European/Christian Genocides in the New World

I don't in any way deny that many Europeans were guilty of the worst sort of genocidal excesses, nor that those who call themselves Christians were often leading the charge and handing out the rifles. What I always objected to was how the anthropology sub-culture I was a part of failed to see their own ethnocentrism in painting millions of individuals with such broad strokes. After all, it can't be denied that millions of Christians and/or Europeans also fought against those excesses and condemned them from the pulpit and the papers. Nor can it be denied that there were many Americans-of-less-recent-Asian-descent (indigenous peoples) who engaged in similar behaviors.


My question to my professors who were atheists or naturalists was always, "How can you say that anyone was right or wrong? Whether they be Aztecs or Aryans? How can one say that killing off, by bullet or blight, anyone for whom they didn't care was bad? A strict naturalist/evolutionist can only say that one survived and the other didn't. There is no right or wrong, no good or bad, no moral meter stick by which to measure such things. Morality must come from outside the system or it is still a part of the system and subject to the same random processes that allowed life in the first place, at least according to the naturalist's ideology/faith.


Undoubtedly, the Church, all over the world, has made a practice of building cathedrals and shrines on top of the temples and sacred sites of those they followed. In fact, I read a really interesting letter once from a cardinal (I believe) in Mexico back to the authorities in Rome complaining that their strategy had backfired on no less a site than the Cathedral of the Virgin of Guadalupe (I'm working from memory here, so cut me some slack on the details). Apparently the hill on which the Virgin appeared had been the holy hill of an Aztec goddess, and after the cathedral was built on that site, the priests were horrified to find their new converts praying to the Virgin and calling her by the name of the goddess. In fact, the pictures you see of the Virgen de Guadalupe, standing over the stars and crescent moon and dressed in black, are direct correlates to symbols used in the worship of the Aztec goddess.

Some claim that the Incas and other indigenous American civilizations didn't force religious ideology on their conquered peoples, only political. But how do we know, and what's the difference?

I'm not being a smartass. I'm really wondering. How do we know what the Inca's forced on their conquered peoples as far as religious ideas? Is there archaeological evidence (or even historical) that might answer that question? Besides, politics were based in religion, so wouldn't a change in political ideology imply a change in religious ideology? The only reason that the practice of taking the conquered peoples' gods captive, rather than wiping those populations out with warfare, seems more civil to us is because we don't believe in those gods. To us, they are stone statues and quaint caricatures of the natural forces, but to the conquered peoples they may have been worth more to them than their own lives.

Archaeologists and Religious Artifacts

It's often seemed to me that archaeologists tend to interpret any decorative and/or otherwise unexplainable item (from buildings to bowls) as having a religious purpose. In 10,000 years they will probably refer to us as the "Mouse Worshippers" because of all the Mickey Mouse artifacts. On second thought, maybe that's not so far off.

I recently came across a nice quote by Ian Tattersall which illustrated the tendency. He was showing an Acheulean point (a stone arrowhead) to an interested journalist; a point that weighed roughly 25 pounds and would have been unwieldy for even two users. Tattersall noted that it's difficult to imagine what such a monstrosity could have been used for and must have had "some symbolic significance."

I can think of lot's of possible uses for such an implement that have nothing to do with symbolism, however, they rely every bit as much on guesswork as does Tattersall's statement. A
"symbolic significance" for it's creation is so much more interesting, however, than "just for the hell of it." What famous ethnologist was it that noted the high correlation between risky undertakings and the tendency to seek magico-religious assistance?

Bronislaw Malinowski wasn't it? Didn't he have a brother named Kohlslaw...invented a salad with mayonnaise and cabbage? Kidding.

Malinowski's proposed a theory about magic in response to what he observed among the Trobriand islanders. He noted that there was a lot of magical ritual surrounding the dangerous undertaking of sailing the high seas, but very little magic invoked in the safer task of fishing inside the lagoon. I read another paper in which the author's results confirmed this theory by looking at which activities in baseball garnered the most superstitions and talismans. Those activities that were less certain, such as pitching and batting, garnered more superstitios rituals and objects; lucky socks, for example.

At any rate, religion and magic are often used to make sense of that which can't otherwise be made sense of, according to Malinowski. I agree with this, as do many archaeologists, but it makes me take their explanations of certain sites, artifacts, and structures with a grain of salt when they attribute magico-religious purposes to them.

NOTE: This is not to say that any and all explanations relying on magic or religion are wrong.

The Naturalist Paradox

The view we have of religious fervor is very skewed by our own Western/Rationalist world view, since we tend to define "religion" in such a way that we can still see ourselves as rationalists unencumbered by such muddy concepts as "faith" and "free will" and "God." But we deceive ourselves.

Even the most ardent naturalist has basic assumptions that rest on faith and faith alone. For example, the naturalist believes in a concept called "randomness;" a belief that cannot be proven.

By definition, anything that can't be reliably replicated or predicted (at least with regards to specific events, such as a single flip of the coin) is called "random." The theist might equally claim that there is no such thing as random; that each result springs from the actions of a deity. The naturalist thinks such ideas are ridiculous, but thinking they're ridiculous requires the initial unproven assumption that they are wrong.

A functionalist explanation of how religion works within a society--for example; belief in the sweet-by-and-by helps keep the downtrodden from rebelling and upsetting the apple cart--doesn't in any way allow us to determine the truth or falsehood of the belief itself. After all, if there is a God, wouldn't a religion based on his/her/its teachings have to function within the society in which it occurs? On the other hand, if the religion is false, it won't survive for long if it doesn't give some functional payoff. Either way, the religion is functional.

Don't believe in the supernatural? Isn't that a faith-based belief? Is it even possible to prove such a thing? "Super-natural" means "above" or "outside" nature--that is, it is not a part of the natural cause-effect world in which we and all our sensory inputs exist--and therefore it is beyond the realm of scientific inquiry. Science can't say "yea" or "nay" because the supernatural is, by definition, beyond our means of natural observation.

If Bronislaw Malinowski was right when "He posited that what [people]believe is a reflection of their psychological needs.", then what does the rationalist's faith in the non-existence of the supernatural say about their psychological needs?

Ultimately, the naturalists CAN'T be right. If they are, then their beliefs are meaningless and further discussion is meaningless as well. Their beliefs are the result of the random motions of atoms. The Trobriand Islander's (that Bronislaw Malinowski studied) beliefs also--according to the rationalist--are the result of the same random motions. There is, therefore, no way for the naturalist to say what is good, bad, right, wrong, better, worse, superior, inferior, worthy of discussion, worthy of anything. They are a product of their world and a slave to its forces every bit as much as is a rock. The logical syllogism might read...

IF there is nothing beyond nature,
THEN all things are the result of ultimately random physical forces,
SO logical thinking is the result of random physical forces,
THEREFORE this syllogism is without meaning.

It's a version of Epimenide's Paradox.

Why I don't write

I've thought about writing novels, and every once in awhile I'll get on a kick and write quite a bit. My problem is plot...I don't have one. I do great with characters, dialogue, etc., but it never really goes anywhere. I have a hundred and one interesting ideas, but I can never come up with a good story to string them all together. The difference between a pile of pearls and a necklace is the string, and no one wears a pile of pearls.

Angels and time

(excerpt from email to friend)

I was very intrigued by the question of whether or not angelic beings are bound by time. While I agree that they are non-corporeal except on rare occasions, I can't see that they are non-temporal.

They are linear in relation to time (to use the geometry analogy), I think, just as we are. That is, like a geometric ray, they have a definite start, but no end. Their position in time can be plotted on that ray, and they cannot move themselves willing backwards or forwards...in other words, they are bound by the flow of time just as we are. I don't know that I can support that view, but I don't see a reason to suppose them non-temporal.

Our physical bodies, on the other hand, are a geometric line segment with a definite beginning and end, but our souls are rays, continuing into eternity yet with a definite beginning. Although, what about the risen, glorified body we will have?

God, unlike any other being, cannot be plotted in my geometric analogy. He is without beginning or end, and has total freedom of perception so that he can look at any/all beings at any point along their ray of existence. He can study each and every point on any ray/segment outside the bounds of time...true ominiscience. Christ willingly chose to be incarnated and chose daily to exist within the confines of a human body...a ray in relation to time. It makes God's glory,--and Christ's humility--much more awesome to me.

Best Books, Archetypes, and Archaeologists

Some of the best books I've found recently were on the 25 cent shelf. Tells you alot about what our society values when you can find Aristotle in the bargain bins and Paris Hilton on the talk shows. On the other hand, I did find five different copies of Leonardo DiCaprio's biography on the bargain shelves as well, so maybe there's hope.

It's always a risk recommending books/music/movies to someone else. What if they hate it, or worse, find it juvenile? I like some stuff that I'm completely embarrassed to admit to; Voyage of the Space Beagle, for instance, by A. E. VanVogt (no joke.) Despite the name, it's an excellent book--I just don't tell many people about it. Harry Potter is another of my secret peccadillos. I think I'm embarassed that my tastes turn out to be so plebian. Nevertheless, Harry Potter books are very good, mainly, I think, because they tell well a great story built around the archetypical themes Joseph Campbell and Karl Jung identified (among others).

I'm really fascinated by those archetypical themes. It's like psychology for the whole human race! It's one of the things I really love about Anthropology. Why do humans do what they do?

I really don't mind it when novelists breathe life into history as long as their history (or prehistory) isn't completely inaccurate. I expect them to add flesh to the skeleton of facts. What I object to is when archaeologists engage in some historical fiction and act as if they aren't. I think all scientists should clearly identify their facts and their suppositions. They should note, right up front, what their political leanings and personal philosophies are so that readers would be able to draw their own conclusions. After all, if I can convince you that my theories have merit even after having told you that I'm a Shiite Communist and lifetime member of the NRA, then I've really made some progress.

Cabeza de Vaca

http://www.library.txstate.edu/swwc/cdv/book/1.html

This is the account of Alvar Nunez Cabeza de Vaca in which he tells of his experiences in North America in the 1520s. It takes a few hours to read and is absolutely fascinating, with wonderful first hand accounts of the tribes living here in Texas before any significant European contact.

Cabeza de Vaca undoubtedly walked right through the Brazos Valley and down the string prairie that later became the Villa Real/Old San Antonio road (now Highway 21 from Bryan to Bastrop and San Antonio). He also walked right up the Llano River.

The physical journey is amazing enough. However, his spiritual journey and conversion from Conquistador Catholic (kill'em all and let God sort'em out) to a man with a real affection and love for los indios is just as gripping.