New Thread Concerning Personal Initiative.

[Christopher Moore]

Many comments directed at my posts on the subject were made and warrant
reply by me. Rather than try and squeeze one or more replies in, I will
address the subject here as a new thread.

It has been my own personal experience here in the USA that many Latin and
also Irish Catholics seem burdened by a fatalistic psyche. Many seem to
believe that much of their destiny is out of their own hands and in the
hands of a higher (and even capricious) power. It is my opinion that such
beliefs often handicap the holder in their quest for economic advancement.

Now I know poverty is a very complex issue, and our pal Stefan can attest to
some of it relating to the real (and imagined) instances of economic & other
inequalities as described by Marx & Engels. But cultural and religious
behavior which contributes to the wasted potential cannot be left out of the
equation.

As some of you know, I am a 'non-ethnic' communicant in the Holy Catholic
and Apostolic Church. Of course I have some problems with the unfair
treatment over the course of history by Protestants of Catholics both in the
USA and in Europe. However the absence of (in my own experience) of
fatalism I see in Protestants from Scandinavia, the UK, Holland and Germany
does impress me as a good thing.

I dont mean do denigrate anyone's religion or culture, but I do feel in
eschewing fatalism many Latin and Irish people can learn a good lesson from
the Nordic folk.

[Erik A. Mattila]

I think you ought to try "Pedagogy of the oppressed" / Paulo Freire to further
investigate your ideas. But keep in mind that Freire doesn't argue that
so-called 'oppressed peoples" are not oppressed, but rather that ideologies are
built around such a thing that may become 'fatalistic.'

I don't see your theory holding up under many of possible tests, both
historical and modern. Many Latin American societies, for example, have large
enough protestant populations to describe them as "Catholic" societies any
longer is inaccurate, and yet the barriers of opportunity for upward social
mobility persist.

You simply cannot ignore that the Protestant Reformationism was poised at that
moment in history that unprecendeted capital wealth was flowing into Europe
from the ruthless exploitation of the Earth's 'other' hemisphere.

Erik Mattila

[Martha Hughes]

Christopher Moore wrote:
>
> Many comments directed at my posts on the subject were made and warrant
> reply by me. Rather than try and squeeze one or more replies in, I will
> address the subject here as a new thread.
>
> It has been my own personal experience here in the USA that many Latin and
> also Irish Catholics seem burdened by a fatalistic psyche. Many seem to
> believe that much of their destiny is out of their own hands and in the
> hands of a higher (and even capricious) power. It is my opinion that such
> beliefs often handicap the holder in their quest for economic advancement.
>
> Now I know poverty is a very complex issue, and our pal Stefan can attest to
> some of it relating to the real (and imagined) instances of economic & other
> inequalities as described by Marx & Engels. But cultural and religious
> behavior which contributes to the wasted potential cannot be left out of the
> equation.
>
> As some of you know, I am a 'non-ethnic' communicant in the Holy Catholic
> and Apostolic Church. Of course I have some problems with the unfair
> treatment over the course of history by Protestants of Catholics both in the
> USA and in Europe. However the absence of (in my own experience) of
> fatalism I see in Protestants from Scandinavia, the UK, Holland and Germany
> does impress me as a good thing.
>
> I dont mean do denigrate anyone's religion or culture, but I do feel in
> eschewing fatalism many Latin and Irish people can learn a good lesson from
> the Nordic folk.

Let's not "go there" when it comes to the Irish, unless you really know
what's going on in Ireland. My mother's family come directly as Irish
Catholics from Belfast, so I grew up with the problems of Ireland, which
have nothing to do with the attitude of the Irish. It has everything to
do witht stranglehold the british have economically over Ireland. This
is a long and atrocious history that has a span of 800 years.

[Christopher Moore]

>
>Let's not "go there" when it comes to the Irish, unless you really know
>what's going on in Ireland. My mother's family come directly as Irish
>Catholics from Belfast, so I grew up with the problems of Ireland, which
>have nothing to do with the attitude of the Irish. It has everything to
>do witht stranglehold the british have economically over Ireland. This
>is a long and atrocious history that has a span of 800 years.

Martha:

Agreed, agreed. But you must understand, every Protestant is not a Catholic
hating loyalist Orangeman. Despite Stefan's view of me, I am a believer
that good and bad exists in all cultures. I say, adopt or at least praise
the good, shit-can and/or eschew the bad. That is why I am wary of
accepting too many third-worlders too fast into Scandinavia, my fear being
unassimilated they will introduce some of the sad pathologies from which the
suffer from at home.

I am no fan of born-again fundamentalist Christian Protestants with their
intolerance and creationism as science. However I have come to respect the
work ethic which is an important part of main-stream Protestantism.

I was recently in Belfast NI believe it or not. I saw a mural which said
'All Have Given Some - Some Have Given All - PEACE".

Regards,

Chris.

[HWM]

stefan wrote:

> Why do our immigration policies in Scandinavia have anything to do with an
> American such as yourself who live on another continent and have nothing
> to do with Scandinavian culture do you think??

Well, you know it is always easier to take examples from faraway places,
the chance nobody has been there makes you able to bullshit all you want
as we well know the general standard of education regarding geography in
the US... If nobody knows jack shit of what you speak you're in the
green so to speak. Problematically only now as the liberal Norway even
posed a visa on Slovakians the image of 'Liberal Nordic Countries' is
getting shattered. A bit of a shock like for all the communists when the
USSR collapsed and Russia embraced market economy.

"Soviet Finland"
Cheers, | The conformity of purpose will be achieved |
HWM | through the mutual satisfaction of requirements.|
==> hen...@GNWmail.com & http://www.softavenue.fi/u/henry.w

[Hiski Haapoja]

Christopher Moore <cm...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
: hating loyalist Orangeman. Despite Stefan's view of me, I am a believer

: that good and bad exists in all cultures. I say, adopt or at least praise
: the good, shit-can and/or eschew the bad. That is why I am wary of
: accepting too many third-worlders too fast into Scandinavia, my fear being
: unassimilated they will introduce some of the sad pathologies from which the
: suffer from at home.

Why don't I recall you praising the good sides of 3rd world cultures?
Why aren't you worried about the damage to these cultures caused by
visiting Europeans?

H.

[Christopher Moore]

>
>Why do our immigration policies in Scandinavia have anything to do with an
>American such as yourself who live on another continent and have nothing
>to do with Scandinavian culture do you think??
>

Because I dont like to see good spoiled. Now if all of Sweden were to take
on the noise and anarchy of Turkey, the dogmatism of Islamic fundamentalism
of Iran and Afghanistan, the cruel murderous behavior found in Africa; truth
be told it would have no direct impact on me and my life here in the USA.
But still I dont want to see what the Nordic people have lost, it must just
be my humanitarian and caring nature.

[arthur pece]

"Erik A. Mattila" wrote:

> [ ... ]

>
> You simply cannot ignore that the Protestant Reformationism was poised at that
> moment in history that unprecendeted capital wealth was flowing into Europe
> from the ruthless exploitation of the Earth's 'other' hemisphere.
>
>

You simply cannot ignore that the wealth was flowing not into "Europe",
but into the Iberian peninsula.

But, if you want to argue that it is the *lack* of that wealth,
together with the harsh climate (and perhaps the *relative* lack of slave labour),

that generated the work ethic of Northern Europe;
that Northern Europe took up Protestantism because of the pre-existing work ethic,

rather than taking up the work ethic because of Protestantism;
that the work ethic led to the agricultural and industrial revolution,
which are the real reasons why Northern Europe and North America became rich;
and that this wealth has caused a (deplorable) decline of the work ethic;
then I won't argue with you.

As Sir Wilfred Thesiger said: the harder the place, the better the people.

Regards

Arthur Pece

[Hoeven]

arthur pece skrev i meldingen <379F4C33...@reading.ac.uk>...

>As Sir Wilfred Thesiger said: the harder the place, the better the
people.

US prison-inmates must be *very* good people then... ; )

--
Hugo van der Hoeven

Medlem av Initiativ for Ny Narkotikapolitikk
http://fly.to/inn

Correlation is not causality

[HWM]

arthur pece wrote:

> You simply cannot ignore that the wealth was flowing not into "Europe",
> but into the Iberian peninsula.

Ever heard of the Hapsburgs?

[Erik A. Mattila]

arthur pece wrote:

> "Erik A. Mattila" wrote:
>
> > [ ... ]
> >
> > You simply cannot ignore that the Protestant Reformationism was poised at that
> > moment in history that unprecendeted capital wealth was flowing into Europe
> > from the ruthless exploitation of the Earth's 'other' hemisphere.
> >
> >
>

> You simply cannot ignore that the wealth was flowing not into "Europe",
> but into the Iberian peninsula.

I wouldn't ignore this if it were true, but it simply isn't. You only need to take a
cursory glance at spending patterns in Europe in the 16th century to see that the
capital flowed thruout Europe. In fact, this is the era when capitalism itself was
invented. This wealth fueled the Renaissance in Italy as well as Northern Europe.
The Dutch East and West Indies Company was created. Venice became the the most
important shipbuilding center, along with Amsterdam. The Vatican's wealth not only
financed expensive missionary efforts througout the newly discovered world, but also
commissioned great art and archetectural projects. The HRE was able to finance
(finally) an army that would drive the Ottoman's out of Europe for good. The
lucrative slave trade was born. Secular educastion was invented - where did the
money come for this? You know, the list goes on and on. The simple truth is that
Spain and Portugal didn't exist in a vacuum, but rather in a European economic
network. Where did the great bankers like he Medici or Rothschilds get their cash?

> But, if you want to argue that it is the *lack* of that wealth,
> together with the harsh climate (and perhaps the *relative* lack of slave labour),
>
> that generated the work ethic of Northern Europe;
> that Northern Europe took up Protestantism because of the pre-existing work ethic,
>
> rather than taking up the work ethic because of Protestantism;
> that the work ethic led to the agricultural and industrial revolution,
> which are the real reasons why Northern Europe and North America became rich;
> and that this wealth has caused a (deplorable) decline of the work ethic;
> then I won't argue with you.

Well, I wouldn't make any argument about the "Protestant Work Ethic" other than it's
pure fluff with a racist ideological trajectory. We are just talking about how
people responded to the juncture of huge historical events -- some came out on top,
some on the bottom. So those who came out on top feel need to valorize historical
accidents.

Some argue that the industrial revolution would have been impossible without the
potato (Indian). Textile mills processed cotton (Indian). Europe was fueled, to a
large extent, by bread. The continual collapse of food supply was caused by the
shortages of the raw material for the baking industry, which crippled industrial
production often. A man in New York files a patent in 1774 on a process for
manufacturing pearl ash (baking soda) from wood ashes, and by 1785 the great forest
of the US Southeast, one of the world's largest 'carbon sinks" is cut down and burnt
and the pearl ash shipped to Europe to fuel the industrial revolution.

> As Sir Wilfred Thesiger said: the harder the place, the better the people.

I read an account of the rubber industry in Central America, (British Honduras). The
labor force were convicts, who were forced to work in a jungle that literally rotted
the human being from the foot up. Coincedentally the penal code was unsusually
harsh, sentences of several years for the most minor of crimes. The anthropologist
who did this study (it was around 1950) calculated the high mortality rate in
comparsion with the latex production, and came up with a 'pound of flesh = a pound of
rubber' ratio. There is no 'harder' place on earth than these jungles. Now, which
people are 'the better?" The wretched convicts? The British Plantation bosses? The
Government judiciary bureaucrats? Sir Wilfred isn't making much sense to me in this
context.

>
>
> Regards
>
> Arthur Pece

[arthur pece]

"Erik A. Mattila" wrote:

> arthur pece wrote:
>
>
> > You simply cannot ignore that the wealth was flowing not into "Europe",
> > but into the Iberian peninsula.
>
> I wouldn't ignore this if it were true, but it simply isn't. You only need to take a
> cursory glance at spending patterns in Europe in the 16th century to see that the
> capital flowed thruout Europe.

Correlation does not imply causation.

People have exploited other people for thousands of years, without
any industrial revolution taking place until a couple of centuries ago.

Yes, wealth flowed *throughout* Europe, but it flowed *into* the Iberian peninsula to
start with.
If we take your argument seriously, the industrial revolution should have started there.

(Indeed, if we take your argument to its extreme consequences, the industrial revolution
should
have started in America before the Europeans arrived.)
Why did it start in Britain instead?
No nonsense about Britain exploiting its North-American colonies please:
after the war of independence, taxes in the USA became much higher,
proof that Britain (stupidly) had been subsidizing the American colonies,
rather than exploiting them.

> In fact, this is the era when capitalism itself was
> invented.

Capitalism, broadly defined, was invented thousands of years before Columbus.

Modern capitalism, including letters of credit, insurance, double-entry book-keeping,
patents, etc.
was invented by the Arabs, Jews and Italians, centuries before Columbus.
It was not the re-discovery of America that made modern capitalism possible,
more like the other way around.

> Venice became the the most
> important shipbuilding center, along with Amsterdam.

For Venice, that happened long before the re-discovery of America.

When Amsterdam took over from Antwerpen as the North-European Hong-Kong of the day,
that was not due to trade with America (why should Amsterdam be at an advantage over
Antwerpen?).
It was due to the fact that Amsterdam was easier to defend from the (Catholic) Hapsburg
Empire.

> Secular educastion was invented - where did the
> money come for this?

Not from America: the European universities started appearing long before the
re-discovery.

> Where did the great bankers like he Medici or Rothschilds get their cash?

Your whole argument seems to be that wealth cannot be created,
it must be stolen from somebody.

> Well, I wouldn't make any argument about the "Protestant Work Ethic" other than it's
> pure fluff with a racist ideological trajectory.

So it's just a coincidence that people who had to work hard to get ahead in life
adopted a religion that praises hard work?

And what is racist about Protestantism?
Are you saying that only North Europeans can be Protestant?

> We are just talking about how
> people responded to the juncture of huge historical events -- some came out on top,
> some on the bottom. So those who came out on top feel need to valorize historical
> accidents.

Now on this, I completely agree:
the agricultural and industrial revolutions were due to a fortuitous combination
of several favourable conditions.
Protestantism (or, more precisely, Calvinism) was one of these conditions.
The re-discovery of America was not.

> > As Sir Wilfred Thesiger said: the harder the place, the better the people.

> [ ...] Sir Wilfred isn't making much sense to me in this context.

I did not mean (or expect) the quotation to be taken literally -
and I doubt that Sir Wilfred meant it literally either!

Just to make my position clear: I am not, and have never been, either Protestant or
British;
except that I am a temporary British resident of course.

Regards

Arthur Pece

http://www.cs.reading.ac.uk/~aecp/

[David Ladley]

I couldn't find the original message, so I just quoted this one for my
comment:

> Christopher Moore wrote:
>
> > However the absence of (in my own experience) of
> > fatalism I see in Protestants from Scandinavia, the UK, Holland and
Germany
> > does impress me as a good thing.

I'd hardly call Germany a Protestant country anymore, now that slightly
over half of the population is decidedly atheist.

Dave Ladley

[Frank Herbst]

David Ladley schrieb in Nachricht
<01beda42$56c06a60$2acf...@scuttlebutt.middlebury.edu>...
>

>
>over half of the population is decidedly atheist.
>
>

Is that really true? Do you count f.e. buddhists or people from other
religions as atheists?

Frank Herbst

[Roger Williams]

Also spracht arthur pece <A.E.C...@reading.ac.uk>:

> You simply cannot ignore that the wealth was flowing not into "Europe",
> but into the Iberian peninsula.

That probably came as something of a shock to the Dutch, English,
French, and Austro-Hungarians.

--
{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{} \|/
{} RogerW rog...@newsguy.com {} 0< -- parrot.net!
{} http://www.parrot.net ad...@parrot.net {} ^^^^(*)^^^^
{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{} ^^ / \ ^^

[Erik A. Mattila]

Are we just talking about Aztec and Inca gold here? Even with this it seems
to have found it's way out of Spain and Portugal. Albrecht Durer's famous
observation of Aztec arts will testify to this, as well as manuscripts such as
the "Dresden Codex" which ended up in a collection in Germany. It merely
demonstrates that Spain and Portugal did not exist in a vacuum. It's a
strange concept to me to think of that amount of wealth evaporating in
Iberia. Capital wealth just doesn't work that way ( even Arab Petrodollars,
right?) If it's true that it was all squandered on conpicuous consumption,
even that means that the capatil will be circulated in the general economy.
Isn't that Reagan's Trickle Down theory? It would be very interesting if that
was studied -- how the Iberians spent their money, and who benefited by that
spending.

Is it not true that large amounts of that wealth landed in The Vatican?

Is it not true that throughout Europe military powers were financed, in order
to allow various European powers to battle one another for shares of the booty
from the newly exploited rest of the world? How much did it cost to kill an
Englishman in 1575? How much did it cost to maintain a garrison in Ecuador in
1620? How much did it cost to run the Turks out of Europe. How much did it
cost to build the "Vasa" (only to see it sink in the habour after launching).

But the so-called "protestant work ethic' is a strange bird. A group of
protestant missionaries once decided to make a coup by having several Indian
leaders study the Bible and return to thier peoples and convert them to
Christianity. This seminar was held at Council Bluff's, Iowa. After the
Indian studied the book, the chose the great Seneca orator, Red Jacket, to
address the Christians. His famous speech was this, to paraphrase. "We
studied your book of the teachings of your forefathere, as saw that it was a
good book. We understood that the teachings were the same as the teachings of
our forefathers. We would have no reason not to embrace this book, since it
is the same as our teachings. But there is something that we do not
understand that prevents us for doing this. And that is that we see that your
people do not follow the teachings of your book. We fear if we embrace it, we
too will not follw its teachings."

So the 'cultural advantage' that Europeans and Euroamericans had may have
little to do with protestantism, but may in fact be a peculiar ability to
suspend morality, ethics, and Christian compassion itself, while gearing down
to the task of robbery and murder for the purpose of economic gain and
material wealth. I think that this should have another name, at least one
that is dissasscociated form a true religious ideology. Maybe something like
'rank opportunism' or some other descriptive term. Since the Industrialism is
being held as the 'prime achievement' we can also look at early industrial
establishments in England it terms of the presence or absence of Christian
virtues. What's virtuous about exploiting child labor, or putting a man deep
in the earth until he dies of black lung desease, all in the name of profit?
Of course today we see the error in these things -- so why should this
practice be held up as the light of great human achievement at the expense of
other cultures who did not do this? Perhaps Shakespere had something like
this in mind when he wrote "Out, dammed spot!D"

Erik Mattila

stefan wrote:

> In article <7o1jal$2m...@enews5.newsguy.com>, Roger Williams

> <rog...@shell1.tiac.net> wrote:
>
> > Also spracht arthur pece <A.E.C...@reading.ac.uk>:
> >
> > > You simply cannot ignore that the wealth was flowing not into "Europe",
> > > but into the Iberian peninsula.
> >
> > That probably came as something of a shock to the Dutch, English,
> > French, and Austro-Hungarians.
>

> Most of the outright loot and the initial wealth did largely flow into the
> Iberian peninsula. However, the Spaniards and Portuguese did little with
> their new wealth to advance themselves, wasting it mostly on conspicuous
> consumption. Further north, the new wealth was (partly) used to finance
> an industrial revolution.
>
> --
> stefan, valley of the sun
>
> "When government lies to you, it's for your own good."
> - Archie Bunker

[Erik A. Mattila]

stefan wrote:

> In article <37A489EE...@tomatoweb.com>, "Erik A. Mattila"

> <emat...@tomatoweb.com> wrote:
>
> > Are we just talking about Aztec and Inca gold here?
>

> Mainly, yes. How much "loot" in terms of gold and silver do you think the
> British, French and Dutch etc. brought back from North America?

Well, it didn't take the Spaniards long to pack-up the coffers of Tenochitlan and
Cuzco, if that what you mean. After that it was slow going - lasting up to the
various wars of independence througout their empire. I have to hand it to the
Dutch, however, as they stuck to trading, except for Surinam and Indonesia. It was
rather expensive to keep the colonies, after all. You needed armies and all that.
The English early on saw the opportunity for economic gain, with wholesome
activities like slaving and the abrogation of human rights for property. They got
so good at it they even did it to the Scots and Irish. French - seems to me the
silver mines in Mexico were pretty active during the reign of Maximilian. They did
a pretty good job of relieving human beings of their property in Louisana and
Quebec, also. Of course they did it just for fun - we know that none of the wealth
made to back to France.

> > It's a
> > strange concept to me to think of that amount of wealth evaporating in
> > Iberia.
>

> Wealth can certainly be squandered on luxury and grandeur or instead put
> to good use in economic, technological, and other investments.

So if you win the lotto and build hire a contractor to build your 1.5 million dream
home, you will not be benefiting the economy with your expenditure? Or you won't
be helping Rolls Royce of America when you buy your Rolls Royce dunebuggy? I must
be economically challenged.

> > Is it not true that large amounts of that wealth landed in The Vatican?
>

> And where is that part of Italy (Rome and south) today?

Nice evasion tactic. Last time I checked, Rome was never located in the Iberian
penninsula. Wasn't that the point? We know that the Vatican just kept all it
wealth, right? They didn't participate in any business ventures, hire people to do
things and pay them for it, and they just circulated the cash around St. Peters -
on church bankrolled poker tournaments. Very strange. While I was in Viet Nam I
was assigned to a US Army Real Estate Office. The largest class of landowners that
we leased land from was the Catholic Church. They at least acted like business
men. I wonder what they did with the millions we paid them for the priveledge of
protecting them from the descendint communist menace?

> > So the 'cultural advantage' that Europeans and Euroamericans had may have
> > little to do with protestantism, but may in fact be a peculiar ability to
> > suspend morality, ethics, and Christian compassion itself, while gearing down
> > to the task of robbery and murder for the purpose of economic gain and
> > material wealth. I think that this should have another name, at least one
> > that is dissasscociated form a true religious ideology. Maybe something like
> > 'rank opportunism' or some other descriptive term. Since the Industrialism is
> > being held as the 'prime achievement' we can also look at early industrial
> > establishments in England it terms of the presence or absence of Christian
> > virtues. What's virtuous about exploiting child labor, or putting a man deep
> > in the earth until he dies of black lung desease, all in the name of profit?
> > Of course today we see the error in these things -- so why should this
> > practice be held up as the light of great human achievement at the expense of
> > other cultures who did not do this? Perhaps Shakespere had something like
> > this in mind when he wrote "Out, dammed spot!D"
>

> Your rantings about the "moral deficiences" of Europeans are of little
> value to understand historical processes that have resulted in wealth,
> good living standards, and stable democracies in some parts of the world
> and poverty, backwardsness, and a life that is "nasty, brutish, and short"
> elsewhere.

Of course it's of value, if you are arguing that commercial success is a component
of some mysterious religious ethic. The argument that it was rather just
ruthlessness is perfectly valid. And why is it 'ranting.' Are you studying
agitated propaganda. Are you saying that if someone steals, he/she is a thief, or
if someone murders, he/she is a murderer. How is this 'ranting?' I really doesn't
matter if a criminal believes that "God is on my side," or not. This is 1999, and
there's no real agument that the killing and thievery took place. Even Richard
Nixon admitted to this, as do several million Europeans.

> I doubt very much that the "moral fibre" of Europeans,
> Indians, or any other groups of people varied much.

How can you say this on one hand, and prozlytize the Protestant Work Ethic on the
other. It's obvious that the moral fibre of people on this earth are quite
different, unless you believe that underneath everyone is just like a European.

> The difference has
> been how skills have been utilized, the fortunes of climate and geography,
> and the expediency with which different cultures have appropriated outside
> knowledge and used it for their own benefit along with their own
> advancements.

If you believe that 'difference' has no history, then I suppose that observation is
correct, albeit shallow and misleading.

> Please save your racist indignation about Europeans for someone who
> cares. They are not appropriate in a discussion about historical economic
> developments.

My, my, my. Racist is it? So you are saying if one looks at the historical record
and determines that European forcibly took what interested them, and killed the
people who they took it from, it is Racist. How so? In Native American history
there are a score of similar events, and the Natives who were responsible were
thieves and killers also. Africa too. And we know that this is so in China, at
various time. To remind you, what we are talking about here is the idea that a
cultural/religious 'ethic' can explain the success of the industrial revolution.
I'm arguing against this, saying that some Europeans had the capacity to be
ruthless and amoral about their acquisition of wealth.

Anyway, I notice you can't refrain from catagorizing ideas that don't agree with
you as racist, dimwit, childish etc. You aren't going to win any debate awards
with those kinds of tactics, smartypants (I really got you good there, yuk, yuk,
yuk).

Erik Mattila

[Roger Williams]

Also spracht stefan <li...@last.net>:

> In article <7o1jal$2m...@enews5.newsguy.com>, Roger Williams
> <rog...@shell1.tiac.net> wrote:

>> Also spracht arthur pece <A.E.C...@reading.ac.uk>:
>>
>> > You simply cannot ignore that the wealth was flowing not into "Europe",
>> > but into the Iberian peninsula.
>>
>> That probably came as something of a shock to the Dutch, English,
>> French, and Austro-Hungarians.

> Most of the outright loot and the initial wealth did largely flow into the

> Iberian peninsula. However, the Spaniards and Portuguese did little with
> their new wealth to advance themselves, wasting it mostly on conspicuous
> consumption. Further north, the new wealth was (partly) used to finance
> an industrial revolution.

Furthermore, it all depends on how you define "wealth". Within a very
short period of time, the English and French were making more money from
things like sugar, lumber, and trade than the Spaniards were making from
their mines. The Spaniards were much slower to figure out what the English
figured out almost from the beginning: that the real wealth of the new
world was not gold or silver, but rather cod, lumber, tobacco, and the
like. Furthermore, that wealth was distributed into building an industrial
and economic base (as you noted) instead of into someone's royal coffers.

[Erik A. Mattila]

Pretty vague.

What do you mean by 'revisionistic?' I don't see myself as revisionistic.

What do you mean by 'fallacy?' Are you saying that your regard something fallacious
by virtue or your not comprehending it? Or is it simply that you do not understand
it, so it is therefore fallacious.

Who was it who said "History always serves the interest of the present?" I honestly
can't remember. When Eduardo Galeano wrote his "Memories of Fire" he wanted to
write as history that was free of interpretation and biass, he began a 9 year trek
to all the major libraries and collected historical anecdotes drawn from the
original source documents, and assembled these into a history of the Americas.
Strangely, when Random House published his work, they classified his work as
'fiction.' Apparently it is not history unless it is 'interpreted' as history. How
does your idea of revisionism stand against this.

Erik Mattila

"B. Thober" wrote:

> no no no..
>
> Argumentum ad misericordiam.
>
> I agree with the premise, but the fallacy has got to go.
>
> This is the problem I have with your arguments.. and if you are
> going to be revisionistic with history you are going to need
> something better than a fallacy to support it with.
>
> Bryan Thober
> <az...@lafn.org>
> Los Angeles, California U.S.A.
> http://www.angelfire.com/ca/bthober/

[Erik A. Mattila]

stefan wrote:

> > > > Are we just talking about Aztec and Inca gold here?
> > >
> > > Mainly, yes. How much "loot" in terms of gold and silver do you think the
> > > British, French and Dutch etc. brought back from North America?
> >
> > Well, it didn't take the Spaniards long to pack-up the coffers of
> Tenochitlan and
> > Cuzco, if that what you mean.
>

> True. The Spanianiards were of course more interested in bringing loot
> back to the Royal Court than to build a thriving economy in South America
> that could better benefit the home land. Quite different from the
> development north of Mexico.

Agreed. That was my original point. I had pointed out to Gunnar that the colonial
policies in northern areas of the Americas was quite different than in the south,
where the encomienda existed. I thought you had taken exception to this
statement. Apparently I was wrong.

> > After that it was slow going - lasting up to the
> > various wars of independence througout their empire. I have to hand it to the
> > Dutch, however, as they stuck to trading, except for Surinam and Indonesia.
> > It was
> > rather expensive to keep the colonies, after all. You needed armies and
> all that.
>

> Exactly.

>
> > The English early on saw the opportunity for economic gain, with wholesome
> > activities like slaving and the abrogation of human rights for property.
>

> Hmm... You mean this was a behavior exclusive to Englishmen, or Europeans
> for that matter?

To be completely honest with you, Stephen, I wouldn't go so far as to hold a group,
nation or culture responsible fo this behavior. I would say the responsible ones
are the ones who actually did these things. I'm just making this distinction
because on the level of the individual, there were a great many who were opposed to
barbarian practices. European societies of the day were certainly not organized
around a unitary premise or dogma - there is all sorts of evidence for a diversity
of thought, and indeed morals and ethics. Where this gets confused is, I think, is
when barbarian practices are endoresed by the state and become national agendas.
But even in this venue, there is dissadence and opposition from notible segments of
a given society.

> An interesting piece on Aztec practices:
>
> "The Aztec innovation was the work of a member of the royal family,
> Tlacallel, kingmaker and adviser to the emperors. This prince of darkness
> thought to impose and substitute for other, milder gods the Aztec tribal
> god Huitzilopochtli, the hummingbird of the south, a bloodthirsty divinity
> all wings and claws; and behind those beating wings, to make of the
> sacrificial cult a weapon of intimidation. Where once blood sacrifice
> touched a handful, Tlacallel instituted blood orgies that lasted days and
> through hundreds, then thousands, of victims to the stone, their hearts
> ripped out while still beating, their blood spattered and sprinkled on the
> idols, their bodies rolled down the steps and butchered to furnish
> culinary delicacies to the Aztec aristocracy.
>
> This last practice embarrasses politically correct ethnologists, who see
> in such descriptions of cannibalism a justification for foreign contempt
> and oppression. (It was certainly that for the Conquistadors who were
> disgusted when their Mexican hosts showed hospitality by saucing their
> guests' food with the blood victims sacrificed right before their eyes.)"
>
> (Landes "The Wealth and Poverty of Nations" 1998, pp. 103-4.)
> (See also Fluehr-Lobban "Cultural Relativism and Human Rights" 1995.)

But neither of these are acceptable sources, in an academic sense, for mesoamerican
history. If this is what Landes is reflecting on page 64 of his book, it is merely
a restatement of a popular opinion among the Mexican Antiquarians of the latter
19th Century.

Bandelier, Adolph Francis Alphonse, 1840-1914. On the social organization and mode
of government of the ancient Mexicans., By Ad. F. Bandelier ... Salem, Printed at
the Salem Press, 1879.

The above cited monograph is an example that the 'official view' was perhaps more
sensationalistic than historically accurate. Bandelier methodically tore apart all
the source material, from Fra Sahugun to Torquemada, and showed every one to be
full of internal contradictions. His conclusion was that Meshico Tenochitlan was
the center of an enlightened confederacy, rather than a brutal autocratic empire.
My guess would be the truth is somewhere in between. For example, it is easy to
discount Spanish reports of human sacrifice. During the Mexican Inquisition, the
Audiance, a social event of the penninsulars was to dine outdoors while Native
leaders and clergymen were being tortured and burned. However, we also find the
King of Texcoco, Nezhual Coyotl, admonishing the Tenochas (misnamed 'Aztec') for
being excessive with human sacrifice. It would be difficult to argue that such
practices didn't exist. (But some do make that argument, and not without merit.
The original tamale was made in the shape of a human -- and consumed as cannibalism
by proxy. A Tenochitlan industry was raising domestic quail, which were used for
sacrifice by proxy.)

> Slavery in Africa prior to European colonialization and in Africa today is
> something you are familiar with I assume.

I'm familiar with Arab and African slavery. But Aztec cruelty, or indigenous
African slavery are not particularly germain to this discussion. This subject
comes up because I was arguing that the European economic advantage had as much to
do with thievery and murder as it has to do with a work ethic. I guess it all
boils down to the fact that Christian teachings do not condone these horrible
practices, yet many European's were able to set such teachings aside in their
pursuit of wealth. I did not coint the term Protestant Work Ethic. Somehow it
seems to refer to religious convictions by its very nature.

> > > > It's a
> > > > strange concept to me to think of that amount of wealth evaporating in
> > > > Iberia.
> > >
> > > Wealth can certainly be squandered on luxury and grandeur or instead put
> > > to good use in economic, technological, and other investments.
> >
> > So if you win the lotto and build hire a contractor to build your 1.5
> million dream
> > home, you will not be benefiting the economy with your expenditure? Or
> you won't
> > be helping Rolls Royce of America when you buy your Rolls Royce
> dunebuggy? I must
> > be economically challenged.
>

> The problem was spending lots of riches from the New World on "projects"
> that did not generate sufficient wealth for continual development as was
> done in northern Europe.

I'm missing something here. Spain and Portugal, whatever they did, sustained as
countries with economies until today. South American famrs and ranches, mines and
factories, are all vital parts of the world's economy today. Some have argued that
industrialism would have been impossible without the introduction of the potato.
Factory life without bananas might be unbearable. Cotton doesn't grow well on the
British Isles. It seems to me to all work together.

I haven't read Landes, but a couple of his reviewers criticized his work because it
carefully avoided discussing the contemporary Global Economy, where his cultural
theory is likely to get into trouble. At any rate, it is called a 'controversal
work', which implies that his peers may not go along with him 100%

> > > > Is it not true that large amounts of that wealth landed in The Vatican?
> > >
> > > And where is that part of Italy (Rome and south) today?
> >
> > Nice evasion tactic. Last time I checked, Rome was never located in
> the Iberian
> > penninsula. Wasn't that the point?
>

> No the point was (especially in the reference to a "Protestant work
> ethic") the difference in development between northern and southern Europe
> in general. The pointed differences between, for instance, the
> Netherlands and England on one hand and Spain and Portugal on the other,
> was a particular example.

No question these differences exist. But why? I don't think a 'work ethic'
explains this.

> > > Your rantings about the "moral deficiences" of Europeans are of little
> > > value to understand historical processes that have resulted in wealth,
> > > good living standards, and stable democracies in some parts of the world
> > > and poverty, backwardsness, and a life that is "nasty, brutish, and short"
> > > elsewhere.

Well, sure this is important to understand historical process. If it's true that
the 'advantage' which led to industrialization was plunder, pillage and murder,
these are important factors. But if you want a history where everyone is as
amiable and kind as Santa Claus, I suppose you're right.

> > > I doubt very much that the "moral fibre" of Europeans,
> > > Indians, or any other groups of people varied much.

You're probably exactly incorrect here. It's like saying there is no difference
between cultures.

> > How can you say this on one hand, and prozlytize the Protestant Work
> Ethic on the
> > other. It's obvious that the moral fibre of people on this earth are quite
> > different, unless you believe that underneath everyone is just like a
> European.
>

> Why do you confuse "morals" with the "Protestant work ethic"? One can
> point to much more concrete changes brought by with the Protestant
> reformation that aided Protestant Europe in its economic and political
> development.

Then what does "Protestant" in "Protestant work ethic" mean? Isn't Landes'
argument about cultural superiority?

> > > The difference has
> > > been how skills have been utilized, the fortunes of climate and geography,
> > > and the expediency with which different cultures have appropriated outside
> > > knowledge and used it for their own benefit along with their own
> > > advancements.
> >
> > If you believe that 'difference' has no history, then I suppose that
> observation is
> > correct, albeit shallow and misleading.
>

> You read things that are not existing in this thread.

>
> > > Please save your racist indignation about Europeans for someone who
> > > cares. They are not appropriate in a discussion about historical economic
> > > developments.
> >
> > My, my, my. Racist is it? So you are saying if one looks at the
> historical record
> > and determines that European forcibly took what interested them, and
> killed the
> > people who they took it from, it is Racist. How so?
>

> Because of your constant rantings about the "moral deficiencies" of
> Europeans in contrast with the "misunderstood" and "innocent
> victimization" of other peoples.

But I'm only saying that when theft and murder occur, there is a victim. If you
take someone's property from them, they no longer have that property, and you have
that property. I think I'm stating the obvious. I can't see how this is racist.

> This reminds me of attendants at a La Raza or Nation of Islam rally
> complaining about racism and prejudice!

Yes, it's always upsetting when the scales of hegemony tip. But I'm not this sort
of character. As a matter of fact I was fired from a career teaching position
after I filed and won a discrimination complaint - the All Indian Board of Trustees
had discriminated against a Chicana student.

> > I'm arguing against this, saying that some Europeans had the capacity to be
> > ruthless and amoral about their acquisition of wealth.
>

> Of course. Where is the news in this statement?

Right, it isn't newsworthy. But it is often conspicuously absent in self-serving
histories and theory.

Erik Mattila

[Erik A. Mattila]

"B. Thober" wrote to my private mailbox:

On Mon, 02 Aug 1999 17:10:42 GMT, in soc.culture.nordic you wrote:

It's kind of impolite to send this to me privately, Bryan. I would appreciate it if
you kept this on a public forum.

>>Pretty vague.
>
>>What do you mean by 'revisionistic?' I don't see myself as revisionistic.

>You inject morality into everything you say.

Can't you try to be a little more objective with your argument?

I am being objective. Calling a spade a spade is as objective as one can be. So
I'm saying theft is theft, and murder is murder. This isn't a moral argument at
all. A moral argument would be "Those guys were bad that they did this." Or, if it
were academic, it would be an argument about the ends justifying the means.
Remember, I'm arguing that these objective facts should be introduced into a theory
of Northern European economic dominance. That's all. If you are uncomfortable with
that idea, so be it. Personally, I don't think you should hold yourself responsible
in any way for the transgressions of your founding fathers or whatever. Anyway,
it's not a moral agrument at all, although the idea of morals and ethics plays a
part.

>>What do you mean by 'fallacy?' Are you saying that your regard something
fallacious
>>by virtue or your not comprehending it? Or is it simply that you do not
understand
>>it, so it is therefore fallacious.

>Argumentum ad misericordiam.

>If your sooooo very highly educated you should know exactly what kind
>of fallacy I am talking about.. (I just told you, ahem!) Maybe try
>reading the articles you reply to for a change??? (I don't think I am
>totally alone with this idea).. but you are buddy.. :>

Well, you fell flatly on your face there, Bryan. Dust off your Logic primer and
check it out. Argumentum ad misericordiam is when the author claims pity as grounds
for giving credence to his/her argument. In this case, if I said "Bryan, you should
believe me because I've spent a lot of time and effort making my argument," it
would be Argumentum ad misericordiam. And even that is not a 'formal' fallacy --
just an informal fallacy. Just imagine if arguing about perpetrators and victims
were actually a logical fallacy -- how would a lawyer argue in court without being
overruled on grounds of a fallacious argument.

>Who was it who said "History always serves the interest of the present?" I
honestly
>can't remember. When Eduardo Galeano wrote his "Memories of Fire" he wanted to
>write as history that was free of interpretation and biass, he began a 9 year trek
>to all the major libraries and collected historical anecdotes drawn from the
>original source documents, and assembled these into a history of the Americas.
>Strangely, when Random House published his work, they classified his work as
>'fiction.' Apparently it is not history unless it is 'interpreted' as history.
How
>does your idea of revisionism stand against this.

Random House? Oh it is thee lord god 'random house' you speak of ?
I couldn't care less about some publisher.. My dog can publish
a message on the front lawn.. It all depends on your point of view.
If Random House feels that it was fiction, well maybe they have that
prerogative.. (who knows) Who really cares?

Basically people can rewrite history to whatever scheme they want to
believe.. like you..

Please look up, Bryan, there seems to be something here going over your head. The
example above only addresses ideas about history and how it sits in society. BTW,
Galeano's trilogy is classified as 'history' by the the UC system. But the point
was that you can't get more 'factual' than presenting history in as close as
possible it's original form - the source documentation standing alone on its own
merits, without interpretation. That Random classifys this as 'fiction' is just a
curiosity - as it suggests that 'history' is indeed interpretation, and goes along
with the idea that 'history always serves the interest of the present.' Now I don't
see how this can elicit such a vindictive response from you -- even attacking Random
House, of all things.

Q: Should I believe you over what I know to be some other way?

A: Well, what are you doing to swing my view?

Fallacy fallacy fallacy..

History doesn't care what you feel about it one little bit sir..

Try again..

OK, the question here is what constitutes "what I know to be some other way?" Many
people cannot make an independant evaluation of an argument based on its intrinsic
merits, but instead must appeal to an authority. I'm not necessarily criticizing
this -- this is why we have academic institutions, peer review processes, and
certainly academic debate. But on the usenet it seldom gets to that. Some
newsgroups are more academically inclined, of course, but most are simply people
sharing ideas, opinions, and engaging in debates. So what I'm understanding from
your post is that you will not accept my word on anything, or consider the validity
of any citiations I might make, in favor of your own views. That's fine -- it's
just not debatable, and rather meaningless. I've not seen you validate a single
argument you've made with any sort of citation or appeal to authority, other than
arguing the primacy of your views.

As for the concept of 'history caring,' that's simply anthropomorphism. My advice
to you is that if you do not find it fun to defend your ideas on a public forum like
this, you shouldn't bother to post. In the final analyses, this is just a place of
communicating ideas and values, and it should be both fun, productive, and
rewarding. Also, there's no great shame in being wrong about something, or learning
something you didn't already know. It happens to me all the time, much to my
personal benefit.

Regards,

Erik Mattila

Bryan Thober
<az...@lafn.org>
Los Angeles, California U.S.A.
http://www.angelfire.com/ca/bthober/

[Erik A. Mattila]

I'm glad you implied that distinction between reality and 'what you think.'

Thanks,

Erik Mattila

"B. Thober" wrote:

> On Mon, 02 Aug 1999 18:22:09 GMT, "Erik A. Mattila"
> <emat...@tomatoweb.com> wrote:
>
> >To be completely honest with you, Stephen, I wouldn't go so far as to hold a group,
> >nation or culture responsible fo this behavior.
>

> Bull. That is exactly what I think you are doing..
>
> Try again.. You aren't fooling anyone here buddy.

[Erik A. Mattila]

stefan wrote:

> In article <37A5E17C...@tomatoweb.com>, "Erik A. Mattila"
> <emat...@tomatoweb.com> wrote:

>
> > stefan wrote:
>
> > > > Well, it didn't take the Spaniards long to pack-up the coffers of
> > > Tenochitlan and
> > > > Cuzco, if that what you mean.
> > >
> > > True. The Spanianiards were of course more interested in bringing loot
> > > back to the Royal Court than to build a thriving economy in South America
> > > that could better benefit the home land. Quite different from the
> > > development north of Mexico.
> >
> > Agreed. That was my original point. I had pointed out to Gunnar that
> the colonial
> > policies in northern areas of the Americas was quite different than in
> the south,
> > where the encomienda existed. I thought you had taken exception to this
> > statement. Apparently I was wrong.
>

> No, we seem to agree here. I might have missed the argument as I do not
> read Gunnar's posts.

Amazing. Then there is hope, after all. (joking).

> The book has held up to scrutiny quite well and if you check the sources
> they seem quite authoritative, diverse and well informed throughout his
> book. Do you mean it is a shoddy historical account?

No, I don't think a scholar of Landes' stature would be careless and circulate
shoddy history. But in the 600 pages of his thesis, the precolumbiasn history of
Mexico is a tiny part, considering the scope of the work. So I wouldn't expect him
to have had spent 25 years studying such a subject in detail. Instead, he relys on
the current 'popular' account - by 'popular' I mean that which is accepted as
credible and more or less 'official' in academia. My point about Bandlier was that
nothing is written in stone, and the 'official' version is not airtight. By way of
example, the Bering Straight Theory of Indian's origin is today falling apart under
the weight of DNA research and new archaeology. The "Clovis barrier', as it were,
is tumbling. Yet right now, as I write this, the Bering Straight theory remains
'official,' at least in US academia.

At least the reviews I've read point to Landes' work as being both significant and
extremely interesting. But you know, I can criticize some of my favorite authors
for misunderstand some historical details (or at least what I believe to be
misunderstanding) by simply reflecting conventional wisdom. For example, Georges
Bataille, whose work I admire greatly, focused on Aztec barbarity to support his
theory of social expenditure. But let's say he was completely wrong about Aztec
history, his theory may yet be valid, even though he chose a poor example. Another
is Walter Benjamin, whose ideas about 'primative art' stank, in my opinion. But
such ideas weren't important enough to invalidate his work.

> > It would be difficult to argue that such
> > practices didn't exist.
>

> Yes. Some people try to argue that the Holocaust did not exist either -
> in general these arguments fall short.

>
> > > Slavery in Africa prior to European colonialization and in Africa today is
> > > something you are familiar with I assume.
> >
> > I'm familiar with Arab and African slavery. But Aztec cruelty, or indigenous
> > African slavery are not particularly germain to this discussion. This subject
> > comes up because I was arguing that the European economic advantage had
> as much to
> > do with thievery and murder as it has to do with a work ethic. I guess it all
> > boils down to the fact that Christian teachings do not condone these horrible
> > practices, yet many European's were able to set such teachings aside in their
> > pursuit of wealth. I did not coint the term Protestant Work Ethic.
> Somehow it
> > seems to refer to religious convictions by its very nature.
>

> I think it is fair to say that the colonizers most "obsessed" with "saving
> souls" (the Catholic Portuguese and also Spanish) were the ones who
> displayed the most brutal behavior. Followed (or maybe even surpassed) by
> their Catholic brethren from Belgium in Congo. The "Protestant work
> ethic" seems more concerned with secular ideas of economy, politics, and
> such and less concerned with enforcing some religious beliefs.

In some sense I can agree with that. But then it's a very nasty can of worms. In
"Discipline and Punish" Foucault marks a historical rupture in penal practices
between punishing the body (drawn and quartered, burnt at the stake) and punishing
the mind (incarceration, solitary confinement, the Panopticon). In modern times we
see various political 'Death Squads' calling murder 'processing.' Himler was upset
with the Brownshirts because their pograms were disorderly and unlawful, and put a
stop to it, only to 'legalize' genocide.

> > > The problem was spending lots of riches from the New World on "projects"
> > > that did not generate sufficient wealth for continual development as was
> > > done in northern Europe.
> >
> > I'm missing something here. Spain and Portugal, whatever they did,
> sustained as
> > countries with economies until today.
>

> Well, Congo has "sustained" as well. So has Mexico and Paraguay...

>
> > South American famrs and ranches, mines and
> > factories, are all vital parts of the world's economy today.
>

> But surely you can comprehend the enormous rift in development betwen
> "North and South" (whether in Europe or the Americas)??

I don't think I'm seeing it as an enormous rift as much as you do. It looks to me
like two sides of the same coin -- complementary practices. But the issue of
economic mobility is pertenent. I think the social innovations of Northern Europe
(and the US) were very important, and certainly praiseworthy. But these came at
great expense and sacrifice, in terms of social revolutions, trade unionism, the
rise of parlimentarianism and so on. Throughout Latin America this did not happen
frequently, and when it did the old forces of the oligarchy retrenched because of
factors like control of capital.

There asre some interesting debates to be had about this -- for example the impact
on the third world of programs like the U.S. "Green Revolution" project. In
Mexico, for example, the introduction of US Agricultural Technology through this
progam created two economies. Hubert Humphrey's first assignment in Congress was
Chair of the Green Revolution Committee, and after he studied the program he
remarked that the effect of the program would be to place the contorl of third
world economies in Wall Street. Because argibusiness is fueld by capital
investment, Mexico's produce became too expensive for Mexicans to afford, and this
produce had to be marketed as an international commodity, which further exacerbated
the problem of capital flight, and of course illegal immigration to the US. I
think were more or less talking about the 'haves' and have nots' here. It's
difficult for me to see it in terms of a cultural theory.

> > Factory life without bananas might be unbearable. Cotton doesn't grow
> well on the
> > British Isles. It seems to me to all work together.
>

> Exactly!! And some colonizers utilized these facts, others squandered
> after brief periods of "glory" (the Spanish and Portuguese)...

>
> > I haven't read Landes, but a couple of his reviewers criticized his work
> because it
> > carefully avoided discussing the contemporary Global Economy, where his
> cultural
> > theory is likely to get into trouble. At any rate, it is called a
> 'controversal
> > work', which implies that his peers may not go along with him 100%
>

> I would assume that any such grand undertaking would generate some
> controversy. Strange if it didn't. However, it is some of the better
> stuff I have seen recently. Keeping in mind I am not an economist nor a
> historian...

Damn. I had you pegged as an economist. Kept me from blurting out imaginary
economist thoughts, too. What are you studying, if I'm not prying too much.

But as I said, Landes work looks very interesting. Anyone who has written about
clocks has to be right on.

> > > No the point was (especially in the reference to a "Protestant work
> > > ethic") the difference in development between northern and southern Europe
> > > in general. The pointed differences between, for instance, the
> > > Netherlands and England on one hand and Spain and Portugal on the other,
> > > was a particular example.
> >
> > No question these differences exist. But why? I don't think a 'work ethic'
> > explains this.
>

> Because the particular economic and political institutions that the
> Protestant societies developed.

I guess what I am thinking of is I know many Catholics who are punctual,
responsible, and earnest about their work, and take great pride in their trade or
profession. I believe this is more the rule than exception. So I'm not seeing the
same difference as you are, on the level of the man on the street (or a cultural
level).

> > > > > I doubt very much that the "moral fibre" of Europeans,
> > > > > Indians, or any other groups of people varied much.
> >
> > You're probably exactly incorrect here. It's like saying there is no
> difference
> > between cultures.
>

> How so?

Just differences in culture, values, traditions etc. The Tenocha warriors did not
like doing battle with the Spaniards because they thought the Spaniards had no
honor. Some claimed they would rather do battle with the Spaniard's horses, who
they found to be more honorable. So here we have a meeting to two completely
different 'moral fibres', if you will. The Tenochas had ceremonialized warfare to
the level of a football game, although it was still lethal. The Spaniards, on the
other hand, just wanted to get the job of military victory done as quickly and
effieciently as possible, with no consideration to fashion. Obviously the Spanish
attitude was the superior, even though the Tenochas may have been whining about
what cowards they were. I think this speaks to a huge difference in 'moral
fibre.' But it's just an example of what I'm talking about. I'll bet the Romans
were victorious often in the same way, come to think of it.

> > > Why do you confuse "morals" with the "Protestant work ethic"? One can
> > > point to much more concrete changes brought by with the Protestant
> > > reformation that aided Protestant Europe in its economic and political
> > > development.
> >
> > Then what does "Protestant" in "Protestant work ethic" mean? Isn't Landes'
> > argument about cultural superiority?
>

> Not at all. It is about the development of economic and political
> institutions in society conducive to learning, technology, innovation and
> thus development. Culture is at most an intervening variable.

Well, that distinction is slowly sinking in for me. James Burke said the same
thing several years ago in his 'Connections' TV series. But he included Catholic
Europe as well on the 'superior' and instead criticized the Asians for being
prisoners of their own aesthetic fatalistism. Very interesting.

> > But I'm only saying that when theft and murder occur, there is a
> victim. If you
> > take someone's property from them, they no longer have that property,
> and you have
> > that property. I think I'm stating the obvious. I can't see how this
> is racist.
>

> In which sense do you feel theft and violence did occur on a much larges
> scale in intra-ethnic relations between for instance Indians and Europeans
> in North America as compared to in intra-ethnic relations among Indian
> tribes? Do we have comprehensive records with which to properly answer
> this question?

The record grows, especially with the breaking of the Maya writing code. In 1955
the Mayas were seen as peaceful and utopian as compared with the bloodthirsty
Aztecs. Now we know that the various Maya tribes warred on each other frequently.
Now recently an anthropologist has more or less proven cannibalism among the
Anazasi, and one theory is that the gourmets were Toltec thugs from the Valley of
Mexico. Also, "Mohawk" means "man eater" in their language, and the 'Great Peace"
of the Iroquois Confederacy was indeed created to put an end to all the killing
that was going on.

In either case, theft is theft and murder is murder. In ethnology, anthropology
and Indian history, these factors are taken into account as important factors in
the interpretation of history. They should also be taken into account in European
history.

> > > This reminds me of attendants at a La Raza or Nation of Islam rally
> > > complaining about racism and prejudice!
> >
> > Yes, it's always upsetting when the scales of hegemony tip. But I'm not
> this sort
> > of character. As a matter of fact I was fired from a career teaching position
> > after I filed and won a discrimination complaint - the All Indian Board
> of Trustees
> > had discriminated against a Chicana student.
>

> Sounds very unfortunate. What does it have to do with La Raza or the
> Nation of Islam though?

It shows that I don't privelege racism in one group over another. If I was a
fanatic and dogmatic Indian I wouldn't have put my livihood in jeopardy to champion
the civil rights of a non-indian, right? That was your point, wasn't it? You see
La Raza and NI as racist groups complaing about racism. You compared my position
to such, with "this reminds me of..." Did I musunderstand you?

Regards,

[Erik A. Mattila]

stefan wrote:

> No, I am certainly not an economist although you cannot avoid issues of
> political economy in political science. I mainly study comparative
> processes of democratization (in a global context) in (southern) Africa -
> especially South African politics and political institutions in divided
> societies.

And I thought you were just surfing down there. That's a very interesting area of
study.

I started out my Art History studies with Daniel Crowley, whose are is African
art. (Primarily West Africa). Dan had the distinction of being in Guiness, the
most traveled disabled person in the world. He even was stuck in the Middle of
the Sahaha once with his wheel chair and a broken auto. In one seminar our
project was to document some of his collection (he was an avid collector). What
caught my eye were two wooden leopards, half devoured by worms - yet very
striking, Everyone else chose the obvious items, easy to identify and research.
What did I know -- I selected aesthetically rather than tactically. Crowley took
me aside and confided that he was very happy I chose the leopards, since he had
never been able to find out anything about them other than they were from Benin.
The project was a complete failure, but in the process I spent about 90 hours in
the library looking at African art, page by page.

What I did discover, however, was there was no category of "African Art" until
about 1967 in Art History academia. There were references to various ethnic
groups, of course, but the grand category seems to have been a by product of the
civil rights movement. I found that quite interesting.

>
>
> I think the differences are quite apparent if you look at general
> historical trends in these societies. It will be hard to continue this
> argument if you really do not recognize any systematic differences.

Fair enough -- I will recognize systematic (did you mean systemic) differences.
So I guess that leads to what they are, and how did they come about. I'm going to
have to think about that for awhile. For starters, I would be inclined to
describe Spanish culture as something very exotic, given the Arabic influences.
Additionally, there is an idea in circulation that Spanish rural culture didn't
change much since pre-roman days -- more or less a visigothic survival. It seems
as if the various political powers in its history functioned as no more than tax
collectors in exchange for military protection (something that has occured
elswhere in the world, like rural Anam (Viet Nam). I think this is pretty unique
in comparison with the rest of Europe. But it can be surprising. I have some
friends, all Indians, who traveled in Europe in the early 70s as a group, and it
seemed everywhere they went individual's popped up and claimed a unique ethnic
identy that was other than the nation in which they lived. This incluede the
Saami, of course, but also France, Alsace Lorraine, and others which I don't
remember.

>
>
> > > In which sense do you feel theft and violence did occur on a much larges
> > > scale in intra-ethnic relations between for instance Indians and Europeans
> > > in North America as compared to in intra-ethnic relations among Indian
> > > tribes? Do we have comprehensive records with which to properly answer
> > > this question?
> >
> > The record grows, especially with the breaking of the Maya writing
> code. In 1955
> > the Mayas were seen as peaceful and utopian as compared with the bloodthirsty
> > Aztecs. Now we know that the various Maya tribes warred on each other
> frequently.
>

> I was referring to North America as in what is today the U.S. and Canada
> (yes I am aware that Mexico also is in North America).

In North America also, but of course the record is not 'comprehensive' as in
Vatican Library documents, Magna Cartas, etc. By 1720, for example, a
displacement factor was already functioning, with Europeans filling up the East
Coast, the Anishnabe (Chippewa) pushed the Souix out of the Great Lakes woodlands
and onto the plains. This is pretty well documented. The funny thing about the
movie epic "Dances with Wolves" was that the bad guys were the Pawnees, and the
heros the Lakotas. The Pawnees were just defending their homeland from the
invaders from the east. Oh well. The book that the story was based on was
actually written about Comanches in Texas. But in the movie they had the Spanish
Conquistadors helmet anyway.

An old timer told me once that in Califonia, before the White man, a person could
not travel from tribe to tribe. Once you left your own, if you showed up in the
next you would be immediately dispatched -- unless you traveled under special
auspices such as trade meetings etc.

So let the games begin...

Erik Mattila

[Electric Avenue]

Erik A. Mattila wrote:
>An old timer told me once that in Califonia, before the White man,
>>a person could not travel from tribe to tribe. Once you left your
>>own, if you showed up in the next you would be immediately
>>dispatched -- unless you traveled under special auspices such as
>>trade meetings etc.

Erik -

I want to be sure I understand you on this. Is "dispatched"
used here literally, as in "sent away"? Or is it used
euphemistically, as in "killed"?

«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»
.....Electric.....
«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»

a euphemism for "killed"

[Erik A. Mattila]

This gentleman meant 'killed', as a matter of fact that's the word he
used. But there's a caveate here - there was an incredible diversity of
culture and practice among the super-group "Native American" or
"Indian." The old timer I was talking to was probably repeating tales
he had learned about life in the Sacramento Valley. For example, when
you say "Indio" in Yucatan, the Yucatecas don't think you're talking
about them, but rather some tribe like the Lacondones who the Yucatecas
view as very primative.

A really good description of this sort of thing is in an essay on the
Cabeza de Vaca adventure by Rolena Adorna. It's in a book called "New
World Encounters" edited by Stephen Greenblatt, UC Press 1993. Adorno
studied the Indians of the Texas gulf coast pretty thoroughly, to
augment her studies of the C' de Vaca narratives (There are five
manuscripts, three written by C' de Vaca and two by Oviedos - all of
which contrsadict each other). C' de Vaca was able to escape his
original captors because they didn't fit into the local practices, which
included a continual state of warfare with their neighbors. However,
women were pretty free to visit their neighbors, and played a critical
role in the economies of these people. C' de Vaca eventually was able
to do the same thing, since even the enemy tribes didn't know what kind
of creature he was. So one day he just kept going, making his escape.
It's a fascinating essay - called "Negotiations of Fear", as I recall.

Erik

Electric Avenue wrote:

> Erik A. Mattila wrote:
> >An old timer told me once that in Califonia, before the White man,
> >>a person could not travel from tribe to tribe. Once you left your
> >>own, if you showed up in the next you would be immediately
> >>dispatched -- unless you traveled under special auspices such as
> >>trade meetings etc.
>

[arthur pece]

"Erik A. Mattila" wrote:

>
> Additionally, there is an idea in circulation that Spanish rural culture didn't
> change much since pre-roman days -- more or less a visigothic survival. It seems
> as if the various political powers in its history functioned as no more than tax
> collectors in exchange for military protection (something that has occured
> elswhere in the world, like rural Anam (Viet Nam). I think this is pretty unique
> in comparison with the rest of Europe.

Actually, I think this was quite common in Europe, with the exception
of (1) the cities and (2) some isolated communities, protected by geography,
for instance the Swiss and Norwegian valleys, and the Swedish forests.
[Please note the Nordic content !]

In fact I would think that it was common in much of the World,
wherever the appropriate conditions existed for the warrior class
to live on the agricultural surplus.

Regards

Arthur Pece

http://www.cvg.cs.rdg.ac.uk/~aecp/

[Erik A. Mattila]

stefan wrote:

> Sounds very interesting. I have one question, keeping in mind that I know
> next to nothing about art (I know I like Monet paintings and can actually
> recognize them when I see them): do most art books not also refer to
> specific areas, people etc. when referring to, for instance, European art?
> Or do they just refer to European (just as African) art in general?

Another can of worms. Femminist art criticism, for example, will say when you say
"Art" with is capital A, it means white European Males, and then there's
'sub-types' such as women's art, African Art, The Art of the Insane, etc. But Art
Historians generally categorize by contenents on the top level, except for one
curious anomoly, and that is usulally Aftica. Precolumbian Americas, and Oceania
are linked together in a supergroup. But the trend is to seperate these now.
Going down the tasxonomy, various strategies are used with little consistency.
African art is organized by ethnic group, but in the Americass it is organized by
ethnic groups sometime, and other times by political divisions (Inca Art, for
example, includes many ethnic groups). Two confound the problem, periodization is
mixed up also - North America and the Andes are studied in terms of the chronology
of pottery horizons, While Mexico (Aztec, Teotihuacan, Tikal, Chichen Itsa et al)
is devided by monarchic political chronologies. This makes study very difficult -
it's know there was plenty of exchanges between North and South America, but you
have to be a walking calendar and political scientist to keep the dates right in
your head.

European sub-categories were by cultures and nations until late modernism, when all
the 'isms' began to come to the scene (cubism, futurism, surrealism). These kinds
of movements generally cut across national borders, but usually suggest
collaboration among artist in a given place (Paris, Zurich, Berlin etc.) I mean
you don't speak of "Spanish Cubism" (Picassso, Juan Gris) and "French Cubism"
(Braque, Leger), but you do spleak of 'French Impressionism' (Monet and frends),
American Impressionism (Prenderghast and friends), or German Impressionism,
(Lorinth and friends).

Anyway, it's quite a hodge-podge, but there are obvious historical reassons for all
the inconsistency. I would say a category that exists between 'African Art' and
the specific ethinc groups would be regional, i.e. "West African" (sometime called
Sub-Saharan), East Africian, and South African. Where the divisions would be is
problematical, since you could think of the Sudan and Keya as 'Sub-Saharan'. There
may be a 'Central Afican" category (Cameroons, Zair, Uganda etc.) but to tell you
the truth I don't remember every resding this as a category. BTW, my most favorite
pieces that I've seen, even compared to all art (not just African) come from the
Cameroon highlands. If you every get a chance to check it out, you'll see some
really wild, imaginative sculpture. Really exquisite.

>
> Doesn't sound like too peaceful a coexistence to mee. Could it be that
> much of the ideas of the "nature people," "peaceloving people" etc. etc.
> were just wishful thinking by those wishing to set the historical record
> "straight" on European "blame" today??

No, it wasn't that peaceful, but it's not directly comparble to Post Roman Europe.
I'm just saying that you have to look at the details. In a society that is
governed by a cultural traditions and complex systems of uncodified laws, the
person behaving within the scope of those traditions ans laws probably enjoyed what
we would call a good 'quality' of life. I'm just saying that the individual
wouldn't have spent his/her life in constant fear and never experience a sense of
security and peace. In this venue warfare was extremely formalized, often even
symbolic. Here's an example. Peter Mathiessen once told me about an experience he
had in Papua. He was gathering material for a book, and staying in a village for a
period of time. The men of this village had regularly conducted warfare on the men
of the next village, and vice versa, and apparently this had been going on for the
past few thousand years. The 'battle' resembled ceremonies, and consited of a lot
of cussing (whatever the equivalent is) boasting and exchanging spears - one side
would throw, the others dodge, then the other throw, etc. Once in a while someone
would get wounded, and rarely, some one would die from a spear. During Peter's
stay, a missionary showed up and began lecturing the people on the evils of
warfare, and after a couple of weeks the men in the village agreed with the
missionary's argument and piled all their weapons up and burnt them in a fire. Of
course the 'enemy' village found out about this, so planned an ambush for the
unarmed warriors. But the guys didn't really burn up all their weapons, they held
back a secret arsenal, and they walked into the ambush fully armed. About thirteen
were killed and several were wounded, and the encounter was unprecidented in the
memory of either groups. I guess you could say that the face of warfare was
completly changed.

What was projected on so many of the strange people the Europeans came into contact
in the 16th centurey was the European's imago of the "Wild Man." The "Wild Man"
ideology commonly cropped up in stressful times in Europe (it was even the mascot
of the Templars). Heyden White's essay "Forms of Wildness", in "Tropics of
Discourse" is indespensible for understanding this idea. The 'noble savage' idea
comes from this, but because the wildman ideology comes from different,
contradictory sources, the 'debased' primative image also comes from the same
source.

[Erik A. Mattila]

stefan wrote:

> Snore. These "post-modernistic" characterizations of art interest me little :)
>
> Thanks for the info though.

Yes, like Nero fiddled (snored) while Rome burned. Feminist art criticism is
hardly postmodern. Gabriele Mümter. for example, was the kingpin of Der Bllue
Reiter, yet when she had an exhibit in Berlin in 1970, a reviewer described her as
"Kandinsky's girlfriend" instead of an artist in her own right (who influenced
both Kandinsky and Franz Marc, as well as the rest of the group--as well as
financially supporting them.)

> Doesn't sound too bright, either.

Rituals seldom are intellectual exercises -- like the lethal European soccer game
rituals we hear about on the eveining news.

Erik Mattila

[hap...@my-deja.com]

In article <37A489EE...@tomatoweb.com>,

"Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@tomatoweb.com> wrote:

> Are we just talking about Aztec and Inca gold here? Even with this it
seems
> to have found it's way out of Spain and Portugal. Albrecht Durer's
famous
> observation of Aztec arts will testify to this, as well as manuscripts
such as
> the "Dresden Codex" which ended up in a collection in Germany. It
merely

> demonstrates that Spain and Portugal did not exist in a vacuum. It's

a
> strange concept to me to think of that amount of wealth evaporating in

> Iberia. Capital wealth just doesn't work that way ( even Arab
Petrodollars,
> right?) If it's true that it was all squandered on conpicuous
consumption,
> even that means that the capatil will be circulated in the general
economy.
> Isn't that Reagan's Trickle Down theory? It would be very interesting
if that
> was studied -- how the Iberians spent their money, and who benefited
by that
> spending.
>

> Is it not true that large amounts of that wealth landed in The
Vatican?
>

> Is it not true that throughout Europe military powers were financed,
in order
> to allow various European powers to battle one another for shares of
the booty
> from the newly exploited rest of the world? How much did it cost to
kill an
> Englishman in 1575? How much did it cost to maintain a garrison in
Ecuador in
> 1620? How much did it cost to run the Turks out of Europe. How much
did it
> cost to build the "Vasa" (only to see it sink in the habour after
launching).
>
> But the so-called "protestant work ethic' is a strange bird. A group
of
> protestant missionaries once decided to make a coup by having several
Indian
> leaders study the Bible and return to thier peoples and convert them
to
> Christianity. This seminar was held at Council Bluff's, Iowa. After
the
> Indian studied the book, the chose the great Seneca orator, Red
Jacket, to
> address the Christians. His famous speech was this, to paraphrase.
"We

> studied your book of the teachings of your forefathere, as saw that it

was a
> good book. We understood that the teachings were the same as the
teachings of
> our forefathers. We would have no reason not to embrace this book,
since it
> is the same as our teachings. But there is something that we do not
> understand that prevents us for doing this. And that is that we see
that your
> people do not follow the teachings of your book. We fear if we
embrace it, we
> too will not follw its teachings."
>

> Erik Mattila

>
> stefan wrote:
>
> > In article <7o1jal$2m...@enews5.newsguy.com>, Roger Williams
> > <rog...@shell1.tiac.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Also spracht arthur pece <A.E.C...@reading.ac.uk>:
> > >
> > > > You simply cannot ignore that the wealth was flowing not into
"Europe",
> > > > but into the Iberian peninsula.
> > >
> > > That probably came as something of a shock to the Dutch,
English,
> > > French, and Austro-Hungarians.
> >
> > Most of the outright loot and the initial wealth did largely flow
into the
> > Iberian peninsula. However, the Spaniards and Portuguese did little
with
> > their new wealth to advance themselves, wasting it mostly on
conspicuous
> > consumption. Further north, the new wealth was (partly) used to
finance
> > an industrial revolution.
> >

> > --
> > stefan, valley of the sun
> >
> > "When government lies to you, it's for your own good."
> > - Archie Bunker
>
>

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

[Jonhillr]

>From: hap...@my-deja.com
>Date: Fri, 06 August 1999 10:37 PM

><emat...@tomatoweb.com> wrote:

> It merely demonstrates that Spain and Portugal did not exist in a vacuum.

<<It's a strange concept to me to think of that amount of wealth evaporating
in Iberia. Capital wealth just doesn't work that way ( even Arab Petrodollars,
right?) If it's true that it was all squandered on conpicuous consumption,
even that means that the capatil will be circulated in the general economy.
Isn't that Reagan's Trickle Down theory? It would be very interesting if that
was studied -- how the Iberians spent their money, and who benefited by that
spending.>>

>> Is it not true that large amounts of that wealth landed in The
>Vatican?

Give to god, what is god's.

>> Is it not true that throughout Europe military powers were financed,
>in order to allow various European powers to battle one another for shares of
the booty from the newly exploited rest of the world? How much did it cost to
kill an Englishman in 1575? How much did it cost to maintain a garrison in
Ecuador in 1620? How much did it cost to run the Turks out of Europe. How
much did it cost to build the "Vasa" (only to see it sink in the habour after
launching).>>

Yes. I recall that the Iberian peninsula lagged drastically in technological
innovation (untimately industrial revolution), Yet Espania remained the
pre-eminent maritime force and fielded large armies as a major european power.
The cost must have been tremendous.

Ultimately, it has been posed, the enormous wealth pouring in from the americas
proved to be a disincentive in promoting industrialization...and set the stage
for future spanish diminuation of power.

As for the Vasa, I recall that that particular Swedish monarch also overspent.

<< But the so-called "protestant work ethic' is a strange bird. A group
of protestant missionaries once decided to make a coup by having several
Indian leaders study the Bible and return to thier peoples and convert them to
Christianity. This seminar was held at Council Bluff's, Iowa. After the
Indian studied the book, the chose the great Seneca orator, Red Jacket, to
address the Christians. His famous speech was this, to paraphrase. "We studied
your book of the teachings of your forefathere, as saw that it was a good book.
We understood that the teachings were the same as the teachings of our
forefathers. We would have no reason not to embrace this book, since it is the
same as our teachings. But there is something that we do not understand that
prevents us for doing this. And that is that we see that your people do not
follow the teachings of your book. We fear if we embrace it, we
too will not follw its teachings.">>

Hahahha..ahmen to that.

>> So the 'cultural advantage' that Europeans and Euroamericans had may have
little to do with protestantism, but may in fact be a peculiar ability to
suspend morality, ethics, and Christian compassion itself, while
gearing down to the task of robbery and murder for the purpose of economic gain
and material wealth. I think that this should have another name, at least one

that is disasscociated form a true religious ideology. Maybe something like

'rank opportunism' or some other descriptive term. >>

Sure. Most of western history is based on economic and material gain: the roman
empire, the fall of rome at the hands of the Vandals, the byzantine empire, the
norman invasion, the northern and eastern crusades, the reformation, the
counter reformation, the circumnavigation of the globe, the colonial period,
etc.,etc.,etc.. When wallets are empty, philosophic/religious imperatives have
been utilized as needed.

Religion almost always serves as a useful envelope to encompass various
shopping lists.

This is not to say that europeans were unique in manipulating their religiosity
to get what they wanted...daoist, hindu, islamic, buddist, orthodox, jewish,
mithraic, aztec, toltec, incan, etc. 'achievements' also come to mind. Perhaps
the european impulse was simply more intense and 'sucessful'.

Jon Hill