White Americans like to pretend that everything is sacred to Native Americans. To their credit, many Native Americans pretend that their ancestors did, too.

But is this true? Is everything sacred?

The issue comes up frequently in Yellowstone, where interpretation of Native American experience has gone from, “Those simple people were too scared of the geysers to come to Yellowstone, to “Obviously, they were so simple that everything in Yellowstone must have had some kind of sacred or spiritual significance for them.” Obviously, Native American can’t enjoy nature for its beauty.
Aren’t they both equally as bad when it comes to simplifying indigenous peoples’ thoughts?

The Cairngorms in Scotland are awfully impressive, and I appreciate that about them, but do I find them sacred? I have relatives buried in a cemetery, but is that place really considered sacred ground for me? I respect it as a place we put our dead, but would I sacrifice a goat to the Gods there? In many of the accounts of Native Americans I’ve read, many thought Yellowstone was pretty cool and awfully utilitarian. But sacred? Many never came to the area because of its remoteness, not because they were afraid of the gods getting pissed off. They had very practical views of the geysers and hot springs: they used the waters to bath in or to soften the horns of bighorn sheep in order to bend them into bows. They buried people in the park who died on long journeys, not because they were buried specifically IN the park.

Can’t Native Americans appreciate something for its beauty and resources, without considering it sacred? We don’t require white people to consider something sacred in order to interact with it; why insist on that myth for indigenous minorities? Could they also have looked at the Grand Tetons and have seen it as a mountain to conquer rather than to fear? My guess is that human spirit prevails, and that Native Americans were climbing Devil’s Tower long before white people showed up to do it, no matter what the legends say.

This can extend beyond the North American indigenous population. Throughout the world, art (as created by “primitive” people who existed more than, say, 500 years ago in Europe, Asia and Africa) is reduced to the spiritual. Those rock carvings MUST have religious significance, because those people would have NEVER done that for fun or to create something merely aesthetically pleasing. Those temples MUST have religious significance, because those people would never build something like that for personal satisfaction.

Discussions of Newgrange in Ireland, the pyramids of Egypt, Chichen Itza, Great Zimbabwe, all center around gods and priests and sacrifice. Never do the venture into the realm of art and beauty such as they are. But was The Thinker sculpted to sit in a church? Does George Bumann sculpt in order to express his love of god? Did Van Gogh paint because he was divinely told to? If we civilized white people can create art simply because we feel like it, why can’t anyone else?

Jonmikel paid me a great compliment not so long ago. We were having a conversation about how old so many people his age seem to be, when really, mid-30s is not even close to old anymore. In fact, in Western Europe, you are considered a "kid" well into your 20s, and 30s is when you should start growing up. Americans tend to mix up "maturity" with "old."

Anyway, the compliment: we were driving along 25, and he looked at me and said, “I’m so much younger now than I was 5 years ago.”

Because really, growing up and getting a job and starting a family is no excuse to get old.

11/19/09

Ahh photos from the day Kathryn Byerly learned how to play poker FOR REAL in Las Vegas. She's ready for the World Poker Tour now, baby! Oh, minus the stupid hats and glasses, because she thinks that's cheating.

Taken from the top of the Eiffel Tower at Paris! Las Vegas with a point-and-shoot

The Bellagio and its dancing fountains!

The Bellagio's dancing fountains in front of Caesar's Palace!

The Happy Couple, even after losing money while playing live poker!
PS Jonmikel is totally crouching down because I kept cutting his forehead out of these pictures

The Venetian, where we lost $200!
And it was totally worth it!

Taken from the top of the Eiffel Tower at Paris! Las Vegas with a point-and-shoot

The Venetian, where we lost $200!
And it was totally worth it!

The Venetian, where we lost $200!
And it was totally worth it!

Taken from the top of the Eiffel Tower at Paris! Las Vegas with a point-and-shoot

OK, I didn't tak ethis one, but I thought it was neat, anyway!

1/18/09

My mother asked me yesterday if I actually had a good time in Las Vegas, or if I found it campy and silly. Really, it was both. It's the kind of place you have to take at face value and be willing to act a little silly to accommodate. It's got hookers of both genders and all sexual affiliations and Elvis impersonators and Hen parties and washed-up performers making a last stand and celebrities and weddings and everything else. If you take it too seriously, it loses its charm and magic; it's a place where you can pretend to be anyone you want for a weekend, and everybody will both at once believe you and think you're a liar. They always say that you should dance like no one is watching, and Las Vegas is the one place where such a thing is always possible, and in fact encouraged. Because tomorrow, nobody will remember who you are or what you look like or where you come from, and nobody cares if you made a fool out of yourself or not, so you might as well have. The city is what it is, and I had a blast pretending to be whatever it is that I want to be...

The lion outside the MGM Grand

One of the statues outside the MGM Grand, looking forlorn

The only picture I took at the aquarium at Mandalay Bay (the US' only predator-based aquarium, apparently) that actually came out... a lion fish, gotta love lion fish!

The fountain outside Paris! As are all the rest...

1/17/09

What can people really say about Las Vegas? It's a place where the hotels are cheap, but everything else is expensive. Where the city is alive at all hours except between 7 am and 10 am, when everybody is passed out. Where dinner is served at 3 am and breakfast all day. Where people hand out fliers promising XXX women to happily married men with young children. Where women flaunt what they've got and men flaunt their money. Where neon and high heels are the local specialties. Where you can almost see Frank Sinatra sip a drink and croon. Where affiliations with the mob are noted on a public checklist of people banned from casinos.

It's an exciting place, an all-day, all-you-can-eat, all-you-can-drink, all-you-can-gamble, all-you-can-stand place, each themed hotel a throwback to something you can kind of remember if you squint.

We booked a hotel right on the strip, Bill's Gambling Hall and Saloon, a $45-a-night place with views of the Bellagio and ribeye-and-eggs for $5 from midnight to 6am. Prime location for pretty much everything, and we begin our jaunt in the Other City that Never Sleeps a, appropriately, New York New York, where I promptly win $618 at a slot machine and quit while I'm ahead. We also make the mandatory stop at Margaritaville, where we sing Jimmy Buffet tunes, sip a Land Shark with tequila in it, and dine on probably the largest plate of nachos I have ever seen.

The view from our hotel room to the left


Should I be jealous?


The view from our window to the right... the Bellagio Fountains

Ahhhh Paris!

A Las Vegas classic, the Flamingo!

Caesar's Palace from Margaritaville

From the rooftop bar at Margaritaville

Up the Eiffel Tower

In the spirit of American Freedom (read: conspicuous consumption in all its coin-purse jingling glory), I watched this year’s Presidential Inauguration from a casino in Vegas. Nothing says America like poker out West.

Really, I am one of those Americans who didn’t think this day would come. Not only have we elected the US’ first black president, but we’ve also elected a guy with a name that is not blatantly boring and American; we picked a Barack Obama, oddly foreign to our neo-European tongues, over a John McCain. As I’ve always been a fan of funky names, I’m all for it. I just never thought it would happen in my lifetime.

I watched the Inauguration diligently, and found myself in a myriad of emotions. On the one hand, Obama’s speech was moving and determined, and he looked noble and presidential and like all the things our political scene has been missing in the last 6 or so years. On the other hand, I was bothered by several things.

First of all, I want to express my deepest disgust at those American who refused to watch the Inauguration or who threw rude and inappropriate comments at our incoming president because, well, they voted for the other guy. I have always been of the opinion that the president is the president, and even if you don’t agree with his takes on the world, and even if you didn’t vote for him, he deserves your respect. Yes, even W deserved the respect that comes with the position. I may not like him, I may think he royally messed up, I may ask him some tough questions, but if I were to ever meet him, I will shake his hand and smile and be as polite as possible, because he deserves that. Obama, too, deserves this, and while we may have the right to our own angry, hurtful and ignorant opinions, we should all be smart enough and well-bred enough to be polite and respectful.

Also, I felt some offense at the term “non-believer” that Obama used at one point to say how this country is meant for everyone. Some people may be okay with the fact that hey, at least we’re getting some acknowledgment, but I’m not. I found it pejorative and incorrect. To imply, first of all, that if you’re not Christian or Muslim or Jew or Hindu that you are, in fact, a non-believer, discounts and undermines the hundreds of religions out there that don’t fall into these neat categories. Secondly, calling us “non-believers” implies that we don’t believe in anything, which is incorrect, as most of us, even atheists, believe in something, whether it is the strength of the human spirit, our own capabilities, nature, whatever. Third, the term “non-believer” is what extremists throw around to create an environment of hate, an environment that pits “us” against “them” and one which causes people to invade countries and blow up buildings. Lastly, by referring to all those who do not fit into the category as “non-believers,” I feel that people are implying that we are inherently wrong and aren’t really capable of believing, but because the Christians/Hindus/Muslims/Jews are such good people, they will allow us to also partake in the “freedoms” of the US. You can be glib all you want, but as someone who has experienced religious discrimination in ways that mainstream religious people or people who live in, for example, the international metropolis of Washington, DC, have never experienced, I feel that it’s about time that all of us “non-believers” be recognized for something other than the fact that we don’t fit into Americans’ over-simplified definitions of what is and is not a religion. Obama may not have meant it in this way, as I’m sure some of you will argue, but it perpetuates religious ignorance nonetheless. I found it to be inappropriate for an international presidential speech, and perhaps instead of singling out all of us non-Christians/Jews/Muslims/Hindus, a more all-encompassing idea should have been presented, one that is powerful regardless of religious, ethnic, economic affiliations. I'm no speech writer or politician, so please do not ask me to come up with anything more specific on the fly.

Finally, I was hoping for some recognition of our indigenous population, for once. Ever year that I’ve watched the Inauguration, or have been at least able to comprehend its significance which, granted, has not been many such events, I have hoped that a hand would be extended to the people that have been here for at least 12,000 years. And every year, I’ve been disappointed. Every new president has made sweeping statements about how this country was built by people who came over on boats, how our goals and dreams and morals were brought over by people who came on boats, how these people who came on boats came searching for freedom and built this country on those beliefs. Nevermind that there were at least 12 million people already here, and that in order to build our country on freedom we had to get rid of those 12 million people first. I don’t want a president to bring up the atrocities, necessarily, but I would, for once, like a new president to recognize the importance of our under-represented and all too often ignored indigenous populations, to note the influence of the Native Americans on our value system and our environment and our country’s politics, to include them when speaking of “Americans” and “equality.” So casually do we speak of our cultural identity as European or African immigrants, and yet how many of us might have American Indian ancestry running through us? I though that perhaps a president with a perspective based on his life as a minority in this country would bring an acknowledgment of our oldest, poorest and most forgotten minority. How many of you even thought of them during this historic transition?

Nature Films

Nature filmmaking is a sham.

Seriously. I watched an episode of Planet Earth once. The one on African wild dogs. They showed a sequence of scenes during a hunt, and declared it to be the first time a complete hunt by these (albeit rockingly cool) animals has EVER been caught on film! Amazing! Inspirational! These guys must be way dedicated for that kinds of thing! You’ve seen it, too! Great!

Keep watching.

You hit the end, the section about the Diaries or some such where they let you know about all their hardships while making tons upon tons of money from BBC, and they proceed to explain to you, the naïve viewer, that the “hunt” (you know, the first entire hunt ever caught on camera), was actually filmed over the course of (something surmounting to) two weeks, and was several hunts (perhaps even several packs) put together and edited flawlessly to create the illusion of a single, first-time-caught-on-camera sequence.

So they lie, and then they admit to it? Which is worse?

Also, I find out at Christmas by several people who know him personally that Bob Landis, the Yellowstone-local filmmaker who has won several awards, notably for the grizzly special he did for National Geographic some years ago, is currently working on a project following the life of a black wolf in Yellowstone over the course of a year. Only, to illustrate this year-in-the-life, he’s using footage from several black wolves in Yellowstone over the course of about 8 years.

Isn’t this cheating, all you wildlife filmmakers out there? Isn’t this fraud? This is the breaking down of everything I held dear as a child, watching Nature and Nova with wide eyes, pondering that someday, I, too, could make $16,000 a year as a wildlife biologist.

What else aren’t you telling us, wildlife filmmakers? Did you digitally create the platypus? Did you stick that great white shark, jumping majestically out of the water to feast on a witless gull, on a trampoline? Did you really film just five wildebeests running across the African plains and then draw in the thousands of others (and maybe a bit more dust in the sky) with a sharpie to make it look more impressive? Is the sky even blue, or is that Crayola “sky blue” I see sticking out of your pocket?