Home   T.K. Wolf     Origin   Services   Cranial   Electrical   Stimulation   Stalking     Initiative   Staff/Board of     Directors   Events   Sweat Lodge/     Medicine    Wheel   In the News   Recommended     Reading   Tobacco Use   Search   Links

NCCJ Trialogue—Shared Ground: America Ann Noe Dapice, Ph.D. I’ve been asked to respond to two questions. The first question, “Whatever happened to Native American spiritual practices,” has a clear but sad answer. The second question, “How did Native Americans adapt their tribal mystical and ceremonial rituals and how do they reinterpret ancient symbols and practices in a new faith context,” includes assumptions that are complex and require discussion. First, I will address tonight’s theme: Shared Ground: America. For American Indians, these words are full of irony. Make no mistake, this ground, America, is sacred and holy to American Indians. And make no mistake, this ground—literal, philosophical and spiritual—has not been shared in any true sense. Two very different worlds collided with European incursion. When Europeans first arrived, Indians did share their ground, or land, as well as skills needed for survival. Critical differences in faith, belief and world-view regarding the several meanings of shared ground, and the result of these differences, relate directly to the question about present day Native American spiritual practices and any understandings—or misunderstandings—about “adaptation” and “new faith contexts.” Philosophical Ground I will begin with the European world-view. Scholars like John Locke in the 1600’s joined the understandings of Christianity and property ownership into one. Locke wrote extensively justifying the colonial conquest of “wild Indians” in “America”(his words). In doing so, he argued that while conquest of governments was generally wrong, peoples who were not obeying (his) God by subduing and tilling the soil, and “inclosing” their lands with fences, were not deserving of the land, thus the land was Europeans’ for the taking. He wrote that should Indians attempt to retrieve their land, Christians were justified in killing them because had the Indians been caring for it according to God’s commands, they would still have “ownership” of it. Locke wrote further that he believed reparations were generally justified, but in this case they were inappropriate because the Indians hadn’t obeyed (his) God. On the basis of belief and world-view then, there was an immediate absence of shared ground between Europeans and indigenous residents. Indians believed that humans are part of creation just as are rivers, streams, birds, fish and all the rest. Each is sacred and equal. All is to be shared and cared for and all have responsibility to the other. Their ceremonies demonstrated the relationship of each to the other. The community, not the individual, was of utmost importance. When Indians tried to explain that they could not buy or sell or give title to "their relatives," the land, Europeans didn’t understand. Indians were then told to move, force was used, villages and crops were burned, and when Indians tried to defend themselves, Europeans made war. Historical Ground In what would become known as manifest destiny, Indians were nearly exterminated. Whether through European or US rule, through the nineteenth century written policies called for the complete annihilation of Indians. The North American Indian population decreased from between 12 and18 million before European arrival to only 300-400,000 by 1900. Whole tribes became extinct. While a majority of American Indian deaths were the direct result of diseases to which they had no immunity, the deaths were not as innocent as has been portrayed. After all, people knew that removal of food and shelter predisposed humans to disease and death. General Amherst wrote, “You will do well to inoculate the Indians by means of (Smallpox) blankets, as well as to try every other method that can serve to extirpate this execrable race.” (Given our present fear of biological terrorism, this takes on new meaning.) Repeated burning of Indian crops and villages became known as the scorched-earth policy. General Sheridan ordered the extermination of 60 million buffalo for the stated purpose of denying subsistence to the Plains Indians. Tribes were constantly forced on long "removals" with resulting illness and death. People were separated from the land that not only was sacred to them, but also had long provided their daily needs. After the physical genocide, came the policy known later as cultural genocide. Indian children were taken from their homes, forced to attend boarding schools, punished for speaking their native languages, forced to adopt a new religion, and forced to learn the ways of the dominant culture. Through schools and churches, Christian organizations implemented US policy in eradicating Indian culture in what was probably the first ecumenical cooperation between Roman Catholics and Protestant denominations. Believing that Indian religions and practices were heathen, tribes were not allowed to practice their religions legally again until 1978 when Congress passed the American Indian Religious Freedom Act. Up to that time, traditional ceremonies were forced into hiding and practiced only with fear of punishment. In the 1800’s, feeling the devastation to families and tribes, a number of Indian groups, leaders and prophets attempted to return to traditional ways and ceremonies with the goal of restoring their people. Unfortunately, both in the case of the Shawnee Prophet and the Ghost Dances, when Indians began to unite and practice these rituals, Euro-Americans became frightened and further tragedy resulted. Late in the 1800’s, at the same time as the Ghost Dances, peyote religion spread from Mexico to the Plains Indians. In 1918, these peyote meetings became formalized into “church” chapters in an attempt to comply with the government. Membership was based on Indian blood quantum. (The legality of ceremonial peyote use remains in limbo in the courts to the present.) Peyote is seen as a sacrament similar to communion for Christians. Meetings often combine Christian symbols with native rituals and may even include use of the Bible. Although members of some tribes have become more involved in Native American Church than others, it is important to note that these are not traditional tribal ceremonies. This combination of Christianity with native symbols is the clearest example of adaptation in order to survive The Present So this is the present reality— --There are Christian Indians who believe even now what their churches have taught—that their former religions were heathen and primitive. Often these churches do not even condone the participation of their church members in Indian events such as pow-wows. Many of these churches are small in number and comprised of members from the same tribe—often the same family. Christian hymns may be sung in original languages. --There are also traditional Indians who will not participate in Christian ceremonies at all. Some participate in tribal ceremonies using original languages or English. --There are Indians who participate both in Christian churches and their tribal rituals at “ceremonial grounds.” --There are Indians who participate in Christian churches as well as the Native American Church. --There are Indians who claim no religion or religious practice. For some, pow-wows with singing, drumming and dancing, provide a community of Indians to be with, and thus, in some ways serve as a replacement for church and traditional worship. A few Christian churches have attempted to combine Christian and Indian rituals. These are especially appealing to Indians who have been out of touch with their culture as well as to non-Indians. After a while people tend to move towards one or the other since there is often a feeling of disconnect between the different cultures. Many tribal elders decided to terminate their ceremonies when members could no longer speak the language. Those remaining often feel this loss strongly and find no adequate replacement. The loss of languages has been a formidable barrier to maintenance of culture and religion. This was, of course, the original intent of doing away with the languages and is true in most colonial conquest. At any Indian gathering elders still tell boarding school stories and grieve regarding their losses. In recent years, Indians have increased their participation in traditional ceremonies such as sweatlodge, Green Corn and Sundance. Unfortunately, romanticizing of Indian rituals has caused many non-Indians to want to “convert” to Indian religions, not understanding that traditionally, as in some other religions, one is born into the religion, not converted. Non-Indians often see such appropriations of Indian rituals, as a complement to Indians in the same way a church would be grateful to have a convert. As in other appropriations such as Indian names and mascots, these have not generally been well received by Indians. In addition, some, both Indian and non-Indian, have claimed to be “shamans” and sold rituals to others, devaluing the beliefs, and embarrassing and saddening the Indian community in general. Since Indians are assimilated to the extent that most speak English, drive cars and watch television (assuming they have requisite roads and infrastructure), there is no question that the dominant culture has had its impact. Social changes have also played out in religious practice through increased hierarchical arrangements and the diminished status of Indian women to that of European women. Had Europeans never arrived, rituals and ceremonies would most likely have changed over time due to the extensive trade that existed between tribes. However, such changes would have been more likely to be those of choice, not force. In summary, to have shared ground, it is not necessary to have the same worship forms and rituals but it is important to acknowledge the terrible history and pay attention to the words of two Native theologians. Jace Weaver of University of Georgia has written, "For non-Natives the earth is simply a 'resource' and it is this difference that distinguishes between peoples who live in a sacred world and those who do not." Oklahoman George Tinker of Iliff Seminary has written that in a human-centered theology, God has attributes and emotions that are human-like. In the American Indian view, God is a spiritual force that permeates "the whole of the world and is manifest in countless ways in the world around us at any given moment and especially in any given place." He writes, "It is now imperative that we change the modern value of acquisitiveness and the political systems and economics that consumption has generated." He continues, “This is a struggle not just for Indian peoples, this struggle is for the sake of the earth and for the sustaining of all life." This is our shared ground. Bibliography Campbell, Gregory R. 1994. “The Politics of Counting: Critical Reflections on the Depopulation Question of Native North America.” The Unheard Voices: American Indian Responses to the Columbian Quincentenary 1492-1992. Carole M. Gentry and Donald A. Grinde, Jr., Eds. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Edwards Brothers. Duffy, John. 1951. “Smallpox and the Indians in the American Colonies.” Bulletin of the History of Medicine 25: 324-341. Grounds, Richard and Ann N. Dapice. 1997. “Patterns of Conquest.” Paper read at Indigenous Peoples: An International Symposium, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE. Locke, John. (1690 [1980]). Second Treatise of Government, C. B. Macpherson, Ed. Indianapolis: Hackett. Stannard, David E. 1992. American Holocaust: Columbus and the Conquest of the NewWorld. New York: Oxford University Press. Stiffarm, Lenore, A. and Phil Ryan, Jr. 1992. The State of Native America: Genocide, Colonization, and Resistance. M. Annette Daimes, Ed. Boston: South End Press. Thornton, Russell. 1987. American Indian Holocaust and Survival. Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press. Tinker, George E. 1996. Defending Mother Earth, Jace Weaver, Ed. Mary Knoll, New York: Orbis Books. Weaver, Jace (Ed.). 1996. Defending Mother Earth. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books. Weslager, C. A. 1996. The Delaware Indians. New Brunswick, NJ:RutgersUniversity Press. Williams, Herbert U. 1909. “The Epidemic of the Indians of New England, 1616-1620 with Remarks on Native American Infections.” Johns Hopkins Hospital Bulletin 20: 340-349.     Thank you to Active iNet Services for hosting this website.    visitors since March 9, 2006