A visit to the "Fetterman Massacre" site

Just about due South, and maybe 2 miles from my house, is a low spot in the long ridge which extends east from the Bighorn Mountains and separates the Piney Creek drainage from the smaller Prairie Dog Creek. This was a natural crossing point for prospectors and settlers heading up the eastern side of the Bighorns into Montana on the Bozeman Trail. The Bozeman Trail was yet one more broken promise from the "Grandfather in Washington" to the Northern Cheyenne, Crow and Lakota who lived, hunted and fished in the foothills of these mountains.

From my back porch, I can just barely make out the stone monument erected by Western history "buffs" to the battle. More visible is a lone cottonwood close to the dying place of Big Nose, a Cheyenne warrior who was part of the decoy party that led the Ft. Kearney patrol into an ambush.

There's actually a pretty good set of markers describing the battle from Indian and soldier viewpoints, and I can imagine the long progression of that cold December day as soldiers and Indians fought each other until Captain Fetterman's entire detachment was killed. The decoy party led the soldiers out along a north-trending ridge with a series of dips and high points, and with steep drops to either side into brushy draws. Up out of these draws came the war party of Cheyenne and Lakota, attacking the soldiers from several directions at once.

According to the interpretive sign post, Big Nose was shot when his tired horse faltered; he asked those that came to his aid that they lay him with "his head uphill so that he could breathe the fresh air as he died".

I tried to imagine what it was like to lie on the hard ground of winter, breathing what you know to be your last breaths, while men continued fighting all around you.

It's a far cry from the death that most Americans - and Indians - fear now, in this time. Death from illness: long, drawn-out dying from diabetes, cancer; from chemical byproducts of our ways of life: polluted water, food, air. Our deaths now are complicated by other kinds of battles than the one fought here: now we fight death itself with heroic medical procedures, more chemicals, and decaying atomic particles. No honest confronting that we're dying and simple request to fill our lungs a few more times with some good air, but denial borne, I'm coming to think, of a sense of entitlement to a long and comfortable life.

It seems to me that Big Nose -whatever physical pain he felt- knew what a weakened deer knows when it's caught in the deep drifts of a spring snowstorm or brought down by by a pack of coyotes. Simply "My time is up." It's actually quite impersonal, and not even particularly consequential.

******* *******

I've been working on the design of a hospice facility in Gillette, where the Cheyenne and Lakota once hunted Buffalo, and where the white man hunts coal and coalbed methane these days. The facility will have 6 patient rooms, and there will be 5 rooms for out-of-town family members to stay. Something around 10 or 11 thousand square feet, at roughly $300 per square foot, not to mention the cost of the palliative care itself, for 6 people at a time to die. The tangled net of local, state and federal regulations for constructing and running such a facility (which is another industry in itself) requires such things as 4 foot wide doorways, wheel-in showers, clearance everywhere for wheelchairs and even the beds themselves. Private porches or patios are required amenities, as are multiple spaces for family members to meet, or relax, or fix a meal. The cost of outfitting one room with a state-of-the-art bed from Germany, a nightstand and a fold-out chair for an overnight visitor, patient lift track in the ceiling, headboard with oxygen and suction ports, and other equipment is around $12,000. (All of this for a facility that is supposed to "feel like home".)

We say all of this is for the comfort and "dignity" of those whose lives are coming to an end, but is it really?

Our culture has made dying into an event of major proportions. While we're not creating the drama of cavalry vs. Indian, we're creating a different drama of high technology, complex medical protocols, interacting cocktails of drugs, and elaborate buildings. Why? I think it's because we are so uncomfortable around others' suffering, and with the thought of our own death. Much of what we are doing is meant to relieve our own discomfort around friends and family members who are sick and dying. By "doing everything we can for them" as they now lie dying, somehow we're relieved of our greater responsibilities for taking care of ourselves, each other and the planet: for the food we eat, the air we breathe, the water we drink.

I think Big Nose died an honorable and dignified death. He accepted what was, gave his companions the gift of fulfilling a request, and let himself go.

******* *******

I'd put a small amount of tobacco in my pocket when I left the car, and as I knelt where Big Nose took in those last breaths of fresh air, I put the tobacco under a small piece of sandstone and prayed that the Great Grandfather of the Red Man breathe strength of heart and mind back into his people today, so that they can share with all of us the wisdom of living as a human animal on Earth once again. When we are connected with Life, dying doesn't need to be a battle.

A new Way to Play Monopoly

This is part of a letter from Robert Lovelace from prison. It's time to play a new game on Planet Earth!

"Thank you for your recent letter. Every letter I receive lifts my spirits. I am also lifted up knowing that so many people continue to work for the liberation of the land. This is one of those times where great social change is in the wind. Our vanity is challenged and we are faced with finding a new way to get along and get by.

I have worked at this for a long time. Like playing Monopoly. Almost everyone plays this game. When you play it the way that most people play it then you follow the rules. During the game you cultivate self-interest and even thought the rules say you "may buy" you do it because you don't want someone else to get the advantage. Monopoly is about the way people feel. The consequence of loosing the game is usually an hour or so of depression, maybe unresolved anger, and then surrender and isolation. Even the winner doesn't get a real sense of victory, as the winner is also isolated at the end of the game.
You may know this. Monopoly was invented by a group of socialists in Atlantic City, (I think in the 1930's) as a way to demonstrate the evils of capitalism.
There is another way to play the Monopoly board. If everyone agrees to now buy the property, they can use it without penalty. As everyone completes a circle around the $200 for passing Go represents their annual harvest. When two or more people land on the same space they celebrate by singing and dancing together and when someone lands on free parking everyone has a feast of popcorn and iced tea.
Pretty soon everyone is having such a good time that they don't even use the money, because it's a waste of time; and everyone looks forward to landing on the same "property" with someone else. Instead of capitalists and politicians negotiating deals being the leaders it is the musicians and storytellers who are most respected. I am sure the artist and gardeners, and architects and weavers will want to share their talents as well."

Pretty cool.

This is a drawing I did in honor of Robert Lovelace, who was imprisoned on Februrary 15, 2008 for protesting uranium exploration on Algonquin lands in Ontario.

This is the "change of heart" that the title of this blog refers to.

For more information on the struggle against uranium mining in Ontario, visit www.ccamu.ca

Re-arranging the deck chairs...

I listened to a radio program the other night concerning the controversy surrounding a new Cabela's store in Billings, MT. Three people were invited to represent the differing viewpoints in this "debate". In short, the problem Montanans have with Cabela's is that they've expanded beyond retail sale of hunting and fishing equipment and now have a real estate department (Cabela's Trophy Properties) which sells residential ownership in "hunting preserves" -- i.e. pretty much like a high-end golf course development, except the golf course is replaced by acreage on which the owners can hunt. Apparently, Montanans don't like the idea of private ownership of wildlife.

A few minutes into the program, it struck me that the viewpoints being represented were so close together, and the the underlying, unquestioned assumption was a much more valuable topic for discussion.

So I wrote the program producer/interviewer a letter:

Brian;

I always enjoy your programs because in my mind you do a great job of choosing questions and asking them. What struck me about the views represented on this program is that they all see wildlife as something that humans have a right to "manage"; i.e. wild animals are understood to be the property of humans, to be used as a "resource" for recreation. The ONLY difference among your guests was whether wild animals are the property of the collective political entity, or private owners.

Hmmm. Not a very wide spread of perspectives here!

I realize you probably selected your three guests because they're the ones involved in this "debate". OK, but there really is a lot more at stake here, because that prevailing viewpoint, the one that sees all other life forms on the planet (not to mention the non-living substances such as coal, water and genetic material) as "resources" belonging to humans, is precisely the one that has brought us to the brink of climate chaos, and dare I say, the current US war on Iraq.

Why? When we view something as a resource, it then has a market value and the potential to be abundant or scarce. It's obviously in the best interests of people and companies who "own" such resources to advertise their scarcity and drive up the monetary value. (A barrel of oil cost $25 at the beginning of our invasion of Iraq). In light of what is happening in the polar regions, in our pine and spruce forests, and in Glacier National Park, debating whether or not Cabela's should have "Trophy Property" projects in Montana is a bit like politely discussing what color the soldiers' uniforms should be over tea and crumpets.

What are the alternatives to such a view?

• Traditional Native American understanding of the human place on Earth.
• Eastern philosophies on sentient life.
• Ancient and current Christian views on stewardship.
• 19th C American Transcendentalism (Thoreau, et. al.).
• Mid-20th C American conservation (Leopold).
• Deep Ecology

If you haven't already, I invite you to create a program where the folks who view wildlife as "resources" and those who understand the place of humankind in a much grander planetary scheme have a chance to exchange their views. It would a much more challenging and far-reaching discussion.

This BlogSpace; Compassion and "pets"

     I started this blog to think about the change of heart needed to reverse the climate crisis, end war, eliminate poverty and injustice on this small blue planet.  

    As far as I can tell, we can have an infinite volume of information, technology, data, theories and policies created with our human brains, but until there is a change of heart, nothing will change in the world.  

     It's meaningful to me that Tibetan Buddhists point to the heart when they talk about "mind".   Hmmm.   We in the West think the gray matter "upstairs" is where it's at, and value cleverness and quick thinking over contemplation and "right thinking". 

     Byron Katie says that the problems most of us suffer from as individuals come from believing and acting as though the thoughts in our minds are TRUE.   

     Buddhism, Advaita, Christian mysticism correctly understand the nature of thoughts as more like waves kicked up by a momentary storm on the surface of a deep and silent ocean.  Here one moment, gone the next, of no particular significance.

 

     The problem is, we're so wrapped up in the convolutions of our THINKING that we've stopped FEELING.  We neither feel with our senses - that state of alert, calm awareness of everything inside and out, nor with our hearts.  We've closed down and lost the ability to feel what another being feels and then to act from that place in our hearts to alleviate suffering and to create for the common good rather than for "ME".

     I think we're afraid to feel: afraid we'll be overwhelmed by the pain, the guilt and remorse for having turned away for so long, afraid we're inadequate to do anything about it, afraid to risk discomfort, failure, alienation from friends and family....the list of reasons is long.  At worst, the world's suffering is just an "inconvenient truth" belying our day-to-day business of making a living, finding the right partner, raising families, buying more stuff to fit out the stage set of our lives.....

    Ultimately, though, until we can feel the pain and suffering of the planet, of other life forms, and in our own psyches, we won't have the courage (the word comes from the French "coeur" =heart + rage = strength) to stop our free-fall to extinction.

    When enough hearts are broken, the New Earth will be born.

***********************************************************************

....thinking about "pets".....

     In some circles, having "pets" is politically incorrect, even immoral, because it involves domesticating animals by changing their "natural" behaviors and instincts to accommodate human behaviors.  

     Some people think having pets is wrong because the time spent taking care of them and enjoying them is time NOT spent on "more important" matters like alleviating human suffering or stopping degradation of Earth's biosphere.

     In other circles, pets are all-important, carefully chosen by breed to complement the owner's identity and lifestyle, conspicuously displayed at the local coffee house's outdoor patio.  They're shampooed, manicured, and dressed up for Halloween.

     And then there are working dogs.  Where I live, ranch dogs chase off predators and strangers and --most often these days it seems-- guard dual-wheel diesel F350 flatbed pick-ups in the parking lot of the local bar.

     But there's a deeper connection than any of these appearances reveal.   Running through all of these expressions of the human-animal relationship is the experience of compassion.  Through some combination of biological evolution, arising from the 10,000 or so years of human-animal collaboration, and spiritual connection (after all, the infant Jesus was surrounded by animals in the stable, and the Christian shaman St. Francis communicated directly with animals) humans today have a natural compassion for animals.  We're willing to feel their suffering when they're stranded on rooftops during a flood, dumped at the animal shelter, or used for human "sport" as fighting dogs, while we're less willing to feel, for instance, the pain of soldiers in a foreign war, or the bewilderment and loss of refugees from that war.

     I could speculate about WHY that is so, but I'm presently thinking that exercise is less important than doing something to help "grow" the compassion that people do feel.

     It seems to me that this is fertile ground for cultivating loving-kindness in the world today.  Caring for animals allows people to express compassion.  And when they do it as a part of an animal rescue operation, as a volunteer at a local shelter, or in a prison program, they also have opportunities to practice compassion with people.   

    So if the goal is to "grow" more compassion in the world, why not look for places where there's good soil, and begin there?