Under the Tower of Babel
Copyright ©1995 by Dean Isaacson : All rights reserved - ISBN 1-887008-00-4
Chapter Five :: The Establishment Of Religion
The United States'[1] taxpayers have spent over 4 trillion dollars on the war on poverty. We lost the war to the welfare state and perennial deficits. We now have a 4.5 trillion dollar debt, amounting to almost $20,000 liability for every man, woman and child in America. Poverty has increased to the same extent that bureaucracies and regulations have. Now we are proposing to spend as much, or more, on the preservation of the environment.
Dixy Lee Ray and Lou Guzzo pointed out, in their book Environmental Overkill, that we have already spent 9.7 million dollars on protection for the spotted owl alone. "The Department of Interior has estimated that it will take 50 years and $114 million just to list the current candidates for protection, and billions more in recovery costs." Our regulators protect even such minuscule, yet prolific species, as the Dung Beetle.
The Selling of Paganism[2]
Emory Bundy[3] closed the conference stating that the wisest investment we can make is "an investment in all the species that we know nothing about."[4] His argument for preserving our natural resources is made on the pretext that we do not know the damage we may be doing to unknown species, even microscopic insects. Therefore, we allow our forests to waste away in our efforts to protect everything and harm nothing.
They scrutinize every activity in the hope of understanding every minuscule, secondary impact of our actions, individually and collectively, upon the entire ecosystem. P.J. O'Rourke put it succinctly. He described the international environmentalists as people who are afflicted by reverse astrology. Instead of believing that every aspect of their lives are affected by heavenly bodies, they believe that heavenly bodies are affected by every aspect of their lives.[5] Here is a good example from the EPA.
Ecosystems the complex of living and non living components that function together as a unit in a given area such as wetland communities, estuaries and prairies form the core organizational structures of the natural world. Ecosystems have a degree of inherent stability which helps them resist some disruption. Significant man made stresses, however. . . can alter ecosystems, affecting their ability to sustain life, including human life. The quality of life for humans is thus linked inextricably to the sustainability of ecosystems.[6]
Steve Gorton wrote in the Montanian that, "The ecosystem concept is based on the belief that every natural thing in the world is related, and everything is of equal value."[7] Not only do the worldviews espoused at the conference place animals at par with man, but man is viewed as dependent upon animals and the environment, rather than upon the Creator. It is interesting that those who place animals equal with man do not hold these animals to the same rigid standards of accountability.
Their philosophy is similar to the Hindu Indian that are dying of starvation while allowing their cows to roam free and eat of the finest of the land. During the epidemic that swept India in 1994, it was reported that many of these people were hosting rats and feeding them. "Many of the rats leap onto a platform where food has been placed under a yellow umbrella. . . .while priests chant hymns."[8]
The Bible warns that when we reject the laws of God, the animals will have dominion over us and the land will spit us out.[9] If we reject God's mandate to take possession of the earth and fill it,[10] our slavery will come from our own regulations as we give animals equal dominion. We can rationalize these environmental arguments with compassionate logic, or give it the color of science. Nonetheless, we are going the way of the Hindu, to our harm.
Geraldine Payton, writing for the Columbiana Magazine,[11] encourages the progress of modern scientific research to establish pagan values.
Ecologists agree that setting aside habitat is a key element in strategies to recover species that have become rare or endangered by human activities. Nature has no boundaries, someone has observed. But limits to human use must be proscribed if society is to preserve the greatness of the natural landscape it dwells within. Establishment of an International Park will protect a significant Northwest ecosystem and act as a blueprint for future international protection of vital transborder ecosystems.
The view that we have an 'interrelatedness' with the earth lays the foundation for creating a crisis. When we accept this as truth, it then becomes possible to convince us that our earth is in danger and our own survival is threatened. The scientist or the news media have only to dig up another dilemma to get the people excitedly rushing to the national government to repair the problem.
Recognition of this interrelatedness should be the first step toward reinventing our government and societal approach to ensure the protection of ecosystems and natural resources.[12]
The park promoters are not ashamed to encourage religious values as long as they are pagan. Governor Lowry stated that one of the important reasons for establishing the international park was because, "Native Americans seek the seclusion of wild places for traditional practices."[13] Economist Nugent wrote about the plight of the "indigenous people struggling to maintain their social structures in the face of continuing conflict with newer populations."[14] The economists and environmentalists promoting the park claim that expanding the human population into the rural areas is encroaching upon the Indian's right to traditional religious practices.
To link mankind's life to the ecosystem is paganism, pure and simple. It is not science. If we accept these claims to oneness with the earth, we will open the door for the interdiction of our freedoms.
Religious Freedom for Pagans Only
We need to start searching for a way to express a new moral vision or spirituality, or what I would call a gospel for the earth that can be attached to all of the existing religious traditions. I think that our religious traditions need to be redirected to a new covenant. The covenant has to be with nature. Wisdom is the English word for 'Sophia.' Sophia is a feminine holy spirit in the Bible that's some kind of complementary accessory to God. Sophia is all about intuition, all about fecundity, all about gardens, all about nature, and weaves in and out as a figure that is much neglected. But obviously Sophia is a biblical concession to the goddess religions that preceded the Old Testament.[15]
The conference was a smorgasbord of New Age newspeak. John Reynolds called upon the delegates to "rededicate ourselves to the interdependence of all of us and our interdependence in the finite reality of our lovely, delightful planet, our home." Jake Masselink wants everyone, "government, First Nations [Indians] and the general public" to help plan the ecosystem management of the North Cascades.[16] Paul Pritchard called for consensus with Indian Nation activists and he attacked American industry for destroying their heritage and violating their religion.
The concerns of the native people on both sides of the border can only be voiced by their representatives and we strongly support and seek their participation. . . . Logging roads and dams make many places unsuitable for traditional Indian ceremonies.[17]
Several more at the conference spoke on behalf of the Indian Nations. According to the Cascades International Alliance,[18] Doreen Maloney called for "standards that provide full protection of natural resources and access for Native peoples." In other words, no resource extraction and no one but Indians are allowed in the woods. Larry Commadore "gave an impassioned account of Native spiritual practices." Bob Pasco, "emphasized the importance of protecting traditional spiritual sites."
Native traditions are deeply steeped in reverence for nature. Hundreds of sacred sites are still in use in the North Cascades. However, logging, roads and dams make many sites unusable for traditional ceremonies. For the native peoples, the North Cascades ecosystem embodies their right to religious freedom.[19]
The logging will end and the roads and dams will be removed, in the name of religious freedom. We already reviewed Bruce Babbitt's claim that we must destroy the dams. The pretext is to save the environment, and to promote religious freedom. He concedes, nonetheless, that Indians will be allowed to own and build dams.
There are not going to be any more large dams in the West unless there is the most excruciating evident case made, or unless they are built for a Native American tribe which has a special claim for water.[20]
Mr. Babbitt makes it clear that it is not really the fish that is causing our concern over large dams. It is the politics of power. The white man[21] is the wrong victim group to control dams. Mr. Babbitt, however, neglects to draw attention to the Indians that are preventing the fish from reaching the dams by spreading nets across the river inlets. It is the nets, not the dams, that are preventing the salmon and other endangered fish from spawning.[22]
Resolving Indian Conflicts With UN Troops
The Tulalip Tribes, of Marysville, Washington, have recently asserted their 'rights,' not only for control of their treaty lands, but to control all privately held lands within their reservation.[23] Once an Indian Nation, like anyone else, has ceded a portion of their lands for just compensation, they have relinquished all control to that land that is not set forth by title, deed or covenant. If the government capitulates on this issue it will set a disastrous precedent. Those families who paid a fair consideration for their property within reservation lands will be forced to retrocede their land use rights. This could eventually evolve into a cession of the purchaser's interest in the property.
This is an important issue because:
- Land is the essentially element of all prior treaties with the Indians.
- The control of land is the crux of the international parks concept.
Land has been the central element of the transgenerational conflict between the United States and the Indian Nations.[24] As our nation grew from a loose knit consortium of colonies to a bona fide constitutional republic, more and more people filled our borders and compelled the protracted expansion of our boundaries.
As borders expand, history attests that the usual consequence is war. Our land, however, is unique; we made treaties. This policy of treaty making was due largely to the bilateral position of trust between our nation and the Indian Nations. Furthermore, our people were grateful to the many Indians who had fought along with us in the Revolutionary War. Their sacrifice was not to be taken lightly.
However, as time went on, treaties brought with them about as much trouble as they resolved. Modern revised history and conventional political wisdom wants to paint the 'white man' as the villain and the Indian as the victim. It does neither party, nor history any justice to accentuate the bad side of one party and the good of the other. The truth of the matter is that both sides have been victimized and both have been wrong.
We can point to atrocities such as the forced removal policy that our nation held in the early middle nineteenth century. This policy culminated in the 'Trail of Tears,' where four thousand Cherokee Indians perished on their forced march west. On the other hand, some Indians made systematic, unprovoked raids upon unprotected settlements. Other Nations made forceful attempts to take back the lands that they had sold for just compensation.
Despite these incidents, both sides usually conducted themselves trustworthily. Therefore, to focus on the outrage will only serve useful ends for the party looking to gain a disproportionate advantage. Even if the exaggerated cruelties were of the magnitude purported, these 'criminals' and their 'victims' are all dead. It is just as ludicrous for the Indian to try to take this land back as it is for the 'white man' to assume absolute guilt. We can spend man's remaining future on perpetual 'war trials' and accomplish nothing.
There is no nation and no race of people who are innocent of oppressing, extorting or enslaving others.[25] Regardless the claims of the modern revisionist historians, the United States like no other nation, has the unique quality of:
- Allowing their failures to be printed in the history books, even to the point of exaggeration as it is today.
- The people of this land have a low tolerance for prolonged inhumanity. We spilled our blood to end the enslavement of the Black[26] people. Americans demanded an end to military campaigns against the Indians after the massacre of Wounded Knee.[27]
- We are the only nation to enact monetary and legal penalties against ourselves to compensate other races and peoples for past injustices. Meanwhile, we seek no revenge upon those who have oppressed and abused our forefathers.
The sovereignty of the Indian Nations has never been questioned by our lawmakers. It was recognized from the start that the Indian nations had the capacity for self government and the ability to wage war. These are two inherent qualities necessary for the successful culmination of any treaty agreement. However, even though they are acknowledged to be sovereign, the Nations are legally dependent and native born Indians are citizens of the United States. In fact, their status affords them all the rights of citizenship in addition to the special rights accorded in their respective treaties.
After the Civil War, it became apparent to both sides that the westward movement of the Indian people was not going to solve the problems of our expanding borders. After the Appropriations Act of 03 March 1871, which ended the policy of treaty making, the 'independent nation' status was revoked.
Prior to this time, the government began to focus their efforts on encouraging the Indian Nations to meld into American society or become self sufficient. Lands were reserved for Indian Countries but it was hoped that this duality would fade and all would become one people. Article 4 of the Treaty with the Choctaws[28] stated that the boundaries of the treaty would not be altered "until the period at which said nation shall become so civilized and enlightened as to be made citizens of the United States."[29]
This reference to citizenship did not refer to statute, as was done fifty years later, but it referred to the assimilation of the people into mainstream society. It was also the goal of many tribes to abandon their nomadic and 'savage' lifestyles and become pastoral and civilized people.[30] Most Indian people did integrate into society, even to the extent that they intermarried and adopted the American Judeo Christian culture.
With the rapid expanse of the welfare state subsequent to the New Deal years, our nation is dividing into myriad victim groups. Each one is vying for a bigger share of the entitlement pie. Indian activists are caught up in this movement also. To perpetuate the myth of Indian sovereignty and their 'independent nation' status has been a cruel hoax. It has not been continued out of fairness, but for political expediency. We have convinced many of the Indian people that they are owed, still, for the land and hardship.
We have robbed them of individual responsibility. They believe they have the right to collect checks and entitlements and fight for the sacredness of these sacraments. This is the greatest threat to the Indian culture. It is the very political organizations that claim to be working toward Indian ends that will inevitably bring the Indian Nations to their destruction.
In 1869 the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, expressed his concern that we terminate this "cruel farce" perpetuated by treaty making and establish fair and just laws in dealing with the Indian people.
. . .A treaty involves the idea of a compact between two or more sovereign powers, each possessing sufficient authority and force to compel a compliance with the obligations incurred. The Indian tribes of the United States are not sovereign nations, capable of making treaties, as none of them have an organized government of such inherent strength as would secure a faithful obedience of its people in observance of compacts of this character. They are held to be the wards of the government, and the only title the law concedes to them to the lands they occupy or claim is a mere possessory one. But, because treaties have been made with them, generally for the extinguishment of their supposed absolute title to land inhabited by them, or over which they roam, they have become falsely impressed with the notion of national independence. It is time that this idea should be dispelled, and the government cease the cruel farce of thus dealing with its helpless and ignorant wards. Many good men, looking at this matter only from a Christian point of view, will perhaps say that the poor Indian has been greatly wronged and ill treated; that this whole country was once his, of which he has been despoiled, and that he has been driven from place to place until he has hardly left to him a spot where to lay his head. This indeed may be philanthropic and humane, but the stern letter of the law admits of no such conclusion, and great injury has been done by the government in deluding this people into the belief of their being independent sovereignties, while they were at the same time recognized only as its dependents and wards. As civilization advances and their possessions of land are required for settlement, such legislation should be granted to them as a wise, liberal, and just government ought to extend to subjects holding their dependent relation. . .[31]
Congress did not listen to him then and the situation has not improved. One hundred eight years later, in 1977, Congress appointed a commission to investigate the state of Indian affairs. "The Final Report[32] recommended that future policy determinations be based on the following objectives:[33]
- a reaffirmation and strengthening of the doctrine of tribal sovereignty and the trust relationship,
- increased financial commitment to the economic development of tribes and improvement of the standard of living of off reservation Indians;
- consolidation of Indian programs in a new Indian department or agency;
- greater encouragement of tribal participation in planning and budgetary processes; and
- federal recognition of terminated and other non federally recognized tribes, including extension of federal services to them."
The only dissent to the report came from the vice chairman of the commission, Lloyd Meeds, who said that it was "one sided advocacy in favor of American Indian tribes." He recommended increased state jurisdiction over Indian lands, especially where non Indian interests were involved. The central issues have not changed much through the years.[34]
Congress has continued to increase their spending on Indian programs. Indian Nations participate in the food stamp and the food commodities programs. They receive AFDC, SSI, Medicaid, child welfare services, federal social services benefits as well. Additionally, Congress has established special Indian programs such as the Indian Health Services, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA),[35] Housing Improvement programs and several economic development programs, including the Indian Financing Act which provides capital and pays the interest for Indian self determination projects.[36]
Despite the substantial sums of taxpayer moneys that have been invested in Indian self determination programs, these programs are seldom successful. "In 1974 the Comptroller General found that of twenty five major projects representing a seven year investment of twenty three million dollars, fifteen projects had ceased operations and another nine were in difficulty."[37] That means that only one project out of twenty five was successful.
It does not matter if the money is given to a specific race, color or economic class of people. Entitlements and government sponsored economic programs do not teach people to be responsible and accountable. Furthermore, it divides people into groups and breeds resentment between the collectors and the producers.
There is another reason that these programs have failed for the Indian. It is the same reason that their dual citizenship and the whole 'nation within a nation' concept does not work. The United States is a constitutional republic with a free enterprise economic base. Conversely, the Indian Nations are a socialist republic with a welfare based economy.
We have funded; they have failed. Race has nothing to do with it. They are socialists living within a free market economy. The reservation Indian has no individual rights to property and they pass no inheritance to their children. All property resides in the tribe. Rather than developing their own free markets, as their forefathers did before them, they have resorted to collecting the gleanings from our tables. Only those Indians who have ventured out of Indian Country have tasted the free enterprise system.
Of course, the United Nations would be eager to emphasize the plight of the American Indian to bring the rest of the nation into conformance with their international socialistic ideals promoted as 'democracy.' Dissatisfied with the failed attempts by the United States to bring self sufficiency to the Indian Nations, the Indians are now taking their complaints to the UN.
It would be major news if dozens of national leaders testified that the United States apparent watchdog of world democracy and human rights had dishonored United Nations human rights and genocide prevention conventions. Yet that's what happened. . . at the Daybreak Star Indian Cultural Center. . . Speaker after speaker from Native American nations in Alaska and the Pacific Northwest gave searing testimony about a 400 year trail of broken treaties and lack of treaties. . . traditional lifestyles wiped out, stories boiled over, bringing hot tears or icy nods from onlookers.[38]
This event was co sponsored by the International Indian Treaty Council. It was a UN commissioned workshop. The United Nations is gathering data on how indigenous[39] people view their treatment by other governments. A worldwide report will be made to the United Nations in July 1995. In the Seattle Times news report, Carole Beers quotes some of the Indian representatives:
Some tribes want official recognition. . . but I think they should be recognized internationally. The only thing that will change this is peer pressure. (Gary Harrison, Athabascan).
We've been de powered as caretakers of the earth. . . We don't have one holiday of our own. . . Everything put here for us has been turned into a commodity. . . We have a moral authority that goes beyond legal authority. (Marlene Belcourt Silversong, Cree Blackfoot).
We should be aggressive. . . in demanding that America stand up and recognize where democracy came from (Indian peoples). . . Every time we fight for air, water, birds or salmon, we're made to look like poachers in the night. (Jewell James, Lummi).
We will not dance to the tune of the BIA for federal recognition. . . We were here first and it is our land! We are going to have a few more key cases. (Rudy James, Tlingit).[40]
Rudy James will sue to get the feds off the backs of his people. That is a worthy effort. Maybe Americans involved with the States' rights movement and other conservative efforts will find unity with the Indian in their struggle to stop the national government from micromanaging our lives.
Jewell James laments that Indians are made to look like poachers when fighting to get food (this is not in the best interest of the animals, Jewell). The Indians and environmentalists, however, use this same attack upon Americans whose livelihoods depend on gathering food for the grocer. It is not an issue of survival. The real issue is the control of the food chain. There is tremendous wealth and political power to be made for the producer, by being paid to produce the food that they are also subsidized to buy.
Do not think for a moment that the UN will be interested in justice. Politicians, national and international, are notorious for using victim groups to help promote their cause. In the end, they abandon them when the politicians' goals have been met. Just as certainly as previous Indian treaty rights have been subordinated to international treaties,[41] the UN will preempt Indian economic and cultural rights within the wave of proposed international environmental regulations.
It is time for the American people, Indian and non Indian, to come to the table clean and negotiate workable standards for all people, free of entitlements and victim groups. Calling upon international peer pressure to coerce the United States to accept the Indian Nations as caretakers of the earth will eventually lead to UN troops in our streets.
Footnotes:
[1]op. cit., Ray & Guzzo, p. 90. emphasis in text.
[2]The word 'pagan' in this book is not used in derogation. It is descriptive of a belief, or worldview that is contrary to the Judeo Christian principles upon which this country was founded. This includes, but is not limited to, 'Native Indian Culture.'
[3]Director of the Bullitt Foundation, an affiliation of King5 News (Seattle, NBC).
[4]op. cit., Nature Has No Borders, the newsletter.
[5]P.J. O'Rourke, Environmental Phonies, cit., "Visions of Liberty, Tape #13," Laissez Faire Books (1993).
[6]US Environmental Protection Agency: National Performance Review: Ecosystem Protection (August 6, 1993) p. 4. For the park promoters' definition of 'Ecosystem' see the footnote on page 12.
[7]op. cit., Steve Gorton.
[8]Dilip Ganguly, AP, "Hindu Practices Feed Plague, Officials Say," The Spokane Review (30 Sep. 94).
[9]Leviticus 18:24 28, 20:22, Isaiah 56:9 12, Jeremiah 5:1 6.
[10]Genesis 1:28, 9:1, Isaiah 45:18.
[11]op. cit., Payton.
[12]op. cit., EPA, p. 4.
[13]op. cit., Lowry.
[14]op. cit., Nature Has No Borders, the newsletter.
[15]Tom Hayden, California Assemblyman and ex SDS leader.
[16]ed. cit., Nature Has No Borders, the newsletter. Less weight will probably go to the general public, especially if they disagree. That is where the 'consensus' tool comes in.
[17]op. cit., Paul Pritchard.
[18]ed. cit., Nature Has No Borders, the newsletter.
[19]op. cit., "Nature Has No Borders," brochure.
[20]op. cit., Babbitt, p. 941.
[21]The 'white man' is an easy political target. However, America, is more than the 'white man' per se and the public works affect all residents and citizens. The collective 'American persona' is white, black, brown, etc. Therefore, any attack by one group upon the injustice of the American system, flies in the face of all the people of this land and jeopardizes their freedoms and prosperity as well.
[22]Additionally, the Japanese are fishing the ocean with nets that are miles long, scooping up thousands of fish, multiple schools, at a time. There are also problems with Alaska and Canadian fishing practices, which Robert N. Crittenden details in his book, Salmon At Risk, Crittenden Biometical (1994). Not nearly as many fish reach the Indian nets as there should. By the time the fish reach the dams, there are even fewer. However, if any fish at all meet their doom at the dam, the environmentalists want all the dams pulled down. This is absolute with no compromise. They won't even allow for nuclear or coal powered plants to replace them. If we allow this, we will find electricity too expensive for the average family to afford, if it is even available. On the other hand, my point is two fold: the hypocrisy of the Indian culture and the dichotomy of politics when it comes to the Indians. The Indians purport to be one with the earth, yet they will scoop up the remaining fish and blame it on the 'white man.' Furthermore, an Indian dam won't hurt fish, while 'white man' dams do. This is obviously a pitch for control.
[23]"Tulalips To Make Land Use Changes," Marysville Globe (27 Oct 94).
[24]This review of the relationship between the United States and the Indian Nations is general in nature. Because this book is too short to deal with this subject comprehensively, some notations may not apply to specific individuals or nations.
[25]For thousands of years the Indian Nations practiced slavery, cannibalism and human sacrifice. After the advent of the 'white man,' the Indians continued in the slave trades; trading both Indian and Black peoples. ed. cit., The New Book of Knowledge (1991 ed.), vol. 9, p. 178. The Encyclopedia Americana (1904 1906 ed.), vol. VIII.
[26]Not all slaves were Black and not all slave owners were white. White slavery has existed since before the days of the lords and barons. It was prevalent in early America and continues underground to this day. African nations instituted slavery centuries before European traders brought Black slaves to America and Europe. Slavery in Africa continued until the 1930s. In America, there were Blacks and Indians who were slave owners.
[27]ed. cit., The New Book of Knowledge (1991 ed.), vol. 9, p. 182.
[28]Treaty with the Choctaws, 18 Oct 1820, 7 Stat 210.
[29]F. Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian Law, (1982 ed.), The Michie Company, p.86.
[30]This argument was recognized by the Supreme Court as a prominent element of an 1888 agreement in the precedent setting case of Winters v United States, 207 US 564, 576 (1908). ed. cit., F. Cohen, p. 579.
[31]Commissioner of Indian Affairs Annual Report., HR Exec Doc No. 1, 41st Congress, 2d Sess 448 (1869). op. cit., F. Cohen, p. 106.
[32]Final Report to Congress, May 1977. The commission was composed of three Senators, three Representatives and five Native Americans.
[33]op. cit., F. Cohen, p. 205, (bullets added).
[34]ed. cit., F. Cohen, p. 205 6.
[35]this agency is not exclusively Indian, but it does retain an "Indian Desk." op. cit., F. Cohen, p. 701.
[36]op. cit., F. Cohen, p. 201.
[37]op. cit., F. Cohen, p. 723.
[38]Carole Beers, staff reporter, "Indian Nations Detail Mistreatment For UN Report," Seattle Times (21 Sep. 94).
[39]I was born here. So, too, were my mother and father and their parents. Am I not indigenous? How long can small tribes lay claim to vast lands that are obviously overrun by other predominate nations and people?
[40]op. cit., Beers.
[41]In 1930 portions of an 1855 Indian treaty had been abrogated by a treaty with Canada which affected control of Salmon runs. op. cit., F. Cohen, p. 468, footnote 6.