SOME American Indian views on Homosexuality

a reply to: DeadFoot

I meant by pushing back down, IMO, trying to apply the two spirit ideal to all tribes is forcing them into another mold made by non natives.

I dont speak for my Sovereign Nation any more than you do for the "Deadfoot" people or whatever flag you fly.

One thing I have noticed, there are a buttload of transexual natives in Albuquerque.

Seeing as I am the OP of this thread, I would like to comment now. I have read all the responses, the pros and cons, the debates, love and hates.

Even after the first couple responses I made a couple changes to try and appease the masses. Apparently when some feel the need to argue it comes down to semantics. One argument being I was lumping all the tribes of the nation under one umbrella. So, I changed the title to "SOME." In the long view it appears that didn't matter, people had their minds made up.

People said the name "Two Spirits" didn't come along until much later. I wonder why that was. Personally, I think the tribes themselves never thought anything of it except that the individual had a different way of being. A bear has one way, a lion another. One bird flies high, another stays lower to the ground. It just is what it is. Just nature and her way.

People brought up all the savage warriors. I don't think they put much thought into it either. It was just the way it was. If you think something is natural all your life, why would you question it to begin with? As it was mentioned, people were only judged, and that's probably not even the right word for it, but considered for their contribution to the tribe. Gatherers gathered, Hunters hunted, Medicine man did rituals, Warriors did battle. Two Spirits did whatever Two Spirits did. Seems some tribes may have given them a high regard for vision. (and probably some awesome bead work!) Simple.

The name probably came about because someone came along and said it needed a name. It needed a name because they thought it was wrong in their own beliefs. Whoever came along is when it changed to ugly or a stigma. We had two examples of the "Who" it was that came along in the article. That is when it changed.

Someone asked me if I thought the Indian Nation were the superior people. I don't think anyone is superior. I think anyone that can live close to nature and understand it without labels and judgments and hate may be closer to inner peace. I wont say God, because that would just kick off another big argument and assumptions of me saying something I'm not.

I envy the small tribes that have still remained untouched by the white man and all his good intentions. They are probably still best connected too.... you can fill in your own blank here.

For those of you that got the article and enjoyed it, good for you and thank you. For some others? Well, one member did say, "Haters are gonna hate." Before anyone now decides to spin the argument that IF it didn't go along with my view, yada yada, don't bother. I am a very open minded person and I read through everything before replying. You are welcome to your views, I myself prefer by choice which is my right to stick with the warm and fuzzy feeling that the article gave me to begin with.

BTW, lol "Glitter Mountain!"

a reply to: onehuman

many articles I read said that the different tribes had different names for the two spirit people. they came up with "Two Spirits" since it would be rather a nuisance to list all the names that were used.
there were many different cultures inhabiting north america, not all were savages, some were really quite civilized and had rather large metropolitan areas. much of what we think of when we think of the native american is from the portrayal that their european conquerers presented to justify their actions. we see them as going around scalping the white settlers, but it was the europeans that put a price on the scalps and made into a money making venture, just like in other areas of the world, hands or heads, or some other part of the body was taken.

originally posted by: galaga
One thing I have noticed, there are a buttload of transexual natives in Albuquerque.

New Mexico has a statewide anti-discrimination bill that includes trans people, plus a hate-crime law that includes gender identity.

Oh so 'native Americans' were going to their local medicine man giving horses, and other stuff to change themselves to their 'other' spirit.

What a load or rubbish.

That is spin of epic proportions.

a reply to: neo96

Why would they have to change themselves to their other spirit? If they were already accepted in their society for who they were, then why would they be trying to change themselves?

As it has been pointed out already, the translation of that word was 'decided' by a committee in the 90s. But regardless, there is still evidence of this many spirit paradigm.

So I don't really see the spin.

originally posted by: onehuman
because of SOME of the American Indians views on Homosexuality before the white man came along and destroyed it.

Of course, this information points to the fact that gay people just haven't come around over night. Something I agree with.

However, in regards to morality, some North American Indians believed in human sacrifice. In the 1700s, French officials attended a chiefs funeral in Louisiana, where they personally witnessed the strangulation of the deceased wife and his slaves. Which was mandatory tradition.

The Morning Star ceremony was a ritual human sacrifice of a young girl, performed only by Pawnee Warriors. It was connected to the Pawnee creation narrative, in which the mating of the male Morning Star with the female Evening Star created the first human being, a girl. The Skidi Pawnee practiced the Morning Star ritual regularly through the 1810s.

They would capture a beautiful girl teenager from a rival village, tie her to a tree, and shoot her with arrows. But not to kill her instantly. The goal was to shed as much blood as possible. The list of bloodshed, including child sacrifice with the American Indians is endless.

So when it comes to morality, I wouldn't look to the American Indians as morally higher than everybody else. Because some of them were absolute savages. Forget any propaganda, that was just a fact.

a reply to: onehuman

Ok I think this is about enough of this crap. Look does it really matter if any culture believed in whatever back in the day? Most cultures didn't seem to give a rats butt about "gay", "lesbo", or gender rolls before the days of monotheism. What does matter is that this is the 21 century and being such we should evolve our personal understanding of people and their choices, and not try and justify believes based of past beliefs.


I know that may sound "new aged", but look at how current religion is used to justify all kinds of trashy behavior. It doesn't matter what belief was "back in the day" if people feel the need to pick and choose their history in order to live their life today, what does that say about us? Can we not think for ourselves? Can we not create our own set of principals to live by?


OP:

I'm not picking on you, I'm just getting tired of everybody having to use some kind of "historical" data to try and force an opinion on others. It just seems lazy, If you want to present an argument about how lifestyles (of whatever kind) can benefit sociality as a whole, then make an argument about that. Using a pick and choose attitude about ancient beliefs really doesn't help the point. As soon as a belief is picked and the culture is pointed out, then atrocities from the culture are then used as a counterpoint to deflect the original point. I'm not (and let me be clear about this) I'M NOT advocating ignoring our history, nor am I saying that we shouldn't study these ancient cultures. What I am saying is that if you want to evolve social behaviors, then don't force ideas from the past, but rather discuss ideas that improve society as a whole.

a reply to: Guyfriday

I'm not picking on you, I'm just getting tired of everybody having to use some kind of "historical" data to try and force an opinion on others.

The OP is not everybody, she is an individual. And she's not forcing anything on anyone, either.

The Native American traditions have their strengths and their weaknesses, compared to ours.

Their tolerant views on sexuality could be seen as one of their strengths just as cannibalism & ritual sacrifice can be seen as some of their weaknesses.

I don't think that we should automatically disregard valuable knowledge & insightful wisdom simply because they had a flawed belief system. Who's belief system isn't flawed at any time period throughout history?

a reply to: Guyfriday

I think it's a response to the current Republican idea hat marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Thats actually a policy stance so it's a rebuttle to that arguement.

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: Guyfriday

I'm not picking on you, I'm just getting tired of everybody having to use some kind of "historical" data to try and force an opinion on others.

The OP is not everybody, she is an individual. And she's not forcing anything on anyone, either.

The Native American traditions have their strengths and their weaknesses, compared to ours.

Their tolerant views on sexuality could be seen as one of their strengths just as cannibalism & ritual sacrifice can be seen as some of their weaknesses.

I don't think that we should automatically disregard valuable knowledge & insightful wisdom simply because they had a flawed belief system. Who's belief system isn't flawed at any time period throughout history?

I think you're missing the point in which I stated:

originally posted by: Guyfriday
a reply to: onehuman

What I am saying is that if you want to evolve social behaviors, then don't force ideas from the past, but rather discuss ideas that improve society as a whole.

Insightful wisdom is fine and all, and so is looking to the past for ideas, but in order to progress the future we need to focus on the future and not the past. Every culture has a point in time where lifestyles weren't as important as the actions of the people the people who lived in them. This being said, focusing on how granting freedom of choice (be it lifestyles, beliefs, or whatever) should be based on today and tomorrow, and how it really affect us that rather then to focus on how issues from the past should be used to justify today.

www.theatlantic.com...

Barry and Bonnie Hewlett had been studying the Aka and Ngandu people of central Africa for many years before they began to specifically study the groups' sexuality. As they reported in the journal African Study Monographs, the married couple of anthropologists from Washington State University "decided to systematically study sexual behavior after several campfire discussions with married middle-aged Aka men who mentioned in passing that they had sex three or four times during the night. At first [they] thought it was just men telling their stories, but we talked to women and they verified the men's assertions." In turning to a dedicated study of sex practices, the Hewletts formally confirmed that the campfire stories were no mere fish tales. Married Aka and Ngandu men and women consistently reported having sex multiple times in a single night. But in the process of verifying this, the Hewletts also incidentally found that homosexuality and masturbation appeared to be foreign to both groups.

Interesting topic. it is not unimaginable to think homosexuality was unheard of in some ancient cultures.

So much of Native American ways have been lost, then lost again.

When I was studying, sometimes the older books were more credible and insightful, especially ones written by NA themselves,

You are not going to find satisfying answers.

"were not aware of these practices, did not have terms for them," and, in the case of the Aka, had a hard time even understanding about what the researchers were asking when they asked about homosexual behaviors.

a reply to: Stormdancer777

Thats not really the anthropological finding though.

Sexuality is very fluid throughout the world in anytime period.

Some place were completely strait other not.

Margaret Meade was really the first person to write honestly about this stuff and she was berated for doing so.

Sexual stigma has a lot to do with reporting accuracy so it's best to use anthropology as a reference who can scientifically interpret what the reality is. Like your example from a tribe in africa.

If you are going to be punished for how you answer he question either socially or legally it can drastically effect the conversation.

I agree with guy Friday though the real reason to accept people is social evolution

a reply to: luthier

What I am saying is we just don't know, I tried to find the roots of spirituality, that is impossible, however we are always attaching spirit to everything, maybe ancient tribes had no understanding of spirituality, it evolved as culture evolved.

Oh look at these ancient libation bowls in front of each hut, oops they are dog bowls.

true story

a reply to: Stormdancer777

Thats not exactly true though if you took anthropology. We do know some things because these people go out in the field. Your doing internet searches does not equate with studying anthropology


And yes the Yanomami use Iowaska, marijuana is used by Tibetans, milk beer by masai drink milk beer etc.

Your one case does not indicate all cases.

In fact there is actually ritual homosexuality in Papua new Guinea.

Somoa had a third gender.

Chances are you just haven't been exposed.

Also the root of spirituality is found in protoreligious behaviour of apes themselves.

a reply to: hounddoghowlie


I don't know. I am white. I was told about the history of the Painted Rocks National Forest (how it got it's name) from a local during a family trip when I was a child.


That one tale of Indian "justice" went a long way towards shaping my outlook on society, justice, and how I treat people as a grown man.

a reply to: 200Plus
Your comment peeked my curiosity. I tired to do a search for the folklore you were mentioning so I could understand in what way it may have changed you. I couldn't seem to come up with anything . Could you perhaps share the story as you remember it?

a reply to: onehuman

There is study that was done that seems to determine that males and females are mentally the same. Its something ive always believed. So when you say as a gay woman you still feel feminine things somewhat, well, there you go. You are gay because of genes or chromosomes or whatever. Mentally, we are just simply conscious. Men do get more violent as a whole but that is a testosterone thing i believe.

The brains of men and women aren’t really that different, study finds

www.sciencemag.org...

a reply to: Gyo01

The science of what makes an individual a homosexual is much much more complex than that. It has to do, of course, with genetics playing a large role in the equation.

But the immediate surroundings and environment of an individual will also influence their sexual identity as well.

The Science of Gaydar.

Edit: What is astounding to me is how wise these Natives must have been to come to the conclusion that those with a two spirit gender system had a way of seeing the world that was so uniquely complex. And all of that without modern science.

I guess some tribes were just more in tune with our nature than others. Seems reasonable to me.