: : Who are you to call the Hopi ignorant? Whta do you know about the situation? Who are you to say that their religion and traditions are 'stupid'? If something fails to accord to the standard of the whiteman, does that automatically render it barbaric? : You're full of it. Slowly smothering an eagle engenders the same suffering in the eagle whether done for religious purposes or sheer sadistic kicks. When you look at it from the eagle's point of view, does it really matter why they're tying you up so you can't fly, and then smothering you in corn meal? Get real for a second.
: : As far as i can see YOU are not a member of the Hopi. As far as i can see tehy should be left to govern themselves so far as possible. if they choose to indulge in these religous ceremonies then what of it. I fail to see how it relates to you at all.
: I'm standing up for the animal victims of the Hopi. I'm sorry if you're so clouded with weepy romanticism of the Hopi that you can overlook what they're doing to those eagles.
: : I would suggest to you that white men are far more responsible for suffering of animals (enmasse) than any tribe of indians ever will be (you've sited one instance for the hopi; how many could i site for white men, i shudder to think).
: Yes, the white man abuses animals terribly. But hey, that's their culture, man, so how dare you criticize it?
: : Well, good for you. I hope you crusade against these 'barbaric' activities the same way you crusade against the hopi (funny i don't see any posts).
: Then you're not bothering to read this chat board. Look around: my main issue is animal rights. And I'll champion the plight of abused animals in any society -- white, black, red, yellow -- where they're being abused. It's not the abusers I care about, it's the abused, and I don't discriminate just because the abuser is a Hopi claiming his religion justifies animal torture.
: : Again, who are you to call them 'ignorant'. Perhaps they consider it necessary. How do you know they are not right? Have you delved into Indian religion so you can categorically announce that their beliefs are false? Or are you just a member of the dominant christian tradition?
: Oh please! When Christians burned black cats because they thought this was what God wanted, did that make it right, or, more to the point with you, did that make it wrong because CHRISTIANS were doing it, and not some tribe? You're attempting to defend the indefensible based on the fact that the oppressors in this case (Hopi) were and are themselves oppressed by others. That is not justification for animal torture.
: : You are truly deplorable. Your attitude stinks. To call their culture 'unsophisticated' recalls to me the attitude of early american settlers intent upon 'killing the savages'. Your attitude seems to suggest that you would not give one wit if their entire culture were to be extinguished from the earth and replaced with beef cattle farms. If that is the world you desire then you are truly deserving of my contempt.
: No, YOUR attitude stinks. It is, in fact, racist, in that you are excusing a blatantly cruel act of animal abuse because they are Hopi. Why not hold the Hopi up to the same standard you hold Whites and others up to, that of NOT ABUSING ANIMALS. That's the point here, which you in your weepy, romanticist liberal pandering & racist attitude towards the poor Hopi have missed entirely.
: : You can take your cultural imperialism and stick it.
I'm sorry MDG but we must part company on this one. I defend the right of the Hopi to sacrifice animals, just as I defend the right of Muslims, Hindus, Santeria worshipers, and others. You cannot criticize the action itself without examining the motives behind it. If a bird is killed out of spite or sadism i agree that's bad. But if the Hopi need to do this to express love for their God, I cannot criticize them. Just like I would not criticize the Hindus of Calcutta who sacrifice goats. (Being a Hindu myself, I hoep you don't start slinging mud at the Hindus or for that matter at Catholics or Buddhsits or any other religion). To me human rights are simply more important tahn animal rights, simply because we are human, and this the only meaningful 'group' with natural boundaries that we are a part of. One of tehse basic human rights is teh right to commune with one's God. I cvannot support an infringement of this right, except where it violates another HUMAN right. I'm sorry if you disagree, but I simply place human rights ona different level than animal rights, ebcause of our identity as human beings.
I always hesitate to make psychological statements, but i think you may find it easy to criticize this custom because you yourself are not religious. It is your right to be nonreligiou and/or to think taht some religious custosmn are crazy. But please udnerstand that what is easy for you may not be easy for otehrs, and what is important for them may not be to you. If you were a deeply religious Haitian Vodoun worshiper, for example, how would you feel if someone told you you coudl not worship your God? Woudl this not make life no longer worth livcing? For a religious person, life without God is meaningless. How can you steal teh meaning from their life? This would be both unfair, cruel as well as high-handed.
Let me give you an example that you amy find convincing. I presume that since you live in the West, you accept, as I do, the Western ideal of monogamous love. Now, a strong Marxist argument ahs been made by a guy named Marcos on the C&A board arguing taht monogamy leads to privileging soem p[eople over others and is thus selfish and inimical to society's interests. I cannot pose a rational argument against it. But I abhor the argument emotionally, because it's trying to take away from me and you something we care deeply about. I believe this is analogous to what you are doing to the Hopi.
