Native Americans knew something that is blind to society.

A point being that in the U.S and Canada indigenous tribes would never do anything like that to you.

That offering they were more peaceful.

South of the American boarder, Indigenous peoples were way more violent that those related to the U.S. and Canada

Any thoughts?

originally posted by: Kashai
Native American Children that are born, that can remember past lives accurately, are taught to understand the Collective Unconscious (essentially+++) As they age they learn the understand the collective unconscious beyond understanding past lives.

Not familiar enough with the topic to say much about it really.

One thing I am convinced of though is that Jung appears to have been the one who coined the phrase.

When I think of Jung, I think of things like Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard, David Korech, Jim Jones, etc.

His involvement with the OTO illuminati, the OSS (predecessor to the CIA), “spirit guides”, and theosophy, etc. convinces me that everything he said is going to be either unreliable or deceptive or in many cases both.

When you combine that with the fact that Psychiatry is a complete fraud with absolutely NO medical basis to back it up, things start to look extremely suspicious.

a reply to: Murgatroid

Actually Psychiatry has abandoned Materialistic Philosophy.

This occurred in the 1960's when it became apparent that theories related to Skinner (Pavlov's dog), Operant Conditioning and Negative Reinforcement did not work.

For the sake of discussion I will reference the Stanford Prison Experiment as an issue relevant to my point.

As well as........


Willobrook State School

Any thoughts?

a reply to: solemind4

Many religions talk about the importance of love for others and the love within us being our connection to "The Great Spirit" (God). It is not an exclusively Native American thing. The Native Americans had their own politics. They were tribes and they had "leaders". Many of those tribes fought against each other (war). Hatred and war is a part of the violent side of human nature. Even animals kill and steal sometimes. It was not created by religion. Native Americans weren't living in a peaceful world because the many different tribes were fighting each other.


Spirituality is something that is learned over time.

At first, Love is seen as tribal (for MY family, for MY people).
Then, Love is seen as societal (for whoever joins US, for whoever agrees with US).
Finally, Love is seen as universal (for humanity, for the world).

This is why some religions teach to love thy neighbor and thy enemy, because it teaches people to have a stronger sense of love. After all, what is so special about only showing love to those who love you?

a reply to: solemind4

Spiritually speaking,native Americans in particular,and the ancients in general,were far more advanced than modern society. The current society believes in little other than material "wealth" and that which it can see. Natives were by and large animists. They saw everything as a living extension of the deity.

originally posted by: diggindirt

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Smallpox and other sickness is the reason for the rapid decline in population, zero immunity.


As for the premise of the noble advanced nature of the native americans of this thread,

Human sacrifice was an integral part of the Aztec religion—as it was for many other societies in the New World, including the Maya. One of the central beliefs of the Aztec world was that Huitzilopochtli, the god of the sun, needed constant nourishment in the form of human blood—seen as the sacred life force—in order to keep the sun moving from east to west across the sky

Source

there is some discrepancy as to whether they killed 20,000 at a time or 20 but it is still human sacrifice, one of the lowest forms of societal practice associated with the uncivilized world. Quite the opposite of comparing them to a society that produced the ten commandments which include thou shalt not kill.

The list in the opening post is hooey make believe phooey.

Evidence of ritualized violence is present in every society and continues to be part of every known culture to this day. I haven't seen anyone denying that ritualized violence was practiced in some segments of all cultural groups. Same with cannibalism. Same with slavery. Same with belief in a higher power of some sort. These practices are what the social sciences call "universals" in society/culture. In other words, it is the normal way to behave until something comes along and replaces it.
The large "urban" population centers in North America have ample, undeniable evidence of these practices. But widespread warfare? I'm still looking for the links to papers showing evidence of wars of conquest prior to contact with Europeans.
You do understand, don't you, that we still practice ritualized violence in the US on regular basis and that people pay lots of money to watch it?

No, we don't kill people so that the sun will rise and your politically correct term "ritualized violence" is more hooey phooey that is not applicable to entertainment where make believe death occurs.

a reply to: TinfoilTP
What would you call executions of criminals if not ritualized violence?
Ritualized violence is not a "politically correct" term at all. It has been in use in the discipline of anthropology for a century or more. It is a descriptive term. It means that the violence inflicted on the victims is accompanied by some sort of social ritual.
Some would argue that many of the activities we call sports are forms of ritualized violence. What else could you call boxing or some of the more radical mixed martial arts fights?
As I said earlier, I don't pretend to know the why of what prehistoric people did. Whether they killed people to make the sun come up or not. I know there was ritual slaughter but there is nothing in the remains to say why those people were slaughtered. There is nothing to say whether the victims were volunteers or not.
I don't know if they built mounds to be closer to the skies or as viewing platforms for sports. I don't know why some mounds contained burials while others didn't.
I don't know why they spent endless hours pecking and polishing stones until they are perfectly round and smooth. I don't know why they spent countless hours etching the images of beasts into shell imported from the Gulf of Mexico.
All anyone can do is guess at the politics and religion of the Mississippian culture group. The only known remnants of it still in existence when the Spanish came through were the Natchez. The early Spanish explorer's journals say that the Natchez told them of the time not so long before when they were a great and mighty nation, two generations before the speaker's birth.
I don't have the faintest notion what sort of political system those villages scattered along the rivers practiced but I do know that whatever it was, it worked for them quite well for about three centuries. Then something failed and the culture melted away from the villages into the countryside.
Was it drought? or earthquakes? a comet? aliens abducting them from villages? a charismatic prophet telling them to flee for their lives to the hills?
I don't know. Beware anyone who starts telling you the "truth" about prehistoric people's religion and politics. They didn't write it down. We can look at the art they left and make lots of guesses---but they are only guesses, some more educated than others. They spent a lot of time and effort making images of all sorts of beasts, human hands, sun signs and humans as well. Why? Were the beasts the logos of sports teams? religious sects? healing societies? clans? Again, they didn't write it down so we can only guess. In order know the "truth" about those folks we'll just have to wait for the perfected time machine, eh?

originally posted by: arpgme

I absolutely agree with you. The idea that one group has some spiritual head start over others is ridiculous.

a reply to: BasementWarriorKryptonite

Friend you do understand that since WW 2 Native Americans have fought side by side with every other American.

The truth be known we fought in the Civil war on both sides.

Any thoughts?

It occurs to me that the majority of human sacrificial acts, requires a certain degree of civilization, namely temple structures, and a structured government. Do we have evidence of more primitive nomadic people practicing human sacrifice? I don't recall reading about human sacrifice without permanent structures.

I just noticed you are claiming to be Taino...do you mean you have a distant relative who was part taino? The taino blood line, for all intents and purposes, has not existed for some time...

a reply to: Kashai

a reply to: raymundoko
I already presented a link in this thread showing in fact that is incorrect.

But that was a while ago.....

Current Trbal Web Site

Any thought?