"Your Lightning Inhabits" by K.I.A., silver graphite on paper, 50" x 38", 2009
Works finished within a few days & simple: pencil on paper sitting at a table (compared to months & months & tools & techniques & herculean effort needed for the remixable pieces.)
More drawings, micropoems, remixable sculptures by K.I.A.: http://nu4ya.posterous.com/
Has modern medicine backed humans at large to be somewhat scare of death?
b) if not, what in becoming modern man affected this?
--
Subscribe to just questions: http://feeds.feedburner.com/davestone/questions.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Fulfilling a campaign pledge, President Obama welcomed nearly 400 tribal leaders to his White House Tribal Nations Conference on Thursday and assured them that his support of Native issues is genuine and his historic summit is no mere "lip service" to Indian Country.
No, this post is not about patriotism or concerns for my motherland. Rather, it’s on an unusual subject for me to write on. It’s about the locally-brewed liquor (called “Desi” or “Country” in Indian drinker’s parlance). All my friends and acquaintances will be highly-amused on reading this post, because they know me to be a teetotaler. Worse, I am known to lecture my social-drinker friends, and spoil group-outings by refusing to go anywhere near a bar. Many people wonder where did I get this distaste for alcohol in all existing forms, and people who drink it. Well, here is the reason: I spent significant part of my childhood in Bastar, M.P. (now Naxal-infested, and part of Chhattisgarh), where my dad was posted. Now, Bastar’s native population are “adivasis” (tribals). These adivasis were then very fond of two things: merriment and mahua (a country liquor brewed from mahua flowers). Now, merriment and drinks are important ingredients for any party, you would agree. And the advasis just knew how to party. Only, it was called mela. Mela happened this way: there would be a huge gathering in an open space, with a smattering of shops selling cowries, ornaments, eatables (such as ant eggs, a delicacy), and of course mahua. Men and women dressed in their best and adorned with magnificent head-dresses would come from nearby villages to participate. Suddenly some women would break into a song, menfolk would soon join in with their musical instruments, and a huge group dance would start. And as the music reached its crescendo, mahua would start to flow. Little cups (made on-the-spot by leaves) would be filled & refilled with mahua, as the party-goers on a high danced away the night. The party would end late in the night when the party-goers, now too tired and inebriated to stand up, would try to stagger home. There would be many brawls on the way, much shouting, and general nuisance. Many wouldn’t make it home, and make their bed in roadside ditches and fields instead. It was a common sight following morning to find a stinking, puke-&-pee covered mass of humanity coming to in their respective resting places to find their bearings, and stagger home. I saw many such repeat performances, and it created a lasting impression on my young mind: “Drinking country liquor is BAD.” But then, I was wrong. Many years later, when I moved to Mumbai as a young professional, I watched a group of colleagues getting drunk much the same way; only this time it was beer and hard liquor. Next morning while they battled hang-over, I recounted the ruckus they created previous night. When I chided then for drinking so much, one colleague retorted, ”So what should we have had? Country?” ‘Um..no…“, I said, “I think both are the same, both make you make a fool of yourself.” So folks, I’ve learned my lesson and hope that you’ll too; that drinking is BAD whether it's country or phoren. Now, now, don’t roll your eyes saying, “There she goes again…”
Inspired by Toto La Momposina
Estas dos últimas semanas han sido de locos, estoy terminandome de adaptar a mi nuevo trabajo en DDB Chile cómo Planner Convergente (convergence planner dice mi tarjetita) y hoy se están cerrando varios pendientes. Tuve la sorpresa de encontrarme con mi primer mención en medios respecto del cual trabajo. Para mi me llena de orgullo pero más -cómo antes se lo escribí a mis más cercanos- el apoyo que vengo teniendo de todos, así que, si eres un lector de este humilde blog, te doy las gracias por seguirme leyendo y comentando cualquier cosa que se te ocurra, todo ayuda. Finalmente el trabajo que estamos haciendo en DDB es de todo un equipo, esta mención valida mis conocimientos.
(download)http://www.santaynezvalleyjournal.com/archive/7/27/4723/
Before the advent of Indian gambling casinos and the profits which enabled federally acknowledged Indian tribes to enter the world of big business, few people had ever heard of tribal sovereignty.
Generally the old European and international concept of sovereignty was associated with “nation states,” countries that saw their people and territory as having to answer to no other sovereign nation in their affairs.
Since the United States became a sovereign independent nation, it has exercised plenary power over all Indian tribes.
In the early days, there were only a few major recognized historic tribes, some with thousands of tribal members, unlike today, when tiny bands or groups of Indian descendants often claim to be a separate tribe.
In actuality, they are just splinter groups or families sharing a common or similar tribal ancestry.
In California, these tiny groups are no more than the remnants of families that at one time had a tribal ancestry.
The federal government’s Indian policies ran the gamut from treaties relations to welfare dependency.
In the beginning, when the European powers were struggling for hegemony, over the North American continent it was expedient to make treaties with various recognized tribes who were often allies in the war for control of what was called the American and Canadian territories.
As more and more Europeans migrated to the New World, the expansion of settlements often pushed tribes from territories they occupied and created conflicts between Native Indians and settlers.
Treaties then became a mechanism to make or insure a measure of peace.
As settlement became denser in the Eastern regions and migration westward increased, the conflicts could not be resolved by treaties alone, and in some cases treaties were broken.
This resulted in the disastrous relocation policies of the early to mid-1800s in which groups of Indians east of the Mississippi River were physically relocated to lands they were given by the government west of the Mississippi.
The injustices of the relocation policy and the continuing conflict between settlers were only interrupted by the Civil War.
Following the end of the Civil War, the great migration westward increased as did the beginnings of the industrial revolution in the east.
Conflicts continued with some of the warlike plains Indians and settlers seeking lands in the west.
These were often reported, sensationalized and exaggerated in newspapers and books in eastern cities and towns seeking to sell copy.
Treaties with Indian tribes were difficult at best to manage and were heavily oriented toward agriculture.
In 1881, Congress passed a law prohibiting the making of any more treaties with Indian tribes.
The advent of the homestead era, where settlers (and Indians) could homestead lands from the public domain served as impetus for the Dawes Act of 1887.
This federal law provided that Indian tribes could allocate the land they held in common as tribal lands in parcels to tribal members as their own fee lands to farm or ranch as they saw fit.
The intent in what was then still an agrarian-based economy was for these Indians to become self-sufficient and, essentially, to assimilate into the American economy and society.
Individual Indians could also homestead lands under a procedure established by the Indian Homestead Act.
By the terms of the Dawes Act, once a tribe had allotted all of its tribal land to its tribal members, the tribe ceased to have any tribal authority and political identity.
During that period, from the Dawes Act to 1921, there was much confusion in federal Indian policy, which conflicted with the earlier “treaty” policy that had created “reservations” for the occupation and control of tribal entitles.
The relocation policy also created “reservations” for the purposes of a recognized tribe of Indians to occupy and control, free from any outside interference in internal tribal affairs.
These reservations were lands ceded to tribes and to which some tribes were relocated.
Others voluntarily populated these lands set aside for their use and occupation.
During this same period, the U.S. government sought to make individual Indians full citizens of the United States, often creating fictitious or vague rationales for doing so.
Finally, in 1921, Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act, which made each individual Indian a full citizen of the United States.
check it out folks. It is awesome
