Mako Shika

> The Sioux Indians called the badlands Mako Shika, which means land of no good. I guess that's how we ended up with badlands. But it also means they probably had no word for bad, or evil, except 'no-good'.
>
> I wonder how we came up with the concept of evil? My son Absalom said the Native Americans also had no concept of sin, and maybe bad and sin are related. Sin comes from Christianity in my opinion, but Absalom said it was more like taboo. I'm pretty sure Native Americans had taboos. I read about a tribe that had masked players as gods and spirits perform to children, and strictly prevented them from ever catching a glimpse of the masks and costumes alone until a disenchantment ritual that took place age 7 when they were shown their uncles and brothers dressing up as the spirits. But generally taboos and sin are about drawing a line through the space of behavior and desire, and othering those on the far side. Whereas good and no-good are about taking different paths in an undivided land, where you might get to your destination by turning left and then right or right and then left, maybe crossing the badlands and then coming home to tell the tale. I wonder if the concept of bad comes from dividing the land and putting up borders and fences.
>
> A giant cow on the hillside by the freeway in North Dakota turned out to be advertising a local savings bank, rather than part of the Enchanted Freeway metal sculpture display, reminding me that once people measured wealth not in money or land but in cattle. Or maybe it's meant to be a giant cow-shaped piggy-bank.
>
> The closest the Indians had to a devil was perhaps the trickster god who in the form of a raven or coyote stole from them and mocked their taboos, and yet caused laughter and brought creative diversity to the world rather than being reviled or defeated.
>
> Facts I learned about Native Americans for my clinical psychology exam: they have the highest rate of suicide, especially among adolescent boys, the highest homicide rate and the highest rate of domestic violence of all the ethnic groups. I guess this comes from not understanding land ownership when the Europeans came here and from liking alcohol too much, as well as being bullied, marginalized and othered as a relic.
>
> Or maybe there is a society of proud, happy Indians, like the cowboy bookseller, preserving their languages and traditions at some national native American poetry convention. Or maybe cowboys, too, have high rates of homicide, suicide and domestic violence, but are not a recognized ethnic group.
>
> Listening to NPR, somebody in Britain was arrested for making racist comments on a blog. They had a Canadian activist and a British reporter discussing freedom of speech. Where is the line between offending somebody and infringing their human rights? The Canadian made the point that free speech is necessary for conveying information and making an argument whereas racial slurs typically appeal to the emotions and therefore never need to be included. But I know that an emotional appeal is more likely to influence somebody's behavior and opinions than pure reason and facts. Free speech is about freedom of expression, not just about communicating facts. And how about freedom to deceive? Is that evil, or just no-good?
>
>
>