I don’t know if the terminology is any longer said, but there was an expression in my youth that when you gave someone something and then tried to take it back you were said to be an “indian giver.” I always wondered if there was a perversion going on with this phrase in that the Americans were the ones who made all the offerings of gifts and promises to “Indians” and then took them back. And actually the indian giver did the same thing, he proffered the gift and then retracted it. But the term was a deception by making the “indian” seem to be the deceiver when the speaker with the forked tongue was the white man doing all of the deceiving.
Generals who spent much time in the west trying to take the Natives' culture and land from them (Sheridan, Sherman,Crook, et al.) grew to admire the Natives for their strong defense of their homeland. People today find admiration in the Ukranians' defense of their homeland. Although Khan began an empire of his own, his first wars were in defense of his own homeland. The Prussians defended their homeland to near extinction (some do survive in the genes of their Lithuanian cousins) and I guess the first German genocide upon another race earned the admiration of the genociders because they began to call themselves “Prussian.” Holocausts did not begin with Nazis. In fact at the time when Nazis were attempting to exterminate European Jewry, The Palestinian Jews (with British help) had been systematically attempting to remove Palestinian Muslims from the Palatinate for forty years (And they continue to do so today). Not to make light of any perpetrators of genocide, I nevertheless find few ethnicities without some human blood on their hands.
Even Native American tribes forced from their homelands also treated other natives similarly as they were forced to seek new lands to survive. The Germans who fought against the Prussians were themselves largely being forced to seek new homelands, as were the Jews (although trying to reclaim a former homeland) when they move(d) against the Arabs. Immigrants immigrate when people have had the resources necessary for their survival limited and sometimes (often) becomes a move of one ethnicity trying to survive by moving against other ethnicities already surviving in another location the forced immigrants are attempting to immigrate to.
And although the immigrants to North America had little regard for the Natives, they themselves (or many of them) immigrated because their resources for survival were being abrogated by their European overlords. The problem, looked at this way, should be obvious—when resources are controlled by some that lessen the survivability of others, then the others move to survive and deny resources to still more; creating a perpetual mobile to conquer resources. A natural consequence of this is to disregard the importance of those trying to survive as of less relevance to one’s own group’ survival. Power becomes a game of pinball destruction against any obstruction that often seems random wantonness and the loss of some to the betterment of the other. However, to the expert, pinball is a controlled game and the machine is designed to know when a player is attempting to tilt the machine to give him an advantage if he actually does not have the skills to achieve the objective and remain in the game, and the skilless player loses the game.
The nature of earth is similarly designed to provide the resources for a multitude of species to interact and survive. If the earth becomes “tilted” then it is not just the one species who may be eliminated but an imbalance that will spiral til the tilt becomes overwhelmed and the game is lost. The nature of earth then resets itself so that the ‘experts' who understand the game cannot be tilted, can survive within the newly reset diversity of species.
The homo sapien species (not counting any prior hominid ancestors) were masterful experts in playing the game of survival for roughly 290,000 years. Recognizing certain weaknesses that made survival minimal, they collectively united to survive by diverse personalities that jointly made survival possible. Recognizing their weaknesses as a species to be successful individually, they collectively “invented” tools of survival. One of those tools was “art”--music and drawing– that bound small human communities within the rituals that recognized the necessity of the community to each of its members. The rituals emphasized, but did not confine, the roles of its members being of a diverse nature to produce the common goal—the survival of all.
Now in earlier articles, I wrote about the undesirable personality who wanted to control the community, to define others’ roles and abandon the rituals that bound the community in its quest for common survival, to a regulated structure where these undesirable personalities could control, through a structured society that made the other individuals dependent upon them. Recognizing these individuals would tilt both the community and make survival more difficult; they were cast out, and many communities designed, as part of the ritual, manners to de-influence such individuals.
So the human species became capable of surviving in almost any environment. An earlier hypothesis, the Savannah hypothesis that human genetics adapted genetically to new environments is being refuted by evidence that the “genetic characteristics” that supposedly adapted to the environment (i.e., man started walking upright when the environment became savannah-like) are showing strong evidence that hominids had many of its genetic characteristics prior to those environmental changes. This has led to the Variability Selection hypothesis that basically suggests humans as a species had the genetic ability to develop survivability skills within almost any environment. And that survivability was possible because as a community of diverse personalities, they could work together as individual personalities that enabled communities to survive within variable environmental circumstances.
One way that a species can survive when the environment varies is to adapt genetically by genetically altered alleles. But all modern humans that survived in any environment have not developed distinctive alleles that have made them more suitable to surviving within their specific environments.
So even though Papuans may have more common alleles due to proximity they have no alleles exclusive to themselves that enabled them to survive distinctively in their environment and all of their alleles are shared by other humans. Europeans who survived in completely different environments do not have any exclusive alleles that allowed for their survival in their environment. And as a matter of fact, European alleles are extremely mixed as they became a sort of migratory crossroads, especially within the central European migratory corridor and they developed less common alleles due to the fact there was such a mix of alleles from this migratory corridor, then many moved westward into coastal and northern Europe where once again their alleles became diffused with neanderthal alleles.
So far from being somehow a superiorly developed portion of humanity their alleles indicate that at best their common alleles are all shared with other communities that might have developed more proximally to each other before migrating into the European corridor. And my personal theory of the lighter skin is that in the mixing of differently shaded alleles there seems to be a preference for a type of genetic washing or the melanin that leads to less coloring of melanin. But melanin is a non-determinative genetic trait and has no value in determining the genetic skills, intelligence, adaptability, or personality of the inheritance. It is simply not any more of a factor than it is in housecats and emphasis upon its uniqueness is really rather a more recent development in human psychology, due to the expansion of the European culture around the globe and their need to feel superior to those they conquered which has always been a common feature of those expanding their environment by encroaching upon others.
Now because humans (even if, if you reject the Variability Selection theory for the older theory) could adapt to differing environments and because their collective cultural adaptation allowed them a survivability advantage, migration was as much of a necessity to survival as any other human culturally-genetic link. Humans did not migrate to follow game and then settle when they became more intelligent. In actuality the hunter-gatherers hunted and gathered in proximal vicinities that supplied the game and foodstuffs for survival, and settlements began only when it was suitable environmentally to do so. But migration continued to be necessary because human adaptability would overtax the environment and tilt the game away from survivability if there were too many humans in too proximal an environment and migration increased the ability for human-community survival. And one of the problems with the human government and the establishment of governmental boundaries is that it is contrary to human survivability needs.
But somewhere along the way, approximately 10,000 years ago, the undesirable personalities got control and they tilted the game against survival. They did so by gaining control of the resources that enabled them to gain control of the people and creating a carooming effect of environmental instability. Now it is my contention that this did not alter the genetically developed human needs and there was no magic dust sprinkled over these “civilizers" making them more intelligent. Quite the contrary, they were somehow less capable of survival and more dependent upon the community, thus the need to attempt to control the community because they were incapable of self-survival and less able to support the survivability of the community. Their success was not due to intelligence, and in general they relied on others with more skills to develop the currency necessary to invent the means of their control. In other words they were the incapable, disruptive and rejected members that had been recognized as game-tilters.
Unable to actually succeed individually, structures developed in support of their control by those who would be recognized and rewarded to elevated authority if they ensured the continued existence of the structure. One of these developments was to alter the rituals that united a community into religions that supported (and sometimes challenged) the structure and the authority of those that demanded itself to be worshiped. The earliest gods were often the kings and all of the gods were somehow anthropomorphized–even if they might take on animal shapes.
The rituals that had developed in respect for the environment that enabled the community’s survival became gods that created the environment that belonged to the men who were subjects of those gods. Instead of migrating within the environment they became emissaries of promises by the gods to obey the structured king/religion.
Now, unlike some, I will not declare myself an atheist. Many who do I find are peculiarly anthropomorphizing man himself as god and the idea that man is more intelligent than his creation is somewhat unreassuring. But I do not believe there’s a god somewhere–up there,out there, inside of me–or wherever you wish to believe him to be—what I believe is that there is a creation, an existence of what is, that is. Perhaps there was a was before the big bang and perhaps we don’t fully comprehend how what came to be actually came to be. There are however two things of existence I cannot deny, there is a constant fluctuation between the elements of existence to combine, to break apart, and to form into things. And rather than view quantum physics as somehow contradictory to the macro observable world, what I see in the observable world is the exhibition of that quantum world of flux is the observable and continual need for diversity and evolution. (see Quantum effects enter the macroworld
New experiments are revealing the power of large-scale quantum devices.Stephen Ornes Authors Info & Affiliations November 5, 2019 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1917212116;Quantum theory and human perception of the macro-worldDiederik Aerts https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1917212116; among others)
Now some say the universe is chaotic and the elements or earth can be controlled to make it less so. However, I view what some see as chaotic to be reassuring in the sense that the entire universe continues to evolve and that evolution is necessarily diverse and non-static. I find the center of my own stability in knowing that tomorrow there will continue to be diversity and change, that this is not just an element of life, or an element of earth, but the very nature of the universe. The quantum particles that give rise to that diversity and change; and knowing that, I have no wish to alter or control the environment or the men who exist upon it.
Attempting to control the environment, and similarly other men, is what creates the chaos. And if anyone is truly concerned about “environmental change”, then being misled that the environment can still be controlled and all we need to do is change the system of how we control it is an indian gift that nature itself will take away. Controlling nature contradicts our species development as a species that was adaptable to multiple environments and is merely a consequence of the instability created by those unsuitable personalities that are the least able to survive and has proffered us toys instead of tools that will never enable us to survive if we continue to allow proffered gifts to replace our own needs.
Discussion about this post
No posts