Papers and such

I believe I am writing my paper on the role forgiveness plays in the movie. I'm not sure where I'm going with it, but I will, and it will rule. Now, I am off to write it... way too last minute for my liking.

Just Once

This story saddens me. These guys were friends growing up, then one of them got a little “weird” and no one talked to him anymore. This makes me sad because you shouldn't stop talking to someone you like just because other people think they are weird or crazy. So what if he tells stories and talks to himself? These guys should have stayed friends. Friends fight. That is not unique to this story. Sometimes they get over it and move on, sometimes they don't.
The fight these guys had was because one of them was drunk. It should have been alright soon after, but it wasn't, ever.
Then when the other guy needs help, money or otherwise to get his father's remains from Phoenix, the weird guy was the only one who could help him. Isn't it funny how things happen like that?
The story goes back ad forth between stories from their past and the trip they are taking. I like that a lot actually. It keeps things interesting.
There are stories of themselves and his father-- how his father helped the other man when he was younger. He was his vision.
I think the story should have ended with them being friends. Like I said, so what if he talks to himself a little and rambles stories? Stories are fun. I think I'd be his friend. I'd listen to his stories, more than just once, and I'd most likely enjoy them as well.

Americanization of the Indian Novel

Who really should write an Indian novel? Should this be reserved for those who are themselves Native American, or at least those who have lived long in their culture? I thin this is the only way to properly represent a culture, with the exception of those who have done long extensive research. There are always exceptions, but few. (note to Dr. G: I omitted “very”)
This poem is full of satire. All of the tragedy and half-breeds show this. Alexie paints a picture that most of us have already seen. It's a picture of alcohol-ridden Indians, copper-skinned females, and paper white males the women love.
This represents how the novels have been written for years. It is silly. There's no need for all the stereotypical falsehoods in this poem, is there? Would people still read them if they were omitted, and is that actually the point behind it?
I think I would prefer to read something more based on fact than the silliness represented in this poem.

Truganini

We discussed in class whether or not it is alright to put yourself in another person's or people's shoes and write about their culture. No one can really answer that, because it is a matter of opinion. The discussion was brought on by “Truganini”, a poem.
The poet puts herself in the shoes of an Aborigine, the last one to be specific. Should a Native American person, who did not live that life, put herself in those shoes? I think it's o.k.
This is because these people are no longer around, there could only be a limited amount of research done. She couldn't have lived among the people to get a better grasp on it, so I think she did what she could with what she had, and she ran with it.
I don't think it's a bad thing to get out your feelings, and obviously, she had some feelings about this people, or the poem wouldn't have been written. Maybe she related to them. You can't deny that there are certain similarities in the way they lived/were treated.
I stand on the “it's o.k.” side of this debate.

Fleur

I'm not sure what to think of this story.
Did Fleur breed with a god? Who is her offspring? What happened the night before the tornado? Was it Fleur who caused it?

I'd like to think so. She exacted her revenge. She took refuge in the company of a young awkward girl. Beauty if a powerful thing, but apparently the ability to play poker is more powerful. She took what was hers, no matter how she came about obtaining it.

This story makes me kind of happy because a strong, misunderstood woman made her mark, and people knew it. They didn't know how they knew it, but they did.

Slacker... well not really.

I admittedly did not read Blood Meridian, and I don't want to. I have a really weak stomach, and I have a feeling it would make me sick. My imagination runs off with me sometimes, and weird things happen. I probably would even have nightmares.
I can't make myself read it. I heard it was gory, violent, and gross, before we were supposed to have it read. I thought I'd wait and listen to the discussion, before reading it. That way I'd have an idea of what I was about to read, yes that is very slacker of me. However, when I heard the discussion, I knew I did not want to read it. I did sit down several times to read it, but I could not get past the first few sentences.

Hmmmm

I'm not quite sure the point to this story... other than “there's always an opening for a cowboy.” We've read a lot of things for this class, moth of which I got the point. This one was just kind of silly to me. The man gets old working for who I thought to be an old couple, but they are siblings. The lady hits on him and gets mad when he isn't into her like that, and she stops making him pies, except on his birthday.
The old sumbitch doesn't care what happened in the hand's past, and that is rare these days. Most people judge you based on you past and the stupid decisions you've made. Lord knows I've made my fair share and have been judged based on them. I don't think this is fair at all, so I kind of admire the old sumbitch in the story for being able to ignore the past and trust someone who has never wronged him.

Brokeback Western

A lot of people want to say that BBM is not a Western, simply because it is about homosexuals. This is not a reason to just up-and-say that a media does not fit into a genre. That's like saying Family Matters isn't a sitcom because it's about an African American family. Are you offended? You should be. That statement is no more correct than saying BBM is not a Western. They wrangled, fished, loved, faught, and believed... in my opinion that is indeed a Western, no matter the orientation of its characters.

Tuco v. Blondie

A possible essay topic? We shall see.
I will edit this post at the end of the film.


I changed my mind.
I am now leaning more towards either: Blondie the not-so-good-guy or why Brokeback Mountain is certainly a western and romance story. Not sure which yet.

Hollywood Stopped, so Spaghetti Started

So, Leoni made Clint Eastwood a star, huh? Good for him. Where would the world be without Clint Eastwood? The same place it is now, just with one less actor.
I did not know that a lot of actors in spaghetti westerns did not speak English, and the voice was dubbed in. It looks that way in TGTBTU, but I was not sure of it. I think it's neat that Leoni never learned to speak English, but he was creating films set in America. It's not bad by any means, just interesting. He started making westerns because Hollywood had stopped making them. I guess that's what most people do-- they create things they lie when no one else does, or at least differently than others do.
I like that he made actors seem as if they had not bathed in “three weeks”. They were unshaven, scruffy, and had bad teeth. This is how cowboys were (in my mind at least.) I don't think they just randomly burst into a song when they were sad or what have you. They were rugged and tough and went after what they wanted. I guess we all have our opinions of how the American cowboy was.
He made them a bit meaner than I like, though. I do not think children should be slaughtered by the cowboy-- it's excessive. However, to Leoni, it was just a way of showing he viewing audience that particular cowboy was meaner and badder then the rest. It does make his point, but it could have been done another way. For example, he could have killed three men at once, with little to no reason. That would show him as being rough and mean, without taking the life of a child.
Maybe I just have a huge soft spot for children.

Once Upon a Time in a Western

I don't understand why exactly I watched this. The only thing I really got out of it is that the movie was choreographed to music. This is really neat to me, and it must have taken a lot of time to get it right. It is a small detail and a huge part of the film at the same time: small because it's just a matter of when the actors move, and large because it is throughout the entire film.
I do not see the significance of a clean shaven blue eyed man (Henry Fonda), and why it was such a big deal. I also don't get why this film has so many followers. I guess I will have to just watch it myself.

Quotes

PLAYBOY: You blame all this on liberals?
WAYNE: Well, the liberals seem to be quite willing to have Communists teach their kids in school. The Communists realized that they couldn't start a workers' revolution in the United States, since the workers were too affluent and too progressive. So the Commies decided on the next-best thing, and that's to start on the schools, start on the kids. And they've managed to do it. They're already in colleges; now they're getting into high schools. I wouldn't mind if they taught my children the basic philosophy of communism, in theory and how it works in actuality. But I don't want somebody like Angela Davis inculcating an enemy doctrine in my kids' minds.


PLAYBOY: In your distaste for socialism, aren't you overlooking the fact that many worthwhile and necessary government services—such as Social Security and Medicare—derived from essentially socialistic programs evolved during the Thirties?
WAYNE: I know all about that. In the late Twenties, when I was a sophomore at USC, I was a socialist myself—but not when I left. The average college kid idealistically wishes everybody could have ice cream and cake for every meal. But as he gets older and gives more thought to his and his fellow man's responsibilities, he finds that it can't work out that way—that some people just won't carry their load.



PLAYBOY: What's your source for that statement you attribute to Kunstler?
WAYNE: It appeared in a Christian Anti-Communism Crusade letter written by Fred Schwarz on August 1, 1969. Here, I'll read it to you: "The notorious left-wing attorney, Bill Kunstler, spoke on political prisoners and political freedom at the National Conference for a United Front Against Fascism, which was held in Oakland, California, July 18, 19 and 20, 1969. He urged blacks to kill white policemen when they entered the black ghetto. He told the story of how a white policeman, John Gleason, was stomped to death in Plainfield, New Jersey. The crowd broke into prolonged applause. Kunstler proceeded to state that, in his opinion, Gleason deserved that death.... Kunstler pointed out that no white policeman has set foot in the black ghetto of Plainfield, New Jersey, since July 1967." That could turn out to be a terrible thing he said. Pretty soon there'll be a bunch of whites who'll say, "Well, if that's their land, then this is ours. They'd better not trespass on it." It can work two ways.



PLAYBOY: What sort of activists?
WAYNE: A lot of Communist-activated people. I know communism's a horrible word to some people. They laugh and say, "He'll be finding them under his bed tomorrow." But perhaps that's because their kid hasn't been inculcated yet. Dr. Herbert Marcuse, the political philosopher at the University of California at San Diego, who is quite obviously a Marxist, put it very succinctly when he said, "We will use the anarchists."


PLAYBOY: Was the Motion Picture Alliance formed to blacklist Communists and Communist sympathizers?
WAYNE: Our organization was just a group of motion-picture people on the right side, not leftists and not Commies. I was the president for a couple of years. There was no blacklist at that time, as some people said. That was a lot of horseshit. Later on, when Congress passed some laws making it possible to take a stand against these people, we were asked about Communists in the industry. So we gave them the facts as we knew them. That's all. The only thing our side did that was anywhere near blacklisting was just running a lot of people out of the business.


I focused a little bit on how John Wayne felt about Communism along the way in his career, and the interview came in quite useful. I pulled from several quotes in the interview. I believe it made my paper stronger (I did not say "I believe" once in the paper)

The Searchers

I'm not sure how I feel about The Searchers. It was a long movie, and it was a bit boring in parts. I mainly like the end (go figure). Those who were not killed anre reunited, and John Wayne leaves off into the sunset.
It was quite typical: cowboys fighting Indians, male hero saving the damsel in distress, and kidnap and murder.
Indians protrayed as savages, no matter the situation, and the white man is the hero of the world.



Note: I got WAY behind in my blogs, and this is a lousy excuse for one.

Papers and Such

I wrote about why John Wayne was an American Hero/Legend/Idol. I was going to write about how Jesse James was the original gangster, but I had a lot of trouble finding enough information to write about. I don't know if it was because I wasn't looking in the right places, or something else.
Anyway, John Wayne was a college football star and had a tough time growing up and still made it big... America eats that stuff up. I think it was a successful paper. I used the Playboy interview in a lot of it, as a resource. I probably made a B on it... hopefully I didn't get a C.

Playing Indian

This piece, by Umberto Eco, made me laugh and ponder simultaneously.

It makes many point about how we, as Americans, make Indians seem in cinema-- horrible and stupid. How they attack, how they fight, how they just await their deaths. It's offensive even to me. I only wish I had realized it before now.

The Duke

John Wayne is known as a big rugged man. I have not watched a John Wayne movie since I was quite young, so I'm not sure what to expect from his movies-- maybe a lot of desert and horses, stetsons and feathers, women and children, violence and love?

Hi Ho Silver... No Tonto

Alright, so the Lone Ranger and several other Rangers were double crossed and rode into an ambush. Everyone but ht eLone Ranger died. He was then nursed back to health by Tono, and Indian man the Ranger saved many years before.
He then pledged himself to the destruction of crime. He was assumed dead, and would remain as such. He donned a mask, and was then known as the Lone Ranger.
The man who double crossed him was perched on the side of the ravine, and was firing upon him and Tonto. They managed to almost get to him and the episode ended with the man holding a large rock in efforts to smash the Lone Ranger.

An Indian boy hates Tonto, because he looks like him. Tonto is not the typical cinematic Indian, and that bothers this boy. He wants to be a warrior, and he wants excitement.

What I got, papers, and such as this.

I think the biggest thing I got out of the group discussion is the same thing I will write about. We compared Jesse James to a modern day gangster. He had his "gang" and everyone listened to him, even his older brother. Most people were afraid of him, until the one day when the townspeople stood up for themselves. I think with some research I could make a compelling argument as to how he was the original G.

Jesse James-- More than a man?

When last I wrote, the Narrator was being held at gunpoint by the James Crew... he manages to get away and mames one of the members in the process.

He meets up with all the other people he knows trying to catch Jesse. They wait for them in a town whose bank they are supposed to rob. They get a telegram to go to another, and wind up seeing some cowboys running a bull with a Chinese man attached to its back. They go into the bank behind these cowboys, only to be told it was the James Crew. They go back to the other town, and behold, they got that bank too.

Just before this, one of Jesse's members got caught being a traitor, so Jesse was going to kill him. Instead, the guy shot Jesse in the neck, and he was thought to be dead. Two of his group tried to bring in his body for a reward, but they were caught... it was not Jesse's body.

Then the group of men trying to catch the James brothers, got on a train that was supposed to be robbed. They did indeed try to rob it, but it wound up being a fight of almost epic proportions. Several people were injured. They go away to a cabin and the detectives and their group set it on fire to get them out.

Our narrator gets wounded while trying to get information out of one of they Youngers, and he is gotten back to health.

He and another, met with someone who said he saw Jesse being followed by Ed. Said he was going to his treasure hiding place. They followed and found Ed shot fatally, but he was still alive enough to answer a few questions. Ed gave some nonsensical directions, that amounted to nothing.

The detectives are told of a bank robbery, and off they go. Jesse is told of the mutilation outside, and he does not get his booty. He exits and says, "Stand to it! [...] We'll be hanged if we're caught alive! Stand to it!"

Many were injured, and three were dead. They made off away from the towns people just in time for the detectives to show up. They were immediately after them on horseback. A few shots fired, a few more dead. Our Narrator gets the secret whereabouts of Blanche's child out of one of the dying Younger brothers (who did not die).

All three Youngers were convicted and sentenced to life in prison.

He goes off to find the boy, and is confronted by many women and rowdy children, two of which are "twins", one of which is Tip, Blanche's child. Jesse is asleep inside this very house. The narrator is told that Jesse will be moving the boy with no support from any of the band.

He is confronted by a "Jewish peddler", and the child runs to him to get a prize. He is napped, and Jesse is fired upon. He winds up getting away, but the boy is returned to his grandfather.

I'm not sure what to take away from this, except maybe Jesse James was a bit more than a mere man. Something or someone somewhere was constantly looking out for him. All of this could not have been simply luck. More than a man, that is all.

Gun Slingers and Trigger Fingers

The narrator of this story was stopped by two men. When asked why he didn't stop the first time he was asked to, he said, "...I didn't rein up because I'm neither a darky nor a Chinaman, to be ordered about by you or anyone else..." This statement sets the timeframe for the plot. The narrator is actually a detective from Chicago, but is disguised as a doctor from Booneville. He runs into some other detectives who do not recognize him. They are all accosted by the James brothers. The narrator is left alive, and taken into the James crew, after two men are gunned down and left lying in the road.


The detective brings a packet of tokens from Jesse’s first love, Blanche. To Jesse, this was because she sent it by him on her death bed. It was, however, her father and uncle trying to help him get on Jesse’s good side and capture him alive, as well as bring back Blanche’s son-- fathered by another man before Jesse.

When he saw Jesse with his crew, it was obvious , “[he] was the natural leader of the wild crew, to whom the most implicit obedience was paid.”

When the boys captured one of the detectives and tied him to a tree, and they emptied their revolvers into him until 100 shots had been fired. They then left a note saying, “LET DETECTIVES TAKE WARNING! The James Brothers”.

They took the narrator to a cabin in the woods, and the next day it was obvious he was thought of as Jesse’s protégé. Jesse asked him if he could be trusted, and he assured him he could, because he knew if he couldn’t, he’d find a bullet in his own head. Once he felt he was ‘in’ with the crew he was, “half appalled at the risk upon which I had entered.”

The narrator is sent to a fair the next day to gather information on the James brothers, for the James brothers. He was, of course, followed by a few men to make sure he is on the up. Just after he finds out the fair has taken in $24,000, Jesse confronts the man with the money, and he takes off into the night with it.

After that, Jesse gives the narrator a lot of questions to figure out where he’s from and all things like that. He goes on to discuss his past with Blanche, how much he loved her, and he’d “rather be feared than liked.”

Jesse’s wife said about Blanche, “I hated her, and I’m glad she’s dead.”

They all go and rob a train, and manage not to kill anyone in the process.



When the narrator gets back to the house after being asked to hang back, there are men there. Jesse grabs him and throws him against the porch pillar. He is then told that James knows he is not a doctor. All of a sudden four guns are pointed at his heart…..

To be continued….

... and Then There Was Tea.

Did you know no one tried to stop the Boston Tea Party? People just stood around and watched those dressed in Native American garb. The Tea Party was “... the first drumbeat in the long cadence of rebellion through which Americans redefined themselves as something other than British colonists.” American's are still struggling to define themselves. A lot of them don't even know where their heritage lies. They are all too concerned with making a new identity apart from that.


Throughout history “... white Americans needed either to destroy Indians or to assimilate them into a white American world.” If this is the case, and it is, why did the people tossing tea feel the need to dress as Native Americans? Is it simply a disguise? Doubtful. Is is to be closer to the land or depict rebellion? I'm not sure. I cannot tell you why these people donned the dress on Indians.

I do know people feel they are able to do things in costume or disguise that they normally would not be able to do. For example, a man in a wig, dress, and high heels can be quite a bit more comfortable with being flamboyant. Maybe it's a bit of extra confidence... I do not know. Whatever it is, it works. This could be the idea behind the costumes, but it says nothing as to why they chose the clothing they chose.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                     RuPaul

Your God Did Not Help Me.

Charlot was a principle chief of the Kalispel band of Flathead Indians. They traditionally lived in Idaho, northwest Montana, and northeast Washington. Charlot's father was chief before he was. He signed a federal government treaty giving a large portion of their land. This was done on the condition that the Bitterroot Valley would be the site of the Flathead reservation. Of course, the government did not assign the Flatheads the Bitterroot Valley. Most of the tribe dispersed to different reservation locations. Charlot and several others, feeling strongly, did not budge. The government started pressuring them to leave, so some of them did. Charlot stayed until the government sent troops to force them out. He went to the Jocko reservation where he died a decade later.


In 1876 the government wanted reservation Indians to pay taxes. Charlot spoke about this issue and the white people's greed. He says, basically, that no matter what white men do, they are not ashamed. He gave the example of bad breath and false teeth after the loss of real ones. He goes further saying that, “... his course is destruction; he spoils what the Spirit who gave us this country made beautiful and clean. But this is not enough; he wants us to pay him...”

Charlot had a point. The white man came in, took their land, sent them away, ruined most of the land they took, and they expect the Native Americans to pay them for doing this. How does that make sense? You can't (in a perfect world) just go into another people's country, run them off their land, steal their horses and food, rape their women, and murders thousands; then turn around and expect them not to fight back and to pay you for their trouble. He also said that, “To take and to lie should be burnt on his forehead.”

Charlot had been made promises of things to be had that were never given and actions upon which no one ever intended to act. When will the white man be satisfied? After all the lies and all he has taken, and without friendship, he still wants more. He wants to be paid by those whose lives he has made miserable.

He talks about a story told to him, “He says one of his virgins had a son nailed to death on two cross sticks to save him. Were all of them dead then when that young man died, we would be all safe now and our country our own.” This, of course, is the story of Christianity. It is true; if all white men died when Christ was crucified, the Native Americans would not have been put through so much turmoil at their hands. “We owe him nothing; he owes us more than he will pay, yet says there is a God.”

I will leave you with one last quote, and it happens to be the last line in the speech. “You know he comes as long as he lives, and takes more and more, and dirties what he leaves.”

Selfishness, Falsehood, and Treachery-- Oh My!

In December of 1890 and January 1891, Frank L. Baum wrote two editorials about Native Americans for the Aberdeen Saturday Pioneer. The first of these was written about Sitting Bull, a Lakota Sioux holy man. Baum refers to Sitting Bull as “... the greatest Medicine Man of his time...” He says that he shares the white man's spirit of hatred and need for vengeance on those who wronged him or his people. The white man is referred to as his natural enemy upon whom it is only natural to feel a need for revenge and burning fiery rage.


Baum says that by the justice of civilization are the masters of America, and whose best safety can only be achieved by the total annihilation of the few remaining Indians. Natives have no glory, their spirit is broken, their manhood effaced, and they would be better off dead than live the miserable life they are now living. This is why we are not to regret their extermination.

The second editorial was written to follow the Wounded Knee Massacre. The only thing I really pulled from this text is, “Having wronged them for centuries we had better, in order to protect our civilization, follow it up by one more wrong and wipe these untamed and untamable creatures from the face of the earth.”

No only did he realize this was wrong, he encouraged continuing anyway. This is a sure sign of prejudice and ignorance. His feelings are further driven, in my opinion, by insecurities in being able to protect his family and himself (if there was even a need). He would rather wipe out an entire race of people who had already experienced horrible trails, and death.

This The Wizard of Oz writer, is much the witch to the Native American's Dorothy.

From Apples to Arlington

Gertrude Simmons, or Zikala Sa, was a Native American activist and writer. When she started school, she was not allowed to speak her native language or wear the clothes of her people. She went to a white missionary school on Indiana, where she was acclimated to the white man's ways. "Kill the Indian and save the man!"
She then went to Earlham College where she began to showcase talents inwriting an music. She picked up the piano and violin.
She started working at Carlisle Indian Institute, and got engeged to Thomas Marshall. He was a converted Christian Indian.
Simmons began publishing literary works including her autobiography. She then married Raymond Bonnin who fought in WW1. He retired as Captain. Marshall was burried in Arlington National Cemetary. when he passed away from an undiagnosed illness.
 She talks about her childhood with her mother and the rawness of nature. She was raised to hate and distrust the white man, because that's how her mother felt. Simmons's mother felt that the only real man was a bronze Dakota.
Her mother spoke of her brother (uncle) ans how he was one of the nation's greatest warriors, and everyone loved him. Simmons was told stories of legend by her mother and grandmother.
She spoke a a man, Wiyaka-Napbina (wearer of a feather necklace), who was a lone man in the village. Her mother told her he was harmless. He was a handsome brave man who went into the hills after his ponies, and was taken over by the hill spirits. After that, he could not stay away from the hills. He wonders around wearing nothing but half of a basket around his waist. His hair is matted by wind and faded from black to red by the Summer sun. He always carried wild sunflowers and only entered a wigwam if he was desperately hungry. Even though her mother told her to pity him, Simmons was strangely afraid of the wonderer.
One day, her grandfather came into the wigwam, and Simmons decided to make him some coffee. She got the coffeepot and put water in on top of the coffee grounds, and she placed it on some dead cold ashes. Her grandfather drank it down. She was proud of herself for making coffee without ever doing it. Her mother came in and made fresh HOT coffee.
Then the pale faces came into their village. They wanted to take Indian children to school in the East where there were tons of big red apples. Her mother did not want her to go, so she tried to convince her not to. She then begged the great spirit to allow her to go. Simmons's aunt talked to her mother about allowing her to go, and she agreed.

Fire-Water and Murder

Helen Hunt Jackson

Jackson talks about a chief, Shoo-de-ga-cha, of the Ponca Indians. This chief, by account, is smart, respectful, and dignified. He is said to deserve a much greater empire. He tells her about how the white men have killed most of the buffalo on their land and run out all the rest. They are desperate for food, because they live on solid expansive prarie where nothing will grow. The men, who go into other tribes' territory, get killed and dismembered. They will either starve or drink themselves to death with "fire-water".
The government gave the Poncas housing per family, which also devastated them. They were used to living in large groups, not single family households.
They never got these homes, and were forced to recede into the small areas where the future homes were supposed to be, by the white men and other tribes fighting among themselves. They assumed the government treaty was valid, so they waited. It was not acted upon, so they threatened to go back to their other homeland, which had been mostly taken over by white men.
Then the government was forced to give them food to keep them from starving, and certain amount of money to pay what they owe and other things. They fell under attack and theft by the Sioux, and moved down river. Then they went on a hunt and found nothing. Some went to visit to other tribes and got a small amount of food.
While looking for food, a small family was gunned down by soldiers. One boy survived by diving into the frozen river through a hole in the ice.
I knew that white men ran Indians out of their homes and killed their food. I was also aware that it killed many of them. I had only heard this information through text books, so I did not know to what extent  the damage went. Hearing it through the words of the tribal chief is quite a different story. It brings a great deal of emotion with it. I feel sorry for the tribe's situation, and angry at the people who put them in it.

Noble Savage-- Really?

Does being uncivilized or nonreligious make someone more or less "gentlemanly"? I don't think so. I will tell you why.
Just because someone wasn't taught to be a gentleman, does not mean he will not pick up on it. Not only that, but he could also do it, because it feels like the right thing to do. I am not saying this is always, or even mostly, the case. Quite the contrary. I am only saying that it is possible.
Does religeoun make a man? I do not think so, at all. One does not have to believe in God or any other divine being to be a good person.

A lot of people tend to judge people based on how they, themselves, were raised. This is an issue, because it is based on one person's perspective. Those people do not usually take the time to get to know other individuals before deeming them uncivilizedor beneath them. When these same "uncivilized" people, generally treat people well. They treat people how they would want to be treated, respectfully.

Michel de Montaigne once said, "One calls 'barbarism' whatever he is not accustomed to." I agree with this statement very much. This article discusses several examples of this.


Charles Dickens did not believe in the Noble Scavage. He believed that indigenous people were  "dirty, cruel, and constantly fighting among themselves." Dickens excludes Eskimos in this statement by calling them “loving children of the north”, “forever happy with their lot,” “whether they are hungry or full”, and “gentle loving savages”, who, despite a tendency to steal, have a “quiet, aimiable character”. He, however, reversed his opinion when he found out that John Rae found cannibalism among the Eskimos.



I guess some people will assume what they want about anyone else.