world would become much safer.

Malcolm Lagauche

http://www.malcomlagauche.com/index.html