The Indian in his simple philosophy, was careful to avoid a centralized population, wherein lies civilization's devil. He would not be forced to accept materialism as the basic principle of his life, but preferred to reduce existence to its simplest terms. His roving out-of-door life was more precarious, no doubt, than life reduced to a system, a mechanical routine; yet in his view it was and is infinitely happier. To be sure this philosophy of his had its disadvantages and obvious defects, yet it was reasonably consistent with itself, which is more than can be said for our modern civilization. He knew that virtue is essential to the maintenance of physical excellence, and that strength, in the sense of endurance and vitality, underlies all genuine beauty. He was as a rule prepared to volunteer his services at anytime in behalf of his fellows, at any cost of inconvenience and real hardship, and thus to grow in personality and soul-culture. Generous to the last mouthful of food, fearless of hunger, suffering, and death, he was surely something of a hero.
Not to have but to be was his national motto. -Charles Alexander Eastman
Just read this the other day. Thought it was beautiful.
reply
share
brux (14724)
4 years ago
Very interesting thing about the term Indian. The generation of that term as being from India is totally incorrect. At the time of Columbus, India was called Hindustan. What Columbus called the natives was People Under God, or Gente "En Dios", which became Indian.
reply
share
MovieBuff224 (5053)
4 years ago
Incorrect.
“"Hindustan", as the term Hindu itself, entered the English language in the 17th century. In the 19th century, the term as used in English referred to the Subcontinent. "Hindustan" was in use simultaneously with "India" during the British Raj. Today, "Hindustan" is no longer in use as the official name for India.”
reply
share