De echte ‘American Dream’ was die van de oorspronkelijke volkeren van de VS

Gisteren was het in de VS ‘Indigenous People Day’ en niet toevallig dat Lewis
Borck een artikel over deze volkeren schreef. Borck is dan ook de schrijver van het hieronder opgenomen artikel, eerder gepubliceerd op The Conversation (Creative Commons), waarin hij de ‘American Dream’ onder de loep heeft genomen. Borck kwam tot de conclusie dat de
werkelijke American Dream, met o.a. gelijkheid en zelfbestuur (dus zonder
een enorme overheid) al bestond onder de oorspronkelijke bevolking
van Noord-Amerika.

Afbeeldingsresultaat voor indigenous people day

Men
dacht dat met een dergelijke vorm van zelfbestuur, men geen grote
bouwwerken kon maken, anders dan over een periode van honderden
jaren. Deze mythe is intussen doorgeprikt daar men een groot bouwwerk
vond dat in een paar jaar tijd werd gebouwd, door samenwerking van
stammen, die in feite nog jagers verzamelaars waren.

In aanvang was de macht nog verdeeld onder elites en deze macht was gebaseerd op religieuze gronden. Echter deze vorm van bestuur werd losgelaten, waarschijnlijk daar men inzag dat een dergelijke machtsuitoefening onrecht en (zware) corruptie in de hand werkt. Daarop werd de religieuze leiders hun macht afgenomen, hetzelfde gebeurde met die elites, waarna voor een vorm van zelfbestuur werd gekozen, die in feite nog steeds te zien is bij de oorspronkelijke volkeren van de VS (althans de afstammelingen van degenen die de genocide van de witte kolonisten hebben overleefd). Volgens zeggen zou men elke vorm van machtsvorming door elites en religie met succes hebben bestreden.

Kortom
er zijn wel degelijk veel voorbeelden die aangeven dat (lokaal en
regionaal) zelfbestuur op basis van een roulerend leiderschap dan wel een wisselend collectief wel degelijk werkt…….

Onlangs
werd hetzelfde gezegd over een stad in Mexico waar men de corrupte
politici, al evenzo corrupte politie en georganiseerde misdaad verjaagde. Intussen werkt dit
zelfbestuur geweldig en is de stad welvarend geworden……

Indigenous
People Invented the American Dream — Columbus Invaded It

(let op de eerste gekleurde persoon aan de rechterkant van de psychopathische veroveraars ‘ontdekkingsreizigers’, gezien diens houding is deze afgebeeld als een aap, al werden deze oorspronkelijke volkeren een enorm stuk slechter behandeld dan apen, althans als je dierproeven op deze arme dieren niet meerekent……)

October
7, 2018 at 10:34 pm

Written
by 
The
Conversation

(CONVERSATION— When
President Barack Obama 
created Deferred
Action for Childhood Arrivals, the 2012 program that
offered 
undocumented
young people brought to the U.S. as children a path into society
,
for a moment the ideals of the American Dream seemed, at least for
this group, real.

We
call these kids, many of whom are now adults, “
Dreamers,”
because they are chasing the American Dream – a 
national
aspiration for upward economic mobility built on physical mobility
.
Fulfilling your dreams often means following them wherever they may
lead – even into another country.

The
Trump administration’s decision to 
cancel
DACA
 –
which is currently on hold while it is 
litigated
in the courts
 –
and 
build
a U.S.-Mexico border wall
 has
endangered those dreams by subjecting 800,000 young people to
deportation.

But
the 
notion
underlying both Trump’s DACA repeal and the wall
 –
which is that “
illegal
immigrants, most of them from Mexico, are 
stealing
U.S. jobs
 and
hurting society – reflects a profound misunderstanding of American
history.

On Indigenous
Peoples Day
,
it’s worth underscoring something that many archaeologists know:
Many of the values that inspire the 
American
Dream
 –
liberty, 
equality and the
pursuit of happiness
 –
date back to well 
before
the creation of the U.S.-Mexico border
 and
before freedom-seeking Pilgrim immigrants arrived at Plymouth Rock in
1620.

They
originate with native North Americans.

A
Native American Dream

The
modern rendition of the American Dream can be traced back to 1774,
when Virginia’s governor, John Murray, the fourth earl of
Dunmore, 
wrote that
even if Americans “attained Paradise, they would move on if they
heard of a better place farther west.”

The
actual term “American Dream” was popularized in 1931 by the
businessman and historian 
James
Truslow Adams
.
For him, its realization depended on not just being able to better
oneself but also, through movement and human interaction, seeing your
neighbors bettered as well.

The
first peoples to come to the Americas also came in search of a better
life.

That
happened 14,000 years ago in the last Ice Age when 
nomadic
pioneers
,
ancestors to modern Native Americans and First Nations, arrived from
the Asian continent and roamed freely throughout what now comprises
Canada, the United States and Mexico. Chasing 
mammoth,
ancient bison and the elephant-like Gomphothere
,
they moved constantly to secure the health of their communities.

The
indigenous communities of the Americas knew none of these modern-day
national borders. USGS

A
more recent example of the power of migration reappears about 5,000
years ago, when 
a
large group of people from what is today central Mexico
 spread
into the American Southwest and farther north, settling as far up as
western North America. With them they brought corn, which now 
drives
a significant part of the American economy
,
and a way of speaking that birthed over 30 of the 169 
contemporary
indigenous languages
 still
spoken in the United States today.

The
Hohokam

This
globalist world view was alive and well 700 years ago as well when
people from what is now northern Arizona fled a decades-long drought
and rising authoritarianism under religious leaders.

Many
migrated hundreds of miles south to southern Arizona, joining the
Hohokam – 
ancestors
to modern O’odham nations
 –
who had long thrived in the harsh Sonoran desert by 
irrigating
vast fields of agave, corn, squash, beans and cotton
.

When
the northern migrants arrived to this hot stretch of land around the
then-nonexistent U.S.-Mexico frontier, Hohokam religious and
political life was controlled by a handful of elites. Social
mechanisms restricting the accumulation of power by individuals had
slowly broken down.

For
decades after their arrival, migrants and locals interacted. From
that exchange, a Hohokam cultural revolution grew. Together, the two
communities created a commoners’ religious social movement
that 
archaeologists
call Salado
,
which featured a feasting practice that invited all village members
to participate.

As
ever more communities adopted this 
equitable
tradition
,
political power – which at the time was embedded in religious power
– became more equally spread through society.

Elites
lost their control and, eventually, abandoned their temples.

America’s
Egalitarian Mound-Builders

The
Hohokam tale unearths another vaunted American ideal that originates
in indigenous history: equality.

Long
before it was codified in the 
Declaration
of Independence,
,
equality was enacted through the building of large 
mounds.

Massive
earthen structures like these are often acts of highly hierarchical
societies – think of the pyramids of the ancient Egyptians,
constructed by 
masses
of laborers
 as
the final resting place of 
powerful
pharaohs
,
or those of the 
rigid,
empire-building
 Aztecs.

But
great power isn’t always top-down. 
Poverty
Point
,
in the lower Mississippi River Valley of what’s now Louisiana, is a
good example. This massive site, which consists of five mounds, six
concentric semi-elliptical ridges and a central plaza, was built some
4,000 years ago by hunter-fisher-gatherers with little entrenched
hierarchy.

Poverty
Point: a city built on cooperation. Herb Roe/Wikipedia, CC BY-SA

Originally,
archaeologists 
believed that
such societies without the inequality and authoritarianism that
defined the ancient Egyptian, Roman, and Aztec empires could not have
constructed something so significant – and, if so, only over
decades or centuries.

But
excavations in the last 20 years have revealed that large sections of
Poverty Point were 
actually
constructed in only a few months
.
These Native Americans organized in groups to undertake massive
projects as a communal cooperative, leaving a built legacy of
equality across America’s landscape.

The
Consensus-Building Haudenosaunee

The
Haudenosaunee, or 
Iroquois,
offer a more modern example of such consensus-based decision-making
practices.

These
peoples – who’ve lived on both sides of the St. Lawrence river in
modern-day Ontario and the U.S. Great Lakes states for 
hundreds,
if not thousands, of years
 –
built their society on collective labor arrangements.

They
ostracized people who exhibited “selfish” behavior, and women and
men often worked together in 
large
groups
.
Everyone lived together in communal longhouses. Power was also
shifted constantly to prevent hierarchy from forming, and decisions
were made by coalitions of kin groups and communities.

Many
of these participatory political practices 
continue
to this day
.

The
Haudenosaunee sided with the British during the 1776 
American
Revolution
 and
were largely driven off their land after the war. Like 
many
native populations
,
the Haudenosaunee Dream turned into a nightmare of invasion, 
plague
and genocide
 as
European migrants pursued their American Dream that excluded others.

Native
Americans at Standing Rock

The
long indigenous history of rejecting authoritarianism continues,
including the 2016 battle for 
environmental
justice at Standing Rock
,
South Dakota.

There,
a resistance movement coalesced around a 
horizontally
organized youth group
 that
rejected the planned 
Dakota
Access oil pipeline
.

Native
American pioneers continue to fight for the same ideals that inspire
the American Dream, including equality and freedom. John
Duffy/Wikimedia, CC BY-SA

The
movement centered on an environmental cause in part because nature is
sacred to the Lakota – and to 
many
other indigenous communities
 –
but also because communities of color often 
bear
the brunt of economic and urban development decisions
.

Standing
Rock was the indigenous fight against repression and for the American
Dream, gone 21st century.

Redefining
the North American Dream

Anthropologists
and historians haven’t always recognized the quintessentially
Native American ideals present in the American Dream.

In
the early 19th century, the prominent social philosopher Lewis Henry
Morgan 
called
the Native Americans he studied “savages.”
 And
for centuries, America’s native peoples have seen their 
cultural
heritage attributed to seemingly everyone but their ancestors
 –
even to an invented 
“lost”
white race
.

America’s
indigenous past was not romantic. There were petty disputes, 
bloody
intergroup conflicts
 and
slavery, namely 
along
the Northwest Coast
 and American
Southeast
.

But
the ideals of freedom and equality – and the right that Americans
can move across this vast continent to seek it out – survive
through the millennia. Societies based on those values have prospered
here.

So
the next time a politician invokes American values to 
promote
a policy of closed borders
 or selfish
individualism
,
remember who originally espoused the American Dream – and first
sought to live it, too.

By Lewis
Borck
 and D.
Shane Miller
 / Creative
Commons
 / The
Conversation
 / Report
a typo

=========================================

*
Zie: ‘
Anarchie werkt: corruptie is uit te bannen >> in de Mexicaanse stad Cherán zijn de politieke partijen en politie aan de kant gezet >> stad floreert!

Susan Sarandon (activist en acteur): Hillary Clinton was als presidentskandidaat gevaarlijker dan Trump………

Voor de uiteindelijke VS presidentsverkiezingen vorig jaar, voorspelden velen dat het buitenlandbeleid onder Hillary Clinton een heel stuk agressiever zou zijn dan onder Trump, deze richtte zich tijdens de campagne juist meer op het binnenland en stelde dat de VS zich in het buitenland niet in nieuwe ‘avonturen’ zou storten en dat hij de militairen naar huis zou halen (nadat hij IS van de aardbodem zou hebben gebombardeerd..)……..

Intussen weten we dat door ongegronde klachten, als zou Trump de VS verkiezingen hebben gewonnen door Russische manipulaties, Trump een groot deel van het buitenlandbeleid overlaat aan de geheime diensten CIA en NSA….. Voorts heeft Trump het Pentagon een veel zelfstandiger rol gegeven wat betreft inzet van militairen en materieel in het buitenland (ook heeft hij dagelijks 3 topmilitairen naast zich in het Witte Huis..)… M.a.w. Trump heeft onder druk van de geheime diensten en het militair-industrieel complex bakzeil gehaald……

Tyler Durden plaatste afgelopen dinsdag op Zero Hedge een artikel over deze zaak na publicatie van een interview met Susan Sarandon, acteur, plus milieu en anti-oorlog activist, afgelopen zondag in The Guardian.

Sarandon keerde zich tegen haar voormalige vriendin Clinton* en steunde kandidaat Jill Stein van de Green Party. Volgens Durden werd Sarandon na het verlies van Clinton bedreigd door ‘linkse democraten’, zelfs met verkrachting en de dood….. Dat men in de VS niet weet wat echt ‘links’ inhoud is al lang bekend, maar het valt me van Durden wel tegen, dat hij de psychopaten die achter Clinton stonden en staan ‘links’ noemt…… Zelfs de andere democratische kandidaat, Bernie Sanders, heeft maar heel weinig met links te maken, al zou zijn beleid een stuk beter hebben uitgepakt voor de grote onderlaag in de VS, dan dat van Clinton of het twitterende beest Trump……

Sarandon zou gezegd hebben dat Clinton gevaarlijker is dan Trump, iets dat volgens Sarandon niet waar is, maar waar ze geen bezwaar tegen heeft (dus ze staat pal achter deze ‘voor haar verzonnen uitspraak’)

Lees het volgende artikel en oordeel zelf:

Susan
Sarandon: Hillary Clinton Would’ve Been “More Dangerous”
Than Trump

by Tyler
Durden

Nov
28, 2017 10:52 AM

In
an interview with the 
Guardian published
Sunday night, actress Susan Sarandon – a noted anti-war and climate
progressive – described her former friend Hillary Clinton as “very
dangerous” in response to an interviewer’s question about why she
supported Green Party candidate Jill Stein.

Furthermore,
Sarandon, who has been the subject of vicious and persistent attacks
by leftists for supporting a third-party candidate that many blame,
wrongly, for throwing the election to Trump. She said she had to
change her phone number because – get this – angry Clinton
supporters left a torrent of death and rape threats on her voicemail.

Sarandon,
who fist became involved in activism as a young woman when she became
an early and vocal proponent of the anti-War movement in the late
1960s and early 1970s, even suggested that Clinton might’ve been
“more dangerous” than Trump.

Did
she really say that Hillary was more dangerous than Trump?

Not
exactly, but I don’t mind that quote,” she says.
 “I
did think she was very, very dangerous. We would still be fracking,
we would be at war [if she was president]. It wouldn’t be much
smoother. Look what happened under Obama that we didn’t notice.”

Though
she supported Clinton’s first bid for the senate in 2001, Sarandon
said her support for Clinton evaporated when the then-senator voted
in favor of the war in Iraq*.

It
is often overlooked that in 2001, Sarandon supported Hillary
Clinton’s run for the Senate. There are photos of them posing
chummily together, grinning. Then Clinton voted for the war in Iraq
and it all went downhill. 
During
the last election, Sarandon supported Bernie Sanders, then wouldn’t
support Clinton after she won the nomination, and now all the
moderates hate her, to the extent, she says, that she had to change
her phone number because people she identifies as Hillary trolls sent
her threatening messages. “I got from Hillary people ‘I hope your
crotch is grabbed’, ‘I hope you’re raped’. 
Misogynistic
attacks. Recently, I said ‘I stand with Dreamers’ [children
brought illegally to the US, whose path to legal citizenship – an
Obama-era provision – Trump has threatened to revoke] and that
started another wave.”

Wait,
from the right?

In
a jab at her critics on the left, Sarandon said she isn’t worried
about the threats or the criticism from people who bizarrely blame
her for throwing the election to Trump. Instead, she’s worried that
the left’s refusal to reckon with the true nature of the problem –
that the DNC rigged an election to favor a flawed, unpopular
candidate – will harm progressive causes in the long run.

Well,
that’s why we’re going to lose again if we depend on the DNC [the
Democratic National Committee]. Because the amount of denial … I
mean it’s very flattering to think that I, on my own, cost the
election. That my little voice was the deciding factor.”

Is
it upsetting to be attacked?

It’s
upsetting to me more from the point of view of thinking they haven’t
learned. I don’t need to be vindicated.”


But
it’s upsetting that they’re still feeding the same misinformation
to people. When Obama got the nomination, 25% of [Hillary’s] people
didn’t vote for him. Only 12% of Bernie’s people didn’t vote
for her.”


But
she didn’t advocate voting for Hillary! Come on.

Hmm?”


Didn’t
she advocate voting for Jill Stein?

I
didn’t advocate people voting for anything. I said get your
information, I’m going to vote for change, because I was hoping
that Stein was going to get whatever percentage she needed – but I
knew she wasn’t going to make the difference in the election.”

Luckily,
Sarandon said her friends have stood by her, at least.

Has
she lost friends over all this? “No. My friends have a right to
their opinions. 
It’s
disappointing but that’s their business. It’s like in the lead-up
to Vietnam, and then later they say: ‘You were right.’
 Or
strangely, some of my gay friends were like: ‘Oh, I just feel bad
for [Clinton]. And I said: ‘She’s not authentic. She’s been
terrible to gay people for the longest time. She’s an opportunist.’
And then I’m like: ‘OK, let’s not talk about it any more.’”

Still,
I think while there was vast political error on both sides, the
inability of Sarandon and her ilk to embrace the lesser of two evils
permitted the greater of the two evils to rise. 
And
yet I like Sarandon. It takes real courage to go against the mob. Her
inconsistencies are a little wild, but in the age of social-media
enforced conformity, I have never met anyone so uninterested in
toeing the line.

When
it comes to deportations, Sarandon said a hypothetical Clinton
administration probably have continued with Obama’s strategy of
“sneakily” deporting immigrants.

Given
his record on immigration and extrajudicial drone-enabled murder,
Sarandon said she was shocked that he won the Nobel Peace Prize.

It
seems absurd to argue that healthcare, childcare, taxation for the
non-rich wouldn’t be better now under President Clinton, and that’s
before we get to the threat of deportation hanging over millions of
immigrants. “
She
would’ve done it the way Obama did it,” says Sarandon, “
which
was sneakily.
 He
deported more people than have been deported now. How he got the
Nobel peace prize I don’t know. I think it was very important to
have a black family in the White House and I think some of the stuff
he did was good. He tried really hard about healthcare. But he didn’t
go all the way because of big pharma.”

This
isn’t the first time Sarandon has suggested that Clinton could be a
greater national security risk than Trump. She made similar comments
in June 2016, just as Clinton was clinching the nomination. At that
time, Trump’s “America First” foreign policy pledge – which
was based on a philosophy of noninterventionism – was arguably more
dovish than his rival.

Of
course, Trump has pivoted away from that stance since taking office,
authorizing more troop deployments in Afghanistan and threatening
North Korea with nuclear annihilation, chagrining many of his early
supporters.

=============================

* Sarandon brak met Clinton toen deze zich in 2001 voor de illegale oorlog tegen Afghanistan verklaarde. Durden noemt hier Irak, echter dat moet zoals gezegd Afghanistan zijn, de illegale oorlog tegen Irak begon in 2003. (overigens ook een illegale oorlog waar Clinton voorstander van was…..)

PS: vergeet niet dat Hillary Clinton zich tijdens de campagne uitsprak voor het eerste gebruik van kernwapens bij een aanval van de VS, waarmee zij het pad verliet, waar kernwapens ‘alleen dienden als afschrikkingswapen’, iets waar ook Trump zich nu ‘positief’ over uitlaat  (uiteraard droomden het Pentagon en presidenten als Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Bush sr., Clinton en Bush jr, al jaren over een aanval door de VS met kernwapens……)