Native Americans vs. Europeans

Dance and story telling was the greatest influence of the culture of the Native Americans. When you look to how they survived through the eras without the Europeans, you realize that their forms of teaching and remembering their past was very fragile. The Native Americans learned by the hand of their ancestors who pasted their stories on to their children, who past it on to their children, and so on. Yet, when one of the family member are killed who teach the young all of the secrets to living, the entire colony and culture starts to collapse.
The mystical function was a large influence on an individual in the Native culture. They would be taught that they have spiritual power, which if you find, may change you life in many great ways. They also thought that nature is very mystical to them. When they would sacrifice an animal to feed their family they would show gratitude toward the animal, who gave its life, by dance or song. These spiritual rituals would be taught by the elders and without this knowledge they couldn't carry on the religion and culture. Thus, when they met the Europeans, they lost a lot of their culture.
When the Europeans came over and started to have consistent contact to the Natives, they found that their are many cultural differences between them. The Europeans believed heavily on the scientific path, but with a belief in one god. God, is that spiritual part of the their lives, but when they go home to eat, they didn't give thanks to the animal, but God. Whom they believe let them have the chance to eat a great meal.
In summary, they had some conflicts that hurt their relationship. When the Europeans came over, they started to clear land and kill animals like it was nothing. This is because the Europeans believe that killing animals and clearing land for large homes wasn't against what God wanted. Yet, the Natives saw this as blasphemy and were mad that they were doing such evils. Also, the Natives were taken as slaves by the Europeans, and the Native that fought, died. Thus, this starting a great conflict that would end the cultures of thousands of the Natives tribes. Because of the greediness of the Europeans, they started to ask for gold and other minerals that the Natives didn't have. This was impossible for the Natives, not only because they couldn't speak English but they literally didn't have what the Europeans were asking for. But, when the Europeans didn't get what they wanted, they would kill the Native Americans.
This was bad. Like was stated above, when the elders die, the culture dies. Now, that millions of the Natives are dead or dying, they are taking with them, the culture.
In conclusion, conflict and violence was, undoubtedly, inevitable. The Europeans were very wealth driven. They wanted to find the fastest and most economical way to make money. That said, if anything got in their way, they would find a way around or resort to fighting their way through. This causing the great conflict between the two cultures and causing the demise of the Native Americans elders. By the end of this war, it was estimated that millions of Natives were killed because of one nations greed, but the worst of it was shown through the massacre at Wounded Knee. The Seventh Cavalry killed hundreds of women and children out of spite, not for defense. Thus, showing that violence can not be avoided in some cases because some people have their mind on one thing. When it comes between morals and what they want, both of the cultures were for what was best for them, instead of who gets hurt in the process.

Accepted

Acceptance today is like asking someone what they like to eat. They will tell you that if they don't like it, they won't eat it. That's how society is today. If they don't like something about you, then they will try to avoid you. That's how people have come to think of everything. But, is there a difference between accepting something or just tolerating it?
Look at the homeless that we have in our country. Do you think people accept or tolerate them. Hard question to answer isn't it? Truly, everyone is tolerating them. When people walk by and hand them spare change, they no it's not going to change their lives. Twenty cents can't start a life over, but no one is going to say that to their face. Most likely they have gone through very tough times and still can't dig out of the hole they're in. Yet, people do go around and say that the homeless are doing what best for them, do you?
That's the difference between acceptance and tolerance. The bigger question is do we accept or tolerate beliefs? Once again, it is that our society today and long before only tolerate beliefs. If you ask any Christian if they accept anything that's against their religion, they will say no. But, do they tolerate it? If they didn't how would they survive in our world today?

MYTH

When Campbell spoke of what a Myth was it gave me the impression that a Myth isn't something that could have happened, but will happen. After reading about what he had to say i have come up with my own logical reasoning for what really is a Myth.

The definition of a Myth is a legendary story that usually involves a hero and his or her adventure with no real facts or a natural explanation for it. Yet, Campbell explained a Myth as an experience of life that may change your perspective on how you live your life. When you tell your story, many may not believe it. For instance, an old fisherman who spoke of a big fish that was as big as his leg that when he caught, he let go. Many people didn't believe him and didn't take any look at if he was right or not. Some went searching for this fish. Many probably would give up early, but there would always be that one who would try to find this fish, and he or she would be that lucky one to find this mysterious fish that was as big as a mans leg. You search for this fish thinking in the back of your head that this fish doesn't exist and that the old man is crazy. Then you caught him, and you reel him in. Then what do you do. You have proved that the Myth of one man is correct and that the fish was beautiful and majestic. You would think to yourself about if it's worth it to kill something so great to achieve so little. Soon, you will find yourself back on shore. You won't have any proof that the big fish is real, except your experience. Your experience that proved to you that you shouldn't sacrifice a life, to accomplish nothing.

You now know that the fish is real and you tell it to everyone. Soon, you are the old man who tells the story to a young one, who thinks your crazy, but walks away towards that same lake you were at, carrying a fishing poll...