Home | About | Donate

Rewriting the Human Story


Rewriting the Human Story

Robert C. Koehler

Oh sacred planet.


How indeed. thanks.


A visit to the Survivor International website was eye opening. We forget that one news site (beloved as CD is) is not the equivalent of the world wide web. The SI website is about indigenous struggles everywhere and first contact with tribal peoples in the Amazon Go visit the site and the word 'indigenous' comes alive with people again. A great site with mostly video pieces which are both fascinating and informative.

The piece that Robert mentions that was written by the director of the Survivor International site, Stephen Corry is about the little discussed connections between the eugenics movement and the conservation movement in this country and later elsewhere. It is seriously surprising to see that so many famous names and still existing conservation organizations were connected with this despicable lack of empathy for tribal peoples. The genocide and removal of native peoples continues and in places in So.America and elsewhere bands of armed men are sent to get rid of indigenous tribal peoples who want to stay on their own land etc. No it isn't John Wayne's hollywoodized 7th cavalry. These men use modern weapons and trucks instead of horses.

John Muir? A eugenicist? The founder of the WWF too? Alexander Grahm Bell? The founding president of Stanford University and charter member of the Sierra Club? The article on Truthout is worth a read.

The author tips his hat to Greenpeace though for being a conservation group that helps indigenous tribal peoples. Yay Greenpeace.


No irony that it's HIS-story that has to be rewritten. Yet Mr. Koehler leaves the core aspects that led to hierarchical ranking systems, those that made authoritarian regimes spanning from kings to unitary executives not just possible, but also inevitable. Instead, he wants to dilly-dally round the edges without carving into the false sacred cows that allot to males, of Anglo-European descent, in particular--so much undue privilege:

"We intend to challenge the stories which underpin our civilization: the myth of progress, the myth of human centrality, and the myth of our separation from ‘nature.’ These myths are more dangerous for the fact that we have forgotten they are myths."

Until YOU understand that the "separation from nature" was part of the subjugation of Woman and the decimation of all spiritual rites and rituals that honored the Goddess, Mother Nature, and the FEMININE--counterbalance to the all-important FATHER god, you can change NOTHING.


I am sure you are aware of this, but for those who might not be familiar with the movement Eugenics at the time was considered legitimate science, as hard as this is for us to contemplate today. It led to such tragic and inhumane actions as mass involuntary sterilizations throughout the nation based on the notorious Supreme Court decision in the case of Buck v. Bell, written by Oliver Wendell Holmes:

"We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. . . . Three generations of imbeciles are enough."...Oliver Wendell Holmes.

Ms. Buck's daughter was not an imbecile, when she attended school she did B work.


I can't help thinking that the introduction of standarized testing that has replaced everything with only math and English skills is a deliberate attempt to prevent children from understanding their connection to nature, the importance of our environment, the threats to our existence and the brutal history of our country.


Margaret Sanger was a supporter of eugenics. You've often talked about 'we' . About lumpiing everyone together in a collective 'we' - the rhetorical we.

Yet you do exactly what you object to by lumping all men together in a collective 'them'. According to you all women are perfect and all men are not.

You use that collective 'we' for women so much that it is becoming a mania. Not all males are patriarchical and authoritarian.
Many are of course but believe it or not most here in this community are not. It doesn't even make sense that you preach (berate) the already converted but look in the mirror about that WE... that you object to so much.


American Indian women and Puerto Rican women (and black women in some communities) were still being sterilized in the early sixties (and later) btw. It wasn't called eugenics... but it was exactly that except in name.


Once again, Robert Koehler, you have touched the heart of the matter.

I remember back maybe 35 years ago, the first time I saw signs in a Forest Preserve stating that "I should take out my own trash." I was insulted! What? Take out my own? Shortly after that, I was informed of the environmental movement. Then it all made sense. I felt so naive for not realizing the "other side" of the story of littering our world.

Well, I guess old dogs can learn new tricks. I have to honest, and once again feel naive, to realize that I never considered the fact that "conservation" meant ruthless removal of the natural caretakers of our lands.

You ask questions that have no answers, but you are 100% correct when you say, our stories need to be re-written. The loss of the sense of Sacredness has been to our detriment.

Write stories of our Sacred World....yes indeed.


And then we have the decision by the US Forest Service to permit Energy Fuels Inc. (TSX:EFR), a Canadian mining firm that develops uranium and vanadium properties in the US permission to begin drilling for Uranium just six miles from the Grand Canyon's South Rim.

Judge Gives OK to Uranium Mine at Grand Canyon
( Friday, 14 August 2015 00:00 By Reynard Loki, AlterNet | Report )

In June, the Grand Canyon was named one of the "Most Endangered Places" in America by the National Trust for Historic Preservation. But the designation came just two months too late to possibly influence US District Court Judge David Campbell. In April, he denied a request by the Havasupai tribe and a coalition of conservation groups to halt new uranium mining next to Grand Canyon National Park, just six miles from the Grand Canyon's South Rim.
"We are very disappointed with the ruling by Judge Campbell in the Canyon Mine case," said Havasupai Chairman Rex Tilousi. "We believe that the National Historic Preservation Act requires the Forest Service to consult with us and the other affiliated tribes before they let the mining company damage Red Butte, one of our most sacred traditional cultural properties." He said that the Havasupai Tribal Council would appeal the decision.

Like that old dead black gooey shit called crude oil, Uranium also needs to be left alone, deep in the Earth, away from the children in the sandbox, to protect the real children in the sandbox....
Otherwise A good, but short story on A topic that needs to be discussed much more often- Thank you Mr. Koehler-


This article and comments makes a lot of sense about the attitudes of people. However, the reality is that industrialized civilization has produced a vast aging infrastructure providing services people have become dependent on. The operation of this infrastructure entails irreversibly using natural material resources and producing immutable material wastes that have caused climate disruption and ocean warming and acidification as well as damaging the environment. Many people rightfully regret what this infrastructure has and is doing to the natural environment. But the best that people can do is adopt measures to ease the inevitable powering down as the infrastructure inevitably decays.


Siouxrose, what is cause and what is effect? Do human myths somehow cause patriarchy, or do patriarchal societies create myths that glorify what exists in the societies. Myths are not just false stories, they promote cultural cohesion in societies. The myth of the Exodus (there is no evidence that thousands of slaves left Egypt and wandered in the desert for 40 years) was invented by the ancient Israelites to promote cultural cohesion.

The Torah describes a patriarchal society where males subjugated females because that is what was true of that society. Patriarchy evolved because it promotes survival in an agrarian society. Males controlling land for food production and females who would produce offspring were more likely to pass on genes than males who were landless. Patriarchy does not exist in hunter-gatherer societies because both males and females contribute to the food supply.

Patriarchy evolved when agriculture evolved. You seem to think males somehow decided to subjugate females because of the myths of the society.

Trying to rewrite history to suit feminists is simply wrong.


Selective breeding of dogs has produced the numerous breeds of dogs that exist today. All modern dogs are genetically modified wolves.

Eugenics, the view that the same selective breeding techniques used with animals should be used with humans is a legitimate science. But most people think selective breeding of humans is immoral.

However, in some societies, marriages are arranged for political and/or economic reasons. This is no different than a farmer breeding only the cows in his herd who produce the most milk.


How do we? We start with ridding ourselves of the degenerate and decaying US empire!


Maybe we can just get rid of the part that serves a greedy few at the expense of millions of us.


The concept "infinite growth based on finite resources" sort of takes its inspiration from how "money" is believed to work -- invest and the money somehow becomes more money, "growth," "wealth." I've never understood how money assumed its faith based status as not a zero sum game. If someone's pile of money is increasing it means that someone else's is decreasing. But the belief is that money is like bacteria, mysteriously multiplying.

The economists, a word game career that purports to be a science, cannot really explain this but their work product is full of assurances that they know what they're talking about because they say they do. Nothing they do is provable or measurable unlike, say, forestry where you can count the number trees that are there as opposed to how many were there at last count.

By the time this self infatuated career of idiots "runs the numbers" and discover that all the "resources" are all used up, their imaginary economic system will dissolve into a big pile of nothing.


To add another way of saying what I said in my post above: economists without exception are supposed experts who are completely full of economic excrement. During the 70s (my "yuppie years") I worked doing document preparation (aka "word processing" and the now disappeared career of typesetting) at World Headquarters of one of those dreadful big banking corporations. I came away with a view that the financial services industry was a stuffy but respectable appearing criminal conspiracy and that economists were deluded hucksters who believed in the stuff they were touting to the detriment of everything. They had excessive numbercrunch personality disorders which ought to be added to the DSM. Of course nobody I tried to tell this to believed me. But events of the last decade or so has proved to me I read things right. The article "Wall Street and the Cycle of Crises" in the same issue of Counterpunch supplies more evidence but is harder to read and make sense of because it was written in economist speak.


It seems to me he deals with this issue quite well when he talks about a return to the values of indigenous cultures - unless you want to argue that indigenous cultures were all "patriarchal", your critique misses the mark completely ....


Not the first, nor only, time that "legitimate science" is legitimately considered immoral ...


Eugenics is not the same as selective breeding. Eugenics was the sterilization or extermination of people based on the preferences of a group and not based on science.

Humans are not animals. Our complexity is a virtual guarantee that attempts at selective breeding will fail. Nazis attenpted to breed an aryan super race of blonde haired blue eyed physically superior geniuses. What they got were a lot of regular folks who had a slightly higher pecentage of blue eyes and blond hair.

A genius can be born from ordinary parents and the child of two geniuses may be a twit. That is the thing about humans. We are not race horses nor dogs.

You should look at the history of eugenics and what was proposed and remember the nazis who embraced that aberrant way of looking at other human beings.