Sorry I missed ya last night. It was one of those nights where I didn't watch a movie, had a thoroughly average day, and couldn't think of a thing to talk about when it came time to write the blog. I hate it when that happens, so thank goodness it hardly ever does.
Today isn't much better, but at least I have a movie I can mention. The problem is that I didn't watch it all the way through. You know how when a movie sucks I will try to hang in there but then I eventually have to turn it off? That's not what happened this time.
What happened this time was that the movie was really good, but it turned itself off.
Doggonnit! Maybe it's payback by the other movies, the bad ones that I refused to sit through. Maybe one of those movies sabotaged the dvd I was watching tonight, because I tried all the usual tricks to revive it - polished it up, tried fast forwarding, skipping ahead a scene - but nothing worked. I had watched the movie a little more than halfway through, and all of a sudden it just froze up and wouldn't play no matter what I did.
The movie was "Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee", an HBO production and a very good one up to the point where I was not able to view it any longer. I had searched for it in the Library's database because I am always looking for a Western fix, and I remembered the title from a bestselling book of the 1970s. I found out it had been made into a movie by HBO and within days I had the disc in my hands, but alas it was not to be.
The first 75 minutes of the story began with a depiction of the massacre at Little Big Horn (of Custer's troops), and then moved on the resettlement of the Sioux Tribes to reservations in the Dakotas, after peace treaties were forced upon their leaders, who were given ultimatums to either move or be killed.
The movie tries to get it's history right - and I wasn't there so I can't say - but it shows that although the White Man was indeed encroaching upon the land of the natives, he did make an attempt to include the Indians in a share-the-wealth plan that included mining and railroad building on Sioux lands. Various treaties were signed over a decade.
The main point is that the Indians were there first, but the White Man with his superior weaponry and his ability to develop the land and to organise his society on a technical level, could not be stopped by the Indians and therefore must be bargained with.
The situation was not entirely black and white. In modern history, the White Man is portrayed as The Bad Guy and the Indian as entirely innocent, and in the first sense, that seems to be true, simply because they were here first.
But then a researcher would have to consider the long term question of human migration, and which peoples wound up where at what time in history. It is also true that the European peoples had tribes as well, who migrated all over the place. As my history teacher was fond of saying, "There are no Germans in Germany". My theory about the European tribes is that they developed technology out of necessity, because they lived in the cold and therefore had to take action to ensure their survival. They had to sail the seas, and look for food, etc. In warmer climates, it was easier for a people to maintain a static approach to life. The Indian peoples could live off the land much easier than could the tribes of ancient Europe.
The cold vs. warm lifestyles led to the outward movement - the seeking out of new lands - of the White Man tribes, and formed their aggressive attitude.
For their part, the Indians seem to have had their warmongering, dominant factions as well. So we see that human nature was present in America even before the Europeans arrived. The Indians were not saints, but the difference was that they lived off the land and we had our technology. They lived in a warm undisturbed climate and we came from a cold and increasingly polluted climate that bred disease.
They believed in The Great Spirit and we believed in Jesus Christ.
They believed that the land belonged to all people, and we established private ownership of the land.
All of these points are argued and challenged by characters in the movie. One of the main characters is a young Lakota man who has been assimilated into American society and has risen to attend Dartmouth College. He becomes a doctor and returns to a reservation to treat his people.
I did not get to see the final hour of the movie. I think it was based on another massacre that ultimately took place - at Wounded Knee - but I am not certain. I will need to see the whole movie.
I think, however, that the story is really less about the wars and more about the rights of all peoples, wherever they may come from and wherever they may settle. It is true that the White Man developed much of the technology that settled and organised the modern world.
He developed science, whereas the Native Americans relied on nature to provide for them. They had their small technologies, but basically they trusted in their God.
So who is right?
Maybe both of us, and maybe all cultures of the Earth. If the White Man is going to conquer with his technology, then he is also going to have to lead spiritually as well. He is going to have to lead morally.
Right now there are doubts that he is leading in these ways. He believes in himself, but there are too many "selves" (i.e. egos) to come to an agreement on anything.
Technology vs. nature. Stasis vs. progress. Ego vs. leadership.
The Indians and the White Man were both subject to human nature, and neither people were perfect. Also, humans had migrated for thousands of years prior to the White Man's coming to North America, so it is hard to say who exactly has a claim on any piece of land on Earth, meaning who was "there first" in a particular place.
But having said all of that, it was wrong what we did to the Indian people.
The best we can do to make up for it is to honor their land and have respect for their way of life.
I hope this made even a little bit of sense as I am extremely tired tonight.
See you in the morning. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
No comments:
Post a Comment