The following speech was given by Russell Means in July 1980, before several thousand people who had assembled from all over the world for the Black Hills International Survival Gathering, in the...
While I can agree with much of what he says, I disagree with his ideology, at least as a totalising one.
My litmus test is the meteor test. Could a given society survive a giant meteor?
A more extreme version is whether it can prevent the Earth from being incinerated by the sun in three billion years.
If not, back to the drawing board.
I do see a role for Lakota though.
American Indians are still in touch with these realities--the prophecies, the traditions of our ancestors. We learn from the elders, from nature, from the powers. And when the catastrophe is over, we American Indian peoples will still be here to inhabit the hemisphere. I don't care if it's only a handful living high in the Andes. American Indian people will survive; harmony will be reestablished. That's revolution.
They’re a very good back up option for humanity if the current ‘European’ project fails.
I mean, I have no frame of reference for the state of mind of a colonised person, but “maybe a few of us will survive in the hills“ isn’t very inspirational as a revolutionary battle cry
Who says humans need to exist indefinitely? That desire to cheat death and for yourself, your culture or your species to live on forever might just be that European mindset he's talking about
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for scientific progress, I was just saying that I don't think the author's primary concern is necessarily us outliving the Sun or the heat death of the Universe or whatever
That's not the point he's making. What is inherently good about humanity that would suggest there's merit to preserving it? The European attitude would be progress is an inherent good for progresses sake, but many other cultures have different conceptions - that death is just something that will happen, and that it is not tragic more than it's the natural state of the universe.
It is good to be comfortable with the inevitability of one's own death, but I draw the line at anything that would impair our ability to keep death at bay. Death is inevitable. Death from influenza or pancreatic cancer is not. These are surmountable challenges, and to do so is unequivocally good.
I take issue with spiritualism as an ideological outlook precisely because it has a strong tendency to say that something is good because it is natural.
A good read.
While I can agree with much of what he says, I disagree with his ideology, at least as a totalising one.
My litmus test is the meteor test. Could a given society survive a giant meteor?
A more extreme version is whether it can prevent the Earth from being incinerated by the sun in three billion years.
If not, back to the drawing board.
I do see a role for Lakota though.
They’re a very good back up option for humanity if the current ‘European’ project fails.
I mean, I have no frame of reference for the state of mind of a colonised person, but “maybe a few of us will survive in the hills“ isn’t very inspirational as a revolutionary battle cry
"Maybe the Euros will get it right this time" isn't exactly very comforting, either.
Who says humans need to exist indefinitely? That desire to cheat death and for yourself, your culture or your species to live on forever might just be that European mindset he's talking about
What if everyone dying is good actually?
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for scientific progress, I was just saying that I don't think the author's primary concern is necessarily us outliving the Sun or the heat death of the Universe or whatever
That's not the point he's making. What is inherently good about humanity that would suggest there's merit to preserving it? The European attitude would be progress is an inherent good for progresses sake, but many other cultures have different conceptions - that death is just something that will happen, and that it is not tragic more than it's the natural state of the universe.
It is good to be comfortable with the inevitability of one's own death, but I draw the line at anything that would impair our ability to keep death at bay. Death is inevitable. Death from influenza or pancreatic cancer is not. These are surmountable challenges, and to do so is unequivocally good.
I take issue with spiritualism as an ideological outlook precisely because it has a strong tendency to say that something is good because it is natural.
deleted by creator