Dear Good Netizens:
Were all ancient cultures "primitive", patriarchal, & nomadic hunter-gatherers as we are taught in Western educational systems? The truth is far more interesting & complex if you are willing to expand your mind beyond the history textbooks.
"The agenda of the patriarchal retelling of history is to erase any evidence other than itself." ― Dr. Carmen Boulter
One of the greatest myths in modern Western man's projection of what we are taught as "history" onto ancient cultures is called the "myth of progress": i.e. that human civilization evolved from "primitive" (fun challenge: open any standard history textbook and count how many times this word appears) hunter-gatherers to the pinnacle of civilized perfection known as the "knowing man" or homo sapiens sapiens - the name we have given to ourselves. The knowing man ... how amusing! One of my favorite quotes of many is perhaps: "The more I see, the less I know". The "Myth of Progress" is a vile product of European superiority & a relic of colonial racism: its function went hand-in-hand with "Manifest Destiny" in order to devalue native cultures and validate colonial takeover. It is insulting to the ancient cultures and their indigenous modern ancestors whose own versions of history were forbidden and outlawed: history textbooks do not take seriously native peoples' own versions of history, let alone what they know. How can anyone claim with 100% authority what happened in the past when all of our understanding is based on our current cultural lens viewing fragments of information filtered down through conquering cultures? Just imagine all the knowledge that was lost over the centuries of warring & conflict! If you are an open-minded soul, hopefully you know by now in the internet age that the true history of human civilization is much more of a mysterious mosaic; a vast ocean of intriguing & anomalous unknowns rather than a neat, linear narrative of 6,000 years in which there is little room for questions.
The "myth of progress" in the 21st century has been totally deconstructed by brave "alternative" (as they are labeled by university academics in order to discredit authentic scientific research which doesn't fit the accepted narrative) intellectuals like Graham Hancock, John Anthony West, Robert Schoch, Robert Bauval, Carmen Boulter, Brien Foerster, Maria Wheatley, Dolores Cannon, Christopher Dunne, & Michael Cremo (just to name a few) from a variety of fields including history, archaeology, anthropology, archaeo-astronomy, geology & engineering. By re-examining ancient megalithic sites and ancient cultures with fresh eyes (I especially value engineers' opinions at ancient sites rather than historians) modern 21st century thinking proposes an alternative narrative of history: a devolution from a highly technologically-advanced, almost mythical ancient mother culture to present day rather than an evolution. This is a complete reversal of the programming most modern humans have been subjected to that "modern is more advanced" and "ancient is more primitive". This new school of thought when examining ancient cultures, their knowledge, and the structures they left behind however provides answers to perplexing questions that won't go away: like why has there never been a single mummy found in a pyramid (if they are supposed to be tombs)? Why are there no decorations in the pyramids (if they are supposedly tombs)? Why are there specific stones like piezoelectric quartz and radioactive granite found at ancient megalithic sites (not just including the pyramids)? Were the stones random or did they serve an energetic function?
The evidence that ancient peoples were up to a lot more than we give them credit for is all around us, hiding in plain sight. Egypt, Peru, Bolivia, Mexico, Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey, Indonesia, India, China, Japan, & Easter Island all hold mysterious and mind-bending megalithic sites where it is clear to the naked eye that later, less technologically-advanced cultures built upon much larger & older foundations of a similar style found all throughout the world: polygonal, "puzzle"-like heterogeneous pieces of megaton rocks that fit perfectly together using no mortar. It is amusing in the 21st century that academia still continues to attribute all megalithic sites to individual bronze-age cultures rather than acknowledging what is obvious: megalithic sites are multi-layered constructions in which multiple cultures have destroyed or rebuilt over thousands and thousands of years. The existence of two or three styles in a single construction (indicative of different eras) doesn't seem to bother the all-knowing Western universities whom cling to their 20th century paradigm like a weaning infant.
How do we make sense of this vast new ocean of a paradigm-shift? Let's break it down to the following "in a nutshell" truth: an ancient cataclysm known to all world cultures as the Great Flood wiped out a highly advanced, global sea-faring culture over 12,000 years ago at the end of the Younger Dryas Period when a comet hit North America initiating the end of the Ice Age. The final cherry on top that has traditional academics even more chuffed? This culture that reached gigantic (literally) heights of architectural, technological & metaphysical knowledge was matriarchal ...
"The Pyramid Code" is a wonderful introduction to walk Western minds into this new paradigm of ancient civilization being much, much older than 6,000 years. There is a whole world of matriarchal history waiting to be rediscovered if you are open to shifting.
First & foremost, to criticize the patriarchal power structures is not an attack on men in general: there are just as many patriarchal women as men. Matriarchy also is not the opposite of patriarchy where women control and dominate men via violence. Matriarchal cultures all stressed balance between the genders (which is further attributed to balance between both hemispheres of the brain). Just like the yin/yang symbol, there is no one without the other, and thus balance extends from the metaphysical to the cultural. The modern world is completely unbalanced because it has tried to erase one half of the human equation: in sociology this is called the "erasure of the feminine". Aspects attributed to feminine consciousness like balance, creativity, empathy, and the arts are not given the same importance as aspects of masculine consciousness like math, logic, linear thinking, and problem-solving. In order to live in a balanced society, both sides must be given validity.
I find there is a repeating pattern in patriarchal academia observable over & over & over again throughout history: any new information that threatens the current paradigm from which academics have built their careers is viciously attacked. Whether it was Copernicus, Newton, Galileo, Darwin, Curie, Goodall, Du Chatelet, etc. all the great minds who presented new ideas were initially ridiculed by European academic circles, only later to be given the respect due to their revolutionary ideas. Thus paradigms are constantly shifting and changing, never static. So why are academics so clearly fearful of any information that challenges their current understandings? Having to admit the paradigm from which they based all their beautiful theories & assumptions was built "on a house of sand" requires starting over from scratch. Obviously, that has historically been a roadblock for progress. Good science requires being open to wherever the information takes you. Thus, academia functions more like a group of priests rather than scientists. Academic culture resembles a group of like-minded debate teammates who stay in the library arguing about possibilities and impossibilities of a "reality" outside the walls which they are clearly not well acquainted with. Reality is relative, according to Einstein. Ancient sites will reveal their true mysteries to those who actually visit them (not read about them in the library) and are willing to listen.
What Does Matriarchy Have to Do With Veganism?
Why is this new understanding of history important in a blog post about plant-based diet & living? It is highly significant because the belief that "man is supposed to eat meat in order to survive" is directly linked to the patriarchal "myth of progress": i.e. that our civilization is the pinnacle of evolution from warring hunter-gatherers. If we are descended from "the hunter", then in many people's mind "eating meat is natural". The patriarchal male identity is arguably about as intricately wrapped up in the act of eating meat as the male ego is wrapped up in the size of their spear: eating meat makes them feel "more like the hunter", rather than a consumer.
In a field dominated by patriarchal thought for centuries, it makes sense that the perspective of the other half of humanity (women) would be needed to understand our true origins. Elaine Morgan wrote the classic study of evolution called "The Descent of Woman" in which she argued that the savanna theory of evolution cut out the female form and could not properly explain human reproduction (e.g. having fat babies who cannot walk for a year in the open savanna is pretty useless), our loss of hair, webbed appendages, and conscious breath control (which is essential for human speech). Morgan concurred with Alistair Hardy's theory that human ancestors must have evolved in a semi-aquatic environment given the fact that - like aquatic mammals - we share a layer of fat beneath our skin (which is the reason that human beings can become grossly obese). This has come to be known as the "Aquatic Ape Theory". It is interesting to note the only time when all other apes are observed walking on two legs is when they wade through water (according to Mr. David Attenborrough, this is very significant).
Point being: the "concrete" paradigm and theories stemming from it as taught in school to be a reflection of "reality" are in fact the products of a completely unbalanced perception of the world coming solely from the patriarchal point of view. Do you believe that humans are inherently violent because we have been taught our closest ancestor is the war-like chimpanzee? How would your perception change about the true nature of humanity if we had been introduced in school to the peaceful bonobo chimp? This fascinating sub-species of chimp is never mentioned in classrooms because they are pansexual and practice free love to pacify all conflict.
"History" is a projection not reflective of actual truth, but more reflective of current cultural biases. The patriarchal projection we are taught as "history" loves to highlight the macho, hunter male ideal who went out to kill the mammoth while the women stayed in the cave to knit. One myth feeds another. What if ancient matriarchal cultures were mostly plant-based for complex spiritual-energetic reasons that hint at a vastly different perception of & relationship with nature? How do we peel away the layers of patriarchy clouding our understanding of a matriarchal past? By examining the diets of ancient cultures we can examine an intimate, day-to-day aspect of their lives in the hopes of bringing their truth to light once again.
When Did Plant-Based Philosophies Emerge (As We Know Them)?
It is important to remember that "vegan" & "vegetarian" are modern terms, but this certainly does not mean that these diets are a recent fad in conflict with all of human history (as meat eaters claim). The belief that humanity has always eaten meat is the product of a very narrow, "modern" mind who has no context to even imagine how life could have been different in ancient times. If people haven't always eaten a meat-centered diet, then why and for what reasons? In order to deconstruct the myth that "humans have always eaten meat, so therefore it is natural" check out the below video for a wonderful introduction to the long and colorful history of plant-based diets.
Non-violence (or ahimsa) towards all living beings is a standard practice that emerged out of the monastic traditions of Eastern religions like Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism & Hinduism. It is important to note that not all of the everyday people who identify with these faiths (excluding Jains) eat a strict vegetarian or vegan diet; it is viewed more as an "ideal" path related to two key concepts in Eastern schools of thought: reincarnation (or transmigration of the soul) & compassion. Animals are viewed as sacred manifestations of various deity energies in the physical world, and therefore, deserve compassion. The concept of reincarnation is intricately tied up with Hindu vegetarianism - if you eat the cow today, and you die tomorrow, who is to say you won't be reborn as a cow in the next life?
Reincarnation (a more tricky concept for Western minds) speaks to a vastly different perception of the universe, nature and humankind's relationship to it via cyclical energies. Ancient peoples (as I have explored in another blog post) had deep knowledge about the laws of energy and natural quantum forces which could further add depth to their reasons for eating a plant-based diet. In addition to being an act of compassion, plant-based diets also could be an act of greater energy awareness in understanding how the energy of plants interacts with the body versus an animal that has been killed. This is a concept called "biomemory" or "celluar memory" which the ancients (in particular the Vedic medicine system of Ayurveda) very much understood.
"Biomemory" from an Ayurvedic point-of-view
When one expands their awareness of energy to what the ancients knew, their world view opens up to you, and you may realize this major lesson when it comes to what "high-vibe" food means:
The production cycle and environmental conditions - i.e. the energy that went into the making of food - is just as important (if not more) than the physical nutrition of that food.
A diet high in factory farm meat clearly causes so much illness (like heart disease - ironic, no?) when one considers the horrific energy that goes into commercial slaughter. It all makes sense from an energetic perception: you are what you eat. If you eat meat produced in an environment of fear where human beings turn off their sense of compassion to kill animals (kept in unnatural conditions) every single day, that energy is stored in the muscle memory of the animal. When you shift to a high-vibe diet rich in plant-based foods that were grown with the energy of the elements, in the sun, naturally you will feel better! Let's get one thing straight though: you must keep the production conditions in mind for all foods, including plant-based food. Soy and wheat for example can be just as awful as meat for your body depending on where and how it was grown.
Despite the above and seemingly self-evident truth that "you are what you eat", another common argument that many meat-eaters use as a defense from a historical context may be, "Well Native Americans mostly ate meat and they lived much more in tune with the natural world, so they would have thought you vegans are crazy". This statement is not only ignorant of indigenous ethnic & historical diversity, it also ignores the evidence showing many indigenous cultures were plant-based.
Were First Nation (Native American) Peoples All Carnivorous Societies?
Note: It is important to remember we should not blame Western minds for their ignorance in regards to indigenous peoples as this thinking is a byproduct of a broken education system which continues to idolize Columbus as a hero rather than a (lost) murderer.
Before the dawning of the European colonial age, the Americas were one of the most ethno-linguistically diverse regions in the world. Therefore it is difficult to generalize when discussing indigenous cultures given their sheer diversity. Early Spanish conquistadors' & Catholic priests' accounts of first contact spoke of complex societies with tall & short, dark & light-skinned, fair-haired & black-haired, plus modified & natural elongated skull peoples all co-existing together. This is contrary to the general stereotype of the singular "red man" (which is a highly-offensive racial slur) that Western education enforces in the minds of children when teaching about indigenous history: Columbus' arrival, Sacajawea, & the trail of tears don't even begin to cover the thousands & thousands of years of pre-contact history.
Firstly it is insulting to ancient peoples to equate their varied meat consumption traditions with the modern, industrialized slaughterhouse production model:
The Indians of yesterday were true conservationists. They understood the inherent dangers of overtaxing the earth and her creatures. So much so, in fact, that no species would ever be hunted to scarcity or depletion, not even for religious purposes.
There was a time when Native Americans were considered heathens because they regarded the land as Mother. They believed that not only nonhuman animals but also rocks and trees had spirit. Indians noted the Earth’s messages when they made decisions. They took their direction from nature. They killed only to stay alive.
As early as the 1700s, historical records indicate that the white man’s pollution and dirty ways offended Indian people. But as centuries passed and Americans became more aware of their pollution, the Indian concept of conservation and protecting the environment gained legitimacy even among non-Indian people.
As I have written in other blog posts: Native American cultures had a completely different perception of nature as a living, holistic system based off of three key concepts: interconnectivity, reciprocity & balance. Furthermore as the above excerpt notes many indigenous cultures endowed animals, mountains, plants, rivers, the weather, and even the cardinal directions with "personhood" (read some Peter Nabokov like Where The Lightning Strikes). A certain rock could be considered a "person" or "conscious". Furthermore when a kill was made of an animal like a deer, offerings and prayers were given back to nature in order to to appease the "deer people". Maybe Native American cultures' concept of "personhood" can be associated with a collective oversoul - think of a spiritual spokesperson representing the whole group. For example when studying ancient cow cults which worshipped the bovines and carried out bull sacrifices, the priests were trying to establish good favor with the deity associated with the real animal. The deity was considered conscious, alive, and just as real as the physical animal. Clearly the ancients had a much different worldview and we should not impose our own ideas like "Native Americans ate meat so veganism is wrong" onto their complex cultures.
Secondly, there is a great amount of evidence which shows that many indigenous cultures embraced plant-based foraging systems given the context of where they lived and its rich abundance of plant-based foods.
"Indigenous Veganism"
This is an excerpt from a Collective Evolution blog post discussing Rita Laws, Ph.D., and her anthropological inquiries into indigenous plant-based diets:
... (Laws) published an article explaining how among her own people, the Choctaw Indians of Mississippi and Oklahoma, vegetables were the traditional diet, and homes were constructed of wood, mud, bark, and cane — not skins.
“The principal food, eaten daily from earthen pots, was a vegetarian stew containing corn, pumpkin and beans.”
She explains how meat in “the form of small game was an infrequent repast” and how their clothing was even derived from plants.
Perhaps one of the most interesting revelations shared by her experience and research is the fact that “more than one tribe has creation legends which describe people as vegetarian, living in a kind of Garden of Eden. A Cherokee legend describes humans, plants, and animals as having lived in the beginning in ‘equality and mutual helpfulness.’ “
She goes on to explain how “the needs of all were met without killing one another. When man became aggressive and ate some of the animals, the animals invented diseases to keep human population in check. The plants remained friendly, however, and offered themselves not only as food to man, but also as medicine, to combat the new diseases.”
Laws also points out how many other Indian tribes were like hers, subsisting primarily on plants, but those who did hunt did so sparingly and with care. A special bond existed between them and the animals whose lives they took, or, according to many legends, these animals who offered themselves freely. The animals were also seen as a gift from the great sprit, spiritual warriors who were there for the protection and well-being of the people, to provide in several ways, almost like guardian angels.
“In the past, and in more than a few tribes, meat-eating was a rare activity, certainly not a daily event. Since the introduction of European meat-eating customs, the introduction of the horse and the gun, and the proliferation of alcoholic beverages and white traders, a lot has changed.”
Laws also explains how meat consumption was not revered, and there was nothing ceremonial about it. It was always plants and fall festivals centred around the harvest that were most celebrated.
Meat-eating was a rare activity, certainly not a daily event. Since the introduction of European meat-eating customs, the introduction of the horse and the gun, and the proliferation of alcoholic beverages and white traders, a lot has changed. Relatively few native peoples can claim to be vegetarians today.
“What would this country be like today if the ancient ways were still observed? I believe it is fair to say that the Indian respect for non-human life forms would have had a greater impact on American society. Corn, not turkey meat, might be the celebrated Thanksgiving Day dish. Fewer species would have become extinct, the environment would be healthier, and Indian and non-Indian Americans alike would be living longer and healthier lives. . . . Now we, their descendants, must recapture the spirit of the ancient traditions for the benefit of all people. We must move away from the European influences that did away with a healthier style of living. We must again embrace our brothers and sisters, the animals, and ‘return to the corn’ once and for all.”
Perhaps the evidence of plant-based indigenous cultures speaks to a much, much longer tradition of matriarchal foraging cultures? What are the connections?
The Big Picture
If we acknowledge that human civilization is much, much, much older than the beginning of the patriarchal age 6,000 years ago then what would an older matriarchal system look like?
In a matriarchal system, it would make sense that what we call in modern times "ecofeminism" may have been a prevailing mode of thought:
Feminism and vegetarianism have been intimately intertwined both as movements and as philosophies for many years. Feminists typically have condemned forms of domination and have expressed compassion for the downtrodden. Nonhuman animals, including the animals living on farms, have often been on the receiving end of this compassion. In spite of the support for vegetarianism among many feminists, there has also been a countervailing trend. Feminism was an outgrowth of the European Enlightenment, which subscribed to the idea of a dualism between humans and the rest of nature. In the Enlightenment worldview, human beings alone are made in the image of God and endowed with reason, setting them apart from the rest of the natural world. Progress, thus, is predicated upon severing one’s ties to the nonhuman world. The demand not to be treated like animals was a common rallying cry among early feminists. Underlying this idea is the notion that the exploitation of rational beings (namely humans) is morally wrong whereas the exploitation of nonhuman animals is not. Ecofeminist philosophers have a different vision of human beings’ relation to the natural world. Rather than seeking to sever human ties to the natural world, ecofeminists critique the worldview that devalues both women and nature.
Ecofeminism is a loosely knit philosophical school of thought that draws connections between the domination of nature and the domination of women.2 Despite variations in viewpoints, most ecofeminists are united in their critique of the dualistic worldview of patriarchal society. Ecofeminists argue that Western patriarchal society operates by means of a series of gendered dualisms. The male half of the dualism is associated with “culture,” “good,” the “rational,” and the “spiritual,” while the female half is associated with “nature,” “evil,” the “nonrational,” and the “profane.” Ecofeminists are also critical of the atomistic worldview of patriarchal society, which overvalues autonomy and the role of reason, and devalues relationships of care. In place of this atomistic worldview, ecofeminists view nature as an interconnected web of life, no part of which may be said to be superior to the other.
(excerpt from "Vegetarianism and Ecofeminism: Toppling Patriarchy with a Fork" by Marti Kheel)
This idea that our treatment of nature is a direct reflection of our treatment of the feminine makes a lot of sense when considering most ancient cultures perceive the Earth via "the great mother" principle. The pre-flood world of 12,000 years ago is a complete and utter mystery: all we can do is open up our minds to the great unknown of it all. The bigger picture is this: if the human race is to have any hope of survival, a plant-based production system that works in tune with the natural world (rather than against it) will be an absolute necessity. In a patriarchal culture clearly we have become so disconnected from nature to the point that we have a very difficult time imaging that matriarchal cultures perhaps had no need for war, hunting, violence, or anything we consider "normal" aspects of "modern" life. Mother nature is a series of complex, reciprocal relationships based off of give-and-take. The concept of "reciprocity" has no value in a warring patriarchal culture, clearly, which explains the current state of the world ... By embracing a vegan diet, you are doing your part to live more in tune with the natural world, a small but important first step to rediscovering paradise on Earth.
“Gaia does not use top-down control over the parts that make up the whole. that approach is the least adaptable and least functional of all”.
コメント