You are viewing [info]wv05robbie's journal

Previous Entry | Next Entry

The Real World

owl
Open scene: two young boys playing cowboys and Indians. One with a feather and bow and arrow, the other wearing a cowboy hat and a pistol. They run, hide, and imagine an elaborate battle scene without a care in the world.
What does it mean? What caused them to take these roles? What is the history behind this game? Why are the two characters fighting anyway?
For starters, it can all be traced back to early settlers. (Now understand I'm no history buff; I'm horrible at history as a matter of fact, but it's okay because my point lies not within the specific details of the past, but the overall principle.) Anyway, when the settlers came over on their boats with their huge ships and weapons, they planned to live on the land. Much to their dismay, there were people already there - the Native Americans. After living in some sort of peace for some time, they eventually began pushing the Natives away to make room for themselves. The Natives were lied to, mistreated, attacked, disrespected, and among many other things, misunderstood. Over time, the Native Americans have been constantly pushed from their homelands by greedy white land mongers.
Think of some political issue that you have a strong opinion about: the one that you have the most intense feelings and opinions for. This is mine.
Any day of the year, I will much more fiercely and passionately defend the Native Americans than I will the United States of America. As a matter of fact, the United States is the villain in this instance - the one that I am most passionate about. I cannot come close to grasping the thought of anyone wanting to cause harm to the Native Americans. They thrived for thousands of years, living as one with nature, without releasing pollution, destroying land, destroying resources, blowing things up, or causing any traceable harm to Mother Nature. They lived as tribes in commune, with every member of the community doing everything for the good of the people. They were filled with loyalty that they would go to extensive lengths to help the tribe. Furthermore, everything was based on survival. It's not like today where if you are fortunate enough to be rich, you don't need to worry about not having food or shelter. Oh no, this was a completely different life style. If you weren't helping the tribe, you were hurting it. If you were hurting the tribe, you were dishonoring yourself, your family, and your entire tribe. I can't express in words how envious I am of such a lifestyle; neither can I express how bitter and resentful I am that they were moved from the land which they first set foot upon (excluding the animals).
Are we happy now? Has America really improved? Facing global warming, shortage of food and resources, overpopulation, dwindling dumps, deforestation, and heavy pollution all in the near future, have we really taken a step in the right direction? Why have we persued development and industry? Is it to improve our lives? Make things easier and more enjoyable? One of the best things about teh Native American culture was that they did not see the need for this so called "improvement." They were one with the environment, they were spiritually strong, and they survived for thousands of years. What is there not to like about that? If we are happy with what we have, why invite change if it will cause any sort of harm (in the near or distant future) to the earth? What a shame - we kicked out the people who could have saved us from eventual devastation. I believe the state of the Earth has been reduced since their time, and I believe that if nothing happens to drastically stop it, the human race will essentially destroy itself and its environment.

Comments

( 11 comments — Leave a comment )
[info]tiffspff wrote:
Mar. 7th, 2006 01:08 am (UTC)
It's interesting because so many of those issues were never really talked about. But in college, they come up. My microbiology professor was very into warning us about global warming, granted that was a huge theme of the class, but still. The ignorance of some of my peers never ceases to amaze me though, in class, one boy told the prof. that global warming didn't exist because he wore a jacket that day. I'm not even joking. My friends and I just looked at each other, we couldn't even react to that. Global warming has also come up as an issue in other classes of mine. I consider professors to be among the most educated people I talk to... and when they all warn about global warming, it makes me think it's a very big deal. As for overpopulation, I don't think we can compete with China... (I'm learning a lot about their overpopulation in international studies.)

Our country was founded by mistreating multiple groups of people... luckily that has for the most part gotten better. We are the land of equality. Slowly we're getting there. We still have racism, gender discrimination, economic discrimination... the list goes on... but it is much better than it used to be. Now if only we would save the Earth, so we could live a few more years... life would be grand.

Despite the fact that I often seem to struggle in classes... I'm still learning a lot. And a lot of it are lessons that can be applied to life despite my complaints.
[info]wv05robbie wrote:
Mar. 7th, 2006 04:46 am (UTC)
we can only take so much
I agree China has a bigger problem with population; soon they will run out of space.
I heard a good analogy in a lab recently:
You have a huge jar with one bacterium in it. This type of bacteria double every second. After ten minutes, the jar is halfway filled up. how long does it take to fill the jar? Exactly one more second. The world's population is growing at an exponential rate, and before we know it, every square mile of habitable land will be developed. It will become a problem. What are we going to do? Move into the ocean? The displacement of water in underwater cities would cause flooding above ground. Move into space? The cost would be outrageous, not to mention the danger of only having a small amount of knowledge of the other planets and what it would take to live there, and the research that would go into making a city on another planet. What does that show about humans anyway? "Well, so much for that planet, let's move onto the next." Seriously, it's going to be a huge problem within a hundred years or two, assuming the human race lasts that long.
[info]tiffspff wrote:
Mar. 7th, 2006 02:07 pm (UTC)
Re: we can only take so much
Scary thought. India is going to pass China's population up within the next decade or so. Maybe it's one of those problems that will eventually work itself out... if not, then hopefully they find livable places in space.
[info]tiffspff wrote:
Mar. 7th, 2006 01:09 am (UTC)
Oh and on the topic of Native Americans. Jason's roommate, Dave, is currently on this crusade about sports teams using Native Americans as a mascot or using their name... How do you feel about that? Is that related to this?
[info]wv05robbie wrote:
Mar. 7th, 2006 04:55 am (UTC)
mascot controversy
As long as it's understood that they are not "savages," then I don't have much of a personal problem with Native American mascots. Mascots include American groups as well as Native American groups: pioneers, cowboys, 49ers, patriots, texans, yankees, mountaineers, rangers, as well as braves, chiefs, redskins, indians, blackhawks, etc. I'm sure if the Natives would have prevailed and had a team named the Cowboys, it would be the same thing. Plus, as long as the team name is made in a respectable manner, I think it can be good - it can represent the culture/history of a region. Finally, when you choose a mascot name, you want something can instill fear, right? Well, the Native Americans are indeed fierce warriors who would die for their tribe, so I feel that (unless the remaining Natives have problems with it, which I would understand), then it's a legitimate team name. Now understand, that is not what they stood for (generalization), but when push came to shove, they were in fact extremely fierce warriors.
I guess I'm not against his opinion because I see how it raises an undesireable stereotype and it's not how they would like to be remembered. However, I'm not completely against Native American mascots either: I think "yankees" is more derrogatory than "braves" personally. Remember I said, "Any day of the year, I will much more fiercely and passionately defend the Native Americans than I will the United States of America." I would much rather be a chief, brave, or redskin than a cowboy, yankee, or ranger. But what can I say, maybe that's just me.
[info]tiffspff wrote:
Mar. 7th, 2006 02:05 pm (UTC)
Re: mascot controversy
I think I agree with what you're saying. I think the problem more so is in how they're represented via mascots or whatever. Chief Wahoo for instance... is not exactly a positive portrayal of the Native Americans.

As for mascots instilling fear... I go to a school with the mascot of a redhawk... not exactly the scariest thing ever. (Although we used to be the Redskins.. and then it was decided that it was derogatory...)
[info]violangel8605 wrote:
Mar. 7th, 2006 01:57 am (UTC)
Lets see i really like the ending of your entry, the fact is true we are heading for destruction and doing nothing about it, it is sad thing, and i mean we have already made the mistakes of moving the native americans off (which i agree was completely wrong, but it's history, can not do much about it) but what is going to be done about what is happening, the harm we are causing now, what are we doing to reverse past mistakes, improve what we have so we don't destory ourselves... pretty much nothing...

ps, i think your on ur way to forming stronger political opinions, maybe i'm wrong... (i mean no offense by this statement)
[info]wv05robbie wrote:
Mar. 7th, 2006 05:12 am (UTC)
the past
Sadly, it is history. It was a stupid mistake. The worst part about it is that we can't really learn from it. We can't "not push the Natives off next time," because it's already been done. No lesson was learned from pushing them off the land, and for what? Someone once told me that if we hadn't kicked them out that we wouldn't be here. You know what? That would be fine. I would sacrifice my very existence as long as I knew it would lead to a much better Earth for everyone else. That's one thing you'll find about me: I don't know the limits of my own loyalty. It's easy to say it now because I'm not in the situation, but for what it's worth, I honestly believe that I would give my life for things I have large enough faith/loyalty in (God, family, the Earth, humanity).
Maybe I'm on my way to forming stronger political opinions, but probably not. I've had this idea for a long time to tell you the truth. If it's happening, it's unintentional. However, if I did have stronger opinions, I wouldn't be left out of so many controversial discussions/debates which would be cool. Don't count on it though.
[info]violangel8605 wrote:
Mar. 7th, 2006 01:52 pm (UTC)
Re: the past
Well, i'm glad that you shared this opinion, b/c i think it's really interesting and it cool to see what your passionate about!

Anyway when are you coming home? Love to see you, miss talking to you
[info]speedy0901 wrote:
Mar. 7th, 2006 02:19 am (UTC)
"I believe that if nothing happens to drastically stop it, the human race will essentially destroy itself and its environment."

Ah, this is true. Although we seem to already have gone too far in our (as in humans in general) conquest to take over the world, soon enough it will be just enough and it will all be over.
[info]wv05robbie wrote:
Mar. 7th, 2006 05:21 am (UTC)
crossing the line
I firmly believe that we are flirting with the point of no return. Either we pool all our resources to find alternate sources of energy, we will run out of fuel, pollution will become overwhelming, and the pollutants will cause global warming. If we don't change anything, we will get to a point where there are not enough resources to support the world's population, therefore people would begin dying. I feel that there would be enough deaths between the time that we run out of supplies and the time that the Earth begins producing more resources that there would not be a problem. Either way, it will either be the Earth or humanity (or both) that undergo a drastic disaster of such proportions.
( 11 comments — Leave a comment )

Profile

owl
[info]wv05robbie
wv05robbie

Latest Month

September 2010
S M T W T F S
   1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930