On Assimilation, Adaptation, and Adoption

I've been comparing assimilation as it occurred in reference to Native American people with the concepts of adoption and adaptation. Assimilation is, in itself, a neutral word that doesn't necessarily connote a forced change in the adaptation of the minority to the lifestyle of the dominant culture. We, of course, experienced a forced change due to an imperative to maximize financial return in any way necessary that seemed to take root not too many years after the country was officially formed. In the Standing Bear biography "I Am a Man", Joe Starita begins his description of the downward evolution of American Indian policy with the change of heart that Thomas Jefferson underwent in the process of growing more enamored with his picture of turning the huge land expanse into a productive agrarian gridwork of privately owned land tracts.

There were a variety of opinions being offered that influenced this process. I recently heard commentary on the well-placed concerns of the Pilgrims over the fact that they were of necessity sharing the Mayflower with entrepreneurial folks who had less concern for obedience to God than for that profit maximization. We need to be careful when discussing a return to the roots of America to specify which roots we're discussing. Even in parts of the faith community, there were such glaring departures from scriptural teachings as the Doctrine of Discovery in place in both Catholic and Protestant monarchies since it was issued in a papal encyclical in the 15th century. This licensed "Christian" invasion forces to annihilate indigenous people that were contacted if they were less than cooperative with spiritual and cultural assimilation. The unsupportable notion that the church had permanently replaced Israel in the divine favor and, subsequently, had carte blanche to destroy all "Canaanites" (i. e., different and not overtly Christian peoples) encountered similar to that recorded in the account of the original occupation of their homeland due to pronounced corruption of the existing cultures was part of this concept.

I seem to remember something in the Seven Fires Prophecies of the Ojibway that discussed the fact that there were two possible outcomes from the integration of the immigrants said to be coming: they could either blend with the Native culture and become part of a respectful exchange ideas to the mutual benefit of both, creating a nearly utopian society, or they could cop an attitude and proceed to wreak havoc on the indigenous people by virtue of superior numbers and technology. Reuben Snake often drew comparisons between the "cyclic" though of the indigenous people and the "linear" thought of the Europeans. It's possible to imagine how the respect for the balanced cyclic processes of both nature and human interaction could have mitigated the destructive effects of unchecked economic development on both the land and the "less fortunate", and the European love of research, development and improvement could have broadened the capabilities of the indigenous cultures. The various tribes already exchanged cultural and technical knowledge among themselves; new ideas weren't rejected out-of-hand. It's interesting that melding the two images creates the picture of a wheeled vehicle rather than a stationary wheel or a deconstrutionist projectile of progress that disassembles bodies and objects in its path. Balanced and orderly progress that doesn't create environmental devastation, a large disparities in means and class conflict is conceivable in the intermingling of the two extremes. (These are, of course, generalizations. There were individuals in both groups that defied the philosophy of their own culture in favor of what they felt to be either higher spiritual truth or lower self-indulgence.)

If we move from public policy as developed by the church during a period where the imperative in the development of doctrine was more economic and political than governed by adherence to the teachings of Jesus, we encounter the idea of adoption. Relationships that originated from pacts or covenants rather than blood ties were demonstrated in Hebrew culture in the Old Testament, and discussed by the Apostle Paul in several places in the New Testament as an illustration of reconciliation to God through Christ. This was also an important theme among the Native people. Relationships held a very important position in society, and were sometimes based on demonstrations of compelling loyalty and friendship between individuals who had previously had been strangers. We might call this bond "love" or "mutual respect" in all cases. This is the essential difference between assimilation as experienced in the history of American Indian and African slavery policy, and the mutually advantageous process of covenanting together with integrity for mutual benefit that takes place in adoption and other alliances between individuals and people groups.