Harper Valley

a few years back i went to mesa verde in colorado with my friend, dan, a hopi/choctaw. we listend with intent to the nice old park ranger explain things...he really was an amiable man. every now and then he'd stop to say, 'the archeologists and anthropologists can't figure out yet what this (particular thing or room) was used for.

dan would whisper in my ear what the object or room was used for.

this continued and finally i asked dan why he knows and the scientists don't.

dan replied, 'easy. they've never asked us. if they came to us and asked we would probably tell them but they seem intent on trying to figure things out on their own with their own methods'.

this brings me to some recent blogs i've seen on 'creationism' and some schools not wanting to teach darwin's theory of evolution and other schools not wanting to teach bibilical creation and the whole political spectrum of religion and govt. arguing what 'is right'. the pillars just love their power struggles. i suggest schools and govt. drop it all together or open it all up as topic of exploration that also brings in creation stories from indigenous peoples. but that might teach our children to think...could the varying institutes handle that? the ivory tower, despite some of it's benefits, still doesn't allow one to go too far outside the envelope.

my cree ancestory has it's creation story, it is not a question of believing it or not. it is something that 'just is' and to be learned from. these 'myths' as they're called, were put in place for good reason....we are not to delve beyond them, just to accept them. we were not meant to delve into creation because with those answers, come answers to destruction. by delving-in we have learned about cloning, fission and fusion and created enough bombs to destory the Earth over and over and over. work outside the stories and you cross the line.

while science has many good things, it is not , as self-proclaiimed, the be all and end all. what was 'true' in science 100 years ago is not 'true' today. what is held as 'true' today will not be held as 'true' in 100 years. darwin was just one guy. the bible, who's creation story has been taken literally and has many interpretations both literally and metaphorically, is a book with lots of good stuff but is interpretation upon interpretation. we all know the dark side of religion, power and war, do we also realize that eugenics and 'race' came out of the works of followers of darwin? there are just some places we're not meant to go.

is it not enough to know a higher power placed us here, or that we may have evolved from apes, or that we came up from the ground and were led into a new world by a spider, or that we were in a clam shell and dropped by a raven? is it not enough to just accept lemuria (atlantis, pan etc.)? why not just relax and even accept david icke? what's all the argument about? you 'believe' this, i 'believe' that...accept it, big deal, don't go door knocking.

healthier stance: the hawaain traditional belief is that we came from the stars, we were all one on earth (lemuria - (the mu links, we are still 'all one' but need and will come together again 'as all one'. as most indigenous people's believe (and so as it probably was in european pre-christan days), 'we are all one blood'.

i don't have to 'believe' or 'dis-believe' lemuria. just to accept that 'it is' to some and it is not to be imposed. rather, the hawaiians who believe that hawaii was part of lemuria, say to you when they meet you, 'welcome home'. isn't that sense of belonging anywhere a comfort that's so needed these days?