Guest, I use the words that fit the ideas I'm trying to express. "Authochthonous" implies more than just "indigenous" or "native." In this case, it implies the special relationship between the beliefs and the particular land in which they were formed. If you had to work a little to get that meaning, sobeit. Yes, I grew up around and have Indians in the family. (There are also northern European, Philippino/Chinese, Turkish, Japanese, and Hispanic members of my family.) I told you that I was giving you the short version of things from a scholarly view, and even then, it was a hefty post. Don't presume that a scholarly view of the world precludes a workaday view of the world.

"Industrial religions" is a shorthand term to refer to the big three "religions" that are far more than just religions--they're a compound of spiritual dogma, economic policy and scientific discourse.

I said nothing about NA hegemony or any pan-Indian religious beliefs that you call a "Native American religious amalgam of religious beliefs". You apparently live at the center of your world, where you bring your beliefs and attitudes to words written by others. I made no apologies for anyone's cultural traditions, simply pointed out that you are making a mistake by assuming that these things occur in one place only, or that Indians are a special kind of victim. That kind of thinking in and of itself is victimizing.

Guest, you were doing okay for a while. Sorry I lost you--I thought your close reading and critical thinking skills were sharper than they apparently are. You have a chip on your shoulder and as you read my remarks made a number of incorrect assumptions. Don't assume that if someone chooses to study a culture that by default they are outside of it, have no knowledge of it, or are so far removed as to make it into a museum piece.

The last quote that I ran was aimed at others, who probably won't get it anyway. It was in the context of our discussion, but evidently beyond your ken. Sorry I overestimated your abilities.

SRS