I recently read a story written by Catherine Shimozono called “A Big Job For a Little Girl”. I was very moved when I read the story. It is about a 5 year old girl who decided to make friends with a little boy. The boy had built a wall around himself after losing both his parents. The wall was to keep out more pain because he could not deal with any more pain at the time. The wall worked great it kept out the pain. It actual worked too well. It kept out things like love and friendship and happiness. They boy was no longer living just existing. The little girl decided after hearing her mom and aunt talking about the boy that she would help the boy by breaking through the wall. First thing she did was to pray to Jesus for help and guidance. Jesus told her to just be his friend. She did. It wasn’t

easy and it took a lot of time and patience but finally she started seeing changes in the boy. The wall was starting

to crumble. At the end of the story the boy spoke the first word he had said since the death of his parents. That

word was “friend”. What a beautiful word. Where would we be without friends? The little girl never saw the boy

again. I find myself wondering what happened to that boy. Did he finish tearing down that wall and start living again? or Did he rebuild the wall and hide behind it again? I am hoping he starting living again, but we will

probably never know.

I told this story to the children at my church last week. (We have a time in our service where the children get to

come up front and someone tells them a story or talks to them). The kids loved it, so did the rest of the congregation. I then explained to the kids how some people suffer so much pain they build a wall around themselves, but

they build the wall to well. It not only keeps the pain, but out it also keeps out love and friendship and happiness, so the people quit living they just exist. It is up to each of us to help these people when we find them. It is not easy and it will not happen over night but with the help of God we can get through to these people and help them tear down their walls and start living again.

I can’t imagine being in so much pain that I would want to build a wall and isolate myself to stop it. I have had

my share of pain and I have done my share of crying but never felt the urge to build a wall and isolate myself. You

my think it is strange the a man would admit that he cries. I don’t think there is anything wrong with crying. A Lot of men are too macho to admit they cry. I am sure almost all men have cried at one time or another. Most do it when they are alone that way they can deny they cry and keep their image. crying is part of the grieving process.

You need to cry to grieve properly. Crying also relieves stress. I have heard of men who will put the saddest movie

they can find on the TV and cry like a baby. After the movie is over the stress is gone and they are ready to

continue with life. All I have to do is pick up a good book and all the emotions come out of me. I laugh at the

funny parts and cry and the sad parts. It you could see me you would laugh, sometimes when I am reading I get so emotional I have tears running down my face.there is nothing I like better then reading a good book.

I have seen families where parents will not allow there kids to have emotions. They spank their kids then tell them not to cry or they will get spanked again. This is so wrong. Kids need to be able to show all of their emotions.

I am a great fan of the the American Indian. They knew how to take care of mother earth and only took what they

needed. White man came along with all their greed and started destroying the delicate balance. The only thing I don’t like about the American Indians is that they were not aloud to show emotions. The American Indian thought is was a sign of weakness to show emotions. I disagree. Showing emotion is a part of life and every man, woman and child should have the right to show emotions wherever and whenever then want, but they have to show respect for others around them too. We all have to live on the old earth together so a little give and take is good for everyone.

Image by: AJ Garcia

Image by: AJ Garcia

Image by: AJ Garcia

Image by: AJ Garcia

Image by: AJ Garcia

Image by: AJ Garcia

Image by: AJ Garcia

Image by: AJ Garcia

Image by: AJ Garcia

Being consciously aware of flowers, plants and trees can be so relaxing and replenishing to the body and soul. Reports said that the American Indians are aware of this that they would place their backs to a pine tree so they could be refreshed with its amazing healing power.

Research studies also indicate that plants are sentient, that they feel pain and pleasure, and that man and plants can communicate with one another. They emit energy forces helpful to man. It is believed that one could encourage healthy growth by talking to plants and giving them proper care and attention.

Image by: AJ Garcia

The beauty and amazing power of nature is all around us. Man and plants are interconnected as all energy is interconnected.

Appreciating and being one with the beauty of nature is an effective balm to the body and soul. When we awaken to this high level of awareness, we will sense the plants’ powerful forces and we will feel refreshed and energized.  

More on Nature:

http://healthmad.com/alternative/natures-healing-power/

http://healthmad.com/mental-health/retreat/

http://healthmad.com/mental-health/healing-yourself-naturally/

http://scienceray.com/biology/ecology/nature-through-my-eyes

http://scienceray.com/biology/botany/the-sound-of-heavenly-silence/

Image via Wikipedia

Sand Creek Massacre

Journal:

My initial reaction to this article was disbelief and shock at what happened to the Native Americans at Sand Creek.   105 innocent women and children were killed on November 29, 1864 a Black Kettle’s peaceful village.  The governor of Colorado, John Evans, warned that all peaceful Indians in the area were to report to the Sand Creek reservation or risk being attacked.  However, Evans’ primary goal in 1864 was to eliminate all remaining Native American activity in the eastern Colorado Territory.  By doing this he hoped that it would make him become more popular and eventually gain a U.S. Senate seat.    

Several of the Native American tribes in eastern Colorado; the Sioux, the Cheyenne, and the Arapahoe were did not know about the plans John Evans had to eliminate them.  Even though some Indians had violently resisted white settlers, by the autumn of 1864 many Indians were becoming more open to the idea of Cheyenne Chief Black Kettle.  His idea was that they must make peace with the whites.  Governor Evans and Colonel John Chivington promised Black Kettle that his people would be safe at Fort Lyon in eastern Colorado.  In November of 1864, Black Kettle and his people arrived at the fort and requested.  The commanding federal officer at the fort, Major Edward Wynkoop, assured Black Kettle that his people would be safe at Sand Creek 40 miles away. 

By November, the 100-day enlistment of soldiers in his Colorado militia was coming to an end, but no actions were taken.  His political stock was falling and being insane and frustrated he decided that he would kill any Indians.  In his delirium he concluded that it did not matter to him whether he killed peaceful or hostile Indians, he just wanted to kill them.  His target was Black Kettle’s village at Sand Creek, which was the easiest one. 

The actions by Chivington and his men clearly showed the hatred the whites in the U.S. had against the Indians.  Colonel Chivington and Governor Evans wanted to eliminate the Indians for their own personal gain.  They promised Black Kettle that he and his people would be safe at Sand Creek, but were attacked and innocent Indians died. 

Chocolate was originally a drink made with chili pepper until the Europeans decided to take the chili pepper out and replace it with sugar. It was a huge hit, but at the time only the wealthy could afford to drink it. Lucky for us simple folk, in the late 1700’s, chocolate started appearing on cakes and pastries allowing us to indulge also. Then in 1828, Conrad van Haten, invented the machine called the “hydraulic press” giving us our first cocoa. Yes, powdered chocolate. It was the very first Dark chocolate to come about.

Now chocolate is served world wide in just about any shape or form that you desire and is still the number one craved sweet. The myths however, that chocolate causes acne or tooth decay is false. Actually, chocolate has been everything from an anti-depressant to an aphrodisiac. As for me though, give me my trippled layer chocolate cake with extra chocolate frosting and two scoops of chocolate ice cream and I’m set. Bon appetit!

In 2005, the National Collegiate Athletic Association banned the use of American Indian mascots by sports teams in the postseason games.  Team names deemed racist or abusive were not allowed on teams’ jerseys.  The ruling, however, was confusing and somewhat ineffective as the executive committee of the NCAA did not have authority over individual schools.  According to committee chairman, Walter Harrison, “What each school decides to do is really its own business.”  In other words, the only authority the NCAA has is to ban schools with such mascots from competing in an NCAA championship tournament.  School officials, however, strongly disagree with the NCAA ruling.  Florida State president, T.K. Wetherell, threatened to take legal action against the NCAA stating, “Florida State University is stunned at the complete lack of appreciation for cultural diversity shown by the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s executive committee. … That the NCAA would now label our close bond with the Seminole Tribe of Florida as culturally ‘hostile and abusive’ is both outrageous and insulting.”  Athletic Director of Arkansas State University agrees with Wetherell in the representation of his school’s mascot:  “It is our objective to represent Native Americans in a dignified and stately manner.  We believe that our use of the nickname ‘Indians’ and ‘The Indian Family’ as our mascot affords the Native American customs and history the fullest respect and integrity.” 

In 1990, the Board of Trustees called Chief Illinwek of the University of Illinois a “dignified” symbol: “His ceremonial dance is done with grace and beauty. The Chief keeps the memory of the people of a great Native American tribe alive for thousands of Illinoisans who otherwise would know little or nothing of them.” According to these statements, it would seem that non-Native Americans believe they are honoring the tribe their school represents. 

While the NCAA has taken measures to ban American Indian mascots, their authority only reaches to tournaments within the NCAA division.  They therefore cannot create a clear ruling on the matter.  Major college football teams, for example, are not subjected to the new rules because there is no NCAA Division I-A playoff.  Some schools are also subject to exception; schools using the Warrior mascot do not use Native American symbols and are therefore unaffected by the ruling.  Likewise, North Carolina-Pembroke, which uses the Braves mascot, will be unaffected because of the high percentage of Native American students that attend it.  Schools that are on the list of “hostile and abusive” mascots are likely to appeal and attempt to overrule the sanction brought forth by the NCAA.  The ineffectiveness of the NCAA’s ruling illustrates the attitude of sports teams and fans:  the teams and their fans insist that their mascots are a tribute to the Native American people.

Professional sports team owners also deny any racism in their mascots.  In the November 15, 1992 game between the Kansas City Chiefs and the Washington Redskins in Kansas City, angry Native Americans and their supporters demonstrated their disapproval.  In response to the demonstrations, team owners chose several minority players to announce that their teams did not mean to insult, but rather to honor the native people they represented.  Major television networks and newspapers have agreed, editorializing that the portrayal of American Indians in their mascots is just “good, clean fun.”  Team owners have argued that “a few disgruntled Native Americans” have no right to undermine the nation’s enjoyment of its sports teams.  In an attempt to counter claims of racism, proponents of the racist mascots, such as Ward Churchill, have claimed that the Native Americans have created “a serious barrier to the sort of intergroup communication so necessary in a multicultural society such as ours.”

Other non-Native Americans, however, hold a different opinion when it comes to “honor” and “dignity” of Native American mascots.  Dr. Richard Lapchick, director of Northeastern University’s Center for the Study of Sport in Society and critic of the University of Illinois’, sees nothing dignified about the portrayal of their “Chief Illinwek”:  “Could you imagine people mocking African Americans in black face at a game?” he said. “Yet go to a game where there is a team with an Indian name and you will see fans with war paint on their faces. Is this not the equivalent to black face? To me, Native Americans are our most spiritual people. They believe that we all live within the one circle of humanity, no matter what the color of our skin. We wait for our sports teams to honor that circle.”  Others of non-Native American descent have taken the issue of American Indian mascot portrayal seriously.  Roy Saigo, president of St. Cloud State University, a Japanese-American and a national leader of the anti-mascot campaign, convinced the NCAA to consider a formal discussion of the mascot issue.  The United States Commission on Civil Rights backed his efforts, calling for “an end to the use of Native American images and team names by non-Native schools.”  Saigo believes that “until we resolve this, we will continue to inflict pain on one of our nation’s most scarred communities.” 

The pain that Saigo speaks of, however, runs deeper than he may have thought.  In 2005, the American Psychological Association (APA) called for the immediate ban on Native American mascots in schools, athletic teams, and other organizations.  Former APA president, Dr. Ronald F. Levant understands that the eradicate racism, it must be eliminated from schools:  “The use of American Indian mascots as symbols in schools and university athletic programs is particularly troubling because schools are places of learning. These mascots are teaching stereotypical, misleading and too often, insulting images of American Indians. These negative lessons are not just affecting American Indian students; they are sending the wrong message to all students.”  Based on a growing body of social science literature, research has shown that racial stereotyping and inaccurate racial portrayals have a harmful effect on the development of social identity and self-esteem in young Native Americans. 

Research has also shown that the racial stereotypes found in mascots proves to be detrimental to young non-Native Americans.  Non-Native American children are susceptible to accepting the mascots as the true portrayal of Native Americans.  According to most students, Native Americans only survive in their history books.  Traditionally, very little information has been presented to students, but that information includes stereotypes that encourage children to ostracize those who appear different from themselves.  It teaches non-Native American children that it is acceptable to engage in culturally abusive behavior, as well as carry on inaccurate ideas about the Native American culture and community.  This discrimination can easily lead to negative relationships between members of the Native American community and members of the non-Native American community.  Those in the non-Native American community who have been educated on the real issues understand the pain it is causing, as well as attempt to eradicate the blatant racism found in negative portrayals of Native Americans.  According to Dr. Lisa Thomas of the APA Committee on Ethnic and Minority Affairs, “The discontinued use of American Indian mascots is a gesture to show that this kind of racism toward and the disrespect of, all people in our country and in the larger global context, will not be tolerated.”

Non-Native American parents and educators are beginning to understand the effect their school mascots have on their children.  The values of tolerance and respect in the schools are contradicted when a stereotyped image of a Native American leader represents the school’s sports team.  When educators take the time and initiative to help children “unlearn” their stereotypic views of Native Americans while teaching the truth, students become a valuable resource in the reformation of racist images in a place of education.  The opinion of non-Native American students, after an informed discussion of the truth behind Native American history, expresses an intolerance for racism.  Most students sympathize with Native Americans, upset by schools’ intentional decisions to choose blatantly racist mascots.  Some students, on the other hand, differentiate between mascots.  After thoughtful research, many argue that the University of Illinois’ Chief Illiniwek is not disrespectful, while the Cleveland Indians’ Chief Wahoo is an obvious caricature and therefore an offensive image.