I question a causal relationship between religion and prosperity or that religion is a hindrance to agitation. MLK Jr and Gandhi were deeply religious and are amongst some of the most notable agitators of the 20th century.

Religion can be used in many ways, you point out another use for it. In fact, it is often because of the safe spaces afforded to religion that allow such agitation to occur.

I should point out that MLK jr. strongly felt that non violent protest alone wasn't going to cut it. He valued Malcom X's rejection of non violence as a necessary counterpoint to his movement. From what I understand he felt it was necessary for white America to see that things could go horribly, violently wrong, but he wanted to lead with peaceful protest and didn't want to be associated with the violent alternative that could dominate if things didn't change in a positive way. Basically he was giving white America a choice, "We can make change in a civilized, respectful manner, or we can have chaos and violence".

One major lesson from both of these men and movements that I wish the protestors of today would recognize is that often protest itself is not going to cut it. You have to get a televised beat down from the cops in order to sway the masses. Public unnecessary suffering changes minds pretty quickly. When you see well dressed people marching in a non threatening manner insisting on reasonable change get attacked violently by the authorities, most people will recognize that injustice and react. This happened with the beginning of the Arab spring when that man set himself on fire in protest. Oppressors always want to sanitize and hide their most extreme violence against the oppressed.

we had a native american Professor at a university i used to go to, he is still extremely bitter towards US-people, especially the govt that did not keep the promised made to his people.

Oh yeah, I'm with you on the critique of capitalism.

But I often wonder how much native culture is new, pretending(or wrongly believing) to be old. I have found that some cultures believe they have very old traditional practices and foods, which turn out to have modern origins. I think a lot of cultures pigeonhole themselves into this mindset of "we've always done it this way, therefor it's sacred and inviolable".

An example is fry bread. Fry bread is often treated as a wonderful part of native heritage, not only in the US but across the world. But in almost every case, it is a food brought about by colonialism.

I am reminded of an experience I had as a small child watching a Native American dance with all the feathers and such and at first I was fascinated but as I started thinking about it I felt sad because it looked to me that these people were dancing for the whites. And it all could have been bullshit made up 300 years ago to sooth the invaders. A common theme I see among colonized people is using religious belief as a way to shield oneself from further incursions. Because that's one thing most people will respect and back off from. "Oh you have deeply held religious rituals about X, well we should probably relax a little bit".

All cultures change and grow, I strongly believe that insisting a given culture has been unchanged for millennia is a foolish proposition, especially if there is no written record. But even with one. It's like saying species don't evolve over time because you haven't seen any changes in your lifetime or your grandparents lifetime. It is a common human mistake to make.

Thank you for being so generous with your time and thoughts.

I never said that I hated people fighting against racism or that it makes me uncomfortable lol.

But fallacies should never be done and should never be tolerated, because they'll mislead and are the very base of misinformation, disinformation and plainly crafted narratives.